The URL can be used to link to this page

03/16/1998 - 4813� FRIDLEY CITY.COONCIL MEETING CITYOf Ftia� ATTENDENCE SHEET Manday, Mcucch 16, 1998 � 7:30 P.M. PLEASE PRINT NAME, ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PRINT NAME (CLEARLY) � � �� , �� ►�n��- %-(c �-�-�i �� a � ��5 �2//��? , .�� , � �?i;',;;, v�� - _., . n r c �� L�. "_�-_ , 1 �_ , . ADDRESS �'�� ST'�� ►� ook w�� y y ��=�Cr.� � �GL 4�� t�� , ji�`l' d i��.��i � � >� � �' �'" �l�' � t �/ �, �J � � t ,�%l ✓ // %%0- J�'�L� iV� c �� C� �"�:�� S �> t..c n � f�.�- :� �L� �,� ��.-,�-�,..�� .-�' � � ` �-,. „� ti-��'C c- c-i� ��--- � �j_�_.�-,.kZ� 7..C,��L2�__.�rt"C_G'>'7--�� Cl!-l�'�.�=-�y7i �� G�-,� � C-L< � �'�_ ,r��,, ,_J ITEM NUMBER _ ��,��- �� 2 :C�i -i2, � __ I� r� �.'� i - �z . � L CfTY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 16,1998 The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with.disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (T"I'D/572-3534) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of March 2, 1998 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: First Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.06 of the City Charter Declaring Certain Real Estate to be Surplus and Authorizing the Sale Thereof...................................................................................... 1.01 - 1.12 Resolution Authorizing Access and Use of Right-of-Way for the TH65/Central Avenue/Lake Pointe Drive Intersection . . , Improvement ............................................................................ FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA• NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI: Resolution Revoking and Establishing Municipal State Aid Streets ....................................................... 3.01 - 3.04 Receive the Recommendations from Springsted tncorporated Regarding the Sale of $1,185,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998A .......................................................::........ 4.01 - �.16 Resolution Initiating the Process for the Sale of the City of Fridley's General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998A ................................................................. 5.01 - 5.03 Approve Grant Agreement befinreen the State of Minnesota, Department of Trade and Economic Development and the City of Fridley (Onan Corporation Project) ......................................:. 6.01 - 6.09 Claims.................................................................................... 7.01 Licenses: ................................................................................... 8.01 - 8.02 Estimates: . .... . ................... ......................................................... 9.01 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1998 P II ADOPTION OF AGENDA: OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: , Consideration of /fems Not on Agenda (15 minutes). OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 407 of the Fridley City Code in its Entirety, and Adopting a New Chapter 407, Entitled "Right-of-Way ManagemenY' and Amending Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "General Provisions and Fees" and, Authorize Publication of O�cial Title and - Summary...........,.. ......................................................................... 10.01 - 10.34 � � NEW BUSINESS: Resolution Requesting No Parking on Central � Avenue 350 Meters North of Trunk Highway 65 .................................. 11.01 - 11.02 a r , : FRIDLEY CITY COUNCI� nnEETiN� nF nnoRCN �a 'IQQSZ �Ar_`G � T NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED� Resolution Approving and Adopting a Deer Population Management Plan for the Minneapolis Waterworks ...................................................................... 12.01 - 12.18 1998 Appointments to City Commissions ..........................................:.. 13.01 - 13.03 InformalStatus Reports ....................................................................... 14.01 ADJOURN. (� CITY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 16,1998 _ _ �"�.�� The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or employment in its service programs, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientarion or stat with regard to pub(ic assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in an of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabiliries wh requue auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 at least one week in advance. (TTD/572-3534) ; PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: City Council Meeting of March 2, 1998 �i � ' APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: First Reading of an Ordinance Under Section 12.06 of the City Charter Declaring Certain Real Estate to be Surplus and Authorizing the Sale Thereof ....................... 1.01 -1.12 �;-�--�--�- Resolution Authorizing Access and Use of Right-of-Way for the TH65/Central Avenue/Lake Pointe Drive Intersection Improvement ........................ 2.01 - 2.03 �. G�� ' ��.-- ' Resolution Revoking and Establishing Municipal State Aid Streets ......... 3.01 - 3.04 /�.%�,�r�i � �: p� -7 ` APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): Receive the Recommendations from Springsted Incorporated Regarding the Sale of $1,185,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998A ................... 4.01 - 4.16 ///� • � l " V �,-C_._ �. % Resolution Initiating the Process for the Sale of the City of Fridley's General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998A ................... 5.01 - 5.03 � i.��c ��-- . Approve Grant Agreement between the State of Minnesota, Department of Trade and Economic Development and the City of Fridley (Onan Corporation Project) ................. ...... 6.01 - 6.09 �� . �� o-,� � G�7�� G�_�� Claims L'. . . : ��:.>.�•••\. 7.01 //� APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED): Licenses: Estimates: .�%,�'�i.`.'`.' :�: �`:`�.01 - 8.02 . �-�-'�� °�. `�-.......... 9.01 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: � ��'C__ �� /,�, � �6 . OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: Consideration of Items Not on Agenda (15 minutes). �� ' �,� �,�z- ��%s �� OLD BUSINESS: Second Reading of an Ordinance Repealing Chapter 407 of the Fridley City Code in its Entirety, and Adopting a New Chapter 407, Entitled "Right-of-Way ManagemenY' and Amending Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code, Entitled "General Provisions and Fees" and, Authorize Publication of Official Title and Summary ......................................... 10.01 - 10.34 � � � � �� % °� �'� ' � S�� %' `�� /� , ,,��-� . /E��/�y/`��/��zi�+�/ � G"�/ . � � _ ,. NEW BUSINESS: Resolution Requesting No Parking on Central Avenue 350 Meters North of Trunk Highway 65 ......................... 11.01 - 11.02 Gz-,z�'��'�� Resolution Approving and Adopting a Deer Population Management Plan for the Minneapolis Waterworks .................... 12.01 -12.18 ��`l�� - G2� _ �- � �->-�-- _— � �x-- � � - 1998 Appointments to City Commissions ......................... 13.01 -13.03 Informal Status Reports .................................. 14.01 Q.e.��_,_ �-�-�_.-C-"�- �"� .S� � ��,�..-.�-�• o�--�=�-- ��-�-e- . ,�� F `� � � � ADJOURN. , �/� � � i/% L�� h'� � THE MINUTES OF THE REGULP,R MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF MARCH 2, 1998 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Jorgenson at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Jorqenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jorgenson, Councilman Barnette, Councilman Billings and Councilwoman Bolkcom. MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Schneider --- -- APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING, FEBRUARY 23, 1998: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER, WILLIAM W. BURNS, TO SIGN THE GRANT AGREEMENT END GRANT ("THE GRANT CONTRACT") FOR THE YOUTH INITIATIVE GRANT -AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY• Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this agreement spells out the terms for receipt of $280,250 for the finishing of the lower level of the Fridley Community Center. These terms relate to record keeping, permitted use of grant money, documentation of the final plan and costs, payment of prevailing wages, and local matchinq requirements. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGUL�R AGENDA. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PLANI�ING CONIlriISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1998• RECEIVED THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CONIlrIISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1998. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MP.RCH 2, 1998 PAGE 2 3. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR HACKMANN AVENtJE WATER LINE REPAIR PROJECT NO. 317 AND HACKMANN CIRCLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. ST. 1998-1: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that ten bids were received and opened on February 25 for this project. This project involves the reconstruction of HaclQnann Avenue and Hac]Qnann Circle, as well as for replacement of the water line along Hackmann Avenue from Hathaway Lane to Tennison Drive. The low bidder was Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $382,705. It is recommended the bid be awarded to them. The bid contained an option for the sump pump connections and, if this proceeds, there will be a change order for this project. RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING BIDS FOR THE HACKMANN AVENUE WATER-bINE REPAIR PROJECT NO. 317 AND HACKMANN CIRCLE STR:EET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. ST. 1998-1: Bidder Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. S.R. Weidema, Inc. Valley Paving, Inc. Thomas & Sons, Inc. Midwest Asphalt Northwest Asphalt, Hardrives, Inc. W.B. Miller, Inc. Arnt Construction C.S. McCrossan Inc. Co., Inc. Total Bid $382,705.00 $404,042.39 $408,454.05 $412,733.00 $414,577.00 $414,914.83 $419,981.50 $438,027.00 $462,665.00 $502,331.00 AWARDED THE CONTRP,CT TO THE LOW BIDDER, FOREST I�1E� CONTRACTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $382,705.00 FOR THE HACKMANN AVENUE WATER LINE REPAIR PROJECT NO. 317 AND HACKMANN CIRCLE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. ST. 1998-1. 4. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR REPAIR OF WELL NO. 2, PROJECT NO. 316• Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that bids for the repair of Well Nos. 2, 6 and 7 were opened in January and contracts were awar,ded for Well Nos. 6 and 7. At that time, however, the bids were rejected for Wel1 No. 2 and this portion of the project was re-bid. Four bids were received and opened on February 25. The low bidder was Keys Well Drilling in the amount of $32,181. It is recommended the contract be awarded to them for the repair of Well No. 2. RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING BIDS FOR THE REPAIR OF WELL NO. 2, PROJECT NO. 316: � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 3 Bidder Total Bid Keys Well Drilling Bergerson Caswell We11 Co. Mark Traut Wells E.H. Renner & Sons $32,181.00 $35, 544. 00 $43,622.50 $46, 954.00 AWARDED THE CONTRP.CT FOR THE REPAIR OF WELL NO. 2, PROJECT NO. 316 TO THE LOW BIDDER, KEYS WELL DRILLING IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,181.00. 5. CLAIMS: AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF CLP,IM NOS. 79390 THROUGH 79525. 6. LICENSES• APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE IN THE LICENSE CLERK'S OFFICE. 7. ESTIMATES: APPROVED THE ESTIMATES, AS FOLLOWS: Forest Lake Contracting 14777 Lake Drive Forest Lake, MN 55025 TH 47 and I-694 Ramp N.E. Reconstruction Project No. ST. 1997-3 FINAL ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4, 559. 85 M.C. Magney Construction, Inc. 19245 Highway 7 Excelsior, MN 55331 Wellhouse No. 1 and Water Booster Station Project No. 298 Estimate No. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $31, 614.10 Councilwoman Bolkcom requested that Item 1 be removed from the consent agenda. No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to approve the consent agenda items, with the exception of Item 1. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NlF�RCH 2, 1998 PAGE 4 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to adopt addition of Item l from the Barnette. Upon a voice declared the motion carried OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: There was no business. NEW BUSINESS• consent agenda. vote, all voting unanimously. the agenda with the Seconded by Cou�cilman aye, Mayor Jorgenson response from the audience under this item of 8. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHA�TER 407 OF---THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE IN ITS ENTZRETY, AND ADOPTING A NEW CHA.PTER 407, ENTITLED "RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT" AND AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, ENTITLED "GENERAL PROVISIONS AND FEES:" Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated that a public hearing was held February 23 on this proposed ordinance. At that meeting, comments were received from Minnegasco, Northern States Po�aer and Paragon Cable. Those comments have been reviewed and, as a result, several changes have been made in this ordinance. The changes include the definition of pavement; added language regarding the supremacy of a franchise; an added caveat of delayed penalty; the requirement for City permits regardless of agency right-of-way ownership; establishment of a two-year guarantee period consistent with existing franchises; deletion of two denial items because they were incorporated into another section and our reconstruction restoration templates; clarification of underground facilities; deletion of the nuisance aspect; expansion of the nuisance item for abandoned facilities; and addition of the registration fee. Mr. Flora stated that these changes have been reviewed with representatives from Minnegasco, Northern States Power, and Paragon Cable. He felt there was no major discontent with this ordinance as currently written. . Mr. Al Swintek, representing Minnegasco, thanked Mr. Flora for listening to their concerns. He stated that Mr. Pilon attended a meeting on February 25 to discuss these issues. Although progress has been made, there is still a substantial amount of work before there is a meeting of the minds. He hoped that they could come to an agreement that is workable for everyone. He.requested this ordinance be tabled in order to give time for these issues to be worked out. Mayor Jorgenson asked if the construction schedule would be affected if this item is tabled. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 5 Mr. Flora stated that the City would not have an ordinance for any spring construction. Mayor Jorgenson asked if there is a first reading of the ordinance this evening. She said the second reading occurs on March 16. She wondered how long before it would become law. Mr. Flora stated that it would become law ten days after publication. Mayor Jorgenson stated that if this is tabled until April, the construction season would be well under way. Mr. Swintek stated that his concern is if there is a first reading of the ordinance this evening. - He said then it wc�uld be only--�ne vote away from becoming law. Mayor Jorgenson stated that it appears there is a meeting of the minds on some of the issues. She would trust that staff would work with the utility companies before the next City Council meeting on March 16. She felt that the City had to look at other companies that will be doing business in the City this construction season. She asked Mr. Swintek if there were any specific items to which they were opposed. Mr. Swintek stated that it would be best for Mr. Pilon to address these issues; however, he could address a few. As a franchise utility, Minnegasco felt it should not be necessary to take out a construction performance bond. The franchise agreement addresses the City's recourse if Minnegasco does not perform up to certain standards. Another concern is the need to pay permit fees to the City on state and county roads, as well as some issues regarding the unusable facilities and user fees. Mayor Jorgenson pointed out that the City can only recoup the actual costs for administration. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated that any fees have to be related to the costs for administration and cannot be a means by which to generate income. Mayor Jorgenson stated that the City �cants to have a good working relationship with companies that have franchise agreements, but it does not want to preclude other companies from coming into the City. She was sympathetic to Minnegasco's needs but felt inclined to proceed with the first reading of the ordinance and work on the issues before the second reading of the ordinance. Mr. John Theis, Northern States Power, stated that Northern States Power is definitely opposed to user fees. He felt that some of the permit fees are excessive. Their objections to this ordinance are on file. Even though changes have been made, there is still � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 6 disagreement. Northern States Power has a good relationship with the City and pays a considerable amount of property and real estate taxes . He requested that this ordinance be tabled to enable them to work further with staff. Mr. Theis referred to the City of Edina ordinance which he felt was a good ordinance. Councilman Barnette asked in what ways Edina's ordinance is more favorable. Mr. Theis stated that it does not have some of the user fees, Mr. Flora stated that the Edina ordinance does not have any permit fees for any franchised organization. He felt a number of issues may change when the Public Utilities Commission task force submits their recommendations. This ordinance will pro}�ably need t-o- be modified to adopt the Public Utilities Commission items, but, in the meantime, the City still needs an ordinance under which to operate. Councilwoman Bolkcom suggested that staff could contact Edina on their ordinance. Also, the City could further communicate with the utility companies regarding their concerns. Mayor Jorgenson stated that if Council is not prepared to proceed with the second reading at the next City Council meeting this ordinance could possibly be tabled at that time. MOTION by Councilman Barnette to waive the readinq and approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 9. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST PS #98-01, BY HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, ACRE LOT FOR A 3,690 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORE, CAR WASH, AND FIVE G�.S PUMPS TO BE LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOLIDAY PLUS SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 242 57TH AVENLJE N.E: (WARD 3) : Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that in addition to this preliminary plat request there are requests for a special use permit, variances, and approval of a comprehensive siqn plan. This plat includes two lots, a new lot (Lot 1) at Main Street and 57th Avenue and the existing Holiday Plus Store on Lot 2. The purpose of the plat is to allow the construction of a convenience store with motor fuel dispensing and a car wash on Lot 1. Each lot meets the minimum standards of the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner, Mr. David Hoeschen, has agreed to move the access drive from its current location to a location that aligns with the proposed driveway for the Steve Linn development on the north side of Main Street. As part of the street improvement plan for 57th Avenue, the access drive for this � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 7 lot will be shared with the larger Holiday site with cross parking and cross access easements. Future access to 57th Avenue will be rsstricted to the three access drives identified on the 57th Avenue improvement plans. Mr. Hickok stated that staff recommends approval of this preliminary plat. The Planning Commission has concurred subject to six stipulations which he outlined. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to approve preliminary plat request, PS #98-01, with the following stipulations: (1) subject to approval of Variance Request, VAR #98-03 and approval of Special Use Permit, SP #98-01; (2) cross-parking and driveway easement documents shall be prepared and recorded with the final plat at Anoka County; (3) the petitioner shall dedicate`^all additronal right-of-way necessary to complete the 57th Avenue improvement projects as shown on the City's improvement plan dated- February 3, 1998; (4) the petitioner shall agree to restrict access to the three locations shown on the City's plan for 57th Avenue improvements dated February 3, 1998; (5) the petitioner shall pay the required park dedication fee at time of building permit issuance for the stationstore; and (6) the 1994 variance stipulation requiring a clean-up/landscape plan for Lot 2, Block 1, Holiday North 2nd Addition, shall be completed, approved by City staff, and plant materials installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the stationstore building. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 10. SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #98-01, BY HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC., TO ALLOW A MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL OPERATION AND A MOTOR VEHICLE WASH ESTABLISiiN�NT TO BE IAGATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE HOLIDAY PLUS SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 242 57TH AVENUE N.E. (WARD 3) : Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this is a request by Mr. Hoeschen for a special use permit to allow both motor fuel operations and a car wash on this Holiday Plus site at 242 57th Avenue. This zoning district, C-3, General Shopping Center, permits these uses with a special use permit. Mr. Hickok reviewed the code requirements for operation of this type of facility. Staff believes this special use permit is appropriate for this location and recommends approval. Mr. Hickok stated that the Planning Commission has concurred with staff's recommendation for approval subject to nine stipulations, which he outlined. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Special Use Permit, SP #98-01, with the following stipulations: (1) subject to approval of Preliminary Plat Request, P5 #98-01 and approval of Variance Request, VAR #98-03; (2) all signs shall be reviewed and approved FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 8 by staff to assure compliance with Chapter 214 of the City Code; (3) the petitioner shall submit a performance bond in the amount of three percent of the construction costs prior to issuance of a building permit; (4) the petitioner shall install underground irrigation for the landscape areas surrounding the stationstore site; (5) the petitioner shall comply with all outdoor storage requirements; (6) the petitioner shall comply with all outdoor sales and storage provisions of Chapter 205 of the City Code; (7) the petitioner shall install all waste trap and filtration devices as required by the Building Code for Car Wash facilities; (8) the petitioner shall install adequate informational siqnage on-site to assure proper flow of traffic around the building and to assure that cars waiting to be washed do not block access from 57th Avenue N.E.; and (9) the petitioner shall assure that all use of the intercom on this site is for instructional and enrergency purposes only. Intercom volume shall be set so intercom messages do not carry beyond stationstore property. Seconded by Councilman Billings. MOTION by Councilman Billings to modify Stipulation No. 9 by deleting the first sentence and in the second sentence to change the word "does" to "do." Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, Councilman Billings voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Jorgenson, Councilwoman Bolkcom and Councilman Barnette voted against the motion. Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion failed. Councilman Barnette stated that at some stations there is outdoor display of pop, salt pellets, and wood. If the storage is not permitted at this location it also should apply to existing stores. Mr. Hickok said that if stations have outdoor storage it becomes a code enforcement issue. Mayor Jorgenson stated that in regard to the intercom she understands they will use it to welcome their customers. She received a complaint on one of the other service stations, as they were using their intercom to play music, and the neighbors objected. Mr. Hickok stated that the intercom is quite necessary for emergency or instructional purposes. This stipulation is for the intercom to be used for instructional and emergency purposes and not to play music. Councilman Billings questioned if it was the City's business whether the service station was playing music. The stipulation indicates that the intercom should not be audible off the property that is more important than for what the intercom is being used. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that some people perceive music as noise. She was in favor of using the intercom for emergencies and instructional purposes. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 9 Mayor Jorgenson felt that music is a personal preference, but these sounds can travel through a residential neighborhood. She also felt the intercom should be used for instructional and emergency purposes only. Mr. Hickok stated that in terms and welfare of the residents, various opinions as to what is troublesome area to control. of protecting the health, safety if music was allowed there are audible. This then becomes a Councilman Billings stated that the location of this station is in a predominantly industrial/commercial area. However, he felt if this station was located in a residential neighborhood he would have a problem with the architectural features. The massive amounts of white on the roof and canopy are part of th��new trademark for Holiday; however, it is very bright. Mr. Dave Hoeschen, representing Holiday Stores, stated that he would agree. Where Holiday stations abut residential neighborhoods they make modifications. This architecture addresses how safe their customers feel and what they are requesting. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAI�N ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 11. VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #98-03, BY HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC., TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 80 FEET TO 66 FEET; TO REDUCE THE SIDE CORNER SETBACK FROM 80 FEET TQ 49 FEET; TO REDUCE THE PP.RKING AREA SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 9 FEET AIANG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF 57TH AVENUE; ALL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,690 SQUARE FOOT STATIONSTORE, FIVE C�AS PL7MPS, CAR WASH, AND RECONFIGURATION OF THE PARKING AREA AT THE HOLIDAY PLUS�.SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 242 57TH AVENUE N.E. (WARD 3) Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that this variance request is to reduce the front yard setback from 80 feet to 66 feet along the 57th Avenue right-of-way, to reduce the side corner setback from 80 feet to 49 feet adjacent to the Main Street right-of-way, and to reduce the front parking setbacks along 57th Avenue from 20 feet to 9 feet along the entire Holiday site (including the main store). Mr. Linn's building (across the street from this site) has a very similar setback. Mr. Hickok stated that as a result of Holiday's design analysis, it was determined that the stationstore should be constructed as close to 57th Avenue as possible. The City has approved similar variance request in the past for the Linn property and for Miller's Funeral Home. Staff recommends approval of these variances with ten stipulations which he outlined. The Appeals Commission has concurred with staff's recommendation. Mr. Hickok stated that in regard to Stipulation No. 7, Holiday has complied and shifted the entire building to the south. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 10 MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to grant Variance Request, VAR #98-03, with the followinq stipulations: (1) the enclosure for the compressors, on the east elevation of the building, shall include three (1 foot-6 inch x 1 foot-6 inch height necessary to match the height of the screening fence) brick pilasters with a 4 inch pre- cast concrete cap to match the new fence details that will be placed along 57th Avenue. Also, the screeninq slats shall be selected in a color that will match the new fence proposed along 57th Avenue NE; (2) subject to approval of PS #98-01 and approval of SP #98-01; (3) landscape plan shall be modified to accommodate the planned streetscape improvements along 57th Avenue NE. A new landscape plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval- prior to issuance of the building permit; (4) the canopy signage liqhts (facing north) shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m. until a new commercial building is constructed on the northwest corner of--57th Avenue and Main Street; (5) all parking islands south of the new structure shall be configured in a manner that will allow a Fall Golden Ash in each (except the island with the tank vents}. All vacuum and other additions to the island shall be situated in a manner that will accommodate a tree; (6) the overhead door facing 57th Avenue shall be replaced by a pair of side hinged doors; (7) the 25 foot drive aisle north of the proposed store shall be shifted south 10 feet to accommodate the new 57th Avenue streetscape and plantings; (8) create mock windows of a dimension to match those on the plan submitted on February 18, 1998 and dated February 18 by staff; (9) the 1994 variance stipulation requiring a clean-up/landscape plan for the principal Holiday site shall be completed, approved by City staff, and plant materials installed prior to issuance of a certification of occupancy for the stationstore building; and (10) recognition of a(City required) variance to allow a nine foot parking setback along 57th Avenue. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Councilman Billings asked if these variances apply to the new site where the stationstore is constructed or the entire Holiday site. �Mr. Hickok stated that the two variances for the building setbacks apply to the new site. The petitioner is in control of both of the sites and the parking setback to nine feet is integrated across both the stationstore site and the Holiday Plus site. Councilman Billings stated that this variance request actually involves two parcels of property, the stationstore and the Holiday Plus site. He questioned if all stipulations and setbaeks apply to both sites. Mr. Hickok stated that the parking setback applies to all the property along 57th Avenue; however, the other variances are very specific to the stationstore site. The subdivision separates the two pieces of property, and it becomes very clear that the stationstore site is the one being addressed. It is not the intent of staff to have any stipulations, other than the one concerninq FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 11 the parking setback, apply to both the stationstore site and Holiday Plus site. Councilman Billings stated that this discussion should be part of the record so it is clear to any future owner as to how these variances apply. He asked if these variances would be recorded at the County against both pieces of property. Mr. Hickok stated that they would be recorded against both parcels. Councilman Billings stated that he understands it is to correct a situation that the City and the County the improvement of 57th Avenue. staff's intent are causing by Mayor Jorgenson questioned the-internal traffic pat-terns. --- Mr. Hickok stated that each of the access points were designed for two way traffic. The main access drive would be enhanced by having a new drive aisle. The circulation of traffic will not be diminished in the parking lot. Councilman Billings assumed that the south side of the site will be improved so there will not be grass qrowing out of the cracks in the asphalt. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 12. APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN FOR HOLIDAY COMPANIES, GENERALLY IACATED AT 250 57TH AVENUE N.E. (WARD 3): Mr. Hickok, Planning Coordinator, stated that the City Code requires that when a complex has three or more tenants a comprehensive siqn plan needs to be approved for the development. He submitted a drawing of the proposed sign plan. Gander Mountain is becoming a new element of Holiday Plus and is included on the sign plan. Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan with the exception of the pylon sign proposed along I-694, as this would exceed the signage allowed. Mr. Hoeschen, representing Holiday Stores, stated he expects that the new tenants will want a pylon sign adjacent to the freeway. MOTION by Councilwoman Bolkcom to approve the comprehensive sign plan for Holiday Companies, with the exception of the free standinq pylon siqn. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 12 13. SITE PLAN AND MASTER PI,AN APPROVAL AMENDMENT; MPA #98-01, BY MEPC AMERIC.AN PROPERTIES, INC. , TO APPROVE THE SITE PI,AN AND REVISED MA.STER PLAN TO PERMIT A ONE-STORY, 106,705 SQUARE FOOT FLEX BUILDING FOR HIGH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES ON A TEN-ACRE SITE AT THE WESTERN END OF THE FRIDLEY EXECUTIVE CENTER PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF I-694 AND HIGHWAY 65 (WARD 1): Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that there are several items before Council this evening related to the Lake Pointe technology center. These include approval of the site plan and master plan amendment, a preliminary plat request to create a ten acre lot for the proposed development, a special use permit for a nine foot wide parking stall in the redevelopment area, and a special use permit to allow a-parking area inside- the R-1 zoning line. A video was presented on buildings in Golden Valley and Eden Prairie which are similar to the one proposed in Fridley. Ms. Dacy stated that the exterior of the building would be brick in a sandy rose color with tan accents. The majority or about three- fourths of the buildings will be finished for Class A office space and one-fourth for storage or production. High tech uses are proposed, and the loading areas to the rear are smaller than what would be found at a manufacturing facility. The developer is proposing two wing walls to limit the view of the loading area. Ms. Dacy stated that the property is zoned S-2; however, there is a narrow strip of R-1 zoning that still exists and that contains the buffer area. The site plan is for a 106,705 square foot one-story high tech building on the west ten acres. This would leave room for a multi-story office building or 250,000 square feet of office space in two buildings, each with 125,000 square feet, and a multi- story ramp to serve these two buildings. Ms. Dacy stated that staff requested that the developer pravide a drawing on the appearance of the building from I-694. She presented the computer graphic from the elevation at the interchange of Highway 65 and explained that the metal roof screen will adequately screen the HVAC equipment. A three foot arbor vitae hedge was proposed as part of the landscaping plan in the buffer area along the north edge of the development. There would also be a retention pond in the southwest portion of the site which meets all the storm requirements for this site of development. The required parking requirements have also been met. Ms. Dacy stated that the Planning Commission reviewed these requests on February 18 and recommended approval of all the items. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) considered the site plan and amendment to the Master Plan on February 19. The HRA recommended approval of the site plan and amendment to the Master Plan; however, there was discussion on the roof plan. Staff recommended additional screening on the roof, but the HRA suggested FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 13 that this not be included, as the requirement was unrealistic and not practical. Councilman Billings asked if the ponding on the west side is for this ten acres only or for the entire parcel. Ms. Dacy stated that the ponding is for this ten acres only. There will be additional ponding needed as the site is developed. Councilman Billings stated that this building would covez about half the acreage of the entire site. The original proposal was to have multi=story buildings. He asked for an explanation of this change. Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that in January, the HRA recogr�zzed that the City has worked, without success, to attract multi-story corporate office space for this site. After reviewing the economics of corporate office space versus tech flex, it was determined, for at least part of the site, that the City would head in the direction of tech flex. It was felt that the City wanted to recoup some of the investment before the tax increment district expired. Tax increment allows the City to use the increment generated from improvements on the property to fund allowable improvements on the site which makes it easier for a developer to develop the site. Councilman Billings asked how much the HRA has invested in this site and what increment will be generated. Mr. Burns stated that about $7.5 million has been invested in the site. Ms. Dacy stated that the estimated annual taxes are approximately $1,462,000 and will generate about $5.1 million in tax increment, if this building is constructed this year and assuming construction of Phase II of the development. Councilman Billings stated that at the July meeting of the HRA it was clear that this building would take up over half the site. Ms. Dacy stated that the lot area was not discussed, but the developer has submitted site plans. The option discussed in July was two, 50,000 square foot buildings which may have encompassed more area than this proposal. Councilman Billings said he asked discussion about constructing one at a later date. He stated discussion to this effect. at the July meeting if there was building and the second building that as he recalls, there was Ms. Dacy stated that she did not specifically recall this discussion, but she has seen several site plans. The developer suggested starting with this one-story concept of a mixed use for tech flex which could be used by one company. In the Phase II FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 14 development, a company could then have their corporate offices constructed. Councilman Billings asked how this proposal went from two to one building. Ms. Dacy stated that the developer indicated they felt 100,000 square feet was the right size for the market, and this design seemed to work better for leasing the site. This building would provide for four finished sides and would be screened on three of the sides with a saw tooth design on the corners. Councilman Billings stated that, at this point, the HRA felt the City had waited long enough for multi-story and were not going to get four multi-story buildings-on that site. ��- -- Ms. Dacy stated that the concexn was this type of building offered a Class A environment and would not be inconsistent with the multi- story phase. The market is right for these types of companies. Councilman Billinqs asked how many different organizations have been approached by the HRA and the developer to construct projects on this site before going with this proposal. Ms. Dacy stated that in the mid-1980's the HRA executed a development contract with Woodbridge. Unfortunately, development did not take place due to the economic conditions. Councilman Billings stated that several years ago MEPC came in with their own master plan for three buildings which was a change in the master plan from 1987. He asked how many different companies MEPC has contacted and why they feel they are unable to accomplish the _ mission they set out to do several years ago. Ms. Dacy stated that MEPC did a lot of work and submitted at least seven proposals to major companies. MEPC also made other contacts regarding the commercial site and potential hotel and bank site. There were a number of issues, one being that this site is away from other similar developments. There was also a concern regarding the location. Chief executive officers had a preference for locations to the west or south. She felt it was hard for MEPC to initially overcome those type of images. The one asset the site has is excellent access and visibility. Mr. Burns stated that there are a greater number of projects in the tech flex category than in the corporate area. There are not that many corporate office projects. Another issue was the economies. This kind of project is much more favorable for the City and HRA than the multi-story office building. The developer was willing to build speculatively for this tech flex space, but he was not willing to gamble on speculative space for a corporate office development. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 15 Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if the lack of access limited corporations from building on this site. Mr. Burns stated he felt the issues outlined by Ms. Dacy were more prevalent than the access. There is not a lot of executive housing in the immediate area to compliment the corporate offices. Ms. Dacy stated that the tech flex building can house companies that are expanding and growing to the point that a multi-story office building would not be out of the question for corporate headquarters. The City Council and the HRA control the master plan, the amendment, and what would occur on the rest of the site. Ms. Dacy stated that to get back to the original vision for this site, it was contemplated that there would be two buildinqs ane�-the parking ramps. The HRA would have had to use the tax increment to construct the parking ramps. Mayor Jorgenson asked how much increment from the remaining thirteen years of the district would have gone toward constructing the parking ramps. Ms. Dacy stated that the cost for constructing the ramps would be $15 million. In the original concept for the multi-story buildings and parking ramps, there was a net cost of $3.4 million which would result in a negative balance. In this proposal, there would be a positive balarice of $2.4 million. Mayor Jorqenson stated that the City would be money ahead by qoing to the single-story buildinq and not constructing parking ramps. Mr. Burns stated that with the original proposal, the City would have to contribute the parkinq ramps and the land. In this proposal there would be revenue' from the land and no cost for the parking ramps. Councilman Billinqs stated that he has received telephone calls regarding traffic in the adjacent residential neiqhborhoods. He asked how many entrances and exits there would be to this site. Ms. Dacy stated that there would be two, one at Lake Pointe Drive and Highway 65 and the other on the west end at Seventh Street and Lake Pointe Drive. There would be less traffic with this proposal, as there would be less space and not as many employees. Councilman Billings stated that if traffic was backed up on Highway 65, probably the only street that would be affected would be West Moore Lake Drive which people may use as an alternate. Seventh Street has always been viewed as a minor entrance and exit to this site. If an assessment was made as to whether this building will have a positive or negative impact on traffic, he assumed it would be positive rather than negative. � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 16 Mr. Dave Jellison, MEPC, stated that the question has been raised as to why they are constructing one building versus two. He felt that a 100,000 square foot building would be more marketable versus a 50,000 square foot building. The buildings they have marketed in other cities are about 90,000 square feet in size. In the 1980's companies wanted to update their image. Now they want to keep their costs down. There has not been a multi-level parking ramp built in the cities in the 1990's. Mr. Jellison stated that road construction will be proceedinq, and improvements will be not be completed until 1999. These things are a concern, and they will have to work at ways of getting people into this site. He felt they have some ideas that will not disrupt the neighborhoods and allow access. Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she understood the building would be constructed, but until there is a tenant, the inside would not be finished. She asked if construction would begin before the intersection improvements are completed. Mr. Jellison stated that they would like to begin construction this summer. They want to be sure they can get traffic to the site. Hopefully, they will have tenants the first part of 1999. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if their sites in other communities have residential properties in close proximity. - Mr. Jellison stated that in Golden Valley to the north of their site, there are some very expensive condominiums. He felt that most of the people are happy with their project. These residents also had the same concerns as Fridley residents about the traffic. Residents on the north of the site will not have to look at a parking ramp, as there will be landscaping and a service parking lot. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she has heard a lot of positive comments about this plan. Several people made reference to the larger corporate office users in the City. She asked if any of the corporations in Fridley could�build on this site if they wanted to. Ms. Dacy stated it is possible that someone could build either a corporate office or manufacturing facility, depending if Council approved it. Mayor Jorgenson stated that several residents to the north are concerned about manufacturing on this site. The type of company locatinq in a tech flex building would be a design and engineering company versus a smaller company that will have a full fledged manufacturing facility. Mr. Jellison stated that the buildings would not be designed with 24-foot high ceilings which are required for manufacturing. The FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1996 PAGE 17 operations would be very clean with companies probably involved in technoloqical research. Councilman Billings stated that he wanted to make sure that the taxes are paid on the building even thouqh the space may not be leased. He asked if there are other tech flex type buildings in Fridley. Mr. Jellison stated that the East River Road Business Center is an example of a tech flex building. Others are located in the northern portion of the City. Councilman Billings stated that there are vacancies in the East River Road Business Center, as well as other similar facilities. He questioned how companies can-be attracted to this facility. �- Mr. Jellison stated that he felt the design and color of the buildings, with the glass, is excellent and will attract possible tenants. There would be sufficient parking available to expand office space. The site would be visible and the type of user they would attract is a company that wants a good working atmosphere for their employees. Councilman Billings asked Mr. Jellison if he felt that once this single story building is constructed that it would set a precedent and the city will end up with two single story buildings on the site. Mr. Jellison stated that he does not believe this building will detract from an office tower. He felt the City had a certain clientele for each of the prototypes, and this building would be compatible with corporate offices. In a multi-use park, he did not think there would be a problem with either one. Councilman Billings asked if there are any assurances that there would not be a service door or access point to the building. Mr. Jellison stated that there is the possibility of having a service door at some time in the future. Councilman Billings stated that he would like to discourage an access point so that there is a solid wall. Councilman Billings stated that buildings are often appraised based on the cash flow analysis. He asked if there is anything in the development agreement that locks the City into a value on this building. He felt that if it is vacant, the value shoulci not go down. Mr. Jellison stated that they are agreeing to a minimum value in the development agreement. � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NlARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 18 Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if American Properties will be sold. Mr. Jellison stated that the entire American Properties is for sale. They have had no shortage of buyers, but he could not be sure what would happen. Some of the best corporations in America are considering purchasing the company. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if this would have a negative impact on the project. Mr. Jellison stated that this package would be put together and taken to the Board to request approval to proceed with the project. Councilman Barnette stated that this plan is for the one-story tech flex building. In Phase II, hopefully, there woule� be some o�fice buildings and, in Phase III there may be a hotel and restaurant. He asked if the site would support a second one-story building excluding the idea of a hotel and restaurant. . Mr. Jellison stated that if the City decided to proceed with two the high tech buildings and attracted clientele, it would be possible to proceed with a hotel and restaurant on the site. He has been dealing with one major user for this site, and they have had specific requests regarding the hotel. Once this project is under way and finalized, if this user wants to proceed with the site, he felt something could be finalized for a hotel and possibly one or two restaurants. He would not exclude this idea. Mr. William Nee, 219 Logan Parkway, stated that when he read the article in Focus News, he was very upset. He felt the City was being well-served by this Council, staff, the HRA, as well as all of the citizen groups. It is with reluctance that he decided he should speak. He felt the community would be best served if the City stopped and looked at what they were trying to accomplish on this parcel and what they will be actually doinq. He always felt there was room for a mix on this site that made sense. Mr. Nee stated that when he moved to Fridley, Jim Klobuchar made the City synonymous with dog patch, and years were spent proving that to be a lie. This is the last piece of land where Fridley can make a statement to the metropolitan area about who we are, what we are about, and what we stand for. He felt it deserved a new look to make the people of Fridley proud. He was not entirely sure that this tech flex building would be out of the question. He felt it would use too much land. He recalled that Ms. Dacy said that 75 percent was office. This means it could be four or five stories high and one-quarter of the footprint, with manufacturing on the first floor. Ms. Dacy stated that the building could be four stories tall. The issue is that one-story provides tech flex space which is popular in the market for the technological companies. These are the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 19 companies which are expanding. Some of these companies are moving out of the taller office buildings. From the site plan perspective, if it is one or four stories, the site can accommodate it. The City is trying to attract industry but still not detract from corporate office space. Mr. Jellison stated that companies do not want four or five story buildings with manufacturing on the first floor. They want 50,000 to 60,000 square feet of floor space without any elevation. If you do not have elevators or a lot of common areas, it keeps costs down. Councilman Barnette stated that he felt, with Bill Nee being here, it is like E.F. Hutton, when he talks everyone listens. Bill Nee brought the pictures that Woodbridge had given Coun�il and gave-the drawings to everyone. This was the vision the City had for this property. It would be great to have four or five multi-story buildings on this site. However, i,n listening to all the people the HRA, the Planning Commission, and staff, things have changed. This proposal is not necessarily what he would like for this site, but economics drive business. Apparently, the economic market is for the single story tech flex building. The City has been sitting on the property for a long time already and probably should sit on it longer. However, in looking at the HRA's decision, there was total approval. Councilman Barnette stated that he truly appreciated Bill Nee coming here to voice his concerns. Mr. Nee stated that the remark in Focus News bothers him where it was stated that, almost in despair, this may be the best we can do. He understands the inclination and the desire to get a building on the property, but there are some things the people of Fridley expect, such as a good hotel and several enterprises that create excitement and polish the City's image. He felt there was an easy market to do the kind of selling that MEPC does . He did not know if anyone else would be interested, but he thought United was the best of those interested in marketing the property, as they are sales people. He is not convinced that MEPC are sales people. He felt it was worth it to stop and take another look and request the developer to try to get something that works for the people of Fridley, as well as for their firm and some of the firms the City hopes to have participate in the community. He asked that these requests be denied and that Mr. Jellison qo back to the drawinq board to see if he can come closer to helping the City realize their goals. Mayor Jorgenson thanked Mr. Nee for coming to speak to the City Council. Councilwoman Bolkcom asked if there is a time frame for Council to take action. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 20 Ms. Dacy stated that the sixty-day action period will expire March 17. MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Housing and Redevelopment Authority and approve amendment, MPA #98-01, to the 1996 Master Plan subject to the following stipulations: (1) appropriate plat applications shall be submitted and approved prior to each phase of development of the property; (2) all uses in the development shall comply with the following list of permitted uses: office uses typically associated with corporate/Class A office developments, office and high technoloqy uses, hotel and conference facilities, banks/financial institutions, Class III restaurants as defined in Section 205.03.59 of the zoninq code, daycare facilities; and other uses as specifically approved by the City. Uses=-allowed in --each individual buildinq after construction will be the same or similar to those uses identified in this application. The City shall review and approve each use prior to occupancy; (3) detailed architectural plans of each building shall be submitted during the plat application process; or if a plat is not required, plans shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The type of materials used on the exterior walls shall be approved by the City; (4) a comprehensive signage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of the first building permit based on the plan dated March 29, 1996 and addressing the following issues: (A) wall signs (building identification and tenant signage) shall meet the wall sign requirement of the sign code; (B) no free-standing pylon siqns are permitted; (C) height, width, illumination and type of all signs shall be clearly identified; (D) two free-standing project identifier (D) signs are permitted, the size and height to be approved by the city Council; (E} all free-standing signs shall be set back ten feet from property lines; and (F) the petitioner shall receive a sign permit prior to installation of each sign; (5) the petitioner shall work with the City in preparing transportation demand strategies to promote ride-sharing and transit use to the property; (6) twelve to fifteen foot light standards shall be installed along Bridgewater Drive adjacent to the residential area. Sodium high pressure lights shall be used for the parking lot lights and street lights; (7) appropriate permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District, Six Cities Watershed Management Orqanization and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for storm water management and grading shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. Detailed engineering plans and calculations shall be submitted in conjunction with plat applications and building permit applications for review and approval by the City; (8) when appropriate, MEPC shall accept the transfer of the Indirect Source Permit from the HRA; (9) detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted in conjunction with plat and building permit application. Ten to twelve foot evergreens shall be installed along the north wall of the proposed parking ramp. - The detailed landscaping shall be based on the concept plan dated FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 21 March 29, 1996. An irrigation plan shall also be submitted at the time of building permit issuance; and (10) park fees shall be paid prior to initiation of construction of the first development on the site. Easements shall be dedicated at time of plat approval over the existing bikeway/walkway areas. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the recommendation of the Planning'Commission and Housing and Redevelopment Authority and approve the site plan for the Lake Pointe Technology Center with the following stipulations: (1) the proposed colors of the exterior materials shall be approved by the Plarr�ing Commission, HRA, and City Council; (2) the plat and special use permit requests shall be approved; (3) the petitioner shall comply with the requirements of the HRA's development contract; (4) the 33 existing perimeter trees shall be protected during construction. The petitioner shall transplant as many trees as possible from the interior of the site to other areas on or off site as approved by staff; (5) the petitioner shall construct metal panel rooftop screen as indicated on the plans dated January 16, 1998. The petitioner shall also incorporate additional screening (vegetation or other materials) on the roof of the building if required by the City as part of the site plan review for the multi-story office development; (6) the sign plan dated January 16, 1998 shall be amended to replace the wall panel siqns with a plan to provide a sign with individual letters; and (7) the petitioner shall comply with the Engineering Department requirements as stated in the memo dated January 26, 1998. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. MOTION by Councilman Billings to delete the second sentence of Stipulation No. 5. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 14. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST, P.S. #98-02, BY MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC., TO CREATE A TEN-ACRE LOT FOR A 106,705 SQUARE FOOT, ONE-STORY FLEX BUILDING AND TO CREATE OUTLOTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND TO DEDICATE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AT THE FRIDLEY EXECUTIVE CENTER PROPERTY, GENERAI�LY LOGATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF I-694 AND HIGHWAY 65 (WARD 1): MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve preliminary plat request, P.S. #98-02, with the following stipulations: (1) the petitioner shall execute the City Storm water Pond Maintenance Agreement and record it along with the filing of the final plat at Anoka County; FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 22 (2) the petitioner shall prepare and dedicate final bikeway/walkway easements in Lot 1 along Lake Pointe Drive and record the easements, along with filing the plat at Anoka County; (3) the petitioner shall pay the park dedication fees of $36,137.81 at time of building permit issuance for the Lake Pointe Technology Center; and (4) the Special Use Permit request and the site plan and master plan requests shall be approved. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 15. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #98-02, BY MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC., TO PERMIT NINE-FOOT WIDE PARKING SPACES: AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #98-03, BY MEPC AMERICAN PROPERTIES, INC., TO PERMIT A PORTION OF THE--DRIVE AISLE-OF THE PARKING AREA WITHIN AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT AT THE FRIDLEY EXECUTIVE CENTER PROPERTY, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF I-694 PND HIGHWAY 65 (WARD 1): MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant Special Use Permit Request, SP #98-02. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Billings to concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant Special Use Permit Request, SP #98-03. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 15-1998 AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER, WILLIAM W. AGREEMENT END CONTRACT") FOR THE YOUTH INITIATIVE GRANT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY• Councilwoman Bolkcom stated that she was concerned that the City allow the youth to do some of the work. She wanted to make sure that the City listens to their input, right down to the interior decorating. She felt the architect was more interested in doing the project than having the youth participate. Mayor Jorgenson stated that she concurs with Councilwoman Bolkcom's comments . Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that one of the goals is youth involvement. Staff is still investigating the possibility of letting the youth do the mural and some cabinet work. Jack Kirk, Recreation and Natural Resources Director, is contacting people. He felt the City was headed in that direction. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1998 PAGE 23 MOTION by Councilwoman. Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 15-1998. Seconded by Councilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously. 16. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS: Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that Jack Kirk was to present an update on the Community Education Center after this regular meeting. He also hoped to discuss the Council/Commissions survey. He stated that Mr. Flora was informed today that the County wants to remove parking on Old Central Avenue. Mr. Flora stated that the County wants to remove parking on the first 200 meters on Old Central Avenue that is involved with the Lake Pointe improvement project. They would like-a letter from-the City Council indicating their support. Mayor Jorgenson stated that this improvement project will not move forward as planned. She asked how much work would be done in 1998. Mr. Flora stated that what will probably happen this year is removal of the median and bypass paving, as well as starting the intersection work at Highway 65 and Lake Pointe Drive. He thouqht the I-694 ramps would be done in 1999. There are a lot of agencies involved in this project. They also need to meet both Federal and State requirements. It was the consensus of the City Council that this issue be placed on the agenda for March 16 and that the residents affected be notified. Mayor Jorgenson reminded everyone of the caucuses on Tuesday, March 3. If there are any questions they can call the City Clerk at 572-3523. ADJOURNMENT • MOTION by Councilman Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Councilwoman Bolkcom. Upon a voice vote, all votin Jorgenson declared the motion carried unanimously and Meeting of the Fridley City Council of March 2, 1998 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Seconded by g aye, Mayor the Reqular adjourned at Carole Haddad Nancy J. Jorgenson Secretary to the City Council Mayor � MEMOl�,ANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: February 25, 1997 TO: William Burns, City Manager �`� � � FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: First reading of an Ordinance Declaring A Portion of the Highway 65 Turnback Property Excess :• -• � On January 26, 1987, the City Council passed an ordinance vacating a portion of the right-of-way immediately between Highway 65 and what is now the Fridley Executive Center Site. The vacated area was part of a larger parcel which was 64,880 square feet in area and was deeded to the City from MnDOT in the early 1980's as a"turnback parcel". The City vacated 33,631 square feet of the former highway right-of-way in order to create more developable area for Woodbridge Properties. There does not appear to have been an ordinance which declared the vacated property excess which would enable the City to convey it to the abutting property owner. It was assumed that by vacation, the property would automatically accrue to the adjacent property. This is not correct. The title company for the HRA has advised that the City must quit claim the area to the HRA. --�-• � - � In order to provide clear title, it is recommended that an ordinance declaring the vacated area as excess be adopted to enable the City to quit claim the vacated right- �, „ of-way to the HRA. The area will also be included as part of the lot in the final plat. 1.01 � � � . �, Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached ordinance for first reading, declaring the property as excess and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents to convey ownership of the property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. B D/zs iT • : : 1.02 � ORDINANCB NO. AN ORDINANCg UNDBR S$CTION 12.06 OF TH$ CITY CHARTSR D$CLARING CLRTAIN REAL SSTAT$ TO B$ SIIRPLIIS AND AOTiiORIZING THS SALF3 TH$RBOF The City Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City of Fridley is the fee owner of the tract of land within the City of Fridley, Anoka County, State of Minnesota, described as follows: That part of Tracts A, B and C described below, which lies southeasterly of a line run parallel with and distant 130 feet -� northwesterly of Line 1 described below and westerly and northerly of Line 2 described below: Tract A. Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Anoka County, Minnesota; Tract B. The south 200 feet of the North Half of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, now known as Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Anoka County, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 36396; Tract C. Lot 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, according to the pl�t thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Anoka County, Minnesota; Line 1. From a point on the north and south quarter line of said Section 23, distant 1442.83 feet north of the south quarter corner thereof, run northwesterly at an angle of 96 degrees 45 minutes 15 seconds from said north and south quarter line (measured from south to west) for 50.1 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 64 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 1320.45 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 12 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 100 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 05 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 35 degrees 58 minutes 20 seconds) for 719.44 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 365.95 feet to the .. 1.03 x Ordinance No. 2 point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence deflect to the left on a 12 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 56 degrees 14 minutes 19 seconds) for 468.66 feet and there terminating); Line 2. Beginning at the point of intersection of the north line of Tract B hereinbefore described, with a line run parallel with and distant 20 feet easterly of Line 3 described below; thence run southerly and southwesterly on said 20 foot parallel line to a point thereon directly opposite (measured at right angles) of the point of termination of said Line 3; thence run westerly to a point distant 120 feet northwesterly (measured at right angles) of the point of beginning of Line 1 described above; thence run northwesterly to a point distant 130 feet northwesterly (measured at right angles) of the point of beginning of s`aid Line 1 and there terminating; together with that part of Tract B hereinbefore described, wfiich lies.. northerly of the last above described strip, easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 65 feet westerly of the following described line: Beginning at the point of intersection of the north line of said Tract B with Line 3 described below; thence run southerly on said Line 3 for 50 feet; thence continue southerly on the last described course for 100 feet and there terminating; Line 3. Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section 23, distant 150.3 feet west of the east quarter corner thereof; thence run southerly parallel with the east line of said Section 23 for 132.82 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 14 degrees 43 minutes 29.3 seconds for 203.64 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 18 degrees 45 minutes.,34.7 seconds for 220 feet; thence ° deflect to the right on a 14 degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 37 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds) for 265.48 feet to a point of compound curvature; thence deflect to the right on a curve having a radius of 50 feet and a delta angle of 51 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 44.51 feet and there terminating; and that part of Tract A described below: Tract A. Lot 5, Block 5, Donnay's Lakeview Manor Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Anoka Courity, Minnesota, the title thereto being registered as evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 27488; 1.04 .■ Ordinance No. 3 which lies within a distance of 20 feet easterly and 50 feet westerly of Line 1 described below: Line 1. Beginning at a point on the east and west quarter line of Section 23, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, distant 150.3 feet west of the east quarter corner thereof; thence run southerly and parallel with the east line of said Section 23 for 106.98 feet; thence deflect to the left on a curve having a radius of 200 feet (delta angle 14 degrees 43 minutes 29.3 seconds) for 51.4 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 144.76 feet; thence deflect to the right on a curve having a radius of 200 feet (delta angle 18 degrees 45 minutes 34.7 seconds) for 65.49 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 186.96 feet and there terminating; together with a strip 15 feet in width adjoining and we"sterly of the� above described strip: Beginning opposite a point on Line 1 described above, distant 303.14 feet southeasterly of its point of beginning (when measured along said Line 1 and extending southerly to the south line of..the above described tract). . Except that part lying easterly of a line described as commencing at a point on the north and south quarter line of said Section 23, distant 1442.83 feet north of the south quarter corner thereof, run northwesterly at an angle of 96 degrees 45 minutes 15 seconds from said north and south quarter line (measured from south to west) for 50.1 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 64 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 1320.45 feet; thence deflect to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 12 feet; thence deflect to the right at an angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 100 feet; thence deflect to the left on a OS degree 00 minute 00 second curve (delta angle 35 degrees 58 minutes 20 seconds) for 719.44 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 365.95 feet; thence northwesterly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 120 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northeasterly, deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds for 189.39 feet; thence northerly, deflecting to the left 48 degrees 53 minutes 59 seconds for 500 feet and said line there terminating. Also except that part lying northerly of a line described as commencing at the point of beginning of Line 1 described above; thence southerly, along said Line 1, a distance of 106.98 feet; thence easterly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 20.00 feet to the east line of the above described property; thence southerly a distance of 28.20 feet, along said east line of the above described property to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northwesterly, a distance of 71.07 feet 1.05 � Ordinance No. 4 to a point on the westerly line of the above described property distant 18.84 feet southerly of the northwest corner of the above described property, as measured along said westerly line, and said line there terminating. All lying�in the South Half of Section 23, T-30, R-24 City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. SECTION 2. It is hereby determined by the City Council that the City no longer has any reason �o continue to own said property, and the City is hereby authorized to sell or enter into a contract to sell said property. SECTION 3. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the necessary contracts and deeds to affect the sale of said property. �- '� � PASSED AND ADOPTED BY TH8 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDL$Y THIS 16th DAY OF MARCH, 1998. � NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK March 16, 1998 [� 1.06 ,' 0 0 � �1.02 ME� i '� r �� \ �� / � �� i � I � �, \ � � �� — ' �� _� __ 16p.30 -F ��'1 \ / I I � `' � �� I / � � �� I • /� �_ 1 / � �Im \� � . t� T-a'�� ..;_� . N °1 \ I i �� ,��,', '.WEST MOORE LAKE DRIVE�� ., NO'42'S7"E g i � � �� I �j aW J� a �m �� — � � � � 1 �� L-- \v% \_i t 5.78 PLAT il MEAS m �� . N h \ 5.00 � � � � _-__�,�. ,0�4� ,4 _ � � �-�� N 81 •46�42"W � 0=14•IS'ZO�� • Rs 122'•SO .. L = 30.48�' � — 0=13'23 �� o: �tn ORIGINAL / / /� / .,� TURNBACK PARCEL, �.,�< ,� , FROM MNDOT _ ; , ,: i__`�.� i �.�' %; $� � vnurr �� \\ /—� \ `�\ (` ` \ 1 ' \` � i � —� �� J \ � � / \� \ �� l � `� \\� L ��, � , � ) se9ro9'�"E 16.01 � ,► NO •42''S7 �� E � � s.z�-: -�.� g2 � . �i . �\ N2s•os'si"w io.00-- ,��;�� C� �O � d °oo !+i -° h � _S- � � r � � O Z� S SS•20' 10'�E °- i� �° 4.4 4= � . � O�� P\� P S�� i �� q �t,��a o� Ds7- � � - � - \\� �, I t ' . � �_�J i \\1.:i 1.07 .�26.97 �ri c pe � ��"02 ��L=51.40 m� , _ ,�� O 3W Q W � �V �i V �z a � m� r� �� . _ l \\ 'P 1 \ �j' � \ c�i I i 1 J �� , �!o-� . -r�=-�=_ � �� /° � . . � Q � Y � ' N � g � � " ' = tv O � V � � Of 0 � � W R � � g � $. o � 1 � / 4 � J 1 ~ � a 3 W i � I 1 r � r - � � ---1.. � � '�` � �\ � ' � � W' v� ___; ; , � `- 8 --- � -- � � a �, �� ; :. � Ji �V I C �VrCr Vt,cH i C ,�_ i ', ,�—, ��r-� n i �I � L_ � .L_ �e l�_ V VI ..–�JORTH`�UNE F THE SEV4 - �• OF SEC.23,T 30,RGE.24—� \ �,< � � 6 / � � � �` J q _l � .� a ii r�i�� _)L_`.. �.I . \ CJ � � ��J �`�� G \ �' � O / I` �I � n � �� r i /� r''� I- � i-j I �l � l �VII—iI V�JI \ /—'�I� L� I I ItJI V � LINE FARALLEL WIYH ( THE eAST_LiNE OF THE ` `OTHE NI�/2 � THE LOT 2A TWP �� l . `, � � 1 1 i 1 o, N � j�l�i'I �� i � � ' 1 ✓�'� 1 � v i ��1 ir"` i_ / � �! 1 �. �� VClr1�I"''C � ' , �$ , � " � ��—EAST V4CORNER OF SEC.23 _ i � c'� M � � � � ♦ 1 a �� Jo � �� \ � � � � pi � � N N �J v � F'` $ 3 m ^ b Y' 8 0 0 � ' m �_� � i 1�. i 1.08 �: ' � � �� ; / / �_ � .✓n�r n i r_- , L_ I I V L�i—\ �._ �_ �_ii � �i r r-r�� I L�l..' IL_i��l_I �:) TURNBACK -� PARCEL �j �' 1987 VACATION , „�,L;,_-- �,�,,,�- _.,,, �_ �.,�,��_ � L_ i I�� in\ i-- �- i-i � t I i (-'� i— r i^ Li �J 1 L_ �... L_I \�) I �; —i �_� /1 r r� � ..� i I i H L� I_� \ �--i�� /'�i�� Il_�_�VIiV�.�� /n\r'�' � _ �r) �- n I ,_- :, `i- � -� �- \`,L_h\�_ �_.J I /—\ i L_ ��` � r�r� I�J /—\i� I�. \ \ ��$I � , 1 Ns� ry J'�. �j �HFi��. 1987 PLAT The north-south quarier line of Sec. 23, Twp.30,Rge is assumea to have a beanng of N 0°07�14"E. � Denotes iron monumeN V2°x 16� Iron pipe ser and rtarw, Regisiration No.8612. � Denotes Anoka Counfy Cost Irm Monument 1. i� •_•.1�. �_ �i�a�� . �� ;. . • : •��• • .��. oo�� I�pTION by Go�mcilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the enda with the follawing addition: (24) "Consideration of Reveiving Bi and Awarding Contract for the ReFair of Wells No. 3, 4, 12 and 13. nded by do�cilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor ee declared the motion carried unanimously,. �' ��' 1+� � �'. Mr. Arnie Rasterek, 6435 Ashton enue, addressed the �Lmcil rec�rding the "no turning" sign on Ashto Avenue. He stated this sign makes it in�nvenient and difficult t exit onto Missisippi Street and proceed to East River Road. He quest' ned if there may be a way to permit residerits in the area to make this t �- -- - Gbtncilman F'itzpatri stated many calls were reoeived f ran residents in the neighborhood abo the traffic in their area and, when the sign was installed, the t fic was greatly reduoed. � Mr. Rastenek ted he dich't feel there was a problesn in this area. He stated the rsons most affected are those between 64th and Mississippi because can only go orye direction at oertain times in the morning. Cbtm ' man Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Rastenek to address his concerns in a le r which aould be sutmitted to the �blice Dep3rtment for their review d �ommertt. • . : i � � •�� z�,� �� : • _: � •. � � . ��1=s � . y� . ��l �. _ ! _; �� ; 44!. � � 1.� � � \� � PDTmN by Councilman Goodspeed to waive the seoond reading of Ordinance No. 874 and acbpt it on the seoond reading and order publication. Sewnded by Co�cilman Schneider. Upon a voioe vate, all vating aye, I�yor Nee declared the motion c;arried unanimously. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated the cil, at their last meeting, appointed him as Director to the Suburban e Authority and an Alternate Director should also be appointed. Ae gested if a menber of the Council did not wish to serve as the Alter , Mark Burch, Assistant Public Works Director, �uld be app�inted as ernate. NDTION b� Councilman FitzFa ck to acbpt Resolution No. 7-1987, appointing John Flora as Director Mark Burch as Alfiernate Director to the Suburban Rate Authority. Seoon by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all vating aye, Mayor N declared the motion c�rried unanimously. -2- 1.09 •�• i�. �_ ,�� . � �« y�: �� J 000�� Increnent District No. 3. He stated the propo oosts involve $850,000 for land aoquisition, impravenent, and writecbw sts; $290,091 for capitalized interest; $23,330 for the bond disa�tmt• nd $26,579 for insuranoe a�sts and contingencies for a total of $1,190, . - Mr. Qureshi, City Manager, sta the City is �oviding assistance upf ront to get the project starte nd will recover the costs for the 2and acguisition of $850,000, interest, wer a period of years. No persons in the a enoe spoke regarding this proposed amendment to the Redevelognerit Pl and Tax Increnent Financing Plans. NDTION b� cilman Barnette to close the publ ic hearing. Seconded by Council Fitzpatrick. Up�n a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee decla , the motion carried unanimously and the publ ic- hearing closed at 7:4 .m. .. � • . •,• • • : _ � � - _r� � . • . • - /• • �1; �I: • �' •� �I� �� 41ai�IM • � �M�141: • • : . rDTION by Co�mcilman Goodspeed to waive the reading of the publ ic hearing notioe and open the public hasring. Semnded by Coimcilman Schneider. tTp�n a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the public hearing operyed at 7:44 g.m. Mr. F1ora, Public Works Director, stated this hearing involves property along Hic�way 65, south of West Moore Lake Drive and north of I-694 which was turned back to the City by the Minnesota De�artmerit of Transportation. He stated with the developnent of the 100 Ztain Driv�-in site by Woodbridge Properties, scme land originally desic�ated as Area A on the property was taken for rc�d acoess. He stated Woodbridge Properties have requested that some of this turntx�ck property be pravided to than to allow for additional c3evelognertt and landscaping for the building in Area A. Mr. Flora stated 33,631 square feet is not ryecessary for the hic�way and raadway imprwemerits and could be vacated for use by Woodbridge Properties. He stated the . Housing & Redevelopnent Authority essentially agrees with this vacation. He stated the City did receive about 10,000 square feet of property from Woodbridge for the raac�vay. He also indicated that the Co�mcil o�uld, by a four-fifths vote, identify this land excess as not consistent with the City's Com�ehensive Plan. Golmcilman Barnette stated he felt it would be a good idea and the area would be maintairred by Woodbridge and cited other areas where the Council has returrbed property to adj aoent property owners. Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated when property is turned back for which the City has no need, it has been returr�ed to the adj aoent property aaner. Mr. & Mrs. Joe Fahey, 5719 west Moore Lake Drive, did indicate thei r�nc�rn on hav this vacation may affect their property. Mr. Flora stated he dich�'t believe the vacation would affect the Fahey property and outlined the propo9ed route of Lake Fbinte Drive irito the Woodbridge develognent. -2- 1.10 3. 4. 3. 5. 000q� �� 1�. ��±�ly �. • � �«�,,�:__� ' �T� Councilman Goodspeed stated, hopefully, by turning back property to Woodbridc�e, it would bring the roac�aay farther aaay fran the Fahey's hane. CoLmcilman Schrieider stated he would like an update as to what is happening with the Woodbridge Properties development and how the proj ect is proceeding. rDTION by Co�mcilman Schneider to close the publ ic hearing. Seconded by Coimcilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee 3eclared the motion carried unanimously and the publ ic hearing : closed at 7 : 55 p. m. -- __._,� �+ '�� ' LM ��! ��_ ! �+; .4�+� ; : ,�.�� • k l��=-_ «; Zhis iten will be a�nsidered under New Business. • . : ,�� . nr�.nmi�n+r � NDT�DN by Co�cilman Schneider to waive the nd reading of Orclinance No. 872 and ad�pt it on the seoond reading and o der publication. Seoonded by Cocazcilman Goodspeed. Upon a voioe vate, 1 voting aye, Irhyor Nee c7eclared the motion carried �manimously. �? +" - N1�TION by Councilman Goodspeed o waive the r eadi ng and approv e the ordinanoe upon f irst reading. conded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, yor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bill Htait, Assist to the City N�nager, stated these changes involve two sections of the ty Charter. He stated Section 12.08 deletes specif ic referenoe to a Far cul.ar statute and prwides a more general reference to Minresota statute . He stated Section 4.05 deletes referenve to "Clerks" as they are ro lon r used at elections and also changes the language that j udge s m�st be egi ster ed vote r s. rDTIDN tr� cilman FitzFatrick to waive the first reading and approve the ordinance n first reading. Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vo e, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried 1.11 � k�.l�. �_ �ti �!�!y • � y«a+�i �a�• • � : . • �� :� • • i� • uLQ ^ 7 � �� Zhe following items were aaaea to the agenda :(17. ) Reconsideration of S�ecial Use F�rmit, SP #86-16 for Church on the Nbve and (18.) Consideration of Authorizing Additional Flands to TIQaA for Drainage Plans for Meadowlands Par k. HDTION by Coi.mcilman Schneider to acbpt the agenda with the above additions. Sewnded by (btmcilman Good.speed. Up�n a voice vote, al2 voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. ��'_?'! —___ ��' Zhere was no response f ran the audienoe Lmder this it:�n of busiriess. • �c •i 1. PUBLIC HEARING TO VACATE THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT � HI(�iF�Y 65 TtJRI�CR • NDTInN by Colmcilman Schneider to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the publ ic hearing. Secanded by dn�mcilman Gooclspeed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unani.mously and the publ ic hearing opened at 7:42 p, m. Mr. Flora, Public Works Director, stated with the final alignment of Lake Fbinte Drive, the road was shifted �st onto the developnerit p�operty at the woodbridge site and resulted in taking some property from Area A for ric�t-of-way. He stated the City has some turnback property and the developer has requ�ested this property be obtained in order to provide an adequate a�nstruction site for the building prop�sed for this Farael. Mr. F7.ora stated this item will be prese�ed to the HRA since they are the � land4wr�ers at this time. He stated he would suggest the Council _continue this hearing to Deoember 22, 1986 at which time oomanents fran the Housing & Redevelopnerit Authority regarding the transfer of this property would be avail abl e. Mr. Qureshi, Gity Manager, stated when the Cb�cil oonsidered the plat, one item mentioned which was not finalized was the e�ct alignmerit of the road. � 1�DTION tr� Councilman Goodspeed to wntinue this public hearing to December 22, 1986. Seoonded by CbLmcilman Schneider. Upon a voioe vote, all voting aye, Ngyor Nee declared the mation carried unanimously. �� • • • � ��,,�i i �� • � • • �� • u � • � : • � �i� � � �4 Ms� ' NDTION by Coimcilman Fitz�atrick to waive the r�ding of the public hearing notioe and open the public h�ring. Seoonded by ��mcilman Barnette. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the publ ic hearing opered at 7:47 p. m 1.12 MEMORANDUM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: March 12, 1998 � TO: William Burns, Ci Mana er �?7 � tY 9 �j'(` - -- - FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Access and Use of Right-of way for Trunk Highway 65/Central Avenue/Lake Pointe Drive Intersection Improvement -• -• � The City Council vacated a portion of a turnback parcel befinreen Trunk Highway 65 and the Fridley Executive Center Site in 1987. The remaining portion of this tumback parcel was left as a right-of-way or easement for roadway purposes. SEH has requested a resolution clarifying that the portion that was not vacated is authorized by the City for use by MnDOT as right-of-way. The City Council approved a similar resolution in January for city property on the east side of the intersection. Staff is coordinating between the surveyor of the final plat for the Fridley Executive Center Site and SEH to make sure that the appropriate areas that are to be included as part of the Fridley Executive Center Site are included in the plat, and those areas which need to be dedicated are also identified on the plat. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution with Exhibit A as presented. B D/zs M-98-50 2.01 RESOLUTION NO. - 1998 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCBSS AND US$ OF RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR THB TH-65/C$NTR.AL AVSNiTE/LAKE POINTi3 DRIVE INT13RS13CTION IMPROVEM$NT WHEREAS, on March 14, 1997, the Fridley HRA approved a contract with Short, Eliot, Hendrickson to complete the final design and specifications for the intersection project, and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has received.federal funding to construct the project; and WHEREAS, the reconstruction of Highway 65, Lake Pointe Drive, and West Moore Lake Drive requires that certain areas of land adjacent to and within the Fridley Executive Center Site be used for right-of-way -� purposes and construction access; and WHEREAS, the limits of the proposed right-of-way areas and construction areas are identified on Exhibit A of the Resolution attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the City of Fridley agrees to permit construction vehicles to access the area identified on Exhibit A, in order to complete the final improvements as outlined in the final plans; and WHEREAS, the proposed permanent right-of-way for Trunk Highway 65, Lake Pointe Drive, and West Moore Lake Drive will be dedicated on a p~�at . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby grants the necessary area for the Trunk Highway 6�5/Central Rvenue/Lake Pointe Drive intersection improvements and also authorizes access for construction vehicles to complete the improvement according t0 the approved final plans. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THS CITY COIINCIL OF TH$ CITY OF FRIDL$Y THIS 16th DAY OF MARCH, 1998. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTEST: � WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK h�Or� L L � /� ' �� i ij �1 ', � �� i �� . �� / ' � �� a �i� � �'��.. I� � , �. ,:.i� � s�. . '/�� .�� \ �, -.. � �A �,1 � � i��►�� : �ai . � `��i��, �'� � � � ` I' � ��y�%�� , � ;�' - =; � � I �L I � / -'� .-9 ji� i '+',�` i 1�i� I I i ��,., � ♦ i �� J �� i I �I � � '�:�;�lU I I ' � :�` ' I � � o�; I � �� ■� I� � I j,v , ' I i ::�� ; �� ! � �; , � i �� "_ � � �w ��I �ur�,, 'I, �� : _ 1�I =��, �I I � � � � , �� / I �.�. � ' /� p % �'I � � � / / � � ' i ; � Y� a , ' e4 °s .�..t; � � � 9 „ 0 � :r�� o � � ,-- W-. �o i � �s W�o � , �� = a : .o ! .- �-.>� s : E " _ ��- � �m +u p. p«. u. ,� W S 'O / , DV i� � , :,/ � , i.$I-.. _ ^ u �! / �;" i i � d ~o ;� ;; .p;� - � � y ° + a I �= � ; �}� � �� IN3�•� � ( =� . + • o C . / � Q . .'Ji} � � �` /� �^�-,,;:. � = `i ti1..�..:.Y..M'�"�".' � Np � _ ^ N ' � - ... . . . .. W � � � . C � � � � : a. �' � � � ' , ; = I ' s_ _ .�=r � � iso � ,. � � s N � i .�.._.., o �a 4'._:...... " a � I __ a �I � d i Ii .� �� ' � � - � �; � � �I � � �� ,� � Q ' � i 3 3 ` i � � + 3 I � , F- � � i ^ d � ';1 I ' � y it3 I w a i�� Z ¢ i} / I I I � a #� fl, W W �1i�= . `'`,�� I � C F- 3YZt � `;'� I { �i�� .. � , � � lis: ' / •.o•n `' _�a= 8 i : '�'a \ � � . ';.) !� d7 pa � . � y �\ , 3 E ( 15 �i0 1 y ! \ 3 N \ � � ,Y/� � ;�``� � '�, �v E� ; �`'. ii;'� "�i � � ' � _ ' 1 `\ ,'.` . o � C). c� i �r '. �a ty�' � I � � � `'' �I ' t `\` ` \ \ o , I �a q � � ` � ' �i `� � . ' �, � ��. o _ p,.T � ., / "t I � �� LA } J � f �• ``. � � � 1 � , . � �� I L 'I O ` 4�'� � �\ . � � � ��: ..,�� /'pa�f I � . ..�'� , � � rl � u 0 � 1 � �� • t9 �f.�' � '�7 / � �JI �' I I F \` . , r�.� ��.' � � 1 1 ,✓.'i � i � � � � � i ry! � � �1 . ;'� �� , l 1 � ' / I 1 / .. � ; :�;' �, 9 . y4o ' � /,..��- �� ,,�'...;"�',' � � , . Il, '—_��'_"__�__ f ,;� -. EXHIBIT A � � , ; f � --, j// `" '. j i i iI � e ;; � ,. 2.03 � �, ; � � = x � 7 City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager �� `y FROM: John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director DATE: March 16, 1998 SUBJECT: MSAS Redesignation PW98-052 In completing our Municipal State Aid System (MSAS), we were informed that 79`� Way and 79`� Avenue cannot be approved as completed since we do not have the raikoad crossing at the Burlington Northern right-of-way. In reviewing this item with the Burlington Northern (BNRR), the BNRR is not supportive of an at-grade crossing at that location. I believe the criteria for an at-grade crossing could be met but it would require a public hearing before the Commissioner of Transportation with opposition from BNRR. Accordingly, if the railroad crossing is not to be completed, that segment of 79`� Avenue/ 79�' Way between Main Street and East River Road must be removed from our MSAS. I have identified the University West Service Drive between 79`� and 83rd as an approximate equal length of the 79`� Avenue/Way route. These two segments would satisfy the State Aid criteria. If the railroad crossing is not to be completed, I recommend we delete the 79�' Way/79�' Avenue segment between East River Road and Main Street from the State Aid System and add University West Service Drive between 79`� and 83td. T'he attached resolution identifies that request to the Commissioner of Transportation. Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution redesignating the State Aid streets. JGF:cz Attachment 3.01 R$SOLUTION NO. -1998 R$SOLIITION R$VOKING AND $STABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATS AID STRSSTS WHEREAS it appears to the City Council of the City of Fridley that the road hereinafter described should be revoked as a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of Minnesota laws: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, County of Anoka, that the road described as follows, to- wit. Termini ' •l�l ' 1! - 79ch Way East River Rd to 300 ft east 79`h Way 300 ft East River Rd to 900 ft east east River Road 79"' Way 900 ft east East River Rd to west railroad right-of-way 79`h Ave West Burlington Northern rai1- road tracks to east Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way 79t'' Ave East Burlington right-of-way to , alley west Beech Street 79`h Ave Alley west Beech St to Main St 309 O10 309 011 309 015 309 020 309 021 309 022 Total Undesignated mileage Total 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.50 0•O9 0.59 be and hereby is, revoked as a Municipal State Aid Street of said City subject to the approval of the Commissioner of iiighways of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED it appears to the City Council of the..City of Fridley that the streets hereinafter described should be designated as Municipal State Aid Streets under provisions of Minnesota Laws of 1967, Chapter 162. NOT THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley, County of Anoka, that the streets described as follows, to-wit: Termini University W Service Drive 83rd to g18e University W Service Drive 81a` to 79t1i Total Undesignated Mileage � 0.27 0•28 0.55 _: 0.04 be and hereby is established, located and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Transportation. __ _ 3.02 RESOLUTION NO. - 1998 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward two (2) certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Highways for his consideration. PASSED AND ADOPTFD BY TIiE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS H DAY , 1998. NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR ATTESTED: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK ` `"` 3.03 i u u Z 4i� _ � } � LL. ; 0 � V r a � O Z � •ww„� -:i. � r��. =!n ... •a^ .�. ;: n�iw i�� _ r N N 0 00"0 o,�O .z x .,..^ �a :== r _ � wa�ww n�- �iu � ° • 3 . • :�� u gg=i..� � c � s � � � " f • = f j=�e s s < e i a�um � 1J • � O • ~ ` W W t I < J • �rr� � � � 0 > F e w e • �• .. wca� � < ` � z .. . a� - � , � : J � u C b � : _ Z < < . a � �� y V O � e 3 F ° _ �n �� m u � i: a a� g. 0 3� ° � � t p u 2 - a " Y � ;� � 0 � • e � � � � `� _ N J: � _ � � � • o < �° � - � v = ' � 8 3 ' � ` ' = � n 6 'I � '► � � � 7 a x v` i s n' a' �n 2 � < ' , \, IIIII:;�i;!!�D��,�.:..��= .- V , _ . . � jr j i ONIYdS ' � �0 f .f� � '.I f� ~ ! - - •� r t �: � � � r , ,- — — __ ----=r I n. oi� f.�� A� �.. �, ... A A � � � C : •' r` � ' • " � � � �'r�C�r� `% (� F't;" a F��'^P�'n� �?n��":.� � �C �?►�A �GE.`�� n (1I�� + � � ��c��l`��j �' .� �.�(`i l : t � ��M t Z �`;( :rj �f .l��'�'�,^ � t' ._.. ;p ^�� r6Q'� e .� � � �'e �r- � ��'�- F f� �` � �y l' �A c �.; � � Q . �'��G � .�:r+��f�'�c'r� r = s ^g,�� ' ��,�C'� �e•� � '_ V`� . � . . t :� ' � C � r A c9'[„� o, ^ :� � � ; . � , L' +n ,� �fr� � •� � i �� y :��^',,� � j� ��`'%�'9��.:��,?o. � � �f � � ' ��: �i;: a ' � ,• > ^ �.� -2},��. J�eD.O•�'. � � _ . o ->;�^ �`�`•�,.�3� i"J•4J ��,,,^ -;,.�n , � ;e��%��"U• '�-�'�� .��^ �``n ys Q _, ; '� O . �0 } ".9.�.�3 e�,1 ,"� �' 9 r''� ��n _,; - .'�; �:.'. `' �''�.''�i .,�-� A'� �,� �' �,� � '� � . ` ••.�; .;.i v =>>� '��JQ�A.) �.'i:7J � � os � � � 1 � n P ) aj ,� '�� :. ' .+� � � , ti z.:� �� v�';�� i � ' ..t =bi � ,�,� Q./.� � W � o� � , � .. �i�� I � ,� ,� - =- � �� a o t.. � f - � � � �, . `� �+t. �� II� I ' s � •�• .�i!"' � � �� N/. t W` ' � : .� s � -, i ` i � = - � y� '^e+_. V�� 11i �•"'.p Y �. ' �: - / > � �-,� � �: i •, ,� � ,� - :.� _ / .. .. �'��. j'J Ndl•S1 11�NVA I n Q � 3.04 �:I ; � �i ,� .�' �' 11. i . �� '�� S 1�� Q � E� � \ + � ., � < �f O i CrO � rn J. . u ... •..• . ; . nr. L#i � Y �sl�si: �� y . � � � !! 't ?'r }' i ; E� - � 5:: �v f ,� �= o �'� � �C. = - �� Sii' : i � . �-' ;i / , +,`� • j � • 4 �\\�*O•\ �.� � � F� -a� �/1� '/ �� .. �� a �� °D _ n c� I TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CIT'YMANAGER�� FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RECEIVING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM SPRINGSTED REGARDING THE SALE OF $1,185,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1998A DATE: March 12,1998 _ _ Attached is the recommendation from Springsted, the City's financial advisor. With the mazket for this type of issue providing low interest rates, we feel that it is an opportune time to issue an advance refunding in anticipation of the call date. Springsted has provided the necessary prepazatory work required for the sale of the General Obligation Bonds that will provide sources of capital to retire the existing issue at its call date. You should note that the total net savings, assuming no material market changes before the bond is actually sold, would be approximately $121,649.70 (page5). Staff recommends that Council receive the recommendation. 4.01 Recommendations For Gity of Fridley, Minnesota . $1,185,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998A Presented to: Mayor Nancy J. Jorgenson Members, City Council Mr. Wlliam W. Burns, City Manager Mr. Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director/Treasurer City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue NE Fridley, Minnesota 55432 Study No.: F1287.01 SPRINGSTED Incorporated March 10, 1998 4.02 SPRINGSTED Public Fin�ncr Advisors Re RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for the Issuance of $1,185,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998A (the "Bonds") We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the above-named issue. Proceeds will be used to refund the 2001 through 2011 maturities of the City's General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1991A, dated January 1, 1991 (the "Series 1991A Bonds"). The refunding of the Series 1991A Bonds is being done to achieve interest cost savings. Based on current interest rates, the total net savings are estimated at $121,649.70, with a present value savings of approximately $89,429. We recommend the following for the bonds: Action Requested To establish the date and time of receiving bids and establish the terms and conditions of the offering. �- � r 2. Sale Date and Time April 20, 1998 until 10:30 A.M. with award by the City Council at 7:30 P.M. that same day. 3. Authority and Purpose for the Bond /ssue The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 444 and 475. Proceeds will be used to refund the 2001 through 2011 maturities of the Series 1991A Bonds, dated January 1, 1991. C� 5 Principa/ Amount of Offering Repayment Term $1,185,000. Included in the attached Terms of Proposal is a provision that pe�mits the City to increase or reduce the principal in any of the maturities in a total amount not to exceed $150,000. This will allow for any necessary adjustments to fund the escrow account based on final interest rates and issuance costs. Interest payments on the Bonds are due on February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 1998. Principal will be due February 1, 2001 through 2011. 4.03 City of Fridiey, Minnesota March 10, 1998 6. Term Bonds We have included a provision in the attached Terms of Proposal to permit the underwriters to combine multiple maturity years into a term bond, subject to mandatory redemption on the same maturity schedule provided in the Terms of ProposaL The advantage to the City is that it provides underwriters with the flexibility to create a large block of bonds which is more attractive to bond funds and certain pension funds which deal with only large blocks of bonds. Since the Bonds are being offered on a competitive bid basis and � awarded on the lowest true interest'cost, the City will award the Bonds to the best bid regardless of whether term bonds are chosen or not. We have found that underwriters prefer this method because it provides easier sale of the bonds in la�ge blocks, reducing risk and allowing them to lower their costs and interest coupons. 7 � E Source of Payments and Payment Cyc/e Prepayment Provisions Credit Rating Comments The Bonds will be repaid by net operating revenues of the City's water utility. The escrow account, established with the proceeds of this issue, will cover payments due on the bonds through February 1, 2000. Beginning with the August 1, 2000 interest payment, the City will start making payments on the Bonds. The Bonds maturing on or after August 1, 2009 will be callable on August 1, 2008 and any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. We recommend the City apply to Moody's Investors Service for a rating on this issue. The City's is currently rated an "Aa1". 4.04 Page 2 City of Fridley, Minnesota March 10, 1998 10. Federal Treasury Regulations Concerning Tax-Exempt Obligations (a) Bank Qualificafion (b) Rebate Requirements (c) Bona Fide Debt Seivice Fund (d) Economic Life Under Federal Tax Law, financial institutions cannot deduct from income for federal income tax purposes, income expense that is allocable to carrying and acquiring tax- exempt bonds. There is an exemption to this for "bank qualified" bonds, which can be so designated if the issuer does not issue more than $10 million of tax exempt bonds in a calendar year. Issues that are bank qualified receive slightly lower interest rates than issues that are not bank qualified. We understand the City does not expect to issue over $10 million in 1998 and therefore this Issue is designated bank qualified. _. _ All tax-exempt issues are subject to the federal rebate requiremertts, which require all excess earnings created by the financing to be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. The requirements generally cover two categories: bond proceeds and debt service funds. There are exemptions from rebate in both of these categories: However, the City will not owe any rebate from the investment of the proceeds of this refunding issue because the proceeds will be invested in an escrow account at a yield less than the yield on the Bonds. The City must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for the Bonds or be subject to yield restriction or pay back to the federal government excess investment earnings in the debt service fund. A bona fide debt service fund is a fund for which there is an equal matching of revenue to debt service expense, with carry-over permitted equal to the greater of the investment earnings in the fund during that year or 1/12 the debt service of that year. The ayerage life of the combined length of this Issue and the refunding bonds cannot exceed 120% of the economic life of the project to be financed. The economic life of utility system projects averages 40-50 years. The Bonds are therefore within the economic life requirements. 4.05 Page 3 City of Fridiey, Minnesota March 10, 1998 11. Continuing Disclosure 12. Attachments The Bonds are subject to the Securities and Exchange Commission's continuing disclosure requirements. The SEC rules require the City to undertake an annual update of its Official Statement information and report any material evenis to the national repositories. The City is currently under contract with Springsted to assist with meeting continuing disclosure requirements. An addendum to that contract has been included for this Issue. • Refunding Schedules • Terms of Proposal DISCUSSION This Issue is a c�ossover refunding, in which the proceeds of the refunding bonds _(new issue) are placed in an escrow account with a major bank and invested in government securities. These securities and their earnings are structured to pay interest on the new Bonds until the call date of the Series 1991A Bonds (February 1, 2000), at which time the escrow account will cross over and prepay the remaining principal of the Series 1991A Bonds. The City wil! continue to pay the debt seniice on the Series 1991A Bonds until the February 1, 2000 call date. Beginning with the August 1, 2000 payment, the City will cross over and begin to pay debt service on the refunding bonds from net revenues of the City's water utility, taking advantage of the lower annual debt service payments. We have attached a summary of the refunding which shows estimated savings. Page 6 shows the current debt service requirements for the Series 1991A Bonds. Page 7 shows the total principal being refunded on the crossover date of February 1, 2000. Page 8 shows the principal and interest paid by the City until the crossover date for the Series 1991A Bonds. Page 9 shows the principal and estimated interest rates for this new Issue. Page 10 (Column 6) shows the estimated annual savings to the City after the crossover date. All savings are rnet of issuance costs. The Bonds are expected to be sold at a net interest rate of approximately 4.568%, resulting in a total savings to the City, net of all costs of issuance, of approximately $121,649, or a present value savings of approximately $89,429. We will continue to monitor the market between now and the date of sale and keep the City apprised of any adverse interest rate changes. Respectfully submitted, ��r / SPRING TED Incorporate �en Provided to Staff: a) Amendment to Continuing Disclosure Contract 4.os Page 4 City of Fridley, Minnesota G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 Full Crossover Advance Refunding of G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1991 A Even Annual Savings Structure Issuer Funds Required: $0.00 Date of Bonds: 05/01/98 Delivery Date: � 05/15/98 Refunded Call Date: 02/01/2000 ,1 st Callable Date: 02/01 /2001 Comparison: Refunded Refunding Principal: 1,135,000 1,185,000 Bond Years: 9,541.25 9,688.75 Avg. Maturity: 8.406 8.176 NIC: 6.734% 4.568% Total Net Savings: 121,649.70 Present Value Savings: 89,429.00 As % of P.V. Ref. Int.: 22.69°/ As % of P.V. Ref. D/S.: 7.53�/ Prepared: 03/OS/98 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated 4.�7 Page 5 City of Fridley, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1991A Existing Debt Service Date 08/O1/98 02/O1/99 08/Ol/99 02/O1/2000 08/O1/2000 02/O1/2001 08/Ol/2001 02/O1/2002 08/O1/2002 02/O1/2003 08/O1/2003 02/O1/2004 08/O1/2004 02/O1/2005 08/Ol/2005 02/O1/2006 08/O1/2006 02/O1/2007 08/O1/2007 02/O1/2008 08/O1/2008 02/O1/2009 08/O1/2009 02/O1/2010 08/O1/2010 02/O1/2011 Totals Principal 65,000.00 70,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 80,000.00 90,000.00 95,000.00 100,000.00 110,000.00 115,000.00 125,000.00 130,000.00 140,000.00 1,270,000.00 Schedule A Rate Interest 6.1OOo 6.200°s 6.300a 6.400% 6.500`°s 6.5000 6.7000 6.700a 6.8000 6.8000 6.8000 6 . 800°s 6.8000 42,052.50 42,052.50 40,070.00 40,070.00 37,900.00 37,900.00 35,537.50 35,537.50 33,137.50 33,137.50 30,537.50 30,537.50 27,612.50 27,612.50 24,430.00 24,430.00 21,080.00 21,080.00 17,340.00 17,340.00 13,430.00 13,430.00 9,180.00 9,180.00 4,760.00 4,760.00 674,135.00 Bond Years: 9,712.50 Al1 lower calculations Avg. Mat..: 7.648 are mad� `M^m the date NIC.......: 6.724a of the 4 08 ing bo�ds . Prepared: 03/05/98 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Semi-Annual Annual 42,052.50 107,052.50 149,105.00 40,070.00 110,070.00 150,140.00 37,900.00 112,900.00 150,800.G0 35,537.50 110,537.50 146,075.C� 33,137.54 � 113,137.50 146,275.G0 30,537.50 120,537.50 151,075.00 27,612.50 122,612.50 150,225.GQ 24,430.00 124,430.00 148,860.00 21,080.00 131,080.00 152,I60.00 17,340.00 132,340.00 149,680.00 13,430.00 138,430.00 151,860.G0 9, 180.00 139,180.00 148,360.00 4,760.00 144,760.00 149,520.00 1,944,135.00 1,944,135.OQ Refunded Bonds Only Avg. Mat..: 8.406 NIC........ 6.73a Page 6 City of Fridley, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1991A Refunded Principal and any Call Premium i Schedule B Date Principal Premium 02/ol/a000 i,i3s,000.00 Prepared: 03/05/9� By SPRINGSTED Incorporat�c Semi-Annual Annuai 1,135,000.00 1,135,0OO.00 Totals 1,135,000.00 1,135,000.00 1,135,0OO.00 Ca11 Date .............: 02/O1/2000 This portion will be paid by the escrow. First Date Called.....: 02/O1/200' The escrow will also pay the interest or Call Premium..........: 4.O9,he refunding bonds thru the call date. , Page 7 , , City of Fridley, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1991A Non-Refunded Principal and Non-Refunded Interest Schedule C Date Principal Interest 08/O1/98 02/O1/99 08/O1/99 02/O1/2000 65,000.00 70,000.00 Totals 135,000.00 Call Date .............. First Date Called...... Call Premium_.......... 42,052.50 42,052.50 40,070.00 40,070.00 Prepared: 03/OS/9� By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Semi-Annua� 42,052.50 107,052.50 40,070.00 110,070.00: Annua_ 149,105.0C 150,140.0� 164,245.00 299,245.00 299,245.00 02/O1/2000 This portion will be paid by the issuer_ 02/O1/2001 The issuer will also pay debt service on -- rhe refunding bonds after the call date: 4.10 . Pa9e s City of Fridley, Minnesota 1.0. Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 ', ?efunding Debt Service Date 08/O1/98 02/Ol/99 08/Ol/99 02/Ol/2000 08/Ol/2000 �2/O1/2001 �8/O1/2001 02/Ol/2002 08/Ol/2002 02/Ol/2003 08/O1/2003 02/O1/2004 08/OI/2004 02/O1/2005 08/O1/2005 02/Ol/2006 08/O1/2006 02/Ol/2007 08/O1/2007 02/Ol/2008 08/O1/2008 02/O1/2009 08/Ol/2009 02/O1/2010 OS/Ol/2010 02/O1/2011 Principal 90,000.00 85,000.00 90,000.00 100,000.00 105,000.00 105,000.00 115,000.00 115,000.00 125,000.00 125,000.00 130,000.00 Schedule D Rate Interest 3 . 850°s 3.9500 4.0500 4.150a 4.250a 4.300°s 4.4000 4.450°s 4.550a 4.6500 4.7500 12,861.88 25,723.75 25,723.75 25,723.75 25,723.75 25,723.75 23,991.25 23,991.25 22,312.50 22,312.50 20,490.00 20,490.00 18,415.00 18,415.00 16,183.75 16,183.75 13,926.25 13,926.25 11;396.25 11,396.25 8,837.50 8,837.50 5,993.75 5,993.75 3,087.50 3,087.50 Totals 1,185,000.00 430,748.13 Bond Years: 9,688.75 * Paid by escrow. �vg. Mat..: 8.176 All other naycnents ;vzc........ 4.s6ss made by 4 11 issuer. . Prepared: 03/05/98 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Semi-Annual 12,861.88 * 25,723.75 * 25,723.75 * 25,723.75 * 25,723.75 115,723.75 23,991.25 108,991.25 22;312.50 112,312.50 20,490.00 120,490.00 18,415:00 123,415.00 16,183.75 121,183.75 13,926.25 128,926.25 11,396.25 126,396.25 8,837.50 133,837.50 5,993.75 130,993.75 3,087.50 133,087.50 1,615,748.13 Bond Date.: Delivery... Bond Yield: Annual 38,585.63 51,447.50 141,447.50 132,982.50 _ 134,625.00 140,980.00 141,830.00 137,367.50 142,852.50 137,792.50 142,675.00 136,987.50 136,175.00 1,615,748.13 05/O1/98 OS/15/98 4.43307a Page 9 City of Fridley, Minnesota G.O. Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 Annual Savings Analysis Prepared: 03/OS/9R By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Schedule E Non-Refunded Refunding Total New Existing Date Debt Service Debt Service Debt Service Debt Service (1) (2) f3) (4) (5) 08/O1/98 02/O1/99 149,105.00 149,105.00 08/O1/99 02/Ol/2000 150,140.00 150,140.00 08/O1/2000 02/Ol/2001 141,447.50 141,447.50 08/O1/2001 02/O1/2002 132,982.50 132,982.50 08/O1/2002 02/O1/2003 134,625.00 134,625.00 08/Ol/2003 02/O1/2004 140,980.00 140,980.00 OS/O1/2004 - 02/O1/2005 141,830.00 141,830.00 08/Ol/2005 02/Ol/2006 137,367.50 137,367.50 08/O1/2006 02/O1/2007 142,852.50 142,852.50 08/O1/2007 02/O1/2008 137,792.50 137,792.50 08/O1/2008 02/Ol/2009 142,675.00 142,675.00 08/Ol/2009 02/O1/2010 136,987.50 136,987.50 08/O1/2010 02/O1/2011 136,175.00 136,175.00 Totals 299,245.00 Present Value Rate...: Present Value Savings: As °s of P. V. Ref . D/S : 149,105.00 150,140.00 150,800.00 146,075.00 146,275.00 151,075.00 150,225.00 148,860.00 152,160.00 149,680.00 151,860.00 148,360.00 149,520.00 Savings or (Loss) (6) 9,352.50 13;092.50 11,650.00 10,095.00 8,395.00 11,492.50 9,307.50 11,887.50 9,185.00 11,372.50 13-, 345 . 00 � 1,525,715.00 1,824,960.00 1,944,135.00 119,175.00 4.43307a Excess Proceeds.......: 2,474.70 89,429.C"- Funds to Sinking Fund: 7.`4.12 Total Net Savings....: 121,649.70 Page 10 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,185,000' CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1998A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Monday, April 20, 1998, until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (612) 223-3002 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (612) 223-3000 or fax (612) 223-3002 for inctusion in the submitted Proposat. Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated May 1, 1998, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1998. Interest wilt be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2001 $ 90,000 2002 $ 85,000 2003 $ 90,000 2004 $100,000 2005 $105,000 2006 $105,000 2007 $115,000 2008 $115,000 2009 $125,000 2010 $125,000 2011 $130, 000 ' The City reserves the right, after proposa/s are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principa! amount of the Bonds offered for sa/e. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $150,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principa/ amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken by the successful bidder will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of fhe Bonds is increased or reduced. Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds, provided that no serial bond may mature on or after the first mandatory sinking fund redemption date of any term bond. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Last Year of Serial Matu�ities" and "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. 4.13 �� BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple the�eof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2008, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2009. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particula� amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will p�edge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge net revenues of the City's water system. The proceeds will be used to refund in advance of maturity the 2001 through 2011 maturities of the City's General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1991A, dated January 1, 1991. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $1,173,150 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $11,850, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each undenNriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that- Purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to 4.14 Page 12 comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION " If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for tMe Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. 4.15 - - Page 13 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of the actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking whereunder the City will covenant to provide, or cause to be provided, annual financial information, including audited financial statements of the City, and notices of certain material events, as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). -.. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Secu�ities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any_ other information required by law, shall constitute a"Final Official StatemenY' of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or undervvriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after. the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 50 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated March 16, 1998 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ William Champa City Clerk 4.16 Page 14 TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �JQ'�� FROM: RICHARD D. PR/BYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION /NITIATING THE PROCESS FOR THE SALE OF �1,185,000 OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE REFUND/NG BDNDS, SERIES 1998 DATE: March 12, 1998 _ _ Attached is the resolution prepared by the City's Bond Counsel, Jim O'Meara. This resolution is required to be passed by Council to proceed with the above mentioned bond issue. This action would start the process for the competitive sale of the General Obligation Bonds, and provide an appropriate time frame for advertisement and review of the bids. As was reviewed within the recommendations from Springsted, this bond issue is a water revenue refunding issue that will be used to retire the bonds on the call date, February 1, 2001. The source of funds for the repayment of the bonds will be the water revenue generated from the City utility customers. A representative from Springsted will be present at the Council Meeting of April 20, 1998, to present the bids. RDP/me Attachment 5.01 � RESOLUTION N0. - 1998 RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PROCESS FOR THE SALE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1998A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. The Council hereby finds and determines the following: (a) The Council believes it to be in the City's best interest to consider a crossover advance refunding �.� of the City's General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1991A, dated January 1, 1991, issued in the original principal amount of $1,615,000 (the "Prior Bonds") . (b) The Prior Bonds are subject to prepayment on February 1, 2000, at the option of the City at the redemption price of par plus accrued interest. (c) The refunding of the Prior Bonds is consistent with covenants made with the holders thereof and is necessary and desirable for and will result in the reduction of debt service cost to the City. (d) It is necessary and expedient to issue the City's General Obligation Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998A (the "Bonds"), to provide moneys for a refunding of the Prior Bonds. (e) The City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota, as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to sell the Bonds by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). (f) It is necessary and desirable to the sound financial management of the affairs of the City that. the City issue the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota - Statutes, Section 475.67, in order to provide financing for the refundinq described above, and the Council 5.02 RESOLUTION N0. - 1998 PAGE 2 hereby states its intention to authorize and issue the Bonds accordingly. 2. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto, and the Council shall meet at the time and place specified therein for the purposes of opening and considerinq sealed bids for the purchase of the Bonds and considering the award of sale of :the Bonds. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY IOF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1998. _ __.._ ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR 5.03 � � CffY OF FRIDLEY TO: �� DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDIlM The Honorable Mayor and City Council William W. Burns, City Manager ��!�' March 9, 1998 Onan Grant Agreement William W. Burns City Manager Late last year, Council approved an application to the State of Minnesota on behalf of the Onan Corporation for assistance from the Minnesota Investment Fund. Now that the grant has been approved, Fridley is being asked to sign a grant agreement with the State (see attached copy). Under the terms of the agreement, Fridley is responsible for entering into a loan agreement with Onan and for enforcement of the terms of the loan. Under those terms, Onan receives a loan of $360,000 for 5 years at 5 percent interest. The loan will be forgiven at the end of five years if Onan creates 144 new jobs within 2 years, and maintains the 611 positions that existed as of April, 1997, over the 5-year period. Our attorney will work with Onan's attorney to develop the necessary loan agreements and other guarantees necessary to secure the loan. Once these documents are in place and Onan has demonstrated that they have boujht the equipment for which the loan proceeds aze to apply, the City will receive a$360,000 check from the State. The City will then write a check to Onan for the same amount. By signing this agreement, the City also agrees to review periodic progress repoi`ts from Onan and forward them to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. In the event that Onan defaults on any of the terms of the loan, the loan must be repaid. The first $100,000 of unpaid principal and interest are paid to the City. The remaining amount is paid to the State. Staff recommends Council's approval of the grant agreement. WWB:rsc Attachment 6.01 � STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISlON Grant Agreement #CDAP-97-0058-H-FY98 AGENCY VENDOR NUMBER OBJECT CODE TOTAL AMOUNT B221 aa 036786001-00 5360,000 ACCOUNT pISTR18UT10N � ' BFY FUND ORG APPR REPT AMT a BFY FUND ORG APPR REPT AMT _- � BFY FUNO ORG APPR REPT AMT $ This Agreement is made on January 30, 1998, between the State of Minnesota, acting through the Department of Trade and Economic Development (hereinafter the Grantor), and the City of Fridley (hereinafter the Grantee). RECITALS The Grantor has been authorized to administer funds pursuant to Minnesota Statute 116J.8731. The Grantee has made application to the Grantor for a portion of the allocation for the purpose of conducting the project entitled "Onan Corporation" in the manner described in Grantee's "Application, #CDAP-97-0058-H-FY98" (herein the Application) which is incorpo�ated into this agreement by reference. - The recitals are an integral part of this Grant Agreement. In consideration of mutual promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows: The Grantor shall grant to the Grantee the total sum of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($360,000), which shall be state funds appropriated under the N1innesota Investment Fund Program by the State Legislature. The Grantee shall perform the activities that are proposed in the Application and are further specified under Special Conditions during the period from January 30, 1998 through January 30, 2000, in accordance with all other applicable State and Federal laws. Grantee agrees to complete the project in accordance with the approved budget and within the time frames specified in the Grantees Application and this Agreement. Any material change in the scope of the project, budget or completion date must be approved in writing by the Grantor. � 6.�2 Funds made available pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only for expenses incurred in performing and accompiishing such purposes and activities during the grant period described above. Where provisions of the Grantee's Application are inconsistent with other provisions of this Agreement, the other provisions of this Agreement shall take precedence over the provisions of the Application. GENERAL CONDITIONS Accountinp. For all expenditures of funds made pursuant to this Agreement, Grantee shall kesp financial reco�ds, including invoices, contracts, receipts, vouchers, and othe� documents sufficient to evidence in proper detail the nature and propriety of the expenditure. Reoo�tina. Grantee shall submit repo�ts to Grantor in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in Minnesota Rule 4300.3200. Grantee shall use the-forms found ir�- =- - the Implementation Manual provided by the Grantor and submit progress reports for the six- month period ending June 30 and December 31 of each year. Progress reports ar2 due 25 days after the period ending date. Audit and Ins�ection. Accounts and records related to the funds provided under this Agreement shall be accessible to authorized representatives of the Grantor for the purposes of examination and audit. In addition, G�antee will give the State of Minnesota, Department of Trade and Economic Development, Legislative Auditor, and State Auditor's Office, through any authorized representatives, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the grant for inspection and audit. PaymenUDisbursement Schedule. Granto� shall disburse funds to the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement, based upon a payment request submitted by the Grantee and reviewed and approved by the Grantor. Affirmative Action. Grantee is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the disabled and submit the plan to the Commissioner of Human Rights as required by Minnesota Statutes 363.073 Subdivision 1. Notice for Contract and Subcontract. Grantee shall include in any contract or subcontract, in addition to the provisions to define a sound and complete agreement, such provisions as to assure contractor o� subcontractor compliance with applicable state and federal laws. Antitrust. The Grantee hereby assigns to the State of Minnesota any and all claims for overcharges as to goods and/or services provided in connection with this contract resulting from antitrust violations which arise under the antitrust laws of the United States and the antitrust laws of the State of Minnesota. Termination. If the Grantor finds that there has been a faifure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made, or that the purposes for which ° the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled, the Grantor may take action to protect the interests of the State of Minnesota,� including the refusal to disburse additional funds and requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. 6.03 .- Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement shail be in writing, and shali be executed by either the same persons who executed the original agreement, their successor in office, or by those persons authorized by the Grantee through a formal resolution of its governing body. Govemment Data Practices. The Grantee shall comply with the Minnesota Govemment Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 and the Conflict of Interest provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.87 - 471.88. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement shall be binding upon any successors or assignees of the parties. Authorized Agent. The State's authorized agent and contact person responsible for administration of this Agreement is Cheryl Johnson (or successor) of the Department of Trade and Economic Development. 6.04 SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR: Grant Number: CDAP-97-0058-H-FY98 Project Titls: Onan Corporation 1. The Grantee may not request funds from the Grantor for disbursement to Onan Corporation until the Grantee has received invoices for equipment costs. The Grantee must request funds for equipment costs from the Grantor based on specific items of equipment relating to the Alliance Winding equipment as specified in the Grant application (company's letter dated October 24, 1997). 2. The leveraged funds described in the approved Application must be used for the same purposes and under the same terms, rates, and conditions, as specified in the approved application, unless prior written concurrence is received from the G�antor. 3. Grantee must secure from Onan Corporation the necessary documentation that all , project funds have been used for the items and purposes stated in the grant Application, prior to requesting grant closeout from the Grantor. 4. The Grantee shall enter into a Loan Agreement with Onan Corporation (hereafter "Borrower") for Three hundred sixty thousand dolfars ($360,000), to be used for the purposes, conditions and terms as stated in the approved Application, and may not be modified without p�ior written approval from the Grantor. The term of the loan will be 60 months and the interest rate will be 5% for the term of the loan. At the end of the fifth year, $360,000 in principle, and accrued interest, will be #orgiven if the Onan � Corporation has documented that 144 permanent full time positions were created and maintained. In addition 611 existing positions must be maintained until the end of the fifth year for a total of 75� full time empioyees at the end of five years The 144 new jobs must be created by the grant end date of January 30, 2000, and maintained until the end of the five year loan term. 5. Grantee's attorney must review Loan Agreements, promissory notes, security agreements, mortgages, guaranties or other documents, if any, considered necessary by the Grantee to secure the loan to ensure that they are valid, binding and enforceable. Special conditions 8, 9, 10 and 11 included in this Agreement must be incorporated into the Loan Agreement. A copy of the Loan Agreement, promissory note, and amo�tization schedule, and evidence of security filings, must be submitted to the Grantor for review prior to requesting funds. 6. Any principal and interest payments from the loan to Onan Corporation must be used to establish and maintain a revolving loan fund. The Grantee must retain financial control and decision making authority regarding the use of any repayments from the loan. The revolving loan fund policies and procedures must be consistent with the Minnesota Investment Fund Program requirements to further economic development in the community thereby creating or retaining permanent positions. 7. The Grantee will set forth the repayment terms in accordance with the Application in a loan agreement befinreen Onan Corporation and the Grantee. If any repayments are 6.05 E%3 received, the Grantes may retain the repayment of the first $100,000 of principai pius interest. After $100,000 principal has been repaid, ali subsequent payments of principal and interest received by the Grantee would be submitted to the Grantor. The Grantee must include job creation information in each progress report. This information must include: - permanent jobs created -hourly wage - - date employee (s) hired - job title per job -hourly value of benefits - benefits 9. The Grantee must report on permanent job creation until the 144 FTE jobs, all paying in excess of $10.00 hourly, and paying a weighted average hourly wage of $15.70, are created. If those jobs are not c�eated by the Grantee's target date of January 30, 2000, the Grantee will be required to return to the grantor all or a proportional share of the grant funds provided for job creation. Onan Corporation identified a base employment of 611 FT/FTE employees in the Grant Application which must be maintained through-= the end of the five year loan term, in addition to the 144 FT/FTE new jobs created. New job creation can be counted as of April 16, 1997. 10. Minnesota Statutes 116J.991 applies to this project. This statute requires that a business receiving state assistance for economic development or job growth purposes must create a net increase in jobs in Minnesota within two years of receiving the assistance. The faw also requires that the government agency providing the assistance must establish wage level and job creation goals to be met by the Cusiness receiving the assistance. If Onan Corporation fails to meet the wage level and job creation goals as set forth in special condition 9 of this Agresment, the Grantee and/or business must repay the assistance to the Grantor. 11: Onan Ccrporation must list any vacant or new positions with the Commissior�er of - Economic Security or a local service unit operated by a county or counties operating under a joint powers agreement, one or more cities of the first class operating under a joint powers agreement, or a city of the first class. Onan Corporation must sign a First Source Employment Referral Agreement with Economic Security . Minnesota Statute 268.66 requires that a business receiving in excess of $200,000 from the State enter into a First Source Agreement. 6.06 � z z Grant Number: CDAP-97-0058-H-FY98 Project Titie: Onan Corporation Notice to Grantee You are required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 270.66, to provide your Minnesota tax identification number if you do business with the State of Minnesota. This infoRnation may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws. Supplying these numbers could result in action to require you to file state tax retums and pay delinquent state tax liabilities. This contract will not be approved unless these numbers are provided. These numbers will be available to federal and state tax authorities and state personnel involved in the payment of state obligations. Minnesota Tax ID: 8030301 � � Federal Employer ID: 41-6007700 The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge thei� assent to this agreement and agree to_ be bound by its __ terms through their signatures entered below. GRANTEE: I have read and I agree to atl of the above provisions of this agreement. By Title Date gy - Title Date STATE OF MINNESOTA by and through the Department of Trade and Economic Development ey Title Commissioner Date APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: Attorney General's O�ce By �ate ENCUMBERED: Department of Trade and Economic Development BY. Date Encumbered [lndividual signing certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minnesota Statute 16A.] �;zos9s.�o� 6.�7 I m � - RE30LUTSON NO. 110 - 1997 RESOIdTTION OF TSE ('.�ZY OF FRIDLEY, M.rTNNESOTA, AUTHORIZING APPLICAT�:*t BY T� CITY FOR A GRANT ON BEHALF OF ONAN CORPORATZON BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Fridley, Minnesota, act as the "legal sponsor for the project contained in the Business and �Coctununity Develvpment Apolication to be submi.tted on December 15, and that William W. Burns, City Manager, is hereby authorized to apply to the Deoartment of Trade and Economic Development for funding of this project on behalf of Onan Corporation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Fridley, Minnesota, has the legal authority to apply for financ'_al assistance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Onan Corporation has not incurred any costs, has not entered into any written agreements to purchase property.-__,_ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Onan Corporation has not violated any federal, state, or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other uniawful or corrupt practice. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon aoproval of its application by the state, the City of Fridley, Minnesota, may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced project, and that the City of Fridley, Minnesota, certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in all contract agreements and described on the Compliances Section (FP-20) of the Business and Community Development Application. AS APPLICABLE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of :ridley, Minnesota, has obtained credit reeorts and credit info�matio:. frora Onan Co�-poration and its officers. Gpon review by th_ City o: Fridley, Minnesota, and Frederic W. Knaak, City Attorney, no adverse findings or concerns regarding, but not limitad to, tax Iiens, judgments, court actions, and filings with state, federal and other regulatory agencies were identified. Failure to disclose any such adverse information could result in revocation or other legal action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that William W. Burns, City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute sLCh agreements as are necessary to impiement the project on behalf of the applicant. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY TkZS 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997. ATTEST: �� WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY LERh . / : i�.�-� N CY . 07QR S - MAYOR ._ Forms Package Caver Page (FP•i ) �=o� or�« cr� o�: �ar� t�x,ca, rr�a�a: �� I� I g�� [. .�pplicant �arne: City of Fridlev p}�ax; 6I 121 571-3450 A+�2rr.ss: 6431 Universitv Avenue v.E. g�; 6l 121 571-I287 Cour�ry Anoka Ciry/S�ertip: Fridlev, `IMt 55432 • RDC Regioa Number. � Auchaizb OfFcial: Yaacv J. Jor�tenson � tiQY Initiadv+e Fur�d/DT-'...D Region: Ttle: :iavor � • '_. �tinnesoca Taz Idrn�cacan Number: 8030301 Fe�erai F�ripbya Idenditca�o�t Number. 41.-6007700 Financiai Officer. Richard D. Pribvl p}��; � 6121 572-3520 Addr-„a; 5431 University Avenue N.E. . Ciry/StatefZlp: Fridlev. ;Qi 55432 3. Concact P�SOn ar project paxtor. William LT. Bu-ns p}1�- f 6I2) 572-3500 Ad,dr�s; 6431 University Avenue N.E. �: f6121 571-1287 Ciry/State�Zip: _ cridlev, 1�LV 55432 �. ltiame of Application Auttsoc: William W. Burns p��; �, �' Addresz: SA.KE AS ABaVc. F�� U Ciry/StatelLp: S. Type of ApplicadorL �"tO� °f Orh�r Tora! R�qicest.; F�uds: Projea: ��"acr�ic Dcveio�c�eru Pto�am , � S 3 60 , 000 $ 2,140 , 000 $ 2, S00 , 000 _ Public Facilices A�hority _ Small Business Dcvelo�pQ�at Lcsrt Ptogratn _ To�ism I,ow pto�ram _ Small Claat DerdoQmeat Ptv�ram Cheric or�c _Fiaxsia= _Pub�'sc F�acitiaes _Compceher�siv= _ Octks 6• �a to be Saved (Counry, Ciries. TownshiQsj; North Metropolitan Area � � �� S+s�brrtit � ax Mi� DeQ�rm�ac�d'Ibde �d __ _. Devaopma�B�saodCoenmmit� Dexiopmeac � Divisian. S�0 Meacu Sgen, I2i 7dt Placc Fs� Sz P� 6.09 ;1Qt-2146� Psanar6i?1296�S�S aE 1-�800�37-3900 � � � r � CRY OF FRIDIEY CLAIMS MARCH 16, 1998 ClA1MS 79526 - 79783 7.01 � � CfTY OF FRIDIEY LICENSES MARCH 16,1998 Type of License B� Aunroved Bv_: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Convenience Plus Gene Warner David Sallman, 7883 East River Road Public Safety Director Fridley, MN 55432 LIVESTOCK LICENSE Linda and Steve Soderholm Linda Soderholm Ron Julkowski 5336 Fifth Street N.E. Chief Building Official Fridley, MN 55421 PEDDLER, SOLICITOR, TRANSIENT MERCHANT Joseph Wiese Joseph Wiese David Sa11man Asphalt Driveway Co. Public Safety Director 1211 East Hwy 36 St. Paul, MN 55109 RETAIL GASOLINE SALES Convenience Plus Gene Warner R.H. Larson 7883 East River Road Fire Marshall Fridley, NIN 55432 TOBACCO SALES Convenience Plus Gene Warner Ron Julkowski 7883 East River Road Chief Building Official Fridley, MN 55432 8.01 Fees• $45.00 $ 35.00 $ 60.00 $ 60.00 $125.00 3I CfTY OF FRIDLEY Frederic W. Knaak, Esq. Holstad and Larson, P.L.C. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive St. Paul, MN 55110 ESTIMATES MARCH 16,1998 Services Rendered as City Attorney for the Month of February, 1998 .........................................:.......... $ 4,250.00 Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered 301 Fridley Plaza Office Building 6401 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432-4381 Services Rendered as City Prosecuting Attorney for the Month of December, 1997 ....................................... $ 15,837.50 9.01 City of Fridley TO: William W. Bums, City Manager � � FROM: John G. Flora,` Public Works Director DATE: March 16, 1998 SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Management Ordinance (Chapter 407) PW98-059 The Council conducted a public hearing on the Right-of-Way Management Ordinance (Chapter 407) on February 23, 1998 and a first reading on March 2, 1998. At both meetings, representatives from Minnegasco, NSP and Paragon raised a number of issues regarding the ordinance and its fees. After those meetings I met with representatives from Minnegasco, NSP and Paragon Cable and discussed a number of their issues, adding words and deleting some sections of the ordinance. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC)/Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) and the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) have worked on a model ordinance to satisfy the 19971egislative requirements for managing the public right-of-way. The attached ordinance incorporates the League's model and establishes the fees to recoup the City cost associated with the management, administration and inspection of work within the public right-of-way. Recommend the City Council adopt the attached ordinance. Recommend the City Council also approve the summary ordinance to be officially published in the Fridley Focus. JGF:cz Attachment 10.01 ORDINANC$ NO. AN ORDINANC$ R$P$ALING CHAPT$R 407 OF THS FRIDLLY CITY COD]3 IN ITS BNTIRETY, AND ADOPTING A N$W CHAPT$R 407, $NTITL$D "RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGBMMSNT° AND AMENDING CHAPT$R 11 OF THE FRIDL$Y CITY CODE, LNTITL$D "GBNERAL PROVISIONS AND FLSSn ' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 407.01. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE 1. To provide for the health, safety and well-being of its citizens, and to ensure the structural integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-way, the City strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Although the general population bears the financial burden for the upkeep of the rights-of-way, a primary cause for the early and excessive deterioration of its rights-of-way is frequent excavation. Right-of-way obstruction is a source of frustration for merchants, business owners and the general population which must avoid these obstructions or change travel or shopping plans because of them and has a detrimental effect on commerce. Persons whose equipment is within the right-of-way are the primary cause of these frequent obstructions. The City holds the rights-of-way within its geographical boundaries as an asset in trust for its citizens. The City and other public entities have invested millions of dollars in public funds to build and maintain the rights-of-way. It also recognizes that some persons, by placing their equipment in the right-of-way and charging the citizens of the City for goods and services delivered thereby, are using this property held for the public good. Although such services are "often necessary or convenient for the citizens, such persons receive revenue and/or profit through their use of public property. 2. In response to the foregoing facts, the City hereby enacts this new Chapter of the City Code relating to right-of-way permits and administration, together with an ordinance making necessary revisions to other Code provisions. This Chapter imposes reasonable regulations on providers of electricity, light, heat, cooling energy, liquid and gaseous fuels, information and communication service to the public that place and maintain facilities or equipment currently within its rights-of-wa� or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this Chapter, persons disturbing and obstructing the 10.02 rights-of-way will bear a fair share of the financial responsibility for their integrity. Finally, this Chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights-of-way. 3. In addition to the foregoing recovery of costs and regulation of use, the City Council determines that there is an existing and legitimate state and local public policy, which authorizes the City to require payments as reimbursement or return to the public for the use value of the public rights-of-way from those who obtain revenue or profits from such use. This reimbursement is provided for and defined in this ordinance as the "user fee." This fee does not a��lv to the repair re�lacement or reconstruction of an existina fac�i�tv. Telecommunication facilities are exempt from a user fee by state statute. a. Public Interest and Welfare. The City Council finds that it is in the public interes provide for the payment of a user fee by all persons who use occupy the right-of-way for operating their businesses. provides equity by requiring all users of the right-of-way to compensation apportioned equally among them all for the value benefit of using such right-of-way. To ensure such treatment, this Chapter exempts franchise holders which franchise fees to the City on the date of adoption of Chapter from the payment of a user fee. b. Legislative Power. t to and This pay and fair pay this In these situations, the City Council desires to exercise its lawful police power and common law authority, and all statutory authority which is available to it, including but not limited`to, the powers conferred on it under Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.36, 222.37, 237:16 and 300.03, (410.09) and 412.211; subdivisions 6, 23 and 32. The Council finds and determines that the public interest will be best protected by adopting this Chapter conferring the right to occupy the right-of-way in return for payment as authorized by law. c. Not a Rate. The City Council finds and determines that the user fee authorized by this Chapter is not and is not intended to be a rate as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. § 216B.02, Subd. 5. Such user fee is not a fee for a service that is provided to the customer of a person using the right-of-way, but is rather a fee paid for the right of that person to operate in the public right- 10.03 of-way, and to maintain the equipment of a utility in the right- of-way in the City of Fridley. 407.02. DEFINITIONS The following definitions apply in this Chapter of this Code. Reference hereafter to "sections" are unless otherwise specified references to sections in this Chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms whether or not capitalized. a. "Applicant" means any Person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way. b. "City" means the City of Fridley, Minnesota. For purposes of section 407.27, City means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. - -�.�- c. "Construction Performance Bond" means a performance bond, or other form of security posted to ensure the availability of sufficient funds to assure that Right-of-Way Excavation and Obstruction work is completed in accordance with the terms of the Right-of-Way Permit, or other applicable State law or local regulation. d. "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the Right-of-Way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the Right-of-Way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such Right-of-Way earlier than would be required if the excavation did not occur. e. "Degradation Cost" means the cost to achieve a level of restoration as determined by the City at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown_ in plates 1 to 13, set forth in proposed PUC rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. f. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the City to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the Right-of-Way caused by the excavation, and which equals the Degradation Costs. g. "Department" means the Department of Public Works of the City. h. °Department inspector" means any Person authorized by the Director to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this Chapter. � 10.04 _ � i J- ��Director" means the Director of the Department of Public Works of the City, or her or his designee. "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in Right-of-Way construction. k. "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a clear and immediate danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of Facilities in order to restore service to a customer. 1. m. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain Facilities in any Right-of-Way. "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a--Right-of-Wa�.- n. "Excavation Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this Chapter, must be obtained before a Person may excavate in a Right-of-Way. An Excavation Permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the Right-of-Way described in such permit. o. "Excavation Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by an Applicant to cover the costs as provided in Chapter il of this Code. p. "Facility or Facilities" means any tangible asset in the Right-of-Way required to provide Utility Service. q. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such Person or Persons, authorized by a Registrant to accept Service and to make decisions for that Registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this Chapter. r. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the City incurs in managing its Rights-of-Way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering Applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying Right-of-Way permit applications and inspecting job sites s. "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a Right-of- Way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the Right-of-way. t. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit which, pursuant to this Chapter, must be obtained be�ore a Person may obstruct a Right-of-Way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open 10.05 y passage over the specified portion of that Right-of-Way by placing Equipment described therein on the Right-of-Way for the durati�n specified therein. u. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the City by a Permittee to cover the costs as provided in Chapter ll�of this Code. v. "Patch or Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A Patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A Patch is considered full Restoration only when the pavement is included in the City's five year project plan. - --- w. "Pavement" means any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of-way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with asphalt, concrete, aggregate or gravel. x. "Permittee" means any Person to whom a permit to Excavate or Obstruct a Right-of-Way has been granted by the City under this Chapter. y. "Person" means any natural or corporate Person, business association or other business entity including, but not limited to, a partnership, a sole proprietorship, a political subdivision, a public or private agency of any kind, a utility, a successor or assign of any of the foregoing, or any other legal entity. z. "Probation" means the status of a Person that has not complied with the conditions of this Chapter. -- aa. "Probationary Period" means one year from the date that a Person has been notified in writing that they have been put on Probation. bb. "Repair" means the temporary construction work necessary to make the Right-of-Way useable for travel. cc. "Registrant" means any Person who (1) has or seeks to have its Equipment or Facilities located in any Right-of-Way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the Right-of-Way or place its Facilities in the Right-of- Way. 10.06 dd. "Restore or Restoration" means the process by which a Right- of-Way is returned to the sa�e condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. ee. "Restoration Cost" means the amount of money paid to the City by a Permittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 to PUC rules ff. "Right-of-Way" means the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane and public sidewalk in which the City has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements of the City. A Right-of-Way does not include the airwaves above a Right-of-Way with regard to cellular or other nonwire telecommunications or broadcast service. gg. "Right-of-Way Permit" means either the Excavation Permit or the Obstruction Permit, or both, depending -on the context, required by this Chapter. hh. "Service" or "Utility Service" includes but is not limited to (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216B.02, subds. 4 and 6; (2) telecommunications, pipeline, community antenna television, fire and alarm communications, electricity, light, heat, cooling energy, or power services; (3) the services provided by a corporation organized for the purposes set forth in Minn. Stat. § 300.03; (4) the services provided by a district heating or cooling system; and (5) cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Stat. Chapter 238; and a(6) Telecommunication Right-of-Way User as defined in (ii) . - ii. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to Excavate or Obstruct more of the Right-of-Way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. jj. "Telecommunication Rights-of-Way User" means a Person owning or controlling a Facility in the Right-of-Way, or seeking to own or control a Facility in the Right-of-Way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this Chapter, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chapter 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. Section 216B.02 a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minn. Stat. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association 10.07 organized under Telecommunications Chapter. Minn. Stat. Chap. 308A, are not Right-of-Way Users for purposes of this kk. "Unusable Facilities" means Facilities in the Right-of-Way which have remained unused for one year and for which the Registrant is unable to provide proof that it has either a plan to begin using it within the next twelve (12) months or a potential purchaser or user of the Facilities. 11. "User Fee" is the sum of money, payable to the City, by a person using or occupying the Right-of-Way; provided, however, that the City may at its option provide, at any time by ordinance or by amendment thereto, for a greater or different fee applicable to all such persons in an amount and by a method of determination as may be further prov#ded in such ordinance or amendment thereto. 407.03. ADMINISTRATION 1. Responsibility. The Director is the principal City official responsible for the administration of the Rights-of-Way, Right-of-Way Permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The Director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. 2. Franchise: Franchise Supremacy. The City may, in addition to the requirements of this Chapter, require any person which has or seeks to have equipment located in any Right- of-Way to obtain a franchise to the full extent permitted by law now or hereinafter enacted. The terms of any franchise which are in direct conflict with any provision of this Chapter whether granted prior or subsequent to enactment of this Chapter, shall control and supercede the conflicting terms of this Chapter. All other terms of this Chapter shall be fully applicable to all Persons whether franchised or not. 407.4 1 REGISTRATION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OCCUPANCY Registration. Each person who occupies, uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the Right- of-Way or place any Equipment or Facilities in the Right-of-Way, including Persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the Director. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. 10.08 � / 2. Registration Prior to Work. No Person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any Facilities or any part thereof in_ any Right-of-Way without first being registered with the Director. 3. Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a City ordinance permitting Persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the Right-of-Way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the Right-of-Way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this Chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a Person from complying with the provisions of the Minn. Stat. Chapter. 216D, "One call" Law. SECTION 407.05. REGISTRATION INFORMATION 1. Information Required. The information provided to the Director at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: a. Each Registrant's name, Gopher One-Call registration certificate number, address and E-mail address if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. b. The name, address and E-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a Local Representative. The Local Representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the Local Representative in an Emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. c. A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: 1. Verify that an insurance policy has been issued to the Registrant by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self insurance acceptable to the Director; 2. Verifying that the Registrant is insured against claims for Personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents, employees and Permittees, and (ii) 10.09 placement and use of Facilities in the Right-of-Way by the Registrant, its officers, agents, employees and Permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground Facilities and collapse of property; 3. Naming the City as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; 4. Requiring that the Director be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; 5. Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the Director in amounts sufficient to protect the City and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this Chapter. d. The City may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. e. If the Person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate required to be filed under Minn. Stat. § 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. f. A copy of the Person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the Person is lawfully required to have such certificate f�rom said Commission or other state or federaluagency. " 2. Notice of Changes. The Registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the Director information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the Registrant has knowledge of any change. 3. Grant of Right; Payment of User Fee. Any person required to register under Section 407.04, which furnishes utility services or which occupies, uses, or places its equipment in the right-of-way, is hereby granted a right to do so if and only so long as it (1) timely pays the user fee as provided herein, and (2) complies with all other requirements of law. This legal entitlement 10. �0 shall not include use of the right-of-way for purposes not in furtherance of furnishing utility services for which additional authorization is required by this Code or other state or federal law, unless the person pays the user fee for such non-utility service use. Such fee shall be paid to the City in substantially equal (quarterly, semi-annual, annual) installments, subject to adjustment and correction at the conclusion of the calendar year. Such fee shall be paid for all and any part of a calendar year, prorated on a daily basis, during any time period in which the said person uses or occupies the right-of-way to furnish utility serviced, or places, maintains or uses its wires, mains, pipes, or any other facilities or equipment in the right-of-way. This section does not apply to a person which uses and occupies the right-of-way for operating its business when there is a pre-existing franchise agreement between that person and the city and the payment of a franchise fees. Nor does it ap�lv to the re�air re�iacement or rP��narr„er;�n at an existing fac?1?tv. The grant of such right is expressly conditioned on, and is subject to, continuing compliance with all provisions of law, including this Chapter. 407.06. REPORTING OBLIGATIONS 1. Operations. Each Registrant proposing to work in the city shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground Facilities with the Director. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the Director and shall contain the information determined by the Director to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of Excavations and Obstructions of Rights-of-Way.. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: a. The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all Projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this section, a"Next-year Project"); and b. To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all Projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a "Five-year Project"). 10.11 The term "project" in this section shall include both Next-year Projects and Five-year Projects. By January 1 of each year the Director will have available for inspection in the Director's office a composite list of all Projects of which the Director has been informed in the annual plans. Al1 Registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by February l, each-Registrant may change any Project in its list of Next-year Projects, and must notify the Director and all other Registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Registrant may at any time join in a Next-year Project of another Registrant listed by the other Registrant. 2. Additional Next-year Projects. � Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director will not deny an applicat'ion for a Right-of-Way Permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the City if the Registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. SECTION 407.07. PERMIT REQUIREMENT 1. Permit Required. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, no Person may Obstruct or Excavate any Right-of-Way without first having obtained the appropriate Right-of-Way Permit from the Director to do so. a. Excavation Permit. An Excavation Permit is required by a Registrant to excavate that part of the Right-of-Way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the Right-of-Way by placing Facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. b. Obstruction Permit. An Obstruction Permit is required by a Registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of Right-of-Way by placing Equipment described therein on the Right-of-Way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An Obstruction Permit is not required if a Person already possesses a valid Excavation Permit for the same project. 10.12 2. Permit Extensions. No Person may Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless such Person (i) makes a Supplementary Application for another Right-of-Way Permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. 3. Delay Penalty. : Notwithstanding subd. 2 of this section, the City shall establish and impose a Delay Penalty for unreasonable delays not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable in Right-of-Way Excavation, Obstruction; Patching,��ar Restoration. The Delay Penalty shall be established from time to time by City Council resolution. 4. Permit Display. , Permits issued under this Chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the Director. SECTION 407.08. PERMIT APPLICATIONS Application for a permit is made to the Director. Right-of-Way Permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with the requirements of the following provisions. a. Registration with the Director pursuant to this Chapter; b. Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed Facilities. c. Payment of money due the City for 1. permit fees, estimated Restoration Costs and other Management Costs; 2. prior Obstructions or Excavations; 3. any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the City because of Applicant's prior excavations or Obstructions of the rights-of-way or any Emergency actions taken by the City; 10.13 4. franchise or user fees, if applicable. d. Payment of disputed amounts due the City by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110� of the amount owing. e. When an Excavation Permit is requested for purposes of installing additional Facilities, and the posting of a Construction Performance Bond for the additional Facilities is insufficient, the posting of an additional or larger Construction Performance Bond for the additional Facilities may be required. SECTION 407.09. ISSUANCE OF PERMIT; CONDITIONS 1. Permit Issuance. If the Applicant has satisfied the requirements of this Chapter, the Director shall issue a permit. 2. Conditions. The Director may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the Applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of- way and its current use. SECTION 407.10. PERMIT FEES 1. Excavation Permit Fee. The Excavation Permit Fee shall be established by the Director in..an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: a. the City Management Costs; b. Degradation Costs, if applicable. 2. Obstruction Perm�.t Fee. The Obstruction Permit Fee shall be established by the Director and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the City Management Costs. 10.14 3. Payment of Permit Fees. a. No Excavation Permit or Obstruction Permit shall be issued without payment of Excavation or Obstruction Permit Fees. The City may allow Applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. b. Applicants obtaining Anoka County Highway or Minnesota Department of Transportation excavation permits for facilities in their Rights-of-Way must obtain a city excavation permit also. The city permit fee shall be reduced by one-half that established in Chapter il of this code. 4. Non refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the Director has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 407.20 are not refundable. 5. Waiver of Fees. Payment of fees, as identified in this Chapter, with the exception of restoration costs, for water and/or sanitary sewer connections to property in the city are waived. However Registration and the Right- of-way Permit application must be submitted and approved by the city prior to commencement of my work. SECTION 407.11. RIGHT-OF-WAY PATCHING AND RESTORATION I 1. Timing. The work to be done under the Excavation Permit, and the Patching and Restoration of the Right-of-Way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the Permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 407.14. 2. Patch and Restoration. Permittee shall Patch its have the Permittee restore itself. a. City Restoration. own work. The City may choose either to the Right-of-Way or to Restore pavement If the City restores the pavement, Permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, during the twenty-four (24) months following such Restoration, the pavement settles due to Permittee's improper backfilling, the Permittee 10.15 shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with having to correct the defective work. b. Permittee Restoration. If the Permittee Restores the Right-of-Way itself, the Director may require at the time of application for an Excavation Permit post a Construction Performance Bond in an amount determined by the Director to be sufficient to cover the cost of Restoration. If, within twenty-four (24) months after completion of the Restoration of the Right-of-Way, the Director determines that the Right-of-Way has been properly Restored, the surety on the Construction Performance Bond shall be released. 3. Standards. The Permittee shall perform Patching and Restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the Director. The Director shall have the authority to prescribe the manner and extent of the Restoration, and may do so in written procedures of general application or on a case-by-case basis. The Director in exercising this authority shall comply with PUC standards for Right-of-Way Restoration and shall further be guided by the following considerations: . a. The number, size, depth and duration of the excavations, disruptions or damage to the Right-of-Way; b. The traffic volume carried by the Right-of-Way; the character of the neighborhood surrounding the Right-of-Way; c. The pre-excavation condition of the Right-of-Way; the remaining life-expectancy of the Right-of-Way affected by.- the excavation; c�. Whether the relative cost of the method of restoration to the Permittee is in reasonable balance with the prevention of an accelerated depreciation of the right-of-way that would otherwise result from the excavation, disturbance or damage to the Right-of-Way; and e. The likelihood that the particular method of restoration would be effective in slowing the depreciation of the Right- of-Way that would otherwise take place. 10.16 4. Guarantees. By choosing to Restore the Right-of-Way itself, the Permittee guarantees its work and shall maintain it for twenty-four (24) months following its completion. During this 24-month period it shall, upon notification from the Director, correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the Director. Said . work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the Director, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 407.14. 5. Obligation. Construction triggers an obligation of the right-of-way user that the right-of-way restoration be completed according to the conditions set forth in this Chapter. The right-of-way user also assumes responsibility for "as built" drawings and for repairing facilities or structures, including right-of-way that was damaged during facility installation. The obligation is limited to one year for plantings and turf establishment. 6. Failure to Restore. If the Permittee fails to Restore the Right-of-Way in the manner and to the condition required by the Director, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all Restoration required by the Director, the Director at its option may do such work. In that event the Permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of Restoring the Right-of-Way. If Permittee fails to pay as required, the City may exercise its rights under the Construction Performance Bond. 7. Degradation Cost in Lieu of Restoration. In lieu of Right-of-Way Restoration, a Right-of-Way user may eiect to pay a Degradation Fee with the approval of the Director. However, the Right-of-Way User shall remain responsible for Patching and the Degradation Fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. . 10.17 � SECTION 407.12. JOINT APPLICATIONS 1. Joint Application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to Excavate or Obstruct the Right-of-Way at the same place and time. J 2. With City Projects. Registrants who join in a scheduled Obstructian or Excavation performed by the Director, whether or not it is a joint application by two or more Registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the Obstruction and Degradation portions of the permit fee. _ 3. Shared Fees. Registrants who apply for permits for the same Obstruction or Excavation, which the Director does not perform, may share in the payment of the Obstruction or Excavation Permit Fee. Registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. SECTION 407.13. SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATIONS 1. Limitation on Area. A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the area of the Right-of-Way specified in the permit. No Permittee may obstruct or do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any Permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be Obstructed or Excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. �� 2. Limitation on Dates. A Right-of-Way Permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No Permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a Permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This Supplementary Application must be done before the initial permit end date. 10.18 SECTION 407.14. OTHER OBLIGATIONS 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining a Right-of-Way Permit does not relieve Permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the City or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A Permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including Minn. Stat. §§ 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System"). A Permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the Right-of-Way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. 2. Prohibited Work. Except in an Emergency, and with the approval of the Director, no Right-of-Way Obstruction or Excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. 3. Interference with Right-of-Way. A Permittee shall not so Obstruct a Right-of-Way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the Right-of-Way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with City parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. SECTION 407.15. DENIAL OF PERMIT The Director may deny a permit for.failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this Chapter or if the Director determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its current use. l. Mandatory Denial. Except in an emergency, no right-of-way permit will be granted. a. To any person required by Section 407.04 to be registered who has not done so; b. To any person required by Section 407.06 to file an annual report but has failed to do so; 10.19 c. To any person who has failed within the past two (2) years to comply, or is presently not in full compliance, with the requirements of this Chapter. d. To any person as to whom there exists grounds for the revocation of a permit under Section 407.20 or P e. If, in the discretion of the Director, the issuance of a permit for the particular date and/or time would cause a conflict or interfere with an exhibition, celebration, festival, or any other event. The Director, in exercising this discretion, shall be guided by the safety and convenience of ordinary travel of the public over the right- of-way, and by considerations relating to the public health, safety and welfare. 2. Permissive Denial. The Director may.deny a permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to prevent interference with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel over the right-of-way, or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its users. The Director, in her or his discretion, may consider one or more of the following factors: a. the extent to which right-of-way space where the permit is sought is available; b. the competing demands for the particular space in the right- of -way; c. the availability of other locations in the right-of-way or in other rights-of-way for the equipment of the permit applicant; : - d. the applicability of ordinance or other regulations of the right-of-way that affect location of equipment in the right- of -way; _ e. the degree of compliance of the applicant with the terms and conditions of its franchise, this Chapter, and. other applicable ordinances and regulations; f. the degree of disruption to surrounding communities neighborhoods and businesses that will result from the use of that part of the right-of-way; g. the condition and age of the right-of-way, and whether and when it is scheduled for total or partial reconstruction; and 10.20 - � � � h. the balancing of the costs of disruption to the public and damage to the right-of-way, against the benefits to that part of the public served by the expansion into additional parts of the right-of-way. 3. Discretionary Issuance. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section subd. 1, the Director may issue a permit in any case where the permit is necessary (a) .to prevent substantial economic hardship to a customer of the permit applicant, or (b) to allow such customer to materially improve its utility service, or (c) to allow a new economic development project, or otherwise required by law; and where the permit applicant did not have knowledge of the hardship, the plans for improvement of service, or the development project when said applicant was required to suT�mit its list of Next-year Projects. 4. Permits for Additional Next-year Projects. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section subd. 1 above, the Director may issue a permit to a registrant who was allowed under Section 407.07 Subd. 2, to submit an additional Next-year Project, such permit to be subject to all conditions and requirements of law, including such conditions as may be imposed under Section 407.09. SECTION 407.16. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS The excavation, backfilling, patching, repair, and restoration, and all other work performed in the Right-of-Way shall be done in conformance with Engineering Standards adopted by the PUC or other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with PUC Rules. SECTION 407.17. INSPECTION 1. Notice of Completion. Unless waived by the city, a person designated by the right-of-way user as a responsible employee shall sign a completion certificate showing the completion date for the work performed, identifying the installer and designer of record, and certifying that work was completed according to the requirements of the city. If necessary due to approved changes for the work the permit was applied for, the permittee shall drawings or maps within six months of completing the deviations from the plan that are greater than plus 10.21 as projected when submit "as built" work, showing any or minus two feet. The city shall respond ;within 30 days of receipt of the completion certificate. Failure to approve or disapprove the permittee's performance within 30 days is deemed to be approval by the city. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work-site available to the Director and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. 3. Authority of Director. a. At the time of inspection the Director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or weTl-being of the public. b. The Director may issue an order to the Permittee for any work which does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (l0) days after issuance of the order, the Permittee shall present proof to the Director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the Director may revoke the permit pursuant to Section 407.20. SECTION 407.18. WORK DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT 1. Emergency Situations. Each Registrant shall immediately notify the Director of any event regarding its Facilities which it considers to be an Emergency. The Registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the Emergency. Within two business days after the occurrence of the Emergency the Registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this Chapter for the actions it took in response to the Emergency. If the Director becomes aware of an Emergency regarding a Registrant's Facilities, the Director will attempt to contact the Local Representative of each Registrant affected, or potentially affected by the Emergency. In any event, the Director may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the Emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the Registrant whose Facilities occasioned the Emergency. 10.22 2. Non-Emergency Situations. Except in an Emergency, any Person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, Obstructs or Excavates a Right-of-Way must subsequently obtain a permit, and as a penalty pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required b� the Legislative Code, deposit with the Director the fees necessary to correct any damage to the. Right-of-Way and comply with all of the _ requirements of this Chapter. SECTION 407.19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTIFICATION If the Obstruction or Excavation of the Right-of-Way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, Permittee shall notify the Director of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. �- --__ SECTION 407.20. REVOCATION OF PERMITS 1. Substantial Breach. The City reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any Right- of-Way Permit, without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by Permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: a. The violation of any material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit; b. An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the Right-of-Way Permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the City or its citizens; � c. Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a Right-of-Way Permit; d. The failure to complete the work in a timely manner; unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due:.to reasons beyond the Permittee's control; or e. The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an Order issued pursuant to Section 407.16. 10.23 , � 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the Director determines that the Permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit the Director shall make a written demand upon the Permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will. allow the Director, at his or her discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and rem�dy the breach. 3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, Permittee shall provide the Director with a plan, acceptiable to the Director, that will cure the breach. Permittee's� failure to� so contact the Director, or the Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Further, Permittee's failure to so contact the Director, or the Permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or Permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one (1) full year. 4. Cause for Probation. From time to time, the Director may establish a list of conditions of the permit, which if breached will automatically place the Permittee on Probation for one full year, such as, but not limited to, working out of the allotted time period or working on Right-of-Way grossly outside of the permit authorization. 5. Automatic Revocation. If a Permittee, while on Probation, commits a breach as outlined above, Permittee's permit will automatically be revoked and Permittee will not be allowed further permits for one full year, except for Emergency repairs. 6. Reimbursement of City Costs. _ If a permit is revoked, the..Permittee shall also reimburse the City for the City's reasonable costs, including Restoration Costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. - - 10.24 � t SECTION 407.21. MAPPING DATA 1. Information Required. Each Registrant shall provide Mapping information required by the Director to include the following information: a. location and approximate depth of applicant's mains, cables, conduits, switches, and related equipment and facilities, with the location based on: 1. offsets from property lines, distances from the centerline of the public right—of-way, and curb lines as determined by the city; or __ ___ 2. coordinates derived from the coordinate system being used by the city; or 3. any other system agreed upon by the right-of-way user and city; b. the type and size of the utility; c. a description showing above-ground appurtenances; d. a legend explaining symbols, characters, abbreviations, scale, and other data shown on the map; and e. Mapping data shall be provided with the specificity requested by the Director for inclusion in the mapping system used by the city. 2. Submittal Requirement. a. Within six (6) months after the acquisition, installation, or construction of additional equipment or any relocation, abandonment, or disuse of existing equipment, each registrant shall submit.the Mapping Data required herein. b. Within two (2) years after the date of passage of this Chapter, all right-of-way users shall submit detailed plans as may be reasonable and practical for all facilities and equipment installed, used or abandoned within the public right-of-way. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mapping Data shall be submitted by all Registrants for all equipment which is to be installed or constructed after the date of passage of this 10.25 Chapter at the time any permits are sought under these ordinances. d. Six (6) months after the passage of this Chapter, a new Registrant, or a Registrant which has not submitted a plan as required above, shall submit complete and accurate Mapping Data for all its equipment at the time any permits are sought under these ordinances. 3. Telecommunication Equipment. Information on existing facilities and equipment of telecommunications right-of-way users need only be supplied in the form maintained by the telecommunications right-of-way user. 4. Trade Secret Information. � -�� At the request of any Registrant, any information requested by the Director, which qualifies as a"trade-secret" under Minn. Stat. § 13.37(b) shall be treated as trade secret information as detailed therein. SECTION 407.22. LOCATION OF FACILITIES 1. Undergrounding. Unless otherwise permitted by an existing franchise or Minn. Stat. § 216B.34 or unless existing above-ground Facilities are upgraded, repaired or replaced, new construction and the installation of new Facilities and replacement of old Facilities shall be done underground ` or contained within buildings or other structures in conformity with applicable codes unless waived by the Director for good cause shown. 2. Corridors. The Director may assign specific corridors within the Right-of-Way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of Facilities that is or, pursuant to current technology, the Director expects will someday be l.ocated within the Right-of-Way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the Director involving the installation or replacement of Facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the Facilities at issue. Any Registrant who has Facilities in the Right-of-Way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the Director shall, no later than at the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of`the area where the Facilities are located, move the Facilities to the assigned position within the Excavation of the Right-of-Way, unless this requirement is waived by the Director for good cause shown, upon 10.26 � consideration of such factors as the remaining economic life of the Facilities, public safety, customer Service needs and hardship to the Registrant. 3. Limitation of Space. To protect public health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the Right-of-Way and its current use, the Director shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional Facilities within the Right-of-Way. In making such decisions, the Director shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the Right-of-Way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular Utility Service, the condition of the Right-of-Way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing Facilities in the Right-of-Way, and future City plans�for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. SECTION 407.23. RELOCATION OF FACILITIES A Registrant must promptly and at its own expense, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, permanently remove and relocate its Facilities in the Right-of-Way whenever the Director for good cause requests such removal and relocation, and shall restore the Right-of- Way to the same condition it was in prior to said removal or relocation. The Director may make such request to prevent interference by the Company's Equipment or Facilities with (i) a present or future City use of the Right-of-Way, (ii) a public improvement undertaken by the City, (iii) an economic development project in which the City has an interest or investment, (iv) when the public health, safety and welfare require it, or (v) when necessary to prevent interference with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel over the Right-of-Way. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Person shall not be required to remove or relocate its Facilities from any Right-of-Way which has been vacated in favor of a non-governmental entity unless and until the reasonable costs thereof are first paid to the Person therefor. - SECTION 407.24. PRE-EXCAVATION FACILITY AND FACILITIES LOCATION In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. §§ 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System") before the start date of any Right-of-Way excavation, each Registrant who has Facilities or Equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and approximate vertical placement of all said Facilities. Any Registrant whose Facilities is less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the 10.27 excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its Facilities and the best procedure for excavation. SECTION 407.25. DAMAGE TO OTHER FACILITIES When the Director does work in the Right-of-Way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a Registrant's Facilities to protect it, the Director shall notify the Local Representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that Registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any Facilities in the Right-of-Way which it or its Facilities damages. Each Registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the Facilities of another Registrant caused during��he City's response to an Emergency occasioned by that Registrant's Facilities. SECTION 407.26. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 1. Reservation of Right. If the City vacates a Right-of-Way which contains the Facilities of a Registrant, and if the vacation does not require the relocation of Registrant's or Permittee's Facilities, the City shall reserve, to and for itself and all Registrants having Facilities in the vacated Right- of-Way, the right to install, maintain and operate any Facilities in the vacated Right-of-Way and to enter upon such Right-of-Way at any time for the purpose of reconstructing, inspecting; maintaining or repairing the same. 10.28 2. Relocation of Facilities. If the vacation requires the relocation of Registrant's or Permittee's Facilities; and (i) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the Registrant or Permittee, the Registrant or Permittee must pay the relocation costs; or (ii) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by the City, the Registrant or Permittee must pay the relocation costs unless otherwise agreed to by the City and the Registrant or Permittee; or (iii) if the vacation proceedings are initiated by a Person or Persons other than the Registrant or Permittee, such other Person or Persons must pay the relocation costs. SECTION 407.27. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY By registering with the Director, or by accepting a permit under -this Chapter, a Registrant or Permittee agrees as follows: 1. Limitation of Liability. By reason of the acceptance of a registration or the grant of a Right- of-way Permit, the City does not assume any liability (i) for injuries to Persons, damage to property, or loss of Service claims by parties other than the Registrant or the City, or (ii) for claims or penalties of any sort resulting from the installation, presence, maintenance, or operation of Facilities by Registrants or activities of Registrants. 2. Indemnification. A Registrant or Permittee shall indemnify, keep; and hold the City free and harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to Persons or damage to property occasioned by the issuance of permits or by the construction, maintenance, repair, inspection or operation of Registrant's or Permittee's Facilities located in the Right-of-Way. The City shall not be indemnified for losses or claims occasioned through its own negligence except for losses or claims arising out of or alleging the local government unit's negligence as to the issuance of permits or inspections to ensure permit compliance. The City shall not be indemnified if the injury or damage results from the performance in a proper manner of acts that the Registrant or Permittee reasonably believes will cause injury or damage, and the performance is nevertheless ordered or directed by the City after receiving notice of the Registrant's or Permittee's determination. 3. Defense. If a suit is brought against the City under circumstances where the Registrant or Permittee is required to indemnify, the Registrant or 10.29 � Permittee, at its sole cost and expense, shall defend the City in the suite if written notice of the suite is promptly given to the Registrant or Permittee within a period in which the Registrant or Permittee is not prejudiced by the lack or delay of notice. If the Registrant or Permittee is required to indemnify and defend, it shall thereafter have control of the litigation, but the Registrant or Permittee may not settle the litigation without the consent of the City. Consent will not be unreasonably withheld. This part is not, as to third parties, a waiver of any defense, immunity, or damage limitation otherwise available to the City. In defending an action on behalf of the City the Registrant or Permittee is entitled to assert in an action every defense, immunity, or damage limitation that the City could assert in its-own behalf.�- SECTION 407.28. ABANDONED AND UNtTSABLE FACILITIES _ 1. Discontinued Operations. A Registrant who has determined to discontinue its operations in the City must either: a. Provide information satisfactory to the Director that the Registrant's obligations for its Facilities in the Right-of- Way under this Chapter have been lawfully assumed by another Registrant; or b. Submit to the Director a proposal and instruments for transferring ownership of its Facilities to the City. If a Registrant proceeds under this clause, the City may, at its option: 1. purchase the Facilities; or 2. require the Registrant, at its own expense, to remove it; or 3. require the Registrant to post a bond in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for reasonably anticipated costs to be incurred in removing the Facilities. 2. Abandoned Facilities. Facilities of a Registrant who fails to comply with subd. 1 of this Section, and which, for two (2) years, remains unused or one year after the passage of this Chapter, any Facilities found in a Right-of- 10.30 . ; Way that have not been Registered with the city shall be deemed to be abandoned. Abandoned Facilities is deemed to be a nuisance. The City may exercise any remedies or rights it has as law or in equity, including, but not limited to, (i) abating the nuisance, (ii) taking possession of the Facilities and restoring the Right-of-Way to a useable condition, or (iii) requiring removal of the Facilities by the Registrant, or the Registrant's successor in interest. 3. Removal. Any Registrant who has unused, unusable and abandoned Facilities in any Right-of-Way shall remove it from that Right-of-Way within and during the next scheduled excavation, unless this requirement is waived by the Director. SECTION 407.29. APPEAL a. A Right-of-Way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had a permit revoked; or (4) believes that the fees imposed are invalid, may have the denial, revocation, or fee imposition reviewed, upon written request, by the City Council. The City Council shall act on a timely written request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A decision by the City Council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. b. Upon affirmation by the City Council of the denial, revocation, or fee imposition, the Right-of-Way User shall have the right to have the matter resolved by binding arbitration if agreed to by_the city. Binding arbitration must be before an arbitrator agreed to by both the City Council and Right-of-Way User. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the matter must be resolved by a three- person arbitration panel made up of one arbitrator selected by the City, one arbitrator selected by the Right-of-Way User and one selected by the other two arbitrators. The costs and fees of a single arbitrator shall be borne equally by the City and Right-of-Way User. In the event there is a third arbitrator, each party shall bear the expense of its own arbitrator and shall jointly and equally bear with the other party the expense of the third arbitrator and of the arbitration. 10.31 SECTION 407.30. RESERVATION OF REGULATORY AND POLICE POWERS A Permittee's or Registrant's rights are subject to the regulatory and police powers of the City to adopt and enforce general ordinances - necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. SECTION 407.31. SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional,by any court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be,deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. If a regulatory body or a court of competent jurisdiction should determine by a final, non-appealable order that any peitriit, right or registration issued under this Chapter or any portions of this Chapter is illegal or unenforceable,.then any such permit, right or registration granted or deemed to exist hereunder shall be considered as a revocable permit with a mutual right in either party to terminate without cause upon giving sixty (60) days written notice to the other. _ The requirements and conditions of such a revocable permit shall be the same requirements and conditions as set forth in the permit, right or registration, respectively, except for conditions relating to the term of the permit and the right of termination. Nothing in this Chapter precludes the City from requiring a franchise agreement with the Applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. CHAPTER 11, GENER.AL PROVISIONS AND FEES Section 11.10 "Fees" is amended to include the following: 407.04 Registration Fee 407.07 Excavation Permit 407.07 Obstruction Permit 407.07 407.07 Permit Extension Delay Penalty 10.32 $22.50 $520.00 plus length of hole or trench - 30 ft x $1.75 $240.00 - plus average annual daily traffic (ADT) x number of lanes impacted divided by street lanes x 10% factor $75.00 Permit extension fee plus $100.00 penalty 407.11 Degradation Cost 407.05 User Fee (Residential, commercial or industrial) 10.33 Pavement cost per square foot x 50� factor x 12 foot lane width per foot of lane impacted Land value x 10� acquisition cost x 50� non-exclusive use x area of impact ORDINANCE SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY I. Title: An Ordinance Repealing Chapter 407 of the Fridley City Code in its Entirety and Adopting a New Chapter 407 Entitled "Right-of-way Management" and Amending Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code Entitled General Provision and Fees. IL Summary. The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby ordain as follows: The ordinance implements the 1997 Minnesota Legislative law contained in Chapter 123 regarding the management of the public rights-of-way. The purpose of the ordinance is to outline the registrarion and permitting requirements as well as coordinating projects providing for recording and mapping of utilities placed within the public rights-of-way and identifying those condirions associated with restoring the rights-of-way. The ordinance holds the rights-of-way within the geographic boundaries of the city as an asset and �ust for its citizens. The city and other public entities have invested millions of dollars in public funds to build and maintain the rights-of-way. It also recognizes that some persons by placing their equipment in the rights-of-way and charging the citizens of the city for goods and services delivered thereby are using this property held for the public good, although said services are often necessary or are convenient for citizens, such persons receive revenue and/or profit through their use of public property. In these situations the City Council desires to exercise its lawful police power and common law authority and all statutory authority which is available to it including but not limited the powers conferred upon it by Minnesota statutes 216B.36, 22237, 237.16 and 300.03 (410.09) and 412.211 subdivision 6, 23 and 32. The Council finds and determines that the public interest would be best protected by adopting this chapter conferring the right to occupy the rights-of-way in return for payment as authorized by law. The ordinance describes the process to register for work within the rights-of-way, the permit application process and fees necessary to recoup the cost for administering and managing the rights-of-way as well as establishing the repair and restoration standards to ensure that the rights-of-way is restored to the same condition prior to any excavations or work. It also authorizes the process for denying permits, revocation of permits, establishment of process for emergency work, as well as locating facilities and relocating facilities within the rights-of-way as well as for the collection of fees. ' III. This title and summary have been published to clearly inform he public of the intent and effect of the City of Fridley's rights-of-way ordinance. A copy of the ordinance in its entirety is available for inspection by any person during regular business hours at the offices of the City Clerk of the City of Fridley, 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN 55432. Passed and Adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley the 16�' day of March, 1998. Public Hearing: First reading - March 2, 1998 Second reading - March 16, 1998 Publication: March 19, 1998 10.34 City of Fridley TO: William W. Burns, City Manager� �" FROM: John G. Flora!�Public Works Director DATE: March 16, 1998 SUBJECT: Old Central No Parking PW98-062 In finalizing the drawings and specifications and documentation for the TH 65, CSAH 3_5,. Lake Pointe intersection project, it was identified that a"no parking" resolution is required but has not been adopted for that segment of CSAH 35 (Old Central) portion of the project. To expedite the approval process and to obtain federal and state funding participation, a no parking resolution by the County is required for that portion of the project or 350 meters north of TH 65. CSAH 35 currently has no parking restrictions on both sides of the roadway, but there has been no official resolution by the County or City to support this signage. Accordingly, Anoka County must adopt a resolution as they have jurisdiction for this road. For the County to officially establish a resolution, the City is required to take a formal position on a no parking ban. • The attached resolution officially requests the County Commissioners to designate that portion of CSAH 35 for 350 meters north of TH 65 as a no parking area. - Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution. JGF:cz Attachment 11.01 R$SOLIITION NO. - 1998 RESOLUTION R$QUESTING NO PARKING ON CENTRAL A�TSNU$ 350 METERS NORTH OF TRIINK HIGHWAY 65 WHEREAS, the City in conjunction with the Anoka County Highway Department, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration are jointly developing an improvement project for Trunk Highway 65 and CSAH 35 (Old Central) and Lake Pointe Drive, and WHEREAS, the state and federal requirements for trunk and county highways require no parking resolutions if parking lanes`are nat provided on the road, and WHEREAS, the improvement of CSAH 35 for that segment 350 meters north of Trunk xighway 65 does not have sufficient space for parking because of the residential properties and Moore Lake, and WHEREAS, to obtain funding for this project, a no parking designation is necessary, and WHEREAS, the Cit� must officially request the county to post no. parking on CSAH 35, and WHEREAS, there currently exists no parking on CSAH 35 in this area but the City has not officially taken action on this item. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, request that the Anoka County Commissioners approve a no parking ban on CSAH 35 for the 350 meters north of Trunk Highway 65. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 1998. ATTEST: WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK NANCY J. JORGENSON, MAYOR 11.02 ■ ai,, ;?� � �/ ~4\,� �� : , � :;��. � ��, Fridley Police Department Memorandum �� To: William W. Burns;� From: Dave Saliman �'� 1 Date: March 11, 1998 Re: Deer Harvest-Waterworks Minneapolis Waterworks personnel contacted us in early 1997 concerning a;deer population problem in their compound at 4500 East River Road. They were interested in reduction of the herd. Staff made some recommendations at that time concerning the use of sharpshooters. The herd is estimated to be about 30 deer in an area that will support only 1 or 2 according to Department of Natural Resource standards. ._ _. ._. A meeting was held in August-September of 1997 which included Waterworks personnel, Fridley staff and a representative from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Waterworks staff presented a plan using the "Metro Bowhunters Resource Base". Employees at the Waterworks had apparently rejected the concept of using firearms within the compound. Staf£ requested an indemnification agreement from the City of Minneapolis. It has been provided and has been reviewed by City Attorney Knaak. Staff also made some recommendations to the plan in the interest of safety. The safety recommendations have been included in the plan. The plan along with proposed rules should provide a reasonably safe harvest to those outside of the compound. Representatives from the Minneapolis Waterworks and DNR will be present at the March 16`�, 1998 Council Meeting to answer questions. Staff believes that the attached resolution approving the "Minneapolis Waterworks Deer Population Management Plan" provides for the safety of those outside of the compound and along with the indemnification agreement satisfies the interests of the City of Fridley. Staff recommends approval. 12.01 RESOLUTION NO. - 1998 RESOLUTION APPROVZNG AND ADOPTING A DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TiiE MINNEAPOLIS WATERWORRS WHEREAS, a proposed Deer Population Management Plan (Plan) has been presented to and reviewed by the City Council of Fridley, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, the proposed Plan would have as an objective to limit a population level of two deer at The Minneapolis Waterworks, and WHEREAS, The City of Minneapolis will oversee and direct the specific harvest as outlined in the Plan, and WHEREAS, The City of Minneapolis has provided an indemnification agreement for the City of Fridley holding the same harmless from any suits rising from any damages of the deer harvest; �- '�� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves and adopts the Deer Population Management Plan as presented, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that permission is granted to harvest deer within the confines of the Minneapolis Waterworks as is noted in the Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 1998. ATTEST: NANCY J. JORGENSON - MAYOR WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK 12.02 AFPSiOVYD BY CI:Y COU�(Gtl. FEB 6 19;� --, ��...._ c�- cc.,: r INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT The City of Minneapolis, Minnesota and the City of Fridley, Minnesota, both being cities located in and governed under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and authorized pursuant to the law to enter into contracts and agreements with one another, do agree and contract as follows: That in consideration of the granting by the City of Fridley, Minnesota, to the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and specifically its Public Works Department, of a permit to hunt, kill or otherwise harvest wild deer located on the Water Works property owned by the City of Minneapolis and located within the City of Fridley, the Cityvf Minneapolis agrees to hold the City of Fridley and its employees, agencies and agents, harmless against any and all claims resulting from said harvest or hunt, including, but not limited to, damage resulting from any discharge of weapons or firearms, or any damage or injuries resulting from fleeing or running animals. For the City of Minneapolis: �' �1.. _-�`-��— -- . �• / � City Clerk r a r � ��j` t�V� City Attorney �/��f / � dated 12.03 For the City of Fridley: ze ' d �d101 0 March 9, 1998 �4�(� Cooperator3 ,a+►.uv Cav��e Paro��ers,lnc. B�w�unterS ��. ResourCe � � � �, �� NKcr�esata sLate Art�er�►A�soGaGOn : � �� I+� Pa emc 2�11�090. �rr�ar�, MM ssa2� soso n+cnnesoea eowM,nr.en ch�p�r Mr. David Sallman Public Safety Director Fridley Police Departmeru 6431 Univezsiry Avenue N.E. Fadley,l�+II�T 55432 Mr Sall an• ._.. .._ .. _,� � . m . A� a follow up to our March 4 meeting regarding c�te 1vl�naeapolis Waterwarlcs deer remwal progxam thi,s lctter wt�l cot15rm that Metro Bowhunters Resaurce Base archera participating irl this program will take shots only from stands with a minimum elevation of 10 feet attd wiIt Iicnit the distance of their shots to 20 yards or less. Statistically, bowfiuiting is an exvemely safe activiry aad the incidence of someone othes than the huatet being injured is almost non-existent. Safety for our members, and of course other non-. participants is always o�r number one concern. Plea.se give me a call if you have any questions. �-Sincerely, � Mark Graham MBRB Director � JMG/slc ! � Z0iZ0 " d 3� I �Od Ol 12.04 .13�Q I�f� �0 Jll I J WO J� ZO:TT 866I-60-�IdW FINAL DRAFT - 1998 MINNEAPOLIS WATER WORKS - Fridley Area Deer Herd Management Plan Because of a growing deer population at the Minneapolis Water Works in Fridley, and the fact that coming in Spring 1998 the grounds will be completely enclosed within a chain link fence, we are looking at various options to cull the deer herd. The present herd of 25-30 deer will, according to the MnDNR, very likely will grow drastically. After surveying our plant area, the MnDNR estimated that our area is now at, or slightly above, the healthy herd level. Several options for controlling the herd have been discussed at Water Works meetings, and the following was agreed to be the best : option for our circumstances: _ _ Have a harvest to reduce the herd. After meeting with Bob Welsh of the MnDNR, we were familiarized with an organization of archers called the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB). This organization has an established record of similar herd-reduction harvest. The organization's record seems to show an experienced and skillful group of archers. Another advantage of this type of harvest is the Metro Bowhunters do not charge the Minneapolis Water Works for this service. This option keeps personal safety in mind in addition to the well-being of the deer herd. Harvest Objectives � • Estimated . number of deer on MVWV grounds is 27-30. The target population level at MVWV is approximately 2 in yard area. This level will maintain a healthy ecosystem and still provide the opportunity for wildlife viewing. The objective of the Winter 1998 Harvest will be to: • Successfully develop and implement a managed harvest program capable of removing enough deer to maintain the deer population at the designated target level. The harvest in 1998 will be used as a pilot study to determine the effort required to meet this goal. page 1 12.05 FINAL DRAFT - 1998 Official Harvest Rules / Dates • The MW1N archery deer harvest will consist of a 1-day harvest: • A group of 24 archers will be selected from the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB). • An additional harvest may be scheduled using the same format as the first harvest. If alternate archers are needed, they will be selected from the MBRB alternate list. • Archers must attend an on-site orientation at the MVWV plant area, where they will be instructed in Harvest rules, assigned to teams, participate in an on-site orientation, and receive maps and other information. • The harvest will be managed by an MBRB/MW1N Coordinator, who will have the authority to make adjustments in the daily harvest activities and to enforce harvest rules. Archers must follow directions of the Coordinator in order to ensure a safe and effective harvest. • Archers will be required to ; sign a waiver which will release the Minneapolis Water Works (MVWb'), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the City of Minneapolis, the City of Fridley and the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base from liability or claim. • Archers will be required to track in teams that will be assigned specific zones in which to shoot. Archers may not shoot in other zones unless approved by the Coordinator. Each zone wilt be assigned a team leader that will coordinate the activities in their zone and with the Coordinator. - • Archers will be encouraged to shoot all deer. Controlling the deer population within the target density is the purpose of this harvest. The consensus is to take as many deer as possible from the herd of 30. • Designated shooting areas are the only areas that archers may enter. These areas will be pointed out during the orientation. Violations wilf result in permit revocation, suspension of MBRB privileges, immediate ejection from the harvest, and possible criminal prosecution. • Only deer shooting is permitted. All other wildlife within the MW1N is protected. page 2 12.06 FINAL DRAFT - 1998 • All shooting will be from stands (elevated). Only portable stands may be used. Stands may be left up for the entire harvest period. However the MW1N, Mn DNR or MBRB will not assume any liability for their security. Stands must be taken �own at the end of the harvest period. Archers will be allowed to put their stands up on the` Friday preceding the harvest period if they wish. • The use of screw-in type tree steps will be permitted within the MVWV. Archers may also use rope-type steps or ladders to access their tree stands. The trimming out of small shooting lanes is permissible. However the cutting of oaks and maples is discouraged. Archers' Requirements • Archers must be enrolled in the MBRB, which is open to all archers that apply and meet MBRB standards. • All equipment shall conform to Minnesota State Archery Hunting Regulations. • Access into the MW1N wilt be through gate 4. The gate will be manned by MW1N and MBRB during all periods that the gate is scheduled to be open. The gate will remain locked at all times except the following: one hour before legal shooting time, and forty-five minutes after close of legal shooting time. Archers must enter / exit the MVWV at these times. Special procedures will be taken in the event of an emergency (refer to emergency procedures). � • Parking will be in designated areas only. Vehicular traffic must stay on designated roads. Archers may operate vehicles only on those roads noted on the MVWV Archery Shooting Map. However, archers may use any established road to load a deer. Stopping or trespassing in other areas is prohibited. • Herding or corralling deer against enclosure fences is prohibited. Shooting into closed areas is prohibited. • Archers must not damage any property, buildings, or signs in any way. No trash or litter of any kind should be left on the premises. The archer(s) shall be held liable for any accidental damage to MVWV property; if page 3 12.07 r ; FINAL DRAFT - 1998 vandalism or intentional misuse causes damage to property, the M1NW shail prosecute the offender(s). • Archers must not follow any wounded deer into areas closed to shooting. Refer to deer recovery plan for proper procedures. Contact the Coordinator who will coordinate with the M1NW as necessary to determine procedure for recovery of the animal. • In the event of an accident or an emergency, contact the Coordinator, or your designated team leader, who will implement emergency coordination and/or evacuation procedures as necessary. (refer to Emergency Procedures Plan). The MW1N shall be held harmless and accepts_ no liability for non-employees in the event of personal injury. . • All personnel within the boundaries of the MVWV will not have in fheir possession any alcoholic beverages on their person, in their gear or vehicle. • If confronted or harassed by protesters, all harvest participants are instructed to say nothing nor do anything, but to notify your team leader, the Coordinator, or Minnesota DNR Conservation Officer, who will take approp�iate action. Shooting Setbacks from the MW1N Boundaries • Harvest areas will include setbacks of 100 feet from the perimeter fence. The only time archers will be permitted to enter this area is to retrieve deer. In this case the deer retrieval procedures will be followed. Venison donated to charity Because of the nature of the permit from the DNR, all deer and parts thereof will become property of the DNR. page 4 12.08 FINAL DRAFT - 1998 Pubiic Affairs • Mn DNR has prepared a contingency plan for addressing all anti-shooting concerns and provide response to all media and other requests for information. MBRB will assist the DNR as requested. The Mn DNR will contact adjacent municipalities and will coordinate with City of Fridley (refer to Public Relations Plan). A police o�cer will be on site during the harvest. Public Relations ♦ A"Protest � Area" will be identified by MW1N and marked for protest �� activities if needed. The area will be marked with proper signage. The Coordinator will be responsible for referring interested public and media to the Protest Area. ♦ tf an archer is approached or questioned by a member of the public or the media, the archer is instructed to go about his/her activities and courteously refer all questions to the Coordinator. The archer should say no more than, "If you have specific questions, you should speak with the Coordinator." ♦ The Coordinator will refer media inquiry to DNR Personnel. ♦ DNR personnel that will be available for harvest activities are: Roger Johnson, Regional Wildlife Manager, (612) 296-5200 Brad Johnson, Conservation Officer, (612) 635-9927 ♦ MVWV personnel will either be on-site, or available on-call to schedule media interviews and/ or to handle public relations issues that may come up during the harvest. ♦ The Minneapolis Police Department will have officers on-hand to assure public safety is guarded. page 5 12.09 FINAL DRAFT - 1998 Medical Emergencies The Minneapolis Water Works is under the Emergency "911" network for medical - emergencies. Therefore, it will be the responsibility of the archer, Team.Leader or Coordinator to place_ such a call in the event of a medical emergency where an individual has been seriously injured or is in extreme distress and the need ' for medical assistance is urgent. The procedure shall be as follows. . If there are other archers within hearing distance, shout for help. � . Get to a telephone (phone locations will be discussed during orientation) and dial 9, then 911, and relay the following information: _ • "This is the Minneapolis Water Works, in Fridley Minnesota". • Request an ambulance for an individual who (then describe as best you can the condition that exists - talk slow and deliberate). - • Advise the ambulance be routed to Marshall Street NE at 43rd Avenue Gate • If required, give your name, telephone number, and do not hang ue until the operator has advised you that all information required has been obtained. . Call the Dispatcher; state that you have a medical emergency at (give location) and I that an ambulance has been summoned. Contact the Coordinator and notify him of the emergency and that an ambulance has been summoned. Deer Recovery Plan ♦ A Recovery Team will make two(2) rounds each hour to recover downed deer. Archers will remain in their designated stands. � ♦ At the conclusion of the shooting period, the team leaders will compile all wounded deer reports and assemble teams to attempt retrieval of "Potential Retrievables." page 6 12.10 IWounded Deer Reporting FINAL DRAFT - 1998 NAME ZONE TEAM LEADER NOTES/DETAILS i � l . � i i _ ; i I � _ i i � � February 23, 1998 page 7 12.11 .; �,#3#: ,, FINAL DRAFT - 1998 The M1NW considered the following options and found them to be less acceptabie than a controlled bow harvest. Option #1 - Do nothing and let nature takes its course. This could mean the herd continues to increase in numbers until food becomes scarce and starvation and disease reduces the herd. Also, our entrance/exit gates opening out onto East River Road, a busy 55mph four-lane highway, creating a stro,ng likelihood of more deer running onto the roadway and being hit by traffic. - This could become a public safety issue, as welL � -- Option #2 - Have a firearms harvest to reduce the herd. Using firearms- would create a safety hazard because of the proximity of the Minneapolis Water Works grounds to East River Road and the configuration of the MW1N grounds; a narrow strip (quarter-mile wide) of land running parallel to the roadway. Secondly, the MVWV needs to be manned with personnel 24-hour a day, making this option potentially dangerous for MVWV personnel and the public both. Another consideration was the cost to use sharpshooters for the harvest. At $35 per hour times 12 sharpshooters over 4 days comes to over $13,000.00 for one shoot. page 8 12.12 , _ ,,.��■ _ � m he white-tailed deer (OdocoileusvirEinianus) isthe most 1 abundant and best-known large herbivore in the United States. Whitetails are valued and appreciated by large seg- ments of society. State and provincial wildlife agencies are responsible for the management of this invaluable resource. Considerable confusion and controversy exists concern- ing white-tailed deer management. The objective of this booklet is to explain the rationale behind deer management and to discuss the utility of various management options. During colonial times, the Northeast was dominated by ex- tensive tracts of mature forest. Early records suggest that white-tailed deer were present in moderate numbers at the time. Deer populations were small and scattered by the turn of the 20th century, primarily as a result of habitat loss due to extensive forest ctearing and unregulated market hunting. In the early 1900s, deer were so scarce in much of the U.S. that sightings were often reported in local newspapers. Passage of the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (better known as the Pittman-Robertson Program) in 1937 marked the beginning of modern-day wildlife management in the United States. This act earmarked income from an already existing excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition for use in wildlife development, research and land acquisition. Early deer management efforts featured protection from unregulated exploitation. Today, eft'orts are directed toward the maintenance of deer populations at levels intended to: (1) ensure the present and future well-being of the species and its habitat, (2) provide a sustained yield of deer for use by ticensed hunters, and (3) allow for computibility between deer populations and human land-use practices, as well as with other plant and animal communities. White-tailed deer require adequate food, water, cover, and livingspace in a suitable arrangement in order to ensure their healthy survival. Deer eat a wide variety of herbaceous and woody plants, in accordance with their nutritional value and their local and seasonal availability. Water requirements are met through the drinking of water and from the consur tion of succnlent vegetation. Good habitat provides shel 12 from extreme temperatures and precipitation, as well as p � tection and concealment from predators. L Under normat circumstances, does two years old or older produce twins annually, while yearling does typically produce single fawns. On excellent range, adult does can produce trip- lets, yearlings can produce twins and fawns can be bred and give birth during their first year of life. In the absence of predation or hunting, this kind of reproduction can result in a deer herd doubling its size in one year. This fact was illustrated on the , 1,146-acre George Reserve in southern Michigan .when the _. deer herd grew from six to 162 individuals in six yeais (1928- 1933) (23). More recently, the George Reserve herd grew from 10 deer in 1975 to 212 deer in 1980 (24). There are natural limits to the number of deer that a given parcelofhabitatcansupport. Theselimitsareafunctionofthe quantity and quality of deer forage and/or the availability of good winter habitat. The number of deer that a given parcel can support in good physical condition over an extended period of time is referred to as °`Biologicul Carrying Cap�city" (BCC). Deer productivity causes populations to exceed BCC, unless productivity is balanced by mortality. When BCC is ex- ceeded, habitat quality decreases and herd physical condition declines. Biologists use herd health indices and population density indices to assess the status of a herd relative to BCC. The importsmce of compatibility between land-use practices and deer populations in urban areas of the U.S. justifies consideration of another aspect of car- rying capacity. "Cultural Carrying Capacity" (CCC) can be detined as the muximum number of deer that can ccexist compatibly with local humun populations (10). Cultural carrying capacity is a function of the sensitivity of local human populations to the pres- ence of deer. This sensitivity is dependent on local land-use practices, local deer density and the attitudes and priorities of local humanpopulations. Fxcessivedeer/vehiclecollisions,agricul- _ tural damage and homelgardener camplaints all suggest tha[ CCC has been exceeded. It is important to note that even low deer densities can exceed CCC; a single deer residing in an airport landing zone is too many deer. As development continues in many areas of the U.S., the importance of CCC as a management consideration will increase. �s previously indicated, deer populacions have the ability to grow beyond BCC. When BCC is exceeded, competi- 13 on for limited fbod resources results in overbrowsing (6,7). _ �vere overbrowsing alters plant species composition, distri- bution, and abundance, and reduces understory structural II diversiry (due to the inability of seedlings to establish them- selves). These changes may have a deleterious impact on local animal communities, which depend on healthy vegetative sys- tems for food and cover. In time, overbrowsing results in reduced habitat quality and a long-term reduction in BCC. Coincident with overbrowsing is a decline in herd health. This decline is manifest in decreased body weights, lowered repro- ductive rates, lowered winter survival, increased parasitism, and increased disease prevalence (11). In the absence of a marked herd reduction, neither herd health nor habitat quality will improve, as each constrains the other. Such circumstances enhance the likelihood of die-offs due to disease and starva- tion. Deer overabundance often leads to a high frequency of deer/vehicle collisions, as well as excessive damage to commercial forests, agricultural crops, nursery stock and landscape plantings (17,Z1). In addition, preliminary studies suggest that a correlation exists between high deer densities and the incidence of Lyme disease, an arthritic disease that can be con- tracted by humans (1). - The potential for deer populations to exceed carrying ca- pacity, to impinge on the well-being of other ptant and animal species, and to conflict with land-use practices as well as human safety and health necessitates effective herd manage- ment. Financial and logistical constraints require that deer management be practical and fiscally responsible. DEER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Regulated hunting has been proven to be an effective deer population management tool (13,23). In addition, it h� been shown to be the most efficient and teast expensive tect 12 nique for removing deer (28). U.S. wildlife management ager � cies recognize deer hunting as the only effective, practical ana III flexible method available for regional deer population man- agement, and therefore rely on it as their primary management <. tool. Through the use of regulated hunting, biologists strive to maintain deer populations at desirable levels or to adjust them in accordance with local biological and/or social needs. They do this by manipulating the size and sex composition of the harvest, season type, season timing, season length, number of permits and land-access policies. Values associated with white-tailed deer management aze diverse and extensive (16). Ecological benefits derived from regulated hunting include protection ofour environment from - overbrowsing (2,4), protection of flora and fauna that may be negatively impacted by deer overpopulation and the mainte- nance of healthy, viabie deer populations (13,23) for our benefit and that of future generations. Social benefits which result from regulated hunting include: increased land-use compatibility stemming from fewer land-use/deer conflicts, human safety benefits resulting from reduced deer/vehicle incidents, diverse educational and recreational opportunities, and emotional benefits associated with a continued presence of healthy deer herds. Regulated hunting provides economic benefits in the form of hunting-related experiditures. Re- searche� estimated nadonwide deer hunter expenditures during 1975at$1.Olbillion. Estimatedvaluesreceivedbyhuntersand nonhunters was $1.8 billion and $5.4 billion, respectively. The total annual flow of values from the whice-tailed deer in the United States was estimated to be $8.2 billion (34). An economic evaluation of regulated deer hunting should also in- clude costs thatwould be incurred in the absence of population management. As an example, the cost of agricultural com- modities, forest products, and automobile insurance would likely increase if deer populations were left unchecked. In the absence of regulated hunting, deer herds would grow until they reached the upper limit at which they could be sustained by local habitat. Herds at this "upper density limit" consist of deer in relatively poor health (7). High density herds such as these are prone to cyclic population fluctuations and catastrophic losses (23). In the U.S., such herds would be in- compatible with local human interests and land-use practices. Disease and starvation problems in the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey (31); damage to ornamentals on Block Island, Rhode Island; vegetation destruction at Crane Beach, Massachusetts; roadkill problems in Princeton, New Jersey; and forest regeneration di�culties on Connecticut's Yale Forest, are but a few examples of the deleterious impacts of a"hands ofP' deer management policy. Allowing nature to take its course could result in a significant negative impact on other plant and animal species as well as local deer herds. In extreme cases, the balance achieved by "hands ofP' manage- ment may be local herd extinction (32). It is important to note that humans have had a dramatic impact on the ecology of the U.S. Among other things, they have altered landscapes, changed and manipulated plant com- munities, displaced large predators, eliminated a variety of ve species, and introduced numerous exotics. Natural 14, em and regulatory processes have changed as a result of e impacts. Adopting a"hands ofP' poliry will not restore u.5. ecosystems to a pristine state. Deer seem to have evolved under intense predation and hunting pressure. In precolonial times many Native American tribes hunted deer year-round and depended on them as their primary food source (22). Mountain lions, wolves, bobcats, and bears all utilized the precolonial deer resource. The high reproductive capability of present-day herds likely reflects intense predation and hunting in the past. As a consequence, it would seem inaccurate to describe a deer herd in today's environment, with few if any predators and no hunters, as "natural." In fact, active management in the form of regulated hunting seems to be a more natural option than the "hands off' approach. Active deer population management offers distinct ecological, social, and economic benefits to society. Few such claims can be made for the "hands off' option. In fact, thereare significant costs associated with the "hands off' approach to deer management. his optionwould include the use of trapping, netting and/ or immobilization for the purpose of capturing and relo- cating deer. Trap-and-transfer efforts have proven to be labor intensive and prohibitively expensive. Research conducted with an urban deer herd in Wisconsin (14) resulted in capture costs ranging from $113 to $570 per deer ($412 per deer for all capturemethodscombined). SimilarworkconductedonLong Island, new Hampshire, and Angel Island, California (26) resulted in costs of �800 and $431 per deer, respectively. Aside from problems of cost and logistics, large scale trap- and-transfer programs would require release sites capable of absorbing large numbers of relocated deer. Such areas are lacking in the U.S. The potential negative impact that translo- cated deer coutd have on local BCC and/or CCC is an addi- tional concern. Land-useconflicts caused by translocated deer could lead to questions of liability. Deer are susceptible to traumatic injury during handling. Trauma losses average approximately four percent during trap-and-transfer efforts. Capture myopathy, a stress-related disease that results in delayed mortality of captured deer, is thought to be an important (and often overlooked) mortality factor. Delayed mortality as high as 26 percent has been reported (29). Survival rates of relocated deer are frequently low. T and-transfer efforts in California, New Mexico and F10 12. resulted in losses of 85, 55, and 58 percent, respectively, f four to 15 months following relocation. (26). r�..�. The poor physical condition o[ deer from an over- ",,; _ populated range, and the behavtor oi some deer from .. - overpopulated urban settings, predispose them to starvation, accidents and dog predation follo�wing relocation into new surroundings. An additional rnncern associated with relocation of deer, especially from an overpopulated range, is the potentiat for spreading disease. The presence of ' Lyme disease in some areas . o[ t6e United States makes this a timely consideration. In conclusion, trap-and-transfer options have proven to be impractical and prohibitively expensive. As a consequence, they have no value in the management of free-ranging herds. They may have limited value in the coatrol of small, insular herds where deer are tame and/or hunting is not applicable. To the extent that fencing and repellents are practicable, wildlife agencies regularly recommend them to address site-specific problems. Application of repellents and/or fenc- ing can only be justified economically when the financial gain yielded by protection is equal to or greater than the cost of implementation. Research conducted in New York's Hudson Valley revealed that it costs approximately $70 per/acre/year to implement an orchard repellent spray program (8). Similar work conducted in Connecticut nurseries indicated that repel- lent costs (equipment and labor excluded) ranged from $10 to $396 per acre for a single application (5). In New York, it was determined that it cost approximately $18 per/acretyear (when pro-rated over a 10-year period) to protect a 25-acre parcel with a moderately priced, high-tensile electric fence. Under the same circumstances, it would cost $60 per/acre/year to use an eight-foot woven-wire fence (9). Economic, personal, and aesthetic considerations typically restrict the use of these techniques to cost effective applications. There are wnstraints that limit the applicability ofvarious damage abatement techniques. High-tensile electric fencing requires regular maintenance and is best suited to areas of good soil depth and moderate terrain. Electric fences suffer from seasonal problems associated with poor grounding due to heavy snows and dry soil conditions. In addition, electric fences are inappropriate for use in areas where hequent human contact is likely. Effective repellent programs require fre- quent appiications because rapidly growing shoots quickly outgrow protection and repellents weather rapidly. Spray repellents ean only be applied effectively during mild weather, so their value during winter months is restricted. Additional limits on repellent use stem from plant damage concerns, labeling restrictions, equipment problems (heavy binding agents and repellent slurries clog equipmentj, and difficulties result- ing from noxious and/or unaesthetic product residues. Repellent performance is highly variable and seems to be negatively conelated with deer density. Work conducted in 1ew York and Connecticut indicates that repellent perform- 15 �nce is highly variable. This seems to result from the fact that �epellents are behavior modifiers; they perform well under moderate pressure but may be ignored when alternative deer N foods are scarce. Electric fenceperformance is variable as well, apparently due to differences in deer pressure and fence qual- ity. There are distinct limitations on the applicability of fenc- ing and repellent options. As an eacample, neither technique has value in addressing concerns relating to wide-scale deer impacts on plant and animal communities. These techniques were designed to supplement, not replace, deer population management. As a consequence, they are best employed within the mntext of a comprehensiv�e deer management progtam In the absence of population regulation, deer damage will increase in severity and the efficacy of abatement techniques will decline. �• � i � •• � ' � •�� • Fertilitycontrolagents(syntheticprogestinsandestrogens) have been evaluated for use in deer population control. Research conducted on a captive deer herd in Ohio indicates that oral and intramuscular doses of diethylstilbestrol (DES) significantly reduces deer productivity. However, the reduc- tion was insufficient to contain local herd growth (12). In Ken- tucky, oral doses of microencapsulated DES successfullyinter- rupted deer pregnancies, but high dose requirements, aversion to treated bait, and post treatment breeding, precluded effec- tive herd control (18). Additional research revealed that oral doses of inelengestrol acetate (MGA) effectively inhibited deer reproduction, but daily treatment requirements made the technique impractical for use on free-ranging deer herds (30). Concerns pertaining to oral contraception in deer in- clude: cost and logistics of bait distribution, dosage control, and ingestion of bait by non-target wildlife. Based on these concerns, and past research, oral contraception programs seem to be impractical and ill-advised. Several studies have shown intramuscular treatments and implants of fertility contro! agents to be effective in preventing deer pregnancies (19, 20). Nonethe- less, the limited life expectancy of implants, the ex- pense involved in extensive capture and recapture efforts (20), and the difficulty of treating an adequate portion of the herd, suggest that large-scale implant programs would be impractical and ineffective. Unresolved questions relating to the use of imptants in- clude the effect of long-term steroid exposure on deer and the impact of steroid treated carcasses on consumers in the food chain (33). Recent advances in wildlife contraception have facilitated "remote delivery" of antifertility agents to feral horses via dart guns (33). Remote delivery, and recent progress on antifertil- ity vaccines, improve the prospect for limited applications of wildlife contraception in the future. In conclusion, fertility control in deer is largely untested and requires additional research (15). Fertitity control may have value for use on small insular deer populations under carefully regulated conditions, but will not provide an altern tive to hunting for the control of free-ranging herds (1:12. While effective fertility control agents have been identi6� their use on free-ranging herds would be impractical. V Implementation of a supplemental feeding piogram would be counterproductive to control efforts directed at free- ranging herds because it would encourage additional popula- tion growth (6). In addition, supplemental feeding on a regionwide basis would be logistically and economirally im- practical. Work conducted in Michigan and Colorado indi- cates that it costs from $37 to $53 per deer to run an ad libitum winter feeding program (3, 27). In Colorado, supplemental feeding of mule deer cost $183 per animal saved. While the program did reducewinter deer mortality, it failed to eliminate substantial losses. Colorado researchers concluded that sup- piemental feeding can be justified for use during emergency circumstances (e.g., exceptionally severe winter weather) but not as a routine method for boosting local BCC. In addition, the researchers believed that such a programwas onlypractical when deer were densely concentrated on readily accessible range. Researchers in Michigan concluded that "nutritional supplementation" had potential value as a management tool, but that it would only work within the wntext of "strict hezd control" (27). In many areas of the United States, supplemen- tal feeding would lead to conflicts with CCC. In addition, it would enhance the likelihood of disease transmission between deer and predation of deer by dogs. Supplemental feeding fails to address the cause of overpopulation. In fact, it actualty compounds future deer population problems. As a result, it would seem reasonable to reject supplemental feeding as an alter- native to active deer population managemen� The use of sharpshooters would concede the need for popu- lation regulation. Such a taskwould likely requireshoot- ing throughout the year, in order to control regional popula- tion growth. Even on a small scale, this option would be pensive relative to hunting. According to the results of an 16 ban deer removal program conducted in Wisconsin (14) the ;t averaged $74 per animal shot over bait. This cost included ��.5 hours of labor for each deer removed, at a cost of $3.65 per hour. An evaluation of techniques employed to oontrol an enclosed deer herd in Ohio revealed that sharpshooting was a less e�cient method of deer removal than controlled hunting (28). If a sharpshooter program was instituted, local econo- mies would experience a loss of income from hunters (34) paying to control deer numbers (Connecticut deer hunters injected approximately $600 per harvested deer into the state economy, excluding permit expenditures). Finally, the use of sharpshooters would be exceedingly controversial in those situations where regulated hunting could be conducted, be- cause it would deny citizens access to a renewable public resource. In moderately fluctuating environments, a oomplement of effectivepredatorscanmaintainstab�7ityinadeerherd(24). However, in general terms, predator/prey interactions are highly variable (25), and tend to stabilize populations at relativety high densities (23). Wolves and mountain lions are examples of efficient deer predatorswhich have been eliminated from much of the U.S. Both species are frequently suggested as candidates for reintroduction to oontrol deer herds. Restoration of wolves and mountain lions is unfea- sible in much of the U.S. becs�use it is too densely populAted by humans to provide suitable habitat for these species. In addition, it is unlikely that rural residents of the U.S. wonld tolerate large predators at levels dense enough to limit deer populations because such predators also readily consume livestock Pre- dation of non-target species inclpding native witdlife and pets, as well as concerns for human safety, are but a few examples of the conflicts that would arise as a result of predAtor reintroductions. Predator-prey relationships are complex and the impact of predators on herbivore populations is variable. Although many answers are lacking, several points can be made concern- ing deer and their predators in the U.S. Coyotes, bobcats, and � bears are potential deer predators that currently reside in the U.S. These species appear co be opportunists that capitalize on specific periods of deer wlnerability. None of these preda- tors has demonstrated a consistent ability to control deer populations. Where coyotes, bobcats, and bears are common, deer herds often exceed BCC and/or CCC. Coyote populations have increased and their range has expanded in the U.S. during the past 20 years. In many areas, both deer and coyote popu- lations have increa.sed simultaneously. In northern New England, some biologists do suspect coyotes are partly responsible for declining deer numbers. Yet in other areas, changes in deer populations appear unrelated to coyote density. In many circumstances, coyotes and bears represent serious agricul- tural pests. As a consequence, they are frequently less wel- come in the U.S. than white-tailed deer. Even in ihe presence of predator-induced stable deer herds, a population reduction may be desirable from an eco- logical or social perspective. The fact that a deer herd has st° bilized is no guarantee that such a herd is in balance with CC 12 or Bcc. • Heavy predation coupled with year-round hunting by N:. tive Americans was the norm for precolonial deer herds. It has � been estimated that approximately 23 million Indians occu-` pied the precolonial range of the white-tail and that they harvested 4.6 to 6.4 million whitetails annually (22), 'The human species clearly constitutes an efficient and natural deer predator. Ecological and social constraints preclude the rein- troduction of large predators in much of the U.S. CONCLUSION _ Fifty years of research and managementexpe- rienoe have shawn regu- lated hunting to be an ecologically sound, so- cially beneficial, and fiscally responsible method of managing - - deer populations. Op- tions routinely sug- gested as alternatives to regulated hunting are rypicall�+ limited in ap- plicability, prohibitively expensive, logistically impractical, or technically infeasible. As a consequence, wildlife profession- als have come to recognize regulated hunting as the fundamen- tal basis of successful deer management. AN EVALUATION OF DEER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS wac ooauthoted by Mark R Ellinguood, a Deer Biologist for the Ca►rtediwt Depactmeat of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Bureau and member of the New Fngland (�apter of the Wildiife Sociery and the Northeact DeerTechnid Committe� and S�nanne L Catuano, Pub6c Awarenest Biologist fw the Cauuctiatt Depart- ment of Emironmental Protection, Wildlife Bureau ar�d forrt�er C�ainnan of the New England (�apter of The Wildlife Saiet�s Ed�cation Comcnittce. ACKNOWLEDGEh1ENTS 'Ihis publicationwas oollectively developed by the New England Chapterof'Ilu Wildlife Sociery and the Natheast Deer Technical Committee. 'Ihe Northeast WildliCe Administrators Assocaation (composed of the Northeastern United States and Canadian Provina wildlife agenry headc) enoouraged, examined and approved this publiration. While numerau professional biologists have ctitKally revieKed drafts of this document, the following individ uals have made �larly notabk oontnbutions: Dr. Jumes Appkgate (Wilmife Dept, Rutgers Univ); Dr. A�voW Boer (New Bruru�wick Fish and Wildlife Branch); Dr. Itobert Brooks (U.S Forest Serv. N.E. Exper. Station); James Cardo� (Mass. Fish and Wildlife Dept.); Dr. Robeit Deblioger('Ihe Tnutees of Reservations); Cco�gede Healy (PaStAssut to7our. Wildl. hianage. Editor); Dr. William Healy (U.S Forest Serv. N.E Faper. Statan); Pad Nerig (Conn Dept. Emir. Protect WddGfe Bureav); Wi�iam FIesselton (Fed. Aid, U.S Fish and Wildlife Serv.); Jay McAoinc6 (Institute for Eoosystem Studies); Rooald Regan (Vermont Fish and Wildlife Dept); Lori Suprocic(Rhode Island Div. of Fishand Wildlife); Dr.StevenWilliams(Mass. Fish and Wildlife Dept.); and Scot Williamson (New Hampshire Fish and Crame Depc.). Produdion of the first priating of An Evaluation Of Deer Management Op.� was 000rdinated and paid for by the Conneaiat Department of Ern'vaunenta( Protedion, Wildlife Bureau.'Ihe seoond printingwaspaid forby the U.S.Fshand Wildlife Service Federal Aid Administration Funds, FiC89. T6e New Eugland Cf�pter of Wildlik Sodety is an �sociation of profescional wildlife biologists from Conneuiwt, Massachusetu, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont devoted to stewardship and enlightened appreaazion of wildGfe and its environments. �"" � No�iheast Deer Techni��l Comutidee, a g[oup oomprised of professiortal r biotogists from the northeactern United States and eastern Canadian 17 vinces, is oommitted to the study andwice management of ourdeer resouraes. i wpyrip,ht 1988 Publication No. I��R-11 REFERENCES CITED 1. Anderson, J.F., R.C. Johnson, L.A. Magnarelli, F.W. Hyde, and J.E. Myets. 1987. Prevalence of Boaelia buredorferi and Babesia microti in mice on islands inhabited by white-tailed deer. J. Applied and Environ. Microbiol. 53(4):892-894. 2. Arnold, D.A and LJ. Verme.1963. Ten years' observation of an enclosed deer herd in noRhern Michigan. Trans. NoRh Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. ConL 28:422-430. 3. Baker, D.L., and N.T. Hobbs.1985. Emergency feeding of mule deer during winter. Tests of a supplemental ration. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(4):934-942. 4. Behrend, D.F., G.F. Mattfeld, W.N. Tierson and F.E. Wiley, III.1976. Deer densiry control for comprehensive forest management. J. For. 68:695-700. 5. Conover, M.R.1984. Effectiveness of repellents in reducing deer damage in nucseries. Wildl. Soc. Bu11.12(4):399-404. 6. Dasmann, W.1971. If deer are to sucvive. A Wildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Bools, Harrisburg, Pa. 128 pp. 7. Dasmann, W.1981. Wildlife biolo�+.2nd ed.John Wileyand Sons, Inc. New York, N.Y. 203 pp. 8. Ellingwood, M.R., J.B. McAni�ch, and R.J. Winchcombe.1983. Evaluating the costs and effectiveness ot repellent applications in protecting fruit or- chards. Page 69 in Proc. of 'I7�e �cst Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference, Ithaca, N.Y. 9. Ellingwood, M.R. and J.B. McAninch. 1984. Update on the Institute of Ecosystem Studies deer damage control project. Trans. Northeast DeerTech- nical Committee. 20:6-7. 10. Ellingwood, M.R. and J.V. Spignesi.1986. Management of an urban deer herd and the concept of cultural carrying capacity. Trans. Northeast Deer Technical Committee. 22:42�5. 11. Eve, J.H. 1981. Management implications of disease. Pages 413-433 in W.R. Davidson, ed. Diseases and parasites of white-tailed deer. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Univ: Georgia, Athens. 12. Harder, J.D. and TJ. Peterle. 1974. Effect of DES on reproductive per- focmance of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(2):183-196. 13. Hesselton, W.T., C.W. Severinghaus and J.E. Tanck. 1965. Population dynamics of deer at the Seneca Army Depot. N.Y. Fish and Game J.12:1730. 14. Ishmael, W.E. and OJ. Rongstad. 1984. Economics of an urban deer removal program. Wi1dl. Soc. BuU. 12(4)394-398. 15. Kirkpatrick, J.F., and J. W. Turner, Jr. (1988). Contraception as an alterna- tive to traditional deer management techniques. In S. Lieberman, ed. Deer management in an urbanizing region. The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.(in press). 16. Langenau, E.E. Jr., S.R. Kellert, and J.E. Applegate.1984. Values in man- agement. Pages 699-720 in L.K. Halls, Ed. White-tailed deerecology and man- agement. A Wildlife Management Institute book Stackpole Books, Harris- burg, Pa. 17. Marquis, D.A., and R. Brenneman. 1981. The impact of deer on forest vegetation in Pennsylvania. USDA Forest Secvice General Tech. Rep. NE-i " Northeast For. Fxp. Stn. 7pp. � 18. Matschke, G.H.1977. Micrcencapsulated diethylstilbestrol as an oral con- traceptive in white-tailed deer. J. Wi1dL Manage. 41(1):87-91. 19. Matschke, G.H.1977. Fertility control in white-tailed deer by steroid im- plants. J.Wildl. Manage. 41(4):731-735. 20. Matschke, G.H.1980. Efficary of steroid implants in preventing pregnanry in white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 44(3):756-758. 21. Matschke, G.H., D.S. deCatesta, and J.D. Harder.1984. Crop damage and control. Pages 647-654 in L.K. Halls, ed. White-tailed deer ecology and man- agement. A Wildlife Management Institute book Stackpole Books, Harris- burg. Pa. 22. McCabe, R.E. and T.R. McCabe.1984. Of slings and arrows: An historiral retrospection. Pages 19-72 in L.K. Halls, ed. White-tailed deer emlogy and management. A Wildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Har- risburg, Pa. 23. McCullough, D.R.1979. The George Reserve deer herd: population ecol- ogy of a K-selected species. Ann Arbor. Univ. Michigan Press. 271 pp. 24. McCullough, D.R. 1984. Lessons from the George Reserve, Michigan. Pages 211-242 i n L,.ICHalls, ed. White-tailed deer ecology and management. A Wildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. 25. Mech, L.D.1984. Predators and predation. Pages 189-200 in LK Halls, ed. White-tailed deerecologyand management. AWildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. 26. O'Bryan, M.K and D.R. McCullough. 1985. Sucvival of black-tailed deer following relocation in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(1):115-119. 27. Ozoga, JJ., and L.J. Verme. 1982. Physical and reproductive characteris- tics of a supplementalty fed white-tailed deer herd. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(2).281-30L 28. Palmer, D.T., D.A. Andrews, R.O. Wintecs, and J.W. Francis. 1980. Removal techniques to control an enclosed deer herd. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8(1):29-33. 29. Rongstad, OJ., and R.A. McCabe. 1984. Capture techniques. Pages 655- 686 in L.K Halls, Ed. White-tailed deer ecology and management. A Wildlife Management Institute book. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg. Pa. 30. Roughton, R.D. 1979. Effects of oral MGA on reproduction in captive white-tailed deer. J.Wildl. Manage. 43(2):428-436. 31. Rue, L.L.. fII. 1979. The Deer of North America. An Outdoor Life book. Crown Publishecs, inc. New York. 463 pp. 32. Smith, R.P.1986. The beaver basin story. Deerand Deer Hunting. 9(5):22- 28. 33. Turner, J.W. Jr. and J.F. Kirkpatrick, (1988). New methods foc selective contraception in wild animals. In U.S. Seal, ed. Contraception in wildlife'(in P��)• 34. Williamson, L.L. and G.L. Doster.1981. Socio-economic aspects of white- tailed deer diseases. Pages 434-439 in W.R. Davidson, ed. Diseases and para- sites of White-tailed deer. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, iv. Georgia, Athens. A •� A �L. �0 PHOTO CREDITS Page II: anrahan Page V: Tom Feld Page IIi: wnuerails Unlimited, Inc. Page VI: William S. Lea Cover: Steve Maslowski, Scott Hanrahan Page IV: Tim Lewis Page VII: William S. Lea VII CITY OF FRIDLEY COMMISSION TERMS THAT WILL EXPIRE IN 1998 FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Term Present Members Expires Appointee PLANNING COMMISSION (Chapter 6) (7 Members - 3 Year Te�m) GENERAL Diane Savage 4-1-00 CHAIR VICE-CHAIR CHAIR David Kondrick 4-1-00 PARKS 8� REC. CHAIR Bradley Sielaff 4-1-00 ENVIRON. QUALITY CHAIR Larry Kuechle 4-1-99 APPEALS - - - COMM. CHAIR LeRoy Oquist 4-1-98 HUMAN RES. AT Dean Saba � 4-1-98 LARGE AT Connie Modig 4-1-99 LARGE . APPEALS COMMISSION (Chapter 6)(5 Members - 3 Year Term) CHAIR Larry Kuechle 4-1-99 VICE- Carol Beaulieu 4-1-00 CHAIR Terrie Mau 4-1-00 Kenneth Vos 4-1-99 Blaine Jones 4-1-98 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION (Chapter 6) (7 Members - 3 Year Term) CHAIR Bradley Sielaff 4-1-00 VICE- Richard Svanda 4-1-00 CHAIR John Velin 4-1-99 Peter Panchyshyn 4-1-99 Dean Saba 4-1-98 Bruce Bondow 4-1-98 13.�1 Rosalie Landt 4-1-98 4 Term Present Members Expires HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION (Chapter 6) (5 Members - 3 Year Term) CHAIR LeRoy Oquist 4-1-98 J. Raffesberger 4-1-00 Satveer Chaudhary 4-1-98 Terrie Mau 4-1-99 4-1-99 VACANT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (Chapter 6) (5 Members-3 Yr. Term) CHAIR David Kondrick 4-1-00 - - VICE- Marcy Sibell 4-1-00 CHAIR Susan Price 4-1-99 Richard Young 4-1-98 Tim Solberg 4-1-98 CABLE TELEVISION COMMISSION (Sec. 405.28)(5 Members-3 Yr. Term) CHAIR Ralph Stouffer 4-1-99 � VICE- Robert Scott 4-1-00 CHAIR Burt Weaver 4-1-99 -- Joseph Kerner 4-1-00 Gen Peterson 4-1-98 POLICE COMMISSION (Chapter 102)(3 Members - 3 Year Term) CHAIR Mavis Hauge 4-1-98 John Burton 4-1-99 John K. Hinsverk 4-1-00 . 13.02 ,■ HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (5 Members - 5 Year Term) CHAIR Larry Commers 6-9-99 VICE- Virginia Schnabel 6-9-00 CHAIR J. R. McFarland 6-9-02 John E. Meyer 6-9-01 Duane Prairie 6-9-98 13.03 ' . _ , � � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF �oF MARCH 16,1998 FRIDLEY INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS 14.01