The URL can be used to link to this page

08/21/2000 CONF MTG - 4692� � CffY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING August 21, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. Fridlep Municipal Center Conference Room A (Upper Level) 1. Mobile Home Park Closure Ordinance. 2. Springbrook Clean Water Partnership Grant Report. 3. Other Business. Adjourn. � � t:IIY OF FRIDLE7 AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2000 DATE: August 18, 2000 TO: William Burns, City Manager � � FROM: SUBJECT: Issue Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Grant Fernelius, Housing Coordinator Manufactured Home Park Closure Ordinance On August 21St, staff will present its research whether the Council should consider an ordinance to establish procedures and compensation in the event Fridley's mobile home parks are closed and converted to another use. This research was completed in response to a petition from several mobile home park residents. Staff has reviewed a number of different ordinances and conferred with the Ciry Attorney and with both mobile home park owners and the representatives of the petitioners. Background As you recall, in March of this year the City received a petition from over 300 residents living in the city's two mobile home parks (Fridley Terrace Park and Park Plaza Estates). The residents solicited the help of All Parks Alliance for Change (APAC) an advocacy group based in St. Paul, to help them put together the petition. It is also worth mentioning that Tim White, Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis (who represented the tenants in the Satellite Lane Apartment lawsuit) has been involved with the group. In late June, staff inet with the tenants, APAC and White to discuss their concerns. Manufactured Home Park Closure Memo August 18, 2000 Page 2 Current Law Under state law, the owner of a manufactured home park is required to notify their residents at least nine (9) months in advance of a park closure. The notice must also be sent to the city in which the park is located. Beyond the notice requirement the owner of the park has no other obligations to either compensate the tenant or help in their relocation. However, State law does empower a local unit of government to adopt its own ordinance with more stringent standards, if it so chooses. The legal history regarding manufactured housing is quite different from traditional real estate. Because the tenant owns the individual unit (considered to be "personal property") and not the land, they are not entitled to compensation or relocation benefits. The situation is often complicated by the fact that many of the units can't be moved due to their condition or are too old. In many new parks a home must be less than 10 years old. Because many tenants have lower incomes, they are faced with tremendous financial burdens and have few other housing options. According to the Fridley tenant's survey, at least 80% of the respondents lived in homes that were more than 10 years old (meaning they could not move their home to a new park). In addition, at least 40% of the residents had incomes less than $30,000 which equates to less than 50% of inedian income. Although, staff did not independently verify the survey, it is consistent with the census information currently available. A final point worth noting is that the courts have generally upheld a city's ability to enact park closure legislation. Fritr Knaak has evaluated the proposed ordinance and his opinion is attached. Other Communities At least nine other communities in Minnesota have enacted park closure ordinances. Of this number, staff reviewed the ordinances for the cities of Roseville, Shakopee, Apple Valley and Elk River. For the most part, the ordinances are identical and contain the same provisions. The Shakopee ordinance was designed for a specific purpose related to a redevelopment project and contained language about tax increment financing and other public funding. Manufactured Home Park Closure Memo August 18, 2000 Page 3 The Roseville ordinance is similar to the Elk River and Apple Valley ordinances and is the most recent adopted. It places all of the financial burden on the park owner or purchaser. Analysis The pros and cons of adopting a park mobile home park closure ordinance are as follows: P�os • Ensures that tenants displaced by a park closure are compensated fairly for their relocation needs. • Helps protect the interests of mobile home park residents, many of whom are lower income. • The ordinance may also offer a competitive marketing advantage to the park owners. Prospective residents may find their park more attractive due to the "protection" of a park closure ordinance. • Protects an important source of affordable housing within the community. • Establishes the "rules" for relocation payments early on, before there is a conflict. Cons • Creates an additional cost to the park owners who may want to sell their properties for redevelopment. • A park owner may file a"takings" claim or lawsuit, however the City Attorney feels that the case law to date favors the City. Proposed Ordinance Adopting an ordinance based on the Roseville model has merit. The ordinance would respond to the unique needs of the manufactured home residents and Manufactured Home Park Closure Memo August 18, 2000 Paqe 4 would establish the requirements for dealing with this issue in the future, if it should happen. The ordinance would contain the following provisions: 1. In the event a mobile home was closed, the Park Owner would be required to provide the residents (defined as Dis,o/acedOwne�s� with nine (9) months notice. This is consistent with state law. A similar notice would have to be sent to the City. If the notice is to be rescinded, it must occur within 90 days of the initial letter. 2. The Park Owner would be required to supply the City with a list of Displaced Owners who were notified. 3. The City would be required to conduct a public hearing and provide separate notice of the hearing to the Displaced Owners in the park, in addition to the standard publication requirements. 4. The Park Owner would be required to pay for the relocation costs for moving`the home, all insurance related to the move and the costs of reasonable repairs to the home. 5. If the Displaced Owner cannot or chooses not to move their home within the 25 mile radius, they are entitled to relocation benefits equal to the average paid for other Displaced Owners in the same park. 6. All relocation benefits are paid directly to the relocation service company or can be paid to the Displaced Owner upon evidence that the relocation costs have been incurred. 7. The developer or purchaser of the park has certain obligations to pay additional compensation to Displaced Owners under the following circumstances. In the event the Displaced Owner doesn't relocate their home andis willing to tender title to the unit, the purchaser is responsible for compensating the Displaced Owner for the value of their home. The amount of compensation is the g�eate�of the estimated market value (for tax purposes) or the value determined by an independent appraisal. The appraisal is required and must be paid for by the park purchaser. 8. The penalty for not complying with the ordinance is a misdemeanor and the City can request a court injunction or other civil penalty against the park owner. � Manufactured Home Park Closure Memo August 18, 2000 Paae 5 Residents Concerns Attached is a copy of the March 6, 2000 memo from the mobile park residents who signed the petition. The memo describes their concerns and the basis of their request for passage of a park closure ordinance. Park Owner Response Staff has met with the owners of both mobile home park owners in Fridley, Fridley Terrace (326 lots) and Park Plaza Estates (84 lots). The owners of Park Plaza Estates own parks in several communities, including the City of Shakopee, which adopted a park closure ordinance in 1999. In fact the owners of the park cooperated with the city in drafting the language of the ordinance. They have indicated no objection to a similar proposal in Fridley. As a practical matter they do not have any immediate plans to sell their properties. The owners of Fridley Terrace indicated that their primary concern is over-compensating residents who have not maintained their units. Beyond that issue, they are willing to cooperate with the City. Next Steps Unless otherwise directed, will prepare an ordinance based on the Roseville model and will schedule a public hearing for the October 9, 2000 meeting. The Council has in effect received a request to adopt a new ordinance. The hearing and first reading of the ordinance will be scheduled at the same meeting and not on the same night as the commuter rail advanced corridor issue. It is also hoped that an ordinance satisfactory to all parties be achieved by the night of the public hearing. M-00-137 AUG-16-00 WED 03�31 PM FAX N0, P, 02 Grant Fernelius wrote: > Fritz, > > In preparation for next Monday's conference meeting, I would like > you to draft an opinion on the following issues: . > Grant: I'll respond in "email reply format", i.e., an answer after each question. Please advise if you need something more formal than this. >> 1. Does the City have any liability if adopts a mobile home park closure > ordinance. (n particular, is the City at risk of a "takings" claim by > one of the park owners? > This concern was, of course, the principal reason the legislature did not create a statewide system of protection and compensation. Thankfully, the matter was apparently laid tv rest in the case of Acadia v. City of Bloomington, a 1996 decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. That decision would seem to make it clear that, at least under Minnesota law, the enactment of such an ordinance would not result in a taking. One caveat that needs to be mentioned here is that while the Minnesota Court of Appeals did address the Federal takings questions as well, the Federal District Court would not be bound by such a decision in a State Court, The analysis in the Arcadia case appears very sound, however, and it is my v�ew that it would be likely the same analysis would be applied in Federal Court as well. >> 2, What happens if a mobile home park owner refuses to compensate the > tenants in the event of a park closure? Does the City become liable for > taking action against the owner to follow through on their > responsibility? > lt depends on what the City puts in the ordinance. As a general rule, such an ordinance imposes no responsibility whatsoever on the part of the City, but does create a private right of action on the part of the homeowner against the park owner if there is no compliance. It is conceivable, as well, that an owner or group of owners could, by private legal action, block the sale or obtain an injunction against the City concerning any other approvals as may be required for any� sale or development to go forward on the site until the issues of compensation in the ordinance were addressed. >> 3. Are there any other legal issues the City should be aware of prior to > adopting an ordinance? > No. The matters addressed in the Arcadia case were my principal concern, as a legal matter, and I believe that case provides the answers (and "cover") concerning liability that I had. Please let me know what else I can on this, if anything, for you. / . . . 1� , / ' � ' / " / / , , 2395 University Avenue West, Suite 202 St. Paul, MN �Sll4 Tel: (651) 644-5525 Fax (651) 642-0060 06/19/00 Barbara Dacy Community Development Director City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue Northeast Fridley, NIN 55432 Dear Ms. Dacy: I am writing to thank you and city staff for meeting with Fridley Terrace representatives and APAC on June 14, to discuss a manufactured home park closing ordina.nce. It was a pleasure meeting you and your colleagues, and I was encouraged to learn how committed your Department is to a.ffordable housing for Fridley. I really appreciate the time that you took to arcange this meeting, and to thoroughly prepaze for the discussion. Although it was reassuring to hear that the city is dedicated to the preservation of both manufactured home parks; this is private property which can be sold for redevelopmerrt at any time. Various reasons for concern by park residents were raised and discussed during our rneeting including rising property values, lack of space, and the vulnerability of manufactured homeowners who live in a city without a park closing ordinance. Both manufactured home parks of Fridley have deep roots with APAC, and we are committed to the preservation of these communities. More than three hundred residents from both Fridley parks have signed a petition requesting the enactment of a manufactured home park closing ordinance to put in place financial protection for residents in the event of a park closure. In addition to esta.blishing guaranteed relocation compensation for af�ected residents, we believe tha.t a park closing ordinance for the city of Fridley could also work toward preserving both park communities. On issue of concern that was raised by your staffduring our meeting was the potential for a "takings" issue, and subsequent city liability. Fortunately, this has already been challenged and upheld with Arcadia vs. City of Bloomington, 1996. This case is critical to APAC, and to the integrity of MS327C.095. I have mailed a copy of this case to Mr. Knaak. Tha.nk you for allowing APAC ta participate in the meeting last Wednesday. I am looking forward to further discussion with you and other city officials on this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you need additional information. Sincerely, .%��'� �� James Paist Executive Director . _� _ _ _ � -�� _ _ ,� � . �. - --;� � �:- An Organi,zation of Manufactured Home Residents , . . . : CITY OF ROSEVILLE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE III, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 313 TO THE ROSEVILLE CITY CODE CONCERNING MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS, �B REQUIRING OWNERS TO PAY RELOCATION EXPENSES TO DISPLACED RESIDENTS UPON PARK CLOSINGS THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE OR.DAINS: SECTION 1. Title III of the of the Roseville City Code is amended by adding a new Chapter 313 to read as follows: MANUFACTURED HOME PARK CLOSINGS SECTION 313.01 PURPOSE In view of the peculiar nature and problems presented by the closure or conversion of manufactured home parks, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted by zequiring compensation to displaced home owners and renters e€ in such pazks. The purpose of this ordinance is to require pazk owners to pay displaced residents reasonable relocation costs and purchasers of manufactured home parks to pay additional compensation, pursuant tu the authority granted under Minnesota Stari:tes, Section 327C.095. SECTION 313.02. DEFINITIONS The following words and terms when used in this Ordinance shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: CLOSURE STATEMENT: A statement prepared by the park owner cleazly stating the park is closing, addressing the availability, l�cation and potential costs of adequate replacement housing within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the pazk that is closing and the probable relocation costs of the manufactured homes located in the pazk. DISPLACED OWNER: A resident of an owner-occupied manufactured home who rents a lot in a manufactured home park, including the members of the resident's household, as of the date the pazk owner submits a closure statement to the Cit-,��a�g F��issie�. DISPLACED RENTER: A resident of a renter-occupied manufactured home who rents - both the lot and the manufactured home in the manufactured home park, including �he members of the resident's household, as of the date the park owner submits a closure statement to the City' . DISPLACED RESIDENT: Displaced owner or displaced renter. LO"I': An area within a manufactured home park, designed and used for the accommodation of a manufactured home. MANUFACTLJRED HOME: A structure, not affixed to or part of real estate, transportable in one e€ or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is eight (8) feet or more in width or forty (40) feet or more in length, or, when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical system contained in it. PARK OWNER: The owner of a manufactured home park and any person acting on behalf of the owner in the operation or management of a pazk. PERSON: Any individtial, corporation, firm, partnership, incorporated and unincorporated association or any other legal or commercial entity. SECTION 313.03 NOTICE OF CLOSING If a manufactured hoc:�e park is to be closed, converted in whole or part to another use or terminated as a use of the property, the pazk owner shall, at least nine (9) months prior to the closure, conversion ta another use or iermination of use, provide a copy of a ciosure statement to a resident af each manufactured home and to the City's ��g E;e�� Community Development Director. SECTION 313.G4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Upon receipt of the closure statement, the Community Development Director shall schedule a hearing on the proposed pazk closing before the �ke City's Planning Commission . The City shall mail a notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing to a resident of Each manufactured home in the park stating the time, place and purpose of the hearing. The park owner shall provide the City with a list of the names and addresses of at least one resident of each manufactured home in the pazk at the time the closure statement is submitted to the City' • SECTION 313.05 PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing shail be held before the City �e�s� Plannint� Commission for the - purpose of reviewing the closure statement and evaluating what impact the park closing may have on the displaced residents and the park owner. � SECTION 313.06 PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS TO DISPLACED ��OWNERS 1. After service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced ��sa�� owner of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses, the park owner shall pay to the displaced �€si� owner the reasonable cost of relocating the manufactured home to another manufactured home park located within a twenty-five (25) mile radius of the pazk that is being closed, converted to another use, or ceasing operation. Reasonable relocation costs shall include: A. The actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced �� owner's manufactured home and personal property, including the reasonable cost of disassembling, moving and reassembling sheds and any attached appurtenances, such as porches, decks, skirting and awnings, which were not acquired after notice of closure or conversion of the park, and utility "hook-up" charges. B. The cost of insurance for the replacement value of the property being moved. C. The cost of repairs or modifications that are required in order to take down, move and set up the manufactured home. 2. If a�� displaced owner canriot relocate the manufactured home within a twenty- five (25) mile radius of the pazk which is being closed or some other agreed upon distance, and the � displaced owner e(ects not to tender title to the manufactured home, the �s�� displaced owr:er is entitled to relocation costs based upon an average of retocation costs awazded to other residents in the park. 3. A displaced �� owner compensated under this section shall retain title to the manufactured home and shall be responsible f�r its prompt removal from the manufactured home pazk. 4. The pazk owner shall make the payments under this section directly to die persor, preforming the relocation services afier performance thereof, or, upon submission uf written evidence of payment of relocation costs by a displaced resident, shall reimburse the displaced resident for such costs. 5. The displaced �� owner must sub:nit a contract or other verified cost estimate for relocating the manufactured home to the park owner as a condition to the pazk uwner's liability to pay relocation expenses. SFCTION 313.07 PAY�EI+1T OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION T4 DISPLACE OWNERS If a�� displaced ewner either cannot or chooses not to relocate the manufactured home within a 25-mile radius of the park that is being closed or some other agreed upon distance and tenders title to the manufactured home, the �si� displaced owner is entitled to additional compensation to be paid by the purchaser of the park in order to mitigate the adverse financial impact of the park closing. In such instance, the additional compensation shall be an amount equal to the estimated market value or the tax assessed value of the manufactured home, whichever is greater, as determined by an independent appraiser experienced in �� manufactured home appraisal approved by the City ,4d��a�e�. The purchaser shall pay the cost of the appraisal or shall reimburse the City for any advances it makes to such appraiser for such cost. The purchaser shall pay s�s� the additional compensation into an escrow account, established by the park owner, for distribution upon transfer of title to the home. Such compensation shall be paid to the displaced owners no later than the ninety (90) days prior to the earlier of closing of the park or its conversion to another use. SECTION 313.08 PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS TO DISPLACED RENTERS 1. After service of the closure statement by the park owner and upon submittal by the displaced renter of a contract or other verification of relocation expenses, the park owner shall pay to the displaced renter reasonabte costs of relocating. Reasonable relocation costs shall include: A. T'he actual expenses incurred in moving the displaced renter's personal property. B. The cost of insuratice for the replacement value. of the property being moved. C. The difference hetween (ltiew i,ot Rent - Gios�d Lot Rent) for a period of 2 years, if the new lot rent is greater than the old lot rent. SECTION 313.09 PEnALTY 1. Vialation of any provision of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor. 2. Any provisions of this Ordinance may be enforced by injunction or other appropriate civil remedy. 3. 11ie City shall not issue a building permit in conjunction with reuse of manufactured home pazk property unless the park owner has paid reasonable location costs and the purchaser of the pazk has provided additional compensation in accordance with the re.quirements of the Ordinance. Approval of any application for rezoning, ptatting, conditional use penmit, planned wut develogment or variance in conjunetion with a park closing or conversion shall be conditional on compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance. . , . , SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, this _ day of , ► 111 Signature lines: March 6, 2000 To: Gty of Fridiey Mfnnesota Nancy J. Jorgenson, Mayor Robert L. Bamettte, Councilmember-at-large Steven E. Biliing, Councilman Ward 1 Richard P. Wolfe, Councilman Ward 2 Ann R. Bolkcom, Councilman Ward 3 From: Residents and Voters of Fridley RE: ENACTING A MANUFACTURE� HOME PARK CLOSING ORDINANCE We the unde�signed 319 Fridley residents, respectfully request the City of Fridley to adopt a Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance authorized by Minnesota State Statute 327C.095. Th(s measure will provide relocation compensation for Fridley residents of manufactured home parks In the event of displacement through a manufactured home park closing. The following paragraphs appear in an article titled "Why Pass a Park Closing Orclinance?" prepared by All Park Alliance for Change (APAC) the non-profit organization that works with residents of manufactured home parks which explains tt�e need for these ordinances to be enacted by municipalitles. (See attached mpy of article fo� complete text.) "Owners of traditlonal, stick-built homes are fuliy compensated when development forces them to abandon their homes but residents of manufactured home parks are not. Although they own their home, manufactured home park residents rent the lot space below. Because most parks generally don't accept older homes, some residents are vulnerable to having nowhere to move their home if they become displaced through a park closing. This'immobile' nature of mobile homes often subjects tenants to extreme financial loss when they are forced to literaly abandon their homes without receiving any finandal mmpensation. Without protection for their homes some residents could end up homeless when tfieir park ctoses. In 1987, the Minnesota state legisiature passed a law a�lowing ci�es to pass park closing ordinances to protect tl�eir citizens living in manufactured home parks. Through this ordinance, residents have some financial protection should their park ever ciose. If a park closes for redevelopment purposes, through the ordinance the park owner and/or new developer pays reasonable relocation costs to move all homes to other parks within a 25-mile radius or buys out the homes at their appraised market values if they can't be moved." There are two manufactured home parks located in the Gty of Fridley: Fridiey Terrace Mobile Home Park has 326 lots, and Park Plaza Estates has 84 lots. The passage of the ordinance will protect approximately 400 homeowners in Fridley. The likelihood that the manufactured home parks located in Fridley may be closed for redevelopment is a legifimate mncem for the homeowners given that both parks are Iocated on Highway 65 in a city that has littie land left to develop. Fridley Temace MHP sits on 22 acres of prime real estate witli a vast amount of frontage on Highway 65 and contains only three permanent structures that would need to be razed for redevelopment. This piece of property could be very appealing to a developer. �_. Page 2 Manufactured Park Closing Ordinance March 6, 2000 Manufactured home parks have been ciosed for redevelopment in Hopkins and Elk River where dreumstances were similar to F�idley. Fortunately for the residents in those cities, Park Closing Ordinances were passed and manufactured homeowners were compensat�ed for being displaced. Before any redevelopment proposals are considered for the Fridley manufactured park properties, it would be pnident for the City of F�idley to enact a Park qosing OrdinarKe that informs the property owners and prospective buyers who will be responsible for compensating the disptaoed residents. A voluntary anonymous survey of 115 manufactured homeowners who live fn Fridley was taken during the week of February 28, 2000. The survey indicates that 81.7% of the respondents have oider homes that cannot be moved into other parks and would face the loss of the equity in their homes should the either park be closed for redevelopment. While 12.296 of the respondents indicate they are owners of newer homes that may be relocated to other parks within a 25-mile radius, it cost thousands of doliars to do so. 41.7% of the respondents stated they have family income leveis that are lower than $30,000. These families wouid have a very difficu�t time finding replacement affordable housing and would be financiaily devastated shouid their parks be closed without the finanaal protectlon a Park Closing Ordinance would provide them. (See attache� summary of die voluntary survey for further demographic information.) To date nine Minnesota municipalities have passed Park Ctosing Ordinanoes. (See attached "Information on Minnesota Paric Closing Ordinances" flyer provided by APAC.) These ordinances have been tested in the rnurts and are fair for all parties involved in a pa�lc closing. Attached you wiil find a copy of the Elk River Park Closing Ordinance passed in 1997, and the Rosevilie Park Ciosing Ordinance passed on February 28, 2000. • The absence of a Manufactured Park Closing Ordinance in the Fridley codes leaves the city's manufactured home owners facing an unnecessary financiai burden should either of these parks ever be closed for redevelopment. Thank you for your consideration of enacting a very important ordinance. Call me if you have any questlons or comments: )erri 0'Deil Fridley Terrace MHP Homeowner 7303 Taylor St. NE Fridley, MN 55432 (763) 795-8460 ANNONYMOUS SURVEY OF 115 FRIDLI TAKEN DURING THE WEEK AGE OF HOME: LESS THAN 10 YEARS 10 YEARS AND OLDER NOT INDICATED ON SURVEY INCOME' ABOVE $30,000 ANNUAL LESS THAN $30,000 ANNUAL FIXED INCOME/SSI/VETS DISABILIL NOT INDICATED ON SURVEY REASONS RESPONDENTS LIVE IN FRIDLEY MANUFACTURED HOMf PARKS: ECONOMIC CLOSE TO WORK CLOSE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CLOSE TO SCHOOLS SAFE LOCATION �THER DEMOGRAPHIC INF4RMATION: SINGLE PARENTS NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS/ CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS DISABILITY/SSI LOW WAGES FIXED INCOME SPECIAL NEEDS OR HANDICAPPED MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS FEBRUARY 28, 2000 NUMBF� 14 94 7 NUMBER 34 48 12 21 NUMBER 80 34 17 19 25 N MBER 12 9 10 26 26 5 PERCENTAGE 12.2% 81.7% 6.1% �ERCENTAGE 29.6% 41.7% 10.4% 18.3% PERCENTAGE 70% 30% 15% 17% 22% PERCENTAGE 10% 8% 9% 23% 23% 4% �Xc� � �zd,.,� , �l °� Petition for A Fridle ManufACtur d Horoc Park Closin Y g Ordin�nce We, t6e uudenigned Fridley residenb, respectfu ly request t6e City ot Fridley to �dopt � P�rlc Closing Ordinance aut6orize�d by Minnesota Stat Statute 327C.09S. Thia measure wiU provide relocation compeosation for Fridley re3idents f manufactured 6ome parics in t6e event ot dispiacemeot t6rough a park ciosing. The pas�ag ot t6i� ordinance will protect an estimated 400 6omeowners in Fridtey. NAME ADDRE TELEPHONE %'� �%� - % �' � So . � ` 3G �✓ s % � �c --- � � v � : �--�J 3 0 � �'��r c l e -�v� �l - - �: �• �T'ri��l� � i ��li �I%I� � _ , --�: . ' i i . , : �.�� .� �� u- ��'� - .� �.� �' .r� :.o►.i. . �., . .d.C� �` �� = � � ` `�� ` �� 1 �'� -- 7.�3 D 7 �6 —� 7�3 �� - iS�� — ��3s— ��?�s 7�G -S'/6 S r. �t � � ;�1 � > �S ,3D 8�..�3� �:� .. , I�,'�"� _�.� i � �g�a � �q � �q 2 AGENDA ITEM CITY COUNCIL ME �� FRIDLEY Date: August 15, 2000 To: William Burns, City Manager �� From: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Julie Jones, Planner/Recycling Coordinat Subject: Springbrook Clean Water Partnership Background For the past three years, 7ulie Jones, acting as Project R� grant that the City received in 1997 to study the Springb one of the six overseen by the Six Cities Watershed Mar Phase I grant is used to investigate the wetland complex Nature Center wetlands have �one through a significant years, which has degraded habitat and the wetland's abil River. This resource investigation ended on May 2, 2000. Ov� the committees involved to complete the required Fina1 be a work in progress, but is nearing completion. The � reviewed by the committees and various technical advis report over the next few weeks. However, due to the E Phase II grant application, we are asking the City Coun available and decide how they wish to proceed. NG OF August 21, 2000 Report esentative, has been coordinating the MPCA �k Creek Subwatershed. This watershed is ement Organization. The purpose of the ;ide the Springbrook Nature Center. The s in vegetation (cattails) over the past ten to filter storm water going into the Mississippi the past 3 months, Julie has been working with eport for the MPCA. The report continues to ached 61-page draft of the report is still being s. There will continue to be changes to this t that we have very little time left to consider a to consider the attached information currently Findings The study of the subwatershed did not result in one simpl answer for the cattail loss at the Nature Center. Instead an inter-related set of variables is conclu ed to be the blame for vegetation loss. The factors (listed at the top of p. 42 in the attached report) e: • Sustained water levels due to outlet weir constn • ncrease in water levels following storm events • ncreased frequency of fluctuating water levels wi hin the wetland for longer periods in the 1990s • ncrease in turbidity (muddiness of water) reducin light penetration GIS ma pin� shows that 130 acres of impervious surface area was added to the watershed in the same time frame when 90% of the vegetation surface �rea equates to increased storm water runoff that in the Nature Center. Increased impervious sediment and pollutants with it. .� The of E water. iy points toward the reality that the City of Frii e, Coon Rapids, and Spring Lake Park in this s and still thrive as a suitable wildlife habitat. In The Fi Report includes an Implementation Plan (p. would e�in to address corrections advised by the pr describ d in detail (p. 44-55) and followed by a su is accepting more storm water from the Cities atershed than what our Nature Center can of the watershed, this is untreated storm 44 62), which lays out proposed projects, which ojec 's technical advisors. Each proposed project is mmary table of costs on p. 55. The total costs project d for all proposed projects are approximately $750,000. A MPCA Phase II grant could cover up to 50% of these costs. The Ph involve The Ci1 Blaine, If Phas� water � In addi�� quality improv is unkn Recc Staff re proces: commu applica both in treat st� �e II application process is beginning this week want to pursue a Phase II application, staff ne� of Fridley will need to lead the application pro oon Rapids, and Spring Lake Park to obtain fi II funding is not pursued, the City of Fridley �blems discovered in the Phase I study. new federal guidelines are going in place so on storm water leaving its community. So� �ts required by the NiPCA in the near future if grant money will be available to a11ow citi mmendation ;ommends that the City Council pursue a Phase the Fridley City Council needs to call a joint fo� uties involved in this project as an effort to gain on as soon as possible. It is an unreasonable ex ;ash and in loss of a natural resource like the Sp rm water for these communities. t runs through mid-October. If the four cities to begin the application process immediately. s and will need the cooperation of the cites of need to deternune how to manage the storm that will require cities to pass certain water of the items proposed in the report could be ien these new federal rules are implemented. It to meet those new rules in less than two years. CWP grant application. In order to start this -city council meeting with the other three ieir financial support for a Phase II grant :ctation for the City of Fridley to pay the cost, igbrook Nature Center wetlands, in order to