05/17/2004 CONF MTG - 4596� �'
y ' ': �
�k
�
r+t.
NOTICE OF JOINT CONFERENGE �IEETIIYG _
BETWEEN THE FR�DLEY CITY COU�VCIL.
THE HOUSI,NG AND REDEVELOPMENT AilTH�1?ITY.
THE PAR1�S AND RECREATION COMM.fSSIQN
AND THE CHARTER COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that thhere will be a special joint conference m�� �� ,
the Fridley City Council, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, tht Par� �s� �`
Reereation Commission and the Charter Commission on Monday, May i7, 2t�,� i�
review and discuss the following:
City CounciUCommissaons Survey Responses �
�y
Said meeting will commence at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting Rooms 1 and 2' ai the �'�e� f
;.
Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Mianesota. E�
�;
Any and all persons desiring to be heazd shall be given an opporiunity at the abav�s�.i�
time and place. Any questions related to this item may be refened to the City R��e�'':� ;
.,�
Office at (763) 572-3500. .
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other p�►ns
with disabilities who require awciliary aids should coatact Roberta. Collins as sc�on �`'
possible at (763) 572-3500.
DATED: May 13, 2004 WILLIAM W. BURNS �
CITY MANAGER
�
a
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL
CONFERENCE MEETING
May �7, Zoo4 — 7:0o p.m.
Fridley Municipal Center
Meeting Rooms i and �
Redevelopment Strategies.
2. University Avenue Fence.
3. Parks Capital Funding Level.
4. Other Business.
Adj ourn.
Memo to: The Mayor and Council ,�
From: Williaxn W. Burns, City Manager �
Subject: Council-Commission Survey Discussion
Date 5-17-04
In preparation for Monday's meeting I've made copies of my Power Point Presentation (revised
from the last time) and additional copies of the survey results.
�
�
�
��/ /
�
0
._
�
�
.�
io
U
�
_
.�
V
�
�
�
V
r
.
�
i
�
0
�
ti
�
�
�
._
�
�
�
v
�
._
0
�A
. �"
�
�
4�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�°
-
.
-�
.
�
�
.�
�
4�
�
C�
�
�
�
�
4�
�
�
0
�
�
a�
�
4�
�
.
�
�
V
�
�
4�
�
�
4�
�
�
.�
.�,
�
�
a�
�
.,.�
�
�
.
N
�
�
�
�
�A
. �"
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
V
�
�
C�
�
.
M
�
�
V
O
�
�
4�
�
�
.
�
�
�
0
••
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
.�
�
�
.
�
�
�
�
�,
�
�
��
�
�
•'.y
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
C�
O
�
�
�
.
N
.
v
• �,
�
O
�
��
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�I
�
•
M
r
n
�
�
�
�
• �y
�
a
�
0
�
�
�
r��1
�
�
�
I��M
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�O
•�
V
�
�
�
�
• �.y
�
�
�
�
�
• �.y
�
�
•�
�/
�
�
�
•�
�
0
�
�
�
.�
• �■y
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
•O
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
•
�
��
�
�
�
�I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
• �y
�
�
�
��
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�.�J
��
•�
�
�
��
'■■�M
�
�
4�
�
�
�
C�
�
O
.�
�
�
�
�
�
• �y
•�
�M
�
�
4�
�
�
C�
r..�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
�
�
4�
�
�
0
V
. n
�
•�
�■�I
�
�
�
�
�
�
• �y
�
�i■,
C�
�
�■■�
�
�
4�
r..�
�
4�
4�
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
• �y
�
�.��lU
�
•,�
�
• �,
C�
�
4�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
'�
�
�
�
•O
�
�
V
.�
�
�
�
.'..�
�
�
�
.
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�,
�
�
�
�
�
4�
�
4�
�
4�
�
.
�
�
4�
�
�
r..�
�
�
0
�
�
�
.,.�
O
�
�
.O
�
4�
�
�
4�
�
E"�
.
�
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a�
�
�
�
4�
�
4�
�
O
�
�
�
�
n
�
�
4�
�
O
�
.
�
�
a�
�
�
�
4�
�
4�
"'��
4�
�
�
�
�
C�
4�
�
�
��
�I
•�
�
�
�
�
4�
.S:
�
�
C�
�
�
�
0
0
�
�
a�
�
. �..,
�
�
�
.,�
�
.�
4�
�
4�
�
�
�
►y) VV
I`I
� �
� �
� � �
C� �i �
� �� �
� �
� � 4�
� � �
.�
'''' � �
'� � O
� � �
� c� �
� � .�
�
�"� • � �
� v �
� � o
�
� � �
b� � ~ �
� � ��
� � �
•,•� � M,.�
� � .
� 4� �
� � .�
� � �
�
•
'�
�A,
�i�/
�
�
�
4�
�
4�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
C�
�
�
�
O
�
�
4�
�
�
O
�
�
�
O
�
�
• �
�
�
O
V
�
�
�
0
�a
�
O
N
�
��
��
. �.,
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
, C�
�
C�
�
4�
�
�
. �"
�
�
O
�
a�
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
�
�
O
�
�
�
.�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�■.i
�
�
�
�`
4�
�
�
�
O
�
O
�
4�
�
�
.�
C�
�
4�
�
�
�i �
� �
��
�
�
�
O
�
4�
�
-�
�
�
�
�
C�
V
C�
4�
�
�
�
�
O
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�..�
�
�
O
�
.�
�••r
�
�
O
V
V
C�
.
�
•�
�
�
.O
�
�
0
�
�
O
�
rL
�
�
4�
�
4�
�
�•r
�
O
4�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
��
_`�
�
�
�
�
�
4�
�
4�
�
�
O
V
4�
�
�
C�
. �'
�
�
4�
�A
C�
�
4�
r'�
�
.
r..�
�
4�
�
�
�
4�
�
4�
�
4�
�
�
�
CC�
0
�
�
�
�
�iI
AI,
�i/
��
O
`�%
�A,
1i/
�
�iI
�A,
�i/
�
\'I
,�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�O
�,
�
�
�
•�
I��
�
�
O
�
�
�
�
��
�
���
�
�
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
CC�
�
�
•
�
O
O
b�
v
.,.y
�
�
�
�
4�
�
O
�
.O
��
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
O
�
�
O
M
�
�
•�
�
�
O
�
O
��
�
�
�
�
�A,�
�iI
�
4�
�
4�
�
4�
b�A
C�
�
4�
�
�
•
�
�
�
•�
�
.~
�
�
�
�
4�
�
�
C!�
�
C�
V/
�
�
•�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
V
�
O
�
�
O
4�
�
O
�
�
��
.
�
4�
�
�
O
�
�
4�
�
4�
v
�
4�
�
/�
�
�
.�'
.'..,
�
�
4�
.�
�
�
.
N
�
I!�
�
�
�
�
�
�I
VJ�
��
,�
�i
�
�
�
b�A
b�A
�
�
�
0
.�
�
4�
�
�S"
4�
�
�
�
�
•� �
� �
�•i•l �I
� �
� r
�
� i
�M
�
�
•�
•� �
�l �
� �
�� �
� W
� �
� �
� �
� �
c� �
�
� "o
�
a� �
�
,o
4� �
C� �
� �
� �
��
��
V1
��
�
�
•�
�
•�
�
•�
�
�
4�
4�
�
�
�
a�
.�
�
A
4�
.�
�
4�
�
.
a�
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�--�
�O
�
�
�
�
�
•�
�
�
�I
�
�I
�
O
�
4�
�
4�
�
�
.�
�
�
0
i✓�
�
O
N
N
�
•
�
�
�
N
.'��"
4�
v
�
�
�
0
�
0
.�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
V
�
�
�
C�
�
4��
�
0
�
�
0
�
N
�
�
V
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
c�
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
F�
�
4�
�
...,
�
�
�
C�
W
a�
�
a�
�
�°
C�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
O
�
4�
.�
�
A
a�
.�
�
a�
�
�
�
�
�
0
O
N
4�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
•
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�i
.
V
.�
0
�
�
�
4�
�
a�
�
0
�
�
�
.,..,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
"'�'�
�
�
O
�
�•r
�
�
�
0
�
�
0
�
N
�
• �..I
�
�
�
V
�
�
�
0
�
.�
�
.�
�
�
0
C�
CC�
b�A
.�
�
�
�
�
�
0
v
�I�I
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
�
�
�
•�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
a�
�
4�
�
�
4�
�
�
�
.�
�
a�
.�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
V
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
4�
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
C�
•
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
0
�
4-�
�
N
rl
.
v
.�
0
�
�
�
a�
�
�
4�
r..�
�
O
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
4�
�
tl�
�
��
d
�
�
�
O
.�
�..�
�
�
. �.,,
O
C�
C�
�
�
. �..r
�
V
�
�
�
�
O
v
�J
�
0
�
�
�
b�
��
�
�
�A
.�"
V
�
�
4�
•�
�
CC�
�
O
C�
4�
�
�
�
,�
�
�
�
4�
r7'
•,�
�
�
�
O
4�
�
.�
�
�
4�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4�
�
�
4�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4�
4�
4�
�
�
�
��F�■I
�
N
�
.
`O
O
O
N
�
.�
�
v
.�
O
�
�
�
�
�
�
r..�
O
�
.
�
�
4�
v
�
O
C�
.�
�
r..�
�
�
�
�
�
4�
�
C�
C�
.�
�
�A
�
.'..,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4�
�
O,
�
C�
.'�
�
C�
�
�
�■I
�
�
.
M
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
. �..�
O
�
�
O
.�
�
�
�
�
�
�
E"�
� N �
�
�..� •
� �
�..�
� �
� � �
� � I�'�
� �
� � �
� �� �
� � �
� � �
� �
4� �
� �
� ~ �
� � �
.�
� � �
� � C�
� � �
O � �
� � �
��
� � 4�
• �I �I■�I
� �
� � •
� � �I
� ~ �
V 4� �
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
r..�
�
�
�
.,�
�
�
O
v
�
.••N
�
�
�
�
�
�
_ 4�
� �
v �
O O
� �
� �
�■I �
0 �
� •�
� �
� �
C� C�
��
�
� �
�••�
� �
O �
� �
r..� �
� �
4� �••�
� �
� �
•� �
� • �I
�
� �
0 �
V C�
4�
�
.�..�
�
�
.'.y
�
�
• �y
`�
�
O
V
�
�
�
��
�
0
�
�
0
�
�
�,
ry
.
.
�
�
�
�
0
�■■1
l_I
�
�
��•r
C�
�
v
C�
�
�
�
c�
�
�
r �
�i
�
4�
�
4�
�
O
�
�
�
. �..,
�
�
�
�
c�
�
•�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4�
�
.�
4�
�
�
0
�
�
0
�
�
�
LI
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
• O
�
.,..�
�
�
C�
�
C�
V
O
�
�
�
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�
�
• �■y
�
�
�
�
�
.
�
r..�
�
4�
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
. �.y
a�
�
a�
�
�
�
.'..,
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
4�
v�
4�
�
�A
.�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.�
�
�
.
�
�
0
�
�
�
�
�►`
t
2004 COUNCIL-COMMISSIONSURVEYRESULTS
Question I- Replacement of the Aerial
There were thirty-two responses to this question. Twenty-three agreed with the recommendation
to replace the Fire Department's aerial truck in 2006. Eleven disagreed with the
recommendation. Several of those opposed to the recommendation indicated that they felt that
the number of fires requiring the aerial together with increasing use of mutual aid made the
purchase unnecessary. One respondent opined that those who owned ta11 buildings should pay for
the equipment through a special assessment.
Question 2 - Additional Firefighter
Among the thirty-four respondents, seventeen indicated that we should not use federal grant
funding to hire an additional firefighter. Seventeen believed that we should. A few of those
opposed offered comments. One respondent felt that it was unwise to hire more firefighters at a
time when we were laying off other employees. Another felt we should rely on the paid-on-call
firefighters and also had no problems with our Fire Department managers taking emergency
calls.
Question 3- Senior Companion Program
Twenty of the thirty-four respondents to this question would have the City relying on grant
money, fundraisers and other charitable contributions to fund the Senior Companion Program.
Only thirteen of the respondents would continue the Senior Companion Program at City expense.
One respondent pointed out that since Fridley is an aging community, the $5,000 for the Senior
Companion Program was a small price tag and presumably one that we should pay.
Question 4- Parks Capital Funding Level
Opinions were evenly divided among the respondents to this question on parks capital
improvement financing. Seventeen respondents indicated that we should scale back our annual
parks capital improvements as a result of lost Local Government Aid and generally declining
local government revenues. These same individuals believed that we should rely on the existing
pazk-related revenues such as those made available through park dedication fees and interest
revenues. Seventeen respondents believed that the Parks Capital Improvement Fund should be
allocated additional money for needed park improvements. Two of the respondents added notes
indicating that additional property t�es should be approved through a referendum.
Question S- Off Leash Dog Park
This question pointed out that Anoka County was considering the establishment of an off-leash
dog park at one of Fridley's County Parks. While one of the respondents did not care, sixteen
thought the park was a good idea; seventeen indicated it was not a good idea. One respondent
added a note indicating that he/she had purchased a Minneapolis permit for his/her dog and
believed that it would be nice to have this amenity in Fridley.
Question 6- 2: 00 a.m. Bar Closing
Opinion on this issue was diverse and spread widely among the choices. Ten respondents would
hold off on allowing 2:00 a.m. bar closings until we have more accident and DUI data from other
cities. Eight respondents would extend the hours unconditionally to insure that Fridley bars and
restaurants remain competitive. Seven respondents indicated that they would not extend the
hours under any conditions. Six indicated that we should continue to study the impacts of 2:00
a.m. bax closing while allowing it on special nights, such as New Year's Eve and the night before
Thanksgiving. Three chose their own option. Of these three, two would extend the hours
conditionally with the understanding that the issue would be revisited after a trial period. One
would allow the extended closing, but would sunset the ordinance.
Question 7 - Redevelopment Strategies
In this question, we pointed out that the HRA has reserves, but not a very plentiful revenue
stream for redevelopment. Respondents were asked how we should approach redevelopment in
view of this situation. Thirteen respondents would continue housing rehabilitation and scattered
site housing programs, but save the remainder of reserves until we accumulated enough money
to accomplish top redevelopment priorities. Five respondents would use all of the reserves to
leverage private sector development and redevelopment. Six would use reserves to leverage
grant money for projects that accomplish some public good. Four would use the reserves to
leverage redevelopment of aging apartment buildings. Six respondents crafted unique responses.
One asked that we revisit the priority list before making a decision on funding. Another
respondent said that he/she would keep some reserves to take advantage of opportunities that
become available. One person suggested that spending reserves depended on "what other issues
arise."
Question 8- Comprehensive Plan Revision
The prologue to this question points out that the City's Comprehensive Plan has come under
increasing fire as we have considered various development proposals during the last two yeaxs.
In view of this demand for revision of the Comprehensive Plan, respondents were asked to agree
or disagree with several statements about how this planning process should occur.
The first statement asserted that we should schedule a process for amending only the housing
section of the Comprehensive Plan. Twenty-two responded. Eleven agreed; eleven disagreed.
The next statement said that the process should be accompanied by careful analysis of Fridley's
housing composition and how this existing mix met the current and future needs of the
community. Twenty-five respondents agreed with this statement. One disagreed.
The third statement asserted that the Comprehensive Plan amendment process should be
conducted in a manner that maintains Fridley's compliance with the Metropolitan Livable
2
�
�
Communities Act, the Fair Housing Act and other relevant laws and statutes. Twenty-one agreed
with this statement. Two disagreed.
The fourth statement provided that while the comprehensive planning process should welcome
neighborhood input, it should be based on community-wide needs as reflected in the comments
of a broad cross section of the City's population. Twenty-three respondents agreed with this
statement. Four disagreed.
Finally, we stated that although the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan should be
moved along expeditiously, it should be done carefully and carried out within a time frame that
allows sufficient research, public education and public discussion. Twenty-six respondents
agreed. No one disagreed.
The bottom line is that there is near agreement on all of the statements except the first one. As
we discuss this on April 19 and May 17, it will be interesting to ask whether the opposition was
to amending the housing section of the plan separate from the entire plan or whether it reflected a
desire not to get into the comprehensive planning process at all until we are required to do it
several years down the road.
Question 9 - UniversityAvenue Fence
Twenty-three of the respondents liked the idea of the alternate bid for the East University
Avenue Service Drive fencing (between 61St Avenue and Mississippi Street) in 2004. Six
respondents disagreed.
Twenty-one respondents also agreed that we should erect a 4-foot high decorative fence along
the East University Avenue Service Drive south of 615t Avenue as part of the 2005 street
improvement project. Seven respondents disagreed.
Twenty-one respondents supported the idea of constructing a combination of decorative fencing
and hedges on the west side of University Avenue between Burger King and 61St Avenue as part
of the Gateway West project. Nine respondents disagreed with this concept.
Fifteen respondents supported constructing a combination of decorative fencing and hedges
along the west side of University Avenue between 61st Avenue and the Rottlund project in 2006.
Fourteen respondents disagreed.
There were nuxnerous written comments. One respondent, for example, supported each of the
four projects with the condition that there should be partial State funding for each segment.
While one other respondent hates fences, she/he would be more inclined to support decorative
fencing if it did not include arborvitae and the maintenance costs associated with it. Another
respondent seems supportive of the decorative fencing, but objects to assessing the
commerciaUreligious entities on the east side while not assessing any of the residential property
owners on the east side. He/she would not assess anyone.
,.
:
Question IO - Strategies for Budget Cutting
This question recognizes another $649,000 loss in LGA for 2005 and points out that there will be
pressures to restore both personnel and equipment that were cut in prior years as we prepare the
2005 budget. In view of these losses and pressures, the question asks that the respondent select
an expenditure-cutting strategy.
Fifteen respondents would make all cuts based on prioritization of City programs and services.
Fourteen others would start with an across-the-board reduction in each department, with the
remainder of the cuts based on prioritization of programs and services. Two respondents would
ask each department to take the same percenta.ge cut in their budgets. Two respondents crafted
their own solutions. One of these would ask employees to take a 10% salary cut, pay for more of
their benefits and take unpaid time off. Firefighters and Police patrol would be exempt. The other
respondent would ask for an across-the-board reduction in each department except for essential
services, and would require, for example, two weeks of unpaid vacation for all departments.
Question 11- Charter Restrictions on Utiliry Rates
The question points out that the Charter indexes utility rates to the rate of inflation and asks
whether or not a Charter change is desirable.
Twenty-four respondents believe that these restrictions should be lifted from the City Charter.
Six respondents believe the Charter restrictions on utility rate increases should be mainta.ined.
Two respondents would leave the restrictions alone and use reserves to pay for utility deficits
before asking the voters for rate changes. Two others crafted their own responses. One would lift
the Charter restrictions, but limit increases to actual cost increases. The other would seek voter
approval of the Charter amendment.
4
f
i
Memo to: The Mayor and Counci� ��
From: William W. Burns, City 1Vi�ager f�
Subject: University Avenue Fence Outline
Date 5-14-04
In preparing for Monday night, I found this outline from Jon Haukaas (He's at an APWA)
meeting this week.). Apparently he intended to use it Monday night. Since it's well done and
informative, I thought I would share it with you as packet material.
�
,
w
UNIVERSITY AVENUE FENCE
Summary of the Issues
• City would like to improve the image of the corridor.
• Businesses along the corridor would like to improve their
visibility from University Avenue.
• Residential properties want to maintain the privacy and
protection provided by the barrier.
• MnDOT has final approval and requires a physical barrier to
remain in place.
Current Ideas
• Replace Fence on East Side with decorative railing and brick
pilasters similar to Christenson Crossing, 57� Avenue, and
Gateway East.
Incorporate landscape hedges to "soften" the look of long
linear areas of fencing. Hedging would need to achieve near
full growth prior to removal of existing fence.
Phased project approach in 4 segments
o East Side — 61� to Mississippi St
o East Side — Gateway East to 61 St
o West Side — 57�' to 61 St �
o West Side — 61� to Christenson Crossing
Page 1 of 3
L
s
University Ave Fence Discussion '
�
Preferred Options
• Install 50-75 foot sections of landscape hedges on east side at
64�', 63rd, and south edge of Moon Plaza on Phase 1 segment
o`Break up' length of the fencing
o Block headlight glare onto and across University Ave.
• Create similar breaks at 60� and 59� Ave equivalent on
Phase 2 segment.
• Install primarily landscape hedging on west side for Phases 3
and 4.
o Helps keep feeling of privacy on residential side.
o Also acts as a light and noise barrier.
• Insta.11 fence segments at 57� and 61St in order to maintain
visibility and create an `anchor' effect for the segment ends.
• Possibly leave fence on west side in place after installation of
landscaping as removal will have significant impacts to the
existing trees and bushes growing in and around the existing
fence.
Page 2 of 3
��
�,
University Ave Fence Discussion
COStS
We have contacted seven different fencing contractors and
received estimates back from two of them.
• Decorative fencing with pilasters will cost approximately $80
per lineal foot. This equates to about $200,000 per half mile.
Each of the four phased segments is approximately 1/2 mile in
length.
• Dense "privet hedge" landscaping will cost approximately
$15 per lineal foot installed. We may be able to work with
the MnDOT Landscape Partnership program to cut this cost
in half by having them pay for all materials. Installation
must still be paid for by the City.
• Estimated cost for each phase under this scenario
o Phase 1& 2-$190,000 each.
o Phase 3& 4-$60,000 each.
Fundin
• Cost for this project could be assessed all or in part to the
adjacent properties.
• Cost for this project competes with other General Capital
Improvement Proj ect needs such as Fire Trucks, Roof
Repairs, Digital Community Billboard, Voting Machines, etc.
• HRA is open to discussing a partial cost share on this project.
They will be discussing it at their next meting and could
continue that discussion with the City Council at the next
joint conference session in May.
Page 3 of 3