01/24/2005 - 4564_.-q . . . . . � � .. � � � : � .
r� . � � .. . � . � .. .
� . . . . . . . _� � *�
. .. � . .. .. . . � _ �' .
OFFICIA►L CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2005
�!P � � . � . . ". - . : - .
� . �. � . . . . � . . �:i
� . . . - . � � - � . .. ;::j
1P i
.
�
a;
�
�
�,�:
s�:
�T� �
•
� ��
CITY OF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF JANUARY 24, 2005
7:30 p.m. — City Council Chambers
Attendance Sheet
Please �rint name. address and item number vou are interested in
Print Nam+e (Clearly) Address Ytem No. '
`/�n 7=-G ��='- u w� h,g t=i ; 5+:.�'r a�._I � i e_ � L-�-i � C,7�� i�i1
� � �
(ll�..• +.�ii�t� a�c( t/i„ �r� �- " +� �%►.:.�. `S�' '>" � � �'v�
L-:f /-' _ / C1 C' ; } � 1 �?
�
M.
�
�
C(iY OF
FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
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. (TTD/572-3534)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
Abatement Appeal of Karin Tyra,
1501 Mississippi Street N.E. (Ward 2) .....................................................................:. 1- 7
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of January 3, 2005
� OLD BUSINESS:
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 603 and Chapter 606 of the Fridley
City Code Pertaining to Lawful Gambling .......................................................... 8- 11
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24. 2005 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Resolution Establishing the Springbrook Nature
Center Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................... 12 - 13
3. Resolution Authorizing Changes in Appropriations
for the 2005 Budget Associated with the Creation
of the Springbrook Nature Center Special Revenue
Fund....................................................................................................... 14 - 18
�
✓
�
4. Resolution Approving and Authorizing Signing an •
Agreement for Police Sergeants of the City of
Fridley Police Department for the Years 2003,
2004 and 2005 .................................................................................................. 19 - 41
5. Approve Joint Powers Agreement for Traffic
Markings, Street Sweeping, Crack Sealing,
Screening and Seal Coating .............................................................................. 42 - 47
6. Motion to Authorize the Fridley Senior -
Companion Program to Apply for CDBG +�
Funding for the Period July, 2005, through
December, 2006 ................................................................................................ 48 k
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 3
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
, NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
.
7. Appointments (City Employees) ......................................................................... 49
8. Claims ....................................................................................................... 50
ADOPTION OF AGENDA.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of Items not on Agenda — 15 Minutes
OLD BUSINESS:
9. Variance Request, VAR #04-15, by Bill Hinks,
Furniture Outlets, USA, Inc., to Increase the
Amount of Allowable Wall Signage on the North
Facing Wall of the Building from 342 Square
Feet to 734 Square Feet; to Increase the Amount of
Allowable Wall Signage on the East Facing Wall
from 289 Square Feet to 324 Square Feet, and to
Allow Signage on Three Walls of an Industrial
Building, Generally Located at 5353 East River
Road (Ward 3) (Tabled January 3, 2005)
and
Approve Findings of Fact for Variance Request,
VAR#04-15 ...................................................................................................... 51 - 54
10. Approve Findings of Fact for Variance Request,
,� VAR #04-14, by St. Phillip's Lutheran Church,
Generally Located at 6180 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2) ...................................... 55 - 57
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005 PAGE 4
NEW BUSINESS:
A
11. Receive Bids and Award Contract for Springbrook � 4,
Creek Restoration Project No. 358 .................................................................... 58
12. Motion to Receive an Attorney Review of the
Time Warner Cable Franchise Proposal and
Direct Staff to Take Action as Warranted ........................................................... 59 - 65
13. Informal Status Reports . .................................................................................... 66
ADJOURN.
y
�
�
�
�
�.
�;
� __
MINi�TES OF T E
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCI MEETING
OF J.ANUARY 3, 2 05
�
_ �
��
0
�
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
JANUARY 3, 2005
The regular meeting of the Fridley City Council was calied to order by Mayor Lund at
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Bolkcom
Councilmember Billings
Councilmember Wolfe
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
_ Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director
Julie Jones, Planning Director
Deb Skogen, City Clerk
OATH OF OFFICE: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBER-AT-LARGE
Ms. Skogen, City Clerk, issued the oath of o�Fice for Mayor Lund and Councilmember-
at-Large Barnette.
PRESENTATION:
Certificate of Appreciation to the Fridley Knights of Columbus
Mayor Lund presented a certificate of appreciation to representatives from the Knights
of Columbus for their service to the City of Fridley.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
.
City Council Meeting of December 13, 2004
�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 2
APPROVED.
Receive the Minutes from the Planninq Commission Meetinq of December
15, 2004.
RECEIVED.
2. Resolution Desiqnatinq Official Depositories for the Citv of Fridlev.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff was satisfied with the services offered by Wells
Fargo Bank, and recommend that Council appoint them as the City's official depository
for 2005.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-1.
3. Resolution Desiqnatinq an Official Newspaper for 2005.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, said staff recommended the designation of the Sun Focus as
the official legal newspaper for the City of Fridley for the year 2005. Staff also
recommended that the Minneapolis Star Tribune be designated as the City's second
official newspaper for 2005.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-2.
4. Resolution Authorizinq a Chanqe in Mileaqe Reimbursement Rates for
2005.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this resolution adopts the 2005 IRS mileage
reimbursement rate and changes it from $0.375 to $0.405. Staff recommends Council's
approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-3.
5. Resolution Imposinq Load Limits on Citv Streets.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this resolution imposes load limits on City streets.
These limits shall be in effect beginning on the date ordered by the State's
Commissioner of Transportation.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-4.
6. Resolution Desiqnatinq Director and Alternate Director to the Suburban
Rate Authoritv.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 3
Dr. Burns, City Manager, said staff is recommending that the Public Works Director and
the Assistant Public Works Director be appointed Director and Alternate Director to the
Suburban Rate Authority.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-5.
7. Resolution Authorizinq an Application for the 2005 Communitv
Development Block Grant Prouram.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated staff recommends that the City's 2005 application
include $167,000 for the purchase of property, relocation expenses and demolition of
property needed to complete the Gateway West Redevelopment Project.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
8. Approve Second Amendment to Section 8 Housinq Assistance Pavments
Proqram Contract for Administrative Services between the Citv of Fridlev
and the Metropolitan Council.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this is the second contract extension with the
Metropolitan Council for Section 8 administrative services. Since the Metropolitan
Council is still awaiting final word on funding for Section 8 housing, they are being very
cautious about renewing contracts with the agencies that provide administrative
services for them. This contract extension will run from January 1 until June 30, 2005.
Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED.
9. Approve 2005 Animal Control Contract between the Citv of Fridlev and
Briqhton Veterinarv Hospital.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this is an extension of the existing contract at the same
cost as was incurred in 2004. For $1,300 a month, Brighton covers the cost of shelter,
feeding and medical care for the animals that are dropped off by representatives of the
Fridley Police Department. In 2004, they included 78 dogs, 48 cats, 1 ferret and 1
domestic rabbit. Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED.
10. Receive Bids and Award Proposal for a Quint Aerial Fire Truck.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, explained that Fridley Fire Chief John Berg, Assistant Fire
Chief John Crelly, and other members of the Fridley Fire Department have been
working toward the replacement of their 1973 aerial truck. Replacement of the aerial
fire truck was one of eleven issues reviewed in last year's survey. The objective of the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 4
Fire Department was to replace the aerial truck with a piece of equipment that could be
used more flexibly as both an aerial and a pumper, which is referred to as a"quint." As
they pursued the product, they also sought and received a federal FEMA grant of
$500,000 toward its purchase. With the grant in hand, they evaluated different trucks
from five manufacturers and ultimately wrote specifications. These specs were sent to
eight truck manufacturers and five equipment companies. Bids from four manufacturers
and two equipment companies were received on December 6 and the bids were
painstakingly evaluated.
Dr. Burns said that staff is recommending that the bid for the quint be awarded to
Crimson Fire at a cost of $700,911. Staff is also recommending that Council award the
equipment portion of the bid to Crimson Fire. The cost of the equipment and mounting
the equipment is $65,864. The equipment includes hand tools, hose adaptors, axes
and pry bars. Installation includes the attachment of mounting brackets for these tools
as well as SCBAs. The total bid award for the truck, equipment, and mounting of
equipment is $766,775. Staff also expects that the height of the bay door at Fire Station
1 may need to be modified to accommodate the new aerial truck at a cost of $30,000.
While the bid for the bay door alteration is not being awarded at this time, the number is
based on contractor quotes. Assuming Council's award of the bid, the truck will be
delivered on or about October 14. Staff will know whether or not the bay door must be
altered about three months prior to the truck's delivery. Staff recommends Council's
approval in awarding the bid to Crimson Fire at a cost of $766,775. This amount
compares with a budgeted amount of $750,000 in the 2005 General Capital
Improvements budget. The grant money was not included in the formal budget as a
revenue.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
11. Approve 2005 Citv Council and Staff apuointments.
APPROVED.
12. Appointment — Citv Emplovee.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this appointment is for the Environmental Planner
position. Applications were recently solicited and interviews conducted for the position
vacated by Julie Jones. Fifty-nine applications were received and seven interviews
were held. Staff is recommending the appointment of Rachel Harris to the position of
Environmental Planner at a salary of $41,026.90 per year. Ms. Harris has most recently
been employed as Program Coordinator of Recycling and Home Improvement at the
Macalister-Groveland Community Council in St. Paul. She has also served as Interim
Director for this agency. Her professional association ties include membership on the
Steering Committee for the National Recycling Coalition. She is also the
Secretary/Treasurer for the Council of Recycling Manager. Rachel has a Bachelor's
4
Degree in geography with a heavy emphasis in urban planning from the University of
�.
0
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 5
Minnesota. She is currently working on a Master's Degree in Organizational Leadership
at the College of St. Catherine's. Staff recommends Council's approval.
APPROVED THE APPOINTMENT OF RACHEL HARRIS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PLANNER POSITION.
13. Claims: (119673 —119895)
APPROVED.
14. Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
15. Estimates.
APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATE:
Ron Kassa Construction, Inc.
6005 — 250t" East
Elko, MN 55020
2004 Miscellaneous Concrete Repair
. Project No. 355
Estimate No. 5 $ 493.99
Councilmember Bolkcom requested that Items 7 and 10 be removed from the consent
agenda for further discussion.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the consent agenda with the removal of Items 7 and 10 to the regular agenda.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA -
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the agenda with the addition of Items 7 and 10.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of items not on agenda (15 minutes).
�
There was no response from the audience under this item of business.
..
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 6
7. Resolution Authorizinq an Application for the 2005 Community
Development Block Grant Proqram.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why staff was not applying for the maximum amount of
$300,000.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, explained that staff submitted a solid
application. With the increased competitive nature of the CDBG program and the
increased critical oversight on the part of HUD, staff feels the application is supported
by a real project. They evaluated some of the other projects being considered, but the
priority list for Anoka County has become so narrow that it is focused on things like
affordable housing and redevelopment. There is $1.3 million to be divided.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-6.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Receive Bids and Award Proposal for a Quint Aerial Fire Truck.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned what was included in loose equipment and asked
what the exact amount of the award was.
Mr. Berg, Fire Chief, stated the loose equipment would include the hose, ladders and a
number of items required by the FEMA grant to be on the vehicle.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the amount of the award is $766,775, which does not
include the $30,000 for the bay door alteration.
Mayor Lund asked if the specifications for the truck can be adjusted so the vehicle fits in
the garage.
Fire Chief Berg explained they �are working very hard to do that. They believe the
vehicle they have selected will fit; however, the manufacturers will not guarantee it.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to
receive the bids and award the contraet for the quint aerial fire truck to Crimson Fire in
the amount of $766,775.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 7
OLD BUSINESS:
16. Approve Contract Amendment between the Citv of Fridlev and Short Elliott
Hendrickson Inc for the TH 65 Causewav Proiect (Tabled December 6,
2004 .
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to remove
this item from the table.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated this project began in 1999 after the new
Highway 65/Interstate 694 interchange project was constructed. Staff was looking at
extending that project up Highway 65 across the causeway through Moore Lake. Short
Elliot Hendrickson had been the designer for the interchange and had a large portion of
some of the initial survey work done and the City chose them to begin design of that
phase. At that time, there was state and federal funding available for bottlenecks and
other transportation related improvements and the City was able to obtain a grant from
the Department of Trade and Economic Development in the amount of $500,000
towards the preliminary and final design. The initial estimates put this project at about
$6 million. As the design went on they found that the $6 million estimate was probably
very low. MnDOT has a hard time getting such a project through their design approvals
without knowing the full funding source for construction. The intention was to have a
completed project on the shelf to be ready to push this project forward. Since that time,
there have been fin►o contract amendments bringing the total for design up to $745,000.
The full project is probably $13 million plus project. The project is designed and ready
to go except for some final decisions of staging that will have to be decided at the time
of construction once the City has a funding source. Short Elliot Hendrickson sent the
City a letter requesting the additional final contract amendment and detailed some of the
things the City had asked them to work on for finalizing this project to this point. Short
Elliot Hendrickson has done a lot of work for the City. He believes the fees they are
asking for are justified. This will close this project out until there is a funding source
identified and the project can proceed.
Councilmember Barnette asked for an explanation of the project.
Nlr. Haukaas said the Highway 65 design project was a vision to expand the Moore
Lake causeway from four lanes to six lanes, 3 lanes each direction. It would include a
pedestrian walkway/bikeway on the east side. It would also improve the intersection at
West Moore Lake Drive. This area was identified as a bottleneck. Over the years,
some of the focus on transportation has shifted and some of that money has dried up.
Short Elliott Hendrickson has organized all the data and information plans, will provide a
copy to the City, keep a copy in their archives, and provide a copy to MnDOT. The data
will be organized to the point that it can be picked up at any time in the future and
finished.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 8
Mayor Lund asked if these costs are reimbursable by the state.
Mr. Haukaas responded they are. The City can ask for them as part of the state aid
funding.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the final contract amendment in the amount of $95,231.97 for Short Elliot Hendrickson.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this approval is for the $95,231.97 figure or the total
amount.
Mr. Haukaas explained approval of the $95,231.97 will bring us to the total amount of
the contract.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. Special Use Permit Request, SP #04-06, bv Anwar Abdel-Karim, Islamic
Center of Minnesota, to Amend their Existina Special Use Permit to Allow a
School Expansion to be Used for Classrooms and a Multiple Purpose
Room, Subiect to Easement of Record, Generallv Located at 1401 Gardena
Avenue N.E. (Ward 2) (Tabled December 13, 20041.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to remove
this item from the table.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated there are two items that have
been addressed by the architect since the last meeting. The first is the height of the
Phase II addition. The roof peak height caused the mid range height between the eve
and the ridge line to be higher than the 30 foot maximum. The architect has redesigned
the building so that the midpoint between the eve and the ridge line is 30 feet. The
other issue in terms of mitigation to neighbors is the fence line along the western edge
and southern edge of the new parking area. The architect has indicated that a
combination of fence and hedge is now being proposed along that area.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked for clarification on the height of Phase II.
Mr. Hickok explained on a typical type of two-story structure with a two-story wall, the
measurement would be taken from the grade to the top for the height. On the type of
building proposed for Phase II with a peaked roof, the height measurement is taken
between the mid point between the eve line and the ridge. At the last Council meeting,
the mid point measurement was 35 feet. The architect redesigned and flattened the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 9
pitch of the building and reduced the height by five feet so the height is now 30 feet like
the R-1 district describes.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the curb cut that is currently on Gardena in front of AI-
Amal school be removed once Phase I has been completed.
Mr. Hickok stated he thought it was best to leave it. It is an infrastructure improvement
the Islamic Center made and it gets cars off the street.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that if they are trying to get away from some of
the traffic concerns on Gardena, they may want to get rid of the current curb cut once
there is a new main entrance to the building.
Mr. Hickok stated it is within the Council's purview to do that. There are, however,
going to be occasions when a parent is running late and wants to just drop off their
child, and the current curb cut gives them the opportunity to do that. It is the school's
mission to encourage parents to use the new drop-off location.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there was some discussion about sidewalks at previous
meetings and she asked if most schools provided sidewalks around the perimeter of
their property.
Mr. Hickok stated he believes a sidewalk does provide an important link. To the north,
there is an existing pathway in the area of Phase II which allows students to get to the
school without going down the Gardena Circle area and out onto Gardena. A walkway
is a reasonable thing to expect into a school ground. Every other school in Fridley has
either sidewalks or pathways making those connections.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is anything in writing regarding the shared
arrangement with Totino-Grace and what it includes. She added she doesn't have any
problem with Phase I, but is concerned that Phase II is too far off. A lot of things can
change in this neighborhood. She is also concerned about parking as there are already
complaints about parking. With the addition of Phase II, she anticipated there would be
more activify and more conflicts with Totino Grace activities.
Councilmember Wolfe stated that at around 1:30 today there were four cars parked in
the no-parking zone and all of those people went to the AI-Amal School. He agreed that
Phase II is too far out and felt that the Council would be "green lighting" it.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Hickok to clarify the height of the privacy fencing being
proposed. ,
Mr. Hickok stated in the residential district, rear yard fencing can be as tall as 7 feet so
he expects that's what the height will be.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 10
Mayor Lund stated that one of the stipulations for a previously approved special use
permit on this site allowed for an 8 foot fence. He asked if that fence exists.
Mr. Hickok stated there is a privacy fence and he believes it is 8 feet high. Council
could request an 8 foot fence around the entire parking lot.
Mayor Lund asked about the 30 parking spaces that petitioner is requesting to show as
proof of parking only and how Council can force the installation of those parking spaces
if problems arise.
Mr. Hickok stated there is standard language in the code and it has been a standard
practice of this City to make it known to petitioners that any proof of parking shall be
installed at the request of Council if deemed necessary. If Council decides the 30
parking spaces are needed, it would be a very clean-cut process.
Mayor Lund asked about the overall height of the building in Phase II. He said that
Stipulation 10 states the maximum height shall not exceed 45 feet.
Mr. Hickok stated that previously the plans called for 49 feet in height. The architect
has now brought that down to 44 feet which puts the mid span at 30 feet.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he received an email questioning why the City is allowing
the Islamic Center expansion. They previously advised Totino-Grace not to purchase
property on Gardena because the school would have to use the property in a manner
consistent with the residential neighborhood. He believes they planned to use the area
for parking.
Councilmember Barnette said he believes the property they were considering was next
to the current day care center.
Mr. Hickok stated he is not aware of the situation Councilmember Wolfe is referring to,
nor does he recall staff making such a recommendation. He added that it is not good
practice to locate parking across the street from a school.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City has ever approved a master plan similar to
this.
Mr. Hickok stated the United Methodist Church came to Fridley in 1967 with an original
master plan then came in ten years later with the first phase of that development. It is
not uncommon for individuals who rely on fundraising to proceed with their projects to
set out the project ahead of time. Staff recommends in such situations that the
petitioner not surprise them with additional phases later.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she understands that the school needs to have a plan
to seek funding, but she is having a hard time with approving the entire plan at this time
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 11
when Phase II may not proceed for five or more years. She believes there shauld be
stipulations to protect the school and the neighborhood.
Mr. Hickok said State law allows Council to go back and review the special use permit
but requires that they do so on a regular basis. If there are some issues with Phase I,
Council can bring back the special use permit at any time to reevaluate it.
Councilmember Wolfe asked what Council can do if after approving this special use
permit they decide that they are unhappy with some portion of the plan.
Mr. Hickok responded Council must be careful about that distinction because petitioner
needs to have some comfort and certainty that they will be able to build the project as
approved. The issues Council could legitimately call into question would be things like
mitigating features the Council had not anticipated. It would be incumbent upon the City
to demonstrate why what was approved five years ago is no longer acceptable. The
City must create a record that demonstrates why the plan will not work. The record
must be justified and legally supported.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that he would rather see Council approve Phase I
only at this time.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that Totino-Grace intends to continue growing
and was concerned that Phase II of the petitioner's plan will take away a lot of the green
space currently used by Totino-Grace for playing fields.
Mr. Hickok explained that the playing fields do not go away at full build-out, as they are
on the upper east side of the property. Also, AI-Amal School wants to keep green
space for their students.
Dr. Burns asked if traffic becomes a problem as predicted, could Council bring back the
special use permit and deny Phase II.
Mr. Hickok stated if Phase I does cause environmental impacts that Council was not
anticipating, not only could the Council come back and modify the stipulations for Phase
I, but it would influence what Phase II is about.
Councilmember Wolfe stated approving Phase I and Phase II now, puts the burden of
proof on the Council. If Phase II is not approved, Council could see how Phase I works
and then approve or deny Phase II.
Mayor Lund said it is his understanding that Council would have to have defensible
reasons now and/or in the future to say yes or no to the petitioner. Council has the
burden of proof now.
Councilmember Billings asked the difference befinreen a permitted use, a use permitted
with a special use permit and a non-permitted use.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 12
Mr. Hickok explained that a permitted use meets all of the defined boundaries in a
district and simply needs a building permit. A special use is one that also is permitted in
the district but there are mitigating features that do not exist with the standard permitted
uses. Opportunities exist within the code to allow things such as a private school to
exist in a residential district. Non-permitted uses are those that are not listed in the
district and are not available for development in that district.
Councilmember Billings said it is his understanding that a property owner is entitled to
proceed with any use allowed as a special use but must come to the City and get
approval. A private school is a permitted use with a special use permit so it is the
responsibility of Council, if they deny this request, to demonstrate why. Council can
only turn it down if it is determined to be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
the City. If this is accurate, why is the petitioner even before Council.
Mr. Hickok explained that any time there is a change that would cause Council to want
to review the project for additional mitigating features, it must come back to Council so
those people who may be affected can express their concerns and, if necessary,
additional stipulations may be imposed. Although, technically, they already have a
special use permit, staff thought it would be in the best interests of the residents and
Council to evaluate whether additional stipulations are needed.
Councilmember Billings said staff that this was a significant enough change in the way
they are using it that it was best reviewed by Council. If Petitioner goes ahead with
Phase II and there are certain considerations that have developed in the meantime, at
that time, staff would take it upon themselves to bring it back to the City Council. What
we are doing right now is exactly what we are saying could happen in the future. He
asked if any of the Fridley schools would have to come before Council for an expansion
of their special use permit.
Mr. Hickok stated, no, because they are properly zoned in a P District.
Councilmember Billings asked if the AI-Amal school is properly zoned in an R-1 District.
Mr. Hickok stated it is.
Councilmember Billings stated if this were still the Gardena School, it would be zoned P
and they could expand without Council approval. ,
Mr. Hickok stated that is correct.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that in his opinion,.even though the school is already
there, the changes being proposed would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Billings stated if anyone is going to vote against this, it is up to fhem to
be able to demonstrate how it is going to change the character of the neighborhood.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 13
Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, said there would have to be a factual basis or expert
testimony that such a change would impact the neighborhood.
Councilmember Bolkcom expressed concern about approving a master plan for this site
and questioned how Council can determine at this point whether or not Phase II will be
a detriment when it is going to be built at some point in the future. She asked whether
the proposed 45-foot height of the building in Phase II could be considered as an
example of something that would impact the neighborhood.
Mr. Knaak stated ideally there would need to be some kind of concrete evidence that
such a height would negatively impact the neighborhood. The fact that the neighbors
do not like the height would not serve as proper factual basis.
Mr. Hickok stated staff asked the City Assessor and found out that there is no example
of this or any other school expansion causing a detrimental impact on property values in
the City of Fridley. Typically schools are an attribute and make properties more
desirable.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked where there was an existing school in Fridley that
matches the height of the proposed building in Phase II.
Mr. Hickok stated Grace Evangelical Church is almost that exact height except it has a
flat roof. The Phase II building is designed specifically so that there is a raised area for
the gymnasium ceiling, but they did not go up the full finro-story height. They tried to
provide a more aesthetic roof design that fits in a residential setting.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated typically a special use permit proceeds within the first
year of approval and asked if approving Phase II would constitute an exception.
Mr. Knaak stated the law says that the petitioner must start the use within a year but
there is no end time. Council can control the end time or regulate the schedule of the
project as a part of the permitting process. Council can make a condition, as Council
has done in this instance, by suggesting petitioner provide a second phase plan and by
insisting that petitioner will provide for parking and other items.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented there is a huge burden put on the City and City
staff with all the stipulations for all the special use permits all over the City.
Councilmember Wolfe asked why parking continues to happen on the street when
Council has been told it would not happen any more.
Mr. Anwar Abdul-Karim, Vice President of the Islamic Center, stated over the past
couple of weeks, they have monitored the traffic on Gardena and determined that the
traffic to AI-Amal School is very minimal. There may be occasions when parents park in
the drop-off zone to pick up a sick student. School staff has called the police many
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 14
times about cars parked in the drop-off area and they have spoken to parents to try and
alleviate this problem.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the traffic and parking issues around this
school are not new concerns. She was concerned that these problems will continue
once the new addition is built and be a burden for the City to deal with.
Mr. Dean Dovolis, Project Architeet, explained they presented the two-phase plan to be
honest with the City about the intent of the plan and what the eventual build-out would
look like. The classrooms and the gymnasium are both equally essential to the school
and petitioner does not want to put the second phase in jeopardy by having that pulled
out of the agreement. Phase II will have less of an impact with regards to parking.
When it is fully built out, the AI-Amal school will use the least amount of land, only 13%,
which is less than any other similar facility. Since approval of Phase II is an issue, they
could change their approach and try to build the entire addition at one time. He said
that in the R-1 zoning, someone could build a house 45 feet high. Their preference
would be to keep this as a two-phase project.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a home could be built to the 45 foot height.
Mr. Hickok said a house could be built that high using the same formula that is being
used for the Phase II building.
Mr. Naeem Qureshi, President of the Islamic Center, stated they met with several
neighbors last week to discuss this project and some of their concerns were addressed.
Mr. Richard Young, 5695 Quincy, stated when Gardena Elementary was there that was
a neighborhood school. The current neighborhood is basically the same and no
sidewalks have ever existed. If sidewalks were installed, he asked who would bear the
responsibility for the cost.
Mr. Hickok stated the sidewalk being discussed was actually coming in from the Woody
Lane/Hillcrest neighborhood across private property owned by the school itself. The
sidewalk would be put in and maintained at the petitioner's expense. There would be
no expectation that there be additional sidewalks along the street unless it became a
City issue at a later date.
Mayor Lund added if a sidewalk were to be installed along Gardena, the Islamic Center
would be responsible for the portion along their property and the other property owners
would be assessed for the portion of the sidewalk along their property.
Mr. Mark Dougherty, 1423 Gardena Avenue, stated he lives finro doors east of the
Islamic Center and it was his email that Councilmember Wolfe referred to earlier in the
meeting. He is concerned about the house next to him being torn down for Phase II to
allow for a parking lot and asked if stipulations could be added to help protect his
property.
��
�
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 15
Mr. David Hamernick, 1340 Hillcrest Drive, stated he commends the Council, Mayor and
staff because they already answered most of the questions he had. However, he stated
he has not heard any discussion regarding the noise from this site with a base line for
current conditions versus future conditions. He recommended staff take a look at that.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hamernick what noises he anticipates will be
generated by the school that are not already there now.
Mr. Hamernick said construction noise would be one issue but another concern would
be noise from future events and traffic noise.
Mayor Lund questioned what the noise ordinance is for the City.
Mr. Hickok explained that ordinance pertains to a sustained noise over a certain period
of time with different day time and night time readings. Staff has, on occasion, taken a
reading to see if certain activities exceed those decibels. Typically noise issues involve
industry noise, loud whistles, sustained screeching or fan motors.
Mayor Lund added there are also regulations to control the noise during the
construction phase by restricting the hours.
Mr. David Jones, 1873 Stinson Boulevard, stated he is concerned about the building
proposed for Phase II as it does resemble a mosque. Mosques in other areas of the
world have very loud speakers and he asked that there be a stipulation added to
address this.
Councilmember Wolfe stated there are no plans to put a mosque on this site. The
Islamic Center currently has a mosque in Columbia Heights.
Mayor Lund stated if at some point in the future they wanted to use the proposed
building as a mosque, they would have to come before the Council for approval.
Councilmember Barnette stated he has given this special use permit a great deal of
thought and he believes that some of the criticism that was directed towards the Islamic
Center has been alleviated. He sees six different points of contention; parking, lot
coverage, two phases, drainage and ponding, traffic, and the long-term effect on the
neighborhood. He commented on several developments in and around his home in
Fridley where neighbors had very similar concerns. All of these developments turned
out to be good for the City of Fridley in spite of the noise and traffic issues that resulted.
As far as the parking concerns, he believes the petitioner's parking plans are a positive
change to move some of the parking off the street onto their property. Petitioner has
offered to provide screening for homes adjacent to the proposed parking. He said he
does have concerns about the size of the second phase. As for the drainage and
ponding issues, the proposal includes a detention pond which will have little or no water
most of the time. Because of the traffic concerns expressed by neighbors, he watched
the traffic around the AI-Amal School site on three different week days and did not see a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 16
huge traffic problem. At the Planning Commission meeting someone made the
comment that the AI-Amai students do drive to school but park off-site, he has seen no
evidence of that. He stated his final question on this matter would be "Is this special -
use permit a good thing for children?" His answer is "Yes, it is." In conclusion, he
stated he has spent many hours on this matter and in good conscience he can find no
reason to deny this request.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he agrees with Councilmember Barnette to a certain
extent, but he still has concerns, particularly with proposed development in the area
around AI-Amal and the impact that will have. Traffic is a concern to him, especially
when there are only three exit points from that neighborhood to Central Avenue. He
stated he thinks this proposal is too big and will change the characteristics of the
neighborhood. He would have no problem with the classrooms proposed for Phase I,
but Phase II is just too big.
Mayor Lund stated it is much easier for him to say "no" because of the people in the
neighborhood, but in this case the petitioner has met the burden of proof and therefore
prevails. The Council does have the ability, if there are defensible reasons, to deny
Phase II at some point in the future. He added that if the property were zoned P, the
petitioner would not have to appear before the Council to proceed with the expansion.
He had some concerns about Phase II, but those have been addressed. They
minimized the roof height and lowered it by five feet after the previous Council meeting. .
Petitioner has listened to the neighbors and tried to address some of their concerns. He
plans to recommend additions to the stipulations including that No. 7 be changed to :
require a privacy fence as well as landscaping along the west and south property line.
Also, if Phase II proceeds and the existing home is removed, he would ask that a
privacy fence and landscaping be used as buffer along Mr. Dougherty's property.
Referring to Stipulation 10, Mayor Lund stated it should state "not to exceed 44 feet and
no greater than 30 feet at mid-point." He also has some concerns about parking, but he
does agree with the petitioner's plans to not install all the required parking at this time
since Council can request that those 30 parking spots be added if parking becomes a
problem. He believes that many of the issues have been addressed and the applicant
is trying to be a good neighbor. He is inclined to vote in favor of this master plan given
the facts that Council now has and the ability to review it at some point in the future.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she cannot support this special use permit. She would
support the plan, if it was Phase I only and they came back for approval on Phase II.
She would like to see the impact of the first phase before approving the second phase.
She said she does not make her decisions based on whether or not Council will be
sued, but on what she thinks is right. Petitioner has been very. good about the
neighbors' concerns, but she believes there is a huge burden being put upon future City
Councils by approving this. She was also concerned about the parking and believed
that if Council does approve this, petitioner should put in all the required parking.
Councilmember Billings stated there were some comments made by neighbors at a w
previous meeting that the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of this
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 17
request because they were afraid of potential lawsuits. He does not believe that is an
accurate characterization. He pointed out that the Mayor and Councilmember Barnette
just took their oath of office at the beginning of tonight's meeting and swore to uphold
the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, the Fridley City Charter and the City's
laws. Those laws provide property rights to people who own property. They provide
zoning codes that tell people what they can do with their property. Those laws are there
not just to protect the people living in single family housing, but all property owners so
all property owners have a reasonable expectation of what they can do with their
properly. If this were a situation where someone wanted to build a very large house in
the midst of very small homes, we would find it to be equally out of place, but that is the
right of the person who owns the property. If the zoning requirements are met, Council
is obligated to allow them to do what they can reasonably expect to do with their land.
The alternative is for this or some other governmental body that does not wish to allow
this to take the property and make it public property or redevelop it. The City is not in a
position to take the petitioner's property nor is he suggesting the City would want to do
that, but the City Council is here to prote�t the rights of every property owner in the City.
There have been concerns raised about traffic, but there has been no demonstration
that the expansion will have a major increase in the traffic to and from this site. Council
cannot hold this property owner hostage because of the amount of traffic on Central
Avenue or because of the proposed townhouse development in the area or because of
Medtronic or because of potential activity by Totino-Grace. The petitioner is being very
forthright and very honest with the City and the surrounding residents. Typical single
family housing can cover approximately 60% of their lot with buildings while this
petitioner is only covering 13% of their property with buildings. If the AI-Amal School
was not on this site and the property were divided into single family housing there would
be a lot less green space than what the petitioner will have. He stated he cannot see
anything that has been presented to Council that even comes close to having a serious
detrimental effect on the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, he cannot find
anything in the laws of this state, nation and city that gives Council the permission or
authority to vote against this particular project. He does not like to make the neighbors
or the petitioner unhappy, but being on the Council is not a job where you can always
make everybody happy. He feels very strongly that he does not have any choice but to
support this special use permit application.
Councilmember Wolfe stated if this is approved, he would like to see the existing curb
cut on Gardena removed.
Councilmember Barnette and Councilmember Billings indicated they would object to
that.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to deny
Special Use Permit SP #04-06 for the Islamic Center.
UPON A VOICE VOTE WITH MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE AND
COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS VOTING NAY AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE AND
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 18
COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION FAILED.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to approye
Special Use Permit, SP #04-06, for the Islamic Center with eleven stipulations and with
nineteen previously approved stipulations.
MOTION Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to change
Stipulation 10 by striking the words "45 feet" and adding the words "zoning code R-1
requirements" so that it reads "The maximum height of either addition shall not exceed
zoning code R-1 requirements."
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
TO REVISE STIPULATION 10 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Lund asked if any of the previously approved stipulations are in conflict with the
new stipulations for SP #04-06.
Mr. Hickok stated that staff reviewed all stipulations, did not find any conflict, and
believe they work well as an entire package.
MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to change Stipulation
7 to insert a requirement for landscape hedges and a privacy fence along the west and
south property lines when abutting a single family residence. If Phase II is built, that a
privacy fence be erected along the east property line where it abuts a single family
residence.
There was some discussion about the height of the fence. Mayor Lund indicated he
would like to see the applicant work that out with the neighbors, but recommended a
maximum height of 8 feet.
After some discussion Mayor Lund and Councilmember Barnette withdrew the motion
and the second.
MOTION by Mayor Lund, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to add Stipulation 12
as follows "In the event that Phase II results in the demolition of any houses, then a
hedge, privacy fence, or other landscaping may be required to be constructed or
provided by the applicant upon the request of the City." .
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
TO APPROVE STIPULATION 12 CARRIED ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned previous Stipulation 16 should list the address of
the property rather than the name of the property owner.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 19
Councilmember Bil4ings stated that is the language previously approved by the City
Council as a part of the special use permit and he did not think prior stipulations should
be changed.
Councilmember Billings asked the petitioner if he has any problem with the changes
made in the stipulations.
Mr. Abdul-Karim indicated they had no objections.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP
#04-06 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, MAYOR LUND,
COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS VOTING AYE
AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING
NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
STIPULATIONS:
1. Petitioner to obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. Petitioner to meet all building, fire, and ADA requirements.
3. Existing building and proposed Phase I and II to be sprinkled to MN Rules,
Chapter 1306.
4. City Engineering staff to review and approve grading and drainage plan
prior to issuance of building permits.
5. Petitioner to submit storm pond maintenance agreement prior to issuance
of a building permit.
6. Landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance
of building permit.
7. Petitioner to provide landscaped hedges. and up to an 8 foot privacy fence
along the west and south side property lines, when a parking area is
abutting a single family residence.
8. Curb cut and corresponding drive aisle off of Gardena shall be widened to
30 feet.
9. All lighting on the properly shall be shielded and downcast and shall not
exceed 3 foot candles at the property line.
10. The maximum height of either addition shall not exceed 44 feet, nor shall
the building height exceed 30 feet at the midspan between the eave and the
ridge.
11. When Phase II is constructed, existing parking now shown as proof of
parking shall be installed.
12. In the event Phase II results in the demolition of any houses, a hedge,
privacy fence or other landscaping may be required to be constructed or
provided by the applicant upon request of the City.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 20
STIPULATIONS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED:
1. A masonry dumpster enclosure with wooden gates shall be installed by
August 1, 1989. (SP #88-17)
2. The property owner shall combine individual lots into one tax parcel as
requested by the City Assessor (buildable lots abutting Hillcrest Drive and
Oakwood Manor shall be exempted). (SP #88-17)
3. If the agreement between Islamic Center and Totino Grace High School
ceases to exist, the Center shall at that time apply for a special use permit
to expand their parking lot to meet the zoning requirements. (SP #88-17)
4. Church services shall occur in the library and gymnasium only. (SP #88-
17)
5. All existing hard surface areas shall be improved with seal coating, curb
and gutter and striping by August 1, 1989. (SP #88-17)
6. Programmed activities shall not exceed the parking space available on site
and at Totino-Grace. In addition, the Center's programmed activities shall
not conflict with those of Totino-Grace's which would cause a shortage of
parking space. (SP #88-17)
7. The property owner shall take care of the weed problem by August 1, 1989.
(SP #88-17)
8. All drop-off and pick-up of children shall occur on the premises. (SP #89-
06)
9. The day care hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. (SP #89-06)
10. The building shall meet the requirements of the State Daycare Regulations,
the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code, including the
following:
a. An enclosed outdoor play area adjacent to the facility, but located at
the rear of the building.
b. Outside exits from the daycare rooms.
c. Fire alarms in each daycare room and in the hallway outside the
daycare rooms. (SP #89-06)
11. The Islamic Center shall modify the parking lot as illustrated on the
modified site plan prepared by staff and shown on Page 4H of this agenda
as Plan A. (SP #89-06)
12. The petitioner shall complete stipulations #1, #2, #5, and #7 from SP
#88-17;
a. A masonry dumpster enclosure with wooden gates shall be installed
by August 1, 1989.
b. The property owner shall combine individual lots into one tax parcel,
as requested by the City Assessor (buildable lots abutting Hillcrest
Drive and Oakwood Manor shall be exempted.)
c. All existing hard surface areas shall be improved with seal coating,
curb and gutter and striping by August 1, 1989.
d. The property owner shall take care of the weed problem by August 1,
1989. (SP #89-06)
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 21
13. The dumpster and enclosure shall be located at the northwest corner of the
building. (SP #89-06)
14. The grass between the existing driveway and the fence shall be maintained
in a neat appearance. (SP #89-06)
15. The property owner shall maintain grass on a regular basis in compliance
with the height maximum established in the weed ordinance. (SP #89-06)
16. The property owner shall install an eight foot fence along the east of the
Foco's property from the rear of the Foco's garage to 40 feet north and a
six foot fence on the remaining east lot line and on the north lot line of the
Foco's property. The properly owner shall work with City staff to develop a
landscape plan to be implemented during the next three planning seasons.
(SP #89-06)
17. That a variance is approved to increase the height of this fence to eight feet
due to the hardship on the adjacent residential property. (SP #89-06)
18. This special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff for compliance at 6,
12, 18 and 24 months from the date the daycare center begins operation
and a report submitted to the Council for those reviews. (SP #89-06)
19. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 100
square feet of useable daycare floor area. (SP #02-03)
NEW BUSINESS:
18. First Readinq of an Ordinance Amendinq Chapter 30, Chapter 603 and
Chapter 606 of the Fridlev Citv Code Pertaininq to Lawful Gamblinq.
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, said at the request of Councilmember Billings, staff
reviewed the City Code pertaining to lawful gambling to allow all lawful gambling
organizations in the City to conduct any lawful gambling or use any lawful gambling
device that is allowed by Minnesota State Statutes within certain licensed
establishments. The proposed changes would affect Chapter 30 which outlines the
definition of lawful gambling. The changes would expand the definition to include those
forms of gambling allowed by Minnesota State statutes. Also Chapter 603 and 606
dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquor would be amended to allow all licensed local
gambling organizations to conduct lawful gambling allowed by Minnesota statutes.
These proposed changes have been prepared with the intent of putting �businesses
licensed by the City to conduct lawful gambling on equal ground with one another. The
proposed changes have been reviewed by staff and the City Attorney.
Councilmember Billings explained there are finro reasons he asked staff to take a look at
this matter. One of the reasons is that 15 or 20 years ago the State of Minnesota
decided to allow pull-tabs and charitable gambling and made a requirement that the
cities make a provision for these activities. The City Council, at that time, chose to allow
fraternal organizations to continue using any type of gambling device that was legal
before that. The Council also chose to only allow pull-tabs sales in on-sale liquor
establishments that were not fraternal organizations. The thinking was they would like
to have not allowed them anywhere because they did not want to proliferate gambling.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 22
With charitable gambling, casino gambling, the lottery and other gambling activities in
many locations, on-sale liquor sites are at a disadvantage because they can only do
pull-tab sales. The proposed amendment would give the on-sale liquor establishments
the same authority as the fraternal organizations. In addition, Council never envisioned
a situation in which one of the City's fraternal organizations would want to bring in an
organization to do charitable gambling for them. Although it is not specifically prohibited
by City ordinances and it is staffs position that it can be done, the proposed
amendment clearly states that it is allowable, so there will be no question about it in the
future.
Mayor Lund stated he believes the proposed amendment resolves concerns that have
been raised.
Councilmember Barnette said he would like to get some feedback from the fraternal
organizations regarding this proposed change. �
Councilmember Billings stated he has not talked to the clubs. He pointed out that the
on-sale liquor establishments pay a lot more in license fees to the City than the clubs
do.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated in 603.24.2(D), there should be an apostrophe in the
word "organizations."
Mayor Lund questioned if the third sentence in 603.24.2(D) should be changed to read
"and any additional violations within a 12 month period," and in the same sentence the
word "may" should be changed to "shall also be considered."
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to waive
the reading and approve the ordinance on first reading.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
19. Resolution in Support of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gamblinq
Premise Permit for the Italian American Club Foundation, Inc., at the Fridlev
American Lection Post 303 Located at 7365 Central Avenue N.E. (Ward 2).
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated the American Legion has decided that they would
like the Italian American Club to conduct charitable gambling on their premises and
Chapter 606 of the City Ordinance does not prohibit this. Staff has reviewed this
request.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-7.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 23
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
20. Resolution Approvina Desiqn Plans, Landscape Restoration Plan and
Orderinq Advertisement for Bids; Sprinqbrook Creek Restoration Proiect
No. 358.
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the Springbrook Wetland Restoration Project is
a multi jurisdictional grant project that began in June 2002. The last item before the
Council related to the expansion of the pond on University Avenue to reduce the volume
of water reaching the east inlet for the Springbrook stream. In addition to that project,
the wetlands have been drained in the Springbrook Nature Center to allow plants to
regrow in those areas and reestablish the seed bank. Now that those finro parts of the
project have been completed, they need to address the erosion that has occurred along
the stream. To accomplish this, a 48-inch bypass pipe will be installed along the stream
bed. The main reason this matter is before Council is that the pipe installation will
involve the removal of a significant number of trees. The City has a tree preservation
code which requires approval of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission and the City Council before trees can be removed from City-owned
property. The code also requires that the land be restored to its original condition which
becomes tricky in this situation because part of the intent of this project is to change the
condition of the Nature Center to improve the wetlands. Removal of the trees is not
expected to harm wildlife in this area in the short-term. There will be some ptanting to
prevent line of sight open views. The streambed itself will also be re-vegetated. They
are planning to plant trees and shrubbery in key locations.
Mr. St. Clair, Springbrook Nature Center Director, reviewed pictures of the area and
explained that the area where the trees will be removed is about 40 to 50 feet wide.
The kind of trees being removed are cottonwood, aspen, willows and elms.
Ms. Jones explained the Springbrook �
this portion of the project at their De
Commission approved the design and i
the Planning Commission approved the
Staff recommends Council's approval.
project.
Vatershed Project design committee approved
;ember 1 meeting. The Parks & Recreation
estoration plan at their December meeting and
restoration plan at their December 15 meeting.
She then reviewed the landscape plan for this
Councilmember Wolfe asked if Council's approval of this request will be for the tree
removal related to this project only.
Ms. Jones stated that is correct.
Mayor Lund asked what will be done to protect the new plantings.
Mr. St. Clair said with just a few specific areas planted with new trees, they can put
fencing around them to protect them for the first few years. They could not do this along
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 24
the entire corridor as it would be extremely expensive and visually disruptive for visitors
for a long time.
Councilmember Billings asked how many of the trees are larger than 7 inches in
diameter.
Mr. St. Clair said the majority of the trees were smaller.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. St. Clair if he thought this was a good project.
Mr. St. Clair stated this is the best plan for regenerating the stream bed and is the most
positive thing that can be done for the Nature Center site.
Councilmember Billings asked if any other alternatives were looked at; such as routing
this pipe up to 85th through the ditch and back down so trees would not have to be
destroyed in the process.
Ms. Jones stated that was one of the first proposals the engineering consultant
discussed but it was a very costly alternative and was not feasible because of the
elevation of the land. There has been a great deal of work done to study the elevations
in this area and what would physically work the best to direct the water. This is the
alternative they came up with.
Mr. Haukaas explained that normally they would schedule bid openings for such a
project a week before a Council meeting, but due to the tight time constraints the bid
opening will be held the same day as the next Council meeting on January 24. If there
are any abnormalities in the bid, they would have to delay award, otherwise it will be
brought to Council that night.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-8.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
21. Variance Request, VAR #04-14, bv St. Philip's Lutheran Church, to Increase
the Maximum Sctuare Footaqe of a Free-Standinq Siqn from 32 Square Feet
to 78 Square Feet, Generallv Located at 6180 Hiahwav 65 N.E. (Ward 2).
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated the petitioner is Howard Hogan with St. Philip's
Lutheran Church and they are seeking a variance to increase the size of a free-standing
sign from 32 square feet to 78 square feet. The subject property is zoned R-3, General
Multiple Dwelling District. The property is surrounded by C-3, General Shopping, to the
north and the east, single family residential to the west and Moore Lake to the south.
The church has been located on this property since 1958 and has two access points;
one on West Moore Lake Drive and one on Highway 65. There is some sign permit
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 25
history to this property. They have had two free-standing sign permits in the past; one
permit was obtained in 1978 for the existing corner monument sign and they had a
temporary sign permit in 1994 for the sign on Highway 65. That temporary sign should
have been removed when the temporary permit expired and a second temporary sign
was erected but has now been removed. As far as what is permitted, the City Code
allows a church in a residential zone to have an institutional sign of up to 32 square feet.
They are also allowed to have the existing corner monument sign stay with the
additional pylon sign, provided they change the lettering to only include the address.
This property is also allowed to have one wall sign up to three square feet in size.
Ms. Jones explained that staff researched past history and possible similar cases. They
found two other churches in Fridley located on busy thorou�ghfares that applied for
variances on signage. In 1993, Grace Evangelical on 73� Avenue applied for a
variance for a 40-square foot sign, and that request was denied by Council. In 2000,
Woodcrest Baptist Church on University Avenue applied for a variance to erect a 70-
square foot sign. That request was also denied. Staff also researched what other cities
allow in similar circumstances for a church in a residential district. They found that most
cities do not allow more than 32 square feet for a free-standing sign. She reviewed a
site plan for the property and stated the petitioner is proposing to place the sign at the
corner of West Moore Lake Drive and Highway 65. In order for Council to approve such
a variance, four conditions must be met according to City Code:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity
and district.
Petitioner argues that their extraordinary circumstances are that the church is
located on a corner that is primarily commercial and those commercial properties
are allowed to have larger signs. Staff argues that the church property is highly
visible on the corner. Staff did not find any unique physical features to the
property to justify a hardship.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
district, but which is denied the property in question.
Staff looked at other church properties in the city and has not found a similar
situation where a sign variance has been granted. Also the church still has the
opportunity to provide visible signage without a variance.
3. That the strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship.
Staff argues that a 32-foot pylon sign could easily be viewed from the highway
and would be permitted without a variance.
CI
�
4. That the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or
district in which the property is located.
The petitioner has argued that the sign would not be detrimental to the residential
area to the west of their property. However, staff feels a larger sign could be
viewed from the residential properties, particularly if it is an electronic reader-
board sign. Staff also contends that a larger sign could create some visual
pollution in the area. Staff feels this is one of the most scenic routes through the
City heading southbound on Highway 65 with the view of West Moore Lake
Drive, and a larger sign could inhibit those views.
Ms. Jones said the Appeals Commission recommended denial of this variance at their
December 8 meeting. The motion carried on a 4 to 1 vote. Staff recommends
concurrence with the Appea�s Commission. If Council chooses to approve the variance,
staff recommends that the following stipulations be attached:
1. All the temporary signs located on the property shall be removed immediately
and this property shall bonum1ent s� n w II be odified to removeename of church
2. Existmg corner, brick m 9
and only contain the address of the property. lon si n and the finished
3. The minimum height from the bottom of the new py g
ground grade will be ten feet or the sign will be placed at least 25' back from all
property lines.
4. No additional pylon signs are allowed on this site.
5. This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur:
a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change
of inessages which makes the sign less in eompliance with requirements.
b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into
compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of
the sign and its structure shall be removed.
e. Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of
the business being displayed on this sign.
Councilmember Wolfe stated this is a busy intersection and he has no problem with the
petitioner's proposal. He thought it would be good for the City to allow St. Philip's to
advertise the community services they offer.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned the hardship in this case.
Mr. Howard Haugen, President of St. Philip's Lutheran Church, stated they believe they
have met the criteria required for this variance. They do not believe that staff's report
adequately sets forth the church's position. They are uniquely situated as they are
located on residentially zoned property, but all the property around them is zoned
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 27
commercial. Staff's report did not say that those locations are allowed 80 square-foot
signs while the church is limited to 32 square feet. They have seven acres of property
- with two lots. They contend that there is not any other church in Fridley that is similarly
situated. The two churches staff referred to, Grace Evangelical and Woodcrest Baptist,
have no commercial signs in the area as St. Philip's does. He said one homeowner to
the west had planned to attend this evening's meeting to support St. Philip's request but
was unable to attend. He presented a letter from Miller Funeral Home supporting their
request. He then presented pictures of the Woodcrest Baptist Church and Grace
Evangelical Church pointing out that there are no commercial signs around either of
those locations. He stated they do not believe any other church in Fridley is similarly
situated as St. Philip's and, therefore, Council should not be concerned with setting a
precedent. He then referred to the Appeals Commission minutes pointing out that
Commissioner Sielaff spoke strongly in support of St. Philip's request. Two other
Appeals Commission members spoke about not wanting to set a precedent and
preferred to allow Council to review the matter. He agrees that the church is visible, but
what they are trying to do is set forth some of the mission, ministry and programs they
have at St. Philip's. At the present time, they are not able to broadcast those programs
on a 32 square foot sign.
0
Mr. Allen Spitzer, 826 — 86th Lane N.W., Chairman of the Property and Grounds
Commission for St. Philip's, stated the 32 square foot sign allowed by City ordinance
would give them room for only one large text at 32 inches tall or one to three lines of 10
inch text. It allowed for the words "St. Philip's" across the top and a 12 inch band that
was backlit. The 78 square foot sign they are requesting would give them a four by nine
foot message center with the flexibility to have one 42 inch line of text or anywhere
between one and four lines of text with nine inch letters. There is a huge difference
between the 32 square foot sign and the 78 square foot sign as far as the ability to get
their message out without abbreviating too much. Also, the commercial signs in the
area would dwarF the 32 square foot sign. The larger sign will make it easier for them to
get their message out about the programs they offer.
Councilmember Wolfe stated there is one other church that would be similar and that is
St. William's.
Mr. Haugen commented they are not located right on University but are actually a block
off. Also the zoning around St. Philip's is commercial. He added that the Moore Lake
Commons sign to the east of their property is a 240 square foot sign. He stated they
are not asking for any special privileges but simply want to be treated as their
commercial neighbors have been treated. There is no opposition to their request from
any of the surrounding property owners. This sign will be an asset to the community.
Pastor Ryan Brodin, Pastor, St. Philip's Lutheran Church, stated St. Philip's is open
seven days a week, fourteen hours a day, to many different groups, including groups
that enhance the community such as Alcoholics Anonymous, AlAnon, Gamblers
Anonymous, a women's support group, an adult day care, a preschool and an after
school program for middle school students. They also provide $3,000 in aid and have a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 28
food shelf for people in need. He stated they have heard very often that people coming
from Interstate 694 who are not familiar with the community have driven right past the
church. The sign they are seeking approval for would not only help identify St. Philip's
but would let people know all the community services they offer.
Councilmember Billings questioned how all of these things can be listed on the sign.
Pastor Brodin explained they plan to have an electronic sign where the message can be
changed.
Mr. Greg Rosholt, 482 Rice Creek Terrace, explained that the homeowner immediately
to the west, Kim Sampson, asked him to speak on her behalf and explain that she is in
favor of the sign.
Mr. Ed Hamernik,
community service
out.
6740 Monroe Street N.E., stated the church is doing a lot of
and the sign would vastly improve their ability to get their message
Mayor Lund stated his concern is that allowing this variance would open the door to any
R-3 property owner making such a request. He stated he does not have any problem
with the sign they are presenting but he is concerned that granting an exception in this
case would set a precedent.
Mr. Haugen stated they are not a residential property. They may be located in
residential zoning, but this is a church located on a busy highway which in no way
compares to a residential home in the midst of other residential homes. Council can
justify its decision by saying they have to consider these matters on a case by case
basis. St. Philip's Church sits on a 7-acre site with a sign proposed in the far corner of
their property. They are surrounded by commercial signs. He does not believe this is a
negative precedent.
Mayor Lund asked how AMF Bowling ended up with a 96 square foot sign.
Ms. Jones stated the permit on file with the City indicates the sign is 80 square feet.
Mayor Lund referred to the Appeals Commission discussion about possibly rezoning St.
Philip's property and asked what the negatives would be.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated one of the tests for a rezoning is
what it is adjacent to. The City's Comprehensive Plan typically shows that zoning
designations make a break at major roadways, and this quadrant of the intersection is
residential. The adjacent properties to the west are residential and to introduce
commercial zoning to that quadrant of the intersection would contradict standard zoning
policies. Residents around Moore Lake have expressed a great deal of concern about
the amount of light in that area and intensifying this quadrant would change the
character of that neighborhood. There would be reflection off the water of commercial
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 29
entities that could be introduced to the neighborhood. Right now, St. Philip's has a very
nice site.
Mayor Lund pointed out there is
commercial and residential mix on
on a commercial intersection.
residential to the west of Miller Funeral home and
the east side of Moore Lake. St. Philip's is located
Mr. Hickok stated at the Miller Funeral Home quadrant there is a 40 foot strip that was
left between the residential and commercial. That was meant to leave a natural buffer
between the homes and the commercial site. That buffer does not exist on the St.
Philip's site.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he would not support rezoning the property. He also
questioned what house would be affected by the sign that is being proposed.
Mr. Hickok said the reader-board sign they are proposing may be visible from the
houses to the west.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he lives in that area and does not believe the sign would
be a problem.
Mr. Haugen stated they do not believe that rezoning would be a viable option. All they
want to do is put the sign on the northeast corner of the property.
Councilmember Barnette said Redeemer Lutheran and Fridley Covenant Church are
both located in a busy commercial area. He asked who St. Philip's is competing with
th�t would necessitate a larger sign.
Mr. Haugen stated they are not competing with any of the neighboring businesses but
they are competing, in a sense, for people's attention as they drive down the road. If
they do not have a sign that is comparable to their commercial neighbors, people will
not be able to see their sign which puts them at a disadvantage. They are simply trying
to get some visibility to promot tthPeh ictiSitNe�su �eerect the 32 foot s gn alnd the ae nce
business signs around them, S p
would not be necessary.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that St. Philip's could place a sign with the church
name right on the building. She does not believe people go to church on impulse and
she does not think St. Philip's is in a unique situation. There are other opportunities for
St. Philip's to get their message out. In addition, she stated she would like to go on
record that she does not think the City needs any bigger signs. She has not heard
anything that shows St. Philip's has a hardship different than the other churches. She
believes St. Philip's does wonderFul work, but did not think they will be able to get all
their messages ou# on the proposed sign. There are better opportunities to show
people how to get to the church property. People traveling the speeds they do on
Highway 65 will not be able to read the sign.
FRiDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 30
Mayor Lund stated he was concerned that allowing a larger sign would lead to even
larger signs. He is not against the sign itself and does not believe it will be a detriment
but is concerned about making the exception for St. Philip's in a residential zoning
district.
Mr. Haugen said he did not agree that this would open floodgates for a residential
property to request a similar variance.
Mayor Lund asked what other alternatives the petitioner has explored and asked why
they could not get by with a smaller size sign.
Mr. Haugen stated they believe the sign should have the church's name, and the
proposed size is similar to existing signs in the area.
Mr. Spitzer explained part of the reason for the 78 square foot sign is that it will offer
greater-flexibility for more characters per line and more lines of text. It also will allow for
larger size letters for the church's name.
Councilmember Billings stated that he believes Mayor Lund's concern is for residential
properties, such as the multi-family housing along University, which may choose to seek
such a variance in the future.
Councilmember Wolfe commented that approving this variance request is not a"green
light for the entire City." This is a unique situation compared to the other churches in
the City because of all the commercial signs in the area. If another church were to
request a similar variance and does not meet the criteria, the Council can say no. He
does not agree that this would be setting a precedent.
Attorney Fritz Knaak, City Attorney, stated Council could say no, but the issue is if
Council does say no and the petitioner challenges it, would the Council be able to
defend their decision. The Council has to treat equal applicants in equal ways. In a R-3
zone, if others make an application that is similar, Council could expect that they would
demand to be treated equally and they can expect that they will argue that a similarly
approved application is not unique. He stated Council needs to know that if they do
accept that this is a unique situation, they need to have a record that will show that it is
distinct from anything that is likely to come before the Council in the future. Churches
that had previously been denied could come back to the Council and ask for equal
treatment.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he believes Petitioner has demonstrated a hardship to
justify the variance request.
Councilmember Barnette commented that. he cannot think of a church, because they
are located in residential areas that does not have somewhat of a unique situation.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 31
Councilmember Wolfe responded that none of the churches have large commercial
signs around them.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated no matter where the petitioner places this sign on their
property it is going to be blocked. She referred to the four conditions for approving a
sign variance and said she does not believe the petitioner meets those conditions. She
believes there are things the petitioner could do without the variance.
Mayor Lund stated he has no objection to the proposed sign but is concerned about
approving this request in residential zoning and setting a precedent.
Mr, Haugen stated he would be happy to draft a list of findings to satisfy the criteria for
Council's review.
Mayor Lund stated City ordinance requires action on a variance request within 60 days
and today is the deadline for that 60-day period.
Mr. Haugen stated what he is suggesting is if they are granted the variance there would
be some accompanying finding that would satisfy the criteria. They would like to get
their request acted on this evening.
Mayor Lund stated he does not believe there is a majority of Council members in favor
of this request. He suggested the matter be tabled to the next Council meeting.
Mr. Haugen stated they would be willing to work with City staff to come up with criteria
to support their petition as being unique.
Councilmember Barnette asked if there are any churches in the area in a similar
situation with signage and if other cities allow this type of sign.
Mr. Haugen pointed out that Spring Lake Park has allowed the Assembly of God Church
on the corner of University and Osborne to put up a sign larger than 32 square feet.
Councilmember Barnette stated it may be a good idea to table this matter.
Councilmember Wolfe asked Mr. Hickok if he could find the language, if directed by
Council, to find a way to make this unique.
Mr. Hickok stated he could demonstrate where it is actually unique to their detriment.
He believes the 32 foot sign would be able to stand out and be seen in front of the other
signs. The signs on the other side of the road may be a distraction for those heading
north but they would not block the petitioner's sign. This has a clear view and is as
preferred a position as you could actually put a sign. He is uncomfortable with the
petitioner coming up with the findings because he believes it to be the City's
responsibility to find for or against the petitioner. The petitioner has made a very good
case and they have all the best intentions but the reality is it is incumbent upon Council
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 32
to decide and then to have the findings that would support their decision. It is not up to
the petitioner to find those findings for the City.
Mr. Knaak stated anybody can offer suggested findings at any time, but the findings will
ultimately be based on the information that has been received into the record.
Whatever findings are proposed, if Council decides to table this matter and offer their
findings, Council will ultimately be the decider whether that corresponds with the reality
in this record. He cannot give any good reason to object to the petitioner going forward
with their request being tabled so they can make one last pitch and package the facts in
a way that the Council will agree with them. Council could decide this matter tonight or
table it, if they choose to do so. If Council thinks there is no way the facts can be
packaged (to approve the variance) then they could proceed tonight. He stated he does
not see harm in the process of allowing the petitioner to make one last pitch, as long as
the Council understands that ultimately the decision is theirs based on the record.
Councilmember Billings stated he interpreted their suggestion as an opportunity to more
clearly define their hardship and the reasons that they are exceptional circumstances.
He thinks the burden of proof is theirs make. But he did not know that two or more
weeks would change their ability to rework the information into a form that will convince
anyone who is not already convinced that these are exceptional circumstances. While
he would not speak against a motion to table, he believed the inevitable will happen
sooner or later.
Mr. Haugen stated that there are probably not any other residential properties in Fridley
that consist of 7 acres that are almost totally surrounded by commercial.
Mayor Lund stated he does not believe the size of the property has any relevance and
pointed out that there are many apartmenf buildings in residential zoning. He added
that he is struggling to find an exception that would make the petitioner's property more
unique.
MOTION by Councimember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to receive
into the record correspondence from Kim J. Miller of Miller Funeral Home.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to approve
Variance Request, VAR #04-14, by St. Philip's Lutheran Church.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS AND COUNCILMEMBER
WOLFE VOTING AYE AND MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND
COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION FAILED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 33
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to deny
Variance Request, VAR #04-14, by St. Philip's Lutheran Church.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she does not believe St. Philip's has shown a hardship,
and they can reasonably use their property without this variance. Their sign can be
placed in a location that will be more visible than surrounding signs. She thought there
could be some detriment to the neighborhood if they do have a reader board sign as
they are highly visible from about a block away. They can do what they need to do with
a smaller sign and signage on the building itself.
Mayor Lund stated he is concerned about setting a precedent in the residential zone.
Councilmember Barnette stated he is basing his denial on his concern that every other
church or business in a similar situation will make the same kind of arguments. He
recommended the City look at its sign ordinance to determine whether or not churches
should be treated differently. Also, two churches in Fridley have already been denied
similar requests.
Councilmember Wolfe stated he does not agree that this sign would be a detriment to
the neighborhood.
Mr. Knaak stated that if this motion passes, Council should direct staff to articulate and
summarize the reasons given in writing and provide those reasons and the action taken
by the Council tonight in writing to the applicant.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND, COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE, AND
COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING AYE AND COUNCILMEMBER BILLINGS
AND COUNCILMEMBER WOLFE VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECARED THE
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Bolkcom directed staff to prepare in writing the reasons for denial of
this request.
Councilmember Billings commented that he disagrees with staff s position and believes
the ideal thing would be to rezone this property to commercial.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she could support that.
Councilmember Billings stated he did not think such a rezoning would be unique to
Fridley and pointed out several locations where commercial abuts residential zoning.
Pastor Brodin stated when they started this project staff advised them that it would be
incredibly costly to change the zoning to commercial which is why St. Philip's chose to
proceed with the variance request.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 34
Mr. Hickok stated if the City's Comprehensive Plan does not match the zoning, it would
have to be amended which would involve two processes at a total cost of over $3,000.
Also, a special use permit would have to be applied for and granted to allow the reader
board sign even if the rezoning was approved.
22. Variance Request, VAR #04-15, bv Bill Hinks, Furniture Outlets, USA, Inc.,
to Increase the Amount of Allowable Wall Siqnaqe on the North Facina Wall
of the Buildina from 342 Sauare Feet to 734 Square Feet; to Increase the
Amount of Allowable Wall Siqnaae on the West Facinq Wall of the Buildinq
from 289 Square Feet to 420 Square Feet: to Increase the Amount of
Allowable Wall Siqnaqe on the East Facinq Wall from 289 Square Feet to
541 Sauare Feet; and to Allow Siqnaqe on Three Walls of an Industrial
Buildinu, Generallv Located at 5353 East River Road (Ward 3).
Ms. Jones, Planning Coordinator, stated Petitioner is seeking four variances, three of
which will allow an increase in the amount of allowable wall signage on each wall of the
building. The other variance will allow signage on three walls of an industrial building,
compared to finro allowed by code. All of these variances are being requested for the
Ashley Home Furniture building located at 5353 East River Road.
Ms. Jones explained Ashley Furniture is located in what was previously the Wickes
building which was constructed in 1971. They had a sign permit to allow 1,477 square
feet of signage on the north elevation and 396 square feet of signage on the west
elevation of the building. According to City records, a variance was not issued for either
of these increases in wall signage. In 1995, a new sign permit was issued to allow two
signs on the west wall of the building and one on the north wall of the building. The
west wall signage consisted of a 95 square foot sign and a 154 square foot sign for a
total of 249 square feet. The sign approved on the north wall was for 296 square feet.
All of these signs met the code size requirements for allowable wall signage. Petitioner
initially applied for sign permits for this building in October 2004. When staff received
the applications, it was for signage much larger than what the code would allow. Staff
then contacted the sign contractor and outlined what our sign code requires for wall
signage and the contractor resubmitted plans to illustrate signs that �n►ould meet our sign
code requirements for the west and east walls. Upon approval of the sign permits, staff
set up an inspection with the project manager to measure the signs. When staff
measured the signs, it was evident that they were much larger than what the permits
were issued for. Staff went ahead and allowed Ashley to put up a portion of their signs
that says "Ashley Furniture" on the west and east side, leaving out the "Homestore"
portion, due to the fact that their grand opening was planned for that coming weekend.
This was done with the understanding that petitioner would resubmit applications with
the correct dimensions meeting the code requirements or apply for sign variances.
Ms. Jones explained Section 214.12.5.B of the City sign code requires that the total sign
area shall not exceed fifteen times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is
to be placed. The north facing wall (Interstate 694 side) of the petitioner's building is
520 and the square root is 22.8. When you multiply 22.8 by 15, the north facing wall is
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 35
allowed 342 square feet of signage. The petitioner is seeking to increase the
requirement to 734 square feet, which is 392 square feet more than allowed by code.
The west facing wall of the building is 371 feet in length which would allow a 289 square
foot sign. The petitioner is seeking to increase the requirement to 420 square feet
which is 131 square feet more than allowed by code. The east facing wall is also 371
feet in length which would allow 289 square feet of signage. Petitioner is seeking to
increase the requirement on the east wall to 541 square feet which is 252 square feet
more than allowed by code. For the fourth variance, the City sign code allows wall
signage to be displayed on only 2 different walls per business. Petitioner is seeking to
allow signage on three walls of their building.
Ms. Jones stated that before Council can grant such a variance, it is the responsibility of
the applicant to meet four conditions. She presented the following analysis of each of
the following four code conditions:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity
and district.
The circumstances surrounding the location of this property are neither
exceptional nor extraordinary to allow signs larger than the code allows.
The property has good visibility from Interstate 694. The property is not
unique when compared to neighboring properties or other similar zoned
property in Fridley. All other wall signage along Interstate 694 met the
sign code requirements including industrially zoned properties and
commercially zoned properties.
The previous owner of this building had signage that met the sign code
requirements and which provided good visibility for the business. The
property located east of the subject property is Home Valu, which is a
similar type of business with both retail and warehouse space. Home Valu
complies with the code requirements for wall signage, which is visible from
Interstate 694. They were, however, granted a variance in 1993 to have a
free-standing sign increased from 80 square feet to 160 square feet.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district, but
which is denied the property in question.
Denying a variance for the excessive size of signage does not eliminate
� the opportunity for signage on the property. Petitioner has the opportunity
to have 289 square feet of signage on the west and east wall and 342
square feet of signage on the north wall. This amount of signage as well
as the distinctive architectural design of the building will help to provide
� good visibility from Interstate 694. Petitioner may also want to consider
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 36
up-lighting the building which will also help to bring attention to the
building, without requiring larger signage.
3. The strict application would constitute an unnecessary hardship.
City staff has not been able to identify any statutory-defined hardship for
this site, in relation to the size requests. The petitioner's desire to have
larger signage than what the code allows does not constitute a hardship.
Strict application of the code would still allow signage on two walls of the
building as well as a free-standing 80 square foot sign. The site has good
visibility from Interstate 694 and the size and design of the building
provides a visual attraction to motorists.
4. Granting the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare, or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in
which the property is located.
The purpose of the sign code requirements is to allow adequate signage
to reduce the visual pollution and distractions for the motoring public.
While increasing the size of the signage may not necessarily be
detrimental to the public or surrounding properties in this vicinity, once
granted, the variance would be precedent setting for all other industrially
zoned properties or properties located within the Interstate 694 corridor.
Increasing the code requirements by what the petitioner is asking, without
a compelling hardship, would essentially be re-writing the standards for
wall signage in our code.
Ms. Jones stated petitioner is also seeking a variance to allow signage on three walls of
an industrial building, instead of the code required two. The sign on the north side of
the building helps to provide visibility from Interstate 694, the sign on the west side
provides directional signage for customer pick-up and semi-traffic and the signage on
the east side highlights the entrance of the building.
Ms. Jones said that as part of this sign variance review process, City staff contacted
some of the surrounding communities and other communities out-state to see what they
allow for wall signage. Through their research, it was determined that Fridley City code
allows a generous amount of wall signage, compared to some of the other communifies
surveyed. For example, many communities allow a certain percentage of signage for
each wall; however they then cap it at a certain amount of square feet.
Ms. Jones stated that at their December 8 meeting, the Appeals Commission
recommended approval of the variance request to allow signage on three sides of an
industrial building but recommended denial of all three variance requests to increase the
amount of wall signage. Both motions carried unanimousfy. Staff recommends
concurrence with the Appeals Commission on this matter.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3 2005 PAGE 37
Ms. Jones said if the variances are granted, staff recommends the following stipulations
be attached:
1. The petitioner shall obtain a sign permit prior to installation of any additional
signage.
2. This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur;
a. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change
of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements.
b. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
c. The face of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
d. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into
compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of
the sign and its structure shall be removed.
e. Notwithstanding subparagraph (a) above, upon the change of the name of
the business being displayed on this sign.
Councilmember Wolfe said they may want to consider rewriting the sign ordinance as
far as determining the allowable size of the sign.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned how the total square footage of signage the
petitioner is requesting compares to what is allowed in other cities.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, responded that most of the other
communities have caps, usually 200 square feet, on the size of the sign allowed. Our
city code seeks to create a relationship between the size of the sign and the size of the
wall. He also stated that staff has not received complaints from any sign company
regarding the code restrictions for signs in the City. This situation is rare when the code
requirements are not adequate.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why the original signs that went up were larger than
allowed by code. She also questioned how the addition of "Homestore" to "Ashley
Furniture" will impact the size of the sign as it relates to code restrictions.
Mr. Hickok stated the signage on the building now does not exceed the code
dimensions but the addition of "Homestore" will take it over the top. "Homestore" is
important to Ashley Furniture because it is part of the relationship they have with the
parent company and they need to have "Homestore" on the building. What happened is
that the signage that was approved on paper through the permit process was not the
signage that arrived on the site.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there will be any free-standing signs.
Mr. Bill Hinks, President of Furniture Outlets, stated he was not aware of the incorrect
sign size prior to discovery by City staff. He believes the sign contractor created the
signs believing they had been approved and sent those signs to the site assuming that
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 38
they would be put up. He indicated they had not had any signage problems prior to this
incident.
Councilmember Wolfe asked if the sign made for this store is the same as signs made
for other stores.
Mr. Hinks responded they are. He further stated that when they met with City staff
regarding the sign variance, staff advised them to go for a variance for as much sign as
they would prefer to have. They did check with Ashley Furniture and they said they
could leave the sign as is on the west side of the building and not put up the word
"Homestore." The only other signage they will need on the west side is the designation
for customer pick-up. Consequently they will only be placing 272 square feet of signage
on the west side of the building. On the east side of the building, Ashley again said they
would allow them to not add the word "Homestore" as long as they erect a free-standing
sign that contains the word "Homestore." The existing sign on the east side of the
building is about 35 square feet larger than it is supposed to be. He explained that City
staff measures from the top of the highest point of the sign, which would be the top of
the capital "A" in Ashley and squares it off. Consequently, about 22 square feet of the
area counted by staff is actually not signage area. Every other community in which they
have erected their signs did not include this area in their measurement. Measuring it
that way, the existing sign would be within 2 or 3 square feet of the requirements. They
would like to keep the existing sign on the east side.
Mr. Hinks stated he believes that the north side of their building meets the requirements
for special circumstances. He did not believe the Fridley City code adequately
addresses a wall of this size as far as allowable signage. The north wall is 16,671
square of face which is why Wickes erected a 1,440 square foot sign. The 342 square
feet allowable size for a sign just is not adequate based on the setback from the
highway and the angle of the building. Their signage was included in their plans from
the very beginning when it was initially presented to the City in 2003 and they assumed
the approved plans included their signage.
Mr. Todd Phelps, the petitioner's attorney from Leonard, Street and Deinard, stated the
project architects had at least eleven meetings with City staff discussing their plans and
explicitly discussing the proposed signage back in late 2003 or early 2004. The
petitioner relied upon those discussions and the approvals they received to make a very
substantial investment in this building.
Mr. Hinks explained they even went so far as to cut a corner off of their building to allow
room for a fire truck. This change alone cost them $50,000. He also argued that there
are communities where much larger signage is allowed.
Mr. Phelps said he has represented numerous clients in front of other municipalities on
signage issues, and many of those cities are more liberal in not only their sign
ordinances but in how they are calculating the square footage of their signage.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 2005 PAGE 39
Councilmember Bolkcom asked the size of the sign being requested for the north wall.
Mr. Hinks stated it is 732 square feet and the code allows 242 square feet.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what size the free-standing sign will be.
Mr. Hinks stated it will be the size allowed by code which is 80 square feet, and no
variance will be requested.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if the numbers she has are correct; 732 on the north,
272 square feet on the west, 324 square feet on the east, and an 80 square foot free-
standing sign; added all together it is well within what was granted next door at Home
Valu and it seems reasonable.
Councilmember Barnette commented that this building does not have very good
visibility coming from the west. He said if it can be done within reasonable bounds he
would support the request.
Mayor Lund asked if there is an ordinance for total signage on a building or if it is
specific to each side only.
Mr. Hickok stated each side is taken independently.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hinks if the square footage Councilmember Bolkcom
just listed is based on City staff's measurements.
Mr. Hinks stated that is correct.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to receive
into the record letters of support of this proposal from: Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc.,
dated December 30, 2004; Aramark Uniform Services dated January 3, 2005; Rudy
Boschwitz, Chairman of Home Valu Interiors dated December 21, 2004; and Gerry
Boschwitz, President and CEO of Home Valu Interiors dated January 3, 2005.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
Variance Request, VAR #04-15, with the west side signage being 272 square feet, the
east side signage being 324 square feet, and the north side signage being 734 square
feet with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall obtain sign permit prior to installation of any additional
signage.
2. This variance shall remain in effect unless any of the following occur:
A. The sign is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change
of inessages which makes the sign less in compliance with requirements.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 _ PAGE 40
B. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled.
C. The face of the sign is replaces or remodeled.
D. The sign becomes dilapidated or damages and the cost of bringing it into
compliance is more than 50% of the value of the sign, at which time all of
the sign and its structure shall be removed.
E. Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) above, upon the change of the name of
the business being displayed on this sign.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she believes this is a good compromise and she is very
comfortable that Council is not setting any type of precedent. It is similar to what Home
Valu has and Council has been reassured that they will not be coming back for a
variance on a free-standing sign.
Councilmember Billings stated the stipulations are the typical requirements for all sign
variances including signs that come into non-conformity. He believes Council needs to
document for the record why they are approving this because they just denied a sign
variance. From his point of view, he finds this property to be somewhat unique from the
standpoint that its main visibility is from Interstate 694. There is not a through street
running immediately adjacent to the property. It is off a frontage road that you have to
access from about a half a mile away on a street that is a perpendicular street. In
addition, he believes all of the business immediately adjacent to Interstate 694 should
be placed in some type of special overlay district for signage and he will work on that in
the future.
Mr. Hickok stated Home Value has a free-standing sign with 160 square feet; a variance
they had before the sign code existed.
Councilmember Billings stated the City gave Home Valu a variance for their pylon sign
that is twice the normal size and this petitioner has agreed that they will not be applying
for a variance for the pylon sign. This petitioner is asking that their variance be on the
building rather than on a pylon sign. Therefore, Council does have a kind of established
procedure in this particular industrial area for accommodating commercial businesses
that exist there.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated Home Valu is an example of why we did grant a
variance for their larger pylon sign for some of the same reasons, such as visibility
along Interstate 694.
Mr. Hickok explained that Home Valu was granted a variance for the pylon sign by
giving up the right to a second pylon sign on a second legally described site.
Mr. Knaak stated if a variance is granted, a uniqueness be established in the record so
this does not become a major loophole; identifying the characteristics of this particular
area, laying out the facts that a significant variance had been granted in the same
industrial district right next door for some of the same reasons. He said he thought
Council has articulated generally some reasons for the variance and as long as "they are
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2005 PAGE 41
aware of the risk and as long as they are limited to a particular kind of district and point
out the issues with respect to visibility from the freeway, they have a reasonably
defendable chance that it could be somewhat restricted. Council should be sure that
the only identifier is not the visibility from the freeway or there may be other people
applying for variances in different zones with that as the basis for the variance. He said
his preference on this matter would be for Council to defer action and direct staff to
prepare defendable findings as a basis for granting the variance.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe to table
consideration of Variance Request, VAR #04-15, in order to fully examine and study the
request and to extend the timeframe to respond to the petitioner by 60 days and to
notify the petitioner in writing of the 60-day extension as soon as possible.
Mr. Hinks expressed concern about another delay in getting the sign erected on the
north wall because the sales force in their Fridley store are doing only 15% of the
business that sales associates in other stores are doing.
Mr. Knaak stated if Council decides to grant the variance, they must have findings.
Council had an adverse recommendation from staff and what they need now is findings
from staff that they can review that would ultimately make their decision defendable.
Mr. Hickok explained that the 60-day legislative limit actually expires today and,
technically, he should give the extension notice in writing to the petitioner tonight.
Mr. Phelps, petitioner's attorney, stated on the record, they will waive the 60-day
requirement.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO TABLE
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
23. Informal Status Reports.
No reports presented.
ADJOURN
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOUNRED AT 2:15 AM.
Respectfully submitted by,
Rebecca Brazys Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
CffY OF
FRI�LEY
DATE: January 20, 2005
TO: William W. Burns ��
�
Y,
FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Karin Tyra Hearing M-05-04
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this hearing is for Council to review the facts surrounding a landscape
modification at 1501 Mississippi Street. Staff has proceeded with the abatement process,
whereby abatement (removal of structures and restoration of slope and turf) will occur and the
owner will be required to pay 125% of the cost of the project. In accordance with Code Section
128, a property owner may appeal to the City Council after the matter has been heard by a
hearing officer. The property owner, Ms. Tyra has requested a hearing before the City Council.
ELEMENTS
In late July or early August 2004, The Fridley Public Works Staff observed a new retaining wall
and fence on the Public Right of Way, adjacent to 1501 Mississippi Street. They were very
concerned due to the location of the structure. Not only was it on the Right-of way that is used
in the winter for Arthur Street snow storage, but also it is close enough to the curb that a plow
driver could actually be injured if a blade were to strike the structure.
The Public Works staff discussed the matter internally with the Fridley Community Development
staff, which then both called and sent representatives out to meet with the owner of the house,
Karin Tyra. Ms. Tyra believes she was told by City staff she could install the retaining wall and
fence as it is today.
You'll recall, in 1996, the City of Fridley deemed unpaved driveways a public nuisance, due to
the gravel impact to storm sewers, and a number of other detrimental impacts. The City, through
various staff discussed Ms. Tyra's lack of a driveway and the impact of her gravel on the storm
system. Staff also indicated that Ms. Tyra would need to discontinue parking vehicles in the
back yard. She had indicated at that time that she was looking at fencing in her back yard.
Staff acknowledged that that would be an improvement. Her back yard would be the operative
phrase here (not the public right-of-way). No discussion of actual structure locations took place
with staff prior to her installation.
Fences and retaining walls (below 4' in height) do not need a building permit. Ms. Tyra and
others installed the retaining wall and fence with out review of the City and without authorization
to encroach on the public right-of-way.
It is imperative that the City has its right-of-ways for snow storage, to avoid damage to cars that
may find themselves on the right-of-way in an accident, and to keep our employees safe while
plowing snow.
1
On November 3, 2004, Hearing Officer James D. Gurovitch, of Brooklyn Park heard the facts of
this case. Later that month, Mr. Gurovitch's ruling was handed down. He supported the City's
position in his ruling.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Council hold the hearing and support staff's position that the structural
items be either removed and a suitable slope and turf restored by the homeowner within a
reasonable timeframe (schedule to be approved by the City), or authorize staff to abate the
nuisance and bill the property owner in accordance with Chapter 128.
2
(,...�
c,�rY o�, �xrnr.Ex
IN RE: KARIN TYRA
RESIDENCE AT 1501
MISSISSIPPI STRE�T
LJ
HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS
The above-entitled matter was heazd by the undersigned on November 3, 2004 ia the City
Couacil Chambers at 6431 Universil}► Avenuc N.fi. ia Fridley, Minnesota.
The City was repiesented by IyYederic W. (Fritz) Knaalc, Esq., Fridley City Attorney. Scott
J. I�iicicak, Community Development D'uector, Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director, and
Stacy S[romberg, City Planner appeared and tesii�ed on behalr of the City.
Karin Tyra ap�eared and testified on her own behalf. Ms. Tyra's san James Tyra also
appeared and testified,
This hearing was requested by Ms. Tyra pursuant to Ciry Code §128A6 in response to the
City's letter dated September 7, 2004 in v��hich t11e City nolified Ms. Tyra of its determination
that the retaiain,g wall and fence construcled on the public right-of-way adjaeent Co Ms. Tyra's
property is a public nuisaace �nder Chapter 110 0� the City Code a.nd requested ihat the retai.n.ing
wall and fence be removed or properly placed within private property setbacic Uoundaries.
Ai�er hearing the tesl'unony adduc�d at die hearing and reviewing the photographs and
reports presented by tlie City, tho undersigned makes the followi.ng;
�1� !�
1. The pmperty in question is a single-family residence located at the corner of
Mississippi Street and Arthur Streets. The properiy is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential,
2. The righl'-of-way for arihur Street is 60 feet in width. Tha width of the street is 35 feet
3
l�
��
measurecl from the back of Che curU to the Uack af the curb. There is aa additiona112'/z feee of
right-of-way on eitlier side of tUe street.
3. Ms. 'I�ra purchased and moved into the l�ame approximately ten years ago. At that
time, there was a Uricic relainin.g wall along Arthur Street that was flush with the eurb. Ms. Tyra
was told by someone irom the G`ity tliat it t�►as a hazzard and that it needed to be removed or
moved a`uay irom dze curt�. The wall was subsequently removed.
4�, The bricic retaining v►►all was built to control erosion and prevent drainage into the
street and stonn sev�►er. At�t�r it was removed, Ms. Tyra planted grass to address those problems,
but said she was unable to grow grass because lhe sail is too sandy. Tl�e photograghs taken by the
City show that grass is �rowing between the net�► retaining wall and the curb.
5. The driveway �o the property was constructed of �avel. Access was on Artliur Street.
The driveway dreined inta the slreet and stotm sewer. Vehicles were parlced in tl�e back yaxd, In
1996, the City Cocle was amended io require vehicles to be parlced on a hazd surface driveway.
Property oW►ners were given a period of f�vc years to camgly. Ms, T}►ra subsequently installed a
concrete driveway with aecess on Mississippi Street. However, �he rear of the property continued
�o be used to parlc vehicles.
6. Mr. I-iickolc and other City staff and Ms. Tyra discussed tl�e City's concerns aUout the
�avel driveway and the p�rking oi vehicles on tlie property. In November oi 2003, Mr. Hickok
and Ms. Stromberg mel' witl� Ms. 'l�yra at Ms. Tyra's home. Mr. HicJcolt told Ms. Tyra tl�at she
needed. to take steps to eli.mi.nate tl�e problems caused by ller driveway. James 'I�ra also stated
that Mr, Hickolc was asked ior advice on how to correct fl�e problem and that Mr. Hickok
suggested Uuilding a retaining wall. Mr, Tyra also said they were lold by 11�ir. Hickok that if a
-2-
0
�' U
retaining wa11 were built, they sliould malce suse it was "bacic from die curb". There was also
' some discussion about Ms. Tyra's plans to build a Tence along Arthur Stceet. Mr. Hickok told
t6.em a fence v�►ould Ue an "improvement". Mr. Iiicltok denied ever tecommending a retaining
wall as � solution to the erosion Problem and denied telling the Tysas anytbing about where to
locate a fence. This was confirmed by Ms. Strom.berg who was present during these
oonversations.
7. According to the City Code, a permit to build a fence is not requited. Also, a permit to
build a c�taining wall less than four %et hi� is not required. Tlie retaining wall in question is
less tha� faur feet higt�. A permit is required to build any lcind of structure on lhe public right-of-
way.
8, There is no record of any request made by Nis. Tyra or anyoae on her behalf for
permisuion to construct a fence or retaini.ng wall on the right-of way or inr guidance on where the
structures sl�ould be loca.ted.
9. Neither Mr. Hicicolc nor any other member of tiie Cit�► staff advised Ms. Tyra wheare to
locate the fence and ret:aining wall. The Zj�ras' statemEnts that lhe}► were advised by C�ty staff
tha� the fence and retaining ��►all could be placed within lhe City's right-of-way are not credible,
10. Ms. Tyra proceeded to construct the fenee and retainiag �uall in such a manner that the
relaining wall is parall.el to and wilhin eight to ten inches of the baelc of ihe curb of Arthur St�eet.
The retain.ing wall is approximately four faet wide, The fence is iminediately behind the retaining
wall.
11. The fence and retaining wall are attractive and appeaz to liave eliminated the erosion
problem on Ms. Tyra's property.
-3-
5
�� �
�2. City maintenance workers �rst observed tlle retaining wall and fence in late July or
eariy August of 2004 and expressed their eone,erns that the localion of structvres would hinder
snow removal and snow storage as well as endaager the plow drivers. When tbe streeC is plowed,
aay snow thrown by lhe plow would most likely be thrown baclt from the tetaining wall onto the
street. P,lso, a plow d�iver conld be injured i� the plow blade ware lo sttil�e tl�e retaining wall.
13. luir. Haultaas, Public Worlcs Director, stated that these concerns are valid and
emphasized the importance of keeping the public right-of-way clear of man-made obstructions.
14. Acxording to City Code § 110.02, a structure is a public nuisaace if it interferes with
or obst�vcts the public right-of-way.
15. Aecording to City Code §213.05, all fences must be locat�d entirely on tbe private
propecty of the owner.
16. According to City Code §245.04.6A(10):
"In no case shall a fence or similaz hatrier impede vehicular vision or cause a
hazardous condilion to e�ist."
17. The Cit�r l�as the autilority to abale a public nuisance under Cliapter 128 and §213,06
of the Ciry Code.
18. TUe Ci.ty determined that lhe fence and reta.uung wall constructed on the public right-
of-way a.djacent to Ms. Tyra's residence is a public nuisance and has reqvested that it be aUated
by rebuildi�g the fence and retaining wall sn lhat they are located at least 121/z ieet from the back
of the curb or by moving tU,e fence bacic to a point no cioser than 12Y� feet from the back oi the .
curb, removin,g tha retaining wall, and g�ading and seeding the la.nd outside the fence to create a
maintainable slope,
-4-
��
..r . _ .,
tJ
���
19, Ms. T�ra indicated a willingness to move the fence Uacic from the puUlic right-af-way,
but does not feel it is neeessaty to move the retai.ning wall and is unwilling to do so voluntarily.
•�.�1 •
1. The fence and retaining wall constructed on the public right-of-way adjacent to the
property at 1501 Mississippi Stre�t is a puUlic nuisa.ace within the meaning of the above-eited
ordinan.ces.
2. The slai:ements of khe property owner and ber son that City staff misinformed them
about where the structures could be loca.ted, even if found to be true, would not, under the law,
prevent the City from enforcing its ordinances.
3, The City has the righl' �o proceed with its abatement process.
Dated: November %'�, 2004
-5-
7
��
J D. GUROVITSCH
' g Examiner
f
�
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
January 24, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager ��� ��
�
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director ��
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
January 18, 2005
Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Chapters 30, 603 and 606 of the Fridley City
Code Pertaining to Lawful Gambling
At the request of a councilmember, stafF reviewed the City Code pertaining to lawful gambling to
a11ow all lawful gambling organizations in the city to conduct any lawful gambling or use any lawful
gambling device that is allowed by Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 349. The City Council held the
first reading of this ordinance on January 3, 2005.
This ordinance would amend Chapters 30, 603 and 606 to allow all licensed local gambling
organizations to conduct lawful gambling allowed by MN Statutes, Chapter 349, rather than just
limiting their lawful gambling to pull-tabs. While the ordinance would make it legal for other
organizations to conduct the "paddlewheel" or "meat raffle", it does not require them to do either or
both.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the local organizations had been notified about the amendment.
After the January 3`d meeting, staff mailed out letters to the licensed organizations to notify them of
the amendment. Staff has heard no obj ections to the amendment.
After the first reading the city attorney recommended amending Section 606.10.07. Conditions of
License, to change the pull-tab language to authorized forms of legal gambling to be consistent with
the rest of the amended language.
Staff recommends holding the second reading of the ordinance.
E•7
•�
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 30, CHAPTER 603 AND CHAPTER 606 OF THE
FRIDLEY CITY CODE PERTAINING TO LAWFUL GAMBLING
The City Council of the City of Fridley does hereby find and ordain, after review, examination
and staff recommendation that Chapters 30, 603 and 606 of the Fridley City Code be hereby
amended as follows:
SECTION 1: That Chapter 30 of the Fridley City Code is hereby amended as follows:
CHAPTER 30. LAWFUL GAMBLING
30.02. DEFINITIONS
The definitions in Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 349 are adopted by reference in this chapter.
Licensed or�anizations in the City of Fridlev mav be permitted to conduct lawful g;amblin�
use an�gambling device allowable bv Chapter 349.
30.03. REGULATIONS
l. Licensed organizations conducting lawful gambling within the City of Fridley sha11
expend fifty percent (50%) of its expenditures for lawful purposes conducted or located within
the City of Fridley trade area. The Fridley trade area is limited to the City of Fridley and each
city contiguous to the City of Fridley.
2. Licensed organizations conducting lawful gambling within the City of Fridley must file a
copy of monthly gambling boaxd financial reports to the Fridley City Clerk.
3. Licensed organizations conducting lawful gambling may not conduct lawFul ambling
„�•"�-�'� operations in more than two premises in the City.
4. Licensed organizations conducting lawful gambling within the City of Fridley in an
establishment licensed under Chapter 603 Entitled "Intoxicating Liquor" or Chapter 606 Entitled
"Intoxicatin� Liquor On-Sale Club" of the Fridley City Code may �l� sell pull-tabs from a
booth used solely by the licensed lawful gambling organization, or conduct such
other forms of lawful amblin� with lawful gamblin� devices as mav be permitted bv state law
and authorized and permitted bv the Cit� Lawful gambling shall neither be conducted se� by
employees of the liquor establishment or conducted s�e� from the bar axea.
5. Licensed organizations conducting lawful gambling in the City of Fridley shall be
responsible for booths and other equipment used in lawful gambling.
6. No bingo hall license holder or lawful gambling license holder shall permit bingo to be
conducted on the premises more than 4 days in any week, or permit more than 12 bingo
occasions in any week. (Ref. 964)
0
SECTION 2: That Chapter 603 of the Fridley City Code is hereby amended as follows:
CHAPTER 603. INTOXICATING LIQUOR
603.10 CONDITIONS OF LICENSE
7. No licensee shall keep, possess, operate or permit the keeping, possession, or operation
of any dice, playing cards, video game of chance, or gambling device including slot
machines, roulette wheels, punchboards, and pin ball machines which return coins or slugs,
chips, or tokens or any kind which are redeemable in merchandise, cash or other item of
value on the licensed premises.
> >
�
Pull-tabs and other expresslv authorized forms of legal gamblin�, may be conducted se�
on licensed premises when such activity is licensed by the State pursuant to Minnesota
Statute, Chapter 349, and conducted pursuant to the regulations contained in this City
Code. (Ref. 959)
603.24 GAMBLING ENDORSEMENT
1. Statement of Policy
On-Sale licensees under the provisions of this Chapter or Chapter 606 may request permission of
the city council to permit state licensed organizations to conduct lawful gambling �� +'�° ��^�
on the licensed premises. Application for a gambling endorsement shall be made
to the city clerk with payment of the specified fee in Chapter 11 of the City Code.
2. Regulations
Gambling endorsements on on-sale licenses issued either under this Chapter or Chapter 606 shall
be subject to the following regulations which shall be deemed as part of the license, and failure
of compliance may constitute grounds for adverse action as prescribed in the City Code.
A. Use of the licensed premises shall be by means of a state approved lease agreement
between the licensee and the licensed organization. A copy of the lease shall be filed
with the city clerk, and also a copy must be kept on the premises and available for public
inspection upon request. Leases shall be governed by the following:
(1) ��e--e�} form of lawful gambling }'��+ �'��" �° permitted by the state of
Minnesota as defined by Chapter 349 and otherwise approved or licensed by the City
may be conducted on the licensed premises .
(2) Pull-tabs shall only be conducted se� from a booth used solely by the licensed lawful
gambling organization_; Lawful �� shall neither be conducted
se� by employees of the licensee or conducted se� from the bar service area.
10
(3) The construction and maintenance of the booth used by the licensed lawful gambling
organization shall be the sole responsibility of the licensed lawful gambling
organization.
B. Only one licensed lawful gambling organization shall be permitted to conduct lawful
ambling ��� ����; on the licensed premises.
C. The licensee may not be reimbursed by the licensed lawful gambling organization for any
license or permit fee, and the only compensation which the licensee may obtain from the
licensed lawful gambling organization is the rent fixed in the lease agreement.
D. The licensee shall be responsible for the licensed lawful gambling organization's conduct
°£-°°";��- �„" �°'�� The city council may suspend the licensee's permission to allow
lawful gambling on the premises for a period up to 60 days for any violation of state or
local gambling laws or regulations that occur on the premises by anyone, including the
licensee or the licensed lawful gambling organization. A second violation within a 12
month suspension, and any additional violations within a 12 month period shall result in
the revocation of the lawful gambling permission, and may also be considered by the ci
council as grounds for suspension or revocation of the on-sale liquor license.
SECTION 3: That Chapter 606 of the Fridley City Code be hereby amended as follows:
CHAPTER 606. INTOXICATING LIQUOR ON-SALE CLUB
606.10. CONDTTIONS
3. Only lawful �ambling or lawful ambling devices permitted bv the State of Minnesota
and exnresslv authorized and nermitted bv the Citv of Fridlev nursuant to Chapters 30 and 603
shall be authorized on the licensed premises.
��Te--g���+���9��3�-g��b�=�g—�ev�se .. ,.�,•�,•+ a �, , ,� » ,. •�. a
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF 2005.
Attest:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
First Reading: January 3, 2005
Second Reading: January 24, 2005
Publication:
11
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
�
�
cmr oF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA ITEM
COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
Y �
WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �,�� ��� j�
RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR �
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE SPRINGBROOK NATURE CENTER
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
DATE: January 20, 2005
Attached you will find a resolution that will establish a new Special Revenue Fund to account for
activities associated with the Springbrook Nature Center.
We have created this resolution as a result of the question that was put before the voters in the 2005
Election. The voters approved the question regarding the additional levy of taxes in the amount of
$275,000 annually that will be used to continue the administration, maintenance and programming
for the Springbrook Nature Center.
This new fund will be used to place the revenue associated with the additional tax dollars and revenue
associated with programming. The expenses associated with the activities of the Nature Center will
also be coded to this fund. The difference between the revenues and expenditures will be designated
annually for future use of capital replacements.
Staff is recommending the approval of this resolution creating the Special Revenue Fund.
RDP/me
12
RESOLUTION NO. - , 2005
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE SPRINGBROOK NATURE CENTER
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
Whereas, On November 2, 2004 in accordance with the City of Fridley City Charter, Chapter 7, an
election was held; and
Whereas, a question was put to the voters of the city, as to whether they would increase property
taxes in excess of the inflationary maximum for the purpose of continuing the administration,
maintenance and programming for the Spring Brook Nature Center; and
Whereas, the question regarding the special levy was approved by the voters and a levy of $275,000
is to be generated annually subject to the inflationary index contained within Chapter 7 of the City
Charter; and
Whereas, those funds generated by this special levy are to be used specifically for the administration,
programming, and maintenance for the Springbrook Nature Center.
Now therefore be it resolved, that the City of Fridley is creating within the financial funds structure, a
new Special Revenue Fund titled, the Springbrook Nature Center Fund to account for those activities
funded through property taxes and fees generated at the Nature Center.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF 2005.
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
13
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
� AGENDA ITEM
� COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
TO: WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITY MANAGER �!,r�4
��i
FROM: RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE SPRINGBROOK NATURE CENTER
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET FOR 2005
DATE: January 20, 2005
Attached you will find a resolution amending appropriations to the 2005 Budget, in accordance with
the City Charter.
These changes are being made in accordance with this year's election results; whereby, the voters of
Fridley determined they are willing to pay additional taxes to continue the administration,
maintenance and programming at the Springbrook Nature Center.
This resolution will remove origina12005 budgeted items from the General Fund. The new budget
for the Nature Center will establish a new fund that is to be set up under a separate resolution.
The new 2005 Budget is being revised to reflect the same level of activities that were conducted in
2003, before the administration, programming, and maintenance budget reductions. Jack Kirk
provided a memo to you on December 23, 2004, outlining the parameters in which the 2005 numbers
were established. This memo is the basis Jack, you and I used to review and approve the new
Springbrook Nature Center Budget.
RDP/ce
Attachment
14
RESOLUTION # - 2005
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGES IN APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE 2005 BUDGET ASSOCIATED WITH THE CREATION OF THE SPRINGBROOK
NATURE CENTER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley conducted an election on November 2, 2004 to determine whether
voters would increase property taxes to support the administration, maintenance, and
programming of the Springbrook Nature Center, and
WHEREAS, the voters of the City of Fridley approved the additional market value levy in the amount
of $275,000 to be used only for the operation of the Springbrook Nature Center, and
WHEREAS, the Springbrook Nature Center Special Revenue Fund was created for the sole purpose
of accounting for those activities funded through property taxes and fees generated at the Nature
center, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following funds will be amended in order to
establish the Budget for the Springbrook Nature Center in its separate fund known as the
Springbrook Nature Center Special Revenue Fund.
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Taxes
Charges for services
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
GENERAL FUND
(275,000) Move Referendum Approved Taxes
(89,700) Move Program Fees
-�- .44
Personal Services-Naturalist (216,097) Remove Naturalist Budget
Supplies-Naturalist (18,936) Remove Naturalist Budget
Other Services and Charges-Naturalist (35,441) Remove Naturalist Budget
(270.4741
SPRINGBROOK NATURE CENTER FUND
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Taxes
Charges for services
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS
275, 000
58,500
��
Referendum Approved Taxes
Program Fees
Personal Services 243,830 Establish Budget
Supplies 22,531 Establish Budget
Other Services and Charges 43,921 Establish Budget
�1-�
15
RESOLUTION NO. -2005
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2005
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
16
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
Recreation and Natural Resource Department
emo
To: William W. Burns, City Manager ���
From: Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources .i�
Date: December 23, 2004
Re: Proposed 2005 budget for Springbrook Nature Center
Now that the Springbrook Nature Center levy has been approved by the voters, I
am submitting a revised budget proposal for the operation of the nature center.
When the amount for the Springbrook levy was being discussed last July, it was
my understanding that the recent program cuts at the nature center would be
reinstated should the referendum pass. We had discussed going back to a
budget level that would allow us to operate at the same level of funding as in
2003.
The budget level that I am proposing for Springbrook Nature Center in 2005 is
$310,282. The Naturalist Division budget in 2003 was $303,431 and with the
budget cuts, the division budget was reduced to $265,775 for 2004. When we
originally planned for the 2005 budget last April, we prepared the budget at the
same level of programs and services being provided in 2004. The original
budget for the Naturalist Division in 2005 was $270,474.
The proposed budget of $310,282 is approximately a 2.3% increase over the
2003 levet of the Naturalist Division budget. I believe that this is a reasonable
level of increase over this two-year time span. If the Springbrook budget had
increased at a modest rate of 2% per year over those two years, the budget level
would be at $315,690.
The adjustment of the Springbrook Nature Center budget back to the 2003 level
of funding would allow for reinstatement of many services and programs that
were eliminated or reduced with the budget cuts. The interpretive building would
once again be open to the public on Sundays (12n — 4pm) and evenings (April
through October, 5pm — 9pm). Being open these additional hours would once
again allow us to provide special programming for scout groups, community
clubs and organizations, church groups and the general public. The evenings
and weekends are also much more convenient times for our volunteers to offer
their services to the nature center.
Although we are not requesting a large increase in the budget for the supplies
and services categories, the proposed budget will allow us to get back to
17
providing adequate program supplies to support the day camp, school `
curriculum and environmental education classes. We have quality programs
and would like to operate those activities with the right equipment and supplies. .
It may be interesting to note that the supplies and services portion of the
proposed budget is still a�tually less than the 2003 budgeted amount and the
2003 actual expenditures we incurred. The increases that we see in this new
Nature Center proposed budget are primarily due to the cost of living increases
for our staff. The City Council granted a 2% salary increase for all staff in 2004
and has approved a 3% increase for 2005.
A major "add back' to the budget will be the dollars to provide building
maintenance at the center. For many years, we had a 20 hour per week
maintenance person to provide the generat cleaning and other custodial work.
Not having that person on board this year was a real challenge and I believe that
the reinstatement witl have the building kept in much better shape for our
visitors.
The funds available for this budget will come from the additional tax levy of
$275,000 that was approved by the voters in November and an anticipated
program revenue amount of $58,500. While it is possible that the revenue from
programs and possible contributions to the center may exceed this amount, I
believe the $58,500 figure is a good estimate for the level of programming we
will be providing.
Bill, we have looked carefully at our needs for operating Springbrook and have
used the 2003 budget level as a guide to come up with this proposed 2005
budget. I believe that this new budget level will allow us to provide the programs
and services at Springbrook that the public would like to see. Once again, it is
my recommendation that the revised budget for Springbrook Nature Center be
approved at $310,282.
Please {et me know if you need any additional information regarding this.
:
� AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
CfiY OF
FRIDLEY
To: William W. Burns, City Manager ��� �`
From: Deborah Dahl, Human Resources Director
Date: January 20, 2005
Re: 2003-2005 Police Sergeants Contract (L.E.L.S.)
Attached is the signed labor agreement between the City of Fridley and the Police Sergeants,
along with the resolution for the January 24, 2005 City Council meeting.
As you know, the Sergeants certified with the Bureau of Mediation Services on October 15,
2003. Negotiations began in April, 2004, which resulted in an impasse, followed by mediation
in August. Both parties were still unable to reach a settlement and arbitration was scheduled
for March, 2005. Since August, both parties continued to negotiate and reached a final
agreement on January 20, 2005 (attached).
This is a first contract established between the City of Fridley and the Fridley Police
Sergeants, which is in effect from October 15, 2003 through December 31, 2005. Most of the
language in this contract mirrors the current patrol contract. Apart from changes in dates and
correction of typographical errors, the following are a few highlights of this contract:
1. Article 32. Duration
A three-year contract has been established from October 15, 2003, through
December 31, 2005.
2. Article 16. Benefits
The City of Fridley will contribute up to the maximum amount provided per month to
non-union employees toward health, dental, life and long-term disability insurance, in
accordance with the employer's flexible benefit plan for the calendar years 2003, 2004
and 2005.
3. Article 20. Wa es
The parties agreed to a similar award given to the patrol union, with a two percent
(2%) cost of living adjustment beginning at the certification date (October 15, 2003),
along with three percent (3%) for the calendar year 2004, and three percent (3%) for
the calendar year 2005.
19
2003-2005 Police Sergeants Contract (L.E.L.S.)
January 20, 2005
Page 2
In addition to wages, both parties agreed to a$225 per month Specialty Pay, which
will be provided for any Sergeant assigned to the Detective/Investigation Unit.
4. Article 18. Uniforms
The City will provide required uniforms and equipment; however, non-uniformed
employees shall be reimbursed up to $400 per year for clothing allowance, similar to
the patrol contract.
5. Article 30. Education Prog am
The City agreed to mirror the language in the patrol contract in maintaining tuition
reimbursement at the 2003 levels or $2,925 per year.
Action Needed
I am excited to recommend this contract to you to be presented to the City Council for
approval at the January 24, 2005 Council meeting.
cc: Donovan W. Abbott, Public Safety Director
Terry Herberg, LELS Business Agent
Mike Morrissey, LELS Steward
Frederic W. Knaak, City Attorney
Ann Antonsen, Labor Relations Associates, Inc.
2�
,
.
0
ti
�
RESOLUTION NO. -2005
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SIGI�TING AN
AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERGEANTS OF THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEARS 2003, 2004 AND 2005
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2003, the City of Fridley Police Sergeants organized and became
certified by the State of Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services as the Law Enforcement Labor
Services, Inc. (LELS) bargaining unit Local No. 310; and
WHEREAS, the bargaining representative of the Police Sergeants of the City of Fridley, has
presented to the City of Fridley various requests relating to the wages and working conditions of
Police Sergeants of the Police Department of the City of Fridley; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has presented various requests to the Union and to the
Employees relating to wages and working conditions of Police Sergeants of the Police
Department of the City of Fridley; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the Union and the City have met and negotiated regarding the
requests of the Union and the City; and
WHEREAS, members of the Union and the City could not reach an initial agreement, which
resulted in mediation; and
WHEREAS, a final settlement was reached on the proposed contract between the City and the
Union;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, hereby approves said Agreement and that the Mayor and the City Manager are
hereby authorized to execute the atta.ched Agreement (Exhibit A) relating to wages and working
conditions of Police Sergeants of the City of Fridley.
PAS5ED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 24th
DAY OF JANUARY, 2005.
ATTEST:
DEBR.A A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
21
LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
. �
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.
LOCAL NO. 310
2003, 2004 & 2005
�
Ciry ofFridley—LELSSergeants Contract (rev. 1/10/OS) Page l
22
LABOR AGREEMENT
SETWEEN
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.
LOCAL NO. 310
2003, 2004 AND 2005
TASLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE PAGE
1. Purpose of Agreement 4
2. Recognition 4
� 3. Definitions 4
4. Employer Security 6
5. Employer Authority 6
6. Union Security 6
7. Employee R.ights - Grievance Procedure 7
8. Savings Clause 9
9. Seniority 9
10. Discipline 10
11. Constitutional Protection 11
12. Work Schedules 11
- 13. Overtime 11
14. Court Time 12
City of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Concract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 2
23
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Call Back Time
Insurance
Standby Pay
Uniforms
P.O.S.T. Training
Wage Rates
Separation and Benefit Plan
Legal Defense
Probationary Periods
Annual Leave
Holidays
Short-term Disability
Bereavement Leave Pay
Jury Pay
Compensatory Time
Employee Education Program
Waiver
Duration
12
12
13
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
20
v
City ofFri�iley —LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Pa e 3
8
24
�
�
LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.
LOCAL NO. 310
2003, 2004 AND 2005
Article 1. Purpose of Agreement
This Agreement is entered into between the City of Fridley, hereinafter called the Employer, and
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., hereinafter called the Union.
It is the iiitent and purpose of this Agreement to:
1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this Agreement's
interpretation and/or application; and
1.2 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment
for the duration of this Agreement.
Article 2. Recognition
2.1 The Employer recognizes the tTNION as the exclusive representative for all employees,
under Minnesota Statutes, Section 179A.03, subdivision 8, for all employees in a unit
certified by the State of Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services.
1. Sergeant
2.2 In the event the Employer and the Union are unable to agree as to the inclusion or
exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of
Mediation Services for determination.
Article 3. Definitions
3.1 Union
Law Enforcement Labor Services. Inc.
City of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) 1'a8e 4
25
3.2 Union Member
A member of the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.
3.3 Emplovee
A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit.
3.4 Department
The Fridley Police Department.
3.5 Emplover
The City of Fridley.
3.6 Chief
The Public Safety Director of the Fridley Police Department.
3.7 Union Officer -
Officer elected or appointed by the Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. _
3. 8 Investi �ator/Detective
An Employee specifically assigned or classified by the Employer to the job classification
and/or job position of Investigator/Detective.
3.9 Overtime
Work performed at the express authorization of the Employer in excess of the
Employee's scheduled shift.
3.10 Scheduled Shift
A consecutive work period, including rest breaks and a lunch break.
3.11 Rest Breaks
Periods during the scheduled shift, in which the Employee remains on continual duty and
is responsible for all assigned duties.
3.12 Lunch Break _
A period during the scheduled shift, in which the Employee remains on continual duty
City of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Contracd (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 5
26
and is responsible for assigned duties.
3.13 Strike
Concerted action in failing to report for duty, the willful absence from one's position, the
stoppage of work, slow-down, or abstinence in whole or in part from the full, faithful,
and proper performance of the duties of employment for the purposes of inducing,
influencing or coercing a change in the conditions or compensation or the rights,
privileges or obligations of employment.
3.14 Job Classification Senioritv
Length of continuous service within any job classification covered by this
AGREEMENT.
3.15 Emplover Seniority
Length of continuous service with the EMPLOYER.
Article 4. Employer Security
4.1 The Union agrees that during the life of this Agreement the Union will not cause,
encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow-down or other interruption of or
interference with the norn7al functions of the Employer.
Article 5. Employer Authority
5.1 The Employer retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all personnel,
facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets;
to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational
structure; to select, direct, and determine the number of personnel; to establish work
schedules, and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by
this Agreement.
5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this
Agreement shall remain solely within the discretion of the Employer to modify, establish,
or eliminate.
Article 6. Union Security
6.1 The Employer shall deduct from the wages of Employees who authorize such a deduction
in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly Union dues. Such monies shall be
remitted as directed by the Union.
6.2 The Union may designate Employees from the bargaining unit to act as steward(s) and
alternate(s) and shall inform the Employer in writing of such choices and changes in the
City of Fririley — LELS Sergean�s Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 6
27
position(s) of steward and/or alternate.
6.3 The Employer shall make space available on the Employee bulletin board for posting
Union notice(s) and announcement(s).
6.4 The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against any and all
claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the Employer as a result of
an� action taken or not taken by the Employer under the provisions of this Article.
Article 7. Employee Rights - Grievance Procedure
7.1 Definition of a Grievance
A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application
of the specific terms and conditions of this Agreement.
7.2 Union Representatives
The Employer will recognize Representatives designated by the Union as the grievance
representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by
this Article. The Union shall notify the Employer in writing of the names of such Union
Representatives and of their successors when so designated as provided by Section 6.2 of
this Agreement.
7.3 ProcessinQ of Grievance
It is recognized and accepted by the Union and the Employer that the processing of
grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the
Employees and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when
consistent with such Employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved Employee and a
Union Representative shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay
when a grievance is investigated and presented to the Employer during normal working
hours provided that the Employee and the Union Representative have notified and
received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence
is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the Employer.
7.4 Procedure
Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1, shall be resolved in conformance with the
following procedure:
Step 1
An Employee claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this
Agreement shall, within twenty-one (21) calendax days after such alleged violation has
occurred, present such grievance to the Employee's supervisor as designated by the
CiryofFritlley—LELSSergeants Contract (rev. I/20/OS) �� PaBe �
Employer. The Employer-designated representative will discuss and give an answer to
such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not
resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the
nature of the grievance; the facts on which it is based; the provision or provisions of the
Agreement allegedly violated; the remedy requested; and shall be appealed to Step 2
within ten (10) calendar days after the Employer-designated representatives final answer
to Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the Union within ten (10)
calendax days shall be considered waived.
Step 2
If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the Union and discussed with the
Employer-designated Step 2 representa.tive. The Employer-designated representative
shall give the Union the Employer's answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after
receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to
Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the Employer-designated representative's
final answer in Step 2. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the Union
within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived.
Step 2a
If the grievance is not resolved at Step 2 of the grievance procedure, the parties, by
mutual agreement, may submit the matter to mediation with the Bureau of Mediation
Services. Submitting the grievance to mediation preserves timeliness for Step 3 of the
grievance procedure. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by the Union
within ten (10) calendar days of inediation shall be considered waived.
St�
A grievance unresolved in Step 2 or Step 2a and appealed to Step 3 by the Union shall be
submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor
Relations Act of 1971, as amended. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in
accordance with the "Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances" as established by
the Bureau of Mediation Services.
7.5 Arbitrator's Authoritv
a. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or
subtract from the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall
consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the
Employer and the Union, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any
other issue not so submitted.
b. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or
inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way to application of laws,
rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The axbitrators decision
City ofFridley—LELSSergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 8
29
shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing
or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties
agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the Employer and the
Union and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of
the express terms of this Agreement and to the facts of the grievance presented.
c. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne
equally by the Employer and the Union provided that each party shall be
responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either
party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to
be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record
of the proceedings the cost shall be shared equally.
7.6 Waiver
If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be
considered "waived." If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified
time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of
the Employer's last answer. If the Employer does not answer a grievance or an appeal
thereof within the specified time limits the Union may elect to treat the grievance as
denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit
in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the Employer and the
Union in each step.
Article 8. Savings Clause
8.1 This Agreement is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the
City of Fridley. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be contrary
to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no
appeal has been taken within the time provided such provisions shall be voided. All other
provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision
may be renegotiated at the written request of either party.
Article 9. Seniority
9.1 Seniority shall be determined by Job Classification Seniority and posted in an appropriate
location. Seniority rosters may be maintained by the Director of Public Safety on the
basis of both Job Classification Seniority and Employer Seniority.
9.2 During the probationary period a newly hired or rehired Employee may be discharged at
the sole discretion of the Employer. During the probationary period a promoted or
reassigned Employee may be replaced in his/her previous position at the sole discretion
of the Employer.
9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of Employer Seniority.
Employees shall be recalled from layoff on the basis of Employer Seniority. An
City ofFridfey — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) �O paSe 9
Employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to return to work within one year (1) of the
time of his/her layoff before any new Employee is hired.
9.4 Senior Employees will be given preference with regard to transfer, job classification and
assignments when the job-relevant qualifications of Employees are equal.
9.5 Employees shall be given shift assignments preference on the basis of Job Classification
Seniority.
9.6 One continuous scheduled annual leave period (not to exceed two weeks) shall be
selected on the basis of Job Classification Seniority until March lst of each calendar year.
After March lst, scheduled annual leave shall be on a first-come, first-served basis.
9.7 Employees shall lose their Employer Seniority for the following reasons:
a. Discharge, if not reversed;
b. Resignation;
c. Unexcused failure to return to work after expiration of a vacation or formalleave
of absence. Events beyond the control of the Employee, which prevent the
Employee from returning to work will not cause loss of seniority;
d. Retirement.
Article 10. Discipline
10.1 The Employer will discipline Employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or
more of the following forms:
a. oral reprimand;
b. written reprimand:
c. suspension;
d. demotion; or
e. discharge.
10.2 Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form.
10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become
part of an Employee's personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by signature of the
Employee. Employees and the Union will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or
notices.
10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under
the direct supervision of the Employer.
Ciry of Fridley — LELS Sergennts Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 10
31
10.5 Discharges will be preceded by suspension without pay for forty (40) regularly scheduled
working hours unless otherwise required by law.
10.6 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of disciplinary action
unless the Employee has been given an opportunity to have a Union representative
present at such questioning.
10.7 Grievances relating to this Article shall be initiated by the Union in Step 2 of the
grievance procedure under Article 7.
Article 11. Constitutional Protection
11.1 Employees shall have the rights granted to all citizens by the United States and
Minnesota State Constitutions.
Article 12. Work Schedules
12.1 The normal work year is an average forty (40)-hour workweek for full-time Employees,
to be accounted for by each Employee through:
a. hours worked on assigned shifts;
b. holidays;
c. assigned training;
e. authorized leave time.
12.2 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a
minimum or maximum number of hours the Employer may assign Employees.
Article 13. Overtime
13.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the Employee's regular
base pay rate for hours worked in excess of the Employees regularly scheduled shift.
Changes of shifts do not qualify an Employee for overtime under this Article.
13.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable.
13.3 Overtime refused by Employees will for record purposes under Article 13.2 be
considered as unpaid overtime worked.
13.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation overtime hours worked shall not be
pyramided, compounded or paid twice for the same hours worked.
13.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes.
13.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested by the
Employer unless unusual circumstances prevent the Employee from so working.
City of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 11
32
Article 14. Court Time
14.1 An Employee who is required to appear in court during his/her scheduled off-duty time
shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at one and one-half (1.5) times the
Employee's base pay rate. The City may assign the Employee to standby pending the
notification of their appearance being required. Unless otherwise specified by the City or
the prosecutor, this period of standby shall commence two (2) hours prior to the time
scheduled for the Employee's appearance in court. The Employee will be compensated
for two (2) hours at their base rate as provided in Article 18.1 for each day on standby.
14.2 If the court appearance is scheduled during the Employee's off time, and if the court
appearance is cancelled, the Employee will be notified by the end of the business day
(5:00 p.m.) preceding the court appearance. If notification of cancellation is not made by
the end of the business day (5:00 p.m.) preceding the court appearance, the Employee
will receive standby pay for two (2) hours at their base rate of pay.
14.3 The business day notice applies to all court cases for which the Employee receives notice
resulting from their employment with the City.
14.4 Employees who are assigned to standby for a court appeaxance during their off-duty time,
and who are then notified by the prosecuting attorney that they need to appeaz and who
do appear in court shall receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at one and one-half
(1.5) times the Employee base rate of pay. Employees will not be paid both standby pay
and for three (3) hours at one and one-half their base rate of pay.
14.5 Employees will be required to appear for the Court Trials/Traffic Court, for Contested
Omnibus Hearings, for Implied Consent Hearings, and for any other court appearance
where the City or the prosecuting attomey directs that standby is not feasible.
Article 15. Call Back Time
15.1 An Employee who is called to duty during the Employee's scheduled off-duty time shall
receive a minimum of three (3) hours pay at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the
Employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for
duty does not qualify the Employee for the three (3) hour minimum.
15.2 An Employee who works extra-duty work (outside employment) during the Employee's
scheduled off-duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours pay at one and one-
half (1 1/2) times the Employee's base pay rate.
Article 16. Insurance
16.1 For the calendar yeax 2003, for Employees who choose single coverage, the Employer
will contribute up to $334.58 per month per employee toward health insurance or an
amount equal to that provided to non-union employees, whichever is greater, in
City of Fridley — LELS Sergennu Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 12
33
accordance with the Employer's Flexible Benefit Plan. The Employer contribution for
2004 is $334.03 and $364.09 for 2005.
16.2 For the calendar year 2003, for Employees who choose dependent coverage, the
Employer will contribute up to $749.45 per month per employee toward health insurance,
or an amount equal to that provided to non-union employees, whichever is greater, in
accordance with the Employer's Flexible Benefit Plan. The Employer contribution for
2004 is $748.22 and $815.42 for 2005.
16.3 For the calendar year 2003, for Employees who choose dental coverage, the Employer
will contribute up to $15 per month toward dental insurance, or an amount equal to that
provided to non-union employees, whichever is greater, in accordance with the
Employer's Flexible Benefit Plan. The Employer contribution for 2004 is $15 per month
and $20 per month for 2005.
16.4 The Employer will provide group basic term life insurance with a maximum of $25,000
per Employee and additional accidental death and disability insurance with a maximum
of $25,000 per Employee (current cost is $4.75 per month), or an amount equal to that
provided to non-union employees, whichever is greater, in accordance with the
Employer's Flexible Benefit Plan. (There is no benefit or rate change from 2003 through
2005.)
16.5 In accordance with the Employer's Flexible Benefit Plan, Employees have the option
during an open enrollment period or during approved qualified events to decline health or
dental insurance coverage, provided they provide proof of coverage elsewhere. In 2003,
Employees may opt out of health and dental insurance and choose from two additional
options: 1) Ten (10) Benefit Leave Days per year; or 2) Cash Benefit of $234.00 per
month, or the amount equal to or greater than the amount provided to non-union
employees. Benefit Leave days are required to be used within in the calendar yeax and
may not be carried into the following year. The Employer contribution of ten (10) Benefit
Leave days remains at the same level for 2003-2005. The Cash Benefit amount in 2004
and 2005 is $267.00 per month.
Article 17. Standby Pay
17.1 Employees required by the Employer to standby shall be paid for such standby time at the
rate of one hour's pay for each hour on standby. Employees placed on standby shall
remain able to respond within a reasonable time. Such reasonable time, if not otherwise
specified at the time of assignxnent to standby, shall be one (1) hour to the police
department, or other location designated by the City. Employees placed on standby shall
remain available to be contacted by the Employer by normal means to include phone or
wireless communication devices.
Ciry of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) 1'age I3
34
Article 18. Uniforms
18.1 The Employer shall provide required uniform and equipment items. Non-uniformed
Employees shall be reimbursed up to $400 per year for clothing allowance.
Article 19. P.O.S.T. Training
19.1 Employer shall assign training at Employer's expense for Police Sergeants to complete a
minimum of 48 hours of P.O.S.T. Board-approved education during each three-year
licensing period.
19.2 Employer shall pay the cost of maintaining P.O.S.T. licensure for all Employees required
to maintain the license.
Article 20. Wage Rates
20.1 The following hourly wage rates will apply for 2003-2005 (amounts may be rounded to
two decimal points):
Oct. 15, 2003: $32.04 per hour
Jan. 1, 2004: $33.00 per hour
Jan. 1, 2005: $33.99 per hour
20.2 Specialty Pay - Any sergeant assigned to investigation will be compensated an additional
$225 per month.
Article 21. Separation Benefit Plan
21.1 Effective January 1, 1986, upon separation of employment, the City of Fridley will pay a
separation benefit to any employee hired before that date who has been continuously
employed ten (10) years or more as a full-time authorized employee. The amount of the
benefit shall be $200 for each full year of service up to a maximum of $4,000 for twenty
(20) years or more service.
Article 22. Legal Defense
22.1 Employees involved in litigation because of proven negligence, or non-observance of
laws, or of a personal nature, may not receive legal defense by the municipality.
22.2 Any Employee who is charged with a traffic violation, ordinance violation or criminal
offense arising from acts performed within the scope of his/her employment, when such
act is performed in good faith and under the direct order of his/her supervisor, shall be
reimbursed for attorney's fees and court costs actually incurred by such Employee in
defending against such charge.
22.3 Employer will provide protection for all Employees against false arrest charges.
City of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 14
35
Article 23. Probationary Periods
23.1 All newly hired, rehired, or promoted Employees will serve a one year probationary
period.
Article 24. Annual Leave
24.1 Each Employee shall be entitled to annual leave away from employment with pay.
Employees shall accrue annual leave based on an average eight (8) hour workday.
Annual leave may be used for scheduled or emergency absences from employment.
Annual leave pay shall be computed at the regular rate of pay to which such an Employee
is entitled provided, however, that the amount of any compensation shall be reduced by
the payment received by the Employee from workers' compensation insurance, Public
Employees Retirement Association disability insurance, or Social Security disability
insurance. An Employee's accumulation of annual leave will be reduced only by the
amount of annual leave for which the Employee received compensation.
24.2 Seniority shall apply on scheduled annual leave up to March lst of each year. After March
lst scheduled annual leave shall be on a first-come, first-served basis.
24.3 Annual leave shall accrue at the rate of eighteen (18) days (144 hours) per year for the
first seven (7) years (84 consecutive months) of employment with the City.
An Employee who has worked seven (7) years (84 consecutive months) shall accrue
annual leave at the rate of twenty-four (24) days (192 hours) per year, beginning with the
eighty- fifth (85th) month of consecutive employment with the City.
An Employee who has worked fifteen (15) years (180 consecutive months) shall accrue
annual leave at the rate of twenty-six (26) days (208 hours) per year, beginning with the
one hundred eighty-first (181st) month of consecutive employment with the City.
These rates are based on a forty-hour (40) regular workweek. The actual amount credited
to an Employee in any given pay period shall be pro-rated according to the actual number
of regular hours worked during that pay period. Hours worked on overtime, callback, or
standby shall not enter into the calculation of the accrual of annual leave.
24.4 For an Employee hired on or after January 1, 1984:
The ma�cimum total accumulation of annual leave at the end of any given year shall be
thirty (30) days (240 hours).
Once a year, at a time designated by the City, an Employee who has completed five (5)
years of service with the City will have the opportunity to exchange up to five days (40
hours) of accumulated annual leave for cash.
City of Fritlley — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 1 S
36
24.5 For an Employee hired before January 1, 1984:
Vacation accrued but unused as of December 31, 1983, shall be converted by annual
leave at the rate of one (1) day of annual leave for one (1) day of vacation. Accrued but
unused sick leave as of December 31, 1983, shall be converted to annual leave according
to the following schedule:
a. ls` 45days @ 1 day of annual leave for 1 day of sick leave
b. 2nd 45 days @ 1 day of annual leave for 2 days of sick leave
c. Remainder @ 1 day of annual leave for 3 days of sick leave
In lieu of severance pay, one hour of annual leave shall be credited for each full month of
employment up to a maximum of two hundred forty (240) hours.
The total amount of annual leave credited to the Employee's balance as of January l,
1984, shall be equal to accrued but unused vacation plus accrued but unused sick leave
converted according to the formula above plus the amount in lieu of severance pay. If
upon conversion to the annual leave plan an Employee's accumulation of annual leave
exceeds thirty (30) days (240 hours) that amount shall be the maximum total
accumulation (cap) for that Employee at the end of any subsequent year.
Once a year, at a time designated by the City, an Employee will have the opportunity to
exchange up to five (5) days (40 hours) of accumulated asulual leave for cash.
In addition, once a year at a time designated by the City, an Employee with an
accumulation of annual leave in excess of thirty (30) days (240 hours) will have the
opportunity to exchange up to five (5) days (40 hours) of annual leave for cash. Such an
exchange shall reduce the maximum total accumulation (cap) of an Employee by an
equal amount.
24.6 An Employee who wishes to take advantage of the catch-up provision of the I.C.M.A.
Retirement Corporation may exchange as many days as desired for cash under the
following conditions:
a. The Employee's cap is reduced by the number of days exchanged.
b. In no case may the cap be reduced below thirty (30) days (240 hours).
c. An Employee taking advantage of this provision must file the appropriate forms
with the payroll division of the Employer.
24.7 Upon separation from employment with the City, an Employee will be paid one (l) days
salary for each day of accrued annual leave remaining in the Employee's balance.
Ciry of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 16
37
Article 25. Holidays
25.1 Employees will accrue eight (8) hours of holiday leave for each of eleven (11) holidays in
a calendar year.
25.2 In addition to the eleven holidays, Employees shall be paid at one and one-half (1-1/2)
times their base rate of pay for all hours worked on the actual holiday between the hours
of midnight and midnight. For any overtime hours worked on a holiday Employees will
be paid two (2) times their base rate of pay.
25.3 Employees, with approval, may use accumulated holiday leave time in any hourly
increment the Employee chooses.
Article 26. Short Term Disability
26.1 Calculation of the short-term disability benefit shall be based on an average eight (8) hour
workday. Each Employee who has successfully completed the Employee's probationary
period shall be eligible for the short-term disability benefit. Such an Employee sha11 be
entitled to full pay commencing on the twenty-first (21 st) consecutive working day on
which the Employee is absent (after absence for 160 consecutive regularly scheduled
working hours) due to a physician-certified illness or injury off the job, and continuing
until the Employee returns to work able to carry out the full duties and responsibilities of
the Employee's position or through the one hundred tenth (110th) working day (880th
regularly scheduled working hour) of absence whichever occurs first. Such an Employee
shall also be entitled to full pay commencing on the eleventh (l lth) consecutive working
day on which the Employee is absent (after absence for eighty consecutive regularly
scheduled working hours) due to a physician-certified illness or injury on the job and
continuing until the Employee returns to work able to carry out the duties and
responsibilities of the Employee's position or through the one hundredth (100th) working
day (800th regularly scheduled working hour) of absence, whichever occurs first. The
amount of any compensation for the short-term disability benefit shall be reduced by any
payment received by the disabled Employee from workers' compensation insurance,
Public Employees Retirement Association disability insurance, or Social Security
disability insurance. Payment of short-term disability benefit by the City to an Employee
shall not exceed ninety (90) working days (720 working hours) for any single illness or
injury, regardless of the number and spacing of episodes. The annual leave balance of an
Employee receiving short-term disability benefit shall not be reduced nor shall such
Employee accrue annual leave during that period.
26.2 Before any short-term disability payments are made by the Employer to an Employee, the
Employer may request and is entitled to receive a certificate signed by a competent
physician or other medical attendant certifying to the fact that the entire absence was, in
fact due to the illness or injury and not otherwise. The Employer also reserves the right to
have an examination made at any time of any Employee claiming payment under the
short-term disability benefit. Such examination may be made on behalf of the Eznployer
by any competent person designated by the Employer when the Employer deems the
City of Friciley — LELS Sergeanu Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) PaBe 1 �
38
same to be reasonably necessary to verify the illness or injury claimed.
26.3 If an Employee hired before January 1, 1984, has received payments under the injury-on-
duty provisions of previous contracts, the number of days for which payment was
received will be deducted from the number of days of eligibility for coverage under short-
term disability for that same injury.
Article 27. Bereavement Leave
27.1 Bereavement leave will be granted to full-time Employees up to a maximum of iwenty-
four (24) scheduled hours. Bereavement Leave is granted in case of deaths occurring in
the immediate family. For this purpose, immediate family is considered to include those
individuals (either by blood or by law) such as: spouse, children, parents, brothers,
sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, parents in-laws, brothers in-law, and sisters in-law.
27.2 The City will allow union employees to follow current practices for non-union
employees, which gives Employees an option to appeal directly to the City Manager for
additional time off if extenuating circumstances prevail.
Article 28. Jury Pay
28.1 It shall be understood and agreed that the Employer shall pay all regular full-time
Employees serving on any jury the difference in salary between jury pay and the
Employee's regular salary or pay while in such service.
Article 29. Compensatory Time
29.1 Management reserves the right to approve compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay.
Compensatory time shall not be accumulated in excess of twenty-four (24) hours, and
must be used within the calendar year in which it was accumulated as deternuned by the
Employer.
Article 30. Employee Education Program
30.1 The Employer will pay certain expenses for certain education courses based on the
following criteria:
a. The training course must have relevance to the Employee's present or anticipated
career responsibilities;
b. Attendance shall be at an institution approved by the Employer. The course must be
approved by the Chief.
c. Financial assistance will be extended only to courses offered by an accredited
institution. This includes vocational schools, Minnesota School of Business, etc.
City of Fritfley — LELS Sergeants Contrnct (rw. 1/20/OS) Page 18
39
30.2 Programs Financial Policy
Financial assistance not to exceed the amount of two thousand, nine hundred, twenty-five
dollars ($2,925.00) per Employee per year will be extended to cover the cost of tuition,
required books or educational materials, and required fees related to the course. Charges
for student union membership, student health coverage and other charges for which the
student receives some item or services other than actual instruction will not be paid. The
Employer will pay fifty percent (50%) of the cost of tuition in advance of the Employee's
actual participation in the course and the Employee shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the
cost. Upon successful completion of the course, an Employee will be required to present
to the Chief a certification of satisfactory work. Satisfactory work is defined as follows:
a. In courses issuing a letter grade, a C or above is required.
b. In courses issuing a numerical grade, seventy percent (70%) or above is required.
c. In courses not issuing a grade, a certification from the instructor that the student
satisfactorily participated in the activities of the course is required.
30.3 If the Employee satisfactorily completes the course, the Employee will be reimbursed for
the additional fifty percent (50%) of the tuition cost for which the Employee obligated .
himself or herself in the approved application as well as for the cost of any course
required books, educational materials or fees. If the Employee fails to satisfactorily
complete the course, the Employee will not be reimbursed for these costs. '
30.4 The program will not reimburse the Employee for the hours the Employee spends in
class, only for the tuition.
30.5 Expenses for which the Employee is compensated under some other educational or
assistance program, such as the GI bill, will not be covered.
30.6 The City will not pay tuition or other costs for those courses, which are used to make the
Employee eligible for additional salary.
Article 31. Waiver
31.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations
regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the
provisions of this Agreement, are hereby superseded.
31.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations, which resulted in this
Agreement, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals
with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from
bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in
writing in this Agreement for the stipulated duration of this Agreement. The Employee
and the Union each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate
City of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/20/OS) Page 19
40
regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this
� Agreement or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically
referred to or covered by the Agreement, even though such terms or conditions may not
have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the
time this contact was negotiated or executed.
Article 32. Duration
32.1 This Agreement shall be effective as of Oct. 15, 2003, and shall remain in full force and
effect through the thirty-first day of December 31, 2005. �i witness whereof, the parties
hereto have executed this Agreement on this 24th day of January, 2005.
We hereby recommend approval of this agreement.
FOR CITY OF FRIDLEY
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
William W. Burns, City Manager
n E �
� ? ��
���-c: �'�.G�. k �`��;,.
Debor�ji K. Dahl, Huxnan Resources Director
(Date)
(Date)
T,�-� ��- �
(Date)
✓ ���-z-� �' C.��-`��=`�� / -,�� - �,�
Donovan W. Abbott, Public Safety Director (Date)
Terry
LELS
R LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.
Agent
� G(J ' C
(Date)
Ciry of Fridley — LELS Sergeants Contract (rev. 1/ZO/OS) Page z�
41
12. No Joint Venture. This Agreement is entered into for the purpose of joint solicitation of
bids and not for a joint undertaking of street maintenance projects. Street projects are not joint ventures
of the parties and no City is liable or responsible for any claims for damages arising out of any such
projects in another City.
[Signatures on following pageJ
.�
0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by the duly
authorized officers of their respective governing bodies as of the day of February, 2005.
CITY OF COON RAPIDS CITY OF ANDOVER
By:
Tim Howe, Mayor
By:
Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By:
Mayor
�
City Manager
CITY OF FRIDLEY
By:
Mayor
By:
City Manager
�
By:
Mayor
By:
City Clerk
47
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
By:
Mayor
:
City Manager
� AGENDA ITEM
COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
crrr aF
FRIDLE'Y
CLAIMS
119898 -120226
50
�
�
CR7 OF
FRIDLEY
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
January 20, 2005
William W. Burns ,��
="41�
Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Ashley Furniture Finding Of Fact M-05-03
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this review is to take off the table, and consider approval of 3 variances as
requested by Ashley Furniture, 5353 East River Road, as well as to consider approval of the
attached finding of fact, endorse its accuracy, or modify as Council deems necessary to match
its intent. (Tabled Jan. 3, 2005).
ELEMENTS
According to direction given to staff at its January 3, 2005, regular meeting, Council will vote to
officially approve Variance Request, #04-15, on Monday, January 24, 2005. Approval will be
with the exception of part 2(variance to increase the amount of allowable wall signage of the
west facing wall - customer pick up/delivery side of the building from 289 square feet to 420
square feet), which was withdrawn by the petitioner prior to the meeting. These variances are
for the property commonly referred to as Ashley Furniture, 5353 East River Road.
The variances to be approved by the City Council include:
2.
�
The variance to increase the amount of allowable wall signage on the north facing
wall (Interstate 694 side) of the building from 342 square feet to 734 square feet.
The variance to increase the amount of allowable wall signage on the east facing
wall (front store entrance) of the building from 289 square feet to 324 square feet,
which is the signage that exists on the building today.
The variance to allow signage on three walls of an industrial building instead of the
code-allowed two.
FINDING OF FACT:
The Council's findings of fact a�e as follows:
➢ The property is unique from the standpoint that its main visibility is from
Interstate 694 and there is not a through street running immediately adjacent to
the property.
➢ The property is unique because it's off a frontage road that needs to be
accessed about a half mile away, on a street that is perpendicular to the
frontage road.
51
� A similar sign variance was granted for a neighboring industrial property. This
property and use is comparable to the petitioner's, as they are both located at
end of the frontage road, which can is only visible, not accessible from Interstate
694. They also share a similar feature in that their principal use is warehousing,
which is industrial, while also incorporating a retail interest, which is an
accessory use.
➢ Location overall is atypical for retail users and traffic.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Council review the request for the 3 variances listed above, review the
attached findings of fact, modify if necessary, and approve for the record related to Variance
Request, VAR #04-15.
�
52
_
_
C[TYOF
FR[DLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 •(763) 571-3450 • FAX (763) 571-1287
January 25, 2005
Furniture Outlets USA
Bill Hinks
140 East Hinks Lane
Sioux Falls SD 57104
Dear Mr. Hinks:
On Monday, January 24, 2005, the Fridley City Council officially approved your
Variance Request, #04-15, with the exception of part 2(variance to increase the amount
of allowable wall signage of the west facing wall of the building from 289 square feet to
420 square feet), which was withdrawn by you prior to the meeting. The variances
approved by the City Council include:
1. The variance to increase the amount of allowable wall signage on the north
facing wall (Interstate 694 side) of the building from 342 square feet to 734
square feet.
2. The variance to increase the amount of allowable wall signage on the east
facing wall (front store entrance) of the building from 289 square feet to 324
square feet, which is the signage that exists on the building today.
3. The variance to allow signage on three walls of an industrial building instead
of the code-required two.
The findings of fact to support their decision to approve are as follows:
➢ The property is unique from the standpoint that its main visibility is from
Interstate 694 and there is not a through street running immediately
adjacent to the property.
➢ The property is unique because it's off a frontage road that needs to be
accessed about a half mile away, on a street that is perpendicular to the
frontage road.
➢ A similar sign variance was granted for a neighboring industrial property.
This property and use is comparable to the petitioner's, as they are both
located at end of the frontage road, which can is only visible, not
accessible from Interstate 694. They also share a similar feature in that
their principal use is warehousing, which is industrial, while also
incorporating a retail interest, which is an accessory use.
➢ Location overall is atypical for retail users and traffic.
53
f
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
n
William W. Burns, City Manager �� �
�
Jon f1. tlaukaas, Public Works Director
January 18, 2005
Award of Springbrook Creek Restoration Project 1`l0. 358
PW05-005
The City Councii approved the project and authorized advertisement of the Springbrook Creek
Restoration Project I`lo. 358 at its January 3, 2005 meeting.
Due to the tight timeframe of this project, the bid opening is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on
Monday, January 24, 2005. After the opening, staff will review the bids with our design
consultant and bring forth a recommendation to the Council that evening.
Jfltl:cz
:
MEMORANDUM
To: Dr. William Burns t��
�
FROM: Fritz Knaak, Esq. ���j
Fridley City Attorney
DATE: January 14, 2005
RE: Time Warner Cable's Formal Proposal to the City of Fridley, Minnesota
This memo is intended to present a brief overview of the November 30, 2004 formal proposal
submitted by Time Warner Cable ("TWC") to the City of Fridley, Minnesota ("City"). Under
federal law at 47 U.S.C. § 546, upon receipt of TWC's proposal the City must provide prompt
public notice of the proposal. The City then has four months from the date of receipt of TWC's
proposal to 1) renew the franchise or 2) issue a preliminary assessment that the fr�nchise should
not be renewed.
If the City chooses to renew the franchise it would be on the terms proposed by TWC in its
proposal. If the City chooses to issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be
renewed then, at the request of TWC or at the City's own initiative, the City must commence an
administrative proceeding to determine:
1. if TWC has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing
franchise and with applicable law;
2. if the quality of TWC's service, including signal quality, response to consumer
complaints, and billing practices but without regard to the mix or quality of cable services
or other services provided over the system, has been reasonable in light of community
needs;
3. if TWC has the financial, legal and technical ability to provide the services,
facilities, and equipment as set forth in TWC's proposal; and
4. if TWC's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-related community
needs and interests, taking into account the cost of ineeting such needs and interests.
The City's initial four month time period for review commenced on November 30, 2004 and
expires on or before March 31, 2005. The issue before the City at this time is whether to renew
the franchise or issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise should not be renewed. The
City Council should direct staff to prepare findings of fact supporting its decision regarding
TWC's proposal and these findings of fact should be submitted at a subsequent City Council
meeting (prior to March 31, 2005) for Council review, consideration and action.
59
Dr. William Burns
January 14, 2005
Page 2
In preparing this memo I have focused only on the major issues of difference between the City
and TWC. There are a number of significant issues based on TWC's proposed revisions to the
City's draft Cable Television Franchise Ordinance ("draft franchise") which I have not addressed
below but which may require further analysis. The draft franchise is based largely on the
existing franchise between the City and TWC and many provisions were left unchanged by the
City given that the existing franchise has served the parties well for the past 15 years.
Term City set forth a 10 year term. TWC proposed a 10 year term with a 5
year extension granted between the 7`h and 9`h anniversary date if the City
determines TWC is providing a state-of-the-art cable system.
Response: TWC's proposal would impose upon the City an ambiguous
and subjective proceeding to determine whether to increase the franchise
term by SO%. First, TWC has proposed that only a single issue, whether
the cable system is state-of-the-art, should determine whether the
franchise term is extended an additional five years. This criteria
completely ignores questions of customer service, PEG access needs and
interests, institutional network requirements, right-of-way issues and a
host of other matters addressed in a rypical cable television franchise
renewal proceeding. Even if one accepts that the only relevant issue in
determining the length of a cable television franchise is the technical
capacity of the cable system serving subscribers, the process TWC has
set forth is unworkable.
In the event the City and TWC disagree regarding what a"state-of-the-
art" cable system is, 7'WC would be permitted to demand a hearing
before the City Council at which it would have the right to present
evidence and cross examine witnesses. It is clear the City Council is not
equipped to conduct a quasi trial and make evidentiary rulings as
suggested by TWC. Further, if TWC did not agree with the City's
ultimate decision TWC would then be permitted to appeal the decision to
a court of competent jurisdiction under a` preponderance of evidence "
standard of review. Generally, legislative decisions made by the Ciry are
subject to an "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review.
TWC's franchise term proposal would extend the franchise by SO% and
entirely circumvent the federal renewal process which permits the City to
assess its future needs and interests and consider an appropriate
franchise term based on TWC's proposal in light of those identified needs
and interests.
2. Gross TWC proposes the following revisions to the City's definition of "gross
Revenues revenues":
The annual gross revenues of Grantee from the oneration of the Cable
Svstem to nrovide Cable Service in the Citv �' �^„�^°^ ^�'^^���*;�„^ ^�
• 1�
Dr. William Burns
January 14, 2005
Page 3
*� �-��*�� �_-�*��� *�° �': ; including, but not limited to, Basic Service
monthly fees, pay television fees, expanded Basic Service tier and digital
tier fees, installation and reconnection fees, franchise fees, late fees,
home shopping fees, equipment rental fees and advertising revenues.
This term does not include any sales, excise or other taxes collected by
Grantee on behalf of the state, City, or other governmental unit. The
term does not include any bad debt of Grantee
0
�,�t�,' � t i� t, ; a ��, � ..,..-�:,, „��.,,a a��� ." o„� ,.�
Y � r
0
Response: The gross revenues definition proposed by the Ciry is
identical to the def nition which TWC presently complies with under
Section 405. 03(12) of its existing franchise. Despite that fact TWC has
proposed to reduce the scope of the definition which may ultimately serve
to reduce the level of franchise fee payments to the City.
3. Emergency The City identified a need to maintain the same EAS requirements found
Alert System in the existing franchise. Section 405.06(5) requires TWC to maintain
(EAS) for use by the City a Scientific Atlanta Mode16120A ComAlert system
or equivalent. This system is to be remotely activated by telephone to
allow a representative of the City to override the audio on all Channels of
the System in the event of a civil emergency or for reasonable tests.
TWC deleted the entire provision and proposed instead to provide EAS
consistent with FCC rules and regulations.
Response: The City's EAS requirement is identical to the requirement
contained in TWC's existing franchise at Section 405.06(S). To the
extent TWC is in compliance with its existing franchise this requiremeni
would impose no additional financial burdens on TWC but rather
requires TWC only to maintain a local override capability as is presently
in place. Nothing in federal law prohibits the City from imposing
requirements above those set forth in FCC regulations.
4. I-Net The City identified a need for TWC to maintain an I-Net as presently
required under Section 405.06(6) of the existing franchise. The I-Net is
to be maintained to pass the following locations:
(1) Stevenson Elementary School
(2) Hayes Elementary School
(3) Fridley Middle School
(4) Fridley Senior High
(5) Parkview Community Center
(6) City Hall
(7) Anoka County Library (Fridley Branch)
TWC proposed the following:
61
Dr. William Burns
January 14, 2005
Page 4
(1) Maintain existing I-Net so long as replacement equipment is
commercially available. TWC will invoice City for the time and
materials associated with maintaining and replacing the existing network.
(2) Will not provide the existing I-Net to City hall and Anoka County
Library (Fridley branch).
(3) City must pay all maintenance and repair costs for I-Net.
(4) Upon request, TWC will construct and maintain a dedicated I-Net
at the City's cost. Cost is defined as TWC's time and materials including
the permitted FCC rate of return (i.e. 11.25%). Any I-Net constructed
will be owned by TWC.
(5) TWC will maintain the current return path sites from the Fridley
High School and City hall to accommodate programs originated from
those sites: City or the school shall be responsible for 50 % of
equipment, construction costs and additional wiring costs to relocate that
return path. If the City desires additional return sites, then those
additional sites will be accommodated through the I-Net or a dedicated
return path will be constructed by TWC at the requesting party's cost.
(6) TWC proposes to offer the City and Fridley Public Schools a 20%
discount off commercial rates customarily charged to similarly-situated
commercial clients of Road Runner Business Class Service or successor
service.
Response: The City identified a need to maintain the existing I-Net so as
to minimize the costs to be incurred by TWC and to maintain the
resource which has been in place under the existing franchise and
heavily utilized in the City. TWC's proposal does not guarantee that the
existing I-Net will be maintained for any specific time period. As drafted,
TWC could argue, immediately upon execution of the franchise, that it is
no longer able to obtain replacement equipment and the I-Net would
essentially cease to exist. In addition, TWC is required under the
existing franchise to repair and maintain the I-Net, TWC has proposed
that the City now cover those costs.
TWC proposes the City pay TWC to build an I-Net yet TWC would limit
what it can be used for, TWC would retain ownership and City would
cover all maintenance costs. There does not appear to be any logical
reason for the Ciry to exercise an option where it would be required to
pay all I-Net construction costs yet not retain any asset following
completion of construction. The City would likely be better served simply
going out to bid and selecting an appropriate contractor to construct the
network which would thereafter be owned, operated and controlled by
the City.
As proposed by TWC, it is entirely possible that the existing I-Net will no
62
Dr. William Burns
January 14, 2005
Page 5
longer be maintained by TWC and will cease to exist. If and when that
occurs the ability for educational institutions to utilize the I-Net for
distributing PEG access programming will be limited to a single return
feed provided to the Fridley High School.
5. PEG The City identified a need to maintain the 4 PEG channels required under
Channels the existing franchise at Section 405.06(7); 1 public, 1 educational, 1
governmental, and 1 for the Anoka County Library. TWC proposed to
reduce its current four PEG channel requirement to three channels.
Response: TWC has proposed to eliminate the present franchise
requirement that it provide a dedicated channel for use by the Anoka
County Library. TWC offers no explanation why this need should not be
met. Under TWC's proposal, the City may be forced to utilize channel
capacity on one of its other dedicated channels for use by Anoka Counry
Library.
6. PEG Support The City requested that TWC provide the following:
(1) a proposal to meet the government access capital requirements set
forth in the City's needs assessment;
(2) provide, maintain and repiace all equipment for public access;
(3) provide and maintain a studio at the headend free of charge to an
access organization; and
(4) provide local origination production equipment.
TWC's proposal:
(1) $390,000 one-time grant for capital expenditures;
(2) a return path and a playback system for the public access channel
from City hall; and
(3) continue to provide a return feed from City hall and the Fridley High
School.
Response: The report prepared by CBG Communications identified
capital needs for government access in the amount of $597,800. In
addition the City identified a need to maintain the existingfranchise
requirements at Section 405.06(7)(8)(9) which have been in place
between the City and TWC for the past 1 S years. TWC instead proposed
a one-time grant for PEG access capital expenditures of $390, 000 based
on a projected 1 S year term. TWC did not propose funding based on a
10 year term. This amount represents TWC's entire proposal for out-of-
pocket capital commitments to PEG access. TWC's proposal would
result in no franchise requirement for local origination and no capability
for the City to provide public access unless it utilized capital already
earmarked for government access production as specified in the City's
needs assessment. Moreover, TWC proposes to eliminate the
requirement for the public access studio under Section 405.06(8)E of the
63
Dr. William Burns
January 14, 2005
Page 6
7.
Customer
Service
Standards
Performance
Bond
existing franchise requiring the City to utilize Ciry Hall for any public
access programmang.
TWC deleted this entire section and instead proposed to comply with the
FCC customer service standards as they may be amended from time to
time.
Response: The FCC's customer service obligations are set forth in 47
C.F.R. � 76.309. Subparagraph (b) of this FCC regulation states
"nothing in this rule should be construed to prevent or prohibit: (4) the
establishment or enforcement of any state or municipal law or regulation
concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements
that exceed, or address matters not addressed by, the standards set forth
in subsection (c) of this rule. " TWC's proposkl attempts to strip away
the City's authority to enforce customer service obligations and instead
ties those customer service obligations directly to the FCC regulations.
Thus, if the FCC were to eliminate its customer service obligations or
substantially redraft those obligations the City would have no say in such
revisions but rather such revisions would be unilaterally incorporated
into the franchise. Moreover, it is unclear under TWC's proposal
whether TWC agrees the City has authority to enforce customer service
standards or whether TWC is arguing that only the FCC can enforce
such regulations against TWC. TWC's proposal substantially limits the
City's authority and discretion over customer service which is
specifically set forth in Section 76.309 as outlined above. TWC's
proposal would reduce the City's ability to maintain and enforce
customer service obligations throughout the teYm of the franchise.
City requested a$500,000 bond prior to any system upgrade. TWC
deleted the performance bond language in its entirety.
Response: The City's requirement for a$500, 000 performance bond
was taken directly from the existing franclzise with TWC at Section
405.10(2). This obligation would impose no additional burden on TWC
as it has been in place for the past 1 S years. TWC's proposal is to
completely eliminate this obligation which would leave the City in a
financially less secured position than it has been over the last 1 S years.
It is important to note that TWC would only be required to post the bond
in the event TWC undertook a system upgrade.
9. Security Fund City requested a$10,000 security fund upon acceptance of the franchise.
TWC proposed a$10,000 security fund upon notice from City of an
alleged violation.
Response: The City's proposal was to maintain the $10,000 security
fund which has been in place with TWC for the past 1 S years at Section
405.10(3). Rather than simply maintain this obligation which imposes no
�� .
Dr. William Burns
January 14, 2005
Page 7
additional financial burden on TWC, TWC instead proposes to eliminate
the $10, DDO security fund and post such security fund only at such time
as a notice of violation has been sent by the City to TWC. Part of the
theory behind a security fund requirement is to ensure that the City has
an amount of cash in a liquid form which can be drawn upon for
enforcement remedies available under the contract. TWC's proposal
would require the City to request such money be posted at the same time
an alleged violation of the franchise is brought against TWC. Whether
TWC would ever post a$10, 000 security fund is uncertain but clearly
this is a departure and substantial step back from the securiry fund which
has been in place between the parties for the past 1 S years and has
always been readily available to the City.
As mentioned above, I have outlined above only the major issues and TWC's proposal and there
are a number of significant drafting issues which the parties would need to resolve.
�END OF MEMO�
�
�
� AGENDA ITEM
��F CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2005
FRIDLEY
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS
..