08/22/2005 - 6080• . .
� •� v
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF AUGUST 22, 2005
7:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers
Attendance Sheet
ALFASF AR/NT NAM�, A�flRFSS ANU /TFM MUMBFit YaU ARF /NTFitFSTFD /N.
Prin� Name jClearly) Address Item 11�1"a.
Q : 5 /1 ��tevtca�, �� �rr�` v� � p+�t•w� r� �
�G�' �,a�•� �uR�/ ` y� r.�r��f ,2�,-� - I �
� � .� � � 5 • ��-� . �� � fZ� .s�-�— � I U
�
-8 vv � �. r ���rt 1 � • +�vc•�. �
a L' d � �I W� � S� So. L�^
1l vCl`V1 �l �"v�i ��-i15 �3rr� AJ�• IJE g
� � � � l �6o Cl�� -
� o� 1 Z. � 1� �
- o�. -v� c� r s a✓1 �� 2� G� i- t�e� ��'l �
� o S I J.� .�. l Ck' �''
s �. , �% Ca � ���- .5:�� �. l � �=i�r �._ S � . �� � FF l
J� ;� � �'�� 3'� � n�E g
' �rt� fo'�1�� ��. . � �. �
, �� ;�
,
�� ,��n �3o t,% '� �}.
� '� 3 � �► � cu`.� �
�
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
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.
PROCLAMATION:
Patriot Day — September 11, 2005
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of August 8, 2005
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of August 3, 2005 ................................................................................... 1- 7
2. Award the Design Contract for the 2006 Neighborhood
Street Reconstruction Project to SEH, Inc . ........................................................ 8- 16
3. Approve a Contract between the City of Fridley and SEH,
Inc., to Perform a Full Condition Evaluation of the City's
Water Storage Facilities .................................................................................... 17 - 22
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
4. Claims ....................................................................................................... 23
5. Licenses ....................................................................................................... 24 - 25
6. Estimates ....................................................................................................... 26
ADOPTION OF AGENDA.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS):
Consideration of Items not on Agenda — 15 Minutes
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. Consideration of the Proposed Transfer of
Control of the City of Fridley's Cable Television
Franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, and to Determine Whether
the Proposed Transfer may have an Adverse Effect
on Cable Television Subscribers (Tabled August 8,
2005) ....................................................................................................... 27
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005 PAGE 4
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
13. Resolution Certifying Proposed Tax Levy Requirements
For 2006 to the County of Anoka ....................................................................... 48 - 49
14. Resolution Adopting the Proposed Budget for the
Fiscal Year 2006 ................................................................................................ 50 - 52
15. Resolution of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Approving
the Transfer of the Current Cable Television Franchise
from Time Warner to Comcast ........................................................................... 53 - 54
16. Informal Status Reports ..................................................................................... 55
ADJOURN.
�
*
��
� '�I
�
*
*
�
*
�
1
.
J *
*
i
1
*
�
f
*
*
�
/
*
� �
.� , *
p,�r�ior��r
S�PT�MB�R //, 2005
WHEREAS, the challenges facing all the civilized people of the world as
they relate to the war on terrorism will not end until those responsible are
eliminated or brought to justice; and
WHEREAS, world opinion needs to remain focused upon the eradication
of these inhuman acts perpetrated around the globe; and
WHEREAS, one way to accomplish this is to never forget the value of our
Armed Forces, National Guard, police and fire personnel, EMTs and first
responders; and
WHEREAS, a noble and appropriate way to accomplish this is through an
annual celebration of our military and civilian heroes; and
WHEREAS, this commemorat�on should be held each September 11 to
include: the promot�on of global peace and goodwill, the demonstrat�on of
America's resolve and perseverance to win the war on terrorism, the
advancement of responsible cit�zenship, the encouragement of patriotism
and love of country, and the remembrance of those innocent victims who
died on September 11, as well as our military and civilian heroes, one
and all;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Scott J. Lund, Mayor of
the City of Fridley, issue this proclamat�on to recognize those who
continue to serve at home and abroad to ensure our freedom.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this proclamation be publicized for
everyone to see and know that all citizens remember with eternal respect
those whose lives were suddenly and without cause taken from them on
September 11, 2001.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set
my hand and caused the seal of the
City of Fridley to be affixed this 22nd
day of August, 2005.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
AUGUST 8, 2005
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called 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 Billings
Councilmember Wolfe
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Paul Bolin, Assistant HRA Director
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
• City Council meeting of July 25, 2005
APPROVED
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 6,
2005.
RECEIVED.
2. Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of July 20,
2005.
RECEIVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 2
3. Variance Extension Request, VAR #03-17, by Jim Kiewel for an Extension
of One Year to Increase the Maximum Size of a First Accessory Structure
from 1,000 Square Feet to 1,390 Square Feet, and to Allow the Construction
of a 22 Foot by 37 Foot Addition to the Existing Garage, Generally Located
at 1631 Rice Creek Road NE (Ward 2).
Dr. Burns, City Manager, said this is the second one-year extension requested by Mr.
Kiewel for a variance that will permit him to increase the size of his first accessory
structure from the allowed 1,000 square feet to 1,390 square feet. Staff recommends
Council's approval.
APPROVED.
4. Claims (122624 — 122807).
APPROVED.
5. Licenses.
APPROVED AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
6. Estimates.
APPROVED.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how many extensions can be granted for a variance.
Mr. Hickok, Community Development Director, stated he does not believe it can go
beyond a second one-year extension without being revisited by the Appeals
Commission.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the proposed consent agenda.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve
the agenda as presented.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 3
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:
State Representatives Char Samuelson, Barbara Goodwin and Connie Bernardy and
Senator pon Betzold reviewed recent legislative activities.
OPEN FORUM (VISITORS): Consideration of items not on agenda — 15 minutes.
Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren Street NE, stated staff has claimed in the past that
Master Plan changes must come before Council for approval. But that is not true. Only
significant Master Plan changes require Council consideration, and staff determines
what is significant. She did not understand how staff can make Master Plan changes.
Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, asked why the Charter change was not
published and both readings done in the same night. Also, this Council approved a
grant for $2.5 million for Springbrook Nature Center if Springbrook matches that
amount. He asked if the taxpayers will be responsible for paying that grant.
Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, said the Charter amendment, under State statutes, can be
submitted at either a general or special election.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the first and second readings of the ordinance
for the Charter amendment were not held on the same night.
Anoka County Commissioner Jim Kordiak presented a plaque from the Anoka
County Board of Commissioners commending the City of Fridley for its resource
conservation efforts.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. Consideration of the Proposed Transfer of Control of the City of Fridley's
Cable Television Franchise from Time Warner Cable to Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, and to Determine Whether the Proposed Transfer
may have an Adverse Effect on Cable Television Subscribers.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Mayor Lund, to waive the reading
and open the public hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRI ED.
Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, stated this public hearing is necessary because Time Warner,
the current cable franchise in Fridley, notified the City that it intended to transfer the
City's franchise to Comcast. This is part of a national deal to divide the assets of a
bankrupt competitor and reallocate local franchise assets. Federal approval for all of
these is pending. Federal law requires local franchise review and approval of any such
transfer subject to some limited exceptions. Both the Fridley Cable Community
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 4
Franchise Ordinance and Minnesota law require advanced written approval for any sale
or transfer of a franchise. This process began with the receipt of a Form 394 which is a
federal FCC form from Time Warner which notified the City and provided information
regarding Comcast's legal, technical and financial qualifications. The City's franchise
ordinance has an additional requirement which states the City must reply within 30 days
indicating either its approval of the application or making the determination that a public
hearing is necessary. In this case, the City made the decision to conduct a public
hearing because the transfer could have an adverse effect on the City's cable
subscribers and the City needs to offer its residents an opportunity to provide input
regarding the transfer. Once the City closes the public hearing, it will then have 30 days
to take action on a resolution to approve or deny the request for the transfer.
Mr. Knaak said Fridley has been involved for several years in negotiations regarding the
terms of its cable franchise with Time Warner. The City had rejected Time Warner's
most recent proposal and the City had permitted Time Warner to continue to operate
under the old franchise while renewal procedures continued. The terms of the new
franchise have been worked out in negotiations, but Comcast's necessary documents
are not completed. Exhibit 2 of the application provided states "Comcast has no plans
to change the current terms or conditions of service or operations of the system. The
cable system will be operated pursuant to the terms of the current franchise agreement
and applicable law after the consummation of the proposed transaction. Comcast
reserves the right to make service and operational changes in accordance with the
terms of the current franchise agreement and applicable law." His interpretation of this
language would be that if Time Warner reaches an approved agreement on the terms of
the new franchise by the time the transaction with Comcast is approved, Comcast's
franchise terms would be those agreed to with Time Warner. If, however, no final
agreement is reached and formal process is continuing, Comcast will own a non-
renewed franchise with the right to continue the formal procedure to its conclusion. This
is a matter of an approval process in many areas of the country and as a part of the
application process, both Time Warner and Comcast were required to provide
information. To his knowledge, the financial qualification element has not served as the
basis for any decision by a local unit of government not to recommend approval of this
transaction. His review of the 10K form indicates that it is a company that has been
making a profit. There have been some difficulties with some accounting issues but
those have been resolved. As of this year, Time Warner is showing a substantial
increase in profits with considerable sales generated by their new digital products. For
clarification on the financial concerns, he explained that he is not an accountant or
expert in such matters.
Mr. Knaak said with respect to legal issues concerning Time Warner, a number of
interesting issues have surfaced in other jurisdictions related to consent which is the
process Council is going through now. One of those issues is whether or not approval
would be given because of disputes related to a franchise fee audit or the agreed upon
language in the new franchise. He then reviewed the actions of other municipalities
across the country on the Comcast matter. There are a number of issues with respect
to EEOC claims. It is his opinion that for a company the size of Time Warner, these
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 5
claims are by their nature occur fairly regularly and are, therefore, unremarkable. With
respect to the technical issues, he stated that to his knowledge, there are no technical
reasons that Comcast would not be able to take over the current system. Brian Strand
has conducted a review of surrounding communities that are serviced by Comcast and
his report has been summarized in a succinct analysis. There were no remarkable
unfavorable reports from any of the communities being serviced by Comcast.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to accept
Brian Strand's report dated August 8, 2005, into the record.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Billings asked if there has been any information submitted regarding
the financial strength of Comcast.
Mr. Knaak stated the information in the 10K form was Comcast's financial information.
Councilmember Barnette asked what would happen to the building near City Hall.
Mr. Knaak stated under the agreement, whatever real estate Time Warner has would
become Comcast's property.
Mayor Lund asked if the City accepts the transfer, would there be any problems in the
continuation of the current franchise agreement if it has not been finalized with Time
Warner prior to the transfer to Comcast.
Mr. Knaak stated there is no clear answer.
Mayor Lund commented that in light of ongoing franchise negotiations he would prefer
to deny the transfer to Comcast until such time that the City has an agreement with
Time Warner.
Mr. Knaak said an agreement has been reached on all key points and all that remains
is to iron out language. He has every confidence this can be accomplished. If Council
approves the franchise agreement and then the transfer to Comcast, Comcast would
get that franchise with those terms. There would not be immediate renegotiation. Time
Warner has certain rights to keep doing business, as the City has allowed it to continue
operating under the old franchise, so there is the argument that Comcast would be able
to "stand in the stead" and do that. If there is a formal determination by the City that the
franchise is terminated, under that circumstance, Comcast would have to apply as a
new franchisee.
Emmet Coleman, Area Director of Government Affairs for Comcast, stated Mr. Knaak
did a very effective job conveying to Council this process. There is a right under the
Federal Cable Act for Time Warner as they are currently operating and he believed that
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 6
right would convey if the transfer process is approved. If a franchise renewal
agreement is on the table and approved by Council, Comcast would assume those
obligations as they are.
Mayor Lund stated if Council approves the franchise transfer to Comcast within the 30-
day timeframe but has not yet signed for the new franchise agreement with Time
Warner, he asked if Comcast would object to some of the franchise terms and demand
the process start all over.
Mr. Coleman stated he is not privy to the discussions that have been going on between
Time Warner and the City. By Federal law, they are prohibited from getting involved in
operational issues. Each company has a different operating philosophy and those will
come into play if there is no negotiated settlement between Time Warner and the City of
Fridley in advance of the transfer. His sense is that the operating philosophies are fairly
close so he does not foresee Comcast insisting on starting from square one. Another
issue is what the City is agreeing to is the transfer process, but that transfer will not
actually take place until the deal is closed on a national level, which would probably not
occur until the second quarter of next year. That gives the City a fair amount of time to
reach an agreement with Time Warner. Federal law is pretty clear that at this point,
Comcast cannot engage in the regulatory or operational issues.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Coleman to comment on why the transfer to Comcast was
denied in some areas of the country.
Mr. Coleman said he is not familiar with the details or whether those issues have been
resolved. He said there were only a handful of communities with concerns, but
thousands of communities which approved the transfer. In Minnesota, almost half the
communities have already approved the transfer to Comcast. He further stated that the
prevailing view has been, if there is a right to continue operating under the Cable Act,
that right can be legally conveyed in the transfer process.
Mr. Knaak agreed, but added that the problem is what Comcast would actually have.
He believed there is an obvious understanding that there is an ongoing operation and a
value to that operation. He agreed that there is some kind of transferable interest, but
the problem would be defining that interest. He added the fine print in the agreement
between Comcast and Time Warner has to do with the ongoing and thorough
disclosures between the two entities as to who owns what and how much.
Mr. Coleman briefly reviewed how this change will impact Time Warner cable
subscribers.
Councilmember Billings asked if Comcast has branch offices or remote locations for
the convenience of subscribers.
Mr. Coleman said it varies by community, but they do try to manage this strategically
throughout the Metro area.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 7
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned the cost of Comcast service compared to Time
Warner.
Mr. Coleman explained that all of the service areas compete against each other and
Comcast is held accountable based on overall satisfaction surveys. Service costs are
difficult to get into because different franchise areas have different requirements and
programming which impacts costs. Overall, Comcast is within pennies of the vast
majority of costs to subscribers in the metropolitan area.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if Comcast will be upgrading to fiber.
Mr. Coleman responded that a couple of years ago Comcast completed a full upgrade
to fiber coaxial hybrid which they believe offers the best product.
Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if it would make sense for Time Warner to work
diligently with the City to reach an agreement within the next 30 days.
Mr. Knaak stated he expects the City will be able to reach an agreement with Time
Warner. He is in the process of revising the agreement submitted by Time Warner and
anticipates being done within the next two or three days.
Dr. Burns, City Manager, added that September 12 is the tentative date set to bring the
Time Warner agreement back before Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom believed it would be easier to have the agreement in place
prior to the transfer to Comcast.
Mr. Knaak said there is no reason why Council could not condition the approval of the
transfer on the compliance with the final agreement. The timeframe for approval of the
transfer is within 30 days of the hearing.
Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, asked if Comcast offers service other than
television, such as telephone.
Councilmember Billings responded that Comcast offers cable television, telephone
and internet services just as Time Warner currently offers.
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, questioned the status of the Time Warner negotiations.
Councilmember Billings responded that as recently as two weeks ago, there was a
negotiation session between the City of Fridley's negotiating team and Time Warner's
negotiating team and their attorney. An agreement was reached on all the outstanding
issues. It is now just a matter of making sure that the language the attorneys come up
with matches the intent of the negotiated terms.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 8
Ms. Reynolds asked if Fridley residents have any input into those negotiations, such as
public access service and the internet service.
Councilmember Billings responded that the internet and telephone services are not a
part of the cable franchise agreement.
Ms. Reynolds stated that it is her understanding that current agreements will stay in
place with the franchise transfer.
Councilmember Billings responded that is correct. What Council is being asked to do
is to give their stamp of approval for Comcast and Time Warner to enter into an
agreement for Comcast to take over whatever position Time Warner has in relation to
the City. If the City is still in negotiations with Time Warner when the transfer to
Comcast occurs, what would be transferred to Comcast is the right to negotiate with the
City for a cable franchise agreement.
Ms. Reynolds asked if the Council will, at any time, consider the re-establishment of
the City's cable commission.
Mayor Lund responded it is not the function of the cable commission to participate in
such negotiations.
Councilmember Billings added that there will still be public access in Fridley. Based
on the active involvement of Fridley residents in public access television over the past
few years, the need for a studio has gone down tremendously; therefore the City is not
negotiating to retain a studio for those purposes. However, if Comcast and Time
Warner put this deal together, there are a number of cities currently doing business with
Comcast that have excellent facilities for public access television productions which
would be available, for a fee, to the City of Fridley.
Don Anderson, 7304 West Circle Drive, asked what kind of internet service Comcast
provides, whether or not they offer Fox Sports Net and if the channels will change.
Mr. Coleman responded that there will be some channel realignment, but nothing will
take place immediately. They do offer Fox Sports and the internet service they offer is
full broadband with ongoing upgrades.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to close the
public hearing.
After some discussion, it was determined it would be best continue this matter rather
than close the public hearing. Councilmember Barnet withdrew his motion and
Councilmember Wolfe withdrew his second.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to continue
this public hearing to the City Council meeting of August 22.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 9
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Consideration of the Construction of Certain Improvements: Neighborhood
Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2005-3: 73'/2 Avenue Extension.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the
reading and open the public hearing.
Councilmember Billings explained that while there was a publication in the
newspaper, there was some delay in sending out the official notice to some of the
property owners. Staff has requested this matter be continued to the August 22nd
meeting.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to
continue the public hearing to the August 22nd meeting.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
9. Consideration of Modifications to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for
Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1-3, 6-7, and 9-17, Creation of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 18 and Adoption of a Tax Increment
Financing Plan Relating Thereto.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to waive
the reading and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Paul Bolin, Assistant Executive HRA Director, stated this public hearing is for the
creation of TIF District 18 for the Gateway West project. Following the public hearing, a
resolution will be required to create the TIF District. The City has been working to
acquire property in the Hyde Park neighborhood since 1997 in order to develop new
single family homes. Within the past six months, the final two properties were acquired.
In June, Council set tonight's meeting date for the required public hearing to create the
TIF District for Gateway West. Over the past few months, staff has worked with legal
counsel to meet all the county and school district requirements. Gateway West will
allow for somewhere between 14 to 16 new single family homes to be built in the Hyde
Park neighborhood. TIF District 18 will be a 25-year redevelopment district and it does
meet the statutory requirements for creation. The present value of the increment being
generated and the land sale that will occur will help to recover almost $1.5 million.
When all is said and done, the project will have an estimated value of just under $4
million.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 10
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there are additional requirements after the
resolution is passed.
Mr. Bolin stated he discussed this with HRA counsel who advised that only one reading
is required since it is a resolution. If the resolution passes at this meeting, he planned
to begin seeking bids from demolition contractors and to have the buildings down by the
end of the month. Each of the homes on this site has been broken into with damage
and theft occurring, including a small fire in one of the properties. The sooner the
buildings are removed, the less liability the City will face. Requests for proposals were
sent out to approximately 38 developers with only one response being received. The
site with 16 units is too small for big developers to be interested in and yet 16 lots are
too much for smaller builders. The proposal they did receive, from Family Lifestyle
Development, was rejected because their housing style did not fit in the Hyde Park
neighborhood and they were unwilling to pay the minimum per lot cost of $50,000. Staff
is now meeting with a couple of developers who are interested in this project and hope
to come to some resolution by the September HRA meeting. There will be 14 to 16
single family homes on this site.
Councilmember Barnette asked if this project could happen without tax increment
financing, if the City loses all of the tax income when a TIF District is established, and
when the structures will be taken down on this site.
Mr. Bolin explained that he hopes the demolition will be completed within the next three
weeks. This type of project would not be possible without the establishment of a TIF
district. Staff determined that only about three single family homes would have been
possible without the TIF district. Because the City was able to purchase and demolish
the blighted buildings and build new homes, there will be an estimated market value of
just under $4 million. Without the TIF district, they would have had a project value of
less than $2 million. The TIF district has allowed them to double the market value in
that area.
Councilmember Barnette commented that some people believe the City is helping to
finance private business with taxpayers' dollars and that money is never recouped.
Gay Cerney, redevelopment counsel and financial analyst for the City, explained that
the $1.8 million increase in market value the TIF district creates is after they have netted
out the approximately $800,000 in present value of tax increment that will be repaid to
the City. The way the tax increment works under the statutory scheme is that the
current level of taxes being paid on those properties in their current condition before
demolition continues to be paid as regular taxes to all of the different taxing jurisdictions.
The institution of the TIF district does not result in a net loss for the City or any other
taxing jurisdiction of their current taxes. What the "but for" test wants to determine is
that the City could get someone to come in and build on the vacant lots, but no
developer would come in and replace structures on a one for one basis because it does
not work financially. This is why the City makes a decision and does the analysis to
take on a project like this. What staff has determined is that based on what they think
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 11
will be constructed and the assessed value after completion is that the project will yield
approximately $720,000 in present value of money the City can use to reimburse itself.
This makes economic sense for the City as we would not have had this development at
all if not for the City's investment. Between the projected land sales of $800,000 plus
the $720,000 value of the tax increment, the City will get within $400,000 of its actual
investment. The other $400,000 should not be seen as money that will not be
recouped. By putting in new value and revitalizing this area, the City is also stabilizing
property values in the whole Hyde Park area. This was something staff and Council
decided was a worthwhile investment for the City.
Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated the TIF district for Medtronic cost the
taxpayers a lot of money. He did not think taxpayers' money should go into such
projects.
Ms. Cerney stated this is not a situation where the City is granting tax increment
assistance to any private party. The City has already made an investment in the Hyde
Park area and is looking to create the TIF district to recoup the largest part of its
investment. According to all projections, they believe the City will end up about
$400,000 short. This is a situation where the City made the decision to invest knowing
that it would probably not get all its money back, but if you consider other factors such
as maintaining property values in the area as a whole, it is less clear that the investment
is not being recovered.
Councilmember Billings asked if there are other TIF districts where the City's HRA is
actually recovering more money than they are spending.
Ms. Cerney responded yes. If the density had been increased on the lots in the Hyde
Park area, this project could have resulted in a positive cash flow. But that would not
have been desirable from a City planning standpoint. The HRA and City staff wanted
this to be a development that would be compatible with the existing houses and
enhance the neighborhood.
Dr. Burns commented that every redevelopment project's major goal is to add to the
image of the City of Fridley. We need to be concerned about areas that detract from
the City's image and invest in redevelopment.
Ms. Cerney pointed out that a neighboring community recently had an "up tick" in their
general obligation bond rating based, in part, on that community's long history of
redevelopment.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that many Fridley residents oppose high density
housing and this is an area where the City chose to put in single family homes even
though it meant less return to the City than multi-family housing would have generated.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to close the
public hearing.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 8, 2005 PAGE 12
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED.
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Resolution Modifying the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing
Districts Nos. 1-3, 6-7, and 9-17 to Reflect Increased Project Costs and
Increased Bonding Authority Within Redevelopment Project No. 1, Creating
Tax Increment Financing District No. 18 and Adopting a Tax Increment
Financing Plan Relating Thereto.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt
Resolution No. 2005-36.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Informal Status Reports.
Councilmember Bolkcom commended the personnel of the Police and Fire
Departments on a successful National Night Out on August 2.
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 10:11 PM.
Respectfully submitted by,
Rebecca Brazys Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 3, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Savage called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30
PM.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Diane Savage
Barbara Johns
David Kondrick
Larry Kuechle
Dean Saba
Leroy Oquist
Members Absent: Brad Dunham
Others Present: Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES — July 6 and July 20, 2005
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to approve the minutes
as presented.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Tabled public hearing discussion regarding rezoning request ZOA #05-03 by
JLT East River Road LLC, regarding the rezoning of 5601 East River Road from
M2, Heavy Industrial to C3, General Shopping.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED AND THE PUBLC HEARING OPENED AT 7:32 P.M.
Ms. Stromberg stated this rezoning request was continued from the July 20th meeting. She
briefly reviewed the presentation she made at the previous meeting explaining that the petitioner
is seeking the rezoning so they can market the site to potential commercial buyers. It is the
petitioner's intention to ask for the rezoning at this time and once a specific user (or users) has
been identified, the petitioner will come back for the second reading before the Council with a
detailed site plan and any other City requirements. The petitioner has requested ample time
between first and second reading to negotiate with potential users and develop a site plan
based on those users. The petitioner has also waived the state statute 15.99 requirement to
allow them the time they need to market this site. At the July 20th meeting this matter was
tabled as a result of concerns expressed by the Longview Fibre Company, which is located
north of the subject property. The concerns brought forward by Longview included traffic
conflict and a perceived incompatibility of neighboring uses. The petitioner and the Longview
Fibre Company have had an opportunity to meet since the July 20th meeting and came up with
three conditions for approval of this rezoning request.
1) Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure
enhancements, approved by the City and Longview Fibre (which approval will not be
unreasonably withheld) that promotes safe and adequate traffic flow and movements
to and from the properties utilizing the highway easement dated May 9, 1975, filed
with the County of Anoka, August 4, 1975, as document No. 86767, and with no
corresponding charge to the owner of 5851 East River Road NE for any required
traffic improvements.
2) Longview Fibre, prior to final site plan approval, receiving written notice (at its plant
c/or Mr. Cornier, and to the attention of Joseph Finley, Esq. at Leonard Street) of all
hearings, before the Planning Commission or the City Council, which involve any
rezoning, comprehensive plan amendment, site plan approval, or platting of the JLT
Property.
3) Execution and recording by the petitioner of a Declaration of Covenants,
substantially in the attached form, within a reasonable time following second reading
and final passage of the rezoning ordinance.
Ms. Stromberg explained that staff will include conditions #1 and #3 as stipulations on the
proposed rezoning request and staff will use condition #2 as instruction to ensure that both Mr.
Cornier at Longview Fibre Company and Joseph Finley at Leonard, Street and Deinard, will be
notified prior to final site plan approval. It should be noted that as part of the final site plan
approval for this site, staff would require detailed site plans, which would include a traffic
management study as well as all of the other standard site plan requirements and documents.
Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning request as the
proposed rezoning is an extension of the existing C3 zoning along the Interstate 694 corridor
and the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If approved, staff
recommends the following stipulations be attached:
1) Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2) Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage and
landscaping details, prior to second reading of the rezoning ordinance. (Petitioner
has waived 15.99 rights in order to comply with this stipulation.)
3) Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure
enhancements, approved by the City and Longview Fibre (which approval will not be
unreasonably withheld) that promotes safe and adequate traffic flow and movements
to and from the properties utilizing the highway easement dated May 9, 1975, filed
with the County of Anoka, August 4, 1975, as document No. 86767, and with no
corresponding charge to the owner of 5851 East River Road NE for any required
traffic improvements.
4) Execution and recording by the petitioner of a Declaration of Covenants,
substantially in the attached form, within a reasonable time following second reading
and final passage of the rezoning ordinance.
Ms. Stromberg explained that the access to both the petitioner's property and the Longview
Fibre is not a pubic street. The petitioner owns the property where the access is located and
Longview has an easement across the petitioner's property for access.
Jay Lindgren, land use attorney representing the petitioner, stated they support the staff's
recommendation and all the stipulations. They have had a good opportunity to meet with Mr.
Finley, representing Longview, they're in full agreement and believe that these are good
additions to this recommendation.
Joseph Finley, land use attorney representing Longview Fibre, stated the process worked the
way it was supposed to and they had very good negotiations with the petitioner. The issues can
be handled with a declaration of covenants which will bind JLT Company and Longview Fibre.
He is satisfied with the stipulations as written and has no further concerns.
Commissioner Kondrick questioned if Mr. Finley is satisfied that a change in use will not
create difficulties for the truck traffic into the Longview Fibre property.
Mr. Finley responded if the easement remains the same and the traffic from the JLT site
increases significantly there could be a problem. However, the condition included as a part of
this approval gives Longview the opportunity to review the proposed use on this site prior to the
second reading of the rezoning ordinance. They believe there are safeguards in place.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 7:42 P.M.
Commissioner Kuechle commented that the major concerns expressed at the previous
meeting have been addressed and he was glad that the petitioner and Longview Fibre were
able to work together successfully.
Commissioner Kondrick stated he is concerned about the impact on the truck traffic for
Longview Fibre because trucks already wait a lengthy period of time at that access point. He
asked if Anoka County has been notified of this proposal and if they're prepared to improve the
intersection if necessary.
Ms. Stromberg explained that Anoka County has asked to be kept informed of the process and
will provide feedback once there is a tenant set for this site. Also, any changes in the access
would be the responsibility of the petitioner.
MOTION by Commissioner Johns, seconded by Commissioner Kuechle, to recommend
approval of ZOA #05-03 by JLT East River Road LLC, at 5601 East River Road from M2, Heavy
Industrial to C3, General Shopping with the stipulations as presented.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED.
2. Consideration of a Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CP #05-02, by the
City of Fridley for Timothy VanAuken, to make the Zoning and Comprehensive
Plan designation for 1475 and 1485 — 73`d Avenue consistent.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPENED AT 7:46 P.M.
Ms. Jones explained this is being initiated by the City as Mr. VanAuken has not requested a
rezoning related to this matter. There is a discrepancy in the Comprehensive Plan that must be
addressed to guide the future zoning designation of this property. On June 27, 2005, the City
Council approved a preliminary plat for this property presented by the owner, Timothy
VanAuken. Mr. VanAuken owns both lots which are zoned R3, Multi-Family, but each contains
a single family home. The plan for this site is to subdivide the two lots into six lots creating four
new lots that will contain two new twin homes. The twin homes will take access off the back of
the property onto 73 %2 Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan reflects these properties as R1,
Single Family. The City cannot approve the final plat on this property unless the zoning is
consistent. In the platting process, staff found that the plat meets all the zoning requirements of
R2, because the proposed construction is two-family, staff used the R2 zoning guidelines. One
exception was the rear yard setback and that was approved as a part of the plat.
Ms. Jones stated when staff reviews a Minor Comprehensive Plan amendment, there are five
questions that need to be answered:
1) Are there any impacts to Metropolitan systems?
Staff found that the proposed twin homes will not create a major impact on the
systems.
2) Is there going to be any change to the urban service boundaries?
The entire City is within the urban service boundary, so there is no impact.
3) WII there be any changes to the timing of urban services?
That is not applicable in this case because all of the Cityis within the urban service
area.
4) Are there any considerations for wastewater treatment?
Staff feels that the proposed twin homes will result in no notable impact.
5) WII there be discharge to more than one metropolitan interceptor?
The answer to this question is no.
Ms. Jones stated staff recommends approval of this Minor Comprehensive Plan amendment as
it provides consistency with the present zoning in the area and it will not have any impact on
metropolitan systems.
Commissioner Saba stated when the replat was approved, there were several residents
concerned about the change in the characteristics of their neighborhood. If the Comprehensive
Plan is amended, he questioned what will stop future Planning Commissions from changing the
zoning back. He was concerned if a precedent is being set.
Ms. Jones explained that when the Comprehensive Plan was approved the Council knew there
were a lot of properties where the zoning was inconsistent with the use, this property being one
of them. The Council decided to deal with those inconsistencies on a case by case basis as
they came up for redevelopment or some land use change. The petitioner triggered this action
when he requested the replatting on his property.
Commissioner Saba stated he is not opposed to this project but is concerned about even
minor amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the appearance that the City is making
such changes for the petitioner.
Mr. Knaak commented that ultimately the Comprehensive Plan has to be consistent with the
zoning code. Since this is ordinarily done in the broad scheme of things and the plan for the
entire City is passed, what happens is the zoning code, to the extent it is inconsistent, is
modified to conform to that overall plan. It has been expressly upheld that if a specific proposal
comes up and the City acts on it and modifies their Comprehensive Plan with a minor change,
this has been expressly allowed by the courts in Minnesota and is a fairly common practice.
The procedure being followed here is very common, legally allowed and does not require this be
done in the future.
Commissioner Kondrick asked if Mr. VanAuken understands and agrees with the stipulations
recommended by staff.
Mr. VanAuken responded affirmatively.
John Jackels, 1479 73 %2 Av. NE, stated the neighborhood still has some concerns. He does
not agree with some aspects of the preliminary plat and has communicated with Council
regarding these issues. The Comprehensive Plan was developed by the residents of Fridley,
City Council and staff through a hearing process. The current Comprehensive Plan reflects the
vision of the community. He believes that not following the Comprehensive Plan divides the
community. He referred to the Minnesota Statute which states "If the Comprehensive Municipal
Plan is in conflict with the zoning, the zoning ordinance should be brought into conformance with
the plan." The Fridley City Code states "The zoning regulations are intended to achieve the
goals and objectives and guide and direct the community development based on the
Comprehensive Plan." The Court of Appeals of Minnesota has found that the City Council can't
enforce the plan if someone is in conflict with it and wants to develop the land. It was his
opinion that the way this was done on this property has tied the hands of the Council and the
Planning Commission to change the Comp Plan to the zoning that's there. The neighbors feel
this denies the ability to implement the Plan that was the desire of the City of Fridley. They
believe all the inconsistencies in the Comp Plan should be corrected. They understood that the
property would be developed as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. They may have made
different decisions regarding their own home had they known this kind of change was possible.
The Comprehensive Plan should control the zoning, not the zoning control the Plan.
Chairperson Savage asked the City Attorney to comment on Mr. Jackel's remarks.
Mr. Knaak stated as a general rule, when a Comprehensive Plan is created, it is contemplated
on a city-wide review. Over time, the City seeks to conform the ordinances to the general plan.
But in a situation like this, where in all likelihood, what the Council is considering a minor
amendment, it is allowed to do the opposite. There is a Supreme Court case in Minnesota that
speaks to the issue and found that Cities can do a minor zoning code change and then
anticipate there would be a conforming amendment. It is clearly not the way the City would
want to do general comprehensive planning or review an entire City. However, in a case like
this where a proposal comes up and the City is dealing with the specifics of a proposal this is a
procedure which the City is allowed to follow.
MOTION by Commissioner Kuechle, seconded by Commissioner Kondrick, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING CLOSED AT 8:08 P.M.
Commissioner Saba stated the neighborhood had some good comments and expressed them
very well in terms of this project. But he has some concerns because what is allowed isn't
always what is right and he has a problem making minor comprehensive plan amendments after
a project has already been presented without the input of the neighborhood, so he cannot
support this change.
Commissioner Kondrick stated he doesn't think that four additional units are going to be that
much of a change for the neighborhood. The plans Mr. VanAuken has for the twin homes are
"sharp looking." Traffic won't be that much of an issue even if as many as eight cars are added.
Also there is other multi-family housing in the area. He stated this is an odd situation but
doesn't believe it will be that much of a change to the neighborhood.
Chairperson Savage agreed stating that right next to Mr. VanAuken's property there is a fairly
large apartment complex. There will always be some opposition to such projects and the
Commission has to listen, be concerned with the neighbors' views but also with what the law
allows. In this case she agrees that this proposal is not going to have a large impact on the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Oquist stated the rezoning issue has been discussed and approved. The
matter before the Commission now is changing the Comprehensive Plan for just this area. The
property is already zoned R3 and should the petitioner choose to, he could build an apartment
building on this site.
Commissioner Saba believed that the Comprehensive Plan drives the Commission to direct
their zoning changes toward single family residential. He was also concerned about the issues
raised by the neighbors at the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Oquist, to recommend
approval of CP #05-02 to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for 1475 and 1485 73�a
Avenue to R3.
UPON A FIVE TO ONE VOICE VOTE, WITH COMMISSIONER SABA VOTING NAY,
CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Stromberg announced that the August 17 Planning Commission meeting has been
cancelled.
ADJOURN
MOTION by Commissioner Kondrick, seconded by Commissioner Saba, to adjourn.
UPON A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 8:17 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Rebecca Brazys
Recording Secretary
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEI'
T�:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager
Jon Fi. Fiaukaas, Public Works Director
August 16, 2005
Award of Design Contract for 2006 Street Reconstruction Project
PW05-050
The City awarded the design contract for the 2005 I`ieighborhood Street Reconstruction project
to SEFi, Inc. after requesting proposals from many firms and reviewing the four received. SEFi
has provided us with excellent service this past year through the design and construction
process.
Rather than go through that process again and struggle through the learning curve of working
with a new engineering consultant, we have requested a proposal from SEFi for the design
services associated with the 2006 street project. They are proposing to provide all services
similar to this year"s project through the project award for a not-to-exceed fee of �158,188.
This is approximately 6.4% of the estimated construction amount, a very reasonable fee for the
project of this size.
Recommend the City Council award the design contract for the 2006 I`ieighborhood Street
Reconstruction Project to SEFi, Inc. for a not-to-exceed fee of �158,188.
Jtiti:cz
�
�J
�
,. ,SEN
August 4, 2005
Mr. Jon H. Haukaas, PE
Public Works Director and City Enaineer
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Jon:
RE: Fridley, Minnesota
2006 Neiahborhood Street Improvement Project
Engineering Services
City Project No. ST 2006-1
SEH No. P-FRIDL0�03.00 10.00
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.° (SEH) thanks you for the opportunity to assist the City of Fridley
(City) with the referenced project.
For your convenience, we have enclosed a map of the project area labeled Figure No. 1. We will
provide the services to the City as outlined in the enclosed Task Hour Budjet (THB) within the
project area for a not-to-exceed fee of $158,188. Our not-to-exceed fee includes reimbursable
expenses. We will bill you monthly on an hourly basis for services, expenses, and equipment.
Based on an orderly and continuous progression of the work described in the THB, we anticipate
achieving the key milestones shown in the following table.
This letter a?reement, Figure No. 1, and the THB represent the entire understanding between the City
of Fridley and the SEH in respect to the project and may only be modifed in writin� if signed by
both parties. If this letter satisfactorily sets forth the City's understanding of this project, please sign
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red-Circle Drive, Suice 200. Minnetonka. MN 55343-9301
SEH is an equal opporcuniry employer � www.sehinc.com � 952.912.2600 � 800.734.6757 � 952.9I2.2601 fax
Mr. Jon H. Haukaas
Aubust �, 2005
Pace 2
• �.
and date both letters and return one to me at the address shown on this letterhead. In the meantime,
please contact me at 952.912.2611 or ppasko@sehinc.com with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC.
G—'�� /���r�� f�✓� �'r�uc �' C
�
Paul J. Pasko III, PE/Associate
Project Manager
Enclosures
Accepted on this _day of , 2005
City of Fridley, Minnesota
By:
Name
Title:
c: Jason Sprague, SEH
Dave Halter, SEH
Chad Millner, SEH
A1 Horge, SEH
V:�F1Fridn050300�1-Gen�10�8 04 OS proposaLdoc
10
�
8
b
9
\-
�
�D
A
O
�
�
�
"!
�
A
�
.r.
�
�
N
O
O
O�
�
A
A
�
A
"'!
�
�
A
:r
c
- �'b�;'�.
3K�,�
\ �
�
�
�
�
i"�
^r-+ •
�+
�r
�
�
�
� '. �7;:"::;:;�r ' ti :�i; �i%''-
..ti>•i�'p�..T•.. .
.:�.,.�i"F`�i ri!��'• ��'t
�..
�'v:.-•. ::�i`�z� e
i. !!. 4.;�.�f.� '�,t.?.P.....
t'+ �
� �
3/�V AliS213/UNf1
_ . - ,-, -
�
%��l\�"
��� �
4
� ��
�
��
� �
�
�
Q
N
�r
�
�
V
O>
�O
�
� � � y
CW± � '9' O
m � N
� � � Q
�': C' O `�
�
� � U �
V
�
�
�
�
�
�
b
O
O
N
��1W
�
Q i � ^f
1
S � '�, r,
:
E � °e.
Fv�
fY Y >.
� � `4
p /:
< f< I �•
K 5 .1
°� .x' :�� ,�i
.,� Y� {
°� 'y � .
� �ti h .�
O
W
� �
F •t
W
� I
� � —
� •:
^y^ L e �
aL
�
$�0 '.
at�J A:::. `f
a �� <�
O � h:
x �
; ;
N �� � ` I ^
Ir-r ,A '
�
r. �
F
� �
W ��
x+' -
�
�
j � '
.S k. :.':
� �!
�� OOC O �CGC� ��A- �� 5�.
y� �
�
�� �� � °� ^
� � S• �� -
y FZ S:
� � `�
�O Z N '�' •k.
� � A' f j:
� t: G .
0�3 S t ,�
:i:
0
� w
f
Z m Q W O m Q
�~ N< N � LL � W W �
Um y N� W N a w
� f ¢
O � LL � ¢ y Q LL H
� � LL Z p N� W O 2 � Z
N f � N � �
� g� ' °�"Z3 � 3 Z W tl X �
< < � a
U} f > � �4lly W Q 1- Z W 111F. �
li'1 Z ��j . U W 2UF W � W ¢; 3 4 W p �y �
¢ tl ��` � ��¢Z� a([+i az � � o ¢ � � =pZ�Z I
^ � J p r N y > W 'U W a ` O g ¢ IN y� � V 6 Q i N i
Sy� U< U c�X ¢z�� m oZ O�W�z W r wl� i
pG � FU-- � 4 W �~� O F- Q W � y a y I¢ S f~/J l7 r W 2 2 6 1-I I
O¢ � LL N dS F N Z¢ Q W . Z LL W�- �5 U O O p U
U Q W Q Q 2 J� S W Q f H ✓� J O d � S y X 1- W G' U F 1 1 1 � '.
h LL110 Q ZLL V6Y W j Q41Q Z � F_ W ui I3¢ W V g[� v�i�' USN
C, N Q � {� y_ O � t�. 2 � y i W? S W Q '
N � j�C7>' 20 <ZZfA OJ ZI- �" W < Z N O 2�~(�~ a I�C � LL� < �
Y ��?� wwma3J¢NVQQZ � Z� �21-1oa3a3n �u�� JZU .
� m�oa. �-��UO-p f OZ � '< 3 O �yUa < F¢�nam w f, fn yFa
f V yQ �O<p2- ��Q JQO U O I- (J V Q6 W p W�q pL= y� �
�.. � <��r-�3f«b� az> �� s r w zrz� O ca>�wf.o mm �ww
U ,Z�•} J a J� Q 6 W LL- IL U S S�< W(� Z¢ y.Q � J� Q S
W �6f/1 W H O_2�� t- W < �O '�_ W O W O� 2 �
� a OFN��YQfO V a 6�fLf WLL g u v a d e� W H � W aaa¢ e�6 ���ia 9I
o W d¢ama o?� �� ° � �Co w <>o ¢ �$000a � ��w
¢ � � ��Owui<�<7w�¢am��aa� � p� w¢�¢ ��ax w 00¢¢¢r ��y a[�>a¢ �
u �x< a a y o LL w a a J U�� 1- V1 �< t- a a rn p a a � Z 1 LL C C m y< W N O W O 1 v1
6�= w P G- y� f w� V U� C t. � t. -
a � � _- - � � �"
z�f �� s 3 �
c� < _ = s >
�„� < O e, b a I _. i
A�� i 2 ° I ° I'
�
� i � �._ ; .
�� �i �
� , , , :
�� :: f � � ;
�o s � ; A.
�
. ;.
a r
tt � r ,I
We�, -. ., - =- :.. �;
� ` '' °a $ -
Qk; (� � � a= �n _ _ _ _�n o
< - - �' �+ �- _ - i -
Y �� � ` I I
-w
Y �e. "f �� i I (
°` I � > I
? �i I i
� `� i
_ ,
� ;
� :, �� '° i
� �. ;: g=
�
' }
� ;� G :
x� i
;'n
a^ � � � �
V W �
O i .t,
x a - -
Q '" ' �
W � s ' j ,� �
E., � � ' ,
� � - d �
H � � ;' �
� :� � i, � �:� ;.
w �" �d t , �:` �::
i 3',3�. �:3 :�,
` �:
F:� I
� I - '' I . ' I :
� F;: �' �
<< N_ _ __ N� ° n S== I
�W _�, � --
�5
� ,,- ,,� q, .` . ..,,
a� _� <a S° <� $$ o o�oo� og ��I���,����g �_o� R
. � �.
C � '�
W < rv0> �� � _ �O �e NO
a� — .
^� < = r;
< � ;;. � � � I `.- `
W�< n� .. � � N� N fV � N. le� I N O V
� � � :
� � - � t i 4'�
.�. 7 Y Z � � Cj
g ° " ¢ �
LL W � Q < �
� < � 0 �y � a a ,JTu = I
�ii z a w'' Z �� a � ''
� � ¢ ;� Q �_Z m o � �
a � W y y j W 4 � g y^ LL . O
N � W LL
3 3 G� �� i �< � ¢o �'nN I � c U
W m � zN � aW � 5y •! I m �
� � w Td' w� �� o � � �i�
i ru� J�<�� C7tc w �= O a} � �a �'" I I! IW� . � Z I
I I W LL V � � Z_ N N Q C W W � i I I�� I 2 I
� I"u3=� d �> > our � W¢ � ac�
I I �y> V y �y�y << � ai � WF p � �¢ y. �µ� � ! ! �<i � y�
< W , LL� WO W W y W 3 W � 1- W O y� k- � �y� W l y � � Z
. I 5m � O W�U ¢S � H 0 = ? m ~f. W mLL O< I I�W�O ¢'y. mO I
� J a' 4' W W Z~ N � �+ < W :i 5 12�Y� IaU LL F-
FI �fLL (� �=SS �1 y W< Z ZW . < mV1LL0 /-m Y.F ��� QIQi >¢ IOQ �
Z Y � � 6— Z f > W Y Q N C� Ia 3'� Ih� 0 7 Z �
. W F- t Q O �' W y 2 a' W 6 F O Q LL .�r, <_ H Q F- W W W � I ,�I=1 �V < Z.
N U > Y t-� � Z �n - O O y�
sz o �, ¢ ui �� 3� z ma O�- r-• otoi
zw 33o Z a�ru`-iu��-�Z xw W N'�� g�zi 3�~ �w ! �I= �� ~Z �_�
y `�� =W� � �' c~i>>W�u'¢ ?¢ �m �C � .a� i<w xo� EW I �>�� � y �0 5�
x Q� z a o z � Q � yWr .-. p Z W rW <w ��a ¢�a � j :WI �i Ic �m om u
N J ,.%".�� 1- W¢NaOQI-G :2 F�O W '�N (O p�F QwQ .,�,��c� 1 io"•ZI �o yomQW
a QQ Y f- < Qz a� c 5� wm w¢ �. �-� Iw .er r-¢ f
i- � � F �< NZ W2 W66 <� j7 < ~ W Ld !'F W �fW �:2I]� W 1 i
2 � L J Y N Z W O Z a F O C7 4 O b � y� < a W. W W r �LL� IU I2 4! W O� tY 1L
� 0 U_ Ci — LL W�! O � V��j Q a U� t�ii O f O f. � LL 0 � y. y� ��1 J 2 Q 2 a ��y. � 'LL�F IQ � Ci Q z Q fL 6 �
W N— t�i/ � f/- 9 6 W— J 2— 9 W J tl) W N Z O a tj < g 7� Q Ul Q� Q J e�<�! �p <�Q� W 9'L Q O� Q Q¢�
7 f-'�' ¢ JQ� W] � W W O y O c�aZaa� I a ; eaa�J aa
O l¢Q � LJ�Z J.�.� O 5(p�Q �C �Q W Z Oa � W V W W W ma L d� �(�U� f-�W NG W W< e
rc oow�°o"�F;b o�vi�ur-a�w;��u cc� �oo�;os°��¢5¢aa��o"'e�I I��¢zia<;�¢w>a¢3;
a yxyl�nFa°_�H� c> >ONfZfp(nWO « _a<a�.,aa�'n�c�aaaar-�.,�a�nyc�,a<�3w�a¢waaaa
� _ < — < — M �Vi .. � � � 6 � P � � � � � G I�ir�l�� r�I�lf � r
p-� y� (J �e b V rv
� � � � � � � � � _ O . � m � � � ��� I I O
8 � � � '� � � �
. �i C. .'3 �i a 7 e. i i� i m
p �O) . I
� �H' I I
�
�
�
�
�y
i
�
g
a
�
r
S
�6
Y
�
>
W
s-
N
�
C
G
�
<
�o
U
O
�
�
�
J
J
3
f
�
�
s
u
z
_
�
V
�
�
yN�11
V
U
�
N
W
F
�
C
W
�
NC�
5
Z
s
�
t
<
�
C
�
<
U
U
�
O
W
2
r
�
h
�
�
�
N
�
K
�
<
U
Z
�
v
�y
LL
C
J
<
S
g
0
�
7 y
d
K F
6
�
c
� ?
o �
Z
6 X
� uI
< �
� � 's
au �
J � �
S � �^
�3 �
Cl V
N
G
C
'Ly
J
6
�
O
�
�
�
<
3
E
�
m
s
W
3
i
0
F
s
u
9
�
N
g
�y
W
�
t
Z
Z
O
�
�
dF
W
C
�
K
i
0
�
�
N
Z
�
ui
<
>
�
O
u�
s
O
Z
<
�
�
}
F
U
O
�
L
Z
W
V
Z
N
N
i
z
�
W
�
Z
<
5
�
�
0
< �`
� o
� �
u1 _
V �<
g �
i c
� o
Z W
� ti
s m
i
� z �'
m O W
} � �
< r"
s u� O
� �
m W � �
J
N
C
's
c
m
J
3
�
�
b
0
�
S
0
�
�
0 0
� �
< ,
� �
J y
Z V
m �
p <
f (�
� �
N �'
O J
<
> gW o
? a
m `y� v,
xF p �
O t Z
� � �
y W � J
IL J � ZEQ
�< �E i
Z y�
> C � C '� . � . .
� � � � �
m c 3 � rn Q
� < � � Z � u� m .
� � ` � � � � �
u x
. z � < c i � � C �€ o�. � . .
� � � 0 3t� < � o �° � mz z �
z r�e � � (�j � � c E �J op� O 3 � � . g
� � � < � O � � Yl � L 'b $ N_ YI
u�7 m 4 � � � Q q Z � � � p . a .
F•
s � � m Q o 3 i � � o c��7 � O
a
ui � ,`n Y ? . •� Y � . y � � �Q O < � � �
Z � � I�r a � Z � y � r � � .
� Z z � � � uvi 3 �y� i � o� �
N O V Z � U O W OL Z N
8 � � � i °G °� F � � h v 3
� y O � � S � _ �, e � y � .
C �y y� p < Q � .
S Z O � t ` F IL O 47
p u�i °� C � c m =L O !- O ,�j � y�j . . � .
J O �
� 6 � < � Z I- � u°•i O � F � � �
F F d �y�!.'1 � O 1<�Ct�1 > � Z � = U < . � .
u� > a < � Q � F � . ..
F N .J � �LL `2 � � }
Z < W m m W < y, ii m < � � � .
< Q W � J y = � Z Z W = 3� F � ♦
J F
b Z fn m F , � � � Z . . . ^ .
U �
� < ,� � 3�^ � � � � °C Z � � o y
� A W S F Y ^ � � Q ��
w � � oC C � � O < t vi uf �� C . .
� � g � � � _ � � z � < � �� � `
� < <
u� < o Z � < � � � � 3 � �o �
c � �
'< x o �< � 3Q-Q-(( 3 J " �` � ° � �Q�
F � g W � � U '� � m � � a m � � . � . �
Z � � ~4 Z °c r^ � !' Z � < � p �Z—, F" a��1
°- a ° �t S o m °` m <
~ Z < W � i Y m � �x � �p � � � � �pp�y Y .
L F L � � O W 1N- m yWj � ui < O v�i Z pj .. . . .
W � pC O Q � � It=1 � � < � Q Q a Z W .
� W y W O b mp O s {u.. � p U � � �
� '4 W N � � � ui Z r � u� V � � � � � .
< � � W � O O �W F � m ui Z � Z � . .
? 5 � m 3 3 � � o g � � m � � � �
� �F ° g o o Z Z � � F 3y 0 �p<g �
Z � < S S u. W . W U� � . . .
x W � z 2 O O � < � N "� < O � .
`7 N Z O < < W W IL � 8 vl 7 O' l� G y � . . . .
� Y � U � � ? f 7,� V LL d W ` Z Z � . .
J J � � V G � � �� O
J � G ° � � o o � � � Z � = 3 �
} "' � < �3 � � � 3 c o t � F �S N
� m � ��-. � � � � ° E i '� < �3 � � <
� � �� W (y � � m��m
^ �' R N N N N N N N
�
L
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
' TO:
FROM:
DATE:
�
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF� AUGl7ST 22, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager� t�' '
� � �'"
Jon li.�kaas, Public Works Director
August 16, 2005
PW05-047
SUBJECT: Inspection and Evaluation of City Water Storage Facilities
Our recent Water Enterprise Fund bond sales included several Water Capital tmprovement
Program projects over the next several years. One of these projects is the cleaning and
repainting of the tiighway 65 water tower.
The City has been conducting regular basic inspections of all our water storage facilities on a
five year cycle. Due to the anticipated expense of cleaning and repainting of the tower, we
would like to have a more detailed inspection completed prior to this work to ensure no
surprises are found.
Because no such detailed inspection has been completed of the 0.5 million gallon elevated
tank or the 3 million gallon ground reservoir, both located at Commons Park, we are
recommending these be inspected at the same time for efficiency and savings.
We have negotiated an Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Fridley and
SEti to conduct this inspection and provide us with a full detailed report of the condition of all
three structures in accordance with all American Water Works Association �AWW�U standards.
Recommend the City Council approve a contract with SEt1, Inc. for a lump sum amount of
�9,750 to perform a full condition evaluation of the City's water storage facilities.
Jtlti:cz
17
May 26, 2005 RE: Agreement for Professional Services -
Water Storage Condition Evaluation
City of Fridley, Minnesota
SEH No. P-FRIDL0504.00 "
Mr. Jon Haukaas, PE
City of Fridley, Minnesota
6�31 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432-4303
Dear Jon:
In accordance with our recent conversations, Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH�) is pleased to present
this Proposal for Professional Services between the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Owner, a.nd SEH for
providing professional services in connection with the condition evaluation of the City's water storage
facilities (hereinafter called the "Project").
Our services will consist of the preparation of an evaluation and report on the following facilities:
➢ 1.5 Million Gallon Fluted Column Tank located on Highway 65
➢ 0.5 Million Gallon Pedestal Spheroid Tank located in Commons Pazk
➢ 3.0 Million Gallon In-Ground Reservoir located in Commons Pazk
These services will be delivered in one phase as detailed in Exhibit A.
As a condition of this Agreement, you agree to furnish us with full information as to your requirements
including any special or extraordinary considerations for the Project or special services needed, and also
to make available all pertinent existing information and data that we will need to perform our services.
You will pay us a fee for our services related to the Project, in accordance with the methods described in
Exhibit C. Upon completion of our work, and, at the option of the City, a second proposal will be
presented from SEH DesignlBuild, Inc. for a service contract to provide for the long term maintenance of
these facilities. If accepted, the cost for the work under this proposal can be included under the service
contract.
The phasing, method of payment, and cost for this project will be as follows:
Phase Method of Payment Cost
Evaluation and Report Lump Sum $9,750.00
We will also furnish such Additional Services as you may request. Payment for additional services shall
be based on the time required to perform the services and the billable rates for the principals and
employees engaged directly on the project, plus charges for expenses and equipment, all in accordance
with Exhibit G
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Va�n� Center Drive, St Paul, MN 55110-5196
SEH is an equal opportunity employer � www.sehinc.com � 651.490.2000 � 800.325.2055 � 651.490.2150 fax
City of Fridley, Minnesota
May 26, 2005
Page 2
We will bill yon monthly for services, expenses, and-equipment. The estimated ��e assumes prompt
payment of our bills and the orderly and continuous progress of the project through completion. If there
are delays in the payment of our invoices and if we agree to continue working on the project, it is agreed
we are entitled to collect, and you will pay interest at the rate of 1 percent per month for all amounts
unpaid for thirty (30) days or more. Additionally, if the project is delayed and we encounter additional
costs as the result of the delays, it is agreed we are entitled to additional fees upon submission of the
appropriate documentation of extra costs.
We will start our services within 30 days after receipt of your authorization and will complete our
services within 30 days thereafter. If there are delays in the Project that are beyond our control, you agree
to grant additional time to complete the services.
You agree, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to limit SEH's total liability for any and all claims,
expenses, or damages in any way related to the services provided under this Agreement to the total sum
paid to SEH for providing these services.
If conflicts arise during the performance of these services, we agree they shall be submitted to non-
binding mediation unless we have mutually agreed otherwise.
If conflicts arise during the performance of these services, we agree they shall be submitted to non-
binding mediation unless we have mutually agreed otherwise.
This letter and Exhibits A, B, and C represent the entire understanding between you and us in respect of
the Project and may only be modified in writing signed by both of us. If it satisfactorily sets forth your
understanding of our agreement, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space provided below
and retum it to us.
We thank you for your consideraxion of SEH and look forward to working with you on the successful
delivery of this project.
Sincerely,
SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC.
S� C�������
Steve Campbell, PE
PrincipallSr. Project Manager
Accepted by: City of Fridley, Minnesota
gy; Date:
Authorized Client Signature
Title
z:lfjltridlkommonlstd ltr agme.doc
19
�
Exhibit A
to Agreement for Professional Services
Between the City of Fridley (Owner)
and
Shnrt Eliiott Hendrickson In�c. (SEH�
Dated , 20_
SEH's Services
The Owner intends to retain SEH to provide professional
engineering, architectural, environmental and/or planning
services as may be directed by the Owner, and the Owner
and SEH deem it mutually advantageous to set forth the
general details described herein.
A. General
1. Services performed by SEH may, at the option
of the Owner, be related to one or a combination
of the following as specifically agreed upon.
(a) Evaluation and Report
B. Evaluation and Report Phase
During the report phase, SEH shall:
1. Perform an evaluation of the storage facility in
accordance with AVJWA D-101 to determine
the condition of the tank with regard to current
industry standards.
2. Prepaze a Report in sufficient detail to clearly
describe the results of the evaluation and
provide recommendations for future
improvemenu.
3. If requested, provide opinions of estimated
constivction and project cost for the
recommended improvements.
C. Additional Services
If authorized by the Owner, SEH shall furnish
additional services:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Preparation of applications and supporting
documents for government grants, loans or
advances.
Review and evaluation of any statements
or documents prepared by others and their
effect on the requirements of the project.
Additiona] services due to significant
changes in the general scope of the Project
or its design including but not limited to,
changes in size, complexity of character or
type of construction.
Providing assistance in the start-up,
testing, adjusting and balancing,
preparation of operating and maintenance
manuals, personnel training and
consultation during operation of
equipment or systems.
Providing services of professional
consultants for other tk�an the normal
services stated in the Agreement
Short Eiliott Hendrickson ina Exhibit A- 1 City ofFridley
(Form 07/20/04) �O
�,
,
�
�
e
Exhibit B
to Agreement for Professional Services
Between the City-of Fridiey (Owner)
and
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH�
Dated , 20
Owner's Responsibilities
A. General
The awner's responsibilities related to the services to
be provided by SEH are generally as listed in this
Exhibit B. Modifications to these responsibilities
shall be made through Supplemental I:etter
Agreements. The Owner shall:
1. Provide full information as to its requirements
for the services to be provided by SEH and SEH
sha11 be entitled to rely on the accuracy and
completeness thereof.
2. Assist SEH by furnishing all available
information pertinent to the services to be
provided by SEH. All information available in
electronic formau shall be provided in such
formats suitable for use with current SEH
systems and technology.
3. Guarantee access to and make all provisions for
SEH to enter upon public and private lands as
required for SEH to perform its services under
this Agreement.
4. Provide such legal, accounting, financial and
insurance counseling and other special services
as may be required for the Project.
5. Give prompt written notice to SEH whenever
the Owner observes or otherwise becomes
awaze of any changes in the Project or any
defect in the services being provided by SEH or
makes or wishes to make changes in the Project.
6. Be responsible for the accuracy of all data
consisting of, but not limited to, computations,
as-built drawings, elec�onic data bases and
maps furnished by the Owner.
7. Beaz all costs incidental to compliance with the
requirements of this Exhibit B.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Exhibit B- 1 City of Fridley
�Fom, o�r�otoa� 2 �
Exhibit C
to Agreement for Professional Services
Between the City of Friciley (Owner)
and
Short Elliott HenrJrickson Inc. (SEH�
Dated , 20
Payments to SEH for Services and Expenses
The Agreement for Erofessional Services is amended and
supplemented to include the following agreement of the
parties:
A. Methods of Payment
The Owner and SEH may select the Lump Sum Basis
for Payment for the services described in one or more
Supplemental Letter Agreements. During the course
of providing its services, SEH shall be paid monthly
based on SEH's estimate of the percentage of the
work completed. Necessary expenses and equipment
are provided as a part of SEH.'s services and are
included in the initial Lump Sum amount. Each
Supplemental Letter Agreement sha11 itemize the
expenses and equipment whose cost is included in the
Lump Sum amount. Total payments to SEH for work
covered by the Lump Sum Agreement shall not
exceed the lump sum amount without written
authorization from the Owner.
The Lump Sum amount includes compensation for
SEH's services and the services of SEH's
Consultants, if any. Appropriate amounts have been
incorporated in the initial Lump Sum to account for
labor, overhead, profit, expenses and equipment
charges. The Owner agrees to pay for other additional
services, equipment, a�d expenses that may become
necessazy by amendment to complete SEH's services
at their normal charge out rates as published by SEH
or as available commercially.
B. Other Provisions Concerning Payments
1. Invoices will be prepazed in accordance with
SEH's standard invoicing practices and will be
submitted monthly to Owner by SEH, unless
otherwise agreed.
2. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days of
receipt. If Owner fails to make any payment due
SEH for services and expenses within 30 days
after receipt of SEH's invoice therefore, the
amounts due SEH will be increased at the rate
of 1.0% per month (or the maximum rate of
interest permitted by law, if less) from said
thirtieth day. SEH may, after giving seven days
written notice to Owner, suspend services under
this Agreement until SEH has been paid in full
all amounts due for services, expenses and other
related charges. Payments will be credited first
to interest and then to principal. Further, SEH
reserves the right to retain products of service
until all invoices are paid in full. SEH will not
be liable for any claims of loss, delay, or
damage by Owner for reason of withholding
services or products of service until all invoices
aze paid in full.
3. In the event of a disputed or contested invoice,
only that portion so contested may be withheld
from payment, and the undisputed portion will
be paid.
4. Should taxes, fees or costs be imposed, they
shall be in addition to SEH's esrimated total
compensation.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Exhibit C- 1 City of Fridley
(Form 3/29/05) ��
�
� AGENDA ITEM
� COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
CLAIMS
122810 - 123041
�
�
C,fTY OF
FRIDLEY
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
LICENSES
NEW LtGENSES '
Tvpe of License Bv Approved bv:
MASSAGE CERTIFICATE
Jody Hansen
8941 Syndicate Av. #304
Lexington, MN 55014
(Northwest Athletic Club
1200 E. Moore Lake Dr.
Fridley, MN 55432)
Public Safety Director
MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR
Auto Body Shop Michael Morris Public Safety Director
7765 Main St. NE Fire Inspector
Fridley, MN 55432 Community Development Dir.
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
�TM °F AUGUST 22, 2005
FRIDLEY
Contractor T e A licant A roved B
Anderson Homes Inc Mobile Home Installer Tom Lenertz State of MN
Berwald Roofing Co Inc Commercial Joyce Steinkamp Ron Julkowski, BO
Bolander Construction Commercial Joe Bolander Ron Julkowski, BO
Cornerstone Custom Construction Residential Kell Hem State of MN
FEI Investments/Lohse Dorothy Residential Dorothy Lohse State of MN
Fireside Hearth & Home Gas Services Steven Thiers Ron Julkowski, BO
Further Solutions LLC Electrical Joshua Lee State of MN
Lakestate Electric Inc Electrical Steven Dills State of MN
Mobile Maintenance Inc Mf Home Installer Ste hen Witzel State of MN
Mobile Maintenance Inc Residential Stephen Witzel State of MN
Mobile Maintenance Inc Heating Stephen Witzel Ron Julkowski, BO
Mobile Maintenance Inc Gas Services Stephen Witzel Ron Julkowski, BO
Northstar Home Im rovement Inc Residential Jim Nash State of MN
Trend Roofin Sons Inc Residential Geor e Hulinsk State of MN
Vizecky Contracting LLC Residential Reno Vizecky State of MN
Walker Roofing Co Residential State of MN
Wencl Services Heatin Michael Wencl Ron Julkowski, BO
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
� °F ESTI MATES
FRIDLEY
Natgun Corporation
P.O. Box 847140
Boston, MA 02284-7140
Marian Hills Tank Replacement
Proj ect No. 3 56
FINAL ESTIMATE ............................................................................ $ 88,060.25
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager
FROM: Frederic W. Knaak, City Attorney
DATE: August 19, 2005
RE: Hearing on Franchise Transfer
The public hearing on the question of the transfer of the City's current cable television system
and franchise from the current cable-provider, Time Warner, to Comcast was continued until
the Council meeting of August 22, 2005.
Both the City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and Minnesota state law require
the City to give advance, written approval for the sale and transfer of this franchise. Under
state and federal law, as well as the City's franchise ordinance, the City may review the
qualifications of the prospective controlling party. These qualifications fall into three
categories: legal, technical and financial.
The City received from Time Warner FCC Form 394, which provides information regarding
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC's legal, technical and financial qualifications. The
City's Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance requires that the City reply in writing
within thirty (30) days of Time Warner's request, indicating its approval or its determination
that a public hearing is necessary. The City has determined that since the transfer could have
an adverse effect on cable television subscribers within the City, a public hearing would
provide the City Council with necessary input from its citizens as well as the interested parties
to assure that high quality cable services will be provided to subscribers in the City of Fridley,
notwithstanding the transfer of ownership.
Other Time Warner franchising cities have been reviewing this information with the City's
outside legal counsel, Moss and Barnett, to review those qualifications and to provide
recommendations how best to process the requested transfer. The City staff has engaged in its
own general review of the materials.
One question that will need to be addressed before Council will be the legal status of the
current franchise in light of its technical expiration during the period of negotiations and
formal renewal efforts.
After allowing for any and all interested parties to comment at the public hearing regarding
the proposed transfer, the City will then have 30 days within which to take action on a
resolution either approving or denying the transfer request.
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
T�:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager
Jon Fi. Fiaukaas, Public Works Director
August 16, 2005
Continued Public Fiearing for Project ST. 2005 - 3: 73-1/2 Avenue
PW05-046
The City Council established a public hearing for the project to extend 73-1/2 Avenue as part
of the Van Auken plat and development. This public hearing was opened as advertised at their
August 8, 2005 meeting. The proper notification of affected residents was not sent in time for
that meeting and so the hearing was continued to the August 22, 2005 meeting.
The City Council wished to see the City"s plan for street reconstruction in this area be moved
up and be done at the same time as the development street construction for economy and to
minimize disruption to the neighborhood.
Recommend the City Council continue the public hearing on this project in order to receive
comment from the affected property owners.
Jtiti:cz
�
�
CffY OF
FRIQLEY
Date
To
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
August 17, 2005
Wlliam Burns, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-03, by JLT East River Road LLC
M-05-85
INTRODUCTION
Joe Meyer, of JLT Group Inc. is requesting to rezone the property at 5601 East River Road from
M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3, General Shopping. The petitioner is seeking to rezone this
property so they can market the site to potential commercial buyers.
The petitioner, who is also the owner of the subject property, would like to actively seek
commercial and retail users for this site. In order for that to be accomplished, the site needs to
be zoned appropriately for those types of uses. It is the petitioner's intention, to ask for the
rezoning at this time and once a specific user or users have been identified for the site, they
would come back for 2nd reading of the rezoning ordinance at the City Council level, with
detailed site plan information and any other city requirements. The petitioner, at their request,
has asked for ample time, between first and second reading, to negotiate with potential end
users and develop site plans based on known user(s). Petitioner has also waived requirements
of State Statutes 15.99 to allow them time as they have requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the July 20, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, Rezoning Request, ZOA #05-03, was
tabled as a result of concerns raised by Longview Fibre Company. Longview Fibre Company is
located directly north of the subject property, at 5851 East River Road. The concerns brought
forward from Longview Fibre Company fall into 2 general categories, which are related to traffic
conflicts and the perceived incompatibility of neighboring uses.
JLT Group and Longview Fibre Company had an opportunity to meet prior to the August 3,
2005, Planning Commission meeting and have come up with the following conditions for
approval of rezoning request, ZOA #05-03:
1. Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure
enhancements, approved by the City and Longview Fibre {v�rhi�h �pprc���l �vill rro� b�
unreas�r�ably withh�ld) that promotes safe and adequate traffic flow and movements to
and from the properties utilizing the highway easement dated May 9, 1975, filed with the
County of Anoka, August 4, 1975, as document No. 86767, and with no corresponding
charge to the owner of 5851 East River Road NE for any required traffic improvements.
2. Longview Fibre, prior to final site plan approval, receiving written notice (at its plant,
c/o Mr. Cormier, and to the attention of Joseph Finley, Esq. at Leonard Street) of all
hearings, before the planning commission or the city council, which involve any
rezoning, comprehensive plan amendment, site plan approval, or platting of the JLT
Property.
3. Execution and recording by the petitioner of a Declaration of Covenants, within a
reasonable time following second reading and final passage of the rezoning ordinance.
Staff will include conditions #1 and #3 as stipulations on the proposed rezoning request and
staff will use condition #2 as instruction to ensure that both Mr. Cormier at Longview Fibre
Company and Joseph Finley at Leonard, Street and Deinard, will be notified prior to final site
plan approval.
At the August 3, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was re-opened for ZOA
#05-03. After hearing from both JLT Group and Longview Fibre Company and reviewing the
additional stipulations, the Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning request,
ZOA #05-03, with the four attached stipulations.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMNEDATION
City Staff recommends concurrence with the Planning Commission.
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2. Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage and
landscaping details, prior to second reading of the rezoning ordinance (Petitioner has
waived 15.99 rights in order to comply with this stipulation).
3. Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure
enhancements, approved by the City and Longview Fibre {whi�h �ppr�v�l v�rill nc�t b�
ur�r�a�c�n�bly wi�hheld} that promotes safe and adequate traffic flow and movements
to and from the properties utilizing the highway easement dated May 9, 1975, filed
with the County of Anoka, August 4, 1975, as document No. 86767, and with no
corresponding charge to the owner of 5851 East River Road NE for any required
traffic improvements.
4. Execution and recording by the petitioner of a Declaration of Covenants, within a
reasonable time following second reading and final passage of the rezoning
ordinance.
opportunity to discuss the project and come up with agreeable conditions between the two
parties. JLT Group and Longview Fibre Company have had an opportunity to meet and have
come up with the following conditions for approval of rezoning request, ZOA #05-03:
1. Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure
enhancements, approved by the City and Longview Fibre {v�rhi�h appr�val v+rill n�t be
unr�asc�n�bly withh�ld} that promotes safe and adequate traffic flow and movements to
and from the properties utilizing the highway easement dated May 9, 1975, filed with the
County of Anoka, August 4, 1975, as document No. 86767, and with no corresponding
charge to the owner of 5851 East River Road NE for any required traffic improvements.
2. Longview Fibre, prior to final site plan approval, receiving written notice (at its plant,
c/o Mr. Cormier, and to the attention of Joseph Finley, Esq. at Leonard Street) of all
hearings, before the planning commission or the city council, which involve any
rezoning, comprehensive plan amendment, site plan approval, or platting of the JLT
Property.
3. Execution and recording by the petitioner of a Declaration of Covenants, substantially
in the attached form, within a reasonable time following second reading and final
passage of the rezoning ordinance.
Staff will include conditions #1 and #3 as stipulations on the proposed rezoning request and
staff will use condition #2 as instruction to ensure that both Mr. Cormier at Longview Fibre
Company and Joseph Finley at Leonard, Street and Deinard, will be notified prior to final site
plan approval.
It should be noted that as part of the final site plan approval for this site, staff would require
detailed site plans, which would include a traffic management study as well as all of the other
standard site plan requirements and documents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request, with stipulations.
• Proposed rezoning is an extension of the existing C-3 zoning along the Interstate
694 corridor.
• Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STIPULATIONS
1. Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2. Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage and
landscaping details, prior to second reading of the rezoning ordinance (Petitioner has
waived 15.99 rights in order to comply with this stipulation).
3. Implementation of a traffic management plan, including any required infrastructure
enhancements, approved by the City and Longview Fibre {whi�h �pprc�v�l v�rill ncaf b�
�ar�r��scar��bly v�rifhh�ld} that promotes safe and adequate traffic flow and movements
to and from the properties utilizing the highway easement dated May 9, 1975, filed
with the County of Anoka, August 4, 1975, as document No. 86767, and with no
corresponding charge to the owner of 5851 East River Road NE for any required
traffic improvements.
4. Execution and recording by the petitioner of a Declaration of Covenants,
substantially in the attached form, within a reasonable time following second reading
and final passage of the rezoning ordinance.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
ZOA #05-03 July 20, 2005
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Joe Meyer
JLT Group Inc.
10 River Park Plaza
St. Paul MN 55107
Requested Action:
Rezone property from M-2 to C-3.
Existing Zoning:
M-2, Heavy Industrial
Location:
5601 East River Road
Size:
25 acres
Existing Land Use:
Tiro Industries
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: Longview Fibre Co. & M-2
E: Home Depot & C-3
S: Interstate 694 & ROW
W: Georgetown Apts. & R-3
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan.
Zoning History:
1941 — Lot is platted.
1969 — Office/Warehouse constructed.
1983 — Addition to building.
1984 — (2) additions to building.
1987 — Addition to building.
1989 — Slab for tank placement.
1991 — Concrete building constructed.
Legal Description of Property:
See attached.
Public Utilities:
Property is connected.
Transportation:
East River Road provides access to the
property.
Physical Characteristics:
Building, parking lot, and landscaped
areas.
SPECIAL INFORMATION
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Joe Meyer, of JLT Group Inc., is requesting to
rezone the property located at 5601 East River
Road from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3,
General Shopping to market the site to potential
commercial buyers.
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this
rezoning request.
• Proposed rezoning is an extension of the
existing C-3 zoning along the Interstate 694
corridor.
• Proposed rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Council Action / 60 Day Date:
August 8, 2005 / August 15, 2005
Arial of the existina site
Staff Report Prepared by: Stacy Stromberg
ZOA #05-03
REQUEST
Joe Meyer, of JLT Group Inc. is requesting to rezone the property at 5601 East River Road from
M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3, General Shopping. The petitioner is seeking to rezone this
property so they can market the site to potential commercial buyers.
The petitioner, who is also the owner of the subject property, would like to actively seek
commercial and retail users for this site. In order for that to be accomplished, the site needs to
be zoned appropriately for those types of uses. It is the petitioner's intension, to ask for the
rezoning at this time and once a specific user or users have been identified for the site, they
would come back for 2nd reading of the rezoning ordinance at the City Council level, with
detailed site plan information and any other city requirements. The petitioner, at their request,
has asked for ample time, between first and second reading, to negotiate with potential end
users and develop site plans based on known user(s). Petitioner has also waived requirements
of State Statutes 15.99 to allow them time as they have requested.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The subject property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial and has been since that late 1950's. The
property was developed in 1969, when an office/warehouse building was constructed. In 1969,
the site served as the headquarters, research, and production facility for LaMaur Inc., who
manufactured toiletries and cosmetics. Since 1969, several additions have been added to the
original 200,000 square foot building. As a result of those additions, the existing building is
approximately 450,000 square feet. In 1999, Tiro Industries, Inc., purchased the property from
LaMaur Inc., and were in business at this location until May of 2005. Since the time it was know
that Tiro Industries, Inc. would be vacating the site, the owners have had no success in
attracting industrial tenants to occupy the building and believe that, with industrial trends
changing and manufacturing users few, the property would be much more attractive to tenants
as a commercial property. The building was built so industry specific (packaging of shampoo &
similar products) that only a like industry would be able to make reuse of the building, thus the
existing rezoning request.
Arial of Existing Site
ANLAYSIS
As stated above, the petitioner is seeking to rezone the subject property from M-2, Heavy
Industrial to C-3, General Shopping, despite the fact that they don't have a potential user for the
site. The petitioner's intention is that once the property is rezoned to commercial, it will make it
more appealing on the market. The petitioner has submitted a"concept plan" outlining what the
site plan may look like with a commercial development. The "concept plan" shows a single
tenant building of 200,000 square feet and a multi-tenant building of 73,600 square feet. This
plan is just a"concept plan" to show what the City might expect to see if the existing building is
demolished and the property is rezoned to commercial.
In 1999, the City Council approved a rezoning request by Home Depot, for the property located
at 5650 Main Street. The Home Depot site was rezoned from M-2, Heavy Industrial and C-2,
General Business to C-3, General Shopping. The Home Depot property is located directly east
of the subject property beyond the railroad tracks. Rezoning the subject property would be an
extension of the existing C-3, General Shopping zoning along the Interstate 694 corridor
between University Avenue and East River Road.
Subje
Propei
The City's zoning ordinance and official zoning map are the mechanisms that help the City
achieve the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. The law gives the City the authority to
"rezone" property from one designated use to another, so long as the zoning is in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's 2020 future land use map
designates this area as "Redevelopment." Redevelopment is described in the Comprehensive
Plan as a form of community revitalization that transforms undesirable elements into desirable
elements that reflect the community collective vision. The purposes of redevelopment are to
remove older blighted structures and provide an opportunity to build new facilities that meet
current market demands and desires of the City. Redevelopment can also provide an
opportunity to create additional job opportunities and create new tax base. All of the above
purposes of redevelopment have the potential of being met with the rezoning of this property.
This request, undoubtedly, will seem a little awkward compared to our normal rezoning process,
due to the fact that the petitioner doesn't have a tenant identified for the site. However, a
commercial zoning for this property would be the highest and best use of the site. The property
is highly visible and easily accessible from Interstate 694, which would be attractive to
commercial and retail users. Rezoning this property is also compatible with surrounding
development, as it's an extension of the C-3, General Shopping zoning along the north corridor
of Interstate 694 and it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Once the petitioner has identified a user or users for the site, this rezoning request would come
back to the City Council for its second reading. At the time of second reading, an additional
public hearing will be held, which will allow for further review of the development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends approval of this rezoning request.
■ Proposed rezoning is an extension of the existing C-3 zoning along the Interstate
694 corridor.
■ Proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STIPULATIONS
�. Petitioner shall comply with the State of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 for
environmental impact review.
2. Petitioner shall submit user-specific site plans, including appropriate drainage and
landscaping details, prior to the second reading of the rezoning ordinance (Petitioner
has waived 15.99 rights in order to comply with this stipulation).
ORDINANCE NO. _
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA BY
MAKING A CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICTS
The Council of the City of Fridley does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Appendix D of the Fridley City Code is amended hereinafter as indicated.
SECTION 2. The tract or area within the County of Anoka and the City of Fridley and
described as:
5601 East River Road NE: That part of Lots 13 & 14 Auditors Subdivision
No. 78 and that part of southeast'/4 of northeast'/4 all lying easterly of
CSAH No 1(AKA East River Road), northerly of I 694 and TH No. 100,
westerly of a line parallel west and 196 feet northwesterly of (as
measured at right angle) centerline of main track of railroad of great
northern railroad, and southerly of following described line: beginning at
inter of above described parallel line with a line parallel west and 878 feet
south of (as measured at right angle) north line of said Lot 13 and said ��4�
��4� thence westerly along said parallel line to a point 385 feet westerly (as
measured along said parallel line) of east line of said Lot 13, thence
northerly to intersection west a line parallel west and 570 feet south of
north line of said Lot 13, (said intersection being 400 feet west of said
east line as measured along said parallel line), thence continuing
northerly 17 feet, thence northwesterly deflecting to left 60 degrees 30
minutes to easterly right-of-way line of CSAH No 1 and there terminating,
subject to easement of record.
Is hereby designated to be in the Zoned District C-3 (General Shopping).
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Administrator is directed to change the official zoning map to
show said tract or area to be rezoned from Zoned District M-2 (Heavy Industrial)
to C-3 (General Shopping).
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS _ DAY
OF , _.
SCOTT J. LUND — MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN — CITY CLERK
Public Hearing: August 22, 2005
First Reading: September 12, 2005
Second Reading:
Publication:
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
Date:
To:
From:
Subj ect:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
August 17, 2005
William Burns, City Manager
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Coordinator
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
BAE Systems (United Defense) Preliminary Plat
Background
At the July 25 meeting, the Fridley City Council considered the preliminary plat application for BAE Systems
(formally United Defense), PS #OS-O5. The discussion of this item was tabled due to concerns about creating a
separate parcel in Lot 3, which happens to be a Superfund Site. The primary concern revolved around local
government liability if the newly created Lot 3 were separately sold in the future or went tax forfeiture. The
County and City attorney's offices were asked to submit an opinion about this concern.
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney met with the Anoka County Attorney office's real property and taxation specialist,
Thomas Haluska. Following that discussion, the County agrees it has no need for additional requirements or
assurances in the BAE proposal beyond the protections already there under State and Federal law. The
conclusion of that discussion was the following statement by Mr. Knaak:
... under applicable Federal Superfund law, there is a liability exception for municipal owners of
real estate that acquired control of the site through bankruptcy, tax delinquency, abandonment or
other involuntary means arising from the City's "sovereign" or governmental status. (42 U.S. C.A.
Section 9601(20)(D)).
In this case, this would mean that if the parcel were to "go tax forfeit", neither Anoka County nor the
City ofFridley would be liable for any cleanup costs.
The only exception to this broad exclusion of local governments from liability exists if they caused or
contributed to the actual release of the hazardous substances on the property (i.e., dumped or
generated waste on the site). It's my understanding that FMC or its predecessors caused all of the
pollution at the site.
Commission Action
On July 6, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding PS #OS-O5. No one from the general
public appeared at the public hearing to testify.
The Planning Commission, after a brief discussion, unanimously recommended approval of the BAE Systems
preliminary plat request, with two stipulations proposed by staf£ One of those stipulations was later deemed
unnecessary, as it is already covered in code, and was removed.
Staff Recommendation
Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve PS #OS-O5, the BAE Systems
preliminary plat, with the stipulation in the attached staff report.
City of Fridley Land Use Application
PS #05-05 June 29, 2005
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
United Defense (now BAE Systems)
4800 East River Road
Fridley, MN 55421
Requested Action:
Plat — dividing property into 3 parcels
Existing Zoning:
M-2, Heavy Industrial
Location:
4800 East River Road
Size:
5,911,658 sq. ft. 135.71 acres
Existing Land Use:
Manufacturing facility
Surrounding Land Use & Zoning:
N: M-2, Heavy Industrial
E: M-2, Heavy Industrial
S: M-2, Heavy Industrial
W: P, County Park
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
Consistent with Plan for redevelopment
Building Code Conformance:
Legal, non-conforming building
according to State Building Code
Zoning History:
1940 — Building construction began
1952 — Lot is platted
1969 — FMC purchased property
1974 — Building Alteration permit
1981 — Building permit for office
1983 — Building permit for pump house
1989 — Building Alteration permits
1990 — Building permit for cafe
1991 to date —13 add'I alteration permits
Legal Description of Property:
Auditor's Subdivision #79 — complete
legal description is on file at City Hall
Public Utilities:
Building is connected
Transportation:
The property receives access from East River
Road and 51 St Wav N E
SPECIAL INFORMATION
Physical Characteristics:
Parcels are fully developed, containing
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
United Defense, which was recently purchased
by BAE Systems, desires to plat their property
in a manner that will preserve future liability of
contaminated areas on site.
SU M MARY OF ANALYSIS
City Staff recommends approval of this plat
request with one stipulation.
1. Petitioner may not sell Lot 1 or Lot 2
independently without meeting the
requirements of the 2003 State Building
Code, reference section 1305.0507.4.1,
Property Lines.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION / 60 DAY DATE
City Council — July 25, 2005
60 Day Date — August 1, 2005
60 Day Extension — Sept. 30, 2005
Staff Report Prepared by: Julie Jones
PS#05-05 BAE Systems (United Defense)
Summary of Application
BAE Systems (formally, United Defense) is requesting approval of a preliminary plat from the
City of Fridley, which will subdivide their property at 4800 East River Road into three lots.
Currently, the land has a lengthy meets and bounds description. It should be noted that United
Defense was purchased by BAE Systems on June 24, 2005, following the petitioner's
application. This explains why some file documents refer to both company names.
The purpose of creating three separate parcels in the odd property division lines shown is to
preserve the liability the Navy will continue to have for soil or water contamination over time on
property they used to own and to preserve the liability the Northern Pump or FMC businesses
have for different contaminated areas on the site. In addition, BAE Systems is interested in
leasing part of their building space on the north end of the property in the future. In order for
such a lease arrangement to work, they need to keep the old property divisions and
corresponding liability separated.
The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. There is no desire by the petitioner to change the
zoning of the property.
Proposed Plat
The petitioner is proposing to divide the land they currently own into
three separate parcels. The division of the parcels may appear odd,
but can be explained by the history of past ownership of the land.
Up until June 17, 2004, the U.S. Navy owned the north portion of
the property. This section of land is represented as Lot 1 in the
proposed plat. It may appear odd that the proposed south property
line does not extend west all the way to East River Road. However,
the proposed lot line follows the fact that this section of land was
not previously owned by the Navy.
The south property line of Lot 1 may also appear odd as it takes
may jogs and turns. Again, this uneven property line follows the
division in the building structure which used to be separate U.S.
Government and private ownership. In case there is any new contaminated areas discovered in
the future, BAE Systems wants to have clear distinction of liability by matching new lot divisions
according to old property divisions between United Defense and the Navy.
Lot 3 is being created as a separate lot to distinguish the boundaries of a known Superfund site
that contains a containment facility. The petitioner's staff says they expect to remain the owners
of this lot for many years to come.
There are monitoring wells in the area shown as Lot 2 on the preliminary plat drawing. Thus, the
petitioner wants to keep this lot separate to distinguish the legal obligations they would have in
the future for this section of land.
Site History
Northern Pump first began development of the petitioner's site in 1940. The area was originally
platted in 1952. FMC purchased the property in 1969. United Defense owned the property until
last month as part of their armaments division and had about 1,500 employees at the Fridley
site. It is staff's understanding that no staff changes have occurred since BAE Systems
purchased the property on June 24th of this year.
There is a great deal of unused space in the building at the north end of the site that the
petitioner would like to lease out. In order for the company to feel comfortabie leasing space,
however, they would like to plat the property lines according to past ownership to protect
themselves from any future legal responsibilities. They also want to ensure proper ownership
responsibilities for the contaminated area at the south end�f the site.
Analysis
Staff was initially concerned about the division between Lot 1 and Lot 2 that runs through the
main structure on the site. However, there has been an amendment to the State Building Code
that allows buildings to be divided by platted property lines witho.ut the construction of party
walls if the building meets certain conditions. As proposed, the petitioner's building on Lots 1
and 2 meets those conditions. The building is a legal, rron-conforming building, thougF�, which
means the building cannot be geographically expanded without being brought into full code
compliance. Also, any uses in the building must also remain allowable M-2, Heavy Industrial,
uses.
Park Fee
The petitioner has requested a waiver on the park dedication fees. The fee on this 135.713 acre
plat would be nearly $136,000. United Defense contends that the code states the park
dedication fee only applies to plats less than 5 acres. In addition, they argue that they sold
some of their land to Anoka County for the Riverfront Park at a discounted price in excess of
$700,000. They contend that this contribution meets the park land contribution requirement of
code. Their complete letter and our City Attorney's response are attached.
Staff Recommendation
City Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for PS#05-02, with a stipulation.
Stipulations
Staff recommends the following stipulations be attached to the approval of the above land use
requests
1. Petitioner may not sell Lot 1 or Lot 2 independently without meeting the requirements of
the 2003 State Building Code, reference section 1305.0507.4.1, Property Lines.
E
41
� �
�
w
2 � f��
� �_
Y�€`,:,c a
y�`�?� �
�`=°d
� § s � A
�. A - ►
_ = � g
SoLR � �=g�� �
� � �a's
��nQ j " �
:����
;�s� N �G��� 8
' g g z
�s o °°gs�r 1��"
S.S : k���� ..
3 =
8 ..
�:MEA' h:•A7MC�N iHDU:1Vle.l :L�aTEK.
418T •!Y N C �
� ,�_ _i �
�� �PI,
� �.\ I L.i
0
s i
�
O
` *%,,
A } a�`
J� y`\
9 e�`�,s
� �
;�
�. ��,
0
- �;
•.�
,
\
`'c
Y&�3�s °
�" �*e �
;-^n �
e�;<A� .
��oMpC
�• n
t�. ��
�•� � , 1
'�.—_..L
I
�
I
i '
k I
I
�
1'
I
�
I
1 �
---�F—
� ,
i �
; �
i �
�
i� .
;.! a
i Fi
i a'e
I'i
� � b
f
r�
1
i
i
i
�
�
I
� �
�— �R'�.a_.....r:�.M
E
9
,., u M�. P L NARY PI.AT OF. � . � .: :: :.- .. u, ,....,N ti�.
SEC. 7]. T 30. R 2< ny *N%x.>`T s..�e.. .
2 ARMAMENT SYSTEMS DIV1510N R ° '"" ""
µ R��� S � 3 Y F 1 ..n RM7K/� COIMIT. W �� � R.1V 11 ...n.Y..+�aw�
S.a
FR[DLEY. IQiNNESOTA �6^�1N° �OR��
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
T�:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager
Jon Fi. Fiaukaas, Public Works Director
August 16, 2005
Street Improvement Project I`lo. ST. 2005 - 3: 73-1/2 Avenue
PW05-048
The attached resolution orders the final plans, specifications and cost estimate for the
I`leighborhood Street Improvement Project I`lo. ST. 2005 - 3: 73-1/2 Avenue.
Recommend the City Council adopt the resolution to continue with final design of the project.
Jtiti:cz
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -
A RESOLUTION ORDERING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES OF
COSTS THEREOF: NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2005 -
3
WHEREAS, Mr. Timothy Van Auken has requested the City construct the street
and utility extensions of 73 l� Avenue NE associated with his plat and
development and agreed to pay all costs associated with this extension, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has a plan to reconstruct the adjacent street in
its Capital Improvement Program to maintain it in a safe condition and at a
reasonable cost, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2005 - 32 ordered the preliminary plans,
specifications and estimates of the costs thereof for the improvements in
this project, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2005 - 34 received the preliminary report and called
for a public hearing on the matter of the construction of certain
improvements for this project, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 8, 2005 and August 22, 2005
regarding this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley,
Anoka County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the following improvements proposed by Council Resolution 2005 - 32
are hereby ordered to be effected and completed as soon as reasonably
possible, to-wit:
Street improvements including grading, stabilized base, hot-mix
bituminous mat, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer system, water and
sanitary sewer systems, landscaping and other facilities.
73 l� Avenue NE: 200 ft west of Pinetree Lane to 560 ft west of
Pinetree Lane
2. That the following work be incorporated in the 2005 street improvement
project as ST. 2005 - 3.
3. That the work to be performed under this project may be performed under
one or more contracts as may be deemed advisable upon receipt of bids.
4. That the Director of Public Works, Jon H. Haukaas, is hereby designated
as the engineer for this improvement. He shall prepare plans and
specifications and estimates of costs thereof for the making of such
improvements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22ND DAY
OF AUGUST, 2005.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
Attested:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
T�:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager
Jon Fi. Fiaukaas, Public Works Director
August 16, 2005
Street Improvement Project I`lo. ST. 2005 - 3: 73-1/2 Avenue
PW05-049
The attached resolution approves the final plans and specifications and authorizes the
advertisement of bids for the I`ieighborhood Street Improvement Project I`io. ST. 2005-3: 73-
1/2 Avenue.
As this is a very simple and small project, the plans were finalized immediately upon completion
of their development. In order to get the necessary advertisement time and still be able to
construct the project this fall, we have prepared this resolution for the City Council"s approval.
Recommend the City Council adopt the attached resolution to proceed with the project and to
expedite the construction process.
Jtiti:cz
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -
RESOLUTION RECEIVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
ST. 2005 - 3
WHEREAS, Mr. Timothy Van Auken has requested the City construct the street
and utility extensions of 73 l� Avenue NE associated with his plat and
development and agreed to pay all costs associated with this extension, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has a plan to reconstruct the adjacent street in
its Capital Improvement Program to maintain it in a safe condition and at a
reasonable cost, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2005 - 32 ordered the preliminary plans,
specifications and estimates of the costs thereof for the improvements in
this project, and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2005 - 34 received the preliminary report and called
for a public hearing on the matter of the construction of certain
improvements for this project, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 8, 2005 and August 22, 2005
regarding this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of
Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the following improvements proposed by Council Resolution No.
2005 - 32 are hereby ordered to be effected and completed as soon as
reasonably possible, to-wit:
Street improvements including grading, stabilized base, hot-mix
bituminous mat, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer system, water
and sanitary sewer services, landscaping, and other facilities located
as follows:
73 l� Avenue NE: 200 ft west of Pinetree Lane to 560 ft west of
Pinetree Lane
That the work involved in said improvements as listed above shall
hereafter be designed as:
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2005 - 3
2. The plans and specifications prepared by the Public Works Department
for such improvements and each of them pursuant to the Council
resolutions heretofore adopted, a copy of which plans and
specifications are hereto attached and made a part thereof, are hereby
approved and shall be filed with City Clerk.
Resolution No. 2005 -
Page 2
The Public Works Director shall accordingly prepare and cause to be inserted
in the official newspaper advertisements for bids upon the making of such
improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall be published for three (3) weeks (at least 21 days), and shall specify
the work to be done and will state the bids will be opened and considered in
the Council Chambers of the Fridley Municipal Center and that no bids will
be considered unless sealed and filed with the Public Works Director and
accompanied by a cash deposit, bid bond, or certified check payable to the
City for five percent (50) of the amount of such bid. That the
advertisement for bids for NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. ST. 2005 - 3
shall be substantially in the standard form.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22ND DAY
OF AUGUST, 2005.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
To:
From
Date:
Re:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
August 22, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Craig A. Ellestad, Staff Accountant
August 11, 2005
Resolution Certifying the Proposed Tax Levy Requirements for 2006 to Anoka County
In conformance with Chapter 275, Section 065 of the Minnesota Statutes, attached is a resolution
certifying the proposed tax levy requirements to the Anoka County Auditor.
Chapter 275 requires the City to certify its proposed tax levy requirements prior to September 15.
The staff is recommending a 2006 proposed tax levy of ��,757,1��. This is an 8.�°l� increase from
what was approved last year. The make-up of this is:
$�,06'7,��9
225,903
293,C5�
8 587 506
1'4,t��3
8 757 188
Certified to County for 2005
�.8°lfl inflation amount
Loss of 2006 LGA allowed to be levied back
2005 Proposed Tax Levy
Bonded Indebtedness (2005A GO Improvement Bonds)
Total 2005 Proposed Levy
We request the City Council pass the attached resolution to certify the proposed tax levy
requirements.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING PROPOSED TAX LEVY
REQUIREMENTS FOR 2006 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA
WHEREAS, Chapter Seven, Secrion 7.02 of the Charter of the City of Fridley, grants the City the power to raise
money by taYation pursuant to the laws of the State of Mimlesota; and
WHEREAS, Miiiiiesota Statute Chapter 275, Section 065 requires the City to certify its proposed taY levy
requirements to the County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, the Fridley City Charter expressly limits any levy increase in any given year to the lesser of 5% or the
rate of inflation absent express voter approval; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature expressly overrode local charter provisions when it provided that any
reducrion in state aid that was the result of its legislarion could be made up by local governments through a properry
taY levy upon approval of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, chapter 152, Article 1, Section 32 of the Miiiiiesota 2005 Session Laws exempts the City from the taY
levy charter restrictions to allow the city to levy up to 100% of the LGA loss; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Secrion 275.73 provide for this levy to be calculated under net taY capacity.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Fridley certify to the County Auditor of the County of
Anoka, State of Minnesota, the following proposed taY levy to be levied in 2005 for the year 2006.
GENERAL FUND
General Fund
CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
Capital Improvement Fund - Parks Division
AGENCY FUND
Six Ciries Watershed Management Organizarion
Stonybrook Creek Sub-Watershed District
MARKET REFERENDUM BASED LEVY
Springbrook Nature Center
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
2005 go Improvement Bonds (Streets 2005)
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
$8,189,475
100,230
6,200
8,900
282,700
169,683
$ 8,757,188
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCII, OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22nd DAY OF
AUGUST, 2005.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
To:
From
Date:
Re:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
August 22, 2005
William W. Burns, City Manager
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Craig A. Ellestad, Accountant
August 11, 2005
Resolution Adopting a Proposed Budget for the Fiscal year 2006
In conformance with Chapter 275, Section 065 of the Minnesota Statutes, attached is the 2006
proposed budget.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 275 requires the City to certify a proposed budget to the County Auditor
prior to September 15tn
We request the City Council pass the attached resolution and adopt the 2006 proposed budget.
Remember that the levy resolution must be adopted prior to adopting the budget.
RDP/ce
Attachment
Cc: Marcy Everette
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED BUDGET
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006
WHEREAS, Chapter 7, Section 7.04 of the City Charter provides that the City Manager shall prepare an
annual budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has prepared such document and the City Council has met several times for the
purpose of discussing the budget; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 275, Section 065 of Minnesota Statutes requires that the City shall hold a public hearing
to adopt a budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council will hold a public hearing on December 6, 2005, before determining a final
budget.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the following proposed budget be adopted and approved:
ESTIMATED REVENUE
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Current Ad Valorem
Deliquent, Penalries,
Forfeited
Licenses and Pernuts
Licenses
Pernuts
Intergovernmental:
Federal
State-
All Other
Charges for Services:
General Government
Public Safety
Public Works
Community Development
Recreation
Naturalist
Fines and Forfeits
Special Assessments
Interest on Investments
Miscellaneous Revenues
Other Financing Sources:
Sales of General Fixed Assets
Liquor Fund
Closed Debt Service Fund
Police Activity Fund
APPROPRIATIONS
Legislarive:
$ �,1 �9,=&75 City Council
City Management:
�S,t)Of7 General Management
Personnel
2=&1,�0� Legal
�38.590 Finance:
Elections
3,200 Accounting
Assessing
�7�,�E�� MIS
City Clerk/Records
�}21,�00
16{},()1 �
'7,�C)0
1 S.t)>{)
22 L2ti0
0
1�C),000
4.54{)
12�.000
199.90�
1 �,OOt}
�t)O.t)0�
zso.a��o
>{}9.1Ei9
TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER
FINANCING SOURCES 12,705,607
Fund Balance:
General Fund Reserve 320,475
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 13,026,082
Police:
Police
Civil Defense
Fire:
Fire
Rental Inspections
Public Works:
Municipal Center
Engineering
Lighting
Park Maintenance
Street Maintenance
Garage
Recreation:
Recreation
Naturalist
Community Development
Building Inspection
Planning
Reserve:
Emergency
Nondepartmental:
2Ei�,723
1 �2.�>-�
3�Ei.{)-�E>
3�,21b
'70�,5=�f}
1'79,3 S 1
2{i6,7{}7
1��,��6
-�,431,3{}6
1 },2}7
1,17a,625
131,255
24Ei,�iEi7
S 10,36f3
193,6ti0
t)47,1 �4
1,026,96 7
386,319
�3t),�i{)3
a
328,b3{}
:371,�28
1 t}0,000
:�8,973
$ 13,026,082
Resolution No. 2005-
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Cable TV Fund
Grant Management Fund
Solid Waste Abatement Fund
Police Activity Fund
Springbrook NC Fund
Fund Balance
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE
FUNDS
CAPTTAL PROJECTS FUND
Capital Improvement Fund
General Capital Improvement
Streets Capital Improvement
Parks Capital Improvement
Fund Balance
TOTAL CAPTTAL PROJECTS FUND
AGENCY FUND
Six Ciries Watershed Fund
Taxes-Current Ad Valorem
TOTAL AGENCY FUND
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
`� 732,2{}�}
91,1�:�
29�t0'77
S.00Q
3�3.700
238,549
$ 1,508,679
$ 90,000
2,1�9,�51
16-�,312
1,145,137
$ 3,589,000
$ 6,200
$ 18,129,961
Cable TV Fund
Grant Management Fund
Solid Waste Abatement Fund
Police Activity Fund
Springbrook NC Fund
Fund Balance
General Capital Improvement
Streets Capital Improvement
Parks Capital Improvement
Six Ciries Watershed
Page 3
`� 2>3, 7Ei{)
91,1�b
32'7,��9
>{}<�.lEi9
32 7.09�
$ 1,508,679
$ 202,000
7.16�i3O{}{}
� �zz.a��o
$ 3,589,000
6,200
$ 6,200
$ 18,129,961
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
22nd DAY OF AUGUST 2005.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA, APPROVING THE
TRANSFER OF THE CURRENT CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM TIME
WARNER TO COMCAST
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota, has been the local franchising authority in the past
for a cable television franchise most recently operated by Time Warner as franchisee; and
WHEREAS, Time Warner has notified the City of Fridley, as required by State and Federal law,
of its intention to transfer its interest in any current franchise with the City of Fridley to
Comcast; and
WHEREAS, both Minnesota State law and the City of Fridley's Cable Communications
Franchise Ordinance require advance written approval of any such franchise transfer; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has received from Time Warner an FCC Form 394, which
provides information regarding Comcast Cable Communications LLC's legal, technical and
financial qualifications; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley determined that it would conduct a public hearing on this
question of whether it would approve the transfer, which hearing was first held on August 8,
2005, and continued until August 22, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley has rejected Time Warner's most recent proposal for the renewal
of cable services within the City and
Whereas, Time Warner and the City are currently in the formal renewal process under applicable
Federal and State law; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley and Time Warner do appear to have informally agreed in
principal on the terms of a renewed Franchise Ordinance, but have not, as yet, fully formalized
and approved that agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the City of Fridley, having reviewed the information provided in the FCC Form 394 by
Time Warner, and heard the testimony and information provided at its public hearing,
APPROVES the transfer of the Cable Television Franchise in the City of Fridley from Time
Warner to Comcast,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that this approval is expressly conditioned upon the formalization and
approval of a franchise agreement between the City and Time Warner and Comcast's acceptance
of the final and formal renewed franchise agreement prior to the date of closing of the transfer of
assets indicated in the FCC Form 394 provided to the City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF _ 2005.
SCOTT J. LUND - MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN - CITY CLERK
�
� AGENDA ITEM
��F CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2005
FRIDLEY
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS