04/27/2009 - 4536�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009
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.
CONTINUATION OF LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL
AND EQUALIZATION MEETING — 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization
Meeting of April 13, 2009
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Claims
2. Licenses
........................................................................................................... 1
............................................................................................................. 2 - 7
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009 PAGE 2
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda — 15 minutes.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. First Reading of an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 506 of the Fridley City Code
Pertaining to Vehicle Parking (Text Amendment,
TA #09-01, by the City of Fridley) ......................................................................... 8- 15
2. Consideration of Intoxicating Liquor License
Issued to William J. Bisek of JWBB, Inc.,
d/b/a Baggan's Pub, Located at 3720
East River Road (Ward 3) ..................................................................................... 16
3. Resolution Terminating Agreement with
Visit Minneapolis North Effective
December 31, 2009, by Exercising Early
OptOut Option ...................................................................................................... 17 - 18
4. Informal Status Report ............................................................................................. 19
ADJOURN.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
APRIL 13, 2009
The Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by
Mayor Lund at 7:02 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 Barnette
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Don Abbott, Director of Public Safety
Richard Pribyl, Finance Director
Mary Smith, City Assessor
Lynn Krachmer, City Appraiser
Fritz Knaak, City Attorney
LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING — 7:00 P.M.
Mary Smith, City Assessor, stated the meeting is held in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 274.01.
The purpose of the Board is to establish a consistent appeal procedure for property owners who
want to appeal the 2009 estimated market value or classification of their property. Only appeals
for this current year's valuation or classification may be heard. As the Board, the City Council
has the ability to change values or classification in accordance with State law. The Board has
three possible courses of action that can be taken on each case. They are as follows: to affirm,
reduce, or increase the current value based on information presented. If upon reaching a
decision, the property owner feels that the Board did not resolve their concerns, they may bring
their case to the Anoka County Board of Appeal and Equalization which will be held on June 15.
Ms. Smith stated according to Minnesota State Statutes, the Board is to have a majority of the
Council members be in attendance to have a quorum. There must be at least one member at each
meeting of a local board who has attended an appeals and equalization course developed or
approved by the Commissioner of Revenue within the last four years. The Board shall see that
all taxable property is properly classified and valued. If property is omitted from the tax rolls, it
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 2
may be added by the Board. The Board cannot give a class of property an increase or a decrease.
They may only increase or decrease individual properties. The Board must hear cases for the
current assessment year only. If the Board makes reductions to individual properties, the amount
of the reduction cannot exceed 1 percent of the City-wide aggregate assessment. If the Board
finds a case of undervaluation, it may raise the valuation of the property, but it must first notify
the owner. The Board must complete and adjourn within 20 days from the time it convened.
The procedures for the Board of Appeal and Equalization will be to hear the property owners'
concerns and accept any information that appellant may have in regards to their value. The
Board may then direct staff to reappraise the property and report back to them at a reconvened
meeting. Written appeals will be read once the property owners who are present have completed
their appeal. Once read, the Board may confirm the 2009 estimated market value allowing the
property owner to take the appeal to the County Board.
Ms. Smith stated the 2008 reassessment consisted of viewing 1,800 properties. These properties
were located in the southeast section of the City. Each of these properties was initially visited.
If the owner was not home, a tag was left asking them to call and set up an appointment. If there
was no response, values were estimated assuming some improvements had been made since our
last reassessment. In order for these property owners to appeal their value, they will need to
have staff physically review their homes.
Ms. Smith stated there were 160 residential sales that occurred in Fridley from October 1, 2007,
through September 30, 2008. This number consisted of single-family homes, townhomes,
double bungalows, and condominium sales. The dates of October 1, 2007, through September
30, 2008, are important as they are the dates established by the State for our sales ratio study.
The State's required sales ratio needs to be between 90 and 105 percent. These ratios are
determined by taking the estimated market value and dividing it by the sales price. To bring the
assessment within the State's recommended range, there were reductions in structure value from
8 to 11 percent depending on the style for single-family properties and 15 percent for
townhomes, double bungalows, and condominiums. Along with this, most land zones saw a
decrease in value of approximately 9 percent. These reductions brought the assessment within
the State's range. The adjusted overall ratio for Fridley is 94.4 percent. These changes resulted
in an overall decrease in residential value of 8 percent.
Ms. Smith stated, regarding the commercial and industrial, a study of fair sales indicated that our
sales ratio was within the recommended range by the State. The maj ority of
commercial/industrial properties remained the same or experienced a slight decrease in value.
Land values remained the same. This resulted in an overall decrease in value of 1.4 percent.
Ms. Smith stated as a result of apartment sales within Anoka County, decreases were made to
the apartment rate. Overall this created a decrease in value of 2.8 percent.
1. Dave Morrissette: 1313 — 73rd Avenue NE (actually 1313 and 1323 but 1313 is only
shown on the tax record); two four-unit buildings, 106 — 77th Way NE and 7673 East
River Road
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 3
Mr. Morrissette stated he is a small investor. He owns about ten buildings in three different
counties. Three of them are in Fridley. He is contesting the tax value on all three. He has been
through a lot of buildings in the last two years and is pretty aware of the sales and what they are
priced at. One of the buildings he bought in December 2007 (right when the market was starting
to go down) is a duplex on 73rd Avenue. It was a foreclosure. The first address is: 1313 — 73ra
Avenue NE (actually 1313 and 1323; but 1313 is only shown on the tax record); the other two
are two four-unit buildings, one address is 106 — 77th Way NE and one is 7673 East River Road.
The one building he wants to talk about more than any is the one he bought in December 2007.
He paid $224,900 for it. It was a foreclosure property. He brought it up to the assessors last
year. He did not contest it because they said it was kind of late in the year. They go through
September, and it was a foreclosure. Over the last year in 2008, he has looked at numerous
properties. The values went down anywhere from 25 to 35 percent over the last year for these
type of buildings. In his opinion, the two to four unit buildings have been hit harder, because
they were over assessed, and people paid too much for them for years.
Mayor Lund asked when he said there has been a 25 to 35 percent decrease, is that in the sales
price devaluation?
Mr. Morrissette replied that is in the sales.
Mayor Lund asked if he had seen the tax statements.
Mr. Morrissette said he has not.
Mayor Lund said these are unusual times, and rarely is anybody paying fair value. Foreclosures
are being sold at a substantial discount from banks.
Mr. Morrissette said one of the things city assessors have told him is that you cannot use
foreclosure sales. He does not think the State Statute exactly says you cannot use foreclosure
sales. It says you cannot use forced sales. When he looked through it he does not see a definition
of forced sales in the law. He said the assessed value for the duplex is $226,100. It is assessed
more now than when he bought it in December 2007. He could not get that kind of money for a
building like that.
Mayor Lund stated he guessed he needed a little bit clearer understanding. He asked if staff had
been to the property during the past year to inspect it.
Ms. Smith replied, no.
Mayor Lund asked staff that is not in your cycle right now?
Ms. Smith replied, correct.
Lynn Krachmer, Appraiser, replied, this summer.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 4
Mayor Lund stated he is going to ask the parties to discuss the valuations and see if some
adjustments need to be made. He thinks they are going to stick with what they perceive to be fair
based on the criteria typically used. One of the items used in an assessment valuation is what
was it sold for in a buyer-seller purchase. Also, what do you use for income? The easiest way to
determine these valuations is an appraisal, but he knows that costs money, too.
Mr. Morrissette said appraisals are tough. It is tough to finance the buildings.
Mayor Lund said Mr. Morrissette bought the property in 2007 and he said the valuation is now
higher than when he bought it. He asked about the valuations.
Mr. Krachmer, City Appraiser, said Fridley does not have any good duplex sales. There were
about five foreclosed sales, one which was Mr. Morrissette's.
Mayor Lund stated when valuations were going up, you were benefiting because of the delay
from when they actually placed a valuation on the duplex until the time you are paying for it.
There is like an 18-month delay. Mr. Morrissette may see a devaluation in next year's statement.
That is something that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Krachmer replied duplexes have dropped in value about $40,000 to $50,000 in the last two
years. He said he did have the values of the sales for the foreclosed duplexes. One sold for
$295,000; one sold for $220,000 and Mr. Morrissette's sold for $224,000. Those are foreclosed
sales which they do not use in the study. They had to go countywide for sales of duplexes.
Ms. Smith stated they will give Mr. Morrissette a call and set up a time when they can go view
his properties.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked about the process for the meeting. She knows they are going to
listen to everyone tonight and get back to them.
Mr. Krachmer stated they need time to analyze the cases.
Councilmember Bolkcom said this is different because in the past they have come forward and
staff has come back to the meeting and said, we have reviewed the case and you either need to
confirm or not confirm. So we still have to do something with all the appraisals on the 27tn
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director, said staff will be coming back on the 27th with their
recommendations to the Board.
Mayor Lund stated we will still need to formalize it.
Mr. Pribyl stated the City Assessor will actually recommend to the Board affirming the value or
taking some action. So the City Assessor will have some recommendation of action on
everybody who is here this evening.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 5
Mayor Lund said if anyone is not happy with the results after talking to staff, they need to be
present for the next meeting. Otherwise, Council will affirm staff's recommendation.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated unless they say it is different. They could come back and still
say something different.
2. Leonard Kos, 5468 Altura Road NE.
Mr. Kos stated the property is located just south of I-694 and a little bit west of University. You
could label it a freeway property. He looked at the assessed valuations that have been assigned
from the period 2005 to the present, and there is a steady escalation regardless of what the
market shows. Mr. Kos asked why the increasing escalation and was told that it was because a
fireplace was discovered in the home. Mr. Kos said this has been of record for a long time. The
appraiser stated the City had no record of the fireplace installation. Mr. Kos called the building
inspector who confirmed, yes, a permit was pulled in 1987. It was subsequently inspected after
the installation. Likewise, assessors have come through the property since then. The fireplace is
a small, "zero tolerance" fireplace, 13-inches in depth and about 2 feet wide. It was converted to
gas. The inspector came out and checked it out. He was not trying to hide the fireplace. It has
been there and it really should not be re-taxed as such. It is not a big issue, but nonetheless the
fairness doctrine does apply.
Mr. Kos stated, secondly, he categorized all the properties on Altura Road as freeway or near-
freeway properties. They are a little different in scope and in fact the market value is a little bit
testier than typical residential properties which are immune to this noise and pollution. There are
roughly 32 houses in the Altura Road area. Half of them went up in value and half of them went
down. He guessed it points to the fact that maybe you have different criteria for assessing what
market conditions are. He gave a few examples of the assessed values: The assessed value for
5455 Altura was around $118,000. Two doors down there is a story and one-half with a double
attached garage. The value for that was pushing $226,000. He said there is a difference in value.
He guessed he would re-examine. Especially viewing the fact that these are freeway properties.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how much his value went up from last year.
Mr. Kos replied, from he thinks $157,000 in 2004 to around $185,000. In 2008 it went to
$186,000.
Mr. Krachmer asked what the valuation for his property is in 2009.
Mr. Kos replied in 2009, he got some relief, $174,900.
Mayor Lund stated it sounds like it is catching up now. There is always a lag. He asked what
the last valuation was.
Mr. Kos replied, $174,900.
Mayor Lund asked what it was the year before.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 6
Mr. Kos replied, $186,000.
Mayor Lund stated so it went down $11,000 to $12,000.
Mr. Kos replied, not quite $12,000; but he thought it was still about $5,000 over-valued.
Mayor Lund stated to it may be true that the fireplace was not previously caught. He asked how
long it had been there.
Mr. Kos replied, 21 years.
Mayor Lund asked if it was customary when building permits are pulled that the assessor's
office gets notification.
Ms. Smith replied, yes, they do get a copy.
Mayor Lund stated and the box for the fireplace was never checked off for that property?
Mr. Krachmer stated it must have been overlooked for years. The last time he went through the
house, he happened to be in the living room and noticed and said it would need to be put on. It
was never on before.
Mr. Kos stated maybe in the judgment of previous assessors they thought there was little
incremental value with it.
Mayor Lund stated he would be interested in how much the valuation goes up. It seems it
would be very little.
Mr. Kos stated it is a matter of principle for somebody now to tell him after 21 years he is now
being taxed for incremental value. He would like them to look at what actually exists and say,
we are not here to recapture events 21 years of age.
Mr. Krachmer stated this fireplace was not taxed for 21 years. So, actually he was getting a
break for 21 years.
Mayor Lund said staff would contact Mr. Kos.
Mr. Kos said they have been through that. He came out and looked at it. Oddly enough there is
a stack on the front of the house.
Mayor Lund stated he is going to see if they are going to reassess it or if they will stay at where
they are at and then we will discuss it at the next meeting.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 7
William Burns, City Manager, said he looks at the North Metro Realtors sales values quite
often. His recollection is he did not see values in Fridley start to fall precipitously until about
September 2007.
Mr. Krachmer replied, from what he read, the market peaked July 2006.
Dr. Burns replied, he did not see a sharp decline until that point in time so he thinks it would be
reasonable to expect those values to continue to decline up until very, very recently.
Ms. Smith replied, yes, because you have to keep in mind that the 2008 value was based on sales
from 2006 to 2007.
3. Irwin Reynolds, 530 Ely Street NE.
Mr. Reynolds stated he is at the meeting to dispute his property tax value. He has several
different copies of recent valuations of the property and also from 2007-2008 which is supposed
to be the valuation of his assessed value payable for 2010. He also has the properties that sold in
2007 to 2008 and what they sold for.
Mayor Lund asked if he was talking about the comparables.
Mr. Reynolds replied, yes.
Mayor Lund asked where he got the comparables.
Mr. Reynolds replied he used the foundation size and square footage and went online. He said
in one month from February to March, the value dropped $2,970.
Mayor Lund said he took the foundation size and took it to an on-line service. He is talking
about valuations that dropped precipitously in what time period?
Mr. Reynolds replied, when you go to Cyberhomes.com, you type in the address you are
questioning about, and then they bring up a satellite picture of your home and what it is valued
at.
Mayor Lund stated, okay, and it dropped in what period of time?
Mr. Reynolds replied, in one month from February to March of this year, it dropped $2,970.
They give you a chart as to what your home value was for the duration period that we are talking
of, 2007 to 2008, and the chart shows it is clearly below what they have for assessed value.
Mayor Lund asked what the assessed value is.
Mr. Reynolds replied they show an assessed value of $202,100. It is nowhere close to that.
Mayor Lund asked what he would sell his house for.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 8
Mr. Reynolds replied, it is not what he would sell it for. It is what he can get for it.
Mayor Lund asked what he thought was a reasonable price to sell his house.
Mr. Reynolds replied, when he called the assessors, they said he cannot go by foreclosures or
short sales. There are homes on his block within five houses away. One just sold recently for
$139,900. Another one, the assessment taxes on it was $1,989. It sold for $110,000. Those
homes are on his street. Now, he is going to say he wants $202,000 for his? It is not going to
sell, because they buying all these other homes which he has printouts of their property values,
for more square footage than what he has, selling for a lot less money.
Mayor Lund asked if the house that sold for $110,000 was a foreclosed house.
Mr. Reynolds replied, no, and it was not a short sale. Neither was the one that sold for
$139,900.
Mayor Lund asked Mr. Reynolds to share the information with the City Assessor, and asked
staff to contact Mr. Reynolds. He asked Mr. Reynolds to give staff a little time to review the
materials. If Mr. Reynolds is in disagreement with them, he needs to come back on Apri127.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Reynolds what the value of his home was right now on
Cyberhomes.com.
Mr. Reynolds replied, it is $159,489. His neighbor is a realtor, that is why he knows what the
homes sold for 2007-2008.
4. Norma Rust, 360- 57th Avenue NE.
Ms. Rust stated they purchased a dwelling at 360 — 57th Avenue, and she looked at the total
valuation on that which was $234,300. The building itself was valued at $181,000 so that comes
out to 77 percent of the total valuation. The structure is 1,729 square feet. She looked at other
homes that sold in the very near proximity. On those, the ratio on the total valuation to the value
of the building, the buildings were valued in the 63-66 percent. She does not know why this
particular building that they bought is valued at 77 percent of the total valuation. When she ran
the figures using the percentage on the square footage, the per square foot valuation taxable on
those other properties ranged anywhere from about $51 up to $92 per square foot. Taking into
account that land is always going to be land, it is always going to have the same value. She
thinks that the taxation on her property is high based on the 77 percent figure. She thinks the
total valuation should be going down to $208,900, leaving the land value as it was at $53,300 but
changing the value on the building to $155,600 which drops it down to the 62-66 percent ratio
for the total valuation.
Mayor Lund asked the staff to look at those figures. They will get in touch with Ms. Rust.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 9
5. Ralph and Gloria Swanson, 511 — Ely Street NE.
Mr. Swanson stated he is here to protest his assessment. He is a neighbor of Mr. Reynolds. He
has some of the same information. Their house on Cyberhomes.com is valued at $156,247. It
has 1,028 square feet and is next door to the house that sold for $110,000 within the last couple
months. Up the block, about five houses, is another house that sold for $136,140 which is
approximately the same size. It is a much newer home and very well kept up. He got the
information from a realtor. Most of them had more square footage than his, and are probably up
around $135,000 to $140,000 on just an overall average.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what the assessed value of his home was.
Mr. Swanson replied, $194,900.
Mayor Lund stated he will share that information with staff to review. He asked if the list of
sales was short sales, foreclosed sales or depressed sales.
Mr. Swanson replied, he got the information from a realtor, and he said they were not short
sales.
Mayor Lund asked if he has addresses or property identification numbers for those properties.
Mr. Swanson said he had the addresses.
Mayor Lund stated staff will be contacting him and asked that he share that information with
them. If he is unhappy with what they finally come up with, then he will need to come back on
the April 27, and the Board will make the final determination. If he is still unhappy with the
determination, that allows him to go to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Mr. Krachmer stated to Mr. Swanson that they will be contacting him to set up an appointment
to come out and review his property.
Dr. Burns stated in response to Councilmember Bolkcom's question about what we attribute the
value to, it would be a lot clearer as they talk to other people if they would start by telling us
what the value is that we ascribed to the property and then proceed to describe the value and why
they think it is different.
6. Spencer and Gay Minear, 1291 Gardena Avenue.
Ms. Minear stated they live in the Moore Lake Hills area and she thought only four houses sold
in the timeframe they are talking about. She did not think there were any short sales. They sold
from $144,000 to $180,000. The $180,000 home was bought by the County.
Mayor Lund asked what their property was valued at now.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 10
Ms. Minear said they had two properties. She is not contesting the land but they come together.
That is $190,700. She is looking in her neighborhood, and there is nothing comparable to their
size selling for anywhere close to that. She definitely feels their property has been hanging up
there when the whole neighborhood has been sliding.
Mayor Lund asked Ms. Minear to share what she had with staff and meet with them.
Mr. Krachmer stated Ms. Minear said their neighborhood is small. He said the there are 1 to 9
zones in Fridley, and this is a mass appraisal system. If, for example, she lived in Zone 3, they
would look at all sales throughout Fridley that are zoned as a 3. There could have been 20 sales
in zone 3 that they used.
Ms. Minear stated she did include others. She concentrated on Moore Lake and put that in the
first section, others in the neighborhood, and then tried to pick up comparables in Fridley at large
but it is hard to know exactly what is a 3-bedroom, 1-bath rambler.
Mayor Lund said he thought staff would be able to help her.
Mr. Krachmer stated he can send out the sales information they used for their study in that
zone.
Mr. Minear stated all those figures are from the appropriate timeframe and the sale prices are
down much lower past that timeframe. So next year we will be back unless it has gone down
further.
Ms. Minear stated regarding the $180,000 home, that was early in that timeframe and they
tended to drift even lower in that timeframe.
Mr. Minear stated the home that sold for $180,000 which is the only one that comes close to the
assessed value of their home in their neighborhood was a purchase by the County to put a group
home into that neighborhood, and they paid a premium to get it in there.
Mr. Krachmer stated usually they do not count government sales.
7. Gene Rafferty, American Legion, 7365 Central Avenue N.E.
Mr. Rafferty stated he is a member of the executive committee of the Fridley American Legion
Post No. 303. He is here to appeal the valuation of PIN No. 12-30-24-13-00-84, Lot 2, Block 1,
Walnut Addition, subject to easement of record. The address is 1360 Onondaga Street which is
the parking lot behind the Fridley American Legion at 7365 Central Avenue NE.
Mayor Lund confirmed they are contesting the valuation of the parking lot and not the building.
Mr. Rafferty replied correct. Malcolm Watson who has many years experience in appraising
was to be their spokesman tonight; however, he is unavailable because he had knee replacement
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 11
surgery. He has written a short letter stating their case. Mr. Rafferty appeared tonight to reserve
their right of appeal to the County. He asked that the Board to affirm the value.
Mayor Lund stated they do not have to do that yet. The County Board meets on June 15. They
may be able to take care of it. He said with Mr. Watson being the spokesperson for the
American Legion's dispute, and Mr. Rafferty representing them tonight, are they okay with that?
If they want the County to handle it, that is fine.
Mr. Rafferty said he is operating on Mr. Watson's advice.
Mayor Lund stated he is going to have staff look at the American Legion parking lot assessed
value. On April 27, the Board will make their final recommendation and the American Legion
can take it to the next level if that is what they want to do.
Mr. Rafferty replied he does not think they have any choice.
Councilmember Barnette stated they were told the property is in a commercial/industrial
category. He asked if that had changed.
Mary Smith, City Assessor, replied no, it has been in the commercial/industrial category;
however, there is a new classification that was available to charitable organizations beginning
last year. The last date to file is May 1 of every single year. They did file it for taxes payable
this year on the parcel where the building sits. They will need to file that same application for
taxes payable next year, and then it will be classified at that 4C3ii classification. The
classification is commercial/industrial; however, they have the opportunity to change that every
single year but it is after these valuation notices come out.
Mayor Lund asked when they do the annual paperwork, does that mean that the valuation will
go down.
Ms. Smith the value will not go down, but the classification rate of 4C3ii is less than
commercial/industrial rate.
Mayor Lund asked so the valuation does not go down but they end up paying less property tax.
Ms. Smith replied, correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Rafferty what was the valuation last year on their tax
statement?
Mr. Rafferty replied, the valuation last year was $32,500 and was raised for payable in 2009 at
$73,100 which is approximately an 18 percent increase.
Ms. Smith stated these last two years it has been set at $73,100. The 2008 value was at $73,100;
the 2009 value is at $73,100. It is the same. She increased the land value during the year of
2007 on all commercial/industrial properties to bring them up to where she felt they should be.
BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2009 PAGE 12
That was the reason for the huge increase from $32,500 to $73,100 from 2007 to 2008. The
2008 value and the 2009 value are at $73,100.
Mayor Lund informed Mr. Rafferty staff will be in touch with him or Mr. Watson.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive the following:
1. Letter from Malcolm Watson regarding American Legion parking lot valuation.
2. Information from Spencer and Gay Minear regarding sales in their neighborhood.
3. Income and expense statement from David Morrissette.
4. Information from Norma Rust on sales or valuations of other double bungalow
properties.
Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION to continue the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting until April 27, 2009.
Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:50
P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor
� AGENDA ITEM
� COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009
� �F CLAI MS
FRIDLEY
CLAIMS
14136� - 141511
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009
��F LICENSES
FRIDLEY
TYPE OF LICENSE APPLICANT ' APPR4VEI7 BY:
Lawful Gamblin Permit Fridle Lion's Club Cit Clerk
Fridle 49'er Da s Public Safet
Peddlers/Solicitors License Walter's Recycling & Refuse Public Safety
Brandon Lebens
Robert Notermann
Pawn Sho Cash N Pawn of Minnesota Public Safe
Gre or Daniel
Pawn Sho Mana erial Cash N Pawn of Minnesota Public Safe
James D. Thomas
Pawn Sho Pawn America Public Safety
Bradle Rixmann
Pawn Sho Mana erial Pawn America Public Safet
Adrienne Lee Oxle
Used Motor Vehicles Auto's On Line Public Safet
Harold Eiss Community Development
Tobacco License Fridle Li uor #2 Public Safet
Fridle Li uor #3 Fire
K le Birkholz Communit Develo ment
Livestock Permit And Zhen Code Enforcement
Buildin Ins ections
Hotel / Motel License Bud et Host Inn Public Safet
Div esh Bhakta Fire
Etal Rekha Communit Develo ement
TYPE OF LICENSE APPI;ICANT ' APPR(��1ED BY:
Auto Bod Re air Abra Auto Bod & Glass Public Safet
Duane A. Rouse Fire
Community Development
Auto Body Shop of Mpls dba Public Safety
Auto Bod Sho Fire
Mike Morris Communit Develo ment
J. Peterson, Inc. dba Public Safet
Ci Collision & Glass Fire
Jerem J. Peterson Communit Develo ment
Newman Automotive, LLC Public Safet
dba Fridle Auto Bod Fire
Yolanda Newman Communit Develo ment
Grand Central Auto Public Safet
Michael Roberts Fire
Communit Develo ment
Riverside Services Inc. dba Public Safet
MAACO Collision Re air & Fire
Paintin Communit Develo ment
Randall P. Olcnefske
Junk Yard License Co art of Connecticut, Inc. Public Safet
Co art Auto Auctions Fire
Paul A. S er Communit Develo ment
A ABCO Fridle Auto Parts Public Safet
Derek L. Halu tzok Fire
Communit Develo ment
Sam's Auto Parts Public Safet
Barr T. Hoosline Fire
Communit Develo ment
Junk Yard License Central Auto Parts
Jerr A. Halu tzok
TYPE OF LICENSE APPLICANT APPR4VEI7 BY:
Food and Tobacco C V S Public Safety
Ruth Paredes Fire
Communit Develo ment
Wal-Mart Store #1952 Public Safet
Lori Cottrell Fire
Communit Develo ment
Tree Removal As lund Tree Service Public Safet
Scott Baile Public Works
Bartlett Tree Ex erts Public Safet
Chris Romer Public Works
Le ac Tree Care Public Safet
John M. Wilson Public Works
Northeast Tree, Inc. Public Safet
L nn K. Wells Public Works
Precision Landscape & Tree, Public Safety
Inc
Christine Groholski Public Works
Arbour Desi n Tree Service Public Safet
Donald Lawrence Public Works
Drobnick's Tree Service Public Safet
John Drobnick Public Works
Refuse Hauler, Garba e Trucks Boone Trucking, Inc. Public Safety
Jose h T. Boon Public Works
Keith Kru enn & Sons Public Safet
Keith Kru enn Public Works
Waste Mana ement of MN Public Safet
Forrest P. Sartell Public Works
WTI-Waste Technolo Public Safet
David Ha es Public Works
TYPE OF LICENSE APPLICANT APPR4VEI7 BY:
Massa e Thera Colleen Roskowiak Public Safet
at Life Time Fitness
Brid et Wickstrom Public Safet
At Life Balance Thera eutic
Kelli Ann Portratz Public Safet
Salon Amore
Teresa Kaus Public Safet
Wells rin Chiro ractic
Sarah E. Gibson Public Safet
Lifetime Fitness
Mona Jean Wi en Public Safet
7091 Hwy #65 Suite 101
Food Establishments Buffets Inc., dba Public Safe
Old Count Buffet #2 Fire
Gre or T'osvold Communit Develo ment
Bur er Kin #13091 Public Safet
289 57t Ave Fire
Wend Mathisen Communit Develo ment
Colle e Town Pizza, Inc Public Safet
dba Domino's Pizza Fire
7510 Universit Communit Develo ment
William B Graves
Pa a Mur h's Public Safet
201 57t Ave NE Fire
Steven Oh Communit Develo ment
Food Establishments Perkin's & Marie Callender's Public Safet
Perkin's Restaurant Fire
7520 Universit Ave NE Communit Develo ment
Ra No er
TYPE OF LICENSE APPLICANT APPR4VEI7 BY:
Food Establishments Cont. Rick 's Embers America Public Safet
Joseph Rickenbach Fire
Community Development
Rinconcito Latino Restaurant Public Safet
Maria E. Baires Fire
Community Development
Quizno's Subs Public Safet
Hei Pho Fire
Communit Develo ment
Won 's Gourmet Public Safet
Lisa Chen Fire
Communit Develo ment
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009
��F LICENSES
FRIDLEY
Contractor T e A licant A roved B
As halt Drivewa Co Blackto Rochelle Chorltan Ron Julkowski, CBO
Bursch Brothers Inc Excavatin Kevin Bursch Ron Julkowski, CBO
Gilbert Mechanical Contractors Heatin John Gorman Ron Julkowski, CBO
Gilbert Mechanical Contractors Gas John Gorman Ron Julkowski, CBO
Klamm Mechanical Gas Karen Elander Ron Julkowski, CBO
Kraus Anderson Commercial or S ecialt Jerold Dreis Ron Julkowski, CBO
LBP Mechanical Inc Heatin Timoth Ha es Ron Julkowski, CBO
Lund Martin Construction Commercial or S ecialt R an Kuznia Ron Julkowski, CBO
Newmech Com anies Heatin Pamela Johnson Ron Julkowski, CBO
Commercial or S ecialt Pamela Johnson Ron Julkowski, CBO
Veo Si ns Si n Erector Orlad Vi hakeo Ron Julkowski, CBO
Tim's Qualit Plumbin Inc Gas Timoth Lindholm Ron Julkowski, CBO
Yale Mechanical Heatin Jennifer Martindale Ron Julkowski, CBO
Yale Mechanical Gas Jennifer Martindale Ron Julkowski, CBO
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
Date:
To:
From:
Subj ect:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009
Apri123, 2009
William Burns, City Manager
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 506 of City Code, Regarding Vehicle
Parking: TA# 09-01
Background
A 2008 code enforcement case has prompted staff to desire an amendment to Chapter 506 of City Code. This
is the section of code that addresses the parking limitations for large vehicles. The case was an illegal home
occupation case, where a renter was running a trucking business out of a single family home along Main
Street. The case was ultimately resolved in court. The reason why the case could not be resolved by simply
tagging the trucks was that the trucker was parking his rigs on the "industrial" side of the Main Street. The
case caused staff to realize the unclear language in Chapter 506.
While studying the code, staff concluded that large commercial vehicle parking should be prohibited on all
public streets for public safety reasons. Staff could cite many incidences where public safety was being
compromised by large vehicles parking in commercial and industrial areas. Upon further discussion, staff
realized that each summer, we also get complaints about large motor homes parked on residential streets.
Like semi-trucks, these large vehicles often create dangerous conditions for pedestrians.
During the April 13 City Council public hearing on this text amendment, concerns were raised about the
definitions used and the parking limitation on motor homes. In regards to the definitions, staff has concluded
that the definitions proposed are best for the purposes of this section of code. A secondary memo is attached
to address the concern that the definitions proposed are different than other sections of code. As stated at the
public hearing, the definitions ofMotor Vehicle and Vehicle were copied from State Statute. The motor home
definition was modified from State Statute because the State Statute definition was unnecessarily lengthy and
did not work for the Police Department from an enforcement perspective.
Staff has modified Section 506.13 of the proposed code language attached regarding motor home and travel
trailer parking. Council was concerned about the discretion staff had in the current code language
determining the amount of time allowed for loading and unloading. While staff feels that this new language
will be challenging to monitor and enforce, we find it to be a fair compromise that allows travelers time to
prepare for trips, while minimizing the time these large vehicles limit visibility on public streets.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the first reading on the attached ordinance for text
amendment TA# 09-01 at the Apri127 City Council meeting. If Council is satisfied with the proposed
changes, the item can be brought back for second reading on May 4, 2009.
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009
C1TY flF
FRIaLE'f
Date: April 23, 2009
To: William W. Burns, City Manager
From: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director
Subject: Responses to comments by Pam Reynolds Regarding 506
Euclid v Fithzum
Nearly 50 years to the day of the famed, Euclid v. Ambler Realty victorious case decision, the City
of Euclid, Ohio lost a different, less substantial zoning case regarding Motor Homes in Euclid V.
Fizthum (identified by Ms. Reynolds). The 1926 Euclid v. Ambler case is used today as a
foundational basis for local jurisdictions to zone property. In that case, Euclid stood its ground
against Ambler Realty who wanted to develop outside of what their zoning would allow and
aligning with what they saw as the outward expansion of Cleveland. In that case Euclid prevailed.
They weren't so fortunate in their attempts to regulate RVs on residential property 50 years later
however. There was a clear distinction in their own application of zoning powers, which led to
their lack of success in the Fitzhum case. The nexus between RV parking on residential sites and
Health, Safety, welfare or morals was not evident and they were not able to articulate the
connection. Their case was therefore viewed as purely aesthetic in nature and the ordinances
constitutionality was challenged.
The Fithzum case was not supported by the courts, but is clearly different than the City of
Fridley's proposal to modify Code Section 506. The difference is that there is a rational nexus
between that being required by the ordinance and factors of health, safety and welfare. Distinct
differences include: Fithzum didn't allow the open parking of RV's on the property of the owner;
Fridley allows RV's on residential properties. Fithzum's ordinance only allowed RV's that are kept
inside of a building; Fridley does not require parking inside of a building. Fridley allows not only
motor homes to be parked on the owners paved surface, but they also allow semi-tractors and
other large commercial vehicles that serve as an individual's transportation to and from their
work. Fithzum's ordinance was weak regarding its attempt to connect motor homes/RVs with fire
access, and the events of RV's acting as a conduit carrying fire from one residence to another.
Fridley is not suggesting those arguments as a foundational basis for their ordinance. Instead,
Fridley's amendment to 506 is simple. Large vehicles left in the roadway serve as obstructions;
they narrow the drive lanes for normal use of the roadway. They can and often do create a vision
safety issue for motorists and pedestrians; Fridley has very few sidewalks, which cause
pedestrians to use the street as their walkway. Wth cars and smaller vehicles, it is easier to see
through and past the vehicle to make safe passage around the vehicle. In the case of a motor
home or larger truck or vehicle that same benefit is not available. Finally these large vehicles on
the roadway can and do impact the quiet enjoyment of one's residential property by being a visual
obstruction in an otherwise fairly open right-of-way.
Smokinq Ban in Tempe Arizona
Ms. Reynolds included information from the Arizona Republic on a smoking ban in Tempe
Arizona. I would imagine if this was meant to be in the packet, it was meant to serve as another
example of where an ordinance without evidence is baseless and therefore arbitrary. The Fridley
ordinance is not being offered without evidence. Though Ms. Reynolds has attempted to tie a lack
of accidents to the lack of evidence that an ordinance is required is no surprise. The response
from our police department does not suggest that these vehicles are not a problem or that there
have been no accidents related to them, instead the response is that the Police department
is..."aware of 2 complaints in 2008 about RV's parked on the road causing vision obstructions and
lane narrowing. Further, our records system does not lend itself to reporting accidents or thefts
specifically to RV's..." Community Development generally gets called on this type of an issue and
they receive and average of 6 complaint calls per year regarding RVs and have had many more
regarding trucks. Of course, it is up to the City to decide whether 8 calls a year and many more
complaints regarding trucks is sufficient evidence and foundation for an ordinance
amendment. Staff would recommend that it is.
Other Cities Requlations Mentioned
City of Richfield's evidence submitted merely suggested that The City manager is authorized to
order the placement of traffic control devices and those that feel aggrieved have a process
whereby they can appeal.
Fee for parking or permit parking is another point that was raised by Ms. Reynolds (with Mounds
View and Richfield as examples). This practice, especially in residential areas raises equal
protection/equal benefit constitutional questions under the law and is believed to be
unconstitutional. Those cities with such ordinances likely have yet to have them challenged. One
other interesting note about the research material Ms. Reynolds submitted, neither her Richfield
nor Mounds View information she submitted said anything about permit parking as she had
indicated that it did.
Matchinq definitions throuqhout the Code and to Statutes
Ms. Reynolds discusses the definitions not matching all statutes. She is correct with regard to the
motor home definition. Prior to constructing this ordinance staff (including police staffl and the
City attorney evaluated and determined that the definition of motor home that was chosen is
shorter, cleaner, and easier to understand by an average reader. There is simply no need to
make an ordinance and its definitions more complex than they need to be. If an ordinance is not
understandable to the average reader, courts typically have decided cases in favor of that
average reader in a contest. This motor home definition also in no way conflicts with statutory
definition; it's simply shorter, cleaner, and easier to understand.
Should definitions throughout the Code match? No, not necessarily. State Statutes is in part the
voluminous body of documents that it is, because items are defined for the specific chapters that
they lie within. A good example is the definition of "Project" in Statute 469.002 and "Project" in
471.49, subd. 7, they are very different based on the essence of each chapter. What is important
is that each chapter begins with a statement like: Words, terms, and phrases. Unless the
language or context clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended, the following words,
terms, and phrases, for purposes of this chapter, shall be given the meaning hereinafter
subjoined to them. Contrary to Ms. Reynolds assertion, definitions can and do change from
chapter to chapter in statutes and in local ordinances as well. It would not be our
recommendation (as she has suggested) to simply reference a statute definition, rather than
defining the word or phrase in our ordinance. Readers do not generally like having to reference
both our ordinance and State statute to understand what we are trying to say. Simplicity is the key
to compliance and success in court if an ordinance is challenged.
We have had both Chapters 114 and 123 (both questioned by Ms. Reynolds) reviewed on several
occasions by our attorney's office. Back to a pre-Fritz Knaak era, Greg Herrick (our attorney then)
reviewed both 114 and 123 and supported the definitions indicating they were right as they were
written and that both sections should remain. In subsequent years we asked Fritz to review 114
and 123 and he too believed that both sections are necessary and though different should remain
as they are. Somewhere a drafting error did occur that we noticed through this recent review.
Chapters 114 and 123 have a definition of Motor Vehicle that includes trailers. Of course, this is
not correct and was not meant to exist in the 114 and 123 definitions. We will research and if it
was a drafting error after the ordinance was first approved, we will make the change as statute
allows. If on the other hand, it was in the original approved versions of 114 and 123 years ago,
we will ask Council for authorization to have the term "trailer" removed from the definition through
an upcoming amendment. The other sections submitted by Ms. Reynolds have definitions relative
to the sections of Code in which they exist. Since the Code is read in a manner in which the
reader looking for the law and then within the law, the relevant definitions, we do not believe a
change is required in this regard.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 506 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO VEHICLE PARKING
The City Council of the City of Fridley hereby finds, after review, examination and
recommendation of staff, that the Fridley City Code be hereby amended as follows:
Section 1: That Section 506.02 of the Fridley City Code be hereby amended as follows:
506.02 DEFINITIONS (Ref. 1043)
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and application of this Chapter and the
following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Chapter, are defined as follows:
1. Bus.
"Bus" means every motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 15 passengers including the
driver, and used for transporting persons.
2. Large Commercial Vehicle.
A truck, truck-tractor, tractor, semi-trailer, van, or bus as defined herein having a licensed gross
vehicle weight over 12,000 pounds.
3. Manufactured Home; Park Trailer; Travel Trailer.
A. "Manufactured home" has the meaning given it in Minnesota State Statute Section
327.31, subdivision 6.
B. "Park trailer" means a trailer that:
(1) exceeds eight feet in width but is no larger than 400 square feet when the collapsible
components are fully extended or at maximum horizontal width, and
(2) is used as temporary living quarters. "Park trailer" does not included a manufactured
home.
C. "Travel trailer" means a trailer, mounted on wheels, that:
(1) is designed to provide temporary living quarters during recreation, camping or travel;
(2) does not require a special highway movement permit based on its size or weight when
towed by a motor vehicle; and
(3) complies with Minnesota State Statute Sections 169.80, subdivision 2, and 169.81,
subdivision 2.
4. Motor Home.
"Motor home" means anv vehicle desi�ned as an enclosed piece of equipment duallv used as
both a vehicle and a temporarv travel home. Thev are also called motor caravan.
5. Motor Vehicle
"Motor vehicle" means everv vehicle which is self-propelled and everv vehicle which is
propelled bv electric power obtained from overhead trollev wires. Motor vehicle does not include
an electric personal assistive mobilitv device or a vehicle moved solelv bv human power.
46. Passenger Automobile.
"Passenger automobile" means any motor vehicle designed and used for the carrying of not more
than 15 persons including the driver, and does not include motorcycles, motor scooters, and
buses as defined herein.
�7. Pickup Truck.
"Pickup truck" means any truck with a manufacturer's nominal rated carrying capacity of
three-fourths ton or less and commonly known as a pickup truck.
�8. Residential District.
Means and includes those areas zoned single family dwelling areas, two family areas, and
general multiple family areas (Ref. 552).
�9. Semi-trailer.
"Semi- trailer" means a vehicle of the trailer type so designed and used in conjunction with a
truck-tractor that a considerable part of its own weight or that of its load rests upon and is carried
by the truck-tractor and shall include a trailer drawn by a truck-tractor semitrailer combination.
�10. Tractor.
"Tractor" means any motor vehicle designed or used for drawing other vehicles but having no
provision for carrying loads independently.
311. Trailer.
"Trailer" means any vehicle designed for carrying property or passengers on its own structure
and for being drawn by a motor vehicle but shall not include a trailer drawn by a truck-tractor
semitrailer combination, or an auxiliary axle on a motor vehicle which carries a portion of the
weight of the motor vehicle to which it is attached.
�812. Truck.
"Truck" means any motor vehicle designed and used for carrying things other than passengers,
except pickup trucks and vans as defined herein.
�13. Truck-tractor.
"Truck-tractor" means:
A. A motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and not constructed
to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and load drawn; and
B. A motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles used exclusively for
transporting motor vehicles and capable of carrying motor vehicles on its own structure.
�14. Van.
"Van" means any motor vehicle of box like design with no barrier or separation between the
operator's area, and the remainder of the cargo carrying area, and with a manufacturer's nominal
rating capacity of three-fourths ton or less.
�15. Vehicle.
���4e�e�Vehicle" means ., o�� r ro��o,a ..o�,;,.�o ,,,,� „ o,-.,�o,a o r,.�„�;..o�., , .,;�,-,,.,,a �,-.,,.�,�
> > > >
��°��Everv device in, upon, or bv which an�person or propertv is or mav be transported or
drawn upon a hi�hwav, exceptin� devices used exclusivelv upon stationarv rails or tracks.
Section 2: That Section 506.13 of the Fridley City Code be hereby amended as follows:
506.13. PARKING REQUIREMENTS (Ref. 1043)
6. No person shall park or leave standing a truck tractor, semitrailer, bus (except for school
buses during normal operation of their weekdav routes� a�t�zc2�? �;nn „,,, „�,a n.nn „,,, ,.�
�°°'��'��� m�r����°`, truck havin� a licensed �ross wei�ht over 12,000 pounds, manufactured
home, park trailer, travel trailer, trailer, or motor home
�°r ,'' ��� r�„��'° whether attended or unattended, upon, the public streets in any zonin�
�'��� district unless in the process of loading or unloading
*;m° r°�°���n, *�'���' �r�' „r'���' Motor homes and travel trailers mav remain parked on a
public street for loadin� and unloadin�purposes no more than 24 hours in a seven (7) dav time
ep riod (Re£ 552, 741).
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF 2009.
SCOTT J. LUND, MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN, CITY CLERK
Public Hearing: April 1, 2009
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Published:
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
To: William W. Burns, City Manager
April 27, 2009
From: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
Donovan Abbott, Public Safety Director
Date
�
Apri123, 2009
Renewal of 2009-10 On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for William Bisek of JWBB,
Inc. dba Baggan's Pub located at 3720 East River Road
On April 13, 2009, the City Council discussed the renewal of the liquor license for William Bisek of
JWBB Inc dba Baggan's Pub located at 3720 East River Road. While it was not a formal public
hearing, the City Council did allow the licensee and his attorney to address the City Council. Based
on the recommendation from the City Attorney, the City Council tabled the renewal of the liquor
license directing Mr. Bisek to provide further information and evidence to City staff by submitting a
written business plan, supporting documentation showing transparency within the business and a
written security plan for staff to review prior to the next Council meeting.
On April 16, 2009, staff delivered a letter to Baggan's Pub with the directives from the City Council
requesting the documentation be provided to staff for review by April 22, 2009. Staff received the
written documentation as requested and met with City Attorney Knaak to review the documentation.
Based on the information received, at this time it appears Baggan's Pub is in compliance with the
food to liquor ratio. The police department reports public safety concerns have moderated over the
past two weeks. In addition, the police department has reviewed the security plan provided by
Baggan's Pub and will monitor for implementation and effectiveness and report back to Council as
appropriate.
City Attorney Knaak has recommended the City Council approve the liquor license with the
following conditions:
1. That the City Council review the license August 24, 2009 to monitor the food to
liquor ratio of the business and the public safety concerns;
2. That if there are any significant changes in the operation of the business or in the
overall order, peace and safety at the location, this will be grounds for a public
hearing for immediate license revocation by the City; or
3. Any serious crime occurring prior to the August 24th review is grounds for an
immediate public hearing for license revocation by the City.
�
�
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
To:
From
Date:
Re:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
April 27, 2009
William W. Burns, City Manager
Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
April 8, 2009
Resolution Terminating Agreement with Visit Minneapolis North Effective December
31, 2009 by Exercising Early Opt Out Option
The City of Fridley has been a member of Visit Minneapolis North (V1VIN), a local convention and
visitor's bureau (CVB), since 1986. V1VIN currently represents 11 cities and 421odging properties in
the north metro area. The current agreement with V1VIN requires that if a city desires to leave, they
are required to give notice by December 31st of the year before the City intends to end its agreement
with V1VIN.
Last fall the negotiations between the National Sports Center (NSC) and V1VIN broke down. The
NSC began to work with local lodging properties recommending they request their cities to opt out of
V1VIN. By the end of 2008 the cities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Coon Rapids, and Shoreview exercised
their intent to opt out of V1VIN and their agreements will terminate on December 31, 2009.
While the V1VIN Board of Directors voted to try to keep the 11 city organization together, a Task
Force was created to explore what options were available. It soon became clear the organization
would not stay together and would split geographically along the Mississippi River. The lodging
properties in three of the opted out cities, along with Ham Lake and Lino Lakes, began discussions
with the NSC and created a Coalition of Lodging Properties to explore the creation of a new CVB.
On March 18, 2009, the V1VIN Board of Directors adopted a motion allowing the cities of Anoka,
Fridley, Ham Lake and Mounds View to opt out early if they provide a letter or resolution to V1VIN
by Apri130, 2009, of their intent to opt out which will thereby terminate the Agreement with V1VIN
effective December 31, 2009.
The cities of Arden Hills, Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Ham Lake, Lino Lakes, Mounds
View, New Brighton and Shoreview have met and determined to begin the process of incorporating a
new CVB. The City Councils of the Cities of Anoka, Ham Lake and Mounds View have all adopted
resolutions to opt out of V1VIN.
Staff recommends adoption of a resolution terminating the agreement with Visit Minneapolis North
effective December 31, 2009 by exercising early opt out option allowed by the V1VIN Board of
Directors.
RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -
A RESOLUTION TERMINATING AGREEMENT WITH VISIT MINNAPOLIS NORTH
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2009 BY EXERCISING EARLY OPT OUT OPTION
WHEREAS the City of Fridley has been a member of Visit Minneapolis North (V1VIN), a
local convention and visitors bureau which currently represents 11 cities and 421odging properties in
the north metro area since 1986; and
WHEREAS the agreement with V1VIN requires that if a city desires to leave V1VIN they are
required to give notice by December 31st of the year before the City intends to end its membership
with V1VIN; and
WHEREAS the cities of Arden Hills, Blaine, Coon Rapids, and Shoreview exercised their
intent to opt out of V1VIN in 2008 and will terminate their agreements with V1VIN on December 31,
2009; and
WHEREAS, there has been discussion and agreement from the cities on the east side of the
Mississippi River to create a new convention and visitors bureau using the geographical boundary of
the river; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2009, the Board of Directors of V1VIN adopted a motion allowing
the cities of Anoka, Fridley, Ham Lake and Mounds View to opt out early if they provide a letter or
resolution to V1VIN by Apri130, 2009, of their intent to opt out which will thereby terminate the
Agreement with V1VIN effective December 31, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Fridley
hereby intends to opt our of Visit Minneapolis North and hereby exercises Visit Minneapolis North's
early opt out option adopted by their Board of Directors March 18, 2009, thereby terminating the
Agreement effective December 31, 2009 and directs staff to provide written notice to V1VIN of its
intent to opt out by Apri130, 2009.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
13TH DAY OF APRIL 2009.
Scott J. Lund, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 27, 2009
�ffY �F
FRIDLEY
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS