08/20/2012 - 31352CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
AUGUST 20, 2012
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember-at-Large Barnette
Councilmember Saefke
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Darin Nelson, Finance Director/Treasurer
PRESENTATION:
Leah Kruc — 2013 Minneapolis Aquatennial Princess
Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Marcy Sibell
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of July 23, 2012
Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 4, Item 6, line 5, should read ". .. below some other
cities. ..." Also, on line 6, it should read "the mean for the State. ..."
APPROVED AS CORRECTED.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Resolution Affirming Special Use Permits, SP #95-05 and SP #04-05, Permitting a
Garden Center at Home Depot, Generally Located at 5650 Main Street N.E.
(Ward 3).
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 2
Dr. Burns stated last October Council approved a resolution requested by staff which would
revoke Home Depot's special use permits for outdoor storage on August 31, 2012. Since then
Home Depot has abided by the stipulations for their special use permits and, based on this
cooperative response, staff recommends that Council reinstate SP #95-OS and SP #04-05.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
2. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on Modifications to the Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Tax Increment Financing Plans for
Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 6-7, 9, 11-13 and 16-20, Creation of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 21, and Approval and Adoption of a Tax
Increment Financing Plan Relating Thereto.
Dr. Burns stated the Fridley HRA acquired properties on the east side of University Avenue,
south of 61st Avenue, beginning in 2006. In 2009 the HRA began demolishing the properties
with demolition being completed in 2011. Now that the buildings have been razed, we must
create TIF District No. 21 by the end of this year or lose the ability to do so under State law.
Under this law we do have the ability to delay the collection of TIF revenues for up to four
additional years. The resolution before them tonight establishes October 8 as the public hearing
date for establishment of a district depicted on page 7 of tonight's agenda. Staff is
recommending Council's approval.
3. First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code by Amending
Appendix F to Provide for the Adjustment of Salaries for the Mayor and
Councilmembers in Accordance with Section 2.07 of the Charter of the City of
Fridley.
Dr. Burns stated staff is recommending a 2 percent increase which is consistent with the rate
increase for other City employees for 2013. The increase raises the salaries to the following
amounts: Mayor, $10,732; Councilmember-at-Large, $8,798.40; and Ward Councilmembers,
$7,800. Staff is recommending Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
4. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed
Assessment for the Jackson Street Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 413.
Dr. Burns stated the cost to be paid by the 22 property owners is estimated at $32,000. This cost
will be assessed in equal principle installments over ten (10) years at an interest rate of 5.25
percent. Staff recommends Council's approval of the resolution.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
5. Resolution Directing Publication of the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for the
Jackson Street Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 413.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 3
Dr. Burns stated the proposed hearing date is September 24, 2012. Staff recommends approval
of this resolution.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
6. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Ordering Preparing of Proposed
Assessment for the Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2012-01.
Dr. Burns stated they estimate the cost to be assessed to 225 properties will be $525,000. The
amount will be assessed in equal principle installments over ten (10) years at an interest rate of
5.25 percent. Staff recommends Council's approval of the resolution.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
7. Resolution Directing Publication of the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for
Street Improvement Project No. 2012-01.
Dr. Burns stated the proposed hearing date is October 8, 2012; and staff is recommending
Council's approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
8. Resolution Abating the Assessment for a Certain Property within the 2009-02 Street
Improvement Project.
Dr. Burns stated this resolution is for abating the assessment for a property erroneously included
in the 2009-02 street improvement project. Shortly after the 2009-02 project assessments were
approved by Council in October 2010, staff apparently included a property identification number
that was one digit off when it transferred the assessment to the County. The property owner for
PIN 13-30-24-33-0060 has asked that this assessment be repealed. After consultation with
Anoka County, staff has determined Council should abate this assessment. The County will
refund any assessments paid by the owner of this property, and they will also send a letter to the
owner of the property whom should have been assessed. The letter will notify them of the
assessment and give them 90 days to make the payment. Staff recommends this resolution.
SEE MOTION
9. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1,295,000 General Obligation
Equipment Certificates, Series 2012A, and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof.
Dr. Burns stated in addition to more routine purchases for items such as police squads and other
public works maintenance equipment, the purchases for 2013 include two six-yard dump trucks
at a cost of $270,000 and a pumper truck for the Fire Department at $600,000. The most
competitive proposal for purchase of these certificates was received this afternoon from UMB
Bank, NA of Kansas City, Missouri, at the true interest cost of 1.3188 percent. Because of the
lower than expected interest rate cost, the total debt issuance was reduced by $15,000 to $1,280.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 4
The amount mentioned in the resolution should be amended to $1,280,000. Staff is
recommending Council's approval of the terms of this sale as described above.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA.
10. Motion to Approve Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy for the City of Fridley.
Dr. Burns stated the IRS requires the City adopt this policy to ensure it makes the proper use of
the proceeds for tax-exempt debt. The procedures relate to things such as timely use of the
proceeds in compliance with federal arbitrage regulations. The policy applies to bonds, notes,
equipment certificates, lease purchase contracts, lines of credit, and any other form of debt that is
subject to compliance by the IRS. Staff is recommending Council's approval.
APPROVED.
11. Claims (156068 - 156413)
APPROVED.
12. Licenses
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Saefke requested that Item No. 3 be removed.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that Item Nos. 7 and 9 be removed.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Item
Nos. 3, 7, and 9. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of Item Nos. 3,
7, and 9. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. First Reading of an Ordinance Recodifying the Fridley City Code by Amending
Appendix F to Provide for the Adjustment of Salaries for the Mayor and
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 5
Councilmembers in Accordance with Section 2.07 of the Charter of the City of
Fridley.
Councilmember Saefke stated even though there has been a lot of work in the comparison and
statistics show they are below the average of our surrounding communities, he would like to
move they do not increase their pay for 2013.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to indefinitely table this item. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Resolution Directing Publication of the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for
Street Improvement Project No. 2012-01.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she inadvertently removed this item and meant to remove Item
No. 8.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting Resolution No. Directing Publication of
the Hearing on the Proposed Assessment for Street Improvement Project No. 2012-01.
Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1,295,000 General Obligation
Equipment Certificates, Series 2012A, and Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom approving Resolution No. Providing for the
Issuance and Sale of $1,280,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates, Series 2012A, and
Levying a Tax for the Payment Thereof. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Resolution Abating the Assessment for a Certain Property within the 2009-02 Street
Improvement Project.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to reconsider this item. Seconded by Councilmember
Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 6
Councilmember Bolkcom asked how did the PIN end up being entered wrong? Also, did the
property owner receive originally the notification of the public hearing?
Darin Nelson, Finance Director/Treasurer, replied the correct address did receive all the initial
public hearing information including the final notice before the public hearing. They just
received the wrong courtesy letter that was sent out after the Council approved the special
assessments. At that point then the wrong assessment roll was sent to the County, and there was
a typo by one number.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, the original person who was supposed to get the assessment
received all the notices for the public hearing and then did not receive the letter afterwards?
Mr. Nelson replied, they received all the correct information throughout the whole process from
the beginning through when the Council approved it on he believed it was October 25, 2010.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether the person who received the assessment by error
would be refunded everything, including any interest that incurred during those two years?
Mr. Nelson replied, correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether the person who should have received it does not have
to pay any interest?
Mr. Nelson replied, no, according to the County they are in arrears of the interest and principle
payments so they are responsible for any accrued interest and principals to this point in time. He
guessed they have 90 days to get up to speed and be where they should be at this point in time.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether it was on their tax statement?
Mr. Nelson replied, it was not on their tax statement.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why should they have to pay interest?
Mr. Nelson replied, they should have known about the assessment. They were provided all the
mailings and they were legally notified that assessment was coming down the line. Not that it
was any fault of the property owner but, according to the County, the property owner is
responsible for that.
Councilmember Barnette asked whether that party has complained to anybody about paying
that interest?
Mr. Nelson replied the City has not notified the property owner yet. They will be doing that
with a letter obviously and explain the situation on that end of it. He does expect to hear from
the property owner.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether the property owner attended the public hearing?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 7
Mr. Nelson replied, he does not know.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that is why she pulled it. It seems wrong to her. First, it is an
error on the City's part. How are they going to make sure it does not happen again? Also, if
they do not see it on their statement perhaps they are thinking it is not until ne�t year since they
did not get the courtesy letter.
Mr. Nelson replied, right, and he can talk with the County and see if there are some other
options available.
Councilmember Barnette stated that it would be an issue between the individual and the
County, more directly than the City.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she disagrees. It was the City's error by sending the wrong
PIN.
Councilmember Barnette replied, he thinks it is up to the County to decide whether the
property owner has to pay the interest.
Dr. Burns stated they have two things going here. One, there is the repeal of the assessment
against the wrongfully assessed person which is really the only thing in front of them tonight.
They can work with the County to determine what happens to the assessment for the person who
deserves to have it. He agrees there is some room for discussion of the interest, especially if it is
penalty interest, to that party. He would probably work toward eliminating any penalties;
however, continue to charge them the interest rate that is due on the assessment.
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, but that is her whole point, they never received anything. It
is not on their tax statements.
Dr. Burns stated let them look at it outside the meeting and try and come up with something that
is fair. One other thing they might consider doing is give them 30 days to pay the whole thing
and avoid any interest at all. However, they are also working with the County and not
necessarily doing this just as the City of Fridley.
Mr. Nelson stated, right. The County actually requires the abatement portion of this to actually
come to Council which it seems with an error they would not necessarily need to have that type
of a formal process. As Dr. Burns said, they can definitely work with this property owner and
make sure things are made whole or just.
Dr. Burns stated staff will get back to the Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, and how do they prevent this from happening again? This is
the first time she has ever heard of anything like this.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 8
Mr. Nelson replied, he was talking with his Assistant Finance Director, A1 Foley, and he said in
his 12-14 years here and among all the thousands of assessments they have done, this is the fist
time he has seen it. It was basically a typo that seemed out of place in the listing and for some
reason it got changed. It seemed out of sequence compared to the rest of them. He does not
know if that got changed to bring the sequence back in order and actually threw the property off
onto the east side when it should have been left where it was.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated as part of the report she would like to know whether the
property owner who actually should have received the assessment was at the public hearing.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom Adopting Resolution No. Abating the
Assessment for a Certain Property within the 2009-02 Street Improvement Project. Seconded
by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS:
(no one from the audience spoke)
NEW BUSINESS:
13. Resolution Certifying Proposed Tax Levy Requirements for 2013 to the County of
Anoka.
Mr. Nelson stated this levy complies with the City's charter requirements regarding inflationary
increases and public disclosure. The total proposed 2013 levy equals $11,270,674 or 5.3 percent
more than the 2012 levy. It should be noted that 1.7 percent of this levy increase is attributed to
the change in debt service requirements. Most notably the new equipment certificates that were
just approved tonight.
Mr. Nelson stated the question that is often raised is, what affect does this 5.3 percent increase
have on the average homeowner within the City of Fridley? Unfortunately preliminary tax
estimates are difficult to determine, because of both the shift in property valuations and the fact
the County does not have all the fiscal disparity information available to complete the tax
calculations at this point. He had a conversation with the County this morning and, to try and
find a tax increase at this point, is kind of rudimentary; therefore, they are using their best guess
at this time.
Mr. Nelson presented a chart of the property valuation changes from 2011 to 2012. The
residential property values actually decreased about 10.3 percent over 2011 to 2012. The January
21, 2012, value is the value they use to determine the taxes payable for 2013. The
commercial/industrial values decreased 8 percent, and the apartments decreased at 1.4 percent.
These changes in valuations amongst the different property types will shift the tax burden
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 9
accordingly. Because of a larger percentage of decline with other property types, residential
property owners will likely see a lower percentage increase compared to the total levy increase
of 5.3 percent. The property tax pie is only so big; therefore, how they shift the valuations
change either up or done for commercial/industrial and residential properties determines how
much tax is responsible for.
Mr. Nelson stated an average valued home with an estimated market value of $150,000 will see
a tax increase of approximately $31 which he estimated very conservatively on the high side to
make sure that it comes in at that or lower. Truth and taxation notices will be mailed to all
property owners mid-November. Recapping the 2013 proposed levy, again they had the 2013
levy of $11,270,674, compared to the 2012 levy of just of $10,703,000, giving the City a total
levy increase of $566,935 or 5.3 percent.
Mr. Nelson stated this is a proposed levy and is required to be provided to the County auditor by
September 17. This proposed levy is the maximum that can be certified to the County auditor in
December and can be reduced prior to that time but cannot be increased. In keeping with State
law regarding budget meetings for the 2013 budget, they are announcing tonight that the public
meeting for the 2013 budget and tax levy will be held on December 3 at 7:30 p.m. at the Fridley
Municipal Center. They are also scheduled to hold the second of two budget work sessions on
October 15 at 6 p.m. in Media Rooms 1 and 2 in the Fridley Municipal Center.
Mr. Nelson stated staff recommends Council approve this resolution. It should be noted with
the bonds issued tonight, they came in lower than anticipated; therefore, the City will be
lowering its bond indebtedness slightly, he believed it was around $15,000, and this will change
the amount of the final levy. For now this is what the City's proposed levy will be and will show
on the truth and taxation statements.
Councilmember Saefke stated he just wanted to make sure everyone understands they are only
talking about the City taxes, and not the school or County.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette Adopting Resolution No. Certifying Proposed Tax
Levy Requirements for 2013 to the County of Anoka. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Resolution Adopting the 2013 Proposed Budget.
Mr. Nelson stated the certification of the proposed budget must be to the County auditor by
September 17 in accordance with State law regarding budget levies. The City is following all of
the open process requirements laid out in Chapter 275 of the State Statutes. By having this item
on the agenda this evening, the City is complying with Section 7.05 of the City Charter,
requiring that the proposed budget be a principal item of business at the last regular meeting of
August.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 10
Mr. Nelson stated for 2013 the economy continues to play a role in the difficulty of developing
departmental budgets but continue to provide the same level of service as provided in the current
year's budget. A major issue the City grapples with annually is the State's economic condition
and the loss or decertification of LGA. The City also continues to maintain budget cuts
implemented over the past number of years, yet will continue to strive that same level of service.
Mr. Nelson stated the 2013 proposed budget is being presented to the Council, along with the
resolution, to approve it as the proposed budge for 2013. As in the past the City Manager will be
providing the Council an in-depth overview of the 2013 budget at the December 3 Council
meeting in the form of a public meeting. The remaining steps in the budgeting process are as
follows:
• A Council budget work session is scheduled to be held on October 15. This will be the
second of two work sessions. The first was held on June 18.
• Public meeting of the budget will be held on December 3 which will include discussion
of both the levy and budget resolutions.
• The resolutions approving both the 2013 levy and budget will both be approved at the
December 10 Council meeting.
Mr. Nelson presented a recap of the general fund, special revenue funds, and capital project
funds — comparing 2013 and 2012. The general fund proposed budget is scheduled to go up
about 3.5 percent to about $14,753,000. The special revenue funds are decreasing significantly
because of some capital outlays that are happening this year. Also, the 2013 capital project funds
are increasing mainly because of the capital equipments notes to purchase the fire truck and other
capital equipment along with street improvements, etc. This brings the City to an overall
increase of 4.3 percent for 2013.
Mr. Nelson stated the budget before them should be viewed as the "proposed" budget for 2013.
Staff recommends approval of this resolution.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Dr. Burns because they still have a budget session on October
15 and they have some outlying issues to still be worked out, does he feel confident the
resolution in front of them is as good as they can get at this point?
Dr. Burns replied, he thinks it is. The variable that typically changes this time of year is the
health insurance. They do not know yet what it is going to cost for employee health insurance.
Mayor Lund stated one more difference that is going to come down on the revenue side is the
liquor fund. It looks like they are only doing $250,000 now and they were doing $350,000.
Mr. Nelson replied, that is because of the liquor store going through the remodel hopefully
within the ne�t year.
Dr. Burns asked Mr. Nelson if he is seeing any major changes in the budget that he is aware of?
Mr. Nelson replied, he has not seen anything terribly significant.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 11
Councilmember Saefke asked, and the City is not counting on LGA in this budget, correct?
Mr. Nelson replied, they have LGA in the budget but it is in the capital improvements fund;
therefore, if they do receive any, they kind of see it as one-time money and not necessarily in
operations so they have to account for it in an ongoing basis. They actually have used a lower
amount than what they are kind of certified to receive. The State had come out originally at the
beginning of the year with a lower amount that they would receive. He thinks it was lowered by
almost $200,000+.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke Adopting Resolution No. Adopting the 2013
Proposed Budget. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. Resolution Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Transit Oriented
Development Funding and Authorizing Applications for Grant Funds.
Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this is a resolution stating the Council
will authorize staff to proceed with the City's application to the Metropolitan Council to receive
hopefully LCDA TOD grant funds. Fridley is eligible to apply for these funds since it is a
participating livable city and has a Northstar station. LCDA TOD grant funds are a rare
opportunity to obtain funding for design and acquisition of land for future projects (?) stacked
away to priorities to apply for these funds. Now is the time that they really want to ask the
Council whether they move forward, and this resolution will certify that.
Mr. Hickok stated knowing that the City has long range plans to create the connection from
Medtronic Parkway to East River Road and, knowing that the HRA needs a dense quality
development to occur on the vacant land near I-694 and East River Road and, knowing that the
HRA is receiving inquiries for housing construction on its University Avenue lots, staff compiled
three LCDA TOD grant applications that help further those goals.
Mr. Hickok stated there are four different types of grants to apply for. Staff applied for two of
the four types. Staff applied for the two pre-development design grants and one development
acquisition grant. Fridley has the authority to create a transit TIF district on 175 acres around the
train station. Neither the plan approved in a 2005 rezoning nor the recent redevelopment
interests in the 25-acre parcel at East River Road and I-694 provide a level of added value the
HRA envisions when generating income to this transit infrastructure TIF district.
Mr. Hickok presented a map showing the Metropolitan Council's area where they can apply for
funds. This does not reflect identically what the City's transit TOD district is. Even though
some of the City's TOD area comes outside of the Metropolitan council's area, it is contiguous
land and staff thinks it is eligible and the Met Council will agree.
Mr. Hickok stated transit the TIF inaster �lan application is for funding for the City to hire a
consultant to develop the design for the 57t Avenue bridge and develop a plan for how the areas
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 12
could be developed in the TIF district areas under the new TOD guidelines. They are asking for
$100,000 in grant funds; and they would be committing $25,000 in an in-kind match. Staff is
requesting the maximum allowed which is $100,000 for the design of a pedestrian bridge at 61st
also. The total project cost in that case is $265,000. Again with the City in an in-kind match of
$25,000, they are looking for other funds for that particular project.
Mr. Hickok presented a concept rendering by an architect to give them a sense of how that
overpass might look at 61st and University Avenue. They do have a developer right now who is
interested in the former Sinclair site, and that developer would also be interested in the
possibility of connecting his new building to the overpass, thereby allowing the elevator to be
used for his private needs on one side and for the public needs for the elevator to the overpass on
the other side. This could be a very exciting way to tie in the development that would happen on
the Gateway Northeast site with something they think they have needed for a long time, and that
is an east-west connection for pedestrians over University Avenue at this point. Again, they are
talking about funds to further design this. Therefore, when looking at the architect's rendering
understand there is a lot of engineering, a lot of detail elements, that go well beyond the concept
design as they see here.
Mr. Hickok stated the third application is for funds to acquire the land necessary to complete the
future 57th Avenue connection to East River Road. If the City can get the bridge designed by a
pre-development grant and acquire the land the design calls for, the City would then be posed to
work with Anoka County and apply for STP funds to construct the bridge itself to make that 57tn
Avenue connection. The land they are talking about acquiring is the land between Main Street
and the railroad tracks. They may recall that the land between East River Road and the railroad
tracks was master planned as part of the rezoning for that 25-acre site. They do anticipate the
development that happens on that 25 acres will bring the City the curb, gutter, and asphalt
necessary to make that connection to the bridge on that side. All the development folks who
have been interested in the potential of those 25 acres have been made aware of that and seem to
believe that connection would be very positive for that development as well.
Mr. Hickok stated the City and the County are currently using unspent East River Road corridor
funds to have the consultant the City worked with, Kimley Horn (sp.) and Paul Danielson (Mr.
Danielson is very accustomed to working with BNSF folks) to establish parameters and to
prepare design schematics. No match is required for the development grant, and the City is
requesting $256,723 in grant funds which is estimated to cover the cost of both the appraisals
and the acquisition for the piece that is needed between Main Street and the railroad tracks.
Mr. Hickok stated with limited funds, Met Council has asked staff to prioritize the applications.
Staff recommends making the master plan funding application a priority with the University
Avenue ped bridge second, and all three applications were submitted on August 13 but Met
Council is allowing cities 30 days to get a Council resolution and they are null and void if
Council does not support what they are looking at doing here. If they do, of course then they do
keep on course and, if the money becomes available to the City, then they will move to the ne�t
stage.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 13
Mr. Hickok stated staff does recommend the City Council approve the resolution, and staff
would then forward that resolution onto the Metropolitan Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, can they redo the fence?
Mr. Hickok replied, absolutely. Mr. Kosluchar has been talking with MnDOT on segments of
that right now. She might have seen in the illustration they are also looking at, they think that
development of Gateway Northeast will bring alive the Citgo site as well. One of the things he
would recommend they do with MnDOT is start with that segment, starting at Citgo up to
Mississippi on the east side and take it out. They are not protecting residential at that point. It
would be no different than the main drag through St. Peter, Minnesota, or Highway 65 through
Blaine, Minnesota, or any other location where MnDOT brings a highway through right ne�t to
the commercial entities. They would have a different response where residential is abutting the
roadway, and this is where him and Mr. Kosluchar need to spend a little more time talking about
it. However, conceptually at least they thing now would be good time to broach that issue as that
development starts to occur along that corridor.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked regarding the $20,000 on the staff committed time, do they
anticipate hiring someone part-time to do some other work?
Mr. Hickok replied, they think some of that can be absorbed with staff time. He would
emphasize not all of it. They would also look at MSA funds to assist with that local match as
well.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, as far as using MSA funds they do not anticipate the City's
budget would increase as far as personnel costs? She asked if Dr. Burns was in agreement with
that?
Dr. Burns replied he was in agreement with that.
Mr. Hickok stated just to give them an idea, regarding the $140,000 they talked about, is the
difference between $265,000, subtract out the $100,000 they might get from Metropolitan
Council, $25,000 the City would put "in-kind" there, and $140,000 of other funds. They would
not be able to move ahead in design, and the Council knows that in the City's application.
However, there are some of the possibilities, perhaps the County Rail Authority. At this point
they are way too early for that. They are certainly interested in our Northstar station being
successful and having ridership increase. They also realize that an impediment to that are the
east-west connections along University might be stopping some people who would normally
walk across there.
Mr. Hickok stated the thing they are finding is that once this is designed, there seems to be a
number of different sources to get it built.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok is that why he is saying without the master plan
the other things do not happen?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 14
Mr. Hickok replied, remember that the transit TIF district was created for us. It is a mechanism
by which they can earn increment and turn that increment around and put it into infrastructure in
our TOD. Only if we get good solid development that creates a lot of good increment, do we
have enough to turn back into projects. They have probably three good candidates looking at
that 25-acre site right now at 694 and East River Road, and those folks need to understand they
are an important piece to future infrastructure in this area. If that development happens right,
and we have a master plan the City can point to and, say, here is what we are expecting here, that
will help shed some light on what we want to do, the more development they can get in there
which is the one big piece right now. Then we get some increment back in this district and we
can then spend it on things like this. The City wants to beat the developers to the development
on that so we have something planned to say, look, you are not dense enough or we need
something else in here to help complement what they are looking at doing so we get the full use
out of that 25 acres. We can make that happen through master planning.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated even though that is the most expensive one on the list. She
understands why they need to have a master plan, but they do also have a TIF district related to
the University area. That has been sitting there for quite a while and which the City has a huge
investment in. She is trying to understand the priority and the numbers to building that bridge
especially when you have someone who is interested in doing some housing or that type of thing.
Does the City lose out in making that No. 2?
Mr. Hickok stated where he thinks they lose out is if they get a development that is 25 acres,
understanding they do not own it. If someone comes in and builds according to the zoning right
now but not according to any master plan and maybe they build Phase I of their development and
they take 8 acres and hold onto the rest of the 25 acres. Once they build on 8 acres they start the
clock ticking in the tax increment district. It is a 25-year clock They would like the thing to be
master planned and developed up front so they get as much benefit out of a 25-year district as
they can and then they turn around and put that increment back into the infrastructure in that
district. That is why it really becomes an important priority because honestly within two years
from now they will be seeing development at 694 and East River Road. It can either happen
with or without a master plan. It can happen just privately, the market comes in and does it, or
the City can master plan it, work with the developer, and say here is what they want, here is what
the plan shows, and they can get a much more tailored development that hopefully puts more on
the site than they had envisioned to begin with. Honestly, to a developer, more is better. They
get better return on their investment. That increment can help them also. That infrastructure
improvement in a TOD district can really help them also.
Mr. Hickok stated the ped bridge is really exciting and is really a daily reminder who is passing
on University that, hey, the train station is right there. They think they could even have them
integrate train times into it so as you are passing you are always having that reminder the train is
right here and you could use it.
Mr. Hickok stated it is hard to have to say that one is more important than the other but, right
now with timing, there is not a lot of money. This is money that the Metropolitan Council turned
that was unspent in their livable communities account, and they turned it around for TOD
projects. They have kind of broken it into two funding chunks. This is the second of two
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 15
funding chunks, and they are trying to decide which of three things are most important. If they
get this, honestly, they have an early sense from them, too, that of the three they like the planning
better than the pedestrian bridge. He believes they like it better because they see it as a planning
effort that might bring ultimately more jobs. What they really want when they award this money
is to bring jobs and affordable housing. You will score a lot better if you have some of that
attached. That is where the master plan probably scores higher in their minds because they have
the potential then for jobs for new commerce or industry to show up here, maybe some new
housing mixed in the master plan. He thinks that is probably more intriguing to them. They
probably see an overpass as exciting and probably essential for Fridley also.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they were to receive any of these, could it be a very small
amount and, if so, where do they go from there?
Mr. Hickok replied, to give them an idea how that money is broken up, here is what they have:
there is a total of $9 million available for this TOD funding round. Of that, $6 million would go
to LCDA type projects; $3 million would go to the TBRA (tax base revitalization) type projects;
$500,000 would be available for pre-development activities (we are asking for $200,000); and
$500,000 would be site investigation for TBRA. We were asking for the money for the bridge in
the development round which comes out of a fairly large chunk, that $6 million. The other two
are each $100,000 projects out of a$500,000 pot. It is quite likely they could come back and
say, we like that master plan, we cannot give you $100,000, but we will give you $75,000. They
would have to then decide then at that point whether they can make up the difference, whether
there is another source to go after. Or perhaps we cannot make up the difference; we can reject
the award as well.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked once it is awarded, how much time do they have to make it
happen?
Mr. Hickok replied, they want the project to be completed within 36 months.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked why was that money sitting there?
Mr. Hickok replied, it is the economy. Development was not happening, and grants were not
being requested.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, when will the grants actually be announced?
Mr. Hickok replied, for the last round, the City learned about a month after the deadline.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked do they score extra points for working with other agencies?
Mr. Hickok replied, absolutely. Although they do not put any of this money towards roadway
improvements per se, when you leverage funds from another source, that gets you points.
Councilmember Saefke stated he has been asked by a number of constituents what is the status
of Citgo because it is becoming an eyesore?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 16
Mr. Hickok replied, for veiwers who might have noticed last Wednesday, Citgo has requested a
rezoning to C-2 from the current shopping center zoning. Any interested buyer is going to want
it zoned right to be able to build on it. Otherwise their option is to use the existing building as a
non-conforming pre-existing building, and no one is going to want that little building. However,
anyone who is buying that site is going to want it cleared and something new on it.
Mr. Hickok stated, also, they have a live offer that has come into the HRA on the former
Sinclair site, south of the intersection. New and exciting things that might happen south of the
intersection will prompt things north of it.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom Adopting Resolution No. Identifying the Need
for Livable Communities Transit Oriented Development Funding and Authorizing Applications
for Grant Funds. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. Resolution Approving "Corridors of Opportunity" Principles.
Mr. Hickok stated this is related to the TOD grant they just brought forward to Council. This
resolution would need to be passed in order to pass within that 36-month period in order for the
City to keep those funds if awarded. What is says is that Fridley is one of the many communities
on the Northstar line already participating in a HUD funded corridor of opportunity grant. That
money from HUD was to allow the City to do a market study about the types of development
that can happen along the Northstar rail.
Mr. Hickok stated the focus of this program is to connect disadvantaged residents to transit.
One of the requirements of the LCDA TOD grant applications is cities adopt vision goals and
principles promoted in the Corridors of Opportunity Initiative. While the City is participating in
the Corridors of Opportunity Initiative, staff has not had the City Council approve the program
principles. A resolution and program summary can be found on pages 84-86 of the Council's
packet, and staff recommends approval since the City is committed to advancing the wellbeing
of low-income residents by approving a transit plan.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated does this mean we suddenly are going to do all affordable low-
income housing? This is only a piece of pie related to transit and job opportunities.
Mr. Hickok replied, what it is saying is that the City will consider it. It is doing what the City
does already, through its development, try and make access to transit easier for folks. Through
the design of the TOD, for example, the City would be moving buildings forward, integrating
sidewalks, deemphasizing the car and emphasizing pedestrian and walkway. Those types of
things are precisely what this is wanting the City to do.
Mr. Hickok stated, also, after the Rottlund Development at Mississippi and University, the City
adopted the federal Fair Housing Act as an ordinance. Much of the principles overlay one
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 17
another. The City will consider a development when it comes forward on its face and if it makes
sense.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom Adopting Resolution No. Approving "Corridors
of Opportunity" Principles. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
17. Approve Clean Water Grant Fund Work Order Between the City of Fridley and
Conservation Corps (Project No. 11524; Oak Glen Creek Corridor and Stonybrook
Corridor).
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, stated the Conservation Corps provides meaningful
work for young people basically in energy conservation and natural resource management, etc.
It is also a method to provide job readiness and safety and technical skill training to youth.
Mr. Kosluchar stated in November 2011, the City made an application to the Clean Water Fund
for crew time with the Conservation Corps. It was for erosion mitigation work and it was for
both Oak Glen Creek and Stonybrook Creek.
Mr. Kosluchar was not awarded the full request. Oak Glen Creek was funded for 32 crew days
and 300 hours, and Stonybrook was funded for 9 crew days and 90 hours. The proposed work
along the Oak Glen Creek corridor includes tree thinning, building and installing brush bundles
for slope protection, staking and installation, and slope seeding. It will augment stabilization
work under the conceptual project 380. Council has not ordered that project yet, but we have
been discussing it. Staff actually provided right-of-entry agreements that were mailed out and
have received about half of those right now which is really enough for them to begin work.
Mr. Kosluchar stated as far as Stonybrook Creek, the crews would be installing live stakes,
basically plantings, through the existing rubber-crumb gabions. Those are basically the pressed
rubber stabilizing blocks that are set up along the north side, particularly of the open channel.
That will be the completion of the City's project 409. They will focus first on the high slope
areas because staff believes that will be most effective where the sunlight gets to them. Then
they provide additional stabilization work as time permits. Basically they will work their way
down from east to west, along that corridor.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the idea of the plantings is drill a whole, install plants, get them to grow,
they grow through the block This helps hold the block in place because right now right now the
block separating along in line with the river. They are separating and delaminating.
Mr. Kosluchar stated as to Oak Glen Creek, they had a meeting with the Conservation Corps
staff. They could tentatively start about mid-September. As to Stonybrook Creek they may
bring in another crew and kind of work in tandem on the two projects, but they were not sure
exactly when that might start.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 18
Mr. Kosluchar stated the City Attorney reviewed the agreement and provided some revisions to
it which were incorporated. Staff recommends approval of this item.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated according to the agreement, page 89, if one of the members of
the Corps injures himself, she understands the Corps will provide the primary insurance. Is that
correct?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, that is what he understands.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated if they cut down a tree and falls on someone's house, relating
to the ne�t portion of the agreement, then what?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, they actually have a supplement to this agreement providing the City
with a certificate of liability insurance for the work they are doing; and the City is named as an
additional insured party. Really it is not a standard contract where they have a contractor and
they have a contractor-owner relationship. In this case they have a donor-project sponsor
relationship. It is a little bit unusual, but the City Attorney and himself have worked with the
Conservation Corps staff and feel this agreement, coupled with their insurance, protects the City.
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, stated they did speak with Brian Miller, through the
Conservation Corps.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, who is Brian Miller?
Attorney Erickson replied, he is the Conservation Corps contact project manager. They were
easy to work and amenable to the requests they made to add the City as an insured, make their
insurance primary, and then defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless. Those were the key
provisions added. Sections 2.10, .11, and .12.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they have half the agreements so they can get going in
September, what is the City doing to get the rest of them? Has staff heard from people and they
are just not willing to sign them or are they confused?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, he thinks some of it has to do with the ne�t item. He has had probably
five contacts in that realm, and there have been at least two of those he has not received anything
from. Some he has not had any communication with yet so they will do a follow up. Especially
after tonight with Council approving this, then it gives impetus to the Conservation Corps work.
They want to let folks know that the clock is ticking on these right-of-entry agreements.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, if they do not receive some, then they would not do any work
on those properties?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, in accordance with this agreement and the right-of-entry, they would not
have access to do work on their property.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom approving Clean Water Grant fund Work Order
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 19
Between the City of Fridley and Conservation Corps (Project No. 11524, Oak Glen Creek
Corridor and Stonybrook Corridor). Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
18. Approve Oak Glen Creek Project Right-of-Way Agreement Addendum.
Mr. Kosluchar stated basically in order to have the Conservation Corps do their work in Oak
Glen Creek and the corridor, they need a right-of-entry agreement. Staff mailed those by
certified mail to the property owners on July 24. The current agreement has a requirement that
the property waives claims for damages occurring on their property in the course of the tree
felling work They are based on negligence and other theories of recovery. They have had
discussion with several property owners who are concerned in the event of some type of damage.
Mr. Kosluchar stated city projects typically take on more exposure to claims than what is
included in the agreement, and this arrangement is a unique one, contractually between the City
and the Conservation Corps.
Mr. Kosluchar stated as the agreements stand, there is potential the tree removal would not be
completed in full because of the current concerns by residents about that matter and whether they
have their own exposure in the event a tree falls on their fence and damages their fence, for
instance.
Mr. Kosluchar stated if they do not get signatures, basically people on board with this project, it
would limit the value of the City's grant award; and it may add some difficulty to the work in the
larger mitigation project. They may not be able to do the mitigation project with the tree
removal in areas or may be cost prohibited to do so.
Mr. Kosluchar stated staff believes it is reasonable to take on a little bit of risk that is customary
with the City's projects. When staff inet with the Conservation Corps they talked about those
specific locations or instances where it may be a little bit dangerous, and they typically do not
touch things that are going to have a high potential to cause damage. If they were to find a
method they could possibly allow the property owners to have access to the Conservation Corps'
insurance to resolve claims. Not directly, but obviously through the City.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the City Attorney drafted an addendum to fulfill the staff request. It
would be attached to the right-of-entry agreements. It does not require the signature of property
owners. It provides for some equal protection also for those who have already executed the
agreement. They will also get the addendum. Staff recommends this item.
Councilmember Barnette referred to the page 92 of the Council's packet, the third paragraph,
where it states, "If we do not obtain approval from property owners, the tree removal portion of
the project cannot be completed in its entirety." He asked, what do we do?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, he would suggest that for the tree removal portion, that can be on an
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 20
individual basis, they could do that, and it performs well to get some understory growth on each
property. He would say that with each owner, if they do not approve both this right-of-entry
agreement and the permanent easement, they could potentially bypass one property with the
project. However, their shore of Glen Creek is going to be unstabilized, subject to erosion, and it
is going to affect their property adversely. Everybody is in the same boat along this creek at one
time or another.
Mr. Kosluchar stated he spoke with one property owner today who showed him on a map
basically how that stream has meandered over the time. It was a survey from the 1950's, and
Mr. Kosluchar was surprised how much that creek has moved towards the person's property.
The property owner stated it actually moved away from his property in the 1970's, and then it
came back towards his property.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, where does it indicate about the addendum for people who
have already signed the agreement?
Attorney Erickson stated it does not say that; however, they are going to be providing this to
each owner who has signed it and is holding onto it. The City is essentially taking on the
liability and informing the owner it will do so in the event there is damage. They have obviously
tried to work with the court to make that the primary source. It is a shifting of liability
essentially.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, when they do any other project, such as a street improvement
project, is the City not liable? Why is this different?
Attorney Erickson replied, here they are going onto private property and asking them
permission to go onto their property where the City has no ownership or easement interest. It is
a very different situation. She thinks that is a key distinction. Also, it is an owner-contractor
relationship. Here there is a third party introduced.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but there is also signing a permanent easement. Therefore,
why is not now the City's project?
Attorney Erickson replied, but they do not know if they will. The phasing with this project is
that the City may conceivable be able to do the Conservation Corps tree felling project without
doing the ne� step. That is also a little bit different.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked this is only an agreement related to the right-of-entry, it has
nothing to do with a permanent easement?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, that is correct. A permanent easement does not have that similar clause
though because the easement itself grants the right of the City to work on and trespass. It
establishes itself.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated this is the first she has seen any of this related to the right-of-
entry.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 21
Mr. Kosluchar replied and that answers her question about Stonybrook, why this is different,
because they are actually doing work ahead of having those permanent easements here, whereas,
Stonybrook, they acquired the easements and they did the work.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, this is related basically just to the right of entry, it does not
mean the City still does not need the permanent easement which they cannot do the rest of the
project without it. If this were to pass tonight, is the plan to then send this to everyone and say,
we need your right-of-entry, we need it soon, because we want to start that part of the project but
we also need your permanent easement in order to continue the project. We need it as soon as
possible and, if you have issues, please call us.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, absolutely. Basically that is the message.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom approving Oak Glen Creek Project Right-of-Entry
Agreement Addendum. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
19. Receive Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for the Police Garage Repair
Project No. 414.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the roof on the police garage is kind of a misnomer, it houses more than
that. It was installed with the construction of the current building in the 1980's. It consists
mainly of a membrane overlaid by insulation with either concrete walk and support gravels or
planters on top of the system. Staff believes that lining was compromised during maybe initial
construction or subsequent maintenance because the City has had minor leakage that has been
recurring particularly in the police firing range. Also, there was severe leaking in 2011 in other
areas of the building. The building houses police garages, firing range, the recreation department
storage, and municipal center equipment storage/grounds equipment.
Mr. Kosluchar stated they did have some mold abatement that was required, and they had a
costly cleanup with a lot of staff time involved to relocate what was stored, particularly in the
recreation storage area. Also, the railing up there needs repair and is a safety concern.
Mr. Kosluchar stated basically it is a long, skinny building. It is basically below ground to the
north, and it is an alleyway if you look north of the municipal center.
Mr. Kosluchar stated particularly they are concerned with the concrete brick that is there, and
staff believes there is some water that is infiltrating through that. In addition some planters were
reworked on the north side of the walkway are suspect.
Mr. Kosluchar stated they reviewed some different methods of repairing what is out there.
They looked at a reconstruction. "Reconstruction" meaning they remove everything including
the planters and resurface with concrete for the whole width. Move the railing to the south side.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 22
A resurfacing overlay improvement that would basically put on parking deck resurfacing
materials over the top of the existing walk and then rebuild the liner under the planters and
reroute the drainage. Also, above grade construction in addition. They determined that was cost
prohibitive. It was about $10,000 or $15,000. While it would provide some additional storage
for the City, they did not feel it was worthwhile to pursue that.
Mr. Kosluchar stated they selected Stantec, Inc. to complete the design drawings and contract
documents. Basically the design will include a full reconstruction and an alternate bid to include
a substraight overlay of the existing walk They want to compare pricing. They have some
estimates, and the overlay seems to be a pretty cost-effective approach. There are plans at the
Engineering office.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the contract documents will call for an e�tended warranty, and they have a
prebid meeting tentatively for a one and one-half weeks away. Staff recommends this item. If
approved there could be a bid opening on September 7 and turn a recommendation around fairly
quickly with Council at the September 10 meeting for possibly meaningful work this fall.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated to Mr. Kosluchar he mentioned the overlay of the existing
walk and in his memo he mentioned that he felt maybe during the initial, is that the same thing
that the liner maybe was compromised during construction, is this different than what is there
now? Is she mixing the two things together?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, the liner is basically at the bottom near the roof planking from the
interior of the building, then there is an insulation layer, and then there is a gravel layer that
supports the walk In the areas of the planters, there is simply that liner layer insulation, then
soil, and the plantings. If they were to do that surface overlay, they would resurface the walk
portion only, leave it as is, leave the planters where they are, remove the soil, re-line the planters,
reinsulate there, and replace all the plantings basically.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, but if they were to re-line them, then the same issue would
exist?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, they believe that right now it drains back into underneath the walk, and
that is one of the problems. They have to reroute those weep holes so the area underneath the
walk can drain. With the surface prep they may be able to stave off a full reconstruct. The real
big item here is removing and replacing the concrete. The liner itself is not that expensive, nor is
the insulation. It is the concrete, and it is such a large area out there. They would like to do what
they can. They feel the concrete is fairly tight. What they would do is remove the decorative
block areas and pour those in solid concrete and then seal open the top of that.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, is it the same firm who helped them on the roof that is helping
them here, and the City will be very clear with them exactly what the project entails, etc.?
Mayor Lund stated the staff has considered some other alternate methods here. He is not a big
fan of concrete. Do they need to put a concrete sidewalk back on there? With our northern
climate it just breaks and cracks, and it is going to crack whether you overlay it, rip it all out and
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 23
put a new one in there, even if you put the pavers in there. If there is a joint it is going to crack
and weep.
Mr. Kosluchar stated with the reconstruct they actually pull the liner out and replace it. The
liner is the impervious piece.
Mayor Lund stated he just hopes they have a better product as an end result here because it has
been problematic the way it has been in the past. By just tearing it out and putting a new one on
there, he is a little apprehensive.
MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to Receive Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for
the Police Garage Repair Project No. 414. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
20. Approve Sanitary Sewer Smoke Testing Program.
Mr. Kosluchar stated as they know the sewer division is continuously making efforts to
minimize clear water flows from inflow and infiltration (I/I) in our collections system. They do
that to avoid sanitary sewer backups by taxing the capacity of the system. They also reduce
treatment costs which the ratepayers bear.
Mr. Kosluchar past ongoing efforts include a sump pump disconnection program the City
initiated in the early 1990's. There has been manhole retrofit work including lining of manholes,
reconstruction of manholes, annual sanitary sewer mainlining program, reconstruction program,
and sewer televising cleaning program. While these have been successful, it is in the best
interest of all ratepayers the City maintains an aggressive approach to I/I because the City's
sanitary sewer utility will pay upwards of $3.3 million in wastewater charges to Met Council
Environmental Services for wastewater treatment in 2012. That is about 84 percent of the City's
2012 sewer budget.
Mr. Kosluchar stated in July 2011 the City had 31 backups in homes because of a storm.
Subsequently, staff did some analysis because they were concerned about the capacity of the
system downstream. Foth Infrastructure and Environment assisted them with that analysis and
provided a report. Their findings included the fact that the sewer flows in a 33-inch interceptor,
collecting flows from Fridley and Columbia Heights, and it exceeded the design capacity of the
pipe. This is a Met Council interceptor.
Mr. Kosluchar under updated MCES surcharge program that became effective this year, the
City would have been charged actually a surcharge of $400,000 fee by MCES. This charge is
flow based for a one-time event.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the report recommended the City pursue additional analysis to identify
sources of I/I by flow monitoring and by smoke testing. Home monitoring provides information
on a segment-by-segment basis to determine where sewer mains are contributing infiltration and
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 24
services. Basically you set up multiple portable flow meters in different locations. One is
related to another. You look at rainfall events and see how much bounce there is in the metered
flows. And you move them progressively upstream in the system typically, or you can move
them downstream as well.
Mr. Kosluchar stated what you want to is identify segments for follow-up investigation.
During smoke testing a non-toxic smoke is blown into a specific segment into the collection
system. Usually manhole to manhole. Between the manholes the system is plugged, the smoke
is blown in, and smoke appears really quickly within minutes at areas where rainfall and clear
water flows can enter the sewer system. It can identify drain tiles, some rain leaders that are
connected, storm sewer direct connections, or separated pipe joints and services or mains.
Mr. Kosluchar stated prior to smoke testing there is an e�tensive notification effort. The non-
toxic smoke can enter homes if there are plumbing issues such as dry traps or illicit connections
to clear water sumps. The City has to let people know the smoke is non-to�c and how to clear it
from their house, basically opening a window and using a fan. It can find locations within
buildings where there are harmful sewer gases in these instances, however.
Mr. Kosluchar stated locations identified by smoke testing are then reviewed for repair or
correction. City repairs will be placed under repair via maintenance including the City's future
CIP. For private repairs staff will provide notice to the property owners and provide them with a
reasonable timeframe for repair. They are considering six months for extensive repairs.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the capital outlay for costs for the smoke testing as presented will not
exceed $4,000 initially. They will have some supplies in subsequent years. There is a large
investment of staff time, however, because it does take time to set up especially setting up both
the flow monitoring and the smoke testing. They need to set the segments up. With a small
crew they might be able to do two or three segments a day. They really want to pinpoint and not
smoke testing the whole system.
Mr. Kosluchar stated staff recommends this be an ongoing part of the City's I/I reduction
efforts if established. There is funding in the draft 2013 sewer operation budget for initiating the
work but, if flows can be reduced by just 1 percent through flow metering and smoke testing, the
efforts will be paid back in less than a year. Staff recommends moving ahead early to capture
savings. It will also provide information needed for other projects. There are three areas in the
north and one area to the southwest of Moore Lake that would be targeted for flow monitoring
and potentially smoke testing, and one of those is our 2013 proposed street project area in the
northeast area. That is one reason they would like to get after that this year and advance that
work.
Mr. Kosluchar stated he talked with Dr. Burns who asked him to bring the presentation on
smoke testing and whether Council would move to approve the work relating to establishing and
continuing the City's sanitary smoke testing program by the Public Works Department.
Dr. Burns pointed out when Mr. Kosluchar was describing sanitary sewer backups, after July
2011, he believes there were "15" backups with $31,000 in costs if he remembers correctly.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 25
Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes, that is correct. That is a lot of backups. They typically experience
1 or 2 a year. And they know that because the City actually has a no harm, no foul, policy when
there is a main that is plugged and it backs up into a home. They will come in and help sanitize.
Dr. Burns stated he did not see anything in there related to helping people out with the cost of
changing their connection.
Mr. Kosluchar stated if Council approves this, staff would initiate its public outreach effort to a
cable program on public access, along with putting that on the website with stream video. Staff
would also purchase equipment for starting smoke testing this fall, along with considering a
program to provide assistance for repairs on private property and provide a recommendation to
the City Council for consideration. One thing maybe to consider would be similar to the City's
sanitary sewer service, a voluntary assessment program. Somebody could possibly tap into that,
for instance. The City also has a low-interest loan programs the HRA administers in Fridley, and
those can be applied to utility service repairs.
Dr. Burns stated staff has a couple of difficult ideas they are talking about at the staff level, and
they will bring the financing part of it back at a future discussion.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what is a rain leader?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, it is a pipe basically that comes from your roof and drops down and
brings the water from your roof down to the ground.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, and that is a bad thing?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, it is only bad when it is directly connected to the sanitary sewer system.
It is typically more common with commercial properties because they produce a very high
volume, and it cannot be just cast out into their green space which is typically a lot smaller than a
residential property.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked are other cities doing this type of thing?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, he knows of three cities that are doing it and more will be starting
programs. The three cities are South St. Paul, St. Paul, Golden Valley but they are wrestling
with an I/I problem that is beyond where Fridley's is at. They have a greater problem and are
pretty much forced into doing this at this point. Fridley wants to kind of stay ahead of the curve
and do a measured program where they are doing a measured amount of this smoke testing
annually rather than trying to do the entire city at once. The staff can then handle it, get more
familiar with the system, and they are not putting up a ton of pressure on all the residents in all
neighborhoods or some residents in all neighborhoods to do corrective work.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, we are not?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, we would not be. If they were doing a citywide program, then we
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 26
would be putting pressure on a lot of residents, such as a the four areas previously referenced is
the maximum they could do this year as far as that investigation goes. They want to take a
measured approach. They want to tackle the program, but the flow metering really tells staff
kind of where those areas are they have to investigate further.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated it makes sense to study this, but she has a real big problem
with, she has no idea what this would cost a resident. They are going to do this smoke testing
and then say, but we really do not have a policy on how soon they have to get it fixed. Nothing
really in place what it would cost, and how soon they would have to have it fixed. Are they
putting the cart in front of the horse in a sense? It is a huge problem but, on the other hand, the
City could be impacting some people significantly. They are talking about thousands of dollars,
are they not, for some people to pay depending on what the issue is? If there is a big break in the
sanitary sewer, almost anyone would be devastated.
Dr. Burns stated they could easily have a$10,000 expense involved. They really have not had
enough time to really discuss the policies. He personally would like to see them assessing it over
a ten-year period with some provision for helping lower income people with a portion of the
assessment. He is not sure how they do that yet, whether they work through the community
developments program. It is something that him, along with Mr. Nelson and Mr. Kosluchar,
have to work out together. The other part of this, with the smoke testing, you are absorbing the
smoke coming out of the basement; and the City is essentially saying, we are coming into your
house whether you want us or not, and we are going to investigate what is causing that apparent
intrusion into the City's sanitary sewer system.
Councilmember Saefke stated he believes the City does have some policies in place. One, the
City already knows it is illegal to hook up a sump pump from the inside of your house to the
sanitary sewer.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, say, she has a break in her sanitary sewer and she has a clue
that is causing this to happen. That is a whole different story than somebody who is illegally
taking water off their property and running it out into the sanitary sewer. It is different than
someone illegally have a sump pump. Those policies are in place.
Councilmember Saefke stated if you do have a break in your sewer line, it is either going to be
collapsed or you are going to have a root intrusion which means you are going to have a sanitary
sewer backup in your house anyways and you will end up having to fix it one way or the other.
This is just letting a homeowner know in advance of perhaps having to sanitize and redo an
entirely fixed up basement that you have a problem. Mr. Kosluchar has already said there is a
policy in place where the City will televise the sewer line for you and actually pinpoint where
this problem is, not just by smoke, but the City can tell them how many feet out it is which
minimizes the cost of repair instead of blindly going after a problem after you have sewage
floating around your basement which is not caused by main City sewer line. As far as cost goes
it was pointed out that had the MCES had their policy in place, the entire City would have been
charged $400,000 in excess as a penalty for that surcharge on that one day. If the City can help
alleviate a problem because they will start enforcing that, he is quite certain, ne�t year; and the
penalty may even be higher. Are they looking out for the entire City or for an individual?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 27
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not disagreeing with Councilmember Saefke that they
need to do this, but why not have it all in place before they start. Have a policy as to when they
have to have it fixed, how the City is going to help them fix it vs. just going out and starting the
smoke test because it is only a$4,000 investment.
Dr. Burns stated it is not just a matter of starting the smoke testing, they have to start doing the
flow metering first. There is some lead time on that. They will not start the smoke testing until
about the middle of October.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, does he think between now and then as a City Council they
will have some kind of workshop and actually discuss this?
Dr. Burns replied, he will have it all spelled out.
Councilmember Saefke stated the other thing is if you have smoke coming into your house, it
may not be in the floor pipe of your sanitary sewer, but you may have actual sewer gas coming
into your home that you are not aware. Would you not like to know that you have that problem?
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, in no way is she saying she would not want to know. She is
just saying they should have some kind of policy in place and some revenue strains for people
and that type of thing before they start the project.
Councilmember Saefke stated and he thinks there have been suggestions already made there.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they might be thinking six months, they think there might be
this type of avenue. Why not have it all in place? They waited this long, what is another month
or so? She thought she read they wanted to start the smoke testing right away.
Dr. Burns stated they would not start it right away, they would start approximately October 15.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the start is really kind of ordering the equipment, getting it on-line, and
that kind of thing. They would not actually be out in the field as smoke testing until really mid-
October is what they are looking at for a schedule. Maybe a little bit earlier than that. The other
thing to kind of recognize, too, is they do offer that televising service for free. He cannot say
they have had a lot of resistance from folks who know they need to repair their line. They say
they cannot afford it, especially with the voluntary assessment program they have access to,
people arguing their repairs even when they are unexpected or at bad time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she remembered getting a call from a woman who received an
estimate for $25,000. Maybe look at other cities and see what they are doing.
Dr. Burns replied, he thinks they can spell it out by their ne�t Council meeting.
Mayor Lund stated to him it seems like a no brainer. It does not cost the City very much to
implement, surprises are going to come, they are never going to be wanted. Having a policy in
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 28
place is certainly a smart way to go to aid those people, but they have to find that I/I problem and
have to work out that problem.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not disputing they need to find the problem but what is
another month to wait.
Councilmember Saefke asked Mr. Kosluchar even though a break is found in a person's sewer,
as long as there is no inflow or infiltration which the City's sewer department can detect by
televising its line, there is no immediate need for that repair. Would not the City be concerned
about the excess water in the sanitary sewer more than any other problem?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, he is right. He does not think they have gotten into it with a compliance
kind of attitude. They have showed people, typically where you have those larger
inflow/infiltration areas you have some good separation in the cracking, it is structurally
compromised at that point and it is just a matter of time. It may last a few years, it may last two
months.
Councilmember Saefke stated if he is not mistaken, too, in the northeast corner (not blaming
the current engineers) whoever put in those sanitary sewer pipes, left out the gaskets because of
the high water table because back in those days that is how they took the groundwater out. They
let it flow into the sanitary sewer when things were much, much more cheaper. It seems to him
they have repaired all of those up in that area because of that, and that is what they are trying to
avoid now is that excess stuff. The reason why he is kind of excited about this is because he
knows at least for the last 15 years or more they have been trying to tackle this problem by doing
sump pump checks, for instance, our Sewer Department working nights, etc. He knows one of
the previous City engineers even got the City a rebate from MCES because he questioned the
accuracy of their meters measuring the City's sewage. He asked how certain are we that the
MCES meters are correct, do we know?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, they are assured they are calibrated regularly but they are working with
MCES. They know that was a pretty serious storm. He thinks one of the things it opened up was
discussion between the City and MCES about the capacity of that interceptor and Columbia
Heights, also, for that matter because they flow in there as well. They are working together as to
whether that needs to be upgraded. MCES has actually done some televising on that interceptor
and are sharing with Fridley their reports.
Councilmember Saefke stated to be clear, MCES owns that interceptor.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, that is correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what would be the agenda item they are approving tonight?
Dr. Burns replied, it would be to approve the preparation needed and the purchase of the
equipment that is needed for both the flow monitoring and the smoke testing and proceeding to
get ready to do that smoke testing where necessary this fall.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 29
Mayor Lund stated with the knowledge at the next Council meeting staff will present a policy.
Dr. Burns replied, the only two things he is hearing they need are to give the people a definite
period to correct any problems they find. Also, they have several precedence out there on water
surfaces. The City has begun to allow those to be assessed. They are big expensive projects for
some people. Do they treat these the same way as they do the water services? On the other hand
the last time the City did this disconnect program Mr. Kosluchar talked about in 1990-1991, the
City did provide some money to people to help make the corrections.
Councilmember Bolkcom referred to a man who stated he would lose his house if he had to pay
for his sanitary sewer. Was that not on last year's assessment role?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, there were several on the roll last year.
Dr. Burns stated they need to talk some more about it. Any time you put an income level into a
program, it creates a lot of additional work with the Finance Department.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated how do you decide what areas you do ne�t after those three
areas are done?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, the equipment is going to belong to the City and its staff will be trained
to use it. This will be part of its annual program. The flow metering itself takes time but
basically the meters just have to sit there. Owning those meters is going to be central to kind of
pinpointing where the City has a problem. Not everything is going to be followed up by smoke
testing, sometimes they will televise the City mains or try to do televising of services in a
particular area if smoke testing does not reveal anything or for some reason the staff does not
want to set up there. Until staff has an indication of the areas that it is getting I/I from, they
cannot address it. The system is so large. Just kind of stumbling upon them is not going to be
effective in the long run. They can kind of analyze the system and continuously do this, move
these flow monitors around, the flow meters around, and see where the City is having problems.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, what if someone refuses to let staff go into their house?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, if people refuse, if there is a violation of ordinance obviously they can
be cited, if there is clear water entering the sanitary sewer. Sewer services are people's
responsibility.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, do they have to come into house because of it?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, not necessarily.
Dr. Burns stated chances are staff will have to go into the houses. He understands from talking
with Greg (?) that one of the most common things is to have an e�terior drain tile system piped
right into the house and running into the sanitary sewer. Staff has to come into the house for
that.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 30
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that sounds very expensive.
Dr. Burns replied, it cannot run into the sanitary sewer under the City's laws.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated of course the staff will have hours conducive to people's
working hours.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, they will try. Typically when they are smoke testing, people do not
necessarily have to be home. They will see smoke coming out of the home, see if their house is
venting properly. They can verify on a block-to-block basis where those problems might be.
They may leave a follow-up hanger saying, hey, we did not see your plumbing stack venting and
you may want to give the City a call.
Dr. Burns stated when he did his interview with the MPCA person and the Department of
Health people last week, they pointed out that all that water that is being cleaned up over at FMC
and Nyrub (sp.) is going into the sanitary sewer, he asked whether they are paying the City for
those SAC (sp.) charges?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, they actually do not pay SAC (sp.) charges, but they pay wastewater
fees.
Dr. Burns asked whether the City is metering that and knowing what is being put in there?
Mr. Kosluchar replied, he believed it is metered. A portion of it may be estimated based on a
set flow that they have. He is not sure what portion of it is metered and what portion is set flow,
but he does know the City charges for it and at one point the staff thought it was sufficient.
Mayor Lund asked if they buy some flow meters, can they put one down there?
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette approving Sanitary Sewer Smoke Testing Program.
Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, VARICHAK, SAEFKE
AND MAYOR LUND ALL VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM
VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY ON A 4-1 VOTE.
21. Informal Status Reports
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Kosluchar if he had a follow-up on the street lights on
Mississippi? Where the two orange barrels have been for months.
Mr. Kosluchar replied, they do have an estimate from Parsons on that and have been kind of
holding that just to make sure they can make their budget this year because those are expensive
poles to order.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2012 PAGE 31
ADJOURN.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Varichak, to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor