CCM 12/03/2012
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DECEMBER 3, 2012
______________________________________________________________________________
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 p.m.
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
Darin Nelson, Finance Director
Layne Otteson, Assistant Public Works Director
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney
Shannon Asmus, Miller Funeral Home
Dirk Schindel, 6270 Riverview Terrace
Patrick Delaney, 6250 Riverview Terrace
Lynn Hansen, 230 Rice Creek Boulevard N.E.
Donald Anderson, Jr., 7304 West Circle N.E.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of November 19, 2012.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated on the last page of the Minutes, she asked that the words “and
City staff” be inserted after she thanked the election judges.
APPROVED AS CORRECTED.
OLD BUSINESS:
1.Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Code of the City of Fridley,
Minnesota, by Making a Change in Zoning Districts (Rezoning Request, ZOA #12-
02, by the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment Authority).
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 2
William Burns
, City Manager, stated this is the second reading of an ordinance rezoning the
Gateway Northeast area from C-2 to S-2. The area includes 15 PIN numbers extending from the
former McDonalds site on the South to the former Sinclair station site on the North. This is on
the east side of University Avenue. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning on
October 17, 2012. Council approved the first reading of the ordinance on November 19, 2012.
Staff recommends Council’s approval of the second and final reading.
WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO.
1299 ON SECOND READNING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION.
NEW BUSINESS:
2.Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 2012.
RECEIVED.
3.Approve the Joint Powers Agreement between the Cities of Fridley, Andover and
Columbia Heights for GIS Services.
William Burns,
City Manager,stated this is a renewal and update of an agreement which had
lapsed. Fridley has been jointly contracting for GIS services with these cities since 1996. In
view of the importance of these services and the economies of scale associated with the joint
contracting process, staff recommends Council’s approval of the joint powers agreement.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
4.Approve Consulting Services Agreement with Flat Rock Geographics, LLC, for
2013 GIS Technical Assistance.
William Burns,
City Manager, stated the services provided under this agreement include data
entry and mapping to enable Fridley to analyze and manage data and associated attributes which
are spatially referenced. While the new contract includes a 3 percent increase in hourly rates, a 3
percent increase in overall contract cost to Fridley and changes in dates, it is otherwise the same
as the contract for 2012. Staff recommends Council’s approval of the contract with Flat Rock
Geographics in the amount of $30,593.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
5.Resolution of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Stating Its Support for the
Development of the Mississippi River Trail (U.S. Bicycle Route 49).
William Burns,
City Manager,stated MnDOT is preparing an application to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) asking for designation of
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 3
the Twin Cities’ Section of the Mississippi River Trail as a U.S. Bicycle Route. Inclusion of the
metro portion of this trail will complete the designation of the entire stretch of the Mississippi
River through Minnesota in this bicycle route. The metro section of the U.S. bicycle route
includes several Fridley streets currently identified as part of our regional bicycle trail. Other
segments of the Fridley portion of the trail include the county trails along East River Road and
through Riverfront Park. Staff recommends Council’s approval.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
6.Appointment – City Employee.
William Burns,
City Manager,stated this is an appointment of Shelly Peterson to the position of
Assistant Finance Director. Ms. Peterson brings an extensive background in local government
finance to the City of Fridley which includes an in-depth knowledge of utility billing, accounts
payable and accounts receivable processes. Staff recommends the appointment of Shelly
Peterson as Fridley’s next Assistant Finance Director.
APPROVED.
7.Claims (157433 – 157542).
APPROVED.
8.Licenses.
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
9. Estimates:
Central Roofing
4550 Main Street N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55421
Municipal Center Roof Replacement
Project No. 418
Estimate No. 2 .................................................................... $ 74,890.22
GM Contracting
th
19810 – 515 Avenue
Lake Crystal, MN 56055
2012 Watermain Project No. 404 and Jackson Street Improvement
Project No. 413
FINAL ESTIMATE
.......................................................... $ 78,927.65
APPROVED.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 4
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked that Item Nos. 3, 4, and 5 be removed from the consent agenda
and placed on the regular agenda.
MOTION
by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Item
Nos. 3, 4, and 5. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak.
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,
4, and 5. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
No one from the audience spoke.
2012 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC MEETING:
10. Presentation of the 2013 City of Fridley Budget.
William Burns,
City Manager,stated the budgeting process is a year-long process. They start
early in the year with a Council/Commission Survey and go from there with departmental goals
and objective studying, reviewing the budget with the department managers in an informal
setting. Ultimately, a preliminary budget is given to Council in June at a budget work session. In
August. Council addresses a preliminary budget and a preliminary levy which is an annual event.
In October, they take another look at the budget at another budget work session and look at
changes. By then, staff has the costs for the health insurance contract. There are other things
that change between June and October that allows staff to make additional changes. It is a very
good process and involves a lot of input from everyone.
Dr. Burns
stated when they prepare the budget, they look at the legislative context. This year,
they were told by their resources that the legislature was not going to do much since it was an
election year. Typically, they have a very light agenda in election years. They passed a bonding
bill. Staff was alerted to the fact they probably would approve a couple of constitutional
amendments that would go on the ballot in 2012. Practically everything they projected happened
for 2012.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 5
Dr. Burns
stated in the 2013 legislature, there are a large number of new members--23 in the
Senate and 42 in the House. Roughly about a third of the membership is brand new. There has
been talk about perhaps some LGA changes and changes in fiscal disparities. Our source of
information from Metro Cities believes that although there will be a discussion of those items,
the budget discussion (deficit discussions and other more important discussions) will take
precedence over those local issues. Once again, there will be very little in the way of legislation
impacting local government in 2013. Also, the Minnesota Healthcare provision for lower
income families expires, and they will be working on that in the next session which will occupy a
lot of their time. They are not expecting a lot of change. They are expecting a lot of status quo
in terms of the City’s levy limits, the LGA, fiscal disparities, and wine in grocery stores. It could
be a very intense legislative session though given the fact the legislature has used up most of
their temporary fixes for budget deficits. The legislature is going to get down to real business
now and probably do some structural change.
Dr. Burns
stated the budget issues this year were very slim. There are no real new programs or
reduction of services planned in this budget to the extent that staff had serious discussions. They
focused on salaries and benefits. Staff did increase the hours for the Environmental Planner
position. Experience showed they needed to return it to the full-time position. They also talked
extensively about capital improvement and capital equipment costs. They are the largest and a
very important part of this budget.
Dr. Burns
stated as they do every year, they talked about utility rate increases for the three
utilities.
Dr. Burns
stated as to the budget in perspective, for all funds, the City is looking at about a 4.5
percent increase for 2012. Overall, the City has an $18.1 million budget. A lot of the $780,000
increase is the capital equipment fund. A large part of that is for a new fire truck. The rest of it
is in the general fund, and a large part of that is its personal services cost.
Dr. Burns
stated the City’s expenditures are projected to be $14.7 million, and they are 3.9
percent more than the amount budgeted for 2012. A lot of the increase is for personal services
cost or the cost for employees’ salaries and fringe benefits. This is up by $300,000 or 2.7
percent. There is also another category called “Other Financial Uses” and, it is a transfer of
funds for computer depreciation or IT depreciation to the IT fund. Previously they had been
budgeting that within each of the departments. Now they are taking that amount and placing it in
the non-departmental section of the general fund and then transferring it over to IT.
Dr. Burns
stated a lot of the City’s money goes into policing and public works. The public
works part of it is a little bit deceiving in that it does not include all of the public works money
for water, sewer, and storm water. Those are not budgeted within the general fund. If you were
to include those and compare those with the others, public works would be by far the biggest
spender within the City.
Dr. Burns
stated regarding expenditure changes, the personal services cost is going up $300,000
and of that amount, salaries is almost $255,000. PERA costs are up $24,000. Health insurance
is up $27,000. The health insurance premium increase is over 6 percent. When you consider the
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 6
adjustments and plans among the employees, the overall line item increase falls down to 4.22
percent which is probably the smallest health insurance increase the City has had in a long time.
There is practically no increase in the cash benefits program.
Dr. Burns
stated overall, revenues are up 3.9 percent. The general fund’s share of the property
taxes is up 3.8 percent. Licenses and permit costs are up 12.3 percent. State programs hardly
moved at all. Charges for services are up 2.9 percent. Special assessments and miscellaneous
revenue is up 7.9 percent.
Dr. Burns
stated in addition to the general fund, the City has a number of special revenue funds.
The City is by law required to budget these funds separately, and for the most part, they have
very specific sources of revenue which are different from the more general sources they see in
the general fund. That budget has fallen to $1,051,490 or by $214,499. Most of it is in the Cable
TV fund where the budget has dropped by $171,000. Another big drop was in the solid waste
abatement area which dropped by almost $53,000.
Dr. Burns
stated the reduction in the Cable TV fund reflects the absence of budgeting for
replacement of equipment in the Council chambers and the control room that was budgeted for
2012. The cable franchise fee and interest revenues for 2013 will amount to $286,000. That will
leave the City with over $1.3 million in fund balances for that fund.
Dr. Burns
stated as to the grant management fund, which accounts for grant revenues, the City
has expenditures of $106,964. The biggest part of that is for a special rental inspection program.
The City is using leftover Section 8 Housing funds to fund Pat Wolf who is doing special single-
family rental inspections. Also the senior program (Chore Services) is funded through a grant
which will be renewed for 2013, and the estimated cost is $30,000. Also, there is the State
Health Improvement Program (SHIP) which is grant money from the State which is largely used
for things to improve peoples’ physical exercise, such as bike/walking paths, etc.
Dr. Burns
stated another special revenue fund is the solid waste abatement fund. The City had
total expenditures of $365,000 there. Those are down by 12.6 percent. The decrease reflects
savings in the City’s contract for recycling services. The City went from dual sort to single sort
and from once a week recycling to every other week. The revenues for this program include
recycling fees which all of us pay. For 2013, it is estimated at $283,000. The City gets SCORE
funding from the County, and $34,125 is being transferred this year from the general fund.
There is a small amount of program revenue of $2,000.
Dr. Burns
stated the City still has a police activity fund. However, since the City departed from
the DEA drug task force, it does not have any revenues or expenditures there. For the
Springbrook Nature Center there are total expenditures of $408,217. That budget is just less than
2 percent. The revenues for that budget include $331,700 in Springbrook Nature Center levy
money and program/contract revenue is $93,700.
Dr. Burns
stated as to capital improvements, overall those are still large although down a little
from the amount budgeted for this year. The City saved $1,338,000 vs. $1,429,000 the prior
year. The City has budgeted $1,338,000 for general capital improvements and that is $90,500
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 7
less than last year. Building improvements included in this budget include the replacement of
the heating system at the City garage predicted to be $100,000; improvements to the front of the
fire station (including a handicap ramp) at a cost of $50,000; replacement of the HVAC unit at
the Municipal Center at a projected cost of $25,000; and Municipal Center security upgrades
which are projected at $25,000.
Dr. Burns
stated the street improvements include the 2013 mill and overlay project. The City
cost for that is $580,000. Other money will be assessed to benefiting property owners. Staff is
also projecting a $220,000 seal coating project for 2013. Park improvements include the
replacement of the Commons Park irrigation system at a cost of $80,000; and resurfacing of
basketball and tennis courts at a cost of $30,000. The City is also planning to repair a section of
the Springbrook Nature Center boardwalk at a cost of $25,000. The City is also installing
cameras in four of our parks at a cost of $25,000 and purchasing park furnishings at a cost of
$10,000.
Dr. Burns
stated regarding the capital equipment which was moved out of the general fund a
couple of years ago, that budget has gone up considerably. It moved from $424,000 to
$1,065,000 or $641,000 (151 percent). The biggest part of that increase is a new fire engine
which will cost the City $600,000. The City is also purchasing four police vehicles at a cost of
$177,700 and two dump trucks for the Street Division at a cost of $200,000. In the Parks
maintenance area, there is a dump truck, a tractor front mount mower, and a skid loader.
Dr. Burns
stated there are four enterprise funds. Basically they are paid for by the services they
provide. They generate their own revenues. There is not much increase. Most of it is in the
sewer fund. There is an operating increase of $18,500. However, the debt service reduction is
also at about $18,500 and cancels that out.
Dr. Burns
stated staff recommends an 8 percent rate increase for the water fund. It does realize
that a negative income of $59,000 will reduce cash balances from $3,155,358 to $3,091,207 (2
percent). The reason the City gets that negative income is its operating expenditures increase is
practically non-existent. However, the City has also had to pay out money to pay for its debt
service in the water fund and also a lot of cash for new capital improvements in the water fund.
That is hurting the City’s cash balances a little bit, and it has to have a substantial rate increase in
order to keep it where it wants to be.
Dr. Burns
stated the sewer fund is up by 7.5 percent, and the major contributor to that is a
$214,000 increase mainly from the Metropolitan Council’s Environmental Services Division for
sewage treatment. That is the biggest part of the sewer fund expenses. Staff recommends a 7.5
percent sewer increase there and, again, the City has negative net income because of cash spent
for capital improvements and debt service. The City is looking at a 7.4 percent increase there to
keep that cash balance from shrinking any more than it is. It is shrinking from almost $1.5
million to a little bit below $1.4 million (7.4 percent).
Dr. Burns
stated the storm water fund is about even. The small operating increase, together
with fixed asset and other debt service costs will generate a need for a 4 percent increase in storm
water fees. Cash balances will be reduced from $1,368,200 to $1,263,013 (7.7 percent).
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 8
Dr. Burns
stated the last of the City’s enterprise funds is the liquor fund. The City runs two
liquor stores and is budgeting $5,320,000 to run the liquor stores, which is about the same
amount that was budgeted this year. The cost includes a $100,000 increase in cost of goods sold
and a $120,000 decrease in transfers to the General Fund. Revenues from liquor store sales are
expected to increase by 5.3 percent, and liquor fund cash balances should increase from
$342,623 to $443,119 (29 percent).
Dr. Burns
stated in addition to all of those funds, the City has water system debt service
improvements in 2013 which amount to $787,727. For sewer system improvements, the amount
is $65,375; storm water improvements, $46,575; street improvements, $1,123,412; and
equipment, $80,763.
Dr. Burns
stated as to the tax impact, the City’s 2013 property tax is estimated at $11,252,481
(5.13 percent). This includes the general fund property tax increase of $9,972,346; debt service
of $948,435; and a Springbrook Nature Center levy of $331,700. The tax impact of these
amounts is affected by changes in valuation rates for different property classifications. These
changes once again tend to favor residential over commercial/industrial properties. Once all of
the property tax calculations are made, staff has determined the City’s portion of taxes on a
Fridley home valued at $149,900 will increase from $617 in 2012 to $618 in 2013. Property
taxes for all taxing jurisdictions will vary depending on the school district in which the home is
located.
Dr. Burns
stated as to the financial health of the City, its fund balances are due to go down
about $1 million. A lot of that depends on how closely the City sticks to the budget for 2013.
Generally in the past few years, the City has been able to come in considerably under its general
fund budgets and not lose cash balances. However, being on the safe side, staff is projecting
some loss for 2013. The reduction for 2013 is attributable to the purchase of equipment in 2013
with proceeds from equipment certificates issued in 2012. Almost $5 million of these balances
(non-restricted funds) are earmarked for future capital improvements and another $1.16 million
are restricted for cable television operations and improvements.
Dr. Burns
stated the City is looking at a $589,824 deficit which means this is money the City
has to pull in and transfer from somewhere else into the general fund to balance that budget. In
2012 the City projected a $663,532 deficit. Whether that is something that comes to life by the
end of the year remains to be seen.
Dr. Burns
stated as to general fund revenue sources, the property taxes are a lot higher than they
used to be. In 2013, the property taxes are 68.4 percent of the general fund budget. There are
some changes, however, it has stabilized quite a bit over the last few years.
Dr. Burns
stated as to general fund expenditures in actual and constant dollars, while in actual
dollars those expenditures have gone up considerably, in constant dollars you control for
inflation. They are about the same as they were in 1995.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 9
Dr. Burns
stated looking at the economic environment, new construction for the first ten months
of 2012 equals $25,958,602 compared to $27,878,505 in 2011. Unemployment in Fridley
dropped from 6.6 percent at the end of September 2011 to 5.5 percent at the end of September
2012. Jobs in Fridley grew from 21,615 at the end of March 2011 to 21,778 (+.7 percent) at the
end of March 2012. Manufacturing jobs grew from 8,193 to 8,395 (+2.5 percent).
Dr. Burns
stated the estimated value of all Fridley property decreased from $2,293,790,500 in
2011 to $2,064,647,800 (-10 percent) in 2012. Single-family property values decreased by 15.8
percent. Values for apartment buildings having four or more units decreased by 1.7 percent.
Commercial values decreased by 9.8 percent. Industrial values decreased by 11 percent. The
City’s overall tax capacity decreased by 10.7 percent.
Dr. Burns
stated recent market values are more encouraging. Looking at the St. Paul Area
Realtors Association data, the October report shows the median sales value of Fridley homes is
up for the year by 4.1 percent. Closed sales are up 9.4 percent. Days on the market are down by
34.7 percent. Minnesota Area Realtors Data sheet shows that distressed sales (short sales or
foreclosures) are down to 41.6 percent from 55.3 percent in May. The metropolitan area as a
whole was something like 45 percent. Fridley was falling behind the metro area back in May.
Dr. Burns
stated as to public assistance, the County has informed the City that those receiving
cash assistance/food stamps is down by 3.9 percent. School District No. 14 indicated the number
of students on free or reduced meals has increased by .7 percent.
Dr. Burns
stated crime rates overall are nearly identical to last year. Part I (more serious
crimes) are up by 1.25 percent
Dr. Burns
stated the 2012 legislative session generated few changes that impacted local
government. The budget deficit, strong partisan divisions, and many newly elected members
will make major structural changes in matters of local importance very difficult in 2013. The
economic context in which the 2013 budget was formulated might also be described as status
quo. The budgeting process focused mainly on keeping existing City services functioning within
tight economic bounds.
Dr. Burns
stated the General Fund budget that emerged from this process is 3.1 percent larger
than the budget for 2012. The City has modest changes in Enterprise Fund operating budgets
and reductions in Special Revenue Fund budgets. There are sizeable increases in equipment and
capital improvements spending. Spending in these categories has jumped from $3.5 million to
$5.1 million, or by 43.9 percent. We do not typically see a budget line item for water and sewer
improvements but that is where a lot of it is. It is shown as a depreciation item in the budget.
Dr. Burns
stated when you go back and look realistically at the things the City is building,
refurbishing, etc., you can see that those expenditures overall, including general fund capital
improvements and capital equipment have jumped from $3.5 million to $5.1 million or by 43.9
percent for 2013. The water improvements for 2013 are budgeted at $2 million vs. less than $1
million this year. Equipment is at $1.1 million vs. $800,000 for last year. Spending for
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 10
buildings, streets, and parks is down somewhat but still very high compared to many of the more
recent years at $1.3 million vs. $1.4 million. When you are looking at expenditure increases a lot
of it has to do with capital.
Dr. Burns
stated as to property taxes, the general fund expenditures, together with Springbrook
Nature Center and debt service costs, will generate a need for a 5.1 percent increase in the City’s
property tax levy. Valuation changes, together with changes in other taxing jurisdictions, will
leave Fridley residents with property tax reductions ranging between $88 and $122 for an
average valued property.
Dr. Burns
stated utility rates will go up 8 percent (water), 7.5 percent (sewer), and 4 percent
(storm water); but the average household cost will be $33.39 for the year.
Dr. Burns
stated every year, the City does a lot of cash flow projects. This is probably the most
important part of the budgeting process. Staff makes certain assumptions about revenues and
expenditures and are constantly updating that. Latest cash flow projections indicate Fridley will
be able to maintain existing services for the foreseeable future. They try to hold between 45 and
47 percent of the City’s expenditures in cash, so it is able to have adequate cash flow during
some whomping times of revenue receipts.
Dr. Burns
stated many financial challenges lie ahead. The City is looking pretty good but it has
to be careful. It has to project some things on the horizon. In particular, restoration of funding
for employee training and travel and conference expenditures is one of those things. It is not a
huge expenditure item but once you start it you are doing it generally rather than here and there.
It is hard to hold onto good professional employees without giving them some ability to travel
and go to professional conferences. Another thing is staffing needs. The City has filled many
vacant positions. It has four vacancies and there will be continued pressures, particularly from
the Fire Department to replace vacant personnel.
Dr. Burns
stated the City also has growing costs for improvements to its aging infrastructure.
During the times of the great recession, the EPA is forcing very expensive storm water mandates
on cities all over the State and Country. Those costs are going up and will threaten future
budgets.
Dr. Burns
stated along with areas of caution, the City does have many positives. It has a strong,
team-oriented City. The department managers get along as well as any group and get along well
with the Council, too. Our employees are hard working and have responded very well and very
cooperatively to the challenges of the great recession. The City does not have huge labor battles
or huge battles in contract negotiations.
Dr. Burns
stated we have a very supportive Fridley citizenry. Fridley has strong
communications with other cities, the County, state agencies, and metropolitan agencies. It also
has strong communications with the residents through our cable television programming, our
website, and our newsletter.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 11
PUBLIC HEARING:
11.Consideration of a Text Amendment Request, TA #12-02, by Miller Funeral Home,
to Add Language to the C-3, General Shopping Zoning District, of the City Code
that would Allow a Crematory as an Accessory to a Mortuary, Generally Located at
6210 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2).
MOTION
by Councilmember Saefke to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open
the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:15
P.M.
Scott Hickok,
Community Development Director, stated the petitioner is seeking a text
amendment to add language to the C-3, General Shopping zoning district, that would allow a
crematory as an accessory to the mortuary use at the subject property located at 6210 Highway
65.
Mr. Hickok
stated the equipment to perform cremations is called a “retort.” The retort will be
located in the detached accessory structure on the west side of the property. All activity
associated with the cremation process will take place within the existing accessory structure. No
portion of the process will be visible to a passive viewer.
Mr. Hickok
stated the petitioner has initiated a text amendment, provided specific code
requirements can be met. Mortuaries are currently a permitted use in our C-2, General Business,
and C-3, General Shopping zoning districts. The crematory use is not specifically listed as a
permitted use or an accessory use, so staff determined it was beneficial for the petitioner to
request the addition of the proposed language to ensure that the crematory use is allowed.
Mr. Hickok
stated the following is the petitioner’s narrative:
Miller Funeral Home has been serving families in this area since 1929. Over the past 83
years, there have been many changes in funeral service. One such change has been the
steady increase in demand by local families for cremation. Cremation is an optional
method of preparation of a deceased body.
Currently, Miller Funeral Home staff must transport the deceased to an independent
crematory, leave it with the crematory operator, and then return to pick up the cremated
remains for transport back to the funeral home. This transferring of the deceased means
that, for a time, the deceased is out of the funeral home staff’s immediate care. Miller
Funeral Home wants to offer cremation as a direct service to our families.
The equipment necessary to perform cremations is called a ‘retort.’ Miller Funeral
Home proposes to purchase a new retort which will be installed and operated in the
remodeled, detached garage building on its property. Any retort purchased by Miller
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 12
Funeral Home would be required to meet or exceed all Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency air quality standards; and, would be licensed and inspected annually by the State
of Minnesota, Department of Health.
For this reason, Miller Funeral Home is working with the City of Fridley to expand the
language within the current zoning district codes to allow a crematory as an accessory
use to a mortuary. The purchase and placement of the retort would occur when the City
of Fridley has approved the text amendment and the City building inspector has
approved our building permit.
Mr. Hickok
stated based on information provided by the Mortuary Science Program, in 1990,
15.8 percent of Minnesota deceased chose cremation. In 2009, 46.8 percent chose cremation. It
is expected that that percentage will continue to increase. As a result, providing the opportunity
to have this service within our community can be considered valuable.
Mr. Hickok
stated staff had the opportunity to tour North Mankato Mortuary, which is affiliated
with the petitioner’s business. North Mankato Mortuary has a very similar set-up to the one
proposed at Miller Funeral Home. The crematory building with the retort appliance is located in
a detached accessory building. Staff visited the site when the retort was in use to fully grasp any
potential impacts and related concerns Fridley residents might have.
Mr. Hickok
stated the building looks like a typical garage structure, with a stack coming off the
top of the building and a vent off the back of the building. No smoke or odor were present
during staff’s visit.
Mr. Hickok
stated other than a somewhat loud fan sound that could be heard from the outside of
the building, there were no other impacts. According to the petitioner, the retort appliance staff
witnessed is manufactured by Matthew’s Manufacturing and is nine years old. The retort to be
installed at Miller Funeral Home will be brand new and is manufactured by Crematory
Manufacturing & Services Inc. (CMS), which manufactures a quieter appliance.
Mr. Hickok
stated in studies conducted by CMS that measured the noise level of the retort
appliance, 70 decibels was measured at a -0- distance (right at the retort, not outside the
building). Based on information gathered by the petitioner, 70 decibels is the noise level you
would typically hear when operating a washing machine, air conditioner or dishwasher, whereas
the Matthew’s appliance when in operation can measure at double that decibel level.
Mr. Hickok
stated staff should also point out that the building staff visited is a stick constructed
building as opposed to the Miller Funeral Home building that is made out of brick and block,
which will help with buffering the noise. Any noise concerns should also be alleviated by the
fact that there is a 40-foot tree line buffer area between the subject property and the residential
properties to the west.
Mr. Hickok
stated Miller Funeral Home’s garage is also flat-roofed so the stack coming off the
roof will be shorter, and it will be screened on all sides with a roof-top screening device.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 13
Mr. Hickok
stated although a mortuary is allowed in a C-2 district, generally the lot size of these
parcels are much smaller and as a result, this use is better suited in the C-3 district.
Mr. Hickok
stated the following would be the conditions placed on the accessory use:
(a)Crematory must be licensed annually by the State of Minnesota Department of
Health.
(b)Crematory must be inspected annually by the State of Minnesota Department of
Health.
(c)Emissions from the operation of the retort must meet State of Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency standards.
(d)The retort must be properly maintained and serviced by the manufacturer at a
minimum every 18 months.
(e)Mortuary will employ a fully trained, Certified Cremation Technician, capable of
overseeing the operation and maintenance of the crematory and retort equipment.
(f)Mortuary will make copies of State licensure renewals and annual inspection reports
available to the City Building Inspector upon request.
Mr. Hickok
stated staff has determined these conditions are necessary for the proposed
accessory use to be compatible with the purpose and intent of the commercial zoning ordinance.
Mr. Hickok
stated the proposed crematory use is an accessory or an extension to the mortuary
services already being provided on the site. Based on the information staff witnessed and
provided by the petitioner, this type of accessory use would be considered reasonable to be
allowed in the C-3 zoning district without causing disruption to the neighboring properties and
uses.
Mr. Hickok
stated the petitioner went door to door to visit with the neighbors within 350 feet of
the subject property on November 3, 2012, with no negative comments from the people they
were able to visit with. They also held an open house at Miller Funeral Home on November 10,
2012. No one attended that event.
Mr. Hickok
stated City staff has received two letters in opposition. One was from 6264 Baker
Avenue, who state in their letter that they feel it is already difficult to sell homes on Baker
Avenue and this will make it worse. The other was from 6220 Baker Avenue. No reason was
given for the opposition, just that she did not want the crematory.
Mr. Hickok
stated information provided in materials from the manufacturer of the retort;
, "
indicate thatThe Millennium Models are so quiet during operation that you can actually hold a
service in the next room." It is our understanding this is the manufacturer and model type that
has been chosen for this application.
Mr. Hickok
stated a combination of this manufacturer's information and careful design and
screening of the proposed cremation operation has staff convinced there will not be a sound or
other environmental impact, nor will there be an aesthetic impact to negatively affect future sales
or enjoyment of properties on Baker or other streets in Fridley. Further, more than one business
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 14
neighbor that Mr. Asmus had spoken with believed Miller was already providing cremation
services at the facility and were surprised to find out it was not.
Mr. Hickok
stated the Planning Commission held a public hearing for TA #12-02 on November
21, 2012. No members of the public attended the hearing to speak on this issue. After a brief
discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of TA #12-02. No stipulations are
attached. And the motion carried unanimously. Staff recommends Council’s approval.
Councilmember Varichak
asked whether Miller should fully employ a person who knows and
understands all of the in and outs of the process.
Mr. Hickok
replied, yes, there will be a certified technician who will operate this retort. They
will need to be certified before they take on that position.
Councilmember Varichak
asked as far as the air quality, etc., the permits will all be in place,
correct?
Mr. Hickok
replied, correct. The retort is designed in such a way that not only is there a temp
heat and it needs to be fully heated before beginning operation, it is over 1,700 degrees of
temperature. It is designed to meet federal standards for any sort of emissions. If there is any
sort of failure to meet those emission standards, an after burner then goes on to burn any affluent
in the air and to take it down to federal standards. If the machine still determines that affluent is
not to federal standards, it shuts the retort down. It has its own built-in devices to make sure it
stays within federal standards and the checkups they talked about in the text amendment make
sure the machine is operating the way it was designed to operate and that all the safety measures
are there and working.
Councilmember Varichak
asked when staff went down to Mankato and saw the retort when it
was in operation, they never smelled an odor, and there would not be one at this site.
Mr. Hickok
replied, correct, he was standing next to the retort as some of the safety features
were being explained to him. There was no odor and no heat. It should like a washing machine
or a little louder. The new machine’s level of noise will be about half of that. There is duct
work that goes to the back wall. There is a finished looking grate on the outside and that is an air
makeup for this. The exhaust goes out in an area that will be screened. The intense heat causes
that to be a clean emission. It is extremely regulated in terms of the heat that needs to exist in
order to be in operation and in order to meet those emission standards.
Councilmember Varichak
asked if that was the retort that will be installed at the Miller Funeral
Home.
Mr. Hickok
replied correct, but it will be nine years newer.
Councilmember Varichak
asked whether there was any notification to Council of the
neighborhood meeting. She was unaware of it.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 15
Mr. Hickok
replied, the petitioners did send out a notice to people on the mailing list within 350
feet. He is not certain whether they sent out notices to the council members.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated none of them were aware of the meeting.
Councilmember Varichak
stated it would have been nice to have been invited in order to get a
better understanding. At least the ward councilmember should have been invited. She asked
Mr. Hickok whether staff contacted the neighbors who wrote the letters in opposition and spoke
with them.
Mr. Hickok
replied, no.
Councilmember Varichak
asked if Miller has any crematories at any of their other facilities.
Mr. Hickok
replied, no. They are associated with the one in Mankato and other locales where
they do have retorts and are familiar with some of the facilities. They were looking at aerial
photographs at locations where the mortuary is in a neighborhood with residents on either side of
it. Apparently it is not an issue in those locations.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked about their noise ordinance and how loud 70 decibels was. If
she is the closest home to the location what would the decibel be?
Mr. Hickok
replied the decibel reading is about 70, which is a typical washer or dryer. When
you go outside of the home you are not hearing it at that full decibel level. The City’s ordinance
is very specific about daytime and nighttime decibel readings. With the retort being inside the
brick building you are probably not going to hear any decibel at the property line.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if she is driving down the street or lives close by, will she hear
anything.
Mr. Hickok
stated, no, and there is the ambient noise also present, such as traffic at the
intersection, etc.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked who existed first, the funeral home or the residential properties
behind it.
Mr. Hickok
stated he believed the neighborhood was built primarily in the 1960s.
Councilmember Saefke
stated they had some friends who lived there before he did and he
moved here in 1955. The ones nearest Rice Creek Drive probably lived there since mid-1950s to
the early 1960s.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated regarding the conditions of the accessory use, what is the
rationale behind the retort being properly maintained and serviced by the manufacturer every 18
months.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 16
Mr. Hickok
replied, the petitioner would probably be best to answer but he can say they are on a
schedule to have the retort inspected within an 18-month period for licensing purposes as well.
They need to perform that in order to have the State licensing people have the most recent data,
and this was meant to match that requirement.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked, conditions (a) and (b) say it has to be licensed annually,
however, they only have to be inspected every 18 months?
Mr. Hickok
replied, the device itself has to be inspected every 18 months; however, annually
they are licensed. They need to be able to show their most current data and, if they choose to do
so, have an annual inspection to match their health inspection. This gives them a little bit of
leeway because the manufacturer requires they do it within every 18 months.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated in reality they could get their license and then go get another
license before they ever had to have it inspected once.
Mr. Hickok
replied it is inspected initially. They may come back for their annual license before
thth
that 18 months. It may be in the 14 or 15 month that they get that inspection done, but by the
time their second licensing would roll around they would need to have the data from that 18-
month inspection.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated the way the text amendment reads it does not say they have to
have the quietest one existing. For example, they could move the one from Mankato or decide to
buy a cheaper one.
Mr. Hickok
replied, it is a possibility. You would not want to move the retort very often. The
petitioner has indicated their plan is to go with the most efficient, greenest, and quietest retort
they could find. That is how they settled on the unit they have proposed here. It would be
inappropriate for the City to define what brand is appropriate in the text, but instead require that
it meets State’s standards for health, noise, etc., and that the retort is inspected in accordance
with the manufacturer’s specifications which is part of their licensing requirement with the
Health Department.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated there is a possibility there could be a louder unit here which
would then increase the decibel level.
Mr. Hickok
stated she should ask the petitioner directly. It is their intention to buy the state-of-
the art equipment for this facility.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked do they know how old the EPA standards are relating to the
retorts/crematories. When were they last updated?
Mr. Hickok
replied, with the growing popularity of this and with the EPA’s interest in having
annual inspections on these, they are not going to want to be behind the standards for protecting
the environment which is their job. He is certain the federal standards are designed in a way and
are current in order to keep up with the trend of cremation they are seeing.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 17
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated she did look up emissions and how safe retorts are, etc. She
obtained a lot of information and some of it is very involved and from all over the world with
different studies done. For example, in Japan they do 80 percent cremation of bodies. There
were a couple of recent cases in North St. Paul and Jordan. She does not know enough about
them and would like to investigate this before it actually comes back to them and have staff do
the same. In North St. Paul, they insisted there be an environmental assessment done related to
retorts. Jordan had one that was close to a daycare center. In San Diego recently, their text
amendment stated it had to be at least 650 feet away from residential. In Pittsburgh they passed
a text amendment where they could only have retorts in industrial areas.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated as a nurse, she knows whenever they take someone’s mercury
fillings out of their teeth they have to take care of it in a very special way. John Marty has
worked on some things related to this. He has not been able to pass any of the laws related to
emissions, but some of it is both PCDDFS’s and mercury related to fillings and also to some
different prosthetic devices people have which are incinerated and those emissions going into the
air. Some of the information showed it had been some time since the EPA standards were
updated.
Mr. Hickok
replied the U.S. EPA are the standards we would use. Our federal EPA standards
are very strict and have been for a long time. You do not bring an appliance/device without
meeting air quality standards. These are extremely carefully monitored because of precisely
what Councilmember Bolkcom is talking about. Hospitals themselves have these. It would not
be happening at the hospital if it was not safe for the people around them.
Mr. Hickok
stated the Jordan case started with maybe not a perfect staff analysis and
recommendation; however, neighbors immediately said they did not want it. What the staff had
said there is through a special use permit, they could allow that use and the neighbors said, no,
you could not. There is a little liberal interpretation of the law basically that got this case started.
It went to a Court of Appeals where it was overturned and ultimately it went to the Supreme
Court. What it came down to was, it was not whether staff correctly interpreted the ordinance to
begin with properly. However, instead their language said “funeral home.” The federal statute
includes the dictionary standard and also the State Statute says that a funeral home is a place for
the preparation of a body and it does not have a number of different ways the body can be
prepared for burial. Ultimately, it was decided this was not about emissions in Jordan. This was
about people wanting to fight about whether it was appropriate to have the use there. There was
a lot of back and forth as to whether staff had the authority to do this. Basically it came down to
the words.
Mr. Hickok
stated Fridley is not in the same situation as Jordan because if our ordinance said
“funeral home,” they could have just gone ahead and operated. They could have installed this
because they are preparing a body for burial. The term “mortuary” is not as generous, and the
petitioner has gone along with staff’s recommendation to do a text amendment in order to make
this proper.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 18
Darcy Erickson
, City Attorney, stated in Jordan they were construing an entirely different term.
The case is not quite the same.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated she is trying to understand the information she found and
figure out how it is similar to what we have.
Attorney Erickson
stated she does not know that you can apply the Jordan analysis because it
was construction of the City’s zoning ordinance as opposed to any type of emissions issue. The
legal issue at heart there was whether crematory was within the term “funeral home.” As she
recalls the fight itself did not deal with EPA emissions standards. Here we are using a different
term.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked whether North St. Paul or Jordan had anything to do with
emissions
Attorney Erickson
replied she cannot speak to their intentions but the challenge was involving
application of the zoning ordinances. She is not as familiar with the North St. Paul case. She
followed the Jordan case more closely as it was more recent.
Mr. Hickok
stated it is standards and older standard and other country standards where people
would maybe imagine this might be in their neighborhood before it happens. Staff’s role in
recommending to the Planning Commission and the Council is to protect the City’s interests and
make sure that what is being introduced through a text amendment is not something they will
regret later. If it is, staff does not want to be recommending it. A lot of analysis has gone into
this and a lot of inspection of working retorts, and there has been a lot of aerial analysis of other
locations where there are retorts in general proximity to residential areas. You would be very
surprised to see how close some of these are to residential areas.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked in the metro area.
Mr. Hickok
replied yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked where they were.
Mr. Hickok
replied he did not have any with him but would be glad to get them for her.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated part of her responsibility as a city councilmember is to protect
the people who live near this. Not only is the business itself important to our City but also the
residents who live near the business. The cases were not just in the metro area but all over the
country including Peters Township, San Diego, and Pittsburgh. If she read those right some
were related to emissions and whether mercury is going in the air, and what is too much. She
would also like to look at some of John Marty’s information. He felt pretty strong and has
brought it up more than once as a bill. She would like to see some of that history. She also
would like to know what other communities actually have them in the metro area, and if they just
went ahead because of where it was or if it was related to zoning.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 19
Mr. Hickok
stated it is fair to say it all starts on concern about emissions. In the case of Jordan
it comes down to, well, were they able to? Without any sort of proof of what the emissions were,
were they able to grant this in the first place? It gets down to antics about what it says in the law
there and, as Attorney Erickson said, it never really got down to what the emissions issues were.
It was about whether they were within their bounds to be able to grant this, and it was on the
grounds of zoning. Those are things you could google all over the country and people would
say, I do not want it next to me, etc. In order to make a good decision, you would need to know
whether it is a real issue with respect to emissions, and with what they are seeing here, according
to State standards, it is not.
Councilmember Saefke
stated as far as being in neighborhoods, he believes the Cremation
Society of Minnesota on France Avenue (which is kind of on a similar strip of commercial area)
has a retort on site. Right behind them is a residential neighborhood, one of which is the N.C.
Little Memorial Hospice. That is one that he knows of that is right in the neighorhood similar to
the area they are talking about today.
Councilmember Saefke
asked why the chimney needed to be screened when fireplace chimneys
do not.
Mr. Hickok
replied, it does not need to be screened but the petitioner chose to do so. Miller
does do a very nice job of keeping their site up. Their landscaping is very well done, their
parking lot is always beautifully striped and with no weeds, and their curbing/edging is all well
done. They just do not want this objectionable view to be unscreened.
Councilmember Saefke
stated in the packet that was delivered was from the manufacturer with
the proposed retort, emissions data on combustion affluence stuff. He wondered if the petitioner
could explain what these are and if it did test for things like mercury, etc.
Dirk Schindel,
6270 Riverview Terrace, asked whether they misunderstood when Mayor Lund
invited comments on Dr. Burns’ presentation of the budget? Did that also mean inviting
comments on the City levy for next year?
Mayor Lund
replied, yes, he had asked for public comment on his budget. He stated to Mr.
Schindel he could come to the next meeting as that is when Council will be taking action on the
City’s budget.
Mr. Schindel
asked whether they missed their opportunity tonight?
Mayor Lund
stated he will give them an opportunity if they can wait until after this item.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated the actual levy is before Council next Monday.
Shannon Asmus
, Miller Funeral Home, stated regarding having the State inspection every 12
months and the manufacturer every 18 months, the State Department of Health comes out every
year and does their inspection. The manufacturer suggests they do inspections every 12-18
months. They put 18 months down so if it comes down to the 12 month, and they have not been
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 20
there at that point, they are not shut down. They want to do it every 12 months. They have two
other crematories operating in the State, and they inspect them annually. They anticipate they
will inspect this one annually but, if they are within a window of a week or two or a month, they
do not want to have to shut down for that reason. That is the reason for the 18 months.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked where the other one was besides Mankato.
Mr. Asmus
replied they have one in Fergus Falls.
Mr. Asmus
stated currently there are 51+ crematories in the State of Minnesota. The most
active crematory does about 2,000 crematories a year. The lowest volume crematory does about
28 according to State records going back to about 2010. The crematories have operated without
incident within this State. He presented aerial views of metro crematories in residential
neighborhoods, including Brooklyn Park, South Minneapolis, and the Fridley location.
Mr. Asmus
stated when they were working with Mr. Hickok, they wanted to assure the City of
Fridley they would be operating within the State guidelines and be a good neighbor to the City
and be a good neighbor to the residents who live right there. They really focused on making sure
the crematory would be state of the art. The crematory could be moved from one location to
another. It is highly unlikely, and he can assure them they are not going to do that. They wanted
to make sure the City was comfortable, that they would be inspected annually, that they would
follow the guidelines. When he was working with the City and Mr. Hickok, he wanted to make
sure the City understood they would be trained to operate the crematory. When he talked with
CNS they said there is an internal issue and an external issue if you do not know how to operate
a crematory. The internal issue would be them and there would be high gas usage and would be
operator error. If you have an external issue you have a lot of smoke, and it is operator error.
They do not want that. It would shut the machine down, and it would not be good for them or
for the community. They will have one of their staff members trained to operate the crematory
in the proper fashion.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if that technician is on vacation or sick would there be any
cremations being done.
Mr. Asmus
replied, they would still operate there. If there any questions, the technician would
be on call and the manufacturer is 24-hour service. If there ever were any questions, they would
ask their staff who are not trained, not to cremate.
Mr. Asmus
stated regarding the Jordan case, that has been a question in the minds of many
people here in the State and certainly in the funeral service any time you want a crematory. He
has the Findings of Fact from the Department of Health he provided Council. In the Jordan case,
there were a lot of questions about pollution and mercury. The residents had a lot of questions,
and they asked for EAW he believed it was; and the State Health Department got involved.
Mr. Asmus
referred Council to the section of his handout, (c) Harmful health affects to humans.
Half way down the first paragraph, the Minnesota Department of Health disagrees “evidence
shows that there may be the potential for significant environmental effects in the form of adverse
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 21
human health effects for the following reasons. . . .“ For the next nine pages it goes through and
documents why it is not a harmful effect to humans or the environment. Mercury can be
identified in most sections of the next nine pages. Section (d), halfway down through paragraph
(1) it states, “Overall even with the use of fossil fuel as a heat source, cremation contributes very
little to the atmospheric water or soil pollution by metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium; but it
may have gasses such as carbon dioxide.” At that point he would refer them to the stack test
done which should have been included in Council’s packet. The company who performed the
test is an independent testing agency for industrial companies. They have no bias for or against
funeral service or a crematory.
Mr. Asmus
referred Council to page 2, the flue gas, what is coming out of the stack, you have
0, CO, CO, and M. You have oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.
2212
When you get to carbon monoxide, the bad gas, you follow that straight across, there was –0-
percent coming out. They tested for that. When you add those numbers, that is the flue gas that
is coming out of the stack at 100 percent. When you go down to the emission data, they look at
the averages. When you look at the pounds per hour and all of those are negligible when you
look at what is coming out of the stack. Does it fit into the state guidelines, absolutely; and does
it fit into the federal guidelines (that is who the petitioner works under), absolutely.
Mr. Asmus
stated he is not an engineer and he cannot be very specific. He talked with the
manufacturer who stated there is nothing they want to hide from anybody.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if Mr. Asmus was familiar with any of the concerns Senator
Marty had relating to mercury and mercury emissions.
Mr. Asmus
replied, to specific questions, he is not. He knows that Senator Marty worked with
the Minnesota Funeral Directors Association looking at mercury and teeth and working with the
Department of Mortuary Science to figure out if there is a way to reduce mercury emissions
coming from the stack. They worked with the School of Dentistry to see what they could come
up with there. If you go through this Fact Finding from the Jordan case, they will go through the
amount of mercury that is created, what type of mercury it is, and how harmful it is to the
environment. It goes into what a funeral service contributes and how they are reducing that
amount. Today cavities are being filled with other substances. The amount of mercury that is
being used by the dental association is being reduced. The longer people live, the less teeth
people have. That is all contributed to the reduction in the amount of mercury.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked how many cremations does he anticipate having done at this
facility.
Mr. Asmus
stated Miller Funeral Homes services approximately 220 families a year. That
number is increasing. As far as the ownership, they have affiliates within the City. The State
average is 360 cremations. They would consider that to be maxed out. He cannot imagine there
would be that many.
Councilmember Varichak
asked why they decided to have a retort at this site.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 22
Mr. Asmus
replied because of how the property is laid out. They also looked at the number of
families being served by this facility. The cremation here is approximately 60 percent of
families who choose cremation.
Councilmember Varichak
stated right now they take the bodies to an offsite location. She
asked if they would handle cremations for other funeral homes.
Mr. Asmus
replied not for ones they are not affiliated with.
Councilmember Barnette
asked if Mr. DeShaw had a retort in Andover.
Mr. Asmus
replied correct. The Andover location does not do a lot of funerals at this point.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if the signage would change.
Mr. Asmus
replied, right now their sign on the wall of the funeral home says, “Miller Funeral
Home and Anoka Ramsey Cremation Society.” The neon sign does not say that.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if they would change the neon sign.
Mr. Asmus
replied, he did not know what the cost would be for that. He would like to if he
could.
Mr. Hickok
stated he thinks that is why people were thinking they were already doing cremation
services there because of what it says on the building. Staff initially questioned that.
MOTION
by Councilmember Varichak to receive the Minnesota Department of Health packet
regarding the Jordan case. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION
by Councilmember Varichak to accept the CMS Crematory Manufacturing, Inc.
packet received from Shannon Asmus. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked that the item not come back in January. She would like to do
some more investigation. She asked Mr. Hickok if staff was planning on having the first reading
on December 10.
Mr. Hickok
replied, they were going to have the first reading. There is a bit of a timing issue.
The petitioner had made a permit application and has a certain amount of time in order to get that
back and renegotiated. Staff had asked the petitioner to get the text amendment first. They have
only 120 days in which they can then petition to have the permit issued. They are hoping to not
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 23
get into that. They were hoping the first reading would be next week. The second reading would
be the first meeting in January and that would get them in still within that 120 days.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked the City Attorney if there is something they can do to extend
the permitting process. She does not have adequate time to do the research she wants to do, and
she does not want to wait until the second reading to make any changes.
Attorney Erickson
asked Mr. Hickok if the permit he is referencing is the State permit for this
facility.
Mr. Hickok
replied, the building permit. When a building permit is rejected with cause, the
petitioner has a certain amount of time to appeal. If the text amendment is approved, this will be
a non-issue. If it is not approved, the petitioner has to decide whether to appeal their permit not
being issued. Frankly, he thinks they would just prefer to get through the text amendment stuff
and not worry about that permit issue.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if there is some way to possibly to extend this.
Attorney Erickson
replied she would have to analyze it. She does not have those sections
directly in front of her.
Mayor Lund
pointed out since there is still a first and second reading they have a month to do
any other investigation.
Councilmember Bolkcom
replied, yes, but normally the first reading is where the changes are
made and the second one is any last little finishes.
Attorney Erickson
stated if what he is referencing in the staff report is the 60-day deadline for
the text amendment.
Mr. Hickok
replied this is a bit more complicated. There was a permit application that came in
to do this prior to going through any sort of text amendment. It was staff’s determination that a
text amendment is necessary first before you get a permit. A permit cannot issue until a text
amendment is approved. The petitioner has until he believed it is January 15 is the 120 days in
which they have time to appeal a permit that did not issue for cause. Having the first reading at
the first January meeting gets the petition in before that time. That was the timing issue. If it
needs to be extended, it needs to be extended, and the other issue is theirs.
Attorney Erickson
asked whether the applicant would be willing to agree to an extension of the
120-day deadline?
Mr. Asmus
replied they would prefer not to have that extension. Not that they are trying to hide
behind anything. They did go to the neighbors and asked them their opinions and asked them to
come to the open house. They declined to come. Also, nobody came to the Planning
Commission meeting and they are here tonight with nobody here. They would like to move this
forward.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 24
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked what is his hesitancy with waiting another few weeks.
Mr. Asmus
replied, they are not hesitant about it and they also are not trying to hide anything
either. The information is clear. The Minnesota Department of Health has weighed in on their
opinion of the health specifications and environmental issues and there just has not been any.
There are 50 plus crematories operating in the State of Minnesota. There are no issues
throughout the State. There are 36 crematories operating within or near residential areas without
incident. The technology is there to make sure it is safe and clean and non-intrusive. They
would like to move forward if they can.
Attorney Erickson
stated the City needs to decide whether it wants to address this application
prior to the expiration of that deadline.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked when the text amendment came to the City and when the
permit was applied for.
Mr. Hickok
replied, it has followed a very standard process. He does not have the original
application with him.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked when is the last date for that.
Attorney Erickson
replied she believes it says December 17 is the 60-day. In order to have the
60-day extension date as well would be February 14.
Mr. Hickok
stated he wants to be clear, and they do not need the petitioner’s permission, to
extend in writing before the second reading, so you are in your second day, 120-day window.
You are safe in terms of 15.99. They are talking about a separate 120-day period. That is the
time within which the petitioner can react to the City rejecting a permit for lack of having a text
amendment. For lack of having zoning foundation. This is an important distinction to make.
The City will put in writing and make it clear that it will not do the second reading before the
120-days and that is going to take at least until the first reading. They always anticipated that.
The letter would go out. That is standard in text amendment. The timing is such that with the
first and second reading that is how it works.
Mr. Hickok
stated the other 120 days has to do with a building permit the City rejected, and the
petitioner legally has a certain amount of time to respond to that rejection. They would prefer
just to have a text amendment and move on and do their thing. The petitioner is not being bullish
and drawing a line in the sand about the 120-day 15.99, but he has partners who want to make
sure they do not lose the opportunity on the building permit if they need to petition the court for
a writ of mandamus which would say City issue. That is a whole different process and one they
had hoped not to endeavor if they went through the first and second reading by that time in
January.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked what is the date of the building permit? What is the drop dead
date?
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 25
Mr. Hickok
replied he did not have it with him but it is approximately January 15.
MOTION
by Councilmember Varichak to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 9:38
P.M.
10. Presentation of the 2013 City of Fridley Budget. Reopened by Mayor Lund.
Dirk Schindel
, 6270 Riverview Terrace, stated there was a specific invitation to show up tonight
and some of them expected a distinct agenda item. He asked what expectations the citizens can
have for this hearing on the City’s levy? Can they actually go into a distinct analysis on any
property that comes before them or they defer to staff for further analysis?
Mayor Lund
replied these things have to be done and in place before the end of the year; and
their last meeting of the year is next week.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked Mr. Schindel whether his question was actually regarding the
property value than the tax levy itself?
Mr. Schindel
replied he received the notice of proposed taxes several weeks ago, and his first
opportunity to address the City proportion of that tax.
Mayor Lund
replied it was last April.
Mr. Schindel
stated it says on the statement to discuss the City’s portion on December 3 at 7:30.
That is his first opportunity to come before them.
William Burns¸
City Manager, asked Mr. Schindel what his concern was.
Mr. Schindel
replied his concern of course is the City levy for his home. That City portion
again is the single largest component of his tax bill for next year. He heard Dr. Burns say that
the average increase is 5.1 percent for property taxes.
Dr. Burns
stated the overall level of property taxes is 5.1 percent more than what it was for
2012.
Mr. Schindel
stated that is an average.
Dr. Burns
replied that is not an average. When you compare last year’s combination of levies
and Springbrook Nature Center levies and debt service requirements, that is the increase in the
number of dollars that they are going to raise from those sources of taxation.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 26
Mr. Schindel
stated his point is just the City taxes, the City levy, has gone up 17.9 percent. That
is a lot.
Mayor Lund
asked if he was on the river?
Mr. Schindel
replied, yes.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked Mr. Schindel whether his assessed value from last year
compared to this one significantly higher?
Mr. Schindel
replied, no it has gone down by .6 percent.
Darin Nelson,
Finance Director/Treasurer, stated in regards to this property, the average
properties throughout the City, the values dropped 15 percent. This property only dropped .6
percent. When they do that correlation of property taxes, Mr. Schindel’s property taxes are
going to go up because his tax capacity has gone up in relation to everybody else’s. If your
property taxes stay the same or just increases a little bit, it is shifting that burden from the
property taxes that decreased by 15 percent and where the home values that did or did not
increase a small amount.
Dr. Burns
stated if your home happens to be in the category where you lost very little value, the
taxes are going to shift to your property.
Mr. Schindel
stated when they bought that property 20 years ago it was $150,000. As of today
it has now doubled. The Fridley tax 20 years ago was $430. It has increased 3 ½ times.
Mayor Lund
stated it has been a bitter pill to swallow since 2003 because of the decrease in
Local Government Aid, the total revenue stream for the City in the general fund which relies on
property taxation to be about a third. Now for 2013 it is at 68 percent reliance on property taxes.
Dr. Burns
stated the issue Mr. Schindel is bringing up tonight they really do not have the ability
to deal with. It is the State law the way the taxes are appropriated among the different taxing
categories. The issue tonight is not Mr. Schindel’s individual taxes or anybody else's, the issue is
whether he agrees with the overall budget or even particular parts of the budget and whether he
agrees with the overall taxing levels. The Council does not have the flexibility to change Mr.
Schindel’s tax here tonight. It is not within their legal prerogative.
Mr. Schindel
stated he finds it misleading because he is invited to come before them and discuss
the City portion of the property tax projection for next year.
Dr. Burns
stated but not as an individual property tax. You can discuss the overall level of the
property taxes.
Councilmember Barnette
pointed out there is a time you can do that.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 27
Dr. Burns
stated they did have valuation hearings every April for if he wanted to contest the
value assigned to his property.
Mr. Schindel
stated that is not why he is here. He understands the property valuation. He is
specifically addressing this one line item which says, City Levy - Come before the City Council
on December 3 and discuss that. He is hearing it is meaningless to come before them because
they have absolutely no control over that.
Dr. Burns
replied, no, they do not.
Mr. Schindel
stated that is not what he heard when he talked with one of the staff members
today. The staff member was perfectly willing to go over the statement with him and explain the
rather complicated formula by which the City portion is computed.
Dr. Burns
stated that is fine and great the staff member did not. Council does not have the
decision-making ability to change Mr. Schindel’s level of taxation. It has the ability to change
the overall level of taxation for the City, but not individually. Mr. Schindel’s particular taxes are
determined by a legal process that is established by the State of Minnesota and not by this body.
Mr. Schindel
asked who computes this breakdown?
Dr. Burns
replied it comes from Anoka County.
Mr. Schindel
asked and they do not consult with the City? The City does not get the dollar
amount that is broken down as his portion?
Mr. Nelson
stated the City provides its tax levy to the County. The County takes into
consideration the whole taxable value, the $2.2 billion of taxable market value the City has and
splits it up into different categories. There is commercial/industrial, residential, apartments, etc.
If you look at the property tax levy, it is a pie. It does not matter if the property tax value is
decreased, the pie is still that same size. Accordingly, it shifts the burden in correlation with
where the tax values are going. For example, the commercial/industrial is going down less of a
percentage than the residential. It is actually picking up the larger tax burden this year than the
residential. If they reduced the tax levy, it would reduce it proportionally, but it would not be
anything substantial.
Mr. Schindel
stated he is leaving here somewhat frustrated because he is hearing them say this
is not the right forum for an appeal and yet the statement distinctly says you can go on such a
date before the City, on such a date before the school district, on such a date before the Metro
District, and on such a date before the County.
Dr. Burns
stated the statement Mr. Schindel has is a County statement. If he has a problem with
the clarity of that he should talk to his County commissioner.
Patrick Delaney
, 6250 Riverview Terrace, stated there are a couple of things he wanted to
clarify. They received the proposed tax statements two weeks ago. It says to come here to do
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 28
this. If there is another time they would like to go with that time. His neighbor’s house is worth
probably 25 percent less than his; however, he is paying 2 ½ times as much taxes. Yes, they live
on the river and that costs them $3,000 which he thinks is a little excessive. The City portion of
his neighbor’s taxes went up 1.7 percent. His portion went up 18 ½ percent. If the County sets
this why are they told to come here on this date at this time?
Mayor Lund
asked Mr. Delaney is he saying his neighbor’s property is right next door or across
the street?
Mr. Delaney
replied, right next door, but he does not think it should cost them that much to stay
on the river. Up until this year it has been reasonable. This year his taxes went up $660 which
approaches $5,000. His neighbor has a house almost like his but not on the river and pays
$2,200.
Mayor Lund
asked Mr. Delaney whether he has talked with the City Assessor in the past.
Mr. Delaney
replied he has not. He will talk to the Assessor and go to the County meeting.
That would be in April?
Mayor Lund
replied, the valuation hearings start at the City Council level in April. He would
come to the City meeting and request the valuation of his home be lowered.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated Mr. Delaney could talk with City staff and discuss his
valuation.
Mr. Nelson
replied, yes, he could talk with the City assessors. He did have them look into some
of the values and check with Coon Rapids as well this morning, and Coon Rapids was seeing
similar circumstances with homes along the river as well. It is a consistency factor as well.
Mayor Lund
stated to Mr. Delaney if he does not agree with his valuation for next year, he
would come to the meeting at the City in April, and if he was not satisfied with the result, he
would go up to the County. He must come to the City first.
Mr. Delaney
asked if there was any point in going to any of the other meetings listed on the
proposed statement.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated those are related to the overall levy for the County and the
School District, which will not change your property taxes.
Dr. Burns
stated it does not make sense to go the County meeting or the School Board meeting
unless you have a difference of opinion about the level of the budget and about the taxes for
everyone they are proposing. It is not a situation where you can go in and contest your
individual taxes and your individual valuation.
Lynn Hansen
, 230 Rice Creek Boulevard NE, said he just wanted to make sure he understands
this process. They actually have a graduated real estate tax? The more value of your house is or
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 29
the least value that is lost, you are going to pay more?
Dr. Burns
replied, that is correct.The decline in value of properties occurs differentially
depending on the category and location of property. The level of expenditures and level of
taxation does not go down necessarily with the value of the property. Some city councils or
counties may choose to lower their overall property taxes because they see the economy is bad
and they see property values are going down. However, if they do not do that then the same
level of taxation gets redistributed among the different property classes based on the amount that
went down for each of the different categories. Residential property typically went down more
than something like 15.8 percent. Some residents, such as probably Mr. Hansen’s, did not go
down that far and so he is getting hit with a higher property tax. There is a redistribution going
on which is based on changes in valuation which the City does not have a lot of control over.
Mr. Hansen
stated his complaints are the same as the previous gentlemen. He does not have a
calculator in front of him but he went from $823 to $921 on the City side and he is looking at
that and thinking is this sustainable? How many years now are they going to look forward to this
because they all have great arguments about they need more money, property values are
dropping, etc. and then they have the issue with retirement benefits and underfunded pensions,
etc. Is this where they are going with this in terms of increases?
Mayor Lund
replied, they are trying to keep the line on increases. They have had some major
reductions in past years. In 2003, 2004, they had significant reductions in personnel. Other
expenditures have been cut because the City is trying to cut back. There is, however, the ever-
increasing cost of doing business, even to maintain levels of service.
Dr. Burns
stated last year the City had six vacancies at this time and now it has four. As to the
state pension system, he checked on it and the City’s is in pretty decent shape. He does not think
that is going to cause them a problem. He did mention that the City’s residential values, based
on October data, are going up. The valuations that are used for taxation are about 18 months old
which are per State law. The more current ones will drive taxes 18 months from now.
Councilmember Saefke
stated he thinks one of the most important things in the budget message
tonight is to look at Dr. Burns’ chart on the City’s spending levels from dollars in 1995
compared with today’s dollars. It has been essentially flat. The only basic difference is with
inflation.
Mr. Hansen
stated looking at these numbers they do not know what is going to happen next
year. In fact they are a little apprehensive and somewhat afraid that they are seeing a trend. His
estimated market value is $215,000. It is not an expensive home by any stretch. It is a modest
11,000 square foot home.
Dr. Burns
stated he thinks Mr. Hansen should not have a lot of fear about the future. He thinks
their cash flow situation is relatively good. He said they do need to pay careful attention in the
years ahead to the capital they are purchasing because their debt service payments are creeping
up. They are becoming an increasing part of the taxes.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 30
Mr. Hansen
asked what kind of interest rate does the City bear?
Mr. Nelson
replied, he thinks the equipment notes they issued last summer was 1.5 percent for
10 years.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked Mr. Nelson if he could go to the County and ask if the wording
regarding the meetings could be changed on the proposed property tax statement so it makes
sense.
NEW BUSINESS:
12.Approve Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Fridley and the Anoka
Conservation District for Stabilization of the Oak Glen Creek Ravine, Project No.
380.
Layne Otteson
, Assistant Public Works Director, stated the proposed project intends to address
stabilization of Oak Glen Creek that had been progressively eroding over several decades. Plans
have been developed to mitigate erosion along with this segment of Oak Glen Creek from East
River Road to the Mississippi River.
Mr. Otteson
stated the total project cost is estimated to be $422,500, including engineering and
administration costs. Construction costs are estimated at $379,800. Anoka Conservation District
is working with the City of Fridley and was successful in obtaining a $339,700 Clean Water
Legacy Grant for this project. The agreement formally allows the City of Fridley to provide
oversight of bidding, construction, and long–term maintenance of improvements related to this
project. Anoka Conservation District is responsible to reimburse the City up to $320,800 for
eligible costs which include eligible construction, staff coordination, and engineering.
Mr. Otteson
stated the Joint Powers Agreement has been prepared by the City of Fridley and the
Anoka Conservation District. This agreement is required to be approved prior to Fridley
authorizing the Oak Glen Creek Project No. 380. Staff recommends Council move to approve
the Joint Powers Agreement for Stabilization of the Oak Glen Creek Ravine in the City of
Fridley. If the agreement is approved, staff requests consideration of the resolution following
this item.
Mayor Lund
asked the City Attorney about the status of the case.
Attorney Erickson
stated she spoke with Mike Duffy with respect to the Duffy property, and
they have one of the two cleanup issues handled with one outstanding. They have not indicated
they are opposed to the project and have already provided paperwork for participation, but it was
been improperly executed.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if this precluded them from passing the Joint Powers
Agreement.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 31
Attorney Erickson
replied they can order the project and authorize the execution of the Joint
Powers Agreement. They can terminate the Joint Powers Agreement if the project was not going
to proceed. You do not have to construct the project after ordering it. Because of time
consideration, the ordering of the project needs to occur before six months from the date of the
public hearing.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if they think the cleanup will happen before that.
Attorney Erickson
replied yes, it should. It is merely an improper execution, and she is
working through one of the property owners. There are several siblings involved so it is a
process.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked Mr. Otteson whether it is fair to say that although they had the
public hearing some time ago, the reason they have not had this before them is because they have
been waiting for the signatures on the permanent easements and there were some holdouts.
Mr. Otteson
replied that is fair to say. It has just been a slow-moving process because of the
number of property owners and the complications with obtaining the easements.
Attorney Erickson
stated she would agree with that being the reason for the delay.
Councilmember Bolkcom
said on page 77, under “Method,” it states the City shall provide all
engineering services.
Mr. Otteson
replied that is just terminology indicating the City will be the lead engineer and
overseeing them is a third-party from the District who really is the designer behind this.
Attorney Erickson
stated there is nothing in there that precludes the City from providing them
through the use of a third party.
Mayor Lund
referred to page 75. He is a little confused about the dollar amounts being talked
about in the second paragraph. If the project is $422,500, an 80 percent match would be
$338,000. Not much different but yet is different from $339,700. Also the reimbursement
would only be $320,000 why is it not the 80 percent match?
Attorney Erickson
replied the match difference is because there is a percentage the
Conservation District takes for administration. She believes that is set forth in the actual
agreement. She is not sure of the basis for the difference.
Mayor Lund
stated some of the residents still have concerns about having to pay any
assessment at all. They will certainly have a public hearing before they do an assessment when
the project is substantially complete. Also, as to whether the project is robust enough to remedy
the problem of the falling in of the ravine and how bad it has gotten over the last couple of
summers, this project really got going in 2009 when the grant was requested. The project
engineer did explain he feels very confident this will be a successful project. It will not address
all the soils, etc. that have washed downstream now but it will stop the further erosion.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 32
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated they have actually made an application for something
upstream of Coon Creek. This is a positive thing which will help on both ends.
MOTION
by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the Joint Powers Agreement between the
City of Fridley and the Anoka Conservation District for Stabilization of the Oak Glen Creek
Ravine, Project No. 380. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13.Resolution Ordering Oak Glen Creek Improvements Project No. 380, Authorizing
Preparation of Final Plans and Specifications, Authorizing the Advertisement for
Bids, and Authorizing Preparation of Preliminary Proposed Assessment Roll for
Pending Assessment Reporting Purposes.
Layne Otteson,
Assistant Public Works Director, stated he is happy to bring forth a resolution
ordering the improvement for the Oak Glen Creek Improvements Project.. The public hearing on
special assessments for this project was held on July 9, 2012. Those commenting supported the
project moving forward. One owner questioned the benefit their property receives. Since that
time, staff has been working to obtain easements necessary to complete the project work.
Easements have been received from all residential property owners. Staff recommends that with
consideration for comments received at the hearing on July 9, the City Council move to pass this
resolution which authorizes the following: preparation of final plans and specifications,
advertisement for bids, and preparation of the preliminary proposed assessment roll. If the
project is moved forward by the City Council, the easement documents will be finalized and
recorded. Required permits will be obtained, and the project will be advertised with a targeted
bid letting date the week of January 21, 2013. This would enable a possible award of the project
if favorable bids are received on January 28, 2013. If awarded under this schedule, substantial
project work could be completed prior to spring thaw.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if he anticipated the City will be able to get favorable bids
within the timeframe and the cost that has been proposed.
Mr. Otteson
replied the bidding with contractors is still very favorable which has been for
several years as he has witnessed through various construction projects. He anticipates they will
see a favorable bidding climate. They will be bidding at a good time of year and, when they do
projects similar to this, they oftentimes set up the contract so there is a favorable window for the
contractor oftentimes to do the work so there is more flexibility which will help drive the bids
down.
Councilmember Bolkcom
said they always anticipated the work would be done after the ground
was frozen because it would be easier to get in there.
Mr. Otteson
replied, he would agree with her. When you do a project like this in the winter, the
slopes are more stabilized. The other thing to consider is that during the winter, there is typically
very little runoff, so there is less water coming through.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 33
Councilmember Bolkcom
said some of the planning would continue later on because they have
until the end of 2014 to actually complete the project.
Mr. Otteson
replied correct. The funding does not go away.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if after the final execution is taken care of, the City could send
a letter to all the residents in the area that the City is actually going to go out for bids and thank
them for their cooperation.
Mr. Otteson
replied that would be a very good idea.
MOTION
by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No 2012-88. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14.Resolution Approving First Amendment to Lease for Fridley Liquors.
Darin Nelson,
Finance Director, stated this past spring, Council approved a new liquor store
lease agreement with ZCOF TL Fridley, LLC also known as Tri-Land Developments. Because
of a couple modifications to the lease, the landlord and the City requested an amendment be
added to the new lease agreement.
Mr. Nelson
stated the first modification amends the address of the leased premises. Subsequent
to the execution of the lease, Tri-Land Developments modified the shopping center design to
accommodate more tenants, resulting in a need to adjust the building number assigned to the
thth
leased premises from 260 57 Avenue to 264 57 Avenue.
Mr. Nelson
stated the second modification amends and enlarges the scope of Tri-Land
Developments’ work requested by the City. The lease provides the liquor store with new space
within the existing building. As with most landlord-tenant lease agreements, the landlord agreed
to build out our new space to a vanilla box finish, with the notion that it is the tenant’s
responsibility to customize and finish the space to our desired liking.
Mr. Nelson
stated because of the City’s desire to minimize downtime during the transition from
the old space to the new space and to minimize costs, staff has requested that the landlord
construct and install finishing items not listed in the original lease agreement.
Mr. Nelson
stated since the liquor store has and will continue to be a long-term tenant at this
location, the landlord has agreed to modify and enlarge the scope of the work to be performed.
The General Contractor for Tri-Land Developments prepared a proposal with estimates for a
number of items the City is requesting be performed by the landlord.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 34
Mr. Nelson
stated from an economic standpoint, it makes sense to do these changes on the front
end of construction rather than waiting until after the vanilla box is complete and then redoing
work that was just completed. Schedule 1 included with the agenda item lists the items. A few
of the larger changes include:
Electrical work for additional lighting and receptacles.
Increasing the size of the vestibule (the original vestibule in the lease was on the
small size and had single-door entries on the northeast corner). Given the size of our
store and the amount of traffic coming in and out, and the traffic flow within that
vestibule, it would be necessary to increase the size.
Adding a tasting area to the rear of the store in order to hold special tasting events.
Mr. Nelson
stated in addition to Schedule 1, there are additional items the general contractor has
received pricing for but were not formally addressed in the proposal to the landlord (Exhibit A).
Those items include:
Flooring (Initially the items did not include flooring which is one they did get
some preliminary quotes on which amounted to about an additional amount of
$21,000.)
Additional electrical (cooler & compressors).
Vestibule door system (Stanley telescoping door) (Staff did find out this afternoon
they probably do not need the telescoping door. There was some design issues on
how big that vestibule can be on the east and west entrances. Hopefully that will
eliminate that and bring the City’s costs down a few thousand dollars here, too.)
Door security (delayed exit for emergency door).
Mr. Nelson
stated the total cost of the tenant’s changes priced in Schedule 1, plus allowances for
additional tenant’s changes amounts to $137,781.74. The landlord is providing us with credits
for the items the City is upgrading from the original vanilla store design, which are accounted for
in the above amount such as the flooring. The City was given a $16,000 allowance for flooring.
If they had kept the cheaper tile, it would have cost the City $36,000 to do that. Here it makes
sense to take the credit and put in what the City wants on the front end.
Mr. Nelson
stated as they may recall from the lease, the landlord is providing the City with a
$50,000 renovation allowance. This allowance can be used for relocating, replacing or adding
fixtures and equipment, and will be used to offset some of these additional costs.
Mr. Nelson
stated other costs will surface as the project progresses and field changes need to be
made. The remaining costs associated with this lease amendment should be relatively minimal
and include such items as security upgrades, video surveillance, network cabling, etc.
Mr. Nelson
stated in order to keep the construction process moving along and not hinder the
progress of either the landlord or the general contractor, staff is requesting that the Mayor and
City Manager be authorized to approve additional change orders or requests up to a contingency
amount of 15 percent of the total cost of tenant’s changes listed at the bottom of Exhibit A for
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 35
work associated with the lease agreement. Initially staff put in 15 percent because they wanted
to make sure it was high enough. The $137,000 has grown since they initially came up with the
15 percent.
Mr. Nelson
stated any changes in excess of 15 percent shall come before the City Council for its
consideration. It should be noted that all costs associated with the liquor store remodel are being
paid for with liquor store reserves.
Mr. Nelson
stated staff recommends Council pass the attached resolution approving the first
amendment to the lease for Fridley Liquors between the City and ZCOF TL Fridley, LLC and
also authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to approve change orders or additional requests up
to a contingency amount of 15 percent of the total cost of tenant’s changes listed at the bottom of
Exhibit A.
Mr. Nelson
stated please note that the last sentence in paragraph number 2 of the First
Amendment to Lease has been revised to correct an inaccurate reference. The sentence should
Exhibit ASchedule A
reference not .
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated she is totally blown away about how much more money this is.
She cannot see it. Keep some of the vanilla stuff. Why carpet because then you will have to
replace it and clean it. It seems like it is an incredible amount of money and they are also being
asked to maybe approve another $20,000 more than the Mayor and City Manager could approve.
Is that the correct amount, $137,000 more?
Mr. Nelson
replied, yes, it is that amount. It is a 15-year investment into that store that will be
appreciated over the life of that facility. If you are building a new facility and redeveloping that
area with the Cub remodeling, now is the opportunity to get a new store. If you were to build a
new store or go anyplace else and add an additional store, you will not be able to do it for
$137,000.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated what is confusing to her is all this is added on now. How
come they did not know some of this when they originally came before Council and said this is
what it is going to cost to be in that space? Compared to what the original numbers it seems like
a lot of extra money. Granted it is coming out of that fund, but every year we often spend money
out of the fund to help us with the general fund.
Mr. Nelson
stated they have an opportunity to invest in that space and make it what it once was
when Gander Mountain was there and make it a facility to make the City proud it owns. Return
the investment and get those transfers to what they used to be, into the $500,000 range instead of
the $350,000 or $250,000 we are doing this year.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated but they do not have any idea that is going to happen just
because we spend an additional $130,000 or $150,000. They are counting on the rest of the Cub
site bringing in more people. They are not just coming to the liquor store.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 36
Mayor Lund
stated has the same issue and is not on the dollar amount overall. He questions the
carpet versus something else, as the carpet is going to get very dirty quickly.
Mr. Nelson
stated they put the carpet in now in squares, and the squares can be replaced.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked but why carpet versus vinyl. Does it make you want to buy
more?
Mr. Nelson
replied, he thinks it gives it a softer feel. It is a pretty big facility still at 10,500
square feet. It takes the industrial feel out of it.
Mayor Lund
asked about restrooms. He said he does not see on the floor plan any ready
accessibility for the use of the bathrooms.
Mr. Nelson
stated he thinks it is code that restroom facilities have to be accessible to the public.
Mayor Lund
stated it looks to him like you would leave the retail floor area and go into the
store or the working area, to access the restroom.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked why not have them locked and have a key for the customers to
ask for?
Mayor Lund
stated they are already into the back room. He would rather see access to the
restroom(s) through the retail area rather than in the storage area. He said he said he was not
surprised with respect to the dollar amounts. They were bound to go up. You are going to get
the basics and, depending on the lease agreement you forge out, you are going give and take.
They are going to give you some allowances which are never enough.
MOTION
by Mayor Lund to change the last sentence, second paragraph, of the First
Amendment to Lease, to state “Exhibit A” instead of “Schedule 1.” Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE,
VARICHAK, AND SAEFKE ALL VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER
BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE.
MOTION
by Mayor Lund Adopting Resolution No. 2012-89. Seconded by Councilmember
Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE,
VARICHAK, AND SAEFKE ALL VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER
BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 37
3. Approve the Joint Powers Agreement between the Cities of Fridley, Andover and
Columbia Heights for GIS Services.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated the previous Joint Powers Agreement lapsed but the City just
kept going. What made us certainly decide to do something more?
Mr. Otteson
replied, during the time of Jim Kosluchar’s research of the contract he realized that
had lapsed in 1996 and determined we needed to do the proper thing.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked whether this Joint Powers Agreement goes on forever? Or will
it be renewed?
Attorney Erickson
replied the termination provision allows termination on the vote of two-
thirds of Council.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked, it continues indefinitely until two of the cities wants to get
out.
Attorney Erickson
replied, yes, it requires two-thirds. Two of the three members would have to
agree or two-thirds of the group.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked in a lot of the City’s other joint powers agreements, it allows
one member to get out with a notice.
Attorney Erickson
replied, that was the original provision in the 1996 agreement. She assumes
there might be a price break that comes with having three cities opposed to just two of them.
There is a large enough body of work.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked who are the three board members. Who would be the
governing board for Fridley?
Dr. Burns
replied Jim Kosluchar has been handling this.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated on page 19 of the agreement, regarding the governing board, it
references each that it shall be the city manager/administrator of each member. That means the
city administrator designates the director of public works or someone else?
Attorney Erickson
replied it is the city administrator or city manager of each of the cities unless
the city manager or city administrator designates someone in his or her place.
Dr. Burns
replied this thing emerged as a result of the relationships among public works
directors. It has pretty much been the product of their efforts and they have been operating this
very successfully over the years.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated she thinks it is a good thing and they are saving money, but
why does it not just say, public works director.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 38
Dr. Burns
replied, it is probably consistent with a city manager form of government to have the
city manager have some control over it.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked if any changes were made to the agreement.
Attorney Erickson
replied some changes were made to clarify. The big changes were some
cleanup with regard to definitions and recitals setting forth the history of the agreement. The
other change that was probably made to it was just clarification for billing purposes.
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated it would be nice to have a redlined copy of agreements such as
this in front of them so they know what the changes are.
Attorney Erickson
replied they can do that. Andover and Columbia Heights might have taken
the lead on putting together the original redlined they see.
Councilmember Varichak
referred to page 18, under Item II. Definitions, Section 2, there
should be a space.
MOTION
by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the Joint Powers Agreement between the
Cities of Fridley, Andover and Columbia Heights for GIS Services. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. Approve Consulting Services Agreement with Flat Rock Geographics, LLC, for
2013 GIS Technical Assistance.
MOTION
by Councilmember Bolkcomto approve the Consulting Services Agreement with Flat
Rock Geographics, LLC, for 2013 GIS Technical Assistance. Seconded by Councilmember
Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Resolution of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Stating Its Support for the
Development of the Mississippi River Trail (U.S. Bicycle Route 49).
Councilmember Bolkcom
stated part of the bike trail is on streets. Does supporting the
development of the Mississippi Trail help the City in any way?
Mr. Hickok
stated yes. They are part of a system that goes all the way from the beginning of the
Mississippi down to where it ends in the Gulf of Mexico. Fridley’s section is an important link.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 PAGE 39
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked whether it hurts the City by being part of a U.S. bicycle route
as far as receiving state funds.
Mr. Hickok
replied, no. It would be helpful in a lot of ways in the future.
Councilmember Bolkcom
asked because there is some signage, is this going to be more clutter
on the streets?
Mr. Hickok
replied there will be uniform signage for people who are biking and walking the
trail. When the City did the East River Road Corridor study, as many signs as there are on the
East River Road Corridor, there is not adequate signage on this trail. Two of the consultants in
that study tried to take the trail and there are not enough signs to be able to know where the next
segment is.
MOTION
by Councilmember Bolkcom Adopting Resolution No. 2012-87. Seconded by
Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
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 11:13 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund
Recording Secretary Mayor