CCA 12/22/2014 �
��n f CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2014
Fridley
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or
treatment, or employment in its services, programs, or activities because of race, color, creed,
religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to
public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with
disabilities to participate in any of Fridley's services, programs, and activities. Hearing impaired
persons who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should
contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500. (TTD/572-3534)
WORKSHOP (6:00 P.M.)
1. Event Centers/Liquor Caterers
2. Comcast Cable Transfer Update
CITY COUNCIL MEETING (7:00 P.M.)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of December 8, 2014 -
.......................................................... 1 42
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Receive the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of November 19, 2014 .................................................................... 43 - 64
2. Resolution Approving the 2014 Gifts, Donations
and Sponsorships to the City of Fridley ........................................................ 65 - 67
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 22. 2014 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUEDI:
3. Resolution Receiving Report and Calling
Hearing on Improvement for Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST 2015-01 ......................................................... 68 - 86
4. Approve Change Order No. 2 for 2014 Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST 2014-01 ......................................................... 87 - 89
5. Approve 2015 Consulting Services Agreement
between the City of Fridley and Flat Rock
Geographics ................................................................................................. 90 - 99
6. Approve 2015 Animal Control Contract befinreen
the City of Fridley and Brighton Veterinary
Hospital ........................................................................................................ 100 - 104
7. Appointment— City Employee ...................................................................... 105
8. Claims (ACH PCard 1412; 166453-166680) ................................................ 106 - 125
9. Licenses ....................................................................................................... 126 - 129
OPEN FORUM. VISITORS: Consideration of items not on Agenda — 15 minutes.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 3
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10. Consider a Rezoning Request,
ZOA#13-02, by the City of Fridley, to
Consider Rezoning Property, Legally
Described as Auditor's Subdivision 39,
from C-2, General Business, to M-2,
Heavy Industrial, Generally Located at
3720 East River Road N.E. (Ward 3)
(Continued October 27, 2014) ...................................................................... 130 - 131
PUBLIC HEARINGS/NEW BUSINESS:
11. Consider Issuing an On-Sale Intoxicating
Liquor License to Clifton Thomas Parks, II,
to Operate Nelsenparks Hospitality, Inc.,
d/b/a GB Leighton's Pickle Park, Located at
7820 University Avenue N.E.
and
Motion to Approve an On-Sale Intoxicating
Liquor License and Other Required Business
Licenses for GB Leighton's Pickle Park Under
its New Ownership and Management (Ward 3) ............................................ 132 - 134
12. Consideration of Organized Residential
Solid Waste Collection by Districts
(Continued December 8, 2014);
and
Resolution Approving a Mixed Municipal
Solid Waste Collection Service Agreement for
Residential Dwelling Units One (1) through
Three (3) ....................................................................................................... 135 - 170
NEW BUSINESS:
13. Resolution Certifying Final Tax Levy
Requirement for 2015 to the County of'
Anoka ....................................................................................................... 171 - 172
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2014 PAGE 4
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED):
14. Resolution Adopting a Budget for
the Year 2015 and a Revised Budget
forYear 2014 ................................................................................................ 173 - 226
APPEAL HEARING:
15. Consider Appeal Request from James
Kiewel, 1627-31 Rice Creek Road
(Continued November 24, 2014)
and
Resolution Affirming the Decision of City Code
Enforcement Officer Related to 1627 and 1631
Rice Creek Road N.E. (Ward 2) ................................................................... 227 - 436
16. Informal Status Reports ................................................................................ 437
ADJOURN.
-
-
�,�y or
Fridley
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OF DECEMBER 22, 2014
7:00 p.m. - City Council Chambers
Attendance Sheet
Please print name, address and item number you are interested in.
Print Name (Gl�arly) Address Item No.
� �
- � � � .� Q� �1 ^ �
4�l � �� t,' -1� �'�c.-C�! � � �''
;� �
_ - � l�,_ � �
-��.� �1'� � �� �,4-zy � ����;� �•��� ��z
i�-., �;.�-..,,., �� �-�-`� ►�� �;Q..,.., ��. �� . �z
��`��.� fL� � _ , �-. , .., � - ,�. ti! �= C
� ti �-��,,� ) ��� ��J l`��v'�'��r�• _S�- �.� C l�
�-" C�-�/ � "�y(i�+�'� !�i 7 � f �, /; %�i. �/� '�-�� /„- C�' � �`
l; 1�' J J
�IE F�y�iJ i zz� ��,�f��, ��; � 7�-
�,
.��-���'��� ���� ���� �� �
,1 � �, . � _ ���,_-- � n .�
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF FRIDLEY
DECEMBER 8,2014
The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL: �
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund
Councilmember Barnette
Councilmember Saeflce
Councilmember Varichak
Councilmember Bolkcom
OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Wysopal, City Manager
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney
5cott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, City Planner
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Darin Nelson, Finance Director and Treasurer
Kay Qualley, Environmental Planner,
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton
Kevin Faye, 6034 Fourth Street �
Ron Bloch, 5201 Pierce Street NE
Leroy Anderson, 7581 Alden Way
Jim Woodison, 6241 Sunrise Drive NE
Pat Delaney, 6250 Riverview Terrace
Eric Larson, 69th Place
Richard Svanda, 1521 Woodside Court
Brenda Michnowski, 6297 Jackson Street
John Krack, 7629 Lakeside Road NE
Jim Kiewel, 1627 Rice Creek Road
Ted Kueppers, 7361 Tempo Terrace
Adam Hardy, 6845 Channel Road NE
Norma Rust, 5735 Quincy
Gary Alfernes, 570 Rice Creek Boulevard
Justin Foell,6005 Gardena Circle
Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren
Brian DuRose, Gibralter Avenue
PROCLAMATIONS•
Student Foreign Exchange Week-December 8-14,2014
Daniela Fernandes from Portugal
Simen Angell-Olsen from Norway
1
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meeting of November 24,2014
Councilmember Bolkcom referred to the "Informal Status Reports" section. At the end of the
first sentence, she asked that the following sentence be added: "She also wanted to thank the
residents who attended the informal session."
APPROVED AS CORRECTED.
OLD BUSINESS: �
1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Fridley City Charter, Chapter 7,
Taxation and Finances, Section 7.04 Preparation of Annual Budget, and Section
7.05 Passage of Budget.
WAIVED TIiE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO.
1318 ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION.
2. Resolution Denying Final Plat, P.S. #12-01, and Easement Vacation, SAV #13-02,
Pertaining to the Columbia Arena Property, Located at 7011 University Avenue
N.E. (Ward 1).
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.2014-88.
NEW BUSINESS:
3. Special Use Permit Request, SP#14-05, by University Auto Sales & Service,LLC,to
Allow an Indoor Used Car 5ales Facility, Generally Located at 7700 University
Avenue N.E.;
and -
Resolution Approving Special Use Permit, SP #14-05, for Indoor Auto Sales,
Petitioned by University Auto Properties, LLLP, the Property Owner of 7740
University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3).
APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #14-05, by University Auto Properties, LLP,
AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.2014-89.
2
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 3
4. Special Use Permit Request,SP#14-08,by University Auto Sales & Service,LLC,to
Allow an Electronic Changeable Message Sign as Part of the Free-Standing Sign,
Generally Located at 7�00 University Avenue N.E.;
and
Resolution Approving Special Use Permit, SP #14-08 for an Electronic Changeable
Sign, Petitioned by University Auto Properties, LLLP, the Property Owner of 7700
University Avenue N.E. (Ward 3).
APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #14-08, BY University Auto Sales & Service,
LLC,AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2014-90.
5. Special Use Permit Request, SP #14-06, by DeMars Signs to Allow an Electronic
Changeable Message Sign as Part of the Free-Standing Sign, Generally Located at
661 Highway 65 N.E.;
and
Resolution Approving Special Use Permit, SP #14-06, for DeMars Signs, on Behalf
of Crooners Real Estate Company, LLC, the Property Owner of Crooners Lounge
and Supper Club,Located at 6161 Highway 65 N.E. (Ward 2).
APPROVED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #14-06, AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
2014-91.
6. Request for Public Hearing Postponement for Special Use Permit, SP #14-07, by
TCO Design, to Allow a Comprehensive Home Health Care Use in an R-3, Multi-
Family Zoning District, Generally Located at 5310 Fourth Street N.E. (Ward 1).
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that the e-mail requesting the postponement be added.
APPROVED.
7. Resolution Amending Resolution No. 2014-54, which Approved a $1,500,000 Loan
to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Fridley,
Minnesota.
Wally Wysopal, City Manager, stated this loan provides for any extraordinary expense paid
before principal. This was an amendment to the existing resolution of agreement that would
require any TIF (tax increment financing) monies would be pay any extraordinary expenses
before the HRA and City received their payment of principal.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.2014-92.
3
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8 2014 PAGE 4
8. Resolution Approving the Anoka County Fire Protection Council Joint Powers
Agreement.
THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON
THE REGULAR AGENDA.
9. Receive Bids and Award Water Treatment Plant No. 3 Filter Drain Pump
Improvement Project 459.
RECEIVED BIDS AND AWARDED PROJECT TO MUNICIPAL BUILDERS,INC.
10. Approve Change Order No. 1 for Water Main Project No. 427/Sewer Forcemain
Project No. 433
Mr. Wysopal stated this was for$8,000 or 3 percent of the project cost.
APPROVED.
11. Claims (166317 - 166452)
APPROVED.
12. Licenses
APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE.
13. Estimates
Sunram Construction, Inc.
20010 - 75th Avenue North
Corcoran,MN 55340
Main Street Bike/Walk Project No. ST2011-22
EstimateNo. 5..............................................................$15,390.00
Blackstone Contractors, LLC
7775 Corcoran Trail East
Corcoran, MN 55340
Oak Glen Creek Erosion Control
Project No. 380
EstimateNo. 7..............................................................$ 4,632.52
APPROVED.
4
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8 2014 PAGE 5
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilmember Bolkcom requested that Item No. 8 be removed and placed on the regular
agenda.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the proposed consent agenda with the
removal of Item 8 and addition of the e-mail under Item No. 6. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CAR.RIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM:
No one from the audience spoke.
NEW BUSINESS:
8. Resolution Approving the Anoka County Fire Protection Council Joint Powers
Agreement.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated not in the agreement itself, but in the Bylaws, on Page 75 in
Section 19, it says "Written Action. Any action required or permitted to be taken at a Board of
Director's meeting may be taken by written action signed, or consented to by authenticated
electronic communication. . .." There is comment about how the business is related to a quorum.
She asked Attorney Erickson to explain this.
Darcy Erickson, City Attorney, stated she had a brief conversation with Jennifer Urban, the
attorney for the Joint Powers; and they discussed the written action Councilmember Bolkcom
had a question about. Essentially, a JPA is subject to the open meeting law. If there is going to
be action by just a written instrument, that would be very difficult. It needs to mesh with the
requirements of the open meeting law.
Attorney Erickson stated she recommended Council approve the Joi,nt Powers Agreement and
the attached Bylaws with the understanding that the JPA entity and legal counsel are looking into
that matter. The entity cannot do anything in contravention of the open meeting law, but there
will be some consultation with the D�partrnent of Administration for clarification. That power is
a power that non-profit entities have but,because this is a governmental entity, so there is kind of
a grayish line that they want to clarify.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2014-92. Seconded by
Councilmember Saeflce.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked that the By-Laws come back to Council for review.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 PAGE 6
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember
Saeflce.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MA.YOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. -
2015 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC MEETING:
14. Presentation of the 2015 City of Fridley Budget.
Darin Nelson, Finance Director and Treasurer, stated the major component of the budget is the
t� levy. Fridley levy limits are unique as we have, in addition to the Council's levy setting
authority, two additional authorities that govern the levy. The first is the City's Charter and,
based on the City's Charter, the City's levy is limited to the lower of either 5 percent or the CPI
for all urban consumers in the Minneapolis/St. Pa�l metropolitan area. The City's cap for 2015 is
1.94 percent according to the Charter.
Mr. Nelson stated the other authority that governs the City's levy limit is the State Legislature.
Compared to previous years, the Legislature did not impose levy limits for 2015.
Mr. Nelson said about 89 percent of the City's levy is allocated to the general fund with the
remainder being designated to debt service, Springbrook Nature Center, and capital project
funds.
Mr. Nelson stated on August 25, Council approved a preliminary levy of$11,734,607. T'hat is
an increase of 1.94 percent, the City's cap for 2015.
Mr. Nelson stated as to a breakdown of how the levy is allocated comparing 2014 and 2015, the
general fund is the majority, and there are some changes in allocations and shifting of funds to
the general fund from capital project funds for this year. The bottom line is 1.94 percent, and
that equates to just over$223,000 additional levy for this year.
Mr. Nelson stated the question often asked is, what impact does 1.94 percent have on the
homeowners in Fridley. Commercial and residential properties are reacting differently in the
current market, and that is having a dramatic impact on property taxes. For taxes payable in
2014 (which is your value actually in 2013), residential property saw about a 10 percent decline
in value throughout the City, and coxnmercial properties stayed relatively flat. That shifted the
taac burden from residential properties over to commercial properties. The City actually had a 2.3
percent levy increase last year, but yet residential properties saw decreases in about the 10
percent range.
Mr. Nelson stated this year, we are seeing increases in residential properties. The residential
market is beginning to recover with increases of 15 to 18 percent in market values. Property
taxes are consequently going up. Commercial properties have also increased but at a much lower
rate. The property tax burden for 2415 is shifting from commercial property back over to
residential. In essence, what we wanted to do is take three separate homes and demonstrate over
, 6
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE_7
a three-year span the tax comparisons. Taaces are generally going up for 2015, but they took a
pretty dramatic decrease in 2014.
Mr. Nelson stated the market is really playing two different factors here. There is the
commercial and the residential and the two interact differently. They both come into play in
determining property t�liability.
Mr. Nelson presented charts comparing the levy over the last ten years. Debt service will be
declining. For 2016, there is one debt service bond that will be paid off in 2016 so there will be
a small decline there.
Mr.Nelson stated in reviewing operations,the City continues to monitor expenditures to achieve
cost savings without negatively impacting service levels. An example of this was the extensive
analysis completed this summer regarding the labor distribution for the City's three utility funds.
Mr. Nelson stated the analysis concluded the Storm Water Fund was relying heavily on
Engineering and Public Works employees for both the general fund and sewer utility fund. We
did an extensive analysis on each individual's time and whether it was being costed to the job
they were actually doing. We found a lot of the employees, Engineering staff specifically, and
then a lot of the sewer employees, were doing work that actually should have been charged to the
Storm Water Fund. The Storm Water Fund is an enterprise fund just like the Water and Sewer
Funds but it was not standing alone on its own. With the help of Jim Kosluchar, the Public
Works Director, we have allocated the labor accordingly. In 2015, each fund will stand on its
own.
Mr.Nelson stated the general fund does not have as mucl� flexibility as some of the other funds.
Therefore, it is imperative we make sure the general fund is not paying for other funds' expenses.
That is really what was happening. By doing the labor redistribution, it freed up some funds
within the general fund which has allowed the City to rehire or have in the budget for 2015 a
police officer position that has been frozen in prior years.
Mr.Nelson stated another initiative of Council and the staff is we continue to be independent of
local government aid (LGA). We have dedicated all of the City's LGA over the last couple of
years to capital project funds so it is no longer in the operational budget. LGA is not budgeted in
the General Fund. The State has the ability to pull LGA (the City gets its second half of the
LGA payment December 20), and we want to make sure the City covers itself. With LGA
dedicated to capital project funds, it is intended to be used for one-time purchases which we are
more able to adjust in the budgets if we need to at the end of the year or the following year.
Mr. Nelson stated we also have a goal of eliminating capital equipment certificates. The City
last issued those back in 2010 and 2012. This budget, along with the 2015 through 2019 CIP,
does eliminate any of those future capital equipment debt issuances.
Mr. Nelson stated we also want to unprove on our capability to measure outcomes and current
budget linkages so the public can better understand the performance of their tax dollars. The
City revised the budget last year to make it more of a narrative form and included indicators and
key measures. We intend to take the budget a step further in the upcoming year.
7
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 8
Mr. Nelson stated as for the overall economic climate, property values in the City have
increased for the first time in a couple of years. The City's housing stock is also beginning to
recover. There was an 18 percent on average increase in property values for residential
properties. Distressed sales have declined. Commercial redevelopment continues to be an
economic driver within the City. There are a couple major projects going on right now that are
adding both jobs and capacity to the City.
Mr. Nelson stated the improving economy, increase in home values, and the City's conservative
management practices has paid ofF for the City in its bond rating. Moody's was in the City for a
review, and they confirmed the City's Aal credit rating, which is the second-highest rating that
any City can receive. The City is eliminated from receiving a AAA rating as it just does not
have the size to achieve that rating. The negative outlook rating has been removed. In 2012, we
had a negative outlook rating because of the declining values in the City.
Mr. Nelson stated moving over to the General Fund, the budget also includes a revised 2014
budget. The budget includes a column for the original 2014 budget and then a revised 2014
budget. Every year we would come to Council after the end of the year and do reappropriations
for donations that would come in which would offset expenditures. We tried to incorporate a
majority of these into the revised budget column. This should be the final budget for 2014.
Mr. Nelson stated the General Fund are revenues coming in higher than anticipated. We have
had some additional building and permit revenues related to the redevelopment taking place.
Municipal state aid came in a little higher than anticipated. Also, the City had some public
safety grants that were not anticipated.
Mr. Nelson stated with the expenditures coming in on budget for 2014, we estimate about a
$345,000 surplus compared to the original budget which was about a$30,000 to $35,000 surplus.
We want to make sure the City's fund balance stays at that appropriate guideline, which was
about 35 to 50 percent of expenditures. Ensuring a small surplus each year will keep that
percentage where we want it to be.
Mr. Nelson stated looking at the 2015 budget for the General Fund, we are shifting the
allocation of the levy. The levy is going to increase in the General Fund by $337,000 or about
3.4 percent. The City's total revenue is only increasing about $100,000 or .7 percent. T'he cause
for that is the City is shifting part of the taac levy from the Capital Equipment Fund to the General
Fund. In addition, the City is transferring the liquor store profits that had typically gone into the
General Fund, to the Capital Equipment Fund and to the Park Improvement Fund. The idea
behind this shift is the City wants to demonstrative that liquor store proceeds are purchasing
tangible items. In the past, it has been hard to promote the liquor store proceeds since they
. reduced the general operating budget but were not tied to any specific item or service.
Mr. Nelson stated as to the expenditure side, the City has expenditures increasing about
$134,000 or .9 percent. The City has included the addition of a frozen police officer position
from a number of years ago. What really aided here was the reallocation of labor, shifting those
actual Public Works costs to the appropriate funds. Also, there is a moderate cost of living
adjustment for personnel of 1.5 percent. �
8
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8�2014 PAGE 9
Mr. Nelson presented a breakdown of the revenue from the general fund. The taa�es are a vast
majority of how the City derives its revenue. The City has about 69 percent or about three-
quarters of its revenue within the General Fund coming from taa�es. The remaining part comes
from licenses, charges for services, etc. The City is heavily dependent upon property taxes for
its General Fund just like any other municipal government would be.
Mr. Nelson stated Public Works and Public Safety equate to about 70 percent of the City's
expenditures from the General Fund. Being a service organization, the City's personnel costs are
going to be a majority of the costs. Three-quarters of the City's costs are dedicated to personnel.
There is very little supplies and the remainder leftover for other services and charges.
Mr. Nelson stated the budget also includes a capital projects funds. This is the second year of
the City's stand alone Capital Improvements Plan. In June, Council reviewed a draft version of
the CIP and reviewed it again in August before approving the CIP in late August when the
Council also approve a preliminary levy.
Mr. Nelson stated the CIP is the driver of the operational budget, and 26 percent of the entire
budget is dedicated to capital outlay. The 2015 CIP items are included in this budget for final
review and approval.
Mr. Nelson stated moving onto Enterprise Funds, these funds do incorporate the utility budget
and the rate increases approved at the November 24 Council meeting.
Mr. Nelson said within a $38 million budget, there are other sources, bond proceeds, at $4.2
million. That is not a reoccurring item. That happens once every so often. Also, under "other
income" the bond money from the State for the SPRING project is included in there.
Mr. Nelson stated the number are a little different for expenditures. They have about
$37,500.000 in 2014 compared to about $40,420,000 in 2015. A lot of that again is because of
the bond issuance. It probably will not be issued in 2014 but will be issued in 2015; however,
we have a couple of years to spend all those proceeds. We will issue it the one year and not
necessarily spend it all in that same year.
Mr. Nelson stated when they bring all the funds together, here is how the City-wide revenue is
derived. As we saw in the general fund,property ta�ces made up 66 percent of the revenue within
that fund. When we put all of the funds together, property taxes are about 28 percent and the
user fees and charges, that include utility fees, and liquor receipts which is $4,000,000 a year or
so, become a significant piece of the pie with some smaller pieces included within
intergovernmental revenue and other income.
Mr.Nelson said with respect to the expenditures, a lot of the CIP projects that are Public Works
related or Police and Fire related continue to be major factors.
Mr. Nelson stated the general government may seem a little heavy here, but that includes liquor
store expenditures as well. ,
Mr. Nelson stated the City has complied with the appropriate sections of the City Charter that
require certain formats and information be contained within the budget document, and the budget
9
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2414 PAGE 10
needs to be approved by the Council and submitted to the County by the end of December. No
action is required for tonight.
Mr. Nelson stated the budget is available and has been available on the City's website for a few
weeks. We also put up a video that came up from Anoka County that he saw out on Twitter a
week or so ago that explains the distribution of taxes and how taxes are derived.
Councilmember Barnette said for many, many years they have talked about how low Fridley
residents'property taxes were compared to most of them in Anoka County partly because Fridley
has a large commercial/industrial base. It used to be that the commercial/industrial paid 60
percent, and residential only 40 percent. He asked if that has changed much.
Mr. Nelson replied that percentage has completely flip flopped now. It is now 60 percent
residential and 40 percent commercial/industrial, give or take 1 or 2 percent on either side.
Mr. Wysopal said it does not just have to do with redevelopment but also some of the changes
in the property taac classification rates at the State level.
Mr. Nelson replied, yes, the fiscal disparities program is experiencing shifts in contributions and
the distributions.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this is just a presentation. There is no actual action item on
the agenda, correct?
Mr. Nelson replied, correct, they will take formal action at the December 22 City Council
meeting.
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton, stated in one of the last slides, it says it complies with everything
in the Charter. The Charter says that the Council shall approve their compensation and
renumeration by the first meeting of November. That was never an agenda item. It was not in
compliance with the Charter.
Councilmember Saefke said it was not on the agenda as Council decided not to give themselves
a raise for 2015. Therefore,it is not part of the budget.
Mayor Lund stated there was no change in the budget.
Ms.Reynolds replied,but the Charter says you have to approve whatever it is.
Mayor Lund stated historically they have never approved a line item such as their
compensation,only when there has been an increase.
CounciLnember Bolkcom stated in the past they have always either denied or approved it at a
meeting. This is the first year they have not done that since they were not giving themselves a
raise. They will look into it.
Kevin Fay, 6034 Fourth Street, said regarding the 40/60 split, Mr. Nelson mentioned that would
kind of be made up with some of the changes that are taking place. He asked is that because of a
10
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 11
shift back over to commercial heavier taxing or is that because of the shift the City seems to
desire in more upscale residential properties?
Mr.Nelson replied it has taken many years to make the 60/40 split. They have seen a decline in
values in commercial properties over the years, and residential properties have kind of taken the
place of that. It may take years to get it back to that.
Mayor Lund stated it is actually from the State legislatures. They are making the shift. There
was a major shift throughout the State of Minnesota which has been taking place for the last
decade, and a lot of it has to do with the local government aid shift. They have changed the
formulas. It is a State thing.
PUBLIC HEARING/NEW BUSINESS:
15. Consideration of Organized Residential Solid Waste Collection by Districts;
and
Motion to Set a Date for Taking Formal Action on the Proposal for Organized
Residential Solid Waste Collection by Districts.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to open 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 OPENED AT 7:49.
Mr. Wysopal stated the process has taken about 12 months to arrive at a draft proposed
agreement, and they have met with all five haulers. Those haulers include Ace Solid Waste,
Waste Management of Minnesota, LePage & Sons, Republic Services, and Walters Recycling
and Refuse. They followed the State Statute in this regard. It was a fairly new statute, and they
were obliged to meet with those haulers who are currently licensed to do business in the City and
have accounts. The City staff met exclusively with them during the last year.
Mr. Wysopal stated they had a nuxnber of ineetings and they took into consideration a11 of the
haulers' concerns, as well as the concerns the City had with regard to developing a proposal.
There was a minimum 60-day negotiation period that is required by statute. It took longer than
that,but the City was not interested in a quick decision but a good decision.
Mr. Wysopal stated this came about as a result of the Environmental Quality & Energy
Commission which made a recommendation to the City Council to address this issue. In
December of last year, the City Council made the recammendation to do that, and staff began
meeting with the haulers.
Mr. Wysopal stated the goal was to organize garbage collection by districts. They divided the
City into five zones. From the beginning, the haulers did not reveal their books of business
because they felt it was a trade secret, but they were very willing to participate in the rest of the
process. Staff held off on requiring them to disclose who their customers were. The haulers told
staff they would have no problem with identifying who their customers were if the CiTy Council
11
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 12
were to enter into an agreement. If the City Council did not enter into an agreement,they did not
want to have a11 of their accounts made public. They have had a very good relationship with the
haulers in terms of good dealings and fair play. The haulers were very up front and open with
staff and staff was with them, and they exchanged ideas in very good negotiation sessions.
Mr. Wysopal stated the crux of the agreement is that single-family homes, duplexes, and
triplexes are affected here. They do not include any of the townhomes, manufactured home
parks, apartment buildings, and commercial or industrial areas. The garbage would be picked up
on days that recycling is collected.
Mr. Wysopal stated the problems City staff identified included wear and tear on the streets,
some environmental issues, and concerns about noise and safety. Price was not the number one
issue. Staff was dealing with issues that affected the City and its assets. However, staff was
concerned about fair pricing and wanted the prices to be uniform through the City for the same
types of services.
Mr. Wysopal stated the services they have now under this proposed agreement would remain
the same. The 30, 60, or 90 gallon container options would be available to the residents. Any
additional services, such as yard waste or special items such as refrigerators and sofas, would be
picked up on a separate operation with the hauler.
Mr. Wysopal stated the haulers would be responsible for the billing under this proposal. It
became evident to the City staff as they went through the negotiations that the haulers have a
tremendous respect for their customers. Staff felt it would be a good idea to allow the haulers to
retain the billing operation and, therefore, the customer relation piece as well.
Mr. Wysopal stated the haulers would divide the City up based on their average customer count
six months prior to the commencement of the negotiation period. That language comes exactly
out of the State Statute. What it means is that the five haulers would have no less of a market
share in 2015 if this were to be enacted than they do today. As a matter of fact, they may pick up
some additional accounts because not every resident in Fridley has garbage collection even
though it has an ordinance that requires that.
Mr. Wysopal stated with respect to snowbirds, people who take off for a month or more at a
period of time would be able to contact the hauler and request they not be billed for that period
of time. The one-month period was suggested by the haulers as that is what they have as current
practice.
Mr. Wysopal stated the City would guarantee payment only if the resident was in arrears and
that would be after 75 days. The City was able to offer that guaranteed payment so that the
haulers would be able to do the collection of the homes even though a homeowner may not make
payment. This they felt was very similar to what the City currently does. It is exactly what it
does with the water and sewer accounts. If the City has delinquent accounts, it submits it to the
City Council for assessment onto the homeoumer's property, and then the City gets the collection
of that money in due time along with fees that go with it. The City has the Charter authority to
be able to assess for unpaid garbage bills.
12
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 13
Mr.Wysopal stated staff felt there are five key points this proposal addresses. One, it is an asset
preservation for the City. The roads represent over a$67 million asset to the City, and they need
to be protected. Two, the City feels it keeps within the spirit of the Charter if it spends wisely.
We are all familiar with the Charter limitation. It also has a reciprocal relationship that the City
is a wise spender of t�payer dollars. At $67, million the streets represent the largest asset in the
City. Any percentage of savings on that is going to be big.
Mr. Wysopal stated third, the City also wanted to reduce the number of code enforcement
situations that are related to garbage. The numbers are also quite impressive in terms of gross
numbers of code enforcement issues the City deals with related to garbage.
Mr. Wysopal said fourth, it will improve the rates for most of the City's residents. They
recognize that under the current system residents may be paying what the haulers presented as
the market rate or they may have what they call "sweetheart deals." There might be some
residents who can show that their current bill is less than what the City negotiated. Staff feels
that cost is not everything, because there are the dollars that are being used by the City for the
deteriorarion of the streets. The garbage collection system is the only business that operates in
the City on a public street that contributes significantly to its deterioration, but that does not pay
any t�es, etc., towards that. For example, the City's cable provider, Comcast, has their cables,
in the City's right-of-way; and the City receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from Comcast
in retum for being in the City's right-of-ways.
Mr. Wysopal stated fifth it addresses environmental safety and noise improvements.
Kay Qualley, Environmental Planner, stated they are doing sort of a 5-4-3-2-1 on the key points
Mr. Wysopal talked about. The call she gets most frequently at the City is on noise impacts.
Road impacts and then proper disposal of garbage as well which Julie Jones, Planning Manager,
will be addressing shortly represents the rest of the calls.
Ms. Qualley stated with respect to fuel consumption during collection activities, one of the
things the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has put out is that open hauling systems typically
use higher amounts of fuel than cities with organized systems that are organized or in zones.
Fewer vehicle miles traveled also results in less air pollutant materials and particulate matters
from heavy daily waste collection vehicles. Public concern is increasing about the human health
impacts because of emissions, and this is just another category of emissions.
Ms. Qualley stated another thing that happens every couple of years is a hazardous spill.
Although infrequent, by reducing the number of trucks in the neighborhoods, they are also
hoping that number will continue to decrease.
Ms. Qualley stated probably they could spend the rest of the night talking about potential
environmental benefits, but safety is probably the other thing they hear about with the potential
for garbage truck conflicts with autos, bikes and pedestrians. A lot of schools would like kids to
walk more, but they are uncomfortable with traffic and sidewalks being absent in some areas,
etc. Reducing the number of potential conflict points with all of the modes of transportation
could be a possible benefit as well.
13
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 14
Ms. Qualley stated because 17 percent savings in this negotiated draft contact is an average,
some people will pay more and some people will pay less. At the open house on November 20, a
lot of people reviewed the additional benefits for a contract of this sort and said, well, I might
pay a little more; and right next to them was someone who paid a little less.
Ms. Qualley presented pricing information for the first year for 30, 60, and 90 gallon cart sizes.
The $80 yard waste cost per season includes 12 compostable bags and 12 bundles. That $4 per
additional bag is a Metropolitan solid waste bag surcharge if you exceed your cart and you have
a bag sitting out there. You could be surcharged if you had additional bags beyond 12 bags of
yard waste or 12 bundles.
Julie Jones, City Planner, stated as far as the code enforcement key points, this is something she
brought up to the City Council over a decade ago. She was concerned about all of the staff time
they were spending on code enforcement related to the City's open system and at the time the
Council directed staff to try and get the garbage haulers to at least change their routes so they
would pick up on the same day as recycling, which they have done voluntarily for the most part
over the years: The City still continued to have problems.
Ms. Jones stated outside storage and solid waste issues aze the City's top two code enforcement
violations. The last year she has full data was for 2012, when they did systematic inspections on
residential properties over the summer. In that year the City had approximately 400 code
enforcement cases that were outside storage and solid waste related cases. That was about 30
percent of the City's cases which is pretty average because the City will have between 1,000 and
2,000 code enforcement cases a year. Probably a good 25 percent of those cases related to
households that either did not have garbage service at all or had inadequate garbage service.
They know from other cities that have gone through this process that, once they become
organized, you find that about 10 to 25 percent of the population does not have garbage service
even though the City Code requires weekly gazbage service.
Ms. Jones stated this takes a great deal of staff time. A lot of these cases are not just a simple
letter or two but involves multiple letters, multiple inspections, abatements, and citations.
Determining whether someone has garbage service is very time consuming in the City's current
system. When the City gets a call that says my neighbor is stockpiling their garbage in their
garage or back behind the shed, the City has to call all five haulers and confirm whether there is
an account for that address and then go from there.
Ms. Jones stated in an organized system, staff would simply be able to go to a map and
determine what company is servicing that particular address. Also in an organized system, the
haulers will be more willing to work with the City and let it know when they have a property
within their route area that does not have service or is not putting out garbage.
Ms. Jones stated as to other difficulties with the open hauling system, even though the City
requires weekly garbage service, the City knows there is a high percentage of people in the
community who do not contract for service. Probably the City's biggest problem with that is
with duplexes which of course they are proposing to be included in this proposal. With a duplex,
the owner of the duplex who does not live there, requires the renter to contract for garbage
service, and they do not do anything to follow up to make sure the renter does contract for
14
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 _ _ _ PAGE 15
garbage service. Sometimes people are using their recycling carts for their garbage service.
Sometimes they are disposing it in other places that are not legal.
Ms. Jones stated the biggest problem the City sees is that people jump from one hauler to the
next in an open system. They will contract with company "A", not pay that company, and when
that company takes away their cart, they will contract with the next company down the list, and
keep going down the line. It is not unusual for the City to have code enforcement cases where
they talk to all five garbage haulers, and all five of them give staff the same story that these
people owe them money and they would not provide them a garbage cart again until they pay the
amount they owe in arrears plus pay the next three months forward.
Ms. Jones stated they feel like an organized system can give the City rnore accountability as far
as code enforcement because stafF will have a way of knowing that everyone has garbage
service. In the proposal the haulers have provided, there is an opt-out option for people that
maybe do have a legal means to get rid of their garbage.
Ms. Jones stated there really is more incentive for the occupant to pay for monthly garbage
service in this system, too, because if they do not, as they heard from the City Manager, the
proposal in the contract is that after 75 days, the hauler can turn those delinquent bills over to the
City; and the City would be able to assess that unpaid amount. That allows the City to help solve
some of these long-time problems. In the current system staff is often dealing sometimes for
years on some of these cases trying to get the people to contract for proper garbage service.
Ms. Jones stated, where do people dump their trash when they do not have service? Well, at the
nearest apartment building,park, or business; and that is a cost to everyone in the community. It
is a very unfair and difficult thing and has been a real problem in the community. Inadequate
service really is a cost to the ta�cpayers, not just in terms of the property owners who are getting
illegally dumped on, but it is also a cost in staff time for all of these cases they are dealing with
code enforcement-wise.
Mr. Wysopal stated he made references in his earlier comments that staff is very aware of the
restrictions the Charter places on the City's levy limitation; but it also has a reciprocal
requirement that the City takes care of the assets it has. The City needs to protect its inveshnents
and over$60 million in its streets.
James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, said the City's streets are a public asset with an
estimated value of$67 million. It has 80 plus miles of centerline asphalt streets in the City and
2201ane miles of asphalt streets in the City. The street assets are owned by the public, and it is
the City's charge to maintain them in the most efficient way possible.
Mr. Kosluchar stated vehicle loading is the major factor in street deterioration. Stresses
because of vehicle turning movements and starting and stopping can also deteriorate pavement.
Environmental factors caused by water intrusion and frost, can have impacts. However, with
Fridley's typically well-drained soils, proper minor maintenance can largely address these. In
other words, if they do frequent sealcoating, crack sealing, and pothole sealing and make sure
that water cannot intrude and, in knowing the City has a good drainage subbase later, it can
typically mitigate those environmental factors quite well.
15
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 16
Mr. Kosluchar stated vehicles cause pavement stress which will eventually require major
maintenance to avoid pavement failure. Heavy vehicles, such as refuse trucks, cause greatly
increased loading.
Mr. Kosluchar stated deterioration because of a loading vehicle is considered in design of
pavements using a unit of loading known as an ESAL or equivalent single axle load. He
presented a listing of different ESAL factors for different types of vehicles, including residential
recycling trucks and residential trash trucks. T'here are some variations in some of these ESAL
calculations depending on the type of truck, the spacing of axles, etc. Generally it has been the
City's practice that residential trash trucks of the type they ha�e in Fridley are typically 1,000 to
1,500 times the loading of a single-passenger vehicle.
Mr. Kosluchar stated heavy vehicle loads have the greatest impact on pavement life. The
damage caused by a particular vehicle is roughly related to the load increased by a power of 4.
Doubling the load of a vehicle or a tire or an axle produces 16 times the damage of the foremost
single load. MnDOT no longer takes into consideration passenger vehicles in its latest revision
to pavement design software. They just say passenger vehicles are negligible so they only
consider heavy vehicles in their design calculations at this time.
Mr. Kosluchar stated seasonal load restrictions also address heavy vehicles through Minnesota
statute. There is an exemption for certain refuse vehicles. Again, traffic loading during the
spring thaw results in five to eight times the amount of damage to pavement and that is often
because of subsurface moisture.
Mr. Kosluchar stated heavy loading concems have been recognized by public roadway officials
for a long time. Multiple heavy vehicles are required to serve customers under the current open
collections system arrangement, and it reduces cost efficiency in maintaining the City's roads.
The intensity of loading has increased over the past decade to maximize refuse collection
efficiency on the hauler side. They want to get as much as they can with each load. Trucks and
their payloads have gotten heavier over the past decade.
Mr. Kosluchar stated excess trucks under the current system can consume the design life of the
pavement or reduce the length of time between major rehabilitation.
Mr. Kosluchar stated in August of this year, a final version of a heavy vehicle impact tool was
developed by Dr. W. James Wilde, P.E. He is with the Minnesota State University-Mankato.
The tool compares the impact of vehicle loading that was expected when the pavement was
designed to the impact of the vehicle loading including additional vehicles. The City actually
hired Bolton & Menk, Inc., a civil engineering firm, to use this tool and develop a model of
refuse vehicle impacts to Fridley's asphalt pavements. The model considers the impacts on the
City-maintained asphalt streets which aze 95 percent of its local streets,not County or State. The
model considers loading factors only. The model considers impacts of an organized collection
system for refuse with one hauler vs. the current system of five haulers.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the heavy vehicles model provides comparative predictions of traffic
loading and predicted pavement condition. Analysis was performed on 547 asphalt residential
street segments in Fridley. A comparison of one refuse vehicle trip per week vs. five refuse
vehicle trips per week was performed.
16
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 17
Mr. Kosluchar presented a chart showing where the excess heavy loads consume over 10
percent and over 30 percent of the total ESAL's impacting the streets. Commercial areas were
not analyzed. They also did not analyze for the concrete streets in the southeast corner of the
City.
Mr. Kosluchar said the results of the analysis show that according to this tool the refuse trucks
and the current open refuse collection system consume a significant portion of pavement life
estimated by the model at 17.9 percent over Fridley's asphalt streets. This is all Fridley's asphalt
streets on average. This results in worse pavement conditions that require street resurfacing
sooner.
Mr. Kosluchar stated the heavy vehicles model estimates an excess cost because of heavy
vehicle loading under the current open collections system is just over$4 million over 20 years or
$208,000 annually. Over the long-term, savings through extension of paving life would be
realized if they were to convert to a reduced traffic scenario under an organized collection
system. They would not see savings in year zero or year one. The savings would migrate
upward. Generally over the pavement life cycle, what they would be able to do is extend some
streets and take them out of the reconstruct mode and come back to them five years later. They
would delay that major maintenance and, therefore, save those dollars. Those projects aze
funded by a special assessment through benefitting property owners, and MSA has funds which
are State aid funds originating from gas taxes.
Mr. Kosluchar stated impacts of trucks routing into and out of a neighborhood are not
considered under this analysis. Impacts of starting, stopping, and turning vehicles (particularly
heavy vehicles) are not considered. Additional minor maintenance and changes to costs or
increased costs on the open collections system vs. an organized collection system are not
considered. Changes in the numbers of haulers or heavy vehicles are not considered.
Mr. Kosluchar stated it also does not consider how much of that potential savings could be
captured. The analysis gives them an ideal condition. Obviously they know with scheduling the
City's pavement maintenance and rehabilitation, that it could capture the majority of that savings.
The City probably would not be able to capture it a11, because the City does not typically jump
around and do a small street segment in one corner of the community and then in another. The
City tries to combine them together for the economy but at the same rime extend the life
significantly for a11 of the City's asphalt pavement.
Mr. Kosluchar stated he asked himself if this was consistent with estimated impacts on other
communities. Some estimates provided by other communities include Roseville estimated at
$188,376 per year, Oakdale estimated at $120,000 to $300,000 per year, and Robbinsdale at
$150,000 per year. Arden Hills indicated there was no savings. These amounts were developed
without the benefit of this tool but seem to be in the ballpark.
Mr. Kosluchar stated Fridley's asphalt pavements are significantly impacted by additional
refuse trucks operating under the current system. The model prediction is the most exact
prediction currently available for a Fridley street, and it shows opportunity for real cost savings
over the long-term. Moving to an organized refuse collection system would have a positive
impact by extending asphalt pavement life, resulting in reduced frequency of major maintenance
17
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014_ _ PAGE 18
and special assessments and local costs associated with construction funded by gas taxes and
other sources.
Mr. Kosluchar stated, finally, in order to maintain the Fridley's roadway assets in the most
efficient way possible over the long-term, organized refuse collection is superior to the current
open refuse collection system. Also, organized collection would provide the City and its
residents with significant long-term savings.
Councilmember Bolkcom said staff only mentioned the first year. She asked if they could talk
about the rest of the contract. There were some questions some people had related to fuel
surcharges, etc. The Agreement that was worked out is for seven years.
Mr. Wysopal stated the Agreement does call for a seven-year service term. That was at the
request of the haulers. They wanted to have as long a term as possible to recoup their
investments and capital equipment, etc. As they negotiated price, they saw the cost to the
customer has two components to it. The first cost component being the actual cost involved to
go down the street, collect it, and then go to the garbage dump. The second cost component has
to do with the actual tipping fee which is the charge from the ERG plant, the flow control for the
County of Anoka and what they charge per ton.
Mr. Wysopal stated they extrapolated how much garbage is collected by pound in a 30, 60, 90
gallon container. They came up with some costs and then tried to contain those costs as much as
possible. For that first component, the collection cost, they tied that to the CPI so that the
portion of the bill that is attributed to the collection can only go up on an annual basis as much as
the CPI goes up. The second part of the cost, the tipping fee, would only increase the property
owner's bill if there was a commensurate increase at the ERG plant. If there is no increase at the
ERG plant, the customer's bill would not go up for that particular cost factor. If there was an
increase of a dollar per ton, they extrapolate that back down to the actual per unit collection.
Mr. Wysopal stated the numbers, however, in the contract are the limits that can be charged. It
cannot be affected by any additional charges the hauler would want to include. Fuel service
charges that are common on most residents' bills would not be added to these numbers. Any
taxes that come up have to be applied. They cannot get around that. There would not be any
fuel service charges on these bills primarily because they looked at ways to identify what the
current costs are for fuel right now and is represented in those numbers. Any increases would be
a part of the CPI.
Ron Bloch, 5201 Pierce Street NE, stated he has been following this for the past year or so. He
is very much in favor of the Council going ahead. He is the block captain on his block. A few
years ago, he contacted everybody on the block and tried to convince them to go with a single
hauler. It made no since to him to have multiple trucks coming up and down their block. He did
manage to convince most people. It would be nice if those couple of people who wanted to stay
with their haulers would be willing to pay more when it comes time to redo the streets at an
earlier time. He has his doubts there.
Mr. Bloch stated they have been presented with a whole host of good reasons why they should
go ahead with this. The only reason he can think of opposing this is freedom. People like the
freedom to choose. The City does not give them the freedom to choose their fire service, police
18
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 PAGE 19
service, or utility services. This service is like those services, which makes sense for the City to
go ahead and enact this plan.
Leroy Anderson, 7581 Alden Way, stated he is all in favor of this. A few weeks back at their
monthly meeting, Councilmember Barnette stated there is little disparity in what some people are
being charged so he looked into it. To make a long story short, he has the smallest garbage can
available and he is paying$30 more than his neighbor is paying for identical services.
Jim Woodison, 6241 Sunrise Drive NE, stated he stands in opposition to the plan. He could
dispute more or less everything that has been presented tonight in one shape, form, or another.
However, the reason he is here tonight is more of choice. He believes they have limited choices
today in many things they do. This is one choice that they should keep.
Mr. Woodison stated he happens to be in the industry. He sells semi trucks. He disputes the
fact the trucks are loaded all the time. The wear and tear on the streets is progressive based on
the weight of the truck. He disputes the factors such as the green footprint. He made a note
during the comments about whether it is a function of the truck and the specking of the truck or
whether it is function of the provider. For example, if the truck is built wrong and the bridge is
wrong, you are going to have damage. But he would rather choose a waste hauler that is green,
natural gas, wave of the future. Diesel is going to be a thing of the past eventually. They did not
take into account the options that are afforded to them.
Mr.Woodison asked how they would compel a vendor when the choice is taken away from him.
While he is only one voice, he still has a choice. When Turner left, Comcast had no motivation.
You hear about it in the paper a11 the time, falling asleep while on hold. Seven years? He scoffs
at it. What is the life cycle of a truck? 30 yeazs? What is compelling the vendor to keep
modern? What is compelling them to do anything?
Mr. Woodison stated he is with Walters. They could not always get the lid all the way down.
The previous provider, $20 surcharge. They had a choice. The customer service he received at
Walters was better than the previous vendor. He had a choice.
Mr. Woodison stated he shared with various members what Bloomington was doing and why
St. Paul was an abysmal failure. Why do they have to do what everyone else does? We do have
a choice, and he implores them to think hard about removing their choice and controlling as the
public the vendor instead of the City controlling the vendor. He is the guy wriring the check. He
should have that choice.
Councilmember Saefke stated he was going to read Mr. Woodison's e-mail but seeing how Mr.
Woodison has already covered the material, he will put it into the record along with Mr.
Wysopal's responses to his questions.
MOTION by Councilmember Saeflce to receiving Mr. Woodison's November 27, 2014, e-mail.
Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, TI3E MOTION WAS CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
19
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 20
Pat Delaney, 6250 Riverview Terrace, stated it is a no brainer that this project should go
through. The saving on the streets with not having the 5 or 6 trucks running around making
noise and pollution is ridiculous.
Eric Larson, 69th Place, stated he is not 100 percent opposed to the City's plan. It has some
merits. However,right now he currently pays $162 a year. Under the City's proposed plan,he is
going to pay $309. That is a terrible deal. He thinks they could have done a lot better
negotiating.
Mayor Lund asked what size cart he used
Mr. Larson replied he has a large cart and he has yard waste. The yard waste is included in that
figure. He has been getting a good rate for about five years. If someone tries to give him a bad
rate,he calls around and gets the best rate he can get.
Mayor Lund asked who his hauler was.
Mr. Larson replied Ace. He had Walters before. It seems they could do a lot better than the
numbers the City was given.
Councilmember Barnette asked what he was paying every three months?
Mr. Larson replied, the yard waste goes the whole season. He is paying $36.50 per yard waste
can for the entire season, and he is paying a monthly rate of$10.50 for a large can. He realizes
that is a good rate. They are almost doubling his rate with the plan. His yearly rate is $162. He
does not think the haulers are giving the City a good rate.
Mayor Lund stated they definitely agreed that was part of the premise of the discussions was if
there is an economy of scale,they would get a better deal.
Mr. Larson stated he might not even mind paying just a little bit more to having only one truck
coming. There is a benefit to that.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what is a little bit more?
Mr.Larson stated a little might be$40 or$50, not$150.
Cowncilmember Saefke asked Mr. Larson whether he has a fuel adjustment column on his bill.
Mr.Larson replied,there is one. It is $1.70 a month.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether that was added onto the$162.
Mr.Larson replied,the $162 does not include that.
Richard Svanda, 1521 Woodside Court, stated he moved to Fridley in 1975. Shortly after he
moved into the City, he was appointed to the then Environmental Quality Commission and has
been there ever since. Shortly after he was appointed, he was assigned by the Commission to
represent the Commission at a City Council meeting where the curbside recycling program was
20
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 21
being debated. There was a decision made at that meeting to proceed with curbside recycling
which he views as an organized collection proposition, and they have the one hauler carrying all
the recycled materials. It has been very well run and very efficient and has served the
community and the residents very well.
Mr. Svanda stated the second gentleman talked about saving on his garbage rate. In 2010 when
the Commission sponsored public meetings on this issue, he started getting a feeling that maybe
he was paying a little too much for garbage and yard waste. He conducted a survey of the
Commission members and different neighbors who had different haulers than he did, and he
concluded he could save over $100 if he changed haulers. During the first year after that he
saved $114. Under the proposal here the yard waste rate is approximately what he is paying
now, and he uses the 30-gallon garbage can for garbage. He will sa�e about 18 percent there
which will be about 38 percent.
Mr. Svanda stated he figures from the beginning of the formal discussions here in Fridley to the
organized collection, he is going to save about $150; and he considers that very substantial. He
had a number of points to talk about, but staff has done an exemplary job of their presentation
and the points he was going to make are points they already made with regard to increased
efficiencies. He is a retired civil engineer so the discussion about the wear and tear on roads
makes imminent sense to him. He has not reviewed the points to kind of validate the numbers;
but it makes intuitive sense to him that garbage trucks are having much more of an impact on the
roadways than automobiles.
Mr. Svanda stated in the Council's budgetary discussion they talked about the certain limitations
that are placed on the City through levy limits. It seems as though the money that is projected to
be saved on roadways, for example, could go a long ways towards addressing the financial needs
of the community and/or of moderating future levy increases. He would encourage the City
Council to adopt the necessary resolutions to make organized collection of garbage in Fridley a
way of life for the future.
Brenda Michnowski, 6297 Jackson Street, stated she had her current bill. She pays $9 a month
plus there is a fuel surcharge ($5.74 for three months) on there. She understands she is getting a
sweetheart deal, but she worked hard to get the deal. She called all the haulers and shopped for
the best deal. She does have the medium sized cart. Also, Fridley is an aging community with a
lot of senior citizens in it; and she happens to be very good friends with a senior in Fridley. She
calls the Star Tribune, Comcast, the haulers and she explains she has a friend who is a senior
citizen; and she is on a fixed income. Every one of those calls she makes, she get a deal for her.
There are a lot of other people in Fridley who could take advantage of that freedom.
CounciLnember Bolkcom asked if she had yard waste pickup?
Mr.Michnowski replied, it is $73.50
Councilmember Bolkcom replied, so it is a little rr�ore than what is proposed here.
John Krack, 7629 Lakeside Road NE, stated he kind of has mixed thoughts about this. On the
surface it looks like a good idea but first thing he looked at was what the financial impact would
be. He expects to see his bill go up about 50 percent. He is currently paying $27 a quarter plus
21
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 22
fees which are about $38 so about $35 per quarter for a medium-sized container, and they are
looking at going up to around $52.35 a quarter under the new proposal. As has been noted, he
fully expects the operators will be saving a lot of money in that they will be restricted by ane
area. He agrees the City could have gotten a better deal from these haulers. He also has taken
advantage of the competition. He goes around every few years and tries to get the best deal.
That is part of the rationale for choice.
Mr. Krack stated he is with Republic rig�it now and they will do a vacation hold for a minimum
of two weeks. This proposal limits it to four weeks' minimum. He thinks that has to be
reconsidered,too. If Republic can do it for two weeks,why can't the rest?
Mr. Krack stated he has the option of paying on-line by credit card. It is very convenient. He
does understand there is damage to the streets; but he questions the methodology used to
determine that. Out of$4 million plus savings or additional cost to the streets every 20 years, he
figures there is roughly 4,000 operations caused by those extra four trucks going through once a
week over 20 years, that comes out to about $1,000 damage to the City's roads per truck for
going down his street. That sounds awfully high.
Mr. Krack stated he also questions whether 20 years is a reasonably useful life. They moved
into their house in 1980. They had their streets replaced once in 2013. By these calculations, if
the street is good for 35 years, then they really got a bargain if it costs them $4 million over a 35-
year period vs. a 20-year period. The other method they use to compute the additional cost of
building the streets to support the additional damage comes out over $100,000 every 20 years.
Maybe they should look at making the pavement a little thicker and spending that $100,000
every 20 years and supporting the additional traffic that these trucks bring.
CounciLnember Bolkcom asked if he has had his street resealed.
Mr. Krack replied, they come through every so often and do the sealing; but they are not
assessed for that. He knows it is a cost for the City; however, the City will pay for that anyway
as you get deterioration from weather and atmospheric conditions. The only assessment they
have had was last year when they dug up the entire street and replaced it.
Mr. Krack stated his big concern is the pricing and the inability, once this goes into effect, to
negotiate a better deal.
Jim Kiewel, 1627 Rice Creek Road, stated he believes the anticipated savings would be
$150,000 per year if they enacted this.
Mayor Lnnd stated it was like $208,000 and they took some other factors into consideration,
making it 75 percent of that, which is where the$150,000 came from.
Mr. Kiewel asked how many would be willing to relinquish your freedoms or your choice for
$150,000 a year.
Mayor Lnnd replied, they are just taking public comment. There are a lot of other factors that
were brought into that presentation.
22
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 PAGE 23
Mr. Kiewel said it was on the board. Anyone who did not receive a bill or missed it, that
amount would be certified to their taxes ancUor to their utility bill.
Mayor Lund replied after 75 days, the haulers would pass the bill over to the City; and it would
be assessed on the property taxes.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, similar to water or sewer or anything else they do not pay for.
Mr. Kiewel replied, he personally would not be willing to sacrifice his freedom for any amount
of money. He just would not do that. He thinks the definition of socialism is the combination or
control of the means of production and industry. Any time a government entity comes to him or
the citizens here and states they are going to save them money or things are going to be
wonderful, they are adding a third party.
Mr. Kiewel stated he has a fundamental mistrust as they are probably aware of, of government,
of social engineering or controlling individual choices. It really is not worth sacrificing their
freedom for that.
Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue N.E., stated she is vehemently opposed. 5he wants to
choose her own hauler. She wants to set her rates. She wants to be in charge of her own
household budget. She does not want government controlling anything that she cannot have
them control. One thing no one has talked about is that 70 percent of Minnesota cities have an
open hauling system. She is not going to cheer that they could end up becoming another of 30
around Fridley. Roseville Council just put it aside and said they are not talking about it. There
are so many cities right now that are jumping on the band wagon to go to open hauling.
Everybody started out with, oh, it is so noisy and so bad for the environment. They got down to
the only thing left to wave their flag for was the streets.
Ms. Reynolds stated the industry polices itself. Most of the haulers are going to trucks that burn
natural gas. The old behemoth garbage truck spitting and spewing the diesel fumes are not there
anymore. Her biggest issue with this is she wants to pick. If Walters ticks her off, she wants to '
get on the phone, and she wants to get rid of them. If her rate gets too high, she wants to be able
to get a better one. By eliminating free market, you eliminate competition. By eliminating her
right to choose, you have eliminated her right to choose.
Ms. Reyolds stated the saving of such a little dab of money on streets, you have fo do them
anyways. It is not like, for how many years, has the City been maintaining the streets; and all of
a sudden a light comes on and they say, oh my God, look at how much money they could save if
they took way the people's rights to pick their own gazbage man.
Ms. Reyolds stated she does not see anything in the document that gives a senior discount or
anything that covers the senior who currently shares with their neighbor because they have one
little Target bag full of trash a week. She sees nothing in there that tells her who they are going
to control next. What if she has a private lawn care service, is that next? Because of this
proposal her garbage and yard waste service is going to almost double.
Mayor Lund asked what she was paying now?
23
FRIDLEY CITY eOUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 _ PAGE 24
Ms. Reynolds replied her bill is $39 something for three months. That is not a sweetheart deal;
she has been with the same company for four or five years. 5he switched because she was not
getting the service she wanted. If it is like anything else the City does, it will not enforce it so it
will not matter.
Ms. Reynolds stated Ms. Jones talked about how many code enforcement violations are based
on solid waste. At the EQEC meeting she pointed out 143 that were probably a real issue. The
rest of them are because someone leaves their garbage can in front of the house or they do not
store it inside.
Ms. Reynolds stated something else she noticed in the document, where is the control when it
comes to townhouses. She understands they operate under a homeowners association which is a
business pretty much,but on her street the townhouses are at the end of the street. Therefore, if
they still have their own garbage hauler, and the City finds her one, she is still going to have
double. Most of the people on her street pretty much use two haulers. Sooner or later she is
going to get assessed for the street being done. If they noticed in Mr. Kosluchar's presentation,
the word, "predicted" is on the flag where it says, how much extra road life they are going to get
and how much less they are going to pay. Because nobody has figured it out. They have a chart
where you can plug in the numbers that tells her how much damage that truck is doing to my
street. On her street she sees kids out there, picking rocks out of the street, banging things, and
people dragging things.
Ms. Reynolds asked if they remembered Mr. Jawar driving the D9 cat down the street on the
metal runners. He damaged the street, and it has never been repaired because right where he was
running that thing is exactly where the surface breaks up all the time. They put a patch on it.
The road has not buckled or failed, and she still has probably 7 or 8 garbage trucks. However,
she thinks when they hit Norton Avenue they are pretty much empty as it is where they start their
route.
Ms. Reynolds stated the other thing is what happens to people who have long-term contracts
with a garbage hauler so as to maintain a price for a longer period of time. Or, a very unique
thing she came across is there are some people in this City who currently have a lifetime service
provided for free as a result of a buyout of a smaller garbage company by a large one. It kind of
sounds to her the City is going to say, it does not matter what deal you worked out with your
hauler or what kind of contracts you have.
Ms. Reynolds stated this is not necessary. She asked, if this goes through, then who is next?
The one thing Mr. Wysopal pointed out was that this is the only industry that does not pay to use
the City's streets in a franchised sort of fashion. They do pay wheelage t�es and those sort of
things. However, what about the post office? UPS? FedEx? The Post Office truck runs along
her gutter every day. She does not know what one weighs, but it drives in the same place every
day. Eventually the curb is going to give. Are they going to stop the United States Postal
service? It is wrong to mess with the free market system, and it is definitely wrong to take away
her right to achieve a better rate and maintain the budget in her household by using competition.
Ted Kueppers, 7361 Tempo Terrace, stated he appreciates what staff has prepared and agrees
with many of the items they have brought up; and he and his wife have discussed these prior to
this time and agree with them and support the organizational use of refuse hauling.
24
'FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 25
Adam Hardy, 6845 Channel Road NE, stated he has a couple of concerns. A lot of them have
already been addressed by several members. He stands in opposition to the proposal. It is about
freedom and a lot people have already touched on it. That is one of the main reasons he opposes
it. According to the website,residents will save an average of 70 percent from current rates. He
would like to know if those savings aze going to be reflected on his taxes.
Mayor Lund asked how sa, because he is getting a savings? The haulers are the ones who are
giving him a sa�ings for those who will get a savings. Does he mean because of the wear and
tear on the streets?
Mr. Hardy replied right.
Mayor Lund replied, there would not be a cost savings. It means that they will not have to raise
the taxes or charge assessments according to some of these studies.
Mr. Hardy stated he would be willing to pay the assessment for the street because his freedom is
that important to him. The non-residential dwelling units, how is their refuse collected? Can
they pick and choose their own hauler right now?
Mayor Lund replied, under this proposal it is up to three units. The townhouses and mobile
home parks have single collection sites. A lot of them do not have the carts.
Mr. Hardy stated they are still able to negotiate with any of the five haulers in the City.
Mayor Lund replied correct.
Mr. Hardy stated he wanted to know why the City wants to negotiate on his behalf when he is
capable of doing that himself.
Mayor Lund replied, that was pretty clear in the presentation that it is about long-term cost
savings to one of the City's most expensive assets in the community.
Mr.Hardy stated the City thinks they can do a better job of negotiating his service than he can.
Mayor Lund replied, not necessarily. There have been some comments here by people who are
getting some pretty good deals.
Mr. Hardy replied, exactly, and he wants to keep his pretty sweet deal if that is okay with the
City. Apparently not,because in this proposal they want to raise his rates.
Mayor Lund asked how much his rates would rise.
Mr. Hardy replied on his current rate right now, it would probably go up about 20 percent.
However, apparently hearing from other people he is getting robbed on his yard waste right now.
His real concern here is his right is being taken away to negotiate his own services, his own
prices.
Norma Rust, 5735 Quincy, stated it sounds like a good deal; but she is opposed to it because it
takes away her freedom. She knows of previous neighbors who combined their garbage
25
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 _PAGE 26
collection services because of the minumal amount of garbage they had and because of their
limited income. For her, if she were to come under this type of program, she would have a 100
percent increase in her garbage collection because she does not have garbage callection now.
She takes it to another place.
Mayor Lund asked if she takes it to her employer.
Ms. Rust replied another property that they have.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but it would not increase. It is her understanding in the new
agreement, if Ms. Rust can show that she is taking it to her business because they know Ms. Rust
has an apartment complex, as long as she can show that and fill that out, she would not have to
have garbage collection at her home.
Mayor Lund replied it is the opt-out clause.
Ms. Rust stated when a garbage truck comes to the City Hall, they should put this proposal in
there and let the garbage hauler haul it away once and for all.
Gary Alfernes, 570 Rice Creek Boulevard, stated he is all for it and the biggest reason for him is
to have less trucks going around the neighborhood. He has been hearing some people who are
getting some really good deals. He has been happy with his hauler. He is surprised at some of
the prices some people have been getting. He does not even know what his new price would be
but he is all for it.
Justin Foell, 6005 Gardena Circle, stated he is for organized collection. It has never really been
an issue of cost for him. During the summer when there is composting, nine garbage trucks
come by on a given day. Although looking at the presentation today, he pays $40 for
composting currently for the entire season. They apparently are not getting a good deal on their
composting. By inviting five trash haulers, they have kind of created this haulers union and it
seems like the contract term is really long. He was just wondering if anyone knew how the
contract renegotiation works and, if they cannot do it in like two minutes, it is probably too
complex.
Mr. Wysopal asked Mr. Foell is he saying that the seven-year period is too long and how does
the renegotiation happen?
Mr.Foell replied,his concern would be that if they feel they are not getting a good deal,they are
going to have to wait a really long time to try and get a better deal. Whereas, on their own right
now they can change whenever they want. He would think a yearly basis would be more normal.
Mayor Lund stated that is a little short-term for him. The biggest thing that comes to mind right
away is that it is a good thing for the haulers as they have a dedicated seven-year contract with
what they are proposing. With that they can go to the bank if they need to get new equipment,
new trucks, etc. It gives them some stability. Seven years is a long time though especially if
they are not happy with it.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated State Statute says they can go from three to seven years.
26
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 27
Mr. Wysopal stated as to how the renegotiation would occur, they would put the haulers on
notice that it is time to renegotiate. They would be gathering data from every year on how things
are going. They would be looking at the other cities and what the prices are and go to the
negotiation table with direction from the City Council as far as what items they need to negotiate
on. It is completely up to the City and the haulers to decide if they want to go into an extension
of the term. It is not obligated. They would come into it just like they would on any contract
and say, okay, what do they need to work on. What needs to be better. What are our business
points.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated right now the proposal is for seven years. The renegotiation
would be somewhere maybe in the sixth year.
Joan Olson, 6320 Van Buren, stated she is a 48-year resident of the City. She remembered
when her street was rebuilt. Her 48-year old son was in kindergarten. Her street was sealcoated
only one time.
Mayor Lund asked, sealcoated or redone?
Ms. Olson replied, nothing.
Mayor Lund stated the sealcoat program is every eight years.
Ms. Olson replied, she has not seen one. She is opposed to it. She wants to keep her hauler.
They are very good. She uses the yard waste in the spring and in the fall. She has a lawn
service. Everything is mulched right back into the lawn. She does not have grass clippings. She
still pays for it but she does not need it. She lets her neighbors use it if they need extra. She
wants to keep what she has, and she likes her walk-up service.
Mayor Lund asked if she is disabled. He did notice in the contract that for those who are
handicapped or have some disability,they do have a walk-up service.
Ms. Olson replied, she has a disability and she has enough of a slope in her driveway that her
kids would have 16 fits if she tried to haul a garbage can down there.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that would not change.
Mayor Lund stated he read in the contract they would still have valet service for those who need
it.
Ms. Olson stated she gets it for free from her hauler. She called several others and they wanted
$6 to $10 a month extra to do it. She is against it.
Brian DuRose, Gibralter Avenue, stated every year he calls up his trash hauler and he has not
paid for more than nine months of service in the last three years. He just changed haulers and he
got three months free because he asked for a better dea1. What the City did was sent out a notice
to five trash haulers and said give me a bid, and every one of those people called each other and
said, okay,we are all going to bid$35. How many bids were different of the five?
Mayor Lund replied,that actually was nat the case.
27
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 28
Mr.DuRose asked how many bids were different?
Mayor Lund replied,he did not know. He was not a part of the negotiations.
Mr. DuRose stated, another example is, he had Sirius radio. It was $86 for six months. He
called up and said, he would like a better deal, and they said they could offer $50 a month. He
said it was not good enough, let me talk to your supervisor. Supervisor got on the line. He got
Sirius radio for$25 for six months. It is their fault they do not negotiate with their trash hauler.
Councilmember Bolkcom said she never thinks of it.
Mayor Lund stated this item may come up at the next Council meeting. They need to take this
input. He does not know if they will even make a final selection at the next meeting. They need
to discuss the input they have received tonight. It is a worthwhile venture. They should be
looking at these things.
Mayor Lund stated governments get criticized often and maybe rightfully so about spending
taxpayers' money and maybe not so wisely. On the alternative side it is only right to look for
alternatives to save money, and that was the premise. They never did look at just going to one
hauler. Why should they not be getting a better deal like some of them are getting. He is certain
they would have gotten a better deal in the negotiation if they had gone to a single hauler. They
felt that they have had five haulers in the City for a number of years, and it is kind of a nice deal
for them to know they do not have to sit there and fight each other for hying to steal the other
guy's business. However, they also do not lose business this way.
Mayor Lund stated he heard a lot of positive things. Staff has done a lot of work and
negotiations over the last 11 plus months. The EQEC looked at this almost three years ago.
They are listening to people, and the fact is, it was citizen input that started this whole thing three
years ago.
Mayor Lund stated the one thing that is prevalent here in this room is cost and probably No. 1 is
freedom of choice. Understand that there is always a give and take in negotiations. He asked
they be given time for them to weigh in on this.
Councilmember Barnette stated he very much encouraged people to call them and e-mail them.
They need to get all those opinions. That is why they got elected is to serve the public.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she just had one e-mail in support of it from a couple who
lived over on Alden Way. Another one on her own street, and another one from a gentleman
who lives on Riverview Terrace supporting the project for some of the very same reasons that
were part of the staff presentation.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, going back to if there is a renter in a duplex, and the renter
does not pay for their garbage, then it goes on the utility bills for the actual homeowner of the
property, correct?
Ms.Jones replied correct.
28
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 PAGE 29
Councilmember Bolkcom stated on Page 82, she does not undersatand (H). It says the City
shall not amend the City Code during the term of this Agreement in any way that prohi�its,
frustrates, or makes it economically prohibited for a hauler to maintain his Class I license unless
required by state or county law or mandate. What does that mean?
Mr. Wysopal stated that is telling her the concern from the haulers is that they have this
Agreement and then the terms of the Agreement are changed via an ordinance, and they are then
without the customers they thought they had. This Agreement ties the performance of the license
to the ordinances, etc. It is a protection that they do not go and do anything that would violate
the terms of this Agreement through an ordinance as opposed to changing the Agreement within
the seven-year period of time.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she and Mr. Wysopal have discussed this. It actually says they
can pick up garbage from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. but then it says in the Agreement, if you have
not had your garbage picked up at 4:30 p.m. (a lat of people do not get home until after 4:30).
The way she reads this is that if she does not get home unti15:00 p.m. she can call her hauler and
leave a message. She might not get it picked up the next day,but they have to promise it by the
following day. In the meantime she should not get into any trouble for leaving her garbage out
there, correct?
Mr.Wysopal replied correct.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated, on Page 86, something very simple but under 18(b), the last
sentence, is the word, hauler shall notify the City of said purchase or acquisition and provide the
City with "contract" information for the new party." Should it be contact?
Attorney Erickson replied, she believed the word should be "contact."
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Erickson is it not true in the way the State Statute is
that they could not really just pick one hauler, and say, okay, you are the magic person. They
would have to negotiate with all five of them.
Attorney Erickson replied, the statute requires that you have a mandatory negotiation period
with all of the haulers. You have to have a minimum of 60 days. Essentially the State carves out
an exception that requires the City, before it goes to look at going out for an RFP from a single
hauler, that it sit down with the currently licensed haulers in the City. It allows them an
opportunity by statute to preserve their market share.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated tonight it was menrioned that seven years is a long time. This
is speculation on Mr. Wysopal's part but what would happen if it were only for three years since
there were concerns voiced here related to cost. For one thing, could they go back and negotiate�
a cost? Maybe not as high as here. Maybe after three years look at it and see if it makes sense. It
sounds like Mr. Wysopal had really good negotiations. The haulers need to make money, too,
and have to pay their employees. However, what if it was only for three years and they look
back and investigated whether it made sense.
Mr. Wysopal replied, when they completed negotiations, both the haulers and the City, himself,
said we need to have an agreement that we can live with if it is approved and without major
change in the contract itself. He would constitute the change in the term as a major change
29
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 30
because the pricing was reflecting on that. That is not saying that they were very open to sma11
detailed types of things that might need to be relooked at but they felt very good about the
proposal. From the City's standpoint, the seven-year term was a reasonable term and it has
annual meetings involved so that service requirements can be addressed. He thinks this one
seems to go more towards the price piece which concerned him.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what it meant.
Mr. Wysopal said his concern is that this is a foundational issue. They would be kind of
negotiating back from the Council table. That is not saying that it cannot be done but, as they
left negotiations, they said this is the best the haulers can do, the best the City is expecting, and
they would not be coming back to negotiating the significant terms and conditions of the
agreement.
Smaller things that have been brought up tonight certainly can be talked about,but the term piece
is a major thing. It is not to say they could not go back and say we want to talk about it because
there is an issue here. However,it sounds like they are going back to negotiate the price of it.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated they heard from people who were against it, and their concern
was that it was taking away their ability to talk to the hauler about complaints. Even if they do
not change the price but they only do it for three years instead of seven years, does that make it
more palatable for people who are against it?
Mr. Wysopal stated they can explore that with them if that is the will of Council. They just
want to be careful about trying to negotiate too much from the Council table. If the price is the
issue, that should be talked about publicly and go forward with it. One thing he has learned
about the haulers in the last 11 months is they are excellent companies and they are excellent
people. They work hard to do the service they have and to earn the service they have gotten.
They are reasonable people and, if there was a reasonable explanation of why seven years or
some other term would be better,they would be willing to at least sit down and talk about it.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated way the contract reads is, if you sell your house your yard
waste goes away. Someone else who comes in your house does not get that yazd waste. If she
pays that $80 and goes from Hauler B to Hauler C, does that Hauler B pay Hauler C so that she
does not pay the yard waste again?
Mr. Wysopal replied, from what he understands from the haulers is that, in their current
practice, if you are under an open system, if you were to move, they would honor your previous
payment to wherever you move if you use them as a hauler; but the new homeowner would not
be able to take advantage of what you paid for already. Under the proposed Agreement that
would be the same.
Councilmember Varichak asked how they would determine if the haulers are meeting the
requirements.
Mr. Wysopal replied there are a couple of ways. One is in just the continued relationship that
they have with the haulers. He thinks they are in good stead with them now to be able to have
that relationship to say that we got these calls. This is an issue and let's work on it. Remember
the first point of caller contact is to the hauler itself. If the resident feels they are not getting
30
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 31
good service, they can call the hauler right away. If that is not being addressed, the resident can
call the City who would work with them to remedy the issue. There are sections in the
Agreement that deal with this. The majority of what they woula be doing is having the ability to
work specifically with that hauler and say, this resident is having issues, here is what they are,
let's get them worked out. They would discuss issues at the overall performance review on an
annual basis the haulers.
Councilmember Varichak stated if the billing goes delinquent, then the City takes over. Have
they estimated how much staff time it would take?
Mr. Wysopal stated their estimates are it would be a very low amount of time. It would be
higher in the first year of operation and then go down based on experiences other cities have had
with this similar type of thing. On an ongoing basis they would be able to do it with the existing
staff in the Finance Department.
Councilmember Varichak asked can they even estimate the amount of delinquent people who
do not pay their utilities, how many would not pay their garbage fees; and what does that equate
for the savings for the streets?
Mr. Wysopal replied, their estimate on the high side was about $90,000 a year that people
would not be paying. The City would be assessing fees on top of that to recover it. Therefore,
the City's time cost of money would come back to it and then some of the fees.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated just like if someone does not pay their water bill, there is an
administrative fee.
Councilmember Varichak asked does that come back to the City now and go on the tax rolls.
That just goes to the hauler, right?
Mr. Wysopal replied, that is correct. If the hauler does not get payment, they just stop servicing
that unit. That is the common practice.
Mr. Krack stated the point on the delinquent payers is well-taken, but couldn't that be handled
under the existing program by inviting the haulers to turn that complaint over to the City and
then have the City put it through the collection process?
Mr. Krack stated the whole process looks like the situation is where they got together with the
haulers and put together the design and poured the concrete which is now hardening, and now
they come out to the public and ask for suggestions. The suggestions they ofFer require some
major changes to the deal they cut with the haulers. They sat here a year ago on December 2 and
listened to a presentation that took absolutely no comments from the public, and nobody even
considered the cost which is the concern of many of them and the choice. It would have been
very helpful if they would have had some kind of a session mid-Fall to say what are your big
concerns on this.
Mayor Lund stated they have to understand that he and the Council received this Agreement the
same time it was presented to the public. They were not a party to those negotiations.
Mr. Krack stated who negotiated it then?
31
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8 2014 PAGE 32
Mayor Luad replied the City Manager met with the haulers on 11 different occasions during the
process.
Mr. Krack stated then maybe the City Manager should have had some meetings with the public
to get their suggestions.
Mayor Lund stated they could have made comment at any time via e-mail or letter. Now he
finds out that some people have some really awesome deals.
Mr. Krack stated they did not know all of this was going on until they got notice of the
information session.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like Attorney Erickson to speak on the whole
process of what State Statute says they can and cannot do.
Attorney Erickson stated the Statute Statute, 115A.94 sets a mandated process for organizing
collection. It is the sole process that exists, and the City has been following that process. To Mr.
Krack's point it is kind of backwards to the extent that the Statute mandates that you go and meet
for 60 days at a minimum with the haulers and then you come forward with a proposal. There
were many meetings at the EQEC level where citizen input was sought, and she believed was
provided, as to what were priorities, concerns, etc. The way the Statute sets forth it is kind of a
different process where there is negotiation that precedes the presentation and public hearing.
And that is a requirement and the legislation was just changed in 2013 to create that process.
That was done at the legislative level with lobbyists on both sides of the issue, the cities have
their lobbyists and the haulers have theirs. There is give and take in legislation.
Mr. Krack stated then there needs to be a provision in the process which they are having right
now with the public hearing where the public can comment but then they have to have the
provision where they can go back and renegotiate with the haulers. The concrete has been
poured. They heard Mr. Wysopal say it would be almost like tearing it apart and starting it over
again to go back and try and negotiate some of the major terms of this deal.
Attorney Erickson sta.ted there is nothing that prevents the City from doing that, but the results
of the negotiation sessions were what the haulers believed to be their best offer. Otherwise, they
are going to have a constant pick, pick, pick at the issues that they may never get a resolution.
The intent of this is to solicit a proposal from the haulers and then have this open meeting.
Otherwise there could be ongoing public meetings. The intent,is that the parties walk away with
a pretty firtn proposaL
Mr. Krack stated he expects the haulers would say they don't want to put anymore time into
this. T'hey are happy with the situation the way it is now. His big concern is the public for the
most part is left out of the decision-making process until tonight.
Attorney Erickson replied, again, she would say the Statute contemplates that City staff goes
and discusses this with the haulers and then brings the haulers' proposal to the City Council and
the public for comment. That is Subdivision 4(d) and it is a relatively new provision.
32
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 PAGE 33
Mr. Wysopal stated the other piece of this is answered through two things, one, what if that
price was one of the components that the Council directed himself and the staff to negotiate
about. It was one of the items. It was not the highest item. The highest item had to do more
with the street impacts and the cost that the City was incurring on these roads. And then the
environmental and safety issues and price was one of the issues.
Mr. Wysopal stated, as to the second part of his answer related to what are the next steps? The
next steps are the Council can accept the Agreement and execute the Agreements and move
forward. The other option would be for the Council to reject the Agreements and end the
process. The third option would be to reject the Agreements and create a committee (this again
is out of the Statute the City Attorney talks about) by the Council by whomever they choose.
Whereas, the negotiations that took place were between the haulers and the City in a closed
environment. Again that was specified by Statute that is completely different than how they
normally do business.
Mr. Wysopal stated the haulers had at risk if they chose not to be a part of that. They could lose
their market share and be excluded if they chose to exclude themselves. They all chose to
negotiate in good faith. They worked on all the information that was presented. And it was not a
bid. They did not say, okay, you five haulers send us your best bid. It was we have to sit down
and say what are prices; and they worked together to figure out what their average market rate
was and, based on what they considered their market rate numbers, the number that was
negotiated is about 17 percent below that. If the Council were to decide to go to a single hauler,
then they would say, okay, everybody, here are our specifications, give us a bid and that drives
the price down.
Mr. Wysopal stated comparing Fridley's prices to the most recent city to do this process -
St. Anthony was the first city they were aware of to go through this process and successfully
negotiate an agreement. Fridley's numbers are right in line with theirs. However, if they
compare their numbers to Blaine which has a single hauler based on a one bid price, these
numbers are higher. They are probably more in line with what are the sweetheart deals they
heard today. Again, that was not the direction they were given.
Mr. Woodison stated he would take his opposition off this proposal if they could somehow go
back and say, a shorter term, for the very reason Councilmember Bolkcom spoke of it. He is
willing to give up his freedom for three years. No one disputes they are trying to do the right
thing. They do not want these haulers to be relaxed. Seven years is relaxed.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked with Councilmember Barnette asking for persons to call him
and e-mail him where do those comments go? Why close the public hearing tonight? She asked
how long was St. Anthony's agreement for?
Mr.Wysopal replied, five years.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what have the agreements been for some of the others who
have gone to organized hauling in the last couple of years? How long are their agreements? I,
This is the first night people have really received a chance to give them their input. She would
like to continue the public hearing so they can pursue some of these other options.
33 I
FRIDLEY C_I_TY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 34
Mayor Lund stated it was his intent to close the public hearing and then have discussion after
the public hearing because there are sufficient outcomes from this that she and others have
expressed.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Wysopal when he said that the percentage of people would
save 17 percent,where did that come from?
Mr. Wysopal replied, that was from the number the haulers represented and they verified with
actual bills, statements, from people. They have to understand if you take five different haulers
and figure out what their average cost per level of service was and they verified it the best they
could and said, yes, that is pretty accurate.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to continue the public hearing to December 22, 2014.
Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE. COUNCILMEMBER BARNETTE,VARICHAK, SAEFKE AND
BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, WITH ONE ABSTENTION, THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY PASSED.
NEW BUSINESS:
16. Resolution Approving Adoption of a Master Plan for the Northstar TOD Area as
Prepared by HKGI.
Ms. Jones stated they have asked the City's consultants to come in and present the final master
plan to them for tonight.
Jeff Miller, HKGI, stated Brian Harjes is also here from HKGI. Mr. Miller is a planner and Mr.
Harjes is a landscape architect. They have been working with the City since February on this
and they have met with the City Council three times during that process in developing the plan.
He is aware they have seen a lot of this information. They have all the important components to
present, and they are open to questions at the end.
Mr. Miller stated TOD is transit-oriented development and TIF is tax increment financing.
They will see a lot of references to these as they go forward. The purpose of this master plan is
to provide guidance for the use of the transit TIF funds since they can only be used for transit-
related improvements. It is also meant to entice private redevelopment by showing parks,
improvements, and access to transit that should be amenities for redevelopment when it occurs in
this area. It is also meant to guide future TOD applications from developers by proactively
showing them what the City has preliminarily approved and is hoping will happen in this area
but is not meant to open what the redevelopment looks like.
Mr. Miller stated just as a reference the background planning of this process was the TIF district
which was established in 2008, the overlay district in 2011, the East River Corridor Study in
2012, and then the Islands of Peace Park Plan the City undertook the process for that last fall and
then Anoka County subsequently also planned it since it is a regional park managed by the
County. The goal of the master plan is to build upon previous plans: Islands of Peace Plan
which they saw a year ago for the first time; leverage amenities which include the river,the parks
34
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 35
which are pretty hidden in this area, the school; and the transit station among other things
probably. Also,to tie those things together to create a place around this transit station area.
Mr. Miller stated another goal is to reconnect the community to the river in the Islands of Peace
Park. Also to plan and characterize infrastructure improvements like roadways,bike trails, storm
water planning in the future, and those sorts of things. Lastly is to identify potential funding
opportunities and partnerships. One of the best ways to attract win funding and grant money is
to have a really good plan that you can use to show that you know what you want for that area.
Mr. Miller stated, as to project involvement, there were three meetings with the HRA and the
City Council over this process. There were two open houses and then staff inet with many
stakeholders including property owners in this area, the school district, the County, Metro
Transit, etc.
Mr. Miller stated as to the first key component of the plan they would be adopting, the first one
is the land uses and streets. The key features include a mixed use area at the corner of Interstate
694 and East River Road, the John Allen site, which has already been approved. They expanded
and enhanced Islands of Peace Park on the west side of the district, a new loop parkway better
linking the park and existing and future housing to East River Road, and redeveloped housing
along that parkway and across from that park within walking distance of the school and to the
transit station as that area redevelops over the coming years. Also, redevelopment within the
underused transit park and ride lots, both east and west of the station. They met with Metro
Transit and they are very open to looking into that process. Industrial and commercial
businesses are anticipated to stay in place on the east side of East River Road.
Mr. Miller stated, lastly, there are three traffic signals shown on the plan including an additional
one at Island Park Drive that they have discussed with the County; and they would be open to
that when there is enough redevelopment and traffic to warrant that.
Brian Harjes, HKGI, stated he just wanted to touch briefly on appeal of the redevelopment
concept. He presented a graphic to kind of illustrate what could be developed in the future. It is
intended to show footprints and kind of take that next step beyond the land use plan to kind of tie
the urban design features of the district together. What they see are building footprints. It may
not develop exactly like this, but the intent of the ordinance as it is written today reflects this
kind of development character with buildings towards the street. Parking, organized away from
the public view either in surplus lots or a potential for structured parking. They can see
predominantly in these plans on the west side of East River Road it is a housing focus, a narrow
area right at the 53rd Street intersection a potential for some mixed use in that area.
Mr. Harjes stated they have two numbers here. Really one to illustrate the growth of net
housing units with or without the southern leg of Georgetown. A lot of the focus of potential
redevelopment maybe in the first ten years or so of the plan. It would be north of 57th Avenue
all the way up to the school. In that zone the transformation could occur where they would have
about 650 to 800 units and then a transformation even much more long-term beyond that about
950 to 1,150 housing units in that area for net growth.
Mr. Harjes stated projected office development is really focused at the John Allen site towards
the southwest corner of that. T'he light industrial development is another component of the John
35
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 PAGE 36
Allen project. There is a small portion along Main Street, just southeast of the TOD station.
Also, some potential retail in kind of a one-third, two-thirds split of maybe some commercial pad
infill sites near the Home Depot and others, as well as some of that opportunity for a little mixed .
use retail right at the 57th Avenue intersection. _
Mr. Harjes stated some of the key features are the pedestrian/bike network. There is the Main
Street sidewalk lanes. Those have been improved. There is additional funding being prepared
for a bridge over I-694. A lot of the plan illustrates trail connections towards the school with the
safe routes to school program as well as extensive trails through Islands of Peace Park both kind
of on top of the bluff where the new park area would be and as long as some enhancements to the
trails down along the riverfront,the natural areas of the park. As well as the strong activity along
the East River Road corridor itself, both from the station all the way to the trail that exists along
694.
Mr. Iiarjes stated a lot of talk early on in the process was the about the potential for a roadway
connection from 57th Avenue. SRS Consulting Engineering Company who was a partner with
them on this project looked at that extensively and just concluded the cost to be too prohibitive at
this moment but to allow for that planning to still continue as ongoing discussions both at the
railroad and adjacent properties may open the opportunity for that in the future. However, the
plan does reflect the opportunity for near term pedestrian crossings over that rail line as an
opportunity for a bridge, local connection there as well.
Mr. Harjes stated street design concepts was another good point that Mr. Miller talked about.
There are four main streets they really focused on trying to develop the design character for each
of these. The East River Road section really was just continuing the same vision if you will that
was set forth in the East River Road master planning that was done in 2012. They are carrying
that forward and trying to merge and blend some of the same design ideas between other key
streets such Main Street, the new parkway street, as well as the residential parkway.
Mr. Harjes presented a graphic from the East River Road plan and the top section shows more
of a central component of the street where you may have a treed boulevard as well as a treed
median. The lower section shows the extent near the intersection where you may have turn lanes
and bus pulloffs for a transit facility. It is a little wider section of that area to accommodate those
turning movements. They have kept that in play and bringing that thinking throughout.
Mr. Harjes stated the Main Street section on the right shows some of the recent improvements
with the bike lane and the sidewalk components with the light industrial being to the left side of
the graphic and the existing residential to the right side.
Mr. Harjes stated two new features involved really that little mixed use section along 57th
Avenue along 57th Avenue from East River Road down to the parkway. The graphic on the left
shows a plan and then a corresponding section below it. Envision the river on the north side of
the graphic, just beyond the park, East River Road, just off the map to the south. This street
would have the ability of on-street parking to serve some of the commercial businesses. It would
have a center median with kind of a high quality storm water treatment and natural open space
amenity to draw people from East River Road down towards the park in that location. In
addition to that they are tying in bicycle facilities along there as well. So a combination of
striped on-street bike lanes that lead to a green painted identifiable connection a11 the way into
36
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 37
the park. It is a combination that can balance transit bike commuters at the same time as
recreational bikers that want to get to the park.
Mr. Harjes stated the other image on the right is the parkway section which really tries to create
more of a residential character with the housing facing the park and provide on-street parking as
well. A couple of images that were shown at the open house, and just for reference, this is to
kind of give everybody of the flavor, the potential character for development in these areas. He
showed the Islands of Peace parkway section. The small segment that could potentially have a
mixed use component from 57th Avenue looking to the west, down towards the park in East
' River Road. In the far distance of that elevation they can see as they always talked about as a
Park Centrum building, an opportunity to make that maybe a park gathering space that has a
rental lease tenant which could be a restaurant or a small service use. Four to six-story housing
lining the street there.
Mr. Harjes stated, moving up the road a little bit to the next parkway access, a little lower of
character of building height away from kind of that mixed use street but again allowing the
combination of pedestrian and bicycle enhancement along the corridor integrating bus stops in
that area as well.
Mr. Harjes stated on the other side of the railroad tracks at the station, looking back along 61 st
Avenue to the west and towards the transit station in the distance again, that housing coming
towards the street, enhanced streetscape and characteristics along the boulevard parking and
including bicycle activity as well.
Mr. Miller stated the last part of this is the City's TOD overlay district which the City has in
place already, has landscaping and streetscape standards in it. One of the reasons for working on
this project is to specify what those standards should be. What is shown here is the character of
the streetscape elements that would be amended into the zoning district after this process. This
project is not going to change in the zoning district but as a follow-up to this project. This would
get incorporated into the zoning for this area. It shows a bench, trash receptacle, bike rack,
planters, bollard and aerial lights, the character that they would want to have in that area as
redevelopment comes to this area. If they remember the last session they had, they looked at
some different options and got the City's preferences in this area.
Mr. Miller stated there is the complimentary street light which is a down-facing light even
though it is a more contemporary light. It was preferred the benches were not wood so he
showed metal benches and waste receptacles. They feel these are complementary and there is
the design element that have the organic or natural features and then a bench with a similar style
without the images. He showed metal bike racks which would be in this area and metal movable
planters would be an option. One of the things in the overlay district is that if there is not enough
space on some of these sites to meet all of the landscaping tree requirements there is some
flexibility in the ordinance to replace it without things like planters,planting beds.
Mr. Miller stated another piece of it is in the overlay district it talks about sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways, that they should look different than the street and be called out. There is
the option to do scored concrete or colored concrete with patterns or concrete pavers and that
would include pedestrian crossings of driveways as well.
37
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 PAGE 38
Mr. Miller stated the ordinance does have standards for fencing and walls and railings. This is
specifying what is desired in that area. He should one of the substitutes for if it is difficult on the
site to fit all the required trees, there is flexibility in the ordinance that the developer could do
public art or land mark signage or way finding is also something they wanted in this area. He
showed the planters that were an option instead of trees or there is one you could actually put
trees in there as well.
Mr. Miller stated, lastly, they talked about the stormwater. He showed tree trenches which
instead of having the traditional pond which takes up a lot of development space, the idea is to
have this area look at more innovative ways where there are tree trenches or green roofs or
underground cisterns. There are about 7 or 8 ways you can handle stormwater including these
two. That would be brought into the ordinance as well.
Mr. Miller sta.ted the scope of the project was for them to recommend changes to the ordinance.
The recommendations are that the overlay district refers specifically to the TOD TIF district
master plan and what is in there. Add a requirement for a streetscape plan from developers.
Sections that are not in overlay district today that should be added really to benches, waste
receptacles by racks and bollards, add a table with design specs for those features which gets into
who manufactures them and how to contact them, the materials, etc. Lastly, add other
regulations related to varying materials, colors in this area, way finding signage pa�ements, and
then storm water.
Ms. Jones stated as far as kind of wrapping up this project,they are asking for the City Council's
approval for this master plan. They do need to complete this project by the end of the year.
They are looking probably as the next step to this doing some amendments to the City's TOD
overlay zoning district to add some of these specifics they had given the City for streetscape.
The whole idea of that overlay district and the language that is in there now is that the City
would eventually do that but wanted some time to work on a complete plan to go with that. They
will likely also want to complete a minor comprehensive plan amendment to incorporate these
documents and drawings into the City's comprehensive plan as well as incorporating some of
these drawings they would like to have as a guide in the comprehensive plan.
Ms. Jones stated they are already looking at some fiinding opportunities because of the Islands
of Peace Park being next to the river which is a national park and does open some opportunities
for the City particularly since the MRT bike trail recently got designated as not just a national
bike trail but a national water trail as well and there is some new funding that is expected to
come along related to that. Staff is looking at some federal grants to possible use as leverage to
get some state money or vice versa, use some State DNR grant trail money to generate some
federal money and looking at some opportunities and where they can push through grant funds to
do some of these trail connections rather than waiting for tax increment financing funding
through the City's capability with the transit TIF Fund in the future. They will be looking at that
and of course using this plan as a guide for those grant applications.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated the space ship lights are kind of wild to her. That is just a
thought and they do not have to go with quite that design. She likes the idea of the smaller lights
but they would get dated quick. It was a great process. The attendance at the neighborhood
TOD meetings were not huge but at first the people who came were a little leery but they came
back and were incredibly excited. The ones she spoke with were very happy there was going to
38
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER S.2014 PAGE 39
be some new development in that area. Some of the housing,the apartment complexes, are some
of the worst ones in the City as far as maintenance and that type of thing. It would be nice to get
rid of some of the stuff on East River Road, all the signs, etc. and have some better streetscape
which goes along with the whole master plan they had a few years ago. People wanted to have
more kind of a parkway.
Mayor Lund stated he is not necessarily keen on those lights either but he does like the idea of
the downcast.
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom Adopting Resolution No. , the Master Plan for the
Northstar TOD Area as Prepared by HKGI. Seconded by Councilmember Saeflce.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, THE MOTION WAS CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
17. Approve Agreement between the City of Fridley and Partners & Sirny, LLP, to
Provide the Design Services for the Renovation and Addition to the Interpretive
Building at Springbrook Nature Center(Ward 3).
Jack Kirk, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated he is here to talk about the architectural
design services for the Springbrook Nature Center project. The SPRING project committee
which is what they call the local group that is working very hard on helping with the design were
very involved with reviewing the proposals and also the interviewing of three architect firms for
this project. The three firms which were interviewed were Perkins and Will; Rafferty, Rafferty,
Tollefson and Lindeke; and Partners & Sirny. While they felt that all the firms were very good
and they did a nice job in the interview process, the committee felt that one firm did stand out
and was the best fit for the project that is on the table right now. That firm is Partners & Sirny,
and the lead architect with that firm is Paul Anderson.
Mr. Kirk stated Partners & Sirny demonstrated through the interview process a really good
understanding of the overall SPRING project and they come with some excellent experience in
very similar nature center interpretive building projects. They put together a really good team
for the building design, landscape architecture, the structural, mechanical, the electrical
components of the project. They have lined up Hoisington Koegler Group to provide the
landscape architect services; BKBM Engineers to provide the civil and structural engineering
services; and Engineering Design Initiative to provide the mechanical, electrical, and fire
projection design. All of those firms have really excellent reputations for doing really quality
work.
Mr. Kirk stated something that really impressed the committee was the previous successful
nature center buildings that Partners & Sirny and the architect, Paul Anderson, have been
involved with. They designed the Lebanon Hills Nature Center in Eagan, Richardson Nature
Center in Bloomington, the Interpretative Center at North Mississippi Park in Minneapolis, the
Midwest Center for Wind Energy in Lincoln County, the McCall Pond Environmental Center in
Savage, and the St. Croix Natural Scenic Riverway visitor center in St. Croix Falls.
39
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,2014 PAGE 40
Mr. Kirk stated Partners & Sirny is ready to begin work with us upon approval of an Agreement
and they expect if the Agreement is approved they would begin working with them this week. It
is his recommendation that the City Council approve an Agreement with Partners & Sirny to be
the architects to provide the design services for the renovation and expansion of the Springbrook
Nature Center interpretative building.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated on the first page, on page 217, it says Partners & Sirny's
representatives at the interview were clear. Is that what he meant to say?
Mr. Kirk replied,he believed they were clear.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated she found this Agreement really hard to read. You had to flip
back and forth,things were crossed off. Where does it say that the B3 is included in here?
She is concerned about the cost and there was a lot of discussion about that. Also, on page 44, it
talks about liability, $2 million, and workers' compensation is $100,000, and professional
liability at $500,000 but over on which is page 6 of their Agreement they have, and maybe it is
on there, page 242, 2.62 it says automobile liability and there is no number in there. Is 2.24 null
and void? It is only everything on these other pages, is that the Agreement they are supposed to
be looking at? She asked if Mr. Kirk understood her question?
Mr. Kirk replied, sorry, he did not think he did.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated there is a whole bunch of information starting on page 219 and
it talks about additions and deletions and the document has important legal consequences. Is
everything up to page 242 just null and void?
Attorney Erickson stated she has not reviewed this contract. She saw it for the first time today,
but what they have used is kind of a standard document that is used in construction industry. It is
an AIA document. Having prefaced with her experience with the document and first seeing it
tonight, it looks to her like what they have done is, starting on page 245, prepared a list of
changes to the standard contract. It is not necessarily part of the contract from what it is saying
on its face.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated on page 6 it says 2.61. There is $2 million there. Is
everything up until there all part of this contract?
Attorney Erickson stated the way she understands it is, basically it is like looking at a redline.
The redline is essentially an addendum. It shows you what they have changed. The items that
have changes are the ones with the lines on them, so 2.61 was changed, 2.64 was changed, 2.65
was changed.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated but 2.62 has no number.
Attorney Erickson replied, right it has no numbers. The way she would interpret this is that
there is no obligation to provide any automobile liability coverage.
40
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8.2014 PAGE 41
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, who is paying this liability? Are they paying or is this
something the City incurs?
Attorney Erickson replied, it is a requirement that the architect provide this kind of coverage.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated so 3.13 has been changed. Where is that in that paragraph?
Attorney Erickson replied, it is crossed out so it is deleted so you would not see it in the
contract.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked, so this is the real contract on page 224?
Attorney Erickson replied, yes. The first portion before 242 shows the contract. It is just for
ease of someone being able to pick up the contract at a later date and know that it has been
changed from the standard AIA contract. That is how she is interpreting the two sets of
documents.
Mr. Kosluchar stated if they go to 1.1.7, page 221, then can make an addition to state the design
shall be to B3 standards.
Attorney Erickson stated to piggyback on that then they could approve the contract subject to
the inclusion of that language.
Mayor Lund asked whether that is something Partners& Sirny will go along with?
Mr. Kirk replied, they knew about that the project has to be built to B3 standards since it is a
State bonding project; and that was in the RFP and in the interviews it was discussed.
MOTION to Approve Agreement between the City of Fridley and Partners & Sirny, LLP, to
Provide the Design Services for the Renovation and Addition to the Interpretive Building at
Springbrook Nature Center with the inclusion of Section 1.1.7, that the project shall be
constructed pursuant to the B3 guidelines. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. Informal Status Reports
Councilmember Bolkcom stated as far as the SPRING design committee, there was some
discussion at their first two meetings, that they need to bring the public in but first they have to
meet with the architect and design team to look at what they need and then there will be some
opportunities for people who work at the nature center and people who use the nature center to
provide input as to what they like about the nature center now and what they would like to see
happen. It will be a very important part and a lot of it will be including the schools and other
groups who use the nature center.
41
PLANNING COMIVIISSION NiEETING
CITY OF FRII)LEY
November 19,2014
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Kondrick
Brad Sielaff
Dean Saba
Leroy Oquist
Tim Solberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Todd Olin
OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Tim Olson,DeMars Signs
Mohsen Aghamirzai,University Auto Sales& Service LLC
Hossen Aghamirzai,University Auto Sales&Service LLC
Todd Ofshun,TCO Design
Deb Skogen,on behalf of her mom, 5311 4'�Street NE
Pat Breitkreutz, 5315 4�'Street NE
Pam Donley, 5305 4�'Street NE
APPROVE PLANNING COD�IlVIISSION MEETING MINUTES: August 20,2014
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Commissioner
Solberg.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #1406, by DeMars Signs, to allow an
electronic changeable message sign as part of the free-standing sign, generally located at 6161
Highway 65 NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIItPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:02
P.M.
43
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,2014
Page 2 of 22
Stacy Stromberg, Planner, stated the petitioner, Tim Olson, of DeMazs Signs,who is representing Mary
Tjosvold, the new owner of Crooners Lounge and Supper Club (formerly The �horewood) at 6161
Highway 65, is requesting a special use permit to incorporate an electronic changeable message center as
part of the existing free-standing sign.
Ms. Stromberg stated the Shorewood had an 80 square foot free-standing sign on site, with a manual
reader board sign. The petitioner plans to use the sign base structure that already exists and mount a new
sign panel with"Crooners"on it and then install a 2-foot by 9-foot electronic reader board sign.
Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is located on Highway 65,just north of Moore Lake. It is
zoned C-3,General Shopping as are the properties to the north and east. Based on reviewing the building
records for this address, it appeass the existing building was constructed prior to 1949. The original free-
standing sign was constructed in 1967. The site was once used as a City Liquor Store. In 1971,the City
sold the property to the Shorewood Inn. Since the Shorewood purchased the property in 1971,the use of
the properCy as a restaurant has remained with some changes in ownership. T'he property was recently
sold to Mary Tjosvold,who is the owner of Crooners Lounge and Supper Club.
Ms. Stromberg stated the free-standing sign on site has been modified several times over the years to
allow the business name to change.
Ms. Stromberg stated electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in any zoning district,
except residential,provided the message doesn't change more often than once every 45 seconds. The sign
also needs to be in conformance with the sign requirements for the zoning district, in which the property
is �ocated. The subject property is zoned, C-3 General Shopping, which requires that free standing
signage cannot exceed 80 square feet in size. The existing sign structure will be used, and the new sign
face that says "Crooners Lounge and Supper Club" is 54 square feet, and the electronic reader board
portion of the sign will be 18 square feet for a total sign square footage of 72 square feet.
Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of the special use permit as electronic changeable
signs are an approved sprecial use in the commercial zoning district,provided the sign complies with Code
requirements,subject to stipulations.
Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following
stipulations be attached:
1. Permit No. 2014-02082 issued on October 15, 2014, allows the installation of the
electronic message center sign upon City Council approval.
2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section
2I4.07 of the Fridley City Code.
3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the area.
4. Existing sign base structures shall be painted and maintained in good condition.
Ms. Stromberg stated Stipulation No. 1 had been modified from what is in their packet as the petitioner
has already obtained a sign permit for the sign face change and this permit also covers the electronic
changeable message sign. Instead of making him get two permits, staff included both portions of the sign
in one permit, provided Council approves the special use permit at their meeting.
44 ,
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,2014
Page 3 of 22
Commissioner Sielaff asked what does Stipulation No.3 mean?
Ms. Stromberg replied, Fridley's sign code does say that an electronic sign such as this cannot flash or
have motion.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Olson if he was able to speak to the sign and what they are asking the
sign to do,the placement of it,the painting of it, etc.?
Tim Olson, DeMars Signs,replied, it will be exactiy as the picture shown. It will be 2 x 9. It will be red
L.E.D. It will not be full color. As Ms. Stromberg said, it cannot flash which always creates a
distraction. They just.want to announce specials. His boss did that sign the very first time for the City
back in 1967. The structure is still there. They tore all the old brick base out of there. The pylons are
still in great condition, and they reskinned that whole structure with aluminum premium. It looks really
nice. It will really help out their business.
Commissioner Kondrick stated this is pretty much of standard operating procedure here. He does not
see any problem with this and is sure they can use the sign to ariract some business there.
MQTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED TI�
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PiJBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:10
P.M.
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff approving Resolution No. for a Special Use Permit, SP#14-06,
by DeMars 5igns, to allow an electronic changeable message sign as part of the free-standing sign,
generally located at 6161 Highway 65 NE with the following stipulations:
l. Permit No. 2014-02082 issued on October 15, 2014, aliows the installation of the
electronic message center sign upon City Council approval.
2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code.
3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the azea.
4. Existing sign base structures shall be painted and maintained in good condition.
Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-05, by University Auto Sales &
Service LLC;to allow an indoor used car sales facility,generally located at 7700 University Avenue.
45
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 4 of 22
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Resolution for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #14-08, by University Auto Sales &
Service LLC; to allow an electronic changeable message sign as part of a free-standing siga,
generally located at 7700 University Avenue. '
MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIM4USLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT ?:15
P.M.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner,Mohsen Aghamirzai,the owner of University Auto Sales& Service
LLC is requesting two(2)special use permits in order to operate his business from the property located at
7700 University Avenue. The first special use permit the petitioner is requesting is to allow an.indoor car
sales business. The second special use permit request is to allow an electronic changeable message center
sign to be incorporated with the free-standing sign.
Ms. Stromberg stated the subject properiy is located on the University Avenue Service Drive,just north
of Osborne Road. It is zoned C-3, General Shopping as are the properties to the north, west and south.
When the lot was developed in 1976, a lot split was approved by the City Council to allow the creation of
the subject lot. Also at this time a yaziance was approved to reduce the north side yard setback from 15
feet to 5 feet, and a special use permit was approved to allow an automotive transmission repair and
service use. Once those land use requests were approved by the City Council, the existing building was
constructed as was the free-standing sign.
Ms. Stromberg stated Kennedy Transmission remained in this location until a few years ago. Since then
the site has continued to be used for vehicle repairs.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner is in negotiations with the property owner to purchase the property,
contingent upon the City's approval of the special use permits being reviewed in this report.
Ms. Stromberg stated agencies selling or displaying new and/or used vehicles is a permitted special use
in the C-3, General Shopping zoning district, subject to stipulations suggested by staff. Two examples of
other special use permits that have been approved for this type of use in Fridley are Friendly Chevrolet
and Hilltop Trailer. In both these situations, some vehicles are displayed inside but the majority of them
are displayed outside. The petitioner's request is the first business in Fridley to display vehicles for sale
only inside.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner has four other sales locations in the metro area; however this will be
the first location with only indoor sales. The petitioner has articulated to staff that he would like to model
this store after Poquet Auto, which is located in Golden Valley and has the same set-up with vehicles
displayed inside the building. The inside of the existing building will be completely remodeled to allow
the display of 25-35 vehicles. The petitioner also plans to update the exisring bathrooms and install a new
office and waiting area.
Ms. Stromberg stated the outdoor improvsments will include enhancements to the exterior of the
46
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,2014
Page 5 of 22
building by re-painting the building and installing approximately 8 glass overheard doors on the east
elevation. Installing these glass doors will open up the building and allow vehicle access in and out of the
building. A main door vestibule will also be constructed to the front of the building with a cleaz path
designated throughout the inside of the building to the waitingloffice area. Landscape modifications are
also planned to update the e�cisting neglected landscape.
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed change in use and modifications the petitioner plans to make to both
the interior and exterior of this property comply with City code requirements,provided the petitioner can
comply with stipulations and staff believes will be a welcome improvement to the property.
Ms. Stromberg stated electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in any zoning disfict,
except residential,provided the message doesn't change more often than once every 45 seconds. The sign
also needs to be in conformance with the sign requirements for the zoning district, in which the property
is located.
Ms. Stromberg stated the subject properiy is zoned, C-3 General Shopping, which requires that free
standing signage can exceed 80 square feet in size. There is an existing sign pole on-site that was used
for Kennedy Transmission. Sta.ff understands that the petitioner will use the e�sting sign pole and will
add a 51 square foot sign face with the business name and logo to the top of the pole,and then add a 24.7
square foot electronic changeable message sign. Both pieces of the sign will be a total of 75.7 square
feet,which meets code size requirements.
Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of these special use permits,with stipulations.
Ms. Stromberg stated agencies selling or displaying new andfor used vehicles are an approved special
use permit in commercial zoning districts,provided stipulations can be met.
Ms. Stromberg stated electronic changeable signs are an approved special use in the commerciai zoning
district,provided the sign complies with Code requirements, subject to stipulations.
Ms. 5tromberg stated City staffrecommends the following stipulations be attached to SP#14,05 (indoor
vehicle sales):
1. The petitioner shall meet all building,plumbing and fire code requirements.
2. The petitioner shall obtain any required permits prior to remodel of the properiy
3. Overhead doors on the east side of the building shall be made of glass.
4. Vehicles for sale shall not be displayed outside,except during test drives.
5. Parking on-site outside shall be for customers and employees only.
6. All washing of vehicles shall take place inside building, provided necessary building
code requirements can be met,and no vehicle washing shall take place outside.
7. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan to City staff for review and approval at the
same time as building permit submittal for remodel.
Ms. Stromberg stated City staff recommends the following stipulations be atta.ched to SP #14-08
(electronic changeable message center):
1. Prior to sign installation, a sign permit and current sign erector license shall be obtained.
4?
Planning Commission Meeting
November l9,2014
Page 6 of 22
2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code.\
3. Message on L.E.D, sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the area.
4 Existing sign base structures shall be painted and maintained in good condition.
Commissioner Saba asked whether there will be any repairs or modifications of any of the vehicles in
the facility?
Ms. Stromberg replied based on what she knows there will not be any repair going on. The petitioner
can probably answer that question. The property does have a special use permit that allows vehicle repair
but, based on the illustrations that were submitted, she is not sure where that would take place inside
because it seems like it is fully used for display.
Mohsen Aghamirzai, University Auto Sales & Service LLC, stated he is the general manager of
University Auto Sales& Service.
Chairperson Kondrick asked Mr. Aghamirzai if the stipulations are understandable and does he agree
with them?
Mr. Aghamirzai replied, the stipulations are quite understandable and they are very reasonable. In
regards to the previous question about service,no,there will not be any repairs at all in the property.
Commissioner Sielaff asked whether there would be any oil changes,etc.?
Mr.Aghamirzai replied,no,not at all.
Commissioner Oguist asked the petitioner about Stipulation No. 6, stating all washing of vehicles shall
take place inside the building. Does he have a facility to do that?
Mr. Aghamirzai replied, they are not really intending to do full detailing inside the building. They
intend for the vehicles to be fully detailed at other facilities and for the cars to come to 7700 University
Avenue essentially all done and presentable and ready to go. Although from time to time, especially in
this type of climate and season, they may need to do some cleaning. That will take place inside. For
example,a car rolls in and has ice or mud or such thing, it would be washed offright away inside.
Commissioner Oquist asked whether he has a drain azea where they would be able to wash it?
Mr.Aghamirzai replied the property already has a catch basin and a drain structure.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED TI�
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:22
P.M.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he has no problem with this. It is straightforward and he is going to do
48
Planning Commission Meeting
ATovember 19,2014
Page 7 of 22
what he is asked. It seems like a good idea to him.
MOTION by Commissioner Solberg Adopting Resolution No. for a Special Use Permit, SP#14-05,
by University Auto Sales & Service LLC; to allow an indoor used car sales facility, generally located at
7700 University Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall meet all building, plumbing and fire code requirements.
2. The petitioner shall obtain any reyuired permits prior to remodel of the property.
3. Overhead doors on the east side of the building shall be made of glass.
4. Vehicles for sale shall not be displayed outside,except during test drives.
5. Parking on-site outside shall be for customers and employees only.
6. All washing of vehicles shall take place inside building, provided necessary building
code requirements can be met, and no vehicle washing shall take place outside.
7. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan to City staff for review and approval at the
same time as building permit submittal for remodel.
Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIItPER50N KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOTION by Commissioner Solberg Adopting Resolution No. for a Special Use Permit,SP#14-08,
by University Auto Sales & Service LLC; to allow an electronic changeable message sign as part of a
free-standing sign, generally located at 7700 University Avenue with the following stipulations:
1. Prior to sign installation, a sign permit and current sign erector license shall be obtained.
2. Message on L.E.D. sign shall not change more often than authorized under Section
214.07 of the Fridley City Code.
3. Message on L.E.D. sign shall never flash or have motion that may distract vehicular
traffic in the area.
�. Existing sign base structures shall be painted and maintained in good condition. �
Seconded by Commissioner Saba
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of a Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-07, by TCO Design, to allow a
comprehensive home health care use in an R-3, Multi-Family zoning district, generally located at
5310 4th Street NE.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLTC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7Z4
49
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,2014
Page 8 of 22
P.M.
Ms. Stromberg stated the petitioner, Todd Ofsthun, with TCO Design, on behalf of A.P. Ventures is
seeking a special use permit to allow the construction of a comprehensive home care building at 5310 4th
Street. The property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family, and clinic type uses are allowed in this zoning district
with a special use permit.
Nts. Stromberg stated the proposed facility will have a Comprehensive Home Care Provider License
through the Minnesota Departrnent of Health.
Ms. Stromberg stated the owners of this project have affiliations with Allina, Fairview, and the
University of Minnesota to offer the use of the proposed facility to potential patients. The patients using
the facility will he recovering from surgery, transplant (pre-op and post-op) or another type of inedical
procedure that leaves them needing extensive rehab and medical services. This type of use is needed for
patients, who for medical reasons,cannot be on their own and do not have family or friends who can care
for them.
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed building will be three stories, with a maximum height of
approximately 35 feet. Each level will have five (5) sepazate bedrooms for patients and a common area,
with living room, kitchen, bathroom, and laundry. The site plan allows for six surface parking stalls and
two garage stalls. All garbage and recycling containers will be stored inside the building. The petitioner
has also submitted a landscape plan showing new tree, shrub and perennial plantings and will be required
to construct storm water treatment on site to ensure that drainage is maintained on site.
Ms. Stromberg stated the subject property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family and has been since the City's first
zoning map. The majority of this neighborhood (east of University Avenue, north of 53r8 Avenue, and
west of 7'"Street) is zoned R-3,Multi-Family,with some parcels in the middle of the neighborhood zoned
R-2, Two-Family and parcels on the east edge zoned R-1, Single Family. Within this neighborhood is a
mix of single-family homes,duplexes,4-plexes and larger unit buildings. The Bona Brothers property on
the comer of University Avenue and 53ra Avenue was rezoned from R-3, Multi-Family to C-2, General
Business,in 1971 and 1999 to allow that use to exist.
Ms. Stromberg stated the original house on the subject property was constructed prior to 1949. A
detached garage that was accessed off the alley was then constructed in 1953. Based on building permit
records this house had foundation issues, so there was work on the foundation done in both 1957 and is
2003. The house and garage were demolished in 2011,and the lot has remained vacant since then.
Ms. Stromberg stated hospitals, clinics, and convalescent/nursing homes are a permitted special use in
the R-3; Multi-Family zoning district provided that the proposed project complies with the requirements
for the special use permit, subject to the stipulations. The proposed use as a comprehensive home care
use is most comparable to a clinic, convalescent or rehab facility use and therefore staff has determined
that a special use permit would be required for the proposed use to exist on this site.
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed building is 2,920 square feet in size and will be 3 stories. Based on
the slope of the lot, the building will look like a 3-story building from the alley and more like a 2-story
building from 4�' Street. Each floor will have 5 separate bedrooms, so the building has the ability to
house a total of 15 patients. Because of the medical conditions the patients have,they aze unable to drive.
As a result, parking needs for this use will be for the staff and visitors to the site. The petitioner has
50 "
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 9 of 22
articulated that the maximunn number of staff on site at any one time will be 6. Any staff ineetings for
employees will either occur off-site or through electronic media. The site plan shows 6 surface parking
stalls and 2 garage stalls within the building, both areas will be accessed from the alley for a total of 8
parking stalls. The building will only be accessed from 4�'Street through the use of a sidewalk.
Ms. Stromberg stated based on Code requirements for a nursing home, which is the most similar use to
the comprehensive home care use, 8 parking stalls are required. Though the parking requirements are
being met, staff does have concerns as to how this use will function and whether 8 stalls will be enough.
As a result, a stipulation will be placed on the special use permit that states if on-street parking becomes
an issue for this site, the special use permit will need to go back before the City Council for further
review. The special use permit will also need to go back before the Council for review if in the future the
use of the building is changed. The building as designed could not work if people residing in it did not
have health conditions that did not allow them to drive.
Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed expansion meets lot coverage and setback requirements. T'he �
petitioner has submitted a landscape plan and a grading and drainage plan. Both of those plans will be
further reviewed by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of this special use permit request as hospital,
clinics and nursing homes are a permitted special use in the R-3, Single Family zoning district.
Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following
stipulations be attached:
1. The petitioner shall obtain all necessary permits prior to construction.
2. The petitioner shall meet all building, fire,and ADA requirements.
3. City engineering staff to review and approve grading, drainage, and utility plan prior to
issuance of a building permit.
4. Landscape and Irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by City Sta.ff prior to
issuance of building permit.
5. If on-street parking becomes an issue as a result of this use, the special use permit and
options for additional parking shall be further reviewed by the City Cauncil.
6. If the comprehensive home health care use changes, the special use permit shall be
further reviewed by the City CounciL
Chairperson Kondrick stated there are going to be some people visiting. Across the front of the
property on the street,there might be room for four cars that he could see when he drove by. Is he right?
Ms. Stromberg replied,yes, he is right if he is talking about just directly in front of the property. Ideally
they want the use to sustain its own parking on site. They do not want even visitors to park on the street
because the City is saying this use is allowed but they need to make sure they are meeting their parking
requirement. There will absolutely be times when visitors are parking on th,e street. People do that
anyways when they visit. However, the City wants to make sure that does not become an issue for the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Sielaff asked,what does that mean, issue?
Ms. Stromberg replied, if they start getting complaints or, as staff is out doing inspections in the
51
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,201�1
Page ]0 of 22
neighborhood and notice that there really seems to be a problem, then that is when they would start
monitoring it and then determine whether it should go back to Council.
MOTION by Commissioner Solberg receiving memo dated November 17, 2014, from Todd Ofsthun.
Seconded by Councilmember Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIItPERSON KONDRIGK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNAI�TIMOUSLY.
Todd Ofsthun,TCO Design, stated he just wanted to note that it is qualified based on code as a nursing
home. It is not really that type. The patients will be there a minimum of 60 days and stay averaging up to
two years. It is not going to be as high of turnover of patients. Most of the patients will be bedridden.
They are high acuity type of patients, bariatric, post-operative, organ transplants, dialysis - very
immobile. They do not anticipate many visitors at all. The seed of this building is kind of based on two
buildings, one in Brooklyn Center and one in Brooklyn Park run by Plateau Health Care. Those are a
little bit smaller and this one is much more high tech. They are going to be using telemedicine,tele-ICU,
connected through Fairview which will also minimize doctor visits, nursing visits, and keep the staff very
low,the activity level will be very low.
Mr. Ofsthun stated the buildings in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center are very close to where he gets
his plans. Therefore, whenever he had a chance he would swing by, maybe 10 times each building and
not once did he see any cars in front of the place. They had less parking than they will have.
Cbairperson Kondrick asked, do they expect all the deliveries to occur in the back? Through the
alleyway? .
Mr. Ofsthun replied, all would be through the alley. Yes, by medical standards this is a relatively small
facility. Deliveries will be via more the FedExlUPS style vans.
Commissioner Oquist stated he noticed they have a kitchen on each floor and they will be preparing the
meals for the patients who are there in those kitchens,right?
Mf.Ofsthun replied there are going to be some,maybe a lot,of premade meals because again he thinks it
is more of a hospital-type thing. He does not know whether there will be a lot of cooking but,yes,there
will be some preparation of some kind. He does not see it as commercial-type thing. The kitchen layouts
are very preliminary.
C.ommissioner Sielaff asked,what is the largest number of staff you have there?
Mr.Ofsthun replied, 6. It is 2 per floor,which is what the license will require.
Julie Jones, Planning Manager, asked about deliveries. She did not see an "office" notated on the
drawing. When deliveries are made through the garage door,is there some sort of a mud room?
Mr. Ofsthun replied, there is a mud room area, if you want to call it. Again the deliveries are not
anticipated to be that grand that staff cannot come from the third floor and accept that delivery and deliver
up to that level. If will be up to the staff of each unit if you will to get the supplies that they need.
52
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,2014
Page 11 of 22
Commissioner Sielaff asked if the six staff would be there 24/7?
Mr.Ofsthun replied,yes, it will be required with these types of patients.
Deb Skogen stated she was here representing her mother who lives across the street at 53114'� Street. To
assist her mother, Ms. Skogen has reviewed the City's zoning code, as well as Minn. Stat. § 144A which
references nursing home and home health care licenses for the comprehensive home care providers that
became effective January 1 of this year.
Ms. Skogen stated she understands the facility is planned to be the same size as the 4-unit aparhnent
building next door, and it meets all the zoning requirements. With the passage of the Affordable Health
Care Act or"Obama Care",she understands there are many changes occurring in our health care.
Ms. Skogen stated the applicant has stated the principals are motivated to use the facility as a model for
future facilities. While she commends the business of comprehensive home health care, she is not sure
this specific location is the right place for it.
Ms. Skogen asked,who is actually going to be licensed? What is the name of the company going to be?
What is their model specifically?
Ms. Skogen asked, will it include the telemedicine that the University is proposing where you have a
screen in each room and are telecommunicating with a doctor or nurse? Also, what kind of a license is
this going to be? Is it going to be a Ciass A license?
Ms. Skogen stated they have been told there is a ma�cimum af six employees at the facility daily. She
understands there are five paxking stalls plus one handicap parking stall on the outside of the building
with two parking inside. If this is a Class A facility, the statement of home health caze services that the
State has designed have many services they could be providing. Will there only be six employees or
could there be additional employees for some of these services which include advanced nursing,
registered nurse services, licensed practical nurse services, physical therapy services, occupational
therapy services, speech/language services, respiratory therapy services, social worker services, services
of a dietician or nutritionist,medication management?
Ms. Skogen asked who will be making the meals and assisting the patients, who will be doing their
housekeeping? Will it be the same individual that is on the floor or will it be various different
individuals? Where the site is located with the alley, where are they going to store the snow so the six
parking stalls remain open?
Ms. Skogen asked, who will be referring the patients? Will the individual patient or their families have
the ability, if they find the location, to use it? They have been told that these are patients who will be
there a minimum of two months. In the letter included tonight it states they have an average of a twayear
stay. But they do not have any visitors. She finds it hard to believe that family and friends would not
visit.
Ms. Skogen stated if they had a facility having 15 patient rooms that were full. Say one out of five
patients had a visitor,that is three visitors,plus you have six workers. You have nine vehicles most likely
on that site at that time. She does not believe people will be coming by bus or even bicycle;they will be
driving.
53
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,2014
Page 12 of 22
Ms. Skogen asked whether there is going to be any signage on the building about what this health caze
facility is? Will it be on the building or in the yard?
Ms. Skogen stated she did drive by today the two units Mr. Ofsthun spoke of and she did fmd pazking on
the street in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. She took some pictures. T'here were three cars parked
on the street in Brooklyn Park and two cars parked in tf�e front area that they allow and the driveway was
completely empty. She found the same was true for the property in Brooklyn Center. And these are
single-family homes, ramblers that have been changed into this type of a home. You are looking at 4 or 5
units vs. 15.units.
Ms. Skogen asked,what happens if this model does not work? What happens to the building? What else
can go in there? What would their protocol be in an emergency? Do emergency vehicles providers know
to go to the back? Or will they be coming to the front of the building because she is sure there will be
some medical emergencies.
Ms. Skogen stated while she commends what it is, she thinks 15 rooms is a lot. Why can't it be a little
smaller? Maybe 8 rooms opposed to 15. That might help alleviate some of the parking issues that are
going to occur.
Ms. Skogen stated she has been over to her mother's several times and Bona Brothers has their employees
parking on the street. When she goes over to visit her mother, she cannot always park in front of her
house. She has to paxk down the street. That is why parking can really become an issue. That is her
mother's biggest fear. She is 81 years old. She has a hard time getting in and out.
Commissioner Sielaff asked Ms. Skogen if one of her issues here her concern about additional
professionals coming over there over and above the six?
Ms. Skogen replied,yes.
Pat Breitkreutz, 5315 4�' Street. Bona Brothers probably has six vehicles along their side of the street or
at the vacant lot most of the time. 'They were told that Bona Brothers do not want the extra cars in their
own parking lot and is why they are parking them on 4�' Street. As to the eight parking spots but with the.
two that are inside the building itself, will there be receiving doors? The rubbish and equipment would be
kept inside?
Mr.Breitkreatz stated his wife is a transplant receiver. When she was in the pre-transplant and the post-
transplant phase, they had a stream of people coming and going from their house. Two-three people a
day for rehab,people to help clean the house,etc. The plan the petitioner is proposing is not what they've
experienced. There is going to be a steady stream of people coming to that place.
Chairperson Kondrick stated the main thing for Mr. Breitkreutz is accessibility. There is not enough
parking with the spaces available?
Mr.Breitkreutz replied, absolutely.
Chairperson Kondrick stated not only because of this facility but because of other businesses around the
area,Bona's for example.
54
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,2014
Page 13 of 22
Mr.Breitkreutz stated he does not know if Bona Bros:would continue to park on the street because right
now they park in front of the open lot and they walk through the lot.
Pam Donley, 5305 4`h Street NE, stated her concern also is the parking. If it comes to the point the
parking is not working,then what? They are worried with the facility having so many units right off the
bat that there won't be enough parking. Her father was at a rehab place, it was at a regular nursing home
with rehab attached. There was plenty of parking. They visited every single day. She finds it hard to
believe there will not be visitors. It probably will not be during the day when people go to visit these
people, it will be in the evening when the rest of the neighbors are home and need a place to park on their
own street. She hopes this is something the City looks into real seriously because there are a l�t of
visitors. They may not have family who can take care of them at their own homes,and that is the reason
they are going to these places. Her concern is the parking and also single-family homes aze disappeazing
in fheir neighborhood.
Mr. Ofsthun replied,as to what license, he is not sure if it's Class A or B. It is telemedicine,tele-ICU. It
is gaing to have the TV's and connected he believed to Fairview and some others. Snow removal is a
great point. They probably would want to adjust some of the shrub plantings. They should be able to
keep the snow on-site that they are pushing from the parking. These will be patients who a.re referred
from Allina and Fairview-University of Minnesota. There will be no signage. Typically for emergency
vehicles, working with other cities, the emergency people do have where to approach buildings and how
to get in, whether it be fire or emergency. He would imagine they do the same thing here where they
were to go to that particular entrance but,again,it is a good question that needs to be addtessed.
Mr. Ofsthun stated as to why not make it smaller, the value of what is being put into this project, the
landscape,the building itself,elevator, sprinkler systems,two stairwells, everything that is going into this
building by making it smaller, it is less likely it will work and the less likely they will be interested in
doing it. They want to make it worthwhile to do the project. He can see they need to do something about
getting another parking spot or two. 1'hey will haye to look into it and see if there is a way. The garage
itself is 2 1/2 stalls so there will be space off to the side for garbage,etc. .
Mr. Ofsthun stated as to the visitors, he is kind of going what the operators of the facility have seen in
other home health care buildings, and kind of their expertise on what to expect for that. That is what it is
based on. He does not have a real clear answer unfortunately.
Chairperson Kondrick asked, with the possibility of 15 patients there. It is likely that some of these
people are going to have visitors. There is no place to put the cars except on tlie street. Any other
possible solutions to a possible parking problem or is there not going to be a parking problem, as far as
Mr. Ofsthun is concerned?
Mr. Ofsthun replied, again he has to base it on conversations with those who will be operating and
managing the building. They do not seem to see an issue with that.
Commissioner Siel�ff asked about al1 the services they are providing and whether they will have
professionals coming into the facility to provide some of these services?
Mr. Ofsthun replied, his understanding is the two staff inembers per floor will be providing all the
services.
55
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 14 of 22
Commissioner Sielaff asked whether they would provide all the services that were listed off?
Mr.Ofsthun replied,he believe so and they axe going to be there 24 hours a day.
Chairperson Oquist stated it does not seem to him that two people can provide all the services Mrs.
5kogen listed off her document. They are going to have to have certain people coming in to provide
some of those services. He has a serious problem with parking. There is no visitor parking at all. The
other thing is, there are six parking stalls but what about shift changes. Where are people going to pazk
while the other ones leave?
Commissioner Sielaff stated the other concern is what happens if this is already built and then the
parking problem comes up. What do they do? He is not clear on what the remedies are.
Ms. Stromberg replied, obviously based on the site plan that is in front of them there is very limited
space for additional parking. Today she had a conversation with Scott Hickok, Community Developnnent
Director, about that and obviously the request would have to go back to Council; and they would have to
require them to shut bedroom doors. They could only occupy 7 or 10 of the 15 rooms. Staff would have
to monitor that by having access to the inside of the facility to make sure there were not more beds being
occupied.
Chairperson Oquist stated he is not so sure even restricting the number of rooms is going to solve the
parking issue. You still have the issue of additional people coming. This project has to be re-thought
about what they are going to do about parking.
Ms. Jones stated regarding the Bona Brothers parking, that actually is a code enforcement case of hers
that she has been dealing with for a long time; and she can tell them that Brian Bona just earlier this week
promised that the employees would no longer be parking on 4�' Street. If he does not abide by that, his
special use permit will be back for review before the City Council.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:07
P.M. ,
Commissioner Oquist stated the project has to go back to the drawing board. It is not ready. 1'here are
way too many issues on this one. You cannot just plop something like this on a lot like this and have six
stalls. The parking is a big issue.
Chairperson Kondrick stated he tends to agree with him.
Commissioner Saba stated he has dealt a lot with transplant patients,and they do get a lot of visitors.
Commissioner Oquist stated Ms. Skogen had a lot of concerns. She brought up a lot of points that need
to be addressed for a facility like this. Maybe that also needs to be addressed along with the parking
issues.
56
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 15 of 22
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff Denying Resolution for a Special Use Permit, SP #14-07, by TCO
Design,to allow a comprehensive home health care use in an R-3,Multi-Family zoning district, generally
located at 5310 4th Street NE. Seconded by Councilmember Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Receive the Minutes of the August 4,2014,Parks&Recreation Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED TAE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Receive the Minutes of the August 7, 2014, Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Receive t6e Minutes of the September 4, 2014, Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Comraission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Oquist to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANTMOUSLY.
8. Receive the Minutes of the October 2, 2014, Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive"the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AY�E, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Receive the Minutes of the July 2,2014,Appeals Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED TI�
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. Receive the Minutes of the August 6,2014,Appeals Commission Meeting.
57
Planning Commission Meeting
November 14,2014
Page 16 of 22
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaffto receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL V4TING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. Receive the Minutes of the September 3,2014,Appeals Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg.
12. Receive the Minutes of the October 1,2014,Appeals Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIItPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNAlvIMOUSLY.
13. Receive the Minutes of the July 8, 2014, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission
Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Solberg to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Saba.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRL�D UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Receive the Minutes of the September 9, 2014, Environmental Quality & Energy
Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg.
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNArTIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
15. Approve 2015 Planning Commission meeting dates.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba approving the 2015 Planning Commission meeting dates. Seconded
by Commissioner Solberg. �
UPON A VOICE VOTE ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. TOD Update.
Ms. Jones stated the City is at the stage now of the final stretch of this master plan project for the City's
transit-oriented development district. The City has to finish this project by the end of the year so what
sta.ff is looking for this evening is for the Commission's review of this draft final plan and any feedback
they have on it is important because this is kind of their last chance to give it to staff before they send it
58
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 17 of 22
onto City Council and the HRA.
Ms. Jones staxed the area they are talking about is the TOD area which includes the Stevenson
Elementary School and goes on over to the new construction area on University Avenue on down to the
freeway. The area this plan is about is the City's future yet to be designated transit tax increment
financing district.
Ms. Jones stated the purpose of this plan is to provide guidance for that future talc increment financing
district. Staff wants to put a full plan in place as they expect it n�t to redevelop all at once but redevelop
piece by piece so they do not end up with an area that does not work together. They need to have a plan
in place as to how they want all the connections made to transit from the very beginning.
Ms.Jones stated they are also hoping this plan entices private development. This is not a plan where the
City is planning to come in and build these things but hoping private development will occur on its own.
It is to provide the City a future guide for those developers so that in the TOD area, as they will recall,
they have to come in with a master plan and developers are often spending hundreds of thousands of
dallars to get to that point where they come in and submit that plan. Therefore, the City wants to give
them a basic preliminary approval that they are okay with this particular use and particular property
before they make that investment.
Ms.Jones stated as they will recall it has been some time back now bat referencing the preliminary plan
at the very beginning of this project to plan changes to Islands of Peace Park. They find that park to be
the critical piece to this plan and making this a very attractive place to live next to the river and close to
the transit opportunities in this area so staff started with that first and have based the rest of t1�e plan
around that.
Ms. Jones stated staff also did a traffic study because there are multiple scenarios about different ways
the City could redevelop same of these areas and would it be multi-family housing, industrial,
commercial, etc. In looking at those different options, staff did a traffic study and had a subcontractor
and engineering firm working on this to look at the impacts of those added housing units or the impacts of
that added industrial property.
Ms. Jones stated in reviewing these traffic conditions, they looked at the intersection capacities, the
cueing at those intersections, and they evaluated the possible impact of those different development
scenarios. 'I'hey particularly looked at the possible extension of 57th Avenue from Main Street onto East
River Road and what sort of impacts those would have at that intersection that is there in front of
Georgetown Apartments.
Ms.Jones stated they then looked at projections not just for the next few years to 2020 but also looked at
projections out to 2030 and then made recommendations based on that study. The findings were that they
felt that new intersections, should that 57th Avenue connection come through, would result in this
development at an unacceptable level of service, a Level E,just during the afternoon p.m.peak. That was
the only problem they really saw with this scenario. As a result of that they made some recommendations
and also felt there could be some significant side street delays in cueing on Charles Street and Island Park
Drive during that afternoon peak as well. They really did not find any significant difference.
Ms.Jones stated they had some debate throughout the project of right now Charles Street coming out on
East River Road coming out as a fu11 intersection where you can make a left or right hand turn out on East
59
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 18 of 22
River Road. Island Park Drive is only a right-in, right-out. They had some debate about switching that
because in the East River Road corridor plan it calls for Island Park Drive to become the full intersection
and Charles Street to be limited to only right-inlright-out. In the end through this traffic study they
concluded in a meeting with the County Highway Department as well that Island Park Drive probably
would be the best option because it was mid-dista.nce between the stoplight at 61st Way and the stoplight
at what is about 58th now at the Georgetown Aparhnent area.
Ms.Jones stated as far as the recommendations,they did recommend there be a dual westbound left-turn
lane at 57th coming out of that new development to the Industrial Equities Properties when that occurs
which they had anticipated when they were looking at that master plan for that project. Also, they
recommended doing a split phasing tra�c signal at that same intersection to make it safer for left hand
turns both directions. All along staff has recommended that the traffic signals really from Mississippi
south ta the freeway be timed. Right now some of them are under control of the County and some of
them under control of MnDOT and they do not work together.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if she was going to talk about the possible bridge going from University at
57th all the way over the railroad tracks?
Ms.Jones replied,yes.
Ms.Jones stated as a result of this they acivally looked at reducing the housing density from some of the
earlier projections they had because when it got to a certain level it was going to warrant East River Road
from just that section between 61st and the freeway having to be six lanes wide. If they will recall from
the East River Road corridor study, no one wanted to see that; and they wanted to maintain that roadway
the way it is, and the width that it is. They have kind of reduced some of the plans there and kept some of
the industrial land still being industrial.
Chairperson Kondrick asked wasn't that an objection that mostly concerned citizens from 61 st north?
Ms.Jones replied,again,afternoon peak.
Chairperson Kondrick asked, as residents along the south of there, was it an issue for people at
Georgetown Apartments?Widening it to six lanes for example?
Ms.Jones replied,no,because they have a traff'ic signal.
Ms. Jones stated in the master plan there is that proposed roadway Chairperson Kondrick was referring
to, the 57th Avenue extension. They have heazd the troubling news that came aut of tliis whole project
that a bridge over or under the tracks is appearing unlikely. They kept it in the plan because as they had
the public meetings on this,the public was still voicing a strong desire to have that connection. They will
see in one of the future drawings they have had some scenarios done for at minimum to have a bike/ped
bridge over the railroad tracks there and have a couple of designs proposed for that. However, they are
preserving it here because things may change in the future that will allow that to be possible; and they still
feel it is important to the area so they are keeping it in the plan.
Ms. Jones stated as far as the redevelopment potential for this area, they looked at a couple of different
proposals on the housing and stuck with the numbers they see here. Under one scenario without the
redevelopment of the entire Georgetown complex, as much as another 800 housing units in the area.
60
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19,2014
Page 19 of 22
With the full area of Georgetown it could be as many as 1,150 added housing units. They are talking
about a very high-density residential area particulazly since they are expanding the acreage of the park
and creating a lot of new trails in this area. It is building this area up rather than out is basically what are
the plans they are seeing in some of the pictures here.
Ms. Jones stated and then of course they have projected syuare footage far o�'ice and residential retail
here that is mostly tied to the Industrial Equities master plan that is already approved.
Ms. Jones stated they also have as part af the plan a bike/pedestrian network. They realized that they
neglected to put the bus stops on this drawing. That is going to be added before it goes to City Council
because that is a key thing they were looking at as they looked at these proposed trails and sidewalks is
that thay want to make sure they have very safe connections to the transit in the area and they are really
creating some good,usable bike and walking loops both for recreation and for people to get to work and
shopping. In the inset they will see the two options for the bike/pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks.
Ms. Jones stated this is going to involve the MRT(Mississippi River Trail)national bike trail back to the
river where they originally wanted it when they put that through Fridley. They had some additional
connections. She actually just talked to someone from MnDOT about that this afternoon at a meeting
over at the National Park Service so they are kind of making connections with the County and MnDOT
and Metro Transit,too,on moving those things.
Ms. Jones stated there seems to be a lot of excitement about that,particularly about creating the parkway
on Island Park Drive. Therefore, in this plan they really have two main parkways leading to an expanded
Islands of Peace Park. T'he thought being that likely the Island Park Drive one will happen first as this
area redevelops and that later on, hopefully, with a full 57th Avenue extension they will see the other
parkway
Chairperson Kondrick asked, has there been any talk about a high rise apartment or condo building in
that area?
Ms. Jones replied, yes, they do not show that in the pictures but there certainly is a possibility of that.
They focused more on the number of units because of that having the traffic impacts and looking at the
feasibility to park enough units for that. They are going to be somewhat limited in height in this area
though because this is also in the MNREA area and are still waiting for all the final rules on that.
However, what they are seeing so far is going to allow them to build to the 65-foot height that the R-3
zoning allows in this area now. It looks like the City will probably have to do some stepped development
which she is a little concerned about because then the higher building will have to actually be further
away from the river which she thinks typically is what you see are the higher buildings closer to the river
to get those views. 'They will have to see how that all plays out, but for now they are looking at a 3-4
story high building.
Chairperson Kondrick asked how is that enormous in diameter sewer line going from roughly the Girl
Scout camp on the south going to affect future development?
Ms. Jones stated it should not be a problem. Where it is a problem is that idea they had of tunneling
under the railroad tracks with the 57th Avenue connection. That is where it becomes a very eartensive
problem to move it. It is possible to move that line for a price.
61
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 20 of 22
Ms. Jones stated they are focusing a connecting to the on-street bike lane and sidewalks on Main Street
by the east train station but keep in mind, too, that they have the additional trail connections happening
here as soon as next year with the pedestrian bridge at the freeway on Main Street. That is allowing
people south of the freeway to access this area,too. That is also part.of the area is to have that bike/ped
connection at 57th over the railroad tracks so they can give people access to Islands of Peace Park and
Riverfront Park on the other side of the freeway,too.
Commissioner Solberg stated there were not a lot of people at the meetings but some folks provided
positive feedback. He asked Ms.Jones to share what people are excited about?
Ms. Jones stated they were really surprised because you are apprehensive when you do a project like this
about what people are going to think about more apartments in the area. They tend to not want to see
more multi-family housing. Actually most of the people who came to the two public meetings were
living in the neighborhood north of Stevenson Elementary, and they did not have one negative comment
about more multi-family housing.
Ms.Jones stated they were just excited the City was making plans to redevelop that housing. They were
excited to see the drawings of what was being proposed—there was a lot of excitement, too, to see the
proposed connections from that neighborhood to that park.
Ms. Jones stated the City owns the land between Stevenson Elementary and the river and make a
connection through that area so that people can recreate more up closer to the river in a direct route.
There was a lot of interest and excitement about that. There were some concerns about whether there was
going to be a market for that much housing. They are still close to the train tracks, there is still noise
from the train even though they have quiet zones. There are vibrations,etc. from the trains. That was one
of the negatives she recalled that was a concern. Overall,a really positive reaction from the public.
Commissioner Solberg asked,what is the timeframe in terms of development?
Ms. Jones replied, they do not know. It is definitely a long-rauge plan. The City nor the HRA has any
plans to immediately come in and purchase land here and do any redevelopment. They aze hoping that it
is going to happen privately. Particulazly because that private development is going to be the seed money
for these new trails and these new parking buildings, etc. they are loaking at having in the future at that
park. It is definitely a long-range plan that will happen piece by piece.
Ms. Jones stated she commends their consultant, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc, because they really
came up with a plan that allows it to happen piece by piece and allows them to put in that new
infrastructure section by section because they are proposing a whole new parkway on the south end of
Stevenson Elementary, kind of going through parts of where Georgetown Apartments aze now. That is
kind of a key connection for the school, too, because it only has one access in and aut which is not good
for a school. They really like to have two access points in case there is an emergency: They really like
this concept of being able to redo their bus routing so they would come dawn that new parkway and come
out at the stoplight at S 7th or at Island Park Drive if there is one there in the future.
Chairperson Kondrick asked if this goes to the Metro Council?
Ms. Jones replied, yes, when they are done with this the City will have to do a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. They are getting close though to starting the next Comprehensive Plan update.
62
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 21 of 22
Chairperson Kondrick asked what kind of approval authority does the Metropolitan Council have?
Ms.Jones replied,fortunately,Metropolitan Council has already approved the pazk plan as part of Anoka
County's master plan and that is a big part of this. Staff has been working with them along the way and
also with the folks from Metro Transit. Metro Council now has a new transit-oriented development
division, and they have had a meeting with that staff as well. They have really been keeping them
involved in this since they have gone through;therefore, she does not anticipate any problems.
Commissioner Oquist asked whether there have been any developers inquiring or showing any kind of
interest into this at all
Ms.Jones replied,probably not because of this plan but they did have one developer come in and look at
the east train station site.
Ms.Jones showed drawings of things they've already seen. The Main Street design is already built. The
East River Road drawings are from the East River Road corridor plans so they are not proposing to
change anything there. They were just showing this is kind of a basis for the streetscape they have looked
at for what they have 3abeled the Gateway Parkway. That is the entrance of that 57th Avenue connection
which is now the entrance into Georgetown Apartments. That design incorporates a very wide center
median which serves as a stormwater treatment area, and incorporating limited on-street parking, on-
street parking and then sidewalks on both sides of the roadway.
Ms. Jones showed a picture of what the proposed view of the new streetscape will be of the area of the
Georgetown Apartments. With a possibility of main floar commercial and residential up above. She
showed a rendering of the view of Island Park Drive and how that would look if you are standing on East
River Road looking towards Islands of Peace Park. Also, she showed a rendering of if you were standing
on 61 st Avenue looking towards the east Park and Ride lat with the train station in the background.
Bringing the buildings very close up to the street as the TOD district requires with parking underground.
Some surface parking behind and moving in this case, the stormwater pond to the back of the site.
Incorporating some of those streetscape features that they spent a !ot of time going over at the public
meetings, looking at what sort of furnishings and after much debate with the HRA,the City Council came
up with features that kind of all blended together and kind of fit the look they wanted in this area close to
the river. Looking at flowers and street lighting and finding fixtures that would provide LED, the more
modern type lighting which would still be downcast and shielded.
Chairperson Kondrick stated lighting is very important and it is very dark down there.
Ms. Jones stated in the TOD zoning district the City dictates what these features are in private
developments so they needed to spec out what bike rack would be used,what type of light would need to
be used, etc. They are going to have to select these specific models or something similar that the City
approves.
Ms. Jones stated they looked at fencing and there seemed to be a desire for this kind of rock type fencing
and it is tying in again with some of the stormwater scenes. Because you are bringing in buildings close
to the street and you may not have room to meet the landscaping requirements of the Code, there is an
allowance in the TOD language that you can pay into a fund$500 per tree, for every tree you cannot meet
in your landscape requirements. That fund is used then for public space. Perhaps it is used to finance a
63
Planning Commission Meeting
November 19, 2014
Page 22 of 22
clock tower in a public plaza somewhere else in the district.
Ms. Jones stated the next steps for the plan now as it is finalized, is for it to be reviewed by the HRA on
December 4. They are bringing it to the City Council on December 8 which will give them an extra
meeting if they want to change some things before they have to wrap up the project by December 31.
Then as part of that also the consultant is going to make recommendatians on possible text amendments
to the TOD overlay zoning district. They will be a text amendment coming forward to the Planning
Commission on those proposed changes. She daes not foresee anything real significant there, but there
may be a few things they want to tweak in the design criteria in that azea. Then completing the
Comprehensive Plan amendment down the road.
Chairperson Kondrick stated it has been a lot of work. A lot of things have had to come to fruition
before staff could make things happen. He likes the plan. It makes sense. It is going to work and the
possibilities here are many.
MOTION by Commissioner Saba ta pass this item onto the City Council with approval from the
Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Oquist.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSfJN KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Commissioner Saba, seconded by Commissioner Oquist,to adjourn.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C�IAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:48 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by,
�.������%����1
Denise M.Johnson
Recording Secretary
,
64
= AGENDA ITEM
��°l CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
Fridley
DECEMBER 22, 2014
To: Wally Wysopal, City Manager�`C�
From: Darin Nelson,Finance Director �
Date: December 18, 2014
Re: Resolution Approving 2014 Gifts,Donations, &Sponsorships
Background
Each year the City receives a multitude of gifts and donations. The City is sincerely grateful for the support
we receive from an array of organizations and individuals. Without this support,the continuation of different
events or programs would be difficult to sustai.n. Attached is a schedule for 2014 listing a11 of donations and
gifts received by various city departments thru November 30.
All the items listed on the attached schedule are required to be accepted by the city council and adopted by a
two-thirds majority. In addition,a11 items have been determined to be donated free of any quid pro quo
expectation by the donor.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution approving the 2014 gifts, donations, and sponsorships
listed on schedule 1.
65
RESOLUTION NO.2014-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2014 GIFTS,DONATIONS AND SPONSORSHIPS TO
THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
WHEREAS,each year the City receives a multitude of gifts and donations; and
WHEREAS,the City is sincerely grateful for the support we receive from an array of organizations and
individuals; and,
� WHEREAS,without this support,the continuation of different events or progams would be difficult to
sustain; and
WHEREAS, the attached 2014 schedule lists a11 the donations and gifts received by various city
departments thru November 30�'; and
WHEREAS,a11 the items listed on the attached schedule are required to be accepted by the city council
and adopted by a two-thirds majority; and
WHEREAS, in addition, all items have been determined to be donated free of any quid pro quo
expectation by the donor.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves
the 2014 Gifts,Donations and Sponsorships listed on schedule 1.
SCOTT J.LUND,MAYOR
ATTEST
DEBRA A. SKOGEN, CITY CLERK
66
2014 Gifts,Donations &Sponsorships to the City of Fridley schedule�
(To be approved by the City Council in December)
Fill out the following columns before formal staff acceptance of a gift,donation or sponsorship. Donations received after November 30 are to be logged the following year. If
an ftem dces not meet the requirements under the Check List,please contact the city finance direetor(x3520)to discuss.
Dats AmounU In-kind Description,if Fund to be credlteal,if
Received Deparbnent P�ogram Donw Name,lf not anonymous Value applicable app/fcable
12/d3/13 Police Shop-with-a-Cop Walmart $ 2,500.00 Cash General Fund
12/16/13 Police 2013 Safety Camp Affina Health System 2,862.25 Cash General Fund
12/16/13 Police K9 Mary M.Schuster 100.00 Cash General Fund
12/23/13 Police Prevention Programs Minco 550.00 Cash General Fund
01/14/14 Recreation School Supplies Coon Creek Watershed 479.77 Cash General Fund
....._.....___............._..........._..__............_................_..........._.............__............__...._...._...........___.........._............_...._...........__._......._................._.._..........._..........._............._._.........____._..____..........._............._.._........._...........__...._..._.._..._.._.___.........__.._..........__...........__.._.
01/15l14 Recreatio� Wintertest Lions Club 1,400.00 Cash General Fund
OZ/11/14 Police 2014 Safety Camp Schmit Towing 200.00 Cash General Fund
OZ/13/14 Police 2014 Safety Camp Kiwanis Club 500.00 Cash General Fund
02/19/14 Police 2014 Safety Camp Fridley Lions Club Gambling Acct 1,000.00 Cash General Fund
02/25l14 Police 2614 Safety Camp Spring Lake Park Fire Dept 400.00 Cash General Fund
.___._.__._....._.........._..___...._._____.._._..___...........___...._....___......_......_......_......__.............._..........._...._........__._.........__...._._....._..._......._.......__.._...........__.._..........._.._...._.___._........._................_........................._.............__............_.._.........____.........__...........__...,
03/10/14 Police 2014 Safety Camp Friendly Chevrolet 500.00 Cash General Fund
03/18/14 Recreation Miscellaneous Programming United Way 512.40 Cash General Fund
04/21/14 Police 2014 Safety Camp Allina Health System 2,900.00 Cash General Fund
05l07l14 Recreation SPRING Exhibit Design SNC Foundation 1,940.00 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
� 05/15/14 Recreation __^^Green River Greening _Y »M^ _SNC Foundation 5,500.00 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
.__....___.._____.._..._....._.._...........__...._...____.._.....---_.__.__ ........_ .......__.........____......_____._.._..__._.._...__.......____.._.._.____...______...___........._..__.._._..___.........__......._.._---_.„....__...
J 05/15/14 Recreation SPRING Exhibit Design SNC Foundation 7,760.00 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
O6/04/14 Recxeation Miscellaneous Programming Donation Box 136.83 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
06/18/14 Recreation Miscellaneous Programming Donation Box 113.55 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
O6/26l14 Fire 2014 RecruitinglBaseball Cards Friendly Chevrolet 500.00 Cash General Fund
06/27/14 Police 2014 Safety Camp Fridley Fire Department Auxiliary 250.00 Cash General Fund
.___.......__........____..._._..__....._..._.._.........___.............___..........._.....__...___..........___...._._.._._......___........._w....._.....___.......____.........__........._........._...---_....._.__._..�.____...._..____....__..._.______..__............_..._...._.._..._._----.........___.___.__._.
07/03/14 Recreation ��SNC Land Management Equip. SNC Foundation 104.25 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
07/10/14 Recreation SPRING Exhibit Design SNC Foundation 9,700.00 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
07/23l14 Recxeation SNC 8ridge Repiacement Eagle Scout 585.00 Trail Bridge Springbrook Nature Center
OS/O6/14 Recreation Misoellaneous Programming Donation Box 726.62 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
08/14/14 Recreation Miscellaneous Programming Donation Box 113.36 Cash Springbrook Nature Center
.___..__............_.............................__................__._._.....�.m._.._...�............._.__.........____..........._.._............_....._.____.......____........._............._.._.......____...........___........__..._........__............_..__..........._.._.......__..................._.__._.._.__..__........._....._..._.____
08/20/14 Recreation �� Canopy and Public Address System Lions Club 1,000.00 Cash General Fund
06J25114 Recreation Mn Sinfonia Kid's Day at 49er Days 5,122.16 Cash General Fund
09/18/14 Fire Open House Bob's Produce 50.00 Cash General Fund
10/23/14 Fire 2014 Fire Prevention ActiviUes Fridley DQ/Frauenshuh Hospitality 94.86 Cash General Fund
10/23/14 Fire Fire Dept Blinds Blind Installation&Repair,inc 234.00 Property General Fund
.__.......__...._.....____..._..__.__.......____._....____.........__...........__.._...........__p_.-___._...._P�._.._.._...........__............._.._...._..___........_._..._._.._.__........_..._..........._......w.�........._...........�........_........._.._.............._......_.........................__.._............_...........___..........._.__.
11J13114 Police Sho anth-a-Co Walmart 2,500.00 Cash General Fund
$ 50,337.05
� AGENDA ITEM
��7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
DECEMBER 22, 2014
TO: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager���� PW14-063
FROM: James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
DATE: December 19, 2014
SUBJECT: Receiving Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing for 2015 Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST2015-01
On November 24, 2014, the City Council approved Resolution 2014-085 directing
preparation of a feasibility report for 2014 Street Improvement Project No. ST 2015-01.
The project is proposed in the Summit Manor neighborhood. There are 291 properties
in the project area that would be subject to special assessment under the City's major
street rehabilitation policy.
On October 29, 2014, property owners and Council Members were invited to attend an
open house to discuss the project. 316 properties received notice of the open house
via U.S. Mail. There are 291 properties in the Summit Manor neighborhood that would
be subject to assessment under the proposed project. Staff gave a presentation to 40
attendees that explained the City's resurfacing program, provided a project summary,
presented the anticipated project schedule, presented the project budget,and outlined
the estimated assessments and payment schedule. Following the staff presentation,
the meeting was opened to group questions and comments. Several property owners
stayed after the meeting to ask individual questions regarding the project.
Comments from property owners in project area have generally been in support of the
need for the project. Two residents expressed concern over the need for the project,
and several residents expressed support for the work. Staff indicated the City is
seeking opportunities for partnering on stormwater storage locations, and a
questionnaire was mailed to all affected owners requesting information from those
interested in participating in this program. The questionnaire also requests input on
other project aspects, including access during construction and utility services.
After the City Council resolution, staff resumed final preparation of the feasibility report.
The attached feasibility report includes consideration for public comment and concern
received through open house discussion, property survey,and telephone conversations.
Please refer to the completed feasibility report, which concludes:
68
1. The project is necessary as included in the City of Fridley's proposed Long-Term
Street Maintenance Program, and 2015-19 Capital Improvement Program.
2. The project is cost-effective, and will result in reduced maintenance requirements
within the project area and a long-term savings to the City of Fridley.
3. The project is feasible and is funded in the proposed FY2015 budget.
Staff recommends the City Council move fo approve the attached reso/ution
receiving the Feasibility Report for 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2015-
01 and calling for a public hearing on the proposed improvements on January 26,
2015.
If the City Council approves the attached resolution at this meeting, public hearing
notices will be received by property owners abutting the project area and the public
hearing will be advertised in the oificial newspaper.
JPK:jpk
Attachments
69
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON
IMPROVEMENT FOR STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. ST.
2015-01
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2014-085 of the City Council of the City of Fridley adopted
November 24,2014,a report has been prepared by the City of Fridley Public Works Department with
reference to the improvements listed in Bxhibit A',attached,and this report was officially received by
the City Council on December 22,2014,and
WHEREAS,the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary,cost-
effective, and feasible,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRIDLEY,MINNESOTA:
1. The council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report
and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the
improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of
the improvement of$1,644,000.00.
2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 26�'day of January
2015, in the Council Chambers of the Fridley City Hall at 7:00 p.m. and the clerk shall
give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY TffiS 22°a
DAY OF DECEMBER,2016.
SCOTT J.LLTND-MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN -CITY CLERK
70
EXHIBIT A
2015 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT NO.ST.2015-1
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Street improvements, includi.ng pavement rehabilitation, bituminous paving, water main
reconstruction and utility repairs including street segments as follows:
ALTURA ROAD HORIZON DRIVE TO 53�AVENUE
HORIZON DR1VE MAIN STREET TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE
VENTURA AVENUE MAIN STREET TO HORIZON DRIVE
HORIZON CIRCLE MAIN STREET TO HORIZON DRIVE
CROWN ROAD MAIN STREET TO HORIZON DRIVE
3RD STREET 49�AVENUE TO 53�AVENUE
CAPITOL STREET MAIN STREET TO HUGHES AVENUE
HUGHES AVENUE PANORAMA AVENUE TO HORIZON DRIVE
CLEARVIEW STREET PANORAMA AVENUE TO HORIZON DRIVE
TOPPER LANE CUL-DE-SAC TO HORIZON DRIVE
PANORAMA AVENUE MAIN STREET TO 3� STREET
GIBRALTAR ROAD CUL-DE-SAC TO ROMAN ROAD
PILOT AVENUE MAIN STREET TO ROMAN ROAD
ROMAN ROAD 49�AVENUE TO PANORAMA AVENUE
71
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
.
.
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
2015 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
NO. ST2015-01
December 2014
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
%�`� ;�,
��� �r� � � �
Date: December 18, 2014
Ja s P. Kosluchar, P.E.
R i�tration No. 26460
1
72
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Paqe No.
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................3
STREET RESURFACING PLAN.................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND...........................................................................................5
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................5
Overview .................................................................................................... 5
PavementResurfacing ................................................................................. 5
Water Main Improvements ........................................................................... 6
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Repairs.................................................. 6
Water Quality Improvements ....................................................................... 7
ESTIMATEDCOSTS...................................................................................7
FUNDINGSOURCES..................................................................................7
Street Rehabilitation Funding...................................................................... 7
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Repairs.................................................. 8
Area Drainage Improvements ...................................................................... 8
SUMMARY...................................................................................................8
APPENDICES..............................................................................................9
FIGURE A PROJECT AREA MAP ........................................................... 10
FIGURE B OPINION OF PROBABLE COST............................................ 11
FIGURE C FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................. 13
FIGURE D PROJECT SCHEDULE........................................................... 14
FIGURE E TYPICAL SECTIONS.............................................................. 15
2
73
INTRODUCTION
The City of Fridley has an ongoing obligation to maintain its streets in an efficient
manner, to provide a high level of service while maintaining a minimum budget. To
enable the City to identify improvements that will provide for an efficient level of service
and life-cycle cost, staff inspects and rates its pavements on a regular basis. The City
also has developed a pavement improvement plan based on resurFacing pavement and
base treatment with intermittent sealcoating. The goal is to provide maintenance
improvements at scheduled intervals. For example:
Activity Schedule
Initial Construction Year 0
Sealcoating Year 8
Sealcoating Year 16
Resurfacing Year 24
Sealcoating Year 32
Sealcoating Year 40
Reconstruction Year 48
This is an ideal and aggressive sequence for street maintenance. Note that the final
reconstruction may be substituted with resurfacing activities if roadway base is in good
condition, with the intent to extend road life for an additional cycle of 24 years.
Due to the variability with budgets, road configurations, traffic patterns, condition of
utilities, source of funds, other projects, etc., the basic schedule above varies and
fluctuates for each roadway segment.
As part of identifying the best candidate for this year's pavement resurfacing project,
City of Fridley Engineering Division staff works with Street Maintenance Division staff to
develop the list of candidate projects. The factors considered are physical
characteristics, budgetary factors, and other considerations are listed to assist in
selection of a best candidate.
The Engineering Division monitors existing pavements through semi-annual
inspections. From this inspection information, the Engineering Division prepares a
Street Resurfacing Plan consistent with the Street Capital Improvement Plan, which
designates candidate street segments for construction, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation. The City of Fridley also performs preventative surface maintenance (e.g.
sealcoating), routine crack sealing and pothole patching maintenance. The amount of
street maintenance on this segment is increasing annually due to the rapid deterioration
of the existing pavements.
The Engineering Division has prepared a Street ResurFacing Plan consistent with the
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program, which designates candidate street segments
for construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation. The Plan identifies one residential
area for street rehabilitation in 2015, in the southwest area of Fridley generally known
as Summit Manor neighborhood. Please refer to the following map summarizing the
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program.
3
74
�__
i �
a
.., c�ty of
� �c=� a �"d'`'� Fridley
, ,;�
�
� _�
���� ' � Street Resurfacin Plan
� .�-��'� ' 9
% 4 2014-2024
,
,` O � � _ : _
, �Oo a � a
, l;, a �D�° o°�
��� � �
� � �� �
�� �,,� o � 0��
C~/r�,� ������� �i�
�
� � �
c� .
� ,�r-�'f � ���
��
� t ,/' r— l 1
l��_�/r,l
/ jl
0 02 OA �.6 �.B � �/o�r�,.�,��
Miles���� �. (// ��
��-
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 ' j�1�
Feei � ,������ � � O
ti . tv�'Ir—! `// / �1—IUU�
W�F '��:��� a D��a�Do � �� �< i� 4
D° ` �
��,�, t� `ti i � � � � i
�e�re�emren�y , ��.��� �
Fne�y au � . ��
Map Wte:30/19/]Olq ' --
. . ' � � � � � I Ilr jl�j I� jl�j�—�iJ� ji I�, � ii ij .
_ ... . .. .. . ._..,. �� � �� I� p �j i� jl ��i� j� �� =-i �� I� �l
f : � _ .�J L,�JL� � i ���_� � �� �I
, � � �a �
%' • ���i'` ���i ��� � ��Vl,— �
� BLJUUa � � �� ���LI�I�_JI ��J ��
���� ------� �l�
����' ���0
%f/ .; ; ���
`��;�� //, ��
� ', ` D :;
202,¢- .r �� �
`'��
�� .;�1_i,, -_,-;`
� � Y �r���
, ,,; ���, a
, �
��'� ' �'�� /�, �� �--�__—.
)� /./� '1 I`'�J�J
; it� } alri
` '�;i�,'i ResurFacing of Local Streets To Be Determined
--ji �`� �2014
� � i'i�i���� �,
��i!LiLi�i� ;j, 2015
� i�i���r�i
\ �d
� �2016
�Pi
� i i� �L�i�i
1� � �
\ �i I�i i iii �2017
I I I I I�
� �2018
a ❑2019
/ �� �2020
�2021
j �2022
�
�2023
�,_-- 4 �2024
ve�rtK.�cis�gee.ubuenewne�vrobN�s�ne.w.umdnpu^ve.iaesurteci�goi.nxoia-aoa+mxo oetr.iorzeao�a
75
BACKGR�UND
The area under consideration for street and utility rehabilitation is generaily referred to
as the Summit Manor neighborhood. The area is residentia{ in nature but adjacent to
commercial and industrial property to the west. The neighborhood is generally bordered
by University Avenue tb the east, Main Street to the west, Interstate 694 to the north
and 49�' Avenue to the south.
Street segments selected for rehabilitation include:
3`�Street 49"'Avenue to 53`�Avenue
Altura Road 53`�Avenue to Horizon Drive
Capitol Street Main Street to Hughes Avenue
Cleanriew Street Panorama Avenue to Horizon Drive
Crown Road Main Street to Horizon Drive
Gibraltar Road Roman Road to cul-de-sac
Horizon Circls Main Street to Horizon Drive
Horizon Drive 3'" Street to 53`�Avenue
Hughes Avenue Panorama Avenue to Horizon Drive
Panorama Avenue Main Street to 3`�Street
Pilot Avenue Main Street to Roman Road
Roman Road 49"'Avenue to Panorama Avenue
Topper Lane Horizon Drive to cul-de-sac
Ventura Avenue Main Street to Horizon Drive
See Figure A in the Appendix for a map of proposed street construction.
The street segments were built between 1968 and 1973, with the exception of Capitol
Street which was built in 1984. A majority of the streets last received a sealcoat in
2007. Currently, the streets provide 2-way traffic with no shoulder striping. it is
estimated that the average daily traffic ranges from 150 to 400 vehicles per day based
on observation and historical data of similar streets. The record pavement thickness
ranges from 1'/�" to 3'/Z". The underlying aggregate base thickness ranges from 2" to 4"
of Class 5 base, or 6" of Stabilized Sand base. Several streets are without an
aggregate base. The street widths are 35 feet, with the exception of two segments
which are 40 feet in width.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Overview
The length of al! segments included in this residential project area is approximately 2.8
miles. The work will include pavement resurfacing, water main replacement, drainage
improvements, and sewer infrastrueture repairs.
Pavement Resurfacing
Rehabilitation of the streets will include asphalt reclaiming, asphalt paving, concrete
� curb repairs, and miscellaneous utility repairs. Damaged or settled concrete curbs will
be replaced. New pavement markings will be placed as they previousty existed.
5
76
Construction records indicate that some streets were found to have an adequate
combination of aggregate base and asphalt and others found to have insufficient
aggregate base and/or asphalt. Soils in the area are generally granular and provide for
a stable sub-base. Geotechnical soil exploration is being perFormed ta verify existing
conditions and identify any soil correction needed. Staff recommends standard
residential pavement and base rehabilitation consisting of ful! depth reclamation and
topped with 2" of asphalt pavement. See Figure E in the Appendix for details of existing
and proposed typical sections.
Water Main Improvements
Water main work will include replacing segments of 6" and 12" pipe. Staff has
prioritized the 12" water main to be replaced on 3`d Street from Horizon Drive to 53`�
Avenue. This pipe segment distributes water to the neighborhood and has experienced
multiple breaks. Several short 6" water main segments within the project area have
been targeted for replacement within the streets of Hughes Avenue, Capitol Street and
Horizon Drive.
The Engineering staff will consider allowing various material and installation options to
minimize costs and disruption. Other upgrades throughout the project will be limited to
water main valve repairs and replacement of all 23 fire hydrants in fhe project area.
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Repairs
Sanitary sewer repairs will include spot repairs to the main line pipe and manhole
adjustment. Remote televising inspections by staff will identify locations where the main
line pipe will require repairs. Based on prior projects, staff typically determines that the
main will need repairs in a handful of locations.
The Sewer Maintenance Division will be conducting flow testing and follow up smoke
testing in the spring to determine if there are sources of inflow and infiltration in the
project area. Sources of inflow and infiltration that may be found in the City's system of
mains and manholes will be corrected as part of this project. Due to the more recent
development of this area and commercial nature of the adjacent properties, it is unlikely
that sources of inflow and infiltration will exist within the road right-of-way, but any of
these sources of clear water filows will be dealt with as well.
Staff has identified 25 service laterals with severe root intrusion at the main connection.
Those property owners have been notified of the issue and may coordinate with the
Sewer Division to complete a video inspection of the service line. Excavations to repair
and c{ean service laterals with severe root intrusions are bom by the property owner,
per City Code.
Storm sewer repairs will include manhole and inlet adjustments and repairs. Catch
basin structures are generally in good condition, but several structures have been
identified as requiring epoxy surFace treatment to provide an in-p{ace liner. This is a
repair that is generally more cost-effective than replacement. The epoxy surface
treatment is sprayed on the inside walls of the structure to protect the concrete from
deteriorating due to environmental elements. Rather than replacir►g the strueture, the
Sewer staff will have the structures sprayed and save approximately$2000 per
6
77
struct�re. The life expectancy of the epoxy surFace treatment is nearly equivalent to a
new structure.
Water Quality Improvements
As this area mainly developed prior to modern stormwater detention/retention for flood
control and water quality, Engineering Division staff has reviewed alternatives to
improve flood control and water qua{ity in conjun�tion with this project. The City has
applied for additional resources available through a C{ean Water Fund grant to provide
water quality in the project area.
This proposed work would improve the quality of stormwater discharged to the
Mississippi River, This area is dense residential development, which was built out in the
mid 1950s with no storm water controls. Currently, no stormwater infrastructure related
to water quality exists in this projecYs 84-acre subwatershed, and it discharges an
estimated 14,320 pounds of sediment and 45.9 pounds of phosphorus to the Mississippi
River annually. Using a combination of bioretention (0.6 acres at 14-18 sites), roadway
narrowing/depaving (0.3 acres), and underground storage (0.45 acre-feet) practices, the
water quality enhancements would provide a over a 25% reduction in both sediment
discharge and total phosphorus discharge to the Mississippi River from the ST2015-01
project area.
This work would only proceed if the grant is awarded. Selection for the grant will be in
January 2015, so costs are not included as part of this feasibility report. However, the
grant request is for$340,200, which would be matched by the Mississippi Watershed
Management Organization ($76,450), and the City of Fridley's storm water utility funds
($76,450). This supplemental work will not impact special assessments.
ESTIMATED COSTS
The project cost is estimated to be $1,644,000.00. These estimates include 10%
contingency and overhead costs retating to technical services, printing, publishing,
permit fees, etc. All costs are preliminary, but are expected to stay within the budgeted
amount. Estimated costs ofi the project can be found on Figure B of the Appendix.
FUNDING SOURCES
Costs for this project wili be paid using Minnesota State Aid System, utility enterprise
funds, and special assessments. The street rehabilitation work is subject to special
assessment; utility work is not proposed to be subject to special assessment. A
preliminary project budget can be found in Figure C of the Appendix.
Street Rehabilitation Funding
The estimated cost of$946,000 for the City's pavement rehabilitation work will be
funded using monies from speciaf assessments and the City's Minnesota State Aid
System account. The City will assess adjacent residential properties in accordance
with its major street maintenance policy for iocal streets. These assessments will
7
78
provide approximately $742,000 based on the full project scope. The foilowing
assessments are based on past history as app{ied by Counci{ policies for Low Density
Residential (single family, duplex} and High Density Residential (greater than 4 units)
properties. Using these past methods of calculating assessments, and considering our
preliminarv project estimate, staff has estimated assessment of approximately $2,375
per unit for Low Density Residential properties and $35.00 per lineal foot of frontage for
High Density Residential properties.
The remaining balance of approximately $204,000 for local street�esurFacing will be
reimbursed from the City's Minnesota State Aid System account.
Water Main Improvements
The estimated cost of$628,000 for upgrading the water main distribution system will be
funded using monies from the Water Utility Fund. In 2015, $500,000 in funding is
identified with in the CIP as a capital expenditure. An additional $75,000 will be
encumbered from savings on 2014 water main rehabilitation work. While the
preliminary estimate indicates that water system rehabilitation work will exceed •
available funds, we will endeavor reduce the cost of construction through detailed
design prior to bidding to allow the work to be completed within the available budget. If
this is unsuccessful, an adjustment to the work proposed or a budget adjustment will be
proposed.
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Repairs
Utility funding will be applied to repairs to the Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer
colfection systems. General repairs are expected to be $30,000 and $40,000
respectiveiy.
Area Drainage Improvements
Utility funding will be applied to any improvements implemented to control flooding and
improve water quality from the Storm Sewer fund. There is $60,000 included in the CIP
to complete the estimated $40,000 in general work.
SUMMARY
The work proposed for ST2015-01 Street Rehabilitation project is consistent with the
City of Fridley's Long-Term Street Maintenance Program, 2015-2019 Capital
Improvement Plan, and can be fully funded by its 2015 Budget. The project is cost
effective, necessary, and feasible from an engineering standpoint as described in this
, report. The Engineering Department recommends that the City Council approve this
project as presented.
8
79
APPENDICES
9
80
Figure A - Project Area Map
STREET RESURFACING ST2015 -01
i ���i HORIZON D ;��q�
� I� �5500 �� �
� ��5495 ���;� ,'�.�,q",..� �STXAVE
I �5480 `r.� ���,c,5: 5450�,
�� ' �5492 i.}�" 6"�?. �� 545
i ���� \ �g9..��� '� � 5435 I��8;
� 5M175 5470 ` �' \
�� I �����\i i�� ����� 54301 t�
ti i
� �- ��'.�,� 5►''����,y�� ��iA /'i i caz�� aaza I
C
�
I �.°. '`r � p/��� ';�'3'�.��10 �` �i�. �a�423� 5420 f in
� � � � �,�,°`�,'f.��-'1�� �, ���a �, � ��
ji saoo I g`�:�,'\��s36O�'oy���5�� �`�in� �saoo �sao�� snoo I
I o � 1 1�
� 54TH
� � ��;�������1968 ���.�y.53�� ���� �� 5380 �5357! 5384�, 5375�
O '�� �',6 516,�� � 5357? 5370� �,-5353��5370� 53��73/�
I €" , � � $�55'� �'��,��g'`� - � 5334� 5380 3g$�
I
� $ �r�+���'i���,��w�[ 19'� -i��5349� ',,5347'. �5333�-�v�i 5339� 5338� 5331
f I� f �-�7 �'i� i 5337 5336�1 ' S337�. �� I 5330;= 5323 i I
1 ��,;� �.�.i '�'��� .,i--- - -- - - o, 5328IF _. 5328
� �� y���< 'A 5325 5324 - 53251, w. � �'� 5315
'::� ,���\N5312 ;�531�1321 :� �t3� ��---{ 53101i 5305�I5310�= 5315
� ���$�� , �� �' 195 f 14301 ! 305`� 53N�� � .�
� -� w � 21721 � ; � 53U0� .5301; 5300 rii 407
-r-,—T:\ � � '
!� � �. J --_"'_ _'. L_— L_
�-- — o �w� ia\��y,�� 53RD AV 53R8 A1FE
j �`r u �p"� �\184 i 200 : ----� . _._..
i 5280 j + 53a'\$`N:5272� 5273.5290 5291�
I � � J ,
����N'N►'�' �` /5260 i�5261--- ,
I � - -
�a!n n �ry°j ly 5248 5249�5260 5267 I
Lr—____'__ N N I�.'y�j I(�'Y .... � ' ..
I ----� '� 5236 ' 5237��. � �
i � 51
+\\_-- 5250 ,�_�� ,__�P�T��� `�522a i.=5�S 5230 5231I
----
in �
I 5220 ��_��s� ,52�Z� 5212" 5207..-...-- -�
. ----- -,� I 5156��5780� �51� �5189 5200 5201� ,
i --� � _�
i W!
i - �5144 . p� �, --� 5179:... - 5193� � �
� g,�-"� I 5790 5191 I Q�
5770 � � 5132 ,Z.�J,���� I � �5769�5180 51831 r �
� ,� C�
: r--_ p,� �r. r,
� � �5720/J Sj�� ��. � `r 5159 - f-S�jq3� fn;
� w 5140
l._ '��s�o��si��'',oB;N°' " s�ae �3� W I
q - 5130 ���'��
�'
� ii5098� �50977�e 51�� 5139 .� ���� Z �
� 51'Lg l F�� �I
� 5730 �5084� 5085 �� � ���,�gAj d,_ ,q e �,5177� .
� 5072 5073:50�2 �5069%���'�`�p`'� '"� � � 1
� i 5060�5081;506� 5057��/�°" �� ��+' �; 5101 ,
'-r-- 1 . i 5
i � S�8 a50495048 .,�5�5 Si- 3�097,p� 510fi510
�a B
5036 5037�� sioa
5031 f' o
�-��- 01713p� 1O� �o s�o
li I5012� �5013�5012_ �-`� �50��8 I 5069
� �5024 5025 5D24 ___� �,
� � � ��$y SO56��5057�
� � �._ _:.- '��:S�, 3F- -.-.�,.
i ���� i5000 1131 5000, �5001 � r\�5044�; `�5 �
. '-T��--�--- ._. _ �
� �J � :- � : / b 1 �
5N0 A AVE �-��w� ��N� N 5035
� g ����N ��°.�� re° �`� 5025 ;
I ., - �'-T'T--� ' ;�784 I w�♦ i
I , \113�'I.�n-?a fo "'�I n g;a;_`�� 5005 i
i � I 101 � � ������ i 4889 �8� I
a
� ' � Rp - Y < <885 .
��� ' ;4977 4978 '
i �/112�n�'�`� ��,. 18� �49�4964 4965 � .
�i --i
---�--�4984 � �
� o�°J � ����m;�� 4953 i 4952 ��`�1
� i��� i , 4952� }-�
P OT AV 0��47�4940 4939 �
g��,�!$;�.I � �4929 4928 4921 '
—�
+ t ' '�f�� � �7� I � �4977 4976 � 4973 �
� 4850 �I'!N�«�i�°e�'IA e ...���..n .
I ��.-�.- �� � � H �� 4901..
49TH AVE
4881 4880� 4881 4860 �iqggp 488 ,
i . � 1875 4875 �.
J�+
,
�;'
r,J ��Noo-LDR Assessment S C/TY OF
� Cj Assessed Parcels N �„m,z FR/DLEY
�Unassessed Parcels
3 � � -= Street Resurfacln
,�,-:❑.. . ,�., .PublicLand 9 �
r ST2015-01
��.. �Project Streets
i; �
J� SOU�CES:
� zso izs o zso � Fridley Public Works
Fridley GIS
�e`� Map Date:10/29/2014
vnn.x��isyivae�e�oud�-.mrWbmM�`sv.ewnuncino`sirm�Aesumcinp zo�s uvx.m.a
81
Figure B - Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
ST2015-1 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT 12/18/2014
JPK
MnDOT UNIT EST.TOTAL EXTENDED
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT COST QTY COST
Schedule A-Streets
2021.501 Mobilization LS $ 25,000.00 1.00 $ 25,000.00
2104.501 Remove Conc C8�G LF $ 3.00 4,000.00 $ 12,000.00
2105.501 Com Exc-Haul Excess Off-Site P SY $ 1.00 56,177.00 $ 56,177.00
2106.507 Sub rade Exc-Haul Excess Off-Site CV P CY $ 10.00 1,000.00 $ 10,000.00
2112.501 A .Base Pre STA $ 150.00 147.00 $ 22,050.00
2211.604 10"Reclaim CI.7 Production SY $ 125 56,177.00 $ 70,221.25
2331.604 Bituminous Joint Saw&Seal LF $ 3.50 15,000.00 $ 52,500.00
2360.501 2"Wear Course TN $ 63.50 7,100.00 $ 450,850.00
2504.602 Rem&Re I GV Box Tb Section&Cover Incl Ad' EA $ 350.00 50.00 $ 17,500.00
2505.602 Ad'ust Gas Valve Box EA $ 325.00 5.00 $ 1,625.00
2531.501 B618 CB�G LF $ 18.00 4,000.00 $ 72,000.00
2531.618 36"Valle Gutter LF $ 24.00 300.00 $ 7,200.00
2563.601 Traffic Control LS $ 10,000.00 1.00 $ 10,000.00
2564.603 F&I Markin Ta e Tem ora LF $ 1.00 1,000.00 $ 1 000.00
SPEC 1 1/2"-3"Clear Rock TN $ 35.00 150.00 $ 5 250.00
SPEC Ped Ram s and Truncated Domes LS $ 1,500.00 1.00 $ 1,500.00
SPEC Miscellaneouse Pvmt Markin LS $ 5,000.00 1.00 $ 5,000.00
SPEC Blvd Restoration Seed,Fert, and Stabilizer LS $ 10,000.00 1.00 $ 10,000.00
SPEC Gas line removal LF $ 4.00 2,500.00 $ 10,000.00
SPEC 53rd Avenue Pavement Settlement Re air LS $ 10,000.00 1.00 $ 10,000.00
SPEC Misc Items LS $ 10,000.00 1.00 $ 10,000.00
SUbtOt81 S 859,873.25
5%Contingency And 5%Eng/Adm S s5,987.33
Schedule A-Streets Total a sas,eso.sa
Schedule B-Sanita Sewer
2021.501 Mobilization LS $ 500.00 1.00 $ 500.00
2506.522 Ad'ust Castin MH EA $ 350.00 35.00 $ 12,250.00
2506.603 Reconstruct MH Rin s extre de th LF $ 150.00 8.00 $ 1,200.00
2563.601 Traffic Control LS $ 500.00 1.00 $ 500.00
SPEC Sewer Main Re air less than 10' EA $ 1,500.00 2.00 $ 3,000.00
SPEC Misc Items LS $ 10,000.00 1.00 $ 10,000.00
subtota� a z�,aso.00
5%Contingency And 5%Eng/Adm S 2,�as.00
Schedule B-Sanitary Sewer Total E 3o,�ss.00
Schedule C-Storm Sewer
2021.501 Mobilization LS $ 3,000.00 1.00 3,000.00
2104.509 Remove Catch Basin EA $ 650.00 4.00 $ 2,600.00
2503.602 Connect to Existin Storm Sewer EA $ 850.00 8.00 $ 6,800.00
2506.501 F&I Catch Basin w/castin EA $ 2,000.00 4.00 $ 8,000.00
2506.522 Ad'ust Castin MH EA $ 350.00 24.00 $ 8,400.00
2506.603 Reconstruct MH Rin s extra de th LF $ 250.00 4.00 $ 1,000.00
2563.601 Traffic Control LS $ 1,500.00 1.00 $ 1,500.00
SPEC Rain Garden Excavation LS $ 5,000.00 1.00 $ 5,000.00
SPEC Draina e Up rades to be Determined LS $ - 1.00 $ -
SUbt0111 a 36,300.00
5%Contingency And 5%Eng/Adm S 3,630.00
Schedule C-Storm Sewer Totai a 39,930.00
g2
Schedule D-Water Main
2021.501 Mobilization LS $ 10,000.00 1 $ 10,000.00
2104.501 Remove Existin Pi e LF $ 10.00 3300 $ 33,000.00
2104.501 Remove Curb&Gutter LF $ 5.00 300 $ 1,500.00
2104.501 Remove Existing Service Pipe LF $ 10.00 354 $ 3,540.00
2104.505 Remove Bituminous Drivewa SY $ 5.00 100 $ 500.00
2104.505 Remove Concrete D SY $ 8.00 100 $ 800.00
2104.509 Remove Ex.H drant&GV Assbl EA $ 1,000.00 14 $ 14,000.00
2105.509 Remove Ex. Gate Valve EA $ 500.00 10 $ 5,000.00
2104.513 Saw Bituminous LF $ 2.00 600 $ 1,200.00
2104.523 Salva e Mailbox EA $ 100.00 5 $ 500.00
2105.601 Dewaterin LS $ 5,000.00 1 $ 5,000.00
2503.603 F&I 6"Watertnain LF $ 45.00 2030 $ 91,350.00
2503.603 F&I 12"Watermain LF $ 80.00 1270 $ 101,600.00
2504.601 Tem ora Water Distribution S stem LS $ 18,000.00 1 $ 18,000.00
2504.602 F81 H drant w/6"GV Assbl EA $ 5,500.00 23 $ 126,500.00
2504.602 Connect to Existin Water S stem Includes Excavatio EA $ 1,500.00 10 $ 15,000.00
2505.602 F8�16"GV Assbl EA $ 1,500.00 10 $ 15,000.00
2505.602 F&I 12"GV Assbl EA $ 3,500.00 3 $ 10,500.00
2504.602 Connect to Existin Service 1"Cu EA $ 250.00 59 $ 14,750.00
2505.602 Connect to Existin Service 4"CIP EA $ 500.00 6 $ 3,000.00
2504.603 F 8�I 4"Water Service DIP CL 52 LF $ 30.00 60 $ 1,800.00
2504.603 F81 1"Curb Sto EA $ 250.00 5 $ 1,250.00
2504.603 F&I 1"Co EA $ 200.00 59 $ 11,800.00
2504.603 F81 1"Water Service TYPE K COPPER LF $ 25.00 354 $ 8,850.00
2504.604 F&I 4"Insulation SY $ 25.00 20 $ 500.00
2504.608 Ductile Iron Pi e Fittin s LB $ 8.00 4000 $ 32,000.00
2504.612 Remove 8 Re lace GV Box Middle Section EA $ 500.00 6 $ 3,000.00
2531.501 F&I 6618 Curb&Gutter LF $ 25.00 300 $ 7,500.00
2531.507 F&I 6"Concrete d w/4"Sand Base SY $ 60.00 100 $ 6,000.00
2540.602 Install Mailbox EA $ 250.00 5 $ 1,250.00
2563.601 Traffic Control LS $ 3,500.00 1 $ 3,500.00
F&I 4"Topsoil, Seeding Fertilizer and Hydro Mulch
SPEC T e 5 or 6 SY $ 35.00 100 $ 3,500.00
SPEC Bituminous D 2.5"De th w/6"CL 5 A . SY $ 40.00 100 $ 4,000.00
SPEC Misc Items LS $ 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00
subtota� a s�o,sso.00
5%Contingency And 5%EnglAdm S 5�,oss.00
Schedule D-Water Main Total a s2�,�ss.00
Grand Totai (A+B+C+D) $ �,sa3,�aa.58
83
Figure C - Funding Sources
ST2015-01 Street Rehabilitation Project JPK
Estimated 2015 Budgeted
No Description Amount Amount
1 Special Assessments* $742,000.00 $700,000.00
2 Water Fund** $628,000.00 $575,000.00
3 Sanitary Sewer Fund $30,000.00 $40,000.00
4 Storm Water Fund*** $40,000.00 �60,000.00
5 MSA Funding $204,000.00 $260,000.00
Grand Total $1,644,000.00 $1,635,000.00
Speciai Assessment Breakdown
LDR Residentiai Assessments
Single Family 261 units x $2,385/unit = $622,485.00
Duplex 7 units x 1.5 x$2,385iunit = $25,042.50
Prorated Propery 0.48 units x $2,385/unit = $1,144.80
LDR Total $648,672.30
HDR Residential Assessments
4 unit property(1) 1001f x $351tf $3,500.00
4+ unit property(21) 2565.11 If x $35/if $89,778.85
HDR Total $93,278.85
Assessment Grand Total $741,951.�s
*Note that Special Assessments amounts are a calculated need for Estimated Amount,
based on the project estimate, and the Budgeted Amount is calculated based on the project
scope and property information.
**Budgeted amount includes$75,000 in encumbrance from 2014.
'`**Excludes possible outside funding for area water quality treatment.
84
Figure D - Project Schedule
ST2015-01 Street Rehabilitation Project
JPK
The tentative schedule for this project is as follows:
PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES
Project Open House: October 28, 2014
Preliminary Assessment Hearing: January 26, 2014
DESIGN AND SUBMITTALS
Agency Submittals Complete: February 2015
Design Completed: March 2015
LETTING. AWARD. AND CONSTRUCTION
Resolution Advertising for Bids: March 2015
First Advertisement for Bids: � March 2015
Bid Letting: March 2015
Contract Award: April 2015
Begin Construction (earliest): May 2015
Complete Construction (deadline): September 2015
FINAL ACTIVITIES
Final Assessment Hearing: October 2015
Certified Assessment Roll Complete: November 2015
Note: subsequent activities may be influenced by changes in schedule of previous activities.
85
LOCAL STREETS
g RECLAIM �
jso•—so•
i
i
! VARIES 35' MIES ,
I 32� � I
6618 CdcG TYP.
PROPOSED SECTION EXISTING SECTION
r �g �� �� 1.5"-3.5' BITUMINOUS
r ��3� � �� �� � 2'-4` CL V. AGG.
8' CL 7 AOGREfiAIE BASE
SUBGRADE VARIES
A L TU R A R O AD — 53RD AVE TO HORIZON DR
CAPITAL ST. — MAIN ST TO HUGHES AVE
CLEARVIEW ST. — PANORAMA AVE TO HORIZON DR
CROWN RD. — MAIN ST TO HORIZON DR
GIBRALTAR RD. — ROMAN RD TO CUL—DE—SAC
HORIZON CIR. — MAIN ST TO HORIZON DR
HORIZON DR — 3RD ST TO 214' E. OF MAIN ST
H U G H E S A VE. — PANORAMA AVE TO HORIZON OR
PANORAMA AVE. — MniN sT ro �o sT
P I LO T A VE. — MAIN ST TO ROMAN RD
ROMAN RD. — 49TH AVE TO PANORAMA AVE
TOPPER LN. — HORIZON OR TO CUL— DE —SAC
VENTURA AVE. — MPJN ST TO HORIZON DR
LOCAL STREETS
� RECLAIM �
� so�-so
i i
i v +°' ,v�� �
I 37, (
8618 CdcG TYP.
€
�
�
:
g PROP�SED SEClldd EXISTING SECTION
a r �� �� �� 3" BITUMINOUS
�' Y SPNMIB3.'i0B NON �AR OOl1RSE / 0` CL V. AGG.
� a' CL 7 A(iGRE6AiE BASE
SUBGRADE VARIES
3RD STREET — 4sn� nvE. To ssRO nvE.
�
� DATE� OCT. 2014
� FIGURE "E"
� NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTI�NS
� DRAWN BY� RRS
� 86
� AGENDA ITEM
��� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
DECEMBER 22, 2014
TO: Walter T. Wysopal, City Mana9l�� PW14-062
FROM: James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
DATE: December 18, 2014
SUBJECT: Approve Change Order#2 (Final) for 2014 Street Rehabilitation Project
ST 2014-01
Attached is Change Order No. 2 for the 2014 Street Rehabilitation Project ST 2014-01.
Project ST 2014-01 rehabilitated streets and selected utilities in the Northern Industrial
area of Fridley. The project was pertormed under a contract with Astech Corporation,
Inc., of St. Cloud, MN.
The amount of this change order is $31,443.25. There is no change to the contract
completion date for the project as a result of this change order. Total change orders for
this project would increase the original contract by 2.3%.
Work adjustments directed under this change order include providing an additional
water and sanitary sewer service extension to a formerly unserviced vacant property at
7835 Main Street(items C2.01 and C2.02). This will enable utility services as may be
needed when the property is devefoped, and corresponding connection charges will be
applied.
Several items included in the change order accommodate work directives relating to
water main replacement. An additional water service stub discovered during
construction was replaced under the street at 7685 Main Street (item C2.03). The
contractor was directed to pertorm work after hours at 77th Avenue and Main Street
while replacing water main that required service interruption to minimize impact to area
businesses (item C2.04). A higher quantity of water main fittings than estimated were
needed (item C2.05). One additional temporary service connection was required to
keep a business operational during the construction (item C2.06). Two gate valve
sections required replacement upon their excavation as well (item C2.08).
Finally, loop detectors had to be replaced at the west leg of 73�d Avenue and University
Avenue. MN/DOT advised that their records indicated that these were installed
sufficiently deep to avoid being impacted during reclaiming. Unfortunately,this was not
the case, and the loop detectors needed to be reinstalled (item C2.07). A temporary
87
reinstallation was completed by the contractor, with pavement corrections pending in
the spring.
The project is substantially complete, with a handful of minor punchlist items to
complete in the spring.
Staff is recommending that the City Council move to approve Change Order No. 2 to
Astech Corporation in the amount of$31,443.25. If approved,the final contract amount
shall be increased from $1,489,311.59 to $1,520,�54.84.
JPKfjpk
Attachment
88
��
N,�ucy
Public Works Department
Shua•Pazka•Water•Sewer•Sta�mwater•Ilcet�Fac�6aea•F�ginee�8
December 22,2014
Astech Corporation,Inc.
P.0 Box 1025
St.Cloud,MN 56302
SUBJECT:Change Order No.2(Final)STREET REHABILITATION PRO1.NO.2034-01
You are hereby ordered,authorized,and instructed to modify your contract for the above referenced project by including the
following items:
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
C2.01 F&i 44'of 6"Water Service Line,Tee&Gatevalve to 7835 Main St. LS 1 $ 4,958.00 $ 4,958.00
C2.02 F&I 34'of 6"Sewer Service Line to 7835 Main St. LF 34 $ 36.00 $ 1,224.00
C2.03 F&I 44'of 6"Water Service Line,Tee&Gatevalve to 7685 Main St. LS 1 $ 4,725.00 $ 4,725.00
C2.04 Afterhours Watermain Work @Main St.&77th(late start) LS 1 S 500.00 $ 500.00
C2.05 Watermain Fittings Overrun LBS 487 $ 5.75 $ 4,261.25
C2.06 Additional Temporery Water to Bob's Produce and Auto Repair LS 1 $ 750.00 $ 750.W
C2.07 Loop Detector Installation on 73rd Ave.at University Ave. EA 30 $ 1,402.50 $ 14,025.Q0
C2.08 Excavate and Replace Deterioroted Gatevalve Sections EA 2 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TOTAL= $ 31,443.25
Submitted and approved by James Kosluchar,Director of Publfc Works,on the 22nd day of December,2014
lames P.Kosluchar,Director of Public Works
Approved and accepted this day of ,2014 by Astech Corporation Inc.
Astech Corporetion Inc.Representative
Approved and accepted this 22nd day of December,2014 by the City of Fridley
Scott Lund,Mayor
Walter T.Wysopal,City Manager
Page 1 of 1
89
� AGENDA lTEM
���,�y CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
DECEMBER 22, 2014
TO: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manage PW14-061
FROM: James P. Kosluchar, Public Works Director
DATE: December 18, 2014
SUBJECT: Consulting Services Agreement for 2015 GIS Technical Assistance
Attached is a proposed consulting services agreement for GIS services for 2015. Flat Rock
Geographics (formerly GIS Rangers) has provided GIS services including data entry and
mapping to enable the City of Fridley to analyze and manage data and associated
attributes which are spatially referenced. These services will be contracted through the
updated GIS Joint Powers Agreement, with the Cities of Andover, Columbia Heights, and
Fridley participating as member cities.
The proposed 2015 contract is the same as the 2014 contract with updated term dates and
a $5,128 cost increase in the budget for the GIS Specialist hours and total contract for
general mapping services. This rate is still a significant discount of over 15% for the
standard hourly rate for this person staffed at the Engineering office. Rates are maintained
for programming and project management classifications. As you may recall, GIS Rangers
had accommodated our previous budgets by holding their hourly rates with no increase in
prior years. Minor rate adjustments returned in 2013 and 2014. The hours of service for
general mapping services provided in the proposed contract is the same as in 2014 for
Fridiey. The proposed Fridley portion of the contract of $37,440.00 for general GiS
services is in accordance with our proposed 2015 budget.
We have received excellent service and value in the past with this contract and expect that
this wi11 continue. The Cities of Andover and Co{umbia Heights, our JPA partners, have
approved this contract. Staff recommends the City Council move to approve execution of
the proposed contract for GIS services with Flat Rock Geographics of Rosevilfe, MN, for
2015.
Staff requests that the City Council move to approve the aftached Consu/ting Services
Agreement for 2015 GIS Technica►Assistance with Flat Rock Geographics, LLC of
Roseville, MN.
JPK:jpk
attachment
90
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made as of , 201_ (the "Effective Date"), by and
between FLAT ROCK GEOGRAPHICS ("Contractor") and the Tri-City GIS Joint
Powers Organization, consisting of the Cities of Fridley, Columbia Heights and Andover,
hereinafter "Tri-City." CONTRACTOR and Tri-City are collectively referred to as
"Parties"and individually as a"Party."
WHEREAS, Tri-City requires services to provide GIS technical assistance to the Cities
of Andover, Columbia Heights and Fridley;
WHEREAS, Contractor desires to and is capable of providing the necessary services
according to the terms and conditions stated herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements contained
herein the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
1.1 Term.
The term of this Contract shall be from January 1, 2015, through
December 31, 2015, unless earlier terminated by law or according to the
provisions of this Contract.
2. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS
2.1 General Description.
Contractor will provide GIS technical assistance to Tri-City which
includes the cities of Andover, Columbia Heights and Fridley. Additional
work may be contracted as provided in Section 3.4.
2.2 Conformance to Specification.
The Contractor will provide the Services as set forth in E�ibit A.
2.3 Limited Warrantv
Contractor wanants that the Services will be performed in a safe,
professional and workmanlike manner consistent with the applicable
industry standards and th�s Agreement.
CONTRACTOR MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY,THE IMPLIED WARRANTY
OF FITNE5S FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTY ARISING OUT OF A COURSE OF DEALING, A
CUSTOM OR USAGE OF TRADE.
7268579v1
91
3. PAYMENT
3.1 Service Fees
The Contractor's fees for Services are set forth below (Service Fees").
Service Fees do not include any taxes that may be due based on the
Service Fees, or for reimbursable expenses, for which Tri-City agrees to
pay directly or reimburse Contractor.
Total Service Fees: $98,415 to be allocated as follows:
Andover-$43,200.00
Fridley-$37,440.00
Columbia Heights-$17,775.00
3.2 Invoices.
Contractor shall,within fifteen(15)working days following the last day of
each calendar month in which services were provided, submit an invoice
on an invoice form acceptable to Tri-City. This invoice shall itemize 1)the
hours of services rendered listed by classification, 2)the date such services
were provided, 3) a general description of the services provided, 4) the
name of client receiving services, 5) the amount and type of all
reimbursable expenses being charged to the Contract, 6) the dates of the
performance period covered by the invoice.
3.3 Time of PaYment.
All invoices are due within thirty days from the invoice date. If Tri-City
disputes any portion of Contractor's invoice, then Tri-City will: (a) pay
any amount not in dispute by the due date; and (b) within five business
days after receipt of that invoice, inform Contractor in writing of the
disputed amount and the specific reason(s) for withholding payment. On
Contractor's receipt of this, the Parties will work together in good faith to
resolve such disputes in a prompt and mutually acceptable manner. Tri-
City agrees to pay any disputed amounts within five days after the issues
have been resolved.
3.4 Changes to Scope
Tri-City shall have the right to request changes to the scope of the
Services; however, all such changes are subject to acceptance by
Contractor. If any change to the scope of the Services will cause an
increase or decrease in the Service Fees, or in the time required for
performance, prior to commencing the services required by the requested
change, Contractor shall notify Tri-City of such increase or decrease by e-
mail. Contractor shall not proceed with performance and shall have no
obligation to proceed with performance pursuant to any requested change
2
7268579v1
92
to the scope of the 5ervices by Tri-City unless and until Contractor has
received Tri-City's agreement to such increased�r decreased Service Fees
or time for performance via e-mail.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS/STANDARDS
4.1 General.
Contractor shall abide by all Federal, State or local laws, statutes,
ordinances, rules and regulations now in effect or hereinafter pertaining to
this Contract or to the facilities, programs and staff for which Contractor is
responsible.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
Contractor is an independent contractor and nothing herein contained shall be
construed to create the relationship of employer and employee between Tri-City
and Contractor. Contractor shall at all times be free to exercise initiative,
judgment and discretion as to how to best perform or provide services.
6. INDEMNIFICATION
Contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend Tri-City, its members,
officers and employees against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages,
expenses, claims or actions, including attorneys' fees which Tri-City, its officers
or employees may hereafter sustain, incur or be reyuired to pay, arising out of or
by reason of any negligent or willful act, or negligent or willful omission of
Contractor, its agents, servants or employees, in the execution, performance, or
failure to adequately perform Contractor's obligations pursuant to this Contract.
7. INSURANCE
7.1 General Terms.
In order to protect itself and to protect Tri-City under the indemnity
provisions set forth above Contractor shall, at Contractor's expense,
pracure and maintain policies of insurance covering the term of this
Contract, as set forth below. Such policies of insurance shall apply to the
extent of, but not as a limitation upon or in satisfaction of, the indemnity
provisions herein. All retentions and deductibles under such policies of
insurance shall be paid by Contractor. Each such policy shall not be
canceled by the issuing insurance company without at least thirty (30)
days written notice to Tri-City of intent to cancel.
7.2 Covera�e.
The policies of insurance to be obtained by Contractor pursuant to this
section shall be purchased from a licensed carrier and shall include the
following:
A)Professional Liability
(1) A professional liability insurance policy covering personnel
of Contractor, if any, who provide professional services
under this Contract, which shall include the following
3
7268579v1.
93
coverages at a minimum:
Personal Injury/Damage: $200,000 per person
$600,000 per occunence
B) Workers' Compensation
If applicable, Contractor shall procure and maintain a policy that at least
meets the statutory minimum.
7.3 Certificates.
Prior to or concunent with execution of this Contract, Contractor shall file
certificates or certified copies of such policies of insurance with Tri-City.
7.4 Failure to Provide Proof of Insurance.
Tri-City may withhold payments for failure of Contractor to furnish proof
of insurance coverage or to comply with the insurance requirements as
stated above until such time the Contractor complies with the requirements
of this Section.
8. SUBCONTRACTING
Contractor shall not enter into any subcontract for the performance of the services
contemplated under this Contract nor assign any interest in the Contract without
prior written consent of Tri-City.
9. DEFAULT
9.1 Inabilitv to perform.
Contractor shall make every reasonable effort to maintain staff, facilities,
and equipment to deliver the services to be purchased by Tri-City.
Contractor shall immediately notify Tri-City in writing whenever it is
unable to or reasonably believes it is going to be unable to provide the
agreed upon yuality of services. Upon such notification, Tri-City shall
determine whether such inability requires a modification or cancellation of
this Contract.
9.2 Dut�to Miti�ate.
Both parties shall use their best efforts to mitigate any damages which
might be suffered by reason of any event giving rise to a remedy
hereunder.
10. TERMINATION
10.1 With or Without Cause.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, either Party may
terminate this Contract at any time for any reason by giving thirty (30)
days written notice to the other. Tri-City shall pay to Contractor the
reasonable value of services received from Contractor as of the
termination date.
10.2 Notice of Default.
4
7268579v1
94 .
Either Party may terminate this Contract for cause by giving ten (10) days
written notice of its intent. Said notice shall specify the circumstances
warranting termination of this Contract.
10.3 Failure to Cure.
If the Party in default fails to cure the specified circumstances as described
by the notice given under the above paragraph within the ten (10) days, or
such additional time as may be mutually agreed upon, then the whole or
any part of this Contract may be terminated by written notice.
10.4 Notice of Termination.
Notice of Termination shall be made by certified mail or personal delivery
to the other Party's Authorized Representative. Notice of Termination is
deemed effective upon delivery to the address of the Party as stated in
paragraph 12.
10.5 Effect of Termination.
Termination of this Contract shall not discharge any liability,
responsibility or right of any Party which arises from the performance of
or failure to adequately perform the terms of this Contract prior to the -
effective date of termination, in accordance with the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
11. CONTRACT RIGHTS/REMEDIES
11.1 Ri�hts Cumulative.
All remedies available to either Party under the terms of this Contract or
by law are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately,
and the exercise of any one remedy shall not be deemed an election of
such remedy to the exclusion of other remedies.
11.2 Waiver.
Waiver for any default shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any
subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of this Contract
shall not be construed to be modification for the terms of this Contract
unless stated to be such in writing and signed by authorized
representatives of Tri-city and Contractor.
11.3 Force Majeure
Contractor will not be responsible for the delay in its performance of any
obligation under this Agreement caused by acts of God, legal restrictions,
or any other similar conditions beyond the control of Contractor.
5
7268579v1
95
12. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
Notification required to be provided pursuant to this Contract shall be provided to
the following named persons and addresses unless otherwise stated in this
Contract, or in a modification of this Contract.
To Contractor: Andover:
President Director of Public WorkslCity Engineer
Flat Rock Geographics,LLC City of Andover
2434 Virginia Circle 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Roseville,MN 55113 Andover,MN 55304
Fridlev: Columbia Hei�hts:
Director of Public Works Public Works Director
City of Fridley City of Columbia Heights
6431 University Avenue NE 637 -38�'Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432 Columbia Heights, MN 55421
13. MODIFICATIONS
Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.4 hereof, any alterations, variations,
modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Contract shall only be valid
when they have been reduced to writing, and signed by authorized representatives
of Tri-City and Contractor.
14. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
NEITHER PARTY WILL, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE LIABLE TO
THE OTHER PARTY FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES 1N ANY WAY RELATED TO THE SERVICES, THIS
AGREEMENT OR THE TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. THIS
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY APPLIES REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL
THEORY UNDER WHICH SUCH DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT.
15. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Contract shall be deemed severable. If any part of this
Contract is rendered void, invalid, or unenforceable, such rendering shall not
affect the validity and enforceability of the remainder of this Cantract unless the
part or parts which are void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable shall substantially
impair the value of the entire Contract with respect to either Party.
16. MERGER AND FINAL AGREEMENT
16.1 This Contract is the final statement of the agreement of the Parties and the
6
7268579v1
96
complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon, and shall
supersede all prior negotiations,understandings or agreements. There are no
representations, warranties, or stipulations, either oral or written, not herein
contained.
17. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
17.1 T'his Agreement will be construed and enforced according to the laws of the
State of Minnesota, without regarding to its conflicts of law rules. Any
litigation regarding this Agreement must be filed and maintained in the state
or federal courts of the State of Minnesota and the Parties consent to the
personal jurisdiction of such courts. No provision of this Section 17 will
preclude either Party seeking injunctive relief to prevent immediate or
irreparable harm to it, but the mediation stated in Section 17.3 will
otherwise be fully exhausted before the commencement of any litigation.
17.2 EACH PARTY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO A JURY
TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLAIMS OR DISPUTES ARISING
OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT. Any lawsuit or other
action, regardless of form, relating to this Agreement, including, without
limitation, an action for breach of warranty, must be commenced within one
year after the later of: (a) date on which the breach of warranty or other
cause of action occurred; or (b) date on which that Party knew or should
have known of that breach of warranty or other cause of action.
17.3 Prior to commencement of any litigation regarding this Agreement, the
Parties agree to voluntary, non-binding mediation to resolve any dispute
they may have. The mediation will be conduct by a mutually selected
mediator (or if the Parties cannot agree, by a mediator selected by the CPR
Institute for Dispute Resolution), in accordance with the CPR Institute's
Model Procedure for Mediation of Business Disputes. The Parties will each
pay its own attorneys' fees and will share equally the other mediation costs.
While this mediation will be non-binding in all respects (except agreements
in settlement of the dispute negotiated by the Parties), each Party will appear
when directed by the mediator, be fully prepared to work toward the
dispute's resolution, and participate in good faith. If the mediation does not
result in a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute within ninety days
after it is begun, either Party may commence an action as permitted under
Sections 17.1 and 17.2. All negotiations between the Parties pursuant to this
Section 17 will be treated as compromise and settlement negotiations for
purposes of the applicable rules of evidence.
18. NON-DISCLOSURE OF NON-PUBLIC PRIVAT'E OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION
7
7268579v1
97
The parties agree that in order to perform its duties under the terms of this
Agreement, Contractor will have access to and may use certain information in the
custody of the City that would be categorized as private or non-public data within
the meaning of Minnesota law.
Any such information or data is confidential and, as an essential and necessary
part of this Agreement, Contractor agrees not to disclose, use, or otherwise
disseminate any such data or information to any other party or entity other than
the City. Use of any such information or data by Contractor during the period of
this contract shall be exclusively for the purpose of fulfilling its obligations
hereunder.
Contractor agrees to indemnify the City and hold it harmless from any and all
disclosures of such information and data to any other party as a consequence of its
actions, which would include the actions of its agents, employees or anyone else
that may be acting under its direction or on its behalf.
Any such information and data in Contractor's possession after fulfillment of its
obligations herein shall be destroyed or returned to the City and Contractor shall
retain no copies thereof for any purpose.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract on the date(s)
indicated below.
CONTRACTOR TRI-CITY GIS ORGANIZATION
By: BY�
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
8
7268579v1
98
Ezhibit A
Contractor shall provide the following services generally described as GIS
Support:
Regular Hourly Rate Tri-City 2015 Discount Hourly Rate
Specialist $65.00 $45.00
Fieid Data Coliection, Data Input,Data Editing, Data Updates,Data Management,Data
Sychronizatian, Mapping,Geocoding,
Analyst $75.00 $65.00
Run reports(CTS, GranitXP),Checkln/Checkout Field data, Data Modelling, Model Builder,
ArcPad Form Creation, Database creation,Update GeoMoose Layers
Project Manager $120.00 595.00
Run meetings,Demos,Training,Task Management,Staff support
IT $120.00 $95.00
Software Installation,OS Tech support, General Maintenance of software,CTS technical
support
Programmer/Developer $150.00 $120.00
Writing Code(HTML,VBSCRIPT),Custom Development(PHP,Javascript),Automation,
mapFeeder customization
9
72b8579v1
99
� AGENDA ITEM
�����f CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
Fridley
December 22, 2014
To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manage .�-
Mayor and City Council
From: Donovan W. Abbott, Public Safety Director �
Bob Rewitzer, Captain
Date: December 18, 2014
Re: Contract for Animal Impound Services
This memo is written in support of the City's acceptance of the Animal Control Contract with
Brighton Veterinary Hospital, 2615 Mississippi St. NE,New Brighton, MN 55423.
The City of Fridley has contracted with Brighton Veterinary Hospital to provide animal impound
services since 1997. Brighton Veterinary Hospital provides animal impoundment facilities for
most, if not all, of the neighboring communities. For 2015 the monthly fee charged by Brighton
Veterinary Hospital will increase from $1,600 to $1,700; the last fee increase was in 2014. The
fee increase was anticipated and the FY2415 City budget reflects the increase. To date in 2014,
54 dogs, 56 cats, 1 rabbit, 1 pigeon, and 1 bearded dragon lizard were impounded at Brighton
Veterinary Hospital.
Extensive research on avaiiable options for animal impound services was conducted by staff in
2009 and the decision was made that Brighton Veterinaxy Hospital best served the City's needs.
Staff has been satisfied with the service provided by Brighton Veterinary Hospital. The facility is
well maintained and is conveniently located for both staff and citizens. Staff therefore
recommends approval of the Animal Control Contract with Brighton V eterinary Hospital.
100
ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT
This contract, made and entered into this t� day of 4�G �vl('�Cn- , 2014 by and between
Brighton Veterinary Hospital, 2615 Mississippi Street, New Brighton, Minnesota, 55112,
hereinafter referred to as "animal shelter" and the City of Fridley, a municipal corporation,
6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley,Minnesota 55432,hereinafter referred to as "city".
I. TERM
The term of this contract shall be from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 201�.
II. ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES
The animal shelter agrees to furnish the following services:
1. Shelter for animal drop-offs on a 24hour basis.
2. Animal examinations and veterinary care as required during normal business
hours.
3. Seized stray animals shall be held for five (5)regular business days. Af�er five (5)
regular business days the city shall have no right or interest in such animal.
Therefore if said animal is not claimed by an owner within five (5) regular
business days it then becomes the property of the animal shelter to do with as they
see necessary. Both parties shall give notice to the stray animal's owner (if owner
is known)that it has been impounded.
4. Euthanasia and disposal, if required due to serious injury, illness, or after five (5)
regular business days, in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 346.47.
5. Receiving and disposing of dead animals delivered by the city.
6. Upon request, train city animal control officers in safe and humane handling and
apprehension of animals.
7. Keep accurate records of all animals impounded, boarded, and destroyed,
pursuant to this agreement and furnish monthly statements to the city.
8. Keep the animal shelter open during normal business hours of the Brighton
Veterinary Hospital and not less than normal business hours of the city.
9. The animal shelter, during normal business hours, shall be open for inspection by
the city or its agents.
10. Collect boarding fees at $�O°�`per day for dogs and $�per day for cats, per
animal from owners who retrieve animals. Fees aze kept by the animal shelter.
101
11.Hold any impounded animal being reclaimed until proof of applicable current
licensing and rabies vaccine is produced.
12.Serve as animal control officers for the city, as defined in City Code, and as
applicable to the operation of the animal shelter.
13.Impounded quarantined animals shall be held for rabies observation for a
maximum of ten (10) days. If no owner comes forwazd with full payment within
the ten (10) day period, then said animal becomes property of the animal shelter
to do with as they feel necessary.
14.Animal shelter shall collect any impound fees for the city and deduct the total
from the monthly fee.
III. CITY RESPONSIBILITY
After normal business hours, the city will transport any injured animals that are in a
life threatening condition to the Affiliated Emergency Veterinary Services, at no cost
to the animal shelter. After treatment and release the city will transport the animal to
the animal shelter.
N. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
In providing all services pursuant to this contract, the animal shelter shall abide by all
statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertauung to or regulating the provision of
such services.
V. AUDIT DISCLOSURE AND RETENTION OF RECORDS
The animal shelter agrees to make available to duly authorized representatives of the
city and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor for the purpose of audit
examination, any books, documents, papers, and records of the animal shelter that
are pertinent to the animal shelter's provision of service hereunder. The animal
shelter further agrees to maintain all such required records for six (6) years after
receipt of final payment from the owner of the animal and the closing of all other
related matters as determined by the animal shelter.
VI. ANIlvIAL SHELTER LIABILI'TY, INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES
The animal shelter shall be responsible for all damages, harm or illness suffered by
the animals under its care and in its custody which may be due to the negligence of
the animal shelter. Said animal shelter shall indemnify the city against any damages,
costs, actions, or causes or action, or claims made against the city for any harm,
losses, damages, or expenses or account of bodily injury, sickness, disease, improper
disposition, death, and property damage resulting from the animal shelter's operation.
The animal shelter shall procure and keep in full force comprehensive general
liability insurance in the amount of not less than $100,000 each occurrence and
102
$350,000 general aggregate to safeguard and indemnify the ciry for any of the
occurrences aforementioned. Such insurance policy must be filed with the city clerk.
VII. COMPENSATION
1. The city shall pay the animal shelter the sum of$ 6�00.°� per month for services
stated in this contract. Said sum shall be paid on or about the last day of the
month, or within thirty (30) days after submission of the monthly claims, by the
animal shelter.
2. The animal shelter may charge the owner of the animal for customary veterinary
fees for services including rabies vaccinations, examinations, medications, etc.
and retain all amounts collected.
VIII. EARLY TERMINATION
This contract may be terminated by either party, provided the terminating party is not
in breach of this contract, with or without cause upon thirty(30) days written notice,
delivered by United States mail or in person, to the other party. For purposes of such
notice, the address of the animal shelter is:
Brighton Veterinary Hospital PA
2615 Mississippi Street
New Brighton, MN 55112
and the address of the city is:
City of Fridley
6431 University Avenue NE
Fridley,MN 55432
IX. INDEMNIFICATION BY CITY
Pursuant to and limited by Minnesota. Statutes Chapter 466, the city shall indemnify
the animal shelter against any damages, costs, actions, or causes or action, or claims
made against the animal shelter for any harm, losses, damages, or expenses or
account of bodily injury, sickness, disease, improper disposition, death, and property
damage resulting while the animal is in the care, custody or control of the city, its
employees, agents, or animal control officers.
X. MODIFICATIONS
Any material alterations, modifications, or variations of the terms of this contract
shall be valid and enforceable only when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment and signed by the parties.
XI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
It is understood and agreed by the parties that the entire agreements of the parties are
contained herein and that the contract supersedes all oral agreements and
103
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any
previous agreements presently in effect between tb.e animal shelter and the city
relating to the subject matter hereof. The parties hereto revoke any prior oral or
written agreement between themselves and hereby agree that this contract is the only
and complete agreement regarding the subject hereof.
ANIMAL SHELTER CITY
�
By: By�
Tifle: ���✓1 I��I�->�- Tide:Mayor
Date: �2�`�'t�`� Date:
By:
Tifle: City Manager
Date:
104
- AGENDA ITEM
'`Fri�ey CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2014
Appointment
Starting Start
Name Position Salary Date Replaces
Michael Fire $23.67 Jan. S, New
Spencer Captain per hour 2015 position
105
�
� AGENDA ITEM
��"�' COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2014
Fridley
CLAIMS
CLAIMS
1412 (ACH PCard)
166453 - 166680
106
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 1
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/OS/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12J17/2014 1412 U.S. BANCORP SERVICE CENTER, I 21065 7, 117.73
101-0221-415.42-21 12/OS/2014 INTERVIEW LUNCHES JZMMY JOHN'S 12/2014 29.98
601-7000-4Z5.43-31 12/OS/2014 MEMBERSHIP-WIEHLE AWWA 12/2014 187.00
101-0770-455_42-21 12/O5/2014 PROGRAM SUPPLIES CUB 12/2014 110.91
101-0220-415.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 59.99
101-0224-415.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 30.79
101-0331-415.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 24 .87
101-0220-415.43-37 12/OS/2014 REGISTRATION-WYSOPAL UOFM 12/2014 25.00
101-0331-415.43-37 12/OS/2014 REGISTRATION-PETERSON KDV GOV 12/2014 22. 09
101-0331-415.43-37 12/OS/2014 REGISTRATION-NELSON GFOA 12/2014 15.00
101-0332-415.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 24.87
101-0333-415.43-32 12/OS/2014 WEB DOMAIN FEDLEELIQUOR GODADDY 12/2014 63.85
101-0440-425.42-12 12/OS/2014 FUEL SA,CLARK 12/2014 75.28
101-0440-425.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 187.26
101-0440-425.42-21 12/OS/2014 REPL RED PHONE,CORDS HOME DEPOT 12/2014 32.14
101-0440-425.42-21 12/OS/2014 PHARMACEUTICAL SUPPLIES WALGREENS 12/2014 9.99
101-0440-425.42-21 12/OS/2014 GUN CLEANING SUPPLIES GANDER MOUNTAIN 12/2014 58.81
101-0440-425_42-21 12/OS/2014 SQUAD CAR EQUIYMENT HOME DEPOT 12/2014 35.32
101-0440-425.43-30 12/OS/2014 K-9 VET APPT U OF M VET 12/2014 75.65
101-0440-425.43-33 12/OS/2014 PARKING ANOKA CTY ANOKA CO PRK 12/2014 4.00
101-0440-425.43-37 12/OS/2014 REGISTRATION-ABBOTT U OF M 12/2014 25.00
101-0440-425.43-37 12/OS/2014 TRAINING REGISTRATION NATL TACTICAL 12/2014 864 . 00
F�+ 101-0440-425.43-37 12/OS/2014 TRAINING MEALS VARIOUS 12/2014 179.62
0 101-0440-425.43-40 12/OS/2014 K-9 BOARDING ARMSTRONG KENN 12/2014 79.27
� 101-0550-425.42-21 12/OS/2014 REFRESHMTS DEBRIEFING MTG CUB 12/2014 8. 99
101-0550-425.43-37 12/OS/2014 CANCELLED RESERVATIONS TRAVRES HOTEL 12/2014 1, 340.58-
101-0550-425.43-40 12/OS/2014 SERVICE CALL PAGING ACTIVE 911 12/2014 12.00
101-0660-415.42-22 12/OS/2014 SHOWER HEAD HOME DEPOT 12/2014 13.66
101-0661-435.42-20 12/O5/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES SAMS INTERNET 12/2014 124.65
101-0661-435.42-21 12/OS/2014 LICENSE TABS #810 MN DVS 12/2014 31.75
101-0661-435.42-21 12/OS/2014 SUPPLIES OTTESON RECEPTN CUB 12/2014 8.08
101-0666-435.42-17 12/OS/2014 ICE CLEATS MILLS FLEET 12/2014 93 .86
101-0666-435_43-31 12/OS/2014 TREE/NURSERY CERT-JENSEN DEPT OF AGR 12/2014 179.37
101-0668-435.42-12 12/OS/2014 FUEL PUMPS DOWN SA 12/2014 120.00
101-0669-435.42-20 12/O5/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICEMAX 12/2014 54 .39
101-0669-435.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICEMAX 12/2014 22 .08
101-0669-435.42-22 12/OS/2014 EXT CORD MENARDS 12/2014 8 .11
101-0669-435.42-25 12/O5/2014 SHOP TOOLS SEARS 12/2014 444 .38
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 ' OUTLET TIMER TARGET 12/2014 25.95
101-0770-455.43-32 12/OS/2014 MAIL SCOREBRD EQUIPMNT USPS 12/2014 21.63
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 BSKT/VOLLEYBALL SUPPLIES DAVES 12/2014 35.00
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 PAPER SUPPLIES-HOLIDAY PARTY CITY 12/2014 85.38
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 SR THEATER TRIP ADMISSION DAYTRIPPERS 12/2014 658.75
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 REFUND GOPHER SPORT 12/2014 2 .53-
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 ZONE SUPPLIES TARGET 12/2014 51.36
101-0770-455.42-21 12/O5/2014 PROGRAM SUPPLIES MICHAELS 12/2014 92 .46
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 ADMISSIONS MERMAID 12/2014 105.00
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 ADMISSIONS MONTICELLO 12/2014 101.00
101-0770-455.42-21 12/05/2014 ADMISSIONS CHUCKECHEESE 12/2014 181.33
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 2
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101-0770-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 ADMISSION-DEPOSIT BIG THRILL FAC 12/2014 50.00
101-0770-455.42-21 12/O5/2014 DVD WAL MART 12/2014 12.71
101-0770-455.43-40 12/OS/2014 DF-HALLOWEEN PARTY TOTAL ENTERTNMT 12/2014 700.00
101-0880-465.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 92.9p
101-0881-465_42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 52.02
101-0982-465.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 20.82
101-1000-415.42-20 12/OS/2014 COPIER PAPER OFFICE MAX 12/2014 993.10
101-1000-415.42-21 12/OS/2014 ANNAUL BUS MTG LUNCHEON TRUFFLES/TORTES 12/2014 195.00
225-0000-415.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 30.99
240-0000-425.43-37 12/OS/2014 TZD CONF LODGING CANEL PRK LODGE 12/2014 190.48
270-0771-455.42-20 12/OS/2014 BINDERS, INDEX TABS OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 42.40
270-0771-455.43-32 12/OS/2014 POSTAGE STATE REP DOCUMNT USPS 12/2014 35.70
270-0771-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 BUBBLE MAILERS USPS 12/2014 15.54
270-0771-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 POLLIWOGS SUPPLIES AMAZON 12/2014 49.13
270-0771-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 IMAGE DOWNLOADS CREDITS VECTORSTOCK 12/2014 30.00
270-0771-455.42-21 12/O5/2014 ANIMAL SUPPLIES AMAZON 12/2014 20.23
270-0771-455.42-21 12/O5/2014 CHRGED IN ERROR PERSONAL AMAZON 12/2014 86.83
270-0771-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 ANIMAL ROOM SUPPLIES AMAZON 12/2014 71.52
270-0771-455.42-21 12/O5/2014 POLLIWOGS SUPPLIES MICHAELS 12/2014 22.98
270-0771-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 POLLIWOGS SUPPLIES TARGET 12/2014 24 .59
270-0771-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 NOON YRS EVE PRO SUPPLIES AMAZON 12/2014 78.12
270-0771-455.42-21 12/OS/2014 EBOOK DOWNLOAD-SANTA AMAZON 12/2014 10.95
270-0771-455.42-21 12/O5/2014 8TH GR CURRICULUM SUPPLY VARIOUS 12/2014 154 .88
�+ 270-0771-455.42-22 12/O5/2014 TREES-BEERY MEDI GARDEN GERTENS 12/2014 815.00
� 270-0771-455.43-40 12/OS/2014 NOV DISCOVERY DINNER MARINOS 12J2014 332.05
� 270-0771-455.43-40 12/OS/2014 NOV DISCOVERY DINNER U OF M 12/2014 100.00
601-6000-415.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 12/2014 37.27
601-700D-415.42-12 12/OS/2014 FUEL PUMPS DOWN SA 12/2014 60.00
601-7000-415.42-20 12/OS/2014 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE MAX 12/2014 16.66
601-7000-415.42-22 12/OS/2014 PROPANE SA 12/2014 17.13
601-7000-415.42-21 12/OS/2014 KORY'S RECEPTION CUB 12/2014 98.66
601-7000-415.43-31 12/OS/2014 LICENSE RENEW-WIEHLE,KORY DEPT OF LABOR 12/2014 66.00
601-7000-415.43-31 12/OS/2014 MEMBERSHIP-JOGENSEN AWWA 12/2014 187.00
602-7000=415.42-22 12/O5/2014 EXT CORDS MENARDS 12/'2014 8.96
101-0000-362.61-60 12/OS/2014 REBATE ON P-CARD USBANK 12/2014 958.65-
12/11/2014 166453 ARAMARK 1026 951.37
101-0669-435.42-17 11/28/2014 UNIFORMS 792067054 12/2014 141.82
101-0666-435.42-17 11/28/2014 UNIFORMS 792067055 12/2014 168.17
602-7000-415.42-17 11/28/2014 UNIFORMS 792067056 12/2014 94.18
101-0668-435.42-17 11/28/2014 UNIFORMS 792067057 12/2014 143.40
601-7000-415.42-17 11/28/2014 UNIFORMS 792067058 12/2014 54.06
101-0669-435.42-17 11/28/2014 MAT,RUGS 792067059 12/2014 132.40
101-0660-415.42-17 11/28/2014 MAT,RUGS,TOWELS 792067060 12/2014 156.86
609-9100-415.42-17 11/28/2014 MAT,RUGS 792495660 12/2014 60.48
12/11/2014 166454 CENA TRANSMISSION, INC 1044 2,300.00
101-0440-425.43-40 11/19/2014 TRANSMISSION REPAIRS 123744 12/2014 2,300.00
12/11/2014 166455 A.B.M. EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY 1046 44 .44
602-7000-415.42-22 11/26/2014 QUICK CONNECT FOR VAC. CON 141824 12/2014 44 .44
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 3
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/11/2014 166456 ADVANCE COMPANIES INC 1061 225.00
101-0881-465.43-40 12/09/2014 YARD ABATEMENTS 8776,8775 12/2014 225.00
12/11/2014 166457 REPUBLIC SERVICES #899 1082 22,309.83
237-0000-415.43-40 12/OB/2014 NOV RECYCLING FEES 899002588505 12/2014 22,309.83
12/11/2014 166458 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER 1159 145..63
101-0666-435.42-22 11/25/2014 BRASS BALL VALVE 1863082 12/2014 49.64
101-0669-435.42-22 11/25/2014 BRASS BALL VALVE 1863082 12/2014 49.64
601-7000-415.42-22 11/21/2014 CONNECTOR FOR WTR PUMP 1863005 12/2014 46.35
12/11/2014 166459 ADVANTAGE SIGNS & GRAPHICS INC 1199 449.70
101-0668-435.42-22 11/19/2014 ROLL OF VINYL-STREET SIGN 23776 12/2014 306.00
101-0668-435.42-22 10/02/2014 NO OUT LET SIGNS 23367,23894 12/2014 143.70
12/11/2014 166460 ACE SOLID WASTE, INC 1241 43.50
609-9100-415.43-40 11/19/2014 REFUSE HAULING 12/2014 43 .50
12/11/2014 166461 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, 1294 630.00
704-0000-415.43-30 12/O1/2014 DEC ADMIN FEES 10322 12/2014 630.00
12/11/2014 166462 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY 1303 5,798.58
I••� 609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 5,440.58
� 609-0000-157.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 358.00
12/11/2014 166463 APEX PRINT TECHNOLOGIES 1311 2,638.38
601-6000-415.43-32 11/30/2014 NOV BILLING STM 176583 12/2014 1,052.80
602-6000-415.43-32 11/30/2014 NOV BILLING STM 176583 12/2014 518.55
601-6000-415.43-32 11/30/2014 METER CARDS 176583 12/2014 317.03
601-6000-415.43-32 11/30/2014 WEBSITE 176583 12/2014 502.50
602-6000-415.43-32 11/30/2014 WEBSITE 176583 12/2014 247.50
12/11/2014 166464 AUTONATION FORD 1312 746.69
101-0440-425.43-40 11/21/2014 SUBLET REPAIRS-ELECTRICAL 12/2014 116.17
101-0000-144.00-00 11/21/2014 PARTS 12/2014 36.87
101-0550-425.43-40 11/21/2014 SUBLET REPAIRS-ELECTRICAL 12/2014 593.65
12/11/2014 166465 BATTERIES PLUS 2004 279.80
601-7000-415.42-22 12/03/2014 BATTERIES BACKUP POWER 028427379 12/2014 279.80
12/11/2014 166466 BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO 2005 1,5�7.02
601-7500-415.42-22 11/25/2014 WASHED SAND 12/2014 1, 005.82
101-0668-435.42-22 11/25/2014 CLASS 5 RECYCLE 12/2014 571.20
12/11/2014 166467 BOYER TRUCKS INC 2035 206.20
101-0000-144.00-00 11/25/2014 HEATER PARTS 912115 12/2014 206.20
12/11/2014 166468 BELLBOY CORPORATION 2051 6,534.02
609-0000-180.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 5, 831.19
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR • PAGE 4
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
609-0000-183.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-MISC 12/2014 248.75
609-9100-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 76.28
609-9100-415.42-21 11/30/2014 NOV-BAGS 12/2014 377.80
12/11/2014 166469 BARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 2137 1,723.68
609-9200-415.42-21 11/14/2014 GARBAGE CANS 101400033 12/2014 1,723.68
609-9200-415.42-21 11/14/2014 MN USE TAX EXPENSE 172368 101400033 12/2014 116.50
609-0000-203 .01-00 11/14/2014 MN USE TAX PAYARLE 172368 101400033 12/2014 118.50-
12/11/2014 166470 BLAKE DRILLING COMPANY, INC 2211 3,129.00
601-7000-415.43-40 11/24/2014 HYDRANT REPAIR 17324 12/2014 3,129.00
12/11/2014 166471 BLACKSTONE CONTRACTORS, LLC 2232 4,632.52
603-7500-415.45-30 11/17/2014 OAK GLEN CREEK EROSION EST#7 12/2014 4,632.52
12/11J2014 166472 THOMAS BEERS 2233 10.00
227-0000-415.43-40 12/02/2014 CHORES/MORE 12/2014 10.00
12/11/2014 166473 CULLIGAN 3067 431.05
601-7000-415.43-41 12/03/2014 SOFTENER RENTAL 12/2014 126.45
601-7000-415.42-22 12/03/2014 SALT 12/2014 304.60
12/11/2014 166474 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 3097 41,281.84
� 609-0000-182.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 33,200.00
�'' 609-0000-183.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-MISC 12/2014 81.27
� 609-0000-157.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 8,000.57
12/11/2014 166475 CALIBRE PRESS INC 3116 278.00
101-0440-425.43-37 12/03/2014 REGISTRATION 22225 12/2014 139.00
101-0440-425.43-37 12/OB/2014 REGISTRATION 22409 12/2014 139.00
12/11/2014 166476 CITY OF COON RAPIDS 3122 313.52
101-0668-435.43-40 11/26/2014 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS 11099 12/2014 313 .52
12/11/2014 166477 CENTRAL MN CUSTODIAL SERVICES 3198 1,040.00
101-0669-435.43-40 12/03/2014 NOV CLEANING SERVICE 1232 12/2014 1, 040.00
12/11/2014 166478 CENTURY LINK 3295 613.69
270-0771-455.43-32 11/25/2014 PHONE SERVICE 7833923 12/2014 42.02
101-0550-425.43-32 11/25/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010545 12/2014 285.00
101-0669-435.43-32 11/25/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010546 12/2014 104.35
601-7000-415.43-32 11/25/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010548 12/2014 145.28
101-0333-415_43-32 11/25/2014 PHONE SERVICE 5742480 12/2014 37.04
12/11/2014 166479 CENTURY LINK 3295 862 .45
101-0110-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 6.56
101-0220-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 16.40
101-0221-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 9.84
101-0224-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 6.56
101-0331-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 39.35
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 5
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101-0332-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 9.84
101-0333-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 29.50
101-0440-425.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 318.09
101-0441-425.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 32.79
101-0550-425.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 55.75
101-0660-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 108.22
101-0661-435.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 29.51
101-0669-435.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 • 42.63
101-0880-465.43-32 12/O1/2014 PAONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 22.95
101-0881-465.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 32.79
101-0882-465.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 13.12
101-0770-455.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 36.07
101-0770-455.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 3.28
270-0771-455.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 16.40
601-6000-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 6.56
601-7000-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 6.56
225-0000-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 6.56
237-0000-415.43-32 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 6.56
101-0000-135.00-00 12/O1/2014 PHONE SERVICE Z010553 12/2014 6.56
12/11/2014 166460 DRAIN KING 4096 275.00
101-0669-435.43-40 11/26/2014 UNCLOG DRAIN IN SHOP 93005 12/2014 275:00
r/11/2014 166481 E.C.M. PUBLISHERS INC 5001 495.00
� 609-9100-415.43-34 11/30/2014 ADVERTISING 303121 12/2014 495.00
�
12/11/2014 166482 E 3 LIGHTING, LLC 5104 21,405.66
609-9100-415.42-22 11/30/2014 LED LIGHTS IN COOLERS 12/2014 4,410.00
609-9200-415.42-22 11/30/2014 LED LIGHTS UPGRADE 12/2014 16,995.66
12/11/2014 166483 E.D.S BUILDERS, INC 5109 13, 055.19
407-0007-455.43-40 12/OS/2014 SPRBRK PROJ CONST MGR SRV 2014151 12/2014 13,055.19
12/11/2014 166484 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO 6015 727.85
603-7000-415.43-40 11/25/2014 REPAIR PUMP 18122 12/2014 727.85
12/11/2014 166485 CITY OF FRIDLEY 6023 54 .57
101-0332-415.43-33 12/10/2014 REIMB PARKING FEES PETTY CASH 12/2014 4 .00
101-0440-425.42-21 12/10/2014 REIMB TRAINING MEALS PETTY CASH 12/2014 19.80
101-0550-425.42-21 12/10/2014 REIMH FRAMES,PHONE CASE PETTY CASH 12/2014 16.89
101-0881-465.43-33 12/10/2014 REIMB PARKING FEES PETTY CASH 12/2014 8.00
270-0771-455.42-22 12/10/2014 REIMB CLEAINING SUPPLIES PETTY CASH 12/2014 5.88
12/11/2014 166486 MARK FOSTER 6069 35. 00
101-0669-435.42-17 12/OS/2014 REIMB SAFETY BOOTS 12/2014 35.00
12/11/2014 166487 FRIENDLY CHEVROLET, INC 6075 1,331.79
101-0440-425.43-40 11/30/2014 HEATING/AC REPAIRS 837059 12/2014 1,331.78
12/11/2014 166488 FLEET PRIDE 6151 402.08
101-0668-435.43-40 11/18/2014 HYD HOSE ASSEMB SUBLET 65074082 12/2014 402.08
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 6
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/OB/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/11/2014 166489 GENUINE PARTS CO/NAPA 7014 2,481.70
101-0000-144.00-00 11/30/2014 PARTS 12/2014 1, 042.68
101-0000-143.00-00 11/30/2014 BATTERIES 12/2014 1, 053.78
101-0669-435.42-22 11/30/2014 PARTS 12/2014 105.21
101-0669-435.42-25 11/30/2014 SOCKET SET 12/2014 232.68
101-0000-144.00-00 11/30/2014 PARTS-REFUND NEXT MONTH 12/2014 47.35
12/11/2014 166490 GRAINGER 7041 43.26
601-7000-415.42-22 11/20/2014 TIMERS CHEMICAL MIX 9600768577 12/2014 43.26
12/11/2014 166491 HEALTH PARTNERS 8022 445.00
601-7000-415.43-30 12/OS/2014 PRE-EMPLYMNT PHYSICAL 900022556 12/2014 335.00
101-0550-425.43-30 12/OS/2014 PRE-EMPLYMNT PHYSICAL 900022556 12/2014 110.00
12/11/2014 166492 HYDRAULIC SPECIALTY CO 8031 280.82
101-0000-144.00-00 11/26/2014 HYD COUPLER 9049952020 12/2014 278.88
101-0000-144.00-00 11/26/2014 FITTING 9049952066 12/2014 1.94
12/11/2014 166493 HOHENSTEINS INC 8068 8, 970.79
609-0000-182.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 6,223.95
609-0000-157_00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 2,746.84
F+/11/2014 166494 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC 8077 8,789.55
N 227-0000-415.43-30 12/07/2014 TOD MASTER PLAN PROJ 01400210 12/2014 8,789.55
12/11/2014 166495 HAWKINS INC 8093 3,621.89
601-7000-415.42-22 12/O1/2014 WTR CHEMICALS 3671318 12/2014 3,621.89
12/11/2014 166496 HENRY'S WATERWORKS, INC 8148 5,727.02
601-7000-415.42-22 11/26/2014 FIRE HYDRANT,MARKERS 17542 12/2014 5,727.02
12/11/2014 166497 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #14 9006 8, 163.10
101-0770-455.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE LINES 4432 12/2014 23 .00
101-0770-455.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE LINES 4432 12/2014 46.00
101-0770-455.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE LINES 4432 12/2014 13 .60
101-0770-455.43-40 12/03/2014 SEC SYSTEM 4432 12/2014 134.25
101-0770-455.43-50 12/03/2014 BUILDING USAGE 4432 12/2014 7,946.25
12/11/2014 166498 I.D.C.-INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO INC 9015 26.50
101-0669-435.42-22 11/21/2014 DOOR ROLLER D289147 12/2014 26.50
12/11/2014 166499 IN THE LINE OF DUTY, INC 9020 995.00
101-0440-425.43-37 12/02/2014 SUBSCRIPTION 4063R2 12/2014 995.00
12/11/2014 166500 IPHOUSE INTERNET 9047 55. 00
101-0333-415.43-32 12/OS/2014 WEB HOSTING 677453,577837 12/2014 55.00
12/11/2014 166501 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR 10005 81,781.61
609-0000-180.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 41,204 .47
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CAECKS ITY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 7
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/OS/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CAECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 14, 937.71
609-9100-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 818.20
609-0000-155.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 19,624.35
609-0000-156.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 4, 859.88
609-9200-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 337.00
12/11/2014 166502 JOHNSON, JULIA M 10026 40.93
101-0440-425.43-37 12/OS/2014 REIMB MEALS FOR TRAINING 12/2014 40.93
12/11/2014 166503 J.J. TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN, INC 10063 58,219.20
609-0000-182.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 47,200.00
609-0000-183.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-MISC 12/2014 17.66
609-0000-157.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 11,001.54
12/11/2014 166504 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC 11034 9,117.11
601-�500-415.43-40 11/21/2014 ELECTRICAL REPAIRS 7926722373 12/2014 9,117.11
12/11/2014 166505 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INC 12143 536.39
101-0333-415.43-40 12/03/2014 PRINTER MAINT 1877616 12/2014 536.39
12/11/2014 166506 MINN MUNICIPAL BEVERAGE ASSOC 13097 200.00
609-9100-415.43-40 11/30/2014 TRAINING 12/2014 200.00
��/11/2014 166507 MINN WASTEWATER OPERATOR ASSOC 13210 25.00
�+ 602-7000-415.43-31 12/03/2014 MEMBERSHIP-KOTTSICK 12/2014 25.00
W
12/11/2014 166508 MOSS & BARNETT, PA 13231 322.50
225-0000-415.43-30 12/08/2014 LEGAL SERV-COMCAST TRANS 12/2014 322.50
12/11/2014 166509 MADDEN,GALANTER,IiANSEN,LLP 13430 281.60
101-0221-415.43-30 12/03/2014 LEGAL SER-EMPLOYMNT LABOR 12/2014 281.60
12/11/2014 166510 METERING & TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION 13467 3,337.00
601-7500-415.42-22 11/25/2014 WTR METERS 2361 ' 12/2014 3,337.00
12/11/2014 166511 COMPASS MINERALS 14037 13,798.70
101-0668-435.42-22 11/21/2014 ROAD SALT 71257135,254752 12/2014 13,798.70
12/11/2014 166512 NORTHERN SANITARY SUPPLY INC 14089 172.90
101-0669-435.42-22 12/03/2014 AIR FRESHENER DISPENSERS 172032 12/2014 172.90
12/11/2014 166513 KELVIN ODENTHAL 15034 70.00
101-0669-435.42-17 12/03/2014 REIMB SAFETY BOOTS 12/2014 70.00
12/11/2014 166514 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 16011 13,391.08
609-0000-180.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 3,917.01
609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 6,912.52
609-9100-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 206.91
609-0000-155.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 1,082.16
609-0000-156.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 1,221.00
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 8
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK
CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
609-9200-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 51.48
12/11/2014 166515 PAUSTIS & SONS 16034 2, 182.25
609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 1,922.80
609-9100-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 32 .00
609-0000-156.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 222 .20
609-9200-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 5.25
12/11/2014 166516 PERFECT 10 CAR WASH 16062 q ,9g
101-0440-425.43-40 12/OS/2014 SQUAD WASHES POLICE 12/2014 4.98
12/11/2014 166517 PETCO 16146 287.44
101-0440-425.42-21 12/03/2014 K-9 SUPPLIES OA056455 12/2014 129.88
101-0440-425.42-21 11/24/2014 K-9 SUPPLIES OA056457 12/2014 43 .99
101-0440-425.42-21 12/03/2014 K-9 SUPPLIES OA056456 12/2014 113 .57
12/11/2014 166518 PRO-TEC DESIGN 16154 172.32
101-0660-415.43-40 11/28/2014 DOOR PROGRAMMING 69097 12/2014 172.32
12/11/2014 166519 PERFECT 10 CARWASH EXPRESS 16200 136.00
101-0440-425.43-40 12/OS/2014 VEHICLE WASHES POLICE#10 12/2014 116.00
601-7000-415.43-40 12/OS/2014 VEHICLE WASHES PUBLIC WRKS#7 12/2014 20.00
I:•+/11/2014 166520 PLAISTED COMPANIES, INC 16210 184 .44
� 601-7500-415.42-22 11/30/2014 COLD MIX FOR WTR BRKS 56840 12/2014 184 .44
12/11/2014 166521 QUALITY REFRIGERATION SERVICE 17002 1,325.17
609-9100-415.43-40 11/30/2014 COOLER REPAIRS 8834 12/2014 1, 035_93
609-9200-415.43-40 11/30/2014 SERVICE CONTRACT 9478 12/2014 289.24
12/11/2014 166522 KAY QUALLEY 17009 16.04
101-1000-415.42-21 12/08/2014 REIMB SUPPLIES ANNUAL MTG 12/2014 16.04
12/11/2014 166523 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 18083 550.00
101-0333-415.43-32 12/02/2014 JOINT INTERNET CONNECTION 219537 12/2014 550.00
12/11/2014 166524 SILENT KNIGHT SECURITY SYSTEMS 19026 420.00
101-0660-415.43-40 12/O1/2014 FIRE MONITORING 85680 12/2014 420.00
12/11/2014 166525 R.J.M PRINTING 19036 106.40
101-0440-425.43-35 12/OS/2014 BUSINESS CARDS 84019 12/2014 106.40
12/11/2014 166526 SHANK CONSTRUCTORS, INC 19092 800.00
601-7000-415.43-40 11/25/2014 MAG METER AT WTP 3179 12/2014 800.00
12/11/2014 166527 SPECIALTY TURF & AG, INC 19121 775.00
101-0668-435.42-22 11/18/2014 SHUTTLES FOR ICE BITE 1887,38285,925 12/2014 775. 00
12/11/2014 166528 JAN SWANSON 19198 262.64
270-0771-455.43-33 11/26/2014 REIMB MILEAGE 12/2014 262.64
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 9
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/11/2014 166529 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC 19209 15,390.00
603-7500-415.45-30 09/29/2014 SPRGBRK WEIR PROJ EST#5 12/2014 15,390.00
12/11/2014 166530 SHARROW LIFTING PRODUCTS 19264 725.00
101-0669-435.43-40 11/24/2014 HOIST/CRANE INSPECTION 82538 12/2014 725.00
12/11/2014 166531 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 19328 332.00
409-0000-415.42-21 11/12/2014 MS OFFICE PROF LICENSE B02761169 12/2014 332.00
12/11/2014 166532 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN, 19353 21,096.12
609-0000-180.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 15,625.72
609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 4,091.00
609-9100-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 276 .35
609-0000-155.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 393.80
609-0000-156.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 688.00
609-9200-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 21.25
12/11/2014 166533 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICE, IN 19362 169.28
405-0005-415.43-30 12/O5/2014 ENG SERV ADA ENTRANCE 854177 12/2014 169.28
12/11/2014 166534 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC 20008 57.00
270-0771-455.42-21 12/04/2014 SOFTWARE MAINT 680338 12/2014 57.00
Y-+
� /11/2014 166535 TESSMAN COMPANY 20012 897.90
� 101-0666-435.42-22 12/OS/2014 FIELD CIiALK,ICE MELT 5206643 12/2014 897.90
12/11/2014 166536 TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 20060 17.70
101-0669-435.43-35 12/02/2014 COPIER MAINT 11459406 12/2014 17.70
12/11/2014 166537 TOWMASTER, INC 20143 201.45
101-0000-144.00-00 11/24/2014 PLOW WING STROBE 364140 12/2014 201.45
12/11/2014 166538 T.K.O. WINES,INC 20167 580.80
609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 580.80
12/11/2014 166539 TRADITION WINE & SPIRIT 20183 122.00
609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 120.00
609-9100-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 2.00
12/11/2014 166540 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS 21001 2,391.25
601-7500-415.42-22 11/18/2014 COLD MIX FOR WTR BREAKS 241150 12/2014 2,391.25
12/11/2014 166541 UPPER MIDWEST SEED INC 21046 57.00
270-0771-455.42-21 11/24/2014 SEEDS 19017 12/2014 57.00
12/11/2014 166542 UNITED BUSINESS MAIL 21064 1, 136.47
101-0000-135.00-00 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 6.52
101-0220-415.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 88.76
101-0223-415.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 77.16
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 10
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK
CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101-0331-415.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 180.14
101-0332-415.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 3 .69
101-0440-425.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 181.98
101-0550-425.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 45.09
101-0668-435.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 35.64
101-0661-435.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 80.94
101-0770-455.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 82.25
101-0770-455.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 ' 2.82
101-0880-465.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 44 .44
101-0881-465.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 112 .99
101-0882-465.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 58.34
225-0000-415.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 .43
237-0000-415.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 7.17
270-0771-455.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 54.11
601-7000-415.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 73.55
609-9100-415.43-32 11/30/2014 POSTAGE 341001 12/2014 .45
12/11/2014 166543 VERMONT SYSTEMS INC 22022 3,126.84
101-0770-455.43-40 12/O1/2014 MAINT-RECTRAC,WEBTRC,SCHD 45203 12/2014 3,126.84
12/11/2014 166544 VINOCOPIA, INC 22023 2,505.83
609-0000-180.00-00 11/14/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 1, 914.83
609-0000-181.00-00 11/14/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 576.00
� 609-9100-415.43-51 11/14/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 15.00
�+
�i/11/2014 166545 VAL-PAK OF MINNESOTA 22042 1, 800.00
609-9100-415.43-34 11/11/2014 ADVERTISING 92878 12/2014 1,800. 00
12/11/2014 166546 WINE MERCHANTS 23045 1,943 .00
609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 1,916.00
609-9100-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 27.00
12/11/2014 166547 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE, IN 23059 366.80
601-7000-415.43-40 11/24/2014 LEAK LOCATE 55559 12/2014 366.80
12/11/2014 166548 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER, 23092 31,146.03
609-0000-182.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 26,700.00
609-0000-183.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-MISC 12/2014 68.53
609-0000-157.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-BEER 12/2014 4,300.00
609-0000-158.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-MISC 12/2014 77.50
12/11/2014 166549 WIRTZ BEVERAGE WINE & SPIRITS 23095 30,733 .05
609-0000-180.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 20,751.49
609-0000-181.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 3,472.00
609-9100-415.43-51 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 210.65
609-0000-155.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-LIQUOR 12/2014 5,372.91
609-0000-156.00-00 11/30/2014 NOV-WINE 12/2014 880.00
609-9200-415.43-51 . 11/30/2014 NOV-FREIGHT 12/2014 46.00
12/11/2014 166550 XCEL ENERGY 24002 7,117. 94
609-9200-415.43-38 12/OS/2014 UTILITIES 437346156 12/2014 876.46
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13 :45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 11
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/OB/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NIIMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101-0550-425.43-38 12/04/2014 UTILITIES 437151595 12/2014 58.15
101-0666-435.43-38 12/OS/2014 UTILITIES 43780287 12/2014 11.36
609-9100-415.43-38 12/OS/2014 UTILITIES 437267392 12/2014 1,980.54
101-0440-425.43-38 12/OS/2014 UTILITIES 437328469 12/2014 384.92
101-0660-415.43-38 12/OS/2014 UTILITIES 437324621 12/2014 3, 806.51
12/11/2014 166551 RED SAVOY PIZZA 26004 287.68
101-0770-455.42-21 12/05/2014 ZONE PIZZA PRTY 12/2014 287.68
12/11/2014 166552 SHORTSTOP BAR 99998 200.00
101-0000-240.00-00 12/04/2014 TSP 14-25 DEPOSIT REFUND 12/2014 200.00
12/11/2014 166553 FANTASTIC SAMS (UNIV AVE) 99998 200.00
101-0000-240.00-00 12/04/2014 TSP 14-24 DEPOSIT DEPOSIT REFUND 12/2014 200.00
12/11/2014 166554 CAR WASH CO 99998 200.00
101-0000-240.00-00 12/04/2014 TSP 14-28 DEPOSIT DEPOSIT REFUND 12/2014 200.00
12/11/2014 166555 ALBRECHT SIGN COMPANY 99998 200.00
101-0000-240.00-00 12/04/2014 TSP 14-20 DEPOSIT DEPOSIT REFUND 12/2014 200.00
12/11/2014 166556 EDBURG, JENNIFER & RYAN 99999 167.00
601-0000-245.00-00 12/09/2014 UB CR REFUND 000168205 12/2014 167.00
H+
� /11/2014 166557 PALM, ROSA 99999 350.00
� 601-0000-245.00-00 12/09/2014 UB CR REFUND 000014605 12/2014 350.00
12/11/2014 166558 BERGQUIST, CAROLINE 99999 60.00
601-0000-245.00-00 12/09/2014 UB CR REFUND 000069885 12/2014 60.00
12/11/2014 166559 CLARK, CHARLES CAIN & JILL 99999 120.00
601-0000-245.00-00 12/09/2014 UB CR REFUND 000115125 12/2014 120.00
12/11/2014 166560 ' RICHARD, JOE & MELISSA 99999 171.06
601-0000-245.00-00 12/09/2014 UB CR REFUND 000123955 12/2014 171.06
12/11/2014 166561 PEARCE, NANCY 99999 58.62
601-0000-245.00-00 12/09/2014 UB CR REFUND 000162815 12/2014 58.62
12/11/2014 166562 PATRICIA FABIAN 2014239 29.50
101-0000-347.86-51 12/OS/2014 REC REFUND 12/2014 29.50
12/11/2014 166563 KRISTINE OTTERNESS 2014514 20.00
101-0000-347.86-51 12/OS/2014 REC REFUND 12/2014 20.00
12/11/2014 166564 ADELYN RIME 2014582 21.00
101-0000-347.86-51 12/OS/2014 REC REFUND 12/2014 21.00
12/11/2014 166565 SHANNON SOBOTA 2014617 20.00
101-0000-347.86-51 12/OS/2014 REC REFUND 12/2014 20.00
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13 :45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 12
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/OS/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2014 166566 ANOKA COUNTY CENTRAL COMMUNICA 1005 531.29
101-0440-425.43-32 12/11/2014 WIRELESS SERVICE 2014390 12/2014 531.29
12/18/2014 166567 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURER 1048 515.62
101-0440-425.42-12 12/11/2014 FUEL DTF-CRESTIK H141208A 12/2014 515.62
12/18/2014 166568 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURER 1048 987.50
101-0333-415.43-32 12/11/2014 BROADBAND B141208K 12/2014 400.00
270-0771-455.43-32 12/11/2014 BROADBAND B141208K 12/2014 400.00
101-0550-425.43-32 12/11/2014 BROADBAND B141208K 12/2014 150.00
101-0770-455.43-32 12/11/2014 BROADBAND B141209K 12/2014 37.50
12/18/2014 166569 ADVANCE COMPANIES INC 1061 447.50
101-0881-465.43-40 12/12/2014 YARD ABATEMENTS 8780 12/2014 447.50
12/18/2014 166570 DON ABBOTT 1096 50.00
101-0440-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166571 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER 1159 142.04
101-0666-435.42-22 12/02/2014 BRASS BALL VALVE 1863179 12/2014 142 .04
12/18/2014 166572 ADVANTAGE SIGNS & GRAPHICS INC 1199 43.65
M�+ 101-0668-435.42-22 12/10/2014 RESTOCK FEE RETURN VINYL 23901 12/2014 43.65
F�+
�12/18/2014 166573 ANOKA COUNTY PROP RECORDS/TAX 1233 2,982.60
101-0661-435.43-40 12/15/2014 2014 PICTOMETRY FLIGHT 12/2014 2,982.60
12/18/2014 166574 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL, INC 1301 47.00
101-0660-415.43-40 11/18/2014 NOV PEST CONTROL 944012 12/2014 47.00
12/18/2014 166575 ADVANCE SHORING COMPANY 1304 195.58
405-0005-415.43-41 11/28/2014 RAMP SHORING 1114227 12/2014 195.58
12/18/2014 166576 BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO 2005 3,675.96
601-7500-415.42-22 12/15/2014 WASH SAND 12/2014 1,911.94
601-7500-415.43-40 12/15/2014 DISPOSAL FEE 12/2014 100.00
101-0668-435.43-40 12/15/2014 DISPOSAL FEE 12/2014 150.00
101-0668-435.42-22 12/15/2014 WASH SAND 12/2014 1,514.02
12/18/2014 166577 JOFiN BERG 2020 748.40
101-0550-425.43-37 12/15/2014 REIMB HOTEL INTL FIRE CHF 12/2014 748.40
12/18/2014 166578 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 2110 65.45
101-0770-455.42-21 12/11/2014 SR COFFEE 1218034 12/2014 65.45
12/18/2014 166579 B.M.I. 2213 330.00
225-0000-415.43-31 12/10/2014 MUSIC LICENSE 12/2014 330.00
12/18/2014 166580 BLAINE AREA PET HOSPITAL,PA 2221 85.67
101-0440-425.43-30 12/09/2014 K-9 EXAM-NITRO 102933 12/2014 85.67
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13 :45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 13
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2014 166581 BRIE CATER 2238 237_22
101-0770-455.43-40 12/10/2014 SR HOLIDAY DINNER BALANCE 1844 12/2014 237.22
12/18/2014 166582 JEFF BRUESKE 2240 225.00
101-0770-455.43-40 12/10/2014 SR ENTERTAINMENT 12/2014 225.00
12/18/2014 166583 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 3022 7,904.00
101-0661-435.43-40 12/OS/2014 4TH QRT GIS SERVICE 12/2014 7,904.00
12/18/2014 166584 CULLIGAN 3067 40.50
101-0770-455.42-21 12/10/2014 SR WATER 114032568569 12/2014 40.50
12/18/2014 166585 CUB FOODS INC 3127 105.95
101-0550-425.42-21 12/16/2014 RETIREMNT GIFT CRD MEYERS 12/2014 105.95
12/18/2014 166586 RZCK CRESTIK 3165 50.00
101-0440-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166587 CROWN TROPHY 3203 64.13
101-0550-425.42-21 12/16/2014 RETIREMENT AWARD-MEYERS 15233 12/2014 64 .13
12/18/2014 166588 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES 3227 9.50
1�+ 101-0000-219.08-00 12/19/2014 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20141219 12/2014 9.50
��p
TL/18/2014 166589 PUBLIC SAFETY PEER SUPPORT 3246 40.00
101-0440-425.43-37 12/15/2014 PEER SUPPORT TRAINING 12/2014 40.00
12/18/2014 166590 CENTERPOINT ENERGY-MINNEGASCO 3252 3, 070.53
270-0771-455.43-38 12/08/2014 UTILITIES 55302905 12/2014 449.11
601-7000-415.43-38 12/08/2014 UTILITIES 55134407 12/2014 54.59
609-9100-415.43-38 12/OB/2014 DTILITIES 97917173 12/2014 720.17
101-0669-435.43-38 12/08/2014 UTILITIES 55703078 12/2014 1, 846.66
12/18/2014 166591 CENTURY LINK 3295 143 .72
101-0440-425.43-32 12/O1/2014 PI-IONE SERVICE E830233 12/2014 106.40
270-0771-455.43-32 12/10/2014 PHONE SERVICE 7848676 12/2014 37.32
12/18/2014 166592 CENTURY LINK 3296 48.66
101-0220-415.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 .02
101-0221-415.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 .24
101-0224-415.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 .24
101-0331-415.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 3 .68
101-0332-415.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 .68
101-0333-415.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 4.26
101-0440-425.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 29.79
101-0550-425.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 2.75
101-0669-435.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 .42
101-0880-465_43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERV2CE 1322977013 12/2014 1.78
101-0881-465.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 2.90
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 14
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'-----------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101-0770-455.43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 .64
270-0771-455_43-32 12/03/2014 PHONE SERVICE 1322977013 12/2014 1.26
12/18/2014 166593 CARVELLI DRAIN SERVICE & PLUMB 3310 438.50
601-7000-415.43-40 11/12/2014 REPAIR PLUMBING-AMR 1067,1061 12/2014 438.50
12/18/2014 166594 CHARLESTON COUNTY FAMILY COURT 3316 451.50
101-0000-219.19-00 12/19/2014 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20141219 12/2014 451.50
12/18/2014 166595 DALCO 4078 79.06
101-0669-435.42-22 12/04/2014 CAN LINERS 2823657 12/2014 79.06
12/18/2014 166596 DO-GOOD BIZ, INC 4145 680.19
101-0220-415.43-32 12/16/2014 DEC NEWSLETTER MAILING 721701 12/2014 680.19
12/18/2014 166597 DEFORGES PLUMBING, INC 4147 4, 000.00
101-0880-465.43-40 12/17/2014 PLUMBING INSPECTIONS 1487 12/2014 2, 000.00
101-0880-465.43-40 12/12/2014 INSPECTIONS 1482 12/2014 2,000.00
12/18/2014 166598 E.C.M. PUBLISHERS INC 5001 225.96
101-0224-415.43-34 12/10/2014 LEGAL NOTICE-NELSENPARK 168141 12/2014 43.04
101-0881-465.43-34 12/10/2014 LEGAL NOTICES 168143,142,144 12/2014 182.92
I.:►'/18/2014 166599 ESCH CONSTRUCTIONS SUPPLY, INC 5024 289.00
O 101-0668-435.42-25 12/11/2014 ASPHALT BZT 526212 12/2014 289.00
12/18/2014 166600 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINT 5038 1, 830.49
101-0550-425.43-40 12/15/2014 LADDER TRUCK REPAIRS 77533 12/2014 1, 830.49
12/18/2014 166601 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG 5073 109.21
409-0000-415.45-60 12/12/2014 BALANCE KEYS DOCKING STA AW0829146 12/2014 109.21
12/18/2014 166602 TD AMERITRADE 6088 775.00
101-0000-219.15-00' 12/19/2014 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20141219 12/2014 775.00
12/18/2014 166603 FRIDLEY FOOD SERVICE 6099 1, 154.52
101-0770-455.42-21 12/08/2014 DINNER THEATER FOOD , 12/2014 1, 122 .18
101-1000-415.42-21 12/08/2014 TABLE CLOTHES 12/2014 32.34
12/16/2014 166604 FRIDLEY POLICE ASSOCIATION 6117 88.00
101-0000-219.22-00 12/19/2014 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20141219 12/2014 88.00
12/18/2014 166605 FORMS & SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA 6140 475.75
101-0440-425.43-35 12/16/2014 CITATION BOOKS 140396 12/2014 475.75
12/18/2014 166606 FLAT ROCK GEOGRAPHICS 6144 3,120.00
601-7000-415.43-30 06/06/2014 MAPPING/DATA COLLECTION 848 12/2014 1, 040.00
602-7000-415.43-30 06/06/2014 MAPPING/DATA COLLECTION 848 12/2014 1,040.00
603-7000-415.43-30 06/06/2014 MAPPING/DATA COLLECTION 848 12/2014 1,040.00
12/18/2014 166607 FAIRCHILD EQUIPMENT 6161 247.39
101-0000-144.00-00 12/O1/2014 LP TANK J13889 12/2014 247.39
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 15
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2014 166608 GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES, 7068 3, 890.00
101-0550-425.43-30 12/18/2014 CANDIDATES ASSESSMENTS 6164 12/2014 3,890.00
12/18/2014 166609 G & K SERVICES 7100 50.20
270-0771-455.42-17 11/30/2014 RUGS,MAT 1006620963 12/2014 50.20
12/18/2014 166610 HACH COMPANY 8004 6,027.31
601-7000-415.42-22 12/09/2014 WATER TESTING SUPPLIES 9149936 12/2014 381.09
601-7000-415.42-25 10/31/2014 SPECTROPHOTOMETER-WTR TST 9099304, 95158 12/2014 5, 646.22
12/18/2014 166611 MYRA HARRIS-JOHNSON 8016 50.00
101-0440-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166612 HOLIDAY CREDIT OFFICE 8023 197.71
101-0440-425.42-12 12/08/2014 FUEL 12/2014 197.71
12/18/2014 166613 KIM HERRMANN 8056 25.00
101-0550-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 25.00
12/18/2014 166614 HOTSY EQUIPMENT OF MINN 8133 790.07
101-0666-435.43-40 12/O1/2014 REPAIR PREASSURE WASHER C170450 12/2014 790.07
I•:�"/18/2014 166615 HASTINGS HUSKIES & HORSES RANC 8158 650.00
N 101-0770-455.43-40 12/16/2014 DOG SLED WINTER FEST 14210 12/2014 650.00
�
12/18/2014 166616 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH, INC 9036 344.00
601-7000-415.43-40 12/02/2014 WATER TESTING 9086 12/2014 344.00
12/18/2014 166617 JOBS FOUNDATION / TECH DUMP 10099 540.47
237-0000-415.43-40 12/12/2014 APT RECYCLING ELECTRONICS 26499 12/2014 540.47
12/18/2014 166618 JILL KOSS 11032 50.00
101-0440-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB' DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166619 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC 11034 90.00
601-7000-415.43-40 12/11/2014 REPAIR PHASE MONITOR W#7 79462-22611 12/2014 90.00
12/18/2014 166620 MATTHEW KOHNER 11113 50.00
101-0550-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166621 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 12082 771.67
704-0000-415.43-30 12/11/2014 WORK COMP-POLICE 12/2014 771.67
12/18/2014 166622 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT 13033 3, 031.20
101-0440-425.43-40 12/09/2014 APS TRANS FEES 400413005381 12/2014 3, 031.20
12/18/2014 166623 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, 13141 385.67
101-0550-425.42-22 12/15/2014 CHAINSAW GUARD 582118 12/2014 385.67
12/18/2014 166624 M.E.I. TOTAL ELEVATOR SOLUTION 13236 139.72
101-0660-415.43-40 12/09/2014 DEC SERVICE MAINT 606795 12/2014 139.72
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 16
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/08/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2014 166625 MENARDS - FRIDLEY 13256 290.15
601-7000-415.42-22 12/08/2014 MISC FITTINGS 83871 12/2014 49.26
601-7000-415.42-25 12/08/2014 SAW BLADES 83871 12/2014 14.00
601-7000-415.42-25 12/10/2014 STANDPIPE KEY PIPE 84064 12/2014 41.28
601-7000-415.42-22 12/10/2014 GFI OUTLETS 84064 12/2014 59.87
101-0668-435.42-25 12/10/2014 " RECIP BLADES 84057 12/2014 26.89
101-0666-435.42-22 12/10/2014 NUTS,BOLTS,LUMBER 84216 12/2014 29.42
270-0771-455.42-22 08/19/2014 MAINT SUPPLIES 73560 12/2014 65.96
601-7000-415.42-22 12/15/2014 COUPLINGS 84452 12/2014 3.47
12/18/2014 166626 STEVEN MONSRUD 13280 50.00
101-0440-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166627 DR WILLY MOSS 13285 82 .15
101-0770-455.43-40 12/08/2014 SEWING MACHINE REPAIRS 12/2014 82.15
12/18/2014 166628 MINNEAPOLIS SAW INC 13290 64 .19
101-0666-435.42-25 12/08/2014 WHEEL,GUIDE FOR SAW 43232 12/2014 64.19
12/18/2014 166629 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CEN 13307 304.11
101-0000-219.19-00 12/19/2014 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20141219 12/2014 304.11
M�+/18/2014 166630 JIM MORK 13368 50.00
N 101-0440-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166631 CHRISTOPHER MC CLISH 13415 50.00
101-0440-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166632 METERING & TECHNOLOGY SOLUTION 13467 4,550.00
601-7000-415.42-22 12/11/2014 FIRE HYDRANT METER 2458 12/2014 2,050.00
601-0000-147.00-00 12/11/2014 WATER METERS 2457 12/2014 2, 500.00
12/18/2014 166633 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 13472 8,790.93
101-0000-141.00-00 12/15/2014 FUEL 117064 12/2014 8,790.93
12/18/2014 166634 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO INC 14022 5,840.71
101-0770-455.43-35 12/06/2014 WINTER/SPRING ACTIV GUIDE 28149 12/2014 1, 852 .30
101-0770-455.43-35 12/06/2014 WINTER/SPRING ACTIV GUIDE 12/2014 1,852.30
270-0771-455.43-35 12/06/2014 WINTER/SPRING ACTIV GUIDE 12/2014 1, 911.11
270-0771-455.43-40 12/06/2014 MAILING ACTIV GUIDE 12/2014 75.00
101-0770-455.43-40 12/06/2014 MAILING ACTIV GUIDE 12/2014 75.00
101-0770-455.43-40 12/06/2014 MAILING ACTIV GUIDE 28149 12/2014 75.00
12/18/2014 166635 NORTHEAST TOWING SERVICE INC 14057 85.00
101-0668-435.43-40 12/10/2014 TOWING FEES 29826 12/2014 B5.00
12/18/2014 166636 NORTHERN SANITARY� SUPPLY INC 14089 6.80
101-0666-435.42-22 12/15/2014 GLOVES 14089 12/2014 6.80
12/18/2014 166637 DARIN NELSON 14169 50. 00
101-0331-415.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50 .00
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 17
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/OB/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
----------------------�----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2014 166638 NEVCO, INC 14188 532.90
101-0770-455.43-40 12/10/2014 REPAIR-SCORBOARD CONTROLS 144978 12/2014 532.80
12/18/2014 166639 OPEN YOUR HEART 15011 25.00
101-0000-219.08-00 12/19/2014 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20141219 12/2014 25.00
12/18/2014 166640 ON SITE SANITATION 15035 126.12
101-0666-435.43-41 12/16/2014 PORTABLE RESTROOMS 12/2014 126.12
12/18/2014 166641 OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE, INC 15072 715.00
101-0660-415.43-40 12/10/2014 SHOVEL/SALT WALK CTY HALL 070,79,80, 89,98 12/2014 715.00
12/18/2014 166642 POSTMASTER 16024 3,000.00
101-0770-455.43-32 12/17/2014 REC NEWSLETTER POSTAGE PERMIT#92886 12/2014 1,000.00
101-0770-455.43-32 12/17/2014 REC NEWSLETTER POSTAGE PERMIT#92886 12/2014 1,000.00
270-0771-455.43-32 12/17/2014 REC NEWSLETTER POSTAGE PERMIT#92886 12/2014 1, 000.00
12/18/2014 166643 PRINT CENTRAL 16067 55.00
101-0669-435.43-35 12/09/2014 BUSINESS CARDS 107878 12/2014 55.00
12/18/2014 166644 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICE INC 16135 814.10
601-7000-415_43-40 11/21/2014 FIELD/LAB SERV 12141326 12/2014 814 .10
H+
W /18/2014 166645 PREMIUM WATERS, INC 16187 68.85
101-0550-425.43-40 12/10/2014 QRTLY WATER SERVICE 6283091114 12/2014 68.85
12/16/2014 166646 SHELLY PETERSON 16202 144 .07
101-0331-415.43-33 12/02/2014 REIMB MILEAGE 12/2014 144.07
12/18/2014 166647 PREMIER UPHOLSTERY, INC 16218 280.00
101-0550-425.43-40 12/15/2014 REPAIR SEAT CUSHION E2 12/2014 280.00
12/18/2014 166'648 QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC 17007 2, 847.41
101-0220-415_43-35 12/11/2014 DEC NEWSLETTER 4130969 12/2014 2, 847.41
12/18/2014 166649 RADCO INDUSTRIES INC 18010 583.22
101-0550-425.42-22 12/10/2014 FLOOR MATS BLN3535401 12/2014 583 .22
12/18/2014 166650 SILENT KNIGHT SECURITY SYSTEMS 19026 179.70
270-0771-455.43-40 12/O1/2014 MONITORING-6 MONTHS 47185 12/2014 179.70
12/18/2014 166651 R.J.M PRINTING 19036 582 .50
601-6000-415.43-35 11/13/2014 METER TAGS 83877 12/2014 582.50
12/18/2014 166652 STREICHER'S 19050 562.97
101-0440-425.42-17 11/06/2014 UNIFORMS 1120999 12/2014 102.00
101-0440-425.42-17 11/11/2014 UNIFORMS 1121522 12/2014 129.99
101-0440-425.42-17 11/03/2014 UNIFORMS 1122569 12/2014 123.00
101-0440-425.42-17 11/26/2014 UNIFORMS 1123948 12/2014 42.00
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 18
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/OS/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
240-0000-425.42-21 11/26/2014 HANDGUARD,AMBI SFTYSWITCH 1122654, 1121159 12/2014 165.98
12/18/2014 166653 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 19063 4,992.59
101-0000-219.12-00 12/12/2014 DEC LIFE PREMIUMS 12/2014 2,751.04
101-0000-135.00-00 12/12/2014 DEC LIFE PREMIUMS 12/2014 65.75
704-0000-219.12-00 12/12/2014 DEC LIFE PREMIUMS 12/2014 4.35
101-0000-219.23-00 12/12/2014 DEC LTD PREMIUMS 12/2014 2,146.47
101-0000-135.00-00 12/12/2014 DEC LTD PREMIUMS 12/2014 24.98
12/18/2014 166654 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC 19108 9, 160.62
601-7500-415.43-30 11/17/2014 WTP FILTER DRAIN PUMP IMP 289229 12/2014 4, 813.56
601-7500-415.43-30 11/17/2014 WTP FILTER DRAIN PUMP IMP 291334 12/2014 982.34
601-7500-415.43-30 11/17/2014 WTP DISTRIBUTION SYS 291333 12/2014 2,944 .00
101-0661-435.43-30 12/17/2014 ANTENNA PROJECTS 290009 12/2014 420.72
12/18/2014 166655 SPECIALIZED ENVIRONMENTAL TECH 19188 10.00
101-0668-435.43-40 11/30/2014 COMPOST FOR STR SWEEPING 16762 12/2014 10.00
12/18/2014 166656 SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLSALE, INC 19229 391.04
101-0000-143.00-00 12/02/2014 TIRES 10129944 12/2014 391.04
12/18/2014 166657 STOP TECH,LTD 19351 525.00
101-0440-425.42-21 12/15/2014 STOP STICK RACK KIT T004797 12/2014 525.00
�
� /18/2014 166658 SHRED RIGHT 19359 66.56
101-0660-415.43-40 12/03/2014 SHREDDING SERVICE 195694 12/2014 66.56
12/18/2014 166659 OEC PROGRAM 19384 225.00
101-0440-425.43-37 12/10/2014 EMT REFRESHER COURSE 141513 12/2014 225.00
12/18/2014 166660 TITAN MACHINERY 20159 123.45
101-0000-144.00-00 12/03/2014 HEADLAMP 5143923 12/2014 123.45
12/18/2014 166661 KEVIN TITiTS 20178 57:39
240-0000-425.43-37 12/15/2014 REIMB TRAINING MEALS 12/2014 57.39
12/18/2014 166662 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC 20180 125.00
409-0000-415.45-60 12/10/2014 CHART OF ACCOUNTS 025113090 12/2014 125.00
12/18/2014 166663 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS 21001 990.60
601-7500-415.42-22 12/O1/2014 COLD MIX FOR WTR BRKS 241383 12/2014 990.60
12/18/2014 166664 ULINE 21013 4,563 .68
609-9100-415.45-60 11/30/2014 ENTRY MATS,RUGS 63781334 12/2014 4,563 .68
12/18/2014 166665 UNITED WAY 21035 25.00
101-0000-219.08-00 12/19/2014 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20141219 12/2014 25.00
12/18/2014 166666 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 21066 220.55
101-0000-219.20-00 12/19/2014 PAYROLL SUMMARY 20141219 12/2014 220.55
PREPARED 12/18/2014, 13:45:08 A/P CHECKS BY PERIOD AND YEAR PAGE 19
PROGRAM: GM350L
CITY OF FRIDLEY FROM 12/OB/2014 TO 12/19/2014 BANK CODE 00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK CHECK CHECK
DATE NUMBER VENDOR NAME VENDOR # AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNT # TRN DATE DESCRIPTION INVOICE PO # PER/YEAR TRN AMOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/18/2014 166667 VALLEY-RICH CO INC 22006 4, 887.55
601-7500-415.43-40 11/19/2014 REPAIR WTR BREAK 21093 12/2014 4, 887.55
12/18/2014 166668 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 22011 409.19
601-7000-415.42-17 12/10/2014 JACKET,BOOTS-SWINNEY 3035554,3035548 12/2014 409.19
12/18/2014 166669 VOIGT'S BUS COMPANIES 22048 . 695.50
101-0770-455.43-33 12/11/2014 TRANSPORTATION SR TRIP 65518 12/2014 506.42
101-0770-455.43-40 12/16/2014 TRANSPORTATION YOUTH TRIP 65281 12/2014 189.08
12/18/2014 166670 VERIZON WIRELESS 22050 771.88
101-0550-425.43-32 12/15/2014 WIRELESS SERV TABLETS 9736079572 12/2014 553.06
101-0440-425.43-32 12/15/2014 WIRELESS SERV TABLETS 9736079572 12/2014 218.82
12/18/2014 166671 VERIZON WIRELESS 22050 26.02
101-0550-425.43-32 12/03/2014 WIRELESS SERV IPAD 9736580541 12/2014 26.02
12/18/2014 166672 BRIAN WEIERKE 23042 50.00
101-0440-425.43-32 12/17/2014 REIMB DEC CELL PHONE 12/2014 50.00
12/18/2014 166673 THOMSON REUTERS-WEST GOVT SERV 23054 146.83
101-0440-425.43-40 12/10/2014 NOV INFORMATION CHRGES 830839100 12/2014 146.83
F+
N /18/2014 166674 XCEL ENERGY 24002 1, 862.74
� 101-0666-435.43-38 12/11/2014 UTILITIES 438117694 12/2014 1, 862.74
12/18/2014 166675 ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE 26015 526.09
101-0669-435.43-40 12/OS/2014 REPAIR DIESEL FUEL PUMP 204427 12/2014 526.09
12/18/2014 166676 WICK, DIANE 99999 234.32
601-0000-245.00-00 12/12/2014 UB CR REFUND 000106095 12/2014 234.32
12/18/2014 166677 PATSY BORNETUN 2014152 18:00
101-0000-347.84-51 12/OB/2014 REC REFUND 12/2014 18.00
12/18/2014 166678 MITZI CURTIS 2014175 15.00
101-0000-347.84-51 12/16/2014 REC REFUND 12/2014 15.00
12/18/2014 166679 KELLY KEDROWSKI 2014380 6.00
101-0000-347.84-51 12/08/2014 REC REFUND 12/2014 6.00
12/18/2014 166680 VICTORIA WISE 2014792 18.00
101-0000-347.84-51 12/08/2014 REC REFUND 12/2014 18.00
DATE RANGE TOTAL * 611,939.86 *
x ;� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
�� ,
rna,ey DECEMBER 22, 2014
BUSINESS LICENSE LIST
Lawful Gambling Permits Fridley Alano Society City Clerk
6279 University Avenue NE Public Safety Director
Excluded Bingo for 2015 Jim Beilke,Applicant
February 7,March 14,
November 14,and December 12
Raffle
August 8,2015
126
- AGENDA ITEM
j"Pri�ey CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2014
LICENSES
Contractor T e A licant A roved B
Si -A-Rama Si Pat Bedell Ron Julkowski,CBO
Rice Creek Townhouses Commercial or Tim Mclntosh Ron Julkowski,CBO
S ecial
Arche e Si makers,Inc Si Steve C enter Ron Julkowski,CBO
ASAP Under ound Excavatin Ton Brad Ron Julkowski,CBO
Shaun's Drywall Commercial or Shaun Graham Ron Julkowski,CBO
S ecial
Leadens Excavatin , Inc Excavatin Ted Leadens Ron Julkowski,CBO
127
�� AGENDA ITEM
�
�Fridley CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DEC 22, 2014
LICENSES
To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager
Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Deb Biorn, Rental Property Inspections
Date: December 17, 2014
Re: Annual Renewal of Licenses
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Attached is a list of 38 properties that have submitted a rental license application, paid all fees
related to license renewal, and completed the rental inspections process.
The Rental Property Inspections Division of Community Development recommends that the City
Council approves the issuance of the rental licenses for these properties.
128
Ready for Certificate
The properties listed below meet the rental property guidelines according to Chapter 220 of the Fridley City Code
Property Id Property Address Units Owner
1103 5900 2 1/2 St. NE 7 Brett King
1121 6525 2nd St. NE 7 Paul M. Johnson
1127 4901 3rd St. NE 7 Neil Elmquist
1128 4913 3rd St. NE 7 Neil Elmquist
1158 5339 4th St. NE 2 Majestic Development
1162 5644 4th St. NE 7 Raees Chohan
1166 5347-49 4th St. NE 3 Duane Schwartz
1258 1580-84 73 '/Z Ave. NE 2 Mozafar Chehrazi
1269 360-362 74th Ave. NE 2 Millennium Mgmt. LLC
1300 7365-67 Able St. NE 2 Solomon Services, LLC.
1301 7379-81 Able St. NE 2 Tina & Brian Sorvari
1305 7447-49 Able St. NE 2 Robbi Olson
1441 6111 Star Ln. NE 18 Herman &Marlene Rice Family Limited
1452 7385-87 University Ave. NE 2 Brian P. Manning
1524 516 53 1/2 Ave. NE 1 John A. Koenig
1599 729 Kimball St. NE 1 Aminah Amatullah
1616 6631 Fridley St. NE 1 IH2 Property Illinois
1666 1601 N Innsbruck Dr. (307) 1 Margaret Thompson
1667 1601 N Innsbruck Dr. (338) 1 Margaret Thompson
1707 6819 East River Rd. 1 Paul M. Johnson
1711 7524 McKinley St. NE 1 Howry Residential Services
1830 5527 E Oberlin Circle 1 Carissa Arens
2034 1429 Windemere Dr. NE 1 Jenna Properties LLC
2037 6348 Starlite Blvd. NE 1 Twin City Pro Solutions LLC
2147 1621 Rice Creek Rd. NE 1 IH3 Property Minnesota
2205 1041 Rice Creek Terrace 1 IH2 Property Illinois
2206 6051 5th St. NE 1 IH2 Property Illinois
2213 232 58th Ave. NE 1 IH2 Property Illinois
2215 5901 2nd St. NE 1 IH2 Property Illinois
2221 5722 4th St. NE 3 Chastity Hanuman
2224 6680 Anoka Street 1 IH3 Property Minnesota
2225 5923 2nd St. NE 1 IH2 Property Illinois
2226 671 Helene PL. NE 1 IH2 Property Illinois
2227 1578 Woodside Ct NE 1 IH3 Property Minnesota
2281 421 Mississippi St. NE 1 Catherine Schneider
2284 1601 N Innsbruck Dr. (305) 1 JC Gemini III LLC
1410 1601 N Innsbruck Dr. (384) 1 Maria Alicia Arabbo
1910 851 Kennaston Dr NE 1 Jerald P. Janson
Total Certificates: 38
129
= AGENDA ITEM
Fridle CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DEC. 22, 2014
Y
Date: December 16, 2014
To: Walter Wysopal, City Manage`�
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones, Planning Manager
Stacy Stromberg, Planner
Subject: Continued Public Hearing for Rezoning Request, ZOA#13-02,for 3720 East River Road
Update
Over the past six months,staff has continued to work with the future land owner on site plan and other
relevant details regarding the site at 3720 East River Road.The Bank deal has been agreed upon.The
financing is in place and the developer of the site is working on the engineering and architectural details
for his project.Just in the past few days, City Engineer,Jim Kosluchar has been contacted by engineering
representatives of a Hmong funeral home that holds the purchase agreement on the property.They are
now in the process of the completing the Alta Survey and the Phase I analysis for the site at this time.
Both items are an excellent indication that the project is moving forward. The closing on the property is
scheduled to occur on or before January 18, 2015.As you recall,the funeral home use would be allowed
as a principal use under the current C-2 zoning, but not in industrial zoning.An extension was granted to
allow the bank and the future property owner adequate time to finalize details of the sale and to allow
the developer to get building plans in to the Building Department for review.
Previous Council Action
Since there was no representative from the Bank at the December 2, 2013 public hearing to answer
questions,a motion was made to continue the public hearing until the next council meeting to give the
owner an opportunity to further explain their desire to delay the rezoning.The Bank then had
representation at the December 9, 2013 Council rneeting, where the City Council continued the public
hearing to the July 14, 2104 City Council meeting to allow the Bank time to market the property under
the commercial zoning.This past July,the hearing was tabled until October 27th,2014,and then
December 22, 2014 to allow time for the Hmong Funeral Home deal to be finalized and plans to be
submitted.
Staff Recommendation
City Staff recommends that the City Council open the continued public hearing for rezoning request,
ZOA#13-02 at its December 22, 2014 meeting.Staff further recommends that the City Council not close
the opportunity to rezone the property at 3720 East River Road to its original M-2 zoning until there are
assurances that the sale to a funeral home is successful. However,to avoid the City incurring public
hearing advertisement expenses again,the City Council needs to select a date certain for the
130
continuance of the public hearing.To that end,staff recommends that ZOA# 13-02 come back before
the City Council on February 9, 2015,for further consideration or to withdraw the rezoning request.
131
, = AGENDA ITEM
�� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
Fridley
DECEMBER 22, 2014
To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager
Mayor and City Council
From: Debra A Skogen, City Clerl��/
`�t'
Date: December 12, 2014
Re: Public Hearing and Approval of On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Application for
Clifton Thomas Parks, II, to Operate Nelsenparks Hospitality Inc. d/b/a GB
Leighton's Pickle Park located at 7820 University Avenue NE(Formerly Fridley
Grill LLC dba G.B. Leighton's Pickle Park, owner Thomas Tomarro)
Introduction
Clifton Thomas Parks, II, applicant, has applied for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license to operate
a restaurant at 7820 University Avenue NE,known as Pickle Park Restaurant.
Section 603.07 of the Fridley City Code requires a public hearing be held to consider the approval
of an on-sale intoxicating liquor license. The Notice of Public Hearing, Attachment 1, was
published in the Fridley Sun Focus on December 5, 2014, which meets the ten day advance notice
requirement. After the public hearing, the City Council has the ability to approve the license at the
same meeting. A letter was mailed to the applicant with the Notice of Public Hearing.
Background and Anal�sis
Mr. Parks and his business partner Colleen O'Connor-Nelsen are the owners of the Venue 13 in
Burnsville, Minnesota. They have owned the business since March 2014. It is very similar to
Pickle Park as it is a restaurant that features live music several nights a week. Mr. Parks has been in
the entertainment business for 28 years. He and his business partner both have experience in
restaurant management. Mr. Parks plans to continue to operate the business as Pickle Park with its
current staff and to retain the current charitable gambling organization to conduct lawful gambling
if license is approved.
The Police Department conducted a background investigation on the applicant and found no areas
of concern. As the current management staff will remain on staff, there is no need for the
individuals to obtain a Liquor Manager License.
132
Recommendation
At this time, staff recommends the following actions:
1. Open and hold a public hearing for an into�cating liquor license for Clifton Thomas
Parks, II, applicant, to operate Nelsenparks Hospitality Inc. cUb/a GB Leighton's Pickle
Park located at 7820 University Avenue NE.
2. Motion to approve on-sale intoxicating liquor license and other required business licenses
for GB Leighton's Pickle Park under its new ownership and management.
133
Attachment 1
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL
(Legal Notice)
Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of Fridley will hold a public hearing at the City
Municipal Center,6431 University Avenue Northeast on Monday,December 22,2014, at 7:40 p.m. on
the question of issuing an on-sale Intoxicating Liquor License to Clifton Parks of NELSONPARKS
HOSPITALITY INC dba GB Leighton's Pickle Park located at 7820 University Ave NE,Fridley,
Minnesota.
Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with
disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than
December 15,2014.
Anyone having an interest in this matter should make their interest known at this public hearing.
Js/Debra A. Skogen,City Clerk
Published: December 5,2014 in the Fridley SunFocus .
134
� AGENDA ITEM
���
���^ f CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
Fridley
DECEMBER 22, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager
Date: December 18, 2014
Re: Continued Public Hearing for Organized Residential Solid Waste Collection by
Districts.
Introduction
On December 5�'the City Council held a public hearing regarding Organized Residential Refuse
Hauling by District. Staff presented details of the proposed agreements with the haulers and
information on the impacts to City streets, code enforcement concerns, environmental and safety
issues which the proposal would address. The public then offered comments on the proposal.
Comments were made by 16 people and were evenly divided by those in support and opposition.
Concerns were generally related to a loss of freedom of choice, 7 year term too long and residents
who have lower rates than those proposed in the agreement. Comments in favor where generally
related to reducing the impact to streets, lower costs,reduction in noise, improvements to street
safety through reduction in vehicles and environmental improvements. The Council continued the
public hearing to December 22 allowing for any additional comments to be gained. The City
Engineer provided a memo which is attached to this report which addresses questions raised at the
public hearing regarding the impact to City streets.
Background and Anal,�
There are two ways to evaluate any public policy; how it impacts the overall City and how it
impacts individuals. The primary goals of this initiative for the overall City were to reduce road
impacts, save the City money over the long term,reduce safety concerns,reduce noise, improve
environmental aspects and have a favorable impact to the average resident rate. Based on the
analysis provided by the LRRB tool and other reports all residents would benefit from organized
residential refuse collection with regard to reducing costs associated with street wear and tear and
safety and environmental issues.
The proposal, when analyzed on an individual basis results in winners and losers. Some residents
may have a negative personal impact specifically as it relates to cost. For them the open hauling
system currently in operation in Fridley allows residents to negotiate with 5 companies for the
lowest price by pitting haulers against each other and choosing the one offering the lowest price. A
wise consumer under this system continues to explore options with as many haulers as may be
135
available until the lowest price is achieved. The number of haulers could increase from the current 5
thereby increasing the impact on the streets and costing the City more in street repairs and
construction. Without government intervention there would be no way to control the number of
trucks on City streets and their related costs. On the other hand some may be positively impacted
because they would be getting a lower rate. These people have not taken an active role in
negotiating price and perhaps retain their hauler based on service loyalty. For them the potential
loss of their hauler is more about personal preference than price. The proposal does mitigate some
of these deleterious effects. Firstly, it is possible a resident may end up with their current hauler. If
they do not,the other 4 haulers have been vetted and would be held accountable to service
standards.
The question becomes which benefits, City or individual, should take priority? Keep in mind the
overall benefit to the City is prevented if individual benefits are given preference because the open
system has no mechanism to lessen street impacts. The asset value of our streets is about$67
million. We operate under a levy limitation so raising tax revenue is a difficult if not impossible
option. But, garbage trucks contribute 18%to the local street wear and tear they pay nothing
towards their repair and replacement. Tax payers are in effect subsidizing garbage rates. The value
of this benefit is over$200,000 per year based on the study. Charging this amount to the haulers
would only make residential refuse rates increase and it is questionable if the City could create this
fee in the first place due to the Charter prohibition on new fees.
Amendment
The 5 haulers have expressed a willingness to amend the proposed agreement to reduce the term to
5 years. This would better reflect the City's interests.
Conclusions
The City staff concludes that organized residential refuse collection by districts is the fairest
solution to the problems associated with street deterioration and cost recovery for repair and
replacement. The proposed agreements is the most favorable option for the City to achieve its
goals of reducing street deterioration, saving taxpayer dollars, improving safety and
environmental conditions in the City, reducing code enforcement issues related to refuse and
having a positive impact on the average rate. With regard to obtaining a lower rate the staff
believes the proposal represents the best negotiated price. In order for the City to secure a lower
rate it would need to exercise option 3 identified in the following section.
Procedura.l Considerations
Depending on the desired course of action the City Council has three options.
Implementation of organized residential refuse hauling must follow the procedural requirements
set forth in Minnesota Statute 115A. In creating this law the Minnesota Legislature desired a
uniform process for implementation state wide. As a matter of law it trumps any local ordinances
and local charter provisions including any provisions for referenda.
As a first option the Council may desire to implement the proposed agreements. If so,the City
must enter into.agreements with the haulers. This would be done by resolution. Then,the City
Council must enact any ordinances required to implement organized hauling.
136
As a second option the Council may reject the proposed agreements with the haulers. If so it may
choose to take no further action on organized hauling thus leaving the method of residential
garbage collection unchanged from its current state.
Thirdly,the City Council may reject the proposed agreements and create a committee to address
organized hauling in the City of Fridley. This committee would be constituted by community
members and would design a separate plan for organized hauling.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council reopen the public hearing to take comment on the proposal
and after sufficient time to accept new comment close the hearing.
It is further recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution directing staff to enter
into agreements with haulers as previously proposed with an amended term of 5 years.
137
1 . ' REC��' u DEC 22' 1014
DeccmbGr f9,?014
Wully Wysopai.Cily Mnnager
City oC Fi•idley
6�31 Univcrsity Ave..N.E.
i�ridlcy,MN 55432 �
Dcor Mr. Wysopui,
Tltis leticr coniirais uur�greement to a►nend!he tenlative cot�tract regardin�consortium wastc �
hAUling between us pnd �he City af Fridley to retlect thc city's desire to redus;e(he i►�'si'sa1 te»tt t� .
five years,
Tltiat arnendmenl rends as 1'oilc�ws:
A. S�-(�} Plve (5) years. This Agreement shali 6e In full force and effect for the perlod beg'tnning '
' March 1,70i5�nd ending February 29,�4�2020.
B. Renewal. At the conclustpn Qf Fhe initlal 61ve tSZ,year term the aRrgemg�t will autamaticallv renew �
for an additional T�uo tZl vears unlesn either partv ar�tdes notice to��,e other naYtv that it Intends Ya
neAOtiate a new aereement.Notice shail be served io th2 4ther oarty.in writfna,at�east i8U„�,�y,_s,�rlor �
t9 the exAtration af the�itial five {51 vear term.The Agreement in force wi11 cantinue if negotidtlons
extend for up to 45 days pait the t�rminatlon date.
I '
' #k# �
This amendnlent,alon�;�vith thc existing tentalive ttgreement.represents our I�st.bcsi ol'tcr tu '
the city. �
Sinc�rtly.
�. � }
_,� -^
, ` r;
��C .�...-�• r
D�v�Wi�Zgins �J Mi[cc Moroz '
nce S 1id Waste,Inc. \Vulters Ci�cycting ond Re!'use,lnc.
..�'
�/ `�� � �
C��-G• ,;(9,r�''
� �.,
Mikc pa��nclty Clint LePnge
Waste Managenient o!'Minnesotu, 1nc. LCPuge und Sons
� . � �;
...� t�.. � ` ��
Rich i•lirstein
. �L� �
IZcpublic Scrvices
December 16,2014 RECEI t��
_D DEC 2 2'Zp14
To:Mayor Lund,City Manager,and all council members;
My Husband(Ken Nughes)and I(Carol Hughes)would like to go on record as being against the single
collection garbage plan the city is proposing.
At the original meeting you had regazding this plan,we spoke to 4 different people and got 4 different
answers to our questions,so not everyone of you is on the same page,which makes us think nobody lmows
whaYs going on or you are trying to put something over on us.
Your main reason to do this was to save on replacing the roads due to damage to them from the garbage
tnicks. You had some studies there,but I guess I'd say the proof is in the pudding. We have resided in
Fridley for over 50 years and the city replaced our mads in 2008,(part of it at our expense),not because
they were in poor condition,because they weren't,but because they wanted the same concrete curbing
unifornily throughout the city. So this argument dcesn't make sense. They talked about all the stopping
and starting of all these trucks and the damage that occurs because of that. No matter how many trucks you
have through the area,you still only have 3 stops and starts;one for your garbage,one for your recycles,
and one for yard waste. That will not chaage if you have one hauler or 5. (We usually have 3 in our area.)
We still only have 3 stops and starts in front of our house.
Another reason was for safety of people walking and kids going to school. I don't think I've ever heard of
anyone being run over or even hit by a garbage truck. EVER!!!
Our reasons for not wanting it is it will increase our garbage bill by ut 85% It also takes away our right
to choose who we want and our ability to negotiate a price with our h er.
Please see that all people in the salutation of this letter get a copy. I have enclosed 6 oopies for your
convenience. Please read this at the next council meeting when this subject is discussed.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
�
Carol and Ke Hughes
;i ..���
'i ���r Duane Davis
j� 172 Panorama Ave
�; Fridle ,MN 55421
�� Zlo3 s� b�� 3SR
�� N t� �8 (� m `uR�a9 �> � :
, — - 2014
� � �u ecr: ; �� w� � e� � ��roc��r� :
� �s i� v�v c� �i'4�'►�t�►� '�-'nrAi-�c� �ve�� c,t� �"�� �z -�i ��
; l� �4►� vl� c�c� �-h i s 1 � ��ror�c�ec� �n U�. '
,
C� � �I�1e tN 1�a ��e Re�i aed do 11aT �� 1 �c�r-e�
`1 ��-S ���'fD O V� ���es; � �h� J��'i r?ec� c�R� C.t�i�o(sr s
C c; i n � G l� N ����1 'S
�
� i.� d ' he.s�e dc.PS. c�n p��Ce .�-�en � v��01�1 �i k�n
e (o ;'� .
, c�s C�s�e+�s h�v� n� co�� a �z �
� �S � Q r ( r4�G(� '�-h ev e �� t�'s 1�o T' C op p, _
- -�, Y�� �ro 11�5 S� i�- c.c� i )I �R�vc�e �D�STs G►� �'✓-T�z�eeT
�
!
.��� y i,� o�r �,e o� �P,�,�-�# �� P,/'1-�or�c� � �s -�� 1� �s �lo
� � �'e ���c�1� � h.�v�,(z �S '�h�e�.t �3_Qo ��GQ
C�� a� less.
� � 1' �'�cee� C�e 1 ��7'c)� ,��
d C1�. d i�2 �o> o,c�S Gue USe ' �e
"filneYe �'s o�e. Co�����p,�}4� �. U�ov�d ��c Y�� r�� vs .
��e�r2. � n�e �r ov�c�. � (,.�o� �,i 1�,e i� s�G�l c� �
�
, n �h�e__�^__�v�n�o+�c�- i�')sa '��i;¢. d �CZ i�?s �h�'r�1�' c��
�'� �t-S cA�1e � cR c�c-e "�Yu�c(,� �2j�G �T'l�� � r��
� v �e �.-�� '��dl'� "�UrL � �7t2� ? �Ov� 11��Pe� i�16 �
____-;�(�� .TN h ac�(e�s �ti���� �h�h m Y�A isp ��e i� ��ic�s a� �
i �►� o n�t� a veas �� '�. Cc�s� S d he�dl i�� ^Z c�ed,�s_
_ � �es���,-4^.�c�11�p � 3 c�y �c�T �� bc�� l�p)1 �/� --� i�''s C�bc��.
a �
C� � _ 6 v� c.� h.ee�s.�
— --�--c��.i°���.e� _
City of Fridley: Trash Hauler Monopoly Page 1 of 1
City of Fridley: Trash Hauler Monopoly � RE��..--
City of Fridley [webserver@ci.fridley.mn.us] "`'� 22�?014
Sent:Monday,December 22,2014 11:37 AM
To: Barnette,Robert
This is an enquiry email via from:
Jack and Sue Anne Kirkham <sawktalk2@outlook.com>
As loyal Fridley residents and taxpayers (my husband's family has lived in the home
we now own since 1959; my father-in-law served as both City Council representative
and mayor in the '60s) , this is our perception of recent actions by the Council: ,
Last December, the Council responded to the concerns of many residents opposed to
moving to a trash hauler monopoly by tabling the issue. (We conveyed the sentiments
highlighted below to all Council members and the Mayor prior to the 2013 vote on
the matter. )
Now that the elections are safely behind us, the Council reprises the issue.
Hmmm. And when opposition continues to mount, the Council re-schedules the vote on
it for two days before Christmas, when not many citizens will be available to
attend. Hmmm, again.
We wish to resubmit the sentiments shared in our December 2013 email, and urge your
consider how disappointing it is to taxpayers to have the appearance of political
trickery occurring right down here at the grass roots level.
As long-time residents of Fridley, we are against limiting our freedom to select a
refuse hauler of our own choice, and believe that any benefits of a one-hauler
mandate from City government would be outweighed by the negatives. We prefer always
for government entities to err on the side of freedom, and options equal better
service and lower consumer costs. Please vote against this proposed monopoly at the
December 23rd Council meeting. Thank you.
Jack and Sue Anne Kirkham
https://webmail.ci.fridley.mn.us/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAhvoLhW6... 12/22/2014
�
_
�3'�f
�3'1t�C�
Public Works Department
Streets • Parks • Water • Sewer • Stormwater • Eleet • Facilities• Engineering
MEMORANDUM
TO: Walter Wysopal, City Manager PW14-064
FROM: James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
DATE: December 19, 2014
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Organized Refuse Collection
At the December 8 Public Hearing on Organized Refuse Collection, I presented findings
on comparative roadway impacts of open versus organized refuse collection systems
developed through analysis using the recently developed Heavy Vehicles Tool. This
tool, developed by Dr.W. James Wilde of the MN State University—Mankato,was used
by Bolton & Menk to model our Fridley streets and resulting impacts.
There were a number of comments and questions relating to these findings that were
not responded to, and that deserve clarification. I will provide responses to these items
in the order of the comment or question below.
Comment 1: The model used full refuse trucks, and refuse trucks run at a range of
empty to full. Therefore, it is overestimating impacts.
Response: The model actually used trucks at half-full for practical reasons. On the
whole, this is a conservative approach which predicts approximately 20%
less pavement damage than would a range of truck weights from full to
empty, as damage from loading is exponential to the power of four.
Comment 2: According to some quick calculations, the model projects approximately
$1000 in damage per refuse vehicle trip. That seems high.
Response: The calculations provided by this resident are very accurate, and the
model does project damage is approximately $1000 per refuse vehicle
trip. However, this is spread out across the full mileage analyzed,which
equates to approximately $12.40 per mile traveled. This also illustrates
the significant impacts the analysis indicates.
Comment 3: The City does not replace its streets every 20 years as the model
indicates.
Response: This statement is correct, as the City of Fridley attempts to extend major
rehabilitation out to 30-40 years. However,the model analysis is fixed by
138
the Heavy Vehicle Impacts tool at 20 years in its current version. This is
proportional over the years of impacts in the analysis of the tool, so we
have concluded it does not affect the estimated impacts.
Comment 4: The alternative analysis presented states impacts are only$160,535 over
20 years.
Response: This alternative analysis indicates what upgrades are required to our
current system in order to accommodate the additional heavy refuse
vehicles for a 20-year design life. This conclusion is not a cost of
impacts, rather cost of needed upgrades system wide. The conclusion
we draw is that our roadways are generally overbuilt to accommodate the
additional heavy vehicles currently on our roadways, with some
exceptions. This is consistent with the projected $208,000 in annual
impacts, a high proportion of which could be saved through construction
of lighter pavement sections.
Comment 5: The model provides only predictive results.
Response: This is true, as a prediction is the only result that can be obtained at this
time without moving to an organized system on at least some streets for
10-20 years and analyzing the results. The model uses the most precise
analysis available at this time, based on roughly 100 years of pavement
science and analysis, including in-place analysis that has been underway
at facilities such as MN/DOT's MnROAD which opened in 1994.
Comment 6: My street (the 5700 block of Quincy Street) has never been seal coated.
Response: This is incorrect. This block of Quincy Street was last repaved in 1979,
was sealcoated in 1993, 2000, and 2005, and is planned to be seal
coated in 2015 under the approved 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
Comment 7: My street (the 6300 block of Van Buren Street) has never been seal
coated.
Response: This is incorrect. This block of Van Buren Street was last repaved in
1975, was sealcoated in 1986, 1996 and 2005, and is also planned to be
seal coated in 2015 under the approved 5-Year Capital Improvement
Plan.
It is understood that the analysis performed is extremely complex, and therefore some
questions are to be anticipated. I hope that this clarifies some of those questions raised
at the December 8 hearing.
Please advise if I can clarify any of these comments or the overall analysis further.
JPK/jpk
139
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING iTNITS ONE (1) THROUGH THREE (3)
WHEREAS, Fridley City Code Section 113.03 requires that all Fridley residents have weekly
garbage(Mixed Municipal Solid Waste)collection service; and
WHEREAS,Minnesota Statute ll SA.94 governs procedures to organize garbage collection; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley (the "City") currently licenses five garbage haulers to provide
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Collection services to 1-3 Unit Residential Dwellings and;
WHEREAS,the following haulers each hold a City Residential License I:
Ace Solid Waste, Inc.,
Walters Recycling and Refuse
LePage& Sons
Waste Management of Minnesota
Republic Services
(collectively and individually,the"Haulers");and;
WHEREAS,the City and the Haulers met and negotiated over a period of eleven(11)months in
� good faith pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 115A.94 to organize Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
Collection services by zones for Residential Dwelling Units 1-3; and
WHEREAS,the meetings and negotiations between City staff and the Haulers yielded a proposal
for organized collection from the Haulers; and
WHEREAS,the City held an Open House on organized collection and the proposal submitted by
the Haulers; and
WHEREAS,the City Council considered the Haulers' proposal set forth in the mixed Municipal
Solid Waste Service Tentative Agreement, dated December 3, 2014, (the Proposal) at its December 8,
2014 meeting and held the public hearing required by Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.94;and
WHEREAS, the Proposal set forth a term of seven (7) years, beginning March 1, 2015 and
expiring February 28,2022,with the possibility of a renewal term; and
WHEREAS, at the December 8, 2014 City Council meeting, the City Council continued the
public hearing on the Proposal to its meeting on December 22, 2014 to further evaluate the Proposal and
to provide City staff the ability to determine whether the Haulers would consider revising the term of
Proposal for organized collection from a seven(7)year term to a five(5)year term; and
WHEREAS, after discussions between City staff and Haulers following the December 8, 2014
City Council meeting, the City and the Haulers mutually agreed to revise Sections 8A and 8B and
Attachment A of the Proposal to reflect a term of five (5), commencing March l, 2015 and expiring
February 29, 2020 with a two year automatic renewal term unless either party provides notice of
termination six months prior to its expiration,as follows:
140
Page 2
A. Five 5 years. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for the period
beginning March 1, 2015 and ending February 29, 2020.
� B. Renewal. At the conclusion of the initial Five (5) year term, the agreement
will automatically renew for an additional Two (2) years, unless either party
provides notice to the other party that it intends to negotiate a new agreement.
Notice shall be served to the other party, in writing, at least 180 days prior to the
expiration of the initial Five (5) year term.
and
WHEREAS, at its December 22, 2014 meeting, the City Council accepted further public
comment on organized collection and received the Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Service Tentative
Agreement, dated December 18, 2014 , that contains the same provisions as the Proposal but with the
revisions set forth immediately above(the"Revised Proposal"); and
WHEREAS, the Revised Proposal contemplates the Haulers collecting Mixed Municipal Solid
Waste, Yard Waste and Bulky Item pickup for organized collection of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste for
Residential Dwelling Units 1-3 commencing March 1,2015 through February 29,2020;and
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves
the Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service Tentative Agreement, dated December 18, 2014,
between City and Haulers for garbage hauling services as detailed therein and authorizes the Mayor and
City Manager to execute such document on behalf of the City;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby directs City staff to
amend City Code Chapter 113, Chapter 11, and any other City Code Chapters necessary to effectuate and
implement the closed organized collection system for Residential Dwelling Units 1-3.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS
DAY OF ,2014.
Scott J.Lund,Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
141
city of Fridley
and Residential
license I Hauling
Company
Mixed Municipal Solid
Waste Collection
Service Agreement
(12/18/14)
142
FRIDLEY MIXED MiJNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of ,201_,by and between the City of
Fridley,a municipal corporation in Anoka County,organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
herein referred to as"City"and [insert company name here],a Minnesota corporation,herein referred to as
"HAULER".
STATEMENTS
WHEREAS,pursuant to City Code,the City requires the weekly collection and disposal of Mixed Municipal Solid
Waste from all properties in the City of Fridley;and
WHEREAS,the HAULER is engaged in the business of collecting and disposing of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste,
Yard Waste and Bulky Items in the City of Fridley;and
WHEREAS,the HAULER,if a signatory to this contract,is required to and does hold a Class I Residential License
in the City of Fridley; and
WHEREAS,the HAULER has agreed to adhere to the Standards and Descriptions of Service and the Definirions
set forth in this document;and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Minnesota statutes,the City is required to protect public health and safety,and in doing so, -
the City desires to replace the current subscription service system with a government managed collection system for
the collection and disposal of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste;and
WHEREAS,the City desires to hire the services of this HAULER,and HAULER desires to provide these services
as outlined in this Agreement to the City in Residential Dwelling Units in single-unit through three-unit buildings;
NOW THEREFORE,TI'IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES:
1. Defmitions
For purposes of this Agreement,the following terms are defined:
A.Appliances.Appliances includes but is not limited to clothes washers and dryers,dishwashers,hot water
heaters,heat pumps,furnaces,garbage disposals,trash compactors,conventional and microwave ovens,ranges
and cook tops,air conditioners,humidifiers,dehumidifiers,refrigerators,and freezers,sometimes referred to as
under a heading of White Goods.
B. Bulky Waste Items. These include Household Goods,White Goods and items listed in Attachxnent B.These
items are not part of the basic Mixed Municipal Solid Waste collection and require a special pickup from
HAULER due to their size or special processing requirements.
C. Cathode-rav tube or"CRT". A vacuum tube or picture tube used to convert an electronic signal into a visual
image. Electronic items that contain Cathode-ray tubes include televisions,computer monitors,and other video
display devices,and are required by Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.1312 to be collected separately by a
registered collector and processed separately from Mixed Municipal Solid Waste by a registered electronic
processor.
D. C�.The City of Fridley,a municipal corporation in Anoka County,organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
E. Collection Services.Collection Services are provided by private businesses who hold a Class I Residential
License by the City,who are engaged in the collection and transportation of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste
(garbage/refuse),Bulky Items and Yard Waste from Residential Dwelling Units 1-3.
2
143
F. Coun .The County of Anoka, State of Minnesota.
G. Covered Electronic Device. Covered electronic device means computers,peripherals,facsimile machines,
DVD players,video cassette recorders,and video display devices that are sold to a household by means of retail,
wholesale,or electronic commerce.Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Secrion 115A.1312, Subdivision 3,no
person may operate as a collector of covered electronic devices from households unless that person has
submitted a registration with the Minnesota Pollurion Control Agency. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
115A.1312, Subdivision 4,no person may recycle video display devices generated by households unless that
person has submitted a registration with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
H. Customer Char�e for Basic Service.Comprised of hauling cost plus disposal cost for Mixed Municipal Solid
Waste Service based on size of container,applicable taxes will be added to Basic Service.
I. Default.Default means any of the following events:
(1)Final revocation of any license of HAULER by any issuing governmental entity other than the City.
(2)HALJLER'S repeated failure to observe or perform any of its obligations under this Agreement that is not
corrected within ten(10)days after receipt by HAULER of written notice of such failure from the City.
(3)Five(5)or more incidents of payment of liquidated damages for HAULER'S failure to provide Collection
Services as set forth in Section 11.A.2. through Section 11.A.4 in any twelve(12)month period.
(4)Ten(10)or more incidents of payment of liquidated damages for HAULER's failure to provide Collection
Services as set forth in Section 11.A.1. of this Agreement in any twelve(12)month period.
(5) Convicrion of any crime pertaining to the Class I Residential license.
(6) Non-reporting of any State-,County-or City-required MSW,Bulky item,Organics collected(as
applicable)or Yard Waste weights or material quantities,as required twice annually,by July 12 and January
12.
J. Dav-Certain Collection.Day-Certain Collecrion is weekly MSW and Yard Waste Collecrion Services based
on the recycling collection zones,approved by the City,as shown in Attachment C.This schedule requires that e
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste and Yard Waste(during the yard waste season)must be collected on the same
day.
K.Disposal.The proper placement of MSW pursuant to Minnesota Statutes and Anoka County Solid Waste
Management Plan(Attachment F).
L.Disposal Facilitv.A waste facility permitted by the State of Minnesota that is designed or operated for the
purpose of disposing of waste on or in the land,together with any appurtenant facilities needed to process waste
for Disposal or transfer to another waste facility.Waste facilities include but are not limited to transfer stations,
processing facilities,and Disposal sites and facilities.
M.Electronics. Includes any item that can be plugged into an electrical outlet or that has a CRT.
N.HAULER. a Minnesota and solid
waste removal company licensed by the City of Fridley,Anoka County and the State of Minnesota
O.Household Goods.Household Goods include but are not limited to carpeting and padding,mattresses,box
springs,furniture,and other items used in a residence.
P.Household Hazardous Waste.Includes but is not lixnited to:poisons,pesticides,herbicides,caustics,aerosol
spray cans,ammunition and explosives,cleansers,paint,paint thinner,staining products,varnished,insect
repellent spray cans,flammable or explosive materials,fluorescent light bulbs,radioactive materials,smoke
3
144
detectors,prescription drugs and harmful chemicals.Hazardous waste substances are as defined by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in Minnesota Statutes Section 115B.02 Subdivisions 8(13)and(15),
Minnesota Statutes Section115.01, Subdivision 13,or Minnesota Statutes Section 116.06 Subdivision 4,and
which require special handling and must be disposed of in a manner to protect the environment and public health
and safety.
Q.Mixed Municipal Solid Waste(MSWI. Garbage,refuse,and other solid waste from residential acrivities
which is generated and collected in aggregate,but does not include auto hulks,street sweepings,ash,
construction debris,sludges,tree and yard wastes,tires,lead acid batteries,motor vehicle fluids and filters,and
other materials collected,processed,and disposed of as separate waste streams as required by Minnesota State
Statutes.
R. Organics Collection. The segregation of food and organics waste,source separated(exclusive of yard waste)
from Mixed Municipal Solid Waste which is processed at a State-approved facility.
S. RDU 1-3.An RDU is a single Residential Dwelling Unit providing complete independent living facilities for
one(1)or more persons including permanent provisions for living,sleeping,eating,cooking and sanitation,
which includes but is not limited to provisions for plumbing.For purposes of this Agreement an RDU includes
single,double(duplex)and triple(tri-plex)living unit residential buildings in the City,exclusive of
manufactured homes and townhomes.
T. Recvclables.For the purposes of this Agreement,includes materiai that is separated from MSW post-
collection for the purpose of recycling,including paper,glass,plastics,and metals.
U. Residential License I. A license issued to all mixed municipal solid waste removal companies who provide
MSW,Yard Waste and Bulky Item pickup for City RDUs 1-3 who pick up these items based on pre-negotiated
zones and market share determined in 2014 through the procedures outlined in Minnesota Statute 115A.94.
HAULERS must continually fulfill the provisions,insurance and indemnification requirements of the
Residential License I. No Residential License I will be issued to a solid waste removal company that has not
signed a Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Collection Agreexnent identical to this Agreement with the City.
V.Unacceptable Waste.Unacceptable Waste is material that a Disposal Facility will not permit to be deposited
in its facility.
W.Valet-eligible RDU. This case by case service is determined by the City and HAULER and is intended for
disabled individuals who have no able-bodied assistance.
X.Valet Service. The optional service provided by the HAiJLER whereby the HALJLER'S driver collects the
MSW cart somewhere on the RDU property other than in the usual Collection Services location at the curb.
Y.White Goods.Appliances and Covered Electronic Devices as defined in this Agreement.
Z.Yard Waste.Garden wastes,leaves,lawn cuttings,weeds,shrub and tree waste and prunings.
2. MSW Basic Service
A.Description of Basic Service.
(1) MSW Collection Service(Basic Service)shall include the weekly collection of MSW from RDUs by
HAULER. Cart size is based on RDU selection and contracting for one of three available sizes and rates(see
Attachment A).Refuse collected at RDUs in the City will be routed according to the schedule in Attachment
D,and aligned to the Recycling Districts in Attachment C. Refuse sha11 be taken to an approved Disposal
Facility in compliance with the Anoka Solid Waste Abatement Plan(Attachment E).HAULERS shall
follow a11 State of Minnesota Solid Waste statutes and licensing requirements.
Basic Service also includes RDU curbside collection of Christmas trees,which have had all lights and
decorations removed. Christmas trees will be collected by HAULER during the first two weeks of January
each year. HAULER shall deposit collected Christrnas trees at a licensed compost site.
4
145
(2) MSW basic collection service shall exclude the collection of
(a)Household Hazardous Wastes
(b)Bulky Items,which are included through a separate collection and pricing process in Attachxnent B,
and referenced in Section 5 of this Agreement.
(c)Yard Waste,which is included through a separate collection and pricing process in Attachment A,
Section 4 of this Agreement and is therefore not Basic Service.
(d)Recyclables,which the City contracts for independently and aze not part of this Agreement.
(e)Animal waste or feces and solid waste materials resulting from industrial,business/commercial or
� agricultural operations.
(fj Earthen soil,fill,boulders,rock;large scale materials normally handled in construction operations;
solids or dissolved material in domestic sewage;or other significant pollutants in waste water effluent or
as dissolved in water.
B. Carts.HAULER will purchase,own,provide,inventory,and distribute carts to each RDU in Fridley serviced
by this Agreement.Each RDU shall be supplied carts of their choice in service pricing level,in clean working
condition. Carts shall be easily identifiable,uniform and consistent in color and design and shall proyide
company name.Each cart shall be durable,watertight,impervious to insects and rodents,and shall have a close-
fitting,fly-resistant lid.Carts shall be made available(per requests by residents)in three sizes: 30-gallon cart,
60-gallon cart or a 90-gallon cart,each of which must represent the minimum size capacity of the category.
RDU residents will place carts at the curb and HAULER'S driver shall replace the container in the same
location but not in the public street.
HAIJLER shall maintain sufficient cart inventory of the proper size and color to meet supply and demand needs
for the entire term of the Agreement.Cart condition shall be evaluated annually by HAULER and carts which
are cracked,damaged,or which display a company name of a company that no longer holds a Class I
Residential license with the City,shall be replaced at no chazge to the City or resident under this Agreement.
The City shall inform HAULER of any substandard cart complaints as they occur during the year. HAULER
shall be required to correct a damaged cart problem within five(5)business days of receiving the complaint.
C. Cart Location.Residents of RDUs must place their cart at the curb for collection by 6:30 a.m.on their
designated collection day to guarantee waste collection. HAULER will return cart to the same location as set-out
by customer(weather dependent).
D. Valet-Eligible RDU. HALTLER shall offer walk-up service(door-side Collection Services)of Solid Waste for
residents of an RDU who have no one in the household able to convey their cart to the curb,and rely on a
walker or wheelchair or have significant mobility disabilities.
E.Fre4uencv. Each RDU shall have its refuse collected a minimum of once per week per the requirements of
Fridley City Code.
F. Procedures for Rejecting Materials.Unacceptable Waste that is left at a residence must be tagged by
HAULER with an explanation of why the item could not be collected,including information of where to call or
go online for appropriate Disposal or recycling information.
3. Service Schedule
Service by HAULER per designated zone(see Attachment D)will commence March 1,2015.
A. Hours. HAULER sha11 perform weekly MSW Collection Services between the hours of 6:30 a.m.and 8:30
p.m.,weekdays,except when an emergency exists,at which time HAULER shall norify the City Environmental
Planner and City Public Warks Department of such emergency. Communicafion shall occur promptly from the
5
146
HAULER to the City so that this information can be posted on appropriate websites or sent out via other Social
Media outlets.
B. Collection Davs.HAULER shall provide Day-Certain Collection. HAULER must collect Mixed Municipal
Solid Waste and Yazd Waste according to the schedule used for existing recycling collection districts per the
Residential Curbside Recycling Collection Map contained in Attachment C and the district assigned to the
HAULER in Attachment D.When holidays fall on a weekday,the collection for each day of that week after the
holiday shall be made one(1)day later. HAULER shall observe the following legal holidays on which their
offices and operations may be closed.The observed legal holidays are:
(1)New Yeaz's Day (4)Labor Day
(2)Memorial Day (5)Thanksgiving Day
(3)Independence Day (6)Christmas Day
HAULER may determine to take trucks off their routes based on prevailing unsafe road conditions for the
safety of their employees and the community. Any service interruption or delay to the next day must be
communicated with the City.
4. Yard Waste Collection Service
A.Descrintion of Service.Contractor must offer seasonal Yard Waste Service to each RDU in their
allocated area/zone:Yard Waste Collection is an optional,seasonal service contracted for and billed by
HAULER each year for the entire season and for which the customer pays the HAULER in advance. If
someone moves,the paid yard waste service credit stays with the customer.The service includes the
weekly pickup of yard waste from April 15-November 15 (weather permitting)for those customers who
have signed up for this optional Yard Waste Collection. Yazd Waste must first be placed into the
standard Yard Waste cart as provided with the service.Customers registered for seasonal Yard Waste cart
collection service may also place overflow Yard Waste in up to 12 compostable bags and up to 12
bundles of brush at the curb for collection each week without incurring an additional fee. Bundles are
limited to be no larger than 18 (eighteen)inches in diameter by 4(four)feet in length.Yard Waste must
meet the acceptable criteria of an approved Compost Disposal Facility.
B.Yard Waste Carts.Customers who have registered for Yard Waste services with HAULER shall be
provided a separate 90 gallon cart by HAULER,unless a smaller cart is specifically requested by a
resident and the resident's service needs do not exceed the size of the smaller cart. Yazd Waste carts are
emptied weekly along with any additional compostable Yard Waste bags and bundles of brush from those
RDUs subscribing to this seasonal service.
C.Frequencv/Duration of Season.Yard Waste shall be collected weekly on the same day as the
HALJLER'S scheduled MSW Collection,from April 15�'-November 15�',weather permitting.
D.Disnosal of Collected Material.HAULER may only deposit collected acceptable Yard Waste materials
at facilities that compost all collected Yard Waste materials or follow current Yard Waste requirements in
the Anoka County Solid Waste Management Plan(Attachment E).
5. Bulkv Items Collection Services
HAULER will provide each RDU curbside collection of Bulky Waste items for a fee.This service is
available for RDUs to dispose of items that do not fit into their refuse carts or which need special
handling in the disposal thereof. Residential Dwelling Unit 1-3 owners or occupants may request and
pre-pay HAULER for this fee-based service using the rates in Attachment B.
Payments for collection of Bulky Waste items shall be made by RDU residents directly to the HAULER
by credit card,prior to pickup of the items.Charges for collection and processing of addirional items shall
be billed by HAULER at the prices or rates per Attachment B. If a specific service or item is not listed on
Attachment B,services and rates shall be negotiated and agreed to by HAULER and the resident prior to
pickup.Collecrion times and other details will be handled by direct communicarion between HAULER
6
147
and RDU residents. Bulky Waste items shall be conveyed,as appropriate for their type,by HAULER to
an approved Disposal or recycling facility per Anoka County's Solid Waste Management Plan
(Attachment E).The HAULER representative must make the effort to remove additional Bulky Waste
items at the scheduled collection day or at a time and day mutually acceptable between RDU resident and
HAULER, soon after the service has been contracted for between parties.Additional items at the curb,
beyond the pre-paid amount will be tagged with a notice that the customer must contact the HAULER to
pay for the additional items.If not contacted by the customer within a week and the waste remains at the
curb the following collection day,the HALTLER must notify the City regarding the waste at the curb
which will generate a code violation.City will proceed with normal code enforcement procedures to get
waste removed.
6.Education
The City will create Solid Waste reduction educational inforniation on its website and distribute this
information through social media and newsletters to neighborhoods and RDUs,encouraging compliance
with State waste management laws and the Anoka County Solid Waste Management Plan.
7.Administration
A.Certified Pickuns.HAULER shall provide waste collection services to each RDU certified by the City
as a qualifying customer account in their designated zone.The City will provide the RDU database with
PIN numbers and a GIS Zone Locator map(Attachment D)to HAULER.This map will become the
Geographic Area of HAiJLER. Changes in RDUs in HAULER geographic area,unless in a major
redevelopment area will be noted on the RDU database but will not trigger re-districting.
In the event that a RDU has been certified for Collection Service,and the HAULER wishes to discontinue
such service at such RDU,the City must approve any discontinuation of service.
B.RDU Billine.HAULER shall be responsible for billing and administrative funcrions related to billing
of RDUs for MSW collection.Billing cycles will be uniform,matching a calendar year cycle of 3 months
in length(quarterly)based on the following timetable: January 1-March 31;April 1-June 30;July 1-
September 30; October 1-December 31 each year. Those accounts which do not pay according to
specified deadlines will not be charged late fees by HALTLER.
HAtTLER shall be responsible for reconciling and pro-raring the quarterly charges when accounts change
mid-quarter.If City Utility Billing Department is contacted for water service set-up or change of service,
City will provide resident with HALTLER contact information. If a home is demolished or one is added to
a zone or if City is permanently removing someone from garbage service,the City will contact HAULER
with subtractions and additions to customer quantities.City and HAULER will provide cooperative best
efforts for reconciling and tracking the number of acrive RDUs in HAULER's zone.
Accounts in arreazs over 75 days after the invoice due date will transfer to the City for collection,
processing and,if necessary,special assessment,using standard City procedures through Utility Billing.
These accounts will be transferred by HAULER to the City after HAULER'S proven due diligence in
collection during the previous 75 days has concluded. This procedure shall consist of a minimum of a
second written notice and attempt to call.The delinquent account information will be sent via approved
tracking form(Attachment H)to the City Utility Department. The tracking form states that the HAULER
followed this due process,and uses the property PIN#for RDU identification,provides any known
collection contact information and other key information about the account's status.HAULER'S next
billing to the RDU after the delinquency and 75 day due diligence to collect period,must clearly state that
past due amounts have been turned over to City for collection through the urility billing process.
HAULER shall submit quarterly list of unpaid delinquent accounts on the first week of the month for the
current quarter of unpaid delinquent accounts aged seventy-five(75)days. Invoices will be paid by City
pursuant to State Statute. Twice annually,City and HAiJLER will certify the RDU accounts in the
7
� 148
HAULER's zone for the purpose of reconciliation.HAULER will pay all applicable taxes due on the
delinquent account,which will subsequently be reixnbursed by the City.
(1)Changes in Account Status. The City Utility Department shall notify HAULER of any changes to
the number of accounts monthly(e.g.new houses constructed or vacant dwellings)in the RDU 1-3
area.
(2)Yard Waste Billing and Collection. HAULER shall collect pre-payments for the optional Yard
Waste seasonal service once annually or through pro-ration as service is requested.
(3)Bulky Waste Billing and Collection.HAULER shall accept only pre-payxnents for Bulky Item
curbside special collections from RDUs.These rates are contained in Attachment B. If the item
is not on Attachment B,HAULER and RDU resident will agree upon an amount for the Bulky Waste
item disposal.
C. Service Removal or Suspension.Notification of account changes need to be exchanged between City
Finance staff and HAULER.Examples of this service removal may be:
(1)Property owners of RDUs may register with the HAULER to be temporarily removed from the
MSW collections if they complete and execute a form,committing that their property will be vacant for
a time period of a month or more. HAULER shall not bill the RDU or City for these suspended service
accounts of one month or more.A list of suspended services will be provided to City on a quarterly
basis(Attachment H).
(2)If a property owner states in writing on an executed service disruption form and proves via a waste
collection receipt that they have adequate waste collection services at another property the City may
allow the property owner to opt out of service at their RDU property in Fridley.The City shall notify
HAULER of any such opt-out registrations as they occur.
D.Reportin�and Account Audit. Requirements for reporting from the various services collected are
detailed in Attachment E.The HAULER or City may request specific billing information or actual service
information(through physical site inspection)on any RDU.
E. Street Improvements.The City reserves the right to improve any street or alley which may prevent
HAULER from traveling its accustomed route or routes for collection within reason.No additional
compensation shall be made for interference.A map of planned areas of street re-surfacing shall be
provided to HAULER annually by the City.
F. Service Delavs.Notification of delayed collections,except for scheduled holiday delays,is the
responsibility of HALJLER to residents in their zone.HAULER shall notify the City immediately of any
such delay.If notification is given to the City before 3:OOpm on a weekday,the City shall place the
service delay notice on the City website.
G.Annual Meetin¢.The City and HAULER representatives shall meet and confer at least annually,but
no more than quarterly to review customer service issues,improve efficiency,coordinate educational
acrivities,reconcile Valet/walkup services and changes in cart sizes or service levels,and discuss waste
reducrion strategies.
H. License.HAULER must obtain and maintain a Residential Class I license from the City. HAULER
shall obtain all other County, State or Federal licenses or perxnits required to transact the MSW,Yard
Waste and Bulky Item collection business requirements of this Agreement.If HAULER is in Default
8
149
under the terms of this Agreement,its license shall be revoked after specified due process and this
Agreement shall be terminated pursuant to Section 9.City shall not amend the City Code during the term
of this Agreement in any way that prohibits,frustrates or makes its economically prohibirive for
HAULER to maintain its Class I license,unless required by State or County law or mandate.
I. Contract Audit. Both parties may request an audit of records where a lack of agreement about
customer service levels exists.
8. Term of Agreement
A. Five(SZvears.This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for the period beginning March 1,
2015 and ending February 29,2020.
B. Renewal.At the conclusion of the initial Five(5)year term,the agreement will automatically renew
for an additional Two(2)years,unless either party provides notice to the other party that it intends to
negotiate a new agreement.Norice shall be served to the other party,in wriring,at least 180 days prior to
the expiration of the initial Five(5)year term.
C.A�eement Amendment. Prior to the expiration of this Agreement,or any renewal term thereof,the
Parties shall agree to meet,discuss and negotiate or re-open the Agreement for special circumstances such
as legislation from the state or county which mandates a change in service levels for yard waste,bulky
item pickups or changes the composition of the MSW contents in a cart.An example of this would be the
separation and collection of Organic Waste.
D. Default impacts to other HAULER'S Market Share and Residential License I licensees.If the City
termivates this Agreement due to HAIJLER'S Default under this Agreement,its market share as set forth
in in Attachment D shall be distributed equally to the other Class I Residential licensees,who are subject
to the identical provisions in their own respective organized collecrion agreements with the City,which
are identical to this Agreement.
9. Terminallon
A.Tennination for License-Related Default.In the event of Default described in Section 1.H.1,the City
may immediately and without notice terminate this Agreement.
B.Termination for Other Default. In the event of Default described in Section 1.H.2 through 1.H.5.,the
City may terminate this Agreement upon a minimum of fifteen(15)days' written notice provided by the
City to HAULER as set forth in Section 25. Hauler may bill residents only for services provided through
the date of termination.City shall pay delinquent accounts to HALILER through the date of termination.
10.Pri•C1IIg
A.Collection Service.This Agreement supersedes and replaces any MSW,Yard Waste and Bulky Item
contracts or service agreements that exist between HAULER and their current Fridley customers.
(1)The price for MSW Collection shall consist of charges for MSW Basic Service.HAULER shall
charge the refuse rates in Attachment A,without additional fees.Rates in Attachment A are based upon
the cart size and quantity provided the customer in the HAULER'S collecrion zone,hauling and
disposal costs.RDUs with more than one MSW cart sha11 be charged the RDU Price for each refuse
cart of each size.
(2) Yard waste service is optional for RDU residents and is billed annually for an entire yard waste
season. It is based on the rates in Attachment A and includes a factor for Composting Drop-off Fees.
Mid-season sign-ups are not pro-rated and the service does not stay with the property if a resident
9
150
moves out mid-season,any applicable credits stay with the individual customer.Increases are tied to
the CPI-U.
(3)Bulky Item pickup and other optional Special Services shall be pre-billed and pre-paid,according
to the price structure in Attachment B,by the HAULER to the customer directly.Items not on list will
be negotiated between HAITLER and Resident directly.
B.Disposal Fees.The pricing outlined in Attachment A is based on a fee formula of weight and end
destination costs for MSW disposal as outlined in the table in Attachment G. HAULER is responsible for
all disposal costs and charging,collecting and remitting all appropriate taxes and for following Anoka
County Solid Waste Management Disposal guidelines pursuant to Attachment F.
C.Taxes and Government Fees.HAULER is responsible for collecting and remitting talces and
government fees imposed on the collection and disposal of MSW,Bulky Item collection and Yard Waste
Collecfion.
If new local,state or federal law or taxes on the collection or disposal of MSW,Yard Waste or Organic
Waste Collection are enacted or if existing rates change,to either increase or decrease HAULER'S cost of
services provided under the terms of this Agreement,rates sha11 be adjusted upon two(2)weeks advance
written notice to the City along with documentation establishing said increase or decrease.
11.Lipuidated Damage
A.Notification.When the HAULER receives a complaint that an RDU was not serviced on their
scheduled collecrion day and the complainant claims he or she had the waste set out by 6:30 a.m.on his or
her scheduled collecrion day,the HAULER shall make every attempt to collect the MSW on the same day
but no later than 6:00 p.m.the next business day. Similarly,if the City receives the complaint,City staff
will contact the HAULER the same business day with the name,address and telephone number of the
complainant.The HAULER is then required to collect the missed materials by 6:00 p.m.the following
business day if they are notified by 4:30 p.m.on the scheduled collection day.
(1)Isolated Missed Collection
The penalty is Seventy-five Dollars($75.00)per individual occurrence of an RDU missed collection
not collected by 6:00 p.m.the next business day following the complaint,provided the HAULER
cannot prove that the missed RDU address appeared on the HAULER's unacceptable or late set out
list that collecrion day.
(2)Missing Enrire Block
The penalty will be Two Hundred fifty Dollars($250)per each missed block incident. A missed block
is defined as a block where residents from at least three households within two intersections of that
block or cul-de-sac report that their MSW cart was set out before 6:30 a.m.,the MSW was not picked
up by 6:00 p.m. the next business day and the addresses did not appear on the driver's records of
unacceptable late setouts from that collecrion day.
(3)Failure to Complete a Majority(51%)of the Collecrion District
The penalty shall be Seven Hundred fifty Dollars ($750)per incident of failure to complete a majority
(51%or more)of collections within the HAULER'S collection district on the scheduled collection day
and not collected by 6:00 p.m. the next business day following the complaint, when the City did not,
or does not retroactively, approve an extension of collecrion hours and the addresses did not appear on
the driver's records of unacceptable late setouts from that collection day.
10
151
(4)Failure to Initiate District-wide Collection
The penalty shall be One Thousand Dollars($1,000)per occurrence for failure to initiate collection of
the HAULER'S entire district on the scheduled collecrion day and not collected by 6:00 p.m. the next
business day following the complaint.
B. Exceptions. The HAULER shall be deemed not liable for damages where the HAULER's inability to
perform waste collection service is the result of such conditions and circumstances set forth in Section 26.
C.Remedv.Payment of liquated damages shall serve as full and complete remedy for missed Collection
Services as set forth in Section 11 and no other action shall be taken by the City against HAULER unless
such missed Collection Service incidents requiring payment of liquidated damages by HAULER to City
constitute a Default as set forth in Secrion 1.H of this Agreement. In the event the incidents of missed
Collection Services and required payxnent of liquidated damages constitute a Default as set forth in
Section 1.H of this Agreement,the City may seek other remedies,including but not limited to termination
of this Agreement.
D.Penaltv for Non Reporting of Tonna�e Items and Weiphts for Bulkv Items Organics(when
� li�.p cable�znd Yard Waste.Reports for these items must be submitted by July 12 and January 12,
following sufficient notice from the City,for the item collected(per each,by weight or cubic yard as
appropriate)and reycled.The information is aggregated by the City Environmental Planner to satisfy
State and Anoka County reporting requirements twice annually.Notice of this due date will be provided
fifteen(15)days prior to reporting deadline.Penalties for non-reporting for Bulky Items and Yard Waste
are$500 per episode for HAULER reports more than two weeks late.
12.Insurance
A.Workers' Compensation.HAULER must maintain Workers' Compensation insurance in compliance
with all applicable statues.The policy shall also provide Employer's Liability coverage with limits of not
less than$500,000 Bodily Injury each accident,$500,000 Bodily Injury by disease,policy limit,and
$500,000 Bodily Injury by disease,each employee.
B.General Liabilitv. HAULER must maintain occurrence form comprehensive general liability
coverage. Such coverage shall include,but not be limited to,bodily injury,Properry damage—broad
form,and personal injury,for the hazards of Premises/Operation,broad form contractual liability,
independent contractors,and products/completed operations.
HAULER must maintain aforementioned comprehensive general liability coverage with lixnits of liability
not less than$1,000,000 each occurrence;$1,000,000 personal and advertising injury;$2,040,000 general
aggregate,and$2,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate. These limits may be satisfied
by the comprehensive general liability coverage or in combination with an umbrella or excess liability
policy,provided coverage afforded by the umbrella or excess policy are no less than the underlying
comprehensive general liability coverages.
C.Automobile Liabilitv.HAULER must carry Automobile Liability coverage. Coverage shall afford
total liability limits for Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liabiliry in the amount of
$1,000,000 per accident. The liability limits may be afforded under the Commercial Policy,or in
combination with an Umbrella or Excess Liability Policy provided coverages afforded by the Umbrella
Excess Policy are no less than the underlying Commercial Auto Liability coverage.
Coverage shall be provided for Bodily Injury and Property Damage for the ownership,use,maintenance
or operation of all owned,non-owned and hired automobiles.
The Commercial Automobile Policy shall include at least statutory personal injury protection,uninsured
motorists and underinsured motorists' coverages.
13.Indeuendent Contractor
11
152
A. Supplv Labor,Material,and Equipment. Nothing contained within the Agreement shall serve to create
a joint venture between HAULER and the City. It is expressly understood by the parties that HAULER is
an independent contractor and shall not be considered an employee of the City. HAULER shall have
conirol over the manner in which the services are performed under this Agreement. HAULER shall
supply,at its own expense,all materials,supplies,equipment and tools required to accomplish the
services contemplated by this Agreement. Neither HAULER nor its employees shall be enritled to any
benefits from the City,including,without limitation,insurance benefits,sick and vacation leave,workers'
compensation benefits,unemployxnent compensation,disability,severance pay or retirement benefits.
B.Vehicles.All trucks or motor vehicles used by HAULER in the performance of this Agreement shall
comply with the following requirements:
(1) Each vehicle used by the licensee in the City of Fridley,shall have the name of the licensee clearly
printed on both sides. Said lettering shall be at least three(3)inches in height and the color of the
lettering and of the background shall be contrasting.
(2) Each vehicle used to haul Mixed Municipal Solid Waste in the City of Fridley shall be licensed by
the regional waste authority and such license shall be maintained for the entire term of the City
license.All vehicles used by the collector in the City must comply with all applicable State and
Federal regulations.
(3) Each vehicle used for hauling MSW must have a tight cover that is operated and maintained as to
prevent offensive odors or spillage.The loading space of every solid waste shall be leak proof.
Every vehicle shall be equipped with the necessary tools and equipment for cleaning up spills.
(4) Every vehicle used for hauling shall be kept well painted,clean,free of persistent odors,and in
good repair.
(5) MSW shall be loaded so that no materials can jar loose and fall to the ground or street when the
vehicle is in motion.MSW shall be so secured that they cannot be displaced by the wind or fall out
of the vehicle.Anything that does fall from the truck shall be immediately cleaned up by the driver.
(6) No person shall at any time park or store any MSW collection vehicle on any premises zoned
residential,within one hundred(100)feet of any aforementioned premises,or within two hundred
(200)feet of any food establishxnent,for purpose other than,or for periods inconsistent with,
providing MSW collecrion at said premises.No person shall at any time park or store any loaded or
partially loaded MSW collection vehicle on any premises within the City,except for the purpose of
and for periods consistent with,providing MSW collection at that parcel of property.
C.No Claims.HAULER agrees to pay all persons doing work or furnishing skill,tools,machinery,or
materials or insurance premiums or equipment or supplies and all just claims for such work,material,
equipment,insurance,and supplies in and about the performance of this Agreement.HAULER shall
indemnify,defend and hold the City harmless from such claims pursuant to Section 22.
14. Personnel Standards
A. Responsibilitv
(1)HAULER shall maintain sufficient trained and licensed personnel to fulfill the requirements of
this Agreement.
(2)Each HAULER staffmember shall adhere to all applicable ordinances of the City and State,and
all of those rules,regulations,and conditions for collection.
(3)The driver and collector(s) shall at all times have a courteous attitude toward the general public.A
consistently high level of customer service is required.
12
153
(4)Any litter resulting from the collection of customer waste shall be picked up by HAULER staff on
the same collection day it is caused or reported by the City.
(5)All carts shall be returned upon emptying to the location customer placed the cart for collection,
avoiding placement in the drive area of the street or alley.
(6)Gratuities shall not be solicited by HAULER employees.
15.Safe
HAULER shall provide and maintain safety accommodations for their Employees and also follow
sanitarion facility regulations as set forth in Minnesota Statute 182 and in the Department of Labor and
Industry's Labor Safety Code(LISC 73-75).
16.Citv and HAULER Point of Contact
All services to be performed for the City by HAULER pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be
coordinated through the City's designated point of contact. Collection questions will go to the City
Finance Depazhnent and Recycling and Yard Waste reporting questions and reports will go to the City
Environmental Planner.Both the City and HAtILER shall designate a key contact person that each party
may rely upon for addressing customer service issues and RDU service verification.
17.Title
Title to all refuse,rubbish and Recyclables collected shall remain vested in HAULER until delivered to a
contractually-approved Disposal Facility. At no time shall the City take title to the collected material or
pay for Disposal costs of same.HAULER shall not take title to toxic and hazardous waste,Household
Hazardous or Unacceptable Waste,title to which shall remain with its generator.HAULER'S employees
shall have the right to reject any waste containing any toxic and hazardous waste,Household Hazardous
Waste or Unacceptable Waste at any time;and this right should not be limited by time. Such material will
be labeled with the reason it is not collected.
18.Subcontracting or Assignment of Agreement
A.No assi�nment of this Agreement by HAULER shall be nermitted.Nor shall the delegation of
HAULER's obligation hereunder to another be permitted,without the express prior written consent of the
City.HAULER shall be held responsible for full and faithful performance of this Agreement.
B.HAULER ChanQes.Notwithstanding the provisions in Section 18A,without the prior written consent
of the City,HAULER may assign this Agreement to a party that is purchasing or otherwise acquiring
HAULER'S assets or stock,provided that,as a part of the purchase or acquisition,the purchasing or
acquiring party sha11 be subject to this Agreement as if a signatory hereto. Within twenty-four(24)hours
of acquisition of HAULER,by purchase or otherwise,HAULER shall notify the City of said purchase or
acquisition and provide the City with contract information for the new party.
19.Non-Discrimination
This Agreement may be terminated by the City and all money due or to become due hereunder may be
forfeited for HAULER's violation of Minn. Stat. Section 181.59.
20.Health Regulations and Ordinances
HAULER shall acquaint itself with a11 pertinent City Code and shall comply with all health regulations
and ordinances of the City,Anoka County and the State of Minnesota in effect at this time or hereafter
adopted.
21.Disuute Resolution
The City and HAULER shall cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure that the various provisions of
this Agreement are fulfilled.The parties agree to act in good faith to undertake resolution of disputes in
an equitable and timely manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.Except for
13
154
events of Default set forth and described in section 1.H.1 through 1.H.6,for any other dispute that cannot
be resolved informally by the parties,the following procedures shall be used:
The City and HAULER shall submit the conflict to nonbinding mediation. The parties shall agree upon a
mediator or if they cannot agree,sha11 obtain a list of court-approved mediators from the Anoka County
District Court Administrator and select a mediator by alternatively striking names until one remains. The
City shall strike the first name followed by HAULER and shall continue in that order until one name
remains.
The parties shall equally shaze the cost of the mediator but shall be responsible for their own attorneys'
fees.
Upon conclusion of the parties' mediation,if the dispute is not resolved within 30 days,the parties may
commence an action in Anoka County District Court or seek any other legal remedy to the conflict or
dispute.
Despite parties' dispute,the parties shall continue to perform their obligations pursuant to the Agreement.
22.Liabilitv and Indemnitv
A.Liabili .The City does not waive any claims or causes of action against HAiJLER or anyone for
whom HAULER may be legally liable,or for any claims for delay or additional compensation against
HAULER.City and HAULER agree that there shall not be a cap on the total liability of HAULER for any
injuries,claims,losses,expenses,or damages arising out of or in any way related to the Agreement,
including any cap related to a set amount or stated insurance limits. The City does not waive its right to
claim consequential,incidental,indirect,special or punitive damages,or to bring any action against an
individual employee of HAULER. Claims brought as an additional insured shall not be limited to losses
payable to City by HAULER.HALTLER's liability and damages to the City shall not be capped or limited
in any manner,including limitations for any specific amount,the amount of any applicable insurance
policy,or any other limitation.
B. Indemnitv.The parties agree to indemnify,defend and hold the other,its agents,contractors,
subcontractors,officials,employees,attorneys,boards,Councils,agents,volunteers and representatives
harmless against and in respect of any and all claims,demands,acrions,suits,proceedings,losses,costs,
expenses,obligations,liabilities,damages,recoveries,and deficiencies,including interest,penalties and
reasonable attorneys' fees,that the party incurs or suffers,which arise out of,result from or relate to this
Agreement. HAULER's indemnification obligation to the City for any City liability to third parties shall be
capped at the City's maximum liability limits set forth in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466,exclusive of the
City's reasonable attorneys' fees and related lirigation expenses. Such reasonable attorneys' fees and related
litigation expenses shall not be subject to said cap and HAULER shall indemnify the City for those fees and
expenses in addition to its indemnification obligation for any City liability to third parties. In no event sha11 a
party be responsible to indemnify the other party for any claims,demands,actions,suits,proceedings,losses,
costs,expenses,obligations,liabilities,damages,recoveries and deficiencies,including interest,penalties and
reasonable attorneys' fees,that are incurred due to the goss negligence or intentional misconduct of the other
party.The parties further agree that this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination
of this Agreement.
C.Governmental Ixnmunitv. Notlung contained herein sha11 be,deemed a waiver by the City of any
governmental immunity defenses,statutory or otherwise. Further,any and all claims brought against the City
shall be subject the maatimum liability limits provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04 subdivision 1.
14
155
23.Disuosal Fines and Penalties.
HAULER is solely responsible for all fines and penalties imposed by any governmental agency relating
to the hauling or Disposal of MSW,Bulky Items or Yard Waste,and it shall indemnify,defend and hold
the City harmless therefrom pursuant to Section 24.
24.Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
All proceedings related to this Agreement shall be venued in the State of Minnesota,Anoka County
District Court.
25.Notice
Except as otherwise herein provided,all notices required to be served by either party on the other shall be
in writing and forwarded by postage prepaid,certified mail,as follows:
If to the City of Fridley:
City of Fridley
Attn: City Clerk
6431 University Ave.NE
Fridley,Minnesota 55432-4384
If to HAULER:
All notices shall be effective when received or within three(3)days of mailing.
26.Force Maieure '
Neither City nor HAULER shall be considered in default in performance of its obligations under this
Agreement if performance of such obligations is prevented or delayed by acts of God, natural or man-
made disaster, civil unrest, terrorism, war, pandemic, or any similar unforeseen event, or other events
beyond the reasonable control of the party. Time of performance of either party's obligations under this
Agreement shall be extended by the time period reasonably necessary to overcome the effects of such
occurrences, provided, however, that once the parties have mutually agreed that such occurrences or
conditions have been alleviated or eliminated exist to permit performance of their duties, the non-
performing party or parties, whichever the case may be, shall have five (5) days (excluding Saturdays,
Sundays,and holidays)to perform such duties. In the event the HAULER fails to perform within the five
(5) business days, HALJLER shall be subject to all damage claims, including but not lixnited to those
identified in Section 11 of this Agreement.
27.Severabilitv
All parts and provisions of this Agreement are severable.If any part or provision of this Agreement shall
be held invalid,the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.
28.Data Practices
This Agreement is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act(Minnesota Statutes,Chapter
13). All government data,as defined in the Act,Minn. Statutes,Section 13.02 Subdivision 7,which is
created,collected,received,stored,used,maintained,or disseminated by HAULER during its
performance of this Agreement is subject to the requirements of the Data Practices Act.
29.Contingencv of Asreemen�
This Agreement is contingent upon the execution of the Agreements executed by all of the holders of
Residential I Licenses and shall be in full force only upon the contemporaneous Agreements of the
following companies besides HAULER:
15
156
[INSERT LIST OF OTHER FOUR HAULERS HERE]
30.Entire Agreement
The Agreement with Attachments A through H incoiporated herein by reference and made part of this
Agreement as if fully set forth herein represent the entire the Agreement between the parties.No
modification of this Agreement shall be valid or effective,unless made in writing and signed by the
parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have set their hands on this day of ,201 .
CITY OF FRIDLEY,A MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
By:
Scott Lund,Mayor,City of Fridley
By:
Walter T.Wysopal,City Manager,City of Fridley
COMPANY NAME HERE
By:
HAULER
16
157
Attachment A
CART AND YARD MSW DISPOSAL PRICING
1.Customer Charges for MSW Base Rate
The HAULER agrees to charge customers in their district according to the schedule which follows. There
shall be no deviations from these rates. Rates shall be based on the size and quanrity of refuse containers
selected by the customer;the three sizes are as below: small(minimum of 30 gallon capacity),medium
(minimum of 60 gallon capacity) and large(minimum of 90 gallon capacity). These charges are based on
Hauling Rate plus Disposal Rate and applicable state,county and local taxes.No other fees related to the
base rate charge for collection may be added by the HAULER(e.g. fuel surcharge).
The customer rate per month is effective March 1,2015 and for the ensuing twelve(12)months:
a.Small $14.32
b.Medium $17.45
c.Large $19.13
2.Adiusting MSW Disuosal Rates
Rates may be adjusted based on CPI-U,tipping fee changes,or tax or fee changes,for the term of the
agreement or any extensions. Rate adjustments shall be consistent with the effective date of those
adjustrnents.The total disposal rate charged customers in RDUs 1-3 is based on the following components:
Hauling Cost and Disposal Cost.
A.Haulin Costs may be adjusted using a base hauling rate of$11.44 for small; $11.91
for medium; and$12.41 for large containers.These rates shall be mulriplied by the
CPI-U for all urban consumers in the Minneapolis-St.Paul Metropolitan area as defined
by the BLS for the previous 12-month period and added to the base hauling rates.The
product sha11 become the new base rate for the next year.The information may
be found on: http://www.bls.�ov/ro5/cpimpls.htm
B.Disposal Costs may be adjusted up or down depending on the net charges imposed by Great
River Energy to the HALTLER for disposal. If GRE is no longer available, and there is a new disposal
location approved by Anoka County,it will be used for Disposal Costs.Adjustxnents are made
as rate changes occur. The base tipping fee in 2015 shall be $64.00 per ton or $0.032 per pound from
GRE. The disposal cost may be adjusted using a base disposal rate of$2.88 for small; $5.54 medium
and$6.72 for large carts.The new disposal rates are determined by adding the tipping fee per pound to
base rates.The sum of the numbers shall become the disposal rate component for next year.
The Rate to customer is the new hauling rate adjusted for the CPI added to the new disposal rate
modified by GRE or Anoka County-approved alternate location if GRE is no longer a viable option.
Each year,after the Annual Meeting,the new rate will be inserted into the rate table.
C.In the event that RDUs repeatedlv exceed capacitv of MSW cart size by the habitual setting-out of
additional MSW bags,HAilLER'S driver shall urilize a route sheet to record such instances for the
purposes of billing RDU for extra bags. Repeated use of bags of MSW outside of cart will be billed
to RDUs at the rate of$4.00/bag on the next itemized quarterly invoice.
17
158
3.Yard Waste CharQes,Base Rate
The HAULER agrees to charge customers in their district according to the schedule which follows. There
shall be no deviations from these rates. All rates subject to appropriate tax and will be adjusted annually.No
other fees related to the basic yard waste collecrion may be charged to the customer by the HAULER. These
rates shall be multiplied by the CPI-U for all urban consumers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan area
as defined by the BLS for the previous 12-month period and added to the base hauling rates. The product
sha11 become the new base rate for the next year,based upon: http•Uwww.bls.QOV/ro5/cpimpls.htm.
18
159
Attachment A: Fridlev MSW Haulin� and Yard Waste Rates �
naataoo� Y�a
MSW Basic p�ce of Basic MSW bags, Waste l'ard Waste add'1
Y� Service Service per surcharge Price per 12 bags and/or 12
month er ba season bundles
March 1, 30 gal cart $1432 $4.00 N/C
2015 60 al rart $17.45 $4.00
through 90 gal cart $19.13 $4.00 $80.00
Feb.29,
2016
30 gal cart $MSW $4.00 N/C
disposal rate
March 1, +CPI-U
2016 60 gal cart $MSW $4.00 $g0.00+
through disposal rate CPI-U
Feb.28, +CPI-U
2017 90 gal cart $MSW $4.00
disposal rate
+CPI-U
30 gal cart $MSW $4.00 N/C
disposal rate
March 1, +CPI-U Previous
2017 60 gal cart $MSW $4.00
through disposal rate year's
Feb.28, +CPI-U rate+
2018 90 gal cart $MSW $4.00 CPI-U
disposal rate
+CPI-U
Marchl, 30 gal cart $MSW $4.00 N/C
2018 disposal rate
through +CPI-U Previous
Feb.28, 60 gal cart $MSW $4.00
2019 disposal rate year's
+CPI-U rate+
90 gal cart $MSW $4.00 CPI-U
disposal rate
+CPI-U
Marchl, 30 gal cart $MSW $4.00 N/C
2019 disposal rate
through +CPI-U Previous
Feb.29, 60 gal cart $MSW $4.00 year's
2020 disposal rate rate+
+CPI-U CPI-U
90 gal cart $MSW $4.00
disposal rate
+CPI-U
19
160
Attachment B
FRIDLEY MiJNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT
BULKY WASTE ITEM and ADDITIONAL SERVICE CHARGES
Item Char�e per item
WHITE GOODS:
Appliance,large(stoves,refrigerators,dishwasher,oven,washer,dryer) $35.00
Appliance,small $25.00
Air conditioner $25.00
Electronics,with a CRT $25.00
Electronics,Covered Device,oversized TVs-30"or over,console TVs $28.00
Electronics,TVs and monitors under 30"or small aggregated electronics $ 15.00
HOUSEHOLD GOODS:
Mattress or box spring(queen or king size)per piece $25.00
Mattress or box spring(twin bed size)per piece $25.00
Bed frame $ 15.00
Carpet and/or pad,neatly rolled in no larger than 4' long by
18"diameter rolls,dry;per roll $ 15.00
Concrete Laundry Tub $45.00
Toilet $ 15.00
Chair(recliner style or upholstered) $20.00
Chair(kitchen,occasional,office or wood-non-upholstered types) $ 10.00
Wooden Tables,End Tables,Bureaus $ 15.00
Couch $25.00
Love Seat $25.00
Couch with hide-a-bed $35.00
Bed head board/Footboard,Each item $20.00
Bed frame $ 15.00
Dresser,low(waist height) $20.00
Dresser,highboy $20.00
Desk $20.00
Dining Room table $25.00
Kitchen table $25.00
Hutch or dish cabinet $25.00
Book case $25.00
Bathtub,cast iron $45.00
Bathtub, (steel or fiberglass) $45.00
Grill,charcoal $20.00
Grill,gas(no propane tanks) $20.00
Small engines(drained)-lawnmower,snow blower,generator,weed whip $25.00
Tire $ 15.00
Tire with rim $ 15.00
20
161
CHARGES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Valet collection service for handicapped residents $No charge
Cleaning of Refuse cart $ 18.00 per incidence
Refuse Cart Exchange Fee for a larger size cart $ 18.00 per incidence
Within the first 60(sixty)days of service,and thereafter,once annually,residents who wish to downsize
their cart size may do so with no handling charges.
There shall be no charge to remove a cart(without replacement)from a property at any rime during the
Agreement.
21
162
Attachment C
RECYCLING COLLECTION DISTRICTS
Thursday
OSBORNE RD
>
Q
�
�
> `°
� ~
MISSISSIPPI ST
Wednesday
Monday
�°
��
.
¢ �-��
,_s�
�
Z Tuesday
a
�
22
163
Attachment D
HAULER MEMBER COLLECTION DISTRICTS
(�aert�'+�t�sF��)
23
164
Attachment E
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
MSW
HAULER must annually report an estimated tonnage per RDU after any post-collection recyclables have
been removed,based upon daily load weights divided by number of accounts served,using weight estimate
axnounts that are based upon the HAULER's own recent test weights or standard weight estimate provided
by a local govemxnent authority. If the City chooses to conduct sample MSW test weights or waste sorts,it
shall do so at its own expense,compensating HAULER for any route collection delays,with reasonable
notice to the HAULER. .HAULER will cooperate with such analysis.
Christmas Trees
HAULER shall submit Christmas tree quantities picked up for the season to the City Environmental Planner
by March 31 annually. If tonnage is available instead of quantities,that is preferable.
Bulkv Waste Items
A report of all Bulky Waste items that are both collected and recycled by HAULER shall be reported to the
Fridley Environmental Planner semi-annually,including a description of the item(s),quantity of said items
and weight(where available)for Anoka County reporting purposes. The vendors or locations used to
dispose of recyclables must be available to the City upon request.
Y�rd Waste
A report of all Yard Waste items collected from Fridley customers and hauled to an approved compost site
by HAULER shall be reported by weight or cubic yard of material to the Fridley Environmental Planner
semi-annually,for Anoka Counry reporting purposes. When HAULER combines Fridley RDUs' Yard
Waste with that from other communities,HAULER will estimate division of weight based upon the current
number of accounts in each City. The vendors or locations used to dispose of recyclables must be available to
the City upon request.
Account Details
Annually,HALJLER must report to the City the number of total accounts,number of accounts receiving each
level of service,number of yard waste accounts,and number of valet service accounts.
24
165
I
I
�I
Attachment F
City of Fridley Regulatory Guidelines for Solid Waste Management
All parties acknowledge and agree that the following documents,in their entirety,as repealed or as amended,
are in force for the duration of this Agreement.
(A)Anoka County Solid Waste Ordinance
http://www.knowtheflow.us/wu-contenduplo ads/2012/03/Anoka-Countv-Solid-W aste-Ordinance-94-
2.udf
In particular,the end destination for MSW,pages 30 and 31:
Subsection 4. Designation.
A. The Elk River Resource Recovery Facility on 165th Avenue N.W.near Highway 10 in the
City of Elk River,Minnesota,the designated facility,is hereby established as the designated
point of delivery for all designated waste generated in Anoka County.
B. On and after the effective date established by the County Board resolution, all acceptable
waste generated in the County and deposited in the State of Minnesota must be delivered to a
designated facility,and may not be delivered to any other site or facility except as otherwise
provided in this subsection.Nothing in this subsection shall preclude delivery of designated
waste to a privately owned site or facility located within the County for transfer to a
designated facility,provided that the site or facility license specifically permits the receipt of
designate waste.This section is binding on all political subdivisions,landfill operators, 31
waster generators,and haulers in the County.The provisions of this subsection shall be in full
force and effect upon a date to be specified by resolution of the County Board adopted at least
sixty(60)days in advance of the effective date."
(B)Anoka County Solid Waste Management Plan
http://www.anokacountv.us/documentcenter/view/1302
FiAurc 11-1.7'�e solid wute maoagemnt iknre6y of prekrrcd met6ods
Particularly,Goa12,Page 7,Policies 6-8 and the �--
accompanying waste management hierarchy b RedOe
diagram. ; ,�,�,u
c
0
Policy 6: Support the waste management ,�—� re�tk
hierarchy(Figure 1-II-I). Manage waste in m
accordance with the preferred methods in the � ��"�m
waste management hierarchy. °
>
e
W
Policy 7: Implement regional waste management � �,.�e
goals. Manage solid waste in accordance with � ��
the numerical targets identified in the m I w�Y
Metropolitan System Plan,Part Three. � ;
I ""°""
�
Policy 8: Hold parties accountable for results.
Whether public or private,hold the operators 6nserti�ia�1: Solid Waste'�7gmt. Ftierarch� of Prefere-ed n�ethoc6s
of any solid waste system segment responsible
25
166
for meeting the goals of this Plan.
(C)Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:
Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan 2010-2030
Metropolitan System Plan,Part Three
http J/www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?�id=15714
The Metropolitan System Plan provides guidance to all stakeholders responsible for TCMA solid waste
management and was developed in accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. §473.149 subd. 2d. for a
land disposal abatement plan. It describes broad regional system objectives,a landfill diversion goal,and the
strategies necessary far solid waste programs and services to meet the region's needs for the next twenty
years.
qpue s.cost swwKs�in miMlons)«hkwaa en.ou�n smir«..eucdoe
� __ Source Reductia�.•52
�'� '��l.571 `�`
� �
� .
� ,
�
� �
, �e��B.$289 ��
� �
� ,
� �
� ,
� �
' Waste io `
�
', EnerSY.$263 ;
�
,�Organi[s,$21
,� 'P °�,�`
Fnse�-tion E-C'ost Savin�s Achieved tt�rough Source Rec3uction
26
167
Attachment G
Adiusting MSW Disnosal Rates Hauling Cost Generation
Rates may be adjusted for the tetm of the agreement or any extensions.Hauling costs have been calculated
based on the following table:
2015 Cart size 30 allon Cart size 60 allon Cart size 90 allon
Dis osal fees GRE 2.88 5.54 6.72
Collection costs 11.44 11.91 12.41
Taxes applied in addition to applied in addition to applied in addition to
rates rates rates
Please see Attachment A,section 2 for information about adjusting MSW Disposal Rates.
27
168
Attachment H
RDU Delinquent and Suspended Accounts Spreadsheet Format
A.Delinquent Accounts Format
� o
� �
� ° {
d S
�
u � �
�S �
� c
� e
s �
a
h � A
� �
� �
� � O
� '� C
O
Sa �
y ���mppp & �
g � � O
�� � �
a, ��i,
� ° �S
� � $
� 2 �
� �
� �
� �
� � �
� F �
d �
� � �
� � a
� d
d �
� �
� �
� � �
� � �
�
� �
Q
Z $ �
� � �.$
� � �
� g � �
� � � � � �i � a
W �"
m
9 C W r r �_� N �
� Ntyc -
2g
169
B. Suspended Accounts Format
M
8
.�
�
rN
F
�
w
�
�
._
�
r
� �
�
' a
�
�
� � �
� �
� �
�
�
�
x
� �
� � �
,� v
� �
�
� �
� y� �
�i E
��r �
�i �
� � �
� �
� � �
� �
�
• ,,, g
� � �
a :
� .�' �
� �i • � r
= � � 5 � � �
29
170
= AGENDA ITEM
�` � �'t��°r CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
Fridley
DECEMBER 22, 2014
To: Wally Wysopal, City Manager a��
From: Darin R.Nelson,Finance Director �
Date: December 18, 2014
Re: Resolution Certifying the Final Tax Levy for 2015 to the County of Anoka
In conformance with Chapter 275.07, Subd. 1, of the Minnesota Statutes, attached is a resolution certifying
the final tax levy requirements to the Anoka County Auditor.
Chapter 275.07, subd. 1, also requires the City to certify its final tax levy requirements to the County Auditor
by December 29,2014.
The final tax levy for 2015 is$11,734,607,which is the same amount that was set as the preliminary levy
back in August. The 2015 levy is an increase of$223,319 or 1.94%over 2014.
The$11,734,607 is allocated as follows:
General Fund $10,391,563
Capital Project Funds 50,000
Springbrook Nature Center 345,882
Bonded Indebtedness 947,162
Tota12015 Levy $11,734,607
StafF recommends the City Council pass the attached resolution certifying the final tax levy for 2015 to
Anoka County. As a reminder the tax levy must be adopted prior to the adopting the final budget.
171
RESOLUTION NO.2014—
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING FINAL TAX LEVY
REQUIREMENTS FOR 2015 TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA
WHEREAS, Chapter Seven, Section 7.02 of the Charter of the City of Fridley, grants the City
the power to raise money by taxation pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute Chapter 275.07, subd. 1 requires the City to certify its final tax
levy requirements to the County by December 29; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED,that the City of Fridley certify to the County of
Anoka, State of Minnesota,the following final tax levy to be levied in 2014 for collection in the
year 2015:
GENERAL FUND
General Fund $ 10,391,563
CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
I.S.Capital Project Fund 50,000
MARKRT VALUE BASED REFERENDUM LEVY
Springbrook Nature Center $345,882
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
2005A GO Improvement Bonds(Streets 2005) $ 172,195
2006A GO Improvement Bonds(Streets 2006) 207,100
2007A GO Improvement Bonds(Streets 2007) 190,300
2008A GO Improvement Bonds(Streets 2008) 144,697
$714,292
CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS
2010B GO Equipment Certificates(Equip 10&11) 72,923
2012A GO Equipment Certificates(Equip 12&13) 159,947
$232,870
TOTAL ALL FLTNDS $ 11,734,607
Passed and Adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 22nd day of December
2014.
Scott J. Lund,Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra A. Skogen, City Clerk
172
= AGENDA ITEM
; ��r,°f CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
' Fridley
DECEMBER 22, 2014
To: Wa11y Wysopal, City Manager�
From: Darin R. Nelson, Finance Director �
Date: December 18,2014
Re: Resolution adopting a budget for 2015 and a revised budget for 2014
At the council meeting on December 8,2014, staff presented the proposed budget far 2015 along with a
revised budget for 2014. That agenda item was considered the public meeting for citizens to publicly
comment on the budget. There were no suggested modifications to the budget at that time.
There have been three minor modifications to the revised 2014 budget since that meeting. These
modifications are needed to better reflect actual activity taking place throughout the year. The first change
includes an additional$24,000 for the Building Inspections' Division for contracted services related the
additional need for building inspection services. This cost was already considered in the 2015 budget,but
was underestimated in the preliminary 2014 revised budget.
The second change includes an additional $32,600 in personnel costs for the Planning Division. This
additional expenditure is needed to reflect 50%of the environxnental planner's time being chazged to the
Planning Division. The 2014 original budget had 100% environmental planner's time allocated to the Solid
Waste Abatement Fund. The 2015 budget accounts for the labor distribution to the correct funds and
divisions. .
The final change increases the expenditures within the Recreation Division's budget by$16,800 for supplies
and other services &charges. These additional expenditures are offset by donations received in 2014 along
with donations carried forwazd from 2013.
The budget process is a multistep process that started back in the spring with the preparation of the Capital
Improvements Plan(CIP). The Council has participated in three budget related work sessions throughout the
yeaz. In addition,the Council passed a preliminary budget and levy along with the CIP back at the end of
August. The final step in the process is approving the budget.
This budget includes both a 2015 budget along with a revised 2014 budget. The revised 2014 budget is
needed to account for changes in estimates to both revenues and expenditures for various funds.
The budget document is included as part of the agenda packet and will be part of the official record and on
file with the City Clerk's office. The budget, CIP and annual financial report is available on the City's
website.
Staff recommends approval of the resolution adopting a budget for 2015 and a revised budget for 2014.
173
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2015 AND A REVISED
BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2014
WHEREAS,The City Manager and Finance Director have presented to the City Council a proposed
2015 Budget and a revised 2014 Budget as stipulated by Chapter 7, Section 7.04 of the City Charter,
and
WHEREAS,The City Council has held a public meeting and has concluded the budget as prepared
is appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Fridley that the 2015
Budget and the 2014 are hereby approved and adopted with the official copy being on file with the
City Clerk.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCII, OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22
DAY OF DECEMBER,2014.
SCOTT J.LUND-MAYOR
ATTEST:
DEBRA A. SKOGEN- CITY CLERK
174
. !�
, � �� ��, ��
�� I_�
, � _�.-;e s����� �,.:�.
C�tt��� c:rl�`
.
: . . Frld�.e
�_
� Y
u e
Fridley, Minnesota
Adopted 12/22/2014
City Council: Staff:
Scott Lund, Mayor Wally Wysopal, City Manager
Robert Bamette, Councilmember at Large Don Abbott, Public Safety Director
James Saeflce, Councilmember Ward 1 John Berg, Fire Chief
Dolores Varichak, Councilmember Ward 2 Deborah Dahl, Human Resources Director
Ann Boikcom, Counciimember Ward 3 Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Jack Kirk,Parks&Recreation Director
Jim Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Darin Nelson, Finance DirectorlTreasurer
175
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary
Elected8 Appointed Officials..................................................................................................... 4
Consolidated Budgets Summary-All Funds............................................................................... 5
2015 Consolidated Budgets-All Funds...................................................................................... 6
General Fund Revenues&Expenditures..................................................................................... 7
GeneralFund Revenue Recap.................................................................................................... 8
GeneralFund Expenditure Recap..............................................................................................., 9
2015 General Fund Operating Revenues 8�Expenditures............................................................... 11
TaxLevies................................................................................................................................ 12
General Fund
General Government:
CityCouncil........................................................................................................................ 13
CityManagement.................................................................................................................. 14
HumanResources............................................................................................................... 15
CityClerk/Reconis............................................................................................................... 16
Elections.......................................................................................................................... 17
Legal................................................................................................................................ 18
Accounting.......................................................................................................................... 19
Assessing........................................................................................................................... 20
Management Information Systems(MIS)......:......................................................................... 21
Public Safety:
Police................................................................................................................................., 22
EmergencyManagement........................................................................................................ 23
Fire...................................................................................................................................... 24
Public Works:
MunicipalCenter................................................................................................................... 25
Engineering ......................................................................................................................... 26
Lighting....................................................................................................................................... 27
ParkMaintenance............................................................................................................... 28
StreetMaintenance.............................................................................................................. 29
Garage................................................................................................................................ 30
Parks 8 Recreation
Recreation.......................................................................................................................... 31
Community Development:
BuildingInspections............................................................................................................ 32
Planning............................................................................................................................. 33
RentalInspections............................................................................................................... 34
Generai Government:
Emergency.:........................................................................................................................ 35
Non-Departmental................................................................................................................ 36
176
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGE7
SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Speciai Revenue Funds
CableTV.............................................................................................................................. 37
GrantManagement..........................................................................................:..................... 38
SolidWaste Abatement.......................................................................................................... 39
SpringbrookNature Center..................................................................................................... 40
Capital Projects Funds
CapitalEquipment................................................................................................................. 41
InformationSystems.............................................................................................................. 43
StreetImprovement............................................................................................................... 44
ParksImprovement.........................:....................................................................................... 45
BuildingsImprovement........................................................................................................... 46
Enterp�ise Funds
Water................................................................................................................................... 47
SanitarySewer........................................... .....................................................................�. 48
StormWater......................................................................................................................... 49
Municial Liquor................................................................................................................... 50
Appendix
StafFingLevels-2014�2015.....................................................................................:................ 51
BudgetCalendar.........................................................................:............................................. 52
177
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
Elected and Appointed Officials
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Term of Office
Expires December
Effective January 2014
Mayor Scott J.Lund 2016
Councilmember At Large Robert L. Barnette 2016
Counciimember,Ward I James T.Saeflce 2014
Councilmember,Ward II Dolores M.Varichak 2014
Councilmember,Ward III Ann R. Bolkcom 2014
Effective January 2015
Mayor Scott J.Lund 2016
Councilmember At Large Robert L. Bamette 2016
Councilmember,Ward I James T. Saeflce 2018
Councilmember,Ward II Dolores M.Varichak 2018
Councilmember,Ward III Ann R. Bolkcom 2018
APPOINTED OFFICIALS
City Manager Walter T.Wysopal
City Attorney Darcy M. Erickson
Prosecuting Attorney Carl J. Newquist
City Clerk Debra A. Skogen
Department Heads:
Finance DirectorlTreasurer Darin R. Nelson
Director of Public Safery and Emergency Management Donovan W.Abbott
Fire Chief John D.Serg
Director of Public Works James P. Kosluchar
Director of Parks and Recreation Jack G. Kirk
Director of Community Development Scott J. Hickok
Director of Human Resources Deborah K. Dahl
4
178
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
CONSOLIDATED BUDGETS SUMMARY-ALL FUNDS
2014 2015
Revised Budget
Revenues
General Property Taxes $ 10,643,300 $ 10,862,5Q0
User Fees&Charges 17,539,800 18,200,300
Licenses and Permits 974,700 895,400
Intergovemmental Revenue 3,670,200 4,104,700
Other Income 1,343,000 4,354,100
Other Sources-Bond Proceeds 4,215,000 -
Tota/Revenue a 38,386,000 s 38,417,000
Exnenditures
By Program:
Public Safety $ 7,191,900 $ 8,090,800
Public Works 18,401,000 16,503,600
Parks&Recreation 1,671,600 4,915,500
Community Development 1,650,400 1,551,900
General Govemment 8,660,800 9,341,800
Total Expend/tures by Program $ 37,575,700 $ 40,403,600
By Category:
Personnel $ 14,571,500 $ 14,748,500
Supplies 1,300,100 1,250,900
Services&Charges 11,506,400 12,399,700
Capital Outlay 8,821,500 10,365,400
Other Financing Uses/Debt Service 1,376,200 1,639,100
Tota/Expenditures by Catego 'ry S 37,575,700 $ 40,�03,600
5
179
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
� SUMMARY
2015 CONSOLIDATED BUDGETS - ALL FUNDS
Revenues
Other Income
11%
y,, ,,.
General
� '� �� Property Taxes
Intergov'tal � 28%
11%
Licenses and_
�
Permits � >Y`���'�'�;��,
� Y �
2% $� � ��` 3
,�� �"
� ,a ,.�� ��.z � �-�'"
'_t' ��i �� ta.;
User Fees& �
Charges
48%
Expenditures by Program
Generai Public Safety
Government 1� 20%
23%
Community
Development
4%
Parks&
Recreation
12% Public Works
41%
Expenditures by Category
Other Financing
Uses/Debt
Service
4%
Capital Outlay
26%
Personnel
- - 36%
��r:
� � ,�
�
Services&
Charges � � ���Supplies
31% 3�
6
180
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
GENERAL FUND REVENUES &EXPENDITURES
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
REVENUES
General PropertyTaxes $ 9,641,494 $ 9,787,289 $ 10,128,992 $ 10,129,000 $ 10,466,600
Licenses 8�Pertnits 851,976 858,310 875,200 974,700 895,400
Intergovernmental 874,778 909,807 826,700 1,040,100 883,000
Charges for Services 1,972,076 2,079,417 2,146,710 2,162,700 1,902,000
Fines$Forfeitures 170,427 180,815 163,000 190,000 195,000
Special Assessments 39,851 30,765� 44,100 36,400 27,200
Miscellaneous 352,635 229,132 220,000 208,200 240,100
Transfers 600,000 641,000 673,306 673,300 569,600
Total Revenues $ 14,50S,23T a 14,716,533 $ 15,078,008 a 15,414,400 $ 15,1T8,900
EXPENDITURES
Legislative $ 120,873 $ 124,197 $ 129,739 $ 929,900 $ 134,000
General Management 285,200 257,375 341,810 341,700 382,700
Human Resources 198,681 204,684 236,016 206,400 244,700
City Clerk(Records - - 113,059 113,100 104,900
Elections - - 52,325 58,700 6,700
Legal 402,952 402,384 426,385 426,400 432,400
City Managemenf $ 886,833 $ 864,443 $ 9,169,595 $ 1,146,300 $ 1,171,400
Elections 42,284 5,665 - - -
Accounting 673,112 697,032 662,554 670,600 691,800
Assessing 197,536 207,376 254,057 268,200 269,800
M1S 268,130 257,526 274,092 270,100 308,50Q
City Cierk/Records 158,438 148,678 - - -
Finance $ 1,339,500 $ 1,316,277 $ 1,190,703 $ 1,208,900 $ 1,270,100
Police 5,072,240 5,350;589 5,476,449 5,494,100 5,758,800
Emergency Management 17,544 20,044 80,100 19,600 17,000
Police $ 5,089,784 $ 5,370,633 $ 5,556,549 $ 5,513,70U $ 5,775,800
Fire 1,170,304 1,171,391 1,254,615 1,255,200 1,325,100
Rental Inspections 138,379 124,214 - - -
F�� $ 1,308,683 $ 1,295,605 $ 1,254,615 $ 1,255,200 $ 1,325,100
Municipal Center 231,343 228,573 224,761 224,900 318,200
Engineering 530,775 562,977 664,601 664,500 288,800
Lighting 228,115 248,743 224,500 224,500 265,800
Park Maintenance 866,130 873,4U4 934,125 934,100 911,000
Street Maintenance 984,959 1,154,152 1,022,111 1,022,000 1,041,800
Garage 411,291 436,009 447,184 446,900 445,100
Public Woriks $ 3,252,613 $ 3,503,858 $ 3,517,282 $ 3,516,900 .$ 3,270,700
Parks&Recreation $ 810,571 $ 847,746 $ 897,035 $ 923,800 $ 898,100
Inspections 325,533 337,398 343,291 398,900 452,900
Planning 446,537 480,513 487,941 520,700 516,000
Rentallnspect9ons - - 175,094 175,400 167,300
CommunityDevelopment $ 772,070 $ 817,911 $ 1,006,326 $ �,095,000 $ 1,136,200
Reserve - - , , ,
Non-Departmental , . � • �
Tota/Expenditures � 13,607,462 � 14,298,443 � 15,044,444 3 15,112,300 a 15,178,900
Surplus of Revenues over
Expenditures 895,775 418,092 33,564 302,100 -
BeglnMng Fund Ba/ance _ 6,773,554 7,669,322 8,087,414 8,087,414 8,389,514_
Endfng Fund Ba/ance $ 7,669,322 � 8,087,414 $ 8,120,978 � 8,389,514 $ 8,389,514
7
181
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
GENERAL FUND REVfNUES
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Taxes
General PropertyTaxes $ 9,608,310 $ 9,759,701 $ 10,103,992 $ 10,104,000 $ 10,441,600
Penalty on Delinquent Taxes 33,184 27,588 25,000 25,000 25,000
Subtotal, Taxes $ 9,641,494 $ 9,787,289 $ 10,928,992 $ 10,129,000 $ 10,466;fi00
Licenses&Permits
Licenses $ 281,724 $ 275,017 $ 273,400 $ 308,400 $ 290,800
Permits 570,252 583,293 601,800 666,300 604,600
Subtotal,Licenses&Permits $ 851,976 $ 858,310 $ 875,200 $ 974,700 $ 895,400
Intergovernmental
Federal Grants�Aids $ 111,940 $ 57,373 $ 32,300 $ 76,800 $ 58,000
State Grants&Aids 762,838 852,434 794,400 963,300 825,000
Subtotal, Intergovemmental $ 874,778 $ 909,807 $ 826,700 $ 1,040,100 $ 883,000
Charges For Services
Reimbursements $ 28,556 $ 25,059 $ 13,500 $ 16,500 $ 15,000
HRA 201,700 205,700 209,800 209,800 214,000
Cable TV 64,300 65,60U 67,000 67,000 83,300
Water Fund (Admin&Ops) 269,700 275,100 280,600 280,600 258,100
Sewer Fund (Admin&Ops) 261,000 266,200 271,500 271,500 248,800
Storm Fund 240,400 245,200 250,100 250,100 28,100
Liquor Fund 85,200 86,900 86,900 86,900 -
Antenna Rental Fee 286,096 290,889 386,000 386,000 386,000
Other 2,887 2,898 2,500 2,500 2,400
Public Safety 286,171 356,687 314,210 347,000 415,700
Public Works 7,886 15,559 32,900 29,300 31,300
Community Development 7,833 18,684 12,200 12,200 12,800
Recreation 230,347 224,941 219,500 203,300 206,500
Subtotai, ChargesforServices $ 1,972,076 $ 2,079,417 $ 2,146,710 $ 2,162,700 $ 1,902,000
Fines 8 Forfeitures $ 170,427 $ 180,815 $ 163,000 $ 190,000 $ 195,000
Special Assessments $ 39,851 $ 30,765 $ 44,100 $ 36,400 $ 27,200
Miscelianeous $ 352,635 $ 229,132 $ 220,000 $ 208,200 $ 240,100
Other Financtng Sources
Liquor Fund $ 350,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 88,600
Closed Debt Service Fund 250,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000
CIP-Streets - 41,000 41,000 41,000 131,000
Close Out FCC Donations - - - 32,300 -
Close Out Section 8 - 1 32,306 - -
Subtotal, OfherFinancing Sources $ 600,000 $ 641,000 $ 673,306 $ 673,300 $ 569,600
TOTAL REVENUES a 14,503,237 $ 14,716,535 � 15,078,008 $ 15,414,400 $ 15,178,900
8
182
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Fulf Time Employee-Reguiar $ 6,015,550 $ 6,187,029 $ 7,599,851 $ 7,603,200 $ 7,748,800
Fult Time Employee-Overtime 304,327 360,680 300,059 343,800 294,000
Temporary Employee-Regular 885,562 843,583 914,990 906,800 884,900
Temporary Employee-Overtime 3,375 2,888 3,000 1,300 2,000
Employee Leave 1,043,991 1,099,198 - - -
Medicare Contribution 116,674 122,676 127,149 127,400 125,900
PERA Contribution 805,443 825,965 914,343 916,800 950,700
Social Security Contribution 288,392 307,057 308,825 309,400 294,600
Fire Pension Contribution 105,103 143,739 140,700 137,000 -
Defened Comp-457 Contribution 12,875 2,121 5,209 5,200 4,100
Health Insurance 646,676 727,114 758,034 750,300 810,900
Dentallnsurance 15,353 15,035 76,136 16,000 16,700
Life Insurance 13,840 12,310 6,337 6,500 6,100
Cash Benefit 253,640 276,378 263,176 263,200 291,000
Unemployment Compensation 10,966 17,790 - - -
� Worker's Compensation 176,798 163,396 185,615 185,500 159,900
Work Order Transfer-Labor (10,219) (8,137) - - -
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES �$ 10,688,346 $ 11,098,822 $ 11,543,424 $ 11,572,400 $ 11,589,600
SUPPLIES
Fuels&Lubes $ 255,921 $ 274,316 $ 259,921 $ 284,300 $ 288,400
Clothing/Laundry Allowance 64,739 71,207 77,245 89,200 88,500
O�ce Supplies 21,819 23,782 27,528 25,400 25,100
Operating Supplies 115,981 136,700 123,584 172,600 102,900
Supplies for Repair&Maintenance 191,629 240,718 230,000 217,500 233,000
Small Tools&Minor Equipment 38,233 64,043 42,200 46,400 42,600
Work Order Transfer-Parts 97,083 150,961 105,275 110,400 108,300
TOTAL SUPPLIES $ 785,405 $ 961,727 $ 865,753 $ 945,800 $ 888,800
OTHER SERVICES 8�CHARGES
Professional Services $ 575,629 $ 538,739 $ 593,230 $ 624,700 $ 636,200
Dues&Subscription 44,548 50,277 51,435 53,600 54,600
Communication 123,618 144,435 164,373 166,200 193,500
Transportation 15,152 19,287 18,935 18,200 20,800
Advertising 13,550 14,661 13,950 12,000 12,400
Printing&Binding 49,514 52,019 56,200 56,400 51,300
Insurance,Non-personnel 118,030 90,649 92,462 58,600 58,300
Conferences 8�Schools 38,179 5.8,827 143,363 103,000 115,100
Utility Services 325,712 366,660 345,060 342,900 374,200
IS Fund Charge 71,390 - - - -
Services Contracted,Non-Prof. 632,977 632,396 687,353 750,300 798,500
Rentals 15,455 12,972 14,18U 13,500 14,700
Miscellaneous 2,606 3,363 123,400 123,200 123,200
Bad Check Expense - - - ' '
Payments to Other Agencies 83,188 89,931 96,326 96,500 247,70D
TOTAL OTHER SERV/CES&
CHARGES $ 2,109,548 $ 2,074,216 $ 2,400,267 $ 2,419,100 $ 2,700,500
9
183
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
2012 2013 2074 2014 2015
Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
CAPITAL OUTLAY
Machinery $ 11,333 $ 18,626 $ 60,000 $ - $ -
Fumiture&Fixtures - - - - -
TOTi�L CAPITAL�UTLAY $ 11,333 $ 18,626 $ 60,000 $ - $ -
OTHER FINANCING USES
Operating Transfers $ - $ 145,052 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND $ 13,594,632 $ 14,298,443 3 15,044,444 $ 15,112,300 s 15,178,900
� 10
184
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
2015 GENERAL FUND
OPERATING REVENUES 8� EXPENDITURES
Revenues
Licenses&
Permits 6% Intergov'tal 6%
Charges For
Services 12%
�Other 3%
Taxes 69%
Transfers 4°/,
Expenditures by Program
Fire
9%
Police
37%
Public Works
24%
Financ,e Parks 8 Rec
8% 6%
City Comm
Mgm't Other Dev
7% 2% 7%
Expenditures by Category
Supplies
6%
�thE�SBNICCS$
Charges
18%
Personal Services
76%
11
185
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
TAX LEVIES
Percent
2013 2014 2015 Change
General Fund $ 9,972,346 $ 10,053,992 $ 10,391,563 3.36%
Capital Equipment Fund - 175,000 - -100.00%
I.S.Capital Projects Fund - - 50,000 100.00%
Springbrook Nature Center Fund 331,700 339,300 345,882 1.94%
Debt Service 948,435 942,996 947,162 0.44%
Tota/Tax Levy $ 11,252,481 a 11,511,288 $ 11,734,607 1.94%
10-Year Levy Comparison
Sla,000,000
S12,000,000
� -
r �
Slo,000,000 — — �—
� —
;_� ., f.
�wwr� �� `
$s,000,000 �
S6,000,000
Sa,000,000
Sz,000,000
So
8.569�0 5.179� 3.55% -0.57% 6.849�0 3.85'Yo 1.91�Y 5.13% 2.30�0 1.94%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
E General Fund Capital Improvement Fund s Capital Equipment
`Springbrook Nature Center � Debt Service I.S.Capital Projects
12
186
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Legislative
Division: City Council
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 92,558 $ 96,391 $ 98,543 $ 98,700 $ 100,200
Supplies 23 191 800 800 800
Other Services&Charges 28,292 27,615 30,396 30,400 33,000
Totals $ 120,873 $ 124,197 $ 129,739 $ 129,900 $ 134,000 �
'�
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 120,873 $ 124,197 $ 129,739 $ 129,900 $ 134,000
Number of Elected Offictals 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Description of Services:
The City Councii sets policy for the City within guidelines of the City Charter and provides administrative
directives through the office of the City Manager.The Council has two regular meetings scheduled each month
for purposes of setting policy and other official business of the City. Four commissions submit advice to the City ,
Council.They are as follows: Planning,Appeals, Parks 8�Recreation and Environmental Quality&Energy.The
Charter is a semi-autonomous body in charge of reviewing and setting the govemance rules of the City whose
members are appointed by the Chief District Judge.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures:
Council/Conference meetings 28 29 30 30
CounciUComm survey meetings 3 3 2 2
Local Board of Appeai and
Equalization meetings 2 2 2 2
Joint meeting with Fridley School Board 0 0 0 1
Council Business Survey meeting 0 0 0 1
Buds�et CommentsAssues:
• Includes re-establishing funding for Mediation Services for$3,000 as civil disputes are often encouraged to
be taken here.
13
187
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: City Management
Division: General Management
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 223,782 $ 175,400 $ 239,333 $ 239,300 $ 279,100
Supplies 2,729 2,862 3,250 3,100 3,100
Other Services&Charges 58,689 79,113 99,227 99,300 100,500
Totals $ 285,200 $ 257,375 $ 349,810 $ 341,700 $ 382,700
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 285,200 $ 257,375 $ 341,810 $ 341,700 $ 382,700
Number of Employees(FTEs) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Descriation of Services:
The City Manager provides general administrative supervision of all City Departments.This role includes review
and approval of budgets,the hiring 8�firing of empioyees and the development of policy recommendations for the
City Council.The City Manager's office also prepares Council agendas and has responsibility for communication
with staff,the City Council,the general public and other govemmental agencies.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures:
Agendas for Ciry Council meetings 25 23 24 24
Ciry newsletters 6 6 6 6
City Council/Commission Sunrey 1 1 0 0
Citizen Sunrey N/A N/A 1 0
Business survey 0 0 0 1
SWOT planning with Council&staff N/A 1 1 1
Business retention visits N/A N/A 24 24
14
188
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: City Management
Division: Human Resources
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 189,110 $ 196,648 $ 195,075 $ 195,100 $ 203,400
Suppties 2,157 1,231 2,600 2,6d0 3,000
Other Services&Charges 7,414 6,805 38,341 8,700 38,300
Tota/s $ 198,681 $ 204,684 $ 236,016 $ 206,400 $ 244,7Q0
Method of Financing
y General Fund $ 198,681 $ 204,684 $ 236,016 $ 206,400 $ 244,700
Number of Empioyees(FTEs� 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Descriqtion of Services:
Establishes and maintains the personnel policies for the city.Address all human resource matters including
recruitment,employee benefits, personnel guidelines, labor negotiations,and OSHA conformance.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Recruitment-City Position Filled
Full-time(Authorized) 3 12 10 10
Part-time/Seasonal* 46 48 45 50
Health Insurance-°lo increase in Premiums 15.4% 6.4°Jo 12.0% 12%
Workers Compensation
Workers Comp Mod Factor*' 0.86 0.80 0.90 0.90
Number of Workers Comp Claims 12 12 15 15
Total Cost of Workers Comp Claims $75,796 $60,000 $70,000 $70,000
* -Excfudes 102 Election Judges in 2012
*"-A mod faotor of 1.0 is cflnsidered the norm
Budaet Comments/lssues:
• Proposed pay upgrade for HR Assistant to take on additional responsibilities in benefd admin
• Supervisory development training initiated
• Regular compensation plan review and adjustments
15
189
CITY OF FRiDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
Department: City Management
Division: City Clerk/Records
2012 ' 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 138,552 $ 110,424 $ 92,443 $ 92,500 $ 94,000
Supplies 1,060 1,363 1,700 1,700 1,500
Other Services&Charges 18,826 36,891 18,916 18,900 9,400
Totals $ 158,438 $ 148,678 $ 113,059 $ 113,100 $ 104,900
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 158,438 $ 148,678 $ 113,059 $ 113,100 $ 104,900
Number of Employees (FTEs) 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Descriction of Services:
Administers&supervises:the city's records management program and document imaging system, MN Data
Practices Act, business licensing and telephone/voicemail system. Maintain City Code and City Charter; monitor
local and state legislation; provide research and analysis services,draft city ordinances, resolutions, policy and
procedures; provide general information to public officials,general public and city personnel on regulations and
polices of the city;serve as liaison to the City Charter Commission and Twin Cities Gateway Tourism, Notary,and
special projects as assigned.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Projected
Kev Measures:
#of Business/Liq Licenses Processed 277 260 260 250
3% Lawful Gambling Tax Received $61,123 $60,000 $60,000 $58,000
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
• Create oniine business license foRn and workflow for license processing.
• Inventory paper records and update database.After inventory purge, scan records to create paperless
environment.
16
190
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: City Management
Divfsion: Elections
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 38,379 $ 242 $ 43,719 $ 50,100 $ -
Supplies 1;262 1,092 1,200 1,200 400
Other Services&Charges 2,643 4,331 7,406 7,400 6,300
Tofals $ 42,284 $ 5,665 $ 52,325 $ 58,700 $ 6,700
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 42,284 $ 5,665 $ 52,325 $ 58,700 $ 6,700
Number of Employees(FTEs� 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Descrintion of Services:
Administers elections and works to minimize any delays experienced by voters.They serve as an important
impartial authority for encouraging voter registration,for recruiting and assigning election judges;assisting in
the accuracy of the voting equipment, county of ballots and certification of elections results and petitions.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Registered Voters on Election Day 18,266 N/A 16,500 N/A
Percentage of Voter Tumout 79% N/A 65% N/A
#of Absentee Ballot Voters 512 N/A 550 N/A
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
• Monitoring election legislation through the LMC and MCFOA
• 2015 is a non-election year
• Third year of equipment/maintenance service agreement with Anoka County.
17
191
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANIVUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: City Management
Division: Legal
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnei $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _
Supplies - - - - _
Other Services&Charges $ 402,952 $ 402,384 $ 426,385 $ 426,400 $ 432,400
Capital Outlay - - - - -
Other Financing Uses - - - - -
Totals $ 402,952 $ 402,384 $ 426,385 $ 426,400 $ 432,400
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 402,952 $ 402,384 $ 426,385 $ 426,400 $ 432,400
Number of Employees(FTEs)
Descriation of Services:
Provides legal councii to the City Council, City Commissions,and City staff on municipal questions and also
prosecutes criminal offenses.Two local firms provide legal services.The City Attomey attends Council
meetings, provides legal opinions, and aids in the development of ordinances and resolutions.The Prosecuting
Attorney prosecutes criminal offenses on behalf of the City.
J
18
192
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Finance
Divislon: Accounting
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 608,573 $ 630,498 $ 600,765 $ 600,700 $ 605,700
Supplies 8,425 6,943 7,638 6,400 6,400
Other Services&Charges 56,114 59,591 54,151 63,500 79,700
Totals $ 673,112 $ 697,032 $ 662,554 $ 670,600 $ 691,800
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 673,112 $ 697,032 $ 662,554 $ 670,600 $ 691,800
Number of Employees(FTEs) 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5
Descrintion of Services:
Responsible for the supervision,administration,and planning of the Citys financial activities.These activities
include:financial reporting, utitity billing&collections, revenue collections, investments,debt management, risk
management, grant management,budget preparation,and municipal off-sale liquor operations.The Finance
Director/Treasurer and other staff members provide financial informafion to the City Council,the City Manager and
all departments.Also provide financial services to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment in the maintenance of
tax increment data records.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures:
#of employees paid "453 296 *492 300
#of utility accts changing ownership 358 434 367 400
#of utility accts enrolled in autopay 535 554 636 650
City-wide debt balance $14.7mi1 $13.1mi1 $11.4mi1 $9.6mi1
#of prope►ties special assessed 921 805 691 725
"election year for payroll
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
• In 2015 there is a shift of finacial software maintenance costs from the IT Capital Projects Fund to individual
departments. The Accounting Division's maintenance costs amount to approximately$24,000.
• In 2015,theAccounting Division will be going live with a new financial system. Anticipated go-live dates are
expected to be in late Quarter 2 to early Quarter 3. This new financial system will replace the current system that
has been inplace for close to 25 years.
19
193
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Finance
Division: Assessing
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised � Budget
Personnel $ 184,335 $ 203,162 $ 245,445 $ 245,500 $ 260,400
Supplies 317 227 450 2,000 1,200
. Other Services&Charges 12,884 3,987 8,162 20,700 8,200
Tota/s $ 197,536 $ 207,376 $ 254,057 $ 268,200 $ 269,800
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 197,536 $ 207,376 $ 254,057 $ 268,200 $ 269,800
Number of Employees(FTEs) 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Descriation of Services:
Implements the State of Minnesota's property tax statues as they apply to the City of Fridley.Classifies all taxable
property and determines the apprised value of all real property within the City.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures�
Total Market Value $2.28 billion $2.06 billion 1.95 billion 2.26 billion
Sales Ratio(State mandates 90-105%) 94.6 94.3 94.5 95.0
Tax Court Petitions 63 51 39 35
All Property Sales Jan 1 -Dec 31 388 392 395 425
Bud�et Comments/lssues:
• The City continues to have a number of tax court petitions which become unable to be resolved and require
outside independent appraisals,which subsequently impacts the Other Services&Charges budget category. For
2014,we are estimating$12,000 in contracted appraisal costs.
20
194
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
Department: Finance
Division: Management Information Systems(MIS)
2012 2013 2014 2074 2075
Expenditures by Cate9orY Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 210,856 $ 222,318 $ 218,152 $ 218,200 $ 224,500
Supplies 3,000 1,273 4,100 7,400 3,500
Other Services�Charges 54,274 33,935 51,840 44,500 80,500
Totals $ 268,130 $ 257,526 $ 274,092 $ 270,100 $ 308,500
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 268,130 $ 257,526 $ 274,092 $ 270,900 $ 308,500
Number of Employees(FTEs) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Descriution of Services:
Provides information system support, networking support and application development for all city departments.
Also coordinates the city's use of information technology through long-range planning and policy development and
facilitates communication between the city and its citizens through development of the citys website.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures:
Requests for Service 239 500 880 900
Avg Days to Close Service Request 27 17 10 8
%of Requests Closed Within 1 Day 47% 47% 38% 50%
Long-term Projects 4 11 3 3
Users Supported - - 155 160
Devices Supported 215 255 325 360
Bud�et Comments/issues:
• Rise in Communications(4332)budget due primarily to addition of secondary Internet service through
Metroinet.
• Rise in Services Contracted Non-Professional budget due to actual managed print history (vs. estimated),
additional nefinrork device maintenance coverage due to expansion of WAN,and shifting of costs from the City
Clerk Division and I.T. Capital Projects Fund for maintenance of various software packages,including Lasertiche
and VMWare.
• Number of projects undertaken in 2014 and 2015 reduced due to size of Financial System and Police 2FA �
projects.
21
195
C4TY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
Department: Police
Division: Police
2012 2013 2014 � 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 4,578,675 $ 4,817,910 $ 4,936,509 $ 4,949,300 $ 5,217,300
Supplies 238,684 266,96� 245,000 272,100 235,500
Other Services&Charges 254,881 255,725 294,940 272,700 � 306,000
CapitalOutlay - 9.2� ' " -
Tota/s $ 5,072,240 $ 5,349,883 � 5,476,449 $ 5,494,100 $ 5,758,800
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 5,072,240 $ 5,349,883 $ 5,476,449 $ 5,494,100 $ 5,758,800
Number of Employees(FTEs)
Swom Officers: 38.00 38.00 39.00 40.Q0 41.00
Civilian Staff: 12.55 12.55 11.60 11.60 11.60
Descriation of Services:
The mission of the Police Department is to promote a safe and desirable city by partnering with the community
to preserve tife,protect property and defend rights.
The Police Department provides professional police and emergency services to the community. Primary
activities include enforcement�f iaws of the state and city,investigation of crimes and apprehension of
violators,enforcement of traffic laws for the safe,expeditious movement of tra�c and reduction of traffic
accidents, promotion of crime prevention,and�esponse to medical emergencies.The Police Department
collaborates with local school districts to provide officers in schools as a liaison and mentor to youth.The
department maintains a close liaison with other law enforcement agencies and provides an officer to the Anoka-
Hennepin Narcotics and Violent Crime Task Force.The Police Department uses contemporary strategies to
solve neiahborhood�roblems and concems while�lacina an emnhasis on buildina communitv oartnershios.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Calls for Service 20,791 21,217 21,230 21,275
Criminal offenses-Part I 1,313 1,339 1,311 1,320
Criminal offenses-Part 1f 1,977 1,989 1,917 1,875
Physical A�ests . 1,133 1,344 1,200 1,200
Traffic Violations 2,590 2,826 2,550 2,600
Budaet Comments/lssues:
• 2015 Full Time Employee Regular increase reflects reinstatement of one Licensed Police Officer position to
enhance patrol coveraqe.
• 2014 Revised Full Time Employees-Overtime reflects increase for AN patrol that will be reimbursed from a
� 2013 Justice Assistance Grant(JAG)award.
•2014 Revised Supplies-$11,000 ammunition purchase planned for 2015 out of Operating Supplies was
made in Sept 2014 due to market availabiliry.
.2014 Revised reflects increase in Small Tools and Operating Suppfies for equipment purchases that wi11 be
reimbursed from a 2014 Justice Assistance Grant(JAG)award and from the Drug Task Force.
• 2014&2015 Professional services-Increase Network Med'+cs IT contract for work on squad mobile IT
systems.
• 2015 Communication increase reflects costs to meet Federal requirement for twafactor authentication of
users on mobile systems that access criminal justice data nefinrorks, new Public Safety Data System charges,
and additional cellular services.
•2015 Payments to Other Agencies increase reflects new contribution to Alexandra House domestic abuse
program.
22
196
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Police
Divis(on: Emergency Management
2012 2073 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personne� $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Supplies 5,085 2,573 3,178 3,200 3,200
Other Services&Charges 12,459 17,471 16,922 16,400 13,800
CapitalOutlay - - 60,000 - -
Totals $ 17,544 $ 20,044 $ 80,100 $ 19,600 $ 17,000
Method of Financing
Generai Fund $ 17,544 $ 20,044 $ 80,100 $ 19,600 $ 17,000
Number of Employees(FTEs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Descriation of Services:
The Emergency Management Division of the Police Department is responsible for planning and implementing
response to local,regionat or national emergencies or disasters in accordance with State and Federal guidelines.
In addition to creating and maintaining an Emergency Operations Plan,the Division is responsible for training
personnel for emergencies,support of a corps of volunteer Reserve Officers available to assist Department
operations in emergencies, maintaining an outdoor emergency waming system,and operation of an Emergency
Operations Center.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Volunteer Reserve Officer Hours 3,053 2,899 2,000 2,000
Buds�et Comments/lssues:
• 2015 Services Contracted decrease reflects reduction in emergency warning siren maintenance and repair
costs due to system replacement in 2014.
23
197
CITY OF FR4DLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Fire
Division: Fire
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 1,004,487 $ 1,005,149 $ 1,089,179 $ 1,085,400 $ 1,008,800
Supplies 85,620 86,384 78,511 89,900 91,8Q0
Other Services&Charges 80,187 79,858 88,925 79,900 224,500
i'otals $ 1,170,304 $ 1,171,391 $ 9,254,615 $ 1,255,200 $ 1,325,100
Method of Financing --
General Fund $ 1,170,304 $ 1,171,391 $ 1,254,615 $ 1,255,200 $ 1,325,100
Number of Employees(FTEs) 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.6 8.0
Descriqtion of Services:
The Fire Department provides emergency response service for ali hazards including but not limited to fires,
medical emergencies, rescues and accidental releases of hazardous materials.The Department also conducts
fire code compliance inspections and reviews building plans for code compliance. Its community support
programs include:annuat fire prevention training for efementary school students,fire education t�aining for groups
and businesses,and part+cipation in neighborhood and youth programs.The Department is dispatched by Anoka
County and participates in an automatic aid system with three area fire departments and a statewide mutual aid
system. Fire personnel are on duty 24 hours per day and the staff consists of full-time and paid on-call firefighters.
The City has three fire stations,and operates a fire training facility under a joint powers agreement with two other
fire departments. Fridley Firefighters also provide staff to support the MN State Chemical Assessment Team for
the North Metro,the Anoka County Fire Protection Council Specialized Rescue Team and Fire Investigation Team
and the MN Type III Incident Management Team.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actuaf Estimate Projected
Medical Response 2,052 2,092 2,133 2,200
Fire Response 121 131 141 150
Other Calls 854 850 850 760
Total 3,027 3,073 3,124 3,110
Average Response Time
Al!Calls 6.1 Min 6.1 Min 6.1 Min 6.0 Min
Building Fires 7.6 Min 7.7 Min 7.5 Min 7.5 Min
Mutual Aid
Given 44 36 40 55
Received 43 46 45 45
Estimated Property Loss Due to Fire
Residential $655,447 $336,189 $348,000 $447,000
Commercial $19,500 $30,950 $72,000 $41,000
Number of Firefighters 31 30 38 36
Pnevention
#of Public Education Contacts (Events) 55 55 55 55
#of Commercial Prop. Inspections(Contacts) 1,016 1,070 2,500 2,800
#of Permits Issued-Actual 103 73 90 100
Fire Code Permit Fees Collected $23,773 $15,085 $20,000 $25,000
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
•The 2014 revised budget relects an increase in Supplies which includes the cost for uniforms and personal
protective clothing for seven firefighters hired in 2014. Reimbursement in the amount of$16,800 for protective
clothing from the Anoka County Fire Protection Council Fire Academy will be reflected in the 2014 revenue.The
increase in supplies also reflects the cost of mounting hardware for the computers in each vehicle for the PSDS
project and for work order transfer parts for repairing vehicles.
•The 2015 budget increase in Other Services and Charges is primarily the result of moving$140,700 for the
Fire Pension Contribution from Personnel where it resided in 2014 to Other Services and Charges in 2015.
•The addition of a temporary full-time Captain will increase the FTEs from 6.6 in 2014 to 7.6 in 2014.
•The addition of a full-time Fire Marshal will increase the FTEs from 7.6 in 2014 to 8.0 in 2015.
24
198
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
Department: Public Works •
Division: Municipal Center
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 22,619 $ 22,703 $ 20,493 $ 20,600 $ 103,800
Supplies 15,526 12,320 15,400 15,400 15,800
Other Services&Charges 193,198 193,550 188,868 188,900 198,600
Totals $ 231,343 $ 228,573 $ 224,761 $ 224,900 $ 318,200
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 231,343 $ 228,573 $ 224,761 $ 224,900 $ 318,200
Number of Employess(FTEs) 1.2 0.6 1.6 0.6 1.6
Descriation of Services:
Maintains the exterior and interior of the Municipal Center Building in a manner which ensures safety for the public
and extends the useful life of the facility.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Power consumption $48,827 $48,500 $47,500 $61,900
Natural gas consumption $12,207 $12,000 $11,700 $14,000
Emergency service calls N/A 12 10 6
Contracted maintenance $120,771 $112,900 $113,300 $113,300
Bud�et Comments/Issues:
• For 2015, personnel expenditures for all public works divisions have been reallocated based on historical
time allocations for each division.
• For 2015,an additional$9,500 in utility costs is anticipated due to expected rate increases. �
25
199
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Public Works
Divisfon: Engineering
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 458,742 $ 504,147 $ 598,488 $ 588,500 $ 227,400
Supplies 6,280 11,339 16,019 19,500 9,700
Other Services 8�Charges 60,286 47,491 50,094 56,500 51,700
Capital Outlay 5,467 - - - -
Tota/s $ 530,775 $ 562,977 $ 664,601 $ 664,500 $ 288,800
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 530,775 $ 562,977 $ 664,601 $ 664,500 $ 288,800
Number of Employees(FTEs) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 2.2
Desc�iption of Services:
Develops plans,sets specifications, and determines estimates for capital improvement and safety programs.The
Engineering staff also is responsible f�r the design and construction of streets,sanitary sewer collection systems,
storm water facilities,and water treatment and distribution systems. Records are maintained by the Engineering
staff on various projects in the City,as-built files,and utility service locations.Also the GIS(Geographic
Information System)function is responsible for computer mapping and computer graphic systems.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Capital construction designed $1.97 million $1.30 million $1.50 million $1.8 million
Capital const inspected and admin. $2.42 million $2.42 million $2.0 million $3.6 million
Project design, inspect&admin.costs 8.0% 6.7% 7.0% 700.0%
Act cost of construction vs. bid award +2.2% +0.6% +2.5% +2.5%
Site permits reviewed 12 12 15 18
Site permits reviewed-acres 90 100 220 170
Land alt permits issued 12 15 16 18
Right-of-way permits reviewed 81 110 100 120
Utility service permits issued 84 70 75 90
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
• For 2015, personnel expenditures for all public works divisions have been reallocated based on historical
time allocations for each division.
26
200
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
Department: Public Works
Division: Lighting
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 27,700
Supplies 10,636 7,866 5,000 15,000 8,000
Other Services&Charges 217,479 240,877 219,500 209,500 230,100
Tota/s $ 228,115 $ 248,743 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 $ 265,800
Method of Financing
General Fund $ ?28,115 $ 248,743 $ 224,500 $ 224,500 $ 265,800
Number of Employees(FTEs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 ,
Descriqtion of Services:
Maintains the charges for the electrical overhead street lighting found throughout the City and for all traffic signal
systems.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Street lighting maintenance cost $30,027 $15,500 $17,500 $18,000
Tra�c signal maintenance cost $6,464 $6,000 $6,000 $8,000
Buds�et CommentsJlssues:
• For 2015,personnel expenditures for ali public works divisions have been reallocated based on historical
time allocations for each division.
• For 2015,an additional$10,100 in utility costs is anticipated due to expected rate increases.
27
201
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Public Works
Division: Park Maintenance
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actuai Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 637,475 $ 633,358 $ 665,251 $ 665,300 $ 649,300
Supplies 101,660 124,304 127,036 127,000 126,000
Other Services&Charges 126,995 115,742 141,838 141,800 135,700
Totals $ 866,130 $ 873,404 $ 934,125 $ 934,100 $ 991,000
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 866,130 $ 873,404 $ 934,125 $ 934,100 $ 911,000
Number of Employees(fTEs) 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 5.9
Description of Services:
Plans,constructs and maintains both active and passive park areas for use by the public.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Projected
Kev Measures�
Park inspections performed 1,416 1,400 1,400 1,400
Park corrective orders N/A 230 250 210
Irrigation system repairs 48 68 42 20
Number of athletic field preparations N/A 960 1,000 1,000
Ice rink maintenance N/A $25,000 $22,000 $22,000
Vegetation management area-acres 124 118 120 120
Vegetation management area cuttings N/A 36 40 40
Budaet Comments/issues:
• For 2015, personnel expenditures for all public works divisions have been reallocated based on historical
time allocations for each division.
28
202
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Public Works
Division: Street Maintenance
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 688,562 $ 751,457 $ 701,552 $ 701,400 $ 703,500
Supplies 212,526 324,775 242,486 242,500 266,400
Other Senrices&Charges 78,005 69,284 78,073 78,100 71,900
CapitalOutlay 5,866 8,636 - - -
Totals $ 984,959 $ 1,154,152 $ 1,022,111 $ 1,022,000 $ 1,041,800
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 984,959 $ 1,154,152 $ 1,022,111 $ 1,022,000 $ 1,041,800 ,
Number of Employees(FTEs) 9.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.4
Descriution of Senrices:
Performs the necessary tasks to reduce the depreciation of streets and upholds the desirable standards of
appearance,serviceability and safety.This includes upkeep such as street sweeping, repair of roadway surface
areas,and snowfice removal.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures:
Plowing events(prior winter season) 2 14 9 9
Sanding events (prior winter season) 10 20 16 16
De-icing usage-salt(tons) 637 700 650 630
De-icing usage-sand (tons) 640 600 500 480
Average pavement rating 26.20 26.00 26.00 26.00
Pavement repair materials used (tons) 935 900 900 900
Buds�et Comments/lssues:
• For 2015, personnel expenditures for all public works divisions have been reallocated based on historical
time allocations for each division.
•2015 budget adds a second seasonal employee to the Street Division
•The 2014 fuel budget was increased to by$24,000 to more closely reflect the actuals for the year.
29
203
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Public Works
Division: Garage
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Bud et
Personnel $ 287,508 $ 313,570 $ 327,059 $ 317,900 $ 324,800
Supplies 24,944 31,018 38,520 38,500 31,700
Other Services&Charges 98,839 91,421 81,605 90,500 88,600
Tota/s $ 411,291 $ 436,009 $ 447,984 $ 446,900 $ 445,900
Method of Financin
General Fund $ 411,291 $ 436,009 $ 447,184 $ 446,900 $ 445,100
Number of Empioyees(FTEs) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8
Desc�ntion of Services:
The Garage Division includes the Public Works maintenance office staff and the mechanics who maintain all city
equipment for Public Works, Police, Fire, and other city vehicles.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Annual Fuel Consumption-Diesel 16,158 17,500 18,500 20,000
Annual Fuel Consumption-Gasoline 64,704 62,500 62,000 64,000
Annual Number of Breakdown Repairs 87 85 80 75
Average Equipment Rating Score N/A 70 70 72
Annual Cost per Vehicle $2,623 $2,600 $2,600 $2,500
Estimated Fleet Value N/A $3.8 million $3.8 million $4.0 million
Budaet Comments/lssues:
• For 2015, personnel expenditures for all public wo�lcs divisions have been reallocated based on historical
time allocations for each division.
30
204
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
Department: Pa�lca 8�Recreation
Division: Recreation
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 565,830 $ 589,946 $ 626,917 $ 626,900 $ 624,000
Supplies 53,792 67,003 53,979 79,200 56,200
Other Services&Charges 178,119 190,797 216,139 217,700 217,900
Capital Outlay 12,830 - - - -
Totals $ 810,571 $ 847,746 $ 897,035 $ 923,800 $ 898,100
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 810,571 $ 847,746 $ 897,035 $ 923,800 $ 898,100
Number of Employees(FTEs) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.5
Desc�iation of Services:
Provides a wide variety of year-round leisure activities that contribute toward the physical, social,and emotional
well-being of citizens of all ages. Programs are provided in the following areas:instructional recreation activities,
competitive athletic leagues,fitness activities, special events, cultural arts,and outings.This division also operates
a Senior Center which provides social services, recreation,and health and wellness programs.The staff also
promotes cooperation among local groups and organizations.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Projected
Kev Measures:
Total Program Participant Hours 302,500 305,975 315,160 316,000
Scholarship/Fee Assist Participants 93 99 105 113
Dollar Amount of fees covered by
scholarships/assistance programs 5,607 6,841 7,200 11,300
Senior Program Volunteer Hours 15,715 16,500 16,500 16,500
Senior Program Participant Hours 68,700 69,818 71,920 72,000
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
•The 2014 Revised Budget includes an additional$10,000 for the replacement of tables and chairs at the
Community Center&$6,000 for the annual sr holiday dinner. A Lions donation received at the end of 2013 for this
same amount was used to cover this purchase.
•The 2014 Revised Budget includes an additionat$4,400 for expenses related to a 2014 donation from TC
Gateway.
•The 2014 Revised Budget includes an additional$5,000 for expenses related to a 2014 donation for Kids day
at 49ers days.
31
205
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Community Development
Division: Buiiding Inspections
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category ' Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnei $ 251,063 $ 273,955 $ 272,657 $ 272,700 $ 285,600
Supplies 5,424 3,894 9,020 7,700 13,700
Other Services$Charges 69,046 59,549 61,614 118,500 153,600
Totals . $ 325,533 $ 337,398 $ 343,291 $ 398,900 $ 452,900
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 325,533 $ 337,398 $ 343,291 $ 398,900 $ 452,900
Number of Employees(FTEs) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Descrintion of Services:
Building Inspections enforces the Building Code within the City in order to prevent health and safety hazards. The
Building Inspection staff provides City Code information to homeowners, builders, and businesses and also
reviews plans and provides coordination of inspections.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Buildins�Permits $120,650 $144,018 $136,426 $273,200
Residential
Plumbing $13,330 $12,785 $13,048 $15,900
Electrical $18,613 $13,613 $19,223 $19,000
Mechanical $11,975 $8,390 $11,101 $12,900
Commercial/Industrial
Plumbing $19,563 $10,072 $17,002 $23,500
Electrical $24,739 $16,179 $20,371 $26,500
Mechanical $78,555 $25,112 $47,145 $61,000
Plan Review Fees $96,664 $100,080 $98,200 $98,300
Bud�et Comments/Issues:
•The increase in the Other Services and Charges category directly relates to the City's increased intensity and
types of projects coming in that will require commercial and industrial inspections.We have bolstered our
inspection capabilities by bringing on a combination Plumbing/Building Inspector to assist with inspections.This is
not a new contract position, it replaces the position that was held by Terry Overacker,Overacker Plumbing.The
conservative estimate of activities above will provide adequate funds to cover the added inspection contract
expense.
•The Goal for turnaround times on inspections and plan reviews includes:
-2 hour turnaround on inspection requests,
-Within 10 days for commercial inspection plan reviews,
-Within 3 days for residential plan reviews.
32
206 "
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Community Development
Division: Planning
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
F�cpenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnei 365,991 43�3,952 421,924 454,600 447,400
Supplies 4,018 2,951 3,541 3,600 3,900
Other Services&Charges 76,528 43,610 62,476 62,500 64,700
Tota/s $ 446,537 $ 480,513 $ 487,941 $ 520,700 $ 516,000
Method of Financing
General Fund 446,537 480,513 $ 487,941 $ 520,700 $ 516,000
Number of Employees(FTEs) 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2
Descrintion of Services:
Planning is the principal advisor to the Planning Commission,Appeals Commission, Environmental Quality and
Energy Commission, City Council and City Manager on ail land use, urban development,energy and
environmental functions. This division also administers a variety of recycling programs and administers an
aggressive code enforcement program.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Projected
Kev Measures•
No.of nuisance abatements 190 96 100 110
No.of citations/formal complaints 7 5 7 7
Total No.land use applications 20 21 15 20
Permanent sign permits issued 44 20 10 20
Temporary sign permits issued 29 16 20 20
Budget Comments/Issues: �
• Complete text amendments in preparation of the 2040 Comp Plan update
• Complete a text amendment if organized garbage collection is approved
• Complete a text amendment after approval of the TOD Master Plan
•The Revised 2014 budget includes an additional$32,000 in personnel costs related to the environmental
planner position. The original 2014 budget had this position's time allocated 100%to the Solid Waste Abatement
Fund. The position's actual time should be allocated equally to both funds in 2014.
33
207
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERAL FUND
Department: Community Development
Division: Rentallnspections
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 130,283 $ 117,592 $ 149,920 $ 149,700 $ 142,700
Supplies 2,213 3,373 6,325 7,000 7,000
Other Services&Charges 5,883 3,249 18,849 18,700 17,600
Tota/s $ 138,379 $ 124,214 $ 175,094 $ 175,400 $ 167,300
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 138,379 $ 124,214 $ 175,094 $ 175,400 $ 167,300
Number of Employees (FTEs) 1.6 1.6 1.6
Descriation of Services:
Rental Inspection provides for the systematic inspection and licensing of rental units in order to protect the health,
safety,and welfare of the Community and to preserve the Fridley's valuable housing stock.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Kev Measures•
Application Fees $174,666 $160,527 $193,000 $182,500
Licensed Rental Units 817 940 987 990
Units Inspected with Correction Orders 2,745 2,078 2,493 2,250
Units Inspected w/o Correction Orders 302 255 238 207
Budaet Comments/Issues:
• Late Fee charges were collected and where the anticipated/Budget amount for 2014 was$500, rental staff
collected$2,000.The majority of the improvement came through eliminating exceptions.
• $12,000 in reinspection fees were collected, $8,400 of those fees were collected by July.We anticipate that
as rental property owners begin to understand that this is the new process,they will work to avoid a 3rd
reinspection and thus the fee.Our goal is to see this number come down in 2015,which will indicate that we have
raised the level of understanding of the importance of bringing rental properties into compliance without a 3rd
inspection.
34
208
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Reserve
Divis(on: Emergency
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Eupenditures by Category Actuat Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ - � - $ ' $ " � "
Supplies - - ' ' '
Other Senrices 8�Charges - - 120,000 120,000 120,000
Capital Outlay - - - ' "
Other Financing Uses - - - - '
Totals $ - $ - $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000
Method of Financing
Generai Fund $ - $ - $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 120,000
Number of Employees(FTEs) Q.0 O.Q 0.0 O.0 0.0
Descriution of Services:
The Reserve for Contingency absorbs any unexpected costs that occur during the year that were not budgeted.
These types of costs are usually in the form of lawsuits or other unexpected expenses.The Reserve also provides
funds to carry on City business with no interruption of services to taxpayers when unexpected fluctuations in the
economy cause a change in any revenue source.
35
209
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Department: Non-Departmental
Division: Non-Departmental
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Personnel $ 10,966 $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000
Supplies 24 1,781 - - -
Other Services&Charges 15,545 10,940 27,600 27,600 17,500
Capital Outlay - - - - -
Other Financing Uses - 145,052 175,000 175,000 -
Totals $ 26,535 $ 157,773 $ 202,600 $ 202,600 $ 77,500
Method of Financing
General Fund $ 26,535 $ 157,773 $ 202,600 $ 202,600 $ 77,500
Number of Employees(FTEs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Descriation of Services:
The Non-Departmental Division was established in 1990.This Division accounts for expenditures which
cannot be allocated to specific departments and/or divisions.
Budget Comments/issues:
•2015 personnel expenditures includes$60,000 dedicated to market rate adjustments for certain positions yet
to be indentified that are well below the comparable market rate for compensation.
36
210
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Cable N
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actuai Budget Revised Budget
Franch+se Fees $ 252,528 $ 265,325 $ 272,000 ,$ 273,000 $ 286,000
Administrative Charges 700 700 800 700 800
Interest Eamings 15,344 11,358 15,000 10,000 10,000
Unrealized GaiNLoss (322) (24,975) - - -
Miscellaneous Revenue 11 - - - -
Total Revenues $ 268,261 $ 252,408 a 287,800 $ 283,700 $ 296,800
Expenditu�es
Personnel $ 141,508 $ 152,008 $ 183,698 $ 185,300 $ 230,400
Supplies 1,439 9,211 2,750 2,900 3,000
Other Services/Charges 26,042 9,602 16,465 37,100 37,000
� CapitalOutlay 162,761 - - - 17,000
Total Expenditures $ 331,750 $ 17Q821 $ 202,913 $ 225,3Q0 $ 287,400
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues $ (63,489) $ 81,587 $ 84,887 $ 58,400 $ 9,400
over Expenditures
BeginningFundBalance $ 9,365,754 $ 1,302,265 $ 9,701,183 $ 1,383,852 $ 1,442,252
Ending Fund Ba/ance � 1,302,265 $ 1,383,852 $ 1,786,070 $ 1,442,252 � 1,451,652
Number of Employees(FTEs) 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.70 1.70
Descriction of Services:
The Cable N Fund provides support for the Fridley Municipal Television Channel 17. All regular City Council,
Appeals Commission, Planning Commission, and HRA meetings are broadcast live on Channel 17 and reran
several times during the week. Staff also provides production services for the Fridley school Board meetings. In
addition to broadcasting meetings,staff produce a number of departmental and community event programs. In
total, staff produces about 90 programs a year.
Other services include: providing an electronic community bulletin board, assisting all City departments with their
audio-video needs, programming of Fridley Public Access Channel 15, photography and newsletter support, and
helping to resolve cable customer complaints. The Cab{e N Fund also provides equipment necessary for the
operations of Channel 17,and cable TV service for:City Council Members,City Manager,and the Cable
Administrator.
The Cable N Fund also provides equipment necessary for the operations of Channel 17.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Prcgramming Produced
Civic Meetings 56 56 60 60
Departmentai Programs 23 25 30 30
Community Events 7 10 8 5
Internet Presence
PEG Central Top 5 programs views per month 3,700 1,220 1,750 1,500
YouTube(new June 2013) NA 1,841 3,000 4,000
(Select Programs are uploaded, Meetings are not)
Budaet Comments/{ssuea:
•The 2015 budget continues the part-time Communications Specialist. The position is responsible for
centralizing website information and distribution,develop and implementing social media usage and protocol,and
assisting in video and newsletter productions.
•The 2014 revised and 2015 budget include an additional$7,300 for website redesign.
37
211
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Grant Management
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Title3-Chore Services(Rec) $ 29,494 $ 30,000 $ 25,000 $ 22,600 $ 30,000
Section 8-Fed Grant(comm�ev) 69,728 73,529 54,306 51,900 -
All Other State Grants-P Works - - - 12,400 85,500
All Other State Grants-C Dev 8,204 9,889 - 100,000 -
Gen Contrib>Donations-Rec 110 (19) 3,014 2,7UU 2,U00
Miscellaneous Revenue 355 325 - 5,600 -
Total Revenues $ 107,891 $ 113,724 $ 82,320 $ 195,200 $ 117,500
Expenditures
Personnei $ 99,720 $ 101,828 $ 24,564 $ 26,400 $ 28,000
Supplies 2,388 1,049 - 500 -
Other Services/Charges 5,783 11,701 3,450 115,500 89,500
Other Financing Uses - - 54,306 51,900 - "
Total Expenditures a 107,891 a 114,578 $ 82,320 $ 194,300 $ 117,500
Surptus(Deficiency)of Revenues $ - $ (854) $ - $ 900 $ -
over Expenditures
Begfnning Fund Balance $ - $ - $ (854) $ (854) $ 46
Endfng Fund Balance $ - S (854) � (854) $ 46 a 46_
Number of Employees(FTEs) 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 • 0.60
Description of Services:
Administers grants received from a variety of intergovemmental agencies. In most cases,grant funds are
provided on a reimbursement basis following proper documentation of expenditures, however, in some cases the
money is provided in advance to be spent on specific activities outlined in the grant.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Chores&More
Number of Households Served 349 357 375 375
Number of Service Hours 6,016 6,139 6,200 6,200
Number of Skilled Bank Workers 50 52 50 50
Budaet Comments/lssues:
•The 2015 budget reflects budgets for the Chores and More Program through the Recreation Department and
the Lateral Repair Grant program administered by the Sewer Department.
•The 2014 revised budget reflects the final transfer out of the Section 8 fund to the general fund. It also includes
activity for the Chores and More,Well Sealing, Lateral Repair,and Transit Oriented Development Grants.
38
212
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Solid Waste Abatement
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actuaf Actua{ Budget Revised Budget
State Grants-Gen Gov't $ 65,550 $ 64,039 $ 75,000 $ 76,000 $ 84,000
Recycling Fees 263,313 272,605 272,J79 292,000 292,000
Recycling Penalties 8,492 8,437 8,300 8,400 8,400
Sale of Misc Property 420 - - - -
Miscellaneous Revenue 18,102 7,573 3,300 7,300 7,000
Transfer From Other Funds 36,819 20,052 - - -
Total Revenues $ 392,696 $ 372,706 $ 358,579 a 383,700 $ 391,400
Expenditures
Personnel $ 39,133 $ 50,795 $ 66,729 $ 54,300 $ 57,900
Supplies 2,763 5,692 3,150 3,000 3,200
Other ServiceslCharges 328,914 �291,026 305,737 331,200 332,600
Other Financing Uses - - ' ' "
Tota/Expenditures a 370,810 s 351,513 S 375,616 S 388,500 $ 393,700
Surpius(Deficiency)of Revenues $ 21,886 $ 21,193 $ (16,037) $ (4,800} $ (2,300)
over Expenditures
Beglnning Fund Balance $ 35,504 $ 57,390 $ 67,828 $ 78,583 $ 73,783
Ending Fund Balance � 57,390 $ 78�583 � 51,791 a 73,783 $ 71,483
Number of Employees(FTEs) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75
Descri�tion of Serv{ces:
Fund was established in 1991. It reflects the Citys solid waste abatement activities such as curbside recycling
and drop-off events to eliminate electronics,appliances and other items f�om the waste stream.Marlceting and
educational activities are also supported.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Recycling grant funding from county 65,550 71,935 76,000 84,000
Total recycling tons reported to
county jNIC municipai) 2,120 1,920 1,900 2,000
Curbside recyclingtonnage, units 1-12 1,792 1,570 1,500 1,570
Buds�et Commentslissues:
• Pianning to continue Parks,Special Event and apartment programs for 2015 if County grant allows(positive
indicators at this time).
39
� 213
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Springbrook Nature Center
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Current Ad Valorem $ 316,806 $ 327,965 $ 339,300 $ 339,300 $ 345,900
Delinquent Ad Valorem 1,362 (9,331) - - -
Twin Cities Gateway Grant 1,852 3,263 - - -
Shelter Rental 548 1,110 600 300 600
Daycamp 25,723 23,935 27,700 34,000 34,OU0
Special Events 22,299 25,697 22,000 20,000 22,000
School Programs 31,031 42,331 33,500 30,000 28,000
Birthday Parties 4,060 3,402 4,000 2,500 3,000
Instructional 1,711 1,412 1,800 900 1,800
Community Groups 4,591 3,256 . 4,600 1,500 1,500
Interest Eamings 522 935 - - -
Unrealized Gain/Loss (10) (425) - - -
Gen Contrib/Donations 31,229 10,111 - 9,000 -
Total Revenues � 441,724 ; 433,661 $ 433,500 ; 437,500 S 436,800
Expenditures
Personnel $ 343,376 $ 334,127 $ 325,275 $ 325,400 $ 332,600
Supplies 28,548 35,144 29,760 29,800 28,800
Other Services/Charges 46,594 42,567 53,862 62,600 54,000
CapitalOutlay 26,194 60,980 - - -
Tota/Expenditures � 444,712 S 472,818 � 408,897 $ 417�800 S 415,400
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues $ (2,988) $ (39,157) $ 24,603 $ 19,700 $ 21,400
over Expenditures
Beginning Fund Ba/ance $ 102,859 $ 99,871 $ 60,714 $ 60,714 $ 80,414
Ending Fund Ba/ance $ 99,871 a 60,714 $ 85,317 $ 80,414 $ 101,814
Number of Employees(FTEs) 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.50
Descriation of Services:
Provides a wide range of environmental interpretive programs utilizing various natural resource areas within the
ciry.These programs are available to the generai public, local school districts, community groups and
organizations.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Actual Actual Estimate Projected
Kev Measures•
Program participant hours 46,795 48,198 49,693 45,000
Number of school group student visits 13,351 13,751 14,163 13,000
Volunteer hours 17,719 18,073 18,434 18,500 .
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
40
214
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues - Actual Actual Budget Revised Bu;dget
Ad Valorem Tax Levy $ - $ - $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ -
Local GovernmentAid - 293,500 611,400 611,400 1,040,400
Investment Income 2,565 (2,450) - - -
Auction Proceeds 63,445 35,679 30,000 30,000 30,000
Donations - 2,500 - - -
Other Reimbursements - 5,295 - - -
Transfer from Section 8 - - 20,000 - -
Transfer from Liquor Stores - - - 175,000
Equipment Certificate Proceeds 1,246,419 - - - _
Tota/s $ 1,312,429 $ 334,524 $ 836,400 $ 816,400 $ 1,245,400
Expenditures by Category
Police $ 137,373 $ 219,974 $ 181,300 $ 181,300 $ 220,200
Fire 35,966 536,486 100,000 91,000 620,000
Public Works
Parks Division 81,698 134,452 75,000 15,000 140,000
Streets Division 125,273 217,119 315,000 285,000 513,000
Garage Division 38,836 - - 8,000 -
Community Development - - 37,000 15,000 22,000
General Govemment - 17,411 - - _
Totals $ 419,146 $ 1,125,442 $ 708,300 $ 595,300 $ 1,515,200
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over(under)Expenditures 893,283 (790,918) 128,100 221,100 (269,800)
Reserve for Delayed Projects - _ _ _ _
Beginning Fund Balance - 893,283 102,365 $ 102,365 $ 323,465
Ending Fund Ba/ance - _$ 893,283 $ 102,365 $ 230,465 $ 323.465 $ 53 665
Descrintion of Services:
The Capital Equipment Capital Projects Fund was created in 2012 for the purpose of funding repiacement or repair
of major capital items that are expected to exceed$5,000 in cost. The primary sources of revenue for the fund are
Local Govemment Aid, capital equipment certificates, and tax levy proceeds. The fund also receives earnings from
the auction of,surplus city property as well as investment eamings.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimated Proiected
Deprec.value of fumiture&equipment(millions$) $2.1 $2.5 $2.3 $2.3
Buds�et Comments/lssues:
The 2015 budget for the Capital Equipment Fund includes a substantial shifl`ir�LGA allocafion. The goal of this fund
is eventually eliminate the need for additional equipment cert�cates. Recent Legislative enacted changes to the
LGA formula wil/provide a substantial boost in funding and move the city in fhe direction of realizing this goal.
• Substantial purchases approved in the 2015 CIP for the fund include:$175,000 for police fleet vehicles,
$550,000 for a fire engine replacement, 165,000 for a public works dump truck and plow,$135,000 for an aerial
truck, and$45,200 for emergency siren hom replacements.
41
215
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND
CIP-Expenditure Detail
New or 2012 2013 2014 2014 2075
Replacement(✓) Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Pollce
Police Squad/SW/Pidcup ✓ $ 137,373 $ 207,378 $ 181,300 $ 181,300 $ 175,000
Equipment ✓ - 12,596 - - -
Emergency Sirens ✓ - - - - 45,200
Total Police $ 137,373 $ 219,974 $ 181,300 $ 181,300 $ 220,200
FJre
Fire Engine ✓ $ - $ 536,486 $ - $ - $ 550,000
Rescue Truck ✓ 35,966 - 40,000 70,000 -
Rescue Truck Paint/Rehab ✓ - - - - -
Rescue Boat ✓ - - - - 30,000
Engine#3 PainURehab ✓ - - 40,000 21,000 -
Station Alerting New - - 20,000 - 40,000
Total Fire $ 35,966 $ 536,486 $ 100,000 $ 91,000 $ 620,000
Publlc Works-Parks Dlvislon
Mowers ✓ $ 50,909 $ 17,591 $ - $ - $ 38,000
Pickup Trucks ✓ - - - - 29,000
Dump Trucks with Plows ✓ 30,789 38,461 15,000 - 25,000
Skidloader ✓ - 25,686 - - -
Utility Vehicle for Trail Plowing New - 52,714 60,000 - -
Utility Vehicles and Equipment ✓ - - - 15,000 48,000
Tota/PW-Parks Divislon $ 81,698 $ 134,452 $ 75,000 $ 15,000 $ 140,000
Public Works-Strests Dlvfsfon
Pickup Trucks ✓ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 73,000
Dump Trucks with Plows ✓ 125,273 210,229 160,000 130,000 165,000
Heavy Equipment ✓ - - 40,000 40,000 140,000
Paving Equipment ✓ - - -
Traffic Marking and Safety Equipment ✓ - - 25,000 25,000 -
Aerial Equipment ✓ - - 90,000 90,000 135,000
Utility Vehicles and Equipment ✓ - 6,890 - -
Tota/PW-StreetsDivision $ 125,273 $ 217,119 $ 315,000 $ 285,000 $ 513,000
Publlc Works-Garage Divisfon •
Equipment ✓ $ 38,836 $ - $ - $ 8,U00 $ -
Community Deve/opmen!
Mid-size Passenger Vehicles(2) ✓ $ - $ - $ 37,000 $ 15,000 $ 22,000
Genera/Govemment
Equipment ✓ $ - $ 17,411 $ - $ - $ -
Total Expendltures ; 419,146 ; l,125,442 a 708,300 S 595,300 a 1,515,200
42
216
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
Information Systems Capital Projects
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Property Taxes $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000
Local Govemment Aid - - - - _
Charges for Services 73,560 6,456 - 85,400 50,700
Investment Income 4,197 (4,219) - 1,500 1,500
Transfers In 59,000 250,000 - 175,000 125,000
Totals $ 136,757 $ 252,237 $ - $ 261,900 $ 227,200
Expenditures by Category
Technology Purchases/Upgrades $ 242,496 $ 71,031 $ - $ 283,400 $ 152,500
Office Equipment 22,818 12,245 - - -
Public Safety Technology 5,000 - - 130,700 79,700
Security Equipment - - - _ _
Technology Infrastructure - 3,900 - 2,000 85,000
Communications Technology - - - _ _
Tota/s $ 27q314 $ 87,176 $ - $ 416,100 $ 397,200
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over(under) Expenditures (133,557) 165,061 - (154,200) (90,000)
Reserve for Delayed Projects - - - 150,000 -
BeginningFundBalance 509,627 376,070 541,131 $ 541,131 $ 236,931
EndingFundBalance $ 376,070 $ 541,131 $ 541,131 $ 236.931 $ 146,931
Descriatton of Services:
The Technology Development fund provides for the purchase of replacement computers, local area and wide area
network equipment, printers, peripheral devices,telecommunications improvements and soflware. It also provides
for the purchase of new equipment and software that serves the city as a whole, including major office equipment
such as copiers and smartboards.
� 2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimated Proiected
Number of Servers 20 25 30 30
Number of desktop computers 145 150 157 160
Number of notebook/tablet computers 1 114 120 150
Wireless access points 14 18 18 20
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
The 2015 budget and the 2014 revised budget for the Information Systems Capital Projects Fund finances the City's
regular technology neplace�►enfs and upgrades as provided in the adopted Capital Improvements Program(CIP).
• Large increase in mobile devices for 2015 reflects the implementation of Police tablet PCs
• Additional wireless access points to be place at Fridley Liquor stores
• Count of servers includes both physical and virtual servers
43
217
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
2012 2073 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Municipal State Aid-State Aid Routes $ 840,187 $ 575,872 $ 680,000 $ 686,800 $ 317,400
Municipal State Aid-Local Routes - - - - 369,400
Federal Highway Aid - 250,000 150,000 970,000
Special Assessments 51,888 417,812 1,100,000 1,100,000 700,000
Investment Income 32,386 (32,669) 28,000 29,700 26,400
Totals - $ 924,461 $ 961;095 $ 2,058,000 $ 1,968,500 $ 2;383,200
Expenditures
Street Rehabilitation Program $ 710,000 $ 580,000 $ 1,295,000 $ 1,295,000 $ 960,000
Sealcoat Program 160,000 220,000 245,000 245,000 265,000
SVeet Sign Replacements - - - - 15,000
Traffic Signal Maint/Retrofit - - - 50,000 20,000
TraiUVValk Upgrades - - 100,000 100,000 100,000
69th Avenue Railroad Crossing - - 250,000 250,000 -
Main Street Pedestrian Bridge - - 150,000 150,000 1,150,000
Street Lighting Upgrades - - - - 20,000
Traffic Safety Projects - - - - 15,000
Transfer to General Fund - - 41,000 104,500 131 000
Totals $ 870,000 $ 800,000 $ 2,081,000 $ 2,194,500 $ 2,676,000
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over(under)Expenditures 54,461 161,015 (23,000) (228,000
) (292,800)
Reserve for Delayed Projects - - - 100,000 -
Beginning Fund Ba/ance 2,756,396 2,810,857 2,979,872 2,971,872 2 643 872
Ending Fund Ba/ance 2.810.857 $ 2.971.872 $ 2.948.872 $ 2.643,872 S 2.351.072
Description of Services:
The purpose of the Street Improvements budget is to fund repair or replacement of city streets and street related equipment such as
signs and street lights. Funding sources for these improvement come from two primary sources,Municipal State Aid and special
assessments. The Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)is an integral component for the development of the curcent year's budget. The
CIP is used for planning future projects over a multitude of years. The budget is the document that formalizes which projects will
proceed. Funding sources for these improvement come from two primary sources,Municipal State Aid and special assessments.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimate Proiected
Miles of streets rehabilitated * * *
Miles of streets sealcoated * * *
Miles of streets rated for condition • * *
Average pavement condition index * • *
*-Not available at the time of production
Bud4et Comments/lssues:
The 2015 budget for the St►ieet Improvement Fund as provided in the Capital Improvement Program(CIP)wili continue the city's road
rehabilitation and preservation programs.
•The 2015 Street Rehabilitation Project inGudes the reGamation of various street segments and minor repairs to utilities in the
Summit Manor neighbort►ood located south of I-694 and the east side of University Avenue.
•Other projects slated for 2015 inGude the continuation of the annual sealcoat program($265,000),and the construction of a
shared use path from 43rd Avenue to 57th Avenue along the west side of Main Street including a trail bridge spanning interstate 694
($1,150,000). Federal Highway funds are expected to cover approximately 80%of the estimated$1.45 million.
•The 2014 Street Rehabilitation Project includes the reclamation of various streets segments and minor repairs to utilities in the
North Park Industrial area.
44
218
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
2012 2013 2014 2074 2015
Revenues Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Ad Valorem Tax Levy $ 76 $ (443) $ - $ - $ _
Liquor Store Proceeds(Transfer In) - - - 75,000
Local Govemment Aid - 100,000 100,000 25,000
Investment Income • 23,334 (21,907) 20,000 15,000 15,000
Park DedicaGon Fees 750 6,067 10,000 5,000 5,000
Miscellaneous 960 - - - _
Tota/s $ 25,120 $ (16,283) $ 130,000 $ 920,000 $ 120,000
Expenditures by Category
Court SurFaGng/Overiays $ 21,375 $ - $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
Park Fumishings 24,946 5,138 10,000 10,000 10,000
Commons Park Irrigation System - 91,938 80,000 80,000 -
Community Park Parking Lot Resurfacing - - _ _ _
SNC Boardwalk Replacement - - 25,000 25,000 250,000
Security Cameras in Parks - - 25,000 25,000 . -
Piayground Equipment Repairs/Replacement 5s929 - - 30 000
Totals $ 52,250 $ 97,076 $ 170,000 $ 170,000 $ 320,000
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over(under)Expenditures (27,130) {113,359) (40,000) (50,000) (200,000)
Reserve for Delayed Projects - - - 155,449 -
Beginning Fund Balance 2,013,849 1 986,719 1,873,360 1,873 360 1 667,911
Ending Fund Balance $ 1.986J19 $ 1.873,360 $ 1,833,360 $ 1 667 911 $ 1467 911
Descrintion of Services:
The purpose of the Park Capital Improvements budget is to fund repair or replacement of park equipment or park related
improvements. The Capital Improvement Pian(CIP)is an integrai component for the development of the current year's
budget. The CIP is used for planning future expenditures over a multitude of years. The budget is the document that
formalizes which projects will proceed.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual stim ted Proiected
Number of City Parks 38 38 38
Acres of City Park Land * « *
Miles of Trails * * *
*-Not available at the time of production
Budaet Comments/Issues:
The 2095 budget for Parks Capita/Improvement Fund includes a$25,000 funding from Local Govemment Aid(LGA)and
$75,000 transfer from Liquor Store proceeds.
• Substarrtial purchases approved in the 2015 CIP for the fund indude:replacement of certain sedions of the Springbrook
Nature Center boardwalk,continued court resurfacing($30,000),along with playground equipment repair&replacement
($30,000).
• Reserved for delayed projects includes:$70,587 for Community Park parking lot resurfacing,$30,000 for court
resurfacings,$25,000 for SNC boardwalk replacement,and$25,000 for security cameras in parks.
45
219
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
BUILDINGS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
2012 2013 2014 2014 2075
Revenues Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Local Govemment Aid $ 759,414 $ 465,914 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 250,000
Investment Income 3,575 (7,196) 2,000 � 2,000 500
Springbrook Nature Center Fund - 60,980 - - 3,000,000
DWI Forfeiture Fund - - - 95,000 -
Totals $ 762,989 $ 519,698 $ 502,000 $ 597,000 $ 3,250,500
Expendkures by Category
Community Center Fumiture&Fixtures $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 10,000
Facilities Feasibiliry Study - 32,834 - - -
Fire Station 1 ADA�Entrance Upgrades - 8,958 - - -
Fire Station 2 Site Upgrades - - 20,000 20,000 -
Fire Station 2&3 Security Upgrades - - - - 20,000
Municipal Center HVAC Replacement - 39,000 40,000 40,000 25,000
Municipal Center Roof Replacement 265,815 - 10,000 10,000 210,000
Municipal Center Ramp Repairs - 30,843 3U0,000 300,000 150,000
Municipal Center Security Upgrades 643 - - - -
Municipal Center Fumiture&Fixtures - - - - 26,000
Police Garage Roof Replacement 28,143 231,652 - - -
Police Gun Range Improvements 2,339 - - - 50,000
Police Squad Room Remodel 16,265 - - - -
Public Works Fueling Relocation/Retrofit - - - - 170,000
Public Works Gate Replacement - - 25,000 25,000 -
Public Works Building&Lot Upgrades - - - � - 85,000
Public Works Roof Replacement - - 180,000 180,000 -
Public Works Security Upgrades - - 5,000 5,000 -
SNC SPRING Project - - - 3,000,000
SNC Roof Replacement - 60,980 - - -
Totals $ 313,205 $ 404,267 $ 595,000 $ 595,000 $ 3,746,000
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over(under)Expenditures 449,784 115,431 (93,000) 2,000 (495,500)
Reserve for Delayed Projects - - - 293,542 0
Beginning Fund Balance 493,113 942,897 9,058,328 $ 9,058,328 $ 766,786
Ending Fund Ba/ance 942,897 $ 1,058,328 $ 965,328 $ 766,786 $ 271,286
Descriotion of Services:
The purpose of the Building Capital Improvements budget is to fund repair or replacement of major buildings or building related
improvements. The Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)is an integral component for the development of the current years budget. The
CIP is used for planning future expenditures over a multitude of years. The budget is the document that formalizes which projects
will proceed.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimated Proiected
Municipal Facilities * * *
Deprec.value of buildings&structures(millions$) $11.5 $10.9 $10.5 $10.1
*-Not available at the time of production
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
The 2015 budget and the 2014 revised budget for the Building Capital Rep/acement division includes an increased allotment of LGA.
The 2013 Legislatu�enacted LGA reform wi►ich increased the 2013 LGA allotment and increased future years'allotments by
another$450,000.
•Substantial projects approved in the 2015 CIP for the fund include;$210,000 for the municipal center roof replacement,an
additional$150,000 for municipal center ramp repairs which is in additional to$350,000 of ramp repairs scheduled for late 2014 or
early 2015,$170,000 for public works fueling station upgrades and relocation,and$3,000,000 for the initial construction of the
SPRING project at the Springbrook Nature Center. The SPRING project received Legislative approval in 2014 under the bonding bill
and is scheduled to receive$5 million in funding to cover the initial building costs. Additional donations and sponsorships are
anticipated to cover capital expenditures above and beyond the$5 million.
•Reserve for Delayed Projects includes;$100,000 for public facility heating upgrade,$95,000 for a cold storage facility for police
forFeitures that will be funded by forfeiture reserves,and$41,000 for Fire Station#1 entrance upgrades to comply with ADA
requirements.
46
22�
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actuaf Budget Revised Budget
Other Financing Sources $ - $ - $ 1,716,127 $ 4,215,000 $ -
Interest Eamings 38,424 29,557 55,000 55,000 50,000
Unrealized Gain/Loss (2,491) (59,593) - - -
Sale of Misc Property - 3,054 - - -
Fixed Asset Gain/Loss 1,260 - - - -
Miscellaneous 10,242 7,439 - - 35,000
Water Sales 2,621,256 2,647,269 2,853,189 2,850,500 2,994,200
Water Flat Rate Sales 5,081 394 10,200 5,100 10,200
Connect/Reconnect Fees 6,057 6,372 5,QQQ 5,000 5,000
Penalties/Forfeit Discount 88,285 76,670 88,500 88,500 88,500
Meter Sales 6,189 8,334 10,000 10,000 10,000
Water Tapping 8�Misc Fees 24,161 24,822 28,000 28,000 28,000
One-Time Set-up Fees 11,830 13,790 9,100 9,100 9,100
Totai Revenues $ 2,810,294 S 2,758,108 � 4,775,116 $ 7,266,200 $ 3,230,000
Expenditures
Personnel $ 826,616 $ 833,781 . $ 838,535 $ 814,500 $ 947,800
Supplies 351,454 436,160 223,750 224,500 231,500
Other ServiceslCharges 1,240,761 1,334,931 549,582 560,9Q0 571,900
CapitalOutlay - - 2,070,000 3,185,000 1,030,000
Debt Service 228,345 210,712 719,622 719,700 1,090,900
Tota/Expenditures $ 2,647,176 a 2,815,584 � 4,401,489 $ 5,504,600 � 3,872,100
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over Expenditures $ 163,118 $ (57,476) S 373,627 � 1,761,600 ; (642,100)
Endtng Cash Batance $ 3,600,479 $ 3,411,592 $ 3,785,219 $ 5,173,192 $ 4,531,092
Number of Empioyees(FTEs) 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.91
Descriation of Services:
The Water Division provides treatment,distribution, and metering of the City's drinking water to properties within the
City of Fridley. The division also maintain water pressure and fire hydrants used for fire suppression throughout the
City.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actuai Actual Estimated P�oiected
Average age of distribution mains 50.0 51.0 51.7 52.3
Water main breaks 18 26 24 28
Water service leaks 34 24 30 35
Water distributed-millions of gallons 1,387 1,400 1,38U 1,380
Water sold-mitlions of galtons 1,351 1,350 1,330 1,380
Average meter age 21 20 20 19
Water quality complaints 18 8 5 5
Number of filter backwashes 420 410 400 390
Number of reclaim solids pump downs 46 45 45 50
Utility locate requests 2,228 2,020 2,100 2,200
Buds�et Comm�ntsAssues:
• Other Services 8�Charges for the 2014 revised and 2015 budgets do not include depreciation. Rather than
provide depreciation information,these budgets now provide the capital outlay scheduled for the year from the 2015
CIP. By presenting the numbers in this format,the ending cash balance can be better projected for each budget
year.
• 2015 budget includes part-time administrative assistant forAMR program
•2015 budgei includes additional professional services related to source water activities.
47
221
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Sanitary Sewer
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Public Works Main't $ 350 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Interest Earnings 15,240 11,124 15,000 15,000 20,000
Unrealized GaiNLoss (1,123) (21,935) - - -
Fixed Asset Gain/Loss 8,420 - - - -
Sewer Sales 4,093,226 4,289,223 4,537,400 4,493,200 4,635,200
Sewer Flat Rate Sales 357,7�2 2U4,390 426,000 164,000 9�,000
Connect/Reconnect Fees 762 1,260 500 500 500
Penalties/Forfeit Discount 94,580 73,320 53,000 83,600 53,000
Sewer Tapping&Misc Fees 2,614 4,607 1,500 1,500 1,500
Total Revenues � $ 4,571,791 $ 4,561,989 $ 5,033,400 � 4,757,800 $ 4,802,200
Expenditures
Personnel $ 695,883 $ 724,656 $ 762,226 $ 763,700 $ 560,300
Supplies 73,623 49,814 60,652 60,700 60,700
Other Services/Charges 3,867,928 4,185,203 3,771,447 3,778,300 3,835,600
CapitalOutiay - - 635,000 745,000 415,000
Debt Service 16,000 14,854 44,300 44,300 43,400
Total Expend/tures $ 4,653,434 $ 4,974,527 $ 5,273,625 $ 5,392,000 $ 4,915,000
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over Expenditures � _�81,643) � (412,538) a (240,225) a (634,200) ; (112,800)
Ending Cash Balance $ 1,372,551 $ 1,534,291 $ 1,294,066 $ 900,091 $ 787,291
Number of Employees(FTEs) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.11
Descriation of Services:
The Sewer Division provides for maintenance of trunk and collector sanitary sewer systems and sanitary sewer lift
stations maintained by the City of Fridley. The division also pays for wastewater treatment based on the sanitary
sewer flow from the entire City of Fridley.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimated Proiected
Sanitary sewer main backups 3 5 3 3
Sanitary sewer system cleaning-miles 84.9 80.0 90.0 90.0
Sanitary sewer lift station failures N/A 8 8 6
Sanitary sewer flow-millions of gallons 1,728 1,700 1,670 1,620
Televising inspection of sanitary sewers-miles N/A 3.5 4.3 4.8
Average age of sanitary sewer mains 47.23 47.95 48.63 49.25
Clay-tile pipe sanitary sewer mains(%of system) 83.9% 83.4% 82.8% 82.1%
Buds�et Comments/lssues:
• Other Services&Charges for the 2014 revised and 2015 budgets do not include depreciation. Rather than
provide depreciation information,these budgets now provide the capital outlay scheduled for the year from the
2015 CIP. By presenting the numbers in this format,the ending cash balance better able to be projected for each
budget year.
• Metropolitan Council Environmental Services(MCES)wastewater charges for 2015 will increase by 3.5%with
expected increases in 2016 and 2017 of 5%per year.
48
222
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
Storm Water
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
2072 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actual : Budget Revised Budget
Storm SewerCollection $ 539,692 $ 577,189 $ 583,700 $ 600,300 $ 1,021,500
Hams Pond Assessments 3,699 3,622 4,000 3,600 3,600
Storm Sewer Penalties 9,252 8,287 8,400 8,400 18,300
From County-Current 173 1,127 200 - -
Interest Eamings 15,106 11,196 16,000 16,000 14,000
Unrealized GaiNLoss (579) (26,604) - - _
Direct to City-Principal 16,329 1,404 - 10,000 -
Grants Proceeds - _ _ _ _ .
Other Reimbursements 700 1,000 - 319,000 50,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,862 - 250,000 - -
Storm Sewer Misc Fees - 22,190 - - _
Tota/Revenues 3 586,234 $ 599,411 � 862,300 a 957,300 $ 1,107,400
Expenses
Personnei $ 240,400 $ 245,200 $ 250,100 $ 250,100 $ 444,300
Supplies 2,880 7,618 8,700 8,500 11,300
Other Services/Charges 347,630 323,009 60,529 63,100 65,500
CapitalOutlay - - 590,000 1,025,100 460,000
Debt Service 12,013 11,210 30,838 30,800 35,200
Total Expendltures a 602,923 $ 587,037 a 940,167 3 1,377,600 $ 1,016,300
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over Expenses � (16,689) � 12,374 ; (77,867) a (420,300) S 91,100
Ending Cash Balance � 1,330,684 $ 1,465,011 $ 1,387,144 � 1,044,711 $ 1,135,811
Number of Employees(FTEs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.89
Descri4tion of Services:
The Storm Water division provides for maintenance of trunk and collector storm sewer systems maintained by the
City of Fridley. The division also establishes and maintains improvements and programs provided to meet storm
water quality goals of the City of Fridley.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimated Proiected
Street sweeping collected-cubic yards 1,552 2,000 2,000 2,000
Sediment coliected from storm water treatment
devices-cubic yards 20 80 200 250
Outfall inspections 21 25 30 30
Rain gardens constructed 3 10 10 12
Erosion control inspections 23 28 32 35
Enforcement actions and notices 15 15 20 15
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
• Other Services&Charges for the 2014 revised and 2015 budgets do not include depreciation. Rather than
provide depreciation information,these budgets now provide the capital outlay scheduled for the year from the
2015 CIP. By presenting the numbers in this format,the ending cash balance better able to be projected for each
budget year.
49
223
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Municipal Liquor
(Fridley Market&Highway 65 Locations)
2012 2013 2014 2014 2015
Revenues Actual Actual Budget Revised Budget
Liquor Sales $ 1,593,184 $ 1,439,734 $ 1,761,753 $ 1,606,700 $ 1,852,200
Wine Sales 712,500 697,889 768,000 720,700 828,000
Beer Sales 2,244,359 2,061,160 2,730,000 2,460,000 2,812,000
Dep/RTNS/Cooperage 150 414 100 100 100
Miscellaneous Sates 99,210 74,944 100,000 92;50U 105,500
Cigarette Sales 51,589 31,470 39,900 33,500 25,500
Cigars/Chewing Tobacco 4,032 2,952 2,800 2,900 3,200
Interest Earnings 960 2,908 - - -
Miscellaneous Revenue 499 74,892 100 12,000 3,200
Tota/Revenues $ 4,706,483 $ 4,386,363 $ 5,402,653 $ 4,928,400 $ 5,629,700
Expenditures
Personnel $ 506,256 $ 511,617 $ 553,718 $ 579,400 $ 557,600
Supplies 7,546 14,331 22,400 24,400 23,600
Other Services/Charges 3,841,107 3,622,501 4,465,382 4,138,600 4,713,100
CapitalOutlay - - 50,000 - -
Other Financing Uses 350,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 338,600
Total Expendkures $ 4,704,909 $ 4,398,449 a 5,341,500 � 4,992,400 � 5,632,900
Surplus(Deficiency)of Revenues
over Expenditures $ 1,574 � (12,086) S 61,153 S (64,000) ; (3,200)
Ending Cash Balance s 501,583 S 191�844 $ 252,997 a 127,844 $ 124,644
Number of Employees(FTEs) 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Descriation of Services:
The Fridley Municipal Liquor Operations was established in 1949. The operations consist of two retail locations with
annual sales exceed$5 million. Net proceeds are directed back to the City's General Fund to alleviate the property
tax burden on its citizens and businesses.
2012 2013 2014 2015
Kev Measures: Actual Actual Estimated Proiected
Total customers 248,540 218,650 263,000 288,000
Average sale price per customer $18.93 $19.50 $19.90 $19.47
Gross profit percentage 25.7% 27.0% 25.0% 24.0%
Net profit percentage before transfers 18.0% 17.0% 16.0% 15.0%
Buds�et Comments/Issues:
. During the fall of 2014,the operations emba�lced on a re-branding of the liquor stores. This included a new
logo, uniforms as well as a new customer service standard.
. Increase in temporary salaries are a result of our commitment to provide superior customer service at both of
our store locations.
• Fridley market has seen a great revitalization since major construction was completed in 2014. The 2015
budget reflects an anticipated 10% increase in sales at our Cub store location.
•W�h the increase in competition from national liquor retailers, our gross profit reflects a 3%decrease in order to
stay competitive within our trade area.
50
224
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
STAFFING LEVELS-2014$2015
Full-Time Equivalents(FTEs)
2014 2014 2015 °�of
Service Category Budgetary Unit Budget Actual Budget Total
. Public Safety Police 50.6 51.6 52.60
Emergency Management - - 0.00
Fire' 6.0 7.6 8.00
Subtota/ 56.6 59.2 60.60 42.6%
Public Works: Municipal Center 1.6 0:6 1.55
Engineering 5.0 5.0 2.23
Park Maintenance 6.5 6.5 5.86
Street Maintenance 8.5 8.5 8.36
Garage Maintenance 4.0 4.0 3.78
Street Lighting 0.0 0.0 0.26
Water Utllity . 7.0 7.0 8.91
Sewer Utility 5.0 5.0 3.11
Storm Water Utility 0.0 0.0 4.89
� Subtofa/ 37.6 36.6 38.95 27.4%
Parks&Recreation: Recreation Department 5.0 5.5 5.50
Grant Management(Chores Prog.) 0.6 0.6 0.60
Springbrook Nature Center 3.5 3.5 3.50
Subtotal 9.1 9.6 9.60 6.7%
Comm Development: Planning 4.2 4.2 4.20
Building Inspections 3.0 3.0 3.00
Rental Inspection 1.6 1.6 1.60
Solid Waste Abatement 1.0 1.0 0.75
HRA Assist.Executive Director� 1.0 1.0 1.00
Subtotal 10.8 10.8 10.55 7.4%
General Government: Mayor&City Council3 5.0 5.0 5.00
General Management 2A 2.0 2.00
City Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.00
Human Resources 2.0 2:0 2.00
Cable N 1.5 1.7 1.70
Accounting 6.5 6.5 6.50
Assessing 2.5 2.5 2.50
MIS 2.0 2.0 2.00
Municipal Liquor Store 5.0 5.0 5.00
Subfotal 22.5 22.7 22.70 15.9%
TOTALS 136.6 138.9 142.40 100.0%
'Excludes paid on-call firefighters
z HRA Assistant Executive Director is funded through the HRA levy and not a part of the City's budget
3 Mayor and council members are excluded from FTE totals
°Excludes election judges
Positions by fund:
General fund 112.0 114.1 112.94 79.3%
Special Revenue Funds:
Springbrook Nature Center 3.5 3.5 3.50 2.5%
Grant Management 0.6 0.6 0.60 0.4%
Solid Waste Abatement 1.0 1.0 0.75 0.5%
Cabie N 1.5 1.7 1.70 1.2%
Enterprise Funds:
Weter 7.0 7.0 8.91 6.3%
Sewer 5.0 5.0 3.11 2.2%
Storm Water - - 4.89 3.4%
Liquor 5.0 5.0 5.00 3.5%
Component Unft:
H� 1.0 1.0 1.00 0.7%
Total 136.60 138.90 142.40 100.0%
51
225 -
CITY OF FRIDLEY 2015 ANNUAL BUDGET
GENERALFUND
CITY OF FRIDLEY
2015 Budget Calendar �
March 31 Capitai Improvement Program (CIP)forms sent to departments.
Apri121 Departments submit capital requests to city manager.
Week of Aprii 28 City manager meets with departments to discuss CIP requests.
May 12 Goals&Objectives Conference Meetings
June 2 Operating budget work papers are made available to departments
June 16 City council budget work session to discuss 2015-19 CIP, Enterprise Funds,and
General Levy
Weeks of July 7& 14 City manager meets with departments to discuss big budget issues and key
measures.
July 11 Forecasts completed for compensation and benefits, revenue projections,utility
costs,etc. Departrr�ents submit indicators and key measures.
August 18 Budget work session to review preliminary levy and final 2015-19 CIP.
August 22 Preliminary budget memo sent to city council.
August 25 City council adopts preliminary levy, budget, CIP and annouces public budget
meeting date.
August 26 Budget instructions and targets provided to departments.
September 15 Departments submit detailed budget requests.
October 10 City manager sends proposed 2015 budget and revised 2014 budget to ciry
council members.
October 20 City council budget work session to discuss operational budget.
Week of November 17 Anoka Counry sends parcel specific proposed tax estimates to taxpayers.
December 8 City council holds public budget hearing.
December 22 City council adopts fina12015 budget,2015 tax lery and revised 2014 budget.
December 29 Final 2015 levy cert�ed to Anoka County.
52
226
r'` AGENDA ITEM
''��� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
��,�
�ria�e�
DECEMBER 22, 2014
Date: December 16, 2014
To: Walter T. Wysopal, City Manager
From: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Julie Jones,Planning Manager
Subject: Continuance of Appeal Hearing for James Kiewel at 1627 & 1631 Rice Creek Drive
Background
On November 10, the City Council began an appeal hearing for James Kiewel,who owns 1627 and
1631 Rice Creek Road. As the hearing proceeded, Mr. Kiewel explained that he was unprepared as
he had not received notice of the hearing, so the City Council agreed to postpone the hearing two
weeks. Later, however, Mr. Kiewel delivered staff a written request to postpone the hearing further,
so staff agreed to reschedule the hearing to December 22, 2014. This code enforcement appeal was
heard by the Fridley Appeals Commission on October 1, 2014.
After hearing testimony on October 1,the Appeals Commission affirmed staff's actions in this code
enforcement case. Those proceedings can be viewed in the Commission minutes, and their decision
is represented in the attached Resolution and Findings of Fact. To avoid consuming an enormous
quantity of paper, staff had requested that the City Council bring the e�chibits from the November 10
hearing to the December 22 meeting. If you no longer have these materials, let staff know and we
will have them available for you prior to the meeting.
Staff has prepared a draft resolution for the City Council to use as a guide at the December 22
hearing. The resolution includes the Findings of Fact,required by code, and refers to many of the
exhibits to support the Findings of Fact.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the following:
l. The City Council continue Mr. Kiewel's appeal hearing at the December 22, 2014, City
Council meeting.
2. Adopt the attached Resolution Affirming the Decision of City Code Enforcement Officer
related to 1627 and 1631 l�ice Creek Road N.E.
227
APPEALS COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2014--02
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER RELATED TO 1627 and 1631 RICE CREEK ROAD NE
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), through its Community
Development staff, including the Planning Manager and Community Development Director,
conducts routine and systematic zoning code enforcement inspections throughout the City to help
protect the health,safety,general welfare and good order of the public;
WHEREAS, James Kiewel ("Owner") owns real property located at 1627 Rice Creek
Road NE in the City(the"1627 Property);
WHEREAS, Owner owns real property located at1631 Rice Creek Road NE in the City
(the"1631 Property");
WIiEREAS,the City requires a land alteration permit whenever earth moving equipment
is involved in the movement of dirt and fill on real property;
WHEREAS, while the Fridley City Code only allows minor landscaping that can be
completed with hand tools to be conducted on residential property without a land alterarion
permit;
WHEREAS, on or about June 28, 2005, Owner applied for a land alteration permit (the
"Permit")for the 1631 Property(Exhibit 2);
WHEREAS, the materials that the Ovmer submiried to the City indicated that the
proposed change on the 1631 Property in the land alterarion work for which he sought the Permit
included a retaining wall and depicted a fow(4) foot grade difference from one end of the lot to
the other(Exhibit 2); and
WHEREAS, in the applicarion, the Owner requested the Permit to `�ll low lying areas
of[the]backyard"on the 1631 Property(Exhibit 2);
WHEREAS, on or about June 30, 2005, the City approved the Permit for the 1631
Property(Exhibit 2);
WHEREAS, the Permit only authorized land alteration and dirt and fill moving on the
1631 Property and nat the 1627 Property(Exhibit 2);
�
WHEREAS, Owner moved dirt on the 1631 Property during the timeframe allowed
pursuant to the Pecmit;and
WHEREAS,the Pecmit expired on September 30,2005 (Exhibit 2);
228
Appeals Commission Resolution No. 2014-02 Page 2
WHEREAS, on or about Oetober 4, 2005, the City received a noise complaint that
Owner had been moving dirt on the 1631 Property;
WHEREAS, subsequent to the October 4, 2005 noise complaint, the City, through its
Assistant Public Works Director, discovered that the Ownez had constructed a six (6) foot tall
retaining wall on the 1631 Property consisting of two levels of three (3) foot tall plastic barrels
(Exhibit 3); and
WHEREAS,in some areas on the 1631 Property,the retaining wall is toppe�with three
rows of railroad ties, for a total height in excess of eight (8) feet in some areas on the Property
(Exhibit 9);and
WHEREAS, City Code Sections 206.01.1 and 206.01.2, as well as Minn. R. 1300.0120
require the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any retaining wall constructed
that exceeds four(4)feet in height;
WHEREAS, the City issues its building permit for retaining walls that exceed fow (4)
feet in height through inclusion of the retaining wall authorization in the land alterarion pemut
and is reflected in a condition that the retaining wall design be certified by a professional
engineer;
WHEREAS, the Permit did not authorize or allow the Owner to construct a retaining
wall on the 1631 Property that exceeded four (4) feet in height and did not authorize any
retaining wall construction or land alteration or earth moving at a11 on the 1627 Property; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 14, 2005, the City Assistant Public Works Director '
sent a letter to the Owner notifying him that: (1)the Permit had expired; (2)he nee��to provide
structural engineering certification to approve the constructed retaining wall; and (3) directed
him to obtain a new land alteration permit by December 31,2005 (Exhibit 3);
WHEREAS, the Owner never obtained another land alteration permit for the 1631
Property;
WHEREAS, the Owner has admitted that the retaining wall exceeds four (4) feet in
height;
WHEREAS, after the expiration of the Permit, the Owner continued to move more dirt,
and fill on the 1631 Property without a valid, unexpired land alteration permit and moved dirt
and fill on the 1627 Property(Exhibits 5 and 7);
WHEREAS, on or about July 29, 2007, the City received a noise complaint through its
Police Department regarding the 1631 Property and, upon arrival, the responding officer
observed the Owner driving a bobcat and moving dirt on the 1631 Property(Exhibit 5);
WIiEREAS, on or about July 29, 2007, the Owner did not have a land alteration permit
authorizing land alteration and dirt moving on the 1631 Property;
229
Appeals Commission Resolution No. 2014-02 Page 3
WHEREAS, on or about August 6, 2007, City Community Development Dire�tor, Scott
Hickok, sent the Owner a letter informing him that he needed to ol�tain a land alteration permit
for the excavation continuing to occur on the 1631 PropeRy and provided an August 10, 200?
deadline to obtain the land alterataon permit(Exhibit 6);
WIiEREAS,the Owner failed to obtain any land alteration permit for the 1631 Property
after the expiration of the Permit on September 30,2005;
WIiEREAS, on or about September 5, 2011, the City, through its Police Department,
was dispatched to the 1627 Property and, on arrival, the responding officer observed the Owner,
who had not yet taken title and possession to the 162? Property, on a skid loader moving dirt
(Exhibit 7);
WHEREAS,on or about September 5,2011,there was no existing land alteration permit
for the 1627 Pmperty;
WHEREAS,the responding police officer observed during his visit to the 1627 Property
that there was no vegetative cover left in the rear yard of the 1627 Property(Exhibit 7);
WHEREAS, the Owner used heavy equipment and altered the land and moved dirt on
the 1627 Property without ever having appli� for or received a land alteration permit from the
City;
WHEREAS, on or about January 24, 2013, the City's Assistant Public Works Director
sent the Owner a letter regarding the "Non-permitted Soil Disturbance" at the 1627 Property
(Exhibit 8);
WHEREAS, in the January 24, 2013 letter, the City's Assistant Public Works Director
informed the Owner that: (1)"significant grading of soils has taken place" on the ]627 Property;
(2)that he had observed "stockpiled soils, a skid loader, and non-stabilized soils on-site"and (3)
that these activities required a land alteration permit(Exhibit 8);
WHEREAS, subsequent to the City's Assistant Public Works Director's January 24,
2013 letter,the Owner never applied for a land alterarion permit;
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013, Julie Jones, City Planning Manager, and Scott
Hickok, City Community Development Director, conducted an exterior inspection of the 1631
Property, and observed the plastic barrel retaining wall on the 1631 Pmperty and observed that it
was failing in that at least one of the plastic barrels in the second row had shifted out of line and
was susceptible to falling, one of the barrels had ripped open, and run off water was being
diverted off of the 1631 Property(Exhibit 9);
WHEREAS,with respect to the 1b31 Property, on September 11,2013,Julie Jones,City
Planning Manager, sent the Owner a First Notice of Non Compliance of the Fridley City Code
advising the Owner that: (1) his Permit had expired when he had done earth moving work; (2)
230
Appeals Commission Resolution No. 2014-02 Page 4
the Permit had not authorized construction of the plastic barrel retaining wall; and (3) the State
Building Code required a building permit when installing a retaining wall in excess of fow (4)
feet(Exhibit 10);
WHEREAS,with respect to the 162?Property,on September 12,2013,Julie Jones,City
Planning Manager, sent the Owner a First Notice of Non Compliance of the Fridley City Code
advising the Owner that he had extensively altered the rear yard and constructed a retaining wall
in excess of four(4)feet tall without a land alteration permit(Exhibit 11);
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, the 4wner served the City with a "Notice of
Contested Case" for each the 1627 Property and the 1631 Pmperty objecting to the City's
determinations concerning the grading and construction of a retaining wall without a valid land
alteration permit and building permit(Exhibit 12);
WHEREAS, with respect to the 1631 Property, on October 9, 2013, the City Planning
Manager, sent the Ovmer a letter advising the Owner that he had constructed a retaining wall
without a building permit or land alterarion permit, that the retaining wall is failing and creating
a public nuisance and that he needed to provide structural engineering certification for the wall
by December 3l,2013 or remove it by June 15,2014(Exhibit 13);
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2013, the City, through Scott Hickok, its Community
Development Director, mailed the Owner notice of the scheduling of an Appeals Commission
hearing for November 13, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. to hear the Owner's appeal from the Planning
Manager's order to provide structtu�al engineering certification of the retaining wall by December
31, 2013 or remove the retaining wall by June 15, 2014(Exhibit 15);
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2013, Darcy Erickson, the Fridley City Attorney, sent the
Owner a letter advising the Owner that the November 13, 2013 Appeals Commission meeting at
which the abatement of the retaining wall constructed without a valid land alteration permit and
building permit was cancelled,because the City abatement hearing was premature at that time, as
the October 9, 2013 Notice provided a deadline for removal of the retaining wa11 by June 15,
2014(Exhibit 16);
WHEREAS, the Owner failed to remove the retaining wall from the 1631 Property
before the June 15,2014 deadline;
WHEREAS, Owner failed to provide the City with an engineering report that certifies
that the retaining wall is structurally sound before the June I5, 2014 deadline, despite City
requests for said report;
WHEREAS, on or about July 9, 2014, the City sent letters to the Owner regarding the
1627 Property and the 1631 Property directing the Owner to remove the retaining wall
constructed without a proper building permit and rebuild it with proper permits or that he provide
structural engineering certification for the retaining wall by August 9,2014(Exhibits 17 and l 8).
231
Appeals Commission Resolution No. 2014-02 Page 5
WHEREAS, on or about August 8, 2014,the Owner provided the City with "Contested
Case"packets on both the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property(Exhibits 19 and 20).
WHEREAS, on or about August 20, 2014, the City, through Scott Hickok, its
Community Development Director, mailed the Owner notice of the scheduling of an Appeals
Commission hearing for September 3, 2014 at 1:04 p.m. to hear the Ovmer's appeal from the
order of the Planning Manager to remove and rebuild the 2-tier blue barrel retaining wall with
building and land alteration permits or provide the City with a structural certification for the
retaining wall from a licensed professional engineer(Exhibit 21);
WAEREAS, on or about August 28, 2014, the Owner mailed motions he filed with the
Anoka County Distriet Court concerning rec�uests for information, which he classified as
"discovery"(Exhibit 22);
WHEREAS,on or about September 3, 2014,the City received a letter,dated August 29,
2014, from Anoka County District Court advising the Own.er that it was unable to consider the
Owner's motions(Exhibit 23);
WHEREAS, aerial photography depicts significant changes in the topography of the
1627 Property and 1831 Property have occurred since 2000 (Elchibits 24 through 27 and 29
through 33);
WHEREAS,a valid land alteration permit existed for a three(3)month period from June .
30,2005 through September 30, 2005;
WHEREAS, significant topogaphical changes occurred between 2008 and 2011, when
there were no land alteration permits for either the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property
(Exhibits 24 through 27);
WHEREAS, at the September 3, 2014 Appeals Commission hearing, the City continu�
the hearing to October 1, 2014 so that it could prepare and provide the information requested by
the Owner;
WHEREAS,on or about September 12, 2014, City staff mailed the Owner a copy of the
materials responsive to his request;
WHEREAS, the City, through its Planning Manager Julie Jones Community
Development Director Scott Hickok, Assistant Public Works Director Layne Otteson, Building
Official Ron Julkowski, and Officer Matt Noren, and the Owner, appeared before the Appeals
Commission on October 1, 2014 and presented their respective azguments, evidence and
testimony to the Appeals Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley
after listening to all of the facts presented hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
232
Appeals Commission Resolution No. 201�4-02 Page 6
1. That each and all of the preceding statements are true and correct and are
incorporated herein as part of the findings of fact and record of these proceedings.
2. That each and all of the exhibits are incorporated herein as a part of the record of
these proceedings.
3. That Fridley City Code Section 205.04.4.I(2)states:
I. No land shall be altered and no use shall be permitted that results in water
run-off causing flooding, erosion or deposits of minerals on adjacent
properties. The following standards shall be implernented:
(2) A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted in
conjunction with a building or land alteration permit and shall be
drawn at a scale no smaller than (1) inch equals two hundred
feet....
4. That Fridley City Code Section 205.04.4.I.3 states:
(3) A grading and drainage plan is not required for the following
development activities:
(a) minor land disturbance activities such as home
gardens and individual residential landscaping,
repairs,and maintenance work....
5. That Fridley City Code Sections 205.04.4.I.3 exempts only those residential
landscaping and home gardening activities performed with simple hand tools such as
shovels and wheel barrows.
6. That Fridley City Code Se�tions 205.04.4.I(2) and 205.04.4.I.3 require land alteration
and grading permits for residential projects involving earth moving equipment.
7. That Fridley City Code Section 206.01.1 adopts the State Building Code and states:
]. Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 16B.59 through 16B.71, one copy of wluch is on file in the
office of the City Clerk of Fridley, Minnesota, is hereby adopted by reference as
the Building Code of the City of Fridley and incorporated in this Chapter as
completely as if set out here in full.
8. That Fridley City Code Section 206.01.2 incorporates Minr�esota Rules Chapter 1300,
which governs permitting and states:
2. The following chapters of the Minnesota State Building Code including the
following chapters of Minnesota Rules are adopted by the City:
233
Appeals Commission Resolution No.2014-02 Page 7
A. Chapter 1300—Administration of the Minnesota Building Code
9. Minn. R. 1300.0120 exempts retaining walls four (4} feet and less in height from
building permitting requirements but requires a building permit for any retaining wall
in excess of four(4)feet and states:
Subp. 4. Work Exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit
requirements of the code do not authorize work to be done in any manner
in violation no the code or any other laws or ordinances of this
jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following:
A. Building:
(4) retaining walls that are not over four feet(1,219
mm in height measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a
surcharge or impounding Class I, II, or III-A
liquids.
10. The Owner has engaged in extensive and significant earth moving on both the 1627
Property and the 1631 Property that exceeds a reasonable definition of minor land
disturbance such as individual residential landscaping, as he has utilized earth moving
eyuipment and has performed grading work that could not be accomplished with hand
tools alone.
11. T'he Owner's Permit for the 1631 Property expired on September 30, 2005 and the
Owner continued earth moving activities long after the expiration of the Peimit and in
violatian of City Code Section 205.04.4.I(2).
12. The Owner construct� the six(6) foot retaining wall on the 1631 Property without a
building permit for the 1631 Property in violation of Fridley City Code Sections
206.01.1 and 206.01.2, and Minn. R. 1300.0120.
13. The Owner never obtained a land alteration permit for the 1627 Property and engaged
in extensive and significant earth moving on the 1627 Property in violation of City
Code Secfion 205.04.4.I(2}.
14. The Owner constructed the six (6) foot retaining wall on the 1627 Property without
obtaining a land alteration and building permit for the 1627 Property as required by
Fridley City Code Sections 205.04.4.I(2), 20b.Ol.l and 206.01.2, and Minn. R.
1300.0120.
15. The Owner received several notices from the City's duly authorized code
enforcement agents over a period of years notifying the Owner that the retaining wall
must be removed and replaced pursuant to a valid land alteration and building permit
234
Appeals Commission Resolution No. 2014-02 Page 8
or that, in lieu of said removal and replacement, the Owner could provide structural
enginee�ring certification for the retaining wall.
16. The Owner has failed over that same period of years to remove and rebuild the
retaining wall pursuant to a valid land alteration and building pennit for land
alteration and construction of the retaining wa11 on the 1631 Property and 1627
Property.
17. The Owner has failed over that same period of years to ever provide the City with
structurai engineering certification as to the integrity of the retaining wall on the 1631
Property and 1627 Property.
BE IT FURTHER RE50LVED THAT based on these findings, the Appeals Commission of
the City of Fridl.ey hereby affirms the order of the City Planning Manager directing the Owner to
either: (1) remove the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and 1627 Property and reconstruct it
pursuant to valid land alteration and building permit; or (2) provide the City a structural
engineering certificate conceming the structural integrity of the retaining wall on the 1631
Property and the 1627 Property as required by Fridley City Code Section 205.OS.S.I(2),206.01.1,
and 206.01.2,as well as Minn.R. 1300.0120.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE APPEALS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
THIS 15� DAY OF OCTOBER 2014.
.
C�J
Br Sielaff,Chair
Attest:
Deb Skogen, Ci lerk
235
_ RECEIVED �F� 22�2� �� - �
� C[TYOF FRtDLEY
FRIDLEY MIJNICIPAL CENTER • 6�431 UNIVERSiTY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY. MN ii432-4308
(763)571-3=15p • FAX(76�)571-I?87 • ��ww.FridleyMN.gov
October 8, 2014
James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Dear Mr. Kiewel:
Enclosed is a copy of the resolution approved by the Appeals Commission on October 1, 2014,
following your appeal hearing.This resolution includes the Commission's Findings of Fact as
required by code.
I understand that you submitted a formal request for a form to submit an application to the
Local Building Code Board of Appeals. In Fridley,the Appeals Commission (the body you already
had a hearing before on October 1) is assigned the legislative authority in Chapter 6.06 of City
Code to serve as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments pursuant to MSS 462.351 to 462.364 for
zoning and building code matters. So, the hearing held before the Fridley Appeals Commission
on October 1, 2014 is the hearing before a local appeals board that you are requesting.
If you feel aggrieved by the Appeals Commission's decision, you have 20 days from receipt of
this notice to file an appeal to the City Council in writing to tfie Community Development
Director, Scott Hickok. If you appeal your case to the City Council, it will be heard at the next
available City Council meeting once Scott receives your request.
As you consider your options, know that the City staff is willing to meet with you.Since we are in
meet��:gs a��d ou� i�� the €ie�u much of the day, hctiv�ver, it��;ould be aast if you call�d ta set a�
appointment with one of us before coming in. My direct line is 763-572-3599 or I can be reached
via email at julie.jones@fridleymn.gov.
Sincerely,
� �)�.�.
Juli Jones
Planning Manager
L�x -3
RECEIy�D DEC 2;2 �
ESTEPHAN ENGINEERING
1262 North Court, New Brighton, MN 55112, Tel. /Fax (651)636-6867
December 20, 2014
Mr. James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Rd,
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: Retaining Wall Review At The Above Address.
Project No.: R 1514
Dear Mr. Kiewel,
I visited your house at the above address to observe the existing retaining wall that you
constructed 9 years ago. According to your information the wall was constructed using
plastic drums filled with road base material that the city let you have when they were
doing road work along the street that you live on. The size of the drums is 22" diameter
by 3'-0" tall. There are two layers of drums. Each layer consist of two rows of drums
bolted together. The top layer was placed with about 6" setback. There is also a 2'-0" of
soil on top of the wall retained by treated timber pieces locked together along the wall
with back ties. The maximum wall retaining height is 8'-0". Also you informed me that
most of your back yard was backfilled with the same road base material. Based on your
information the road base material after compaction and sitting underground for 9 years,
it became solid similar to concrete and very stable.
Based on my analysis using the information above, the existing retaining wall as
constructed is stable and should perform adequately.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Henry Estephan, P.C.
Minnesota Registration No. 21541
CITY OF FRIDLEY �
RESOLUTION NO.2014_
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
RELATED TO 1627 and 1631 RICE CREEK ROAD NE
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley, Minnesota (the "City"), through its Community Development
staff, including the Planning Manager and Community Development Director, conducts routine and
systematic zoning code enforcement inspections throughout the City to help protect the health, safety,
general welfare and good order of the public;
WHEREAS, an owner of property is liable for violations of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance
pursuant to City Code Section 205.05.10,which specifically states:
10. ENFORCEMENT
Violation a Misdemeanor; Penalty.
The owner of a building or premises in or upon which a violation of any provisions
of this Chapter has been committed,or shall exist; or the lessee of the entire building
or entire premises in or upon which a violation has been committed or shall exist;or the
owner or lessee of any part of the building, or premises in or upon which such violation
has been committed or shall exist,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,and subject to all
penalties provided for such violations under the provision of Chapter 901 of this
Code each and every day that such violation continues. Any such person who,having
been served with an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said
order to remove any such violation,within ten(l0)days after such service,or shall
continue to violate any provisions of the regulations made under authority of this Chapter
in the respect named in such order shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to all
penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of this Code.
Each day that such violation continues shall be a separate violation.
(emphasis added).
WHEREAS, James Kiewel ("Owner") owns real property located at 1627 Rice Creek Road NE
in the City(the"1627 Property);
WHEREAS, Owner owns real property located at1631 Rice Creek Road NE in the City (the �
"1631 Property");
WHEREAS, the City Zoning Code reyuires a land alteration permit whenever earth moving
equipment is involved in major land disturbance activities on real property;
WHEREAS, while the Fridley City Code only allows minor landscaping that can be completed
with hand tools to be conducted on residential property without a land alteration permit;
WHEREAS, on or about June 28, 2005, Owner applied for a land alteration permit (the
"PermiY')for the 1631 Property(Exhibit 2);
236
City Council Resolution No. 2014 -_ Page 2
WHEREAS, the materials that the Owner submitted to the City indicated that the proposed
change on the 1631 Property in the land alteration work for which he sought the Permit included a
retaining wall and depicted a four(4)foot grade difference from one end of the lot to the other(Exhibit 2)
indicating a retaining wall under four(4) feet tall;
WHEREAS, if the Owner's land alteration permit application indicated a retaining wall over four
(4) feet in height, City policy would have required additional engineering drawings in order to
demonstrate and certify that the retaining wall was properly designed;
WHEREAS,while the State Building Code provides that any retaining wall over four(4) feet in
height requires owners to obtain a building permit, City practice is to fulfill and administer the State
Building Code permit requirement through issuance of the land alteration permit because City Public
Works staff is more qualified to review, analyze and approve such plans as they relate to grading and
erosion control;
WHEREAS, in administering the building permit requirement in this manner, the land alteration
permit, issued under the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires an owner as one of its conditions to submit
engineering plans to demonstrate that the retaining wall was properly designed;
WHEREAS, in enforcing the terms and conditions of its land alteration permit, the City is
enforcing its Zoning Ordinance rather than the State Building Code;
WHEREAS, in the application, the Owner requested the Permit to "fill low lying areas of[the]
backyard"on the 1631 Property(Exhibit 2);
WHEREAS, on or about June 30, 2005, the City approved the Permit for the 1631 Property
(Exhibit 2);
WHEREAS, the Permit only authorized land alteration and dirt and fill moving on the 1631
Property and not the 1627 Property(Exhibit 2);
WHEREAS, Owner moved dirt on the 1631 Property during the timeframe allowed pursuant to
the Permit;
WHEREAS,the Permit expired on September 30,2005 (Exhibit 2);
WHEREAS, on or about October 4, 2005, the City received a noise complaint that Owner had
been moving dirt on the 1631 Property with heavy equipment;
WHEREAS, subsequent to the October 4, 2005 noise complaint, the City, through its Assistant
Public Works Director, discovered that the Owner had constructed a six(6) foot tall retaining wall on the
1631 Property consisting of two levels of three(3)foot tall plastic barrels(Exhibit 3);and
WHEREAS, in some areas on the 1631 Property, the retaining wall is topped with three rows of
railroad ties, for a total height in excess of eight(8)feet in some areas on the Property(Exhibit 9); and
WHEREAS, City Code Sections 206.01.1 and 206.01.2, as well as Minn. R. 1300.0120 require
the issuance of a building permit for the construction of any retaining wall that exceeds four (4) feet in
height;
237
City Council Resolution No. 2014 -_ Page 3
WHEREAS, the City issues its building permit for retaining walls that exceed four (4) feet in
height through inclusion of the retaining wall authorization in the land alteration permit and is reflected in
a condition that the retaining wall design be certified by a professional engineer;
WHEREAS,the Permit did not authorize or allow the Owner to construct a retaining wall on the
1631 Properiy that exceeded four(4) feet in height and did not authorize any retaining wall construction
or land alteration or earth moving at all on the 1627 Property;
WHEREAS, on or about December l4, 2005, the City Assistant Public Works Director sent a
letter to the Owner notifying him that: (1) the Permit had expired; (2) he needed to provide structural
engineering certification to approve the constructed retaining wall; and (3) directed him to obtain a new
land alteration permit by December 3l,2005 (Exhibit 3);
WHEREAS,the Owner never obtained another land alteration permit for the 1631 Property;
WHEREAS,the Owner has admitted that the retaining wall exceeds four(4)feet in height;
WHEREAS, after the expiration of the Permit, the Owner continued to move more dirt, and fill
on the 1631 Property without a valid, unexpired land alteration permit and moved dirt and fill on the 1627
Properiy(Exhibits 5 and 7);
WHEREAS, on or about July 29, 2007, the City received a noise complaint through its Police
Department regarding the 1631 Property and, upon arrival, the responding officer observed the Owner
driving a bobcat and moving dirt on the 1631 Property(Elchibit 5);
WHEREAS, on or about July 29, 2007, the Owner did not have a land alteration permit
authorizing land alteration and dirt moving on the 1631 Property;
WHEREAS,on or about August 6, 2007, City Community Development Director, Scott Hickok,
sent the Owner a letter informing him that he needed to obtain a land alteration permit for the excavation
continuing to occur on the 1631 Property and provided an August 10, 2007 deadline to obtain the land
alteration permit(Exhibit 6);
WHEREAS,the Owner failed to obtain any land alteration permit for the 1631 Property after the
expiration of the Permit on September 30,2005;
WHEREAS, on or about September 5, 2011, the City, through its Police Deparhnent, was
dispatched to the 1627 Property and, on arrival, the responding officer observed the Owner, who had not
yet taken title and possession to the 1627 Property, on a skid loader moving dirt(Exhibit 7);
WHEREAS, on or about September 5, 2011, there was no existing land alteration permit for the
1627 Property;
WHEREAS, the responding police officer observed during his visit to the 1627 Property that
there was no vegetative cover left in the rear yard of the 1627 Property(Exhibit 7);
WHEREAS, the Owner used heavy equipment and altered the land and moved dirt on the 1627
Property without ever having applied for or received a land alteration permit from the City;
WHEREAS, on or about January 24, 2013, the City's Assistant Public Works Director sent the
Owner a letter regarding the"Non-permitted Soil Disturbance"at the 1627 Property(Exhibit 8);
238
City Council Resolution No. 2014 -_ Page 4
WHEREAS, in the January 24, 2013 letter,the City's Assistant Public Works Director informed
the Owner that: (1)"significant grading of soils has taken place" on the 1627 Property; (2) that he had
observed "stockpiled soils, a skid loader, and non-stabilized soils on-site" and (3) that these activities
required a land alteration permit(Exhibit 8);
WHEREAS, subsequent to the City's Assistant Public Works Director's January 24, 2013 letter,
the Owner never applied for a land alteration permit;
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013, Julie Jones, City Planning Manager, and Scott Hickok, City
Community Development Director, conducted an exterior inspection of the 1631 Property, and observed
the plastic barrel retaining wall on the 1631 Property and observed that it was failing in that at least one of
the plastic barrels in the second row had shifted out of line and was susceptible to falling, one of the
barrels had ripped open,and run off water was being diverted off of the 1631 Property(Exhibit 9);
WHEREAS, with respect to the 1631 Property, on September 11, 2013, Julie Jones, City
Planning Manager, sent the Owner a First Notice of Non Compliance of the Fridley City Code advising
the Owner that: (1)his Permit had expired when he had done earth moving work; (2)the Permit had not
authorized construction of the plastic barrel retaining wall; and (3) the State Building Code required a
building permit when installing a retaining wall in excess of four(4)feet(Exhibit 10);
WHEREAS, with respect to the 1627 Property, on September 12, 2013, Julie Jones, City
Planning Manager, sent the Owner a First Notice of Non Compliance of the Fridley City Code advising
the Owner that he had extensively altered the rear yard and constructed a retaining wall in excess of four
(4)feet tall without a land alteration permit(Exhibit 11);
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2013, the Owner served the City with a "Notice of Contested
Case" for each the 1627 Properly and the 1631 Property objecting to the City's determinations
concerning the grading and construction of a retaining wall without a valid land alteration permit and
building permit(Exhibit 12);
WHEREAS, with respect to the 1631 Property, on October 9, 2013, the City Planning Manager,
sent the Owner a letter advising the Owner that he had constructed a retaining wall without a building
permit or land alteration permit, that the retaining wall is failing and creating a public nuisance and that
he needed to provide structural engineering certification for the wall by December 3l, 2013 or remove it
by June 15,2014(Exhibit l3);
WHEREAS,on November 1, 2013,the City,through Scott Hickok, its Community Development
Director, mailed the Owner notice of the scheduling of an Appeals Commission hearing for November
13,2013 at 7:00 p.m. to hear the Owner's appeal from the Planning Manager's order to provide structural
engineering certification of the retaining wall by December 31, 2013 or remove the retaining wall by June
15,2014(Exhibit 15);
WHEREAS,on November 7, 2013, Darcy Erickson,the Fridley City Attorney, sent the Owner a
letter advising the Owner that the November 13, 2013 Appeals Commission meeting at which the
abatement of the retaining wall constructed without a valid land alteration permit and building permit was
cancelled, because the City abatement hearing was premature at that time, as the October 9, 2013 Notice
provided a deadline for removal of the retaining wall by June 15, 2014(Exhibit 16);
WHEREAS, the Owner failed to remove the retaining wall from the 1631 Property before the
June 15,2014 deadline;
239
City Council Resolution No. 2014 -_ Page 5
WHEREAS, Owner failed to provide the City with an engineering report that certifies that the
retaining wall is structurally sound before the June 15, 2014 deadline, despite City requests for said
report;
WHEREAS, on or about July 9, 2014, the City sent letters to the Owner regarding the 1627
Property and the 1631 Property directing the Owner to remove the retaining wall constructed without a
proper building permit and rebuild it with proper permits or that he provide structural engineering
certification for the retaining wall by August 9,2014(Exhibits 17 and 18).
WHEREAS, on or about August 8, 2014, the Owner provided the City with "Contested Case"
packets on both the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property(Exhibits 19 and 20).
WHEREAS, on or about August 20, 2014, the City, through Scott Hickok, its Community
Development Director, mailed the Owner notice of the scheduling of an Appeals Commission hearing for
September 3, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. to hear the Owner's appeal from the order of the Planning Manager to
remove and rebuild the 2-tier blue barrel retaining wall with building and land alteration permits or
provide the City with a structural certification for the retaining wall from a licensed professional engineer
(Exhibit 21);
WHEREAS, on or about August 28, 2014, the Owner mailed motions he filed with the Anoka
County District Court concerning requests for information, which he classified as "discovery" (E�chibit
22);
WHEREAS, on or about September 3, 2014, the City received a letter, dated August 29, 2014,
from Anoka County District Court advising the Owner that it was unable to consider the Owner's motions
(Exhibit 23);
WHEREAS, aerial photography depicts significant changes in the topography of the 1627
Property and 1631 Property have occurred since 2000(E�chibits 24 through 27 and 29 through 33);
WHEREAS, a valid land alteration permit existed for a three (3) month period from June 30,
2005 through September 30,2005;
WHEREAS, significant topographical changes occurred between 2008 and 2011, when there
were no land alteration permits for either the 1627 Property and the 1631 Property (Exhibits 24 through
27);
WHEREAS, at the September 3, 2014 Appeals Commission hearing, the City continued the
hearing to October 1,2014 so that it could prepare and provide the information requested by the Owner;
WHEREAS, on or about September 12, 2014, City staff mailed the Owner a copy of the
materials responsive to his request;
WHEREAS, the City, through its Planning Manager, Julie Jones, Community Development
Director, Scott Hickok, Assistant Public Works Director Layne Otteson, and the Owner, appeared before
the Appeals Commission on October 1, 2014 and presented their respective arguments, evidence and
testimony to the Appeals Commission;
WHEREAS, the Appeals Commission affirmed the Order of the City's Planning Manager in
Resolution 2014-02;
240
City Council Resolution No. 2014 -_ Page 6
WHEREAS,on October 30,2014,the Owner filed an appea) with the City Manager; and
WHEREAS,City staff scheduled the appeal before the City Council on November 10, 2014, and
the.City Council continued the hearing to November 24, 2014 upon request by James Kiewel, and again
to December 22,2014 upon written request by Mr.Kiewel;and
WHEREAS, the City, through its Planning Manager, Julie Jones, Community Development
Director, Scott Hickok, Public Works Director, James Kosluchar, and the Owner, appeared before the
City Council on November 10, 2014 and December 22. 2-14 and presented their respective arguments,
evidence and testimony to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Fridley after listening to
all of the facts presented hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. That each and all of the preceding statements are true and correct and are incorporated herein
as part of the findings of fact and record of these proceedings.
2. That each and all of the exhibits are incorporated herein as a part of the record of these
proceedings.
3. That Fridley City Code Section 205.04.4.I(2)states:
I. No land shall be altered and no use shall be permitted that results in water run-off
causing flooding, erosion or deposits of minerals on adjacent properties. The
following standards shall be implemented:
(2) A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted in conjunction
with a building or land alteration permit and shall be drawn at a scale no
smaller than(1) inch equals two hundred feet....
4. That Fridley City Code Section 205.04.4.I.3 states:
(3) A grading and drainage plan is not required for the following
development activities:
(a) minor land disturbance activities such as home gardens
and individual residential landscaping, repairs, and
maintenance work....
5. That Fridley City Code Sections 205.04.4.I.3 exempts only those residential landscaping and
home gardening activities performed with simple hand tools such as shovels and wheel
barrows.
6. That Fridley City Code Sections 205.04.4.I(2) and 205.04.4.I3 require land alteration and
grading permits for residential projects involving earth moving equipment.
7. That Fridley City Code Section 206.01.1 adopts the State Building Code and states:
1. Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 16B.59 through 16B.71, one copy of which is on file in the office of the City
241
City Council Resolution No. 2014 -_ Page 7
Clerk of Fridley, Minnesota, is hereby adopted by reference as the Building Code of the
City of Fridley and incorporated in this Chapter as complete as if set out here in full.
8. That Fridley City Code Section 206.01.2 incorporates Minnesota Rules Chapter 1300, which
governs permitting and states:
2. The following chapters of the Minnesota State Building Code including the following
chapters of Minnesota Rules are adopted by the City:
A. Chapter 1300—Administration of the Minnesota Building Code
9. Minn. R. 1300.0120 exempts retaining walls four (4) feet and less in height from building
permitting requirements but requires a building permit for any retaining wall in excess of four
(4)feet and states:
Subp.4. Work Exempt from permit. Exemptions from permit requirements of
the code do not authorize work to be done in any manner in violation no the code
or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required
for the following:
A. Building:
(4) retaining walls that are not over four feet(1,219 mm
in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the
top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or
impounding Class I,II,or III-A liquids.
10. While the State Building Code provides that any retaining wall over four (4) feet in height
requires owners to obtain a building permit, City practice is to fulfill and administer the State
Building Code permit requirement through issuance of the land alteration permit.
11. In administering the building permit requirement in this manner, the land alteration permit,
issued under the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires the owner, as a condition of the land
alteration permit, to submit engineering plans to demonstrate that the retaining wall
construction was properly designed and as such,the City is enforcing its Zoning Ordinance.
12. Appeals from the City's enforcement of its Zoning Ordinance are heard pursuant to Chapter
205.
l3. The Owner has engaged in extensive and significant earth moving on both the 1627 Property
and the 1631 Property that exceeds a reasonable definition of minor land disturbance such as
individual residential landscaping, as he has utilized earth moving equipment and has
performed grading work that could not be accomplished with hand tools alone.
l4. The Owner's Permit for the 1631 Properiy expired on September 30, 2005 and the Owner
continued earth moving activities long after the expiration of the Permit and in violation of
City Code Section 205.04.4.I(2).
15. The Owner constructed the six (6) foot high retaining wall on the 1631 Property without a
building permit for the 1631 Property in violation of Fridley City Code Sections 206.01.1 and
206.01.2, and Minn. R. 1300.0120.
242
City Council Resolution No. 2014 -_ Page 8
16. The Owner never obtained a land alteration permit for the 1627 Properly and engaged in
. extensive and significant earth moving on the 1627 Property in violation of City Code
Section 205.04.4.1(2).
17. The Owner constructed the six(6) foot retaining wal) on the 1627 Property without obtaining
a land alteration and building permit for the 1627 Property as required by Fridley City Code
Sections 205.04.4.I(2), 206.01.1 and 206.01.2,and Minn. R. 1300.0120.
18. The Owner received several notices from the City's duly authorized code enforcement agents
over a period of years notifying the Owner that the retaining wall must be removed and
replaced pursuant to a valid land alteration and building permit or that, in lieu of said removal
and replacement, the Owner could provide structurai engineering certification for the
retaining wall.
19. The Owner has failed over that same period of years to remove and rebuild the retaining wall
pursuant to a valid land alteration or building permit for land alteration and construction of
the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and 1627 Property.
20. Pursuant to City Code Section 205.05.10, each and every day a violation exists constitutes a
violation and, as a result,the statute of limitations has not run on the Owner's violation of the
City Code and, it specifically states:
10. ENFORCEMENT
Violation a Misdemeanor; Penalty.
The owner of a building or premises in or upon which a violation of any provisions
of this Chapter has been committed, or shall exist; or the lessee of the entire building
or entire premises in or upon which a violation has been committed or shall exist; or the
owner or lessee of any part of the building, or premises in or upon which such violation
has been committed or shall exist, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,and subject to all
penalties provided for such violations under the provision of Chapter 901 of this
Code each and every day that such violation continues. Any such person who,
having been served with an order to remove any such violation,shall fail to comply
with said order to remove any such violation,within ten (10) days after such service,
or shall continue to violate any provisions of the regulations made under authority
of this Chapter in t6e respect named in such order shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of
Chapter 901 of this Code. Each day that such violation continues shall be a separate
violation.
(emphasis added).
21. The Owner has failed over that same period of years to ever provide the City with structural
engineering certification as to the integrity of the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and
1627 Property.
22. The Appeals Commission appropriately heard the Owner's appeal pursuant to City Code
Chapter 205 from the City Planning Manager's order to remove the retaining wall on 1631
243
City Council Resolution No. 2014 -_ Page 9
Property and 1627 Property and reconstruct it pursuant to valid land. alteration or building
permit; or (2) provide the City a structural engineering certificate concerning the structural
integrity of the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and the 1627 Property.
23. Because the City permits retaining walls governed by the State Building Code through the
City's land alteration permit issued under the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 205, the appeal
from the City's enforcement of its retaining wall permitting requirements are heard pursuant
to City Code Chapter 205 rather than as building code appeal.
24. Whether the Owner's retaining wall constructed on the 1631 Property and 1627 Property
required engineering data to fulfill the State Building Code reyuirement administered through
the land alteration permit issued pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance is a zoning matter issue
than a technical State Building Code issue and the Appeals Commission is qualified and
authorized to hear such matters.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT based on these findings,the City Council of the City of Fridley
hereby affirms the order of the City Planning Manager directing the Owner to either: (1) remove the
retaining wall on the 1631 Property and 1627 Property and reconstruct it pursuant to valid land alteration
or building permit; or (2) provide the City a structural engineering certificate concerning the structural
integrity of the retaining wall on the 1631 Property and the 1627 Properiy as required by Fridley City
Code Section 205.OS.S.I(2),206.01.1,and 206.01.2,as well as Minn. R. 1300.0120.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 22"d DAY
OF DECEMBER 2014.
Scott Lund,Mayor
Attest:
Debra Skogen,City Clerk
244
' 3� � .
�ch�b�-�' 2 .
. _ tr
. � . . �7 fo
� -. _ .
�,Z �,S� Eff�tive November 3,2000
Reaei t ���� .
P � c.�- /`�
� g�,� ��j��� �J � v � .
Fee: $,._.;�,_,�
,�
CITY OF FRmT,FV �
. � � xn AT, � .R TION PE
APPLICANT ���� K1 � L✓V�� Tel.# 7�3—� 7 Y�G2 G t
Addtess�,� l !/� •� e C1'i �c � k c.l -
,
�ROPERTY O�'VNE�� j
� f
NAME •f',� ,,,,t ,,,• Tel.#
Address � � �
N� Tel.# �
. i
Address
L��;;n�crurn�rrnx nF PROPER�t
Lot� Block Addition '�
/�a..r„�" D ��. A..�, a� .J' �,,� #� �. 2
d
nF�CRD'TION OF�•stvn AT�RATION
d�
Va1ue of Work: $ � S Q d Starting Date: -- Completion Date:
� Sourcz aad Composition of Fill: 1'� •�• � — e�� �- � � �4 c � c�..-°7�'�e�o
PURPOS�OF LA '�'F'RA ON ,
_�f �� � e t.J � �'_!� /T ✓�G a 1 G r= 4 c jC Li �. vK
245 �
. �.
� .
� ., ' _
' . Stipulations Continued
5. Any explosives used must be done so in accorclance with Chttpter 212,subsections 212.07.SA,.SB,.SC,.SD,
and.SF. ofthe Fridley City Code and any other app�icable standards,e.g.Federal, Stafe,Industrial, etc.
6. At the end of each season's operations and no later t�an the last day of December each year,the site is to be
left in a neat and orderly condition,with maximum slopes of 2:1 wi'th no overliang or vertical banks and with
a level bottom. �
7. On the Friday of each work week,or when required by the City,material from this operation that is found to
exist on City stre�ts shall be cleaned to the City's satisfaction by the applicant.
8. Upon completion of land alteration operations, the land must be left according to the plans and contours
submitt�with this application aad planted with suitable vegetation to prevent erosion.
9. Upon completion of land alteration operations or expiration of this permit,aa inspection will be made by the .
City of the premises and adjoini.ng streets. Any damage found to have been caused by these opera�ions will
be corrected by the applicant upon notification by the City.
. ��
� � � �� �1
Ys E�.s� •� DAtC. r � " L� v •+/ .
�Ir
Applic ' Signat
Date:
�� s Signature
� Date:
Property Owner's Signature � �
�
� �R CITY USE ONLY
Recommended for � a1 By: Date: 6-"�'J�'d'�
APPmved By: D�' d'a '����-
PERNIIT EXPIRATION DATE: Q �
246
� � r�%� �����
�r, ��
► ♦` � � . - `;;;;�:,.:
iHA:�f M, ���
.__ y,•�x� '
B
/ �
��`�����
�=,_�;�°���a��
-- �
���� ,� �
_ _---- —�-- ��� �
q1"p[R
���"v,,"Sn .��
�; . ' �
/ � I .�I`.��;:s
�'��:'�A:"r� ��gP�-�p��
��� ��•"'��'.:�%r�"��� r
[� � �Y'10 b .+Y�� '�I
{CY.� L����..' �'J .✓ '� ��
4Y Y
1 �1-,r�1 y� +J� ��
�y'`� .iJ����� � M ri�'i� �.
.4: W���4FI4�7�``� � ����'.
"llAtOfR� ,.4.�r','e.•5�;,:
�� ��:��!�
� ■ ��;;��I
� � ��� � ������
F�� ' ������ .' �Y � .��
�� �:. ���'. .�. ��� ���
'�� � � �� � � ;
'��i7i �i� z f :'��-:t��Y'.�`,���.'��7�� �
,�� �� ,�� l�
� .,_ "�� �� � =��� ��,1 ��
� �i �y'""� �. ::���� ���. �
�•,. - d .,•R�_wb �. {��k�1��� �
� ( �� ^���..�c.�.�;, � �
.,
`��� � ��� ?�`�` ����
e:��y� � .. ��:� � :�� ���
.,,
v ■ � �crR:': � �
� ��' ��:� � t
.n�:� .
� � ! � :�
�T ' o��` '' ��
—P ���.. ���:�: � � �'�
�� � '��i
���:�����' " �
�<� . I'
� .� I� �
��,�"�r� .:�i� 1rA� fi,ar'� ��:� ����`.
� ��`'�'.��,!��'- ro,:� ��.��
���' ���'��� . ;;� ��x:��i�l
'�; ����:. _ ����-���� :� ������
`�'�x: -` �,���;�k�� � II��'{', ���
.�<�� �' ._.,�'�����
�-��� .� �-k
��...;�
�'�',.�""'�-•�����r :�,��;r. {��g�p� .
� F. r .J N,'+�.�1 a?.aIIi'.lf +'�.��
'�'' �{��`� �;.�F�
� �e:�r� m�� 4 _> 's�
�us..�.��s.�W.�dw-.u, .�t�����, � ��
: ��•. �����.� ���
, �� � � �� ����
�i����.+����� �
_ '-�' � � �
� '' , ,.�����
:� ����� ��� ����
�', �' �� ��C ,�� �!i"fi ���
�'
v ���°"3�; °�� � �:� s� � :�
,.�
� F�ch �b�� 3
'� G1YOF
ERIDLE.Y
FRIDLEY MUMCIPAL CENTER • 643 I UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432
(763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • TTD/ITY(763)572-3534
Decernber 14, 2005 PW05-069
Mr. James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Rd.
Fridley Mn 55432
Dear Mr. Kiewel:
1 received a complaink from a new Brighton resident this fall asking about the grading thak you
are dofng in the bach yard. Fle stated that work was being performed on the weekend using a bull
dozer.
Please be advised that your Land Alteration Permit expired on September 30�', 2005. This was
the date you told me that you would be completed with your grading and retaining walls. I wouid
request that yau stabilize the site and perform no other work until anokher land alkeratian permik
is issued.
Also, in regards to the rekaining walis, 1 noticed you used plastic barrels as a retaining wall. You
did not disclose that you were considering using an altemative or experimenfial retaining wail�
produc� CurrentJy, plastic barrels are� not an approved ptoduct for retaining wall construction.
Approved materials include timbers, segmental biocks, poured concrete, and boulders. 1 do not
know of any plastic barrel engineering data for rekaining wall construction. Thfs is a safety issue
for you, the Future property owner, and your neighbors.
Structurai information needed for approvat aF this altemative retaining wall include:
• internal friction of the soils
� Drainage � �
• Geosynthetic reinforcement
• Factors of Safety
• 1.5 for sliding ,
• 2.0 for overtuming
• 2.0 for bearing capacity .
� Angle of wall inclination
• Shear capacity and/or plastic barrel deFormation �
248
December 14. 2005
Page 2
Because you have used an alkemative material for building the wall and I can find no engineering
daka to support the use oP plastic barrels, piease provide engineering data for the plastic barrels.
Aiso, provide infamation regarding W protect3on to the plastic barrels.
In conclusion, t need:
1. hew land alterakion permit by December 31, 2005.
2. Please include site stabillzation plan for d�e spring melt wlth the new land atterat3on
perrnit
3. Engineering data to support the use of plastic barrels as a wall by February 28, 2005.
Thank ynu For you tlme. Plea�e call me to discuss or stop in.
Sincerely,
Layne Otteson, PE
Assistank Public Works Director (
LO
�
249
Case Number 07179435 Details Pa e 1 f 1
�xh�b,� S
Case Number 07179435 Details
CAD Information Imaqed Documents
CASE DESCRIPTION: 09806 NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE
DATE OF INCIDENT: 7/29/2007 20:05
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE, FRIDLEY, MN 55432-
� NAME DOB SEX INVOLVEMENT
KEMMET. BOB COMPLAINANT
KEMMET. SANDRA F COMPLAINANT
KIEWEL, JAMES DOUGLAS 7/19/1954 M SUSPECT
REPORTING OFFICER(S): M144 NOREN, MATT
NARRATIVE:
SYNOPSIS:
Dispatched to 1631 Rice Creek Rd NE on a report of the homeowner running a bobcat in his back
yard which is loud and disturbing to the caller. I spoke with the homeowner Kiewel (observed him
driving the bobcat while moving dirt in his backya�d)who advised he had a permit to complete his
work and that he would be done in 10 minutes. I advised him of the city noise ordinance. I then
spoke with the callers' Bob and Sandy Kemmet who state this is an ongoing problem with the
bobcat for the last 4 years. I advised them to contact the City of Fridley regarding their concerns and
continue to call police for their noise complaint issues. Clear
DETAILS:
Dispatched to 1631 Rice Creek Rd NE on a report of the homeowner running a bobcat in his back
yard which is loud and disturbing to the caller. I spoke with the homeowner Kiewel(observed him
driving the bobcat while moving dirt in his backyard)who advised he had a permit to complete his
work and that he would be done in 10 minutes. Kiewel did not seem concemed that I was at his �
residence and acted as though he did not have time to speak with me as everytime I was done
asking a question he would immediately tum on his bobcat. I would then have to have him shut off
the bobcat so I could finish my discussion with him. This happened two times during our
conversation. I advised him of the city noise ordinance.
I then spoke with the callers' Bob and Sandy Kemmet who state this is an ongoing problem with the
bobcat for the last 4 years. The Kemmet's stated that they have called the city in the past with
negative results and are mad that nothing is being done about the situation. They further stated that
Kiewel has been working on his yard with the bobcat at all hours of the day and also weekends for
the past four years. They state the loud constant noise of the bobcat is tiresome and bothering them
as they cannot sit on their deck because of the noise. I advised them to contact the City of Fridley
regarding their concerns and continue to call police for their noise complaint issues when wamanted.
- I also spoke to an anonymous neighbor of the Kemmets who had the same opinion as the
Kemmets.
Clear
https://accr.ci.coon-rapids.mn.us/CaseDetails.asp?Gase Number-07179435&Jurisdiction=... 9/2/2014
.�ch,b�� (p
August 6, 2007
James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
SUBJECT: Excavation in Rear Yard of 1631 Rice Creek Road
Deaz Mr. Kiewel:
Late last week I received a Police report about excavation in the rear yazd of your home
at 1631 Rice Creek Road. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that excavation on
your site cannot be done without the benefit of a land alteration permit being issued first.
Your land alteration permit has been expired for over a yeaz. Also, a curb cut has been
made onto Rice Creek Road without proper authorization. Anoka County will likely
require the replacement of that curb, or an approved curb cut in their right of way. From
speaking with County Highway Department representatives, it is our understanding that
no right of way permit was given by the County for your new driveway.
Please contact the City Engineer immediately and provide plans for the work that is being
completed at this time. Land alteration permits are issued through the engineering
department and a permit will be required prior to the commencement of any work.
Further legal action will commence if this matter is not rectified in a reasonable
timeframe. Please apply for a land alteration permit by Friday,August 10, 200'1, or
immediately cease earth-movement and seed or sod the disturbed azea to prevent wind
and water erosion. A silt fence will be required surrounding the entire area being
excavated, until turf or an approved suitable ground cover has been established.
251
If you have questions about the land alteration permit requirements, Layne Otteson,
� Acting City Engineer/Public Works Director can be reached at 763-572-3551.
Sincerely:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
Scott J. Hickok
Community Development Director
252
' ' ' ~,�,J�C.�' �xh:b:+ ']
{ �
�:
FRIDLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT MN0�20600 ��F�❑ Pegss: � * 1 1 2 P1 2 6 5 2 *
O 8
LL' M129 KNIGHT,CHRISTOPHER J M130 PANKONIN,BARRY � Tobl Wdue S�ok�(Rov�b�I: 50.00
Z
F. • . . . .
� 09/05/2011 02:03 PM 1408 1414 �438 Tatel Velue Dar�eped�.,y�: 50,00
O
Z � � � Total Velus Reooverod�oary�: 50.00
� . .
1627 RICE CREEI�RD NE FRIDLEY,MN b5492- 11 -11
MOC Code: ClessHit�tlon: Dis itbn:
v 09816 INFORMATtON . ' ASSI3TED/ADVISED
W
ZN
W
�
O
IncWent Narrative 1
Officers discovered a male was doing wo�k in the back ysrd of a neighbors property that is bank owned at this time,
and he is in the process�f pu�chasing. A lawn mowing company that had been cantracted to maintain th�{awn also
found damage to the rear lock of the residence, and they photographed it for the bank. No charges at this time.
� ______=__=Dispatch Info=_=_=_____
Q Remarks: LAWN COMPANY CONTRACTED BY BANK TO DO MA1NT ON FORECLOSED PROPERTY AT LOC
� NOW FINDING THE HOUSE HAS BEEN BURG AND NEIGH MALE{S CllRRENTLY IN THE BACKYARD
� REMOVING LANDSCAPING WITH A SKID LOADER
-----------------------------------
[9/5/2011:1403] Officers anived on the listed call and spoke with�who advised he is contracted by Reverse
Mortgage(the bank who owns the residence at 1627 Rice Creek Rd NE)and�found the lock on the rear door of the
residence had been damaged, and the neighbor was working in the t�ack ya�d with a skid loader. �advised the lock
has been damaged a few times in the recent past,atx!there was no obvious damage to the inside of the residence
NMlE CQDES. A-AdtAt Artested, AC-Art�lnp C1tl�n, C-ComplefneM, D-DrArer,�F-FamAylPararN, 0-i3uaMisn, J•Jwenlle An�sted,
M-Msr�ioned,MP-MNNng Person, 1-Other ImroNsd, O-Owr�ar, P-Paessnyer. PT-Pe�petrator, R-Rsportee, S-Suepect, V-Vk;qm, W-WM�►esa
�p�� . . 91118: .
�g� C REVERSE.MORTGAGE
� � � . . . .
,MN
� . . ye . . us. . �
330�99�289 '
�P� . . . .
� �g� A M �
� �, � � . . . ,
� 1627 R10E CREEK RD NE FRIDLEIf,MN 65432- �
Z . or: ye r. . . . �
�
�p� . . ame:
�g�� A M ' KIEWEL,JAMES DOUGLAS �
� � . . . oe;
1881 RICE CREEK RD NE FRIDLEY,MN 55432- 7H9/1954 MALE
ye . . . us. . �
600 190 ;,
N • o: u r.
V . .
Page 1 a�53
' * ' Narrative 1 Continuation:Page 1 of 1
Case Number:*11202652*Author: MICHELLE ZWICKY
he photographed it for the bank). He aiso advised the bank wanted the neighbor to stop working in the back yard.
walked into the back yard and found a male moving dirt around in the yard,and there was no established grass anymore. A male
ctopped working on a skid loader and advised hs is the neighbor, MN ID as James Kiewel,and he is buying the property from the
�ank. He showed me papervvork and��copies of signed cashie�'s checks that the start date is 07/29/2011, and he stated the
�urchase is finalized in four days on 09/09/2011. He stated he understood he"jumped the process a bit"and began work a few
lays early on making changes to the,�roperty. He stated he was unaware;that the rear lock had been damaged, he stated he has
�ad free access by way of the back door being unsecure for many weeks�ow and he thought nothing of it. He added he has not
�een any people hanging around inside or"squatting",and he would call Police if that took place.
�advised he needed to leave,and advised his contact for the bank who owns the property is.�(employee of
�everse Mortgage). James finished leveling dirt in the back�yard of the propertyat 1627,then retumed the skid loader to his back
�a�d at 1631. He stated he would stop wo�k on the property until he is the legal owner on 09/09/2011. I noted there appears to
iave been many recent property changes to both of the residence's involved,and i am forwarding a copy of this report to the
:ommunity development department at the City of Fridiey to check and make sure necessary permits have been secured for the
vork done.
. �
;lear. No charges at this time.
;c: Communiry Development.(MZ)
)amage: Lock on rear door of the residence damaged-$25. Owner: Reverse Mortgage.
254
�xh:b:�- 8
�
. �
� CITY oE
. F1RiDLE.Y
. PRIDLEY MUNiC�AL CSNf�it • b431 L3NIVSRSITY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432
(763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • WWW.CY.FRIDLBY-MN.US
January 24,2013 PW13-008
RE; Non-permitted Soil Disturbance at 162?Riae Creek Rd NE
Dear Property Owner,
This letter is to inform you that significant grading of soils has taken place on yaur property at�
1627 Rice Creek Road. This past year, I observed stockpiled soils, a skid loader and non-
stabilized soi]s on-site. lf you are re-$rading the si#e, please provide a site plan and Land
Alteration Permit for City review. The City supports property owners who landscape and improve
their property.
This activity requires a City of Fridley Land Alteration Permit. Depending an the work being .
considered or performed,this may also require approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District, in
which the property resides. The site is not in compliance wiih Fridley City Code Chapter 208
(Stormwater Management and Erosion Conttol). You can review City codes on-line at
www.ci.fridley.mn.us . Alteration of land beyond simple landscaping with hand tools is not
allowed without a City of Fridley Land Alteration Permit.
Grading of the site results in drainage patfern changes and exposed sails which can impact adjacent
properties and waterways. A discharge of runoff containing sediment would be considered a .
violation of Fridley City Code Chapter 224(Stormwater Illicit Discharge Detection and
Eliminatio�). Upon a recent site visit,non-stabilized soils were found with na erosion control
protective measures. Please stabilize all exnosed soils and itistall erosion�rotection(such as
silt fence or bio-rolisl�.rior to snow melt. Failure to comply with City of Fridley reyuirements
may subject you to penalties in accordance with Fridley City Code,
1 have successfully worked with many residential property owners to comply with applicable City
of Fridley requirements and would be happy to discuss your project with you, Please contact me at
763-572-3551 to discuss.
Regards,
� �� .
:�:�
�Layne . Otteson,P.E. �
Assistant Public Works Director �
City of Fridley
cc: lulie Jones,Planning Coordinator
255 �
Exh;6,� g
'� �� '- r , =ve,..r-, - -- �;'°z . ,;1 -� _- F�-��� »-,,fr-�-� —
� �,,�`� � � �Q ���� f� s�` �`h �„ ", �
� ' . �.�%� y 'i t` � ' �:�� � � f��, ` ,".
,x y I, ' .,�&,. �'. � #���� .�
� y• ..i � :1 �' fi x� Fa �� � x;v-��
{ , '�R�. t'�'� �. _ ' �,r'"'. . '.�r„_ ��' � ` _
�T' ( . � �'.a � r' � :'t �' _,
[� i e �+ �'�r�g�.� � �x.-�' ,�''� �¢`��" j�����y���
�}/ �� �'�»��~ '! �`v�% ` ���• - � -*�.')i��t� � ��� � �t. �`� 'M�� � __ "p�T �t 'Y.�}
^�� 4 ��� ����.� O� . 0'.� � ��� �� b ^9'd��J�"�Z: �Sep y � �t i �t;��,f�
.S' l,�-,�,ti � � . � /_�� ����:-� .� � � � � . ' 7rJ �.✓.�,�.���.. , ~„ �. _?i
'b-N.8 'i, �/ ` �:` � ��i � �. _� '��?�!ny��{� .p' s "� ,- y ����� .
�� /',.' t e ' °? s � � Fq�',V'f# 1K ( �°�
- ,i..� 4 A �� .. s� i �' ��p.cei "t k J �y.Y � � 3 �� .. 4�"7
44 -S-i� . S i� d�* tY� �'. � �`,y���
,� �� ��� � . `. � � �'� �.p���^�y.a�}�S' � � y" � ;'� 3 � 3�
N f , 'i' t ,� .��y a'�Y: i"Y?Q rn,M1+ �/ i" �..q��
� A} �� �' ,� .. �. �y°^ a Y , �. a.
� � . . .# . .� � S 3 f �v u °i cf� �' 4 I 'p" . 3y
�.� . �.�,} � � a..1,1 � .` $ .��. ,� `� T �q! t ; ��� h
[[ y-�.�^, � °� ��1 -p�.K�S., 1� • £�. � �i Z y�
� �y . 11 S �.. . �. � ��#��`�'�. � y.�— � ..�'�-.� .� � �
� � t �/'� '�- E � ,i �,.a � � _
F � �, 5 1 ru�- , h.� i ��„' '�,��.� �� �,�f .y�'°K"�'«+{ �
�� �.'�-�; �,�a. "'� t- `� �
��{`:�c ''�'�ia�" ; .� f` � �H :I � � ..� , 4 ,. � � � v, wT�„ �.,.
'�, �.�" . �z�! � ��,-�, .' 6r ��`�; �_'�. a',� �S�
" y �'"���a�,.. :�x v '-�:. -,.a� �. ��.,'-` �� y a, �'"''� t�I � B � ^}i
��t..'` �� r�, �����. . ` � : � :�..-- V i`1 1��--� ��1]� t � . �
5`,�...�r�r�}�' \ � „y�:. � t . �k. � .� -.�_ d E if C �'_ 1:
��L � R �� ,# � �i�� '`6 � �` �:`�� � ,� `�r� .k `.\ � �
,, �j� z. F�r� �� .«... � +� �
fY `� _s Q � ` 4 r�s� }� � }�`.,��' `t � v � -a°a+ '^�#��a �. �.�`..
�� � t �� �-' 't 1 3., i �`�
i ��- �'��x- � �� �� � ��� .� � � . �,�:i V
� i° �'/ �J � � 1 X� i �;.:� "�,.'�e. ; i`''� ` ��` ;e
«` �-;"'� p � - + ���°� � '� ��' ���.�r''� �j ?1.�:�� �. ��
;a ,j � Y��� a � ...a . � 3� �f�3 � �.� ���: _ -i� �
•T p ' � �.y � b �� �y,-4:�-.v� �'� `5. . '� \
...
x , .� .: .°p '..� _ � � ! +.,.,� �+��,�� � �� ,� ' ;, �+ v�
.� ' � 'k .,r k�; ��� �"`'���a� .�y`� ..iti''' v..� .,�>_ , -. . ,�'���' � ` �
�'� � �` ��� .Y��/ ##�Y- - ' � �l� °g�, `'�'�.�+'�'�d+�.�h� A�.�j ,�� �� �
R ,
i�._ . . . �1 � w �.� t�(c6 �a.*. � 4 4•a .�: 7• �',_,�_ � �
I �: a .t� t �Mi� ,�� ,,z � A� .;���x���``�'���,<' � ' , � ^��'7 J`� ,�q
,t. � �
� t t �+�� y�+ ��; � '� r�= � ��� ly ��- �'�'1>�f . \'��, _ ' 4.' :,���,:,.-` .
� �4, i F�.�`+�,^� x. f� �,.�. , .� rc w.;,�B.,+P�� �, { y� ,;ti.� �" ' \ �.. ,.. `,
I,r�i� � �3.sa ��.,�t . w .� � y�_q�?- � `FL � � . � '
�..<..� lt "R, :�:� - �,�,G.s_`.r1r4,�` �.�.. �?� �4 �7 ,:3j� �;��i44 \ � . r ,�` �`. "`�y„4
� �
�a .�'N � < %_ � t J-„ � t�,a.;..tE �.. l i,;, a�� � � .TR \�' j:r
. ii�,,�' 4x+ .�:' „r� � 5 f R � .: .2 a ''tpr_ t
� �.- � . N so3�. r . 't }, a f ". .•4�i7'-
__.___ �,.� — - :c��.-F�� `-�-�a , `�,� .�",x.��'�. ._ �`. ''�' .
: +yi� "�=�� ����.. x�s�� �r��� `,�'�� �}�� ..I' ""'+�,�E.."`.'e"'a^"�e+�, `..E,t�w...+s ,'a�s '1 afty";�.r
w �s, s
� -��,- �� ""�"��;/
J �� 4 Y.� -p -� ` '' ?' t.
� � .a . d ��.:�5 _{ . .. #.� .
t.�'�� �� h�"� .-` �� � _` � . -� .'�' : :' ;` ��ti'.
�� r �. �q.� -��.. �i �n µ�y SS T+; �� i��t��.. ��
S , ��� ��*�� � � �*�`':" ' � :�j �♦. - ',� _ ��.+.{O Jy?tl�'�....
��� �`�'' �E"t�y�t ;:���24YV1' � � �..._�\� � '~� � � I�F ay¢���,`� sy
� i� ,,"� a ��- �a.: • �yy,.�„ '� r��F;"a.�av`'}
�� � �� :,� ; a �,
S c . } ''� "�* , ' 4+ _ � .. r
� I �� t �� .� �� �i � � ; .��Y'"i�� � � � ' '� 1`fr�.{
' y � ^�.-� rr .,i �t � "�f.
»`^
i_ �'f� '1 £} i ' -,,.y,,j � } x' � ,u n -t^ 1� . .��
�'�k�. P �' '`^� ," t p, �,a�, a q�
F ��.� .�p '��f, 2+n v�.,�.:j,Q„��yy� � s Y.��_ SF i �� e.. ��.
. �V i,� �\ r t" _ . � r'Fl Y�}�. � = ai 'q %[ /�� �`
S�R'a.. � � � �l k�5E�b1��N i5.
�1f �'t „� x � � � C -���`� , � r � „�
�1 � a�4 x� � - . 3 °�,v � `-`��y,..�.Rh.,�y_��}� � � ��}t`. .
,3 Y J "� ��_ �, , �b t �7� .p„�c�� �a .' ay �
�� b
k '�C'. a' ^'� �� r '� �e d�,�j'� ��'��'{c41.2:�: �� ,'�°�� €
t �.. ����° -. *`�' � � _ ' ;� � � � 'y�' ';"�'�v� '�� �r e .04+.'
, �x ��� ...�., w4� � ,� . ,ye. =_. �;.: � � �.� �.` ; f�.. _'f'y l���t`� �
'_'#��.�.+� q� ,Y : P r ,�
i`t - � _:._ � �t_ $4 'rt� S..` �`.�/4� e' r� .at'� -t t��4�..�+ii's^f �l��l ..,p �a'
{�s .���.`. sr .� �j � t.�. ','��,�' s ��-.���r•#.ar �?`'� C \e 5����� { ���,a a I� �� �'''
�'�` f� . �'d 3��a"' "' � �' F° f' �- e'. .g�p,�.� ' �' ..! f � i s.J t �'..• �
..!,x f,'.. 'k;i . �. " �: � �..'� s_-------'t" �". ` . f c� y. �l;w,�.�
i, �x ? �� . � �! ,� �.��"� r � 't� � '�?� �' r :�' �
� X.�� R, 'c`� ����`" �.�<'�k� . ,�� � "�,� I:
�� ti • -�.�� " . �C 1 ��#��. � �lk J ,...rl�� . �yf.
+ „'�-s-.a ��. i.,� ;s�; � � v z� {,
� } �-# �� ` �i;"�.��� °. 'a �.�,';��'� ,.;.a�_�:: ey � �., ,��'�'..'Pr'�"L�` �,�,._ :
�o �d'� ''� �a` � k �� � .�� s `A j � ;: „_>
,h�,�, ,.�;�� J�,_ .
-#' �,�>�, ;� ��r z��1j :�,� ���� �� � �A �
£ _�^, °� � � , ��- . ' � � '' ""
� �w��,�r� & '�r: . �� { f:�1.'� . n ,'.d� '�,�°,� ' ����.-a:�'fA u ���f"�':Y' ��q'.� `� � •
y 16'. � `_ �. 'a�.' ,-s"�' � ,, �� �+��.�"'` �A�
a �,i.',,d�'+ �a � 'r`-� . °—'� '��"`���a � �. '�F s r t. ' '�l+�� A'
+ .�ry —'�''t: a'�i�'�' _ , 3�- �,�.�'�5.,: ,1 *'� ':�yc"y .. .�..�� a� :� r`'4� �
�
�t2'�� ��� ����4P � %R �t,. t -;� `r� .�.�r t�,y '
�� '{ � � � .�^� 9�i'�'� � �-��3� ��,` . ����� � ,�+t.��k'� .� {�9 �j �':
:� � � ,� s y A , � .� �
�� �r �M3 i� ; 4r- :... "�''°�`�` �� : i„�s � e .�.�.:,� x-��. °�y`,� ?r
',��1' '�'- ,p � 1 �. Glf�. - �`R � � �`�.�� .��,t jy..� �$ P.�,� �`''K `r" z�2 Ea .' c
Tv�y •�,f. �, ��;. � . {t�M` � ti �.. �+ a4 n€�y .,,�� �. a` � �
+� ���._.w.
�""r'.6: ^� � �
.. ' � ' I�� . . .����'P� -•�'�":` ��. i: ,,,,� ;r ~;�%���� ���_.�r
�" .i r�' ��,� ��.: � � € �� i: z . ����gy��� x, �
v,:;" . -z� p q �'�' .'} °�.'" ':V t a��.; � ,, p�'tr�.�� sT�•ti,
�F 'YS ( �` ' .r �3, i3 C � ,t�.�.�� i ... A "F k pi 3?�"'��'� r� a'�^T'r� �'�' � � ".N
` -�.@_ _5'�.Y _ _. .•...._L:-...ti}�.__ . ' __ �"' �J�t '4. �'i.,a.y"��Q .S^ . E�,i� °�' �J �y �
ums..r ,,.s9C' ���
� .Lxl�;b�� 1�7
�
September 11,2013
JAMES KIEWEL .
1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY,MN 55432
RE: First Notice of Noncompliaace of the Fridley City Code at 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Fridley has many code regulations designed to promote sound land management and
protect the economic wellbeing of the community. The purpose of this letter is to both inform
you about how certain city codes relate to your property's curr�nt conditions and to ask for your
assistance in resolving a code violation. Upon recent inspection of your properiy,the following
code violation(s)were observed by a member of our staff:
• Rear vard was altered and retainin�walls were constructed after the expiration of a land
alteration permit.While you obtained a land alteration permit in 2005,the land alteration
permit had expired when additional earth moving work was perfrnmed and the permit did
not address the installation of a retaining wall using plastic barrels.You were aslced in a
� December 20051etter from the Assistant Publio Works Director to provide
documentation that the plastic batrels met certain specifications.This documentation
would need to be provided by a stxuctural engineer,and our records show no such
documentation was received.City Code,Chapter 205.04.4.I requires a land a]teration
permit when moving significant quantities of soi]and the State Building Code requires a
building permit when installing a retaining wall over four feet high.
• Fence has been partiailxremoved and left incomplete for several weeks with fence
sections left in vard.Every yard and a11 structures,walls,fences,walks,steps,driveways,
landscaping and other exterior development shall be maintained in an attractive,well-
kept condition;and the boulevard area of a premise shall be properly maintained,
groomed,and carad far by the abutting property owner(City Code 205.07.6.G).
Due to the extensive nature of these violations,City staff would like to personally meet with you
in our office to discuss the needed remedy for this situation.Please call me to set up a meeting
before 9/26/2013 at(763)572-3599. Thanlc you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
7ulie Jones
Planning Manager
City of Fridley
257
�.xh,b;+ I 1
September 12,2013
JAMES KIEWEL
1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY,MN 55432
RE: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 RICE CREEK RD NE
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Fridley has many code regulations designed to promote sound land management and
protect the economic wellbeing of the community. The purpose of this letter is to both inform
you abaut how certain city codes relate to your property's current conditions and to ask for your
assistance in resolving a code violation. Upon recent inspection of your properiy,the fQllowing
code violation(s)were observed by a member of our staff:
• Extensive landscapin�2 comnleted without a land alteration permit.City Code(Chapter
205.04.4.n requires a land alteration permit when moving significant quantities of soil
and the State Build'mg Code requires a building permit when installing a retaining wall
over four feet high.The Assistant Public Works Director requested a land alteration
permit in a January 20131etter,but did not receive an application from you.
• There is a nile of wood waste and other household material stored outside in rear y�d
Nothing can be stored in your yard in view from any public right of way. All materials
� shall be kept in a building or sha11 be fully screened(City Code 205.07.6.C). Ex�eptions
include:firewood,neatly stacked and stored in the side or rear yard only;boats,empty
` trailers,and non-motorized campers stored in the side or rear yard;boats,empty trailers,
campers and motorized vehicles stored an a paved surface.
� Home is being rented with no rental license.Chapter 220 or.City Code requires a
property owner to obta.in a rental license when leasing a residential property in whole or
in part as a dwelling to persons other than family members. .
Due to the extensive nature of these violations,City.staff would like to personally meet with you
in our office to discuss the needed remedy for this situation,Please call me to set up a meeting
before 9/2b/2013 at(763)572-3599.Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Julie Jones
Planning Manager �
City of Fridley
258 �
Exh�6;� I 2.
Affidavit of Service by Rersonal Service
State of M i n n esota }
} Subscribed and sworn
County Of Anoka }
l, Dan Hillman, being first dufy swom, depose and say that in the County of Anoka
and in the State of Minnesota, on Sept�mber 26, 2013, the undersigned served on
behaif of James Douglas Kiewel, one "Notice of Contested Case" document upon:
Julie Jones of the City of Fridley-- Panning and Zoning Division at: 6431 University
Ave N.E. Fridley, MN 55432, .
Jurat/ Acknowledgment
State of Minnesota }
} Subscribed, sworn and sealed
County of Anoka �
On, September 26, 2013, Dan Hillman, duly swom, as such deposes, and did
personally appear before me, and is known to be the deponent described in, and who
. executed the forgoing instrumenUaffidavit of service of process, and acknowledged that
he executed the der oath, as his free ct an deed in the above said State and
County.
i'
Affiant's si nature � �
g
Address and Phone number of affiant is, 2523 Lynn Ave. St. Louis Park, MN. 55416, Ph.
- 612-369-5230. Subscribed and swom�o- me the undersigned Notary Public irr the
.
above said State and County. /''� �
��
Notary Public
{ � ��,�� 3
��,�„G�' '1�
` � JOHN F.ASKWITH
�_ ,
�'"�w�` NOTARY PUBLIC•MlNNES07q
----•i �Y Gxnmission ExPkes Jan.31.2015 .
I
��- �7 � r� ,
259.
Notice of Contested Case
` James D. Kiewel City of Fridley
1627 Rice Creek Road Julie Jones Planning Manager et. al.
Fridley, MN. 55423 Planning and Zonin� Division
Rentaf Property Division
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN. 5v432
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 directed to
"Property Owne�' at 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 11, 2013.
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 directed to
. "Property Owner" at 1627 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, M1V. 55423, and Dated
September 12, 2013, .
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 205 sections 205.04.4.1 and 205.07.6.G as cited in your
September 11, 2013 notice.
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 205 section 205.07.6.0 as cited in your September 12,
2013 notice.
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 220 as cited in your September,12, 2013 notice.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act Chapter 14 (APA), Minn. Stat. 14.58.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Rules, Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700.
1. This respondent and private Minnesota state Citizen is currently the private
property owner of the private home at 1627 Rice Creek Road, and of the private home
at 1631 Rice Creek Road, however this respondent is not a resident agent of the
corporate state of Minnesota or political subdivision created or organized by a state or
Federal government, nor is this respondent an officer or employee of a state or the
Federal government. This respondent is a Citizen of the state of Minnesota and not a
resident in the corporate sense, nor is his private home a residence in the corporate
sense, nor is he or his private home in the corporate State of Minnesota. This
respondent is not the "City" -- an agent of the "City" nor is this respondents private
property a public building or regulated licensed facility and as such, not within the
Corporate in rem jurisdiction of the City of Fridiey. This respondent is a natural born
1 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
260 .
state Citizen proceeding (sui juris), living in Anoka County, and is a Minnesota state
Citizen and a such proceeds with this request for agency administrative due process
by special appearance, in propria persona, proceeding at law in summo jure, jus
regium, �and proceeds as such without conferring nor consenting to any ministerial
strict liability statutory jurisdiction. This Minnesota state Citizen under Minnesota
Constitution Article VI. Sec. 1 and 5, ["judicia! Powe�"]willfully enforces all
constitutional limitations and prohibitions under Minnesota Constitution Article I.
against asserted quasi ministerial jurisdictional capacity, summary proceeding and
plaintiffs or prosecution and other interested officers, officials, parties and employees
operating in their respective political corporate artiflcial capacities as they are within
the said county, city, and state. For further cfarification see HALE v. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, quoted as follows:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is
entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is
unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to
criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as
existed by the law of the land tong antecedent to the organization of the state,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
the Constitution."
Citv of Daflas et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944; "The rights of the individual are
not derived ftom governmental agencies, either municipal, state, fiederaf, or
even from the Constitution, but th.ey exist inherently in every man, and are
merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have
been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of goverr�ment."
2. This respondent, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen, having made
the above statement in section 1, to be clear, does not make the claim that the City of
Fridley has no power to reasonable regulate this respondenYs private property. This
private home owner does however herein question whether your notice and your
administration address a pcoper strict interpretation of the ordinances therein cited,
and the scope and purview of the ordinances therein cited, and further questions the
standard of scrutiny sought to be implemented by the City, and whether that standard
of scrutiny is one of strict scrutiny or rational basis, and whether one, the other, or
both were anticipated by the City council prior to the passage of the ordinances as
2 of 15,APA NoUce of Contested Case
261
cited in the September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 First Notices of
Noncompliance.
3. Fridley City Code section 903.01: 2 D defines and identifies who, and what is a
person as is therein, specially defined, as follows:
"Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or other
group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or
other representative appointed by law."
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribir�g a penalty or
fine, it includes the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the vio{ation."
The first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word individual without
stating what an individual is, however if the law therein is read strictly, first in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2)wherein: "***the singular includes
[means] the plural***", one can see that the word "individual' as used therein includes
more than an individual human person as might be erroneously surmised by the less
critical reader. And further the first paragraph City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on
to state that the list of entities enumerated therein are limited as only "including any
executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed by law."
Therein City Code section 903.01: 2 D paragraph one, it is the respondent's
contention that the word includes and including are words of exclusion and limitation
as established by the rule of stare dicisis within the of foflowing cases:
Helverins� v. Mor�an's. Inc., 293 US 121, pp. 124 - 126, 79 L Ed 232, pp. 235
— 236 "The provision that the term "taxable year" "includes" the period of
less than twelve months fior which a separate return is made, when read only
with its immediate [293 US 125] context, is not free from ambiguity. It may be
admitted that the term "includes" may sometimes be taken as
synonytnous with "means," * * * But the phraseology is aiso open to the
construction that the word "includes" is used as the equivalent of
"comprehends" or "embraces," and that by it the section merely adopts a
familiar device in aid of statutory construction, by providing that wherever other
sections refer to a "taxable year" that phrase may, if the context requires, be
taken also to refier to or to "include" a fractional part of that taxable year, for
which a separate return is made."
3 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
262
Montello Salt Co. v. Utah., 221 U.S. 452, pp. 466 - 467, 55 L. Ed. 810, p. 815;
"It is the participle of the word "include," which means, according to the
definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) "to confine within something; hold as in
an inclosure; inclose; contain." (2) "To comprise as a part, or as something
incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . .
the Roman Empire included many nations."
Red Wina Maftins� Co. v. Willcuts. Collector of Internal Revenue 15 F.2d
626, 630, 631; 1926 U.S. App. Lexis 2958; 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6360; 49 A.L.R.
459: "The meaning of the word "including," as used in the statute, is important.
It evident{y refers to the preceding part of the subsection, and must be
recognized as occupying a significant a�d.important place. lt cannot be
brushed aside and ignored. This court should not attempt to write new
language into the statute, nor ignore language there used, but must endeavor,
from the language of the statute itself, [**15] to arrive at the meaning of the
Congress. This word has received considerable discussion in opinions of the
courts. It has been productive of much controversy.
The word "include" is defined in the New Standard Dictionary as fiollows: "(1)To
comprise, comprehend or to embrace as a component part, item or member;
as, this volume includes all his works; the bill includes his last purchase; (2) to
inclose within; contain; confine; as, an oyster shell sometimes includes a pearf."
It is defined by Webster as follows: "To comprehend or comprise, as a genus of
the species, the whoie a part, an argument or reason the inference; to take or
reckon in; to contain; embrace; as, this volume includes the essays; to and
including the tenth." �
The Century Dictionary defines "including" thus: "To comprise as a part."
Perhaps the most interesting discussion of the word "including" is found in
Montello Sa{t Co. v. State of Utah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 706, 55 L. Ed. 810,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 633. There the court refierred to and discussed some of the
cases where the word "including" had been under consideration. For instance,
the court pointed out in Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, that a legacy [**16]
of $100, "including money trusteed at a certain bank," could not be construed as
meaning that the sum ofi $100 was in addi#ion to the sum in bank. Also in
Henry's Executor v. Henry's [*631] Executor, 81 Ky. 342, "a bequest of $14,000,
'including cerkain notes,' was held to mean that the notes formed a part of the
$14,000, and were not in addition thereto." A{so the case of Neher v. McCook
County, 11 S.D. 422, 78 N.W. 998, where "it was held that a certain section of
the laws of the state, which provided that the sheriffs fees should be $ 16 for
4 of 15,APA NoUce of CoMestedCase
263
summoning a jury; 'including mileage,' did not entitle him to mileage in addition
to the $ 16." And the Supreme Court, after its reference to these cases, says of
the case before it: "The court also considered that the word 'including' was used
as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its
ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the
dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power
attributed to it." We refer to a few other cases.
1n Sullivan Machinery Co. v. United States (C.C.) 168 F. 561, the word
"including," used in the Tariff Act (30 [**17] Stat. 197), was construed as a
word of addition. In Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 593, 103 P. 674, 676, the
court, discussing the meaning of the word "including," says: "This word has also
been defined as having an accumulative sense, and as classing that which
follows with that which has gone before." * * '` �
In Kennedy v. Industrial Accident Commission of �alifornia et al., 50 Cal. App.
184, 194, 195 P. 267, 271, the court says: "'Including' is not a word of limitation.
Rather it is a word of entargement, and in ordinary signification implies that
something else has been given beyond the general language that precedes it. *
* * As here employed, the word 'including' is used to express the idea that the
specific power to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase, or terminate an
award, upon the ground that the disability has recurred, increased, diminished,
or terminated -- a particular power specifically referred to in the section of the �
present act -- is but a part of the larger and more comprehensive power
conferred by the more general language of the immediately preceding clause of
the section."
In Dumas v. Boulin (La.} McGloin, 274, 278, it is pointed out that the word
"incfude" j**18] has two shades of ineaning. The court says: "'Include' * * *
has * * * finro shades of* * * meaning. It may apply where that which is affected
is the only thing included, * * * and it is also used to express the idea, that the
thing in question constitutes a part only of the contents of some other thing." It is
more commoniy used in the latter sense.
That the word "includes" is a word of enlargement is held in Fraser v. Bentel et .
Stinson, 5 Minn. 522; Calhoun v. Memphis & P.R. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 1045, No.
2309.
Perhaps the most lucid statement the books afford on the subject is in Blanck et
al. v. Pioneer Mining Co. et al., 93 Wash. 26, 30, 159 P. 1077, 1079, namely:
"The word 'inctuding' is a term of enlargement and not a term of limitation, and
necessarily implies that something is intended to be embraced in the permitted
5 of 15,APA Nodce of Contested Case
264
deductions beyond the general language which precedes it. But, granting that
the word 'inctuding' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only
pecforms that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the
enlargement. It thus, and thus only., enlarges the otherwise more limited
preceding generat language. * * * The word 'including' introduces.[**19] an
enlarging definition of the preceding general words, 'actual cost of the labor,'
thus of necessity excluding the idea of a further enlargement than that fumished
by the enlarging clause so introduced. When read in its immediate context, as
on all authority it must be read; the word 'including' is obviously used in the
sense of its synonyms 'comprising; comprehending; embracing."'
4. And further, the first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word
individual as within other specific enumerated things within the class defined therein
and therefore should be strictly read in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis --
the rule of statutory construction where general words following a designation of
particular subjects or classes or persons, the meaning of the general words wil! �
ordinarily be presumed to be restri�ted by the particular designation, and to include
only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those specificaNy .
enumerated.
5. And further the second paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on
further to define the strict class of person over whom a penalty can be imposed and
clearly states as follows:
"Whenever the word "per-son" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
�ne, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the viofation."
An interpretation that a private Minnesota state Citizen is included within this definition
is inconsistent with United States Constitution articfe 4, § 2, and 14th Amendment. See
as follows:
ORIENT INSURANCE C�MPANY v. DAGGS, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, 172 U.S. 557; 19 S. Ct. 281; 43 L. �Ed. 552; 1899. "A
corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the provision, and hence has
not"privileges and immunities" secured to "citizens" against state legislation."
BRACEY et al. v. DARST, State Auditor of West Virginia, et al. District Court,
N.D. West Virginia, 218 F. 482; 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409, December 5,
1914. "As we will point�out later on, the power of the LeQislature to "regulate"
the business ooerations of coraorations and those of individuals are vastiv
different, based uaon the fact that individuals, under article 4, �2, of the federa!
Constitution. are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all privileaes and immunities of
citizens in the several states." while corporations are not. So this contention
must hark back, at last, to the one that the true intent of the Legislature was that
this act should only be made applicable to corporations.*** It is true that the first
6 of 15,APA NoUce of Contested Case
265
section of the statute in designating those to be subject to its provisions uses
the singular "individual"; but under the well-known rule the court shouid hoid the
plural to have been intended when that construction is required by the context
as in this instance, and especiaily where it wi11 aid in sustaining the vaiidity of
the statute. *�`**�` How can you have an "unincorporated" corporatian? How can
you have an "organized" individual? If vou sav the word "individual" should
be iudiciallv construed out of the act and it should be held apalicable onlv
to coraorations and to "individuals actin� in concert bv ors�anization," the
objections to it are just as valid as if the word "individual" be allowed to remain
for the legal rights, under the federal and state Constitutions, by reason of
personal citizenship, attach to every individual just as fully, if he conducts a
legitimate and lawful business alone, or by association with other individuals.
As we wi{I point out later on, the aower of the Lestislature to "re�ulate" the
business operations of coraorations and those of individuals are vastfv
differe�nt, based upon the fact that individuats. under article 4. � 2, of the
federal Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all privile�aes and
immunifiies of citizens in the several states." while coruorations are not."
6. It is this respondent's position that�he is not a privileged person and individual
owing a duty to your ad.ministration, and he is not in business nor does he act in
concert with any pr�vileged entity and business. It is therefore that this respondent
herein rnakes the following requests in accordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 in
an effort to establish, and prove, that the respondent is not tawfully classified as the
subject of the special law as cited in your administrative notices. The respondent
herein states this position because the respondent realizes -- as held and stated in,
Masters v. Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (C1-99-1302
No.) that the term "special legislation" is reserved for legislation that is "so patentiv
arbitrarv as to demonstrate constitutionaf evasion". 1n an effort to meet the
burden of proving that the respondent is not the specially defined person to whom the
ordinances cited can lawfully be directed and enforced the respondent herein makes
the fol{owing request:
a. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent is, or in not a person as specialty defined in City of Fridley
ordinances section 220.06: 40, and section 903.01: 2 D as can, or cannot be
identified by rules of strict construction, and that by such strict construction this
Minnesota state Citizen, although a natural person is in fact a natural person of
7 of 15,APA NoUce of Contested Case
266
the privileged class and individual identified in sections 220.06: 40, and section
903.01: 2 D as can lawfully be identified as similar in classification to the
privi{eged or legal fictions therein by the ru{e of noscitur a sociis and as those .
sections should be strictly read, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2)
wherein: "***the singular includes [means] the plural***" (As in the portion of
those definitions that use the word individual) and as further strictly read in
accordance with the rule (ejusdem generis), wherein;
"The principal underlying ruie of ejusdem generis is that the legislature
had in mind things of the same kind and was speaking of them as a
class. Foley v. Whelan, 219 Minn. 209, 216,
,�
"The limiting principle of ejusdem generis has particular force with
respect to criminal statutes, which courts are compelled to construe
rigorously in order to protect unsuspecting citizens from being ensnared
by ambiguous statutory language. See, e. g., Mourning v. Family
Publications Service, lnc., 1973, 411 U.S. 356, 375, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36
L.Ed.2d 318; United States v. Campos-Serrano, 1971, 404 U.S. 293, 297-
-298, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457; United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1969,
412 F.2d 885, 890." UNITED STATES v. {NSCO, 496 F.2d 204 (1974)
"in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis, such terms as "other,"
"other thing," "other persons," "others," "otherwise," or"any other," when
preceded by a specific enumeration, are commonly given a restricted
meaning, and limited to articles of the same nature as those previously
described." See United States v Chase, 135 US 255, 34 L Ed 117, 10 S
Ct 756; Re Mosby's Appeal, 360 Mich 186, 103 NW2d 462; Derk v Zerbe
Twp. 322 Pa 350, 185 A 647.
b. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent knowingly, willingly and intentional surrendered his sui juris
status as Minnesota state Citizen and excepted the status of privi{eged
individual legal person as defined in City of Fridley ordinance sections 220.06:
40, and 903.01: 2; D, upon notice served and presented to this respondent, with
complete and proper notice as required by Minnesota Statute 13.04 subd. 2
(Tennessen warriing).
c. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205 and
section 205.04.4.i requiring land alteration permits, therein reiied upon by the
8 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
267
city council to establishing that such permits would in fa�t be nece$sary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of strict scrutiny.
d. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205
section 205.04.4.i requiring tand aiteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of rational basis.
e. This respondent herein requests all reports considered by the city council
prescribing how City Code section 205.04.4.1 could lawfully be implemented
upon both, the regufated created or organized privileged legaf entity and their
property regulated as a matter of rational basis, and the private home owner
and his private property under the least restrictive strict scrutiny standard of
regulation without transgression of the equal treatment guaranteed to the
private Minnesota state citizens by the United States Constitution's article 4, §
2, and 14th amendment as is a specific condition placed upon the council as a
condition placed of their authority as mandated by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, �
32, United State constitution 6th, 14th and Article VI Clause II (Supremacy
Clause), and Minnesota Constitution Articles 1 sections 6, 7.
f. The names and addresses of all witnesses that the City of Fridley Rental
Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions intends to call at the APA
contested case hearing, along with a brief summary of each witness' testimony.
All witnesses unknown at the time of said disclosure shall be disclosed as soon
as they become known.
g. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the City of Frid{ey
Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions or witnesses on behalf of
the City of Fridley Rental Property and Zoning Divisions.
h. All written exhibits to be introduced at the APA contested case hearing.
9 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
268
i. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state is: an officer of the city or the state of Minnesota; an empioyee
of the city, or the state of Minnesota; an agent of the city, or of the state of
Minnesota or (egally created or organized legal entity upon whom the city of
Fridley can compel performance otherwise in derogation of his fundamental
rights as a Minnesota state citizen, and citizen of the United States.
j. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
properfy served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley, and city Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to
prove that this Minnesota state Citizen is a privifeged natural person and that as
such he is also one of the forgoing: person's heirs, executors, adrninistrators or
assigns, and also a firm, partnership or corporation, its or their successors or
assigns, or the agent of any ofi the aforesaid, as defined in Fridley Residential
Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing Code, definitions section 220.06
Subd. 40, and as used in City of Fridley Rental Property, and Planning and
Zoning Divisions chapter, section 220.13, and that this Minnesota state Citizen
accepted the status of person defined therein and has availed himself of the
benefit of that privileged status upon notice served.
k. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen wac�ning have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley, and city Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, wili rely on
� to prove that this Minnesota state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that
as such he is also one who enjoys the privileged of acting in concert with a firm,
corporation, partnership, association, organization or other group acting as a
unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
representative appointed by law, and as such is an included: partners or
members of any partnership, firrn or corporation or the officers, agents or
members of a corporation and as is a person defined in City of Fridley
ordinance definitions section 903.01: 2 D, responsible for the cited violations
10 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
269
and as such this Minnesota state Citizen accepted the status of person defined
therein and has availed himself of the benefit of that privil.eged status upon
notice served.
l. And further: any evidence that notices or Tennessen warr�ing have been
properly served, (Minn. Stat. 13.04) upon which the City of Fridley Rental
Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will re{y to prove that this
Minnesota state Citizen is by his acknowledgement a privileged person as
defined in the Minnesota Data Practices Act Chapter 13, section 13.02 Subd.
10, or City of Fridley ordinances 220.06: 40, and section 903.01: 2 D
m. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
_ 220 of the Fridley Residential Rental Property Maintenan�e and Licensing
Code, as a matter of strict scrutinv; was drafted and passed by the counse{ for
the purpose of furthering a compelling govemmental interest, as is consistent
with their statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state,
and further that the ordinances draited impose the least restrictive means of
regulating the Citizens private property.
n. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to proVe that Chapter
220 ofi the Fridley Residentiaf Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing
Code, as a matter of rational bases, was drafted and passed by the counsel for
the purpose a of furthering a compelling govemmental interest, as is consisten#
with their statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitut+on and laws of the United States or of this state. �
o. This respondent herein requests that you specifically identify the specific
office, commission and person having primaFy authority and primary jurisdiction
in the matters presented in your administrative notices.
11 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
z�o
7. The Septemb�r 11, 2013 °First Notice of Noncompliance" cites as authority and
your stated position for noncompliance Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 section
"205.04.4.1". After having read this zoning ordinance, in this respondents view, section
205.04.4.1 (3) A(a) makes it ctear that—"A grading and drainage plan is not required
for, '*** individual residential landscaping" !
8. And further this respondent, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen
questions whether or not the ordinances cited in the September 11, 2013 and
September 12, 2013 First Notices of Noncompliance can a{�ply to both the privileged
owner(created or organized), and thi� non privileged private property owner alike
without transcending any issues of desperate treatment not authorized by the Charter
for the City of Fridley or constitutional permitted by the Minnesota state Constitution,
or the United States Constitution as is a condition placed upon the authority of your
city council by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, 32.
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. ed. 1042,
1045, 29 A.L.R. 1446, the Supreme Court, speaking of the requirement of due
process, said:
"Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the
right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of life, * * * and generaNy to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common
law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." And further:
"The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under
the guise of protecting the public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary
or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the
state to effect.
"The glory of American law consists in clearly defining not only the causes
wherefore, but the times when, the manner how, and the means whereby, the
personal- and property rights of the citizen may be invaded or abridged. Any
enactment which fails to measure up to this standard of certainty is not
American law, and American courts frequently declare statutes void for
uncertainty. State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 378; State v. Rai{wav Co., 146 Mo. 155.
(f} Where discretion exists, uncertainty exists. Matthews v. Mumhy, 23 Ky. Law
Rep. 750, 63 S.W. 785; Railroad v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. " Black's
Constitutional Law, sec. 105, p. 279; State v. Youn4, 29 Minn. 474; "Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, sec. 116. (e)
"Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such
powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of
12 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
271
those powers which have been expressly conferred." Manaold Midwest Co. v.
VillaQe of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their owers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowin suc owers rn e a es ex re .
ansas iy ou ern o. v.. n ers a e ommerce ornmission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode arescribed bv
statute.
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
, disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
It is essential that where an executive is exercising dele�ated legislative power
,he should substantiall com I with alt the statuto
y p y ry requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without si nificance that most of the rovisions of the Bill
. of Ri h s are roce ura . is proce ure a spe s muc o e � erence
e�ween ru e y aw an rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice.
9. The stated purpose of the Minnesota APA as expressed in Minn. Stat. 14.001 is
as follows:
The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
(1) to provide oversight of powers and duties delegated to administrative
agencies;
(2) to increase public accountability of administrative agencies;
(3) to ensure a uniform minimum procedure;
(4) to increase public access to govemmental information;
(5) to increase public participation in the formulation of administrative rules;
(6) to increase tF�e faimess of agencies in their conduct of contested case
proceedings; and
(7) to simplify the process of judicial review of agency action as well as increase
its ease and availability.
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair
balance befinreen these purposes and the need for efficient, economical, and
effective govemment administration. The chapter is not meant to alter the
substantive rights of any person or agency. Its impact is limited to procedural
rights with the expectation that better substantive results will be achieved in the
13 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
2�2
everyday conduct of state government by improving the process by which those
results are attained.
10. And further, a response to this APA Notice of Contested Case from the City of
Fridley Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions in this instant case is an
esser�tial jurisdictional prerequisite. See Minn. Admin R. 1400.6700 and case law as
follows:
"...this is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to waiver by the government.").
Indeed, this Court has held that "no exceptions" excuse a plaintiff s failure to
comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites of the FTCA. McDevitt v. United
States Postal Serv., 963 F. Supp. 482, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (citing, inter alia,
Peterson, 694 F.2d at 944; Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d
Cir. 1971)). LUBLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and HOOKS
VAN HOLM, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-6785 UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23394, April 27, 2006, Decided April 27, 2006, Filed; April 27,
� 2006, Entered .
It is essential that where an executive is exercising dele�ated legislative power
'he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without si nificance that most of the rovisions of the Bill
of Ri h s are roce ura . is proce ure a spe s muc o e i erence
e ween ru e. y aw an, rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal l'ustice
under law." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v McGrath, 34'� U.S. 123,
179, 72 S.Ct. 624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 8'(7 (1951). Also see McNabb v United States,
318 U.S. 332, 347, 63 S.Ct. 608, 616, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Administrative
authorities are creatures of statute and have onl such owers as e
s a u e con ers on em. eir owers mus e exercise �n accor ance
wi e s a u e es ow�n suc owers ni e a es ex re . ansas i
ou ern , o. v. n ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178, 64 L ed
717, 40 S Ct 187. and they can act only in the mode prescribed by statute."
(emphasis added) Mahler v. Ebv, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S. Ct. 283.
"[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the
particular situation demands," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S.
481. Resolution of the issue here involvmg the consti utiona su ciency o�—
ac�ministrative procedures prior to the initial tennination of benefits and pending
� review, reqwres consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will
be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest throu h the procedures used, and probable value, if.any, of additional
procedural sa�e�uards; and (3) the Goverr�ment's interest, including the fiscal
and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would
entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-335. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
"The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the substantive due process rights
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment afford "heiyhtened protection against
govemment interference with certain fundamental.nghts and liberty interests."
Washington v. G/ucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 1'17 S. Ct.
14 of 15,APA Notice of�Contested Case
273
2302, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997}. In re the Matter of: Nancy SooHoo, petitioner,
Respo� ndent, vs. Maril�yn� Johnson, Appellant. SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA, 731 N.W.2d 815; 2Q07 Minn. LEXIS 253, May 10, 2007, Filed.
"However, for the purposes of review, it has been said that clear violations of
law in reaching the result, such as acting without evidence when evidence is
required, or making a.decision contrary to at1 the evidence, are just as much
'ur�sd�ctional error as �s the failure to fake the ro er ste s to ac uire
� urisdiction at the be innin o e rocee in orgms v. a o., 147
s � , ;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such .
powers as the statute confers on them. Their owers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestow.in suc owers n� e a es ex re .
ansas � y ou ern . o. v, n ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode arescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disr�gard the essential conditions imposed upor� its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"In a long line of cases, the Court has excused the petitioner from exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionality of some feature of agency's decision making�process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979); Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 {1976 ;
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. �49,
265 — 267 (1975); G�bson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575 (1973); Allen v. Grand
Central Aircraft Co. 347 U.S. 535 (1954). It is d�fficult to explain this line of
cases. Sometimes the Court seems to base its decision excusing exhaustion on
�the broad Qrinciple that.constitutional issues are_particularly deserving of judicial
resolution.' Administrative Law Davis, Kenneth Culp Davis 15,5 Constitutional
Right Exception.
In re De t. of Ener Stri er Well Exem tion Liti ation, 578 F.Supp. 586,
certi ie question answere xxon corp. v . . ep . o. Energ , 744 F.2d 98,
certiorari denied Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v Department o�Energ y, 105
s.Ct. 5.76, 469 U:S. 10�77, 83 L.Ed.2d 515; "Where claim before court requires
resoiution of issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed within purview
of administrative agency, doctrine of pr'imary!urisdiction may be appl�ed to
suspend judicial process pending referrat of such issue to administrative
agency.°
The undersigned herein reserved his rights to: life. liberty and private property; amend
his.request for a contested case; objection, �and request for discovery as herein made
in accordance with the Minnesota Administrative�Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R
1400.6700.
��%yz,t�!
� �
va e itizen, ames . iewe
ithout prejudice; by special appearance
9 - 26 -- 2013
15 of 15,APA Nobce of Contested Case
274
Exh;b�� I 3
�
� �
G1YOF . .
FR[DLEY
FRIDLEY MLJIJICIPAL CENTER • 6431 IJNIVER STTY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432
(163)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • WWW.CI.FRIDLEY.MN.US
October 09,2013
JAMES KIEWEL
� 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY,MN 55432
RE: Code Violations/Need for Action at 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
Dear Property Owner: �
Fridley City Code Chapter 128(copy enclosed)has established a procedure for abatement of certain
exterior public nuisances.This allows the City to remove from private property those items defined as
exterior public nuisances(128.02)in accordance with the provisions outlined in this chapter.
A recent inspection of your property at 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE revealed the follovving condrtion(s)to
which this Code Section applies
Violation•
Retaining wall was constructed without a building permit or land alteration permit.Retaining wall is
failing and creating a public nuisance.While you obtained a land alteration permit in 2005,the land
� alteration permit had expired when additional earth moving work was performed and the permit did not
address the installation of a retaining wall using plastic bazrels.You were asked in a December 20051etter
from the Assistant Public Works Director to provide documentation that the plastic barrels met certain
specifications.This documentation would need to be provided by a structural engineer,and City records
show no such documentation was received.
Code Section:
City Code,Chapter 205.04.4.I,requires a land alteration permit when moving significant quantities of
soil and the State Building Code requires a building permit when installing a retaining wall over four feet
high.
Violation•
East property line fence has been partially removed and left incomplet�for several weeks with fence
sections left in yard.
Code Section:
Every yard and all structures,walls,fences,walks, steps,driveways, landscaping and other exterior .
development shall be maintained in an attractive,well-kept condition; and the boulevard area of a premise �
� 275
shall be properly maintained,groomed,.and cared for by the abutting property owner(City Code
205.07.6.G).
Action Needed to Correct:
Either the fence needs to be completely removed or completely installed by 10/29l2013.Either the
retaining walls need to be certified structurally sound in writing to City staff by a structural engineer by
12/31/2013 or removed by 06/15/2014.Removal will require a land alteration permit approved by the
City Engineer and Building Officia1.
You must respond in one of the three ways listed below by no later than 10/29/2013,or the Citv will take
action to abate the nuisance conditions outlined in tlus letter.
] Submit a plan to correct the violations identified in this letter by the deadlines given above.
� 2 Contact me at(763)572-3599 and make arrangements to have the property cleaned-up in
accordance with a schedule that is agreeable to the City.
3 Apply(in writing)to the Community Development Director for a hearing in front of the
Appeals Commission. �
Unless you pursue Option#2 or#3 shown above,I will reinspect this property on or shortly after
10/29/2013. If the violations remain,the City will abate this exterior public nuisance in accordance with
the enclosed ordinance provisions after 06/15/2014. Should this occur,you will be charged for the costs
associated with the abateraent,including up to 25 %for admuustrative expenses incurred as outlined in
Chapter 128.
Please call me at(763)572-3599 if you have questions or wish to discuss this fiuther. Thank you for
your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Julie Jones
Planning Manager
City of Fridley ,
276
� �xh:b;� 15
� �
� �► � _
� C,�YOF � .
� � FRIDLE,Y �
-FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTSR • 6431 UNNERSTf Y AVE.N.E.FltIDLBY,MN 55432
(763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • WWW.Q.FRrDLEY.MI�T.US
November 1, 2013 �
James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley MN 55432 .
Dear Mr. Kiewel:
Re: Appeal Hearing
Dear Mr. Kiewel:
Please be advised in the connection with the matter of your Appeal request, that this is
your notice for an Appeals meeting.on Wednesdav. November 13. at 7:00 a.m..
located in the Council Chambers at Fridlev Municinal Center, located at 6431 .
Universitv Avenue NE. Fridlev MN 55432, for a code enforcement violation regarding
a retaining wall that was constructed without a building permit or land alteration permit.
Retaining wall is failing,and creating a public nuisance. While you obtained a land
a'lteration permit in 2005, the land alteration permit had expired when add�ional ea'rth
moving work was pertormed and the permit did not address the installation of a
retaining wall using plastic barrels. You were asked in a December 2005 letter from the
Assistant Public Works Director to provide documentation that the plastic barrels met
certain spec�cations. This documentation would need to be provided by a structural
� engineer, and City records show no such documentafion was received. Also, extensive _
landscaping�completed without a land alteration pennit.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-572-3590.
Sin ely, .
o H ko
ommunity Development Director .
277
. � Ex h;b:�- I(o
TIMOTHY J.KUNTZ
LEVANDER � � Dn���.j.BEESON
� *1�NNETH J.ROHLF
GILLEN 8L . °s�e��r'x.F°c'�'�.�n
•JAY P.KARLOVICH
MILLER, P:A. ANGELAM.LUTZAMANN
'KORINE L LAND •
ATTORNEYS AT LAW � aDONnt,D�.Ho�r
DARCY M.ERICIGSON
Escabliahed in 1929 DAVID S.KENDALL
•BRIDGET MyGULEY NASON
. DAVID B.GATES
HAROLD LEVANDER
November 7,2013 . 1910-i�2
ARTHUR G1LLkN
1919-2005
' ROGER G MIT i FA
1924-2009
'ALSOADMRTED W WLSCONSIN
Mr. Jaxnes Kiewel � . ���NO�T++��
1631 Rice Creek Road NE °'"'s°"°N""�°�"�"�"°"'��
atisoenwrreo ua oa.wo�u
Fridley,NiN 55432
RE: Abatement of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at
1631 Rice Creek Road NE �
Our File No. 31000.05025 �
Deaz Mr. Kiewel:
I and my office serve as the City Attorney for the City of Fridley and represent the City with respect
� to its Code enforcement activities.
Yesterday, I had an opportunity to meet with City Community Development staff to discuss the
upcoming Novembex 13,2013,Appeals Commission meeting at which the abatement of co�.ditions
on your property.located at 1631 Rice Creek Road NE(the"Property")is planned to be considered.
As you are probably aware,these conditions are: (1)an incomplete fence; and(2)a retaining wall
constructed of barrels, which was constructed without a valid land alteration permit and building
permit. Additionally,during this meeting,I also had an opportunity to review the previous Noti.ces
of Noncompliance and other information provided to you concerning these conditians and the
al�atement process.
In response to the City's Notices of Noncompliance and instructions provided to you by City staff
concerning the abatement process, you filed an appeal of the City's intended abatement of the
noncomplying conditions on the Property(i.e.the incomplete fence and the retaining wall). In doing
so,you have relied upon a previously filed September 26,2013,Notice of Contested Case.
Upon our office's review of the Notices of Noncompliance for the two identified noncomplying
conditions on the Property, information provided to you, as well as discussions concerning the
abatement history and process related to the Property on these conditions,our office has determined
that a City abatement hearing at this time is premature, given that.the Octobex 9, 2013, Notice
pxovided multiple deadlines(October 29,2013,for fence removal,and two retaining wall deadlines
633 sovTx corscoRn srx��T• SUITE�}00 ' SOUTH 5AIN2�]gJI.,MINNESOTA SS07S � �SI"4SI-IS31• FAX CSI-4So=7384
OFPICE ALSO LOCATED IN WISCONSIN'WWW.LEVANDER.c:[iM
�
Mr. James Kiewel
Page 2
• November 7,2013 '
that aze substantially after the upcoming Appeals Commission hearing - December 31, 2013, for
structural certification by an engineer and June 15,2014,for wall removal). .
Accordingly,we have advised City Community Development staff to cease abatement proceedings
until the deadlines previously communicated to you have lapsed,in an effort to provide clarity to this
process.
In order to provide a fair and clear process for both the City and you, the ownex of the Property,
please be advised that the Citv is cancellins the ureviouslv scheduled sveci�l November 13,
2013, Anueals Commission meeting at which the abatement of the �Prooerty was to be
considered. I apologize for the inconvexuence associated with the cancellation.
The City Community Development Department will be communicating with you shortly regarding
the conditions on the Property (i.e. the incomplete fence and the retaining wa11} and clarify the
deadlines for bringing the Property into compliance.
In.the meantime, should you have any questions,please feel free to contact Scott Hickok,�ridley
Co unity Develop t Director.
e truly yours,
. Eric
DME/so �'
c: Scott ickok, Community Development Director, City of Fridley
Julie Jones,Planning Manager, CiTy of Fridley
279
�xh�b;� ��
�
� CIZYOF FR[DLEY
FRIDI.EY MLTNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSTTY AVE.N.E.FRIDL.EY,MN 55432-4308
(763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • www.FridleyMN.gov
July 09,2014
JAMES KIEWEL
1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY,MN 55432
RE: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 RICE CREEK RD NE
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Fridley has many code regulations designed to promote sound land management and
protect the economic wellbeing of the community. The purpose of this letter is to both inform
you about how certain city codes relate to your property's current conditions and to ask for.your
assistance in resolving a code violation. Upon recent inspection of your property,the following
code violation(s)were observed by a member of our staff:
• Extensive landscapin�has been completed without a land alteration permit.Either the
retaining wall needs to be removed and rebuilt with proper permits,or the Ci must be
provided structural certification for the retainin�wall from a licensed professional
en�uieer. Owners of residential property shall maintain the exterior of any building or
structure in good repair,providing sufficient covering and protection of structural
surfaces against deterioratiott, including walls,siding,garage doors,foundations,doors,
windows, screens,roofing,eaves, soffits,gutters,and downspouts(City Code 205).
The next inspection of your properiy will occur on or about 8/9/2014. The City asks that you
correct these items by this date. If you would like to discuss this issue or have questions
conceming any other city codes,please contact me at(763)5'12-3599. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Julie Jones
Planning Manager '
City of Fridley
280
�xh:b,-� i$
Juiy o9,Zoia
JAMES KIEWEL
1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY,MN 55432
RE: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
Dear Property Owner:
, The City of Fridley has many code regulations designed to promote sound land management and
protect the economic wellbeing of the community. The purpose of this letter is to both inform
you about how certain city codes relate to your property's current conditions and to ask for your
assistance in resolving a code violation. Upon recent inspection of your properiy,the following
code violation(s)were observed by a member of our staff:
• Retaining wall was constructed without a buildingpermit or land alteration permit.Either
the retainin�wall needs to be removed and rebuilt with proper permits,or the City must
be provided structural certification for the retainina wall from a licensed professional
en ineer.Owners of residential property sha11 maintain the exte�ior of any building or
structure in good repair,providing sufficient covering and protection of structural
surfaces against deterioration,including walls,siding,gara.ge doors,foundations,doors, .
windows,scr�ens,roofing,eaves, soffits,gutters,and downspouts(City Code 205).
The next inspection of your property will occur on or about 8/9/2014. The City asks that you
correct these items by this date. If you would like to discuss this issue or have questions
concerning any other city codes,please contact me at(763)572-3599. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Julie Jones
Planning Manager
City of Fridley
281
�ch:6:-� 19
Administrative Procedures Act Notice of Contested Case
James D. Kiewel City of Fridley
1627 Rice Creek Road Jufie Jones Pianning Manager et. al.
Fridley, MN. 55423 Planning and.Zoning Division
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN. 55432
Directed to: City of Fridtey, Planning Manager Julie Jones:
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 Rice Creek Road
N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423 directed to "Property Owner" and Dated July 09, 2014. (Appx.
1)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 Rice Creek Road
N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423 directed to "Property Owner" and Dated July 09, 2014. (Appx.
2) �
Re: First Notice.of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1631 Rice Creek Road N,E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 11, 2013. (Appx. 3)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1627 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridiey, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 12, 2013, (Appx. 4)
Re: Previous Administrative Procedures Act Notice of Contested Case addressing
Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 subject matter, dated 9 —26 —2013 (Appx 5)
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 205 as cited in your Dated July 09, 2Q14 first notice.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act Chapter 14 (APA), Minn. Stat. 14.58.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Rules, Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700.
An Administrative Procedure Act (APA) contested case is:
"*** a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges
of speci�c parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined
after an agency hearing";
As defined in Minn. Stat. § 14.02 Subd. 3.
1 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
282
The purpose of the APA is as set forth in Minn. Stat. § 14.001 as quoted herein,
section 11.
1. The first notice(s) as are dated July 09, 2014 and as have been identified by
this petitioner as (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2) are the two administrative notices sent to this
petitioner dated July 09, 2014. These two administrative notices seem to address the
same subject matter as the previousfy issued administrative notices as have herein
been identified by this petitioner as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) -- Appx 3 dated September
11, 2013, and -- Appx 4 dated September 12, 2013. In response to the previously
issued administrative notices herein identified as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4), dated
September 12, 2013, this petitioner had on 9 — 26 — 2013 previously directed a
petition for an APA contested case herein identified as (Appx. 5) regarding the same
subject matter as are now addressed in what are stated to be first notices - (Appx.1)
and (Appx. 2) both dated July 09, 2014, although your administration has not sent this
petitioner any correspondence stating that the previous September 11, 2013 (Appx.3)
and (Appx. 4) had been dismissed. Accordingly this petitioner now proceeds with this
petition for an APA contested case in response to all matters as have been addressed
by the first notices as issued September 11 and September 12 of 2013 herein
identified as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) and the petition in response as properly served on
9 — 26 — 2013 identified as Appx 5, and the first notices dated July 09, 2014 and
herein identified as (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2).
2. This respondent and private Minnesota state Citizen is currently the private
property owner of the private home at 1627 Rice Creek Road, and of the private home
at 1631 Rice Creek Road, however this respondent is not a resident agent of the
corporate state of Minnesota or politica{ subdivision created or organized by a state or
Federal government, nor is this respondent an officer or employee of a state or the
Federaf government. This respondent is a Citizen of the state of Minnesota and not a
resident in the corporate sense, nor is his private home a residence in the corporate
sense, nor is he or his private home in the corporate State of Minnesota. This
respondent is not the "City" -- an agent of the "City" nor is this respondents private
property a public building or regulated licensed facility and as such, not within the
2 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
283
Corporate in rem jurisdiction of the City of Fridley. This respondent is a natural born
state Citizen proceeding (sui juris), living in Anoka County, and is a Minnesota state
Citizen and a such proceeds with this request for agency administrative due process
by special appearance, in propria persona, proceeding at law in summo jure, jus
regium, and proceeds as such without conferring nor consenting to any ministerial
strict liabitity statutory jurisdiction. This Minnesota state Citizen under Minnesota
Constitution Article VI. Sec. 1 and 5, ["judicial Power"] wilifully enforces all
constitutional limitations and prohibitions under Minnesota Constitution Article I.
against asserted quasi ministerial jurisdiction�l capacity, summary proceeding and
plaintiffs or prosecution and other interested officers, officiais, parties and employees
operating in their respective political corporate artificial capacities as they are within
the said county, city, and state. For further clarification see HALE v. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, quoted as follows:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutionai rights as a citizen. He is
entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is
unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to
criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as
existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
the Constitution."
City of Dallas et al. v. Mitchel{, 245 S.W. 944; "The rights of the individual are
not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or
even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are
merefy reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have
been voluntariiy surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
3. This petitioner and private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen, having
made the above statement in section 2, to be clear, does not make the claim that the
City of Fridley has.no power to reasonable regulate this petitioner's private property.
This private home owner does however herein question whether your notices and
your administration address a proper strict interpretation of the ordinances therein
cited, and the scope and purview of the ordinances therein cited, and further
questions the standard of scrutiny sought to be implemented by the City, and whether
• 3 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
284
that standard of scrutiny is one of strict scrutiny or rational basis, and whether one, the
other, or both were anticipated by the City council prior to the passage of the
ordinances as cited in the July 09, 2014 (Appx. 1) and (Appx 2) first notices of
Noncompliance and the previous first notices sent in September of 2013 -- (Appx. 3)
and (Appx. 4). This petitioner herein requests that: if your administration does not
agree with the statement made in section 2 regarding this petitioner's private status,
that your administration rebut the statement in writing, or agree that your
administration has accepted the statement as fact stipulated by silence in accordance
with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6800.
4. Fridley City Code section 205.05 (10) is the section that provides for a penalty
imposed under Fridley City Code section 205 as sited by the July 09, 2014 (Appx. 1)
and (Appx 2) first notices of Noncompliance and the previous first notices dated
September 11, 2013 (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) quoted below as follows:
"The owner of a building or premises in or upon which a violation of any
provisions of this Chapter has been committed, or shall exist; or the {essee of
the entire building or entire premises in or upon which a violafion has been
committed or shall exist; or the owner or lessee of any part of the building, or
premises in or upon which such violation has been committed or shall exist,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to all penalties provided for such
violations under the provision of Chapter 901 of this Code each and every day
that such violation continues. Any such person who, having been served with
an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order to
remove any such violation, within ten (10) days after such senrice, or sha11
continue to viofate any provisions of the regu{ations made under authority of this
Chapter in the respect named in such order shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of
Chapter 901 of this Code. Each day that such violation continues shalf be a
separate violation"
Fridley City Code section 205.05 (10) provides that owners whom as such, are
persons is violation of Chapter 205 shall be subject penalties as are strictly imposed
on persons as provided by Fridley City Code chapter 901. 901: A provide as follows:
"Every erson who violates this Code is subject to all penalties provided for
such violation: Except where a different, specific or more particular penafty is
4 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
285
provided or allowed with respect to any offense, any ep rson guilty of a violation
of this Code shail upon conviction of such offense, be fined in an amount not to
exceed the maximum fine as authorized by Minnesota State Statute 609.034 or
be imprisoned in jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days or both for each
offense of which such ep rson is convicted."
Whi1e Fridley City Code. chapters 901 and 205 do not define the special term "person'
as used therein Fridley City Code section 903.01: 2 D defines and identifies the strict
definition of the special term a "person" upon whom penalties may imposed for a
violation of Fridley City Code Chapter 205 strictly, as follows:
"Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or
other group acting as a unit, including any executor, adrninistrator, trustee,
receiver or other representative appointed by law."
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partnership, firm
or corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the viola#ion."
It is this petitioners contention that when strictly reading the speciaf term "person" as
used in Fridley City Code Chapters 205, 901 and as defined in chapter 903.01 the
following case faw and cannons of strict construction should be rigorously applied, as
follows:
"Whenever any property or interest is intended to be protected and the term
"person" is used to designate the party whose property it is intended to protect,
the terms includes the property of the State and of all public or private
corporations. On the other hand, if the use of the term "person" identifies the
party against whom a violation is charged, it is stric#ly construed." Texas
Department of Transportation, v. City of Floresvitle Electric Power & Light
System 53 S.W.3d 447; 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 4220.
The first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word individual without
stating what an individual is, however if the law therein is read strict{y, first in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2) and Frid{ey City Code section 205.03
wherein: "***the singular includes [means] the plural***", one can see that the word
"individual' as used therein includes more than an individual human person as might
be erroneously surmised by the less critical reader. And further the first paragraph City
Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on to state that the list of entities enumerated therein
5 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
286
are limited as only "including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
representative appointed by law." Therein City Code section 903.01: 2 D paragraph
one, it is the petitioners contention that the word includes and including are words of
exclusion and iimitation as established by the rule of stare dicisis within the of
following cases:
Helverinq v. Moraan's, Inc., 293 US 121, pp. 124 - 126, 79 L Ed 232, pp. 235
— 236 "The provision that the term "taxable year" "includes" the period of
{ess than twelve months for which a separate return is made, when read only
with its immediate [293 US 125] context, is not free from ambiguity. It may be
admitted that the term "includes" may sometimes be taken as
synonymous with "means," * * * But the phraseology is also open to the
� construction that the word "includes" is used as the equivalent of
"comprehends" or "embraces," and that by. it the section merely adopts a
familiar device in aid of statutory construction, by providing that wherever other
sections refer to a "taxable year" that phrase may, if the context requires, be
taken also to refer to or to "include" a fractional part of that taxable year, for
which a separate return is made."
Montello Salt Co. v. Utah., 221 U.S. 452, pp. 466 - 467, 55 L. Ed. 810, p. 815;
"It is the participle of the word "include," which means, according to the
definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) "to confine within something; hold as in
an inclosure; inclose; contain." (2) "To comprise as a part, or as something
incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . .
the Roman Empire included many nations."
Red Winq Maltinq Co. v. Wi{Icuts. Collector of Internal Revenue 15 F.2d
626, 630, 631; 1926 U.S. App. Lexis 2958; 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6360; 49 A.L.R.
459: "The meaning of the word "including," as used in the statute, is important.
It evidently refers to the preceding part of the subsection, and must be
recognized as occupying a significant and important place. 1t cannot be
brushed aside and ignored. This court should not attempt to write new
language into the statute, nor ignore language there used, but must endeavor,
from the language of the statute itself, [**15] to ar�ive at the meaning of the
Congress. This word has received considerable discussion in opinions of the
courts. 1t has been productive of much controvecsy.
The word "inc{ude" is defined in the New Standard Dictionary as follows: "(1) To
comprise, comprehend or to embrace as a component part, item or member;
as, this volume includes all his works; the bill includes his last purchase; (2) to
inclose within; contain; confine; as, an oyster shell sometimes inc{udes a pearl."
6 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
28�
It is defined by Webster as follows: "To comprehend or comprise, as a genus of
the species, the whole a part, an argumen# or reason the inference; to take or
reckon in; to contain; embrace; as, this volume inc{udes the essays; to and
including the tenth."
The Century Dictionary defines "including" thus: "To comprise as a part."
Perhaps the most interesting discussion of the word "incfuding" is found in
Montello Salt Co. v. State of Utah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 706, 55 L. Ed. 810,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 633. There the court referred to and discussed some of the
cases where the word "in�luding" had been under consideration. For instance,
the court pointed out in Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, that a legacy [**16]
of $100, "including money.trusteed at a certain bank," could not be construed as
meaning that the sum of$100 was in addition to the sum in bank. Also in
Henry's Executor v. Henry's �*631j Executor, 81 Ky. 342, "a bequest of $14,000,
'including certain notes;' was held to mean that the notes formed a part of the
$14,000, and were no� in,addition thereto." Also the case of Neher v. McCook
County, 11 S.D. 422, 78 N.W. 998, where "it was held that a certain section of
the laws of the state, which provided that the sheriff s fees should be $ 16 for
summoning a jury, 'including miieage,' did not entitle him to mileage in addition
to the $ 16." And the Supreme Court, after its reference to these cases, says of
the case before it: "The court also considered that the word 'including' was used
as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its
ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the
dictionaries and cases.indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power
attributed to it." We refer to a few other cases.
In Sullivan Machinery Co. v. United States (C.C.) 168 F. 561, the word
"inc(uding," used in the Tariff Act (30 [**17] Stat. 197), was construed as a
word of addition. fn Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 593, 103 P. 674, 676, the
court, discussing the meaning of the word "including," says: "This word has also
been defined as having an accumulative sense, and as classing that which
follows with that which has gone before." * * *
In Kennedy v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al., 50 Cal. App.
184, 194, 195 P. 267, 271, the court says: "'Including' is not a word of limitation.
Rather it is a word of enlargement, and in ordinary signification implies that
something else has been given beyond the general language that precedes it. *
* * As here employed, the word 'including' is used to express the idea that the
specific power to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase, or terminate an
award, upon the ground that the disability has recurred, increased, diminished,
7 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
2g8
or terminated -- a particular power specifically referred to in the section of the
present act -- is but a,part of the larger and more comprehensive power
conferred by the more general language of the immediate{y preceding clause of
the section."
In Dumas v. Boulin (La.) McGloin, 274, 278, it is pointed out that the word
"include" ['�*18) has two shades of ineaning. The court says: "'Include' * * '�
has * * �` two shades of* * * meaning. It may apply where that which is affected
is the only thing included, * * * and it is also used to express the idea, that the
thing in question constitutes a part only of the contents of some other thing." It is
more commonly used�in�the latter sense.
That the word "includes" is a word of enlargement is held in Fraser v. Bentel et .
Stinson, 5 Minn. 522; Calhoun v. Memphis & P.R. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 1045, No.
2309.
Perhaps the most lucid statement the books afford on the subject is in Blanck et
al. v. Pioneer Mining Co. et al., 93 Wash. 26, 30, 159 P. 1077, 1079, namely:
"The word 'including' is a term of enlargement and not a term of limitation, and
necessarily imp{ies that something is intended to be embraced in the permitted
deductions beyond the.general language which precedes it. But, granting that
the word 'including' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only
performs that office by introducing the speci�c elements constituting the
enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited
preceding general language. * * * The word 'including' introduces [**19] an
enlarging definition of the preceding general words, 'actual cost of the fabor,'
thus of necessity excluding the idea of a further enlargement than that furnished
by the enlarging clause so introduced. When read in its immediate context, as
on all authority it must be read, the word 'inc{uding' is obviously used in the
sense of its synonyms 'comprising; comprehending; embracfng."'
5. And further, the first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word
individual as within other specific enumerated things within the class deftned therein
and therefore shoufd be strictly read in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis --
the rule of statutory construction where general words following a designation of
particular subjects or classes or persons, the meaning of the general words will
ord'+narily be presumed to be restricted by the particular designation, and to include
only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those specifica{ly
enumerated.
8 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
289
6. And further the second paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on ,
further to define the strict ciass of person over whom a penalty can be imposed and
clearly states as follows:
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes [means� the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation."
An interpretation that a pravate Minnesota state Citizen is included within this definition
is inconsistent with United States Constitution article 4, § 2, and 14th Amendment. See
as follows: � �
ORIENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. DAGGS, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, 172. U.S. 557; 19 S. Ct. 281; 43 L. Ed. 552; 1899. "A
corporation is not a c�tizer� within the meaning of the provision, and hence has
not "privileges and imrnwnities" secured to "citizens" against state legislation."
BRACEY et al. v. DARS�', State Auditor of West Virginia, et al. District Court,
N.D. West �rginia, 218 F. 482; 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409, December 5,
1914. "As we will point out later on, the power of the LeQislature to "regulate"
the business operations of corporations and those of individuals are vastiv
different. based uaon the f�ct that individuals, under article 4. � 2. of the federa{
Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to a!l privileQes and immunities of
citizens in the several states," while corporations are not. So this contention
must hark back, at last, to the one that the true intent of the Legislature was that
this act should only be made applicable to corporations.'`** It is true that the first
section of the statute in designating those to be subject to its provisions uses
the singular "individual"; but under the well-known rule the court should hold the
plural to have been intended when that construction is required by the context
as in this instance, and especially where it will aid in sustaining the validity of
the statute. ***** How can you have an "unincorporated" corporation? How can
you have an "organized" individual? If vou sav the word "individual" should
be iudiciallv construed out of the act and it shoutd be held applicab{e onlv
to corporations and to "individuals actinq in concert bv or�anization," the
objections to it are just as valid as if the word "individual" be allowed to remain
for the legal rights, under the federal and state Constitutions, by reason of
persona{ citizenship, attach to every individual just as fully, if he conducts a
legitimate and lawfui business alone, or by association with other individuals.
As we will point out fater on, the power of the Leaislature to "requlate" the
business oaerations of coruorations and those of individuals are vastiv
different, based uaon the fact that individuals. under article 4, � 2, of the
federal Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all ariviteaes and
immunities of citizens in.the several states," whi(e corporations are not."
9 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
290
7. It is this petitioner position that he is not a privileged person and individual
owing a duty to your administration, and he is not in business nor does he act in
concert with any privileged entity and business. It is therefore that this respondent ,
herein makes the following requests in accordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 in
an effort to establish, and prove, that the respondent is not lawfully classified as the
subject of the special law as cited in your administrative notices. The respondent
herein states this position because the respondent realizes -- as held and stated in,
Masters v. Cornmissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (C1-99-1302
No.) that the term "special legislation" is reserved for legislation that is "so aatentiv
arbitrarv as to demonstrate constitutionai evasion". In an effort to meet the
^
burden of proving that the respondent is not the specially defined person to whom the
ordinances cited can lawfully be directed and enforced the respondent herein makes
the following request:
a. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that this petitioner is, or is not a person as speciafly defined in City of Fridley
ordinance chapters 205, 901 and section 903.01: 2; D as can, or cannot be
identified by rules of strict construction, and that by such strict construction this
Minnesota state Citizen, although a natural person is in fact a natural person of
the privileged class and individual identified in ordinance chapters 205, 901 and
section 903.01: 2; D as can lawfully be identified as similar in classification to
the privileged or legal fictions therein by the rule of noscitur a sociis and as
those sections should be strictly read, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08
Subd. (2) Fridley City Code section 205.03 wherein: "***the singular includes
[means] the plural***" (As in the portion of those definitions that use the word
individual) and as further strictly read in accordance with the rule (ejusdem
generis), wherein;
"The principal underlying rule of ejusdem generis is that the legislature
had in mind things of the same kind and was speaking of them as a
class." Foley v. Whelan, 219 Minn. 209, 216,
"The limiting principle of ejusdem generis has particular force with
respect to criminal statutes, which courts are compelled to construe
rigorously in order to protect unsuspecting citizens from being ensnared
10 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
291
by ambiguous statutory language. See, e. g., Mourning v. Family
Publications Service, Inc., 1973, 411 U.S. 356, 375, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36
L.Ed.2d 318; United States v. Campos-Serrano, 1971 , 404 U.S. 293, 297-
298, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457; United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1969,
412 F.2d 885, 890." UNITED STATES v. INSCO, 496 F.2d 204 (1974)
"ln accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis, such te�ms as "other,"
"other thing," "other persons," "others," "otMerwise," or "any other," when
preceded by a specific enumeration, are commonly given a restricted
meaning, and limited to articles of the same nature as those previousfy
described." See United States v Chase, 135 US 255, 34 L Ed 117, 10 S
Ct 756; Re Mosby's Appeal, 360 Mich 186, 103 NW2d 462; Derk v Zerbe
Twp. 322 Pa 350, 185 A 647.
b. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent knowingly, willingly and intentionaf surrendered his sui juris
status as Minnesota state Citizen and excepted the status of privileged
individuaf legal person as defined in City of Fridley ordinance chapters 205, 901
and section 903.01: 2; D, upon notice served and presented to this respondent,
with complete and proper notice as required by Minnesota Statute 13.04 subd.
2 (Tennessen warning).
c. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city councif first considered prior to the passage of Gity Code Chapter 205 and
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city cauncil to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of strict scrutiny.
d. This respondent herein requests a11 studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city council to establish;mg that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of rational basis.
e. This respondent herein requests all reports considered by the city council
prescribing how City Code section 205.04.4.1 could lawfully be implemented
upon both, the regulated created or organized privileged legal entity and their
11 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
292
property regulated as a matter of rational basis, and the private home owner
and his private property under the least restrictive strict scrutiny standard of
regulation without transgression of the equal treatment guaranteed to the
private Minnesota state citizens by the United States Constitution's article 4, §
2, and 14th amendment as is a specific condition placed upon the councii as a
condition placed of their author�ty as mandated by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd,
32, United State constitution 6th, 14th and Article VI Clause II (Supremacy
Clause), and Minnesota Constitution Articles 1 sections 6, 7.
f. The names and addresses of all witnesses that the City of Fridley
Planning and Zoning Divisions intends to call at the APA contested case
hearing, along with a brief summary of each witness' testimony. All witnesses
unknown at the time of s�id disclosure shaN be disc{osed as soon as they
become known.
g. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the City of Fridley
Planning and Zoning Divisions or witnesses on behalf of the City of Fridley
planning and Zoning Divisions.
h. All written exhibits to be introduced at the APA contested case hearing.
i. Any and a{f evidence upon which the city wi11 rely to prove that this
Minnesota state Citizen is: an officer of the city or the state of Minnesota; an
employee of the city, or the state of Minnesota; an agent of the city, or of the
state of Minnesota or legal{y created or organized legal entity upon whom the
city of Fridley can compel pertormance otherwise in derogation of his
fundamental rights as a Minnesota state citizen, and citizen of the United
States.
j. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen warr�ing have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to prove that this Minnesota
state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as such he is also one of the
forgoing: individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or
12 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
293
other group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee,
receiver or other representative appointed by {aw. as defined in Fridley Property
Maintenance and Licensing Code, definitions section 903 (2) D and as used in
City of Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions for the implementation chapter
205, and that this Minnesota state Citizen accepted the status of person defined
therein and has availed himself of the benefit of that privileged status upon
notice served.
k. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely on to prove that this Minnesota
state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as such he is also one who
enjoys the privileged of acting in concert with a firm, corporation, partnership,
association, organization or other group acting as a unit, including any executor,
administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed by law, and as
such is an included: partners or members of any partnership, frm or
corporation or the officers, agents or members of a corporation and as is a
person defined in City of Fridley ordinance definitions section 903.01: 2 D,
responsible for the cited violations and as such this Minnesota state Citizen
accepted the status of person defined therein and has availed himselfi of the
benefit of that privileged status upon notice served.
!. And further: any evidence that notices or Tennessen warning have been
properly served, (Minn. Stat. 13.04) upon which the City of Fridley Planning and
Zoning Divisions, will rely to prove that this Minnesota sta#e Citizen is by his
acknowledgement a� privileged person as defined in the Minnesota Data
Practices Act Chapter 13, section 13.02 Subd. 10, or City of Fridley ordinances
section 903.01: 2 D or any other special definition of person applicable to City of
Fridley ordinance Chapter 205.
m. Any and all evidence upon which the city wi{I rely to prove that Chapter
205 of the Fridley Property Maintenance is necessary as a matter of strict
scrutinv, and was drafted and passed by the counsel for the purpose of
13 of 24,APA Notice of Contested Case
294
. furthering a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent wifih their
statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state,
and further that the ordinances drafted impose the least restrictive means of
regulating the Citizens private property.
n. Any and all evidence upon which the city will reiy to prove that Chapter
205 of the Fridley Property Maintenance is necessary as a mattec of rational
bases, and was drafted and passed by the counsel for the purpose of furthering
a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent with their statutory authority
under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States �or of this state, and further that the
ordinances drafted impose the {east restrictive means of regulating the Citizens
private property.
o. This respondent herein requests that you specifically identify the specific
office, commission and person having primary authority and primary jurisdiction
in the matters presented in your administrative notices.
8. ' The ,luly 09, 2014 "First Notice of Noncomp{iance" (s) (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2)
and the September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 - "First Notice of
Noncompliance" (s) (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) cites as authority and your stated position
for noncompliance Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 section "205.04.4.1". After having
read this zoning ordinance, in this respondents view, section 205.04.4.1 (31 A (a)
makes it ctear that =`A Qradinct and drainaQe plan is not required for. ""`�`*
individual residential landscauin�"!
9. And further this petitioner, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen
questions whether or not the ordinances cited in the July 09, 2014 "First Notice of
Noncompliance"(s) (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2) and the September 11 and September 12
2013 "First Notice of Noncompliance"(s) (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) can app{y to both the
privileged owner (created or organized), and this non privileged private property owner
alike without transcending any issues of desperate treatment not authorized by the
14 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
295
Charter for the City of Fridley or constitutional permitted by the Minnesota state
Constitution, or the United States Constitution as is a condition placed upon the
authority of your city council by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, 32.
10. An administration that seeks to regulate the private citizens, whose status as
citizen are not embraced within the speciaf definition of person found in Fridley
Planning and Zoning Regulations Chapter 205, Chapter 901 or Chapter 903 imposes
a disparity upon the private citizens whom are not to be found within a defined,
created, or organized privileged c{ass. Private citizens are only, if necessary, to be
regulated by the least restrictive means under a strict scrutiny standard, whereas the �
defined privileged cfass of person are on a less firm footing, under a rational basis
standard whereupon an administration is at liberty, to treat such defned privileged
persons desperately and unequally if such unequal treatment can be rationalized in
the interest of the pubfic heafth, safety, and welfare. A proceeding as sucti, upon a
private state citizen whose rights a privileges are secured under the United States
constitution Article 4 § 2 without explanation as a matter of strict scrutiny, transcends
due process and equal protection of the law, as protected by the United States
Constitution's 4tn, 5th, 6tn, 14th, amendments, Article VI Clause II (Supremacy Clause),
and Minnesota Constitution Articles 1 sections 2, 6, 7 as set forth in Minn. Stat.
412.221 § Subd, 32. See as follows:
DOROTHY ANN FINCH & others vs. COMMONWEALTH HEALTH
INSURANCE CONNECTOR AUTHORITY SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS 459 Mass. 655; 946 N.E.2d 1262; 2011 Mass. LEXIS
253;
°Where a statute either burdens the exercise of a fundamental right protected
by our State Constitution, or discriminates on the basis of a suspect
classification, the statute is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. See Blixt v. Blixt,
437 Mass. 649, 655-656, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189,
123 S. Ct. 1259, 154 L. Ed. 2d 1022 (2003) (fundamental right); Loweli v.
Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 666, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980) (suspect classification).
See aiso Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 330, 798
N.E.2d 941 (2003). All other statutes, which neither burden a fundamental right
nor discriminate on the basis of a suspect classification, are subject to a
rational basis level of judicial scrutiny. See id.; English v. New England Med.
15 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
296
Ctr., Inc., 405 Mass. 423, 428, 541 N.E.2d 329 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
1056, 110 S. Ct. 866, 107 L. Ed. 2d 949 (1990). For equal protection purposes,
"[t]he rational basis test 'inciudes a requirement that an impartial lawmaker
could logically believe that the classification would serve a legitimate pub(ic
purpose that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class."'
Id. at 429, quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., lnc., 473 U.S. 432, 452,
105 S. Ct. 3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring). In contrast,
"[t]o pass the strict scrutiny standard, [a State action] must be narrowly
tailored to further a legitimate and compelling governmentai interest and must
be the {east restrictive means avaiiable to vindicate that interest."
Commonwealth v. Weston W., 455 Mass. 24, 35, 913 N.E.2d 832 (2009)." ;
Nord{inger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 2326, 120 L. Ed. 2d 1.
"As a general ru1e, for purposes of the equal protection clause of the Federal
Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, legislatures are presumed to have acted
within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws
result in some inequality; accordingly, unless a classification warrants some
form of heiqhtened review because the classification jeopardizes exercise of a
fundamental right or cateQOrizes on the basis of an inherentiv suspect
characteristic. the equal protection clause requires only that the classification
rationally further a legitimate state interest. ;
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. ed. 1042,
1045, 29 A.L.R. 1446, the Supreme Court, speaking of the requirement of due
process, said:
"Without doubt, it denotes not mereiy freedom from bodily restraint but also the
right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of life, * * * and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common
law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." And further:
"The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with,
under the guise of protecting the public interest by legislative action
which is arbitrary or without reasonabte relation to some purpose within
the competency of the state to effect.
"The glory of American law consists in clear{y defining not only the causes
wherefore, but the times when, the manner how, and the means whereby, the
personal and property rights of the citizen may be invaded or abridged. Any
enactment which fails to measure up to this standard of certainty is not
American faw, and American courts frequently declare statutes void for
uncertainty. State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 378; State v. Railway Co., 146 Mo. 155.
(fl Where discretion exists, uncertainty exists. Matthews v. Murphv, 23 Ky. Law
Rep. 750, 63 S.W. 785; Railroad v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. " Black's
Constitutional Law, sec. 105, p. 279; State v. Younq, 29 Minn. 474; "Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, sec, 116. (e)
16 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
297
"Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such
powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of
those powers which have been expressly conferred."�gold Midwest Co. v.
�IlaQe of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowinq such uowers. United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode arescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the.same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially eomply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedurat fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without siQnificance that most of the arovisions of the Bilf
of Riahts are procedural. It is procedure that spel{s much of the difference
between rufe by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there wi11 be equal justice.
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
. accordance with the statute bestowin� such powers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
ProceduraC fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without sianificance that most of the provisions of the Bifl
of Ris�hts are qrocedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice." ,
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath 341 U.S. 123, 179, 72 S.Ct.
624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951).
17 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
298
11. The stated purpose of the Minnesota APA as expressed in Minn. Stat. 14.001 is
as follows:
"The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
(1) to provide oversight of powers and duties delegated to administrative
agencies;
(2) to increase public accountability of administrative agencies;
(3) to ensure a uniform minimum procedure;
(4) to increase public access to governmental information;
(5) to increase public participation in the formulation of administrative rules;
(6) to increase the fairness of agencies in their conduct of contested case
proceedings; and
(7) to simplify the process of judicial review of agency action as well as increase
its ease and availability.
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair
ba{ance between these purposes and the need for efficient, economical, and
effective government administration. The chapter is not meant to alter the
substantive rights of any person or agency. Its impact is limited to procedural
rights with the expectation that better substantive results will be achieved in the
everyday conduct of state government by improving the process by which those
results are attained."
12. And further, a response to this APA Notice of Contested Case from the City of
Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions in this instant case is an essential jurisdictional
prerequisite. See Minn. Admin R. 1400.6700 and case law as follows:
"...this is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to waiver by the government.").
Indeed, this Court has held that "no exceptions" excuse a plaintiff s failure to
comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites of the FTCA. McDevitt v. United
States Postal Serv., 963 F. Supp. 482, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (citing, inter alia,
Peterson, 694 F.2d at 944; Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d
Cir. 1971)). LUBLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and HOOKS
VAN HOLM, 1NC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTiON NO. 05-6785 UNITED STATES
DISTRiCT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEX1S 23394, April 27, 2006, Decided April 27, 2006, Filed; April 27,
2006, Entered
18 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
299
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensabte essence of
liberty. "It is not without siqnificance that most of the arovisions of the Bitl
of Riahts are arocedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rufe by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there wi11 be equal justice
under iaw." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v McGrath, 341�U.S. 123,
179, 72 S.Ct. 624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951). Also see McNabb v United States,
318 U.S. 332, 347, 63 S.Ct. 608, 616, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Administrative
authorities are creatures of statute and have onlv such aowers as the
statute confers on them Their powers must be exercised in accordance
with the statute bestowinq such powers, United States ex rel. Kansas City
Southern R. Co. v, lnterstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178, 64 L ed
717, 40 S Ct 187. and they can act only in the mode prescribed by statute."
(emphasis added) Mahler v. Ebv, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S. Ct. 283.
"[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedura! protections as the
particular situation demands," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S.
481. Resofution of the issue here involving the constitutional sufficiency of
administrative procedures prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending
review, requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will
be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional
procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the fiscal
and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would
entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-335. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
"The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the substantive due process rights
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment afford heightened protection against
government ir�terference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests."
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 117 S. Ct.
2302, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997). In re the Matter of: Nancy SooHoo, petitioner,
Respondent, vs. Marilyn Johnson, Appellant. SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA, 731 N.W.2d 815; 2007 Minn. LEXIS 253, May 10, 2007, Filed.
"However, for the purposes of review, it has been said that clear violations of
law in reaching the result, such as acting without evidence when evidence is
required, or making a decision contrary to all the evidence, are just as much
jurisdictional error as is the failure to take the �roper steus to acQUire
iurisdiction at the beQinnin� of the proceedinq" Borgnis v. Falk Co., 147
Wis 327, 133 NW 209, 37 LRA(NS) 489;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
. powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
19 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
300
G
accordan ,ce with the statute bestowinA such powers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed bv
statute." '
�
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"In a long line of cases, the Court has excused the petitioner from exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionality of some feature of agency's decision making process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979); Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 (1976);
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 249,
265— 267 (1975); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575 (1973); A11en v. Grand
Central Aircraft Co. 347 U.S. 535 (1954). it is difficult to explain this line of
cases. Sometimes the Court seems to base its decision excusing exhaustion on
the broad principle that constitutional issues are particularly deserving of judicial
resolution." Administrative Law Davis, Kenneth Culp Davis 15.5 Constitutional
Right Exception.
1n re Deat. of EnerqY Stripper Well Exemption LitiQation, 578 F.Supp. 586,
certified question answered Exxon corp. v U.S. Dept. of Energy, 744 F.2d 98,
certiorari denied Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v Department of Energy, 105
s.Ct. 576, 469 U.S. 1077, 83 L.Ed.2d 515; "Where claim before court requires
resolution o�f issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed within purview
of administrative agency, doctrine of primary jurisdiction may be applied to
suspend judicial process pending referral of such issue to administrative
agency." •
The undersigned herein respectfully submits this APA notice of contested case, and
reserved his rights to: life, liberty and private property; amend his request for a
contested case, and request for discovery as herein made in accordance with the
Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700.
� .
ALY M.ELABBADY �va e i izen, ames . iewe
� NOTARYPUBLIC-MI�INESOTA ithout re udice; b s ecial a earance
�;y Commission Expires Jan.31,2J15 � � y � p p
8 - 8 -- 2014
� ����'�ao/�
� 20 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
� . 301
�
Affidavit of Service by Personal Service
State of Minnesota }
} Subscribed and sworn
County Of Anoka }
1, Daniel Hillman, being first duly sworn, depose and say that in the County of
Hennepin and in the State of Minnesota, on August 8, 2014 10, 2014 the
undersigned served on behalf of James Douglas Kiewel, finro APA Notices of
Contested Case directed to: City of Fridley, Planning Manager Julie Jones, and
properly addressed to City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. MN. 55432.
Jurat / Acknow{edgment �
State of Minnesota } �
} Subscribed, sworn and seafed
County o� Anoka }
On, August 8,2014, Daniel Hillman, duly sworn, as such deposes, and did personally
appear before me, and is known to be the deponent described in, and who executed, the
forgaing instrument/affidavit of service of process, and acknowledged that he executed
the same under oa , his free act and eed 'n the above said State and County.
�
Affiant's signature
Address and Phone number of affiant is, 2523 Lynn Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN 55416.
Ph. 612-369-5232. Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned Notary Public in
.
the above said State and County. �
� � Notary Public
ALY M.Et,ABBADY c�U�' �y
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA �
��y Commission Expires Jan.31,2J15 . . �
302
, � � �� �
, e� �
CIIYOF FCZtDLEY .
hltll>1.1:1 ?11'ti1t'iY,\f.t''1::N't'i°:12 • cK�il IJNIV�RSI"1'Y AV�.N.E.FRiDLEY,MN 55432-4308
i?h?��71 .•:IS(1 • t=AX S7l��).57{-13$7 • www.FridfeyMN.gov
., .
�,
JUIy U9, 2�14
� JAMI:S K1h�W1.;1..
1631 R]C{:CRF:�;K RI�NF
FRlDLEY, MN 55432
R�: l��irst Noticz of Noncom�i(iance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 R]C�CR�EK RD NE
Dear Propercy U�vner: ,
Thc City of Fridicy i�as many code regulations designed to promote sound l�nd mar�agement and
protect the�conontiic ,ael{bein�of the community. The purpose of this ietter is to both inform
you�baut how ccirtaiai ciry codes relale lo your psoperty's current conditions and io ask for your
assistance in resolvir�g a code vialatio�i. Upon recent inspeetion of your property,the following
code vioiation(s) wcrc observed by a member of our staff: �
• �.�.tensiye fandscapin�l�as be�n completed without a iand alteration permit. Either the
ret��inink wafl r�e�;ds to be removed and rebuilt with nroper permits or the Ciri must be
provide.cl �trucrural certificalion for the retainin�,wall from a lieensed nrofessionai
cnbinu�r. n���ne�-s c�f residential property shall m�intain the exterior of any building or
su•ucture in �;c�i�d repair, providi~�g s�iftic+ent covering and pratection.of slructural .
surFaccs abainsl dcterioralian, including walls, siding, gsr�ge doUrs,foundaLiotts,dQOrS,
windows, screens, i�oatin�,eaves,soffits, gutters,and downspouts (City Code 205).
The next ins�ecticm of your property will occur on or about 8/9/2014. The City asks chat you
correct tl�ese items by this date. If you would lifce to discuss this issue or have questions
concerning a�»<<�tller c+ty eodes, plexs�contact mc at (763) 572-3599. Thanic you for your
cooperatic>n.
Sincerely,
,
Julie Jones
Platining Manater .
City of}�ridlc}
� 303
., r � , � �' ,� - � �f
�'
. . � ���� . .� �
FRIDLEY MLIN�CIPAL CENTER � 6431 UNIdERSTTY AVE.I�.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432 �
{763)371-3450 • EAX(763)5?1-1287 • TTD/f"!'Y(763)572-3534 '
, September 12,2013 . � `�
JAMES KIEWEL .
� 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
FRIDLEY,MN 55432
� RE: •.. �Ft�st l�i.o�ce-o�Noncoti}pliance of the Fridiey City Cade.at 16��.$,XC�T�RF•TIC.I�<N�. ........,.:.._-_....�.... ...,.,........
Dear I'roperty Owner: � �
The City of Fridley has many code regulations�designed to pror�l"ote sound land management and
pmtectthe'economic wellbeing of the community. Thc purpose of this i.etfier is to both inform
you about how certain city aodes relate to your property's carrent conditions and to ask far your
assistance in resolvi�g a code v�olafion. Upon recent inspection of your property,the followirig
i code violation(s)were observed by a member of our staf.f:
• Extensive landscaping com�leted without a land alteration permit. City Code(Chapter
� 205.04.4.I)requires a land alteration permit when moving significant quantities of soil
and the State Building Code requires a building permit when installittg a retni�ing wa11
� over four feet high.The Assistant Public Works Director requested a land alteration
� permit in a January 2013 letter, but did nat receive an application ftom you,
• here is a_pile of wood Nr�st�and other househoid material stored outside in rgar yard.
- Nothing can be stored in your yard in vi�w Erom any public right of wa�. All rnater'sals
shall be kept in a building or shall be fvily screened(City Code 205.07.6.C). Exceptions
include: firewood, neatly stacked�and stored in the side or rear yard only;boats,empt�y
� trailers, and non-motorized campers stored in the side or rear yard; boats,empty trailers,
campers and�notorized vehicles stored on a paved surface.
• �ome is being;�ent�i�with no rentai licens�;Chapter 220 or City Code requires a
properly awner to obtain a renta!license when leasing.a residential properry in whole or
in part as a dwelling to persons other than famity members.
� Due to the extensive nature of these violations,City s.taff would like to personall.y meet with you
in our office to discuss the needed remedy for this situation..Please call xne to set up a meeting •
before 9/26/2013 at(763) 572-3599.Thank ypu for your�cooperatio�t.
Sincerely,
.�_ i , . . .
� Julie Jo�s�
Plannin ;�ana�er
Ctty o�;�idley
� � 304
� . , � � � - �
�
Notice of Contested Case �
James D. Kiewel City of Fridley
1627 Rice Creek Road , Jul�e Jones Planning Manager et. al.
• Fridley, MN. 55423 Paanning and Zonin� Division
Rental Property Div�sion .
6431 University Ave. N.E. �
Fridley, MN. 55432 �
Re: �'irst Notice of Noncompi'rance of the Fridley City Cade at 1631 directed t�
"Property Owner" at 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridiey, MN. 55423, and Qated
September 11, 2013.
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance o#the Fridley City Code at 1627 directed to
"Propetty Owner" at 1 f27 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423,.�nd Dated
September 12, 2013, � .
Re: City of Fr.idley Chapter 205 sections 205.04.4.1 and 205.07.6.G as cited in your
Se�tember 11, 2013 nofiice,
_ Re: City of Fridiey Chapter 205 section 205.07.fi.0 as ci#ed in your September 12,
2013 notice. �
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 220 as cited in yaur Sept�mber 12, 2013 notice.
Re: Minnesota Administra#ive'Procedures Act Chapter 14 (APA), Minn. Stat. 14.58..
R"e: Minneso#a Administrative Rules, Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700. �
� 1. . This resporrdent and private Minnesofa state Cifizen is currently th.e priva�e �
property owner of the private home at 1627 Rice Creek Road, and of the pr�vate home .
at 1631. Rice Creek Road, however this respondent is not a resident agent of the �
corporate state of Minnesot� or political subdivision created or organized by a state or
Federal government, nor is this respondent an officer or employee of a state or the�
Federal goverr�ment. This respondent is a �itizen of the state of Minnesota and nQt a
resident in the corporate ser�se, .nor is his private home a residenc� in the cocporate
sense, nor is he or his private home in the corporate State of Minnesota. This
resporndent is not the "City" -- an agent of the �City" nor is this respondents private
property a public buifding or regulated iicensed facility and as such, not w.ithin the
Corporate in rem ju�isdiction of the City of Fridley. This respondent is a natural born
1 of 15.APA Nodce of Contested Case
305 -
state Citizen proceeding (sui juris}, living in Anoka County, and is a Minnesota state
Citizen and a such proceeds with this request for agency administrafiive due process
by special appearance, in propria persona, proceeding at law in summo jure, jus
regium, and proceeds as such without conferring nor consenting to any ministeriai
strict iiability statutory jurisdiction. This Minnesota state Citizen under Minnesota
Constitution Article Vl. Sec. 1 and 5, ["judicia! Power"] willfu!!y enforces alf
constitutional limitations and prohibitions under Minnesota Constitution Article l.
against asserted quasi ministerial jurisdictional capacity, summary proceeding and
plaintiffs or prosecution and other interested officers, officials, parties and employees
operating in their respective politicai corporate artificial capacities as they are within
the said county, city, and state. For further clarifcation see HALE v. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, quoted as follows: �
"The individual may stand upon his constitutior�al rights as a citizen. He is
entitled to carry on his private business +n his own way. His power to contract is
unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to
criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his iife and property. Mis rights are such as
existed by the faw of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with �
the Constitution." �
Citv of Dapas et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944; "The rights of the individual are
not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or
even from the Constitution, but they exist inherentiy in every man, and are
mere{y reaffirmed in the Constitution a�d restricted only to the extent they have
been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
2. This respondent, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen, having made
the above statement in section 1, to be clear, does not make the claim that the City of
Fridley has no power to reasonable regulate this respondenYs private property. This
private home owner does however herein question whether your notice and your
administration address a proper strict interpretation of the ordinances therein cited, �
and the scope and punriew ofi the ordinances therein cited, and further questions the
standard of scrutiny sought to be implemented by the City, and whether that standard
of scrutiny is one of strict scrutiny or rational basis, and whether one, the other, or
both were anticipated by the City council prior to the passage of the ordinances as
2 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
306
cited in the September 11 , 2013 and September 12, 2013 First Nofiices of
Noncompliance.
3. Fridley City Code section 903.01: 2 D defines and identifies who, and what is a
person as is the�ein, specially defined, as follows: ,
"Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or other
group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or
other representative appointed by law."
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penaity or
fine, it includes the partners or any mernbers of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsib{e for the violation."
The first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word individual without
stating what an individual is, however if the law therein is read strictly,•first in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2) wherein: u***the singular includes
[means] the plural***", one can see that the word "individual' as used therein includes
more than an individual human person as might be erroneousiy surmised by the less
critica{ reader. And further the first paragraph City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on
to stat� that the list of entities enumerated therein are limited as only "including any
executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed by 1aw."
Therein City Code section 903.01: 2 D paragraph one, it is the respondent's
contention that the word includes and including are words of exclusion and limitation
as estabiished by the rule of stare dicisis within the of following cases:
Helverinct v. Morqan's, Inc., 293 US� 121, pp. 124 - 126, 79 L Ed 232, pp. 235
— 236 "The provision that the term "taxab{e year" "includes" the period of
less than twelve months for.which a separate retum is made, when read only
with its immediate [293 US 125] context, is not free from arnbiguity. It may be
admitted that the term "includes" may sometimes be taken as
synonymous with "means," * * * But the phraseoiogy is also open to the
construction that the word "includes" �is used as the equivalent of
"comprehends" or "embraces," and that by it the sec#ion merely adopts a
familiar device in aid of statutory construction, by providing that wherever other
sections refer to a "taxable year" that phrase may, if the context requires, be
#aken also to refer to or to "include" a fractional part of that taxable year, for
which a separate return is made."
3 of �5,APA Notice of Contested Case ,
307
Montello Salt Co. v. Utah., 221 U.S. 452, pp. 46fi - 467, 55 L. Ed. 810, p. 815;
"It is the participle of the word "include;" which means, according to the
definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) "to confine within something; hold as in
an inciosure; inclose; contain." �2) "To comprise as a part, or as something
incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater inciudes the less; . . .
the Roman Empire included many nations."
Red Wina Mattin� Co. v. Willcuts, Collector of Internal Revenue 15 F.2d
626, 630, 631; 1926 U.S. App. Lexis 2958; 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 63�0; 49 A.L.R.
459: "The meaning of the word "including," as used in the statute, is important.
It evidently refers to the preceding part of the subsection, and must be
recognized as occupying a significant and important place. It cannot be
� brushed aside and ignored. This court should not attempt to write new
language into the statute, nor ignore language there used, but must endeavor,
from the I�nguage of the statute itself, [**15] to arrive at the meaning of the
Congress. This word has received considerable discussion in opinions of the
courts. It has been productive of much controversy.
The word "include" is defined in the New Standard Dictionary as follows: "(1) To �
comprise, comprehend or to embrace as a component part, item or member;
as, this volume includes ali his works; the biN includes his last purchase; (2) to
inclo�e within; contain; confine; as, an oyster shell sometimes includes a pearl."
� It is defined by Webster as follows: "To comprehend or comprise, as a genus of
the species, the whole a part, an argument or reason the inference; to take or
reckon in; to contain; embrace; as, this volume includes the essays; to and
including the tenth."
The Century Dictionary defines "including" thus: "To comprise as a part."
Perhaps the most interesting discussion of the word "including" is found in
Montello Salt Co. v. State of U#ah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 706, 55 L. Ed. 810,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 633. There the court referred to and discussed some of the
cases where the word "including" had been under consideration. For instance,
the court pointed out in Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, that a legacy [**16�
of $100, "including money trusteed at a certain bank," could not be construed as
meaning that the sum of $100 was in addition to the sum in bank. Also in
Henry's Executor v. Henry's [*631] Executor, 81 Ky. 342, "a bequest of $14,000,
'including certain notes,' was held to mean that the notes formed a part of the
$14,000, and were not in addition thereto." Also the case of Neher v. McCook
County, 11 S.D. 422, 78 N,W. 998, where "it was heid that a certain section ofi
the laws of the state, which provided that the sheriff s fees should be $ 16 for
4 of 15,APA NoUce of Contested Case
308
summoning a jury, 'including mileage,' did not entitie him to mileage in addition
to the $ 16." And the Supreme Court, after its reference to these cases, says of
the case before it: "The court also considered that the word 'including' was used
. as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its
ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. lt is its exceptional sense, as the
dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power
attributed to it." We refer to a few othe� cases.
In SuHivan Machinery Co. v. United States (C.C.) 168 F. 561, the word
"including," used in the Tariff Act (30 [**17] Stat. 197), was construed as a
word of addition. In Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 593, 103 P. 674, 676,�the
court, discussing the meaning of the word "including," says: "This word has aiso
been defined as having an accumufative sense, and as ciassing that which
� foUows with that which has gone before." * '` '
In Kennedy v. Industrial Accident Commission Of California et al., 50 Cal. App. �
� 184, 194, 195 P. 267, 271, the court says: "'Including' is not a word of limitation.
� Rather it is a word of enlargement, and in ordinary signification impiies that
something else has been given beyond the general language that precedes it. *
* * As h�re emplayed, the word 'incfuding' is used to express the idea that the
specific power to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase, or terminate an
award, upon the ground that the disabi{ity has recurred, increased, diminished,
or terminated -- a particular power specifically referred to in the sect+on of the
present act -- +s but a part of the larger and more comprehensive power
conferred by the more general language of the immediately preceding clause of
the section."
� ln Dumas v. Boulin (La.) McGloin, 274, 278, it is pointed out that the word
"include" �**18] has two shades of ineaning. The court says: "'lnclude' * * *
has * '� * two shades of* * * meaning. It may apply where that which is affected
is the only thing included, * * * and it is also used to express the idea, that the
thing in question constitutes a part only of the contents of some other thing." it is
more commonly used in the latter sense.
That the word "includes" is a word of enfargement is held in Fraser v. Bentel et .
Stinson, 5 Minn. 522; Calhoun v. Memphis & P:R. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 1045, No.
2309.
Perhaps the most lucid statement the books afford on the subject is in Blanck et
ai. v. Pioneer Mining Co. et al., 93 Wash. 26, 30, 159 P. 1077, 1079, name{y:
"The word 'inciuding' is a term of eniargement and not a term of lim�tation, and
necessarily implies that something is intended to be smbraced in the permitted
5 of i 5.APA Notice of Contested Case
309
deductions beyond the generai language which precedes it. But, granting that
� the word 'inciuding' is a term of enlargement, it is ctear that it only
performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the
eniargement. lt thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited
preceding general language. * * * The word 'including' introduces [*"19] an
enlarging definition of the preceding general words, 'actual cost of the iabor,'
thus of necessity excluding the idea of a further enlargement than that furnished
by the enfarging clause so introduced. When r.ead in its immediate context, as
on all authority it must be read, the word 'including' is obviousiy used in the
sense of its synonyms 'comprising; comprehending; embracing."'
4. And further, the first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word
individual as within other specific•enumerated things within the class def ned therein
and therefore should be strictly read in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis --
the rule of statutory construction where general words following a designation o#
particular subjects or cfasses or persons, the meaning of the general words will
ordinarify be presumed.to be restricted by the.particular designation, and to include
only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those specifically
enumerated.
5. And further the second paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on
further to define the strict class of person over whom a penalty can be imposed and
clearly states as follows:
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation." �
An interpretation that a private Minnesota state Cifiizen is included within this definition
is inconsistent with United Sfiates Constitution article 4, § 2, and 14th Amendment. See
as follows:
ORIENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. DAGGS, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, 172 U.S. 557; 19 S. Ct. 281; 43 L. Ed. 552; 1899. "A
corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the provision, and hence has
not "privifeges and immunities" secured to "citizens" against state legislation."
BRACEY et al. v. DARST, State Auditor of West Virginia, et al. District Court,
N.D. West Virginia, 218 F. 482; 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409, Decernber 5,
� 1914. "As we wil! point out later on, the„�ower of the Leqislature to "reaulate"
the business operations of corporations and those of individuafs are vastiv
different based upon the fact that individuals under articie 4, � 2, of the federal
Constitution are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all priviieaes and lmmunities o#
citizens in the several states " while corporations are not. So this contention
must ha�k back, at iasi, to the one that the true intent of the Legisiature was that
this act should oniy be made applicab{e to corporations.*** ft is true that the first
6 of 15.APA Notice of Contested Case
310
section of the statute �n designating those to be subject to its provisions uses
the singular "individual"; but under the well-known rule the court should hoid the
plural to have been intended when that construction is required by the context
as in this instance, and especialiy where it will aid in sustaining the validity of
the statute. ***** How can you have an."unincorporated" corporation? How can
you have an "organized" individual? If vou sav the word "individua{" shoufd
be iudiciallv construed out of the ac_,_t and_it should be held aaalicable onlv
to coraora tions an d to "in dividua ls a�„ ctins� i n c o n c e rt b v o r�a n i z a t i o n." th e
objections to it are just as valid as if the word "individual" be aliowed to remain
for the legal rights, under the federal and state Constitutions, by reason of
personal citizenship, attach to every individual just as fuily, if he conducts a
Iegitlmate and lawfu! business aione, or by association with other individuals.
As we will point out fater on, the power of the Leqislature to "requlate" the .
� business operations of corporations and those of individuals are vastiv
different, based upon the fact that individuals, under ar#icle 4, � 2, of the `
federal Constitution, are "citizens"of a st,ate "entitled to a{1 privileaes and
immunities of citizens in the several states:' while corporations are not."
6. lt is this respondent's position that he is not a privileged person and individual
owing a duty to your administration, and he is not in business nor does he act in
concert with any privileged entity and business. lt is therefiore that this respondent
herein makes the following requests in a�cordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 in
an effort to establish, and prove, that the respondent is not 4awfulfy classified as the
subject of the special law as cited in your administrative notices. The respandent
herein states this position because the respondent realizes -- as held and stated in,
Masters v. Commissioner Minnesofia Depar#men# of Natural Resources (C1-99-1302
No.) that the term "special legislation" is reserved for legislation that is "so pate�tly
arbitrarv as to demonstrate constitutional evasion". In an effort to meet the
burden of proving that the respondent is not the specially defined person to whom the
ordinances cited can lawfully be directed and enforced the respondent herein makes
the fiollowing request: �
a. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent is, or in not a person as speciai{y defined in City of Fridley
� ordinances section 220.06: 40, and section 903.01 : 2 D as can, or cannot be
identified by rules of strict construction, and that by such strict construction this
Minnesota state Citizen, although a natural person is in fact a natural person of
7 of 15,APA NoGce of Contested Case '
311
the privileged class and individuai identified in sections 220.06: 40, and section
903.01: 2 D as can lawfully be identified as similar in classification to the
privileged or fegai fictions therein by the rule of noscitur a sociis and as those
sections should be strictly read, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2)
wherein: "**'`the singular incfudes [meansl the plural***" (As in the portion of
those definitions that use the word individual) and as further strictly read in
accordance with the rule �ejusdem generis), wherein;
"The principal underlying rule of ejusdem generis is that the legislature
had in mind things of the same kind and was speaking of them as a
cfass." Foley v. Whelan, 219 Minn. 209, 216,
"The limiting principle of ejusdem generis has particular force with
respect to criminal statutes, which courts are compeiled to construe
rigorously in order to protect unsuspecting citizens from being ensnared
by ambiguous statutory language. See, e. g., Mourning v. Family
Pubfications Service, Inc., 1973, 411 U.S. 356; 375, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36
L.Ed.2d 318; United Siates v. Campos-Serrano, 1971, 404 U.S. 293, 297-
298, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457; United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1969,
412 F.2d 885, 890." UNITED STATES v. INSCO, 496 F.2d 204 (1974)
"In accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis, such terms as "other,"
"other thing," "other persons," "others," "otherwise," or "any other," Vuhen
preceded by a specific enumeration, are commonly given a restricted
meaning, and limited to articles of the same nature as those previously
described." See Uniteci Sta#es v Chase, '!35 US 255, 34 L Ed 117, 10 S
Ct 756; Re Mosby's Appeal, 360 Mich 186, 103 NW2d 462; Derk v Zerbe
Twp. 322 Pa 350, 185 A 647.
b. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent knowingly, wiflingiy and intentional surrendered his sui juris
status as Minnesota state Citizen and excepted the status of privileged
individual legal person as de�ned in City of Fridley ordinance sections 220.06;
� 40, and 903.01 : 2; D, upon notice served and presented to this respondent, with
complete ar�d proper notice as required by Minnesota Statute 13.04 subd. 2
(Tennessen warning).
c. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205 and
section 205.04.4.i requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
B of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
312
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
impiementation of the police powers as a matter of strict scrutiny.
d. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
cifiy council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city councii to establishing that such perr�its would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of rational basis.
e. This respondent herein requssts all reports considered by the city council
prescribing how City Code section 205.04.4.1 could lawful{y be implemented
upon both, the regu{ated created or organized privileged iegai entity and their
property regulated as a matter of rational basis, and the private home owner
and his private property under the least restrictive strict scrutiny standard of
regulation without transgression of the equal treatment guaranteed to the
private Minnesota state citizens by the United States Constitution's article 4, §
2, and 14th amendment as is a specific condition placed upon the council as a
condition placed of their authority as mandated by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, �
32, United State constitution 6th, 14th and Article V1 Clause II (Supremacy
Cfausej, and Minnesota Constitution Articles 1 sections 6, 7.
f. The names and addresses of all witnesses that the City of Fridley Rental
Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions intends to caH at the APA
contested case hearing, along with a brief summary of each witness' testimony.
A{I witnesses unknown at the time of said disclosure shall be disclosed as soon
as they become known.
g. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the City of Fridley
Renta{ Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions or witnesses on behalf of
the City of Fridley Rental Property and Zoning Divisions.
h. All written exhibits to�be introduced at the APA contested case hearing.
9 of 15,APA NoGce of Contested Case
313
i. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state is: an officer of the city or the state of Minnesota; an employee
� of the city, or the state of Minnesota; an agent of the city, or of the state of �
Minnesota or legally created or orgar�ized legal entity upon whom the city of
Fridley can compel performance otherwise in derogation of his fundamental
rights as a Minnesota state citizen, and citizen of the United States.
,
}. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen waming have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13,04), upon which the City of
Fridley, and city Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to
prove that this Minnesota state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as
. such he.is also one of the forgoing: pe�-son's heirs, executors, administrators or
assigns, and also a firm, partnership or corporation, its or their successors or
assigns, or the agent of any of the aforesaid, as defined in Fridiey Residential
Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing Code, definitions section 220.06
Subd. 40, and as used in City of Fridley Rental Property, and Planning and
Zoning Divisions chapter, section 220.13, and that this Minnesota state Citizen
accepted the status of person defined therein and has availed himself of the
benefit of that privileged status upon notice served.
k. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen waming have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley, and city Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will reiy on
to prove that this Minnesota state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that
as such he is also one who enjoys the privileged ofi acting in concert with a firm,
corporation, partnership, association, organization or other group acting as a
unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
repr�sentative appointed by law, and as such is an included: partr�ers or
members of any partnership, firm or corporation or the oificers, agents or
members of a corporation and as is a person def+ned in City of Fridiey
ordinance de�nitions section 903.01 : 2 D, responsible for the cited violations
10 of 15.APA Notice of Conte5ted Case
314
and as such this Minnesota state Citizen accepted the status of person defined
therein and has availed himself of the benefit of that priviieged status upon
notice served. �
I. And further: any evidence that notices or Tennessen warning have been
properly served, (Minn. Stat. 13.04) upon which the City of Fridley Renta)
Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state Citizen is by his acknowledgement a privi(eged person as
. defined in the Minnesota Data Practices Act Chapter 13, section 13.02 Subd.
10, or City of Fridley ordi�ances 220,06: 40, and section 903.01: 2 D
m. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
220 of the Fridley Residential Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing
Code, as a matter of strict sc�utinv, was drafted and passed by the counsel for
the purpose of furthering a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent
with their statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitu#ion and laws of the United States or of this state,
and' furtMer that the ordinances drafted impose the� least restrictive means o#
. regulating the Citizens private property.
n. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
220 of the Frid{ey Residentiai Renta! Property Maintenance and Licensing
� Code, as a matter of rationa! bases, was drafted and passed by the counsel for
the purpose a of furthering a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent
with their statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state.
o. This respondent herein requests that you specifically identify the specific
office, commission and person having primary authority and primary jurisdiction
in the matters presented in your administrative notices.
11 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
315
7. The September 11, 2013 "First Notice of Noncompliance" cites as authority and
your stated position for noncompliance Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 section
"205.04.4.1". After having read this zoning ordinance, in this respondents view, section
205.04.4.1 (3) A (a) makes it clear that--"A grading and drainage plan is not required �
for, '*** indivitlual residential landscaping" ! .
8. And further this respo�dent, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen
questions whether or not the ordinances cited in the September 11, 2013 and
September 12, 2013 First Notices of Noncompliance can apply to bo#h th.e privileged
owner (created or organiied), and this non privileged private property owner alike
without transcending any issues of desperate treatment not authorized by the Charter
. for the City of Fridl.ey or constitutional permitted by the Minnesota state Constitution,
or the United States Constitution as is a condition ptaced upo� the authority of your
city council by�Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, 32.
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 39�, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. ed. 1042,
1045, 29 A.L.R. 1446, the Supreme Court, speaking of the requirement of due
process, said:
"Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the
right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
. of (ife, * * " and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common
law as essential to�the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." And further:
"The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interFered with, under
the guise of protecting the public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary
or without reasonable relation #o some purpose within the competency of the
state to effect.
"The glory of American law consists in clearly defining not only the causes
wherefore, but the times when, the manner how, and the rr�eans whereby, the
personal and property rights of the citizen may be invaded or abridged. Any
enactment which fails to measure up to this standard of certainty is not
American law, and American courts frequently declare statutes void for
uncertainty. State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 378; State v. Railwav Co., 146 Mo. 155.
(f) Where discretion exis#s, uncertainty exists. Matthews v. Murphv, 23 Ky. Law
Rep. 750, 63 S.W. 785; Raiiroad v. Commonwe�alth, 99 Ky. " Black's
Constitutional Law, sec. 105, p. 279; State v. YounQ, 29 Minn. 474; "Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, sec. 116. (e)
"Ger�erally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such
powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of
12 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case ,
316
those powers which have been expressly conferred." Mangofd Midwest Co. v.
Vil{aqe of Richfie{d, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have oniy such
powers as the statute co�fers on them. Their owers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowin suc owers ni e a es ex re .
ansas iy ou ern . o. v. n ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed bv
statute." .
______r
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essent�al conditivns imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 1�8 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising deie�ated legisiative power .
he shouid substantiaNy comp{y with ail the statutor'y requ�rements in its exerc'ise.
Procedurai fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
tiberty. "It is not without si nificance that most of the r v�sions of the Bi�l
of Ri h s are roce ura . is proce ure a spe s muc o e i erence
e een ru e y aw an rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there wi11 be equal justice.
9. The stated purpose of the Minnesota APA as expressed in Minn. Stat. 14.001 is
as fol4ows:
The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
(1) to provide oversight of powers and duties delegated to administrative
agencies;
(2) to increase public accountability of administrative agencies;
(3) to ensure a uniform minimum procedure;
(4) to increase public access to governmentai information;
(5) to increase public participation in the formulation of administrative rules;
(6) to increase the fairness of agencies in their conduct of contested case
proceedings; and
(7) to sirnpfify the process of.judicial review of agency action as weli as increase
its ease and availability.
ln accomplishing its ob�ectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair
balance between #hese purposes and the need for efficient, economical, and
effective govern�nent administration. The chapter is no# meant to alter the
substantive rights of any person or agency. 1ts impact is limited to procedural
rights with the expectation that better substantive results will be achieved in the
13 of 15.APA Nolice of Contested Case
317
everyd,ay conduct of state government by improving the process by which those
results are attained.
10. And further, a response to this APA Notice of Contested Case from the City of
Fridley Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions in this instant case is an
essentiai jurisdictionai prerequisite. See Minn. Admin R. 1400.6700 and case law as .
� foqows:
"...this is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to waiver by the government.").
lndeed, this Court has held that "no exceptions" excuse a plaintiff s failure to
� comply with the jurisdictionai prerequisites of the FTCA. McDevitt v. United
States Postal Serv., 963 F. Supp. 482, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1997} (citing, inter a{ia,
Peterson, 694 F.2d at 944; Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d
Cir. 1971)). LUBLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. UNiTED STATES
DEPAR7MENT OF HOUSiNG AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and HOOKS
VAN HOLM, WC., Defendants, CIVII. ACTION NO. 05-6785 UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23394, April 27, 2006, Decided Apri127, 2006, Filed; April 27,
2006, Entered
"lt is essential tl�at where an executive is exercising dele�ated legislative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirernents in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and.regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without si nificance that most of the rovisions of the Bili
�of Ri h�s�are r�oce ura . tis proce ure a spe s muc o e erence
e5 tv+ieen rule by law an3`rule by whim o� caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict.
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal 1'ustice
under faw." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,
179, 72 S.Ct. 624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951). Also see McNatrb v United States,
3�8 U.S. 332, 347, 63 S.Ct. 608, 616, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Administrative
authorities are creatures of statute and have oni such owers as e
s a u e con ers on em. e�r owers must e exerc�se in accor ance
w� e s atute es ow�n suc owers ns e a es ex re . ansas i y
ou ern . o, v. n ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178, 64 L ed
717, 40 S Ct 187. and they can act only in the mode prescribed by statute."
(emphasis added) Mahler v. Ebv, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S. Ct. 283.
"[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such p� rocedural pcotections as the
particular situation demands," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S.
481. Resolution of the issue here invotving the const�tutiona su iciency o�
aTministrative pracedures prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending
review, requires cons�deration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will
be affected by the official action; (2� the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional
procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, inctuding the fiscal
and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would
entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-335. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
"The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the substantive due process rights �
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment afford "heic�htened protect�on against
government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests."
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 117 S. Ct.
14 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
318 -
2302, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997). In re the Matter of: Nancy SooHoo, petitioner,
Respondent, vs. Marilyn Johnson, Appellant. SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESQTA, 731 N.W.2d 815; 2p07 Minn. LEX1S 253, May 10, 2007, Filed.
"However, for the purposes of review, it has been said that clear violations of
law in reaching the result, such as acting without evide�ce when evidence is
required, or making a,decision contrary� to all the evidence, are just as much
�urisdictional error as is'the failure to fake the ro er ste s to ac ujre
urisdiction at the be innin o e rocee �n orgn s v. a o., 147
s , , ;
� "Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Thelr owers must be e erctsed in
accordance with the statute bestowin suc owers ni e a es eX re .
ansas ity ou ern . o. v. n ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed bv
statute."
_________.
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disr�gard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co.�v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 6NA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
`'In a long line of cases, the Court has excused the petitioner from exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionaiit of some feature of agency's decision making process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.�. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979 ; Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 (1976);
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 1976); 1Neinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 249,
265 -- 267 (1975); Gibson v. Berryhi i, 411 U.S. 564, 575 t1973); Allen v. Grand
Centrati Aircraft Co. 347 U.S. 535 (1954). lt is difficult to explain this line vf
cases. Sometimes the Court seems to base its decision excusing exhaustion on
the broad Qrinciple that constitutional issues are particuSarly deserving of�udicial
resolution.' Administrative Law Davis, Kenneth Culp Dav9s 15.5 Constituttonal
� Right Exception.
ln re De t. ofi Ener Stri er Well Exem tion Liti ation, 578 F.Supp. 58fi,
cert �e quest�on answere xxon corp. v . . ept. o Energy, 744 F.2d 98,
certiorari denied Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v Department of Energy, 1Q5
s.Ct. 576, 469 U.S. 1077, 83 L.Ed.2d 515, Where cla�m before court requires
resolution af issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed with�n purview
o# administrative agency, doctrine of primary jurisdiction rriay be app{ied to
suspend judicial� process pending referral of such issue to administrative
agency." .
The undersigned herein reserved his rights to: life iiberty and private property; amend
his.request for a contested case; objection, �and request for discovery as herein made
.
in accordance with the Minneso#a Administrative Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R
i 400.6700.
� �
vate i iZen, ames . �ewe
ithout prejudice; by special appearance
9 — 26 -- 2013
'i 5 of 15,APA Notice oi CoMested Case
319
�xh: b:� 20
Administrative Procedures Act Notice of Contested Case
James D. �Ciewel City of Fridley
C/O 1631 Rice Creek Road Julie Jones Planning Manager et. a{.
Fridley, MN. 55423 Pianning,and.Zoning D�vision
6431 Urnversity Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN. 55432
Directed to: City of Fridiey, Pianning Manager Julie Jones:
Re: First Notice ofi Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 Rice Creek Road
N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423 directed to "Property Owner" and Dated July 09, 2014. (Appx.
1)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 Rice Creek Road
N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423 directed to "Property Owner" and Dated ,fuly 09, 2014. (Appx.
2)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridiey City Code at 1631 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 11, 2013. (Appx. 3)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1627 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 12, 2013, (Appx. 4)
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 205 as cited in your Dated July 09, 2014 first notice.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act Chapter 14 {APA), Minn. Stat. 14.58.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Ruies, Minn, Admin. R. 1400.6700.
An Administrative Procedure Act (APA) contested case is:
"*"`* a proceeding before an agency in which the legaf rights, duties, or privileges
of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined
after an agency hearing";
As defined in Minn. Stat. § 14.02 Subd. 3.
The purpose of the APA is as se# forth in Minn. Stat. § 14.001 as quoted herein,
sec#ion 10.
1 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
320
1. The first notice(s) as are dated July 09, 2014 and as have been identified by
this petitioner as (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2) are the finro administrative notices sent to this
petitioner dated July 09, 2014. These two administrative notices seem to address the
same subject matter as the previously issued administrative notices as have herein
been identified by this petitioner as (Appx.3} and (Appx. 4) both dated September 11,
2013. In response to the previously issued administrative notices herein identified as
(Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) dated September 11, 2013, this petitiorier had on 9 — 26 —
2013 previously directed a petition for an APA contested case herein identified as
(Appx. 5) regarding the same subject matter as are now addressed in what are stated
to be first notices - (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2) both dated July 09, 2014, although your
administration has not sent this petitioner any correspondence stating that the
previous September 11, 2013 (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4� had been dismissed.
Accordingly this petitioner now proceeds with this petition for an APA contested case
in response to all matters as have been addressed by the first notices as issued
September 11, 2013 herein as {Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) and the petition in response as
properly served on 9 — 26 — 2013, and the first notices dated July 09, 2014 and herein
identified as (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2).
2. This respondent and private Minnesota state Citizen is currently the private
property owner of the private home at 1627 Rice Creek Road, and of the private home
at 1631 Rice Creek Road, however this respondent is not a resident agent of the
corporate state of Minnesota or political subdivision created or organized by a state or
Federal government, nor is this respondent an officer or employee of a state or the
Federal government. This respondent is a Citizen of the state of Minnesota and not a
resident in the corporate sense, nor is his private home a residence in the corporate
sense, nor is he or his private home in the corporate State of Minnesota. This
respondent is not the "City" -- an agent of the "City" nor is this responden�s private
property a public building or regulated licensed facility and as such, not within the
Corporate in rem jurisdiction of the City of Fridley. This respondent is a natural born
state Citizen proceeding (sui juris), living in Anoka County, and is a Minnesota state
Citizen and a such proceeds with this request for agency administrative due process
2 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
321
by special appearance, in propria persona, proceeding at law in summo jure, jus�
regium, and proceeds as such without conferring nor consenting to any ministerial
strict liability statutory jurisdiction. This Minnesota state Citizen under Minnesota
Constitution Article VI. Sec. 1 and 5, ["judicial Power"] willfully enforces all
constitutional limitations and prohibitions under Minnesota Constitution Article I.
against asserted quasi ministerial jurisdictional capacity, summary proceeding and
plaintiffs or prosecution and other interested officers, officials, parties and employees
operating in their respective political corporate artificial capacities as they are within
the said county, city, and state. For further clarification see HALE v. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, quoted as follows:
"The individual may stand upon. his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is
entitled to carry .on his privat�.business in his own�u►ra�.�His power to contract is
.,�;
unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to
criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as
existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
the Constitution."
Citv of Dallas et al. v. Mitcheli, 245 S.W. 944; "The rights of the individual are
not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or
even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are
merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted-only to the extent they have
. been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
3. This petitioner and private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen, having
made the above statement in section 2, to be clear, does not make the claim that the
City of Fridley has no power to reasonable regulate this petitioner's private property.
This private home owner does however herein question whether your notices and
your administration address a proper strict interpretation of the ordinances therein
cited, and the scope and purview of the ordinances therein cited, and further
questions the standard of scrutiny sought to be implemented by the City, and whether
that standard of scrutiny is one of strict scrutiny or rational basis, and whether one, the
other, or both were anticipated by the City council prior to the passage of the
ordinances as cited in the July 09, 2014 (Appx. 1) and (Appx 2) first notices of
3 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
322
Noncompliance and the previous fiirst notices dated September 11, 2013 (Appx.3} and �
(Appx. 4). And further this petitioner requests that if you administration can rebut the
statement made in section 2 regarding this petitioner's private status that your
administration do so or accept the statement in section 2 as fact as stipulated by
sifence in accordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700.
4. Fridiey City Code section 205.05 (101 is the se�tion that provides for a penalty i
imposed under Fridley City Code section 205 as sited by the Jufy 09, 2014 (Appx. 1)
and (Appx 2) fi�st notices of Noncompfiance and the previous first notices dated
September 11, 2013 (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) quoted below as follows:
"The owner of a building or premises in or upon which a violation of any
provisions of this Chapter has been committed, or shall exist; or the lessee of
the entire building or entire premises in or upon which a violation has been
committed or shafl exist; or the owner or lessee of any part of the buiiding, or
premises in or upon which such violation has been committed or shall exist,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a1l.penalties provided for such
violations under the provision of Chapter 901 of this Code each and every day
that such violation continues. Any such person who, having been served with
an order to remove any such violation, shal! fail to comply with said order to
remove any such viofation, within ten (10) days after such service, or shall
continue to violate any provisions of the regulations made under authority of this
Chapter in the respect named in such order shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of
Chapter 901 of this Code. Each day that such violation continues shall be a
separate violation" '
Fridley City Code section 205.05 (10) provides that owners whom as such, are
persons is violation of Chapter 205 sha11 be subject penalties as are strictly imposed
on persons as provided by Fridiey City Code chapter 901. 901: A provide as follows:
"Every ea rson who violates this Code is subject to a11 penalties provided for
such vioiation. Except where a different, specific or more particuiar penalty is
provided or allowed with respect to any offense, any ep rson guilty of a violation .
of this Code shall upon conviction of such offense, be fined in an amount not to �
exceed the maximum �ine as authorized by Minnesota State Statute 609.034 or
be imprisoned in jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90} days or both for each
offense of which such ep rson is convicted."
4 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
323
While Fridley City Code chapters 901 and 205 do not define the special term "person'
as used therein Fridley City Code section 903.01: 2 D defines and identifies the strict
definition of the special term a "person" upon whom penalties may imposed for a
violation of Fridley City Code Chapter 205 strictly, as follows:
"Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or
other group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee,
receiver or other representative appointed by law."
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it inctudes [means] the partners or any members of any partnership, firm
or corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation."
It is this petitioners contention that when strictly reading the special term "person" as
used in Fridley City Code Chapters 205, 901 and as defined in chapter 903.01 the
following case law and cannons of strict construction should be rigorously applied, as
fol{ows:
"Whenever any property or interest is intended to be protected and the term
"person" is used to designate the party whose property it is intended to protect,
the.terms includes the property of the State and of all public or private
corporations. On the other hand, if the use of the term "person" identifies the
party against whom a violation is charged, it is strict{y construed." Texas
Department of Transportation, v. City of Ftoresville Electric Power & Light
System 53 S.W.3d 447; 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 4220.
The first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word individual without
stating what an individual is, however if the law therein is read strictly, first in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2) and Fridley City Code section 205.03
wherein: "***the singular includes [means] the plural***", one can see that the word
"individual' as used therein includes more than an individual human person as might
be erroneously surmised by the less critical reader. And further the first paragraph City
Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on to state that the list of entities enumerated therein .
are limited as only "including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
representative appointed by law." Therein City Code section 903.01: 2 D paragraph
one, it is the petitioners contention that the word includes and including are words of
5 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
324 -
' 'i
exclusion and limitation as established by the rule of stare dicisis within the of
foHowing cases:
Helverina v. Morqan's, lnc., 293 US 121, pp. 124 - 126, 79 L Ed 232, pp. 235
— 236 "The provision that the term "taxabfe year" "includes" the period of
less than twelve months for which a separate return is made, when read only �
with its immediate [293 US 125] context, is not free from ambiguity. It may be
admitted that the term "includes" may sometimes be taken as
synonymous with "means," '" * * But the phraseo{ogy is also open to the
construction that the word "includes" is used as the equivalent of
"comprehends" or "embraces," and that by it the section merely adopts a
familiar device in aid of statutory construction, by providing that wherever other
sections refer to a "taxable year" that phrase may, if the context requires, be
taken also to refer to or to "include" a fractional part of that taxable year, for
which a separate return.is,made."
Montello Salt Go. v. Utah., 221 U.S. 452, pp. 466 - 467, 55 L. Ed. 810, p. 815;
"It is the participle of the word "inc�ude," which means, according to the
definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) "to confine within something; hold as in
an inclosure; inclose; contain." (2) "To comprise as a part, or as something
incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . .
the Roman Empire included many nations."
Red Wina Maltina Co. v. Willcuts, Collector of lnternal Revenue 15 F.2d
626, 630, 631; 1926 U.S. App. Lexis 2958; 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6360; 49 A.L.R.
459: "The meaning of the word "including," as used in the statute, is important.
It evidently refers to the preceding part of the subsection, and must be
recognized as occupying a significant and important place. lt cannot be
brushed aside and ignored. This court should not attempt to write new
language into the statute, nor ignore language there used, but must endeavor,
from the language of the statute itself, (**15] to arrive at the meaning of the
Congress. This word has received considerable discussion in opinions of the
courts. It has been productive of much controversy.
The word "include" is defined in the New Standard Dictionary as follows: "(1) To
comprise, comprehend or to embrace as a component part, item or member;
as, this volume includes all his works; the bill includes his last purchase; (2) to
inclose within; contain; confine; as, an oyster she11 sometimes includes a pearl."
It is defined by Webster as foflows: "To comprehend or comprise, as a genus of
the species, the whole a part, an argument or reason the inference; to take or
reckon in; to contain; embrace; as, this volume includes the essays; to and
including the tenth."
6 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
325
The Century Dictionary defines "including" thus: "To comprise as a part."
Perhaps the most interesting discussion of the word "including" is found in ;,
Montello Salt Co. v. State of Utah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 706, 55 L. Ed. 810,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 633. There the court referred to and discussed some of the
cases where the word ''including" had been under consideration. For instance,
� the court pointed out in Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, that a legacy [**16]
of$100, "including money trusteed at a certain bank," cou{d not be construed as
meaning that the sum of $100 was in addition to the sum in bank. Also in
Henry's Executor v. Henry's [*631] Executor, 81 Ky. 342, "a bequest of$14,000,
'including certain notes,' was held to mean that the notes formed a part of the
$14,000, and were not in addition thereto." Also the case of Neher v. McCook
County, 11 S.D. 422, 78 N.W. 998, where "it was held that a certain section of
the laws of#he state, which provided that the sheriffs fees should be $ 16 for
summoning a jury, 'inclu�ing mileage,' did not entitle hirn to mileage in addition
to the $ 16." And the �au�reme Court, after its reference to these cases, says of
the case before it: "The court also considered that the word 'including' was used
as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its
ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the
dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power
attributed to it." We refer to a few other cases.
In Sullivan Machinery Co. v. United States (C.C.) 168 F. 561, the word
"including," used in the Tariff Act (30 [**17] Stat. 197), was construed as a
word of addition. In MabEn v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 593, 103 P. 674, 676, the
court, discussing the rrae,aning of the word "including," says: "This word has also
been defined as having an accumulative sense, and as classing that which
follows with that which has gone before." * * *
In Kennedy v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al., 50 Cal. App.
184, 194, 195 P. 267, 271, the court says: "'Including' is not a word of limitation.
Rather it is a word of enlargement, and in ordinary signification implies that
something else has been given beyond the general language that precedes it. *
* "` As here employed, the word 'including' is used to express the idea that the
specific power to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase, or terminate an
award, upon the grounrf�that the disability has recurred, increased, diminished,
or terminated -- a particular power specifically referred to in the section of the
present act -- is but a part of the larger and more comprehensive power
conferred by the more general language of the immediately preceding clause of
the section."
7 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
326
In Dumas v. Boulin (La.) McGloin, 274, 278, it is pointed out that the word
"include" [**18] has two shades of ineaning. The court says: "'Include' * * *
has * * * two shades of* * * meaning. It may apply where that which is affected
is the only thing included, * * * and it is also used to express the idea, that the
thing in question constitutes a part only of the contents of some other thing." It is
more commonly used in the latter sense.
That the word "includes" is a word of enlargement is held in Fraser v. Bentel et .
Stinson, 5 Minn. 522; Calhoun v. Memphis & P.R. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 1045, No.
2309.
Perhaps the most lucid statement the books afford on the subject is in Blanck et
al. v. Pioneer Mining Co. et al., 93 Wash. 26, 30, 159 P. 1077, 1079, namely:
"The word 'including' is a term of enlargement and not a term of limitation, and
necessarily implies that something is intended to be embraced in the permitted
deductions beyond the general language which precedes it. But, granting that
the word 'including' i�'a"�erm of enlargement, it is clear that it only
performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the
enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited
preceding general language. * * '� The word 'including' introduces [**19� an
enlarging definition of the preceding general words, 'actual cost of the labor,'
thus of necessity excluding the idea of a further enlargement than that furnished
by the enlarging clause so introduced. When read in its imr�aediate context, as
on all authority it must be read, the word 'including' is obviously used in the
sense of its synonyms 'comprising; comprehending; embracing."'
5. And further, the first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word
individual as within other specifc enumerated things within the class defined therein
and therefore should be strictly read in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis --
the rule of statutory construction where general words following a designation of
particular subjects or classes or persons, the meaning of the general words will
ordinarily be presumed to be restricted by the particular designation, and to include
only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those specifically
enumerated.
6. And further the second paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on
further to define the strict class of person over whom a penalty can be imposed and
clearly states as follows:
8 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
327
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation." .
An interpretation that a private Minnesota state Citizen is included within this definition
is inconsistent with United States Constitution article 4, § 2, and 14t'' Amendment. See
as follows:
ORIENT 1NSURANCE COMPANY v. DAGGS, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, 172 U.S. 557; 19 S. Ct. 281; 43 L. Ed. 552; 1899. "A
corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the provision, and hence has
not "privileges and immunities" secured to "citizens" against state legislation,"
. ; .
BRACEY et al. v. DARST,,State Auditor of West Virginia, et al. District Court,
N.D. West Virginia, 218'F':�482; 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409, December 5,
1914. "As we will point:qut.later on, the power of the Leqislature to "repulate"
the business oaerations of coraorations and those of individuals are vastiv
different, based upon the fact that individuals, under artic{e 4, § 2, of the federal
Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to afl arivileges and immunities of
citizens in the several states," while corporations are not. So this contention
must hark back, at last; to the one that the true intent of the Legislature was that
this act should only be made applicable to corporations.*** It is true that the first
section of the statute in designating those to be subject to its provisions uses
the singular "individual"; but under the well-known rule the court should hold the
plural to have been intended when that construction is required by the context
as in this instance, and especially where it will aid in sustaining the validity of
" the statute. ***** How ean you have an "unincorporated" corporation? How can
you have an "organized" individual? If vau sav the word "individual" should
be iudiciallv construed out of the act and it shoufd be held applicabfe onlv
to corporations and to "individuals actina in concert bv oraanization," the
objections to it are just as valid as if the word "individual" be alfowed to remain
for the legal rights, under the federal and state Constitutions, by reason of
personal citizenship, attach to every individual just as fully, if he conducts a
legitimate and lawful business alone, or by association with other individuals. '
As we will point out later on, the power of the Leqislature to "reQUlate" the
business oaerations .of coraorations and those of individuals are vastiv
different, based uaon the fact that individuals, under article 4, � 2, of the
federal Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all arivileQes and
immunities of citizens in the several states," while coraorations are not."
7. !t is this petitioner position that he is not a privileged person and individua{
owing a duty to your administration, and he is not in business nor does he act in
concert with any privileged entity and business. it is therefore that this respondent
9 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
328
herein makes the following requests in accordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 in
an effort to establish, and prove, that the respondent is not lawfully classified as the
subject of the special law as cited in your administrative notices. The respondent
herein states this position because the respondent realizes -- as held and stated in,
Masters v. Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (C1-99-1302
No.) that the term "special legislation" is reserved for legislation that is "so uatentiv
arbitrarv as to demonstrate constitutional evasion". In an effort to meet the
burden of proving that the respondent is not the speciafly defined person to whom the
ordinances cited can lawfully b.e directed and enforced the respondent herein makes
the following request:
a. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent is,wo� i�n not a person as specially defined in City of Fridley
ordinances section 220.06: 40, and section 903.01: 2 D as can, or cannot be
identified by rules of strict construction, and that by such strict construction this
Minnesota state Citizen, although a natural person is in fact a natural person of
the privileged class and individual identified in sections 220.06: 40, and section
903.01: 2 D as can lawfully be identified as similar in classification to the
privifeged or legai fictions�therein by the rule of noscitur a sociis and as those
sections should be stricfly read, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2)
wherein: "***the singular includes [means] the plural***" (As in the portion of
those definitions that use the word individual) and as further strictly read in
accordance with the rule (ejusdem generis), wherein;
"The principal underlying rule of ejusdem generis is that the legislature
had in mind things of the same kind and was speaking of them as a
class." Foley v. Whelan, 219 Minn. 209, 216,
"The limiting principle of ejusdem generis has particular force with
respect to criminal statutes, which courts are compelled to construe
rigorously in order to protect unsuspecting citizens from being ensnared
by ambiguous statutory language. See, e. g., Mourning v. Family
Publications Service, {nc., 1973, 411 U.S. 356, 375, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36
L.Ed.2d 318; United States v. Campos-Serrano, 1971, 404 U.S. 293, 297-
298, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457; United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1969,
412 F.2d 885, 890." UNITED STATES v. INSCO, 496 F.2d 204 (1974)
10 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
329
"In accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis, such terms as "other,"
"other thing," "other persons," "others," "otherwise," or "any other," when
preceded by a specific enumeration, are commonly given a restricted
meaning, and limited to articles of the same nature as those previously
described." See United States v Chase, 135 US 255, 34 L Ed 117, 10 S
Ct 756; Re Mosby's Appeal, 360 Mich 186, 103 NW2d 462; Derk v Zerbe
Twp. 322 Pa 350, 185 A 647.
b. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent knowingty, willingly and intentional surrendered his sui juris
status as Minnesota state Citizen and excepted the status of privileged
individual lega{ person as defined in City of Fridiey ordinance sections 220.06:
40, and 903.01: 2; D, upon notice served and presented to this respondent, with
complete and proper notice as required by Minnesota Statute 13.04 subd. 2
{Tennessen warning).� � �
c. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205 and
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary foc the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of strict scrutiny.
d. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of rational basis.
e. This respondent herein requests all reports considered by the city councii
prescribing how City Code section 205.04.4.t could lawfully be implemented
upon both, the regulated created or organized privileged legal entity and their
property regulated as a matter of rational basis, and the private home owner
and his private property under the least restrictive strict scrutiny standard of
regulation without transgression of the equal treatment guaranteed to the
private Minnesota state citizens by the United States Constitution's article 4, §
11 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
330 �
2, and 14th amendment as is a specific condition placed upon the council as a
condition placed of their authority as mandated by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd,
32, United State constitution 6tn 14tn and Articie VI Ciause II (Supremacy
Clause), and Minnesota Constitution Articles 1 sections 6, 7.
f. The names and addresses of all witnesses that the City of Fridley
Pianning and Zoning Divisions intends to cal! at the APA contested case
hearing, along with a brief summary of each witness' testimony. All witnesses
unknown at the time of said disclosure sha11 be disclosed as soon as they
become known.
g. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the City of Fridley
Planning and Zoning Divisions or witnesses on behaff of the City of Fridfey
planning and Zoning Divisions.
h. All written exhibits to be introduced at the APA contested case hearing.
i. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state Citizen is: an officer of the city or the state of Minnesota; an
employee of the city, o,r.the state of Minnesota; an agent of the city, or of the
state of Minnesota or fegally created or organized fegal entity upon whom the
city of Fridley can compel performance otherwise in derogation of his
fundamental rights as a Minnesota state citizen, and citizen of the United
States.
j. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
properly served or ackno.wledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions, will re{y to prove that this Minnesota
state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as such he is also one of the
forgoing: individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or
other group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, �
receiver or other representative appointed by {aw. as defined in Fridley Property
Maintenance and Licensing Code, definitions section 903 (2� D and as used in
City of Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions for the implementation chapter
12 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
331
205, and that this Minnesota state Citizen accepted the status of person defined
therein and has availed himself of the benefit of that privileged status upon
notice served.
k. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridfey Pfanning and Zoning Divisions, will rely on to prove that this Minnesota
state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as such he is also one who
enjoys the privileged 'ofi��cting in concert with a firm, corporation, partnership,
association, organization or other group acting as a unit, including any executor,
administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed by law, and as
such is an included: partners or members of any partnership, firm or
corporation or the off.�.rs,� agents or members of a corporation and as is a
person defined in City of Fridley ordinance definitions section 903.01: 2 D,
responsible for the cited violations and as such this Minnesota state Citizen
accepted the status of person defined therein and has avaifed himself of the
benefit of that privileged status upon notice served.
I. And further: any evidence that notices or Tennessen warning have been
properly served, (Minn..Stat. 13.04) upon which the City of Fridley Planning and
Zoning Divisions, will ;rely fio prove that this Mis�nesota state Citizen is by his
acknowledgement a privileged person as defined in the Minnesota Data
Practices Act Chapter 13, section 13.02 Subd. 10, or City of Fridley ordinances
section 903.01: 2 D or.any other special definition of person applicable to City of
Fridley ordinance Chapter 205.
m. Any and all eviden�e upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
205 of the Fridley Property Maintenance is necessary as a matter of strict
scrutinv, and was dr�ft+�ed and passed by the counsel for the purpose of
furthering a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent with their
statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state,
13 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
332
and further that the ordinances drafted impose the least restrictive means of
regulating the Citizens private property.
n. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
205 of the Fridley P�operty Maintenance is necessary as a matter of rational
bases, and was drafted and passed by the counsel for the purpose of furthering
a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent with their statutory authority
under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state, and further that the
ordinances drafted impose the least restrictive means of regulating the Citizens
private property.
o. This respondent�-1'ierein requests that you specifically identify the specific
office, commission anrt p�"rson having primary authority and primary jurisdiction
in the matters presented in your administrative notices.
8. The July 09, 2014 "First Notice of Noncompliance" (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2) and
the September 11, 2013 "First Notice of Noncompliance" (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) cites
as authority and your stated position for noncompliance Fridley ordinance Chapter
205 section "205.04.4.1". After having read this zoning ordinance, in this respondents
view, section 205.04.4.1 (3)A (aj�makes it clear that—"A grading and drainage plan is
not required for, `*** individual residential landscaping" !
9. And further this respondent, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen
questions whether or not the ordinances cited in the July 09, 2014 "First Notice of
Noncompliance"(s) (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2) and the September 11, 2013 "First Notice
of Noncompliance"(s) (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) can apply to both the privileged owner
(created or organized), and this non privileged private property owner alike without
transcending any issues of desperate treatment not authorized by the Charter for the
City of Fridley or constitutional permitted by the Minnesota state Constitution, or the
United States Constitution as is a condition placed upon the authority of your city
council by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, 32.
14 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
333
An administration that seeks to regulate the private citizens, whose status as citizen
are not embraced within the special definition of person found in Fridley Planning and
Zoning Regulations Chapter 205, Chapter 901 or Chapter 903 imposes a disparity
upon the private citizens whom are not to be found within a defined, created, or
organized privileged class. Private citizens are only, if necessary, to be regulated by
the least restrictive means under a strict scrutiny standard, whereas the defined
privileged class of person are on a less firm foo#ing, under a rational basis standard
whereupon an administration is at liberty, to treat such defined privileged persons
desperately and unequally if such unequal treatment can be rationalized in the interest
of the public health, safety, and welfare. A proceeding as such, upon a private state
citizen whose rights a privile�,es�are secured under the United States constitution
Article 4 § 2 without explana#ior�,as a matter of strict scrutiny; transcends due process
and equal protection of the lav�, as protected by the United States Constitution's 4tn,
5m, 6tn, 14tn, amendments, Article VI Clause II (Supremacy Clause), and Minnesota
Constitution Articles 1 sections 2, 6, 7 as set forth in Minn. Stat. 412.221 § Subd, 32.
See as follows:
DOROTHY ANN FINCH & others vs. COMMONWEALTH HEALTH
INSURANCE CONNECTOR AUTHORITY SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS 459 Mass. 655; 946 N.E.2d 1262; 2011 Mass. LEXIS
253; � �
"Where a statute either burdens the exercise of a fundamental right protected
by our State Constitution, or discriminates on the basis of a suspect
ctassification, the statute is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. See Blixt v. Blixt,
437 Mass. 649, 655-656, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189,
123 S. Ct. 1259, 154 L. Ed. 2d 1022 (2003) (fundamental right); Lowell v.
Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 666, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980) (suspect classification).
See also Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 330, 798
� N.E.2d 941 (2003). All other statutes, which neither burden a fundamental right
nor discriminate on the basis of�a suspect classification, are subject to a
rational basis level of judicial scrutiny. See id.; English v. New England Med.
Ctr., Inc., 405 Mass. 423, 428, 541 N.E.2d 329 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
1056, 110 S. Ct. 866, 107 L. Ed. 2d 949 (1990). For equal protection purposes,
"[t]he rational basis test 'includes a requirement that an impartial {awmaker
could logically believe that the classification would serve a legitimate public
purpose that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class."'
Id. at 429, quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 452,
15 of 20,APA Notice of Contesled Case
334
105 S. Ct. 3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring}. In contrast,
"[t]o pass the strict scrutiny standard, [a State actio�] must be narrowly
tailored to further a legitimate and compelling governmentaf interest and must
be the least restrictive rneans available to vindicate that interest."
Commonwealth v. Weston W., 455 Mass. 24, 35, 913 N.E.2d 832 (2009)." ;
Nordfinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 2326, 120 L. Ed. 2d 1.
"As a general rule, for purposes of the equal protection clause of the Federal
Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, legislatures are presurned to have acted
within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws
result in some inequality; accordingly, unless a classification warrants some
form of heiqhtened review because the classification ieopardizes exercise of a
fundamentaf right or cate'qorizes on the basis ofi an inherentiv suspect
characteristic, the equa� protection clause requires only that the classification
rationally further a legitimate state interest. ;
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. ed. 1042,
1045, 29 A.L.R. 1446;tY��'Supreme Court, speaking of the requirement of due
process, said: �
"V4lithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the
right of the individual ta contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of fife, * * "` and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common
law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." And further:
"The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with,
under the guise of protecting the public interest by iegislative action
which is arbitrary or�without reasonable refa#ion to some purpose within
the competency of the state to effect.
"The glory of American law consists in clearly defining not only the causes
wherefore, but the times when, the manner how, and the means whereby, the
pe�sonal and property rights of the citizen may be invaded or abridged. Any
enactment which fails to measure up to this standard of certainty is not
American law, and American court� frequently declare statutes void for
uncertainty. State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 378; State v. Railwav Co., 146 Mo. 155.
(� Where discretion exists, uncertainty exists. Matthews v. Murphy, 23 Ky. Law
Rep. 750, 63 S.W. 785; Railroad v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. " Black's
Constitutional Law, sec. 105, p. 279; State v. Young, 29 Minn. 474; "Coofey on
Constitutional Limitations, sec. 116. (e)
"Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such
powers as are expressly�conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of
those powers which have been expressly conferred." Manqold Midwest Co. v.
Villaqe of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
� 16 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
335
accordance with the statute bestowinq such powers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not a�sert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially comply with a!! the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness ar�d. regularity are of the indispensabte essence of
liberty. "It is not without siAnificance that most of the provisions of the Bill
of Riqhts are procedurat. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards i� our main assurance that there will be equal justice.
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowina such aowers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 1�87. and thev can act onlv in the mode arescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 6�8, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that wher� an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
fiberty. "It is not without si�nific�nce that most of the urovisions of the Bilt
of Ri�hts are arocedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice."
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath 341 U.S. 123, 179, 72 S.Ct.
624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951).
10. The stated purpose of the;Minnesota APA as expressed in Minn. Stat. 14:001 is
as follows:
The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
17 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
336
(1) to provide oversight of powers and duties delegated to administrative
agencies;
(2) to increase public accountability of administrative agencies;
(3) to ensure a uniform minimum procedure;
(4) to increase public access to governmental information;
(5) to increase public participation in the formulation of administrative rufes;
(6) to increase the fairness of agencies in their conduct of contested case
proceedings; and
� (7) to simplify the process of judicial review of agency action as well as increase
its ease and availability.
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair
balance between thes�;pr�rposes and the need for efficient, economical, and
effective government administration. The chapter is not meant to alter the
substantive rights of any person or agency. Its impact is limited to procedural
rights with the expectation that better substantive results will be achieved in the
everyday conduct of state government by improving the process by which #hose
results are attained.
11. And further, a response to this APA Notice of Contested Case from the City of
Planning and Zoning Divisions in this instant case is an essential jurisdictional
prerequisite. See Minn. Admin R. 1400.6700 and case law as follows:
"...this is a jurisdictional� requirement not subject to waiver by the government.").
Indeed, this Court has h�{,d that "no exceptions" excuse a pfaintiff s failure to
comp{y with the jurisdictional prerequisites of the FTCA. McDevitt v. United
States Postal Serv., 963 F. Supp. 482, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (citing, inter alia,
Peterson, 694 F.2d at 944; Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d
Cir. 1971)). LUBLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiffv. UNITEDSTATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and HOOKS
VAN HOLM, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-6785 UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23394, April 27, 2006, Decided April 27, 2006, Filed; April 27,
2006, Entered -
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he shou{d substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
fiberty. "lt is not without sianificance that most of the provisions of the Bill
18 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
337
of Riqhts are procedural. It is procedure that spelis much of the difference
between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice.�Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice
under law." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,
179, 72 S.Ct. 624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951). Also see McNabb v United States,
318 U.S. 332, 347, 63 S.Gt. 608, 616, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Administrative
authorities are creatures of statute and have onfv such powers as the
statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in accordance
with the statute bestowina such powers, United States ex rel. Kansas City
Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178, 64 L ed
717, 40 S Ct 187. and they can act only in the mode prescribed by statute."
(emphasis added) Mahler v. Ebv, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S. Ct. 283.
"[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the
particular situation demands," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S.
481. Resolution of the�issue here involving the constitutional sufficiency of
administrative procedute�.prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending
review, requires conside�ration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will
be affected by the offi�i�� action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used, and probab{e value, if any, of additiona{
procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the fiscai
and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would
entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-335. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
"The U.S. Supreme Court�has explained that the substantive due process rights
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment afford "heightened protection against
government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests."
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 117 S. Ct.
2302, 138 L. Ed. 2d 7�2 (1997). In re the Matter of: Nancy SooHoo, petitioner,
Respondent, vs. Marilyn Johnson, Appellant. SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA, 731 N.W.2d 815; 2007 Minn. LEXIS 253, May 10, 20Q7, Filed.
"However, for the purposes of review, it has been said that clear violations of
law in reaching the resulfi, such as act4ng without evidence when evidence is
required, or making a decision contrary to all the evidence, are just as much
jurisdictional error as is the failure to take the proper steus to acauire
jurisdiction at the beqinninq of the proceedin4" Borgnis v. Falk Co., 147
Wis 327, 133 NW 209, 37 LRA(NS) 489;
"Administrative author.ities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowinq such powers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode pre�scribed bv
statute."
19 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
338
L
accordance wifih the statute bestowinq such,powers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. lnterstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and the�can act oniv in the mode prescribed bv
statute." �
�
"An agency may not assert the generai�power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 58�, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"ln a long line of cases, the Court has excused the petitioner from exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionality of some feature of agency's decision making process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979); Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 (1976);
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Weinberger v. Saffi, 422 U.S. 249,
265 — 2�7 (1975}; Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575 (1973); Allen v. Grand
Central Aircraft Co. 347 U.S. 535 (1954). It is difficult to explain this line of
cases. Sometimes the Court seems to base its decision excusing exhaustion on
the broad principie that constitutional issues are particularly deserving of judicial
resolution," Administrative Law Davis, Kenneth Culp Davis 15.5 Constitutional
Right Exception.
In re Dept. of Energv Stripper Well Exemption Litiqation, 578 F.Supp. 586,
certified question answered Exxon corp. v U.S. Dept. of Energy, 744 F.2d 98,
certiorari denied Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v Department of Energy, 105
s.Ct. 576, 469 U.S. 1077, 83 L.Ed.2d 515; "Where claim before court requires
resolution of issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed within purview
of administrative agency, doctrine of primary jurisdiction may be applied to
suspend judiciaf process pending referral of such issue to administrative
agency."
The undersigned herein respectfully submits this APA notice of contested case, and
reserved his rights to: life, iiberty and private property; amend his request for a
contested case, and request for discovery as herein made in accordance with the
Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700.
�
a e � �zen, ames . iewe
ithout prejudice; by special appearance
. 8 - 8 -- 2014 �
. ALY M.ELABBADY
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNES07A
My Commission ExQires Jan.31,2�16
20 of 20,APA Notice oi Contested C e � � c�d��
, . �r��
�
� 339
G
Affidavit of Service by Personal Service
State of Minnesota }
} Subscribed and sworn
County Of Anoka }
I, Daniei Hillman, being first duly sworn, depose and say that in the County of
Hennepin and in the State of Minnesota, on August 8, 2014 10, 2014 the
undersigned served on behalf of James Doug{as Kiewel, two APA Notices of
Contested Case directed to: City of Fridley, Planning Manager Julie Jones, and
properly addressed to City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. MN. 55432.
Jurat/ Acknowledgment
State of Minnesota }
} Subscribed, sworn and sealed
County of Anoka }
Qn, August 8, 2014, Daniel Hillman, dufy sworn, as such deposes, and did personally
appear before me, and is known to be the deponent described in, and who executed, the
forgoing instrument/affidavit of service of process, and acknowledged that he executed
the same under o , his free act a d d d in the above said State and County.
, ( �.y.,�,� 1 �; �I,�-,�,�.�
Affiant s s+gnature
Address and Phone number of affiant is, 2523 Lynn Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN 55�416.
Ph. 612-369-5232. Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned Notary Public in
the above said State and County.
Notary Public
ALY M.ELABBADY .� ��G�
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA -� --
nny Commisslon Expires Jan.31,20i5
- 340
� k �� � �
� �
�I1Y OE FIZtDLEY
� �
C�
1•IZI�I..I;I \il''�K'IP:1L.C'I:N'fi�R • 643:1 UNIVEKSITY/1VE.N.E.FRIDL.EY,MN SSG32-4308
i7{,:�571-?:Jill • FA'X 1763)571-12$7 • www.FridleyMN.gOv
July 09,201�
JAMES KIEWEL
1631 RIC'EC'RF.GK RDNE
FRlDC..r:Y, MN >54�i?
RF: 1�ir�i N��ti��c� ��i�Ncmcom}�liance o1'the Fridley City Code at l63] RiCr CREEK RD NE
Dcar Froperty U��ncr.
The City of l�ridley has many code regulations desi�ned to promote sound land management and
�rotect the econonric wellbeing ol'the community. The purpose of this letter is to both inform
you �baut hciw ce��ain city cades celate to your property's current conditions and to ask for your
assisl:ancc in resc�lvin�a ec�de vi�lalion. Upon rec:ent inspection of your property,the fo{lowing
code viala�ion(s) ��rrr ohserved by a member of our staff:
• Rctainir�w�aff was.constructed witho�it a buildin�pern�it or land alteration permit: Ei her
the ret�i+�in�;�val! needs to be remQved and.rebuilt with proper permits. or the Cit��rnust
l�e nrc�v'sded sc�•ucti�ral cercitication for the retaining well from a lfcensed professionai
en,i�r. O�+�ncrs��('residential proPc;rty shall maintain the exterior of any buiiding or
scructure ii� ���ud re+�air, providin�sufficient coverin�and protect�on of structural
surf;�crs .��,;�i��st �Icie�•iaretior�, including walls, siding, garage doors, foundations,daors,
��'indo�a-s. scrccns, roafing, caves, soffits, gutters,and downspouts (City Code 205).
The next inspe�:ti�n ot'your property wilf occur on or about 8i9/2014. '1'he City asks thatyou
cor�ect thesc i�e���s by this date, it'you would like to discuss this issue or'have questions
. concernin�an���thcr city codc5, �.�lcase contact me at(?63) 572-3599. "f'hdnk you for your
cooperatic�n,
- Sincete�y.
Julie J�ncs
P1Hnnir�� Managcr
City of'l��ridley
. 341
(
�4e�, � j � .�
_ CI-�y C��
. � . � F�R[I�I..EY
:�.
�' FRIDT..EY.MtJNICIPAL CBNTER • 6431 UNI�ERSI'i'Y AVB.N,E.FRTDLEY,MI1 SSa32 ' ,
(763).571-3450 • FAX(7b3)571-128� • 1'TU/I'fX(763)572-3534
Sepfember I 1,20]3 �
,
JAMES KIEWEL -
1631 RICL CREEK Ttn NE .
._A FRIDLEY,MN 55432
. _. ... ...., . _. . ..... . _.. _._ .._.. .�....�........._ _ _.,._.... ..� ._.,�,.....�.�.....�...�
REe: First Notica of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE
� laear Property Owner; •
The City of Fridley has many code regulatiops designed to promote sound land mana�ement and
protect the economic wellbeing of the community. The purpose of'this letter is to both ioform
� you abnut how certain city codes relate ta your property's current conditions and to ask for your
assistance in resolving a code v.iolation. Upon recent inspection of your property,t�he fol9owing
. code violation(s)were observed by a member of our staff
• Rear vard was altered and retainin.�walls were constructed aftar the expir�tion of a land
�J„ter i n_permit. �1Vhile you obtained a land alteration permit in 2005,the land alt�ration
. pen�it had expired when additional earth moving work was performed and ttie permit did
not a�ldress the instalfation of a reta.ining wal3 using p{astic barrels.You�tvere asked in� �
December 2005 letter from tha Assistant Public Works Director to provide
documentation that the plastic barrels met certain specifications.This documentation
wou�d need to be provided,�y a structural engineer,and our records show no sucli
documentation was received. City Code,Chapter 205.04.Q,1 requires a land a�teration
permit when moving significant quantities of soil and the State B�iiding Code requires a
building permit when installing a retaining wall over faur feet high. �� •`
• �$nce has be.�n na�al1v rgmoved and left incomgle'te for several v.vr�oks with fer�ce , _ ,
sections laft in vard.Every yard and al!stsuctures,walls,�ences,walks,steps,driveways,
� landscaping and ather exterior development shall be maintained in an at�racti�te,well-
kept condition;and the boulevard area of a prernise shall be properly maintained,
` groorr�ed,and cared for by the abutting property owner(City Code 205.07.6.G),
Due to the extensive nature of these viola�ions,City staff would like to�ersonally meet with you
' � in our Qffice to discuss th�needetl remedy for this situation.P�lease cal!me to set up a meeting
before 9l26l2013 at(7.63) 572-3599. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, ,
' ; Jtiliq�Jones � ,; .. .�.�
, �.� ��.b P,lanning Manager �
��' City ofFridley �
342 . .
. � � �� � � � �
Notice of Contested Case �
James D. Kiewel City of Fridley
1627 Rice Creek Road Jul�e .loMes Planning Managef et. ai.
• Fridley, MN. 55423 � � ' Paanning and Zonin� Division
Rentaf Property Division _
6431 Universi�Ave. N.E. -
Frid{ey, MN. 5 432 �
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 directed t+o
"Property Owner" at 1631 Rice Creek F2oad N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 11, 2013.
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 dire�ted to
"Property Owner" at 1627 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423,.and D�ted
September 12, 2013, .
Re: City of Fcidley Chapter 205 sections 205.04.4.1 and 205.07.6.G as cited in your
September 11, 2013 notice.
Re: City of Frid{ey Chapter 205 section 205.07.6.0 as cited in your September 12,
2013 notice.
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 220 as cited in your September 12, 2013 notice.
Re: Minnesota Administra#ive'Procedures Act Chapter 14 (APA), Minn. Stat. 't4.58..
Re: Minnesota Administrative Rules, Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700. �
! 1. . This respottdent and private Minnesota state Citizen is e�rrently th.e private �
property owner of the private home at 1627 Rice.Creek Road, and of the prfvate home .
at 1631 Rice Creek Road, however this respondent is not a resident agent of the �
corporate state of Minnesota or political.subdivision created or organized by a st�te or
Federal government, nor is this respondent an officer or employee of a state or�he
Federal goverr�me.nt. 1'his respondent is a Citizen of the state of Minnesota and not a
resident in the corporate sense, nor is his private home a residenc� in the cor,porate
sense, nor is he or his private hor�e in the corporate State of Minnesota. This
respondent is .not the "City" -- an agent o#the "City" nor is this respondents private
property a public building or regulated licensed facility and as such, not within the
Corporate in rem jurisdiction of the City of Fridley. This respondent is a natural born
1 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
343
state Citizen proceeding (sui juris), iiving in Anoka County, and is a Minnesota state
Citizen and a such proceeds with this request for agency administrative due process
by special appearance, in propria persona, proceeding at law in summo jure, jus
regium, and proceeds as such without conferring nor consenting to any ministerial
strict liability statutory jurisdiction. This Minnesota state Citizen under Minnesota
Constitution Article VI. Sec. 1 and 5, ["judicial Power"J wiltfully enforces all
� constitutional fimitations and prohibitions under Minnesota Constitution Article I.
against asserted quasi ministerial ju�isdictional capacity, summary proceeding and
plaintiffs or prosecution and other interested officers, officials, parties and employees
operat�ng in their respective pofitical corporate artificial capacities as they are within
the said county, city, and state. For further clarifcation see HALE v. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, quoted as follows:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is
entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is
unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so fiar as it may tend to
criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as
existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
the Constitution." �
City of Dallas et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944; "The rights of the individual are
not derived from governmentai agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or
even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are
merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have
been voluntariiy surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
2. This respondent, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen, having made
the above statement in section 1, to be clear, does not make the claim that the City of
Fridley has no power to reasonable regulate this respondent's private property. This
private home owner does however herein question whether your notice and your
administration address a proper strict interpretation of the ordinances therein cited, �
and the scope and purview of the ordinances therein cited, and further questions the
standard of scrutiny sought to be implemented by the City, and whether that standard
of scrutiny is one of strict scrutiny or rational basis, and whether one, the other, or
both were anticipated by the City council prior to the passage of tne ordinances as
2 of 15,APA NoUce of Contested Case
344
cited in the September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 First Notices of
Noncompliance.
3. Fridley City Code section 903.01: 2 D defines and identifies who, and what is a
person as is theFein, specially defined, as foNows: ,
"Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organiZation or other
group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or
other representative appointed by law."
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation."
The first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word individual without �
stating what an individual is, however if the law therein is read str+ctly,�first in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2) wherein: "***the singular includes
[means] the plural***", one can see that the word "individuai' as used therein includes
more than an individual human person as might be erroneously surmised by the less
critical reader. And further the first paragraph City Code section 90�.01; 2 D goes on
to state that the list of entities enumerated therein are limited as on{y "including any
executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed by law."
Therein City Code section 903.01: 2 D paragraph one, it is the respondent's
contention that the word includes and including are words of exclusion and limitation
as established by the rule of stare dicisis within the of following cases:
He{verinq v. Morqan's, Inc., 293 US� 121, pp, 124 - 126, 79 L Ed 232, pp. 235
— 236 "The provision that the term "taxable year" "includes" the period of
less fhan twelve months for which a separate return is rnade, when read only
with its immediate [293 US 125] context, is not fr.ee from ambiguity. It may be
admitted thafi the fierm "includes" may sometimes be taken as
synonymous with "means," * * * But the phraseology is also ope� to the
construction that the word "includes" is used as the equivalent of
"comprehends" or "embraces," and that by it the section merely adopts a
fami{iar device in aid of statutory construction, by providing that wherever other
sections refer to a "taxable year" that phrase may, if the context requires, be
taken also to refer to or to "include" a fractional part of that taxable year, for
which a separate return is made."
3 of �5.APA Notice of Contested Case
345
Monteflo Salt Co, v. Utah., 221 U.S. 452, pp. 466 - 467, 55 L. Ed. 810, p, 815;
"It is the participle of the word "include," which means, according to the
definition of the Century Dictionary, (1} "to confine within something; hold as in
an inclosure; inclose; contain." (2� "To comprise as a part, or as something
incident or pertinent; camprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . .
the Roman Empire included many nations."
Red Winq Maltina Co. v. Willcuts, Collector of Internal Reven�e 15 F.2d
626, 630, 631; 1926 U.S. App. Lexis 2958; fi A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6360; 49 A.L.R.
459: "T�re meaning of the word "including," as used in the statute, is important.
It evidently refers to the preceding part of the subsection, and must be
recognized as occupying a significant and important place. It cannot be
b�ushed aside a�d ignored. This court should not attempt to write new
language into the statute, nor ignore language there used, but must endeavor,
� from the language of the statute itself, [**15] to arrive at the meaning of the
Congress. This word has received considerable discussion in opinions of the
courts. It has been productive of rnuch controversy.
The word "include" is defined in the New Standard Dictionary as follows: "(1) To
comprise, comprehend or to embrace as a component part, item or member;
as, this volume includes al1 his works; the bili incfudes his tast purchase; (2) to
inclose within; contain; confine; as, an oyster shell sometimes includes a pearl."
� It is defined by Webster as follows: "To comprehend or comprise, as a genus of
the species, the whole a part, an argument or reason the inference; to take or
reckon in; to contain; embrace; as, this volume includes the essays; to and
including the tenth." ,
The Century Dictionary defiines "including" thus: "To comprise as a part."
Perhaps the most interesting discussion of the word "including" is found in
Monteflo Salt Co. v. State of Utah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 706, 55 L. Ed. 810,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 633. There the court referred to and discussed some of the
cases where the word "including" had been under consideration. For instance,
the court pointed out in Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, that a legacy [**16]
of $100, "inciuding money trusteed at a certain bank," could not be construed as
meaning that the sum of $100 was in addition to the sum in bank. Also in
Henry's Executor v. Henry's [*631] Executor, 81 Ky. 342, "a bequest of $14,000,
'including certain notes,' was held to mean that the notes formed a part of the
$14,000, and were not in addition thereto." Aiso the case of Neher v. McCook
County, 11 S.D. 422, 78 N.W. 998, where "it was held that a certain section of
the laws of the state, which provided that the sheriff s fees should be $ 16 for
4 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
- 346
summoning a jury, 'including mileage,' did not entitfe him to miteage in addition
to the $ 16." And the Supreme Court, after its reference to these cases, says of
the case before it; "The court also considered that the word 'including' was used
as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its
ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the
dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power
attributed to it." We refer to a few othe� cases.
In Su1livan Machinery Co. v. United States (C.C.) 168 F. 561, the word
"including," used in the Tariff Act (30 [**17) Stat. 197), was construed as a
word of addition. In Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 593, '!03 P. 674, 676, the
court, discussing the meaning of the word "including," says: "This word has also �
been defined as having an accumulative sense, and as classing that which
� follows with that which has gone before." * '` *
In Kennedy v. Industrial Accident Commission bf California et al., 50 Cal. App. �
184, 194, 195 P. 267, 271, the court says: "'Including' is not a word of limitation.
� Rather it is a word of enlargement, and in ordinary signification implies that
something else has been given beyond the general language that precedes it. *
* * As here employed, the word 'including' is used #o express the idea that the
specific power to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase, or terminate an
award, upon the ground that the disability has recurred, increased, diminished,
or terminated -- a particular power specifically referred to in the section of the
present act -- is but a part of the larger and more comprehensive power
conferred by the more general language of the immediately preceding clause of
the section."
In Dumas v. Boulin (La.) McGloin, 274, 278, it is pointed out that the word
"include" (**18] has two shades of ineaning. The court says: "'Include' * * *
has * * * two shades of * * * meaning. It may apply where that which is affected
is the only thing included, * * * and it is also used to express the idea, that the
thing in question constitutes a part oniy of the contents of sorne other thing." It is
more commonly used in the latter sense.
That the word "includes" is a word of enlargement is held in Fraser v. Bentel et .
Stinson, 5 Minn. 522; Calhoun v. Memphis & P.R. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 1045, No.
2309.
Perhaps the most lucid statement the books afford on the sabject is in Blanck et
al. v. Pioneer Mining Co. et al., 93 Wash. 26, 30, 159 P. 1077, 1079, namely:
"The word 'including' is a term of enlargement and not a term of limitation, and
necessarily implies that something is intended to be embraced in the permitted
5 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
347
section of the statute in designating those to be subject to its provisions uses
the singular "individua!"; but under the weil-known rule the court should hold the
plural to have been intended when that construction is required by the context
as in this instance, and especially where it wilf aid in sustaining th� validity of
the statute. ****'` How can you have an."unincorporated"' corporation? How can
you have an "organized" individuai? If vou sav the word "individuat" should
be iudiciailv construed out of the act and it should be held applicable onl_v
to coraorations and to "individuals actin� in concert bv oraanization." the
ob�ections to it are just as valid as if the word "individuai" be allowed to remain
for the legal rights, under the federal and state Constitutions, by reason of
personal citizenship, attach to every individua{ just as fully, if he conducts a
legitimate and iawful business alone, or by association with other individuals.
, As we will po+nt out la#er on, the power of the Leqislature to "repulate" the
business operation� of corporations and those of individuals are vastiv
d'rfferent. based upon the fact that individuals, under article 4.,� 2. of the '
federal Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all ariviles�es and
immunities of citizens in the several states," while corporations are not."
6. It is this respondent's position that he is no# a privileged person and individua!
owing a duty to your administration, and he is no# in business nor does he act in
concert with any privileged entity and business. 4t is therefore that this respondent
herein makes the following requests in accordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 in
an effort to establish, and prove, that the respondent is not lawfully classified as the
subject of the special law as cited in your administrative notices. The respondent
herein states this position because the respondent reafizes -- as held and stated in,
Masters v. Commissioner Minnesota Depar#ment of Natural Resources (C1-99-1302
No.) that the term "special legislation" is reserved for legislation that is "so,pate�►tiv
arbitrarv as to demonstrate constitutional evasion". In an effort to mee't the
burden of proving that the respondent is not the specially defined person to whom the
ordinances cifed can lawfully be directed and enforced the respondent herein makes
the following request: �
a. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent is, or in not a person as specially defined in City of Fridley
ordinances section 220.06: 40, and section 903.01: 2 D as can, or cannot be
identified by rules of strict construction, and that by such strict construction this
Minnesota state Citizen, although a natural person is in fact a natural person of
7 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
348
the privileged class and individual iden#ified in sections 220.06: 40, and section
903.01: 2 D as can lawfulty be identified as similar in classification to the
privileged or legal fictions therein by the rule of noscitur a sociis and as those
sections should be strictiy read, in accordance wi#h Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2)
wherein: "***the singular includes [means] the plural***" (As in the portion of
those definitions that use the word individual) and as further strictly read in
accordance with the rule {ejusdem generis), wherein;
"The principal underlyi�g rule of ejusdem generis is that the legislature
had in mind things of the same kind and was speaking of them as a
c�ass." Foley v. Whelan, 219 Minn. 209, 216,
"The limiting principle of ejusdern generis has particular force with
respect to criminal statutes, which courts are compelled to construe
rigorousty in order to protect unsuspecting citizens from being ensnared
by ambiguous statutory language. See, e. g., Mourning v. Family
Publications Service, Inc., 1973, 411 U.S. 356, 375, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36
L.Ed.2d 318; United States v. Campos-Serrano, 1971, 404 U.S. 293, 297-
298, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457; United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1969,
412 F.2d 885, 890." UNITED STATES v. INSCO, 496 F.2d 204 (1974) �
"In accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis, such terms as "other,"
"other thing," "other persons," "others," "ofihennrtise," or "any other," �rhen
preceded by a specific enumeration, are commonly given a restricted
meaning, and limitsd to articles of the same nature as those previousiy
described." See United States v Chase, 135 US 255, 34 L Ed 117, 10 S
Ct 756; Re Mosby's Appeai, 360 Mich 186, 103 NW2d 462; Derk v Zerbe
Twp. 322 Pa 350, 185 A 647.
b. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent knowingly, willingly and intentional surrendered his sui juris
status as Minnesota state Citizen and excepted the status of privileged
individual legai person as defined in City of Fridley ordinance sections 220.06:
40, and 903,01 : 2; D, upon notice served and presented to this respondent, with
complete and proper notice as required by Minnesota Statute 13.04 subd. 2
(Tennessen warning).
c. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205 and
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
8 of 15.APA NoUce of Contested Case
349
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of strict scrutiny.
d. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city councii first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205
section 205.04.4.4 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the �
city council to establishing that such perr�►its would in fact be necessary for the �
implementation of the police pow�rs as a matter of rational basis.
e. This respondent herein requests all reports considered by the city councif
prescribing how City Code section 205.04.4.1 could lawfu{ly be impfemented
upon both, the regulated created or organized privileged legal entity and their �
properfiy regulated as a matter of rational basis, and the private home owner
and his private property under the least restrictive strict scrutiny standard of
regulation without transgression of the equal treatment guaranteed to the
private Minnesota state citizens by the United States Cons#itution's article 4, §
2, and 14th amendment as is a specific condition piaced upon the council as a
condition placed of their authority as mandated by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd,
32, United State constitution 6"', 14�' and Article VI Clause 11 (Supremacy
C{ause), and Minnesota Constitution Articfes 1 sections 6, 7,
f. The names and addresses of all witnesses that the City of Fridley Renta{
Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions intends to call at the APA
contested case hearing, along with a brief summary of each witness' testimony.
All witnesses unknown at fihe time of said disclosure shall be disclosed as soon
as they become known.
g, Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the City of Fridfey
Rer�tal Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions or witnesses on behalf of
the City of Fridley Rental Property and Zoning Divisions.
h. All wri�ten exhibits to be introduced at the APA co�tested case hearing.
9 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
350
i. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state is: an officer of the city or the state of Minnesota; an employee
� of the city, or the state of Minnesota; an agent of the city, or of the state of
Minnesota or legally created or organized legal entity upon whom the city of
Fridley can compel performance otherwise in derogation of his fundamental .
rights as a Minnesota state ci#izen, and citizen of the United States.
j. . Any evidence that notices and Tennessen waming have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley, and city Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to
prove that this Minnesota state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as
. such he,is also one of the forgoing: petson's heirs, executors, administrators or
assigns, and also a firm, partnership or corporation, its or their successors or
assigns, or the agen# of any of the aforesaid, as defined in Fridley Residential
Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing Code, definitions section 220.06
Subd. 40, and as used in City of Fridley Rental Property, and Planning and
Zoning Divisions chapter, section 220.13, and that this Minnesota state Citizen
accepted the status of person defined therein and has availed himself of the
benefit of that privileged status upon notice served.
k. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley, and city Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely on
to prove that this Minnesota state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that
as such he is also one who enjoys the privileged of acting in concert with a firm,
corporation, partnership, association, organization or other group acting as a
unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
representative appointed by law, and as such is an included: partners or
members of ar�y partnership, firm or corporation or the officers, agents or
members of a corporation and as is a person defined in City of Fridley
ordinance definitions section 903.01 : 2 D, responsible for the cited violations
10 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
351
and as such this Minnesota state Citizen accepted the status of person defined
therein and has availed himself of the benefit of that privileged status upon
notice served.
I. And further: any evidence that notices or Tennessen warning have been
properly served, (Minn. Stat. 13.04) upon which the City of Fridley Rental
Property, and Pianning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state Citizen is by his acknowledgement a privileged person as
defined in the Minnesota Data Practices Act Chapter 13, section 13.02 Subd.
10, or City of Fridley ordinances 220.06: 40, and section 903.01: 2 D
m. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
220 of the Fridley Residential Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing
Code, as a matter of strict scrutinv, was drafted and passed by the counsel for
the purpose of furthering a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent
with their statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent wit}i the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state,
and further that the ordinances drafted impose tMe� least restrictive means of
regulating the Citizens private property.
� n. Any and all evidence upon which the city wil) rely to prove that Chapter
220 of the Fridley Residential Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing
Code, as a matter of rational bases, was drafted and passed by the counsel for
the purpose a of furthering a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent
with their statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and iaws of the United States or of this state.
o. This respondent herein requests that you specifically identify the specific
office, commission and person having primary authority and primary jurisdiction
in the matters presented in your administrative notices.
11 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
352
`
7. The September 11, 2013 "First Notice of Noncomp4iance" cites as authority and
�i
your stated position for noncompliance Fridiey ordinance Chapter 205 section �I
°205.04.4.1". After having read this zoning ordinance, in this respondents view, section �
205.04.4.1 (3) A (a) makes it clear that—"A grading and drainage plan is not required
for, '*�`* individual residential landscaping" ! �
8. And further this respondent, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen
questions whether or not the ordinances cited in the September 11, 2013 and
September 12, 2013 First Notices of Noncompliance can apply to both the privileged
owner (created or organized), and this non privileged private properky owner alike
without transcending any issues of desperate treatment not authorized by the Charter
. for the City of Fridl.ey or constitutional permitted by the Minnesota state Constitution,
or the United States Constitution as is a condition ptaced upon the authority of your
city council by�Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, 32.
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, A�3 S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. ed, 10�42,
1045, 29 A.L.R. 1446, the Supreme Court, speaking of the requirement of due
process, said:
"Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily�restraint but also the
right of fihe individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
. of (ife, * * * and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common
law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." And further:
"The established doctrin� is that this liberty may not be interFered with, under
the guise of protecting the public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary
or without reasonable rela#ion to some purpose within the competency of the
state to effect.
"The glory of American law consists in clearly defining not only the causes
wherefore, but the times when, the manner how, and the means whereby, the
personal and property rights of the citizen may be invaded or abridged. Any
enactment which fails to measure up to this standard of certainty is not
American law, and Amer+can courts freq�ently dectare statutes vo�d for
uncertainty. State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 378; State v. Railwav Co., 146 Mo. 155.
(f) Where discretion exists, uncertainty exists. Matthews v. Murphv, 23 Ky. Law
Rep. 750, 63 S.W. 785; Railroad v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. " Black's
Constitutional Law, sec. 105, p. 279; State v. Younq, 29 Minn. 474; "Cootey on
Constitutional Limitations, sec. 116. (e)
"Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such
powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of
12 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case .
353
those powers which have been expressly conferred." ManQOld Midwest Co. v. � �
Villa e of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their owers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowih suc owers ni e a es ex re . �
ansas iy ou ern o. v. n ers a e ommerce omrnission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act oniv in the mode prescribed bv ,
sta� .
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising dele�ated legislative power
he should substantialty comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise. �
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without si nificance that most of the rovisions of the Bill
of Ri h s are ,�oce ura . �s proce ure a spe s muc o e � erence
e ween ru e y aw an`T,c rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice.
9. The stated purpose of the Minnesota APA as expressed in Minn. Stat. 14.001 is
as follows
The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
(1) to provide oversight of powers and duties delegated to administrative
agencies;
(2) to increase public accountability of administrative agencies;
(3) to ensure a uniform minimum procedure;
(4) to increase public access to governmental information;
(5) to increase public participation in the formulation of administr.ative rules;
(6) to increase the fairness of agencies in their conduct of contested case
proceedings; and
(7) to simplify the process of.judicial review of agency action as well as increase
its ease and availability.
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair
balance between these purposes and the need for efficient, economical, and
effective government adminisfiration. The chapter is not meant to alter the
substantive rights of any person or agency. Its impact is limited to procedural
rights with the expectation that better substantive resuits will be achieved in the
13 of 15.APA Notice o#Contested Case
354
everyday conduct of state government by improving the process by which those
results are attained.
10. And further, a response to this APA Notice of Contested Case from the City of
Fridley Rentai Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions in this instant case is an
essential jurisdictional prerequisite. See Minn. Admin R. 1400.6704 and case law as
follows:
"...fihis is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to waiver by the government.").
lndeed, this Court has heid that "no exceptions" excuse a plaintiff s failure to
� comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites of the FTCA. McDevitt v. Uni#ed
States Postal Serv., 963 F. Supp. 482, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (citing, inter alia,
Peterson, 694 F,2d at 944; Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d
Cir. 1971)). LUBLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and HOOKS
VAN HOLM, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-6785 UNITED STATES
D�STRICT COURT FOR THE EAS7ERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2406
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23394, April 27, 2006, Decided Aprii 27, 2006, Filed; April 27,
,2006, Entered
It is essentia{ that where an executive is exercising dele�ated {egislative power
he should substantially comply with all t�e statutory requ�rements �n its exerc+se.
Procedural fairness and.regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not wi#hout si nificance that most of the rovisions of fihe Bill
of Ri h s are �roce ura . is proce ure a spe s muc o e i erence
�e ween ru e y law an�rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedurai safeguards is our rr�ain assurance that there will be equaf 1'ustice
under 1aw." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,
179, 72 S.Ct. 624, fi52, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951}. Also see McNabb v United States,
318 U.S. 332, 347, fi3 S.Ct. 608, 616, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Administrative
authorities are creatures of statute and have onl such owers as e
s a ute con ers on em. e r owers mus e exercise in accor ance
wi e s atu e estowin suc owers rn e a es ex re . ansas �
ou ern . o. v. r� ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178, fi4 L ed
717, 40 S Ct 187. and they can act only�in the mode prescribed by statute."
(emphasis added) Mahler v. Ebv, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S. Ct. 283.
[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such p� rocedural protections as the
,p
articular situation demands," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S.
481. Resolution of the issue here involving the const� utiona su iciency�
a�ministrative procedures prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending
review, requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest that w'ill
be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest throu h the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional
procedural sa�eguards; and t3} the Government s �nterest, including the fiscal
and administrative burdens that the additionat or substitute procedures would
entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-335. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
The U,S. Supreme Court has explained that the substantive due process rights �
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment afford "heiyhtened protection against
government interference with certain fundamental r�ghts and liberty interests."
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 �U.S. 702, 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 117 S. Ct.
i4 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
355 ,
2302, 138 L: Ed. 2d 772 (1997). In re the Matier of: Nancy SooHoo,petitioner,
Respo� ndent, vs. Marilyn Johnson, Appeilant. SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESQTA, 731 N.W.2d 815; 2007 Minra. LEXIS 253, May 10, 2007, Fiied.
"However, for the purposes of review, it has been said that clear violations of
law in reaching the result, such as actin without evidence when evidence is
re�uired, or making a.decision contrary�o all the evidence, are just as much
'urisdictional error as �s'the failure to take the ro er ste s to ac uire
urisdiction at the be innin o e rocee n orgn s v, a o., 147
s , , ;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confe�s on them. Their wers mu t be exercised in
accordance with the sta#ute bestowin suc owers rn e a es ex re .
ansas � y ou ern . o. v. n ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time�
disr�gard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 8NA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"�n a long�line of cases, the Court has excused th�e petitioner from exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionality of some feature of agency's decision making�process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979 ; Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 (1976 ;
Mathews v. Eldridge: 424 U.S. 319 1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. �49,
265 — 267 (1975); Gibson v. Berryhi I, 411 U.S. 56�4, 575 (1973); Allen v. Grand
Centrai Aircraft Co. 347 U.S. 535 (1954). It is difficult to explain this line of
cases. Sometimes the Court seems to base its decision excusing exhaustion on
the broad Qrinciple that constitutional issues are�particularly desetving of judicial
resolution.' Administrative Law Davis, Kenneth Culp Davis 15.5 Constitutional
� Right Exception.
I�n re De t. of Ener Stri er Well Exem tion Liti ation, 578 F.Supp. 586,
ce ie ques ion answere xxon corp. v . . ept. o Energy, 744 F.2d 98,
certiorari denied Energy Reserves Group, lnc. v Department of Energy, 105
s.Ct. 576, 469 U.S. 1077, 83 L.Ed.2d 515, Where claim befor� court requires
resolution of issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed with�n purview
of administrative agency, doctrine of primary 'urisdictjon may be applied to
suspend judicial" proce�s pending referral o� such issue to administrative
agency,"
The undersigned herein reserved his rights to: life liberty and private property; amend
his request for a contes#ed case; objection, �and request for discovery. as here�in made
.
in accordance with the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R
1400.6700.
� �
vate i �zen, ames , iewe
ithout prejudice; by special appearance
9 - 26 -- 2013
15 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
356
Affidavit of Service by Personal Service
State of Minnesota }
} Subscribed and sworn
County Of Anoka }
I, Dan Hillman, being first duly swom, depose and say that in the County of Anoka
and in the State of Minnesota, on September 26, 2073, the undersigned served on
bel�aif of James Douglas Kiewel, on� "Notice of Contested Case" document upon:
Julie Jones of the City of F�ridley -- Panning and Zoning Division at: 6431 University
Ave N.E. Fridley, MN 55432.
Ja�����ek �er� .
State of Minnesofia } �
} Subscribed, sworn and sealed
County-of Anoka }
On, September 26, 2013, Dan Hillman, duly sworn, as such deposes, and did
personally appear before me, and is known to be the deponent described in, and who
. executed the forgoing instrument/affidavit of service of process, and acknowledged that
he executed the �ie� der oath, as his free� ct an deed in the above said State and
County. �,
� ,
� / `�..._--`'�F
Affiant's signature ' '
Address and Phone number of affiant is, 2523 Lynn Ave. S.t. Louis Park, MN. 55416, Ph.
� 612-369-5230. Subscribed and sworn to---�rr me the undersigned Notary Public in the
above said State and County. �"± i' p
,� ; .
��`"� Notary Public
..,,,; . :� .� l ✓, ,
�w '� � �',.��''�� .... JOMN F.ASKWITH
� . � � r ; i NOTARY PUBIIC•MINNESOTA
� '�"�� My CommiSSion Ezpires Jan.31,2p15
�
. �' ��' ° r..�
357
�xh; b;+ Z1
August 20,2014
James Kiewei
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Subject: 1627 and 1631 Rice Creek Road
Dear Mr. Kiewel:
The City has received your request for a hearing regarding the code enforcement cases the City
currently has on 1627 and 1631 Rice Creek Road.
A hearing has been scheduled before the Fridley Appeals Commission on Wednesday,
September 3,2014 at 7:00pm at the Fridley Municipal Center,6431 University Avenue NE,
Fridley.Staff wiil provide the commissioners a copy of the materiais you provided Julie Jones on
August 15, 2014.You have the right,as does the City,to appear with counsel and call witnesses
at the hearing.You may present other evidence that is relevant to the case.
Within 10 days of the hearing,the Appeais Commission wi11 render a decision as to whether they
affirm, repeal or modify the order af the code enforcement staff. If you have any questions
about the hearing process,please contact me at 763-572-3590.
Sincere{y,
Scott Hickok
Community Deve{opment Director
City of Fridley
358
E xh� b�+- 2Z._ �I
r �_ Z_ �,�
�--�-
,�c�5a�'ti�'"'e.e� �-'Z��:�
, Affidavit of Service by Registered Mail
State of Minnesota } �
} Subscribed and sworn
County Qf Anoka }
I, Daniel Hiliman, being first duly sworn, depose and say that in the County of Anoka and
in the State of Minnesota, on August 29, 2014 the undersigned served on behalf of
James Douglas Kiewel, two copies of a Motion for reconsideration of Motion to Compel
Discovery, one upon the City of Fridley at 6431 University Ave. N.E. Fridley, MN.
55432, and one copy upon the Tenth Judicial District Court at 325 East Main
Street Anoka Minnesota 55303.
Jurat / Acknowledgment �
State of Minnesota }
} Subscribed, sworn and sealed
County afi Anoka }
On, August 29, 20�14 Daniel Hillman, duly.sworn, as such-deposes, and did personally appear
before me, and is known to be the deponent described in, and who executed, the fargoing
instrumentlaffidavit of service of process, and acknowledged that he executed the same under
oath, as his free, ct and ed in the abov said ta e and County.
� c
Affiant's signature
Addcess and Phone number of affiant is, 2523 Lynn Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Ph.
612-369-5232. Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned Notary Public in the
above said State and County.
Notary Public
Ml HAEL J VOTN .
NOTARY PU6UC-MINNESATA
MY COMM(SSION EXPIRES Otl34�t6
359
i
: ;
James Douglas Kiewel, Tenth Judicial District Court `
Piaintiff County of Anoka ''�
V. Motion for Reconsideration of I
City of Fridley Planning Division Motion to Compel Discovery �
Defendant Minn. R Civ. P. 26, and Minn. ��,
Admin. R. 1400.6700
Case No. 02- CV- 14-5177 �
Now comes the plaintiff, private citizen James Douglas Kiewel and moves the
honorable tenth Judicial District Court in accordance with the procedures as set
forth m Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700, and Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.
The plaintiff had received two notices of non-compliance from the City of
Fridley Planning Division administrator .lulie Jones, dated 7, 9, 2014 ( Appx. 1), and
( Appx. 2). In response. on 8, 8, 2014 the plaintiff had responded with finro separate
requests for Administrative Procedures Act Contested Case proceedings and
discovery in accordance with Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700. (Appx. 6, an 8, 8, 2014
Notice of Contested Case and service affidavit regarding the property at 1631 Rice
Creek Road N.E.), and (Appx. 7, an 8, 8, 2014 Notice of Contested Case and
service affidavit regarding the property at 1627 Rice Creek Road N.E.). The
requests for contested cases and discovery, address essentially the same subject .
matter for two separate properties, and each are responses to the finro notices of
non-compliance. See ( Appx. 1), and (Appx. 2).
In a letter from Fridley Community Development Director Scott Hickok dated
8, 20, 2014 ( Appx. 8) Mr. Hickok responded to this plaintiff s Notices of contested
Case on behalf of Planning Division administrator Juiie Jones therein stating that, a
hearing had been scheduled for 9, 3, 2014, however nether administrator Julie
Motion to Compel 1 of 2
360
SI
.lones or director Scott Hickok had answered the plaintiff's 8, 8, 2014 requests for
discovery. See the 8, 8, 2014 Notaces of Contested Case, and service affidavits
(Appx 6) and (Appx. 7) therein citing the discovery rule Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700
as authority for the requests.
Last year on 9, 26, 2013 the plaintiff had made a similar request for discovery
and Notice of Contested Case (Appx 5), in response to two previous notices of non-
compliance one dated 9, 11, 2013 and another dated 9, 12, 2013 addressing the
same subject of non-compliance. See ( Appx 3) and (Appx 4). The Community
Development Director Scott Hickok had then also declined to answer the plaintiff's
request. See the letter dated 9, 1, 2013 from Scott Hickok (Appx. 9 ).
It is essential to the achievement of justice that all of the admissible evidence
be brought to light in time for both parties to evaluate it and adequately prepare for
trial or settlement with full knowledge of the facts. The undersigned has therefore
made his requests for discovery in accordance with the Minnesota Administrative
Procedures Act, Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 and believes that answers to his
requests for discovery are necessary for a better understand of the nature and
cause of the actions taken by the city, as a matter of due process. Therefore, the .
plaintiff asks that the honorable tenth Judicial District Court, grant this motion for an
order directing the City of Fridley to answer e plaintiff's requests for discovery.
spectfully submitted James D, kiewel
. , 29, 2014
Motion to Compel 2 of 2
361
/ �� � _r J�
/
<
CIlYOF FRtQLE.l(
�.� .
C-
I-ItIlJ1..1�.1 �11 �it'll�':\l.l'1.iN'I�I;il • (u1Ja UNIV�RSITYAVL:.N.E. FRIDI.EY.MN 5543�-430$
�7n;i i'rt-.+-1:+�1 • H1'\ 17631 Sil-f'_'R7 • www.FridicyMN.4ov
; July 09, 2U l.�
� JAM�5 K1EVvF_!.. �
' 1631 R1C'l: CRrf:K Rn Nf-:
FRIUL,F?Y. MN �54�i?
� R.l:: I�+rsi Nc���i�� rl�Noncamplia+►ce oi'the Fridley C+ty Cade at 1631 RiCC:CKEEK RD NE
Dcar Propert� t i��nrr:
The City �t'I�ridley h:�►s many code rebuiations designed ta promote sound land management and
, proleet the eco»oriiic wellt�eing ot'ihc;eommunity. '1'he purpose of this letter is to both inform
you abaut hc�w r.rr�eaiii city cod�s relate to your property's eurrent conditions and to ask for your
�ssislance in rr�ulvin�a cucic vi�l�tion. Upon recent i��spection of your property,the following
cade viol�i i<�n(s► �+�crc c�hserved hy a �nember of our staff:
• Rctaini�ib.��•�iil wa�s,cc�nstructed without a buildin�nerniit or land alteration permit. it er
thr ret��iniiM l� w�tll ne�ds tU bC rc:m,�ved an�i reh�ilt with�roper permits or thg i mu�t.
I�c,��r����iciLd�ti�.�jctural certiticptiuii for Yhe retainin�wAi1 1'rom a licensed profe sional
cii ��111�rr. c��,mcrs ul'resicie;ncial prop�:rcy sha11 maintain the exterior of any building or
structur� +n �����ei rc��;air, provid'+ng suf�cicnt cvverinb and protection of structural
siirl�u�:��. ;i�,.iiiisl �ic�cri��r:�ti��n, inc:luding walls, siding, garage doors, fou��datians,doors,
wind���+s, ;crrcns, rootin�,caves,sof'fits, butters,and downspouts(City Code 205).
The next inspe�ti��n ��t'vour prc�perfy will occur on c�r about 8/9/2014. "1'he City asks that you
correct thesc i[t�ns b�� tl�is date. li'yt�u would like to discuss this issuc or have questions
concernin�,��i����thc��cit�� a�d�s. ��Icase c�nt�ct me ��t(763) 572-359tI. �'hank you for yaur
cooper�tiu��. •
Sincerety.
Julie Jonr,
pl�innin�. !�1:141L1�?l't'
� City ol�I�riclle��
362
� �
� � � �
Cf1YOF F[tiDLEY
,�
1=Vtf{�I.I�Y �•11'�It'll':�i_t'1iN'11:t2 • h�itl 1.�N1Vl;I2Sl'1`Y�V�. N.N.FRIDLEY.MN 45433-4308
i•;n?,;7� ;-4St� , I�r\X 17(,3►i71-13$? • w�uw.Frid{eyMN.gov
July U9, 20 I� �
� .�AM1::S fCEN:W�I..
1G31 RICI: GRf;I';K RG)N�
FRIDLEY, MN SS�32
R�: l�irst Nutice ol'N�ncom{iliance af the Fridley City Code at 1627 RICC CREEK RD NE .
Dear Pr�prrty t����nrr:
� .
� Thc City of f-1•id{cy has n��iny code regul�itions designed to promote sound land management and
proCeet the cc��non��ic wellbeing uf 4he carnmu��ity. The purpose of t1�is (ett.er is to both inform
yQU 8h0Ut Ill'1N�ccrtain ciry ccuies.rel�te to your propErty's current eonditions and to ask for your
assistancc in res��Ivi�i�a code vinlation. Upon rec:ent iiispection of your property,the following
codc vioiation(s) wcrc ubs�rved by�i member�f our staff: �
• �.,�censive 1��ndsc�.ping,has been completed without H lanci alteration permit. Either the
ret��inink walf n�ecls tc� bc rcm�ved and rebuilt with nroger�ermits, or the City must be
}�rm-i�lc:d struct�tival certilication 1'ar thc retainin r w�, a11 trom a licensed professionxl
cn �},it�4e►�. O���r�crs c�!'residenCial properey sl�all maintain the exterior of any building or
struceurc in gcx�d rep�iir, y�c�vid+ng sufficient covering aad prolection ofstructura!
surl'ricrs �i��in51 dct�:riurali0�i, including walls, sidin�, �;arage doors, foundal'i0ns,do0rs,
wind�w•s, scrcens, rootinfi, eaves,sofPits, �ul�ers,and downspouts(City Code 205).
The nexc in���cction oi'your property will occur on or about 8/9/2014. The City asks ehat you
corre�t tl�ese ite�ti�� b�� this dflte, Ifi,you wou{d {ike to discuss this issue orfiave questions
concernin�a�iy ���I�er c+ty codeti, plcasc cant�ct me at (763) 572-3599. Thank you for your
couperal ic�n.
Sincerely. ,
r
Julie J<»�es
Planninb Mana�cr
City ot f'ri�ilc� �
363
� /��� � � � �
. . . ��°� . -
.�.
�� FRIALEY MUNICIAAL CENTER • 643 S UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E.FRTDLEY,MN 55432 ' .
� (763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • TTD/TTY(763)572-3534
September l 1,2013 '
,
JAMES KIEWEL
1631 RICE CREEK RD NE . ,
FRIDLEY,MN 55432
RE: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley�City Code at 1631 RICE CREEK RD NE � M ~
- Dear Property Owner: -
The City of Fridley has many code regulations designed to promote sound land management or►d
pr�tect the eco�iomic weilbeing of the commur�ity. The purpose of this letter is to both inform
� you about how certain city codes relate to your property's current conditions and to•aslc f�r your
assistance in resolving a c�de violAtion. Upon recent inspoction,of your property, the following
codc violation(s)were observed by a member of our st�ff,
• Rear yard was altered and retainin�walls were constructed after the eZc2ration of a land
altera ion ermit. VVhile you obtained a land alteratifln permit in 2005, the land.alteration
pennit had expired wl�en additional earth moving work was performed and the permit did
not address the installation of a retaining wall using plastic barrels. You�vere asked in a �
� December 2005 letter fram the Assistant Public Works Director to provide
documentation that the plastic barrels met eertain specifications.This documentation
would need to be provided by a structura3 engineer,and our records show no sueh
documcntaCio�� was received.City Code,Chapter 205.04,4,I requires a land a�teration
permit when moving significant quantities of soil and the State$uiiding Code requires a �
building permit when installing n ret�ining wall over four feet high. •"
� Fence has tL.eg,R,nartiallv removed anc�lel.'t incvmnlete for several weeks with ence
sections left in yard. Cvery yard and a1f structures,wails,feno�s,walks, steps, driveways,
landscaping and ott�er. exterior deve{opment shall be maintained in an attracti�e,we{1-
kept condition; and the boulevard area of a pr.emise shall be properly maintained,
" groomed,and cared for by the abutting property owner(City Code 205.07.6.G).
Due to the extensive nature of these violations, Cifiy staff would like to personally meet with you
� in our off'rce to discuss the needed remedy for this siti�ation.Please call me to set up a meeting
before 9/26/2013 at(763) 572-3599. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sinacrely,
;,,.; . .. • . • ..
..�; Juliq'Jones ��
, ' :,,�1?lanning Ms�nager �
��• City af Pridley
� 364
r,�l � x _� �
� �
,�:�:: CITY pF .
,, � �� . FIttDL�.Y . �
Y' � FR[DLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE,N.E.FRIDLEY.MN 5.5432
;r?,','°`. (763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-1287 • TTDr]'TY(763)572-3534
,=c.
a�;.
�4ember 12,20]3 � ,
�'
;,
�'' 3A�vIES ICIEWLL ,
r�;�`''` ib31 R10E CREEK RD NC
FRTDLEY,MN 5 543 2
`` RE: First Natacc��of Noncorr�p�iance of the Fridley Cicy�ade.at 162�AI�..C&�K.ItD-.NE. •
r . ....._.. _ ,
Dear�Property Owner: -
��.
The City of Fridiey has many code regulations designed to prorr�ote sound land managemsnt and
protect Che�econo�nic welibein�;of the community. 7he purpose of this letter is to both inform
you about how certain city codes relate to your properry's current cnnditions and to ask for your
assistance in resolving a code violation. Upon recent inspection of your propCrty, thc following
;;;� code violation(s) were observed by a member of our staff;
;,.
• �xtensi�e Iandsca�inL com�leted without a land aiteration nermit City Code(Chapter
205.04.h,1)requires a land alteration permit when moving significant quantities of soil
a.nd the St<►te Building Code,�equires a buildin�permit when inst�lling a r�taining wal(
� over four f'eet high.Tl�e Assistant Public Works Direcwr requested a land �►Iteration
permit in a J�Hnuary 2013 letter, but did not receive an application from you.
• �'here is a piJe or wood waste and other household materiaf stored outside in rear vard
Nothin�can be stored in your yard in view from any public right of wr�y. All materials
shall be kept in a building or shall be fvlly screened(City Code 205.07.6.C). Exceptions
include: firewood, neatly stacked s�nd stored in tl�e side or retar yard only; boats,empty
� trailers, and ��on-motorized campers storeci in Che side or rear yarci; boats,empty trailers,
campers a.nd mocorized vehicles stored on a paved surFace.
• �-Iome is being rent�cl witl� no rentai licens�;;Chapter 220 or City Code requires a
property owner to obtair► a rental license whcn leasing a resiclential property in whole or
in part as a dwelling to persons oiher than farnily members.
Due to the extensive n�ture of tl�ese violatians, City staff would like to persw�ally meet with you
in our office to discuss the needed remedy for this situation, Please cal) me to set up a meeting
before 9/26/2013 at(763) 572-3599. "1'hank you for y�ur�cooperation,
Sincerely,
"�.„ , ,
;
Julie Jones
Planning Manager
City of Fridley
' 365
` � � ��
. �/ - �
.�
� Notice of Contested Case
Jarnes D. Kiewel CitY of Fridle�y
1627 Rice Creek Road Julie Jones Planning Manager et. al.
Fridley, MN. 55423 Planning and Zonin� Division
Rental Property Division
6431 University Ave. N.E.
� Fridley, MN. 55432
Re: First Notice of Noncompl'rance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
. � .
� September 11, 2013.
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1627 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 12, 2013, . �
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 205 sections 205.04.4.1 and 205.07.6.G as cited in your
September 11, 2013 notice.
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 205 section 205.07.6.0 as cited in your September 12,
2013 notice. �
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 220 as cited in your September 12, 2013 notice.
Re: Minnesota Administrative'Procedures Act Chapter 14 (APA), Minn. Stat. 14.58.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Rules, Mint�. Admin. R. 1400.6700. �
1. This respondent and private Minnesota state Citizen is currently the.private �
property owner of the private home at 1627 Rice Creek Road, and of the private hame
at 1631 Rice Creek Road, however this respondent is not a resident agent of the
corporate state of Minnesota or political subdivision created or organized by a state or
�ederal government, nor is this respondent an officer or employee of a state or the
Federal goverr�ment. This respondent is a Citizen of the state o# Minnesota and not a
resident in the corporate sense, nor is his private home a residence in the corporate
° sense; nor is he or his private home in the corporate State of Minnesota. This
respondent is not the "City" -- an agent of the "City" nor is this respondents private
property a public building or regulated licensed facility and as such, not within the
Corporate in rem jurisdiction of the City of Fridley. This respondent is a natural born
1 of 15.APA Notice of Contested Case
366 �
. ` . .
state Citizen proceeding (sui juris), living in Anoka County, and is a Minnesota state
Citizen and a such proceeds with this request for agency administrative due process
by specia) appearance, in propria persona, proceeding at law in summo jure, jus
�egium, and proceeds as such without conferring nor consenting to any ministerial
stric# liabili�y statutory jurisdiction. This Minnesota state Citizen under Minnesota
Constitution Article VI. Sec. 1 and 5, ["judicial Power"] willfully enforces all
constitutional limitations and prohibitions under Minnesota Constitution Article I.
against asserted quasi ministerial jurisdictional capacity, summaty proceeding and
plaintiffs or prosecution and other interested oificers, officials, parties and employees
operating in their respective political corporate artificial capacities as they are within ,
the said county, city, and state. For further clarifcation see HALE v. HENKEL, 201 '
U.S. 43, quoted as follows: �
"T�e individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is
� entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is
unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to ;
criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as i
existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with �
the Constitution." �
City of Dallas et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944; "The rights of the individual are
not derived from governmentai agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or
even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are
merely rea�rmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have
been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of govemment."
- 2. This respondent, private home owner and Minnesota s#ate Citizen, having made
� the above statement in section 1 , to be clear, does not make the claim that the City of
Fridley has no power to reasonable regulate this respondent's private property. This
private home owner does however herein question whether your notice and your
� administration address a proper strict interpretation of the ordinances therein cited,
and the scope and purview o#the ordinances therein cited, and further questians the
standard of scrutiny sought to be implemented by the City, and whether that standard
of scrutiny is one of strict scrutiny or ra#ional basis, and whether one, the other, or
both were anticipated by the City council prior to the passage of the ordinances as
2 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case •
. 367
.
cited in the September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 First Notices of
Noncompliance.
3. Fridley City Code section 903.01: � D defines and identifies who, and what is a .
person as is the�ein, specially defined, as follows: ,
"Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or other
group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or
other representative appointed by law."
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation."
The first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word individual without
stating what an individual is, however if the law therein is read strictly,�first in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2) wherein: "***the singular includes
[means] the plural*�`*", one can see that the word "individual' as used therein includes
more than an individual human person as might be erroneously surmised by the less
critical reader. And further the first paragraph City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on
to stat� that the list of entities enumerated therein are limited as only "including any
executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed by law."
Therein City Code section 903.09: 2 D paragraph one, it is �he respondent's
contention that the word includes and including are words of exclusion and limitation
as established by the rule of stare dicisis within the of following cases:
HelverinQ v. Morqan's, Inc., 293 US�121, pp. 124 - 126, 79 L Ed 232, pp. 235
— 236 "The provision that the term "taxable year" "includes" the period of
. less than twelve months for which a separate retum is made, when read only
with its immediate [293 US 125] context, is not free from ambiguity. It may be
admitted that the term "includes" may sometimes be taken as
synonymous with "means," * * * But the phraseology is also open to the
construction that the word "includes" �is used as the equivalent �of
"comprehends" or "embraces," and that by it the section mereiy adop�s a
� familiar device i� aid of statutory construction, by providing that wherever other
sections refer to a "taxable year" that phrase may, if the context requires, be
taken also to refer to or to "include" a fractional part of #hat taxabie year, for
� which a separate return is made."
3 of 15.APA Notice of Contested Case
368
Montello Salt Co. v. Utah., 221 U.S. 452, pp. 4fi6 - 467, 55 L. Ed. 810, p. 8't5;
"It is the participle of the word "inciude," which means, according to the
definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) "to confine within something; hold as in
an inclosure; inclose; contain." (2) "To comprise as a part, or as something
incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . .
the Roman Empire included many nations." ,
Red Win� Maltina Co. v._Willcuts. Collector ofi Internal Revenue 15 F.2d
626, 630, 631; 1926 U.S. App. Lexis 2958; 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6360; 49 A.L.R.
459: "The meaning of the word "includ'+ng," as used in the statute, is important.
it evidenUy refers to the preceding part of the subsection, and must be �
recognized as occupying a significant and important place. It cannot be
brushed aside and ignored. This court should not attempt to write new
{anguage into the statute, nor ignore language there used, but must endeavor,
� from the language of the statute itself, j**15] to arrive at the meaning of the
Congress. This word has received considerable discussion in opinions of the
courts. It has been productive of much controversy.
The word "include" is defined in the New Standard Dictionary as follows: "(1) To
comprise, comprehend or to embrace as a component part, item or member;
as, this volume incfudes a{1 his works; the bill includes his last purchase; (2) to
inciose within; contain; confine; as, an oyster shell sometimes includes a pearl."
� lt is defined by Webster as foflows: "To comprehend or comprise, as a genus of
the species, the whole a part, an argument or reason the inference; to take or
reckon in; to contain; embrace; as, this volume includes the essays; to and
includ.ing.the tenth."
The Century Dictionary defines "including" thus: "To comprise as a part."
Perhaps the most interesting discussion of the word "including" is found in
Montello Salt Co. v. State of Utah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 706, 55 L. Ed. 810,
� Ann. Cas. 1912D, 633. There the court referred to and discussed some of the
cases where the word "including" had been under consideration. For instance,
. the court pointed out in Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, thaf a legacy [�`*16J
of$100, "including money trusteed at a certain bank," could not be construed as
meaning that the sum of $100 was in addition to the sum in bank. Also in
Henry's Executor v. Henry's [*631] Executor, 81 Ky. 342, "a bequest of $14,000,
'including certain notes,' was held to mean that the no#es formed a part of the
$14,000, and were not in addition thereto." Also the case of Neher v. McCook
County, '!1 S.D. 422, 78 N.W. 998, where "it was heid that a certain section of
the laws of the state, which provided that the s�eriff s fiees should be $ 16 #or
4 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
' 369
summoning a jury, 'including mileage,' did not entitle him to mileage in addition
to the $ 16." And the Supreme Court, after its reference to these cases, says of
the case before it: "The court also considered that the word 'including' was used
as a word of enlarg�ment, the leamed court being of opinion that such was its
ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the
dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power
attributed to it."We refer to a few other cases.
In Sullivan Machinery Co. v. United States (C.C.) 168 F. 561, the word.
"including," used in the Tariff Act (30 [**17] Stat. 197), was construed as a
word of addition. In Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 593, 103 P. 674, 676, the
court, discussing the meaning of the word "including," says: "This word has also
been defined as having an accumulative sense, and as classing that which
� follows with that which has gone before." * * * �
In Kennedy v. Industrial Accident Commission of Califomia et al., 50 Cal. App. �
184, 194, 195 P. 267, 271, the court says: "'Including' is not a word of limitation.
. Rather it is a word of enlargement, and in ordinary signification implies that
something else has been given beyond the general language that precedes it. *
* * As here employed, the word 'including' is used to express the idea that the
specific power to review, grant ot- cegrant, diminish, increase, or terminate an
award, upon the ground that the disability has recurred, increased, diminished, �
� or terminated -- a particular power specifically referred to in the section of the �
present act -- is but a part of the larger and more comprehensive power
conferred by the more general language of the immediately preceding c{ause of
the section."
� In Dumas v. Boulin (La.) McGloin, 274, 278, it is pointed out that the word
"include" [**18] has two shades of ineaning. The court says: "'Include' * * *
has * * � two shades of* * * meaning. it may apply where that which is affected
is the on{y thing included, * * * and it is also used to express the idea, that the
thing in question constitutes a part only of the contents of some other thing." It is
more commonly used in #he latter sense. �
That the word "includes" is a word of enlargement is held in Fraser v. Bentel et .
Stinson, 5 Minn. 522; Calhoun v. Memphis & P.R. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 1045, No.
2309.
Perhaps the most lucid statement the books afford on the subject is in Blanck et
. al,v. Pioneer Mining Co. et al., 93 Wash. 26, 30, 159 P. 1077, 1079, namely:
"The word `incfuding' is a term of enlargement and not a term of limitation, and
. necessarily implies that something is intended to be em.braced in the permitted
5 of 15,APA Notice ot Co�tested Case
' 370
deductions beyond the general language which precedes it. But, granting that
� the word 'including' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it oniy
performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the
. entargement. it thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited
preceding general language. * �` * The word 'including' introduces [**19] an
enlarging definition of the preceding general words, 'actual cost of the labor,'
thus of necessi#y excluding the idea of a further eniargement than that fumished
by the enlarging�clause so introduced. When read in its immediate context, as
on all authority it must be read, the word 'including' is obviously used in the
sense of its synonyms 'comprising; comprehending; embracing."'
4. And fiurther, the first paragraph ofi City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word
individual as within other specific enumerated things within the class defined therein
and therefore should be strictly read in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis —
the rule of statutory construction where general words following a designation of
particular subjects or classes or p�rsons, the meaning of the general words wiii
. ordinarily be presumed to be restricted by the.particular designation, and to include
only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those specificatly
enumerated.
5. And further the second paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on
further to define the strict ciass of person over whom a penalty can be imposed and
clearfy states as foflows:
°Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a pena4ty or
fine, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partner�hip, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
� who are responsible for the violation.0 �
� An interpretation that a private Minnesota state Citizen is included within this definition
is inconsistent with United States Constitution article 4, § 2, and 14�' Amendment. See
as foilows:
ORIENT 1NSURANCE COMPANY v. DAGGS, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, 172 U.S. 557; 19 S. Ct. 281; 43 L. Ed. 552; 1899. °A
corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the provision, and hence has
not "privifeges and immunities" secured to "citizens" against state legislation."
BRACEY et al. v. DAftST, State Auditor of West Virginia, et al. District Court,
N.D. West Vir�inia, 218 F. 482; 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409, December 5,
' 9 914. "As we will point out later on, the power of the LeQisla#ure to "reQulate"
the business operations of corpo.rations and those of individuals are vastiv
different based uaon the fact that individuals. under article 4, � 2, of the federal
Constitution are "citizens" o# a state "entitled to ail privile4es and immt�nities of
citizens in the several states," whife corporations are not. So this contention
must hark back, at last, to the one that the true interrt of the Legislature was that
this act should only be made applicable to corporations.*** It is true that the frst
6 of 15.APA Notice of Contested Gase
371
. section of the statute in designating those to be subject to its pcovisions uses
the singular "individual"; but under the wel�-known rule the court should hold the
plural to have been intended when that construction is required by the context
as in this instance, and especially where it wilf aid in sustaining the vafidity of
the statute. ***** How can you have an "unincorporated" corporation? How can
you have an "organized" individual? If vou sav the word "individual" should
be iudicialiv construed out of the act and it shouid be heid aaplicable oniv
to coraorations and to "individuals aatins� in concert bv ors�anization:' the
objections to it are just as valid as if the word "individual" be aliowed to remain
for the legai rights, under the federal and state Constitutions, by reason of
personal citizenship, attach to every individual just as fully, if he condu�ts a
legitimate and lawful business alone, or by association with other individuals.
As we will point out later on, the power of the Le�tislature to "re�ulate" the .
� business operations of coraoration.s and those of individuals are vastiv
. different, based upon the fact that individuals, under article 4. � 2, of the `
federal Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all privile�es and
immunities of citizens in the several states." while corporations are not."
. 6. It is this respondent's position that he is not a privileged person and individual
owing a duty to your administration, and he is not in business nor does he act in
concert with any privileged entity and business. It is therefore that this respondent
herein makes the following requests in accordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 in
an effort to establish, and prove, that the respondent is not lawfully classified as the
subject of the speciai law as cited in your administrative notices. The respondent
herein states this position because the respondent realizes -- as held and stated in,
Masters v. Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (C1-99-1302
No.) that the term "special legislation" is reserved for legislation that is "so pate�ntiv
arbitrarv as to demonstrate constitutional evasion". In an effort to mee't the
burden of proving that the respondent is not the specially defined person to whom the
ordinances cited can lawfully be directed and enforced the respondent herein makes
the following request: � �
a. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent is, or in not a person as specially defined in City of Fridley
ordinances section 220.06: 40, and section 903.01 : 2 D as can, or cannot be
identified by rules of strict construction, and that by such strict construction this
Minnesota state Citizen, although a na#ural person is in fact a natural person ofi
7 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
372
. � �
I nd individual identified in sections 220.06: 40, and section I
the privdeged c ass a
. I
903.01: 2 D as can lawfully be identified as similar in classifcation to the �
priviieged or iegal fictions therein by�the rule of noscitur a sociis and as those I
sections should be strictly read, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2)
wherein: "*'�*the singular includes [means] the plurai***" (Rs in the portion of '!
those definitions that use the word individual) and as further strictiy read in
accordance with �he rule (ejusdem generis), wherein;
"The principal underlying rule of ejusdem generis is that the legislature
had in mind things of the same kind and was speaking of them as a
. ciass." Foley v. Whelan, 219 Minn. 209, 216,
� "The limiting principle of ejusdem generis has particular force with
respect to criminal statutes, which courts are compelled to construe
� � rigorously in order to protect unsuspecting citizens from being ensnared
by ambiguous statutory language. See, e. g., Mourning v. �amily
Pubiications Service, Inc., 1973, 411 U.S. 356; 375, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36
L.Ed.2d 318; United States v. Campos-Serrano, 1971, 404 U.S. 293, 297-
298, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457; United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1969,
412 F.2d 885, 890." UNITED STATES v. INSCO, 496 F.2d 204 (1974) �
"In accordance with the rule of ejusdem ge�eris, such terms as "other,"
"other thing," "other persons," "others," "othenwise," or "any other,"when
preceded by a specific enumeration, are commonly given a cestricted
meaning, and fimited to articles of the same�nature as those previously
described." See United States v Chase, 135 US 255, 34 L Ed 117, 10 S
Ct 756; Re Mosby's Appeai, 360 Mich 186, 103 NW2d 462; Derk v Zerbe
Twp. 322 Pa 350, 185 A 647. �
b. This respondent herein requests any and a11 evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent knowingly, wiilingly and intentional surrendered his sui juris
status as Minnesota state Citizen and excepted the status of privileged
individuai legal person as defined in City of Fridley ordinance sections 220.06: .
40, and 903.01: 2; D, upon notice.served and presented to this �espondent, with
complete and proper notice as required by Minnesota Statute 13.04 subd. 2
(Tennessen warning).
c. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205 and
section 205.04.4.1 requiring fand alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
8 of 15,APA NoUce ot Contested Case
� . 373
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of strict scrutiny.
. d. This respondent herein requests al{ studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205
sec#ion 205.04.4.1 requiring land aiteration permits, therein relied upon by the .
city council to estabfishing that such perr�its would in fact be necessary for the �
implementation of the police powers as a matter of rational basis.
e. This respondent herein requests aff reports considered by the city council
prescribing how City Code section 205�.04.4.1 could lawfuliy be implemented
upon both, the regulated created or organized privileged legal entity and their �
property regulated as a matter of rational basis; and the private home owner
and his private p�operty under the least restri�tive strict scrutiny standard of
regulation without transgression of the equal treatment guaranteed to the
private Minnesota state citizens by the Uni#ed States Constitution's article 4, §
2, and 14�' amendment as is a specific condition placed upon the council as a
condition placed of their authority as mandated by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd; �
32, United State constitution 6th, 14th and Articfe V{ Clause {1 (Supremacy
Clause), and Minnesota Constitution Articles 1 sections 6, 7.
f. The names and addresses of all witnesses that the City of Fridley Rental
Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions intends to ca{f at the APA
contested case hearing, along with a brief summary of each witness' testimony.
All�witnesses unknown at the time.of said disclosure shall be disclosed as soon
as they become known.
g. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the City of Fridley
Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions or witnesses on behalf of
� the City of Fridfey Rental Property and Zoning Divisions.
h. All written exhibits to�be introduced at the APA con�ested case hearing.
9 of 15,APA NoUce of Contested Case
374
.
i. Any and ali evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state is: an officer of the city or the state of Minnesota; an employee
� of the city, or the state of Minnesota; an. agent of the city, or of the state of .
Minnesota or legaily created or organized legal entity upon whom the city of
Fr�dley can compel performance otherwise in derogation of his fundamentai
rights as a Minnesota state citizen, and citizen of the United States.
,
j. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen waming have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley, and city Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to
. � -
prove that this�Minnesota state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as
. such he,is also one of the forgoing: pe�-son's heirs, executors, administrators o�
� assigns, and aiso a firm, partnership or corporation, its or their successors or
assigns, .or the agent of any of the aforesaid, as defined in Fridfey Residential
Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing Code, definitions section 220.06
Subd. 40, and as used in City of Fridley Rentai Property, and Planning and
Zoning Divisions chapter, section 220.13, and that this Minnesota state Citizen
accepted the status of person defined the�ein and has availed himself of the
beneft of that pfivileged status upon notice served. .
k. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen waming have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley, and city Rental Property, and Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely on
to prove that this Minnesota state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that
as such he is also one wha enjoys the privileged of acting in concert with a firm,
corporation, partnership, association, organization or other group acting as a
unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
representative appointed by law, and as such is an included: partners or
members of any partnership, firm or corporation or the officers, agents or
members of a corporation and as is a person defined in City of Fridley
ordinance definitions section 903.01: 2 D, responsible for the cited vioiations
10 of 15.APA Notice of Contested Case
375 \
and as such this Minnesota state Citizen accepted the status of person defined
� therein and has availed himself of the benefit of tfiat privileged status upon
notice served. �
I. And further: any evidence that �otices or Tennessen warning have been
properly served, (Minn. Stat. 13.04) upon which the City of Fridley Rental
Property, and Pianning and Zoning Divisions, wiil rely to prove that fihis
� Minnesota state Citizen is by his acknowiedgement a privileged person as
defined in the Minnesota Data Practices Act Chapter 13, section 13.02 Subd.
10, or City of Fridiey ordinances 220.06: 40, and section 903.01: 2 D
m. Any and al) evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
220 of the Fridley �Residential Renta! Property Maintenance and Licensing
Code, as a matter of stri�t scrutinv, was drafted and passed by the counsef for
the purpose of furthering a compelling govemmental interest, as is �consistent
with their stafutory authoriiy under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the.United States or of this state,
and further that the ordinances drafted impose the� least restrictive means of
regulating the Citizens private property.
n. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
220 of the Fridley Residential Rental Property Maintenance and Licensing
Code, as a matter of rational bases, was drafted and passed by the counsel for
the purpose a of furthering a compelling govemmental interest, as is consistent
with their statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state.
o. This respondent herein requests that you specifically identify the specific
oifice, commission and person having primary authority and primary jurisdiction
in the matters presented in your administrative notices.
11 of 15,APA Nadce of Contested Case
376
• .
7. The September 11, 2013 "First Notice of Noncompliance" cites as authority and
your stated position for noncompliance Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 section
"205.04.4.1". After having read this zoning ordinance, in this respondents view, section
205.04.4.1 (3) A (a) makes it clear that—"A grading and drainage plan is not required
for, `*** individual residentiai landscaping" !
8. And further this respondent, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen
questions whether or not the ordinances cited in the September 11, 2013 and
September 12, 2013 First Notices of Noncompliance can apply to both the privileged
owner (created or organized), and this non privileged private property owner afike
without transcending any issues of desperate treatment not authorized by the Charter
. for the City of Fridl.ey or constitutionai permitted by the Minnesota state Constitution, �
or the United States Constitution as is a condition placed upon the authority of your
city council by�Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, 32.
� In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. ed. 1042,
1045. 29 A.L.R. 1446, the Supreme Court, speaking of the requirement of due
process, said:
� "Without doubt, it denotes not mereiy freedom from bodiiy�restraint but also the
right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
. of life, �' * * and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common
law as essential to.the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." And further:
"The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interFered wifh, under
the guise of protecting the public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary
or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the
state to effect.
� "The gfory of American faw consists in clearfy defining not oniy the causes
� wherefore, but the times when, the manner how, and the means whereby, the
personal and property rights of the ci�izen may be invaded or abridged. Any
enactment� which fails to measure up to this standard of certainty is not
American 1aw, and American courts frequently declare statutes void for
uncertainty. State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 378; State v. Railway Co., 146 Mo. 155.
(fl Where discretion exists, uncertainty exists. Matthews v. Murahv, 23 Ky: Law
Rep. 750, 63 S.W. 785; Railcoad v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. " Black's
Constitutional Law, sec. 105, p. 2'�9; State v. YounQ, 29 Minn. 474; "Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, sec. 116. {e) �
"Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such
powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of
12 of 15.APA Notice of Contested Case .
377
j • ' �i
those powers which have been expressly conferred." Man4old Midwest Co. v.
Villaqe of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their owers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowin suc owers n� e a es ex�re .
ansas � ou ern . o..v. n ers a e ommerce ommissio�, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 71 , 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode arescribed bv
statute." �
_.__— .
"An agency may not assert the general power g�iven to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
. 1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising dele�ated legisiative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise. '
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without si nifica�ce that most of the rovisions of the Bill
of Ri h s are oce ura . is proce ure a spe s muc o e erence
e een ru e y aw an, rufe by whim or caprice. �Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice.
9. The stated purpose o.f the Minnesota APA as expressed in Minn. Stat. 14.001 is
as foilows: �
The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
(1) #o provide oversight of powers and duties deiegatted to administrative
agencies;
� (2) to increase public accountability of administrative agencies;
(3)to ensure a uniform minimum procedure; �
(4) to increase pubiic access to�govemmenta) information;
(5) to increase public participation in the formuiation of administrative rules;
� (6) to increase the faimess of agencies in their conduct of contested case
proceedings; �and
, (7) to sim,plify the process of judicial review of agency action as well as increase
its ease and availability. �
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair
balance between these purposes and the need for efficient, economical; and
effective government administration. The chapter is not meant to aiter the
substantive rights of any person or agency. fts impact is limited to procedural
rights with the expectation that better substantive results will be achieved in the
13 of 15. APA Nodce of Contested Case
378
J '
�
everyday conduct of state government by improving the process by which those
. results are attained.
10. And further, a response to this APA Notice of Contested Case from the City of
Fridley Rental Property; and Planning and Zoning Divisions in this instant case is an
essentia!jurisdictionaf prerequisite. See Minn. Admin R. 1400.6700 and case law as�
follows:
"...this is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to waiver by the govemment.").
Indeed, this Court has held that "no exceptions" excuse a plaintifPs failure to
• comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites of the FTCA. McDevitt v. United
. � States Postal Serv,, 963 F. Supp. 482, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (citing, inter alia,
Peterson, 694 F.2d at 944; Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d
Cir. 1971)). LUBLIN CORPORATION, P{aintiff v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and HOOKS
VAN H�LM, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACT10N NO. 05-6785 UNITED STATES
D1STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN D1STRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23394, April 27, 2006, Decided April 27, 2006, Filed; April 27,
� 2006, Entered
"lt is essential that where en executive is exercising dele�ated legislative power
he should substantially cornply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedurat fairness and.regutar�ty �re of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "ft is not without si n�ficance that most o#the rovisions of the Bill �
of Ri h s are roce ura .� �s proce ure a spe s muc o e i erence
e een ru e y aw �n, rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is Qur mai� assurance that there will be equal 'ustice
under law." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v McGrath, 341 U.�..123,
179, 72 S.Ct. 624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 8'f7 (1959). Also see McNabb v United States,
318 U.S. 332, 347, 63 S.Ct. 608, 616, 87 L:Ed. 819 (1943). Administrative
authorities are creatures of statute and have onl such owers as e
s a u e con ers on em. eir owers mus e exerc�se in accor ance
w� e s atu e es ow n suc owers rn e es ex re . ansas i
out ern . o. v. n ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178, 64 L ed
717, 40 S Ct 187. and they can act only in the mode prescribed by statute." �
(emphasis added) Mahler v. Ebv, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S, Ct. 283.
"[D]ue process is flexible and cails for such p� rocedural protections as the
particular situation demands," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 448 U. S.
481. Resolution of the issue here involving the const�tutiona su iciency o
acTministrative procedures prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending
review, requires cons�deration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will
be aff�cted by the officiai action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of�such
interest fhrough the procedur�s used, and probab{e value, if any, of additional
procedural safeguards; and (3) the Govemment's interest, including the fiscal
and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would
entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-335. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
� "The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the substantive due process rights
provided by th� Fourteenth Amendment afford "heiyhtened protect�on aga�nst
government rnterference with cerkain fundamental rights and liberty interests.n
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 'f 17 S. Ct. 2258, 1�7 S. Ct.
14 of 15,APA Notice of Corttested Case
379
2302, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997). In re the Matter of: Nancy SooHoo;petitioner,
Respondent, vs: Maril�yn� Johnson, Appellant. SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA, 731 N.W.2d 815; 2007 Minn. LEXIS 253, May 10, 2007, Filed.
"However, for the purposes of review, it has been said th.at clear violations of
taw in reaching the result, such as acting without evidence when evidence is
re4uired, or making a decision contrary to all the evidence, are just as much
'urisdictional error as is'the failure to take the ro r ste s to ac uire
urisdiction at the be innin o e rocee in orgn s v. a o., 147
s � � ;
� "Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only snch
� powers as the statute confers on them. Their owers must be exercis d in
accordance with the statute bestowin suc owers n e a es ex re .
� ansas iy ou ern o. v. n ers a e ommerce ommission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode arescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time�
disr�gard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 l�S 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585� 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
. 1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322. • �
"In a long�line of cases, the Court has excused the petitioner from exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionalitY�of some feature of agency's decision making�process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979 ; Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 (1976);
Mathews v. Eldridge� 424 U.S. 319 1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 249,
� 265—267 (1975 ; Gibson v. Berryhi I, 411 U.S. 564, 575 (1973); Allen v. Grand
Central Aircraft �o. 347 U.S. 535 (1954).,It is d�fficult to explain this line of
cases. Sometimes the Court seems to base its decision excusing exhaustion on
�the broad Qrinciple that constitutional issues are�particular{y deserving of judicial
resolution.' Administrative Law Davis, Kenneth Gulp Davis 15.5 Constitutional
Right Exception.
(n re De t. of Ener Stri er Well Exem tion Liti ation, 578 F.Supp. 586,
. , ce ie question answere xxon corp. v . , ep . o Energy, 744 F.2d 98,
�certioran denied Energy Reserves Group: Inc. v Department of Energy, 1 U5
s.Ct. 576, 469 U,S. 1077, 83 L.Ed.2d 515, 'Where claim before court requires
resolution of issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed within punriew
of administrative agency, doctrine of primary!urisdiction may be apptied to
suspend judiciaC process pending referral of such issue to administrative
agency."
The undersigned herein reserved his rights to: life liberty and private property; amend
� his.request for a contested case; objection, and request for discovery. as herein made
in accordance with the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R
1400.6700. . �
L.�c.� � �
vate � izen, ames . iewe
ithout prejudice; by special appearance
9 - 26 -- 2013
15 of 15,APA Notice of Contested Case
380
r C '
!
Affidavifi of Service by Personal Service �
State of Minnesota } �
} Subscribed and sworn �
County Of Anoka } �
I, Dan Hillrnan, being first duly sworn, depose and say that in.the County of Anoka
and in the State of Minnesota, on September 26, 2013, the undersigned served on
behalf of James Douglas Kiewel, one"Notice of Contested Case" document upon:
Julie Jones of the City of Fridiey-- Panning and Zoning Division at: 6431 University
Ave N.E. Fridley, MN 55432. �
Ju�at/ Acknowledgment
Sta#e of Minnesota } �
} Subscribed, sworn and sealed
County of Anoka } �
On, September 26, 2413, Dan Hillman, duly swom, as such deposes, and did
personally appear before me, and is known to be the deponent described in,�and who
. executed the forgoing instrument/a�davit of service of process, and acknowledged that
he executed the der oath, as his free ct an deed in the above said State and
Counfiy. .
;
Affiant's signature '� �/
Address and Phone number of affiant is, 2523 Lynn Ave. St. Louis Park, MN. 55416, Ph.
� 612-369-5230. Subscribed and swom.;toab_ rne the undersigned Notary Public in the
above said State and County. '
� , �
�
j t " Notary Public
' ;
. . .� ..:��� � �
:! � . , _t.,,..:,� .
,k .. . •,.' JOHN F.ASf(VIIITH
� -� Mi,,..� � NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNE&OTA
'.. �f'�ommission Ex�res Jan.31,201b
1
381 �` � � ��
��,,� �
Administrative Procedures Act Notice of Contested Case
James D. KiqV�ref City of Fridiey
CJO 1631 Rice Creek Road Ju{ie Jones Pfanning Manager et. a1.
Fridley, MN. 55423 Plar�ning and Zoning pivision
6431 Universi Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN. 5�432
Directed to: City of Fridley, Planning Manager Julie Jones:
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 Rice Creek Road
N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423 directed to "Property Owner" and Dated July 09, 2014. (Appx.
�) �
Re: First Notice of Noncompiiance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 Rice Creek Road
N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423 directed to "Property Owner" and Dated July 09, 2014. (Appx.
2)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 11, 2013. (Appx. 3)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Frid{ey City Code at 1627 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1627 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 12, 2013, {Appx. 4)
Re: Previous Administrative Procedures Act Notice of Contested Case addressing
Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 subject matter, dated 9 — 26 — 2013 (Appx 5)
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 205 as cited in your Dated July 09, 2014 first notice.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act Chapter 14 (APA), Minn. Stat. 14.58.
� Re: Minnesota Administrative Rules, Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700.
An Administrative Procedure Act (APA) contested case is:
"'�** a proceeding before an agency in which the legaf rights, duties, or privileges
of specific parties are required by law or constitutiona( right to be determined
after an agency hearing";
As defined in Minn. Stat. § 14.02 Subd. 3.
1 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
382
Ttie purpose of the APA is as set forth in Minn. Stat. § 14.001 as quoted herein,
section 11. �
1. The first notice(s) as are dated July 09, 2014 and as have been identified by
this petitioner as (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2) are the two administrative notices sent to this
petitioner dated July 09, 2014. These two administrative notices seem to address the
same subject matter as the previously.issued administrative notices as have herein
been identified by this petitioner as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) --Appx 3 dated September
11, 2013, and -- Appx 4 dated September 12, 2013. In response to the previously
issued administrative notices herein identified as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4), dated
September 12, 2013, this petitioner had on 9 —26 —2013 previously directed a
petition for an APA contested case herein identified as (Appx. 5) regarding the same
subject matter as are now addressed in what are stated to be first notices - (Appx.1)
and (Appx. 2) both dated July 09, 2014, although your administration has not sent this
petitioner any correspondence stating that the previous September 11, 2013 (Appx.3)
and (Appx. 4) had been dismissed. Accordingly this petitioner now proceeds with.this
petition for an APA contested case +n response to al4 matters as have been addressed
by the first notices as issued September 11 and September 12 of 2013 herein
identified as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) and the petition in response as properly served on
9 — 26 — 2013 identified as Appx 5, and the first notices dated July 09, 2014 and
herein identified as (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2).
2. This respondent and private Minnesota state Citizen is currently the private
property owner of the private home at 1627 Rice Creek Road, and of the private home
at 1631 Rice Creek Road, however this respondent is not a resident agent of the
corporate state of Minnesota or political subdivis.ion created or organized by a state or
Federai government, nor is this respondent an officer or empioyee of a state or the
Federal government. This respondent is a Citizen of the state of Minnesota and not a
resident in the corporate sense, nor is his private home a residence in the corporate
sense, nor is he or his private home in the corporate State of Minnesota. This
respondent is not the "City" -- an agent of the "City" nor is this respondents private
property a public building or regulated licensed facility and as such, not within the
2 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
383
Corporate in rem jurisdiction of the City of Fridley. This respondent is a natural born
state Citizen proceeding (sui juris), living in Anoka County, and is a Minnesota state
Citizen and a such proceeds with this request for agency administrative due process
by speciai appearance, in propria persona, proceeding at law in summo jure, jus
regium, and proceeds as such without conferring nor conses�ting to any ministerial
strict liability statutory jurisdiction. This Minnesota state Citizen under Minnesota
Constitution Article Vi. Sec. 1 and 5, ["judicial Power"J willfiully enforces all
constitutional limitations and prohibitions under Minnesota Constitution Article I.
against asserted quasi ministerial jurisdictional capacity, summary proceeding and
plaintiffs or prosecution and other interested officers, officials, parties and employees
operating in their respective political corporate artificial capacities as they are within
the said county, city, and state. For further clarification see HALE v. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, quoted as follows:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is
entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is
unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend #o
criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as
existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
the Constitution."
Citv of Dallas et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944; "The rights of the individual are
not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or
even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are
merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have
been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
3. This petitioner and private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen, having
made the above statement in section 2, to be clear, does not make the claim that the
City of Fridley has no power to reasonable regulate this petitioner's private property.
This private home owner does however herein question whether your notices and
your administration address a proper strict interpretation of the ordinances therein
cited, and the scope and purview of the ordinances therein cited, and further
questions the standard of scrutiny sought to be implemented by the,City, and whether
3 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
384
that standard of scrutiny is one of strict scrutiny or rational basis, and whether one, the
other, or both were anticipated by the City council prior to the passage of the
ordinances as cited in the July 09, 2014 (Appx. 1) and (Appx 2) first notices of
Noncompliance and the previous first notices sent in �eptember of 2013 -- (Appx. 3)
and (Appx. 4). This petitioner herein requests that: if your administration does not
� agree with the statement made in section 2 regarding this petitioner's private status,
that your administration rebut the statement in writing, or agree that your
administration has accepted the statement as fact stipulated by silence in accordance
with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6800.
4. Fridley City Code section 205.05 (10) is the section that provides for a penalty
imposed under Fridley City Code section 205 as sited by the July 09, 2014 (Appx. 1)
and (Appx 2) first notices of Noncompliance and the previous first notices dated
September 11, 2013 (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) quoted beiow as follows:
"The owner of a building or premises in or upon which a violation of any
provisions of this Chapter has been committed, or shall exist; or the lessee of
the entire building or entire premises in or upon which a violation has been
committed or shall exist; or the owner or lessee of any part of the building, or
premises in or upon which such violation has been committed or shall exist,
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to all penafties provided for such
violations under the provision of Chapter 901 of this Code each and every day
� that such violation continues. Any.such person who, having been served with
an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order to
remove any such violation, within ten (10) days after such service, or shall
continue to,violate any provisions of the regulations made under authority of this
Chapter in the respect named in such order shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and subject to all penaltie,s provided for such violations under the provisions of
Chapter 901 of this Code. Each day that such violation continues shafl be a
separate violation"
Fridley City Code section 205.05 (101 provides that owners whom as such, are
persons is violation of Chapter 205 shall be subject penalties as are strictly imposed
on persons as provided by Fridley City Code chapter 901. 901: A provide as follows:
"Every ep rson who viofates this Code is subject to all penalties provided for
such violation. Except where a different, specific or more particular penalty is
4 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
385
provided or allowed with respect to any offense, any ep rson guilty of a violation
of this Code shall upon conviction of such offense, be fined in an amount not to
exceed the maximurn fine as authorized by Minnesota State Statute 609.034 or
be imprisoned in jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days or both for each
offense of which such ep rson is convicted."
While Fridley City Code chapters 901 and 205 do not define the special term "person'
as used therein Fridley City Code section 903.01: 2 D defines and identifies the strict
definition of the specia{ term a "person" upon whom penalties may imposed for a
violation of Fridley City Code Chapter 205 strictly, as follows:
"Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or
other group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee,
receiver or other representative appointed by law.„
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partnership, firm
or corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation."
It is this petitioners contention that when strictly reading the special term "person" as
used in Fridley City Code Chapters 205, 901 and as defined in chapter 903.01 the
follov�ing case law and cannons of strict construction should be rigorously applied, as
follows:
"Whenever any property or interest is intended to be protected and the term
"person" is used to desig�►ate the party whose property it is intended to protect,
the terms includes the property of the State and of all public or private
corporations. On the other hand, if the use of the term "person" identifies the
party against whom a violation is charged, it is strictiy construed." Texas
Department of Transportation, v. City of Floresville Electric Power & Light
System 53 S.W.3d 447; 2001 T�ex. App. LEXIS 4220.
The first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word individual without
stating what an individual is, however if the law therein is read strictly, first in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2) and Fridley City Code section 205.03
wherein: "***the singular includes [means] the plural***", one can see that the word
"individual' as used therein includes more than an individual human person as might
be erroneously surmised by the less critical reader. And further the first paragraph City
Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on to state that the list of entities enumerated therein
5 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
386
are limited as�only "including any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
representative appointed by law." Therein City Code section 903.01: 2 D paragraph
one, it is the petitioners contention that the word includes and including are words of
exclusion and limitation as established by the rule of stare dicisis within the of
following cases:
Helverinq v. Moraan's, Inc., 293 US 121, pp. 124 - 126, 79 L Ed 232, pp. 235
— 236_"The provision that the term "taxable year" "�includes" the period of
less than twelve months for which a separate return is made, when read only
with its immediate [293 US 125] context, is not free from ambiguity. It may be.
admitted that the term "includes" may sometimes be taken as
synonymous wi#h "means," * * * But the phraseology is also open to the
construction that the word "includes" is used as the equivalent of
"comprehends" or "embraces," and that by it the section merely adopts a
familiar device in aid of,statutory construction, by providing that wherever other
sections refer to a "taxable year" that phrase may, if the context requires, be
taken also to refer to or to "include" a.fractional part of that taxable year, for
which a separate return is made."
Montello Salt Co, v. Utah., 221 U.S. 452, pp. 466 - 467, 55 L. Ed. 810, p. 815;
"It is the participle of the word "include," which means, according to the
definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) "to confine within something; hold as in
an inclosure; inclose; contain." (2) "To comprise as a part, or as something
incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . .
the Roman Empire included many nations." �
Red Winct Maltina Co. v. Willcuts, Collector of Internal Revenue 15 F.2d
626, 630, 631; 1926 U:S. App. Lexis 2958; 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6360; 49 A.L.R,
459: "The meaning of the word "including," as used in the statute, is important.
It evidently refers to the preceding part of the subsection, and must be
recognized as occupying a significant and important place. It cannot be
brushed aside and ignored. This court should not attempt to write new
language into the statute, nor ignore language there used, but must endeavor,
from the language of the statute itself, [**15] to arrive at the meaning of the
Congress. This word has received considerable discussion ir� opinions of the
courts. It has been productive of much controversy.
The word "include" is defined in the New Standard Dictionary as follows: "(1) To
comprise, comprehend or to embrace as a component part, item or member;
as, this volume includes all his works; the bill includes his last purchase; (2) to
inclose within; contain; confine; as, an oyster shell sometimes includes a pearl."
6 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case •
387
It is defined by Webster as foliows: "To comprehend or comprise, as a genus of
the species, the whole a part, an argument or reason the inference; to take or
reckon in; to contain; embrace; as, this volume includes the essays; to and
including the tenth." `
Th�e Century Dictionary defines "including" thus: "To comprise as a part."
Perhaps the most interesting discussion of the word "including". is found in
Montello Salt Co. v. State of Utah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S. Ct. 706, 55 L. Ed. 810,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 633. There the court referred to and discussed some of the
cases where the wflrd "including" had been under consideration. For instance,
the court pointed out in Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, that a legacy j**16]
of$100, "including money trusteed at a certain bank," could not be construed as
meaning that.the sum of$100 was in addition to the sum in bank. Also in
Henry's Executor v. Henry's [*631] Executor, 81 Ky. 342, "a bequest of$14,000,
'including certain note�,' was held to mean that the notes formed a part of the
, $14,000, and were not in addition thereto." Also the case of Neher v. McCook
County, 11 S.D. 422, 78 N.�IV. 998, where "it was held that a certain section of
the laws of the state, which provided that the sheriffs fees should be $ 16 for
summoning a jury, 'including mileage,' did not entitle him to mileage in addition
to the $�16." And the Supreme Court, after its reference to these cases, says of
the case before it: "The court also considered that the word 'including' was used
as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its
ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the
dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power
attributed to it." We refer to a few other cases.
In Sullivan Machinery Co. v. United States (C.C.) 168 F. 561, the word
"including," used in the Tariff Act (30 (**17] Stat. 197), was construed as a
word of addition. In Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 593, 103 P. 674, 676, the
court, discussing the meaning of the word "including," says: "This word has also
been defined as having an accumulative sense, and as classing that which
#ollows with that which has gone before." * * *
In Kennedy v. Industrial Accident Commission of California et al., 50 Cal. App.
184, 194, 195 P. 267, 271, the court says: "'Including' is not a word of limitation.
Rather it is a word of enlargement, and in ordinary signification implies that .
something else has been given beyond the general language that precedes it. *
* * As here employed, the word 'including' is used to express the idea that the
specific power to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase, or terminate an
award, upon the ground that the disability has recurred, increased; diminished,
7 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
" 388
or terminated -- a particular power specifically referred to in the section of the
present act -- is but a part of the larger and more comprehensive power
conferred by the more general {anguage.of the immediately preceding clause of
the section."
In Dumas v. Boulin (La.) McGloin, 274, 278, it is pointed out that the word
"include" [**18] has two shades of ineaning. The court says: "'Include' * * *
has * * * finro shades of'� * * meaning. It may apply where that which is affected
is the only thing included, * * * and it is also used to express the idea, that the.
thing in question constitutes a part only of the contents of some other thing." It is
more commonly used in the latter sense.
That the word "includes" is a word of enlargement is held in Fraser v. Bentel et .
Stinson, 5 Minn. 522; Calhoun v. Mempt�is & P.R. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 1045, No.
2309.
Perhaps the most lucid stat�ement the books afford on the subject is in Bianck�et
al. v. Pioneer Mining Co. et a{., 93 Wash. 26, 30, 159 P. 1077, 1079, namely:
"The word 'including' is a term of eniargement and not a term of limitation, and
necessarily implies that something is intended to be embraced in the permitted
deductions beyond the general language which precedes it. But, granting that
the word 'including' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only
performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the
enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited
preceding general language. * '� * The word 'including' introduces [**19� an
enlarging definition of the preceding general words, 'actua! cost of the labor,'
thus of necessity excluding the idea of a further enlargement than that furnished
by the enlarging clause so introduced. When read in its immediate context, as
on all authority it must be read, the word 'including' is obviously used in the
sense of its synonyms 'comprising; comprehending; embracing."'
5. And further, the first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word
individual as within other specific enumerated things within the class defined therein
and therefore should be strictly read in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis --
the rule of statutory construction where generat words following a designation of
particular subjects or classes or persons, the meaning of the general words will
ordinarily be presumed to be restricted by the particular designation, and to include
only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those speci�cally
enumerated.
8 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
389 .
6. And further the second paragraph of City Code section 903,01: 2 D goes on
further to define the strict class of person over whom a penalty can be imposed and
clearly states as follows:
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or.
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who,are responsible for the violation." �
An interpretation that a private Minnesota state Citizen is included within this definition
is inconsistent with United States Constitution article 4, § 2, and 14th Amendment. See
as follows:
ORIENT INSURANGE COMPANY v. DAGGS, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, 172 U.S. 557; 19 S. Ct. 281; 43 L. Ed. 552; 1899: "A
corporation is not a �it�z�n within the meaning of the provision, and hence has
not "privifeges and immunities" secured to "citizens" against state legisiation."
BRACEY et al. v. DARST, State Auditor of West Virginia, et al. District Court,
N.D. West Virginia, 218 F. 482;,1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409, December 5,
1914. "As we will point out later on, the power of the Leqislature to "requlate"
the business operations of corporations and those of individuals are vastiv
different based upon the fact that individuals, under artic{e 4, � 2, of the federal
Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all privileaes and immunities �f
citizens in #he several states," while corporations are not. So this contention
must hark back, at last, to the one that the true intent of the Legislature was that
this act should only be�made applicable to corporations.*** It is true that the first
section of the statute in. designating those to be subject to its provisions uses
the singular "individual"; but under the well-known rule the court should hold the
plural to have been intended when that construction is required by the context
as in this instance, and especially where it will aid in sustaining the validity of
the statute. ***** How can you have an "unincorporated" corporation? How can
you have an "organized" individual? If vou sav the word "individual" should
be iudiciallv construed out of the act and it should be held applicable onlv
to corpqrations and to "individuals actinq in concert bv oraanization," the
objections to it are just as valid as if the word "individual" be allowed to remain
for the legal rights, under the federal and state Constitutions, by reason of
personal citizenship, attach to every individual just as fully, if he conducts a .
legitimate and lawful business alone, or by association with other individuals.
As we will point out later.on, the aower of the Le4islature to "requlate" the '
business operations of corporations and those of individuals are vastiv
different, based upon the fact that individuals, under article 4, § 2, of the
federal Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all arivileqes and
immunities of citizens in the s�veral states," while corporations are not."
9 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case �
390
7. It is this petitioner position that he is not a privileged person and individual
owing a duty to your administration, and he is not in business nor does he act in
concert with any privileged entity and business. It is therefore that this respondent
herein makes the following requests in accordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 in
an effort to establish, and prove, that the respondent is not lawfully classified as the
subject of the special law as cited in your administrative notices. The respondent
herein states this position because the respondent realizes -- as held and stated in,
Masters v. Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (C1-99-1302
No.) that the term "special legislation" is reserved for legislation that is "so patentiv
arbitrarv as to demonstrate.constitutional evasion". In an effort to meet the
burden of proving that the respondent is not the specially defined person to whom the
ordinances cited can lawfully,b;e directed and enforced the respondent herein makes
the following request:
a. This respondent herein r.equests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that this petitioner is, or is not a person as specially defined in City of Fridley
ordinance chapters 205, 901 and section 903.01: 2; D as can, or cannot be
identified by rules of sttict construction, and that by such strict construction this
Minnesota state Citizen, although a natural person is in fact a natural person of
the privileged class and individual identified in ordinance chapters 205, 901 and
section 903.01: 2; D as can lawfully be identified as similar in classification to
the privileged or legal fictions therei,n by the rule of noscitur a sociis and as
those sections should be strictly read, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08
Subd. (2) Fridley City Code section 205.03 wherein: "***the singular includes
[means] the plural***" (As.in the portion of those definitions that use the word
individual) and as further strictly read in accordance with the rule (ejusdem
generis), wherein;
"The principal underlying rule of ejusdem generis is that the legislature
� had in mind things of the same kind and was speaking of them as a
class." Fotey v. Whelan, 219 Minn. 209, 216,
"The limiting principle of ejusdem generis has particular force with
respect to criminal statutes, which courts are compelled to construe
rigorously in order to protect unsuspecting citizens from being ensnared
1 Q of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
391
by ambiguous statutory language. See, e. g., Mourning v. Family
Publications Service, Inc., 1973, 411 U.S. 356, 375, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36
L.Ed.2d 318; United States v. Campos-Serrano, 1971, 404 U.S. 293, 297-
298, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457; United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1969,
412 F.2d 885, 890." UNtTED STATES v. INSCO, 496 F.2d 204 (1974)
"In accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis, such terms as "other,"
"other thing," "other persons," "others," "otherwise," or "any other," when
preceded by a specific enumeration, are commoniy given a restricted
meaning, and limited to articfes of the same nature as those previously
described." See United States v Chase, 135 US 255, 34 L Ed 117, 10 S
Ct 756; Re Mosby''s°Appeal, 360 Mich 186, 103 NW2d 462; Derk v Zerbe
Twp. 322 Pa 350, 185 A 647.
b. This respondenf herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent knowingly, wiliingly and intentional surrendered his sui juris
status as Minnesota sta�e Citizen and excepted the status of privileged
,,...
individual legal person�as defined in City of Fridley ordinance chapters 205, 901
and section 903.01: 2;�D, upon notice served and presented to this respondent,
with complete and proper notice as required by Minnesota Statute 13.04 subd.
2 (Tennessen warning.).
c. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205 and
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact_be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter ofi strict scrutiny.
d. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alte�ation permits, therein relied upon by the
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the poli'ce pAwers as a matter of rationa{ basis.
e. This respondent herein requests all reports considered by the city councif
prescribing how City Code section 205.04.4.1 could lawfully be implemented
upon both, the regulated created or organized privileged legal entity and their
11 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
39z
property regulated as a matter of rational basis, and the private home owner
and his private property under the feast restrictive strict scrutiny standard of
�egulation without transgression of the equal treatment guaranteed to the
private Minnesota state citizens by the United States Constitution's article 4, §
2, and 14th amendment as is a specific condition placed upon the council as a
condition placed of their authority as mandated by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd,
32, United State constitution 6th, 14th and Article VI Clause ll (Supremacy
� Clause), and Minnesota Constitution Articles 1 sections 6, 7.
f. The names and addresses of all witnesses that the City of Fridley
Planning and Zoning Divisions intends to call at the APA contested case
hearing, along with a brief summary of each witness' testimony. All witnesses
unknown at the time of said disclosure shall be disclosed as soon as they
become known. �
g. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the City of F�ridley
Planning and Zoning Divisions or witnesses on behalf of the City of Fridley
planning and Zoning Divisions.
h. All written exhibits to be introduced at the APA contest�d case hearing.
i. Any and al1 evid�nce upon which the city will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state Citizen is: an officer of fhe city or the state of Minnesota; an
employee of the city, or the state of Minnesota; an agent of the city, or of the
state of Minnesota or legally created or organized legal entity upon wham the
city of Fridley can compel performance otherwise in derogation of his
fundamental rights as a Minnesota state citizen, and citizen of the United
States.
j. Any evidence that.notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to prove that this Minnesota
state Citizen is a privifeged natural person and that as such he is also one of the
forgoing: individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or
12 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case .
393
other group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee,
receiver or other representative appointed by law. as defined in Fridley Property
Maintenance and Licensing Code, definitions section 903 (2) D and as used in
City of Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions for the implementation chapter
205, and that this Minnesota state Citizen accepted the status of person defined
therein and has availed himself of the benefit of that privileged status upon
notice served.
k. . Any evidence that notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely on to prove that this Minnesota
state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as such he is also one who
enjoys the privileged �ofi'2cting in concert with a firm, corporation, partnership,
association, organization or other group acting as a uni#, including any executor,
administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed by law, and as
such is an included: partners or members of any partnership, firm or
corporation or the officers, agents or members of a corporation and as is a
' person defined in City of Fridley ordinance definitions section 903.01: 2 D,
responsible for the cite,d violations and as such this Minnesota state Citizen
accepted the status of�person defined therein and has availed himself of the �
benefit of that privileged status upon notice served.
I. And further: any evidence that notices or Tennessen warning have been
properly served, (Minn. Stat. 13.04) upon which the City of Fridley Planning and
Zoning Divisior�s, will rely to prove that this Minnesota s#ate C�itizen is by his
acknowledgement a privileged person as defined in the Minnesota Data
Practices Act Chapter 13, section 13.02 Subd. 10, or City of Fridley ordinances
section 903:01: 2 D or�any other special definition of person applicable to City of
Fridley ordinance Chapter 205.
m. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
205 of the Fridley Property Maintenance is necessary as a matter of strict
scrutinv, and was drafted and passed by the counsel for the purpose of
13 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
394
furthering a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent with their
statutory authority under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state,
and further that the ordinances drafted impose the least restrictive means of
regulating the Citizens private property.
� n. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
205 of the Fridley Property Maintenance is necessary as a matter of rational
bases, and was drafted and passed by the counsel for the purpose of furthering
a compelling governmental interest, as is consistent with their statutory authority
under Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state, and further that the
ordinances drafted impose the least restrictive means of regulating the Citizens
private property.
o. This respondent herein reques#s that you specifically identify the specific
office, commission and person having primary authority and primary jurisdiction •
in the matters presented in your administrative notices.
8. The July 09, 2014 "First Notice of Noncompliance" (s) (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2)
and the September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 - "First Notice of
Noncompliance" (s) (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) cites as authority and your stated position
for noncompliance Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 section "z05.04.4.1". After having
read th�is zoning ordinance, in this respondents view, section 205.04.4.1 (3) A (a)
makes it clear that —"A aradina and drainaqe plan is not reauired for, `***
individual residential landscapinq"!
9. And further this petitioner, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen
questions whether or not the ordinances cited in the July 09, 2014 "First Notice of
Noncompliance"(s) (Appx.1) and (Appx: 2) and the September 11 and September 12
2013 "First Notice of Noncompliance"(s) (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) can apply to both the
privileged owner (created or organized), and this non privileged private property owner
_ alike.without transcending any issues of desperate treatment not authorized by the
14 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
395
Charter for the City of Fridley or constitutional permitted by the Minnesota state
Constitution, or the United States Constitution as is a condition placed upon the
authority of your cit�y council by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, 32.
10. An administration that seeks to regulate the private citizens, whose status as
citizen are not embraced within the special definition of person found in Fridley
Planning and Zoning Regulations Chapter 205, Chapter 901 or Chapter 903 imposes
a disparity upon the private citizens whom are not to be found within a defined,
created, or organized privileged class. Ptivate citizens are only, if necessary, to be
regulated by the least restrictive means under a strict scrutiny standard, whereas the
defined privileged class of person are on a less firm footing, under a rational basis
standard whereupon an administration is at liberty, to treat such defined privileged .
persons desperately and unequally if such unequal treatment can be rationalized�in
the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. A proceeding as such, upon a
private state citizen whose rights a privileges are secured under the United States
constitution Article 4 § 2 without explanation as a matter of strict scrutiny, transcends
due proce�s and equal protection of the law, as protected by the United States
, Constitution's 4tn, 5tn, 6tn, 14th, amendments, Article VI Clause II (Supremacy Clause),
and Minnesota Constitution Articles 1 sections 2, 6, 7 as set forth in Minn. Stat.
412.221 § Subd, 32. See as follows:
DOROTHY ANN FINCH & others vs. COMMONWEALTH HEALTH
INSURANCE CONNECTOR AUTHORITY SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS 459 Mass. 655; 946 N.E.2d 1262; 2011 Mass. LEXIS
253;
"Where a statute either burdens the exercise of a fundamental right protected
by our State Constitution, or discriminates on the basis of a suspect
classification, th� statute is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. See Blixt v. Blixt,
437 Mass. 649, 655-656, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189,
123 S. Ct. 1259, 154 L. Ed. 2d 1022 (2003) (fundamental right); Lowell v.
Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 666, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980) (suspect classification).
See also Goodridge v. Department ofi Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 330, 798
N.E.2d 941 (2003). All other statutes, which neither burden a fundamental right
nor discriminate on the basis of a suspect classification, are subject to a
rational basis level of judicial scrutiny. See id.; English v. New England Med.
15 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
396
Ctr., Inc., 405 Mass. 423, 428, 541 N.E.2d 329 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
1056, 110 S. Ct. 866, 107 L. Ed. 2d 949 (1990). For equal protection purposes,
"[t]he rational basis test 'includes a requirement that an impartial lawmaker
could logically believe that the.classification would serve a legitimate public
purpose that transcends the harm to the membe�s of the disadvantaged class."'
Id. at 429, quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 452,
105 S. Ct. 3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring). In contrast,
"[t]o pass the strict scrutiny standard, [a State action] must be narrowly
tailored to further a legitimate and compelling governmental inferest and must
� be the least restrictive means available to vindicate that interest."
Commonwealth v. Weston W., 455 Mass. 24, 35, 913 N.E.2d 832 (2009)." ;
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 2326, 120 L. Ed. 2d 1.
"As a general rule, for purposes of the equal protection clause of the Federal
Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, legislatures are presumed to have acted
within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in pr.actice, their laws
result in some inequality; accordingly, unless a classification warrants some
form of heiQhtened review because the cl, assification ieopardizes exercise of a
fundamental right or categorizes on the basis of an inherentiv susqect
characteristic. the equal protection clause requires only that the classification
rationally further a legitimate state interest. ;
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. ed. 1042, �
1045, 29 A.L.R. 1446, the Supreme Court, speaking of the requirement of due
process, said;
, "Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the
right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of life, * * * and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common
law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." And further:
"The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be intertered with,
� under the guise of protecting the public interest by legislative action
which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within
the competency of the state to effect.
"The glory of American law consists in clearly defining not only the causes
wherefore, but the times when, the manner how, and the means whereby, the
personal and property rights of the citizen may be invaded or abridged. Any
enactment which fails to measure up to this standard of certainty is not
American law, and American courts frequently declare statutes void for
uncertainty. State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 378; State v. Railwav Co., 146 Mo. 155.
(� Where discretion exists, uncertainty exists. Matthews v. Murphv, 23 Ky. Law
Rep. 750, 63 S.W. 785; Railroad v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. " Black's
� Constitutionat Law, sec. 105, p. 279; State v. Youna, 29 Minn. 474; "Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, sec. 116. (e)
16 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
397
"Generally, municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such �
powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of
those powers which have been expressly conferred." Man4old Midwest Co. v.
VillaQe of R,ichfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820; �
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowina such aowers, United States ex rel.
Kansas C�ty Southern R: Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act on{v in the mode prescribed bv
statute."
___._
"An agency may r�ot assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essentiaf conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially>comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without siqnificance that most of the provisions of the Bitl
of Ri hts are rocedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rule by !aw and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to stri�t
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there wil{ be equal justice.
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowina such uowers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed by
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
tiberty. "!t is not without sianificance that most of the provisions of the Bill
of Riahts are procedural. It is procedure that spe4ls much of the difference
between rule by law and ru{e by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there wi11 be equal justice."
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath 341 U.S. 123, 179, 72 S.Ct.
624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951).
17 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
398
11. The stated purpose of the Minnesota APA as expressed in Minn. �tat. 14.001 is
as follows:
"The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
(1) to provide oversight of powers and duties delegated to administrative
agencies;
(2) to increase public accountability of administrative agencies;
(3) to ensure a uniform minimum procedure;
(4) to increase public access to governmental information;
_ (5) to increase public participation in the formulation of administrative rules;
(6) to increase the fairness of agencies in their conduct of contested case
proceedings; and
(7) to simplify the process of judicial review of agency action a� well as increase
� its ease and availability.
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair
balance between these purposes and the need for efficient, economical, and
effective government administration. The chapter is not meant to alter the
substantive rights of any person or agency. Its impact is limited to procedural
rights with the expectation that better substantive results will be achieved in the
everyday conduct of state government by improving the process by which those
results are attained."
12. And further, a response to this APA Notice of Contested Case from the City of
` Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions in this instant case is an essential jurisdictional
prerequisite. See Minn. Admin R. 1400.6700 and case law as follows:
"...this is a jurisdictional requirement not subject to waiver by the government.").
� Indeed, this Court has held that "no exceptions" excuse a plaintiff s failure to
comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites of the FTCA. McDevitt v. United
States Postal Serv., 963 F. Supp. 482, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (citing, inter alia,
Peterson, 694 F.2d at 944; Bialowas v. United States, 443 F..2d 1047, 1049 (3d
Cir. 1971)). LUBLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and HOOKS �
VAN HOLM, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-6785 UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23394, April 27, 2006, Decided April 27, 2006, Filed; April 27,
2006, Entered
18 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
399
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without si4nificance that most of the provisions of the Bill
of RiQhts are procedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
. procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice
under law." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,
179, 72 S.Ct. 624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951). Also see McNabb v United States,
318 U.S. 332, 347, 63 S.Ct. 608, 616, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Administrative
authorities are creatures of statute and have onlv such powers as the
statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in accordance
with the statute bestowinq such powers, United States ex rel. Kansas City
Southern R. Co. v. lnterstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178, 64 L ed
717, 40 S Ct 187. and they can act only in the mode prescribed by statute."
(emphasis added) Mahler v. Ebv, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S. Ct. 283:
"[DJue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the
particular situation demands," Morrissey v. grewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S.
481. Resolution of the issue here involving the constitufional su�ciency of
. administrative procedures prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending
review, requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will
be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used, and probable value, if any, of additional
procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the fiscal
and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedures would
entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 332-335. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
"The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the substantive due process rights
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment afford "heightened protection against
government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests."
Washingfon v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 117 S. Ct.
2302, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997). In re the Matter of: Nancy SooHoo, petitioner,
Respondent, vs. Marilyfr� Johnson, Appellant. SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA, 731 N.W.2d 815; 2007 Minn. LEXIS 253, May 10, 2007, Filed.
"However, for the purposes of review, it has been said that clear violations of
law in reaching the result, such as acting without evidence when evidence is
required, or making a decision contrary to all the evidence, are just as much
jurisdictional error as is the failure to take the proper steas to ac4uire
iurisdiction at the beqinninq of the proceedinq" Borgnis v. Falk Co., 147
Wis 327, 133 NW 209, 37 .LRA(NS) 489;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must.be exercised in
19 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
400
accordance with the statute bestowinq such powers. United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev ca� act oniv in the mode prescribed bv
statute."
�
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit �
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 C.CH LC P 35322.
"in a long line of cases, the Court has excused th� petitioner from exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionality of some fieature of agency's decision making process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979); Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 (1976);
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 249,
265 — 267 (1975); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575 (1973); Allen v. Grand
Cen#ral Aircraft Co. 347 U.S. 535 (1954). It is difficult to explain this line of
cases. Sometimes the Court seems to base its decision excusing exhaustion on
the broad princip{e that constitutionai issues are particuiarly deserving of judicial
resolution." Administrative Law Davis, Kenneth Culp Davis 15.5 Constitutional
Right Exception.
{n re Dept. of Enerqy Stripper Wel1 Exemption Litiaation, 578 F.Supp. 586,
certified question answ�red Exxon corp. v U.S. Dept. of Energy, 744 F.2d 98,
certiorari denied Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v Department of Energy, 105 �
s.Ct. 576, 4�69 U.S. 1077, 83 L.Ed.2d 515; "Whete claim before court requires
resolution of issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed within purview
of administrative agency, doctrine of primary jurisdiction may be applied to
suspend judicial process pending referral of such issue to administrative
agency."
, The undersigned herein respectfully submits this APA notice of contested case, and
reserved his rights to: life, liberty and private property; amend his request for a
contested case, and request for discovery as herein made in accordance with the
Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700.
� � .
ALY M.ELABBADY iva e i izen, ames . �ewe
NOTARYPUBLIC-MINNESOTA ithout re udice; b special a earance
IV�,+Commission Expires Jan.31,2ot5 p J Y PP
8 - 8 -- 2014
� � aa��
20 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case �
1 �
, . 401
Affidavit of Service by Personal Service
State of Minnesofia }
} Subscribed and sworn
County Of Anoka }
I, Daniei Hiliman, being first duly sworn, depose and say that in the County of
Hennepin and in the State of Minnesota, on August 8, 2014 10, 2014 the
undersigned served on behalf of James Douglas Kiewel, two APA Notices of
Contested Case directed to: City of Fridley, Planning Manager Julie Jones, and
properly addressed to City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. MN. 55432.
Jurat / Acknowledgment .
State of Minnesota �
} Subscribed, sworn and sealed
County of Anoka }
On, August 8, 2014, Daniel Hilfman, duly sworn, as such deposes, and did personally
appear before me, and is known to be the deponent described in, and who executed, the
forgoing instrument/affidavit of service of process, and acknowledged that he executed
the same under o , his free act a d d d in the above said State and County.
Affiant's si nature C �-�"'�'� � N',��"'a`^ �
9
Address and Phone number of affiant is, 2523 Lynn Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN 55416.
Ph. 612-369-5232. Subscribed and sworn to befiore me the undersigned Notary Public in
the above said State and County.
� ' � Notary Public
ALY M.ELASBADY � � ��/�
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA YJ
My Commisslon Expires Jaa 31,2�f15
r
` ��' t�.
.
402
�!.�j�?� �-
Administrative Procedures Act Notice of Contested Case
James D. Kiewel City of Fridie�y
1627 Rice Creek Road Julie Jones Planning Manager et. al.
Fridley, MN. 55423 Planning and Zoning Division
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN. 55432
Directed to: City of Fridley, Planning Manager Julie Jones:
Re: Fir�t Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 Rice Creek Road
N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423 directed to "Property Owner" and Dated July 09, 2014. (Appx.
1)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627.Rice Creek Road
N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423 directed to "Property Owner" and Dated July{3�J, 2014. (Appx.
2)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1631 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1631 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 11, 2013. (Appx. 3)
Re: First Notice of Noncompliance of the Fridley City Code at 1627 directed to
"Property Owner" at 1627 Rice Creek Road N.E. Fridley, MN. 55423, and Dated
September 12, 2013, (Appx. 4)
Re: Previous Administrative Procedures Act Notice of Contested Case addressing
Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 subject matter, dated 9 — 26 —2013 (Appx 5)
Re: City of Fridley Chapter 205 as cited in your Dated July 09, 2014 first notice.
,Re: N4innesota Administrative Procedures Act Chapter 14 (APA), Minn. Stat. 14.58.
Re: Minnesota Administrative Rules, Minn. Admin. R. 1400.6700.
An Adminis#rative Procedure Act (APA) contested case is:
"*** a proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges
of specific parties are required by law or constitutional right to be determined
after an agency hearing"; ,
AS defined in Minn. Stat. § 14.02 Subd. 3.
1 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
ao3
The purpose of the APA is as set forth in Minn. Stat. § 14.001 �as quoted herein,
section 11.
1 . The first notice(s) as are dated July 09, 2014 and as have been identified by
this petitioner as (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2) are the two administrative notices sent to this
petitioner dated July 09, 2014. These two administrative notices seem to address the
same subject matter as the previously issued administrative notices as have herein
been identi�ed by this petitioner as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) -- Appx 3 dated September
11, 201.3, and -- Appx 4 dated September 12, 2013. In response to the previously
issued administrative notices herein identified as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4), dated
September 12, 2013, this petitioner had on 9 — 26 — 2013 previously directed a
petition for an APA contested c�se herein identified as (Appx. 5) regarding the same
subject matter as are now�addressed in what are stated tq be first notices - (Appx.1)
and (Appx. 2) both dated July 09, 2014, although your administration has not sent this
petitioner any correspondence stating that the previous September 11, 2013 (Appx.3)
and (Appx. 4) had been dismissed. Accordingly this petitioner now proceeds with this
petition for an APA contested case in response to all matters as have been addressed
by the first notices as issued September 11 and September 12 of 2013 herein
identified as (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) and the petition in response as properly served on
9 — 26 — 2013 identified as Appx 5, and the first notices dated July 09, 2014 and
herein identified as (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2).
2. This respondent and private Minnesota state Citizen is currently the private
property owner of the private home at 1627 Rice Creek Road, and of the private home
at 1631 Rice Cree.k Road, however this respondent is not a resident agent of the
corporate state of Minneso#a or political subdivision created or organized by a state or
Federal government, nor is this respondent an officer or employee of a state or the
Federal government. This respondent is a Citizen of the state of Minnesota and not a
resident in the corporate sense, nor is his private home a residence in the corporate
sense, nor is he or his private home in the corporate State of Minnesota. This
respondent is not the "City" -- an agent of the "City" nor is this respondents private
property a public building or regulated licensed facility and as such, not within the
2 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
404
Corporate in rem jurisdiction of the City of Fridley. This respondent is a natural born
state Citizen proceeding (sui juris), living in Anoka County, and is a Minnesota state
Citizen and a such proceeds with this request for agency administrative due process
by special appearance, in propria persona, proceeding at law in summo jure, jus
regium, and proceeds as such without conferring nor consenting to any ministerial
strict liability statutory jurisdiction. This Minnesota state Citizen under Minnesota
Constitution Article VI. Sec. 1 and 5, ["judicial Power"] willfully enforees all
constitutional limitations and prohibitions under Minnesota Constitution Article I.
against asserted quasi ministerial jurisdictional capacity,.summary proceeding and
plaintiffs or prosecution and other interested officers, officials, parties and employees
operating in their respective political corporate artificial capacities as they are within
the said coun�y, �city, and state. Fo�,further clarificati;on se� HALE v. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, quoted as follows: •
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights �s a citizen. He is
entitled to carry on his private business in his own way,. His power to contract is
unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his
business; or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to
criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing
therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as
existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,
and can o�nly be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with
the Constitution." �
� Citv of Dallas et al. v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944; "The rights of the individual are
not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state, federal, or
even from the Constitution, but they exist inherently in every man, and are
merely reaffirmed in the Constitution and restricted only to the extent they have
been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government."
3. This petitioner and private�home owner and Minnesota state Citizen, having
made the above statement in section 2, to be clear, does not make the claim that the
City of Fridley has no power to rea�onable regulate this petitioner's private�property.
This private home owner does however here'in question whether your notices and
your administration address a proper strict interpretation of the ordinances therein
cited, and the scope and purview of the ordinances therein cited, and further
questions the standard of scrutiny sought to be implemented by the City, and whether
3 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
- 405
that standard of scrutiny is one of strict scrutiny or rational basis, and whether one, the
other, or both were anticipated by the City council prior to the passage of the
ordinances as cited in the July 09, 2014 (Appx. 1) and (Appx 2) first notices of
Noncompliance and the previous first notices sent in September of 2013 -- (Appx. 3)
and (Appx. 4). This petitioner herein requests that: if your administration does not
agree with the statement made in se�tion 2 regarding this petitioner's private status,
that your adm�nistration rebut the statement in writing, or agree that your
administration has accepted the statement as fact stipulated by silence in accordance
with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6800. .
4. Fridley City Code section 205.05 (10) is the section that provides for a penalty
imposed under Fridley City Code section 205 as sited by the July 09, 2014 (Appx. 1)
and (Appx 2) first notices of Noncompliance and the previous first notices dated
September 11, 2013 (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4� quoted below as follows:
"The owner of a building or premises in or upon which a violation of any
provisions of this Chapter has been committed, or shall exist; or the lessee of
the entire building or entire premises in or upon which a violation has been
committed or shall exist; or the owner or lessee of any part of the building, or
premises in or upon which such violation has been committed or shall exist,
shall be guilty of a misderrreanor, and subject to all penalties provided�for such
violations under the provision of Chapter 901 of this Code each and every day
that such violation continues. Any such person who, having been served with
an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order to
remove any such violation, within ten (10) days after such service, or shall
continue to violate any provisions of the regulations made under authority of this
Chapter in the respect named in such order shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of
Chapter 901 of this Code. Each day that such violation continues shall be a
separate violation"
Fridley City Code section 2Q5.05 (101 provides that owners whom as such, are
� persons is violation of Chapter 205 shall be subject penalties as are strictly imposed
on persons as provided by Fridley City Code chapter 901. 901: A provide as follows:
"Every ep rson who violates this Code is subject to all penalties provided for
� such violation. Except where a different, specific or more particular penalty is
4 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
406
or terminated -- a particular power specificaliy referred to in the section of the
present act -- is but a part of the larger and more comprehensive power
conferred by the more general language of the immediately preceding clause of
the section."
In Dumas v. Boulin (La..) McGloin, 274, 278, it is pointed out that the word
"include" [**18] . has two shades of ineaning. The court says: "'Include' * * *
has * '` * finro shades of* * * meaning. It may apply where that which is affected
is the only thing included, * * * and it is also used to express the idea, that the
thing in question constitutes a part only of the contents of some other thing." It is
more commonly used in ttie latter sense.
That the word "include�"-is a word of enlargement is held in Fraser v. Bentel et .
Stinson, 5 Minn. 522; Calhoun v. Memphis & P.R. Co., 4 Fed. Cas. 1045, No.
2309. •
�,, , � ,
Perhaps the most lucid�staterx�ent the books afford on the subject is in Blanck et
al. v. Pioneer Mining Co. et al., 93 Wash. 26, 30, 159 P. 1077, 1079, namely:
"The word 'including' is,a term of enlargement and not a term of limitation, and
necessarily implies that something is intended to be embraced in the permitted
deductions beyond the general language which precedes it. But, granting that
the word 'including' is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only
pertorms thafi office by introducing the specific elements constituting the
enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited
preceding general language. * * '� The word 'including' introduces [**19] an
enlarging definition of the preceding general words, 'actual cost of the labor,'
thus of necessity excluding the idea of a further enlargement than that furnished
by the enlarging claus��o introduced. When read in its immediate context, as
on all authority it must be read, the word 'including' is obviously used in the
sense of its synonyms 'comprising; comprehending; embracing."'
5. And further, the first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word
individual as within�other specific enumerated things within the class defined therein
and therefore should be strictlq read in accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis --
the rule of statutory construction where generat words following a designation of
particular subjects or classes or persons, the meaning of the general words will
ordinarily be presumed to be restricted by the particular designation, and to include
only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those specifically
enumerated. .
8 of 20,APA Noti�:e of Contested Case
407
it is defined by Webster as follows: "To comprehend or comprise, as a genus of
the species, the whole a part, an argument or reason the inference; to take or
reckon in; to contain; embrace; as, this volume includes the essays; to and
including the tenth." °
The Century Dictionary defines "including" thus: "To comprise as a part."
Perhaps the most interesting discussion of the word:"inciuding" is found in
Montello Sa1t Co. v. State of Utah, 221 U.S. 452, 31 S: Ct. 706, 55 L. Ed. 810,
Ann. Cas. 1912D, 633. There the court referred to and diseussed some of the
cases where the word "including" had been under consideration. For instance,
the court pointed out in Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, that a legacy [**16]
of$100, "inciuding money trusteed at a certain bank," could not be construed as
meaning that the sum of$100 was in addition to the sum in bank. Also in
Henry's Executor v. Henry's �`G31] Executo�, 81 Ky. 342, "a bequest of$14,000,
'including certain notes,"w�s held to mean that the notes formed a part of the
$14,000, and were not.�n addition thereto." Also the case of Neher v. McCook
County, 1_1 S.D. 422, 78 N,W. 998, where "it was held that a certain section of
the laws of the state, which provided that the sheriff s fees should be $ 16 for
summoning a jury, 'including mileage,' did not entitle him to mileage in addition
to the $ 16." And the Supreme Court, after its reference to these cases, says of
the case before it: "The court also considered that the word 'including' was used
as a word of enlargement, the learned court being of opinion that such was its
ordinary sense. With this we cannot concur. It is its exceptional sense, as the
dictionaries and cases indicate. We may concede to 'and' the additive power
attributed to it." We refer to a few other cases.
In Sullivan Machinery Co. v. United States (C.C.) 168 F. 561, the word
"including," used in the Tariff Act (30 [**17] Stat. 197), was construed as a
word of addition. In Maben v. Rosser, 24 Okl. 588, 593, 103 P. 674, 676, the
court, discussing the meaning of the word "including," says: "This word has also
been defined as having an accumulative sense, and as classing that which
follows with that which has gone before." * * * .
In Kennedy v. Industria{ Accident Commission of California et a{., 50 Ca1. App.
184, 194, 195 P. 267, 271, the court says: "'Including' is not a word of limitation.
Rather it is a word of enlargement, and in ordinary signi�cation implies that
something else has been given beyond the general language that precedes it. *
* * As here employed, the word 'incfuding' is used to express the idea that the
specific power to review, grant or regrant, diminish, increase, or terminate an
award, upon the ground that the disability has recurred, increased, diminished,
7 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
408
are limited as oniy "inciuding any executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
representative appointed by law." Therein City Code section 903.01: 2 D paragraph
one, it is the petitioners contention that the word includes and including are words of
exclusion and limitation as established by the rule of stare dicisis within the of
following cases:
Helverinq v. Moraan's, Inc., 293 US 121, pp. 124 - 126, 79 L Ed 232, pp. 235
— 236 "The provision that the term "taxable year" "includes" the period of
less than twetve months for which a separate return is made; when read only
with its immediate [293 US 125] context, is not free from ambiguity. it may be
admitted that the term "includes" may sometimes be taken as
synonymous with "means," * * * But the phraseology is also open to the
construction that the word "includes" is used as the equivalent of
"comprehends" or "embraces," and that by it the section mereiy adopts a
familiar device in aid of statutory construction, by providing that wherever other
sections refer to a "taxable year" that phrase may, if the context requires, be
taken a{so to refer to or to "include" a fractiona{ part of that taxable year, for
which a separate return is made."
Montello Salt Co. v. Utah., 221 U.S. 452, pp. 466 - 467, 55 L. Ed. 810, p. 815;
"It is the participle of the word "inc{ude," which means, according to the
definition of the Century Dictionary, (1� "to confine within something; hold as in
an inclosure; inciose; contain." (2) "To comprise as a part; or as something
incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes�the less; . . .
the;Roman Empire included many nations."
Red Winq Maltinq Co. v. Willcuts, Coflector of {nterna{ Revenue 15 F.2d
626, 630, 631; 1926 U.S. App. Lexis 2958; 6 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 6360; 49 A.L.R.
459: "The meaning of the word "including," as used in the statute, is important.
It evidently refers to the preceding part of the subsection, and must be
recognized as occupying a significant and important p{ace. ft cannot be
brushed aside and ignored. This court should not attempt to write new
language into the statute, nor ignore language there used, but must endeavor,
from the language of the statute itself, [**15] to arrive at the meaning of the
Congress. This word has received considerable discussion in opinions of the
courts. It has been productive of much controversy.
The word "inciude" is defined in the New Standard Dictionary as foflows: "(1) To
comprise, comprehend or to embrace as a component part, item or member;
as, this volume includes all his works; the bill includes his last purchase; (2) to
inclose within; contain; confine; as, an oyster she{{ sometimes includes a pearl."
6 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
409
� provided or allowed with respect to any offense, any ep rson guilty of a violation
of this Code shall upon conviction of such offense, be fined in an amount not to
exceed the maximum fine as authorized by Minnesota State Statute 609.034 or
be imprisoned in jail for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days or both for each
offense of which such. ep rson is convicted."
While Fridley City Code chapters 901 and 205 do not define the special term "person'
as used therein Fridley City Code section 903.01: 2 D defines and identifies the strict
definition of the special term a "person" upon whom penalties may imposed for a
violation of Fridley City Code Chapter 205 strictly, as follows:
"Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or
other group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee,
receiver or other representative appointed by law."
"Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partne�ship, firm
or corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation."
It is this petitioners contention that when strictly reading the special term "person" as
used in Fridley City Code Chapters 205, 901 and as defined in chapter 903.01 the
following case law and cannons of strict construction should be rigorously applied, as
follows:
"Whenever any property or interest is intended to be protected and the term
"person" is used to designate the party whose property it is intended to protect,
the terms includes the property of the State and of all public or private �
corporations. On the other hand, if the use of the term "person" identi�es the
party against whom a violation is charged, it is strictly construed." Texas
Department of Transportation, v. Ci#y of Floresville Electric Power & Light
System 53 S.W.3d 447; 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 4220.
The first paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D uses the word individual without
stating what an individual is, however if the law therein is read strictly, first in
accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08 Subd. (2) and Fridley City Code section 205.03
wherein: "***the singular includes [means] the plural***", one�can see that the word
"individual' as used therein includes more than an individual human person as might
be erroneously surmised by the less critical reader. And further the first paragraph City
Code section 903.01 : 2 D goes on to state that the list of entities enumerated therein
5 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
410
7. It is this petitioner posifiion that he is not a privileged person and individual
owing a duty to your administration, and he is not in business nor does he act in
=concert with any privileged entity and business. It is therefore that this respondent
herein makes the following requests in accordance with Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700 in
an effort to establish, and prove, that the respondent is not lawfully classified as the
subject of the special law as cited in your administrative notices. The respondent
herein states this position be�ause the respondent realizes -- as held and stated in,
Masters v. Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (C1-99-1302
No.) that the term "special legisl�tion" is reserved for legislation that is "so uatentiv
arbitrarv as to demonstrate�constitutional evasion". In an effort to meet the
burden of proving that the respondent is not the specially defined person to whom the �
ordinances cited can lawfull�.b,� directed and enforced the respondent herein makes
the following request:
a. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that this petitioner is, or is not a person as specially defined in City of Fridley
ordinance chapters 205,�901 and section 903.01: 2; D as can, or cannot be
identified by rules of strict construction, and that by such strict construction this
Minnesota state Citizen, although a natural person is in fact a natural person of
the privileged class and individual identified in ordinance chapters 205, 901 and
section 903.01: 2; D as can lawfully be identified as similar in classification to
the privileged or legal fictions therein by the rule of noscitur a sociis and as
those sections should be strictly read, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 645.08
Subd. (2) Fridley City Code section 205.03 wherein: "***the singular includes
[means] the plural�`**" (A5 in the portion of those definitions that use the word
individual) and as further strictly read in accordance with the rule (ejusdem
generis), wherein; � �
"The principal underlying rule of ejusdem generis is that the legislature
had in mind things of the same kind and was speaking of them as a
class." Foley v. Whelan, 219 Minn. 209, 216,
"The limiting principle of ejusdem generis has particular force with
respect to criminal statutes, which courts are compelled to construe
rigorously in order to protect unsuspecting citizens from being ensnared
10 of 20,APA Notice of Cor�tested Case
411
6. And further the second paragraph of City Code section 903.01: 2 D goes on
further to define the strict class of person over whom a penalty can be imposed and
clearly states as foliows:
°Whenever the word "person" is used in any section prescribing a penalty or
fine, it includes [means] the partners or any members of any partnership, firm or
corporation and as to a corporation, the officers, agents or members thereof
who are responsible for the violation."
An interpretation that a private Minnesota state Citizen is included within this definition
.�; _. .
is inconsistent with United States Constitution article 4, § 2, and 14th Amendment. See
as follows: �
ORIENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. DAGGS, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, 172� U.S. 557; 19 S. Ct. 281; 43 L. Ed. 552; 1899. "A
corporation is not a ci�rz�n within the meaning of the provision, and hence has
not "privileges and immunities" secured to "citizens" against state legislation."
BRACEY et al. v. DARS�, State Auditor of West Virginia, et al. District Court,
N.D. West Virginia, 218 F. 482; 1914 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409, December 5,
1914. "As we will point.out later on, the power of the Legislature to "requlate"
the business operations of corporations and th�se of individuals are vastiv
different based uqon th=e fiact that individuals under article 4, � 2, of the federal
Constitution are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all privileqes and immunities of
citizens in the several-states," while corporations are not. So this contention
must hark back, at las�;to the one that the true intent of the Legislature was that
this act should only be made applicable to corporations.*** It is true that the first
section of the statute in designating those to be subject to its provisions uses
the singular "individual"; but under the well-known rule the court should hold the
plural to have been intended when that construction is required by the context
as in this instance, and especially where it will aid in sustaining the vatidity of
the statute. *�`*** How can yow have an "unincorporated" corporation? How can
you have an "organized" individual? If vou sav the word "individual" should
be iudiciallv construed out of the act and it should be held applicable onlv
to corporations and to "individuals actinq in concert bv orctanization," the
objections to it are just as valid as if the word "individual" be allowed to remain
for the legal rights, under the federal and state Constitutions, by reason of
personal citizenship, attach to every individual just as fully, if he conducts a
legitimate and lawful business alone, or by association with other individuals.
As 'vue will point out later on, the power of the Leqislature to "reQUlate" the
business operations of corporations and those of individuals are vastiv
different, based.upon the fact that individuals, under article 4, � 2, of the
federal Constitution, are "citizens" of a state "entitled to all privileqes and
immunities of citizens in the several states." while corporations are not."
9 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
412
by ambiguous statutory language. See, e. g., Mourning v. Family
Publications�Service, Inc., 1973, 411 U.S. 356, 375, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36
L.Ed.2d 318; United States v. Campos-Serrano, 1971, 404 U.S. 293, 297-
298, 92 S.Ct. 471, 30 L.Ed.2d 457; United States v. Clark, 5 Cir. 1969,
412 F.2d 885, 890." UNITED STATES v. INSCO, 496 F.2d 204 (1974)
"In accordance with the rule of ejusdem generis, such terms as "other,"
"other thing," "other persons,'• "others," "otherwise," or "any other," when
preceded by a specific enumeration, are commonly given a restricted
meaning, and limited tQ articles of the same nature as those previously
� described." See United States v Chase, 135 US 255, 34 L Ed 117, 10 S
Ct 756; Re Mosby's Appeal, 360 Mich 186, 103 NW2d 462; Derk v Zerbe
Twp. 322 Pa 350,� �85 A 647.
b. This respondent herein requests any and all evidence necessary to prove
that the respondent knowingly, willingly and intentional surrendered his sui juris
status as Minnesota state Citizen and excepted the status of privileged
�.,-
individual legal person as defined in City of Fridley ordinance chapters 205, 901
and section 903.01: 2; D, upon notice served and presented to this respondent,
with complete and proper notice as required by Minnesota Statute 13.04 subd.
2 (Tennessen warning).
c. This respondent h�erein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205 and
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a matter of strict scrutiny.
d. This respondent herein requests all studies and investigative reports the
city council first considered prior to the passage of City Code Chapter 205
section 205.04.4.1 requiring land alteration permits, therein relied upon by the
city council to establishing that such permits would in fact be necessary for the
implementation of the police powers as a m�tter of rational basis.
e. This respondent herein requests all reports considered by the city council
prescribing how City Code section 205.04.4.1 could lawfully be implemented
upon both, the regulated created or organized privileged legal entity and their
11 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
, 413
i
property regulated as a matter of rational basis, and the private home owner
and his private property under the least restrictive strict scrutiny standard of
regulation without transgression of the equal treatment guaranteed to the
private Minnesota state citizens by the United States Constitution's article 4, §
2, and 14th amendment as is a specific condition placed upon the council as a
condition placed of their authority as mandated by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd,
32, United State constitution 6th, 14th and Article VI Clause 11 (Supremacy
Clause), and Minnesota:Constitution Articles 1 sections 6, 7.
f. The names and�addresses of all witnesses that the City of Fridley
Planning and Zoning Divisions intends to call at the APA contested case
hearing, along with a brief summary of each witness' testimony. All witnesses
unknown at �he time ofi said disclosure shall be disclosed as soon as they �
become known.
g. Any relevant written or recorded statements made by the City of Fridley
Planning and Zoning Divisions or witnesses on behalf of th� City of Fridley
planning and Zoning Divisions.
h. All written exhibits to be introduced at the APA contested case hearing.
i. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that this
Minnesota state Citizen is: an officer of the city or the state of Minnesota; an
employee of the city, or the state of Minnesota; an agent of the city, or of the
state of Minnesota or legally created or organized legal entity upon whom the
� city of Fridley can compel performance otherwise in derogation of his
fundamental rights as a Minnesota state citizen, and citizen of the United
States.
j. Any evidence that notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
� properly served or acknowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions, will rely to prove that this Minnesota
state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as such he is also one of the
� forgoing: individual, firm, corporation, partnership, association, organization or
12 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case �
414
other group acting as a unit, including any executor, administrator, trustee,
receiver or pther representative appointed by law. as defined in Fridtey Property
�Maintenance and Licensing Code, definitions section 903 (2) D and as used in =
City of Fridley Planning and Zoning Divisions for the implementation chapter
205, and that this Minnesota state Citizen accepted the status of person defined
therein and has availed himself of the benefit of that privileged status upon
notice served. - .
k. Any evidence tha���notices and Tennessen warning have or have not been
properly served or ackhowledged (Minn. Stat. 13.04), upon which the City of
Fridley Planning and Z�otiing Divisions, will rely on to prove that this Minnesota
state Citizen is a privileged natural person and that as such he is also one who
enjoys the privileged of'�cting in concert with a firm, corporation, partnership,
association, organization or other group acting as a unit, including any executor,
administrator, trustee, receiver or other representative appointed by law, and as
such is an included: partners or members of any partnership, firm or
corporation or the officers, agents or members of a corporation and as is a
person defined in City. .of Fridley ordinance definitions section 903.01: 2 D,
responsible for the cited violations and as such this Minnesota state Citizen
accepted the status of-person defined therein and has availed himself of the
.benefit of that privileged status upon notice served.
� I. And further: any evidence that notices or Tennessen warning have been
properly served, (Minn. Stat. 13.04) upon which the City of Fridley Planning and
Zoning Divisions, will rely to prove that this Minnesota state Citizen is by his
acknowledgement a privileged person as defined in the Minnesota Data
Practices Act Chapter 1�, section 13.02 Subd. 10, or City of Fridley ordinances
section 903.01 : 2 D or ar�y other special definition of person applicable to City of
Fridley ordinance Chapter 205.
m. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
205 of the Fridley Property Maintenance is necessary as a matter of strict
scrutinv, and was drafted and passed by the counsel for the purpose of
13 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
415
furthering a compelling governmental interest; as is consistent with their
statutory authority under Minn: Stat. 412.221 Subd 32, and as is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state,
and further that the ordinances drafted impose the least restrictive means of
regulating the Citizens private property.
n. Any and all evidence upon which the city will rely to prove that Chapter
205 of the Fridley Property Maintenance is necessary as a matter of rational
bases, and was drafted�and passed by the counsel for the purpose of furthering
a compelling governm�ntal interest, as is consistent with their statutory authority
under Minn. Stat. 41��.221 Subd 32, and as is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws�of fihe United States or of this state, and further that the
ordinances drafted im�bse the least restrictive means of regulating the Citizens
private property. '
o. This respondenf'herein requests that you specifically identify the specific
office, commission and person having primary authority and primary jurisdiction
in the matters presented in your administrative notices.
8. The July 09, 2014 "First Notice of Noncompliance" (s) (Appx.1) and (Appx. 2)
and the September 11, 2013 and September 12, 2013 - "First Notice of
Noncompliance" (s) (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) cites as authority and your stated position
for noncompliance Fridley ordinance Chapter 205 section "205.04.4.1". After having
read this zoning ordinance, in this respondents view, section 205.04.4.1 (3) A (a�
makes it clear that—"A qradinq and drainaqe plan is not re4uired for, `�`**
individual residential landsca�pinq"!
9. And further this petitioner, private home owner and Minnesota state Citizen
questions whether or not the ordinances cited in the July 09, 2014 "First Notice of
Noncompliance"(s) (Appx.1)�and (Appx. 2) and the September 11 and September 12
2013 "First Notice of Noncom�liance"(s) (Appx.3) and (Appx. 4) can apply to both the
privileged owner (created or organized), and this non privileged private property owner
alike without transcending any issues of desperate treatrnent not authorized by the
14 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
416
Charter for the City of Fridiey or constitutional permitted by the Minnesota state
Constitution, or the United States Constitution as is a condition placed upon the
authority of your city council by Minn. Stat. 412.221 Subd, 32.
10. An administration that seeks to regulate the private citizens, whose status as
citizen are not embraced within the special definition of person found in Fridley
Planning and Zoning Regulations Chapter 205, Chapter 901 or Chapter 903 imposes
a disparity upon #he private citizens whom are not to be found within a defined,
created, or organized privileged class. Private citizens are only, if necessary, to be
regulated by the least restrictive means under a strict scrutiny standard, whereas the
defined privileged class of person are on a less firm footing, under a rational basis
standard whereupon an admin.is�ration is at liberiy, to treat such defined privileged
persons desperately and un�qu�lly if such unequal treatment can be rationalized in
the interest of the public heal.th, safety, and welfare. A proceeding as such, upon a
private state citizen whose rig�hts a privileges are secured under the United States
constitution Article 4 § 2 without explanation as a matter of strict scrutiny, transcends
due process and equal protection of the law, as protected by the United States
�Constitution's 4tn, 5tn, 6tn, 14th; amendments, Article VI Clause II (Supremacy Clause),
and Minnesota Constitution �4rticles 1 sections 2, 6, 7 as set forth in Minn. Stat.
412.221 § Subd, 32. See as;fAllows:
DOROTHY ANN FINCH' & others vs. COMMONWEALTH HEALTH
INSURANCE CONNECTOR AUTHORITY SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS 459 Mass. 655; 946 N.E.2d 1262; 2011 Mass. LEXIS
253; �
"Where a statute either.burdens the exercise of a fundamental right protected
by our State Constitution, or discriminates on the basis of a suspect
classifrcation, the statute is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. See Blixt v. Bli�,
437 Mass. 649, 655-656, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S._1189,
123 S. Ct. 1259, 154 L. Ed. 2d 1022 (2003) (fundamental right); Lowell v.
Kowalski, 380 Mass. 6.63, 666, 405 N.E.2d 135 (1980) (suspect classification).
See also Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass: 309, 330, 798
N.E.2d 941 (2003). All other statutes, which neither burden a fundamental right
nor discriminate on the basis of a suspect classification, are subject to a
rational basis level of judicial scrutiny. See id.; English v. New England Med.
15 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
417
Ctr., Inc., 405 Mass. 423, 428, 541 N.E.2d 329 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
1056, 110 S. Ct. 866, 107 L. Ed. 2d 949 (1990). For equal protection purposes,
"[t]he rational basis test 'inciudes a requirement that an impartial lawmaker
could logically believe that tMe classification would serve a legitimate public
purpose that transcends the harm to the members of the disadvantaged class."'
Id. at 429, quoting Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 452,
105 S. Ct. 3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1985) (Stevens, J., con�urring). In contrast,
"[t]o pass the strict scrutiny standard, [a State action] must be narrowly
tailored to further a legitimate and cpmpelling governmental interest and must
be the least restrictive means available to vindicate that interest."
Commonwealth v. Weston W., 455 Mass. 24, 35, 913 N.E.2d 832 (2009)." ;
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 2326, 120 L. Ed. 2d 1.
"As a general rule, for purposes of the equal pcotection clause of the Federal
Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, legislatures are presu.med to have acted
within their constitutional��ower despite the fact that, in practice, their laws
result in some inequal�ty; accordingly, unless a classification warrants some
� form of heiqhtened review because the classification ieopardizes exercise of a
fundamental riQht or cat�orizes on the basis of an inherently suspect
characteristic, the equal �rotection clause requires only that the classification
rationally further a legitimate state interest. ;
In Meyer v. Nebraska, �62 U.S. 390, �99, 43 S. Ct. 625, 626, 67 L. ed. 1042,
1045, 29 A.L.R. 1446, the Supreme Court, speaking of the requirement of due
process, said:
"Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the
right of the individual to��contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of life, * * * and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common
law as essential to the��orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." And further:
"The established doctrfne is that this liberty may not be interfered with,
under the guise of protecting the pubtic interest by legislative action
which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within
the competency of the state to effect.
"The glory of American law consists in clearly defining not only the causes
wherefore, but the times when, the manner how, and the means whereby, the
personal and property rights of the citizen may be invaded or abridged. Any
enactment which fails to measure up to this standard of certainty is not
American law, and American courts frequently declare statutes void for
uncertainty. State v. AsMbrook, 154 Mo. 378; State v. Railwav Co., 146 Mo. 155.
(fl Where discretion exi�sts, uncertainty exists. Matthews v. Murphv, 23 Ky. Law
Rep. 750, 63 S.W. 785; Railroad v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. " Black's
Constitutional Law, sec. 105, p. 279; State v. Youna, 29 Minn. 474; "Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, sec. 116. (e)
16 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
418
"Generaliy, municipalities have no inherent powers.and possess only such
powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of �
those powers which have been expressly conferred." Manaold Midwest Co. v.
�IlaQe of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820;
"Administrative au#horities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
accordance with the statute bestowin4 such�powers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Cornmission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the rnode arescribed bv
statute." -
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA O�HC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that wher�-�an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantiall�e.pr�ply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is not without siqnificance that most of the provisions of the Bill
of Riqhts are procedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rule by law and�rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice.
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such
powers as the statute �o�#ers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
accordance with the�statute bestowinq such powers. United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern F��: �o. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187�.`and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may.not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and..regularity are of the indispensable essence of
liberiy. "It is not without.siqnificance that most of the provisions of the Bill
of Riahts are procedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal j�tstice."
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath 341 U.S. 123, 179, 72 S.Ct.
624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951).
17 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
419 �
11. The stated purpose of the Minnesota APA as expressed in Minn. Stat. 14.001 is
as foflows:
"The purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act are:
(1) to provide oversight of powers and duties delegated to administrative
agencies;
(2}to increase public accountabifity of administrative agencies;
j3)to ensure a uniform minimum procedure;
(4) to increase public access to governmental information;
(5) to increase public par#icipation in the formulation of administrative rules;
(6) to increase the fairr�ess of agencies in their conduct of contested case
proceedings; and
(7) to simplify the process•of judicial review of agency action as well as increase
its ease and availability.
In accomplishing its objectives, the intention of this chapter is to strike a fair
bafance between these. purposes and the need for e�cient, economical, and
effective government administration. The chapter is not meant to alter the
substantive rights of any person or agency. Its impact is limited to procedural
rights with the expectation that better substantive �esults will be achieved in the
everyday conduct of state government by improving the process by which those
results are attained." .
12. And further, a response to this APA Notice of Contested Case from the City of
Fridley�Planning and Zoning Divisions in this instant case is an essential jurisdictional
prerequisite. See Minn. Admin R. 1400.6700 and case law as follows:
"...this is a jurisdictional.requirement not subject to waiver by the government."),
Indeed, this Court has held that "no exceptions" excuse a plaintiffs failure to
comply with the jurisdictianal prerequisites of the FTCA. McDevitt v. United
States Postal Serv., 963 F. Supp. 482, 484 (E.D. Pa. 1997} (citing, inter alia,
Peterson, 694 F.2d at 944; Bialowas v. United States, 443 F.2d 1047, 1049 (3d
Cir. 1971)). LUBLIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, and HOOKS
VAN HOLM, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-6785 UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23394, April 27, 2006, Decided April 27, 2006, Filed; April 27,
2006, Entered
18 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
420
�
�
'
"It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power
he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise.
Procedural fairness and regularity are of tlie indispensable essence of
liberty. "It is r�ot without si�nificance that most of the provisions of the Bill
of Riqhts are procedural. It is procedure that spells much of the difference
between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict
procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice
under law." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v McGrath, 341 U.S. 123,
179, 72 S.Ct. 624, 652, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951), Also see McNabb v United States,
318 U.S. 332, 347, 63 S.Ct. 608, 616, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943). Administrative
authorities are creatures of statute and have onlv such powers as the
statute confers on ther"�n. Their powers must be exercised in accordance
with the statute bestbwifnu such powers, United States ex rel. Kansas City
Southern R. Co. v. Interstate �ommerce Commission, 252 US 178, 64 L ed
717, 40 S Ct 187. and���iey can act only in the mode prescribed by statute."
(emphasis added) Ma�ler;�. Ebv, 264 U.S. 32, 44 S. Ct. 283.
.!nr .. •
"[D]ue process is flexi�Fe and calls for such procedural protections as the
particular situation demands," Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 408 U. S. i,
481. Resolution of the issue here involving the constitutional sufficiency of '
. administrative procedures prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending
review, requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private interest that will
be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such �
interest through the procedures used, and probable vafue, if any, of additional j
procedural safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the fis.cal I
and administrative burd�ens that the additional or substitute procedures would
entail. Pp. 424 U. S. 33���35. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
"The U.S. Supreme Cotrrt has explained that the substantive due process rights
provided by the Fourteenth Amendment afford "heightened protection against
govemment interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests."
Washington v. Glucksbetg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 117 S. Ct.
2302, 138 L. Ed. 2d 77�2 (1997). In re the Matter of: Nancy SooHoo, petitioner,
Respondent, vs. Marilyn��Johnson, Appella�t. SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA, 731 N.W:2d 815; 2007 Minn. LEXIS 253, May 10, 2007, Filed.
"However, for the purpo.ses of review, it has been said #hat clear violations of
law in reaching the resu�lt-, such as acting without evidence when evidence is
required, or making a decision contrary to all the evidence, are just as much
jurisdictional error as is tfie failure to take the proper steas to acauire
�urisdiction at the beainninq of the proceedinq" Borgnis v. Falk Co., 147
Wis 327, 133 NW 209, 37 LRA(NS) 489;
"Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have onfy such
powers as the statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in
19 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
421
accordance with the statute bestowina such aowers, United States ex rel.
KansaS City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act onlv in the mode prescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and at the same time
disregard the essential conditions imposed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 11fl S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481 , 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"In a long line of cases, the Court has excused the petitioner fr�m exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionality of some feature of agency's decision making process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979); Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 (1976);
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 249,
265 — 267 (1975); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575 (1973); Allen v. Grand
Central Aircraft Co. 347 U.S. 535 (1954). It is difficult to explain this line of
cases. Sometimes the Court seems to base its decision excusing exhaus#ion on
the broad principle that constitutional issues are particularly deserving of judicial
resolution." Adrninistrative Law Davis, Kenneth Culp Davis 15.5 Constitutional
Right Exception.
In re Dept. of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Liti�ation, 578 F.Supp. 586,
certified question answered Exxon corp. v U.S. Dept. of Energy, 744 F.2d 98,
certiorari denied Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v Department of Energy, 105
s.Ct. 576, 469 U.S. 1077, 83 L.Ed.2d 515; "Where claim before court requires
resolution of issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed within purview
of administrative agency, doctrine of prirnary jurisdiction may be applied to
suspend judicial process pending referral of such issue to administrafiive
agency."
The undersigned herein respectfully submits this APA notice of contested case, and
reserved his rights to: life, liberty and private property; amend his request for a
contested case, and request for discovery as herein made in accordance with the
Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700.
riva e i izen, ames . iewe
Without prejudice; by special appearance
8 - 8 -- 2014
20 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
` 422
accordance with the statute�bestowinq such powers, United States ex rel.
Kansas City Southern R. Co..v. Interstate Commerce Cornmission, 252 US 178,
� fi4 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187. and thev can act oniv in the rnode prescribed bv
statute."
"An agency may not assert the general power given to it and a# the same time
disregard the essential conditions impo�ed upon its exercise. See Adams Fruit
Co. v. Barrett, 494 US 638, 108 L Ed 2d 585, 110 S Ct 1384, 14 BNA OSHC
1481, 114 CCH LC P 35322.
"In a long line of cases, t�ie Court has excused the petitioner from exhausting
available administrative remedies when the petitioner challenges
constitutionality of some feature of agency's decision making process. Barry v.
Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 63 n. 10 (1979); Mathews v. Dias, 426 U.S. 67 (1976);
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Weinberger v. Salfi, �422 U.S. 249,
265 — 267 (1975); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 575 (1973); Allen v. Grand
, Central Aircraft Co. 347 U.S. 535 (1954), It is difficult to explain this line of
cases. Sometimes the Court seEms.to base its decision excusing exhaustion on
the broad principle that constitutional issues are particularly deserving of judicial
resolution." Administrative Law Davis, Kenneth Culp Davis 15.5 Constitutional
Right Exception. .
In re Dept. of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Litiqation, 578 F.Supp. 586,
certified question answered Exxon corp. v U.S. Dept. of Energy, 744 F.2d 98,
certiorari denied Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v Department of Energy, 105
�.Ct. 576, 4�69 U.S. 1077, 83 L.Ed.2d 515; "Where claim before court requires
resolution of issues which, under regulatory scheme, are placed within purview
of administr�ative agency,�doctrine�of primary jurisdiction may be applied to
suspend judicial process pending referral of such issue to administrative
agency."
The undersigned herein respectfully submits this APA notice of contested case, and
reserved his rights to: life, liberty and private property; amend his request for a
contested case, and request for discovery as herein made in accordance with the
Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act and Minn. Admin. R 1400.6700.
�� ALY M. ELASBADY � '
� hOTARYPUBLlC•MINNESOTA iva e i izen, ames , iewe
r�,yCanmissionExpires,ian31,2Ji5 ithout prejudice; by specia! appearance
�
8— 8 -- 2�014
� ����'�ao/� .
20 of 20,APA Notice of Contested Case
� 423
�Affidavit of Service by Personal Service
State of Minnesota }
} Subscribed and sworn
County Of Anoka }
I, Daniel Hiliman, being first duly sworn, depose and say that in the County of
Hennepin and in the State of Minnesota, on August 8, 2014 10, 2014 the
undersigned served on behalf of James Douglas Kiewel, two APA Notices of
Contested Case directed to: City of Fridley, Planning Manager Julie Jones, and
properly addressed to City of Fridley 6431 University Ave. N.E. MN. 55432.
Jurat / Acknowledgment �
State of Minnesota }
} Subscribed, sworn and sealed
County of Anoka }
On, August 8, 2014, Daniel Hillman, duly sworn, as such deposes, and did personally
appear before me, and is known to be the deponent described in, and who executed, the
forgoing instrument/affidavit of service of process, and acknowledged that he executed
the same under oa , his free act and eed 'n the above said State and County.
r �
Affiant's signature
Address and Phone number of affiant is, 2523 Lynn Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN 554'�6.
Ph. 612-369-5232. Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned Notary Public in
.
the above said State and County.
� � Not�ry Public
ALY M. ELABBADY � o�4ly
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA �
�Y�m(ssionExpires,jan.31.2015 - �
r� �6'g�,� � .
424
��� � ^ �
�
>• � CITYOF FRtDLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CEIV'TER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY, MN 55�3?-4308
(763)571-3450 • FAX(763)571-12A7 • www.FridleyMN.gov
August 20,2014
James Kiewel
1631 Rice Creek Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Subject: 1627 and 1631 Rice Creek Road
Dear Mr. Kiewel:
The City has received your request for a hearing regarding the code enforcement cases the City
currently has on 1627 and 1631 Rice Creek Road.
A hearing has been scheduled before the Fridley Appeals Commission on Wednesday,
September 3, 2014 at 7:OOpm at the Fridley Municipal Center,6431 University Avenue NE,
Fridley.Staff will provide the commissioners a copy of the materials you provided Julie Jones on
August 15,2014. You have the right, as�does the City,to appear with counsel and call witnesses
at the hearing.You may present other evidence that is relevant to the case.
Within 10 days of the hearing,the Appeals Commission will render a decision as to whether they
affirm, repeal or modify the order of the code enforcement staff. If you have any questions
about t e hearing process, please contact me at 763-572-3590.
'n ly
ott icko c
%Community Development Director
City of Fridley
425 �
� :�� - � �',��-r �
��nro�
F1t�DLEY
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVBRSITY AVE.N.E.FRIDLEY,MN 55432
(763)571-3450 • FAX(763)57•1-1287 • WWW.CI.FRIDLEY.MN.US
November 1, 2013
James Kiewel
163.1 Rice Creek Road
Fridley MN 55432 -
Dear Mr. Kiewel: �
Re: Appeal Hearing
Dear Mr. Kiewei: .
Please be advised in the connection with the matter of your Appeal request, that this is
your notice for an Appeals meeting on Wednesdav, November 13, at 7:00 p.m.,
located in the Council Chambers at Fridlev Municipal Center, located at 6431
Universitv Avenue NE, Fridlev MN 55432, for a code enforcement violation regarding
a retaining wall that was constructed without a building permit or land atteration permit.
F�etaining wall is failing and creating a public nuisance. While you obtained a land
alteration permit in 2005, the land alteration permi# had expired when additional earth
moving work was performed and the permit did not address the installation of a ,
retaining wal� using plastic barrels. You were asked in a December 2005 letter from the
Assistant Public Works Director to provide documentation that the plastic barrels met
certain specifications. This documentation would need to be provided by a structural
engineer, and City records show no such documentation was received. Also, extensive
iandscaping completed without.a land alteration permit. , �
If you have any questions, please contact me at 763-572-3590.
���
,
Sin e�`ely,
,-- � ,
; , ,
; � <�f � ...._.�-��---
' `r��.. ��..�.._.. .. ..
�� ott Hi ko �
+ ; ommunity Development Director .
J=:.
...�:
�,
r
%
�
426 �
�,ch;b:+ 23
DISTRICT COURT OF MINNE'SOTA
TENTH )UDICIAL DISTRICT
, -�.
KRISTIN C. LARSON "�"='
"° r' CHAMBERS
JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT �� �'= << . ANOKA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
� " � '" 325 EAST MAIN STREE'C
��='��' '_= ANOKA, MN 55303-2489
�'� ,,_--�. , (763)422-7440 '
Fax (763)422-6919
August 29,2014
Mr.James Kiewel
1631 Rice�reek Rd.
Fridley,MN 55432
RE: James Kiewel v. City of Fridley Planning Division,
Anoka County District Court File#02-CV-14-5177
Dear Mr.KieweL•
The court has received certain documents,including a motion to compel discovery,which were
filed in the above-noted Anoka County District Court file. However,there is no Affidavit of
Service indicating that you have served your motion or any other pieadings on the City of
Fridley. Canon 3A(7)of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from
considering ex parte communications in pending cases. The court is therefore unable to
consider your motion.
If you have any questions regazdi.ng this matter,you should contact an attorney.
Sincerely,
Kristin C.�,ars
C: Scott Hickok, Community Development Director,City of Fridley,6431 University Ave.,
N.E.,Fridley,MN 55432 �
Carl Newquist,Fridley City Attorney,Newquist&Herrick,6401 University Ave.,N.E.,
#301,Fridley,MN 55432
ANOKA CffiI3AGt0 KANABIDC PINE 4Z�I BH�RBURNE WAlSHIIQdTON WRIGHT
�x h� b,�- Z.�
�
_ �
�
� �
' �
� w
� �
�
r
.+
4
� !�'
�r«.. �
4r
�
�
r
"� �
� �
y�� d
�SiY �
L
,,�` �7%
,,` O
w+
,-- �
� t
� d.
�
4- �
� �
�
� 1
� �
r�-
�
�
��
}�,,-3
.' '
v
, ��X$ f�.. ��.f.
.x`^R'?. 14.,:. _ s.y. �
428
, . �
�xh`�-� zs
c' � .�t � � _ � `fr`�+ u�•. �
ro �
> �. �. €
� �'- _`°"� .�
� �
3 �
m`,
� '
r44
° ,� . _'� '�.�_ �.�� .
� � ��, `�Y 4�
�
� � � '� � '�'��'II� IJ 1
r . � �s
� � .,r= i
, �: . ,� , ,• 'i
� `�;`.
� , a
� �` y� - � '� '�
� ,
�� �� �� �
� ��
; ��; i .�' i � �:
� � q .
N
� �i
� ,,��� � � _ � _
rr+a&,..:F.. .�;�';4 ,� ` •r� � .. _
r '.. » ._ ., ,
,.� � �,� d =�: - .
*^ t
� k, 1
� `up�y ��
�'i'� : � �.�.
� �
�+ R
�t
.'"'.m.wiwwr.SSllll�� �''.. , . ,...� . . . ... . ...
--_ ' - ----._.. . . . �._ .��
� ; ���� �
�� _ ��� .. ;��
�
i
� ......i.. .
� 'S" '�:. � . i:' �;��� . .
_ LL�, ;� ,���
b _
g � � �
����, � ..� — �
F , �. R � ,�°T�, _ �" . .
>,. �""v "*l � ��" _
� � 4, -:
n �
� � Y
�+= .I
���> I
� �... �, - �' ,��� ��
�N�
�r� �. '
� . : � �
�� ,�
� � �
� ,f� � �
� �,- ��� ��
`��'ww �� _
�
�� , � ���
��:�
� .. _�
_ .
�rrr - �
_ �_ >_�� ;�<,� �
' ;
_. ___ ; �._ _,
�
�
� � �� ��
, ^��i ,��: :.�.,
I _�_,,,�-�, 4 — �r �.� — � _ __ � _.
. c,� . �: �: , �Y �_ ��, _
429 ���
„,;� ��s. E�ch;b,+ Z(o
� '� �,��`� �r*�;����� ;
K �' . � �R� �` #�it
Jk. � 's .s�4..� '°��d i�-�—`,a
'g � �. .F'p � �,:: �- . ��. �T• ..-.��
� � � 6 �, . �. � �:: , �� , .
�� � � p e ` !� ' � � s.
� . � ! ii�F� k ket f a� _
' € .
� � �- py h��.: � . i.� D
. . � �i ;,� � �1; �r snzw�� . N i.� ..
F ' � �
r �
� �� �� e r� �i,
� „
��
�`� � M `� .sE i p � �.ii
a� ■� tr k; �
,�� ,� �* }..�.7.��'���!-�` � ` _ . g
a `
� � ,.�'s...-,._,�_r _� �.3. �.: ..:-_�.l.a _ ree�' �,`u,-
�'� -,_...�.. _ . _ � . . ' .
_.. �.�-�..- _. ..
p�,� . . �"', � 4�"�� +� ��i!„ �
i t 9 �F� b
r � � �`� r�i� f.l ���� �Y It K
.4 � -
4
F, ,
y K« �
i _.i g
�, i:i ,. �.._' .
� F� • '�� �::i:.
� }�
�t`i�,'•-y, '�a,•• � Y�*��
�4�v '�C..�.:?J��i'tK �.
�:�' `�"g”S W 1s.s�
.. � � ���"S��`�.�� -.. =e - �. '
� � 3 r J
�, �a� ' ��i. �C� - � ry{t
^ _� � � �
�. � � 0
i }� &h� j
�4¢�-8�:� . . .. � M�'���r77�y�.� � �¢ i1 .° � f
g � k y�
4 t.e ���` i3..�' .. Ham� � � . ��.
�
__. ' ` �..�� -t.e _ ., f
1� '
.. �'M ��Ik �` Yt� u� ��([.
. . .:. . �. ., ' . . .. '� '�.
s.
. ..:,":..,.__...qr:' .Y �. .�:�, .'. . � , ...-:. . .
� -8ta s3s�.9 � _ it.
�.3L . . ,� .. - ! . . ��E u-
.. e_�._ . - " .d '2sfc' . <�
o���
r.m-
. . Y.. }Y�.�� �
�l�J�.4yY'.��.��� � �•:.rr t� � .. E��. . t�.� � ,aM
� ��'�S�F E 3F A ..e E � .
� � s ` .. _ ,.,� r��..
`f�� R��', ' . _
�� � -�� . �'L�r � ° . .
�`.a ��x "- , "
a �� A�� �+� I �� �
'rF �
�.
� n. � � K�
. �
n �� „_ _ � s �,�� e��
� x.�, � � , _�� �: �E��,��
,.��- �_ �e.
i� �� � � .� . �,�
�° �. � �_
� � � $ � � �� � .�
`k z.� :;j; � ,: ;�'�.r t
� ��� � ��� � � ��f�$� �
I � � � �.. . . � F � �
$ y€+�dHi"Sk�. � , � � � '�'?w. aSU *� �, A�.� ■�
�.. i :� qy... � '.� . ..�.
_� ur� � � £ 1„i�
�. ���� �"d y�., .
a � g h €
r �e� �""Y�� � * }�
{�}'te. � s �s� e Z lE t � r� 'Fe ��� E
����� ��� . � � � � '����r��� � � R���� `�
E ,.� � ��` � ts �
��> r � ��
Y � yG
� �_ • a' . _ f, � ., q mi.,g. � ij'�.
� *
�i . F ' .� R . Jta �'i� I
]�, .� �^i 3i�9'f
L � � � � r 'r * � � � �
:Y A � .T�� ���� �� ',
[ ..... &«, � "k �I
T � 4? � nzt �4R 3 �Y k {j�
� � �w`
.-� . ''? sY �
�� ",,�� •'� �- „ _ F�ll��`� �
� = t� .� ■ e � ' �.
G - z €�� ,�'c �'i ,� :
�� _� .
�` �
�
s����� `�`��f�` " ,< _ ,- d , � � ,
As �°.
�e
�_� �3„°�°'""•, .a_ _ ....� ' k w ��a� a�'} '� ..0
.:�(b .. _�i:�; *�8`iY*�z
�Af._ ts+� p� .W s.R`i��
W
�� �pr; ��,��`���.a�,fi ���r,��
� .. ,�A'�. b� •p�'��s+i1 i :
p ' w°]t. ` _ -. 'E
! y�-- . � Y R g F'!
.. � '$:� Yyi�:�a* #«.�+� � :lY�d ��� �.� . � Ya` .
' � �.y�'Yta..i £_:Y�R'�6t5$��.��. •.V � �L �; _
�r 4�
1�.v �$ y _� � � �� i
§o-�°���'�� �p �g"—_�t�tH a� � z '`- -a°�' %� €1,�`��.
� ��"�3��" � . . .: c°�' ' , . _� M �s, x -�
_ � = - - � - " � � ' `�"�����.
430 ��,ag
- - .��-�. ,� x� �ch,b,.� Z7
., , � : r .
� ��.� � :� � _ ¢,���
� , r;r. � �� �`7���.. '�
a :� fi .x. t „�,�' ��:
� � _ � ��
4 „ � ,Y �} � �� �
3t ;'�' ���� '� � � �;t �°'= '�
� ' � ����;` �;
�
�,�°��.`��''° ,#�� f
b � •� �, � _� .
�, , ��, � �
, ,
�•s� iE` x�� �`', '� ��-'+��
� ' .._ . .i.�# Y . ��� ¢, ;A� ��t� .�
�1 !�'f" }
���- ' a -
�y,'+ �� ��� �f� �
E,- � , �'*�,�,� �.�� ' � ��. �. � �~ ,`6�3. {7��� t- � i
a . �` _ '+�"'°�" �-$e_ '�- � r-'n, L c � ."�-.�
p � `7 ,�4+�� s�rx- �.: B ,�- . � s�:., �..
l 4, _ f i �s sa,.���4? . A,�M1 �+ '� �,.� ' a�1�
� �� � � �"�, .-r+.t L,$^a:s :�ei "'�. -
� � t .` - s. •a a�.� �'-� ,r '- �.
�,� � �� �� � > �� � '� �' r � �.Fyt �� � � ��`�I
� ��T��F 7�c�F :RAA�- �, ".i±a J ��� �� ���
' ;�..�,Y' '�w `� 4 pELp"° + .j
� �i�'�� ,.,z � F "
�� � � � � �: ' ��a'� Y� ..^*s��,�a�"X ;�.�� .�,�'i"1 '¢" ��_ , '� ..
� p 9
� � ��� i� �:, x '°; �� bi, �w�.'t.,4�
� ���#� � i' � �YS`'a F,°. �Q ' �� � �'��: �
��� � �` 'r f r� �� � �;��� . ;i
� l�i � ���+� ��'
�� �` . u° � � � I,� � F' �'; F� .,;":y 1 F ....��§ � t T
� J�. ._ ,j�y.� �} ��� ': ��_ i f. t .�b� '.�� � y���� ��
� �,,: :Z. .y �� ,R '��,1. �+ r `�:
�; �—;. � s� 4 � � �� � �'
�=;. ��, `� � � �u..," -� s�'�i.
� . . J.<.r �rfa 'y�+�� '��:`!_�,A ��'���!�{ya
r. .�3 n'�'�.,�"i�•�rr;;rl
�� . . F T i � ��fy � ...fu ''i
' �"F ' �� ..{T� �
� '
. � _ � ._ ..� 2.
.. 3 �m k �� �', �+� � ^.�
k � �., yiy�.., a�.,a. t W�. {�` . � . .<�s* ; � g �M g�,iw�.r^��y�
�`���4 �;$� " � „r �' ..�� i �*�, �, �''� a��� � �� f* }���.
_�' �� y8,� �: #� t' sf�rt�� =�-�
;. : �m �r. '� _� =
���„ � �T E��/ ' '� � - T*��N _� ��� {
� �fn��+r Sg'_ ',�, 1, i 'F. --'��:
-.x -. _..... _ .
., . . . ' ,�, ' , ...
� �. ��� , ��� � � �� ��3 s�;� �
, , , _.�1�, �, .. . , ; �..
��_ -.' -' � . . � . .. 4.' .'��
� � - .� - . . .d2e�.
�i'�T '7 �i°'rt�! —{� - '�{ . ' � . 'i
� � t� 's14����{r°l� ? � F
� . .s � , � _ , �,
�i ��i' `M� � 'i�
. -
; r.,
� F ` , ; - a�'
� -
--t �.� �k%' -S ,J '.i. � ... �.;-� ��
, —.�, F al ,�"��s-_ ° —
.. � I
y�y t.
.i ,.� �
1 . �
� �z�.. � _._ ._ .. . �..�Y .
� ��,- - . . .. ._.. . �y� � t �, ���
F � h
. � � � � v ,� * � � ` � ;
P � i�� �d C ,,.� r m*I'w
. r . �4�... � '3L�- �'_a� � .S, � ����.���'.
• �•. �� �.�i.) � r .IfS .�.� F '^
. ��� 4 'r..� S �-. � '� .��
.. . ,l_,K+����'7s ,��s��.
� ,. - �t� `� )� T�"�• �Jt`�1=. 7 .��,�� y..f,.
- v �+ .'t � P }t..F �+. �.
` 'A," °� �c it:-�' p ��,� : , ," �
,�A�. � � �''t�.F � �� . � .. r� �.L ;$�'..
•`n,��� � - �.. _..`��-:
�. �� � �� -
,��-�,_SY�� F �.: ,��•,�� ��- '� . ���#'
, ��'t•_ ��;' .t�, _ S, 3:.'1.y +"r � . ;�"�
� &� y��¢{ �� . . � '+M��t".�; �,.t .. R� �
� yr �� � !�. , '��,`R i�� e1.� . !t'1�.yY.,s�. _
� � �'.0 �� ° s� ���1.,. � , . -� ���� s -
y
t � . .. _,' � f°f;: t[ ` . �
� � �..- ' � �
'�' ��� °Y ( � 7 � .�-f .. �a,'at y,.��• � }� �
� I � " '� ri `P � � $~ �.. !
,{e� � ""�7 . t�,�.�I
+ � 7i-2 � ' ;� . ,..�..� ��. .�� [� �;�e,� -.!._ .
� 3»t`1 °�;" l � i'�.�6• ir�
t E"3` , r. "- � t� v�d���4 ,�
��. ._ ., � �. *.. ��, ts .,��-F�.«a. r.i� s�7g:'.- -i
��: . . . � i�-__ .e „�a i ..�, .. � .:�.j .( r ,xar,?�`
� ` i*�-� +_ x +K�y .�� �` ���
r L a �.'aF .i'��.
�
� �h E`. . _ 1 �i F'rt f ���y`
� � �� � k � , t 4 ��4 �� ����r � #'� ��Y��
6 �
i` i .Y ` � m,�`��� 3� .. � 'S -
:,�� � s 4s�'��.r��,�'�' ka'r���,�
r .��, +t ' �,a, ;���. y w�' '� L�
>
.�.,
. .. . ,
' = �t"f �, s.' '� ,de i." . . -t ,-�
, � e< .�._x�,�....a f ,.tia.i t ,. s-�.�. �.._.��, ,r_; 'a _:�.
_;'�: _x.. _ �g.'�► �e�:�iZ" - � �.�� �,�,�;
-" r �'�fi +y�... - ^ '''�w ,+,
'•t , t ''� a��ri Ki���..�3Y� ���y ..;� �
. --y . . �, �':.. o,e ��-�a S #.._�� �s s }g ..*� �����.
' �5�
~ 'a. °�� � '`a4'�,� �`�
,�' . __ . .fr'_:.? S�'- �#+�r€ F.,. _ ..; � . '.€..w.
431 �� � t
i
��ch,b,�� 2`�
.� �k� �._ .�: E. ��- ,L ��_
; .. � .
_� � �� � } � �
� _ �� } �.{+'� �� - � �,�:��
. . �
, . � �,-.: �y • � �� ,.. <�,�_ �,,.. . ' , ,
� �, . 5'� �- y �° -..� _�.�' '���iY
a - 3�, �'; . `§ra �r,gc *.,, _
3 ... ,� .. :� �"��� - �+��� - . . ..
�� -�--' L,.
. . y i ^,�,,� � ;" .
.. . �Y.. .=!; - . .-
i . r '. �..
` �.T.�}, ,.��; ��� t - - y �� J."�.,y '�__` .. . � - +f� .�.
... ,_.. i_ � �
L� 5�'a'.�..-�.: ,.,�,:-.�,'.,.�yew�,� y��w'B,yr7'.�;. ' .., '6�� , "; � � � -�r
:
�f+ l'"7ai'f�� . �
�. .�y� f°}i��'.. �f
R .y� ' � '
f., . s� ..��� +
� . yz` . . i T1�`$.B ,.�r€ w'f �►� .;...
..... , ._ .. n ... _ ...
r � �
. ,�
> .., . �
,
_ �< i � -� � :��� ,'�r��
w`
,
+� ' ..,.;��`*� °. . � ��■. - ,�,'Ir .
_
(` �: f'
ry � "
� . a i_
3 3�.� ¢ N
3� �, . i ,,�' '. � . ��
�.. ... —. � .. � #-.� - ,
.� � �+ 't , � �'� '{
' ; r�
� r, i.
�
f . u
_ �
v s <��� . . � _� - ' '
� .c= -. . �� '`�,.
� ++� . �
y �, ,
i' ' � ' . ����. ._�. .
.. .....�. .. ..,,,. �;��j Ci 'a `4 ��'�:� z..� �.�..
t: . ;i��' �� +F �..
�r
� , ,�< � t�s`�— � _��
_ — ` � � �.�►� �.
,�� �+� ,� �
���- - _ �
� '� �` �.�-e � �+'� � ��„:�,k � �.
�����.��� ����� �f �- t.� �fi . � � �
� � � � � ,a �� :�� � ���-�
, ����:���� , �� �� .�
, � , . '�+� � �� ��.�,...�.. -�.
� - -�- ��£ .:,
_ , - s. ��:. �
�
r � � . ��
. __ $ .
, . y
. � .
��n, _� �--_, - �� � .,� �.
b ¢..P. . . . _.
'm. ` 1� ! � �� r'�
^ ,q � .lk1 7
� � ' _ �, . . t tt � �, 1��
� sa! �: rc #''i �
.� ��'������ z p����
�'; �> �. �^*
.4��s �� � r � �* t�g�r ���•��� �'�'.� �
i . � ..'� .. >.'� � �`.� .
� �' __ ; .
� �� �'"+ � ,-� �f , � " � �'.E� � ��vY
� ;�;_ �#,#�g`�` 3° ;� '�.
� . ..�. . � 1 4 ���}-_ , % 3 �,� � i�
� ' l
- �.����; � • �W'� •�{ „�4 �`�•- �
� .!� s��; � �'� r�a ~��#`7�� � �' .� � � '�' .�`
, *rt� � �� ,� �� �
� . ;+. ��
-�-
��� r ��� , - A� Y � . � �, �=� �� �
���� �,�"� _ �� � �`,� }`�s�S�' �`` F �' ,,� �a'd��a
, �. � �'� � �''� � ( �Z �
�',_ ; � ` �s ;
� ?:: ��:� � .� 3! a �{ �.� ��r ,i
� .. � .,r.�_ �� C 9, . ,I
'� . . � � f &�`` � '
1 ` � !r�, r�aE��
���'° ����,. � � �"�� �. �` �#� �� ��'�� �������.
�' } ���' i ,s �� � ,§�° . � ° •`.';�
�� i� }.� ,. .�'�� �'.�,"' �t .r�v-.�-
� . � � .� _ '� _ �� • ��!
i 3 -- -°S�ty � � ° �`� �` � - ; '_
� �
. _ . '"'c���`�' �s� ��.i� R 7-- ��: �r�, .i.; r rF�� r..,
r�t:. . r 'V.�°°t ;'�i .L`� �e�.�.�i� �es.,������R�.�•ec��
v f
, s '.� � .+. � R � �' �''� �. . .�'t...'{`ti��'�
�. ,�� . • �ya:v ..y�q � v�+. � j�`��.j�� '�� �a QIeTa ,{
!^� f"r- 't•�t ..�a-. "�..�l�ua� 'l..� 7
'i < . - ,� ;T _ ,as gei* . 'r�
_s--� �,�, . .y �r'. ,S r �'` ��. � .i�.
�.����q.��T ((�� ��v_s , . rs 4 — mr�.J s:,�^ . ..'. .*��'.
�_ ' .. ` J ";�j�'� ..�� �►`' _ � `�� #
�j�
3, ,#�._�t .�"�� ��.�'fi.a °
� � �u�; '{`� 4 g -�:
- $sa ,qi . � .�_�?H����i�.,�� ._. � _ ..,�
432 Z� �,�,
. { � � 4` A (. f] 4 � .� �
. � �+ . � Ai 1 ; j , f �� �i t��s ' � t I ,�'�"��. �1�1
a� k
; �� "� � �� �= ��" � ��k°` �.�` P , ��� -�,° >
��' �„ �� ��_ ;, � .�� . . � i� i� , �' ' .
.}� f`4
1
. � � ,� ! � f � I � s�i I �� �- �:.:.f�c:.
v . � � I � �r I �� �.
v` �Y �� i � � � I� � `�E y}�,
� � ��� t � ` I �'i �� >>�
� �r . � �.t�� i I � k � r
' � � I! i
. �. , ,
' _ �: � .'r� . � ��- � � � R � � t���� �
{ ki �
� � k � � ���' ��� � ,_
t' � =, q , : �;� � � � �'j ' � , "{ t
r �y. '; � ; 'IfI � �;
�: . : �" _�,�� 't ��� � � �p i �.( h. _ ,3�.
�: � - I 1 f � . .
` �.s � � t � M 'r.
�.. . 3�' . �'' t �.� � # i" . �p e,�.. . .
�,.;. . *e.� ��, f� yt .�l � �R �� � i�a � '��..A .
�' . S � 'k .Tt�' }�' .1{�,� I I� JrV k�7( �; ? . .
� � � ����. _� , . -� 'i'�� j � •`t`,_ - I�_. �. . �
f � ��r�. ,e,�, .. '�,. . � �� t , � �� � -
, ".`..,� �" .. . � -�.'�i �;,� t .
< -:
�
$.
�, k � ,... � - (� j y � ( F' � � .
F�c � . � ; ,3c]Ki#Y.�`j,�.T�y}�� , � .
� , . ��..,. � .t,a�� � ' ,{ 4{ S I i��� I �, r ��� r� �.. .
� '`' �i ` ! ,'s t � `� , , .
�.[ a .. ' � 1�f ! ,� i i. �. .
�-� � � �� fi� ( �I ; ��,1�'.' , . �.
- , �i?►. ( I :�� �� t I 1 I ._ �
Y ' "�� - � ,�` ''f�?�i{if� '{�{j �r {
�,, '�� � �} l;.i EG� ����
� , � � � n��, � , Fj , � 1 � 1 �i� � ,�
"�sY' �� �' � I� �i �='t i�� (j �.:�r �i�� ,
>� � `°� � 1 4 j � -;������'�� � �� � `�
' . �ii� � �; r}(�fi' '� � �`�
�. �� � � i�' � � ;����� �.
Y� �> . ,. I' ,�
� ��;� �v���� �� _... . . � I '. I
� . � �, . �, ' . � < <
�: , � ;
. �;� '� _ j d• '�.
� �� i' � � I �'' t � t
.rp .. �'� � �'�� �.� � � ' ! �� {}�.E�y � ���. . �� ��
�i � ��� ., �� [�� � I�� � � t �� b�{��4� ! ���'
�. � i �.' II `` ji:,; �it �t (���� 1 3�' .'�. + c �.
' i 1 , t � �
� j�hl t�,ti; ��� ���`
a„ � ,b • ���� ���': l" ' ' {��i .'� � � ,��.� �•'
� � S = . 6-r k +�,1(��� t ti� � ��� �j���E a� ��� -�� t;. �r�
�
'F ;y.y�yn, r � t1 j� ,� :�t€js �i (� t � � � �,.,• �� t'� ��
'_a �. . �', �' �t } �� t ���� i .�. y�y _
� �! �, i �,4
;, �s ��; .; � �� ��
�.�� � �" .� j � �
�. '� �� �'� �'- -_
�-: , , � `
,�
�
� � � � "� � � � � ���_ , t � .� �"
� ; ��;: � �, �# ��
i ���$ _ .. � � i � � > '4` °j�_'�..
�y � a_ : � ";-d�:�k
�J � '- r ! �
x � �. f _--` ` � � ., " ���,.:
. , C.,,,�a �, _: � .�.c. ° i 5### ' � .� r
�� �,' ----- � � , � :�. ;�"�' . �a ,_.� =
� � � ln ! ��
�;a. ; � �`�
�- fi
� � � � . • R t � �:��:.� .
� . r rl � - �._
� , �;.� ,, � � �, �� ��
�
�� :� �
J ," O � � 4 �. �:-� �� �� �:
yo-Y. � • {• � � ¢_ � ..�.F .
� �� � . r I � , '��c l ..�'� ��
;�,._= �` j �, � �`,
,• _� � � r'- 11 �'
� , r—(� ��.°` . . k _.r��� $�: { �rj.{��� ����,-�` #�'� a'
, a'� ' � "sr . . . ' � . . . ; � . �i �� . d r, �� ,r� a.�a�`.
- y vvr'
� �
� � � � �� �� � ,.� �ti,
V � � ��,� - � � � � �� �� 4 ��� ���
00 � '��� � � � �,i,
i � �' �'�;��'���,,, �, � ' ` �
� . � ��j, ��-� « .�: _�,� �
. � , . ,� +'�Y
�
.
,
'� �_ ��� �`"��' �.=r� ��• � � y 3�
��� •:s_ . �� ... :.�£�. �_ , _ � — _ _�_ _ ; _ �-
433 ��Z� ��cA. �.°r. �, .
£ ,,;.�� . �xh,b,� 3I
.qi ,.. : �,'t .�h .
�:�. � � �,. +t, �.�.'y� �'%� ,�
� uy}�` , � 1Y
:� �c`; ! # ' ��'' 1 � �
� � � i �
� `' ,z- k
� ��,� � �1 � + t T ' ').
� � ', '� ',` � '��� r a
�' ^'r�� � �� � 4 s .d• �i �
� �� � � ���,.�`' � �� a { �� ���
1 :<
i
��': , , � �'t
i, ,ir e' � .�._ � i { ..
� ` i� i ;� r �a.
t' ��,. � �� �` � �1 � � i � ' .
� � � �� � �� f dr�`�` �t �� !�j � `
� ��, � � i �� r�f i?4`. �a � � ��a ",� '��
� , � � ,' 1 � � �
: �: r i� � I� ���Y��_t� �i �
f�' r� � �
r �.� :�f� �6" f: ` �7'�• �� f��i#�T�7 ����
� � ��� �. i, . �� I��'£ �� .1 �{��...�
�' � t'd j (
� � �:. �� ., . � 1 r �� . ' �� '� ��� ��1{ �' .l
, ` ` . ; . - t . t 1
� � . �_ � �.. ,;� . �fk.' ' - .. f-� i t����! �'��� ;
� 1a -�� . �
3'� �� p T � - i { !
,�"�s� � t t . F� y�' � � ' ' •' �Ef'�. ,�1. �
y � � � � ��� a � ��ic � � +F ,���'� � � r
r � t��j � p � uy. `a, I����� � 1
�y� � ti ; � � � #,1 i � �,
,: m � � � . , � i���t,
�''Sx ,.. 4 . .�.1� �t y t. i ' . . . � }�° (�j 1�!' 7 f �,��'.
> � �' �"I � �� ii j� �=�f��zi� 1 � .
� q �. , d�I . t , '
t ��;f
�' �� ��. � � 1,,� r:� ,.� _ ' �ait �i.yll���'��l���•�_+-
€, . � e p � �t:��� � 1'i; �' t° !. t
' "'` � y�e� �� �I ��� '�i�tj ��r� i� 'S�.
, r `���� >� iri= �i � i � � �i•t � i� ? ,
� ' �
s ' ,�r '��C ��f, � ' I �� �l�r `�# Ii
� � + ` � ! �+ i' ti
�•�� �"• � � � -` � q .f ;�a
� ` R � �
� � � ri, �tt ` p' - S ,�'' ,1. .
4
•-J r- i , I� � .
� x_ � � ��� .. .
rY �L G"� �i'"a;- .
tt� �1 t � �Y�'
�T y� #ei /. S �_� � �
,•� n�. }�r. �It ayrJ�a� � � ,,,�„x-?e ,
,. � � �� �, .'-:�..f _ ^"-.
�",i���1�}� .. �p ,�x1�, . � r• , � �a
� #�}',�� ��•• H t . ��}'''n� .
,y� x� � �� �.� � - P � `�' � ,'���
�, .;� � t r� ,f�� t .aw-i' � �..
� ���i��V a �;�' � y� . �I. � . ,JP. � �� (
fii � �iC,iq� ' . . �a �i� t���
11
� � tF..Y S �,.S � . . �: � I. � .�3
� t i.,e �
.� � � �;��, � - . . j, +� ,��,r
�: �`��`�' y:���`Y ' ' '{,'F'�fjtj'
��- k.",S� ,�� , . , . I ��t �� �r.���;
i.
�; {, � � , � '
"� x�4� 'd',v_�.;, e` ',=? .. `d� �¢ - ir, I t�{�i.�.
� ,� ✓`. 't .^tr I �� �� }
�+ � ���. � k` �f ��� fy, �) `'�;
. � ; ��_ . rx� � '` `�;
�� �;� . , �
�. � z ����� �� �
=�t� �SK t, ;, , � �
� � . �., ` ,�,
� � � y� �� 3 � �; �� � � l,±.
� i�� � #',�i�y.�� � � ��� �', �, y �,�
�` f ��
� } � A�� �'��(? �f�#ti { � . �' � �-.:
f
.� � E a ; . � r s � 1 i �
�—� , �'� r'� � _
: ��y `. �� . , � ���
,- r }, ,
� �` 3 � �� �z� d �' � � 1�, ` � , `,
� r� ' 4�` �'� 3�� '�g �` � � �' . a . ��'�,' �'�, � e
� �9�'{�. . ( y�,� �� - . ��"� f :
`� Y LJ � 4 � �'i'�#a ������ � �y,�';��F 'S ' {
f' ^.#� `# Y.�1 - I
O . � � �
�•� � � . ! � �� ��'� '`
� , : �
� �` - $ � � `. jF � ' �I' �� Mi�` � fi�^
'�' � �' �; �+'
r� "°_.,'`� �`� �� �_� �°
t
s ! , �� k �. .:�T <.
� 5 � S � „�*�t �s �i`��
� ,�f� �� � 3i' : ' . � z t ,
Q C �.� � i ,�. i � .r, i �, <-
r—� ��, � � �. �` _ ti ���
00 Y p��s..v ,� � z � �,— f . �i °�t:� e:
' t
_- -. .
.� ., ��., ; 4�'� t;y � •.,��' ��t .�..� ',�,: -•*_�'�!� - �' �� ��s
,
,
s � `�
;
. � �,
' �'.:. - � . . , � � '��� �.,
� � F�
�. . . � h,.��� , �? � ',� , ' ' '� ' . � � �� - .e
� , ._ . _ ._ r � _ _ .. � �j.
434
C : '� . . . . f �� ��
� : �f�' ;���A� � { ` , � � ����'� ; F.�ch�b�
����'�,�� . � � ��,`' { �� � � �`4:. ;
� � . � � �� � t ,� �. � ;
,�'`` ' :! I �i :� , 1;,��;�.
��.. b ' ' � . ��_.'._.. .._...�.�+-+_ . 4,F� 4�
'Y. � � . . . . . � ��,a� +, ,1n�.
�,,: ; 1 � '�, r '�
�T j , h F ��:
'`���$ 4' <S � � • � �
� ., -
�a�F i � � ♦
���`, fl' ` � � � � , 4 `' �.�- .
���i�a i. . . . . , .1 �� �,'� � .
� ',�; - . � - . ' . i� �, .':'j-� .
� '-� " . � 1��'�
�.��� . � � . . .
������i. � � ' � i � � .
6 , �
����� - . �,,. ; �
{ !`
, �� ;
�, �� • � ; �'
� . � ; � , '
� 11�` � � i tt� � � �� �^ �� ,'� �
� � � ,' � tt��.�! i��. ,#'► ' ` � -
� ; � �� �t�•� �,3�; :
b � . � . . . . � r�i +�a.t '++7. .'-y L � '.
r ,� � . .-��3 �
r �'4 . � J j � . , ��t 1 i,. e. -� �:�_ -
( ,.'�"1. r .y
t 64 ` � �'.�' FJ✓_ y'�} iN�.. ' � �"`.r:� ��, '
'�{�'� 7 y; - ; ,� ���..
� 4 �
�� � � �� �' z i �� re� �' yL "� a
r �x ��? � � . .. � 3
( �i � � � ������ �y�� ���
` . • � �.� f � � �'�i y11` .., �
�, . .. � . � �� �v: '� "�. � .����.
� * s� . $$. ,� �� rAl� +�x`� mr#�-t r '�* .q�*�- "' `t
� T L � 4� � " t '��'1:i i df 1� '1 '� £��3 :�� k k�+. �F.
.�yy yt
Y� £ £ � 4 �K �'i � .j � E t � �¢ '°k'°" .
�� vL �, "�."�.. . � , , . . . . M . J`� � � �' �w'- ,y�� .
r t�i, � .. � k �`.? � ��� 4 ry �; 1d�'� 'g",�."'�-� ;� '�
L � . . . � . i A+a �'��� '' .'l.,'` �;" �`.� . +�'+ ..
� a s '�
p ' � . . . . ... . 9`'',� � ." ' s r°, � T . :^.
< , , , . _ �� �"�.��` ,y+"1,'a"2F y i's��, �,;i� � � ^c� .� fi . 7"`': i.�*•'�.��:.
� y ti . � �Y, e���',_ r -� !Pt'- �.�- ,'�,�x �..�,�i... ,4,g ,;..�x"'^ �...
p '°°""t . . ,
E �:; . . . . �* i ,��, �'�.:� '�� � fi�� � .'� 'i-- �. . ..� ..., �a�,...
: �y � � '„& � :�t ,v `rS. u
.�� {s ,r� ,"�`, .,�,��r 5„��:
.�
n ��� . , :� r ,� � fat �,�,�"^ r�t `�"�" � 'i;'w'tii:=
� c y' �5 ; , +;�5 .�t� � .. �� �� . �c�,
t Z 4 � � . � ' �� �� 7�a� .,,��;��K }#, .�;� i •.��'`*'�-
j * t 4 � �'"4`;�, �• � .g� :C�.
�'f"�� � + ;�
-{�.,(4 J *1 ,. _ �i M � - � �.� �
.` � t ,
'"5" 'w r�J . . , . .����RF!F tiz°"2�••r
��i� k� �� { ' � " 'Hh _
�"��' F .T '� c� �} {f
� ..� � . . � � .� . _ 1{`
� "e- i��� i> � '
c , �'�y. �,�
7 �,� x z m� . . � t:.. ,`� '� ��'-�,�^!�r' •-���}:
1 gi
ri� � . �"L'�,..
��y.��" . ..O �� 1 � t; �^. `• .� .� E�5
�,`' r�� .. { �� � ��q
�.; . ..� • � . � �.. .SY�:
�..� .. . .. � . .
b �
c—�' , �; ,... . ,�;.�.
�`, �,� A, �" .,,�U ; � �� 1,� -
r'. � � -. k"�
�," � • �� f� �"W � i'�� � i�` a� ^�
` � ,�.-� � >'t'
� _�(� �_ ,� . �
�.� C�J � ��" " �II. ��I�. ���1 yk•
�}1'�!\� M�"'F�� .y�SA ��.
�>' .. � . �y�� � 5� ,f"
�tr T-n `�."�I, pi � i �,#s, il ��.���i
� �� � ��=, _ ,�
��� �8
� c'n � �.�� � �
.� �
,��._��' i, ,�
, „
b � :�i �
!: . �.
t° �� � � � t� t , �'� '"
�
�,
Q i
k �
� J
Y
y
�
.
e:
.
� .
u "
' s_ F.
, � . . . �.... �4
� r �'" � � , �
� � '���±x . ` 3 !.
�._. -��rra �' _ _� � � +' . . - .
�- - ���i
435 1(o�vl ���t�,� P.�.
._ .,. . . . ��6�P T' /��!A
- . . � - �.. b' =,s: 'r��"`.. "'y�"' �. ._ -��'�. . ��w �'�.�.'," .,,�-- �'x>:.
'� i . , +,.' �l . I � •�. � � ��s;,' '� �;
�� �_� . . .. "�. �� � � �� -*� ��_
+� . ; '{ t' r,. `g, �r� _ S� . 'sa�
. . .
- ' y .
�'.z -t'! � , a _ v ��.
.)! : ' � �� 'a° 7
�
�r � w..:r �.
� � . . .� -' � .
� f , C t,
' ��� � , ,e,_ z3'?�.�• �y��'rd,�
, `e , .
�' �, i . .. .. .4i= ` ♦ fi�.�f` � � ��:: �� �����%i+�
?
� � � ^
y ` F .
. � .� d E �.,v
. .�p
� v
��a�g � . � x a;,,� �� '�' ��`�y.'r � yk�, a
` . . . . a- ' 'i. '�Mr �.atTF�. ' 9s �.s� �� �� �
�L Y� - . t �rY +�+J P � a �� ,�04 j J .
. . ..� �,t� . '��. `.�«� .r-, � f-: r i$�
K
_ .�.'� . . � ' . . ._ ;� 'r '"9y'� �# r•.' x�.
� . ,. . ,�§� � �'_ � � �` �•
�.1` } c �+s y��f .
� � � '�:, �'�I a Y :'a r'��
�V ' ` , . , � . - b �:�h`' s�, .�
� `S .. � ,. �. ��t�:� t s.F �� � �
��'�. � . � , . .. . � .. f f,��• ;_�s ����� `F . ,�..'l� J'..
�pFa¢,..` . .. . ' _ �y'.. 3�� � � ,1T�.. � �
i�. .. . ". - -
� y . ' , , , . _ F ._ . i
,
. ,
:.
�- - . �_ _ . - . ��- � � z r/� � ��+ � �� � _
7', , � E,'�.�,¢ �rt";,a r "4 '�-`
. � � �� -� . � .r�+ ,� � . � �..` � x`��,�._X.
��. � � � . . � � i 4 '��'�""'��Rr,i rY� ,� -:
� �' - � <: "�"i�� ��: M+ v" ) �
�' `..� ` _ . . . z. �' � �t � ��.,^ 'S 'i� U �.Ar�
t I
z , . .
S .�:. ..M ' ' ,�w, ,� ,: , �� .�' �. q �
�s �*�=i- �� ��`� ;
r �� - , � . ' . .t� t• ;�� ° `� M��' •'�,;w�4.,} ��.-^�_`'�
���° . � _. � . �� � �� � � � .. ��._
" � �y q''•' ..'�; t� .�' tS' �':. d.
��� �. �_ . � . - f ,r"''�� a, y
. . . . . ♦,�'',� 5..� � E s ;��. f, g�,J
T � �
. .� . ' ' . � ��'� .,,�s � �� � �
�`^ r . ?� t�,� , -y �..r
.. . . ' � � -...1 "z; #� �.:� -
# � .� . .. . .. .. r�� �X."' � "� �s•�.,i. _� ,n
r � . . . . :�^ .
+- y ��. ' ' � ,�y�,,,,� , '
,y� E _ E a .. . . . . _ , ,_:. �� �t �t ,i `a,�� �"7hc�. - '
._ < ti. < . , . .. . . s ' . .�.�r '�=.�.t�!� ,� �.. . . 7. .
� . �.. ,� �r :. > u� ..
,. �',"y �,�-.
� -,; ., ,. �- , . . � . ' �' - � ..
. . �ti
c .t . � , . �,�.� � � �z
_ t . . . �; / _ , `
e .. r +..a.:. :
` � �:n ,. '� � T�'.# � ,
. � �'� � �
k � � � � >*� � .t�1� - "'t �, .
� �- Y ��_ . � x x - •' "�2
"R � . .-�Z ��_ � .+
R
�'� : t � - , : � . . , .�s + "� . _.wa�or . .F�' »; . .
�e '. g' ' . . . . � � p :�. . .atr''� ��,... e^�-�
'Zr �� � � . , . '�� �,�" �r�'�AF '. . � �,� � ?' .
� .�pi 'yt�,��V �-�'"�
�#'�,� _,� '� . . � � �� -�iwdL'1�!'�.�,r .-c�w.+.- "t � �`� �''�'} ..
-'' . � . . �, � (�.k�,. � . I�I � •��.��' -�
� �� , � �
„i ... .. . 6.} . ._ _ `�
R =# � � K'�>_ µ �-w[ ` - �q.c.�^".-
�A y �,. r.�z, . � f� �` -.: -.� �qa«$,� - .� � '�t
z
s + � � - � _;��
*e 'd: . . . +� . .. .. �w ��' , ts "..X
� � :
'+" ��.' � � . � � � . M� zYb . Y �,�k a ,'
�
� f . � � . . . � -„ .g,.,Y,1� � ,°� Y�,�� � ..
"9 � R ' . � ' '��J,��., �a"�' �.�+_ ��t�
` ���. �� �,
�` ,;° '` �*� 5
. � ���f }°�
.���" � �``
« . ,�. ;�
�{{ � e; ��6`"��r. �` ��" � �, �� �.
�� , . - ('\C� � � . •,,�" � r .,�� .+�_'
u�� *�.� ��i� Y��
�s� � ' -3 ' �j� ��e ���� � �`�,«.�, ir�
��j $- �.
k ..-f _ . U�.l � � � �,W a' - ,� -n
��4-�� , � � . �. '{f�� _ p ry �`,l'
i
...t �..—, . "��d.� -
�r
k�Jf;r . . � .
r . � . ,�-y�� �.^�,±x..
,n,X .a.;' \
� i . � ...-�.�A�'.. � ,� ..
�z a � `Y.. '
+r ,�.. .
� t. .� C Q , .. -_�� .. t <.. ,�'a" --
. � _� �
�a. C�
� �� � � � , a
: ��
� �, r �,: ;� ;„�.:<`t �,
��.�..x� _ ' . .��'#�*�a � ...... �.�
t
436 I(o'vl "�.�c.� C.�- �C{,
� AGENDA ITEM
� CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 22, 2014
CYty oj
Fridley
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS
437