06/08/1981 Public Hearing Meeting OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
JUNE 8, 1981
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEASE SIGN NAME ADDRESS AND ITEM NUMBER INTERESTED IN DATE: June 8, 1981
NAME ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER
c < (�
U NCiL
CITY CO
F"!, I D
I,lli--
PUBLIC [1,E A R 1 115 E E T I I G- JUJE 8, 19101 7 :30 -P . M.
PLEASE y
S CIF F ICE DY THE C,I TY i
(, NG -1AN11' YOU
ADOPT IOBJ OF AGE!,,IDA:
Adopted as presented
PUBLIC HEARINGS :
PUBLIC HEARING To AMEND CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY
CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE FRIDLEY ZONING CODE;
AND
CONSIDERATION AT PUBLIC HEARING OF AMENDMENT TO THE
EXISTING R-1 ZONING CODE OF CHAPTER 205;
AND
CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 'S
RECOMMENDATION FOR EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS To ALLOW Two FAMILIES IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
INAN R-1 ZONEo v i c g i t 1 @ e s
Hearing Opened at 7:38 P.M. Continued to next meeting
DUBLIC WORKS ACTION NEEDED: Put item on next meeting agenda
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 124 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE
RELATING TO NOISE, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION AND
ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY 1'111OISE, AND
IMPOSING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2J
Hearing opened at 9:10 P.H. Closed at 10:00 P.H.
:'UBLIC WORKS ACTION NEEDED: Put ordinance on next meeting agenda for consideration
s ' t '' 11LA�_�F T I �;i� li[. E �.... 113 PAGE 2
NEW BUS I MESS :
CONSIDERATION OF MID-BLOCK STREET LIGHT ON STINSON
BOULEVARD BETWEEN TPE 7500 AND 7600 BLOCKS , 3 - 31 B
Approved
''U BLIC WORKS ACTION NEEDED: Inform NSP of Council ' s approval of street light
CONSIDERATION OF HILLTOP FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACT, . . . 11 - 4 C
Approved contract
=IRE DEPT. ACTION NEEDED: Have contract executed and forwarded to appropriate parties
RECEIVING PETITION FROM FRIENDLY FRIDLE'� FOLKS FOR
A SENIOR DROP-IN-CENTER , , , , , , . , . . . . _ . • . 5 - 5 B
Forward petition to School Board
=ARKS DEPT. ACTION NEEDED: Forward to School Board of District 14 for their consideration.
RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR HIGH SPEED
PHOTO COPIER (BIDS OPENED 5/29/81 AT 11 :30 A. M. ) . , , . 6 - 6 D
Received bids and awarded contract to Koadk for 150 AF Copier
:ENTRAL SERV . ACTION NEEDED: Inform all bidders of Council 's action
RECEIVING BIDS AND SELLING XEROX 7700 COPIER
(BIDS OPENED 6/5/81 AT 11 :30 A. M. ) . . . . . e . . . . 7
ENTRAL SERV. Bid received and approved sale to Brooklyn Center in the amount of $7500
ACTION NEEDED: Inform Brooklyn Center of Council action and proceed with
sale. '- _ .
PUP LIC HEARING T'' EETI110. JUNE c0i, 1981 � PAGE 3
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ST , 1981-1 AND 2 (BIDS OPENED 4/1LI/81 AT 11 A. M. ) . . . . 8 — 8 B
Received bids and awarded contract to low bidder NDH Inc.
-UBLIC WORKS ACTION NEEDED: Inform all bidders of Council action
RECEIVING 31DS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1981-10 (SEALCOATING)
(BIDS OPENED 6/3/81 AT 11 A. M. ) . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 A
Received bids and awarded contradt to the low bidder Allied Blacktop
DUBLIC WORKS ACTION NEEDED: Inform all bidders of Council action
CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C C C L C G C . . . 10
Approved
:ENTRAL SERV. ACTION NEEDED: Pay claims
ADJOUR;d : 10:35 P.M.
Ll*
' F IDLs `�' CITE C EJ <<IC 6 L
PUBLIC HEARI'M FIEETINO - JUJE 5, 1951 - 7 :30 -P . M..
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE :
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARINGS :
PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY
CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE FRIDLEY ZONING CODE;
AND
CONSIDERATION AT PUBLIC HEARING OF AMENDMENT TO THE
EXISTING R-1 ZONING CODE OF CHAPTER 205;
AND
CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION S
RECOMMENDATION FOR EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS TO ALLOW TWO FAMILIES IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
IN AN R-1 ZONE i o a o o 1 — 1 D
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NOISE ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 124 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE
RELATING TO NOISE, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION AND
ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY NOISE, AND
IMPOSING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION . . . , . , . o . a . . . 2 — 2 J
tlR1 H7 H FAR I N_C MEETING , JUNE � ' PAG E 2
IEW BUSIMESS :
CONSIDERATION OF MID—BLOCK STREET LIGHT ON STINSON
BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE 7500 AND 760 BLOCKS o 3 — 3 B
CONSIDERATION OF HILLTOP FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACT . . . . 4 — 4 6
RECEIVING PETITION FROM FRIENDLY FRIDLE%, FOLKS FOR
A SENIOR DROP— IN—CENTER , , , , o , o . . e . . . o . . . 5 - 5 B
RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR HIGH SPEED
PHOTO COPIER (BIDS OPENED 5/29/81 AT 11 :30 A. M. ) . , . . 6 — 6 D
RECEIVING BIDS AND SELLING XEROX 7700 COPIER
(BIDS OPENED 6/5/81 AT 11 :30 A. M. ) . . . . . . . o ' 7
PUBLIC NEARING MEETING, JUNE 8, 1981 PAGE 3
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ST. 1981-1 AND 2 (BIDS OPENED 4/14/81 AT 11 A.M. ) . . . . 8 - 8 B
RECEIVING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1981-10 (SEALCOATING)
(BIDS OPENED 5/3/81 AT 11 A. M3 . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9 A
CLAIMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ADJOURN :
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the City Council
of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on
Monday, June 8, 1981 in the Council Chamber at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of:
To amend Chapter 205 of the Fridley
City Code, known as the Fridley
Zoning Code.
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard
at this meeting.
WILLIAM J. NEE
MAYOR
Publish: May 27, 1981
June 3, 1981
THE CITY OF
DIRECTORA i E 00�
V 1. .-?' .��r o- •.o
OF °o 0
r---?
MEMORANDUM
ULI CPKs _
DATE May 13, 1981
FROM D.P.W. John G. Flora Public Works Dir TO ACTION INFO
SUBJECT Nasim M. Qureshi , City Manager
Double Bungalows in R-1 Zoning
At the May 4th City Council meeting, a motion was made to submit a change
to the R-1 Zoning Code to delete the Special Use Permit for double bunga-
lows.
Attached is a draft Ordinance which deletes reference to double bungalows
in R-1 Zoning. Implementation of this Ordinance requires a Public Hearing
and two readings, and will not allow Special Use Permits for two-families
to reside in a one-family zone.
In the Planning Commission minutes of May 6, 1981, they have submitted a
recommendation prepared by the Community Development Commission to estab-
lish specific criteria allowing Special Use Permits for two families to
reside in an R-1 zone. In addition, the draft of the new Zoning Code
prepared by the Planning Commission will be ready for Council review in the
near future. This draft currently does not provide for double bungalows
in an R-1 zone.
If City Council desires to act on the attached Ordinance, a Public Hearing
on the Ordinance should be scheduled for June 8, 1981,
JGF:ijk
Attach.
1
1 »
ORDINANCE NO. ----
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 205 OFTHETHE
RFRIDLEY-1 ZONE CITY
CODE CONCERNING 50205E051N3DLOand 205.054-2C
WS IDELETING SECTION
The Council of the City of Fridley do ordain as follows:
Delete paragraph 205.051 -3D
1 a concurring vote of 4/5mh�.of the Council
"Double bungalows but additional y ecial use per
11
shall be required for Council to issue such sp
Delete paragraph 205.054-2C square
ows the minimum total first floorberea0ssquarehall efee0t0
fe double e min area of any unit shall 65
feet and the minimum living
or an attached garage.
exclusive of accessory DAY
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FR
IDLEY THIS
OF 1981 .
WILLIAM J. NEE - MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK - SIDNEY C. INMAN
Public Hearing:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Publish:
0014A/1361A
1C
PLANFIING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 8
MOTIOII \AS
ST, SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT
THEY NOACCESS DIRECTLY ONTO EAST RIVER ROAD OR ANY OTHER LOT CONFIGURATION
WITH THIT HAS BEEN THE' POLICY OF THE CITY TO ELIMINATE ACCESS ONTO
EAST RIWHERZEVER POSSIBLE.
UPON A , L VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMO3. PUBG: CON IDEP.ATION OF A PROPOSED CONVERSION CONDOMINIUM LICENSING
Of?OIIANCE
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDE BY MS. GABEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CO ERSION CONDOMINIUM LICENSING ORDINANCE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, HAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING
OPEN AT 9:50 P.M.
Mr. Boardman stated the only reason thi is back on the Planning Commission agenda
is because when the Planning Commission ok action on this ordinance and recommended
approval to the City Council , they did not ave a public hearing at that time.
What is needed now is for the Planning Commi cion to take action on the ordinance
with a public hearing.
MOTION BY MR. WHARTON, SECONDED BY MR. SVANDA, TO LOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CONVERSION CONDOMINIUM ICENSING ORDINANCE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DEC ED THE PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED AT 9:51 P.M.
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. VAN DAN, TO RECOMMEND 0 CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED CONVERSION CONDOMINIUM LICENSING ORDI CE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE TION CARRIED
UNANIZIfOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE APRIL 14, 1981 , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. GABEL, TO RECEIVE THE APRIL 14, 1981,
COhJNUIXITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES.
Mr. Oquist stated they are still discussing the purpose of their commission.
Mr. Oquist stated that on page 6, because of a request by the City Council , the
Cotttmunity Development Commission merlbers discussed and recommended some criteria
as the minimum requirements in establishing a special use permit for two families
in a single family unit in an R-1 zone. He stated the Community Development
commission would like the Planning Commission to concur with this recommendation.
fir. Oquist stated there are some things thnnttlbe enforced,u can bnforceut it h s always
been his opinion that if you have an ordinance,
if you don't have an ordinance , there is nothing to enforce and there is no pro-
4 t�Ction for the City.
PLA'-1;IING COITIISSIOII MEETING , MAY 6, 1981 PAGE 9
The fol1owinor changes were made to the criteria recommended by the Community
Development Commission in their r:,otion on page 6: ". .. .to recommend to City
Council the following criteria as the minimum requirements for establishing a
special use permit for exi ;tinn inrale family dwelling units to allow two families
in a single family dtiueil inj unit u an R-1 zone:
1 . Minimum lot size of 9,000 sq. ft.
2. Floor area for either family unit not less than 650 sq. ft.
3. Off-street parking, includin( oarace, for at least 4 vehicles
4. Cannot be permanently sea ed of�i .e.., common entry way, one address,
one water meter, one gas meter, and one electric meter)
5.. Special use permit expires at sale
6. One apartment is owner-occupied
7. Conditions of special use permit on file at County with title
8. Conforms with State Building Code.
MOTION BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MS. HUGHES, TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOP11ENT COM ISSION, AS AMENDED ABOVE, ON THE CRITERIA AS THE
MINIi4UM REQUIREMENTS IN ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR EXISTING SINGLE
FA14ILY UNITS TO ALLOW TWO FAMILIES IN A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT IN AN R-1 ZONE.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO RECEIVE
THE MINUTES CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. OTHER BUSINES
A. Bike Trail in cke Park
Ms. Hughes stated s wanted to alert the Planning Commission that the
County's plan for a b e trail through Locke Park and along Rice Creek
is creating a lot of fer r among the citizenry. The County was about
to award bids for an aspha bike trail through the creek bed and through
some marshes which would req ' e some digging and filling, and the
citizens east of Old Central we very upset about what was going to be
done and began to ask sone questi s . There are a number of actions the
citizens have taken by going to the 'ce Creek Watershed District Board
and the County Board. She stated they ire doing a fine job in trying
to get an agreeable compromise. She sta "d the Parks & Recreation
Coirmission did not know there was going to an 8-ft. wide asphalt
path with 2 ft. of grass ori either side, plus nother 8 ft. of hiking
trail and about 7 bridges across the Creek betwe Locke Park and
Netw Brighton. She stated the City does not have m h say on this , other
than what goes in Locke Park and not much of that ei r, so she felt the
citizenry are doing a great deal of good and are diggin up facts.
She stated the Planning Commission may be seeing some pet ions in the
near future.
'L
THE CITY OF
DIRE=D 0r-QZAT
a '
D �ti MEMORANDUM
F L' Y
DATE May 6, 1981 C-81-42
FROM D.P.W. William S. Deblon - Planning TO ACTION INFO,
SUBJECT John Flora X
Proposed Noise Ordinance
Attached is the draft ordinance to be heard May 11, 1981 by the City
Council . This ordinance represents policies that are supported by the
Environmental Quality Commission, Community Development Commission and
Planning Commission. As you know, we have been receiving technical assis-
tance from the League of Minnesota Cities since January of 1980 via an EPA
Grant. We also anticipate a grant for motor vehicle noise equipment.
The cost of enforcing this program will be virtually nothing except
for staff time. It is estimated that 7 to 10 inspection hours per month
may be used. The police would enforce motor vehicle noise limits about
4 hours per week depending on conditions. If the City decided it wanted
a compliance center, there would be some cost to man the center. However,
use of the graduated fine schedule could be used in lieu of the compliance
center. We would want to post signs and distribute educational literature
on the noise program. These costs are minimal.
The ordinance has been reviewed by a mulititude of people. They
include:
Planning
Inspections
Engineering
City Attorney
City Prosecutor
Police
League of MN Cities
Planning Commission
Environmental Qual . Com.
To gain an understanding of decibels (dB) , I 've attached a chart re-
vealing comparison noises.
WSD/sl
2 �
PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL
Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing before
the City Council of the City of Fridley in the City Hall at 6431
University Avenue Northeast on Monday, May 11 , 1981 in the Council
Chamber at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of:
Consideration of a proposed noise
ordinance.
Copies of this proposed ordinance are
available at City Hall
Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may
be heard at the above stated time and place.
WILLIAM J. NEE
MAYOR
Publish: April 29, 1981
May 6, 1981
2 L
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 121 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY
CODE RELATING TO NOISE, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION AND
ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY NOISE, AND IMPOSING
A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION
(This Chapter is a new Chapter and has been codified as of )
SECTION 124.01 PURPOSE PURPOSE
1. The Council of the City of Fridley deems that certain levels and
amounts of noise are detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the public.
SECTION 124.02. DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS
1 . Air Circulation Device means a mechanism designed and used for the
controlled flow of air used in ventilation, cooling, or
conditioning, including, but not limited to, central and window air
conditioning units.
2. City means a noise control officer, peace officer, or any other
duly appointed representative of the City as designated by the City
Manager.
3. Decibel is a unit of sound pressure level, abbreviated dB.
4. dBA is a unit of sound level . dBA is the weighted pound pressure
level by the use of the A metering characteristic and weighting as
specified in ANS1 Specification for Sound Level Meters, SL4-1971,
which is hereby incorporated by reference. For the purpose of
those regulations, dBA is used as a measure of human response to
sound.
5. Exhaust System means a combination of components which provides for
enclosed flow of exhaust gas from engine parts to the atmosphere.
6. L1D is the sound level, expressed in decibels (dBA), which is
ex'c'eeded 10 percent of the time for a one hour period, as measured
by a sound level meter having characteristics as specified in the
latest standards, 1 .4, of the American National Standards Institute
and using test procedures approved by the City.
7. L50 is the sound level similarly expressed and measured which is
exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one hour period.
8. Noise means any excessive and unnecessary sound not occurring in
the natural envirunment, including, but not limited to, sounds
emanating from aircraft and highways, and industrial , commercial
and residential sources.
Paye 2 -- ORDINANCE NO. 2
9. Person means an individual , firm, partnership, corporation,
trustee, association, the state and its agencies and subdivisions,
or any body of persons whether incorporated or not. With respect
to acts prohibited or required herein, "person" shall include
employees and licensees.
10. Sound is an oscillation in pressure, stress, particle displacement,
particle velocity, etc., in an elastic or partially elastic medium,
or the superposition of such propagated alterations.
11 . Sound Pressure Level (SPL) is 20 times the logarithm to the base 10
of the ratio of the pressure of a sound, p, to the reference
pressure, pr. For the purposes of these regulations, the
reference pressure shall be 20 micronewtons per square meter (20 u
N/m2) . In equation form, Sound Pressure Level in units of
decibels is expressed as.
. SPL (dB) = 20 log IOPIpr
12. Sound Receiving Unit means a person, activity, animal life, or
property which is affected by noise.
SECTION 124.03. RECEIVING LAND USE STANDARDS RECEIVING
LAND USE
1 . The sound level requirements of this section shall apply at the STANDARDS
property or zoning lines of the sound receiving unit. Measurements may
be made at any location on the property for evaluation purposes and to
aid in the enforcement of other sections of this Chapter.
2. The sound levels as stated below shall be the highest sound levels
permitted in each of the zoning districts as defined in Chapter
205 of the Fridley Zoning Code.
Day Night
Zoning Districts L50 L10 L50 L10
(7 a.m. - 10 p.m. ) (10 p.m. - 7 a.m. )
R-1, R-2, R-3, P 60 65 50 55
C-1 , C-IS, C-2, C-2S31
CR15 CR2, 65 70 65 70
M-1, M-2 75 80 75 80
3. Sound levels resulting from cumulative travel of motor vehicles on
state and county highways and railroads are exempt from these
Receiving Land Use Standards but not other sections of this
ordinance relating to motor vehicles and railroads. This does not
exempt individual motor vehicles from any and all federal, state,
or local regulations. It is the intent of the City to reduce
highway noise in the various land areas surrounding highways to or
below the requirements of this section when and wherever possible.
r •-
PagF� 3 -- ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION 124 .04. MOTOR VEHICLES NOISE LIMITS MOTOR VEHICLL.
NOISE LIMITS
No person shall operate a motor vehicle in the City in violation of the
motor veh�cle noise limits of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
(M.S. 169.693)
SECTION 124.05. CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT CENTRAL AIR
CONDITIONING
EQUIPMENT
No person may install or place any central air conditioning plant or
equipment in any location without the prior approval. of the City.
Window air conditioning units are exempt from the provisions of this
subdivision, except that the noise produced by such window units , as
well as by all existing air circulation devices, shall be attenuated by
means deemed appropriate by the City, including, but not limited to,
relocation of such units or devices, if this noise results in or
contributes to a violation of Section 124.03 of this ordinance.
SECTION 124.06. OPERATIONAL LIMITS OPERATIONAL
LIMITS
1 . Recreational Vehicles. Recreation vehicles shall be subject to
M.S. 84.90 and Section 703 of the City Code.
2. Outdoor Pottier Implements. No person shall operate any outdoor
power implement, including but not limited to power lawn
mowers,power hedge clippers, chain saws, mulchers, garden tillers,
edgers, or such other implements designed primarily for outdoor
use, at any time other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00
p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekends and
national legal holidays. Snow removal equipment is exempted from
this provision.
3. Construction Activities. Construction work hours shall be subiect
to Sections 18.11 and 18.12 of the City Code.
4. Refuse Hauling. Refuse hauling hours shall be subject to Section
113.10 of the City Code.
SECTION 124.07 . PUBLIC NUISANCE NOISES PROHIBITED PUBLIC
NUISANCE
General . It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause to be made NOISE
any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, PROHIBITED
injures, or endangers the health, safety, and general welfare of Fridley
residents. The following acts, among others, are declared to be
nuisance noises in violation of this Ordinance but said enumeration
shall not be deemed to be exclusive.
1 . Horns, Audible Signaling Devices, etc. No person shall sound any
signaling device on any vehicle except as a warning of danger (M.S.
169.68) .
Page 4 -- ORDINANCE NO. 2
2. Radios, Phonographs, Paging Sy,tems etc. No person shall use or
operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiving set,
musical instrument, phonograph, paging system, machine or other
device for the production or reproduction of sound in a distinctly
and loudly audible manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and
comfort of any person nearby.
3. Participation on Noisy Parties or Gatherings.
(a) No person shall congregate because of, or participate in,
any party or gathering of people from which noise
emanates of a sufficient volume or of such nature to
disturb the peace, quiet, or repose of other persons.
(b) A peace officer may order all persons present other than
the owners or tenants of the building or place to
immediately disperse. Any person who shall refuse to
leave after being ordered to do so by a police officer
shall be guilty of a violation of this Ordinance.
(c) Any owner or tenant of the building or place who has
knowledge of the disturbance and fails to immediately
abate said disturbance shall be guilty of a violation of
this Ordinance.
4. Loud Speakers, Amplifiers for Advertising. No person shall
operate or permit the use or operation of any loudspeaker, sound
amplifier, or other device for the production or reproduction of
sound on a street or other public place for the purpose of
commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the of the
public to any commercial establishment or vehicle.
5. Animals. Animals shall be subject to Section 302.03 of the City
Code.
6. Exhausts. No person shall discharge the exhaust or permit the
discharge of the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal
combustion engine or motor boat, motor vehicle, or snowmobile
except through a muffler or other device which will effectively
prevent loud or explosive noises therefrom and complies with all
applicaple state laws and regulations. (M.S. 169.69) .
7. Defective Vehicle or Load. No person shall use any vehicle so out
of repair or so loaded as to create loud and unnecessary grating,
grinding, rattling or other noise.
Page 5 -- ORDINANCE NO. 2
B. Loading, Unloading, Unpacking. No person shall create loud and
excessive noise in connection with loading, unloading, or
unpacking of any vehicle.
SECTION 124.0£3. EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCY WORK EXCEPTION FOP
EMERGENCY
WORK
Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency work to
preserve the public health, safety, or general welfare, or in the
performance of emergency work necessary to restore a public service or
eliminate a public hazard shall be exempt from the provisions of this
ordinance. Any persons responsible for such emergency work shall take
all reasonahle actions to minimize the amount of noise.
SECTION 124.09. ENFORCEMENT ENFORCEMENT
1 . Administration. The noise control program established by this
ordinance shall be administered by the City.
2. Testing Procedures. The City shall adopt guidelines establishing
the test procedures and instrumentation to be used in enforcing the
provisions of Section 124.03 imposing noise standards. A copy of
such guidelines shall be kept on file in City Hall and shall be
available to the public for reference during office hours.
3. Studies, etc. The City shall conduct such research, monitoring,
and other studies related to sound as are necessary or useful in
enforcing this ordinance and reducing noise in the city. The City
shall make such investigations and inspections in accordance with
law as required in applying ordinance requirements.
4. Noise Impact Statements. The City may require any person applying
to the City for a change in zoning classification or a permit or
license for any structure, operation, process, installation or
alteration or project that may be considered as a potential noise
source to submit a noise impact statement on . a form prescribed by
the City.
5. Other Powers and Duties. The City shall exercise such other powers
and perform such other duties as are reasonable and necessary to
enforce this ordinance.
6. Criminal Penalties. The violation of any provisions of this
ordinance except Section 124.04 Subdivision 1 , shall be subject to
Chapter 901 of the City Code.
7. Civil Action. The provisions of this ordinance may be enforced
through injunction, mandamus, or other appropriate civil remedy.
PAGE 6 - ORDINANCE NO. 2
SECTION 124.10. VARIANCES VARIANCES
The City Council shall have authority, consistent with this section to
grant variances from the requirements of all sections of this
Ordinance. Variances shall be subject to Section 6.141 of the City Code.
SECTION 124.11. SEVERABILITY SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application of any provision
to a particular situation is held to be invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the ordinance and the
application of the ordinance to any other situation shall not be
invalidated.
PASSED AND ADOPTEn BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY
OF , 1981 .
MAYOR - WILLIAM J. NEE
Attest:
CITY CLERK - SIDNEY C. INMAN
Public Hearing:
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Public Hearing:
0014A/0803A
2 !1
THE CITY OF
D I R CTCMATE Qoo�6
t
U
' C^
OF U' � o
�'-';��J MEMORANDUIvi
RUM U= WCM,: '74"S �(7_7
DATE April 10, 1981 C-81-33
FROIA D.P.W. William S. Deblon - Plan nin ` TO ACTION INFO.
SUBJECT Nasim Qureshi X
Noise Ordinance Staff Impact and John Flora X
Cost Jerrold Boardman X
I have contacted various people in regard to the above mentioned
matter.
The cost of implementing a noise program could be virtually nothing
depending on what the City decided to do. The sections in the ordinances
will be responsibilities of existing departments (i .e. police, inspection,
and planning) .
Some costs would occur if the City wanted to set up a compliance
center. This center, where vehicles would be inspected for compliance
after receiving a citation, is not necessary unless the City wanted one.
The existing graduated fine schedule would take care of this. We would,
however, want to promote the program at first through signs and educational
pamphlets. This cost would be minimal .
At the other extreme is the efforts put into Bloomington's noise pro-
gram. The cost breakdown is as follows:
$30,000 Noise Program (included 1/2 of Noise Officer salary)
$6,500 Police (paid them overtime 4 hours at a time when
the weather was good)
$36,500
Bloomington had a compliance center where the fine dropped to $10 if
compliance was demonstrated. Motor Vehicle noise limits were enforced
from May to October when weather was good.
Attached is a memo from Jim Hill describing the various impacts on the
Fridley Police Department for your information.
WSD/sl
POLICE
Oa E MA ry T r W T
"0 �.,; City of Fridley ME.REDRA DU
:s y Minnenota
DATE APRIL-9-, 1981
FROM TAMrs P_ 11TT.T. TO ACTION INFO
SUBJECT
NOISE ORDINANCE
This memo is in response to your question concerning additional
work for Police Officers and staff as it applies to the noise
ordinance. The ordinance in and of itself would have the following
effect:
1. Officer' s time may be required to issue certain
citations as is currently done with radar, ect.
2. An examination station to evaluate vehicle repairs
could require officer time. This , too, is similar
to vehicle repair inspections currently being done.
The ordinance would provide a more specific tool for Police Officers
to use in a variety of situations related to noise problems.
In addition, it should be noted that if an active noise ordinance
enforcement program were to be undertaken it would require specific
efforts on the part of our departments personnel. This is true of
any specialized enforcement effort. The Police Department has sent
two patrol officers to a school to become familiar with the latest
equipment and techniques in the area of noise control enforcement.
They would be prepared to partake in the development of a specialized
noise control program, however this would not be considered a high
priority compared to other demands on police time.
JPH/sa
the heart rate of the fettis.
standinglanhna;e in tilt.'prc:;;crir:f;of /lssurning a childiu,ivc�at schcxll
ls
or mothf:rs w}lo woik in f.,cteii ices noise than adlih s ilE ak andilistcn,in ve.lopedi because of la not>,% iulnle
I ,
or other noisy places, it is possible children leifr n }
that ,')ise }las a direct and'net'ativv a noisenvi difficulty in idf vteloping such will
In a Schon► locatedcritext to
effect on 'the fetus. Ili�h levels of blf.. -an elevated railway,
noise may pose a threat to the hear- essential
of,1S �eecllstl or 'clx example, classroo ns faced the tracks did%ts o
ing and other capacities of the un sol }
bornchild.AJapanesestllciyofmore against confuse a sot d o noise,
than rdid similar students tudentrsl whose
than 1,000 births produced evidence child may
lewood,Calif.,the effects of aircraft
" of a high.prupor•tion of low Weight 'very'\with n to tell them apart Another d may classrooms
assrooms\Here farther away.In n- •
babies in noisy a.eas. These birch not symptom
tvei hts were under 5'/z pounds,the symptom of this probletll is the noise on learning were so severe that
g several ne\v schools had to be built.
%%'orkl Health Organization's defini- tendency to distort by dr•lei
disruption of learning went beyond
tion of premathll ity.I,cnv birth rates ping parts of ivords,especially their As a school official explained, the
and noise also were associated with endings.
_
lower levels of certain hormones Reading aliili b also
el A'study of .Ae seri- ircraft to bass over.tlConsng oidorol le
ahoueach
ght to affect fetid growth and to ..ously impaired y.
a god indicator of protein pro- reading scores of fl �'-u°h fiur ve indi- fly ooun ver refo u s ino students' attenl
be g
duction.The.difl"erence between the stens in grades two v through 0
in
hormone of pregnant mothers cated that noise levelbsuildin�s ere the interrupt oris being done before
in noisy versus quiet areas increased
adjacent
tthe tchildren s read-
detriment, Noise Is All Around Us
as birth appmached.
Noise in modern offices often re-
Studies show that stress causes in- ability.The influence of noise in
c
onstriction of the uterine blood -the home was found a paren s'eclu- sults in similar losses of concentra-
vessels that supply nutrients and portant than even
11
o>, en to the developingbaby.Addi- rational background,nlilyl'a dotloe ciaohe
a hearing impairment. The
�g -
tional links between noise and birth children in e _
Xerox ma-
defects liave been noted-in a recent grades the youngsters \Fere in.The noise of type\tiTiter`s,
ment the more pro- --reaches nearly intolerable levels.. .
P
reliminaiti study of people living longer the children had lived in a chines, telephones, and computer..,
near a major airport. The abhor- noisy emRrb
malities suggested •included bare- ..nounced the reading impairment. Even in the house, there are a
. lips,cleft palates;and defects in the _
Mthing.
�.'Merhexl at
_ spree:
The low feet
Noise jos
Estects on Children ground Us
Adults long have \worried about
y a
tat ut ft•.11
the effects of noise on crutch en. In so
`k.
'
we[
the early 1900s, `quiet zoneseiraner .�
CStillrlCStied around many of the Ila- rcctwrant, 73 �.;..
• di.h.v:uhrr ` t;:c\•'.?; i�'a:<; `:j?. i';t;::• }Ji?.`�
tion's schools to increase educ;a-
:f1lCienC h ' r-eciliCulg noises Conversation 40
tionals etch ;rs .:::,:> -y .. •:.,
inshte an
e-re
\with childr
believed to interferi s 333
`
learning and even to hamper thchome
:u '
thinking SU o # 2
'Ibctcty, researcllers looking into
• Su4 dhiyur
the conscgtiencec of hr,ni;ulg up
children in this less than quiet Nvoi•ld
have cliscovered that learnili'v cliR►
7 7
cultresare l,kely bvpreclucts of the
noisw schools, plily are s, and ret
homes in w11ic11 our Chilclion F;row ..........
... .... .
up. fiecatise they arc just iearning
childron haveluore ditliculty antler- —
22 hA'I ION'S c'tl t1.sl\t:\l' 1976
3
o THr— C.-ry OF
# DIRECTORATEo
8
OFPUMLI
C A =
x+11 9.::rBt
DATE June 3 1981 -
FROM D.P.W. John G Flora Public Works Dir.- TO ACTION INFO
SUBJECT Nasim M. Qureshi . City Manager
Street Lighting
Stinson Boulevard
At a neighborhood meeting on the Crime Prevention Program, there were
concerns raised about adequate street lighting on Stinson Boulevard
between 75th Avenue and Osborne Road.
There are three lights along Stinson Boulevard between 75th Avenue and
Osborne Road--one at each corner and one light approximately 480 feet
north of 75th Avenue. Our current policy is to provide street lights
at intersections, blind curves and for mid-block lights in areas in
excess of 1200 feet.
An exception currently is in effect for the mid-block light in this area.
If additional lighting is desired on Stinson Boulevard by the City
Council , request its location and rationale be provided for this action.
JGF:ijk
3 �
12
A2 el THIS IS A COMPILA 110N O"RECORDS AS
T �� THEY APPEAR IN THE AN'KA SHOWN.
_VFO,
OFFICES M/fCIING THE A�EA SHOWN.
THIS 6RAWING IS 10 RE USED ONLY FOR
Of FERINCE PURPOSES AND THE COUN• -
7�0� ^ FY IS NO!RFSPONSBLE FOR ANY IN-
?IDL ACCURACIES HEREIN CONTAINED.
539/2
aw•'^ �° � LAKE _
SPR/NO N F CORNCR
RO 0 No. H38
>
av?e-c.._O _a/rsw_.'✓_ua�s_ Z X77 9� I q
/7:1 Y B /f 6 pi o 'x -.2
2YSAPAPyntRs,tfa✓
t'lt'
�
I.
LEyDt (7.0 .. "G,�^7•''r e"-�{-..•A.br�` _a/
,
M
/s �RIN P rAv 1
/T 1 12t;J>j p 'ERRACE"
=-;, •J Yti; r+ EKE
-Y',ri �-:�r.�*;`..u�` Mn_.`•�'L.._' 6 !L a 41 6 y .6 I ^3. I '� aw
!6 A et ZO 25 ;z6 �• R Z rlr• w N „' `QJ Ql�lAr!'E7'TE HAI
s1, O /1 7 K tL ' ,7 I
�Q -� AF � v r ,3 o s ti/ =�7+6TH AJE h�� i
✓� ,6/_ ,4 .w f �' �f 4� 2 m J/ .. B N s ''ll 9 ✓ ` 1'E /4�iG
:6. r /7 a x =92 2 s i'4�,, 1 ,• 0 9 ;.► v ►Xlea
•O f�r /1 t �'• , �c "
�••? -AVENUE=-�`
•MAOOWMt?OR �TERR2CE4/1 52N0 1
I + t• A•
Aba
XA
f� r s ;a a,. �CJ , C�
�Vl\IcJ r'i A't1 gT iJi/ai A� rr+I'iyNy'
a` Y
,PZY, ''J 9,1✓ (in/ bc
Q �L \ 1 �i j� 3 i
00. y SPp tib I 4aAL n wl f" \
S s �j , �4Y,7I/w.'I Ja,M ,,,., vj 2, raa., 9 ( �tr/
_ ,; i(•�1 �, ?•Y.S�.Ir Iyw I C.iYrsor a ...
. 'F. P . ...
R: -• _ T---'°.,- s-T►+u•,,.---�- - �.- —�..� -_ Avg--- •,.,...,-r,-�—...
e i UOITOgc gr
R'S Ir' na a 3
'2
�'�Ar`-IT.M.'I.!tite7 I.Av • 3 a 1: -8+, ri....d . (isd • .�+x /3 \5 E /3 it $ .�
r r+ 2 6 ♦ j .w� :�,
6 F ,
��SIDE DRIVE 6 Z It-'
1Nt9E 'xTER.
2 a., c '�:g .o a i w:• `.�7 ,�►_ "�.' lid I f1lu •}!: ^�a\r.
ONONDAGA STREET
-A J a s y 33S BDIVI ION i AV
Di 44 t 7APD 7710JV
I. 22 ; 24
_ a 35 ',. ,.• I I LllNO;�.. w �,— Jk^ . '�-a:?;• ri; ; low
34 '�� �L` 731/2+ AVE., •. ` aY 6 —S118D
9
TE '
'21
23 2527 29 Hilo
it
NO. 129 ! ' ' • h �J,w > NOLIO8
' .111 yY�y.. _— __ -
' -— AVE. N.E.- "
[//i CORNER STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 7 3RD
SEC.it
.4
L.
r
ROLAND W. ANDERSON
COUNTY SURVEYOR +.r•.,
YlOIA CdM11 Y, A1NM,SOIA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
City of Fridley MEMORANDUM
Minnesota
^ V
DATE MAY 29, 1981
FROM JAMES P. HILL TO ACTION INFO
SUBJECT NASIM QUERSHI X
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS JOHN FLORA X
7500-7600 Block Stinson Blvd.
On May 27, 1981 the Police Special Operations Unit conducted an initial
organizational meeting which included residents from the 7500-7600
block of Stinson Blvd. The meeting was well attended and our Crime
Prevention Program and strategies were well received.
This area of our city has one of the highest burglary rates, with one
in nine homes being burglarized within the last 12 months. Of 18
residents in attendance representing 9 homes, all claimed to have been
a victim of a burglary at least once over the past years.
As a result of our meeting, three specific issues were raised that
require attention.
1. Street Light. There is a strong desire for a street light
in the middle of the 7500-7600 block of Stinson. This area
was inspected by the police in the night hours and found to
be without any significant visibility. Since visibility is
vital strategy in our Crime Prevention Program, it is recommended
that the city consider a street light at this location due to
the special problem, even though it does not fall within our
street light policy.
2. Large Overhanging Trees. The visibility problem is further
compounded by large overhanging trees in the area. It is
recommended that trees be trimed and N.S.P. has been contacted
with this request. N.S.P. agreed to trim the trees around
power lines. Additional triming may be advisable by the city
at a later date.
3. Non-Neighborhood Parking. There is reported to be a large
number of vehicles parking in front of homes by people using
Spring Lake at night. The parking creates difficulty for
residents to recognize suspicious vehicles in the neighborhood.
Block captains are checking with residents to see if they
wish to request the city to restrict parking in this area
after a specific hour.
JPH/sa
4
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 3, 1981
MEMO TO: Nasim Qureshi , City Manager 81-6-1
FROM: Robert D. Aldrich, Chief I5/'�-
RE: Hilltop Fire Protection Contract
The attached contract should be placed on the agenda for Council
action.
I have forwarded copies to Hilltop for approval by their Council .
Thank you for your assistance.
RDA/el
Attachment
FIRE SERVECF. CONTRACT
BETWEEN
CITY OF FRIDLEY AND
CITY OF HILLTOP
ANOKA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
This agreement is made this 1st day of January 1982, by and between the City
of Fridley, party of the first part, and the City of Hilltop, party of the
second part.
Whereas, the first party has fire fighting equipment suitable for use in the
protection of property against loss of fire; and the second party has no
adequate fire fighting equipment of its own, and desires to obtain the use
of equipment of the first party, and services of its firefighters, (when possible
for first party to furnish the same) , within the territorial limits of the
second party, namely the limits of the City of Hilltop, Anoka County,
Minnesota.
Now, in consideration of the promises, herein made, the mutual covenants thereof,
and in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
1. That upon a request made by or from the City of Hilltop, the first party,
will give and render assistance if fighting any fire therein and will send
such equipment and men as are available, ready and able to be sent by the
first party.
2. That the consideration to be paid by the second party and accepted by the
first party for the furnishing of such equipment and men to fight any
fire or fires, is as follows:
a. A flat fee shall be paid by the party of the second part to the party
of the first part to satisfy the contract flat fee requirement.
Said flat fee shall be according to the following schedule:
1982: $10,237.50
1983: $10,750.00
1984: $11,287.00
FIRE SEttVICE CONTRACT Page 2
b. An additional sum for each call trip, of one hundred and fifty and
no/100 dollars ($150.00) will be paid by the party of the second
party to the party of the first part, and one hundred and fifty
dollars ($150.00) per hour or fraction thereof for all time beyond two
hours; said time to commence when the equipment and men leave the fire
station of the party of the first part, and shall end when said
equipment and men are back in said fire station.
c. The party of the first part will inspect industrial property, and
commercial property and multiple dwellings at least twice annually and
will render a report to the party of the second part. The party of
the second part shall pay the party of the first part three hundred fifty
dollars ($350.00) per each inspection. The party of the second part
shall be responsible for enforcing fire prevention measures.
d. Payments of the fees under the terms of the contract shall be due and
payable by the party of the second part to the party of the first part
as follows:
(1) Annual flat fee shall be paid by the party of the second part to
the party of the first part, in two equal installments, payable
on January 1st and July 1st of the current contract year.
(2) Fire call fees shall be due and payable by the party of the second
part to the party of the first part on the month following the
month in which the call occurred.
(3) The inspection fee of $350.00 per inspection shall be due and
payable by the party of the first part upon receipt of invoice.
3. The operation of the equipment and the direction of its use at the scene
of the fire, together with its men, shall be in and under the complete
charge of the Fire Chief of the first party, (if he is present, otherwise
his next in command or agent) . The question of fact in each instance as
to whether or not the fire equipment and personnel of the party of the
first part are ready and able to respond to a call in the City of Hilltop
shall be determined by the Fire Chief or his next in command or agent.
4. The party of the first part shall act in good faith in sending its
equipment and men, to any such fire as herein provided; and no liability
shall attach to the first party by reason of any negligent act or commission
of the driver or any men sent with said equipment to said fire. It is
particularly understood that the first party is not obligated to send said
equipment and men upon call, if in judgement of the Fire Chief of the first
party, or his nett in command or agent, said equipment and men are required
at the time within the limits of the first party, to fight any fires then
existing. Should road or weather conditions be unfavorable, in the judgement
of the Fire Chief of the first party, as to the furnishing of said equipment
4C
FIRE SERVICE C0.3TRACT Page 3
and men at the time, then the first party is not obligaged to respond to
said call; and should a fire start within the corporate limits of the first
party during the time such equipment and men are traveling to said fire,
or while they are actually engaged in fighting said fire, or while they are
standing by, said equipment and men may be recalled or sent back to the City
of the first party, provided in the judgement of the Fire Chief or his next
in command or agent of the first party, such action is necessary and advisable.
5. This agreement with any exhibits and riders attached hereto, contains the
entire agreement of the parties and no representations, inducements,
promises of other agreements, oral or otherwise, not embodied herein, shall
be of any force of effect.
6. This agreement is in effect upon execution by both parties; and shall remain
in effect for a term of twelve months from the date above first shown, except
that the said contract shall renew itself for an additional period of
twenty-four months unless one of the parties has given a ninety (90) days
written notice of intent to terminate prior to the end of the twelve month
period.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this lease to be executed and
affixed their seals (if any) as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
Witnesses to City of Fridley
MAYOR (Seal)
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF HILLTOP
Witnesses to City of Hilltop
MAYOR (Seal)
CITY CLERK
May 20, 1931
Mayor Nee and the Fridley City Council
s
E: Senior Drop-in-center
The Friendly Fridley Folks are petitioning the city council
for a Senior drop-in-center., Thi: center would be open to
all seniors in Fridley. Member hip to the Friendly Fridley
Folks mould not be a rEquirement. This center must be
plan-,cd to accommodate an ever growing population of seniors.
t This cculd become a center worthy of the City of Fridley.
This could be the be-inni r-g of a venture to provide for the
seniors of this city, a chance to maintain their dignity
a.-,d usefulness as citizens of Fridley. The greatest
volunteers are seniors. In considering this petition, we
wish to state our financial position. We have a membership
of two hundred and twenty five, with a potential of three
hundred and fifty. Our dues are two dollars per year.
We have a Hank account of about seven hundred dollars.
We have some members joining other clubs in neighboring
areas. They have more to offer,
Purpose
Our purpose is toraise the 'social level of all seniors
in Fridley. To foster and promote community wide interest
and concerns for the problems of the elderly. Provide a
place where they may meet with their peers, for socializing
and entertainment. We shall keep our selves informed on
issues that are a concern to seniors. We will not involve
our selves in politics of any kind. We will continue to
serve on programs of a volunteer nature, health permitting.
We would like to open on week ends if the need arises.
Weems ends can be a very lonely time for seniors. Our
drop-in-center must be geared to identify and meet these
needs through activities,
Coordinator
We shall need the services of a coordinator to assist us
in carrying out the programs formulated by the program
committee. At this time we do not need a full time
coordinator.
Loc!Aion
The drop-in-center coni mittee feels that the s;_,uth end of
Park View school is the ideal location for the senior Center.
It has a seperate back entr !nce, and p rkinC facilities
a-e elo2e, so the people .1 uil wileci chairs .:,end Walkers,
Mould 'ltave easy access to the uilding.
6
2 {Sexiior Drop-in-ceptor)
We have at the present time our congregate dining program
in -I`a ,k Vi vw. N e do not wish to be seoerated from this
by two dif Brent locations. There are other class
roo : that we coa=id u:=>e by reque;,t for d. ytime classes.
Eany senior: do not wish to go out at night in the winter
scason. There is a floor plan of the south end of the
scrlool zhoriing the desired area. At present there is a
pre-school nur-.ery at this end, that may present a problem.
We have a alternate area for the lounge and general usage
area in the Plan.
Other needs (,material)
1. Chairs
2, Tables
3. Piano
4. Desk
5. Display cases for Arts & Crafts
6. Window Air Conditioners (2)
7. A raised platform (1211)
8. Coat racks
9. Truck racks for printed material
10. A furnished lounge and general purpose area
11. A telephone ext.
12. T.V. set and radio
13. Coffee makers
14. Kitchen cabinet includes stove, ref. ,sink in one unit
The Friendly Fridley Folks wish to thank you for considering
our petition for this drop--in-center.
Thank you,
i +
i
Anthony Lorbeski
President Friendly Fridley Folks
[ .__ h
t
_ y
f i{ii
f
P 1 +
1
I�.
3 c'
r �
w
i
. b
CITY OF F R I D L E Y
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: NASIM QURESHI, CITY MANAGER
FROM: SID INMAN, DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: RECEIVING AND AWARDING BIDS FOR HIGHSPEED PHOTOCOPIER
DATE: JUNE 3, 1981
On May 29, 1981 , the City of Fridley received bids for a highspeed
photocopier capable of making up to 100,000 copies per month. On the basis of
all the inI recon endethatethenbidfberan awardedltolthef the Kodakcopying Companynforrsof
the
the City, I recommend
purchase of a 150AF copier/duplicator.
The rationale for awarding the bid to Kodak is as follows:
1) On the basis of a seven-year cost calculation usinq bid sheet information,
Kodak has the lowest cost of any of the three bidders.
The seven-year cost calculation(see attachment) is important because the
largest part of the expense of a copier is the service contract and per copy
charges. In the case of the three bids
received,
had
the
lowest initial
purchase price but because of higher
charges had the greatest total cost. Kodak because of lower per copy
charges, had the lowest seven-year cost even though it had the highest
initial purchase price The Xerox seven-year cost was slightly higher tha-
the Kodak cost.
The estimate of the seven year cost of the bidded equipment is as follows:
Kodak 150AF $96,245.35
Xerox 8200 96.987.41
IBM 120,958.12
2) The Kodak 150AF is the only bidded equipment to have received superior
ratings from independent office equipment research organizations
Because of the difficultly in ascertaining the performance of a copier in the
field it is extremely important to consult independent ratings organizations
which analyze and rate copier equipment on the basis of user surveys. The
Kodak 150AF consistently received superior ratings, while the Xerox 8200
received poor ratings for reliability and overall use. The IBM Model 40 has
not been used long enough to accumulate data, but the IBM Model 10 and Model
20 which are in the same "family" as the Model 40 have received poor ratings
for reliability. A summary of the independent ratings are presented on the
following page
6 F�
Dat apr(�
Svst(,ms Ratings(4 .0-0.0) IBM Serie; Kodak Xerox
III/10 15AAF 8200
Ease of Operation 2.3 3.5 2.6
Copy Quality 3 3 3 8 3.6
Ability to copy various 3.0 3.3 3.1
or4,ginals
Ease of usE,- Maintenance 2 9 3 2 2.3
Reliability of copier 2 .8 3.4 2.6
Relial[lility of attachments 2.8 3.2 2 6
OVERALL SATISFACTION 2.9 3.4 2.7
Significant Problems(%) IBM Series Kodak Xerox
III/10 150AF 8200
Human engineer'ng poor 6 0 38
Vendor proposed copier did not 6 0 24
fulfill needs
Frequent p per 'ams 50 10 57
Inconsistent copy quality 19 O 14
Difficult to maintain by 6 6 38
key operator
Would you recommend this copier
to someone else in your situation?(%)
Yes 72 97 52
No 13 1 43
Office Products Analyst
Reliabilitv Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Kodak 150AF 49 38 8 5 0
Xerox 8200 16 26 47 0 11
IBM Series 5 32 33 15 15
III 10%20
Copy Quality Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Kodak 150AF 93 5 0 2 0
Xerox 8200 78 18 4 0 0
IBM III 10/20 68 4 14 0
Price/Performance Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor
Kodak 150AF 27 35 33 5 0
Xerox 8200 10 19 47 19 5
IBM III 10/20 32 33 21 6
Quolity of Service
Excellent Very Good Goad Fair Poor
Kodak 150 AF 50 35 15 0 0
Xerox 8200 25 55 10 5 5
IBM III 10/20 41 22 13 8
-2
3) The Kodak 150AF has the best demonstrated performance record among
Metropolitian area corporations .
The Ko(i,:k 150AF was introduced in 1976 and has many of the largest
corporations in the area as customers . By contrast, the IBM Model 40 was
introduced in October of 1080 and has not established a long-term track
record of performance. The Xerox 8200 was introduced in July of 1979 in the
New York City area and has been sold nationally since then on a phased in
basis . It has been used by some of the major corporations in the area but not
to the extent of the Kodak 15OAF.
The fEct that the Kodak 150AF has proven itself in the field for more than
four years among a sizeable number of firms in the area is a significant
reason fcr the decision to choose this model . Some of the customers in the
metropolitian area include:
Onan Metronics
General Mills Metro Transit Commission
Control Data Northwestern Bell
Sperry Univac FMC
Municipalities using the Kodak 150AF include Plymouth, Golden Valley, and
Columbia Heights (10OPS) .
I
4) The Kodak 150AF was the only equipment to fully meet the bid specifications
Both the Kodak 150AF and the Xerox 8200 meet the bid specifications for a
fully automatic document feed, automatic stapling and limitless collating.
However, the Kodak 150 AF is capable of copying oversize documents such as
half section maps. not have this capability unless the
P
The Xerox 8200 does
City agrees to sign a waiver holding Xerox blameless for injury to the eyes
of City of Fridley employees who attempt to copy oversize documents (Oversize
document copying on the 8200 can only be accomplished by not pulling a screen
over the platen. Without this screen the bright flash of the copying light
can be seen by the user) . It is my opinion that the City should not sign such
a waiver because of the possible legal effects if such an injury should occur
The IBM Model 40 seriously fell short of the bid specifications. It did not
offer a automatic document handling, automatic stapling, and binless
collating. In addition, the bid for the Model 40 contained only a 20 bin
collator. This is 10 bins less than our present Xerox 7000 and means that if
a job using collation requires more than 20 originals it must be run twice.
Although the 20 bin collator can handle up to 40 originals through the use of
a feature which inserts a sheet of paper between each set, this is still
signficantly less than the Kodak 150AF which can run an unlimited number of
sets because it employs binless collation.
5) Additional reasons for selecting the Kodak 150AF
1 . The selection of the Xerox 8200 would require the blocking off of one
of the two doors in the present coPe room This WOU1 d hinder access to
the room by Accounting and Central Services Personnel . The cost of
installing a replacement door would be at least $1 ,100.
6C
2. According to Datapro Research Corporation, the IBM Modpl 40 has a
recommended monthly volume of up to 75,000 copies. The monthly copy
velum- of the City, however, is estimated to increase to 70,000
copies per month in the year beginning July 1 because of the removal
of the Xerox 4000 from the Civic Center. In addition it is estimated
that the monthly copy volume will increase 5,000 copies for each of the
next seven years . Given these projections. the City would quickly
exceed the rated capacity of the IBM Model 40.
3. Thu Kodak 150AF has superior recommendations to the Xerox 8200 and the
IBM Model 40. Attached are results of the survey done by the City of
Fridley of the recommendations supplied by each vendor. These
comments should be treated confidentially because many contacts request
-ed this as a condition of providing information.
Kodak supplied the names of over 50 companies, of which more than a
dozen were contacted. Their comments were uniformly good.
Xerox supplied the names of 8 customers. In addition, three customers
not on the Xerox list were contacted. Of the 11 contacts, five were
highly favorable, two were in the "fair to good" category, and four
were in the "poor" category.
IBM supplied the names of five customers. . Of the five IBM customers
contacted, , one had the units for only 6 weeks and could not make a
judgement, one was a coin-operated unit not comparable to the City's
operations, two were "good", and one, the City of Robinsdale was
poor.
For all of the above reasons, I believe that the City's best interests can be
served by the purchase of the Kodak 15OAF. Although no potential customer of a
hghspeed copier can hope to acquire the expertise necessary to make the "perfect"
decision, I am of the opinion that this purchase has been analyzed to the degree
necessary to ensure that the selection of the Kodak 150AF is superior to either of
the other models bidded by IBM or Xerox.
6 1l
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF BID INFORMATION
FOR HIGHSPEED PHOTOCOPIER
XEROX KODAK IBM
BRAND 150AF MODEL 40 w/20 BINS
MODEL 8200
6200 $40,016.65
Purchase Price $48,640.00 $56, _00 251 .00
Installation Cost 255.00
Total Bid
48,895.00 56,620.00 40,266.65
Delivery Date Est . 30 Days Est. 6 Weeks Est. 6 Weeks
Service Guarantee 7 years
7 years 7 years
Warranty
90 years 3 months 90 days
Bid Bond C11 h 11 ubb Group Cash11 ier's Check Hartford
Insurance Company 5th N. W. Bank Fire Insurance
5% $2,831 .00 5%
Down Payment None Required None Required 10% $4,001 .72
Staff Calculation of Seven-Year Costsl
Xerox Kodak IBM
Depreciation (a) $36,671 .25 $42,465.00 $30,199.99
Service Contracts (b) 40,120.50 41 ,669.63 49,673.00
Copy Charges (b) 32,419.41 26,265.72 51 ,151 .79
131,024.78
Sub Total 109,2 1 .16 110,400.35
Minus Salvage Value (a) (12,223.75) (14,155) (10,066.66)
TOTAL COST $96,987.41 $96,245.35 $120.958.12
1 Based on following assumptions equally applied to all three bids:
(a) Depreciation expense allocated over seven years with a salvage value of 25% of origin,:-
cost
rigincost
(b) 1981 Volume of 70,000 copies per month
(b) Projected Increase of 5,000 copies per month for each of the next seven years.
(b) Costs for service contracts and per copy charges based on vendors 1981 catalog
and increased 8% per year.
FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CIT`( COUNCIL.
RECEIVING BIDS AND SELLING XEXOX 7700 COPIER
THE BIDS ARE BEING OPENED JUNE 5, 1981 AT
11 :30 A.M. THIS MATERIAL WILL BE IN YOUR
AGENDA ENVELOPES .
THE CITY OF
DIRECT ORA"T"E � o0
®Ft o 0 0
MEMORANDUP,-
PUZZLIC WOMKSc_
s�cvc.-drw e.r Y
DATE June 3, 1981
FROM D.P.W. John G. Flora, Public Works Dir TO ACTION INFO a
SUBJECT Nasim M. Oureshi ,
Street Improvement Project
No. St. 1981-1 and 2
The bids for Street Improvement Project St. 1981-1 & 2 were combined into
one project, and were received by the Council on April 20, 1981.
We have now received the MnDOT approval for the State Aid Projects,
necessary for project award. NDH, Incorporated was the low bidder and
has done extremely good work for the City in the past.
Recommend the City Council award the Street Improvement Project
St. 1981-1 & 2 to N.D.H. , Inc.
JGF:ijk
8A
z , I )c I )� irttli( I11 c )I "I r<irltil )Orl�itic )1�
Tri itlsl )c )rtf, III( II IIIII( litlti
ctil`_ .: , el`Q �t. I 'illll. �I111111 '�iOtcl >;��>i
OF
612-296-9875
May 29, 1981
John G. Flora
Fridley Public Works Director
6431 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
In reply refer to: 901
S.A.P. 127-305-02
S.A.P. 127-307-06
CITY OF FRIDLEY
Dear Mr. Flora:
We are sending to you under separate cover two sets of prints and the
original plan for the above referenced projects.
This plan has been approved and you are now authorized to advance the
status of these projects.
Sincerely,
'0" h,WO
Delvert D. Oftedahl
State Aid Plans & Spec. Engineer
cc:
Wm. Crawford C.E.Weichselbaum, Dist. 5
File - 420
DDO:jmm
An Equal Opportunity Employer
CITY Or FRIDLEY
STREET It��'ROVC�'EP!'f PROJECTS ST. 1981-1 & 2
Bid Opening: April 14, 1981
(11:00 a.m.)
BID DEPOSIT BID AMOUNT
PLANHOLDIR
N.D.H. , Inc. 5� $238,592.60
700 Industry Boulevard 1
Anoka, MN 55303 (427-4400) Fireman's Fund
Hardrives , Inc. 5% $250,064.81
3030 Harbor Lane
Mpls. , MN 55441 Lumberman's Mutual
C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 5% $258,820.40
Box AD
Osseo, MN 55369 (425-4167) Fireman's Fund
n
THE CITY OF
_77 �r a "0
t ®F o6 6
MEMORANOUN
,g
. n :w y
DATE June 3 1981
FROM D.P.W. John G. Flora. Public Wo TO ACTION INFO
SUBJECT Nasim City Manager
Awarding of Street Improvement
Project No. St. 1981-10
(Sealcoating)
Based upon the Council 's direction, we re-advertised the Sealcoating
Project for this year. Bids were opened on June 3, 1981, at 11:00
a.m. in the Civic Center. Six bidders had showed interest in the pro-
ject. We received four bids. The low bidder was Allied Blacktop Com-
pany, Inc. at $47,052.50. This company has previously worked for the
City and done exceptional work.
Recommend the City Council accept the bids and award the St. 1981-10
Sealcoating Project to Allied Blacktop Company, Incorporated.
JGF:ijk
CITY OF FRIDLEY 9 A
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ST. 1981-10 (Sealcoating)
Bid Opening: June 3, 1981
(11:00 a.m. )
PLANHOLDER BID DEPOSIT BASE BID
Allied Blacktop Co. , Inc. 5% $47,052.50
10503 - 89th Avenue North State Surety Company
Maple Grove, MN 55364
Black Top Service Co. 5% $48,284.09
1200 West Highway No. 13 Fidelity Ins, Company
Burnsville, MN 55337
890-6300
Dustcoating, Inc. 5% $51,073,30
Route 2, Box 88A U.S. Fidelity Ins. Co.
Glencoe, MN 55336
864-3218
Bituminous Roadways 5% $51,256.98
2825 Cedar Avenue South Firemen's Fund
Mpls. , MN 55407
721-2451
0100.,y/10(I'l n
Nil t
t) FOR CONCURRENCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL - CLAIMS
CLAIM NUMBERS
155400 - 156C23