Loading...
CCM 07/22/2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY JULY 22, 2019 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember Barnette Councilmember Tillberry Councilmember Eggert Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Wysopal, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director James Kosluchar, Public Works Director Daniel Tienter, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Jay Karlovich, City Attorney Zach Kramka, Economic Development Intern Dave Hamernick, 1340 Hillcrest Drive NE PROCLAMATIONS: Night to Unite 2019 – Tuesday, August 6, 2019 PRESENTED. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 1. City Council Meeting of July 8, 2019 Councilmember Bolkcom stated there should be the following corrections: (1) on page 5, paragraph 3, she believed residents cannot mow their lawn “before” 9 a.m. (it states 9 p.m.); (2) the second paragraph from the bottom, where she states that she asked whether other contractors will be bringing in material to be crushed by Carlson for the other company’s use, and he replied, yes, we will reuse the material. Her understanding is they are bringing in material they are going to use but they are not going to be crushing material for other contractors. She asked if that was correct? Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, replied, they may crush materials for other folks. It is not just purely limited to them. They will use the material for themselves. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 2 Councilmember Bolkcom stated on page 7, paragraph 6, when she was asking about masks, the last sentence states they were not legally required to wear masks. It just states, we are not legally required to do so. If she understands correctly, she asked the question if they need to wear masks and he replied, they do not legally have to wear masks. Mayor Lund referred to page 7, the last paragraph, Terry Pierce, she does not live on “Yule” Street. She lives on “Ruth” Street. Also, in that sentence, the two sentences there, in every case where it says “he” it should be “she”. APPROVED AS CORRECTED. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Approve Change Order No. 1 for West Moore Lake Drive Trail and Street Resurfacing Project No. 17-21. Wally Wysopal, City Manager, stated the change order represents a 7.7 percent increase of the st original contract; and the adjustment will pay for the concrete medians along 61 and West Moore Lake Drive to improve the safety of both bikers and pedestrians near the school campus. APPROVED. 3. Resolution Approving Gifts, Donations and Sponsorships for the City of Fridley. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2019-33. 4. Claims (185739 – 185882) APPROVED. 5. License (Temporary On-Sale Liquor for Springbrook Nature Center Foundation). APPROVED. ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette adopting the proposed consent agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: No one in the audience spoke. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 3 ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom adopting the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 6. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Proposal for a Housing Finance Program and Giving Preliminary Approval to the Issuance of Housing Facility Revenue Bonds to Finance a Multifamily Housing Project Pursuant to Minnesota Law, and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing (Station Village Apartments Project) (Ward 3). Daniel Tienter, Director of Finance/City Treasurer, stated in 2017 Sherman began the redevelopment process of the NorthStar Line Station here in Fridley. Terming it the Station Village Apartments Project. This will be for the senior portion of the project. Mr. Tienter stated following a review by multiple agencies including the Metropolitan Council and the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority, the Housing Redevelopment Authority authorized the sale of the land on April 4, 2019. Mr. Tienter stated shortly thereafter in June the City did receive a request from Sherman operating as the general partner of Fridley Apartment GP, LLC which is the local organization that will ultimately own and operate the facilities to assist them with financing the project. Specifically, Sherman was asking for $19.7 million in private activity or conduit bonds to assist with the construction and acquisition of a 72-unit facility or an affordable facility specifically for low to moderate income folks. Mr. Tienter stated they are asking the City to issue private activity or conduit bonds. In this case they would be considered multi-family housing facility revenue bonds which are authorized by Minnesota State Law and a particular section of the Internal Revenue Code Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time. It is important to note these bonds are issued for for-profit entities that essentially construct a project of appropriate public purpose. In this situation it would be a rental housing facility for folks who are either a predetermined age or income limit. Mr. Tienter stated the revenues that are derived from the housing facility are basically the rents or other collateral that are included in the project. There are some other forms of financing included in this project like low-income housing tax credits. Those are pledged to service the debt. Based on this arrangement, the bonds ultimately do not constitute an actual or moral debt of the City, and they do not impact its bank qualification rate. Essentially there is no impact to the City and no immediate medium-term or long-term financial obligations. Essentially the borrower, through the revenues that are generated by the project, will repay the debt. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 4 Mr. Tienter stated assuming the Council approves the proposed action, the entities involved (meaning the City, Sherman, and any of their project partners) will submit an application for the allocation of bonding authority to Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). Essentially the State will have to bless the tax exemption of the bonds, and those applications are due by the end of this month. Mr. Tienter stated the Housing Finance Program will be submitted and reviewed by the Metropolitan Council and they will provide comment. Then, as included in the resolution this evening, the City Council would authorize the City Manager to notice a public hearing and then conduct a public hearing at a future date. Included in the Council’s packet, in the agenda, staff had stated that the public hearing is anticipated to take place at the second meeting in August. After having a discussion with the bond counsel, they are anticipating now the public hearing to happen most likely in September. Mr. Tienter stated any preliminary approval provided by the City Council this evening does not obligate the City to issue the bonds. They still have to go through the public hearing process and then ultimately finalize or approve the issuance and sale of the bonds. This action this evening allows the developer essentially to submit the appropriate applications to MMB. It also allows them to begin the process of reimbursing themselves with any bonds the City would issue in the future. Any of the expenses that happen after this point in time, they will be allowed to reimburse themselves. Mr. Tienter stated based on the process, staff is recommending the Council adopt the resolution. It will call for public hearing on the proposed Housing Finance Program, it will provide preliminary approval for the issuance of the bonds and will authorize the City Manager to issue a publication for the notice of a public hearing. Councilmember Barnette stated it is mentioned, low to moderate income. He asked Mr. Tienter to explain exactly what that is, and I that included Section 8 housing. Mr. Tienter replied Exhibit A provides a breakdown of the revenue program. He said it was his understanding that this would not be a qualified project for Section 8 purposes so there will not be predetermined income limits, but rather limits on the individual units themselves. The developer will not finalize their financing package until they hear back from MMB about the state of their application, so it is possible the financing program for the project itself may change pending that decision by the State. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if that information would be provided in the public hearing. Mr. Tienter replied, as part of the public hearing, similar to the public hearing the City Council conducted for the Village Green project, staff will provide an overview of the project financing. They will essentially see a pro forma that will describe the various revenue sources and the expenditures for the project. At this point in time, since they are in the preliminary phases, staff does not have that information available for Council, but it will be provided at a future date as part of the public hearing process. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 5 Councilmember Eggert asked if this was one of the tools developers use in developing lower income, multi-family housing. Mr. Tienter replied the issuance of private activity bonds or conduit bonds to support either predetermined age qualified rental properties or low to moderate income rental properties is a common tool. Last year, the exact same kind of bond was issued for the Village Green project. In the past bonds have been issued for similar projects. The projects were not like this one but met other qualifications of the same statutes. Councilmember Eggert stated it helps the financials float. Mr. Tienter replied correct. By building a project of an appropriate public benefit, the developer gets the tax benefits that are typical to municipal bonds. They get a lower interest rate on the money being borrowed to them. The State of Minnesota and the federal government have made a public policy decision that they can have access to those tax-free markets because they are trying to incentivize the development of these types of properties. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2019-34. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Receive an Updated Traffic Study from Spack Consulting for the Columbia Arena Area Redevelopment Relating to the ST2019-01 Street Rehabilitation Project (Ward 1). th James Kosluchar, Director of Public Works, stated the removal of the 69 Avenue connection to University Avenue Service Drive was included in the Civic Campus Project as a result of concerns from residents regarding increased traffic at this intersection. This was a decision that was actually suggested by the developer and supported by staff. Mr. Kosluchar stated a roundabout was added to the project to improve access to the Service Road and University Avenue for the Holiday Hills neighborhood and Locke Park Parkway. The st completion of the Parkway will provide alternate access for all traffic in this area to 71 Avenue rd and ultimately to 73 Avenue. th Mr. Kosluchar stated the pond expansion that is proposed under 69 Avenue is required to meet the overall development requirements for the Civic Campus Project and private development and th was planned to be included in the 2019 Street Improvement Project along with the closure of 69 Avenue as an alternate--either included in the project or bid separately. Mr. Kosluchar stated on October 8, 2018, the City Council approved initiating the 2019 street improvement projects. This allowed staff significant time to prepare an analysis on the project. On January 22, the City held an open house and mailed notice to affected property owners, th including the Holiday Hills neighborhood. Closure of 69 Avenue at University Service Drive FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 6 was discussed at that meeting. On February 11, the City Council received the project feasibility report which included consideration for the input given at the January 22 open house, and the Council authorized a call for a public hearing. Mr. Kosluchar stated a feasibility report and memo indicated that 69th Avenue was proposed to be closed at University East Service Drive. On April 8 a hearing on improvements was held after advertisement and notice to affected property owners, including those in the Holiday Hills neighborhood. The City Council subsequently ordered the improvement by passing Resolution th No. 2019-18 with a 4/5’s vote. The resolution ordered final plans, specifications, and call for bids for the project. Staff also provided supplemental findings to the City Council after the meeting regarding a specific special assessment, and how that met historic application to the City’s policy. Mr. Kosluchar stated at the April 22, 2019, Council meeting a resident requested the City do its th homework and reconsider its decision to close 69 Avenue. On April 26 staff provided a memo th to Council summarizing numerous meetings discussing the proposed 69 Avenue closure and providing opportunities for input. Most of these meetings date from fall of 2017 to spring of 2018, but the discussion dates as far back as 2016. Mr. Kosluchar stated on May 28 staff presented information, upon request, on the process and th cost for modifying the project to maintain partial or full access on 69 Avenue. The process would include the HRA and developer review and approval, Planning Commission review, replatting, modification of permits, relocation of utilities – an estimated $205,000 in unbudgeted net additional cost. At the request of City Council an updated traffic analysis was completed, th and this traffic analysis reviewed performance with full, partial, or no access to 69 from University Avenue West Service Drive. The report was presented at an open house meeting on July 16, 2019, after mailed notices were again sent to property owners affected by the project, including those in the Holiday Hills neighborhood. Mr. Kosluchar stated three alternatives were analyzed. There is a full access, a right in/right th out, and removed access or closure of 69 at West University Service Drive. All performed with acceptable delay. The largest delay at peak times was about 18 seconds in one direction with the closed access. The principal findings of the analysis are that the remaining residential portions of the Fridley Civic Center campus development are expected to generate 680 new trips during an average weekday, 46 new trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 56 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The study roadways and intersections are forecast to operate acceptably through the 2022 build scenario which includes the buildout that is proposed currently. Queues on the westbound th frontage road at University Avenue occasionally block the westbound out movement of 69 th during peak hours, and adequate intersection site distance does not exist for vehicles at the 69 th Avenue access looking west. The recommendations of the traffic analysis are that 69 Avenue to University east service road be closed because of inadequate site distance for right-out thth vehicles coming from 69 Avenue, coming basically from University Avenue towards 69, and th occasional blocking of 69 Avenue’s left-out access during peak periods as mentioned before. Mr. Kosluchar stated staff recommends the City Council move to receive the Traffic Impact th Study Fridley Civic Center Update 69 Avenue Connection completed by Spack Consulting. If FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 7 approved or no action is taken, staff will continue the project course and finalize plans for the th street project as previously authorized by City Council to include the closure of 69 Avenue at University East Service Drive. Should the Council desire to take actions necessary to reevaluate the project, it should direct the staff to do so. That can be done by simple motion. Staff will then prepare the necessary steps, meetings, and cost options to alter the project and keep the access open in some fashion. The required hearings and unbudgeted costs would need to be approved by the Council by a 4/5 vote. Councilmember Barnette stated they have heard a lot from the neighborhood, and he is a resident of the neighborhood as well as Mayor Lund. They have lived there for 50 years. th Occasionally as you come out on 69Avenue onto the Service Road, if there is a couple of semi- trucks there and a car you have some trouble getting on and you have to wait a little bit. It has happened a lot less since they put the roundabout in because he thinks the semi-trucks are going rd up to 73 Avenue rather than take the roundabout. Councilmember Barnette stated the Rice Creek Watershed has said the City has to make the th pond bigger. In reading all the newspapers and everything else, this has been he thinks the 6 heaviest snowfall this winter that has melted. We have had a lot of rain this spring and, if anybody has driven by that pond, it is holding. It has a lot of room to take on more water. He would like to see them go back to the Rice Creek Watershed to get another evaluation of why that pond has to be expanded and understand, if it has to be, that would create some real problems with either going across the road onto the vacant land in front of the church. He knows the $200,000 cost is excessive, but he would like the City to go back to the Rice Creek Watershed and take a look at that. Councilmember Barnette stated he realizes as a councilmember-at-large he represents the entire City and $200,000 would be assessed to all of them; but he also represents the neighborhood. From what he has seen from all of the neighborhood meetings, they would like to th see 69 Avenue Service Road intersection remain as is. With the 4/5 vote coming up all the time, he is the one who has always voted, no. He expects comments from the others, but that is where he is coming from. Councilmember Tillberry asked Attorney Karlovich, once the City Council sees a traffic study on this particular area, and say the Council chooses not to accept it or not to follow it, does that make the City liable for anything that comes later? Jay Karlovich, City Attorney, replied he has had discussion with City staff. As the City Council, they have to make a lot of tough decisions. They have broad discretion. They can accept a traffic study and can actually not follow the recommendations of the traffic engineer. The City has insurance provided through the League of Minnesota Cities. Then there is a whole body of law as to their decision and what they think is best in the community. They are like immune from suit. A lot of times the Council is going to make decisions where, for example, a stop sign is put somewhere and then somebody walks and thinks the traffic is going to stop but they get hit and killed. However, the Council made the decision thinking that was the best thing to do. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 8 Attorney Karlovich stated in Minnesota, Council is making kind of a planning-level decision. They are going to be immune from suit from that or will have immunity defenses and will have insurance. The Council does have discretion to do what they want to do that is best for the community. It is probably preferable to follow the advice of a professional traffic engineer. Councilmember Tillberry said he was trying to make that point. He is not a professional traffic study person, and there are a lot of decisions they make based on people that do their jobs. That is their specialty; that is what they do. Going against the traffic study still puts the City at some type of liability. Sure, insurance may cover that, but he does not know if he wants to be responsible for that particular decision if someone really does get hurt. Attorney Karlovich replied to Councilmember Tillberry that he, individually on the Council, is immune from suit. However, there are always going to be tough decisions. There are “Y” intersections. A lot of times traffic engineers want them to be a “T” intersection. He has been at council meetings where the cities have decided to leave the “Y” intersection which has been there for 30 years and there has not been an accident. You do not always have to follow the advice of a professional traffic engineer. It is preferred and but otherwise the Council has to make tough decisions on what they think is best for the community, and they do not always have to follow what they say. Mayor Lund stated this does not give them in this traffic study percentages or whatever. Clearly the recommendation was full closure. His argument has been for right in/right out. They th specifically talk about the shortness of the sightline from University and 69 as being the reason for that being the preferred method. It could be 51 percent vs. 49 percent. A close second could be that. Obviously, they all have to weigh that. He has been using that intersection for 39 years, and he does not recall ever having an issue where he is going to make a right turn towards the north on the frontage road, the new City Hall, and having somebody coming around that thing fast enough where he should not have pulled out. He gets it. In a perfect world it should have been a little bit greater distance, but they have those types of things all over the place. Look at the service roads by the old city hall. There is no gap there. It is a weighted thing in his mind. Mayor Lund asked if it was the end of the world to go to through the new development. He does have some concerns about more so in the neighborhood. It is not going to really affect them in a terrible way to go through there. It is more concern for the new neighbors. Also, in addition the church inflow and outflow because they have school there. It is not just Sunday service. The first Rice Creek Boulevard closest to University is going to take the brunt of that. It is a consideration for that neighborhood. It is a close second-best scenario than a full closure. Having a right in/right out does create some restriction on in and out. In his mind it is a little riskier making a left turn going out when you have the shortness of the stand and lack of stackability in the queue. Yes, his concern is like everyone else’s--to save the $205,000 at this point. It is a high price to pay. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not an expert at all. There is a lot of discussion, but it is not even all the way built up. Granted that traffic will go the other way, but they have done traffic reports for many different road improvements, and they usually follow them because they are not the experts. Granted maybe they are not liable, but to be honest University Avenue is FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 9 like a freeway. It seems like the traffic gets more. Granted they took that into consideration, but the volume and the speed, and they heard that very clearly during the City’s corridor study. Also, and if they are not going to go by a traffic report, they spent a lot of money on this. She asked what the City spent on this? Mr. Kosluchar replied, about $6,000. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to put into the record the memorandum the Council received that is not in the record of the people who attended which was sent by Mr. Kosluchar and is in their packet dated July 18, 2019. Not everyone agreed with what Councilmember Barnette said. There were 13 households there. There were a lot of people that were not here. Several people, including one of the new owners of one of the villas, mentioned that they thought it made sense. There was another person who disagreed with Councilmember Barnette on turning, making those turns, and that there were stackups there. She is not sure what time Councilmember Barnette traveled vs. him traveling. That really was not discussed. There was at least another couple who came up to her afterwards. Not everyone was in favor of leaving it the way it was. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she understands that not everyone understood what was going on here, but they did have public meetings. There was a developer who came back, and people talked a lot about the park and the improvements, and there were a lot of diagrams. Not everyone came to that meeting. Also, not everyone came to the public hearing and the Planning Commission; but those were all discussed at those different meetings. No matter what they do they could send a certified letter to every home about a project, and someone would say they never heard about it. Could they do a better job? Maybe next time when they have a public meeting, just like when the City has new street projects, they send a summary to everyone so they know. There has been a lot of information about this going way back to 2015. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Councilmember Barnette said he represents his neighborhood. All the councilmembers represent everyone. They have their own wards, but they all represent someone. Tell her what they are not going to do if they spend $200,000 on something that a traffic reports says they should do besides. Now they they will have to spend $211,000 because they did another traffic study. Councilmember Barnette stated as to the liability thing Councilmember Tillberry talked about, many, many years ago the City requested a fence along University Avenue. Then eventually the City said, let’s take the fence down. Mayor Lund and he went over to the State and talked to them. The State said, well, if you take the fence down, because you requested it, if there is an accident the City will be liable. They came back and the city attorney at the time said, no, you would not. He knows exactly where Councilmember Bolkcom is coming from and they represent the entire City. Because he drives that three, four times a day and he looked at the traffic study. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Councilmember Barnette what times during the day does he travel? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 10 Councilmember Barnette replied, sometimes in the morning, afternoon, sometimes at night. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what time in the morning. Councilmember Barnette replied probably 8 o’clock, sometimes when he goes golfing at 7:30, 7 o’clock. Over all these last months, he remembers one time where there were two semi’s and a car, and he waited before he could turn left to go out onto University. He does not see that as a determent. As Mayor Lund said, looking out into the west, he has never seen that as a problem. He goes back to the traffic studies and the traffic reports, and of all the years there has been one accident at that corner, and that was a guy who rearended another car. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Councilmember Barnette if he knew that was all the accidents that have happened there. Councilmember Barnette replied that is what is said in the report. Councilmember Bolkcom stated going back to that response and going back to the Mayor Lund referring to the old city hall, they are not just doing something for now. They are doing this for the future. Let us hope they do not make some mistakes. Going back to the whole thing with the Rice Creek Watershed, this is an engineering study. It is not just the Rice Creek Watershed. Just because it is not filled now, they are still not built all the way up. They know that the 100-year rainfall happens more than every hundred years. It is not being built over capacity or that they can go back to the Rice Creek Watershed. Councilmember Barnette stated he is just saying what he sees. What he sees from the kind of winter they had and the spring and summer they had as far as water and rainfall and everything else, that pond has been more than adequate. He is not an expert, but that is what he sees. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how many other storm water ponds does the City have where at one time they were good and over time, with all the extra asphalt and stuff and the buildup, they get filled up. She bets Mr. Kosluchar could tell them there are several retention ponds that have had to be expanded or improved in order for them to maintain the water on different properties including Village Green as an example. Mayor Lund stated they could debate this quite a bit. Based on last Tuesday’s meeting, where all the Council were present here, with those citizens that were here, they clearly led them to believe the Council would not be making their final decision on the way they were going to go at this meeting. He would hope that even if they are going to accept it or delay it, the traffic study tonight, he would ask that the Council not to plan on a closure until at least the next Council meeting. Give them an opportunity for them to come back in because they do not have people here because there was an expectation the Council would not make that final decision. Just so they give them an opportunity. Councilmember Bolkcom stated tonight is the opportunity for them to receive the updated traffic study. She does not know any reason they would not receive it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 11 Mayor Lund replied, in the last statement it is stated, if approved or if no action taken, staff will finalize the plans which are closure. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she did not quite understand that either, but her understanding is why would they not accept a traffic study. Mayor Lund stated he has no problem with that. Just so there is a clear understanding between the Council, they are not making a determination on closure or right-in/right-out or making the change Councilmember Barnette would like to see. He does not know that they have to direct staff in his opinion to do all this other work, alter the plans, amend the project scope by keeping the road open, move the pond, reopen the assessment hearing, redo the plat and everything and then in September or October it is going to take a 4/5 vote to make that change. That is a lot of work for the staff to go through. It is fairly costly to do all that. If they are not going to go down that path, he does not know if they just want to continue it. Again, for those who were present here, who clearly understood they would not be making a final determination. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, she agrees. Mr. Wysopal stated he just wanted to add some clarity as to why staff is bringing this up is that it is not typical to have a special assessed project to be approved by the Council, and then the staff not to work on it. They are hearing lots of comments about a project, and staff wants to do what the Council wants to be done. However, please understand staff already has their direction and are going to continue to work on that project as it was ordered and as Council has directed them. Staff is just trying to make sure there is clarity about this and, before it gets so far ahead of themselves, they cannot turn back. He does not want them to be surprised that if one day they wake up and the City is already moving on that roadway. However, the Council has given staff direction and they are just following it. MOTION by Mayor Lund to stop and do not take any more staff time and costs in moving ahead with the project they have until they have another meeting in two weeks again and give an opportunity before the Council makes a final decision to move ahead with this or change. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Councilmember Barnette if he was going to second Mayor Lund’s motion? Councilmember Barnette replied, he will second that motion. Mr. Wysopal asked for clarification on the motion. Mayor Lund stated staff does have marching orders from the Council previously to continue down this path of working on this project. He does not want to expend more dollars if they take a different direction. His motion is to delay, stop further study or work on this project until the next Council meeting. th Mr. Wysopal asked the City Attorney if that would be a 4/5’s majority vote required due to the fact this is a special assessed project and it has already been ordered? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 12 th Attorney Karlovich replied, he did not know that it has to be 4/5’s. The question he has is the resolution ordering the improvement under 429.031, a lot of times in those resolutions when you order a project, it says that you have one year. A lot of times he puts in two years in his resolutions. He just did not know where they were at on how old this project is or are they going to have to re-notice and do the 429 process over again. Mr. Kosluchar stated he can speak to that. The resolution was passed in April (2019), and he does not believe it has a timeframe attached to it. If he remembers correctly it is the 18-month timeframe that is statutory. Attorney Karlovich replied it sounds like they have plenty of time. Mayor Lund asked, and a simple majority will suffice? Attorney Karlovich replied it can with a majority vote delay doing extra work on a 429 project for a couple of weeks. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mayor Lund for clarification as to what would they anticipate seeing at the next Council meeting? Mayor Lund stated Council has received comments from the last meeting they held last Tuesday. At that meeting it was pretty clear the Council was not going to make a final determination. All he is asking for is a delay of two weeks in his motion to give an opportunity for the citizens in the neighborhood here to voice their comments. Also, he does not want staff to continue to spend time and effort on a project until they have made a final determination. They should not be making that tonight. He does not have fault with the traffic study, but he still believes, professional or not, a right-in/right-out can work. Councilmember Bolkcom stated for further clarification by either Mr. Wysopal or Mr. Kosluchar, waiting for two weeks, does that change in any way whether this would go through the changes that needed to be made, the storm water, ponding, that type of thing? Will that delay this until the next season? Mr. Kosluchar replied, his judgment is they would be into the next construction season before they could comply with the Rice Creek Watershed District permit so they would have to request that extension. However, they are very close to that point right now regardless. Councilmember Bolkcom stated so if they wait until August 12 this could be going into the next year’s construction. She knows Mr. Kosluchar mentioned at the meeting they would probably have to go for an extension anyway because at this point, they do not even have a project as they have not gone out for bids. Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes. He would just say it is unlikely to know they would have any substantial street work completed. They could possibly squeeze in some work with the ponding FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 13 but, if things are going to change or they are going to wait on a decision for that, it becomes less and less likely as time goes by. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what things are not being done now because they are held up. Other than going out for bids. Staff already has a plan, correct? Mr. Kosluchar replied, they do not have bid plans at this point. They have past permitting plans, they got to 90 percent plans, they have to finalize those. They also have some walk elements that have to be worked out, but they basically put the staff on hold to a certain extent and made this a fairly low priority within the staff because they knew the Council wanted to discuss it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if they could go out for bids after August 12, depending on what would happen that night? She said the City probably could not receive them until maybe mid-September. Attorney Karlovich stated also in the 429 process when you have an improvement hearing or a feasibility hearing and you are going to do Streets A and B as part of the project, you cannot sit there and have that feasibility hearing without redoing it and then decide the project is Streets A, B, and C. You cannot increase. You can chop it down afterwards and just have it be Street A or Street B. In the statute if he is going to stand up here and say, he thinks it is too costly for them to do that project, you cannot then go ahead and make it a bigger project. He does not have the greatest understanding about what they are going to be doing with an extra $200,000 if they have to redo just the 429 process which is not the end of the world. You have to have that feasibility hearing done and ordering the improvement and that process done before you build the project. You cannot all of a sudden make the project bigger. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but if it remains the same, where it was before, where the project is now, what they think was the project, if it changes to adding another pond and that type of thing then they would have to go back? Attorney Karlovich replied, then as a property owner he should have the opportunity to stand up in front of them and say this whole thing is too expensive. Now it got more expensive and they did not listen to him before. Mayor Lund stated, so if they did make the change ultimately to put the second pond in, there is a $200,000 extra cost because primarily the water main has to be relocated. That would be what attorney Karlovich is talking about? Attorney Karlovich replied, yes. Say for example he came to the feasibility hearing and they told him his assessment was going to be $2,000 for his property and then the City went and made the project bigger and his assessment was $2,500 and the City did not repeat the feasibility hearing. He had the due process opportunity to be told and have another hearing knowing that the project got bigger and now he is going to be hit with $2,500. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 14 Councilmember Bolkcom stated but it would not be the properties that were assessed during the original hearing would not bear the brunt. It would be all the residents. This $200,000 would not be borne by just the people who live in the neighborhood. Either the City would not do some other project or basically $200,000 would have to be spread across. Is that true that then they would have to have a new public hearing for that also because now there is $200,000 and that is not part of any part of a project in the City’s budget? Attorney Karlovich replied, the answer to her question is, yes. He could be interested in maybe his assessments obviously going from $2,000 up to $2,500 because after the feasibility hearing they made it bigger. He has a direct financial impact. On the other hand, he could not even be in the neighborhood, but he just thinks the City is spending too much and he was told it was going to be a $1 million project and now it turned into a $2 million project. Mayor Lund stated his understanding is, not really talking about the $205,000, the assessment that they have already done is for four properties – one is the church and then three residential properties. That is for the street project, and there probably would be a slight increase because if th they retain 69 and did not close it, there is a very short segment that would get resurfaced but the $205,000 is not really a part of the assessment of the street. Is that correct? Councilmember Bolkcom replied, not to the property owners but it is to the residents. Mayor Lund stated in the City of Fridley. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, right. Ultimately, if this is delayed until next year, the street project could cost more money. Mayor Lund stated possibly. It has been a very busy year. It probably will not be as busy next year. Maybe they will find asphalt contractors. It is a late time of the year to get any bidding down. Councilmember Bolkcom said that is why she asked the question. Mayor Lund stated and it was even kind of “iffy” in the spring whether this project was going to ultimately be done in the fall. He will take that risk. They talked about that even in the spring. Depending on how things went that this project, it could be delayed along with the frontage road which was done at the same time. He asked Mr. Kosluchar whether that was factual? Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes, they did want to wait until he believed it was July 1 to make a determination whether to do the significant construction this year. They are three weeks past that point now. Mayor Lund stated he is still going back to the last meeting with the residents. If they are going to make an ultimate decision, it would be against what was discussed at that meeting. Councilmember Barnette stated this whole thing they are voting on is, they are receiving the updated traffic study. On page 74, conclusions and recommendations, it states the following FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 15 th recommendations are made based upon the above findings: 69 Avenue access to University East Service Road be removed. That is a recommendation. If they vote on this, they are just accepting what they are saying. They are not saying it has to happen. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, correct, but that is not the motion that is front of them right now. Councilmember Barnette stated the motion in front of them is to delay this whole thing. Councilmember Bolkcom asked the Council Secretary to read the motion back to the Council. Council Secretary replied, “Delay further work on this project for two weeks.” Mayor Lund stated, close enough. Mr. Wysopal asked the City Engineer for his interpretation as to what that means because there is a lot of work going on out there. What does that mean to him, delaying further work on this project? Mr. Kosluchar replied, it means it is very unlikely they would have any potential work on the pond this winter. Mr. Wysopal asked but in terms of the street work, in terms of pond work, in terms of there is a lot of work going on out there. There are contractors. Sometimes it is hard to understand who is doing what for what project, whether it is the construction for Pulte, the water treatment plant, or Peterson, all those things. What is not going to be happening under this resolution? What will stop? Mr. Kosluchar replied, he is not sure that any of that work would stop necessarily. What they th will see is increased traffic pressures on that left-out movement on 69, particularly with more traffic. Some of them are comfortable with the way it is and the way it is running. However, again, he will refer back to the study where basically they are going to be adding 680 vehicles a day on average through that area. They may feel comfortable now, but you may not feel comfortable when there is that many more trips going through that area after buildout. However, as to the immediate impact to the contractors and so on and so forth, the City will have to make it th very clear to contractors they are not to be routed on 69, otherwise they will kind of use that as the connection now that Locke Parkway is done. That has already been taken care of by the Assistant City Engineer. Mayor Lund stated to Mr. Kosluchar the contractors he is speaking about are mainly the Pulte Homes people. Mr. Kosluchar replied, no, he is talking about the next phase, the Lennar Homes. Mayor Lund stated personally he would like to delay it. There is going to be a lot of construction, traffic, going up. People never like to see a new street and then you get all that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 16 cement traffic, all those contractors, and all the heavy equipment, and everything else coming th back and forth. It has been great that 69 has not been done yet because of all the Pulte stuff going in and out. He would think most of Lennar is going to come off of the Parkway. Councilmember Bolkcom stated if she is understanding the Mayor’s motion, it is saying that th basically nothing related to closure of 69 happen for two weeks until the neighborhood comes back one more time to weigh in. Mayor Lund stated that is what was said at that meeting, and he has seen e-mails floating around in the neighborhood asking for all of them to weigh in. They have heard discussions up to this point stating, how many people want nothing done, how many people want the right- in/right-out, and how many are okay with closure. The e-mail that came back from the block th captain was, she wants all that by the 26. They clearly are expecting that Council will not be making a final determination tonight about making a significant change or just continuing on with they are doing. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she agrees. Mayor Lund stated it is not the end of the world if that project does not happen. Mr. Wysopal stated he wanted to make it real clear that staff brought this item up to Council because the traffic study was completed and it needed to have some type of acceptance or rejection by the City Council. The neighborhood meeting they are referring to was not a th decision of the City Council to say that in two weeks or on the 27 or on some day, this City Council will take some specific action because it was not that type of meeting. It was a neighborhood meeting staff insisted they have so it can be held as a public meeting that all City Councilmembers can attend. They want to make sure that this has been a very open process, that no decision has been made by the City Council to do anything with this project, and staff brought this to the City Council because staff was asked to do a traffic study. They did the traffic study, and the next logical and public step was to bring it to the City Council and say, here it is. Mr. Wysopal stated whether they choose to accept it tonight, that is up to the City Council. Whether they direct staff to stop working on the project, they can do that as well. Staff just wants to make sure this is a very open process. Quite honestly he appreciates what the neighborhood is doing, but again he just wants to draw a difference this is a project that has been approved by the City Council. Staff needs to work with the City Council on anything that is done with it. He wants to make sure everyone knows that the neighborhood meeting which took place a couple of weeks ago was not a decision-making process of the City Council. It was an information-gathering night. Mayor Lund stated that is right. It was, but they also alluded to the fact people wanted to know if they had to be at this meeting, and they alluded to the fact they were not going to make any final decision on this. The Council was just taking it, and of course, they got this traffic study that was completed. He just does not like the idea that if they approve this traffic study, they are saying keep going. He does not want to spend more money on a project that might change. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 17 Mr. Wysopal stated he was absolutely right. Staff goes until this Council says stop. Mayor Lund replied, that is why his motion says, stop. For two weeks. Councilmember Eggert stated he was at the meeting. Two weeks on this project is not a killer. However, as to the ramifications, they have talked about some of the obvious, but there will be ramifications. Further delays will have even more ramifications. He would request they bring this motion to a vote and get on with it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she does not understand the motion. The Mayor needs to clarify it. Mayor Lund stated the motion he made does not change, but delays work on the project for two weeks. He does not want more expense put on the project. He does not believe it has a lot of ramifications. If this project does not happen this fall, it is not the end of the world, especially given the fact that contractors are so busy; and it has many times been told to them to get the projects in during the wintertime. Do the bids then as you get more favorable bids. If you are going out for bids in the late summer, they are all busier. Councilmember Eggert stated he disagrees with that comment. Councilmember Bolkcom stated to Mayor Lund, what he is asking for is basically the staff do th no more work or planning related to closing 69 until August 12. Is that fair to say that is what he is asking for? Mayor Lund replied, yes. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and he has a Second from Councilmember Barnette? Councilmember Barnette replied, yes. Mayor Lund stated, as Councilmember Eggert has asked, he called the question. UPON A VOICE VOTE, WITH MAYOR LUND AND COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, EGGERT, AND BOLKCOM VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBER TILLBERRY VOTING NAY, THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive the memorandum from the Public Works Department dated July 18, 2019, Project ST2019-01 Meeting to Present Traffic Study on Closure th of 69 Avenue along with the sign-in sheet. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 18 MOTION by Councilmember Eggert to receive the updated traffic study from Spack Consulting for the Columbia Arena Area Redevelopment relating to the ST2019-01 Street Rehabilitation Project. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about what is going to happen at the next meeting so it is clear. Can they make sure the staff, including the City Manager, knows what to expect and what should th happen at that meeting on the 12 and how do they notify the neighborhood or is it something that you put in the paper so everyone is aware of it. Mayor Lund stated his attitude is he thinks they have a pretty good listing of e-mails so he was just going to send an e-mail to the block captains to put it out there to all of the neighborhood. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and then by golly, someone will say they do not use e-mail and they do not read it and it went in their spam. Why not just use the people they originally used? How difficult is that? They keep saying people did not know. They want to make sure everyone knows. Should that be coming from staff vs. the Mayor? Mr. Wysopal stated since they are kind of problem-solving live here, he wants to again make sure they are not relying on neighborhood captains or any other process other than the public process the Council decides. If they want to direct staff tonight, maybe that would be one suggestion to tell them what the Council wants staff to bring, set the agenda. Tell the staff what Council wants staff to bring. Opening and consideration, reconsideration of a project, but staff just needs to know. Again, he urges the Council not to rely on anybody other than the public process for distribution of that. He agrees having the residents involved is great and they love that, but they need to make sure that is being done by the City Council’s direction. Mayor Lund stated, with that being said, a letter by staff to the neighborhood, and they do have some new addresses for the Pulte people. There are like ten people there now. Send out a letter directing them if they want to be heard one final time on this, they are going to have some discussion and comment at the next meeting. Councilmember Tillberry stated he does not want to belabor anything on this. He kind of gets the gist of what Mayor Lund is trying to do, but with the possibility of $205,000 cost, is it not also fair for all of the City to be told about this? Because just the neighborhood, they are voicing what their opinion would be, but what about the City as a whole spending $205,000? Do they not open it up to them, too? Mayor Lund statedthey are not going to send mailings out. It is usually within 350 feet of anybody within the project. They would pretty much take care of the neighborhood, and everybody else knows about it if they look on the website or the minutes or the agendas that are posted in the Focus, the legal newspaper. If they have interest or concern. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 19 Councilmember Tillberry stated that same argument could have been argued, too, that the neighborhood knew about this. He is just trying to voice his piece on this, and he does not necessarily want to see it delayed if they do not need to. Mayor Lund stated they already approved the delay for two weeks. Councilmember Tillberry stated, he gets it. Councilmember Barnette stated on August 12 they will probably have three choices: keep it open, right-in/right-out, or close it. Vote on it. Attorney Karlovich stated in any 429 process, you have a 429.031 hearing, and if you do not th have a petition you have to have a 4/5’s vote to order the project. But after that the project gets designed and often you have a feasibility study that maybe you wanted to go back and say, well, we ordered a project. Now the bids came in too high and it is not uncommon to go back and say, well, we want a different feasibility study with options A, B, and C. Just the fact the Council ordered a project under 429.031, they are not done there. A lot of times things evolve and then the public, whenever there is an assessment, they get a 429.061 assessment hearing so they know exactly how much they are getting assessed. If there are questions about the design and which way they want to go, it is not uncommon to have hiccups. Attorney Karlovich stated the only thing he was talking about is, if the project does get bigger and more expensive, then they redo the 429, have another public hearing, and send out some notices. However, it is not uncommon for a public improvement project to have a life of its own and you do not like the way it originally turns out or you do not like the traffic study, you do not like the bids; and it can morph into something else from here. th Councilmember Bolkcom stated now attorney Karlovich is confusing her because whether 69 is closed or not, unless it goes into next year and the bids are higher, again that public hearing was held with an approximate cost to each homeowner. They are only talking about four homeowners. What Councilmember Tillberry is talking about is that $200,000 comes out of some project that does not get done or there is an additional line item on the next budget related to that. What does a 429 have to do with this as long as that project does not change from what the original public hearing was held at? Attorney Karlovich replied, what he was explaining is that the 429 feasibility hearing is just a statutory process you have to go through to give somebody notice of the approximate cost before it is designed. Then you have to have a 429.061 to tell them exactly how much they are getting assessed for. It is not uncommon for projects to maybe have a feasibility study done, expanded, have options 1, 2, and 3 instead of the original one. Not everything is where a feasibility gets ordered and gets built that way. Sometimes things go back and the Council does not like what it sees. Councilmember Bolkcom stated her concern is at this next public hearing everyone gets up and then does the Council vote by show of hands they are changing the project? She thinks there has to be some expectations. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 20 Councilmember Eggert stated a roll call vote. Councilmember Bolkcom stated because, again, she wants to say there are only 16 households and there are 41 households. Mayor Lund stated he is interested to see what they come up with on July 26. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, again, that information has to be clear to everyone and not just an e-mail to the Mayor. Mayor Lund stated he is just seeing the e-mails. He has not even responded to it. He just saw that it is going out to the neighborhood through the block captain and they are asking, what do you want. Those three items. What is most likely going to happen is all three of them will be selected by certain individuals. You are not going to get probably a unanimous reply. It is information. Councilmember Bolkcom stated if you base it totally on someone’s e-mail and not knowing all the information related to the safety traffic study and everything else, it is probably a little askewed. Just because it is good for part of a neighborhood, is it good for everyone else including the people who do not live here yet. Mayor Lund stated for people to come at the next meeting. By however forceful or strong or weak in numbers they are, Council has the final decision. He is just giving them one final option. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they have to be careful not to make this a new precedent, and she is not saying it should not be. Her point is there was a project, and it was agreed upon, so they have to be really careful. Mayor Lund stated he thinks they are beyond that point now. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, asked if he could get clarification from the City Attorney. It is his belief that the implications are broader than the neighborhood at this point, and they have a $205,000 expanded project that it sounds like the intent might be to take that out over the entire City. In that case he would think a standard public hearing notification as opposed to those who have attended a meeting type notification would be appropriate. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, and what would it hurt by doing it? Nothing, right? Mr. Hickok stated he is just wondering if he is correct on that. To him it feels it is broader than just the neighborhood in terms of the notification. The difference would be the time to receive it in the press and number of days before the hearing to allow other people in the public beyond the neighborhood who might want to respond to $205,000 to be able to respond. Attorney Karlovich asked, so what is the question? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 21 Mr. Hickok stated the question is he thinks the $205,000 deserves a broader audience than the neighborhood. As a result, he thinks it requires a broader notification than just that through e-mails or notifications who have attended meetings. The $205,000 becomes the obligation of the broader populous and they should at least have an opportunity through a broader public hearing notice to come in to speak to that. He is just wondering if that is true. He knows attorney Karlovich had given some description about projects with feasibility studies. Some have them, some do not, some get broader through the process, but the reality of it is this is $205,000 introduced and through the discussion sounds like it could be spread out among the populous and not directly tied to the project like this. In that case he thinks the notice to the public needs to be broader than just those who have attended this meeting. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, do a mailing to everyone. Mr. Hickok replied, a public hearing and notice in the paper. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was plenty of time to do that. Mr. Hickok replied, ten days prior to the hearing is what is required and in the newspaper. Mr. Kosluchar stated they cannot make the publication date on a two-week turnaround. Attorney Karlovich stated under 429.031 for a feasibility hearing you have to have two publications, at least a week apart, and you have to do mailed notice. If you are going to do a rezoning, it is usually within 350 feet; and that is under a separate statute. However, what notice is required here? He does not know what the legal notice requirement is for a two-week delay to get some more input from the neighborhood. The more notice the better. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, they have 20 days though from now, right? Mr. Hickok replied the newspaper has notification mid-week prior to the week that it appears and then there are ten days on top of it. They will want to be careful and make sure there is proper notification to the newspaper, to the broader populous. That is what he is talking about here. As he is listening to Council’s discussion on this, there was some concern about $205,000 coming back to those who are being assessed; and the answer to that was the $205,000 probably comes from a broader populous. It comes from the taxpayers throughout. At that point they are obligated to have notice go out about this public hearing because it may well be that more than the neighborhood are going to be interested in having their share of $205,000 be introduced into a project that has already been approved. That was his question. Councilmember Bolkcom said so if there is 20 days between now and then, he does not think they can get it in? Mr. Hickok replied, he thinks they have tested it to see if they can get it to the paper and get it published ten days prior. When the paper comes out on a Friday, he is not looking at a calendar, typically it takes time where you have to get it to them by Wednesday. Then they publish the newspaper next Friday. Then it needs to be ten days from that date of distribution to the date of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 22 the hearing in order to meet statute requirements. At a minimum he recommends, so they are not challenged on this later, they have a standard public hearing go in the newspaper and not just the neighborhood or not just the 350 feet. Councilmember Eggert stated the calendar allows it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, yes, the calendar allows it from what she can see. Plus, they are not doing a special assessment right now. Mr. Wysopal stated he is concerned because he does not know what kind of public hearing it is they are talking about here. Maybe the simplicity of it was Mayor Lund was anticipating that on this next Council meeting would be the opportunity for further input from the neighborhood. His only concern is how many people are going to show up for something that has already been approved for a certain way is a question to think about, but he is a little hesitant saying let’s have a public hearing because he does not know what kind of public hearing they are having. What is the purpose behind it? Is the purpose to change the project? As Attorney Karlovich was describing, Council often has an opportunity to review the bids that come in and do something with the project at that time. It is not uncommon where a bid comes in, they say it is too expensive and not want that. However, right now they are not rejecting a project because of a bid. They are rejecting it based on sentiments that have come in that are dividing them and making this more difficult than it ever really was intended to be. That being the case, he is a little concerned about saying, let’s have a public hearing because he does not know what kind of public hearing is really even necessary or appropriate at this point in time when really what they are asking for is, let’s just hear one more time. Mayor Lund replied, that was his intent and when staff brought up the fact that things are going to continue to move on and being more and more costly, it just gets them deeper in that hole they can never make a change if they finally decide. He thought his motion was pretty simple, to delay it for two weeks. Certainly, they want the legalities if they have to send it out to everyone. He does not know there are a lot of people who have that interest. His neighborhood does. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mayor Lund, what he is asking is there would be an agenda item they are going to go ahead with the project and residents could, just like any other City Council meeting, weigh in on it. Right now, it is a project they have and seems to her that should be the agenda item, because Mayor Lund tabled it until the next time that there be any further action. Whatever that verbiage is, the agenda item should be they are continuing the project as it was presented. It seems to her what the agenda item would be is one where anybody who wants to come here can make conversation. It is not going to be one of those where they are going to accept e-mails and everything else because right now it seems to her that is going on between Mayor Lund and she does not know whether Councilmember Barnette is included in that; but they cannot make decisions over e-mails. Mayor Lund stated it is actually the block captain who is taking that. She would most likely be here to present that finding. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 23 Councilmember Bolkcom stated but her concern is like anything, if someone is going around in the neighborhood, we should make sure they know all the facts, and why they arrived at what they arrived at. They have a traffic study and it has been accepted. That is the kind of conversation which seems to her is part of the presentation at the next meeting. They have this traffic study, this is what it said, and this is what our project is right now. Mayor Lund stated he just wanted to find out legally if they have to send it out to everyone by publication notice or not. Attorney Karlovich stated with respect to the delay and tabling over for two weeks, there is no statutory process that tells us what type of notice they have to have. They could have no notice at all. He is going to argue they did it legally even if they do not tell any of the neighborhood and they make their decision two weeks from now. Any type of public hearing notice will be better than no notice at all. There is no legal requirement. They are not under 429.031 or under the zoning statute. They do not have any specifics. And at any time, the majority of Council can tell City staff they want a new feasibility study showing them it closed and right-in/right-out and totally out and they want to see it. Mayor Lund stated it sounds like, from what he is hearing, he would like to see them make a notice if they can do the publication but they are not under the some requirements of having ten days after first publication. They are just asking people if they want to weigh in. Attorney Karlovich stated more notice is better than no notice. Mayor Lund stated he is okay with that. More notice is better than no notice. He does not want Council to make a decision for two weeks. Because Mr. Wysopal said staff is moving forwarded with their marching orders, Mayor Lund does not want to keep going down and digging a deeper hole or expense. Councilmember Bolkcom stated as long as the City Manager knows what he has to bring forward so he can direct the staff what to bring. Mr. Wysopal stated just a couple of points of clarification, one he thought they want to make sure to be clear about. It is more than just four residential properties, there are commercial properties that are involved in this as well. Also, if Council would rather it can be handled as an item open to the public or a petition or something like that. Staff cannot initiate anything and let it come forward that way. He is not sure it is as simple as what Councilmember Barnette said, that there are three options for them, because that requires undoing things that have already been done. As attorney Karlovich was saying there is a process to that. Perhaps in two weeks they will have abundant public input on how they want to handle it and go from there. And how that cost can be dealt with, staff has identified different funding sources, those kinds of things in the past, but they will hold off on any of that for two weeks. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, are they doing a public notice that can go into the paper? Because it is not really a public hearing? Are they going to send a letter to all the 200 and some FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 24 residents who live in this neighborhood and including the commercial properties? How is it going to be handled? Mayor Lund stated he is looking to the staff for a response. Attorney Karlovich is saying they do not have to because of the simple delay of two weeks. Just to get final input before they make a final decision. Some notice is better than no notice. Can they publish it? Attorney Karlovich replied, if they have the timeline to get a public hearing notice in. Get the public hearing notice in and send a mailing, too, to the neighborhood. Mayor Lund stated that is what they talked about, send out a mailing to the residents within that 350 feet and the rest of them will get the notice by the legal newspaper. That would suffice and not get them in any trouble. Mr. Wysopal stated he is very uncomfortable with that proposal. To say they are having a public hearing of something to the consequences they do not even know. He cannot do that in good conscience to say to the staff, let’s get ready for a public hearing for a decision they do not know what it is they are asking for. Are they asking to change a 429 project? It is not that simple. Maybe it is as simple as the Mayor has said. Staff just wants to hear from him one more time. If that is what he wants to say and then give staff marching orders from there. That would give the staff time to do whatever it is what needs to get undone. Mr. Wysopal stated whenever they ask for a public hearing there is a specific decision that is going to be made. Here they do not know what that decision is yet. They know what the project is. Because he is concerned about the person who is out there who says, you guys took action on something and now you are doing everything you can to change it. That is not what he is saying. He is worrying about the property owner who is being assessed and saying they are watching and making sure this is clear. If they want more input at a City Council meeting, they can set up an agenda item to say, more input regarding the street reconstruction project. Mayor Lund stated he does not recall ever saying he wanted a public hearing. It kind of morphed from all of this discussion about having a public hearing. Councilmember Bolkcom stated change the word to public notice. Mr. Hickok stated his point of bringing this up was certainly not to muddy the waters for this but if the public hearing notice were to say something like, consideration of street project or whatever it was and there is truly an added cost. If anything the outcome of this is an added cost of $205,000 that would be disbursed, as he understands it, not to the project but amongst the taxpayers to make a change in a project that has already been approved. His only fear is, when they do a public hearing notice at the beginning, a broad spectrum notice is put in the newspaper and the broad spectrum of the population can come in and comment on it. Then it gets narrowed down to those who are interested in the neighborhood if they are the ones who are coming back, that group might have come in had they known the project was going to have “this” cost plus there is going to be an added $205,000 cost to be spread out amongst the population. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 25 Mr. Hickok stated, what would the hearing be about? It would be a general population cost of $205,000 added to a project that had been considered and approved earlier. It is really a public notification so that if Council decides they really like keeping it open, it costs them more to modify the pipe and the pond, but the $205,000 is going to be a cost. At least they allowed the public that broad spectrum who saw the project one way and now it has changed to something else, to come back in and at least comment on that pipe and bond cost that was not in the project. Mr. Wysopal asked Mr. Kosluchar, is the pond expansion an assessable item? Mr. Kosluchar replied, it could be under the City’s assessment policy. Storm water projects can be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Case in point, Oak Glen Creek, where they assessed the property owners for a bank stabilization project. He thinks that is the most recent one they have done. Weighing in on the public hearing notice, and he is not an expert, he thinks the Council should think hard about making a decision or giving direction before they have that notice at large. He understands the expense and all of that, but the process stated by the City Attorney, if the Council is to vote to amend, let’s say, the feasibility report, at that point would be the time to perhaps hold a hearing because that is what you do with the feasibility report anyway. Councilmember Bolkcom replied, that makes sense. Mayor Lund stated so what are they going to put on the agenda? If they are just delaying an agenda item two weeks from how, Council is waiting two weeks to get more input. Mr. Wysopal stated he would feel most comfortable with having an agenda item with regard to the street project and, at that point in time, public comment as they typically would do, people can make comment about that. Then they can go from there. Mayor Lund stated, so they do not have to call it a public hearing. They do not have to do all the publication and all that. Mr. Wysopal stated he feels uncomfortable calling it a public hearing because a public hearing would assume then that the Council is directing staff to change the project. If that was the direction tonight, staff can move forward that way; and that is where they were kind of trying to make it head if the Council wanted to do that. Councilmember Bolkcom agreed with the Mayor. They did tell them they thought there was going to be a study they were going to approve. Not necessarily that the Council was going to tell staff to go forward with what they had. Maybe that is part of their fault, but originally they had that meeting that night to have a discussion with where people were at and what they thought. And to let them know there was a traffic study saying the City should close it. Mayor Lund stated they are not calling it a public hearing at all. He is just asking they delay the action to say they are going to close it or whatever. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, would the agenda item be to finalize plans for the ST2019-01 street project. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 26 Mayor Lund replied he did not think so. Mr. Kosluchar stated that has already been ordered. Mr. Wysopal stated what they are doing is continuing this discussion and allowing whomever might show up to make comment about that. Mayor Lund stated just continuation of the discussion for the closure. Mr. Wysopal stated he does not want to play games with this either and be very forthright and say, unless the Council directs staff to start turning left, instead of turning right, then they are going to continue the way it has been ordered unless the Council directs staff to go in a different direction. There is always that opportunity to do that as well when bids come in. Mayor Lund stated they do not expect bids to come in for at least a month anyways, right? Mr. Kosluchar replied, well, longer than a month. Mr. Tienter stated the direction from the Council was not to spend any money on the project moving forward. He just wanted to make clear they would plan on spending money on things like if they were mailing letters or using staff time to prepare for the upcoming meeting. Additionally, in their Council meeting at the next meeting there may be some claims related to the project; and those would be for work that has already been completed that the City has to pay on. They may see saw additional expenditures. They would not be applicable to the two-week period consistent with the Council’s motion but, if they were to look at the claims list and see some expenditures related to the project, it would likely be for invoices the City has already received for work already performed. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NEW BUSINESS: 8. Public Hearing to Consider Conveying Outlots B and D, Locke Park Pointe, from the City of Fridley to the Fridley Housing and Redevelopment; and First Reading of an Ordinance under Section 12.06 of the Fridley City Charter and Minnesota Statutes, Section 465.035, Regarding Certain Real Estate and Authorizing the Conveyance of Same (Ward 1). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:50 P.M. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 27 Zach Kramka, Economic Development Intern, stated this is concerning the townhome project adjacent to the Civic Campus. An initial plat, Locke Park Pointe, was filed with the County back when the initial vision was decided upon for that area of land. In December 2081 the HRA signed a contract with Lennar to carry out that vision which turned out to be 72 townhomes. While working with Lennar, the City determined it wanted to maintain some public space around the storm water pond between the townhomes and the storm water pond with the idea of accommodating a bike trail. That was not incorporated into the original plat so some changes needed to be made. A new plat, Preserve at Locke Park, was prepared which reflected the changes to include the bike trail. That shifted the borders of Outlots B and D in that first initial plat. Mr. Kramka stated upon filing this new plat with the County it was discovered that small sections of land were both owned by the HRA and the City as proposed in that new plat. That needs to be addressed before moving forward. The proposed changes to address the timing of the plat are: (1) The HRA needs to deed Outlot C, Locke Park Pointe, to U.S. Homes Corporation (Lennar) and on the map that is attached in the agenda packet that Outlot C is outlined in red. (2) The City of Fridley deeds Outlot B and Outlot D, Locke Park Pointe, to the HRA which is outlined in yellow. (3) The HRA files a letter of merger placing Outlots A, B, and D, Locke Park Pointe, onto one certificate of title. (4) The plat of Preserve at Locke Park is recorded with the HRA and Lennar as landowners. (5) Immediately after filing of the plat of Preserve at Locke Park, Lennar quit claims to HRA all interest it owns in Outlot P, Preserve at Locke Park (hash marked in red on the map). (6) The HRA will simultaneously deed Outlot P, Preserve at Locke Park, to the City of Fridley. Mr. Kramka stated when all is said and done, the area that is outlined with a dotted blue line, the City will then take ownership of that. A lot of that space is the current storm water pond and will also include the trail system and also on the east side where there are red hash marks, there are also some plans for that space as well. Mr. Kramka stated staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and first reading of an Ordinance Conveying Outlots B and D to the HRA. Councilmember Eggert stated he believed this is title work that needs to be done so they can close with Lennar. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 28 Mr. Kramka replied correct. The reason why they have to go through these complicated steps is to hopefully maintain the closing with Lennar. It is very important to them as they have hired contractors, and they want to be able to make sure their model home is up and running by winter. Councilmember Eggert stated and now they are able to deal with the finality of what these pieces of land are. Mr. Kramka replied, that is right. Mayor Lund stated and in no way does this affect the future of a playground area to the immediate east. That is on the other side. Mr. Kramka replied correct. MOTION by Councilmember Tillberry to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:56 P.M. MOTION by Councilmember Tillberry to waive the reading of the ordinance and adopt the ordinance on first reading. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Consider Declaring 1340 Hillcrest Drive N.E. a Public Nuisance (Ward 2). MOTION by Mayor Lund to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:57 P.M. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated this is a consideration of a declaration of public nuisance of the property at 1340 Hillcrest Drive. On February 23, 2019, a fire burned the home to a total loss state. The owners were devastated as much of the material from their commercial business, as well as their personal effects, were burned beyond use. Items that remained were difficult to get at or get to because water that was used to stop the fire left the foundation full of one large block of ice. That held many of the owners’ remains they were trying to preserve. In May that all melted for them. Mr. Hickok stated staff has been in contact with owner of the property, Dave Hamernick, who has requested bids from six demolition contractors. Three contractors have indicated they do not do residential demolition, two contractors have given bids to the owner, and the owner awaits a FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 29 sixth contractor. Mr. Hamernick hopes to have a signed contract for demolition mid-week next week. Mr. Hickok on July 18, 2019, staff met with neighbors on site at 1340 Hillcrest Drive in an effort just to answer questions and help people understand best what has happened to the home, what kind of process it is going through right now, and what kind of expectations they should have for eventual clearing of the land. The owner of the property was there. Many neighbors attended and showed appreciation for the City efforts and sympathy for the owners of the property and their plight. Neighbors offered to help in any way they could. Although having a date to shoot for was important for the owner, the owner did express he has the desire to have the site demolished, graded, and seeded by September 15 of this year. The neighbors appeared to appreciate that date and that effort. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends they hold the public hearing tonight, they receive comment and, if Council deems it appropriate, then holding a hearing open until August 26 allowing the staff to see that adequate progress has been made towards completion. There are a few options. The Council could hold the hearing until a later Council meeting to assure 100 percent completion. In other words, after that September 15 date, when the owner hopes to have everything done. The Council could deem the property a public nuisance at that time on August 26 because of lack of progress that has happened, and staff would commence with the statutory abatement process. Finally, they could close the public hearing at that time and take no action on the nuisance determination because the progress has been made, and the project has been largely completed. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Hamernick if he understands staff’s recommendation is the Council would hopefully continue this until August 26? Dave Hamernick, 1340 Hillcrest Drive NE, said he understands and their goal is to get it cleaned up. MOTION by Commissioner Eggert to continue the public hearing to the August 26, 2019, City Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED TO AUGUST 26, 2019. 10. Public Hearing to Consider Revocation of the Auto Body Repair License for Flying Eagle Auto Service Located at 15 – 77th Avenue N.E.; and Resolution Revoking the Motor Vehicle Body Repair Business License for Cleophas Omondi, Flying Eagle Auto Service, LLC, Located at 15 – 77th Avenue N.E. (Ward 3). FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 30 MOTION by Commissioner Bolkcom to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 9:04. Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, stated the City has received requests by one of the property owners who look to enjoin the other two businesses in this same property into legal coverage under one law firm. With that they want to provide that law firm the opportunity to at least come up to speed and understand what the elements of this case might be. Staff asks Council to consider continuing Item Nos. 10, 11, and 12 so the attorneys have adequate time to come up to speed on this matter. Staff’s expectation is that by the first meeting in August they would be able to bring this item back to Council. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to continue this item until the August 12, 2019, City Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 12, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 11. Public Hearing to Consider Revocation of the Auto Body Repair License for Sky Auto Body, LLC, Located at 17 – 77th Avenue N.E.; and Resolution Revoking the Motor Vehicle Body Repair Business License for Fowzi Khulidi, Sky Automotive, Located at 17W – 77th Avenue N.E. (Ward 3). MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to continue this item until the August 12, 2019, City Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 12, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 12. Public Hearing to Consider Revocation of the Auto Body Repair License for Auto Body Shop, Located at 13 – 77th Avenue N.E.; and Resolution Revoking the Motor Vehicle Body Repair Business License for Michael Morris, Auto Body Shop, LLC, Located at 13W – 77t Avenue N.E. (Ward 3). FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 22, 2019 PAGE 31 MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to continue this item until the August 12, 2019, City Council meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE AUGUST 12, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. 13. Informal Status Reports: None. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Tillberry, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:11 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor