01-03-2022
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 03, 2022
7:00 PM
Fridley Civic Center, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or
treatment, or employment in its services, program, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion,
national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public
assistance. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to
d
any interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta
Collins at (763) 572-3500. (TTD/763-572-3534).
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approve the Minutes from the City Council Meeting of December 20, 2021
2.Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 2021
NEW BUSINESS
3.Resolution No. 2022-01, Confirming City Council Appointments and Designations
4.Resolution No. 2022-02, Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #21-01 to Amend
the Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for a Portion of the Property Generally
Located at 4500 Marshall Street N.E. (Ward 3)
5.Resolution No. 2022-04, Receiving Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing for 2022
Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2022-01
6.Resolution No. 2022-05, Approving Change Order No. 1 (Final) for 2021 Street Rehabilitation
Project No. ST2021-02
CLAIMS
7.Resolution No. 2022-06, Approving Claims for the Period Ending December 30, 2021
2
City Council Meeting 1/3/2022 Agenda Page 2
ADOPTION OF REGULAR AGENDA
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of Items not on Agenda 15 minutes.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
NEW BUSINESS
8. Resolution No. 2022-03, Receiving Final Report and Recommendations of the Park System
Improvement Plan Refinement Advisory Task Force
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS
ADJOURN
3
Jufn!2/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: January 3, 2022 Meeting Type:City Council
Submitted By: Roberta S. Collins, Assistant to the City Manager
Title
Approve the Minutes from the City Council Meeting of December 20, 2021
Background
Attached are the minutes from the City Council meeting of December 20, 2021.
Financial Impact
None.
Recommendation
Approve the minutes from the City Council meeting of December 20, 2021.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
Vibrant Neighborhoods &PlacesCommunity Identity &Relationship Building
Financial Stability & Commercial ProsperityPublic Safety & Environmental Stewardship
X Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
Minutes from the City Council Meeting of December 20, 2021
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
4
Jufn!2/
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
December 20, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley Civic Campus, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Lund called the City Council Meeting of December 20,2021, to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Mayor Scott Lund
Councilmember Dave Ostwald
Councilmember Tom Tillberry
Councilmember Stephen Eggert
Councilmember Ann Bolkcom
Walter Wysopal, City Manager
Rachel Workin, Environmental Planner
Korrie Johnson, Acting Finance Director
Andrew Biggerstaff, City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA
Motion made by CouncilmemberOstwaldto adopt the proposed Consent Agenda.Seconded by
CouncilmemberEggert.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approve the Minutes from the City Council Meeting of December 13,2021.
NEW BUSINESS
2.Resolution No. 2021-128, Approving a Grant for Preparing for Emerald Ash Borer from the Minnesota
Departmentof Natural Resources.
3.Resolution No 2021-132, Approving Participating in Opioid Litigation Settlements.
5
Jufn!2/
City Council Meeting 12/20/2021 Minutes Page 2
4. Resolution No. 2021-133, Approving Gifts, Donations and Sponsorships Received Between November
13, 2021, and December 10, 2021.
CLAIMS
5. Resolution No. 2021-134 Approving Claims for the Period Ending December 15, 2021.
ADOPTION OF REGULAR AGENDA
Motion made by Councilmember Tillberry to adopt the regular agenda. Seconded by Councilmember
Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: Consideration of Items not on Agenda 15 minutes.
No one from the audience spoke.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
NEW BUSINESS
6. Resolution No. 2021-124, Receiving Final Report and Recommendations of the Public Finance
Advisory Committee for the Park System Improvement Plan.
Wally Wysopal, City Manager, stated in 2019 the Park Department began the Finding Your Fun in Fridley
explorations to gather input from residents and business owners related to the desire for improvements
to the parks system. He said there were significant opportunities for public participation and engagement
throughout the process. He noted that the City Council asked for further refinement of the improvements
and associated costs. He reviewed the different commissions and committees that were involved,
including the Public Finance Advisory Committee that was tasked with determining the financing for those
improvements. He reviewed the recommendation of the Committee provided at its November meeting
to use bonding and existing funds for the improvements. He provided additional details on the tax
abatement bonding recommended for a portion of the cost. He stated the Committee felt that the parks
are an essential service of the City which was confirmed by the input received from the residents. He
reviewed the benefits the group identified for using tax abatement bonds rather than referendum bonds.
He stated that the unanimous recommendation from the Committee includes use of abatement bonds in
the amount of $20,000,000. He noted that Council is asked to endorse the recommendation. He said
consideration of abatement bonds would follow the formal process and include a public hearing.
Mayor Lund thanked the Advisory Committee for their efforts and hard work. He agreed with the
recommendation and believed that this was a viable form of financing for the park improvements. He
said this was a worthwhile endeavor that is needed by the parks system and acknowledged the lengthy
planning process that has gotten them to this place.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if staff could provide details on when the public hearings would be
anticipated and what the next steps would be.
6
Jufn!2/
City Council Meeting 12/20/2021 Minutes Page 3
Mr. Wysopal replied that the next step would be for Council to review the recommendations from the
Refinements Committee. He noted that group was tasked with refining the park improvements in order
to address the needs throughout the park system in a moderate fashion. He noted that the Committee
was tasked with reducing the scale from the originally proposed $50,000,000 to $30,000,000. He advised
that Council would review that plan at its January 3, 2022, meeting. He stated that the public hearing
would only be initiated for the bonds when the money is needed. He provided some estimates on when
additional actions could occur.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there would be ongoing communication to the residents throughout
this process to keep them informed.
Mr. Wysopal confirmed that communications will continue to pass information to residents and identify
important dates for public comment opportunities.
Councilmember Tillberry said he enjoyed the process of how this came about. He stated that the public
can be assured that many minds and points of view were considered throughout this process. He was
very comfortable accepting the recommendation.
Motion made by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopt Resolution No. 2021-124, Receiving Final Report and
Recommendations of the Public Finance Advisory Committee for the Park System Improvement Plan.
Seconded by Councilmember Tillberry.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Resolution No. 2021-127, Approving the Phase 2 Addendum to the Energy Action Plan and a
Memorandum of Understanding with Xcel Energy
Rachel Workin, Environmental Planner, provided background information on how the Energy Action Plan
(EAP) was created and the collaboration with Xcel Energy. She noted that staff began to work with the
EQEC in August 2021 to begin work on Phase 2 of the EAP. She stated that the EQEC recommended
approval of Phase 2 at its November meeting and the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended
approval of Phase 2 at its December meeting. She reviewed the original vision and mission of the EAP as
well as the original EAP goals and expected benefits. She reviewed the implementation that occurred for
the EAP and related results. She noted that it is recommended to maintain the mission, vision and goals
and highlighted the new participation goals that have been created. She said the original strategies are
maintained and also identified the new strategies proposed. She stated that staff recommends approval
of the Phase 2 Addendum to the EAP along with the MOU with Xcel Energy.
Mayor Lund asked about the ultimate number of phases.
Ms. Workin commented there is no limit on the number of phases. She stated that the program provides
guidance to the City, but they can also go outside of the EAP to consider and support additional activities.
She provided an example of Xcel providing a breakfast to employees to learn about the new electric
vehicle that was added to the
7
Jufn!2/
City Council Meeting 12/20/2021 Minutes Page 4
Councilmember Eggert asked if the first phase had been wrapped up.
Ms. Workin explained that Xcel typically works on a two-year cycle for MOUs. She stated that the first
two-year cycle has been completed and this would begin a new two-year cycle.
Councilmember Eggert asked if the EAP was a relatively new program.
Ms. Workin stated Fridley was involved in the third cohort of cities to participate. Since then, a number of
Minnesota cities have joined and the program has expanded to Wisconsin and Colorado.
Councilmember Eggert said he suspected in the first round the City most likely accomplished a number
of the low hanging fruit items, and perhaps the second round would have more challenging goals.
Ms. Workin stated that is something they saw through the Home Energy Squad visits sponsored through
the HRA. She stated that this would be an attempt to reach new residents through new strategies.
Councilmember Eggert commented that he thought there may be some momentum towards electric
vehicle use and wished staff luck.
Ms. Workin confirmed that there is interest in electric vehicles, and therefore it is helpful for City staff to
have experience driving an electric vehicle.
Councilmember Bolkcom commented that it appears many households received a postcard comparing
their use to neighbors and of those she has spoken to, it always appears the home receiving the postcard
does not rank well compared to neighboring homes in terms of energy or water usage. She stated that
it would be nice if there were more suggestions on energy savings rather than just showing that the home
is exceeding the usage of others.
Motion made by Councilmember Eggert to adopt Resolution No. 2021-127, Approving the Phase 2
Addendum to the Energy Action Plan and a Memorandum of Understanding with Xcel Energy. Seconded
by Councilmember Ostwald.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Resolution No. 2021-130, Certifying the Final Tax Levy Requirements for 2022 to the County of Anoka
Korrie Johnson, Acting Finance Director, provided a brief overview of the proposed 2022 budget including
the revenues and expenditures and all budgeted funds. She provided an overview of the property tax
levy, noting that the proposed 2022 budget assumes an overall property tax levy increase of about 2.97
percent. She reviewed net tax capacity information for the City and also provided information on the
median-value residential property value increases for 2022, noting that a property valued at $247,200
would pay an estimated $3.07 more per month as a result of the property tax increase proposed. She
also provided historical information on the property tax levy from 2012 through 2022 and compared the
mmunities. She stated that staff recommends approval of Resolution
8
Jufn!2/
City Council Meeting 12/20/2021 Minutes Page 5
2021-130 certifying the final tax levy requirements for 2022 to the County of Anoka and Resolution 2021-
131 approving a budget for the FY 2022 and the 2022-2026 Capital Investment Program.
Councilmember Bolkcom thanked Ms. Johnson for all her work on the budget and for assuming the duties
of Finance Director when the previous staff member left the City.
Councilmember Eggert noted the only debt the City has is related to the City Hall complex. The City is
saving a lot of money by not paying interest on other projects.
Motion made by Councilmember Ostwald to adopt Resolution No. 2021-130, Certifying the Final Tax Lecy
Requirements for 2022 to the County of Anoka. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
9. Resolution No. 2021-131, Approving a Budget for the Fiscal Year 2022, and the 2022-2026 Capital
Investment Program.
Motion made by Councilmember Ostwald to adopt Resolution No. 2021-131, Approving a Budget for
Fiscal Year 2022, and the 2022-2026 Capital Investment Program. Seconded by Councilmember Eggert.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS
Councilmember Bolkcom thanked everyone who participated or attended the recent North Suburban
Center for the Arts event. She stated the group continues to fundraise and hopes to move into the new
building in the spring. She also thanked Anoka County for allowing the organization to operate in the
Banfill Locke building for many years.
Mayor Lund wished everyone happy holidays.
ADJOURN
Motion made by Councilmember Ostwald to adjourn. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:41 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Melissa Moore Scott J. Lund
City Clerk Mayor
9
Jufn!3/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:January 3, 2022 Meeting Type:City Council
Submitted By:Julie Beberg, Office Coordinator
Title
Receive the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting ofDecember 15, 2021
Background
Attached are the Minutes from theDecember 15, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting.
Financial Impact
None
Recommendation
Staff recommended the City Council receive theDecember 15, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
X Vibrant Neighborhoods &PlacesCommunity Identity &Relationship Building
Financial Stability & Commercial ProsperityPublic Safety & Environmental Stewardship
X Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
Planning Commission Minutes December 15, 2021
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
:
Jufn!3/
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley Civic Campus, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hansencalled the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Mike Heintz
Amy Dritz
Mark Hansen
John Buyse
Ross Meisner
Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager
Rachel Workin, Environmental Planner
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
1.Approve October 20, 2021, Planning Commission Minutes
Motionby Commissioner Meisnerto approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR HANSEN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ACCEPTANCEOF MINUTES FROM OTHER COMMISSIONS
2.Approve Other Commission Minutes
Motionby Commissioner Heintzto acceptthe minutesfrom other Commissions. Seconded by
Commissioner Meisner.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR HANSEN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING
3.Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CP #21-01 by the City to amend the Future
Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Motionby Commissioner Buyseto open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Dritz.
21
Jufn!3/
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
12/15/2021
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR HANSEN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:02 P.M.
Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager, presented a Comprehensive Plan amendment. She noted in January
of 2021, the property at 4500 Marshall Street went through a lot split process to facilitate a land swap
between the City of Minneapolis and the Anoka County Parks system. She stated that the lot split was
approved by the Council on February 8, 2021 which resulted in adding .33 acres of land to Riverfront
Regional Park. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the property as utility and
because the land is now part of the park the Metropolitan Council requires that the Future Land Use Map
be changed to a designation of park and recreation. She noted that this would be considered a minor
amendment and would be administratively approved by the Met Council staff. She stated that staff
recommends that the Commission hold a public hearing and recommend approval of CPA #21-01. She
noted that the City Council would then consider the item at its January 3, 2022 meeting.
Chair Hansen asked if the process of moving the fence on the north end of the property has been moved.
Ms. Stromberg was unsure if that work had been completed. She stated that the land swap has been
completed and therefore if the work has not been completed it should be done shortly.
Commissioner Meisner asked if the City is responsible for putting up the fence.
Ms. Stromberg confirmed that the City of Minneapolis would be responsible for that action.
Chair Hansen referenced the three parcels that were purchased by the City of Minneapolis and asked if
any changes would be needed.
Ms. Stromberg stated, no change is required as those parcels are already designed as utility.
Motion by Commissioner Meisner to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR HANSEN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:06 P.M.
Motion by Commissioner Heintz approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment #21-01. Seconded by
Commissioner Meisner.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR HANSEN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS
22
Jufn!3/
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
12/15/2021
4.Approve the Phase 2 Addendum to the Energy Action Plan and a Memorandum of
Understanding with Xcel Energy
Rachel Workin, Environmental Planner, provided a history of the City’s energy action programing. She
stated that one of the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was to have increased resiliency and energy
planning, which led to the development of the Energy Action Plan (EAP) in 2018. She stated that the
implementation period ran from January 2019 through mid-2020. She noted that in August 2021 they
began working with EQEC on Phase 2 of the EAP and the EQEC recommended approval of Phase 2 and
the related MOU on November 9, 2021. She reviewed the vision and mission of the original EAP along
with the goals that were established during that first plan. She highlighted some of the benefits of the
plan in terms of cost savings, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and other co-benefits including
improved property values, comfort, and safety. She provided an overview of the original EAP
implementation. She also reviewed the EAP results. She stated that it is proposed to maintain the mission,
vision and 2030 goal and reviewed the new participation goals proposed for Phase 2. She highlighted
the new strategies identified for Phase 2. She welcomed any questions the Commission may have and
requested that the Commission recommend approval of Phase 2 of the EAP and associated MOU.
Commissioner Buyse asked if this is meant to be an intention rather than something legally binding.
Ms. Workin confirmed that this is not a legally binding document and there are not penalties if the goals
are not met. She stated that the document provides additional affirmation to staff that these actions are
appropriate to be spending time on and shows Xcel that this is a good community to invest resources in.
Commissioner Buyse asked the definition of a program participant.
Ms. Workin commented that the program is run through Xcel Energy and some data is provided from
CenterPoint Energy. She identified the program participation that would be counted in the report.
Commissioner Heintz asked where the EV charger is located.
Ms. Workin replied that the EV charger is in the parking lot between City Hall and the Public Works
building. She noted that the first three hours are free and the charge after that would be $2 per hour.
She stated that those spots are painted green.
Commissioner Meisner stated that he is a fan of energy efficiency. He noted that within the EV
community, access to home charging for apartment residents is a topic that comes up often. He asked
for input from staff on that topic.
Ms. Workin commented that is an existing gap. She stated that about 80 percent of electric vehicle
charging occurs in the home at night and therefore providing access to those living in apartments and
condos is a huge goal. She stated that Fridley participated in a program called Cities Charging Ahead,
which brought together 20 communities across Minnesota and highlighted some of the actions of that
group. She stated that providing a place for people to charge their vehicles is something renters will be
23
Jufn!3/
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
12/15/2021
looking for and therefore having that amenity will be important to ensuring the housing stock continues
to be viable.
Commissioner Meisner asked if any accommodation for EV charging has been included in any of the
recently constructed apartment buildings.
Ms. Workin stated that the topic has been brought up with developers. She stated that the developers
have commented that it is much more efficient to install conduit at the time of construction rather than
attempting to retrofit in the future. She was unsure if that was being done.
Commissioner Meisner commented that he hopes that is being done at that will be valuable in the future.
Ms. Workin stated that Xcel has a program for retrofitting for commercial uses that have more than five
electric vehicles in their fleet.
Commissioner Meisner asked the timing for the EV accommodations in the Code and whether that could
be accelerated.
Ms. Workin commented that the full recodification schedule is a three-to-four-year process. She believed
that issue was listed as a mid-level priority in that process.
Commissioner Meisner asked if there need to be changes in the Code related to public charging
infrastructure.
Ms. Workin commented that is something that would require an electrical permit for construction. She
did not believe the land use itself has been discussed yet, in terms of a standalone structure.
Commissioner Meisner referenced the energy use targets, noting there are many factors in that
calculation. He asked if there were a metric that would include a per capita or per square foot.
Ms. Workin confirmed that the EQEC has discussed that, providing the example of adding electric vehicles
which in turn increase energy use. She commented that staff could look into that method.
Commissioner Meisner asked if there is an update on the solar installation at Medtronic.
Ms. Stromberg noted that is included in her year in review presentation.
Commissioner Heintz stated that the Commission for Park Improvement finished its work and provided
a recommendation that will be forwarded to other groups. He noted that charging stations were not
included and suggested that perhaps staff work together to insert EV charging stations into those park
plans.
Ms. Workin confirmed that parking lot reconstruction for parks would be a good time to incorporate
those stations.
24
Jufn!3/
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
12/15/2021
Commissioner Meisner stated that he would love to see a charging station at Springbrook.
Commissioner Meisner asked how the goal of 20 percent was set.
Ms. Workin replied that goal was set during the original EAP planning phase and explained how that was
determined.
Chair Hansen explained the thinking behind the goal, as one of those involved in creating the EAP goal.
Commissioner Meisner commented that gas use should also be tracked. He stated that if vehicles are all
electrified, electricity would increase but there would still be more benefit.
Ms. Workin commented that data is collected on a much larger scale and is unsure how locally it can be
determined. She stated that she would ask other cities working on similar goals to gain additional input.
Commissioner Dritz stated that perhaps the goal should be related to greenhouse gas reductions.
Commissioner Meisner commented that the consumption of energy itself is not necessarily a bad thing.
Ms. Workin commented that Xcel has a carbon neutral goal by 2050, which is why they are pushing energy
conservation and the reduction of peak grid use.
Chair Hansen appreciated the hard work of staff on this matter. He noted that he and Commissioner
Dritz were part of the group that created the original EAP and he appreciated the efforts that continue to
be put into this.
Commissioner Heintz noted that when the natural gas use increase, that was during COVID when more
people were working from home and perhaps there was a related offset of gasoline use during that
period.
Motion by Commissioner Meisner approving the Phase 2 Addendum to the Energy Action Plan and the
associated Memorandum of Understanding with Xcel Energy. Seconded by Commissioner Dritz.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR HANSEN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Stromberg stated that at the end of each year she likes to provide a presentation of the work that
has been done by the Commission. She reviewed the Planning Commission actions during 2021 and
compared that to the actions of previous years. She also reviewed examples of Special Use Permits and
highlighted the other requests received during the year. She thanked the Commission for its work.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Meisner to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Buyse.
25
Jufn!3/
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
12/15/2021
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR HANSEN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:42 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Amanda Staple, Recording Secretary
26
Jufn!4/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:January 3, 2022 Meeting Type: City Council
Submitted By:Melissa Moore, City Clerk
Title
Resolution No. 2022-01,Confirming City Council Appointments and Designations
Background
The City of Fridley (City) annually adopts resolutions naming the official publication, official depositories
and other appointments. The list of local boards includes several joint agencies orgroups and advocacy
organizations, each with a focus on municipal issues.The resolution also designatesfinancial and
investment partners, Recording Secretaries, City Attorneys, Data Practices Compliance Officials,and
Municipal Trustees for the Fridley Fire Relief Association. In addition, each of the advisory commissions
areincluded with all current members.
These appointments designate positions as local officials, pursuant to Minnesota Statute (M.S.) §10A.01,
subd. 22.
Financial Impact
None.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the adoption of Resolution No. 2022-01.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
Vibrant Neighborhoods &PlacesCommunity Identity &Relationship Building
X Financial Stability & Commercial ProsperityPublic Safety & Environmental Stewardship
X Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
Resolution No. 2022-01
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
27
Jufn!4/
Resolution No. 2022 - 01
Confirming City Council Appointments and Designations
Whereas, the City Council appoints local officials, commissions and committees to perform functions
outlined and authorized by the City Charter, ordinance, resolution or agreement; and
Whereas, a review of vacancies and reappointments are conducted at the first City Council meeting
of each year.
Now therefore, be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby confirms, makes
or extends the following appointments.
City Council
Position Appointee Term Expires Authority
Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember-at-Large January 9, Fridley City Charter
Ostwald 2023 (Charter) § 2.03
Local Boards and Committees
Body Appointee(s) Term Expires Authority
Anoka County Fire Councilmember Tillberry, January 9, Anoka County Fire
Protection Council Representative 2023 Protection Council
Constitution;
Minnesota Statute (M.S.) §
471.59
Anoka County Law Councilmember-at-Large January 9, Members appointed per
Enforcement Council Ostwald, Representative 2023 establishing agreement of
Councilmember Eggert, 1970; M.S. § 471.59
Alternate
League of Councilmember Bolkcom, January 9, M.S. § 465.58
Minnesota Representative 2023
Cities Councilmember Tillberry,
Alternate
Metro Cities Mayor Lund, Delegate January 9, M.S. § 471.96
Councilmember Bolkcom, 2023
Alternate
Mississippi Councilmember Eggert, January 9, M.S. § 103B
Watershed Commissioner 2023
Management Councilmember Tillberry,
Organization Alternate
28
Jufn!4/
North Metro Mayors Mayor Lund, Member January 9, Discretionary member
Association Councilmember-at-Large 2023 driven advocacy
Ostwald, Alternate organization
Northstar Corridor Councilmember Eggert, January 9, Members appointed per
Development Representative 2023 establishing agreement of
Authority Paul Bolin, Alternate 1997; M.S. § 471.59
School District No. Councilmember-at-Large January 9,
13 Ostwald, Representative 2023
Councilmember Bolkcom,
Alternate
School District No. Councilmember-at-Large January 9,
14 Ostwald, Representative 2023
Councilmember Bolkcom,
Alternate
School District No. Councilmember Eggert, January 9,
16 Representative 2023
Councilmember Tillberry,
Alternate
Twin Cities Gateway Luke Cardona, January 9, M.S. § 469.190
Representative 2023
Advisory Commissions
Commission Appointees Term Expires Authority
Planning Mark Hansen, Chair April 1, 2024 Ordinance No. 68;
Commission Michael Heintz April 1, 2022 Fridley City Code (City
Terry McClellan April 1, 2023 Code) Chapter 6.03
Ryan Evanson April 1, 2022
Ross Meisner April 1, 2024
John Buyse April 1, 2022
Amy Dritz April 1, 2024
Environmental Amy Dritz, Chair April 1, 2024 Ordinance No. 520;
Quality and Energy Mark Hansen April 1, 2024 City Code Chapter 6.05
Commission Justin Foell April 1, 2022
Heidi Ferris April 1, 2023
Nick Olberding April 1, 2023
Sam Stoxen April 1, 2022
Aaron Klemz April 1, 2022
Parks and Michael Heintz, Chair April 1, 2022 Ordinance No. 314;
Recreation Shanna Larson April 1, 2022 City Code Chapter 6.04
Commission Ryan Gerhard April 1, 2022
Peter Borman April 1, 2024
EB Graham April 1, 2023
29
Jufn!4/
Ken Schultz April 1, 2024
Eric Evanson April 1, 2024
Housing and William Holm, Chair June 9, 2022 Housing and
Redevelopment Gordon Backlund June 9, 2026 Redevelopment Authority
Authority Elizabeth Showalter June 9, 2023 Resolution No. 82-1965
Kyle Mulrooney June 9, 2024
Rachel Schwankl June 9, 2025
Volunteer Fire Relief Association
Position Appointee Term Expires Authority
Municipal Trustee Scott Lund, Mayor January 9, 2023 M.S. § 424A.04
Municipal Trustee Korrine R. Johnson, Acting January 9, 2023 M.S. § 424A.04
Finance Director
Municipal Trustee Maddison Zikmund, Deputy January 9, 2023 M.S. § 424A.04
Director, Fire Division/Fire
Chief
Official Publication
Publication Term Expires Authority
Star Tribune Indefinite M.S. § 331A;
Charter § 12.01
Official Depositories*
Institution Authorization Term Expires Authority
Wells Fargo Bank, Walter T. Wysopal, City Indefinite M.S. § 427.02;
N.A. and all of its Manager M.S. § 118A;
branches and Korrine R. Johnson, Acting Indefinite Charter § 6.04
subsidiaries Finance Director
U.S. Bank, NA and all Walter T. Wysopal, City Indefinite M.S. § 427.02;
of its branches and Manager M.S. § 118A;
subsidiaries Korrine R. Johnson, Acting Indefinite Charter § 6.04
Finance Director
*The City Manager, Director of Finance/City Treasurer, or Assistant Finance Director shall have the
authority to transfer funds from one official depository to another for the purpose of investing and
satisfying claims against City funds.
2:
Jufn!4/
Financial Advisor
Institution Authorization Term Expires Authority
Ehlers and Walter T. Wysopal, City Indefinite M.S. § 427.02;
Associates, Inc. Manager M.S. § 118A;
Korrine R. Johnson, Acting Indefinite Charter § 6.04
Finance Director
Indefinite
Investment Advisors
Institution Appointee Term Expires Authority
Prudent Man Walter T. Wysopal, City Indefinite M.S. § 427.02;
Advisors, Inc., Manager M.S. § 118A;
Investment Advisor Korrine R. Johnson, Acting Indefinite Charter § 6.04
Finance Director
Morton Markets Walter T. Wysopal, City Indefinite M.S. § 427.02;
Capital LLC, Manager M.S. § 118A;
Investment Advisor Korrine R. Johnson, Acting Indefinite Charter § 6.04
Finance Director
Secretary to the City Council
Position Appointee Term Expires Authority
Secretary of the Melissa Moore, City Clerk Indefinite Charter § 3.02
Council
City Attorney
Position Appointee Term Expires Authority
Civil Affairs Kennedy and Graven, Indefinite Memorandum
Chartered of Understanding signed
11-07-2019
Criminal Affairs City of Coon Rapids December 31, Resolution No. 2017-62
2022
Bond Counsel Taft, Stettinius and Hollister, Indefinite M.S. § 410, M.S. § 412,
LLP M.S. § 429, M.S. § 444,
M.S. § 462C, M.S. § 469
31
Jufn!4/
Data Practices
Position Appointee Term Expires Authority
Responsible Walter T. Wysopal, City Indefinite M.S. § 13.02, subd. 16
Authority Manager
Data Practices Melissa Moore, City Clerk Indefinite M.S. § 13.05, subd. 13
Compliance Official,
General
Data Practices Becca Hellegers, Employee Indefinite M.S. § 13.05, subd. 13
Compliance Official, Resources Director
Human Resources
Data Practices Andrew Todd, Sergeant Indefinite M.S. § 13.05, subd. 13
Compliance Official,
Public Safety
rd
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 3 day of January, 2022.
________________________________
Scott J. Lund Mayor
Attest:
________________________________
Melissa Moore City Clerk
32
Jufn!5/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:January 3, 2022 Meeting Type:City Council
Submitted By:Scott Hickok, Community Development Director
Stacy Stromberg, Planning Manager
Title
Resolution No. 2022-02, Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #21-01 to Amend the
Future Land Use Map in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for a Portion of the Property Generally Located
at 4500 Marshall Street N.E.(Ward 3)
Background
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-07, the Fridley City Council (Council) approved alot split for the City
of Minneapolis in February 2021, for the property located at 4500 Marshall Street. The purpose of the
lot split was to facilitate a land swap between the City of Minneapolis and Anoka County Parks, which
resulted in adding .33 acres of land to Riverfront Regional Park.
the Minneapolis Waterworks
and owned by Anoka County, the Met Council requires that the Future Land Use map be changed so
nsive Plan need to be approved by the Council and the Met Council.
Met Council staff has communicated to City staff that because this amendment is minor, it will be
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
33
Jufn!5/
administratively approved by their staff, as opposed to needing to be approved by the Met Council.
and a resolution has been approved by the Council.
A Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the December 3, 2021
edition of the Star Tribune. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for CPA #21-01 at their
December 15, 2021, meeting. After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously recommended
approval of CPA #21-01.
Financial Impact
No financial impact.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 2022-02.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
Vibrant Neighborhoods & Places X Community Identity & Relationship Building
Financial Stability & Commercial Prosperity Public Safety & Environmental Stewardship
Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
!Resolution No. 2022-02
!Exhibit A: Proposed Future Land Use Map
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
34
Jufn!5/
Resolution No. 2022-02
Approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #21-01 to Modify the Future Land Use
Map for a Portion of the Parcel Generally Located at 4500 Marshall Street N.E.
Whereas, Minnesota Statute § 462.355 prescribes the procedure for
Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, notice of public hearing concerning the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
CPA #21-01 was duly provided in accordance with Minnesota Statue § 462.355; and
Whereas, on December 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for CPA #21-01
to make a modification to Future Land Use Map for a
portion of the parcel, generally located at 4500 Marshall Street N.E.; and
Whereas, on December 15, 2021, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval
of CPA #21-01; and
Whereas, on January 3, 2022, the City Council reviewed and approved Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, CPA #21-01.
Now, therefore be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA #21-01 to modify the land use designation on the Future
and generally located at 4500 Marshall Street N.E.
Be it further resolved that the City Council directs City staff to submit the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, CPA #21-01 to the Metropolitan Council for consideration.
rd
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 3 day of January 2022.
_______________________________________
Scott J. Lund Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Moore City Clerk
35
Jufn!5/
Exhibit A
Legal Description:
PARCEL B:
The northerly 43.55 feet of the following described property lying west of State Highway
No. 1 also known as East River Road:
All that part of Government Lot 4, Section 27, Township 30, Range 24 West described as
follows:
Commencing at a point formed by the intersection of the center line of the old United
States Military road so-called, and the line dividing Section 27 and 34, said township and
range, which point is 2245.3 feet west of the southeast Section corner of said Section 27;
thence northerly along the center line of said old United States Military road on a
deflection of 1 degree and 38 minutes east from a line at right angles to the south line of
Section 27, a distance of 366.4 feet; thence west parallel with the south line of said Section
27 a distance of 460 feet more or less to the easterly shore of the Mississippi River, thence
southerly along the easterly shore of the Mississippi River intersects the south line of said
Section 27, thence east along the south line of Section 27 to the point of beginning, Anoka
County Minnesota.
36
Jufn!5/
Future
Land Use
(Projected 2040)
SFR - Single Family Residential
MFR - Multiple Family Residential
MR - Mixed Residential
OFC - Office
COM - Commercial
MU - Mixed Use
IND - Industrial
MU - Mixed Use (Commercial/Industrial)
INS - Institutional
P-SP - Public/Semi-Public
P - Park & Recreation
RAIL - Railroad
ROW - Right-of-Way
UTL - Utility
Open Water
Change from UTL to P
·
00.10.20.40.60.81
Miles
Sources:
Fridley Community Development
Fridley Public Works
Metropolitan Council
MNDNR
Map Date: 12/15/2021
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave NE
Fridley, Minnesota 5543204303
37
Phone: (763) 572-3566
Jufn!6/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:January3, 2022 Meeting Type:City Council
Submitted By:James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Brandon Brodhag, Civil Engineer
Nic Schmidt, Civil Engineer
Title
Resolution No. 2022-04, Receiving Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing for 2022Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST2022-01
Background
On September27, 2021, the Fridley City Council (Council) approved Resolution No. 2021-84directing
preparation of a feasibility report for the 2022Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2022-01. The project
is proposed for the neighborhoods of Black Forest, Hartman Circle, Logan Park,and the streets include
st
Hartman Circle, 71Way,Riverview Terrace,andWest Bavarian Pass.Staff originally proposed having
the Marian Hills Neighborhood and the Georgetown Apartments with the included streets of Cheri Lane,
Fillmore Street and East River Road West Service Drive as a part of this project, but due to available
budget for 2022 in the street and utility funds these streets were removed from the projectand will be
deferred to 2023.For the segment near Georgetown, this is necessary to allow proper time to coordinate
potential future development plans with the owners, as well as work out complex construction phasing
and access during the extensive utility and street work that will take place. Cheri Lane was found to be
holding up well in the past two years and was therefore the candidate segment selected for removal
from this project to meet budgetary constraints.
On November19, 2021, property owners and Councilmemberswere mailed notices to watch a virtual
neighborhood information presentation and to learn more about the upcoming proposed street project.
Due to COVID-19, staff decided against having the traditional open house and created the virtual
presentation to avoid having any concerns with social distancing and safety. Staff mailed 197noticesof
the virtual open house presentation. There are 159properties in the project area that would be subject
to assessment under the proposed project. Highlights of the presentation included a project overview,
construction impacts, anticipated schedule, assessment policy, projected assessments,and payment
schedule. A questionnaire was mailed with the notice to the property owners that were informed about
the project requesting information and input on other project aspects, including construction impacts
and utility services.
Currently, 61residents have viewed the presentation on the website, and 12questionnaires have been
returned by residents. Staff were requested to meet onsite with property owners on two different
occasions to discuss upcoming the street project and coordinate potential driveway work that will be
contracted out by the property owner. Staff will continue to meet with residents that request onsite
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
38
Jufn!6/
meetings. Staff noted the City would investigate and address concerns brought forward during the
development of the feasibility report during design phases of the project.
After the Council resolution, staff resumed final preparation of the feasibility report. The attached
feasibility report includes consideration for public comment and concern received through the surveys,
emails, and telephone conversations to date.
Note that the project is recommended to have at least two different residential assessment rates. Due
to the density of the townhome residences along West Bavarian Pass, these costs per benefitting
property are reduced significantly from the remaining single-family home segments for the project.
Therefore, staff will include notice of the hearing with an estimate of $700 for each benefitting LDR
property on West Bavarian Pass, and $3,100 for each benefitting property on remaining segments.
Please refer to the completed feasibility report, which concludes:
1.!-Term Street
Maintenance Program, and 2022-26 Capital Investment Program.
2.!The project is cost-effective and will result in reduced maintenance requirements within the
project area and a long-term savings to the City of Fridley.
3.!The project is feasible and is funded in the proposed FY2022 budget.
Financial Impact
Funding for this project is derived from several sources including Municipal State Aid street funding,
special assessments, and Utility CIP funds (water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer).
Recommendation
Staff recommends the approval of Resolution No. 2022-04.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
x Vibrant Neighborhoods & Places Community Identity & Relationship Building
Financial Stability & Commercial Prosperity Public Safety & Environmental Stewardship
Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
!Resolution No. 2022-04
!Exhibit A: Feasibility Report with Attachments
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
39
Jufn!6/
Resolution No. 2022-04
Receiving Report and Calling for Public Hearing on Improvements for the 2022 Street
Rehabilitation Project No. ST2022-01
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-84 approved by the Fridley City Council on September
27, 2021, a Feasibility Report has been prepared by the City of Fridley Public Works Department with
reference to the improvements listed in Exhibit A; and
Whereas, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-
effective, and feasible.
Now therefore, be it resolved that the Fridley City Council receives the Feasibility Report for the
2022 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2022-01.
Be it further resolved that the City Council will consider the improvement of such street in
accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the
cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost
of the improvement of $624,200.
Be it further resolved that a public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the
th
24 day of January 2022, in the Council Chambers of the Fridley City Hall at 7:00 p.m. and the City
Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law.
rd
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 3 day of January, 2022.
_______________________________________
Scott J. Lund Mayor
Attest:
Melisa Moore City Clerk
3:
Jufn!6/
CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
2022 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
NO. ST2022-01
December2021
I hereby certify that this plan, specifications, or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer with the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
Ejhjubmmz!tjhofe!cz!
Kbnft!
Kbnft!Lptmvdibs!
Ebuf;!3132/23/34!
Lptmvdibs
26;49;14!.17(11(
________________________Date: December 23, 2021
James P. Kosluchar, P.E.
Registration No. 26460
1
41
Jufn!6/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page No.
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………. 3
STREET RESURFACING PLAN…………………………………………………………….. 4
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 5
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................... 5
Overview ............................................................................................................ 5
Pavement Resurfacing .................................................................................................. 6
Water Main Improvements ............................................................................................ 6
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Repairs .................................................................. 7
ESTIMATED COSTS ...................................................................................................... 7
FUNDING SOURCES ..................................................................................................... 7
Street Rehabilitation Funding ...................................................................................... 7
Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Repairs .................................................................. 9
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 8
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 9
FIGURE A PROJECT AREA MAP .................................................................. 120
FIGURE B OPINION OF PROBABLE COST................................................... 131
FIGURE C FUNDING SOURCES .................................................................... 142
FIGURE D PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................... 13
FIGURE E LIVING STREET WORKSHEET ..................................................... 14
2
42
Jufn!6/
INTRODUCTION
The City of Fridleyhas an ongoing obligation to maintain its streets in an efficient
manner, to provide a high level of service while maintaining a minimum budget. To
enable the City to identifyimprovementsthat will provide for an efficient level of service
and life-cyclecost, staff inspects and rates its pavements on a regular basis. The City
also has developed a pavement improvement plan based on resurfacing pavement and
base treatment with intermittent sealcoating. The goal is to provide maintenance
improvements at scheduled intervals. For example:
ActivitySchedule
Initial ConstructionYear 0
Sealcoating Year 8
Sealcoating Year 16
ResurfacingYear 24
Sealcoating Year 32
Sealcoating Year 40
ReconstructionYear 48
This is an ideal and aggressive sequence for street maintenance. Note that the final
reconstruction may be substituted with resurfacing activities if roadway base is in good
condition, with the intent to extend road life for an additional cycle of 24 years.
Due to the variability with budgets, road configurations, traffic patterns, condition of
utilities, source of funds, other projects, etc., the basic schedule above varies and
fluctuates for each roadway segment.
As part of identifying the best candidate for this year’s pavement resurfacing project,
City of Fridley Engineering Division staff works with Street Maintenance Division staff to
develop the list of candidate projects. The factors considered are physical
characteristics, budgetary factors, and other considerations are listedto assist in
selection of a best candidate.
The Engineering Division monitors existing pavements through semi-annual
inspections. From this inspection information, the Engineering Division prepares a
Street Resurfacing Plan consistent with the Street Capital Improvement Plan, which
designates candidate street segments for construction, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation. The City of Fridley also performs preventative surface maintenance (e.g.
sealcoating), routine crack sealing and pothole patching maintenance. The amount of
street maintenance on this segment is increasing annually due to the rapid deterioration
of the existing pavements.
The Engineering Division has prepared a Street Resurfacing Plan consistent with the
Long-Term Street Maintenance Program, which designates candidate street segments
for construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation. The Plan identifies the areas within
the city and the anticipated year for maintenance projects. Please refer to the following
mapsummarizing the Long-Term Street Maintenance Program.
3
43
Jufn!6/
STREET RESURFACINGPLAN
2022-01
PROJECT
4
44
Jufn!6/
BACKGROUND
This project includes three segments in the west portion of the City of Fridleyand two
segments in the southeast portion of the City of Fridley. The project includes street and
utility workforthe neighborhoodsof Black Forest, Hartman Circle, and Logan Park.
Staff originally proposed having the Marian Hills Neighborhood and the Georgetown
Apartments with the included streets of Cheri Lane, Fillmore Street and East River Road
West Service Drive as a part of this project, but due to available budget for 2022 in the
street and utility funds these streets were removed from the project.
See Figure A in the Appendix for a map of proposed street construction.
Black Forest Neighborhood
Street segments selected for rehabilitation include:
WEST BAVARIAN PASS from N INNSBRUCK DR to ARTHUR STREET
The street and underground utilities in the area were originally constructed in from early
to the mid-1970s. The street was last seal coated in 2012. Currently, the street provides
2-way traffic with no shoulder striping. The Annual Average Daily Traffic is estimated to
be 1,200 vehicles per day. The record pavement thickness ranges from 3.5” to 4.5”. The
underlying aggregate base thickness is approximately 6 inches of Class 5. The street
width is approximately 31 feet wide.
Hartman Circle Neighborhood
Street segments selected for rehabilitation include:
HARTMAN CIRCLE from EAST RIVER RD to HARTMAN CIRCLE E. LEG
The streets and underground utilities in the area were originally constructed in from late-
1950s through the early 1970s. A portion of the streetwas reconstructed in 2002 and
waslast seal coated in 2018. Currently, the street provides2-way traffic with no
shoulder striping. Theroad is alow volume local street,and the Annual Average Daily
Traffic is estimated to be less than 500 vehicles per day.The record pavement
thickness ranges from 1.5”to 4”. The underlying aggregate base thickness ranges from
4inches to 6inches of Class 5. The street widthis approximately 35 feet wide.
Logan Park Neighborhood
Street segments selected for rehabilitation include:
ST
71WAY from EAST RIVER ROAD to RIVERVIEW TERRACE
ST
RIVERVIEW TERRACE from 71WAYto 71 ½ WAY
The streets and underground utilities in the area were originally constructed in from mid-
1960s. These streets were last seal coated in 2018. Currently, the streets provide 2-way
traffic with no shoulder striping. The Annual Average Daily Traffic is estimated to be less
than 500 vehicles per day for Riverview Terrace and estimated to be around 800
5
45
Jufn!6/
st
vehicles per day for 71Way.The record pavement thickness for these streets is
approximately3”. The underlying aggregate base thickness is 4”of stabilizing base
oil/sand mix. The street widths range from 29feet on RiverviewTerraceto 35feet on
st
71Way.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Overview
Street rehabilitation is funded through atypical combination of funding sources,
including Minnesota State Aid System (MSAS) funding and special assessments.
Due to Covid-19 and social distancing concerns, staff did not host a traditional in-person
open house for the project. Instead, staff recorded a presentation highlighting project
overview, construction impacts, anticipated schedule, draft budget, and estimated
special assessments for proposed project. The presentation was uploaded to the project
website and notifications were mailed out to residents and property owners in the
project area to visit the project website, view the presentation, and contact staff with any
questions or concerns about the project that can be taken into consideration as the
project evolves to final design.
The length of all segments included in this residentialproject area is approximately 1.56
miles. The work will include pavement resurfacing, water main replacement, and storm
sewer improvements including spot curb repair.
In September2021, ResolutionNo. 2021-84was adopted by City Council to initiate the
2022Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2022-01.
Pavement Resurfacing
Rehabilitation of the streets will include
asphalt reclaiming, asphalt paving, concrete
curb repairs, and miscellaneous utility
repairs. Damaged or settled concrete curbs
will be replaced. Staff has conducteda
Living Streets evaluation of the project area
and will address the findings as feasible in
the design of the project.The worksheet is
included as Figure E of the appendices.
Geotechnical soil exploration is being performed for all of the segments to verify existing
conditions and identify any soil correction needed.
Black Forest Neighborhood(West Bavarian Pass)
Construction records indicate that thisstreet has a pavement depth to be approximately.
3½“ to4 ½” thick with 6” of aggregate base under the pavement surface. Staff
considered a mill and overlay process but determined that the existing crackswill reflect
6
46
Jufn!6/
through a new asphalt pavement.The street isdetermined to haveinadequate street
structure and requiresbase rehabilitation. Staff has further determined that the base
can be strengthened by reclaiming the asphalt pavement into the base. Base
rehabilitation will include the mixing of pulverized asphalt surface into the underlying
soils to improve the structural strength. A stronger base will increase the pavement life.
Staff will also ensure that the crown on the roadway in constructed to City standards to
shed the water off the pavement surface faster to increase the pavement life.
Staff recommends standard local roadway pavement and base rehabilitation consisting
of full depth reclamation and topped with 3”-3.5” of asphalt pavement.
Hartman Circle Neighborhood (Hartman Circle)
Construction records indicate that this street has a pavement depth to be approximately.
1 ½“ to 4” thick with a range of 4” to 6” of aggregate base under the pavement surface.
Staff considered a mill and overlay process but determined that the shallow depth of
bituminous asphalt for most of the segment combined with the proposed utility work in
the area that the mill and overlay process wasn’t practicable. The street is determined to
have inadequate street structure and requires base rehabilitation. Staff has further
determined that the base can be strengthened by reclaiming the asphalt pavement into
the base. Base rehabilitation will include the mixing of pulverized asphalt surface into
the underlying soils to improve the structural strength. A stronger base will increase the
pavement life. Staff will also ensure that the crown on the roadway in constructed to City
standards to shed the water off the pavement surface faster to increase the pavement
life.
Staff recommends standard local roadway pavement and base rehabilitation consisting
of full depth reclamation and topped with 3”-3.5” of asphalt pavement.
st
Logan Park Neighborhood (71Way and Riverview Terrace)
Construction records indicate that this street has a pavement depth to be approximately.
3” thick with 4” of stabilizing base oil/sand mix. Staff considered a mill and overlay
process but determined that the existing depth of bituminous asphalt and the need for
st
concrete curb replacements and concrete valley gutter on 71Way the mill and overlay
process is not feasible.The street isdetermined to have inadequate street structure and
requires base rehabilitation. Staff has further determined that the base can be
strengthened by reclaiming the asphalt pavement into the base. Base rehabilitation will
include the mixing of pulverized asphalt surface into the underlying soils to improve the
structural strength. A stronger base will increase the pavement life. Staff will also
ensure that the crown on the roadway in constructed to City standards to shed the water
off the pavement surface faster to increase the pavement life.
Staff recommends standard local roadway pavement and base rehabilitation consisting
of full depth reclamation and topped with 3”-3.5” of asphalt pavement.
7
47
Jufn!6/
Water Main Improvements
Hartman Circle Neighborhood(Hartman Circle)
Water main work will include replacing approximately 600lineal feet (LF)of 6”
watermain. Staff has identified the portion of water main within the corridor of South
Hartman Circle and portions of East & West Hartman Circle to be replaced. One fire
hydrant will be replaced within this project.
This work will include replacement of the mainand services, including installation of a
newcurb stop on the short side. The long side services will be coupled to the existing
service at the junction of the new main. Water main break history is the determinant
factor that influences which segments of main are replaced, along with soil type,
presence of groundwater, and pipe material.
Sanitary Sewer Repairs
Sanitary sewer repairs will not be a part of the ST2022-01project. No severe defects
that required system reconstruction were identified with the sanitary sewer system in
this project area. Castings on the sanitary sewer manholes will be either replaced or
reset as a part of the paving.
Staff will provide inspection service on resident laterals to identify severe root intrusion
at the main connection. Property owners have been notified and may coordinate with
the Sewer Division to complete a video inspection of the service line. Excavations to
repair and clean service laterals with severe root intrusions are born by the property
owner, per City Code.
Storm Sewer Repairs
Storm sewer repairs will include curb replacement and manhole/inlet adjustments and
repairs. Catch basin and manhole structures are generally in good condition.
Private Utility Work
The project scope has been provided to private utilities to allow them to upgrade their
facilities during the project. At this time, none of the private utilities have not provided
information on their need to upgrade or repair their facilities.
ESTIMATED COSTS
The project cost is estimated to be $624,200. This estimate includes 5% contingency
and overhead costs relating to technical services, printing, publishing, permit fees, etc.
All costs are preliminary but are expected to stay within the budgeted amount.
Estimated costs of the project can be found on Figure Bof the Appendix.
FUNDING SOURCES
Costs for this project will be paid using Minnesota State Aid Systemfunding, utility
enterprise funds, and special assessments.The street rehabilitation work is subject to
8
48
Jufn!6/
special assessment; utility work is not proposed to be subject to special assessment. A
preliminary project budget can be found inFigureCof the Appendix.
Street RehabilitationFunding
The estimated cost of $340,000for the City’s pavement rehabilitation will be funded
using monies from special assessmentsand the City’s Minnesota State Aid System
account. The City will assess adjacent residential properties in accordance with its
major street maintenance policy for local streets. These assessments will provide
approximately $267,760 based on the full project scope and is currently only included
for the proposed rehabilitated street segments. The following assessments are based
on past history as applied by Council policiesfor Low Density Residential (single family,
duplex). Using these past methods of calculating assessments, and considering our
preliminary project budget, staff has estimated assessment of approximately $680per
unit for West Bavarian Pass, $3,100 per unit for Hartman Circle and $2,840 per unit for
st
71Way and Riverview Terrace units for the Low Density Residential properties.
The remaining balance of approximately $72,240for local street resurfacing will be
reimbursed from the City’s Minnesota State Aid System account.
Water Main Improvements
The estimated cost of $225,500 for upgrading the water main distribution system will be
funded using monies from the Water Utility Fund. In 2022, $600,000 in funding is
identified within the CIP as a capital expenditure.Note two other water main
thth
replacement projects associated with street projects (ST2021-01 and 7 Street/57
Avenue Trail Project) will share the2022water utility funding source.
Sanitary Sewer Repairs
The estimated cost of $10,900for maintaining the sanitary sewer collection system will
be funded using monies from the Sewer Fund. In 2022, $25,000 in funding is identified
with in the CIP as a capital expenditure.
Storm Sewer Repairs
The estimated cost of $47,800 for storm sewer improvements will be funded using
monies from the Storm Water Fund. In 2022, $65,000 in funding is identified with in the
CIP as a capital expenditure.
CONSTRUCTION
Construction sequencing will include consideration of access for all properties. A minor
exception will be immediately after asphalt has been constructed, which is most likely to
occur on weekday daytime hours. On residential street segments the project will be
phased so that access is preserved. Similarly, minor disruptions to utility services may
occur during the project but this will be limited to several hours at most.
In order to provide the best access and eliminate conflicts between contractors the
project is proposed to start in May and conclude by September.
9
49
Jufn!6/
SUMMARY
The work proposed for ST2022-01Street Rehabilitation project is consistent withthe
City of Fridley’s Long-Term Street Maintenance Program, 2022-2026Capital Investment
Program, and can be fully funded by its 2022 Budget. The project is cost effective,
necessary, and feasible from an engineering standpoint as described in this report. The
Engineering Department recommends that the City Council approve this project as
presented.
10
4:
Jufn!6/
APPENDICES
11
51
Jufn!6/
FIGURE APROJECT AREA MAP
12
52
Jufn!6/
CITY OF FRIDLEY - 2022 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST: PROJECT NO. ST2022-01
DATE: 12/23/2021
ITEM NO.MnDOT NO.
DESCRIPTION UNIT EST. QTYUNIT COSTEXTENDED COST
SCHEDULE A - STREETS
12021.501MOBILIZATIONLUMP SUM0.50$ 60,000.00 $ 30,000.00
22104.503SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT300$ 3.75 $ 1,125.00
32105.507COMMON EXCAVATION (P) (EXCESS RECLAIM)CU YD1,591$ 8.00 $ 12,728.00
42112.519SUBGRADE PREPARATION (P)ROAD STA46.81$ 300.00 $ 14,043.00
52215.504FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (8")(P)SQ YD16,369$ 1.50 $ 24,553.50
62331.603BITUMINOUS JOINT SAW & SEALLIN FT4,100$ 2.50$ 10,250.00
72357.506BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COATGAL982$ 2.85$ 2,798.70
82360.509TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON1,351$ 70.00$ 94,570.00
92360.509TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX (3,C)TON1,800$ 67.00 $ 120,600.00
102563.601TRAFFIC CONTROLLUMP SUM0.60$ 10,000.00 $ 6,000.00
112565.602RIGID PVC LOOP DETECTOR 6' X 6'EACH2.00$ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00
122582.50124" STOP LINE WHITE: EPOXYLIN FT26.00$ 60.00 $ 1,560.00
132584.501PAVEMENT MESSAGE WHITE: EPOXYSQ FT42.00$ 25.00 $ 1,050.00
142582.5024" SOLID DOUBLE LINE YELLOW: EPOXYLIN FT175.00$ 3.50 $ 612.50
152583.5024" SOLID SINGLE LINE WHITE: EPOXYLIN FT55.00$ 2.00$ 110.00
162582.503CROSSWALK: EPOXYSQ FT240.00$ 3.50$ 840.00
SUBTOTAL:$ 323,840.70
5% ENG/ADMIN:$ 16,192.04
SCHEDULE A - STREETS TOTAL:$ 340,032.74
SCHEDULE B - SANITARY SEWER
12021.501MOBILIZATIONLUMP SUM0.02$ 60,000.00 $ 1,200.00
22506.502ADJUST EXISTING FRAME AND RING CASTING (SANITARY)EACH23$ 400.00 $ 9,200.00
SUBTOTAL:$ 10,400.00
5% ENG/ADMIN:$ 520.00
SCHEDULE B - SANITARY SEWER TOTAL:$ 10,920.00
SCHEDULE C - STORM SEWER
12021.501MOBILIZATIONLUMP SUM0.10$ 60,000.00 $ 6,000.00
22104.503REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT935$ 5.00 $ 4,675.00
32104.501REMOVE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTERLIN FT40$ 8.00 $ 320.00
42123.61STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM)HOUR25$ 150.00 $ 3,750.00
52506.502ADJUST EXISTING FRAME AND RING CASTING (STORM)EACH5$ 400.00 $ 2,000.00
62531.503CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618LIN FT935$ 20.00 $ 18,700.00
72531.603CONCRTE VALLEY GUTTER 36” WIDELIN FT115$ 60.00 $ 6,900.00
82573.502STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTIONEACH21$ 150.00 $ 3,150.00
SUBTOTAL:$ 45,495.00
5% ENG/ADMIN:$ 2,274.75
SCHEDULE C - STORM SEWER TOTAL:$ 47,769.75
53
Jufn!6/
CITY OF FRIDLEY - 2022 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST: PROJECT NO. ST2022-01
DATE: 12/23/2021
ITEM NO.MnDOT NO.
DESCRIPTION UNIT EST. QTYUNIT COSTEXTENDED COST
SCHEDULE D - WATER
12021.501MOBILIZATIONLUMP SUM0.38$ 60,000.00 $ 22,800.00
22104.502REMOVE GATE VALVE AND BOXEACH2$ 425.00 $ 850.00
32104.502REMOVE HYDRANT AND GATE VALVEEACH1$ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
42104.502REMOVE CURB STOP & BOXEACH7$ 350.00 $ 2,450.00
52104.503REMOVE WATERMAINLIN FT600$ 5.00 $ 3,000.00
62104.503REMOVE WATER SERVICE PIPELIN FT190$ 3.00$ 570.00
72104.503REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT280$ 10.00$ 2,800.00
82104.504REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTSQ YD18$ 8.00$ 144.00
92104.504REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTSQ YD29$ 22.00 $ 638.00
102360.6043" BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY W/6" CLASS 5 AGGREGATESQ YD18$ 95.00 $ 1,710.00
11 2503.603REPAIR SEWER PIPE (SANITARY SEWER LATERAL)LIN FT70$ 65.00 $ 4,550.00
122504.601TEMPORARY WATER SERVICELUMP SUM1$ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00
132504.602CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN (INCLUDES EXCAVATION PIT)EACH4$ 2,000.00 $ 8,000.00
142504.602CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE (INCLUDES EXCAVATION PIT)EACH11$ 300.00 $ 3,300.00
152504.6021" CORPORATION STOPEACH11$ 1,000.00$ 11,000.00
162504.6021" CURB STOP & BOXEACH7$ 500.00$ 3,500.00
172504.6026" GATE VALVE & BOXEACH4$ 2,000.00 $ 8,000.00
182504.602ADJUST GATE VALVE & BOX (WATER)EACH4$ 850.00 $ 3,400.00
192504.602HYDRANT WITH 6" GATE VALVE ASSEMBLYEACH1$ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00
202504.6036" WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON CL 52 (OPEN CUT INSTALLATION)LIN FT610$ 80.00 $ 48,800.00
212504.6031" WATER SERVICE (TYPE K COPPER)LIN FT190$ 65.00 $ 12,350.00
222504.608FITTINGSPOUND331$ 15.00 $ 4,965.00
232531.503CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B618LIN FT280$ 25.00 $ 7,000.00
242531.5046" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENTSQ YD29$ 100.00 $ 2,900.00
252540.602REMOVAL, TEMPORARY INSTALLATION & REINSTALLATION OF MAILBOXESLUMP SUM1$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
262563.601TRAFFIC CONTROLLUMP SUM0.4$ 10,000.00 $ 4,000.00
272574.507COMMON TOPSOIL BORROWCU YD90$ 40.00 $ 3,600.00
282574.508FERTILIZER TYPE 3POUND17.00$ 1.00 $ 17.00
292575.505SEEDINGACRE0.06$ 2,000.00 $ 120.00
302575.508SEED MIXTURE 25-151POUND10$ 5.00 $ 50.00
312575.508EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CAT. 3NSQ YD275$ 2.50 $ 687.50
SUBTOTAL:$ 214,701.50
5% ENG/ADMIN:$ 10,735.08
SCHEDULE D - WATER TOTAL:$ 225,436.58
GRAND TOTAL (A+B+C+D):$ 624,159.06
54
Jufn!6/
Figure C - Funding Sources 12/23/2021
ST2021-01 Street Rehabilitation Project JPK / BJB / NRS
Estimated
Construction2022 Budgeted
No.DescriptionAmountAmount
1Special Assessments*$267,760.00$203,000.00
2Water Fund$225,500.00$250,000.00
3Sanitary Sewer Fund$10,900.00$25,000.00
4Storm Water Fund$47,800.00$65,000.00
5MSA Funding$72,240.00$126,000.00
Grand Total$624,200.00$669,000.00
Special Assessment Breakdown
Assessments (West Bavarian Pass)
LDR Single Family74x$ 680.00=$50,320.00
Non-LDR Commercial 0x$ 40.00=$0.00
West Bavarian Pass Total$50,320.00
Assessments (Hartman Circle)
LDR Single Family34x$ 3,100.00=$105,400.00
Non-LDR Commercial 320x$ 39.50=$12,640.00
Hartman Circle Total$118,040.00
Assessments (71st Way/Riverview Terrace)
LDR Single Family35x$ 2,840.00=$99,400.00
Non-LDR Commercial 0x$ 40.00=$0.00
71st Way/Riverview Terrace Total$99,400.00
Assessment Grand Total$267,760.00
*Note that Special Assessments amounts are a calculated need for Estimated Amount,
based on the project estimate, and the Budgeted Amount is calculated based on the project
scope and property information.
55
Jufn!6/
Figure D – Project Schedule
ST2022-01Street Rehabilitation Project
The tentativeschedule for this project is as follows:
PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES
Virtual Project Presentation:Nov/Dec 2021
Preliminary Assessment Hearing: January24, 2021
DESIGN AND SUBMITTALS
Agency Submittals Complete: March2022
Design Completed:March2022
LETTING, AWARD, AND CONSTRUCTION
Resolution Advertising for Bids:March2022
First Advertisement for Bids: March2022
Bid Letting: March2022
Contract Award:April2022
Begin Construction (earliest):May2022
Complete Construction (deadline): September2022
FINAL ACTIVITIES
Final Assessment Hearing: October 2022
Certified Assessment Roll Complete:November 2022
Note: subsequent activities may be influenced by changes in schedule of previous activities.
15
56
Jufn!6/
FIGURE E - Living Streets Worksheet
Project Narrative
1) Project Information:
2022-01 Street Project: West Bavarian Pass NE, Hartman Circle, and Riverview Terrace
st
NE/71Way NE
2) Roadway Jurisdiction:
City of Fridley
3) Project Name:
20220-01
4) Project Start Point:
See attached map
5) Project End Point:
See attached map
6) Project Manager:
Brandon Brodhag
7) Is the project area, or streets it intersects, referenced in any of the following plans:
City’s Active Transportation Plan
Safe Routes to School Plan (Hayes, North Park, Stevenson, Fridley Middle)
Roadway Corridor Study (ex: East River Road corridor study, TH 47/65 corridor study)
Transit Overlay District
Fridley Parks Master Plan (under development)
Local Water Management Plan
Stormwater Retrofit Analysis
8) If so, how does the plan reference Living Street components within the project area or
streets it intersects?
East River Road Corridor Study:
No sight line improvements for the intersection of Hartman Circle at East River Rd
were recommended in the corridor study
16
57
Jufn!6/
Sidewalk was recommended onHartman Circle to Osborne Rd on East River Rd
Existing Conditions
9) Describe existing and projected modal volumes, if available:
Volumes ExistingProjected (Year)
Average Daily Traffic
Pedestrian Counts
Bicycle Counts
Truck Volumes
Transit Volumes
Speed Conditions
10) Detail crash data, if available, and known conflict locations:
a. Do crashes tend to be between certain modes?
No
b. Are there known conflict points between specific modes?
No
11) Who are the users of the project area and through what mode do they travel?
The primary users of the project area are residential. Users travel mainly by car as
well as some walking and biking
The MRT is located across East River Rd from the Hartman Circle/Riverview
Terrace NE section
Manomin Park users may be entering the southernmost segment on Hartman
Circle to access the parking lot
12) How does the existing area accommodate different modes travelling north-south and/or
east-west? Are additional routes needed?
All pedestrian and bicyclist traffic is on local roads
The MRT is located across East River Rd from the Hartman Circle/Riverview
Terrace NE section. Public comment during meetings about the L32 lift station
17
58
Jufn!6/
indicated interest in rerouting the MRT along Riverview Terrace and Hartman
Circle.
There is a trail entrance into Manomin Park from Hartman Circle that provides an
entrance to the MRT
13) Are there any problematic or dangerous pedestrian crossings in the area? How can those
crossings be addressed? If so, do they comply with the Local Road Research Board
Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Reference Guide?
st
There is a stop light at 71and East River Rd that is not ADA accessible.
Crossings can be addressed with improved landing pads. The intersection is
striped with cross bars
st
Crossing East River Rd at 71Avenue occurs by entering Manomin Park and
using the pedestrian tunnel
14) Describe any public transit facilities along the project area:
Route 852 travels down East River Rd. There is no landing zone for Stop 12140 at
Hartman Circle and East River Rd, considerations should be given to improving the stop.
st
There is a sidewalk connecting Stop 12135 on East River Rd to 71Way.
15) Describe any significant destinations along the routes or for which the project area is a
connector (schools, parks, libraries, Civic Campus, commercial corridors):
Logan Park is located to the north of the Riverview Terrace section
The L32 Lift Station is between the Hartman Circle and Riverview Terrace project
segments and has the potential to be a park
Manomin Park is located to the south of the Hartman Circle segment and a
parking lot for the Park is located on the roadway. There is a fishing dock located
off the MRT on Locke Lake; this parking lot is the nearest spot to park for this
dock
Innsbruck Nature Center is located to the north and Farr lake Park is located to
the south of the West Bavarian Pass section
16) Are there areas of identified speeding or other dangerous driving? How can these areas
be addressed?
No
17) Describe any barriers to pedestrian/bicyclist movement in the project area. How can
these barriers be addressed?
Riverview Terrace and Hartman Circle are disconnected along East River Rd. This could
be addressed by a sidewalk along the western side of East River Rd.
18) Are there known water quality or quantity concern in the project area or downstream of
the project area?
18
59
Jufn!6/
Ponding occurs in front of a property on Hartman Circle
West Bavarian Pass drains to the Innsbruck Nature Center wetlands, which have
known sedimentation issues
The Hartman Circle section drains to Rice Creek downstream of Locke Lake
The Riverview Terrace section drains directly to the Mississippi River
19) How does the existing area manage stormwater? How can stormwater management be
improved?
There is no treatment in these areas except for the small rain garden. The inlet to the
small rain garden could potentially be improved or the rain garden expanded to receive
more water. Sumps could be installed to capture sediment.
20) Describe the existing landscaping. Any opportunities for enhanced vegetation or water
conservation?
This area has mainly residential landscaping. There are opportunities to promote Rice
Creek mini-grant program and shoreland stabilization program to homeowners on Rice
Creek. Revegetated lawns could include bee lawn seed mix.
21) Mark any Living Streets components exist in the project and on streets that it intersects?
__X__ Trails, sidewalks, and on-street, striped bike lanes
_____ Median islands
_____ Accessible pedestrian signals
_____ Curb extensions/bump outs
_____ Narrower travel lanes/road diets
__X__ Speed limits and other traffic calming improvements
__X__ Safe crossing facilities, including pavement markings
_____ Safe and effective lighting
__X__ Diverse tree plantings
__X__ Stormwater management
__X__ Pollinator-friendly/water efficient landscaping
_____ Bike racks
_____ Benches
_____ Water fountains
_____ Waste receptacles
_____ Public art
_____ Other components as determined based on latest and best “Living Streets”
standards
22) Are there any areas that are “under-lit”?
No
23) Describe any user needs/challenges along the project corridor that you have observed or
been informed of:
19
5:
Jufn!6/
None
Proposed Conditions:
1) What public engagement has been done or is planned related to Living Streets
components?
Project outreach performed through project webpage.
2) What modes does the proposed facility accommodate?
No additional modes
3) How does the proposed facility accommodate different modes north-south and/or east-
west?
No additional modes
4) How does the proposed facility assist different modes in reaching significant
destinations?
No additional modes
5) Does the proposed landscaping enhance the urban forest or promote pollinator
habitat/water-efficient landscaping?
No
6) Does the proposed project improve any identified water quality or quantity concerns
within or downstream of the project area?
Staff is investigating the feasibility of installing a sump at Riverview Terrace and 71 ½
Way using a CCWD cost share grant to reduce sedimentation to the Mississippi River.
7) Does the proposed project remediate any design challenges that prevent
pedestrian/bicyclist movement?
No
8) Provide an alternative cross section that was considered, list trade-offs associated with
alternative cross-section:
9) If Living Streets components are not included, mark and explain which exception under
the Living Streets policy is the motivation to not include the components:
_____ The project involves a transportation system on which certain modes and users are
prohibited either by law or significant safety reasons.
20
61
Jufn!6/
_____ The street jurisdiction (Anoka County of the State of Minnesota for non-city streets)
refuses suggested plans.
_____ The cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable
use.
_____ The corridor has severe topographic, environmental, historic or natural resource
constraints.
_____ There is a well-documented absence of current and future need.
_____ Other exceptions are allowed when recommended by the Public Works, Building &
Community Standards, Parks and Recreation, and Police and Fire departments, and
approved by the City Council.
21
62
Jufn!7/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:January3, 2022 Meeting Type:City Council
Submitted By:James Kosluchar, Public Works Director
Brandon Brodhag, Civil Engineer
Title
Resolution No. 2022-05, ApprovingChange Order No. 1(Final)for 2021 Street RehabilitationProject
No. ST2021-02
Background
Attached is Change Order No. 1(Final) for the 2021 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2021-02.This
project is part of the City)regular street maintenance program.The workis being
performed under a contract with GMH AsphaltCo.of Chaska, MN.
The amount of this change order is $31,378.96. Total work included in Change Order No. 1(Final) would
increase theoriginalcontract by 3.3%.A summary of the changes is attached. This Change Order is
necessary to release the final payment, and complete project closeout, which will include release of
project retainage to the Contractor at that time.
Additional work was required due to thefollowing:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole Extra Depth Adjustments(CO1.01)
The contractor is responsible for replacing rings to a depth of 18 inches from the top of casting. Six of
the sanitary sewer manholes in the reclaim areas required replacing rings at a depth greater than 18
inches from the final street grade. CO1.01 accounted for $5,172 of the change order and will be funded
by the Sewer UtilityFund.
Prevailing Wage Trucking Hours (CO1.02)
GMH Asphalt Co. brought to attention after the bidding process and before project award that
their trucking subcontractors had not bid the project with prevailing wages and were not aware the
project required prevailing wages.The project documents have verbiage about prevailing wage,
including a link to Prevailing Wage wages for the
Anoka County region, but the wages were not posted in the project documentsas is standard with
MnDOT practice. It is of note that the City has been providing contract documents in this format for over
five years. MnDOT provided the interpretation that posting in the project documents, rather than
referencing, is the standard method of providing enforceable wage rates. GMH Asphalt Co. was the
lowest bidder for the project by $47,324.93 to the next lowest bidder.GMH Asphalt Co. gave an estimate
of approximately $15,000 for the additional prevailing wage before construction started, and staff
directed payment of prevailing wages for the Contractor and all Subcontractors. CO1.02 accounted for
$17,570.51 of the change order and will be funded by the Street Improvement Fund.
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
63
Jufn!7/
Erosion Control Category 3N Blanket (CO1.03)
After review of the restoration areas in the construction projects that were constructed in 2020, staff
determined that the application of hydroseed to the restoration areas was not the best option given the
draught conditions that occurred for a majority of 2021. Staff researched alternative options and decided
that rather than hydroseeding the restoration areas, we requested that the contractor install erosion
control blankets and seed. This was to give us a better chance of having healthy turf establishment and
d that was done simultaneously
to the street project. CO1.03 accounted for $3,241.20 of the change order and will be funded by the
Water Utility Fund.
Additional Class 5 for Road Base (CO1.04)
Small areas of the road base in the reclaim segments required additional subgrade repair prior to paving.
Base materials under the existing roadway are unpredictable, and if found to be unsuitable for paving,
correction by replacement with new Class V aggregate to support the new road is required. A portion of
this project required this correction and CO1.04 accounted for $5,395.25 of the change order and will be
funded by the Street Improvement Fund.
The project is complete and final payment will be released following healthy turf establishment.
Financial Impact
Funding for this project is derived from several sources including Municipal State Aid street funding,
special assessments, and Utility CIP funds (water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer). The respective funds
are sufficient to provide the additional cost. The amount of this change order is within a normal project
allowance of 5%, and within budget for the project.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the approval of Resolution No. 2022-05.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
x Vibrant Neighborhoods & Places Community Identity & Relationship Building
Financial Stability & Commercial Prosperity Public Safety & Environmental Stewardship
Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
!Resolution 2022-05
!Exhibit A: Change Order No. 1 (Final) for 2021 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2021-02
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
64
Jufn!7/
Resolution No. 2022-05
Approving Change Order No. 1 (Final) for 2021 Street Rehabilitation Project No. ST2021-02
Whereas, the 2021 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project
maintenance program under a contract with GMH Asphalt Co. of Chaska, MN (Contractor); and
Whereas,
funds and special assessments; and
Whereas, additional work was desired by the City of Fridley that modified the original contract from
$950,710.64 to $982,089.60 (3.3% increase); and
Whereas, the Contractor performed work as directed by City staff and work is substantially completed
and awaiting final payment.
Now, therefore be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves Approval of
Change Order No. 1 (Final) for the 2021 Street Rehabilitation Project ST2021-02 in the amount of
$31,378.96.
rd
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 3 day of January, 2022.
_______________________________________
Scott J. Lund Mayor
Attest:
Melisa Moore City Clerk
65
Jufn!7/
Public Works Department
Streets ¤ Parks ¤ Water ¤ Sewer ¤ Stormwater ¤ Fleet ¤ Facilities¤ Engineering
10Dec21
GMHAsphaltCo.
9180LaketownRoad
Chaska,Minnesota55318
{
.W9/ʹ/ŷğƓŭĻhƩķĻƩbƚ͵ЊЋЉЋЊ{ƷƩĻĻƷwĻŷğĬźƌźƷğƷźƚƓtƩƚƆĻĭƷbƚ͵{ЋЉЋЊЉЋ
Youareherebyordered,authorized,andinstructedtomodifyyourcontractfortheabovereferencedprojectbyincludingthe
followingitems:
DESCRIPTION
ITEMNO.UNITSQUANTITYUNITPRICECOST
SanitarySewerManholeExtraDepthAdjustments
CO1.01EA862.006.00$$5,172.00
CO1.02LS1.0017,570.51PrevailingWageTruckingHours$$17,570.51
1.03SY1,752.00$1.85$3,241.20
COErosionControlCategory3NBlanket
CO1.04LS1$5,395.25$5,395.25
AdditionalClass5forRoadBase
CHANGEORDERNO.1TOTAL=$31,378.96
OriginalContractAmount:$950,710.64
PriorCh0.
angeOrdersApproved:$0%ofOriginalContractAmount
3.3%ofOriginalContractAmount
ThisChangeOrder:$31,378.96
ProposedContractAmount:$982,089.60
SubmittedandapprovedbyJamesKosluchar,DirectorofPublicWorks,onthe27thDayofDecember,2021
JamesP.Kosluchar,DirectorofPublicWorks
thdayof,2021byGMHAsphaltCo.
Approvedandacceptedthis
GMHAsphaltCo.Representative
Approvedandacceptedthisthdayof,2021bytheCityofFridley
ScottLund,Mayor
WalterT.Wysopal,CityManager
66
Page1of1
Jufn!8/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:January 3, 2022 Meeting Type:City Council
Submitted By:Roberta Collins, Assistant to the City Manager
Title
Resolution No. 2022-06,Approving Claims for the Period Ending December 30, 2021
Background
Attached is Resolution No. 2022-06and the claims report for the period ending December30, 2021.
Financial Impact
Included in the budget.
Recommendation
Staff recommend adopting Resolution No. 2022-06.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
Vibrant Neighborhoods &PlacesCommunity Identity &Relationship Building
X Financial Stability & Commercial ProsperityPublic Safety & Environmental Stewardship
Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
Resolution No. 2022-06
Exhibit A:City Council Claims Report
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
67
Jufn!8/
Resolution No. 2022-06
Approving Claims for the Period Ending December 30, 2021
Whereas, Minnesota Statute § 412.271 generally requires the City Council to review and approve
claims for goods and services prior to the release of payment; and
Whereas, a list of such claims for the period ending December 30, 2021, was reviewed by the City
Council.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby approves the
payment of the claims as presented.
rd
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 3 day of January, 2022.
_______________________________________
Scott J. Lund Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Moore City Clerk
68
Jufn!8/
69
Jufn!8/
6:
Jufn!8/
71
Jufn!8/
72
Jufn!8/
73
Jufn!8/
74
Jufn!8/
75
Jufn!8/
76
Jufn!8/
77
Jufn!8/
78
Jufn!8/
79
Jufn!8/
7:
Jufn!8/
81
Jufn!8/
82
Jufn!8/
83
Jufn!8/
84
Jufn!8/
85
Jufn!8/
86
Jufn!8/
87
Jufn!8/
88
Jufn!8/
89
Jufn!8/
8:
Jufn!9/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:January 3, 2022 Meeting Type:City Council
Submitted By:Mike Maher, Community Services Director
Title:
Resolution No. 2022-03, Receiving Final Report and Recommendations of the Park System Improvement
Plan Refinement Advisory Task Force
Background
Beginningin 2019, the Cityof Fridley (City)undertook a community-driven,comprehensive park system
purpose was to develop a planning and
implementation document that wouldidentifypriorities for park improvements as well asensure a
balanced and equitable park system meeting the needs of the community.Through a public engagement
process, which included a resident survey, individual park surveys, and a series of community and public
meetings, the City further refined the document into a Parks System Improvement Plan (Plan).
At its June 14, 2021 meeting, the City Council (Council) provided further direction regarding the Plan,
which limited the cost and duration of the Plan to $30 million and 10 years, respectively. As part of the
ongoing, community engagement efforts related to the Plan, the Council also created two community
TaskForce groupstoexamine the financing and scope of the Plan.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-55, the Refinement Task Forcewas responsible for recommending
priorities for park system improvements. The Task Forcemet five times in 2021 to deliberate and
ultimately make a recommendation to the Council. The Task Forcerecommended an Implementation
Plan at a cost not exceed $30 million overa 10-year period beginning in 2023.
The Council will be asked to consider adoption ofa resolution accepting the recommendation of the
Refinement Task Force. Before funding the Plan, a public hearing will be held to discuss the Final Report
and Recommendations of the both the Financing Committee and the Refinement Committee. To provide
more details the development of the Plan, Candace Amberg, Senior Landscape Architectwith WSB
Engineering, Inc.will provide a brief presentation to the Council.
Financial Impact
No additional budgetary impact expected to complete this phase of the project.
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
91
Jufn!9/
Recommendation
Staff recommend approval of Resolution No. 2022-03.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
X Vibrant Neighborhoods & Places X Community Identity & Relationship Building
Financial Stability & Commercial Prosperity Public Safety & Environmental Stewardship
Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
!Resolution No. 2022-03
!Exhibit A: Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Task Force Final Report and
Recommendation
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
92
Jufn!9/
Resolution No. 2022-03
Receiving Final Report and Recommendations of the Park System Improvement Plan
Refinement Task Force
Whereas, the City of Fridley (City) began a process of understanding the needs and desires of
residents for City parks
public workshops with residents; and
Whereas, Fridley residents expressed an interest in improving City parks by upgrading
playgrounds and amenities; and
Whereas, pursuant to Resolution No. 2021-51, the Fridley City Council (Council) directed the City
Manager to implement a Park System Improvement Plan (Plan) to address the needs and desires
of residents and stakeholders; and
Whereas, pursuant to resident and stakeholder feedback received through engagement efforts,
the Council determined that the project cost for the Plan should not exceed $30 million and 10
years to complete; and
Whereas, on June 14, 2021 the Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-55, which directed staff to
organize a Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Task Force who would recommend park
improvement priorities for the Plan; and
Whereas, through their deliberations, the Refinement Task Force ultimately recommended a Final
Report and Recommendation.
Now, therefore be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Fridley hereby receives the
Final Report and Recommendations Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Task Force.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Fridley this 3rd day of January, 2022.
_______________________________________
Scott J. Lund Mayor
Attest:
________________________________________
Melissa Moore City Clerk
93
Jufn!9/
Exhibit A
Final Report and Recommendations
of the
Refinement Task Force
for the
Park System Improvement Plan
January 3, 2022
January 3, 2022
1
94
Jufn!9/
Exhibit A
Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Task Force Members
The City Council appointed the following residents serve on a resident Task Force to provide a set
of recommendations regarding refinement of Task Force
members included:
Peter Borman
Kim Ferraro
Dan Gourde
E.B. Graham
Mike Heintz
Jordan Hurst
Malcolm Mitchell
Liz Novotny
Jeremy Powers
Ken Schultz
Maija Sedzielarz
Jim Stangler
Dan Whalen
Traci Wuchter
Staff Liaisons:
Mike Maher Community Services Director
Jeff Jensen Director of Operations for Streets, Parks, and Facilities
Melissa Moore City Clerk
A special thank you to Candace Amberg from WSB Engineering for leading the consulting efforts
to develop park concept plans and draft implementation plans based on Task Force input.
Department of Community Services
7071 University Avenue Northeast
Fridley, MN 55432
FridleyMN.gov
2
95
Jufn!9/
Exhibit A
Introduction and Background
In 2019, the City of Fridley (City) began a comprehensive park system planning effort known as
1,000 comments from residents and other stakeholders, the City developed the Draft Park System
Improvement Plan (Plan). Generally, the Plan envisioned a park system responsive to the shifts in
both the demographics and recreation trends of the Fridley community. It also proposed to
address significant deferred maintenance and make an approximately $50.8 million investment in
park system.
Upon review of Plan and following additional feedback from the Fridley community at the Annual
Town Hall Meeting, the City Council (Council) resolved to implement it at a cost not to exceed $30
million or a 10-year timeline (Resolution No. 2021-51). These parameters recognized the financial
limits of the City and the desire of the community to realize affordable park system improvement
as soon as possible. However, even at this reduced cost, the Council also recognized the need to
use debt (i.e., borrow money) to accomplish the Plan.
On June 28, 2021, the Council appointed two advisory committees to provide additional
community input regarding Plan implementation. The Refinement Task Force (Task Force) group
would work to moderate the Plan and its costs, while the Public Finance Advisory Committee
would recommend the appropriate financing method(s) for the Plan. Both groups operated within
the parameters set by the Council. This report outlines the efforts and recommendations of the
Refinement Task Force.
Under the Council guidance, on a schedule determined by the City Manager and agreed to by
the Task Force, the group met a total of five times, convening monthly between August and
December of 2021. The Task Force reviewed and provided input on updated park concept plans
as well as options for implementation of thirty million dollars of park improvement over a 10-year
period. As a result, this analysis and their discussions, the Task Force formed the recommendations
found in the following section.
Recommendations
Implementation Plan
The City of Fridley contracted the firm WSB Engineering (WSB) to work with staff as a partner on
the development of the Park System Improvement Plan. WSB began their process by visiting each
ed Park Service Area Analysis (Attachment 1). The City
was divided into geographical park service areas which were categorized by having adequate,
minimal, or poor levels of service in the Fridley park system. Further, parks were prioritized as
being high priority or medium priority based on their impact to underserved areas of Fridley.
3
96
Jufn!9/
Exhibit A
The Task Force was informed of the park service area study and how it would be used to inform
all Plan.
The Task Force was presented with draft concept plans
refined in early 2021 through a robust community engagement process.
Moore Lake Park, Community Park and Commons Park had been designated as community parks
areas.
In many cases, proposed park refinements were clear and consistent with recommendations from
previous community meetings, online comments, and surveys. In some cases, public feedback was
not consistent, and the Task Force provided important input, which was used to develop a set of
final, preferred concept plans (Attachment 2).
Once preferred park concept plans had been agreed upon, the Task Force evaluated two
alternative options for implementing the park improvements in ten years for a cost not to
-
(Attachment 3). Each
approach categorized park improvements into three categories; high priority (1-5 years),
medium priority (5-10 years) and deferred (10+ years).
The key difference between the two plans is that pproach # 1
Community Park in favor of funding for an increased number of neighborhood parks serving the
calls for completion of all three community category parks; Moore Lake, Community and
Commons Parks, yet left many neighborhood parks in the deferred category.
balanced and eq
th
# passed by all 11 of the Task Force members in attendance at the December 9, 2021
meeting. Minutes for of the Refinement Task Force meetings are included as (Attachment 4).
Conclusion
The Task Force remained engaged in the Park System Improvement Plan refinement process
throughout the course of their work with excellent attendance at meetings, insightful questions
and comments and numerous members spending time between meetings visiting parks and
studying park plans.
The group approached the refinements with the objective of developing greater equity and
accessibility within
refinements to park plans that had been made through previous public input.
4
97
Jufn!9/
Exhibit A
Recognizing that not every proposed park improvement was possible, the Task Force carefully
studied each park improvement concept plan to provide guidance on refinements to improve
each park and scale the overall park improvements into the budget framework directed by
Council. Additionally, the Task Force reviewed two alternative implementation strategies and the
th
eleven task force members present at the December 9 meeting, unanimously endorsed the
5
98
Jufn!9/
Committee Charter
Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Advisory Committee
Mission
The resident advisement committee will serve as representatives of the Fridley community to
provide feedback and advisement to city staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and Fridley
City Council on the park system improvement plan.
Framework
The Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Advisory Committee (Committee) will
consist of members of the Parks and Recreation Commission who elect to participate as
well as community members appointed by the Fridley City Council.
The Committee will have between 9 and 15 active members and new members may be
appointed by the Fridley City Council.
Active membership may be revoked at the discretion of the Community Services Director
if a member does not attend two consecutive meetings without being excused.
The Community Services Director will serve as the primary staff liaison to the Committee
and will serve as the primary facilitator of Committee meetings.
The Committee will begin meeting during the summer of 2021 and will meet monthly for
up to one year or until the City Council has determined that the plan has been refined to
meet the needs of the community within the identified budget.
Committee Meetings
Meetings will be open to attend by the public and meeting locations, dates and times
will be posted on the City of Fridley website at least five days prior to each meeting.
Meeting minutes will be recorded and posted to the City of Fridley website.
Committee meetings will be held the second Thursday of each month at the Fridley Civic
Campus at 7 pm.
Committee members may be asked to attend and participate in additional stakeholder
meetings, resident meetings,or park events.
Committee Role
The Committee will primarily focus on refinement of park improvement concept plans
and building consensus on the priority of park improvements to fit into the budget.
The Committee serves in an advisory capacity to city staff and does not provide formal
approval of park plans or budgets.
Committee recommendations will be used to inform and influence decision making by
city staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council.
99
Jufn!9/
Exhibit A
To promote public participation and input on the Park System Improvement Plan from
the broader Fridley community.
Additional Information and Attachments
Attachment 1 Park Service Area Analysis Maps
Attachment 2 Preferred Park Concept Plans
Attachment 3 Draft Implementation Strategy Approach # 1 and Approach # 2
Attachment 4 Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Task Force Meeting Minutes
7
9:
Jufn!9/
:1
Jufn!9/
:2
Jufn!9/
OFX!TIFMUFS!)7.9!UBCMFT*
JNQSPWF!FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH!
)81!TUBMMT*
FYQBOE!FYJTUJOH!WPMMFZCBMM!),2*!
DPOWFSU!FYJTUJOH!UFOOJT!
DPVSU!UP!QJDLMFCBMM!)7*
TMPQF!QPMMJOBUPS!QMBOUJOH
FYJTUJOH!TPDDFS!FYJTUJOH!TPDDFS!
GMFYJCMF!MBXO!0!
GJFMEGJFME
GJFME!TQBDF
FYJTUJOH!
GPPUCBMM!GJFME
FYJTUJOH!
TPDDFS!
GJFME
JODMVTJWF!
FYJTUJOH!TIFMUFS!.!
QMBZHSPVOE
NBLF!JNQSPWFNFOUT
X0DIBMMFOHF!
BEWFOUVSF
HBHB!CBMM
PQUJPOBM;!GJFME!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
IBNNPDLJOH
FYJTUJOH!
CBTLFUCBMM
GMFYJCMF!MBXO!0!
GJFME!TQBDF
TPDDFS!GJFME!V22
PQUJPOBM0GVUVSF;!SFNPWF!
FYJTUJOH!UFOOJT!BOE!DSFBUF!
OFX!QBSLJOH!MPU!):9!TUBMMT*
)3*!OFX!TIFMUFST!
SF.HSBEFE!
)5!UBCMFT!FBDI*
TMFEEJOH!IJMM
TQMBTI!PQUJPOBM0GVUVSF;!SFNPWF!
QBE
FYJTUJOH!SJOL!BOE!DPOTUSVDU!
7TH STREET
)5*!OFX!UFOOJT!DPVSUT
FYJTUJOH!CBTFCBMM!
PQUJPOBM0GVUVSF;!JNQSPWF!
GJFME!JNQSPWFNFOUT
FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH!MPU!)3:!TUBMMT*
.!:1!CBTFMJOF
.!411.!431.!451!
GSJEMFZ!NJEEMF!
FYJTUJOH!
TDIPPM!USBDL
DJTUFSO
HFOFSBM!IPDLFZ!
SJOL!SFNBJOT
FYJTUJOH!XBUFS!UPXFS
XBUFS!USFBUNFOU
QBSL!QBWJMJPO;
.!SFTUSPPNT
.!NFFUJOH!SPPN0!
!!XBSNJOH!SPPN
.!PVUEPPS!QMB\[BT!X0
TFBUJOH!BOE!!GJSF!QJUT
OFX!TIFMUFS
OFX!QBWFE!NVMUJ.QVSQPTF!IPDLFZ!
)7.9!UBCMFT*
61ST AVENUE
SJOL!X0CBTLFUCBMM!HPBMT
PQUJPOBM0GVUVSF;!SFGSJHFSBUFE!
DPOOFDU!USBJM!UP!
Dpodfqut
SJOL<!DPWFSFE!TUSVDUVSF
DSPTTXBML
Qbsl!
PQFO!MBXO!0!XJOUFS!
FYQBOEFE!QBSLJOH!MPU!X0
TLBUJOH!BSFB
ESPQ.PGG!)234!TUBMMT*
!
Tjuft\]127:38`Gsjemfz!
z
u
j
o
v
n
n
p
!
D
C
T
X
\]
t
u
q
f
d
o
p
D
1211311
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Dpodfqut!.!Dpnnpot!Qbsl
Tdbmf!jo!Gffu
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]Qbsl!Efdfncfs!:-!3132}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
:3
Jufn!9/
OP!GFODF!PO!UIFTF!
GPVM!MJOFT
JOGPSNBM!MBXO!0!
GPPUCBMM!'!TPDDFS!
GJFME!PWFSMBZ
FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH
GVMM!TJ\[F!TPDDFS!!
GJFME
FYJTUJOH!TPGUCBMM!
JNQSPWF!FYJTUJOH!
UNIVERSITY AVE NE
GJFME!.!HFOFSBM!TPGUCBMM!GJFME!
JNQSPWFNFOUTXJUI!86!CBTFMJOFT
TRAIL ROUTE
TUPSNXBUFS!
USFBUNFOU
OFX!TIFMUFS!
FYJTUJOH!DPODFTTJPOT
)5.7!UBCMFT*
CBUUJOH!DBHFT
TDVMQUVSF!QMB\[B
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE!X0DPWFSJOHT!
BOE!PSOBNFOUBM!GFODF!XJUI!
BEKBDFOU!TFBUJOH!QMB\[B
QSPNFOBEF!XBML
DPOOFDU!UP!
NPEJGZ0FYQBOE!QBSLJOH!
GSJEMFZ!DJWJD!
FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH
MPU!)337!TUBMMT!UPUBM*
DBNQVT
FYJTUJOH!TPGUCBMM!ESPQ.PGG
GJFME!.!HFOFSBM!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
PQUJPOBM!USBJMIFBE
HBHB!CBMM
V22!TPDDFS!GJFME
.!LJPTL
.!CJLF!GJY.JU!TUBUJPO
.!CJLF!SBDL
)3*!OFX!TIFMUFST!
.!KVH!GJMMFS
)5!UBCMFT!FBDI
TUPSNXBUFS!
USFBUNFOU
PWFSIFBE!
QFEFTUSJBO!CSJEHF
CBTLFUCBMM!DPVSU
TIBEFE!TFBUJOH
PQUJPOBM!DIBMMFOHF0!
FYFSDJTF!FWFOUT!PS!
TLBUF!QBSL
Dpodfqut
Qbsl!
!
Tjuft\]127:38`Gsjemfz!
z
u
j
o
v
n
n
p
!
D
C
T
X
\]
t
u
q
f
d
o
p
D
1231
71
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Dpodfqut!.!Dpnnvojuz!Qbsl
Tdbmf!jo!Gffu
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]Qbsl!Efdfncfs!:-!3132}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
:4
Jufn!9/
QPUFOUJBM!GVUVSF!
XBUFS!USFBUNFOU!0!
TUPSBHF
OBUVSF!QMBZ!BSFB
OFX!TIFMUFS!
)7.9!UBCMFT*
MBXO!0!QJDOJD
E
V
A
QPUFOUJBM!GVUVSF!
L
QBSLJOH!FYQBOTJPO
A
R
T
N
E
C
IBNNPDL!HSPWF
SFQMBDF!EPDLT
FYJTUJOH!
WPMMFZCBMM!
DPVSUT
GMFYJCMF!MBXO!0!!
OFX!TIFMUFS!)5!UBCMFT*
GJFME!TQBDF
CBTLFUCBMM!DPVSU
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE!X0
TIBEFE!TFBUJOH!BSFBT
ESPQ!PGG!BSFB
OFX!TIFMUFS!)5!UBCMFT*
QJDOJD!BSFB
GVUVSF!PQUJPO!)BT!GFBTJCMF*;!
OFX!CFBDI!QBWJMJPO
.!SFTUSPPNT
.!NFFUJOH!SPPN
.!WFOEJOH0DPODFTTJPOT
.!FYUFSJPS!TFBUJOH!QMB\[B
.!CPBSEXBML!X0TFBUJOH
51.61!QFSTPO!TIFMUFS
SFTIBQFE!CFBDI
LBZBL0QBEEMF!SFOUBM!'!
TUPSBHF!BSFB
OFX!SPVOEBCPVU!X0BDDFTT!
JO!BOE!PVU!PG!QBSL
CPBSEJOH!EPDL
XBUFS!USFBUNFOU
GARDENA AVE
SFDPOTUSVDUFE!QBSLJOH!MPU!
)97!UP!:5!TUBMMT*
Dpodfqut
Qbsl!
FYJTUJOH!TIFMUFS
SDXE!XBUFS!RVBMJUZ!QSPKFDU
!
Tjuft\]127:38`Gsjemfz!
z
u
j
o
v
n
n
p
!
D
C
T
X
\]
t
u
q
f
d
o
p
D
1231
71
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Dpodfqut!.!Nppsf!Mblf!Qbsl!
Tdbmf!jo!Gffu
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]Qbsl!Efdfncfs!:-!3132}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
:5
Jufn!9/
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
TFBUJOH!BSFB
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO
SFQMBDF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
DPOWFSU!UVSG!UP!
UPMFSBOU!NJY
FYJTUJOH!SBJO!HBSEFO;!F
POHPJOH!NBOBHFNFOUPU
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
:6
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
USBJM!MPPQ!DPOOFDUJPO
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
QPMMJOBUPS
SFQMBDF!
DPVSUT!BT!
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
OFDFTTBSZ
UVSG0TLBUJOH
TFBUJOH!BSFB
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
OFX!QJDOJD!TIFMUFS!
PQUJPOBM;!QFSNBOFOU!
SFTUSPPNT
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
:7
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
TUPSN!
USFBUNFOU0!
SFUBJOJOH!XBMM
SBJO!HBSEFO
TFBUJOH!BSFB
OP!QBSLJOH!TJHO
JOGP0TJHOBHF
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
SFQMBDF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO!
CZ!PUIFST
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
:8
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
SFQMBDF!DPVSUT!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
SFQMBDF!TIFMUFS!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO!
UP!DPVSU-!TIFMUFS!'!
FYJTUJOH!SBJO!
USBJM!PO!TPVUI
HBSEFO;!POHPJOH!
NBOBHFNFOU
CBMMGJFME!SFNBJOT
JOGP0TJHOBHF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
:9
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
IBMG!DPVSU!
CBTLFUCBMM
PQUJPOBM!
SBJO!HBSEFO
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
PSOBNFOUBM!HBSEFO!
X0!IJTUPSJDBM!TJHOBHF!!
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
::
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
DPOOFDUJPO!UP!
SFHJPOBM!USBJM!
X0TJHO
QBSBMMFM!QBSLJOH!
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
QJDOJD!TIFMUFS!
PQUJPOBM!QFSNBOFOU!
SFTUSPPNT
XBZGJOEJOH!
TJHOBHF0
LJPTL
CBTLFUCBMM!
DPVSU
UFOOJT!
DPVSU
TUPSBHF!TIFE
DPNNVOJUZ!HBSEFOT
TFBUJOH!BSCPST
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
DPOOFDUJPO!UP!
SFHJPOBM!USBJM!
X0TJHO
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
211
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
EPDL0LBZBL!
MBVODI!BSFB
LJPTL0TJHOBHF
USBJM
LBZBL0DBOPF!
TUPSBHF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
212
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
JOGP0TJHOBHF
PQUJPOBM;
QPMMJOBUPS!
SBJO!HBSEFO
JNQSPWFE!BHHSFHBUF!
SFRVJSFE!GPS!GVMM!
USBJM!NBQ
EPDL!X0
TFBUJOH
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
213
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
JOGP0TJHOBHF
PQUJPOBM!DPVSU!
SFPSJFOUBUJPO
JNQSPWF!UFOOJT!DPVSUT0
QJDLMFCBMM!PWFSMBZ
FYJTUJOH!TIFMUFS!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
QMB\[B
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
USBJM!MPPQ
QBSLJOH!
CBTLFUCBMM
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
UFFO0DIBMMFOHF!BSFB
PQUJPOBM
SBJOHBSEFO
PQFO!
MBXO
JOGP0TJHOBHF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
214
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
GVMM!TJ\[F!
CBTLFUCBMM!
UFFO0
DPVSU
DIBMMFOHF!
BSFB
TFBUJOH!BSFB
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
215
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
PQFO!MBXO
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
JNQSPWF!FYJTUJOH!
QMBZHSPVOE
JOGP0TJHOBHF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqueml}
216
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
MBOETDBQF!TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
CBTLFUCBMM!
DPVSU
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
PQUJPOBM
SBJO!HBSEFO
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
217
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
QMBOOFE!USBJM
LJPTLSBJO!HBSEFO
CJLF!SBDL
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
PQFO
MBXO
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
USBJM!MPPQ
GFODF
FYJTUJOH!FBTFNFOU
TFBUJOH!BSFBT
EPDL!X0
TFBUJOH
OPUFT;
OBUVSBMJ\[F!TIPSFMJOF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
218
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
PQUJPOBM!USBJM!
BDDFTT!UP!
HBSEFOB!BWF!
FOUSBODF!TJHO
XBZGJOEJOH
FOUSBODF!TJHO
FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH
TUBCJMJ\[FE!
BHHSFHBUF!USBJMT
XBZGJOEJOH
PQUJPOBM!MBOE!
BRVJTJUJPO!UP!
SFDPOGJHVSF!QBSLJOH!
BOE!TNBMM!OBUVSF!
DFOUFS!CVJMEJOH!X0
SFTUSPPNT
OPUFT;
POHPJOH!OBUVSBM!SFTPVSDF!NBOBHFNFOU
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
219
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
FOIBODFE!
SBJO!HBSEFO
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
JNQSPWF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ<
PQUJPOBM;!
FYQBOE!DPVSU
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
21:
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
CBTLFUCBMM!
X0MPX!IPPQ
IPQTDPUDI!PWFS!
DPVSU
DIBMMFOHF0!
VOJRVF!FWFOUT
USBJM
HBUFXBZ!GFBUVSF
HBUFXBZ!GFBUVSF
TNBMM!TIFMUFS!PS!
TQFDJBMUZ!TIBEF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
221
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO
USFF!TDSFFOJOH
PSOBNFOUBM!GFODF
QJDOJD!BSFB
TFBUJOH!
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
BSFB
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
222
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
USBJM!
DPOOFDUJPO
QMBZHSPVOE
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
223
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
PQUJPOBM!
USBJM!MPPQ
GJUOFTT!
DIBMMFOHF!
FYQBOEFE!QMBZHSPVOE
HBUFXBZ
TIFMUFS!
USBJM!MPPQ
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
CBMMGJFME!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
SBJO!HBSEFO
SFMPDBUFE!IBMG!
DPVSU!CBTLFUCBMM
SFDPOTUSVDUFE!
UFOOJT!DPVSU
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
224
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
USBJM!MPPQ
FEJCMF!HBSEFOT0
PSDIBSE
DIBMMFOHF!QJFDFT
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
PQUJPO
NPEJGJFE!QBSLJOH!
QBSL!CVJMEJOH!XJUI!
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
BOE!XBSNJOH!IPVTF0
NFFUJOH!SPPN
SBJO!HBSEFO0TUPSN!
TFBUJOH!QMB\[B!X0!
USFBUNFOU
TIBEF!VNCSFMMBT
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
225
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
XBZGJOEJOH!TJHO
DJSDVJU!FYFSDJTF
EPDL
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
XBZGJOEJOH!TJHO
QPOE!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO
BHHSFHBUF!
USBJM!MPPQ
USBJM!MPPQ
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
IBMG!PS!GVMM!DPVSU
CBTLFUCBMM
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
OPUFT;
NBJOUBJO!DSPTT!DPVOUSZ!TLJ!USBJMT
JNQSPWF!FYJTUJOH!USBJMT
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
226
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
JNQSPWF!IBMG!
DPVSU!'!DPOOFDU!
XJUI!XBML
JOGP0TJHOBHF
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO!UP!
FYJTUJOH!SFHJPOBM!
USBJM
JNQSPWFE!GFODF
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
3
227
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
PSOBNFOUBM!
GFODF
USBJM
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
UFOOJT!DPVSU!
X0QJDLMFCBMM!
PQFO!MBXO
MJOFT
IBMG!DPVSU!
CBTLFUCBMM
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
228
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
229
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
OPUFT;
JOGPSNBUJPO!TJHOT
Jufn!9/
JNQSPWFE!QBSLJOH!
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
FYJTUJOH!TUBMM!DPVOU!
HSPVQ!QJDOJD!TIFMUFS!
PQUJPOBM;
OBUVSF!
UIFNFE!!
QMBZ
MPPQ!USBJM!
NPUPSJ\[FE!
TZTUFN
XBUFSDSBGU!
BDDFTT!BOE!
QBEEMF!TIBSF0
DBOPF!MBOEJOH
TFBUJOH0
WJFXJOH!
BSFBT
FYJTUJOH!
SFHJPOBM!
USBJM
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
22:
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
MBXO
CVJMEJOH!XJUI!
SFTUSPPNT!BOE!NFFUJOH!
SPPNT
QBSBMMFM!QBSLJOH!
USBJM!MPPQ
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
3
231
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
USBJM
PSOBNFOUBM!
GFODF
CBTLFUCBMM!DPVSU!
XJUI!GFODF
DIBMMFOHF!PS!
UFFO!FWFOUT
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
TIBEF!DPWFSJOH!PWFS!
TFBUJOH!QMB\[B
PSOBNFOUBM!
GFODF
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
HFOFSBM!OPUFT;
VQEBUFE!TJUF!BNFOJUJFT
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
232
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ<!
PQUJPOBM!
FOMBSHFNFOU
TFBUJOH!BSFB
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO
JOGP0TJHOBHF
JNQSPWF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
233
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
DIBMMFOHF!QJFDF
CBTLFUCBMM!DPVSU
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
TFBUJOH!BSFB
FYJTUJOH!
QBSLJOH!
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
SBJO!HBSEFO
USBJM!MPPQ
HBUFXBZ
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
234
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
USBJM!MPPQJNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
CBMMGJFME!
PQUJPOBM!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
SBJO!
HBSEFO
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
235
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
USBJM
CPBSEXBML
EPDL
EPDL
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
236
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!9/
Draft Implementation Strategy - Approach #1
The following park improvement costs are categorized based on the needs analysis of the community for recommended improvements focused on balanced access to quality recreation. This
provides a strategic guideline to address the
highest needs of the community, as determined by priority, but does not identify actual phasing for implementation. Actual implementation and phasing will be established based on potential
funding opportunities, available budgets and
community needs at time of implementation.
Draft park priorities to meet community needs were made according to the following:
- Aging, poor or unsafe condition of park that needs to be addressed
- Park serves high number of residents or underserved populations
- Park is able to provide unique or destination experience
- Park is able to meet community-wide needs
- Park improvements would help balance recreation across the community
Park Service Area Priority
L = Low; general neighborhood; needs adequately met; good condition
M = Medium; serves one or more neighborhoods; needs basically met; fair condition
H = High; serves multiple neighborhoods; needs not met; poor condition
HighMediumDeferred
Park Neighbor-Alt / Future
Park NameComments
Base Estimate
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
Priority
hood #Estimate
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Community Parks
Civic gathering space and new playground. On maintenance and
Civic Center / Locke Play 14
replacement schedule w/ongoing investments.
Currently in fair to poor condition. Park provides a range of
community wide athletics as well as general recreation needs to
neighborhoods currently lacking a park within a half-mile,
M$11,171,930.00$3,539,830.00$11,171,930.00$3,539,830.00
Commons 28
including multiple high density populations. Improvements would
meet community-identified priorities with destination
experiences.
Aging infrastructure; provides community-wide athletic needs
mainly focused on baseball/softball. Improvements would balance
MCommunity 13a$4,916,310.00$896,000.00$5,812,310.00athletic needs with added turf fields and improved access and
circulation. Added types of recreation as neighborhood park for
broader range of experiences.
Currently in poor condition, is highly visible and provides a special
use recreation draw with beach/water activities. Park also
provides recreation to multiple neighborhoods currently lacking a
HMoore Lake E$2,965,900.00$6,713,000.00$2,965,900.00$6,713,000.00
park within a half-mile, including underserved populations.
Improvements would meet community-identified priorities with
destination experiences. Building unknown, deferred.
Provides community wide recreation with focus on natural
resources and program opportunities. Also serves adjacent high
Springbrook NC 1
density development. Currently on a maintenance and
replacement schedule w/yearly ongoing investments.
Neighborhood / Special Use Parks
Aging infrastructure; serves small neighborhood area.
LAltura 35$127,870.60$127,870.60
Improvements related to condition, accessibility and sustainability
Aging infrastructure. Improvements related to condition,
MBriardale 30$435,695.00$628,586.00$435,695.00$628,586.00
accessibility and sustainability
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues affects usability of
Craig 4b$0.00site. This park serves a larger neighborhood area due to the size
and types of recreation available.
Aging infrastructure. Improvement options from replacement of
MCreekridge 21$318,142.50$318,142.50amenities or new layout for expanded recreation and improved
function.
Aging infrastructure; services immediate underserved populations
HCreekview 15$388,765.00$388,765.00and receives a high amount of use. Improvements to condition,
accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure; serves large isolated neighborhoods including
underserved populations in conjunction with school, private
HEd Wilmes 22a$280,962.50$280,962.50
recreation amenties and natural resource based park along river.
Improvements add recreation but is limited due to small park size.
Aging infrastructure; serves multiple neighborhoods including
underserved populations. Its location along a regional trail could
increase its significance in terms of funding. Improvement options
HEdgewater Gardens 16b$758,380.00$647,500.00$758,380.00$647,500.00
range from some layout modifications to completely new layout
with enhanced recreation opportunities, including community
gardens, improved condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Natural park around a pond located in a neighborhood lacking
developed park amenities other than school sites. Improvements
LFarr Lake 34b$119,718.75$119,718.75
to provide added recreation however, trail easements are
required and there are issues with making the site accessible due
to steep slopes.
237
Jufn!9/
HighMediumDeferred
Park Neighbor-Alt / Future
Park NameComments
Base Estimate
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
Priority
hood #Estimate
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Aging infrastructure; serves multiple & underserved
MFlanery 8$1,042,790.00$1,042,790.00$0.00
neighborhoods. Options for redevelopment to improve condition,
accessibility and recreation, option for community gardens.
Mini park with aging infrastructure. New use focused on youth
MGlencoe 2b$103,125.00$103,125.00
with a complementary design to proposed Springbrook
(Glenbrook) improvements.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration that improves
MHackmann Circle 32$332,500.00$332,500.00
condition, accessibility, sustainability, and recreation.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration that improves
LHarris Lake 26$417,352.50$417,352.50
condition, accessibility and highlights lake views.
Natural resource based park with trails. Improvements focused on
condition, accessibility and sustainability. Potential acquisition
MInnsbruck NC 34a$407,820.00$282,100.00$407,820.00$282,100.00
option that would expand park function and programming
capabilities.
Aging infrastructure. General improvements to condition,
MJay 17$179,630.00$179,630.00
accessibililty and sustainability.
New proposed use focused on meeting the needs of older youth
MJubilee 36$252,093.75$252,093.75
replaces a duplicated playground in order to be complementary to
nearby Oak Hill.
Consideration of alternative trail alignment in attempt to make
the trail more accessible with improvements to enhance access to
LLocke Lake 16a$323,302.00$323,302.00lake. May have significant site impacts. Due to regional trail
significance, this project may be suitable for funding
opportunities.
Aging infrastructure; serves neighborhoods with potential to serve
adjacent neighborhoods currently lacking parks. Options for some
HLogan 10$513,366.00$90,020.00$513,366.00$90,020.00
layout revisions to full layout revision to improve condition,
accessibility and sustainability with expanded recreation.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues affect usability of
portions of site. Highly visible park that serves multiple
HMadsen 5$4,095,350.00$4,095,350.00
neighborhoods including underserved populations. Improvements
to function, condition, accessibility, sustainability, and includes
expanded recreation with community-identified priorities.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration to improve
LMeadowlands 19$885,360.00$885,360.00
condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition and accessibility
MOak Hill 37$160,562.50$160,562.50
with complementary design to proposed Jubilee improvements.
LPlaza 13b$177,156.25$177,156.25
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition and accessibility.
Aging infrastructure, poor condition. Park located in far southern
MPlymouth Square 40$438,100.00$438,100.00
neighborhood. New layout to improve function, condition, and
accessbility with added recreation.
Additon of small playground. Desire for general ballfield
improvements not included at this time due to greater
LRay Thompson LL B2$98,970.00$98,970.00
accessibility issues at the site that need further review, which will
likely affect the ballfields.
Undeveloped open space parcel along the Mississippi River; not
Rivers Edge Way 22b
accessible.
Special use site with greater community appeal due to access to
Mississippi River. Improvements focused on enhancing river
access to meet community-identified priorities, site programming
MRiverview Heights 4a$804,090.00$1,138,901.40$804,090.00$1,138,901.40opportunities, and accessibility. Special uses, natural resources
and location along the regional trail likely to contribute to funding
opportunities. Develop more definitive master plan with
community.
Aging infrastructure; serves isolated neighborhood and an
additional high density neighborhood. Could potentially be
MRuth Circle 3$2,281,020.00$385,000.00$2,281,020.00$385,000.00
considered a higher priority. New layout for consideration to
improve function, condition, accessiblity and sustainability.
Mini park with aging infrastructure. Located in highest
underserved neighborhood in city and may also be impacted by
HSkyline 31$592,562.50$592,562.50
newer high density housing development. Improvements to
function, condition, accessibility and expanded user groups with
added recreation.
New use focused on adult recreation replaces existing playground
LSpringbrook/Glennbrook 2a$256,312.50$256,312.50
for complementary design to proposed Glencoe improvements.
238
Jufn!9/
HighMediumDeferred
Park Neighbor-Alt / Future
Park NameComments
Base Estimate
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
Priority
hood #Estimate
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition, accessibility and
MSummit Square 39$350,375.00$350,375.00
sustainability with enhanced connectivity of separated parcels.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues that affect some
usability of site. Serves a large neighborhood including a high
density area and may also serve additional underserved
HSylvan Hills 24$521,430.00$521,430.00
neighborhoods with improved awareness and connectivity. New
layout with improvements to function, condition, accessibility and
expanded recreation.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition, accessibility and
LTerrace 18$404,500.00$404,500.00
accessibility.
Special use site with greater community appeal. Improvements
focused on protection of natural resources with opportunities for
LW Moore Lake Sand Dunes B1$1,027,670.00$1,027,670.00
educational programming and natural resource management and
improved accessibility. Undertake community driven master plan
process.
$37,149,112.35$14,320,937.40$14,934,809.75$15,650,145.60$20,885,094.40
SubTotals:
10-Year Priorities:
$30,584,955.35
Deferred / Future Options:$20,885,094.40
* Grand Total:$51,470,049.75
NOTE: Estimates are based on a high-level planning process and assume all work would be completed by a contractor through a public bid proccess. Estimates do not account for actual
site conditions and other factors such as
final design and programming, poor soil conditions, methods of construction, locations of utility connections, etc. but are intended to provide a budgetary figure for development that
can be updated yearly. Estimates do not
account for inflation, anticipated to range from 2-3% yearly.
239
Jufn!9/
Draft Implementation Strategy - Approach #2
The following park improvement costs are categorized based on the needs analysis of the community for recommended improvements focused on balanced access to quality recreation. This
provides a strategic guideline to address the
highest needs of the community, as determined by priority, but does not identify actual phasing for implementation. Actual implementation and phasing will be established based on potential
funding opportunities, available budgets and
community needs at time of implementation.
Draft park priorities to meet community needs were made according to the following:
- Aging, poor or unsafe condition of park that needs to be addressed
- Park serves high number of residents or underserved populations
- Park is able to provide unique or destination experience
- Park is able to meet community-wide needs
- Park improvements would help balance recreation across the community
Level of Development (Proposed Modifications):
L = Low; general neighborhood; needs adequately met; good condition
M = Medium; serves one or more neighborhoods; needs basically met; fair condition
H = High; serves multiple neighborhoods; needs not met; poor condition
Level of
HighMediumDeferred
Neighbor-Alt / Future
Developm
Park NameBase Estimate Comments
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
hood #Estimate
ent
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Community Parks
Civic gathering space and new playground. On maintenance and
Civic Center / Locke Play 14
replacement schedule w/ongoing investments
Currently in fair to poor condition. Park provides a range of
community wide athletics as well as general recreation needs to
MCommons 28$11,171,930.00$3,539,830.00$14,711,760.00
neighborhoods currently lacking a park within a half-mile,
including multiple high density populations. Improvements would
meet community-identified priorities with destination experiences.
Aging infrastructure; provides community-wide athletic needs
mainly focused on baseball/softball. Improvements would balance
MCommunity 13a$4,916,310.00$896,000.00$5,812,310.00
athletic needs with added turf fields and improved access and
circulation. Added types of recreation as neighborhood park for
broader range of experiences.
Currently in poor condition, is highly visible and provides a special
use recreation draw with beach/water activities. Park also
provides recreation to multiple neighborhoods currently lacking a
HMoore Lake E$2,965,900.00$6,713,000.00$1,482,950.00$8,195,950.00
park within a half-mile, including underserved populations.
Improvements would meet community-identified priorities with
destination experiences. Minimal phased-in approach.
Provides community wide recreation with focus on natural
resources and program opportunities. Also serves adjacent high
Springbrook NC 1
density development. Currently on a maintenance and
replacement schedule w/yearly ongoing investments.
Neighborhood / Special Use Parks
Aging infrastructure; serves small neighborhood area.
LAltura 35$127,870.60$127,870.60
Improvements related to condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements related to condition,
MBriardale 30$435,695.00$628,586.00$1,064,281.00
accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues affects usability of site.
Craig 4b$0.00
This park serves a larger neighborhood area due to the size and
types of recreation available.
Aging infrastructure. Improvement options from replacement of
MCreekridge 21$318,142.50$318,142.50
amenities or new layout for expanded recreation and improved
function.
Aging infrastructure; services immediate underserved populations
HCreekview 15$388,765.00$388,765.00
and receives a high amount of use. Improvements to condition,
accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure; serves large isolated neighborhoods including
underserved populations in conjunction with school, private
HEd Wilmes 22a$280,962.50$280,962.50
recreation amenties and natural resource based park along river.
Improvements add recreation but is limited due to small park size.
Aging infrastructure; serves multiple neighborhoods including
underserved populations. Its location along a regional trail could
increase its significance in terms of funding. Improvement options
HEdgewater Gardens 16b$758,380.00$647,500.00$758,380.00$647,500.00
range from some layout modifications to completely new layout
with enhanced recreation opportunities, including community
gardens, improved condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Natural park around a pond located in a neighborhood lacking
developed park amenities other than school sites. Improvements
LFarr Lake 34b$119,718.75$119,718.75
to provide added recreation however, trail easements are required
and there are issues with making the site accessible due to steep
slopes.
Aging infrastructure; serves multiple & underserved
MFlanery 8$1,042,790.00$1,042,790.00$0.00
neighborhoods. Options for redevelopment to improve condition,
accessibility and recreation, option for community gardens.
Mini park with aging infrastructure. New use focused on youth
MGlencoe 2b$103,125.00$103,125.00
with a complementary design to proposed Springbrook
(Glenbrook) improvements.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration that improves
MHackmann Circle 32$332,500.00$332,500.00
condition, accessibility, sustainability, and recreation.
23:
Jufn!9/
Level of
HighMediumDeferred
Neighbor-Alt / Future
Developm
Park NameBase Estimate Comments
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
hood #Estimate
ent
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration that improves
LHarris Lake 26$417,352.50$417,352.50
condition, accessibility and highlights lake views.
Natural resource based park with trails. Improvements focused on
condition, accessibility and sustainability. Potential acquisition
MInnsbruck NC 34a$407,820.00$282,100.00$689,920.00
option that would expand park function and programming
capabilities.
Aging infrastructure. General improvements to condition,
MJay 17$179,630.00$179,630.00
accessibililty and sustainability.
New proposed use focused on meeting the needs of older youth
MJubilee 36$252,093.75$252,093.75
replaces a duplicated playground in order to be complementary to
nearby Oak Hill.
Consideration of alternative trail alignment in attempt to make the
trail more accessible with improvements to enhance access to
LLocke Lake 16a$323,302.00$323,302.00
lake. May have significant site impacts. Due to regional trail
significance, this project may be suitable for funding
opportunities.
Aging infrastructure; serves neighborhoods with potential to serve
adjacent neighborhoods currently lacking parks. Options for some
HLogan 10$513,366.00$90,020.00$513,366.00$90,020.00
layout revisions to full layout revision to improve condition,
accessibility and sustainability with expanded recreation.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues affect usability of
portions of site. Highly visible park that serves multiple
HMadsen 5$4,095,350.00$4,095,350.00
neighborhoods including underserved populations. Improvements
to function, condition, accessibility, sustainability, and includes
expanded recreation with community-identified priorities.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration to improve
LMeadowlands 19$885,360.00$885,360.00
condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition and accessibility
MOak Hill 37$160,562.50$160,562.50
with complementary design to proposed Jubilee improvements.
LPlaza 13b$177,156.25$177,156.25
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition and accessibility.
Aging infrastructure, poor condition. Park located in far southern
MPlymouth Square 40$438,100.00$438,100.00
neighborhood. New layout to improve function, condition, and
accessbility with added recreation.
Additon of small playground. Desire for general ballfield
improvements not included at this time due to greater accessibility
LRay Thompson LL B2$98,970.00$98,970.00
issues at the site that need further review, which will likely affect
the ballfields.
Undeveloped open space parcel along the Mississippi River; not
River Edge Way 22b
accessible.
Special use site with greater community appeal due to access to
Mississippi River. Improvements focused on enhancing river access
to meet community-identified priorities, site programming
MRiverview Heights 4a$804,090.00$1,138,901.40$1,942,991.40
opportunities, and accessibility. Special uses, natural resources
and location along the regional trail likely to contribute to funding
opportunities. Develop more definitive master plan with
community.
Aging infrastructure; serves isolated neighborhood and an
additional high density neighborhood. Could potentially be
MRuth Circle 3$2,281,020.00$385,000.00$2,281,020.00$385,000.00
considered a higher priority. New layout for consideration to
improve function, condition, accessiblity and sustainability.
Mini park with aging infrastructure. Located in highest
underserved neighborhood in city and may also be impacted by
HSkyline 31$592,562.50$592,562.50
newer high density housing development. Improvements to
function, condition, accessibility and expanded user groups with
added recreation.
New use focused on adult recreation replaces existing playground
LSpringbrook/Glennbrook 2a$256,312.50$256,312.50
for complementary design to proposed Glencoe improvements.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition, accessibility and
MSummit Square 39$350,375.00$350,375.00
sustainability with enhanced connectivity of separated parcels.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues that affect some
usability of site. Serves a large neighborhood including a high
density area and may also serve additional underserved
HSylvan Hills 24$521,430.00$521,430.00
neighborhoods with improved awareness and connectivity. New
layout with improvements to function, condition, accessibility and
expanded recreation.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition, accessibility and
LTerrace 18$404,500.00$404,500.00
accessibility.
Special use site with greater community appeal. Improvements
focused on protection of natural resources with opportunities for
LW Moore Lake Sand Dunes B1$1,027,670.00$1,027,670.00
educational programming and natural resource management and
improved accessibility. Undertake community driven master plan
process.
$37,149,112.35$14,320,937.40$17,535,598.50$15,636,241.25$18,298,210.00
SubTotals:
10-Year Priorities:$33,171,839.75
Deferred / Future Options:$18,298,210.00
241
Jufn!9/
Level of
HighMediumDeferred
Neighbor-Alt / Future
Developm
Park NameBase Estimate Comments
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
hood #Estimate
ent
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
* Grand Total:$51,470,049.75
NOTE: Estimates are based on a high-level planning process and assume all work would be completed by a contractor through a public bid proccess. Estimates do not account for actual
site conditions and other factors such
as final design and programming, poor soil conditions, methods of construction, locations of utility connections, etc. but are intended to provide a budgetary figure for development
that can be updated yearly. Estimates do
not account for inflation, anticipated to range from 2-3% yearly.
242
Jufn!9/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 12, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
MINUTES
MembersPresent: Mike Heintz, Peter Borman, Dan Gourde, Don Whalen, Kim Farraro, Ken Schulz,
Malcolm Mitchell, Liz Novotny, Jordan Hurst, Jim Stangler, Maija Sedzielarz
Members Absent: E.B. Graham, Traci Wuchter, Jeremy Powers
Others Present: Mike Maher,Community Services Director,CandaceAmberg, WSB Landscape
Architect, and Jeff Jensen, Operations ManagerforStreets, Parks and Facilities
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
1.Welcome and Introductions
Mr. Maher welcomed those who were present.
2.Icebreaker Activity
Mr. Maher ledthe group in an introduction and icebreaker. He concluded the exercise by summarizing
that this meeting will be to set the table for the group’s future work. The group will discuss how to set
expectations of how the group wants the decision-making processto be. He informed the members that
these meetings areopen to the public.
3.Review and Discuss Refinement Task Force Charter and City Council Resolution No. 2021-51,
Directing Continued Efforts Pertaining to the Park System Improvement Plan
Mr. Maher reviewed feedback from the 2021 Town Hall Meetingwhere preliminary concepts were shared
with the public. Responses from residents were consideredand caused the City Council to adopt
Resolution No. 2021-51, which was the Council’s direction for staff to refine theParkSystem Improvement
Plan(Plan). Resolution No. 2021-55 formally appointed members to two separate task forces.The Finance
Advisory Committee will examine funding options for the Plan, and the Refinement Committee will
examine concept plans to pare down the cost of the Plan to approximately $30 million.
Mr. Maher reviewed the committee charter, which outlines the framework of the group’s work, the format
of the committee’s meetings and the role of the committee in the overall Plan. He reiterated that this is
an advisory committee tasked with making a recommendation, that will ultimately be decided upon by
the City Council.
243
Jufn!9/
4. Park System Improvement Plan Background
Mr. Maher provided a brief history of the Fridley park system, reviewed current park conditions and
introduced park improvement plan benefits. Mr. Maher recapped 2019 community workshops that
identified the community’s priorities of safe and connected parks for all, nature access, and quality
facilities.
Committee members noted additional considerations should be including age groups included in plans,
better wayfinding and signage, and flexibility in accommodating sporting trends.
Candace Amberg, WSB Landscape Architect, reviewed her firm’s process in analyzing what the current
park usages were and incorporated those sports into the Plan. Peter Borman commented that Community
Park was built for softball and now is sitting vacant. Mr. Borman recommend consulting with sports
associations to find out why they play where they do. Mr. Maher said the next meeting would be to review
community parks. Ms. Amberg reported that she will consult with local sports associations to integrate
their feedback, community survey results, and feedback from this meeting’s discussions to refine concept
plans.
Mr. Maher reconfirmed the group will get into discussions on specific parks and uses for each at later
meetings.
Jim Stangler noted it would be nice to know what each park is currently being used for. Ms. Amberg
replied that analysis will be integrated into future presentations to the group as concept plans change.
Mr. Maher asked the group to spend time reviewing each park concept. The group will discuss the three
community parks: Commons, Community and Moore Lake, and approximately six of the
neighborhood/special use parks to recommend changes. In subsequent meetings the group will decide
what six parks they will work on. This process will help refine the priorities, which will impact the price.
Mike Heintz noted the Park and Recreation Commission’s strong recommendation that there be no
consideration of selling any park land within the City. Mr. Maher noted the consideration of selling park
land is not being considered in the Plan.
Malcolm Mitchell asked if there were any criteria for review that the group should look at? Ms. Amberg
replied that yes, the priority to understand system as a whole to identify particular populations and how
the parks serve them, examine the barriers to park usage, age of the park, safety concerns, condition and
accessibility of each park. Ms. Amberg discussed barriers to recreation in high-density, low-income and
minority neighborhoods is a major component of analyzing the Plan. Those are the parks she really would
encourage the group to focus on to make sure the most meaningful impact to the community is felt. The
change needs to be noticeable so taxpayers understand what their tax dollars pay for. Ms. Amberg
stressed the need to make a good and big impact for residents so they realize the good work being done
and are supportive of additional improvements.
Kim Farraro asked how long it would take to pay for the Plan. Mr. Maher said it depends on the
recommendation of the Finance Committee who is working on exploring different financing strategies.
Mr. Mitchell thought working on financing strategies first does not make sense until the Plan is fully
244
Jufn!9/
established with a clear price tag. Mr. Maher informed the committee that most likely the primary source
of funding will be bonding, but other avenues are being explored. This group is tasked with paring down
to the current proposal from $50 million to $30 million at direction of the City Council.
Mr. Heintz added the City has a good track record with how it financed the Springbrook Nature Center
building through bonding. Mr. Maher added that if the group would like to learn more about the
financing options, he would request the City’s Finance Director come to speak with the committee.
Ms. Amberg noted this is an exercise to prioritize top parks to work on. There will be projects that will
move down the priority list and that will decrease the cost. She asked the committee to look at broad
picture to make sure the whole community is served.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the $50 million price was based on high-estimate price for each concept plan in the
binder. Ms. Amberg affirmed. Ms. Farraro asked if there a price list for each item at each park? Ms. Amberg
affirmed and noted that as the group works through feedback, they can decide what items to remove,
which will decrease the overall cost.
Ms. Amberg reviewed the park service area analysis in the committee’s binders.
Mr. Mitchell asked what features are most desired by diverse groups. Ms. Amberg recommended the
committee consider age. Typically, City parks accommodate younger children, and teens are often not
considered when new equipment is installed. Also, how can we get parents involved to enjoy the park
alongside their children or grandchildren.
Mr. Heintz added shelter buildings are appealing for diverse groups who use those facilities for
family/community gatherings. It is a good way to serve those who may not have their own yard space.
Mr. Maher noted these discussions will be a big part of this group’s work.
Jeff Jensen, Operations Manager for Streets, Parks and Facilities stressed the important work of this group
to analyze and determine where are high-need areas are. There will be some conflict. The group must
weigh all aspects and prioritize the work to be done, and not every group will be satisfied. The
committee’s task is to discuss and debate so the City may attempt to best serve all groups. He added that
the City needs to create a Plan that will provoke a response from residents to the Plan, and this committee
is tasked with finding a way to wisely pare down the initial proposal.
Mr. Borman asked if the committee should take into consideration the added burden to the City of staff
hours and maintenance. Mr. Jensen answered, not at this phase. The operational cost has already been
considered. Those costs will be absorbed by the City and is a past practice of the Council.
Mr. Maher informed the committee that first thing they will be asked to consider are the three community
parks. He asked the group to visit each one and envision the space with the proposed changes to visualize
the concepts. This will allow each member to best be prepared to analyze each proposal, and to
recommend changes.
5. Task Force Meeting Agreements
245
Jufn!9/
Mr. Maher led the group through a discussion to understand and agree on how the group will interact
with each other.
Mr. Borman asked how long the meetings go on, and what was the ultimate goal. Mr. Maher replied that
he has scheduled meetings until the end of 2021. He is open to what the group thinks for how long they
would want to meet. Don Whalen added that the first two meetings will tell the group a lot once they
begin getting into details. Ms. Amberg added the next meeting will be to discuss high-level items first,
and subsequent meetings will do a deeper examination into particular parks. Mr. Maher reminded the
group that their suggestions will go to Ms. Amberg who will then bring back a revised Plan for the group
to review.
Mr. Mithcell suggested the meetings be set for 90 minutes with the flexibility to go longer, but not more
than two hours. The group collectively agreed.
Mr. Mitchell noted its ok to have a disagreement. Maija Sedzielarz added the committee members should
assume positive intent and be willing to listen to other people’s perspective.
Mr. Maher confirmed that all members will have an equal voice in the process and committee meetings.
The committee’s meetings will be public meetings and members of the public are encouraged to attend.
Mr. Maher reminded the group that this is a refinement process where the three community parks will be
examined first, followed up by six neighborhood parks. The committee will work toward an end
recommendation that the City Council will consider.
Mr. Jensen added that this could be a ten-year plan. Part of the process with any park plan is community
input to begin designing a concept. This group will work to take those park concepts, consider feedback
from the community and planning experts to come to a more defined and clearer concept. Then
ultimately, present the refined Plan to the community for their buy-in.
Ms. Amberg offered to provide guidance through her expertise, but will not make any decisions for the
group.
Mr. Stangler asked why the City is not asking for the full $50 million concept. Ms. Amberg answered that
based on community feedback in the resident survey, there was a set dollar amount residents were willing
to pay for a Plan. Mr. Maher confirmed that the City Council decided on the $30 million price based on
the resident survey.
Ms. Farraro asked if the group was aware of increasing taxes from the school districts and the County.
Mr. Maher explained that the City typically uses eight other cities as comparisons for percentage of
property taxes. Fridley is usually in the middle of that list. He noted that adding a $30 million bond would
increase property taxes but not significantly compared to other cities. Ms. Farraro added that a tax
increase would compete with another increase from the school district, and may not be supported. Mr.
Maher acknowledged it will be hard to separate the finance conversation from the work of this committee,
but that is the work of the finance committee.
6. Review and Confirm Future Meeting Schedule
246
Jufn!9/
Mr. Maher presented proposed meeting dates for the remainder of 2021: September 9, October 14,
November 10, and December 9. For each meeting an agenda along with the previous meeting’s minutes
will be sent.
Jordan Hurst asked for confirmation of what the committee should do for the next meeting. Mr. Heintz
answered to take the binder to the community parks and visualize the Plan and come to the meeting to
discuss.
Mr. Maher thanked the committee for attending this evening’s meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Moore, Administrative Services Coordinator/Deputy City Clerk
247
Jufn!9/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 09, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
AGENDA
Present: Mike Heintz, Traci Wuchter, Dan Gourde, Don Whalen, Kim Ferraro, Malcolm Mitchell, Jordan
Hurst, Jeremy Powers, Pete Borman, Jim Stangler
Absent: E.B. Graham, Liz Novotny, Ken Schultz, Maija Sedzielarz
Others Present: Alyssa Kruzel, Community Engagement Specialist, Jeff Jensen, Operations Manager for
Streets, Parks and Facilities, CandaceAmberg, WSB Landscape Architect, Mike Maher, Community
Services Director, David Ostwald, City Councilmember, Melissa Moore, City Clerk, Anna Disco, Nick
Skochinsky
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
1.Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2021 Refinement Advisory Committee Meeting
Mr. Mitchell informed the group that thebonding forSpringbrook did notfrom the City, but from the
State.Ms. Moore agreed to revise the minutes to reflect the correction.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
2.Community Park Plans Review and Discussion
2021 meetingand reminded the groupthey wereto go out and review the plans for the three community
parks.
Ms. Amberg directed the group to page 17 of the agenda regarding the concept plan for Moore Lake
Park. The plan the group will review today was developed from research and direction from the
gem
Moore Lake ranked first.
Ms. Amberg stated the current proposed plan improves parking areas, adding a dog park area, creating
a flexible open lawn space, improve existing volleyball space,addinga new group picnic shelter and picnic
lawn, larger playground spaces, new beach pavilion and lakeside plaza.This plan does shrink down the
248
Jufn!9/
beach area, to accommodate other water activities than swimming, such as canoes and paddleboards, a
lakeside boardwalk, . The
plan does remove the tennis and basketball courts. If residents wanted to play tennis, there are nearby
courts at Totino Grace and Briardale Park. And anyone wishing to play basketball could visit Briardale Park
and Hackman Circle.
Mr. Heintz noted Moore lake is closed to swimming due to water quality. Mr. Mitchell asked for an update
on the water quality. Mr. Jensen answered the City received a grant from the Rice Creek Watershed District
to install an enhanced sand iron filter system, and is treating the water for phosphorous levels. There are
issues with e-coli, due to geese, which is heavily dependent on the water levels. Mr. Jensen informed the
group that to fix the water will be a 50+ year project. The water is relatively clean, but has floating debris
in it, so its mainly an appearance issue. The City continues regular testing and is researching different
filtration solutions.
Mr. Powers asked if plant filters could be placed to assist. Mr. Jensen answered that plant buffer zones
are great to help with water quality, and is a part of the plan for Moore Lake.
Mr. Stangler asked if there was a cost breakdown by amenity. He asked if the City considered Moore Lake
as a location for the splashpad. Ms. Amberg noted there is some amenity cost breakdown in the
Mr. Mitchell asked if it would be possible to connect both sides of the lake under Highway 65. Mr. Jensen
said that would be up to the State and would be extremely expensive.
Ms. Disco commented that if there was something there to draw people to the lake, such as a splashpad,
since the water quality keeps people away.
Mr. Heintz would like to see an emphasis on park shelter spaces. The group agreed the park currently
gets a lot of use for gatherings. Ms. Amberg asked the group for feedback on the shelter areas. Ms.
Mr. Gourde commented he felt the dog park area was not necessary because of a larger County-owned
dog park nearby. The group agreed.
Ms. Amberg asked the group I they approved of about the baseball fields being repurposed. The group
agreed.
Ms. Amberg asked the group for feedback on removal of the tennis courts. The group agreed on the plan
to remove them for more green space. Mr. Gourde noted Commons Park has tennis space.
Mr. Mitchell suggested a basketball half court be added. The group agreed.
Ms. Amberg asked the group for feedback on the play spaces. The group expressed approval of the
proposed area.
249
Jufn!9/
Ms. Amberg asked the group for feedback on the boardwalk or trails. Mr. Mitchell said there should be a
loop. Mr. Jensen said the trail through the swamp to the north would need to be a boardwalk.
Mr. Heintz asked about stationary exercise equipment and bike repair stations. Ms. Amberg replied those
amenities are in the Commons Park plan.
Mr. Mitchell asked if alternative energy solutions were considered. Ms. Amberg said those are
considerations for discussions at a later stage. Mr. Jensen noted the City is testing solar lights at the park
to the east of City Hall.
Mr. Hurst noted his desire to include food stations for guests to the park. The group agreed that would
be an option for future consideration.
Ms. Amberg opened a discussion on Community Park. This park was ranked third in the resident survey.
The plan includes new walking trails, creating new flexible spaces and improving existing athletic fields.
The proposed plan includes new turf fields, a new parking area, new playground, interactive sport court,
edible orchard, demonstration gardens, and resizing one of the fields to youth ball sports.
Mr. Heintz expressed concern that this proposed plan does not accommodate baseball. The group
discussed various layout options. Mr. Stangler suggested turf fields.
leadership eventually wants to see a connection with the Civic Campus with Community Park, via an
overpass.
Ms. Amberg opened a discussion on Commons Park. This park was ranked second in the resident survey.
Two ball fields are proposed to be removed for flexible space. Ms. Ferraro noted the ball fields are used
heavily by kids who walk directly from the Middle School. Mr. Stangler and Mr. Heintz expressed concern
that baseball players age 12-16 do not currently have ballfields that accommodate the size fields they
require. Mr. Powers asked if a needs assessment was done for ball fields. Mr. Jensen asked if different
ages could play on the same fields but have some sort of movable mound. Mr. Stangler said field one at
Community is the only field that meets the 75-foot baseline requirement for baseball. Mr. Powers
recommended feedback is needed from the local associations to assess the needs. Ms. Farraro said if a
baseball field was removed from Community, the 1216-year-old kids would not have a field to play on.
Ms. Amberg will consult with the City and baseball associations to alter her proposals for baseball fields
among the community parks.
a strong desire to not decrease the size of the sledding hill.
Mr. Stangler asked why the hockey rink needs to move. Mr. Jensen said the biggest feedback from the
survey was for warming houses and restrooms for public use.
Mr. Jensen added the City is extremely short on soccer fields. Mr. Mitchell asked if there are projections
on needs for soccer, and other sports. Ms. Amberg said it depends on each community.
24:
Jufn!9/
Ms. Amberg asked the group for their desire to keep the splashpad and pavilion. The group agreed.
3. Review Next Steps and Future Meeting Dates
Mr. Maher asked Ms. Amberg if she could have alternative plans for the next meeting. She said she would
October 14 meeting.
Mr. Mitchell asked if there was information on changing demographics of neighborhoods. Ms. Amberg
answered they do have demographic assessments and needs assessments. She plans to review as many
neighborhood parks as the group can work through.
Mr. Maher reminded the group the next meeting dates are October 14 and November 10. The best
preparation committee members can do is to review the proposed park plans in the neighborhood plans,
The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Moore, City Clerk
251
Jufn!9/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITEE
October 14, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
AGENDA
Present: Kim Ferraro, Mike Heintz, Dan Gourde, TraciWuchter, Maija Sedzielarz, Ken Schultz, Don Whalen,
E.B. Graham, Malcolm Mitchell, Jordan Hurst, Liz Novotny
Absent: Jim Stangler, Jeremy Powers, Peter Borman
Others Present: Jeff Jensen, Operations Manager for Streets, Parks and Facilities, Candace Amberg, WSB
Landscape Architect, Mike Maher, Community Services Director, Melissa Moore, City Clerk
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
1.Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2021 Refinement Advisory Committee Meeting
There were no revisions to the minutes.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
2.Neighborhood Park Concept Plan Review and Discussion
Ms. Amberg reviewed the feedback and process the committee engaged in at the September 9 meeting.
plan proposals. There was no
Itemized cost listswill be providedafter
priorities are established.At this time the Committee is working to refineconcept plans for the City-a
vision of where the City will go. At a later date the City would check back in with residents through
targeted outreach events on particular park plans.
Mr. Maher reminded the Committee they have been askedto come up with a plan that can be
implemented over a 10-yearperiod. As the years go on and the City isready to work on certain parks,
the City will check in with surrounding neighborhoods by doing targeted outreach. At that time specific
plans for parks will occur, such as what kind of play equipment would be putin a park or changing a
tennis court to a pickleball court.
Ms. Amberg led the group through altered proposed plans for each park. The changes included are:
AlturaPark: improved ADA accessibility, concrete surround of the playground;
252
Jufn!9/
Briardale Park: picnic shelter is large enough for 4-6 tables, and could add a permanent bathroom
at a later date, moved the pollinator garden;
Creek View Park: expanded parking was removed;
Creekridge Park: ballfield area was kept, modified the plan to expand the playground, removed
parking space, bring existing trail out to Mississippi Street;
Ed Wilmes Park: pollinator garden changed to an ornamental garden; readjusted border of the
playground to accommodate half-court basketball space;
Edgewater Gardens Park: two open lawns at ends of the park, expanded playground, picnic shelter
with permanent restroom, added tennis court and moved community garden, fewer parallel
parking spaces;
Locke Lake Park: the committee recommended the removal of the kayak/canoe storage;
Farr Lake Park: the committee recommended the removal of the dock due to continuous low water
levels and playground was removed;
Flannery Park: smaller parking lot, new playground to connect with existing shelter, added teen
challenge area, moved the basketball court;
Glencoe Park: improved full-size basketball court; added teen challenge area;
Hackman Circle: put basketball court back into the plan, moved playground, removed trail loop
and small picnic shelter;
Harris Lake Park: downsize parking lot, added bike rack and kiosk;
Innsbruck Nature Center: no changes;
Jay Park: stretch out half-court basketball court;
Jubilee Park: basketball court will have shortened-height hoop;
Little League: added playground;
Logan Park: ballfield improvements; expanded playground, reconstructed tennis court, optional
trail loop with fitness challenge zones;
Madsen Park: trail crossing changed, moved parking lot;
Meadowlands Park: reduced parking, more wayfinding;
Oak Hill Park: no changes;
Plaza Park: removed parking stalls;
Plymouth Square Park: no changes;
River Edge Way Park: no changes;
Riverview Heights: modifying one loop trail, widen configuration of parking lot, group picnic
shelter with permanent restrooms, possible fishing area;
Ruth Circle Park: no changes;
Skyline Park: reconfigured layout;
Springbrook Park: added improved existing playground and a small shelter;
Summit Square Park: low maintenance lawn instead of pollinator garden;
Sylvan Hills Park: remove tennis court and put in full size basketball court;
Terrace Park: no changes; and
West Moore Lake Park; no changes.
253
Jufn!9/
3. Community Park Concept Plan Review and Discussion
Ms. Amberg described the two concept plans for Community Park. Concept 1 includes three ball fields
that were kept, but reoriented, championship field would be multi-purpose, parking lot was removed to
accommodate multi-use attractions, improved concessions plaza. Concept 2 changes include expanded
playground, multi-purpose athletic field, expanded parking lot.
Ms. Amberg described the two concept plans for Commons Park. Concept 1 expands parking, keeps
primary shelter and splashpad, keeps baseball field, removes the softball field, moves the ice rink to the
east, removes tennis courts. Concept 2 moves the softball field, ice rink stays where it is, expanded parking
and volleyball court, removing tennis court. Concept 3 keeps the baseball field, removes the softball field,
moves the ice rink, removes the tennis courts and changes to the volleyball court.
Ms. Amberg described the two concept plans for Moore Lake Park. Concept 1 removes the dog park and
boardwalk, and adds a multi-use court space. Concept 2 moves the paddle sport rental space, enlarges
beach space, and adds natural playground on the north end.
4. Review Next Steps and Future Meeting Dates
Mr. Maher reminded the Committee of the next meeting dates of November 10 and December 9, 2021.
ADJOURN 9:05 p.m.
254
Jufn!9/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
November 10, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
MINUTES
Present: Kim Ferraro, Dan Gourde, Traci Wuchter, Maija Sedzielarz, Ken Schultz, Don Whalen, E.B.
Graham, Malcolm Mitchell, Jim Stangler, Jeremy Powers, Liz Novotny, Mike Heintz
Absent: Peter Borman, Jordan Hurst
Others Present: Candace Amberg, WSB Landscape Architect
Mike Maher, Community Services Director
Melissa Moore, City Clerk
Stephen Keeler, Fridley Public Schools
Maurice Roberge, Resident
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
1.Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2021 Refinement Advisory Committee Meeting
There were no revisions to the minutes.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Mr. Maher recognized guests in attendance. Mr. Robergeaddressed the Committee on his request
for dedicated pickle ball courtsversus adapting tennis courts.
Mr. Powers asked staff for an index of space offerings City-wideat the next meeting. A list that would
spell out each activity, and where they have dedicated space throughout the City.
Mr. Keeler addressed the Committee regarding a possible City/School District collaboration to
enhance the project overall. The group discussed the property surrounding Fridley High School and
Fridley Middle School. Mr. Keeler will liaison with the City.
255
Jufn!9/
2. Community Park Concept Plan Review and Discussion
meeting. Site Concept 1 includes the following changes: combines all parking into one lot, removed
one ball field, creates neighborhood park amenities in previous parking space, removed fencing from
west ball fields to allow for multi-use fields and soccer field, improved and relocated shelter, and
future plans for pedestrian bridge to connect the Civic Campus.
The Committee expressed concern with removing fencing on the west ball fields. Ms. Amberg will
put the fences back in and decrease the size of soccer fields.
Ms. Novotny shared her desire to see public art from Fridley artists in the community parks.
Site Concept 2 includes the following changes: existing north parking remains, expands south
parking, northwest softball field is changed to a multi-purpose athletic field, added playground and
picnic and mixed amenities area around a central shelter.
Ms. Farraro noted only having two fields, and smaller soccer fields, will not draw tournaments.
Therefore, a concession stand would not be needed.
Ms. Amberg confirmed consensus for the parking set up of Site Concept 2.
Ms. Amberg opened the discussion of Commons Park Site Concept Plan 1. Changes include improved
baseball fields, removed softball field, added parking lots, splashpad and playground, removed tennis
courts for multi-game court, new concessions and restrooms, relocated hockey rink. The group
agreed the location of the warming house, away from the hockey rink, does not make sense. The
group agreed the multi-game court should be a dedicated pickleball court.
Ms. Amberg opened the discussion of Commons Park Site Concept Plan 2. Changes include creating
new parking lot, moved softball field, expanded volleyball courts, multi-use facility at the base of the
sledding hill, readjusted south parking lot. The group agreed the softball field is not needed and
should be removed for open athletic space for soccer.
Ms. Amberg opened the discussion of Commons Park Site Concept Plan 3. Changes include moving
the hockey rink, tennis courts removed for parking, softball field removed for open athletic space,
adding volleyball courts.
The Committee consulte
256
Jufn!9/
Ms. Amberg opened the discussion of Moore Lake Park Site Concept Plan 1. She noted the Rice Creek
Watershed District redrew flood maps, which
plans. The new plan will need to ensure any structures are waterproof and above the required flood
elevation. She updated the group that changes are in progress to refine the roundabout, which would
impact access to the park. Changes to the concept include improved parking space, multi-use game
court, natural playground and picnic space, removed the splashpad.
Moore Lake Park Site Concept Plan 2 includes removing smaller shelters and constructing one large
shelter, one large playground, larger beach area and removed boardwalk. The group discussed
potential for paddleboard rental options.
kleball courts at this park or rely
on other parks for those activities. The group agreed the park should include at least a half-court
basketball court
4/ Sfwjfx!Ofyu!Tufqt!boe!Gvuvsf!Nffujoh!Ebuft
Ms. Amberg informed the group that she will come to the next meeting with an updated priorities
spreadsheet, updated cost spreadsheets, and further revised concept plans. Mr. Maher updated the
group that the Financing Committee is close to finalizing their recommendation to the City Council
on the financing vehicles for a ten-year implementation periodmeeting in December
will be to further refine the community park recommendation. Each community park and each
neighborhood park will have a proposed final concept for the group to consider. With feedback from
that meeting, staff will finalize a formal recommendation for the group to approve at a January
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
257
Jufn!9/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
December 09, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
MINUTES
Present: Peter Borman, Mike Heintz, Dan Gourde, Maija Sedzielarz, Malcolm Mitchell, Jeremy Powers,
Jordan Hurst, Traci Wuchter, Jim Stangler,E.B. Graham, Ken Schultz,
Absent: Don Whalen, Liz Novotny, Kim Ferraro
Others Present: Candace Amberg, WSB Landscape Architect
Mike Maher, Community Services Director
Jeff Jensen, Operations Manager for Streets, Parks and Facilities
Melissa Moore, City Clerk
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:02p.m.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
1.Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2021 Refinement Advisory Committee Meeting
There were no revisions to the minutes.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
2.Preferred Community Park Concept Plan Review and Discussion
Ms. Amberg noted the exhibits in theagenda are concepts. She will review them with the group and
solicit their feedback for further revisions.
Ms. Amberg described the updated proposal to Commons Park. The committee expressed support for
the proposed plan, and shared hopes the Fridley School District (District)would be supportive of an
agreement to implement the proposed plan. Mr. Maher met with Stephen Keeler from the District who
expressed generalizedand would be open to
discussing plan details.
Ms. Amberg described the updated proposal to Community Park. Mr. Mitchell asked for more data on
what trends are in recreation. Ms. Amberg said it variescommunity to community, and changes over time.
This plan creates flexibility andallows for future changes if needed.
258
Jufn!9/
Ms. Amberg described the updated proposal to Moore Lake Park. Mr. Maher notified the group that the
City was recently notified that the entire area was newly designated as a flood zone by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), so the original plan for the park must be significantly pulled
back. The new flood plain means the City is greatly restricted in what can be done with the land
immediately surrounding the lake. Mr. Jensen added that he is working with the City Engineer to
determine if the existing shelter structure could be renovated to meet the new needs of the park, but
improving the structure will be tough with the requirements established by the DNR. Mr. Jensen informed
the group that work by Anoka County will begin in 2022 on the planned roundabout.
Mr. Heintz asked if more shelters could be added to the park, since that is a popular use for the park. Mr.
Maher said that yes, more shelters could be added.
Ms. Amberg reviewed Draft Implementation Strategy - Approach #1. The spreadsheet prioritizes work to
be done throughout the City. The base estimate column includes all work originally proposed by WSB for
a total of $37 million, with approximately $14 million in alternate or deferred amenities. This approach
prioritizes Moore Lake Park, Commons Park was secondary, and Community Park would wait for future
work. The remainder neighborhood parks would also be prioritized except for a few that can wait for
future work. Mr. Heintz shared feedback given to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a significant
desire to have work done quickly on Moore Lake Park.
Ms. Amberg reviewed Draft Implementation Strategy - Approach #2. This approach prioritizes work to be
complete on the three community parks sooner, along with a few neighborhood parks in underserved
areas.
Mr. Schultz confirmed that in the first five years there are no committed plans to construct pickleball
courts. Ms. Amberg confirmed that Pickleball Courts are included planning for Commons Park but that
these improvement may not be completed in the first five years of the implementation plan.
Mr. Mitchell asked for guidelines, or policy, to be established to help the City shape a plan for what
activities it will provide. Ms. Amberg replied these are still high-level discussions, and do
not get into details. Mr. Mitchell asked for a City policy to guide how the City will choose what activities
to implement.
Ms. Amberg reminded the committee of the survey feedback from Finding Your Fun in Fridley and
subsequent community surveys. That feedback has inspired the plans and proposals to this point.
Mr. Shultz expressed support for Approach #1 to enhance neighborhood parks for the biggest impact on
residents. The committee expressed general agreement. Mr. Heintz added that waiting on renovating
Community Park would provide the City more time to gather data on recreation trends if plans should
change for that particular.
Mr. Borman asked if Moore Lake can not receive newly constructed buildings, how the City would provide
any restroom options. Mr. Jensen replied that he and the City Engineer are exploring options for
improving the existing building, or possibly creating a vaulted restroom. Ms. Sedzielarz asked for timeline
for when staff would know more information. Mr. Jensen said hopefully in the next few months. The DNR
259
Jufn!9/
and the City are still working on restrictions and possibilities to figure out the potential engineering
solutions for the park.
Mr. Maher reminded the committee this is a long process and the City will still be working on the plan in
ten years. What the committee is tasked with, right now, is a preliminary planning process. The committee
is charting a basic roadmap for the City. He asked if the committee with the amount of information given
on Approach #1, if
feedback, for the committee to consider at its next meeting.
Mr. Heintz said yes, and acknowledged the City will need to address future changes as the plan is
implemented.
Mr. Schultz added Approach #1 shows most immediate impact for residents.
Mr. Stangler Approach #2 because he does not feel Approach #1 serves certain youth activities, such as
baseball, but understands the value in Approach #1.
Mr. Maher restated his perception of a consensus of the committee to endorse Approach #1 as a general
guiding plan, knowing there will be changes and modifications based on cost and environmental
conditions the City finds as work begins.
Mr. Heintz motioned that the Financing Committee formally endorse Approach #1, which should be
recommended to the Fridley City Council. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. All committee members voting aye.
3. Review Next Steps and Proposed Future Meeting Dates
Mr. Maher thanked the committee for their time, effort and dedication.
ADJOURN 8:40
25: