11/16/1964 - 00022379�� �
AGRI]?�If�4sA71 ]�OT2 30 FOOT FRPIMANEN`C EASPMENT (G1+-1�2 AVENUE NORTfIG�ST):
Mol,ion l?,y Sh��radan� seconded by Wright� i,o direct the CiLy. Manager to have
an af;reement prepsred and executed by Gift House utamps and Erick LaVinea
tlie a�;rer_ment i;o contain provisions for a 30 foot permanent easement over
the sonth 30 feet of E4�1�2 Avenue Northeast between T. H. #�+7 and 3rd Street
Nortl�eas t andprovidin� f'or i,he deposit of escrow money to ,�uaran�bee that
1.iic permanent 30 foot easement iaould be paved for vehicular trs,ffic. Upon
a voice vote} there being no nayc� Ma.yor Nee decZared the,motion carried.
--'
BUIL1)1PiG PERMT7' FOR KWIKI CAR YIASFI:
Motion by fdri�ht� seconded by Sheridan to authorize the Buildin�; Inspection
Department to issue a bu�lding permit to Kwiki Car Weeh upon receipt by
the CiL;� Nanager oP a properly executed agreement ea suthorized and app-
rovin�; zn the previoue moi�ion. Upon a voice vote, there heing no naye,
Mayor ilce declared the mol,ion carried. .
OFP tii�i'�tL'I?T PFlRKING VARIANCP APID BUILDING PF,RMIT ( 300 1�1ISSISSII'PI STft�ET
mnamr'�'��. -
P4ot,�on b,y Ifri�ht� seconded by �heridan {,o concur with the recommendaLion
of Lhe 73o��rd of Appeals made at their mee{.in� on October 28� i96�, and to
graut �.hc variance from the off-street parking requirements for the pro-
posed ❑trrtzcture an Lot 2� Block 1� Sylvan IIills Plet �5 (300 Miesiesippi
Si;xeet Northeast), and to authorize lssuance of a building permii: for
const;ruction of the proposed building with an 80 foot setback from Missi-
sei�pi SLreet Northeast, Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, Mayor
Aiee declzecl {,he motion carraed.
L�DJOURPiNIl�N'P: .
Tnere bein�; no furl,her business, Ma,yor Nee declared the special counc3l -
meetina� ad,7ourned at 9:00 P,M. �
RespecLFully submitted; .
Larl P. iJagner W lism Nee� Ma
Act,ing Secrei,ary to the Council
REGUL�AR COIJnICIL MCETING� P10VGI�IDER 16� 190'4
A re��,ular meeting of the Council of the City of Fridley Was called to order
b,y Councilman Sheridan at �3:17 P.M. ` I
Councilman Sheridan annotmced Scout Troup 319 would open the meeting. The
presentation of colors and Pledge to 1,he Flag was made by the scouts.
Councllman Sheridan expressed the appreciation of the members of the Council
and those present to the members of ScouL Troup 319 for the preaent�t3on.
ROLL CF�TL:
Members Present: Kirkham� Sheridan� Wrighi,� Nee arrived at 8:20 P.M.
Members Absent: None .
285
Councilman �right announce� in the a6sence of Mayor Nee and the absence
of former Councilman �ohanson� the G3ty Councal was without a Mayor Pro
Tem. Motion by Wright to appoint Gouncilman Sheridan Mayor Pro Tem ior
the balance of the m uncil year. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voieeqote'
there being no nays� the motion carried unanimausly.
APPROVAL OF MII�IUTES - REGULAR MEETING, NOVEMBER 2� 196�+:
' Motion by K3rkham to approve the minutes oi the Regular Meeting of
November 2� lyb�F as prepared and received. Seconded by �wrigY�t, Upon
-- a voice vote� there being no nays� the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MII+TUTES, SPECTAL MEETING,, NOVEMBER 4� 1y5�+:
Motion by Wright to approve the minutes o° the Special i�leetitig of
November 4� 19b4� as prepared and received. Seconded by ICirkham. Upon
a voice vote� there being no nays� the mot3on carried unanimously.
Mayor Nee arrived at $;20 P.M.
PUBi�IC HEARINGS;
PUBLIC IIEARING ON RE-ASSESSMENT OF S& SS �2�+B (CONTINUEB FROb7 11/2/b4);
Mayor Nee announced for the consideration of the City Council a continued
Public Hearing on 5anitary and Storm Sewer Improv�ment Project No. 2�+ and
stated it was not neceasary to read the notice again; that the Council had
heard previously from Mr, Holten of the law firm of Faegre and Iienson„
a member of the firm of Banister Engineering Company and received a statem
ment by Newcombe and-Lawrence Appraisors; that it had been requested that
' the staff of Fridley which had participated mith the Council in the form�,tion
of a reassessment proposal, should bring back before the members of the Council
a,ny remaxks they might have considering any exhibits produced which, they
fe1t� were re7evant and would like to consider or have tYiat informe,tian
presented now, Mayor Nee inquired if City Managar Wagner had any co�nents.
City Manager Wagner stated that since the last meeting he had delivered
to the City Council a brief analysis by the City �ngineer in a memo to
himseli of the presentation at the last hearing« He further st�ted the
consultin� engineering firm had also provided a memo relative to their
analysis and matters discussed and felt that the materiai presented to the
City Council presente� by the City Assessor �aas valid and had not been particu-
larly controverted by any o£ the disctxssion at the hearing and the City
Attorney had also provided a communicat3on to the City Council analysing or
diacussing the matters that took place at the hearing e.nd doc-�unents submitted
by the M& 0 Paper Company. City Attorney Smiih suggested Mr. Holten be
given copies irom h3mseli and a1s9 the eng3,neer's report. C3ty Manager
Wagner presented Mr. Holten the mentioned copies and sta�ed he had not
read the City Attorneys' report yet but these could he antrociviced into the
xecord if the Mayor so wished. ?�Iayor Nee replied ttxe copies mentioned should
all be placed on record.
C3ty Manager Wagner explained the first memora.ndum �iven to the City Council
was a memorandum to E. V. Comstock of Comstock and Davisa Inc.� from D, C.
Olson� regarding the #24B reassessment oi' M& 0 property and relating to the
� exhibits by M& 0 Paper Company dated November 13� 1964; tha� the material
from the City Assessor to the City Council was a letter discussing property
values in the City of Fridleya residentialt single f'amily as against industrial
and coffinercial dated November 2ti� 1964 addressed to the City Manager and signed
bg Mervin Herrmannr City Asseasor. He further explained the other item was a
letter dated October 30� 1y64 signed by City Assessor Mexvin Herrmann to
himself in which he reports to the City Manager on St. Louis Paxk procedure
and relating to assessments for storm sewer cor,struction. He stated these
were the two letters he had not re-referred to the City Council their having
been at the previous meeting. Mayor Nee inquixed if Mr, Holten was willing
- to have this in£ormation entered into the minuies without their being read.
Mr. Holten replied he was so willing but did assume the members of the City
Council would have read same before they would make their decisivn. Mayor
Nee asserted he doubted if the decision.would be made this evening� that he
personally had read one co�unication '6ut not others.
`'�3f�
Ms.gar Nee read aloud the memorandum Prom Mr. Olson to E. V. Comstock of
the engineering firm oi Comstock and Davis transmitted to the C3ty of
Fridley and da�ed November 13� 1964, e
MGMO T0: E, Vo Cqmstock
FROM; D, C. Olson
REi
DATE :,
2�+-B REASSFSSMENT OF M& 0 PROPERTY
(EXHIBITS SY M & 0)
November 13r �96�
I have reviewed several letters to the City Attorney� regard3ng the appeal
of M& 0 on the 2�+-B reassessment.
1. Letter to Mr. John A, Holten� Attorney� October 30� 196�+
Fr-om Newcombe and Lawrence Appraisals _
The letter mainly stated engineering ini'ormation given to �hem. They
do not say frpm whom„ Item A is sixbstai�t3ally correct. Item B is
substantially correet. Stem C is correct for the or3ginal des3gn,
Item ➢ is an opinion and could be flisputed. The Sandy nature of the
soily rura7. section on 73rd and other factors could perm3t the system
to be considere$ as adequate under a 3 year £requency as prev3ously
discussed„ _
Item E,3s partially carrect. The ent3re tract cannot Ue served by
�his system. 42.7 acres can be served by the interceptbr. Laterals
woixld be necessary throughout -�he ent3re area and were not a part of
this project, .
Under Item F, there is no question about this, The construction of
1a�terals� catch basins and leads 3s necessary throughout the area
served by the interceptor.
� Some lo*aering of the ground water discussed under Item G has beett
accomplished, Since Banister Engineering Company has made a study
of this, I would not dispute the acreage. The fact that this is not
needed is disputablea however,
They do not seem to state any factual bas3s.'�or their determination
of benefit, The range is also very large - 5.1.
2. Letter to the City Council� November 2� 1964, irom
Banister Engineer3ng Company.
The contents in the letter are subste.ntia].ly correct, The only
argu�ent I m3ght have is the design frequency you would arrive at
by adding�40 acres'to the system: I feel that a 3 year frequenc�y
is realistic� i.ncluding the 42.7 acres of the M& 0 property, Outside
properties in Spring Lake Park were included in the original design
as stated in our reports; however� since the system has been installed?
on5.y that dra3ning to Stinson Bovleve,rd Noxth of 75th can tre cmllected.
With the canstruction of the atorm sewer unfler Fraject 6�� to aerve
Meadowmoor Terrace,, it was decided that only the area within the
City Limits woulfl be served. The system was so cottstructed. Actually,
there is very .Little diiference in system capacity} since the area
in Spring Lake Park to be served had a high time of concents�tion
ancl ponding areas.
3. Letter to the City Council� November 2� �964, from Faegre & Benson
The letter is basicallp correct Yrom the eng3neering aspects. On
Page �4y they state that a 4t5'` diameter R,C.P, runs West 2rom the
outlet to T,H, #�65. This line is actually 30" diameter.
On Page �6 of theix letter� they state, that only 25 acres drain to
73rd and that we have assessed on the basis oY 42.6 acres, Th3s 42.b
L1
,
�
Gu�
acres is based on what could be served by lateral construction. The
availability of the interceptor is the benefit. There was no �urface
water draina�e provided under Pro�ect 24-B.
On Page �7} they propose a proper cosL split involving a raCio of
their area and the total area as i� af£ects outlet costs only. To
compute asseesments on this basis would be impossible, costly and
inaccurate. �his is delegated to the City Council in any case.
Sy
DeWayne C. Olson� P.��J.
DCO�ge
He stated for the benefit of the public tl�ese metters referred to 4�ere
in a memo from Newcombe and Lawrence Appraisals to Mr, Holten which
were introduced at the last regular meeting.
Mayor Nee requested that Mr. Comstock expand on the last paragrapYi.
Mr. Comatock requeeted that Mayor ATee return to the sub,7ect in order
for him tq prepare an answer.
Mayor Nee eta�ed there was a memorandum to City Manager Wagner f'rom
C3ty Engineer Qureshi dated November 16� 1964 concerning the reassessment
of Storm Sewer #24B and thie was in response to a directive. i4ayor Nee
read the corr�unication aloud as follows and stated that item ��2 at tYie
end af the letter was not relevant to this meeting.
MEMO T0:
MEMO FROM:
MGMO DATE:
MEMO NUMBER
Earl P. Wagner� City Manr�ger
Nouim �,ureshi� City Engineer
November 16� 1964
#6�+-�9
RE; i�, Reaseessment - Storm Sez�er 24-8
This is in respanse to your directive to discuss arid
appraise the information supplied to the Cii,y at the public hearing
on the 2nd day of November for reassessment af Storm Sewer Pru,7ect
24-B.
I attended the above mentioned public hearleg and heard
the oUject�ona raised by the representatives of the Minne:aoLa s3nd Onl�ario
Company against the proposed assesament on their property.
The Banister Engineering Company� the engineer�ng consnl-
t�ants ior M& 0 Company� pointed out that with the addition of 40 acres
of M& 0 property to the drainage area� the design storm fs•equency of
the system will be about 1.5 years� whereas Qomstock & Dav�s, Inc., the
City engineering consultants, ascerteined that the system will have a
design storm frequency of 3 years.
_ As I don't have the assumptions and the aci,ual deslgn cal-
culations made b5� the Banister Engineering Company in arr�ving at 6he
above design storm frequency� I would put forth �he possible reasons why
these two consultants are coming up with two different an�wers For the
same system.
1. The system is reviewed by Comstock & Davis, Inc. using
a three year storm frequency under the rational method for
design with allowance for pipe storage and arriving at ihe
conclusion that 42.7 acres of M& 0 pxoperty can be sexved
by this syetem. This rational method of desi�m wlth allowance
for pipe storage is currently being used Uy tl�e Minnesata
Iii�hway Department and several consult�rits.
���
Accord�nr t,o tYi�s method when ueed with a given area and
esL-orm sewer syst:em� you �et an increased time of concentrat3on
over the rational method without the allowance for pipe
stor��e, thue ,you get a]arger adequate storm frequency.
2. P'or the constructian of storm sewer line to serYe
the Meadowmoor Terrace area under the Project #64, it
was decided that only the area within the City Limits
would be served. io th3s eliminated 63,1 acres of �
Villa,ge of Spring Lake Park property� which Were orig3n- �
�]ly figured tin the design ot the storm sewer system, -
As the adequacy and the working standards of any utiliLy
�ystem is up 1,o City Council discretion only, and if they ahoose to let
the �tox•m sewer under Pro,7ect 24-8 be on 3 year storm £requency� it is
entirely i,heir decision and theirs alone, I feel this decision is quite
x•eali.;tic ooneidering that
]. This s{.orm sewer sysl.em is not an average type system�
as it is designed to serve a dual purpose oi dra3nin� the
surface and eub-s�irface water as opposed to a syatem drain-
irig surface water only.
2. `Chi� system is built deeper than necessary for a
eyatem needed for drainir�g surface water only� and in turn
can possibly work under a larger head if need be.
3. As Lhe system is built with open joints� the water
under a head could ex-filtrate into the su6-sur,face and thu�
ps•ovide additional �torage durin� the storm� and later
1.h3s water will be drained out after the storm is over.
4. The terrain of the land is generally flat� and the
nai,ure o£ the soil is eandy.
,�. The ditches along the rural sect3on of the present
street on 73rd will provide the reten�ion areas,
The benefits of this storm sewer system to the Minnesota
and Ontario Campany property are:
]. The main interceptor system is available now and
f'uture leads with catch basin can be hooked'on to it to
drain thc Northwesterly portion of the N! & 0 property.
i
2. It is mentioned on page 3 of the Bgnister Engineering
Company letter to i1�e C3t,y Council dated November 2, i964,
i.hat underground water table in 52 acres of M& 0 property
have been lowered by this system. This will make the
Future construction of water and sewer utilities and build-
in� constructaon easier and in turn� cheaper in this area.
NASIM QURESHI� P.E.
City Engineer
I
Mr. Comstock esplained Lhat in the last paragraph in the memo from Mr. �
Olson to himself on Page 7, Item 4A� the last sentence states the
praposit�on should be this: "that the number of M& 0 acres benefited
should be�r an equal square foot aesessment with the lands in Area A
only in tkiat part of the cost of the improvement which ie attributable
to thc out,let and the base segment on 73rd from CentraT to Trunk H3�hway
65". He explained the implication oi that statement is that the individual
se�inent of the 3nterceptor would be divided in proportion to the areas
upstream i.hr�t drain to them and the person furthest away would pay the most
and this had not been thepolicy oi the City Council.
G��
Mayor Nee requested thatCity Attorney Smith in�roduce his materi�l znto
the record. City Attorney Smith stated he ]zad prepared a letter wh�ch he
had presented'to members of the Counc3l a ha1F hour previous, dated this
day and addre,eaed to the Mayor end Council men�bers. City Attorney Smith
read the following letter:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
City oY Fridley
�� 6431 Univeraity Avenue N. r.
Frldley 21, Minnesota -
Re: 5 & SS #24B
Re-assessment M. & 0. Paper Co.
Dear Sirs: �
You have asked that I make some coffinent upon the position oF the praperL,y
owner ss expressed at the hearing of this matt,er on November 2, 1964.
The law applicable has been correctly stated by Mr. Iiolton. He l�as mixed
it up with argument and opinion. Perhaps to aid you in reachin� a valid
and reasonable conclUSion I shoul@ reView tai�h you the underlying rules
that are a�pl3cable.
The 9tatute provides that the cost of any improvement may 6e assessed upon
property beneiitted by the improvement� based upon the benef�ts received.
(M.s.a. �29.051)
M.S.A. k29.071 providea that when an assessment is set esLde as to any
parcel or parcela� the Council may� upon notice and hearing, make a re-
asseasment or a new assessment as to such parcel or parcels.
Special asseasments must be based on special benefits of part�cular prop-
erty involved� measured by enhancement of property value resulting from
the local improvement. 'In uteterming whether a special as�eesment stiould
be levied upon certainproperty� possible future benefit could be considered
in determining whether there was actual benePit to the property.
Opinion Attorney General, 40f3C, 9-22-60.
The judgtnent of the City Council as to what property is beneFitted and
how much it is benefitted is final ¢nd conclu�ive. Fdina vs, Joseph,
1963� M3nn. 264� 8 4, 119 N. w. 2d 809.
The Courts will not interfere with your jud�rment unless it is found to be
Praud ulent in fact� or based on a mistake of fact� or on an illegal prin-
c3ple or an exroneous rule of law. Id.
The assesement would not be void because the property is no1, benc�f�tted
by the improvement� owing to its present particular use. The benefit
is presumed to inure not to the present use, but to the propFrty ii,selt. Id.
The basis and juatification of a special assessment are benefits to the
property affected. Of course� an assessment may not be arbitrary� capri-
cious� or unreasonable. The law in this State does nat require thaj. a
special assessment correspond in exactness with the benefits received.
Precise accuracy has never been required. The most that any member of
an asseseing tribunal can do is to estimate the benefits to each traci.
�- of real estate upon as unlform a plan as can be used in the lighti afrorded
Iby available inYormation. Id.
A rule for determining benefits may properly ignore Uoth uee and presenL
value. It is enough that the land could be turned i�o purposes for �fhich
the improvement would increase its value. The test is not wliether Lhe
property is enhanced in value £or the partYCUlar purposes to which �t is
devoted at the time of the assessment� but whether it is enhance�l in value
ior any purpose. Id.
The only lim3tations upon Lhe power to levy special assesemenl.s are i,hat
��o
they be unsfurru upon the same class of propexty, be confined to property
special7y UEnefii,ted� and do not exceed such special benefits.` Aunnell 6Bo'0.
The apportionment oF assessments is a le�islative funetion of the City
Counc9l. Riiale vs. [Jillmrtir� 19�ih� 25 N.W.za 699•
l^Ihere land is benefitted by the improvement, it may be assessed for
beneCit,s even though ii, is not pliysically connected� either directly �
or by laterals, Seidlitz vs. Faribault, 1952� Minn. 237, 358� 55 N.W.2d 308. I
Petition of Iioepner� i953, Minn. 2-4r1� 6� 62 N.W.2d 80. ,
The me;t;ure of the �peci�l benefits is the enh3ncement of the market value
of the property cau�ed by i.he �mprovement. In Re Improvement of Superior
Streei;, 142j, p9inn. 172� 55�+, 216 N.W. 318; St. Paul vs. Sanborn� 192 � Minn.
222� 522; In Re Improvement of �Phird Street� i932, Minn. 1 5� 170� 2�+0 N. Ni. �
JJi•
The PdeiacombF � La�arence l�pprr�isal letter of October 30� i964, recognizes
there wa� some benefiL-. IL st�tes that the part benefitted was not
enhanced iri market value $1�7,000.00, They have not indicated or commented .�
upon present value� future value� value liefore the improvem�nt� value after
{,he inii�rovement� or the highest and best use of the land.
Tl�e I3arii�Ler P]ngineering Compan,y letter dated November 2� i964� in part
reviezrs er�rly and preliminary work done by Lhe Coneulting Engineers on the
projecl,. �dhen considering i.he en�rineers' recommendation, 3t ia a i'unction
oP t,he Ci6y Council to malce determinal.ions that make use of e"ngineering
stud�es and standard� and also consider many other factore� such as: growth
and developmenl, of areas broader than the project involved;,tHe tea' Toad
af iJir- City; i,he public debt; Lhe fiscal history; ttte density of population;
the pro�7�ci,ed usr- and zoning of lands; the weighing of econom�ca to i,he
properl,y o*.iner� and the City by using minimum standards rsther than ex-
pensive bnt safe ma�cimum standards, You are not bound litarslly to fallow I
i.he englneers' preliminary report on sny project. That report ie to be J
considered t,ogether with all other factors and subsequent deve��ip�nents.
When you dec�de to apply minimum standards� you are agreeing in affect
t,o take the �aater from the property concerned with the'knowledge that
there may be some inefficiency in total operation� some expensea� problems�
and complaants that will involve the City �nd property owners in the £uture.
�ach City Council is faced with such identical problems erery time an improve-
ment, of any kii�d is made. Tt is fdr the City'CounciT, as eacH probTem comes
up, to conc�der all of the standards� to�ether with all other £acets and then
exei•cir_c iLs discrei,ion. ,
The enErineers collectively appear`to me to allow you to conclude that
somc �i2 i- acres are benefitted. The amount of land concerned in the
original assessment was overstated.
In P+Ir. Aolton's statement of November 2� 1964a on page �� he incorrectly
conclude, tYiat property zoned M-2 in the City of Fr3dley has all the
potentlal uees cumulatively of the other zoning districts. An M-2 district
is primarily ior heavy industrial uses. Light industrial ia permitted
on]y be special use permit. Residential use 3s prohlbited.
Mr. FIolton's conclusions are stated on pages 6� 7, and 8. On item 1�
I am in agreement that only benefitted property may Ue assesaed. The only
d�spute here is wliether from all of the engineer3ng data sysilable 25 ��I
acres i� involved or 42.6 acres. ' I
On iLem 2, 7 am in agreement that if you vote this re-assessment, you
are a�recing to have the landowner connect laterals so ae to te served
with storm sewere From the area of the benefitted property.
On il.ern 3� Lhe sentences dealing r�ith legal prZnciples are correctly
si,ated. i call i,o �rour attention that the larger parcel'involved and
the remalrzder oi' Lhe M. & 0. Paper Company proper�.y is zoned M-2 and has
a speciPir lilanned use for t,hat purpose. Your classifica'tion schedule
G �� Y
recogrtizes this lar�e M-2 zoned tract with railway trackage available
as high and spec3al value. Its potential value certainly is dependent
upon having municipaZ water� sanitary setaer and storm sewer available
and ready. It is my understanding that �.he City Council initially
decided to do the storm sesier work in pro�ect 24B in part to make thc
sanitary sewer construction more economical.
�n item 4� the property owner is ar�uing that even though 6he reet oF
the land area w3thin project 24B ie cut' up into small sepr�rately owned
tracts� intermixed with urban blight� without, railway trackage fracilities,
and unfavorable residential uses� that each square foot of beneiitted land
3s enhanced equally to thst of M, & 0. Paper Campany. Ultirn�tely 1;l�is
is the basic decieipn for you to make from this hearing and LY�e studies ttie
City staPf has made.
The City pasesaor has reported in eome detail the similar classiFicai.ion
used by St. Louis Park. The classification there runs as hi�;h a6 b
times the single family residentdal use for some types of heavy industrial
use. To some degree similar classiiications have been used in numerous
other communities within Minnesota and elsewhere.
At the recent NIhff,O Convention� city attorneys from California to Maine
indicated �that their cities h¢d long used classifications, based upon
zoning� to adequately �qualize the cosi, of �pecial improvements to
benefitted properties.
The M-2 district has no set back requirements. Except for paxking spacee
necessary for employees all the land could be covered Uy butldinE;s, This
district then permits an exceptionally high and intensive use of the larid.
Every decision this Council is required �o make necessarily involves
new factors. If this were not true� and the conlusion were pre-determinable�
and reasonable minds would not differ� the matiter would be purely adminis-
trative and handled by the Manager and his staff.
Let us suppose #'or a moment that the special improvements for the North-
east corner of the City had not been made. Tkie area would be wiLhout
assessment and blighted to some degree by the auto wreckin� ynrds, and
a variety of examples of minimum construction, some of which, of course�
were a result of prior growi.h in an area dominated by a creosote smell
(when the pole yards were operating). Then suppose that the o�aners of ihe
M. & 0, tracts were to come to the City stating that they l�ad a large
industry anxious to acquire and immediately use nll af this land buL �,hey
had to have immediate aesurances that public w�i,er, sanitary sQUer and
storm dxsinage would be available, The blighted and depressed port�ons
of the 1VOrtheast cornex certainly would not be enhanced in value propor-
tionatelg to the new industry. If your pre�ent problem of finding a fair
and euitable clsasiiication schedule had arisen in thie fashion zaould the
4-1 ratio be cons3dered arbitrary or unfair by you or by the M. �, 0. Paper
Company? If it would have been i'air in i;his reverse hypothet,ical example�
why isn't it fair in the way it has occurred.
Industry and large industr�al tract owners have had a mosi, favorable
climate within the City of Fridley. Real estate taxesYave been kept at
a minimum by the City Charter and by the action of the City Council.
Special improvements for water� sewer and storm sewer have been con-
structed and paid for exclusively by 100 per cent as;essment on bene-
fitted property,
The f3rst special improvement pro,7ect (other than streets) t2ie village of
Fridley had was to develop a tract for an industry to come into the t,hen
Village, This required arrangements for public water and sanite,ry sewer.
The trunk system of public facilities tl�roughout the City are no�� iaost
complete. The M. & 0, tracts are pe3�haps the most valuable, Lmdeveloped,
induetria�. lands in the entire metxopolitan area. The owners have neveY•
been requixed to pay indirectly (through real estate taxes) or directly
(throu�h assessment� any of the other draina�e or storm sewer pro,7ecLs
of Fridley. Morally the assessment is fully ��astified, II�ndsigl�t, may
�y�
su�gesi; t,o ,you, as well �s it does to me, that sbbrm sewer and drainage
improvE�Tnents �houlrl have been financed out of general f�nds over the
past lj yr�re oF Fridley's Yiistory. Then the M. & 0. Paper Company
would have t�een a large contributor to the other projects and the
pree�c�pi, L�xPa,yers would take care of �,he presenb costs for project 24B.
Your decision here� howevex•� must be Uased strici,ly on legal principles, j
TYiereforc� i_n surnmary, you ehould Pirst an�taer these queations: I
� �
1. Whal eretx was specially benefittedY
2. Whai, ie a fair c7assificat,ion considering all ott�er propertie�
in the project area?
3. Would the i,roctc in question enhance in value to the extent
oS Y,hc� assessmenl,�'? ,
Then you have the duty� responsibility� and discretion to come to a.
conclus�on.
If you cc�nclude that the proposed re-assessment roll should be approved
and fLled w�th the Anake County Auditor� it is my opinion that under
the preseni, law no Court v�ill cet your decision aside. .
Yours truly�
�dyman Smith
Caty Attorney
WS �p� s I
Nf��yor Pdee �nnounced i,hese were the co�ents of the City Attorney on I
inCormation and arguments supplied by Faegre and Benson� Attorneys at
Law, i,he previous week but wished to �o back because he had closed off
tl�e discussion on a question l�e had'raised on the Cometock and Davia
memorondum commentin� on $ie letter of Faegre and Benson'to th e City
Councll. He inquired oi Mr. Comstock re�arding page 7 of the mentioned
letter that they propose a praper cost split to compute assessments on
tkiis bris�e urould be costly and inaacuratey that the para�raph referred
to in i,he letter by Faegre w Benson proposes that the atorm sewer
as�essmeni;s be niade on t2�e basis of the areas that contribute to individu-
al segment.; ol the interceptor system and the farther you are� removed
from the outlet the more expensive ii, would be and the farthest away
from thp oi��let rrould pay more than those near. Mayor Nee sts�Ged it
would seem to him that using that argument they would pay more since
they are further away than anyone. Mr. Comutock replied that in part
of tl�e re-�;tudy they would Ue on another street. Mayor Nee asaerted -
this �aas i,he principal that ]iad been rejected Uy this- Council and most
counca]s� i,hat he would now hear comments and would offer the meetin�
over L-n oi,k�er membeFS of the City Council. There were no reme.rks by
members of the Council.
Mr. Holten stated he wished to make a few extemperaneous remarka on
whai, they had heard and read this nighi, and in response to City Manager
Wagner's remarks that the matter of evaluation was not challenged� that ,
��iL-h response to City Attorney Smith's preseni,ation he would agree
particulnrly with,hi� atatements that his o�an firm had the law correct, _ li
that he did not agree with all of his conclusions but wae not proposing
to ar�,nae euch questions on the law as they might,have and the City
Councll would have to rely on their own legal advisor. Mr. HoLten
sLated he wished to co�¢nen{, on a couple o£ points in City Attorney
Smith's lctter, in particular with respect to the zoning ordinance
and i�ti;h respect to the value of the M& 0 tract;,that_Yirst� under the
zonin�; ordinance� the copy whieh he had said� that "Section 5•8 Uses
Permil-,i,ed, M-2 Districts. Heavy Industrial District� 1. Uses permitted
293
in M-1 District�, Section $.7 M-1 District A. Uses permitted. 1. Uses
permit�ed in G2 and C-2�l Districts. Section 5,6 Uses permitted and
excluded in C-2 and C-25 Districts; General Business and Shopping Center
Districts, A. Uses Permitied, 1. Uaes permitted in C-1 and C-1S
D3stricts.`' He explained he would read the rest oi uhis which was an
exception which he recognized to some extent anvalidated what he had
said in his letter though it was only a genexal statement. "Uses
permitted in C-1 and Cx]S" Districts; p�ovided that no dwelling or
� dweiiing unit is permitted except for employees having duties in conneetion
w3th any premises requiring them to live on said premises and iamilies
oY such employees living with them." He stated ta that extent the chaan
of cumulation was broken.
He i'urther stated in "Section 5.5,, Uses permitted and excluded C-1 and
C-15 Districts� A. Uses permitted� 1. U�es permitted in R-3a excep+
autocamps and trailer courts;" That the sec;ond matter in his letter
he wished to eo�ent on vras with ret'erence to the value of the M& q tract�
that the appraisal of the Newcombe and Lawrence Appr».isals on whzch M& 0
had based its sales price comes out to an average of' �430� an acre and
that brea,ks down to $1+000 an acre on the 16U acre tract and these were the
appra3sals ot' 1961. He explained he wasn't saying the tract wasn't valu-
able but it was not excessively valuable, Mayor TJee inquired if these
appraisals were before this improvement3in question was made and Mr.
Holten replied it was, Mr. Holten also stated that in City Mana�ex
Wagner's statement that they had not been challengeda the matter of
valuation and the relevance of valuat3on apportion oi 4 to 1� �hat he
had read a sua�a.,ry o£ the City Aeaessor*s re�ort on valuations in the
City and the sunm�ary was to the efPect that the industrial property is
worth $10�000 to $12�000� residential $2}ODO to $j�U00 an acre} that he
had already told the Council what M& U has ofiered 'ats pxoperty for and
as far as the residential property was concerned he had one of the younger
men make a check to confirtn his opinion that residential propexty,, when
platted� was worth at least $1+�000 to $4�500 an acre. He explained the
� distinction was not between residential and industrial but between raw
industrial land and platted reaidential praperty� tt-iat Yurtherr he did
not concede the relevance of assessment to storm sewera thati normally}
an assessment woiald reclaim the lawer land and increase the value of that
land rather than the land which is better and the particular statement in
the letter Mr. Comstock wrote followed the statement that where i�mnediate
physical benefits are not afYOrded one muat base an assessment au the
increase 3n merket value. He explaine8 he was trying to show that the
increase in msrket value really would be �udged by cost where this out-
let was the only thing that bene£ited this M& 0 tract. Mr. Holten
asserted it was normally true that you take atn equa� square or front
foot for each 1ot or parcel in the improvement district and you do�Ft
differentiate but this wa.s based on several things and one was that some-
timee the location of e.n outlet is.purely arbitrary and another is you
have a matter of enough equity when you treat everyone alike, He stated
he had uever seen a case where you would assess a man's lot four times
tecause the first manTS lot happena to be near the outlet and they were
penaLizing him four to one and that was what was happening here. Mr.
Holten asserted that on the matter of evaluatior.� Mr, �:1liott of
Banister Engineering Company had received a ca1,1 irom a real estate
appraisor� Howard Shenehan� and he indicated he had been contacted by the
Ci'ty to make an inquiry to see if the land had increased in value� that
Mr. �;lliott had discussed the engineering background completely with him
and at the conclusion of the call he said he couldn't take on the assignment,
that this gentlemen was not here tonight� and was not here the other even-
� in� and he could only conclude the City cauld nat find an independent
appraisor who wovld take this on thie assignment.
Mayor Nee inquired if there were any questipns from members of the City
Council or further material to be introduced by the �tsff. There were
no questions or ma.ter3al presented, Mayor Nee anxtounced he had worked
until four o'clock the previous night going thraugh everything he had
in hand at the time ar�d notes he had t�om the cotmt proceeding a couple
of years ago and had� to some extent� modiiied a couple of points. Iie
stated he felt it would be useful to the new members of the Council to
�'t� =�
recap�tu7.ate where they had been on this and what their duties were-as
he understood them� that the makeixp of this Couno�l that is cons3dering
�his had rad3ca17.y crianged from the Counc3l that ordered tk�e improvement
in about-1959, &e e�cplainefl the preliminary plans were ordered in about
�.959, �he actual improvement in �.96o and there was only one mezeber of
this Council in the decision to order this improvement and that person waa
Councilman Sheridan and there were only two members of �he Council that
were involved in the proceedings wh3ch appeared to be fan�ty in one
respect or other and they were Sheridan and iVee� that the remaining �
members of the Cgty Council had had nothing to do with th3s pro,ject and
had not been exposed to the thinking at that time.
Mayor Nee offered the following statement:
"S think it is appropriate to go back �nd I wish to object� f3rst oi'
all� to much-of the matter introduced-by the M& 0 spokesmany that it was
technically impressive Uut irrelevant� that as the Chairman I may have
= hafl the duty to deny the presentation and the 3ntroddction of' this
material 3nto the minutes but since we have had a history oi arguments
over technical procedure I decided to allow it to be introduced and wish
to take this occas3on to draw this to the attention of the Council� no
matter'how irrel.e�vant. On Novemher 2nd we put iorth a proposal which
had been drawn by the staff and Council, It was� to some extent�dunder
the direction o£ the court. We brought forth a proposal and open,�a public
hearing. Yon received and considered the nuraber of items presented to
you� Faegre-genson�-Banister Lngineering and Newcom6e and La,wrence
Anpraisals� anB l wou7.d like to co:muent on them here to make sure that
some of' these things have not gotten awa,y. Main7.y� it is my right to
point out the irrelevant elements and it wa.s my right to deny at the her�r-
ing. I said� at the time� that there was iniormstion placed into the
record and before you that I would challen�e� and you decided to continue
the hearing to tonight to a11ow for analy'sis of the objections by our
sta�f and i'or fnrther consideration by the Coune3l. You have now received
staYf remarks, -
Mg first general reartipn to the Banister Engineering Statement was �
that it was largely directed to an elaborate attack on a strawmandewatering,
Yon will find in their letter rather technical testimony wh3ch is impressive�
but S war��'to remind you that it was directed at destroying a proposition
which we are not claiming. This Coumcil makes no�elaim that the M& 0 property
beneiits directiy irom dewaterit�g; and no part o£ the progosed asaessment
as far as I un3erstanfl it is based on any effect oi dewatering. The vast
bulk of the Banister �ngineerin� test3mony is comple�ely and whoy].y irrelevant
and I ask you nckrto disregard 3t. You can eualixate i�'for what it is, The
Ban3ster �estimony does touch on one other po3nt which� I think� we should
covet�, This is on the matter of speculation on how the interceptor will
be used, They challenge our contention the area, will be drained into this
interceptor just as we say it will be. He specu5.a.tea on the intention of the
Council which ordered the project� and that intention is nat clear. He speculates
on the intention which determined the benefits originally� a dit'ferent council�
than the one which ordered the improvement, I find nothing in the m3nutes�
nothingt}�at expressee this one way or the other on the asea served. He >
speculates on -this �ouncil and which is still another council� and they speoulate
on the actionscf iuture councils and how they wiLl load this interceptor.
They cite primarily the pxeliminary report o� i959 as the3r ev3dence on
how this area will be served, I only want to point out to you� and I'm
sure you must be quite aware of the fallacy here� that Banister Engineering
is assuiming prerogatives that belong only to the City Council, Our
conaulting engineer does not make this kind oP decision� it 3s not ex-
pressed in the preliminary report. The City Manager does not� only the �
City Councii makes it at the time they order an improvement. Once that
pipe is 3n the gcound� exactly how that interceptor will be loaded (with
dixe respect to the law's oi physics) is solely the responsibility o£ the
City Coixncil that orders the connection, Specifically Banister points out that
in the orig3naL pxeliminary report by Comstock-Davis in 1959s Comstock made
certain assumpt3ons concerning the probable aervice area� �he probable run
off factor� the probable storm frequency criteria� which future councils
� determine ior the area as it builds np. The prelim3naxy reports have
'G .y .�
neVer been reported to these councils as a final ducumenta they liave
always 6een hedged �eith the consulting engineer, whether it is Comstocic
or some other consultant� that these are the�assumptions i,hat wex•e used
and iY a future council chooses to deviaL-e from these assumption�, the
performance will not be quite the same �s ��hat �ras indicated iri the pre-
liminary report� but there is noLhing there thai: gives any sanctity to
_ the preliminaxy report,
The implice.tiona that the Baniater firm drawe Lrom the preliminary report
is really propoaterous� and I think thai, they lmow it. As you alI l:nov,
these are design assumptions and Comstock and other consultants have
said asmuch� that they are highly variable. Wlthin the px�actical limit
of physics� only the City Council tha�.orders the, lateral ��ra,7ecf,s ha�
the power to datermine the serv3ce area. The only engineerin�; question
c�hich I ehouldhave a�llowed diecuasion on rrom Benieter iswhether or noi,
1F2.7 aeres of the M& 0 property can be physically da+ained. Nou� if
they choose'to introduce testimony that the gravity is not ri�,nt, tt� t
the slope is'not right� that we eannot physically drain 42 ecres bhi� is
relevant to your consideration. The quest�on which is a collat.eral quesi,�on
of whether.or not it is a good idea to drain �+2 acres into i,his pipe is
salely at your discretion and is not relevant to rer,eive from Bunisi.er
Engineering. SY you believe the area car be drained into thi� inLercepl;or
and you h�ve baen told by your consultents that it can be, and if in
wei�hing all the information you believe tY�ai, it eventu�lly will be
drained into the interceptor� and many previous councils have �ridlcated
i�h¢t they thought it wi11 be� then I think you are under an aUli�;ation
to the other people tn the drainage area to charge an equitable sliare of
the facility to,the M& 0 Paper Propexty, As to the quesl.ion of eliether
or not it can be dralned into the interceptor, the interceptos� is about
20 feet deep at the corner of the M& 0 property� the calculations have
been made concerning the area and it indicates convincingly to me that 42
acres can be ressonably epmmitted to drainin� into the interceptar ��e
' are talkin� about.
The expert testimony offered by M& 0 has not contradicted our engineers
on this point. Now� concerning the point of whether or not you think
these 42 a�Crea wi11 be committed or ehould Y�e couanitted to t,he znter-
ceptor. As a practical matter� if you lay i.his assessmeni. on t,he property
you are cormnitting the acreage to this draina�e �attern. IF, two i�eeks
from now� or whet� the item comee before you and you determine i.o luy the
assesement� you are then committing this area �,o tYiat interceptor, it is
a decision you can make at this point. You are also agreeing that Lhc
service levels ir_ the area may be reduced somewhat thro,u�hout the area
and I want to point out to you that it is not merely � reduction on
M& 0 pxoperty iY there 3s a reduction� iL is spread througl�out the en�,ire
assessment area.
I think you have thought this part of it through pretty ciell and tYie
staff has pretty well advised us on the tecYinical part:, of it. I,7ust
wanted to point oUt that a large part oP the testimony ti+as irrelevant, �
So, in short� the decislon to include these �F2 acres of drainaee does
reduce the sexvice area somewhat� I understand, Our eng7neers h�ve
calculated that when all of the rev3�ions in the service Eirea are included,
which includes the deletion of the Spring Lake Park drain�ige� this
antereceptor may be overloaded once in three years inste�d of once in
every iive years and 2 remind you that yie have a number of f'acilities
3n Fridley tha't doesn't even meet thls minimum service statidard, tide
� have not been noted for bulldin� five year irequency interceptor�.
I cite� for examplea the line we recently put into the Sylvan EIills
Drainage area that feeds into the North University interceptor,
This was built just this spring and was ordered by the Council irnmedi-
ately preceding this one and we calculated and intentionall,y put !n
a line that ia substantially less. The line does not meet t� �ive year
or s three year criteria� and I don't kno�� that lt meets any criteri�
defined in those terms and I would guess that it may sureharge tT�enty
or thirty t3mes a year.and not elear �or several hours at a time.
But this is not some kind of outrageous vio]ation of your commibment
to the public, Rather� it ss simply a decz�ion by the Cit,y Counczl
2yG
to give a somet�hat lower level of service to a particular drainage area
�n Lhe �nteresLs of economy. TPie Council� at the tame that wa9 ordered in�
}cneGi nl��it l,he� were doing� L-he,y Irnew they were �;iving a lower 1eve1 of
service� ��nd th�+ i,he savings involved were such that the Coune3l at i,hat
l,imc dticl declde, ,
�1 decis�on such as this is c�holly and eompletely at the discretion of I
bhe CiLy Council. Whatever the conaulting engineer may have used in I
]z�s prFliminax�y report concerning his design assumptions does not �
limit your d�ecretion. Tk�e only limits relate to having the physical
c�pnl�i 1 �_ L-y o1' dra3nage wtu cli is largely a quesi�ion of whether or no{� the
Ll,ing does �;o down hill.
To have i3ani�ter site the desi�n a�sumptions in this instance as evidence
Lhat the �re� will not be serviced by this pipe ie not really relevnnt.
Its only � qucstion that you can decide. Beyond this� I want to state tha�
in my �udgement, having worked orith this sort of thing over a number of years,
thaL tLe cntire concept expressed by engineers when they refer to etorm
frequency desi�;n criteria� can be highly misleading to layment: All too
o�ten� a l_a,yman may int,erpret these iigures as having some kind of absolute
value or meaning wh�n� in fact� they do not express anything unlesa they are
undexsLood andviecaed only in i,he context oi the mathematics oi design.
Tn ol.lier vax�ds� the,y are 1,heoretic�l expreseions and they do not de�cribc
Lhe acLnaJ. experience the ciL,y will encounter with that pipe �hen it is-
tiooked np L-o i,he street, T}iis has been my impres�ion of it and some
rngineer maj�trant i.0 argue about ii,� but no engineer will give us any
abso]ute t;uaranty or imply or impu{,e any absolui,e meaning to those figures.
I havc never heard an hone�t en�;ineer make any broad claim for this storm
fr�quency dr.s�f*n critcria� that it desr_ribcs anything buti theoretical
facLors, =md not real experience. I want to point out to you tha1� when
I queai.ioned t,he representative of Banister �n�ineerin� on this two weeks I
a�;o, lie vo� qtiite evasive on the point. So� Bani�ter Engineerings'
te�l,imony �lc�es tiao thin�s: �
l. IL c]aims that tY�e benefits due to delaaterin� are ne�+li-
g�U]e and, I would say� this is irrelevant. We are not
rns�king a claim for benei'its due- to dewaiering. .
2, 'P}le� cyaim th�t on i.he basis of assumpt3ons made by
Cumct,ock Davis in 1959, they believe the �+2 aeres in
q�.�sl,ion 1ri11 noi, ii� fact be drained into this inter- ,
ceptor, To this I say tYiat the only body With the
authority to determine this question has maintained�
tliai, it will be drrained ini.o the interceptor in
question and his reference to what Comstock and
llavis thou�ht some years ago is also quite irrelevant.
I should noL 2�ave allowed it into i:he minul,es. The only relevant
i,estimony i'rom Bai�ister would have been "yes" or "no" can 42 acres go
into tl�e pipE�.
The Newcombe and Laurence Appraisal - I �ubmit to you that this {.esti-
mony tis basrd on several i'alse assumptions and that it is� there-
fore CaLse, You will note th,�.t it appears that Newcombe and Lawrence
d�d no1; aci,ually make an appraissl of the ].and� but gave an opinion
based on "engiiLeering information given to us". It was Yurther revealed
i,ha1, i,tre ini'ormai,ion was given by Bani�ter �ngineering� who had been paid
to do so by td & 0 Paper. . __
In e�uence tdevcombe and Lawrence say that if �ahat Banister En�ineering tells
us is true� i;l�en "It is our ,judgement that the amount is grossly excessive."
But� note vliai, the,y were told: -
In Sl-,�m C� "Lhat the orz�inal desl�n assumptions did not include a factor
for surCace draina�e of the property in question," This has no bearing
on ��hat the City Council will choose to do with the interceptory wh�t-
ever 1,he dc>ign assumptions were. We have been told that_a large part �
oi' t,hcproperLy can be draCned inLo the anterceptor. You have every reasoci
���
to assume that the property will be drained into this in�ercepi,or. In
any evAnt� this determination ismade by the City Councila noi, by our
Consulting Engineers.
In Item D� they were tald "that sound'engineerin� practice ��ould noL-
permit the use of new system £or draZning any surface water from any
_ part af the'acreage." This is the inPormatian Newcombe and Laz�rence
had. And� I;say to you� that the City Council, 3nca�nsultation taith
its engineering advisors, is the sole judge of this matter. �fou have
been adv3aed by our engineers the�t a lar�e part of the area can bc�
drained into the interceptor in question. Presumably� this calls ior
you to malse a determination of which engineer you have the most con-
f�dence in� whether 3t be Comstock or Banister. Tn any evexit, the
qustion of sound engineering in Item D, is at your d�scretzon.
In Item E� "that if the surface water is to be removed from the tract,
saund engineering practice wouZd require a new and addi.tional ,storm
s�wer system:" This is the assertion on �ahich Newcombe and La�arence
based their testimony. 1 say to you� again� that. Banister Engineering
seems to be ehcroaching on i.he policy area which is the mspon.�it,ility
o�' the City Council alone. It would appear that this has refere�ice
to whether or not we choose to invest the public's money i.o prnvide a
"Cadillac"�leVel of service or whether ��e will choose to make do uith
a"Ford". Thie is a question of policy� not of sound engineerin�, If
some eng3.neera� I say� had their way� they would turn the wkiole ci�.y
into a pipe, This council has not done that, I don't kiave x•eFerencc
to our own.
5o what has happened in this instance? The property owner, or B�n�ster
Engineering� has told Newcombe and Lawrence that a future Pridley Ci1,y
Council will do such and so in�making their determination on huta to
,-- dra�ni, the property � question. On this prem�se� Newcombe and Latarence
�, finds the amount proposed to be "grossly excessive."
2 was a little surprised that they t+ould make such a statemeni, on tlie
basis oi such infox�mation because they kno�a� I am suxe� that the crii.eria
that they were given are at the discretion oF the Counc3l and not deter-
mined by Sanister or by Comstock. So� For my point, I would �dvise
Newcombe and Lawrence that this intercepi;or, in my ,7udgement� �itll be
used to provide the outlet ior surface drainage laterals serving t.his
property and that the premise o? their opinion is false, and i,lieis�
opinion based on a false premise is valueless.
It may be relevant but I ask yau to rejecL this particular statement
ae far as your deliberations are concerned. It would appear to me Lhat
the only relevant statement from Newcombe and Lawxence would be r�ith
reference to the appraieal they made on the property in June, 19u1 and
an actual appraisal made today. We would welcome the introduci,ion of
tha� kind of information. Lacking it I refer you to the opinion af our
own appraisor whb has advised you of the substantially incre�ised value
of this land� in lar�e part� due to �he public improvements we h�ve made
in support af it.
On the Faegre and Benson St�tement _ It appears to me, a,�ain� �hat
much of T1r. Holten's stAtement to you is addressed to attackixig � strata-
man which is dewatering. While the attacic i� made with admirable si,yle
and skill� I want, to remind you that is noi, relevant, The hypoi,heszs under
I consideration does not make a direet claim for dewatering beneflie, only
�or surface draina�e.
Secondly� much oP Mr. Ho11,en's statement is addressed Lo a false hypo-
thesis� that the Consulting Ln�ineers determine "'pollcy" auestions sucl!
as service areas and service levels. I am sure Mr. Holtien kno�rs that tlie
Council determinee these thin�s, but apparently� anyway, this Council as
well as several previous councils has made iL very clear, tYiat the area
we say will be served� zaill be served by th�s interceptor. Mr, iIolten
must know that; that only the City Counctl makes this decision� re�ard-
less of what our Consulting Engineer may have assumed fox• design criteria.
�98
If �k�ere is any doubt. in his mind� I v�ill recapitulate the circum-
stt�ncec. If t,he Cii.y Council chase to proceed with "Cadillac" storm �ewer
service� i,he drainage i'acility would probably c�pproximate that which is
del�ned �n the preliminary report.
Hotaever, the City Council has qulte clearly determined �o,load this
interceptor a little more heavily than the designer contemplated in I
his proposal - but �till to operate it taell within the limite of good I
sense. Ide have testimony from the engineers that this ie sensible. _�
Fic hovc been clearly and unequivically been advised by the deaigner
tlzaL the f��cility in que�i,ion can provide service to additional areas
beyond �ilzal.lie contemplated and that 3t would be a reaeonable level
of servire; in other words, a three year design frequency.
The Cri,y Council has m�de a policy decis�on that this will be done� and
iY, �s a mi�ttor that only the Council� not Lhe en�ineer� or the attorney,
or i,h� C �t�� P4a�ger� has the authority a,nd the responsibility to make.
If Mr. Fioltrn can recognize this� we remove a vast amount oi,the
ar�ument from Further consideration. �
Mr. Ho1Len does introduce several arguments ttiat are germaine however�
and thcy r��121,e dtrictly i,o questions of law. I am not qqalified to
commr_ni, on them but you h�ve been advised by our own attorney that there
ie sound lcgal basis for tlie proposal c�hich �ae put forth. '
It seems completely realistic and reasonable to me that the'benefit to
some property is �rrester than to other property. In fac'�� thie seemed
to bc one oi' 6he arguments offered previously in thie matter in court.
M�; 0� ,�heu �n court previously� coni,ended that the benefit should be
determ�ned parcel by parcel on an individual benefit basls." Whnt we
have done is to move in that d uection.
We know I;hz�t because of tkie requirements oT our zoning ordinance� thie , I
properl,y is permitted the most intensive use� the h3ghest use� of any --'
land in the City of Fridley. We have every reaeon to eXpect that it
will deve]op with a high percentage of impervious ground covering of
roofin;, and paving. We have every reason to expeCt that the property
zaill be probected from flaodin� will have a�eneral�y higHer value th�n
most oi,her property in the City. In view of this� we have every reason
I;o expeci, that a storm sewer interceptor v�ould have more value for this
class�ficaLion of property� and that the benefit of the interceptor should
be suU�tanL�ally hi�;her.
I
The qize=,i,ion of whether or not we are permitted� under the statute� to
cons�dcr future use of the property in determinin� this benefit 3s some-
thinf; th�t I am certainly not qualified to discuss on the legal merits,
You have somo remarks from your attorney. However� the argument on
this does not make good sense to me and I cannot imagine that the
le�islature i�ould 3ntend that such a situation prevail.
M�u 0 Yaper has a vested right in the zoning classification whinh most
properLy o�aners defend with greaL- vigar. I suggest to you that� re-
gardlees oS' lihat Mr. Holten's remarks an using this land Yor houses�
if ue �ver ixndertook to recla�siFy that property as R-1� we would hear
a different argument. So� much of the value of the land is not esta-
blzshed l�y the physical properties of the land,�but by the uses s�hich
are perm�l;tecl under the zoning ordinance. I can go into some figurea I
here, Uui, Z think I will skip them but they are substantially who.t the
apprai�or� our City Asses�or� Eave you.
--�
So� thr consideration of the flature use o� the land� aa it id 'deiined
by the zonin�; ordinance� is a vital component in the "value" of "the
land in its undeveloped state. To say then that the Council is not
allo.�ed to consider this componen�; in determining the "benefit",of an
improvement� does not make good sense to me. Part of th3s argument
also implie� i,hat "the last one in gets a free ride�" ii', it were to be
stricL]y interpreted. This mould be especially true in the case of
�J�
intereeptore� inasmuch as at usually happens that an anterceptor does
not provide immediate service to the entire area.
The dnterceptor construction is the necessary firsi, step, Certainly,
a lateral cannot be instal�ed without somepl�ce to discharge� but tae
r_ all know that aniriterceptor may be �available for several years before
i � a propertj� owner may ehoose to take edvantage o£ it. It doe:,n't eeem
i right to me that they ehouldn't be charged their fair share simpLy
' because they developed a little later than someone else.
If Mr. Holten's logic were followed to the letter, at least� it would
mean one of two thin6s and neither of them �re acceptable puhlic policy.
It would meen:
1, That the property osiners that connect to att interceptor
immediately would pay the greatesi, pari, oF the cost, or
2. We would wait until all property is developed beFore
building an interceptor.
Neithex one o� them ia an acceptable alternative.
In summary I would like to recapitulate i.hese £acts, which I don'L
believe ha%e been reilzted by any testimony.
1. You have been advised by our Consultin� �ngineer that it is feasiUle
and reasonable to contamplate using th�s intereeptor to provide
surface-drainage for 42.7 aores of t,he tract in ques�ion. `Giere
hae been no refutation of it.
This may lower the technical descriptiion of the serviee le�re 1
provided� but the practical effec{.s are imponderable. An3, as
— I go thrdugh the area� yesterday� it is rny jud�rmeni, that aFter
� having taken out the Spring Lake Park draina�e i,ha1. it, real]�
� isn't imponderable on whether or not Lhe service level �s dr-
graded at all.
In any event� if the service level is appreciably lese than Zs
contemplated in the ori�inal plans� it will be decrease�l in
like amount throughout the eervice area, and it is a dec��ion
that is clearly within the province of the City Council.
2. Y�ou have beea advised by th� City Manager� the City Assessor and
other stafY that for severel reasons some land benef'its more than
others� and that thls dtfference bears a relationship to zoning
and other factors which detcrmine the order of usage.
Since the more in�ensively used land nox•m�lly l�as a hiUiier run-
off fe,ctor� it creates a much greai�er load on the systetn �han
does land used for lesser purposes� specifically 6hat land ��hic'c�
has more grass around it.
The property receivin� proteciion tends to he more valuahle� ann
that the protection� therefore� is more valuable.
3. You have been advised by the City Attar�ney that the prii�ciplca
under consideration kiave been used else��here in the State �nd
( that insofar as compliance r�ith the laF� and with due respect
I � to the full•rights of the property ownes� the proposal is leeally
supportable.
In toi,el� this proposal represents a formidable amount of siudy and
reseaxch by our staff and by individual counc�lmen� I think� anclud-
ing each of us. In my ,7udgement you have Yieard very lltt].e tesi,irnoney
that ie relevant and nothin� that is convincing� in attaclt on the
proposal so T urge your support b�hen it comes to that que�t�on."
Mayor Nee inquired if any member of the City C,uncil wished to be heard.
There was no one who wished i,o be heard. Mayor Nce declared Llie Public
30U
Ilc2riuf� on uani Lpr,y and Si,arm Sei�er Improvemeni; Project No. 24D dlosed
and sL�iLod the r�dministration could bring a resolution on this item beforc
the Cii,y Cuuncil at a special meetin� the i'ollowing Monday night.
PUTiLIC IIIRAPING ON IMPROV]:I�;NT - S'C. 1965-3�
Mayor Aic� a�znounced a Public I3earing for the consideration of'the City � �
C;ouncil Fox• Street Improvemevt 1965-3. The City Manager read the Notice � I
of licarin�,. Mayor Nee requested the area be located for the benefit of �— '
the Ci1,y �uncil on t,he map. The City Manager explained and locai�ed the
areas� �exvice road construction for Hi�hway �47� end area'from 57th Avenue
on the ideet side of University ,7u�t above theinterchange. He explained
on the West. side it si,arts at C,lst to Mississippi and up to Rice Creek
`Perracc; on the East side up to 5'jth Avenue from 57th all the wsy.to
C7Lh and a short stretch b,y Osborne Road thaL connects the oervice road
alrr.acl,y ln pl�ice, He further explained the State is going to put.in the
service road �n that aree entirely and the city is to participate one
quartcr in the cost of the concrete gutter only and would be aesessed for a
min�mal on a brand new service road with a concrete curb'snc] gutter. Ma.yor
Nee si,ated the Council had before them the cnlculation from the engineer
on what, the cost would be and rather than take the mattBr item by item he
*aould read wh,at the proposal was snd those present could calculate the3r
asses^rieni,. He explained the State of Minneso{�s's share ie �21�581.00 anci .
i,he Cii,�,� of F'riclley's share is �7,568.00 whicYi the City proposea to spread
on i.he properLy on a front foot basis and it would cost about �1.00 per
front foot. Mayor Nee announced if any citizen could give the description
af 1.lie�r properi.y� they could be given an approximate pr3ce of what their
�saessment would be.
Mr, Doyer Palmer was preseni, to inquire regarding his assessment and
stai,ed the property was located ttao blocks on 58th and Univera3ty and
it t�as called i,he Palmer Bennett area and was under the nsme of William �
4lick. IIe stated he was not so concerned about the $850.00 assessment but +�
this w�s a commercial piece of property and he was cnncerned about the —
access. Mayor Nee infornied Mr, Palmer the total assessment of his property
i�ould be aUout $799.00. Cit� Engineer Qureshi explained the access of lots
he o;mea i,o Mr, Palmer. Mr. Ernest Powell was present to ask sbout the
acseasment of his property and stated he k�ad no objection but was merely
inquir�i�g. M�yor Nee inquired if there viere anyone preaent who w3shed
to be heard on tkiis proposal on the service road on University Avenue.
There vas no one present in opposition to the proposed asaesament. Mayor
Nec declare�7 the Public ftearing on Street Improvement 1965-3 elosed,
rcr�z.zc l���zrrc orr Im�ovF,�,;�tT - ss #73:
Mayor I�7ee ai�nounced for the consideration of the City Council a Public
Hearin� on 3torm Sewer Improvement Project �73. The City Me,nager r,ead
the Notice of Hearing and explained that�.basically� the reason for this
proposal just described was the intent and hope of the City Council to
lmprove 7Lh Street from 53rd to Miseissippi Street by using 3tate�Aid Funds
for yrhir.H the City is now eli�ible and build it to a heavy industxial type
consi,ruction orith conerete curb and gutter. He further explained the State
is noc� constructing bridges for Highway #100 over 7th and 3t would haye
direct �ccess nnd the reason for this hearing is that thie piece of 7th�
�n order Lo be improved� needs to get storm sewer construction ouG of I_ I
the v��y so thiat the pavin� will not have to be torn up. The atorm �
sewer ]irie� as proposed� was explained by the City Manager gnd it was � J
ei,a Ced t71e „i,ate is presently constructitig a storm sewer also. The area
to be drained w�s olso explained� based on the preliminary repprt of the
engineers.
Mayor Nee announced that beSore they zaould get into the hearing� the
councilman Srom the werd wished to speak. Councilman Wright stated it
should Le clarified, this construction of the outfall line to the river
had been executed and there had t�een some �.ssesatnent ior 3t� that this
additional service connects this area to it and has been done at the same
time as �69lF for economic reasons and because it will drain the highway
,
G aJ Y
portion of right-o£-way and they had beeri able to enter into an agreement
for ite constsuct3on where they were again saving considerable money,
Mayor Nee asserted there was a probable base figure for this impx•ovement
and the figuree could be roughly calcule�ed, that the estimated cost o�as
$42�000 end the estima.ted assessment per one hundred �quare f'eet was �;2.00,
that part of the property that received notice may not be in the assess-
ment area. He.stated that it was appropriate, at 1,his time� to �nquire iP
anyone were at all concerned about it�.that they had a propo�al that had
been initiated in this instance� principally by the Coqncil rai,her than
a petition of the home owners; that the.entire project was based on the
initiative of the council and it wae submitted to the people as the
Yirst requieite for permitting the access and necessary to the canstruc-
tion oi 7th.Street. Mayor Nee inquired if tYiere were anyone presenC tiho
wished to be heard or wiehed to addresa the City Council. Mr. Duane
Milner inquired regarding the sewer located at the present time at the
end of 53rd Avenue and University end if it were accurate, Councilman
Wright replied�he was coxrect and when Lhe line was completed� Lt, would
@rain, Mr. Milner inquired if it were not possible to get Lhe peo�>le
from Columbia Heights to help pey for this. Mr. Cpmstock, consulttn�
engineer� replied that in the latter par+ of 19�0� by Council direct�on,
his iirm was author3zed to work out storm sewer desi�ns for facilities
which mutuslly involved Columbi� Aeights, City of Pridley and the Minnesot�s
State High�ray,Department; that� at that time, a report wa3 prel�ared
concerning 53rd Avenue. The estimated cost, he explained, was $1E3,000
of which $10�000 was allocated to Fridley and the balance to Columbia
Heights and it was determined to be necessary for,conetruction of 53rd
Avenue. This area� it was explained� is presently under contsact by
tkte M3nneeota State $ighway Department and a portion oi this cost is
considered to be paid £or by the City of Fridley. Councilrnan Wrigl�i.
asserted 53rd Avenue� as mentioned by Mr. Comstock� is being developed
by the Minnesota State Highway Department and Lhis 3s in lieu of a
frontage road ior which there is no room and Fridley was fbrLwiaLe
to,get that ae well as a cooperative agreement, Mr, Milner st�ted
he was probably wrong in assuming there is no sewer on 53rd Avem�e
but 3t was,not adequate. Mr. Comstock replied there were two separate
parts ta this hearing� the improvement proposed is the line polnLed
out 3n the middle of the map and explained the stub on 7th Str�et 31so
the line on'S4th Avenue and further explained that part of this improve-
ment ia presently constructed with the City and goes on 53rd Avenue from
7th Street to University� up University to 54th Avenue� continuing on
up to the exieting facilii,y in Highway �100; also, a stub l�ne �n i,he
interchan�e. He further explained thst some of the wai.er from ttie
Northerly portion would drain into the highway department and ini,o tYic
etorm sewer syetem'. Nle�yor Nee announced that a half hour prc�viaias they
had made thei,r consulting engineer look a little bad and didn't re¢lly
have this intention and it was for the purpose of Goming to an agreemeni.
and saving some money from the M& 0 Paper Company.
Mayor Nee inqu3red if there were anyone else who wiskted to be he�rd
on the project, Mr. Art Mari,2nrequested a breakdown on the 'assessment
for his property saying he had a 7� foot frontage and giving tiis leGa1
description as I,ot 17� Block 1. Councilman Wright replied h1s estlmal.ed
aeseasment wae $199•50. Mayor Nee explained the City of Px•idley could
Finance these aseeaements pver a perind of ye�rs if it was so wished.
Mr. Martin replied many of the residenLs woulci be coueerned abouL t,his
and inquired'if they were going to improve 7th and widen it lF they
would be doing the eame in Columbia Hei�hts. Mayor Nee replied i6 ro�as
hoped Columbie Heights would do this but they were not certain as yet.
Councilman 41ri�ht explained the thinking o£ the Ci;y Council �aas not
accese so much ea a well developed North-South arteri�l so Lhai, people
could get to sll immediate points without going onto a super higYniay
and it was meant for internal transit in the czty, Mayor Nee infornied
those present the street would be similar or i,he same as the street going
up to the h3gh school. Mr. Martxn inquired ii there would be then
another asaesament. Councilman Wri�ht replied if he fronted on it and
it would lie on a front foot basis� that the highway departmenl; is build-
ing sn approech so that the paving project would be from Ckieri Lane i,o
53rd Avenue, Mayor Nee explained the bulk of the price would be paid
d52
ouL.of ga,s Lax refunds. It mas iurther explained by Councilman Wright
i,he residents would be gett�ng an extra qualit,y street and the difference
was pazd for by gas refunds. The question was raised re�arding 53rd
Avenue if i;his was �oing to be a state built road and would it be widened
and the t,ype of con�tructian. Mayor Nee replied it would be �F4 feet
and would be a concrete curb and gutter construction. Mr. David Schaper
anquired re�rarding hie as�essment, Councilman Wright replied if his
legal description were Lot 16 and the 5-1�2 of Lot 17'his asaeasment
would 6e �s157,00. Mr. Richsrd L. Syers of 5300 - 5th Street lnquired �--
regarding Yii� assessment. The City Mana�er replied his lega.l descrip-
t3on would i,hen be Lots 14 and 15, Block 1�+ oP Hamilton's Add3tion
i�o Mechanacsville and his estlmated assesament would be �104,90
an cacki loi., Mr. Clayton Elsberry etated he was represent3ng Roslyn
Pnrk WP;leyan Church and �rq uired re�rarding their asseasment, The
Cii;y Managcr replied it would be approximately $677.00, Mr, Wa�me -
Webb ��ve his description as Lot 5, Slock 13, Temple 4'errace and in-
quared reg�rding his assessment. Councilman Wright replied'it would
t>e approximai,ely $199•50. The question we� raised by a re�ident '
if 59rd Avenue were going to be constructed with state funda and'the3r
own storm sewer� why it was ,^included in on this area. Msyor Nee
replied the City had made �a negotiated deal and had,been able to get
a very goocl �rrangement from the State Highway Department. Cauncilman
Sheridan explained the total project to serve this area within the
.line ind�cated on i,he map would be about $60,000 for the storm sewer �
and tlu , o�ould be 53rd� 54i,h and part on 7th Street; that� under the
previous negot�ations with the Minnesota Highway Department they a�reed
{,o build 53rd and put in the storm sewer at no cost to the City, He
furLher explained however, that everything within the line was in the
si.orm sewer district and oP the,$60�000� $36,00o was a11 that was being
assesscd and if the �tate were not participating in the storm sewer
project ttaere would Ue an �seessment of �60,,000 for the same amount oY
pipe To serve th3s area axid t}lls was not quite 60� of the actual cost. I
Councilman ldri�ht asserted the policy oi' the City Council is that wherever �
possiblc� i,hey are attempting Lo define storm sewer d�:stricts which are
exact,7.y contiguouc to one another andy within these,�districts,'come as
cloen as pnsr�ble to an equal spread for the citizene,. $e,exp]sined
t,liis wa , tlie feeling of i.he Council members of the £a.irest � overall
po�sible wa,y, that they zaeren't negotiating for the people who happened
to live next i,o i,he part ai'fected, they were negotiating for the entire
City. ,
The question was raised by a resident, that accord3ng to council
tesi;imnny the City Cauncil mtakes the plans where the money cdmes £rom
for storm eerorers, and why hadn't it been placed in a general fund like
other muvicipalities. Mayor Nee replied there was quite a'discussion
at the presenL i,ime and wrat they �aere i'aced with �as people such as
thtis res�den{ wii,h� not low� but moderate assessments and some that
run hzp,h and this was hard for the council to rationalize and they
were try�ng l.o equalize it throughout Lhe city. It.was stated by a
residenb hc had heen told Columbia }Iei�hts used this toethod. Mayor
Idee re�tied it did and the}� have not butilt storm sewers and th3s was
the problem� Lhat there was some validity tio it and.it hs.d been heavily
discussed. Councilman Sheridan stated I;haL- to basically answer this
resideni;'s question, the entire City oi' I'ridley will be within ona
storm :ewer district or another and whai, 6he Council was tryin� to do
was ev�ntuall,y all the storm districts would have an equal asaessment. _�
IIe explained Lhet when storm sewers were originally iriitiated� there
��ere some are�s paying $5.50 or �6.00 per 100 square feet which was way
oui, of proporttion. Mr. C1ayLon F3lsberry of Roslyn Park Wealeyan Church
�nquared if �t would be po:sible to combine two assessments and make
,7uet one payment annually. P�fayor Nee replied they could,do almost anq-
thing to take care of it because it was an administrative a�reement on
the church property. The Finance Director explained the City collects
the money �nd they do not certify it over a period of years to the,County.
Councilman Sheridan asserted, from a budget standpoint� the church
�aould lilce to have this as one payment and it could be added to their
pa,ymeni,. The Finance Director explained his department did,send out an
itc�mizcd sf,atement on all church property.
�
v��r
The question was xaised when the proposed start of the storm sewer
work would be on 7th Street� the date the asessmeni, taxation would ga
into effect and the final date the residents could pay ii, up in f'ull
without paying 3nterest. Mr. Comstock replied if the improvement was
ordez�ed� it would take four to five weeks i.o finish final plFanning� and
then there would be the state aid section for work on 7th S6reel,, bids
in early spring or late winter and construction should be complet,ed
in the next construction eeason wii�h the assessment prlor to Oc�.ober
lst of next year. It was explsined by i,he Clty Manager if Lhe assessment
roll were certiiied by October lOth of the following year} the i'irst
payment would be due in 1966 and it,would be 30 days from the dat.e of the
hearing on the assessment which would be 30 days from that dai,e and be
paid without interest.
It was stated that with reference to noi,ices on assessment payments,
quite a£ew of the people didn't receive notices. Mayor Nee re�lie�l
the t3tle of those.properties might not be clear or might ;uive �
contract. The Finance Director explained natir.es were seni; to every legal
description involved in this dr�inage district and notices iaere senL
to the people listed on the records of Anoka County. Mayor Nee asserted
it was poesible there was ¢n error but generally this wou]d be on a
Contract for Deed and it would heve gane to the title holder, Mr.
Wayne Flentie of 5310-�4th Street inq.uired why Columbia Hei�rhts could
pay less then Fridley Yor a storm aewer� that several years Uack he
had had a water problem and 96� of the water had come from Cnlumbia
Heighte. Msyor Nee replied it was me.inly because they were taking care
of their own water. Mr. Flentie stated he should have been paid for
damages and lose amounting to $5500. Mayor Nee asserted they tiad enlisted
the highway department and other parties and they had been t,rying to ge�:
Columbis Heigh�s to meet their xeeponsibilities. Councilman Wr1ghL
stated it should be justzfied in asking why the Council doesn't sue
Columbia Heights� and explained tha�� first of all� in the case of
Un3versity Avenue they had had some ,delicate aesociations and stood
to gain or loee a great deal more then they expected to recover from
Colum6ia Heighte. Mayor Nee asaerted the City of Fridley was i:ry�n�
to take care of their paxt of this.
The question wae raieed why so much pipe was necessary as thir was a
good natural drainage area. Mayor Nee replied thai part of it relates
to not teaxirig up the street. Mr. Comsl.ock explained there was a si,ub
line on 7th Street and this is necessary to meet standarde for Minnesottr
State Aid participetion and the main reason for the facility ori 7th
Street is�for the�same purpose. It was meniioned by a resident in relation
to 7th Street it already has a valley gutter in Columbia He3ghts. Mr.
Comstock replied the street in Columbia Helghts would not then Ue up to
Minnesota State Aid standards. The question was.raised why the porttion
of the conetruction.on 7th Street is only a block long an�l why doesn't
it �o out to the highway and drain. Mayor Nee repl3ed it �rould cost
more and the City already owns an outlet that it drains to an3 would be
more expensive, The question was raised as t.hey were going 1.o run
water down 7th Street where the water would go. Mayor Nee replied i;hey
were putting in a new 72 inch pipe. A resident asked regarding the
intersection or 54th and 7th Street going Wesi,� that that si,reet only
�oes two bloeka and•it is unpaved and what the City Councal proposed
to do with it after the storm sewer was in. He expla3ned that from
7th Street and 54th Avenue going to 5th� the street was unpaved and
there are no homes on it and this street doesn't go on to University
Avenue. It was further inquired 3f the City would propose to put the
street through yards. Councilman Wright x•epl�ed the City owned an
easement necessary for construction throu�h to University Avenue. The
question was raised if there were any proposed improvement on t.h�L
street. Counc3lman Wright replied there was and they had petitions fox
aboUt 50�. Mayor Nee asserted the principal problem now was to get the
water off of 7th �utreet. The question was raised by a resident if 6here
were gd�ng to be a storm sewer down 53rd Avenue also, Moyor Nee replied
it was a packa�e arrangement the City had made. Mr. ComsLock explazned
when thie project was originally studierl by l.lie �hree pari.i�s involv�3�
254
thF arran�ement arxived �t was the most economical solution to the
problem a�zd t]zere would be a necessity to provide drainage on 5�th
Flvenuc. He fur6her explained �he present need is baeically on 7th
3treei, but, in t:he Fut,ure, there will be need on. 54th Avenue also. Mgyor
Nee staLed this was based on the assumption the people in the area would
want j�ELh Avenue finiehed. Councilman Sheridan replied there wae a pet3-
tion ozhich had already been presented for this,
Mayor Nee inquired if there were anyone else who wi�hed,to be heard on -�
i�his m,ai,ter. There was no one who wished to be heard on the�proposed
improvement and no one in opposition. Mayor Nee declared the Public
Hear�n� on Stnrm Sewer Project ��73 closed.
OLD DUSTN�ISfi:
���OPID-RF,pDING
.02 - T�7RE
�, �
Mayor Pdee announced for the consideration of the City Couneil an
ordinance they had ori�inally passed regarding the appointment of a
Fim Ctiief ani� a letter of advice from the Fire Department with a
second ox�linance on the same matter. He explained the City Manager
c�as nuL correct in saying they needed to hold a firat read3ng on the
ord�nance and they need only to amend the ordinance that had first
heen read and if they wished to include the last two paragraphs pf
the proposed ord�nance they could. Mayor Nee inquired if there were
�ny memt�er of Lhe Fire Drpartment prescnt.
Pire Chief Robert Hu�hes was present and stated to members of the City
Council i,here were same miYed feelings with the membera aY the Fire
DeparLment; ti7at some were concerned about the type of appoin�ment
and hot� the ckuef would be selected, Mayor Nee announced for the
inform�f,ion of the publ.ic� the item under consideration wss that they
employ a ftall i.ime profes°ional Fire Chiei and that he would� after
this ordinance i,akes effect� not be elected by the Fire Depar,tment
but be appointed by the City Manager with the concurrence of the City
Council, i,hat his own feeling wus that they were geCting such a sub-
stantial capii,�l plant investment in the Fire Department that he�
a(, le�sl,� fcli, it was appropriate to have a cit,y employee be ulti-
mately respon,ible for it. Councilman Wright explained that Council=,
man Sheridan ond himself had atbended the Fire Mee�ing at which,this
matrer y�as discussed and it zaas his impression that the only'bpposi-
tion Lo thi, proposal centere�3 around the means the Ch1ef was to be
seleci,ed, thai� it was further his opinion} the second ordinance drawn
was quite satiisfactory. Chief Hughes asserted the Fire Department
had not taanted this item to be a political football. Mayor Nee,
sug�;esi,ed the City Council could strike thc first paragraph fallowing
i.he bold face paragraph in the origina.l ordinance and insert �the two
par�z�raphs in the same regard from the proposed ordinance.
Motion Uy Wri;ht that the ordinance amending Chapter 1 of the Fridley
City Code by providing for the appointment of a F3re Chief on a full
time basis and repeal3ng tha1, portion of Section 31.02 oi the City Code
provldln� for {,he election of the Chief of the Fire Depertment'be i
amended as it reads in the proposed ordinance. Seconded by Sheridan. I
Upon a voice vote� there being no nays� the motion esrried unanimous7y. `
� _ _I
Mayor Nee announced the ordinance now before the City Council was
substanitally the same and for the information of the department� the
difference is bhe 3nterjection of the Chie£ in the line oi suGhor3ty
and control. Th� Charter was reYerred to and explained by the C�ty ,
Manager in �his regard. Counc3lman Wright stated thia W�a ju,st,a
matter oP proper organization and administration. Mr. Robert Aldrich,
asserted this represented a change� thatpreviously there had been no ;
meni,ion of the Fire•Department in relation3hip to the C3ty Manager under
thP Charter. Mayor Nee replied it wasnpractical matter and there
4
L v �J
really would be no change� that the City Council was very happy with
the pex�ox'mence of the Fire Depaxtment and 1,he City A7anagex Felt this
was the proper etructure with relationship to city employees and he
believed this was true under the Charter and he could not be put out-
s3de that relationehip. Mayor Nee explained there were only two offtice�
not under the direction of the City Man�,ger and they were the City
Attorney and,the consulting engineering #'irm. Councllman Llri�ht ex-
plained it was the same with the PoliceDepartment, Mr. Aldrich replied
that would be true only after it went through the Civil Service
Coum�ission. Chiei Hughes explained that prlor to the adoption of the
Charter the Fire Department didn't come under the direction of l,he
City Manager and he wasn't aware of where the power was regardin�; the
budget. Mayor Nee asserted that he couldn't imagine anythinE; would Ue
changed except the department would have a Pull time Chief and i.7ie Chief
would not operate any differently then noui except he would be fu11 time.
City Manager Wagner stated he wished to point out that the ordine3nce
and all of this conversation was not the idea of the C2ty Manager in that
the City Courlcil felt the I'ire Chief duties sl�ould be spelled out more
specifically� that the fact this posit3on was listed in the Charter
was something that could not be avoided and he was surprised this polnt
h�d been brought up. He explained this was merely a procedure the
Charter se�ts up and the Charter,� requires thatit go through the
City Nlanager. Mr. Aldrich asserted he wished to meke his position clear�
these things that the members of the depari.ment were bringinlS up to night
were not necessarily their opinions� they iaere trying to give i,he City
Council the'thoughts and opinions of the members of the departrnerit, so
they could retuxn td them with the answers aiid no indications had
been meant. ,
Mr. Ed Ellie stated the Fire Departmen� had one faction ag�+inst
another factlon over,this problem. Mayor Nee sbated he felt with
the smount,of'public.money committ,ed in i.he department that Lt should
, be under the control of i.he City. Mr. �llis replied there were
thousands of departments larger than Fridley'., working just, �s iheir's
was. It was e�l,ained by Mayor Nee this titem had been under discuesion
for a number of yeare. Mr. Wilbur Whitmore, citizen� que�l,ionecl I,Yie
real need,for this appointment and aiated he wished to know if ttiey
would give tke addit3,onA1 service for the dollars rendered and wondered
3f a paid employee could do that much more than a�olunteer� tha�iall
of tlie men iri the depar�ment are dedicated and the pai3 persunel is
��rowing and w3th addil,ional expenditures i'or �ervices� the amouni. of
money spent has increased though the total tax load didn'i, increase,
He explained this was offset due 1:o the facL that o�kier expenditiares
were reduced and since this department had been fu�ctionin� so r�el1
with dedicated men� he presumed the people ihat handled the money were
satisfa�tory� that if Fridley were at a positzon uher� they taould �ain
someth3ng substantial that a volunteer couldn'L in the way of �ervzce
that would be another questton. Councllman UJright replied it. vas not
e matter of the Uonding of an individual z�ho handles money� �t oas
rather the forma.l responsibil3ty of an individual wtio �s in cLarge uf
the use and avod:ding the abuse of expensive equipment and Chey �ie,re
concerned w�.th the equipment. He explained there was very good evzdenc�
that a paid full t3me chief� while 3t doesn't change i,he cornpetence
oi e man� it does change the amount of time he is ayailable t�nd they
knew there could be savings xn more cenLrnlized control of the clepart-
�-- ment and the nature of the items they could save money on he didn't
I think this was the time to mention. Mr. V. M. Nagel� resident, stat,ed
� it crould eventually change the fire ratin�, from a classification
point oS view from Class 7 to Clasa G� thaL he wasn't certain how rnany
paid people �hey would need but this appoLnt,rr,znt would accorripli�l� that.
Mr. Ellis stated he was not against a paid chieF but he vas loolung
out after the welfare of the department and they would have to have
quite a few men before the fire rating iaould decrease� that he iias sigs•ee-
able that a chief should be paid some compensation for his working hours
but He did not like to see the department split on this �Le�u. PQayor
ti56
Nre repLed lie fclt thi� r�ould be resolved ance the decisjon was made
and did not think anyone would quarrel wath the appointment that was
�n ever,yone'G mind. Councilman Sheridan stated he felt the discusaion
on tlie item had been good fram both sides. Caun�ilm6n Kirkham'asserted
they ��ere c31]_ in agreement i,hey wished to strengthen the Fire Department
but l�e Felt t,he consideration Mr. Nagel pointed out was coneidered by
the CiLy Council and this vould not necessarily mean an increase in 'the i
end f�6r the cost of operating the Fire Department but it would aubstan- J
tia11;� lncrease the efficiency and a full time chie£ would make 3t even
l,etter. _
MoLion h,� �heridan to accept the Necond reading� adopt and publish
Ordinance ��y0 amending Chapter ]. of the Fridley City Code by prou3ding
For the appointment of a I'ire Chief on a full time bas3s and repealing
i;hat portion of Secl,ion 31.02 of the Cii,y Code providing for the election
of Lhc Chief of the Fire Depari,ment as amended. Seconded by FCirkham.
Upon a voice vote� there being no nays� i,he motion cerried unanimously.
EID:i - ��i�1 �f'jp (TILBLED 11�2�64):
Niayor Nr.e announced for the consideration of the City Council bids
For SaniLary Sewer and Wai.er Improvement Project �'j0 tabled.from
Novembei• 2nd. Tr,� City Mana�re r reported Lhey hadn't been able to get •
cxci,u�l e�s�ments� that in rrew Brighton and also Rivezview Terrace
they had been worlcing as he had reported and were having difiiculty
on some lol,s, that a substantial amount of the probl2me had been taken
c�re oC ou� l,here wae an item of a quit claim deed. Councilman Wri�ht
nesort,-r_�1 1t, tir,as t,ime to authorize i;he City Manr3�;er to proceed by
condemnatiori if necess�ry so that lt would be unnecessary to return the
matter Lo the City Council. City Attoxney Smith replied it would be
necessaxy to authorize the City l�ttorney to proceed. The City Manager I
explainecl �,he second problem mas tk�e prot�lem where they had four
recidenLs on Stinson Boulevard South of Gardena who could connect to
Tdeu Br�gliton and they had some figures now that the Finanee Director.
worked from fi�;ures received from New Brighton for.connecting. He
further explained the residents had stated they would like to know
about these figures and if the different3al wasn't too great they would
rather hook up to Fridley then New Brighton. He stated that depending
on hocr Lhe Council would determine the assessment for this SW #70� if
that averaged the cost out, they would have a figure for that and if
they assessecl each particular project, it would he higher so the figures
they liad wou]d be with five parcele involved and the low Yigux�e in
I'ridley �vou.ld be :�77n.00 approximately a.nd the high would be $1�075.00
wlth the com��arable cost in New Bri�hton of $6�16.00 and the'cost in
P'rtidley wras higher. The question e�as rra�ised if there w�se any Council
precedent Cox• not considering th�s type of thing as a unit or if that
wae � dreision the Council makes for each-and every improvement: The
City N1�na�er replied the Council dec3ded based on the improvement.
The qur_stion was ralsed by a resident why they had osdered sewer into
this area and not r.ater as he had not lived there at the time and
didn't l:now r�nd had never been given an adequate answer to that question.
Nr, Com�tocic, consulting en�ineer� replied �t msy have been just
petitioned tor sewer. The City Manager explained the water line we.s
a lateral and a m�,7or transmiss3on line is handledt3f£ereritly than a
lal,eral and thcre is no reason �o put a major transmisa3on down in that I
area. Counrilman Wright asserte� it was a precedsnt�, both ways. Residents I
were �iven indivirival approximate assesement amounts upon request� �
di�cussed the pro,ject and who would beneiit and it wae agreed the
resldent,s would hooh.. onto the v�aterservice of New Brighton. Mayor
Nee explainerl i,he Caty would help the residents expedite the matter
and tY�ey could contact the City Engineer. It was euggested by the
City Mana�er they could authorize and direct him to contact,,the V311age
oF New Brighto❑ to inform tl�em of the action taken and let the citiz�ns
make theLr' individual deals.
u��
Motion by Wright that the City Manager be directed to negottai;e on be-
half of the five citizens listed under SW ��70 for water service tn t11
the Village of,New Brighton. Seconded by Sherzdan. Upon o vozce vote,
there being no nays� the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Nee announced the considerataon of the bids on Project ��:iW fC70.
Couneilman Sheridan stated the only way he would be in favor of lettiu�,
the bids would he 3f easements wexe obteined. Councilman idri�;ht, suggested
they could pase a resolution authoriz�ng the purchase of land and if
this were not possible� City Attorney Smith could start condemnaLLOn,
that thia would not delay the project too much. It was reported hy the
City.Mansger they would have until the lOth of the month tio concur
and the staff'had hopes of clearing the matters before then. Couxicilm�n
Sheridan inquired if the area in question had not pel,3tioned for tYils
iIDprovement. City Manager Wagner replied they had petitioned for t,he street
amd ktad beem adv3eed tHe3z wQujd have tp get sewer amd water fyret, that
there was an actual easement from Mr. Braley in the area and a slant had
to be worked out for Mr. Se�ner and one easemept for Mr. Veit.
Mr. Comstock� consul�ing engineer� explained 1.o the City Council there
was some work on Ironton Street that was a requirement of tYie conl,racL
to be done �first and this work did not have to be done this fall unless
t2lere was some other purpose. Councilman Wright asserted they could
then award the contract and take a month to get the easements. Mr,
Comstock replied the important thin� was if tlie contract �aas awarded
was that the Council would proceed with the wor1= on Ironton Sl,reei,�
that they had been informed by the low bldder lie would noL- delete t.his
from the contract because it was more than 20� of the, contracL. Council-
man Wright inquired of the Crty Attorney what could be done 1;o terminai.e
the condemnation proceedings if i.hey were started. City Ai.torney SmiLh
replied there were special terms in Anoka and he would have time to
prepare the petition as the statute requxres twenty days not�ce and zf
he could get euthorization by the f3rst of December he could be zncluded
in the special term on December 21at. Councilman Sheridan explained
the reason he wisHed to stay away on condemnation was that he didn't
feel the City'should be the one to go in and settle some individual
arguments and if the residents have been able to get together and give
the necessary easementa he would be in Pavor oF that. Councilrnan WrighL
stated �he reaidents ere a�reed tYiey want �.Yiis improvement done and
have tried to reach sn'agreement and have ¢lmost done so and all thr�t: remain�
ie to get the easements necess�ry and in the case oi unresolvable
change of minds the Council should authorize City Attorney Smlth to
proceed with Gondemnation but not necessarily direct him. Il, was reported
by the City Manager this problem had been discussed for some i,wo or
three years� that originally it started from the peo�le in tl�e South
end and the Streets end Utilities Conanittee had worked on this for
two years and they are interested in getting it completed and feel it
is a necessary part of the road plan. Mayor Nee asserted he would be
willing to vote for condemnation if it were necessary,
Motion by Sheridan to award b3ds on Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvement
Project No. 70 to Chapman Construction Company of 2009 Alabama Avenue,
Minneapolis� Minneaota 5541L� in the amount oF $29,397•50 on the re-
commendation of the consulting engineern. Seconded by Wr3ght. Upon
a roll ce�ll vote� thoae voting aye Nee� Wright� Sheridan� Kirkham.
�- Those voting nay� none. The motion carried unanimously. City Attorney
Smith explained the,t as the City Council uould be meetin� 1,he ibllo��in�
Monday� he would preeent the reschlsution necessary at that Lime.
BIDS - USED SWEF�PER (TABI�D 11�2�64):
Mayor Nee announced for the consideration of the Cib�. Council t,he
bids io�' a used sweeper tabled from NovemUer 2nd and steted t,here wa�
a time cost study by the administration. It was explained by i,he
Citiy Manager there was an additional study in �ahich City Ln�;ineez
25�
Ruresh� ee.tim�ted the savings to be $1�995 per year on a new eweeper
and the City Council could re�ect these used sweeper bida end authorize
bids For n ne�a sweeper wii.h a down payment of �6t000 or $7�000 in the
next l,tao ��ears. . ,
P�otion by Slri�;ht that the City Council re,7ect the bids for a used sweeper
and author�ze administration to readvertise for a new aelf-loading
sweeper to be financed by a$6�000 to $7,000 down payment from funds
in 19C4 and 1965 with the balance to be budgeted in the 1966�Bud�et.
Seconded bv uheridan. Mayor Nee st�ted for i.he benefit oi the puYulic� the
CCt,y Coiancil saas contemplai,in� the purchase of a new sweeper'�e leee
than �� ueed s4ieeper� the cost per curb mile is $1+4.80 as against �17.85
and usting the new type machines F�ith labor �aving devices it ia cal-
cula6ed LYie addi�ional cost will be oifset in laUor saving in about two
,years. He £urther explained it looked to be quite reasonable.and pru-
dent i,o movF !'rom �he consideration of a used machine to the consider-
r�tson oI' a iiee� mach�ne. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays� the
moL-�on carr�eci unanimausly. .
COMMIT'17�E AP}'OINTMENTS (TARLED 11�2��11) :
Mayor Plre announGed for the consideration of.the City Council committee
appoznianeni,: i'or the Board oi Appeals and Parks and Playgrounds Sub-
cammi i;tt-�e.
Pdota on 1,�� 6dr Lf�ht• to table the appoinl,ments for the Boe.rd ,oY Appeals
ancl P<ark.� and Ylay�rounds SuU-committee vacancies to the next regular
meetin�, fSr.ronded by Kirkham. Upon a voice wte� there being no nays�
tl�e moi,ion caxried unanamously.
Sl?COND RP�ADING OI' ORDINANCI', ��291 AMENDING CFIAPTER 26:
Mayor Piee amiounced for the consideration of i�he Cit.}i Council the
second readzn,; o" an ordinance amending Chapter 26 and stated it was
expanrlin� the dePiniLion of fire arms to include B-B guns� air guns
and pel]ei, (,vns.
Moiaon b�� Ktirl:liam to accept as second reading� adopt,and publish
Ordinance �}2y1 which is an ordinance relating to the enla�gement
of the i.orm Cirearms so as to include 13-Il guns, air guns and pellet
guns an�� ame�7d�ng Chapter 2`0 of the Pridley City Code. Seconded by
WrighL. Upon a vo�ce vote� there being no naye� the motiop carried
una n� mou s l �� . .
i3TP� - THIJCY (OPENPD NOON, NOVEMBER 16� 1961+):
Maj�or N�e prmounced the truck blds opene�l tihis day for the consider-
ation o� Lhe City Councal. The City Mana�er presented the bids and
rcad as follo�v�: ` .
➢IDDFR � BID S�CURSTY BASE BID ALTERNATE "A" DEL�RY
DATC
Main i4o{;or Sa.les Co
222 L. 1�4:a �n
Ai�oka, A1 i nn.
Y✓a��or Por�]
2905 �a�,l: I,��e st.
Mpl;,., M�nn.
Ceri,ified
Check
�u5.00
Fed. Ins.
Ilid Bond
5��
Chevrolet
$i,Eg8.00 Add�$16o.00
Co. Ford
Rancher -- y
.p1,6S6.00 Add $1�C7.6o
Ford F100
�i,636.0o Ada $153:10
3o Days
30 - �+5
Days
- -'
- -�
���
BIDD�R BID SECiJRITY
Midway Ford Agricultural
1E15Q Universi'�y Ave, Ins. Co.
Mpls.� Minn. Bid Bond
5�
Osseo Cheirrolet Certified
208 CentraliAve. - Check
Osseo, ffiinn. � • $85.00
BAS� EID ALTERNATE "A" Dt�;LIViRY
n��c
Ford F-]00
$1,573.0o naa $17i,90
Pord Palcon
$1,702.0o aaa $�iz7.6o
Chevrolet .
$1, 668. E3G Add �134.60
30 - Co
Days
30 - �5
Da,ys
He stated he had a su�ary by the City En�ineer� and the Direc-cor nP
Public Works�stating they had examined the bids and found LYie lou�
bidder to be MidWay Ford,wzth second low bidder to be Ossco Chevrolet
and were reCOru�ending Midway P'ord of 1850 University Avenue� Minneapolls
Minnesota in the amount of �1744•90•
Motion by Wr3ght that the Czty Council a�aard the bid for a ncw truck to
Midway Ford} of 1850 University Avenue� Minneapolis, MinnesoLa inthe
amount'of $1�74�.90 Yor a Ford F-100 concurring with the recommPnd-
a�kion of.t�ie Eng3neering Department. Seconded by Sheridan. Upan a vo�ce
vote� there 6eing no nays� �he motion carxied unanimously.
BIDS - SNOW PLOW (OPENED NOON, NOVEMBER lo, 1964):
Mayor Nee announCed bids f4r a snow plow opened thi� day for the con-
s�deration of the City Council. The City Manager read the bids received
as follows:
BIDDER
Road Mach. & Supply
4g01 W. 78th 9treet
Mpl�.� Minn.
BID SECURTTY
Cert. Cheek
$95•00
Hay3en-Murphy Equip. Co, Cert. Check
4501 Hiawatha Ave, $75.00
Mpls.� Minn.
L�ttle Falls Mach. Shop, Cert. Ch§ck
Ljttle Falls'� Minn. .$60,00
Chas. Olson & Sons Inc. Cert. Check
Mpls. 8� Minn. �1D3,00
LUMP SUM BID
$1,696.00
�S1�OZF�.50
�i1,180.00
$2,027.00
DELIVL'RY DATt:
2 to 3 vieeks
5 Days
3 Lleelcs
and stated there was a report frpm the DirPCtor of Public Works and
�ngineering Department which gave preference and best equipment listed
for the money snd recommended the bid of Road Machinery and Supply be
accepted and the reesons for his decision. It �aas explairied by the
City Manager there was only one problem in Lhe recommendaLion and thai,
was they had �2900 budgeted for the items they were d3scussin� and
they were talking �2fb0 with the low bid ot these i,wo pieces of equip-
ment and about �500 over the amount allocated. Mayor Nee asserted
the best cho3ce would be the hydraul3c equipment. The Cii.y Maua�er
explained that sccording to the budget the�� vere under bn the price
of the truck snd over on this snow plov. Councilrnan Sheridan agreed
that Road and Maehinery and Supply had all the desirable recommendations.
C1ty Engi.neer Qureshi explained adjustable plowa on reque,t oi Counci]-
man Wright.
Motion by Sheridan to nccept the recommendation or tkie Eng�neerin�
Department� accept and award the bid f'or a new snow plow to Road
Machinery and Supply of 4901 W„ 7bth Street� Minneapolis� blinnesota
in the amount o� $i696,00. Secanded by Wright. Upon rz voice vote,
there being no nays� the motion carried unanimously,
�6�
BOARD OP �#P]'PAT� MC�TING MINi1TES� NOVL'MBER �F, i964:
The Cit,y Manager read to Lhe City Council the recommended �pproval
of the 13oF�rd of �lppeals and explained the Aoard� by motion� recouunended
the variance requested because it does not cut off light or ai� f`rom
any �ossible adjoinin� neighbors. � •
Moi,ion b,y� 3heridan to concur with the recommendatinn oY the Board of
Appeals and grant the request for a variance from Section 45,26� City
code of Pridley, Minnesota 196`j by waiver of front yard.setback from
35 i'eei i,o 2j feet and a request for.a variance from Sect3on 45+25�
City Code of Fridley, Minnesota 1963, by saaives of rear yard eetback
fr�m 30 feet �.0 17 feet to permit construction of a rectory on lot�
1G and 771 Blocic 15, Hamilton's addition to MecHanicsville� Anoka
Couni,y, Minnesota� same being on tha NorthQast corner of 53rd Avenue
and 5L1� Si,rceL NorthPast, (Requeet by Reverend Clayton P. Elsberry�
Past,or� Rosl,yr� Park Wesleyan Methodist Church� 5331 - 6th Street
Nprthea:,i,� Fridley� Minnesota. ueconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote�
there be�_ng no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
PI.AnINCN(; CONIM75;ION MGFTING MINUTES� NOV�MB�R 12� i964:
LOT SPLIT PPRCILST: L. S.-�64-24 GILBERT SAKAItSASON: LOT 6, BLQCK 1,
VAN CLEFlVLI'�i I�DDITION: • . -
The Cit;y hlana�;er read to the City Council the recommended apprOVa3.
of thc� Planning Cormn3ssion. .
Motioii Uy ICirY.ham to concur taith the reco�nenda�ion of the Planning
Commission and �rant the 1ot split request, L. S. #64-2�+; to GSlbert
Sakariason� Lot 6� i3lock 1� Van Cleave's Addition. Seconded Ly
3heridan. Upon a voice votc� there being no nays� the motion carried
unanimouely. . -
I'I;OPOuF;D ORnTNANCl3 AMCNDING CfIAP`1'ER 45 RSLATING TO CLASSIFICATION OF
ADDIT]ONAL 7,ON]NG DiSTRIC'CS:
Thc C�,ty h7a��a�;er explained to the City Counci7. the action taken by
the Plannxn�; Commission regarding the addition of zoning d3stricts
and stated Lliere Wa� no action necessary.
He also si,ated there was a communication f`rom the Chamher of Commerce
regaidZng Thr_3sen's Market which they had received and filed.
SAITTY CONIIdTT7�E MF�7'ING MINUTLS� NOV�NISER 4, 1964:
Mayor Nce announced for the consi�eration of bhe Cii.y Council �he
recei1�1, of i,lie minutee of 1,he Safety Committee Meeting,
tdotion b; �Sirkham to receive and iile the mimrtes oi' the Saiety
Comm�ttee Mc�ei,i_ng held November 4} i964. � Seconded by WrigYlt. Upon
a volce vote, i;here being na nays, the motion.carried unaniIDOUSly.
���
COMMUNICATIONS:
: STR�ET NAMB CHANGE - LINCOLN STRE�T:
: STREET NAME CF GE -�UINCY STREST:
Mayor Nee requested an explanation oi the requested street n�ame ckianges
from City Engineer Qareshi. City Engineer Qureshi explained the street
pattern and that there would be no problem in changin� the streeL names.
City Attorney Smith usserted the•only question he would have �aould be if
these etreets ahould be called "YTay" rat,her than "Street" if they were
on the West aide of the railroad tracks, that all of the streets west
of the railroad tracks had always been called Zday. Councilmon Wright
replied all of the east-west streets but not this one in question. It
was explained by the City Manager if the City Council conr.urred with
the reco�endation they would direct a resolution on both street name
changes at•one time.
RESOLUTION �2�F4-1964 �CHANGING •STREET NAMES :
Motion by Wright to adopt Resolution �2�F4-1g64 that Lincoln Si,reet
Northesat�from 79th Way to Irontan Street be hereby renamed AshLon
Avenue Northeaet and that Quincy Street in Pdelody Manor� 3rd Addition
be named and°1COneidered herea#'ter a_portion of Memory Lane and so named.
Seconded hy Sheridan. IIpon a voice vote, there being no nays� the
motion carried unanimausly.
Councilman Sheridan explained there wae an area within the Cit,y near
him where the streets were named Regis Terrace, Regis Drive and Regis
Trail and the rea3dents and postman would like to have samethin� done
about it. Mayor�Nee su�gested the residents present a petition.
�
COANTY ENGINEER: MISSISSIPPI STREET GRAD� SEPARATION:
Mayor Nee announced a co�an3eation Yor the considerat�nn of t,he City
�ouncilfrom Coun�y Engineer �. J. Lundheim indicating the count.y is
starting surveys on a grade separating crossing.
r
Motion by Wright to receive and file the communication fram the County
Engineer'relative to Mississippi Street Grade Separation, Seconded by
ICirkham. Upon a voice vote� there being no nays, the motlon carr�ed
unanimously,'�'
WPCC: DESIGPIFIARE WAS� DISPOSAL:
Meyor Nee announced for the consideration of the City Council a communi-
cation relat�3Ve to Designware Induatries from the Water Pollution Control
Counniesiom of the State of Minnesota, The City Mana�er read uloud
the letter received and stated the City of Pridley Health InsPector
states this discharge referred to is not l�ax•mful� i,hat 4ctually� Lhe
materi$1 in some cities is used to purlfy taater and Desi�nware Indus-
tries ie planning an addition at vrhich time ihey would preier to malie
the changes necesssry to take what possibly could be harm£ul out but
sti11'send the bulk into the creek� that he did think� if' the Council
sv wiahed� this wae actually being taken care of. It was expl¢ined
further the Stete Health Department haven'l, s�id ¢nytkiin;, wa�s wrong.
Motion by Sheridan to receive ¢nd file the comunanication from tlie
Water Pollu�3on Control Cottunission relative to Designware Industrie�.
Seconded by Kirkham: Upon a voice vote, Lhex•e being no nays� i,he
motion carried nnanimously.
MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTM�JN7': SP 0205 �T. II. ��47) PLAN APF`IiOVAL•
,`1fi2 �
Mayor Dice avneunced a comrriuntcation from the Minnesota State Highway
llepari,ment. The Ci.ty Mana�er explained to the City Council all questions
had been answered except the access on Highway #47.
Motion by Ktirkham i,o receive and file the comcnunication from the
MinnesoLa Stete Highway Department relative tq S. P, 0205 (T.H. �47)
Plan Approva7. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote� there being
no naye� tlie moLion carried unanimously.
MZPINF�07'A HIGIi�^�AY DEPARTM�;;NT: SP 0205 (T. H. f�47) CLOSING OF RICE
CRP�K CP,O;�SOV�H: _
Pdayor Nre announced a communication from the Minnesot� State $ighway
Departmcut with regard to the closing of Rice Creek CroseoVer,.,
Motion by Kirkl�am to rece�.ve and file the communication from the
TAinnesota Ili�;litaey Departmei�i. rel�.tiive to S.P. 0205 �TH. #�+7,� closin�
of Rirr. Cxeel. Crossover. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote�
tl�ere Ueing no nays, the motion carried unanimously.
MINNPSOTA IiIGT1WAY DLPARTMCNT: SP 0205 (T• x. �47) TRpFFIC PA'i"I'ERN AT
nrtTecrrcr"Oii'r ortronL�m.
f
Ma,yor AiFe aTmounced a communLCation from the Minnesota State Highway
Departmeni, r�gard�.ng the traffic pattern at Miasiesippi Street.
Mo1,1nn by Sheridan to receive r�nd file the communication from the
MynnesoL<a Ilighway Department relative Lo S.P. 0205 (T.H. �47) Traffic
Yat{,ern aL P2�ssissippi Street. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote�
i,he;°e l�einp, rio nays� {,he motlon carried unanimou�ly.
MINNP�(l'I'A FITGFiF7AY D�PARTNIEN'P: AOCES6 TO T. II, �47:
P�ayor IIr�� anriounced � communication from the Minnesota Stai,e Highway
DeparLmc nt, wi t1z re�rd to arcess to T. II. ��47. The City Manager ex-
pl�ined Lo t,he CiLy Council the right-of�way to most of 'the area wae
acquire�� 22 years ago and this was referred to in the fourth item on
i.he st�, t.e hS �;hv�ay let Ler. Councilman Sheridan su�gested the Council
sl�ould clircr,t t,he City blanager to request that the service ro�d he
exi,�ndr•�� f'rom 67th to Rice Creek Terrace.
P4oi,ion Uy utieridan i,o receive and file the cotmnunication from the
P+Iin�iesol.a St,at� IIighway Department rel3tive to Access to Trunk Hi�hway
�}47 axirl i7ire°ci the City Manager to requeat that t�e aervi.ce„roe,d, in
�luest,iou be ext,ended from 67th Avenue to ftice Creek Terrace. Seconded
by Kirkham. U�on a voice vote� thexe being no nays� the motion carried
unanimously.
Fl, A, P1;2�RSON: F2EPiJND:
Ma,yor Nee announced there was a communication £rom Mr. and Mps. W.,A.
Peter�on reque�tin� t}ie return of a lot split fee. The City A1ana�er
aesc�rted he did not lrnow what the precedent would be on the item but
the aQminisia•ation did do some processin�.
Mot�on Uy Kirliham to approve � refund of the lot split to Mr. and Mrs.
id. A, Peterson on Lot 23� Audii,or's Subdivision �92. Seconded by
Sheridan. Upon a voice vote, tliere heing no�nays� the mot�on carried
unanimously,
V. P'. W.: BINGO:
Lf 4' tiJ
Mayox Nee announced an application for a permit to conduct bin�;o games
at the V.F,W:•Hall located at 1040 Osboxne Road Northeast. 7'lie City
Manager exp].ained there was a form letter used if bingo was permii.ted.
City Attorney Smithistated there is a statute that provldes a non-profit
organization can have a permit cormnencing thiri,y days irom ttie time
it makea application but it is sub,7ect to revocation by the City Council.
Motion by Sheridan to grani� a permit for Bingo to the Fridley V,I'.W.
post #363 usiug the same application as the Junior Chamber of Commerce
Agreement. Seconded by Wright. Upon a voire vote� i,here being no
nays� the motion carried unanimously.
V.F.W.: DANCES:
Mayor Nee announced a communication irom the Pridley V.F.W. Post �f3a3
for a permit to hold dances at their new hall at 10�+0 Osborne Foad
Northeast and their intentions include rentals� he stated. 'Phe City
Manager explained he,was not certain whether the on-sale or 3.2 beer
7,icence Were,ai'fee,ted by danees. City Attorney Smith indicated the
only provision the City had was under the tavern ordinance and i,here ��as
no requixeh�ent. Councilman Wright explained the lei�ter referr•ed i,o
private dances. Mayor Nee sug�eeted the City Council direct that a
letter,be sent to the V.F.W. etating the City did not have an ord�nance
to cover the'request. Mr. V. M, Nagel� reeident, stated the V,F.W. was
suppoeed to have eome eort of division between the parking lot and
Osborne Road and t�ere had been none put in. Councilman Wright replied
the owners had agreed to put in a planter.
Motion�by' Wright,that the City Manager be instructed to write a letler
to the Fridley V.F.W. Post �363 at 1040 Osborne Road North �st, Fridley�
32� Minnesota advising them P'rzdley does not have an ordinance coverin�
the request ior dances and tihey should not plan to have eveni,s open to
the general public until they h¢ve followed through with their intenLion
regarding adequate parking. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a vnice vote�
there being no nays� the motion carried unanimously.
BOARD OF HEALTH: REPORT
Mayor Nee anttounced a communication for the consideration of the City
Council from the Board of Health Director.
Motion by Sheridan to receive and file the report from James I�. Iiensley�
Board o3 $ealth, Councilman Wright inquired if the City Manager would
check 3nto the cpnditions South of Osborne Road where a junk yard is
developin� a�1d haa developed since the last Council meeting and instruct
the Health Znspector to do something about it. The City Manager replied
they were trying to hold it in abeyance untiil the ordinance re�arding
the subject was in effect. Seconded by T1ri�ht. Upon a voice vote�
the�e being no nays� the motion carried�uxianimously.
EMGZNL"ERING: MAP OF SYLVAN I3ILL5 PLATS 5& 7:
Mayor Nee announced for the consideration of the City Couucil a map
of the Sylvan Hills Plats �5 and ��7 presented to them by the
Engineering Department.
Motion by Wright to receive and file the map of Sylvan Hills Plats
five and seven. Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote� tt�ere bc�n�
na nays� the motion carried unanimously.
VTSITORS:
Mr. V. M.Nagel was present to anquire regarding the speed signs tha�
had been instigated on Central Avenue North o£ Mississippi Street and
stated something should be done, Mayor Nee inquired if Fridlcy was to
�64
�'�nd7e the postin�r or these, si�ns. The City Manager replied-the County
did and County Commissioner 0'Bannon discussed this matter with the
City Council and asked what speeds they wanted posted. Mr.'Nagel in-
quJred 1f Lhe epeed wouldn't be 30 miles if there weren`t any limits posted
and vras t,old Lhis was correct. Councilman Sheridan aseerted if they ehould
authorize i,he speed 1im3t rliange it should be 30 to 35�miles per hour �
and shcsuld be from Gardena or further North because of the park and the 1
�;rcat number of children durin� the aummer along that"stree� or e16e it
shou.ld be 35 miles per hour from Misaissippi Street'North.'�He stated
he didn'{. feel �t would be wise to i^ncrease the speed from $ighway ��65
bej;ween t,he recreation area. It was reported by the C3ty Manager
Commissioner 0'Bannon had suggesteQ Lhe area North of the beach all the rest
of the way as 35 miles per hour but it �aould Ue at the discretion of •
the City Cauncil to give the County some direction.
Mot�on t�y Wr�ght to direct the l�dmin3si�rai,ion to contact County
Commiscioner 0'B�nnon and advise him the Cii,y of Fridley wiahes the
speed on old Central between Rice Creek Roed and North to the city
limite posted at 35 miles per hour� Soutn of that to be posted at 30
miles per hour. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a vo3ce vote� there being
no n�.ys, the motion carried unanimously, - �
Mr. V. M. P1�gel� resident explained to the Cxty Council that for many
years l,lie D4inneapolis Star-Tribune had Ueen-dropping papers at VanBuren
and Osborne Road for the children to pick up and felt the City ahould �,o
to i.7�e newspaper and ask them to make arran�ementa at aomebady's home
and malce an agreement in eomeone's dr3veway and then theee'pereons
ziould be responsible for picking up the papers and wires that sre� at
pre�enL} Plyin� and going eeerywhere. Councilman Sheridan 3nqu3red if
therE� �rere a large enou�h drop-off of paper that the company might wai�t �
to put up a �tai,ion. Mr. Nagel replied this would not be an advantage
cither, that on Ch¢nnel Road, as an example, these papere are dropped ,
off at someone's home. It was generally agreed that the Minneapolie -
Star-7'ribLme chould b2 contacted in this rep,ard.
Mayor rJ�.e announced he had two resolutions for the ooneideration of the
Ci{,y Council� that one of thcse resolutions� he felt� was appropriate
and with re�ard i.o the resolution on the hospital distr3ct�',he'e�eed
taith it but {,hought the remarks of Mr. Cohn of the Minneapol3s Star
�aere grai,uitous and insulting, that whatever the arguraents�'might be
on the hospii,al i.hey zaere certainly not enhanced by Mr. CohT�'. ' 8e ex-
plaiued City Attorney Smith h�d suggested a resolution and'he�did
concur ��ith i,he general sentiment. Councilman Wright etated he w3shed
to comment on the resolution, that he had met with Mr. Cohn�'and he had
made a�ood ehow of being friendly and said he �aould print the other
side ot tho ��6ory but he had also talked r�ii.h Mr. Johaneon� the Fridley
representative of the Nortl� Suburban Hospital ➢istrict� and he had said
Mr. Cohn had h�d more than �mp1e opportunity to print the other'side
of the stor�r and had not done so. Mayor Nee read the proposed resolution
�loud.
RrSOLUI'ION ��245-1964 CONCFRPdING YUBLICITi' RELATIVE TO Tf� NORTH
uUIiIIf2BAN fIOSPITAL DI�TRICT:
�
Motion by Sheridan to adopt R�solution �J245-ig64 concerning the'North '�
�uburban Hospital District. Se�ded by Wright. EJpon a voice vote� __�
i,here bein� no nays� the motion carried unanimously.
RPSOLVPIODi af24G-1964 OF COUNCIL '11VTENT TO GRANT A
Mflyor Nee announced there was a resolution for Council consid'eration
and it �aas a]ittle urgent. He explained there was a proposal to
provide a Pony �xpresa mail from Rice Plaza to the Coon Rapids �'ost
Office and it mi�ht happen only for one day but it was'askefl'for and
if �1, proved cconomical� an interested group wanted to know if they
could do it.
�---
i
�
Motion by Wright to adopt Resolution #21F6a964 of Council Intent to
grant a franchise to the Fridley Pony Express, �imited. wecc�nded by
Kirkham. Upon a roll call vote� those voting aye� Nee� Wright,
Sheridan� Kirkham, Those voting nay� none. The mation carried
unanimously. ,
CLA7MS:
Motion by Wri'ght to approve the payment of General Claims ��3759 through
#397�• Seconded by Kirkham. Upon a voice vote� th�re being no riays,
the motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Wright to approve the payment of Liquor Claims �6F361 through
�k6913• Seconded by Sheridan, Upon a voice vote� i.here being no nays�
the motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Wright to approve the payment of Public Utilities Claims
��3727 throu�h #3753• Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a voice vote� 1.here
being no nays� the motion carried unanimously. ,
ESTIMATES: ,
Mayor Nee announced 1'or the consideration of the City Council certain
estimates. Councilman Wright inAuired of City Engineer Qureshi �f the
firat drift �iell was still performing satisfactorily. City �ngineer
Qureshi replied they were not;ueing it anymore� that they had an arran�e-
ment and pumped it two or three,months durzng the summer bub do noL
need the addi'tional water and are not usin� �t.
Motion by Wright to approve the payment of the following estimates;
McCerthy We11 Company
670 Euatis Street
St. Paul� Minnesota� 55114
Es.timate PTo. 3 (FINAL)
Water Improvement Pro,7ect 34-Q (Drift Well)
Petrowske & Ross� Inc.
3613-53rd Place North
Minneapolie� Minnesata
Estimate No. 3 (FINAL)
Saaitary Sewer� Storm Sewer & Water
Improvement Project No. 69 (Meadowmoor Terrace)
Hurley Construct3on Co.�
49 signal Hills
St, Paul� Minnesota� 5511II
Estimate No. 3 (PARTIAL)
Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvement Pro,7ect,
No. 67 and Storm Sewer Improvement Pro�ect
No. 68. (For detailed description see 1'age 73
of September 21� 1964 Council Agenda).
Johnson Bros. Highway and IIeavy Contract,ors, Inc.
Box 1002
Litchfield� Minnesota .
�stimate No. 1 (PARTIAL)
Storm Sewer Improvement Pro�ect No. j-D
(North of T. H. ��100� �ast of T. H. �47).
:G 7�lF.t30
�% 3, 370.96
$4i,438.28
$lj,(146,1+1
���
G��
`266
Ran@a]]-I�e�'€;lin and
Pe I,rowsl:e & Rose� Inc.
�ii301 Plaza Gurve
Fr�dley� M�nne�oLa 5j432 . - . .
L'sLimate No, 1 (PARTIAL) �
S Lorm 5rlaer Improvement Pro,7ect No. 71
&;ani6nr,y Sewer Improvement ProjecL- No. 72
(T,fI, �f�+7� North of Mississippi Street). �23,138.76
Cometock £� �lavis, Inc. �� �
Consultin� I;ngineers . „
141i6 County Road ",7"
Manneapnlis� Minnesota 55432
Cri,lmai,e /f6 Water Improvement Pro,7ect No. 3�F-M '
(S�Lzrian Iiills Ilooster Planl,) $ 20.00
PsLlmsit,e �fl - S3nitary Sewer Improvement Project- ��
Pdo. 72 (T. H. �f47� North ot Mississipp3 Street) � 55.00
P,�Limal,e �fl - Storm Sewer Improvement Pro�ect No.
7.l (T. II. %�47� North of biississippi Stxeet) $ 594.00
Letimai,e r�l - Storm Se�rer ImprovemslitProject No.
5-n (rJ�r�i� or T. Fi. �fioo, r,�st of T. x, i�47) $ 743.50
E�i,iirk2l,e f{6 - Storm ;ietirer Improvemeni. Project No.
j-A (Storm Sew�r Snterceptar in T. H. {�47) � I2,50
E�Limai,e �f4 - Sanitary Sewer and Wster Improvement
Pro�ecl, No. 67 (1964 Sr�nitary Sewer �x Water ImproVe»-
menL Piro�ect) $ 1,635•5a
L=timal,e ���4 - Storm Sewer Smprovement 1'ro�ecl: No.
Gu (1964 S�orm Sewer Impxrovement Pro,7ect) - $' 7.I0.00 _
�ro�rFlL . $3,170.50
Scconded b�� Sheridan. Upon a voice vote� there being no nays� the
motaon cxrr�ed unanimously. . . •
� + -
L ICTS NSr: � :
Mayor ldee announced for the consideration of the City Council the
issuance of certain license applications. -
Moi,iori ix,� Kirl:ham to approve the iGsuance of i,he iollowing licenses:
GPT1}�?iAL COTI77tl�CTOR .
Sheldoii blori,cuson
12�39 Ffl.ywood Lr�ne N. W.
S�rid7ey 21� Minncsota
MASOPIRY
T. C. IC,7eseLh
4230 Centxal evenue DT. T.
Minncapolis 21� Minnesota
Uy: Sheldon Mortenson
by: T. C, K,7eseth
RENEWAL
x�r�waL
i
�
--�
�
,�
I
---�
Gti��
CAPL
Richard A. Kampe
3916-3bth Avenue sou�h
Mlnneapolis 6� Minnesota
B. �1. Carlson Sr.
5506 ldinnetka Avenue Norl.ti
Minneapolis� M�.nnesoLa
APPLTCATION FOR CIGARPTTI� LICLNSF
P,icliar3 A. Kempe
3916-38th Avenue South
Mitmeapolis ii� Mtinnesota
dba. Chanticlear F'izra
Moon Plaza Shopp�tz�, Center
I�fznne�polis� Miun. i5�F21
dba 'Phe Pr�m11y Ililli��r�l C�_iil�r
�237 University nvo-. IV. ➢.
I�hnneapolis, N;iau. ',j421
dl�a: C}iani,icle�r I'ize��
L1oon Plaza S7 uppin�-, Ceuter
Llinneapoli,� M�au. 5j�i21
Seconded iiy Sheridan. Upon � voice votF,, LLel'� bein� no nay., tlic�
motion carried unanimously.
PL'PITIONS:
Mayor Nee announced for i,he consideratio,i of I,he Ci1,�� Cour,cil LI��=
receipt of two petil,lons.
Motion b3r Wright to rece3ve �nd refer to admiii�stration For pruct,ss�n�;
Petltions �43-1964 and �f44-19C4. S� eondecl Ly �Slieridan. I7poii a voic�E�
vote� there bezng no riays, i;lie rnoLioi� carried iananimouely.
CONSID�ItATIIIN OF APPOINTMGP7T5 TO CHARTf'P, CONil4I,�uIOIV
M�yor Nee announced �he consideratiion oi' appo�u�,rnent� to Lhe v��cancics
created on the Q�arter Commisslon and si,al.ed he had a r�quesi 11-om
Mr. Van Dan to be appointed. T1�e CiLy Mana�er explained Y�e Itiad Cr-1 L
the mat,ter wa� at the discretlon of t,he Counc�l to su�gest, uamc�s To�°
the Charter Commission, Councilrnan Sherldan replied he ���ts not c�-rl,aiu
if this procedure shou]cl be follo�aed Lhrougli, lf the Chart.er Connn7r�sion
should advise the District Court there are �.iao vacanctes �uid LLe n«m��s
of suggested persons could be scnt alon� at t,ne same t,ime �rid 1,he �ud�;e
would make the appod�ntmeut. City Attorney ,mith stated iL t�oi�lcl be
approprzate for the Charter Commission ox• t,Yie Chairii,an I,o repar-L aLCI�
a fact� the names suggested and what has happened and anyone can communi-
cate w�th the court and su�gest names� lhat ii, i;ould also Ue �ipprc�priate
for the City to do it. The C�i.y Manager aeserted he had felt �� 1�51
could Ue made up and sent to the ,7udge.
Councilman Sherldan explained tltiat when Lhe Ctiarl,er Comrn��sion ^�ae
functloning they liad some vaoane�es and notiiied Ltie ,7u�l�;u arid sutumtLe��
a list of names but didn't recall if he user7 any of the namas ci ��oi„
Councilman Wright stated he ��i�hed,to propose� that in addii.ion to ihe
name of Mr. Van Dan� that they recommend to the Court tlie name ol U]eun
Thompson. C3ty Attorney Smith su�ge�ted Che City Council submlr. i,Le
name of a woman as he Lhou�ht ihe judge did Pry i.o balance t,}�e
cormnission, TYiere was no action necessar/ on the item.
ORDINANC� AMFNDING CIL9P`i�F �F6 (FII2P LIf4IT.;)
Mayor Nea announced Lhe con�idexat�on of ��n ordinance esi.�iblisln u�, 1ir��
1�miLs within the C1Ly. It oras explaineu b�- 6he Git M�ci��ger, Gltiet'
�6t�
01' ]�rr Prev�ntaon Bob �ll�7rich }!ad spent n�;real deal of time on this
otid in u�ce and it would be r�ell to liavP liun explain it and one oi the
rea ;rni� ]l� had mentioned ti, to hsm nas i,her� is at least one shopping
cent,er ��liere t,hey w�se concerned aUout tY�e f�re construction. Mr,
A]drzcl� cr,pl�zned to the Citv Caunc�l �.liat, essentially what they were
Li�y�nr; F,c� do ��ss make fu17 u�e of the Uuilding r.ode as it exists� tha�
t,Uc �il,y, *;lien ii, adopted the �1.L.C, never adopted any fire limits
•�nc1 I,1�F�; �re a�med at, liiE;l� concen�,ration of values. ile further ex-
p)a�ricd i.o protiecr those nrea� in qUesL�on, yoti� 12mit the types of
con�l,rucLiou �llowab]e �nd you can't use comUustibles in frame work.
Mr, J11di°�cl� sLaLed Moon Plana 0ho�ping Cent,er is Type 5 construction�
Lhal, il, l�as masonr,y wal1G u�hicYi are combusY,iUle arid floors and ceilings
aiid thr;� 1�avP �ow lead to f.hF use of i,he basement, fie further stated
lhe f<�, i��� i,1��y klave dectide�l to use Lhe b�semenL they he,ve come along
s�nd ad�le�3 i'c>ur inchee of concrete on Lo� of �ome of the wood floore axLd
he diQ not l;noyi ��ho i,he ordc�r �or i,his liad come from but the bakery�
thc p�z�o place and Jim's Dairy Store had t,his four inches on top of
i.he wuo�lon floore. TL was c�xpla�ued b,y Mr, !'ldrich t,hat by estalali:hing
Pire limit; ��{, ��ould preclude tl�ts type of' construct�on and the Fire
lim�{,� �rou]�l Ue �n zones claesified in Zone C2 and C2S areas. He
ac�ert�rl be w,as not part,irularly concerned about the local areas but
�n Llic nreas »liere i,here weren't lar�e allo�iances for big storea and
sl�ops� t,hr Pire I)epari,menf, �aould lilce to hold the people building to
Uc{,L�r ��on,i:ructlon and i'e]t they had been permissive in some respects.
T4r•. /11c1i�� c}� , Latecl Yte wou1�1 rc�porl, on thle i1,em at a future date bul, it
i�or ;i,�n�vard procediare and i,he iander��r�tera do like it and would like to
sre 6his an 1,'rz� code. It was cxplained by Nlr. Aldrich the Moon Plaza
sii,iaai,�on was very bad and �here y�as no i�ay of si.opping anyone from
th�� type oF construci.ion; thai; he was a{,6emp�ing to use the zoning code,
I3e Puril,er expl�ined thc, underwriters rocommend a single limit and
eingle claGstification and everythin� within a limit gets the same
LrcNia2ie=ii, ❑nd anything ou4,s ic7e Lht�1, wi71 have � separate building
code, Counczlnian �Irighi; inauired re�;ardin� �M-1 and M-2 districts.
Mr. A]clricb seplied as he understood 1�he zoniiz� eode C-2 and C-2S are
perm�: s�vc, noi, M-1 and M-2 zone.^, pnd i£ tlaey do go in� they would
taan{, th��m tn Lhe limiLs hi�L the �ndus6rlal building is �eneral�y
handlP�l on ❑ �1iCferent sr�le 1•han coirunerci;�l and industry tends to
Iiave °pr�nlcLuig sy=l,ems t�nd it is recommended they leave more latitude
Cor indu^trtaL build�n�.
Counc�lttimi UTi�ght Cnquire�l if an �ndustry �n an M-2 zone want�d to put
� i�ar�honee I'or �toring au{omobiles� how �rould tk�is be handled. Mr.
lildric}r rFpl�ed i;he code uould prateci; the @ity on this i,ype of consL-ruc-
L�on. Councilman ShFradan =ug�ested i,he same type of ordinance could
Ue ri,c�ppc�d fiarl,her up anQ into R-3 zonin�. Mr. Aldrich replied it could
be esl„�hlisl�r�i ln ,just abou{, any �rea but the buildin� code takec care oi'
ihat a>>�7 lf an apartment building �oes over three stonies it goee inta a
d�tferciil 1-ind of constriaction. Mayor Nee inquired if Mr. Aldrich had
am� i��Corm3l,ion on tahei,her i,his si,andard increases the cost of constructiioi�.
Air. Al�lr�cli re�pl�ed he di�l not,� that the only itzformation he could get
�r-�s in ronvers�tion v�itH � PQr. Pdeyers of Sloomtin�ton who had said their
apari,mcnt houses don't have below ground livin�*�,nnits and their cost ran
Frnm :j,��00,U0 i,o �1000 per nnit and he had sa�d the stricter enforcement
h�dn'i, �rcounted as a deterrent. Mr. Meyer�� it was explained� had
cii,ecl ;t�c Ninneapnlis Federal Building had been built $15�000 cheaper
in Go]nen Valley ratlier than in Bloomin�l,on and it was exactly.the
�ame l,uild�n,_. Mayor Plee etated� he Pelt� thtis ordinance would be a
,�;ood i��e�. ,
P4o�,ion l�y I.ir:.11am i,o accepL l,he first readin� of an ordinance creating
aucl er1:,h1�^lzan� fire limil,G wiLhin thc Cit�;� of Fridley� and amendin�
Cha��rr 11G oC {;he Cii,y Codc o� Lhe City of Fridley as i.o fire limits
�n 1 f i re r1 i G t,r� ri,s. Seconded b; i�lri�ht. Councilman Wright suggesl.ed
to tl��� Cii,y Counctl if thcy were going �o have some new classifications
a^ vo�il�l be prc^ented in anoi,her ordinance th�s evening� perhaps
th�rr rlasr�fications should be ronsidered anrl Mr. Aldrich might want
Lhem �ncl�uled iu t,he ordin�nce and LYie City Council could amend it at
Lr �l) a.
the time of the second readting. D7ayor Nee aunounczd For tl�e l�e��c�Ci L
of the public� the ordinance ,7usL accepted on 1'iist read�n�; d�ru�•Ls
certain fireproof buildin� ctaudards wyll be applied in C-�' an�i C-2�i
d2strie�s� and is mainly an increase in,th� �mountof nrasonxy, rLc.
Upon a voice vote� there being no nays� �.lie motion carried uuani��iou�Ly.
ORDINANCE AUTTiORTZING SALti OF LO�r 30, BI,OCIC �F, PLYMOUTfI ADllI'I'IOld:
Mayor Pdee announced for the consideration oP Lhe City Counc�i] an
ordinance authorizing the sale of a lot. Cit,� Attorney SmJtYi expla�ncft
to the City Council this was an ztem they kiad authorized i,lie previou�
March and the Charter requ�res an ordinance to approve it� tlial, i,ne
person that p3id the $250 iias havii7g a greaL deal of difficu]ty <in�l
should be helped b,y the Clty Council �ivin„ him an ordinance.
D7otion by Wri�ht to accept the first read�nE; of an ordinance aul,horL�an�
the sale of a lot� acquired by condemnai,�on �ud no longer liavin� a puU L c
purpose. Seconded by Sheridan. Upon a vo�ce votey lhere be�i���,izo nays�
i.he motion carried unanimously. .
RESOLUTION �2�47-1964 CORRECTING ASSESSMCNT SPLIT:
Motion by Sheridan to adopt Resolution �247-1961F autliorizing arid direct-
ing the correction of an error �n the splitLin��, of specia.l asses.nnPnl,�
on Lots 1 throu�h 11 and LoLs 20through 30, ]31ock 13� Harrnit,on's
Addition to Mechanicsville. Seconded by 1Jright. Upon � voice v��1,c:,
there being no nays� the motion carried ananlmously.
R�SOI,UTION �24�3-1964 TO SUSPEIVD TLP�IPORARILY G"1'v",PJTIP�G UF BUiLDITlG
Mayor Nee announced.for i�he consideraLioe of Lhe Ciiy Counc�l a iesoluL�o❑
to suspend temporarily the granting of perniits and zonin� disLrzct ch,3n�es
in a�{iven srea. Councilnian Zdri�rht explarned thatbefore the mee Lin,�;
there had been a discuseion of council members an3 i{, was Lhe fcelln�,
of the City Council 1,his wae too strong a resoluLion and wouJd he lou
long a period in the course of planning and thaL it could he pe.sed no��
iY it were to be modiiied in thelast paragsaph by deleting Llie i�osde.
"for commercial building permii.s" so Lhai, i.kie City Council woiild be
essentially putting a moratorium on i�a�.vzrs and sei,Uacics in a di�,t,ricL
that might be affected by the urban renewal ei,udy buL not declsre over
a year's moratorium in the centex oi' the CiLy. It w�� agreed 1,c, deleto
the recommended change.
Motion by Wright to adopt ResoluLion �F24�i-19u�i to suspend LFmpor�irily
the granting of building permii,s and zonln�; dictrict changes �ii an
area under sLudy ior a ma�or zoning change and Eor urban r�ne�ial »rili
amendment. Seconded hy Sheridan.
Mol.ion by Wright to amend Resolution ��24�-19G1i by strikzn� oui, Ll�� uordc
°for commercial bu�ding permits" in the last paragraph. Seconded Ly
Kirlcham. Upon a voice vote� there being no riays� the motion ca�ried
unanimously.
On the original moi:ion to adopl, P,esolutiori �f214f3-1964, i,heie bc in„ iio
nays� the resolution cerried unanimously.
C�Y�i��S�C�SlT.y11�1�7ef�
The City Manager exploined to the Cit,y Cotmcil Uiere l�c�d hecn pies�i Led
a letter from the Superinterident of Schools zahich indicat,ed Lti� ]io��rd
of Education w��hed to cooperate in the locai,�on of additional Cii,y
�� J �)
tiie]ls on ,cl�ool property. 1'hc r_o[nmtmic�l-ion was read aloud by the
C�i,� Mnne,�cr �ilio stated there had Ueen a meeting with the School Iloard
rc.L2 Liv� to � i tes Lhat were recommendecl for the wells and the isumedlai,e
necce� ii,;y of drl7_1tinE; Lesi nPl1s. He explained because of the loca�,ion
propocc�3 Por i,he i;eLle� Lhc school had some reserv�tions relat3ve to
br,�eUall diamonds, etc.� Go tlie�� had said Superintendent Hansen could
i�orl=. ot�l, Lhe exar.t details if they could ia=e tt�e area west of the tract
1,u1, �n�f,l�i, never do this or use it in any taay af the orells work in wtith
Lheir p1e�n. Coianc�lman ��ri�;ht stated the Recreation Commission was
ac>>r�di�lc��l i,n meet Pinvember ?_3rd anrl �lso Lhe Park Bot�rd on November 24Lh
nn�i i I „rni7�l br, a�propr,�ai,e to rofex Lhis �Lern Lo them. ThF City
1�f-�nr+€;�r rep] iccl the proU_lem was to �ei, the finished product onto the
vaLer �;;�tem n, soon as possible. Councilman Wright stated if the
;;clinol I;onrrl hadn't pu1; any conditions on their proposal this would be
salirL'�ci,ory Uut they werc aslnn„ L-he City to commit themselves without
�on;, � de� in� i,he t*�o commties �uns and ii, ��ould be exceedin�ly bad fbr the
mor.�l of Ltic=c commiesionr not i,o consuli, them. The Cii,y Manager
replle�l l,he�y ucre onlv concerned about Lhr_ water supply the next summer.
Couuci]m��� 17ri�ht asserted tha1, postponiug the decision until the end oF
PSov�°mbcr -aonld be of no con:,e�u��nce, Cii;,y lingineer Qureshi explained
to Ih�� C�t,,,� Council Lhc i,c�s1; holes wou]d Ue ❑ matter of aUout �1000
an�l r.� � �erc noF snr� �C tlic l�ells were ueeded but they would have to
�lrill i;rl hoLes and inquired if the money could be spent for the tesi,
ho]os. It; n�s Curther er.p]aindd by Lhe City P9anater if the test holes
��eti-c ; un ond t,lie bes�, place four.d for tilie Puture well i£ the School
Bo�rd ��rni7�1 s�y "no�� thev wovld have speni� the money but if 3� was the
council',_ �lrrision to �ia�l un1.i1 the Commi,sions would meet this chould
��r 4on�, Conncilmnn ,3heridan a�serl,ed it �aa� also a problem ii' the i,c�t
io7r,- ,�nnld nuF prov� saLi�i'nctoi°y. Councilirian Wri�;h� a�eed the CZ�y
C,ow�r�l snou]�1 np�rove t,h� 2est, holes anr� tl_a'�, r�sk would be les° than
com�niLl uir i,iicroselvee i.o �omci,h�n� re�,ar�ling a park development� t]ZaL-
l�e �,nr not opposer� i:o 1;he proposal or their a�reement 6ut did not zaant
�.o ov�rlool� i,lie L�oards ox- Comm�ss�ons in any derieions. City ALtorney
CSm�tli inq��n°c�1 =�ho tl�e la��d belonged Lo Por Lhe test hole operation.
Cztv 1_In;�incer �urest�i r�plied �i; uae school properi,y. The City /lttorney
c;:plain��r', Fiic land vac Lr��led �ome and would i,hink i,hat if it is school
]an�� Lhe C�_ty Council shonldn "a end Taouldn't have a right to �ake a%est
] o]e �.� i,�r�nl, lrlling the 'Jcliool Board about it. Councilman Wri�hL suggesced
Lhcy co>>1�3 �ul,horize and direci; i,he adm�nieLral,ioa just to dri11 the
l�si, i�olos ❑n�l ii��i»red }�ow soon tl�cy uould be ready �aith a decision , as
ln ;�l�cr�� �,hcy ��oul� drill. CiLy Engi��eer Rti�reshi replied in about �
�.n�el o�• t��o •�l 1,he mo�t. �ounc�lman Wright, aseerted this would not be
lml,�l i,n�, December 7{;h meetrng and t]iese two committees could�meet
cnp�r�i^ly nn�l jo�ntly before tl�en. �i'l�e City Man�ger stated no one
oonl�l ��^.ni. Lo �lrill teGL holes w�tl�out �n a�reement. Councilman Sheridan
r�plicrl i C i,t�� School Loarcl d,_dn't al.lou Lhe City. to go an on the test
hnle pxol�lem� Lhcre was not}��n� lo�t. I1, rias explained by the City
Piana,?�r li� s on].y concern nas 1.12e tiray the Doard oi Edueation had lePt the
�lecision u� lo SuperinLendent Ifansen to cleeide and yt was stated the
C�L� ronlcl _lilc� i,o be wi{,hin 100 t'eE� of ��here the we11 would be and be
li�d Ic1i, �hczi co>>ld have accorri ir�Lh 111e school except the exaci, location
oi t1i� iell aiid Lh�i; co�ald be 200 feeL. bir. Comstock� consulting
r�nf,�ii�er�, explained there arc i.tio criteria {;o be considered� the
dimonsionG Ghozm to the Council taere dimensions from property lines
o� sevr_i l�nee and the otlier rcyuirement `��s thet there be ma�cimum
spp�i�t�on be.tween i,l�e ho7ee, so the locai,�ons �xe pre�ty much
�rl�crc f.n��3 i�ou7d 121:P i,o 1��^vc t;heni. 13e iurLhrr explained there may be
Ltic po^�iht]�t,y the Schoo7 Super2ntendenL woulc� agree Lo the�e sites
rheu h� zionld Ue aslced Cor permission to puL in the test holes. The
Cyt,y M��n��er state� he h�d f�_lt 2f' 1,l�ey iaere �oin� t� have tp deal with
lhe FSupernii,cndcni, l,here sho�ildn't be a sii;uation where there would be
noLhi��, lo dcal �ail,h anr� Llus �ias a matter oF school and city cooperation.
Comzciliunri ldr��-ht Gtagge�t,ed khe CiL-� sltould ask permission of the school
to dr�11 1'or L�,st holes and h}� tlie 1;ime they would have agreed to the
tiells thc� Ci_t;�- ��ould b� reacly. City Tingineer Qureshi explained he
m�r�]y rishFd io Y�e able 1,o prov2de ir:�ter �'or bhe residents �he next
u w �
summer. CouncilmanSheridan sug�,est,ed the i,t�o commissions in qu�sl,�un
should look at the problem and the Ctity Counctil could malce a d�ci,>>on
from there.
Motion by Sheradan tn rece�ve and File �heletter from Independeril S,c}�ool
llistrici. No. 14� dated ATOVember 13� 19'u4 �nd reFer to Parl-c and Pl�iy��roimds
aud Recreai,ion Commassions. �econded by Ilrigl�i, nUpon a voice vote�
the�e being no nays� the motiou carried un�nirrously.
The City Manager reported there �aas a letter i'rom 'the FirP Deparlan��nL
suggesting an agreement andit was dravn for i;l�e Pire Department by i,he
City Attorney based on nhat the Pire ChiPP liud t,old liirn. C'ounciliaan
Sher�dan stated this had been di�cussed at Lhe meetiin� v�ith the Fir•c
Department he had attended and iL seemed re�sonable and feasib]e.
D4otion by Sheridan to auLhorize the Agreemerii, caith the Fire Tiepartme�il,.
Seconded by Wright. Upon a voice vote� t]iere bein� no n¢ys� tlie moi,ion
carrled unanimously.
ADJOUFiN: �
There being no further Uusinees� Mayor Nee dec]are3 the Re�;u1Nx
Council I�leeting of November 16, 1961i ad,7ourned.
Respeci,full�� submil�ted,
r�
Secretary to the Council
SPECIAL COUNCIL MCPTING - NOVPNID;R 23� 190'�:
A special meeting of`the Council of the Clt�, oi' Fridley taas cr�]lecl
to oxder by Mayor Nee at E3:07 P,M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Nee� I<�rkham� Stieridan,i^7i�i�;ht
Alembes�s�Absent: None
BIDS - Ld-34-Q-2 (OPENED NOON PIOVPMBL'R 23 1)f,!� ) PiTNll'IIOUSI�: AND
urrrtnnrrTn -rnremnTrnmrnnr r.mrr -..
Mayor Nee ann0unced the considerai,ion of bidc opened thzs day for
W-34-Q-2 ior a pump houee and pumping inst�{llaj.inn far� Well �f6
wii,h a tabulation eheet and reporL just passed to members af t,he
City Council. The City N1ana�er read t,he Uids aloud as £olloos•