10/18/1999 CONF MTG - 4663�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
October 18,1999 — 7:00 p.m.
Fridley Municipal Center
Conference Room A
1. Fridley Youth Advisory Council.
2. Merger of the Police Pension Plan into PERA.
3. Franchise Fee Referendum.
4. Comprehensive Plan Draft.
5. Hackmann Avenue/Old Central Intersection.
6. Other Business.
a r
!
�
�
CIIY OF
FRIQLEY
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
OF OCTOBER 15, 1999
Memo to: The Mayor and Council
From: William W. Burns, City Manager �
��
Subject:
Date:
Fridley Youth Commission
October 15,1999
The Fridley Youth Commission item has been placed on this conference agenda at the request
of the Human Resources Commission. The problem is that no one seems to have any good
ideas regarding Youth Commission issues. We did spend some time at a staff ineeting
discussing this with little progress.
While we may want to let Deb Campobosso proceed with her survey, longer term, I think we
should consider appointing a youth to each of our City commissions. Then, when a youth
issue does arise, convene those individuals as a Youth Commission.
MEMO
Fridley Recreation and Natural Resource Department
Date: October 14, 1999
To: Jack Kirk
��i
From: Deb Campobasso �
Subj: Fridley Youth Advisory Council
The Fridley Youth Advisory Council has been formed and has been meeting since May
1999. Currently, we have dealt with one assignment from the Human Resource
Commission on violence/safety in schools.
I have designed the attached as a means of identifying future issue assignments for the
Fridley Youth Advisory Council. I would like to distribute this throughout the
community, from schools, the Chamber, City departments to existing groups of youth
(i.e. Student Councils, Key Club, Youth in Government).
na� ._ ��w L�, � _ ���..�._,
��,; �
_�, �� �, l� ��
�
CITY �F F�I�I�JJL�Y Y�UTH ��YIS�F�Y C�UI`ICIL
y�
The City of Fridley has recently established a Youth Advisory Council. The purpose of
the Youth Council is to gain the perspective of the youth population on community issues.
We invite you to get a youth perspective on any applicable issues you or your agency
currently may be facing. The Fridley Youth Advisory Council meets the second Monday of
every month, 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. at the Fridley Municipal Center Lower Level.
To get Youth Council input on your issue, please complete the form below and return it to
Debi Campobasso, staff liason, at 6431 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN 55432 or e-
mail informution to campobassod@ci.fridley.mn.us.
�
�
�
CITY OF
FRIQLEY
TO:
FROM.•
SUBJECT:
DATE:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
OF OCTOBER 15, 1999
WILLIAM W. BURNS, CITYMANAGER � �,�
RICHARD D. PRIBYL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MERGER OF THE POLICE PENSION PLAN INTO PERA
OCTOBER 14,1999
During 1999, the Governor signed into law Chapter 222 Laws of Minnesota, formerly Senate File
319, the Omnibus Pension bill. Article 4 of that law allowed the merger of 441oca1 consolidated
police and fire accounts that had been administered by PERA. The Fridley Police Pension Fund was
one of the accounts that has been administered by PERA.
The legislation as you can imagine took a considerable amount of time to develop and to work
through the Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement. After a long, torturous process, the
bill did pass after each of the parties to the legislation felt that they received what they felt was
needed by their organization.
The law allowed each of the 441oca1 pension plans the opportunity to merge with PERA or to retain
their private status and be managed by PERA. In our case as in almost all cases the local plan was
merged into PERA. As part of the work that was done for the legislation, a special actuarial study
was done on each of the local plans to determine whether a surplus or shortage existed in each fund.
The results of the Fridley Police Pension Plan indicated that the Fridley plan was one of the better
managed local plans and over the past number of years had accumulated an actuarial fund surplus.
This surplus developed over the years as a result of higher than expected investment performance and
also as a result of some of the state mandated actuarial requirements.
The result of all of the law was that the City of Fridley Police Pension Plan is estimated to be over
funded in the amount of $2,088,000. The new law allows the over funded plans to be refunded back
to the city only after a Public Hearing is held and a resolution passed as to how the money is to be
used. The stipulations related to the refund are that the money must be use for a Police/Public Safety
related activity and that the funds must be segregated and audited on an annual basis. After the public
hearing and the passage of the resolution, a certified copy of the resolution must be filed with the
Office of the State Auditor.
Memo to William W. Burns
October 15, 1999
Page 2
I have contacted PERA and the League to see what kinds of ideas are being used to spend the
refunded money. It appears that a very open approach is being used by most cities. What I mean by
this, is that most cities are either using it so provide funding for either a11 or certain portions of their
Police budget on an annual basis. In our case we could identify certain areas of the Police budget to
fund on an annual basis until the funds are fully expended.
Examples are:
1. To fund the technology areas in the Police Department.
2. To fund the overtime for special projects.
3. To fund the Capital Outlay annually.
4. To fund the Police Budget (funds would not cover one year).
It would be our recommendation that the resolution specify that the money be used to offset the
expenditure of capital outlay items including technology improvements for police work. Using this
plan, we would use the funds over a period of time and would have the option to adjust our
expenditure of this money as priorities change. This approach would also allow us to earn additional
interest.
�I
/
�
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
OF OCTOBER 15, 1999
William W. Burns, City Manager f��
�
Rick Pribyl, Finance Director
Deb Skogen, City Clerk
October 14, 1999
RE: Referendum Petition — Ordinance No. 1130
An Ordinance of the City of Fridley, Minnesota, Amending the City Code to Include a
New Chapter 409, Entitled "Franchise Fees"
On August 30, 1999, a Referendum Committee submitted their intent to circulate a referendum
petition pertaining to Ordinance No. 1130: An Ordinance of the City of Fridley, Minnesota,
Amending City Code to Include a New Chapter 409, Entitled "Franchise Fees" along with the five
names required of the Committee. Section 5.10 of the Fridley City Charter requires the petition be
signed by at least 15% of the registered voters as of January lst of this year and be submitted before
the ordinance takes effect. On January 1, 1999, there were 17,136 registered voters, therefore, 2,570
signatures would be required. The ordinance would take effect on October 13, 1999, if the petition
were not submitted by October 12, 1999.
The City Clerk received the Referendum Petition on October 8, 1999, thereby suspending the
ordinance until the verification process is done. Upon a quick review of the number of signatures
received, there appeared to be approximately 3,666 signatures, thereby meeting the necessary number
of signatures to suspend the ordinance.
A preliminary verification of the petition names, addresses and signatures, shows there are
approximately 3,136 valid signatures. Approximately 530 names cannot be used because the voters'
names are not on the Master List, the voters are registered at the wrong address, the voters have
signed the petition more than once, or the voters signed the petition for their spouse. We are
finishing up the verification process at this time and will have a certiiied petition for the City Council
to receive on October 25 meeting.
As the petition appeazs to be sufficient, the Charter requires that the City Council receive the petition
and reconsider the ordinance at their next regularly scheduled meeting. If the ordinance is
reaffirmed, the City Council must immediately schedule a special election or send it to the next
municipal election, November 7, 2000. If an election is declared, the ordinance remains suspended
until after the election contest period is over if the majority vote yes. If the City Council opposes the
ordinance, or the majority votes no, the ordinance does not become effective.
�
Memo to William W. Burns
October 15, 1999
Page 2
The City Charter does not specify when the special election must be held for a referendum petition,
however, MN Election Laws, Chapter 205, Section 205.16, Subd. 4, requires that at least 49 days
prior to every municipal election, the municipal clerk shall provide a written notice to the county
auditor, including the date of the election and the questions to be voted on at the election. If a
special election is held, the cost to the city would be approximately $10,000.
Staff discussed whether or not the city could combine precincts or polling locations. State law does
not give the city the authority to combine precincts. We may have fewer polling locations, however,
we would have to set up each precinct in that location (i.e., if we had one location, we would have to
set up 12 precincts in that one location.) In addition, if we changed the polling location for the
special election, we would have to notify voters by postcard and then re-notify them by postcard
again next year for the general election. In addition, changes would have to be made to the Voter
Registration System for the polling place rosters, which might create additional problems.
After speaking with Anoka County regarding a special election, it was their recommendation that an
election not be held in January of 2000 due to Y2K issues of the Secretary of State's Voter
Registration System. The possibility might exist that we could not get the voter registration rosters
and master lists needed for an election. They also noted that the City of Columbia Heights has a
special election on December 14, 1999.
Actions to be taken on October 25:
• Receive Referendum Petition
• Vote to Reconsider Ordinance
• If vote is affirmative, declare Election Date
r
�
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
Memo to:
From:
Subject:
Date:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
OF OCTOBER 18, 1999
The Mayor and Council
William W. Burns, City Manager
Referendum
October 15,1999
Now that Deb Skogen has completed her analysis of the referendum petition for the franchise fee, we
must decide whether or not to reaffirm our intent to pass the franchise fee and, if we are, when we
propose to hold an election. My recommendation is that we hold a special election on Tuesday,
December 14, 1999. Here are some supporting reasons:
1. It will allow us to take advantage of what should be a very positive Fridley Community report
that will be mailed out the first week in November. If we wait until next year to hold an
election, this report will be stale and will have been forgotten.
2. The citizen survey has been completed. I should have frequencies by about mid-week next
week. Usually, our survey results are very positive. Since they will be reported at the regular
Council meeting on November 22, they also will be timed to positively impact a December 14
referendum.
3. Having the election before the end of the year will help us get our financial house in order for
ne�ct year. If the referendum passes, we will know at the earliest possible date. If it fails, we
will be prepared to make adjustments at the earliest possible date.
4. The franchise fee is a 1999 project. I think we should complete it in 1999 and get it behind us
as we go forward into 2000.
December 14 does not give us a lot of time to campaign; but, we will not have a lot of time to
campaign anyway. Moreover, the opposition will not have much time to campaign either. By
doing the referendum now, we take their issue away from them at the earliest possible date (I
think there are 2 reasons in here). Otherwise, the issue gets carried into the year 2000
municipal election.
6. 1999 has been a very positive year for us. We have completed the Riverview Heights project,
Medtronic is building on the Lake Pointe site, the 50�' Anniversary celebration was a great
success, etc. And, the economy is booming. We are not likely to have a more favorable set of
circumstances in February or March. The sooner we take advantage of this good year, the
better off we will be.
Memo to Council
October 15, 1999
Page 2
7. The first quarter of each year is typically the time when we are busily planning for the
following year. An election campaign will siphon off a lot of my time that should be used for
the planning process. It will also be a big distraction for Council.
And those are my thoughts. I look forward to discussing this with you on Monday evening.
October 13, 1999
DEAR FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY:
I feel somewhat compelled to respond to the concerns of some of the citizens of Fridley
with respect to the proposed franchise fee ordinance which was passed unanimously by
the City CounciL
A group of concerned citizens have, through hard work and canvassing house-to-house,
brought a petition to the City to have a referendum vote on the proposed ordinance. This
petition, signed by over 3,000 registered voters, requires that people vote whether to
allow the ordinance to take effect or not. Although I personally feel strongly that the
funds to be raised by the franchise fee ordinance (about $700,000) is necessary as we
look toward the City's year 2000 budget requirements, in no way do I oppose citizens'
rights to question the value of the ordinance. This is democracy at its finest, and I
applaud the hard work by the opponents. I would, however, like to answer some of the
concerns that I have heard, and give the voters reason to vote to approve the ordinance.
The following questions and concerns have been asked of ine directly. Some are
concerns that were attributed to those carrying the petitions door-to-door.
QUESTION NO. 1: It feels like the City Council was trying to put something over on
the public by doing their business in secret and not telling the public that this franchise
fee is in fact a"sales tax."
Answer: The City Council is made up of five people who are, in fact, themselves
homeowners and taxpayers in Fridley. We certainly are obligated to be above board in
our dealings, and every meeting that we have is subject to the "open meeting law"—that
is, every meeting is open to the public. With the particular subject "the franchise fee
ordinance," City Council members discussed this thoroughly before we ever considered
bringing it to the public as an ordinance.
There is a very lengthy procedure that must occur before any ordinance proposal can
become law. We were required to have a public hearing, a first reading and a second
reading on separate dates—which we did. These public hearing meetings were
conducted at regularly scheduled City Council meetings. At each of these meetings, I
personally made the statement: "Let's call a horse, a horse. This franchise fee is a`sales
tax. "' Each of us on the City Council was adamant that that fact be understood. We
directed our City Manager, Mr. William Burns, to also emphasize this statement and to
publicize this through whatever means which were available to the City.
October 13, 1999
Page 2
In our summer newsletter which is mailed to every resident of Fridley, an entire page was
dedicated to the topic entitled "City Proposes Utility Franchise Fees." In the first
paragraph of the article, it states: "The fee would essentially be a sales tax equal to 3% of
monthly electric and gas bills for residential users." Later in the same article: "When
will the fee be considered by the City Council? ... the public hearing on the franchise
fee ordinance will occur on July 12, 1999, in the City Council chambers. This would be
followed by a first reading on July 26 and a second reading on August 9. We hope you
will be there to join in the discussion!"
The fall newsletter, again mailed to all Fridley residents, contained another full-article
entitled "City Council Approves Utility Franchise Fee." The following statement was
contained in the second paragraph of that article: "While the fee is not technically a sales
tax, it has the same effect as a sales tax on electric and gas sales in Fridley."
Public testimony on the franchise fees was heard on these occasions: July 12, July 26,
and August 9. Amendments were made to the original ordinance based upon this public
testimony. These amendments gave certain considerations to commercial/industrial
customers. Low and moderate-income families whose income fell under certain federal
guidelines, would receive a rebate of these fees. School districts which might have paid
up to $10,000 per year in fees under the original ordinance, were provided a rebate so that
no district would have to pay over $2,000 annually. We on the Council did listen and did
respond. In a separate highlighted box in the article in the fall newsletter, it states "The
fee has the same effect as a sales tax." This was all done openly and in public forum.
Hardly secretive or misleading.
QUESTION NO. 2: The proposed ordinance would cost the City taxpayer an 18 percent
increase over what they are now paying in property taxes.
Answer: Not true. How true the old a�om—statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics.
Using myself for an example and my own household expenses, it would cost about $3.25
per month for combined gas and electric franchise fee costs. To give an example, my
property tax bill for 1998 was $1,995. Of that amount, 14 percent or $290 per year goes
to the City of Fridley (or about $24 per month). The franchise fee cost of just over $3
would raise my monthly fee to run all of the City services to $27, about a 12 percent raise
in the City's portion on my tax statement. It amounts to about a 1.8 percent raise in my
total property taxes. Take a look at your own property tax statement, and you will see
where your money goes. It breaks down to approximately this:
County of Anoka 26% Special Taxing Districts 2%
School District No. 14 51% Solid Waste Abatement 2%
Metropolitan Council 5% City of Fridley 14%
October 13, 1999
Page 3
QUESTION NO. 3: This tax will really hurt the low income people and will probably
drive them out of their homes in Fridley. It will be quite a burden on everyone.
Answer: Not true. There is a provision in the ordinance for residents qualifying as low
income families under federal law. They could file with the City of Fridley, and their
franchise fee payments would be rebated back to them.
One family that spoke to me complained of the tremendous rise in their tax bill, yet I
know this couple goes to the Minnesota casinos at least twice a month. Now I do not
begrudge their support of the Ojibway and Dakota nations, but the $3 they would pay
each month on the franchise fee is one play on the blackjack table or three pulls on the
dollar slot machines. I really doubt that the franchise fee will drive them out of their
home.
Another couple who had a similar concern are both smakers—between them, they smoke
a couple of packages a day, or about 60 packages per month. It would cost this family
per month the cost of one package of cigarettes.
All of us on the Council will also have to pay these fees. We are not asking others to do
what we would not have to do.
QUESTION NO. 4: This is just the start of government using these kinds of taxes, and
more and more of this will be used to fool the taxpayers.
Answer: Not true. The State of Minnesota has very strict guidelines on what franchise
fees can be assessed against. Utilities are it. No, we cannot charge a fee on your garbage
bill or anything else. We on the Council are not here to fool or hoodwink the public—
you are too smart for that. We on the Council are here to serve and to continue to provide
the best services we can for the residents of the City.
QUESTION NO. 5: Aren't the City politicians basically greedy and pretty dishonest in
how they deal with the public? The City Council should do a better job running the City
on the money they already have.
Answer: I have had the good fortune of living in the City of Fridley for over forty (40)
years. I have dealt with City Council individuals on various issues over those yeazs, and
served as city councilmember-at-large for nine years (from 1976 through 1985). I chose
to run again in 1995, after I retired.
October 13, 1999
Page 4
Each of us on the Council is also a resident, homeowner and taxpayer, just as the rest of
you. My experience has been that people who run and serve on the City Council are
very well meaning, concerned citizens who chose to run to help make the City better. In
my personal experience, there are some on the Council whom I personally like more than
others, some I agree with more than others, and some who are more involved than others.
If I may use this analogy, I know that people who are my age and were raised in an era
when people had coal-burning furnaces will understand—"'There hasn't been a clinker in
the bunch!"
The money to be raised by this franchise fee was money to be spent on creating new and
improved programs for the City of Fridley. Each of us on the City Council gets the same
treatment as everyone else, and let me assure you, none of us on the City Council are
rich. I also believe, however, that none of us will be hurt tremendously financially by
paying $3 more per month to keep the City vibrant and progressive.
QUESTION NO. 6: Fridley's taxes are already some of the highest in the state. This
ordinance will make them even higher. Why not just increase the property tax? At least
it is deductible at income tax time.
Answer: No one likes taxes; however, Fridley's taxes are not high compared to other
cities in the five-county metropolitan area. In a recent survey of 98 cities in the
metropolitan area, Fridley was 67`i' from the top. The comment about raising property
taxes to raise money because it is deductible is a valid one. However, remember that the
City only gets 14% of any property tax increase. If we raised property taxes $36.00 per
year, the City would only get a bit over $4 of that. We on the Council discussed the
possibility of a flat property tax increase, but dismissed this because we could not have
raised a sufficient amount of money.
Conclusion: This franchise fee will allow the City to get money from groups which are
otherwise "sales tax exempt," i.e. the City of Minneapolis Water Works, the railroad,
United Systems (Northern Pump), churches, a private parochial school, school districts,
and the U.S. Post Office. All of these agencies use City services.
We on the Council have passed an ordinance, which we feel is realistic and reasonable to
raise necessary dollars to continue and improve City services and programs. We
anguished over this greatly—no one wants to see an increase in taxes. We were adamant
from the beginning of this process that all residents know it for what it is—a "sales tax"
on two necessities, gas and electricity.
There has been enough concern from residents that over 3,000 signatures on a petition
will bring this referendum to a vote. I see absolutely no problem with this process. I was
October 13, 1999
Page 5
personally involved in another referendum vote twen'ry-five years ago, which many of
you remember.
The referendum process is a part of our City Charter, and is a tremendous example of
how democracy should work. I do believe, however, that correct, truthful and up-front
information should be provided before we all vote.
Might I suggest that prior to the vote, that the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan
group, set up a town meeting format or debate whereby two members of the City Council
(hopefully, I would be one of them) and two of the members of the referendum
committee (who are Tim Werner, Adam Hardy, Lana Freeburg, A1 Stahlberg and Susan
Slettehaugh) would be present. We could hold the meeting at the Fridley Community
Center (by the way a fine use of Fridley tax dollars), give each of the panel members five
minutes to make a presentation, then have thirty minutes of questions from the audience
and finally, a ten-minute wrap-up. I am sure we could televise it on Channel 35. I am
hoping that when you hear the issues, you will vote to allow us to raise the necessary
dollars to keep Fridley moving ahead. If you choose to vote down the franchise fee, I can
assure you the City will not fold financially. We will, however, need to review our
budget for 2000 and adjust some services according�y.
Over my many years in Fridley, I have been called many things—untruthful and wishy-
washy are not two of them. I appreciate your trust and concerns and will respect your
wishes, whatever the vote may be.
Remember, we on the City Council represent you the people, and we are a part of your
desire for good government in our city.
Is $3 per month really so much to ask to continue the good programs and improvements
in Fridley? I think not.
Bob Barnette
Fridley Councilmember-at-Large
s
�
�
CffY OF
FRIDLEY
To
From:
Date:
AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OF
OCTOBER 18, 1999
William W. Burns, City Manager��
Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
October 14, 1999
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Draft
Believe it or not, the comprehensive plan draft is underway! The purpose of the
Council's discussion Monday night is threefold:
Achieve consensus on draft review process
Achieve consensus on "Key Issues" identified in the plan
Achieve consensus on plan approach
The Plan Overview and Land Use Chapters are included in the packet for Council review.
Staff will forward drafts of each chapter as they are completed to the City Council as
quickly as possible.
PLAN DRAFT REVIEW PROCESS
The City must meet two general deadlines according to state law regarding this process.
First, a draft of the plan (or at least some of the chapters) must be sent to adjacent cities,
school districts, and watershed districts by October 30 to start their "60 Day" review
clock. The law allows 60 days for these jurisdictions to officially "respond" to the city or
to Met Council. It is proposed that the Plan Overview, Land Use, Housing, and
Transportation Chapters will be mailed to the adjacent jurisdictions (the Housing and
Transportation Chapters will be provided to the Council in next weekend's packet). The
draft chapters will have a lot of basic information, general goal and policy statements, but
the "strategies" sections will be left blank (more discussion on this approach later in this
memo). Staff direction to the consultant has been to keep this first draft fairly brief and
general. More specificity can be added later. In some cases, there are tables or maps that
have not been completed because some additional research is still being completed.
Typically, adjacent cities look for information about water and sewer connections,
bikeway/walkway connections, or transportation improvements. Additional drafts of the
plan will be forwarded to them as the City moves through the process. The goal is to
Comprehensive Plan Draft
Page 2
October 14,1999
start the review clock 60 days in advance of the December 31, 1999 deadline. At this
point, staff does not perceive that any controversial issues will arise. The City has
received the Brooklyn Center and the New Brighton draft plans. Columbia Heights has
yet to submit their plan (staff will be reviewing what they propose for Central Avenue to
relate it to the area around Medtronic).
The second deadline the City must meet is submitting a draft to the Met Council by
December 31, 1999. The "draft" does not have to be complete or fully approved by the
Council, but should have some official input from the public and the Planning
Commission. Official Council action will not occur until the entire draft is done and after
Met Council review, but understand that staff will be bringing issues to the Council's
attention first at workshop meetings or in the packet to obtain comment or direction. At
minimum, however, the Land Use, Housing, Transportation, Parks and Open Space, and
Sewer and Water Chapters should be submitted by December 31, 1999. The remaining
mandated requirement for the City is completion of a Storm Water Chapter integrating
the issues and plans of watershed districts within the community. The deadline for this
Chapter was October 1, 1999. The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services agency
(MCES) is responsible for administering this requirement. Staffadvised MCES that this
element could not be prepared until after a draft of the Comprehensive Plan was
developed first. The Planning Division budget includes funding for this particular
element.
The following schedule is proposed:
1. City Council and Planning Commission to receive Plan Overview, Land Use,
Housing, and Transportation Chapters by October 25, 1999.
2. Submit Plan Overview, Land Use, Housing, and Transportation Chapters to
adjacent communities and other jurisdictions by October 29, 1999.
3. Staff review of Parks and Open Space and the Sewer and Water Chapters in early
November 1999.
4. City Council and Planning Commission to receive Parks and Open Space, and
Sewer and Water Chapters by November 19, 1999 (an earlier submittal date may
be possible).
5. City Council proclaims November 8, 1999 as "World Town Plannin� Dav"
(program sponsored by the American Planning Association and the Royal Town
Planning Institute) at the Council meeting and announces that Comprehensive
Plan drafts will be available for public discussion beginning November 17, 1999.
Staff will develop a video announcement for Cable TV and prepare
announcements for the Fridley Focus.
6. Conduct an "Open House"/Informational meeting the third week of November,
potentially November 17 or 18 (depending on Council preference and
room/location availability). A letter will be sent to the vision participants thanking
Comprehensive Plan Draft
October 14, 1999
Page 3
them for past support and asking that they come back for further input. This will
not be a group discussion approach, but simply a presentation and information
session (the consultant contract includes meeting attendance but not group
facilitation costs). Make plan drafts available at the meeting. Provide comment
and suggestion cards.
7. Review available drafts with advisory commissions (EQE, HRC, and Appeals).
8. Conduct an "official" public hearing on plan draft at either the December 1 or 15,
1999 Plannin� Commission meeting.
9. Initiate contract with consultant on mandated Storm Water Chapter in November
1999.
10. Prepare Storm Water Chapter and Implementation Chapter in early December for
staff and Council review latter part of December and January.
11. Assimilate comments, make appropriate changes on all chapters except the Storm
Water Chapter and submit draft to City Council for informational purposes and
submit to Met Council by December 31, 1999.
12. Meet with Met Council as appropriate. Identify Met Council changes and review
with Council and Planning Commission.
13 . Conduct fmal public hearing with Planning Commission first meeting in the
month following Met Council review; given the amount work they have to do, it
could be late spring! The purpose of the hearing is to review the changes since
November as well as completion of any other Chapters such as the Storm Water
Chapter.
14. Council approval by Resolution in the month following Planning Commission
review, depending on nature of changes or recommendations.
15 . Publication of an executive summary to be distributed to the public (funds
included in 2000 budget).
Unless otherwise directed, staff will nursue this schedule.
KEY ISSUES
The consultant was directed to make a strong connection between the outcomes of the
vision meetings with the Goals, Policies, and Strategies in the plan. The consultant was
also directed to include information about how Fridley fits in the region's growth
strategy. Remember that there is information in the plan that the City is required to
include. The amount of vacant land to be developed and the nature of redevelopment is
probably the most important to the Met Council. The Met Council wants to know if the
City intends to grow more than they project, less, or about the same. The population is
projected to grow to 29,500 in the year 2020. This year the population is 28,626 and has
been growing since the early 1990's. If the City continues with aggressive infill projects,
like Gateway East and redeveloping certain areas of Hyde Park, the population could
easily surpass that mark ten years earlier in 2010. Met Council's question may be
Comprehensive Plan Draft
Page 4
October 14, 1999
answered, but the more important question remains for the City: how much does the City
want to grow? The Comprehensive Plan process should discuss and should provide
direction about this issue.
The Land Use Chapter identifies a list of "Key Issues" and proposes Goals, Policies, and
Strategies around these issues. Most of these issues were discussed at the vision
meetings or have been discussed with the Council to some degree. To follow is a
summary of the issues. Please review the list and identifv anv issues staff and consultant
mav have missed:
• Community Image
• Future Development as a result of Medtronic Corporate
Campus
• Move Up Housing
• Housing Maintenance
• Economic Stability
• Transit (rail and east west bus service)
• Park and Recreation needs
• Commercial Areas
• Bikeways/walkways
PLAN APPROACH
The consultant was directed to make a strong connection between the outcomes of the
vision meetings with the "Goals, Policies, and Strategies" in the plan. In other words, the
vision meetings have completed the groundwork for the goals and policies of the plan.
The list above represents what was heard as issues to be addressed in the next twenty
years. The Plan will explain these issues, and the plan will recommend strategies to guide
the City in the future about these issues.
The draft identifies general goals and policies and leaves the "Strategies" sections blank.
Here is where the most discussion about the Plan will occur. Council, Commission, or the
public can offer suggested strategies for discussion. In addition, staff will recommend
strategies to accomplish the goals and policies identified in the Key Issues list. It was not
appropriate to include "strategies" in the draft for distribution to other cities and
jurisdictions without first discussing them with the Council andlor the Planning
Commission. Strategies will be recommended by staff in the future and will be
distributed to the Council and the Commission in future packets. For example, the staff's
strategies for the Land Use Chapter could not be developed for Monday night because of
timing issues. They will be suggested however in a memo in next weekend's packet.
Future chapters will contain the staff work and will be distributed to the Council and the
Comprehensive Plan Draft
Page 5
October 14, 1999
Commission simultaneously. Unless otherwise directed, staff will continue with this
anproach.
The Land Use Chapter is the culmination of a lot of topic areas: housing, transportation,
parks and open space etc. It is difficult to anticipate everything in the first draft. The
consultant team has researched all of these topic areas, and they were asked to include
any major issues from other topics in this first iteration of the Land Use Chapter. There
is sure to be additional issues as the process unfolds.
SUMMARY
�_
It has been a busy year with Medtronic, HRA acquisitions, and now the Comprehensive
Plan. The vision meetings accomplished a general direction, and now the mission is to
put it into action. I look forward to working with the Council on this very important
project.
M-99-254
A
�
I �
emo
To: William W. Bums, City Mana r 1
From: Roberta S. Collins �
Date: 10/15/99
Re: Hackmann Avenue/Old Central Intersection
Attached are traffic count maps pertaining to the Hackmann Avenue/Old Central
Intersection conference agenda item. Due to the number of maps, we were unable
to scan them and use them in the paperless agenda for the meeting.
Attachments
• Page 1
�
J
O
0�7 � ;
L
Tlwrc �ii� m�r
f r��
7�
r
.
ti
v -•
+Y
0r9l� ;
J
O
�
�
?y�� ,�i� �r
�
�
�
2�
.�`Q ,,
F...�
�; />-.
r
t�
0 �t�►��u��cc �t
�-�-�r r
2� w
� �
,��
..,
.
� �
L
�,
.
�
.�i
?
p�c�t y r��.f
�
J
0�1� ;
= �rc��
.�- �
�
_ �
� �
�
�s
i
-�1! ¢
�� r�
�=��
f��
m
C.�• ¢ �
r
,�
0 ��i1i
�� � l�
40 � j� ''��
. � ,', . �� .n U � t
�
�,`
v ••
/��
�
�`
_ - =�7' t`/�.f
.��_ �
t�,
� -"'
� � o . � .�- ,..�
��
� � �
-� f � � �
�.
� � � �
� -��
�Y . �
� � �.�. �
�^ -.. `.� _,., �
•� � `'��' �r•
� L
� �
� / �
�
'� � ��.
�
�
N �
�
�
J
O
,� s
,�i�,� d�
����
fw�
� .' ll'
r
.r -
�l 0�9�; � � r�M�
� �.�.}�-,,,�-; �'r �-�t'
.�a-� �-�'r y,�.�- ,�-�-r -�-�-t�
� .�-�-�.,,,� .�-�t
.�-I'1-�" � , � �-r�"
T
�� � �
�� � �
�
'
_ i
� ,
� ��
� I .'
��� ��
�� ' � S""'
f r��►
� ¢ �".
;
7'�
� -•
3�q,��
N
J
O
�r ��
�-t� �
0�9� ; .�-t1"� �' w�
�� � �
���
���1�J�
��-y-;�-r � .f-�'
� ��
� �.�
�
/ ��
� �,
�i�,� d�
�� 4�
F..�
C�' . ' 1 �
�
� �
! -
. ,.��',1�rt �
��i
� 2
l �
._.___�__. �% ,�'L
� ° t
�
�
�
�
�
R
_
�
� ,
.�
�
`�
�
Q�Oj►� �.x, ��� a�c�K r s-�+�.f
.i^ `
�'! ' �
�
.�-r�
�
�
�
II
�
�
O�r� : T-N�
�
�
.�-►
�
�
� ��rt
� �
� �
� �
�� ,
t� �
�
�
1 �
�
1'/ �l1: l��/Lt d r
��
�
�
�
�
�L
�t�
�. G� �=.?v
F�.� �.
� ,u� �Nfi u�t r 1
���
Q? � ��
�
�v� ��
� �
� ���
� �
�
1 �
��/�X/K��
�
� ,
� ��
�
.�
?
O�c�y r�•�.f
,�
�
.�-�'1,
.�
��
��
�=+�
�
N
J
O
0�
1 �"
�
�
�� �
��
�
�
�
���
�t'1' ,1,�-+�►
� �
���
,
r���
�-�'/�
��
�
1�'
�-r
�i�,. d�
o �
� �.
3. a
��
¢a�
�
� �.. �
� � � �
f� t3 4 �tl
d�
�1�t,µ�-�
i� �
� ��
�
:i.a-�r
�ll�
�
�
�la ,
.�
�
.Jf
?
Q��roi�/�t��' �Q'G�i tt�.f
0�91� •
.
��f' 1 1 ��
� �
�
�
I '��
�
� �
�
�( ly�-f'
�-�'�7
�
1.J-I'T .
�
t�
J
O
�r'�
�"' '
�'.
�!
� iM�
�r
��
� ��
r' l �
�
��
�
/
�
�'r
� �
1-�'r N'�'
121?
L�
�
"4/
��i1.� v�
��
f r��
.�
���
� ��
lf
��
�
r���
¢�' =
r
�, �1
�
�-i'� .k'j'j r
��
�
�
�
i�-�'
<<� �
.�
�
,�
�
Q���.x��A1r' O�c�y ri�.f
N
��,,� 1,J1'�',,'�
0� � ; -t'1 � ' k'''� '
I r � � �" �i
� � �
�� � �
� � ��
�'' ! '
1 �'t� �.H'�' I �T
�� � � �
�� �
l II
J
O
T. /!'�L
�
�
�
��
1!`-Fi
�
1�3
�
��i�. �� � '.� a
f r��
o �
�4Z
�
�
'�'- :�'''-.�
� �
�� �
_ �" I�-H' � � �
� �
�-h- /
�
��
�f i
�,
� � `��
�
.�
?
.5�: d �
�
.-
r�
_.;
Q ��r�xi��lt` O�LN�y t��f
�
MEMORANDUM
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager � r�
�v� �
FROM: John G. Flora,� Public Works Director
DATE: October 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Hackmann Intersection
Attached is a section of the Hackmann/Old Central/Hwy 65 intersection plan.
PW99-175
At the last Council meeting there was some quesrion regarding traffic movements at the Hackmann/Old Central
intersection.
Hopefully this drawing will e�lain the traffic movements and alignments that were incorporated into the
improvement project.
JGF;cz
Attachxnent
�.%/ i�%
�/ . �.i
^ l
� :-� ��
:1. Yi :�?
�,j�
r
n .,. � ,.� �
- �..� �� ,�,�
�' . �,
= � �:=. ;,
r�v
� �
� �
� � �
�` ,
.� °"� '
l
.'``--.`''�
„� . : �
�
��
,' �
I} �� �
�.
- D
. l /
: /�
' D•
D
<
.
.� -
�
.' _,_,,.,.._.,..,. _
�->
��+i: = + - '� =,j =
,� Q 0�� +s_. :t� f � Of /
0 Q � vt
�.-,4�;,�'?'.4+�+�i �---_,,,___
"'*..,, ��� --�...�.�
:� �: ,;
� - � ` � t �`+�} �
_ � J f� � u � i,
i
� ':
.,,
�\ • �p
,
•.
. r. . _" ,.,i - _..
.�Lx:... _ � •,�- . �•
'- '� `,..�.
� "-
� ,�.� .
MEMORANDUM
TO: William W. Burns, City Manager ��
� . �
FROM: John G. Flora, Pubhc Works Director
DATE: October 11, 1999
SUBJECT: Hackmann Ave/Old Central Traffic Study
PW99-173
On Friday, October 8, 1999, we conducted a traffic study at the intersection of Old Central and Hackmann Ave.
The study was broken into two periods: in the moming from 5:45 to 8:15 am and the aftemoon from 3:00 to 5:00
pm. The attached sheets summarize the traffic through the intersection during the study periods.
During the study period, there was no major traffic backups on Hackmann Ave access to Old Central. One rime
in the morning a car on Hackmann Ave waited for three vehicles on Old Central to pass before it could exit. In
the aftemoon, three vehicles waited at Hackmann Ave only because they arrived at the same time.
The attached summary sheets are provided for your information.
J�F:�Z
Attachments
�
Q
�
C/�
U
�
w
w
�
W
z
w
�
z
�
�
U
�
x
�
�
�
�
z
w
U
Q
�
0
�
o�
01
.--�
�
�
�
0
U
O
� � M M O t� O O O a0 �O O �O O O
•--� •--� •~ N l�• � l� d' V1 v1 M
�
N N �
x�
U
�
'�7 O� �O OO M O OO d� �O O M M O [� M v1
�'' �" ^� � n, N •--� •--� •-� �p
(� � �,p ^' M
�z
N O� N C� O d' �i' �O d" O� O� O �--� M u1
� •--� .-r .-r V1 � N .� ,� M � �
,� ,� N �r
w �o
�
N O O O� O ,--' �- op ti M �--� O N M v1
N d- d- v1 d- O N �Y d- d- � � �D
� �
W O
� �
N v1 M N O [�- O� �p �--� .-+ .-� p pp ,� �
"" N ,� .-+ .-+ N tn
� � � �
N
A � z
�
'C v1 �D O N O M O� N n v1 �O � N � �
� �
O M N c'�
i� ~
0
U � �
� �
� o
U �
-^,o
O
� M v- �n � o � �n o �n •-� �r, o �- �n �n
c.i 0 ...� ,� .-� .., �n n;
� '� N
O
�
���
v
U S
b
O
N � a�o � � � � � a�o o�o � � N v�i �
� � N ~ ~ N '�'" �' ti
�+ � N M
d tj o
.� z
�
0
� �
� � � � � � � � � a a a a a '� >
E+ � "' vv,- � � � �, d c� ° g ° oo � d
� �
vi �o �c N c` oo � �%'i c�'i v� �r vi
x x
•1
�
0�� ;
S
�
i�/Mr: /r�/1� d�
f �.�•�► T�
�