08/09/1999 - 00000643THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL
OF AUGUST 9, 1999
The regular meeting of the Fridley City Council was called order by Mayor Jorgenson at
7:35 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Mayor Jorgenson led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Mayor 7orgenson, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember
Billings, Councilmember Wolfe, and Councilmember Bolkcom
Members Absent: None
Mr. John Dunphy, 155 Stonybrook Way, spoke regarding a tree in his backyard. He said it was
the sole survivor of the efforts of the Public Works Department to put a storm sewer through.
During the process, all of the trees were cut down except one. The action of all the heavy
equipment running around on the roots of the tree has damaged the tree. Mr. Dunphy said the
City was now harassing him to cut the tree down. He felt the City should have the responsibility
of taking the tree down.
Mayor 7orgenson thanked Mr. Dunphy and said that staff will be addressing the matter and would
contact him.
Mayor 7orgenson stated that the Council and members of the public should be reminded of the
code of conduct at the meetings. Mayor Jorgenson said she will be reading the following
statement at the beginning of each City Council meeting from now on: Please be reminded that
those present at the meetings may hold a variety of views and opinions regarding the business to
be conducted. The exercise of democracy through representative local government requires that
all points of view be accommodated at these proceedings. It is further expected that a standard of
mutual courtesy and respectfulness be exercised by all in attendance through our individual
expression, manner of speaking and conduct. Therefore, please receive the views of others with
the same degree of courtesy and respect that you desire to be given with your views and opinions.
Any departure from this standard will be addressed by the presiding officer through whatever
means are deemed appropriate.
Mayor 7orgenson thanked all for their attendance at the meeting, She said she hoped everyone
would agree to comply with the standards of personal conduct.
PRESENTATION:
Mr. Fernando Fuentes, Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association, stated that the purpose of
the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association is to improve the quality of life by promoting
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 2
the park and recreation services, to provide its members with continuing education opportunities,
to provide services such as information and resources on each area of the field, and also to
provide recreational services such as tournaments, sports coaches training and sports management
services. The Awards Committee was established in 1987 to recognize and honor individuals and
agencies for their excellent, outstanding or unique achievements in the field of parks and
recreation. The cities determined to have the best new programs and efforts given an award each
year. It is a very prestigious award. Nominations are submitted to the committee and then rated
on the areas of funding, planning, inter-agency cooperation, support and evaluation of the project.
Mr. Fuentes stated that it was his pleasure to present two awards of excellence in the areas of
facility programming to the City of Fridley for the Fridley Community Center and for Project
Safety Net.
Mayor Jorgenson thanked Mr. Fuentes for the prestigious awards.
Mayor 7orgenson thanked 7eff Schoeberl, Youth Research Specialist, and David Sallman, Public
Safety Director, for providing the youth and adults of the City of Fridley with programs that
encourage positive values. Mayor 7orgenson thanked them for all of their efforts.
Mr. Schoeberl thanked Mayor 7orgenson and stated that it was very gratifying to be recognized
by his peers. These projects have a positive impact on the community, and staff is very proud of
what Fridley has accomplished with the Community Center and Project Safety Net with their
youth activities. Mr. Schoeberl thanked Council for their support.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
City Council Meetin� Minutes of July 26, 1999:
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the regular City Council meeting minutes of
July 26, 1999. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA:
NEW BUSINESS:
1. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION 12.06 OF THE CITY
CHARTER DECLARING CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND
AUTHORIZING THE SALE THEREOF (LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK N.
RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS) (WARD 3):
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the subject property is immediately to the west of
571 79t'` Way. The owner of that property was requesting that he be allowed to purchase
tax forfeit property that was acquired by the City in 1996. Staff recommended selling the
easternmost 25 feet of this property (Lot 9) to the property owner. In order to do this;
however, Council must approve an ordinance declaring the property excess and
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 3
authorizing staff to sell it. Depending upon a ruling from the City Attorney and Anoka
County, the City may need to convey the property through the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Staff recommended approval of the first reading of this
ordinance.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 51-1999 APPROVING A VACATION, SAV #99-01,
VACATING A PORTION OF CARRIE LANE, QUINCY STREET AND
JACKSON STREET (WARD 1):
Mr. Burns, City Manager explained that this resolution corrects a missing phrase in the
legal description that was inadvertently omitted when Council approved a similar
resolution on May 24, 1999. Staffrecommended Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 51-1999.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 52-1999 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF NATUREAL RESOURCES FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF
THE EAST MOORE LAKE BASIN HYPOLIMNETIC AERATOR:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained the City budgeted $30,000 in the Year 2000 General
Capital Improvements budget for replacement of the aerator in the East Moore Lake
Basin. This resolution asserts Council's agreement that the City would abide by the terms
of grant stipulations established by the Minnesota Department of Nature Resources.
Under the terms of the fifty/fifty matching grant, the City would receive $15,000 for a
replacement aerator. Staff recommended Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 52-1999.
4. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 2, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER ST. 1999 - 1:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the change order is in the amount of $84,573.83
and is payable to Park Construction. All items are for underground utility and soil
correction problems that were found during construction. Staff recommended approval of
the change order.
APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NO. 2, RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER ST. 1999-1.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 53-1999 AMENDING RESOLUTION #80-98 CONCERNING
THE FINAL ROLL FOR THE RICE CREEK BANK STABILIZATION
PROJECT:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the resolution would amend special assessments
for Gary and Marlene Knight, 513 Rice Creek Terrace. The City previously assessed the
property at $426.30. The assessment should have been assessed to Anoka County Parks.
The resolution amends the original resolution to reflect no assessment for the property at
513 Rice Creek Terrace. Staffrecommended Council's approval.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 4
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 53-1999.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 54-1999 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. #91-1998
CONCERNING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE HACKMANN
AVENUE/HACKMANN CIRCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NUMBER ST.
1998-1 ASSESSMENT:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the City previously assessed 1104 Hackmann
Circle at $1,633 based on 142 linear feet of street frontage. Since then the City has
determined that the property should have had an assessment based on 131 linear feet of
street frontage. Accordingly, staff recommended that the assessment against this property
be reduced from $1,633 to $1,506.50.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 54-1999.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 55-1999 DECLARING THE COST TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE
OSBORNE ROAD IMPROVEMENT (OLD CENTRAL TO STINSON
BOULEVARD) PROJECT NO. ST. 1994 - 5:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that this was an Anoka County project that covers
properties fronting Osborne Road between Old Central Avenue and Stinson Boulevard.
By this action the City would be assessing back $14,622.56 of its cost to benefiting
property owners. The cost was for curb and gutter at the rate of $8.10 per front foot.
There are 25 property owners affected. Staff recommended Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 55-1999.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 56-1999 FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
OSBORNE ROAD IMPROVEMENT (OLD CENTRAL TO STINSON
BOULEVARD) PROJECT NO. ST. 1994 - 5:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the resolution establishes September 13 as the
hearing date for the proposed assessment. Staffrecommended Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 56-1999.
9. RESOLUTION NO. 57-1999 DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE 57Tx
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that staffwas proposing that $208,019.07 be assessed
against benefiting property owners. Altogether, six properties were involved and would
have assessments abased on $98.89 per front foot. Staff recommended Council's
approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 57-1999.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 5
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 6
10. RESOLUTION NO. 58-1999 ESTABLISHING A HEARING FOR THE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 57TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. ST. 1997 - 4:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that this resolution would establish September 13 as
the proposed hearing date for the 57t'` Avenue Improvement Project assessments. Staff
recommended Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 58-1999.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 59-1999 AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN EMPLOYER
HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE 1999 - 2000
PLAN YEAR:
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that the resolution proves an increase to employees
who select the cash option to the Employees Fle�ble Benefit Plan. The increase would be
from $181 per month to $234 per month. Staffrecommended Council's approval.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 59-1999.
12. APPOINTMENTS: CITY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that staff recommended the appointment of Robert
Rewitzer to fill the vacancy of Corporal created by the resignation of Todd Mitchell.
Robert has been a Fridley Patrolman since 1989 and has served the City with distinction.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that staff recommended the appointment of David
Jensen to the position of Building Inspector recently vacated by Barry Riesch. Dave has
been a valued employee for fourteen years with the Streets Division. He obtained his
Building Inspections Degree from North Hennepin Community College and is currently
working toward completion of a four-year degree at Bethel College.
Staff recommended Council's concurrence in both appointments.
APPROVED THE APPPOINTMENTS OF ROBERT REWITZER AS
CORPORAL AND DAVID JENSEN AS BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR THE
CITY OF FRIDLEY.
13. CLAIMS:
APPROVED PAYMENT OF CLAIM NUMBERS 88444 THROUGH 88705.
14. LICENSES:
APPROVED LICENSES AS SUBMITTED.
15. ESTIMATES:
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 7
APPROVED ESTIMATES AS FOLLOWS:
Frederic W. Knaak, Esq.
Holstad and Knaak, P.L.C.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
St. Paul, MN 55110
Services Rendered as City Attorney
for the Month of July, 1999 $5,000.00
Carl J. Newquist, Esq.
Newquist & Ekstrum, Chartered
301 Fridley Plaza Office Building
6401 University Avenue N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
Services Rendered as City Prosecuting
Attorney for the Month of May, 1999 $16,284.00
Park Construction Co.
7900 Beech Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432 - 1795
Riverview Heights Area Improvement
Project No. ST. 1999 - 1
Estimate No. 3 $468,911.48
Mayor Jorgenson asked if there were any questions or concerns from the public on any of the
proposed consent agenda items.
No persons in the audience spoke regarding the proposed consent agenda.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Council-
member Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the adoption of the agenda. Seconded by
Councilmember Billings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UANIMOUSLY.
OPEN FORUM VISITORS:
Mayor Jorgenson invited members of the public to come forward to address any items not on the
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 8
agenda.
Mr. Tom Schroer, 7619 East River Road, thanked Councilmember Barnette and Councilmember
Bolkcom for their efforts in helping him with his concerns. He stated that his concerns were
regarding the County project on East River Road. He asked about the process for the legal
easement that the County can take.
Mr. Schroer stated that last year he found out he was supposed to have his driveway paved. He
stated that he had it paved all the way to the concrete apron that was there in his driveway
thinking that the County had already taken their easement as far as any newer features of
construction along that road. In June 1999 the County tore up 23 feet of his driveway. He stated
that he talked to Mr. Hickok about the City's ordinance of having the driveways paved by the
year 2001. He figured the City must have known the project was going to start. His big concern
was why he was not notified about the possibility of this project to prevent having 23 feet of his
driveway torn up.
Mr. Schroer stated that he hoped the City would let know how he could go about finding out if
the County or the City has taken more than their fair share of land. He stated that he hoped the
City could help with conveying the message of his concerns of damage done to his driveway.
There are deep bulldozer marks approximately 10 feet up on his driveway. He stated that on
7uly 24 the County moved the water main, which he did not have a problem with. His problem
was that they left a fairly large hole in his front yard. When he spoke with Mark Daly and the
general contractor of the project, they both assured him they would fill it in right away.
Mr. Schroer stated that he was concerned that he would be involved in a lawsuit over the hole.
He stated that three times he attempted to have the hole filled or fenced off, and it has not been
touched yet. He stated that he wanted the people located on the northern end of this project to be
aware of the trucks hauling sand and gravel. He was almost hit twice last week by those trucks.
Mr. Schroer said he was told by Mark Daly, by the contractor, and by 7ohn Dolentz, site engineer,
that those trucks have the right of way. He stated that he would like Council to convey his
message of the trucks being dangerous because every time he calls the County he gets voice mail
and no return telephone calls. He thanked Council for listening to him. He stated that he would
leave his name and telephone number if anyone had questions.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked him where he was driving where the County said the trucks have
the right-of-way.
Mr. Schroer responded that he was in the southbound lane to get on East River Road. He stated
that the truck was coming from about 150 yards back from the south. The truck came in between
two cones and then was allowing traffic to go around him. He felt the truck driver could have
just sat for a minute and let him pass. He said he was frustrated because he asked the driver of
the truck for his driver's license number. By the time he got a pen, the driver was gone. The
name on the side of the truck was Willis which is a private subcontractor. He stated that he
relayed this information to Mr. Daly. He stated that Mr. Daly asked him what he wanted him to
do about it. He said Mr. Daly stated that he would not attend any City Council meeting.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Schroer if anyone from the County contacted him early last
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 9
spring, fall, or winter about the County project.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 10
Mr. Schroer stated that he knew there was a public hearing. The only time he was made aware of
it was when the signs went up saying the road would be closed. Once he found his mailbox after
it was misplaced from the construction, there was a note telling him where the mailbox had been
moved to and a note stating that the first attempt to mail out notification on the project was sent
to all the wrong addresses. He received the original letter explaining the project started on
possibly June 30, two days after the project started.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Mr. Schroer was not the first person to express issues with
the County. She stated that Mr. Burns, City Manager, or Mr. Flora, Public Works Director,
would work on this and get back to him.
Mayor 7orgenson stated that since no other members in the audience were coming to the podium
to speak, the meeting would commence to the old business portion of the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS:
16. ORDINANCE NO. 1130 OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA,
AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO INCLUDE A NEW CHAPTER 409,
ENTITLED "FRANCHISE FEES:"
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that he would like to do a summary of the franchise fee proposal
and then respond to comments.
Mr. Burns said the proposal for the franchise fee entails the City proposing a three percent
franchise fee that would apply to residential customers. The three percent would apply to
Minnegasco and Northern States Power Company (NSP) utility bills. The increase would cost the
average residential customer about $36 per year. Commercial/industrial customers would be
charged a flat rate because both Minnegasco and NSP are concerned about outside competition
coming in and being able to operate without a franchise fee.
Mr. Burns said there would be a flat rate applied to the electric or gas meter based on the type of
service. That way, no matter who comes in to deliver the energy source, there is some sort of fee
applicable for utilities. The larger the use, the higher the commerciaUindustrial fee. Ninety
percent of all commercial/industrial customers would be paying less than $13 per month for each
of the two franchise fees. There would be a cap of $150 per month per meter for the large
commercial/industrial customers.
Mr. Burns said that the City would generate about $716,000 per year from the franchise fee.
Franchise fees are needed primarily to balance the General Fund budget. In 1999 the projected
use of fund balance was appro�mately $1.3 million. For the year 2000 the projected use of fund
balance is appro�mately $1. 5 million.
Mr. Burns said the reason for the franchise fee was because the City has been adding a number of
new programs and services principally in public safety. The City will have added 6 new police
officers by the year 2000. There have been five police officers added since 1994 with another one
coming on board. The City has picked up operating costs for the Fridley Community Center
which was built in cooperation with School District No. 14. The City has picked up operating
costs for the Rental Inspection Program. The City has taken over grant funded youth programs.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 11
The City has started mowing University Avenue. Mr. Burns said there was a long list of things
that have been added to provide better services for the residents of Fridley without offsetting
revenue sources. There has only been one property tax increase in the last eight years.
Mr. Burns said the second reason for the franchise fee was to offset the State's changes in the
definitions of property tax classifications and to offset very inelastic state aid revenues and
property taxes. The franchise fees are needed to give fle�bility to address future issues and
problems. Gymnasium space was badly needed so a double gymnasium was proposed to be built
for youth and adult programs. The City would like to be able to purchase new fire equipment in
the future. There is a need for additional street lighting in Fridley.
Mr. Burns said the franchise fee would not be able to cover all of the above-mentioned items, but
it would be a start. The franchise fee would be more favorable than the property tax increase
because of tax diversity for the City. It is incremental in nature and applies to all property that
uses local government services. It also enables the City to find a way to recover some costs. The
franchise fee would be less expensive for the residential property owner than property taxes
would be.
Mr. Burns stated that at the first reading of the franchise fee the City heard concerns about the
impact of the fee on certain commerciaUindustrial users. The fear was expressed that certain
utility customers, due to the nature of their businesses, were likely to be impacted by exorbitant
franchise fees. After taking a look at several utility bills, staff recommended that a new section
409.05 be added. The new section would provide a rebate for franchise fees paid in excess of five
percent for any calendar year. Concerns were expressed that the franchise fees may be applied to
certain customer services, such as Minnegasco's "Service Plus." Staff added language that makes
it clear that the franchise fee applies only to metered gas or electric service. Another change, as
pointed out at the first reading, was that a new Subsection 3 be added to Section 409.02 of the
proposed ordinance. This new subsection establishes that the customer classifications on which
the fees are based are those established by the two utility companies and approved by the
Minnesota Public Utility Commission. It was also required that these definitions of customer
classifications be made available at the Municipal Center and on the City's web site.
Councilmember Wolfe asked about the possible increase in the ne�t twenty years.
Mr. Burns stated that the franchise fee has a ceiling that will not allow the City to collect more
than four percent, which is in the twenty-year franchise agreement. The Franchise Fee Ordinance
takes a four-fifths vote of Council for approval.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that one of the questions she has been asked by a couple of
business owners was regarding the issue of separate meters.
Mr. Burns stated that the utility companies desire to have flat meter charges rather than
percentage franchise fees.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that the ordinance also applies to the City of Fridley.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Burns to share information on other communities' franchise
fees.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 12
Mr. Burns stated that the City has looked into whether or not other cities have applied franchise
fees to any accounts other than metered accounts and they do not. Coon Rapids allows
exemption for school districts. The City has not heard from Minneapolis yet regarding their
policies. Minneapolis has a five percent franchise fee, and Coon Rapids has an appro�mately five
percent franchise fee also.
Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Burns how long the franchise fees have been in existence.
Mr. Burns stated that the Minneapolis and St. Paul franchise fees go back to the 1930s. Coon
Rapids' dates back to 1973. Blaine adopted a franchise fee last year, and Mounds View's was
adopted in 1994.
Mayor 7orgenson stated that normally, second readings of ordinances could not take public
comment. The City Council decides whether or not they would like to take public comment.
Councilmember Barnette stated that there are lot of people in attendance who were not at the
public hearing. If they have something to say, he felt it was the responsibility of the City Council
to listen.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she agreed with Councilmember Barnette. She welcomed
any new information.
Councilmember Wolfe stated that he was also open to public comment.
Councilmember Billings stated that he was always open to new information.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that the City Council was going to receive public comment regarding the
franchise fee, but it was not the only item on the agenda. She asked that comments be brief,
mindful of the statement of ineeting conduct read earlier. She reminded people to behave in a
respectful manner or she would have to deal appropriately with them.
Mayor Jorgenson asked that anyone who addresses the City Council to state their name and
address for the record.
Mr. Scott Hanson, Atom-Mation Company, 7779 Beech Street N.E., stated that the franchise fee
was a tax. It seemed that this tax that is a little unfair because it taxes certain companies at one
rate and other companies at another. Mr. Hanson asked what the flat rate was.
Mr. Burns stated that it was a rate roughly calculated at three percent of 65 percent for the
average customer category bill. Customers would be charged at a rate reflecting the average rate
for all the customers in that category.
Mr. Hanson stated that the tax base was still the same. It was not diversifying, it was still from
the taxpayers. He asked how the City could collect more than five percent if the rebate was over
five percent and the flat rate was three percent of 65 percent.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that when a franchise fee is based on the average bill in that
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 13
category the people who are the smaller users in that category tend to get taxed at a higher
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 14
percentage than people who are heavier users in that category. To limit the unfair impact the
rebate gives back the amount that was paid in excess of over five percent.
Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Knaak to clarify that the franchise fee was not a sales tax.
Mr. Knaak stated that the legislation that allows the City to impose a franchise fee specifically
states that they are fees but that they are unusual in that in addition to allowing the City to use
them for purposes compensating for costs in administration, they are also allowed to be used as
revenue producing sources. They are not a tax. Taxes and sales taxes are only authorized after
special legislation is passed.
Mr. Hanson stated that it was a sales tax regardless of what it was called. A franchise fee was a
tax, and that was all there was to it.
Councilmember Barnette stated that the City Attorney was just clarifying the terminology.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that there are a fair amount of people that rent homes and pay
the utility bills themselves.
Mr. Hanson stated that the franchise fee was a sales tax because it was based on the utility that
was being purchased.
Ms. Lillian Meyer, President of the League of Women Voters, stated that the League was very
opposed to any fees that are raised that are not put forth as a tax when that was basically what
they were. It was a hidden tax.
Mayor 7orgenson stated that one of the reasons they are implementing the franchise fee rather
than asking for a property tax increase was that there are levies by the legislature that do not
allow the City to raise taxes more than a given percent over what they have been in the previous
year. For about the last seven or eight years the City Council has been drawing down the reserve
funds that were generated during the 1950s and 1980s when additional revenues were coming in
over and above what was needed to operate the City.
Mayor Jorgenson said that the City Council decided to draw down on the reserves rather than
collect those additional revenues. They felt they owed it to the City to keep those revenues down
and to provide the same level of services the citizens were asking for. The City could not
generate the revenues they needed with property tax. People have some control with their utility
costs.
Mayor Jorgenson said the ordinance states that people below federal poverty guidelines would
receive rebates back on that franchise fee. The City has looked at every option available to raise
revenues needed for the programs everybody wants, but the only other alternative was to stop
those programs and still keep reasonable property taxes so as not to force people out of their
homes. It was no different than a cable franchise fee. Mayor Jorgenson understands that people
are angry and feel it was a hidden tax, but the City has looked at this very carefully. The City
Council was not trying to pull anything over on anybody.
Ms. Meyer asked what the maximum amount of revenue the City would receive if the City raised
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 15
property taxes in Fridley.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that would be appro�mately $400,000.
Councilmember Billings stated that it would be an eleven percent increase.
Ms. Meyer stated that the League favors having a tax called a tax.
Mr. Jeff Van Keuren, Public Affairs Manager, United Defense, 4800 East River Road, stated that
United Defense does not support passage of this franchise fee. They do not disagree with the City
that there are very valid needs regarding how the money would be proposed to be used. They
simply disagree with the passage of a franchise fee based upon the fact that it was a bad tax policy
in all consideration. He stated that he read about franchise fees and learned that they can be
enacted to raise revenue or to defray municipal costs accrued as a result of the utility operation
for which the franchise fee was being collected.
Mr. Van Keuren had with him a copy of a February 1996 report to the legislature from the
Minnesota Department of Public Service that looked at franchise fees in general, and it generally
portrayed municipalities by and large using franchise fees as general fund items. The
municipalities were not tracking the franchise fee other than a general fund item. United Defense
feels that if there was a valid need to improve infrastructure in the City related to electricity and
gas, the franchise fee may be a viable option specific to that need. United Defense does not
believe that the franchise fee should be used as a general tax. It would be better applied as a sales
tax completely under the auspices of the law. United Defense supports the need for the City to
provide services to its residents and businesses, but they do not think this was the right way to do
it.
Mr. Burns demonstrated the following example to show an example of the franchise fee deduction
on a utility bill for a commerciaUindustrial bill: During the last twelve months a customer's NSP
bills added up to $12,800 on a 109 kilowatt demand charge. The customer usually pays a$93 per
month fee under the large commercial/industrial category. If you multiply five times $12,800, the
fee they should pay under the change being proposed is $640.00. This company would be entitled
to a $476 rebate.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Burns if the new charge would help companies that have
multiple meters because each meter would pay five percent.
Mr. Burns, City Manager, explained that, in general, this new change would help the smaller user
because the customer would most likely pay the eight or nine percent franchise fee associated with
the smaller company because the fee for his customer category was based on an average usage for
that category. The big company with many large meters was not going to benefit as much as the
smaller company who would be affected by the demand charge. The maximum any large
company with multiple meters would be charged per month would be $150 for each of those large
primary meters.
Mr. John Holmen, owner of Alltemp Distribution Companies, 5400 N.E. Main and 5101
Industrial Boulevard, stated that this was kind of a shock when he received the notice of the
franchise fee. He felt that companies such as his were being penalized because of the multiple
meters. In his second building he would have to pay $93 for each meter. There are multiple
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 16
meters in his other buildings, too. He felt that the fee was unfair for multiple meters. He
wondered if there was a rebate or program where they could be treated fairly.
Mayor Jorgenson thanked him for coming to the meeting and for also talking previously to
Mr. Burns for clarification.
Mr. Holmen said it helped to speak to Mr. Burns, as he explained the fee very well. He said he
understands the process of the franchise fee a lot better now.
Mr. George Fuglsang, owner of Metal Tek Inc., stated that he spoke to Mr. Burns a week ago
and understands the fee better now also. Mr. Fuglsang stated that he did not feel the fee would
do his company much good. His company has multiple meters, and he figures they would have to
pay $4,500 to $5,000 per year. He stated that he has five or six meters affected by this proposed
fee. He felt that ne�t year the City's revenue would not be flat, and the valuation and taxes would
go up.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that even though market value was going up, the legislature was trying a
new formula that was driving taxes down.
Mr. Fuglsang stated that his taxes have gone up, but the City's portion went down.
Councilmember Billings stated that the City certifies a specific amount to the County. Then the
County, through the formulas provided by the state, determines how much of that goes against
residential and how much goes against commerciaUindustrial. The City was anticipating that the
real estate taxes the City collects will be the same in the year 2000 as they are in 1999, even
though the real estate values are going up.
Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace, believed that a certain portion of fire insurance
companies fees were kicked back to the City.
Councilmember Billings stated that if that was the case, the City has not been collecting it.
Mr. Harris stated that as he and Mr. Burns went through the multiple meters issue, something
stuck regarding the definitions. The definitions for NSP in the ordinance clearly leaves out that
separate meters under residential and the small industrial companies for low demand have single
or three phase non-demand electric meter service. It was about customers, not meters.
Mr. Burns stated that it was not part of the ordinance. The ordinance states that customer
categories are defined as Minnegasco and NSP defines them.
Mr. Harris stated that under their current definitions, it says "these customers," not mentioning
multiple meters.
Mr. Burns stated that what Mr. Harris was referring to was not the ordinance.
Mr. Harris asked where it states that in the ordinance. He said it did not even mention meters
when referring to large commercial users. Under Minnegasco's fee schedule therms per month is
talked about, but it did not say a word about meters.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 17
Mr. Burns stated that the meter approach was defined in the franchise ordinance that has already
been approved.
Mr. Harris stated that he would like to see that. He asked if it was per meter. He asked why it
did not say per meter anywhere else. He felt it was a ticket for full employment for attorneys. He
agreed with Councilmember Billings to say what we mean and mean what we say and to write an
ordinance that everybody can understand.
Mr. Burns stated that the franchise fee ordinance clearly states that the franchise fee would be
based on monthly meter charge.
Mr. Harris asked if it addressed multiple meter charges.
Mr. Burns stated that it does state per meter.
Mr. Harris stated that he did not think so.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the only place it spelled out separate meter use was under
partial rebate.
Mr. Burns explained that the intent was to provide a monthly meter charge for different categories
of commercial/industrial customers as well as residential.
Mr. Harris stated that was not what the ordinance states. He could not see where multiple meters
was addressed, especially in large commercial, secondary and primary.
Mr. Knaak stated that what Mr. Burns was referring to was the earlier franchise fee ordinance that
provided for three methods of proposing the franchise fee. What was being considered was a flat
meter fee per customer base, which is exactly what the ordinances states.
Mr. Harris asked why the clarification explanation was not anywhere except in the franchise fee
ordinance.
Councilmember Billings stated that it was by reference. Instead of rewriting the entire franchise
agreement, which has already been passed in another ordinance, it has been included by reference.
Mr. Harris stated that he hated those because you can miss them.
Mr. Knaak stated that the specific per meter method contained in the proposal was one of the
three that was specifically allowed in the underlying franchise fee ordinance.
Mr. Harris stated that it does not specifically state that.
Mr. Knaak stated that the only way the City can charge the particular ordinance was in the
manner allowed by the underlying franchise.
Mr. Harris asked if the four percent fee was a specific number spelled out in the franchise fee.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 18
Mr. Knaak stated that was the cap of the franchise fee.
Mr. Burns stated that the four percent was the total franchise fee they can charge to both utilities.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the only way they can charge more than three percent was to
go through the whole process again including public hearings and a vote by City Council.
Councilmember Billings stated that in any given classification of customer, the flat fee was based
on three percent of the 65 percent which means that the person in the bottom two percent of that
classification would pay more than three percent. The Franchise Agreement refers to a four
percent cap on the franchise fee. The average would be three percent in any classification.
Councilmember Billings stated that he felt that the five percent, in terms of rebate, was not
inconsistent with what the franchise fee ordinance spelled out.
Mr. Harris stated that he hoped not and thanked Council.
Mr. Joe Nelson, 1357 64t'` Avenue N.E., stated that when the school board needs to raise revenue
they go by referendum. That information goes before the public by way of a vote. He wondered
if that would be appropriate here.
Mr. Burns stated that it was not something the City is required to do.
Mr. Knaak stated that it was possible if someone wanted to initiate a tax increase pursuant to the
City Charter they could do so. There was no requirement that the City had to initiate a tax
increase in this way. There was no procedure here that would allow the City to initiate that kind
of proposal.
Ms. Linda Huber, Chairperson, Fridley School District No. 14, and Jim Ferguson, School Board
Member, Fridley School District No. 14, asked which school districts are going to be impacted
and what the financial amount would be.
Mr. Burns stated that all the four school districts would be impacted. School District No. 14 has
an estimated impact of $10,042. The other school districts have an impact of less than $400. The
main reason for School District No. 14's higher amount is because that school district has several
large meters.
Ms. Huber stated that she believed that School District No. 14 has been a very good steward of
the money for the district. Every time they have had to ask the voters for any increase, whether it
was a bond or a levy, the district goes to the voters, educates them, gives them time for review,
and then asks for approval. The district is very fortunate that they have had a positive result on all
of their votes. This past year they had to cut $654,000 out of their budget. They are cutting back
on staff and have terminated several probationary teachers. They reduced four tenured positions,
and some teachers were asked to come back with reduced contracts depending on the money they
receive at the end of the year from the legislature.
Ms. Huber said the district is in a negative $350,000 fund balance, and could not see any way to
come up with the $10,000 fee to pay the City. Money impacts the kids as well as staff. The
school district shares many things with the City. Ms. Huber did not want to become adversarial
but felt this was something the City needed to think about. She suggested perhaps tabling this
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 19
issue and bringing it come back another time. She also suggested capping this to equal what the
other districts are paying.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the City supplied police officers to School District No. 14.
Mr. Burns stated that the City does supply the police officer for the middle school and also for
Project Safety Net for the school. Having employees in the schools costs the City about $100,000
per year in Police Department services alone. Part of the money was initially grant money, but the
grants are three-year grants. Then the expenses are the City's responsibility. The City has been
applying for a new grant for the year 2000, but they have to pledge that they will continue those
employees at full City expense when the grant runs out.
Ms. Huber asked if the officers are full-time in their school twelve months per year.
Mr. Burns stated that there was an officer in the middle school totally devoted to the middle
school. There was another officer in the elementary school approximately fifteen percent of the
time in the elementary school. The other half is split between other districts.
Ms. Huber stated she is unaware of that and would have to check on that.
Councilmember Billings stated that when school is out of session the officer is typically placed in
investigation work According to Public Safety Director David Sallman's calculations, that was
taken into consideration.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that another example is that the DARE officer is put into Fridley schools
but paid for by the City. The City cannot continue to absorb all of these costs for these programs.
Mr. Ferguson stated that the real question was is it valid and good ta�ng policy to tax another
ta�ng authority. He also wanted to remind the City that every time they applied for a grant they
looked at the fact that the grant was going to run out, and maybe the City should not apply for it.
He asked if the City looks three to four years down the line to the point of how the City was
going to pay for employees after the grant money runs out.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that they have tried to budget, but the legislature continues to tinker with
the property tax reclassification which has left them with flat revenues. The City has no control
over that.
Mr. Ferguson stated that the City Council has to ask themselves if it is good ta�ng policy to tax
another ta�ng authority.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the City is faced with some of the same issues the school
district is with children that have more social needs than in the past.
Mr. Ferguson stated that a lot of the underlying reasons have been discussed in as much detail
with the school district and City staff.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that she would love to have a meeting with the school district to discuss
it.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 20
Ms. Huber stated that she asked for a meeting the first time she called Mr. Burns, and it never
materialized.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 21
Mayor 7orgenson stated that they have a number of businesses that are making the same request.
Council felt that it was best to take this to a public forum where all the information is available to
everyone.
Ms. Huber asked which school district would be benefiting from the Medtronic project and TIF
financing.
Councilmember Billings stated that it was anticipated that the additional revenues generated in the
property taxes to the Columbia Heights school district would be appro�mately $3 million per
year. The majority of that would go to the State of Minnesota.
Ms. Huber stated that she wanted people to know that they would love to be the best neighbor
possible to Medtronic, but Medtronic is in the Columbia Heights school district.
Councilmember Barnette stated that one of his considerations in the franchise fee ordinance was
of one taxing agency taxing another taxing agency.
Mr. Ferguson wondered if it was valid tax policy.
Councilmember Barnette stated it is something they have all struggled with.
Mr. Ferguson and Ms. Huber thanked Council for their time.
Mr. Fred Bischke, 1490 66t'` Ave. N.E., stated that he was very happy with the services he
receives. He is also happy with School District No. 14. Last spring the school district faced a
$650,000 deficit. Parents and community residents formed a group called SOS (Save Our
Schools) and spent a lot of time and effort lobbying the legislature. In the end they were able to
get a much larger increase in funding. The sentiment for supporting good schools was very
strong in Fridley, and that makes Fridley a very good community. The tax bothers him because it
is a tax from one public entity to another. He urges the City to exempt School District No. 14 as
well as Columbia Heights and Spring Lake Park school districts from this tax.
Ms. Gail Ahrens, 198 Mercury Drive, stated that it was very easy to look at an $18 million school
district budget and say that $10,000 is a small amount and should not hurt. She said she was also
part of Fridley's SOS coalition. SOS fought for every dollar the legislature would give the
students. They have been underfunded for ten years. What the legislature gave them did not even
make up for the shortfall over ten years. Eighty-five percent of an $18 million budget is
compensation costs, so really the City was looking at $10,000 against fifteen percent of the
budget. It has basically been cut down to the bone for four years. She felt for the churches, but
they have a congregation, and the church can appeal to make up for the shortfall to the school
district to the congregation. There are no individuals to make up for the shortfall so when the
City takes the $10,000 away it is gone for good and will not be replenished by any other body.
She proposed that the City exempt all school districts from the franchise fee. She felt that a flat
fee should be assessed against all school districts regardless of number of ineters. Anything less
than that was community cannibalism. Ms. Ahrens thanked Council for their time.
Mr. Robert Lange, 189 Logan Parkway N.E., encouraged the City to deal more with raising the
taxes with indications so they would not get into issues like this. It appeared the City has been
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 22
borrowing money from funds for capital improvement projects. He was satisfied with the City's
services, but he thought that all non-profits should be exempt. He suggested that the City should
address the user fee for necessary services. He wanted to call attention to page 19 of the July 26,
1999 minutes where it states that non-profits pay sales taxes, but non-profits do not pay sales
taxes.
Mr. Clem Coverston, 1424 Creek Park Lane, representing St. Philips Church, stated that the
church saw the franchise fee as a change in policy more than the dollar amount and that what had
been a tax exempt institution was now being taxed. The amount was not the importance, but the
church did not know how they would be taxed in the future.
Councilmember Barnette stated that they cannot charge the franchise fee on anything else.
Mr. John Hinsverk, 6070 Seventh Street N.E., stated that the proposal takes almost $750,000 out
of the economy from residents and businesses. It was very easy to see the positive things the City
wants to do with that money. What was impossible to see was the negative effects. The people
have that much less spending money to spend or save and invest. It was impossible to do a study
to figure exactly what they are, but they are just as real nonetheless. There seems to be a real fear
in the political bodies from the highest to the lowest level of not addressing every need or
problem. He felt it was okay to say no, and it was okay that Fridley is not able to have every
program.
Mr. Tim Werner, resident, stated that ta�ng the church or school district is ta�ng him again. The
church is going to come back and ask for more money. Businesses will increase costs also. He
felt the citizens would say no to some programs. The City, at some point, has to look at the
bottom line and say they cannot keep adding programs. Maybe the previous year's spending limit
should be this year's spending limit. He asked if spending has gone up with inflation adjustments,
per capita.
Councilmember Billings stated that the budget has remained the same since 1990. The population
has increased, so based on that, per capita spending would have gone down. The annual budget
was pretty much the same.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that 85 percent of the budget is people costs which are going to escalate.
The medical expenses for all of the employers, which the City has no control over. The City was
trying to do the best they could with what they have. The fund balances would be drawn down
over $1,000,000 if the City did not use the franchise fee. The City has looked at cutting spending
in every way possible and laid off five employees about four years ago. The only new employees
are police officers. Crime has been down because of the addition of more police officers.
Mr. Werner stated that the two police officers hired this year are not going into the schools. One
for ne�t year would be going into the high school.
Mr. Warner asked if the City Attorney said they could not take this to the referendum.
Mr. Knaak stated that it was not possible for the City to put this before the voters like the school
district does. There was a separate opportunity under the City Charter for a referendum. A
group of citizens can get together, and fifteen percent of the entire list of registered voters would
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 23
have the ability to have it placed on the ballot. It does not mean that there cannot be a
referendum. In order to enact this, the City Council really cannot put the matter before the
citizens. There was no procedure in place for the City to do that. The only way a referendum
could be put in place was by an ordinance by the City Council.
Mr. Werner thanked Council.
Ms. Gail Ahrens, stated that the pamphlet states that the City was currently transferring $1.3
million a year from the fund reserves for 1999 for the budget. She asked if the City was planning
to continue drawing down the reserves and was also hoping to raise $715,000 per year for the
franchise fee.
Mr. Burns stated that, typically the City does not draw down quite as much for the budget. He
thinks they have a reasonable chance of breaking even with the $716,000.
Ms. Ahrens asked how much the fund reserves are.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that Focus News had it listed as $24,000,000, but that was not cash just
sitting there, that was all the cash the City has set aside for various projects.
Ms. Ahrens asked everyone to remember that it was a very difficult process for the school
districts to recoup anything that is charged to them through this franchise fee.
Mr. Ferguson asked if the police officer going in the schools ne�t year was budgeted by grant
money and if it was specifically requested by Mr. Dier.
Mr. Burns stated it was budgeted by grant money, and he was not sure if Mr. Dier requested it.
Mr. Ferguson stated that he was not aware that the school district requested the police officer.
Maybe the City should not hire the third policeman until the situation was clarified.
Councilmember Billings stated that it was entirely possible that the City may not get the grant
because of the situation in Colorado. There is a tremendous competition for the grant money.
Mr. Greg Patterson, 1509 N. Timber Ridge, and President of the Timber Ridge Homeowner's
Association, asked the City Attorney if it was possible for the City Council to adopt a resolution
placing this question before the voters on the ballot at the general election.
Mr. Knaak stated that the manner of doing an initiative was not as Mr. Patterson just suggested.
Whether the City Council, by resolution, would want to support or not support a citizen effort in
order to pass an ordinance that would create a fee, there would be nothing to prevent the Council
from doing that. The process does not provide for it.
Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Knaak if there was anything that prevents the City from placing a
question on the ballot at the general election.
Mr. Knaak stated that the City does not initiate that process. The process has to be brought
forward by the citizens and by the petition.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 24
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 25
Mr. Patterson stated that the City Council delayed asking the citizenry if they thought this was a
good idea, and there are no laws preventing the City from putting it on a ballot.
Mr. Knaak stated that there would be nothing to prevent the City Council from taking any
position at all in a petition effort. The City cannot be in that party or intervene in that process in
any way for or against. It is a citizen initiative. The City cannot take any action until it is
presented in a petition signed by a certain percentage of the vote. The same process is in place for
a referendum, and the City Charter provides for the referendum. If prior to the effective date of
the ordinance, if they can provide a petition signed by fifteen percent of the voters, it goes onto
the referendum.
Mr. Patterson asked if there was a very narrow window that the taxpayers have for overturning
this.
Mr. Knaak stated that by referendum the answer is yes.
Mr. Patterson asked if there was other recourse later.
Mr. Knaak stated it was conceivable.
Mr. Patterson stated he wanted a yes or a no.
Councilmember Billings stated that the City Attorney was there to advise the City Council. The
City Attorney said that he would need time to research the question. At this moment the City
Attorney would need to research that section on the Charter because it was not something the
City Council deals with on a daily basis. To stand there and demand an answer right now was
unreasonable.
Mr. Knaak stated that, as he reads the Charter, the initiative language that would allow for a
repeal of the ordinance would provide for that given the fact that there was, in e�stence, a
referendum that specifically was directed toward the appeal.
Mr. Patterson thanked Council.
Councilmember Billings stated that City staff has made minor modifications to the proposed
Franchise Fee Ordinance.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to approve the second reading of the ordinance. Seconded
by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to substitute the language presented in this evening's
agenda in its entirety as a substitute for the language adopted previously. Seconded by
Councilmember Bolkcom.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 26
Councilmember Billings explained that the motion brings before them the language that has the
minor modifications that staff has made in the last month since the public hearing and after the
first reading in the agenda at the present time.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Section 409.05 by adding the following sentence:
"For purposes of this section customers shall mean each separately metered use of the service
provided under the franchise." Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Billings to amend Section 409.02, Fee Schedules, item number 1 by
inserting the word "metered" between the words monthly and gas. In item number 2 strike the
word "gas" and insert the word "metered electric" between the words monthly and bill. Seconded
by Councilmember Bolkcom.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to add a new section to Section 409.06 stating "any school
district paying for one or more customers in the City of Fridley may receive a rebate of franchise
fees paid in excess of $2,000 in any given calendar year. Those eligible for the rebate can make
application for the rebate at the City on any business day of the year following the year in which
the rebate is applicable. The City shall either affirm or deny the rebate within a reasonable time.
For purposes of this section customer shall mean each separately metered use of the service
provided under the franchise." This motion includes renumbering Sections 409.07 and 409.08.
Seconded by Councilmember Billings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DELCARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that the ordinance would be published. There was a si�ty-day period for
the City to wait until the ordinance was enacted, but it would appear on November's utility
statement.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that she has been asked by the Council for a five minute break before
continuing with the meeting.
The meeting was recessed at 10:30 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 10:45 p.m.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 27
NEW BUSINESS:
17. REPLAT REQUEST, PS #99-03, BY STEPHEN VARICHAK, TO CREATE
THREE SEPARATE LOTS, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1583 GARDENA
AVENUE (WARD 2):
Mr. Craig A. Ryd, 5961 Benjamin Street, stated that he wanted to make a comment briefly before
he had to leave for work. He stated that there is a drainage problem that e�sts on his property
that has almost become a safety issue. His wife and two kids have slipped and fallen when getting
the mail because the water pools into his driveway. The driveway has a water problem at the
beginning of the driveway. Water comes down the hill and pools into his driveway. He is not the
only one with the problem in his neighborhood. In considering building in that area please, be
aware that there are problems with safety issues. The trees make the area a lovely area.
Preserving that area as far as the trees are concerned was very important to the group of people in
the neighborhood. The trees are beautiful. He thanked Council and stated that he was a
correctional officer and had to go to work.
Mr. Hickok explained that this is a replat of Lot 2 on the corner of Benjamin Street and Gardena
Avenue out of Auditors Subdivision 92 to develop three separate lots to accommodate three
single family homes. Currently, on that lot there exists a single family home with a garage. The
plan was for that to be removed. In 1949 the lot was platted. In 1966 the e�sting home was
built. In 1976 the e�sting home was connected to City water and sewer. The Planning
Commission decided on July 7, 1999 to recommend approval of the plat if the petitioner
completed soil analysis on each plat. The analysis has been completed, and the information has
been forwarded to staff. The soil has favorable conditions for a 22-inch wide running footing and
on each of the three lots. Mr. Hickok stated that the proposed lots exceed the size standard
required by City Code. All three lots have suitable soils, and all grading site plans will need
approval of the City's Engineering staff prior to the issuance of building permits.
Councilmember Wolfe asked Mr. Hickok about the grading issue on Lot 3. He asked if they dig
down to grade would that expose the roots of the trees.
Mr. Hickok stated that the roots are below the grading line.
Ms. Sue Wick, residing at 1565 Gardena Avenue N.E., stated that she thought the only tree it
would not affect would be the tree on the corner and she thought there was a tree missing.
Mr. Hickok stated that he thought that the tree missing was actually on the adjacent property.
Ms. Sue Wick stated that she lived on the adjacent property and would give comment later.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Hickok for clarification of the tree document Mr. Hickok has
shown. He asked if the area shown to represent the setback area could mean that the house can
be no closer to the property lines than that but that does not necessarily mean that someone was
going to build right down by that particular tree.
Mr. Hickok stated that was correct and staff believed a home could be built without affecting the
roots of the trees. He said the developer should come up with a plan.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 28
Councilmember Barnette stated that the house directly behind where he lives was a heavily
wooded lot with mature oak trees. When that home was built about twenty years ago they had
some of the same concerns. They have a tree right ne�t to their house and all of those trees have
survived.
Ms. Wick stated that was some consolation. She stated that she was also concerned about how
the drainage ditch adjacent to her property would work.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Hickok if the petitioner wanted to remove any of the trees
would they have to justify that.
Mr. Hickok stated that it was much like the Totino-Grace development. City staff would evaluate
based on the setbacks where the trees would be removed. They would expect to see every
building permit plan that comes in. They have to identify the trees and beyond the removal of
four trees to be removed staff would be very critical.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that one of Ms. Wick's concerns was that one of her trees might
be affected even though it is not on the property. Because of the root system there might be a
problem.
Mr. Hickok stated that staff has done the best they could based on their estimations. He was
unable to say that it would not damage her tree for certain. That tree is outside of the building
area, and they do not anticipate that the builder and the future home buyer would need to damage
the trees on the outer edge.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what all the stipulations about soil and backfill do for drainage.
Mr. Hickok stated that many of them deal with the fact that this is very sandy soil. A foundation
should not be cut into a hill and then backfilled with sand, for example. More granular material
would be needed to hold itself together pressed against the foundation like it should. Sand in that
condition would drop down and erode out exposing the foundation eventually. Other stipulations
talk about downspouts says that these three homes will not be bringing their new roof areas down
the driveway through Benjamin and down the catch basin but instead it would come off the roof
through the gutter downspout system and come over land which is far better because with sand
you get saturation. Part of that stipulation is protecting the root system of the trees. Every time
you step water it has a potential of wanting to seep in before it goes down to the ne�t level. After
the water drains to the street it would go to the catch basin which have been utilized as a drainage
area. The catch basins are there already but are not working at the present time. That was
something new that staff has heard through the Planning Commission process.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that one of the biggest issues is with the drainage problem of the
driveway into the slope.
Mr. Hickok stated that there was an e�sting condition. Related to this project, the City is not
going to contribute to any drainage problem, control the rooftop drainage, take very little water
ending up coming off the driveway, and put it into that area. It is a very nominal amount.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 29
Councilmember Bolkcom asked what he meant by a very nominal amount.
Mr. Hickok stated this area was designed to accommodate the water coming off from the
driveway or off the roof on the backside. It was not a question about whether or not the
drainage area could accommodate the water coming off the roof or driveways. The hole is deep
enough, and you could not take enough water off that roof and driveways to make that fail.
Councilmember Wolfe stated that it was not going to change the amount of water flowing by
building. It is just that right now the issue was not so much flowing off the driveway it was that
the catch basin was not handling the water properly the way it is.
Mr. John Flora, Public Works Director, stated that he just received the information in the
Planning Commission meeting minutes regarding the drainage problem. They have not seen the
problem but would certainly look at it to see if it is something that has to be dealt with.
Mr. Stephen Varichak, 1558 Briardale, stated that Mr. Hickok has done a great job. Mr.
Varichak said he was willing to go with whatever Mr. Hickok requires. He stated that he was
only adding two driveways. He said he was unaware of the water problems being discussed.
There was drainage that goes down into the hole. There were no water tables in the property
currently nor when they bore 15 feet down. He stated that unless they would get a monsoon rain
they would probably never see any water run off the back of the lots. He stated that they would
eliminate part of the City's financial deficit problem by building three new houses. They would
raise the local tax base from $1,000 to probably $10,000 to $12,000. Any builder would have to
go through the requirements the City has. He thinks there would be very minimal amount of
excess runoff.
Ms. Kathy Miller, 5950 Benjamin Street, owns the property adjacent to this property on the north
side. She stated that it was a sad day when the property owners needed to come before the City
Council to request the City to take action to stop or reduce development and subdivisions in her
neighborhood. They have been informed by members of the City Council that the neighborhood's
opinions should be voiced, but that the decision would not be based on the neighborhood's
opinion. She asked why she was there. Residents and voters would like change. They no longer
are looking for City Council to vote as they have in the past. The City Council can vote,
hopefully, based on the majority interest of the taxpayers, and she thought the majority were
present. The trees and the open space are really one of the major issues, and the City needs to
preserve and protect the natural environment in the neighborhood.
Ms. Miller felt that everyone needed to start protecting the integrity and dignity of neighborhoods
in the City of Fridley in general. She felt everyone needed to follow community values and model
it. She asked what would happen if the builders back into a tree that was not marked to be taken
out? Children play in the area, slide down the hills, and use their imagination in the woods. It has
been a safe and natural environment for children and the neighbors would like to keep that. There
are Boy Scouts who come to the woods to work toward their different achievements. The
replating of the three houses would ruin this.
Ms. Miller stated that the Drainage Section 205.04.04 Section I states that "No land shall be
altered and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing flooding, erosion, or its
deposits of minerals on the adjacent properties." Drainage Code 205.04.08 Section D Erosion
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 30
states "No erosion shall be permitted onto neighboring properties or into natural waterways." As
far as she knows, there was no section code that overrides this code from her property, even
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 31
though it has a current water drainage or a natural water flow. There would be more water, and
there was erosion on that property.
Ms. Miller felt the current issue was that adding additional water to that property with the way it
was sitting, would create erosion on the hill ne�t to their driveway, going down the center of their
lawn, and would create additional grass slowly deteriorating on that point on the lawn. Thirty-
five percent of the trees would be taken out, possibly more, which naturally absorb water. New
sod would be put in and probably have a little more water flow with that. There was definite
erosion on the street. The catch basins do not work, water flows back into her two neighbors
across the street on their driveways. She asked if Council could guarantee one hundred percent
that there would be no erosion, and no additional water by placing two additional houses on the
adjacent lot.
Ms. Miller did not think so. It sounded to her from everything she has read in the code that
Council could not adversely affect neighboring properties. She still did not see any code that
states you can adversely effect her property because there was a natural water flow down there.
If the City does look at this issue of the erosion problem, then there are two areas of erosion
taken care of potentially. The taxpayers of the City of Fridley would have to pay for the
developers to have the ability to send e�tra water into her yard without paying for the
improvements that need to be made. The neighborhood group has tried an alternative plan which
was on the table, but she has not heard from Mr. Varichak or his partner Mr. Surdyk.
Ms. Miller stated that she assumed since she has not received a response that the developers are
more interested in the bottom line than in the preservation of the current environment. There was
an offer still on the table to put out $25,000 for a portion of Lot 1 to help preserve the space and
the trees. The option was to increase the two lots at the south end of the property which would
raise the sale price of those two lots. This offer was somewhat contingent on the fact that as a
neighborhood they would only like to see two houses built on the property to retain more of the
trees, natural beauty, dignity and integrity that they are up their trying to keep. This offer was not
going to raise the value of her property but would retain the dignity they have in the
neighborhood. The trees and open space are important to all communities, and the City needs to
preserve and protect the natural environment within this neighborhood.
Councilmember Barnette asked Ms. Miller who had proposed the $25,000 for the property.
Ms. Miller stated that she had spoken with Mr. Varichak and was given a proposal saying that she
would like to buy a portion of Lot 1, enough of it to save the four trees at least. The proposal
also allows Mr. Varichak to expand out in the other properties, as much as it would take for him
to get some more money, but to keep this plan down to two houses.
Councilmember Wolfe stated that building bigger houses does not fit in the neighborhood there.
They would be more of an eyesore in the neighborhood.
Ms. Miller stated that it would be an eyesore to a point. Ms. Miller did not think it was about
building two huge houses to make up the money. Part of everybody's responsibility as a citizen,
investor, or whatever is to retain the integrity of what you are building on.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that just because you have a bigger lot does not mean you need
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 32
to build a bigger home.
Ms. Miller stated that you could build a little bit bigger home and get a little bit of that e�tra
dollar back Maybe two bigger homes would look a lot better than three homes scrunched in
together.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that that would be an agreement they could work out with Mr. Varichak.
It was not something the City could work on, that would be a private thing.
Councilmember Billings asked if the City subsidizes the drainage correction for the developer. Is
Ms. Miller saying that if this development does not go through and there are not three houses here
that there does not need to be a change in the drainage.
Ms. Miller stated that there probably still would need to be a change in the drainage.
Unfortunately, she did not have a lot of faith that that would happen. It has not been looked at
before even though it was an issue before.
Councilmember Billings asked if the drainage needed to be corrected anyway, how would the City
arrive at the correction of the drainage being a subsidy for the developer. He asked if it needed to
be fixed whether the developer does something or not.
Ms Miller stated that it should be. Once the erosion goes away, the issue goes away. She stated
that she was guessing that by the time this thing was done, Council would allow it anyway, and
would also allow e�tra water flow in there. Putting in different catch basins would not take care
of all of the erosion issues. There are other issues going through the center of the lot too. She
assumed that e�tra water was going to mean some e�tra firming that would need to be done to
that area, that she is sure would mean an additional cost to the City.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that one of the issues that she heard loud and clear from the
neighborhood was that they did not want any additional water going into the neighborhood, but
they also do not want to have any assessment against the neighborhood for any correction of the
water that was already there. If the City does water improvements they are assessed against the
benefiting property owners. What the neighborhood group was asking for was exactly what they
said they do not want.
Ms. Miller stated that she believed she heard that the City has a budget set aside for correction of
storm water issues.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that the City does have another budget set aside, but it is also the
benefiting properties that pay toward any issues being corrected.
Ms. Miller stated that she believed the residents many, many years ago had an assessment for
corrections that have been paid even before she was a property owner.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that some of the properties have paid $200 to $300 toward the
correction of storm water issues. Currently storm water correction issues are basically no more
than $1,000 per lot.
Ms. Miller stated that her question was that until there is a project, corrections are not going to be
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 33
assessed to the property owners. In a previous conversation with City staff she wondered if it
meant that now it was assessable when it was not a week ago.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that the money Ms. Miller referred to for the Storm Water Improvement
Projects go through a capital improvements process in which they look three to five years ahead
as to which projects are going to be done.
Mr. Flora stated that two different issues are being discussed. Storm Water Improvement is an
assessable project. When they are talking about putting in a catch basin or fi�ng a ditch basin,
that would become a maintenance issue.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that one would be assessed and one would not. The catch basins
would not be assessed. The Stonybrook Project was a major project, and homeowners were
assessed $2,000. The surrounding group was also assessed.
Ms. Miller asked Mr. Flora what a good example would be for what would be assessable.
Mr. Flora stated that, for example, fi�ng the hole, by draining. Draining the hole involves a storm
pipe going a long distance. If they are talking about just fi�ng the catch basin, that is a
maintenance type of project.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that it sounds like there are drainage issues there currently, so,
ultimately, no one can say at this time how to fix it. They need to study it in more detail.
Mr. Flora stated that staff has not seen the problem. A possible solution would be to increase the
catch basin or to change the catch basin in order to allow better water flow.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Mr. John Haukaas, Assistant Public Works Director, was
out in the neighborhood and could see some issues with problems or potential problems.
Ms. Miller stated that the improvements they are talking about are not assessable, the issue
brought forth tonight was truly the additional erosion or potential for additional erosion by adding
more water onto her property or her neighbor's property.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there are multiple houses with the same adverse effect and if it
was documented the water was not there before. She asked if it had to be corrected.
Mr. Flora stated that he does not think they are talking about additional water. The water that
would come from a rainfall was the same water that would go to the same place. The only issue
was the timing.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was additional erosion that was not there today. It
happens after the homes are built. Now someone has to fix it. She asked how they would
determine if that is what happened because of the homes being built there.
Mr. Flora stated that that might not occur. Mr. Hickok identified that it should preclude that
from happening.
Ms. Miller stated that additional driveways are additional hard surface. They do appreciate the
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 34
stipulations they have in place, but she did not think that they could tell her one hundred percent
that there would not be additional water going into her lawn. Trees would be gone that would
have been naturally absorbing water. Two e�tra driveways would be putting e�tra water onto
Benjamin Street, and there are two e�tra roofs putting more water into the back and flowing it
down the hill. She heard minimal effect when the TCAAP project. The Councilmembers have
seen that effect since that project.
Mr. Jerry Tiller, 1555 Gardena Avenue, stated that he has a degree in Soil Science from the
University of Minnesota. He would like to plunge into the discussion, but that is not the issue he
came to talk about. He will leave it alone, except to say that there will be additional water added
to this site from construction of the houses, and there will be less water removed when you take
those big oak trees off the lot. He stated that the City of Fridley seems to be in a difficult
transition period. In 1982, the City put together a comprehensive community plan that mapped
out visions for the future. Not long after, the City embarked on a Values First program, that
identifies and promotes the values our community and neighborhoods live by. More recently,
Council endorsed a Facing the Future with Hope Program. That program was initiated by an
interfaith collaboration of City churches. It was linked to a similar purpose and enhances the
Fridley Community Vision and Values First Program already established.
Mr. Tiller stated that while everyone strives to instill values and mold a progressive vision for our
future our zoning and subdivision ordinances first enacted in 1958, and only tweaked a few times
since then, are inadequate to support the values of the espoused and the future we hope for.
Fridley is a mature, inner-ring suburb, long past its high growth hey day, yet everyone has to still
abide by a subdivision ordinance that is simplistically pro-development. Unlike the Cities of St.
Paul and Minneapolis, and many progressive growth communities in the metropolitan area
including Blaine, Fridley's subdivision ordinance stands obsolete with its inattention to
preservation. It contains a few small pegs on which to hang the value preservation ideal in this
modern age. As written in the ordinance, the City Council are the most substantial of those few
pegs.
Mr. Tiller felt that this evening, the unified Gardena neighborhood was trying to pry Council out
and far enough away from a wall of an obsolete ordinance so that the residents could hang their
hopes for the future upon Council. He would make four points to convince you to facilitate the
reasonable compromise Ms. Miller has just put on the table. That compromise would allow
development of the two truly buildable lots of the proposed replat, while preserving almost all of
the magnificent oaks that help to give our neighborhood its character.
Mr. Tiller hoped that the four points taken together, with all of the others, would help Council to
summon up the courage to take a concrete step for facilitating that compromise tonight at this
stage of the process. However, the neighborhood was so committed to the compromise that they
were prepared to go as far into the process as they needed to go in order to achieve it. During the
Planning Commission meeting on July 7, 1999 the Chair and Vice Chair both stated that a
property owner could do anything they saw fit as long as it adheres to the zoning guidelines. He
asked if Council would take note and begin comparing destruction of those oaks to the
destruction to the trees in the rain forest.
Mr. Tiller said that recently the three Fridley area churches that initiated the Facing the Future
with Hope program that City Council endorsed conducted a survey Fridley neighborhoods in
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 35
order to determine the values and concerns of Fridley's citizens and reported their findings to the
City Council. The Gardena neighborhood was not selected for the survey so instead now more
directly let the attendance of Gardena residents at tonight's meeting and the petition you have
been presented, be a survey of our values and concerns. Simply stated, "We are opposed to a
three-lot replat of Gardena Lot #22, we believe that the proposed Lot #1 would be reckless and
irresponsible, destructive to neighboring lots, and insensitive to the character and value of our
neighborhood."
Mr. Tiller concluded by reminding Council that Gardena is one of Fridley's oldest neighborhoods.
It was first settled when Fridley was still a village, a full decade before Fridley became a city in
1949. It was correct to say that as Fridley celebrates its SOt'` birthday, Gardena neighborhood
celebrates its 60t'`
Mr. Tiller said that the previous owner homesteaded this lot for fifty years. Originally, like many
of her neighbors, she lived in a basement house. In 1956, she built the house that now stands atop
her original basement dwelling. Many know her adamant wish that her beautiful lot would always
be preserved from development. A few of the neighbors suspect that a conservation covenant
was written into her will. The neighbors have not finished their investigation of that yet, but they
do know that her son sold her property to a buyer who intends to keep the present lot intact.
Mr. Tiller said that so far it is all the neighborhood knows about the history of transactions
concerning that piece of property, other than that Mr. Varichak purchased it on speculation that
he would split it into three. Fridley is in a period of difficult transition. Council has promoted the
Values First program, and now by Council's actions they must face the challenge of living up to
those values. Council has endorsed an interfaith effort to bring Fridley's citizens into a discussion
about values and into planning for the City's future. Now Council must closely listen to what the
residents have to say and act accordingly.
Mr. Tiller asked Council not to let the fear of legal reprisals force them into adhering to Fridley's
out of date anti-preservation ordinances. Through Council's ability to attach stipulations to replat
petitions, they have the power to differentiate between what was worth preserving and what was
not. Do not say that Council sympathizes with the neighborhood's concerns but that they are
powerless to act appropriately. If Council is powerless then they are not our leaders. The
neighbors did not come to the meeting to hear sympathy from administrators. If Council is indeed
leaders they would not approve Mr. Varichak's petition, especially since there was a viable
compromise alternative on the table. The Gardena neighborhood urged Council to facilitate that
compromise with eager determination and expected that Council would do so. The neighborhood
knew that Council could. Mr. Tiller thanked Council.
Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Tiller if his property was split off of his father's property.
Mr. Tiller stated that his father split his property into three other lots, so there are four lots
altogether. He split it with the intention of giving each lot to one of his three sons, which he did.
They all took great care to preserve the trees on the lots.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that at one time that area was called Peck's Woods.
Mr. Tiller stated that he loved Peck's Woods. He said it was the greatest playground a child
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 36
could ever have.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 37
Councilmember Barnette stated that it was like deja vu. He remembered 35 years ago Jerry
Tiller's dad stood up and asked Council to not touch Peck's Woods. He stated that his question
was how Council could deny Mr. Varichak the same rights that they allowed his dad.
Mr. Tiller stated that it was a different, unusual lot. It was more densely populated with trees
than his father's lots ever were.
Councilmember Barnette stated that there has been a compromise between Mr. Varichak and staff
to preserve as many trees as they can.
Mr. Tiller stated that at first there were only nine stipulations. It was a good thing Council
opposed it thus far because now there are more stipulations at least. There are 23 stipulations
already, however, there should probably be more and better ones in terms of preserving trees. It
was still a wish list as far as he was concerned about preserving the trees. Mr. Tiller knew that
oak trees are probably the most sensitive trees to root damage. Preservation of this lot was
important. If houses could be easily built. They could feel comfortable that it would not cause a
lot of the damage to the adjacent lots, and they would not remove more trees than are necessary
that would be different.
Councilmember Barnette stated that these are quite large lots.
Mr. Tiller stated that a 75 foot frontage is not a large lot.
Mr. Hickok stated that initially they ranged from 11,000 — 17,000 square feet. Presently 9,000 is
the minimum.
Mr. Tiller stated that given the character of the land, three was too much. He felt that Council
had the power to do what they needed to do if they believe. There was a reasonable compromise
on the table currently.
Councilmember Barnette stated that it was a compromise that Council cannot make because they
do not own the property.
Mr. Tiller stated that Council has set 23 stipulations already. He wondered what was to stop
Council from setting two more.
Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Tiller what they would be.
Mr. Tiller stated that if Council gets specific then there could be a stipulation that might
encourage preservation and might facilitate the compromise.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked him what the compromise he was speaking of was.
Mr. Tiller stated that the compromise was the offer that Ms. Miller made to Mr. Varichak t
purchase part of Lot #1 for $25,000 with no intention of developing it but making the other two
lots larger and more valuable in terms of size.
Councilmember Billings asked what the size of the northerly lot would be then.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 38
Mr. Tiller stated that sizing was not discussed.
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Varichak to address the specifics of Ms. Miller's offer.
Mr. Varichak stated that he was, basically, offered $25,000 for a lot. It does not make any sense
to him. If she wants to buy the lot for a minimum of $65,000 that was fine. If she wants to
develop it down the road that would be fine. It does not make any sense to him to take a chunk
out of that lot and have dead area there. If she would like to preserve it she could buy the whole
thing. That lot would sell for about $65,000. The other two lots would sell for a minimum of
$55,000. If you go out and look at lots today and go up to Ham Lake and Hugo, they are getting
$50,000 plus for about the same size of lot. These lots would be a bargain in that respect. It
would not be a problem to sell these lots.
Mayor 7orgenson asked Mr. Knaak if the City could stipulate that the developer not move more
than four trees on that lot. She asked if the City would be telling the developer that he could not
sell that piece of property and then taking it away from him.
Mr. Knaak stated that stipulation by definition requires mutual agreement. When you are dealing
with a development agreement, as a condition for approvals, these kinds of concessions are
mutually agreeable. If the City were to try to unilaterally impose that kind of condition, it would
raise the question that Mayor Jorgenson presented.
Mayor Jorgenson asked if Lot #1 was taken over by the neighbors who pulled together and
decided to acquire this property, in order to preserve the property. She asked if it would be well
advised to put it into some type of nature conservancy program rather than have someone later
down the line acquire all of the property and turn it into development.
Mayor Knaak stated that what they could do is transfer it to a trust or put covenants on the
property that would restrict its use well into the future. That would be a voluntary private
transaction, and those neighbors could do what they wanted.
Mr. Bailey Tiller, residing at 1535 Gardena Avenue, asked Council to go and look at the beautiful
area as it is. When Council saw it and enjoyed it, they would know why the residents attended the
meeting and stayed so late in the night. He thanked Council.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that they have all been to see the site.
Councilmember Wolfe asked Mr. Knaak if they could legally stop Mr. Varichak from developing
the lots.
Mr. Knaak stated that Council was not under obligation to permit the plat, but if he met the basic
conditions of the platting, it was possible that he could persuade the court on the development
and compel the City.
Mr. Tiller stated that the problem in the subdivision ordinance was that it was not up-to-date.
There are preservation ordinances in certain communities.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 39
Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Knaak if they could legally not approve the subdivision
because they want to change the ordinance.
Mr. Knaak stated that they are at the preliminary plat approval stage. Something like a
moratorium could be considered and passed for the purpose of conducting a study. However,
that did not apply to a plat that has been preliminarily approved. Council was at the right point in
the process because it has not been preliminarily approved.
Councilmember Wolfe stated that everyone invests in things that we do not want to lose. He did
not feel that Mr. Varichak should be punished. City staff and Mr. Flora looked at ways of making
sure it works to keep it nice. For example, if you buy a stock you want to make money on it, but
sometimes you cannot. He felt that, basically, what Mr. Varichak was doing was buying stock
and hoping to make some money.
Mr. Tiller stated that in the schools they teach preservation. It is not always the economic aspect
of things that should govern the decisions.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Tiller if he would agree that both of the options would each
indicate that there would be three lots there. He would like to preserve the northernmost lot, and
construction on the two southerly lots was reasonable.
Mr. Tiller stated that was correct.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Varichak if he was indicating that the northernmost lot could
be purchased by the neighborhood because he doesn't have any commitments to sell that to
anybody else at this point in time.
Mr. Varichak stated that was correct.
Councilmember Billings stated that as he saw it, it boiled down to two things -- where was the lot
line between the two northerly lots, and what is the selling price of the lot.
Mr. Tiller stated that the person offering to buy the lot has no intention of ever redeveloping and
reselling it. It adds preservation value to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Varichak if he agreed that the selling price of the northerly lot
would be offered at no greater cost than $10,000 more than the average cost that the southerly
two lots would sell for.
Mr. Varichak stated that he would agree.
Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Varichak if he would agree to a time frame for the
neighborhood group to gather money to buy the lot.
Mr. Varichak stated that he was thinking of the time frame being within a year by 7une 1, 2000.
Mr. Tiller stated that they were offering a deal that they were simply not interested in.
Councilmember Billings stated that if Mr. Varichak was willing to sell the lot to the neighborhood
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 40
then it sounds like what the neighborhood was asking for.
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 41
Mr. Tiller stated that Ms. Miller proposed, two larger lots on the south side. A portion of the
present lot she would purchase and preserve with her money. It was property that adjoins her
property, and she was intending to put the lot into some conservancy covenant.
Mayor 7orgenson would encourage the neighborhood to investigate putting together a purchase
price to acquire that lot and put it into the conservancy. The City Council could not be a broker
for the neighborhood.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Mr. Varichak was saying no deal to Ms. Miller's proposal,
so the neighborhood need to move beyond that point.
Councilmember Barnette asked how the neighborhood could deny Mr. Varichak the very same
thing that Mr. Tiller was allowed.
Ms. Wick stated that she thought Mr. Tiller's letter was incredibly powerful. She stated that it
seemed incredibly ridiculous for the neighborhood to come up with $65,000. She thanked the of
Council for coming out to look at the site. She stated that she felt now there was not a chance for
anyone to win. She felt what Council was leaning toward was probably to approve the replat
request. Mr. Varichak was not winning because he has had to put more money out to approve
the soil. The neighborhood was not winning because they did not want to see three houses go in
there.
Ms. Wick said she hated the idea of walking out her back door and seeing air conditioner units,
siding, trampolines, swingsets, kids and cars in what used to be a gorgeous area. Moving all of
the houses closer together would put them closer to her backyard, and she could not be happy
with that. There was also her trees' roots would be destroyed. She did not like the idea that
someone wants to make a compromise, because it was 12:30 p.m., so maybe they should table it.
Ms. Wick said she was one of the people who delivered the flyers and wanted to share some
responses she got. Most of the people stated that they were surprised that three houses were
going into the lot because it seems too small to fit three. She stated that it was really interesting
that they were all talking about integrity, values, and preservation for their nice city, but it came
down to someone who wanted money, the developer. When they were on the other issue, they
wanted to put the franchise fee to keep the City nice, but the first people to march up to the
microphone are the people who are concerned about paying the money.
Ms. Wick said she felt the important point Mr. Tiller brought up was whether or not Council has
the courage to walk away from the current ordinances.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that she thought everyone was entitled to a reasonable return on their
investment. The tough part was for Council to consistently apply the decisions they make. The
compromise Councilmember Billings was trying to bring about for the neighborhood was his
effort to try to bring a win-win situation. She felt it was a reasonable solution. She asked
Mr. Hickok where they were with the si�ty-day action law.
Mr. Hickok stated that si�ty days would be up in early October.
Ms. Wicks asked if there was any other consideration for the moratorium and would urge Council
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 42
to consider this.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that there was a potential for the moratorium for tree preservation, but
that was something Council would have to think about. Whether the Council chooses to table this
item was something they would have to decide.
Ms. Michelle Hatlen, 5955 Benjamin Street, stated that she would like to see Council table this
for the moratorium or see if they could come up with a compromise with Mr. Varichak.
Ms. Miller stated that she was concerned that Council would approve the plat request. The
concern with the plat was the excess water. She felt that the issues would not be recognized one
week later.
Mr. Flora stated that he would have additional information available regarding the catch basin
after the ne�t major rainfall. Staff needs to see the issue first before they decide what action to
take.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that Ms. Miller could telephone Council or come to the open
forum portion of a Council meeting to address the issue.
Ms. Miller stated that additional water would effect her property.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she felt she would like to table this item, and she wanted to
pursue tree preservation.
Councilmember Wolfe stated that Mr. Varichak has been given 23 stipulations. He asked
Mr. Varichak his feelings on negotiating with the neighbors.
Mr. Varichak stated that he would give the neighbors until 7une 1, 2000. Tabling the decision
would be wasting his time.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that she wanted issues discussed regarding tree preservation and water
drainage problems.
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she wanted to wait two weeks to find out more information
about the tree preservation ordinances.
Councilmember Wolfe stated that it seemed like Mr. Varichak has made the most adjustments.
He asked how Council could stop Mr. Varichak and still stay consistent with what Council has
done for Fridley.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve the Replat Request PS #99-03 with the following
23 stipulations. 1) Grading and drainage plan to be approved by City's engineering staff prior to
the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impact to the low area located along the
northern most edge of property. The plan shall include retaining walls on Lot 1, immediately
adjacent to the home, to assure a slope of twelve percent (12%), or less around the home's
foundation. The plan shall also include a terraced drainage area, in the twelve inch drainage
easement, to slow e�sting run-off and assure some saturation of roof-top directed toward the
pond, 2) The petitioner shall dedicate a 20 foot utility easement and a 50 foot drainage easement
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 43
along north property line of proposed Lot 1; 3) No grading or land alterations shall be permitted
within 50 feet of the north property line of proposed Lot 1; 4) Provide proof that the old well
located on the site is properly capped or removed; 5) During construction, silt fencing shall be
used where applicable; 6) Petitioner to pay $750 per lot park fees prior to issuance of building
permits; 7) Petitioner to grant code required 12 foot utility and drainage easement along western
boundary of property; 8) Petitioner to pay all water and sewer connection fees; 9) The petitioner
shall agree to preserve mature trees to the e�tent possible. All trees required to be removed for
the new homes shall be identified on the proposed site plan for each house, and shall be marked
on the site for approval by City staff prior to issuance of building permits; 10) A perimeter drain
system, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner, shall be
installed around the outside of each house basement, in accordance with FHA Special Bulletin 87-
1. Backfill around and over the drain pipe shall be a free draining granular material such as three-
quarter-inch to one and one-half inch rock or pea gravel; 11) No silt soils shall be used as wall
backfill, except for the uppermost 18 to 20 inches to act as a cap, as recommended in the STS
Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 12) All masonry shall be thoroughly braced
internally prior to backfilling, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by
the petitioner; 13) The soil used as e�terior backfill, for a distance of at least 18 inches from the
walls should be a free-draining sand in accordance with paragraph 4.5, of the STS Consultants
Ltd., Project # 97479, dated July 27, 1999; 14) Silty soil from the site shall only be utilized to cap
the backfill at the surface, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the
petitioner; 15) All backfill shall be sufficiently compacted so as to not settle after construction as
recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 16) All e�terior
grades shall be sloped positively away from the walls in all directions to reduce groundwater
irifiltration into the backfill, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the
petitioner; 17) Gutters and downspouts shall be installed on all three homes and shall direct all
run-off from all roof areas to the west drainage easement. Approval of each home plan submitted
will be partly predicated on this information about how the downspouts and gutters will be
designed and installed; 18) All door stoops should be supported on frost depth footings, as
recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 19) Sidewalks and
other slabs appurtenant to the building shall not be rigidly attached to the structure to allow
free/independent movement, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the
petitioner; 20) No patio slabs shall be cast to e�tend under the sills of sliding glass doors, as
recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; 21) A sub-base
course of a minimum depth of 12 inches and consisting of pit run sand shall be installed below the
conventional driveway pavement, as recommended in the STS Consultants soil report submitted
by the petitioner; 22) Adequate compaction and density of the footing subsoil, compaction of
backfill around foundations and under the floor slabs, particularly the garage slabs will be
required. To assure this is true, these phases of construction, as recommended in the STS
Consultants soil report submitted by the petitioner; and 23) The preliminary plat shall be revised
to reduce the width of lot 3 by 10' to 80 feet and lot 2 shall be reduced by 5' to 75 feet in width
to provide a more level building pad for lot 1. The revised preliminary plat shall be reviewed and
approved by staffprior to submission of the final plat. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE, BILLINGS AND WOLFE
VOTING AYE, COUNCILMEMBER BOLKCOM VOTING NAY, MAYOR
JORGENSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Knaak if they could add a 24t'` stipulation to deal with possible costs
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 44
of runoff repair in the event of additional damage to the Miller property.
Mr. Knaak stated that they could do that and have the conditions contained in the development
agreement to hold the developer responsible.
Mayor Jorgenson asked Mr. Varichak if he would agree to a 24t'` and 25t'` stipulation.
Mr. Varichak stated that he would not have a problem with that.
MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to amend the motion to add the 24t'` and 25t'` stipulation: 24)
Any water runoff problems arising from the construction or development of the plat will be
corrected by the petitioner or owners, and 25) These conditions will be included in a development
agreement between the petitioner and the City of Fridley and will be recorded as a condition of
final approval of the plat and shall bind the petitioner and his heirs and assigns. Seconded by
Councilmember Barnette.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS:
Councilmember Bolkcom stated that there was a SOt'` Anniversary Task Force Meeting on
Thursday at 5:30 p.m. She asked that everyone who is planning to attend the meeting please call
Roberta Collins at (612) 572-3500.
Councilmember Bolkcom also said a Craigbrook/Pearson Way meeting was held last Wednesday
evening. There will be an informational letter going out for people who could not attend the
meeting.
Mayor Jorgenson stated that last Thursday she attended a meeting with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation and the City received a Governor's award for cooperative planning
on the Highway 65 improvements that were done.
ADJOURN:
MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember
Billings.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR JORGENSON DECLARED THE
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:10 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Signe L. Johnson Nancy J. Jorgenson
Recording Secretary Mayor
THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1999 PAGE 45