Loading...
08/20/2001 CONF MTG - 4712� � crrr aF FRIDLEY August 20, 2001 — 6:00 p.m. Fridlep Municipal Center Meeting Room 1 (Lower I.evel) AGENDA JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ISD NO. 14 SCHOOL BOARD MEETING 1. School District Financial Report. 2. City Contribution to Fridley Community Center Operating Costs. 3. District Fees for use of FCC. 4. Potential Fridley Youth Sports Association Charges for use of FCC. 5. Weekend Availability of FCC. 6. Quality of FCC Janitorial Service. 7. Charges for City use of High School Auditorium. 8. Busing for After School and The Zone Participants. 9. Potential Closing of Hayes and Stevenson on Tuesday and Thursday Afternoons. .�. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING 1. Pedestrian Bridge. 2. Change in Winter Parking Ban. 3. Attorney Review of City Contracts. 4. Municipal Center Carpet. 5. Other Business. � Memo to: The Mayor and Council From: William W. Burns, City Manager Subject: Resolution of Issues with District #14. Date: 8-17-01 Jack Kirk and I met today with Mary Ann Nelson, Bill Patterson and Duane Knealing from District #14 to discuss City-School District issues and to develop a solution for your consideration on Monday night. Here's what we came up with. The Issues 1. District #14 believes that the City should cover more of the Fridley Community Center operating costs. 2. Fridley believes that District fees for after hours and weekend activities are too high. 3. The District would like to eliminate the City's expenditure caps for operating costs and widen the base for our financial participation. 4. We are concerned that the District will begin charging FYSA for use of their gym space. 5. We are very concerned about the non-availability of FCC facilities on weekends. 6. We are very dissatisfied with the quality of janitorial service to the lower level of the FCC. 7. We have also been upset over charges that were issued to our Police Department for use of the high school auditorium for this year's Safety Camp graduation ceremonies. 8. We've also been concerned about the availability of busing for our elementary after school and zone kids. 9. We object to closing Hayes and Stevenson on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. This will eliminate our after school programs there on those days. Discussion 1. We heard a thorough presentation from Bill Paterson on the fiscal situation of the FCC. Due to rising energy and personnel costs, the FCC will be running a $53,918 deficit in 2001. Deficits at the FCC may not be made up by raising the community education levy. The State has not allowed an increase in 18 years. Therefore, the shortfall must come out of the K-12 budget. This means making up the FCC shortfall at the expense of teachers. Due to State funding increases that average about 2% a year, their K-12 budget has been held with very little increase for at least the last 5 years. 2. After spending some time talking about what was fair to both the City and the School District, we changed our focus to, "what does each side want?" Here's how that developed. The Solutions • The District wants the following: 1. A$7,000 upward adjustment in our contribution to existing operating costs. 2. They want us to add one-third of the cost of their supervisor/scheduling person at a cost of about $3,000. 3. They want to eliminate the cap that ties increases in our contribution to operating costs to the CPI. 4. They want to cover their FCC deficit with our help. 5. They want to maintain a viable FCC at cost. They have no interest in making a profit. • The City wants the following: 1. We want custodial support on Fridays and Saturdays as well as when needed on Sundays. 2. We want greatly improved custodial performance on the lower level. 3. We want to separate energy costs from other operating costs. We would like to see our energy contribution adjusted up or down annually based on actual costs. 4. We want reduction of rental fees. The current fee is fine; however, we want to eliminate the custodial fee. This has the impact of nearly doubling the rental fee. 5. We want assurances that we will have after school busing for the elementary after school and Zone participants. We pledge an additional $26,000 per year for two years based on the following components: 1. $5,000 toward existing operating costs. 2. $3,000 toward a portion of the supervisor's salary 3. $18,000 toward a half-time custodian • The District provides weekend custodial support. • The District pledges to maintain "squeaky clean" conditions in the lower level. • The energy portion of the City's operating contribution will be adjusted at the end of each year based on actuals. 2 • The District will stop charging a custodian's fee for rentals and will maintain the current rental fees for the two year period. • The agreement will be revised to remove the cap on operating costs. • FYSA is to receive free use of gym space, but must demonstrate proof of insurance. • The FCC is to be open on Friday night and Saturday as well as on Sunday as needed. • The City will be exempt from fees for use of the high school auditorium. • Hayes and Stevenson will remain available Monday through Thursday for our elementary after school programs. • The District will provide busing for elementary after school and zone participants. Conclusions The fairness issue aside, I believe that these solutions represent the minimum that we should do in cooperation with the School Board to maintain a viable community center. : also believe that the solutions are practical in view of the District's financial situation. We have established a great facility that gets a lot of use and is a model of City/School District cooperation. It seems important to maintain this cooperative spirit and to correct the deficiencies that we are experiencing. Recreation and Natural Resource Department emo To: William W. Burns, City Manager From: Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation and Natural Resources Date: August 15, 2001 Re: Activity bus for ZONE participants Middle School students participating in the ZONE after school will be allowed to ride the "late bus" or Activity Bus this year according to District 14 Director of Transportation Services, Duane Knealing. The Activity Bus will pick up the students at the east door of the Fridley Community Center at approximately 5:20 pm and proceed to Fridley High School for another pick up of students. The bus departs at 5:30 to take students home. Mr. Knealing was told that we expect 10 to 20 ZONE participants may be interested in this service each day and he did not see a problem accommodating that number. There is only one Activity Bus running throughout the District, so some of the rides home may be rather long for students. The Activity Bus is available Monday through Thursday. Having the Activity Bus available to ZONE participants this year should allow middle school students without transportation an opportunity to take part in this after school activity. We are pleased that the school district is once again allowing ZONE participants to use this service. � City of Fridley � �� TO: William W. Burns, City Manager �� �� FROM: Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director DATE: August 18, 2001 SUBJECT: Pedestrian Bridge PWO1-079 We have received the cost estimates for reconstruction of the pedestrian bridge from our consultant, Kieck, O'Brian, Mueller & Wass, Inc. The estimates are for repairs to the bridge abutments and replacement of the span. Final design will include a detailed investigation of the bridge and support structures based on how we decide to proceed with the project. In other discussions with the engineer, they have stated that preliminary investigations do not indicate any damage extending beyond the support pier areas. KOMW has provided cost estimates for two options: reconstruction to the original design for approximately $55,000 or reconstruction with additional clearance for approximately $65,000. The second option would require the City invest some of our own money to cover the difference above the insurance settlement. A third option would be to take the insurance settlement money and use it to remove the bridge approaches and not have a bridge at all. Comments we have received indicate that the bridge was used by a lot of people and was a very popular amenity. Recommend the City choose to reconstruct the pedestrian bridge with increased clearance. JHH:cz Attachment ■■ KRECH, 6115 Cahill ■ ■ 651 .451 .4605 August 17, 2001 Jon H. Haukaas Public Works Director Council Nlembers City of Fridley Fridley Municipal Center 6431 University Ave NE Fridley, MN 55432 O�BRIEN, MU�LLER 8c WASS, INC. Avenue ■ Inver Grove Heights ■ Minnesota 55076 ■ fax 651 .451 .0917 ■ komw@komw.com ■ www.komw.com Re: Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Fridley Municipal Center KOMW No. 01252 Dear Mr. Haukaas & Council Members: This office has had an opportunity to prepare construction cost estimates for the two main options outlined in our response to your RFI dated June 28, 2001 for the above noted project. One option was to duplicate the bridge that was in place before it was damaged by a sanitation truck. The same detailing would be used with precast concrete plank to form the bridge, along with cast-in- place concrete stairs and steel hand railing. This would produce a clearance of approximately 10'-6". It should be noted that there is a strong likelihood that the brid�e would sustain additional future damage due to the low clearance if this option is selected. Another option presented was to essentially duplicate the existing bridge but to provide increased clearance. This would be accomplished by providing cast-in-place concrete as required above the existing precast concrete bearing elevation, along with new concrete stairs. Precast concrete plank woutd then be utilized to span between abutments. The cost estimates presented, as prepared by a KOMW construction estimator, are based on past experience with similar projects. However, they are subject to change based on market conditions and time of year that the project is constructed. For example, winter conditions such as heating and covering the structure are not included in the estimates. ' Arc'hitecture ■ Structu.r�al E=ngineeri`'ng ,■ Interic � Design Jon H. Haukaas August 17, 2001 The following cost estimates are presented for your consideration: Replace existing bridge (10'-6" clearance) Existing bridge with increased clearance (13'-6" to 14'-0" clearance) $50,000 - $55,000 $60,000 - $65,000 Page 2 We look forward to your decision as to which option was selected. If you should have any questions or need additional information at this stage of the project, please call. Sincerely: � !/Z' L' � � Michael J. owski, P.E. Krech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass, Inc. Enc. N:w issz�c��u.-�mm� ��«.a« �� KRECH, O�BRIEN, MUELLER 8c WASS, INC. �� � City of Fridley TO: Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director � J William W. Burns, City Manager ��i�'� � ��� J FROM: Jon H. Ha�ukaas, Public Works Director DATE: August 18, 2001 SUBJECT: Pedestrian Bridge Repair Costs , PWO1-080 We have received the estimated repair costs for the pedestrian bridge from our engineering co�sultant, Kiech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass, Inc. They have estimated that it would cost approximately $55,000 to repair the pedestrian bridge to its original condition. Our engineering consultant costs for the investigation and design was $'7,252.00. Recommend we request an insurance settlement on the damage to the pedestrian bridge in the amount of $62,252. JHH:cz Attachment Memo to: The Mayor and Council � From: Wi1Gam W. Burns, City Manager ��� Subject: Po6cy on Attorney Review of City Contracts Date: August lb, 2001 Over the years there has been a great deal of staff discretion regarding attorney review of contracts. In cases where legal help has been needed, legal help has been sought. To my knowledge this use of staff discretion has not gotten us in trouble. Many of the contracts tha.t are signed in�olve very little staff discretion. Contracts for purchase or rental of equipment or fa.cilities, for e�mple, are typically provided by a vendor and are standard contracts that do not break new ground or create any City liability beyond paying for the contract or service. Other corrtracts by other government agencies, such as those that we enter into to receive grant money are "boiler plate" contracts that must be signed in the form that they are delivered in order to receive grant money. Typically Council approves these contracts for grant funding. Other contracts like the cable franchise, the agreement with District #14 for construction and use of the community center, collective bargaining agreements with employee bargaining groups, development agr�ements for TIF projects and agxeements associaied with the issuance of bonds do require attomey review. Even in these cases, it may be more appropriate for a specia.list attorney rather than our City Attorney to conduct the review. There are, however, several common denominators that may be identified and which might be used to trigger review of contracts by the City Attorney. These aze as follows: 1. Contracts involving the settlement of a dispute in which the City is involved with an outside party. 2. New joint powers agreements that have been established to a.11ow for the joint provision of services. 3. Other new agreements where there is substantial latitude on the parts of all parties to shape the agreement. 4. Continuing agreements that are the result of negotiations between the parties (labor cantracts would be a good example.}. 5. Professional service agreements where the services aze being tailored specifically for Fridley (e.g., a contract with a software developer to develop Fxidley specific software.) 6. Other professional service agreements where staff questions boiler plate language ( I can remember quarreling over arbitration language in the standard AIA contract.}. 7. Development agreements for TIF projects or those that are used to inaorporate the stipulations that are attached to new plats. 8. Purchase agreements for real estate. While these common denominators continue to allow a lot of staff latitude, I would be very concerned about a new requirement that mandates that a11 contracts be reviewed by the City Attorney. As a practical matter, Fritz has other clients, and there are times when we must wait patiently in line for his attention. To thrust hundreds and perhaps thousands of contracts at him every year would slow down our ability to provide services and do projects considerably. It would also inevitably raise the cost of our legal services and detract from Fritz's attention to the most important issues. It seems much more important to me to ha.ve him working on the cable franchise, resolving the Varichak issue or helping us to deal with Shelly Garber issues than it does to have him reviewing a stack of boiler plate contracts. Thanks for listening to my concerns.