Loading...
12/09/2002 - 29216MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 The Regular Meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:34 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Lund led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund, Councilmember Barnette, Councilmember Bolkcom, Councilmember Billings, and Councilmember Wolfe MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: William W. Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Jon H. Haukaas, Public Works Director Frederick Knaak, City Attorney Richard D. Pribyl, Finance Director/Treasurer APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: City Council Meeting of November 18, 2002. APPROVED. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: 1. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE REPEALING THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION (TABLED NOVEMBER 4, 2002). Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the ordinance would dissolve the Human Resources Commission. The item was tabled at the November 4, 2002, council meeting with the request for the removal of language that made the Chair of the Human Resources Commission a member of the Planning Commission. That has been done. Staff recommended Council's approval of the first reading of the ordinance. WAIVED THE READING AND APPROVED THE ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 2 2. ORDINANCE NO. 1168 AMENDING CHAPTER 102 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE REPEALING THE POLICE COMMISSION (TABLED NOVEMBER 18, 2002 . Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this ordinance would dissolve the Police Civil Service Commission. The first reading of the ordinance was approved on November 4, 2002. Staff recommended Council's approval of the second reading of this ordinance. WAIVED THE READING AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1168 ON THE SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. NEW BUSINESS: 3. APPROVE 2003 SIXTY-DAY ACTION APPLICATION DEADLINES FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPEALS COMMISSION MEETINGS. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this legislation established the application and publication deadlines for items presented to the Planning and Appeals Commissions. Staff recommended Council's approval. APPROVED THE 2003 SIXTY-DAY ACTION APPLICATION DEADLINES. 4. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE COMMONS PARK PARKING LOT PHASE I IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 348. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the City received 12 bids for reconstruction of the north parking lot at Commons Park The low bidder was Bituminous Roadways, Incorporated in Minneapolis in the amount of $62,910. There is $70,000 budgeted for this project in the 2002 Parks Capital Improvement budget. Bids were submitted previously on this project but were rejected because they were over budget. The project was scaled down by removing the access roadway portion. Staff recommended Council's approval of the contract award to Bituminous Roadways, Incorporated in the amount of $62,910. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 5. APPROVE CITY OF FRIDLEY STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND MAINTE- NANCE POLICIES. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated these policies were originally developed in the 1960s and were recently revised by the Public Works Director. Until now, they existed as administrative policies. Staff recommended Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 3 6. APPROVE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated MnDOT officials requested a five-year agreement providing for use of their services by municipalities on a fee-for-service basis. They include things such as pavement striping, bridge design services, appraisal services, photogrammetric mapping, and materials testing. They are all optional services which may or may not be purchased by cities for their local street projects. The agreement helps to insure that these services will be available in the future. Staff recommended Council's approval. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 7. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND THE ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT FOR THE EAST RIVER ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated that this agreement provided for the City's portion of the cost for improvements to East River Road between Hartman Circle and I-694. The amount, $157,529.29, was for utility adjustments, reconstruction of inedians, and some sidewalk reconstruction. The money will be drawn from the needs segment of the City's State Aid account. Staff recommended Council's approval. APPROVED. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 70-2002 IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING PREMISE PERMIT FOR FRIDLEY TOTINO GRACE HIGH SCHOOL (SHARX NIGHT CLUB, 3720 EAST RIVER ROAD) (WARD 3). Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated this application was for the renewal of a permit that expired at the end of March. The Police Department reviewed the application and saw no problems with the current operation of the pull tab operation. Staff recommended Council's approval of the application that would e�tend the pull tab license until April 1, 2005. APPROVED. 9. CLAIMS: APPROVED CLAIM NOS. 108586 THROUGH 109050. 10. LICENSES: APPROVED ALL LICENSES AS SUBMITTED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 4 11. ESTIMATES: APPROVED THE FOLLOWING ESTIMATES: W.B. Miller 6701 Norris Lake Road N.W. Elk River, NIN 55330 2002 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2002 — 2 FINAL ESTIMATE: Gladstone Construction, Inc. 1315 Frost Avenue St. Paul, MN 55109 Pedestrian Bridge Replacement Project No. 341 Estimate No. 2 ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA: $33,735.72 $21,696.02 Councilmember Bolkcom stated she would like to remove Items 4, 5, and 6 from the consent agenda and add them to the regular agenda. MOTION made by Councilmember Barnette to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Items 4, 5, and 6 to the regular agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Councilmember Bolkcom requested that an item be added to the agenda. This item was tabled on August 12, 2002, and related to property on 62"d Way. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the consent agenda with the addition of Items 4, 5 and 5 from the consent agenda and the item pertaining to 62"d Way. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE Attorney James M. Neilson, 118 East Main Street, Anoka, Minnesota, approached and stated he wanted to make sure the item on 62"d Way was discussed. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 5 Councilmember Bolkcom replied that it was added to the agenda after Item No. 14. Mr. Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive N.E., stated he was very disappointed with the first two questions pertaining to the school district on the election ballot. He said he did not think people realized what it was doing to their taxes. He thought it was not explained well. He called the School Board and talked to them about it. They wrote a letter indicating what it was going to cost a year, but they did not say what it would cost nine years from now. He said he did not believe that people realized that in nine years, $150,000 homes would be paying $2,100 more. People with $200,000 homes would be paying around $3,000. Mayor Lund asked Mr. Eisenzimmer if he realized this should be directed to the Fridley School Board. Mr. Eisenzimmer replied that he thought they had a right to speak at the Council meeting. Mayor Lund agreed. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that the School Board informed him that they do not have 15 minutes to talk. He did not like the way he was treated. PUBLIC HEARING: 12. CONSIDERATION OF THE 2003 CITY OF FRIDLEY BUDGET. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:50 P.M. Dr. Burns, City Manager, presented the 2003 budget message. He stated that each year when the budget is considered, the conte�t in which the budget has been drafted is also reviewed. One of the things looked at is the legislative conte�t but there were not many changes. There was no money for highway improvements, a gasoline tax increase or other increases. There was no state funding for the Northstar Corridor Project. The Minnesota Chiefs of Police have asked for 27 cents for a 911 fee. With respect to telephone bills, there was a 6-cent increase for law enforcement. There is also $13 million from the bonding bill to pay for the State's 800 MHz public safety radio system from Twin Cities to St. Cloud and Rochester. Counties were also given levy authority for constructing countywide 800 MHz systems. He said that cities benefited from new bonding authority for street reconstruction. The wine in grocery stores legislation was defeated. Fortunately, there are no new municipal mandates, and there were no serious efforts to move the regulation of the cable television industry from the local to the state level. Dr. Burns stated that on the negative side, there was no replacement for tax increment financing, which up unti12001 was a tool for redevelopment projects. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 6 Dr. Burns indicated that the budgeting process was a year-around effort. A new budgeting process will begin in January. He said it started with the Council/Commission survey. The issues in that survey and the results were discussed with Council and the commission members. Dr. Burns stated that in last year's budget discussions, the Police Department requested a computer person for their computer applications, but it was not included in the 2003 budget. He indicated that the Fire Department asked to replace their aerial truck. While it was discussed, it was not included in the 2003 budget. Buying vehicles for the building inspection and code enforcement employees was discussed, and money was included in the budget. The electronics drop-off program was eliminated. An additional Public Works employee was hired, and an equal dollars' worth of part-time employees were eliminated from the budget. Dr. Burns stated that Community Park drainage improvements were developed, but no money was budgeted. Additional revenue for street reconstruction was discussed. The fundraising efforts of the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation were discussed. A two percent cost of living adjustment and a health insurance increase was included in the budget. Dr. Burns indicated that they also discussed a 3.8 percent increase in property taxes and a 3.8 percent increase in utilities, fees and services. Dr. Burns stated that comparing the 2003 budget with the 2002 budget, the City was actually spending around $158,000 less. He said looking at the general fund, there was a 2.73 percent increase. He indicated that special revenue funds are inflated by $250,000 (there was an internal transfer from one fund to another). He stated that in looking closer at the general fund, the expenditures increased $342.662 or by 2.7 percent. Most of the increase reflected personnel costs. Dr. Burns discussed where the City received its revenues. He stated about 46 percent were from local property taxes, 21 percent from local government aid and 15 percent from fund balance. Dr. Burns stated that the property tax increase came to $209,277. The City's local government aid increased by $488,715, due to a formula change in 2001 that benefited Fridley. The increase in property taxes and LGA are offset by declines in license and permit revenue and $50,000 in interest revenue. He said that nearly $2 million of fund balance will be used a second year to support the general fund. Dr. Burns stated that another category of funds was the Special Revenue Funds. The expenditures from these funds were budgeted at $1.2 million, about 8.2 percent more for 2003. The special revenue funds include: the Cable Television Fund, the Grant Management Fund, the Housing Revitalization Fund, and the Solid Waste Abatement Fund. Dr. Burns stated that another category of funding was Capital Projects Funds. The 2003 budget provided $450,000 for general capital improvements. The amount was $593,700 less than the amount budgeted for 2002. It included funding for buildings, streets, and parks improvement projects. The appropriation for building projects was only $105,000. All of these are for parking lot improvements, asphalt, and improvements at the City garage. The amount of $192,000 was budgeted for street improvements. There was another $550,000 not shown in the budget that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 7 will be provided to the street improvement projects from state aid reimbursements, assessments, and storm water utility transfers. Altogether we are planning on spending $742,000 for street improvement projects in 2003. He said Parks Capital Improvements were projected to cost $153,100. Dr. Burns stated that Enterprise Funds are used to account for those City operations that have an independent source of revenue that generally comes from a product or service that was sold. He said enterprise fund expenditures amounted to $12,152,525 which was $1,064,000 or 9.5 percent more than what was spent in 2002. He said the sewer fund increased by $160,000. The increase could be attributed to the regional sewage treatment charge that was allocated to Fridley. He said the $50,000 increase for the water plant could be attributed to depreciation charges for new projects. He indicated that the amount budgeted for the storm water fund included $100,000 for the 2003 street reconstruction project. He said the increase of $844,868 in the liquor fund was for purchasing the product. Dr. Burns said that another category of expenditure was debt service. Fridley did not have much debt service and that was one reason why taxes in Fridley were very low. The City did not have any general obligation debt and had a very good bond rating. Dr. Burns indicated that the 3.8 increase in the City levy, together with property appreciation for the average home in Fridley, would raise the local share of property taxes on the average value home in Fridley from $316 to $346. He said there were also some other increases attributable to other taxing jurisdictions. He spoke about the school districts' recent levies Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, said that in the Anoka-Hennepin school district there was an increase of $111; in the Columbia Heights school district there was a decrease of $96; in the Fridley school district there was an increase of $215; and in the Spring Lake Park school district there was an increase of $264. Dr. Burns stated there were many reasons why taxes have gone up, and appreciation was a big part of it. Residential properties have continued to appreciate at a fairly high rate. Some of the other properties, particularly in industrial categories have not appreciated as fast and the result was a shifting of the categories. Dr. Burns said that a financial analysis was completed every year. He said fund balances have been used to pay for operations. He stated people should be concerned because fund balances are what has been keeping the taxes down. He said in the past, fund balances have been a significant source of revenue. He indicated the term discretionary fund balances was the real number you would want to look at. Discretionary meant that we have the ultimate authority to use them as we please. Much of this money, however, was needed to fund future capital improvements, working capital needs, potential self-insurance obligations, and other contingencies. He said that between the end of last year and into ne�t year, the cash dropped from $21.5 million to $18.6 million. Dr. Burns discussed retained earnings. He said it applied to the four enterprise funds and included the value of fixed assets like buildings, water and sewer lines, and water storage tanks. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 8 He said that the rapid decline in fund balance had been accompanied by a growing gap between General Fund revenues and General Fund expenditures, growing reliance on property taxes, and the increased need to use fund balances to balance budgets. He said the City was spending the same amount of money as it was 10 to 12 years ago. Dr. Burns said the e�ternal environment also needed to be examined. They have consistently measured this environment for Fridley in terms of three economic indicators and three indicators of demand for public service. The three economic indicators indicated that new construction in Fridley was significantly down, unemployment increased, and property values continued appreciating at double digit rates. He said unemployment in Fridley increased and was around 4.2 percent and that the national unemployment rate was around 6 percent. He said that was also a change in the structuring of jobs. The City was losing manufacturing jobs and service sector jobs and gaining a significant number of retail jobs. He indicated that while unemployment was up and job structure was changing and new construction was down, we were seeing double-digit appreciation. Most categories showed a profit. Dr. Burns stated that demand for public service was measured by the number of School District #14 students on free or reduced meals and the number of Fridley residents receiving cash assistance and/or food stamps. He said there was an increase in both categories. He said that as the need for public assistance increased, so did the rate of crime in Fridley, albeit by a very small percentage. Dr. Burns outlined his conclusions. He said that as the State deals with its $4.6 billion deficit, there was a great likelihood that Minnesota cities would see significant reductions in the various forms of aid they have received. He said as property taxes rise with the newly approved school district levies in three of Fridley's four school districts, we could expect property owner resistance to new City tax increases. He said he believed that these expectations, together with the draw down of fund balances, should lead us toward very conservative future financial decisions. Dr. Burns stated that on the expenditure side of the budget, the Police Department's youth outreach programs needed to continue to be evaluated. He said the City should also hold fast to the decision to eliminate the City's problem materials drop-off program and seriously consider the elimination of the City's yard waste site. He thought plan changes in employee health insurance should be evaluated. He believed the City should continue to defer the purchase of expensive equipment, such as the Fire Department's aerial truck until the economic environment improved. He said they also needed to carefully evaluate capital improvement expenditures. Dr. Burns said that with respect to the revenue side of the budget, we should carefully consider the use of our new authority to levy property taxes for street reconstruction. We should also follow through with the recommendations of the ongoing fee study by raising fees to match the cost of local government services in specialized areas. He said that while locating a new liquor store has always been controversial, the City's financial interests would also be served by locating a new liquor store in the Wal-Mart area. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 9 Dr. Burns stated that it might be overly optimistic but if we could have a small street improvement levy and build another liquor store, there could have be another $800,000 to $850,000 in annual revenue. While these expenditures and revenue decisions are difficult, the alternative was to continue to draw down fund balances at an alarming rate. If the alternative was chosen, it should be kept in mind that fund balances generate interest revenue that offsets some of the need to raise taxes and the need to borrow for public improvements. He said that much of the fund balance was captured at a time when Fridley was young and was experiencing enormous economic growth. If this endowment was used for rainy day spending, the opportunities to recapture would not be the same. He said that the 2003 budget while very lean, reflects the rainy day spending point of view. While it was a good solution for 2003, as we plan for 2004 and beyond, we are better served by shifting from rainy day thinking to a more financially proactive posture. Councilmember Barnette stated that about three weeks ago the Minneapolis Star Tribune had an article that compared 36 to 48 different cities on costs of city services and it was really eye opening to see where the City of Fridley fell. He stated it was certainly within the lower 1 or 2. Mr. Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, asked what the 15.8 percent liquor meant. Dr. Burns replied it was an additional operating cost due to increased sales. The City had to buy the liquor in order to sell it. It was doing so well, we had to increase our liquor purchase. Mr. Eisenzimmer asked if the City was making any money at the liquor store near Highway 65. Dr. Burns replied that the store at that location was not nearly as profitable as the store at the Cub Foods location. Mayor Lund asked if there were any other questions or concerns regarding the 2003 budget. Mr. Norlan Lee, 644 - 63rd Avenue N.E., stated he has lived in Fridley since 1958. He went to the library and looked through the budget and he commended the people who prepared the budget. He said it was very detailed. He decided to take a few of the numbers out of the budget and try to convert them per person. He said assuming there were 30,000 residents in Fridley, we spend $429 from the general fund per person for the year--$133 for police, $35 for fire, $46 for plowing the streets. On the income side, $191 per person would come from all over, because businesses pay and more expensive homes pay more taxes. He said businesses do not make their own money. Their money also came from people. So, the $191 is determined by dividing $5.7 million by 30,000. He said $68 came from what was called local government aid. He said it bothered him when he heard about the State cutting back. He mentioned the reserve, which he liked to think of as a savings account. He said since 1999, the general fund has had a$7 million savings account which was depleted in 2003 to $3.8 million. He stated that past City Councils have opted to help the savings account. This Council and future Councils will be paying for the cost of not having any savings account which meant that the residents would have to come up with the difference. Mr. Lee indicated that he had no objection to using up the City's account for two reasons. One was that the savings account or the reserve had been established by past taxpayers. He said that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 10 by the end of 1999 there was $7 million in the general fund savings account. Some of those people have moved out of Fridley and were not using the services that their money paid for. He said he did not mind because he has been providing funds for the City since 1958. He said he thought the services should be paid for by the people who were using them. The second reason he had no objection to a savings account was that the absence of a savings account provided much greater discipline to those collecting the taxes or determining the expenditures. Mayor Lund stated the budget was available for review at the library and at City Hall. Mr. Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, approached and asked if it could be viewed on the computer at the library. Dr. Burns replied that there was a hard copy at the library. Mr. Eisenzimmer asked whether the tax revenue included the new funding that went through for the school. Dr. Burns replied that it did not. The tax impact information did not show the levy impact. They did not get the figures in time. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated that would be another $261. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace N.E., stated he had two questions about the storm sewer fund. It was his understanding that the storm sewer tax was a dedicated fund. Dr. Burns replied that it was. They charged the utility funds an interfund charge for overhead. Mr. Harris stated that it was his understanding that those funds and taxes collected for the storm sewer should be used to repair or rebuild the existing system. Dr. Burns stated that was correct. Mr. Harris asked if any of the other funds had provided funding for any projects. Dr. Burns replied that he did not believe they did. Last year $100,00 was transferred in the street reconstruction project fund for handling storm water. Mr. Harris asked if it was for storm water. Dr. Burns stated that it was. Mr. Harris asked if there was something else besides storm water. Dr. Burns replied the City had been pulling fund balances out at the rate of about $260,000 to $262,000 per year. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 11 Mr. Harris stated that he thought one of the reasons for the drop-off in new construction, especially in commercial and industrial, was that the City was moving from new construction to redevelopment. Dr. Burns replied the numbers he gave for new construction represent remodeling and redevelopment as well as a few new buildings. Mr. Pribyl stated that the resolutions approving the budget and the tax levy would be presented at the ne�t Council meeting on December 16 at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Bolkcom recalled what he mentioned about fund balances in 2002. One of the big issues of discussion was a franchise fee to try and get revenue back One of the things that really hurt us in the past was that we have not increased our levy over the years. She said she thought the City was in for a rude awakening. She asked how many days the City had to certify the budget. Mr. Pribyl replied that the Truth in Taxation requirements allowed a very small window of time to actually certify the budget. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why it could not be done on another day. Mr. Pribyl replied that the hearing dates could not conflict with other hearings within the jurisdiction. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated the unemployment percentage was higher than what they claimed because many people are running out of benefits. He said the City needed to decide if it was a good time to raise taxes. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnett. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:42 P.M. 13. CONSIDERATION OF GRANTING APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER STATE LAW PROVIDING FOR CONDUIT FINANCING FOR TOTINO-GRACE HIGH SCHOOL (WARD 2): MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 8:42 P.M. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated this was a request by Totino-Grace High School for the issuance of $4 million of revenue bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469. He said FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 12 with this type of financing, the City would not make any kind of payment. It was a revenue- based type of issuance. The debt would be in the amount of $4 million and would be used for improvements on the property including a new heat and electrical plant and construction of 60 new spaces in their parking lot. Part of the proceeds would be used to repay some of the existing debt that was used to build a new library, science lab, office and stadium. The debt was similar to the style of bond that had been utilized in the past. There are a number of representatives in the audience from the bond council, the bank, and Totino-Grace. He said the agenda also included a preliminary resolution that would provide the borrower with the authority to proceed with this proj ect. Councilmember Billings asked why Totino-Grace was using this type of bond. Mr. Paul Tietz, Bond Counsel for Totino-Grace, stated the advantages of this financing was that by going through the City the interest rate was tax exempt. Councilmember Billings stated the City was not responsible for the debt. Totino-Grace was responsible for the debt. By using this type of financing, Totino-Grace would receive a lower interest rate because the people who are loaning the money are tax exempt and, therefore, they do not have to pay federal and state income taxes on the interest income and can offer it at a lower interest rate to Totino-Grace. Mr. Tietz agreed. Mr. Barnette stated something similar had been done before. Mr. Pribyl agreed. Mr. Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive N.E., asked whether they were going to use $4 million without getting any revenue of any kind. Councilmember Billings replied the City was not going to loan the money to anyone. The only thing the City of Fridley did was pass the resolution. He said that resolution was enough to make the whole thing work. He said no City of Fridley money was being spent. The City was not pledging assets. The City was just a conduit. He said the City had done it for several other businesses throughout the City. Mr. Eisenzimmer asked whether Totino-Grace was a non-profit organization. Mr. Billings replied that he did not know. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated a non-profit organization did not need the City to make this kind of loan. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 13 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:58 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: 14. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, SP #02-08, BY VAN-O-LITE, TO ALLOW EXTERIOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS IN C-2, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5945 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. (WARD 1): Councilmember Billings stated the City received a letter from the attorney for Van-O-Lite. The attorney indicated that Van-O-Lite applied for the special use permit during a construction period. They also applied for the building permit and are doing the construction. He said they were able to work something out with City staff for the construction period and have accordingly withdrawn its application. MOTION by Councilmember Billings to receive the letter from Van-O-Lite. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Billings asked the city attorney if there was any other action that needed to be taken in this matter. Attorney Knaak, City Attorney, replied that there was not. 14A. 62ND WAY MAINTENANCE ISSUES (WARD 3): Councilmember Bolkcom asked that this matter be removed from the table. She stated that in August, she believed the City Attorney was going to meet with the attorney representing Mr. Potasek. Attorney Knaak, City Attorney, reported that the Potaseks, through their legal counsel, Mr. Neilson, have asked that the matter be addressed this evening. There has been some discussion between himself and Mr. Neilson and proposals have been submitted. One of the options considered was to begin a 429 Assessment Hearing for a project based on the most recent design. To date, no formal response has been received. He said that what the Council has before them is the original motion which is a motion essentially to support the staff action which was to no longer plow the private right-of-way to the property. Attorney Knaak said Council had options. One was to do nothing and to continue to let the discussions proceed. The second option Council had would be to consider the motion that was before them in August. The third option was to begin a 429 Assessment Hearing for a project based on the most recent design. These options are not all necessarily mutually exclusive. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 14 Councilmember Bolkcom replied another reason this was brought up was because we are in snow season, and need to determine what to do. Councilmember Barnette asked if they have the original motion and asked that it be read. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that the motion was to move to uphold the decision of City staff as it pertained to snowplowing and routine maintenance of the right-of-way e�tension currently being used for property access by the property owners at 190 - 62"d Way, 310 - 62"d Way, and 6200 Riverview Terrace. She stated that in no way at this point was she ready to make the motion. Mr. James M. Neilson, Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Greg Potasek, stated he is an attorney in an Anoka law firm. Real estate has been his specialty for 39 years. He said it was his understanding that the City has decided that this particular portion of the road did not need to be maintained and plowed. The motion that was before Council on August 9 was not clear to him. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it was actually August 12. Attorney Neilson stated he thought there was a very simple question about whether it was a public street and if the City accepted it as a public street with respect to maintenance. He said he thought all that was needed to determine if it was a public street was to find out if it had been dedicated either by a plat or conveyance or if it had been condemned. It can also be a public street if there was an adverse possession by the City. He said every plat contained a dedication clause. The City signed the plat. That made a public road. Attorney Neilson said that once the road was been accepted, it did not mean the City had to maintain the road. That was the second part. In this particular instance, maintenance was established in both incidences. He said that pursuant to the plat from Schultzes Addition, in 1956, a 25-foot road was specifically accepted and dedicated. The City signed that plat with a dedication on August 8, 1956. He said this matter had not been vacated, so it was a public road Attorney Neilson said that on the north side there was a plat called Julianne Addition. That plat was recorded in 1956. The City of Fridley accepted the public road and the plat November 8, 1956. The City should have added 25 feet to the north to make a 50-foot road. The problem was that at the time this plat was accepted, 62"d Avenue N.E. did not go all the way to the west line of the plat in Schultzes Addition. It was approximately 40 feet short. He said then there was a plat of the Potasek Addition. That was in 1958. The Potasek Addition replatted Lot 7, Block 1, of Schultzes Addition into 7 different lots. It did not dedicate anything because the road had already been dedicated. Ever since 1956, the City of Fridley had been maintaining 62"d Way all the way from the East River Road back to the end of 62"d Way. It was never a private driveway. It has been maintained and plowed. The road was 346 feet in length. There are three different lots. The road originally started as an outlot in 1961. It was changed to a public road in 1973. There was also a specific statement which indicated that the City of Fridley accepted the property for street and utility purposes and it was signed by the City Clerk. He said that the City's general policies specifically state that "Once the City has accepted a street as a city street it assumes the responsibility to maintain and perpetuate the service to the public for which that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 15 street provides." A public street does not mean it has to be a certain width. It was still a public street. Attorney Neilson said that proposals had been submitted. The problem was that each one of the proposals cost his client money. The last one the City Attorney referred to was the Chapter 429 Special Assessment. He said the proposal by the City and the Mayor stated that all costs for this were to be paid by the property owner. He stated that their position was that it was a City street previously maintained by the City and accordingly, must be maintained by the City in the future. He indicated that City staff cannot pick and choose which city streets they will plow. Attorney Neilson said he thought the answer to this problem was simple. It should be submitted to a real estate attorney specialist. Councilmember Billings said that throughout the City of Fridley and State of Minnesota, there are rights-of-way set up for roadway purposes. Often the right-of-way will be 50, 60 or 100 feet wide, but the actual roadway was only 30 or 40 feet wide. He said if he had a 100-foot right-of- way and he had a 40-foot road right down the middle of it, that meant there was 30 feet on each side of the road that was the City right-of-way. He said he wanted to establish a distinction between the driven roadway and the right of-way. Attorney Neilson stated that was all right-of-way. Councilmember Billings stated that throughout the State of Minnesota, there are properties that abut the right-of-way but maintain their own driveway over a portion of the right-of-way. Attorney Neilson agreed. Councilmember Billings then asked if Mr. Neilson agreed that within the right-of-way, the City had the right to determine exactly where this traveled surface would be. He said that in many cases, what was no longer traveled surface would become the responsibility of the abutting homeowner to maintain. Attorney Neilson replied that he did not agree with that. Councilmember Billings stated that it had been four months since Attorney that this be removed from the agenda so he could discuss this with the Cit clients maintained it was the City right-of-way and that they would like it standards. Attorney Neilson replied that was not his client's position. Councilmember Billings asked what his client's position was. Neilson requested y Attorney. Your improved to City Attorney Neilson stated his client's position was simply that it was a public road. It had been maintained as a public road, and it should continue to be maintained as a public road. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 16 Councilmember Billings indicated that the City was in a program of bringing streets up to certain standards. Attorney Neilson said it would depend on what the City policy was as far as the width of the road. He said they could not choose one 25-foot road to be improved and decide not to improve another. Councilmember Billings stated he understood that. He said that if the City was in the process of approving roadways up to City standards, and you want this roadway to be considered a traveled roadway, it would then be subject to those policies which would bring it up to City standards. Attorney Neilson replied if some of the City's policies brought it up to City standards. Councilmember Billings stated that it did not mean that it was going to be the ne�t road to be maintained. It could be the ne�t or last road that they improve. Attorney Neilson replied that he understood. Councilmember Billings stated that they have already improved the rest of 62"d Way so in his mind it would be a logical e�tension if they were going to consider this a traveled roadway to actually do the improvements now. In August, he was prepared to bring forward a motion to direct staff to begin the process of designing plans and specifications for the improvement of 62"d Way from the traveled roadway to the west of the Potasek Property. He said they lost four months and the ability to bring the roadway up to standards. Attorney Neilson asked what the standards were. Councilmember Billings replied, curb and gutter and the appropriate depth of asphalt. Attorney Neilson asked if the City had a standard for 62"d Way. Councilmember Billings replied they did not have a standard for only 25 feet of right-of-way. Attorney Neilson replied there had been a standard for the 62"d Way, 25 foot right-of-way. The same as there had been a standard for Chesney Way. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that was different. Councilmember Billings stated he did not know about the circumstances surrounding Chesney Way. He said if Attorney Neilson maintained it was his position and that of his client that this should be treated as traveled roadway, he was prepared to do what he wanted to do in August and have the roadway brought up to City standards. Attorney Neilson replied that he did not think his client or the other two property owners requested an improvement to 62"d Way. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 17 Councilmember Billings replied that at that time there was discussion on whether this was part of the roadway or not. Attorney Neilson replied that he thought Councilmember Billings wanted an improvement that was something different from what was in existence now. Councilmember Billings replied that he thought that what they were looking at was part of the roadway and the fact that it needed to be brought up to the same standards as the rest of 62"a Way. Attorney Neilson asked if all the streets in the City of Fridley were the same style. Mr. Haukaas replied that they were not. Attorney Neilson asked if some streets were larger and some smaller. Councilmember Billings agreed. Attorney Neilson asked why one street could be smaller than 36 feet in width but the end of 62"a Way could not be. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated that a street made one width was not made narrower. He said the street width was dependent on use standards. Councilmember Billings said that in the past, when a street was reconstructed, there would not be different widths. Mr. Haukaas agreed. Councilmember Bolkcom stated with respect to Chesney Way, that was a different situation. Mr. Haukaas replied that the paperwork for the dedication of the roadway was essentially a dedication to the City for municipal purposes. It was a different situation with a special width. Attorney Neilson asked who Chesney was. Councilmember Barnette replied that Chesney had worked for the City at one time and was the one who asked for a split of the property. Councilmember Bolkcom commented it was still a private roadway. The City street maps are not legal and are only used for people to get around. Attorney Neilson stated the documents of record on file with the County Recorder are the documents that create a public road. He said the only document he found on record on Chesney was an easement. He did not know of any private agreement. His client would be willing to enter into a private agreement. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 18 Mayor Lund replied that this was something the City Attorney should respond to. Attorney Knaak replied that he believed Mr. Neilson had stated his case. Attorney Neilson stated he wanted to present a petition on 62"d Way. He did not count the number of names on the petition. He was told there were more than 100 parties who have signed it, and they are asking for the continued maintenance of 62"d Way. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to accept the petition for 62"d Way maintenance. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Greg Potasek, 310 - 62"d Way N.E., stated the petition requested the maintenance of 62"a Way as it had been maintained for 45 years previously, as a dedicated street, dedicated in 1956. He said the petition was signed by many of the neighbors. Councilmember Billings asked if the petition applied to the portion of the right-of-way of 62"a Way. Attorney Neilson replied that it did. Councilmember Billings stated it was his understanding that the City maintained the street right- of-way for 62"d Way and, at various times, did some snowplowing of the Harris property as well. He said he wanted clarification as to the intent of the petition. Attorney Neilson stated for the record that if the City had been maintaining property that had not been dedicated and had done it for six years and spent public money on it, it became a public road pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.05. It was a public road to the e�tent it was an traveled surface. Attorney Knaack said that there was agreement that it was a dedicated road, and an easement for road purposes was created as a result of the dedication of the plat. He said the issue here was once it had been signed, did that mean the City had an obligation to maintain a certain kind of road to a certain kind of standard into the indefinite future. He said in this case it did not. He said that in 1969 when the City designed the configuration, there was a clear statement of what the City considered as roadway. He indicated that the position the City had taken was that it would continue to maintain the public street. He said the City was under no obligation to improve that. He said that as it was currently used and configured, despite the obvious need for the residents to take the position that this was a public roadway, it was really used as a private residential driveway and access for the entire period of time and was treated as such by the City. He said the City was not in the business of plowing or doing other maintenance services for private persons, and once it came to the City's attention that it had been engaging in the practice, it had to stop. He indicated that the City was not in a position to provide those kind of services. He said he had no problem resolving this issue very quickly in a judicial form or some other FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 19 form if the parties could agree. He said the City had to be careful not to be put in a situation where other people were going to be making the same kind of demands and pointing to this as the basis for those demands. He said there was a different view, one in which he based his advice to the City. He said the Council could improve it as a public street and assess accordingly. It could be upgraded and maintained as a public street. Dr. Burns, City Manager, commented that he thought there were many other examples of private rights-of-way throughout Fridley that do not have a public street, which enforced the point that rights-of-way did not necessarily mean streets. The second point he would like to make was that there was an opportunity back in 1969 when 62"d Way was reconstructed for Mr. Potasek's father, Chester Potasek, to have it assessed as an improvement. The assessment would have included the portion we are now talking about. Mr. Potasek specifically declined to pay for that improvement. At that time the City Engineer commented that this was not a City street and unless another 30 feet of right-of-way were added, the City could not put in a street. Attorney Neilson asked for an example of a similar street that had been dedicated and maintained and plowed for at least 6 years but then the decision was made that it was private. Mayor Lund asked if 6 years of maintenance converted it to a public street. Attorney Neilson replied that it became a public street. He said it was similar to an adverse possession law. He said a person would have to do it for 15 years, but the government only needs 6 years. Mayor Lund replied so if he was mowing his neighbor's yard, say 4 feet encroaching on his property, after mowing it for 15 years or more, it was basically, legally, his property. Attorney Neilson replied it depended on circumstances but it was a possibility. Mr. Knaack replied that if the City were to decide to do an upgrade on that site and need to take some property, that argument becomes valuable if they say that they do not have to take as much because they already own it. He is not sure if the City is ready to claim adverse possession. However, that would be the immediate implication of the argument. Attorney Neilson said that was correct, and of course, to include the property to a new width for 60 feet instead of 50 feet, the City can do that under Chapter 429. But they would have to get the owners to consent to give a voluntary conveyance or the City would have to condemn. Then there was the question of whether the City can get a special assessment. He said they could do a special assessment if they showed benefit. You could only show benefit if the value of the property increased because of the special assessment. Their argument was simply that there was a public road. They were able to get in and out. They do not need 60 feet. There was no benefit. Councilmember Bolkcom replied that she personally did not think they had made any progress.. She wanted to know if it made sense for them to continue at this point. She asked if they were going to reach any type of agreement at this meeting. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 20 Attorney Knaak replied probably not. He thought there was a practical solution and that would be to consider initiating the Chapter 429 process. He said that as a practical matter if they were dealing with a specific design, part of that would be the engineering study that would determine whether it would work It would give a process for Council to follow, and it did not set a course that would require Council to do any of the improvements or assess the improvements. It would at least set the Council down a path where this could be used as a public roadway. He said they could do a design that would be reasonably close to what could be acceptable to all the parties. He said the issue was not whether it was a good idea. The issue was who was going to pay for it. He said that was also part of the process. Councilmember Bolkcom stated a resolution was prepared that basically ordered plans and specifications and costs. Attorney Knaak said he thought it should be put on the agenda for another meeting. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Knaak what he would advise Council at this time. Attorney Knaak replied that he wanted to preface this by saying that that by giving Council advice with an open mike he was not waiving any and all other attorney-client communications with respect to this matter. He said he suggested that they put this on the agenda for the ne�t meeting to begin the Chapter 429 process. He thought it would get this matter going in a concrete direction, allow staff the justification to proceed with the design beyond what it had done already, and begin to deal with the peculiarities of the land configuration issues around the parcel. He suggested that they set it up for the Chapter 429 procedure and allow continued discussion. Councilmember Bolkcom replied that this item should be tabled. She said it was her understanding there were still discussions going on. Attorney Neilson stated that he thought people in the City had a right to contact their council members. He said he as an attorney clearly did not have the right to tell his clients they could not do that. He stated he thought what they wanted was action from Council. He said he would rather see Council pass the ordinance as it was but make it clear that what they really meant was there would be snowplowing but no maintenance. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that she thought she heard Mr. Neilson at the beginning say he was not sure if the motion would be clear enough. Attorney Neilson responded that he thought what it should say was that City staff was not to plow snow and provide routine maintenance. Councilmember Billings asked the City Attorney if it would be possible to approve the resolution ordering preliminary plans, specifications and estimates at the current meeting Attorney Knaak replied that he did not believe it would be possible because there should be notice. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 21 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the notice had to be published. Attorney Knaak replied that it was published if it was actually put on. He said published did not necessarily mean in a legal newspaper. Dr. Burns stated that if it were the consensus of Council to move forward with the preliminary plans, specifications, estimates, and costs for the 62"d Way e�tension project, would it indicate that Council had taken the position that it should be traveled roadway and, therefore, inconsistent with the motion presented in August. Attorney Knaack replied that it would not. Councilmember Billings asked about a memorandum that was sent within the last couple of weeks relative to a configuration for the possible 62"d Way e�tension project. In the memorandum it referred to the fact that Council had directed staff to do this. He just wanted clarification from the City Attorney that it was his understanding that the City Council did not in any way, shape or fashion, take any action at the conference meeting. As a matter of fact in this particular instance, he believed he was the one who asked Mr. Knaack to proceed with putting this together and bringing it forward. Attorney Knaak agreed. Councilmember Billings stated he just wanted to make sure that anyone reading the memorandum did not misconstrue anything. Attorney Neilson stated he still was unclear as to what the City Council's action was. Mayor Lund replied he believed that Attorney Knaak was preparing a motion. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Harris if he would like to make a comment. Mr. Richard Harris, 6200 Riverview Terrace N.E., stated he was wondering if they were not creating a larger problem then what was trying to be resolved. He asked if this was going to be on the agenda for the ne�t Council meeting. Councilmember Billings replied he was going ask the City Manager to put a resolution on the agenda for the ne�t meeting. He said the resolution would ask staff to prepare plans, specifications and estimates of costs. Mr. Harris asked who would plow the snow. Councilmember Billings replied that was something that he thought was possibly going to be determined by the outcome of the vote on the other issue. Mr. Harris stated that if there was action tonight, he would like to speak about the matter. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 22 Attorney Neilson asked if there could be a resolution for temporary snowplowing. Mayor Lund asked the ward Councilmember to make the motion. Councilmember Wolfe said if they did the temporary plowing, what was the incentive to continue the discussion. Attorney Neilson replied it would be to continue what the City was trying to do with Chapter 429. Councilmember Wolfe replied that he thought the whole issue was that they were no longer plowing. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she believed they do have a resolution asking for plans and specifications to be drawn up on the e�tension. She said she personally did not support the City plowing this area. She said as Attorney Knaak mentioned earlier, she thought it had been an error continued over many years and brought to their attention during the reconstruction. She asked about the motion being drafted by Attorney Knaack She asked if it was a substitute for the motion that was on the table. Attorney Knaak replied that it was with an additional sentence. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to remove the item from the table for further discussion. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Billings stated he needed to speak in opposition to the motion. He said it was his personal opinion that this portion of 62"d Way was in fact a right-of-way. The property owners adjacent to it have at various times requested that maintenance continue to be done on it and that the roadway be improved with concrete curb and gutter. He stated he would argue that the City continue to maintain that portion of the right-of-way that served as traveled roadway and that plans and specifications be prepared to bring it as close as possible to the standards of the right-of-way that existed. He said the roadway should be improved. Mayor Lund asked that they vote on the following motion: To uphold the decision of City staff as it pertained to snow plowing and routine maintenance of the right-of-way e�tension currently being used for property access by the property owners at 190 - 62"d Way, 310 - 62"d Way, and 6200 Riverview Terrace. Specifically, no snow plowing or other road surface maintenance of that right-of-way e�tension will be done by the City's maintenance crews. UPON A VOICE VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS BARNETTE AND BOLKCOM AND MAYOR LUND VOTING AYE, AND COUNCILMEMBERS WOLFE AND BILLINGS VOTING NAY, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION PASSED ON A 3 TO 2 VOTE. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 23 Mr. Harris approached and confirmed that there will be no plowing and asked if there was any objection if he plowed his driveway. There were no objections. Mr. Potasek asked about contact between residents and the City Council. Several Council members have said they will not speak to residents because of the need for a resident to have legal assistance. He was told by Councilmember Bolkcom in particular that she would not speak with him because he had an attorney. He said Council members are elected and represent the citizens of the City. By saying that they would not speak with residents, they were turning down their duties to represent the people of the City. Councilmember Billings replied that he told him many, many months ago that he would not discuss this issue with him in any type of one-on-one conversation. He said he would only discuss this issue in a public forum to avoid any miscommunication without a witness being present. He said he had been consistent with that statement and did not think that position was contrary to any oath of office that he took. He said he took personal objection to what Mr. Potasek said. Mr. Potasek said that in other words, Councilmember Billings was saying he would not speak one on one with a resident of the City. Councilmember Billings stated he would not discuss it with him one on one. He stated that it was consistent with his oath of office to make sure he was doing what was in the best interests of the City, including the citizens and business and property owners in the City. Mr. Potasek replied that Councilmember Billings was speaking with Mr. Harris in front of the houses on 62"d Way. He said he would not speak with him but would talk with Mr. Harris. Mr. Potasek commented that he thought it was prejudicial to provide favored treatment to some citizens and refuse to talk to others. NEW BUSINESS: 15. RESOLUTION NO. 71-2002 GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.154, AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS (TOTINO-GRACE HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT) (WARD 2). MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe to approve Resolution No. 71-2002. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 24 4. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARDS CONTRACT FOR THE COMMONS PARK PARKING LOT PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 348. Councilmember Bolkcom recalled discussions at the last conference meeting about alleys and approving alleys and was wondering if they went ahead and approved the bids and awarded the contract for this, if they were increasing the amount for later. Mayor Lund asked Councilmember Bolkcom if she was asking about the difference. Councilmember Bolkcom replied that there was discussion about not doing the alleys because of the increased costs. She said she was wondering when they would be done. Mr. Haukaas replied the alley referred to was currently paved. That is the portion that will be done in the future. It was originally intended to be a part of the project. Councilmember Bolkcom replied that she knew it was improved but did not think it was in bad shape and thought it could have waited a while. Mr. Haukaas replied that there are several of the street projects in which they will improve streets because it made sense to do. Councilmember Billings asked Mr. Haukaas if the contract contained language relative to prevailing wages. Mr. Haukaas replied that it did. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to receive the bids and award the contract for the Commons Park Parking Lot Phase I Improvement Project No. 348 to Bituminous Roadways Incorporated in the amount of $62,910.00. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVE CITY OF FRIDLEY STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE POLICIES. Mr. Haukaas replied that the street reconstruction policies were a collection of administrative procedures that the City had been using over the last 30 to 40 years. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they did talk about some alleys that were not going to be improved and she wondered if this item should be tabled. Councilmember Barnette agreed. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to table approval of the City of Fridley Street Reconstruction and Maintenance Policies. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 25 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Attorney Neilson approached and asked for a copy of the policies. Councilmember Billings stated there was an agenda book that Attorney Neilson could take with him, and he would find the information on Pages 28 and 29. 6. APPROVE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRIDLEY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the Partnership Agreement between the City of Fridley and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 16. INFORMAL STATUS REPORTS Dr. Burns stated that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting was cancelled and rescheduled for Thursday, December 12. He said the newsletter was in the mail. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she had the pleasure of attending the Police Department citizen awards ceremony the week before. She was very impressed. Mr. Haukaas said that on Page 2 of the newsletter under Street Reconstruction there was a phone number on the bottom and the prefix is wrong. It should be 572 not 573. He said that the flood pump for Riverview Heights was installed but they have been unable to test it because of low water. Councilmember Bolkcom attended a meeting about train whistles. She said there was a good turnout. Mayor Lund stated he represented the City at the National League of Cities conference in Salt Lake City. Councilmember Billings asked about the status of the survey being done on user fees. Mr. Pribyl replied they are preparing the first draft of the results. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 2002 PAGE 26 ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Wolfe. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE DECEMBER 9, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise M. Letendre Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor