Loading...
04/19/2004 CONF MTG - 4600� � CfTY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING April sq, Zoo4 — �:oo p.m. Fridley Municipal Center Meeting Rooms i and Z 2:00 a.m. Bar Closing. 2. Comprehensive Plan Revision. 3. Redevelopment Strategies. 4. Replacement of Aerial Fire Truck. 5. University Avenue Fence. 6. Parks Capital Funding Level. 7. Other Business. Adj ourn. � � CffY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2004 7:00 p.m. - Meeting Rooms 1 8a 2 Attendance Sheet • � .- Fridley Police Department , ' Memorandum To: Biil Burns, City Manager ��� From: Don Abbott Date: 04-16-04 Re: 2 a.m. Closing I am providing this memo in preparation for discussion of the 2:00 a.m. closing for licensed establishments as provided for by Minnesota law. In his August 8, 2003 memo concerning this subject, Dave Sallman identified several issues to be considered when discussing extending closing hours. Many of these remain pertinent. I agree that the primary result of extending hours would be the serving of more alcoholic beverages. I also agree that it will tend to be younger people who will take advantage of the additional hour. I support Dave Sallman's observation that this will make it more difficult for establishments to remain in compliance with the 60/40 rule. That being said, the 2 a.m. closing law has been in affect for ten months now, and some data is available for consideration. A review of ten years' DUI arrest data for Anoka, Hennepin, and Ramsey Counties shows a slight increase in DUI arrests (.8%) for the period following the 2 a.m. law change over the previous ten years. It is not possible to attribute this increase in DUI arrests to the 2 a.m. closing, neither is it possible to disprove an association. It is likely that any increase in the number of DUI arrests is either random variation or is the result of additional enforcement activity by police (such as our participation in Safe and Sober). A review of DUI arrests in Fridley shows we averaged 10 arrests per month between January 1, 2001 and June 1, 2003. Our DUI arrest monthly average increased to 12 for the period June 2003 and February 2004. Anoka e DUI arrests per Jan 1993 - Mav 2003 e DUT Arrests per June 2003 - February e Hennepin 212.1 Total 610.71 193.6� 957 A more relevant measure would be that of alcohol-related crashes. Unfortunately, these reports lag a year behind with the 2002 Crash Facts report being the current report. Some 2003 data is available and shows a continuing Y y �� downward trend in the proportion of alcohol related crashes in the number of total crashes. Another area of concern is that of extending the hours of activity requiring police attention. As noted in Dave Sallman's memo, our current shift staffing provides additional officers until 3:00 a.m. Extending bar closing to 2:00 may require an adjustment of our shift staffing to accommodate an increased alcohol-related call load. This is speculation based upon intuition and will have to be monitored should 2 a.m. closing be permitted. What we do know is that all of our bordering cities, with the exception of Columbia Heights, have adopted or are in the process of adopting 2:00 a.m. closing. This will result in Fridley experiencing most of the effects of the one-hour extension regardless of our adoption of it. I have spoken with representatives from most of our bordering cities' police departments and learned that only some of the establishments in each city have taken advantage of the extended hours. Of those that do stay open later, most do so only on Friday and Saturday evenings. In addition, our neighboring police departments, while not able to provide data, report experiencing no problems resulting specifically from the 2:00 a.m. closing. Ci Closing Blaine 2:00 a.m. Brookl n Center 2:00 a.m. Brookl n Park 2:00 a.m. Columbia Hei hts 1:00 a.m., not considerin further Coon Ra ids Ado tin 2:00 a.m. Minneapolis 2:00 a.m. Moundsview 2:00 a.m. New Bri hton 2:00 a.m. S rin Lake Park 2:00 a.m. Should the City decide to permit 2:00 a.m. closing, I would support a 2-year Sunset to the ordinance. We could then revisit the issue and benefit from additional available data concerning possible effects of the extended hours, prior to making this change permanent. 2004 COUNCIL-COMMISSIONSURVEYRESULTS Question 1- Replacement of the Aerial There were thirty-two responses to this question. Twenty-three agreed with the recommendation to replace the Fire Department's aerial truck in 2006. Eleven disagreed with the recommendation. Several of those opposed to the recommendation indicated that they felt that the number of fires requiring the aerial together with increasing use of mutual aid made the purchase unnecessary. One respondent opined that those who owned tall buildings should pay for the equipment through a special assessment. Question 2 - Additional Firefighter Among the thirty-four respondents, seventeen indicated that we should not use federal grant funding to hire an additional firefighter. Seventeen believed that we should. A few of those opposed offered comments. One respondent felt that it was unwise to hire more firefighters at a time when we were laying off other employees. Another felt we should rely on the paid-on-call firefighters and also had no problems with our Fire Department managers taking emergency calls. Question 3- Senior Companion Program Twenty of the thirty-four respondents to this question would have the City relying on grant money, fundraisers and other charitable contributions to fund the Senior Companion Program. Only thirteen of the respondents would continue the Senior Companion Program at City expense. One respondent pointed out that since Fridley is an aging community, the $5,000 for the Senior Companion Program was a small price tag and presumably one that we should pay. Question 4- Parks Capital Funding Level Opinions were evenly divided among the respondents to this question on parks capital improvement financing. Seventeen respondents indicated that we should scale back our annual parks capital improvements as a result of lost Local Government Aid and generally declining local government revenues. These same individuals believed that we should rely on the existing park-related revenues such as those made available through park dedication fees and interest revenues. Seventeen respondents believed that the Parks Capital Improvement Fund should be allocated additional money for needed park improvements. Two of the respondents added notes indicating that additional property taxes should be approved through a referendum. Question 5- Off Leash Dog Park This question pointed out that Anoka County was considering the establishment of an off-leash dog park at one of Fridley's County Parks. While one of the respondents did not care, sixteen thought the park was a good idea; seventeen indicated it was not a good idea. One respondent added a note indicating that he/she had purchased a Minneapolis permit for his/her dog and believed that it would be nice to have this amenity in Fridley. Question 6- 2: 00 a.nz. Bar Closing Opinion on this issue was diverse and spread widely among the choices. Ten respondents would hold off on allowing 2:00 a.m. bar closings until we have more accident and DUI data from other cities. Eight respondents would extend the hours unconditionally to insure that Fridley bars and restaurants remain competitive. Seven respondents indicated that they would not extend the hours under any conditions. Six indicated that we should continue to study the impacts of 2:00 a.m. bar closing while allowing it on special nights, such as New Year's Eve and the night before Thanksgiving. Three chose their own option. Of these three, two would extend the hours conditionally with the understanding that the issue would be revisited after a trial period. One would allow the extended closing, but would sunset the ordinance. Question 7 - Redevelopment Strategies In this question, we pointed out that the HRA has reserves, but not a very plentiful revenue stream for redevelopment. Respondents were asked how we should approach redevelopment in view of this situation. Thirteen respondents would continue housing rehabilitation and scattered site housing programs, but save the remainder of reserves until we accumulated enough money to accomplish top redevelopment priorities. Five respondents would use all of the reserves to leverage private sector development and redevelopment. Six would use reserves to leverage grant money for projects that accomplish some public good. Four would use the reserves to leverage redevelopment of aging apartment buildings. Six respondents crafted unique responses. One asked that we revisit the priority list before making a decision on funding. Another respondent said that he/she would keep some reserves to take advantage of opportunities that become available. One person suggested that spending reserves depended on "what other issues arise." Question 8- Comprehensive Plan Revision The prologue to this question points out that the City's Comprehensive Plan has come under increasing fire as we have considered various development proposals during the last two years. In view of this demand for revision of the Comprehensive Plan, respondents were asked to agree or disagree with several statements about how this planning process should occur. The first statement asserted that we should schedule a process for amending only the housing section of the Comprehensive Plan. Twenty-two responded. Eleven agreed; eleven disagreed. The next statement said that the process should be accompanied by careful analysis of Fridley's housing composition and how this existing mix met the current and future needs of the community. Twenty-five respondents agreed with this statement. One disagreed. The third statement asserted that the Comprehensive Plan amendment process should be conducted in a manner that maintains Fridley's compliance with the Metropolitan Livable � Communities Act, the Fair Housing Act and other relevant laws and statutes. Twenty-one agreed with this statement. Two disagreed. The fourth statement provided that while the comprehensive planning process should welcome neighborhood input, it should be based on community-wide needs as reflected in the comments of a broad cross section of the City's population. Twenty-three respondents agreed with this statement. Four disagreed. Finally, we stated that although the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan should be moved along expeditiously, it should be done carefully and carried out within a time frame that allows sufficient research, public education and public discussion. Twenty-six respondents agreed. No one disagreed. The bottom line is that there is near agreement on all of the statements except the first one. As we discuss this on April 19 and May 17, it will be interesting to ask whether the opposition was to amending the housing section of the plan separate from the entire plan or whether it reflected a desire not to get into the comprehensive planning process at a11 until we are required to do it several years down the road. Question 9 - UniversityAvenue Fence Twenty-three of the respondents liked the idea of the alternate bid for the East University Avenue Service Drive fencing (between 61St Avenue and Mississippi Street) in 2004. Six respondents disagreed. Twenty-one respondents also agreed that we should erect a 4-foot high decorative fence along the East University Avenue Service Drive south of 61St Avenue as part of the 2005 street improvement project. Seven respondents disagreed. Twenty-one respondents supported the idea of constructing a combination of decorative fencing and hedges on the west side of University Avenue between Burger King and 61 St Avenue as part of the Gateway West project. Nine respondents disagreed with this concept. Fifteen respondents supported constructing a combination of decorative fencing and hedges along the west side of University Avenue between 61 st Avenue and the Rottlund project in 2006. Fourteen respondents disagreed. There were numerous written comments. One respondent, for example, supported each of the four projects with the condition that there should be partial State funding for each segment. While one other respondent hates fences, she/he would be more inclined to support decorative fencing if it did not include arborvitae and the maintenance costs associated with it. Another respondent seems supportive of the decorative fencing, but objects to assessing the commercial/religious entities on the east side while not assessing any of the residential property owners on the east side. He/she would not assess anyone. 3 Question 10 - Strategies for Budget Cutting This question recognizes another $649,000 loss in LGA for 2005 and points out that there will be pressures to restore both personnel and equipment that were cut in prior years as we prepare the 2005 budget. In view of these losses and pressures, the question asks that the respondent select an expenditure-cutting strategy. Fifteen respondents would make all cuts based on prioritization of City programs and services. Fourteen others would start with an across-the-board reduction in each department, with the remainder of the cuts based on prioritization of programs and services. Two respondents would ask each department to take the same percentage cut in their budgets. Two respondents crafted their own solutions. One of these would ask employees to take a 10% salary cut, pay for more of their benefits and take unpaid time off. Firefighters and Police patrol would be exempt. The other respondent would ask for an across-the-board reduction in each department except for essential services, and would require, for example, two weeks of unpaid vacation for all departments. Question II - Charter Restrictions on Utility Rates The question points out that the Charter indexes utility rates to the rate of inflation and asks whether or not a Charter change is desirable. Twenty-four respondents believe that these restrictions should be lifted from the City Charter. Six respondents believe the Charter restrictions on utility rate increases should be maintained. Two respondents would leave the restrictions alone and use reserves to pay for utility deficits before asking the voters for rate changes. Two others crafted their own responses. One would lift the Charter restrictions, but limit increases to actual cost increases. The other would seek voter approval of the Charter amendment. 0