The URL can be used to link to this page

05/17/2004 CONF MTG - 4596� �' y ' ': � �k � r+t. NOTICE OF JOINT CONFERENGE �IEETIIYG _ BETWEEN THE FR�DLEY CITY COU�VCIL. THE HOUSI,NG AND REDEVELOPMENT AilTH�1?ITY. THE PAR1�S AND RECREATION COMM.fSSIQN AND THE CHARTER COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that thhere will be a special joint conference m�� , the Fridley City Council, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, tht Par� �s� �` Reereation Commission and the Charter Commission on Monday, May i7, 2t�,� i� review and discuss the following: City CounciUCommissaons Survey Responses � �y Said meeting will commence at 7:00 p.m. in Meeting Rooms 1 and 2' ai the �'�e� f ;. Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E., Fridley, Mianesota. E� �; Any and all persons desiring to be heazd shall be given an opporiunity at the abav�s�.i� time and place. Any questions related to this item may be refened to the City R��e�'':� ; .,� Office at (763) 572-3500. . Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other p�►ns with disabilities who require awciliary aids should coatact Roberta. Collins as sc�on �`' possible at (763) 572-3500. DATED: May 13, 2004 WILLIAM W. BURNS � CITY MANAGER � a CffY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING May �7, Zoo4 — 7:0o p.m. Fridley Municipal Center Meeting Rooms i and � Redevelopment Strategies. 2. University Avenue Fence. 3. Parks Capital Funding Level. 4. Other Business. Adj ourn. Memo to: The Mayor and Council ,� From: Williaxn W. Burns, City Manager � Subject: Council-Commission Survey Discussion Date 5-17-04 In preparation for Monday's meeting I've made copies of my Power Point Presentation (revised from the last time) and additional copies of the survey results. � � � ��/ / � 0 ._ � � .� io U � _ .� V � � � V r . � i � 0 � ti � � � ._ � � � v � ._ 0 �A . �" � � 4� � 4� � � � � �° - . -� . � � .� � 4� � C� � � � � 4� � � 0 � � a� � 4� � . � � V � � 4� � � 4� � � .� .�, � � a� � .,.� � � . N � � � � �A . �" � � � � � � � � � V � � C� � . M � � V O � � 4� � � . � � � 0 •• � � � � � � O .� � � . � � � � �, � � �� •'.y � 0 � � � � � � � � C� C� O � � � . N . v • �, � O � �� I � • M r n � � � � • �y � a � 0 � � � r��1 � � � I��M � � � � • � � �O •� V � � � � • �.y � � � � � • �.y � � •� �/ � � � •� � 0 � � � .� • �■y � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � •O � � � �� • � �� I � � � � � � �I � � � � � � � � � • �y � � � �� 4� � � � � � � � � 0 � �.�J �� •� � � �� '■■�M � � 4� � � � C� � O .� � � � � � • �y •� �M � � 4� � � C� r..� 4� � � � � � � � � . � � 4� � � 0 V . n � •� �■�I � � � � � � • �y � �i■, C� � �■■� � � 4� r..� � 4� 4� � � � � �� • �y � �.��lU � •,� � • �, C� � 4� � 4� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � '� � � � •O � � V .� � � � .'..� � � � . � � � � � � .� � � �, � � � � � 4� � 4� � 4� � . � � 4� � � r..� � � 0 � � � .,.� O � � .O � 4� � � 4� � E"� . � C� � � � � � � � � a� � � � 4� � 4� � O � � � � n � � 4� � O � . � � a� � � � 4� � 4� "'�� 4� � � � � C� 4� � � �� I •� � � � � 4� .S: � � C� � � � 0 0 � � a� � . �.., � � � .,� � .� 4� � 4� � � � ►y) VV I`I � � � � � � � C� �i � � �� 4� � � � .� '''' � � '� � O � � � � c� � � � .� � �"� • � � � v � � � o � � � � b� � ~ � � � �� •,•� � M,.� � � . � 4� � � � .� � � � � • '� �A, �i�/ � � � 4� � 4� � 4� � � � � 0 � � � C� � � � O � � 4� � � O � � � O � � • � � � O V � � � 0 �a � O N � �� . �., � � 4� � � � � � � , C� � C� � 4� � � . �" � � O � a� � � 4� � � � � � � C� � � O � � � .� � � 0 � � � � �■.i � � � �` 4� � � � O � O � 4� � � .� C� � 4� � � �i � � � �� O � 4� � -� � � � � C� V C� 4� � � � � O � 4� � � � � � � O �..� � � O � .� �••r � � O V V C� . � •� � � .O � � 0 � � O � rL � � 4� � 4� � �•r � O 4� � � � � � O � � �� _`� � � � � � 4� � 4� � � O V 4� � � C� . �' � � 4� �A C� � 4� r'� � . r..� � 4� � � � 4� � 4� � 4� � � � CC� 0 � � � � �iI AI, �i/ �� O `�% �A, 1i/ � �iI �A, �i/ � \'I ,� � � � � O � �O �, � � � •� I�� O � � � � �� 4� � � � � � CC� � � • � O O b� v .,.y � � � � 4� � O � .O �� 0 � � O � � O M � � •� � � O � O �� A,� �iI � 4� � 4� � 4� b�A C� � 4� � � • � � � •� � .~ � � � � 4� � � C!� � C� V/ � � •� � � � � � � � V � O � � O 4� � O � � �� . � 4� � � O � � 4� � 4� v � 4� � /� � � .�' .'.., � � 4� .� � � . N � I!� � � � � � �I VJ� �� ,� �i � � � b�A b�A � � � 0 .� � 4� � �S" 4� � � � � •� � � � �•i•l �I � � � r � � i �M � � •� •� � �l � � � �� W � � � � � � � � c� � � � "o � a� � � ,o 4� � C� � � � � � �� V1 �� •� � •� � •� � � 4� 4� � � � a� .� � A 4� .� � 4� � . a� � � 4� � � � � �--� �O � � � � � •� � � �I � �I � O � 4� � 4� � � .� � � 0 i✓� � O N N � • � � � N .'��" 4� v � � � 0 � 0 .� � 4� � � � � 0 � � � � � � .� V � � � C� � 4�� 0 � � 0 � N � � V � � � .� � � � .� � � � c� � � 4� � � � � � � F� � 4� � ..., � � � C� W a� � a� � �° C� � � � � � � � � 0 � � O � 4� .� � A a� .� � a� � � � � � 0 O N 4� � � 0 � � � � • � � � � .� � �i . V .� 0 � � � 4� � a� � 0 � � � .,.., � � � � � � � "'�'� � � O � �•r � � � 0 � � 0 � N � • �..I � � � V � � � 0 � .� � .� � � 0 C� CC� b�A .� � � � � � 0 v �I�I � � � � � � � � � � O � � � 4� � � � � � .� � � � � � •� � � � � � � � � � � a� � 4� � � 4� � � � .� � a� .� � � � � � � � V � � � � � � � C� 4� � � 4� � � � � � � � � C� • � � � � � .� � � 0 � 4-� � N rl . v .� 0 � � � a� � � 4� r..� � O � � � � � O � � 4� � tl� � �� d � � � O .� �..� � � . �.,, O C� C� � � . �..r � V � � � � O v �J � 0 � � � b� �� A .�" V � � 4� •� � CC� � O C� 4� � � � ,� � � � 4� r7' •,� � � � O 4� � .� � � 4� � 4� � � � � � � � � 4� � � 4� � � � � � � � 4� 4� 4� � � � ��F�■I � N � . `O O O N � .� � v .� O � � � � � � r..� O � . � � 4� v � O C� .� � r..� � � � � � 4� � C� C� .� � �A � .'.., � � � � � � � � 4� � O, � C� .'� � C� � � �■I � � . M � � � � � � � � � � � � � � O � � . �..� O � � O .� � � � � � � E"� � N � � �..� • � � �..� � � � � � � � I�'� � � � � � � �� 4� � � � � ~ � � � � .� � � � � � C� � � � O � � � � � �� 4� • �I �I■�I � � � � • � � �I � ~ � V 4� � � � � � � � � .� � r..� � � � .,� � � O v � .••N � � � � � � _ 4� � � v � O O � � � � �■I � 0 � � •� � � � � C� C� �� ••� � � O � � � r..� � � � 4� �••� � � � � •� � � • �I � � � 0 � V C� 4� � .�..� � � .'.y � � • �y `� � O V � � � �� 0 � � 0 � � �, ry . . � � � � 0 �■■1 l_I � � ��•r C� � v C� � � � c� � � r � �i � 4� � 4� � O � � � . �.., � � � � c� � •� � � � � � � � � � 4� � .� 4� � � 0 � � 0 � � � LI � � � 0 � � � � • O � .,..� � � C� � C� V O � � � � � 0 � � � � � � • �■y � � � � � . � r..� � 4� � � � O � � � . �.y a� � a� � � � .'.., � � � � � � � � 4� v� 4� � �A .� � � � � � � � .� � � . � � 0 � � � � �►` t 2004 COUNCIL-COMMISSIONSURVEYRESULTS Question I- 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 ta11 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 pazk-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 t�es should be approved through a referendum. Question S- 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.m. 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. bax 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 yeaxs. 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 2 � � 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 all 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 615t 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 61St 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 61st Avenue and the Rottlund project in 2006. Fourteen respondents disagreed. There were nuxnerous 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 commerciaUreligious entities on the east side while not assessing any of the residential property owners on the east side. He/she would not assess anyone. ,. : Question IO - 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 percenta.ge 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 11- Charter Restrictions on Utiliry 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 mainta.ined. 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. 4 f i Memo to: The Mayor and Counci� �� From: William W. Burns, City 1Vi�ager f� Subject: University Avenue Fence Outline Date 5-14-04 In preparing for Monday night, I found this outline from Jon Haukaas (He's at an APWA) meeting this week.). Apparently he intended to use it Monday night. Since it's well done and informative, I thought I would share it with you as packet material. � , w UNIVERSITY AVENUE FENCE Summary of the Issues • City would like to improve the image of the corridor. • Businesses along the corridor would like to improve their visibility from University Avenue. • Residential properties want to maintain the privacy and protection provided by the barrier. • MnDOT has final approval and requires a physical barrier to remain in place. Current Ideas • Replace Fence on East Side with decorative railing and brick pilasters similar to Christenson Crossing, 57� Avenue, and Gateway East. Incorporate landscape hedges to "soften" the look of long linear areas of fencing. Hedging would need to achieve near full growth prior to removal of existing fence. Phased project approach in 4 segments o East Side — 61� to Mississippi St o East Side — Gateway East to 61 St o West Side — 57�' to 61 St � o West Side — 61� to Christenson Crossing Page 1 of 3 L s University Ave Fence Discussion ' � Preferred Options • Install 50-75 foot sections of landscape hedges on east side at 64�', 63rd, and south edge of Moon Plaza on Phase 1 segment o`Break up' length of the fencing o Block headlight glare onto and across University Ave. • Create similar breaks at 60� and 59� Ave equivalent on Phase 2 segment. • Install primarily landscape hedging on west side for Phases 3 and 4. o Helps keep feeling of privacy on residential side. o Also acts as a light and noise barrier. • Insta.11 fence segments at 57� and 61St in order to maintain visibility and create an `anchor' effect for the segment ends. • Possibly leave fence on west side in place after installation of landscaping as removal will have significant impacts to the existing trees and bushes growing in and around the existing fence. Page 2 of 3 �� , University Ave Fence Discussion COStS We have contacted seven different fencing contractors and received estimates back from two of them. • Decorative fencing with pilasters will cost approximately $80 per lineal foot. This equates to about $200,000 per half mile. Each of the four phased segments is approximately 1/2 mile in length. • Dense "privet hedge" landscaping will cost approximately $15 per lineal foot installed. We may be able to work with the MnDOT Landscape Partnership program to cut this cost in half by having them pay for all materials. Installation must still be paid for by the City. • Estimated cost for each phase under this scenario o Phase 1& 2-$190,000 each. o Phase 3& 4-$60,000 each. Fundin • Cost for this project could be assessed all or in part to the adjacent properties. • Cost for this project competes with other General Capital Improvement Proj ect needs such as Fire Trucks, Roof Repairs, Digital Community Billboard, Voting Machines, etc. • HRA is open to discussing a partial cost share on this project. They will be discussing it at their next meting and could continue that discussion with the City Council at the next joint conference session in May. Page 3 of 3