Loading...
10/04/2004 - 00026599CITY OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2004 The regular meeting of the Fridley City Council was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:30 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-at-Large Barnette, Councilmember Billings, Councilmember Wolfe and Councilmember Bolkcom. OTHERS PRESENT: William Burns, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Jon Haukaas, Public Works Director Richard Pribyl, Finance Director Julie Jones, Environmental Planner Rebecca Brazys, Recording Secretary Fritz Knaak, City Attorney APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. Resolution No. 2004-55 Ordering Final Plans and Specifications and Estimates of Costs Thereof: Neighborhood Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2005-1. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated the preliminary design, neighborhood meetings and the public hearing have taken place and staff is ready to proceed with the design and bid specifications on this project. The City has budgeted for the improvement of 3.7 miles of streets in four neighborhoods. The first neighborhood is on the east side of East River Road and includes portions of Ruth Street, Ruth Circle and Paramount Street. The second neighborhood is on the west side of East River Road bounded by 76t" Way on the south and 79t" way on the north and includes portions of Rickard Road, Craig Way, Stonybrook Way, Craigbrook Way, Pearson Way and Bellaire Way. Another area included is west of East River Road and is bounded by 71 '/ Way on the south and 75tn Way on the north. This portion includes Logan Parkway, Glen Creek Road, Talmadge Way, Osborne Way and a portion of Riverview Terrace. The fourth neighborhood lies between the Burlington Northern Santa Fee tracks on the west and University Avenue. Mississippi Street is on the south, Rice Creek is on the north and it includes portions of FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 2 of 18 Rice Creek Terrace, Plaza Curve, 67t" Avenue and Second Street. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-55. 2. Resolution No. 2004-56 Requesting Municipal State Aid System Construction Funds for Other Local Use. Dr. Burns, City Manager, said the resolution requests disbursement of the City's population portion of the Municipal State Aid System's Construction Funds for use in conjunction with the 2005 street improvement project. Staff recommends Council's approval. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-56. 3. Claims: 118549 — 118621. APPROVED 4. Licenses. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Billings to approve the proposed consent agenda with the removal of Item 4. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Councilmember Billings requested the addition of a resolution he prepared regarding Springbrook Nature Center. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adopt the agenda with the addition of Item 4 and the resolution regarding Springbrook Nature Center. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM: Ms. Donna Bahls, 7514 Alden Way N.E., stated she is a member of the Board for the Springbrook Nature Center Foundation, and the Foundation members believe that the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 3 of 18 open forum should not be used for individuals to campaign for a particular issue or candidate as occurred at the previous Council meeting. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive N.E., thanked City staff for providing him the information he requested regarding the recycling contract. Mr. Mike Heintz, 5704 Jefferson Street N.E., asked Council to question the figures being discussed for the Springbrook Nature Center funding. He asked why Council has not educated the people of Fridley as to how the vote on Springbrook funding will impact the Nature Center. Councilmember Bolkcom suggested that any further discussion on Springbrook be delayed until later in the meeting when the Springbrook resolution is on the agenda. Mr. Don Anderson, 7304 West Circle N.E., stated he participated in and completed the Twin Cities Marathon. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. Consideration of Proposed Assessment for 2004 Street Improvement Project No. ST. 2004-1. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:52 PM. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated this project is for a residential area of improvement in the Regis Trail and Lynde Drive area, as well as the commercial area on the University Avenue Service Drive. Within the residential project assessment there were 57 properties improved for a total assessed cost of $54,498.76. The assessment was based on $11.91 per front foot which is lower than the estimated $16.00 per foot. The assessment will be payable over a 10-year period at an interest rate of 6.5%. The commercial portion of the assessment totaled $51,243.96 with 10 properties improved at a rate of $18.45 per front foot (lower than the estimated $65.00 per front foot). This assessment is payable over 10 years at a rate of 6.5% interest. Staff has received an appeal on the residential portion of the project from Abdul Hamade and on the commercial portion from the Church of St. William. Later in this meeting, staff will present the assessment resolution for Council's consideration. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to accept into the record a letter from Abdul Hamade and a letter from the Church of St. William. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 4 of 18 Councilmember Billings asked if the Council has any legal authority to excuse the Hamade's from the assessment for this project as they have requested. Mr. Pribyl stated there are no provisions within the City Charter or ordinances that allow for a hardship of this sort or any state statutes that allow for this kind of deferral. He explained that this is a 10-year assessment starting at $161 down to the low point of $104 per year payable in two installments. The first installment will be payable in 2005. Councilmember Barnette questioned what would happen if the assessment is not paid. Mr. Pribyl stated the property would go into tax forfeiture. Councilmember Wolfe asked if this assessment could be deferred and paid when the property is sold. Mr. Pribyl stated the City does not have any provisions for this type of hardship to defer special assessments. Ms. Hala Hamade, 1001 Lynde Drive N.E., explained that they cannot afford this tax increase because they have a son who required a kidney transplant. Councilmember Billings explained that Council does not have the authority to waive the assessment or to defer it for one piece of property. He offered to see if there are any organizations that may be willing to help them with this situation. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive N.E., asked why the interest rate on this assessment is 6.5%. Mayor Lund commented that if anyone feels the interest rate is too high, they can obtain a loan and pay the assessment in full. Mr. Pribyl stated one of the drawbacks the City has is that the street projects are not large enough to go to market annually, so the City pays for the projects out of its own resources for a period of 5 or 6 years until enough debt is accumulated to go to market with. Consequently staff has to anticipate what the future will bring as far as what these assessments will pay because the City could be in a position down the road where the interest rates are higher. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the January 23 letter from St. William's Church indicated that they were concerned about the construction interfering with the use of their parking lot. She asked if that has been the case. Mr. Haukaas, Public Works Director, stated the project is complete and to his knowledge there were no difficulties with access to their parking lot other than the short period of time the City was working in front of it. There was very little disruption to that area. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 5 of 18 Councilmember Bolkcom stated St. William's also objects because the amount of the assessment will exceed the value of the benefits they receive from this improvement. She asked how the City decides benefit versus assessment. Mr. Haukaas responded the City's policy requires commercial properties to pay the full cost of the project divided equally between the accessible footage on either side. In the case of this project, the City paid the westerly side and only half of the project was assessed to commercial properties. St. William's Church owns over 400 feet of frontage property on this project which worked out to $11,838. Mr. Knaak stated that the assumption when you assess property is what you are charging the landowner for is an increase in value to their property. The thinking is that the public should not have to pay for the increase in a private property value. The ultimate test would be, if someone does object, how much this particular project actually benefited the value of the property. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned what a property owner can do if they are not happy with the assessment. Mr. Knaak stated they can object in writing and can appeal in court within 30 days. This appeal goes directly to district court and is a high priority. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:10 PM. 6. Consideration of Proposed Assessment for 2003 Alley Paving Project No. ST. 2003-3. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:11 PM. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to receive the letter from Deborah M. Gerrety dated September 26, 2004. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated this project included Anoka and Arthur Street alleys. It involved included improvement for 15 properties with a total assessed cost of $21,336.00. The assessment was done by splitting the cost equally between the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 6 of 18 properties abutting the alley. This assessment will be payable over a 10 year period at a rate of 6.5% interest. Staff did receive one appeal from Deborah M. Gerrety which Council has accepted into the record. Staff will be presenting the assessment resolution later in this meeting. Mayor Lund asked why there was a delay from the completion of the project in 2003 to the actual assessment process now. Mr. Haukaas explained the project was completed later in the year. There were some questions as to how it would be assessed, and several meetings were held. Consequently, staff did not complete the paperwork in time to bring it to Council last fall. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned why staff decided to pave the alley. Mr. Haukaas explained the alley came to staff's attention because it was a gravel alley. In 1995-96, the City passed an ordinance stating that gravel driveways are a nuisance and, by extension, questions were raised about gravel roads. Also, there was one driveway connected to this alley that had grading and drainage issues which could only be resolved with the alley being done properly. The staff considered this as a first step in addressing several gravel alleys in the city. As far as how the assessments were split, that came as a result of the public hearings and meetings. He reviewed the minutes of the public hearings on this project and one of the last statements was that the City would go with an equal split; the total cost divided by the 15 properties. Councilmember Barnette asked when the notices were sent out. Mr. Haukaas stated notices were sent to all affected property owners within the last 2 to 3 weeks. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:24 P. M. 7. Consideration of Proposed Assessment for 2004 Nuisance Abatement. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to waive the reading and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 8:25 PM. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, stated this is the annual assessment for those properties for which the City has extended resources for clean-up or code violations. The first FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 7 of 18 property is located at 7699 Highway 65. At the request of the property owner, work was completed to correct a violation of a number of City ordinances. The property owner was discharging sump pump water into a City street. A sump pump line was installed to move water from the building to the storm water line in order to eliminate the violation, at a cost of $9,830.16. At the request of the property owner, this case went before an independent hearing officer and, based on the evidence and testimony presented at that hearing, it was determined that the discharge into a public street was in violation of City ordinances. It was affirmed through this process that the violations must be corrected. He provided Council with a copy of correspondence dated June 13, 2003, from Dr. Dahl's attorney protesting the assessment. Mr. Pribyl stated the second abatement is for property located at 7601 Arthur Street regarding nuisance weeds at a cost to the City of $113.16. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to accept into the record the June 13, 2003 correspondence from Randall Tigue Law Office, P.A. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Wayne Dahl, property owner at 7699 Highway 65, stated this matter is a historical issue for the City. This problem was created by the City of Fridley when the Byron Road loop back was put in. Prior to that time, drain water from the basement of the clinic was pumped out into the back yard area. When the City took 20 feet of his property, they took away all the area where the water could be drained to. That was brought to the attention of the City and the City agreed to put in a pipe to the storm sewer, and then within one week, the pipe was covered with blacktop. There was a difference of opinion at that time between the City engineer and the sewer foreman because the pipe the City installed immediately plugged and the City did not want to rip up the new blacktop surface. When asked what he should do with the water, Dr. Dahl was told to pump it into the street, which he did until the fall at which time he was advised by the City to pump it into the sanitary sewer. Dr. Dahl presented a letter from the sewer foreman at that time, Rusty Silseth, which stated that he had recommended a 4" pipe be installed but the City engineer chose to install a 1" pipe. The letter also stated that the City assured Dr. Dahl the problem would be corrected at a later date but when Mr. Silseth retired 5 years later, the problem had not been corrected. As for the hearing, Dr. Dahl questioned if it actually was an independent hearing examiner conducting the meeting, when the statement provided stated the examiner was an attorney for the City of Fridley. Also, the hearing officer did not consider the letter from Mr. Silseth because it was not notarized. Dr. Dahl stated this problem has been going on for quite some time and was created by the City itself when they installed the wrong size pipe, failed to correct the condition, and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 8 of 18 then put him through the hearing process. Now, the City is trying to assess him. He also stated that the examiner refused to provide him a copy of a document involved in her decision process. On two different occasions, he was assessed $300 by the City which was reflected on his water bill. Those charges disappeared at the end of the year and he assumed the matter was over. Subsequently, he directed his attorney to send a letter to the City asking them to fix the problem. Mayor Lund asked when the hearing took place. Dr. Dahl stated the hearing took place on January 6, 2003. Mr. Haukaas explained that the hearing examiner's services are paid for by the City which is why the examiner's letter indicated that she was an examiner for the City. Mayor Lund commented that he is surprised that the City put in a line on Dr. Dahl's property as the City does not typically correct such problems on private property. Dr. Dahl explained the City installed the pipe to correct the problem the City created. Councilmember Billings questioned what improvements were made that generated the current abatement. He also asked if he spoke to the former City engineer about this matter. Mr. Haukaas explained through the nuisance abatement process, the correction was with a 4" PVC connection under the road to the storm sewer system. Mr. Flora, former City Engineer, disagrees with Mr. Silseth's contention and maintains that the 1" pipe should have been adequate. Councilmember Billings asked if Mr. Haukaas has knowledge that the 1" pipe is plugged. Mr. Haukaas stated he does not. Councilmember Billings questioned how the 4" pipe will be maintained. Mr. Haukaas stated it will be Mr. Dahl's responsibility to maintain the pipe. Dr. Dahl stated he has no problem maintaining the pipe himself and would have done so had the initial pipe been large enough. Councilmember Wolfe commented that it does seem as though the City created the problem with the 1" pipe. Mr. Haukaas agreed with the prior City Engineer that the City did not create the problem. It is not uncommon for development to happen adjacent to a property and take out what has historically been the drain field. The City purchased the property from FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 9 of 18 Mr. Dahl for the Byron Road loop back so it became City property. A 1" copper line under pressure should handle a sump pump just fine. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned why there is a discussion about the 1" pipe when the assessment is for a 4" pipe that Dr. Dahl asked for. Dr. Dahl responded that the 4" pipe was put in to replace the faulty 1" line. The 1" line was put in at no cost to him because it was recognized that the City created the problem. He stated he should not have to pay for the 4" line that was installed to replace the 1" line when, it should have been a 4" line to begin with. Mayor Lund commented that it appears the 1" line was put in at no cost as a courtesy to Dr. Dahl. Dr. Dahl stated the line would not have been a consideration had there been a normal setback on Byron Road. There is only 6 feet from his backdoor to the road. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there is any record of correspondence or court issues where the City stated they had created the nuisance. Mr. Haukaas stated in preparing for the nuisance abatement originally and preparing for the hearing officer, staff did research all the records and found no agreement or any other discussion regarding the 1" line versus the 4" line. All of these issues were brought to the hearing officer's attention and reviewed. Dr. Dahl stated the land taken off his property was traded for the land that was abandoned on the old Byron Road that went between Highway 65 and the building. So it was not a purchase as such. He also has the letter from Mr. Silseth which recognizes this did occur. The former City Engineer does recall this project. Councilmember Bolkcom asked the City Attorney if money has to be exchanged to constitute purchase of a property. Mr. Knaak, City Attorney, responded there is any number of considerations that would be considered a property purchase. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Mr. Haukaas if the City were to put in this roadway today, would the City be responsible for redirection of Dr. Dahl's sump pump water. Mr. Haukaas stated typically, the City would not do that. Councilmember Billings asked if the installation of the 1" line was a part of the land swap. Dr. Dahl said it was a consideration. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 10 of 18 Councilmember Billings stated there are enough questions in his mind that he is not prepared to make a determination on this matter. He asked the City Attorney what options the City Council has. Mr. Knaak stated the City does afford extra protections in these matters by providing for the hearing officer process which is not required by state law. There was also an appeals option available to Mr. Dahl within 20 days of the hearing, but no appeal was filed. So Council has the decision and recommendation of the hearing officer that is technically unchallenged. If Council decides to go through with the assessment, Dr. Dahl has the option of pursuing this matter in court. Council is kind of in a bind because there has been a determination of fact in a hearing that supports the City's position. Council can get into an interesting situation if they choose to ignore the hearing officer and someone challenges the Council for being arbitrary and capricious. He understands that Councilmember Billings is uncomfortable going forward without a full record, but the provision for a full record has been complied with here with the hearing officer and it is an unchallenged full record because there was no appeal. Council still has discretion, but the fact that the hearing officer made the recommendation that she did does cause Council some problems. Councilmember Barnette asked if there is a record of how the hearing officer made the decision. Dr. Dahl stated that all the findings were admitted to. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the City should repair the faulty pipe they originally put in, but that never was addressed in the hearing. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why Dr. Dahl did not file an appeal. Dr. Dahl claimed the hearing officer denied him a copy of the record without a court order. Also, he was not aware there was an appeal process. The issue he was concerned about was never addressed in the hearing process. Councilmember Barnette asked if Dr. Dahl was allowed to call witnesses at the hearing and if Mr. Flora was called as a witness. Dr. Dahl stated he brought the letter from Mr. Silseth which he thought more than clarified the situation. Mr. Haukaas explained that he, Dr. Dahl, and the hearing officer were the only people present for the hearing. Councilmember Billings commented that Dr. Dahl admits that he was dumping his sump pump water into the sewer and into the street and that Dr. Dahl thought the hearing process was to determine whether or not the City was going to fix what they said they were going to fix 19 years ago. He stated that is where he is having a problem, because Dr. Dahl is stating he was doing that because the City did not put in the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 11 of 18 remedy he was told would be done. He asked Mr. Knaak if Council proceeds with the assessment and Dr. Dahl goes to court, who will pay the court costs and what will those costs be. Mr. Knaak responded that typically each party pays their own cost and those costs could be substantial. Councilmember Billings questioned what the City would gain by proceeding with the assessment in a matter that is so entangled. He suggested that there be an effort to negotiate. He stated he would be willing to support a motion to table this matter to work something out with Dr. Dahl. Councilmember Wolfe stated that based on Dr. Dahl's comments, none of this seems to be his fault. He stated it is his opinion that none of this would have happened had a larger pipe been installed initially. He stated he is having a lot of trouble with this matter and agrees that it will cost more to fight it. Councilmember Billings stated, in defense of staff, both engineers are maintaining that a 1" pipe should have been adequate, so he does not necessarily know that staff's side was wrong. He does not want the record to indicate that he thinks staff was wrong in putting in the 1" pipe, but he is concerned with the alleged story that someone on City staff told Dr. Dahl that the City would fix it. Dr. Dahl said one thing that should be considered is that a 1" pipe is a non-serviceable pipe so if it plugs, there is no remedy. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if there was actually a tort claim filed as indicated in Dr. Dahl's correspondence. Mr. Knaak stated there are certain requirements that have to be met to file a notice of claim with a City. The tort claim must be filed within 180 days of the occurrence. There is a question whether Mr. Tigue's letter was a notice of tort because it indicated they would be filing a claim. The factual question that would be raised by the District Court would be whether the value Dr. Dahl received was proportional to what the City had put in. His assessment is that Mr. Tigue's letter would not meet the threshold for a proper tort claim but that does not mean that the issue goes away. The court could find that there was no benefit, the net affect being that Dr. Dahl would get this improvement at no cost. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that the appeal would be related to the benefit and not necessarily to the wronging of the property owner, Dr. Dahl. Mr. Knaak responded that is correct. Dr. Burns, City Manager, asked Mr. Knaak if it is the City's responsibility to inform Dr. Dahl of his appeal rights. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 12 of 18 Mr. Knaak reviewed the ordinance and responded the City does not have the affirmative duty to advise anyone of the provisions. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to close the public hearing. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to continue this public hearing so staff can gather additional facts. Mr. Knaak stated the motion to continue takes precedence over the motion to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING CARRIED ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE. OLD BUSINESS: 8. Approve Extension of Curbside Recycling Contract between the City of Fridley and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (Tabled August 9, 2004. ) Ms. Julie Jones, Environmental Planner, stated Council discussed this item at length at their August 9 meeting. At that meeting, there were some conclusions reached--the City was satisfied with the service BFI was providing, residents were content with the service and current contract price and the proposed price was relatively low compared to other cities. Another matter discussed was whether or not costs could be reduced by going from a weekly to an every other week service. After investigating, she said she found several city contracts for every other week service that were at a higher rate than BFI was proposing. There were a couple of cities that were lower, but only about $.13 per household per month lower. Ms. Jones explained that BFI proposed three different options to extend the contract. At the August 9 meeting, Council found that the option that offered 100% revenue sharing was the most beneficial and directed staff to pursue negotiations on that option. Under revenue sharing, the City pays a higher rate up front and in exchange, the contractor absorbs the risk of possible market downturns. The contractor is also ensuring a set processing fee in this arrangement. In exchange, the City receives 100% of the revenues less the processing fees. Since the Anoka County funding system for State SCORE funds would penalize the City if it took the revenues as cash or a discount, staff came up with the concept of a service credit account where those revenues would go in monthly and accumulate and at some agreed upon time, the hauler would use those funds to do extra recycling services for the City. Ms. Jones stated the contract amendment before Council has some key features to keep the service level the same as a two-sort weekly service that the residents have known for the past six years. It also includes 100% revenue sharing and the FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 13 of 18 establishment of a service credit account concept with protections as to how that would work. It also includes fair market pricing. In the attachments to the agreement there is pricing established according to set market indexes so the hauler cannot change what they are using as a reference point for the value of the materials. In addition, the contract has an attachment where the City and hauler agree to the commodity splits; in other words, the percentage of the commodity is of the mix of total materials collected. This is important to protect the City. It also features the ability for the City to revert back to a non-revenue sharing option and to the rates that were proposed for the City to keep the same level of service without revenue sharing (which is keeping the same rate we are paying this year in 2005 with only a 2% increase each year thereafter). This is a five-year agreement with the option to extend. Ms. Jones said the effect this fee would have on what customers pay would be a quarterly fee increase from $6.06 per quarter to $6.36 per quarter or $1.20 per year. In exchange for that increase in cost, residents would get the benefit of the value of the service credit account from the revenues. Calculating that out according to the number of households would equate to about $10.00 a household per year according to current market values. In subsequent years, there would likely have to be fee increases, but that is difficult to predict. In the contract, the base rate would increase $.05 per month per household each year. Staff is recommending approval of this contract with 100% revenue sharing added for five years which will provide an opportunity for advanced recycling services to our residents. Councilmember Barnette asked Ms. Jones to explain SCORE funding, Ms. Jones stated basically the City has to deficit spend to recoup the SCORE funds. The SCORE funds are State recycling grant funds. Residents pay taxes on their garbage bills and that money comes back to the City through the County. If the City took the revenues as cash or a discount on our bill, it reduces the costs and makes it appear that the City is making a profit. That is why staff is recommending the service exchange account so the City can still capture the SCORE funds and use that money to provide recycling services to residents. This is a unique arrangement that staff worked out with Anoka County. Councilmember Bolkcom commented that there is a levy question on the ballot. If that ballot question fails, because the City could only increase their utility fees 1.7%, the City would be going in the hole about $8,500 with the rate proposed in this contract. She is concerned about committing to a five-year contract when we they not know what is going to happen on the ballot. Dr. Burns commented that it is a risk. The $8,500 would not necessarily come from the general fund, but if the levy fails, it would have to be taken out of some City fund. If we consider the risk, we also have to consider the benefits Ms. Jones has referred to. He asked if the $8,500 risk was worth the potential new revenue and the expansion of recycling programs. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 14 of 18 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the contract provides for the City to renegotiate the price being proposed. Ms. Jones explained the beauty of this contract is the City would not have to renegotiate. We know exactly what price we would go back to if we reverted to the non- revenue sharing arrangement. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there has been a fair amount of discussion that Spring Lake Park just went to a one-sort system and they felt they would get more recycling because less sorting would be required. She asked if Ms. Jones has a figure available if the City were to switch to a one-sort and go to every other week pickups. Ms. Jones responded the every other week and single sort is a more expensive service because of the carts the City would have to provide the residents. The drawback is the City would pay more for only every other week service. It is true that the single sort seems to be increasing participation but it is also more expensive. They have been advised that they would not be able to get revenue sharing in a single-sort contract. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if some of the revenue-sharing dollars could be used for education or composting as well as improving participation in multi-family housing. Ms. Jones referred to Exhibit D of the contract which spells out some of the things the City could use the dollars for. Composting cannot be a qualified use of that money according to State guidelines. Mr. Pete Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive, stated he obtained figures on recycling costs from City management. The cost for 52 weeks is $4,204 per week at a total cost of $218,608. He believes the City can get the same benefit by switching to 26 weeks and saving $109,304. He stated he would like to see the revenue sharing dollars come back to the residents to lower the recycling fees. He also stated he has to drive 25 miles round trip to dispose of his yard waste. He said the five-year contract is way out of range; two or three years should be plenty. All the surrounding cities have every other week recycling services. Ms. Jones explained that Mr. Eisenzimmer has taken the fees the City pays for weekly services and divided them in half. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. As the BFI representative explained because the hauler still has the expense of the equipment and personnel, unless they have another contract that is exactly the same size and days as Fridley on opposite weeks, there is not any cost savings for them. Blaine is paying $2.44 per household per month more for every other week service while Fridley is paying $2.18 for weekly service. Columbia Heights is at $2.40 for weekly service. The City's rates are extremely low. Fridley has a documented history and experience with the every other week service and there is a lot more involved than just the cost. There is the cost of handling the calls because customers are confused every week; more public education is required so residents know when their recycling dates are; and the City would have to provide a drop-off site which is expensive. The Environmental FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 15 of 18 Commission has discussed this issue and they feel many residents would be unhappy if they did not have weekly service. Tonnage would decrease which is critical when it comes to revenue sharing. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned Item #9 of Ms. Jones presentation which talks about utilizing some of the revenue sharing funds for yard waste. Ms. Jones explained that Item #9 should have been removed because she found out that these funds cannot be used for yard waste. Mr. Eisenzimmer commented that the service in Blaine and Columbia Heights picks up leaves, branches and grass which does not happen in Fridley. Ms. Jones stated those cities have organized garbage collection and yard waste is a part of that, not part of the recycling program. Columbia Heights does have appliance collection as a part of their contract which is why their rates are slightly higher. For clarification, Ms. Jones stated all licensed haulers in Fridley do provide yard waste collection as a part of their service, but most of them charge extra for that service. Mayor Lund asked what some of the proposed uses would be for the revenue sharing dollars. Ms. Jones explained there are some uses enumerated in the contract; such as public education, extra recycling services that the City used to provide and new recycling services. She stated they focused on special drop-off days because that is the service people have been looking for. It may be possible to offer the drop-off service for free or a reduced cost rather than for the $20 fee that is currently charged. Another use could be for the purchase of recycling bins for apartment buildings or homes. What the contract does is set up an arrangement where staff would sit down with the hauler once per year and discuss what the City wants to do with the money the following year and come up with a plan based on the funds available. The Environmental Quality and Energy Commission has expressed an interest in being involved in that process and making recommendations to Council and staff as to how that fund could be used. She added it should be left flexible to address issues that arise. Mayor Lund asked if, given today's rates, what kind of dollars the revenue sharing would generate. Ms. Jones responded as of a couple of weeks ago the City, could reasonably expect about $100,000 per year in revenues. That is why staff feels the risk of the $8,500 possible shortfall having to come from some other fund is worth gaining a possible $100,000 in revenues. She added that staff would love to give the funds back to the residents by taking it off as a discount on the bill. Unfortunately, the County funding policy does not allow that. Staff will continue to work with the County to see if that policy can be changed in the future. Mayor Lund questioned how often the City can opt out of the contract. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 16 of 18 Ms. Jones explained that can be done annually. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve the extension of the Curbside Recycling Contract between the City of Fridley and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. Councilmember Bolkcom questioned if the motion should include the exclusion of Item #9 regarding yard waste. Ms. Jones stated that she does not think it is a major issue because that item is on a list of potential uses. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 9. Resolution No. 2004-57 Adopting Assessment for the 2004 Street Improvement Project No. 2004-1. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Barnette, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-57. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Resolution No. 2004-58 Adopting Assessment for Alley Paving Project No. 2003-3. MOTION by Councilmember Wolfe, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-58. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Resolution Adopting the Assessment for the 2004 Nuisance Abatement. Councilmember Billings asked what the deadline is for getting these assessments to the County. Mr. Pribyl stated the County likes to have them by November 15 but oftentimes will take them through the end of November. There was some discussion regarding proceeding with the uncontested abatement in the amount of $113.16. Mr. Knaak stated Council would have to close the public hearing for the non-disputed item and continue the public hearing for the other FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 17 of 18 abatement. After some discussion, it was determined to leave both items on the table until the next meeting. Mr. Pribyl agreed to work with Anoka County to get both items included in the assessment period. MOTION by Councilmember Billings, seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom, to table the resolution adopting the assessment for the 2004 Nuisance Abatement. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Licenses. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the masseuse license for Paisley's Brew requires Health Department approval. Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, explained this is issued under Chapter 125, Saunas and Massage Parlors, and is in conjunction with the stipulations contained in that ordinance. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to approve the license as presented with the addition of a Masseur/Masseuse license for Paisley's B rew. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Resolution Regarding Springbrook Nature Center as Prepared by Councilmember Billings. Councilmember Billings explained that the purpose of this resolution is to clarify some of the confusion and misinformation regarding the future of Springbrook Nature Center and the impact of the upcoming referendum levy. Mayor Lund commented that considering that this resolution was presented to the Council right before the meeting, it would be best to continue it to the next meeting and place it on the agenda. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is not comfortable supporting the resolution at this time because Council has not discussed all of the items included. She agreed that it is important to make people aware of the facts. Councilmember Billings read the resolution. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the there has been any discussion regarding the issues related to volunteer coordinators, restrooms, how the educational displays might be preserved, special functions, special occasions, in any detail at any conference meetings or Council meetings. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING, OCTOBER 4, 2004 Paqe 18 of 18 Dr. Burns replied that to his knowledge, those items have not been discussed. Councilmember Billings stated that is the reason for the resolution, because statements are being made as to what Council plans to do with regard to those items. Mayor Lund stated he does not have any problems with the resolution, but another issue not addressed that perhaps should be is the matter of the fees. Ms. Donna Bahls, 7514 Alden Way N.E., Springbrook Nature Center Foundation board member, stated it is her understanding that if the levy does not pass, Springbrook would become a passive park. Some of Councilmember Billings' comments in the resolution make it appear that Council may continue current operations with volunteers. She added it is unfortunate this discussion is taking place so late in the evening. She also stated if the referendum passes, they hope there would not be fees. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Billings, to table this resolution. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Informal Status Reports. Councilmember Bolkcom thanked those who participated in the housing forum. The next forum is scheduled for October 14. Dr. Burns, City Manager, stated there is a candidate forum scheduled for October 12 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURN MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Wolfe, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 PM. Respectfully submitted by, Rebecca Brazys Recording Secretary ������ Scott J. Lund Mayor