08/21/2006 CONF MTG - 6107�
�
CRY OF
FRIDLEY
CITY COUNCIL
CONFERENCE MEETING
August Zi, Zoo6 - 7:00 p.m.
Fridley Municipal Center
Meeting Room i
1. Quiet Zones.
2. Park Land Swap Proposal by Redeemer
Lutheran Church (Edgewater Gardens Park).
3. Fire Station 1 Entrance Modifications.
4. Fridley Community Center Budget (2006-2007).
5. Other Business.
Adjourn.
r
�a�° Fridley Police Department
�,
' Memorandum
Q �
To: Bill Burns, City Manager ��
From: Don Abbott, Jon Haukaas, Scott Hickok, Rick Pribyl
Date: January 20, 2005
Re: Quiet Zone
Summarv
The City of Fridley has been researching the possibility of establishing a Quiet
Zone encompassing the grade level rail crossings at Osborne Rd. and 77�' Ave
NE. Both streets cross the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) main lines.
This research has been done in response to residents' requests to reduce the
noise associated with living in close proximity to the railroad.
The Federal Railroad Administration implemented new rules for train horns and
Quiet Zones in July of 2005. The new rules specified a nationwide standard and
process for Quiet Zone applications and implementation. Preliminary estimates
place the cost of a Quiet Zone in Fridley up to $400,000. The resufts of staff
work this summer, culminating in a diagnostic evaluation on August 4, 2006,
indicate that a successful Quiet Zone application can be made at a much lower
cost, estimated at $65,000. Ultimately, staff will recommend that the City
proceed with the process to establish a Quiet Zone covering our finro grade level
crossings. The remainder of this memo will provide historical information and
supporting detail.
Overview and Historv
Approximately 50 — 60 trains travel through Fridley on the BNSF double-tracked
mainline each day. This is an increase from the 30 - 35 trains per day over the
past 15 years. Peak train counts may reach 70 per day, and the Northstar
Commuter Rail is expected to add 12 trains per day beginning in 2009. Federal
law requires all engineers to sound their horns multiple times per crossing (two
long blasts + one short blast + one long blast) covering a period of 15 — 20
seconds at each grade crossing.
Over the past finro and one half years, staff has been in contact with the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), BNSF, MNDOT, the City of Coon Rapids, Anoka
County Highway Department, and the Northstar Corridor Development Authority
(NCDA). The Northstar project was expected to significantly impact our Quiet
Zone through its construction and the resulting increase in train traffic througf�
Fridley. Most significantly was the expectation that BNSF would add a third
mainline track to their right of way. In June of this year, Northstar officials notified
staff that the final agreement with BNSF did not include the third rail requirement
and therefore no changes to the signals at either of our crossings. This, then,
cleared the path for the City of Fridley to proceed with a Quiet Zone process.
Quiet Zones — an Overview
1. Many communities across the country and in Minnesota have obtained
FRA approval for Quiet Zones, grade crossings at which trains are not to
blow their horns as required by FRA rules. These Quiet Zones were
implemented through a process that was specific to each crossing. No
further Quiet Zones are being created under these old rules. New Quiet
Zones are being approved under the new rule on Quiet Zones, adopted in
July of 2005.
2. The new rule assigns a safety index score to every grade level crossing,
based upon train counts, traffic counts, accident history, crossing design,
and current safety measures. Lower index scores are assigned to safer
crossings. The FRA has designated a maximum allowable safety index
score for approval of new Quiet Zones.
3. The FRA has identified several safety upgrades (Supplemental Safety
Measures or SSM's) that are permitted. Each SSM has an effect on the
safety index score for each crossing and ultimately for each Quiet Zone.
4. All crossings within one half mile of each other are combined into one
Quiet Zone, requiring one application, and requiring that the combination
of safety index scores at all crossings within each Quiet Zone fall below
the maximum allowed. Therefore, different SSM's may be employed at
different crossings in each Quiet Zone to lower the index score below the
approval threshold for the Quiet Zone as a whole.
5. Once a Quiet Zone is approved, trains are ordered not to blow their horns
unless necessary in an emergency.
Coon Rapids' Experience
The City of Coon Rapids
established Quiet Zones at
three of their crossings in a
pilot project to determine the
safety and effectiveness of
restricting train horns. This
project has shown that not
only is noise reduced, but
that crossing safety has
improved at the Coon Rapids
crossings even in absence of the audible warning provided by a train horn.
2. Coon Rapids' experience has demonstrated a positive effect on traffic
safety. Specifically, the City of Coon Rapids conducted video surveillance
of their proposed Quiet Zone crossings for three months before their
medians were installed and again for three months following construction.
They report crossing violations occurring at a rate of 5— 10 per month
during the pre-treatment period and report only one violation, a drunk
driver, in the three months following median construction. It is reasonable
and logical to assume that a reduction in crossing vioiations would lead to
a reduction in accident risk.
3. Coon Rapids reports no car-train accidents at any of their three Quiet
Zone grade crossings.
4. Coon Rapids intention is to apply for Quiet Zones for their remaining
seven grade level crossings, including 85th Ave at the BNSF inain lines.
Construction on the 85th Ave NE crossing is approved to begin at any time
with implementation of the Quiet Zone there expected early this winter.
Fridlev's Quiet Zone
Fridley's crossings at Osborne Rd. and 77th Ave would comprise one
Quiet Zone. The current safety index score for this Quiet Zone is in
excess of the maximum allowable level required for approval. Therefore,
SSM's must be installed to receive approval.
2. Using the current index score, adding the lowest cost option of a concrete
median with barrier signs to both intersections would meet the approval
threshold. The cost estimate of these SSM's is $40,000 for both
crossings. These medians would be 60 — 100 feet in length (100 feet is
the recommended length for medians, but medians at least 60' in length
are acceptable to the FRA).
3. The results of the Diagnostic Evaluation conducted on August 4, 2006,
showed that concrete medians, 8" in height by 4 feet in width, would be
acceptable by the FRA, BNSF, and MNDOT.
4. The installation of concrete medians would provide the lowest (best)
overall safety index score for our Quiet Zone.
5. Quiet Zones are reviewed every five years. Any future changes in the
safety index could require additional SSM's for continued Quiet Zone
approval. Fridley can expect significant changes to our risk index when
Northstar Trains begin to operate, and more significantly if and when a
third mainline track is installed by BNSF. Medians would likely
accommodate these future changes without the need for further SSM's.
6. Access for SuperAmerica's (SA) eastern-most driveway onto Osborne Rd.
would not be blocked by the new median. Their western driveway would
continue to be right-in/right-out.
7. The sole driveway access to the Schmidt Osborne building at 100 — 148
Osborne Rd. (including Finish Master, Top Case Inc., Assurance Glass
Co., and MAACO) would be blocked by a median. While right-in/right-out
access would be maintained, no access would be possible to or from
westbound Osborne Rd.. While the property manager has not yet
returned calls to staff, the owner of MAACO indicates that their business
depends on access from both directions of Osborne Rd. and that they
need to maintain safe passage through their lot for tractor-trailer trucks to
make deliveries to the rear of the building. The MAACO owner is also
very supportive of a Quiet Zone. Staff recommends relocating their
current driveway further east or adding an additional bi-directional access
to their parking lot.
8. Johnson Printing (40 77th Ave NE) would also be impacted. Their current
driveway would be mostly blocked by even a minimum length median.
Once again, right-in/right-out access would be maintained, however the
street width would make it difficult for tractor-trailer trucks to complete
even right turns out onto 77th. Johnson's owners are indifferent as to the
Quiet Zone, but indicated they would be satisfied with a relocation of their
existing driveway to maintain bi-directional access as long as they did not
have to assume any associated costs or inconvenience. Their property
affords no other viable driveway access.
9. Sentinel Chemical (51 77th Ave NE) would also be impacted. Their
existing driveway onto 77th Ave NE would become right-in/right-out.
Sentinel has two other driveways. Sentinel's owner indicated that he
would be satisfied with a right-in/right-out access onto 77th and is very
supportive of a Quiet Zone.
10.Access from one residential driveway (91 Osborne Way) to the north of
Super America would also be affected and may become a right-in/right-out
access.
11. Staff is recommending that all medians and driveway alterations be
sufficiently placed and sized to accommodate the anticipated installation
of a third BNSF inainline track in the future.
12. The cost of the medians (Osborne and 77th together), signage, and street
widening on 77t" Ave NE, is estimated at $40,000. Minnesota State Aid
(MSA) funds (need-based) can be utiiized to pay for those improvements
occurring within the right-of-way,
13.The cost of relocating or adding driveways for the Schmidt Osborne
property and Johnson Printing is estimated at $25,000. The cost of
driveway relocation may not be eligible in whole or in part, for MSA
funding. These costs then would be included in the City's 2008 street
levy.
14.The total cost estimate, pending final engineering, is $65,000.
15.Anoka County Highway Department will have to approve any alterations to
their roadway, including any changes in driveway access. Staff has
already notified Anoka County Highway Department of our potential Quiet
Zone. Coon Rapids noted that additional requirements imposed by Anoka
County Highway Dept. added significant expense to their Quiet Zone on
85th Ave NE. These requirements are made by Anoka County during their
plan review, following the engineering study. Staff is in contact with Anoka
County Highway Department staff and will work with them to minimize any
such additional requirements and their related costs.
16. The City is not expected to experience increased exposure to liability
resulting Quiet Zone implementation.
17. FRA records show one accident at the Osborne Rd. crossing between
2000 — 2005. Fridley Police records show two reports of vehicles striking
the stop arms at Osborne Rd. (one in 2005, one in 2006), but no reports of
car-train or pedest�ian-train accidents. There are no accidents reported
for the 77�' Ave crossing.
18. Should Council authorize staff to proceed with the Quiet Zone process,
the following general timeline is anticipated:
a. Engineering and Planning — Winter of 2006 — 2007.
b. Notifications to and meetings with affected property owners — Fall
of 2006.
c. Negotiations with Anoka County — Fall and Winter of 2006 — 2007.
d. Funding authority requested of Council: Winter/Spring of 2007.
e. Construction — Spring and Summer of 2007.
f. 60 Day Notification & Comment Period per FRA — Summer of 2007
g. Implementation of Quiet Zone - Late Summer/Falf of 2007.
Based upon the above information, staff recommends that Council pass a
resolution authorizing the engineering study, negotiations with affected property
owners and Anoka County, and other steps necessary to complete the Quiet
Zone application process. Staff will return to Council for funding authority once
engineering and other required steps are completed.
Barry Bl�
Quiet Zone: 77t'' Ave NE at BNSF Mainline
Osborne Rd NE @ BNSF Mainline
91
Osborne
SA
MAACO, et
al
Parks and Recreation Department
emo
To: William W. Bums, Gity Manager
From: Jack Kirk, Director of Parks and Recreation �'�
Date: August 16, 2006
Re: Park Land Swap Proposal by Redeemer Lutheran Church
At the April 10, 2006 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting,
representatives of Redeemer Lutheran Church (61 Mississippi Way NE)
proposed a park land swap involving Edgewater Gardens Park, located at 6700
Ashton Avenue. Redeemer Church has a need for additional parking and would
like to gain those additional parking spaces from iand in the adjacerrt Edgewater
Gardens Park. They would be willing to swap some property that they own
south of Mississippi Street, which could be used to create a new park area. In
addition to swapping land, the Church would be willing to provide amenities in
Edgewater Gardens Park and the new park area south of Mississippi Street.
After hearing the proposal at the April meeting, the Parks and Recreation
Commission discussed this item at the May, June and August meetings. The
Commission members made an on-site visit to Edgewater Gardens Park and the
properties south of Mississippi Street just prior to the May meeting. After much
discussion, the Commission passed a motion at the August 7"' meeting that the
Commission is not interested in swapping land in Edgewater Gardens Park for
some land south of Mississippi Street as proposed by representatives of
Redeemer Lutheran Church.
At this time, I don't know if the Redeemer Church representatives will want to
pursue this request further and take it to the City Council. I am attaching the
minutes from the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings that pertain to this
item.
� Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq — April 10, 2006 Paqe 3
Mr. Kirk further stated that the City has received some donations to help with planting trees in
our parks. The Fridley Lions Club has donated $1,0� and several individuals have donated
money to buy trees. There will be a tree planting event on Friday, April 28"' {Arbor Day) at
1:00 p.m. at Commons Park. We have several votunteers, inGuding a number of students
from Fridley High School, that will be helping us plant trees at Commons.
g. Tobacco-Free Parks and Recreation Study
Mr. Kirk stated that he has enclosed a study from the University of Minnesota related to
tobacco firee parks and recreation facilities. The study shows support from the public for
tobacco free policies for outdoor park and recreation areas. This is for the Commission
members' ir�formation only. No action is required from the ParkS and Recreation Commission
on this.
h. Meadowlands Park Pond Grading
Mr. Kirk stated the City will be doing some regrading of the pond in Meadowlands Park to
provide for the required ponding of water for the street reconstruction project. A memo from
the Public Works Department is inGuded in the agenda packet and explains the ponding
project in more detail.
2. NEW BUStNESS
a. Election of Officers
Mr. Kondrick s#ated that the Parks and Recreation Commission elects a Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson at the April meeting each year. The Chairperson presides over all Commission
meetings and serves on the City's Planning Commission. The Vice-Chairperson serves as
Chairperson when the Chairperson is absent.
MOTION by Ms. Sibell, seconded by Mr. Solberg, to elect Dave Kondrick as Chairperson of
the Parks and Recreation Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Kondrick stated that he would like to see Mr. Solberg continue in the role of �ce-Chairman
of the Commission.
MOTION by N1r. Kondridc, seconded by Mr. Heintz, to elect Tim Solberg as Vice-Chairperson
of ths Parks and Recrea#ion Commission.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED.
b. Park Land Swap Proposal by Redeer�r Lutheran Church
Mr. Kirk stated that this item deals with Edgewater Gardens Park and Redeemer Lutheran
Church, and the concem about parking for the Church. It has been discussed by the Parks
and Recreation Commission in past years, with this proposal being a little different than past
requests for park land for a parking lot. This proposal includes a land swap or property owned
by the Church being tumed into park land in exchange for some parkland for parking.
i Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq — April 10, 20� Paqe 4
Mr. Kirk further stated that sometime last fall, he and Mr. Wittrock (of Redeemer Church) met
to discuss the issue of parking at Redeemer Church. We discussed their needs and reviewed
information from past discussions with the Parks and Recreation Commission on this topic. He
told Mr. Wittrock that the City has discussed this on several occasions over the years and the
City was not supportive of giving up any park land. He further told Mr. Wittrock that he would
not support consideration of any proposal that included losing park land. He felt that any
proposal should include a"no net loss" of parkland stipulation. If there was going to be some
park land going to the church, there should be land coming to the City which could be added to
the park in exchange.
Mr. Kirk stated that Redeemer Lutheran Church has put together an idea or proposal that they
would like to present to the Commission this evening. Representing Redeemer Lutheran
Church at the meeting are Quentin Wittrock, Pastor Dave Glesney, and Phil Hofstad.
Mr. Wittrock thanked the Commission for their time and attention, and for allowing this
presentation at the meeting. He stated that he is President of the Congregation at Redeerner
Lutheran Church. The Church has an idea for the park and neighborhood that they are
extremely excited about. What they have is not only a land swap proposal, but something
better than that. They believe that it will be a better park than the one that is there today and
they are proposing a new park in an area that does not have any park area today.
Mr. Wittrock stated that where they are initially coming from is the Church's need for adjacent
parking. They also wanted to focus on the needs of the City of Fridley as well. They know that
one need that Fridley has is to preserve green space and this proposal aliows for that.
Another need, if it can be done, is to improve existing parks and this proposal addresses that
with new amenities in Edgewater Gardens Park. They adcnowled� that it is importarit to
please the residents of the area being served by the park and would like to do that as well.
They believe that this proposal will ac.complish all of that and help with their own parking needs
as well.
Mr. Wittrock stated that focusirx,� on the residents first, this proposal will decrease the street
congestion, will enhance the park land you have now and witl �d green space to the
neighborhood. He further stated that the basis for their "win-win" prq�osat is a iand swap,
along with new amenities and features for the park land.
Mr. Wittrock referred to a map of the existing Edgewater Gardens Park with an area on the
southwest part of the park being proposing to become part of Redeemer Church's property.
They own two pieces of property (residential properties with and existing house on each) on
the south side of Mississippi Street that would be turned over to the City for park land. The two
properties are adjacent to a piece of land that is currently owned by Anoka County and some
open green space where the existing bike path runs along Ashton Avenue.
Mr. Kirk stated that the existing green space being referred to is owned by Burlington Northem
Santa Fe Railroad. The county has an easement for the existing regional bikeway trail that
runs through that property.
Mr. Wittrock stated that the proposal for the park land north of Mississippi Street (or the
remaining Edgewater Gardens Park) would have a rest stop area for the regional trail, .
landscaping and flowers for the existing park, signage for the park, and some new facilities.
Parks and Recreation Commission MeetinQ — April 10, 20� Paqe 5
The facilities would inctude an entrance area gazebo and an open air picnic shelter. The
existing park wouid be redesigned to make it more attractive and a weicoming place for group
gatherings.
Mr. Wittrock stated that the proposed redesign of th park is just an idea and if the City would
prefer another design and/or other features added to�he park, that wouid be fine.
Mr. Solberg asked if the existing tennis court was
Mr. Ho�stad stated that yes it was. A basketbalf pl
north end of the existing park and a tennis court
there and the usage would require one.
Mr. Wttrock stated that the area south of Missis;
highlighted by an �fucationai area for school student
busses and field trips to this parlc that witl be acro:
existing Edgewater Gardens Park. It will be a natur
Redeemer Church. tt will be unique, and it will be
gatherings. The park area will have three distinct bi
geographically similar to the state of Minnesota. The
forest to the southeast, and north woods to the nortl
native plant species.
out in their proposed pfan.
area was inGuded in their plan on the
I be considered aiso, if the need was
►pi that would become park would be
They think that school kids will pile into
the street (Mississippi Street) from the
park on land that is currently owned by
place for quiet seclusion and informal
nes that are mode{ed after and play out
: would be prairie to the west, hardwood
There would be signage to identify the
Mr. Wittrock further stated that the sxisting houses o the Redeemer Church properties would
be removed and the area biomes would be created, ith walking paths through the area. A
small gathering spot would be created in the very middte, with the possibility of a sma{{
structure such as a gazebo.
Mr. Wittrock stated that in summary, the essence of this land swap proposal is that in
exchange for the City giving the Church some park and to use for their parking needs, the
Church would provide two lots adjacent to some ounty property on the south side of
Mississippi to provide a new park; and they woul improve with the existing Edgewater
Gardens Park with new amenities.
Mr. Solberg asked about the lot owned by Anoka �ou�ty that is shown in the plan to be
included in the new park area south of Mississippi Str t.
Mr. �ttrodc stated that this
access path going through it.
City as part of this proposal.
their planting some trees on
approached on this proposal.
the County's bike trail.
is an empty lot owned ' y Anoka County that has a bike trail
It is not the Church's operty, so they cannot "swapA it ta the
They are assuming that the County would have no objection to
that property. At som point, the Coun#y would have to be
They would like to poi t out that this proposal would enhance
Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Kirk if he was aware of any
piece of property.
Mr. Kirk responded that the property is currently
and he was not aware of any different or additional
that the County may have for that
to provide access to the regional trail
; by the Courrty.
� Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq — April 10, 20�6 Paqe 6
Mr. Kondrick asked how many parking stalls the Chur`ch hoped to gain from this proposal.
Mr. Hofstad statec! that they would gain 70 to 75 park�ng spaces.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the Church had approached
this proposal.
Mr. Wittrock stated that they have not approached
several Church members who live in that neiahborho
of the peopie in the neighborhood about
iy neighbors with this. They do have
and they know of the proposal.
Mr. Kondrick asked that in terms of pure square f age for square foot, how does the land
being proposed to be swapped by Red�mer Church mpare with the amount of I�nd the City
is being asked to give up? How much would the City being giving up and how much would the
City be getting? Is it �ual? Are we gaining or are w losing total land?
Mr. Hofistad stated that with all the new land being proposed (including the Anoka County
property), there would be more park land total acreag than there is today. However, in terms
of land the City is being asked to give up, they calcul te it at about 1.35 acres. The land from
the two properties that the Church owns that would me to the City amount to a little over half
of that amount. On the park land south of Miississip " Street, they are planning to incorporate
the open land along the railroad tracks and the Anoka County properly (along with the property
they would give to the City) to make up the total park cxeage.
Mr. Kondrick stated that as far as a land swap deal
County land or land that is owned by BNSF railroad.
Mr. Wittrock stated that he would fike to acknowledge
the new park area is less acreage than the amount of
believe the City wifl ultimately end up with morE
incorporating #he additional land that the Church �
amenities being offered in addition to the land swap
property.
Ms. Sibell stated that the proposal for additianal p�
pavement to the area. She asked if there were any i
be addressed?
Mr. Hofstad stated t�►at they would need to discuss
move ahead.
Mr. Kirk stated that his initia{ reaction to the proposaf
being offered for a"swap° were on the south side of N
be ta{king about some homes or property immediate
north end. He is not sure the park area would be bet
by Mississippi Street. He is not sure how residents w
south of Mississippi,
he feels it should not include the
that the two lots they wouid use toward
and they would fike from the City. They
park space than there is today by
aes not own. They believe that the
aill also enhance the value of the park
adds a fair amount of hard surface
with water runoff that would need to
of that with an engineer if this were to
�s one ofi surprise that the properties
�issippi. He expected that they would
adjacent to the existing park on the
by having the total park area divided
Id respond to having part of the park
�
Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq — April 10, 2006 Paqe 7
Mr. Kirk further stated that he still stands by a"no' net loss of park land" as a part of any
proposal that is considered. The current proposal i:s not a square foot for square foot trade
and the amount coming to the City would be quite a bit less than what the City is being asked
to give up. It is his opinion that the Anoka County praperty and BNSF Railroad property should
not be inGuded in a no net loss of parkfand scenario. ',
Mr. Kirk stated that while the plans for a natural area s an amenity for this park tooks nice, he
is unsure how that would be supported by the neigh orhood. Given the terrain and proximity
to the railroad tracks, there may be some safety co cems with a more secluded area in the
neighborhood park.
Mr. Kirk further stated that in the past, the neighborF�l od served by Edgewater Gardens Park
was not in favor of giving up park land for Chur parking. The Parks and Recxeation
Commission and the City Council were afso not in fa or of past proposals. He would certainly
suggest that there should be neighbofiood input a d involvement if some type of proposal
were to move forward.
Mr. Kirk sugc,�sted that the Parks and Recreation C mmission may want to include this area
with the other parks that we will tour prior to the June ommission meeting.
Mr. Kondrick stated that the Parks and Recreation C+
study this proposal and have some discussion. Givir
general{y in favor of and are very cautious with a�
neighbors was not in favor of this proposal, it would
the City to be supportive. He feels there is a long v
information that is sti11 going to be needed.
Mr. Kondrick thanked the representatives of
Mr. Wittrock thanked the Parks and Recreation C�
proposal.
c. Parks 5 Year Capital lmprovement Program
Mr. Kirk stated that he has presented the Commi
5-Year Parks Capitaf fmprovement plan (CIP).
Commission members in the agenda packet for t
plan from last year.
�mission needs some additional time to
up park land is not something they are
posal of this type. If even one of the
� very difficult for the Commission and
r to go with looking at this and a fot of
Lutheran Church for their presentation.
ssion for the opportunity to preserrt this
members with the staff-recommended
further stated that a memo to the
's meeting outlines the changes in the
Mr. Kirk stated that he would like to go over the items r each year in the plan and also cover
projects listed in the "othe�' category, but not schedul d for a specific year. The Parks and
Recreation Commission can make changes, addition or subtractions to the plan that the
Commission would like to recommend to the City Co ncil for approval. Mr. lCrk stated that
projects in the staff recommended plan are as follows:
�
- Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq - Mav 1, 200�6 Paqe 5
Mr. Heintz asked if we wanted to approve at least phase one at this time, so they can get
going on that portion of the project.
Mr. Kondrick stated he is not ready to go forward �uvith any part of the project until he has
looked into it further. He asked Ms. Harris if the Cornmission gave a recommendation on this
in June, would that work with the timefine for the land�caping plan.
Ms. Harris thought that would work okay. She felt ii was important that the Commission wait
on a decision until they are comfortable that they hav the information they need.
Mr. Kondrick stated that he would like the Commissi n to revisit this topic at the next meeting
in June, after they have had a site visit to Moore Lak as part of the parks tour.
Mr. Lindquist asked if it woutd be possibte for the Pa s and Recreation Commission members
to get a plant materials list with the various heights of the plants listed.
Ms. Harris thought that would be possible.
Mr. Heintz suggested that the information on th plan#s include some pictures, so the
Commission wou{d get an idea of what the pfantings ou{d took like.
Mr. Kondrick thanked Ms. Harris for her
revisit this item at the June meeting.
and stated that the Commission wo�td
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Park Land Swap Proposal by Redeemer Lutheran hurch
Mr. Kondrick stated that it should be part of ineeting� minutes that we did make a site visit to
Edgewater Gardens Park and the Redeemer Chur property just prior to our Commission
meeting this evening. We looked at the existing pa and the land �ing proposed as new
park land to be included in the land swap.
Mr. Solberg asked what our next step should be on is park land swap proposal and could it
wait until the Commission has had a chance to visit wi h the City Council about this.
Mr. Kirk stated that the Commission can decide to ait until a future meeting to discuss this
item or you may want to proceed with some discussi n tonight. Although a meeting with the
City Council to discuss park items has not been sch uled, we could look at setting one up in
the near future. The meeting with the City Council n the past several years was set up to
discuss the results of the Council-Commission survey.
Mr. Heintz stated he did not like the idea of the lanc
offered to the City would be of much value or add mui
of a parcel. It would not be big enough for a park arE
park that they would like to obtain from the City for
attractive area of Edgewater Park. What amount of rr
that portion of the park to the Church? Could that rr
purchase other amenities for the park?
swap. He did not think the land being
� to the park because it will be too small
�. He further stated that the area of the
:hurch parking is not a very inviting or
�ney could the City gain from just selting
mey be used to buy play equipment or
Mr. Kondrick stated that other proposals have been ade in the past that suggested the City
sell some underutilized park land for development. t you agree to selting of park land, then
you may open this up to many other requests of a simi ar nature in the future. People view the
Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq - May 1, 200�6 Paqe 6
va{ue of park fand and open space differently. TFie Commission needs to be very careful
when it comes to discussion of selling park land. ,
Mr. Kondrick further stated that he had no problem with their request for swapping some of
their land for park land, except that they are not prop�psing to give the City the same amount of
land in retum for what they woufd be receiving. ff the�y gave the City the same amount of land,
or more, he would be more in favor of looking at this. j
Mr. Kondrick stated that the area south of Mississi
property being proposed would make a good additi�
that the Church should consider buying the next ho�
The three properties, afong with the Anoka County I�
Mississippi Street. He is not interested in a swap
amount of park land for the City in exchange for givin
Street does not have a park, so the
to the park system. He was thinking
and include that iand in the proposal.
could make a nice park area south of
land unless we get at least an equal
up some land.
Mr. Heintz stated that the Church was a{so willing tolpay for a number of amenities and park
upgrades as a part of this proposal.
Mr. Kondrick suggested that the Commission c�
some additionai discussion as to what the City
land.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTfON by Ms. Varichak, seconded by Mr. Heintz to
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTfNG AYE,
THE MAY 1, 20� MEETING ADJOURNED.
this item to a future meeting and have
expect in retum for giving up any park
the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
ON KONDRICK DECLARED
Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq - June 5, 20�D6 Paqe 2
b. Park Maintenance Report
Mr. Kirk stated that a copy of the Park Mainten�mce Report by Parks Supervisor Dave
Lindquist is in the agenda packet. During the month of May, the park workers have been busy
mowing and trimming in all the park areas. They h�ve also been preparing all the basebatl,
soccer and softball fields for league play.
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Continued Discussion on Park Land Swap Prop
Mr. Kirk stated that this item has been discussed
and the Commission made a site visit to the park, �
to the last Commission meeting. Redeemer Luth
work something out to improve the parking situai
item was put back on the agenda to see if the Co
there was some additionat information the Commis:
Mr. Kirk further stated that he had received a phor
representing the facilities or building committee at th
church is still very interested in some type of land sw�
well. He said the Church is really willing to do ai
happen. First, they would be willin� to purchase
Second, they woutd be willing to swap some land so�
park land. He noted that they are looking into the �
property in the swap proposal. Third, they would
properties they currerrtly own, plus provide some n
option they are open to is to provide the two properi
for the park land.
il by Redeerr�er Lutheran Church
the previous two Commission meetings
rch and pro�sed land swap areas prior
n Church is very interested in trying to
for those attending their church. This
�ission wanted to discuss this more or if
� wanted staff to research on this.
; call this week from Querrtin Wittrock,
� Church. Mr. Wittrock told him that the
p, but would be open to other options as
y one of four things to help make this
�utright some park land from the City.
h of Mississippi Street for some existing
ossibility of including a third residerrtial
be willing to swap the two residential
�nr amenities for the park. The fourth
es plus an arnount of cash in exchange
Mr. Kirk stated that he told Mr. Wittrodc that the Ci ' has not given up park land very easily
and this was going to take some time for the Parks d Recreation Commission to study and
discuss this proposal.
Mr. Kondridc stated that he has given this proposal a'� reat deal of thought and, in his opinion,
he wouid tike to see the City get an equal amount of land in exchange for the amount of land
the City would be asked to give up. He would not pt anything less for the City than an
equal amount of land.
Mr. Kondridc further stated that a ben�t of this p
area on the south side of Mississippi, an area of
park land in the neighborhood.
for the City would be the new park
that is not currently served by any
Mr. Kondridc stated that he believed that they sh uld be offering to exchange an equal
amount of square footage of land for the land that t ey would like to receive from us. This
square footage should not include the Anoka Coun land or any railroad property, but an
equal amount of land coming from the church to the Ci .
�
Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq - Jun�e 5, 201)6 Pa4e 3
Mr. Kondrick further stated that he feels very stronc�ly that the City should not be giving up
park land and that is a stand he would like to see thes Parks and Recreation Commission take.
There should be a very good reason that is benefic�ial to the citizens of Fridley for the City
giving up any park land for other purposes.
Mr. Sofberg stated that he would agree that the Cityr should not be looking at giving up park
land. As far as this park land swap proposat, he was Inot real excited about having the park on
the other side of Mississippi Street. He believes thalt the parcel of land being requested that
the City give up is the only parcel that is not part of la long, narrow strip of land. Agreeing to
this proposat would take out a good size chunk of ppen space from this othervvise narrow,
linear park.
Mr. Solberg further stated that he would like to know what would hap�n if the City agreed to
this proposal and the Church participation numbers ntinued to grow. Would we, or a future
Parks and Recreation Commission, be looking at a other proposal to swap more {and away
from Edgewater Gardens Park.
Ms. Sibell stated that she sees that as a fair questi n to ask of the Church representatives.
Do they have a long term strategic plan for this chure site? She would expee# that they have
some idea of a maximum capacity membership that n be accommodated at this site.
Mr. Kirk stated that perhaps the Commission should I ok at what they would like to see added
to this park area over the long term. Could this ar a being requested in the land swap be
used for an open play area or for some other purp se in the existing park? That area was
used as a general skating rink several years ago and as graded so as to hold the water.
Mr. Kirk also suggested that the Commission look at
be part of the proposed new park area on the south :
at the exact size of the proposed land and see whai
area. It may help the Commission determine if a p;
good idea or not. He further stated that he did not sE
very excited about the nature area proposed by the G
The Commission members agreed #hey were not in
Mr. Kondridc stated that the City Council and our
concerned about having another small park area that
at type of facilities or amenities could
of Mississippi Street. We could look
�e of park facilities could work in that
on the south side of Mississippi is a
� that the Commission members were
;h representatives.
of the proposed na#ure area.
ic Works Department may also be
ires park maintenance.
Mr. Heintz stated that he also believes that the City should get an equal amount of land in
exchange if there was any swap of land. He further s ated that if the City did go for some type
of swap, what about giving up the current park land as an easement, so that if the church
would ever leave that site the land would become pa property again.
Mr. Kondrick stated that is an idea that would have to I�e run by the City Attomey.
Mr. Kondrick stated that it may be helpful to do a de ographic study of the park area and the
area south of Mississippi Street. How many homes a in there? How many kids live in these
areas? How many seniors live there?
Mr. Kirk stated that staff would look into gathering the
Mr. Heirrtz asked if we should do a survey of the
about the proposal.
data.
to see how the neighborhood feels
,�
Parks and Recreation Commission Meetinq - June 5, 20I�6 Paqe 4
Mr. Kondrick asked if the Commission could reach ar�reement and would be willing to say as a
Commission that they are not wiiling to sell the parlk land, but are willing to consider a land
swap as long as the trade is apples to apples or an e�qual amount oi tand coming to the City.
Mr. Solberg stated that he is definitely not for a sale �f land and that he is really not in favor of
this land swap proposal. He would rather keep the �tatus quo and do something better with
the park land that is adjacent to the church property.
Mr. Kondrick stated that with the demographic d a and some information on the exact
dimensions of the existing park and proposed area, the Commission can have some further
discussion on this item at the next meeting in August.
b. Continued Discussion on Native Plant Installation '
Mr. Kondrick welcomed Ms. Harris to the Comi
Commission took a park tour jusi prior to the meeting
to Iook at the native plant installation of several yea�
shoreline planting project. He further stated the C
questions for Ms. Harris, including how tall the plants
shoreline planting.
for Moore Lake Park
ssion meeting and stated that the
�d one of the stops was at Moore Lake
ago and the proposed area for a new
nmission members had a number of
ould be and are we required to do this
Ms. Harris stated that at the last meeting she was sked if there could be flowering ptants
inGuded in the plantings and the answer is yes. She has some pictures of poterrtiaf flawering
plants that coufd be planted. Ms. Harris passed ar und the picture boards she has been
given by the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mr. Kondrick asked if weeds would overtake the flow ring plants after a period of time or are
these durable ptants that will continue to grow on the I keshore. �
Ms. Harris stated that a mesh ground cover would b applied before the planting took place
and that would act as a preventative measure to keep ay unwanted plants and weeds.
Ms. Harris stated that to answer the question wheth or not we are required to do this, the
Department of Naturat Resources will not currently all w the parks staff to mow to the water's
edge. They can only mow to the ordinary high water ark, which is usually two to three feet
from the water. The City can just let the plants that a e there grow wild or we can plant what
we want to and manage the shoreline area. We can plant some flowering plants and lower
growing plants.
Ms. Harris stated that the proposal she came to the Commission with last meeting was a
fifteen foot wide strip along the lakeshore. She saw s e resistance to that proposat and she
would like to suggest an altemative of pfanting a thre foot wide strip of native plants along
the east lake shore. This would be in the area that th City cannot mow anyway due to DNR
regulations of only mowing to the ordinary high water m rk.
Mr. Kondrick stated that the chaltenge is to keep the :
growing too high, so as to impact the view people wiil
Mr. Heintz stated he would fike to see plants with a
Mr. Kondrick stated that the Commission coufd take a;
they want deep rooted piants to prevent erosion and
height of 24 inches high.
ine buffer looking nice and also not
onto the lake.
mum height of six to finrelve inches.
tand that they want a variety of cofors,
:hey want plants that are a maximum
� � � � �
Parks and Recreatfon Commission Meetin� — Aus�ust 7. 2006 Paae 5
Other Commission members agreed this seems like a good idea and an alternate use for this
park.
Mr. Kondrick stated that he could see many Fridley residents benefiting ftom this facility. He
asked staff what would be the next steps with this pr ject.
Mr. Kirk stated that he believes we should get m re information on other cities' trails and
partnerships with MORC. A report to the Commissi n on these findings should be scheduled
for a future meeting and the Commission may also ant to invite the immediate neighborhood
around this park to provide information and get som feedback.
Mr. Haukaas stated he would like to see the Parks
changed from $27,000 to $10,000. If this project �
construction would be in the $5000-$8000 range. F
write a grarrt application. They could come in this
be mapped out. If the grant was awarded, the trail
by next September.
Mr. Kondrick stated that it appears that the C�
thanked Mr. Haukaas fior bringing this idea to the
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
apital Improvement amount for Innsbrudc
�s ahead, he thinks the doiiar amount for
would like to see MORC work with us to
II to spot the trail and then the Vail could
�uld be built next summer and operational
is favorable to this idea and he
n meeting.
a. Park Land Swap Proposal by Redeemer Lutheran hurch
Mr. Kondrick stated that this next item is one the Co mission has seen before and it involves
a request from Redeemer Lutheran Church to get so e land from Edgewater Gardens Park to
address their need for additional parking. The C urch has offered some land south of
Mississippi Street and some park amenities as a swa for the land in the park.
Mr. Kondrick further stated that the agenda packet�has a number of discussion questions
related to this item that were put together by Mr. Kirk nd himself in a meeting iast week.
Mr. Kondrick further stated that he and Mr. Kirk met 'th represen#atives of Redeemer Church
finro weeks ago to discuss this proposal. He stated t at the church representatives are very
bright people and very nice people who want to do he right thing for the members of their
church.
Mr. Kirk stated that this item has been discussed by tl
the last two meetings and members of the Commi;
Gardens Par4c and the properties south of Mississip�
opinion, the decision comes down to answering the q�
and the City park system to do the land swap as the
what it boils down to.
e Parks and Recreation Commission at
sion have made a visit to Edgewater
i Street. He further stated that in his
iestion °Is it good for the City of Fridley
Church is proposing?" To him, that is
� � �� � ��
Parks and Recreation Commisslon Meetins� — Auaust 7, 2006 Pasie 6
Mr. Kondrick stated that the Church representatives ;are looking at their options and they even
have taoked at moving the entire church campus furtlher out in the Andover area. They do like
their existing facilities and would like to remain here, but parking is an issue:
Mr. Kondrick stated that the idea of giving up park laihd is very difficult for him. He is also very
concemed about future requests to give up portion otf parks for various purposes.
Ms. Sibell stated that she agrees with Mr. Kondrick t at it is di�cult to give up park land. She
believes it is the charter of the Parks and Recreation Commission to protect the green spaces
of the community and our park land. She further sia ed that she feels that Redeemer Church
representatives should be able to move forward with their request directly to the City Councif,
even if the Parks and Recreation Commission does n t support a land swap.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the area south of
proposed for swap of iand) is an un
neighbofiood park located there.
Ms. Sibell stated she would say no and we have
that area.
Street (where the properties are being
park area, because there is not a
in our plans to constru�t a park in
Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed and what really anged in that area in 2000 was the
construction of the trail bridge over Mississippi Stre t, which now provides easy access to a
close park at Edgewater Gardens. After the bridge as put in, an under-serviced park area
was now very close to a neighborhood park and no {o ger considered under-serviced.
Mr. Kondrick asked how targe a new park south of
residential lots being proposed by Redeemer Chi
residentiaf lot was added?
sippi woutd be if we used the two
What size would it be if a third
Mr. Kirk stated the two properties would provide ap roximately 29,760 square feet or about
.67 acres for the park. Adding a third residential roperty would increase that to 44,640
square feet or just over 1 acre of land. The amoun of land being requested in Edgewater
Gardens Park is 38,120 square feet or more than the o properties and a little less than three
praperties.
Mr. Kondrick stated that the properties being propos south of Mississippi Street would allow
for a mini-park and the City would be very limited on the amenities that could be provided in
such a small area. A ballfield, for example, could na be included in a park of that size. Mr.
Kondrick asked Mr. Kirk how many mini parks we had n our park system.
Mr. Kirk stated that out of 30 parks that serve tf
considered mini parks. These mini parks in our sys
size. Mr. Kirk stated that neighbofiood parks sh�
provide the many amenities that residents like to see
various neighborhoods, 13 would be
� are those of 1.3 acres and smaller in
d really be in the 4 to 10 acre size to
ailable close to home.
Mr. Kondrick asked what amenities the City would put �nto a new park south of Mississippi.
�
�
� �
d_Aw
Mr. Heintz asked what amenities existed today in Ecigewater Gardens Park.
Mr. Kirk stated that the park included a tennis court, basketball court, piayground equipment
and a small open pfay area. Mr. Kirk stated that a picnic shelter would be a nice addition to
the park in that area. He further stated that the am�enities that are missing from that area are
a large open play area or ballfield.
Mr. Heintz asked if the area would be large enough i�o accommodate a skateboard facility.
Mr. Kirk stated he would not recommend putting skateboard facility in a small park in a
residential area. He would much rather see that typ of facility in a centralized c:ommunity use
park such as Commons Park. He would like to see skateboard facility relatively close to the
middle school and the Community Center.
Mr. Kondrick asked what it would cost to develop a
Mr. lindquist state that it could cost up to $50,000
park. Other costs would depend on the facilities or �
Ms. SibeN reminded the Commission that
amenities in the new park area.
Mr. Kondrick asked if a new park would add si
Mr. Kirk stated that there would be some
maintenance equipment from one location to a
just a small amount.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the current Edgewater
for a neighborhood park.
south of Mississippi Street.
put in playground equipment at a new
snities included.
Church was willing to pay for some
to our park maintenance costs.
�ase mobilization due to moving the
. The maintenance cost would increase
Park had more land than was needed
Mr. Heintz stated that he did not think so, but he did not like the look of the part of the park
that was adjacent to the church property. He feels t e City should do something to imp�ove
that area.
Mr. Kirk stated that Edgewater Gardens Park has approximately 4.4 acres of land and
neighborhood parks should have 4 to 40 acres of la d. It actually is on the small side of a
neighborhood park.
Mr. Kondrick stated that the last question on the list �
land in Edgewater Gardens Park to Redeemer Church
Mr. Kondrick stated that he didn't want to set a pre�
tet! others no to similar requests for park land in the
"why doesn't the City just sell some
parking purposes".
by selling park land. How could we
�,
��, �� �� �� ��
� Parks and Recreation Commission Meetin� — Auaust 7s 2006 Paae
.
Mr. Kondrick stated that at the recent meeting v�vith Church representatives, one Church
member asked if the City would consider some otf�er land, in another part of the City, to be
used as an exchange for some land in Edgewater Park. It was an interesting idea, but it
would likely still leave us with a very small park somewhere else in the City.
Mr. Kondrick stated that relative to the request by Redeemer Church to swap land south of
Mississippi for some land in Edgewater Park, he h�s gone fuli circle on this. He was initially
more favorabfe to the request as fong as the City wias getting "apples for apples� or an equal
amount of land. He now does not favor the request,', because he doesn't feel the City needs a
park south of Mississippi Street when Edgewater Paric is so accessible to that neighborhood.
Mr. Kondrick stated he would like the Commission
should or should not give up this fand for their park'
Ms. Varichak stated that she did not believe the City
Ms. Sibell stated that she would be agreeable to a I<
MOTION by Mr. Heintz, seconded by Ms. Va
Commission is not interested in swapping land in
south of Mississippi Street as proposed by represen
UPON A V010E VOTE, ALL MEMBERS VOTI
DECLARED THE MOTION CARRlED.
b. Lakeshore Restoration at East Moore Lake
Mr. Kirk stated that Rachel Harris, Environmental PI
couple of Commission meetings to discuss some
restoration at east Moore Lake. The Commission apF
project and had asked that Ms. Harris bring back sorr
meeting for some further review and discussion.
address the question, °Do you think we
IoY'.
.. .
swap if it was an equitable exchange.
that the Parks and Recreation
iater Gardens Park for some land
of Redeemer Lutheran Church.
AYE, CHAIRPERSON K4NDRICK
nner for the City, has been at the last
possibte expansion of the lakeshore
�ared to be somewhat supportive of this
� ir�formation to the August Commission
Mr. Kirk further stated that as the Commission me bers can see by the Memo from the
Community Development Department staff, Ms. Ha is did not betieve that there was any
money available to pay for a plan for the Moore Lake lantings or a way to get the ir�formation
fo� the Commission.
Mr. Heintz stated that the Memo refers to a landsca e designer and the Commission never
asked for that. What the Commission wanted was to k ow what the plants would look like and
how tall would they be. The Commission wanted to in lude plants that were no higher than 1 S
to 24 inches high.
Mr. Haukaas stated that he thought he could add a li le information, since he had talked to
Ms. Ha�ris about it. The Conservation District does not have anybody on staff to put the
requested information together. There is no funding to ut together a plan to show the
r
�
CITY OF
FRIQLEY
AGEND�� ITEM
CITY COUNCIL MEETINt� OF AUGUST 21, 2006
To: William W. Burns, City Manager ��
�
Fram: John Berg, Fire Chief
Date: August 17, 2006
Re: Modification of apparatus doors Station 1
On delivery of the Crimson Aeria1 Ladder Truck it was determ' ed tha.t there is only one inch of
overhead clearance from the truck to the facade and two inches of clearance in the actual doorway.
Movement of the truck on applicaxion of the brakes or an accu ulation of snow or ice in the winter
could potentially cause the aerial ladder to contact the building sing damage.
In addition, when the building fa�ade was opened for inspectio it was deternuned that the wood
structure has water damage and the metal exterior panels are ru ting. Water is running through the
structure in the summer and icicles han� from the structure in t e wiuter. The fa.rade runs the length
of the building above the garage daors.
To provide a safe clearance for the aerialladder truck staff is r ommending a minimum of eight
inches of clearance from the truck to a11 portions of the building in two of the garage bays. Staff is
also recc�mmending two doors, rather than one, in the event of a door failure or other unforeseen
circumstance.
Additionally, staff is recommending that the water damaged
and replaced at a time when the budget would allow.
In 2004 contractors estimated the cost at �30,000 to raise one
Department staff removed an exterior panel and a representati
Co. evalua.ted the project. On August 17, 2006 Maerten's-Bre�
and ramp elevations. We expect to receive a firrn quotation, fr
Co., prior to Monday's conference session.
be removed from the building
orway. On August 16, 2006 the Fire
of Maerten's-Brenny Construction
y Construction Co. surveyed the floor
i Maerten's-Brenny Construction
. �
' Parks and Recreation Department
�
0
To: .�� ��
Wi ftam W. Burns, City Manager �
From: Jack Kirk, Director of Parks and Recreation .�/
Date: June 28, 2006
Re: Fridiey Community Center Budget 2006-2007
As per our 1996 agreement with the Fridiey School District, the City of Fridley
pays a portion of the Fridley Community Center (FCC) operating budget based
on a square footage allocation of space. The agreement stipulates that the City
shail pay the operating costs for the new addition and the four remodeled rooms.
We share the operating cost responsibility 50-50 with the School District on the
gymnasium, kitchen and multi-purpose room. The square footage amount for
the City is 17,811 out of a total of 51,083 at the FCC. This amounts to 35 % and
that is the percentage of the annual operating budget for the Community Center
that we are expected to pay each year. .
in this years (2006) City of Fridley operating budget, we have $72,098 budgeted
for payment to District #14 for FCC operation costs. In preparing our budget
estimates for 2007, ! used a 3°!o increase and put $ 74,261 as the dollar figure in
the payments to District #14 for the FCC. After meeting with District staff and
reviewing the p4anned 2006-2007 budget figures, it appears that the estimated
amount in my Recreation Division budget to cover FCC operating costs is too
{ow. With some increased costs in custodial service and health care premiums,
along with significant expected increases in fuel oil and electricity costs, the
overall budget for the Community Center is up over $20,000 (around 8°rb). The
FCC operating budget for School District FY 2006-2007 has been set at
$260,662. We do not pay for the Building Coordinator salary and benefits
($29,542), so the adjusted budget totat is $231,124. At 35% of the ad}usted
budget, our annual cost for the year is $80,892. I have attached some
information on the FCC budget that the School Distriet provided to me.
In order to help the School District meet the financial obligations associated with
the FCC, we have been adjusting our payment amounts each July 1, so as to
coincide with their fiscal year budget. tf we agree to the new budgeted amount,
we would pay the new monthly amount from July through December of 2006 and
the same amount from January through June of 2007. In July of 2007, the
monthly amount would likely change again with a new fiscal year budget for the
FCC. I would expect some increases again next year for the budget, so I would
like to see the amount listed in the 2007 Recreation budget for the FCC
operating costs be increased to $82,510.
Also related to the FCC budget, the School District has asked that the City of
Fridley be willing to contribute an additional amount at the end of the fiscal year
in the event that ac�ual expenditures exceed the budget. I would propose that
the City agree to cover its share (3596) of the energy and utility cost overruns in.
any budget year, but only if the City receives a credit for any years that energy
and utility costs are less than the budgeted amount. The School District has
litt{e controf over the fuel oil and electricity costs associated with operating the
FCC. !t would seem reasonable that we would share the risk of potentiafiy
higher costs in any budget year. However, if we share the risks of higher costs,
we should benefit from years with lower costs. I do believe that the school
District has control over most of the other budget items retated to opecating the
FCC. The City does not have this corrtrol and should not be held liable for other
cost overruns.
The School District would like me to get back to them as soon as possible on our
budget payments for the new fiscal year operating costs and the issue regarding
the potentiai budget overruns. Please advise if we can increase the 2007
budget related to these increased Community Center operating costs. Also, let
me know your thoughts on the question of the budget overrun. Thank you for
your assistance with this.
FCC 8Ud
�
, o�CNµ�,
hi�k
�..
. ��
/
FY OZ-03 FY OS-04 I�V A9-04 I�Y 04-06 ;:�. �
Aevenue Aclua/ Bud et ACtw! FY 04-05 Actua! FY 05-06 FY '
Rent $122,966.85 $105,121.00 125,981.11 $108,500.00 $82,636.88 �125,981.00 $1
Labor rent $998.74 $0.00 ' �2'2,415.0�0 $0.00 $1,331.85 $5 . �
Total S123,985.59 5105,121.00 s128,398.11 S108,500.00 a83,9�68.53 S128,481,00 5196, :Q
�oordinato $�7,877.54 $16,522.00 $19,697.65 $19,502.00
8uildin Mo $8,6a0.38 $4 593.00 $11,109.3 $8�899.59
Custodian $81,231.63 $65,255.00 $61,969.48 $68,000.00
Custodial s $i0,222.18 $18 456.00 $4,22f.80 $12,000.04
Custodlal o $12,138.38 $1,610.00 - � "aS,377.2t $0.00
Custodiai weekend : $10,415.0.� .:
FICA $9,388.73 $8,089.14 $8,016.23 $8,238.52
P E RA $6,277.88 �4, 473.97 $5,276.45 S4, 993.60
TRA $i95.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
tited insura �t7,932.65 517,932.65 $16,572.97 S20,622.55
! ife insuran $238.60 $187.00 $i82.90 $198.00
Dentai insu $1,282, i2 51,150.00 $1,021.96 $i,300.00
Disabilit ln $D.00 $0.00 $i3.84 �0.00
Dist. TSA SsoB. io 51,077.00 $875.04 S1,100.00
'r✓orkers co ,�D.DO S0.00 .�0.00 5100.00
i� ees for se 5747.78 S2,100.00 �3,999.95 S600.00
� �leehone
vtifities S28,724.52 532,400.00 �28,492.60 530,000.00
=quip Repa S3,599.48 S3,600.00 53,369.55 S5,000.00
�e�air sup S5,T1J.51 S5,700.00 54,648.86 55,800.00
�asneral Su �7,093.21 54,700.00 $i0,976.61 $10,000.00
=uel for buil S22,390.45 S23,500.00 520,220.63 S25,000.00
_��sndry Se J`"0.00 5�.�� 50.0� 50.��
'ax u Spec Assess ,�819.08
5234,599.77 S211,345.75 $217,276.92 S221,354.26 ;
20,174. 38
-
f 1,968.81
51,313.93
_�
11,8.30.54
-
58.359.09
$7, 387.33
,$4, 909.94
.481 $20,9$9.0
51,4.)4 $9,6 �$�
594.87 $6,9���;
� 15, 0�61.34 S 19,222.00 $21;.��:
$134.5t 5121.00 $'1�1.
$8,31.94 $1,090.00 $1;231>7C
$2i2o9 �121.00 $1��:Oc
�'885.54 51,219.00 $1,219.00
$' 44. 85 S l 00.OQ $100.0:
S3,9'2.32 S4.000.00 S3,SOO.00
5250.00
S29, 637. 32 S30, 300.00 S33,450.00
S4,G40.34 ��,G00.00 S�,100.CC
S9,179.80 S5,8CO.OG �5,916.C:
$7, 576. 49 S 10, 500.00 �? 0, 710. OC
525,055.27 S27,500.00 S34,SOO.00
S238.00 50.00 S240 CC
S0. 00 0 50. C�
12,753.83 S240,569.0o S260,662.2�
a
�
, ,
��osc �s�ca�anoa ro� r'C:(; - Fiscal Year'O1 Coats
City Comm.Ed.
Allocation Room Name Sq.Ft. # Rms Tot Sq Ft Tot Sq Ft
CE 103 420 1 420
CE 106 1,440 1 1,440
CE 108, 110, 111, 840 14 11,760
123...134
CE 135, 136 1,326 2 2,652
CE unallocated 13,882 1 13,882
Both Kitchen 8c Storage 934 1 467 467
Both Gym 4,840 1 2,420 2,420
Both 122, Kiln Room 463 1 232 232
City 107 840 1 840
City 109 1,624 1 1,624
City Offices 580 1 580
City E. lobby, stairs, hali 2,604 1 2,6p4
Ciiy 112, 114, 116 3,800 1 3,800
City Zone 5,244 1 5,244
17,811 33,273 51,
Percent of Tota1 Space 35% 65% �
/ �
��
m � �7
z�r- 8 _,
`� � A
�
°� �
� �
�
z� �
� a
�
>
M
r
A
M
r
�
�
�.. I �+ �
O � y �
----� � �---N--
p �
�•+ �
ab ►n
i.r
O A I
�� � � i �------
am � o
� �
�
�
s
s #
s �.
N �
Cy
� � a
,►�. ��
�
►�.1• .. �
A �"� N
._
a I N
� a �
s
� �
� oNO � � �
� � �
� � �
o , � O
`� �
�
i w I � �
N � ..
�i .j
'� _3
A I ��
� Ir
� :ii
�1 �1
�
- - -T .
�
� �w �
O
I A , '�t
0