Loading...
08/20/2007 CONF MTG - 6135/ L Cf1Y OF FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING August ZO, Zoo7 - 6:0o p.m. Fridley Municipal Center Meeting Room i (Lower Level) Utility Rates. 2. Temporary Park and Ride Site at Medtronic. 3. Other Business. Adjourn. � � CffY OF FRIDLEY MEMORANDUM Memo To: The Mayor and Council � From: William W. Burns, City Manager,,,�y� Subject: Utility Rates ��� �� Date: August 15, 2007 William W. Burns City Manager On Monday evening we will be meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the lower level meeting rooms with Fritz Knaak, Rachel Carlson (League of Minnesota Cities), Mary Ippel (Briggs and Morgan), and Peter Seed (Briggs and Morgan). The point of ineeting with this bevy of attorneys is to have you hear their assessment of the City's legal position relative to raising utility rates above the level allowed by the Fridley City Charter. It's also an opportunity for you to raise questions with them and to develop your own level of comfort with my recommendations. Additionally, it's an opportunity to discuss the two pieces of legislation that we hope will become part of the package of legislative recommendations taken by the League of Minnesota Cities to the Minnesota Legislature in 2008. Although it is all of the above, I would add that the League of Minnesota Cities representative does not want her presence to be viewed as providing advice on strategy for this issue. While there is no clear path and no really right answer to the City's utility rate dilemma, I would like to offer the following set of recommendations: Proceed with the two legislative proposals in concert with the League of Minnesota Cities. The first legislative action would raise the threshold for submittal of a valid referendum petition on Charter amendments that have been enacted by ordinance. The second legislative proposal would clarify Minnesota Statute 444.075 in a manner that establishes that no municipality may by Charter or ordinance limit its ability to raise utility revenues in a manner that doesn't cover costs. I've attached the latest version of both pieces of legislation. 2. Assuming that we are served with a valid referendum petition on the Charter Amendment that removes utility rates from Chapter 7 of our Charter, I am recommending that you allow the issue to go to a vote this fall. If it passes, we are home free on utility rates. If it fails, its failure will serve to highlight to legislators the dilemma that Fridley faces relative to successful operation of public utilities. Although it's possible that it could be viewed as further proof that our voters don't want to lose control over utility rates, I doubt that the number of times the Charter Amendment has been turned down will make any difference in the minds of Fridley residents regarding Council's future actions on utility rates. Memo to Council August 15, 2007 Page 2 I also recommend that we move immediately to work with the Charter Commission to adopt a second Charter amendment that would change the process currently found in Chapter 7 of the Charter. The change would allow a referendum on property taxes and fees that exceed the rate of inflation (or 5%) at General or Special Elections. It would also change the vote required for approval of the increase from 51% of those voting in the election to a majority of those voting on the issue. 4. Assuming that the legislation discussed in Item 1 is approved in the spring of '08, I would immediately raise the City's utility rates under the authority and obligation found in State law. 5. At about the same time (summer of '08), I suggest that Council approve legislation that raises the City's property tax levy sufficient to provide another $1,000,000 in General Fund revenue. According to Rick Pribyl, this would raise taxes on an average value home by approximately $80 a year. Under the terms of the Charter, we would need to submit the issue to the voters for approval. My rationale for doing this is to provide a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fix for the City's financial problems. I also think that it's time to fix the drain on City reserves before the issue reaches crisis proportions. I look forward to discussing these recommendations and other options with you on Monday evening. Minn. Stat. §410.12 should be amended to read: Subd. 7. Amendment by Ordinance. ... Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. Such a petition shall be signed by qualified voters equal in number to � ten percent of the total number of votes cast in the city at the last general election or 2,000, whichever is less. .. . Minn. Stat. §444A75 shouid be amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Charges; net revenues. To pay for the construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement, or other obtainment and the maintenance, operation and use of the facilities, the governing body of a municipality or county may impose just and equitable charges for the use and for the availability of the facilities and for connections with them and make contracts for the charges as provided in this section. The charges may be imposed with respect to facilities made available by agreement with other municipalities, counties or private corporations or individuals, as well as those owned and operated by the municipality or county itself. Charges made for service directly rendered shall be as nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of furnishing the service, and sewer charges may be fixed on the basis of water consumed, or by reference to a reasonable classification of the types of premises to which service is fumished, or by reference to the quantity, pollution qualities and difficulty of disposal of swage and storm water produced, or on any other equitable basis including, but without limitation, any combination of those referred to above. No municipalitv. bv charter or �eneral ordinance. mav limit or restrict its abilitv to receive revenues under this section other than as egoresslv �rovided bv this section. c � �. n� � � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �r.:�iz�� �,f� � DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: August 16, 2007 � TO: William W. Burns, City Manager Ir( FROM: Scott J. Hickok, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Temporary Parking Lot for Park and Ride on the Medtronic World Headquarters' Campus Introduction Dr. Burns learned today of Medtronic's desire to help the bridge collapse situation by temporarily donating the undeveloped portion of their site to serve as a park and ride for folks commuting to downtown Minneapolis. To follow-up, Dr. Burns discussed this matter with Paul Bolin, Asst. Executive Director of the HRA and me. I then contacted Craig LaMont of the Metropolitan Council. Mr. LaMont is the facilities Manager for the Metropolitan Council's Transit Division. He provided additional information about the evolution of this concept and where the concept is at today. History As we all know August 1, 2007, was a day of National devastation with the collapse of the I-35 Bridge. It was also a day that changed the lives and travel patterns of commuters in this northern metro area. Being good corporate citizens and immensely generous, the Medtronic Foundation volunteered their undeveloped property for a temporary park and ride parking lot. Craig LaMont indicated that they are working on the plans for the Medtronic site at this time. Their 2"d place consideration was the BAE site in Fridley. And a third place consideration was the west side of the Fridley Rail Station. From a practical perspective staff really favored the idea of the west side of the station site. It would be a great way to advance the site plan for the west side rail station parking area and the parking could serve for rail after the year or so of temporary bus rider use. It also seems a shame that the parking lot at Medtronic would be ripped out after a year or so. All that aside; logistically, the Medtronic site works much better for commuters and thus for Metro Transit. On Medtronic's site, a 350' X 450' area would be required. The area currently is the undeveloped green space between the large Medtronic overflow parking lot and the Medtronic buildings on campus. Mr. LaMont indicated that though this lot would be temporary, they would include adequate pavement surface, curb, gutter, lighting, striping and ponding. The overflow lot could not be used for a couple reasons: first, Medtronic wanted to separate the volume of traffic during peak times from the children and their families as they were being dropped off. The second reason was that Medtronic oftentimes needs their overflow parking for their corporate events. .' p Buses would circulate is from University Avenue, east on 57th Avenue to 7�h Street. South on 7cn Street to Medtronic Parkway and then east onto Medtronic Parkway. A temporary bus lane (like the one on Gardena by the Islamic Center) would be built on the south side of Medtronic Parkway so that buses would pull to the side, but not leave Medtronic Parkway. People would then walk from the parking lot to the Parkway by sidewalk and board the buses. As for bus frequency, it is anticipated that there would be eight (8) morning buses and eight (8) evening buses. Centered on an 8:00 a.m. start and a 5:00 p.m. finish. Of the eight, a bus or two would arrive for 7:00 start folks and a couple of buses would arrive for 9:00 start folks. The majority of the buses would have people downtown for 8:00 starts. With the bump out for the buses, our roads are certainly designed to accommodate the added activity. The fact that the buses will not pull into the parking lot is a safety plus. The largest issue here of course is the M-2 Zoning and the Medtronic Master Plan for Phase 2 and Phase 3 of their development. According to Craig Lamont, his discussions with Medtronic have suggested that they will need the parking lot removed by 2010, since they may be building a building in their next phase by then. We as staff had been told that 2013 was the soonest that we could expect another building; however they (Medtronic representatives) also indicated that that could change and it sounds like we now could see buildings earlier. As for changing the Master Plan to reflect a temporary use, staff does not recommend that as a solution. Instead, staff recommends that the Council allow the temporary use as a way to assist in a regional dilemma. Further staff recommends leaving the master plan as it exists and was approved by Council and getting a letter of intent from Medtronic to assure that they realize that this temporary use in no way waives any requirements of the approved master plan. . Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council allow the temporary use of this area on Medtronic's campus and on the Medtronic Parkway as a way to assist in a regional dilemma. Further staff recommends leaving the Medtronic M-2, master plan as it exists and was approved by Council. This recommendation does include caveats that staff approves the parking and ponding prior to construction. Also a caveat requiring a letter of agreement between Medtronic and the City of Fridley that indicates that no elements of the master plan have been waived as requirements by the allowance of the temporary use. If Council concurs with staff's recommendation, this action will then be communicated to the HRA as well.