Loading...
CCM 03/10/2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY MARCH 10, 2014 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL : MEMBERS PRESENT : Mayor Lund Councilmember Barnette Councilmember Saefke Councilmember Varichak Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT : Wally Wysopal, City Manager Scott Hickok, Community Development Director Darin Nelson, Finance Director/Treasurer Darcy Erickson, City Attorney James Kosluchar, Public Works Director , Jack KirkDirector of Parks and Recreation Linda Abbott, 5390 Seventh Street NE Catherine Courtney, Briggs and Morgan Michael Bilski, 1422 Royal Oak Court APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVAL OF MINUTES : City Council Meeting of February 24, 2014. APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS : 1.Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Fridley City Code, Chapter 602, 3.2% Malt Liquor, by Repealing Section 602.08.12.A(3), Social Card Game Tournament Fees; Fridley City Code, Chapter 603, Intoxicating Liquor, by Repealing Section 603.10.23(3), Social Card Game Tournament Fees; and Fridley City Code, Chapter 606, Intoxicating Liquor On-Sale Clubs, by Repealing Section 606.10.11.A(3), Social Card Game Tournament Fees. WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1312 ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 2 NEW BUSINESS: 2.Review Bids and Approve Staff’s Recommendation to have the City of Coon Rapids Award Fridley’s Portion of the 2014 Joint Power Agreement Street Maintenance Contract for Project No. ST2014-10. Wally Wysopal, City Manager, stated this covers sealcoating, painted traffic markings, street sweeping, crack sealing. This is something the City does in coordination with a multi-group of cities, and the City of Coon Rapids is the administrative agent. APPROVED. 3.Claims (162967 – 163151). APPROVED. 4. Licenses. APPROVED THE LICENSES AS SUBMITTED AND AS ON FILE. 5.Estimates. Sunram Construction th 20010 – 75 Avenue N.E. Corcoran, MN 55340 Springbrook Nature Center Weir Project No. 410 Estimate No. 2 .................................................................... $22,828.50 Blackstone Contractors, LLC 7775 Corcoran Trail East Corcoran, MN 55340 Oak Glen Creek Erosion Control Project No. 380 Estimate No. 2 .................................................................... $71,924.93 Blackstone Contractors, LLC 7775 Corcoran Trail East Corcoran, MN 55340 Oak Glen Creek Erosion Control Project No. 380 Estimate No. 3 .................................................................... $99,935.81 APPROVED. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 3 APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA : MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the proposed consent agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPEN FORUM : Linda Abbott , 5390 Seventh Street NE, asked Council if they were aware of the dangers of fluoride or fluoridation. She said she has learned fluoridation affects every single human being in Fridley. Babies absorb 100 times more than the recommended amount of fluoride when drinking fluoridated formula mixed with fluoridated water. Fluoride is linked to lower IQ. African-Americans are medically damaged the most by fluoride than Latinos and the rest of all of the ethnic groups; 40 percent of teenagers show physical signs of fluorosis. This is a direct result of over-exposure of fluoride. Some of the residents in Fridley are immigrants. They do not take any medications at all. They do not swallow, chew, or ingest because of their religious or culture beliefs and, if fluoride is a drug, it is added to our public water without our medical consent and there is no opt out medical forms for any resident to sign if they do not agree with this. Many senior citizens have Alzheimer’s. Fluoride is linked to Alzheimer’s. Ms. Abbott stated one of the best ways to remove fluoride from water is a reverse osmosis system. It is not in her budget. Even if she uses the system to use the water in her home, she still absorbs fluoride. It is in juice, energy drinks, teas, coffee, beer, wine, and processed foods. It is also in medication. Even if we grow our own organic food in our back yard. If we put water with fluoride on our plants, the plants absorb it and cannot remove it. We cannot boil fluoride from our water. Ms. Abbott stated we need a specific medical doctor to monitor every single Fridley resident to make sure we are not being overexposed to fluoride. This doctor would have to be an M.D., not a dentist, because fluoride affects our entire bodies, not only teeth. It is harmful to our teeth, our brain, thyroid gland, bones, and even blood sugar levels. Babies, children, teenagers, immigrants, and some senior citizens cannot vote. They rely on the City’s support and connection to provide safe public water. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 4 Ms. Abbott stated she has a packet explaining there is a bill in the senate in Minnesota to end fluoridation. It has been on the books since May 2013. However, it has not been heard yet. Mayor Lund asked what the bill number was. Ms. Abbott replied, it is SF1668. Mayor Lund asked if there was any house companion bill. Ms. Abbott replied, no. If you want fluoride you can buy toothpaste. A pea size of it is the same amount of fluoride as an 8-ounce glass of water. She is not an athlete but she easily drinks two gallons of water every single day. She buys water from a well in Buhr, Minnesota. It does not have fluoride, and they do not use chlorine to clean their water. Mayor Lund asked why she wanted to remove fluoride from the water. Ms. Abbott replied, she learned this about a year and one-half ago and she wants to educate people. She has a packet for the Council and also a six-minute video for them to watch. She will then come back to the next meeting and see if they have any thoughts about this. She understands in Minnesota the bill is here to end fluoridation throughout the entire state. Mayor Lund stated he recalled the last city who did not have fluoridation but were forced by law and actually went to court was Brainerd, Minnesota, and that was about 20 years ago. Fluoride is probably not really great in some aspects but, if they have a law stating you will fluoridate public waters, you have to do it. Maybe they are finding out some evidence that it is more harmful than good for you. Asked what made her think the well water she is bringing in is better than what she is getting in her tap. Ms. Abbott replied it tastes amazing. She tried water in her home, her son’s school, and public stores and it tastes like metal. She called the company who makes the water she uses from Buhr, and they did say the well is over 100 years old and they do not use underwater aquifers. Mayor Lund replied Fridley does. He said 100 percent of its water is from aquifers. We get it from the ground also. We do not use Mississippi water. Minneapolis does. However, he is not suggesting Ms. Abbott’s information is not important. Fridley is required to fluoridate. Ms. Abbott stated the universe is teaching her to educate people with baby steps. The two words she heard within the last two years broke her heart. She was told that fluoride is actually industrial waste. Councilmember Barnette asked what her source of information was. Ms. Abbott replied the packet has 10 facts of fluoride and is completed by the “Fluoride Action Network” which has been working on this issue throughout the whole world for decades. They FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 5 have gotten this information from scientists, M.D.’s, and toxicologists. It is actually not a natural substance. It is actually an acid through industrious waste. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they get this information and Ms. Abbott indicated she is planning on coming back to the next meeting, which is not their normal process. She asked Mr. Wysopal to explain. Mr. Wysopal replied, typically Council receives the information at the open forum and they then would direct staff to do further investigation, etc. and make a report back to the City Council. Open forum is generally not a place for a continuous discussion. It is not to try and get an item perhaps onto an agenda for formal consideration. Ms. Abbott asked is it more because the law has to be passed by the State and not the City. Mayor Lund replied, no, not necessarily. It is just that the continuing dialogue between this body and her does not typically occur in open forum. The Council will look at her information and then it is usually their policy to respond to her in a public venue. He is mostly interested in looking at the senate bill to see who is sponsoring it, if there is support for it, and where it is going. Councilmember Saefke stated the municipalities do not really have a choice right now because it is State Statute. The Minnesota Department of Health requires it. In fact, the City has to test for it every day and send them the results. As a municipality, Fridley cannot make the decision to do it or not. Mayor Lund stated the City has a community advisory group called the CAG that has been meeting. Mr. Kosluchar has been attending those meetings. He asked Mr. Kosluchar when they meet. James Kosluchar, Public Works Director, said the next meeting is March 20. Councilmember Bolkcom suggested she contact Senator Barbara Goodwin. PUBLIC HEARING: 6.Consideration of the Issuance of Educational Facilities Revenue Notes for the Totino-Grace High School Project, Generally Located at 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E. (Ward 2). MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:23 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 6 P.M. Darin Nelson , Finance Director, stated late last fall the City was approached by Michael Bilski, CEO of North American Banking Company, inquiring about the City’s interest in issuing bank- qualified, tax exempt conduit debt for Totino-Grace High School. Totino-Grace would like to finance fire sprinkler and gymnasium improvements, as well as refinance some existing debt. Mr. Nelson stated the type of financial assistance the City can statutorily offer is commonly referred to as conduit financing. Conduit debt is issued under the City’s name, utilizing the City’s bond rating to secure more favorable interest rates. The conduit debt, revenue bonds in this case, are secured by revenue derived solely from Totino-Grace High School. The debt will not constitute a general or moral obligation to the City. The debt will also not be secured by or payable from any property or assets of the City, and will not be secured by any taxing power of the City. The borrower is simply utilizing the City’s name and bond rating to secure more favorable financing terms. Mr. Nelson stated the amount of the issuance will be no more than $6.8 million. At this time, the issuance is expected to be $6.5 million, with approximately $5.2 million used to refinance existing debt and $1.3 million for fire and gymnasium improvements. Any increase between $6.5 million and $6.8 million will have minimal effect on the City. Mr. Nelson stated one of the effects would be the City would retain a slightly larger administrative fee, while on other hand the City’s tax exempt bank-qualified borrowing reserve would be reduced by $300,000. Bank-qualified obligations are limited to $10 million in each calendar year for the City’s debt and any debt issued under a 501(c)(3) organization such as Totino-Grace. So the City is limited each year to issuing $10 million of bank-qualified bonds to be tax exempt on that end of it. This would be $6.5 or $6.8 million of the $10 million cap. Mr. Nelson stated the City does not expect to issue any debt to exceed $10 million. We do plan to potentially issue some water revenue bonds, but it should not come close to reaching the cap. Mr. Nelson stated the City will receive a fee for its role in assisting Totino-Grace in securing the revenue notes. The fee that has been agreed to is 1/4 of 1 percent. Based on the $6.5 million issuance, the fee would equate to just over $16,000. Mr. Nelson stated State law requires a public hearing on the project and the IRS tax code requires a public hearing prior to the issuance of the note. In 2013, the City issued a revenue note for Unity Hospital for the transitional care unit. This is basically identical to that type of financing, just a different type of note. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what would happen if something catastrophic in the City happened. Mr. Nelson replied that is a hard cap on what would be tax exempt. It would just be taxable at that point in time. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 7 Catherine Courtney , Briggs and Morgan, Fridley’s bond counsel, stated $10 million is the cap. It is based on a reasonable expectation. If the City did issue the bonds for Totino-Grace at this point and designated as bank-qualified, it would not affect that designation for Totino-Grace. Their bonds would be okay. If the City did go over that $10 million, the City’s bonds could still be tax exempt; but its interest rate might be a little bit higher than if it could have issued them as bank-qualified. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how much higher. Attorney Courtney replied about one-quarter to one-half percent difference. Michael Bilski, 1422 Royal Oak Court, replied, that is fair. The bank-qualified $10 million allows the banks to purchase. The City could still issue tax exempt bonds, but banks would be prohibited from the tax exempt status of those bonds. The amount of availability of purchasers would be somewhat limited just because banks could not buy them. Councilmember Bolkcom stated which means the City might not get as favorable an interest rate. Mr. Bilski replied it would be one-quarter to one-half percent higher. Councilmember Bolkcom stated there are a lot of pieces of paper. She asked counsel whether everything is straightforward and the City is protected as much as it can be with the legal documents that are before them? Attorney Courtney stated as Mr. Nelson indicated this is conduit debt. What the City is essentially providing is its name. Only municipal entities can issue tax exempt debt. All of the obligation is Totino-Grace’s which is covered in the document. MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:30 P.M. OLD BUSINESS: 7.Approve a 120-day Extension Request for Final Plat Approval, PS #12-01, and Vacation Request, SAV #13-02, by Carlson McCain on Behalf of William Fogerty, for the Property Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. (Ward 1). Scott Hickok , Community Development Director, said since 2006, there have been two preliminary plats on this site--a variance and three special permits. The first of the special permits would have allowed a 125-unit senior building and also a Fridley medical center building of 50,000 square feet. The second and third special use permits would have reused the arena FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 8 building. The first proposal had about 80 senior units of various sizes, and the third special use permit was to approve a project that had 116 senior units. Mr. Hickok stated the current final plat request was made in July, 2012. Council approved that request in September, 2012. Code requires that the final plat come back to Council within six months. In March, 2013, that plat was due back to Council; however, at that time Mr. Fogerty was evaluating a number of different things, even whether to plat it or go back to just having it be one large single lot. Much work also continued on easements and right-of-way language. A 90-day extension was granted. Four additional 90-day requests have been granted since then. Mr. Hickok said the last two extension requests were made by Mr. Fogerty’s daughter, Danielle Caylor. This current extension is for 120 days and more than likely is the last needed as the sale of the property may occur within this timeframe, and the future owner may not need the plat. A purchase agreement is anticipated by the end of the month according to Ms. Caylor. Staff recommends Council approve the extension until its July 14, 2014, regular meeting. Mr. Hickok stated he did talk to the petitioner, the engineering firm, and also left a detailed message for Danielle Caylor. He has not heard from Ms. Caylor nor has the engineering firm. City staff is requesting the 120-day extension. Councilmember Saefke asked if this property is still on the tax rolls. Mr. Hickok replied yes. Councilmember Saefke asked if it is really affecting the City one way or another whether or not it is getting platted now. Mr. Hickok replied no, it is not. Councilmember Saefke asked whether there is any expiration date on the waiver of the 60-day rule they had granted. Mr. Hickok replied, no, once they let go of it which they have, and that is a good point, they have done that. There is no restriction now on the time. Councilmember Saefke asked and staff feels pretty confident that after this 120 days it will be settled. Mr. Hickok stated from the rumblings he is hearing something likely will happen within this time period. At that point he would suspect they either move ahead with approving the plat or the game will start over with a development. Councilmember Saefke stated just to let that property lay fallow as it is, and having to pay taxes on it, one would think one would want to do something with it. He does not have any objection to the 120-day extension. Something should be done. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 9 Councilmember Barnette asked Mr. Hickok if they have any idea of the health of Mr. Fogerty and is Ms. Caylor going to keep this. Mr. Hickok replied the last time they spoke, Ms. Caylor did say Mr. Fogerty is improving. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but this is now a City request, is that correct? Mr. Hickok replied, that is correct. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and Ms. Caylor is aware this is on the agenda tonight? Mr. Hickok replied, yes. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Ms. Caylor knew this before Mr. Hickok left her a message, and there was no other discussion? Mr. Hickok replied Ms. Caylor got a detailed package with the explanation the City would need to know in time to assemble Council’s packet and get it out to the Council for this meeting tonight. When staff did not see a response, they called and urged her to get that in. Not hearing anything, staff needed to make a decision about what to do. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if the property is sold before the 120 days, it could come back to the Council to no longer keep it on the docket if it is a whole different program at that point. Mr. Hickok replied, what they would see then if they do not need the plat is they would probably just get a simple letter back from them withdrawing the request. They will have to finalize the action on this at the Council level. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the purpose of the options is to lay them out and that is why staff is asking for 120 days versus 90 days. Because Mr. Hickok has had conversation with Ms. Caylor and will again hopefully soon, at some point this will be back for discussion on a staff and City Council level. Mr. Hickok replied, the options were in Council’s packet, one, to be absolutely transparent. These are the discussions staff has had with Mr. Fogerty prior to his accident. He understood all of those options and that is the kind of thing he was evaluating. His daughter was put in a pretty tough predicament. She is not a developer. She did not necessarily know the discussions that took place. They needed to just spell out those options so that at some point somebody does not come back and say, look, she really did not understand that by the Council approving this they were actually giving the City something. You were giving a right-of-way back to the City, you were giving easements back for trails, etc. The City is trying to lay out the four options. Wally Wysopal, City Manager,stated he was discussing this matter with Mr. Hickok, they decided to put the options out there and let it be completely transparent so the public would know what has been going on with this property. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, come July of this year, if they are still looking at it and are not any further, at some point does the City just pull the plug. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 10 Mr. Hickok replied, at that point, frankly, he thinks they will have tried their patience as long as they want to. They have just tried to preserve an opportunity for somebody who needed to learn where her dad was and try and make the best possible decision. If Council decides they need to conclude this, a future buyer likely could buy the property and all of the intellectual product they had purchased through the engineering company including the plat, the descriptions of the easements, etc. If they wanted to do that they could initiate that process and they own all of that information. They would not have to start over. Councilmember Bolkcom stated personally by June if there is not something happening, they need to have some discussion on the Council level with staff whether they will just extend it again in July. She would like to see the City’s options and discuss it at a workshop. Mr. Hickok stated just to be clear, those options are for the petitioner. Council’s choice is really to approve or deny the two requests that have been made. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to approve a 120-day extension request for Final Plat Approval, PS #12-01, and Vacation Request, SAV #13-02, by Carlson McCain on Behalf of William Fogerty, for the property Generally Located at 7011 University Avenue N.E. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8.Resolution of Support for Anoka County’s Riverfront/Islands of Peace Master Plan Amendment (Continued February 24, 2014). Jack Kirk, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated the discussion at the Council meeting on February 24, 2014, centered on a need to see the document in its entirety. It is his understanding that document was delivered to all of the councilmembers shortly after that meeting. The complete document also was delivered and reviewed by Parks and Recreation Commission members. The Parks and Recreation meet a week ago, and they did support this resolution. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a motion was made. Mr. Kirk replied a motion was made by Commission Member Kondrick, and seconded by Commission Member Ackerman to support the resolution, and they also recommended the City Council pass the resolution of support for this master plan amendment. Wally Wysopal , City Manager,stated some of this is catching the Council by surprise, and he acknowledges that. This master planning process might have taken all of them by surprise. He and Councilmember Bolkcom had some discussions and he was asked why Council was not notified of a meeting last August. He can say probably because he did not know about it or he was not notified. That is taking the easy way out. They could have done a better job of bringing the Council some of this information. The good news is that back in August at that meeting, the County did do notifications to the affected neighborhoods and some 14 people from the neighborhood did show up at that meeting. They did not leave any comments. Some of that FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 11 public involvement might have taken place without Council’s knowing about it and he apologized for that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it bothers the residents in that neighborhood, how come none of the Council were there, this is something that affects the City. This is pretty significant. She is glad they had a chance to look at the master plan. There is a document signed back in 1981 by the mayor at that time. There are lots of things the City understands, the County, and determine the content of activities; and the City agrees that the County may make the facilities on the subject property available to third parties lease the subject property with concurrence of the City. Are there things that are happening there that come back to the City because it actually says that as a City Council they should be approving some of those things? Mr. Kirk asked if she is talking about the use of the facility. Councilmember Bolkcom replied yes. Mr. Kirk replied that did come back to the City. There were a couple of organizations looking at doing a rental, and those did come back, and ultimately the building was rented to the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association who have their executive offices there. If he recalls that did come back to the City before that was done. Councilmember Bolkcom asked, right, but it also says any improvements need to come back to them and, if they do not reply within 30 days, it can happen. She really thinks they need to look over this agreement because it is part of the Master Plan and they should look at it in detail. It says on page 6 in the first part of the agreement, “Any development plan made by the County to improve park facilities other than the normal maintenance activities shall be approved in writing by the City Council. Any capital improvements provided for in the master plan on file and no further approval by the City is necessary.” That is her question to the City Attorney, tonight they are there being asked to support a new master plan amendment, there are some pretty significant changes in the usage of Islands of Peace. If they approve this resolution in supporting the new regional park master plan amendment, and they want to do all the things that are in here, is the City basically giving them the opportunity to go ahead with anything they want? Darcy Erickson , City Attorney, replied, she has not seen the joint powers agreement. She cannot say what the content of the agreement is and what is important. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if she has seen the master plan. Attorney Erickson replied she has not been provided the master plan. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that is one of her first concerns, does that give them carte blanche to go ahead and do any of the improvements because it says any development plan by the County to improve other than normal maintenance shall be approved in writing; however, any capital improvements provided for in the master plan on file. She would not approve this master plan. It is a resolution supporting a master plan, does that mean they are approving it? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 12 Mr. Wysopal replied, he does not think the City has the right or authority to approve a County master plan. That is within the County’s jurisdiction, and the City would have the option of endorsing it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, it says any capital improvements provided for in the master plan on file and no further approval by the City is necessary. If this is on file with the County and they are approving a resolution tonight, is there any obligation now for them to go ahead with all the improvements they are now putting in their master plan which are pretty significant to the neighborhood. One of her concerns is she knows there were some City staff there but, if you look at the Islands of Peace concepts, there is an active park area on the top of the bluff adjacent to the neighborhood which would include enhanced picnic areas with a new open air pavilion. There would be a snack bar and rental facilities restroom. There would be a new playground, a new bridge, a new trail, and mixed use of East River Road. Those are some of the things that are part of their plan which definitely would change the flavor of that neighborhood. Mr. Hickok stated while Mr. Kirk, Ms. Qualley, and he attended the County’s open house down at the park along the river, frankly he was quite surprised that this was the first he knew that Council was not invited or staff would have made more of an announcement. They had gotten this information, they showed up, they did comment. Part of what they are seeing, when talking about the pavilion and some of the residential stuff, the Park is not planning that residential stuff that was in response to staff had discussions with them about that master planning effort they are doing with the Metropolitan Council. Initially there was a lot of reluctance on the part of the County to let the City do anything that would affect that park. Our staff really wanted to make that more of an amenity and more of an attraction, not something that is tucked behind buildings, but something the neighborhood and park can interact and do in a much more positive way. They built some of those things into their plan. In the comprehensive plan, the City had talked about getting more people to the river, trying to make it more of an amenity. They are right along the national bike trail. It is a scenic river way, and they are trying to make it more attractive. The County is trying to anticipate what the City will want to do with this master plan and what they are doing with the Metropolitan Council right now. It has to do also with the City’s TOD. All of this within ten minute walks of the train station. They are trying to leave the City some room. They are not going to be building residential. That would be something the City would do. They are just making room for it if the City wants to do that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Islands of Peace is city-owned property. If she understands this, it would also increase taking some more city-owned property, is that correct, for some of these improvements? Mr. Hickok replied just enhancing city-owned property, not taking it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated, it says, future City ownership, 4.8 acres. Mr. Hickok replied that is if the City wants to buy. For example, the snack pavilion will be on property where the City would have to purchase it if they wanted it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 13 Councilmember Bolkcom stated, just going down, at the top it says “residential trail easement on park expansion currently private ownership,” is that what Mr. Hickok is talking about. Mr. Hickok replied, that is private ownership; the City would have to have some easements or some considerations given. There would be negotiations. The 4.8 acres would be an expansion of the park area. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and then there is current City ownership of future regional park land which is 3.5 acres. That is city-owned property that could be a regional park? Mr. Hickok replied it could play a role. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she does not totally understand this whole thing. Some of it is owned by the City and some is private ownership. Mr. Hickok replied the County made it very clear they are not interested in buying more land. If the City wanted to do some of these enhancements that it talked about in the TOD plan, it would have to buy it. The County is trying to make that clear in the plan so there is no question later. The County is trying to point out they are putting in the plan that if the City wants it, the City will have to buy it. Councilmember Bolkcom asked about one that states current City ownership of a future regional park. Would the City buy that? “Regional” sounds like it would be the County, or Met Council. Mr. Hickok stated they use the square foot dimension in this park. They do not have enough to make this a regional park without including Islands of Peace. Councilmember Bolkcom stated Islands of Peace and Manomin Park. They are all part of that one regional park. Mr. Hickok replied, right. They need all of that consolidated square foot dimension. You need a minimum area to get Federal funding for regional parks. Part of the County’s fear early on in this process is the City’s efforts wanting to reshape Islands of Peace and maybe take away some of the square foot dimension, thereby pulling the County out of the contention as a regional park. That was never the City’s interest. It was owned by the City, but it is square dimension that is added to the overall to give the County the size to become a regional park. Councilmember Bolkcom stated under key elements it says, with a total park increase of 8.9. She asked where all this and the money were coming from. Mr. Hickok replied, if you take those numbers, 4.8, 3.5, 1.8, that is the 8.9. That is where they are saying that would need to be City land. If the City wants to expand that as part of this master plan, then that would be city-owned. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she does not see that in any of the context of the plan amendment and that is why she is confused. She is only looking at one page. Everything else is more about what the logistics are. It was probably better explained at the meeting. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 14 Mr. Hickok replied there was really no presentation at the meeting. The plan was laid out and people asked questions about it. It was an open house with basically the County’s large aerial view of the park and then the text that would be going into this document. It was not one of the City’s community meetings it has had where a lot of explanation is given. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the only comments she saw from the City staff level were related to road alignment, etc. Were there other comments? It says see attached written comments. The only comments she sees are e-mails from Mr. Hickok, Ms. Jones, and Ms. Qualley to the County and no response back from them. Mr. Hickok stated there was some dialogue other than those e-mails at the open house when they talked about making sure there were connections to the new 122-acre BAE development. There was a lot of discussion that went into the fabric of that document but did not necessarily come out. Comments from the staff really happened at meetings they had at the building down at Islands of Peace. He was surprised to find out this plan was evolving at the same time they were talking to the County about this master plan. A short time after the County held the meetings, they had this plan for the City. There had not been any real big discussion about this plan. For the most part he was very pleased. After he saw it, he thought it was perplexing there had not been a lot of discussion at that meeting. However, he was very pleased then to see they took into consideration the things they had discussed down there. The pavilion and the fact that th once they extend 57 Avenue across the John Allen project, there is opportunity for the City to make a connection that really becomes more public. That would be a very good thing. The County tried to make provisions to talk about that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated but she does not see any of that discussion/information. Mr. Hickok stated there is an illustration in there that came from that discussion prepared by Hoisington & Koegler laying out a diagram. That was really a product of those meetings they had down at the park building where they were talking conceptually about how they were in the very early stages of this discussion of the TOD; but the Met Council did not want the park even discussed in the City’s TOD plan. Staff felt the park was an essential part if they really want to promote this area as a dynamic area. It would be foolish for the City not to have the park interwoven in the trails, etc., that gets you to the train station, etc. It took that illustration and several meetings with the County for staff to show the County they are not trying to subtract from the park, they are trying to enhance the park so people actually use it and it becomes an amenity down in that area. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is confusing because the first three pages are about Riverfront Park. It shows you all this different stuff, related to the County. Then the other diagram is some of the City concepts. Mr. Hickok stated that was a consolidated effort between the City and the County. That was some of the County’s desires, new bridges down below and things like that. It also built in some concepts they talked about to try and open up the views into the park and give them maybe more of a public way of getting to the park, etc. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 15 Councilmember Bolkcom stated in nowhere that she could see it says anything about it being a joint effort. It just looks like this is something the County has done. Mr. Hickok stated that is a valuable point. They had a meeting on this and the County was not really talking to them about their bigger plan. They were focused on that page, and that page became part of their plan. Timing was kind of interesting but for the most part there are a lot of exciting things about it. Paul Hyde has looked at it. Hyde Development is really using this as a very positive thing. Councilmember Bolkcom asked how can she be comfortable there will be more input before anything happens in the residential neighborhoods. Is the agreement from 1981 still valid? Mr. Hickok replied, all of the planning the City would be doing relative to this TOD master plan, anything that has to do with that residential development at all, that has the standard City planning processes attached to it. None of that happens without it going through the Planning Commission and City Council. What the County is saying is the land they have for park they would like the City’s support in saying it has looked at it and, when the County is ready to build that pavilion, to go ahead and do it. They do not have to wait for a public process to build a pavilion in the park. However, if it is going to be something outside of the park, land that the City has to buy, there are going to be all sorts of hearings. The neighborhood might get a new pavilion, they might get a new child’s play area in the park, some of those things, without a lot pomp and circumstance, but that is inside the park boundaries. It is already controlled either by the City or the County. Councilmember Bolkcom asked anything that is not in their actual park now and, even though it is City’s property, improvements can happen there. Anything outside of that has to come back to them. Mr. Hickok replied, yes, public hearings, etc. The standard practices. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the reason she is asking this is because in this agreement it says there is a master plan and this is in the master plan the way this agreement reads. It does say the agreement can be terminated with or without cause upon 365 days’ written notice with or without cause. Mr. Hickok stated there is nothing that is giving the County planning authority outside the bounds of the park. Councilmember Bolkcom stated one area it says, Riverfront, and there had to be a public hearing which was in the Anoka Union and she is not sure how many people in Fridley get that. She understands from Mr. Kirk there was a mailing to the neighborhood. She asked if staff saw the mailing. She saw an invitation in the plan document. Mr. Kirk replied, he believed it was the same mailing he received. It might have been a postcard. There was no presentation, but they had a lot of graphics, a lot of poster boards, and they had staff there who would talk with people about the proposed project. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 16 Mr. Kirk stated back when the County was doing Locke Park, there were a lot of improvements. The County did come to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and at that time, they were already starting their planning process and had told them that down the road they would be finalizing plans and needing to do a master plan amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Most of the improvements were focused on Riverfront, but some of the things, especially the land items that are shown here were because the City asked them to reconsider their view of possible changes to the configuration of the park. They replied that the time to put in these changes would be now when they are doing the master plan rather than having to do another master plan amendment two years down the road when the City decides they want to do something with the property. The adding of the Islands of Peace property into that master plan was really trying to accommodate the City’s request to have some flexibility with the TOD in that neighborhood. Councilmember Bolkcom stated as to the dog park, they have a similar agreement with Anoka County that any improvements need to come back before the City Council. She is not concerned they are following the agreement. The City Attorney should really look at the agreement. Mayor Lund stated the summary of this lengthy discussion has been a failure to communicate. With a significant project like this, Council and especially the Ward Councilmember would want to weigh in on it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated if you look at the resolution on page 65, the fourth “Whereas” says, “will update existing amenities, add disc golf and expand the boundary of Islands of Peace.” What does that mean? Mr. Hickok replied it is giving the City the opportunity if it wants to expand it. It really gets back to the County’s point. They do not want it diminished in any way. “Expand” would be the operative word there. They do not care if the City expands it, they just do not want it getting any smaller. They have exactly the square feet to be a regional park. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if that was what that sentence said. Mr. Hickok replied yes, knowing the discussion. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Erickson what the language restriction means. Attorney Erickson replied, she really cannot comment what the intent or meaning of it is without seeing the agreement. Mr. Hickok has provided some context for it. Mayor Lund stated he does see Councilmember Bolkcom’s point. It could probably be a little more succinct and say, if the City so chooses to, expand the boundaries of the park but not diminish it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and “Whereas, City of Fridley representatives have reviewed and commented on the plan,” meaning City staff? Are City councilmembers considered representatives? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 17 Mr. Hickok replied tonight Council is commenting. The resolution relates to the comments this evening and the comments earlier at that park meeting. As to the next paragraph, it is saying developed a park development program that expands. They are not saying the park now expands by this resolution. They are just saying there is a park development program that basically allows the park to expand. All of that expansion happens at the City’s expense and through its standard planning process. It is not expanding the boundaries of the park. Not on people’s private property. Not until land is acquired. If land is not acquired, the park does not expand. It is just like zoning where you lay out a plan, and if it is in the Met Council’s plan and they are able to acquire property, then they do not have to go back to the Met Council for this expansion. We can acquire it, and it is already laid out in the plan somewhere. It actually helps the City get funding if it is laid out in a plan. Councilmember Bolkcom stated then on page 63 the last paragraph says the boundaries for Islands of Peace is proposed to be expanded to include land already under the ownership of the City of Fridley and immediately to the west of Stevenson Elementary. To her that sounds like an expansion. Mr. Kirk stated that is land the City currently owns. It is just to the north of what is Islands of Peace now. They would have the opportunity, if they got funding, to potentially add trails which is about the only thing you can do that in that area. That is not buildable land, there is nothing else really you could put in there. As to the other parcel which is currently private land, that is a future potential addition to the park which would not happen without the City being the major player in that project. This park that is there now is land that is down at the bottom of the bluff. It is basically on the same level as the majority of the Islands of Peace Park. It was never designated as part of the Islands of Peace Park, but it is City of Fridley property. It makes some sense since the other City of Fridley property right adjacent to it is being operated and maintained by the County and have a willingness to take that on; but that would be added to that. It would potentially enhance the trail system there. It really came to light when Stevenson Elementary School was looking at trying to add better access for their students to the river and the river bluff area. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she also remembered discussion from the neighborhood where some were for and some were against it. She asked if any other councilmembers had any concerns about this. Mayor Lund stated these are all good amenities. There has been some staff review. There is not anything in here that would cause him to be concerned about the residential areas nearby. These are good things, and he would vote to pass the resolution. They should also send the County a clear message the Council wants to be better involved in the process. He did not see in the 1981 agreement about the 30 days. He does not know if that gives them adequate time. To go through the Parks and Recreation Commission’s recommendation and then come to City Council; he sees it as typically a 60-day deal just like so many other things. Mr. Kirk said Mayor Lund could reiterate that and emphasize that to the Met Council to make sure the City Council approves those projects in writing to provide ample lead time. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 18 Councilmember Bolkcom stated it also says the City and County will meet periodically to discuss and review work and development plans. Does that happen? Mr. Kirk replied, back in 1981, 1982, and 1983 it probably did and, as the City gained confidence that Anoka County was maintaining and operating a park at a level the City was comfortable with, that did not continue to happen. Councilmember Varichak stated she is totally in favor of this. She is glad they had a couple of extra weeks to review the master plan and all of the amenities it is proposing. Councilmember Bolkcom did have some valid points. She asked because this is laid out the way it is, is there no chance of changes? For example, perhaps somebody wants to ask for a dog park there instead of the golf disc park. Mr. Kirk replied the County has researched what would be the best use. Councilmember Varichak stated not that she would be opposed to the Frisbee golf because it is a popular thing that is happening right now. Mr. Kirk stated and they have experience with one that is up at Bunker. There is nothing down this way in terms of disc golf. One of the other things the County has shared with him is there have been some concerns at times about users at that park. They wanted to get some real positive activities there that they felt would bring maybe a more positive use to the park area. They have been talking about trying to put in disc golf for three or four years. There is always an opportunity they could make another adjustment to the plans down the road if that is what they felt the public wanted or the City wanted. Councilmember Varichak stated the County turned down the SHIP grant last year. Now they want to get funds for this. Mr. Kirk said he believed the one was a County Board decision, and this is something the County Park Committee (which he believes has a couple of Board members on) came up with. They are applying for regional park funds. There were two different groups making decisions. Mr. Wysopal stated to summarize a few things that have come out of this discussion: (1) land use regulations remain intact as the City of Fridley retains those rights and authority to exercise any plan that takes place there; (2) have the City Attorney review that 1981 agreement, and staff will provide the Council with some feedback regarding that agreement; and (3) send the County some communication with regard to this process and ask that the City and City Council become more of a partner in that whole process. Councilmember Bolkcom stated in the agreement there actually is the same resolution they were asked to pass tonight that was passed by all the Board members. Mr. Kirk stated they passed a resolution supporting their plan. It was developed by the Park Committee and staff. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 19 MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to adopting Resolution No. 2014-26. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 9.Resolution Approving the Issuance and Sale of an Educational Facilities Revenue Note, Series 2014, and Authorizing the Execution of Documents Relating Thereto (Totino-Grace High School Project) (Ward 2). MOTION by Councilmember Varichak to adopt Resolution No. 2014-27. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10.Approve Change Order No. 1 for Oak Glen Creek Project No. 380. James Kosluchar, Director of Public Works, stated in 2011, the City and Anoka Conservation District and Coon Creek Watershed District developed plans for Oak Glen Creek, the lower portion west of East River Road. The Anoka Conservation District consequently obtained a Clean Water Systems grant through the Legacy Program to assist in funding that project and matches from special assessments from the City’s storm water utility. The City of Fridley oversees the project under its Joint Powers Agreement with the Anoka Conservation District. They did the project last June. At that time, there was a concern about exceeding the eligible budget for the project. Therefore, they had a number of items they eliminated or held back from the bid documents. Fortunately, this came well in under budget including that of the low bidder, Blackstone Contracting. Staff has directed additional work to be completed on the project which enables full utilization of the awarded grant without exceeding the project budget and establishes improvements initially contemplated in the project scope. Mr. Kosluchar stated the items break down into four categories. There is stabilization of specific upper slope areas. This is the big item at $82,470. This stabilization was discussed at project meetings and met with strong support by the residents and watershed agencies. Mr. Kosluchar showed a map showing the areas that were contemplated and ranked by Wenck, the consultant engineer. Most of the areas shown were actually done. There are three or four left off. They were prioritized and done in sequence of highest to lowest priority. Mr. Kosluchar stated they changed the configuration of the outfall. This was a negative number. They provided a savings by reducing some pipe and apron there and arrived at a better access point by doing so. Mr. Kosluchar stated the next item is an addition for toe boulder extension. They had cut the project off at the lower end, trying to again get some savings valuing the project down. The toe FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 20 boulders extend the length of the channel from East River Road. They actually stopped about 150 feet upstream of the mouth of the creek. Mr. Kosluchar stated the last item they modified were the cross vanes or check dams. Originally, it was conceived to have six and then a foot of fall between each one. They were able to actually come up with a better design in the field after seeing how the layout would work. They increased it to 13 and shortened the drop to half a foot which allowed them to be lower and a little more structurally stable. They also added some small rock to make the larger rock hold in place better. Mr. Kosluchar stated the total for the project is $339,700 and with the match, the total amount of funding is $425,625. The award on the bid for the project is $263,516. The proposed change order is $95,865. That leaves $65,244 for engineering and administration of the project and continuency for the remaining stages of construction. Mr. Kosluchar stated staff recommends approval of Change No. 1, as it enables full utilization of the awarded grant for the project and puts in place project elements that are needed and desired by the City and property owners. It provides a more robust project and establishes improvements originally contemplated in the project. Staff further recommends consideration for stabilization for upper slopes under this change order is not included as part of the special assessment to benefiting property owners, as the work is kind of a variable. It is not as uniform. If they were to accommodate those, you may end up with a variable assessment by some formula. Not part of the action requested tonight but something for the Council to consider going forward. Councilmember Bolkcom asked what percentage of the project is completed. Mr. Kosluchar replied, the heavy work is substantially completed. He would say they are about 80 percent complete. Councilmember Bolkcom asked there were some people who wanted o know if some work could happen on their property with the contractor, where are they at with that? Mr. Kosluchar replied that is in their contingency, that $65,000 remaining. Mainly some drainage downspout work. There was one other property owner who wanted to have some additional rock stabilization. When they came to the end of where they could go and determined what that quantity was, they met with that owner last week and went through with Wenck and the contractor, himself, and the owner was pretty satisfied with what is there. There are some other things that Wenck suggested to the property owner to monitor his property. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she thought there were some other property owners asking if other additions could be done. Mr. Kosluchar stated there were some other smaller things that will be done going forward and there will be some opportunities for people to decide whether they want to participate in those improvements, particularly in regard to the downspouts. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2014 PAGE 21 Councilmember Bolkcom stated one other thing is the time is running out as far as making an application for the plantings. Has that information been sent out? Mr. Kosluchar stated he does not know, but will make sure it gets sent out. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve Change Order No. 1 for Oak Glen Creek Project No. 380. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Informal Status Reports: None. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adjourn. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:59 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Denise Johnson Scott Lund Recording Secretary Mayor