Loading...
CCM 12/18/2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF FRIDLEY DECEMBER 18, 2017 The City Council meeting for the City of Fridley was called to order by Mayor Lund at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lund Councilmember Barnette Councilmember Saefke Councilmember Varichak Councilmember Bolkcom OTHERS PRESENT: Wally Wysopal, City Manager Darcy Erickson, City Attorney Deb Skogen,City Clerk Shelly Peterson, Finance Director James Kosluchar, Public Works Director Brad Sielaff, Fridley Lions Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue N.E. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: OLD BUSINESS: 1. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending Fridley City Code, Section 205.20, 0-5, Telecommunications Towers and Facilities District to Conform to Recent Legislative Enactments Related to Small Wireless Deployment; and Adopt Official Title and Summary Ordinance. WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1350 ON SECOND READING AND ADOPTED THE OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE AND ORDERED PUBLICATION. 2. Second Reading of an Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 407 of the Fridley City Code, and Enact a New Chapter of the Code of Ordinances to Administer and Regulate the Public Rights-of-Way in the Public Interest and to Provide for the Issuance and Regulation of Right-of-Way Permits and to Amend Chapter 11 to Reflect New Fees for Small Wireless Facilities in the Public rights-of-Way; and FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 2 WAIVED THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1351 ON SECOND READING AND ADOPTED THE OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE AND OREDERED PUBLICATION. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Resolution to Approve an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to Provide for a Delegated Contract Process. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. 4. Resolution Designating Precincts and Polling Locations for the 2018 Election Year. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2017-71. 5. Resolution Approving the 2017 Gifts, Donations and Sponsorships to the City of Fridley. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2017-72. 6. Claims (179013 – 179231) APPROVED. 7. Licenses. Wally Wysopal , City Manager, these have already been administratively processed and approved and are presented for public acknowledgment. APPROVED. ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember Bolkcom requested that the Item No. 3 be removed and placed on the regular agenda. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to adopt the proposed consent agenda with the removal of Item No. 3. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 3 OPEN FORUM, VISITORS: No one from the audience spoke. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve the agenda with the addition of Item No. 3 and also additional Item Nos. 7A and 7B. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS: 7A. Resolution in Support of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit for Fridley Lions at Fridley American Legion Located at 7365 Central Avenue NE and Two Stooges Sports Bar and Grill Located at 7178 University Avenue NE. Deb Skogen, City Clerk, stated the Legion and the Fridley Lions submitted two premise permit applications and the premise lease for lawful gambling at the American Legion and at Two Stooges Sports Bar and Grill. In 2016, the American Legion’s gambling manager embezzled some funds. The American Legion has been working with the State of Minnesota to get those funds paid back. Ms. Skogen stated the agreement reached with the State was that the Legion’s license would be suspended for January and February 2018 which would leave the Legion and Two Stooges without charitable gambling at those two locations. The Fridley Lions talked with the Fridley Legion and Two Stooges. They have both signed a lease agreement to allow the Fridley Lions to conduct charitable gambling at those locations during that time. Ms. Skogen stated the State does not issue temporary licenses, they issue perpetual licenses. The lease agreement does allow for the Fridley Lions, the Legion, or Two Stooges to give a 30- day written notice if they would like their lease to stop. The American Legion’s current license would still be in effect after their suspension and they could continue conducting lawful gambling. If things did not work out with the Lions, Two Stooges could give the Lions a 30-day notice and go back to the American Legion. If they did not want to go back to the Legion, they would have to terminate that lease with the American Legion. Ms. Skogen said they are asking Council to support a resolution in support of the licenses for each location so they can take this to the Gambling Control Board, expedite the process, and try to have a license effective January 1, 2018. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to the third paragraph of the memo they received. She asked if the American Legion and Two Stooges have to give the City some type of notice they are discontinuing it. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 4 Ms. Skogen saidthe lease agreement allows for the organization or establishment to provide a 30-day written notice that they want to terminate the lease. They would not need to come back to the City Council to ask that the lease be terminated. Mayor Lund stated it is a standard contract, 30-days’ written notice. Either party can sever the contractual relationship. Councilmember Bolkcom asked who is telling the City that is what is happening. Mayor Lund stated the request originated from the American Legion to allow the Lions to operate in those two facilities. Once in operation, a 30-days’ written notice can be provided by either party. He asked if the suspension for the American Legion was for two months. Ms. Skogen replied yes, it was for two months. They were hoping for a temporary license to the Lions during their suspension. Mayor Lund stated it does not matter, because it is a permanent license that can be severed at any time. A year from now, two months from now, etc. This is just asking the Council to allow the license to occur. Nobody is coming in tonight to cancel a contract or walk away from it. Ms. Skogen stated the Legion is asking someone to come in temporarily to provide the gambling services while their license is suspended. The state does not provide for a temporary license, but the lease has a termination clause allowing for the contract to stop after a 30-day written notice by either party. Councilmember Bolkcom stated and they do not have anyone from the American Legion at the meeting because they do not need anyone from the American Legion to tell them that. Ms. Skogen replied no, there was no one from the Legion; however Mr. Sielaff was present from the Fridley Lions. Brad Sielaff , Fridley Lions, said they would be stepping in so the Legion and Two Stooges can continue to have charitable gambling. They have had a short period of time to get this together, but he thought they could do it. After Ms. Skogen signs the state paperwork tomorrow, he will bring it to the Gambling Control Board. The Board has assured him they should be able to expedite the application and have it ready by January 1. The larger issue for him is the upfront work done by the Lions to get everything going by January 1. Mr. Sielaff stated they are a service organization and this is an important part of their mission to do something like this. They are here to help the community and to help keep people employed. Councilmember Varichak asked if the Lions will run the establishment or just oversee the gambling. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 5 Mr. Sielaff replied he plans on utilizing existing staff so they can continue to be employed. He will be gambling manager. The assistant gambling manager would have additional duties for doing all of the paperwork, and making sure the taxes get paid. They are going to have to order games through their license. The Legion will remove all of their games during their suspension and the Lions will have games. The paperwork will have to have Fridley Lions listed and include its gambling number. Deposits will be going into the Lions account, and they will be paying rent to Two Stooges and the Legion like they do for all their facilities. Mayor Lund said, just to be clear, when they are talking about paying rent to the establishments, they are talking about the cost of rent for their charitable gaming booth space. There is no issue with the two facilities or establishments. They are not in any trouble. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the resolution before them tonight does not say it is temporary. What they are saying is the State allows the City to do this as a temporary thing. The City would anticipate that if it goes back to the American Legion, the lease will be terminated and there would be another resolution before Council in March. Ms. Skogen stated the license they have currently is a perpetual license. Their license is only being suspended, it is not being revoked. There would be nothing for them to bring forward to the Council for action. The state does not allow for a temporary license. They would have to provide notice of cancellation of the lease February 1 so the Legion could take over their responsibilities on March 1. Councilmember Bolkcom asked why Council would not see something. Mayor Lund stated the contract is between the charitable gaming organization and the establishment. In this case the Fridley Lions Club and the businesses, the American Legion and Two Stooges. The City does not have any part of that contract. In a couple of months if they decide to sever their contractual obligations, they do that internally, between themselves, as the contract calls for a 30-day written notice. Darcy Erickson , City Attorney, stated Council is actually approving the State Gambling Board premise permit application to allow them to go into that location. Ms. Skogen stated, yes, a resolution is part of the license application for a premise permit. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they are only approving that they support they have a premise permit but then at some point it just becomes null and void if the Legion provides notice. Attorney Erickson replied, if the lease gets cancelled, they have no right to conduct the lawful gambling at that location any longer. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to adopt Resolution No. 2017-73, in Support of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit for Fridley Lions at Fridley American Legion located at 7365 Central Avenue NE. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 6 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom Adopting Resolution No. 2017-74 in Support of an Application for a Minnesota Lawful Gambling Premise Permit for Fridley Lions at Two Stooges Sports Bar and Grill Located at 7178 University Avenue NE. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7B. Approve a Revised Construction Cooperation Agreement with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for Restoration of Community Park. James Kosluchar , Public Works Director, stated staff received word from Met Council that a prior agreement that had been approved by Council was preapproved by Met Council today. Knowing that time is of the essence with this agreement and a reimbursement that is due to the City of Fridley, he wanted to bring this forward. Mr. Kosluchar stated on June 12 the City approved an agreement with Met Council and it was because of the construction that occupied some of Community Park. At that time staff was presented with a draft agreement. Staff presented it to the Council for approval. Mr. Kosluchar stated the agreement allows some restoration activities to take place either by City staff or with contracted help, and the Met Council would reimburse the City for that. There are also some improvements that are in lieu of occupation of the park. Mr. Kosluchar stated after Council approved that agreement, staff presented it to the Met Council who said its attorney looked at it and revised a few sections, and City staff talked with Attorney Erickson who reviewed the document and virtually got everything changed back. He would like to walk through the changes with them. Mr. Kosluchar stated on page 1 of the Agreement, Section 1, under “Scope.” The Met Council had asked for a change there, and basically its format for this Agreement is for contract work only. The City did some in-kind work and so they wanted to make sure that was reimbursable under the Agreement. Section 1 under “Scope,” had changed, and Attorney Erickson asked Met Council to change it back, and they did. Mr. Kosluchar stated as to Section 5, Met Council added a header. Basically the phrase, “Additional Provisions to be Included by a City” was added. On page 4 of the Agreement, the workers’ compensation section was moved from a paragraph earlier in the Agreement. Also, the termination language in Section 17 was added so either party can terminate within 90 days. He thanked Attorney Erickson for her help. It is substantially the same agreement Council approved with the changes he outlined. If approved they can invoice the Met Council and try to get payment by the end of the year. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 7 Councilmember Barnette referred to page 1, under “Background Recitals,” Item No. 2, to restore the baseball field to exist or in better conditions. It sees to him there was some discussion because that is Fields 5 and 6 which are not heavily used anymore that it could possibly be a relocation of the soccer fields. Would this take away that option? Mr. Kosluchar replied, no, it would not. They talked about that option early on with the Parks and Recreation staff, and it was determined this was not the right time according to make that change. The fields were retrofit. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the work is already done. Mr. Kosluchar replied, the work is done. It was done between the original contract approval and this one. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Attorney Erickson if it was the same contract with a few changes. Attorney Erickson replied, yes, but the contract that was originally approved by the City Council allowed for self performance by the City. The contract that came back to Mr. Kosluchar and herself eliminated that. The Met Council has now agreed to self-performance. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to approve the Revised Construction Cooperation Agreement with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for Restoration of Community Park. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: 8. Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Fridley City Charter, Chapter 7, Taxation and Finances. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. Pam Reynolds, 1241 Norton Avenue,requested the ordinance be read in full, as allowed by Chapter 3 of the City Charter and provided a copy of that Chapter to the Council. Mayor Lund stated he knows that is permissible if Council requests it but is not sure if it is permissible if asked for by a member of the audience. Attorney Erickson stated, yes it does say a councilmember or resident. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Ms. Reynolds if there is a reason why she is asking for this. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 8 Ms. Reynolds said for two reasons: (1) the Charter says she can ask for it to be read, and (2) so she is clear on what is being changed. She has the documents but has some questions. It is a lengthy document and she did not have time to check it, but she would like it read out loud. Ms. Skogen stated she has a pretty thorough power point explaining what the changes are to each section. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it has to be read once there has been a request to do so. Attorney Erickson stated this is her first experience with the City’s Charter on this request. Ms. Skogen asked what the date is on the Chapter 3 language provided by Ms. Reynolds. Attorney Erickson said April 28, 2014. She does not know if it has been updated. She thinks the language about the request by a resident has to be carried through. Ms. Skogen requested to go back and review the chapter. Attorney Erickson stated they are in legislative format. So there is an understanding of what is being removed and what is being added. Typically you would indicate that because there are strikeouts for deletions of the text and underlining for addition of text. Mayor Lund stated there is no problem with reading the ordinance. He asked if Ms. Reynolds which version she wanted read. He said the one Council is looking at has the corrections in it. Attorney Erickson replied, her interpretation would be if you are reading the ordinance that is being presented, you have to acknowledge what is being removed and what is being added. Councilmember Bolkcom asked when it comes before them from the Charter Commission, they cannot change it until there has been a public hearing. Ms. Reynolds replied, to make any changes to it, it has to go back to the Charter Commission. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Ms. Reynolds if she saw it at the Charter Commission, why is she saying they already changed it. They cannot change it until it comes before them at a public hearing. If they did want changes, it would go back to the Charter Commission. Ms. Skogen replied yes. Ms. Reynolds said she still wanted it read. Councilmember Saefke stated the Charter Commission recommended an amendment by ordinance on November 6th to the City Council that would bring Chapter 7 current with today’s laws and accounting standards and practices. Ms. Skogen stated she reviewed the Charter and Ms. Reynolds is correct that a Councilmember FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 9 of resident may request it be read. However, they are not here holding a first reading tonight, they holding a public hearing to introduce the ordinance. They will go through each section. If she wants it read in full, they can certainly do that. Mr. Wysopal stated Section 3.04 of the Charter does say that every ordinance and resolution be presented in writing and shall not be read in full unless requested by a councilmember or a Fridley resident at the meeting in which it is introduced before the vote is taken thereon. What Deb Skogen is pointing out gives the ability to either read it tonight, but they could probably be requested to read it again another time. It may be beneficial for all of them, including the Charter Commission member who is here tonight, to hear the presentation that Ms. Skogen has presented. It may answer some of the questions and clarify things that are unclear in Ms. Reynolds’ mind right now. Attorney Erickson stated she would concur with what Mr. Wysopal said and that the request for the reading can be interpreted to be only at which a vote is being taken. However, as Mr. Wysopal correctly points out, they may be asked to do it at the next reading anyway. Mayor Lund stated they can delay that until the next meeting when they are actually going to take action on it. Tonight is a public hearing. Attorney Erickson stated if Council is so inclined, there is no formal action vote being taken. They are opening and closing a public hearing. She does not believe Ms. Skogen has queued it up for a first reading. Ms. Skogen stated tonight is a public hearing to amend Fridley City Charter Chapter 7, Taxation and Finances. The Fridley Home Rule Charter is the fundamental law defining the powers the citizens agree to give the City. The City Commission is comprised of 15 court-appointed citizens who meet about eight times annually to discuss and refine the Charter in response to the needs of the community. Ms. Skogen stated Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 7, allows for the Charter amendment by ordinance upon recommendation of the Charter Commission. It requires a notice of public hearing and publication, a full text of the amendment, at least two weeks prior to the public meeting. Ms. Skogen stated on November 6th the Charter Commission recommended the amendment by ordinance to the City Council. On November 13th the City Council scheduled the public hearing for tonight. On November 24th the proposed ordinance was published in full in the City’s official newspaper. Ms. Skogen stated the Charter Commission has discussed and reviewed Chapter 7 extensively over the past two years in light of budget concerns and current accounting standards and procedures. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they did open the public hearing and waive the reading yet. Did they have a vote? They did make a motion. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 10 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:42 P.M. Mayor Lund stated if Ms. Reynolds wants to, when this comes up for an action item at a future Council meeting, she can ask it to be read if she so deems it necessary. Ms. Skogen stated the Charter Commission discussed this extensively over the last two years. These amendments are required to correct inconsistencies with Minnesota state law and generally accepted accounting standards and procedures known as GAAP. Ms. Skogen stated in Section I, Section 7.02, Power of Taxation. It places the recycling fees under “fees that does not include”, so it is similar to utility fees. It removes specific statute numbers and references state law. It simplifies language and adds a sentence stating a non-fee shall cover the cost of service and anticipated future costs. Ms. Skogen stated in Section II, Section 7.04, Preparation of Budget, specific detailed information on how the process was done was removed while providing enough detail so that the preparation of the budget would be easily understood. The language is consistent with the League of Minnesota Cities budget guidelines and other city charters. Ms. Skogen stated in Section III, Section 7.06, Enforcement of Budget, the language was simplified and clarified as to whom is responsible for enforcing the budget and references the budget resolution. Ms. Skogen stated in Section IV, Section 7.07, Alterations in the Budget, it creates additional reference to the budget resolution. It removes duplication to make the language easier to understand. It brings language of Charter up-to-date to other city charters. Ms. Skogen stated in Section V, Sections 7.10, Tax Settlement With County and 7.11, Disbursements How Made, that these sections are both outdated. In Section 7.10 the County follows their own mandates, and it is not necessary to include them in the charter. As to the Disbursement section, it does not follow the State auditor guidelines or GAAP. Both sections are recommended to be deleted. Ms. Skogen stated in Section VI, Section 7.12, Funds to be Kept, this section was renumbered to 7.10. The language was modified to match state auditor guidelines and GAAP to help follow one standard consistently instead of two or three different guidelines. It creates new language and removes the detail and specifies classification of funds required by law, ordinance, or resolution. Ms. Skogen stated in Section VII, 7.13, Receipts to go to City Treasurer, the language is outdated and is being deleted. The County is responsible for providing these funds collected to the City in accordance with state law. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 11 Ms. Skogen stated in Section VIII, Section 7.14, Accounts and Reports, this section is renumbered to Section 7.11. The paragraph has been redefined and updated using state statute as authority on financial report and publication. Ms. Skogen stated in Section IX, Section 7.15, Bonded Debt and Debt Limit, this section was renumbered and retitled to Section 7.12, Indebtedness. State law is more restrictive than the City’s charter when defining bonding. This section was amended and now references state law, and provides all the information that they need for bonding. Ms. Skogen stated in Section X, Section 7.16, Form and Repayment of Bonds, the State provides for the form and repayment of bonds. This section was deleted and a new section was created. The section that was created, Emergency Debt, was placed at the end of Chapter 7. Ms. Skogen stated in Section XI, Section 7.17, Debt and Tax Anticipation Certificates, this section was renumbered and retitled Section 7.13, Tax Anticipation Certificates. It creates and deletes language to bring consistency and reference to state law. Ms. Skogen stated in Section XII, Section 7.18, Bonds Outside the Debt Limit, to remain consistent and update the Charter, this section is being deleted. This section was redundant and is now addressed in new Section 7.12. By removing this language, this allows the City to follow the state law. Ms. Skogen stated in Section XIII, it creates new language so it is now 7.14, Emergency Debt Certificates. The language is not required to follow State law, but the commissioners felt it was important to include as it provides additional information on how to bond in an emergency. Ms. Skogen stated after the public hearing the proposed amendment requires a first and a second reading and a unanimous vote of the City Council to become adopted. A first reading could take place January 8 and a second reading on January 22, 2018. If the vote is unanimous, the ordinance would become effective 90 days after publication which would be May 16, 2018. A lot of research and discussion has gone into this Charter amendment. It was a continuation of their discussion from the ordinance that was adopted in July on the tax levy. This is just a continuation of that discussion. Staff’s recommendation is the City hold a public hearing and take testimony from the public. Ms. Skogen stated Shelly Peterson, Finance Director, was very instrumental in helping with this and could possibly answer some questions as well. Mayor Lund asked Ms. Peterson if she had anything to add at this time or is she just here for questions? Shelly Peterson , Finance Director, replied, she is here for questions and also wanted to add that with these significant amendments to this chapter, staff is developing policies which are more internal policies. The Council would adopt several of them by resolution. Staff plans on coming forward in the first month of next year with some written policies that detail the payment process, purchasing, and investments. Staff is working on a thorough update of all the policies. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 12 Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 101, the top section, and read the sentence, “No officer or employee of the City shall place any orders or make any purchases except for the purposes and to the amounts authorized in the budget resolution.” She asked whether this does not apply if there is a change order in something or if it is to prevent someone from going out and buying an extra plow or something like that. Ms. Peterson replied that is correct. This will all be laid out in the purchasing policy the Council will see at the first Council meeting in January. This is to protect the City from a purchase that is not something that was not intended in the general budget, and there will be approval processes for certain thresholds. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it is fair to say, under Section 7.07, Alterations in the Budget, it says, “to increase the amounts therein fixed in the budget resolution. . . .” She is thinking about items like where they have a street project or something that they have a set amount or an estimate in the City budget, it comes forward, and then they have change orders and would go beyond that cost. Ms. Peterson replied when the capital improvement plan is approved and those budgets are established, for example in the street funds, if the project is going to result in the overall budget going over, they would be notified of that during that change order process. Otherwise change orders are part of a contract amount. Councilmember Bolkcom asked so what Ms. Peterson is saying is if the change orders go beyond $200,000 and it is $50,000 beyond that, that would have to come before the Council before those change orders could actually take place? Ms. Peterson replied correct. If the City is amending a contract and it is coming back to Council as a change order, they would receive it as a change order for approval. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 105, paragraph 2, stating, “The Council by a vote of at least four (4) of its members may authorize issuance of bonds to provide funds for any public purpose not prohibited by law. The City Council may at its discretion, by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate propositions for the issuance of such bonds. When such a proposition is submitted to the electorate, no bonds or other term obligations of the City may be issued except pursuant to a favorable vote of a majority. . . .” She does not understand that. Ms. Peterson replied that is something the Charter Commission put into this chapter to allow the Council the opportunity to bring something to the voters if they chose to do so. There are certain bonds that require that. For example, a community center would require a vote. However, this is giving the Council the discretion to decide. Councilmember Bolkcom stated so it is not saying that they have to go, it gives the City Council the opportunity to bring it forward if they feel strongly about something. Ms. Peterson replied correct. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 13 Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 106, under Section 7.13, stating “In a manner consistent with Minnesota state law, at any time after January 1, following the making of an annual tax levy, the council may issue certificates of indebtedness in anticipation of the collection of taxes. . . .” and goes on to say beyond April. She asked what is the timing in that st whole piece there because it says that “not later than the 1 day of April of the year following their issuance. . . .” If it is issued in June of 2018, is that saying that it has to? Ms. Peterson replied correct. What that is saying is because the City gets its tax settlements in two installments, if the City is in a situation where it does not have the reserves to fund day-to- day operations, the City is allowed to take an anticipation note with the intention it would be paid with future tax settlements. Hopefully this will never have to happen. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it is saying such certificates shall be issued on such terms and conditions as the Council may determine but they shall become due and payable no later than April of the next year because if it was something the City did in June, it would be getting some money in October after the City’s second payment from the County; but it would happen before the next one the City gets probably in May or July. When does the City get that? Ms. Peterson replied the payment would come at the end of June. This section was something the Commission wanted to leave in, but it is all defined under state statute as a form of bonding and it is laid out the same way statute references it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated they are not doing anything different than what is in state statute. Ms. Peterson replied that is correct, it is all defined in state statute. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 107, under Emergency Certificates, she asked whether this is basically saying they need at least four members of the Council. If there is an emergency situation where the City needs to have a debt certificate, it has to have at least four votes. How is this changed? Ms. Peterson replied this too is a section that is also a debt covered under state statute but the Commission wanted this language to remain. The wording is consistent with state statute. If there is an emergency the City can borrow funds and then recoup through levy the following year. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if this is what is in state statute now. At some point do some of these things they are putting in, even though they are State statute, would have to continue to change this if the state statute related to these changes? Ms. Peterson replied yes; however, those are the two sections the Commission felt they wanted to keep in the chapter. The City’s bond counsel’s recommendation was to omit the language because it is redundant and covered under state statute. However, if the Commission felt they needed to be in here that would be fine. The City just needed to refer to its bond counsel to ensure there are not changes to the law. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 14 Councilmember Bolkcom asked how City staff would watch for state law changes. If the state statute would change would the City have to revise the language? Ms. Peterson replied yes, they could revise the language. Something similar happened with the City’s capital improvement plan bonds where the rules within the charter were not consistent with state law. Staff did an exercise of testing both the charter and the statute and found the statute was more restrictive. The City would follow whatever is more restrictive but, whenever the City is issuing bonds, it has bond advisors and bond counsel that review and compare the City Charter and state statute and would recommend any needed changes to the Charter Commission. Ms. Reynolds stated she has several questions. Her observation, after watching the discussion, is that the City’s Charter is designed to tell our government what powers the citizens wish them to have and how they wish them to operate the government. A lot of the changes to Chapter 7 now reference state statute. Fridley is not a statutory city. Fridley’s Charter can be more restrictive than state statute but not less restrictive. She understands this. Part of the reason she wanted read is because some of the language being crossed out is indeed more restrictive. She will point out as she goes through. Councilmember Bolkcom asked Ms. Reynolds to restate her sentence. Ms. Reynolds stated some of the original language is more restrictive. The citizens in the language are saying this is how we want it done. This is what we want covered which is perfectly legal under Minnesota statutes regarding charters. We can be more restrictive. The citizens can say, you have to spend money this way, you have to do it this way. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she wanted to clarify what Ms. Reynolds is saying and asked what citizens she is was talking about? Ms. Reynolds replied the citizens who originally approved the Charter and approved it over and over. Mayor Lund stated let us go on with Ms. Reynolds’ points she wants to make. They should clarify Ms. Reynolds is a member of the Charter and has been for many years. Ms. Reynolds replied yes, she is a Charter Commission member. Mayor Lund stated these are recommendations that have been recommended to the City Council after they have spent a couple of years on it. Ms. Reynolds replied they did not spend a couple of years on it. It was brought forward by staff in a pre-prepared form. They looked at it and by May they had completed the section that allowed the increases for the levy. Then they were presented in May with this section, rewritten by staff, the Charter Commission wordsmithed it. She was not at the meetings in September, October, and November due to medical issues. But she has been following the minutes from the Charter Commission and basically they read it and said, okay, this is fine. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 15 Mayor Lund asked Ms. Reynolds if she does not concur with the majority of the Charter Commission members? Ms. Reynolds replied, she concurs with some of this language changes. Some of it she does not understand the need to change it. Ms. Reynolds referred to Section 7.02, moving recycling fees from paragraph A to paragraph B. She brought this up at a Charter Commission meeting in May or April. Her personal opinion when you move recycling fees from A to B, you now make recycling a voluntary thing. Here is why. She controls her utility charges by how much water she uses. Park and Recreation participation fees. Unless she participates, signs up for a process, she does not get charged for that fee. Charges for photocopying. Unless she asks you to photocopy something, she does not get charged. Recycling on the other hand is required. It is not really, but it is a compulsory fee; therefore, it is almost like a tax. When you take it out of the control you have to raise it by 5 percent and then 3 percent, you are putting it, in her opinion, into a voluntary situation. Mayor Lund asked Ms. Reynolds if her concern is not that the City has the ability to raise that fee, but that City is now making it not mandatory. Ms. Reynolds stated they are now making it so that she would certainly test that you cannot charge her for a service she is not using. Ms. Peterson stated recycling is mandated by State law and that the County provides some funds for recycling. It is not mandated that she, Pam Reynolds, recycle. When you move it down to the voluntary fees, now you are making it, in her opinion, a voluntary payment. Councilmember Bolkcom stated she does not see anything about voluntary there. Ms. Reynolds replied read them. Are any of those demanded of her? Does she have to do those? She does not. She has control over whether she pays for these. Ms. Reynolds referred to Paragraph C where it says, “All fees and other charges referenced in section B above shall be designed to cover the cost of the service and anticipated future costs.” Again, when it comes to recycling, Minn. Stat. § 115, states the County is responsible for making sure funding is available to meet their goals to do these things. She does not have a problem with cost of service, she has a problem with anticipated future costs. Ms. Skogen referred to something as a non-fee in her presentation. Ms. Skogen replied, for recycling fees. Section C does not refer to recycling. It is for new fees. Any new fee that the City would want to provide. Ms. Reynolds stated she also wonders if by moving it, the City is not creating a new fee. Ms. Reynolds stated Section 7.04, paragraph 2 is eliminated which talks about salary detail shall show a list of all salaried officers. She understands removing the detail may have to do with FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 16 some privacy stuff. She asked whether the three top paid salaries will still be published per State statute if the City changes this language. Ms. Skogen stated it is required and believed they have it posted the top three salaries on the City’s website. They would just continue to do it, they would just not detail the salaries. Ms. Skogen stated the budget document used to provide more detailed salary information but due to HIPPA laws and data practices, some of the information remains public. That is one of the reasons for elimination of this text. Ms. Reynolds stated in 7.06 they are removing the language that says, “The City Manager shall not approve any order upon the City Treasurer for any expenditure unless an appropriation has been made in the budget, nor for any expenditure covered by the budget unless there is sufficient unencumbered balance. . . .” She asked if that meant Mr. Wysopal can now look at the budget and say, well, we have $60,000 in that fund so I can spend it on this or is he still required to follow what that money is supposedly spent for? Ms. Reynolds stated in Section IV, Section 7.07, “Alterations in the Budget Be Hereby Amended as Follows:” again it says, “Council may at any time, by resolution passed by a vote of at least four (4) members of the Council, reduce salaries or the sums appropriated for any purpose by the budget resolution. . . .” Why is “salaries” crossed out? Does that mean in a situation you could not say, okay, we have to reduce these salaries or is that because it falls under Wally Wysopal’s administrative duty? Ms. Reynolds stated in Section 7.10, the entire section is being removed. She understands they cannot dictate to the county what they have to do but because this document is what the citizens look at as how things are done, is there not a need to say that the county sends the money into the City’s bank account or something twice a year so they know where the money is coming from. As a commissioner on the Charter, part of their goal is to make the language more understandable. In eliminating language, maybe it needs to be clarified to understand it. Certainly removing a whole lot of it made it less understandable for someone who flips onto the website and says, oh, here is the Charter, let’s see what it says. They are going to look at it and go, really, where do they get their money because it does not say. Ms. Reynolds stated in Section 7.12. Funds to Be Kept, will now be 7.10. The new language is well and good. She would question why they are removing the definition of each of the funds the money is going into. She believes it is important so the public knows where the money goes, how it is divvied up. She does not think there is anywhere else where they are going to find this information if the amendment takes it away. Ms. Reynolds stated Section 7.13 is eliminated. Again, where is it replaced? How does someone know where it goes or to who it goes to? That is why this is in here. Ms. Reynolds stated in the new Section 7.11, her question based on what is marked out, especially the section that says, “The City Manager shall submit to the Council a statement each month showing the amount of money in the custody of the City Treasurer, the status of all funds, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 17 the amount spent or. . . .” Her question in a nutshell is, does this remove the Council from having to approve the monthly expenditures and will it remove the claims from the agenda as well as from the Council’s requirement to approve it? Ms. Reynolds stated in Section X, Section 7.16. “Form and Repayment of Bonds”. She understands state statute does those things differently, but felt the previous language that was being eliminated was more restrictive than state statute. Ms. Reynolds stated in Section XI, Section 7.17, Debt and Tax Anticipation Certificates, the language from the original Section 2 talks about 40 percent. The new language of 90 percent, comes from State statute. She felt 40 percent would certainly be more restrictive. For clarification of the 90 percent, this is January 1. She does not know when the City gets money from the County, but she thought it got it in January and July. If January 1 the City has not gotten the check, that means the City can start the process to take 90 percent of the 100 percent they owe the City or 90 percent of the first 50 percent payment? Ms. Reynolds stated Section XII is being eliminated, Bonds Outside the Debt Limit. This section is more restrictive in that it gives specifics of what they can be issued for as opposed to just following statute. Does the state statute give that information? Is the existing language more restrictive and if eliminated, then where is the language where the subject of what it can be used for is where it addresses it. Is that in state statute? If she wanted to see what the City could spend money on, she would go to the Charter. It pretty much looks like they can spend it on anything they want. Then she has to figure out what the state statute is that goes to it. Ms. Reynolds stated the Charter Commission agreed in September to the state statute references. She is wondering if that needs to be part of the ordinance. They agreed that the statutes would be referenced at the end of the chapter. These are from the packet of September 15. She does not know if it needs to be in the ordinance or if it can be added at the end because it was for the purpose of being able to research the changes. Originally the document that came from staff listed the actual chapter and verse, but the Charter Commission has always shied away from putting the actual chapter and verse in, in case it changes. It just says, state statute. Ms. Skogen said she did not include the references to state statute because they were referring to state law and not specific statutes. She did not want to include it in the ordinance, but it would be included as an attachment for reference in the Charter when this chapter is prepared so it can be changed should state law be changed. She thought that was the best way to handle it but if attorney Erickson thinks that should be different. Ms. Peterson said the Commissioners actually asked that it not be provided as part of the ordinance so it would be timeless and that you would not have to come back and change a chapter. Ms. Reynolds asked whether that was at the November meeting because she does not have those minutes yet. In the October meeting it was not there. Ms. Skogen said she was not sure. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 18 Mayor Lund stated staff should prepare a response to the questions. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it can be accepted into the record at the next meeting. Mayor Lund asked when the next Charter Commission meeting was. Ms. Skogen replied January 2nd. Mr. Wysopal stated he wanted to point out as well that the entire ordinance as it was proposed was available on November 13th. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the City Council received the recommendation on November 13th when they adopted the resolution to schedule the meeting. Mr. Wysopal said the entire ordinance was published in full in the City’s official newspaper as required by state law. Mayor Lund asked if the Council wants to entertain a motion to close the public hearing with the knowledge that Ms. Reynolds has brought a number of questions where answers would be given to her in writing, or continue the hearing to the next meeting? Councilmember Bolkcom stated they just have not done continued the hearing in the past. Ms. Skogen believed the only requirement is the publication of the public notice. If they were to continue the public hearing, that would still allow them to continue that process and hold the first reading at another time. Mayor Lund stated he did not know if they have any deadline to meet other than Ms. Peterson indicated that staff wanted to bring some other policy things up in January. That can still occur in January. Ms. Peterson stated they do have one policy that needs to come to the first Council meeting per the City’s auditors’ request. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it would not really matter either way because the first reading is at their first Council meeting in January with a second reading at a following meeting. There has been a lot of discussion on the Charter Commission level. Why not just continue it, they will get the answers back to everyone, and it can be read into the record at the next meeting. Mr. Wysopal asked a question to Ms. Skogen and Ms. Peterson, if they provided a substantiation for the changes that were being made during the presentation. Did the things they identified in their substantiation address many of the questions Ms. Reynolds has? Ms. Peterson replied, she was willing to answer Ms. Reynolds’ questions tonight because they were all questions brought up during the Charter Commission’s meetings. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 19 Councilmember Saefke stated he is okay if she is prepared. Councilmember Bolkcom stated no matter what you read there is always some interpretation. But to say the public wants certain things, she thinks they are getting that. They have a Charter Commission that has the discussion and goes through all this and brings it back to the City for the opportunity to have a public hearing. People can watch this meeting and read the minutes from here to understand what transpired. They can read the Charter Commission minutes. Anyone who might have questions why something has changed. Ms. Skogen stated it is important to remember the Charter was adopted in 1957. There were several changes that have been made throughout the years. Most of the time it was dealing with the changes to state law. When preparing the budget, they found the Charter does not match what they should be doing. That is why these recommended changes came forward. Mr. Wysopal stated it is perfectly fine for them to address the questions tonight. He asked when the Charter Commission began working on Chapter 7. Ms. Skogen replied two years ago when they started talking about the tax levy. Staff brought those changes earlier this year. They continued the discussion on modifying and updating the language because of the problems they faced in that the charter did not necessarily meet the guidelines. Staff did a lot of research to find out what other cities were doing, what the League required, what was required for state and federal generally-accepted accounting practices. Mr. Wysopal stated it was early in the budget process that all of the inconsistencies with state statute and general accounting practices were brought to the attention of the Charter Commission, correct? Ms. Skogen replied that is correct. Mr. Wysopal asked if it was the Charter Commission who chose to deal with the levy issue first and then defer, because of the time commitment it took to address all the items in Chapter 7. He asked if all of the meetings were public, if the public was notified on the website, and if the Charter Commission was meeting to have these discussions? Ms. Skogen replied that is correct. If anybody wanted to review any of that information it is available on the website as well as in the City’s document center. All of the information is available to the public. Mr. Wysopal stated it would be perfectly fine to have staff answer as many questions as they can tonight. It is also important to note, as they have told the public, that this is a process that has been going on for over two years. He said the continued reference that the Charter can do things more restrictively than state statute may be correct except for certain circumstances when it is told that it has to done a certain way. For that he would like to have attorney Erickson provide a reference because many of the questions Ms. Reynolds was raising were in this context that the Charter can be more restrictive. His first response is they are reacting to what the Charter Commission asked them to do as a City Council. If that is what the Charter Commission FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 20 is asking them to do, then they should take a look at that. As far as being more restrictive, it is the legality that needs to be addressed as well. Attorney Erickson said what Mr. Wysopal pointed out is correct. There are instances where a charter may be more restrictive than state law, but the charter is always subject to state law. To the extent that the City has a charter and is operating under it, it always has to frame its charter to be consistent with and in harmony with state law. You cannot, if it is more restrictive, still do something that is illegal. To the extent the state has preempted an area, perhaps taxation or land use planning and the like, there is that type of preemption; and the statutes require the City to do things and proceed in a certain manner, then the charter cannot conflict with that. That is important to keep in mind and keep this conversation in context with that caveat. Ms. Reynolds stated the Charter Commission, although they have been reviewing Chapter 7 for two years, did not work on this particular set of language for two years. This language was brought to them and they did not discuss these changes before them tonight. They were given to them in May. September was the first meeting where they discussed them. October they discussed a few more things. If you read the minutes, there is not a lot of input by the Charter Commission. By November they had voted to bring them to the City. They do not meet in June, July, August or December. They have May where they had a meeting to bring the City the language for the first section so they could increase levies. September, October, November – three months reviewing the language that had been brought forward by City staff. She went back in the minutes. She found nothing where the Charter Commission requested staff to bring them a rewritten document. State statute has no provision for staff to write the amendment. Mayor Lund stated he likes to think this is a partnership. Ms. Reynolds stated she is fine with a partnership, but does not want anybody to believe for one minute that the Charter Commission, and, yes, she is a member, came up with the idea. It came to them in a completed document and they were told to go through it. See if there is anything you do not like. Mayor Lund asked Ms. Reynolds if she was implying it was a railroaded job and you can take as much time as you wanted on this? Ms. Reynolds stated she is implying they did not spend two years working on it. Staff may have but the Charter Commission did not. Mayor Lund stated they are all aware the Charter Commission meets eight times a year and not all year long. He does not think if the Charter Commission was not ready to take a vote on these items they would have, but that is entirely their prerogative. He said if staff is ready to answer the questions Ms. Reynolds proposed, they can start with Section 1 under 7.02, she was concerned about moving the recycling fees. Ms. Peterson stated the staff was directed to prepare a memo identifying inconsistencies th between state law and the charter. That memo, dated May 8, was sent to the Charter Commission for their meeting on May 15th. She has a copy of that memo she can provide FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 21 Council. She knows it is also in the Commission records. That is when city staff was instructed to come back with draft on how they envisioned certain sections to look The Commissioners were directed to review the information and provide concerns or questions to staff over the course of the summer. Councilmember Bolkcom asked whether this was any different than any other amendments that have come forward; because of course both Ms. Skogen and Ms. Peterson have some background related to state statutes and they work every single day with them. So is it fair to say the Charter Commission would like to and want that help. As a City Council member the staff spends a long time on ordinances, and they look them over and ask questions. She depends upon staff and she does not feel at all anyone is telling them they have to do something. The information staff gathers for them is very beneficial for them. She asked if is this is any different than how they would handle some of the ordinances that would come before Council or changes in ordinances, etc. Ms. Skogen replied it was no different. Like Ms. Peterson said, she provided a memo showing what the inconsistencies were. The Charter Commissioner asked City staff to put together an ordinance in draft form to review the changes. Staff prepared a draft ordinance as well as a clean one so they could look at that and see how it would read as a final. And that was at the Charter Commission’s direction, not City staff’s direction. That is no different than any of the other amendments that have been proposed by the Charter Commission. Ms. Peterson stated the first question brought up, recycling, and why they were moving it from (a) to (b). The reason it was moved down into the other section, which falls in line with utility charges, it is not a tax that is applied to every resident of the City. Everyone is required through their garbage hauler she believed to pay for recycling whether they use it or not. The City has chosen to have a hauler provide that service to 12 multi-units or less. It is something charged to every residential customer who meets that criteria. It is similar to utility charges and, whether you use the water or not, there is still a fee you are required to pay. There is a base charge that is required no matter what. Ms. Peterson said Ms. Reynolds referenced Minn. Stat. §115 for recycling. She is not familiar with that statute but understands it references the county provide some aid for recycling or solid waste abatement. That anticipated future costs addition to that was more in regards to capital and infrastructure within the utility funds. A perfect example is the City has established some utility rates looking ten years out at the capital that is necessary to fund the utility funds. That was not incorporated specifically for recycling, that was more to become clear on how utility rates would be established. Ms. Peterson said Ms. Reynolds was correct in that staff did move out the detail from being something that was required regarding salaries and benefits and a lot of that has to do with HIPAA and privacy; however, the City is required by law to publish the top three paid employees, which has nothing to do with the budget process. That is a separate statute which the City needs to comply with. As far as salary detail and what is required here, that is all available; and the Commission did ask those questions in the meeting – well, how do you determine the salary budget – the City has very detailed documents that determine the salaries that it FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 22 establishes and provides in a formal document as a general salaries and wages figure. They consolidate it all. That was the reason it was simplified in the charter language. Ms. Peterson stated the next question, Section 7.06, in the enforcement of the budget, because they removed salaries from that section, could Wally just spend extra as he sees fit? What that means is it gives the City Manager the flexibility he needs in the budget. Rather than having salaries be pulled out separately, there are often times where the City may have a budget for professional services for a project. The utility meter change out project is an example where temporary staff was a lot less expensive than had the City contracted that project to be done. It allows the flexibility within the budget to determine, do I have a salary savings here, is it a better option to go with a consultant or doing things in-house. That was merely the reason they pulled that out to provide more discretion to the City Manager on the budget as a whole. Ms. Peterson stated in Section 7.10, removing this section on the City dictating when the county gives it the levy. The question was, “why can’t we just include it to be transparent to the taxpayers in the charter?” She is leaving that up to the Council as to what they feel needs to be included in here. In the other examples staff looked at and what they know about law, they just felt it was not necessary in this. She does not know if this charter is meant to be a tool to lay out exactly when tax settlements come in and how they come to the City, but it did not seem necessary for them to put something in there that the City really does not have any control over. It is the state statutes and the county’s requirements that the City follows. Ms. Peterson stated in Section 7.12, Funds to be Kept, why don’t they just leave those in there? A perfect example is the whole financial statement was revamped many years ago changing fund classifications, fund broad category types. It even changed the definition of fund balance for some of the funds. They are now fund equity. The proposed amendments is make the charter more consistent with other charters and to follow the state auditor’s recommended chart of accounts requirements and federal accounting principles, rather than listing them specifically. If a new fund type is required of us, this document becomes outdated. That is why staff just referenced the City’s accounting standards and state auditor requirements. Ms. Peterson stated Section 7.13 was removed. Receipts to go to the City Treasurer. What they were finding in other charters is this language was not included. It talks about all monies received from the county treasurer. Again it is something where the county will give the City the money based on the laws they need to follow, so staff recommended omitting that language. They had also wanted to follow state statutes and audit requirements with how they handle funds. They are required to designate a depository. They have to follow all these things under state law. It is similar to when they make a payment, the rules they need to follow this is when they receive payments. Therefore, they are recommending that section be removed. Ms. Peterson stated there was question on reporting, Section 7.14, which is now 7.11. She did not believe what was stricken had anything to do with the specific claim detail that is provided to Council. This is more general reporting of where the City’s cash, expenditures, and revenues are. Staff has made this at the discretion of the City Manager or at Council’s request. This is saying rather than the Council getting a report monthly, if they want a report the City Manager can provide it to them or, if he feels he would like to provide something to the Council to keep FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 23 them informed, it would be in the format staff or he feels is beneficial. The claims are still required to come to Council and that is required by state law. Ms. Peterson stated in Section 7.16 they removed the dead debt in the form and repayment of debt. If it is more restrictive, why is it not just left in there? The City has to follow the debt laws and so if a certain type of bond has a certain requirement for how it is to be paid, the City needs to follow the law of the bond. If you choose to leave that in there it may be superseded by law. The City’s bond counsel reviewed the changes and felt it was all encompassed in the state law regarding bonds. Ms. Peterson stated Section 7.17, which is now 7.13, whether the 90 percent is for the full year or just the first half? She would have to ask the bond counsel on the specifics regarding those tax anticipation notes as to what the definition of that 90 percent means. When she reads it, it almost looks as if it is total current taxes which would mean the first half of the year. It was brought up the City receives a tax settlement in January and April and actually do not receive the first half settlement until the end of June and then again in December. Ms. Peterson stated if bonds outside the debt limit is more restrictive, that is also something that falls within the bond statutes and the City’s bond advisor has reviewed this whole section. An example would be, if it is to be paid with utilities, it is outside the debt limits, which is a state debt limit established. Even if the City’s charter were more restrictive, she believed the City would follow state statute; but that would be something she can ask the City’s bond counsel if they like. Ms. Peterson stated the Commission had requested the list of state statutes be removed from the ordinance because they were too specific and they wanted to keep it a timeless document. They would be placed in the Charter in a manner that statute numbers could be changed if necessary. Mayor Lund asked if the amendment had to go back to the Charter Commission if they make any changes to this. The reason he asks is the one thing when they were talking about the 90 percent, he thought maybe there could be some other wording that might clarify that 90 percent, whether it is for the whole year or for that six months. He would think that is just some clarification or wordsmithing. He hates to drag on the process, the City got the recommendation from the majority of the commissioners on the Charter Commission, and he is a little bit reluctant to send it back to them just for a little bit of some clarification. Councilmember Bolkcom stated is not this information related to that one – what was recommended from the bond counsel? Does it make sense instead of saying, lets wordsmith it, find out what the actual verbiage is they are recommending and if this is it, it maybe just needs to be explained to them just like lots of other things when she first reads it. Mayor Lund agreed if they wanted clarification on the two issues, they could get that wordsmith from bond counsel and should it be incorporated. His question was, do they have to take this back to the Charter for their stamp of approval for any language change at all? FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 24 Ms. Skogen replied, at this time she would have to look at the statute. She is not sure if they would but she can certainly find out. Councilmember Bolkcom stated that is the case in the past. If they are recommending this that is in front of them and, they wanted to change it, it had to go back to them. That is how she remembers it. Councilmember Bolkcom stated going back to the whole thing about being more restrictive, she referred back to Attorney Erickson’s comment where the City can put anything they want to think it is really restrictive but, if it is against state law or statute, it does not fly. Is that fair to say? Attorney Erickson replied, if it conflicts with state law it is ineffective. As to the bonding purposes, counsel would have to address that; but as a general matter the City cannot contradict state law or the constitution. It just results in the provision being ineffective. Mayor Lund stated quite frankly he has seen this on a number of occasions when issues have arisen that they have not been really sure at times, okay, which one takes precedence or whatever. They are reading in the Charter one thing, State law says a different way, when it came to voting and what is counted and what is not. It seems there have been issues in the past that have arisen. It has been kind of conflicting or confusing to say the least. Mayor Lund stated he is more apt to approve the ordinance the way it is written because it has seen quite a bit of review. It is not as long as some might have suggested. He does not think there was any push from the Charter Commission. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it is a public hearing tonight so the first reading does not come before them until the next meeting. If there are questions related to some of those issues, they can go back to bond counsel and ask if that is where the verbiage is coming from. Ms. Peterson stated when the City’s bond counsel reviewed that section of the Charter amendment, the section the Commission wanted to leave in giving the Council the authority to go to a vote if they choose to, that certain bonds do not allow that. That would be a perfect example of where law would supercede, and you may not have a choice in the matter and you may not be able to bring a bond no matter what to vote, depending on what that bond is. They should always seek counsel when the City borrows. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to close the public hearing. Seconded by Councilmember Varichak. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it seems staff has answered the questions that were brought forward by the public and any questions Council had. She thought they should continue the public hearing but she does not feel the need for it at this point. They have had a lot of great discussion. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 25 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:53 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: 9. Resolution Receiving Report and Calling a Hearing on Improvements for West Moore Lake Drive Trail and Street Resurfacing Project No. 2017-21. James Kosluchar , Public Works Director, stated each year the City provides major rehabilitation of selected streets in a planned neighborhood according to a pavement management plan. This project is part of the City’s 2018 street program. It is on West Moore thst Lake Drive from 57 Avenue to 61 Avenue. On August 22, 2016, the Council authorized the initiation of this project. This project was combined with improvements that would establish a thst shared-use path along West Moore Lake Drive from 57 to 61 Avenues, along with on-road st bicycle lanes from 61 Avenue to Highway 65. These are both in accordance with the Active Transportation Plan. Mr. Kosluchar stated funding for these project elements, the multi-modal elements, is through a federal allocation and a local match based on an application made in 2015 by staff. Resurfacing for this particular street segment was originally scheduled with the neighborhood to the west in 2022. Because of the trail project, staff found that combining these two projects allows savings both to the City and the benefitting properties and their special assessments. In the report, the City identifies estimated savings of $750 per residential property by combining these projects. Mr. Kosluchar presented a map showing the City’s street resurfacing long-range plan from 2018 on. Staff has developed a feasibility report that has evaluated streets in the area and considered conditions, utility improvements, and other typical elements that may be incorporated into the project. This is a little bit different because the real driver is another project that is pushing this segment ahead. Mr. Kosluchar stated the candidate streets for Council’s evaluation are West Moore Lake Drive, thst 57 to 61Avenues, an off-road shared use trail on West Moore Lake Drive on the same segment, and on-road bike lanes from the corner near Fridley Middle and Fridley High School to Highway 65. Mr. Kosluchar stated they had an open house on November 1, 2016, and had some preliminary information. Staff mailed 60 notices and had 18 attendees and some Council members present. They received a lot of comments. They had a second open house on February 6, 2017, and they mailed 60 notices for that and had 17 attendees and received more comments that he will summarize later. In addition, staff has met with several individuals, some in support of the trail, some not in favor. Staff was on site at Night to Unite and went out and provided additional information and updates regarding the project. They had an on-site meeting on August 24 and had a demonstration of some traffic common elements they may be able to incorporate into the project on-site. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 26 Mr. Kosluchar stated the resurfacing element of the project has been generally well-received. They do not really have too many concerns regarding that. They have a number of other concerns including the speed of vehicles and options to correct which they went through at the February 6 meeting and again with the demonstration in August. In the end, he does not think they got the sense from the public they prefer not to have these physical elements guide speed. Maintenance of the trail is a concern still with the residents who live along the route. Potential change in the character of the neighborhood with the trail, and then parking changes obviously driven by both the trail and bike lanes are the bigger issues remaining. Mr. Kosluchar stated while taking this feedback into account, they reviewed the proposed design. They evaluated it and determined that safety, visibility, and constructability were better on the west side of the roadway. The feasibility report outlines this project with the west side alignment. They have done a lot of work to retool the design, retool staff’s estimates, etc., and make a recommendation. They still find the project is cost-effective, necessary, and feasible. Mr. Kosluchar stated if Council concurs, the next step is to call for a public hearing. If this is approved staff, will notify the affected owners by mail and will notify the owners along both legs of the work. He thought the City would want to have their input and he is certain the Council will want to hear from them. The City will advertise that for January 22, 2018. MOTION by Councilmember Saefke to adopt Resolution No. 2017-75. Seconded by Councilmember Bolkcom. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Approve Agreement for Professional Services for Locke Park Filtration Plant Improvement Project 17-509. James Kosluchar, Public Works Director,stated the City has a project coming up on the City’s Locke Park filtration plant which was originally constructed in 1969. The last major rehabilitation was done in 1993. The plant has two water supply wells located in its proximity. The City also has two large filter tanks and process equipment and is currently experiencing ongoing operational deficiencies with one of the two filter tanks inoperable and filter backwash water that is still discharged to the sanitary and storm sewer. They have talked about this backwash project for quite some time. On its own initially, it was kind of a wash cost-wise. As sewer rates have gone up though it is actually kind of a benefit to the City for the long run. Mr. Kosluchar said the timing has probably been long overdue for this project to initiate. They were especially sensitive to what may happen with the Locke Park Pointe development, and how any kind of footprint of any addition or additional facilities would impact the development. They wanted to be careful about that and they want to make sure that was underway. Mr. Kosluchar stated the scope of the work includes the new backwash reclaimed basin, rehabilitating the existing filters, reconfiguring some affluent piping for treatment and sampling, FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 27 and building modifications, upgrades for Code, possibly some exterior finishes on the building depending on how important a complimentary finish is. Mr. Kosluchar stated the City went out for proposals for three phases of engineering services. They were reviewed by a team comprised of utility and engineering staff and scored in two parts for the project, (1) approach, and then (2) compensation Mr. Kosluchar stated staff scored them independently. They had a pretty consistent cost of services. They had two very strong proposals in the approach and so they were basically tied. Staff is recommending Short-Elliott-Hendrickson for the contract. They were a little bit lower in cost. The City also has a very long history with them, good familiarity with their staff, and thinks they will do a good job. The project is funded under the water utility CIP and the CIP bonds that were issued. The proposal is a not to exceed $222,590. They do have controls over how the work flows. They also have controls particularly on the construction administration, so that is a not to exceed and full service proposal. They would expect to come in under that using the City’s own staff and supplementing the consultant’s staff. Mr. Kosluchar stated staff is recommending Council move to approve and enter into the agreement for professional services for Locke Park Filtration Plant Project 17-509 with Short- Elliott-Hendrickson in the amount not to exceed $222,590. MOTION by Councilmember Barnette to approve the Agreement for Professional Services for Locke Park Filtration Plant Improvement Project 17-509. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Approve a Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Fridley and Coon Creek Watershed District for the Implementation of a Springbrook Creek Weir Filter Retrofit Project. James Kosluchar , Public Works Director,stated in April 2016 the Coon Creek Watershed District issued its final water restoration and protection strategy report (WRAP or WRAPS) to the MPCA. The report developed a watershed-wide plan to meet total maximum daily loads, and Springbrook Creek is in the area covered by the WRAP. Mr. Kosluchar stated in performing the water quality analysis for the WRAP, it was noted that Springbrook Creek is near impaired for bacteria and chloride contamination as with many urban metro watersheds. Sources of the bacteria are mainly waterfall and pet waste. Coon Creek Watershed District staff recognized that the Springbrook Creek weir system provided an opportunity for an innovative treatment and they developed this on their own. They were noodling over how they might help solve the problem. Mr. Kosluchar stated the treatment will install a biochar or charcoal filter in the space between the now abandoned weir and the newer weir. Coon Creek Watershed District submitted a storm FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 28 water research grant application to the Met Council for this project and, again, this is a novel approach on a filter to address pollutants. Mr. Kosluchar presented a photo stating it is basically at the outflow of the Springbrook Nature Center. All the water that comes in flows out at this one point which is the weir. They can see the vinyl sheet pile weir that is kind of grayish in color and then the old rustier weir behind it. There is about a 1 ½ to 2 foot space in between there and it affords the opportunity for them to install a filter media in between the two weirs themselves. They are using something that has been abandoned and left in place. Mr. Kosluchar stated Met Council did award on their project in the amount of $53,500 which is 75 percent of the total project cost. Coon Creek Watershed District will provide the 25 percent local match. The funding is for construction, water quality and monitoring, and interpretive signage. Mr. Kosluchar stated the Joint Powers Agreement establishes the roles and responsibilities for construction and two years of monitoring. Basically Coon Creek Watershed District will be responsible for all the costs, and the City of Fridley will provide the site and locations for information and outreach. After the pilot testing period, long-term maintenance needs will be determined if the filter system is a success. Mr. Kosluchar stated they are recommending the Council move to approve the attached Joint Powers Agreement with the Coon Creek Watershed District for implementation of this retrofit project. If approved staff will work with Coon Creek Watershed District to prepare for the project. The project will be completed this winter and get in place for spring monitoring. When completed staff will report results to the Council. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 141, the last sentence has the word, “tink”. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 144 at the top it states, “the City is responsible for any additional costs outside the project scope”. She asked whether the City anticipated any costs. If so, does he have any idea how much that would cost and how would the City pay for it? Mr. Kosluchar replied, in 2016 there was a storm that had water going over the weir. There may need to be some repairs made to the weir. That would be paid out of the storm water budget. Knowing that the City was actually going to perform some of those repairs this summer, and knowing that they were going to install this filter media in between the two weirs, actually may avoid the City having to do anything with the weirs. If the City does, it would actually be something that was done for maintenance. Councilmember Bolkcom stated under No. 5, in Operation and Maintenance, it says, when it is all said and done, the City will own all the improvements comprising the project. What happens if this does not work? Would the City leave it in or take it out? Mr. Kosluchar replied, the agreement could be a little more clear about the abandonment portion of it; but there are funds available for removal if it fails and any equipment needs to be FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 29 removed. He knows that there is some piping that would need to be plugged or sealed off. That is part of the project that Coon Creek has presented to the City. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if it does work, can the City go back to some of the other cities that bring their water down to Fridley. Mr. Kosluchar replied that is a fantastic thought because it is a watershed issue. The City has Springbrook and that is Fridley’s first property in this whole watershed line. He cannot imagine there are a lot of pollutants, obviously there are geese and waterfowl etc., but with the contributions from the great area, so they would need to have a discussion with Coon Creek Watershed District about how this gets maintained in the future. He said there is no obligation for the City to maintain it after that. Councilmember Bolkcom stated the Watershed has the opportunity for taxing the authority to maintain a project. Do they also continue to maintain it and have the funds to do that? Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes they do. As a matter of fact they have ponds they do maintenance on. They are maintaining conveyances constantly. They are inspecting ditches. While their staff is minimal, they do very well with what they have; and they do have some components that they have to maintain. Mayor Lund said the charcoal filters are going to have to be backwashed or removed. Assuming they are going to be successful in collecting contaminants. He asked what happened to the backwash. Mr. Kosluchar said they will not have to be backwashed automatically. There will be some filtration ahead. It is not going to treat the main stream of water so peak flows are not going to flow through there, but it is going to be a steady slow stream. At some point, the filter media will have to be replenished. It is probably not going to be through a backwashing process. It would probably be replaced. Mayor Lund asked how it would handle all the water roaring through there in the spring. Mr. Kosluchar said it is good to learn how the TMDL’s work. What happens is the MPCA designates a water body as impaired. For instance, the upper Mississippi here is impaired for chloroform so the upstream waters now have to look at chloroform. Basically what you do to achieve the regulation is you are dictated a certain removal. How you accomplish that removal is really up to the local watersheds and the local units of government to do and pay for. If they are able to take, let’s say, a steady stayed stream and that works best for operation and maintenance; and they can remove, for example, 20 percent of the chloroform that needs to be removed from the Springbrook Creek perhaps the upstream partners will may be do some things as well, maybe can do some things downstream; but you get credit more or less for that 20 percent. The whole idea of strategizing with TMDL’s is trying to maximum your investment and do the best you can. The pilot test will tell them where that number lies. What kind of treatment they can get for what kind of dollars. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 30 Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a duck poops in the water and it is shallow water and it stays there longer, is there more bacteria growth than if the duck poops in the water and there is a big rainfall where it just swooshes through. Is there less bacteria growth if it is not sitting there stagnant? Mr. Kosluchar replied yes. Another issue with big flows is if you get washing out of areas that do not ordinarily get washed out. Maybe a dog park where you get a heavy rain, and that is an example where a place can be buried by flow and event. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom to approve a Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Fridley and Coon Creek Watershed District for the Implementation of a Springbrook Creek Weir Filter Retrofit Project. Seconded by Councilmember Barnette. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Resolution to Approve an Agreement with MnDOT to Provide for a Delegated Contract Process. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 61, under Section 2.2.1, about halfway down, it states the local government will provide a qualified full-time public employee. That means if the City hires a consultant, then it has to have a full-time employee. She asked if that was an issue. James Kosluchar, Public Works Director,replied,that is alluding to having a City staff person in charge of this project ultimately and in charge of oversight. Basically they want somebody in- house. It does not necessarily need to be an engineer. You would have to have a licensed contracted professional engineer. You could also sign it, for instance, if Mr. Wysopal chose to manage these projects he could be the person in charge of these projects. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 62, under pre-letting, Section 2.3.1, and asked if they ever solicit bids before talking to them. Mr. Kosluchar replied, yes, they get full approval of the City’s documents, MnDOT and the City staff works together and they go through all the contract documents with a fine-tooth comb. With the federal projects, they probably do twice as much work on the specs as they would on an ordinance project. A lot of that is the federal language, it really does not have anything to do with the construction. Councilmember Bolkcom referred to page 63, Section 2.4.7, the local government will request approval from MnDOT for all costs in excess of federal funds previously approved for the project prior to incurring any cost. Again, that is something they would end up running against because the City always has to ask for approval beforehand? Mr. Kosluchar replied, typically the City’s projects do not have a floating cap. It is definite. This is the cap, this is the top. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 31 Councilmember Bolkcom stated she is just thinking about change orders. Mr. Kosluchar replied, in those cases change orders are the City’s obligation to pay basically. The City reaps the benefits of good bids. They have to match 20 percent at a minimum with these federal projects but, if the bids are good, everybody saves and if they go the other way that is at the City’s risks. Councilmember Bolkcom and the City is under no obligation if it were way above what they were giving the City? Mr. Kosluchar replied, the City can always reject bids and rebid a project if there was some reason for that. MOTION by Councilmember Bolkcom Adopting Resolution No. 2017-70. Seconded by Councilmember Saefke. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 13. Informal Status Report Mr. Wysopal stated there have been several questions regarding the bike trail on the East River Road side in the County park. Biking continues to increase in popularity and Mr. Kosluchar wanted to provide a little update on that. Mr. Kosluchar stated they did get some outreach from a business down in the new Northern Stacks who has been using the Anoka County trail on the west side of East River Road. According to Anoka County they have shut along the Minneapolis Water Works for winter maintenance. They are following up with Anoka County Parks on this. Staff is going to the construction meeting on the project. He does not want to promise an outcome, but they are going to see what the possibility is of maintaining the route during the construction in the winter season. Councilmember Bolkcom stated since they have shut it down, will there be no more work going on there the rest of the winter? Mr. Kosluchar replied, there is work going on and it is in close proximity to the trail. Because of that, he did not think Anoka County had equipment capable of plowing it because of barriers and things needed for the construction. Staff will talk to them. Councilmember Bolkcom asked of the barricades would be there all winter. Mr. Kosluchar replied he was not sure. Councilmember Bolkcom stated it could be quite the plowing nightmare. The Met Council and Anoka County are doing construction in that park that it will not be finished until next year. FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2017 PAGE 32 Mr. Kosluchar replied, they are working to the north of that, yes. They do not have a permanent trail surface yet to connect. Councilmember Bolkcom asked if a letter could be prepared and sent after the meeting. Mr. Kosluchar replied, certainly. Councilmember Bolkcom asked for an update on the Lucia Lane discussion. Mr. Wysopal said City staff, the Public Safety Director and the Community Development Director met with the representatives of the Islamic University about the traffic and parking problems in that area. There are traffic issues with the intensity of the use there and there is not enough parking off-street for all the activities that are taking place at the Islamic University. Mr. Wysopal stated the City has been working with the Islamic University. They have been very open to working with the City. They have complaints from the neighborhood that traffic is rather overwhelming and it is difficult to get out and onto Mississippi. Traffic is back up on the frontage road on Lucia Lane. The City has been meeting with them. They thought they had a couple of ideas that might work. As often happens, it was not a solution that everyone could agree with. Mr. Wysopal stated they are back to the drawing board to try and come up with some ideas. In the meantime the University is talking about hiring a police officer to come out and help with the traffic and parking control for a couple of hours on those Fridays when they experience the problems. Right now they do not have anything formal to report. Staff will keep everyone posted. ADJOURN: MOTION by Councilmember Barnette, seconded by Councilmember Varichak, to adjourn. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MAYOR LUND DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Denise M. Johnson Scott J. Lund Recording Secretary Mayor