Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 03-24 CCP Regular Session Public Copy AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 24, 2008 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2. Miscellaneous 1 Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4. Adjourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center March 24, 2008 AGENDA 1. Informal Open Forum With City Council 6:45 p.m. provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2. Invocation 7 p.m. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting -The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 4. Roll Call 5. Pledge of Allegiance 6. Council Report 7. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda —The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes 1. March 10, 2008 Study Session 2. March 10, 2008 Regular Session b. Licenses 8. Presentations Proclamations /Recognitions/Donations a. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Keith Stadt for his 28 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Brooklyn Center -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 24, 2008 b. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation o f Lyle Anderson for his 23 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Brooklyn Center -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. C. Resolution Recognizing Phil Cohen and Proclaiming March 27, 2008, as Phil Cohen Day in the City of Brooklyn Center -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 9. Public Hearings a. Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07 and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. 1. Resolution Ordering Improvements for Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07 and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements *Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 2. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2008 -05, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49 Avenue North) —This item was first read on February 25, 2008; published in the official newspaper on March 6, 2008; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. -Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. 0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 24, 2008 Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property C. An g q p rty and Execution of a Quit Claim Deed for Certain Land in the City —This item was first read on February 5 2008 published in the official newspaper ry >p p on March 6, 2008; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. d. An Ordinance Amending the Regulation of Inoperable and/or Junk Vehicles —This item was first read on February 25, 2008; published in the official newspaper on March 6, 2008; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. -Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. e. An Ordinance Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding a New Section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter —This item was first read on February 25, 2008; published in the official newspaper on March 6, 2008; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. -Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. 10. Planning Commission Items None 11. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Calling for the Creation of a Path Toward Lawful Permanent Resident Status for Liberians Currently Protected by Temporary Protected Status and for the Extension of Temporary Protected Status Until Such a Permanent Solution is Enacted -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. b. Resolution Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07 and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4- March 24, 2008 C. Comprehensive Plan Update e p P -Requested Council Action: Motion to accept the Loucks Associates proposal to assist the City with the preparation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for consultant services. d. Resolution Adjusting the Salary of the City Manager -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 12. Adjournment i City Council Agenda Item No. 7a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 10, 2008 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmernbers Dan Ryan and Mark Yelich. Absent conducting official City business: Councilmembers Kay Lasman and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, and Carol Hamer, Timesaver Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Mr. Boganey stated Council has been provided with a handwritten note relating to the diseased tree removal cost under Agenda Item No. 9al. Mr. Xiong is objecting to the assessment on the basis that he did not own the home at the time the tree was taken down and was unaware of the removal or the assessment. Staff recommends continuing the public hearing for that particular property to allow staff to conduct research and provide a recommendation. There was discussion regarding EDA Agenda Item No. 4b, specifically in relation to the underground utilities. Mr. Blomstrom explained the design plans completed by the consultant did not include a large enough project area when the underground utilities were located. There were extra costs to the contractor that were not included in the bidding documents due to a portion of the utilities not being included in the design plans. As the engineering consulting firm had a responsibility to identify the utilities and show them on the plans, the firm agreed to pay a portion of the change order cost. Mr. Boganey commended Mr. Blomstrom for his negotiations with the contractor and bringing the consultant in to participate. He stated Mr. Blomstrom put forth a lot of effort and energy into making sure that the City did not wind up paying any more than was absolutely reasonable, and making sure they were fair to the contractor as well. There was discussion regarding agenda item 11 b, specifically in relation to whether there would be any advantages in not waiving the tort liability limits. MISCELLENEOUS Mr. Boganey stated it was decided to move several worksession items forward to a future meeting in order to have a full Council involved in the discussions. 03/10/08 -1- DRAFT Councilmember Yelich requested Mr. Boganey to inform the Park and Recreation Commission that he will not be present at the March 25, 2008, Commission meeting. There was discussion regarding the upcoming 57 and Logan Avenues informational meeting. The meeting will be posted as a City Council meeting. The City will host the meeting in partnership with the MPCA and Department of Health. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to close the Study Session at 6:35 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 03/10/08 -2- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 10, 2008 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Dan Ryan and Mark Yelich. Absent conducting official City business: Councilmembers Kay Lasman and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere; and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Mr. Ned Storla, 6536 Willow Lane N, addressed the Council and stated he would like to commend staff for their work on the Riverwood Street Reconstruction Project. Everything in the process went very well; staff was very reasonable and looked after the residents to ensure that it all went smoothly. Ms. Karen Jaeger, Maple Grove City Council Member and Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commissioner, addressed the Council and stated the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission undertakes many activities to improve and protect their water resources. Ms. Jaeger shared information regarding proper trash disposal to help in protecting the water resources and recited a proclamation the City is being requested to adopt declaring April 19th 26th, 2008 to be the Great Shingle Creek Watershed Clean -up Week, and reaffirming the City's commitment to protecting and preserving our water resources. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:53 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Councilmember Ryan requested a moment of silence and personal reflection as the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:00 p.m. 03/10/08 -1- DRAFT 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Dan Ryan and Mark Yelich. Absent conducting. official City business: Councilmembers Kay Lasman and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Secretarial, Inc. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Ryan reported on the upcoming Youth and Adult Partnership Summit on Saturday, March 15 at North Hennepin Community College. He stated this has grown out of a leadership summit held last August to help identify youth leaders, as well as issues in the community that concern their young people. The summit will be conducted with the participation of elected leaders in the legislature; local elected officials from Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, as well as various faith based nonprofit groups. A key element of the summit will be that youth will be encouraged to come forward and provide their input and leadership to help with identifying appropriate activities and programs that will help to engage youth in constructive activities. Councilmember Yelich reported on February 29 he read to children at Evergreen Elementary School in recognition of Dr. Suess' birthday and the Read Across America program. Mayor Willson reported he also read to students at Evergreen Elementary School on the same occasion, and Police Chief Bechthold was there as well. He also had the opportunity to talk to 6 graders at the Earle Brown Elementary School Career Day on Wednesday, March 5th 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved: 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 25, 2008 Study Session 2. February 25, 2008 Regular Session 3. February 25, 2008 Work Session 7b. LICENSES RENTAL 6913 Regent Ave N Thao Lai 5918 Xerxes Ave N Julius Timothy Coffman Jr. 6821 Noble Ave N Reuben Diane Ristrom 4700-0268 1h Ave N Kristina Michael Bowe Motion passed unanimously. 03/10/08 -2- DRAFT 8. PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATIONS /RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS Mayor Willson announced that Karen Jaeger, Maple Grove City Council Member and Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commissioner, has presented the City with a proclamation. Mayor Willson recited the proclamation declaring April 19 26 2008 to be the Great Shingle Creek Watershed Clean -up Week. The proclamation reaffirms the City's commitment to protecting and preserving our water resources and encourages residents, businesses and institutions to use the clean up week to help prevent water pollution and preserve our watersheds by participating in a clean -up event or by using this time to pick up trash and clean up our homes, neighborhoods, industry and community. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt a proclamation declaring April 19 26 2008 to be the Great Shingle Creek Watershed Clean-up Week in the City of Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PUBLIC HEARING 9a. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the special assessments for diseased tree removal costs, delinquent weed removal costs, and delinquent Public utility service accounts. Mr. Boganey advised staff recommends that Council open the Public Hearings concurrently so that any individual present with a pending or potential special assessment in any of these three areas will be able to speak to the City Council. Once the Public Hearing is closed each of the resolutions can be considered individually. If Council considers an objection to be appropriate, staff recommends removing the assessment for consideration at a later date following staff review. Mr. Boganey reviewed the options available to assessed individuals in terms of how payments can be made. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Julie and Mr. Justin Dargis, 6006 Emerson Avenue N, addressed the Council and stated their concern regarding the assessment on their property. Ms. Dargis s tated their position that the property was a foreclosed home they purchased. They have made many improvements that were needed in order to make the home habitable, including improvements to the yard. There are empty homes next to and behind their property. They are trying to improve the neighborhood and have complied with everything requested by the inspector. They are asking that their assessment be waived. The majority consensus of the City Council was to defer the special assessment and continue the Public Hearing on the property at 6006 Emerson Ave N, with staff to research the specifics on the assessment and report back to Council. It was noted that the intent of this assessment policy is not to generate funds or punish anyone; it is simply to encourage compliance with the City's ordinances. 03/10/08 -3- DRAFT Mr. Boganey noted for the record that Council has been provided with a written objection from Mr. Xiong, property owner at 5405 Penn Ave N, regarding his assessment for diseased tree removal costs. The majority consensus of the City Council was to defer the special assessment and continue the Public Hearing on the property at 5405 Penn Ave N, with staff to research the specifics on the assessment and report back to Council Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -26 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -26 Certifying Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, with the property at 5404 Penn Ave N removed from the assessment roll to a continued Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -27 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUITON NO. 2008 -27 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, with the property at 6006 Emerson Ave N removed from the assessment roll to a continued Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -28 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -28 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None. 03/10/08 -4- DRAFT 11. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS Ila. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -29 AMENDING CITY COUNCIL CODE OF POLICIES SECTION 2.30: POLICY FOR PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNT COLLECTIONS Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -29 Amending City Council Code of Policies Section 2.30: Policy for Public Utility Account Collections. It was noted that the purpose of this resolution is to fairly distribute the City's costs to maintain existing utility service. Motion passed unanimously. llb. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -30 OPTING NOT TO WAIVE LIMITED TORT LIABLITY FOR 2008 Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -30 Opting Not to Waive Limited Tort Liability for 2008. Motion passed unanimously. IIc. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -31 ADOPTING REVISED WATER EMERGENCY AND CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Mr. Boganey introduced the item. Mr. Blomstrom discussed the history and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. He provided a brief overview of the revised Water Emergency and Conservation Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center. There was discussion on the emergency interconnection between the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -31 Adopting Revised Water Emergency and Conservation Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. Ild. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -32 ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2008 -12, 2008 STREET SEAL COATING 03/10/08 -5- DRAFT Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -32 Accepting Bid and Authorizing Award of Contract, Improvement Project No. 2008 -12, 2008 Street Seal Coating. It was noted that it is encouraging to have the administration of the City participate in joint bidding operations that yield more competitive bids and save the City money. Motion passed unanimously. Ile. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -33 AMENDING THE 2008 CENTRAL GARAGE BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE EARLY ORDER/PURCHASE OF MOWER UNIT NO. 220 Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -33 Amending the 2008 Central Garage Budget to Provide for the Early Order/Purchase of Mower Unit No. 220. Motion passed unanimously. llf. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -34 APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES (LELS) LOCAL 82 (POLICE OFFICERS) AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR 2008 INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed g Y resolution. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION. NO. 2008 -34 Approving Memorandum of Understanding for the Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Local 82 (Police Officers) and the City of Brooklyn Center for 2008 Insurance Contribution. Motion passed unanimously. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 7:43 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 03/10/08 -6- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 7b COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk DATE: March 17, 2008 .Ime SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the following list of licenses at its March 24, 2008, meeting. Background: The following businesses /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each business /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Applicants for rental dwelling licenses are in compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances, unless comments are noted below the property address on the attached rental report. MECHANICAL AirCorps LLC 3700 Annapolis Lane N, Plymouth Air Mechanical, Inc. 16411 Aberdeen St, Ham Lake Allan Mechanical, Inc. 7875 Fuller Road, Eden Prairie Associated Mechanical Const. 1257 Marschall Road, Shakopee Assured Htg AC Refrig. 334 Dean Ave E, Champlin Centraire Htg A/C 7402 Washington Ave, Eden Prairie Corporate Mechanical 5114 Hillsboro Ave N, New Hope Custom Refrigeration, Inc. 664 Mendelssohn Ave N, Golden Valley Dave's Heating, A/C Elec. 1601 37th Ave NE, Columbia Heights DJ's Companies Inc. 6060 LaBeaux Ave NE, Albertville Faircon Service Company 2560 Kasota Ave, St. Paul Gilbert Mechanical Const. 4451 West 76th Street, Edina Golden Valley Heating Air 5182 W Broadway, Crystal Harris Companies 909 Montreal Circle, St. Paul Home Energy Center 2415 Annapolis Land North, Plymouth Joel Smith Heating A/C 4920 173rd Ave, Ham Lake LBP Mechanical, Inc. 315 Royalston Ave N, Minneapolis Marsh Heating Air 6248 Lakeland Ave N, Brooklyn Park McDowall Company P.O. Box 1244, St. Cloud M &D Plumbing Heating 11050 26th Street NE, St. Michael Metropolitan Mechanical 7340 Washington Ave So, Eden Prairie New Mech Co. Inc. 1633 Eustis Street, St. Paul Riccar Heating A/C 2387 Station Parkway, Andover Page 2 Licenses for Council Approval March 24, 2008 MECHANICAL CONTINUED Ron's Mechanical, Inc. 12010 Old Brick Yard Road, Shakopee Royalton Heating Cooling 4120 85th Ave N, Brooklyn Park Sedgwick Heating A/C 8910 Wentworth Ave So, Minneapolis Southtown Refrigeration 6325 Sandburg Rd, Golden Valley Standard Heating 410 West Lake Street, Minneapolis Thermex Corporation 3529 Raleigh Ave So, Minneapolis Wenzel Heating Air Cond. 4131 Old Sibley Memorial Hwy, Eagan RENTAL See attached report. SIGNHANGER Crosstown Sign 16307 Aberdeen St NE, Ham Lake Lawrence Sign 945 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul LeRoy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Ave N, Brooklyn Park Spectrum Sign Systems, Inc. 2025 Gateway Circle, Centerville Topline Advertising 11775 Justen Circle, Maple Grove iI A al on March 2008 24 Rental Licenses for Counc pp Inspector Clerk Clerk:.Clerk 'Pollce� �Utiliies Assessin p �f�.: I 4 uw,eu�ng Kenewi unpaia unpa�n g Rroperty Address Type or Initial Owner Calls for Service Utilities Taxes 5313 70th Cir N ISingle Family I Initial (Solomon 0. Jolaoso (None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 5913 Admiral Ln ISingle Family I Initial IRosita Acosta Realworld Dev. I2 -dist peace per 12 -911 OK OK 5927 Aldrich Ave N ISingle Family I Initial (James Maria Carlson (None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 5500 James Ave N ISingle Family I Initial (Leah Dunn (None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 7219 June Ave N Single Family Initial Christian Restoration Services None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 15540 Logan Ave N ISingle Family I Initial (Jeremy Summer Post None per 12 -911 ordinance OK I OK Basswood Apts 4450 58th 1 Bldg Ave N 11 Units Renewal James Lupient None per 12 -913 Ordinance OK OK Beard Ave Apts 6101 Beard 1 Bldg 1- weapons, 5 dist peace,3 thefts, 1 Ave N 24 Units Renewal Beard Ave Apts burglary per 12 -913 (.42) OK OK 1 Bldg 4819 Azelia Ave N 12 Units Renewal Penelope Brown 1 -dist peace per 12 -913 (.08) OK OK 1 Bldg 4100 Lakebreeze Ave 4 Units Renewal Bruce Waage None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 6835 Noble Ave N (Two Family (1) I Renewal Robert Berglund None per 12 -911 ordinance I OK OK 2926 53rd Ave N ISingle Family I Renewal (Nita Morlock (None per 12 -911 ordinance I OK I OK 4907 65th Ave N Single Family Renewal William Bjerke None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 3819 France PI Single Family Renewal Robert E. Lindahl None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 6012 Halifax Ave N Single Family Renewal Kris Knosalla 1 dist peace per 12 -911 ordinace OK OK Szu S James Ave N Weather deferral through May 31, 2008 for exterior paint and rain gutters Single Family Renewal Jay Braegelmann 2 dist peace per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 4207 Lakeside Ave #134 Single Family Renewal William Linda Bjerk None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 6206 Noble Ave N Single Family Renewal Edward Roe None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 6813 Noble Ave N Two Family (1) Renewal David Zemke None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 3206 Thurber Rd Single Family Renewal Mains'( Properties None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK 6854 West River Rd Single Family Renewal David Wagtskjold None per 12 -911 ordinance OK OK City Council Agenda Item No. 8a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works VOP DATE: March 13, 2008 SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Keith Stadt for his 28 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Brooklyn Center Recommendation Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider adoption of the attached resolution expressing recognition and appreciation of Keith Stadt for his 28 years of dedicated service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Background: Keith Stadt began his employment with the Brooklyn Center Public Works Department in October 15, 1979. He retired on February 29, 2008 after more than 28 years of dedicated service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Keith was an outstanding employee in terms of his dedication and reliability while serving as a mechanic and a crew leader in the Central Garage Division. He earned the respect of many employees throughout the City by his consistent professionalism and his sense of stewardship for the City's vehicle fleet. Staff wishes him many years of enjoyable retirement. Budget Issues: None Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF KEITH STADT FOR HIS 28 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Keith Stadt has been an employee of the City of Brooklyn Center since October 15, 1979 and retired on February 29, 2008 after more than twenty -eight years of dedicated public service to the City of Brooklyn Center and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Keith Stadt has consistently provided the City of Brooklyn Center and its residents with dedicated public service during his tenure working in the capacities of Mechanic and Crew Leader for the Public Works Central Garage Division; and WHEREAS, Keith Stadt was instrumental in numerous public works functions, including: maintaining a reliable vehicle fleet, coordinating vehicle maintenance and repairs for all City departments, police vehicle outfitting, snow and ice control, and participation in the Public Works Safety Committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to recognize the professionalism with which Keith Stadt has discharged his duties and made a positive impact on the community of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, upon the recommendation of the City Manager, that the dedicated public service of Keith Stadt is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. March 24, 2008 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 8b COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works DATE: March 13, 2008 SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Lyle Anderson for his 23 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Brooklyn Center Recommendation: Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider adoption of the attached resolution expressing recognition and appreciation of Lyle Anderson for his 23 years of dedicated service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Background: Lyle Anderson has been an employee of the Brooklyn Center Public Works Department since January 2, 1985. He will retire on April 4, 2008 after more than 23 years of dedicated service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Lyle has been a valuable member of the Central Garage staff while serving as a night service person and mechanic. Throughout his time with the City, Lyle repaired and maintained city vehicles during 2 °a shift (2:00 pm to 10:30pm). This work schedule allows City vehicles to be available for use during normal business hours. Over the past year, Lyle has shown courage and bravery while facing an illness that has resulted in his decision to retire. He has been a role -model for other employees by showing initiative and taking pride in his work. Staff wishes him many years of enjoyable retirement. Budget Issues: None Lyle Anderson Retirement Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF LYLE ANDERSON FOR HIS 23 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO'THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Lyle Anderson has been an employee of the City of Brooklyn Center since January 2, 1985 and will retire on April 4, 2008 after more than twenty -three years of dedicated public service to the City of Brooklyn Center and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Lyle Anderson has consistently provided the City of Brooklyn Center and its residents with dedicated public service during his tenure working in the capacities of Mechanic and Night Service Person for the Public Works Central Garage Division; and WHEREAS, Lyle Anderson was instrumental in numerous public works functions, including: vehicle and equipment maintenance, central garage operations, and snow and ice control operations; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to recognize the professionalism with which Lyle Anderson has discharged his duties and made a positive impact on the community of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, upon the recommendation of the City Manager, that the dedicated public service of Lyle Anderson is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. March 24. 2008 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared dulypassed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 8c COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City ClerkY�U� DATE: March 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Resolution Recognizing Phil Cohen and Proclaiming March 27, 2008, as Phil Cohen Day in the City of Brooklyn Center Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution Recognizing Phil Cohen and Proclaiming March 27, 2008, as Phil Cohen Day in the City of Brooklyn Center. Background: At the recommendation of Mayor Willson, a recognition resolution has been drafted in honor of Phil Cohen's dedicated public service to the community of Brooklyn Center. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING PHIL COHEN AND PROCLAIMING MARCH 27, 2008, AS PHIL COHEN DAY IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Phil Cohen has resided in Brooklyn Center for over 50 years, having purchased his first home in 1950; and WHEREAS, he has held several elective offices, including School Board Member for Brooklyn Center District No. 286 1960 -1963, Village Trustee 1963 -1965, six terms as Mayor 1966 -1977, and two City Councilmember appointments 1989 -1992; and WHEREAS, Phil Cohen has served in public office as a member of the Hennepin County School Survey Committee 1961 -1967, Suburban Rate Authority —1963- 1965, Brooklyn Center Library Committee —1965, North Suburban Water Conservation Commission -1965 -1967, Hennepin County League of Municipalities —1965 -1967, League of Minnesota Cities —1966 -1973, Metro Council Housing Advisory Committee 1972 -1974, Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority -1973 -1977, Metro HRA Advisory Commission —1975 -1978 and 1980 1981, and Metro Council Chairman's Local Officials Advisory Commission -1975 -1978 and 1980- 1982; and WHEREAS, his devotion to the tasks and responsibilities of these offices and the leadership he provided contributed substantially to the sound progress and development of the City; and WHEREAS, Phil Cohen has played an active role in community organizations, which include the Brooklyn Center Council for Better Schools, Citizens for Better Government, Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce, Brooklyn Center Lions Club, Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth League, North Suburban Babe Ruth League, Minnesota State Babe Ruth League, Brooklyn Center Mayors Traffic Study Commission, Brooklyn Center Rotary Club, Brooklyn Center School District No. 286 Futures Committee, Northwest YMCA, Brooklyn Center Elderly Housing Alternative (Brookwood) Task Force Project Development Committee, Earle Brown Days Committee, Brooklyn Center Charitable Foundation, Brooklyn Center Taxpayers Association, Brooklyn Center Millennium Committee, Brooklyn Center Special Events Committee, and Brooklyn Center Business Association; and WHEREAS, Phil Cohen has been the recipient of many significant awards and honors, including Brooklyn Center Outstanding Young Man Award presented by the Brooklyn Center Jaycees —1963, One of 10 Outstanding Young Men in Minnesota presented by the Minnesota Jaycees 1963, C.C. Ludwig Award for Outstanding Leadership in Municipal Government presented by the Minnesota League of Cities —1971, Superchicken Award presented by the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Department 1971, Brooklyn Center Hall of Fame presented by the Brooklyn Historical Society 1989, designation of Cohen Field presented by City Council Resolution 1998, designation of Cohen Room presented by City Council Resolution 2002, and Community Service Award presented by Brooklyn Center Special Events Committee 2004; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, his dedicated public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Thursday, March 27, 2008, be and hereby is declared to be Phil Cohen Day in the City of Brooklyn Center in recognition of and appreciation for his many efforts on behalf of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. i March 24, 2008 Date Mayor I I ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member p g g Y Y and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 9a F.0E COPY _R_7 I -.,-'FE Dr. Judy E. Fornara Pastor Joseph E Fornara Pastor March 20, 2008 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Ms. Knutson, I have received notice of proposed assessment. Please remove us from consideration as we are a church set up for purely public good and are not eligible for assessment, therefore we object to the assessment. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 763 -560 -7221. Sincerely, Mike Ludwig Accounting Office Spiritual Life Church 6865 Shingle Creek Parkway www.spirituallifeministry.com Tel: 763 -560 -7221 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 E- mail: slc @spirituallifeministry.com Fax: 763- 560 -8628 I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works DATE: March 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Public Hearings for Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Improvements: Resolution Ordering Improvements for Improvement, Project Nos. 2008 05, 06, 07 and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2008 -05, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Recommendation: Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council conduct the subject public hearings and consider approval of the attached resolutions ordering the Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements and certifying special assessments for the project to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Background: A series of two public hearings are scheduled on March 24, 2008. The first hearing is to consider ordering improvements for Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07, and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements. The second hearing is to consider certification of proposed special assessments for street improvements for Improvement Project No. 2008 -05. All potentially affected property owners have been notified by certified mail of the date of the public hearings and the amount of the proposed special assessments. Explanation of Improvements The proposed project includes roadway, storm drainage, and utility improvements for the Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive project corridor. The project was previously established by the City Council on September 10, 2007 by Resolution 2007 -121. On February 11, 2008 the City Council received the project feasibility report and called for public hearing for March 24, 2008 to consider these improvements. Xerxes Avenue and Northwa>> Drive Public Hearings The project feasibility report provides a description of the recommended improvements for the neighborhood and an estimated project budget. The proposed improvements can generally be described as follows. 1. Street Improvements: Recommended street reconstruction activities include the replacement of all curb and gutter along the central segment of Xerxes Avenue, 55` and 56` Avenues, and the western and central portion of Northway Drive. The existing curb is in fair to good condition along Xerxes Avenue south of 55` Avenue, the northern segment of Xerxes near Shingle Creek Parkway and the eastern most segment of Northway Drive. Spot repairs of the curb are proposed along these segments. Full depth pavement replacement is recommended for all portions of roadway within the project area. Proposed improvements include repairs to the existing sidewalk in the project area and construction of a new 10 -ft wide sidewalk along the east side of Xerxes Avenue between 55` Avenue and Bass Lake Road. 1 The installation of additional street lights and landscaping is also proposed along the south portion of Xerxes Avenue, but are not included in the proposed assessments. 2. Storm Drainage Improvements: Proposed storm water drainage improvements include replacement of storm sewer along the western section of Northway Drive and replacement of pipe segments near the intersection of Northway Drive and Bass Lake Road. Isolated sections of existing storm sewer along Xerxes Avenue were also identified for replacement due to cracked or deteriorated pipe conditions. Installation of new storm sewer is also proposed along the north side of 55` Avenue to address existing drainage issues. 3. Water Main Improvements: City crews excavated the existing water main at three locations to visually inspect the condition of the pipe, fittings and restraining bolts. The existing water main was generally found to be in good condition. The recommended water main improvements include replacement of the control valve for Brookdale Mall, relocation of two existing fire hydrants along the west segment of Northway Drive and replacement of approximately 200 feet of water main along the central segment of Northway Drive. 4. Sanitary' Sewer Main Improvements: The proposed sanitary sewer improvements include replacement of approximately 200 -ft of sanitary sewer along the north side of the Metro Transit site, a 110 -ft section of sanitary sewer along Xerxes Avenue south of 56` Avenue, and a service connection at 5601 Xerxes Avenue. Summary Explanation of Assessments Assuming the City Council orders the above described improvements, staff recommends that the City Council hold a second public hearing to consider certifying special assessments for these improvements to the Hennepin County tax rolls. Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Public Hearings The proposed special assessments for properties within the project area consist of a portion of the cost for street improvements in accordance with the City's Special Assessment Policy. Proposed special assessments were calculated on an area (acreage) basis. An "A" zone of benefit was determined that include the area of all properties abutting the street to be improved, extending to a depth of 200 feet or the property depth, whichever is less. A "B" zone of lesser benefit was established to identify those properties or portions of properties which do not abut the improved roadway, but which accrue benefit. The cost for proposed water main, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street light and landscape improvements are not proposed to be assessed to adjacent properties for this project. Public Comments A property owner may choose to object to a special assessment. If an owner files an objection with the Clerk prior to the public hearing, or should any person appear at the hearing and object to an assessment, staff recommends that the Council refer any substantive objections to staff for a report back to the Council at a continued hearing. An example might be an issue whereby staff would need to research the history of a particular complaint, and assemble documentation. The Council should consider removing the objection related assessment from the proposed levy roll and adopting the remaining proposed assessments. If an appeal for a specific property is actually filed with district court, the City Attorney will advise the Council of options for handling the dispute and potential litigation issues. Payment Options Available to Property Owners Once an assessment roll is adopted by the Council, the owner of each property has the following payment options: 1. Pay the entire amount of the special assessment, without interest, between March 26 and September 30, 2008. 2. From October 1, 2008 to the end of the business day on November 25, 2008, the property owner may pay the total assessment, with interest calculated from October 1, 2008 to the date of payment. 3. If payments are made with property taxes, the first payment will be due with taxes in 2009. The total principle will be payable in annual installments for the period stated on the levy roll. Interest is paid on the unpaid balance. Partial prepayments (such as paying half now and certifying the balance) are not allowed under current assessment policy. Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Public Hearings Recommended Council Procedure First Public Hearin to Order Improvements: Staff recommends that Council receive I S g ta P a staff presentation prior to holding the first public hearing. Following the presentation, a public hearing to consider ordering the Improvement Project should be conducted to receive public comments. Public comments concerning special assessments should be deferred to the second public hearing. A resolution ordering the improvements is provided for Council consideration upon closing of the first public hearing. Second Public Hearing for Special Assessments: After taking action on the first proposed resolution to order the project, it is recommended that the,Council then conduct a second public hearing on the proposed special assessments. Ttie attached resolution certifying special assessments for street improvements for Improvement Project No. 2008 -05 to the Hennepin County tax rolls is provided for Council consideration upon closing of the second public hearing. Budget Issues: The total estimated project cost is $3,151,000. The total amount of the proposed special assessment for the project is $797,723.99. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on February 11, 2008. Xerxes Avenue and Northwav Drive Public Hearings Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2008 -05, 06, 07, AND 08, XERXES AVENUE AND NORTHWAY DRIVE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on September 10, 2007 authorized consideration of street and utility improvements in the area generally described as "Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive more specifically described as follows: Xerxes Avenue North from State Trunk Highway 100 to Northway Drive (south segment); Xerxes Avenue North from Interstate Highway 94 to Shingle Creek Parkway (north segment); Northway Drive from County State Aid Highway 10 to Xerxes Avenue (west segment); Northway Drive from Xerxes Avenue to County State Aid Highway 10 (central segment); and Northway Drive from County State Aid Highway 10 to easterly terminus (east segment); and WHEREAS, the Council has previously received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on February 11, 2008 adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing was held on March 24, 2008, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the March 24, 2008 hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Infrastructure Construction Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments, or utility fees. The maximum amount of obligations expected to be issued for such project is $797,723.99. RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07, and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements, are hereby ordered. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 or any success law, regulation, or ruling. March 24, 2008 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2008 -05 XERXES AVENUE AND NORTHWAY DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy No. 17076; and WHEREAS, assessment rolls, copies of which are attached hereto and part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where street improvement costs are to be assessed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Such proposed assessments, Special Assessment Levy No. 17076 for street improvements, made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by Improvement Project 2008 -05 in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years as indicated on the assessment roll. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2009, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment at the rate of six (6.0) percent per annum from October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before September 30, 2008. After September 30, 2008, he or she may pay the total assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from October 1, 2008 through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close -of- business November 25, 2008, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If the owner wishes to pay off the balance at some point in the future, such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. March 24, 2008 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED PENDING ASSESSMENT ROLL 12/14/2007 XERXES AVENUE AND NORTHWAY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS 4 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2008 -05 PROPERTY ID ADDRESS LEVY STREET NOTES 0311821140034 1 3220 COUNTY ROAD NO 10 1 17076 1 $55,589.581 0311821140026 1 5825 XERXES AVENUE N 1 17076 1 $32,444.561 0311821140024 1 5801 XERXES AVENUE N 1 17076 $64,628.651 0211821230015 1 2802 NORTHWAY DRIVE 1 17076 $122,557.901 0311821140030 1 2950 COUNTY ROAD NO 10 17076 1 $10,583.131 0211821230022 1 5810 XERXES AVENUE N i 17076 1 $17,551.651 0211821230024 1 2900 COUNTY ROAD NO 10 1 17076 1 $29,738.841 0211821230016 1 5701 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 1 17076 1 $16,314.691 3511921230001 1 2700 FREEWAY BLVD 1 17076 1 $19,945.441 3511921220051 1 6865 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY 1 17076 1 $9,864.741 3511921220052 1 2800 FREEWAY BLVD 1 17076 1 $6,694.811 0311821140035 1 3245 CO RD NO 10 1 17076 1 $61,856.591 0311821410001 j 5620 BROOKLYN BLVD 17076 1 $19,221.191 0311821410002 I 5601 XERXES AVE N 17076 1 $11,431.481 0311821410013 I 5540 BROOKLYN BLVD 1 17076 1 $10,823.341 0311821410025 1 5545 XERXES AVE N 1 17076 1 $13,745.821 0311821410020 1 5525 XERXES AVE N 1 17076 1 $11,523.02 1 0311821410018 1 5515 XERXES AVE N 1 17076 1 $5,791.81 0311821440033 1 5501 XERXES AVE N 1 17076 1 $12,127.351 0311821440032 I 5500 BROOKLYN BLVD 1 17076 $8,241.301 0311821410016 1 5512 BROOKLYN BLVD 1 17076 $1,729.061 0311821410015 1 5524 BROOKLYN BLVD 1 17076 1 $3,917.501 311821410014 I 5532 BROOKLYN BLVD 1 17076 I $2,594.911 311821410017 I PRIVATE RD B/W 55 AND 56 1 17076 1 $6,349.181 0311821440037 1 5444 BROOKLYN BLVD I 17076 1 $9,033.601 0311821440030 I 5445 XERXES AVE N I 17076 1 $12,278.431 0311821440036 1 5430 BROOKLYN BLVD 1 17076 1 $5,415.331 0311821440035 I 5425 XERXES AVE N 1 17076 1 $26,411.681 0311821440026 1 1297 BROOKDALE CENTER 1 17076 1 $62,555.641 0211821320017 1108 BROOKDALE CENTER 1 17076 1 $73,123.301 0311821410024 I 1400 BROOKDALE CENTER 1 17076 1 $2,940.761 0211821320014 1 1200 BROOKDALE CENTER 1 17076 1 $36,236.431 0311821140021 1 5710 XERXES AVE N 1 17076 I $9,504.871 0311821140032 I 1206 BROOKDALE CENTER 1 17076 i $4,957.411 I 1 I 1 f I I I 1 I 1 Total Assessment $797,723.99 it City Council Agenda Item No. 9b COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager i FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: March 18, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49th Avenue North) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49th Avenue North) Background: At its February 25, 2008, meeting, the Brooklyn Center City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49th Avenue North). The second reading and Public Hearing are scheduled for March 24, 2008. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post newspaper on March 6, 2008. If adopted, effective date will be May 3, 2008. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24th day of March, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49` Avenue North). Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND 49 AVENUE NORTH) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: A. SECTION 35 -1210. GENERAL INDUSTRY DISTRICT (1 -2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (1 -2) General Industry District Zoning Classification: Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 1, Dale and Davies 1st Addition. That property within the following described boundary: Beginning at the intersection of France Avenue and the southerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 100; g Y thence northeasterly along said right -of -way line to its intersection with the south line of Block 4, Brooklyn Manor Addition; thence easterly along said south line to the southwest corner of Lot 5 of said Block 4; thence northerly along the west line of Lot 5 to a point on the west line of Lot 5 which is the intersection of a line drawn between the southwest corner of Lot 11, Block 4, Brooklyn Manor Addition and a point on the west line of Lot 4 of said Block 4 a distance of 180 feet from the center line of 49th Avenue; thence easterly along said constructed line to its end point on the west line of said Lot 4; thence northerly along said west line to 49th Avenue; thence easterly along 49th Avenue to its intersection with State Highway No. 152; thence southerly along State Highway No. 152 to the east City limits; thence southerly along the east Cit limits to the southwesterly line of the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad right -of -way; thence northwesterly along said railroad right -of -way line to the northeast corner of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 1023; thence southerly along the east line of Tracts H and K, of R.L.S. No. 1023 to the south line of Tract K; ORDINANCE NO. thence westerly along said south line of Tract K, and the south line (and south line extended) of Registered Land Surveys No. 981 and 952, to its intersection with France Avenue; thence north along France Avenue to the point of beginning excent for Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2 nd Addition. Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District zoning classification: 3. The following properties are designated as PUD/I -1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park): Lot I, Block 1. Howe Inc. 2 nd Addition Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2008. i Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager mil% ff FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist L d v•� DATE: February 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions and considerations recommended in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -01. Attached for the City Council's consideration are: 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49 Avenue North) Background: On the February 25, 2008 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application submitted b Real Estate Recycling R Acquisitions, LLC requesting No. 2008 002 submitt Y Y g Rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development/ Industrial Park)and Development Plan Approval through the PUD process for a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial building at the old Howe Fertilizer site currently addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their February 14, 2008 meeting and was recommended for approval. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -01 and other supporting documents. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues. Application Filed on 1 -17 -08 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 3 -17 -08 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2008 -001 Applicant: Real Estate Recycling (RER) Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Rezoning /Development Plan Approval PUD /I -1 The applicant, Jenny Hanson, for RER Acquisitions, LLC is seeking rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to PUD /1- 1(Planned Unit Development /Industrial Park) of the old Howe Fertilizer site addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North (to be readdressed to a yet to be determined new address) and development plan approval through the Planned. Unit Development (PUD) process for a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial facility. BACKGROUND RER has a purchase agreement and intends to clear the site of the existing three buildings and undertake an extensive soils clean -up operation due to the impact of agricultural chemicals and petroleum associated with the prior use of this site. The site was formerly the home of Howe, Inc. which operated as a manufacturing and distribution facility for custom formulated agricultural fertilizers and insecticides, fungicides and herbicides from prior to 1940. A gas station also operated on a portion of the site from approximately 1945 to 1970. The manufacturing of chemical fertilizers at Howe, Inc. ceased in 1994, while use of the site for distribution of agricultural chemicals was continued. Demolition of the old metal buildings housing much of the operation occurred around 2001 leaving primarily buildings built following a 1979 fire on the property. Use of the site has been sporadic since the removal of the old buildings. There is a lot of history between Howe Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center dealing with the fertilizer manufacturing operation and the rebuilding and use of the site following the above mentioned fire in 1979. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted for RER to form the basis of a comprehensive site corrective action plan dealing with the site soil and ground water clean -up that must be addressed in order for the commercial /industrial redevelopment of the property to occur. Such action will have to be accomplished in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture regulations relating to agricultural chemical clean -up and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for clean -up also. RER plans to undertake the required clean -up and will coordinate this with the Department of Agriculture VIC (Voluntary Investigation and Clean -up) and PCA VIC. Once such a clean -up plan is approved, RER plans to build the 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial /warehouse facility mentioned above. It should be noted that RER has 2 -14 -08 Page 1 undertaken a number of these clean -up and redevelopment projects, most notably the clean -up and redevelopment of the old Joslyn Pole Yard located northwest of Hwy 100 and France Avenue in Brooklyn Center and also the Minneapolis Business Center located on 49th Avenue North, east of Brooklyn Boulevard in Minneapolis. They are seeking the PUD/1-1 (Planned Unit Development /Industrial Park) rezoning to accomplish the above The site is currently zoned 1 -2 General Indus industrial redevelopment. d u Y) which allows a Y number of more intense P ermitted industrial uses than are allowed in the 1-1 (Industrial Park zonin g g district such as the manufacturing of textile mill products; coating, engraving trade of motor vehicles; truck terminals; and outside storage and allied services; wholesale t e g of materials, work in process and inventory. The 1 -1 zone also allows a number of commercial /service office uses not associated with accessory industrial uses which can be considered more compatible with the neighboring residential uses in this area. One point that should be stressed and should be acknowledged as a condition if this PUD is approved, is, that uses" which are permitted in the 1 -1 zone would not be allowed in this Planned Unit Development in deference to the residential neighborhood. The I -1 zone is the only zone in the city where adult uses are allowed, but such uses at this location would not be appropriate. The applicant is also seeking the PUD designation to be allowed modifications to the 100 ft. and 50.ft buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned property at a property line and at a street line respectively. Such abutment exists to the west and north of this site. They propose to reduce the buffer along a portion of the west side of the site to 50 ft to provide a drive lane accessible from the back of the building to 49th Avenue North and a reduced buffer on the north side to 25 ft also for a drive lane accessing vehicle parking on the north and east sides of the proposed building. They propose to offset these encroachments with screening, landscaping and berming as will be shown when reviewing the development plans. All vehicle parking and building locations will meet setback requirements. These modifications are proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site with a layout having a front fagade that faces the higher traffic volume on Brooklyn Boulevard and ties into the Minneapolis Business Center east of Brooklyn Boulevard and to create a dock area and driving lane that they believe is effectively screened from the residences allowing proper circulation around the site. No other modification to the industrial district standards and uses are proposed. As the Commission is aware a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development Rules and regulations governing that district (in this case, l -1) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of needed flexibility in addressing de give the City Council the need P the PUD district is tog ty ty and /or redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned in this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to allow encroachments into the 100 ft. and 50 ft buffer area where the property abuts R -1 land at a 2 -14-08 Page 2 property line and street line respectively. Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide the buffer and setback for buildings and parking in these areas for the needed drive lanes and access to the site and provide heavily landscaped, bermed and screened areas to mitigate these encroachments. The proposed screening will effectively block lights from the building and vehicle traffic in a manner that they hope will ensure neighboring residences will not be disturbed. There is precedent for allowing drive lane encroachments into required buffer areas in the case of commercial redevelopment at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard which was undertaken a few years ago. In that case, a maintenance free fence and heavy landscaping were provided to offset or mitigate the closer proximity of driving lanes to the residential property backing up to the development. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which addressed Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35 -210 of the zoning ordinance as well as being consistent with the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35- 208. The Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. The applicant has submitted a written narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The policy states that rezoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute "spot zoning", which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City's policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal: a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The applicant comments that polluted soils are currently uncapped, representing a significant risk to human health and the environment. The blighted buildings at the site are currently vacant bringing zero jobs and minimal tax base to the site. Redevelopment, they note, will remove the pollution, clean up the blighted site and bring jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. Page Page 3 It is the staffs opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as P P P meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the City and is also consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It should balance the business needs of the community and the other needs of adjoining properties. The use of the Planned Unit Development process makes it possible to attempt to balance the needs of the developer and the community. Addressing the clean -up of polluted soils that can pose a risk to health and the environment is an obvious public benefit as is.eliminating blighted buildings and creating jobs on a site that is vastly underutilized. The proposal addresses the public needs and benefits in a way that makes it possible for the developer to do so in an economically feasible manner. The proposal they have is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which is basically silent as to the future development of this site or this area of the city. The property is currently zoned industrial and an industrial use is the anticipated long range use of this property as well as the abutting rail road property to the south and southwest of the site. Previous Comprehensive Plans and zoning ordinances addressed the phase out and the non- conforming use aspects of the manufacturing of chemical fertilizer on this site. It seems that the proposal clearly addresses a public need or benefit b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that the proposed PUD will be comprised of a less intensive 1 -1 zoning classification rather than the current 1 -2 zoning designation. This use, they note, is consistent with uses across Brooklyn Boulevard at the Minneapolis Business Center and they believe it is also compatible with surrounding residential uses. We would comment that the proposal is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications from the standpoint that the proposed I- I underlying zone is less intensive than the existing zoning and the use can co -exist with abutting properties provided appropriate screening is maintained and other requirements of the district are maintained as well. We have commented about the inappropriateness of introducing adult uses which are allowed in the I -1 district There is precedent in PUD's to exclude certain uses permitted by the underlying zoning that are determined to be inappropriate. This would be the case with adult uses and it is recommended that such uses be specifically excluded if the proposal is adopted. The applicant's proposal certainly is consistent with the uses east of Brooklyn Boulevard in the Minneapolis Business Center which, coincidentally, have been developed by the applicant 2 -14 -08 Page 4 c. Can all ro osed p p uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant comments that the proposed zoning district will result in a less intensive use at the site. They point out that office /warehouse use is consistent with surrounding uses and will provide additional jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. They believe the addition of an attractive new building will clean up the blighted site and remove pollution. We would concur with the applicant's comments that the proposed I -1 underlying zone is a less intensive use for the site. Of note should be that outside storage of inventory, work in process or other materials would not be allowed in this PUD but could be allowed as permitted uses provided they are screened under the existing I -2 zone. The less intense nature of the industrial uses and commercial uses allowed in the underlying I -1 zone are seen as a good down zoning and use of the property. We have already commented on prohibiting adult uses as part of this PUD and such action is not without precedent in other Planned Unit Development Rezonings. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicants note that on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard zoning classifications continue to be a mix of R -1 and I -2. They note, however, the recent development of the Minneapolis Business Center on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard has resulted in rezoning from 1 -2 to I -1. They believe their proposed plan is consistent with the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center resulting in a less intensive use and zoning change from 1 -2 to I -1. The down zoning of this property to an underlying PUD zone of 1 -1 can be considered an appropriate change. If screening can be appropriately provided to the residential areas, the intended use of this property for industrial purposes is an allowable use. Making the site consistent with the development to the east can be considered a positive for the City. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because this is not a City initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal. Page 5 8 Page 5 f Will the subject blect property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant notes that the proposal is for a Planned Unit Development with an underlying I -1 zoning classification. They point out that the development will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the PUD. We believe that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions of this Planned Unit Development even with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We believe it is important to establish an appropriate buffer between the single family residences to the west and this site as well as buffer and screening from the residents to the north. The proposed 1 -1 use seems to provide an appropriate development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable relationship between these two areas. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicant again notes that the present zoning is I -2 which allows for heavy industrial uses. They note that given the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center on the opposite side of Brooklyn Boulevard and the surrounding residential neighborhoods, some I -2 permitted uses are unsuited for this area. We would concur with the applicant's comments with respect to this guideline. The development plans in general seem to provide a good layout and site plan for this area. Some of the allowable I -2 uses may be inappropriate for this area given the relatively close proximity to residential uses. Residential and industrial uses can co -exist given proper screening and development considerations. Some of the uses allowed in the I -2 zone such as outside storage, could be considered unsuited for this use because of the abutting residential. The proposed PUD /1 -1 rezoning addresses many of these concerns. h. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by. 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? 2 -14 -08 Page 6 The applicant indicates that the redevelopment will not expand a zoning PP P P g district but will upgrade the current I -2 to 1 -1. This rezoning will result in higher quality jobs and increase in tax base and a less intensive use of the i site. In general we would concur with these comments and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a redevelopment that should be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. As mentioned previously, the proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area and can be considered in the best interests of the community noting particularly the clean -up of a polluted site and a relatively clean development. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant points out that polluted soils currently pose a risk to human health and environment. The site in its current condition is blighted and underutilized, producing minimal jobs and tax base. They point out the redevelopment will remove the blighted buildings, clean up the pollution and add high quality jobs and tax base to the site which results in merit beyond the interests of only the current owner. We also believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that can be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal would provide a quality development that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, his proposal is for a 51,000 sq. ft, office /industrial /warehouse building on the 5.03 acre site that formerly house Howe, Inc. a manufacturing and distribution site for fertilizer and agriculture chemicals. The applicant's proposal is to clear the site of the existing buildings, clean it to acceptable standards of.the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to commencing building of the facility. The site in question is located at the southwest quadrant of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and is bounded on the west by abutting R -1 zoned property, on the north by 49th Avenue with R -1 zoned property on the opposite site of the street; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard and the City of Minneapolis with recent new industrial development on the opposite side of the street; on the south and southwest by I -2 zoned property owned by the Soo Line Railroad. Their plan is to build what they characterize as a modern and attractive building with significant landscaping Page 7 Page 7 111 1/10 1 I ME ?Iii Ulm ..M r� ii►�� /m1111111 l IN ■A City Council Agenda Item No. 9c COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: March 24, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property and Execution of a Quit Claim Deed for Certain Land in the City Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving second reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of tax forfeited property. Background: On February 25, 2008, the City Council passed the first reading and scheduled the public hearing for March 24, 2008 for the acquisition of a property located at PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0068. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on March 6, 2008. The execution of a Quit Claim Deed and a resolution approving a Purchase Agreement and directing staff to acquire property was approved by the City Council on February 25, 2008. The pass -thru transaction would be with the estate of Mary Noll, House Parcel Owner of the adjacent property located at 5344 Colfax Ave North. Leea1 Description Hennepin County acquired through tax forfeiture a real property in the City legally described as: The North 42 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 155 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES (the "Subject Property PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0070 A detached garage is located on the Subject Property, separate from the house parcel which is legally described as: The West 125 feet of the North 42 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES, except street "the "House Parcel PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0068 Please refer to the attached Council Item Memorandum from February 25, 2008 for more information. If adopted, the ordinance will go into effect on May 3, 2008. Budget Issues: There are no directly associated budget issues to consider. However, these types of atypical situations often result in expended city and county staff resources to follow up and manage associated issues, in addition to frustration and inconvenience to residents. Page 1 of 4 Attachment: Ordinance February 25, 2008 City Council Memorandum Page 2 of 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24th day of March, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance providing for the acquisition and pass through sale of certain land in the City. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF TAX FORFEITED PROPERTY AND EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR CERTAIN LAND IN THE CITY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I. BACKGROUND 1.1. Hennepin County acquired through tax forfeiture a real property in the City legally described as: The North 42 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 155 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES (the "Subject Property"). PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0070 1.2. A detached garage is located on the Subject Property, separate from the house parcel which is legally described as: The West 125 feet of the North 42 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES, except street "the "House Parcel PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0068 1.3. The City wishes to facilitate the pass thru conveyance of the Subject Property from Hennepin County to the City to the owner of the House Parcel on the condition that the owner of the House Parcel a) combine the two parcels for tax purposes; b) pay the assessed value of the Subject Property; c) provide title evidence for the House Parcel; and d) pay $300 to the City to cover attorney fees. II. ACQUISITON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 2.1 The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to acquire the Subject Property from Hennepin County. Page 3 of 4 III. SALE OF PROPERTY 3.1. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute a quit claim Y tY g deed to the Subject Property and take all steps necessary to effect the transfer thereof to the Owner of the House Parcel III. EFFECTIVE DATE 3.1. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2008. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: Page 4 of 4 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Bo ane City Manager g Y� Y g FROM: Vickie Schleuning, to the City Manager DATE: February 25, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property and Execution of a Quit Claim Deed for Certain Land in the City, and a Resolution Approving Purchase Agreement Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving first reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of tax forfeited property and execution of a Quit Claim Deed for certain land in the City, and a resolution approving a Purchase Agreement and directing staff to acquire property; and scheduling second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. Background: City Assessing staff has been working with Hennepin County Tax Division the past year regarding a property where the back detached garage was located on a separate parcel from the house. Please refer to the attached map for site information. There appeared to be significant confusion about the parcels with the garage and house being separate parcels. Therefore, the parcel with the garage went into tax forfeiture and is now owned by Hennepin County. The estate of Mary Noll (House Parcel Owner at 5344 Colfax Ave N) has requested a pass -thru conveyance. All parties are in agreement to the pass thru conveyance, and feel this is the best method to resolve this situation with the following conditions: The parcels will be combined for tax purposes to prevent similar situations in the future. The House Parcel owner pays the assessed value determined by the County. Please refer to attached Cost Sheet. The House Parcel owner pay the City Attorney costs of $300.00. According to Hennepin County, pass -thru conveyances have been used by other cities in Hennepin County to resolve similar atypical property situations. Legal Description Hennepin County acquired through tax forfeiture a real property in the City legally described as: The North 42 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 155 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES (the "Subject Property PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0070 A detached garage is located on the Subject Property, separate from the house parcel which is legally described as: The West 125 feet of the North 42 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES, except street ("the "House Parcel PID O1- 118 -21 -34 -0068 At the request of the House Parcel owner, the City wishes to facilitate the pass thru conveyance of the Subject Property from Hennepin County to the City to the owner of the House Parcel pursuant to the terms of the attached Purchase Agreement. The steps required to execute a pass thru conveyance are: City Council approve an Ordinance (first reading and second reading) authorizing the acquisition of tax forfeited property from Hennepin County and pass -thru sale to House Property owner. City Council pass a Resolution authorizing the Purchase Agreement and. directing staff to make application to Hennepin County for the tax forfeited parcel All parties sign the Purchase Agreement, contingent upon passage of the Purchase Agreement. Make the application to Hennepin County for the land acquisition. Upon acquisition from Hennepin County and 30 days after publication of the ordinance, close on the property. Budget Issues: There are no directly associated budget issues to consider. However, these types of atypical situations often result in expended city and county staff resources to follow up and manage associated issues, in addition to frustration and inconvenience to residents. Attachment: Attachment I- Property Map Attachment II- Hennepin County Cost Sheet Attachment III- Hennepin County Parcel Combine Form Ordinance Resolution Purchase Agreement Attachment I- Property Map City of Brooklyn Cent' S R I I t 4 X k4 I 1 f 5 �y s 4 r.:iaae Rte;. 0111921346DW arr B I, ;V half. "aa ktr� N: C N .TER Hroa## CeUerr MM .5 Map for Illustration Purposes Only Garage /Tax Forfeited Property- smaller property outlined in yellow I City Council Agenda Item No. 9d COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager Gary Eitel, Community Development Director DATE: March 24, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending the Regulation of Inoperable and/or Junk Vehicles Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving second reading of an ordinance amending the Regulation of Inoperable and/or Junk Vehicle. Background: The City Council passed, without changes, the first reading of the ordinance on February 25, 2008, setting the public hearing and second reading for March 24, 2008 of an ordinance to amend the regulation of inoperable and/or junk vehicles. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on March 6, 2008. Please refer to the attached Council Item Memorandum dated February 25, 2008 for more information. If adopted, the ordinance would go into effect on May 3, 2008. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Amendment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24"' day of March, 2008, at 7:00 Yg p g Y p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance regulating inoperable and junk vehicles. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO INOPERABLE AND JUNK VEHICLES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 19 -1301 THROUGH 19 -1307 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Brooklyn Center Code Sections 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 are amended, and new Section 19- 1304.5 is added as follows: Section 19 -1301. INTENT AND CONSTRUCTION. The collection of unused and unusable motor vehicle bodies, parts, engines and related accessories having become a common occurrence in the community, and such collection having become a source of danger to the physical and mental well being of children and adults within the community, and such collection having become a visual bliaht and source of concern and complaint by citizens of the community, this vehicle ordinance is enacted for the purpose of prohibiting the collection and maintaining of such motor vehicle bodies, parts, engines and related accessories. Nothing in Sections 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 is intended to restrict the abatement of abandoned vehicles as, regulated in City Code Section 19 -1001 or the towing of illegally narked vehicles under City Code. Section 27 -121. Section 19 -1302. DEFINITIONS. The following words and terms are defined as follows: a. PERSON: Per-sen me aAny natural person, uronerty owner. tenant, occupant, lessee, firm, association, partnership or corporation, and agent of any of the aforesaid, except duly licensed new and used car dealers, while engaged in the lawful operation of their business. b. IMPOUND. To take and hold a vehicle in lesal custody. C INOPERABLE OR JUNK VEHICLE: Vebiele me aAny meter vehicle that is does not have a current vehicle pr-eperly licensed for operation within the State of Minnesota l h; o oa b othe sate f operation A4thin diet or thatwhieh is not in operable condition; or that is ulaced on lacks, blocks or other sunnorts; or thatwbieh is partially dismantled; or thatwhieh is used for sale of parts, or as a source of repair or replacement parts for other vehicles; or thatk is kept for scrapping, dismantling, or salvage of any kind; or i that is otherwise in a condition that renders it unlawful to operate on public streets in the State of Minnesota. Page 2 of 5 d. VEHICLE: Any vehicle. motor vehicle, semi trailer. or trailer as defined in M.S. 169.01, as it may be amended from time to time, including pioneer, classic collector and street rod vehicles, demolition vehicles. race cars or any machine or eauipment DrODelled by Dower other than human Hower. designed to travel along the ground by use of wheels, treads, runners or slides and transport persons or DroDertv or Dull machinery. It also includes. without limitation. automobile, truck. trailer, motorcycle and tractor. Section 19 -1303. PARKING AND STORAGE. With the exeep io of app ropriately lieensed Y Minne sota 4J 1.KlK45J vu+ nNo person shall park, keep, place or store, or permit the parking or storage of an inoperable or Junk vehicle on a public street, of alley. or Dublic DroDertv in the City for more than 6 hours or on any private lands or premises in the city for longer than 48 hours W14eh he eepArels with the following exceptions: a. ui-Aess the vehicle shall be is located within an enclosed building on such premises; or b. the vehicle is located on the premises of a business enterprise operated in a lawful Dlace and manner, when necessary to the operation of such business enterprise; or C. the vehicle is located in an appropriate storage place or deDOsitory maintained in a lawful Dlace and manner by the city. Appropri lieensed btA inoperable- pioneer- c-lassi eelleeter-- ss as defined by Minnesota St Seetien 168.10 may be stored en the evv%er prepeAy provided that sueh Section 19 -1304. STORAGE OF PARTS, ENGINES, AND RELATED ACCESSORIES. No person shall store or keep parts, engines and related accessories on a public street or alley or on any private lands or premises in the city wh he c= c- "t"e'- mess such parts, engines, and related accessories are kept or stored within an enclosed building in comDliance with city codes. Section 19- 1304.5. ABATEMENT OF AN INOPERABLE OR JUNK VEHICLE. A vehicle found in violation of Section 19 -1303 is considered a public nuisance and may be impounded by the City Manager or the Manager's designated agent. Vehicles that are in violation of Section 19 -1303 only by reason of failure to be oroperly licensed will not be impounded until 90 days after expiration of the vehicle's license. a. Notice and hearing. Before impounding a funk vehicle or inoperable vehicle. the Manager or designated agent must give 10 days' written notice through service by mail, by Dosting a notice on the nroDerty. or by Dersonal delivery to the owner of, or person in control of. the proDertv on which the vehicle is located. When the DrODertv is occupied, service upon the occupant is deemed service upon the owner. Where the DroDerty is unoccupied or abandoned, service may be by mail to the last known owner of record of the proDertv or by posting on the DrODertv. The notice must state: (1) A descriDtion of the vehicle: Page 3 of 5 (2) That the vehicle must be moved or properly stored or otherwise brought into compliance with Section 19 -1303 within 10 days of service of the notice: (3) That if the vehicle is not removed or nronerly stored or otherwise brought into compliance with Section 19 -1303 as ordered, the vehicle will be towed and impounded at an identified location; (4) That the vehicle may be reclaimed in accordance with the procedures contained in M.S. &168B.07 or disposed of in accordance with M.S. &16813.08: (5) That the propertv owner is responsible for anv costs associated with the abatement. including anv administrative fees. and (6) That the owner of the vehicle or the owner of or person in control of the propertv on which the vehicle is located may make a request in writing for a hearing before the Citv Manager or the Manager's designated agent. b. Hearing. action. If a hearing is requested during the 10 -dav period. the Citv Manager or the Manager's designated agent must promptly schedule the hearing, and no further action on the towing and impoundment of the vehicle may be taken until the Citv Manager's decision is rendered. At the conclusion of the scheduled hearing. the Citv Manager or the Manager's designated agent may (1) cancel the notice to remove the vehicle. (2) modify the notice: or (3) affirm the notice to remove, sp_ ecifving the date by which the vehicle must be removed. If the notice is modified or affirmed, the vehicle must be disposed of in accordance with the written order of the Citv Manager or the Manager's designated agent. C. Impounding procedures. The impounded vehicle will be surrendered to the owner by the towing contractor onlv upon pavment of the reauired impound, towing and storage fees. Vehicle impounding will be conducted in accordance with M.S. Ch. 168B, governing the sale of abandoned motor vehicles. d. Assessment of administrative costs. The city costs of abatement shall be a lien against the real estate on which the nuisance existed and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by M.S. 429.101. All the provisions of M.S. 429.101 are incorporated by reference. Section 19 -1305. CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION. Nothing in this ,,,,,a;.,.,.,^° Sections 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 shall be construed to permit any act prohibited by any other ordinance, statute, or rule of law. Section 19 -1306. SEPARABILITY. Should any section, subdivision, clause, or other provision of Sections 19 -1301 through 19- 1307 ordi be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of Sections 19- 1301 through 19- 1307 ,,r -di,an as a whole nor of any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. Section 19 -1307. PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of Sections 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 upon conviction, shall be guilty of a misdemeanorpullished b" fine ef not more than ene thousand ($1,000) dollars or- i t not te exeeed i:Anet-y (90) Page 4 of 5 Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2008. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Underlinine indicates new matter; stfiking indicates deleted material.) Page 5 of 5 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager V FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager Gary Eitel, Community Development Director DATE: February 25, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending the Regulation of Inoperable and/or Junk Vehicles Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving first reading of an ordinance amending the Regulation of Inoperable and/or Junk Vehicles, and scheduling second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. Background: Staff brought forward an analysis of conditions, trends and regulations relating to parking and storage of vehicles on residential property at the City Council Work Sessions on October 22, 2008 and January 28, 2008. In response to Council feedback, a proposed code amendment regarding inoperable and junk vehicles is being presented for consideration. It is anticipated that this code amendment regarding the regulation of inoperable and junk vehicles will primarily aid in addressing problem properties and situations where voluntary compliance cannot be obtained. It provides a more efficient method to achieve compliance and improve neighborhood conditions. It is an additional tool that can be used to achieve compliance and an alternative to the existing criminal court system. The following is a brief summary of the proposed changes: Clarification of the definition of vehicles, and inoperable and junk vehicle. Removal of the exception for classic /pioneer vehicles from the inoperable /junk vehicle definition. All inoperable and junk vehicles will be treated equally. Establishing a city facilitated abatement (removal) process for inoperable and junk vehicles under certain conditions and in accordance with prescribed standards as highlighted below: o Vehicles must meet the definition of inoperable /junk vehicle. o An exception for impounding vehicles improperly licensed for up to 90 days, if that is the only reason it is considered inoperable /junk by definition. o. A notification process is provides to include a 10 -day written notification, notice delivery requirements, and an explanation of process. o An appeal procedure is provided through a hearing process. Reference of Minnesota State Law for vehicle impound procedures. Providing authority to establish an administrative fee to recover costs associated with abatement actions. Please note that the costs of towing and storage are handled between the towing company and property owner. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Amendment City Council Agenda Item No. 9e COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: March 24, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding a New Section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter Recommendation: The City Charter Commission recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving second reading of an ordinance relating to administrative fines, adding a new section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter. Background: The City Council passed, without changes, the first reading of the ordinance on February 25, 2008, setting the public hearing and second reading for March 24, 2008 of an ordinance to change the city charter to allow the city council to adopt an administrative enforcement system. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on March 6, 2008. Please refer to the attached Council Item Memorandum from February 25, 2008 for more information. A charter amendment requires a unanimous vote from the City Council. If adopted, the ordinance would go into effect on July 2, 2008. If the proposed charter amendment is not unanimously approved by the City Council, the Charter Commission may consider adopting the amendment by Resolution and placing the amendment to the voters at the next general election if the election occurs within 6 months. Otherwise, a special election may be held within 90 days. Legal publication requirements apply and the Council determines the wording of the ballot. (M.S. 410) It is the prerogative of the Charter Commission to determine if it wishes to have the voters consider the charter amendment. Budget Issues: An administrative penalty system will help improve enforcement system efficiencies, helping to reduce the cost of service. Initial setup of program will require staff time and upfront costs for materials. This program would be an alternative to existing enforcement programs. Attachments: Ordinance February 25, 2008 City Council Memorandum and Attachments Page 1 of 3 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24 day of March, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance amending the City's Charter to authorize the City Council to establish a procedure, by ordinance, for imposing administrative penalties for violations of City Code and for the collection of such penalties by the levy of special assessments in certain cases. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE FINES; ADDING A NEW SECTION 12.13 TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Upon recommendation of the, Brooklyn Center Charter Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subd. 7, the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by adding a new Section 12.13 relating to administrative fines. Section 2. Background: findings: authoritv. 2.01. The City of Brooklyn Center (City) is governed by home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 2.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an Amendment adding a New Section to Chapter 12 of the charter and recommended to the City Council that the New Section be adopted by City Council ordinance in the manner prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is set out in Section 3.02. 2.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on March 24, 2008, by the City Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment were heard at the public hearing. 2.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted. Section 3. Adoption: effective date: filing. 3.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Charter Commission is adopted. Page 2 of 4 3.02. A new section 12.13 is added to the Brooklyn Center City Charter; the text of the Amendment is as follows: Section 12.13. FINES AND PENALTIES. a. Subdivision 1. The Council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing an administrative Denaltv for anv violation of the Citv Code or a Citv ordinance. The procedure shall provide that anv Dartv charged with an administrative penalty will receive notice of a violation and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral party. The procedure shall authorize the Citv to use the services of a third Dartv hearing officer to decide whether an administrative Denaltv should be imposed. b. Subdivision 2. Unon passage of an administrative Denaltv ordinance, the Citv Council may Drovide by ordinance that unpaid administrative penalties be collected as a special assessment against property which was the subiect matter, or related to the subject matter, of the Denaltv or against the DroDertv which was the location of an activitv. proposed use, delivery of Citv service, or other circumstances that resulted in the Denaltv. The ordinance shall Drovide that the City will first attempt to obtain voluntary Davment of the Denaltv. The ordinance shall also Drovide that notice and an opportunity to be heard be given to the DroDertv owner listed on the official tax records before the Denaltv is assessed. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon ninety (90) days following its legal publication, except that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subd. 7 is filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51 of the voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council for that purpose. Section 5. On the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to file copies of the amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, section 410.11. Adopted this day of 2008. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Page 3 of 4 Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) Page 4 of 4 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie SchleuningVAssistant to the City Manager DATE: February 25, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding a New Section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving first reading of an ordinance relating to administrative fines, adding a new section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter, and scheduling second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. Background: On January 30, 2008, the City Charter Commission approved a proposed amendment to the City Charter, which would allow the City to adopt an administrative penalty and enforcement system. The proposed amendment would allow the City Council to establish an ordinance to develop procedures for imposing administrative penalties for violations of City Codes and for the collection of such penalties by the levy of special assessments in certain cases. The administrative penalty system would provide an alternative option for citizens and staff to use in certain cases, instead of the criminal enforcement system. The proposed Charter Amendment is attached. Need for Additional Corrective Tools Staff is in the process of reviewing current ordinances, enforcement tools and processes. With the increased concerns about neighborhood livability issues and property codes, the need for additional and creative corrective tools has increased. The majority of enforcement is achieved through the Hennepin County Criminal Court system, which is oversaturated with a variety of other crimes that may be considered by judges as more important, takes a significant amount of time to process through the system, increases the cost of service, and often results in citizen dissatisfaction due to the length of time required to achieve compliance. Uses An administrative penalty system would be used for neighborhood and property issues under the purview of the city. It would be another option to use, where appropriate, to gain compliance and address livability issues. The specific requirement and procedures for the administrative penalty and enforcement system would be determined by an ordinance, to be considered at a later date. Outline of Process for Establishine an Administrative Enforcement Svstem Some statutory cities (without a Charter) have enacted ordinances establishing administrative penalty systems. However, since Brooklyn Center is a charter city, the City Attorney recommends the Charter be changed to provide specific authority to the City Council to establish an administrative penalty system. This process is as follows: The Charter Commission recommends a Charter Amendment. The City Council approves unanimously the proposed Charter Amendment. An ordinance is developed setting the criteria for the administrative penalty system. The City Council approves the administrative penalty ordinance. Typical ordinance adoption requirements apply. Working documents, manuals, processes and procedures are established in parallel to the adopted ordinance. Internal and external training is conducted. The administrative penalty system is fully implemented. Budget Issues: An administrative penalty system will help improve enforcement system efficiencies, helping to reduce the cost of service. Initial setup of program will require staff time and upfront costs for materials. Attachments: Ordinance Attachment I: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision I approval- November 28, 2007 Attachment II: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 2 approval- January 30, 2008 i Attachment I: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 1 approval- November 28, 2007 BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2007 The Brooklyn Center Charter Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stan Leino at 7:00 PM. Rolf Call: Secretary Gary Brown called roll; Gary Brown, Stan Lemo, Bruce Lund, Mary Nierengarten, Eileen Oslund, Richard Phillips, Ed Nelson, Harold Middleton, Richard Theis, and Gail Ebert were present. Absent: None. Annroval of Minutes: The draft minutes of the October 24, 2007, meeting were reviewed. Lund made a motion, seconded by Phillips to approve the minutes as submitted. Passed unanimously 10-0. Old Business Administrative Fines Charter Commission reviewed the proposed charter amendments by City staff regarding Fines and Penalties (Chapter 12). The following changes to the proposed new section 12.13 were offered by commission members: Motion by Brown, seconded by Middleton, to strike "which may be the city council" from the second sentence of Subdivision 1, passed unanimously 10 -0. Motion by Theis, seconded by Middleton, to change "person" to "party" in the same sentence, passed unanimously 10 -0. Motion by Lund, seconded by Middleton, to change "may" to "shall" in the third sentence, passed unanimously 10 -0. Motion by Theis, seconded by Nelson, to change "non -City employee" to "third party hearing officer" passed unanimously 10 -0. Motion by Nelson, seconded by Phillips, to add an introductory statement to Subdivision 2, "Upon passage of an administrative penalty ordinance," and to strike out completely the following from sentence one in subdivision 2 "which was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter, of the penalty or against the property which was the location of an activity, proposed use, delivery of the City service, or other circumstances that resulted in the i penalty." as well as changing the remaining "may" and "must" to "shall" and strike the word "an" from the last sentence of Subdivision 2 passed unanimously 10 -0. Secretary Brown then read the following as changed by the commission and all commissioners agreed that these were the changes as voted upon. Section 12.13. Fines and Penalties. Subdivision 1. The Council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing an administrative penalty for any violation of the City Code or a City ordinance. The procedure must shall provide that any pew }.party charged with an administrative penalty will receive notice of a violation and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral party, whieh may be the 6OW Emil. The procedure may shall authorize the City to use the services of a 11011 G employee third partv heariniz officer to decide whether an administrative penalty should be imposed. Subdivision 2. Unon nassaae of an administrative benalty ordinance. Tthe City Council may shall provide by ordinance that unpaid administrative penalties be collected as a special assessment against property vAiieh was th su bje et ,,.,a# r to t h e su bje et ma tt e the penalty or- against the pr-epeFty whieh was the leeation of an aefivity, proposed use-, deliver-e efviee, er other- Eir-^ that resulted in the penaky The ordinance aittst shall provide that the City will first attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the penalty. The ordinance mus shall also provide that notice and an opportunity to be heard will be given to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the penalty is assessed. Attendance Anthony Mills contacted Chairman Leino to indicate he had received secretary Brown's letter regarding attendance and that he had moved out of the City of Brooklyn Center and thus Chair Leino declared the that Commissioner Mills seat be open. Motion by Brown seconded by Nelson to send Commissioner Richard Theis (on behalf of the Charter Commission) to the City's annual meeting of commissions and council members, passed unanimously 10 -0. Next meetina: January 23, 2008 (Annual Meeting). Adi ournment Brown m to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 ado a motion and seconded b Middleton, J g PM 1 .Motion passed unanimously 9 0 Commissioner Nieren arten had to leave ear p Y Y) g Submitted for consideration, Gary E. Brown Secretary Attachment II: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 2 approval- January 30, 2008 Draft MINUTES OF January 30, 2008 BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION ANNUAL MEETING The Suspended Meeting of January 23 was called to order by Chairman Stan Leino at 7:00 PM Roll Call: Secretary Gary Brown called roll; Gary Brown, Stan Leino, Bruce Lund, Harold Middleton, Ed Nelson, Mary Nierengarten, Eileen Oslund, Richard Theis and Gail Ebert were present. Excused Absent: Richard Phillips Absent: None Also Present: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager, Council Member Mark Yelich Old Business Administrative Fines Charter Commission reviewed the proposed suggested changes by the city attorney to the charter amendments that were approved by the charter commission at their last meeting regarding Subdivision 2 of Fines and Penalties (Chapter 12) on January 23, 2008. However, there were insufficient charter members (7) and therefore the meeting was suspended until this evening. Secretary Brown read Subdivsion 2 as previously modified on January 23, I 2008. A motion was made by Theis, seconded by Lund to modify Subdivision 2 as follows, in conformance with the city attorney's recommendations and the actions of the Charter commission at the last meeting. Section 12.13. Fines and Penalties. Subdivision 2. Upon passage of an administrative penalty ordinance, the City Council may provide by ordinance that unpaid administrative penalties be collected as a special assessment against property which was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter, of the penalty or against the property which was the location of an activity, proposed use, delivery of City service, or other circumstances that resulted in the penalty. The ordinance shall provide that the City will first attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the penalty. The ordinance shall also provide that notice and opportunity to be heard be given to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the penalty is assessed. Passed unanimously (9 -0). A motion by Brown, seconded by Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 7:05. Passed unanimously (9 -0), Submitted for consideration, Gary E. Brown Secretary i City Council Agenda Item No. lla COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk j\AW-Knvj"'" DATE: March 18, 2008 SUBJECT: Resolution Calling for the Creation of a Path Toward Lawful Permanent Resident Status for Liberians Currently Protected by Temporary Protected Status and for the Extension of Temporary Protected Status Until Such a Permanent Solution is Enacted Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review and consider approval /adoption of a Resolution Calling for the Creation of a Path Toward Lawful Permanent Resident Status for Liberians Currently Protected by Temporary Protected Status and for the Extension of Temporary Protected Status Until Such a Permanent Solution is Enacted. Background: At its September 24, 2007, meeting, the Council considered a Resolution Calling for the Creation of a Path Toward Lawful Permanent Resident Status for Liberians Currently Protected by Temporary Protected Status and for the Extension of Temporary Protected Status Until Such a Permanent Solution is Enacted. The resolution was tabled to the March 24, 2008, meeting. Attached are the materials that were provided at the September 24th meeting, along with the portion of the September 24, 2007, minutes related to the resolution. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. I i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE CREATION OF A PATH TOWARD LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LIBERIANS CURRENTLY PROTECTED BY TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS AND FOR THE EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS UNTIL SUCH A PERMANENT SOLUTION IS ENACTED WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is home to Liberians who sought safety in the United States from the brutal armed conflict in their homeland; and WHEREAS, many of the Liberians living in Brooklyn Center are lawfully here in the United States under Temporary Protected Status, which has been afforded to citizens of Liberia since the outbreak of the conflict in 1991; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of Homeland Security has announced that, as of October 1, 2007, Temporary Protected Status for Liberians will terminate; and WHEREAS, upon the termination of Temporary Protected Status, Liberians who have held this status will be subject to deportation from the United States, often without regard to the family, property, or careers they leave behind in the United States; and WHEREAS, the political and human rights situation in Liberia, although improved since the time of the civil conflict, remains unclear as the new Liberian government transitions to democracy; and WHEREAS, much of the infrastructure of Liberia has been destroyed as a result of the conflict, leaving Liberians without running water, electricity, access to basic health care, and with a national unemployment rate of eighty -five percent; and WHEREAS, the police and judicial systems in Liberia are in the early stages of rebuilding following the conflict and the regime of Charles Taylor; and WHEREAS, Senate File 656, the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 2007, was introduced in the Senate on February 16, 2007; the House companion, the Liberian Refugee Immigration Protection Act of 2007, H.R. 1941 was introduced on April 19, 2007; and passage of this legislation would allow eligible Liberians living in the United States to apply for lawful permanent resident status; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2007, the House approved H.R. 3123, which grants a one -year extension of Temporary Protected Status and a Senate File has yet to be introduced; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the termination of Temporary Protected Status may endanger the lives, safety, and well -being of Liberians living in the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City of Brooklyn Center encourages the Senate to follow the path set by the House and grant the extension of Temporary Protected Status until such a permanent solution is enacted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center urges the Minnesota Federal delegates to prioritize the debate and enactment of legislation allowing Liberians living in the United States to apply for lawful permanent resident status. March 24. 2008 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City M DATE: September 20, 2007 SUBJECT: Resolution calling for the creation of a path toward lawful permanent status Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of the subject resolution encouraging the adoption of federal legislation that would extend the time for Temporary Protected Status for Liberians and create a means for lawful permanent status for these individuals. Background: Upon the request of Councilmember Ryan, this matter was brought to the City Council at the last work session. The matter was discussed and the majority consensus was to bring the resolution forward for Council consideration at the next City Council meeting. Subsequent to this meeting President Bush extended the Temporary Protective Status of Liberians for 18 additional months until March 31, 2009. In speaking with Councilmember Ryan he has indicated that he may wish to have the proposed action held in abeyance at this time. C: e;4- Cook; i Re9u to r Sezit -A Stan Leino introduced himself and stated he hopes to contribute to the Planning Commission. M A 0+e5 11b. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE CREATION OF A PATH TOWARD LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LIBERIANS CURRENTLY PROTECTED BY TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS AND FOR THE EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS UNTIL SUCH A PERMANENT SOLUTION IS ENACTED Councilmember Ryan discussed the deportation of Liberians and the effects of those deportations on the City of Brooklyn Center. He suggested that the resolution be tabled until the March 24, 2008, City Council meeting. The opinion was expressed that the City Council should not be spending time on the matter. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to table the Resolution Calling for the Creation of a Path Toward Lawful Permanent Resident Status for Liberians Currently Protected by Temporary Protected Status and for the Extensibn of Temporary Protected Status Until Such a Permanent Solution is Enacted until the March 24, 2008, City Council meeting. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 11c. RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -126 DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -126 Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. IId. DECERTIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -127 RESCINDING ASSESSMENT OF UNPAID UTILITIES AND DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO 5546 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH 2. RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -128 RESCINDING ASSESSMENT OF UNPAID UTILITIES AND DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO 5900 XERXES AVENUE NORTH 3. RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -129 RESCINDING ASSESSMENT OF UNPAID UTILITIES AND DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO 7007 NEWTON AVENUE NORTH Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolutions. 09/24/07 -4- City Council Agenda Item No. llb COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works DATE: March 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, hnprovement Project Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07 and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements Recommendation: Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the advertisement of construction bids for the Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements. Background: Assuming that the City Council has ordered the Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive improvements upon closing of the public hearings, staff is prepared to begin the project bidding process for solicitation of construction bids. The bidding process would involve advertisement of the project in the City's official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin magazine. Sealed bids would be collected, opened, on a scheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer. Staff anticipates that the bid results will be presented to the City Council for consideration of the contract award at the May 12, 2008 City Council meeting. Budget Issues: The estimated project cost estimate for the Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive project was outlined in the project Feasibility Report presented to the City Council on February 11, 2008. The estimated project cost is $3,151,000. Xerxes Avenue Plans and Specifications Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2008 -05, 06, 07, 08, CONTRACT 2008 -B, XERXES AVENUE AND NORTHWAY DRIVE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council ordered Improvement Project Nos. 2008- 05, 06, 07, 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council is prepared to solicit construction bids for said improvements. NOW, BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council of the City of Brooklyn OW Y Y Y Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07 08 are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a casli deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. March 24. 2008 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. llc MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Community Development Director s>r� DATE: March 18, 2008 SUBJECT: Proceeding with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Council Action Required Motion to accept the Loucks Associates proposal to assist the City with the preparation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for consultant services. Background Information: Attached for your reference is a copy of the staff memo prepared for the March 10 City Council workshop which identified the following: 1. The requirement of every local government within the seven county metropolitan area to update their 2020 comprehensive plans in conformance with the metropolitan system plans as prepared by the Metropolitan Council 2. The system statement updates to be included in the new 2030 comprehensive plan 3. The process used by the City in selecting a planning consultant to assist the City in updating its comprehensive plan 4. The recent review of the Calthorpe Smart Growth Study and Opportunity Site Planning Report. Council Policy Issues: Attached is a copy of the Loucks proposal which identifies the proposed project scope, schedules and includes an example of a Planning Survey that was previously used in the West St. Paul planning process to provide another opportunity for citizen participation. The consultant has indicated that the cost of this type of a questionnaire is less than $2,000 and is included in their fee schedule for Public Participation Facilitation. Also attached is a copy of a letter which addresses how Loucks Associates propose to engage the public participation in this planning process. The use of the survey questionnaire is one of the tools that involve the use of the City's web site and attempts to reach out to residents that cannot attend one of the scheduled meetings. The 2008 final budget included $42,000 for comprehensive planning from the General Fund. The additional $18,500 to cover the balance of the plan update can be funded though the reserves in the City's EDA Fund. i March 17, 2008 Planning Civil Engineering Mr. Curt Boganey, City Manager {.and Surveying Mr. Gary Eitel, Community Development Director I.andfcape ArchileCture City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Environmental Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 -2199 Re: 2030 Comprehensive PIan Update Dear Mr. Boganey and Mr. Eitel: We understand that you reviewed the proposal we forwarded to you last month to prepare and facilitate the updating of the City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan and would like additional details on proposed citizen participation. In summary we will maximize citizen involvement in the planning process by coordinating our efforts with other efforts of the City, with organizations and institutions serving the community and through effective use of the Internet. As part of "Getting the Word Out" we are scheduled to participate in the City- sponsored open house gathering on April 12 by presenting and exhibiting concerning the comprehensive planning process. By direct mail we will also request leaders of institutions and organizations within the community to be involved in the plan update and to promote involvement in ways they feel appropriate. We will prepare a written piece to be used to invite and encourage Brooklyn Center citizens and stakeholders to participate. As indicated in our proposal the City newsletter and website, newspaper press releases, direct mailings and personal telephone invitations will also be used to get the word out. At the first comprehensive plan meeting to which the entire community will be invited the comprehensive planning process will be explained and the current comprehensive plan, including the community's assessment of itself, will be reviewed. Participants will record their individual observations about the community after which each will share his or her observations within small groups of six to eight people. Each group will be asked to present a summary of the observations of the individuals within their group. Participation on a task force that will be involved in reviewing and recommending the plan may be solicited at this meeting. Additional planning workshops with the task force or the planning commission will revolve around review of components of the plan, in particular the goals and objectives. Disseminating information to interested parties and securing feedback from them is vital to a successful comprehensive planning effort. Communication will be facilitated through a link to a project website maintained by Loucks Associates from the City's Internet website that would fulfill three functions as follows: Provide information on the comprehensive plan and comprehensive planning process by posting draft sections of the comprehensive plan, including maps, and a schedule of meetings and milestones for viewing and/or downloading, Solicit input on posted draft sections ofthe comprehensive plan and more generally about the future of City of Brooklyn Center through a "public forum" feature where all postings can be viewed by anyone accessing the website; and Solicit input to the planning process through a survey questionnaire that can be filled out and inputted online. (We will design, post and manage the questionnaire and tabulate r results.) 9 Page 2- March 17 letter to Mr. Curt Boganey, City Manager and Mr. Gary Eitel, Community Development Director Community involvement is important to a community's ongoing vitality and we believe that involving the citizenry in the comprehensive planning process will result in a plan with credibility and an electorate that better understands how they can have a positive impact on their community. Please call if you would like to discuss our thoughts on involving the community in updating the City's comprehensive plan or on the planning process generally. u Sincerely, LOUCKS ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Lo c �resident e dHage4riAIr Principal Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Bo ane City Manager g Y, Y g FROM: Gary Eitel, Community Development Director DATE: February 25, 2008 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Council Action Required Discussion on proceeding with the preparation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update to fulfill the requirements of the Metropolitan Council' Systems Statement. Background Information: Metropolitan Land Planning Act State law requires that every local government within the seven county metropolitan area shall update their local comprehensive plans in conformance with metropolitan system plans and consistency with the Metropolitan Council polices and compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units. The last plan update occurred in 2000 with the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan 2020. The City has received its system statement and text of the 2030 Regional Development Framework in preparation for its next plan update, "Comprehensive Plan 2030 The System Statement recognizes the City of Brooklyn Center as a developed community and indicates that the planning focus of the city should focus on protecting natural resources, ensuring sufficient public infrastructure and developing transition strategies to increase density and encourage infill development. The system statement requires updates in the following elements of the current Comprehensive Plan. Conformation of the Metropolitan Council's 2030 projections for population, household and employment. Identification of transit facilities and park and ride lots within the transportation element. Current sanitary sewer maps and programs and policies to prevent inflow and infiltration from entering into the sanitary sewer system. Local watershed plan and implementation programs and policies consistent with Second Generation Plans of the Watershed Management Organizations. Water supply plan consistent with new Metro guidelines. Identification of regional trail corridors. Process of Retaining a Planning Consultant In May of 2007, A Request for Qualifications was put together by City Staff and distributed to following planning consultants: Loucks and Associates Bonestroo Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Olson Associates In June of 2007, Staff meetings were held with all of the consultants In July of 2007, Proposals were received from two of the consultants Loucks and Associates $65,500 ($5,000 allocated to Opportunity Site review) Olson and Associates $70,644 (and recommend market study $10,000 $18,000) During the months of August and September, 2007 the Community Development Department was in a process of reorganization. In October of 2007, the City retained Loucks and Associates to undertake the Opportunity Conceptual Development Plan to determine the viability and likelihood of successful implementation of the standards and guidelines called out in the Opportunity Site Report. This review was expanded to include the findings and recommendations of the Calthorpe Smart Growth Study prepared for the Opportunity Site and surrounding commercial area. On January 28, 2008 Dave Hagen, Loucks& Associates, presented their report on the Opportunity Site to the City Council Council Policy Issues: The proposed project scope included in the Loucks proposal provides the following format for public participation: A community open house A public input survey Creation of a web site 3 to 5 planning workshops with City Officials and interested citizens. I The plan update builds upon the elements of upon the current 2020 Comprehensive Plan: Executive Summary Community Profile Land Use and Redevelopment Plan Transportation Neighborhood and Housing Plan Parks and Open Space Public Facilities Water Resources Sewer Plan Surface Water Plan Water Supply Implementation And recognizes the additional studies, such as the Calthrope Smart Growth Study and Opportunity Site Reports and achievements by the City over the last 7 years. The 2008 Budget included $50,000 for comprehensive planning from the general fund. The additional $10,000 to cover the plan update can be funded though Tax Increment Financing and Utility Funds. We have had conversations with the consultant on the option of reducing the scope of services to match the budget. This option provided for a reduction in the public participation portion of the plan and could be pursued should that be the desire of the Council? A proposal for the facilitation and preparation of LL BROOKLYN t h C E N T E R G comprehensive plan Loucks Associates 7200 Hemlock lane #300 r Maple Grove, MN 55369 09SS 11 TABLE OF 1.0 Project Team .................2 2.0 Proposed Pro Scope and Schedule 5 3.0 Professional References and Citizen Participation ..........9 4.0 Fee Schedule, APPENDIX t 1 1 1.0 PROJECT 1.1 The Team Loucks Associates has an interdisciplinary team that is qualified to lead the preparation of the comprehensive plan. Our team has been assembled with particular expertise in the areas of land- use planning and zoning. David Hagen will manage the day -to -day operations of the project, and he and Jared Andrews will perform the bulk of the planning work. Mr. Loucks will oversee the project and provide advice and input as needed. The Loucks planning team has the availability and technical know -how to undertake the project and deliver the product in a timely manner according to schedule. 1.2 Project Organizational Chart for Key Personnel Tom Loucks, President Principal Planner Role: Oversee project Guidance as necessary David Hagen, AICP Senior Planner Role: Project Management Public input facilitation Analysis I 1 Jared D. Andrews, AICP Jeffrey A. Shopek, P.E. Paul A. Kangas Senior Planner Principal Civil Engineer Principal Landscape Architect Role: Public input facilitation Role: Infrastructure assessment Role: Identity /image enhancement Document implementation Redevelopment feasibility Master planning as needed Proiect management Michelle Chard Office Clerical Staff GIS Specialist Role: GIS technician Role: Report processing Technical drafting Assembly 1 t 1.3 Planning eam Summary Resumes g Y Tom Loucks, President Principal Planner Mr. Loucks brings 30 years of land -use planning experience to the team. Prior to establishing his own company in 1976, he served as assistant planner in Edina, Minnesota; administrative assistant to the city manager in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; and as a principal planner and corporate director for a consulting firm in the Twin Cities. Mr. Loucks' particular areas of expertise include comprehensive land -use plans, zoning ordinances, park master plans, environmental assessments, large -scale site development projects and highest- and best -use analysis. He is a skilled communicator and group facilitator. Mr. Loucks has also been called upon for expert testimony in condemnation proceedings. Dave Hagen, AICP Senior Planner Mr. Hagen has served as Community Development Director in the cities of St. Louis Park and Robbinsdale, and as City Planner in the cities of Worthington and Morris. He has 28 years of experience in this field and his areas of expertise include downtown redevelopment, preparation and implementation of zoning ordinances and comprehensive land -use plans. He has led cities through the process of visioning their future and is an expert in economic development. Jared Andrews, AICP Senior Planner Mr. Andrews has been working as a professional in the planning and land -use development field for 13 years. Much of his experience has been in planning and facilitating development review processes of rapidly growing communities. Areas of expertise include project management of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, park and trail design planning and administration of planning processes. Jeffrey A. Shopek, P. E. Principal Engineer Mr. Shopek will review and assist in assessing the City's infrastructure system plans for consistency with the Comprehensive plan, including Transportation Plan, Comprehensive Water Supply Plan, Comprehensive Sewer and Wastewater Plan and Comprehensive Water Resources. Mr. Shopek is very experienced in engineering feasibility and best management practices in the context of development and redevelopment. Mr. Shopek has 26 years of experience as a civil engineer and 13 years with Loucks Associates. Paul Kangas, ASLA Principal Landscape Architect Mr. Kangas has 15 years of experience in large -scale master planning including the creation of corporate identity and image through physical design including six at Loucks Associates. Mr. Kangas' will identify physical improvements and enhancements, both private and public, that would promote a greater sense of identity and positive image for the City and assess the City's Parks and Open Space Plan for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. (Resumes continued on next page) 1 Michelle Chard GIS Specialist Ms. Chard provides expertise and coordinates Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) efforts for many projects and applications. Her expertise with the ArcView, ArcCAD and AutoCAD applications have provided state -of- the -art mapping support to our staff for a wide variety of projects including zoning maps, comprehensive land -use plans, environmental site evaluations, condemnation cases and archaeological surveys. t Full resumes for key professional staff that will be working on the project are contained in the Appendix. 1 2. P RO P OSED 9 r SCO 2.1 Project Scope Project Initiation Upon notice to proceed, Loucks Associates will meet with City staff to establish dates for meetings in line with the approved schedule and begin collecting data and interviewing key stakeholders and public officials. In addition to meeting with staff at least six times during the course of the project, Mr. Hagen and Mr. Andrews will provide regular weekly progress updates via telephone or e -mail to the City. Demographic and Economic Data and Forecasts: Current demographic and economic data, existing plans, maps, 99 documentation and other information will be collected and analyzed. 99 Population, housing and employment growth will be projected taking the 00 Metropolitan Council's projections into consideration and will be factored 99 O 1990 into the formulation of a vision for the community as part of the public input 9 process. The demographic data, economic data, public input data, visual survey data, and information obtained in key interviews will all be used in recommendations developed for the initial draft plan. Much of the data will be presented graphically. Mapping Much of the existing conditions information and mapping can be updated with k minimal time investment. These maps, such as the wetlands, soils, existing land use, and transportation maps, will be displayed at an open house for public review and comment. Future plan maps will be developed later in the process and will reflect the oals and policies developed from the public participation g p P P p p� workshops. Getting the Word Out The public -input process is important to the overall success of the plan. As such, it is important that interested citizens have an opportunity to participate. In order to achieve a well- rounded representation and participation in the process, the project will be well publicized in an inviting way. City newsletters, newspaper press releases, mailings, web sites, e -mail, and personal invitations or phone calls to key community leaders and stakeholders are useful techniques to keep the community informed. We would propose to manage and write the project communication and prepare a public input survey and have City staff and public officials help in the identification of stakeholders and distribution of the communication. Planning Workshops In addition to a community open house and the public input survey, three to five planning workshop meetings will be held with City officials as well as interested citizens at large. The meetings will be open for participation and will be designed first to identify the universe of issues and concerns and then to establish consensus goals for the community. The first meeting will focus on identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the community. Analysis and summary of census /demographic data will also be presented at this time. The primary focus of this session will _L_ be revisiting the community's vision and to ensure this vision is being carried out in the Plan. The second meeting will involve the development of land -use policies and implementation strategies. Population, housing and employment projections and draft plan maps will be presented at this meeting. The third workshop will involve the review of a draft plan document and plan maps. Revisions will be made to reflect public input and new information. Up to two additional workshops may be added with a specific area of focus (e.g. Opportunity Site, Brookdale Mall, public facilities, etc.) Three public hearings are expected with the adoption of the plan: one Planning Commission meeting, one City Council meeting for recommendation to the Metropolitan Council, and one City Council meeting for final approval. We will work with the Metropolitan Council representative throughout the process to ensure plan requirements are met without compromising the key values, goals and policies of the City. Draft Document The drafting of the document is an iterative process that begins at. the initiation of the project and continues until the plan meets with the approval of the City Council. Collecting and analyzing data and preparing graphical representations of the data will begin upon notice to proceed. Loucks Associates will develop and present a rough draft plan for review and feedback. Sections will be distributed to City staff as they are completed as part of the progress reporting and will be refined as new information and input is received. Particular emphasis will be placed on developing land -use control policies, which will be based largely on population and employment projections and placed into the context of land use constraints as well as public commitments and investments. The Metropolitan Council's system statement generally and those dealing with transportation, wastewater and parks specifically will be responded to in the draft plan. The plan will include a section on water resources planning that addresses sanitary sewer inflow /infiltration and surface water management. Mapping and graphics will also be developed to visually demonstrate proposed plan concepts and recommendations. Revisions will be made, as necessary, as the process progresses. i Comprehensive Plan Elements The following elements will be the primary emphasis of our efforts as listed in the RFP: 1. Executive Summary 2. Community Profile 3. Land Use and Redevelopment Plan 4. Transportation S. Neighborhood and Housing Plan 6. Parks and Open Space Plan 7. Public Facilities Plan 8. Water Resources a. Sewer Plan b. Surface Water Plan c. Water Supply Plan 9. Implementation These elements will be based on information in the existing comprehensive plan and GIS data provided by the City to update it. We will work closely with City staff to review capital improvement plans to assure implementation consistency with the comprehensive plan. The draft comprehensive plan will be consistent with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Circulation of Plan After completion and review of the draft plan Loucks will submit the plan to adjacent cities, Hennepin County, the watershed district, the school district and other agencies and facilitate the preparation of responses to comment received. After revision as necessary to address comments received in the review process the plan will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review. 2.2 Deliverables Loucks Associates will provide 20 draft and 35 final draft copies, one (1) unbound copy, and one (1) electronic version of the comprehensive plan document and associated maps and graphics including data used to create the document and maps. Large -scale maps (24" x 36 will also be provided with capability of being produced legibly at 1 1" x 17" format. i i 2.3 Project Schedule Loucks Associates has the technical capability and available resources to submit the comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council and circulate the plan to adjacent communities and other Brooklyn Center units of local government in 11 months. This project would be a high priority for our planning staff in 2008. Our current workload will allow us to begin this project upon notice to proceed. The following schedule of tasks illustrates an 11 -month process: 1 1 Project initiation i Project kick -off Inventory and analysis i Field surveys /interviews Document development r� Public open house 1 1" Plan meeting 2 Plan meeting i Present draft 3 Plan meeting i Present final draft Plan adoption i Feb. Mar. Apr May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct Nov. Dec. 1 1 1 1 3.0 PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1 3.1 Professional References City of Albany, Minnesota Tom Schneider, City Administrator 400 Railroad Avenue, PO Box 370 Albany, MN 56307 320- 845 -4244 Work: Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance Date: Mid -2005 to early 2006 City of Independence, Minnesota Toni Hirsch, City Clerk- Administrator 1920 County Road 90 Independence, MN 55359 -9448 763 479 -0527 Work: Comprehensive Plan, GIS Dates: 2000 -2001, currently working on update City of Osseo, Minnesota LeAnn Larson, City Clerk 415 Central Avenue Osseo, MN 55369 -1131 651 552 -4100 Work: Zoning Ordinance Technical Assistance, GIS Date: 2004 -2006, City of West St. Paul, Minnesota Jim Hartshorn, Community Development Director 1616 Humboldt Avenue West St. Paul, MN 55118-3972 651- 552 -4100 Work: Comprehensive Plan, GIS Date: 1999 -2000, currently working on update 3.2 Citizen Participation An invitation and survey instrument used for the West St. Paul Comprehensive Plan follow the resumes of key personnel in the Appendix. Making the survey available to persons both in hard copy and by a link online from the City's website increased the level of response and we would recommend that this approach be used in Brooklyn Center. 1 4.0 FEE SCHEDULE t 4.1 Research and Background Development: $13,000 Research background /demographic data Charts, graphs, presentation of data Analyze existing plans Analyze and report existing conditions information for each element (30 hrs —Mr. Andrews, +20 hrs —Mr. Hagen 5 hrs —Mr. Kangas 55 hrs at $100 /hr, and 20 hrs —Mr. Loucks 40 hours Mr. Shopek 60 hours at $125/hr) 4.2 Project Coordination: $5,000 Monthly /weekly progress reports General project management Coordination and facilitation with Metropolitan Council (30 hrs —Mr. Hagen, 20 hrs —Mr. Andrews 50 hrs at $100 /hr) 4.3 Public Participation Facilitation: $10,000 Key interviews (Andrews and Hagen 2 hrs each) Project kick -off meeting (Andrews and Hagen 2 hrs each) Public open house (Andrews and Hagen 4 hrs each) 3 Planning workshop meetings (Andrews and Hagen 2 hrs each) 3 Public hearing meetings (Andrews and Hagen 2 hrs each) (50 hrs of meetings 50 hrs of preparation 100 hrs at $100 /hr) 4.4 Plan Drafting and Mapping: $28,000 Incorporation of all information and input Rough draft including all proposed sections and maps Final draft incorporating all revisions to plan Document and maps (100 hrs —Mr. Hagen 100 hrs —Mr. Andrews 200 hrs at $100 /hr, and 40 hrs at $50 /hr for word processing, and 80 hrs of GIS at $75 /hr) 4.5 Expenses (surveys, plotting, printing of document and maps) $4,500 TOTAL $60,500 Services above and beyond the scope of services listed in this proposal will be provided through change order approved in writing by both the City and Loucks in accordance with the hourly fee rate schedule contained in the Appendix. Loucks Associates is flexible in scoping the project to meet the City's needs and budget. If there is anything in this proposal that does not meet your needs, please call to discuss. Tom Loucks Principal Planner, President Project Experience Education Public Planning Consulting Bachelor of Science Aurora, MN Urban Studies Hastings, MN Mankato State University Hugo, MN Mankato, MN Independence, MN May Township, MN Professional Affiliations Sunfish Lake, MN American Planning West Saint Paul, MN Association Development Projects Holly Creek, 61 -unit single family residential development Plymouth, MN Boston Scientific, campus master plan Maple Grove, MN Minnesota Bible College, campus master plan Rochester, MN N Foxfield Townhomes, multi family housing Rochester, MN CVS Pharmacies, 30 sites Twin Cities area McDonald's Restaurants, 20 sites Minnesota, South Dakota and Nebraska 0 Holiday Inn and water park Otsego, MN Marriott Hotel Bloomington, MN Expert Witness Testimony Met Center Bloomington, MN PDQ Burnsville, MN Redeemer Lutheran Church Burnsville, MN Royal Tire Inc. Brooklyn Park, MN Steven P. Larson St. Paul, MN Stone Creek Plymouth, MN The Commons Brooklyn Park, MN Ward Estate Chanhassen, MN Decathlon Athletic Club Bloomington, MN Tannehill Property Savage, MN Dale Properties Brooklyn Park and Oakdale, MN Foss Property Burnsville, MN Gorra Property Chanhassen, MN Sanken Property Chaska, MN Hoeft Property Eagan, MN Tapper Property Eagan, MN S S O C I AT E S Kelly Orchard Rochester, MN planning civil engineering land surveying landscape architecture environmental 1 David A. Hagen, A.I.C.P. 1 Senior Planner /Project Manager 1 1 Project Experience Education 1 Planning and Zoning Master of Arts City of Albany Prepared comp plan and zoning and subdivision ordinance Geography with Physical City of Independence Provided technical /planning assistance, prepared comp plan Planning Concentration 1 City of Jordan- Prepared comp plan Mankato State University City of Osseo- Prepared design guidelines for downtown redevelopment project Mankato, MN City of Sauk Centre Prepared zoning ordinance City of West Saint Paul Provide technical /planning assistance, prepared comp plan Bachelor of Science 1 St. Paul Port Authority— Prepared strategic management plan, Southport Industrial Urban and Regional Studies, Social Studies Mankato State University Site Planning and Development Mankato, MN Pirates Cove, mixed -use planned unit development Benton County, MN 1 Edgewater, mixed -use residential density plat and orderly annexation Rogers, MN Master of Business Admin. Creekview Preserve, single family plat and orderly annexation— Sartell, MN One -third credits earned Hidden Creek, single family plat and annexation by ordinance Mayer, MN University of St. Thomas 1 Parkview Hills, single family plat and annexation by ordinance Delano, MN St. Paul, MN Crimson Ponds, single family plat Otsego, MN Sprint PCS and Qwest Wireless, telecommunications antenna sites numerous locations throughout the Twin Cities Professional Affiliations 1 American Institute of Certified Environmental Reviews Planners Pirates Cove Alternative Urban Area -wide Review 1 Edge Water Environmental Assessment Worksheet 0 American Planning Gramercy City Bella Environmental Assessment Worksheet Association Numerous EAWs for residential projects 1 Previous Public Sector Experience Registrations City of St. Louis Park, Community Development Director 1989 -1995 Licensed Real Estate Broker Directed staff of ten in preparing and implementing zoning and Minnesota subdivision ordinances and comprehensive and redevelopment plans, and in administering housing programs 1 City of Robbinsdale, Community Development Director 1982 -1988 Directed planning function and coordinated residential and commercial redevelopment projects 1 City of Morris /Stevens County, City /County Planner 1978 -1981 Formulated and presented planning recommendations, negotiated orderly annexation agreements with township 1 planning civil engineering land surveying landscape architecture environmental Jared Andrews, A.I.C.P.`� Senior Planner Project Experience Education Public Planning Consulting Bachelor of Science City of West St. Paul Community and City of Osseo Regional Planning City of Independence Iowa State University Ames, IA Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Ordinance Development City of Osseo Zoning ordinance update 0 City of Jordan 2003 Comprehensive plan Professional Affiliations City of Independence 2001 Comprehensive plan update American Institute of City of Independence Shoreland ordinance amendment Certified Planners a City of West St. Paul Various zoning amendments City of West St. Paul Blight redevelopment study American Planning Association Rice County, Minnesota Telecommunications ordinance Economic Development Site Planning, Permitting and Development Services Association of Minnesota CVS Pharmacies Various sites throughout the Midwest Allianz Life PUD Golden Valley Minnesota Bible College Campus Development Plan Rochester Registrations Cedar Villas, Shelter Corporation /Dakota County CDA Eagan A.I.C.P. Certificate #015746 Waterstone, Dean Johnson Homes Maple Grove Waterpoint, Dean Johnson Homes Maple Grove Pheasant Hills 12th Addition Lino Lakes Baton Corporation Plymouth Qwest Wireless Numerous sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin Strategic Management Planning Southport Strategic Management Plan, St. Paul Port Authority St. Paul Environmental Review and Site Planning Grand Rapids, Wal -Mart EAW St. Paul, Gateway Village EAW N Benton County, Pirates Cove AUAR Brooklyn Park, Northcross Partners II EAW Lino Lakes, Pheasant Hills 12th Addition EAW Previous Public Sector Experience City of Shakopee, Planner 1996 -2000 S S O C I AT E S City of Hiawatha, IA, Planner /Inspector 1995 -1996 planning civil engineering land surveying landscape architecture environmental Help Plan West Saint Paul's Future! Comprehensive Planning Workshop March 20 at 7:00 p.m. following Planning Commission Meeting City Council Chambers, West Saint Paul Municipal Center 1616 Humboldt Avenue. We want to hear from you! The City of West Saint Paul is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, which lays out the long -range goals and policies for the City, and we need your input. West Saint Paul's last update s. was completed in 2000 with r an extensive public input effort, utilizing eleven neighborhood associations to establish a baseline of data and citizen input, which was reflected in the goals, policies and objectives in the plan. e' Since that time, the City has performed specific area plans and studies, revised its zoning ordinance and has truly seen an infusion of both public and private investment in the community. With the many changes that have occurred, it is now time to update the plan again, and it is the City's intention to build on its past efforts. Please join the West Saint Paul Planning Commission following its regularly scheduled meeting on March 20, 2007. The Planning Commission is scheduled to start its regular agenda items at 6:00 PM, with the Comprehensive Plan Workshop following at 7:00 PM. The workshop is planned to solicit your participation for approximately one hour. Please call Jared Andrews, Senior Planner at Loucks Associates at (763) 496 -6735 or Jim Housley, Zoning Administrator at (651) 552 -4134 if you have any questions. See you there! 1 ^We Want Your Input! t West Saint Paul Comprehensive Planning Survey I. Introduction This survey was developed to promote citizen participation in the comprehensive planning process. This is one opportunity for citizens to provide input beyond attending public hearings and meetings. All citizens, elected officials and stakeholders of the community are encouraged to complete the survey. Results will be compiled by the end of June, 2007. Cut off for submission of surveys will be June 15' An online version can be obtained through the following link: httD: /www.survevmonkev .com/s.aso ?u 510933800917 In lieu of participating on line, this hard copy version can be manually filled out and returned to Karen Divina at the City Municipal Center or mailed to Jared Andrews at Loucks Associates, 7200 Hemlock LN, STE 300, Minneapolis, MN 55369. Thank You! Your input is greatly appreciated! II. Overview 1. How would you rate West Saint Paul as a place to live? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 2. How would you rate West Saint Paul as a place to raise children? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 3. How would you rate West Saint Paul as a place to work? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 4. How would you rate West Saint Paul as a place to retire? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 5. How would you characterize the sense of community in West Saint Paul? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion III. Land Use 6. How would you describe the condition of the overall housing stock? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 7. Do you feel there are enough housing type choices in West Saint Paul? Yes No. If no, what types are missing? 8. Do you feel there are sufficient businesses or private services available? Yes No. If no, what business types are lacking? 9. What areas should be the highest priority for housing redevelopment? Robert Street, north of Butler Avenue Robert Street, between Butler and Emerson Avenues Mid Robert Street area, near Wentworth and Thompson Scattered Site Single Family Residential Existing Apartment Buildings Transition areas (between single family and commercial) Other (please specify) 10. What areas should be the highest priority for commercial redevelopment? Robert Street, north of Butler Avenue Robert Street, between Butler and Emerson Avenues Mid Robert Street area, near Wentworth and Thompson South end of Robert Street Smith and Dodd Road Area Transition areas (between single family and commercial) Other (please specify) 11. What areas should be the highest priority for mixed use (residential commercial) type redevelopment? Robert Street, north of Butler Avenue Robert Street, between Butler and Emerson Avenues Mid Robert Street area, near Wentworth and Thompson South end of Robert Street Smith and Dodd Road Area Transition areas (between single family and commercial) Other (please specify) IV. Transportation 12. How would you rate the overall transportation system in West Saint Paul? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 13. How would you rate the ease of car travel in West Saint Paul? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 14. How would you rate the ease of bus travel in West Saint Paul? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 15. How would you rate the ease of bicycle travel in West Saint Paul? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 16. How would you rate the ease of walking in West Saint Paul? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 17. Do you feel a light rail connection to Saint Paul would be beneficial to West Saint Paul? Yes No No Opinion 18. If light rail was to serve West Saint Paul, should it run along Lafayette freeway (Highway 52), or Robert Street? Lafayette freeway Robert Street No Opinion 19. Do you feel a dedicated rapid bus commuter lane should be proposed in West Saint Paul? Yes No No Opinion 20. How would you rate the public road conditions and maintenance? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 21. How would you rate the sidewalks and trail systems? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion V. Parks and Open Space 22. How would you rate the City's park facilities? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 23. How would you rate the City's recreational programs? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion 24. How do you feel the City is doing in terms of environmental enhancement or protection? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion VI. Public Facilities and Services 25. How would you rate the following public facilities and services? Excellent Good Fair Poor No Opinion City Hall Library Recreation Facilities Elementary Schools Middle Schools High School Churches Parks Equipment Ball Fields Police Fire Street Maintenance Public Utilities (Sewer, Water) Private Utilities (Elec., Phone, TV) Health Care Availability Child Care Availability Senior Programs /Opportunities Child Programs /Opportunities Teen Programs /Opportunities 26. Are there any public programs not offered that would be beneficial? No Yes (please specify) VII. Open -Ended Questions (final 3 questions) 27. What are the best features of West Saint Paul that should be preserved and enhanced? 28. What conditions could prevent West Saint Paul from achieving its full potential? t 29. What is your vision of West Saint Paul in the year 2030? I Thank you for taking the time to be a part of the comprehensive planning process. Your input is appreciated. ASSOCIATES GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.0 CLIENT RESPONSIBILITY 1.1. The CLIENT shall provide or make available all existing data that could possibly have a bearing on the decisions or recommendations made by Loucks Associates including: 1.1.1. The CLIENT shall provide a copy of an Abstract or Title commitment for the parcel within seven (7) days of agreement date. 1.1.2. The CLIENT shall provide a copy of all staff reports, meeting minutes and pertinent correspondence as they become available. This information shall be furnished as expeditiously as necessary for the orderly progress of Loucks Associates' services and of the work. 1.1.3. The CLIENT shall provide, as requested, information regarding requirements for the Project that shall set forth the CLIENT's design objectives, constraints and criteria, including building area, building types and site requirements. 1.1.4. The CLIENT shall examine the documents prepared by Loucks Associates and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of Loucks Associates' services. 1.1.5. The CLIENT shall furnish reports and professional recommendations and other services of soil engineers or other consultants when such services are deemed necessary by Loucks Associates. Consultants hired by the CLIENT shall carry liability, errors and omission and other pertinent insurance. The services may include test borings, test pits, soil bearing values, percolation tests, air and water pollution tests, ground corrosion and resistivity tests, etc. 1.1.6. Loucks Associates shall receive copies of all soil borings, compaction tests and reports. 1.2. If the CLIENT observes or otherwise becomes aware of any fault or defect in the Project or non conformance with the Construction Documents, prompt written notice thereof shall be given by the CLIENT to Loucks Associates. 1.3. The CLIENT shall provide for Loucks Associates' right to enter from time to time property owned by the CLIENT and/or others in order for Loucks Associates to fulfill the Scope of Services indicated herein. The CLIENT understands that use of equipment may unavoidably cause some damage, the correction of which is not part of this agreement. 2.0 PAYMENT TO LOUCKS ASSOCIATES 2.1. Invoices will be submitted to the CLIENT from time to time, generally monthly but no more frequently than every two weeks and shall be due and payable within thirty (30) calendar days of the invoice date. 2.2. If the CLIENT objects to all or any portion of an invoice, the CLIENT shall so notify Loucks Associates in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of the invoice date, identify the cause of disagreement and pay when due that portion of the invoice, if any, not in dispute. The CLIENT forfeits his objection by failure to respond within thirty (30) days. Loucks Associates and CLIENT shall strive to resolve disputed amounts within 45 days. If the dispute cannot be resolved, either party has the right to suspend or terminate this agreement. 2.3. The CLIENT shall pay an additional carrying charge of one and one -half (1.5) percent of the invoice amount per month for any payment received by Loucks Associates more than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the invoice, excepting any portions of the invoice amount in dispute and resolved in favor of the CLIENT. 2.3.1. Payment thereafter shall first be applied to the carrying charges and then to the principal unpaid amount. 2.3.2. Application of the additional carrying charge indicated above as a consequence of the CLIENT's late payments does not constitute any willingness on Loucks Associates' part to finance the CLIENT's operation, and no such willingness should be inferred. 2.4. Payment of invoices is in no case subject to unilateral discounting or setoffs by the CLIENT. 2.5. If the CLIENT fails to pay undisputed invoiced amounts within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the invoice, Loucks Associates may at any time, without waiving any other claims against the CLIENT and without thereby incurring any liability to the CLIENT, suspend or terminate this agreement. 1 rev 6 1107 t/genadmin/spec /gencond/bDucks Gen Cond final 06I207.doc 2.6. (a) ANY PERSON OR COMPANY SUPPLYING LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT TO YOUR PROPERTY MAY FILE A LIEN AGAINST YOUR PROPERTY IF THAT PERSON OR COMPANY IS NOT PAID FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS. (b) UNDER MINNESOTA LAW, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DIRECTLY AND DEDUCT THIS AMOUNT FROM OUR CONTRACT PRICE, OR WITHHOLD THE AMOUNTS DUE THEM FROM US UNTIL 120 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENT UNLESS WE GIVE YOU A LIEN WAIVER SIGNED BY PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED ANY LABOR OR MATERIAL FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND WHO GAVE YOU TIMELY NOTICE. 2.7. In the event that litigation is required to collect undisputed invoiced amounts, Loucks Associates shall be reimbursed by the CLIENT for Loucks Associates' legal costs in addition to whatever other judgment or settlement sums, if any, may be due. Such legal costs shall include, but not be limited to, reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, expert witness fees and other documented expenses, as well as the value of time spent by Loucks Associates in researching the issues in question, discussing matters with attorneys and others, preparing for depositions, responding to interrogatories and so on. The value of time spent and the expenses incurred shall be based on Loucks Associates' prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy relative to the recovery of direct project costs. The same considerations apply to the prevailing party, either the CLIENT or Loucks Associates, when litigation or arbitration is needed to resolve properly noticed disputed invoiced amounts. 3.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND /OR EXCLUDED SERVICES 3.1. Unless specifically included in the Scope of Services, the following services are not included in this agreement. They shall be provided if agreed to in writing by the CLIENT and Loucks Associates. In general, tasks not specified within the Scope of Services will be prepared in accordance with the prevailing hourly fee schedule. 3.2. Revisions to plans that are requested by the CLIENT, the CLIENT's architect or representative or required by the city, its consultants, watershed, county surveyor, DNR, Corps of Engineers, or other regulatory agency if it is not clearly demonstrated that the cause for change is an error or omission on Loucks Associates behalf. 3.3. The CLIENT shall also pay all Reimbursable Charges and other costs directly attributable to termination or suspension for which Loucks Associates is not otherwise compensated. 3.4. If the services covered by the Agreement have not been completed within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Agreement, through no fault of Loucks Associates, the amount of compensation shall be equitably adjusted using the prevailing hourly fee schedule. 3.5. If the CLIENT requests a task be completed in a time frame which requires Loucks Associates employees to work beyond 8 hours per working day (Monday through Friday), and it is solely based on the CLIENT's request and not Loucks Associates integral workload, Loucks Associates may negotiate additional compensation for fast tracking a specific task. 3.6. In that it would be unfair for Loucks Associates to be exposed to liability for his or her failure to perform a service the CLIENT has instructed Loucks Associates not to perform, due to the CLIENT's preference or desire to obtain such service from another source, the CLIENT hereby waives any claim against LOUCKS ASSOCIATES and agrees to defend, indemnify and hold LOUCKS ASSOCIATES harmless from any claim or liability for injury or loss allegedly arising from Loucks Associates' failure to perform a service the CLIENT has instructed Loucks Associates to not perform. The CLIENT further agrees to compensate Loucks Associates for any time spent or expenses incurred by Loucks Associates in defense of any such claim, in accordance with Loucks Associates' prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy. 3.7. The CLIENT has relied on Loucks Associates' judgment in establishing the work scope and fee for this project, given the project's nature and risks. The CLIENT shall therefore rely on Loucks Associates' judgment as to the continued adequacy of this agreement in light of occurrences or discoveries that were not originally contemplated by or known to Loucks Associates. Should Loucks Associates call for contract re negotiation, Loucks Associates shall identify the changed conditions which in Loucks Associates' judgment makes such re negotiation necessary, and Loucks Associates and the CLIENT shall promptly and in good faith enter into re negotiation of this agreement to help permit Loucks Associates to continue to meet the CLIENT's needs. If re negotiated terms cannot be agreed to, the CLIENT agrees that Loucks Associates has an absolute right to terminate this AGREEMENT. 4.0 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES 4.1. In addition to the Compensation for Basic and Additional Services, the following Reimbursable Charges are due to Loucks Associates from the CLIENT, for reasonable charges incurred or established by Loucks Associates in the interest of the Project: 4.2. Transportation in connection with the Project, out -of -town travel, long- distance communications, blueprints, reproductions, copies, deliveries performed by Loucks Associates or outside delivery services, and fees paid for securing approval by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 4.3. The plat check fee and the cost of the plat mylars are reimbursable expenses to be paid by the CLIENT. 2 rev 6 1107 t/genadmin/spedgencond/Loucks Gen Cond final 061207.doc 5.0 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS 5.1. If contained in the Scope of Services or if requested as an additional service, Loucks Associates shall submit to the CLIENT an opinion of the probable cost required to construct work recommended, designed, or specified by Loucks Associates. Loucks Associates is not a construction cost estimator or construction contractor, nor should Loucks Associates' rendering an opinion of probable construction costs be considered equivalent to the nature and extent of service that a construction cost estimator or construction contractor would provide. Loucks Associates' opinion will be based solely upon his or her own experience with construction. This requires Loucks Associates to make a number of assumptions as to actual conditions that will be encountered on site; the specific decisions of other design professions engaged; the means and methods of construction the contractor will employ; the cost and extent of labor, equipment and materials the CONTRACTOR will employ; CONTRACTOR's techniques in detemuning prices and market conditions at the time, and other factors over which Loucks Associates has no control. Given the assumptions that must be made, Loucks Associates cannot guarantee the accuracy of his or her opinions of cost, and in recognition of that fact the CLIENT waives any claim against Loucks Associates relative to the accuracy of Loucks Associates' opinion of probable construction cost. 6.0 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, OBSERVATION ANTI TESTING 6.1. Loucks Associates shall render Construction Document interpretations necessary for the property execution or progress of those portions of the Work designed by Loucks Associates with reasonable promptness. 6.2. Loucks Associates will provide periodic observation of grading, utility and street construction activities as specified in under the SCOPE OF SERVICES. 6.3. Loucks Associates will verify field measured quantities for payment to the construction contractor as specified under the SCOPE OF SERVICES. 7.0 SHOP DRAWING REVIEW 7.1. Loucks Associates shall timely review and take appropriate action upon the construction contractor's submittals of Shop Drawings, Products Data and Samples. Such action shall be taken with reasonable promptness to insure job progress. Loucks Associates' review of a specific item shall not pass design responsibility for that item to Loucks Associates when the design aspects are the responsibility of other designers. Instead this review would be to verity conformance of that specific item as a component within an entire assembly. 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STAKING 8. l Loucks Associates shall be notified at least two (2) working days prior to the time that the construction stakes are required. No additional compensation shall be allowed for any claims of crews being held up because of lack of line and grade stakes. If Loucks Associates survey crew arrives at the site to perform construction staking at a specified date and time as requested, but the scheduled work cannot be performed due to circumstances beyond Loucks Associates control, the waiting and/or travel time will be considered additional services. 8.2. After any part of the staking has been completed, the CLIENT and/or contractor shall be responsible for the proper execution of the work t such lines and grades and all stakes or other marks given shall be protected and preserved until the work is completed and checked. Restaking shall be considered as an additional service, less it is to correct an error in the original staking. 83. The CLIENT and/or contractor shall assist Loucks Associates in staking utility lines by exposing potentially conflicting utility lines for determination of line elevation and location. 8.4. If Loucks Associates is not retained to perform construction observation, the client or his representative shall review the construction staking and/or cut sheets for general conformity to the plans and immediately report any obvious discrepancies to Loucks Associates. If work is performed after knowing a possible staking error exists, it will be at the sole responsibility of the CLIENT or Contractor. 8.5. The cost of resetting lost irons will be invoiced to the CLIENT at Loucks Associates' standard hourly rates. 8.6. Loucks Associates shall be held harmless by the CLIENT for any losses resulting from houses that are staked by other surveyors prior to installation of lot corners. 9.0 JOB SAFETY 9.1. Insofar as job site safety is concerned, Loucks Associates is responsible for his or her own and his or her employee's activities on the jobsite, but this shall not be construed to relieve the CLIENT or any construction contractors from their responsibilities for maintaining a safe job site. Neither the professional activities of Loucks Associates nor the presence of Loucks Associates or his or her employees and subcontractors, shall be construed to imply Loucks Associates has any responsibility for methods of work performance, superintendent, sequencing of construction, or safety in, on or about the job site. The CLIENT agrees that the Construction Contractor is solely responsible for job site safety, and warrants that this intent shall be made evident in the CLIENT's agreement with the Construction Contractor. The CLIENT also warrants that Loucks Associates shall be made an additional insured under the Construction Contractor's general liability insurance policy. 3 rev 6 11 07 t/genadmin/spec/gencond/Loucks Gen Cond final 061207.doc 10.0 RECORD DRAWINGS 10.1. Upon completion of the work, Loucks Associates shall compile for and deliver to the CLIENT, a complete set of record documents using information furnished to Loucks Associates by the construction contractor and as measured by the field representatives. This set of documents shall consist of the original plan sheets altered by striking our original elevation or distance and writing the record information. 1 10.2. In that the record drawings are based partially on information provided by others, Loucks Associates cannot and does not warrant their accuracy beyond that which Loucks Associates is directly responsible. 10.3. A reproducible set of the record drawings will be provided for the City's use and the originals retained in Loucks Associates files for future use. 11.0 STANDARD OF PRACTICE 11.1. Services performed by Loucks Associates under this agreement will be conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other representation, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this Agreement, or in any report opinion, document or otherwise. 12.0 TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND /OR SUSPENSION OF WORK 12.1. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven days written notice should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating the termination. 12.2. This Agreement may be terminated by the CLIENT upon at least seven days written notice to Loucks Associates in the event that the project is permanently abandoned. 12.3. The CLIENT may instruct Loucks Associates to temporarily stop work on the project by giving written notice. 12.4. The CLIENT shall pay all costs associated with the suspension or termination of work, including demobilization, modifying schedules, reassigning personnel, etc. 13.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 13.1. This Agreement shall be governed by Minnesota Law. 13.2. The CLIENT and Loucks Associates waive all rights against each other and against Loucks Associates', agents and employees of the other for damages during construction covered by any property insurance. The CLIENT and Loucks Associates each shall require appropriate similar waivers from their contractors, consultants and agents. Where any property insurance policy requires an endorsement to permit waiver of subrogation, the CLIENT shall obtain such endorsement. 13.3. Loucks Associates shall remain the owners of all plans, designs and papers related to the above referenced project. In the event of any nonpayment of invoices, Loucks Associates shall be under no obligation to deliver any such plans, designs or other papers to you, and shall have no liability to you for its retention of such plans unless full and prompt payment is made. 14.0 INDEMNIFICATION 14.1. The CLIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless Loucks Associates, his agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of the work, provided that any such claim, damage, loss or expense (a) is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (even to the Work itself) including loss of use or resulting therefrom, and (b) is caused in whole or in part by a negligent act or omission of the CLIENT, anyone directly or indirectly employed by him, or anyone for whose acts he may be liable. Such obligation shall be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity which would otherwise exist as to any party or person described in this paragraph. 15.0 ASSIGNMENT 15.1. The CLIENT and Loucks Associates, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither the CLIENT nor Loucks Associates shall assign, sublet or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. 4 rev 6 1107 t/genadmin/spec/gencond/Loucks Gen Cond final 061207.doc 16.0 EXTENT OF AGREEMENT t 16.1. This Agreement comprises a final and complete repository of understanding between the CLIENT and Loucks Associates. It supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications representations or agreements whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter of this agreement. Each party has advised the other to read this document thoroughly before accepting it, to help assure it accurately conveys meaning and intents. Acceptance of this agreement as provided for below signifies that each party has read the documents thoroughly and has had any questions or concerns completely explained by independent counsel and is satisfied. The CLIENT and CONSULTANT agree that modifications to this Agreement shall not be binding unless made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each party. 16.2. Any notice given hereunder shall be deemed served when hand delivered in writing to an officer or other duly appointed representative of the party to whom the notice is directed, or if sent be registered or certified mail to the business address identified at the end of this agreement. 17.0 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 17.1. Loucks Associates certifies that it has received a certificate of compliance from the Commissioner of Human Rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 363.074. t 1 1 5 rev 6 11 07 t/genadmin/spec /gencond/Loucks Gen Cond final 061207.doc HOURLY RATE FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 01/01/08 Where it is possible to determine in advance the SCOPE OF SERVICES and the time and effort the Project will require, the fees for Planning, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, and Environmental Services are contracted on a lump sum basis. Where this is not possible, either due to the complex nature of the work or if the time required is not within the consultants' control, the following hourly rate schedule will be utilized: Reimbursable external expenses including, but not limited to, subconsultants, duplication, messenger service, postage and expendable field supplies will be billed to the client at the actual rate, plus 10 HOURLY DISCIPLINE JOB CLASSIFICATION RATE PLANNING PRINCIPAL PLANNER 135.00 SENIOR PLANNER 110.00 SENIOR SITE DESIGNER 105.00 LANDSCAPE PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 105.00 ARCHITECTURE SENIOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 100.00 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 100.00 SITE DESIGN TECHNICIAN 85.00 ENGINEERING PRINCIPAL ENGINEER 130.00 SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER/ENGINEER 120.00 PROJECT ENGINEER t 10.00 ENGINEER IN TRAINING (EIT) 80.00 SENIOR TECHNICIAN 85.00 TECHNICIAN 80.00 SENIOR CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTATIVE 85.00 CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTATIVE 80.00 SURVEYING PRINCIPAL SURVEYOR 130.00 SENIOR SURVEYOR 115.00 PROJECT SURVEYOR 105.00 SENIOR SURVEY TECHNICIAN 85.00 SURVEY TECHNICIAN 80.00 SURVEY CREW CHIEF 85.00 INSTRUMENT PERSON 70.00 SURVEY CREW 155.00 ENVIRONMENTAL SENIOR PROJECT SCIENTIST 125.00 PROJECT SCIENTIST 95.00 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICIAN 85.00 ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ASSISTANCE (CLERICAL) 60.00 DELIVERY 45.00 *PROJECT REQUIRING CERTIFIED HEALTH SAFETY TRAINING: ADD PER EMPLOYEE 35.00 REIMBURSABLE UNIT RATE EXPENSES MILEAGE oer mile .55 MYLAR FILM each 10.00 PLAN SIZE PHOTOCOPIES /BLUEPRINTS each 2.00 PHOTOCOPIES each 0.10 lid coun ell Item city City of Brooklyn Center OX A Millennium Community COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mane DATE: March 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Sal ary Adjustment City Manager January 1, 2008 Recommendation: Per the February 25 worksession, the attached resolution authorizing a 3% salary adjustment to the Sal of the City Manager is enclosed. J Y g Background: Section 8(13) of the Employment Agreement with the City Manager provides for review of the City Manager's salary at the same time as other non union employees following the performance adjustment effective July 1, 2007. On January 1, 2008 all other non- union employee salaries were increase by 3 The City Council met in worksession on February 25t to review the City Manger's salary. After reviewing salaries of City Managers from communities determined by Council policy as comparable for the purpose of comparing Council salaries, the majority consensus was to have a resolution prepared for consideration on March 24 2008 that would adjust the City Manager's salary by 3% for calendar year 2008. Fiscal Issues: If approved, budget to cover this expense. roved there are sufficient funds p pP g C: Kelli Wick i magr.salary.2008.council. item .mem.frm.doc 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org I Member introduced the following esolution and moved its adoption: g p RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY MANAGER WHEREAS, the City Manager is under an employment contract with the City of Brooklyn Center entitled CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of September 25, 2006 (`Employment Agreement and WHEREAS, Section 8(B) of the Employment Agreement provides that the City Manager's salary shall be increased to $119,000 effective July 1, 2007, if the City Manager's performance is deemed to be satisfactory and Thereafter, The Manager's salary shall be reviewed and considered at the same time as consideration of salary for other non -union employees of the City; and WHEREAS, a salary increase of 3% was approved for other non -union employees effective January 1, 2008; and WHERAS, the City Council met in worksession of February 25 2008 and the majority consensus of the Council was to direct Staff to present a resolution approving a 3% pay increase to the 2008 City Manager's salary for consideration at the March 24 2008 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: The City Council in accordance with 8(B) of the Employment Agreement, with City Manager authorizes a 3% increase to the current $119,000 salary of the City Manager effective January 1, 2008. March 24, 2008 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. There was discussion of restructuring school district boundaries. It was noted this is a daunting issue that does not come forward due to the great costs and lawsuits involved. CITY MANAGER SALARY -2008 Mr. Boganey introduced the item and provided an overview of the city manager /administrator compensation comparison for Year 2008. I It was suggested that consideration of a pay increase be presented to Council at a regular City Council meeting, as the City Manager performance review was favorable and the City Manager contract includes a provision for consideration of a salary increase in January 2008. Mayor Willson and Councilmembers Lasman and Ryan stated their support of a 3% pay increase to the 2008 City Manager salary. Councilmember O'Connor stated her opposition to a pay increase to the 2008 City Manager salary. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct Staff to present a resolution approving a 3% pay increase to the 2008 City Manager for Council consideration at the March 24, 2008, City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember /Commissioner Yelich moved and Councilmember /Commissioner O'Connor seconded adjournment of the City Council /Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:38 p.m. i Motion passed unanimously. I 02/25/08 -3- City of Brooklyn Center F I COPY A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/EDA WORK SESSION DATE: February 22, 2008 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council/EDA FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manage SUBJECT: City Manager Salary iJ COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED I have attached the most current salary data for City Managers working in the 10 "comparable cities" used in establishing Council salaries per City Council Policy. I trust that this information will assist in you discussion regarding the 2008 City Manger Salary. BACKGROUND COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES GACity ManageAWORKSESSIORMEMYRM.doc 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org tr om nsation Com City Manager Admmis ati� pe Comparison p For Year 2008 Total 2008 Annual Compensation. Yrs. of Def. Extra Total Trans. Transportation City Pop. Exp. Salary Comp. Comp. Comp. Allow. Allowance Current Total City Manager Experience Brooklyn Center 29,005 1/28 119,000 119,000 Fridley 26,603 20/32 120,749 10,832 785 (b) 132,366 3,898 136,264 Shoreview 26,093 14/24 126,609 126,609 4,500 131,109 Crystal 22,306 8/12 118,000 118,000 6,000 124,000 New Hope 20,904 1 101,920 101,920 101,920 previous 118,608 3,750 3,000 (b) 125,358 125,358 Golden Valley 20,355 6/25 123,479 7,874 (b) 131,353 6,144 137,497 White Bear Lake 24,723 24/33 113,200 6,240 5,274 (a) 124,714 3,900 128,614 Roseville 34,080 1/30 123,802 8,047 123,802 123,802 (in lieu of PERA) Richfield 34,496 3/0 121,181 3,500 6,347 (b) 131,028 5,400 136,428 (a)= Performance pay (b)= Insurance adjustment City Manager Employment Agreement THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Cornelius L. Boganey (hereinafter referred to as the "Manager as of the 25th day of September, 2006. WHEREAS, the City wishes to engage the services of the Manager as a professional employee; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to set forth the terms and conditions of their relationship in this contract in order to assure the requisite flexibility to enable the Manager to function as the City's chief administrative official; and WHEREAS, the nature of the Manager's position requires continued professional training and attendance at meetings during evenings and other non traditional work times. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this agreement, City and Manager agree as follows: Section 1. Employment. Manager shall be employed by the City as City Manager commencing on the 26th day of September, 2006. Section 2 Duties. The duties of the Manager's position shall be as set forth in the City's Charter and ordinances and such other duties which are consistent therewith as may be assigned from time to time by the City Council. Section 3. Discharee of Duties. Manager shall be paid a salary as a professional employee and shall not be paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per week and similarly shall be able to be absent in consideration of extraordinary time expenditures. The discharge of Manager's duties requires work outside the normal work day for meetings and projects. To that end, the Manager will work flexible hours as is necessary to Manager to discharge the duties of his position. Section 4. Evaluation. Manager shall be evaluated on the performance of his duties in July of 2007 and at least annually thereafter by the City Council as a whole. Such evaluation shall be based on the written goals established by the City Council and the general duties set forth in Section 2 of this Agreement. Section 5. Participation in Emplovee Benefits. A) Health Insurance. The City shall provide health insurance coverage for the Manager in the same fashion as it provides health insurance for non -union employees. B) Life Insurance. The City shall provide life insurance coverage for the Manager in the same fashion as it provides life insurance for non -union employees. 4- I C) Except as otherwise specified within this Agreement, Manager shall receive or be eligible to participate in any other benefits provided for non -union employees generally. Section 6. Vacation and Holidays. Manager shall accrue days of vacation on the first day of each month equal to an annual rate of 20 days per year. Manager may accrue vacation to a j maximum accumulation of 200 hours. Manager shall not be required to use vacation leave except for a whole day's absence from performing Manager's duties. The Manager may, at Manager's discretion take %Z day increments of vacation leave for an absence from the performance of Manager's duties. i Upon leaving the City's employ, for whatever reason, the Manager shall be entitled to payment for all accrued and unused vacation leave at the Manager's then current rate of compensation. j Manager shall also have the same paid holidays off from work as the City's non -union employees. Section 7. Sick Leave. Manager shall accrue days of sick leave at the same rate as other non -union employees. Upon leaving the City's employ, for whatever reason, the Manager shall be entitled to payment for all unused sick leave in accordance with the provision of the City's personnel code applicable to non -union employees. Section S. Comuensation. A) Initial Salary. The Manager's initial salary at the commencement of this contract shall be $115,000 per year. Such salary shall be paid at the intervals customarily used for other city employees. B) Evaluation and Salary Increases. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the Manager in July of 2007 and annually thereafter. The Manager's salary shall be increased to $119,000 effective July 1, 2007, if Manager's performance is deemed to be satisfactory. Thereafter, the Manager's salary shall be reviewed and considered 'at the same time as consideration of salary for other non -union employees of the City. Any changes in the Manager's salary shall be pursuant to the written agreement of the Manager and the City. C) Personal Auto Usage. Manager shall be reimbursed for personal automobile use for trips, meetings, work, and other use related to his employment at the rate consistent with Internal Revenue Service regulations. D) Professional Membership Dues and Professional Subscriptions. The City win pay the cost of membership in the International City /County Management Association, the Minnesota City /County Management Association, and like organizations and subscriptions to professional journals and publications. -2- E) Participation in Professional Training/Development. The City will pay the cost of the Manager's participation and attendance at the ICMA Annual Conference or similar national training opportunity, MCMA Annual conference, League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference and. miscellaneous professional training programs offered within the State of Minnesota. Section 10. Expenses Incurred in Performing Duties. The City shall reimburse or directly pay for actual expenses reasonably incurred by the Manager that are directly related to performing Manager's duties. The parties contemplate that the Manager will incur expenses for travel, attendance at meetings, etc. The Manager will be reimbursed for use of the Manager's personal car at the current IRS rate. Section 11. Retirement Benefits. The City shall pay the employer's portion of the Minnesota Public Employment Retirement Association contribution on Manager's salary. The Manager shall, in addition to the retirement benefits provided above, be allowed to participate, at Manager's own expense, in IRS approved deferred compensation plans offered through the City. Section 12. Discontinuance of Emplovment Relationship. The Manager shall be removable by the City Council at will subject only to the limitations imposed by the City Charter. Understanding that the Manager serves as the chief administrative official for the City and Manager's employment status can be affected by political influences that are independent of job performance, the parties wish to make arrangements that reflect the realities of the marketplace and are necessary to recruit qualified persons. The parties wish to assure flexibility for the council, while providing for the ability of the Manager to perform Manager's duties without undue concern for Manager's financial security should the need arise to seek new employment. Therefore, the parties have made concessions and the Manager, as part of Manager's compensation agreement has made concessions in the amount of salary and other forms of compensation in return for the covenants contained in this section 12 relating to the discontinuance of the employment relationship. A) Manager shall give the City 30 days notice prior to discontinuing Manager's employment, where there has been no event constituting an involuntary separation as hereinafter set forth. B) In the event an "involuntary separation" occurs, the Manager may choose to resign prior to the effective date of any formal action by the City to terminate Manager's employment. C) Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement the term "involuntary separation" shall mean a formal request adopted at a public meeting by the City Council that the Manager resign or an action adopted by the City Council terminating this Agreement. The term "involuntary separation" shall also mean the resignation of the Manager within 30 days of the effective occurrence of any of the following: i) A change in the form of government at the City due to the adoption, amendment or repeal of a home rule charter, election to adopt or repeal a particular statutory form of government (other than for a Plan B statutory form of government), or an ordinance /resolution changing the City's organizational structure that diminishes or reassigns the Manager's authority. -3- ii) A fundamental change in the duties and authority of the Manager adopted by the City Council, by special or general election, or by referendum or initiative such that the City of Brooklyn Center's status as a council- manager plan city is changed by ICMA to some status other than a council manager form of government. D) Payment upon Involuntary Separation. In the event of an involuntary separation, whether through a resignation or resolution/motion terminating the Agreement, the Manager shall be entitled to the following: a) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager's current rate of pay. b) Payment by the City of the full cost of family health insurance, at level of coverage in effect just prior to the involuntary separation for a period ofA full months from the date such involuntary separation becomes effective. In addition, the Manager shall be entitled, at Manager's own cost to continue participation in the City's group insurance plans for at least 18 months after the City is no longer required to make full payment of premiums for Manager's insurance coverage, provided the City's group insurance plan authorizes such continued participation. c) Severance Payment. The Manager shall receive the following severance benefits: i) Six (6) month's salary computed at %z the Manager's gross annual wages. d) Time of payment. All payments due under this section shall be paid by noon on the day after the separation becomes effective. F) Payment Upon Voluntary Termination. Upon the Manager's voluntary termination of employment, he shall be entitled to full payment by the next following pay period of- a) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager's current rate of pay. b) Payment of all wages for days worked since the last payroll period prior to separation. G) Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of any rights or claims that either party may have beyond the compensation due in the normal course of the separation of the Manager from the City's employ. Section 13. Term. This Agreement shall be for an.indefinite term until terminated by one or both of the parties as set forth in this Agreement. Section 14. Indemnification._ The City shall defend and indemnify the Manager pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.07 and 465.76. The City shall also defend and hold harmless and indemnify the Manager from all torts, civil damages, penalties, fines, provided the Manager was acting in the performance of Manager's duties. -4- Section 15. Mercer. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written communications between +he parries. Section 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the employment relationship between the City and the Manager and the parties agree that there were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this Agreement except as herein contained. Section 17. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained in this Agreement will not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 18. Governing Law. This Agreement will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will be constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, EMPLOYEE MINNESOTA By %1Nt� Jl X41X, C' Mona Kragness 0 Corn us L.0oganey Its Mayor -5- ADDENDUM TO C1TY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Addendum is made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City and Cornelius L. Boganey (hereinafter referred to as the "Manager as of the 9th day of October, 2006. WHEREAS, the City and Manager have entered into an employment agreement dated September 25, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Employment Agreement and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in the Employment Agreement and herein, City and Manager agree that the Employment Agreement is amended as follows: 1. Section 12, paragraph D) of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following sentence: e) If the Manager is terminated by the City Council for substantiated and proven malfeasance in office, or intentional misconduct, the City shall have no obligation to provide payment and benefits. listed in paragraph D) a) through D) c) of this section. Intentional misconduct is defined as substantiated and proven sexual, racial or other unlawful harassment, distribution of pornography, or acts of physical violence in the workplace. "Intentional misconduct" and "malfeasance" as used in this paragraph do not include poor performance or neglect of duties. Except as explicitly modified in this Addendum, the Employment Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA EMPLOYEE By: Myrna Krkgness, Mayor Cornell ganey By: V,6 WMXZ40 Sharon Knutson, City Clerk AGENDA CITY COUNCIL /ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION March 24, 2008 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS March 24th 1. 2007 Annual Police Report and Crime Reduction Strategy 2. 2011 Brooklyn Center Celebration —City Council 3. Automated Meter Reading Feasibility Report Pending List for Future Work Sessions April 2008 1. Rental Strategies Update 2. Property Foreclosure Strategies Overview 3. TIF Districts Update City Manager 4. 2009 Budget Planning Process 5. Shingle Creek Waterway Plan Update 6. Maintenance Funding for Three Rivers Park District Trails 7. 2008 Council Retreat Follow Up 8. Brooklyn Bridge Engaging Youth Initiative 9. Gov QA Roll Out 10. Franchise Fee Agreement Amendment 'c 11. Capital Maintenance Planning for Municipal Public Buildings 12. EBHC Water Tower Project i i Work Session Agenda Item No. 1 F COPY HUMBOLDT SQUARE CLEANERS 6814 Humboldt Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763 566 -2402 March 3, 2008 Councilmember Kay Lasman 4407 Woodbine Lane Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Councilmember. I have been conducting business at this location since 1983. I've seen the best and worst of this area, the worst being this past summer and the best being late 1988 to early 1989. The best of this area was when the community and specifically the Police Department, headed by Chief Jim Lindsey, recognized the dangerously changing demographics and instituted action against those who wanted to exploit our community at the expense of those who wanted to contribute. The worst of this area was this past summer when several group conflicts occurred in front of rush hour audiences along Humboldt Avenue... one involving gunfire! These displays were not wasted upon the witnesses and I'm sure advertised by word of mouth, exponentially... ever heard of Broken Center? I was dismayed to read that the city had acquired yet another private property, Brookdale Ford. This city has shown seemingly unlimited resources to acquire private properties and remove them from the tax rolls but feigns adequate funding for our front line police force. Our police force has remained the same size for at least the past 20 years, yet the demands upon that force have increased tremendously We need an additional 5 officers, immediately, just to maintain normal attrition and another minimum 5 officers to begin a proactive response to current conditions. Ask yourself this question: Why would a developer commit substantial capital to a development in a community whose streets are run by thugs, criminals, and gangs whose sole intent is to intimidate and prey upon decent citizens? Unless we retake our streets, the taking of private property will only result in a convenient place for gangs to rumble. I urge you and the entire city council to reorganize the priorities from future dreams to reality. Unless we are able to offer a stable community within which to develop, there will be no potential for redevelopment. Thank you for your attention and considerations. Sincerely, Humboldt Square Cleaners n ohn P Davis Proprietor Sanitone Drycleaning, Quick Service, Reasonable Prices, Since 1974 C LICE BROOKLYN CENTER tR` BROpYLYY <6RT. POLICE DEPARTMENT MN MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Scott Bechthold, Chief of Police DATE: March 18, 2008 SUBJECT: Council Work Session Item: Police Department 2008 Strategies and Action Plans Following you will find the 2007 Annual Report, the 2008 Crime Reduction Strategies and Action Plans, and the results from a six week pilot project the department conducted called Target VOCAL (Violent Offenders, Crimes and Locations). The purpose of Target VOCAL was twofold: (1) to concentrate high visibility police presence in specific "hotspot" locations within the commercial district; and, (2) to emphasize truancy and curfew enforcement city -wide. The pilot project was a combined effort of the Patrol and Community Service Divisions. I am extremely pleased with the findings from this report, which gives credence to the direction of our 2008 Strategies and Action Plans. It also demonstrates the early success of the work that is being conducted by the newly formed Problem Oriented Policing Unit (unit profile listed below). I believe that this Unit will have a lasting and positive impact on our community due to its organized structure, its oversight, along with its members' skills and talents. I am confident in the members' abilities, and am thankful for the dedication they have offered in launching this important endeavor. The initial organization of this Unit along with the planning that has gone into their day -to -day operations has been well- crafted by Commander Kevin Benner. We will continue to monitor and measure the Strategies and Action Plans over the course of 2008, and make any necessary adjustments along the way. Commanders Benner, Gannon and Nadeau are to be commended for their work in planning and implementing this long -time vision for our organization. I am excited to see how the strategic plan will continue to impact our crime reduction efforts and lend itself to improving the quality of life for our residents and business owners. 1 2008 Police Department Strateeic Plan STRATEGIC GOAL #1: TO ENSURE A SAFE AND SECURE COMMUNITY Strategy 1: Implement problem oriented policing strategies through collection and analysis of data on patterns of crime and disorder for the purpose of focusing crime reduction efforts. Objective: Adopt a comprehensive plan of targeting violent crime, violent offenders, and violent crime locations /zones. Action Steps Person Action Status Target Date(s) Responsible Develop a comprehensive measuring Cmdr. Benner Crime analyst to develop reports April 1, 2008 tool that reflects weekly, monthly, and quarterly statistics Truancy and Curfew enforcement Cmdr. Gannon Plan Development April 1, 2008 Target Violent Offenders Cmdr. Benner Plan Development that includes: April 1, 2008 Collaborative partnership with Hennepin County Probation Regularly scheduled intelligence meetings Adult Police /Probation Sweeps Juvenile Police /Probation Sweeps Knock and Talks Target: Top Five Violent Crime Cmdr. Benner Plan Development that includes: April 1, 2008 Problems System to identify top five problems POP Investigative Protocol Target: Sector Hotspots Cmdr. Gannon Plan Development that includes: April 15, 2008 System to properly identify hotspots Sector DPA protocol response, assessment and document CPTED assessment for identified hotspots Response to Violent Crime Cmdr. Nadeau Develop protocol on patrol, supervisory, April 15, 2008 and investigative response to homicide, rape, robbery, felony assault, and gun crimes 2 Strategy 2: Involve community partners in policing efforts in order to provide successful communication of information, problem solving, and sharing of responsibility for action and decision making. Objective: Forge collaborative community and regional responses to the City's crime problems. Action Steps Person Action Status Target Date(s) Responsible Partnering with ARM Cmdr. Benner Work with ARM so that a functional In progress Cmdr. Gannon group of apartment managers and owners are involved in improved communications with the city for the purpose of problem solving. Promote awareness, training and implementation of Crime -free Multi housing. Sector sergeants involved in apartment calls for service within Plan by their sectors by active monitoring April 1, 2008 and assessment Collaboration with Hotel /Motels Cmdr. Benner Increased and improved In progress Cmdr. Gannon communications will be necessary to stem the flow of problems including; narcotics, prostitution, and violent crimes perpetuated by and against guests. Commercial area sergeant, working in concert with the POP unit will work with the Hotels /Motels to reduce crimes and seek to improve rental practices. Promote the Crime -Free Multi Rental program for Hotels /Motels Business Watch Cmdr. Benner The police department will work In- progress Cmdr. Gannon collaboratively with the business community to address problem areas and employ crime prevention and reduction strategies. Crime prevention specialist will ensure a focus on crime prevention aspect to include timely communication (e- watch), CPTED, informational talks, and involvement with the BCBA Sector Sergeants will work with the business community when a problem is identified 3 Strategy 2 Continued Action Steps Person Action Status Target Date(s) Responsible Neighborhood Watch Cmdr. Benner Plan development to include: April 15, 2008 Increased participation and communication Block Watch training Promotion of neighborhood associations E -watch Police /Youth Initiative (BCYC Cmdr. Nadeau Plan development that includes: April 15, 2008 Brooklyn Center Youth Collaborative) Collaboration of community partners (conceptual model focused on youth due) Youth outreach Youth accountability Youth services PERF Study: Implementing the Chief Bechthold Meetings will be scheduled with In- progress "Regional Collaborative Response" community partners to bring a more focused and collaborative effort to the City's violent crime problem. Meetings will include PD staff, City staff, other government entities, schools, faith- based, etc... 4 Strategy 3: Assure police accountability to keep the department and its officers functioning properly and focused on the City and Department's mission, values and goals. Objective: Develop a comprehensive accountability matrix and conduct management studies to give department management a balanced view of organization performance. Action Steps Person Action Status Target Date(s) Responsible Quarterly Report and Review Chief Bechthold Purpose of the quarterly report and 1st Quarter: All Commanders review includes: Report 4/15 All Supervisors To focus on violent crimes by Review 4/21 tracking CFS, Crime statistics, Clearance rates, Arrests, Truancy, 2nd Quarter: Curfew, and Weapons Report 7/15 Citywide and Sector statistics review Review 7/21 Division activity and review Sector teams performance review 3` Quarter: Sector Hotspots review Report 10/15 POP Unit "Top 5" review Review 10/21 POP Unit Violent Offender review Department Strategy Review 4th Quarter: Department Budget Report 1/15 Review 1/19 Conduct an independent research Chief Bechthold Researching independent vendors to June 1, 2008 study to match resources with conduct staff study demands and council expectations Conduct a call management study Chief Bechthold Assign internal staff person to conduct July 2008 on false alarms in order to identify the study task accomplishment in the most effective and efficient manner as possible Scientifically survey community to Chief Bechthold Work with City staff for possible city- July 2008 understand citizen concerns and wide survey perceptions about crime, safety and security and to help establish base line for future reference. 5 Problem Oriented Policing (POP) Unit The newly formed POP Unit went live on February 1, 2008. Officers Tonya Jackson, Terry Olson, Brian Peters and John Ratajczyk were selected as the four officers to work within the Unit. Personnel funding for three of the four positions was made possible by State grants and the fourth position is an additional staff position approved in the 2008 budget. Start up costs for equipment and vehicles were paid with forfeiture funds. The unit also has a "bait car" that is used to deter and apprehend those who break into or attempt to steal vehicles. The POP Unit is also able to access a number of other specialized equipment to assist in the furtherance of their investigations: Laptop computers with access to Computer Aided Dispatch and the City's network GPS Mobile Tracking Unit Portable Cover Digital Video Recording System Nextel Cell Phones The members of the POP Unit have attended several trainings in preparation for this unique assignment. Trainings include undercover techniques, developing informants, search warrant writing class, investigating gun crimes, amongst other training opportunities. The POP Unit specializes in targeting violent offenders, crimes and locations. The members of the POP Unit are off to a strong start and have given the community and the Department a means to become more proactive and the ability to more thoroughly investigate complaints that may not have otherwise received a much needed focused attention. "Target VOCAL" was the Unit's first project and the results are listed in the next section. Target VOCAL Februaru 4 th to March 13 2008 The Police Department ran a six week pilot project called Target VOCAL (Violent Offenders, Crimes and Locations). The purpose of Target VOCAL was twofold: 1. To concentrate high visibility police presence in specific "hotspot locations within the commercial district; specifically, MT bus hub, Brookdale, Centerpointe, and Cub Foods. 2. Emphasis on truancy and curfew enforcement city -wide. The Department is making truancy and curfew enforcement a priority in 2008. Knowing that a major contributing factor to violent crime involves juveniles, the Department is making truancy and curfew enforcement a priority in order to deter criminal activity and get potential victims off the street. The pilot project was a combined effort of the Patrol and Community Service Divisions. The results for the six week project are as follows: 6 31 truancy contacts common city the truants reside in is Brook The most co y n Center. Y City Truant Resides in 5C. Paul 3% Crystal now�oti 7° 1 Ed ina 3% s 1 16 out of 31 truants were found between 1:00 3:00 p.m. The average age for the truants is 15.5 Brookdale Mall had the most truants, followed by the MT Bus Hub, and the Hennepin County Library r 7 Patrick Henry High School had the most truants with 6, followed by Cooper with 4 Schools Truants Enrolled In m W..._ rr r__ 3 um. Misc Patrick Cooper Harrison Brooklyn Northview Brooklyn Jr Armstrong Park Center Alternative Henry Center HS Jr HS HS Schools Schools Truants Enrolled in 1 27 curfew arrests during this time period 236 hours of staff time was spent patrolling the Hotspots p 81 of 88 or 91% of the thefts in 2008 are attributed to shoplifting compared to 68 of 83 or 82% in 2007 s hNng Z�U7 Crime omlctde 0 I 0 NA Rape 0� 0� NAI Robbery 4 0 100.00% I u ggrauaed Assalt 1 1 0.00% i3urga.ry 0 0 NA Larceny_ 83 88 6.02% Aut,Tlleft 2 o 100.00% v 5 I 1 so.00% 7ota1 Property Crimebt 85 88 3.53% T tW Part 1 Crtme 90 89 Table depicts the results for Target VOCAL February 4 to March 13, 2008 8 Brooklyn Center Police Department 2007 Annual Report Part 1 Crime C►'11'1'1e r 21�� �C1�7 H�ta�de 1 I 4 I 300.00% f ape.._ .n ::'I 28 I 29 I 3.57% Rilalaer 87 I 96 10.34% I, Aggravated Assault 64 81 26.56% i3u794 l 203 246 21.18% l W O 1563 I 1540 I -1.47% 231 I 201 I 12.99% Total i/�olen Crime 180 210 I 16.67% I To`taI PrOpert� Crim e 1997 1987 -0.50% Total l rt,;1 Grim .e 2177 1 2197 1 0.92% 1 s Total Violent Crime and Robbery 200 tA 150 100 50 w__ ow 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Violent Crime 134 164 168 180 210 Tot llbry 50 GO 53 87 96 Total Serious Crime and Larceny 2500 'E F y g 1000 E 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Serious Crime 2136 1868 1927 1997 1987 -Total Larceny 17(38 1449 1.512 1563 15407 National and State Crime Rates r Brooklyn Natronal State, Center Crime,.a. UP J �O PI 5.71 2.41 3.571 30.9 1 31.81 99.91 t¢Ibely,, E;°'I 149.41 105.11 310.44 Aggra�ated Aault 287.5 172.6 228.37 Burglar! 729.41 583.91 724.35 2206.8 1 2236.6 1 5577.16 Auto Theft; l 398.4 1 258.9 1 824.26 1 i/iotentCrr,me 1 473.51 312.01 642.281 Property,Crim±e ,..,;1 3334.5 1 3079.5 1 7125.78 1 Part 1 Came 1 3808.1 1 3391.5 1 7768.06 1 *based on UCR population estimate *crime rates per 100,000 Violent Crime Rate Comparison 810.00 v...._. 700 _,v._...... 600.017 5017.170.. v_. 400.017 E 300.170 2170.170 100,00 0 .017 _...w....._ 20173 2004 2005 2006 21707 Violent Crime Rate Brooklyn 450..1 565.91 537.52 64128 757.17 Center Violent Crime Rate State 262.6 269,6 2970 332.0 Violent Crime Rate OS 475.0 465.5 469.2 473.5 Serious Crime Rate Comparison 8000.00 m..... CD 7000.00 CO ci 6000.0 c:r 5000.00 qa sx. 41700.00 c 30€30.00 2000.£70 �r 1000.00 0.00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Serious Crime Rate Ear klyr� Center 7175.73 6445.32 6738.34 7125.78 7164.23 Serious Crime Rate State 3216.8 3039 3084.1 3079.5 Serious Crime Rata U S 3588.4 351.7 .1 3429 8 3334 5 Offenses Cleared W, NAtio Part Crime dear Offens„ Cleared Pceai+re M dwest,A, erase Homrcide 2002 I 2 I 2 I 100.00% I 64.00% I 56.30% M 2003 I 2 I 2 I 100.00% I 62.40% I 63.10% 2004 I 2 I 1 I 50.00% I 62.60% I 58.10% E N. 2005 1 I 1 100.00 I 62.10% 53.90% 2006 I 1 I 1 I 100.00% I 60.70% 51.90% zoo? I 4 I 4 I 100.00% 2002 36 I 26 72.22% I 44.50% I 39.20% 2003 I 27 I 14 I 51.85% I 44.00% I 38.50% 2004 I 31 I 18 I 58.06% 41.$0% I 35.20% 2005 I 21 I 8 38.10% 41.30% 33.60% 2006 I 28 12 I 42.86% I 40.90% I 31.80% 2007 I 29 I 13 44.83% I I Robbery 2002 I 40 12 30.00% I 25.70% I 21.50% 0 0 0 2003 I 50 I 18 36.00% I 26.30% I 24.70% 2004 I 60 18 I 30.00% I 26.20% I 22.30% 2005 I 59 I 8 I 13.56% I 25.40% 1 21.70% 2006 I 87 I 22 I 25.29% I 25.20% I 21.00% 2007 I 96 I 28 I 29.17% Ogg A5saul# 2002 58 43 74.14% 56.50% I 53.30% N t i1 2003 I 55 I 46 I 83.64% I 55.90% I 53.80% 2004 I 71 I 44 I 61.97% I 55.60% I 51.90% 2005 I 88 I 49 I 55.68% I 55.20% I 49.80% 2006 I 64 I 41 I 64.06% 54.00% 48.10% 2007 I 81 I 54 I 66.67 Burglary 2002 I 203 I 20 I 9.85 13.00% I 11.00% 2003 203 I 24 I 11.82% 1 13.10% I 12.10% 2004 I 214 I 21 I 9.81% I 12.90% I 11.20% I, I 2005 1 80 I 24 I 13.33% I 12.70% I 11.00% 2006 203 I 15 7.39% I 12.60% I 10.80% ,N...... 2007 246 20 8.13% L,r`ceny 2002 I 1508 I 708 46.95% I 18.00% I 17.30% 2003 I 1708 I 725 42.45% 1 18.00% I 18.10% 2004 I 1449 I 609 I 42.03% I 18.30% .I 17.90% 2005 I 1518 I 550 I 36.23% I 18.00% I 17.70% 2006 I 1563 I 618 I 39.54% I 17.40% I 17.10% 2007 I 1540 I 694 I 45.06% I AU T O Thef# 2002 I 193 I 26 13.47% I 13.80% 14.90% �?I 20031 2251 371 16.44% 13.10% 14.60% 2004 1 205 I 39 I 14.00% 19.02 I 13.00% I 2005 234 40 17.09% 13.00% 15.50% i I 2006 1 231 22 9.52% 1 12.60% 12.00% 2007 I 201 I 18 I 8.96% Total Ui�ote,nt nme 2002 136 83 61.03% 46.80% 42.90% 2003 134 80 59.70% 46.50% 44.80% 2004 1 164 1 81 1 49.39% 46.30% 41.80% 2005 169 1 66 1 39.05% 45.50 39.90% 2006 180 76 42.22% 44.30% 1 38.40% 2007 1 210 1 99 47.14% I *National and Midwest clearance average percentages not available for 2007 as of 3/11/08 Calls for Service w ent Change �Ttta( Arge FS der i ea r 0 F es. r� ...r..w�.. fl03���25945 1.17 2162 26328 1.48% 2194 2(35 26738 1.56% 2228 2006 28644 7.13% 2387 2007: 34185 19.34% 2849 Total CFS 40000 35000 30000 3 25000 20000 Total CF5 15000 100300 5000 _M m o 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Brookdale Calls for Service 2003 1116 I 2.10 20304 1 1126 1 0.90% 1 20D5 9051 19.63% 200 991 9.50% 20D7 1354 36.63% Rental Property Calls for Service 6 Rio gv�o 2003, 4641 0.09% 2004 4286 7.65% 2005° 3949 -7.86% 2006' 4314 9.24% 2007�] 5258 I 21.88% *Based on rental property of more than 4 units Mental Property Calls for Service 6000 5000 4000 3000 m. ,..:..m........, Total Calls 2000 1000 .u._ q2.. i 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hotel /Motel Calls for Service MKI a oil C04T� c�untr E XT CofftS Mol$C) EC `z� P VlblfS ay, i'Int., „Total Y ar__ X003,_? 35 46 59 34 96 52 115 461 194 1092 -5.04% E 4 °4 40 43 46 32 85 42 200 448 212 1148 5.13% 2fl0 33 39 22 28 44 40 237 380 169 992 13.59% 2� ©6; 19 88 29 26 72 95 244 324 148 1045 5.34% 207 95 49 11 45 97 121 54 378 396 1246 19.23% *Days Inn demolished in June 2007 1- otell/Mc1 tel CIFS 2007 Ba orlt Ina 4% Comfort Inn i Cc�tmiry k'ul e I111 M t t 4% F i Hotel/Motel CFS 2006 a rrter2�anfrtls Bayrnont. Inn a Comfort Inn Catentrgr Inn Ext. Stay 7 1% Arrests 2007 Traffic Citations 03 X06: 2007 *2006 and 2007 include all citations given in the community of Brooklyn Center, regardless of which agency wrote the citation Traffic Crash Rate 2289 2260 2040 1380 1409 2072 794 NA 846 713 644 743 2182 2297 1211 1782 4892 5896 962 878 743 380 447 748 NA *Crash rate per 100,000 people *Based on BCA estimated population *2003 DPS focused solely on fatal crashes 1327 1382 1297 I 1000 I 962 I 1324 I 1512 1017 1043 1398 1928 1609 232 279 255 247 348 NA 793 919 675 84 724 947 559 564 454 395 393 3 NA 3 4 2 2 4487 4233 2929 3264 7544 8452 45.97% -5.66% 30.81% I 11.44% 131.13% I 12.04% I 2693 NA 2919 2493 2298 2679 Sources Part 1 Crime: 2003 -2006 UCR Reports Online Table 8 http: /www.fbi.eov /ucr /ucr.htm 2007 BCA State Report Crime Rates: 2003 -2006 UCR Reports Online Table 8 http: /www.fbi.eov /ucr /ucr.htm Population Estimates based on BCA estimates Table 38 http: /www.bca. state. mn. us /CJIS /Documents /Paee- 15- 02.html 2003 2006 National Crime Rates UCR Reports Online Table 2, State Crime rates table 4 httD: /www.fbi.gov /ucr /ucr.htm Offenses Cleared: 2003 -2006: BCA Reports online Table 38 http: /www.bca. state .mn.us /CJIS /Documents /Paee -15- 02.html National and Regional Averages National Data, Regional Data -Table 26 httD: /www.fbi.eov /ucr /ucr.htm 2007 BCA State Report Arrests: 2003 -2006: BCA Reports online Table 16 http: /www.bca. state .mn.us /CJIS /Documents /Paee -15- 02.html 2007 BCA State Report Traffic Crash Data: 2002, 2004 -2006: Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts 2007: Office of Traffic Safety Traffic Arrests/ Citations: 2002 -2005 Brooklyn Center 2005 Annual Report 2006, 2007 Hennepin County Records Calls For Service (Rental, Hotels, Brookdale): 2003 -2007: P: \STATS \MONTHLY \2007 and P: \STATS \MONTHLY \2006 Work Session Agenda Item No. 2 i There are no materials for this item. Work Session Agenda Item No. 3 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: March 20, 2008 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works -r6 SUBJECT: Automated Meter Reading Feasibility Report City staff recently conducted a study to investigate upgrading the existing water meter reading system from a manual read system to an Automated Meter Reading (AMR) system. The purpose of considering a potential conversion to automated meter reading is based on expected improvements in customer service, staff utilization, and collection of necessary water consumption data for billing purposed. Automated Meter Reading is a process of acquiring water meter readings through the use of a radio transmitter attached to the each meter assembly. An AMR system would allow the City to directly download water use data from each individual meter. Manual reading of individual meters would be eliminated except in special situations. A copy of the study report is attached to this memorandum. A summary of the various key elements of the report are provided below. The City's current water metering system includes 8,279 residential water meters and 792 commercial water meters. Residential water meter readings are obtained through customer compliance with reporting water consumption on a postal card. Commercial water meters are read on a quarterly basis by Public Works staff. Meter data is currently entered manually into the utility billing system. The City is currently estimated water consumption for approximately 27 percent of the residential accounts due to non- compliance with water Meter reading requirements. An increasing portion of customers are failing to return water meter reading cards. The existing water meter system costs approximately $102,800 per year to operate. This amount includes staff time to read commercial water meters and manually input residential meter card data into the utility billing system. This amount also includes payment processing and mailing costs. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (763) 569 -3400 FAX (763) 569 -3434 Section 4 of the report provides a description of three optional automated meter reading systems, consisting of a touch pad system, a radio -read system and a fixed network system. This section of the report also compares the cost for three optional systems that could be implemented for Brooklyn Center. Section 4 of the report provides an estimate of the expected operational cost savings if the City implemented an automated meter reading system. Table 4 -1 provides an estimated annual cost of $53,600, which is approximately $49,000 less than the current data collection, processing and billing costs. The principal source of cost savings for a radio read system is due to the ability to collect meter data directly into a mobile computer and then upload this data directly into the City's billing software. Section 5 of the report provides a summary of recommendations and a potential implementation plan for conversion to a new metering system. The project consultant has recommended that the City proceed with the installation of a radio -read meter system. The report provides an estimated cost for converting the City's water meters to a radio- read automated meter reading system of $2,461,000. Staff recommends that an additional 10 percent in contingency costs be included for preliminary project planning purposes. The report states that approximately 43 percent of the initial investment costs could be recovered due to an off setting reduction in labor costs to operate the existing metering and billing system. The report also identifies various customer service improvements that would be realized with a conversion to automated meter reading. The attached memorandum from the Director of Fiscal Support Services outlines the recommended process for funding a conversion to automated meter reading. The memorandum also identifies the necessary adjustments in the utility rate structure to fund the conversion process if the City Council wishes to proceed with implementation of an automated meter reading system. Vemorandum Date: 18 March 2008 To: Curt Boganey, City Manager From: Daniel Jordet, Director of Fiscal Support Services Re: Financing Automated Meter Reading (AMR) Purchase The following assumptions are used to determine this financing scenario for the Automated Meter Reading (AMR) proposal: cc: Todd Blomstrom Project cost to be financed is 2,700,000. Cost of the project would be split equally between the Water Utility Fund and the Sewer Utility Fund. Bonds issued to finance the cost would be general obligation backed utility revenue bonds. The project would begin in 2008, bonds would be sold in 2009 and the first bond payment would be made in 2010. The average interest rate for the bonds would be 5.50 The bonds would be issued for a ten year period. Average annual debt service payments would be 355,140; half from the Water Utility Fund, half from the Sewer Utility Fund. Using these assumptions, the Water Utility Fund would have to increase its rates by an additional 1.00% to 1.50% per year for the ten years from 2010 through 2019. The Sewer Utility Fund would have to increase its rates by an additional 0.75% to 1.00% per year for the ten year period from 2010 through 2019. Changes in the assumptions would likely have the following individual effects: A larger bond issue would increase the annual payments by 13,025 per year for each additional 100,000 issued. Increasing the bond life from 10 to 15 years would lower the annual average payment to 264,370 but would increase the total interest expense by about 415,000. An increase of 0.50 in the interest rate would increase the average annual payment by 7,740 or about 2 A decrease of 0.50 in the interest rate would lower the average annual payment by a corresponding amount. AUTOMATED METER READING STUDY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS Date: October 19, 2007 Project No. 13946.000 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS AUTOMATED METER READING STUDY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO. 13946.000 I hereby certify that this Plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Verne E. Jacobsen, P.E. License No. 06988 I hereby certify that this Plan was reviewed by me and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Michelle A. Stockness, P.E. License No. 45155 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 19, 2007 Meter Study i 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center AUTOMATED METER READING STUDY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO. 13946.000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace No. 1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1 1.1 CITY CHARACTERISTICS 1 1.2 EXISTING METER SYSTEM 1 1.3 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1 1.3.1 Project Meetings with City Staff 2 1.3.2 Assemble and Summarize Existing System Data 2 1.3.3 Review Available AMR amd Fixed Network Systems and Equipment 2 1.3.4 Review Billing Software and Integration into System 2 1.3.5 Provide Cost Benefit Analysis 2 1.3.6 Prepare Preliminary Cost Estimate and Implementation Plan 2 1.3.7 Draft Report 2 1.3.8 Final Report 3 2. EXISTING METER SYSTEM 4 2.1 COMMERCIAL METERS. 4 2.2 RESIDENTIAL METERS 4 2.3 BILLING SYSTEM 4 2.3.1 Administration 4 2.3.2 Computer System 5 2.4 CUSTOMER SERVICE 5 2.5 EXISTING COSTS OF SYSTEM 5 3. FUTURE METER SYSTEM OPTIONS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 7 3.1 TYPES OF SYSTEMS AVAILABLE 7 3.1.1 Touchpad 7 3.1.2 Radio Read 8 3.1.3 Fixed Network 8 3.2 METER MANUFACTURERS 9 3.3 BILLING OPTIONS. 9 3.4 SYSTEM CRITERIA 10 3.4.1 Labor Savings 10 3.4.2 Installation 10 3.4.3 Level of Customer Service 10 Meter Study ii 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 3.4.4 Maintenance Agreements and Support 11 3.4.5 Period of Service 11 4. FUTURE SYSTEM 12 4.1 OPTION 1: RADIO READ SYSTEM 12 4.1.1 System Characteristics 12 4.1.2 Benefits Customer Service 12 4.1.3 Cost 13 4.2 OPTION 2: FIXED NETWORK SYSTEM WITH THIRD PARTY DATA ADMINISTRATOR 14 4.2.1 System Characteristics 14 4.2.2 Benefits Customer Service 14 4.2.3 Cost 14 4.3 OPTION 3: FIXED NETWORK SYSTEM WITH CITY OWNED AND OPERATED DATA SYSTEM 15 4.3.1 System Characteristics 15 4.3.2 Benefits- Customer Service 15 4.3.3 Cost 15 5 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 19 5.1 SYSTEM SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 Meter Study City of Brooklyn Center iii 13946.000 Meter Study City of Brooklyn Center LIST OF TABLES Pace No. TABLE NO. 2 -1 EXISTING SYSTEM PROCESSING AND LABOR COSTS 6 TABLE NO. 4 -1 OPTION 1 RADIO READ PROCESSING AND LABOR COSTS 13 TABLE NO. 4 -2 SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS 16 TABLE NO. 4 -3 METER INSTALLATION OPTIONS, RADIO READ SYSTEM 17 TABLE NO. 4 -4 METER INSTALLATION OPTIONS, FIXED NETWORK SYSTEM 18 TABLE NO. 5 -1 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 21 iv 13946.000 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1.1 CITY CHARACTERISTICS 1.2 EXISTING METER SYSTEM 1.3 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Meter Study City of Brooklyn Center AUTOMATED METER READING STUDY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TKDA PROJECT NO. 13946.000 Brooklyn Center is located in the Twin Cities Metro area and is located a few miles north of downtown Minneapolis on the Mississippi River: Brooklyn Center has approximately 30,000 residents. Water system users consist of residential customers and varied commercial enterprises. There are approximately 9,000 water meters in the City of Brooklyn Center's water system. All meters are manually read by either the property occupant or City staff. Residential accounts are asked to read their own meters, record the information on a City supplied postcard, and return this card by mail to the City. Commercial accounts have their water meters read by Utility staff. Finance staff sorts the cards and enters meter readings into CIS Infinity software to create quarterly bills. The City's existing meter inventory consists of primarily Badger meters, but also includes meters manufactured by American, Calmet, Rockwell, and Neptune. The City of Brooklyn Center has requested a study by TKDA to investigate upgrading their existing water meter reading system from a manual read system to an automatic read system. The City requested an evaluation of the different types of systems available, the financial costs of these systems, and the benefits of each system to the City. Specifically, the commissioned work included the following itemized tasks: 1 13946.000 1.3.1 Project Meetinas with City Staff. Attend meetings with the City: Kick -Off Meeting, discussion of different types of systems, presentation of the Draft Report to staff, and Final Report presentation, as requested. 1.3.2 Assemble and Summarize Existino System Data. Work with City staff to obtain existing meter system info such as number of meters, staff time involved in reading meters, existing billing structure, etc. 1.3.3 Review Available AMR and Fixed Network Systems and Eauipment. Review the different types of metering systems available for the City of Brooklyn Center to choose from. 1.3.4 Review Billina Software and Integration into System. Review the existing billing system, computer software, average hours of labor, and determine how a new system would integrate into the existing City system and practices. 1.3.5 Provide Cost Benefit Analysis. Compare and contrast the different metering systems and the costs and benefits of each system to the City itself. Items may include capital cost, maintenance costs, labor hours, customer service to residents, etc. 1.3.6 Prepare Preliminary Cost Estimate and Implementation Plan. Based upon the information obtained from the prior items, prepare a cost estimate and implementation plan for the different types of meter systems. The plan will include the estimated capital cost for each item and how or when the system should be implemented in the different City departments. All costs will be based upon present day values and a time schedule will be provided for each major improvement. 1.3.7 Draft Report. Prepare a concise report that describes the entire investigation in an understandable manner and documents the findings, recommendations, and the estimated costs and implementation schedule. Deliver the draft report to City staff for their review. Meter Study 2 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 1.3.8 Final Report. Amend the Draft Report based on comments received from staff, and deliver the Final Report to the City. Present the Final Report to the City Council, if requested. Meter Study 3 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 2. EXISTING METER SYSTEM The City of Brooklyn Center's metering system consists of a system of 9,071 manually read meters. Commercial accounts are read on location by utility staff. Residential accounts use the card system. Residents read their own meters and mail or telephone the information to City staff. Finance staff sorts and enters meter readings into CIS Infinity software to create quarterly bills. 2.1 COMMERCIAL METERS There are 792 commercial meters in the City of Brooklyn Center's water metering system. Utility staff reads all commercial meters. It takes staff approximately 98 hours per quarter to read all commercial accounts within the City. 2.2 RESIDENTIAL METERS There are 8,279 residential water meters within the City. Residents read their own water meters quarterly, and send the reading back to City staff on a City supplied postcard or by calling City billing staff. The City is currently estimating water consumption for approximately 27% of the accounts due to increasing rates of non- compliance with water meter reading requirements. 2.3 BILLING SYSTEM Brooklyn Center mails quarterly water use bills to customers. Meter reads are entered into the computer system to produce the bills. If a meter read is not available, water use is estimated based on past water use for the location. Customers then return their bill with payment to the City. Approximately 10% of payments are submitted to the City late. 2.3.1 Administration City staff collects, sorts, and enters meter reads into the computer software for billing. Meter cards are filed and kept for records. Bills are generated by the computer software and mailed. Customer payments are mailed in and processed by scanning the bill bar code, and by entering in the payment amount. Meter Study 4 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 2.3.2 Computer System Brooklyn Center uses CIS Infinity computer software for their billing. 2.4 CUSTOMER SERVICE. In addition to processing water bills, the City provides 40 to 50 customers with information regarding their water accounts per year. Several of the customer inquiries result from estimated water bills which are generated on residential accounts when the reading cards were not submitted back to the City. The City staff also handles and processes between 225 and 250 final water bills on account closeouts or ownership transfer each year. For many of these ownership transfers, the owner or agent does not notify City billing staff or do not provide a final reading for the utility account. 2.5 EXISTING COSTS OF SYSTEM For the existing system, there are costs for meter maintenance and replacement, customer inquiries, and new meter installation. Regular labor costs for reading and billing the existing manual read meter system are described in Table 2 -1. Meter Study 5 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center TABLE NO. 2-1 EXISTING SYSTEM PROCESSING AND LABOR COSTS Meter Labor Billing Frequency Total Type Type Hours Accounts Rate Per Year Cost Data 8,279 0.82/ea 4 27,156 Collection Vehicle Cost Bill 180 hrs 26 /hr 4 18,720 Generation Mailing 8,279 0.60 /ea 4 19,868 Costs Payment 140 hrs 26 /hr 4 14,560 Processing Subtotal Residential per Year I 80,304 Data 98 hrs 34 /hr 4 13,328 Collection Vehicle 98 hrs $10 /hr 4 3,920 Cost Bill 16 hrs 26 /hr 4 1,664 Generation Mailing 792 0.60 /ea 4 1,901 Costs Payment 16 hrs 26 /hr 4 1.664 Processing Subtotal Commercial per Year I 22,477' Total Meter System Cost per Year I $102,781 Note: Costs for ownership account transfer costs for final readings and processing are not included in the above table. Meter Study 6 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 3. FUTURE METER SYSTEM OPTIONS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA The City of Brooklyn Center is considering a conversion from a manual meter read system to a type of automatic meter read system. The labor savings will partially offset the capital cost of the system. An AMR system would provide improved customer service benefits, and allow staff to accurately read and bill each customer account. The goal of the future system would be to read any meter at any time and generate a billing based on actual water consumption. 3.1 TYPES OF SYSTEMS AVAILABLE There are three major types of water metering systems available. All of these metering systems should provide the City with 98 -99% of actual meter reads of all the accounts at anytime. The differences in the systems lies in the method the meter reading is transmitted, obtained, and how the information is then loaded into the utility billing system. These systems are not standardized and are not interchangeable between meter manufacturers. When a City purchases or selects a water metering system, they are likely to continue to use that same product for many years or even the full life of the meter system. These water metering systems supplied and offered by the major meter manufacturers are in a continuous state of change. The metering systems which were offered a couple of years ago may not be available or offered today by the same manufacturer. While the major meter suppliers tend to provide long term support for their installed systems, that has not always been the case, and may not be the case in the future. 3.1.1 Touchoad This is the least expensive metering system. It has been around for some time and is a proven technology. The meter is wired to a touchpad which is installed on the outside of the house. Meters are read through the touch pad using a handheld device. Utility staff with the reading device would visit each house and obtain a reading by the touchpad on the outside of the house. No battery is required in /on the meter and the electrical power source is contained within the handheld device. Meter Study 7 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center An additional advantage of the touchpad system is that it can be upgraded to a fixed network system by adding components at the touchpad and adding the fixed network infrastructure. One disadvantage is that a touchpad system requires a meter reader to enter private property and walk between each customer location. 3.1.2 Radio Read Costs for a radio read system are between the cost of touchpad and fixed network systems. This is also a technology that has been around for a while and has been proven to work without major' problems. A radio read system involves the installation of an electronic register onto the water meter. The register records water consumption and transmits the consumption data to a radio receiver. Communities typically collect water consumption data by driving through a neighborhood with the radio receiver mounted within the City vehicle. Depending on signal strength and building construction, outside mounting of a radio antenna may be necessary to increase signal reliability at some isolated locations. Meter reads are transmitted from the antenna by radio signals which may extend a few blocks. Utility staff can collect the readings by driving near the properties with a data collector. Depending on signal strength, staff will drive by targeted houses at a required maximum distance to catch /read the signals. Radio read systems output data from each meter approximately every 10 seconds when called upon or activated. 3.1.3 Fixed Network This is the most expensive metering system option. It is a newer technology. Relatively few communities have implemented fixed network systems. Some have experienced data communication problems during the initial installation process. However, this system may be mainstream in the future for systems desiring enhanced customer service. In fixed network systems, the water meter is connected to an antenna mounted either in the basement, floor joists, or outside of the structure depending on signal strength and building construction. Outside mounting is Meter Study 8 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 3.2 METER MANUFACTURERS There are three main /major manufacturers that offer automatic water metering systems; Badger, Neptune, and Sensus. All manufacturers supply each type of system, but the systems and their meters are not standardized and, in most cases, are not interchangeable between meter manufacturers. When a City purchases or selects a water metering system, they are likely to continue to use that same product and manufacturer for the next 25 years. 3.3 BILLING OPTIONS preferred to increase signal reliability and to allow easier future battery replacement. Meter reads are transmitted by radio signals from each meter location to a central antenna and data collector. City topography may require the City to purchase and maintain additional signal boosting antennas to get all the signals to the final singular location. Data is collected from these signals and stored in either a City owned and operated server or a meter manufacturer owned and operated server. The meters can output data every day or when called upon or activated. A fixed network system gives City staff immediate access to meter data through the web at any time, regardless of whb administers the data server. It can provide current water use information for staff to use in assisting customers at any time. The City would pay manufacturer maintenance agreements or monthly fees per meter to the meter manufacturer for use of this system. Annual fees are typically negotiated every 5 years. The City of Brooklyn Center currently bills customers quarterly. They can continue to bill quarterly, or move commercial or residential customers or both to monthly billing. Monthly billing would cost more for administrative fees and would involve more meter readings, but would result in a more level cash flow to the City and could identify customer water leaks earlier. Review of the recent 10 years of water consumption data for the City of Brooklyn Center indicates that the 792 commercial customers utilize approximately 22% of the water sold. The 8,279 residential customers utilize 78% of the water sold. As Meter Study 9 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center the commercial customers provide greater revenue per account, many cities read and bill commercial accounts monthly and residential accounts quarterly. If the City elects to install a new water metering system, we would recommend that the installation of commercial accounts be completed first, and that the commercial accounts be billed monthly after the commercial installation is complete. Billing of commercial accounts monthly will provide City staff the opportunity to evaluate the staff time, equipment, and costs associated with monthly billing of residential accounts. 3.4 SYSTEM CRITERIA 3.4.1 Labor Savings Labor costs for an AMR system should be less than a manual read system, so labor savings can partially offset the capital cost of the system. However, an increase in billing frequency would increase postage, administration, and supply costs. 3.4.2 Installation Installation of the new system would be done by either the meter manufacturer or a contracted third party. The meter system selected should be such that future maintenance, operation of the system, and installation or replacement of components can be performed by City staff. Depending on original meter component location, the inside of customers' homes may have to be accessed for maintenance of the system. 3.4.3 Level of Customer Service There are many levels of customer service which can be provided by City staff with meter reading systems. The City of Brooklyn Center needs to first define the level of service which they wish to provide to their customers. If the primary goal is to accurately read and bill accounts, then Meter Study 10 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center the purchase and installation of a basic AMR metering system will meet these needs. If the goal is to have the ability to read or bill your water metering system monthly, and to provide hourly, daily, or weekly customer information regarding unusual water consumption or leaks, then a fixed network may be the system to purchase and install. 3.4.4 Maintenance Aareements and Support. Meter suppliers offer long term support for their systems. For a radio read or touchpad system this may be warranty work on equipment or technical support for billing and reading systems. For a fixed network system, this would involve someone receiving and processing meter data information, either by City staff or by the meter manufacturer. For the City to run a fixed network system themselves, the City must be willing to invest in qualified staff required to run this system and be willing to pay for costs associated with the purchase and maintenance of the fixed network water metering system technology. The City could also chose to operate a fixed network system that is administered by the meter manufacturer. The City would pay manufacturer maintenance agreements or monthly fees per meter to the meter manufacturer for use of their system. Fees are generally negotiated every 5 years. 3.4.5 Period of Service. The metering system should function during the 20 to 25 year life of the meter. Meter batteries usually have a 20 year life warranty, which is prorated after 10 years. The warranty is for the battery only and doesn't cover labor or installation of a new battery. Meter batteries will need to be replaced during the expected life of the meter system. Meter Study 11 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center FUTURE SYSTEM TKDA participated in project meetings with City staff to discuss customer service issues, define the billing needs or goals, and determine the reliability concerns and billing operations costs. Based on these discussions, three system options were identified for detailed consideration. The three system options are further described below. 4.1 OPTION 1: RADIO READ SYSTEM 4.1.1 System Characteristics Under this option, a radio read water metering system would be installed on all water customer accounts. Water meter data would be collected by City staff driving around the City and collecting the radio transmitted data through a data collector. This electronic information would be uploaded from the data collector to the City computer system, and the finance department would bill through CIS Infinity software. Water use per customer and address would automatically be sorted by the software. Finance staff would be responsible for mailing bills and receiving payments. Residential customers would continue to be billed quarterly, and commercial billing could be monthly in the future. 4.1.2 Benefits- Customer Service The City can obtain any meter reading at any time and accurately bill the water customer for water use at a time interval desired by the City. Data logging to provide information on customer use and meter readings required for final billing is available by site visit at any time. Staff would need to drive to the property, but would not need to enter the premises. As the radio read system requires a City staff member to obtain or verify the meter information on site, the City may need to establish a biweekly or monthly procedure to obtain /verify the required information for the approximately 25 customer inquires each month regarding final bills for property transfer or customer water use. The required meter reading Meter Study 12 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 4.1.3 Cost information could be obtained during the same monthly time period that a staff member reads the commercial accounts. Processing and labor costs are elaborated in Table 4 -1. See Table 4 -2 and 4 -3 for capital costs of the radio read system. TABLE NO. 4-1 OPTION 1 RADIO READ PROCESSING AND LABOR COSTS Meter Labor Billing Total Type Type Hours Accounts Rate Per Year Cost Data 16 hrs 34 /hr 4 2,176 Collection Vehicle 16 hrs $10 /hr 640 Cost Bill 8 hrs 26 /hr 4 832 Generation Mailing 8,279 0.60 /ea 4 19,868 Costs Payment 140 hrs 26 /hr 4 14.560 Processing Subtotal Residential per Year I 38,076 Data 8 hrs 34 /hr 12 3,264 Collection Vehicle 8 hrs $10 /hr 12 960 Cost Bill 2 hrs 26 /hr 12 624 Generation Mailing 792 0.60 /ea 12 5,702 Costs Payment 16 hrs 26 /hr 12 4,992 Processing Subtotal Commercial per Year 1 15,542 Total Meter System Cost per Year I 53,618 f Note: Table 4 -1 assumes that monthly commercial billing procedures are implemented. Meter Study 13 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 4.2 OPTION 2: FIXED NETWORK SYSTEM WITH THIRD PARTY DATA ADMINISTRATIOR 4.2.1 System Characteristics 4.2.2 Benefits- Customer Service 4.2.3 Cost Under this option, a third party operated fixed network water metering system would be installed for all water customers. Water meter data would be transmitted from each meter location and collected at a central antenna and computer server. This electronic information would be held on a meter manufacturer server and processed to a secured data page on the internet by a third party. City staff would upload the data from the internet and bills would continue to be processed through the software system. Water use per customer and address would automatically be sorted by the software, finance staff would be responsible for mailing bills, receiving payments, and updating the payment data to the system. Residential customers could continue to be billed quarterly, and commercial customers could be billed monthly. The City can obtain any meter reading at any time, and accurately bill the water customer for the water used at a time interval desired by the City. Data logging to provide information on customer water use and meter readings required for final billing is available to the City finance staff at any time through the internet/meter system program. As the meter data can be accessed at any time by City staff, final bills for property transfer could be done in a more timely and accurate fashion, and information regarding customer water use could be provided by staff at the time of the customers inquiry call. See Table 4 -2 for capital cost of a 3rd party fixed network system. Labor costs would be dependent on existing staff and skill level. Table 4 -4 for installation options. Meter Study 14 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center 4.3 OPTION 3: FIXED NETWORK SYSTEM WITH CITY OWNED AND OPERATED DATA SYSTEM 4.3.1 System Characteristics Under this option, a City operated fixed network water metering system would be installed for all water customers. Water meter data would be transmitted from each meter location and collected at a central antenna and server. This electronic information would be held on a City owned and operated server and processed to a data page by City staff. Finance staff would upload the data and bills would continue to be processed through CIS Infinity software. Water use per customer and address would automatically be sorted by the software, finance staff would be responsible for mailing bills, receiving payments, and updating payment data in the system. Residential customers could continue to be billed quarterly, and commercial customers could be billed monthly. 4.3.2 Benefits- Customer Service 4.3.3 Cost The City can obtain any meter reading at any time, and accurately bill the water customer for the water used at a time interval desired by the City. Data logging to provide information on customer water use and meter readings required for final billing is available to the City finance, staff at any time through the internet/meter system program. As the meter data can be accessed at any time by City staff, final bills for property transfer could be done daily, and information regarding customer water use could be provided by staff at the time of the customers inquiry call. See Table 4 -2 for capital cost of a City operated fixed network system. Labor costs for a fixed network system would be dependent on existing staff and skill levels. See Table 4 -4 for installation options. Meter Study 15 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center System Type Meter Study City of Brooklyn Center TABLE NO. 4-2 SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS System Meter and Equipment Installation and Cost Software Cost Maintenance Fee per Month per Acct Maintenance Total Fee for 22 System years Cost Radio Read System, Register Change Out 2,392,680 34,000 0.01 34,540 2,461,220 Radio Read System, Complete Change Out 2,888,625 34,000 0.01 34,540 2,957,165 Fixed Network, 3rd Party Operated 2,993,430 0.35 838,160 3,831,590 Fixed Network, City Operated** 2,993,430 0.12 287,370 3,280,800 *See Tables 4 -3 and 4 -4, Meter Installation Options, for figures on complete change out versus register change out. City operated fixed network may require addition of IT staff, servers, and other computer hardware not included with this estimate. 16 13946.000 Meter Study City of Brooklyn Center Meter Size 5/8" 3/4" 3/4" 1" 1 -1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" TABLE NO. 4-3 METER INSTALLATION OPTIONS RADIO READ SYSTEM METER REGISTER CHANGEOUT MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION COST Type of Number Meter Size Installation of Meters 5/8" 3/4" I Complete 3,638 5/8" 3/4" I Register 4,724 3/4" I Complete 27 3/4" Register 18 1" Complete 114 1" Register 81 1-1/2" Complete 175 1 -1/2" Register 85 2" Complete 76 2" Register 50 3" Complete 36 3" Register 20 4" Complete 20 4" Register 3 6" Complete 4 Type of Installation Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Total Cost Cost per Meter 255 190 255 190 320 190 805 196 1,290 230 3,200 230 4,600 260 6,400 Total Cost 927,690 897,560 6,885 3,420 36,480 15,390 140,875 16,660 98,040 11,500 115,200 4,600 92,000 780 25,600 Total Cost 2,392,680 COMPLETE METER CHANGEOUT MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION COST Number Cost of per Total Cost Meters Meter 8,362 255 I $2,1 32,310 45 I 255 I 11,475 195 I 320 I 62,400 260 I 805 I 209,300 126 I 1,290 162,540 56 3,200 I 179,200 23 4,600 I 105,800 4 6,400 I 25,600 2,888,625 17 13946.000 METER REGISTER CHANGEOUT MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION COST Number Type of Meter Size Installation of C M ter per Total Cost Meters 5/8" 3/4" 5/8" 3/4" 3/4" 3/4" 1" 1" 1 -1/2" 1 -1/2" 2" 2" 3" 3" 4" 4 6" COMPLETE METER CHANGEOUT MATERIAL AND INSTALLATION COST Meter Study City of Brooklyn Center Meter Size 5/8" 3/4" 3/4" 1" 1 -1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" TABLE NO. 4-4 METER INSTALLATION OPTIONS FIXED NETWORK SYSTEM Complete Register Complete Register Complete Register Complete Register Complete Register Complete Register Complete Register Complete Total Cost Type of Installation Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Total Cost 3,638 4,724 27 18 114 81 175 85 76 50 36 20 20 3 4 Number of Meters 8,362 45 195 260 126 56 23 4 319 238 319 238 400 238 1,008 245 1,614 288 4,003 288 5,755 325 8,006 Cost per Meter 319 319 400 1,008 1,614 4,003 5,755 8,006 1,160,540 1,122,848 8,613 4,278 48,636 19,253 176,421 20,842 122,648 14,387 144,115 5,755 115,092 976 32,026 2,993,430 Total Cost 2,667,520 14,355 78,062 262,111 203,338 224,179 132,356 32,026 3,613,946 Note: Fixed network unit meter costs include associated system equipment costs. 18 13946.000 5. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This Plan offers several recommendations regarding the implementation of a new metering system for the City of Brooklyn Center. This section of the Plan is intended to summarize these improvements, prepare preliminary cost estimates, and approximate their timing to put them into service. The major system items are summarized in Table No. 5 -1, along with an engineer's estimate of probable cost. For implementation, as the commercial accounts currently have the highest cost per reading, we recommend installing a new metering system on commercial accounts first, and then follow the commercial account installation with residential account installation. For residential installation, we would suggest that the City divide the residential accounts into three districts, and install meters at one of the three districts at a time. In order to provide a uniform cash flow and labor requirement, we would suggest that the City bill one residential district each month along with the commercial accounts. 5.1 SYSTEM SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the City proceed with the installation a radio read meter system and allow register changes on all meters less than ten years of age for the following reasons. 1. The radio read system is a proven system which will provide accurate reading and billing information of City accounts at a much lower cost than a fixed network system 2. Due to the limited number of customer inquiries regarding either water use issues or readings required for final bills related to property transfer, we believe procedures can be established which will allow City staff to obtain the required information in a cost effective manner. 3. Existing labor costs for the manual read system are estimated as $102,781 in Table 2 -1. Radio read system labor costs are estimated at $53,618 in Table 4 -1. Installing a radio read system can save approximately $49,163 in metering system labor costs per year. Over the course of 22 years, this savings would amount to $1,081,586. This is 43% Meter Study 19 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center of the estimated $2,461,220 radio read system register change out cost as referenced in Table 4 -2 and Table 5 -1. 4. The AMR meter conversion should be implemented in one year using a vendor or service provider. The contractor or vendor shall furnish all labor, transportation, tools, meter components, computer software and hardware, automated radio read equipment, and paperwork as required to install a completed system. The contractor shall be responsible for purchase and /or proper installation of all water meter system components and for testing the installed water metering system to see if the completed system is functioning properly. 5. We recommend that the radio read metering system be installed in commercial accounts first. Residential accounts should be installed by district and follow commercial installation. 6. Upon completion of the new commercial meter installation, we recommend that commercial accounts be read and billed monthly. 7. Upon completion of the new residential meter installation, we recommend that the reading and billing continue to be done quarterly. The residential meters should be split up into three districts in the City, and each month a different district should be read for its quarterly bill. Meter Study 20 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center Item No. TABLE NO. 5-1 RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMTENT PLAN Improvement Est. Cost Radio Read System, Register Change Out, System Equipment, Software and Maintenance Fees Note: Project Costs are based on Year 2007 construction and includes engineering. Land acquisition costs and capitalized interest resulting from the sale of bonds to finance any of the individual projects, however, are not included. 1 2,461,220.00 Meter Study 21 13946.000 City of Brooklyn Center