Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 10-23 CCP Regular Session AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 23, 2006 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. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 3. Miscellaneous 4. Adjourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center October 23, 2006 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. Father Jimmy Tham, St. Alphonsus Church 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 Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. September 25, 2006 Study Session 2. September 25, 2006 Regular Session 3. October 9, 2006 Study Session 4. October 9, 2006 Regular Session 5. October 9, 2006 Work Session 6. October 16, 2006 Budget Work Session with Financial Commission CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 23, 2006 b. Licenses C. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Program in Support of the 2007 Safety Camp d. Site Performance Guarantee Reduction from $35,000 to $10,000 for Norse Management, Inc. for Bristol Village Townhomes Located Between 67 Place and 69 Place at Irving Place 8. Random Acts of Kindness Presentation of Recognition and Certificate Ceremony 9. Public Hearing a. An Ordinance Relating to the Licensure of Massage Parlors; Amending Brooklyn Center City Code Section 23 -1712 —This item was first read on September 25, 2006; published in the official newspaper on October 5, 2006; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: —Open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. —Close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. b. Consideration of Renewal Application for a Currency Exchange License Submitted by Money Centers Holdings LLC, 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard Resolution Authorizing Issuance of a Currency Exchange License to Money Centers Holdings LLC, 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Requested Council Action: —Open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. —Close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Mayoral Appointment Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission This item was tabled at the September 25, 2006, Regular Session Meeting. Requested Council Action: Motion to remove item from table. Motion to ratify Mayoral nomination. b. Set Date and Time for Facilitated City Council Retreat Requested Council Action: Motion to set date and time of facilitated City Council retreat for Saturday, November 11, 2006, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at Earle Brown Heritage CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- October 23, 2006 Brown Drive, Drive Center, 6155 Earle B in The Loft. C. Resolution Supporting the Mosaic Youth Center Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. d. Proclamation Declaring November 19 through 25, 2006, as National Family Week -Requested Council Action: Motion to approve proclamation. e. Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $1,460,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. f. Quarterly Police Report and Code Enforcement Update. -No Action Requested g. Resolution Adopting Amendments to the Financial Policies Section of the Brooklyn Center City Council Code of Policies. 0 -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. h. Discussion of MCES Claims -No Action Requested i. Joint Public Hearing with EDA: Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC Resolution Approving Property Tax Abatement Authorizing Execution of a Development Agreement -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution agreement and agreeing to tax abatement. 11. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 7a Office of the City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, Interim City Man ger FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: October 9, 2006 SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN: Requested Changes to Minutes SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 STUDY SESSION Page 2. Parasrauh 2. Line 12 reviewe She stated she was derAed the eppeAimity to review the efAir-e eei#:Fa and new that she ha: 't th City Co '1 F r ev i ew it together- and tom, agr- Replace with: She stated in her Memo to Council that included the proposed CM Evaluation Form, she proposed Council review the contract as the council makeup had changed since it was first written but that suggestion apparently died with the tabling of the proposed CM Evaluation Form until February 2007. She stated that now that she has reviewed it, the City Council, composed of new members from the 2002 and 2004 election, must review it together and come to agreement. Page 3, Para2ranh 1. Line 1 Councilmember Niesen Sh e re Y t „n th f «ti r r Replace with: She requested a comparison table to show proposed changes from what the Council had originally been presented. SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 REGULAR SESSION Approval of Aizenda and Consent Aeenda Paize 3. Paraeranh 2. Line 10 She stated te be fair-, the item should be tabled for- twe weeks so that she may have the tifne to review the eff-er- made te the h4er-im City Manager- Qu4 Beganey. 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 Replace with: She stated to be fair, the item should be tabled for at least 2 weeks and the Council should meet and review the offer made between Karl Nollenberger, PAR Group and Mr. Boganey, and decide by consensus what Council wanted to offer to their first choice candidate. 9a. Citv Manager Emnlovment Agreement —Page 15 Mr. LeFevere responded to Councilmember Niesen in that it is intended to be a waiver of unintentional acts. Councilmember Niesen is requesting a statement of clarification from City Attorney Charlie LeFevere. Page 16. Paraeranhs 13 and 14 Councilmember Niesen posed two questions to the City Attorney, 1) is the language in Section 4-3G 12G more protective or less protective to the City; 2) how is the agreement changed once it is entered into overall. In response to Councilmember Niesen's inquiries, Mr. LeFevere stated he has not been able to think of a way that having the clause in Section 44G 12G is going to harm the City; however, he stated that he is not infallible and a case could come up that this clause could be of disadvantage to the City. He stated this clause is not for the protection of the City, it is of that of the City Manager. He further explained that the contract is for the purpose of compensation and generally for the benefit of the employee; it defines a relationship. He stated the contract could be amended with the consent and approval by both parties. Page 2 of 2 I 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen (arrived at 6:03 p.m.), and Mary O'Connor. Also present were Interim City Manager Curt Boganey, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember O'Connor requested that the EDA and HRA meeting minutes be approved at the next regular City Council meeting rather than waiting for the next EDA or HRA meeting. Mayor Kragness responded the meetings are different bodies and therefore the minutes can not be approved by the City Council. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to continue to approve the EDA and HRA minutes at there respective meetings. Councilmember O'Connor stated her following corrections to the minutes: Regular Session Page 2 The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:08 7:10 p.m. Work Session —Page 1 The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at 8-A9 9:06 p.m. The following meeting minute corrections were submitted by Councilmember Carmody: Work Session Page 3 Councilmember Carmody stated disappointment of the loss of a candidate that she believed was due to a data request by Councilmember Niesen another Geuneilmem er- Councilmember Lasman inquired about the Brewer and Brew Pub Off -Sale Malt Liquor License being approved on the Consent Agenda prior to the fee being set for the license on the regular portion of the agenda and stated the fee should be set before the license is approved. Interim City Manager Curt Boganey stated it would be appropriate to approve the fee prior to the license approval. The City Council discussed that the Brew Pub Off -Sale Malt Liquor License indicates that the fee is required to be paid before the approval of the license. It was the majority consensus of the City 09/25/06 1 DRAFT I I Council to make the license approval subject to fee payment. Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to table item 9a. because she has not had an opportunity to meet with the City Council to discuss negotiations for the employment agreement of the City Manager. She stated after a long day of interviews, what she understood is that Mr. Nollenberger would explore Mr. Bo ane 's contract desires and return to the City Council with the g p g Y tY findings. She stated the hiring of the City Manager is the most important job of the City Council and requested a meeting to discuss what will be offered in the contract. Mayor Kragness stated the meeting minutes from the September 16, 2006, meeting indicates that Mr. Nollenberger was to draft an employment agreement and present it to the City Council at its next meeting. Mayor Kragness stated the proposed contract is the same as the former City Manager, Mike McCauley's, which has never proposed a problem to the City or the City Manager. Councilmember Niesen stated the City Council only received the salary information with regard to Mr. McCauley's contract and not the full contract. She stated she was denied the opportunity to review the entire contract and now that she has reviewed it, the City Council must review it together and come to agreement. Mayor Kragness stated it is a basic contract offered to a City Manager er and needs to be moved forward and stated postponing the process is unfair to Mr. Boganey. Councilmember Carmody state she does not wish to table the item. Councilmember Niesen stated there is no City that has an agreement like this based on her research and added that according to the League of Minnesota Cities, the process should not be rushed, therefore she is requesting that it be tabled so that a discussion can take place without the presence of Mr. Boganey. Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to discuss the item today. Councilmember Lasman stated adequate information has been provided including comparison charts with other cities in and out of Minnesota. She stated she feels the salary that was agreed upon is an amount that the entire City Council is familiar with. She stated the proposed salary is fair and Mr. Boganey has more experience in this City than the other candidates. She stated he was selected as the City Manager and the City Council needs to move forward. She stated there is nothing unusual about the proposed contract. Councilmember Niesen stated the proposed salary is only a factor among others that need to be discussed. She stated the City Council has not made an offer; rather Mr. Boganey has only met with Mr. Nollenberger to craft an agreement. She stated the agreement needs to be discussed paragraph by paragraph and should be discussed by the City Council to be fair. Councilmember Lasman responded with disagreement and stated it would be an open meeting if discussed and tabling the item is not the best option. Councilmember Niesen responded the City Council should meet with the sole purpose of reviewing the contract and stated an offer needs to be created that is protective of the City. Councilmember O'Connor suggested that amendments be made and discussed, and then the amended contract returned to the City Council for approval. She requested an opportunity to review the contract since this is the first time she has seen it. There was discussion regarding the $250 traveling allowance. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS Councilmember Niesen requested postponement of the hotel agreement. She requested a comparison table on the information provided. Mayor Kragness stated she would like to see the item moved forward. Mr. Boganey stated if the item meets the requirements of the City Council, staff 09/25/06 2 DRAFT recommends it be moved forward. DISCUSSION OF FIRE PENSION PROPOSAL Mr. Boganey stated this is the third and final increase which is part of a gentlemen's agreement made three or fours years ago when the lump sum pension payment amount had fallen substantially below the State maximum. He stated it is requested that it be brought back to the State's allowed maximum given that the total funding is expected to come out of the investment of the State funds that the City receives on an annual basis. He stated the Fire Relief Association sees it as critical to their recruitment activities. He explained a study done of the condition of their investment fund and that forecasted what the effect would be if the payout were increased. He stated Springsted has indicated that in the first year, the City was able to increase it to $6,000 without negatively affecting the ability to make the payment, and in the second year the analysis indicated that the increase to $7,000 could go forward without significantly impacting the fund's ability to cover the payment, and the last study indicated that the $500 increase, bringing it to statutory maximum could also go forward with reasonable expectation that the investment portfolio would be able to cover these costs. He stated the analysis and forecast is just that and not guarantees. He stated the fund appears to be strong enough to support this request. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about other benefits provided to Firefighters and the timeframe of retirement benefit payout. Mr. Boganey stated the Firefighters receive duty pay, mandated FICA, along with paid training. Kent Korman, Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association, explained that Firefighters are paid $13 per hour and Officers are paid $18 per hour for training. He explained that they are paid $82 for duty shifts and that during fire response; the only two people paid are those on their scheduled duty, all other fire response is volunteer. He stated retirement funds cannot be collected until age 50 and only by those who have at least 10 years invested in the program. There was discussion regarding the decrease in surplus. Councilmember Carmody inquired about the retention of firefighters. Mr. Korman responded he hopes the pension proposal will assist in retention of Firefighters. He stated the last time the City Council had to make a payment to the pension was in 2002 for approximately $16,000. Mayor Kragness stated she is in favor of approval, Councilmember Lasman agreed. There was discussion of pension payments made in recent years and the amount of those payments. The majority consensus of the City Council was to move the item to the next City Council agenda ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Study Session at 6:48 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 09/25/06 3 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 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 and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:48 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were Interim City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. Charles Atkinson, 5309 64 Avenue, stated concern with the condition of the City, especially with the upkeep of property. He discussed a home with garbage piled up to the eaves of the home. He stated the property is still a mess with excessive garbage and poor lawn conditions. He stated he is concerned with the amount of rental property, amount of homes for sale, and un- repaired storm damage. He stated he is considering moving due to the poor conditions. Mayor Kragness stated improvement to the appearance of the City is a long process. She addressed a particular legal matter of the property he discussed. She stated Code Enforcement is doing the best job they can. Councilmember Carmody stated it is considered unconstitutional to restrict the number or location of rental property. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:51 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Mayor Kragness offered a prayer as the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. 09/25/06 1 DRAFT 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were Interim City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember O'Connor stated she attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on September 19, 2006, where the Parks Capital Improvement Plan was discussed and that it was extended. She stated the Three Rivers Park District would like to lease the City's land and maintain the regional trails. She stated it was indicated that the Central Garage Salt Storage Building would be completed by November 1 She stated there was also an update given on the Golf Course Capital Improvement Plan funding. Councilmember Lasman stated she attended the District 279 Community Cafe on September 13th, which is an opportunity provided by the District to provide input on the District's direction. She stated the District will be having the Parade of Schools on October 3 rd and 5 th which is open to the community in order to showcase improvements made to each of the schools as a result of the bond referendum in 2000. She stated she attended a Block Watch meeting on September 14th, which was a time to visit and hear concerns on the particular neighborhoods. She stated she also attended a dinner with the City Manager candidates on September 15 which was a great way to meet the candidates under a social setting. She stated on September 16 the City Council attended interviews, narrowing the search down to the finalist including Curt Boganey. She stated the process was thorough. She stated on September 19 she attended the Financial Commission meeting concerning language changes on investments and other items, with more information to be submitted to the City Council at a later day. She stated on September 20 she attended the Crime Prevention meeting where two new Officers and the loss of one Officer to be filled later at a later date was discussed. She stated Crime Prevention will also be contributing $1,000 to the Summer Safety Camp which will help to enable the youth program to continue. She stated on September 21 she attended the second Special Events Committee meeting and stated the Special Events Awards evening will be on February 3, 2007. She stated on September 24 she attended the Lions Pancake Breakfast which was a celebration of the Brooklyn Center All School Reunion. She mentioned that Hennepin County has a Small Business and Finance presentation on Thursday, October 9, at 7:00 p.m. at the Library for all entrepreneurs who are interested in starting a new business. Councilmember Carmody stated she attended a few of the same meetings as Councilmember Lasman. She discussed the Housing Commission meeting that was held on September 19 She stated she will distribute the report at the Work Session. Councilmember Niesen stated she attended the quarterly meeting held by the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission. She stated they tabled the exploration of WI -FI with joint 09/25/06 2 DRAFT Cities due to business model reasons. She stated they are undertaking their Preliminary Budget and Comcast gave a presentation on the acquisition of Time Warner and new service features. Mayor Kragness read a paragraph regarding the rating of Centerbrook Golf Course that praises the course as the Best Condition Par 3 Course. She congratulated the crew of the golf course. She stated there are some volunteer opportunities in Brooklyn Center including the Housing Commission, Financial Commission, and Charter Commission. She encouraged those interested to call Sharon Knutson at City Hall. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Niesen moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to table item 9a. City Manager Employment Agreement. Councilmember Niesen stated the hiring of a City Manager is the most important job of a City Council. She stated the City Council made a choice to make an offer to a candidate and she thought the offer would be discussed prior to the offer being presented to the candidate. She stated she does not feel this is the time or the place for the City Council to make a decision on the employment contract of the City Manager. She stated she has not had an opportunity to give her opinion on the proposed employment agreement. She stated time has not been allowed for the City Council to meet and discuss an offer. She stated she was not familiar with the contract; however she made effort to revise the City Manager review form in which she was unsuccessful. She stated she was unaware of the contract provision of the previous City Manager until recently and would now like to allow time to discuss the matter. She stated to be fair, the item should be tabled for two weeks so that she may have the time to review the offer made to the Interim City Manager Curt Boganey. Councilmember O'Connor agreed that the proposed contract should be fully discussed. Councilmember Carmody stated it is important to keep it on the agenda and a convincing argument has not been made to remove it from agenda. Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Lasman, and Councilmember Carmody voted against the same. Motion failed. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve the consent agenda and agenda as amended with the removal of the Brewer and Brew Pub Off -Sale Malt Liquor License included in Item No. 7b. from the Consent Agenda to Council Consideration Item No. 9b. and amendments to the September 11, 2006, Regular Session and September 11, 2006, Work Session minutes as discussed at the Study Session. The following consent items were approved: 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 11, 2006 Study Session 2. September 11, 2006 —Regular Session 3. September 11, 2006 Work Session 4. September 13, 2006 Special Session 5. September 16, 2006 Special Session 09/25/06 3 DRAFT 7b. LICENSES COMMERCIAL KENNEL Gentle Touch Animal Sanctuary 4900 France Ave N MECHANICAL ELK Mechanical HVAC Inc 6361 Sunfish Lake Ct., Ramsey Gopher Heating Sheet Metal, Inc. 12330 Ottawa Ave, Savage Snell Mechanical Inc. 8850 Wentworth Ave So, Bloomington SIGNHANGER Albrecht Sign Co., Inc. 12437 Magnolia Cir NW, Coon Rapids Apparently Graphic, Ltd. 7420 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park RENTAL Renewal 3007 68 Ave N (Single Family) Kao Vang NONE 5548 Dupont Ave N (Single Family) John Lindahl ASSAULT 5548 Dupont Ave N (Single Family) Dion Properties, Inc. ASSAULT (There were no calls for service for the following) 5332 Lilac Drive (Single Family) Mark Lundberg 5400 Sailor Lane (Single Family) Duane Christiansen 5925 Washburn Ave N (Single Family) Cheng Lor Initial (There were no calls for service for the following) 3713 54 Ave N (Single Family) Yer Yang 5730 Northport Dr (Single Family) Tuyet Le Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Niesen moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to move Item No. 9a. to the end of the agenda. Mayor Kragness and Councilmember Lasman voted against the same. Motion passed. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (EASTERLY OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN I -94 AND 69TH AVENUE NORTH) Interim City Ma Curt Bo ty g ane explained that it is necessary that the property be re platted Y p �'Y P P Y latted P and that the City Council should not approve the rezoning, rather table for a later date. 09/25/06 4 DRAFT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to open the Public Hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard Between I -94 and 69th Avenue North). Motion passed unanimously. No public input was offered. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to table to the November 13, 2006, agenda an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard Between I -94 and 69th Avenue North). Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This item was moved to the end of Council Consideration Items. 9b. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -107 ESTABLISHING FEE FOR BREWER AND BREW PUB OFF -SALE MALT LIQUOR LICENSE Mr. Boganey explained that amendments have been made to the Liquor portion of the Ordinance which includes a Brew Pub to be allowed to sell growlers. He stated since the adoption, Surly Brewery has submitted an application for the license. He stated since the license is new, a Resolution has been prepared regarding fees for that license. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -107 Establishing Fee for Brewer and Brew Pub Off -Sale Malt Liquor License and License Application for Surly Brewing Company pending fee payment. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-108 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A FIBER OPTIC EASEMENT FOR ACCESS COMMUNICATIONS INC. Mr. Boganey stated the City Council authorized a Fiber Optic Agreement to allow installation of fiber optic materials for the City's network. He stated this has been completed and an agreement has been entered into with Access Communications in order to share the easement and in return Access Communications will provide a one call service to locate the fiber optic line, an annual value of $7,000. 09/25/06 5 DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked if Access Communications would be allowed to install additional materials along the City's in the same easement area. Mr. Boganey responded yes. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -108 Authorizing Execution of a Fiber Optic Easement for Access Communications Inc. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the City's fiber optic capacity and if the excess capacity could be sold to them. Mr. Boganey responded Access Communications would have no interest in the City's fiber optic equipment. There was discussion regarding the previously purchased fiber optic equipment that was to be sold. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the ongoing maintenance responsibility of the lines. Mr. Boganey responded the City would maintain the City's equipment and Access Communications would maintain their equipment. He also stated that Access Communications will provide the locator for both the City's equipment and their own. Motion passed unanimously. 9d. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -109 DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES Mr. Boganey stated it is the recommendation of City staff that the City Council approve the Declaration of Public Nuisance so that the diseased trees can be removed. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -109 Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the number of removed trees. She inquired about a tree on Lyndale Ave N that has been marked for some time. Mr. Blomstrom responded that the memorandum included a typographical error in that it should read a total of 148 rather than 147. He explained that there is a possibility that Hennepin County marked the tree in question; however he will research the item. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9e. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -110 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2006 -10 CONTRACT 2006 -D, 2006 STREET SEAL COATING Mr. Boganey stated the purpose of the Resolution and stated it is a joint effort with several other cities to ensure the best price for this service. He stated the amount of the final payment is $59,657.50 and stated staff recommends approval of the proposed. 09/25/06 6 DRAFT I Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -110 Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project No. 2006 -10, Contract 2006 -D, 2006 Street Seal Coating. Motion passed unanimously. 9f. PROVISIONAL RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE 5240 DREW AVENUE NORTH Mr. Boganey explained the proposal and stated the property experienced numerous issues and complaints resulting in ineligibility for a rental license, however he stated the property has been under new ownership and no calls have been received since April 2006. He stated the new owner has been improving the property. He stated a review of the property would occur after six months with eligibility of a non provisional license after 12 months. Mr. Schumacher responded to Councilmember Lasman's inquiry regarding evicted tenants and stated freeloaders were living on the property and only three tenants who have signed a lease and paid the rent remain in the building. He stated rent will increase after the renovations are complete. He stated he purchased the property for the purpose of development and the property can be left unoccupied until the right tenants are found. He stated he resides in North Minneapolis and will be the manager of the proposed property. Mayor Kragness suggested that Mr. Schumacher get involved in the Association for Rental Management (ARM) group. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to approve the application and the Mitigation Plan and Rental License. Motion passed unanimously. Y 9g. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LICENSURE OF MASSAGE PARLORS; AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE SECTION 23 -1712 Mr. Boganey discussed the purpose and history of the Ordinance Amendment and stated the changes discussed by the City Council with regards to Massage Parlors are included in the proposal. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve first reading of ordinance and set second reading and Public Hearing on October 23, 2006. Councilmember Carmody stated the amendments are to the requirements for a Health Club, not a Massage Parlor. Councilmember Lasman stated it will work better now that the State Building Code in relation to restrooms is included in the City of Brooklyn Center's Ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. 9a. CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Councilmember Niesen stated it is important to the City that the top official be compensated fairly and because this agreement sets precedence, she investigated the proposed contract, that 09/25/06 7 DRAFT being the same contract as the former City Manager, Mike McCauley. She stated that her redlined copy of the contract was submitted to the City Council for review. She stated that she is proposing something that is fair and a contract she would approve if the City Council is in agreement. She stated she sought contracts from several neighboring communities for the purpose of comparison. She stated she spoke with the League of Minnesota Cities who emailed her information on hiring the City Manager. She stated disappointment that Mr. Nollenberger was absent from the meeting. Mayor Kragness stated Mr. Nollenberger was instructed to use Mr. McCauley's contract as a basis. Councilmember Niesen discussed the proposed vacation and sick leave and stated she contacted several legal firms regarding the matter, one at her own expense. Mayor Kragness stated the decision can not be made by Councilmember Niesen alone. Councilmember Carmody stated objection to several of Councilmember Niesen's comments and stated disagreement with most of the redlining done by Councilmember Niesen. She stated Councilmember Niesen has objected to several steps of the process for the search for the new City Manager, all of which were given to the City Council on a dateline in advance. She stated surprise that Councilmember Niesen mentioned that this was the most important task of the City Council, however in the past three years the contract of Mr. McCauley was approved; she did not request to review the contract. She stated Councilmember Niesen's argument is not convincing. Councilmember Niesen stated she should have reviewed the contract, however she was learning at the time. She stated the full contract was never supplied with exception of the car allowance and salary portions. She discussed her proposed amended evaluation form for the City Manager. She stated that she collected several opinions on the proposed contract, one of which by another law firm. She stated objection to several portions of the contract and stated reasons for those objections. She stated Brooklyn Center can not afford to pay this generous contract that puts the City at risk. She discussed concern for the sections relating to termination and moral turpitude. She discussed the salary history of the previous City Manager and Mr. Boganey. She stated she would like to review the contract with the City Council, item by item. Councilmember O'Connor agreed with many of Councilmember Niesen's concerns and stated she would like the City Council to walk through each item of the contract. Councilmember Carmody pointed out that other contracts provided for comparison by Councilmember Niesen should also be reviewed. The City Council discussed the following aspects of the City Manager Employment Agreement: Section 1. Emplovment Councilmember Niesen stated she has no amendments to the paragraphs that precede Section 1 and no changes to Section 1 Employment. She stated she would like to add a section titled: Term of Agreement that states: "the agreement shall terminate on the 26 day of September 2007 and subsequent extension shall be allowed only by a majority vote of the City Council prior to the expiration date." She stated this does not allow for an indefinite contract, however a proactive stance that this contract will be reviewed year to year. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement and pointed out a section of the St. Louis Park agreement in that the expiration or termination of the contract is discussed. She stated she is not in favor to change this section. Councilmember Niesen discussed the importance of indicating an expiration of the contract. The City Council discussed this section in comparison to those employment agreements of other communities. Councilmember Niesen indicated the importance of including 09/25/06 8 DRAFT removal for cause in the agreement. The City Council discussed the amount Mr. McCauley received at the time of separation, that being only his regular salary. The City Council discussed termination on malfeasance, moral turpitude, or illegal activity and the lack of it being addressed in the proposed employment contract. Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor stated they wish to include language addressing termination on malfeasance, moral turpitude, or illegal activity in the City Manager Employment Agreement. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere stated the contract that the City has had in place for many years is based on a slightly different premise. He stated the idea is that an employer can negotiate every piece it wishes. He stated it is thought by many employers to start off with a more cooperative relationship. He stated with Mr. McCauley's contract, it does not have a tremendous amount of detail. He stated a provision on moral turpitude is not unreasonable; however the term moral turpitude does not have a clear definition and means different things to different people. He stated the proposed contract is predicated on the idea that it is protection for the employee. Councilmember Niesen stated there is sample language addressing termination on malfeasance, moral turpitude, or illegal activity provided by the League of Minnesota Cities and suggested that the City use the language provided by them. Councilmember Niesen read the language as follows: However, in the event employee is terminated because of his or her malfeasance in office, gross misconduct, conviction for a felony, or conviction for an illegal act involving personal gain for employee, then employer shall have no obligation to pay termination benefits. The City Council and Staff discussed severance packages and circumstances of other City employees. Mr. Boganey stated that he believes Mr. McCauley provided a copy of the contract in question to Councilmember Niesen on two different occasions. Councilmember Niesen asked that the language from the League of Minnesota Cities be inserted into the employment agreement. Councilmember Carmody stated she would be in favor of inserting the language if inserted exactly as stated by Councilmember Niesen. Mr. Boganey stated if the City Council wishes to add the language eliminating certain severance benefits if terminated for illegal actions by the City manager, he would agree. He suggested that the City Council direct the City Attorney to negotiate language with the City Manager on this issue. The City Council discussed Section 13d.a. regarding sick leave. Councilmember O'Connor and Councilmember Niesen stated the sick leave should not be paid upon Involuntary Separation. Mr. Boganey stated he would be willing to reach an agreement on this section; however the attorney should be directed to negotiate the language that is acceptable to both parties. Section 2. Duties Councilmember O'Connor stated the language "which are consistent therewith" should be deleted. 09/25/06 9 DRAFT It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 3. Discharge of Duties Councilmember Niesen stated the following last sentence "To that end, the Manager will work flexible hours as is necessary to Manager to discharge the duties of his position" should be deleted because it enters into the issue of flextime. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement with amending the section and pointed out other comparison contracts that have similar language. Councilmember Lasman stated this item does not change the contract in a substantial manner and that only items of importance should be discussed. Section 4. Evaluation Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to change the date of evaluation from July to September or October so that a complete year of management is reviewed. Mr. Boganey explained that this section of the contract was negotiated and he gave a lot to agree to the proposed language. Councilmember Carmody stated typically an evaluation is around one year, however in a position of City Manager, the evaluation should be done in July. The City Council discussed the salary amount and the history of Mr. Boganey's salary and that his position has changed, allowing for a higher rate of pay. Councilmember Niesen stated the salary and history comparison is important and asked what Mr. i Boganey gave up while making 30% more than in the year 2005. Councilmember Carmody stated it is an inappropriate question and stated preference that Mr. Boganey not to answer the question. Mr. Boganey did not answer the question. Councilmember O'Connor suggested that an evaluation be given on the stated date, however not a raise. Mayor Kragness stated a raise is typically involved in an evaluation. Section 5. Participation in Emnlovee Benefits There was no discussion on this section of the Employment Agreement. Section 6. Vacation and Holidays Councilmember O'Connor stated preference to delete the third sentence that reads "The Manager may, at Manager's discretion take %2 day increments of vacation leave for an absence from the performance of Manager's duties." Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement and stated the City Manager should be allowed to use a half day of vacation due to his busy schedule. Councilmember Niesen stated the contract indicates that if the City Manager was to work one hour in a given day, he would not be required to use vacation for the remaining seven hours, which he should have to do. Mr. Boganey stated it is the job of exempt employees to make sure certain jobs get performed. 09/25/06 10 DRAFT He stated he believes the Federal Law indicates that exempt employees may not be required to use vacation for absences that are less than a day. Councilmember Carmody stated there are instances where the City Manager will work off hours and he should be able to use discretion in taking time off. She stated the White Bear Lake contract has similar language as the proposed agreement. Mr. LeFevere stated the language is not intended to give someone free vacation, rather be a limitation on the use of flextime. He stated if the sentence is removed and placed in the flextime area and stated the manager can use flextime, provided if he takes the whole day off, he must use vacation time. He stated this would represent the intent of the contract. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 7. Sick Leave Councilmember Niesen stated preference to delete the second paragraph that reads: "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 nonunion employees." She stated it should be removed because the contract includes enough payments to the City Manager and should not be paid for sick leave. Mayor Kragness stated disagreement. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement with Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember Carmody indicated that other cities pay for sick leave in comparison contracts and stated objection to removal of the language. Councilmember Niesen stated it should be treated the same as other employees in that a portion of sick leave is paid based on the years of service. She stated the maximum of paid sick leave should be one third of that accrued. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 8. Compensation Section 8A. Initial Salary Councilmember O'Connor stated the annual salary should remain at $113,500. Councilmember Carmody stated the annual salary of $115,000 should remain. Councilmember Lasman stated the annual salary of $113,500 was for the Interim City Manager position and his position will change now that he is the City Manager. She stated the agreement is not generous, however it is fair. Councilmember O'Connor asked if Mr. Boganey will hire an Assistant City Manager. Mr. Boganey responded he has been performing the work of two jobs, which has taken him from his family more than he would like, which will not improve a great deal, therefore for the benefit of the City and himself, he will need some assistance. He further explained that he is not 100% certain he would recommend that the position of Assistant City Manager be filled as it exists. He stated assuming an employment agreement is agreed upon, he will look for ways that will result in efficiency and reduced cost in the management structure. He stated this may result in some consolidations. He stated he needs help, however it may not be with an Assistant City Manager position as it currently exists. 09/25/06 11 DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor stated if an Assistant City Manager is hired, Mr. Boganey's salary should remain at $113,500 with a raise to follow at the time of evaluation. Councilmember Carmody stated objection to amending this section of the employment agreement. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement in that the salary is listed at $115,000 annually. Councilmember Niesen stated the annual salary should remain at $113,500 until completion of the evaluation. Section 8B. Evaluation and Salary Increases Councilmember Niesen stated the wording in the contracts indicates that increasing compensation should be considered when the City evaluates an employee. She stated preference that the evaluation is given at the end of the year so that the City Council goals are incorporated. Councilmember Carmody explained that the City Manager is supervising employees with salaries over $100,000; therefore his salary should remain at $115,000 until his evaluation. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Mr. Boganey explained that according to the contract, the evaluation would occur in July of each year, with the salary increase at the beginning of the year. Mr. LeFevere explained that after the 2007 salary increase, the timing of the decision is specified in the contract, however the criteria is not. He stated if the City Council deems the performance unacceptable, there would be no increase. He stated if the performance is deemed acceptable, however the City can not afford an increase, there would be no increase. He stated there are no specifications on what the City Council has to do, just the timeframe in which action must take place. Councilmember O'Connor stated the $4,000 increase is a 3.47% increase, which is not consistent with other employees and indicated that it should be 2 Councilmember Niesen stated agreement. Section 8C. Personal Auto Usage Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to delete the entire paragraph. Councilmember O'Connor or stated agreement. Councilmember Carmody compared the section on car allowance to other contracts from the comparison cities. She stated objection to amending the paragraph. Councilmember Niesen stated the car allowance aspect of this contract is not legal because it is considered double dipping in that he is reimbursed for a car allowance along with mileage. Mr. LeFevere stated this agreement is not the same as Mr. McCauley's in the Car Allowance aspect. He stated the salary is set and does not say it includes the car allowance. He stated it is up to the City Council on how Mr. Boganey should be reimbursed. 09/25/06 12 DRAFT Councilmember Lasman read from information provided that indicates that the average annual salary for a community the size of Brooklyn Center, not including the car allowance is $110,000. Mr. Boganey stated rather than including a car allowance of 6 000 he a g Y g greed to not consider adding a car allowance, however agreeing on an annual salary of $115,000. He stated there is nothing in the agreement that specifically provides consideration for a car allowance, however the salary amount took into consideration that there is no car allowance in the agreement. He stated the personal auto usage in the agreement is for mileage. Councilmember Niesen stated she is troubled by this matter because she recalls the reason Mr. McCauley's salary increased was due to the car allowance being added to his salary. She stated mileage reimbursement should not have been allowed at the time he was receiving a car allowance. She stated concern that when Mr. Boganey received 95% of Mr. McCauley's salary, a car allowance was included in the salary used. Councilmember Carmody stated when the City Council made an agreement to have Mr. Boganey be Interim City Manager with a salary of $113,500, a car allowance was not discussed. She stated other candidates would have been at comparable salary with or without the car allowance, therefore this agreement is not excessive. Mayor Kragness explained that he receives mileage because he has to travel places for work. Councilmember Lasman explained that if Mr. Boganey is not using his personal vehicle, the City would have to provide one for his use, therefore this alternative is less expensive for the City. Mr. Boganey stated he did not insist on a car allowance because there would be an offset in salary. He stated it is all salary to the IRS. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 81). Professional Membership Dues and Professional Subscriptions Councilmember O'Connor stated preference that the section be deleted. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement and stated the portion of the contract is similar to that of St. Louis Park and White Bear Lake. Councilmember Niesen suggested additional language that states: "in accordance with City policies," so that the City Council can create a policy regarding this matter in the future. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 8E. Participation in Professional Trainins/Development Councilmember O'Connor stated preference that the section be deleted. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Mr. Boganey explained that it should be clarified that this language does not give the City Manager authority to spend any amount he wishes on Professional Training/Development, there is a budget in place that the City Manager must follow and the City Council has other means of controlling this spending. 09/25/06 13 DRAFT Councilmember Niesen stated this is only a matter of limiting things to reasonable limitations. Councilmember Carmody stated that the City Manager includes his attendance in training sessions in the weekly update. Section 10. Expenses Incurred in Performing Duties Councilmember Niesen stated preference that the reference to reimbursement of personal use of his vehicle be deleted. Mayor Kragness explained that the City Manager will fill out an expense report itemizing all of his expenditures. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 11. Retirement Benefits Councilmember Niesen stated that the Manager should not be allowed to participate in another pension or retirement fund, other than PERA, to ensure that he does not have a second form of employment. Councilmember Lasman stated the only job the City Council should be concerned with is the one with the City of Brooklyn Center. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 12. Discontinuance of Emolovment Relationship Councilmember Niesen stated all the unnecessary verbiage should be deleted. She stated Involuntary Separation does not give the City Manager time to resign. She stated if the City Council were to terminate for cause, resignation should not be an option. Councilmember Carmody stated no change is needed and that it minimizes damage to the City and the City Manager's reputation. Mr. LeFevere stated if language provides for discharge for committing a crime that would not be Involuntary Separation. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 12D. Pavment Upon Involuntary Separation Item (b) Councilmember Niesen stated concern with the indication that 12 full months of full cost of family health insurance would be provided in the case of Involuntary Separation. She stated disagreement with the period of 12 months and stated it should be replaced with six months due to the high cost of health insurance. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement and stated preference that it remain as presented. Councilmember Lasman stated 12 months of coverage is acceptable, however, she would be willing to reduce it to six months of coverage. Mr. Boganey stated the reduction from 12 months of full cost of family health insurance to six months is acceptable to him. 09/25/06 14 DRAFT It was the majority consensus to change the 12 months of full cost of family health insurance to six months of full cost family health insurance. Councilmember Niesen stated "until other employment is found" should be included in the clause. Councilmember Lasman stated it is not likely that someone would get themselves set up with a similar position in less than six months. Section 12F. Pa vment Unon Voluntary Termination Councilmember Niesen stated the contract should indicate that no sick leave or at the highest of any other employee which is 40% should be paid at the time of Voluntary Termination. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 12G. Councilmember Niesen stated the whole provision should be deleted. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement. Councilmember Lasman stated the provision is protection of both parties and should remain. Mr. LeFevere responded to Councilmember Niesen in that it is intended to be a waiver of unintentional acts. Councilmember Niesen stated should the City Manager bring forward a lawsuit, this provision indicates that he can seek beyond what is agreed to in the contract. Mr. LeFevere stated if an employee has an unrelated claim, the intent of this language is severance payment and is not intended to be damage for other claims. He stated it is not interpreted to be a payment of another claim. He stated the provision does not expose the City to anything it would not otherwise be exposed to. Councilmember Niesen stated there is no reason to put this provision in the contract, it is only asking for more litigation. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement. Mr. LeFevere stated the clause is for the protection of the employee and if it is not in the contract, there is no claim they would waive anyway. Councilmember Carmody stated the provision should remain in the contract. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 13. Term There was no discussion on this section of the Employment Agreement. Section 14. Indemnification Councilmember Niesen stated the second sentence that reads: "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" should be deleted. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Mr. LeFevere stated it is up to the courts to determine if the City Manager were acting in 09/25/06 15 DRAFT Manager's duties or not. He explained that this is to protect the employee from losing their fortune because of something they did during the job. He stated it is a direct protection for the employee, which would be part of the reason for them to work for the City. Councilmember Lasman stated preference that the section remains as presented. She stated she was glad to know that she would be covered under such a clause if she were acting as a Councilmember. She stated this clause is necessary. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Sections 15 Section 19. There was no discussion on these sections of the Employment Agreement. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve the City Manager Employment Agreement as presented with one amendment to Section 13D(b) regarding payment by the City of the full cost of family health insurance, striking 12 full months and replacing with six (6) full months and to leave the language on moral turpitude for discussion at the next Council meeting when the City Attorney and City Manager drafts the verbiage. Councilmember Niesen posed two questions to the City Attorney, 1) is the language in Section 13G more protective or less protective to the City; 2) how is the agreement changed once it is entered into overall. In response to Councilmember Niesen's inquiries, Mr. LeFevere stated he has not been able to think of a way that having the clause in Section 13G. is going to harm the City; however, he stated that he is not infallible and a case could come up that this clause could be of disadvantage to the City. He stated this clause is not for the protection of the City, it is of that of the City Manager. He further explained that the contract is for the purpose of compensation and generally for the benefit of the employee; it defines a relationship. He stated the contract could be amended with the consent and approval by both parties. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 10. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 10:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 09/25/06 16 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 STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 9, 2006 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), and Mary O'Connor (arrived at 6:02 p.m.). Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Lasman inquired about item 9d. regarding residential pools and their effects on the storm water system. Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom addressed her inquiries. Councilmember Lasman inquired about item 9g. City Manager Curt Boganey addressed her inquiries. Councilmember Carmody inquired about item 9a. and asked why Kimberley Meyer was not nominated based on the application she submitted one year ago. Mayor Kragness responded that she was unable to speak personally to Kimberley Meyer despite attempts to contact her via telephone; however, Christine Eaton expressed interest in the Commission over the summer. She stated Kimberley Meyer's application will be kept on reserve for the next opening. Councilmember O'Connor indicated that she had the following changes to the minutes from the Regular City Council meeting held on September 25, 2006: Paize 6 Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the ongoing maintenance responsibility of the lines. Mr. Boganey responded the City would maintain the City's equipment and Access Communications would maintain their equipment. He also stated that Access Communications will provide the locator for both the City's equipment and their own. Paize 10 (This reauest was also made by Councilmember Carmodv) Section 4. Evaluation Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to change the date of evaluation from Julv to September or October so that a complete year of management is reviewed. Mr. Boganey explained that this section of the contract was negotiated and he gave a lot to agree to the proposed language. 10/09/06 1 DRAFT Paae 12 r•,,,,,,,.il ber O'Connor stated he should ge t o o r.,.,,, 1 live „ii other e Sh aa f 20 o o o Paae 13 Councilmember O'Connor stated the $4,000 increase is a 3.47% increase, which is not consistent with other employees and indicated that it should be 2%. Councilmember Niesen stated agreement. The following corrections to the minutes were submitted by Councilmember Carmody and considered by the City Council: Resular Session, Page 1 Councilmember Carmody stated it is considered unconstitutional to restrict the number or location (rental property. Work Session. Paiae 1 Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to receive reports for purchases over $10,000. Councilmembers Carmodv and Lasman stated thev would like to discuss this volicv before making decisions like that. The following corrections to the minutes were submitted by Councilmember Lasman and considered by the City Council: Pate 2, Council Reports, Councilmember Lasman, Line 10 She stated on September 19 she attended the Financial Commission meeting concerning language changes on investments and other items, with more information to be submitted to the City Council at a later day. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS SELECTION OF RETREAT FACILITATOR COUNCIL Mr. Boganey explained that four proposals were received for the retreat facilitator. He stated the cost difference is minimal between the four facilitators and based on feedback from clients of the firms and his own interaction with them, it is his opinion that they are all qualified and capable of doing the job, however Strandell seemed to have the most insight and a more impressive approach to the proposal, along with favorable feedback from other cities. arm havin a half day retreat for goal setting Councilmember Carmody inquired about the possibility of g y g g purposes only. Mr. Boganey explained that the initial request for proposal was for a retreat from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He stated that other than Councilmember Carmody's request, a desire for a reduced retreat time was not indicated. He stated the firms can adjust their time frame to suit the City Council; however the cost will most likely not be affected. Mayor Kragness stated she had heard positive things about Salverda. Mr. Boganey stated he is familiar with Salverda; however, he was more impressed with the proposal from Strandell. 10/09/06 2 DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the cost of the facilitators. Mr. Boganey stated the total is hard to determine, however costs have been outlined in his memorandum. He discussed the four firms and their various costs. Councilmember Niesen stated she had no comments on the choice of a retreat facilitator. Mayor Kragness suggested that the new elected officials and Mayor be invited to the retreat. Mr. Boganey stated that has already been included in the proposal. Mr. Boganey stated all the facilitators would be willing to include selected City employees and new elected officials if the City Council wished to include them. The majority consensus of the City Council was to select Salverda as the retreat facilitator. MOSAIC YOUTH CENTER RESOLUTION MAYOR KRAGNESS Mayor Kragness explained the resolution and explained that neighborhoods in the City have kids in the school district who would use the youth center. Councilmember O'Connor stated objection to the support of the Resolution. The majority consensus of the City Council was to amend the Resolution and make it specific to the City of Brooklyn Center and place on the next City Council meeting agenda. LANG NELSON RENTAL LICENSE POLICY CITY MANAGER Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, and Councilmember O'Connor stated preference to leave the policy as it is stated. Councilmember Lasman stated if she owned the building, she may not think it is fair, however if it is similar to other properties, the fees should remain. Councilmember Niesen requested information on the charges per building structure or charge per unit and requested a few examples of other similar situations. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to receive comparison information. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to reopen the Study Session at 6:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 10/09/06 3 DRAFT NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING RESOLUTION TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES GREGORY MOORE Councilmember Carmody requested that the item be postponed until the next meeting so that she can i gather additional information to ensure the information presented is correct. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to postpone the item so that further information can be obtained. CONTINUATION OF LANG NELSON RENTAL LICENSE POLICY The City Council further discussed the calculations of rental license fees. CONTINUATION OF CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEM AND QUESTIONS Mr. Boganey addressed Councilmember Carmody's concern regarding the difference in the two charts titled Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief Association Projected Cost of Alternative Benefit Increases included in item 9f. He stated the last column reflects what would happen if the payout was raised to $7,500 with the potential liability being identified in Section A. He continued to explain other calculations included in the chart. Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet explained that the last column entitled Alternative 2 reflects the amounts that would have been considered last year if it was raised to $7,500 in 2005. He stated the total accrued liability, if approved is reflected as $3,701,000. He i stated the fund is currently valued at $3,724,000, exceeding the accrued liability and there would be no under funded accrued liability nor any amortization payments required. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Study Session at 6:58 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 10/09/06 4 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 OCTOBER 9, 2006 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 and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. Rex Newman, Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission, addressed the memorandum sent to City Manager Curt Boganey from Gregory Moore regarding the legislation proposed to either reduce or eliminate the requirement that cable operators franchised by a City or a joint powers entity must serve all areas of a community. He explained the purpose of the Resolution urging the League of Minnesota Cities to reconsider its support of proposed Minnesota legislation that would remove the build out provisions in Chapter 238, related to cable service of Minnesota State law. He stated the desire to continue the policy that has been in place for 25 years. He stated the importance of keeping control at the local government level. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Mayor Kragness offered a moment of silence as the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. 10/09/06 1 DRAFT 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember O'Connor stated she had nothing to report. Councilmember Lasman stated on September 29 she attended the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting where a new resource guide was introduced and where a discussion on print branding for newsletters was held. She stated on October 3` she attended a candidate forum which was an opportunity to express concerns and get positions of candidates on issues in the City. She stated on October 9th she attended the Brooklyn Historical Society Annual Meeting where the author of the book: River of Conflict/River of Dreams spoke regarding the Mississippi River and its impact on development. She announced that on October 20 there will be a library book sale at the Brookdale Library from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 21 She stated the library book sale is a great way to enrich citizen's library at a reasonable cost. Councilmember Carmody stated she had nothing to report. Councilmember Niesen thanked the hosts of the candidate forum and those who attended. She addressed parking on the grass throughout the City and warned those who park on the grass that it is currently considered a misdemeanor and necessitates going to court and will appear on an individual's record, as it is considered a criminal violation. She stated citizens should be aware of the ramifications of parking on the grass. Mayor Kragness stated the candidate forum was the best attended in many years. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Carmody stated per policy, Councilmember Niesen's changes to the minutes were not submitted in time to be considered. Councilmember Niesen stated she submitted the minute corrections late and asked if the City Council was going to accept her changes or hold them until the next meeting. Councilmember Carmody suggested that Councilmember Niesen clarify her suggested changes and the City Council can consider them at the next meeting. Councilmember O'Connor stated preference that Councilmember Niesen's changes be considered at the present meeting. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to accept those changes submitted in time and to bring Councilmember Niesen's changes back for consideration at the next meeting. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve the consent agenda and agenda as amended, removing the minutes from the September 25, 2006, Regular Session and Study Session. The following consent items were approved: 10/09/06 2 DRAFT 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 25, 2006 Work Session 7b. LICENSES MECHANICAL American Appliance 340 123` Ave NW, Coon Rapids Assured Heating A/C 334 Dean Ave E, Champlin In -A -Vent Heating and A/C 6101 104' Circle, Brooklyn Park RENTAL Renewal (There were no calls for service for the following) 540163 rd Ave N (I Bldg, 4 Units) John Schwarz 2807 66'' Ave N (Single Family) Nicole Franklin 5347 53 Brooklyn Blvd (Two Family) Randall Cook 4902 France Ave N (Single Family) William Dudley Victoria Townhomes (8 Bldgs, 48 Units) The Gaughan Properties 7 Dist. Peace, 1 Burglary, 1 Drugs Initial (There were no calls for service for the following) 3712 53` Place N (Single Family) Alice Karpeh 1349 63` Lane N (Single Family) Teresa James 6605 Camden Drive (Single Family) Alexander Lakanu 6612 Ewing Ave N (Single Family) Andy Evuleocha Domestic Assault (There were no calls for service for the following) 7107 Ewing Ave N (Single Family) Zarr Yarpah 6804 Fremont Place (Single Family) Teresa James 6728 Grimes Ave N (Single Family) Kasanda Dorcas Warrant Arrest (There were no calls for service for the following) 5900 Xerxes Ave N (Single Family) Katherine Hicks SIGNHANGER Pinnacle Signs Graphics 340 Taft St NE, Minneapolis Topline Advertising 11775 Justen Circle, Maple Grove Franz Reprographics 2781 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center 7c. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-111 APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES 10/09/06 3 DRAFT 7d. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE RELEASE FOR ESTATES OF RIVERWOOD Motion passed unanimously. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 8a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2006 -011 SUBMITTED BY HARVESTIME GLOBAL MINISTRY. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE IN AN I -1 ZONE AT 6820 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 28, 2006, MEETING. City Manager Curt Boganey stated the Planning Commission considered the proposal and recommended approval. He discussed the background information and factors of the application. Councilmember O'Connor raised the issue of whether the taxes are paid on the property and will continue to be paid, and the property will not be tax exempt. Mr. Boganey stated that is correct. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2006 -011 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 1. The special use permit is issued for a place of religious assembly and associated uses at this location. No other uses, not comprehended by this application shall be permitted as part of this special use permit. Any expansion or major alteration to the use shall be subject to an amendment to this special use permit. 2. This special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 3. Tenant improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 4. Special use approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the city ordinances and the city's sign policy with respect to 69 Avenue North. Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMISSION Mayor Kragness requested ratification of Christine Eaton to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. 10/09/06 4 DRAFT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to ratify Mayoral appointment to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. Councilmember O'Connor stated preference that Kimberley Meyer be appointed to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisor Commission because her application was received Y Pp prior to that of Christine Eaton. Mayor Kragness explained that she was unable to reach Kimberley Meyer regarding her application; however, she was able to speak to Christine Eaton regarding her application. Councilmember Niesen stated Christine Eaton is the wife of a Mayoral Candidate and agreed with Councilmember O'Connor in that Kimberley Meyer should be selected because her application was received prior to that of Christine Eaton. She stated preference to the appointment of Kimberley Meyer and stated objection that Ms. Meyer was not spoken to before the decision was made. Councilmember Carmody stated precedence was set by appointing those who applied first; therefore, it is her preference that the Mayor attempt to reach Kimberley Meyer before the appointment is made. Councilmember Lasman stated the proposed applicant is qualified and the City could not lose by appointing either one. She stated she would like it if Ms. Meyer was contacted and an apology extended that they were not able to speak prior to the appointment. Councilmember Niesen moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to table the Mayoral Appointment to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission until the Mayor has an opportunity to reach the other candidate, Kimberley Meyer. Mayor Kragness and Councilmember Lasman voted against the same. Motion passed. 9b. PROCLAMATION OBSERVING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 23 OCTOBER 27, 2006, AS MINNESOTA MANUFACTURER'S WEEK Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Observing the Week of October 23 October 27, 2006, as Minnesota Manufacture's Week. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve Proclamation Observing the Week of October 23 October 27, 2006, as Minnesota Manufacturer's Week. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9c. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -112 ESTABLISHING 2007 STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES Mr. Boganey explained the resolution and the rates defined therein. 10/09/06 5 DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked why the street is shown to cost $8,000 and the storm drainage is shown to cost $2,400. Mr. Boganey explained that the elements of the street reconstruction involve more costs such as curb and gutter, and landscaping. Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom explained that water and sanitary sewer costs are not included in the special assessments. He stated they are paid through funds in the Water Utility and Sanitary Sewer Utility fees. He explained that part of the utility bill goes towards capital expenditures such as these repairs. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006-112 Establishing 2007 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the resolution language regarding zoning. Mr. Boganey explained the zoning language in the resolution and addressed her concerns. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the increase of 4% and stated it seems high. She inquired about property in the Riverwood neighborhood whose owner indicated a $20,000 assessment. Mr. Blomstrom stated the assessment values have not been disclosed in the Riverwood neighborhood and stated those assessments will be nowhere near $20,000. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the calculation of the 4 Mr. Blomstrom explained that calculation of the 4% increase. Mayor Kragness explained that the $8,000 portion of the assessment mentioned by Councilmember O'Connor is not the actual assessment; however, it is the total cost of the improvements for that property. Councilmember O'Connor stated concern for the cost of curbs and the effects curbs will have on the stormwater system. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9d. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO DISCHARGES AND CONNECTIONS TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM Mr. Boganey explained the purpose of the ordinance and stated this is for first reading of the ordinance and to set a second reading and public hearing. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the three biggest pollutants are and how the City is going to stop them from getting in the water system. Mr. Blomstrom stated there are many pollutants that include phosphorus, chloride, and many others that have various effects on the water system. He stated the City holds a permit issued by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that lays out 26 best management practices that the City is required to implement in order to reduce pollutants. Mr. Blomstrom stated the proposed ordinance would give the City the authority to enforce non- storm water discharges. Councilmember O'Connor stated concern that the City Manager or the City Council would be arrested because of the continued pollution of the storm water system. 10/09/06 6 DRAFT City Attorney Charlie LeFevere indicated that arrests would not be made. He stated the enforcement mechanism will come through the issuance or denial of the NPDES permit. He explained factors of the Ordinance that better explain its purpose and explained the Ordinance language in order to address Councilmember O'Connor's concerns. Councilmember Niesen stated concern with the residents having another law to abide by and the City having another law to enforce. She stated concern for minor pollutants like spilled paint and car washing in the driveway. Mr. Blomstrom explained that it is not the intent of the City to catch people washing their cars in the driveway; however, this Ordinance is intended for bigger sources of pollution. He stated there is a list of exceptions listed in the Ordinance. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve first reading of ordinance and set seconding reading and Public Hearing for November 13, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. 9e. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -113 AUTHORIZING ADDENDUM TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Mr. Boganey stated the City Council reviewed a proposed agreement with the City Manager and approved the agreement with one modification. Councilmember Niesen explained why the termination for clause section is important. She stated the recording of the last meeting showed that other Councilmembers were in favor of the language exactly as she read it. She stated she has not seen the complete final agreement. Councilmember Carmody stated the agreement presented two weeks ago was approved verbatim, with the exception of the number change from 12 to 6 included in the proposed addendum. She explained that she stated that she would be willing to consider an addendum and she did not say it had to be the League of Minnesota Cities language. Mr. Boganey stated the proposed agreement contains the exact language that was in the agreement provided to the City Council two weeks ago. Mr. LeFevere discussed areas of concern in the contract, particularly involuntary termination. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006-113 Authorizing Addendum to City Manager Employment Agreement. Councilmember O'Connor asked what Malfeasance means. Mr. LeFevere explained the meaning of malfeasance. Councilmember Niesen stated preference to use the League of Minnesota Cities language. Councilmember O'Connor stated it was in the minutes that Councilmember Niesen brought up the League of Minnesota Cities language and stated it should have been used in the addendum. 10/09/06 7 DRAFT Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9f. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -114 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION BY -LAWS Mr. Boganey explained the purpose and discussed the background of the proposed resolution. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the amount distributed to someone who retires in particular years. She stated it does not seem fair that those who retired earlier get less. She stated $7,000 is enough and stated opposition to the proposed $7,500. Councilmember Lasman stated disagreement with Councilmember O'Connor and stated the money is the incentive to be retained as a firefighter. She stated the City is saving millions of dollars per year by having volunteer firefighters. She stated it is the most cost effective way to continue as previously practiced. Councilmember Carmody stated agreement. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2006 -114 Approving Amendment to the Fire Department Relief Association By -Laws. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9g. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -115 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS. Mr. Boganey explained the resolution and discussed its background and details. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -115 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 10/09/06 8 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION OCTOBER 9, 2006 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at 8:25 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. REQUEST FROM COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL REPORTS (TABLED FROM 9/25/06) Mr. Boganey explained the email received from Councilmember Niesen in which financial reports are requested. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained that claims are presented to the City Council in Statutory Cities because it is required by State law. He stated according to the City Charter, this kind of approval is not required. He stated the language suggests that the City Manager make the payments based on the budget. He said the Charter states that the procedures can be changed by ordinance by the City Council. Councilmember Niesen stated the majority of the cities in Minnesota are Statutory Cities in which the City Council is required to review claim registers and asked Mr. Boganey about the practices of Brooklyn Park. Mr. Boganey discussed his recollection of the practices of Brooklyn Park. Councilmember Niesen stated she needs more information in order to effectively do her job of oversight. She continued to explain the reason she feels it is necessary for the City Council to view all the payments made by the City. She read portions of the Charter as it relates to her concerns. Mr. Boganey explained the process currently used by the City and stated he personally looks at the Check Distribution Report and asks questions as he deems necessary. 10/09/06 1 DRAFT Mayor Kragness stated the Council previously received a statement of all checks distributed; however with the former City Manager, Mr. McCauley, the Council decided it was not necessary to review the paid claims. Councilmember Lasman stated City Council direction is needed on the item. She stated she would like to know how much time this request would take City Staff to accommodate. She stated if the time spent is minimal, she would not be opposed, however if it will take a lot of time, she sees it as micromanagement. She stated checks and balances are in place and the budget has been running fine. Mr. Boganey stated it would not take much time to produce and copy the report, however the staff time spent reacting to inquiries from Councilmembers could be greater. Councilmember Niesen inquired about sections of the City Charter that discuss the financial reporting requirements. There was discussion regarding the requirements of the City Charter. Mr. Boganey stated it is good practice for staff to provide meaningful financial information to the City Council. He stated he would like to provide draft reports with financial information at a policy level, starting at the first of the year. Councilmember Lasman stated she would like to apply parameters on how inquiries on the pp Y P q financial information are made. Mayor Kragness agreed. Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to start receivin g the information so that the City Council can determine the types of questions they can ask. She stated if the City Council does not wish to receive the reports, she would still like to receive them. Councilmember Lasman stated objection to Councilmember Niesen receiving the report and J g p stated the entire City Council should act as a whole. She stated operations have been in tact for some time and all the financial aspects of the City are healthy. She stated if Councilmember Niesen requests the Check Register as public data, she should be required to pay for the public data. She stated the City Council does not wish to receive the information as a whole; therefore she can request and purchase the information. She stated the information proposed for January is sufficient for her. Councilmember O'Connor stated she is in favor of receiving the information in the same way as Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember Carmody stated based on recent activities, going over the check register would be cumbersome for staff and stated she is not in favor of going over all the details of spending. She stated the request by Councilmember Niesen is inappropriate and could be an attempt to go after Mr. Boganey. REVISIONS TO NEW HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CITY MANAGER Mr. Boganey stated after a couple years, the City believes it has an agreement with Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC to move forward with construction of a 175 room, full service hotel and 10/09/06 2 DRAFT potentially later, a 75 room hotel adjacent on the property, owned by the EDA. He stated with the passing of time, some circumstances have changed and has resulted in a request on the part of the partners to modify certain aspects of the previously approved agreement. He stated the staff feels the modified agreement works to the EDA's advantage and the results will be the same quality as originally envisioned. Community Development Director Brad Hoffman explained that since last May, the lawsuit was settled and in August of last year, the Embassy Suites changed their format including the site plan, formerly approved by the EDA. He stated the new proposal is that the parcel be removed from the TIF District and the City enter into a tax abatement agreement with the developers for a period up to 10 years for each phase and an amount not to exceed the original concept of $2,100,000 of assistance. He continued to discuss other aspects of the proposed agreement. Councilmember Niesen stated concern with the selling price of the land proposed in the agreement. She stated concern with the freezing of TIF dollars. There was discussion regarding TIF District funding, Tax Abatement and the value of the land now, verses 20 years from now. Mayor Kragness stated she would like to see the item brought to the City Council for a vote. She stated it has been a long time in the making. Mr. Hoffinan stated it is his understanding that the site plan has begun and the developer wishes to start construction this spring. Councilmember O'Connor stated she would prefer to sell the land and does not support a hotel. Councilmember Lasman stated the hotel has been envisioned for a long period of time for this parcel of land and will stimulate business at the Heritage Center. She stated she is in favor of the hotel development and the City should move forward with the development. Mayor Kragness stated the Earle Brown Heritage Center has not been able to book large conferences because of the lack of hotel space. She stated this is a priority to the Heritage Center and the City. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING INVESTMENT POLICY MODIFICATIONS PER AUDIT CITY MANAGER Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet explained changes made to the investment policy and practices to increase the yield. He described sample investment policies by the Government Finance Officers Association, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the City of Shakopee. He stated the change proposed is that the City be allowed to invest in agency securities. He suggested that the use of Section 118A of the Minnesota State Statutes be added to the policy as the source of reference. He suggested that the policy project the Enterprise Funds be projected out five years. There was discussion on the risks of investments and tax increment revenues. 10/09/06 3 DRAFT NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING RESOLUTION TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES GREGORY MOORE Councilmember Carmody stated she would like to verify the information presented and hold this item until the next City Council meeting. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to continue this item until the next City Council meeting. CITIZEN COMMENT CARD RESULTS COUNCIL Mr. Boganey explained that 28 citizen comment cards were received. Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to use them in the goal setting session at the retreat. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Lasman asked why Councilmember Niesen thought it was appropriate to ask the City for reimbursement for legal fees after she stated she went on her own time and paid for it out of her own pocket. Councilmember Niesen responded she was looking at the legal advice as a whole and stated she thought a second opinion would be appropriate. She stated she wanted to see how the City Council receives legal services and testing the path of obtaining legal advice. Councilmember Lasman stated Councilmember Niesen is giving the impression that she is working for a crooked organization with some of her actions. Mayor Kragness stated Councilmember Niesen is consuming a lot of staff time and making the staff feel she does not trust them. Councilmember Lasman stated Councilmember Niesen's actions are costing the tax payers a lot of money. Councilmember Niesen requested that the City Council receive the golf course fund reports along with the liquor stores reports. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to receive the golf course fund reports along with the liquor store fund reports. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember /Commissioner Niesen seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:08 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor/President 10/09/06 4 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 JOINT WORK SESSION WITH FINANCIAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 16 2006 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session with the Financial Commission and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness 6:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Kragness, and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen and Mary O'Connor (arrived at 6:38 p.m.). Also present: City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Daniel Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. Financial Commission Members present: Mark Nemec and Gene Maze (arrived at 6:38 p.m.). 1. REVIEW OF 2007 BUDGET DATES: City Manager Curt Boganey explained the following budget dates and their purpose: a. Capital Projects and Enterprise Budget Review October 16th 2006 b. Final Draft Review- November 20th 2006 C. Truth in Taxation Hearing December 4th and 11th if necessary d. Budget Adoption December 11th 2006 The City Council and Financial Commission members stated the dates were acceptable. 2. CAPITAL/ENTERPRISE AND OTHER BUDGET FORECASTS a. 2007 -2021 Capital Improvement Program Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom discussed the 2007 -2021 Capital Improvement Plan and stated it is going to be proposed to be extended because there is a need to reorganize the schedule for neighborhood improvements. He stated there is a need for a comprehensive summary for future improvements. He explained that when these improvements come into the five year plan, the cash flow is affected. He stated another reason is so that the money can be organized better for the projects. He discussed the 2007 Capital Improvement Program Preliminary Draft that was distributed to the City Council and Financial Commission. He stated the projects included in the program are not expanding, however for the primary purpose of replacing the current infrastructure. p g 10/16/06 1 DRAFT He stated in some cases, the plan proposes to reduce some infrastructure in the City. He explained the details included in the 2007 Capital Improvement Program including: Street and Utility Improvement Projects, Storm Water Improvement Projects, Miscellaneous Utility Improvement Projects, and Park and Trail Improvement Projects. b. 2007 -2021 Enterprise and Capital Cash Flow Review Director of Fiscal and Support Services Daniel Jordet addressed the cash flow analysis. He discussed the need for inflation factors and described a spreadsheet where the cost for the projects and inflation factors are calculated along with the inflation of those projects being used. He stated a 2% inflation factor is used and are included in the cash flow analysis. i. Water Utility ii. Sanitary Sewer Utility iii. Storm Water Utility iv. Street Light Utility v. Street Reconstruction Fund vi. Capital Improvement Fund vii. Recycling Fund 2004- 2010 Mr. Jordet explained that the goal is to keep the pending cash line positive until the year 2021. He discussed factors that will change and increases that will take place. He stated inflation factors were built into each item. He discussed utility rate increases that will be determined after needs are determined, in order to keep the ending cash line positive. He stated there is a large number of ways to keep the cash line positive and explained several of those ways. He discussed the total of a 91% increase in water utility rates through the year 2021. He discussed comparison rates to other communities. He stated it would take a 75% increase by the City of Brooklyn Center's utility rates to reach the median utility rates of other communities. He discussed options to increase rates at a more moderate pace. Mr. Boganey stated the cash reserve target is a number that was not inflated, however it may need to be inflated over time. There was discussion of an automated meter reading system that would allow water meter readings to be gathered more efficiently and accurately. The affects of the meter readings on the budget were discussed. Councilmember Niesen stated concern for the process of delinquent utility bill collection. She asked that the process be reviewed and discussed at a later meeting. There was discussion on the meter readings not being accurately collected or collected in a timely manner and how that affects the utility billing system and the budget. The difficulty of estimating utility bills for long periods of time was also discussed. Mr. Blomstrom explained that with the automated meter reading system, the City could easily convert to a monthly utility billing system, improving the cash flow. 10/16/06 2 DRAFT Mr. Jordet discussed the bonding option for upgrades in the utility systems. There was discussion of the percentage of inflation used on each item in the budget. Councilmember Carmody stated it might be worth considering a higher rate increase than 4 She stated it may be beneficial to even the rate increases out. She stated it may be beneficial to increase the rates earlier rather than later. Councilmember Niesen stated objection to an earlier increase in the rate increases. Mr. Jordet stated the City needs to build up some cash to cushion itself and this tool is designed to allow the City to cushion itself so that rates are more consistent and not increasing or decreasing inconsistently. Mr. Blomstrom explained that the improvement plan and rate increases coincide and the improvement plan can be extended to reduce the rate increases. Mr. Jordet explained the spreadsheets including: Storm Water Utility, Street Light Utility, Street Reconstruction Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, and Recycling Fund 2004 -2010 included in the packet. Councilmember Niesen stated she has once again been asked why there are no lights at Lions Park. She stated someone told her that the City does in fact own the park. Mr. Boganey indicated that he would check on the ownership of Lions Park and get back to Councilmember Niesen. 3. BUDGET REVIEWS UTILITIES AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS a. Water Utility Fund b. Sewer Utility Fund C. Storm Utility Fund d. Street Utility Fund e. Central Garage Fund Mr. Boganey explained what each of the funds includes and major changes to the funds. There was discussion on the life of a water meter and the cost of replacement. Mr. Blomstrom addressed Councilmember Niesen's inquiry about the Central Garage Fund and stated the fund includes fuel to operate equipment, replacement charges, and repair charges. Mr. Boganey stated the proposed budget assumes a 4 increase in storm water fees for 2007. There was discussion on the street lights being installed in the City and it was indicated that the street light fees should not increase due to the City's acquisition of more street lights. 4. CONSTRUCTION FUNDS 10/16/06 3 DRAFT a. Street Reconstruction Fund b. Infrastructure Fund C. Municipal State Aid Construction Fund d. Capital Improvement Fund Mr. Boganey explained what each of the funds includes and major changes to the funds. He discussed projects funded by the Infrastructure Construction Fund. There was discussion regarding maintenance and replacement of the recreation and park equipment. 5. OTHER ENTERPRISE FUNDS a. Recycling Fund b. Centerbrook Golf Course Fund C. Liquor Operations Fund d. Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund e. Earle Brown Heritage Center Capital Fund Mr. Boganey stated the recycling fund tracks the funding of all recycling matters in which the City is involved. He stated the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) is in the process of retrieving bids from recycling companies due to increased costs. He explained that there are only two companies that serve Brooklyn Center, therefore receiving the best cost for Brooklyn Center is difficult. Mr. Jordet explained that HRG is debating whether they will accept the rate surcharge or purchase their own equipment to provide the service themselves. Mr. Boganey stated more information will be available in November on this topic. Mr. Boganey explained the new equipment purchased under the Centerbrook Golf Course Fund. He stated the budget is primarily dedicated to maintaining the facility. He explained that $29,500 is included in the budget for capital in order to improve the irrigation system in which its controllers are 20 years old. There was discussion on depreciation and funding of depreciation. Mr. Jordet explained that the City does not fund depreciation. Mr. Boganey discussed a position to be upgraded at one of the liquor stores that will add value to the operation and fairness to the employee. Councilmember Niesen stated the Muzak should be removed from the liquor stores to save $60.00 per month. Mayor Kragness stated music is nice while people are shopping. Mr. Boganey indicated that he would speak to Liquor Operation Manager Tom Agnes regarding the matter. Councilmember Niesen stated objection to the upgrading of the position at the liquor store. Mr. Boganey stated the employee has worked 35 hours a week with no benefits for many years and he and Mr. Agnes feel it is appropriate to upgrade the position. Mayor 10/16/06 4 DRAFT Kragness stated the City should show appreciation to the employees. Councilmember Carmody stated the Liquor Fund can afford the position upgrade based on the increase in sales. Councilmember Lasman stated the loyalty of the employee during the busiest season should be rewarded. There was discussion of departmental goals for the liquor store. Mr. Boganey stated he would like to see the position upgraded this year, unless there is City Council objection. Councilmember Niesen stated if the upgrading of the position can not be voted on tonight, she would like the item brought to a future City Council meeting. Councilmember O'Connor stated the Earle Brown Heritage Center is of no benefit to the City since the funds are kept within the enterprise. There was discussion on the water tower at the Earle Brown Heritage Center where extensive repairs or replacement is needed within the next few years. Mr. Boganey discussed grant monies available, up to $100,000 if the water tower was renovated. He stated if the grant funding was not received, the City Council would have to consider options rather than replacement. He stated there will be enough money in the capital fund to cover the expense if that option is chosen. Development, Grant and Forfeiture Funds f. EDA Fund Mr. Boganey explained the budget associated with the EDA requirements. He stated nothing has been added, just the funding necessary to continue the EDA. g. CDBG Fund Mr. Boganey stated this money can only be used for specific things such as benefits to low or moderate income families or urgent needs. He stated this fund is on a different fiscal year than the regular budget and programs must be approved separately. Mayor Kragness stated these programs have served the citizens of Brooklyn Center well and should be continued. h. Grants Fund Mr. Boganey stated the Grants Fund is to identify money received for grant purposes. He stated there is nothing budgeted for 2007. Mr. Jordet explained the different grant funds and stated most of the grant fund amounts are undetermined. i. Police Forfeiture Fund 10/16/06 5 DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated an estimated $28,000 will be received next year. He stated he will I check with the Police Chief as to items related to this fund. 6. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS a. TIF Districts 1,2,3 and 4 b. General Obligation Improvement Bonds i. 1996A ii. 1997A iii. 1998A iv. 1999A v. 2000A vi. 2001A vii. 2003A C. GO Building Refunding Bonds i. 2004A ii. 2006A d. GO TIF Refinancing Bonds i. 2004B e. GO TIF Bonds i. 2004D Mr. Boganey explained the TIF Districts and activities within the funds. There was discussion on the various TIF Districts and the process of distributing the funds. Mr. Jordet explained the payment of bonds and the effects on the various TIF Districts. 7. BUDGETARY ISSUES REMAINING FOR NEXT MEETING a. Technology Fund b. Use of un- appropriated Local Government Aid Mr. Boganey discussed the budgetary issues remaining for the next budget meeting. i ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 10:48 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. I City Clerk Mayor 10/16/06 6 DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 7b OX City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval The following companies /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on October 23, 2006, are as follows: GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Christy's Auto Service 5300 Dupont Ave N MECHANICAL Alto Heating Plumbing Inc 19260 Mushtown Road, Prior Lake Northern Heating A/C 9431 Alpine Drive NW, Ramsey Perfection Heating &A/C 13951 N. 60 Street, Stillwater Kulla Heating Air P.O. Box 77, Lakeville MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Luther Brookdale Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd RENTAL Renewal Brookhaven Apts (3907 -09 -11 65 Ave) 3 Bldgs, 54 Units Hyder Jaweed 2 Dist Peace 3 Auto Theft (There were no calls for service for the following) 421363 d Ave N (Single Family) Bryan Friendshuh 6512 Chowen Ave N (Single Family) David Moulder 5814 Ewing Ave N (Single Famiiy) Salem Nyarecha 5618 Hillsview Road (Single Family) Nita Morlock The Crossings 6201 Lilac Dr N (1 Bldg, 73 Units) Lang Nelson The Crossing 6125 Lilac Dr N (1 Bldg, 65 Units) Lang Nelson 1 Dist Peace 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 (There were no calls for service for the following) 6007 Lyndale Ave N (Single Family) Errol Edwards 6443 Marlin Drive (Single Family) Trevor Tjelmeland 3319 Mumford Road (Single Family) William Coleman 6221 Shingle Creek Pkwy (1 Bldg, 122 Units) Amcon 7 Dist Peace 1 Burglary 3 Crimes Against Family 1 Obstructing Justice 4718 Twin Lake Ave (Single Family) Richard Becht NONE Initial (There were no calls for service for the following) 2907 64th Ave N Chudi Igbanugo 421362 d Ave N (Single Family) Brannon Ciora 6343 Dupont Ave N (Single Family) Linh Nguyen 5737 Halifax Ave N (Single Family) Stephen Menya 5650 Humboldt Ave N (Single Family) Syed Raza 6807 Humboldt Ave N #304 (Single Family Condo) Greg Bohnsack 6813 Humboldt Ave N #303 (Single Family Condo) Greg Bohnsack HUMBOLDT COURTS 1 Assault 2 Crimes Against Family 7225 Knox Ave N (Single Family) Ai Tran NONE 10/09/06 2 City Council Agenda Item No. 7c City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: 10/13/06 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn Cen rime Prevention Program in Support of the 2007 Safety Camp The Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Program has presented to the City a donation of one thousand dollars. ($1,000.00) They have designated that it be used to support the 2007 Safety Camp program. The annual Safe Cam program provides safe related training to kids in grades two to four. Safety p p g p safety g During this two day camp, instructors from North Memorial Hospital, the Red Cross and the Brooklyn Center Police and Fire Departments instruct the students in issues relating to personal, bicycle, water and fire safety. Staff recommends acceptance of this generous donation, and asks that it be coded to the corresponding activity budget. 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 introduced the following resolution Member g and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF THE 2007 SAFETY CAMP I WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Program has presented to the City a donation of one thousand dollars, ($1,000.00) and has designated it be used to support the 2007 Safety Camp program; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of this donation, and commends the Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention Program for its civic efforts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. Acknowledges the donation with gratitude. 2. Appropriates the donation to the corresponding activity budget. October 23, 2006 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. 7d MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning Zoning ecialist SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Reduction DATE: October 18, 2006 The following site performance guarantee being held by the city for completion of various site improvements should be recommended to the City Council for reduction: Norse Management, Inc. (Bristol Village Townhomes located between 67 Place and 68 Place at Irving Place) Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -016 Amount of Guarantee $35,000 (Certificate of Deposit) Obligor Norse Management, Inc. All of the site improvements and conditions for which a performance guarantee was posted have been installed for this 21 unit townhouse complex that began construction in 2004. Grading, curb and gutter, storm sewer and detention pond have been installed in accordance with Engineering Department requirements and an as built survey has been submitted. The City Council reduced the original $70,000 performance guarantee to $35,000 on December 13, 2004 following completion of a portion of the site improvements for the project. Landscaping at that time had not yet been installed and was to be completed as units were constructed. Landscaping for the site has been installed and is in accordance with the approved landscape plan. It is recommended that the City Council authorize reduction of the $35,000 guarantee currently held to $10,000 to assure the viability of recently installed landscape improvements through the winter months. It is anticipated that a final review of the landscaping can be made in June of 2007 and a subsequent recommendation to release the guarantee in its entirety will be made to the City Council at that time. City Council Agenda Item No. 8 City Council Agenda Item No. 8 Random Acts of Kindness Presentation of Recognition and Certificate Ceremony 1. City Council read nominations received for Random Acts of Kindness 2. Certificates issued to those nominees present 3. City Council will call RECESS to join the nominees for a photograph to be included in the next City Watch resident newsletter City of !BROOKLYN Office of the City Clerk CENTER MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: October- 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Random Acts of Kindness Since 1997 the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random Acts of Kindness during the month of October. An article seeking nominations, along with a nomination form, was printed in the Fall 2006 edition of the City resident newsletter, Citv Watch. Random Acts of Kindness nomination forms were made available at the customer service counters at the Community Center and City Hall, and a letter was sent out to community organizations. Information about Random Acts of Kindness and a nomination form were available on the City's web site. This year 12 people and one club were nominated to receive recognition for their Random Acts of Kindness. Attached are copies of the nominations. A letter was sent to the nominees that were identified (and carbon copied to the nominator) inviting them to participate in the Random Acts of Kindness recognition at the City Council meeting to be held October 23, 2006, at 7 p.m. A copy of the letter sent on behalf of the City Council is attached. Those persons attending the recognition will receive their certificates at the meeting. The certificates will be mailed to those nominees who are unable to attend the meeting. Nom%nee N�minateii: Gene Hageman and George Shimshock Family Kay Lasman Jo Sanford Kay Lasman Kermit and Marilyn Klefsaas Linda Eriksson Arthur Lenius D. L. Hedman Laura Rupp Jim Ross Pastor Peter Preus John Foster Diane Sannes and Sue Tegg Jim Glasoe Mary Slette Jane West Camille Worley Mayor Myrna Kragness Brooklyn Center High School Latino Club Aldo Cantellano Attachments I 1 ,z� 1 C, HLv Jz et. a, to. n o r aftat.e. c�l ett e. N o r man, ate, d'e, f3ectr S Lalb fw.iv g ea,ie, 4 Liz aru�, caAunuiat 4foA& i4v Lin� fe, ga QUA p" v JtxL aa" A, MaA& y CA ea vc eA/ 1300,000 f,.Vv e t LnA -lr, t ge, aM fa. •oee. Tur tfLe, a ff eA 4 v a f& dta, 3 4 �JVM�y �!iVMY/iI IWIV w �h,e/v. �P Qa4L d,� ana, 8,, a to, r& t tP la,� Aa, ta, P4 Oal"&, F "i a ?i 9 :v f City of Brooklyn Center f Random Acts of Kindness Nomination For m Nominator Name: I Street Address: `U City, State, Zip Code: i /-D Telephone: Nominee Individual or Organization or Group InZ'", dual' Na e: n Name of Organization or Group: ,ou A7 I s I Street Addres Street Address: City, State Zip Code: C• Stat �p.0 de• 1 tY+ P I M 1 Telephone: Tele hon p �7b f� i q gy p/ Brief summary of kind act (usepdditional sheets it necessary o submit separate �l AA all Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 6, 2006, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form ��.^i 76�' 7000 ,b eve i ,would like to nominate the followinerson ersons, .group, classroom, business, church, etc. for Random Acts of Kindness, to b celebrated during Cities Week in Octihef. Name: Address: (inclu a Street, City, Zip Code) Brief summa of kind act: summary Lz 0 C,C/rtill o �I_ ��i�f../L l��ti► Id LP .�.JJ u U (J Use a paper if needed. V Return Nomination Form by October 6, 2006, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 I City of Brooklyn Center Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator Name: J z Street Address: ZN C'T WZA L City, State, Zip Code: �3r��zYN T,t-2fG M N ssyY Telephone: Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Individual's Name: Lq uA-A Rvt'P Name of Organization or group: Street Address: Street Address: 5'3 Li /1��win. ✓A-�� N City, State, Zip Code: City, State, Zip Code: r13wo,u:y ';(lot r J11I1)95V30 Telephone: Tele hone: 7t, 3 —5c�� 13�y p Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) 6 UA jvf, 7 y&77F,C '.S P-fV+ E ✓S s r4 C go S lv r-loz /•vFolvylev 426-- t� f+ .v Ro,r r� 7 c.v 7o dr rRc d"J Y C r�Vt�Vr, ,6 IWE 6- A 16 A*'adF< 6,c jF� t/v4Cuft; /[u✓S tN ?1 e fr, tf i✓ ,v r or (3 "T 'r') P4 2� o Hictl scram -re k'� 7"r! ���ZL rc 4CT 7'r<�,i� /ate/ A Trfe -r y �4w iN eC 4NO 6JA s 1 0 T/fcr"e- is Acle �t-ft6 4v:} i LA. 5(D s C.e ezV 4 r �►f� ©rr7G72 FAIPIL u ,U 0 c.v is i�ftS T' tN 6 1 L i} e- PP E-ND A5; r- e 0 S i*- Lv� cr iCl (r0 m i' /4 F•'i o�E,F; A e 01V5;'Dr� �l �ev;n�� G 4 tvc: 773 CGe.:}L 1 51 i n d/H I l- r 1 �l� r A 6 Fc-r CO TD 6 v.L' rli 1 r j A- Ri ®c Avo 15;gtV F. 7 1RG 177,07 tz s Pt fa�r� „rt✓✓v. .�a/� rfrr ivov .A Ff:4N.2tc c'��t; /N� 7 F -`1 iL)r sue;- may', 6 i /f� z:�r�trf �rl/��eer r�, ZocsJ y �fi� eA��✓,� Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 3, 2005, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. fZ-yA oLO 66y AIVO w 1 X14 &,eo o 1f 1 TV h 3cy AMC A P AeAre/J GL�vLt2 L.# kC To 11101)7 1AIA -re 4 ,AVIZ*- eul-10 F vA1�5CZ-ri srr +C 7 O F /.dJ.it/CrIO, 51fe A140 17,x/ a�� �a.�r ©f Re 1 /w 1-4eLv f) b AJu7 1I i 74-7 rb V6 o,u-r 7 f b, PrZo u� r e r j Er -v!CC 75 /J7eTaa21:: /N /I/e7:.O. fd Ucr Co1,7P d12, qL 7 /�J ��J V�aVat7il�t�} PcOp 14- -11 !�e� A 1 I-aOe7 4,Vb 0 Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form C) 1 e, "`"'ll� V would �I�ike�to nom Hate the following person, persons, group, classroom, business, c hurch, etc. for Random AC s of Kindne s, to be celebrated during Cities Week in October. Name: Address: 59 -P,7 (include Street, City, Zip Code) Brief summary of kind act: Use additional paper if needed. Return Nomination Form by October 6, 2006, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 o f City of Brooklyn Center Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator Name: Jim Glasoe Street Address: 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway City, State, Zip Code: Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Telephone: (763) 569 -3407 Nominee Individual(s) Individual's Name: Diane Sannes Individual's Name: Sue Tegg Street Address: 7006 Willow Lane Street Address: 7018 Riverdale Road City, State, Zip Code: Brooklyn Center, MN City, State, Zip Code: Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 55430 Telephone: (763) 560 -8893 Telephone: (763) 561 -8110 Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) Beginning in 2002, legislative budget cuts necessitated difficult decisions for local governments. In Brooklyn Center, this meant eliminating some programs and reducing services. One of these reductions was related to the upkeep of park gardens, City entrance planters, and street landscape nodes. Prior to the reductions, the City was able to allocate some staff time and financial resources to make these areas look nice. The budget cuts forced an end to these activities. While the City was able to continue some minimal care of selected park planters and gardens though generous donations and the kindness of volunteers, other areas were essentially abandoned. During this past year, Diane Sannes, assisted by her neighbor Sue Tegg worked tirelessly to resurrect these areas, as well as interest in the City's Adopt -A- Garden Program. Whether it was soliciting plant "Adopt" O donations working o find volunteer dot gardens or working long hours to make sure our arks g volunteers A p g s o b g p and streets looked nice, Diane and Sue were there. By this nomination we wanted Diane and Sue to know that their work did not go unnoticed; and did much more than just put flowers in the ground, get rid of unsightly weeds or create beauty where there was once an. eyesore. Their efforts kept alive a pride in our parks, pride in our open spaces and more importantly, pride in our City. Y Their generous gift of time and talents provided our residents, employees and visitors with a positive image of our City and community. A visible example of what makes Brooklyn Center such a special place to live and work. It demonstrates in a very tangible way, what it means to be part of a "community Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 6, 2006, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form (�83� Frer► -opt- Place Lao) I /we, Al'= would like to nominate the following person, persons, group, classroom, business, church, etc. for Random Acts of Kindness, to be celebrated during Cities Week in October. Name: Address: include Street City, Ci Zi Code Brief summary of kind act: 4144,q 14-Al 1!�/, IJ i3 64) 4 4-A /VAJF /3 e (�0 u C t4 le .4 b L vn 9 5-f i to m l Use additional paper if needed. Return Nomination Form by October 6, 2006, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 ,4,4 7 ff)OU z�, 7 AV i ti'I C�d' e b `7 V I'Prr a c��� cl iv ro �(;e-p' 4e 7 ,J 0 r <f o ►JC_5-�- J City of Brooklyn Center Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator Name: Mayor Myrna Kragness Street Address: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Individual's Name: Camille Worley Name of Organization or Group: Street Address: City Hall Street Address: City, State, Zip Code: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Telephone: Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) See attached letter from Michael J. McNamara. Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 6, 2006, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. HH HENDERSON, HOWARD, PAWLUK MCNAMARA, P.A. M ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHAD E. HENDERSON 6200 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY SUITE 385 THOMAS R. HOWARD BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 JULIE M. PAWLUK (763) 566 -8832 MICHAEL J. MCNAMARA FAX (763) 566 -9214 E GROVE OFFICE 763 MAPLE 420 -5353 February 15, 2006 The Honorable Myrna Kragness Michael J. McCauley Mayor Manager Brooklyn Center City Hall Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: CAMILLE YOUNGERBERG, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Dear Mayor Kragness and Mr. McCauley: I want to inform you personally of a wonderful, and even brave, deed of Ms. Youngerberg Thursday afternoon, February 9, on her way home from work. About 4:45 p.m., I lost control of my vehicle on Highway 100 southbound just south of 36 Avenue as I "hit" a portion of unplowed, unsanded, and unsalted ice on that stretch of roadway. I then "hit" the concrete center dividing wall between Highway 100 southbound and Highway 100 northbound. I received only minor bruising but my car was disabled, extended about three feet into the left "passing lane, and was turned almost 180° (i.e., facing in the direction of oncoming traffic). I was struggling unsuccessfully to restart my vehicle and move it completely from the left lane when Ms. Youngerberg pulled in back of me, placing her automobile between my vehicle and oncoming traffic. Although I repeatedly encouraged/ directed her to leave because it was too dangerous for her to not only have her automobile parked as it was but for her to be anywhere near it she refused to leave and insisted she was going to stay until I was able to leave the scene myself. As she said she would, Ms. Youngerberg stayed at the scene until a tow truck arrived and began preparations for removing my car. (As a matter of fact, I am sure Ms. Youngerberg actually helped me push the vehicle further off the left -hand lane despite the fact she had on high heels.) Ms. Youngerberg had absolutely no obligation of any sort, of course, to stop and befriend me or any other motorist but her kind heart compelled her to do so. This letter is to attempt to see that her selfless actions, even placing herself in danger, are recognized by the City of Brooklyn Center. 'Incredibly, and despite other accidents which occurred after my own single- vehicle accident, and despite warning flashers prominently deployed on Ms. Youngerberg s .automobile, drivers continued to drive far too fast while passing us, with many of them coming within a matter of inches of Ms. Youngerberg's automobile. The Honorable Myrna Kragness Michael J. McCauley February 15, 2006 Page 2 Thank you. Very truly yours, HENDERSON, HOWARD, PAWLUK MCNAMARA, P.A. Michael J. McNamara MJM:srm cc: Camille Youngerberg i LAMY DOCUMENTS\WM \ADhTMSTRATIVE\BANKRUPTCY COURT LETTER City of Brooklyn Center r Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator Name: 4( 4J Of G'!OCan r Street Address: OIZ r �1'CG City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: 670 z 3 2-,6 Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Individual's Name: Name of Organization or Grouo: Street Address: StreefAddress: �U,rndcdf� Svc. ill• roe m �k j�� City, State, Zip Code: Cl y State, Zip Code: r ,3r0044A ser 11AI Telephone: Telephone r 212-0 eV-i -N J D Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) '4t- i-(d5 150M c L'�'jf yu}¢ �,��rr� !n3C.1.S� i D✓► f/j't Gee �'s"��C�� nq �r U n e P p 6 �''�l�' flu l��vc s�onsar� j LAVL �er �f ,aC�.r h bY, Aod x111-1^ i O d jbl' fi V 7h� r Ct g fi✓t- s1�1� b Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 6, 2006, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. brm cr��r� inn, t3�1ru� u(1% C�� G ✓i�i� f G� v� a�vr►.e- 1A 06-4u� hem- /,�na fiber o� a rat�ers G�Z� S,tplr✓1�a�' of v c_ �a��s City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community Sample Letter to Notify Nominees October 6, 2006 Nominee Dear Nominee: Since 1997 the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random Acts of Kindness. Again this year the City Council has received nominations to recognize Brooklyn Center residents and groups who have performed random acts of kindness that help make our community a wonderful place to live and work. Congratulations! You have been nominated for Random Acts of Kindness and will be recognized by the Mayor and Council Members during their City Council meeting on October 23, 2006. The City Council meeting starts at 7 p.m. and is held at Brooklyn Center City Hall in the Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center. Your presence would be greatly appreciated. Enclosed is a copy of the nomination. If you have any questions, please contact City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 763 -569 -3306. Sincerely, Myrna Kragness, Mayor Kathleen Carmody, Council Member Kay Lasman, Council Member Diane Niesen, Council Member Mary O'Connor, Council Member Enclosure cc: Nominator (w /o enclosure) 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 Random Acts of Kindness awarded to: SAMPLE Nominee's Name Here for contributing to the community spirit of Brooklyn Center i October 23, 2006 Date Mayor 0 e City of Brooklyn Center w Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominato Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Individual's Name: I Name of Organization or Group: Street Address: I Street Address: City, State, Zip Code: I City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: I Telephone: Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 6, 2006, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Random Acts of Kindness Since 1997, the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random Acts of Kindness. In October the Brooklyn Center City Council recognizes all Brooklyn Center residents and groups who have performed Random Acts of Kindness that help make our community a wonderful place to live and work. Anyone can nominate someone who has performed an act of kindness over the past year. You may send a card or letter, or drawings or photographs of people performing kind acts, or use the City's nomination form on the reverse side of this page. All Random Acts of Kindness nominees are recognized by the City Council during an October meeting and presented a certificate. The nominations are displayed at City Hall during the month of October. Join us in celebrating kindness in our community. Nominate an individual or group today! Walk a neighbor's dog Pick up litter (Adopt -A- Street or Donate your time to perform lawn Park) services for the elderly or disabled Collect mittens or socks and give to Collect soda can tabs for recycling those in need and give the proceeds to the Ronald Care for the sick McDonald house Volunteer in the community Make a paper chain with an act of (schools, hospitals, churches, etc.) kindness written on each link Be a good neighbor Smile at someone who is frowning Plant a tree Feed a stranger's expired parking Call a lonely person meter Open a door Donate to a food shelf or clothing In the grocery store, let a stranger shelter behind you with only one item go Draw a picture of someone first performing a kind act Bake a hot dish for someone who Photograph a h someone being kind to just returned from the hospital another Pick up the mail for a senior citizen Thank your secretary, boss, teacher, on your block each day or friend for the little things they do Give blood Read to a child Adopt a homeless pet at the Humane Give flowers, just because Society Offer a ride Donate time at a senior center Give a compliment Pat someone on the back Tutor a student Be a Safety Patrol and help kids get to and from school safely Home Random Acts of Kindness What is a Random Act of Kindness? Mayor Council Since 1997 the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated ost Commissions Charter Random Acts of Kindness. During October the Brooklyn fulfill obligations in Center City Council recognizes all Brooklyn Center life like doing their City Code of Ordinances residents and groups who have performed Random Acts of fair share of chores Kindness that help to make our community a wonderful and supporting and New Residents place to live and work. comforting their families and friends Community /News /Events but these deeds Anyone can nominate someone who has performed an act are expected of us. of kindness in the past year. You may send a card or letter, When we make the Ci f or drawings or photographs of people performing kind acts, extra effort of being Services /Departments or look for the City's nomination form in an upcoming City kind when we aren't Watch newsletter. Your nomination will be displayed at expected or required Parks &Recreation to and surprise City Hall, so feel free to make your nomination colorful and someone, including Earle Brown Heritage attractive. ourselves this is a Center Random Act of All Random Acts of Kindness nominees are recognized by Kindness a good Cultural Diversity the City Council during an October meeting and are deed that is truly the resented a certificate. embodiment of p compassion and a ment Links caring. We look forward to hearing from you. Join us in celebrating Site Map kindness in our community! Disclaimer /Copyright Check out Random Acts of Kindness Recipients 20051 In City Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Services /Departments: Administration Ideas for Random Acts of Kindness Business Licensing Earle Brown Heritage Center Elections and Voter Registration Human Resources Employment Municipal Liquor Operations Deer Management Plan Random Acts of Kindness City Council Recognizes Random Acts of Kindness Random Acts of Kindness Photos City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community August 31, 2006 Dear Community Member: Since 1997, the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random Acts of Kindness. In October the Brooklyn Center City Council would like to recognize all Brooklyn Center residents and groups who have performed Random Acts of Kindness that help to make our community a wonderful place to live and work. We hope that you will join us in making this a significant celebration for our community. We are asking that you or someone you know send us a card or letter, or use the enclosed nomination form, nominating someone who has performed an act of kindness in the past year. You may also send us drawings or photographs of people performing kind acts. Your nomination will be displayed at City Hall, so feel free to make your nomination colorful and attractive. Random Acts of Kindness nominees will be formally recognized by the City Council during its October 23, 2006, meeting. All nominees will receive recognition by the City Council in the form of a commendation. By separate card, please be sure that we receive the name and address of your nominee so that we can be certain that the City Council's commendation will be received by your nominee. You and your nominee are invited to attend the City Council recognition on October 23 at City Hall, 7 p.m. A letter will be mailed to you and your nominee prior to the meeting to confirm the date and time of the recognition. We look forward to hearing from you. Join us in celebrating kindness in our community! Sincerely, Myrna Kragness, Mayor Kathleen Carmody, Council Member Kay Lasman, Council Member Diane Niesen, Council Member Mary O'Connor, Council Member Enc. 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 Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. North Hennepin Area Chamber Bo Scouts of America 7240 Brooklyn Blvd, Suite 205 229 1 st Avenue NE Y n Center MN 55429 Osseo MN 55369 5300 Glenwood Avenue kl Y Golden Valley MN 55422 Brookdale Hennepin Library Brown College Minnesota School of Business Molly Schaaf 6870 Shingle Creek Parkway 6050 Shingle Creek Parkway 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 B C Charitable Foundation Twin West Chamber B C Community Education c/o Phil Cohen 10550 Wayzata Blvd 6500 Humboldt Avenue North 5501 Humboldt Ave N Minnetonka MN 55305 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 B C Friendship Quilters Wovenhearts of BC Joanne Holzknecht 6001 Earle Brown Drive 2618 65th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center Lioness Brooklyn Center Lions Club Twin Lake North Betty Russell Tom Shinnick 4539 58th Avenue North 5312 North Lilac Drive 5324 Oliver Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 oklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 B I Service League of Hennepin County c C Rotary CEAP Medical Center c/o Carrie Engh 6840 78th Avenue North 701 Park Avenue Bremer Bank Brooklyn Park MN 55445 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard Minneapolis MN 55415 -1829 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 B C Women's Club Evelyn Byron The Crossings at Brookwood Community Corner 2701 O'Henry Road 6201 Lilac Drive North 1500 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center Sun -Post View Point Shingle Creek Sarah Schwartz, Editor Earle Brown Terrace 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway 4080 West Broadway #113 6100 Summit Drive North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Robbinsdale MN 55422 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Courage Center The Prairie Lodge at Earle Brown North Hennepin Comm College Volunteer Coordinator 6001 Earle Brown Drive 7411 85th Avenue North 3915 Golden Valley Road Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Park MN 55445 Golden Valley MN 55422 0 Cities Senior Trans. Greater Mpls Girl Scout NW Community Television Rita De Brun Peggy Erickson Y 6900 Winnetka Avenue North 4221 Lake Road 5601 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Park MN 55428 Robbinsdale MN 55422 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 RSVP Maranatha Place Maranatha Care Center Volunteer Coordinator 5415 69th Avenue North 5401 69th Avenue North 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Minneapolis MN 55413 Brooklyn Historical Society Volunteers In Action P. O. Box 29345 NHMP, Inc. 4148 Winnetka Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 3300 County Road 10 #212 New Hope MN 55427 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Visit Minneapolis North North Suburban Kiwanis NWHHSC Bob Musil Warren Lindquist 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 230 6200 Shingle Ck Pkwy Ste 248 7030 Ewing Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Osseo Community Education New Beginnings Christian Center Northbrook Alliance Church 11200 93rd Avenue North 7054 Brooklyn Boulevard 6240 Aldrich Avenue North Maple Grove MN 55369 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Cross of Glory Lutheran Church Moving On Up Church Ministry Korean Presbyterian Church of MN 5929 Brooklyn Boulevard 6834 Humboldt Avenue North 5840 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Apostolic Lutheran Church North Berean Evangelical Free Church Brooklyn United Methodist Church 6630 Colfax Avenue North 6625 Humboldt Avenue N 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center Church of Christ Brookdale Covenant Church Fellowship Baptist Church 6206 Lilac Drive North 5139 Brooklyn Boulevard 5840 Lilac Drive North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brookdale Christian Center BC Church of the Nazarene Harron United Methodist Church 6030 Xerxes Avenue North 501 73rd Avenue North 5452 Dupont Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Jehovah Jireh Church of God in Christ Korean Evangelical United Methodist Lutheran Church of the Master 6120 Xerxes Avenue North 6830 Quail Avenue North 1200 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Lutheran Church of the Triune God Hmong Community Alliance Church Spiritual Life Church 5827 Humboldt Avenue North 6240 Aldrich Avenue North 6865 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Christ Temple St. Alphonsus Church Good Shepherd Fellowship 4801 63rd Avenue North 7025 Halifax Avenue North 6900 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Champlin Park High School Jackson Middle School Evergreen Park Elementary School Principal Principal Principal 6025 109th Avenue North 6000 109th Avenue North 7020 Dupont Avenue North Champlin MN 55316 Champlin MN 55316 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Palmer Lake Elementary School Garden City Elementary School Brooklyn Junior High School al Principal Principal Principal 7300 Palmer Lake Drive West 3501 65th Avenue North 7377 Noble Avenue North Brooklyn Park MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Park MN 55443 North View Junior High School Park Center Senior High School Northport Elementary School Principal Principal al Principal P 5869 69th Avenue North 7300 Brooklyn Boulevard 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Park MN 55428 Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Brooklyn Center MN 55428 Robbinsdale Middle School Sandburg Middle School Robbinsdale Cooper High School Principal 3730 Toledo Avenue North 2400 Sandburg Lane Robbinsdale MN 55422 Golden Valley MN 55427 New 47th Avenue North New Hope MN 55428 Highview Alternative Program Brooklyn Center Jr -Sr High Earle Brown Elementary 5400 Corvallis Avenue North Principal Principal Crystal MN 55428 6500 Humboldt Avenue North 1500 59th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 i I I Jean Schuster Judy Thorbus Michael Johnson Housing Commission Housing Commission Housing Commission 1327 67th Lane North 6265 Brooklyn Drive 5343 Sailor Lane Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Joshua Xiong Kris Lawrence- Anderson Housing Commission Housing Commission Housing Charter Commission Brooklyn Center MN 554 5706 Bryant Avenue North 5213 Eleanor Lane Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Mark Yelich Housing Commission 6018 Beard Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Financial Commission Financial Commission Financial Commission Brooklyn Center MN 554 Brooklyn Center MN 554 Brooklyn Center MN 554 Gene Maze Susan Shogren Smith Financial Commission Financial Commission Financial Commission 3000 Thurber Road 600 62nd Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 554 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Mark Nemec Arvid (Bud) Sorenson Financial Commission Park Recreation Commission 5538 Camden Avenue North 6901 Toledo Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 John Russell Muriel Lee Roger Peterson Park Recreation Commission Park Recreation Commission Park Recreation Commission 5312 North Lilac Drive 7204 Perry Court West 15117 1 st Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Thomas Shinnick Gail Ebert Richard Theis Park Recreation Commission Park Recreation Commission Park Recreation Charter Commission 5324 Oliver Avenue North 1613 Irving Lane 3006 Thurber Road Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Rachel Lund Sean Rahn Timothy Roche Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission 5725 Aldrich Avenue North 5740 Irving Avenue North 816 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Michael Parks Michael Johnson Tim Willson Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission 3218 64th Avenue North 5343 Sailor Lane 7007 Dallas Road Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Graydon Boeck Gary Brown H. Bruce Lund Planning Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission 5601 Indiana Avenue North 7012 Willow Lane North 5725 Aldrich Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Eileen Oslund Edward Nelson Richard T. Phillips Charter Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission 6000 Ewing Avenue North 5236 Great View Avenue North 7200 Logan Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Stan Leino Anthony Mills Mary Nierengarten Charter Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission 7118 France Avenue North 6131 Emerson Avenue North 7024 Knox Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Charter Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission Brooklyn Center MN 554 Brooklyn Center MN 554 Harold Middleton Roni Brunner Charter Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission 5418 Oliver Avenue North 4701 Twin Lake Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Joshua Xiong NWHHSC Advisory Commission NWHHSC Advisory Commission Charter Commission 5706 Bryant Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Abiy Assefa Rex Newman Watershed Commission NW Suburbs Cable Communications Watershed Commission 7204 Perry Court West 3107 61 st Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 City Council Seeking Nominations for City of Brooklyn center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Random Acts of Kindness Brookl yn Center,Aff 5.5430-2199 Nominate an individual or group today! Official web site www.cityo(brook lyn center.org ince 1997, the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random e-mail: info @ ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us Acts of Kindness. During,the celebration of Cities Week to be held City Hall (763)569-3300 in October, the Brooklyn Center City Council would like to Recreation (763)569-3400 recognize all Brooklyn Center residents and groups who have Emergency 911 performed Random Acts of Kindness that help to make our Police non-emergency (763)569-3333 community a wonderful place to live and work. We hope that you Job Information Line (763)569-3307 will join us in making this a significant celebration for our Persons with hearing or speech impairment are served by the community. MN Relay Service 711(TTYNoice) Mayor Myrna Kragness Voicemail:(763)569-3450 The City Council is asking that you nominate someone who has mayorkragness @ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us performed an act of kindness in the past year. You may send a card Councilmember Kathleen Carmody or letter, or drawings or photographs of people performing kind Home:(763)566-3I14 acts, or use the City's nomination form. Your nomination will be councilmembercarmody @ci.brook]yn-center.mn.us displayed at City Hall, so feel free to make your nomination Councilmember Kay Lasman colorful and attractive. Voicemail:(763)569-3448 councilmemberiasman@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us All Random Acts of Kindness nominees will be recognized by the Councilmember Diane Niesen City Council during an October meeting and be presented a Voicemail:(7 569 3445 councilmembeni iesen<a�ci.i.b brooklyn-center.mn.us certificate acknowledging their kind act. Councilmember Mary O'Connor Voicemail:(763)569-3447 We look forward to hearing from you. Join us in celebrating councilmemberoconnor @ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us kindness in our community! Interim City Manager Curt Boganey EtCSGtlC' ` dfartl� 0idlnY t]C�II Mtt S� Gltj!CtyU h o$unc�l.Regular ess�ori m etr cgs eld Ri Vounter-atyQUZ cbt�d' shQOl 4thhto ayofthtohthP y atret far weed r Arden Informal,OpeniruYns heiz ' t is p7 ` n TCIt3.'f4T persb Sti14� w31 tdit Smg at a nttshctxtre� SLTeS rQt SIdL11eC the AgerlCl F `4' Call or visit homeh to iyr wont ut �uncsl I ,bf Sesstous ztrc h'1 >tmtx ediatel dI ierghb �r s s e ui e st Cx ItneiLmee g r tl►► Clean rafil from eighbi rhoo& fis anti'hutldtngs : ash t3�C�ounc�l et gs Iv Plant a tree yon'neig>tbvhood flays sfiow uesays at b 3tl �antTsz st u fl 41rt and 10 3t1� 1i Read to�c1��1d. � �� Volunteer at an agency that needs help z Cxilecttaxls for�*iurocalf she1 �a11 City Halt to Yer�fyeet►ng stags( 63)5 teat 7 the City s web situ www i bff r60ki cen ter +1 x,13 nate t neu at se xior center �O�V �bloocl .. ...................................................................................................... Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Uwe, would like to nominate the following person, persons, group, classroom, business,church,etc.for Random Acts of Kindness,to be celebrated during Cities Week in October. Name: Address: (include Street,City,Zip Code) Brief summary of kind act: : 0 Use additional paper if needed. Return Nomination Form by October 6,2006,to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness,6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 .. .................................................................................................... City Council Agenda Item No. 9a Cio,of BROOKLYN Office of the City Clerk CENTER • MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk �LuKwtv� DATE: October 18, 2006 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Relating to the Licensure of Massage Parlors; Amending Brooklyn Center City Code Section 23-1712 At its August 28, 2006, meeting, the City Council discussed the City's massage ordinance, specifically regarding the requirement for separate locker rooms for members of each sex. It was the majority agreement of the Council that separate locker rooms not be required for the purpose of allowing massage. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere drafted an ordinance amendment, and at its September 25, 2006, meeting, the City Council approved first reading of the ordinance and set second reading and Public Hearing for October 23, 2006. If adopted, the ordinance amendment will become effective December 2, 2006. Attachments • Draft Ordinance Amendment • Excerpt of 08/28/06 City Council Work Session Minutes • . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 23rd day of October 2006 at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance relating to licensure of massage parlors. 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 RELATING TO THE LICENSURE OF MASSAGE PARLORS; AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE SECTION 23- 1712 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 23-1712, paragraph 1, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS, is amended as follows: Each licensed premise shall comply with all applicable provisions of the State Building • Code have a separate r-estr-eem and separate leek° room for- mbo s of earh ear s Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty(30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2006. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Stikeeu indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) • I CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION • The City Council did not consent to move forward with participation in the Make a Difference Day Annual Challenge. SEPTEMBER AS SAVE A LIFE MONTH—MAYOR KRAGNESS Mayor/President Kragness stated she received a letter from the National Headquarters of the Save a Life Foundation, a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's National Preparedness Month Coalition, requesting that the City of Brooklyn Center proclaim the month of September 2006, as "Save a Life Month." She stated a sample proclamation was included with the letter and she asked the City Council for permission to sign the proclamation. Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman asked for clarification of the intent and asked if the organization is encouraging children to attempt to save an adult's life or someone their own size. Mayor Kragness explained that the schools are teaching first aid skills, however this is an organized process by the Save a Life Foundation. Councilmember/Commissioner Carmody stated the organization would be better suited going through the schools first. The City Council discussed the item and determined not to support it at this time. MASSAGE PARLOR ORDINANCE—CITY MANAGER Mr. Boganey discussed the findings regarding Massage Parlor Ordinances from other communities. He stated there are some similarities and some cities that take a different approach. He asked for direction from the City Council regarding ordinance modification and if so in which areas. Councilmember/Commissioner Niesen stated difficulty in the City Council reading and analyzing the ordinances due to time constraints. She stated the chart, comparing surrounding cities' massage parlor policies was helpful. Mr. Boganey stated staff responded to direction of the City Council, and responses from those cities were received. He stated the consensus of the City Council was not overhauling the entire ordinance, rather just the health club aspect. The City Council discussed the different regulations of the survey results. The City Council discussed amending the language in relation to the bathroom requirement by referencing the Building Code. Mr. Boganey stated Brooklyn Center is the only City surveyed that requires separate locker rooms for male and female. It was the majority agreement that separate locker rooms not be required for the purpose of allowing massage. The City Council agreed that in regards to Curves and Spa/Salons for purpose of allowing massages, separate locker rooms should not be required. 08/28/06 2 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION • Mr. Boganey stated if the separate locker room requirement was discontinued for purpose of allowing massage, other businesses would be able to offer massages. The City Council discussed the requirement of a mop sink. It was discussed that in the case of Curves, a mop sink is not present; however they have a cleaning service that eliminates the need for a mop sink. Councilmember/Commissioner Niesen stated to encourage the massage use in the City of Brooklyn Center,the fees should be reviewed. Mr. Boganey stated he will create ordinance amendment language to be proposed to the City Council. CRACKER BARREL PROPERTY DISPOSITION Mr. Boganey went through the memorandum and discussed the options and requested action from the City Council. He discussed land values, building values, cost of site clearance, sources of funding, and TIF funds that are available and what they can be used for. He stated site assembly is typical; however the City would be acquiring some risk in that the property could remain off the tax rolls for a period of time. He explained that if the bond proceeds or TIF funds are used for these acquisitions, that is money that is not available for other uses. He stated he believes each risk can be minimized and the potential benefits should also be considered. He stated a direct contact was received stating that the City should submit a proposal for Project Centaur. He stated he is not suggesting that if the City acquired the properties, it would get the proj ect. Community Development Director Brad Hoffinan stated he gets inquiries from developers looking for 10-15 acres which he usually refers to Brooklyn Park. He stated the sum of the three properties would be a very desirable parcel. He stated the City has been approached by two brokers showing interest in the properties. He stated the Cracker Barrel is 4.24 acres and was purchased for $1.8 million. He stated the Olive Garden property is 2.39 acres and was purchased for $1.125 million. He stated the Days Inn property was sold in April of 2005. He discussed issues with the Days Inn building such as mechanical problems. He stated an office showroom development use would likely double tax base. He suggested that the Cracker Barrel property could be put on the market to receive proposals for a given period of time, or a Request for Proposal be issued for a specific type of development. The City Council and staff discussed the market value and construction price of hotel development. Councilmember/Commissioner Niesen stated she was very disappointed by the Real Estate Recycling's proposal considering all of the City's cost she felt the proposal prices from Real Estate Recycling was too low. Mr. Hoffman discussed factors associated with redevelopment • that are costly. 08/28/06 3 City Council Agenda Item No. 9b a �i�Of Office of the City Clerk OOKLYN ENTER MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consideration of Renewal Application for a Currency Exchange License Submitted by Money Centers Holdings LLC, 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard Resolution Authorizing Issuance of a Currency Exchange License to Money Centers Holdings LLC, 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center,Minnesota The Minnesota Department of Commerce has received an application from Money Centers Holdings LLC to renew its curre nc y exchange e license to operate at 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, and has forwarded a copy of the complete application to the City of Brooklyn Center for review. The City Council approved the renewal application last year at its November 28, 2005, meeting. Initial application was approved on July 26, 1999. . Minnesota Statute § 53A.04 requires the Minnesota Department of Commerce to submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange to the governing body of the municipality in which the currency exchange proposed to conduct business. The Statute requires the governing municipality to render a decision regarding issuance or denial of the license within 60 days; it also requires the governing municipality to publish notice of intent to consider the license (published in the Brooklyn Center Sun- Post October 5, 2006). Money Centers Holdings LLC has submitted to the Minnesota Department of Commerce a renewal application, along with the appropriate fee, current fee schedule used for cashing checks, surety bond in the amount of $10,000, and background investigation by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Attached is a printout from Police Chief Bechthold regarding police activity at this location since November 1, 2005. The applicant has been notified of the scheduled Public Hearing. Attachments Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE TO MONEY CENTERS HOLDINGS LLC, 6219 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 53A.04 requires the Minnesota Department of Commerce to submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange to the governing body of the municipality in which the currency exchange proposes to conduct business; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Commerce has received an application from Money Centers Holdings LLC, 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; and WHEREAS,the City of Brooklyn Center allows for such conduct on premises within the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the issuance of a currency exchange license to Money Centers Holdings LLC to operate at 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard is hereby approved. • October 23, 2006 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. BROOKLYN CENTER `'TY • f• Bt00tLY5 tASI POLICE DEPARTMENT MN MEMORANDUM TO: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk FROM: Chief Scott Bechthold DATE: October 4, 2006 SUBJECT: Money Center Calls for Service Pursuant to your request the following are the police calls for service to the Money Center located at 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard from November 1, 2005 through October 3, 2006 for the October 23, 2006 Public Hearing: • 11/09/05 Forgery 12/13/05 Fraud 01/05/06 Civil Matter 01/05/06 Fraud 02/10/06 Fraud 03/10/06 Civil Matter 03/10/06 Medical 04/07/06 Forgery 04/14/06 Alarm 05/19/06 Medical 06/07/06 Forgery 06/26/06 Disturbance 07/13/06 Forgery 08/14/06 Forgery 09/06/06 Theft Please let me know if you need additional information. • SB/bb MINNESOTA • DEPARTMENT OF 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 r St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2198 651.296.4026 FAX 651.297.1959 TTY 651.297.3067 September 22, 2006 Ms. Sharon Knutson, City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 CERTIFIED MAIL RE: Money Centers Holdings, LLC—License#20202409 Currency Exchange License Renewal for 2007 Dear Ms. Knutson: The above-named currency exchange licensee has made application to renew its currency exchange license to operate at: • 6219 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 53A.04,we are forwarding a copy of the complete renewal application to the City of Brooklyn Center in care of your office for you to review. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 53A.04 requires the Department of Commerce to submit any application for licensure as a currency exchange to the governing body of the municipality in which the currency exchange conducts business. The law further requires the governing body of the municipality to render a decision regarding the renewal of the license within 60 days. Your cooperation in forwarding this information to the proper unit within your organization is appreciated. Your reply must be received within 60 days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions,please contact me at the telephone number listed below. Very truly yours, Robin H. Brown Financial Examinations Division 651-282-9855 • 651-296-9851 (Fax) Enclosure Market Assurance: 1.800.657.3602 Licensing: 1.800.657.3978 Energy Information: 1.800.657.3710 Unclaimed Property: 1.800.925.5668 www.commerce.state.mn.us An Equal Opportunity Employer MINNESOTA 2007 LICENSE RENEWAL NOTICE 711Z CURRENCY EXCHANGE , ''' MONEY CENTERS HOLDINGS LLC " License Type: CURRENCY EXCI4iE 6219 BROOKLYN BLVD License Number: 20202409 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 Company Structure: CORPORATION Renewal Fee: $500 Phone Number: (763)535-6872 [ j Check this box if you will not be renewing the license for the year 2007. AFFIRMATION: Returning the form will serve as a SURRENDER of the license. I hereby certify that the information and responses contained in this renewal application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Cary D. Geller President NameTPrint.),4 ,,-�� Title A � f Signature/ Date / I N:OTARY;SEAL Subscribed and sworn to, before me, a Notary Public,this��day of 2006. Af State of County of s -u Notary Public Signature ° My commission expires ` e e You must return this entire 2-page form with attachments,signed,along with your renewal payment,�to:e Minnesota Department of Commerce Financial Examinations Division 85-7th Place East,Suite 500 St. Paul,MN 55101-2198 QORRECTIONS/AMENDMENTS: Make name address or telephone number corrections directly on the form above. • For a name change, attach a copy of the amended name filed and stamped by the Minnesota Secretary of State. • If the company uses an assumed name in Minnesota and the name is not included in the above information, attach a copy of the Assumed Name Certificate from the Minnesota Secretary of State. • P.O. Box addresses are not acceptable. Renewals without a street address will be returned. TIMELY RENEWAL:The renewal form must be signed,notarized,and dated and returned with the correct renewal fee by Sept.1,2006. • Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 53A.04(a),regarding the licensing of currency exchanges, both state and local approval of the issuance and renewal of a currency exchange license is required. This process may take up to 120 days;therefore,you should return the required forms immediately to ensure a timely renewal. • If all required forms are not fully completed and returned to our office with payment by September 1, 2006, your license will lapse effective December 31,2006. If your license does lapse,you must reapply for a license using the license application form and paying the new license fees. • A properly renewed license will be valid through December 31, 2007. RENEWAL FEE: • NO CASH ACCEPTED. Please make check or money order payable to MN. DEPT. OF COMMERCE. • NOTICE:Dishonored checks will be assessed a$30 service fee by law and may result in failure to renew license. • Renewal fees are non-refundable except that an overpayment of a fee will be refundable upon proper application. If you have questions, please contact the Financial Examinations Division by e-mail at robin.brown @state.mn.us or by telephone at(651)282-9855. MONE • Y CENTERS HOLDINGS LLC 6219 BROOKLYN BLVD BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 Page 1 of 2 MINNESOTA 2007 LICENSE RENEWAL NOTICE CURRENCY EXCHANGE The following information must be completed as part of the renewal application: • Attach to this form a list of the name(s), business and residence address, and official title of each director, officer, limited or general partner, manager, shareholder holding more than ten percent of the outstanding stock of the corporation, and employees with authority to exercise management or policy control over the company or member of the licensee. The list should contain the equity ownership of each person. 2. Each person listed in item 1 must request the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension conduct a background investigation on the form provided. Completed forms must be submitted with your renewal application. 3. Attach a current fee schedule of all fees charged by the currency exchange office for cashing checks, money orders or travelers checks. The list must include the type of checks cashed, the fees charged, and whether or not the fees vary depending on the amount of the check. 4. Attach the$10,000 Surety Bond (on the forms provided)with a power of attorney form. The bond must be effective January 1, 2007, until December 31, 2007. 5. Does the licensee have employees at the currency exchange location? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, you must provide evidence of current workers'compensation insurance. Attach a copy of the certificate of insurance. 6. Does the licensee operate any other currency exchange locations? [ ] Yes [ J No If yes, attach to this form the name of the location, the street address, city, state, zip code, and county. 7. Contact person for questions relatin to licensing issues: Money Centers • Name Cary D. Geller Title President Firm Name Holdings LLC Street Address 6600 France Ave S City Edina State/Zip Code MN 55435 carydgeller @msn.com Telephone Number 952 928-1100 Fax Number 952 926-1177 E-mail address 8. Contact person for questions relatin to consumer complaints: Money Centers Name Car D. Geller Title President Firm Name Holdings LLC I Street Address City Edina State/Zip Code MN 55435 I carydgeller@msn.com Tele hone Number 952 928-1100 Fax Number 952 926-1177 E-mail address 9. Contact person at the currency exchan a location: Money Centers Name Car D. Geller Title President Holdings LLC Street Address 6600 France Ave S Cit Edina State/Zip Code MN 55435 Tele hone Number 952 928-1100 carydgeller@msn.com Fax Number 952 926-1177 E-mail address Page 2 of 2 BOND NUMBER: 94792 • STATE OF MINNESOTA Page 1 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CURRENCY EXCHANGE SURETY BOND KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Money Centers Holdings LLC a Minnesota Limited Liability Company (Name of Currency Exchange) (Description or form of business organization, including state of incorporation) with business office at 6219 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 (Street Address, City, State, Zip) as PRINCIPAL and EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OMAHA NE (Name of Surety) a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Nebraska which is authorized to engage in the business of insurance in the State of Minnesota, as SURETY, are hereby held and firmly bound to the Department of Commerce of the State of Minnesota in the sum of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000). Principal and Surety hereby bind themselves, their representatives, successors and assigns,jointly and severally by these presents. The parties further agree that: 1. The purpose of this obligation, which is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 53A.08, is to secure the compliance by Principal with the terms of Minnesota Statutes, Section 53A.02 to 53A.13, and any other legal obligations arising out of the Principal's conduct as a currency exchange. • 2. This bond is for the benefit of the State of Minnesota and all persons suffering damages by reason of the Principal's failure to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 53A.02 to 53A.08, or other legal obligations arising out of Principal's conduct as a currency exchange. 3. If the Principal shall violate Minnesota Statutes, Section 53A.02 to 53A.08, or other legal obligations arising out of its conduct as a currency exchange, the Commissioner of Commerce, as well as any person damaged as a result of such violation shall have, in addition to all other legal remedies, a right of action on this bond in the name of the injured party for loss sustained by the injured party. 4. This bond shall be effective from January 1st, 2007 until Decemuer.31, 2007 (Year) Signed and Sealed this 24th day of August 2006 By: EMPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO. By: (Name of Surety) (Signature of Attorney irk act to rety Company) Richard,H. Daviesf ) By: Money Centers Holdings LLC By: (, �,,l (Name of Currency Exchange) (Signaturqt of Sole Proprietor,^Partner, or President) Cary D. Geller, President SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. 1 MN/DOC CE BOND 2!2006 CURRENCY EXCHANGE SURETY BOND L This page is to be completed by a notary public for both the Principal and the Surety. Pa e 2 of 2 • 2. Please attach the Power of Attorney and Certified Copy of the Corporate Resolution for the Surety listed herein. OF STATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT) PRINCIPAL COUNTY OF OCKXXXIOCKxxxxxxxxx ) ss. (SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �day of by > (Name of person acknowledged) NOTARY SEAL Notary Public (PARTNERSHIP/LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) The foregoing instrument was ag49A®edged before me this day of by a ,2�fi—, a partner o behalf of (lamI •acknow ifig,partner) Mone Centers Mold m , a partnership. (Name of partigershi .'°ted ily co2npany) NOTAIYE - ��_ m Notary Public 0 all ....... (CORPORATION) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this xxxxxx day of by ,President of xx--Kxxx. (Name of corporate president) ' a orporation,on (Name of corporation acknowledging) (state of incorporation) behalf of the corporation. NOTARY SEAL Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SURETY COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24th day of August 2006 by achard H. Davies, Attorney—in—Fact (Name and title of officer or agent) ' of Efi'IPIRE FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OMAHA NE (Name of corporation acknowledging) a Nebraska corporation, on behalf of the corporation. (state of incorporation) • NO �" Notary Public PATR CIA J.Z�4SK i Nota Publi { rY o i and f 2 N/DOC (TC;FD 2/2006 ...�.a ._ OND" 006 �fwyH.c'iipues Jan.si L - EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OMAHA, NEBRASKA POWER OF ATTORNEY Know All Men by These Presents: That this Power of Attorney is not valid or in effect unless attached to the bond which it authorizes executed,but may be detached by he approving officer if desired. That EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Nebraska, and having its principal office in the City of Omaha, County of Douglas, State of Nebraska, does hereby make, constitute and appoint Richard H. Davies, Carolyn L. Davies, Matthew W. Davies,Jonathan S. Davies and Patricia J.Zaske its true and lawful Attomey(s)-in- fact,to make,execute, sign, seal and deliver for and on its behalf as surety and as its act and deed any and all bonds and undertakings of suretyship. NOT EXCEEDING IN AMOUNT One Million and No/100-------------______ Dollars($1,000.000.00 ) and to bind EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY thereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were signed by an Executive Officer of EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and sealed and attested to by one other of such officers, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that its said Attorneys)-in-fact may do in pursuance hereof. C This power of attorney is granted under and by authority of Article III,Section 3.1 of the By-Laws of the EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY and by Resolution of the Board of Directors.duly adopted as follows: "All bonds,policies, undertakings or other obligations of the corporation shall.be executed in the corporate name of the.Company by the Chairman of the Board, President,any Vice-President,Secretary,any Assistant Secretary, or Treasurer,or by such other officers as the Board of Directors may authorize. The Chairman of the Board, President,any Vice-President,Secretary, any Assistant Secretary, or the Treasurer may appoint Attorneys in Fact or Agents who shall have authority to issue bonds,policies,or undertakings in the name of the Company. The corporate seal is not necessary for the validity of any bonds,policies, undertakings or other obligations of the corporation." It is certified that the above is a true and exact copy. In Witness Whereof,the EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its President,and its corporate seal to be hereto affixed,duly attested by its Secretary this 15th day of. July,2004. Attest: EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY • �� Secretary G / / President STATE OF NEBRASKA ) COUNTY OF DOUGLAS) ss. On this day of A.D.2004, before me personally came John Kinsler to me known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say: that he resides in the County of Douglas, State of Nebraska;that he is the Secretary of the EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,the corporation described in and which executed the above instrument;that he know said corporation;that the seal affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal;that it was so affixed b order of the knows seal of Directors of said corporation Board of poration and that h e signed his name thereto ereto by like order. Signed and sealed at the City of Omaha. Dated 147"k day of [y .2004. BrRRL NOTARY•State of Nebraska PAULA.MIHULKA 'I'March 10,20 Notary Public CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned,Secretary of the EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,A Nebraska Corporation DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains in full force and has not been revoked;and furthermore, that the Resolutions of the Board of Directors set forth in the Power of Attorney are now in force. Signed and sealed at the City of Omaha. Dated the 24th day of_ AUgust 2006 Secretary Ene A .t inn (06 .vi-+0 i 0 -04) CExv PuTER Keep it simple! Corporate Office 6600 France Ave.South Suite 670 Edina,MN 55435 Ph:(952)928-1100 Fx.(952)926-1177 August 28", 2006 www.moneycentersonline.com List of Owner & Manner Money Centers Moldings LLC Name Ownership Title Cary D. Geller 100% President Money Centers Holdings LLC 6600 France Ave S, Suite 670. Edina,MN 55435 Residence: 6145 Arctic Way Edina,MN 55436 Minneapolis: 2945 Dupont Av. (612)861-0350 St.Paul.. Midway Shopping Center 1532 University,#100 (651)645-3965 Brooklyn Center: 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard (763)535-6872 Richfield: Richfield Shoppes 6525 Nicollet Av. (612)866-6505 St.Louis Park: Knollwood 0 32 Highway 7 2)935-7100 1 Money Centers,Inc. ""ENTER Keep it simple! Corporate Office 6600 France Ave.South Suite 670 Money Centers Holdings LLC Edina,MN 55435 Ph:(952)928-1100 Fx (952)926-1177 Locations WWW.moneycentersontine.com August 280x,2006 Branch#1: 1532 University, Suite#100 St. Paul,MN 55104 651645-3965 (0) 651645-8090(F) Branch #2: 6525 Nicollet Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 612 866-6505 (0) 612 866-4342 (F) Branch#3: 2600 Nicollet Avenue Minneapolis,MN 55408 612 870-2885 (0) 612 870-2975 (F) Minneapolis: 2945 Dupont Av. (612)861-0350 Branch#4: 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard St.Paul: Brooklyn Center,MN 55429 Midway Shopping center 763 535-6872 (0) 1532 University,#i o0 763 533-6930(F) (651)645-3965 Brooklyn Center: Branch#5: 8132 Highway 7 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (763)535 76872 952 935-7100(0) 952 988-0148 (F) Richfield: Richfield Shoppes 6525 Nicollet Av. (612)866-6505 St.Louis Park: Knollwood W32 Highway 7 52)935-7100 1 Money Centers,Inc. • Keep it simple! Corporate Office 6600 France Ave.South Suite 670 Edina,MN 55435 Ph:(952)928-1100 Fx.(952)926-1177 www.moneycentersonline.com August 29th,2006 Ms. Robin H. Brown Minnesota Department of Commerce Financial Examinations Division 85—7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN 55101-2198 Re: Currency Exchange License Renewals 9000047,20012009, 9000023, 20202409,20225669 Dear Ms. Brwon, Money Centers Holdings LLC is not currently cashing checks, but is • retaining the currency exchange licenses. If Money Centers Holdings LLC were to resume cashing checks it would do so at rates previously filed with the Department of Commerce. For your conveniance, I Minneapolis: have attached a schedule of fees that Money Centers Holdings LLC 1 2945 Dupont Av. Would use. (612)861-0350 9 Money Centers Holdings LLC has no employees and does not require St.Paul: workers' compensation insurance. Midway Shopping Center 1532 University,#100 Sincerely, (651)645-3965 Brooklyn Center: C D. eller 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard President (763)535-6872 Richfield: Richfield Shoppes 6525 Nicollet Av. (612)866-6505 St.Louis Park: Knollwood 0 2 Highway 7 )935-7100 Money Centers,Inc. ................ tu� T'm �'4.q Hlill MM'I'MNI FN MAN- p'4 wk - ilk gpm Legislature Home I Links to the World Help Advanced Searcl . f" ~House Senate ( Joint Departments and Commissions Bill Search and Status I Statutes, Laws,and Rules Minnesota Statutes 2005, Chapter 53A. Copyright 2005 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. ==53A.01 53A.01 Definitions. Subdivision 1. Currency exchange. Currency exchange" means any person, except a bank, trust company, savings bank, savings association, credit union, or industrial loan and thrift company, engaged in the business of cashing checks, drafts, money orders, or travelers' checks for a fee. "Currency exchange" does not include a person who provides these services incidental to the person's primary business if the charge for cashing a check or draft does not exceed $1 or one percent of the value of the check or draft, whichever is greater. Subd. 2. commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of commerce. HIST: 1989 c 247 s l; 1995 c 202 art 1 s 25 • ==53A.02 53A.02 License. Subdivision 1. Requirement. A person may not engage in the business of a currency exchange without first obtaining a license from the commissioner. Not more than one place of business may be operated under the same license, but the commissioner may issue more than one license to the same licensee upon compliance by the applicant with all the provisions of this chapter for each new license issued. Subd. 2. Distance limitation. No license may be issued or renewed under this chapter if the place of business to be operated under the license is located or proposed to be located within one-half mile of another licensed currency exchange. The distance limitation imposed by this subdivision is measured by a straight line from the closest points of the closest structures involved. Subd. 3. Prohibition. A licensee may not contract with another person or business entity to manage the currency exchange business. This subdivision does not prohibit the licensee from employing persons to operate a currency exchange facility. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 2; 1992 c 504 s 2 • ==53A.03 53A.03 Application for license; fees. (a) An application for a license must be in writing, under oath, and in the form prescribed and furnished by the commissioner and must contain the following: (1) the full name and address (both of residence and place of business) of the applicant, and if the applicant is a partnership or association, of every member, and the name and business address if the applicant is a corporation; (2) the county and municipality, with street and number, if any, of all currency exchange locations operated by the applicant; and (3) the applicant's occupation or profession, for the ten years immediately preceding the application; present or previous connection with any other currency exchange in this or any other state; whether the applicant has ever been convicted of any crime; and the nature of the applicant's occupancy of the premises to be licensed; and if the applicant is a partnership or a corporation, the information specified in this paragraph must be supplied for each partner and each officer and director of the corporation. If the applicant is a partnership or a nonpublicly held corporation, the information specified in this paragraph must be required of each partner and each officer, director, and stockholders owning in excess of ten percent of the corporate stock of the corporation. (b) The application shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee of $1, 000 for the review of the initial application. Upon approval by the commissioner, an additional license fee of $500 must be paid by the applicant as an annual license fee for the remainder of the calendar year. An annual license fee of $500 is due for each subsequent calendar year of operation upon submission of a license renewal application on or before • September 1. Fees must be deposited in the state treasury and credited to the general fund. Upon payment of the required annual license fee, the commissioner shall issue a license for the year beginning January 1. (c) The commissioner shall require the applicant to submit to a background investigation conducted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension as a condition of licensure. As part of the background investigation, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension shall conduct criminal history checks of Minnesota records and is authorized to exchange fingerprints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of a criminal background check of the national files. The cost of the investigation must be paid by the applicant. (d) For purposes of this section, "applicant" includes an employee who exercises management or policy control over the company, a director, an officer, a limited or general partner, a manager, or a shareholder holding more than ten percent of the outstanding stock of the corporation. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 3; 1992 c 504 s 3; 1993 c 354. s 1; 1999 c 223 art 2 s 2 ==53A.04 53A.04 Approval or denial of an application. (a) Within 30 days after the receipt of a complete application, the commissioner shall deny the application or submit the application to the governing body of the local unit of government in which the applicant is located or is proposing to be located. The commissioner may not approve the application without the concurrence of the governing body. The governing body shall give published notice of its intention to consider the issue and shall solicit testimony from interested persons, including those in the community in which the applicant is located or is proposing to be located. If the governing body has not approved or disapproved the issue within 60 days of • receipt of the application, concurrence is presumed. The commissioner must approve or disapprove the application within 30 days from receiving the decision of the governing body. The governing body shall have the sole responsibility for its decision. The state shall have no responsibility for that decision. (b) If the application is denied, the commissioner shall send by mail notice of the denial and the reason for the denial to the applicant at the address contained in the application. If an application is denied, the applicant may, within 30 days of receiving the notice of a denial, request a contested case hearing pursuant to chapter 14; provided that if the denial is based upon the refusal of the governing body to concur the governing body must afford the applicant a hearing. The applicant shall have no right to the hearing provided for in this section if the denial is based upon the governing body's refusal to concur but shall have a hearing before the governing body. (c) This section applies to initial applications and renewal applications. (d) The state shall have no responsibility for the action of the governing body. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 4; 1992 c 504 s 4 • ==53A.05 53A.05 Change of name, ownership, or location. Subdivision 1. Name or location. If a licensee proposes to change the name or location of any or all of its currency exchanges, the licensee shall file an application for approval of the change with the commissioner. The commissioner shall not approve a change of location if the requirements of sections 53A.02, subdivision 2, and 53A.04 have not been satisfied. If the change is approved by the commissioner, the commissioner shall issue an amended license in the licensee's new name or location. A $100 fee must be paid for the amended license. Subd. 2. Ownership. The licensee shall notify the commissioner 30 business days in advance of any change in ownership of the currency exchange. The commissioner may revoke the currency exchange license if the new ownership would have resulted in a denial of the initial license under the provisions of chapter 53A. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 5; 1992 c 504 s 5; 1999 c 223 art 2 s 3 • ==53A.06 53A.06 Fine, suspension, or revocation of license. may(a) The y or revoke any license under section 45.027 if the commissioner finds that: (1) the licensee has failed to pay the annual license fee or to maintain in effect the required bond or to comply with any order, decision, or finding of the commissioner under this chapter; (2) the licensee, or any officer or director of a corporate • licensee, has violated any provision of this chapter or any rule or order of the commissioner under this chapter or chapter 45; (3) the licensee, or any officer or director of a corporate licensee, has violated any other law which would indicate that the person is untrustworthy or not qualified to operate a currency exchange; or (4) any fact or condition exists which, if it had existed at the time of the original or renewal application for the license, would have warranted the commissioner refusing the issuance of the license. (b) A license may not be revoked until the licensee has had notice of a hearing pursuant to the provisions of chapter 14. (c) A licensee may surrender any license by delivery to the commissioner. The surrender does not affect the licensee's civil or criminal liability for acts committed before the surrender, or affect the liability on the bond required by sections 53A.01 to 53A.13, or entitle the licensee to a return of any part of any license fee. (d) Before suspension or revocation of the license, the commissioner may fine a licensee for violations of this chapter as authorized under chapter 45. • HIST: 1989 c 247 s 6 ==53A.07 53A.07 Filing of fees; unreasonable fees. Subdivision 1. Approval of fees. Fees charged at each location for check cashing services must be filed with and approved by the commissioner. Subd. 2 . Amendment of fees. A licensee may amend its fees at any time by filing the proposed amendments with the commissioner. The application for amendment shall be in writing, under oath, and in the form prescribed by the commissioner. A fee of $50 shall accompany the application. The commissioner shall approve or deny the application 60 days after the filing of a complete application to amend its fees. Subd. 3. Standards; unreasonable fees prohibited. The commissioner may disapprove the fees filed by a currency exchange if they are not fair and reasonable. In determining whether a fee is fair and reasonable, the commissioner shall take into consideration: (1) rates charged in the past for cashing of checks by those persons and organizations providing check cashing services in the state of Minnesota; (2) the income, cost, and experience of the operations of currency exchanges existing prior to this enactment or in other states under similar conditions or regulations; (3) the amount of risk involved in the type of check to be cashed and the location where the currency exchange operates; (4) the general cost of doing business, insurance costs, security costs, banking fees, and other costs associated with the operations of the particular currency exchange; (5) a reasonable profit for a currency exchange operation; and (6) any other matter the commissioner deems appropriate. The commissioner shall set a separate rate, consistent with the above standards, for checks issued by a government entity in an amount up to $500 to be cashed by a currency exchange. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 7 ==53A.08 53A.08 Bond. Before a license may be issued to a currency exchange, the applicant shall file annually with and have approved by the commissioner a surety bond, issued by a bonding company authorized to do business in this state in the principal amount of $10, 000. The bond must run to the commissioner and is for the benefit of creditors of the currency exchange for liability incurred by the currency exchange on money orders issued or sold by the currency exchange, for liability incurred by the currency exchange for sums due to a payee or endorsee of a check, draft, or money order left with the currency exchange for collection, and for liability incurred by the currency exchange in • connection with providing currency exchange services. The commissioner may require a licensee to file a bond in an additional amount if the commissioner considers it necessary to meet the requirements of this section. In determining the additional amount of the bond which may be required, the commissioner may require the licensee to file its financial records, including all bank statements, pertaining to the sale of money orders for the preceding 12-month period. In no case may the bond be less than the initial $10,000 or more than the outstanding liabilities. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 8; 1992 c 504 s 6 ==53A.081 53A.081 Annual report and investigations. Subdivision 1. Annual report. on or before April 30, a licensee shall file an annual report with the commissioner for the previous calendar year. The report must contain information that the commissioner may reasonably require concerning, and for the purpose of examining, the business and operations of each licensed currency exchange. Subd. 2. Investigation. The commissioner may at any time investigate the currency exchange business of any licensee . and of every person, partnership, association, and corporation engaged in the business of operating a currency exchange in the manner provided under section 45.027. Subd. 3 . Fees and expenses. The licensee shall pay the costs of an examination or investigation in the manner provided under section 60A.03, subdivision 5. I Subd. 4. Classification of data. Financial information on individuals and businesses that is submitted to the commissioner in the annual report under subdivision 1 are private data on individuals or nonpublic data. HIST: 1992 c 504 s 7; 1996 c 439 art 1 s 6; 1Sp1997 c 3 s 19; 2001 c 208 s 2 ==53A.09 53A.09 Powers; limitations; prohibitions. Subdivision 1. Deposits; escrow accounts. A currency exchange may not accept money or currency for deposit, or act as bailee or agent for persons, firms, partnerships, associations, or corporations to hold money or currency in escrow for others for any purpose. However, a currency exchange may act as agent for the issuer of money orders or travelers' checks. Subd. 2. Gambling establishments. A currency exchange located on the premises of a gambling establishment as defined in section 256.9831, subdivision 1, may not cash a warrant that bears a restrictive endorsement under section 256.9831, subdivision 3. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 9; 1996 c 465 art 3 s 1 ==53A.10 53A.10 Violations. Any person, firm, association, partnership, or corporation that violates this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 10 ==53A.11 53A.11 Books of account; annual report. The licensee shall keep and use in the licensee's business the books, accounts, and records that will enable the commissioner to determine whether the licensee is complying with this chapter and with the rules adopted by the commissioner. A licensee shall preserve the books, accounts, and records for at least two years after making the final entry. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 11 ==53A.12 53A.12 Rules. The commissioner may adopt rules under chapter 14 as may be necessary to administer and enforce this chapter. • HIST: 1989 c 247 s 12 ==53A.13 53A.13 Fee notice; false advertising; penalty. Subdivision 1. Fee notice. The fees charged by currency exchanges for rendering any service authorized by sections 53A.01 to 53A.13 must be prominently displayed on the premises of the currency exchange in the fashion required by the commissioner. • Subd. 2. False advertising. A licensee may not advertise, print, display, publish, distribute, or broadcast any statement or representation that is false, misleading, or deceptive, or that omits material information. Subd. 3 . Civil liability; penalty. A person who violates any subdivision of this chapter is liable to the person damaged by the violation for actual damages. The court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs. HIST: 1989 c 247 s 13 ==53A.14 53A.14 Repealed, 1992 c 504 s 8 ==53A.misc 53A.14 Repealed, 1992 c 504 s 8 Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation • to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol,visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. • newspapers AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Richard Hendrickson,being duly sworn on an oath states or affirms,that he is the Chief Fi- nancial Officer of the newspaper known as Sun-Post and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A)The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper,as provided by Minn.Stat.§331 A.02,§331 A.07, and other applic- able laws, as amended. (B)The printed public notice that is attached was published in the newspaper once each week,for one successive week(s);it was first published on Thursday,the 5 day of October , 2006, and was thereafter printed and published on every Thursday to and including Thursday,the day of ,2006;and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive,which is hereby acknowl- edged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: abcdefgh ijkl mnopq rstuvwxyz e BY: FO Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on this 5 day of October , 2006. N(Aary 016lic MARY ANN CARLSON NOTARY PUBUC—MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 131-09 ;.. .'. . City of Brooklyn Center (Of We!'_Publication) " RATE INFORMATION NoTlce of INTENTTp CONSIDER A CURAENCYJEXC ANGE LICENSE, Notice is hereoygnen that•the.City Council of the City of (1)Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users $ 2.85 per line Qrooklyn Center-syillnsic)erthe renewal application for • for comparable space a currency exchange bcense from{Honey Centers Hold ings'LLC to operate at 6219 t3rooklyn gouievard Brook lyn Center Minnesota.This considetation will (2) Maximum rate allowed by given at y $ 6.20 per line the October 23,2006,City Gounc�l meets ata given at 18W as soon thereafter as themattermaybeheard.The meet- - ing will be held in the Council Chambers of the Brooklyn Center City Hall,6301 Shingle Creek.Pazkway,Brooklyn (3) Rate actually charged $ 1.30 per line -Center,Minnesota Sharon Knuts on,?Cdy Clerk' (Oct. 5,2006)p1/Currency Exchange i City Council Agenda Item No. 10a � "o Office of the City Clerk BROOKLYN • CRNTER MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey,City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: October 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Mayoral Appointment: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission Member This item was tabled from the October 9, 2006,meeting. The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is a human services planning and coordinating agency serving the cities of Brooklyn Center,Brooklyn Park,Champlin,Corcoran,Crystal,Dayton,Golden Valley,Hanover,Hassan,New Hope,Maple Grove,Osseo,Plymouth,Robbinsdale,and Rogers since 1972.The goals of the Council are to improve access to human services for area residents, raise awareness of human service needs, and coordinate and assist in planning for needed human services in the community. The Advisory Commission is composed of citizen representatives appointed for two-year terms by their respective City Council. Brooklyn Center appoints two members. As an Advisory Commissioner,representatives are asked to attend one Advisory Commission meeting per month and serve on one Commission committee or task force during the year. One vacancy exists on the Advisory Commission with a term expiration of December 31, 2007. • Notice of vacancy on the Commission was posted at City Hall and Community Center and on the City's web site and aired on Cable Channel 16 from August 15, 2006, through September 15, 2006. Announcement was made in the August 24,2006, edition of Brooklyn Center Sun-Post. A letter was sent to those persons who previously had submitted an application for appointment to a Brooklyn Center advisory commission informing them of the vacancy and requesting that they call the City Clerk if they are interested in applying for either commission. They were given the choice of either submitting a new application or having their application previously submitted considered. Notices were also sent to current advisory commission members. Attached for City Council Members only are copies of the applications received: Christine Eaton 7007 Dallas Road Kimberley Meyer 6131 Kyle Avenue North A letter was sent to the applicants notifying them that their application for appointment would be considered at the October 9, 2006, City Council meeting. Following the October 9, 2006, meeting, Mayor Kragness contacted both applicants to notify them that the appointment was tabled and would be considered at the October 23, 2006, City Council meeting. Other attachments include: 1) Memorandum from Mayor Kragness indicating her nomination. 2) Procedures for filling commission vacancies adopted by the City Council on March 27, 1995. • Recommended Council Action: Motion by Council to remove this item from the table. Motion by Council to ratify Mayoral nomination of Kimberley Meyer, 6131 Kyle Avenue North, to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission with term expiring December 31,2007. City of Office of the Mayor BROOKLYN • CENTER MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmember Kathleen Carmody Councilmember Kay Lasman Councilmember Diane Niesen Councilmember Mary O'Connor FROM: Myrna Kragness, Mayor DATE: October 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission Appointment As outlined in our policy for filling commission vacancies, I would request ratification from Council Members for the following nomination to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission: • Kimberley Meyer 6131 Kyle Avenue North City of Brooklyn Center Procedures for Filling Commission/Task Force Vacancies Adopted by Council 3/27/95 The following process for filling commission/task force vacancies was approved by the City Council at its March 27, 1995, meeting: Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by Mayoral appointment with majority consent of the City Council. The procedure for filling Commission vacancies is as follows: 1. Notices of vacancies shall be posted for 30 days before any official City Council action is taken; 2. Vacancies shall be announced in the City's official newspaper; 3. Notices of vacancies shall be sent to all members of standing advisory commissions; 4. Applications for Commission membership must be obtained in the City • Clerk's office and must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk; 5. The City Clerk shall forward copies of the applications to the Mayor and City Council; 6. The Mayor shall identify and include the nominee's application form in the City Council agenda materials for the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented; and 7. The City Council,by majority vote,may approve an appointment at the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented. COUNCIL PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED FOR FILLING COMMISSION VACANCIES City Council Agenda Item No. 10b City Of BROOKLYN CENTER MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman,Niesen, and O'Connor FROM: Curt Boganey, Citylo�ger DATE: October 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Set Date and Time for Facilitated City Council Retreat At its June 26, 2006, Work Session, the City Council tentatively scheduled a facilitated City Council retreat for November 11, 2006, and requested a report back on potential facilitators. At its October 9, 2006, Work Session, the City Council selected Donald Salverda & Associates as the retreat facilitator. facilitated City Council retreat for Saturday, Council formally y It is requested that the City C y set the face q Y November 11, 2006, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The location of the retreat will be Earle Brown • Heritage Center in The Loft. i City Council Agenda Item No. 10c Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MOSAIC YOUTH CENTER WHEREAS, youth are one of the community assets of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council values and supports youth; and WHEREAS, youth centers generally help adolescent youth develop into healthy, productive adults; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council supports the creation of a youth center where youth of the community and school district have a safe place to recreate, receive certain academic, health and social services and develop career and social skills; and WHEREAS, the Mosaic Youth Center project was created in 1997 by Robbinsdale School District 281 to create a forum for youth and to provide a safe place for youth to get integrated services within the school district area, including Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the Friends of the Mosaic Youth Center, Inc. desires to further expand and enhance youth services offered at the Mosaic Youth Center project by the acquisition of a permanent home for the Mosaic Youth Center within the northwest suburbs of Hennepin County; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that it supports the Mosaic Youth Center project's goals and mission and encourages all local governments in the school district and the school district to collaborate and support the efforts of the Friends of the Mosaic Youth Center, Inc. in its acquisition of a permanent home for the Mosaic Youth Center project. October 23, 2006 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. lOd PROCLAMATION DECLARING NOVEMBER 19 THROUGH 25, 2006, AS NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, is blessed with a multitude of families - an essential part of the cultural, social, and spiritual fabric that is Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, recognizes strong families are at the center of strong communities; and WHEREAS, everyone has a role to play in making families successful, including neighborhood organizations, businesses,nonprofit agencies,policymakers, and, of course, families themselves; and WHEREAS, during Thanksgiving week we all should take time to honor the importance of families, and recognize the special connections that support and strengthen families year-round; and WHEREAS, we all should recommit to enhancing and extending all of the connections that strengthen and enrich families; and WHEREAS, with the assistance and resources of agencies and organizations such as the Alliance for Children and Families and its local member agency, your organization, we can help families of all shapes and sizes create a better future for all of your state/city/region. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, with the consent and support of the Brooklyn Center City Council, do hereby proclaim November 19 through 25, 2006, National Family Week, and I commit this observance to the people of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. October 23, 2006 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I C� District Basic Academic Skills C� 279 Adult Diploma English as a Second o sC s e E A s c H o o s ADULT BASIC EDUCATION Language(ESL) General Educational Telephone:(763)566-5452 Development(GED) October 10th, 2006 Fax:(763)585-7323 Family Literacy Workforce Education The Honorable Myrna Kragness Mayor State/City of Brooklyn Center, MN 3401 63rd Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Dear Mayor Kragness: We cordially invite you to support National Family Week and ask you to please consider issuing a proclamation and participating as your schedule permits. Last year, The President of the United States, 38 governors, and countless mayors proclaimed National Family Week. National Family Week is a wonderful opportunity to honor the most important institution in America-the family. Hundreds of communities across the country will celebrate National Family Week November 19-25, the week of Thanksgiving, a time when many families traditionally celebrate their connections with one another. We also are encouraging everyone to celebrate the special connections that exist within neighborhoods and communities that . help strengthen families. Accordingly, the theme for National Family Week is Connections Count. On Saturday, November 18, 2006 District 279 is planning a celebration in conjunction with the National Family Week to highlight families and organizations that support families. Our celebration will spotlight the growing Asian population of families that live mostly in the Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center area. The festivities will be held at the new Adult Education Center located at 7051 Brooklyn Boulevard. Beginning at 11:00am and continuing until 3:00pm. This celebration will be an opportunity to honor families of our Asian population and thank the special peopl: who assist them. We firmly believe strong families form the foundations of strong communities. Children live better lives when their families are strong, and families are strong when they live in communities that connect them to economic opportunities, social networks, and services. Everyone has a role to play in making families successful, including neighborhood organizations,businesses, nonprofits, policymakers, and, of course, families themselves. The event will include informational booths on civic engagement opportunities, resources for families, and Asian cultural highlights. on Monday, November 20th 2006 we will host a workshop for those who In addition, , Y P work and support Asian Families. It will include presentations on Hmong family dynamics, cultural protocols and health practices. This workshop will be from 4:00- . 7:00pm. This workshop will also be held at the new Adult Education Center. • Adult&Family Learning Adult Education Center 7051 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center,MN 55429 District Basic Academic Skills C� 279 Adult Diploma C� English as a Second OSSEO AREA scHOOLS ADULT BASIC EDUCATION Language(ESL) General Educational Telephone:(763)566-5452 Development(GED) Fax: (763)585-7323 Family Literacy Workforce Education We know you are very busy. We promise any efforts on behalf of National Family Week will take just a small amount of your time. Please consider the following: • Issue a proclamation: Through a proclamation we are asking you to declare the week of November 19-25 as National Family Week in Brooklyn Center. A proclamation would serve as an effective endorsement, greatly enhancing the potential for families to participate. We have enclosed suggested language and would be happy to complete any required paperwork. • Submit a Letter to the Editor: In a letter to the editor, you can use National Family Week as an opportunity to underscore the many ways our community has helped strengthen children and families this past year. We have enclosed a sample letter with suggested language that you can send under your name and mail to the Sun Post. • Kick off an Event: If your schedule allows, we would like for you and your family to take a leadership role in making Connections Count. We would like to invite you to join us at 11:00am on Saturday, November 181', 2006 for a traditional Asian Dragon blessing to kick off our day. We would also like to • invite you to stay and participate in the days activities. Any help you can provide will help our community honor the importance of families, and encourage everyone to enhance and expand the connections in their own lives. We will call within a few days to confirm receipt of this letter. Should you or a member of your staff have questions or need additional information, please call Nancy Johnson at 763- 585-7322 or JohnsonN @district279.org. For more details on National Family Week nationwide, visit www.nationalfamilyweek.org. National Family Week is coordinated in Brooklyn Center by District 279, with national assistance from the Alliance for Children and Families and the generous support of The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Thank you in advance for considering this invitation. We sincerely believe you and your family can help make National Family Week a major success in Brooklyn Center. Respectfully yours, am(V Linda Erickson Adult Basic Education Coordinator District 279 . Enclosures Adult&Family Learning Adult Education Center 7051 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center,MN 55429 • City Council Agenda Item No. Me • Memorandum Date: 18 October 2006 To: Curt Boganey City Manager From: Daniel Jordet Director of Fiscal &Support Services Re: 2006A G.O. Improvement Bond Sale During the 2005 and 2006 construction seasons the City of Brooklyn Center has undertaken a number of street and utility improvement projects that have been funded, in part, by assessments to the benefiting property owners. These projects include: • Lions Park South Neighborhood • Summit Drive/Shingle Creek Parkway • 48th Avenue North • Twin Lake Avenue • Centerbrook Neighborhood • • Humboldt Avenue/Earle Brown Drive The assessments for these projects have been levied and payments have been made on the construction contracts. There is a timing gap between the payment of contracts for the improvements and payment of the special assessments by property owners. Payments on contracts must be made in full at completion of the project. Property owners, however, have ten years to make the payments of assessments for the work that was done. To fill that gap many cities, including Brooklyn Center, sell General Obligation Improvement Bonds. These bonds produce the cash needed up front to make project payments while allowing the stream of payments from assessments to pay back the bond principal & interest without need for additional levies or other funding. The above named projects assessed just over $ 2,000,000 in project costs to property owners. Some owners paid all assessed amounts immediately. This allows us to reduce the bond issuance to $ 1,460,000, including all costs of issuance. In order to begin this process for completion before the end of 2006, the City Council is asked to approve the attached "Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of$ 1,460,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A." Terms of the proposals to be solicited are attached to that resolution. In addition, Springsted has a Recommendations report on the bond sale for City prepared P ty Council information. A copy of that report is included with this presentation. • s • Recommendations For City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota $1,460,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A • Presented to: Mayor Myrna Kragness Members,City Council Mr. Curt Boganey, City Manager Mr. Dan Jordet, Finance Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Study No.: 8020103 SPRINGSTED Incorporated October 17,2006 13 S p r i n g s t e d RECOMMENDATIONS • Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of$1,460,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds,Series 2006A (the"Bonds"or the"Issue") We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the above-named Issue. Proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance various improvement projects within the City. We recommend the following for the Bonds: 1. Action Requested To establish the date and time of receiving bids and establish the terms and conditions of the offering. 2. Sale Date and Time Monday, November 27, 2006,at 12:00 Noon,with award by the City Council at 7:00 P.M.that same evening. 3. Method of Sale The Bonds will be sold through a competitive bidding process. In the interest of obtaining as many bids as possible,we have included a provision in the attached . Terms of Proposals for underwriters to submit their bid electronically through the electronic bidding platform of PARITY& In addition,physical bids(by phone or fax)will be accepted at the offices of Springsted. 4. Authority for the Bond Issue The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,Chapters 429 and 475. 5. Repayment Term The Bonds will mature annually February 1, 2008 through 2017. Interest will be payable semi-annually each February 1 and August 1,commencing August 1,2007. 6. Security and Source of Payment (a) Security The Bonds will be general obligations of the City, secured by its full faith and credit and taxing power. (b) Source of Payment The Bonds will be repaid with a special assessments filed against benefited properties. If assessments are collected in full as projected,the City will not be • required to levy taxes for repayment of the Bonds. Each year's first-half collection of assessment income will be used to make the August 1 interest payment. City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota October 17,2006 • Second-half collections of special assessments, plus surplus first-half collections,will be used to make the subsequent February 1 principal and interest payment. 7. Prepayment Provisions The City may elect on February 1, 2015,and on any date thereafter,to prepay the Bonds due on or after February 1,2016,at a price of par plus accrued interest. 8. Credit Rating Comments An application will be made to Moody's Investors Service for a rating on the Bonds. The City's general obligation debt is currently rated"Al"by Moody's. 9. Term Bonds We have included a provision that permits the underwriters to combine multiple maturity years into a term bond,subject to mandatory redemption on the same maturity schedule provided in the Terms of Proposal. The advantage to the underwriter is that it provides large blocks of bonds,which are more attractive to bond funds,and certain pension funds. • This in turn is a benefit to the City since selling larger blocks of bonds reduces the risk to the underwriter, allowing them to lower their costs and the interest coupons. Since the Bonds are being offered on a competitive bid basis and awarded on the lowest true interest cost,the City will award the Bonds to the best bid regardless of whether term bonds are chosen or not. 10. Federal Treasury Regulations Concerning Tax- Exempt Obligations (a) Bank Qualification Under Federal Tax Law,financial institutions cannot deduct from income for federal income tax purposes, expense that is allocable to carrying and acquiring tax-exempt bonds. There is an exemption to this for "bank qualified"bonds,which can be so designated if the issuer does not issue more than$10 million of tax exempt bonds in a calendar year. Issues that are bank qualified generally receive slightly lower interest rates than issues that are not bank qualified. Since • the City does not expect to issue more than $10 million of tax exempt obligations in 2006,the Bonds will be designated as bank qualified. Page 2 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota October 17,2006 . (b) Rebate Requirements All tax-exempt issues are subject to the federal arbitrage and rebate requirements,which require all excess earnings created by the financing to be rebated to the U.S.Treasury. The requirements generally cover two categories: bond proceeds and debt service funds. There are exemptions from rebate in both of these categories. There is an exemption from rebate for municipalities that issue$5 million or less of tax-exempt obligations in a calendar year. Since the City does not expect to issue more than$5 million of tax-exempt obligations in 2006,this Issue will be exempt from rebate. Although exempt from rebate,the City must still comply with the arbitrage regulations which require yield restriction of proceeds remaining in a project fund after the three- year temporary period. (c) Bona Fide Debt Service Fund The City must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for each tax-exempt issue or be subject to yield restriction. This requires restricting the investments held in the debt service fund to the yield on the Bonds. A bona fide debt service fund is a fund for which there is an equal matching of revenue to debt service expense,with cant'-over permitted equal to the greater of the investment earnings in the fund during the prior year or 1/12 the debt service of the prior year. With issues having special assessments pledged as a source of repayment,such as the Bonds,additional diligence should be exercised in monitoring the debt service fund due to the potential accumulation of assessment prepayments which could cause the fund to become non-bona fide. 0 (d) Economic Life The average life of the Bonds cannot exceed 120%of the economic life of the projects to be financed. The economic life of the improvements to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds is at least 20 years. The average life of the Bonds is 4.946 years;therefore this . Issue is within the economic life requirements. Page 3 Ci ty Y of Brooklyn Center Minnesota , October 17,2006 • 11. Continuing Disclosure The Bonds are subject to continuing disclosure requirements set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC). The SEC rules require the City to undertake an annual update of certain Official Statement information and report any material events to the national repositories. Springsted currently provides continuing disclosure services to the City. We have provided City staff with a contract amendment to include this Issue. 12. Attachments • Sources and Uses of Funds • Assessment Income Schedules • Debt Service Schedule • Terms of Proposal DISCUSSION • Proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance various improvement projects within the City. The City has received $638,695 of prepaid special assessments that will be used to reduce the borrowing amount. A detailed sources and uses of funds are shown on page 6. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City secured by its full faith and credit and taxing power. The Bonds will be repaid with special assessments filed against benefited properties. Special assessments totaling $1,103,793 of principal were filed with the County in November 2005 for collection 2006(the"2005 Assessments"), of that amount, $408,940 has been credited for prepayments. The net amount of 2005 Assessments available to pay debt service on the Bonds will therefore be approximately$694,853. Special assessments totaling $952,257 of principal will be filed with the County in November 2006 (the "2006 Assessments"), of that amount, $229,755 has been credited for prepayments. The net amount of 2006 Assessments available to pay debt service on the Bonds will therefore be approximately $722,502. Both 2005 and 2006 Assessments will be spread over a term of 10 years from the date they were filed, and will be repaid on the basis of even annual principal payments. Interest on the unpaid principal balance will be charged at a rate of 6.00%,the rate that has been established by the City. Pages 7 through 9 show the derivation of assessment income pledged to the Bonds. We have structured the Bonds around the P rojected assessment income to result in an even annual surplus of projected assessment income over the debt service requirements. The debt service schedule for the Bonds is shown on page 10 with the following information: • Columns 1 through 5 show the annual principal payment dates, annual principal, estimated interest rates, and the projected total principal and interest payments given the current market environment. Page 4 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota October 17, 2006 • Column 6 shows the 105% ovedevy which is required by State statutes and serves as a protection to • bondholders and the Ci ty q in the event of delinquencies in the collection of assessments. • Column 7 shows the total projected assessment income developed on pages 7 through 9. • Column 8 shows the difference between columns 6 and 7, and represents the City's annual surplus. Based on the projected assessment income, collections from assessments are expected to be sufficient to cover 100%of the debt service including the 105%overly. Therefore,the City will not be required to levy taxes to pay debt service on the Bonds. We appreciate the opportunity to again be of service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Respectfully submitted, SPRINGSTED Incorporated ss • Provided to Staff: Continuing Disclosure Contract Amendments Page 5 $1,460,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota • General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A Sources & Uses Dated 12/15/20061 Delivered 12115/2006 Sources Of Funds ParAmount of Bonds...................................................................................................................................................... $1,460,000.00 2005 Prepaid Assessments............................................................................................................................................ 408,940.26 2006 Prepaid Assessments............................................................................................................................................ 229,754.74 TotalSources................................................................................................................................................................ $2,098,695.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund.............................................................................................................................. 2,056,050.00 Costsof Issuance........................................................................................................................................................... 26,950.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%)........................................................................................................................... 11,680.00 RoundingAmount........................................................................................................................................................... 4,015.00 TotalUses...................................................................................................................................................................... $2,098,695.00 t • Series 2006A /SINGLE KWOSE/ 70/3/2006/ 9:97 PM Springsted Page 6 $1,417,355 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota • General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A-Assessments Combined Assessments - 2005 and 2006 ASSESSMENT INCOME Data Principal Coupon Interest Total P+l 12/31/2005 - - - 12/31/2006 69,485.28 6.000% 48,639.69 118,124.97 12/31/2007 141,735.51 6.000% 88,097.20 229,832.71 12/31/2008 141,735.51 6.000% 72,368.06 214,103.57 12/31/2009 141,735.51 6.000% 63,863.92 205,599.43 12/31/2010 141,735.50 6.000% 55,359.80 197,095.30 12/31/2011 141,735.50 6.000% 46,855.66 188,591.16 12/31/2012 141,735.50 6.000% 38,351.52 180,087.02 12/31/2013 141,735.49 6.000% 29,847.40 171,582.89 12/31/2014 141,735.49 6.000% 21,343.28 163,078.77 12/31/2015 141,735.49 6.000% 12,839.14 154,574.63 12/31/2016 72,250.22 6.000% 4,335.02 76,585.24 Total $1,417,355.00 - $481,900.69 $1,899,255.69 SIGNIFICANT DATES FilingDate......................................................................................................................................................................... 11/01/2005 FirstPayment Date........................................................................................................................................................... 12/31/2006 • Senes 2006,4-Assessment/Issue Sununary/ 10/812006/ 4:47 PM Springsted Page 7 $694,853 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota • General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A-Assessments 2005 Assessments ASSESSMENT INCOME Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 12131/2005 - - - - 12/31/2006 69,485.28 6.000% 48,639.69 118,124.97 12/31/2007 69,485.28 6.000% 37,522.04 107,007.32 12131/2008 69,485.28 6.000% 33,352.94 102,838.22 12/31/2009 69,485.28 6.000% 29,183.82 98,669.10 12/31/2010 69,485.27 6.000% 25,014.70 94,499.97 12/31/2011 69,485.27 6.000% 20,845.58 90,330.85 12/31/2012 69,485.27 6.000% 16,676.46 86,161.73 12/31/2013 69,485.27 6.000% 12,507.34 81,992.61 12/31/2014 69,485.27 6.000% 8,338.24 77,823.51 12/31/2015 69,485.27 6.000% 4,169.12 73,654.39 Total $694,852.74 - $236,249.93 $931,102.67 SIGNIFICANT DATES FilingDate........................................................................................................................................................................... 11/01/2005 FirstPayment Date............................................................................................................................................................. 12131/2006 • • Senes2006A-Assessment/2005Assrssments/ 101312006/ 4:47PM ` Springsted , .,: Page 8 $722,502 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota • General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A- Assessments 2006 Assessments ASSESSMENT INCOME Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 12/3112006 - - - 12/31/2007 72,250.23 6.000% 50,575.16 122,825.39 12/31/2008 72,250.23 6.000% 39,015.12 111,265.35 12/3112009 72,250.23 6.000% 34,680.10 106,930.33 12/31/2010 72,250.23 6.000% 30,345.10 102,595.33 12/31/2011 72,250.23 6.000% 26,010.08 98,260.31 12/31/2012 72,250.23 6.000% 21,675.06 93,925.29 12/31/2013 72,250.22 6.000% 17,340.06 89,590.28 12/31/2014 72,250.22 6.000% 13,005.04 85,255.26 12/31/2015 72,250.22 6.000% 8,670.02 80,920.24 12/31 12016 72,250.22 6.000% 4,335.02 76,585.24 Total $722,502.26 - $245,650.76 $968,153.02 SIGNIFICANT DATES FilingDate........................................................................................................................................................................... 11/01/2006 FirstPayment Date.............................................................................................................................................................. 12/31/2007 • • Series 2006A-Assessment/2006 Assessments/ 10/312006/ 4:47 PM Springsted Page 9 $1,460,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota • General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A NET DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105%of Total Assessment Annual Income Surplus 02/01/2007 - - - - - - - 02/01/2008 260,000.00 3.700% 62,617.04 322,617.04 338,747.89 347,957.68 9,209.79 02/01/2009 150,000.00 3.700% 45,902.50 195,902.50 205,697.63 214,103.57 8,405.95 02/01/2010 150,000.00 3.750% 40,352.50 190,352.50 199,870.13 205,599.43 5,729.31 02/01/2011 145,000.00 3.750% 34,727.50 179,727.50 188,713.88 197,095.30 8,381.43 02/01/2012 145,000.00 3.800% 29,290.00 174,290.00 183,004.50 188,591.16 5,586.66 02/01/2013 140,000.00 3.850% 23,780.00 163,780.00 171,969.00 180,087.02 8,118.02 02101/2014 140,000.00 3.850% 18,390.00 158,390.00 166,309.50 171,582.89 5,273.39 02/01/2015 135,000.00 3.900% 13,000.00 148,000.00 155,400.00 163,078.77 7,678.77 02/01/2016 130,000.00 3.950% 7,735.00 137,735.00 144,621.75 154,574.63 9,952.88 02/01/2017 65,000.00 4.000% 2,600.00 67,600.00 70,980.00 76,585.24 5,605.24 Total $1,460,000.00 - $278,394.54 $1,738,394.54 $1,825,314.27 $1,899,255.69 $73,941.42 SIGNIFICANT DATES Dated..................................................................................................................................................................... 12/15/2006 DeliveryDate.......................................................................................................................................................... 12/?5/2006 FirstCoupon Date.................................................................................................................................................. 8/01/2007 • Yield Statistics BondYear Dollars.................................................................................................................................................. $7,221.56 AverageLife........................................................................................................................................................... 4.946 Years AverageCoupon.................................................................................................................................................... 3.8550495% NetInterest Cost(NIC)........................................................................................................................................... 4.0167875% TrueInterest Cost(TIC)......................................................................................................................................... 4.0350082% BondYield for Arbitrage Purposes......................................................................................................................... 3.8497623% AllInclusive Cost(AIC).......................................................................................................................................... 4.4711641% IRS Form 8038 NetInterest Cost.................................................................................................................................................... 3.8550495% WeightedAverage Maturity.................................................................................................................................... 4.946 Years • Sena 2006A / SWGLBPURPOSE/ 101312006/ 4.-47 PM S ri Cl sted �A P 9 Page 10 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE • ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,460,000 CITY OF BROOKYLN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2006A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Monday, November 27, 2006, until 12:00 Noon, Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the Proposal is submitted. • (a) Sealed Bidding. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223-3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223-3000 or fax (651) 223-3046 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. OR (b) Electronic Bidding. Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARIT . For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY' shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY'. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY' for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY' shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor PARITY® shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid or for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY®. The City is using the services of PARITY' sole) as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITVis not an agent of the City. Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY®, this If any provisions of this e p P Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY®, including any fee 40 charged, may be obtained from: nd Y' PARIT , 1359 Broadway, 2 Floor, New York, New York 10018 Customer Support: (212) 849-5000 Page 11 DETAILS OF THE BONDS • The Bonds will be dated December 15, 2006, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2007. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2008 $260,000 2011 $145,000 2014 $140,000 2016 $130,000 2009 $150,000 2012 $145,000 2015 $135,000 2017 $ 65,000 2010 $150,000 2013 $140,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of$5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. • Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar, which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2015 and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2016. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and • credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition, the City will pledge special assessments against benefited properties. The proceeds will be used to finance various improvement projects within the city. Page 12 TYPE OF PROPOSALS • Proposals shall be for not less than $1,448,320 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $14,600, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement, will be deposited by the City and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD 0 The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i)waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. Page 13 SETTLEMENT • Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bond, the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any . prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement' of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 60 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated October 23, 2006 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Sharon Knutson Clerk • Page 14 • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF$1,460,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2006A A. WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its$1,460,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A(the"Bonds")to finance various improvement projects within the City; and B. WHEREAS,the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota("Springsted"),as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota,as follows: 1. Authorization;Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to solicit bids for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds. 2. Meeting Bid Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed bids for,and awarding the sale of,the Bonds. The Manager or his designee,shall open bids at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal. 3. Terms of Prolosal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the"Terms of Proposal"attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof. 4. Official Statement. In connection with said competitive negotiated sale,the Manager and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds,and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and,after a full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: and the followin g against ainst the same: . Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • EXHIBIT A THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,460,000 CITY OF BROOKYLN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2006A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Monday,November 27, 2006, until 12:00 Noon, Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the • time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the Proposal is submitted. (a) Sealed Bidding. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223 3046 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223 3000 or fax (651) 223 3046 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. OR (b) Electronic Bidding.Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITY& For purposes of the electronic bidding process,the time as maintained by PARITY® shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY®. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY® for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY® shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor PARITY® shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid or for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY& The City is using the services of PARITY® solely as a . communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY® is not an agent of the City. 1955075v l A-1 • If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY®, this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY®, including any fee charged, may be obtained from: PARITY®, 1359 Broadway, 2nd Floor,New York,New York 10018 Customer Support: (212) 849-5000 DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated December 15, 2006, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2007. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2008 $260,000 2011 $1455000 2014 $1405000 2016 $130,000 2009 $150,000 2012 $145,000 2015 $135,000 2017 $ 65,000 2010 $150,000 2013 $140,000 Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above. In order to designate term bonds,the proposal must specify"Years of • Term Maturities"in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year,will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company("DTC"), New York,New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of$5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC;transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar,which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. 1955075vl A-2 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION • The City may elect on February 1, 2015 and on any day thereafter,to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2016. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition,the City will pledge special assessments against benefited properties. The proceeds will be used to finance various improvement projects within the city. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $1,448,320 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of$14,600,payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety • Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time,the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The Deposit received from the purchaser,the amount of which will be deducted at settlement, will be deposited by the City and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 51100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost(TIC)basis. The City computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in • accordance with customary practice,will be controlling. 1955075vl A-3 �L • The City will reserve the right to: (i)waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and(iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers • shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser through DTC in New York,New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents,the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bond,the City will execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking(the "Undertaking") whereunder the City will covenant for the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and required by SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5). • 1955075v 1 A-4 • OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101,telephone (651) 223 3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates,principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a"Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 60 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. • Dated October 23, 2006 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/Sharon Knutson Clerk • 1955075v1 A-5 City Council Agenda Item No'. Of i • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, Cit^?ger DATE: October 19, 2006 SUBJECT: Third Quarter Report of Part 1 Crimes, Calls for Service and Code Enforcement Activity Background: The Police Chief will be the City Council Meeting to provide the City Council with an update regarding, Third quarter Part 1 Crimes, Calls for Service and Year to date update of Code Enforcement Activities for your information. The Chief will have power point presentation at the meeting. • C: Scott Bechthold GACity Manager\codeenforcement.council.mem.doc • C,TY O BROOKLYN CENTER PYYPYLYP t16 i` • POLICE DEPARTMENT MN MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Code Enforcement Team DATE: September 30, 2006 SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Report I. Current Status of Sweep: As of September 30, 2006, all inspections for residential properties and commercial properties are complete. The team is now focusing on repeat offenders, new complaints, and unlicensed vehicles in the apartment parking lots. II. Staffing: NLO team • A total of 670 NLO hours and 310 Cadet hours have been dedicated to residential code enforcement. We have one full-time Neighborhood Liaison Officer and two part-time Cadets working towards code enforcement. • • Since May 1St there were 982 code enforcement complaints received and 100% of those calls were investigated. Of those calls, 137 complaints were found to be in compliance with all codes at the time of inspection. The remaining 845 calls had either already been acted upon by the team, were already called in by another citizen, or were confirmed by an inspection. This accounts for nearly 449 hours of staff time to deal with just these complaints. III. Enforcement A. Number of 10 day Warning Violations Issued during the Summer Sweep by Type: Summer Sweep Activity (May 1, 2006— September 22, 2006) Garbage Storage/Removal 144 Accum/of Rubbish/Brush/Debris 88 Accum. Of Junk/Furniture/Appli. 192 Storage of Commercial Vehicles 4 Illegal Parking/Storage of Vehicles 57 Unlicensed/Inoperable Vehicles 220 Fences 22 Driveway Repairs 1 Miscellaneous (14 Days) 2 Miscellaneous (30 Days) 6 Water Restrictions 95 . Total Number of Violations: 831 Notable comparison: • (During this same time frame in 2005 there were 6161"letters sent) B. Misdemeanor Citations issued for Non-Compliant Code Violations: Year to Date (January 1, 2006—September 22, 2006) • • Unlicensed/Inoperable 220 • Garbage Storage/Removal 21 • Illegal Parking 52 • Accum. Junk/Furniture/Appliance 39 • Accum. Rubbish/Brush/Debris 19 • Illegal Parking (Commercial) 4 • Fences 4 • No House Numbers 2 • Driveway Repairs 1 Total 362 Formal Complaints Issued 1 Notable comparison: • Over the same time frame during 2005, a total of 20 citations were written. 2006 Problem Properties updates: Sector One (1) 5525 James—in compliance 5625 Fremont—in compliance 5548 Lilac—in compliance • 53234 th—in compliance 6001 Dupont—in compliance 5712 Logan—in compliance 5315 Humboldt—in compliance 5422 Humboldt—in compliance 5337 Lyndale—in compliance 5535 Colfax—in compliance 5421 Fremont—in compliance 5408 Humboldt—in compliance 5527 Humboldt—in compliance 5606 Humboldt—in compliance 5612 Irving—in compliance 5302 Emerson—cited on 7/27/06 and 9/29/06 driveway repair 5732 Knox—in compliance 5331 Morgan—in compliance 5650 Fremont—Community Development 5603 James—Community Development Sector Two (2) 1112 Emerson Lane—in compliance 7000 Oliver- in compliance 6645 Bryant- in compliance 6926 West River Rd - in compliance 6842 West River Rd—in compliance 1600 69TH AVE N— in compliance 6856 WEST RIVER RD - in compliance 6856 WILLOW LANE—in compliance Sector Three (3) 6943 Palmer Lake Drive - in compliance • 6707 Scott- in compliance 6719 Toledo - in compliance 6737 Regent- in compliance 6830 Perry - in compliance 6318 Unity- in compliance 4106 71St—in compliance 3715 69TH AVE N - in compliance 3955 69TH AVE N - in compliance 4600 69TH AVE N—in compliance 483171 ST AVE N - in compliance 652') UNITY AVE N - in compliance 7001 Drew Ave—in compliance 3701 69TH AVE N—in compliance 6600 Unity Ave—in compliance 7030 Regent—warrant issued for owner's arrest(garbage/storage) Sector Four(4) 6136 BB - in compliance 4806 Twin Lake Ave - in compliance 3318 Mumford- in compliance 3613 55th—in compliance 5655 BB—in compliance • 3300 63RD AVE N - in compliance 5907 YORK AVE N - in compliance 292653 d—in compliance 5912 June—in compliance 5406 Sailor Lane—4/1')/06 and 8/21/06(fence repair) Extensions: No extensions have been granted for code issues. C. Parking Enforcement From June 28t"to present there were 379 parking citations issued for the third phase of the parking initiative. This effort used Community Service Officers assigned to the 2:00am- 3:30am hours specifically assigned to overtime parking as well as green strip parking violations. This brings a total of 774 petty misdemeanor citations issued from the parking enforcement since the May I"start date of the summer sweep. D. Success Stories • 6318 Unity Avenue—since 2000,this property has been in violation of city ordinances 22 times. The owners have been warned and cited continuously throughout the years, but the • problems returned. By using a more aggressive approach to these problems and prosecuting the owner in court,the property is now in full compliance with city ordinances. • 5422 Humboldt Avenue— Since 2000,this property has been in violation of city ordinances 17 times. The owners have been warned and cited continuously throughout the years, but the problems returned. By using a more aggressive approach to these problems and prosecuting the owner in court,the property is now in full compliance with city ordinances. • 5337 Lyndale Avenue—Since 2004,the owner of this property was operating a car dealership business from his back yard. The property had numerous inoperable/unlicensed • vehicles throughout the yard and was a disturbance to the neighborhood. Through neighbor involvement, aggressive enforcement and action taken in court by the city prosecuting attorney, the property is now in compliance with city ordinances. • 67XX Colfax—This property has never had a code violation, but the property suffered extensive damage due to the storm that occurred in September, 2005. The biggest concern was a very large pine tree that was partially uprooted and leaning into the neighbor's power lines. The neighbor was concerned that the power lines would break and the tree would fall onto his house. The owner expressed that she wanted to do something about it immediately,but she did not have the resources to handle this big of a project. Excel Energy placed the property on an inspection list, but did not anticipate addressing the matter for several weeks. NLO Bald was able to refer the homeowner for financial assistance. The referral was granted and plans were made to help fund for a contractor. Before the plan could be finalized,NLO Bald also contacted Excel Energy again and convinced them to assist in the removal of the tree. IV Complaints ;rass/weed At the onset of the 2006 Summer Sweep,the largest portion of complaints involved long issues. These complaints were handled by the Engineering Department for follow-up. As of 9/22/06 Engineering has sent out 557 notices to 453 properties. They also sent in a contractor to cut 77 properties and the property owners have been invoiced for those services. The total amount • invoiced as of 9/22/06 is $10,502.32. In addition, 58 property owners have been invoiced $100.00 each for an inspection service charge because of a second violation. • The second most common complaint is still illegally parked vehicles (parked on the grass) and unlicensed/inoperable vehicles. We have been issuing citations immediately for these violations. A large number of the vehicle parking violations are those that are inoperable and parked on the grass. In those cases, the charge will be listed as inoperable vehicle in this report. City Council Agenda Item No. lOg • Memorandum Date: 18 October 2006 To: Curt Boganey City Manager From: Daniel ]ordet Director of Fiscal & Support Services Re: Financial Policies Investment Policies In preparing to make some investments last spring, staff discovered a discrepancy in practice between past investments and existing City Council policy. The discrepancy is in the purchase of mortgage backed agency securities issued by agencies of the United States government. These types of securities were purchased for several years and, indeed, the City had a varied portfolio of agency securities when I arrived in 2004. After discovering this discrepancy I • allowed all agency securities in our portfolio to mature and placed the proceeds in the 4M and 4M Plus funds for investment purposes. After making our audit firm aware of the discrepancy the City was cited for the agency investments in the 2005 audit management letter although the practice had been carried on for several prior years. Agency securities produce higher yields than the 4M and 4M Plus funds, higher yields than bank certificates of deposit, and provide more safety than corporate commercial paper, an investment allowed under the current investment policy. They are allowed by Minnesota Statutes section 118A which governs investments of funds by government entities. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) includes agency securities as allowable investments in their model policy. The League of Minnesota Cities research paper on Deposits and Investments includes agency securities in the allowable investment types it lists. The Cities of Shakopee and Minneapolis, whose Investment Policies were reviewed in my research, allow government agency securities as proper investments. The City Council policy on investments specifically excludes ANY mortgage backed security. Most of the government agency securities are mortgage based securities. Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), and Federal Home Loan Mortgage • Corporation (Freddie Mac) are all government agencies involved in mortgages. However, they are allowed as safe investments by many investment policies, as 1 • well as by State law. Therefore, I am recommending that the City Council's Investment Policy be amended to remove the restrictions on mortgage.backed securities which are issued as Federal Agency securities. Other changes proposed in the policy review are as follows: • The schedule for requesting RFP's for professional services needs to be reconfigures as the current schedule only shows activity through 2005. • The "prudent person standard" for investments is further defined as Section 118A of Minnesota Statutes. • References to the Adequate General Fund Balance Formula have been revised to the General Fund Reserve Policy to conform with the existing City Council policy. • Projections for Enterprise Funds are expanded to five years from three years both to conform with current practice and to provide more responsible financial planning. • Tax increment revenues are classified, as per State classification, as a • non-property tax revenue source for bonding purposes. • Property assessment updates have been changed from at least every four years to at least every five years to conform to new county and State regulations. • Several semantic modifications have been incorporated to make the policies easier to understand and interpret. The Financial Commission reviewed the revised policies at their 19 September 2006 meeting and recommended them to the City Council for adoption. The City Council subsequently reviewed the revised policies at a working session following the regular City Council meeting on 9 October 2006. Attached to this memorandum are the redlined Financial Policies with all changes highlighted and noted as proposed for insertion into the City Council Policies. A resolution adopting the proposed revisions of the Financial Policies is attached for City Council consideration along with Exhibit I, a copy of the Financial Policies as they would be adopted (without redline notations). 2 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies • 2.21 Financial Management Policies 1. Purpose The City of Brooklyn Center has a responsibility to its citizens to carefully account for public funds,to manage municipal finances wisely,and to plan the adequate funding of services desired by the public,including the provision and maintenance of public facilities. The City also has the responsibility to its citizens to provide both short-term and long-term future financial stability. The City must ensure that it is capable of adequately funding and providing local government services needed by the community. Further,the financial policies set forth herein,provide the basic framework for the overall fiscal management of the City. Operating independently of changing circumstances and conditions,these policies assist the decision making process of the City Council and Administration. Most of the policies represent long-standing principles,traditions and practices which have guided the City in the past and have helped maintain financial stability over the past years. The financial policies will be reviewed periodically to ascertain if modifications are necessary. 2. Objectives In order to achieve this purpose,this plan has the following objectives for the City's fiscal performance: A. To protect the City Council's policy-making ability by ensuring that important policy decisions are not controlled by financial problems or emergencies and to prevent financial difficulties. • B. To provide sound principles to guide the important decisions of the City Council and of management which have significant fiscal impact and to enhance the City Council's policy-making ability by providing accurate information on program costs. C. To set forth operational principles which �e control the cost of local _ .- Formatted:strikethrough government,to the extent consistent with services desired by the public and which lower financial risk.. _........_....__.___......_._.._.__...._ . {Formatted:strikethrough D. To employ revenue policies whichpreven n i ate undue or unbalanced reliance _... Formatted:strikethrough on certain revenues, especially property taxes; which distribute the costs of municipal services fairly; and which provide adequate funds to operate desired program and assist sound management of the city government by providing accurate and timely information on financial conditions. E. To provide essential public facilities and prevent deterioration of the City's public facilities and its capital plant. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 223 3 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies F. To protect and enhance the City's credit rating and prevent default on any • municipal debts. G. To ensure the legal use and protection of all City funds through a quality system of financial and internal controls. H. The City will maintain a Risk Management Program that will minimize the impact of legal liabilities,natural disasters or other emergencies. 3. Financial Management Policies A. Capital Improvement Budget Policies 1. The City will make all capital improvements in accordance with an adopted Capital Improv ement Budget. 2. The City will develop a multi-year plan for capital improvements and update it at least biennially. 3. The City will`gin adopt the annual Capital_ lmFro ements Budget .. lFormatted:strikethrough based on the multi-year capital improvement plan. Future capital expenditures necessitated by changes in population, changes in real estate development,or changes in economic base will be calculated and included in Capital Budget projections. 4. The City will coordinate development of the Capital Improvement Budget operating with the development of the operating budget. F uture p erati g costs associated with new capital improvements will be projected and included • in operating budget forecasts. 5. The City will use intergovernmental assistance to finance only those capital improvements, which are consistent with the adopted capital Deleted:; improvement plan and City priorities and for which operating and maintenance costs have been included in operating budget forecasts. 6. The City will project its equipment replacement and maintenance needs for the next several years and will update this projection each year. From this projection,a maintenance and replacement schedule will be developed and followed. 7. The City staff will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources•for each capital project propos al before it is submitted to the City Council for approval. 8. The City will determine the least costly financing method over the length of all new projects. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 224 i 4 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies • B. Revenue Policies 1. The City will attempt to maintain a diversified and stable revenue system to shelter it from short-run fluctuations in any one revenue source and to minimize property taxes. 2. The City will estimate its annual revenue by an objective conservative analytical process. 3. The City will project revenues for the next three years and will update this projection annually. Each existing and potential revenue source will be reexamined annually. 4. The City will maintain sound appraisal procedures to keep property values correct. Property will be assessed at the legally mandated market value for each type of property. Reassessments will be made of all property at least every, i3�e ears. Formatted:Strikethrough 5. The City will follow an,aggeessive assertive policy of collecting property 1 Formatted:Strikethrough tax revenues. The annual level of uncollected property taxes should generally not exceed two percent. 6. Each year the City will recalculate the full costs of activities supported by user fees to identify the impact of inflation and other cost increases. 7. The City staff will recommend revised user fees with review by the City Council on an annual bas' to ad ust for '"'"° eff-ee`ts o cost factors and Deleted:e _......_._....._._.............................. - -------j - - - - inflation on the City's cost of providing services. Formatted:Strikethrough • 8. The City will set fees and user charges for each Enterprise Fund, such as Water and Sewer, at a level which fully supports the total direct and indirect costs of the activity. Indirect costs include the cost of annual depreciation of capital assets. 9. `x'�.,",° °oeF(l charges and fees are determined to be appropriate-for City Formatted:Strikethrough services, these.ehaFge° and F°S will generally be established at a level { Deleted: which will recover the full cost of providing the service, including j Formatted:Strikethrough _...._._.__.._...._...__...__....__........_.. .......__. administrative costs. Formatted:Strikethrough C. Debt Policies 1. The City will confine long-term borrowing to capital improvements or projects which cannot be financed from current revenues. 2. When the City finances capital projects by issuing bonds, it will pay back the bonds within a period not to exceed the expected useful life of the project. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 225 • 5 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies 3. On all projects, at least 50% of the principal shall be retired within ten years. 4. The City will make every attempt to keep the average maturity of General Obligation Bonds at or below 20 years. 5. Total debt service pavmentsfor General Obligation debt will not exceed five percent of total annual locally generated operating revenue in the general,special revenue,and proprietary funds. 6. Total outstanding General Obligation debt will not exceed two percent of the market valuation of taxable property. 7. Where possible, the City will use special assessment, revenue or other self-supporting bonds instead of General Obligation Bonds. 8. The City will not incur debt to support current operations. 9. The City will maintain good communications with bond rating agencies regarding its financial condition. The City will follow a policy of full disclosure in every financial report, official statement and bond prospectus. 10. Direct net-debt (gross debt less debt fully supported by non-property tax revenues)per capita shall not exceed$600 per capita. 11. The City will require Minimum Assessment (Taxable Valuation) Agreements on all projects in which the City is providing development assistance through tax increment financing or committing its bonding • authority. This will ensure minimal cash flow (increment) to repay obligations, provide another level of review before commitment (by the City Assessor), and to the minimal value agreed upon, eliminate tax appeals during the agreement period. 12 For purposes of this section tax increment revenues are classified as a non-oroperty tax revenue source D. Reserve Policies 1. The City shall manage its cash flow needs by having a target unreserved and undesignated General Fund balance at the close of each fiscal year equal--te-beteei _of-50 jaT to 52% of the next_year's_ General Fund {Formatted:so-�kecn�ou9n equal budget. {Formatted:strikethrough 2. Undesignated General Fund monies that are not required for cash flow purposes may be transferred into other funds as may be appropriate or needed during the fiscal year. It is specifically anticipated that transfers City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 226 • 6 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies • will be made to the Street Reconstruction Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, and the Technology Fund when operating results generate a surplus of actual revenues over actual expenditures to serve as a recurring source of funding for those three funds. r _._....._.__........_.__...._., LDeleted:------Page Break------ ..._...-.............._..........._.----------..........._....-_.....__- E. Investment Policies 1. The City will make cash flow analysis of all funds on a regular basis. Disbursement, collection and deposit of all funds will be scheduled to ensure maximum cash availability. 2. When permitted by law, the City will pool cash from several different funds for investment purposes. 3. The City will invest at least 98%of its idle cash on a continuous basis. 4. The City will analyze market conditions and investment securities to determine what yield can be obtained, and attempt to secure the best possible return on all cash investments. 5. The City's accounting system will provide regular information concerning cash position and investment performance. 6. The City will maintain a formal written investment policy which will contain legal and administrative guidelines necessary to ensure that the City's available funds will be invested to the maximum extent possible, at the highest rates obtainable at the time of the investment, consistent with minimizing credit and market risk and which provides proper safeguards • for the keeping of the City's investments. F. Accounting,Auditing and Financial Reporting Policies 1. The City will establish and maintain a high standard of accounting practices in conformance with generally accepted accountin Iincipals. 2. The accounting system will maintain records on a basis consistent with _ ....--_.-.____.__.,......._.-_...___.-__..___.__- ^a F^a Formatted Stnkethrough accepted standards for local government accounting using � F_.. t__.___..__,....._... aeerual CASB 34 as the basis of accounting for all governmental funds and an accrual basis of accounting for Enterprise and Internal Service Funds. Accounting policies will reflect the principle of charging current taxpayers and/or users for the full cost of providing current services. 3. Regular monthly and annual financial reports will present a summary of financial activity by major types of funds as determined by the prior v ear's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 227 • 7 SECTION II-GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies 4. Where possible,the reporting system will provide monthly information on the total cost of specified services by type of expenditure and,if necessary, by fund. 5. An independent public accounting firm will perform an annual audit and will publicly issue an opinion concerning the City's finances. G. Risk Mana ement Policies {Deleted:------Page Break----- 1. The City will maintain a Risk Management Program that will minimize the impact of legal liabilities, natural disasters or other emergencies through the following activities: a. Loss Prevention. Prevent negative occurrences. b. Loss Control. Reduce or mitigate expenses of a negative occurrence. C. Loss Financing. Provide a means to finance losses. d. Loss Information Management. Collect and analyze relevant data to make prudent loss prevention, loss control and loss financing decisions. 2. The City's Risk Management Program will: a. Analyze all the City's risks. b. Avoid risks whenever possible. C. Reduce risks whenever possible. d. Transfer risks to other entities when possible. e. Of those risks that must be retained,it shall be the City's policy to fund risks which the City can afford and transfer all other risks to insurers. 3. The City will maintain an active Safety Committee comprised of City employees. 4. The City will periodically conduct educational safety and risk avoidance programs, through its Safety Committee and with the participation of its insurers,within its various departments. 5. The Safety Committee will report to the City Manager, at least annually, on the results and costs of the City's Risk Management Program for the preceding year. The City Manager shall report annually to the City Council. H. Operating Budget Policies 1. In accordance with Chapter 7, Section 7.06 of the City Charter, the total sum appropriated in the General Fund annual budget shall be equal to the City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 228 • 8 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies total estimated General Fund revenue and the a1� flocated General Fund f ........,Formatted:Strikethrough • balance. 2. The City will pay for all current expenditures with current revenues. The City will avoid budgetary procedures that balance current expenditures at the expense of meeting future year's revenues, or rolling over short-term debt, or that rely on accumulated fund balances to meet current obligations. 3. The City will annually appropriate a contingency appropriation in the General Fund budget, not to exceed five percent of the total budget, to provide for unanticipated expenditure of a non-recurring nature. 4. The City Manager, when submitting the Proposed Budget to the City Council, shall submit a balanced General Fund budget in which appropriations shall not exceed the total of the estimated General Fund revenue and the any fund balance i Formatted:Strikethrough Gnefcc,zu xnc....,....».» rUprlated by t11G CItV C;OUIIC(1. Formatted:Strikethrough 5. Prior to adopting the General Fund Annual Budget,the City Council shall review the Reserve Policy. 1 Formatted:Strikethrough Formatted:Strikethrough 6. In the event that there is a shortfall of revenues in a current year budget, the City Manager may recommend the use of a portion of the General Fund balance not to exceed the amount available after deducting amounts reserved for items not readily convertible to cash or reserved for working _ capita] Formatted:Strikethrough ------- - —_.. shown en is fnest reeent -� uresccsvtrJrcew] ... znc ..t ....»...,... 7. The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of the capital plant and equipment,and for their orderly replacement. 8. The budget will provide for adequate funding of all retirement systems. 9. The City will maintain a budgetary control system to assist in adhering to the budget. 10. The City administration will prepare regular monthly reports comparing actual revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amount. 11. Each year the City will update expenditure projections for its Enterprise Funds for at ]cast the}� ��;rte ensuing years. Projections will j Formatted:strkethrough ° include estimated operating costs of future capital improvements included in the Capital Budget. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 229 • 9 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies 12. The Operating Budget will describe the major goals to be achieved, and the services and programs to be delivered level of funding for the g provided. 13. Where possible, the City will integrate performance measurement and productivity indicators with the budget. X14. Enterprise funds shall be budgeted to have positive net income plus a Deieteac ----- Page Break------j sufficient margin to provide for replacement cost of property, plant, and equipment. I. Ethics Policy The City will maintain,and periodically review,a formal written ethics policy for all City employees and elected officials. J. Role of Auditors The City's independent auditors shall be required,in the course of their audit,in _. the f tffl content of their Management Letter,to report any conditions that appear 1.Formatted:strikethrough to be violations of our financial management policy. ,Deleted m Deleted:I Reference: City Council Resolution Nos. 2004-189; 99-21; 98-48; City Council Minutes 5/22/95;6/8/92;2/26/90; 12/22/80 i City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 230 i 10 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies • 2.22 Investment Policy 1. Scope This investment policy applies to all of the investment activities of the City, except for the t D*rred c ocic�u+v ^r" "F" ' '.the proceeds of refunding bond Formatted:striketnrougn issues where the investment of such proceeds is specifically governed by the bond escrow agreement. 2. Objective A. Safety Formatted:Striketh rou h Safety principal is the foremost objective of the investment program._ - Form _ g ---- - --- _. Investments shall be�gndeFWEen in a manner that�Seeks to ensures the preservation Formatted:striketnmugn _. . of capital in the overall portfolio. ter-e normat t rough interest rate risk. Formatted:Strikethrough 1. Credit Risk Credit risk is the risk of loss due to failure of the security issuer or backer. Credit risk may be mitigated by: a. Limiting investments to the safest types of securities;and b. Pre-qualifying the financial institution, broker/dealer, intermediaries, and advisors with which an entity will do business; and • C. Diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will be minimized. 2. Interest Rate Risk Interest rate risk is the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general interest rate. Interest rate risk may be mitigated by: a. Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities on the open market prior to maturity;and b. By investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 231 • 11 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies • B. Liquidity The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to me et all operating g requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands. Furthermore, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio should contain a large component of securities with active secondary or resale markets. C. Yield The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Return on investment is of least importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described .................................................... above. The,;ore of investments is limited to relatively low_risk securities in -..- Deleted:core of investments are - -------- - --------------------------- - _...............---.......-.......-....................................................... anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being assumed. Securities shall be held to maturity with the following exceptions: I. Liquidity needs of the portfolio require that the security be sold. 2. A security of declining credit could be sold early to minimize loss of principal. D. Stable Earnings Since investment earnings are included in the,budgeted revenues of the City, it is important that these earnings be stable and predictable through at least the next ....._................ budget cycle. Thispeipts1e emphasizes the need to purchase securities of various Formatted:strikethrough ..------------------- �_-.--._ J maturities so that at least half of the portfolio will remain for two or more years with known interest rates. 3. Standards of Care A. Prudence The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the prudent _ person standard described in Minnesota Statutes Chaper 1 BA. It tivill be applied {Deleted:and shall in the context of managingt the_overall - portfolio. Investment officials- -acting-in--,.. Formatted:strikethrough _ - --------------- ------ --- ------- accordance with this policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the purchase and sale of securities are carried out in accordance with the terms of the policy. Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing,which persons of prudence,discretion and intelligence exercise in the City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 232 12 i SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies management of ;n. r—qi� the City's affairs, not for speculation but for {Formatted:Strikethrough investment,considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived. B. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest Officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment program,or that could impair their ability to make impartial decisions. Officials shall disclose any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business. They shall further disclose any personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Officials shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business in conducted on behalf of the City. C. Delegation of Authority Authority to manage the investment program is derived from Minnesota State Statutes,Chapter 118A and Brooklyn Center City Charter Chapter 6, Section 6.04 and is granted to the City Manager, City Treasurer, and Assistant Gk)' reef - {Formatted:Strikethrough _ Finance Director. Responsibility for the operation of the investment program may be delegated by the City Manager to the City Treasurer, who shall carry out the program consistent with this policy. No person may engage in any investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy. The City Treasurer shall be responsible to the City Manager for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the execution of all investment transactions. • D. Training To ensure the competence of its investment officials, the City shall provide the opportunity for the officials to attend such investment training programs as are available and suitable. 4. Safekeeping and Custody A. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions A resolution shall be submitted to the City Council at least annually to designate depositories of City funds. This shall include institutions and dealers/brokers where accounts are maintained for banking services, purchase and sale of investment securities,and the custody of securities. The City Treasurer shall provide to each broker or institution a written statement of investment restrictions which shall include a provision that all future investments are to be made in accordance with Minnesota Statutes governing the City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 233 • 13 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies • investment of public funds,prior to completing an initial transaction,and annually thereafter. An annual review of the depositories shall be conducted by the City Treasurer. {Deleted: ------Page Break --- Requests for Proposals for banking services and custodian for investment securities shall be conducted on a periodic basis as defined in the Policy and Procedure on Requests for Proposals for Financial Professional Services. B. Internal Controls The City Treasurer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss,theft, or misuse. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. Internal controls shall include the following: I. Control of Collusion. Collusion is a situation where two or more employees are working in conjunction to defraud their employer. 2. Custodial safekeeping. Securities purchased from any bank or dealer shall be placed with an independent third party for custodial safekeeping or held in an account with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. 3. Avoidance of physical delivery securities. Book entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place. Delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physical delivered securities. 4. Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members. Officials must have a clear understanding of their authority and responsibilities to avoid improper actions. Clear delegation of authority also preserves the internal control structure. 5. Written confirmation of telephone transactions for investments and wire transfers. Due to the potential for errors and improprieties arising from telephone transactions, all transactions should be supported by written communications and approved by the appropriate official. Written communications may be via fax on letterhead. Institutions and brokers/dealers shall be provided with a list of authorized signers. 6. Development of a wire transfer agreement with institutions and brokers/dealers. This agreement should outline the various controls, security provisions, and delineate responsibilities of each party making and receiving wire transfers. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 234 • 14 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies • 7. Independent Audit. The City's independent auditors shall conduct a thorough review of the City's investment portfolio and transactions as part of their engagement. C. Delivery Verses Payment All trades where applicable will be executed by delivery verses payment(DVP). This ensures that securities are deposited in the eligible financial institution prior to the release of funds. Securities will be held by a third party custodian. 5. Suitable and Authorized Investments A. Investment Types Consistent with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A,the following investments will be permitted by this policy: 1. Securities that are the direct obligations or are guaranteed or insured issues of the United States, its agencies, its instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act of Congress; including governmental bills,notes,bonds, and other securities. 2. Commercial paper issued by U.S. corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries that is rated in the highest quality by at least two nationally recognized rating agencies and matures in 270 days or less. 3. Time deposits that are fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or bankers acceptances of U.S.banks. 4. Repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements may be entered into with financial institutions identified by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. 5. Securities lending agreements may be entered into with financial institutions identified by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1 IBA. 6. Minnesota joint powers investment trusts may be entered into with trusts identified by Minnesota Statutes Chapter I I8A. 7. Money market mutual funds regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and whose portfolios consist only of short term securities permitted by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. 8. Bonds of the City of Brooklyn Center issued in prior years, may be redeemed at current market price,which may include a premium, prior to maturity using surplus funds of the debt service fund set up for that issue. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 235 • 15 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies Such repurchased bonds shall be canceled and removed form the obligation of the fund. B. Securities Not Purchased Derivative securities, which obtain their value by the calculation of some portion of the value of another security, shall not be purchased. Mortgage backed e...�.. :F :«.....-„A securities, unless issued by a Federal Agency, .shall not be .,.- �Formatted:striketnrougn purchased. Securities,which represent the principal or interest payments stripped off from an original issue security,shall not be purchased. C. Collateral ization To the extent that deposits in bank accounts, certificates of deposit, and repurchase agreements exceed the available federal deposit insurance, collateral shall be furnished by the financial institution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. D. Maximum Maturities When purchasing investments,the Treasurer will attempt to match the maturity to future cash flow requirements. The City will not invest in securities maturing more than,"fi�ears from the date of purchase. No more than ten percent of_ Formatted:strikethrough__ the City's portfolio at any time shall be invested in securities with maturities of more than€rve three ears' Formatted:Strikethrough - ----- ------------------....------------------------------...---------... ---- -' 6. Reporting A. The City Treasurer shall prepare a monthly investment report to the City Manager . which shall include a succinct management summary; a list of significant transactions such as purchases, sales, and maturities of investments; a list of investments by type, a list of investments by maturity, a calculation of average yield on the portfolio, and a statement of interest earned. This report will be prepared in a manner which will allow the City Manager to ascertain whether investment activities during the month have conformed to the investment policy. B. A statement of the market value of the portfolio shall be issued at least annually. This will review the investment portfolio in terms of value and subsequent price volatility. Reference: City Council Resolution Nos.97-60;90-105 City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 236 • 16 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies • SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICIES 2.80 Policy and Procedure on Requests for Proposals for Financial Professional Services 1. Need for Policy The City needs a policy and procedure to provide for the orderly conduct of requesting proposals for professional services for handling financial affairs, to ensure that all services will be periodically reviewed, and that the proper balance will be maintained between cost and quality of services. 2. Policy A. All professional services agreements in the area of City finance will periodically be subject to a request for proposals (RFPs) process according to an established schedule. B. Service levels will be monitored by the City Council and Staff and if unsatisfactory service is received, that contract may be re-advertised prior to the year set in the schedule. C. Quality of service will be the primary factor in awarding a contract for professional service,but cost will also be a determinant. 3. Procedure A. A schedule shall be established for the conduct of RFPs. The schedule should be adhered to unless there is a performance problem or other justification for an • earlier RFP. Going to the market too frequently with RFPs expends staff time, requires extensive orientation of new professionals, and discourages quality firms from submitting proposals at their most attractive price if they expect to have the contract for only a short time. B. Specifications tailored to the professional service to be advertised will be prepared b staff, reviewed by the Financial Commission, and approved by the p Y City Council. C. A review committee made up Y of the City Manager and Finance Director shall i review proposals for Banking Services, Insurance Agent, Risk Management Consultant, and Custodian for Investment Securities. Proposals for Auditor and Financial Advisor shall be initially screened by staff, and then reviewed by a committee of City Council Members and Financial Commission Members appointed by the Mayor in consultation with the Chair of the Financial Commission, with the approval of the City Council, which committee shall also include the City Manager and Finance Director. City f o Broakl Y n Center 08/14/06 Page 26 2 17 SECTION II—GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies D. The specifications will emphasize the abilities, qualifications, and experience of • the applicant firms to provide high quality service to the City. Price will be considered after one or more applicants have been identified as providing the desired quality of service. When appropriate,the specification shall require prices to be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope to be opened after applicants have been ranked according to quality. E. The City Manager shall make a recommendation tot eh City Council of a provider to be appointed to a multi-year engagement. It shall be written in the engagement that the appointment may be terminated earlier. Reference: City Council Resolution Nos.2000-120;99-20;City Council Minutes 5/28/96 ofery Financial Banking Insurance Risk; Custodian for Auditor Advisor for Services Agent Management Investment Bond Sales Consultant Securities b@• � 6 ears 6 ears 6 ears 6 ears 6 ears 6 ears n� 2004 2002 2003 2003 1998 2002' a s' RFP 207 RFP RFP • 0 RFP 2t1f#?" RFP V86114-2U21 RFP 2Q RFP RFP Q .F " RFP 2tf5 _ v RFP 111 RFP RFP Awarded to Deloite Touche who subsequently withdrew after the FY 2001 audit. Balance of engagement awarded to HLB Tautges Redpath for FY 2002-FY 2006. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 263 • 18 • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE FINANCIAL POLICIES SECTION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL CODE OF POLICIES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted a Code of Policies on August 14, 2006; and WHEREAS, revisions to the Sections 2.21 Financial Management Policies, 2.22 Investment Policy and 2.80 Policy and Procedure on Requests for Proposals for Financial Professional Services were proposed by staff, reviewed by the Financial Commission*and recommended to the City Council for adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed said revisions at a working session of the City Council on October 9, 2006; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the revised Sections 2.21, 2.22 and 2.80 attached hereto as Exhibit I and • recommended for incorporation into the Code of Policies by the Financial Commission be and hereby are adopted. October 23, 2006 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. • EXHIBIT I • 2.21 Financial Management Policies 1. Purpose The City of Brooklyn Center has a responsibility to its citizens to carefully account for public funds,to manage municipal finances wisely, and to plan the adequate funding of services desired by the public, including the provision and maintenance of public facilities. The City also has the responsibility to its citizens to provide both short-term and long-term future financial stability. The City must ensure that it is capable of adequately funding and providing local government services needed by the community. Further, the financial policies set forth herein,provide the basic framework for the overall fiscal management of the City. Operating independently of changing circumstances and conditions,these policies assist the decision making process of the City Council and Administration. Most of the policies represent long-standing principles,traditions and practices which have guided the City in the past and have helped maintain financial stability over the past years. The financial policies will be reviewed periodically to ascertain if modifications are necessary. 2. Objectives In order to achieve this purpose,this plan has the following objectives for the City's fiscal performance: A. To protect the City Council's policy-making ability by ensuring that important policy decisions are not controlled by financial problems or emergencies and to prevent financial difficulties. B. To provide sound principles to guide the important decisions of the City Council and of management which have significant fiscal impact and to enhance the City Council's policy-making ability by providing accurate information on program costs. C. To set forth operational principles which control the cost of local government, to the extent consistent with services desired by the public and which lower financial risk. D. To employ revenue policies which mitigate undue or unbalanced reliance on certain revenues, especially property taxes; which distribute the costs of municipal services fairly; and which provide adequate funds to operate desired program and assist sound management of the city government by providing accurate and timely information on financial conditions. E. To provide essential public facilities and prevent deterioration of the City's public facilities and its capital plant. 1 EXHIBIT I • F. To protect and enhance the City's credit rating and prevent default on any municipal debts. G. To ensure the legal use and protection of all City funds through a quality system of financial and internal controls. H. The City will maintain a Risk Management Program that will minimize the impact of legal liabilities, natural disasters or other emergencies. 3. Financial Management Policies A. Capital Improvement Budget Policies 1. The City will make all capital improvements in accordance with an adopted Capital Improvement Budget. 2. The City will develop a multi-year plan for capital improvements and update it at least biennially. 3. The City will adopt the annual Capital Improvements Budget based on the multi-year capital improvement plan. Future capital expenditures necessitated by changes in population, changes in real estate development, • or changes in economic base will be calculated and included in Capital Budget projections. 4. The City will coordinate development of the Capital Improvement Budget with the development of the operating budget. Future operating costs associated with new capital improvements will be projected and included in operating budget forecasts. 5. The City will use intergovernmental assistance to finance only those capital improvements which are consistent with the adopted capital improvement plan and City priorities and for which operating and maintenance costs have been included in operating budget forecasts. 6. The City will project its equipment replacement and maintenance needs for the next several years and will update this projection each year. From this projection, a maintenance and replacement schedule will be developed and followed. 7. The City staff will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources for each capital project proposal before it is submitted to the City Council for approval. • 8. The City will determine the least costly financing method over the length of all new projects. 2 EXHIBIT I • B. Revenue Policies 1. The City will attempt to maintain a diversified and stable revenue system to shelter it from short-run fluctuations in any one revenue source and to minimize property taxes. 2. The City will estimate its annual revenue by an objective conservative analytical process. 3. The City will project revenues for the next three years and will update this projection annually. Each existing and potential revenue source will be reexamined annually. 4. The City will maintain sound appraisal procedures to keep property values correct. Property will be assessed at the legally mandated market value for each type of property. Reassessments will be made of all property at least every five years. 5. The City will follow an assertive policy of collecting property tax revenues. The annual level of uncollected property taxes should generally not exceed two percent. • 6. Each year the City will recalculate the full costs of activities supported by user fees to identify the impact of inflation and other cost increases. 7. The City staff will recommend revised user fees with review by the City Council on an annual basis, to adjust for cost factors and inflation on the City's cost of providing services. 8. The City will set fees and user charges for each Enterprise Fund, such as Water and Sewer, at a level which fully supports the total direct and indirect costs of the activity. Indirect costs include the cost of annual depreciation of capital assets. 9. User charges and fees determined to be appropriate for City services will generally be established at a level which will recover the full cost of providing the service, including administrative costs. C. Debt Policies 1. The City will confine long-term borrowing to capital improvements or projects which cannot be financed from current revenues. 2. When the City finances capital projects by issuing bonds, it will pay back • the bonds within a period not to exceed the expected useful life of the project. 3. On all projects, at least 50% of the principal shall be retired within ten years. 3 EXHIBIT I • The City will make eve attempt to keep the average maturity of General 4. y every Obligation Bonds at or below 20 years. 5. Total debt service payments for General Obligation debt will not exceed five percent of total annual locally generated operating revenue in the general, special revenue, and proprietary funds. 6. Total outstanding General Obligation debt will not exceed two percent of the market valuation of taxable property. 7. Where possible, the City will use special assessment, revenue or other self-supporting bonds instead of General Obligation Bonds. 8. The City will not incur debt to support current operations. 9. The City will maintain good communications with bond rating agencies regarding its financial condition. The City will follow a policy of full disclosure in every financial report, official statement and bond prospectus. 10. Direct net-debt (gross debt less debt fully supported by non property tax • revenues) per capita shall not exceed$600 per capita. 11. The City will require Minimum Assessment (Taxable Valuation) Agreements on all projects in which the City is providing development assistance through tax increment financing or committing its bonding authority. This will ensure minimal cash flow (increment) to repay obligations, provide another level of review before commitment (by the City Assessor), and to the minimal value agreed upon, eliminate tax appeals during the agreement period. 12. For purposes of this section, tax increment revenues are classified as a non-property tax revenue source D. Reserve Policies 1. The City shall manage its cash flow needs by having a target unreserved and undesignated General Fund balance at the close of each fiscal year of 50 to 52% of the next year's General Fund operating budget. 2. Undesignated General Fund monies that are not required for cash flow purposes may be transferred into other funds as may be appropriate or needed during the fiscal year. It is specifically anticipated that transfers . will be made to the Street Reconstruction Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, and the Technology Fund when operating results generate a surplus of actual revenues over actual expenditures to serve as a recurring source of funding for those three funds. 4 EXHIBIT I • E. Investment Policies 1. The City will make cash flow analysis of all funds on a regular basis. Disbursement, collection and deposit of all funds will be scheduled to ensure maximum cash availability. 2. When permitted by law, the City will pool cash from several different funds for investment purposes. 3. The City will invest at least 98% of its idle cash on a continuous basis. 4. The City will analyze market conditions and investment securities to determine what yield can be obtained, and attempt to secure the best possible return on all cash investments. 5. The City's accounting system will provide regular information concerning cash position and investment performance. 6. The City will maintain a formal written investment policy which will contain legal and administrative guidelines necessary to ensure that the City's available funds will be invested to the maximum extent possible, at the highest rates obtainable at the time of the investment, consistent with • minimizing credit and market risk and which provides proper safeguards for the keeping of the City's investments. F. Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting Policies 1. The City will establish and maintain a high standard of accounting practices in conformance with generally accepted accounting principals. 2. The accounting system will maintain records on a basis consistent with accepted standards for local government accounting using GASB 34 as the basis of accounting for all governmental funds and an accrual basis of accounting for Enterprise and Internal Service Funds. Accounting policies will reflect the principle of charging current taxpayers and/or users for the full cost of providing current services. 3. Regular monthly and annual financial reports will present a summary of financial activity by major types of funds as determined by the prior year's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 4. Where possible, the reporting system will provide monthly information on the total cost of specified services by type of expenditure and, if necessary, by fund. • 5. An independent public accounting firm will perform an annual audit and will publicly issue an opinion concerning the City's finances. 5 EXHIBIT I • G. Risk Management Policies 1. The City will maintain a Risk Management Program that will minimize the impact of leg al liabilities, natural disasters or other emergencies through the following activities: a. Loss Prevention. Prevent negative occurrences. b. Loss Control. Reduce or mitigate expenses of a negative occurrence. C. Loss Financing. Provide a means to finance losses. and analyze relevant data ae went. Collect y d. Loss Information Management. to make prudent loss prevention, loss control and loss financing decisions. 2. The City's Risk Management Program will: a. Analyze all the City's risks. b. Avoid risks whenever possible. C. Reduce risks whenever possible. d. Transfer risks to other entities when possible. e. Of those risks that must be retained, it shall be the City's policy to • fund risks which the City can afford and transfer all other risks to insurers. 3. The City will maintain an active Safety Committee comprised of City employees. 4. The City will periodically conduct educational safety and risk avoidance programs, through its Safety Committee and with the participation of its insurers, within its various departments. 5. The Safety Committee will report to the City Manager, at least annually, on the results and costs of the City's Risk Management Program for the preceding year. The City Manager shall report annually to the City Council. H. Operating Budget Policies 1. In accordance with Chapter 7, Section 7.06 of the City Charter, the total sum appropriated in the General Fund annual budget shall be equal to the total estimated General Fund revenue and any allocated General Fund balance. • 2. The City will pay for all current expenditures with current revenues. The City will avoid budgetary procedures that balance current expenditures at future ear's revenues or rolling over short-term the expense of meeting f y � g debt, or that rely on accumulated fund balances to meet current obligations. 6 EXHIBIT I • 3. The City will annually appropriate a contingency appropriation in the five percent of the total budget, to et not to exceed fi p General Fund budget,provide for unanticipated expenditure of a non-recurring nature. 4. The City Manager, when submitting the Proposed Budget to the City Council, shall submit a balanced General Fund budget in which appropriations shall not exceed the total of the estimated General Fund revenue and the any fund balance appropriated by the City Council. 5. Prior to adopting the General Fund Annual Budget, the City Council shall review the Reserve Policy. 6. In the event that there is a shortfall of revenues in a current year budget, the City Manager may recommend the use of a portion of the General Fund balance not to exceed the amount available after deducting amounts reserved for items not readily convertible to cash or reserved for working capital. 7. The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of the capital plant and equipment, and for their orderly replacement. 8. The budget will provide for adequate funding of all retirement systems. 9. The City will maintain a budgetary control system to assist in adhering to the budget. 10. The City administration will prepare regular monthly reports comparing actual revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amount. 11. Each year the City will update expenditure projections for its Enterprise Funds for at least the ensuing five years. Projections will include estimated operating costs of future capital improvements included in the Capital Budget. 12. The Operating Budget will describe the major goals to be achieved, and the services and programs to be delivered for the level of funding provided. 13. Where possible, the City will integrate performance measurement and productivity indicators with the budget. 14. Enterprise funds shall be budgeted to have positive net income plus a sufficient margin to provide for replacement cost of property, plant, and • equipment. 7 EXHIBIT I • I. Ethics Policy The City will maintain, and periodically review, a formal written ethics policy for all City employees and elected officials. J. Role of Auditors The City's independent auditors shall be required, in the course of their audit, in the content of their Management Letter,to report any conditions that appear to be violations of our financial management policy. Reference: City Council Resolution Nos. 2004-189; 99-21; 98-48; City Council Minutes 5/22/95; 6/8/92; 2/26/90; 12/22/80 i 8 EXHIBIT I . 2.22 Investment Policy 1. Scope This investment policy applies to all of the investment activities of the City, except for the proceeds of refunding bond issues where the investment of such proceeds is specifically governed by the bond escrow agreement. 2. Objective A. Safety Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program. Investments shall be in a manner that ensures the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio. 1. Credit Risk Credit risk is the risk of loss due to failure of the security issuer or backer. Credit risk may be mitigated by: a. Limiting investments to the safest types of securities; and • b. Pre-qualifying the financial institution, broker/dealer, intermediaries, and advisors with which an entity will do business; and C. Diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities will be minimized. 2. Interest Rate Risk Interest rate risk is the risk that the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes in general interest rate. Interest rate risk may be mitigated by: a. Structuring the investment portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell securities on the open market prior to maturity; and b. By investing operating funds primarily in shorter-term securities. B. Liquidity • The investment portfolio shall remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating requirements that may be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by structuring the portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs to meet anticipated demands. Furthermore, since all possible cash demands cannot 9 EXHIBIT I be anticipated, the portfolio should contain a large component of securities with • active secondary or resale markets. C. Yield The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account the investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Return on investment is of least importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. The core of investments is limited to relatively low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being assumed. Securities shall be held to maturity with the following exceptions: 1. Liquidity needs of the portfolio require that the security be sold. 2. A security of declining credit could be sold early to minimize loss of principal. D. Stable Earnings Since investment earnings are included in the budgeted revenues of the City, it is • important that these earnings be stable and predictable through at least the next budget cycle. This emphasizes the need to purchase securities of various maturities so that at least half of the portfolio will remain for two or more years with known interest rates. 3. Standards of Care A. Prudence The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials shall be the prudent person standard described in Minnesota Statutes Chapter I I8A. It will be applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio. Investment officials acting in accordance with this policy and exercising d ue diligence ence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the purchase and sale of securities are carried out in accordance with the terms of the policy. Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of the City's affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to • be derived. B. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest 10 EXHIBIT I • Officials involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and management of the investment program, or that could impair their ability to make impartial decisions. Officials shall disclose any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business. They shall further disclose any personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Officials shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same individual with whom business in conducted on behalf of the City. C. Delegation of Authority Authority to manage the investment program is derived from Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 118A and Brooklyn Center City Charter Chapter 6, Section 6.04 and is granted to the City Manager, City Treasurer, and Assistant Finance Director. Responsibility for the operation of the investment program may be delegated by the City Manager to the City Treasurer, who shall carry out the program consistent with this policy. No person may engage in any investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy. The City Treasurer shall be responsible to the City Manager for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the execution of all investment transactions. D. Training To ensure the competence of its investment officials, the City shall provide the opportunity for the officials to attend such investment training programs as are available and suitable. 4. Safekeeping and Custody A. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions A resolution shall be submitted to the City Council at least annually to designate depositories of City funds. This shall include institutions and dealers/brokers where accounts are maintained for banking services, purchase and sale of investment securities, and the custody of securities. The City Treasurer shall provide to each broker or institution a written statement of investment restrictions which shall include a provision that all future investments are to be made in accordance with Minnesota Statutes governing the investment of public funds,prior to completing an initial transaction, and annually thereafter. An annual review of the depositories shall be conducted by the City Treasurer. Requests for Proposals for banking services and custodian for investment securities shall be conducted on a periodic basis as defined in the Policy and Procedure on Requests for Proposals for Financial Professional Services. 11 EXHIBIT I • B. Internal Controls The City Treasurer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and likely to be derived and the q Y judgments by management. Internal controls shall include the following: 1. Control of Collusion. Collusion is a situation where two or more employees are working in conjunction to defraud their employer. 2. Custodial safekeeping. Securities purchased from any bank or dealer shall be placed with an independent third party for custodial safekeeping or held in an account with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. 3. Avoidance of physical delivery securities. Book entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since actual delivery of a document never takes place. Delivered securities must be properly safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physical delivered securities. 4. Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members. Officials must have a clear understanding of their authority and responsibilities to avoid improper actions. Clear delegation of authority also preserves the internal control structure. 5. Written confirmation of telephone transactions for investments and wire transfers. Due to the potential for errors and improprieties arising from telephone transactions, all transactions should be supported by written communications and approved by the appropriate official. Written communications may be via fax on letterhead. Institutions and brokers/dealers shall be provided with a list of authorized signers. 6. Development of a wire transfer agreement with institutions and brokers/dealers. This agreement should outline the various controls, security provisions, and delineate responsibilities of each party making and receiving wire transfers. 7. Independent Audit. The City's independent auditors shall conduct a thorough review of the City's investment portfolio and transactions as part of their engagement. • C. Delivery Verses Payment All trades where applicable will be executed by delivery verses payment (DVP). This ensures that securities are deposited in the eligible financial institution prior to the release of funds. Writies will be held by a third party custodian. EXHIBIT I 5. Suitable and Authorized Investments A. Investment Types Statutes Chapter 118A Consistent with Minnesota p , the following investments will be permitted by this policy: 1. Securities that are the direct obligations or are guaranteed or insured issues of the United States, its agencies, its instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act of Congress; including governmental bills, notes, bonds, and other securities. 2. Commercial paper issued by U.S. corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries that is rated in the highest quality by at least two nationally recognized rating agencies and matures in 270 days or less. 3. Time deposits that are fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or bankers acceptances of U.S. banks. 4. Repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements may be entered into with financial institutions identified by Minnesota Statutes • Chapter I I8A. 5. Securities lending agreements may be entered into with financial institutions identified by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. 6. Minnesota joint powers investment trusts may be entered into with trusts identified by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. 7. Money market mutual funds regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and whose portfolios consist only of short term securities permitted by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. 8. Bonds of the City of Brooklyn Center issued in prior years, may be redeemed at current market price, which may include a premium, prior to maturity using surplus funds of the debt service fund set up for that issue. Such repurchased bonds shall be canceled and removed form the obligation of the fund. B. Securities Not Purchased Derivative securities, which obtain their value by the calculation of some portion of the value of another security, shall not be purchased. Mortgage backed • securities, unless issued by a Federal Agency, shall not be purchased. Securities, which represent the principal or interest payments stripped off from an original issue security, shall not be purchased. 13 EXHIBIT I C. Collateralization To the extent that deposits osi is in bank accounts, certificates of deposit, and repurchase agreements exceed the available f ederal deposit insurance collateral shall be furnished by the financial institution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 118A. D. Maximum Maturities When purchasing investments, the Treasurer will attempt to match the maturity to future cash flow requirements. The City will not invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of purchase. No more than ten percent of the City's portfolio at any time shall be invested in securities with maturities of more than three years. 6. Reporting A. The City Treasurer shall prepare a monthly investment report to the City Manager which shall include a succinct management summary; a list of significant transactions such as purchases, sales, and maturities of investments; a list of investments by type, a list of investments by maturity, a calculation of average yield on the portfolio, and a statement of interest earned. This report will be prepared in a manner which will allow the City Manager to ascertain whether investment activities during the month have conformed to the investment policy. B. A statement of the market value of the portfolio shall be issued at least annually. This will review the investment portfolio in terms of value and subsequent price volatility. Reference: City Council Resolution Nos. 97-60; 90-105 14 EXHIBIT I • SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICIES 2.80 Policy and Procedure on Requests for Proposals for Financial Professional Services 1. Need for Policy The City needs a policy and procedure to provide for the orderly conduct of requesting proposals for professional services for handling financial affairs, to ensure that all services will be periodically reviewed, and that the proper balance will be maintained between cost and quality of services. 2. Policy A. All professional services agreements in the area of City finance will periodically be subject to a request for proposals (RFPs) process according to an established schedule. B. Service levels will be monitored by the City Council and Staff and if unsatisfactory service is received, that contract may be re- advertised prior to the year set in the schedule. C. Quality of service will be the primary factor in awarding a contract for professional service, but cost will also be a determinant. 3. Procedure A. A schedule shall be established for the conduct of RFPs. The schedule should be adhered to unless there is a performance problem or other justification for an earlier RFP. Going to the market too frequently with RFPs expends staff time, requires extensive orientation of new professionals, and discourages quality firms from submitting proposals at their most attractive price if they expect to have the contract for only a short time. B. Specifications tailored to the professional service to be advertised will be prepared by staff, reviewed by the Financial Commission, and approved by the City Council. C. A review committee made up of the City Manager and Finance Director shall review proposals for Banking Services, Insurance Agent, Risk Management Consultant, and Custodian for Investment Securities. Proposals for Auditor and Financial . Advisor shall be initially screened by staff, and then reviewed by a committee of City Council Members and Financial Commission 15 EXHIBIT I • Members appointed by the Mayor in consultation with the Chair of the Financial Commission, with the approval of the City Council, which Comm ittee shall also include the City Manager and Finance Director. D. The specifications will emphasize the abilities, qualifications, and experience of the applicant firms to provide high quality service to the City. Price will be considered after one or more applicants have been identified as providing the desired quality of service. When appropriate, the specification shall require prices to be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope to be opened after applicants have been ranked according to quality. E. The City Manager shall make a recommendation tot eh City Council of a provider to be appointed to a multi-year engagement. It shall be written in the engagement that the appointment may be terminated earlier. Reference: City Council Resolution Nos. 2000-120; 99-20; City Council Minutes 5/28/96 �Ty} Financial Banking Insurance Risk Custodian for Auditor Advisor for Services Agent Management Investment Bond Sales Consultant Securities ears 6 years 6 years 6 years 6 years 6 ears os zcn � 2004 2002 2003 2003 1998 2002 * 1 -1 RFP RFP 2DQ8, .. RFP RFP RFP RFP RFP RFP Q� 'r RFP r ; RFP k. 0 RFP • *Awarded to Deloite Touche who subsequently withdrew after the FY 2001 audit. Balance of engagement awarded to HLB Tautges Redpath for FY 2002-FY 2006. 16 i • City Council Agenda Item No. 10h • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, Interi er DATE: October 19, 2006 SUBJECT: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sewer Treatment Charges Recommendation: The City Manager is seeking direction in response to communications from MCES regarding billing discrepancies that have occurred over the last several years. The City Attorney has suggested that this matter may be protected under the attorney client privilege and may be discussed in executive session Background: For many years the MCES has under billed the City for Sanitary sewer treatment charges and now wants the City to repay six years of underpayment. During this time the City has not collected the higher fees from customers so there are no excess funds immediately • available for payment as requested. We have asked the City Attorney to provide advice regarding the legal alternatives available to the City. The purpose of the closed executive session is to have the Council consider the advice of the Attorney which has the potential for litigation. C: Dan Jordet Todd Blomstro . GACity Manager\mces.council.mem.doc City Council Agenda Item No. 10i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council/EDA Commissioners FROM: Curt Boganey,City 4>Executive Director DATE: October 19,2006 SUBJECT: Hotel Development Agreement-Resolution Approving Property Tax Abatement and Authorizing Execution of a Development Agreement Recommendation: Monday October 23`d the City Council and EDA will be asked to consider three separate actions: You will be holding a Joint Pubic Hearing with the EDA regarding a proposed Tax Abatement,Business Subsidy and Sale of land. The City Council in a separate action will consider a resolution approving the Property Tax Abatement not to exceed$2.6 million dollars or for ten CIO,years whichever occurs first and Authorization of the new Development Agreement with Brooklyn artners,LLC. The EDA in a separate action will consider a Resolution Deleting Property from Tax Increment Financing District No.2 and Approving and Authorizing Execution of the Development Agreement.The Board should note that the site is currently tax exempt and as such will have no impact upon TIF District 2. Background: • It should also be noted that certain exhibits in the agreement are blank at this time. The site plan submitted to the Planning Commission and Council and approved by the same will become the site plan exhibit in the agreement.The legal description from the re-plating will become the legal exhibit in the agreement. Also attached for Council/EDA convenience is a side by side comparison between the previous agreement approved in May,2006 and the current agreement. This comparison illustrates that the new agreement is at least equally favorable to the City/EDA as the originally approved agreement. I did not include a red-line version of the original agreement because none is available. The approach of Tax abatement v. TIF is so dissimilar and the other conditions in the agreement are such that this is not an updated version of the old agreement but a new agreement. Therefore we suggest that this item be considered a new agreement not simply an improvement or change to the previous one. Representatives of the Brooklyn Hotel LLC will be available Monday evening. C: Brad Hoffman GACity Manager\hotel.agreement.COUNCIL.MEM.frm.doc • Old Agreement New Agreement Land Purchase (nominal) paid $ 2,160,000.00 $ 1.00 in 20 years with 0% interest Net Present Value @ 5% of $ 814,081.00 $ 1.00 land purchase price Max. TIF Contribution $ 2,600,000.00 $ - Maximum Abatement $ 2,600,000.00 EDA Cost of Link $ 1,000,000.00 $ - Maximum Public Assistance $ 2,785,919.00 $ 2,600,001.00 Water Park Included yes no Number of Rooms 200 2$0 Tax value to other taxing jursidictions 64.63% EDA Land Purchase Price $ 1,075,000.00 Dec-00 • • newspapers AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Richard Hendrickson,being duly sworn on an oath states or affirms,that he is the Chief Fi- nancial Officer of the newspaper known as Sun-Post and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A)The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minn.Stat.§331A.02, §331A.07, and other applic- able laws, as amended. (B)The printed public notice that is attached was published in the newspaper once each week,for one successive week(s);it was first published on Thursday,the 12 day of October , 2006, and was thereafter printed and published on every Thursday to and including Thursday,the day of ,2006;and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z,both inclusive,which is hereby acknowl- • edged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: abcdefghijklmno pgrstuvwxyz BY: Fo City of Brooklyn Center (Official Publication) _ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER,, AND Subscribed and sworn to Or affirmed before me ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF 4-4`` BROOKLYN CENTER Ndn' it OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON On this 12 day of October 2006. PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT,' BUSINESS SUBSIDY AND SALE OF PROPERTY, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota(the"City")and the,; Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center(the"EDA")will jointly meet Notary ubIIC on October 23,2006,at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the Brooklyn-Eenter City of Hall;6301 Shingle Creek Parkway for the purpose of con-` ducting a joint public hearing on the following-proposals: MARY ANN CARLSON The proposal that the City.enter into an agreement NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA (the-Development Agreement)with Brooklyn Hotel Part- ners;_LLC,'a Minnesota limited liability company(the MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1-31-09 'Company")to abate a portion of the increased property, taxes to be levied by the City on the property bearing par- ---------- .cel identification,number 35-119-2143-601.6(the"Prop= . erty"). The total estimated amount of the taxes proposed , to be abated by the City on the Property is:$2,600,000. RATE INFORMATION The proposal that the EDA sell the Property,to the Company pursuant to the Development Agreement among the Developer,the City and the EDA for redevel- (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users $ 2.85 per line oprrent-in accordance with a redevelopment plan hereto • for Comparable Space fore adopted by'the'EDA(the"Redevelopment Plan-). A copy-of the,Development Agreement will be on file and available for public inspection at the office of the Execu- , (2) Maximum rate allowed by law $ 6.20 per line five Director bf the EDA and the-City Clerk,at City Hall,- 630T Shingle Creek Parkway,Brooklyn Center,Minneso- ta The proposed tax-abatement and sale of the;Proper ty are business subsidies tin der Minnesota Statutes,Sec (3) Rate actually charged $ 1.30 per line tons 116J.033 to 116J.995. All persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above. (Oct.12,2006)pl/PCDOCS1911692v1BrCtrHotelPartn Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota(the"City"), as follows: 1. Recitals. (a) Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Company") proposes to construct certain improvements (the "Improvements") on certain real. property located in the City described below (the "Property") in connection with the construction of two full service hotels and related facilities (the "Project"). The Company has requested that the City abate the increased property taxes on the Property resulting from the construction of the Project. The City proposes to pay the abatement to the Company for the purposes provided for in the Abatement Law (as hereinafter defined). The proposed term of the abatement will be for 10 years and the total amount will not to exceed $2,600,000 The abatement will apply to the City's share of the increased property taxes resulting from the Project (the "Abatement") derived from the Property bearing parcel identification number 35-119-21-43-0016 (the "Property"). (b) The Company, the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center (the "EDA") and the City have determined to enter into a Development Agreement to provide for, among other things, the terms of the City's abatement assistance (the "Development • Agreement"). (c) On October 23, 2006, the Council held a public hearing on the proposed Abatement, and said hearing was preceded by at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior published notice thereof. (d) The Abatement is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 through 469.1815 (the "Abatement Law"). 2. Findings for the Abatement. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: (a) The Council expects the benefits to the City of the Abatement to at least equal or exceed the costs to the City thereof (b) Granting the Abatement is in the public interest because it will increase and preserve the tax base of the City, provide employment opportunities in the City, provide access 'es r residents of the City, will finance public infrastructure. to hotel facilities for y, P (c) The Property will not be located in a tax increment financing district. (d) In any year, the total amount of property taxes abated by the City by this and other resolutions will not exceed the greater of ten percent (10%) of the City's current levy or $200,000. 0 3. Statement as to Nature and Extent of Public Benefits. The Abatement will be a public benefit since it will assist with the costs construction of the Project and will encourage the development of the Property. RESOLUTION NO. 4. Terms of Abatement. The Abatement is hereby approved. The terms of the Abatement are as follows: (a) The Abatement shall be for ten (10) years for each of the Phase I Property and Phase II Property (as defined in the Development Agreement). The commencement of the abatement period for the Phase I Property shall be for taxes payable year 2010. The commencement of the abatement period for the Phase II Property shall be a date to be determined but shall tentatively not be later than the taxes payable year 2024. (b) The City will abate the City's share of increased property taxes which the City receives from the Property as set forth in the Development Agreement, but not to exceed in the aggregate $2,600,000. (c) The Abatement shall be subject to all the terms and limitations of the Abatement Law. (d) The Abatement may not be modified or changed during its term. (e) The City will pay the Abatement to the Company to pay for a portion of the costs of the Project. 5. Tax Abatement. (a) The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement in substantially • the form submitted, and the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Development Agreement, on behalf of the City. (b) The approval hereby given to the Development Agreement includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City officials authorized by this resolution to execute the Development Agreement. The execution of the Development Agreement by the appropriate officer or officers of the City shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of the Development Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof. October 23 2006 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: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director I DATE: August 25, 2006 SUBJECT: Hotel Development Agreement At the May 9, 2005 EDA meeting a development agreement with Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC was approved. Under the terms of the agreement,the developer would construct two (2)hotels with a total of 250 rooms. The hotels would be physically linked by a 25,000 square foot water park. The entire development would also to be attached to the Earle Brown Heritage Center via a covered walkway/link. Prior to the developers' submission of construction plans for the issuance of building permits,the EDA development agreement was challenged by a non profit group established the same day as the filing of the law suit. The Courts eventually dismissed the suit as being without merit. However as a result of the law suit, sufficient time • passed to require the developer and the EDA to reconsider the terms and conditions upon which the agreement was entered into. Also,the Embassy Suits changed its building format which would have re q uired some modification of the s ite and buildin g p lan. Monday evening staff is prepared to discuss the terms and conditions of a new or restated development agreement that could be brought to the EDA for their consideration. Under the approved agreement which has not been rescinded, the developer would have purchased the development site owned by the EDA for$2,160,000. The EDA had agreed to defer payment for the property for a term of twenty(20) years without interest unless the property were sold or refinanced. The developer was to build a 175 room Embassy Suites and a 75 room Hampton Inn. The proposed agreement would have the developer still constructing a 175 room hotel; the agreement identifies several hotel flags including Embassy Suites,Radisson, Sheraton and Hilton as acceptable. It should be noted that the developer is still of the position of wanting to build the Embassy Suites. At this time only a Holiday Express has been identified by the developer for Phase Two (2) of the project. The developer was also required to construct a link to the Heritage Center with the EDA contributing$1,000,000 as its share of the cost for the link. The cost was based upon construction estimates for the link to be constructed on EDA property. The part of the link constructed on the developers' property was to be paid for by the developer. Finally,the developer was to build a 25,000 square foot water park connecting the two (2)hotels. As stated in the development agreement the water park became a required development although inclusion was the concept of the developer and never was a development specifically sought its m p by the EDA. Under the proposed agreement,the water park would not be required. The developer is still considering it however there is going to be a proliferation of such parks in the near future. The developer has expressed an interest in creating a spa at the site but as noted such • additional developments would not be required. The addition of a water park or spa would be optional for the developer. The current agreement provides financial incentives to the developer in the form of tax increment financing(TIF). The project is located within the boundaries of TIF District 2 which expires in 2009. The developer would receive the TIF proceeds generated only by the hotel project through the remaining life of the district but not to exceed$2, 600,000 on a pay as you go basis. All TIF proceeds had to be used for eligible expenses as defined by statute. Under the terms of the proposed agreement,the site would be removed from the TIF District and the City would abate its portion of the taxes generated by the project for a period of ten(10)years. Each of the two (2)phases of development would be abated separately for a ten(10) year period. Again,the total abatement for both phases of the development would not exceed$2,600,000. The development would pay property taxes as any other development with taxes being paid to the School District, County and other taxing entities. The proposed agreement also differs from the current agreement in that the EDA would sell the land to the developer for$1 and other considerations as opposed to the $2,160,000 note that the EDA would receive in twenty(20) years. At a 5% discount rate,the current value of the $2,160,000 the EDA would receive is approximately$814,081. As previously noted,the current agreement requires an expenditure of $1,000,000 on the part of the EDA for its share of the link between the Heritage Center and the hotels. The proposed agreement would place the entire cost of the link upon the developer. As a result of the exchange of the long term note from the developer to the EDA for the construction of the link,the EDA realizes a net savings of approximately$185,919. . Assuming approval of the agreement, the developer would be required to start • construction on Phase 1 by April 30, 2007 and be completed by October 30, 2008. The developer would then have until April 30, 2012 to start Phase 2 and be completed by October 30,2013. The Phase 1 abatement would run from 2010 to 2019 and the Phase 2 abatement assuming it is not completed sooner would run from 2015 to 2024. Again,the duration could be shorter if the maximum abatement of$2,600,000 is reached prior to these dates. Assuming the project has a taxable market value of$25,000,000 upon completion,the approximate distribution of property taxes would be; Hennepin County 41.016%,Brooklyn Center School District 39.781%, City of Brooklyn Center 48.069% (abated) and other taxing entities 7.071%. We expect to be able to complete the development agreement very shortly and have it before the EDA for approval. Any changes to the language currently in the draft agreement should be minor. Staff will be able to discuss this issue in greater detail with the EDA at Monday evening's work session. At the work session, staff should be directed to complete the agreement and bring it to the Commissioners for approval if they find the terms and conditions acceptable. • • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND BROOKLYN HOTEL PARTNERS,LLC 92006 • • 19121130 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLEI DEFINITIONS....................................................................................................3 Section1.1 Definitions............................................................................................3 ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES...................................................6 Section 2.1 Representations and Warranties of the Authority and the City...........6 Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties by the Developer..............................7 ARTICLE III CONVEYANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY.......................................9 Section 3.1 Purchase and Sale of Development Property.......................................9 Section 3.2 Conveyance of Development Property................................................9 Section 3.3 "As Is" Conveyance.............................................................................9 Section 3.4 Deferred Purchase Price.......................................................................9 Section 3.5 Subdivision; Title and Survey..............................................................9 Section 3.6 Environmental Matters....................................................................... 10 Section 3.7 Developer's Right to Inspect.............................................................. 10 Section 3.8 Contingencies to Closing on Development Property......................... 10 Section 3.9 Closing on Phases of the Development Property............................... 11 Section3.10 Costs................................................................................................... 12 Section 3.11 Acknowledgements by Developer..................................................... 13 ARTICLE IV CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS................................. 14 Section 4.1 Preliminary Plans............................................................................... 14 Section 4.2 Construction of Minimum Improvements ......................................... 14 • Section 4.3 Construction Plans............................................................................. 14 Section 4.4 Commencement and Completion of Construction............................. 15 Section 4.5 Compliance with Environmental Requirements................................ 15 Section 4.6 Hotel Center Operation...................................................................... 15 Section 4.7 Additional Responsibilities of the Developer.................................... 15 Section 4.8 Certificate of Release of Forfeiture.................................................... 16 Section4.9 Completion......................................................................................... 16 Section 4.10 Certain Approvals.............................................................................. 16 Section 4.11 Business Subsidy Agreement............................................................. 17 Section 4.12 Construction of the Connection......................................................... 19 ARTICLE V TAX ABATEMENTS;NO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS...............................20 Section 5.1 Payment of Tax Abatements by City.................................................20 Section 5.2 No Public Improvements...................................................................20 ARTICLE VI CERTAIN FINANCING PROVISIONS..........................................................21 Section 6.1 Encumbrance of the Development Property......................................21 Section 6.2 Copy of Notice of Default to Mortgagee...........................................21 Section 6.3 Mortgagee's Option to Cure Events of Default..................................21 Section 6.4 Defaults Under Mortgage ..................................................................21 Section 6.5 Subordination of Agreement..............................................................21 ARTICLE VII REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS ......................................22 Section 7.1 Real Property Taxes and Assessments...............................................22 1912113x7 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page g ARTICLE VIII INSURANCE AND CO NDEMNATION........................................................23 Section8.1 Insurance............................................................................ . Section8.2 Condemnation....................................................................................24 ARTICLE IX DEVELOPER COVENANTS Section 9.1 Maintenance and Operation of the Development..............................25 Section 9.2 Reciprocal Access and Parking Agreement.......................................25 ARTICLE X TRANSFER LIMITATIONS AND INDEMNIFICATION.............................26 Section 10.1 Representation as to Development; Limit on Transfer of Ownership Interest in Developer.......................................................26 Section 10.2 Limitations on Transfer...................................................... ............26 Section 10.3 Indemnification..................................................................................27 Section10.4 Limitation...........................................................................................27 ARTICLE XI EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES...................................................28 Section 11.1 Developer Events of Default..............................................................28 Section 11.2 Authority Events of Default...............................................................28 Section 11.3 Authority and City Remedies on Default...........................................28 Section 11.4 Revesting Title in the Authority ........................................................29 Section 11.5 Developer Remedies on Default........................................................29 Section 11.6 No Remedy Exclusive........................................................................29 Section 11.7 No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver.................................29 Section 11.8 Reimbursement of Attorneys'Fees....................................................29 • ARTICLE XII ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.........................................................................31 Section 12.1 Conflicts of Interest............................................................................31 Section 12.2 Real Estate Agents.............................................................................31 Section 12.3 Titles of Articles and Sections...........................................................31 Section 12.4 Notices an d Demands ..... .......................... ............... . ...............31 Section 12.5 Counterparts.......................................................................................31 Section 12.6 Law Governing..................................................................................31 Section 12.7 Consents and Approvals ....................................................................32 Section 12.8 Representatives..................................................................................32 Section 12.9 Superseding Effect.............................................................................32 Section 12.10 Relationship of Parties.......................................................................32 Section12.11 Mediation...........................................................................................32 Section12.12 Venue.................................................................................................32 Section 12.13 Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration..................................32 Section 12.14 Time of Essence.................................................................................32 • 19121130 -11- ICI TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page • EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY....................................................................................................A-1 EXHIBITB SOURCES AND USES..................................................................................B-1 EXHIBIT C CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OF FORFEITURE.......................................C-1 EXHIBITD QUIT CLAIM DEED .....................................................................................D-1 EXHIBIT E PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES................................................................ E-1 EXHIBIT F MAP DEPICTING PHASE I PROPERTY AND PHASE II PROPERTY.....F-1 EXHIBIT G INTENTIONALLY OMITTED .....................................................................G-1 EXHIBITH SITE PLAN.....................................................................................................H-1 EXHIBIT I BUSINESS SUBSIDY REPORT.....................................................................I-1 EXHIBIT J LIST OF APPROVED HOTEL FLAGS FOR PHASE I AND PHASE II.....J-1 EXHIBITK TIMELINE......................................................................................................K-1 EXHIBIT L PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN LINK EASEMENT AGREEMENT......... L-1 • • 19121130 -111- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of ' 2006,by and between the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a public body corporate and politic organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota(the "Authority"),the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER,a Minnesota municipal organization(the "City") and BROOKLYN HOTEL PARTNERS,LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company(the "Developer"). RECITALS WHEREAS,on December 19, 1994,the Authority and the City of Brooklyn Center(the "City") adopted the Modified Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project Area") which set forth development objectives for the Redevelopment Project Area. WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, the Authority has acquired certain real property located in the Project Area more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto (which property as so described is hereinafter referred to as the "Development Property"), and has agreed to convey the Development Property to the Developer pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. WHEREAS, on or about January, 2005,the Authority and the Developer entered into a Development Agreement(the "Original Development Agreement"),pursuant to which the • Developer agreed to construct a full service hotel containing at least 200 rooms on the Development Property as more particularly described in Section 4.1 hereof, a water park as more particularly described in Section 4.11 and a pedestrian connection as more particularly described in Section 4.12 (collectively,the "Minimum Improvements"). WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan,pursuant to the Original Development Agreement,the Authority determined to assist the Developer with certain of the public costs of the Minimum Improvements as more particularly set forth in the Original Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, as a condition to the Authority entering into the Original Development Agreement and conveying the Development Property to the Developer, the Authority required that the Developer enter into the Original Development Agreement to establish the Developer's commitment to the Authority to construct the Minimum Improvements, to commit to operate or cause to be operated the Minimum Improvements as a hotel for an extended period of time, all as more fully set forth hereinafter; and WHEREAS,the Development Property was located in a tax increment financing district and the Authority had agreed under the Original Development Agreement to provide tax increment assistance to the Developer; WHEREAS,the City,the EDA and the Developer have agreed, among other things, in lieu of tax increment assistance,to abate to the Developer certain real property taxes on the • 19121130 • Development Property and to remove the water park from the description of the Minimum Improvements; WHEREAS,the Authority and the City believe that the Development, as more fully set forth in this Agreement, is in the best interests of the residents of the City and will foster the redevelopment of blighted property and an increase in the tax base, increase the availability of hotel and restaurant facilities to residents of the City, and will otherwise benefit the health, safety,morals and welfare of the residents of the City, in accordance with the public purpose and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS,the Authority,the City and the Developer desire to replace the Original Development Agreement in its entirety with this Agreement. NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the others as follows: • • 19121130 2 i ARTICLE I • DEFINITIONS Section 1.1 Definitions. All capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the following meanings unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: "Act"means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 and 469.090 to 469.1082, both inclusive, as amended. "Agreement"means this Development Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended or supplemented. "Authority"means the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center. "Authority Documents"means the documents to be executed and/or delivered by the Authority at the Closing pursuant to Section 3.9 of this Agreement. "Authority Mortgage"means the mortgage on the Development Property in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F granted by the Developer to the Authority to secure payment of the Promissory Note. "Authority Representative"means the Executive Director of the Authority or his designee. • "Authority Resolution"means Resolution of the Authority approving designation of the Developer as developer of the Development ment Property. "Board"means the Board of Commissioners of the Authority. "Certificate of Release of Forfeiture"means the certificate in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C signed by the Authority Representative certifying that the conditions in Section 4.5 hereof have been satisfied. "City"means the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota. "City Representative"means the City Manager. "Closing"means the closing on the conveyance of the Development Parcel "Closing Date"means the dates on which the Phase I Property and Phase II Property are conveyed by the Authority to the Developer, which dates shall be as the parties mutually agree, but which date shall in no event be later than April 30, 2007 with respect to the Phase I Property and not later than April 30, 2012 for the Phase II Development Property. "Completion Date"means October 31, 2008,with respect to Phase I of the Minimum Improvements, and October 31, 2013 with respect to Phase II of the Minimum Improvements. • 1912113v7 3 • "Construction Plans"means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents for the construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements which shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are submitted to the building official of the City. "Connection"means the physical connection between the hotel to be constructed on the Development Property as part of Phase I of the Minimum Improvements and the Earle Brown Heritage Center, located adjacent to the Development Property. "Control" means having at least 51% of the voting rights and economic interests in the Developer. "Construction Lender"means the lender or lenders on the Construction Mortgage Loan. "Construction Mortgage Loan"means the construction mortgage loan or loans to be obtained by the Developer to provide construction and permanent financing for the construction of the Minimum Improvements. "County"means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota. "Deed"means the quit claim deeds executed by the Authority conveying the Phase I Property and Phase II Property to the Developer, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. "Developer"means Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC, a limited liability company, its i successors or permitted assigns. "Developer's Documents"means the documents to be executed and/or delivered by the Developer at the respective Closings pursuant to Section 3.9 of this Agreement. "Developer Event of Default"means the occurrence of an Event of Default set forth in Section 11.1 hereof. "Development"means the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon as provided in this Agreement. "Development Property"means the real property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto, which includes the Phase I Property and the Phase II Property. "Minimum Improvements"means collectively,the Phase I Minimum Improvements and the Phase II Minimum Improvements having a combined marked value upon completion of at least$20,000,000, and the Connection, all of which are more particularly described in Sections 4.1 and 4.12 hereof. "Mortgage"means any mortgage loan to the Developer that is secured, in whole or in part,with the Minimum Improvements on the Development Property. 1912113v7 4 "Net Proceeds"means any money paid by an insurer under a policy or policies of insurance required to be provided and maintained by the Developer under Section 8.1 of this 0 Agreement. "Permitted Encumbrances" means the permitted encumbrances described in Exhibit E attached hereto. "Phase"means any phase of the Minimum Improvements or Development Property. "Phase I Minimum Improvements"means the construction on the Phase I Property of a full service hotel with one of the hotel flags set forth on Exhibit J, or another equivalent hotel flag acceptable to the Authority, with no less than 175 rooms, of which at least 10% shall be Suites, and containing a minimum 100 seat, full service restaurant with a liquor license. "Phase II Minimum Improvements"means the construction on the Phase II Property of a hotel with one of the hotel flags set forth on Exhibit J, or another equivalent hotel flag acceptable to the Authority,with no less than 75 rooms,which hotel need not be a full service hotel. "Phase I Property"means that portion of the Development Property depicted as such on Exhibit F attached hereto. "Phase II Property"means that portion of the Development Property depicted as such on Exhibit F attached hereto. . "Preliminary Plans"means the preliminary design, specification and architectural plans for each Phase of the Minimum Improvements (including,without limitation,materials specifications)to be submitted by the Developer to the Authority. "Redevelopment Plan"means the redevelopment plan for the Redevelopment Project Area approved by the City and the Authority. "State"means the State of Minnesota. "Suites"means a hotel room consisting of a minimum of two (2) separate and distinct rooms (at least one of which shall be a bedroom), and at least one (1) full bathroom. "Timeline"means the timeline attached hereto as Exhibit K. "Title Company"means Guaranty Title Company. "Unavoidable Delays"means delays outside the control of the party claiming its occurrence,which are the direct result of(a)unusually severe or prolonged bad weather,(b) acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Development, (c)litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in delays, (d)the outbreak of war, acts of terrorism or insurrection, (e) acts of any Federal, State or local governmental unit which directly result in delays, (f) strikes or walkouts, (g) delays in delivery of materials for the Minimum Improvements, or(h) soil conditions of the Development Property. • 1912113v7 5 • ARTICLE II REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Section 2.1 Representations and Warranties of the Authority and the City. The Authority and the City make the following representations and warranties: (a) The Authority is a public body corporate and politic and a governmental subdivision of the State, duly organized and existing under the Act and the Authority has the authority to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. The City is a municipal corporation and has authority to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The Authority and the City have taken all action necessary to create the Redevelopment Project Area and to approve this Agreement and to authorize the execution and delivery of this Agreement and any other documents or instruments required to be executed and delivered by the Authority pursuant to this Agreement. (c) The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and any other documents or instruments required pursuant to this Agreement by the Authority and the City do not, and consummation of the transactions contemplated therein and the fulfillment of the terms thereof will not, conflict with or constitute on the part of the Authority or the City a breach of or . default under any existing(i) indenture, mortgage, deed of trust or other agreement or instrument to which the Authority or the City are a party or by which the Authority or the City or any of their property is or may be bound, or(ii) legislative act, constitution or other proceeding establishing or relating to the, establishment of the Authority or the City or their officers or their resolutions. (d) There is not pending, nor to the Authority's or City's current actual knowledge is there threatened, any suit, action or proceeding against the Authority or the City before any court, arbitrator, administrative agency or other governmental authority that materially and adversely affects the validity of any of the transactions contemplated hereby,the ability of the Authority or the City to perform their obligations hereunder, or as contemplated hereby or thereby, or the validity or enforceability of this Agreement. (e) No member of the Board of the Authority, City Council of the City or officer of the Authority or City,has either a direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement, nor will any Commissioner of the Authority or City Council Member or officer of the Authority or City,benefit financially from this Agreement within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.87. (f) The development contemplated by this Agreement is in conformance with the objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan. (g) To finance the costs of the activities to be undertaken on the Development . Property,the City proposes to, subject to the further provisions of this Agreement, abate certain taxes on the Development Property. 19121130 6 Section 2.2 Representations and Warranties by the Developer. The Developer represents and warrants to the Authority and the City that: • (a) The Developer is a limited liability company organized and in good standing under the laws of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles of organization, member control agreement, or other organizational documents or the laws of said State,has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its members. (b) The execution and delivery of this Agreement,the consummation of the transactions contemplated thereby, and the fulfillment of the terms and conditions thereof do not and will not conflict with or result in a breach of any of the terms or conditions of the Developer's organizational documents, any restriction or any agreement or instrument to which the Developer is now a party or by which it is bound or to which any property of the Developer is subject, and do not and will not constitute a default under any of the foregoing or a violation of any order, decree, statute,rule or regulation of any court or of any state or Federal regulatory body having jurisdiction over Developer or its properties, including its interest in the Development, and do not and will not result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or encumbrance of any nature upon any of the property or assets of Developer contrary to the terms of any instrument or agreement to which Developer is a party or by which it is bound. (c) The execution and delivery of this Agreement will not create a conflict of interest prohibited by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.87. (d) There are no pending or threatened legal proceedings, of which the Developer has notice, contemplating the liquidation or dissolution of the Developer or threatening its existence, or seeking to restrain or enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Agreement, or questioning the authority of the Developer to execute and deliver this Agreement or the validity of this Agreement. (e) The construction of the Minimum Improvements would not be undertaken by the Developer, and in the opinion of the Developer would not be economically feasible within the reasonably foreseeable future,without the assistance and benefit to the Developer provided for in this Agreement. (f) The Developer has or will have prior to the Closing Date adequate is for equity and financing,to construct itmen g financial capability, consisting of binding Comm q ty and to complete each of the activities or tasks required by this Agreement including but not Minimum Improvements b the Completion d to the completion of construction of the p Y limited p Date. (g) The total construction cost for the Minimum Improvements, including furniture, fixtures and equipment, but excluding the capital costs of the Connection,will be at least$30,000,000. (h) The Developer will cooperate with respect to the mutual marketing of the Earle Brown Heritage Center located adjacent to the Development Property. • 1912113v7 7 (i) The Developer has provided the Authority and City with true, correct and complete copies of the documents described in Section 3.9(c)to which the Authority and City are not parties. • 1912113v7 8 ARTICLE III • CONVEYANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY Section 3.1 Purchase and Sale of Development Property. Subject to the terms of Section 3.4 and the terms of this Agreement generally,the Authority agrees to convey the Phase I Property and the Phase II Property to the Developer. Section 3.2 Conveyance of Development Property. The Authority and the Developer agree that the Closing on the conveyance of the Phase I Property and Phase II Property shall occur on the respective Closing Dates. In the event that the Closings have not occurred by their respective Closing Dates,then a Developer Event of Default shall have occurred under Section 11.1(b) and the Authority may exercise any of its remedies under Section 11.2 hereof. Section 3.3 "As Is" Conveyance. In recognition of the inspection rights accorded the Developer,the Developer shall take the conveyance of Development Property on an "AS IS" "WHERE IS" basis,with all faults and defects, without any representations or warranties, express or implied, except those expressly stated in Section 2.1 of this Agreement, and the Developer waives and releases any claims against the Authority, the City and their respective members,boards, agents and employees, for indemnification, contribution,reimbursement or other payments arising under federal and state law,common law or any other theory relating to environmental or any other condition of the Development Property. Section 3.4 Deferred Purchase Price. The total purchase price to be paid by Developer to the Authority for the Phase I Property and Phase II Property shall be $1.00 for each Phase(the "Purchase Price"). Section 3.5 Subdivision; Title and Survey. (a) Promptly after execution of this Agreement,the Developer will obtain, at Developer's expense, a survey of the Phase I and Phase II Development Property with separate legal descriptions for each Phase of the Development Property,prepared by a surveyor acceptable to City (the "Survey"). The Authority will promptly, after receipt of the Survey, request the City to approve a lot split,minor subdivision or administrative subdivision of the Development Property(the "Subdivision") which will allow the Deed for the Phase I Development Property to be filed in the land records. Notwithstanding the above,the Developer agrees to obtain approval of a plat for the Phase I Development Property and Phase II Development Property with 6 months after Subdivision. (b) Promptly after execution of this Agreement,the Authority will provide the Developer with a commitment for an owner's title insurance policy(subject to standard exceptions)issued by the Title Company naming Developer as the proposed owner-insured of the Development Property (the "Commitment"),together with copies of all documents referred to in the Commitment. The Developer shall make any objections to title in writing to the Authority within ten(10)days of receipt of the Commitment, or the same shall be deemed waived. The 19121130 9 • Authority and the Developer acknowledge and agree that if the Authority does not have good and marketable title to the Development Property on or before the Closing Date,the Authority shall not be obligated to make title marketable and the Developer's sole remedy shall be to terminate this Agreement. The Developer agrees to take title to the Development Property subject to the Permitted Encumbrances set forth on Exhibit E attached hereto and the same are hereby approved by the Developer and shall not be the basis of any title objection. Section 3.6 Environmental Matters. The Developer acknowledges that on August 14, 2003,the Authority provided the Developer a Phase I Report on the Development Property. It is understood that the Authority has delivered the Phase I Report as an accommodation to the Developer, and the Authority makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained therein. Neither the City nor the Authority shall have any responsibility or obligation to undertake any clean up or remediation of any environmental substance or condition on or near the Development Property. Section 3.7 Developer's Right to Inspect. Developer is hereby granted the right to enter upon and inspect, analyze, and test the Development Property for all reasonable purposes, including conducting soil tests. Developer shall pay for the cost of all investigations of the Development Property which are ordered by Developer for purposes of conducting its own investigations of the Development Property. Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold the Authority harmless from any claims, damage, costs, and liability(including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees)resulting from the entering upon the Development Property or the performing of any of the analyses,tests or inspections referred to in this Section. • Section 3.8 Contingencies to Closing on Development Property. (a) Developer's Contingencies. Developer's obligation to close on any Phase of the Development Property is expressly conditioned upon each of the following contingencies being satisfied or waived on or before the Closing Date: (i) Developer shall have closed on its financing of the construction of Phase I or Phase II, as the case may be, of the Minimum Improvements as described in Article VI. (ii) Title to the appropriate Phase of the Development Property shall have been found acceptable, or been made acceptable, in accordance with Section 3.5. (iii) Developer shall have determined that it is satisfied with the results of all matters disclosed by hazardous waste and environmental reviews of the appropriate Phase of the Development Property. (iv) Developer shall have determined that it is satisfied with the results of all matters disclosed by Developer's inspection of the appropriate Phase of the Development Property conducted under Section 3.7. (v) The Authority shall have performed all of the obligations required • to be performed by Authority under this Agreement as of the Closing Date with respect to that Phase. 19121130 10 (vi) The Authority shall have delivered to the Developer all of the Authority's Documents described in Section 3.9. (b) Authority's Contingencies. The Authority's obligation to close on the sale of each Phase of the Development Property is expressly conditioned upon each of the following contingencies being satisfied or waived in writing on or before the Closing Date: (i) Developer shall have delivered to the Authority copies of fully executed construction loan documents in the form, and subject to conditions, acceptable to the Authority, for the construction financing for the respective Phase of the Minimum Improvements. (ii) Developer shall have delivered evidence, acceptable to the Authority,that the Developer has cash or commitments from equity investors for 100%of the required equity to complete the applicable Phase of the Minimum Improvements. (iii) Developer shall have delivered a copy of a fully executed franchise agreement in form, and subject to conditions, acceptable to the Authority, for the appropriate Phase of the Minimum Improvements and the restaurant to be located in Phase I of the Minimum Improvements both with franchisors acceptable to the Authority. (iv) Developer shall have performed all of the obligations required to be performed by Developer under this Agreement as of the Closing Date. (v) The Developer shall have delivered to the Authority all of the • Developer's Documents described in Section 3.9. (vi) The Developer shall have delivered to the Authority a copy of a fully executed fixed price or guaranteed maximum price construction contract for the appropriate Phase of the Minimum Improvements, in form, subject to conditions, and with a general contractor, acceptable to the Authority,with a commencement date of no later than 30 days after the Closing Date. (vii) The Developer shall have obtained the approval of the Authority to the Construction Plans for the appropriate Phase as required by Section 4.3 of this Agreement. (viii) Payment and performance bonds from the contractor or subcontractors in the amount of the applicable contract price for construction of any portion of the connection and any other public improvements by the contractor and subcontractors of all of the improvements covered by their respective contract prior to commencement of the work covered by their respective contracts. Section 3.9 Closing on Phases of the Development Property (a) Time and Place. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Closing on the purchase and sale of the appropriate Phase of the Development Property shall take place on the Closing Date and shall take place at the Saint Paul offices of Briggs and • 1912113v7 11 Morgan or such other place which is mutually acceptable to the parties. The Authority shall • deliver possession of the Development Property on the Closing Date. (b) Authority's Documents. At the Closing,the Authority shall execute, where appropriate, and deliver all of the following Authority's Documents: (i) The Deed properly executed on behalf of the Authority conveying the appropriate Phase of the Development Property to the Developer subject to the Permitted Encumbrances and any other matters not objected to under Section 3.5 hereof, and the Parking and Pedestrian Link Easement Agreement. (ii) Any abstracts of title in the Authority's possession to any portion of the appropriate Phase of the Development Property which is abstract property. (iii) An affidavit of the Authority indicating on the Closing Date that to its actual current knowledge, without duty of inquiry or investigation,there are no outstanding, unsatisfied judgments,tax liens or bankruptcies against or involving the appropriate Phase of the Development Property; that there has been no labor or material furnished to the Development Property for which payment has not been made or for which mechanic's liens could be filed; and that there are no other unrecorded interests in the Development Property. (c) Developer's Documents. At the Closing,the Developer shall execute, where appropriate, and deliver all of the following Developer's Documents: • (i) A completed copy of the sources and uses attached hereto as Exhibit B. (ii) Proof of insurance required pursuant to this Agreement. (iii) To the extent required and obtainable as of the Closing Date, environmental clearances, subdivision approvals,permits, and any other required governmental approvals for the Minimum Improvements. (iv) Funds sufficient for payment by the Developer at Closing of the recording charges or fees for all documents which are to be placed on record,the fee or charge imposed by any closing agent designated by the Title Company, and an other incidental or related closing costs. (v) A certificate of good standing for Developer from the Secretary of State of the State. (vi) The executed Parking and Pedestrian Link Easement Agreement. Section 3.10 Costs. The Authority and the Developer each shall pay their own attorneys' fees. The Developer shall pay all costs of construction relating to the Minimum Improvements. The Developer shall pay, among other things,the Title Company's closing fee • and any other fees related to the Commitment. The Authority shall pay the state deed tax and the fees of Title Company for its title work relating to the issuance of the Commitment. The 19121130 12 Developer shall pay the cost of any surveys,the cost of any environmental audits or work,the premium for the title insurance policy,the mortgage registry tax and the cost of recording the • Deed and the Authority Mortgage,the cost of Developer's inspection of the Development Property and any and all other closing costs related to the transfer of the Development Property to the Developer not specifically agreed to herein to be paid by the Authority. Section 3.11 Acknowledgements by Developer. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that: (a)no promises or commitments of any type or kind have been made by the Authority with respect to providing financial assistance to the Minimum Improvements,whether by loan, grant,bond issuance of otherwise, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement; (b) the Developer will need to obtain all permits and approvals for the construction and operation of the Minimum Improvements required by applicable law, including all building and environmental permits and approvals,and that no promises have been made by the Authority with respect to waiving or modifying any applicable permitting requirements; (c)no promises or commitments have been made by the Authority with respect to the assessed valuation of the Minimum Improvements or any of the facilities ancillary thereto; and(d)the Authority shall have the right to support other projects and developments regardless of whether such projects and developments compete with the Minimum Improvements. • 1912113v7 13 ARTICLE IV CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS Section 4.1 Preliminary Plans. The Developer will submit to the Authority the Preliminary Plans for each Phase of the Minimum Improvements. The Preliminary Plans must be consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, this Agreement,Planning Commission Application No. 2005-0110 and all applicable State and local laws and regulations, insofar as said consistency may be determined at said preliminary stage. The exterior of the Minimum Improvements must make significant use of glazed glass and be of a color compatible with the surrounding acceptable as development table to the Authority in its sole discretion. All exterior designs and p p materials including the color palette must be approved by the Authority. Phase I of the Minimum Improvements must be physically connected to the Earle Browne Heritage Center by Connection the "Connection"), as more fully described in Section 4.12 an enclosed pedestrian ) p ( hereto. The Connection shall be part of the Minimum Improvements. Section 4.2 Construction of Minimum Improvements. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement,the Developer agrees to construct the Minimum Improvements (a Site Plan for which is attached hereto as Exhibit H) on the Development Property in conformance with the approved Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements. No material changes shall be made to the Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements without the Authority's prior written approval. In no event shall any of these changes (a) affect the quality of the Development as provided in the Construction Plans approved by the Authority, (b) materially affect the appearance of the exterior of the Minimum Improvements, (c)reduce the quality uali of the construction materials for the Minimum Improvements, or (d) delete or modify any of the required elements of the Minimum Improvements set forth in Section 4.1 hereof. Section 4.3 'Construction n Plans I (a) The Developer shall deliver to the Authority no later than thirty (30) days prior to Closing the Construction Plans for the appropriate Phase of the Minimum Improvements. The Authority shall review the Construction Plans and will deliver to the Developer before the Closing Date, a written statement approving the Construction Plans or a written statement rejecting the Construction Plans and specifying the deficiencies in the Construction Plans. The Authority shall approve the Construction Plans if: (i)the Construction Plans conform to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii)the Construction Plans are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; and(iii)the Construction Plans do not,to the knowledge of the Authority,violate any applicable Federal, State or local laws, ordinances,rules or regulations. If the Construction Plans are not approved by the Authority,then the Developer shall make such changes as the Authority may reasonably require. (b) The approval of the Construction Plans, or any proposed amendment to representation o r warrant b the Authority does not constitute a re rese Y Y the Construction Plans, by the Aut y p Authority that the Construction Plans or the Minimum Improvements comply with any . applic able building code health or safety regulation, zoning regu lation, en v ironmental la w or other law or regulation, or that the Minimum Improvements will meet the qualifications for 1912113x7 14 issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or that the Minimum Improvements will meet the requirements of the Developer or any other users of the Minimum Improvements. Approval of • the Construction Plans, or any proposed amendment to the Construction Plans,by the Authority will not constitute a waiver of any Developer Event of Default. Section 4.4 Commencement and Completion of Construction. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to Unavoidable Delays,the Developer will commence construction of Phase I of the Minimum Improvements no later than April 30, 2007 and will complete construction of Phase I of the Minimum Improvements no later than October 30, 2008. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to Unavoidable Delays,the Developer will commence construction of Phase 11 of the Minimum Improvements no later than April 30, 2012, and will complete the construction of Phase II of the Minimum Improvements not later than October 30, 2013. The Minimum Improvements will be constructed by the Developer on the Development Property in conformity with the Construction Plans approved by the Authority. At all times during construction, upon the request of the Authority,the Developer will provide the Authority reasonable access to the Development Property. "Reasonable access" means at least one site inspection per month during regular business hours. During construction and marketing of the Minimum Improvements,the Developer will deliver progress reports to the Authority from time to time as mutually agreed upon by the Authority and the Developer. Section 4.5 Compliance with Environmental Requirements. The Developer shall comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal environmental laws and regulations, and will obtain, and maintain compliance under, any and all necessary environmental permits, licenses, approvals or reviews. As of the date of this Agreement,the Developer has received no notice or communication from any local, State, or Federal official that the activities of the Developer, Authority under this Agreement may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation. Section 4.6 Hotel Center Operation. (a) The Developer agrees to operate and maintain the Minimum Improvements as first class hotels through December 31, 2023. Without limiting the generality of the preceding sentence,the Developer agrees that the Minimum Improvements will not,between the date of this Agreement and December 31, 2023,be put to any alternative residential or other use, such as an apartment house, a dormitory, or a rooming house. Section 4.7 Additional Responsibilities of the Developer. (a) The Developer will construct, operate and maintain, or cause to be operated and maintained,the Minimum Improvements in substantial accordance with the terms of this Agreement,the Redevelopment Plan, and all local, State, and Federal laws and regulations (including,but not limited to zoning,building code and public health laws and regulations), except for variances necessary to construct the Minimum Improvements contemplated in the Construction Plans approved by the Authority. (b) The Developer will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses, and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable • 1912113v7 15 local State and Federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the • Minimum Improvements may be lawfully constructed. (c) The Developer will not construct any building or other structures on, over, or within the boundary lines of any public utility easement unless such construction is provided for in such easement or has been approved by the utility involved. (d) The Developer, at its own expense, will replace any public facilities and public utilities damaged during the construction of the Minimum Improvements, in accordance with the current technical specifications, standards and practices of the owner thereof. (e) The Developer will prepare, submit and receive approval from the City and its Planning Commission for the subdivision plat for any portion of the Minimum Improvements, as applicable and appropriate. (f) The Developer will comply with all applicable local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations, as they relate to the Minimum Improvements. (g) The Developer will meet all deadlines set forth on the Timeline. Section 4.8 Certificate of Release of Forfeiture. The Developer shall notify the Authority when the construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements has commenced. The Authority shall promptly inspect each Phase of the Minimum Improvements in order to • determine whether construction on the same has been commenced. If the Authority determines that a Phase of the Minimum Improvements has not been commenced,the Authority shall deliver a written statement to the Developer indicating as such and Developer shall promptly remedy such deficiency. Promptly upon determining that construction has commenced on Phase I of the Minimum Improvements,the Authority will furnish to the Developer a Certificate of Release of Forfeiture in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C certifying commencement of construction of Phase I of the Minimum Improvements. The Developer shall cause the Certificate of Release of Forfeiture to be recorded in the proper office for recordation of deeds and other instruments pertaining to the Development Property. Section 4.9 Completion. The Developer shall notify the Authority when the construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements have been substantially completed; and,upon receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy, will provide the Authority with a copy thereof. Section 4.10 Certain Approvals. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that any approval by the Authority given pursuant to this Agreement does not constitute the consent or approval of the City or any other governmental body or entity to the Development,the subdivision of the Development Property,the plans for or the construction of the Minimum Improvements, or any other aspect thereof, including without limitation, use, zoning,building hed requirements, and the Authority shall have no liability to the Developer for waters tY code and , q damages or otherwise for failure of the Developer to obtain any required consents, approvals, permits and licenses for the Development in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 1912113v7 16 Section 4.11 Business Subsidy Agreement. • (a) In order to satisfy the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994 (the 'Business Subsidy Act"), the Developer acknowledges and agrees that the amount of the under this Business Subsidy" granted to the Developer Agreement is the amount of the Tax p p ent Abatements paid to the Developer plus $2,165,000,the market value of the Development sufficiently Property and that the Business Subsidy is needed because the Project is no t su y feasible for the Developer er to undertake without the Business Subsidy. (b) The public purpose of the Subsidy is to furthe r provide additional commercial facilities in the City, increase the tax base and to create J obs. (c) For its "Job Goals" under this Section 4.11 the Developer covenants that it will provide or cause to be provided 30 full-time equivalent permanent employee positions within two years of the Benefit Date, with these jobs having wage levels of at least$7.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits. (d) For purposes of Section 116J.994, Subdivision 3, of the Subsidy Law,the goals of the Subsidy are the construction of the Minimum Improvements and ownership thereof by the Developer for at least five years after the 'Benefit Date" of the Subsidy, as defined in the Subsidy Law,which is hereby determined to be the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Minimum Improvements. (e) For purposes of the Subsidy Law,the Subsidy shall be considered to be a • forgivable loan to the Developer from the Authority and the City. It is agreed, as required by Section 116J.994, Subdivision 6, if the Developer is in default under this Section 4.11, subject to any remedial provisions of the Subsidy Law as may be applicable,the Developer shall be obligated to repay the Subsidy plus interest from the Closing Date on all such amounts at the implicit price deflator, as defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.70, Subdivision 2. If the Developer meets some but not all of its Job Goals hereinafter defined, the Developer may request in writing, and Authority and City may agree in the absolute discretion of the Board of Commissioners and City Council, that the Subsidy be repaid by the Developer pro rata, e.g., if the Developer created only 15 of the 30 jobs at the Project,the Developer would repay 50%of the Subsidy paid to the Developer,plus accrued interest thereon. The Subsidy is needed in order to induce the Developer to construct and occupy the Project. The Developer covenants that it will continue to own and occupy the Project for at least five years after the Benefit Date. (fl The Developer represents that it has no parent corporation. (g) The Developer represents that the following are all of the State of Minnesota and "local government agency" grants (other than the Subsidy hereunder)to the Minimum Improvements: 19121130 17 Grantor Value ($) Grantor Value ($) (h) The Developer represents that it is not in default on the date hereof on any subsidy agreement entered into by the Developer under the Subsidy Law. (i) The Subsidy is needed to encourage the development of a hotels to provide accommodations for those utilizing the Earle Brown Heritage Center. 0) The Developer shall complete and file with the Authority and City from time to time the report in the form of the attached Exhibit I. The Subsidy Law provides that if the Developer does not make such reports,when due,the Authority or the City must mail the Developer a warning within one week of the required filing date, and if, after 14 days after the postmark date of that warning,the Developer continues to fail to report,then the Developer is required to and shall pay the Authority or the City a penalty of$100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed,up to a maximum of$1,000. The Developer shall file these reports with the Authority and the City, in care of the Executive Director and City Clerk, (1) on March 1 of each year,beginning with the March 1 immediately following the Benefit Date, and(2)within 30 days after the "Compliance Date," hereby defined to be the date which is two years after the Benefit Date. Each March 1 report shall report on the prior calendar year, and each other,report shall report on the period since the last reporting period. • (k) This Section 4.11 is intended to be the "subsidy agreement" required by Section 116J.994, Subdivision 3, of the Subsidy Law. In the event that any provision of this Section 4.11 is inconsistent or in conflict with any provision of the Subsidy Law, and in the event that any provision of the Subsidy Law provides additional requirements,the provisions of the Subsidy Law shall apply and govern. In addition to all reporting obligations of the Developer under this Section 4.11 and Exhibit I,the Developer agrees to provide the Authority and the City with any additional information which may be required in order for the Authority and the City to comply with its reporting requirements, as they may exist or be amended from time to time,under the Subsidy Law. (1) Nothing in this Section 4.11 is intended to limit or otherwise amend the other terms of this Agreement;provided,however,that to the extent that provisions in this Section 4.11 are more extensive or restrictive than any related term elsewhere in this Agreement, the provisions hereof shall govern. The above commitment of the Developer to own the Minimum Improvements for at least five years from the Benefit Date is a requirement of the Subsidy Law(subject to procedures therein allowing relaxation or waiver of said requirement) and shall apply and govern. (m) If the Developer shall default under its agreement in this Section 4.11,the Developer shall then be required to repay the Subsidy to the Authority and the City,plus interest at no less than the implicit price deflator, as defined under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.70, Subdivision 2 from the date of said default and continue paying interest thereon at such rate until the Subsidy is paid in full. 19121130 18 Section 4.12 Construction of the Connection. agrees to construct and a for, at the Developer's sole • (a) The Developer ag pay expense, as part of the Minimum Improvements,the Connection between the Phase I Minimum Improvements located on the Development Property and the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The Parties acknowledge that a portion of the Connection will be located on the Development Property (the "Developer Portion of the Connection ) and a portion will be located on property owned by the City or the Authority (the "Authority Portion of the Connection").The exterior and interior design of the Connection shall be subject to the Authority's approval,which approval may be granted or withheld in the Authority's sole and absolute discretion. The Connection shall be enclosed,heated, air conditioned and have magnetic security doors at the common property line between the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the Development Property. The Authority shall control the hours the security doors are open and closed. The Developer shall construct the Connection in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal rules and regulations. (b) The Developer shall pay and be responsible for all ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with the Developer Portion of the Connection and the Authority shall pay and be responsible for all operation and maintenance costs of the Authority Portion of the Connection. • 19121130 19 ARTICLE V TAX ABATEMENTS; NO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Section 5.1 Payment of Tax Abatements by City. Unless an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing,the City shall pay to the Developer, on an annual basis, not later than 's portion of the increased real 1 of the year following the tax collections a the City p February y g ( ) estate taxes paid on the increased market value of the Phase I Development Property in the taxes payable years 2010 to 2019, and(b)the City's portion of the increased real estate taxes on the Phase II Development Property for up to 10 years, commencing with the taxes payable year immediately after completion of the Phase II Development and ending in any event not any later than 2024 (collectively,the "Tax Abatements"). In no event shall the aggregate total of Tax the Developer hereunder exceed$2 Abatements paid to p ,600,000 in total. Section 5.2 No Public Improvements. Neither the Authority nor the City shall have any obligation to construct, install, improve or modify any public improvements(including without limitation streets, sidewalks, curbs or utility services) in connection with the Development;the Developer acknowledging that all of such improvements or modifications, if any, shall be a part of the Minimum Improvements. • 19121130 20 ARTICLE VI • CERTAIN FINANCING PROVISIONS Section 6.1 Encumbrance of the Development Property. Until the respective Completion Dates, neither the Developer nor any successor in interest to the Developer will engage in any financing or any other transaction creating any mortgage or other encumbrance or lien upon the Development Property, or portion thereof,whether by express agreement or operation of law, or suffer any encumbrance or lien to be made on or attach to the Development Property except for the purpose of obtaining funds only to the extent necessary for constructing the Minimum Improvements (including,but not limited to, land and building acquisition, labor and materials,professional fees, real estate taxes, construction interest, organization and other actual costs of development). Section 6.2 Copy of Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If the Authority delivers any notice or demand to the Developer with respect to a Developer Event of Default under this Agreement,the Authority will also deliver a copy of such notice or demand to the mortgagee of any Mortgage at the address of such mortgagee provided to the Authority in a written notice from the Developer or the mortgagee. Section 6.3 Mortgagee's Option to Cure Events of Default. Upon the occurrence of a Developer Event of Default,the mortgagee under any Mortgage will have the right within the time period required by this Agreement to cure or remedy such Developer Event of Default. Section 6.4 Defaults Under Mortgage. In the event the Developer is in default under any Mortgage,the mortgagee,within ten(10) days after it becomes aware of any default and prior to exercising any remedy available to it due to such default, shall notify the Authority in writing of(i)the fact of default; (ii)the elements of default; and(iii)the actions required to cure the default. If, within the time period required by the Mortgage,the Authority elects (at its sole option)to cure any default under the Mortgage,the mortgagee will pursue none of its remedies under the Mortgage based on such default. Section 6.5 Subordination of Agreement. In order to facilitate the obtaining of financing for the construction of the Minimum Improvements,the Authority agrees to subordinate the provisions of the Agreement to the documents executed in connection with the Construction Loan Mortgage,provided that such subordination shall not deprive the Authority or otherwise limit any of the Authority's rights or remedies under this Agreement. 19121130 21 • ARTICLE VII REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS Section 7.1 Real Property Taxes and Assessments. The Authority shall pay any real estate taxes and installments of special assessments with respect to the appropriate Phase of the Development Property payable prior to the year in which a Closing occurs. Any real estate taxes and installments of special assessments payable with respect to the appropriate Phase of the Development Property in the year of the Closing shall be prorated on a calendar year basis between the Developer and the Authority as of the Closing Date. The Developer shall pay all real estate taxes and installments of special assessments due and payable with respect to the appropriate Phase of the Development Property in the year following the year in which the property is conveyed or otherwise transferred to the Developer and each year thereafter. • • 19121130 22 ARTICLE VIII . INSURANCE AND CONDEMNATION Section 8.1 Insurance. (a) The Developer will obtain and continuously maintain insurance on the Phase of the Development Property owned by the Developer (including the Minimum Improvements) and, from time to time at the request of the Authority, furnish proof to the Authority that the premiums for such insurance have been paid and the insurance is in effect. The insurance coverage described below is the minimum insurance coverage that the Developer must obtain and continuously maintain: (i) Builder's risk insurance,written on the so-called "Builder's Risk-- Completed Value Basis," in an amount equal to one hundred percent(100%)of the insurable value of the Minimum Improvements, and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called "all risk" form of policy. (ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance in amounts and coverages normally held by businesses engaged in activities similar to those of the Developer. (iii) Workers compensation insurance, with statutory coverage. (b) All insurance required in this Article shall be obtained and continuously • maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Developer or its successor that are authorized under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered by such policies. The Developer shall deposit annually with the Authority a certificate or certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless otherwise provided in this Article, each policy must contain a provision that the insurer will not cancel nor modify the policy without giving written notice to the insured and the Authority at least thirty(30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. Not less than fifteen(15)days prior to the expiration of any policy,the Developer or its successor must furnish the Authority evidence satisfactory to the Authority that the policy has been renewed or replaced by another policy conforming to the provisions of this Article, or that there is no necessity for the policy under the terms of this Agreement. In lieu of separate policies, the Developer or its successor may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof,having the coverage required herein, in which event the Developer or its successor will deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in force. (c) The Developer agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of damage exceeding$100,000 in amount to, or destruction of,the Minimum Improvements or any portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. Subject to the terms of any Mortgage, in the event that any such damage does not exceed$100,000,the Developer will forthwith repair, reconstruct and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent • 19121130 23 • necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction and restoration,the Developer or its successor will apply the Net Proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Developer or its successor to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof. In the event the Minimum Improvements or any portion thereof is destroyed by fire or other casualty prior to the Completion Date, and the damage or destruction is estimated to equal or exceed$100,000,then the Developer,within one hundred fifty (150) days after such damage or destruction, subject to the terms of any Mortgage,will proceed forthwith to repair, reconstruct and restore the damaged Minimum Improvements to substantially the same condition or utility value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage or destruction and,to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction and restoration,the Developer will apply the Net Proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage or destruction received by the Developer to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof. Developer shall pay the entire cost of repair,reconstruction and restoration if the net proceeds of the insurance are insufficient. Section 8.2 Condemnation. In the event that title to and/or possession of the Development Property and Minimum Improvements, or any material part thereof, is threatened with a taking through the exercise of the power of eminent domain,the Developer will notify the Authority of the threatened taking with reasonable promptness; and shall keep the Authority advised of the progress thereof. • 19121130 24 ARTICLE IX • DEVELOPER COVENANTS Section 9.1 Maintenance and Operation of the Development. In addition to other maintenance and operation obligations of the Developer under this Agreement,the Developer will, at all times during the term of this Agreement, maintain and operate the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements in a safe and secure way and in compliance with this Agreement and all federal, State and local laws, regulations, rulings and ordinances applicable thereto. The Developer shall pay all of the expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements, subject to the provisions of Section 4.13(c) of this Agreement, including all premiums for insurance insuring against loss or damage thereto and adequate insurance against liability for injury to persons or property arising from the construction or operation of the Minimum Improvements as required pursuant to this Agreement. The Developer shall also pay all costs and expenses of capital improvements and replacements of the Minimum Improvements. During construction or operation of the Minimum Improvements, Developer shall not cause any person working in or attending the Development for any purpose, to be exposed to any hazardous or unsafe condition; and shall cause its contractors, employees or agents employed by Developer to work on the Development Property to take such precautions as may be available to protect the persons in and around the Development Property from hazards arising from the work, and shall further require each such contractor to obtain and maintain liability insurance protecting against liability to persons for injury arising from the work. The Developer shall also be solely responsible for the maintenance and any capital replacement . and/or improvement of the storm water retention pond located adjacent to the Development Property, excluding maintenance related to the waterfall and water level maintenance well located on the adjacent property. Section 9.2 Reciprocal Access and Parking Agreement. Prior to any Closing,the Developer will enter into the Parking and Pedestrian Link Easement Agreement with the Authority attached hereto as Exhibit L upon execution of this Agreement to govern the r Developer and Authority's common use of the driveway and roadway into the parking area for the Earle Brown Heritage Center, and the parties common use of the parking area currently existing for the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the proposed parking areas on the Development Property. • 19121130 25 • ARTICLE X TRANSFER LIMITATIONS AND INDEMNIFICATION Section 10.1 Representation as to Development; Limit on Transfer of Ownership Interest in Developer. The Developer represents to the Authority that its purchase of the Development Property, and its other undertakings under this Agreement, are for the purpose of developing commercial properties, and not for the purpose of speculation in land holding. The Developer acknowledges that, in view of the importance of the development of the Development Property to the general welfare of the Authority and the City,the qualifications and identity of the Developer are of particular concern to the Authority. The Developer further acknowledges that the Authority is willing to enter into this Agreement with the Developer because of the qualifications and identity of the Developer. The Developer agrees that, unless otherwise agreed to by the Authority, Oliver Companies, Inc. will retain directly or indirectly, Control of the Developer, and that Kent Oliver will retain Control of Oliver Companies Inc. Section 10.2 Limitations on Transfer. The Developer may, with prior written notice to the Authority,mortgage the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements to a lender providing construction or permanent financing for the Minimum Improvements. Except as otherwise provided in this Section,the Developer will not sell, assign, convey, lease, mortgage,transfer or otherwise encumber in any other mode or manner this Agreement,the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements, or any interest therein,without the • express written approval of the Authority, which may be given or withheld in the Authority's sole discretion. In the event that the Authority elects to consent to any proposed transfer,the Authority shall be entitled to require, as conditions to any approval of any such transfer of this Development Agreement,the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements that: (a) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial responsibility, as determined by the Authority,necessary and adequate to fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Developer; (b) Any proposed transferee,by instrument in writing satisfactory to the Authority and the City and in form recordable among the land records shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of Authority, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement and agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Developer is subject; (c) There shall be submitted to the Authority for review all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting transfer, and if approved by Authority, its approval shall be indicated to the Developer in writing; (d) The Developer and its transferee shall comply with such other conditions as the Authority may find desirable,in its sole discretion,in order to achieve and safeguard the purposes of the Act,the Development Plan and the Developer Documents; and 19121130 26 (e) In the absence of specific written agreement by the Authority and the City to the contrary, no such transfer or approval by the Authority and the City thereof shall be • deemed to relieve the Developer or any other parry bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise with respect to the construction of the Minimum Improvements, from any of its obligations with respect thereto. Notwithstanding anything contained herein, it is understood that the Developer may sell an interest or interests in the Developer to satisfy any holders of New Market Tax Credits, investors or other persons and no transfer which, at its conclusion, has the Oliver Company, Inc. remaining in Control of the Developer, as per opinion of counsel to the Developer, shall be deemed a violation hereof. Section 10.3 Indemnification (a) The Developer releases from and covenants and agrees that the Authority and the City,their governing body members, officers, agents, including the independent contractors, consultants and legal counsel, servants and employees thereof(hereinafter, for purposes of this Section, collectively the "Indemnified Parties") shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any and all losses or damages to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Development to the extent not attributable to the gross negligence of the Indemnified Parties. (b) Except for gross negligence of the Indemnified Parties,the Developer • agrees to indemnify the Indemnified Parties,now and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claims, demands, suits, costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees), actions or other proceedings whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from the actions or inactions of the Developer(or if other persons acting on its behalf or under its direction or control)under this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, operation and maintenance of the Development. Section 10.4 Limitation. All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority, or the Developer contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority or the Developer, respectively, and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant or employee of the Authority,the City or the Developer in the individual capacity thereof. • 19121130 27 • ARTICLE XI EVENTS OF DEFAULT AND REMEDIES Section 11.1 Developer Events of Default. Any of the following shall be a Developer Event of Default: (a) A default shall occur under the Construction Loan Mortgage and is not cured within the time permitted therein; or (b) either of the closings on the Phase I Property or Phase II Property do not occur by their respective Closing Dates; or (c) failure by the Developer to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement, including but not limited to the failure of the Developer to accomplish the activities set forth in the Timeline attached hereto as Exhibit K, and the continuation of any such failure for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice of such failure from any party hereto; or (d) the Developer shall (i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States Bankruptcy Act of 1978, as amended, or under any similar Federal or State law; or(ii) make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors; or(ii)become insolvent or adjudicated a bankrupt; or if a petition or answer proposing the adjudication of Developer, as a bankrupt or its reorganization under any present or future Federal bankruptcy act or any similar Federal or State law shall be filed in any court and such petition or answer shall not be discharged or denied within ninety(90) days after the filing thereof; or a receiver,trustee or liquidator of Developer, or of the Development, or part thereof, shall be appointed in any proceeding brought against Developer, and shall not be discharged within ninety(90) days after such appointed, or if Developer shall consent to or acquiesce in such appointment. Section 11.2 Authority Events of Default. The failure of the Authority to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement, and the continuation of such failure for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice of such failure from any party hereto shall be an Authority Event of Default. Section 11.3 Authority and City Remedies on Default. Whenever any Developer Event of Default occurs,the Authority or the City may take any one or more of the following actions: (a) Suspend their performance under this Agreement. (b) If the Developer Event of Default occurs prior to a Closing Date,the Authority or the City may cancel and terminate this Agreement,with respect to any Phase of the Development Property that has not been conveyed,pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section . 559.21 upon thirty (30) days written notice of default. 1912113v7 28 (c) If the Developer Event of Default occurs after a Closing Date,the Authority may withhold the Certificate of Release of Forfeiture and/or cancel and terminate this • Agreement, and the City may terminate the payment of any tax abatements to the Developer. (d) Take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to the Authority or the City to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Developer under this Agreement. Section 11.4 Revesting Title in the Authority. If, subsequent to conveyance of any Phase of the Development Property to the Developer, and before issuance of any Certificate of Release of Forfeiture pursuant to Section 4.8, a Developer Event of Default occurs and is not cured within any cure period allowed,then the Authority shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of the appropriate Phase of the Development Property and to terminate and revest in the Authority such portion of the estate conveyed by the Deed to the Developer, it being the intent of this Agreement that the conveyance or transfer of the Development Property to the Developer shall be conditioned on the Developer's performance hereunder, and that upon the occurrence of an Event of Default by the Developer, all Development Property for which all rights and interests of the Developer, and any assigns or successors in interest to and in the Development Property shall revert to the Authority. Section 11.5 Developer Remedies on Default. Whenever any Authority Event of Default occurs by the Authority,the Developer may take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or desirable to the Developer to enforce specific performance and observance • of any obligation, agreement, or covenant of the Authority under this Agreement,provided, however,that the Developer hereby waives any and all rights it may have under any theory of law or equity to make any claim against the Authority for any damages whatsoever regardless of the type of damages. Section 11.6 No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the Authority is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies unless otherwise expressly stated, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any Developer Event of Default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof,but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. Section 11.7 No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. If any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. Section 11.8 Reimbursement of Attorneys' Fees. If the Developer shall default under any of the provisions of this Agreement, and the Authority or City shall employ attorneys or incur other reasonable expenses for the collection of payments due hereunder, or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the 1912113v7 29 • Developer contained in this Agreement,the Developer will on demand therefor reimburse the Authority and the City for the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other reasonable expenses so incurred. 1912113v7 30 ARTICLE XII • ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Section 12.1 Conflicts of Interest. No member of the Board, City Council or other official of the Authority or the City shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement,the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements, or any contract, agreement or other transaction contemplated to occur or be undertaken thereunder or with respect thereto, nor shall any such member of the governing body or other official participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interests of any corporation,partnership or association in which he or she is directly or indirectly interested.No member, official or employee of the Authority or the City shall be personally liable to the Authority or the City in the event of any default or breach by Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement. Section 12.2 Real Estate Agents. The Developer represents that it has retained Cambridge Commercial Realty as their broker in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and will pay the broker commission for Cambridge Commercial Realty. The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify the Authority and City from any real estate or other sales commission or fee payable to any broker hired or engaged by the indemnifying party in respect of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Section 12.3 Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, articles and Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 12.4 Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication under this Agreement by any party to any other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, and in the case of Developer, is addressed to or delivered personally to Developer at CAMBRIDGE Commercial Realty, 4530 West 77th Street, Suite 250, Edina, Minnesota 55435, Attention: John Sheehan and O-H Hospitality, 215 North Central Avenue, Duluth, Minnesota 55807, Attention: Kent Oliver,with a copy to Hanft Fride, A Professional Association, 1000 US Bank Place, 130 West Superior Street, Duluth,Minnesota 55807, Attention: Bill Burns, in the case of the Authority or the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway,Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430-2199, Attention: Executive Director, or at such other address with respect to any such party as that party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other, as provided in this Section. Section 12.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 12.6 Law Governing. This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 19121130 31 Section 12.7 Consents and Approvals. In all cases where consents or approvals are . required hereunder, such consents or approvals shall not be unreasonably conditioned, delayed or withheld. All consents or approvals shall be in writing in order to be effective. Section 12.8 Representatives. Except as otherwise provided herein, all approvals and other actions required of or taken by the Authority or the City shall be effective upon action by the Authority Representative or City Representative. All actions required of or taken by Developer shall be effective upon action by a duly authorized officer of the respective party. Section 12.9 Superseding Effect. This Agreement reflects the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the development of the Development, and supersedes in all respects all prior agreements of the parties, whether written or otherwise,with respect to the Development. Section 12.10 Relationship of Parties. Nothing in this Agreement is intended, or shall be construed,to create a partnership or joint venture among or between the parties hereto, and the rights and remedies of the parties hereto shall be strictly as set forth in this Agreement. Section 12.11 Mediation. All claims, disputes or other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement or breach thereof, shall be referred to non-binding mediation before, and as a condition precedent to,the initiation of any legal action hereof,provided for herein. Each party agrees to participate in up to four hours of mediation. The mediator shall be selected by the parties,or if the parties are unable to agree on a mediator then any party can request the administrator of the Hennepin County District Court • Civil ADR Program and/or similar person, to select a person from its list of qualified neutrals. The mediation shall be attended by employees or agents or each party having authority to settle the dispute. All expenses related to the mediation shall be borne by each party, including without limitation, the costs of any experts or legal counsel. All applicable statutes of limitations and all defense based on the passage of time are tolled while the mediation procedures are pending, and for a period of thirty (30) days thereafter. Section 12.12 Venue. All matters, whether sounding in tort or in contract, relating to the validity, construction,performance, or enforcement of this Agreement shall be controlled by and determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota, and the Developer agrees that all legal actions initiated by the Developer or Authority with respect to or arising from any provision contained in this Agreement shall be initiated, filed and venued exclusively in the State of Minnesota,Hennepin County,District Court and shall not be removed therefrom to any other federal or state court. Section 12.13 Provisions Surviving Rescission or Expiration. Sections 3.10, 10.3 and 11.8 shall survive any rescission,termination or expiration of this Agreement with respect to or arising out of any event, occurrence or circumstance existing prior to the date thereof. Section 12.14 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for the observance and performance of the parties' respective obligations and duties under this Agreement. • 19121130 32 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Authority,the City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in their names and on their behalf, all on or as of the date first above written. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Executive Director CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its: By: Its: BROOKLYN HOTEL PARTNERS,LLC • By: Its: 19121130 33 • EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Farm Addition PID Number: 35119 21 430016 • 19121130 A-1 EXHIBIT B SOURCES AND USES • Total Sources Construction Loan $ Owner Equity $ Other $ Total Sources $ Total Development Costs Building Construction Construction Costs $ Underground Parking $ Environmental $ Demolition $ Site Work& Landscaping $ ROW $ Utilities $ Construction Contingency $ Builders Risk $ Permits $ Sub-Total Building Construction $ Land Acquisition $ Soft Cost Construction City Fees $ Architectural $ Engineering $ Plat $ Inspecting Architect $ Total Soft Construction $ Soft Cost Sales Broker Draws $ Broker Commissions $ Marketing Sales Office $ Marketing Advertising $ . 19121130 B-1 • Sub-Total Soft Cost Sales $ Soft Cost Operations Legal Operations $ Insurance Operations $ CLC Plat $ Other Soft Cost $ Bank Reimbursable $ Real Estate Taxes $ Developers Overhead $ Sub-Total Soft Cost Operations $ Construction Loan Interest $ Construction Loan Closing Costs Title Insurance $ Mortgage Registration Tax $ Financing Fee $ • Financing Release Fee $ Legal Closing $ Survey $ Soil Test $ Land Appraisal $ Loan Appraisal $ Loan Disbursement Fee $ Unit Closing Cost $ Sub-Total Closing Costs $ Total Development Costs $ • 1912113v7 B-2 EXHIBIT C • CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE OF FORFEITURE WHEREAS,the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center(the "Grantor"), a public body corporate and politic,by a Deed recorded in the Office of the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, as Document Number ,has conveyed to Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC (the "Grantee") in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota,the following legally described property to wit: and • WHEREAS, said Deed incorporated and contained certain covenants and restrictions, the breach of which by the Grantee, its successors and assigns,would result in a forfeiture and right of re-entry by the Grantor,its successors and assigns, said covenants and restrictions being set forth in said Deed and in a Development Agreement executed by and between the Grantor, the City of Brooklyn Center and the Grantee dated , 200_(the "Development Agreement"); and WHEREAS,the Grantee has to the present date performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Grantor to permit the execution and recording of this certification; NOW,THEREFORE,this is to certify that all the conditions required to be satisfied by the Grantee under Section 4.8 of the Development Agreement have been satisfied by the Grantee therein and that the provisions for forfeiture of title and right to reentry for breach of condition subsequent by the Grantor, contained therein, are hereby released absolutely and forever insofar as they apply to the land described herein, and the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota is hereby authorized to accept for recording and to record the filing of this instrument,to be a conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of the contract referred to herein which would result in a forfeiture by the Grantee, its successors and assigns, and right of re-entry in the • 1912113v7 C-1 • Grantor, its successors and assigns, as set forth in said Deed, and that said Deed shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Authority has caused this Certificate of Release of Forfeiture to be executed with by its duly authorized officer as of the day of , 200 . ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its: Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 200_,by , the Executive Director of the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, a body corporate and politic organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said Authority. Notary Public • 19121130 C'2 EXHIBIT D QUIT CLAIM DEED • Corporation Partnership or Limited Liability Company to Corporation,Partnership or Limited Liability Com an No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. County Auditor By Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ Date: , 200_ (Reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, a public body corporate and politic (the "Grantor"), hereby conveys and quitclaims to Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company(the "Grantee")the real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows (the "Property"): • together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto (the "Property"). Grantor's delivery of this Deed and conveyance of title, and Grantee's acceptance of this Deed and title to the Property, are expressly subject to: (1)the terms and conditions and the rights of the Grantor and the obligations of the Grantee under that certain Development Agreement by and between Grantor, the City of Brooklyn Center and Grantee dated , 200_(the "Development Agreement"), including without limitation the reversionary provisions of Section 11.4; (2)reservation of minerals and mineral rights; (3)real estate taxes and special assessments due and payable in 2006 and subsequent years; (4) applicable zoning laws and ordinances and all other local, state, regional and federal laws and regulations; (5) all easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions of record, if any; and(6) all easements and rights-of-way shown in any recorded plat. Promptly after the conditions set forth in Section 4.8 of the Development Agreement have been satisfied,the Grantor will furnish the Grantee with a Certificate of Release of Forfeiture in the form attached to this Deed as Exhibit B. Such certification by the Grantor shall be (and it shall be so provided in the certification itself) a conclusive determination of satisfaction of the requirements of Section 4.8 of the Development Agreement of the Developer to construct the Minimum Improvements, it being the intention of the parties that upon the granting and filing of the Certificate of Release of Forfeiture that the right of reentry contained in this Deed,be forever released and terminated as to the Property. • 19121130 D-1 Forfeiture, In the event that prior to the execution and delivery of the Certificate of Release of Fo , p rY . • the Grantee herein shall default under Section 11.1 of the Development Agreement and fall to cure such default within the period and in the manner stated in Section 11.1,then the Grantor shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of the property and to terminate and revest in the Grantor the estate conveyed by this Deed to the Grantee, its assigns or successors in interest, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Grantee covenants and agrees that no discrimination because of race or religion,political or other affiliation will be allowed or permitted to occur in the use, sale or rental of any portion of the Property. It is intended and agreed that the above and foregoing agreement and covenants shall be covenants running with the land, and that they shall, in any event, and without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or otherwise, and except only as otherwise specifically provided in this Deed,be binding,to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity for the benefit and in favor of, and enforceable by,the Grantor, its successors and assigns, and any successor in interest to the Property, or any part thereof against the Grantee, its successors and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Property, or any part thereof or any interest therein, and any party in possession or occupancy of the Property or any part thereof. The Grantor does not know of any wells located on the described real property. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its: 19121130 D-2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) • )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200_,by ,the of the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of said body. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association(MMD) W2200 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 • 19121130 D-3 • EXHIBIT E PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES I. Real estate taxes and special assessments due and payable in 2006 and subsequent years. 2. All easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions of record, if any. 3. All easements and rights-of-way shown in any recorded plat. 4. Reservation of minerals and mineral rights. 5. Applicable zoning laws and ordinances and all other local, state, regional and federal laws and regulations. 6. Those obligations, restrictions and conditions as provided in the Development Agreement. • 1912113v7 E-1 I EXHIBIT F MAP DEPICTING PHASE I PROPERTY AND PHASE II PROPERTY • • 19121130 F-1 • EXHIBIT G INTENTIONALLY OMITTED • 19121130 G-1 EXHIBIT H SITE PLAN Planning Commission Application No. 2005 —0110, as approved by the Planning Commission on June 16, 2005 and by the City Council on June 27, 2005. • 19121130 H-1 EXHIBIT I • BUSINESS SUBSIDY REPORT Report of Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC, as Recipient of Business Subsidy This report is required by Section 4.10 of that certain Development Agreement, dated as of , 2006 (the "Agreement"), among the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota(the "Authority"), the City of Brooklyn Center(the "City") and Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC (the "Developer"), and as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994, Subdivision 7, as amended. Capitalized terms which are used but not otherwise defined in this report have the meanings given to those under the Agreement. The Authority and City have under the Agreement granted certain business subsidies to the Developer. Under the Agreement, the Developer is required to file reports with the Executive Director and City Clerk(1) on March 1 of each year, beginning with the March 1 immediately following the date of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project, being referred to herein as the Benefit Date, and (2) within 30 days after the Compliance Date, namely the date which is two years after the Benefit Date. Each March 1 report is required to report on the prior calendar year,and each other report shall report on the period since the last reporting period. The Developer's Job Goals under Section 4.10 of the Agreement are to create at the Project 30 permanent full-time equivalent jobs within two years from the Benefit Date. These fobs are required to have a wage of at least$7.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits. The Developer hereby certifies to the Authority and the City the following: (1) As provided in the Agreement,the total fair market value of the Subsidy is estimated to be $ , the type of Subsidy is tax abatement and the sale of land valued at $2,165,000 for$1.00. The public purposes of the subsidy are to further development of the City's commercial and tax base and to create jobs. (2) The hourly wage of each permanent full-time equivalent job which has been created by the Developer at the Project since the Benefit Date, with separate bands of wages, are as follows: Number of Jobs Wage Levels Per Hour • 19121130 I-1 i (3) The cost of health insurance provided by the Developer for the above- referenced jobs, separated by bands of wages, is as follows: Number of Jobs Wage Levels Per Hour (4) If the Developer has not already met the Job Goals, it reasonably expects that it will meet those goals on or before 3200_, and is taking the following steps to meet the Job Goals: *(5) The Developer has no parent corporation. * provided b the Authority under the Agreement, • (6) Other than the subsidy p y Y there are no other State of Minnesota or "local government agency" grants of subsidy to the Developer for the Project, except for: Grantor Value($) Grantor Value($) (8) The Developer hereby agrees to provide upon request such other information as the Commissioner of the Department of Trade and Economic Development of the State of Minnesota may request the Authority or the Developer to provide or as may be required by the Subsidy Law. (9) The Developer represents that it has continuously owned the Project since its completion,that the Developer has continuously used and owned the Project, and the Developer expects said occupancy to continue for the foreseeable future. Verify . 19121130 1-2 (10) The Developer is not in default on the date hereof of its obligations under any subsidy agreement under the Subsidy Law. BROOKLYN HOTEL PARTNERS,LLC By: Its: This report is to be filed with: City of Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 Attn: Executive Director and City Clerk 1912113v7 1-3 • EXHIBIT J LIST OF APPROVED HOTEL FLAGS FOR PHASE I AND PHASE II Phase I Full Service,First Class Phase H Embassy Suites Holiday Inn Express Radisson Marriot Courtyard Sheraton Hilton Garden Inn Hilton Indigo g Marriot Cambria Staybridge Homewood Hampton Comfort • • 1912113v7 J-1 EXHIBIT K • TIMELINE Date Activijy 1. January 30, 2007 Preliminary Plans for Phase I Delivered to Authority for Approval 2. February 30, 2007 Construction Plans for Phase I Delivered to Authority for Approval 3. March 30, 2007 Evidence of Construction Financing for Phase I Delivered to Authority 4. April 30, 2007 Closing 5. April 30, 2007 Commencement of Construction of Phase I of Minimum Improvements 6. October 30, 2008 Substantial Completion of Construction of Phase I of Minimum Improvements Date Activi 1. January 30, 2012 Preliminary Plans for Phase II Delivered to Authority for Approval 2. February 30, 2012 Construction Plans for Phase II Delivered to Authority for Approval 3. March 30,2012 Evidence of Construction Financing for Phase I1 of Minimum Improvements Delivered to Authority 4. April 30, 2012 Closing and Commencement of Construction of Phase II of Minimum Improvements 5. October 30, 2013 Substantial Completion of Construction of Phase II of Minimum Improvements 1912113v7 K-1 EXHIBIT L PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN LINK EASEMENT AGREEMENT • This Agreement is entered into by ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic ("EDA"), and BROOKLYN HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company("Developer"), as of , 200_(the 'Execution Date"). RECITALS: A. EDA is the owner of certain land located in Hennepin County Minnesota, which is improved and operated by the EDA as the Earle Brown Heritage Center, a conference and event center. B. Developer is the owner of certain land located in Hennepin County Minnesota located immediately adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center which it acquired this date from the EDA and which it intends to develop and operate as a hotel facility. C. EDA and Developer desire to create common parking rights on their respective properties and to provide for the mutual use and enjoyment of an enclosed pedestrian link to be constructed on their properties by Developer. D. In order to encourage the common use and operation of their respective properties, EDA and Developer desire to enter into certain covenants and agreements as a part of a general plan, and to grant to each other certain reciprocal easements in to over, and across their respective properties. AGREEMENT: EDA and Developer agree as follows: 1. Definitions 1.1. Center. The "Center" shall mean the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the adjacent hotel facility, legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Farm, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, Minnesota, and Tracts D and F,Registered Land Survey No. 1594, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1.2. Conference Facility. The "Conference Facility" shall mean the buildings and improvements comprising the Earle Brown Heritage Center located on the EDA Tract. L-1 19121130 1.3. Developer Tract. The "Developer Tract" shall mean the property which is legally • described as: Lot 1, Block 1,Brooklyn Farm, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, Minnesota. The boundaries of the Developer Tract are outlined and labeled "Developer Tract" on the Site Plan. On the Execution Date the Owner of the Developer Tract is Developer. 1.4. Development Agreement. The "Development Agreement" shall mean that certain Development Agreement dated , 2006,by and between EDA and Developer relating to the acquisition and development of the Hotel Facility, as the same may be amended, supplemented and extended from time to time. 1.5. EDA Tract. The "EDA Tract" shall mean the property which is legally described as: Tracts D and F, Registered Land Survey No. 1594, Hennepin County,Minnesota. The boundaries of the EDA that are outlined and labeled "EDA Tract" on the Site • Plan. On the Execution Date the Owner of the EDA Tract is EDA. 1.6. Facility or Facilities. A "Facility" or "Facilities" shall mean the Conference Facility and/or the Hotel Facility. 1.7. Hotel Facility. The "Hotel Facility" shall mean the buildings and improvements of the hotel to be constructed and located by Developer on the Developer Tract in accordance with and pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. 1.8. Occupant. "Occupant" shall mean any Person from time to time entitled to the use and occupancy of any portion of the land or a building in the Center under an ownership right or any lease, sublease, license, concession, or other similar agreement. 1.9. Owner. "Owner" shall mean each signatory hereto and, after compliance with the notice requirements set forth below,their respective successors and assigns who become owners of any portion of the Center. An Owner transferring all or any portion of its interest in the Center shall give notice to all other Owners of such transfer and shall include in such notice at least the following information: (a)the name and address of the transferee, and(b) a copy of the legal description of the portion of the Center transferred. No such transfer shall affect the existence, priority,validity or enforceability of any lien created under this Agreement or which is recorded against the transferred portion of the Center prior to receipt of . the notice. Until such notice requirement is complied with,the transferring Owner shall for the purpose of this Agreement only)be the transferee's agent. ( L-2 19121130 Each Owner shall be liable for the performance of all covenants,obligations and undertakings set forth in this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Center owned by it which accrue during the period of such ownership, and such liability shall continue with respect to any portion transferred until the notice requirement set forth in this Section is complied with, at which time the transferring Owner's liability for future obligations shall terminate with respect to the portion transferred. The transferee Owner shall automatically become liable for all obligations,performance requirements and amounts which arise subsequent to compliance with the notice requirement. 1.10. Parking Lot Area. The "Parking Lot Area" shall mean the portions of the EDA Tract and the Developer Tract designated "Parking Lot Area" on Exhibit B. 1.11. Pedestrian Link. The "Pedestrian Link" shall mean the enclosed one-story, ground level, climate controlled structure to be installed and constructed by Developer on the EDA Tract and the Developer Tract in accordance with and pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement providing a pedestrian access corridor between the Conference Facility and the Hotel Facility(such Pedestrian Link being referred to as the "Connection" in the Development Agreement). 1.12. Pedestrian Link Corridor Area. The "Pedestrian Link Corridor Area" shall mean the portions of the EDA Tract and the Developer Tract located within the Pedestrian Link and designated "Pedestrian Link Corridor Area" on Exhibit C. • 1.13. Permittee. "Permittee" shall mean all Occupants and the officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, customers, vendors, suppliers,visitors, invitees, licensees, subtenants, and concessionaires of Occupants insofar as their activities relate to the intended use of the Center. Among others, Persons engaging in any of the following activities will not be considered to be Permittees: 1.13.1 Exhibiting any placard, signs or notice. 1.13.2 Distributing any circular,handbill, placard, or booklet. 1.13.3 Soliciting memberships or contributions. 1.13.4 Parading, picketing, or demonstrating. 1.13.5 Failing to follow regulations relating to the use of the Center. 1.14. Person. "Person" shall mean any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation,trust, or any other form of business or government entity. 1.15. Site Plan. The "Site Plan" shall mean the site plan which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. 1.16. Tract. "Tract" shall mean any portion of the Center owned by an Owner. L-3 19121130 2. Term This Agreement shall be effective as of the Execution Date and shall continue in full force and effect until 11:59 p.m. on the date which is 30 years after the Execution Date; provided, however,that this Agreement, and all restrictions and covenants contained in this Agreement, shall be automatically extended on a year to year basis following such date which is 30 years after the Execution Date unless any Owner notifies all other Owners,by notice given at least 4 months prior to the end of any year,that it exercises its option to prevent this Agreement from being so extended; and provided further that, whether or not this Agreement is so extended,the easements referred to in Section 3 shall continue in force and effect in perpetuity as provided in Section 3, except as otherwise specifically provided in subsections 3.3 and 4.6. Upon expiration of this Agreement, all rights and privileges derived from and all duties and obligations created and imposed by the P rovisions of this Agreement, except as relates to the easements mentioned above, shall terminate and have no further force or effect: provided, however,that the expiration of this Agreement shall not limit or affect any remedy at law or in equity that an Owner may have against any other Owner with respect to any liability or obligation arising or to be performed under this Agreement prior to the date of such expiration. 3. Easements 3.1. Parkin. Each Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns,hereby grants and conveys to each other Owner for its use and for the use of its Permittees, in • common with others entitled to use the same, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for parking and the passage of vehicles and pedestrians over and across the Parking Lot Area of the grantor Owner's Tract. Such easement rights shall be subject to the following reservations and agreements as well as other provisions contained in this Agreement: 3.1.1 An Owner may at any time make changes to, close off, and/or construct buildings and improvements on, all or any portion of the-Parking Lot Area on its Tract without the approval of any other Owner, so long as such an change, closing or construction does not unreasonably interfere with y of the easements granted in subsections 3.2 through 3.5, inclusive, and further provided that all of the following conditions are met: 3.1.1.1 The accessibility of the Parking Lot Area for parking and pedestrian and vehicular traffic (as it relates to the remainder of the Parking Lot Area which is not subject to such change, closure or construction), is not unreasonably restricted or hindered. 3.1.1.2 No governmental rule, ordinance or regulation shall be violated as not result in an other a result of such action and such action shall y Owner being in violation of any governmental rule, ordinance or regulation. L-4 1912113v7 L i 3.1.1.3 The number of remaining parking spaces on such Tract shall be at least equal to the number required by applicable zoning and • building ordinances,without regard to or reliance upon the number of parking spaces available on the other Owner's Tract. 3.1.1.4 No change shall be made in the access points between the Parking Lot Area and the public streets;provided,however that additional access points may be created. 3.1.1.5 At least 30 days prior to making any such change, modification or alteration, the Owner desiring to do such work shall deliver to each other Owner copies of the plans therefor. 3.1.2 . Each Owner reserves the right to close off its portion of the Parking Lot Area for such reasonable period of time as may be necessary to make needed repairs or as may be legally necessary, in the opinion of such Owner's counsel,to prevent the acquisition of prescriptive rights by anyone; provided however,that prior to closing off any portion of the Parking Lot Area, such Owner shall give written notice to each other Owner of its intention to do so, and shall attempt to coordinate such closing with each other Owner so that no unreasonable interference shall occur. 3.1.3 Each Owner reserves the right at any time and from time to time to exclude and restrain any Person who is not a Permittee from using its Parking Lot Area. 3.1.4 No Permittee shall be charged for the right to use the Parking Lot Area, except pursuant to a lease or other agreement entered into between an Owner and a Permittee. 3.1.5 Parking in the Parking Lot Area shall be limited to automobiles, motorcycles and pickup trucks; no semitrailers,recreational vehicles, boats, trailers or large trucks will be permitted to park in the Parking Lot Area; there shall be no overnight parking, except that overnight parking shall be permitted on the Developer Tract by Permittees of the Developer. 3.1.6 Each Owner shall use good faith, commercially reasonable efforts to require that all employees of its Occupants park in the portion of the Parking Lot Area on its Tract. 3.2. Pedestrian Link. Each Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns,hereby grants and conveys to each other Owner for its use and the use of its Permittees, in common with others entitled to use the same, a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for the passage of pedestrians over and across the Pedestrian Link Corridor Area of the grantor Owner's Tract. Such easement rights shall be subject • L-5 19121130 • to the following reservations and agreements as well as other provisions contained in this Agreement: 3.2.1 Once constructed, no Owner shall may any changes,modifications or alterations to the Pedestrian Link except as provided in subsection 4.2. 3.2.2 Each Owner reserves the right to close off its portion of the Pedestrian Link Corridor Area for such reasonable period of time as may be necessary to make needed repairs or as may be legally necessary, in the opinion of such Owner's counsel,to prevent the acquisition of prescriptive rights by anyone;provided however,that prior to closing off any portion of the Pedestrian Link Corridor Area, such Owner shall give written notice to each other Owner of its intention to do so, and shall attempt to coordinate such closing with each other Owner so that no unreasonable interference shall occur. 3.2.3 Each Owner reserves the right at any time and from time to time to exclude and restrain any Person who is not a Permittee from using the Pedestrian Link Corridor Area or its Tract. 3.2.4 No Permittee shall be charged for the right to use the Pedestrian Link Corridor Area. • 3.2.5 The Pedestrian Link shall be used only as a pedestrian walkway. 3.3. Temporary Access for Construction. EDA, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby grants and conveys to Developer, a temporary,non-exclusive access easement over and across such portions of the EDA Tract as is reasonably necessary for Developer to construct the Pedestrian Link in accordance with and pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. Such temporary easement shall expire 1 year after the Execution Date. 3.4. General Access for Maintenance and Repairs. Each Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns,hereby grants and conveys to each other Owner a perpetual,non-exclusive easement over the granting Owner's Tract(s) for the purpose of access to and repairing and/or maintaining any roads,parking areas, portions of the Pedestrian Link and/or other items which are located on the granting Owner's Tract but which,pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, may be repaired and/or maintained by the grantee Owner. Nothing contained in this subsection shall prevent any granting Owner from at any time making changes to, closing off, and/or constructing buildings and improvements on any portion of its Tract not covered by the easements described in subsections 3.1 and 3.2 so long as (a)the other Owners continuously have reasonable access to the roads,parking areas, portions of the Pedestrian Link and/or other items which are located on the granting Owner's Tract but which,pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement,may be repaired and/or maintained by the grantee Owner, and(b) • L-6 1912113v7 such changes, closing and/or construction do not violate any other provisions of this Agreement. • 3.5. Access to Certain Buildings. Each Owner, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby grants and conveys to each other Owner a perpetual,non- exclusive easement over any portion of the granting Owner's Tract which is located within 10 feet of a building on the other Owner's Tract, if any, for the purpose of access to and repairing and/or maintaining the exterior of such building (including, without limitation,the Pedestrian Link); however,the existence of this easement shall not prohibit or restrict the granting Owner from constructing buildings, structures or other improvements within such 10 foot area, in which case the grantee Owner's easement shall not apply to the extent such 10 foot area is occupied by a building, above-grade structure or other improvement. 3.6. Restriction. No Owner shall grant any easement for any purpose set forth in this Section 3 for the benefit of any property not within the Center; provided however, that the foregoing shall not prohibit the granting or dedicating of utility easements by an Owner on its Tract to governmental or quasi-governmental authorities or to public utilities; and provided further,that any Owner may grant a private utility easement to any Person so long as (a)the area of such easement is confined to the granting Owner's Tract and (b) such easement does not include any connection to any common utility lines. 4. Pedestrian Link • 4.1. Design. The Pedestrian Link has been designed and is to be constructed in accordance with and pursuant to the plans and specifications approved by EDA under the Development Agreement. 4.2. Modifications. No change, modification or alteration in the Pedestrian Link or the location of the Pedestrian Link Corridor Area may be made by any Owner without the prior approval of the other Owner,provided that each Owner may make minor non-structural changes to the Pedestrian Link on its Tract which do not affect the exterior physical appearance of the Pedestrian Link without the consent of each Owner, provided that all of the following conditions are met: 4.2.1 The accessibility of the Pedestrian Link Corridor Area for pedestrian access is not unreasonably restricted or hindered. 4.2.2 No governmental rule, ordinance or regulation shall be violated as a result of such action, and such action shall not result in any other Owner being in violation of any governmental rule, ordinance or regulation. 4.2.3 No change shall be made in the access points between the Pedestrian Link and the Conference Facility or the Pedestrian Link and the Hotel Facility. L-7 19121130 • 4.2.4 At least 30 days prior to making any such change, modification or alteration,the Owner desiring to do such work shall deliver to each other Owner copies of the plans therefor. Notwithstanding the foregoing,the Owner of the EDA Tract, may,without the prior written consent of the other Owner, make changes, modifications or alterations to the Pedestrian Link on its Tract provided an enclosed pedestrian access shall be maintained between the Facilities. Each Owner shall have the right, subject to all applicable laws and the easements and agreements described in this Agreement,to design and construct or expand existing structures on its Tract(other than the Pedestrian Link); provided,however, that any structure so constructed or expanded shall, at a minimum, allow for the repair, maintenance and operation of the Pedestrian Link as contemplated hereby. In the event that an Owner constructs or expands such a structure on its Tract which necessitates an alteration in a previously constructed portion of the Pedestrian Link, any Pedestrian Link alteration shall be solely the expense of the Owner doing the construction or expansion. Any modifications, alterations or changes to.the completed Pedestrian Link and connections to the Facilities shall be made in accordance with and subject to all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes and ordinances. 4.3. Certain Operations. The Owner of the EDA Tract shall be responsible for locking and unlocking the door located in the Pedestrian Link at the common boundary • between the EDA Tract and the Developer Tract. Such door shall be locked at such times as EDA deems appropriate in its sole discretion. The Pedestrian Link shall have passage doors into the Conference Facility and the Hotel Facility. Said doors shall remain closed(other than to allow passage of pedestrians, or in the event of emergencies)to avoid interference with efficient and proper operation of the respective heating,ventilating and air conditioning systems located within and/or serving the Pedestrian Link from the EDA Tract and the Developer Tract. Each Owner shall be responsible for security in the portion of the Pedestrian Link located on its Tract. The use of the Pedestrian Link shall be subject to such reasonable rules, regulations and restrictions for the equitable use thereof by the Owners and their Permittees as the Owners may, in their reasonable discretion, determine, and such rules, regulations and restrictions shall be enforced in a nondiscriminatory manner. 4.4. Utilities. Any and all utilities and services, including electricity,heating, ventilation and air conditioning, and the equipment necessary for providing the same to the Pedestrian Link shall be installed and provided so that the supply of such utilities and services for the Pedestrian Link shall originate from the Tract on which the Pedestrian Link is located. In other words, each Owner shall provide such utilities and services from its own Tract to the portion of the Pedestrian Link located on its Tract. The following utilities and systems will serve the Pedestrian Link: electricity, heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems and • . Each Owner shall operate,maintain and repair all utilities, services and systems serving the Pedestrian Link that are located within L-8 1912113v7 its Tract, as well as all equipment used to monitor such utilities, services and systems, and the costs of such operation, maintenance and repair shall be paid by 0 such Owner. Each Owner shall pay for all utilities serving the Pedestrian Link on its Tract. 4.5. Ownership. Once the initial construction of the Pedestrian Link has been completed, title to the Pedestrian Link shall vest in the Owner, its successors and assigns, of the Tract on which the Pedestrian Link is located. In other words, each Owner shall own and have title to all of the improvements constituting the Pedestrian Link on its Tract, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and subject to the easements created herein. 4.6. Casually. In the event the Pedestrian Link or any part thereof is destroyed or partially destroyed by fire or any other casualty or occurrence,the Pedestrian Link shall be repaired and restored by the Owner thereof as soon as possible to the extent that upon the completion of the repair or restoration work, the Pedestrian Link, as so restored, shall be in substantially the same condition as immediately prior to the damage or destruction. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, in the event that either of the Facilities are destroyed or partially destroyed by fire or other casualty or occurrence and the Owner thereof does not rebuild or restore such Facility as provided in subsection 7.2 (c) (the "non-rebuilding Owner"),the Pedestrian Link need not be restored or repaired and the same shall be promptly demolished and removed and the ground area of the Pedestrian Link shall be restored to a clean, slightly and landscaped condition by and at the expense of the . non-rebuilding Owner. In such event the non-rebuilding Owner shall also perform the same work(including removal of the Pedestrian Link and ground area restoration) on the Tract of the other Owner and restore the other Owner's Facility to a complete architectural unit at the non-rebuilding Owner's sole cost and expense. If insurance proceeds are insufficient to cover the expense of such repairing and restoring as required herein,the non-rebuilding Owner shall, nonetheless, be responsible for the repair and restoration and costs thereof. The Pedestrian Link Corridor Area easement shall terminate only in the event of the demolition or substantial destruction of the Conference Facility or the Hotel Facility,provided,however,that if an Owner intends to replace its Facility and the same is rebuilt within two years of any such demolition or destruction,the easement over the Pedestrian Link Corridor Area created herein shall remain in full force and effect. The rebuilding or restoring Owner shall pay all construction and restoration costs related to (a) disconnecting the Pedestrian Link from any Facility to be demolished, (b) supporting and securing of the Pedestrian Link during demolition and/or restoration of the replacement Facility, (c)repair or replacement of all Pedestrian Link components damaged by the demolition p p portion of the Pedestrian Link or the damaged Facility, and(d)repair and connection of the Pedestrian Link to the replacement Facility. The Pedestrian maintained in good and safe condition pending shall be supported and ma Link g P p connection to the replacement p l Facility r restoration. If construction of a y a not been commenced within two 2 years from the date replacement Facility has ( ) p ty . of demolition or destruction,the easement granted herein over the Pedestrian Link L-9 19121130 Corridor Area shall terminate on the second anniversary of the demolition or . destruction unless otherwise agreed to by the Owners. 5. Demolition and Construction 5.1. General Requirements. Each Owner agrees that all demolition and construction activities performed by it within the Center shall be performed in compliance with all laws,rules, regulations, orders, and ordinances of the city, county, state, and federal governments, or any department or agency of any of them, affecting improvements constructed within the Center. Each Owner further agrees that neither its demolition nor its construction activities shall do any of the following: 5.1.1 Unreasonably interfere with demolition or construction work being performed on any other part of the Center. 5.1.2 Unreasonably interfere with the use, occupancy or enjoyment of any part of the remainder of the Center by any other Owner or its Permittees. 5.1.3 Cause any other Owner to be in violation of any law, rule, regulation, order or ordinance applicable to its Tract of the city, county, state, federal government, or any department or agency of any of them. 5.2. Pedestrian Link Construction. Developer shall be solely responsible for the . construction of the Pedestrian Link in accordance with and pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. However,EDA shall have the right to monitor and inspect the construction and construction methods performed on its Tract, and Developer shall use all reasonable efforts to insure that such construction does not unreasonably interfere with access to and the activities of EDA and its Permittees in the Conference Facility. Developer shall coordinate and cooperate with EDA in all construction activities on the EDA Tract to insure minimal interference and damage to the improvements on the EDA Tract. Developer shall be solely responsible for repairing and restoring any damage to the improvements located on the EDA Tract caused by or occurring during such construction. Developer warrants to EDA that(a)the Pedestrian Link will be constructed and installed in a good and workmanlike manner without material defects and in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes and ordinances and using only all new materials and equipment, and(b)the Pedestrian Link and restated facilities and improvements to be installed and/or constructed by or under Developer will be free from material defects for a period of one year beginning 30 days following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Pedestrian Link. If any work is found to be defective within said one year period, Developer shall correct,repair and restore such work at its sole cost and expense. Developer warrants to EDA that the construction of the Pedestrian Link shall not result in damage or injury to the improvements on the EDA tract, other than the work necessarily required for connection of the Pedestrian Link to the Conference Facility, which Conference Facility shall be restored to substantially the same • condition they were in prior to the performance of said work. Notwithstanding L-10 1912113v7 the provisions of Section 9 hereof to the contrary, during the construction of the Pedestrian Link, Developer(and not EDA) shall procure and maintain builder's • All-Risk casualty insurance on the improvements being constructed by Developer, and otherwise maintain in force and effect the insurance required to be obtained by it as provided in the Development Agreement. 5.3. Indemni agrees Owner a rees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless each from all claims actions proceedings and costs incurred in other Owner connection therewith(including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit) resulting from any personal injury, death or property damage whatsoever occurring to any Person or to the property of any Person arising out of or resulting from the performance of any demolition and/or construction activities performed or authorized by such indemnifying Owner, except to extent claims in respect thereto are waived or released herein. The indemnification contained in this subsection 5.3 shall not include an indemnity for any consequential damages. 6. Maintenance and Repair 6.1. General Responsibihtyfor Main be expressly Maintenance. Except as may p Y p rove ded otherwise in this Section 6, each Owner shall repair and maintain all of the portions of the Parking Lot Area and the Pedestrian Link located on its Tract in good order, condition and repair, including capital repairs and any repairs necessitated by fire or other casualty. Such maintenance shall include keeping, and each Owner hereby covenants and agrees to keep, all of the portions of the • Parking Lot Area and the Pedestrian Link located on its Tract fully illuminated each day from dusk until dawn, 7 days a week. All repairs and maintenance to be p Y performed b an Owner pursuant to this subsection shall be performed at such Owner's sole expense, except as may be expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement. 6.2. Standards for Maintenance. The minimum standard of maintenance for the Parking Lot Area and the Pedestrian Link shall be comparable to the standard of maintenance followed in first-class retail developments of comparable size in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, and in any event in compliance with all applicable governmental laws,rules, regulations, orders and ordinances, and the provisions of this Agreement. The Parking Lot Area and Pedestrian Link improvements shall be repaired or replaced with materials at least equal to the original quality inal ualit of the materials being repaired or replaced. The maintenance and rep g g air obligation for the Parkin Lot Area in any event shall include but not be i limited to the following: 6.2.1 Road Driveway and Access Areas. Maintaining all paved surfaces and curbs in a smooth and evenly covered condition which maintenance work shall include cleaning, sweeping,restriping, repairing, resurfacing and overlays. • L-11 19121130 6.2.2 Debris and refuse. Periodic removal of all papers, debris, filth,refuse, ice and snow to the extent necessary to keep the Parking Lot Area in a first- class, clean and orderly condition. 6.2.3 Sign and markers. Placing,keeping in repair, replacing and repainting any appropriate directional signs or markers. 6.2.4 Lighting. Operating,keeping in repair, cleaning and replacing when necessary any lighting facilities in the Parking Lot Area. The maintenance and repair obligation for the Pedestrian Link in any event shall include but not be limited to the following: 6.2.5 Corridor. Maintaining all pedestrian ways and corridors in a smooth and evenly covered condition, which maintenance work shall include cleaning, sweeping,recarpeting, retiling and resurfacing. All corridors, doors and glass shall be periodically cleaned. 6.2.6 Signage and Exits. Maintaining,repairing and replacing all directorial signs and emergency exit signage. 6.2.7 Structure. Maintaining, repairing and replacing when necessary the Pedestrian Link, its structural components,roof, drainage facilities and • access doors and windows. 6.2.8 HVAC. Maintaining, repairing and replacing when necessary all heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. 6.2.9 Lighting and Security. Maintaining,repairing and replacing when necessary all lights in the Pedestrian Link, including emergency lighting, and all security systems. 6.3. Payment for Negligence. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 6.1 (entitled "General Responsibility for Maintenance"), but subject to the provisions of subsection 9.4 (entitled "Waiver of Subrogation"), in the event any Parking Lot Area or the Pedestrian Link located on an Owner's Tract are damaged or destroyed as a result of the negligence or willful misconduct by another Owner or its contractors, agents, servants, or employees,the Owner who (or whose contractors, agents, servants, or employees) caused such damage or destruction shall reimburse the Owner who owns the Tract on which the damage or destruction occurred for the reasonable cost of the repair of such damage or destruction. 6.4. General Easement Repair Provisions. In addition to any other provisions of this Agreement, any Owner entering another Owner's Tract to perform maintenance or repair pursuant to this Agreement shall comply with the following: (a) any such . maintenance and repair shall be performed in such a manner as to cause as little disturbance in the use of the Tract where the repairs and maintenance are being L-12 1912113v7 performed as is practicable under the circumstances; (b)the Owner performing . such repair and maintenance shall promptly pay all costs and expenses associated with any such repair and maintenance, subject to any provisions for reimbursement which may be expressly contained in this Agreement; (c)the Owner performing such repair and maintenance shall diligently complete such work as quickly as possible; and(d)the Owner performing such repair and maintenance shall promptly clean and restore the affected portion of the easement area to a condition equal to or better than the condition which existed prior to the commencement of such work. 7. Building Improvements 7.1. Standards of Maintenance. After completion of construction, each Owner covenants and agrees to maintain and keep the building improvements, if any, located on its Tract in good condition and state of repair, in compliance with all governmental laws,rules,regulations, orders, and ordinances exercising jurisdiction thereover. 7.2. Casualty. In the event any of the building improvements, other than the Pedestrian Link, are damaged by fire or other casualty(whether insured or not), or if a building on a Tract is being torn down or demolished, the Owner upon whose Tract such building improvements are located immediately shall remove the debris resulting from such event and provide a sightly barrier and within a reasonable time thereafter shall either(a)repair or restore the building • improvements so damaged or demolished, or(b) erect other building improvements or improvements in such location, or(c) demolish the damaged portion of such building improvements,remove all debris, and restore the area to an attractive condition. Such Owner shall have the option to choose which of the foregoing alternatives to perform,but such Owner shall be obligated to perform one of such alternatives. Notwithstanding the foregoing to the contrary,the Owner of the Developer Tract may not elect(c)unless such Owner shall pay to EDA all costs and expenses paid by EDA to Developer for the construction of the Pedestrian Link. If such payment is not paid to EDA,the Owner of the Developer Tract shall perform the work as described in either(a) or(b) of this subsection. 8. Developer Parking Developer, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that the parking area contained on the Developer Tract shall contain sufficient parking spaces in order to comply with all governmental regulations, ordinances and similar orders relating to parking without reliance on the parking spaces that may be available on the EDA Tract. 9. Insurance 9.1. Liability Insurance. Each Owner shall maintain or cause to be maintained in full force and effect with respect to its Tract Commercial General Liability Insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate for L-13 19121130 i . bodily or personal injury or death and for property damage, and umbrella liability in the amount of$5,000,000. Such insurance shall include a provision for severability of interests. 9.2. Casualty Insurance. Each Owner shall maintain or cause to be maintained in full force and effect property insurance with All-Risk coverage including but not limited to casualty, loss or damage by fire, lightning,windstorm,hail, collapse, explosion,riot,vandalism,civil commotion, aircraft,vehicle, smoke and other such hazards covering the Pedestrian Link on the Owner's Tract in the amount of the full replacement value thereof, and with a demolition and increased cost of construction endorsement during any reconstruction period or during modifications, alterations or changes to the Pedestrian Link(hereinafter the "Property Insurance Policy"). During any period of Pedestrian Link reconstruction, alteration or modification activity, the constructing Owner shall carry such Property Insurance Policy in Builder's Risk form or comparable coverage written on a completed value basis, and shall include broad form contractual liability, products/completed operations, independent contracts, broad form property damage,personal injury, and with "X", "C" and "U" exclusions deleted. 9.3. Indemni . Subject to the provisions of subsection 9.4 (entitled "Waiver of Subrogation"), each Owner("Indemnitor") covenants and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless each other Owner("Indemnitee") from and against all . claims, costs,expenses and liability(including reasonable attorneys' fees and cost of suit incurred in connection with all claims) arising from or as a result of the injury to or death of any Person,'or damage to the property of any Person, which shall be caused by the negligence or willful act of such Indemnitor. or its contractors, agents, servants, or employees. 9.4. Waiver of Subrogation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, each Owner(the "Releasing Owner")hereby releases and waives for itself and on behalf of its insurer, any other Owner(the "Released Owner") from any liability for any loss or damage to all property of such Releasing Owner located upon any portion of the Center,which loss or damage is of the type generally covered by property insurance provided under the Comprehensive Replacement Cost Form, irrespective either of any negligence on the part of the Released Owner which may have contributed to or caused such loss, or of the amount of such insurance required or actually carried. Each Owner agrees to use its best efforts to obtain, if needed, appropriate endorsements to its policies of insurance with respect to the foregoing release;provided,however,that failure to obtain such endorsements shall not affect any release given pursuant to this subsection. 9.5. General Requirements. The insurance required by this Section shall specifically extend to contractual obligations of the insured party arising out of the indemnification obligations set forth in this Agreement. Such insurance may be carried under a blanket policy or policies which includes other liabilities, L-14 1912113v7 properties and locations of such Owner. All insurance required by this Section shall be procured from financially responsible insurance companies licensed to do • business in the state of Minnesota. 10. Taxes and Assessments Each Owner shall be responsible for paying all taxes and assessments relating to its Tract, the buildings and improvements located thereon, and any personal property owned or leased by such Owner in the Center. 11. Liens In the event any mechanic's lien is filed against the Tract of one Owner as a result of services performed or materials furnished for the use of another Owner,the Owner for whose benefit such services were performed or materials were furnished agrees to cause such lien to be discharged prior to entry of final judgment(after all appeals)for the foreclosure of such lien and further agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other Owner and its Tract against liability, loss, damage, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and cost of suit)on account of such claim of lien. Upon request of the Owner whose Tract is subject to such lien,the Owner for whose benefit such services were performed or materials were furnished agrees to cause such lien to be released and discharged of record within 14 days after the filing of such lien, either by paying the indebtedness which gave rise to such lien or by posting bond or other security as shall be required by law to obtain such release and discharge; if the Owner for whose • benefit such services were performed or materials were furnished fails to obtain such release and discharge within such 14 day period,the Owner of the Tract against which such lied was recorded may cause such lien to be released and discharged of record, either by paying the indebtedness which gave rise to such lien or by posting bond or other security as shall be required by law to obtain such release and discharge, in which case the Owner for whose benefit such services were performed or materials were furnished shall immediately upon demand reimburse the Owner of such Tract for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with obtaining such release and discharge. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent an Owner for whose benefit such services were performed or materials were furnished from contesting the validity of such lien in any manner such Owner chooses so long as such contest is pursued with reasonable diligence. In the event such contest is determined adversely (allowing for appeal to the highest appellate court), such Owner shall promptly pay in full the required amount,together with any interest, penalties, costs, or other charges necessary to release such lien. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,the cost of the initial construction of the Pedestrian Link, and any liens resulting therefrom, shall be paid as provided in the Development Agreement, Provided that EDA fulfills its obligations to pay Developer for certain costs of constructing the Pedestrian Link as provided in the Development Agreement, Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless EDA and the EDA Tract from all mechanics' liens,claims, actions,proceedings and costs incurred in connection therewith (including reasonable attorneys'fees and costs of suit)resulting from the construction and installation of the Pedestrian Link, and any warranty work performed by or under • Developer, on the EDA Tract. L-15 19121130 • 12. Consents Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, whenever consent is required in this Agreement, such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Unless provision is made for a specific time period, consent shall be given or withheld within 30 days of the receipt of the request for consent. If a notice that consent will be refused is not given within the required time period,the requested Owner shall be deemed to have given its consent. If an Owner shall refuse consent,the reasons therefor shall be stated. Except with respect to a consent given by lapse of time, all consents and refusals to consent shall be in writing. Any right to consent contained in this Agreement shall be held by the Owner owning the Tract to which such right relates. Any purchaser of any Tract in the Center shall automatically acquire any right to consent at such time as such purchaser becomes an Owner,unless the selling Owner(a) conveys less than all of its ownership interest in the Center and(b) provides in writing, either in the deed conveying a portion of its ownership interest in the Center or in another agreement executed by the selling Owner and recorded in the Hennepin County Registrar of Title's office prior to or simultaneously with such deed,that such selling Owner retains the right or rights of consent described in such instrument. Until a purchaser becomes an Owner, and only to the extent the selling Owner does not so retain any right to consent, all rights to consent associated with such Tract shall remain with the selling Owner and its heirs, successors and assigns with respect to the non-conveyed portion of the Tract. • 13. Condemnation In the event any portion of the Center shall be condemned,the award shall be paid to the Owner owning the land or the improvement taken, except that(a) if the taking includes improvements belonging to more than one Owner, such as utility lines,the portion of the award allocable thereto shall be used to relocate,replace or restore such jointly owned improvements to a useful condition, and(b) if the taking includes easement rights which are intended to extend beyond the term of the Agreement, the portion of the award allocable to each such easement right shall be paid to the respective grantee of such easement. In addition to the foregoing, if a separate claim can be filed for the taking of any other property interest existing pursuant to this Agreement which does not reduce or diminish the amount paid to the Owner owning the land or the improvement taken,then the owner of such other property interest shall have the right to seek an award for the taking of such interest. L-16 1912113v7 14. Default • 14.1. Force Majeure. The time within which any Owner to this Agreement is required to perform any act shall be extended to the extent that performance of such act is delayed by Force Majeure,but only if such delay was beyond that Owner's reasonable control and was not caused by its fault or negligence. "Force Majeure" shall mean acts of god, fire, abnormal weather, explosion,riot,war, labor disputes, governmental restrictions, inability to obtain necessary materials, or any other cause beyond such Owner's reasonable control. If a delay of performance occurs and such delay is excusable under this provision,the period for performance shall be extended for a time equal to the time lost because of the Force Majeure,but only if the Owner entitled to such extension give, prompt notice to all other Owners of the occurrence causing the delay and if the Owner so excused acts in good faith and uses due diligence to perform. The inability to obtain financing or lack of money shall not constitute Force Majeure. 14.2. Notice; Cure. If any Owner fails to comply with any provision of this Agreement (the "Defaulting Owner"),then any other Owner(the "Non-Defaulting Owner") may upon 30 days' prior written notice to the Defaulting Owner,proceed to cure the default(and shall have a license to do so)by the payment of money or performance of some other action for the account of the Defaulting Owner. The foregoing right to cure shall not be exercised if within the 30 day notice period(a) the Defaulting Owner cures the default, or(b) if the default is curable,but cannot reasonably be cured within that time period,the Defaulting Owner begins to cure such default within such time period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. The 30 day notice period shall not be required if, using reasonable judgment,the Non-Defaulting Owner deems that an emergency exists which requires immediate attention. In the event of such an emergency, the Non- Defaulting Owner shall give whatever notice to the Defaulting Owner as is reasonable under the circumstances. The Defaulting Owner hereby grants to the Non-Defaulting Owner a nonexclusive easement over, across and under any and all parts of the Defaulting Owner's Tract for all purposes reasonably necessary to enable the Non-Defaulting Owner(or its agents, contractors or subcontractors)to perform any of the terms,provisions, covenants or conditions of this Agreement that the Defaulting Owner is obligated to perform but has failed to perform after notice and the opportunity to cure pursuant to this subsection. 14.3. Reimbursement of Costs to Cure; Lien. Within 10 days after written demand (including providing copies of invoices reflecting costs)the Defaulting Owner shall reimburse the Non-Defaulting Owner for any amount reasonably spent by the Non-Defaulting Owner to cure the default,together with interest on such amount. The Non-Defaulting Owner shall have a lien upon the Defaulting Owner's right,title, and interest in and to any portion of the Defaulting Owner's Tract to secure payment of all amounts due to the Non-Defaulting Owner under this subsection. The Non-Defaulting Owner shall have the right,but not the obligation,to record its lien,but at all times its lien pursuant to this subsection • shall be subject and subordinate to (a)the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust L-17 1912113v7 • held by any institutional lender, or any extension,renewal, modification or refinancing thereof, on the Defaulting Owner's Tract; (b)the leasehold estate created by any lease of all or any part of the Defaulting Owner's Tract; (c) any other lien of record against the Defaulting Owner's Tract as of the date that the Non-Defaulting Owner's lien is recorded. The Defaulting Owner shall execute such instruments and documents as the Non-Defaulting Owner may reasonably request to permit the recordation of such lien. The Non-Defaulting Owner shall have the right to foreclose such lien in the manner provided by laws of the State of Minnesota governing mechanics liens. 14.4. Estoppel. Each Owner shall,within 15 days after written request from another Owner(but not more often than twice in any 12 month period), execute and deliver to the requesting party an estoppel letter certifying whether or not the certifying Owner has filed any liens, as provided in subsection 14.3, against any Tract, and whether or not any other Owner is delinquent in any payments required to be made to the certifying Owner pursuant to this Agreement. 14.5. Interest. Wherever and as often as one Owner shall not have paid any sum payable hereunder to another Owner within five days of the due date, such delinquent Owner shall pay interest on such amount from the due date,through and including the date such payment is received by the Owner entitled thereto, at the lesser of the following: (a)the highest rate permitted by law to be paid on such type of obligation by the Owner obligated to make such payment; or(b)three . percent per annum in excess of the interest rate from time to time publicly announced by U.S. Bank National Association("U.S. Bank"), a national banking association having its main offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or its successor, as its reference rate (the "Reference Rate"), even though U.S. Bank, or its successor, may lend funds to its customers at interest rates that are at, above, or below the Reference Rate. 14.6. Minimization of Damages. In all situations arising out of this Agreement, all Owners shall attempt to avoid and minimize the damages resulting from the conduct of any other Owner. Each Owner shall take all reasonable measures to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement. 14.7. Agreement Shall Continue Notwithstanding Breach. It is expressly agreed that no breach of this Agreement shall (a) entitle any Owner to cancel, rescind, or otherwise terminate this Agreement, or(b) defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value as to any part of the Center; however, such limitation shall not affect in any manner any other rights or remedies which an Owner may have under this Agreement by reason of any such breach. 15. Notices All notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent postage prepaid by either(a)United States certified mail,return receipt requested, or(b) for L-18 19121130 delivery on the next business day with a nationally-recognized express courier. All such • notices shall be sent to the following addresses,until such addresses are changed by 30 days' notice: To EDA: Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430-2199 Attn: Executive Director To Developer: Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC Attn: Notices shall be deemed given as of the date such notice is postmarked, if sent by certified mail, or is placed with an express courier, if sent by express courier. If the last day for giving any notice or taking any action required or permitted under this Agreement would otherwise fall on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday,that last day shall be postponed until the next legal business day. 16. Miscellaneous 16.1. Liability Limitation. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, including without limitation the indemnifications and agreements described in subsections 5.3, 6.3 and 9.3, and the requirements for insurance as described in Section 9,the liability of the EDA under this Agreement shall be limited as provided in Chapter 466 of Minnesota Statutes in effect from time to time, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of such limitations or an agreement by the EDA to its increase or amend its limited liability as described in such statutes. 16.2. Confirmation of Easements. All easements granted under this Agreement shall exist by virtue of this Agreement,without the necessity of confirmation by any other document. Upon the request of any Owner, each other Owner will sign and acknowledge a document memorializing the existence (including the legal description, location and any conditions), or the termination(in whole or in part), or the release(in whole or in part), as the case may be and to the extent applicable, of any easement. 16.3. Negation of Partnershi. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Owners in their respective businesses or otherwise,nor shall it cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise. Each Owner shall be considered a separate Owner, and no Owner shall have the right to act as an agent for another Owner,unless expressly authorized to do so in this Agreement or by separate written instrument signed by the Owner to be charged. . L-19 19121130 16.4. Not a Public Dedication. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to • be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Center, or of any Tract, or of any portion of the Center or any Tract,to the general public or for any public use or purpose whatsoever. 16.5. Entire Agreement: Enforceability. This Agreement, including any Recitals and any attached Exhibits, all of which are made a part of this Agreement, and the Development Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Owners concerning this subject matter. This Agreement should be read carefully because only those terms in writing in this Agreement are enforceable. No other terms or oral promises which are not in this Agreement may be legally enforced, and no promises,projections, inducements or representations made before the Execution Date will change the terms of this Agreement or be binding on any Owner. No promises or other terms shall be implied in this Agreement. If there is a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the Development Agreement,the terms of the Agreement will control. 16.6. Amendments. Except as provided otherwise in this Section,this Agreement may only be amended by a written agreement signed by all of the then current Owners, except that a provision of this Agreement which only affects specific Tracts may be amended by a written agreement signed by all of the then current Owners of the affected Tracts. Any amendment of this Agreement shall be effective only when recorded in the county and state where the Center is located. No consent to . the amendment of this Agreement shall ever be required of any Occupant or Person other than the Owners whose consent is required pursuant to the provisions of this Section,nor shall any Occupant or Person other than the Owners whose consent is required pursuant to the provisions of this Section have any right to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement. 16.7. Binding Effect: No Third Owner Beneficiaries. This Agreement shall both bind and benefit the parties to this Agreement and their respective heirs,personal representatives, successors and assigns who become Owners. The Owners do not intend that there be any third party or other beneficiaries of this Agreement. The easements, covenants, agreements, conditions,terms, obligations, limitations and undertakings in this Agreement shall be construed as covenants running with the land. This Agreement is not intended to supersede,modify, amend, or otherwise ions of an prior instrument affecting the Center. change the roves y p g g P 16.8. Waivers: Consents. An Owner shall not be deemed to have made a waiver or consent under this Agreement unless it does so in writing, and the mere failure of Owner to act to enforce an provision of this Agreement shall not be an 0 any �' considered a waiver or consent and shall not prevent that Owner from enforcing any provision of this Agreement in the future. Any waiver or consent under this Agreement shall apply only to the matter expressly waived or consented to, and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of or consent to any subsequent breach or of any other provision of this Agreement. • L-20 19121130 with respect to all matters provided Time is of the essence P 16.9. Time of the Essence. P • in This Agreement. 16.10. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of one provision of this Agreement will not affect the validity or enforceability of the other provisions. 16.11. Captions. The section numbers and captions are inserted only as a matter of convenience, and do not in any way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement. Any references in this Agreement to a Section or subsection shall refer to such Section or subsection of this Agreement, unless expressly provided otherwise. 16.12. Interpretation of"including" and "day". Wherever the word "including" is used in this Agreement, or in any recital or exhibit to this Agreement, it shall mean "including without limitation." Wherever the word "day[s]" is used in this Agreement, or in any recital or exhibit to this Agreement, and the word "business" does not appear immediately before such word, such word shall mean "calendar day[s]." 16.13. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 17. No Offer • The submission of this Agreement for examination and negotiation does not constitute an offer to enter into an agreement, and this Agreement shall not be binding on any party until it is executed and delivered by each party to this Agreement. EDA and Developer have signed this Agreement below as of the Execution Date. EDA: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its: And By: Its: . L-21 19121130 DEVELOPER: BROOKLYN HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC By: Its: L-22 19121130 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 200_, by the and , the of the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the body. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 200_,by , the of Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. • Notary Public My Commission Expires: This Instrument was Drafted By: Briggs and Morgan,P.A. 332 Minnesota Street W2200 First National Bank Building Saint Paul, MN 55101 L-23 1912113v7 Exhibit A (Site Plan) 1912113v7 A-1 Exhibit B (Parking Lot Area) 1912113v7 B-1 • Exhibit C (Pedestrian Link Corridor Area) • • 19121130 C-1 i AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION October 9, 2006 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 1. Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications` Commission Regarding Resolution to the League of Minnesota Cities-Gregory Moore 2. New Law(HF 3779, Chapter 240)Zoning Requirements for Adult Establishments— Councilmember Lasman 3. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission-Major Plan Amendment Pending List for Future Work Sessions November • . Charter Amendments—Charter Commission Revisions to Sign Ordinance-Banners-Council Financial Commission Member Recruitment-Councilmember Niesen January 2007 • Audit Committee-Councilmember Niesen The materials for the Work Session will be delivered tomorrow, with the City Manager Update. lj i es-e tae-,,,e also rx/(oW A0tA Wes ., To: Curt Boganey,Myrna Kragness,Kay Lasman,Diane Niesen,Mary O'Connor From: Kathleen Carmody Date: October 20, 2006 cot. .- Re: Council Member Niesen's minute changes for September 25 In order according to Council Member Niesen's changes: 1. The change to Page 2,Paragraph 2, line 12–This was stated during the regular session during the agenda discussion. I do not believe it was stated during the study session. I will not support this change. 2. Pa e 3 Para a h 1, Line 1 –This change is fine. 3. Approval of Agen a an onsen genda—Page 3,Paragraph 2, Line 10–What Lnd ed by Council Member Niesen at the meeting was : the contract had been by Mr.Nollenberger and Mr. Boganey with no council input and that we ncil)had not been allowed the time to review it. She stated that she was iliar with the contract. If there is a change to be made, I would suggest the above in place of the paragraph after ...for at least two weeks and.ise, it is a change from what was actually said. If neither is acceptable,elieve we should go with the original statement as it is an abbreviated of what actuall occurred. 4ger mployment Agreement–Page 15 –I reviewed the tape and the statement attributed to Mr. LeFevere was that"it is not intended to be a waiver of QJA unintentional acts." I reviewed this myself since there was no council action referring this to the city attorney. Having him review the tape would result in more charges for legal services to the city,which I feel are unnecessary. 015. Page 16,Paragraphs 13 and 14–The changes are accurate and should be 4 approved, in my opinion. w I would also ask proval of the following changes to the October 9 minutes: 1. During the ormal Open Forum, I would ask to add to Mr.Newman's discussion of the Lea a of Minnesota Cities' support of a change in legislation to the cable operato franchise that"Council Member Carmody stated that she is a member of the policy aking body that proposed this change. There about thirty different policies ti ma and she is not familiar with the specifics of this one,but she stated that she � ' w ld be willing to get more information from the League staff that would clarify the licy." 2. Regul ession: Page 5–I would ask for the insertion after paragraph 4, that "Co rl Member Carmody and Mayor Kragness pointed out that it is not appropriate to oint out that Ms. Eaton is the wife of a Mayoral Candidate and that it introduced oliti into the debate,which is not allowed." 3. egular Session: Page 7–9e There is a sentence in the second paragraph that ates"termination for clause"which should be changed to"termination for cause." 4. Wgrk Session: Page 3–At the end of the discussion for the Hotel agreement, \7ewad Id there be a statement that says,"It was the majority opinion of the council to go with the negotiations for a new agreement." I believe it clarifies the council ion. As it reads now,the decision doesn't appear clear. 10-23-06 Fr: Councilmember Niesen Re: Changes to Minutes WORK SESSION 10-09-06 REQUEST FROM COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL REPORTS (p.1,4TH paragraph under heading) She cited City Charter provision 7.10 Disbusements—How Made and noted that the provision did not address the process of approvals, only the process of disbursement. (p2,4t'paragraph) Councilmember Niesen read a portion of Section 7.12 of the City Charter that discussed the financial reporting requirements and noted specific information required to be provided to City Council that Council is not receiving. JO_llR41!(WORK SESSION WITH FINANCIAL COMMISSION 10-16-06 DISCUSSION OF REVISED DRAFT CITY MANAGER...... D iL_ p.4,last paragraph) Councilmember Niesen stated objection to the upgrading of the position at the liquor store fit this sime-ef yow and noted Council was discussing the 2007 budget. i Y'1 2UOt� (p.5,paragraph 5) (add) She stated she did not think it was allowable for the City Manager to increase the number of full-time employees without a vote of the Council and that the 2006 budget specified the number of full-time employees. She said she was not opposed to a � s p Sion but she wanted this brought to the Council for a vote if changes were to be made during this non-public meeting. 10/23/2006 1 of 1 L Office of the City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community • MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, Interim City Man ger FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: October 9, 2006 SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN: Requested Changes to Minutes SEPTEMBER 25,2006—STUDY SESSION Pa Paragrgph 2 Line 12 - -!'-d she was d Died the eppeAitpAty to review the efAir-e eeatfaet and now that sh Replace with: She s ted in�Memo to Council that included the proposed CM Evaluation Form, she pro sed Council review the contract as the council makeup had changed since it was first j� itten but that suggestion apparently died with the tabling of the proposed CM Evaluation Form until February 2007. She stated that now that she has reviewed it, the City Council, composed of new members from the 2002 and 2004 election, must review it together and come to agreement. Page 3, Paragraph 1, Line 1 Councilmember Niesen ..... She requested table o the inn .-.Y atie" r id r r,. ��-- Replace with: e requested a comparison table to show proposed changes from what the Council had originally been presented. SEPTEMBER 25,2006 REGULAR SESSION Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda- Page 3 Paragraph 2, Line 10 OL She stated te be faif,the item should be tabled for-twe weeks se giat she may have the tifne to the effer- a to the r +°....,., City Manager-r„4 u,,gane<> •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 Replace with: /Shtated to be fair, the item should be tabled for at least 2 weeks and the Council should meet iew the offer made between Karl Nollenberger, PAR Group and Mr. Boganey, and decide ensus what Council wanted to offer to their first choice candidate. 9a. Ci Manager Employment Agreement—Page 15 • nof LeFevere responded to Councilmember Niesen in that it isAi ended to be a waiver of C,V unintentional acts. *Councilmember Niesen is requesting a statement of clarification from City Attorney Charlie LeFevere. Page 16, Paragr s 13 and 14 Councilmemb r Niesen posed two questions to the City Attorney, 1) is the language in Section 43G 12G re protective or less protective to the City; 2) how is the agreement changed once it is entere nto overall. In re onse to Councilmember Niesen's inquiries, Mr. LeFevere stated he has not been able to tlu of a way that having the clause in Section 1 12G is going to harm the City; however, he s ed that he is not infallible and a case could come up that this clause could be of disadvantage the City. He stated this clause is not for the protection of the City, it is of that of the City Manager. He further explained that the contract is for the purpose of compensation and generally for the benefit of the employee; it defines a relationship. He stated the contract could be amended with the consent and approval by both parties. • • Page 2 of 2 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 CITY HALL—COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen (arrived at 6:03 p.m.), and Mary O'Connor. Also present were Interim City Manager Curt Boganey, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember O'Connor requested that the EDA and HRA meeting minutes be approved at the next regular City Council meeting rather than waiting for the next EDA or HRA meeting. Mayor Kragness responded the meetings are different bodies and therefore the minutes can not be approved by the City Council. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to continue to approve the EDA and HRA minutes at there respective meetings. • Councilmember O'Connor stated her following corrections to the minutes: Regular Session—Page 2 The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7-88 7:10 p.m. Work Session—Page I The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at&89 9:06 p.m. The following meeting minute corrections were submitted by Councilmember Carmody: Work Session-Page 3 Councilmember Carmody stated disappointment of the loss of a candidate that she believed was due to a data request by Councilmember Niesen another-r,,,meilr e ffl er- Councilmember Lasman inquired about the Brewer and Brew Pub Off-Sale Malt Liquor License being approved on the Consent Agenda prior to the fee being set for the license on the regular portion of the agenda and stated the fee should be set before the license is approved. Interim City Manager Curt Boganey stated it would be appropriate to approve the fee prior to the license approval. • The City Council discussed that the Brew Pub Off-Sale Malt Liquor License indicates that the fee is required to be paid before the approval of the license. It was the majority consensus of the City 09/25/06 1 DRAFT Council to make the license approval subject to fee payment. Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to table item 9a. because she has not had an opportunity to meet with the City Council to discuss negotiations for the employment agreement of • the City Manager. She stated after a long day of interviews, what she understood is that Mr. Nollenberger would explore Mr. Boganey's contract desires and return to the City Council with the findings. She stated the hiring of the City Manager is the most important job of the City Council and requested a meeting to discuss what will be offered in the contract. Mayor Kragness stated the meeting minutes from the September 16, 2006, meeting indicates that Mr. Nollenberger was to draft an employment agreement and present it to the City Council at its next meeting. Mayor Kragness stated the proposed contract is the same as the former City Manager, Mike McCauley's, which has never proposed a problem to the City or the City Manager. Councilmember Niesen stated the City Council only received the salary information with regard to Mr. McCauley's contract and not the full contract. She stated she was denied the opportunity to review the entire contract and now that she has reviewed it, the City Council must review it together and come to agreement. Mayor Kragness stated it is a basic contract offered to a City Manager and needs to be moved forward and stated postponing the process is unfair to Mr. Boganey. Councilmember Carmody state she does not wish to table the item. Councilmember Niesen stated there is no City that has an agreement like this based on her research and added that according to the League of Minnesota Cities, the process should not be rushed, therefore she is requesting that it be tabled so that a discussion can take place without the presence of Mr. Boganey. Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to discuss the item today. Councilmember Lasman stated adequate information has been provided including comparison charts with other cities in and out of Minnesota. She stated she feels the salary that was agreed upon is an amount that the entire City Council is familiar with. She stated the proposed salary is fair and Mr. • Boganey has more experience in this City than the other candidates. She stated he was selected as the City Manager and the City Council needs to move forward. She stated there is nothing unusual about the proposed contract. Councilmember Niesen stated the proposed salary is only a factor among others that need to be discussed. She stated the City Council has not made an offer; rather Mr. Boganey has only met with Mr. Nollenberger to craft an agreement. She stated the agreement needs to be discussed paragraph by paragraph and should be discussed by the City Council to be fair. Councilmember Lasman responded with disagreement and stated it would be an open meeting if discussed and tabling the item is not the best option. Councilmember Niesen responded the City Council should meet with the sole purpose of reviewing the contract and stated an offer needs to be created that is protective of the City. Councilmember O'Connor suggested that amendments be made and discussed, and then the amended contract returned to the City Council for approval. She requested an opportunity to review the contract since this is the first time she has seen it. There was discussion regarding the $250 traveling allowance. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS Councilmember Niesen requested postponement of the hotel agreement. She requested a comparison • table on the information provided. Mayor Kragness stated she would like to see the item moved forward. Mr. Boganey stated if the item meets the requirements of the City Council, staff 09/25/06 2 DRAFT recommends it be moved forward. DISCUSSION OF FIRE PENSION PROPOSAL • a Mr. Bo ane stated this is the third and final increase which is art of a gentlemen's agreement g Y p g g amount had fallen substantial) made three or fours years ago when the lump sum pension payment ment Y below the State maximum. He stated it is requested that it be brought back to the State's allowed maximum given that the total funding is expected to come out of the investment of the State funds that the City receives on an annual basis. He stated the Fire Relief Association sees it as critical to their recruitment activities. He explained a study done of the condition of their investment fund and that forecasted what the effect would be if the payout were increased. He stated Springsted has indicated that in the first year, the City was able to increase it to $6,000 without negatively affecting the ability to make the payment, and in the second year the analysis indicated that the increase to $7,000 could go forward without significantly impacting the fund's ability to cover the payment, and the last study indicated that the $500 increase, bringing it to statutory maximum could also go forward with reasonable expectation that the investment portfolio would be able to cover these costs. He stated the analysis and forecast is just that and not guarantees. He stated the fund appears to be strong enough to support this request. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about other benefits provided to Firefighters and the timeframe of retirement benefit payout. Mr. Boganey stated the Firefighters receive duty pay, mandated FICA, along with paid training. Kent Korman, Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association, explained that Firefighters are paid $13 per hour and Officers are paid $18 per hour for training. He explained that they are paid $82 for duty shifts and that during fire response; the only two people paid are those on their scheduled duty, all • other fire response is volunteer. He stated retirement funds cannot be collected until age 50 and only by those who have at least 10 years invested in the program. There was discussion regarding the decrease in surplus. Councilmember Carmody inquired about the retention of firefighters. Mr. Korman responded he hopes the pension proposal will assist in retention of Firefighters. He stated the last time the City Council had to make a payment to the pension was in 2002 for approximately $16,000. Mayor Kragness stated she is in favor of approval, Councilmember Lasman agreed. There was discussion of pension payments made in recent years and the amount of those payments. The majority consensus of the City Council was to move the item to the next City Council agenda ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Study Session at 6:48 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • City Clerk Mayor 09/25/06 3 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 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 and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:48 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were Interim City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. Charles Atkinson, 5309 64`" Avenue, stated concern with the condition of the City, especially with the upkeep of property. He discussed a home with garbage piled up to the eaves of the home. He stated the property is still a mess with excessive garbage and poor lawn conditions. • He stated he is concerned with the amount of rental property, amount of homes for sale, and un- repaired storm damage. He stated he is considering moving due to the poor conditions. Mayor Kragness stated improvement to the appearance of the City is a long process. She addressed a particular legal matter of the property he discussed. She stated Code Enforcement is doing the best job they can. Councilmember Carmody stated it is considered unconstitutional to restrict the number or location of rental property. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:51 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Mayor Kragness offered a prayer as the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor • Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. 09/25/06 1 DRAFT 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, • and Mary O'Connor. Also present were Interim City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember O'Connor stated she attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on September 19, 2006, where the Parks Capital Improvement Plan was discussed and that it was extended. She stated the Three Rivers Park District would like to lease the City's land and maintain the regional trails. She stated it was indicated that the Central Garage Salt Storage Building would be completed by November 1St. She stated there was also an update given on the Golf Course Capital Improvement Plan funding. Councilmember Lasman stated she attended the District 279 Community Cafe on September 13th, which is an opportunity provided by the District to provide input on the District's direction. She stated the District will be having the Parade of Schools on October 3rd and 5th which is open to the community in order to showcase improvements made to each of the schools as a result of the bond referendum in 2000. She stated she attended a Block Watch meeting on September . 14th, which was a time to visit and hear concerns on the particular neighborhoods. She stated she also attended a dinner with the City Manager candidates on September 15th, which was a great way to meet the candidates under a social setting. She stated on September 16th the City Council attended interviews, narrowing the search down to the finalist including Curt Boganey. She stated the process was thorough. She stated on September 19th she attended the Financial Commission meeting concerning language changes on investments and other items, with more information to be submitted to the City Council at a later day. She stated on September 20th she attended the Crime Prevention meeting where two new Officers and the loss of one Officer to be filled later at a later date was discussed. She stated Crime Prevention will also be contributing $1,000 to the Summer Safety Camp which will help to enable the youth program to continue. She stated on September 21St she attended the second Special Events Committee meeting and stated the Special Events Awards evening will be on February 3, 2007. She stated on September 24th she attended the Lions Pancake Breakfast which celebration was a of the Brooklyn Ce n t er All School Reunion. She mentioned that Hennepin County has a Small Business and Finance presentation on Thursday, October 9, at 7:00 p.m. at the Library for all entrepreneurs who are interested in starting a new business. Councilmember Carmody stated she attended a few of the same meetings as Councilmember Lasman. She discussed the Housing Commission meeting that was held on September 19th. She stated she will distribute the report at the Work Session. Councilmember Niesen stated she attended the quarterly meeting held by the Northwest Suburbs • Cable Communications Commission. She stated they tabled the exploration of WI-FI with joint 09/25/06 2 DRAFT Cities due to busine ss model reaso n s. She stated they are undertaken their Preliminary Bud et and Comcast gave a presentation on the acquisition of Time Warner and new service features. • Mayor Kragness read a paragraph regarding the rating of Centerbrook Golf Course that praises the course as the Best Condition Par 3 Course. She congratulated the crew of the golf course. She stated there are some volunteer opportunities in Brooklyn Center including the Housing Commission, Financial Commission, and Charter Commission. She encouraged those interested to call Sharon Knutson at City Hall. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Niesen moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to table item 9a. City Manager Employment Agreement. Councilmember Niesen stated the hiring of a City Manager is the most important job of a City Council. She stated the City Council made a choice to make an offer to a candidate and she thought the offer would be discussed prior to the offer being presented to the candidate. She stated she does not feel this is the time or the place for the City Council to make a decision on the employment contract of the City Manager. She stated she has not had an opportunity to give her opinion on the proposed employment agreement. She stated time has not been allowed for the City Council to meet and discuss an offer. She stated she was not familiar with the contract; however she made effort to revise the City Manager review form in which she was unsuccessful She stated she was unaware of the contract provision of the previous City Manager until recently and would now like to allow time to discuss the matter. She stated to be fair, the item should be tabled for two weeks so that she may have the time to review the offer made to the Interim City • Manager Curt Boganey. Councilmember O'Connor agreed that the proposed contract should be fully discussed. Councilmember Carmody stated it is important to keep it on the agenda and a convincing argument has not been made to remove it from agenda. Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Lasman, and Councilmember Carmody voted against the same. Motion failed. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve the consent agenda and agenda as amended with the removal of the Brewer and Brew Pub Off-Sale Malt Liquor License included in Item No. 7b. from the Consent Agenda to Council Consideration Item No. 9b. and amendments to the September 11, 2006, Regular Session and September 11, 2006, Work Session minutes as discussed at the Study Session. The following consent items were approved: 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. September 11, 2006—Study Session 2. September 11, 2006—Regular Session 3. September 11, 2006—Work Session 4. September 13, 2006—Special Session • 5. September 16, 2006—Special Session 09/25/06 3 DRAFT 7b. LICENSES COMMERCIAL KENNEL Gentle Touch Animal Sanctuary 4900 France Ave N • MECHANICAL ELK Mechanical HVAC Inc 6361 Sunfish Lake Ct., Ramsey Gopher Heating& Sheet Metal, Inc. 12330 Ottawa Ave, Savage Snell Mechanical Inc. 8850 Wentworth Ave So,Bloomington SIGNHANGER Albrecht Sign Co., Inc. 12437 Magnolia Cir NW, Coon Rapids Apparently Graphic, Ltd. 7420 West Lake Street, St. Louis Park RENTAL Renewal 3007 68a'Ave N(Single Family) Kao Vang NONE 5548 Dupont Ave N(Single Family) John Lindahl ASSAULT 5548 Dupont Ave N(Single Family) Dion Properties, Inc. ASSAULT (There were no calls for service for the following) 5332 Lilac Drive (Single Family) Mark Lundberg 5400 Sailor Lane (Single Family) Duane Christiansen 5925 Washburn Ave N (Single Family) Cheng Lor • Initial (There were no calls for service for the following) 3713 54th Ave N(Single Family) Yer Yang 5730 Northport Dr(Single Family) Tuyet Le Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Niesen moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to move Item No. 9a. to the end of the agenda. Mayor Kragness and Councilmember Lasman voted against the same. Motion passed. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (EASTERLY OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN I-94 AND 69TH AVENUE NORTH) Interim City Manager Curt Boganey explained that it is necessary that the property be replatted • and that the City Council should not approve the rezoning,rather table for a later date. 09/25/06 4 DRAFT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to open the Public Hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard Between I-94 and 69th Avenue • North). Motion passed unanimously. No public input was offered. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to table to the November 13, 2006, agenda an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard Between I-94 and 69th Avenue North). Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT • This item was moved to the end of Council Consideration Items. 9b. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-107 ESTABLISHING FEE FOR BREWER AND BREW PUB OFF-SALE MALT LIQUOR LICENSE Mr. Boganey explained that amendments have been made to the Liquor portion of the Ordinance which includes a Brew Pub to be allowed to sell growlers. He stated since the adoption, Surly Brewery has submitted an application for the license. He stated since the license is new, a Resolution has been prepared regarding fees for that license. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006-107 Establishing Fee for Brewer and Brew Pub Off-Sale Malt Liquor License and License Application for Surly Brewing Company pending fee payment. Motion passed unanimously. 9e. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-108 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A FIBER OPTIC EASEMENT FOR ACCESS COMMUNICATIONS INC. Mr. Boganey stated the City Council authorized a Fiber Optic Agreement to allow installation of fiber optic materials for the City's network. He stated this has been completed and an agreement has been entered into with Access Communications in order to share the easement and in return • Access Communications will provide a one call service to locate the fiber optic line, an annual value of$7,000. 09/25/06 5 DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked if Access Communications would be allowed to install additional materials along the City's in the same easement area. Mr. Boganey responded yes. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to adopt • RESOLUTION NO. 2006-108 Authorizing Execution of a Fiber Optic Easement for Access Communications Inc. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the City's fiber optic capacity and if the excess capacity could be sold to them. Mr. Boganey responded Access Communications would have no interest in the City's fiber optic equipment. There was discussion regarding the previously purchased fiber optic equipment that was to be sold. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the ongoing maintenance responsibility of the lines. Mr. Boganey responded the City would maintain the City's equipment and Access Communications would maintain their equipment. He also stated that Access Communications will provide the locator for both the City's equipment and their own. Motion passed unanimously. 9d. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-109 DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES Mr. Boganey stated it is the recommendation of City staff that the City Council approve the • Declaration of Public Nuisance so that the diseased trees can be removed. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006-109 Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the number of removed trees. She inquired about a tree on Lyndale Ave N that has been marked for some time. Mr. Blomstrom responded that the memorandum included a typographical error in that it should read a total of 148 rather than 147. He explained that there is a possibility that Hennepin County marked the tree in question; however he will research the item. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9e. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-110 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2006-10, CONTRACT 2006-D,2006 STREET SEAL COATING Mr. Boganey stated the purpose of the Resolution and stated it is a joint effort with several other cities to ensure the best price for this service. He stated the amount of the final payment is $59,657.50 and stated staff recommends approval of the proposed. • 09/25/06 6 DRAFT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006-110 Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project No. 2006-10, Contract 2006-D, 2006 Street Seal Coating. • Motion .assed unanimously. Y 9f. PROVISIONAL RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE — 5240 DREW AVENUE NORTH Mr. Boganey explained the proposal and stated the property experienced numerous issues and complaints resulting in ineligibility for a rental license, however he stated the property has been under new ownership and no calls have been received since April 2006. He stated the new owner has been improving the property. He stated a review of the property would occur after six months with eligibility of a non-provisional license after 12 months. Mr. Schumacher responded to Councilmember Lasman's inquiry regarding evicted tenants and stated freeloaders were living on the property and only three tenants who have signed a lease and paid the rent remain in the building. He stated rent will increase after the renovations are complete. He stated he purchased the property for the purpose of development and the property can be left unoccupied until the right tenants are found. He stated he resides in North Minneapolis and will be the manager of the proposed property. Mayor Kragness suggested that Mr. Schumacher get involved in the Association for Rental Management(ARM) group. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to approve the application and the Mitigation Plan and Rental License. • Motion passed unanimously. 9g. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LICENSURE OF MASSAGE PARLORS; AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE SECTION 23-1712 Mr. Boganey discussed the purpose and history of the Ordinance Amendment and stated the changes discussed by the City Council with regards to Massage Parlors are included in the proposal. .Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve first reading of ordinance and set second reading and Public Hearing on October 23, 2006. Councilmember Carmody stated the amendments are to the requirements for a Health Club, not a Massage Parlor. Councilmember Lasman stated it will work better now that the State Building Code in relation to restrooms is included in the City of Brooklyn Center's Ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. 9a. CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT . Councilmember Niesen stated it is important to the City that the top official be compensated fairly and because this agreement sets precedence, she investigated the proposed contract, that 09/25/06 7 DRAFT being the same contract as the former City Manager, Mike McCauley. She stated that her redlined copy of the contract was submitted to the City Council for review. She stated that she is proposing something that is fair and a contract she would approve if the City Council is in • agreement. She stated she sought contracts from several neighboring communities for the purpose of comparison. She stated she spoke with the League of Minnesota Cities who emailed her information on hiring the City Manager. She stated disappointment that Mr. Nollenberger was absent from the meeting. Mayor Kragness stated Mr. Nollenberger was instructed to use Mr. McCauley's contract as a basis. Councilmember Niesen discussed the proposed vacation and sick leave and stated she contacted several legal firms regarding the matter, one at her own expense. Mayor Kragness stated the decision can not be made by Councilmember Niesen alone. Councilmember Carmody stated objection to several of Councilmember Niesen's comments and stated disagreement with most of the redlining done by Councilmember Niesen. She stated Councilmember Niesen has objected to several steps of the process for the search for the new City Manager, all of which were given to the City Council on a dateline in advance. She stated surprise that Councilmember Niesen mentioned that this was the most important task of the City Council,however in the past three years the contract of Mr. McCauley was approved; she did not request to review the contract. She stated Councilmember Niesen's argument is not convincing. Councilmember Niesen stated she should have reviewed the contract, however she was learning at the time. She stated the full contract was never supplied with exception of the car allowance and salary portions. She discussed her proposed amended evaluation form for the City Manager. • She stated that she collected several opinions on the proposed contract, one of which by another law firm. She stated objection to several portions of the contract and stated reasons for those objections. She stated Brooklyn Center can not afford to pay this generous contract that puts the City at risk. She discussed concern for the sections relating to termination and moral turpitude. She discussed the salary history of the previous City Manager and Mr. Boganey. She stated she would like to review the contract with the City Council, item by item. Councilmember O'Connor agreed with many of Councilmember Niesen's concerns and stated she would like the City Council to walk through each item of the contract. Councilmember Carmody pointed out that other contracts provided for comparison by Councilmember Niesen should also be reviewed. The City Council discussed the following aspects of the City Manager Employment Agreement: Section 1. Employment Councilmember Niesen stated she has no amendments to the paragraphs that precede Section 1 and no changes to Section 1 Employment. She stated she would like to add a section titled: Term of Agreement that states: "the agreement shall terminate on the 26th day of September 2007 and subsequent extension shall be allowed only by a majority vote of the City Council prior to the expiration date." She stated this does not allow for an indefinite contract, however a proactive stance that this contract will be reviewed year to year. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement and pointed out a section of the St. Louis Park agreement in that the expiration or termination of the contract is discussed. She stated she is not in favor to change this section. Councilmember Niesen discussed the importance of indicating an expiration of the contract. The City Council discussed this section in comparison to those employment • agreements of other communities. Councilmember Niesen indicated the importance of including 09/25/06 8 DRAFT removal for cause in the agreement. The City Council discussed the amount Mr. McCauley received at the time of separation,that being only his regular salary. • The City Council discussed termination on malfeasance, moral turpitude, or illegal activity and the lack of it being addressed in the proposed employment contract. Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor stated they wish to include language addressing termination on malfeasance,moral turpitude, or illegal activity in the City Manager Employment Agreement. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere stated the contract that the City has had in place for many years is based on a slightly different premise. He stated the idea is that an employer can negotiate every piece it wishes. He stated it is thought by many employers to start off with a more cooperative relationship. He stated with Mr. McCauley's contract, it does not have a tremendous amount of detail. He stated a provision on moral turpitude is not unreasonable; however the term moral turpitude does not have a clear definition and means different things to different people. He stated the proposed contract is predicated on the idea that it is protection for the employee. Councilmember Niesen stated there is sample language addressing termination on malfeasance, moral turpitude, or illegal activity provided by the League of Minnesota Cities and suggested that the City use the language provided by them. Councilmember Niesen read the language as follows: However, in the event employee is terminated because of his or her malfeasance in office, gross misconduct, conviction for a felony, or conviction for an illegal act involving personal gain for employee, then employer shall have no obligation to pay termination benefits. • The City Council and Staff discussed severance packages and circumstances of other City employees. Mr. Boganey stated that he believes Mr. McCauley provided a copy of the contract in question to Councilmember Niesen on two different occasions. Councilmember Niesen asked that the language from the League of Minnesota Cities be inserted into the employment agreement. Councilmember Carmody stated she would be in favor of inserting the language if inserted exactly as stated by Councilmember Niesen. Mr. Boganey stated if the City Council wishes to add the language eliminating certain severance benefits if terminated for illegal actions by the City manager, he would agree. He suggested that the City Council direct the City Attorney to negotiate language with the City Manager on this issue. The City Council discussed Section 13d.a. regarding sick leave. Councilmember O'Connor and Councilmember Niesen stated the sick leave should not be paid upon Involuntary Separation. Mr. Boganey stated he would be willing to reach an agreement on this section; however the attorney should be directed to negotiate the language that is acceptable to both parties. Section 2. Duties • Councilmember O'Connor stated the language "which are consistent therewith" should be deleted. 09/25/06 9 DRAFT It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 3. Discharge of Duties • Councilmember Niesen stated the following last sentence "To that end, the Manager will work flexible hours as is necessary to Manager to discharge the duties of his position" should be deleted because it enters into the issue of flextime. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement with amending the section and pointed out other comparison contracts that have similar language. Councilmember Lasman stated this item does not change the contract in a substantial manner and that only items of importance should be discussed. Section 4. Evaluation Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to change the date of evaluation from July to September or October so that a complete year of management is reviewed. Mr. Boganey explained that this section of the contract was negotiated and he gave a lot to agree to the proposed language. Councilmember Carmody stated typically an evaluation is around one year, however in a position of City Manager,the evaluation should be done in July. The City Council discussed the salary amount and the history of Mr. Boganey's salary and that his position has changed, allowing for a higher rate of pay. Councilmember Niesen stated the salary and history comparison is important and asked what Mr. • Boganey gave up while making 30% more than in the year 2005. Councilmember Carmody stated it is an inappropriate question and stated preference that Mr. Boganey not to answer the question. Mr. Boganey did not answer the question. Councilmember O'Connor suggested that an evaluation be given on the stated date, however not a raise. Mayor Kragness stated a raise is typically involved in an evaluation. Section 5. Participation in Employee Benefits There was no discussion on this section of the Employment Agreement. Section 6. Vacation and Holidays Councilmember O'Connor stated preference to delete the third sentence that reads"The Manager may, at Manager's discretion take %2 day increments of vacation leave for an absence from the performance of Manager's duties." Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement and stated the City Manager should be allowed to use a half day of vacation due to his busy schedule. Councilmember Niesen stated the contract indicates that if the City Manager was to work one hour in a given day, he would not be required to use vacation for the remaining seven hours, which he should have to do. • Mr. Boganey stated it is the job of exempt employees to make sure certain jobs get performed. 09/25/06 10 DRAFT He stated he believes the Federal Law indicates that exempt employees may not be required to use vacation for absences that are less than a day. • Councilmember Carmody stated there are instances where the City Manager will work off hours and he should be able to use discretion in taking time off. She stated the White Bear Lake contract has similar language as the proposed agreement. Mr. LeFevere stated the language is not intended to give someone free vacation, rather be a limitation on the use of flextime. He stated if the sentence is removed and placed in the flextime area and stated the manager can use flextime,provided if he takes the whole day off, he must use vacation time. He stated this would represent the intent of the contract. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 7. Sick Leave Councilmember Niesen stated preference to delete the second paragraph that reads: "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 nonunion employees." She stated it should be removed because the contract includes enough payments to the City Manager and should not be paid for sick leave. Mayor Kragness stated disagreement. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement with Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember Carmody indicated that other cities pay for sick leave in comparison contracts and stated objection to removal of the language. Councilmember Niesen stated it should be treated the same as other employees in that a portion • of sick leave is paid based on the years of service. She stated the maximum of paid sick leave should be one third of that accrued. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 8. Compensation Section 8A. Initial Salary Councilmember O'Connor stated the annual salary should remain at$113,500. Councilmember Carmody stated the annual salary of$115,000 should remain. Councilmember Lasman stated the annual salary of$113,500 was for the Interim City Manager position and his position will change now that he is the City Manager. She stated the agreement is not generous,however it is fair. Councilmember O'Connor asked if Mr. Boganey will hire an Assistant City Manager. Mr. Boganey responded he has been performing the work of two jobs, which has taken him from his family more than he would like, which will not improve a great deal, therefore for the benefit of the City and himself, he will need some assistance. He further explained that he is not 100% certain he would recommend that the position of Assistant City Manager be filled as it exists. He stated assuming an employment agreement is agreed upon, he will look for ways that will result in efficiency and reduced cost in the management structure. He stated this may result in some • consolidations. He stated he needs help, however it may not be with an Assistant City Manager position as it currently exists. 09/25/06 11 DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor stated if an Assistant City Manager is hired, Mr. Boganey's salary should remain at$113,500 with a raise to follow at the time of evaluation. Councilmember Carmody stated objection to amending this section of the employment • agreement. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement in that the salary is listed at$115,000 annually. Councilmember Niesen stated the annual salary should remain at $113,500 until completion of the evaluation. Section 8B. Evaluation and Salary Increases Councilmember Niesen stated the wording in the contracts indicates that increasing compensation should be considered when the City evaluates an employee. She stated preference that the evaluation is given at the end of the year so that the City Council goals are incorporated. Councilmember Carmody explained that the City Manager is supervising employees with salaries over$100,000;therefore his salary should remain at$115,000 until his evaluation. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Mr. Boganey explained that according to the contract,the evaluation would occur in July of each year, with the salary increase at the beginning of the year. Mr. LeFevere explained that after the 2007 salary increase, the timing of the decision is specified • in the contract, however the criteria is not. He stated if the City Council deems the performance unacceptable, there would be no increase. He stated if the performance is deemed acceptable, however the City can not afford an increase, there would be no increase. He stated there are no specifications on what the City Council has to do,just the timeframe in which action must take place. Councilmember O'Connor stated the $4,000 increase is a 3.47% increase, which is not consistent with other employees and indicated that it should be 2%. Councilmember Niesen stated agreement. Section 8C. Personal Auto Usage Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to delete the entire paragraph. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement. Councilmember Carmody compared the section on car allowance to other contracts from the comparison cities. She stated objection to amending the paragraph. Councilmember Niesen stated the car allowance aspect of this contract is not legal because it is considered double dipping in that he is reimbursed for a car allowance along with mileage. Mr. LeFevere stated this agreement is not the same as Mr. McCauley's in the Car Allowance aspect. He stated the salary is set and does not say it includes the car allowance. He stated it is up • to the City Council on how Mr. Boganey should be reimbursed. 09/25/06 12 DRAFT Councilmember Lasman read from information provided that indicates that the average annual salary for a community the size of Brooklyn Center, not including the car allowance is $110,000. • Mr. Boganey stated rather than including a car allowance of$6,000, he agreed to not consider adding a car allowance, however agreeing on an annual salary of $115,000. He stated there is nothing in the agreement that specifically provides consideration for a car allowance, however the salary amount took into consideration that there is no car allowance in the agreement. He stated the personal auto usage in the agreement is for mileage. Councilmember Niesen stated she is troubled by this matter because she recalls the reason Mr. McCauley's salary increased was due to the car allowance being added to his salary. She stated mileage reimbursement should not have been allowed at the time he was receiving a car allowance. She stated concern that when Mr. Boganey received 95% of Mr. McCauley's salary, a car allowance was included in the salary used. Councilmember Carmody stated when the City Council made an agreement to have Mr. Boganey be Interim City Manager with a salary of $113,500, a car allowance was not discussed. She stated other candidates would have been at comparable salary with or without the car allowance, therefore this agreement is not excessive. Mayor Kragness explained that he receives mileage because he has to travel places for work. Councilmember Lasman explained that if Mr. Boganey is not using his personal vehicle, the City would have to provide one for his use,therefore this alternative is less expensive for the City. • Mr. Boganey stated he did not insist on a car allowance because there would be an offset in salary. He stated it is all salary to the IRS. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 8D. Professional Membership Dues and Professional Subscriptions Councilmember O'Connor stated preference that the section be deleted. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement and stated the portion of the contract is similar to that of St. Louis Park and White Bear Lake. Councilmember Niesen suggested additional language that states: "in accordance with City policies," so that the City Council can create a policy regarding this matter in the future. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 8E. Participation in Professional TrainingMevelopment Councilmember O'Connor stated preference that the section be deleted. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Mr. Boganey explained that it should be clarified that this language does not give the City Manager authority to spend any amount he wishes on Professional Training/Development, there is a budget in place that the City Manager must follow and the City Council has other means of controlling this spending. 09/25/06 13 DRAFT Councilmember Niesen stated this is only a matter of limiting things to reasonable limitations. Councilmember Carmody stated that the City Manager includes his attendance in training • sessions in the weekly update. Section 10. Expenses Incurred in Performing Duties Councilmember Niesen stated preference that the reference to reimbursement of personal use of his vehicle be deleted. Mayor Kragness explained that the City Manager will fill out an expense report itemizing all of his expenditures. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 11. Retirement Benefits Councilmember Niesen stated that the Manager should not be allowed to participate in another pension or retirement fund, other than PERA, to ensure that he does not have a second form of employment. Councilmember Lasman stated the only job the City Council should be concerned with is the one with the City of Brooklyn Center. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 12. Discontinuance of Employment Relationship • Councilmember Niesen stated all the unnecessary verbiage should be deleted. She stated Involuntary Separation does not give the City Manager time to resign. She stated if the City Council were to terminate for cause, resignation should not be an option. Councilmember Carmody stated no change is needed and that it minimizes damage to the City and the City Manager's reputation. Mr. LeFevere stated if language provides for discharge for committing a crime that would not be Involuntary Separation. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 12D. Payment Upon Involuntary Separation—Item(b) Councilmember Niesen stated concern with the indication that 12 full months of full cost of family ealth insurance would be provided in the case of Involunt Separation. She stated Y p �'Y p disagreement with the period of 12 months and stated it should be replaced with six months due to the high cost of health insurance. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement and stated preference that it remain as presented. Councilmember Lasman stated 12 months of coverage is acceptable, however, she would be willing to reduce it to six months of coverage. Mr. Boganey stated the reduction from 12 months of full cost of family health insurance to six months is acceptable to him. i 09/25/06 14 DRAFT It was the majority consensus to change the 12 months of full cost of family health insurance to six months of full cost family health insurance. • Councilmember Niesen stated "until other employment is found" should be included in the clause. Councilmember Lasman stated it is not likely that someone would get themselves set up with a similar position in less than six months. Section 12F. Pavment Upon Voluntary Termination Councilmember Niesen stated the contract should indicate that no sick leave or at the highest of any other employee which is 40% should be paid at the time of Voluntary Termination. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 12G. Councilmember Niesen stated the whole provision should be deleted. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement. Councilmember Lasman stated the provision is protection of both parties and should remain. Mr. LeFevere responded to Councilmember Niesen in that it is intended to be a waiver of unintentional acts. Councilmember Niesen stated should the City Manager bring forward a lawsuit, this provision indicates that he can seek beyond what is agreed to in the contract. Mr. LeFevere stated if an employee has an unrelated claim, the intent of this language is severance payment and is not intended to be damage for other claims. He stated it is not interpreted to be a payment of another claim. He stated the provision does not expose the City to anything it would not otherwise be exposed to. Councilmember Niesen stated there is no reason to put this provision in the contract, it is only asking for more litigation. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement. Mr. LeFevere stated the clause is for the protection of the employee and if it is not in the contract, there is no claim they would waive anyway. Councilmember Carmody stated the provision should remain in the contract. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Section 13. Term There was no discussion on this section of the Employment Agreement. Section 14. Indemnification Councilmember Niesen stated the second sentence that reads: "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" should be deleted. Councilmember Carmody stated disagreement. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. • Mr. LeFevere stated it is up to the courts to determine if the City Manager were acting in 09/25/06 15 DRAFT Manager's duties or not. He explained that this is to protect the employee from losing their fortune because of something they did during the job. He stated it is a direct protection for the employee,which would be part of the reason for them to work for the City. • Councilmember Lasman stated preference that the section remains as presented. She stated she was glad to know that she would be covered under such a clause if she were acting as a Councilmember. She stated this clause is necessary. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Sections 15 —Section 19. There was no discussion on these sections of the Employment Agreement. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve the City Manager Employment Agreement as presented with one amendment to Section 131)(b)regarding payment by the City of the full cost of family health insurance, striking 12 full months and replacing with six (6) full months and to leave the language on moral turpitude for discussion at the next Council meeting when the City Attorney and City Manager drafts the verbiage. Councilmember Niesen posed two questions to the City Attorney, 1) is the language in Section 13G more protective or less protective to the City; 2) how is the agreement changed once it is entered into overall. In response to Councilmember Niesen's inquiries, Mr. LeFevere stated he has not been able to think of a way that having the clause in Section 13G. is going to harm the City; however, he • stated that he is not infallible and a case could come up that this clause could be of disadvantage to the City. He stated this clause is not for the protection of the City, it is of that of the City Manager. He further explained that the contract is for the purpose of compensation and generally for the benefit of the employee; it defines a relationship. He stated the contract could be amended with the consent and approval by both parties. It was the majority consensus not to amend this section of the employment agreement. Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 10. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 10:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 09/25/06 16 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 • STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 9, 2006 CITY HALL—COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), and Mary O'Connor (arrived at 6:02 p.m.). Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Lasman inquired about item 9d. regarding residential pools and their effects on the storm water system. Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom addressed her inquiries. Councilmember Lasman inquired about item 9g. City Manager Curt Boganey addressed her inquiries. Councilmember Carmody inquired about item 9a. and asked why Kimberley Meyer was not nominated based on the application she submitted one year ago. Mayor Kragness responded that she was unable to speak personally to Kimberley Meyer despite attempts to contact her via telephone; however, Christine Eaton expressed interest in the Commission over the summer. She stated Kimberley Meyer's application will be kept on reserve for the next opening. Councilmember O'Connor indicated that she had the following changes to the minutes from the Regular City Council meeting held on September 25,2006: Page 6 Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the ongoing maintenance responsibility of the lines. Mr. Boganey responded the City would maintain the City's equipment and Access Communications would maintain their equipment. He also stated that Access Communications will provide the locator for both the City's equipment and their own. Page_10 (This request was also made by Councilmember Carmody) Section 4. Evaluation Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to change the date of evaluation from July to September or October so that a complete year of management is reviewed. Mr. Boganey explained . that this section of the contract was negotiated and he gave a lot to agree to the proposed language. 10/09/06 1 DRAFT Page 12 Couneilmember- O'Cofmor- stated he should get an o , o . She r-eeenuaended an inerease of 20% . • Page 13 Councilmember O'Connor stated the $4,000 increase is a 3.47% increase, which is not consistent with other employees and indicated that it should be 2%. Councilmember Niesen stated agreement. The following corrections to the minutes were submitted by Councilmember Carmody and considered by the City Council: Regular Session, Pasze 1 Councilmember Carmody stated it is considered unconstitutional to restrict the number or location (rental property. Work Session, Page 1 Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to receive reports for purchases over$10,000. Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman stated they would like to discuss this policy before making decisions like that The following corrections to the minutes were submitted by Councilmember Lasman and considered by the City Council: Page 2, Council Reports, Councilmember Lasman, Line 10 She stated on September 19'h she attended the Financial Commission meeting concerning language • changes on investments and other items, with more information to be submitted to the City Council at a later day. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS SELECTION OF RETREAT FACILITATOR—COUNCIL Mr. Boganey explained that four proposals were received for the retreat facilitator. He stated the cost difference is minimal between the four facilitators and based on feedback from clients of the firms and his own interaction with them, it is his opinion that they are all qualified and capable of doing the job, however Strandell seemed to have the most insight and a more impressive approach to the proposal, along with favorable feedback from other cities. Councilmember Carmody inquired about the possibility of having a half day retreat for goal setting purposes only. Mr. Boganey explained that the initial request for proposal was for a retreat from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He stated that other than Councilmember Carmody's request, a desire for a reduced retreat time was not indicated. He stated the firms can adjust their time frame to suit the City Council;however the cost will most likely not be affected. Mayor Kragness stated she had heard positive things about Salverda. Mr. Boganey stated he is familiar with Salverda; however,he was more impressed with the proposal from Strandell. 10/09/06 2 DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the cost of the facilitators. Mr. Boganey stated the total is hard to determine, however costs have been outlined in his memorandum. He discussed the four firms and their various costs. • Councilmember Niesen stated she had no comments on the choice of a retreat facilitator. Mayor Kragness suggested that the new elected officials and Mayor be invited to the retreat. Mr. Boganey stated that has already been included in the proposal. Mr. Boganey stated all the facilitators would be willing to include selected City employees and new elected officials if the City Council wished to include them. The majority consensus of the City Council was to select Salverda as the retreat facilitator. MOSAIC YOUTH CENTER RESOLUTION—MAYOR KRAGNESS Mayor Kragness explained the resolution and explained that neighborhoods in the City have kids in the school district who would use the youth center. Councilmember O'Connor stated objection to the support of the Resolution. The majority consensus of the City Council was to amend the Resolution and make it specific to the City of Brooklyn Center and place on the next City Council meeting agenda. LANG NELSON-RENTAL LICENSE POLICY—CITY MANAGER • Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, and Councilmember O'Connor stated preference to leave the policy as it is stated. Councilmember Lasman stated if she owned the building, she may not think it is fair, however if it is similar to other properties,the fees should remain. Councilmember Niesen requested information on the charges per building structure or charge per unit and requested a few examples of other similar situations. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to receive comparison information. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to reopen the Study Session at 6:50 p.m. • Motion passed unanimously. 10/09/06 3 DRAFT NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING RESOLUTION TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES—GREGORY MOORE Councilmember Carmody requested that the item be postponed until the next meeting so that she can • Y q p p g gather additional information to ensure the information presented is correct. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to postpone the item so that further information can be obtained. CONTINUATION OF LANG NELSON-RENTAL LICENSE POLICY The City Council further discussed the calculations of rental license fees. CONTINUATION OF CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEM AND QUESTIONS Mr. Boganey addressed Councilmember Carmody's concern regarding the difference in the two charts titled Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief Association Projected Cost of Alternative Benefit Increases included in item 9f. He stated the last column reflects what would happen if the payout was raised to $7,500 with the potential liability being identified in Section A. He continued to explain other calculations included in the chart. Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet explained that the last column entitled Alternative 2 reflects the amounts that would have been considered last year if it was raised to $7,500 in 2005. He stated the total accrued liability, if approved is reflected as $3,701,000. He • stated the fund is currently valued at $3,724,000, exceeding the accrued liability and there would be no under funded accrued liability nor any amortization payments required. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Study Session at 6:58 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor • 10/09/06 4 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 OCTOBER 9, 2006 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 and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. Rex Newman,Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission, addressed the memorandum sent to City Manager Curt Boganey from Gregory Moore regarding the legislation proposed to either reduce or eliminate the requirement that cable operators franchised by a City or a joint powers entity must serve all areas of a community. He explained the purpose of the Resolution urging the League • of Minnesota Cities to reconsider its support of proposed Minnesota legislation that would remove the build out provisions in Chapter 238, related to cable service of Minnesota State law. He stated the desire to continue the policy that has been in place for 25 years. He stated the importance of keeping control at the local government level. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Mayor Kragness offered a moment of silence as the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and . Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. 10/09/06 1 DRAFT 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE I G CE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. • 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember O'Connor stated she had nothing to report. Councilmember Lasman stated on September 29th, she attended the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting where a new resource guide was introduced and where a discussion on print branding for newsletters was held. She stated on October 3`d, she attended a candidate forum which was an opportunity to express concerns and get positions of candidates on issues in the City. She stated on October 9th she attended the Brooklyn Historical Society Annual Meeting where the author of the book: River of Conflict/River of Dreams spoke regarding the Mississippi River and its impact on development. She announced that on October 20th there will be a library book sale at the Brookdale Library from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.and from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 21St. She stated the library book sale is a great way to enrich citizen's library at a reasonable cost. Councilmember Carmody stated she had nothing to report. Councilmember Niesen thanked the hosts of the candidate forum and those who attended. She addressed parking on the grass throughout the City and warned those who park on the grass that it is currently considered a misdemeanor and necessitates going to court and will appear on an individual's record, as it is considered a criminal violation. She stated citizens should be aware of the • ramifications of parking on the grass. Mayor Kragness stated the candidate forum was the best attended in many years. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Carmody stated per policy, Councilmember Niesen's changes to the minutes were not submitted in time to be considered. Councilmember Niesen stated she submitted the minute corrections late and asked if the City Council was going to accept her changes or hold them until the next meeting. Councilmember Carmody suggested that Councilmember Niesen clarify her suggested changes and the City Council can consider them at the next meeting. Councilmember O'Connor stated preference that Councilmember Niesen's changes be considered at the present meeting. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to accept those changes submitted in time and to bring Councilmember Niesen's changes back for consideration at the next meeting. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve the consent • agenda and agenda as amended, removing the minutes from the September 25, 2006, Regular Session and Study Session. The following consent items were approved: 10/09/06 2 DRAFT 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 1. September 25, 2006—Work Session 7b. LICENSES MECHANICAL American Appliance 340123 rd Ave NW, Coon Rapids Assured Heating&A/C 334 Dean Ave E, Champlin 104'' Circle Brooklyn Park In-A-Vent Heating and A/C 6101 y RENTAL Renewal (There were no calls for service for the following) 5401 63rd Ave N (1 Bldg, 4 Units) John Schwarz 2807 66th Ave N(Single Family) Nicole Franklin 5347 & 53 Brooklyn Blvd(Two Family) Randall Cook 4902 France Ave N(Single Family) William Dudley Victoria Townhomes (8 Bldgs,48 Units) The Gaughan Properties 7 Dist. Peace, 1 Burglary, 1 Drugs Initial . (There were no calls for service for the following) 371253 d Place N (Single Family) Alice Karpeh 134963 rd Lane N (Single Family) Teresa James 6605 Camden Drive (Single Family) Alexander Lakanu 6612 Ewing Ave N (Single Family) Andy Evuleocha Domestic Assault (There were no calls for service for the following) 7107 Ewing Ave N (Single Family) Zarr Yarpah 6804 Fremont Place (Single Family) Teresa James 6728 Grimes Ave N (Single Family) Kasanda Dorcas Warrant Arrest (There were no calls for service for the following) 5900 Xerxes Ave N (Single Family) Katherine Hicks SIGNHANGER Pinnacle Signs & Graphics 340 Taft St NE, Minneapolis Topline Advertising 11775 Justen Circle, Maple Grove Franz Reprographics 2781 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center • 7c. RESOLUTION NO.2006-111 APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES 10/09/06 3 DRAFT 7d. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE RELEASE FOR ESTATES OF RIVERWOOD Motion passed unanimously. • 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 8a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2006-011 SUBMITTED BY HARVESTIME GLOBAL MINISTRY. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE IN AN I-1 ZONE AT 6820 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 28, 2006, MEETING. City Manager Curt Boganey stated the Planning Commission considered the proposal and recommended approval. He discussed the background information and factors of the application. Councilmember O'Connor raised the issue of whether the taxes are paid on the property and will continue to be paid, and the property will not be tax exempt. Mr. Boganey stated that is correct. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2006-011 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 1. The special use permit is issued for a place of religious assembly and associated uses at this • location. No other uses, not comprehended by this application shall be permitted as part of this special use permit. Any expansion or major alteration to the use shall be subject to an amendment to this special use permit. 2. This special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof,may be grounds for revocation. 3. Tenant improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 4. Special use approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the city ordinances and the city's sign policy with respect to 691'Avenue North. Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT — NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMISSION Mayor Kragness requested ratification of Christine Eaton to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. • 10/09/06 4 DRAFT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to ratify Mayoral appointment to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. • Councilmember O'Connor stated preference that Kimberley Meyer be appointed to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission because her application was received prior to that of Christine Eaton. Mayor Kragness explained that she was unable to reach Kimberley Meyer regarding her application; however, she was able to speak to Christine Eaton regarding her application. Councilmember Niesen stated Christine Eaton is the wife of a Mayoral Candidate and agreed with Councilmember O'Connor in that Kimberley Meyer should be selected because her application was received prior to that of Christine Eaton. She stated preference to the appointment of Kimberley Meyer and stated objection that Ms. Meyer was not spoken to before the decision was made. Councilmember Carmody stated precedence was set by appointing those who applied first; therefore, it is her preference that the Mayor attempt to reach Kimberley Meyer before the appointment is made. Councilmember Lasman stated the proposed applicant is qualified and the City could not lose by appointing either one. She stated she would like it if Ms. Meyer was contacted and an apology extended that they were not able to speak prior to the appointment. Councilmember Niesen moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to table the Mayoral Appointment to the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission until the • Mayor has an opportunity to reach the other candidate, Kimberley Meyer. Mayor Kragness and Councilmember Lasman voted against the same. Motion passed. 9b. PROCLAMATION OBSERVING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 23 — OCTOBER 27, 2006,AS MINNESOTA MANUFACTURER'S WEEK Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Observing the Week of October 23 — October 27, 2006, as Minnesota Manufacture's Week. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve Proclamation Observing the Week of October 23 —October 27, 2006, as Minnesota Manufacturer's Week. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9c. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-112 ESTABLISHING 2007 STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES Mr. Boganey explained the resolution and the rates defined therein. • 10/09/06 5 DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked why the street is shown to cost $8,000 and the storm drainage a is shown to cost $2,400. Mr. Boganey explained that the elements of the street reconstruction involve more costs such as curb and gutter, and landscaping. Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom explained that water and sanitary sewer costs are not included in the special assessments. • He stated they are paid through funds in the Water Utility and Sanitary Sewer Utility fees. He explained that part of the utility bill goes towards capital expenditures such as these repairs. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006-112 Establishing 2007 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the resolution language regarding zoning. Mr. Boganey explained the zoning language in the resolution and addressed her concerns. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the increase of 4% and stated it seems high. She inquired about property in the Riverwood neighborhood whose owner indicated a $20,000 assessment. Mr. Blomstrom stated the assessment values have not been disclosed in the Riverwood neighborhood and stated those assessments will be nowhere near $20,000. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the calculation of the 4%. Mr. Blomstrom explained that calculation of the 4% increase. Mayor Kragness explained that the $8,000 portion of the assessment mentioned by Councilmember O'Connor is not the actual assessment; however, it is the total cost of the improvements for that property. Councilmember O'Connor stated concern for the cost of curbs and the effects curbs will have on the stormwater system. • Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9d. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO DISCHARGES AND CONNECTIONS TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM Mr. Boganey explained the purpose of the ordinance and stated this is for first reading of the ordinance and to set a second reading and public hearing. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the three biggest pollutants are and how the City is going to stop them from getting in the water system. Mr. Blomstrom stated there are many pollutants that include phosphorus, chloride, and many others that have various effects on the water system. He stated the City holds a permit issued by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that lays out 26 best management practices that the City is required to implement in order to reduce pollutants. Mr. Blomstrom stated the proposed ordinance would give the City the authority to enforce non- storm water discharges. Councilmember O'Connor stated concern that the City Manager or the City Council would be arrested because of the continued pollution of the storm water system. • 10/09/06 6 DRAFT i City Attorney Charlie LeFevere indicated that arrests would not be made. He stated the enforcement mechanism will come through the issuance or denial of the NPDES permit. He explained factors of the Ordinance that better explain its Pm P ose and explained the Ordinance language in order to • address Councilmember O'Connor's concerns. Councilmember Niesen stated concern with the residents having another law to abide by and the City having another law to enforce. She stated concern for minor pollutants like spilled paint and car washing in the driveway. Mr. Blomstrom explained that it is not the intent of the City to catch people washing their cars in the driveway; however,this Ordinance is intended for bigger sources of pollution. He stated there is a list of exceptions listed in the Ordinance. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve first reading of ordinance and set seconding reading and Public Hearing for November 13, 2006. Motion passed unanimously. 9e. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-113 AUTHORIZING ADDENDUM TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Mr. Boganey stated the City Council reviewed a proposed agreement with the City Manager and approved the agreement with one modification. . Councilmember Niesen explained why the termination for clause section is important. She stated the recording of the last meeting showed that other Councilmembers were in favor of the language exactly as she read it. She stated she has not seen the complete final agreement. Councilmember Carmody stated the agreement presented two weeks ago was approved verbatim, with the exception of the number change from 12 to 6 included in the proposed addendum. She explained that she stated that she would be willing to consider an addendum and she did not say it had to be the League of Minnesota Cities language. Mr. Boganey stated the proposed agreement contains the exact language that was in the agreement provided to the City Council two weeks ago. Mr. LeFevere discussed areas of concern in the contract,particularly involuntary termination. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006-113 Authorizing Addendum to City Manager Employment Agreement. Councilmember O'Connor asked what Malfeasance means. Mr. LeFevere explained the meaning of malfeasance. Councilmember Niesen stated preference to use the League of Minnesota Cities language. Councilmember O'Connor stated it was in the minutes that Councilmember Niesen brought up the • League of Minnesota Cities language and stated it should have been used in the addendum. 10/09/06 7 DRAFT Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9f. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-114 APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE FIRE • DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION BY-LAWS Mr. Boganey explained the purpose and discussed the background of the proposed resolution. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the amount distributed to someone who retires in particular years. She stated it does not seem fair that those who retired earlier get less. She stated $7,000 is enough and stated opposition to the proposed $7,500. Councilmember Lasman stated disagreement with Councilmember O'Connor and stated the money is the incentive to be retained as a firefighter. She stated the City is saving millions of dollars per year by having volunteer firefighters. She stated it is the most cost effective way to continue as previously practiced. Councilmember Carmody stated agreement. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2006-114 Approving Amendment to the Fire Department Relief Association By-Laws. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9g. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-115 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS. Mr. Boganey explained the resolution and discussed its background and details. • Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2006-115 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor • 10/09/06 8 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION OCTOBER 9, 2006 CITY HALL—COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at 8:25 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers/Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. REQUEST FROM COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL REPORTS (TABLED FROM 9/25/06) . Mr. Boganey explained the email received from Councilmember Niesen in which fmancial reports are requested. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained that claims are presented to the City Council in Statutory Cities because it is required by State law. He stated according to the City Charter, this kind of approval is not required. He stated the language suggests that the City Manager make the payments based on the budget. He said the Charter states that the procedures can be changed by ordinance by the City Council. Councilmember Niesen stated the majority of the cities in Minnesota are Statutory Cities in which the City Council is required to review claim registers and asked Mr. Boganey about the practices of Brooklyn Park. Mr. Boganey discussed his recollection of the practices of Brooklyn Park. Councilmember Niesen stated she needs more information in order to effectively do her job of oversight. She continued to explain the reason she feels it is necessary for the City Council to view all the payments made by the City. She read portions of the Charter as it relates to her concerns. Mr. Boganey explained the process currently used by the City and stated he personally looks at the Check Distribution Report and asks questions as he deems necessary. • 10/09/06 1 DRAFT - Mayor,Kragness stated th e Council previously received a statement of all checks distributed; however with the former City Manager, Mr. McCauley, the Council decided it was not necessary • to review the paid claims. Councilmember Lasman stated City Council direction is needed on the item. She stated she would like to know how much time this request would take City Staff to accommodate. She stated if the time spent is minimal, she would not be opposed, however if it will take a lot of time, she sees it as micromanagement. She stated checks and balances are in place and the budget has been running fine. Mr. Boganey stated it would not take much time to produce and copy the report, however the staff time spent reacting to inquiries from Councilmembers could be greater. Councilmember Niesen inquired about sections of the City Charter that discuss the financial reporting requirements. There was discussion regarding the requirements of the City Charter. Mr. Boganey stated it is good practice for staff to provide meaningful financial information to the City Council. He stated he would like to provide draft reports with financial information at a policy level, starting at the first of the year. Councilmember Lasman stated she would like to apply parameters on how inquiries on the financial information are made. Mayor Kragness agreed. Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to start receiving the information so that the City • Council can determine the types of questions they can ask. She stated if the City Council does not wish to receive the reports, she would still like to receive them. Councilmember Lasman stated objection to Councilmember Niesen receiving the report and stated the entire City Council should act as a whole. She stated operations have been in tact for some time and all the financial aspects of the City are healthy. She stated if Councilmember Niesen requests the Check Register as public data, she should be required to pay for the public data. She stated the City Council does not wish to receive the information as a whole; therefore she can request and purchase the information. She stated the information proposed for January is sufficient for her. Councilmember O'Connor stated she is in favor of receiving the information in the same way as Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember Carmody stated based on recent activities, going over the check register would be cumbersome for staff and stated she is not in favor of going over all the details of spending. She stated the request by Councilmember Niesen is inappropriate and could be an attempt to go after Mr. Boganey. REVISIONS TO NEW HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—CITY MANAGER Mr. Boganey stated after a couple years, the City believes it has an agreement with Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC to move forward with construction of a 175 room, full service hotel and 10/09/06 2 DRAFT potentially later, a 75 room hotel adjacent on the property, owned by the EDA. He stated with . the passing of time, some circumstances have changed and has resulted in a request on the part of the partners to modify certain aspects of the previously approved agreement. He stated the staff feels the modified agreement works to the EDA's advantage and the results will be the same quality as originally envisioned. Community Development Director Brad Hoffinan explained that since last May, the lawsuit was settled and in August of last ear, the Embassy Suites changed their format including the site Y Y g g plan, formerly approved by the EDA. He stated the new proposal is that the parcel be removed from the TIF District and the City enter into a tax abatement agreement with the developers for a period up to 10 years for each phase and an amount not to exceed the original concept of $2,100,000 of assistance. He continued to discuss other aspects of the proposed agreement. Councilmember Niesen stated concern with the selling price of the land proposed in the agreement. She stated concern with the freezing of TIF dollars. There was discussion regarding TIF District funding, Tax Abatement and the value of the land now,verses 20 years from now. Mayor Kra ess stated she y gn would like to see the item brought to the City Council for a vote. She stated it has been a long time in the making. Mr. Hoffman stated it is his understanding that the site plan has begun and the developer wishes to start construction this spring. • Councilmember O'Connor stated she would prefer to sell the land and does not support a hotel. Councilmember Lasman stated the hotel has been envisioned for a long period of time for this parcel of land and will stimulate business at the Heritage Center. She stated she is in favor of the hotel development and the City should move forward with the development. Mayor Kragness stated the Earle Brown Heritage Center has not been able to book large conferences because of the lack of hotel space. She stated this is a priority to the Heritage Center and the City. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING INVESTMENT POLICY MODIFICATIONS PER AUDIT—CITY MANAGER Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet explained changes made to the investment policy and practices to increase the yield. He described sample investment policies by the Government Finance Officers Association, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the City of Shakopee. He stated the change proposed is that the City be allowed to invest in agency securities. He suggested that the use of Section 118A of the Minnesota State Statutes be added to the policy as the source of reference. He suggested that the policy project the Enterprise Funds be projected out five years. . There was discussion on the risks of investments and tax increment revenues. 10/09/06 3 DRAFT I NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING RESOLUTION TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES—GREGORY MOORE • Councilmember Carmody stated she would like to verify the information presented and hold this item until the next City Council meeting. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to continue this item until the next City Council meeting. CITIZEN COMMENT CARD RESULTS—COUNCIL Mr. Boganey explained that 28 citizen comment cards were received. Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to use them in the goal setting session at the retreat. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Lasman asked why Councilmember Niesen thought it was appropriate to ask the City for reimbursement for legal fees after she stated she went on her own time and paid for it out of her own pocket. Councilmember Niesen responded she was looking at the legal advice as a whole and stated she thought a second opinion would be appropriate. She stated she wanted to see how the City Council receives legal services and testing the path of obtaining legal advice. Councilmember Lasman stated Councilmember Niesen is giving the impression that she is working for a crooked organization with some of her actions. • Mayor Kragness stated Councilmember Niesen is consuming a lot of staff time and making the staff feel she does not trust them. Councilmember Lasman stated Councilmember Niesen's actions are costing the tax payers a lot of money. Councilmember Niesen requested that the City Council receive the golf course fund reports along with the liquor stores reports. Councilmember O'Connor stated agreement. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to receive the golf course fund reports along with the liquor store fund reports. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Niesen seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:08 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor/President • 10/09/06 4 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 JOINT WORK SESSION WITH FINANCIAL COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2006 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session with the Financial Commission and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness 6:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Kragness, and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen and Mary O'Connor (arrived at 6:38 p.m.). Also present: City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Daniel Jordet, Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley. Financial Commission Members present: Mark Nemec and Gene Maze (arrived at 6:38 P.M.). 1. REVIEW OF 2007 BUDGET DATES: City Manager Curt Boganey explained the following budget dates and their purpose: a. Capital Projects and Enterprise Budget Review—October 16th 2006 b. Final Draft Review-November 20th 2006 C. Truth in Taxation Hearing—December 4th and 11th if necessary d. Budget Adoption—December 11th 2006 The City Council and Financial Commission members stated the dates were acceptable. 2. CAPITAL/ENTERPRISE AND OTHER BUDGET FORECASTS a. 2007-2021 Capital Improvement Program Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom discussed the 2007-2021 Capital Improvement Plan and stated it is going to be proposed to be extended because there is a need to reorganize the schedule for neighborhood improvements. He stated there is a need for a comprehensive summary for future improvements. He explained that when these improvements come into the five year plan, the cash flow is affected. He stated another reason is so that the money can be organized better for the projects. He discussed the 2007 Capital Improvement Program Preliminary Draft that was distributed to the City Council and Financial Commission. He stated the projects included in the program are not expanding, however for the primary purpose of replacing the current infrastructure. 10/16/06 1 DRAFT He stated in some cases, the plan proposes to reduce some infrastructure in the City. He explained the details included in the 2007 Capital Improvement Program including: • Street and Utility Improvement Projects, Storm Water Improvement Projects, Miscellaneous Utility Improvement Projects, and Park and Trail Improvement Projects. b. 2007-2021 Enterprise and Capital Cash Flow Review Director of Fiscal and Support Services Daniel Jordet addressed the cash flow analysis. He discussed the need for inflation factors and described a spreadsheet where the cost for the projects and inflation factors are calculated along with the inflation of those projects being used. He stated a 2% inflation factor is used and are included in the cash flow analysis. i. Water Utility ii. Sanitary Sewer Utility iii. Storm Water Utility iv. Street Light Utility v. Street Reconstruction Fund vi. Capital Improvement Fund vii. Recycling Fund 2004-2010 Mr. Jordet explained that the goal is to keep the pending cash line positive until the year 2021. He discussed factors that will change and increases that will take place. He stated inflation factors were built into each item. He discussed utility rate increases that will be • determined after needs are determined, in order to keep the ending cash line positive. He stated there is a large number of ways to keep the cash line positive and explained several of those ways. He discussed the total of a 91% increase in water utility rates through the year 2021. He discussed comparison rates to other communities. He stated it would take a 75% increase by the City of Brooklyn Center's utility rates to reach the median utility rates of other communities. He discussed options to increase rates at a more moderate pace. Mr. Boganey stated the cash reserve target is a number that was not inflated, however it may need to be inflated over time. There was discussion of an automated meter reading system that would allow water meter readings to be gathered more efficiently and accurately. The affects of the meter readings on the budget were discussed. Councilmember Niesen stated concern for the process of delinquent utility bill collection. She asked that the process be reviewed and discussed at a later meeting. There was discussion on the meter readings not being accurately collected or collected in a timely manner and how that affects the utility billing system and the budget. The difficulty of estimating utility bills for long periods of time was also discussed. Mr. Blomstrom explained that with the automated meter reading system, the City could • easily convert to a monthly utility billing system, improving the cash flow. 10/16/06 2 DRAFT Mr. Jordet discussed the bonding option for upgrades in the utility systems. • There was discussion of the percentage of inflation used on each item in the budget. Councilmember Carmody stated it might be worth considering a higher rate increase than 4%. She stated it may be beneficial to even the rate increases out. She stated it may be beneficial to increase the rates earlier rather than later. Councilmember Niesen stated objection to an earlier increase in the rate increases. Mr. Jordet stated the City needs to build up some cash to cushion itself and this tool is designed to allow the City to cushion itself so that rates are more consistent and not increasing or decreasing inconsistently. Mr. Blomstrom explained that the improvement plan and rate increases coincide and the improvement plan can be extended to reduce the rate increases. Mr. Jordet explained the spreadsheets including: Storm Water Utility, Street Light Utility, Street Reconstruction Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, and Recycling Fund 2004-2010 included in the packet. Councilmember Niesen stated she has once again been asked why there are no lights at Lions Park. She stated someone told her that the City does in fact own the park. Mr. Boganey indicated that he would check on the ownership of Lions Park and get back to Councilmember Niesen. 3. BUDGET REVIEWS—UTILITIES AND INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS • a. Water Utility Fund b. Sewer Utility Fund C. Storm Utility Fund d. Street Utility Fund e. Central Garage Fund Mr. Boganey explained what each of the funds includes and major changes to the funds. There was discussion on the life of a water meter and the cost of replacement. Mr. Blomstrom addressed Councilmember Niesen's inquiry about the Central Garage Fund and stated the fund includes fuel to operate equipment, replacement charges, and repair charges. Mr. Boganey stated the proposed budget assumes a 4% increase in storm water fees for 2007. There was discussion on the street lights being installed in the City and it was indicated that the street light fees should not increase due to the City's acquisition of more street lights. • 4. CONSTRUCTION FUNDS 10/16/06 3 DRAFT a. Street Reconstruction Fund b. Infrastructure n u e Fu d C. Municipal State Aid Construction Fund • d. Capital Improvement Fund Mr. Boganey explained what each of the funds includes and major changes to the funds. He discussed projects funded by the Infrastructure Construction Fund. There was discussion regarding maintenance and replacement of the recreation and park equipment. 5. OTHER ENTERPRISE FUNDS a. Recycling Fund b. Centerbrook Golf Course Fund C. Liquor Operations Fund d. Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund e. Earle Brown Heritage Center-Capital Fund Mr. Boganey stated the recycling fund tracks the funding of all recycling matters in which the City is involved. He stated the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) is in the process of retrieving bids from recycling companies due to increased costs. He explained that there are only two companies that serve Brooklyn Center, therefore receiving the best cost for Brooklyn Center is difficult. Mr. Jordet explained that HRG is debating whether they will accept the rate surcharge or • purchase their own equipment to provide the service themselves. Mr. Boganey stated more information will be available in November on this topic. Mr. Boganey explained the new equipment purchased under the Centerbrook Golf Course Fund. He stated the budget is primarily dedicated to maintaining the facility. He explained that $29,500 is included in the budget for capital in order to improve the irrigation system in which its controllers are 20 years old. There was discussion on depreciation and funding of depreciation. Mr. Jordet explained that the City does not fund depreciation. Mr. Boganey discussed a position to be upgraded at one of the liquor stores that will add value to the operation and fairness to the employee. Councilmember Niesen stated the Muzak should be removed from the liquor stores to save $60.00 per month. Mayor Kragness stated music is nice while people are shopping. Mr. Boganey indicated that he would speak to Liquor Operation Manager Tom Agnes regarding the matter. Councilmember Niesen stated objection to the upgrading of the position at the liquor store. Mr. Boganey stated the employee has worked 35 hours a week with no benefits for • many years and he and Mr. Agnes feel it is appropriate to upgrade the position. Mayor 10/16/06 4 DRAFT Kragness stated the City should show appreciation to the employees. Councilmember Carmody stated the Liquor Fund can afford the position upgrade based on the increase in • sales. Councilmember Lasman stated the loyalty of the employee during the busiest season should be rewarded. There was discussion of departmental goals for the liquor store. Mr. Boganey stated he would like to see the position upgraded this year, unless there is City Council objection. Councilmember Niesen stated if the upgrading of the position can not be voted on tonight, she would like the item brought to a future City Council meeting. Councilmember O'Connor stated the Earle Brown Heritage Center is of no benefit to the City since the funds are kept within the enterprise. There was discussion on the water tower at the Earle Brown Heritage Center where extensive repairs or replacement is needed within the next few years. Mr. Boganey discussed grant monies available, up to $100,000 if the water tower was renovated. He stated if the grant funding was not received, the City Council would have to consider options rather than replacement. He stated there will be enough money in the capital fund to cover the expense if that option is chosen. Development, Grant and Forfeiture Funds • L EDA Fund Mr. Boganey explained the budget associated with the EDA requirements. He stated nothing has been added,just the funding necessary to continue the EDA. g. CDBG Fund Mr. Boganey stated this money can only be used for specific things such as benefits to low or moderate income families or urgent needs. He stated this fund is on a different fiscal year than the regular budget and programs must be approved separately. Mayor Kragness stated these programs have served the citizens of Brooklyn Center well and should be continued. h. Grants Fund Mr. Boganey stated the Grants Fund is to identify money received for grant purposes. He stated there is nothing budgeted for 2007. Mr. Jordet explained the different grant funds and stated most of the grant fund amounts are undetermined. • i. Police Forfeiture Fund 10/16/06 5 DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated an estimated $28,000 will be received next year. He stated'he will • check with the Police Chief as to items related to this fund. 6. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS a. TIF Districts# 1,2,3 and 4 b. General Obligation Improvement Bonds i. 1996A ii. 1997A iii. 1998A iv. 1999A v. 2000A vi. 2001A vii. 2003A C. GO Building Refunding Bonds i. 2004A ii. 2006A d. GO TIF Refinancing Bonds i. 2004B e. GO TIF Bonds i. 2004D Mr. Boganey explained the TIF Districts and activities within the funds. There was discussion on the various TIF Districts and the process of distributing the funds. • Mr. Jordet explained the payment of bonds and the effects on the various TIF Districts. 7. BUDGETARY ISSUES REMAINING FOR NEXT MEETING a. Technology Fund b. Use of un-appropriated Local Government Aid Mr. Boganey discussed the budgetary issues remaining for the next budget meeting. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 10:48 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor • 10/16/06 6 DRAFT rage i oz i Curt Boganey From: Ron Boman Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:06 PM To: Curt Boganey Subject: Fire at 5305 Russell Ave. North We received a call at about 8:45 to a fire in apartment 112 lower level when the fire department arrived there was fire coming out the bedroom window and up the side of the building, the fire department did an excellent job and kept the fire confined to the one apartment but most of the other units in the building (about 10) received smoke damage and cannot be occupied until they are cleaned up. The fire was caused by a women in apartment 112 empting an ash tray into a waste basket in the bedroom of there apartment, in addition they left all the doors of the apartment open when they exited their apartment which caused the heavy smoke damage in the rest of the building. We had Mutual Aid from Robbinsdale West Metro and Brooklyn Park we cleared the scene at W a , about 11:00 AM no injuries to any of the tenants. We also notified the Red Cross and had a Metro Bus for the displaced tenants to stay in until the fire was out. Ron Boman 10/23/2006 FEB-07-2005 15:11 NW COMMUNITY TELEVISION 7635331346 P.02iO4 FEB. 7.2005 3:03PM N0.351 P.2/4 Phone firms' cable TV plans hit local obstacle By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY The phone companies, forging ahead with bold plans to jump into the cable TV business, are hitting a speed bump: local governments. Most cities say the regional Bells must obtain local franchises. Those franchises typically require cable TV providers to wire an entire community-not just the wealthiest areas, with the most lucrative customers-and pay a 5%fee on revenue. But SBC Communications and Vernon want to install fiber-optic networks in the public areas Fey-already cover. They insist y s ou n't have.to negotiate anc ise qt agreements too er pay TV services consumers. Their offerings,they say, axe tbridament4ly ditterent from tr onal cable services that must strike franchise deals. The battle is pivotal.Franchise requirements could delay or add huge costs to the phone companies'plans. And franchise fees are typically passed on to subscribers. "It creates a number of problems for the business case,"Legg Mason analyst Blair Levin says. Franchise agreements can take months to negotiate. That could slow the phone companies in their race against cable providers to offer packages of voice, video and data services. SBC has said it plans to spend about$6 billion to offer cable TV,voice and broadband to 8 million homes it serves in the West and Midwest by the end of 2007. Verizon, which serves much of the East Coast,has announced plans to connect 1 million homes this year, 2 million next year and about 9 million by 2009. Verizon's goal is to run fiber directly to homes; SBC plans to string fiber to neighborhood hubs, using copper wire from there to the homes. BellSouth has said it,too,will upgrade its network for video. Federal law generally requires phone companies to obtain franchises for video services that use the public right-of-way, SBC and Verizon say their existing arrangements with local governments for their phone networks should suffice. Most of those agreements,though, do not impose franchise fees, says Marilyn Mohrman- i is of e a on ea e o e . The phone companies also note that,unlike the cable companies, they're not the first pay- TV entrants in their markets, so their revenue is more uncertain. Vernon is lobbying to change the law. Meanwhile, it's negotiating with about two dozen cities to strike franchise deals, "We're going to follow whatever the law requires," says spokesman Eric Tube. SEC is taking a more wressive stance that is based largely on the fact that its video services will be transmitted as data packets over an Internet-based network, The Federal Communications Commission recently ruled that Internet-based phone services, such as Vonage, should not be subject to state regulation because they are COPE Telecom Bill Limits Local Authority Page 1 of 2 Newsroom COPE Telecom'. ,,...�l t. ..m�z�fin:. . ..w�' ...�.!.:9 ,i,� �%// ,.�ig .•:`., c � � R r �/ Y q` led e k ✓s;'y r r),klff ggraEns ervices y Institute for Youth, Education MA MM, &Familie y Local ovprnments Urge Congress to ote ' o' on Telecom Bill Publications _ Press Room 04/28/06 Research&Analysis Nation's Cities weekly ;� v Statement by th1)VAbk4WV 0if Cities, the US Conference of Mayors, the National Association o, Counties,Nat)bflmMesOWNcffvfg7bWummunlcatlons Officers and Advisors, Government Finance Ofi Association, tie Association, TeleCommUnity,and the National Conference o) Mayors on they proposed ommunications, Opportunity,Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006(C( bill): National City Network The telecom reform bill,as it now stands,will, in effect,silence the voices of consumers and local A rk governments. If enacted,consumers will be at the mercy of telecommunication giants and the feder __...._..: "^ °"-° government when faced with concerns about their television and advanced Internet services. This m leaves the door wide open for service providers to pick and choose which neighborhoods get premiur E� services and which get no service at all. Local governments continue to urge Congress to protect our PRik taxpaying consumers and maintain local government oversight of service providers. We urge them tc "no"on the COPE bill when it comes before the House. Specific concerns are: S +: • The bill strips local governments of their authority to franchise the use of public rights-of-way foi M+ 4 video/cable services and gives that authority to the federal government. The FCC has never had the authority to regulate local public rights-of-way and has no expertise concerning local streets,sidewall public safety or traffic patterns. NO 's y •The bill gives the federal government the authority to oversee and second-guess all local rights-o management practices and all customer service issues. E r •The bill allows broadband-video service providers to pick and choose which neighborhoods they v '+ serve while bypassing all others completely. The bill would even allow broadband/video providers to maintaining or upgrading facilities in poorer neighborhoods while affluent neighborhoods receive cuff edge services and lower prices. Local governments want their consumers to have meaningful competitive services—not higher rates consumer recourse. Contacts: Sherry Conway Appel, NLC, 202-626-3003; Elena Temple,USCM,202-861-6719;Jim Philir NACO,202-942-4220; Libby Beaty, NATOA,703-519-8039 National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 550 • Washington, DC 20004 Phone:(202)626-3000 • Fax:(202) 626-3043 info@nic.org • www.nlc.org Privacy Policy http://www.nlc.org/Newsroom/Press—Room/9752.cfin 10/20/2006 i FEB-07-2005 15:11 NW COMMUNITY TELEVISION 7635331346 P.03iO4 FEB. 7.2005 3:03PM NO.351 P.3i4 technologically similar to email. SBC argues that the FCC ruling suggests the same logic should apply to video services. "What we're really talking about isn't a whole lot different than what Vonage faced," says SBC Senior Vice President Dorothy Atwood. SEC's Internet-based TV offering will be different from cable, she says, letting subscribers choose camera angles of sports event or click to see player statistics, Similarly, she says, cable companies'Voice over Internet Protocol (VOID) services escape the regulation that burdens the Bells'traditional phone services. The FCC ruling does not free Internet-based video services from franchise obligations. But the agency could issue such a decision in the future, says FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield, Yet some city officials say a pay-TV service is a pay-TV service, "There's nothing magical about putting something in Internet protocol," Mohrman-Gillis says. "If you use the right-of-way,you need to compensate cities for rent." Many cash-strapped cities are hunting for new revenue sources. "Franchise fees are significant sources of revenue," says Steven Stovall, city councilman in Plano, Texas. Cable TV companies say it would be unfair to let the phone companies off the hook. "We should have the same playing field," says Brian Dietz of the National Cable& Telecommunications Association. The stakes are especially high for SBC,which doesn't want to have to wire entire towns. = pans to target o 5f Fugh-spending customers, 70%of"middle-value" subscriber 10 5% 0 ow-v ue consumers. "The last time I looked,that was called red-lining," says Mohrman-Gillis,complaining that it denies lower-income residents the benefits of new communications services. Atwood counters that SBC's small phone rivals for years have cherry-picked only its most-profitable customers. "We're engaged in a strategy of'build to success,'because this is a risky investment," she says. SBC's projected 15%return on investment would fall to 10%if it had to blanket entire towns,Levin says. Not all cities are adamant about the need for franchises. Little hock would rather SBC serve at least part of its town than abandon it altogether. "We need to foster an environment that allows competition to occur,"says Michael Keck of the Little hock board of directors. Shims, - 'reek Wdtershed Management Commission 3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447 Tel: 763.553.1144 • Fax: 763,553.9326 Email:iudie(a)iass.b¢•Website:www.shinglecreek.org September 20,2006 Cities and Review Agencies: Enclosed please find for your review and comment a Major Plan Amendment proposed to the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions' Second Generation Watershed Management Plan. The Commissions will take public comment on this Major Plan Amendment until 4:30 p.m. Monday,November 20,2006. The purpose of this Major Plan Amendment is to adopt: • A Water Quality Plan that includes specific water quality goals for the lakes, streams, and wetlands in the watershed and a specific set of management actions to manage and improve those resources; • A revised Capital Improvement Program;and • A revised Cost Share Policy that provides that 25 percent of the cost of qualifying capital projects would be funded by the county ad valorem tax levy across all property in the watershed,with the: balance of project costs paid for by cities. The attached Notice of Major Plan Amendment provides more detail about the proposed changes to the Second Generation Plan. A public hearing will be held on this proposed Major Plan Amendment either Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 7:00 pm or Thursday, January 11, 2007 at the Commissions' regular meeting time of 12:45 p.m. The Commissions will determine the date at their October 12, 2006 meeting. A notice of public hearing will be sent to you when that hearing has been scheduled. Please submit questions and comments by November 17, 2006 to Judie Anderson at JASS, 3235 Felnbrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447, or judie(d jass.biz. We appreciate your review and look forward to your comments. Sincerely, 1111V 71'" carstexs Craig Cooper, Chair Tina Carstens, Chair City of Minneapolis Commissioner City of Brooklyn Park Commissioner Shingle Creek WMC West Mississippi WMC Cc: Commissioners TAC Members JAShingle Creek\ManagementPlan\Major Plan Amendment 2006\L.-conveying Major Plan Amendment.doc Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Champlin • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale Notice of Major Plan Amendment Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions propose to amend their joint Second Generation Management Plan to adopt a Water Quality Plan and an amended Capital Improvement Plan. The CIP includes an amended Cost Share Policy that provides for a portion of the cost of qualifying projects to be funded from the Hennepin County ad valorem tax levy across all real property in the watershed. This Plan Amendment also proposes revisions to clarify the conditions under which no plan amendment would be needed to accommodate minor changes to the CIP. These revisions to the Plan are shown as additions (underlined) or deletions (strike outs) to Sections 7 and 9 and Appendix G of the Management Plan. The Water Quality Plan would be adopted in its entirety as a new Appendix I to the Management Plan. Water Quality Plan The Water Quality Plan was prepared by the Commissions' Technical Advisory Committee. The Plan establishes numerical water quality goals for the lakes and streams in the two watersheds, and a plan for the completion of functions and values assessments on high- priority wetlands. The Plan also includes recommendations for management activities to expand monitoring, prepare resource management plans, increase public education and outreach activities, and construct capital improvements. There are numerous water resources in the watersheds that have been included on the state 303(d) list of Impaired Waters, including impairments to Shingle Creek and Bass Creek,and impairments to 13 of the 16 lakes in the watersheds. The Plan assumes that as TMDLs are completed for these water resources,the TMDL Implementation Plans will refine water quality goals and management activities by water resource, and the Capital Improvement Program will need to be revised to incorporate additional projects identified in the TMDLs. The Major Plan Amendment would adopt the Water Quality Plan as new Appendix I of the Second Generation Management Plan. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The Commissions propose to revise the CIP to incorporate projects to be constructed by the member cities to improve the water resources in the watershed. Some of these projects have been identified in the draft TMDLs as priorities for implementation. The Technical Advisory Committee developed a Cost Share Policy for capital improvements, and a process for soliciting, prioritizing, and scoring potential projects. Projects for an Interim CIP (2007-2009) were solicited from cities and scored, resulting in a proposed Interim CIP 2007-2009. The CIP revision requires three changes to the Management Plan: 1. Incorporation of a Cost Share Policy providing that projects that meet certain requirements would be eligible for 25 percent cost participation from the county property tax levied on all real property in the watershed, up to a maximum of$250,000 per project. The Commission intends.to use as a working guideline a maximum annual levy of$500,000. 2. Revision of the CIP incorporating specific projects for the years 2007-2009. 3. Revision of the plan amendment procedure to clarify the conditions under which no plan amendment would be needed to accommodate minor changes to the CIP. J:\Sbinde Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetWotice of Major Plan Amendment.doc - 1 - i Cost Share Policy The Cost Share Policy provides that projects that meet certain scoring thresholds are eligible to be funded 25 percent from the county property tax levied on all real property within the watershed, up to a maximum of$250,000 per project. Another 25 percent of the cost would be apportioned to the city or cities benefiting from the improvement, and 50 percent apportioned based on contributing area. Participating cities are free to negotiate an alternate apportionment if desired. The Commission intends to use as a working guideline a maximum annual levy of$500,000. The Plan Amendment would adopt the Cost Share Policy as additional language in Section 7 of the Management Plan, and as described and shown as a funding option on the CIP in Appendix G. Revised CIP Following development of a process to solicit, score, and prioritize capital projects, the SCNW1\1 Commissions in early 2006 solicited potential capital projects for an Interim CIP. The Interim CIP is intended to provide a means for the Commission to complete projects that have already been identified by cities as priorities, prior to the completion of lake and stream TMDLs. The lake TMDLs are expected to be finalized in 2007 and the stream TMDLs in 2008, providing cities with additional information to develop projects for inclusion on a later CIP. The Plan Amendment would adopt the revised CIP as shown in Appendix G. The Interim CIP is not a definitive list of all the projects or needs in the watershed over that planning period. It simply reflects those projects that cities chose to submit and which met qualifying criteria. Projects scoring at least 45 points based on these criteria were advanced to the CIP. These criteria and scoring were as follows: 1. Does the proposed project result from a regulatory mandate? (0 or 10 points) 2. Does the project meet multiple TMDL mandates? ( 0, 10 for one,20 for two or more ) 3. Do all the cities responsible for paying for the 75 percent balance of the cost of the project agree to go forward with the project? ( 0 or 10) 4. Is the project in the city's or cities' CIP(s)? ( 0 or 20) 5. Does the project have multiple benefits? (5 points each up to 30 total) •Improve water quality. •Prevent floating. •Prevent or correct erosion. •Promote groundwater recharge. • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat. •Improve or create water recreation facilities. Plan Amendment Clarification The Management Plan sets forth the procedures for amending the Plan. This proposed major plan amendment would refine those procedures to specify the types of modifications to the CIP that would require a minor plan amendment, and those that would not require any plan amendment. Changing the CIP to move a project to a different year would not require any plan amendment. Revising a cost estimate would not require a plan amendment as long as the revised cost results in a Commission share that is no more than 25 percent greater than as shown in the CIP, as adjusted by the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record. If a revised cost estimate suggests the Commission's share may be greater than 25 percent more than as estimated in the CIP,then a minor plan amendment would be required. This Plan Amendment would adopt the clarifying language as shown in Section 9 of the Management Plan. JAShinsle Creek\CIPs\Maior Plan Amendment\September packet\Notice of Major Plan Amendment.doc - 2 - I SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMNIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-03 Commencing the Review Process of an Amendment to the Second Generation Watershed 112anagement Plan for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Adopting the Water Quality Plan and Revised Capital Improvement Program WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, with advice and assistance from its Technical Advisory Committee of representatives from its member cities and from the Metropolitan Council, state review agencies, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources, has developed a Water Quality Plan, which includes establishment of numerical lake and stream water quality goals; a wetland functions and values analysis process and schedule; and an associated management plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the Commission's approved Second Generation Watershed Management Plan included general water quality goals and policies and specified that more detail would be developed in a later'Rater Quality Plan that would be adopted as a Major Plan Amendment to the Management Plan; and WHEREAS, as part of the Water Quality Plan the Commission prepared a revised Capital Improvement Program and Cost Share Policy that the Commission intends to use to finance capital projects providing agreement can be reached with the affected cities; and WHEREAS,the Commission proposes that its completed Water Quality Plan be adopted as Appendix I to its Second Generation Watershed Management Plan, and that the Capital Improvement Program in Section 7 and Appendix G and the Plan Amendment Process in Section 9 of the Second Generation Plan be revised, and submits this Major Plan Amendment for consideration by various reviewing agencies; and WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.231, Subd. 11, it is provided that all Major Plan Amendments to the Watershed Management Plan shall be submitted to the towns, cities, county, Metropolitan Council, the state review agencies, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources for review in the same extent and manner as required for the adoption of the Management Plan; and WHEREAS, the review process commences with the submission of the Plan Amendment to the nine member cities and the entities listed above, and said units of government have 60 days for comment NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: A Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment adopting the Water Quality Plan and a revised Capital Improvement Program has been prepared and shall be submitted to the nine member cities and entities listed above. Said agencies shall have 60 days after submission to return their comments to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management RESOLUTION 2006-03 2006-03-Plan Amcndmmt_DoC Commission. The comments shall be addressed to Ms. Judie Anderson, JASS, 3235 Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447. Chair ATTEST: Vie.✓✓ Recording Secretary RESOLUTION 2006-03 20D6-03-Plan AmcndmmnzDoC WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED 11L .NAGEIVJENT CONINIISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-03 Commencing the Review Process of an Amendment to the Second Generation Watershed Management Plan for the`Vest Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Adopting the Water Quality PIan and Revised Capital Improvement Program WHEREAS, the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission, with advice and assistance from its Technical Advisory Committee of representatives from its member cities and from the Metropolitan Council, state review agencies, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources, has developed a Water Quality Plan, which includes establishment of numerical lake and stream waxer quality goals; a wetland functions and values analysis process and schedule; and an associated management plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the Commission's approved Second Generation Watershed Management Plan included general water quality goals and policies and specified that more detail would be developed in a later Water Quality Plan that would be adopted as a Major Plan Amendment to the Management Plan; and WHEREAS, as part of the Water Quality Plan the Commission prepared a revised Capital Improvement Program and Cost Share Policy that the Commission intends to use to finance capital projects providing agreement can be reached with the affected cities; and WHEREAS, the Commission proposes that its completed Water Quality Plan be adopted as Appendix I to its Second Generation Watershed Management Plan, and that the Capital Improvement Program in Section 7 and Appendix G and the Plan Amendment Process in Section 9 of the Second Generation Plan be revised, and submits this Major Plan Amendment for consideration by various reviewing agencies; and WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.231, Subd. 11, it is provided that all Major Plan Amendments to the Watershed Management Plan shall be submitted to the towns, cities, county, Metropolitan Council,the state review agencies, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources for review in the same extent and manner as required for the adoption of the Management Plan; and WHEREAS the review P rocess commences with the submission of the Plan Amendment to the five member cities and the entities listed above, and said units of government have 60 days for comment. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED as follows: A Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment adopting the Water Quality Plan and a revised Capital Improvement Program has been prepared and shall be submitted to the five member cities and entities listed above. Said agencies shall have 60 days after submission to return their comments to the West Mississippi Watershed Management RESOLUTION 2006-03 JAShingle CreehCIPs\Major Plan Amendment\Septcmber paelxt120D6-03 Plan Amendm: Commission. The comments shall be addressed to Ms. Judie Anderson, JASS, 3235 Fernbrook Lane,Plymouth,MN 55447. Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary i RESOLUTION 2006-03 JAShingle Crezi-c Pswaix Plan AmendmmtlSeptembu packetM06-03_Plan Amendma Section 7 — Capital p a Improvements Program and Work Plan INTRODUCTION The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and Work Plan identify resource management studies and improvement projects that the SCWM WMC should consider completing during the ten-year planning period. The CIP and Work Plan are subject to annual review and revision. Including a study or project in the CIP indicates the Commission is serious about its completion; however, it does not mean the Commission has ordered or will order the study or project. The projects included in the CIP and Work Plan are considered by the Commissioners to be of high priority during the most recent planning effort. The proposed studies and capital improvements are subject to annual review by the Commissioners, at which time each proposed study or project will be reconsidered and additional ones added or deleted by amendment. This first review should occur prior to budget discussions associated with year 2004 expenditures. PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES The CIP and Work Plan were developed based on the following priorities and strategies for Plan implementation: Priorities: 1) Control flooding 2) Improve public information and education 3) Protect wetlands 4) Improve water quality in lakes,streams,and rivers 5) Improve fish and wildlife habitat 6) Restore wetlands 7) Research and encourage development strategies that minimize impervious surface and encourage infiltration 8) Research and encourage innovative and sustainable maintenance and improvement practices Deleted:May 2004 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-1 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2006 Section 7—Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan Strategies: a) The Commissions will continue to control peak runoff rates at management sector boundaries and city boundaries, requiring development and redevelopment of certain sizes to adhere to a stormwater management plan that provides rate control and water quality improvements and adding an infiltration requirement. The watershed model will be maintained and the creek's 100 year profile will be reevaluated. b) The Commissions' more active education and public outreach program will provide regular information to cities and local media for distribution, useful information on the Commis$tons web site,opportunities for,and more interaction with schools. c) The Commissions' education and public outreach program will meet minimum requirements for NPDES Phase H and the Commissions will help facilitate other NPDES activities, such as facilitating training in good housekeeping methods for city staff,as requested. d) Over the first five years of the Second Generation Plan the Commissions will prioritize water resources and develop management plans for those resources by priority or as opportunity provides. These plans will include goals for maintaining or improving water quality based on practical use and implementation strategies that may include maintenance or capital improvements. e) The Commissions will promote Shingle Creek and other streams and rivers as greenways, emphasizing streambank improvements and habitat restoration where possible. f) The Commissions will prioritize wetlands for preservation and wetlands for potential restoration. Buffers will be required adjacent to wetlands and watercourses as development or redevelopment occurs. Cities that are the LGUs for WCA will perform functions and values analyses on their wetlands in accordance with Commission standards. For those cities where the Commissions are the LGU, the Commissions' engineer will perform those analyses at the city's cost. g) The Commissions will create a Construction/Matching Grant Fund that will be used to: match grants for resources management projects or capital improvements; construct capital improvements that are of high watershed priority,are demonstration projects,or have otherwise been designated by the Commissions for construction by the Commissions; and as match or "seed money"to encourage local improvements. Deleted:May 2004 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-2 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2006_ Section 7—Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES Work Plan Appendix G presents the general Work Plan for the current planning period. In general, in 2003 the Commissions would evaluate baseline data for all the pry nary water resources in the watersheds; prioritize those resources and classify them as necessary; and review the status of the water quality monitoring program and make changes. This Water Quality Plan would provide the basis for future water resource management plans. One of the recommendations of this Plan would be a revised CIP with recommended studies and projects for each resource in priority order. Included in that Plan would be the identification of watershed significant wetlands, establishing a priority order listing from which cities can begin preparing functions and values analyses. Also in 2003 would be the completion of the Chloride TMDL and identification of management strategies for consideration and implementation. entation. In 2004, the Water Quality Plan would be supplemented with a Practical Use and Goals Plan that would specify numerical goals for various water quality parameters. Also in 2004 would be the development of a Shingle Creek Corridor Plan. The creek would be evaluated for conveyance, streambank erosion,habitat,land cover,and greenway potential. Starting in 2005, a series of management plans for individual or classes of resources would be developed based on the priority order established in the Water Quality Plan and the CIP. CIP and Budget The Second Generation Plan CIP and budget includes the establishment of a Construction and Matching Grant Fund. This fund would be used by the Commissions to match grants for various Commission or member city activities; provide matching grants to cities to accomplish specific projects of watershed significance; or to directly construct projects of watershed significance or demonstration projects. A summary of currently proposed CIP projects along with approximate annual funding needs is presented in Appendix G. Many listed elements will require feasibility studies in order to explore alternatives and provide the detail necessary for the member cities and the Commissions to approve the project. It is very important to note the estimated costs are very approximate and should be used for Planning purposes only. The primary source of funds to accomplish these projects and programs is member cities. Many of the member cities have in place a Storm Sewer Utility under the authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 444 and use those proceeds to pay annual WMO assessments. Some of the cities do not currently have a Storm Sewer Utility and pay these costs from their General Funds or from some other local funds. Deleted:May 2004 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7_3 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan tSeptemp r 2006_- Section 7—Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan The annual cost of the administrative and operating programs of the WMOs is about$1.70 per capita, Deleted:price to the cities of -- -------- -- p ---p`-— implementing the CIP as well as or about$4.40 per household per year. ' Deleted:costs The Commissions have several options for capital projects financing_ Under the authority provided by ., Formatted:Font:12 pt --------------------- -- - -- -- ------- - -- Minn Stat 10313.251 Section VIII, Subd. 5,the Commissions have the authority to certify for payment Formatted:Font:12 pt by the county all or part of the cost of an approved capital improvement. The JPA provides that if cities are unable to come to a cost sharing agreement, then the Commission may order the project by _ fundin�100 percent of the project cost from the Hennepin_Co_urq ad valorem ta_x le��_ ,- Formatted:Font.Iz pt - Formatted:Font:12 pt Projects may also be 100 percent funded by cities. The JPA provides two alternates: projects may be Formatted:Font:12 pt funded through a negotiated cost share between cities having land in the affected subwatershed. Or, projects may be funded by apportioning the cost of the project across all the cities in the watershed using the same 50% land area / 50% tax capacity formula as the general assessments to cities. The latter may be amended py the Commission if it is clear that one or more of the cities receive a special benefit from the project. In 2005 the Commissions' Technical Advisory Committee developed a Cost Share Policy as an alternate to the capital project funding mechanisms provided in the JPA as described above. It is the intent of the Commissions to finance capital projects according to this policy, if agreement can be reached with the affected cities. The policy provides as follows: For any capital project. 100 percent funding from the ad valorem tax levy or from all cities based on Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.25^ the funding formula is and would continue to be options to consider. However,the Cost Share Policy apportions the cost between the watershed as a whole;the area that receives direct benefit;and the contributing/indirect benefiting area. For capital projects that have been identified in a Commission-adopted or approved TMDL or 4-- Formatted:Indent:Left: 0.25^ management plan: 1. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost of the project,to a maximum share of $250,000. 2. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method—spread across all taxpayers within the watershed. 3. The Commission should use a maximum annual levy of$500,000 as a working guideline. - -- Formatted:Bullets and Numbering 4. The cities' share should be 75 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to the cities as follows,or in some other manner acceptable to them: a. The area directly benefiting from the project should be apportioned 25 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to cities based on,for example,proportion of lake or stream frontage. b. Fifty percent of the cost of the project should be apportioned based on contributing/ benefiting area. The basis of this apportionment would likely be unique to each project. Deleted:May 2004 —� Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-4 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2006_- Section 7-Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan 5. The cities can each decide the funding mechanism that is best suited to them for payment of their -- Formatted:Bullets and Numbering share,for example through special assessments,storm drainage utility,general tax levy,or watershed management tax district. Tables 1 and 2 below show the estimated one-time cost of various tax levy levels based on the 2006 net tax capacity of land within the two watersheds. Table 1 Calculating the Impact of Various Levy Amounts on Average Properties Shingle Creek Watershed Additional Tax •-- Formatted Table Tax Capacity $250,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 Levy Levy Levv $150.000 home $1.500 $2.74 $5.49 $10.98 $250,000 home $2,500 $4.58 $9.15 $18,31 $350,000 home $3.500 1 $6.41 $12.82 $25.63 $500,000 apt $6.250 $11.44 $22.88 1 $45.77 $500,000 C/1 $9,250 $16.94 $33.87 $67.74 $1,000.000 C/I $19,250 $35.24 $70.49 $140.98 $250,000/$136,548,631*= 0.00183/$of tax capacity $500,000/$136,548,631*= 0.00366/$of tax ca aciry $1,000,000/$136,548,631*= 0.00732/$of tax capacity *2006 Net Tax Capacity in the Shingle Creek watershed as estimated by city assessors Table 2 Calculating the Impact of Various Le vy Am ounts on Average Properties West Mississippi Watershed Additional Tax Tax Capacity $100,000 $250,000 $500,000 Levy Levv Levy $150,000 home $1,500 $2.54 $6.34 $12.69 $250,000 home $2,500 $4.23 $10.58 $21.15 $350,000 home $3,500 $5.92 $14.80 $29.61 $500,000 apt $6,250 $10.57 $26.44 1 $52.88 $500,000 C/I $9,250 $15.65 $39.13 $78.26 $1,000.000 C/I $19,250 $32.56 $81.43 $162.86 $250,000/$59,118,278*= 0.00423/$of tax capacity $500,000/$59,118,278*= 0.00846/$of tax capacity $100,000/$59,118,278*= 0.00169/$of tax capacity *2006 Net Tax Capacity in the West Mississippi watershed as estimated by city assessors Deleted:May 2004 -� Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-5 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan a tember 2006 Section 7—Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan Also included in Appendix G are the estimated annual budget and member assessments for the ten-year planning period based on the programs and projects in the plan as proposed. Those budgets and the CEP would be annually reviewed and adjustments made based on current conditions and management plans. The Commission may also pursue additional financial resources that would reduce the reliance on member city assessments or allow additional work to be completed at little or no additional local cost. These sources may include ants donations in-kind services or participation b other governmental Y grants, P P Y g units. The Commissions have had recent success in obtaining outside grant dollars. Information regarding municipalities' and other agencies' capital improvement programs can be found in Section 4. I Deleted:May 2004 -� Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-6 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2006_ Section 9 Amendments INTRODUCTION This Watershed Management Plan provides direction for SCWM WMC activities through the year 2012. The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Commissions may initiate amendments to the Plan at any time. The Commissions intend that the Plan provide a flexible. framework for managing the watersheds. AMENDMENT PROCEDURES All amendments to the Plan except minor amendments shall adhere to the full review and process set forth in Minnesota Statutes 103B.231, Subdivisions 7, 8 and 9, as they now exist or as subsequently amended. The SCWM WMC shall adopt the proposed plan amendments upon their approval by the Board of Water and Soil Resources(BWSR)in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.231,Subdivision 9,as amended. The amendment procedure for minor plan amendments, as defined in Minnesota Rules 8410.0020, Subpart 10, and 8410.0140, Subpart 3, shall be in accordance with Minnesota Rules 8410.0140, Subpart 2(A,B and C),as such rules now exist or as subsequently amended. Amendments to the approved capital improvement program may be considered to be minor plan amendments if the following conditions set forth in Minnesota Rules 8410.0140, Subp. 3 are met: 1. The original plan set forth the capital improvements but not to the degree needed to meet the definition of "capital improvement program" as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 10313.205,subdivision 3;and 2. The affected county or counties have approved the capital improvement in its revised, more detailed form. The following examples of other minor plan amendments are given in Minnesota Rules 8410.0020, Subp. 10: "...recodification of the plan, revision of a procedure meant to streamline administration of the plan, clarification of the intent of a policy, the inclusion of additional data not requiring interpretation, or any other action that will not Deleted:May 2004 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions page 9-1 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 20D6_ Section 9 -Amendments adversely affect a local unit of government or diminish a water management organization's ability to achieve its plan's goals or implementation program." In addition,a minor plan amendment will be required for the following situation: 1. When a capital project is listed in the approved Capital Improvement Program and the -" Formatted:Bullets and Numbering Commission's share of an updated cost estimate is greater than 125,percent of the_ ____ -- Deleted:o Commission's share shown on the CIP,as adjusted by the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record. Neither a minor nor a general plan amendment will be required for the following situations: 1. If projects listed in the approved CIP are implemented in a different year than shown. 2. When a capital project is listed in the approved Capital Improvement Program and the Commission's share of an updated cost estimate is within 25Jpercent of the--------------- Deleted:o Commission's share shown on the CIP,as adjusted by the Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record. Unless the entire document is reprinted, all amendments adopted by the SCWM WMC Board of Commissioners must be printed in the form of replacement pages for the Plan, each page of which must include: 1. On draft amendments being considered, show deleted text as stricken and new text underlined. 2. Be renumbered as appropriate. 3. Include the effective date of the amendment. FUTURE AMENDMENTS Several mandatory amendments are anticipated for metropolitan area watersheds in addition to the amendments that will occur as a result of management plan implementation. A brief amendment description is provided in Table 9-1 to advise the member cities of these requirements and to stimulate stakeholder dialogue prior to their anticipated inclusion in the Plan. This list is not a comprehensive summary of mandated revisions or amendments that might be contemplated by the Commission. Deleted:May 2004 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Page 9-2 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2006_, I Section 9 -Amendments Table 9-1 Future Amendments to the SCWM WMC Management Plan Approximate Sponsoring Y Description Year Agency Annual SCWM WMC Detailed capital improvements as they are planned and subsequently ordered by the Commissioners. As necessary SCWM WMC Various amendments based for example on new legislative requirements or policy initiatives, or technological advances. 2003 EPA/MPCA NPDES permitting for stormwater discharges will affect the metropolitan area. The SCWM WMC will provide assistance in the areas of education and outreach, and other areas as requested by the member cities. 2003 SCWM WMC Upon completion of the chloride TMDL the Commission will like]),promulgate new rules re arding chloride use. 2004 SCWM WMC,MDH Upon completion of member cities' wellhead protection plans, the Commission may need to revise its rules regarding infiltration so they are consistent with the cities' Drinking Water Supply Management Areas and management tools. 2004 Metropolitan Council/ The Council is preparing a metropolitan area plan that BWSR recommends target pollution loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area. The Council has been providing grant monies to metropolitan WMOs in an effort to facilitate watershed outlet monitoring to support development of target pollution loads. BWSR will receive the Council's recommendation and determine the actual performance standards for each watershed. Deleted:May 2004 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Page 9-3 , Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2006_ AppendieG m m a w RS it � Cr.0 O � U ca U Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-B Second Generation Watuished 191amayunienr Plan septel Mel 2005septUmbEl 2000 9 PP 9 9 7 O n 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 x MANAGEMENT PLANS a Water Quality Plan JIL500 : Shingle Creek Corridor Plan $40,000 Lake Management Plans 20 000 W10-00 V1 Phase II Stream Assessment $20,000 Wetland Mana ement Plan 20 000 Evaluate Creek 100 Year Elev 20 000 3` Generation Plan $125,000 w m ro CAPITAL PROJECTS a w w Shingle Creek Restoration,BBlvd $750,000 to to Candlewood m New Ho e-Wincrest Pond $290,0001 n Maple Grove Pond P51 $1,459,000 3 Crystal Lake Water QNAity 140.0-00 3. Ma le Grove Pond P57 648 000 o Twin Lake Wetland 639W Im r 690 000 New Hope 45 `Ave Pond 550 000 Shingle Creek Restoration, CR 10 $430,00 to 1694 Maple Grove Pond P33 M420-0 Maple Grove Pond P55 1U10-00 Subtotal, Commission $75,000 $322,500 434,500 $496,125 Contribution Subtotal CitX Contribution $675,0001 $1,426,50011 1303 500 1 1912 875 Total Ca ital Projects 750 000 1 749 000 1 738 000 F sum 000 Note: Subtotals assunte Funding Option 1. See proiect descriptions below for funding source detail. D v CD w � a � X co Appendix G CIP Projects and Funding Projects proposed for the Interim CEP are described below. It is the current intent of the Commissions to finance these projects using Funding Option 1, the revised Cost Share Policy. However, in the event cities are unable to agree on how to share the City Apportionment, or for some other reason the Commission determines that it is infeasible to go forward using Option 1, then the Commission, as authorized in the Joint Powers Agreement, may go forward using Option 2 or Option 3 as described below. Option 1 - Cost Share Policy For capital projects that have been identified in a Commission-adopted or approved TMDL or management plan: 1. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost of the project, to a maximum share of$250.000. 2. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method — spread across all taxpayers within the watershed. 3. The Commission should use a maximum annual levy of$500,000 as a working guideline. 4. The cities' share should be 75 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to the cities as follows, or in some other manner acceptable to them: a. The area directly benefiting from the project should be apportioned 25 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to cities based on, for example, proportion of lake or stream frontage. b. Fifty percent of the cost of the project should be apportioned based on contributing/ benefiting area. The basis of this apportionment would likely be unique to each project. 5. The cities can each decide the funding mechanism that is best suited to them for payment of their share, for example through special assessments, storm drainage utility, general tax levy, or watershed management tax district. Option 2- 100 Percent Ad Valorem Tax Lew Under the authority provided by Minn Stat 103B.251 Section VIII, Subd. 5, the Commissions have the authority to certify for payment by the county all or part of the cost of an approved capital improvement. The JPA provides that if cities are unable to come to a cost sharing agreement, the the Commission may order the project by funding 100 percent of the project cost from the Hennepin County ad valorem tax levy. Option 3— 100 percent Apportionment to Cities Projects may also be 100 percent funded by cities. The JPA provides two alternates: projects may be funded through a negotiated cost share between cities having land in the affected subwatershed. Or, projects may funded by apportioning the cost of the project across all the cities in the watershed using the same 50% land area / 50% tax capacity formula as the general assessments to cities. The latter may be amended by the Commission if it is clear that one or more of the cities receive a special benefit from the project. Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-11 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Sepiembw 2995September 2006 Appendix G 2007 Proiects New Hope Wincrest Pond This project includes expansion of an existing pond located between Winne_tka Avenue and Sumter A_venue north of the Wincrest Apartments into a two-cell pond system. The purpose of the protect is to increase both the water quality treatment volume and flood storage volume of the existing pond. Stormwater treatment efficiency will be increased and periodic overtopping that now causes erosion will be eliminated The area treated by this pond drains to Upper Twin Lake. The TMDL for that lake requires phosphorus load to be reduced through retrofitting the subwatershed with additional treatment. Funding p Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated — New Hope Wincrest Pond Share Levy (Commission (Cities, Share) Project Cost 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $72,500 $217,500 $290,000 2–Ad Valorem Tax Le yy 1 $290,00 1 $0 $290,000 3 – City Apportionment $0 $290,000 $290,000 Maple Grove Pond P51 Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction, volume and peak rate attenuation and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would serve 312 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed project would upsize the pond to provide treatment beyond the minimum required by Commission standards and would provide an estimated additional 94 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as reduction of other pollutants The project cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to achieve greater pollutant removal. Ad Valorem Tax Funding Options City Apportionment Total Estimated p Share Ma le Grove Pond P51 Levy(Commission (Cities' Share) Pro iect Cost 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $250.000 $1,209,000 $1.459,000 2–Ad Valorem Tax Lev $1,459,000 $0 $1,459,000 3 –Cily portioment $0 $1,459,000 $1,459,000 2008 Proiects Robbinsdale Crystal Lake Water Ouality Inprovenients The project involves the construction of infrastructure that would enable the withdrawal of hypolimnetic water from the lake and its pumping to an upstream point for flow back through a series of vegetated ponds prior to re-entry into the lake The purpose is to reduce high internal phosphorus loading of the lake by withdrawal of phosphorus-rich hypolimnetic water. resulting in the prevention of excessive algal blooms and improvement in water quality. This protect is in the Initial TMDL Management Recommendations for Crystal Lake. Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Pa a G-12 Commissions 9 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Sep#{mbeF 2w6 September 2006 Appendix G Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Crystal Lake Water Ouality Levy (Commission , Cities Share) Project Cost Improvements Share) 1 - Revised Cost ShaLLPolicy $100.000 $300.000 $400,000 2—Ad Valorem Tax Le 4 000 $0 $400,000 w 00 3—City A ortionment L $400,000 $400.000 Maple Grove Pond P57 Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide Rollutant load reduction, volume and peak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would serve 93 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed project would upsize the pond to provide treatment beyond the minimum required by Commission standards and would provide an estimated additional 14 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as reduction of other pollutants. The project cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to achieve greater pollutant removal. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Maple Grove Pond P57 Levy (Commission (Cities' .Share) Project Cost Share 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $162,000 $486,000 $648,000 2—Ad Valorem Tax Levy $648,000 $0 $648,000 3—City Apportionment $0 $648,000 $648,000 Twin Lake Wetland 639W hnprovements The Twin Lake Management Plan and TMDL both identified restoration of this wetland as key to reducing subwatershed phosphorus loading, to Upper Twin Lake. The wetland is located north of Upper Twin Lake in Brooklyn Center and Crystal- a majority of the wetland is located on propert y owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and is commonly referred to as the MAC Nature Preserve. Three alternatives for achieving this reduction have been identified: 1) partial diversion of flow around the wetland; 2) dechannelization and increased storage within the wetland; and 3) an alum ferric chloride treatment system. The initial project phase will.be the completion of a feasibility study to determine the most appropriate and cost effective option for achieving the desired phosphorus load reduction, followed by construction of the recommended solution. Ad Valorem Tax Funding ptions City Apportionment Total Estimated Twin Lake Wetland 639W Levy (Commission (Cities, Share) Project Cost Share 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $172.500 $517,500 $690,000 Valorem Tax Levu $690,000 $0 $690.000 3 —City A2portionment $0 $690.000 $690,000 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-13 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan geptambeF 20C)5Seotember 2006 Appendix G 2009 Proiects New Hope 45`h Avenue Pond The project would convert an existing dry pond on 45`h Avenue between Winnetka and Xylon Avenues to a wet pond to provide phos-phorus removal from an 80 acre subwatershed. The puMose of the project is to reduce pollutant loading to downstream water bodies. This subwatershed drains to the Crystal Memory Lane Pond system which ultimately discharges to Lower Twin Lake. Increasing the size of the pond will also provide additional flood storage for the subwatershed. The TMDL for the Twin Lake system requires phosphorus loads to be reduced through retrofitting the subwatershed with additional treatment. Ad Valorem Tax Funding Options City Apportionment Total Estimated New Hope 45th Ave Pond Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost Share 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $137,500 $412,500 $550,000 2—Ad Valorem Tax Lev $550,000 $0 $550,000 ortionment L $550,000 $550.000 Shingle Creek Restoration, CR 10 to 1694 The project would construct stream corridor improvements on Shingle Creek as recommended by the Shingle Creek Corridor Study and as anticipated will be recommended improvements in the Shingle Creek dissolved oxygen and impaired biotic TMDLs to be completed in 2007. The reach to be improved is from County Road 10 to Interstate Highway 94/694 The following improvements are proposed: streambank stabilization in eroding areas-, removal of select trees to reduce canopy density; establishing or enhancing buffer vegetation; and installation of rock vanes and varied substrates. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Shingle Creek Restoration, CR Lew (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost 10 to I694 Share 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $107.500 $322,500 $430.000 2—Ad Valorem Tax Levy $430,000 $0 $430.00 0 3 —Cit A ortionment $0 $430,000_ $430,000 Maple Grove Pond P33 Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction, volume and peak rate attenuation and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would serve 123 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed project would upsize the pond to provide treatment beyond the minimum required by Commission standards and would provide an estimated additional 17 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as p P P p reduction of other pollutants The project cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to achieve greater pollutant removal. Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-14 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan septe beF 2go5Seatember 2006 Appendix G Ad Valorem Tax Funding Options City Apportionment Total Estimated Levy (Commission , Maple Grove Pond P33 Share Cities Share) Project Cost 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $143,500 $430,500 $574,000 2—Ad Valorem Tax I-P-yy $574.000 $0 $574,000 3 —Ci Apportionment 1 $0 $574.000 1 $574,0001 Maple G-o>>e Pond P55 Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to rop vide pollutant load reduction, volume and peak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would serve 96 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed project would upsize the pond to provide treatment beyond the minimum required by Commission standards and would provide an estimated additional 25 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as reduction of other pollutants. The project cost here is the additional cost to upsize the op nd to achieve greater pollutant removal. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Total Estimated Maple Grove Pond P55 Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost Share 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $107.625 $747.375 $855,000 2—Ad Valorem Tax Le $855,000 $0 $855,000 3 —City Apportionment $0 855 000 $855,000 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-15 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Septembw 2005September 2006 Appendix G 70013 70117 Cntima+ rl Budget and GID(Te+al SP`\A M \Alll G) 2982 2N3 2884 2005 2886 288 flnenv-pertiii�-v'vi>�c -x- jib'^ �� �Ef ,� -��--��-�- --H�- i,_•"' Q-�°.�v-�r4�r IN�i+nawt 9...9A9 $324,909 $419,009 yvay $435'w0'0� $469,09 $495,009 Ad ypinrem Tax I evv $-:75-,090 $457 = $509,99 Cng 14rlm41 egal/h/linn $203,99 $262,799 a e s x-589 $- 1, _Q18 a0 . -$42 8 \ el ipteer_gnni ter mnn}+rinn $ 11C)c)) � $ 18,000 $-,0 $ 2 / $ 23,0 Q 22,009 ll ^ '�2�630QQ2031,560 n 93,140 F�d QnAtR'nn QnQ Iugv h o $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 42,000 -$-44-,449 46,399 LD1GS antnntien _ Q �� q�� @ y� �q� $ 45,82/�(�(v� R�onni erne AAnm+ Drn_ion+n -$-4 ..00.0 4- -y 7nrf naneratinn plan V 55,850 T�Ar1Lr e -�TvAnr'-;-;i`caes hemeG)WRer arf water Fe nurae mgmt plan ' , $ 30,000 - 000 TM01I Implementation ,-2 R%4R eval ration $ 35,() g G. pl nraak 1 nn yr elevation Q 40,00 'gyp--"rvvvv 1A/e + Minn i ennpenifierf nrniq,+{ s @ NOIRAA Tier 11 status $ 7,590 uwgg- - -2e;0ee -40;e0e - see 55,000 Gam ital rnientn T-WwR Lake Renteratipp 8 e Shingle (''rank Qestnratlnp_ -$ :75,999 e Arpientn from GIP 1A/e+lour•!/habitat roc+pro+inn 65,090 I nasal nrnient m +ash , ,a 41-0-n- .- s ; Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-16 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Sepiember 2095Seotember 2006 Appendix G 2ON 294.9 2241-2 2443 aaee sM€ -$530,00 $559,09 X57/a,�99 x$59 ,-�00 -$�cs�05�,99 $620-,99 Assessmen $ $520,990 8t#e -39,099 $-3,,998 $-30,C)o -$3a;sae $-3Q,ae Q() CYD��cr CANS $50&, $564-12 $545�,50 8 � $6 * 4 9 9� � 7$33Z4W 4342,799 44537 I = i =$44a7790 Vnl,,ntnnr assisted- mnnitnrinn 24,000 _ 25,909 $99 Q?7 000 $ 28,000 $ 29,000 34,809 -$ 26,549 $ 39,370 $ 40,299 8 -�29 o , -$ 44,420 �- Crl„gat'nn and web site $54,069 -$-4 0 $-49159 $ 51,649 $ 54,490 $ 56,90 9 nlonFc agti„itinc $ 16,629 $ 45,239 -$-1 6,009 -$ 16,809 -$ 47,64g $-48,530 FEd,,natinn grant $ 6,009 6,500 "$p--16,509 ' I QnnnYrao mgmt Drninatn 9 Vyatnr rncn,,rnn mgmt plan $ 40,009 I I I I Qi11 771 *Asswmnc, 2_C, pnrappt annual grn,„rth �tli-ttl w»..:.m.-a>,.EM= Gapital 9R $-X9,900 -$-6;998 -$--05;999 -$-79,008 -$-x$;989 $- 9,00 I pi+al Drnieas -$38;ee9 $-25,A99 -$-25,909 $ 25,099 -+R;PF9VeFRe-Rt6 -L9s h $- 5,908 -29,999 $-50,909 -$-99,999 $ 25,999 -$-59;999 Wetland,lhabitat rnntnratinn $� 5�9� ()�9�9� $Q ��nn �n,nnnn -zp--dtr,trvtr I I Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-17 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2995September 2006 Appendix G Table G-3 Approved Budgets 2003-2006 and Estimated Budgets 2008-2012 (Assumes 3% Annual Increases) Y - Approved Approved Approved Approved Proposed Additional 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 1 Application fees $20,000 $24,000 $24,00 0 24 000 $24,000 LO 2 Wetland reviews 3 Interest income 10,000 2,000 2,000 11800 3,000 4 Contribution to Reserve (7,300) 5 Contribution from Reserve 51,920 43,250 26.750 12,550 6 TMDL Grants 90,950 105,339 5.000 65.000 200.000 7 Other Grants 20,000 8 Assessment 324,000 338.950 361,140 386,850 411,500 1,050 9 Assessment above cap 17,050 10 Ad valorem TOTAL REVENUE 8$4 9,570 53� 3,539 $418,890 $490,20 0 638 500 18 100 OPERATIONS _ _ _ _ _ _ Administration: _ _ _ _ _ 11 Administrative Services $70,000 $70,000 $71,40 0 84 500 $87,700 12 Engineering Support 11,500 11,500 11,730 _ Engineering: 13 Administration 63,000 63,000 64,260 65,200 58.600 14 Management Plan 10,000 10,000 10,200 10,200 10,000 15 Grant Writing 10,000 10,000 10,200 10,200 8,500 16 TMDVCIP Engineering 8.000 17 Field Inspection 5,000 _ Le al: _ _ _ _ _ _ 18 Legal Services 25,920 20,000 20,400 20,500 20,500 _ Proiect Reviews: _ _ _ _ 19 Engineering 48,000 48,000 48,960 49,000 52,500 20 Administration 7,000 7,000 7,140 7,300 7.450 _ Miscellaneous: _ _ _ _ _ 21 Bookkeeping 4,000 4,000 4,080 4,150 4,250 22 Audit 3,ODO 3,000 3,000 10,000 10,DOD 23 Contingency 7.500 8.500 6.500 6,000 6.500 24 Insurance&Bonding 5,000 51000 5,000 51000 5.600 25 Meeting Expense 3,700 3.700 3,770 3,850 4,000 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS 268 620 $268.700 $266.64 0 $275,900 283,600 §0 MONITORING AND INFO GATHERING _ _ _ _ _ 26 Commission stream monitoring $22.500 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $38,800 $0 27 USGS site monitoring 2,800 3.200 28 Chloride TMDL annual report 5,000 29 Volunteer lake monitoring 7,000 7,DOD 6,500 6,500 6.500 30 Volunteer stream monitoring 5.000 51000 5,000 4,000 4,000 3_ wetlangL monitoring 5.000 4.000 32 Volunteer aquatic plant monitoring 2.100 SUBTOTAL MOMTORING $39.500 JL2.1300 $46.500 4$ 8,300 $52,500 $11,100 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-18 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan SeptepnbeF 2995September 2006 Appendix G - Approved Approved Approved Approved Proposed Additional 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 _ EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH _ _ 33 Education Program $30,000 $30,000 $34.000 $50,000 $51.400 $00 34 Web site 10,000 7.500 6.750 35 NPDES 13.000 5.000 51000 36 Education and Impl Grants 5.000 51000 5.000 6.000 6.000 6,000 37 Chloride TMDL annual workshop 1.000 SUBTOTAL EDUCATION 58 000 4$ 7,500 $50,750 56 000 $57,400 7.000 MANAGEMENT PLANS _ _ TMDLs 38 Shingle Cr Chloride $90,950 $20,000 $5,000 39 Lakes Phase I 85.339 40 Lakes Phase II 65.000 41 Shingle Cr DO/Biotic Integrity 200.000 _ Management plans: 42 Water Quality Plan 12.500 43 Shingle Creek corridor study 40.000 44 Chloride/lake phase I TMDL impl plan 20.000 45 Stream assessment phase II 20,000 46 Lake phase II TMDL impl plan 15.000 47 Future Wetland Mgmt Plan 5 000 SUBTOTAL MGMT PLANS $103,450 $145,339 25,000 85,000 $220,000 48 Contribution to constr/grant match 20,000 30.000 30.000 25,000 25,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE $489,570 $533,539 1 jjjL890 90 200 I 638 500 18.100 1 Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 Application fees $25.00 0 25 000 $25,00 0 25 000 $25,000 2 Wetland reviews '3 Interest income 3,000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 4 Contribution to Reserve 5 Contribution from Reserve 6 TMDL Grants 7 Other Grants 8 Assessment 423.850 436.570 449,670 463.160 477,050 9 Assessment above cap 81090 7,500 8,150 2,970 100.000 10 Ad valorem f TOTAL REVENUE $464,940 JjZ2.070 $485,820 $494,130 $605,050 _ OPERATIONS _ _ Administration: 11 Administrative Services $90,330 $93,04 0 95.830 $98,700 $101,66 0 12 Engineering Support(incl abovel _ Engineering: 13 Administration $60,36 0 $62.170 $64.040 $65.960 $67,940 14 Management Plan 10.300 10,00 10.000 10.000 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-19 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Septembw 2095September 2006 Appendix G - _ Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 15 Grant Writing 8.760 9.020 9.290 9.570 9,860 16 TMDUCIP Engineering $8,240 $8,490 $8,740 $9,000 $9,270 17 Field Inspection Legal: --- - - 18 Legal Services $21,120 $21,750 $22,400 $23,070 $23.760 Proiect Reviews: 19 Engineering $54,080 $55,700 $57,370 $59,090 $60.860 20 Administration 7,670 7.900 8,140 8380 8.630 Miscellaneous: 21 Bookkeeping $4,313 0 4 510 $4,650 $4,790 $4,930 22 Audit 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10,000 23 Contingency 6,500 6.500 6.500 6,500 6.500 24 Insurance&Bondin 5,60 5.600 5.600 5.750 5,750 - 25 Meeting Expense 4.000 4,000 4,000 4,100 4.100 SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS $291,340 $298,680 $306,56 0 $314,91 31$ 3,260 MONITORING AND INFO GATHERING 26 Commission stream monitoring $39,960 $41,16 0 42 390 $43,660 $44,97 0 27 USGS site monitoring 3.200 3.200 3.200 3.200 3.200 28 Chloride TMDL annual report 5,000 5.000 5,000 51000 5.000 29 Volunteer lake monitoring 6.500 6.500 6.500 6.500 6.500 30 Volunteer stream monitoring 4,000 4.000 4,000 4.000 51000 31 Volunteer wetland monitoring 4.000 4,000 4.000 4,000 6.000 32 Volunteer aquatic plant monitoring 2.000 2,000 SUBTOTAL MONITORING $62,66 0 $65,860 $65,09 0 68 360 7D 670 _ EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 33 Education Program $52,940 $54,530 $56,170 $57,860 $58,120 34 Web site(incl above) 35 NP v DES i (nct above) ) 36 Education and implement grants 12.000 12,000 12,000 12.000 12.000 37 Chloride TMDL annual workshop 1.000 1,000 1.000 11000 1.000 SUBTOTAL EDUCATION $65,940 $67,53 6$7.530 s,17o E0,860 1 7$ 1, 20 MANAGEMENT PLANS _ TMDLs: 38 None anticipated _ Management plans: 39 Commission lake monitoring 15.000 _ 15.000 40 Wetland Mgmt Plan 20.000 41 Creek 100-Yr Elevation 20.000 42 3rd Generation Plan 125.000 SUBTOTAL MGMT PLANS $ 20,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 15.000 1$ 25,000 48 Contribution to constr/grant match 25.000 25.000 25.000 25.000 25.000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 4fi3 4.940 I JAZLO70 $485,820 jj9Ll 30 605 050 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-20 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan GeptceF 2005September 2006 Water Quality Plan Wenck File#1240-22 Prepared for: SHINGLE CREEK AND WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Prepared by: September 2006 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center WCnck P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 Table of Contents TABLEOF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................I 1.0 WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIZATION.....................................................................I 1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Purpose......................................................................................................1 1.1.2 Obj ectives..................................................................................................1 1.2 Water Resources in the Shingle Creek/West Mississippi WatershedS....................2 1.2.1 Lakes..........................................................................................................2 1.2.1.1 303(d) Listed Lakes...................................................................2 1.2.2 Streams......................................................................................................3 1.2.2.1 303(d) Listed Stream Segments.................................................7 1.2.3 Wetlands....................................................................................................7 1.3 Lake Classification and grouping..........................................................................10 1.3.1 Lake Classification..................................................................................10 1.3.2 Lake Grouping Factors............................................................................11 1.3.3 Watershed to Lake Area Ratio ................................................................12 1.3.4 Stormwater Treatment Capability ...........................................................13 1.3.5 Water Clarity ...........................................................................................14 1.3.6 Use Class.................................................................................................16 1.3.7 Fisheries Status........................................................................................17 1.3.8 Connectedness.........................................................................................19 1.3.9 Scoring.....................................................................................................21 1.3.10 Overall Scoring Recreational Lakes........................................................21 1.3.11 Overall Scoring Aesthetic Lakes.............................................................22 1.3.12 Water Quality Goals................................................................................22 1.4 Streams...................................................................................................................24 1.5 Wetlands ................................................................................................................25 1.5.1 Identification of Watershed Significant Wetlands ..................................25 1.5.2 Functions and Values Analyses...............................................................26 2.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN...........................................................................................29 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................29 2.2 Monitoring/Information Gathering........................................................................32 2.2.1 Lake Monitoring........................................................................._............32 2.2.1.1 Lake Monitoring Objectives....................................................32 2.2.1.2 Commission Lake Monitoring.................................................32 2.2.I.3 Volunteer Lake Monitoring.....................................................33 2.2.2 Stream Monitoring...................................................................................34 2.2.2.1 Stream Monitoring Objectives.................................................34 2.2.2.2 Commission Stream Monitoring..............................................34 2.2.2.3 Volunteer Stream Monitoring..................................................35 2.2.2.4 Biomonitoring..........................................................................35 2.2.3 Wetland Monitoring ................................................................................35 JAShingle Creek\CIPsWajor Plan AmendmentSeptember packetTINAL,Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc I Table of Contents (Cont.) 2.2.4 Aquatic Plant Monitoring........................................................................36 2.3 MANAGEMENT PLANS.....................................................................................36 2.3.1 Lakes........................................................................................................36 2.3.1.1 Lake Management Plan Objectives .........................................36 2.3.1.2 Lake Management Plans..........................................................37 2.3.1.3 Lake TMDLs............................................................................37 2.3.2 Streams....................................................................................................37 2.3.2.1 Stream Management Plan Objectives......................................37 2.3.2.2 Stream Assessments.................................................................38 2.3.2.3 Stream TMDLs........................................................................38 2.3.3 Wetlands..................................................................................................38 2.3.3.1 Wetland Management Plan Objectives....................................38 2.3.3.2 Wetland Protection and Preservation Plan...............................39 2.4 Capital Improvement Plan.....................................................................................39 2.4.1.1 Management Plan Implementation..........................................39 2.4.1.2 Shoreline/Streambank Restoration...........................................39 2.5 Education and Public outreach...............................................................................39 2.5.1 Watershed Management Rules and Standards ........................................40 2.5.2 Education and Public Outreach...............................................................40 2.5.3 BMP Demonstration Projects..................................................................40 2.6 Cost of implementation..........................................................................................40 2.6.1 Continuing Activities...............................................................................40 2.6.2 New Activities.........................................................................................41 2.6.3 Funding Options......................................................................................41 TABLES Table 1. Lakes In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List(303(d) List).....2 Table 2. Lakes in the Shingle Creek Watershed............................................................................ 5 Table 3. Streams In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List (303(d) List). 7 Table 4. NWI Wetland Area by Type, Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watersheds Combined................................................................................................................... 10 Table 5. First Generation Management Plan Water Resources Classifications........................... 11 Table 6. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score Range. ............................................................... 12 Table 7. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score by Lake............................................................... 12 Table 8. Stormwater Treatment Capability Score Range. ........................................................... 13 Table 9. Stormwater Treatment Capability Score by Lake.......................................................... 14 Table 10. Water Clarity: Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20% of the Time or More ...................................................................................................... ......................... 15 Table 11. Water Clarity: Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20% of the Time or More ................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 12. Use Class: Recreation Use Score Range...................................................................... 16 Table 13. Use Class: Access Score Range.................................................................................. 17 Table 14. Use Class Score by Lake. ............................................................................................ 17 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 11 Table of Contents (Cont.) Table 15. Fishery Status Range of Scores. .................................................................................. 18 Table 16. Fishery Status Score by Lake....................................................................................... 19 Table 17. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acreage Draining Through the Lake Range of Scores......................................................................................................................... 19 Table 18. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acreage Draining Through the Lake Score by Lake. .......................................................................................................................... 21 Table 19. Overall Lake Scores for Recreational Lakes. .............................................................. 21 Table 20. Overall Lake Scores For Aesthetic Lakes.................................................................... 22 Table 21. Lake Grouping.............................................................. .................. 22 ............................. Table 22. Lake Water Quality Standards..................................................................................... 23 Table 23. 2002 Lake Water Quality Data Compared to Water Quality Goals. ...........................23 Table 24. Most Recent Shingle Creek Data For Certain Water Quality Parameters...................24 Table25. Priority Wetlands.........................................................................................................26 Table 26. Implementation Plan Activities. .................................................................................. 30 Table 27. CAMP Lake Monitoring Schedule. .................................... .. 33 ....................................... Table 28. Implementation Plan Costs..........................................................................................42 Table 29. Lake Monitoring Parameters And Frequency.............................................................. 45 Table 30. Stream Monitoring Parameters And Frequency..........................................................47 Table 31. Monitoring Quality Assurance Objectives ..................................................................48 FIGURES Figure 1. Lakes and Streams ...............................................................................................................4 Figure2. DNR Public Waters .............................................................................................................8 Figure3. NWI Wetlands .....................................................................................................................9 Figure 4. Total Phosphorus Concentration and Expected Frequency and Severity of Nuisance AlgalBlooms ........................................................................................................................15 Figure 5. Fish Abundance By Species Group Compared to Tropic State Index .................................18 Figure 6. Wetlands: Priority for Functions and Values Analysis ........................................................24 APPENDICES A Field Monitoring Protocols B Standard Operating Procedures for Grab Sampling B Standard Operating Procedures for Automated Sampling C Standard Operating Procedures for Stream Discharge Monitoring JAShingle Creek\CIPsNajor Plan AmendmentSeptember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Ill 1.0 Water Resource Prioritization 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.1.1 Purpose The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions' Water Quality Plan (WQP) is intended to help achieve a Second Generation Management Plan goal of protecting and improving water quality. A number of activities are proposed in the Management Plan over the next ten years, including developing individual management plans for major water resources. In addition, the Commissions are required to undertake the following: • Complete and implement chloride and low dissolved oxygen TMDLs for Shingle Creek; • Establish numerical water quality goals for lakes; • Complete and implement thirteen lake nutrient TMDLs; • Complete and implement an impaired biota TMDL for Bass Creek; and • Identify priority wetlands for preservation or restoration. The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watersheds Water Quality Plan (WQP) is intended to: • Set forth the Commissions' water quality goals, standards, and methodologies in more detail than the general goals and policies established in the Second Generation Management Plan. • Provide philosophical guidance for completing water resource management plans and TMDLs; and • Provide direction for the ongoing water quality monitoring programs that will be essential to determining if the TMDLs and implementation program are effectively improving water quality. 1.1.2 Objectives The primary objectives of the WQP are to provide: • Detailed goals for each water resource for water quality and quantity, aquatic life, and aesthetics; • A prioritization and grouping of each resource to target further study and use of financial resources; • A detailed plan for accomplishing the TMDLs that will be required over the next several years as well as the water resources management plans; and 1 JAShingle Creek\CIPAIMajor Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc • Standard procedures for water quality sampling and analysis to assure consistency of data collection. The Plan is organized into two chapters. The Water Resources Prioritization chapter begins with a summary of what is known about the quality of the water resources within the two watersheds. For each category of water resources—lakes, streams wetlands—general goals are identified, as are the activities by which those goals would be accomplished and evaluated. This chapter also includes a general prioritization or grouping, or a process by which the resources would be prioritized. The Implementation Plan chapter details the activities to be undertaken to work towards meeting the goals specified in the Plan. Appendices establish technical and analytical standards and procedures to provide for consistency and comparability of data from year to year. This chapter assures data is collected and analyzed in a consistent manner even if there is a change in personnel, or if another agency, for example, were to collect data. 1.2 WATER RESOURCES IN THE SHINGLE CREEKIWEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHEDS 1.2.1 Lakes There are sixteen lakes in the Shingle Creek watershed, and none in West Mississippi (see Figure 1). Twin Lake is comprised of three basins and is considered as three separate lakes even though they are one chain of lakes. Table 2, Shingle Creek Watershed Lake Data, details the general lake physical, water quality, and recreational information. 1.2.1.1 303(d) Listed Lakes Table 1 lists the impaired lakes in the Shingle Creek watershed. According to the State of Minnesota,these lakes either do not meet their designated beneficial use (aquatic recreation) due to an excess of nutrients or there is a Fish Consumption Advisory (FCA) for mercury or PCBs. The Minnesota Department of Health(MDH) has issued guidelines recommending that consumption of all fish caught in Minnesota be limited due to the widespread mercury, PCB, and dioxin contamination from air pollution. The DNR has sampled the fish in some of the lakes in Minnesota and issued more specific Fish Consumption Advisories. The specific FCAs for Twin Lake and Eagle/Pike Lakes are for consumption of carp and Northern pike and additionally for Eagle/Pike Lakes, walleye and bluegills. Table 1. Lakes In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List(303(d)List). Lake DNR Lake# Affected use Pollutant or Year Target* stressor Listed Start/Complete Bass 27-0098-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2009/2013 Cedar Island 27-0119-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2004 2010/2014 Crystal 27-0034-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005 2 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan AmendmenP,september packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Lake DNR Lake# Affected use Pollutant or Year Target* stressor Listed Start/Complete Eagle 27-0111-01 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012 Eagle/Pike 27-0111 Aquatic consumption Mercury FCA** 2002 1999/2011 Magda 27-0065-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012 Meadow 27-0057-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012 Pike 27-0111-02 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012 Pomerleau 27-0100-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012 Ryan 27-0058-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005 Schmidt 27-0102-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012 Twin 27-0042 A uatic consumption Mercury FCA** 2002 1999/2011 Twin 27-0042 Aquatic consumption PCB FCA 2002 1999/2011 Twin-Middle 27-0042-02 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005 Twin-North 27-0042-03 1 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005 Twin-South 27-0042-01 1 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005 *MPCA target. **MPCA will complete regional or statewide TMDLs for mercury. FCA is Fish Consumption Advisory. 1.2.2 Streams The main stem of Shingle Creek g begins in Brooklyn Park in northwestern Hennepin County and flows generally southeast to its confluence with the Mississippi River in Minneapolis(see figure 1). Shingle Creek is formed at the junction of Bass Creek and Eagle Creek, two of the major tributaries in the watershed. The river is approximately 11 miles long and drops approximately 66 feet from its source to its mouth. Palmer Lake is the only lake directly on Shingle Creek. Several tributaries enter Shingle Creek as it flows through the watershed. A major tributary is Ryan Creek, which originates as the outlet of Ryan Lake in Minnea p olis and joins the main stem of Shingle Creek 1.2 miles upstream of the outlet in northeastern Minneapolis. The three basins of Twin Lake drain most of the central portion of the watershed and outlet into Shingle Creek through a channel between Lower Twin Lake and Ryan Lake. Bass Creek and Eagle Creek drain most of the southwestern part of the watershed before forming Shingle Creek. Information regarding storm sewer systems and discharge rates can be found in the cities' individual stormwater management plans. Other tributaries include Pike Creek in Maple Grove and Twin Creek in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. The central portion of the West Mississippi watershed is drained by Oxbow Creek. The creek flows in an easterly direction and then heads north, eventually outletting to the Mississippi River. The southern portion of the watershed is drained by the man-made Edinbrook/Century Channel, which runs from TH 169 to Mattson Brook and from there to the Mississippi River. 3 ]:\Shingle Creek\CIPsNajor Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Cis nplin Js Brooklyn Park aw..d seo F/iwAred a. ANu Maple &Acc% ^k red Grove e trk Br klyn a Cep er m P7 UPP Plymouth New pe A A.idr trio 4 Cry tal ,af neapo .r - R bbin Hennepin Cwngy, a E Mnneroeu 1 0 1 2 3 Miles 5 Shingle Creek/West Mlssissi i Watershed Commissions a �+ DEC 2003 g PP e Went k Lakes and Streams in the SCWM Watersheds Wewk Assxistes,Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Certer Figure 1 EmirmmergeI Engineers Maple PWn.W 5 535 9-04 4 4 JAShingle Creek\CIPsNajor Plan Amendment\September packet\F1NAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 2. Lakes in the Shingle Creek Watershed. Bass Cedar Crystal Curtis Eagle Magda Meadow Palmer Island GENERAL LAKE INFORMATION Location Plymouth Maple Robbinsdale Plymouth Maple Brooklyn New Brooklyn Grove Grove Park Hoe Center DNR Lake Number 27-0098 27-0119 27-0034 27-593W 27-0111-01 27-0065 27-0057 27-0059 Ordinary High 906.1 902.4 847.5 N/A 874.2 DNR 885.9 N/A 842.8 Water OHW ft 873.8-plan Lake Area acres 175 81 78 4.5 291 10 11 25 Shoreline ft 11,950 12,150 7,450 2,220 16,700 2,990 3,790 7,390 Shoreline' 1 Development Factor '22 1.82 1.14 1.41 1.32 l.28 1.54 2.00 Littoral Area 143(82%) 81(100%) 53(68%) 4.5(100%) 199(68%) 10(100%) 11(100%) 25(100%) (acres)(0/o) Maximum Depth (ft) 31 7 39 10 34 7 5 4 Mean Depth ft 9.5 4.6 10 N/A 12.5 N/A N/A 2 WATERSHED INFORMATION Drainage Basin Area 3,183 642 1,238 283 2,879 62 121 17,954 acres Drainage Basin to 17:1 8:1 16:1 70:1 10:1 6:1 11:1 722:1 Lake Area Ratio WATER QUALITY INFORMATION TSInic State Index 56 74 78 N/A 52 69 83 N/A Last CAMP Report 2003 2003 1997 2002 2003 1999 Card Grade C F D N/A C F F N/A Secchi Depth 1.2/3.9 .6/2.0 1.1/3.6 N/A 1.6/5.2 .6/2.0 .3/1.0 N/A meters/feet Phosphorus b 35 123 179 N/A 19 117 230 N/A Chloro h ll-a b 20 1 79 58 N/A 19 45 78 1 N/A RECREATION INFORMATION Public Access Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Adjacent Park Yes Yes Yes No Regional No No Yes Fishing Fishing pier Other Amenities pier None Fishing pier None Long term None None None plan:beach ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Last Fish Survey, 1991 1998 1999 Most Abundant Fish BLG, N/A BLC,BLG, N/A BLC,BLG, N/A N/A N/A Species6 BLC, YEP,NOP YEP,GSF Other species noted LMB, WAE TME,Carp N/A ME'WAE' N/A N/A N/A Exotic Plants Present Milfoil None None N/A Milfoil None None N/A 'Shoreline development factor expresses the degree of irregularity of the shoreline compared to its area. A perfect circle would be 1.0. The higher this factor,the more irregular the shoreline,and increased potential for contamination from shoreline development. 2 Littoral area is that part of the lake less than 15 feet in depth,home to majority of aquatic plants and young fish. 'Carlson's Trophic State Index(TSI)is a measure of lake productivity,combining phosphorus,chlorophyll,and Secchi(transparency). 4CAMP is the Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program. 5Secchi depth is a measure of transparency and refers to the depth to which a patterned disc is visible from the surface. 6BLC—Black Crappie WHC—White Crappie SUN—Sunfish species BLG—Bluegill GSF—Pumpkinseed Sunfish LMB— Largemouth Bass SMB—Smallmouth Bass NOP—Northern Pike WAE—Walleye BLB—Black Bullhead BRB—Brown Bullhead TME—Tiger Muskellunge ME—Muskellunge YEP—Yellow Perch WHS—White Sucker 5 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Pike Pomerleau Ryan Schmidt Success Lower Middle Upper Twin Twin Twin GENERAL LAKE INFORMATION Maple Minneapolis Brooklyn Robbins- Brooklyn Brooklyn Location Grove Plymouth Robbinsdale Plymouth park dale Center Center Plymouth Crystal Crystal DNR Lake Number 27-0111- 27-0100 27-0058 27-0102 27-634W 27-0042- 27-0042-02 27-0042-03 02 01 Ordinary High 874.2 937 849.6 DNR 925 N/A 853.1 853.1 853.1 Water OHW ft 850.5 lan Lake Area acres 58 30 20 37 5 30 56 118 Shoreline ft 7,780 4,170 3,195 8,390 2,385 6,450 7,250 14,890 Shoreline 1.38 1.03 1.14 1.86 1.44 1.59 1.31 1.85 Development Factor Littoral Area 55(95%) 20(67%) 10(50%) ( ° ) ( %) ( %) ( ° ) (acres) % 34 92/o N/A 25 83/0 32 57/° ]18 100/o Maximum Depth ft 22 26 33 27 N/A 21 42 10 Mean Depth ft 7 9 15.6 5.6 N/A N/A 16 N/A WATERSHED INFORMATION Drainage Basin Area 1,071 266 5,613 252 192 5,322 4,053 3,657 acres Drainage Basin to 16:1 38:1 266:1 6:1 36:1 176:1 72:1 31:1 Lake Area Ratio WATER QUALITY INFORMATION TSIhic State Index 69 69 64 62 37 71 65 75 Last CAMP Report 2000 2003 2003 2001 2003 2003 2003 2002 Card Grade C D B C C C C F Secchi Depth 1.2/3.9 1.7/5.6 1.2/3.9 1.9/6.2 2.2/7.2 1.1/3.6 1.7/5.6 .48/1.6 meters/feet Phosphorus b 90 89 54 58 10 93 60 137 Chlorophyll-a(ppb) 31 16 16 15 9 39 28 56 RECREATION INFORMATION Public Access? Ea le Curb cut No Curb cut No Yes Yes Yes Adjacent Park Regional No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Other Amenities None None Fishing pier None None None Beach None ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Last Fish Survey, 1993 1990 2002 2002 2002 1994 1986 , BLC BLC,BLG, Most Abundant Fish BLG N/A BLC,BLG, Species YEP' BLB GSF,LMB BLB,BRB BLG BLG, YEP,BLB YEP BLB ' YEP,BLB Other species noted NOP NOP,SUN N/A NOP N/A COP' NOP,Carp NOP,Carp Exotic Plants None None None Milfoil None Poss curly Poss curly Poss curly Present leaf leaf leaf 'Shoreline development factor expresses the degree of irregularity of the shoreline compared to its area. A perfect circle would be 1.0. The higher this factor,the more irregular the shoreline,and increased potential for contamination from shoreline development. 2 Littoral area is that part of the lake less than 15 feet in depth,home to majority of aquatic plants and young fish. 'Carlson's Trophic State Index(TSI)is a measure of lake productivity,combining phosphorus,chlorophyll,and Secchi(transparency) measures. CCAMP is the Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program. 'Secchi depth is a measure of transparency and refers to the depth to which a patterned disc is visible from the surface. 6BLC—Black Crappie WHC—White Crappie SUN—Sunfish species BLG—Bluegill GSF—Pumpkinseed Sunfish LMB— Largemouth Bass SMB—Smallmouth Bass NOP—Northern Pike WAE—Walleye BLB—Black Bullhead BRB—Brown Bullhead TME—Tiger Muskellunge ME—Muskellunge YEP—Yellow Perch WHS—White Sucker 6 J:\Shingle Creek\C1Ps\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 1.2.2.1 303(d)Listed Stream Segments Streams in the Shingle Creek watershed are also on the impaired waters list of the State of Minnesota(303(d) list). Table 3 lists the listed reaches and parameters in the Shingle Creek Watershed. Table 3. Streams In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List(303(d)List). Stream Segment# Affected use Pollutant Listing Year TMDL Target* or stressor Start/Complete Shingle Creek 07010206-506 Aquatic Life Chloride 1998 2002/2006 Shingle Creek 07010206-506 Aquatic Life Low Oxygen 2004 2004/2006 ,-Shingle Creek 07010206-506 Aquatic Life Impaired Biota 2006 2013/2015 Bass Creek 07010206-527 Aquatic Life Impaired Biota 2002 2008/2015 *Target established by MPCA. Recent sampling results suggest it is likely that Shingle Creek will be added to the impaired list for fecal coliform at some point in the future. 1.2.3 Wetlands The "protected" waters and wetlands of the watershed are those that have been inventoried by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (see Figure 2). All Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), were inventoried. The definition of public waters (Minnesota Statutes 105.3 7, subpart 14) includes wetlands that are ten or more acres in size in unincorporated areas and 2.5 or more acres in incorporated areas. The USFWS has also compiled wetland maps as part of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (Figure 3). The NWI maps identify wetland Types 1 through 8 regardless of size and therefore YP g g � , provide a more complete wetland area accounting. The NWI map for the watershed is on file with the municipalities. Local surface water management plans should be consulted for wetland inventories, classifications, and functions and values assessments. It should be noted that the NWI was developed in the 1980s. Subsequent development and fill has impacted many of those wetlands, so the NWI map cannot be considered as definitive. 7 ]:\Shingle Creek\CIPsWajor Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc I I � l it v r J I . 1 1►' } " , 1 W� I_ �� L Z� - r 1 0 1 2 Miles lIl , N ` \ Data Source: Minnesota DNR Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Commissions ` - 'ey c) _ DEC 2003 Wenac Assoaates,Inc. 1800 Pimeer Creek Center Figure 2 DNR Public Waters Environmental Engneers Maple Plain,MN 553590429 O J:\Shingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan—Sept.doc NW I Circular 39 Classification 1- Seasonally Flooded 2 - Wet Meadow 0 3 - Shallow Marsh I- � r=: 4 - Deep Marsh 5 - Shallow Open Water - 6 - Shrub Swamp a4 7 - Wooded Swamp - 90 - Riverine Streams ' ' . Lakes ',- g' Ong ; .P • qL • aQ r Q•S •e ._ :; '. P4 - s 1 0 1 2 Miles N 110 M + Data Source: Minnesota DNR Shingle CreekMest Mississippi Watershed Commissions g DEC 2003 5 aia Wenck Wenck Associates,Inc. 1800 Pioneer Greek Center N W I Wetlands Figure 3 Environmental Engneers Maple Plain,MN 55359A429 9 J:\Shingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 4. NWI Wetland Area by Type,Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watersheds Combined. Tjpe Acres Percent Type Acres Percent 1 - Seasonally Flooded 130 0.3 Emergent EM 2,671 6.0 2 - Wet Meadow 132 0.3 Forested (FO) 1,067 2.4 3 - Shallow Marsh 2,444 5.5 Scrub- shrub SS 385 0.9 4 - Deep Marsh 231 0.5 Unconsolidated Bottom 1,914 4.2 UB 5 - Shallow Open 1,408 3.2 Unconsolidated Shore 5 0.0 Water US 6 - Shrub Swamp 385 0.9 Uplandl Upland 38,633 86.5 7 - Wooded Swamp 1,034 2.3 Grand Total 44,674 100.0 90- Riverine 277 0.6 Upland Uplandl 38,633 86.4 Grand Total 1 44,674 100.0 1.3 LAKE CLASSIFICATION AND GROUPING One aspect of lake management is establishing numerical goals for priority chemical and aesthetic parameters. Because physical differences in lakes such as size and depth significantly influence water quality, many agencies and WMOs establish different goals for different classifications of lakes. As a second level of analysis and goal setting, the TAC established a system to group lakes within those classifications. This grouping system was based on physical parameters as well as uses. The goal was to develop an index of"watershed significance"with which lakes could be grouped. The purpose of grouping within classifications was: • Helps to establish appropriate water quality criteria for lakes • Helps identify lakes where restoration funds will be most effective • Establishes management goals for fish, swimming, aesthetics, habitat It is important to note that the management goals established through the WQP process will be reviewed in more detail as each lake is more extensively and individually studied as part of the development of Lake Management Plans. As a result of this process water quality and other goals may change and become more tailored. 1.3.1 Lake Classification The First Generation Management Plan included a classification scheme that was used to designate appropriate best management practices for those water resources. 10 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 5. First Generation Management Plan Water Resources Classifications. Recreational Group Aesthetic Group Runoff Management Group • Bass Lake • Magda Lake • Judicial ditches • Cedar Island Lake • Meadow Lake • County ditches • Crystal Lake • Palmer Lake • All wetlands including DNR • Eagle/Pike Lake • Curtis Lake Protected Wetlands and all • Ryan Lake • Success Lake waterbodies other than DNR • Twin Lake • All other DNR Protected Waters Protected Waters • Schmidt Lake • Streams or ditches tributary to • Shingle Creek recreational or aesthetic waters • Eagle Creek • Bass Creek • Recreational Group: inflow treated with BMPs, including removal of fine sands and sediment, skimming of oil and floatable materials, and nutrient removal. • Aesthetic Group: same BMPs as above except for nutrient removal. Waters may be used for runoff management as long as state water quality standards are not violated and flow and elevations are controlled. • Runoff Management Group: managed as storm water storage and conveyance components. BMPs implemented where reasonable and prudent. • Special Purpose Group: treatment as necessary to maintain the characteristics necessary to support the special purpose. No special purpose areas were designated. The TAC recommended to the Commissions no changes to the classification system; however, the specific BMPs appropriate to each classification would be reviewed as part of the Lake Management Plans. 1.3.2 Lake Grouping Factors The TAC reviewed a number of existing grouping systems, which ranged from simple to very complex. The TAC developed a hybrid approach that identified six lake and watershed attributes as parameters of the evaluation: • Watershed to lake area ratio; • Stormwater treatment capability; • Water clarity; • Use class, grouped by use, access, swimming; • Fisheries; and • Watershed significance. 11 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water QuaI4 Plan_Sept.doc These individual parameters were scored and the scores summed to develop an overall grouping. Each of these parameters are described in more detail below, followed by a table illustrating application to the 16 lakes in the watersheds. 1.3.3 Watershed to Lake Area Ratio The watershed to lake area ratio is an indicator of the relative amount of incoming nutrient sources (watershed)to assimilation capacity (lake). Large watersheds and a small lake will have a large source to poor assimilation capacity ratio, resulting in poorer water quality. A small watershed and large lake will result in a small source and large assimilation capacity,with likely better water quality. This ratio is calculated by dividing the area of the watershed contributing to the lake by the surface area of the lake. The resulting ratio was assigned a point score according to Table 6. Table 6. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score Range. Range Score 20 4 10 to 20 3 4 to 10 2 <4 1 1 Table 7. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score by Lake. Lake Class WVLA Score Bass Recreational 17 3 Cedar Island Recreational 8 2 C stal Recreational 16 3 Curtis Aesthetic 70 4 Eagle Recreational 10 3 Magda Aesthetic 6 2 Meadow Aesthetic 11 3 Palmer Aesthetic 722 4 Pike Recreational 16 3 Pomerleau Recreational 38 4 Ryan Recreational 266 4 Schmidt Recreational 6 2 Success Aesthetic 36 4 Twin Lower Recreational 176 4 Twin Middle Recreational 72 4 Twin Upper Recreational 31 1 4 12 J:\Shingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan AmendmentSepteinber packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 1.3.4 Stormwater Treatment Capability Stormwater treatment capability is defined as the amount of watershed area available to put in stormwater BMPs for water quality and is based on land use. To develop this grouping, some assumptions were made based on work conducted by the City of Plymouth as part of its 1994 wetland evaluation plan. On completion of a functional analysis of all its wetlands, the City concluded that high and medium-quality wetlands should be protected from untreated stormwater input to protect existing wetland functions and values. About 25 percent of its wetland area was either already used for treatment or would not be degraded any further if it was used for treatment. For the WQP,the TAC assumed that 25 percent of wetland area within a city could be used for stormwater treatment. Second, city-owned land was considered for possible use for stormwater treatment. Parks were considered, but in most cases using some or all of a park would conflict with established park or recreational uses. The TAC thus assumed that only a small amount of parkland, 5 percent, could be available for stormwater treatment. Other city properties such as city halls, community centers, and municipal garages were also considered but rejected, as it was more likely that the sites would not be suitable for regional stormwater treatment. The final potential location for treatment would be land that is currently undeveloped. It was assumed that when developed the land would meet Commission treatment standards. A rule of thumb is that treatment would require about 6 percent of undeveloped land. To calculate stormwater treatment potential, land use in each lakeshed was evaluated using the National Wetlands Inventory and the Metropolitan Council's 2000 land use ArcView shape file. For each lakeshed, the total wetland acreage was assumed to be the total acreage as identified in the NWI. Park land was defined as park and open space (excluding golf courses) identified on the 2000 Land Use file, and undeveloped was similarly defined as the acreage identified as undeveloped in the 2000 Land Use file. The acreage in each of these land use types was multiplied by the appropriate percentages above and summed. No attempt was made to evaluate the existing amount of acreage currently providing stormwater treatment. Using the same logic as above, it was assumed that a target stormwater treatment potential would be to have about 6% of watershed area available for effective water quality treatment. Each lakeshed was evaluated according to the percent of watershed area available for treatment (Table 8). Table 8. Stormwater Treatment Capability Score Range. Range Score <2% 4 2to4% 3 4 to 6% 2 >6% 1 13 JAShingle Creek-UPsWajor Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 9 below shows the estimated acres available for treatment within each lakeshed, and the corresponding percent of the total lakeshed acreage. Table 9. Stormwater Treatment Capability Score by Lake. Acres Available %of Total Lake Class Score For Treatment Acreage Bass Recreational 188.8 6.0 1 Cedar Island Recreational 12.3 2.0 3 Crystal Recreational 4.8 0.4 4 Curtis Aesthetic 27.0 8.6 1 Eagle Recreational 219.1 6.9 1 Magda Aesthetic 0.6 1.0 4 Meadow Aesthetic 1.2 1.0 4 Palmer Aesthetic 887.2 5.0 2 Pike Recreational * * 1 Pomerleau Recreational 29.6 10.1 1 Ryan Recreational 130.7 2.3 3 Schmidt Recreational 3.0 1.5 4 Success Aesthetic 5.4 3.1 3 Twin Lower Recreational 113.8 2.2 3 Twin Middle Recreational 88.5 2.2 Twin Upper Recreational 52.2 1.4 L:j:j *Pike Lake was scored the same as Eagle. 1.3.5 Water Clarity Water clarity is often degraded by the presence of algal blooms, which are associated with the concentration of phosphorus in lake water. These algal blooms can be so mild that they do not inhibit swimmability, or they may be so severe that swimming is unappealing. The frequency of algal blooms is also a factor in considering the general swimmability of a lake. A lake that usually has only mild algae but occasionally experiences a nuisance bloom is much more attractive to swimmers than a lake that experiences nuisance or severe nuisance blooms most of the time. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) developed Figure 4 to illustrate the relationship between total phosphorus concentrations in a lake and the frequency and severity of algal blooms that could be expected. 14 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 100% U-0 ppb 0120 ppb ■r30 ppb ®>50 ppb 90% 80°!, -mild" "nuisance" 60% T U 0 50°h 6. "severe nuisance" I 30% Pok 20% 10% "very severe nuisance" 0% 0 10 20 30 40 48 55 63 70 75 80 90 100 130 TP ppb Figure 4:Total Phosphorus Concentration and Expected Frequency and Severity Of Nuisance Algal Blooms (MPCA 2003). The MPCA's total phosphorus concentration for a"swimmable" lake is 40 ppb or less. As the above figure indicates, at 40 ppb a lake would be expected to experience "nuisance" or worse algal blooms no more than 20 percent of the time. Table 10 shows the categories of nuisance algal blooms, the associated total phosphorus concentration range, and the assigned score. Table 11 shows the results of the water clarity score. Total phosphorus concentrations are the average of the last five years (summer samples only). Table 10. Water Clarity: Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20%of the Time or More Score Range. Category TP(ppb) Score Very Severe Nuisance >80 4 Severe Nuisance 50 - 80 3 Nuisance 40 - 50 2 Mild <40 1 15 ]:\Shingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packet\PINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 11. Water Clarity: Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20%of the Time or More tY P g Y Score by Lake. Lake Class Phosphorus Score II APP b) Bass Recreational 35 1 Cedar Island Recreational 123 4 Crystal Recreational 179 4 Curtis Aesthetic N/A 4 Eagle Recreational 19 1 Magda Aesthetic 117 4 Meadow Aesthetic 230 4 Palmer Aesthetic N/A 4 Pike Recreational 90 4 Pomerleau Recreational 89 4 Ryan Recreational 54 3 Schmidt Recreational 58 3 Success Aesthetic 50 3 Twin Lower Recreational 93 4 Twin Middle Recreational 60 3 Twin Upper Recreational 137 4 1.3.6 Use Class The factor Use Class was considered according to two subcategories: Recreation Use and Access. The subcategory of recreation use considered primary current uses, and assumed there I would be no significant change in use in the future (Table 12). Access was the second subcategory within Use Class (Tab le 13 . An important factor in determining the score range was whether there was a public access to the lake, and the nature of that access. Table 12. Use Class: Recreation Use Score Range. Recreation Use Scores Aesthetics 4 Aquatic Life 3 Partial Body Contact(sailing, fishing, boating) 2 Full Body contact(swimming beach 1 16 1\Shingle Creek\C1Ps\Major Plan Amendment\September packet\FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 13. Use Class: Access Score Range. Category Scores No Access 4 Carry on access on public lands or curb cut 3 Public access, no parking lot 2 Public access with parking lot 1 The scores in this category are intended to represent watershed significance. An individual member city may choose to score lakes within their community on a different basis. For example, some cities may classify lakes based on the size of an adjacent park, or the amenities within the park. Results of the scoring are shown in Table 14. Table 14. Use Class Score by Lake. Lake Class Public Access Adjacent Other Amenities Access Score Use Score Park Bass Recreational Yes Yes Fishing pier 1 2 Cedar Island Recreational No Yes None 4 2 Crystal Recreational Yes Yes Fishing pier 1 2 Curtis Aesthetic No No None 4 4 Eagle Recreational Yes Regional Fishing pier: beach- 1 I tanned Magda Aesthetic No No None 4 4 Meadow Aesthetic No No None 4 4 Palmer Aesthetic No Yes None 4 4 Pike Recreational Thru Eagle Regional None 1 2 Pomerleau Recreational Curb cut No None 3 2 Ry an Recreational No Yes Fishing pier 4 2 Schmidt Recreational Curb cut Yes None 3 2 Success Aesthetic No No None 4 4 Twin Lower Recreational Yes Yes None 2 2 Twin Middle Recreational Yes Yes Beach 2 1 Twin Upper Recreational Yes Yes None 2 2 1.3.7 Fisheries Status A study prepared by the Department of Natural Resources was used to evaluate the suitability of lakes for fish and aquatic life. This study evaluated the relative abundance of fish in over 3,000 lakes statewide and compared the findings to the lakes' Trophic State Index (TSI; Figure 5). The study found a relationship between TSI-measured water quality and various classes of fish. Group 1 fish thrived in lakes that had better quality water and thus lower TSIs but were found in much lower abundance as water quality declined and TSI increased. Group 3 fish, which are more tolerant of poorer water quality, were the most abundant in lakes with higher TSIs. 17 JAShingle Creek\CIPslMajor Plan Amendment,September packet\FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Lakes were evaluated as to whether water quality was suitable for a good fishery, based on the statewide fish abundance versus TSI findings (Table 15). The goal is to maintain a diverse fishery with desirable species. • Group 1: Northern Pike, Yellow Bullhead, White Sucker • Group 2: Walleye, Yellow Perch, Bluegill • Group 3: Black Crappie, Black Bullhead, White Crappie Figure A4 Statewide Fish Abundance versus Trophic State Index BO _ 0 ,) — 60 50 -- - — G 40 LL 30 0 0 -- 20 25 30 25 40 45 50 55 60 65 ?0 75 E0 Trophic 5tae index(Sethi Dish,) Group 3 -- -- Group 2 Group 1 Figure 5: Fish Abundance By Species Group Compared To Trophic State Index ((Plymouth Water Resources Plan, 1999 after Schupp, 1992). Table 15. Fishery Status Range of Scores. TSI Range Scores >65 4 50 to 60 3 <40 2 40 to 50 1 Fish surveys have been conducted by the DNR on some but not all the lakes in the watershed. Table 16 notes the most abundant fish species found during the most recent fish survey as well as the current Trophic State Index (TSI). 18 JAShinele Creek\CIPs'Qviajor Plan Amendment"september packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 16. Fishery Status Score by Lake. Lake Class Most Abundant Fish Species Other species noted TSI Score Bass Recreational BLG,BLC, BLB LMB,NOP 56 3 Cedar Island Recreational WAE 74 4 Crystal Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP,NOP TME,Carp 78 4 Curtis Aesthetic N/A N/A N/A 4 Eagle Recreational BLC, BLG,YEP, GSF ME, WAE, Carp 52 3 Magda Aesthetic N/A N/A N/A 4 Meadow Aesthetic N/A N/A 83 4 Palmer Aesthetic N/A N/A N/A 4 Pike Recreational BLG, YEP NOP 69 4 Pomerleau Recreational GSF,LMB NOP, SUN 69 4 Ryan Recreational BLB, BRB N/A 64 3 Schmidt Recreational BLB, BLG, NOP 62 3 Success Aesthetic N/A N/A 37 2 Twin Lower Recreational BLC,BLG, YEP,BLB NOP,LMP 71 4 Twin Middle Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP,BLB NOP, Carp 65 1 3 Twin Upper Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP,BLB t NOP 75 1 4 BLC—Black Crappie WHC—White Crappie SUN—Sunfish species BLG—Bluegill GSF— Punlpkinseed Sunfish LMB—Largemouth Bass SMB—Smallmouth Bass NOP—Northern Pike WAE— Walleye BLB—Black Bullhead BRB—Brown Bullhead TME—Tiger Muskellunge ME—Muskellunge YEP—Yellow Perch WHS—White Sucker 1.3.8 Connectedness A final factor to be considered is connectedness, or the relative importance of the lake within the watershed. Lakes provide various functions within a drainage system with one of the most important being storage of stormwater runoff, but for purposes of the WQP the important function is the amount of treatment provided to the watershed. This function is defined as the percent of the overall watershed acreage that drains through the lake. Scores for each category are provided in Table 17. Table 17. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acreage Draining Through the Lake Range of Scores. Percent Range Score 0 to 5 4 5 to 10 3 10 to 20 2 >20 1 1 19 J:`Shinale Creek\CIPs'Ivlajor Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 18. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acreage Draining Through the Lake Score by Lake. Drainage Basin Lake Class Percent Score Area(acres) Bass Recreational 2,946 7 3 Cedar Island Recreational 619 1 4 Crystal Recreational 1,274 3 1 4 Curtis Aesthetic 313 1 4 Eagle Recreational 3,044 7 3 Magda Aesthetic 62 <1 4 Meadow Aesthetic 123 <1 4 Palmer Aesthetic 18,047 40 1 Pike Recreational 919 2 4 Pomerleau Recreational 293 1 4 Ran Recreational 5,323 12 2 Schmidt Recreational 208 <1 4 Success Aesthetic 178 <1 4 Twin Lower Recreational 5,291 12 2 Twin Middle Recreational 4,011 9 3 Twin Upper Recreational 3,657 8 3 1.3.9 Scoring Overall scores for the lakes were computed as the sum of the scores on each of the evaluation factors. Recreational lakes were rouped separate from the Aesthetic lakes. 1.3.10 Overall Scoring Recreational Lakes Overall scores for the recreational lakes ranged from 13 to 24 with the lowest score correlating to the highest lake priority (Table 19). Table 19. Overall Lake Scores for Recreational Lakes. Lake WA/LA Treatment Water Recreation Access Fisheries Watershed Total Ca abili Quality Si nificance Score Eagle 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 13 Bass 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 14 Pike 3 1 1 4 2 1 4 4 19 Twin Middle 4 3 3 1 2 3 3 19 Ryan 4 3 3 2 4 3 2 21 Schmidt 2 4 3 2 3 3 4 21 Twin Lower 4 3 4 2 2 4 2 21 Crystal 3 4 4 2 1 4 4 22 Pomerleau 4 1 4 2 3 4 4 22 Cedar Island 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 23 Twin Upper 4 4 4 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 3 23 20 JAShinele Creek\CIPs`Major Plan Amendment'September packetTINAL Water Qualm,Plan_Sept.doc 1.3.11 Overall Scoring Aesthetic Lakes Overall scores for the aesthetic lakes ranged from 23 to 27 with the lowest score correlating to the highest lake priority (Table 20). It is important to note that both Magda and Meadow lakes are on the State's 303(d) list of impaired waters for nutrients. Consequently, the State is required to develop a nutrient TMDL for these water bodies even though they are considered aesthetic lakes under this water quality plan. These lakes may need to be considered for nutrient BMPs even though they are classified as aesthetic lakes. Table 20. Overall Lake Scores For Aesthetic Lakes. Lake WA/LA Treatment Water Recreation Access Fisheries Watershed Total Ca ability Quality Significance Score Palmer 4 2 4 4 4 4 1 23 Success 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 24 Curtis 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 25 Magda 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 26 Meadow 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 27 1.3.12 Water Quality Goals The primary purpose of grouping lakes was to assign water quality goals that are achievable and that reflect the lakes' current use. As a first step the total scores were grouped into three categories: 1, 2, and 3 (Table 21). Table 21. Lake Grouping. Lake Class Total Score Group Eagle Recreational 13 1 Bass Recreational 14' 1 Pike Recreational 19 1 Twin Middle Recreational 19 1 Ryan Recreational 21 2 Schmidt Recreational 21 2 Twin Lower Recreational 21 2 Crystal Recreational 24 3 Pomerleau Recreational 22 3 Cedar Island Recreational 23 3 Twin Upper Recreational 23 3 Each grouping was assigned a set of water quality goals, including total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a concentrations and a Secchi depth goal (Table 22). 21 J:`,SWngle Creek\CIPs`Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 22. Lake Water Quality Standards. Group Total Phosphorus Chlorophyll-a Secchi Depth ( b) ( b) (meters) 1 <35 <10 >1.4 2 35 to 45 10 to 18 1.1 to 1.4 3/Aesthetic <78 <48 >0.7 Table 23. 2002 Lake Water Quality Data Compared to Water Quality Goals. Phosphorus Chlorophyll-a Secchi Depth Lake Group b) b) meters Currentl Goal Current Goal Current Goal Eagle 1 19 <35 19 <10 1.6 >1.4 Bass 1 35 <35 20 <10 1.2 >1.4 Pike 1 90 <35 31 <10 1 1.2 >1.4 Twin Middle 1 60 35-45 28 <10 1.7 >1.4 Ryan 2 54 35-45 16 10-18 1.2 1.1-1.4 Schmidt 2 58 35-45 15 10-18 1.9 1.1-1.4 Twin Lower 2 93 35-45 39 10-18 1.1 1.1-1.4 Crystal 3 179 <78 58 <48 1 1.1 >0.7 Pomerleau 3 89 <78 16 <48 1.7 >0.7 Cedar Island 3 123 <78 79 <48 0.6 >0.7 Twin Upper 3 137 <78 56 <48 0.5 >0.7 Palmer Aesth N/A <78 N/A 1 <48 N/A >0.7 Success Aesth 10 <78 9 <48 2.2 >0.7 Curtis Aesth I <78 N/A <48 N/A >0.7 Magda Aesth 117 <78 45 <48 0.6 >0.7 Meadow Aesth 230 <78 78 <48 0.3 >0.7 The water quality goals for lakes in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds are: • Stabilize water quality in lakes. No further degradation of lake water quality as measured by total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a. • Meet lake water quality standards. The WQP establishes water quality standards by lake classification and grouping that shall serve as a minimum standard. A member city may choose to strive for a higher standard for a lake that is located within the community. • Establish individual lake management plans. Each lake and watershed is unique. and different strategies may have to be developed for achieving water quality goals. Developing a lake management plan may lead to an adjustment in the numerical goals for that lake based on individual diagnostic analyses. 22 J:\Shin`Je Creek\CIPsWajor Plan Amendment\September packet\PINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 1.4 STREAMS Goals were established for the streams in Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds. The goals established were to meet the state's stream water quality standards to maintain the beneficial uses of the stream's class. All waters are designated Class 2 unless otherwise specified, with the beneficial use of aquatic life and vegetation. Subclasses are included in the State's designation of beneficial uses. The subclasses are: • Class 2A Cold water fisheries,trout waters; • Class 213d Cool and warm water fisheries; • Class 2B Cool and warm water fisheries (not protected for drinking water); • Class 2C Indigenous fish and associated aquatic community; and • Class 2D Wetlands. Shingle Creek is designated by the state as a Class 2C stream and all others are Class 2B. Recent monitoring in the Shingle Creek watershed suggests that the streams are not currently meeting State standards established for the waters of the State. Table 24 lists the current state standards of interest for streams and the status of streams in the Shingle Creek watershed. Table 24. Most Recent Shingle Creek Data For Certain Water Quality Parameters. Categoa Threshold Shingle Creek Chloride 230 mg/l Winter exceedances Summer exceedances Dissolved oxygen not less than 5 mg/l Not meeting standards at USGS station at Queen Avenue Fecal coliform#1 200 organisms/100 ml water In 2005, 8 of 12 samples at the outlet exceeded 200 organisms Fecal coliform 42 2000 org/I 00 ml water Exceeded once in 2005 Poor/very poor score on Index of Shingle Creek scored very poor; Biological community Biotic Integrity (IBI) compared Bass Creek fish community to reference stream in region impaired Turbidity 25 NTU Measured as TSS (mg/L),2005 average at SC-0=24, SC-2=20 The water quality goals for streams in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds are: • Meet the State's stream water quality standards. The goal of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission is to have all streams in the watershed meet state standards for the protection of the stream's designated beneficial use. • Monitor streams to evaluate the current status of water quality as compared to State standards. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission will aim to monitor streams to evaluate potential impairments of its streams through an annual monitoring program. 23 J:`Shinle Creek\CIPsWajor Plan Amendment\September packet\PINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 1.5 WETLANDS State statute requires watershed management plans to identify priority wetlands for preservation and improvement. The Water Quality Plan (WQP) does not identify priority wetlands nor specific goals for wetlands. Rather,the WQP identifies the wetlands that are of highest priority for the completion of functions and values analyses. The functions and values studies will identify which wetlands are of highest quality and in need of preservation or those that could attain higher functions and values with restoration. The Second Generation Management Plan established that the Commissions would require cities to complete functions and values analyses for high-priority wetlands according to a schedule established in the WQP and evaluate other wetlands as opportunities arise. It further directed that high-priority be defined as "watershed significant." 1.5.1 Identification of Watershed Significant Wetlands The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) defined "watershed significant wetlands" as: • Connected to lakes; • Within or adjacent to a greenway or green corridor, such as a stream or trail; and • Within or adjacent to sites with rare species,ecological integrity, or high value native plants. In addition, the TAC recommended that a priority should be placed on completing functions and values analyses for all wetlands that are in areas that are rapidly developing. Using these criteria, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was used to identify all: • Wetlands within 25 meters of a lake; • Wetlands within 25 meters of a stream; • Wetlands adjacent to or within a biodiversity site identified by the Hennepin County Biological Survey (HCBS); and • Wetlands within three "development areas"where development is expected to occur in the next ten years: northern Brooklyn Park;the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove; and the area around Pomerleau Lake in Plymouth. Table 25 and Figure 6 shows the results of application of these prioritization factors. While the majority of wetland acreage was identified as high priority, only about half the wetlands were identified as high priority. Most of the smaller, isolated wetlands were identified as being medium to low priority for functions and values analyses. It should be noted that the National Wetlands Inventory was completed in this area in the early 1980s. Many wetlands on the N vN71 have been filled, either prior to enactment of the Wetland Conservation Act, or after the WCA under a permit from the appropriate Local Government Unit. Thus some of the wetlands identified as high priority may be gone or replaced by new wetlands. 24 J:`.Shmgle Creek-CIPs Major Plan Amendment September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 25. Priority Wetlands. Total NWI Wetlands P iority Wetlands Type Number Acres Percent Number Acres o/Acres Total 1 - Seasonally Flooded 49 130 0.3 27 96 74 2 - Wet Meadow 27 132 0.3 18 104 79 3 - Shallow Marsh 721 2,444 5.5 362 1,966 80 4- Deep Marsh 209 231 0.5 124 167 73 5 - Shallow Open Water 44 1,408 3.2 38 1,401 99 6- Shrub Swamp 1,13 385 0.9 75 302 79 7- Wooded Swamp 194 1,034 2.3 129 916 1 89 90-Riverine 4 277 0.6 4 277 100 Grand Total 1,361 6,041 100.0 777 5,229 86% 1.5.2 Functions and Values Analyses Completion of the functions and values analyses requirement should be completed in two steps. First, the inventory of wetlands identified as high priority through this process should be updated to remove from the list those that have been filled, either through permit, or prior to the implementation of the permitting process. This should be completed by the cities by the end of 2007. Upon completion of that step, cities should complete functions and values analyses for these high-priority wetlands by the end of 2008. Wetlands that are not identified as high priority should be completed as opportunities arise. After completion of the functions and values analyses,the Commissions will use that information to identify wetlands that are of high priority for preservation or restoration. 25 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packet\FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc N Priority wetlands 1- Seasonally Flooded 2 - Wet Meadow ILL �I— fir [� 3 - Shallow Marsh 4 - Deep Marsh ,, ® 5 - Shallow Open Water ® 6 - Shrub Swamp I r ! I I1 7 - Wooded Swamp 90 - Riverine -�--,_. ._ s •�i =�f- - ��? � -� if • L u 1 - '7 y L _ .1 r 17 r r, 1i l i 111 .rr�' O Z Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Commissions H ; DEC 2003 Wenck Wetlands: Priority for Functions and Values Analysis WenckAssDciates,Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Figure 6 Environmental Engineers Maple Plain,MN 55359-0429 26 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packet\FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc This page left intentionally blank. J'\Shingle Creek\C1Ps\Major Plan Amendment'September packeT',FLNAL Watar,Quah Plan_Sept.doc 2.0 Implementation Plan 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Commissions' Water Quality Implementation Plan is composed of four parts: • A monitoring plan to track water quality changes over tune; • Detailed management plans for each resource to lay out a specific plan of action for meeting water quality goals; • A capital improvement plan; and • An education and public outreach plan. This Implementation Plan charts the course the Commssions will take to meet their Second Generation Management Plan goals to protect and improve water quality and meet Commission and State water quality standards. While the Plan lays out a series of activities and projects, implementation will occur as the Commissions' and cities' budgets permit. The Commissions have received significant grant funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the Department of Natural Resources to undertake planning and demonstration projects. The Corrunissions intend to continue to solicit funds and partnerships from these and other sources to supplement the funds provided by the ten cities having land in the two watersheds. Details of the Capital Improvement Plan are not included in this report as most of those proposed improvements will be identified in the resource management plans. It is expected that the Commissions will continuously update their annual Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) as a part of their annual budget process. �g ]:AShinLle CreeklCIPs'Major Plan Amendment,September packetTINAL water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 26. Implementation Plan Activities. Action Description Outcome Cost Comments/Notes Monitoring/Information Gathering Information needed to track overall Not currently performed. Commission lake monitoring etailed monitoring of surface and water quality and internal loading Estimated at g bottom conditions of lake. and evaluate effectiveness of TMDL $15,000 per lake Recommend every 3-5 years for im lementation group 1 lakes Volunteers monitor water quality $5501 lake Every other year for group 1 Volunteer lake monitoring of lake surface through the CAMP Better understanding o lake quality, Current budget and 2 lakes and every 3 years program. more involved and infformed citizens $7,000/ r for group 3 and aesthetic lakes Measure streamflow,water quality Information needed to maintain Current budget: Flow and quality monitoring at Commission stream monitoring parameters hydrologic model and track changes $30,000/yr two sites on SC. USGS in watershed pollutant loading. monitoring site is separate. Citizens,generally students, HCES:$1,000 Better understanding of stream water Volunteer stream monitoring provide macroin vertebrate and habitat quality,more involved Per site Currently 3 locations in SC, 1 monitoring through the Current budget: in WM RiverWatch program and informed citizens $5,000/ r Citizens monitor plants and Better understanding of wetland plant $3,750 for four Volunteer wetland monitoring invertebrates through the WHEP and habitat quality,more involved Not currently perforned program. and informed citizens sites Survey of composition of plant Information needed to manage Estimated at May be possible for volunteers Aquatic plant monitoring community and abundance of aquatic plants,evaluate control to conduct some monitoring; various s ecies. measures,plan for future actions. $5,000 per site would require training. Management Plans Detailed understanding of Approx$10,000 To date have been paid for by Lake TMDLs Complete TMDLs as required impairment causes and options for each MPCA improvement Comprehensive review of lake water Approx$10,000 quality,beneficial use,recreation, depending on Lake management plans Develop a management plan for fish and wildlife needs;set specific amount of Complete concurrent with each lake in concert with TMDLs goals for each by lake;and develop a monitoring TMDL detailed plan for achieving them required Detailed understanding of causes of To date have been paid for by Stream TMDLs Complete TMDLs as required stream impairments and options for $100-200,000 MPCA improvement 29 JAShingle Creek\ClPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Action Description Outcome Cost Comments/Notes Conduct a series of assessments of Identification of potential problems Shingle Creek Corridor Plan Stream assessments and the major streams to evaluate and solutions;establish a Approx$5,000 completed in 2004;assessment management plans channel capacity and erosion, comprehensive strategy for managing per mile of tributaries to be completed in water quality and habitat,and across city boundaries 2006 potential for improvement Assemble functions and values Identification of high value wetlands Wetland protection and analyses developed by the cities for preservation; amendment of rules Estimate$10- preservation plan into an overall plan for the and standards if necessary to protect 15,000 watershed and preserve wetlands based on function and value Capital Improvement Plan Implementation of management Projects to meet water quality Depends on project,city and plans standards Improved water quality Variable consultant staff time,capital costs,grants to property owners Additional studies identified in Additional or refined data revised Depends on study,city and Special studies as needed management plans,new goals and policies Variable consultant staff time requirements,etc. Decreased erosion;decrease impacts Depends on project,city and Shore line/streambank restoration Return of native plants to shoreline to lakes and streams from lawn Variable consultant staff time,capital and erosion control areas. maintenance,storm water runoff; costs,grants to property owners im rove habitat Education and Public Outreach Maintain rules that require water Maintain 100 year flood profile;reduce impact of upstream increased City and Most costs of treatment/ quality treatment rate and volume meeting the rules and Management rules and standards runoff impervious surface;Duffer runo to consultant staff control on new and re-development wetlands and watercourses; increase time ordinances are borne by and update as necessary infiltration and recharge developers Variety of activities that meet Increased awareness of lake water Currently Education and public outreach Commission objectives and the quality issues,changes in behavior budgeted at programs NPDES Phase II Education and that reduce runoff of sediment& $30,000 Public Outreach requirements nutrients to the lakes and streams. Increased awareness of homeowners' City and Involve lake associations, Encourage homeowners to adopt homeowners,commercial BMP demonstration projects practices that protect water quality. impacts on lake water quality, consultant staff properly owners,students, reduced runoff and erosion time,grants youth groups,etc. 30 J'\Shingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 2.2 MONITORING/INFORMATION GATHERING Water quality monitoring is performed to provide information on possible water quality problems that may require intervention and to document future changes (improvement or deterioration) in known problem areas. Information from a well-designed and properly implemented monitoring plan allows for the evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs and the potential need for further action. Monitoring plans are necessary to direct monitoring efforts to answer specific questions and meet monitoring objectives. Because it is not possible to monitor all locations all the time, it is important to consider in advance how to make the best choices regarding the expenditure of limited funds for monitoring. Linking the monitoring activities to the monitoring objectives is the most important aspect of a monitoring plan. One of the Commissions' goals is to coordinate all monitoring efforts in the watershed. Data collected by other agencies will be documented and incorporated into a single database. 2.2.1 Lake Monitoring 2.2.1.1 Lake Monitoring Objectives The most important aspect of any monitoring plan is the specification of monitoring objectives and questions to be answered using the monitoring data. The following objectives have been established for lake monitoring in the Shingle Creek Watershed: • To quantify the current status of lakes in the watershed in comparison to state water quality standards established for nutrients. • To quantify changes over time, or trends, in the water quality status of lakes in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds. • To quantify the effectiveness of implemented BMPs for the protection of water quality. 2.2.1.2 Commission Lake Monitoring The Commission has to date relied on the Metropolitan Council's Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP) for lake water quality monitoring. More detailed information than volunteers can collect would be necessary to track overall lake water quality and internal loading and to evaluate effectiveness of TMDL implementation. Detailed monitoring of surface, water column, and bottom conditions should be performed on high priority lakes every 3-5 years. Because the high priority lakes are also Met Council Priority Lakes (Bass, Eagle, Twin), it may be possible to partner with the Met Council and Three Rivers Park staff to accomplish this work cost effectively. Appendix A details the parameters to be collected and methods to be used. The monitoring program would collect data only on parameters that might be exceeded in Shingle Creek lakes. The estimated cost is $15,000 per lake. 31 J:',Shingle Creek\CIPs'Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 2.2.1.3 Volunteer Lake Monitoring The CAMP program uses volunteers to collect biweekly surface water samples, Secchi depths, and general water quality observations. The samples are analyzed for total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. The Commissions pay a small fee to the Met Council for the lab work and monitoring supplies and coordinate and train volunteers. The budget for this monitoring in 2003 was $7,000 for eight lakes. Quality control conducted by Met Council staff has concluded that volunteers on average are acceptably accurate in collecting samples and reporting data, so this is a good, cost-effective way of conducting basic monitoring. No increase would be necessary to maintain this program. The main disadvantage is that recruitment of volunteers can be time-consuming. Some lakes have long-time volunteers that have been and continue to be interested in providing the service, while on other lakes volunteer recruitment has been a struggle. In some cases city staff may need to step in to take samples. The proposed lake monitoring schedule for 2004-2008 as well as the historic schedule is shown below. The schedule assumes that first and second priority lakes would be monitored every other year, while other lakes would be monitored every three years. This schedule does not exceed the eight lakes budgeted; in most years fewer than eight would be monitored. Table 27. CAMP Lake Monitoring Schedule. Historical Recommended Group 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 107 08 09110 Bass 1 x x s x x x x x x Eagle 1 x s x s s x x x s x x x x x Pike 1 x x x x * x x Twin Middle 1 M M x x M x x x x Ran 2 x x x x x x x _-- Schmidt 2 x s s x s x x x x x Twin Lower 2 M x M x M x x x x Cedar Island 3 x s s s s x x x x Crystal 3 x x x x x x Pomerleau 3 x x x x x x Twin Upper 3 M x M x x x x x x x Curtis Aesth Magda Aesth x x x x x Meadow Aesth x x x x x x Palmer Aesth Success Aesth x x I x x *Added to schedule for 2006 because sampling not completed in 2005 due to lack of volunteer. x=volunteer monitored M=Met Council monitored S=Secchi depth monitored only 32 J:Shingle CreekCIPsMajor Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 2.2.2 Stream Monitoring 2.2.2.1 Stream Monitoring Objectives The following objectives have been established for stream monitoring in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds: • To quantify the current status of streams in the watershed compared to state water quality standards. • To quantify changes over time and space, or trends, in the water quality status of stream in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds. • To quantify the effectiveness of implemented BMPs for the protection of water quality. 2.2.2.2 Commission Stream Monitoring The existing stream monitoring program operates two sites on Shingle Creek: near the outlet at Humboldt Avenue (SC-0) and a midpoint in the watershed at Zane Avenue (SC-2). An additional site is operated by the USGS at Queen Avenue (SC-1). ,:Streamflow is continuously monitored at all three sites. Routine and storm water quality samples are collected at SC-0 and SC-2 and analyzed for total phosphorus (TP), dissolved phosphorus (DP), total suspended solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), nitrate, and chloride. Temperature and conductivity loggers take 15-minute interval readings at both sites. Fecal coliform samples are collected at the outlet site. Temperature and conductivity are the only parameters routinely collected at the Queen site. This monitoring provides an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs and provide a baseline for reasonable water quality goals. Two amendments to the stream monitoring program should be considered. First, additional parameters were added in 2005 to better characterize the Creek. Adding carbonaceous biological oxygen demand (CBOD), aminonia, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen(TKN) will help better understand dissolved oxygen in the Creek. The added cost of these parameters is $5,000 per year, increasing the Commission stream monitoring budget to $35,000 per year. Second, little data is available for other streams in the two watersheds. During the period 1990- 1992 monitoring was performed on other streams in the two watersheds, but because most of those were low-flow or ephemeral few conclusions could be drawn regarding water quality. Occasional monitoring should be performed to better characterize water quality in the entire watersheds. Appendix A details the parameters that should be collected and methods used. The monitoring program would collect data only on parameters that might be exceeded in Shingle Creek. The estimated cost of periodic flow and chemical monitoring elsewhere in the watershed is $15,000 per site. The stream assessments may identify specific locations for periodic monitoring. 33 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 2.2.2.3 Volunteer Stream Monitoring The current volunteer stream monitoring activities are liinited to macroinvertebrate monitoring as described below. This activity has provided useful information and is a good opportunity for student participation. Opportunities to expand this activity are limited. Other opportunities for volunteer stream monitoring available such as the MPCA's Citizen PP g Stream Monitoring program that monitors transparency, stream stage, and appearance. The most efficient means of implementing further volunteer monitoring would be to form partnerships with specific schools to develop monitoring strategies, especially on smaller tributaries. 2.2.2.4 Bionwnitoring Biomonitoring adds an important dimension to stream water quality assessment. The presence or absence of various macroinvertebrate and fish species can provide supplementary information about water quality. The Conunissions conduct macroinvertebrate monitoring though participation in Hennepin County Environmental Services' River Watch program. Three sites are currently active in Shingle Creek and one site in the West Mississippi watershed. Three Rivers Park District monitors an additional site on Shingle Creek in the North Mississippi Regional Park. Expansion of the program is limited both by the number of student groups that can commit to ongoing participation and by the number of sites that are suitable for sampling. If additional sites are identified through the stream assessments discussed below, the Commissions should work with Hennepin County Environmental Services to recruit schools to monitor them. A few fish surveys have been conducted in the past on Shingle Creek, with the most recent conducted in 1999. Fish surveys should be conducted every five years. The estimated cost of performing a fish survey is $4-5,000 per site. 2.2.3 Wetland Monitoring The Commissions currently do not conduct any wetland monitoring. Hennepin County Environmental Services manages a volunteer wetland monitoring program called Wetland Health Evaluation Program (WHEP)that trains adult volunteers to monitor wetland vegetation and sample for macroinvertebrates. The City of Plymouth participates in this program; one of its sites is located in the Shingle Creek watershed. The cost of participation in the Hennepin County program is $3,750 for four sites. As high- ; priority wetlands for preservation are identified the Commissions should consider enrolling those wetlands in this program. 34 J:1Shingle Creek-CIPsMajor Plan AmendmentSeptember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 2.2.4 Aquatic Plant Monitoring Aquatic plants protect water quality by absorbing nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen that could stimulate algal blooms. Plant beds stabilize soft lake and river bottoms and reduce shoreline erosion by reducing the effect of waves and current. Healthy native aquatic plant communities help prevent the establishment of invasive exotic plants like Eurasian watermilfoil. Aquatic plants provide important reproductive, food, and cover habitat for fish, invertebrates, and wildlife. Lake aquatic plant monitoring provides information needed to manage aquatic plants, evaluate control measures, and plan for future actions. Aquatic plant communities are surveyed for composition of plant community and species abundance and to documents the location and extent of aquatic plants. This monitoring is especially useful as water quality management activities are implemented and plant communities change in response to changing water quality. The Shingle Creek Commission does not currently monitor aquatic plants on its lakes. Such monitoring should be conducted every 2-3 years. The estimated cost of implementation would be $4,000 per site, depending on lake size. An aquatic plant management plan is estimated to cost $5,000 each. After the initial inventory is complete properly trained volunteers can monitor aquatic vegetation at a much lower continuing cost. 2.3 MANAGEMENT PLANS Specific management activities, including capital improvements, would be set out for each water resource in Management Plans. Other activities would be included in any TMDLs required for specific water resources. Where possible, development of a management plan should parallel any required TMDLs so a single implementation plan is developed. 2.3.1 Lakes 2.3.1.1 Lake Management Plan Objectives The following objectives have been established for lake management plans in the Shingle Creek watershed: • To establish specific water quality and beneficial use goals for each lake and a detailed plan for achieving them. • To refine Commission rules and standards for new development within the lakeshed to prevent further degradation of and to improve lake water quality. 35 J:`,Shingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment'September packet FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc i 2.3.1.2 Lake Management Plans Lake Management Plans provide a comprehensive review of lake water quality; beneficial uses; recreation, fish and wildlife needs; and local priorities. They also offer the opportunity to review the general Commission goals and management standards for a specific lake and to establish more appropriate ones if necessary. Some cities in the Shingle Creek watershed have already developed local lake management plans: Plymouth (Bass, Pike, Sclunidt, Curtis, and Pomerleau) and Maple Grove (Eagle, Pike, and Cedar Island) have completed plans for all their lakes, while Robbinsdale has completed a plan for Crystal Lake and Brooklyn Center a plan for Twin Lake. For each lake,the Commissions could consider adopting some or all of a city's management plan and goals, or use that plan as a starting point for a management plan adapted to the watershed focus on water quality and maintenance of beneficial use. The Commissions' Management Plans would present both city and Commission plans in a unified format that relates management activities to the numerical water quality goals and Second Generation Plan policies. If a TMDL is required on a specific lake, the Plan would incorporate the required TMDL analysis. The heart of the Plans would be a detailed Action Plan of activities and improvements to be undertaken to meet Commission, and State water quality and other goals and standards. The estimated cost of each lake management plan is $10,000,although the cost would vary by lake size and whether the local community had already developed it own management plan. 2.3.1.3 Lake TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) studies are required by the Clean Water Act for Impaired causes of lake impairments and to identify Waters to provide a detailed understanding of the a p options for improvement. Section 1.2.1.1 details the lakes in Shingle Creek that have been designated Impaired Waters. The Commission has been working closely with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and with the cities to prepare TMDLs as required and to incorporate these into the lake management plans. The estimated cost to prepare each TMDL is $10,000, although the cost would vary by lake size and the amount of monitoring required. To date,the TMDLs have been funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2.3.2 Streams 2.3.2.1 Stream Management Plan Objectives The following objectives have been established for stream management plans in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds: • To conduct a series of assessments to evaluate channel capacity and erosion; water quality and habitat; and potential for improvement. 36 J.`Shingle Creek\ClPs�Major Plan AmendmentSeptember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc • To establish specific goals for each stream and a detailed plan for achieving them. • To establish a comprehensive strategy for managing across city boundaries. 2.3.2.2 Stream Assessments Stream assessments provide a comprehensive review of stream water quality; beneficial uses; carrying capacity; recreation, fish and wildlife needs; and local priorities. They also offer the opportunity to review the general Commission goals and management standards for a specific lake and to establish more appropriate ones if necessary. The Minneapolis Park Board has completed a stream assessment of Shingle Creek from the mouth to the city border with Brooklyn Center. In 2004 the Shingle Creek Commission extended that stream assessment from the Brooklyn Center border to the head of Shingle Creek at the confluence of Eagle and Bass Creeks. The assessment also included Ryan Creek. In 2006 other streams will be assessed, including Eagle, Bass, Pike, Twin, and Oxbow Creeks, and Edinbrook/Century Channel and Mattson Brook. The stream assessments gather information; evaluate conditions using standard assessment protocols; and make general recommendations for improvement. The assessments serve as background information for the development of any required TMDL analyses. The estimated cost of preparing a stream assessment is $3,000 per mile. 2.3.2.3 Stream TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are required by the Clean Water Act for Impaired Waters to provide a detailed understanding of the causes of stream impairments and to identify options for improvement. Section 1.2.2.1 details the streams in Shingle Creek that have been designated Impaired Waters. The Commission has been working closely with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and with the cities to prepare TMDLs as required and to incorporate these into the stream assessments. The estimated cost to prepare each TMDL is variable depending on the parameter and the amount of monitoring required. To date,the TMDLs have been funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2.3.3 Wetlands 2.3.3.1 TVetland Management Plan Objectives The following objectives have been established for the wetland management plan in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds: 37 J:`Shingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment'September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_sept.doc • To identify high priority wetlands for protection and preservation; • To establish management strategies and priorities for wetlands based on their watershed significance. 2.3.3.2 Wetland Protection and Preservation Plan This plan will compile the wetland functions and values assessments for high priority wetlands conducted by the cities. From these results the Commissions will develop management strategies and priorities for protection and preservation based on watershed significance. These assessments are to be completed by the cities by the end of 2006, with the Protection and Preservation Plan to follow. The estimated cost of preparing this Plan is $20,000. 2.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2.4.1.1 Management Plan Implementation Implementation of this Water Quality Plan will generate the various management plans and studies as well as specific improvement projects intended to improve water quality. These would be incorporated into the Commissions' annual Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). Implementation of most of these projects would be at the city level, with Commission technical oversight and potentially financial participation. The CIP would be updated every year. Potential funding mechanisms are discussed in Section 2.6 below. 2.4.1.2 Shoreline/Srreambank Restoration Correcting shoreline and streambank erosion problems was identified in the Second Generation Plan and the Shingle Creek Corridor Study as being an important issue. Residential properties along Shingle Creek in Brooklyn Park are experiencing significant erosion problems, and a recent project in Maple Grove and Plymouth addressed erosion on Pike Creek. Additionally, Shingle Creek is experiencing low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations that may be directly related to stream structure. Many of the lakes experience erosion on some part of the lakeshore that contributes to lake water quality degradation. A program to undertake shoreline and streambank restoration improvements is necessary to prevent further water quality degradation. The estimated cost of such a program is $50,000 per year, starting in 2008. The stream assessments and lake management plans will help identify locations for improvement. 2.5 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 38 J:\Sbingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment'September packefTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc 2.5.1 Watershed Management Rules and Standards The Commissions have enacted Rules and Standards regulating the treatment of stormwater runoff from development and redevelopment projects in the watershed. The Commissions will modify these rules as necessary to address new concerns or as the individual resource management plans or TMDLs require. 2.5.2 Education and Public Outreach The Commissions currently sponsor a series of education and outreach activities that meet both Commission objectives as well as the NPDES Phase II Education and Public Outreach requirements of nine of the ten cities in the watershed (Minneapolis falls under the requirements of NPDES Phase I). These activities raise awareness of lake water quality issues and provide opportunities for residents and conunercial property owners to learn how changes to their property management practices can reduce runoff carrying pollutants such as sediment,nutrients, and chloride to lakes and streams The program will be integrated with the resources management plans and with the TMDLs, not only to provide public input and review of the plans but also as an important component of implementation. Many nonpoint sources impairments will require change in management practices, not only by riparian property owners but by all property owners in the watersheds. The current education and public outreach budget is $30,000 per year. The Commissions also participate in the Metro WaterShed Partners consortium as well as informal alliances with other commissions to maximize effectiveness of message. As additional resource management plans and TMDLs are conducted, this budget item will need to increase to provide for increased education and outreach to reduce pollutant loading. 2.5.3 BMP Demonstration Projects A program of BMP demonstration projects or other small projects will be encouraged to assist cities and property owners to adopt practices that protect water quality. These will include establishing native shorelines, buffer strips, planting rain gardens, converting turf to sustainable landscaping, etc. The estimated cost of this program is $25,000 per year, starting in 2008. 2.6 COST OF IMPLEMENTATION 2.6.1 Continuing Activities The Commissions currently undertake several activities in this Plan: • Volunteer lake monitoring (CAMP); 39 J:\Shingle Creek\CIPs`Major Plan Amendment\September packet\FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc • Commission stream monitoring; • Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring; • Education and public outreach; and • Maintenance of management rules and standards. Several lake and stream TMDLs are also underway, funded by grants funds from the MPCA. Some of these activities such as stream monitoring and education and public outreach should be increased in scope and budget to meet the goals laid out in this Plan. 2.6.2 New Activities Several new activities have been identified as well. Some of these are specialized studies or monitoring that do not need to be conducted regularly but should be conducted periodically: • Lake management plans; • Stream assessments; • Detailed monitoring of high priority lakes; • Monitoring of streams other than Shingle Creek; • Stream fish assessments; • Aquatic plant surveys; • Wetland planning and monitoring. It is also likely that the lake management plans and stream assessments will identify additional studies or monitoring activity that should be undertaken that would be considered as part of future budgets and CIPs. 2.6.3 Funding Options Several funding options are available to implement the activities in this Plan. The first step is to refine a detailed Capital Improvements program (CIP) to be incorporated into the Commissions overall annual CIP. As part of that discussion,the Commissions should consider which activities are best funded through the regular budget, that is from the general allocations from the cities, and which should be funded by alternative mechanisms, such as: • Assessment to the cities based on Benefitting Area, as laid out in the Joint Powers Agreement; • Certification of capital improvement costs to the County for collection as an ad valorem tax levy; or • Direct cities to make specific improvements. Grant funds are available from the Section 319 program administered by the MPCA, and from other agencies such as the DNR, BWSR, and Hennepin County. I 40 E Shingle Creek\CIPs'Major Plan Amendment'September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 28. Implementation Plan Costs. Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Monitoring/.Information Gathering Commission stream monitoring 22,500 30,000 35,000 35,000 38,800 40,000 41,000 42,000 43,000 45,000 Commission lake monitoring 15,000 15,000 Volunteer lake monitoring 7,000 7,000 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 Volunteer stream monitoring 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,000 Volunteer wetland monitoring 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 6,000 Aquatic lant/fish monitoring 2,100 2,000 2,000 SUBTOTAL $34,500 $42,000 $46,500 $45,500 $55,400 $54,500 $72,500 $56,500 $74,500 $62,500 Education and Public Outreach Management Rules and Standards Maintain existing,may be future cost unknown at this time Education and public outreach programs 58,000 1 47,500 1 50,750 56,000 64,400 66,000 67,500 69,000 71,000 71,000 BMP demonstration projects 10,000 1 1 25,000 1 25,000 1 25,000 1 25,000 1 25,000 Management Plans Lakes TMDLs Phase I (U,M,L Twin,Ryan, 85,300 Crystal) TMDLS Phase lI balance 63,200 Lake management plans Phase I 20,000 Lake management plans Phase I1 15,000 Streams Stream TMDLs 130,000 chloride 200,000 DO/Biotic Integrity Shingle Creek Corridor Stud 40,000 Phase II Stream Assessment(Bass,Eagle, 20,000 Pike,Twin,Oxbow,Mattson Wetlands Wetland protection and preservation plan 20,000 Capital Improvement Plan To Be Determined Brooklyn Park-Shingle Creek Restoration 750,000 New Ho e-Wincrest Pond 290,000 Maple Grove Pond P51 1,459,000 L-Robbinsdale-Crystal Lake Water uality 400,000 41 JAShingle Creek\C1Ps\Major Plan Amendment\September packet\PINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -Maple Grove Pond P57 648,000 -Brooklyn Center Wetland 639W 690,000 New Hope 45''Ave Pond 550,000 Brooklyn Center-Shingle Greek 430,000 Restoration -Maple Grove Pond P33 574,000 -Maple Grove Pond P55 855,000 SUBTOTAL $750,000 $1,749,000 51,738,000 $2,409,000 To BeDetermuled Total Estimated Cost: $92,500 $109,500 $117,250 $121,500 5131,800 $165,500 $165,000 $150,500 5170,500 $158,500 Commission, city assessments Total Estimated Cost: $75,000 $322,500 $434,500 $496,125 To Be Determined Commission, capital levy Total Estimated Cost: Cities, $675,000 $1,426,500 $1,303,500 $1,912,875 To Be Determined capital projects Total Estimated Cost: Grant Funds plus Commission match $10,000 $20,000 Total Estimated Cost: MPCA $148,500 lake TMDLs TMDL funding $130,000 chloride TMDL $200,000 DO/Biotic TMDL Items in Bold print are partially or entirely funded from grant funds I I 42 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc References Cited Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2003). Guidance Manual For Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface lVaters For the Determination of hnpairment: 305(b) Report and 303(d) List. St. Paul, MN: Environmental Outcomes Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. http://vA,N,•w.pca.state.inn.us/publications/inanuals/tmdl-Quidancemanual.12df. (April 22, 2004) City of Plymouth Water Resources Plan. Schupp, D. (1992). An Ecological Classification of Minnesota Lakes 97ith Associated Fish Communities. St. Paul, MN: Section of Fisheries, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Investigational Report 417. 43 JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Appendix A Field Monitoring Protocols Lakes Field Collection Sites and Procedures The Shingle Creek Watershed Commission does not currently routinely monitor lakes. Should the Commission choose to begin this practice, field collection procedures similar to those established for stream monitoring will be developed to assure quality assurance and control. Routine Lake Monitoring Parameters Should the Commission choose to begin monitoring lakes, the following table identifies the parameters to be monitored and the frequency at which monitoring should occur. Table 29. Lake Monitoring Parameters And Frequency Parameter Sites Frequency Responsible Analyses Party Chloro h ll-a Surface Bi-weekly SCWMC Lab Total P Surface,bottom Bi-weekly SCWMC Lab Ortho P Surface,bottom Bi-weekly SCWMC Lab TKN Surface,bottom BI-week] SCWMC Lab Total Fe Bottom Bi-weekly SCWMC Lab Temp/DO/conductivity Profile Bi-weekly SCWMC Field probe profile Secchi depth Profile Bi-weekly SCWMC Field reading Zoo plankton Counts Spring, summer, fall SCWMC Field reading Ph to lankton Counts Spring, summer, fall SCWMC Field reading Fish Summer,winter DNR? Field reading 44 J:\Shingle Creek\CIPs'Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Streams Field Collection Sites and Procedures All sampling will follow Wenck Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for grab and automated sampling (Appendices A and B). Automatic sample collection will only occur at the SCWMC continuous monitoring sites at Zane Avenue (SC-2) and the watershed outlet (SC-0). Samples will be analyzed by a state certified laboratory (Braun Intertec, MDH Certified Laboratory). Quality assurance and quality control procedures will be followed including collecting field blanks, rinsing collection buckets with distilled water, sampling duplicates, and analyzing samples within 24 hours of collection. Discharge measurements will follow the Wenck SOP for stream discharge monitoring (Appendix C). Measurements will occur across numerous flow regimes to develop accurate rating curves. Flow measurements will be made using a Marsh McBirney velocity meter and Solinst Level Loggers or ISCO submerged probes or bubblers for stage measurements. Routine Stream Monitoring Parameters The following table identifies the parameters to be monitored and the frequency at which monitoring should occur. 45 J^Shingle CreekCIPs'\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Table 30. Stream Monitoring Parameters And Frequency Parameter Sites Frequency ResPpaonsible Analyses Flow SC-0, SC-2 During all sampling trips (10 SCWMC Field Probe USGS to 20 samples) USGS Total/Volatile SC-0, SC-2 2 storms (l pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab Suspended Solids composite) Biweekly May through Oct Carbonaceous SC-0, SC-2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab Biochemical Oxygen Demand Fecal Coliform,E. SC-0 6 storm events SCWMC Lab coli Biweekly May though October Ammonia SC-0, SC-2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab Chloride SC-0, SC-2 Biweekly SCWMC Lab Nitrate+Nitrite SC-0, SC-2 2 storms(I pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab composite) Biweekly May through Oct Soluble Reactive SC-0, SC-2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab Phosphorus composite) Biweekly May through Oct Chemical Oxygen SC-0, SC-2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab Demand Total Phosphorus SC-0, SC-2 2 storms (I pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab composite) Biweekly May through Oct Chloro h ll-a SC-0, SC-2 As needed forspecial projects SCWMC Lab Total Kjeldahl SC-0, SC-2 2 storms (I pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab Nitrogen composite) Biweekly May through Oct Total Dissolved SC-0, SC-2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab Solids PH SC-0, SC-2 Biweekly May through SCWMC Field Probe October Dissolved Oxygen SC-O, SC-2 Biweekly May through Oct SCWMC Field Probe Conductivity SC-0, SC-2 Biweekly May through Oct; SCWMC Field Probe USGS Monitored at 15-minute USGS intervals annually Temperature SC-0, SC-2 Biweekly May through Oct; SCWMC Field Probe USGS Monitored at 15-minute USGS intervals annual] 46 7:\Shingle Creek\CIPsNajor Plan Amendment September packeYFINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Monitoring for other pollutants of concern is also necessary for identifying potential stressors associated with urban environments. For example, oil and grease may present a potential problem since much of the watershed is urbanized. Previous sampling for these parameters does not suggest these areas are a problem and don't warrant monitoring. Additionally, some data on these parameters is being collected as a part of the USGS NAWQA program. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Internal quality control (QC) is achieved by collecting and/or analyzing a series of duplicate, replicate, blank, spike, and spike duplicate samples to ensure that the analytical results are within quality control limits specified by the program. Laboratory QC samples are documented and reported with the analytical results. The QC sample results are used to quantify precision and accuracy and identify any problems or limitations associated with sample results. Quality assurance objectives are outlined in the following table. Table 31. Monitoring Quality Assurance Objectives Parameter Method Target Detection Precision Accuracy Completeness Limit Total/Volatile EPA 160.2 5.0 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Suspended Solids EPA 160.4 5.0 mg/L Carbonaceous SM5210B 2 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Biochemical Oxygen Demand Fecal Coliform,E. coli SM9222D 1 cfu/100 ml NA NA 95% Ammonia EPA 350.2 0.05 m 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Chloride EPA 325.1 1 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Nitrate+Nitrite EPA 353.2 0.02 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Soluble Reactive EPA 365.2 10 µg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Phosphorus Chemical Oxygen EPA 410.4 3 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Demand Total Phosphorus EPA 365.4 10 /L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Chlorophyll-2 SM10200H 0.5 /L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Total Kjeldahl EPA 351.2 0.5 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Nitrogen Total Dissolved Solids EPA 160.1 10 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95% Precision Precision is the degree of agreement among repeated measurements of the same characteristic on the same sample or on separate samples collected as close as possible in time and place. Precision will be measured through the use of duplicate samples. Two types of duplicates will be used: field and analytical. 47 J:\Shinsle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packefNFINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc Field duplicates are separate samples that are collected as close as possible in space and time. All steps in the field sampling protocol are repeated for each sample and the samples are submitted for laboratory analysis in separate sample containers. The purpose of field duplicates is to assess the consistency and reproducibility of field procedures. The field duplicates will be collected at a rate of 5 percent. All analysis parameters will be run on field duplicates. Analytical duplicates are created by analyzing two sub-samples from a single homogeneous field sample. The purpose of analytical duplicates is to assess the consistency and reproducibility of laboratory procedures. The analytical duplicates will be run at a rate of 10 percent for all parameters. Precision is calculated as the relative percent difference between duplicate measurements. Accuracy Accuracy is a measure of confidence that the measured value for a sample is the "true value." Alternatively, accuracy can be considered to be the degree of bias in a sample result. Accuracy will be assessed by analyzing a standard reference sample and comparing the result to the known value for that reference sample. Standards will be run for all parameters at a rate of 10 percent. Accuracy will be calculated as percent recovery of the known value. Potential bias in samples will also be assessed through the use of blank samples. Blank samples are composed of de-ionized laboratory water. Two types of blanks will be used in this study: reagent and rinseate. A reagent blank is a sample composed of all reagents (in the same quantities) used in preparing a sample for analysis. It is carried through the same sample preparation steps as the sample. Reagent blanks are used to ensure that interference form analytical system,reagents, and glassware are under control. The required frequency for analyzing reagent blanks is specified for each method and generally consists of one per day for each method/instrument. Rinseate blanks are filled in the field using contaminant-free laboratory water. The lab water is poured into the sampling device and then into the sample container following all the steps laid out in the field sampling protocol. The field crew will process the lab water in the field and submit the blank for laboratory analysis. Rinseate blanks will be run at a rate of 5 percent. Representativeness Representativeness is a qualitative measure of the extent to which the data collected actually represents the true environmental condition or sample population. Sample event timing will occur over a range of conditions including rainfall and dry weather periods. 48 JAShinde Creek\CIPs'Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept_doc