HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 03-28 CCP Regular Session AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
March 28, 2005
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions
2. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits
3. Miscellaneous
4. Adjourn
3egway Page 1 of 1
Sitemap Help Sr
HOME J
SEOWAY HT d,
SHOP
CONNECT
SUPPORT_
ABOUT US
Segway HT in Action Video
Interact with the Segway HT
Business Users F
e
Enter ZIP code`""
y
R y t .w Connect U Comm Commuters
Mile
December ;3, 2004
SaphionM Technolog.
Range for the Segwa
November 4, 2004
Home For The Holida
Concept Centaur Announced From Firs
See it in action nowt Meeting
Cctcber 25. 20034
You ask, e answer,
Fr, rrri :rc� E 3ir�� 1 Frequently Asked Questions Segway Opens Onlin
Expands Offerings V\
:911 the r :,..rs fit;??. October 5, 20G4
extras for your Segway HT. Business Users
Y'ie3v ,�ccessur'ies PrirtY Visit the Press Cer
http: /www.segway.com/ 1/12/05
oegway I k.,uiuiecL I Leater Locator: Locations near JJ43U Page 1 of 2
vR Ip ay i 3A i tli NY fa
IL IN 0"
N� t I
CA UT CQ K$ MO KY y�,� n0
I TN
r NC
I 9K AR t
A7 Nn
e MS L (,A ,St
FIND YOUR SEGWAY HTNEARBY.
The closest locations to 55430 are:
Ridgedale Center
12357 Wayzata Blvd.
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Phone: 952 -542 -3272
9 miles away. Map this location
Mall of America
162 West Market
R„9inneapolis, MN 55425
Phone: 952 -858 -8848
15 miles away. Map this location
55430 50 miles
Search again: ZIP code. I Within.
http: /find.segway.com/cgi- bin /dealers.cgi? zip= 55430 &dist =50 &submit.x= 9 &submit.y =9 1/12/05
aegway I lvioaeis ana nipecmcatnons I i series rage of 3
Sitemap Help Sa
S. 1 14 1 1
Home Segway HT Models Specifications i Series
a
RUGGED AND MUSCULAR,
"ME
SEGk'VAYHT B UILT FOR STABILITY AND CARGO.
A Closer Look
The SegwaA Human Transporter (HT) i
Models 8 Specifications our most rugged and powerful model. It
i Series for added stability and plenty of cargo car
The i Series features powerful batteries fc
p Series extended speed and range, as well as laic
wheels, a higher platform and low- pressu
Accessories Parts for enhanced performance in variable terr
Business Solutions Series readily navigates dirt, grass, hills a
uneven pavement.
Personal Solutions
University Solutions In addition to the redundant safety feature
heart of all Segway HT models, the i Seri(
SHOP equipped with a number of standard feat
Power assist mode allows you to move th
CONNECT up and down stairs more easily. The cont
S UPPORT is adjustable to the comfort of the rider ar
the Segway HT to fit in the trunk of many
ABOUT US help prevent theft, each Segway HT coma
own set of keys, encoded with a unique 6
security identification. The i Series also cc
fin a mechanical parking stand.
c
5 The i Series is available in two colors: oric
Enter ZIP code L Titanium or the new Midnight Blue.
MSRP $4485.00# Where to buy
s sr, a�a :fit rlrr F.{t•
(US, ..On.v Pricing)
Segway Price L 1st Specifications:
004 F ull -iir, 3 C -af 1I g
S PEED
a a Top speed and turning rate
The maximum forward speed and turning rate of your Segway I
can be set at different values based upon which key is used:
Beginner Key (black):
r =a„ i :k r Maximum speed: 6 mph (9.6 kmiih)
Find the I'nodel right for Slower turning rate
Sidewalk Operation Key (yellow):
Maximum speed: 8 mph (12.9 kmdh)
C- asr:ar cr.; ,rt Medium turning rate
View Al model, side -hy-
a Open Environment Key (red):
Maximum speed: 12.5 mph (20 ktrlh)
Most responsive turning rate
http:// www. segway .com/segway /specs_iseries.html 1/12/05
Negway I ivioacts ana Npemcations I i series rage 2 of 3
RANGE
8-12 miles (13-19 km) on a single charge
-4 8-1 The range for each Segway HT model varies with terrain and ri(
style- Under normal riding conditions, you can expect to ride ab
10 miles on a single charge.
TEMPERATURE
When stored and charged at room temperature, the i Series ca
F c' operate in environments ranging from 32 °F (0°C) to 122 °F (50
Actual performance is dependent on battery temperature, terrai
riding style.
TERRAIN
The i Series' larger tires and wider profile make it ideal for varies
terrain and rugged environments. The Segway HT's inertial sen
vy-
constantly monitor the rider's position relative to gravity. This all
the Segway HT to adjust for changes in terrain while keeping tl�
rider upright.
PAYLOAD
Rider: 100-250 lbs (45-1 kg)
Rider Optional Cargo: 260 lbs (I 18 kg)
The Segway HT i Series can carry up to a 250 lb. adult. It can
be fitted with Segway Cargo Accessories for a total capacity of
lbs.
SPACE
Platform height: 8.3 in (21 cm)
Footprint: 19 x 25 in (48 x 64 cm)
We designed the Segway HT to take up no more space than th
average person. About as wide as the average person's should-
raises you 8 inches off the ground, providing a clear sight line o
your surroundings.
WEIGHT
83 lbs (38 kg)
Portability was a key design objective. That's why we made the
Segway HT light enough to handle, small enough to store in the
trunk of a midsize sedan, and collapsible enough to fit in tight
storage spaces.
TURNING RADIUS: ZERO
One characteristic of a pedestrian is the ability to turn in place
v impacting any nearby person or object, something f..
vehicles can do. By balancing on a single axle, Segway HT use
can also turn in place.
AVER
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) Battery Packs
The i Series has been outfitted with two 60 cell NiMH battery pE
http://www.segway.com/segway/specs 1/12/05
Segway Models and Specitications i Series rage s of s
automatically monitor both the condition and temperature of the
batteries. Batteries can be recharged by utilizing any 30 to 260
and 50 to 60 Hz AC outlet {typically accessible in most countrie
complete cycle charge will take four to six hours, which at 10 cc
per KW -h, equates to less than 10 cents of electricity. NWH
batteries are designed for approximately 300 -500 full
chargeidischarge cycles.
Range, battery life and recharge times can be affected by facto
such as terrain, temperature, speed of operation, rider weight a
load, proper storage techniques and environmental conditions.
SAFETY
Redundant electrical systems.
t' Robust mechanical systems.
,a
Safety is our top priority in both design and operation. To help
ensure that both Segway HT users and those near them remair
safe, we built redundancy into the balancing and electrical systf
If any system begins operating at diminished capacity, the othe
programmed to assume responsibility. This allows the Segway
maintain balance and bring the rider to a safe stop.
The highest design standards were implemented in building the
Segway HT's mechanical structures, and each part has been
thoroughly tested and analyzed to ensure such high standards
met.
Home Help Contact Us Legal Privacy f CD 2001 -2004 Segway I
http:// www. segway .com/segway /specs_iseries.html 1/12/05
Segway I Models and Specifications I p Genes Page I of
Sitemap Help 3(
C; IN a t Y
Home Segway HT Models& Specifications pSeries
1 Mi E AGILE AND POLITE,
SEGWAY HT IT'S COMPACT AND EASY TO MANEUN
A Closer Look
The p Series is our smallest and lightest
Models Specifications HT model. It was designed to easily navig
i Series congested pedestrian environments, be is
train or subway, and operate where bikes
p Series and people come together. Use it to run e
get to class, or commute to work faster al
Accessories Parts conveniently. The p Series helps you negg
your daily routine with ease.
Business Solutions
Personal Solutions In addition to the redundant safety feature
University Solutions heart of all Segway HT models, the p Ser;
comes equipped with a number of standa
node allows you ti
i
SHOP features. Power assist
the device up and down stairs more easih
CONNECT control shaft is adjustable to the comfort 4
SUPPORT rider and allows the Segway HT to fit in tI
of many cars. To help prevent theft, each
ABOUT US HT comes with its own set of keys, encoc
unique 64-bit security identification.
MSRP:$3995.00 E Where tobuy
(U.S.-only pricing.)
Enter ZIP code
Specifications:
SPEED
Top speed and turning rate
aseg Price List
The maximum forward speed and turning rate of your Segm
_W004 Fu1-iine C3talog HT can be set at different values based upon which key is i
Fir
Beginner Key (black):
Maximum speed: 6 mph (9.6 km/h)
P 0 lon
Slower turning rate
n; i �r;�i �oy Ver-
Sidewalk Operation Key (yellow):
Maximum speed: 8 mph {12.9 km(h)
turnip rate
Medium tui
Find the model right for
so�, Open Environment Key (red):
y Maximum speed: 10 mph 16 km/h)
Most responsive turning rate
P
arison i art
lfie;v Allmodnls
RANGE
6-10 miles (9-16 km) on a single charge
http://www.segway.com/segway/specs_pseries.html 1/12/05
Segway Models and Specifications p Series Page 2 of 3
7
i ne range for eacn Segway t i ot vanes terrain ar
riding style. Under normal rid conditions, you ou can can expect
ride about 8 miles on a single charge. Riding on flat surface
and at constant speed will help increase your range.
TEMPERATURE
When stored and charged at room temperature, the p Serie
can operate in environments ranging from 40 °F (5 °C) to 12:
C' (50 0 C). Actual performance is dependent on battery
temperature, terrain and riding style.
TERRAIN
The p Series is designed to operate on smooth, even surfac
The Segway HT's inertial sensors constantly monitor the ric
ism.. position relative to gravity. This allows the Segway HT to ad
for changes in terrain while keeping the rider upright.
PAYLOAD
Rider: 100 -200 lbs (45 -91 kg)
Optional cargo: 10 lbs (4.5 kg)
The Segway HT p Series is optimized for portability and car
carry a rider up to 200 lbs. It can also be fitted with an optic
front bag that stores up to 10 lbs. of small gear.
SPACE
4 platform height: 6.7 in (17 cm)
Footprint: 16 x 21.8 in (41 x 55 cm)
x We designed the Segway HT to take up no more space tha
average person. The p Series' small size allows you to park
with other forms of transportation, such as the bus, your ca
even a packed subway, to help you easily navigate your dai
routine.
WEIGHT
70Ibs (32 kg)
When we created the Segway HT p Series, portability was
design objective. The lighter weight of the p Series makes i'
easier to transport and store. The p Series is the easiest
Segway HT to fit in the trunk of many cars.
TURNING RADIUS: ZERO
One characteristic of a pedestrian is the ability to turn in pla
without impacting any nearby person or object. something f
vehicles can do. By balancing on a single axle, Segway HT
users can also turn in place.
OWE
j Nickel Metal Hydride (NIMH) Battery Packs
The p Series has been outfitted with two 48 cell NiMH batte
packs. The batteries are designed with on -board electronics
automatically monitor both the condition and temperature of
batteries. Batteries can be recharged by utilizing any 00 to
http: /www.segway.com/segway /specs _pseries.html 1/12/05
Segway Models and Specifications p Series Page 3 of 3
volt and 50 to 60 Hz AC outlet (typically accessible in most
countries). A complete cycle charge will take four to six hou
which at 10 cents per KW -h, equates to less than 10 cents
electricity. NiMH batteries are designed for approximately 31
500 full charge /discharge cycles.
Range, battery life and recharge times can be affected by
factors such as terrain, temperature, speed of operation, ric
Freight and load, proper storage techniques and environmer
conditions.
SAFETY
Redundant electrical systems.
Robust mechanical systems.
y Safety is our top priority in both design and operation. To N
ensure that both Segway HT users and those near them ret
safe, we built redundancy into the balancing and electrical
systems. If any system begins operating at diminished cap,
the other is programmed to assume responsibility. This ally
the Segway HT to maintain balance and bring the rider to a
stop.
The highest design standards were implemented in building
Segway HT's mechanical structures, and each part has bee
thoroughly tested and analyzed to ensure such high standa
were met.
Home Help Contact Us Legal Privacy I (D 2001 -2004 Gegway t
http: /www.segway.com/segway /specs _pseries.htmi 1/12/05
Segway I Help I Contact Us Our phone and address rage I of 1
Sitemap Help SF
Horne Something
HOME .w
Site Tools 4°
Sitemap
Search *o
Frequently Asked Questions
Contact Us
SEOVVAY HT
SHOP
CONNECT GET IN TOUCH WITH SEGWAY.
SUPPORT
ABOUT US Corporate Offices Manufacturing:
Segway LLC
14 Technology Drive
f Bedford, NH 03110
Directions hotels
Enter ZIP code
TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Toll- -free Sales Support: 1- 866- 4SEGWAY
Corporate Headquarters: 603 222 -6000
1 MOM
Fax: 603-222-6001
Print Friendly Version
Email to a Friend Recall Hotline: (Info) 1- 877 889 -9020
ASK A QUESTION
Please use our contact form to submit a query regarding
the Segway HT, how to purchase, event opportunities, or
related questions.
Kant to get more involved with Segway? Choose Helping
or Sharing your Story on the contact form.
0RE `NAYS $O CONNECT
`:ales
Segway ,M Human Transporter (HT) i and e Series models
are available to businesses for commercial applications. To
be contacted by a Segway representative regarding your
merest to purchase, please call us toll -free at 1-866
4SEGWAY or complete the business registration.
http:// www. segway. com/ general/contact_information.html 1/12/05
Segway Help Contact Us Our phone and address
Segway HTs are available to consumers for purchase
directly from Segway (by calling us toll -free at 1-866
4SEGWAY), online through Amazon.com, via select
Brookstone stores throughout the United States, or
through Segway authorized dealers. To stay connected
with the latest information about Segway, please complete
the personal registration form.
Support 1 Technical Help
Please visit our Support section or fill out our support
contact form.
Dealers /Resellers
We are currently assessing various distribution options and
will continue to review applications we receive. If you are
interested in becoming a dealer or reseller, please consult
our dealer application section.
Media Relations
If you are a member of the media, please visit our Press
Center for contact information.
OTHER INQUIRIES
Careers: Visit the Careers page
Unsubscribe: unsubscribe at segway.com
If you are currently registered with us and
wish to be removed from our newsletter
email list, please write us.
Privacy privacy at segway.com
policy:
Web site help: webmaster at segway.com
Home j Help I Contact Us Legal I Privacy i 2Qr31 -2004 Se way l
http:// www. segway. com/ general/contact_information.html 1/12/05
Segway Frequently Asked Questions I Where can I sately and legally ride the Segway H I"! Page I ot'l
V Sitemap Help Si
Home Support Frequently Asked Questions
ANSW ERS TO YOUR MOST
HOME
SEGVJAY HT FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS.
SHOP Where can I safely and legally ride the Segway HT?
CONNECT
SUPPORT The Segway HT is designed to operate in any place that you can safely walk. It will transpo
any surface where the wheels can gain traction, such as roads, sidewalks, grass, and dirt.
3 FAQs cities you'll be able to take the Segway HT any place that you are allowed to walk. Some ar
however, have restrictions on where you can take the Segway HT, and some areas require
Policies Warranty wear protective gear. Please consult our regulatory page for a list of state laws. You shoulc
with local authorities regarding any local regulations that may be applicable.
Training Center
Service
Documentation Need further assistance? Please contact us.
Contact Us
ABOUT US
I MO
Enter ZIP code
MOM
Print Friendly Version
Ernail to a Frien�j
H,r 1 lclp I Contact !Jm3 Lc, v 2100 1 -)04
http://find.seg /faq.cgi?answer- 1/12/05
Segway U.S. State Laws Regulating the Segway HT Page 1 of 2
Sitemap Help S(
G 1
Home Regulatory
BECOME FAMILIAR WITH
HOME
EGWAYHT THE REGULATIONS IN YOUR STATE.
SHOP The Segway® Human Transporter (HT) complies with all Federal product standards and al
CONNECT safety standards requirements. Segway HTs may be used in all 50 states on private propel
SUPPORT permission of the property owner.
ABOUT US As of December 2004, 40 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to al
Segway HTs on sidewalks, bike paths, and certain roads. The laws differ from state to staff
important that potential purchasers and Segway HT users carefully review their state reguk
r' 1 comply with any special requirements. (Many of these laws use the term "Electric Personal
y i a Mobility Device" or "Personal Motorized Mobility Device which are generally defined so as
Segway HT.) In most cases, state legislation gives local authorities the option of enacting a
Enter ZIP txide s laws about Segway HT use, Segway recommends that potential purchasers and users the
local government to identify and comply with regulations in their town or city.
Legislation governing use of Segway HTs is primarily at the state level. The following state-
enacted permissive legislation:
iow"
I Print Friendly Version Alabama Michigan Pennsylvania
Email to a Friend Alaska KWinnesota y Rhode Island
Arizona Missouri Rhode Island (more)
California Mississippi South Carolina
Delaware Nevada South Dakota
District of Columbia North Carolina Tennessee
Florida Nebraska Texas
Georgia (Sections 436 through 465) Utah
Hawaii New Hampshire Virginia
Iowa New Jersey Vermont
Idaho New Mexico Washington
Illinois Ohio Wisconsin
Indiana Oklahoma West Virginia
Kansas Oregon (Not available online.)
Maryland
Maine
Certain states have not yet enacted legislation affirmatively permitting Segway use on pi
This does not necessarily mean that Segway HT use in public areas is prohibited, so checi
regulations prior to use. In general, the following states do not allow use of powered conve}
=ide.vaiks and bike paths:
Cclorado
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
North D? ikota
Wyoming
Certain states have no prohibitions against the use of powered conveyances on side�n
http:// www. segway .com/general/regulatory.html 1/12/05
Segway U.S. State Laws Regulating the Segway H1' l a Page 2 of 2
1 J
pedestrian areas. These states inclu
Arkansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Montana
While in general no state prohibitions exist in these states, local regulations may exist. We
recommend that you check your local regulations prior to use in public areas.
Legislative efforts continue. If your home state has not yet enacted permissive legislation, F
revisit this site in the future for updates.
Home j Help j Contact Us Legal j Privacy 2001 -;1044 Seguday I
http:// www. segway .com/generaVregulatory.html 1/12/05
Minnesota Session Laws 2UU2, chapter ZiSJ Page 1 of 2
minneso Session Laws
Minnesota Session Laws 2002
Key: Tmge to be deleted new language Chance language enhancement display_
Legislative history and Authors
CHAPTER 285- H.F.No. 2882
An act relating to traffic regulations; regulating the
operation of electric personal assistive mobility
devices on roadways and sidewalks; amending Minnesota
Statutes 2000, sections 168.011, subdivision 4;
169.01, subdivision 3, by adding a subdivision;
171.01, subdivision 3; proposing coding for new law in
Minnesota Statutes, chapter 169.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 168.011,
subdivision 4, is amended to read:
Subd. 4. [MOTOR VEHICLE.] (a) "Motor vehicle" means any
self propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon railroad
tracks and any vehicle propelled or drawn by a self propelled
vehicle and includes vehicles known as trackless trolleys which
are propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley
wires but not operated upon rails, except snowmobiles,
manufactured homes, and park trailers.
(b) "Motor vehicle" also includes an all- terrain vehicle,
as defined in section 84.92, subdivision 8, which (1) has at
least four wheels, (2) is owned and operated by a physically
disabled person, and (3) displays both physically disabled
license plates and a physically disabled certificate issued
under section 169.345, subdivision 3.
(c) "Motor vehicle" does not include an all- terrain vehicle
as defined in section 84.92, subdivision 8; except (1) an
all-- terrain vehicle described in paragraph (b), or (2) an
all- terrain vehicle licensed as a motor vehicle before August 1,
1985, in which case the owner may continue to license it as a
motor vehicle until it is conveyed or otherwise transferred to
another owner, is destroyed, or fails to comply with the
registration and licensing requirements of this chapter.
(d) "Motor vehicle" does not include an electric personal
assistiv mobility device as defin i n section 169.01
subdivision 90.
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 169.01,
subdivision 3, is amended to read:
Subd. 3. [MOTOR VEHICLE.] "Motor vehicle" means every
vehicle which is self propelled and every vehicle which is
propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley
wires. Motor vehicle does not include an el ectric pers
assistive mo or a vehicle moved solely by human
power.
�P, Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 169.01, is
amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd_ 90. [ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY
DEVICE.] "Electric nersonal assistive mobilitv device" means a
self ba]_anci with two nontandem wheels. desianed to
http /www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us /slaws /2002 /c285.html 1/12/05
Minnesota Session Laws 2002, Chapter 285 Page 2 of 2
transport not more than one person. and onerated bv_ an electric
propulsion system that limits the maximum sn_eed of the device to
15 miles per hour.
Sec. 4. [169.212] [OPERATION OF ELECTRIC PERSONAL
ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICES.]
Subdivision _1_ [RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
PEDESTRIANS.] Excent as otherwise provided by law. a person
operating an electric nersonal assistive mobility_ device has the
rights and resnonsibi_lities of a nedestrian.
Subd. 2. [OPERATION.] (a) An electric personal assistive
mobility device mav be onerated on a bicvcle oath.
(b) No nerson mav overate an electric personal assistive
mobility device on a roadway, sidewalk. or bicycle nath at a
rate of speed that is not reasonable and nr_udent under the
conditions. Every nerson operating an electric personal
assistive mobilit device on a r_oadwav_ sidewalk. or bicvcle
path is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the
actual and potential hazards then existing on the roadway or
sidewalk and m„st use due care in nperatina the device.
(c) An electric perGnnal assistive mobility device mav be
operated on a roadwav only:
(1) while making a direct crossing of a roadway_ in a marked
or unmarked crosswalk:
(2)_where_ no_ sidewalk_ is available
(3) where a sidewalk is so obstructed as to prevent safe
use i
(4) when so directed by a traffic control device or by a
peace officer: or
(5) temnorarilv in order to gain access to a motor vehicle.
(d) An electric nersona.l assistive mobility device mav not
be onerated at any time on a roadway with, a speed limit of more
than 35 miles ner hour except to make a direct crossina_ of the
roadwav in a marked crosswalk.
(e) An electric personal assistive mobility device mav not
be operated at anv time while carrying_ more than one person.
(f) A person operating an electric personal assistive
mobility device on a sidewalk must yield the riaht- of -wav to
pedestrians at all times. A person operating an electric
personal assistive mobility device on a bicvcle nath must yield
the right- of -wav to bicvcles at all times.
Subd_ 3. [REFLECTORS.] An electric nersonal assistive
mobility device mav not be operated sinless the device bears
reflectorized material on the front. hack. and wheels. visible
at night from 600 feet when illuminated by the lower beams of
head lamas of a motor vehicle.
Subd. 4. [LOCAL REGULATION.] A local road authority mav
not further regulate the operatinn of electric personal
assistive mobility devices, except that a local road authority
mav allow and regulate the operation of these devices on
roadways within its jurisdiction that. have a sn_eed limit of more
than 35 miles ner hour.
Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 171.01,
subdivision 3, is amended to read:
Subd. 3. [MOTOR VEHICLE.] Every vehicle that is
self- propelled. other than an electric nersonal assistive
mobilitv device as defined in section 169.01_. subdivision 90.
and any vehicle propelled or drawn by a self propelled vehicle,
and not deriving its power from overhead wires except
snowmobiles.
Presented to the governor March 25, 2002
Signed by the governor March 26, 2002, 2:27 p.m.
http /www.revisor.leg.state.nm.us /slaws /2002 /c285.htnil 1/12/05
t
1
s
s a
The egn�ay 1:2.01 H4ndlebar Sag can carryup tat€1"i"bs af'carge
r c tnted eanuertapcttty ad.ttre ar dtebars ,A specraU designed
AaOfnent system ensures a secure ttto the handlebars andcantmV
shaq vvil (e reducin 4 sifts during ridingj /b p &ets €art the a
-rider -side of the bag allow for easVaaccessibitity
handheld'i -tems. Made af heavy duty,.txat&&a
nytan for durability, the bag�inctudes.ha -n
i€�teCrfE argan4xan pocl�etsfgrfEeys�,bvls
etc, n tudes a padded. shier stra p fg�
carrjc -at€zg Else aff yeie€ay kT
€bitricrrls A t1.75" x i!, b.4
41 part rnerst 2
3
k
5
t �3
Z
z
S b
l i t
ii
ti
C ommercial
noti arc rI
a
The Segway Commercial Front Bag can carry up to ten
pounds of cargo: in a sturdy, single compartment M
Ea.
configuration that is constructed of layered polyurethane
and potyethytene, with abrasion resistant polyester coatings.
The lid has a clear panel and folds back for easy access to
cargo. Utility pockets on the inside of the handlebar for q o
handheld items. Mounting frame and hardware included.
MSRP: $147.00
yV jju i
4
This light is recommended for use in tow 'tight
conditions or any time a rider may
interact with traffic Designed to
mar clip onto a belt or other rear
facing strap that
lies at or above
waist height, this
light increases
visibility of the
rider from behind. ft
has an expected run -time of 15 -18 hours on
standard alkaline AA batteries (included).
MSRP: $14;95
rT
Quick Retea
C
The Segway Control Shaft Quick a
Release allows you to quickly install
and remove the Segway HT 's con-
trot shaft without toots. it is con- ffi
structed of lightweight aluminum
with a stainless steel bolt and a
pivot. The unmistakable Segway
logo is laser- etched in silver onto
the black [ever.
z MSRP: $34.95
Y
X( !ri fir. rs �7'fr {3! 1, .::J r.i, ri':. S &!lx ,r S s• f S {i l"tr �.y��
t t F r r s r r c ✓Cy/ Ir a rr s4`i
n' U 3 r ol, ff ✓Y /!s ,z5 f 9 3 57 1p r y 5 r (,P.(x>
v.v f yt 3 Kf f L t ff +1. 4 ✓hl(! l/ rr//r'Y 1( U fss ?firjr rr� �`u r f 3 f y
i'¢C�1 ti Yr. v✓ ;�!g y l. J r j 'I 1 C Y t
r 71
r 3 r s r fz f,li FF
y� r R✓i r S r r t W r f r ..,r✓ y z d /�b
Y z r l e �J r d 4t 4/� ✓l�G �i rY J h f
r.
Ng
l
f rriy.�} I ,•�d t t 9 S (t r r r a t a 7 s a r Ir /5 �>�j f r{ t r .a
u r kr t
Y
a4Sv I! t F5� Ui
t
v
!Y 5'. y ''Y f J r t s r o .f !d� r 7 n 7 /Kr hi' h �f�'z'�ss 3� +r
r f'�h.��y//',�'s �i� �<1r S g ✓li r r Iii f //a .�J >N y �i I( r� 3 ;f l k k <G �v+y r,£� X�
r t e p i f r l {r f f r/ r !f h� f a ti h` t �y
r/.r 'U v i ✓r -.s 5l, r,. ,y 5 P 'lr/ r jl� r j.. f. Yfr r J,(/
�'is` r �'�f. rr r �Y✓ I/ r I r ,:..L !tun _3 s r�:5 f> t "��,f�i� q�'G^'2¢/
r r 1 r r r: l i >s4s r ,Gr, r t73 l r .r a f y;�l p r y r 1l
w�/ :r /,rI r r i 1 rl i x f }3 r 43`7s�� �f1
fr r r r ,s r rf l-F1's r y :3 n C (j �iX l S �,t }1✓ y �,rs{fn�
y x r r r s
yn) ri! i 'u ry. l !a, r a C S b 9/1 r✓ u; 0 r
L�
r
¢4
�'+4ki t` �'�rif f ✓tj lki 4 rl r �VY fl �fi r i '^fct� h F r 1
rI yr fX r f 1 r r r1 f f s( �4 x f fr
O" h
h! r r y ,r. f r/ r f, `t 1 4 v' r r✓ o s r r r♦ r i r 'f r c o y/ �r` I
t
d �s :a� /u T r f �/r/ r f (i r 1 r err f7+ f s r (ful v�� r
j ,+spfi���'4 �I /lnS 1�i r �li t(I r r fTL� /r/ s �i ra x.9 t xh
r .Z:. e 1 /r�, rr� r r r q %f/H G! t S 1f/ J !j s 1 rJ I 9$Y l rI /7 V ?Y �'r a F l,}' ,✓1
y x a n� ff! rr3 r h i >aj i t a r N< f( i/ a
Wl
Ir'K r� f
MA:
ai3 SS fix. 1.,{ r z /;s r !':.;.,y,4r .:i Y�. .1 H r l lP fr y( !.A ;ur J A lir?;( f �fl
'i zy b i.: r f t a �2 ".:r /_r_ r�✓ rr s =P' t7,�'7 rr ri rrr %G' f,; r�k`., f
r
��,y{
Tff v, (lrrtf l rr J; j }qj �!r i�,t t�•r i:%
t rNh`.., 4�,`i �fr' ry�� r ski r ri a f�r N Mi� ✓r� /f vx lf� �.,�fr�l(y! U /7Xr r� /r r �,�y b7 p[r
r r s F
i y
�ira �r f y 5i> e yvi r a' r r t I r Y iir' '�U'�i` /�1Yts G`¢ �i{
r f %ra/ (f rry t t+ r k.. f r s t1'`�(/ rr r�r Y t
i3.� f�✓/(i� r•
1 k A
t I f,�y Y rin C: I'.4 I''K r r 7.:; r r i,. I ff Jy )r3 a x/ 4 of %�rr G,x r �J�r vy 91•t�j�. /�/�J4/yt 4ji�<�� 4
l
rr r r ,fn f 3r3 5 �s r rr t f! ry s l y�( fn:��h i x s r.. i9 iN1 r y r As s r.0;
,s r, `y,t at Xr' fi t: S;�$ f fit$ rh:r f li r /:,s r f� 4, r (.s: 3 4y T f frrlr 3i ?+5vfrx. z� l4 '.3.r 1`' 4. i „f'<
yr �t /j: x� r F r'i. r 4 rVill,
f fr f Y r f -f /r r S 4c, f ry NJ /r l� I„ r f s fY., r t /J i'r r r.
r _..,,frt ,✓r /h r fr y: %f SY y i k I r r s i �t r f rls f$ .i+Y r5� -N! w /t e. Y' °�7U Yn„ fi Yy7/
OWC
t
�rartuire Ben>
Allows the rider to determine the
067: Stack ibeginner) mph appropriate speed for their environment, up
Intetilge ht Yellow (sidewalk)- $mph to 3 -4 times walking speed.
Rod l en onviron enti 412.ra m h
Key's f p Travel with pedestrian traffic, stop and talk
P133; Mack (beginner) ph to a friend, or move quickly in an open
Yeli,ow p enviro nment... you can do it all.
fled )open environ t) -10 mph
wrw, ww
2 Battery racks installed tinder the it coats less than 10 cents a day to charge the
Platform Begray iw1"t".
Recharge i n hours from A fully Auto n sing charging capability mea ns you
depleted battery. 300 -500 irharge cycles only havi to purchase a plug -adapter to be
able to charge in most countries.
Sp ecialty develop tires f b r the Non marring you can take the HT into any
Se wa i�
g y environment )mar ie, tile, carpet, etc.) and
Cll tires won't leave a mark, if you do not have a
7allIhCr traction loss.
1 167: 1 S F'�i
T r';ies To replace, simply loosen one wheel nut,
tires come shipped mounted to the rim for
p1; PSI easy reptacernent.
ti�+Nwr,w,r�w+`wwW` w, �+•�+�ww
fu ly Electronic Con l bards I the case of a component failure, the
�dh#a a Batteries redundant system will safety bring the rider
M Balance Sensor Asserrilbly to a cont rolled s top.
Systems s 6 Motors
ilVi 03 N&tform' Takes .up no more apace than the average
Neight 8,3 in, person on sidewalks.
Size Footprint 19x231in
Weighi
p133; "f'q iba olatfor Portable enough to fit into a trunk of car,
Height 617 In, garage or house for easy storage.
�I f oo'tprint 1 U21,B in.
NOW-
1167: MiinImurn 100 tbs Carries an average adult plus additional 10
Payload
Maximum um 260 strider cargo,) tbs of cargo..
p133: �Minimurn -1 ti ,15.
40
Max, 1110 lbs. {hider terpoi
On a single charge you canjtravel on Great alternative for most snort car trips
Range
average: such as errands and short comm utes. You
can take your Segway Wt to the post office or
IBinC i!
11671 8 W 12 miles bank and store without having to worry about
p133: ,6 -10 miles parking, gas or insurance'
The Be we HT turns b rnbvih the Allows you to interact with other pedestrians
@t"i�1 Turning g y is y p
wheels at different speeds, e'ltowhig you in crowded environments such as elevators
Radius to turn in place. sidewalks without disturbing anyone.
iii'testopi ng Adjusts to comfortebte rl&i g height Allows most people to feet comfortable, and
Handle 1r" collapses to fit in many standard size trunks
For Brookstone Associates use only!!!
G OV
ri r
i�ea ture �+n+0fit
With earrh purtrha e, gegw4y will prod dean EhsUrOt �'1 U'�I t i Ct e prti per
Orientation on site 30 minute Orientation at you r horne. riding techniques, the safety features and
Segway HT etiquette. Included in the
purchase pr'ide,
Speed limiter The safety features were.designed to provi
Sa Stick Shake notification to the rider whe nth
ey are
Featllres operating in an unsafe way or when the
Electronic Leash 5egway HT is no longer able to continue to
Safety 91hVtdown keep them bola a i.
Boland Sentbr 6 ine rtlalratrr sensors i 2 flit sen sors To these sens6rsA4t&InIne your cente
►ee#I�hl�y of mess relative to,grsvityantl make
adjustments by sending signats to them otori.
i
UsPri the st+s ih ri i
g
er g ,g p try pew s the Pov►+ers the wheels tb assist you an rn _1 g ovi
P ower: AsSist
wheels
when you ere not rl ing your anyunevpr,�terrern, up and drswn stairs, or;up
°egwey H rarh end into carp
i ntelligent Keys ON uO igile to each MST Without th keys, s rnarrhine c an not ice used
'h t Solway i� O, Wks to Ohyei�eity �'hysic&l locks serve as a deterrent es well as
I',�lroiecu�re your i�iT, I added difficulty irr theft tj
Each rnrachihe indiv14trally seriatla�d.: Ability to track sorrel number to original owns
i if chine is soldor service is attempted
1 Yea rwarranty 1 1egwaypartnerswith becision.'Oheto provide
ovr$rs ma
jar components wii:hin the power Ion site service.
nt base, 90 dey en we+.r itarns ltiw�es,
fenders, neat, battery, perking stand i othar 'For user replaceable pans 5 Owaywill sib p
user replaceable Items) W sae warrooty directly to the customer.
information
►u�+bt t 54`►AY 1 r�rovides sales, Customer support, technicet
www' ,gwsy{oorm i I suppor t and M odia ,relations
for grookstone Assniat use only!
The Series
tes
`h zir
E:
The SegrvayTm Human Traos a {'WTIr dairies Is the hi ghest performance
p Series is light, compact, and unbelievably HomAn Transporter from Sogwipy. it hr
maneuver able. Whether you're running) larger tires to hanrll.e varied terrpin �ks w�
errands downtown, putting it in your trUbk as greater range and a higher top speed if
or brIngir g it on the subway, the p $ethos your travels tame you off the beaten path
easily fits into your daily routine. the i Series is for you.
E..
S E G W AY° 1228 South 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 WWW.SEGWAYOFMINNESOTA.COM
of Minnesota main 612.333.0301 toll free 1.888.MySegway fax 612.333.0307
March 17, 2005
Mr. Hugo Lindner
5328 Penn Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Lindner,
I am enclosing some literature plus a printout of a "PowerPoint" presentation
supplied by Segway, LLC. Hopefully these will supply some of the information
you are seeking. The Segway Human Transporter is certainly an innovative new
transportation device which we feel is an idea whose time has come.
The website: www.seaway.com answers many questions and I encourage
people interested to go there for more information.
Thank you for your interest in Segway.
Sincerely,
r`
Keith P. Anderson
President
Segway of Minnesota, Inc.
Enc.
ers as rassroots isci les.
1 to create friendly S e q Koav HT co ities
Q,
k�
5:�
un
t
F
Introduction:
Kee Keber
=x
Vice President of Marketing
Customer Activation:
Eric F eming
Rr
e�
Communications Coordinator
�s
rw,
Regulatory /Legislative:
r Matt Dai ida
Director of Government Affairs
��W vim
i
Josh Caldwell, "America at 10 mph"
Credit: www.10mph.com
introduction
As you heard this morning, Segway has a
unique, enthusiastic customer base
We need to harness this energy to enable
long -term success for the product
We all have roles to make this happen
LLC nationwide coordination
Dea ers loca enthusiast group support
Customers energy, work, "doers"
Today, we'll discuss how to get started
what's unique about Segway customers?
Been to www.segwaychat.com?
More than 3,000 registered users
Variety of topics, from hardcore technica
to experientia and phi osophica
discussions
Other b ogs/onli 'nterest
"America at 10 mph"
Engadget
EG,, America Getting Moving
Has incorporated itse f
Vore than 3,550. members
Active executive board
From more than 39 countries
At east 24 chapters beginning to get
organized in North America
Challenge: rans ating on ine
interest 'nto on- the ground action
mn#Ctions. Dealers and Enthusiasts
Dealers are the face of Segway in the
local markets
The customer's experience with the dea er S the
customer's experience with Segway
The compete experience inc udes both the
.product and the peop e
Selling an HT is not like selling other
products
The se ing cyc e is onger
Potentia customers want to be a part of a group,
despite the re ative'rarity of the product
Prospects' know edge of "how to use "where to
use and "why to use" is invited
onn�ctions: Dealers. and Enthusiasts
for local success, sales is a function of
"classic" selling activities as well as
creating the right environment
Easi y -avai ab e rents operations provide
trig opportunities
Enthusiasts can he p create reasons to g ide
Events such as group g ides, Segway Po o, races
Customization (shows)
Leverage thenovelty, excitement of Segway
MT technology
Program 1 Tours
Tours have been successfu wor dwide in many aspects:
Revenue perspective (tours in big cities are typically booked a
week out and average $40 -50 per 90 min. tour)
Customer satisfaction (New riders experience Segway HT in
positive manner —with training, approved setting, with a reason
to ride)
Operator satisfaction (Guided tours are much friendlier on
Segway HTs than rentals)
Community acceptance (Areas that are skeptical about Segway
HT have allowed guided tours as a "test
Consider:
focal landmarks /historic areas
Interesting .neighborhoods
y Parks &recreational area
Other Point A to Point B,experiences
Program lie Tours (cont.
Expand offerings
Current customer focus groups say they'd like discounted
access to machines to rent for visiting family members or
weekends
Planned tours to destinations
Take digita photographs, share on ine another
revenue opportunity
Garmin GPS
Consider Saturday morning coffee g ides for
customers
Free food and coffee
Display new products /accessories
Sell off old stock
t.
w
Sig htsee On A Seg
The self balancing, electric powered two wheeler is the perfect
way to see a lot of a new city in a short time.
1
a
P pre
4.
r
s
�a
,t�skima� wF�eelr, :v.; 4uukly irtY:�,. Ykx cnutsrzt
way W.er<pbrrt ytrp next dextaatgn.
11teream ttxtetrfus,andat; v talicoffilown IIthStMI, the historic Nltssiisippi Kit`er in MianeaV,i,.. l`b,rn= to 1r��sa} reui.d shots
€AS& thug betmeen light poles will pvdtatriatts in Paris. Hangkok. San Diego. t.imd+nt, and Waikiki. with more crHt� offering
is Mir i{h busy 3ntrth ficach, we look like trite Jetvotos them every nratttt.
plop town in Mukx Itirg,JitrDwr lirrlrs. Wecrussthe, III saraarta,'lirul and J;utt-_t Jacob +atr ot.r.tty Fhirida d:irr- (aides. a rental
atree wtug admtruig stares and catcalls; frmnacon- operation that otrerr, .t 'ix -mile tour «'f '�wlttnwn and
ctnretdiApticrtwv ovedmk LL In South Beach. the srgavay other attractions, like ill, bayfrma, art galkrie. and out j� inxilt hack in
coutps6ftAitb the bikini ss an atterttion -g ttm t e'201 for+ grans otthe little pcopk w ho Ntanrd ill he Rn t. l g i:. circus and
Noll know tIwst Ay.'Ihal a:ulf- haiantvlg. twr>rwhtn•kd The (f'i•araf aft >r, %Wre'elling out just alwut all w t 'ay" 1"un "W"
contraption thtw said was going tat revoiutionuw the opened Dmember t and haul takest nu,re than 2,04 W rid, taxtc°
wrtrkl when it calneout threes eAts agar. It rntay not have ht Seattle. Mock Colman :and his partners in Glide t A r: armory till, lirvt
done that,.but it n rvvolutiuniraag a se},'nnent of the to boy` Stgway "W. t1nxsleiered utuaeh'cx marl}' ad�ri,te:. -a, fok•tnarr. '1ti'e�
tourism market_ just th<Htght thee werr snI V-1 t'trat a krt of lx. *plc rwca,<l ..w; t rry therrr
Do4ens of rntreprraeurs acnz+s the gkdry art° rkiw• Michael Coburn, who with hi., will`. Collvelt. rut,- L,,..;i, td—W, in Wum
using the Kit t t wh human trut7turtvr as a vehicle for !leach, beeame a victim of the dot com my when lac r 3 tt joh x,, a m-tvvork
cite tours. On tilt segWaI, Ill', },tu mot crobe the parks eagitux-r in New York. During his +ubwntuent job w:.r, h egad .drtnrt
of Vatuuuver, roll through ,arrcdxnitgc, or glide along rood th+wgkti to hhneetf, tI'hy nr.f att,x a hrrxm._.. rr ,,,,.r y tVht °rr ha tr,ld
Credit: American Way,' American Airlines
in -flight magazine 26 AWRtCANWAY AUGUST 1 2004
HT Safe Glide Zone Ma s
Cho rra� Segway p
Support deve opment
with customers /SEG
America chapter -KONA S E W
g
Desi n we and S afe places to Segway in Kona
make avai ab a in Nu'ae
Pp WAWli.. 39 #rt■. YiL1..ACAE�
i i i a
print at various Karlua
le
.J
HQMCKORAIJ HAi RCA, 7 Rips #16,E
KOkA 69'rttf4NAYttMiAL 4�f:1 a4., 10
o cat Ai�NS:+trt.7 �F r "C4CAr�
of n KAWialHAC, ?3 Mitis r�. l J "IS u►7r�ar et t7rx
Partner with K YM 7
businesses use
x
s t„ m
4l14� z Ma "a@ p
creat�veF reciprocity) L.,;L s A' h
z
Staff identifyi V t..F A ,r„�. L H i it ■o
S \+iR` w y X S".awASt n4X2A
lSi' �C ■0744 Jr+ z L L
we co me d Here"
,r ga ay S,>f� k }�x. ass ss�� HiJRPt V a
entities 'ai;'yW«?Y (Jnrr�Z'K wUh.A OAR�c s�tf ■�•kt e��,� �k Al
2:
Program
wa HT Safe Glide Zone Maps (cont) Seg Y
What does this accomp ish?
Answers:
n
Where can I ride?
What can I do with a Segway HT?
What businesses welcome Segway HT riders?
Mu tiple opportunities to get message out about your
business
Communicates seriousness of product and
commitment to encouraging presence in the
community
haw?
ncentives for oca riders to scope zones
r
U k Summary
Segway customers are active peop e who:
Want reasons to ride their Segway HTs
Want to make it easier for others to experience
Want to see more Segway HTs in use every day
Here's what we've proposed to get started:
Set up a tour business I
-Help us get started on a mapping effort
Engage with your local Segway Enthusiast Group to run some
events
What e se have we missed?
p= ideas from the room...
Public Copy
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
City of Brooklyn Center
March 28, 2005 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 he the citizen
for informational purposes only.
2. Invocation 7 p.m.
3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting
—The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting.
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. March 14, 2005 Study Session
2. March 14, 2005 Regular Session
3. March 14, 2005 Work Session
b. Licenses
C. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for
Bids, Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway
and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements
d. Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Award of a Contract, Improvement
Project No. 2005 -07, 2005 Street Seal Coating
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 28, 2005
e. Resolution Designating Additional Depositories of City Funds
f. Resolution Selecting the No Waiver Option for Statutory Tort Liability
8. Planning Commission Item
a. Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -005 Submitted by Greg A. Nelson.
Request for a Special Use Permit for an Instructional Use in the I -1 (Industrial Park)
Zoning District. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this
application at its March 10, 2005, meeting.
Requested Council Action:
Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -005 subject
to the Planning Commission recommendations.
9. Council Consideration Items
a. Presentation on Hennepin County Joint Community and Police Project
-Requested Council Action:
-None, presentation only.
b. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donations of the Brooklyn Center Lions
Club in Support of the Earle Brown Days Parade and the Entertainment in the Parks
Program
-Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
C. Proclamation Declaring April 3 -9, 2005, to be Community Development Week
Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt proclamation.
d. Resolution Receiving and Accepting Summary of Key Observations and Conclusions
as Prepared by Carl H. Neu, Jr.
Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
e. Request of Watershed Commissions for Comment on Proposed Capital Improvement
Program Cost Sharing Policy
Requested Council Action:
Discuss and provide direction on response to Watershed Commissions.
f Resolution Accepting Engineer's Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing,
48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements
Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 28, 2005
g. Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on
Proposed Special Assessments for 48`" Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage
Improvements
-Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
h. Expanding Audit for Payroll Sampling
Requested Council Action:
Direction on any additional audit activities.
i. An Ordinance Relating to Rental Dwellings and Non Conforming Uses; Amending
City Code Sections 12 -901, 12 -902 and 35 -111
-Requested Council Action:
Motion to introduce first reading and set second reading and public hearing
on June 13, 2005.
Motion to direct Housing Commission to review and report on ordinance
prior to June 13, 2005.
10. Adjournment
City Council Agenda Item No. 7a
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSI.ON
MARCH 14, 2005
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, and
Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City
Manager /Director of Operations Curt BoganeyBD� HoffmanPand City Clerk
Blomstrom, Community Development Director
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
Councilmember Lasman confirmed that the changes she had requested to the February 28, 2005,
Work Session minutes were included in the agenda packet.
Councilmember O'Connor requested the following changes to the minutes:
February 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes "She discussed the
Page 7, relating to Item No. 8a, second to last paragraph, second sentence to read,
water quality issue in the Shingle Creek Watershed and explained that she prefers no curbs and
suggested that possibly in the future it could be looked at to do street improvements with no curbs."
Page 9, relating to Item No. 8b, sixth paragraph to read, "Councilmember O'Connor co h are given
she wished the Federal government would reduce taxes and stop collecting
back to Hennepin County to distribute to cities."
February 28, 2005, Work Session minutes
Page 3, second to last paragraph, last sentence to read, "She stated the resident asked if the
Community Center could purchase more tread mills or repair the broken one." Add the following
sentence, "Mr. McCauley said he would talk to Mr. Glasoe to fix the broken one."
Councilmember Carmody requested the following change to the February 14, 2005, Work Session
minutes:
DRAFT
03/14/05 -1
I
Page 3, fifth paragraph to read, "Developers asked the EDA for their reaction to their design
proposal, and the EDA would like to hear more on the design."
Councilmember Carmody discussed Item No. 10b regarding fish sampling and stated that she
thought the Watershed Commission had already done fish sampling. City Manager Michael
McCauley responded that Dale Finnesgard of Barr Engineering had called and informed him that two
sets of fish were collected and will be tested over the next few months.
Councilmember Niesen stated that she had asked for the fish sampling resolution to be added to the
agenda; however, she noted it was not robust enough. She said since the DNR is already doing the
testing, there is no need for the resolution and it could be removed from the agenda.
Councilmember Carmody informed that she is not in favor of the City paying to bring in someone
from out of state to facilitate a Council retreat and would be voting against Item No. l Od regarding
setting the date and time for the City Council Retreat.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to adjourn the
Study Session at 6:15 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
03/14/05 -2- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
MARCH 14, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM,
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the
Informal Open Forum at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and
Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager
Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom,
Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City
Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson.
No one appeared before Informal Open Forum.
There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the
Informal Open Forum at 6:46 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
2. INVOCATION
Mayor Kragness offered 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 7:01 p.m.
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and
Assistant City Manager/
el McCauley, Ass ty g
t were City Manager y,
Mary O'Connor. Also present ty er Micha g
Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom,
Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City
Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson.
DRAFT
03/14/05 '1'
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
6. COUNCIL REPORT
Councilmember O'Connor reported she received the cable subscriber surveys from Rex Newman
and would give them to the City Manager to copy for Council Members.
Councilmember Lasman reported she attended the March 2, 2005, Opportunity Site Study Area Task
Force meeting, and the first public meeting to receive input would be April 13, 2005.
Councilmember Carmody reported she attended the Shingle Creek Watershed meeting on March 10,
2005.
Mayor Kragness indicated with the significant number of people in the audience, she would like to
add to the Council agenda Public Input/Comment with Item No. 9a2 regarding the CVS Pharmacy
proposal.
Councilmember O'Connor referred to a letter Mayor Kragness had sent to Senator Scheid and
Representative Hilstrom regarding municipal liquor operations. She said she does not support
municipal liquor operations and stated the letter seemed to be written on behalf of the entire Council
She said she would like a correction letter sent to Senator Scheid and Representative Hilstrom.
Mayor Kragness responded that in the past the Council has supported municipal liquor operations,
but she certainly can do a clarification letter that would indicate Councilmember O'Connor's
opposition to municipal liquor operations.
7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Niesen stated she would like to add two items to the agenda; the first would be to
remove Item No. l Ob regarding the fish sampling and replace with Expanded Scope of 2004 Audit,
and the second would be to add Rezoning to Item No. 9a2 regarding the CVS Pharmacy.
Councilmember Carmody raised the question of whether Item Nos. 9a2 and 9a3 should be switched
around. City Manager Michael McCauley responded that it has been the general practice to do the
Planning Commission application first and then the ordinance.
Councilmember Niesen said that if the Council does not take a vote on the rezoning, it will be
approved by inaction, as Mr. McCauley had suggested at the last Council meeting. Mr. McCauley
responded there does not have to be a vote on the rezoning. He stated that what is before the Council
is the Planning Commission application resolution and the first reading of the ordinance setting
Public Hearing. Councilmember Niesen stated it does not make sense to vote on the Planning
Commission application if there is not first a vote on the rezoning. Mr. McCauley referred to the
City Attorney.
03/14/05 -2- DRAFT
City Attorney Charlie LeFevere reviewed the requirements for the 2/3 vote for rezoning land and
explained that rezoning the land is the only act that requires a 2/3 vote. He said the first reading of
the ordinance does not require a 2/3 vote and explained there was nothing on this agenda that
requires a 2/3 vote. He stated by switching Item Nos. 9a2 and 90, it would not result in a vote on
the rezoning and would not require a 2/3 vote.
Councilmember Niesen said she'agreed with the City Attorney; however, if action is not taken by
March 21, 2005, this will go through with the loophole in the Law that was suggested by the City
Manager at the last Council meeting.. She asked the City Manager to suggest what the Council can
do to rectify this problem. Mr. McCauley responded that what the Council requested was an
evaluation of the Law as it relates to rezoning. He said what is before the Council is a statement of
ways in which zoning is adopted and further stated it is the Council's choice with respect on how to
proceed.
Councilmember Niesen said it is unacceptable and if the Council does not vote it will be approved by
inaction by not voting. She again asked the City Manager what the Council can do to rectify this
problem. Mr. McCauley responded that the review of the Law is Item No. 9a1 on the agenda for
Council to consider, and it was in response to Councilmember O'Connor's request for a review of
the Law with regard to a rezoning request.
Councilmember Niesen raised the question of how the Council can vote on the rezoning. She said if
it is not on the agenda, then the Public Hearing would just be a formality. She said the option to
extend the 60 -day period was not included. Mr. McCauley responded that in his memo, provided in
the agenda packet, it is included that the Council has an option to extend the 60 -day period for a
maximum of an additional 60 days upon written notice to the applicant of the reasons for the
extension and the anticipated length of the extension.
Councilmember O'Connor stated she does not believe that the Council has to have a Public Hearing
or that it has only until March 21, 2005, within which to approve the rezoning. She cited Minn. Stat.
15.99 Subd. 2. Mr. LeFevere responded there is no other Statute that he is aware of that this action
cannot be complied within the 60 days, and there is no environmental impact statement required.
Councilmember O'Connor said the rezoning must have a 2/3 vote to pass. Mr. LeFevere responded
,the Law requires that if the Council wants to adopt the ordinance, then it must have at least four
votes to meet the 2/3 requirement.
Councilmember Niesen said she spoke to Senator Scheid who referred her to Dan McGowan, Senate
Council for the State and Local Government Committee, and he concurred with Mr. McCauley `s
review of the statutory requirements. She asked how the Council can avoid this loophole. She said
at the last Council meeting agenda Item No. 9b was the rezoning and it was tabled.
03/14/05 -3- DRAFT
Mr. McCauley said on this agenda Item No. 9a2 is a resolution to approve the Planning Commission
application and Item No. 9a3 is the ordinance approving first reading to hold a Public Hearing to
adopt an ordinance which would make effective the rezoning. Councilmember Niesen said Item No.
9a3 is a first reading of an ordinance, not the rezoning. Mr. McCauley responded that it is the
ordinance that requires a first reading and Public Hearing to effect the rezoning.
Mr. LeFevere stated that at the last Council meeting everything discussed related to the subdivision
and platting, and the application for rezoning is a process that includes the Planning Commission
application and the first reading of an ordinance, which follows with a second reading and Public
Hearing. He said the rezoning does not occur until the ordinance is adopted, and he reviewed the
process for approving ordinances and what constitutes the requirement for the 2/3 vote at the
adoption of the ordinance. He further reviewed that the City Charter states that an ordinance cannot
be adopted at the same time as it is introduced.
Councilmember Niesen said if the Council does not vote on the rezoning and does not take action,
then it will not matter due to Minn. Stat. §462.357.
Mayor Kragness declared the Council is trying to approve an agenda, and the legal ramifications
have already been explained by the City Attorney.
Councilmember Carmody said there are a number of residents in the audience who are interested in
this issue. She said she believes the Council has a responsibility to take an action; however, the
assumption that three members would vote to table the issue is presumptuous. She said she is not
planning to table the item, nor would she support a motion to table the item.
Councilmember Niesen follow the
sen said the Council n this rezoning because it has to fol
unc cannot vote o onm
g
City Charter. She asked the City Manager what he would suggest the Council do to make sure that
the developer does not get this approved by default. Mr. McCauley explained if the Council chooses
to turn down the resolution, then it would have to provide reasons for denial in writing that must be
legally valid for denying a rezoning application and legally defensible. He stated there is the ability
to extend the 60 -day period within which the action is taking place. He further stated it is up to the
Council to decide how it proceeds.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the
agenda and consent agenda with the amendment of moving Item No. 7e from the Consent Agenda to
Council Consideration Item No. l Of; removing Item No. I Ob and replacing with Expanded Scope of
2004 Audit; adding ublic In ut/Commen re Item No. 9 2• and amending the minutes as
g p t before a g
follows:
February 14, 2005, Work Session
Page 3, fifth paragraph to read, "Developers asked the EDA for their reaction to their design
proposal, and the EDA would like to hear more on the design."
03/14/05 -4- DRAFT
February 28, 2005, Regular Session
Page 7, relating to Item No. 8a, second to last paragraph, second sentence to read, "She discussed the
water quality issue in the Shingle Creek Watershed and explained that she prefers no curbs and
suggested that possibly in the future it could be looked at to do street improvements with no curbs."
Page 9, relating to Item No. 8b, sixth paragraph to read, Councilmember O'Connor commented that
she wished the Federal government would reduce taxes and stop collecting taxes which are given
back to Hennepin County to distribute to cities."
February 28, 2005, Work Session
Page 3, second to last paragraph, last sentence to read, "She stated the resident asked if the
Community Center could purchase more tread mills or repair the broken one." Add the following
sentence, "Mr. McCauley said he would talk to Mr. Glasoe to fix the broken one.
Motion passed unanimously.
7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the
February 14, 2005, Work Session minutes as amended; the February 28, 2005, Study Session
minutes; and the February 28, 2005, Regular Session and Work Session minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously.
7b. LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the
following list of licenses:
MECHANICAL
Midwest Heating Air Conditioning 26355 Tucker Road, Rogers
RENTAL
Renewal:
3012 -18 51st Ave N (Two Family) Steven Debra Elhardt
5322 72nd Ave N (Single Family) Lenita Elon
7200 -7224 Camden Ave N Sean Bannerman
Evergreen Apartments (80 Units)
5637 Emerson Ave N Sin le Family) Douglas Pederson
g Y) g
4708 Lakeview Ave N (Single Family) Gary Scherber
5030 Lilac Drive (Single Family) Adelaide Cassell
5900 Washburn Ave N (Single Family) John &Gail Lamberte)
03/14/05 -5- DRAFT
Initial:
3213 62nd Ave N (Single Family) Rishiram Khaimraj
5444 Camden Ave N (Single Family) Jon Helgason
6613 Camden Drive (Single Family) Mark Herstrom
6124 Emerson Ave (Single Family) Nicolas Lewis
2318 Ericon Drive (Single Family) Fong Yang
6301 Grimes Ave N (Single Family) Mai Her
6736 Quail Ave N (Single Family) Henry Yang
TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT
Dollar Saver 6090 Shingle Creek Parkway
Motion passed unanimously.
7c. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, LIONS PARK SOUTH AREA
STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -42
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01, 02, 03, AND 04,
LIONS PARK SOUTH AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
7d. RESOLUTION DEFERRING SCHEDULED SOLICITATION OF
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS ON PROSECUTION SERVICES
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -43
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DEFERRING SCHEDULED SOLICITATION OF REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS
ON PROSECUTION SERVICES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
03/14/05 -6- DRAFT
7e. RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU,
JR.
This item was moved from the Consent Agenda to Council Consideration Item No. l Of
8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
8a. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL
COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT
PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS
1. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY
TAX ROLLS
2. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WEED
REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
3. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
Mr. McCauley referred to the staff report and said these are the Public Hearings to receive public
comments on certifying special assessments for diseased tree removal costs, delinquent weed
removal costs, and delinquent public utility service accounts.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the
Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the Council.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the
Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -44
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL
COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
03/14/05 -7- DRAFT
I
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -45
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT WEED
REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
n for adoption the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded b
The motto r the a o t of h
p g g Y Y Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -46
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY
SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
8b. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE
CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE,
AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
1. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING
DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, CONTRACT 2004 -H,
SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET,
STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. McCauley said there are two Public Hearings for the improvement project and introduced
Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom to provide a presentation on the scope of
the project and the proposed special assessments.
Mr. Blomstrom said the first Public Hearing is to take public input and order the improvements and
authorize development of plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Shingle
Creek Parkway and Summit Drive street, storm drainage, and utility improvements, and the second
Public Hearing is to take public input and consider certification of proposed special assessments for
the project.
Mr. Blomstrom displayed a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project, which includes
f the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit
roadway, drainage, utility improvements or
Y, e g, Y p g Y
Drive area, 69th Avenue North, and the Palmer Lake pedestrian trail. He said this project was
included in the 2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He reviewed the improvement needs that
were identified in the feasibility report as follows:
03/14/05 -8- DRAFT
i
Street Improvements replacement of segments of deteriorated curb, sidewalk,
pavement, center median, traffic signal loop detectors, and pavement marks and
construction of a right turn lane at the intersection of 69th Avenue North and Shingle
Creek Parkway;
Storm Drainage Improvements replacement of segments of storm sewer along
Summit Drive, reconstruction of a storm sewer vault near City Hall, and replacement
of structure castings;
Water Main Improvements replacement of various hydrants and rehabilitation of
16 -inch diameter water valves;
Sanitary Sewer Main Improvements replacement of segments of sanitary sewer
pipes and access structures along Summit Drive;
Trail Improvements replacement of segments of the Palmer Lake bituminous
pedestrian trail, eliminating the parallel trails and expanding the trail to 10 -feet wide.
Mr. Blomstrom reviewed the project budget and the various funds that would pay for the cost of this
project. He said Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway are State Aid roads. He explained that
the bid will include an option with or without the Earle Brown Heritage Center parking lot. He
reviewed the special assessment payment options as follows:
1. Pay in full no interest between March 15 and September 30, 2005.
2. Pay in full from October 1 to November 29, 2005, with interest calculated at 5.5 percent.
3. Pay in installments with property taxes over a ten -year period starting in 2006 with
interest calculated at 5.5 percent.
Mr. Blomstrom discussed the preliminary project schedule which anticipates the project being bid
May 3, 2005, with substantial completion by September 15, 2005. He explained there will be a
preconstruction meeting that all property owners in the area will be notified and encouraged to
attend. He stated other forms of communication with property owners will be a newsletter, the
construction hotline, the City's Website, and the City Construction Coordinator.
Councilmember Niesen inquired about the addition of the turn lane on 69th Avenue North and if the
Holiday Commissary contributed to that traffic. Mr. Blomstrom responded affirmatively that they
contributed to the traffic, but only marginally to the total traffic counts. He further stated as part of
the development agreement, Holiday Commissary contributed approximately 50 percent of the costs
of the improvement.
Councilmember Niesen inquired why the Earle Brown Heritage, Center parking lot would be a
separate bid. Mr. Blomstrom responded that with a City improvement project, large companies bid
on long sections of streets and trails and it may not be the lowest bid for the parking lot.
Councilmember O'Connor inquired if bonds would be sold to cover the cost of this project. Mr.
Blomstrom responded that bonds were necessary for the special assessments which are
approximately $272,000.
03/14/05 -9- DRAFT
Councilmember O'Connor noted there were several parcels owned by the City and inquired how the
City would pay its assessments. Mr. McCauley responded that it comes out of the Street
Construction Fund which is from property taxes.
Councilmember O'Connor raised the question of street closure. Mr. Blomstrom responded that
along Shingle Creek Parkway there would be one lane of traffic kept open and the entire road would
not be closed.
Councilmember Carmody inquired about the sinking portion of the trail. Mr. Blomstrom responded
there is a portion of the trail that is on a peat bog which is not included in this project, and he
suggested using out the life of the bituminous and replacing with a woodchip trail in the future.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to open the
Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the Council.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to close the
Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -47
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14, CONTRACT
2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE,
AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
2. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, CONTRACT 2004 -H,
SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET,
STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
Mayor Kragness introduced Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project No.
2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and
Utility Improvements.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to open the
Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
03/14/05 -10-
DRAFT
No one wished to address the Council
There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the
Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -48
Councilmember Niesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
2004 -14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET,
STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX
ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Lasman. Motion passed unanimously.
8c. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND
(SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 71ST AVENUE NORTH AND BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD)
Mr. McCauley said this ordinance is the final step relating to the Osseo School District's replatting
and rezoning for its adult education facility.
Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren said the ordinance amendment would re- describe the
properties that were part of the rezoning in the southwest quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 71 st
Avenue North. He said the Planning Commission and Council reviewed the proposal and request to
rezone and the site and building plan application. He said the Council approved the preliminary plat
which established the new legal description which is used in this ordinance amendment. The matter
had been tabled by the Council at a number of meetings because the final details on the final plat had
not been before the Council. He said the final plat had been filed.
Councilmember. O'Connor raised the question whether approval of this ordinance requires a 2/3
vote. Mr. McCauley responded affirmatively.
Councilmember O'Connor said she reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and it did not suggest
changing this quadrant to commercial. She said she does not believe the Osseo School District has
money to spend on this type of building when there are children to teach, and the money could be
used for a new K -12 school. She also stated it is a public building and the City would be receiving
no taxes. She said she is against this ordinance change.
Mr. Warren requested to comment and explained that the Planning Commission and the Council did
review the application with respect to the consistency and the proposed rezoning with the
03/14/05 -11- DRAFT
Comprehensive Plan. He said the provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and the Brooklyn
Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study are somewhat mixed; however after review, Public Hearing,
and recommendation, it was found that the proposal was consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan which would allow for an expansion of a commercial /service office infill type of rezoning in
that area.
Councilmember Niesen inquired about the 60 -day rule with regard to this application. Mr. Warren
responded that the 60 -day rule applies to all Planning Commission applications that are submitted by
applicants requesting a zoning determination. He said when an application is received, the date is
stamped on the application and it is noted when the 60 -day period expires. He further stated the
applicant needs an answer within that 60 -day timeframe to be compliant with State Law. He
explained an answer was given to the school district with regard to the preliminary plat, rezoning,
and site and building plan approval.
Mayor Kragness said that according to the materials provided in the agenda packet the application
was approved by the Council on November 8, 2004.
Mr. Warren explained that in the Zoning Ordinance all of the property is listed by zoning type and in
order to rezone and move the designation from one section of the ordinance to another, the ordinance
has to be amended. He said the ordinance amendment is required to go through the process of a first
reading and second reading and Public Hearing according to the City Charter. He further stated with
regard to a rezoning from residential to commercial, the 2/3 vote is required on adoption of the
ordinance.
There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to re -open
the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the Council.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the
Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Carmody responded to Councilmember O'Connor's earlier comments regarding the
use of the school district funds. She said this was a bond issue that was approved by the voters in the
Osseo School District, and she did not believe it was appropriate for the Council to tell the Osseo
School Board how to spend its money, as well as it would not be appropriate for the Osseo School
Board to tell the Council how it should spend its money.
Councilmember Niesen asked what the implication would be if this ordinance was not adopted. Mr.
LeFevere responded he would like to first caution the Council that the question of whether the school
district needs this money or how they spend this money is not a proper consideration for rezoning.
He said the basis for the decision must be on the land use zoning. He said he believes it would not
be legally defensible to turn this down, as it is not a legally sufficient basis to turn it down.
03/14/05 -12- DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 -01
Councilmember Carmody introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 71 ST AVENUE
NORTH AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember
Lasman. Voting in favor: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, Councilmember Lasman,
and Councilmember Niesen. Voting against: Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed.
8d. AN ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIN DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS WITHIN LANG ADDITION, REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 LANG
ADDITION AND CENTER BROOK ADDITION
Mr. McCauley said this is another one of the components of the property located at the southwest
corner of 71st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard for Independent School District No. 279
which vacates utility easements that were determined by the Public Works Department to be
unnecessary for purposes of utilities.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to re -open
the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the Council.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the
Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember O'Connor raised the question of whether the vacating of this easement would cut
utilities to homes. Mr. Blomstrom responded that the utility companies are not currently using this
easement.
ORDINANCE NO. 2005 -02
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIN DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN
LANG ADDITION, REPLAT OF BLOCK 2 LAND ADDITION AND CENTER BROOK
ADDITION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Voting in favor: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, Councilmember Lasman,
and Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed.
03/14/05 -13- DRAFT
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM
9a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-003 SUBMITTED BY
BEAR CREEK CAPITAL, LLC. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R -1
AND C -1 TO PUD /C -2 AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
THROUGH THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) PROCESS FOR
A 13,000 SQ. FT. CVS PHARMACY ON A PROPOSED 1.53 ACRE SITE
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10 AND
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD. THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS
FEBRUARY 17, 2005, MEETING. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED FROM THE
FEBRUARY 28, 2005, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
1. PRESENTATION ON ZONING CHANGE ADOPTION RULES
Mr. LeFevere said he would start by clarifying the 60 -day rule and explained that the Legislature
requires that public bodies act within 60 days from the date of application on a rezoning, as well as a
whole host of other land issues. He said if the Council were to deny the application, it must adopt
findings that are legally valid reasons for denying it. He explained the Council can extend the 60
days for an additional 60 days if it feels that it needs the additional time, and the applicant can agree
to or waive the 60 -day rule or consent to an extension of time. He explained that whether it is 60
days, 120 days, or whatever timeframe, there is a deadline that the Council must either approve or
deny and give reasons and if they do not do either of those things, then the application becomes
approved by the passage of time. He explained there are several reasons that a Council might not act
on an application within the 60 days, such as the majority of the Council chooses not to act, or
inadvertence, or inclement weather, or there is no quorum; if there is no action, then the Law says
that is an approval. He said the critical item is the application for a rezoning and explained the event
that requires the extraordinary majority 2/3 vote, which for Brooklyn Center is 4 of the 5 members, is
the final act of adoption of the ordinance. He further explained there is another peculiarity of the 60-
day rule and outlined that if a member moves for approval and it passes, then the application is
approved; if a member moves for denial and it passes, then that is considered action within the 60
days; if a member moves approval but it fails, then the dissenting members would have to state in the
minutes the legally sufficient reasons for denial; and if there is a motion to deny and it fails he said it
does not matter, the motion just fails.
Mr. LeFevere reviewed again that the reasons for denial must be written, legally defensible, and
legally sufficient otherwise they could be arbitrary and capricious and would not be sustained and
may not be considered a statement for reasons. He said the reasons must be in the public interest and
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. LeFevere referred to the Comprehensive Plan and explained that it is the planning document that
other official controls are built on and it is put into effect to conform with the zoning code and the
City is required to conform the zoning code to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted in order to change
the Comprehensive Plan, it would require a 2/3 vote.
03/14/05 -14- DRAFT
Mr. LeFevere outlined the requirements for a super majority vote, which would require four votes to
rezone residential land to commercial or industrial use. He said that all of these steps prior to the
final adoption require only a simple majority vote to pass. He further stated the final action is the
adoption of the ordinance, which is not on the agenda for the Council to approve this evening and
cannot be on the agenda because it requires publication and Public Hearing.
Mr. LeFevere said this affects valuable property rights, and the Constitution requires that the action
be defensible and cannot be arbitrary and capricious in order to sustain an action in the area of land
use. He said there has to be legally sufficient reasons related to the health, safety, and welfare to
justify its decision.
Councilmember Niesen said she believed that Mr. Warren stated that it met the ,60 -day rule and
asked for clarification. Mr. Warren responded that all the requirements of the Law must be
completed in order to accomplish the rezoning. He said there were two applications filed; the first
was the preliminary plat, which the Planning Commission reviewed and held a Public Hearing and
the Council approved; the second application was for a PUD (Planned Unit Development), which is
a rezoning with a development plan in hand, and it was forwarded to the Council.
Mr. Warren reviewed the procedure, explaining the date the application is received in the
Community Development Department is the date the clock begins for the 60 -day period. He said
there are provisions in the ordinance which require notice, publication, and Public Hearing. He
stated once an application is submitted there are a number of requirements that must be met on the
part of the applicant, and the applicant is required to submit in writing its justification for consistency
with Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinance. He explained that with all the requirements for
publication and notice to property owners within 350 feet of the property, it takes about 30 days of
the 60 -day time period to comply with those requirements before the Planning Commission has had a
chance to review it. He said the Council had asked that the Planning Commission not leave the
Council with its decision to be made on the last day of the 60 -day period. He stated the Planning
Commission has altered its procedures for review of a rezoning request. He further stated that
typically the zoning request would be referred to the Neighborhood Advisory Committee for review;
however, because of the Statute with the 60 -day limit, the Planning Commission altered its
procedure to meet the 60 days in order to get the application to the Council for approval in a timely
fashion. He said the Planning Commission invites the Neighborhood Advisory Committee to the
meeting at which the Public Hearing would take place, provides the Advisory Committee with the
materials submitted by the applicant, and requests input. He said the Planning Commission has
always taken these matters under consideration, held a Public Hearing, reviewed the ground rules
that have been laid out for evaluating a rezoning, and formally given the Council a set of findings
through a resolution.
Councilmember Niesen referred to the conditions and considerations included in the resolution and
inquired if the resolution were adopted, would it mean that the rezoning was approved. Mr. Warren
responded that approval of the resolution indicates to the applicant that the Council is approving the
findings of the Planning Commission and the rezoning is approved. He continued that there are
other legal requirements to accomplish the rezoning.
03/14/05 -15- DRAFT
Councilmember Niesen raised the question of how this works if the resolution only requires a simple
majority vote but the rezoning requires a 4/5 vote. Mr. LeFevere responded that State Law requires a
I
2/3 vote to approve rezoning. He suggested that the resolution may
need to be modified to include
that the resolution does not rezone the property and the approval is contingent upon completion of a
rezoning. Councilmember Niesen responded that she would like to add the City Attorney's
suggested wording as a condition in the resolution.
2. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-003 SUBMITTED BY BEAR
CREEK CAPITAL LLC
Mr. Warren said the applicant, Bear Creek Capital, LLC, is seeking rezoning from R -1 and C -1 to
PUD /C -2 of five contiguous lots located at the northwest corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn
Boulevard and development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for
a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy. He said three of the five residential lots are zoned C -1, which is a
non- conforming use, and if the homes were destroyed more than 50 percent, they could not be rebuilt
and the property would need to be consistent with the C -1 zoning. He explained the applicant's plan
is to demolish and/or otherwise remove the five existing single family homes and other accessory
buildings to build a 13,000 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy, which would have cross driving, parking, and
access rights with the neighboring dental center site to the north.
With regard to access, Mr. Warren said the applicant and Hennepin County have tentatively agreed
to a proposal that will allow joint use of accesses to the CVS site and the dental clinic site. He said
that the seven existing accesses to the County roads would be closed with two new full access points
being established, one at the very northeast corner of the dental clinic site and the other at the very
southwest corner of the CVS site. He said that a "right in only" access will be established off
Brooklyn Boulevard to the CVS drive lane and parking lot; the median on Brooklyn Boulevard will
be shortened on the north end; and the median break on County Road 10 will be closed; and the left
turn lane from County Road 10 to northbound Brooklyn Boulevard will be extended to just east of
the proposed new access to the CVS site. He said Hennepin County had indicated that the proposal
had addressed traffic concerns and was an improvement to the intersection.
Mr. Warren directed the Council's attention to the Planning Commission information sheet and
referred to Page 2 of the report which deals with the zoning guidelines and criteria used to judge
whether it shou ld be favorable. He said the City Engineer had reviewed the site plan and made
ty E g P
comments relating to the site and building plan, and those conditions are included in the resolution.
He referred to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -01 that was adopted by the Planning
Commission at its February 17, 2005, meeting. He said the Planning Commission holds a Public
Hearing, takes input, and then takes formal action and lists its findings and conditions in a resolution.
He reviewed the six conditions included on Pages 1 and 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No.
2005 -01. He explained the applicant requested a variance from the 35 -foot buffer that is required
along the west side of the site. He said the Planning Commission believed the modification from the
C -2 standard is justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of the
area and it is offset or mitigated by various factors, including additional landscaping to provide
03/14/05 -16- DRAFT
I
additional screening from the abutting R -1 properties. He reviewed the landscaping and screening
requirements, noting the applicant proposes an 8 -foot high opaque maintenance free compost fence
along with extensive landscaping.
Mr. Warren referred to Pages 2 -21 and 2 -22 of the Comprehensive Plan, relating to Brooklyn
Boulevard, and stated it recommends gradually eliminating single family homes and replacing them
with either commercial and office /service uses or high- and medium density residential uses. He
displayed Figure 2 -3 of the Comprehensive Plan 2020 and referred to the recommended land use for
the northwest corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10, which is identified as retail
business. He said the Planning Commission did review this and did state this proposal is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He explained that is the key factor, and if the proposed plan
does not meet or is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, then it should not be approved. He
said the Planning Commission finds all of the factors necessary to consider favorably for rezoning
have been met by the developer.
Mr. Warren said the Planning Commission also reviewed the site and building plan and
recommended 19 conditions in its resolution. He said the Planning Commission's consideration, the
staff report, the aspects of the rezoning that were evaluated, the portions of the City Ordinances
relating to zoning that have been met, and the recommendation and conclusion by the Planning
Commission are that the applicant met that test and therefore recommended approval. He said a
resolution is offered for consideration by the Council. He stated if the Council makes findings that
are land use related, then it can choose to deny the application; however, citing that the City does not
need another drug store or suggesting that there are other sites available are not legally sustainable or
defensible. He said CV S reviewed other locations and were not interested in the other locations and
are pursuing this location.
2.1. PUBLIC INPUT /COMMENT
Cheryl Lungura, renting one of the properties to be removed, addressed the Council and said she
believes the proposal is good because the houses were supposed to be removed and this area
developed as commercial. She indicated there a number of conditions with her house that need
repair and fixing which would cause an increase in her rent. She said the landlord has offered her an
opportunity to purchase her own home at a price that she could afford. She stated the traffic has
always been horrible, many accidents occur, and she believes it would help significantly to eliminate
the driveways. She further stated that she does not see a use for this property as a park or school, as
it is not a safe place for children. She encouraged the Council to grant approval of the CVS
Pharmacy proposal.
Kristen Mann, 5415 East Twin Lake Boulevard, addressed the Council and expressed concerns
regarding residents in the southwest neighborhood exiting onto County Road 10 from Drew Avenue
North. She inquired about the proposed left turn lane heading eastbound on County Road 10 and
how far westerly it would extend. Mr. Warren responded that the turn lane would extend down to
just prior to the driveway on the home that remains on the corner of Drew Avenue North and County
Road 10. Ms. Mann said if there is a redevelopment before the Council and it does meet the
03/14/05 -17- DRAFT
i
Comprehensive Plan, then the Council should follow the Comprehensive Plan and preserve the
integrity of the neighborhood that this project would abut. She expressed a concern with the narrow
buffer behind the dental clinic, noting that it currently narrow and does not think it will be improved.
She further stated the plan shows that parking will be shared with the neighboring property and there
may not be enough parcels combined to allow for the necessary parking to meet the requirements.
Phil Cohen, 5501 Humboldt Avenue North, addressed the Council and said this proposal goes
beyond the neighborhood and affects the entire community. He said this type of development
requires no public funds, increases the tax base, offers employment opportunities, provides consumer
choice, and meets the Comprehensive Plan requirements. With regard to tax base, he said it would
increase from $9,379 to $90,000 in taxes and this tax base would also help the school district. He
stated there are many more difficult projects that will require public funds, and this project is a clean,
simple project that does not require public funding and should be given favorable consideration. He
reviewed a situation that occurred a number of years ago when he served on the City Council in
development was denied b the Council and the City which a proposed d tY was sued and lost. He
p Y
encouraged the Council to work out a compromise to avoid litigation.
Tim Barrett, Bear Creek Capital, LLC, addressed the Council and said he believed after hearing all of
the input that it comes down to property rights. He said Bear Creek Capital, LLC, reviewed the
City's Comprehensive Plan and researched so that what they brought to the community was going to
be well received and successful. He reviewed the history of the CVS Pharmacy, explaining it has
been around for 70 years and the company own its stores. He said in relation to the Comprehensive
Plan, the CVS proposal meets the criteria. With regard to the parking lot, he said there is enough is
parking, but the combined parking lot with the dental clinic site allowed them to reduce curb cuts
from eight cuts to three along the County roads. He said Hennepin County approved the plan and
commended them on the curb cut reduction. He stated CVS Pharmacy will bring competitive prices
and believes it will succeed. He concluded by stating that it meets all the criteria and the
Comprehensive Plan and asked for favorable consideration.
Delores Hanson, 3918 58th Avenue North, addressed the Council with a concern regarding the traffic
on County Road 10 and exiting her driveway. She discussed there are other vacant properties and
suggested other sites for the CVS Pharmacy and questioned who would benefit from this
redevelopment. Mayor Kragness responded Hennepin County did a study that indicated this
proposed plan will improve the traffic flow. Councilmember Carmody responded by reviewing
some of the sites that are vacant as follows: the Jerry's NewMarket site was too large and is not for
sale; the Rainbow Foods site has a proposed tenant; across the street from the Fire Department was
not available; and the mall where Pep Boys is located is under eminent domain, so these sites were
not available to CVS.
Tim Willson, 7007 Dallas Road, addressed the Council and said he is currently the Chair of the
Planning Commission and was fortunate to have served on the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. He
said he spent a lot of time studying the Comprehensive Plan, and according to the Comprehensive
Plan, this site is a win/win for the City. He stated the City was not involved in taking any of the land
or investing in the proposal, and it meets and exceeds the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan. He
03/14/05 -18
DRAFT
continued the developer has worked with all the land owners and purchased the land and has done
this project on their own. He further stated the City and Planning Commission has no input on where
a developer can put its property when it is a private development. He said on behalf of the Planning
Commission, he recommends approval by the Council.
Mayor Kragness asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there being none, she
commended the Planning Commission and the Community Development Department.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman to adopt Resolution Regarding the Disposition of
Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 Submitted by Bear Creek Capital, LLC.
Councilmember Niesen requested to insert the zoning clarification that the City Attorney had
previously outlined. Mr. LeFevere said that a condition could be added and suggested the following
language, "Approval of this resolution does not constitute rezoning of the property and approval of
PP
the plan is contingent on rezoning of the property."
Councilmember Carmody raised the question of whether the rezoning had to occur before the 60 -day
time period. Mr. LeFevere responded the Council does not have to rezone the property; it could deny
it, extend it, or approve it. He said a rezoning ordinance with a 4/5 vote will have to be passed, or
the 60 -day rule will have to operate to cause the rezoning to occur, or a court will have to order the
rezoning because it doesn't find there is sufficient basis to uphold the Council's findings. He
reiterated the Council would have to adopt the ordinance to effect the zoning.
I
There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to amend
the resolution and extend the time period for another 60 days to move past March 21, 2005.
Councilmember Carmody raised the question of the implication if the Council were to approve both
the resolution and the first reading of the ordinance on a 3 -2 vote.
Councilmember Niesen said unless the Council approves the 60 -day extension, it won't matter if the
Council holds the Public Hearing because the 60 days will have expired and the rezoning will be
approved by inaction of the Council.
Mr. LeFevere said if the Council does not want the ordinance to be adopted by operation of the 60-
day rule, the Council will have to direct staff to do an extension of time. He said if the Council
wants to prevent the ordinance from being adopted because the 60 days has run out, then the only
way the Council can stop that from happening is by directing staff to give notice of an extension up
to 60 days.
Mayor Kragness commented after all the input and technical and legal information that was provided
tonight, she doesn't believe that the Council would have a reason to deny this zoning change.
Mr. Barrett addressed the Council and stated that the people who live in those homes are putting
their lives on hold. He said if the Council is going to deny the application, then do it as a group and
03/14/05 -19- DRAFT
state the reasons. He indicated CVS is entitled to due process and that includes delivery of what the
Comprehensive Plan has directed the Council to do. He said if the Council chooses to deny this
application, then do so and CVS will take the actions they need to take.
Councilmember O'Connor said this plan does not have the 35 -foot buffer required to abut residential
property and, therefore, she will not vote for it. Mr. Barrett responded he cannot disagree with that
but can work through that issue. He said it is an issue of site plan and does not govern zoning and
suggested adding a condition to help meet that need to satisfy that issue Mr. LeFevere responded
and explained that the reason the application is for a PUD /C -2 is because it does not meet the
requirement of the 35 -foot buffer; however, the applicant proposed alternative mitigation measures
which the Planning Commission found adequate. He said the PUD is not just a site plan approval,
but is a Planned Unit Development and is all about the buffer because that i� the only non-
conforming issue and it wouldn't be a PUD without the buffer issue.
Councilmember Carmody seconded the aforementioned motion on adoption of Resolution Regarding
Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -003 Submitted by Bear Creek Capital,
LLC.
The question was called on the motion to amend the resolution and extend the time period for
another 60 days to move past March 21, 2005. Voting in favor: Councilmember Niesen and
Councilmember O'Connor. Voting against: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, and
Councilmember Lasman. Motion failed.
There was a motion by Councilmember O'Connor, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to table the
resolution until after the Council decides on the zoning issue.
Councilmember Niesen said if the Council doesn't vote on an extension, then it will pass by inaction.
Councilmember Carmody said she does not want this to drag on and she believes she is taking action
by voting for approval, as it moves it on, the 60 days expire, and it goes through. She said by not
turning this down, it is taking action.
Councilmember Niesen withdrew her second on the motion to table the resolution until after the
Council decides on the zoning issue. Motion dies for lack of a second.
Councilmember Niesen said there are many issues in the Comprehensive Plan, and it supports the C-
1 service /office for the proposed site, and this proposal is retail. She stated the only reference to
retail is in the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study. She expressed her concerns for the
business on the corner as the traffic, safety, and exiting from her neighborhood which is difficult to
navigate. She stated she received phone calls and e -mail from people who agree that the traffic is a
problem and do not favor this proposal. She said there are legitimate concerns with this proposal,
indicating the 35 -foot buffer; however, the applicant stated it could be worked out. She said the
Comprehensive Plan and the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study do comprehend
removing the houses along Brooklyn Boulevard and that has been something that the Council has
supported moving toward. She continued what hasn't been supported is moving an encroachment
03/14/05 -20 DRAFT
down onto Bass Lake Road, and it is not indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. She referred to the
Comprehensive Plan and discussed the area south of 59th Avenue North. Mr. Warren responded that
the comment in the Comprehensive Plan is referring to 59th Avenue
North on the east side of
Brooklyn Boulevard between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. He further stated the
Comprehensive Plan clearly recommends retail business for this corner and displayed the map
labeled Figure 2 -3. He said it is a neighborhood commercial node, and retail business is exactly
what the applicant is requesting.
Councilmember Niesen discussed the parking, expressing the proposal seems too big to fit in that
location and there is traffic safety concerns. Mr. Warren requested to comment and said the right in
only from Brooklyn Boulevard was recommended by the County. With regard to the buffer, he said
Section 35 -355 of the City Ordinance clearly states an applicant can modify from the general
underlying C -2 requirements of the C -2 zoning designation given plan consideration and mitigating
circumstances and those are the findings and recommendations that have been made by the Planning
Commission. He further stated the buffer the applicant proposes in lieu of the 35 -foot buffer is
considered to be adequate and appropriate due to the plan that has been submitted.
Councilmember Niesen said traffic is very heavy and it is very difficult to get out of the
neighborhood. She said the traffic will increase and the sidewalks are close to the street. Mr.
Warren responded this particular development will not increase traffic to any appreciable extent on
either Brooklyn Boulevard or County Road 10, as it is not a destination generator. He said he does
not believe the development will create traffic that will cause gridlock.
Councilmember Niesen said she has learned that no other sites are available and understands that
availability of other sites is not a zoning issue. She inquired if CVS Pharmacy will be open 24 hours.
Mr. Barrett responded that at this time it will not be a 24 -hour pharmacy, noting that determination is
generally based on customer needs.
Councilmember O'Connor said the traffic turning in and out of the pharmacy will create more
accidents. She said it is more of a drive through area and not a neighborhood oriented area, and it
would be difficult for a walker to get to the site with the sidewalk so close to the street. She further
stated the 35 -foot buffer is not compliant with the zoning requirements. Mr. Warren responded the
only area where the 35 -foot buffer is required is along the property line from the CVS Pharmacy to
the residential and explained the dental clinic property is only a 15 -foot buffer requirement. He said
the mitigated buffer that is offered is about a 33 -foot buffer with an eight -foot fence and the Planning
Commission has recommended approval.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -49.
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICATION NO. 2005 -003 SUBMITTED BY BEAR CREEK CAPITAL, LLC
03/14/05 -21- DRAFT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Voting in favor: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, and Councilmember
Lasman. Voting against: Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember O'Connor, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to direct
staff to initiate a 60 -day extension. Voting in favor: Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember
O'Connor. Voting against: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Carmody, and Councilmember
Lasman. Motion failed.
3. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY
ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
CERTAIN LAND (NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10
AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD)
Councilmember Niesen said she doesn't see the need to hold the Public Hearing. Mr. McCauley
responded that since there has not been an extension, the request would be deemed approved. He
said generally the resolution and introduction of the ordinance are within the 60 -day period and
assuming the Council has approved those, the rezoning in the ordinance becomes more of a
housekeeping item that follows up based on the expression of the Council's will. He stated it is up
to the Council if it wants to introduce the ordinance and set the date of Public Hearing for April 11,
2005.
Councilmember O'Connor said she would be voting against the ordinance amendment because she
does not want to change the zoning.
Councilmember Carmody said she is taking action on this application by voting on it. She said she
wanted to decide on this issue and not drag it out.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve
first reading, which sets second reading and public hearing for April 11, 2005. Voting in favor:
Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman. Voting against: Councilmembers
Niesen and O'Connor. Motion passed.
10a. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
COORDINATING BOARD'S LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO CREATE A
VIABLE SOLUTION FOR ELECTRONIC WASTE
Amy Roering, Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services, addressed the Council and
said the resolution is in support of the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board's legislative
initiative to create a solution to the growing amount of electronic waste. She stated the Solid Waste
Management Coordinating Board consists of two commissioners from each of the counties of
Anoka, Carver, Hennepin, Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington. She said Hennepin County has run a
recycling program since 1992.
03/14/05 -22 DRAF T
Councilmember Lasman raised the question of what is a viable solution. Ms. Roering responded
there are five different elements, including shared responsibility among manufacturers, retailers, and
generators; reliable and convenient collection options; responsible recycling of CRTs; a mechanism
to address the backlog of CRTs; and a preference for cost internalization or advance recycling fee
over end -of -life fees.
Ms. Roering explained there are four bills in the Legislature right now which have different
mechanisms.
Councilmember Niesen inquired about the advanced fee and is not in favor of it. She said it would
be more sensible to pay to recycle the electronic waste at drop -off rather than when it is purchased.
She inquired if businesses were already addressing this issue. Ms. Roering responded that is another
solution in one of the bills, and Hennepin County is reviewing all of the bills.
Councilmember O'Connor inquired what would happen if nothing passed, since there already is a
law that will take effect July 1, 2005. Mr. Roering responded that as of July 1, 2005, it will be illegal
for anyone to throw electronic devices with a CRT in the garbage.
Councilmember O'Connor said even if this resolution is not passed, it will it still be the
responsibility to recycle electronic waste properly.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -50
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COORDINATING BOARD'S
LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO CREATE A VIABLE SOLUTION FOR ELECTRONIC WASTE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Voting against: Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed.
RECESS
Council recessed at 10:23 p.m. and reconvened at 10:28 p.m.
10b. EXPANDED SCOPE OF 2004 AUDIT
Councilmember Niesen said she would like an expanded scope of the 2004 audit to include payroll
sampling. She read a memorandum she drafted.
Councilmember Lasman indicated she is opposed to spending any additional money to do the audit
sampling. She also stated she believes the auditor does a thorough job already and hasn't had any
reason to not trust the auditor's recommendation. She said she does not believe there is a need for
the expanded audit.
03/14/05 -23- DRAFT
i
Councilmember Niesen said the auditor told her that sampling in the audit is common, but sampling
in the payroll area is something that has not been done. She said there is an error in payroll and the
explanation did not satisfy her.
Councilmember Lasman stated she does not care if the auditor does the payroll sampling, but she
does not sec a need.
Mayor Kragness indicated the Council is to be dealing with policy issues, not management issues.
Councilmember Carmody said she agrees with Councilmember Lasman in not expending any
additional funding for the expanded scope. She suggested that wording be included in the motion.
Mayor Kragness said she has a concern with the word "consensus" because she doesn't think the
entire Council has agreed upon it and does not think this is something the Council should be
involved.
Mr. McCauley said this was not an agenda item included in the materials and the audit is up to the
Council. He said what's not functional is when a Council is not dealing with the auditor as a whole
Council. He suggested contacting the auditor and requesting the auditor to prepare an outline for the
Council on random sampling of payroll and put it on as an agenda item at the next meeting for
Council consideration.
There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to direct
staff to have the auditor prepare a proposal on what the auditor will be doing in its expanded scope of
the 2004 audit for the Council to consider at its next meeting. Motion passed unanimously.
loc. REQUEST OF WATERSHED COMMISSIONS FOR COMMENT ON
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COST SHARING
POLICY
Mr. McCauley said the Watershed Management Commissions submitted a proposal requesting
review and comment on a proposed Capital Improvement Program Cost Sharing Policy. He said it
involves the levying of an ad valorem tax on all properties in the watershed to fund $125,000 per
year in contribution to capital projects in the watershed. He stated it proposes assessing 25% of the
annual project cost to the City directly benefiting and 50% to the contributing or benefiting
communities. He added the Watershed district would then determine a Capital Improvement Plan.
He said the benefit of the concept is that there would be an assemblage of money to do some of the
larger regional projects. He said the downside is that currently each community has control over
projects, and with this proposal the Watershed could decide to impose a capital improvement on a
2/3 vote of the Commission and certify some or all of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax
levied on all taxable property in the watershed.
Mr. Blomstrom said there are large projects that serve large drainage areas that would be a benefit to
Brooklyn Center, noting one of the areas is the wetland area north of Twin Lake. He said one
03/14/05 -24- DRAFT
concern would be where to draw the line on the CIP and what would be the structure; another
concern would be that every city would want to include all of its watershed projects on the list and
then someone else would have to pay a portion of it. He said he recommends there be some type of
formula to cost share for these projects and there be some type of control that if a project is
considered to be placed on the Capital Improvement Program for the watershed it should serve more
than one individual city.
Councilmember Carmody said she believes this is a cooperative way that cities can work together to
move forward and address drainage issues for both the contributing and benefiting cities. She said a
concern would be that there is a proposal for a $36 fee on the water bill with the Clean Water Legacy
Act for water quality, and then this would add another ad valorem tax for watershed.
There was discussion regarding the funding of the Watershed Management Commission's Capital
Improvement Projects and amount they would spend each year and how that amount can be levied.
Councilmember Carmody referred to Page 4 of
the materials from the Watershed Management
Commissions relating to the project Inline Treatment Devices, Crystal Lake, with an estimated cost
of $400,000 and a proposed city share of $300,000. With city budget fluctuations, she raised a
question for the Watershed of what would happen if the city could not afford to do this project when
the time came for the project to be considered.
Councilmember Carmody said she is in favor of doing some of these projects and the Watershed has
indicated it is looking for feedback from the cities.
Councilmember Niesen said in reviewing the information from the Watershed Management
Commissions, the proposed Cost Sharing Policy indicates the Commission's share should be 25
the cities' share 75 with the area directly benefiting from the project to be apportioned 25% of the
cost based on proportion of lake or stream frontage; and 50 percent of the cost apportioned on
contributing /benefiting area. She said when she first reviewed this information, she thought the cost
would be born on the taxpayers directly on the water.
Councilmember Niesen said there are so many jurisdictions governing water and the owners of
property along the water do not necessarily pollute the water, nor will they benefit from it being
cleaned up. She said she believes there should be something included that would ensure that
waterfront taxpayers won't have to bear the burden of the entire amount.
Councilmember O'Connor said she would like the Watershed Commission to consider ideas of
naturally reducing the pollution, such as not installing curbs with street projects so the water would
soak into the ground and not flow to the river and streams, and not use the salt on the roads in the
winter.
03/14/05 -25- DRAFT
FIX HOUR OF ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember O'Connor, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to extend
the meeting past 11:00 p.m. for another 15 minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
Continued discussion ensued regarding Item No. l Oc, and Mr. Blomstrom responded the Watershed
looks at nutrients, chlorides, temperature, and various different elements that affect the water. Mr.
LeFevere responded the Commission is looking at a number of non structural improvements, such as
phosphorous fertilizer, goose droppings, curly leaf, and the City is doing that as well as part of the
Storm Water Management Plan. He explained the request from the Watershed Management
Commissions is how to pay for this and whether to do capital projects. Her further sated it cannot all
be done with the non structural elements.
Councilmember O'Connor said she would like to see this done naturally and not do any large
projects.
Mr. McCauley said the Watershed Management Commissions are looking for reaction to the
proposed Capital Improvement Program Cost Sharing Policy, and it would like the Council to
identify the issues it would like the Commission to address.
Mr. LeFevere said under the Joint Powers Agreement, all capital improvement projects require a 2/3
vote 'of the Watershed Management Commission. He said in order to levy a tax, the County
Commissioner would have to approve it or the commission could, with a 2/3 vote, simply send the
bill to the City and the City would have to come up with the funding. He said this proposal is to try
to develop some consensus to find the best way to fund these projects.
Councilmember Niesen inquired if anyone in the audience wanted to comment.
Curtis Erickson, 4809 Twin Lake Avenue, addressed the Council and said the lakeshore property
owners are the most conscious about how the lake is being taken care of, and they shouldn't have to
be penalized for living on the lake and having to pay to clean it up.
There was discussion regarding funding these projects and where it would come from.
There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to table the
request of the Watershed Commissions for comment on proposed Capital Improvement Program
Cost Sharing Policy to March 28, 2005. Motion passed unanimously.
10d. SET DATE AND TIME FOR CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to amend the
2005 City Council meeting schedule to set the date and time for the Council Facilitated Retreat for
Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 2 p.m. at Earle Brown Heritage Center.
03/14/05 -26- DRAFT
i
Councilmember Carmody said she would be voting against this, as she does not think the Council is
benefiting from the Facilitated Retreat and she does not want to spend the money to bring Mr. Neu
from Colorado.
Councilmember Niesen said Mr. Neu is working on the City Manager's review and would like to see
him finish that. She suggested waiting until 2006 to discuss whether or not to continue with the
Facilitated Retreats.
Voting in favor of the aforementioned motion: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember Lasman,
CouncilmemberNiesen, and Councilmember O'Connor. Voting against: Councilmember Carmody.
Motion passed.
10e. RESOLUTION TO RECEIVE PETITION FOR STREET AND STORM
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 48TH AVENUE NORTH FROM
DREW AVENUE NORTH TO LILAC DRIVE NORTH
Mr. McCauley said Cass Screw and Machine Company, which owns parcels on both sides of the
street along 48th Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Lilac Drive North has requested the
street improvements be done and agrees to pay special assessment costs as apportioned by the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -51.
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO RECEIVE PETITION FOR STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG 48TH AVENUE NORTH FROM DREW AVENUE NORTH TO
LILAC DRIVE NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
10L RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU,
JR.
This item was moved from the Consent Agenda to Council Consideration Item No. l Of
There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to table this
resolution due to the late hour. Motion passed unanimously.
03/14/05 -27- DRAFT
11. ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn
the City Council meeting at 11:20 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
I
I
03/14/05 -28- 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
MARCH 14, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council /Economic Development Authority met in Work Session and was
called to order by Mayor /President Myrna Kragness at 6:15 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 /Executive Director
Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager /Director of Operations Clint Boganey, Public Works
Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and
City Clerk Sharon Knutson.
COUNCIL MEMBER NIESEN: FOLLOW -UP ON LAST YEAR'S (2003) AUDIT
Councilmember Niesen said she had read the materials provided by the City Manager regarding the
2003 audit and was satisfied that follow -up actions had been addressed.
COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN: DISCUSSION OF PAYROLL MEMO
Councilmember Niesen stated that she wanted to discuss the payroll issue because she is perplexed
that in 2003 she received paychecks twice a month and continued to receive the same pay in 2004
twice a month. She explained that she thought in 2004 it may have resulted because the Financial
Commission had reviewed Council pay, and Financial Commission Chair Donn Escher had shown a
Council compensation comparison survey with other cities. She reviewed the memorandum
provided in the packet from Director of Fiscal and Support Services Daniel Jordet regarding
correcting the 2004 compensation and the balance of 2005 compensation. She said that FICA was
taken out of her paycheck in 2003.
City Manager Michael McCauley explained that generally there are 26 pay periods per year;
however, in 2004 there were 27 pay periods, and this was not taken into account when the correction
was calculated for the Council compensation for the 2004 error in not implementing the 2004 rate
increase. He further explained that a Council Member would generally get a paycheck in January of
the year after service. He said as part of the change to avoid this, Council Members will be paid
twice a month and receive all of the annual compensation in the calendar in which they served. He
indicated he will check into the FICA issue.
03/14/05 -1- DRAFT
Councilmember Niesen said she is not satisfied with the payroll process and would like follow up.
She said she had talked with the auditor and asked if they could do a payroll sampling.
Mr. McCauley cautioned that the auditor works for the Council as a whole and the Council would
need to give direction to the auditor, not just one Council Member.
Mayor Kragness inquired if it would be helpful for the Director of Fiscal and Support Services to
review the issue since there is still some confusion.
Councilmember Niesen said that the auditor is on site and could do a quick payroll sampling that
costs no extra dollars.
Councilmember O'Connor inquired if the Council would need to take formal action during the
regular Council meeting. Mr. McCauley responded that the Council would need to delineate the
request and a resolution could be more specific.
Councilmember Niesen said she wants to add an expanded audit of payroll to the agenda as Item No.
I Of Mr. McCauley said an expanded audit would need to be described.
MISCELLANEOUS
Councilmember Carmody raised the question of what the Housing Commission is working on and if
the Council needs to look at providing direction.
Mayor Kragness indicated that the joint meeting with the Commission Chairs is in one week and it
could be discussed at that meeting.
Councilmember Niesen said she would like the Housing Commission to look into the way
inspections are being done. She stated she would like the commission to investigate the issue of
rental property and licensing in the City.
Councilmember Carmody said with regard to inspections it may be crossing the line of employee job
performance and could get the Housing Commission in a bind.
Councilmember Lasman suggested the Housing Commission study the ordinance, but not the
inspector's work load.
Councilmember Carmody said the reason she brought this before the Council was that typically the
Council has given direction to the Housing Commission, but it may be that the Housing Commission
should take a break.
Councilmember Lasman discussed the bus hub and how citizens can utilize the service. She
suggested an article in the City Watch resident newsletter that would encourage use of the service
and provide information on where to obtain bus schedules.
03/14/05 -2- DRAFT
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Councilmember/
Commissioner Carmody to adjourn the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work
Session at 6:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor /President
03/14/05 -3- DRAFT
City Council Agenda Item No. 7b
'City Brook]
f n Center y
A Millennium Community
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: March 23, 2005
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 March 28, 2005, are as follows:
MECHANICAL
Air Conditioning Associates 689 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul
Air Masters Inc. 5885 149` Street West, Apple Valley
Alliant Mechanical, Inc. 3650 Kennebec Drive, Eagan
Amtech Lighting Services 6077 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Stillwater
Associated Mechanical 1257 Marshall Road, Shakopee
Assured Heating A/C 334 Dean Avenue East, Champlin
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp 13562 Central Avenue NE, Anoka
Centraire Htg A/C 7401 Washington Avenue South, Eden Prairie
Cronstroms Htg A/C 6437 Goodrich Avenue, St. Louis Park
D J's Heating Air Cond 6060 LaBeaux Avenue NE, Albertville
Dave's Appliance Htg Air 16013 7 Avenue NE, Columbia Heights
Ditter, Inc. 820 Tower Drive, Medina
Excel Air Systems 2075 Prosperity Road, Maplewood
Fireside Hearth Home 2700 Fairview Avenue North, Roseville
Flare Heating 9303 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley
Golden Valley Heating 5182 West Broadway, Crystal
Guyer's Builder's Supply 13405 15' Avenue North, Plymouth
Harris Companies 909 Montreal Circle, St. Paul
Heating Cooling Two Inc. 18550 County Road 81, Maple Grove
Home Energy Center 15200 25"' Avenue North, Plymouth
Kleve Heating Air 13075 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie
Knott Mechanical Inc. 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South, Golden Valley
LBP Mechanical Inc. 315 Royalston Avenue North, Minneapolis
Lux Company 5217 84' Avenue North, Brooklyn Park
M D Plumbing Htg Inc. 1105026 1h Street NE, St. Michael
Marsh Heating A/C 6248 Lakeland Avenue North, Brooklyn Park
McDowall Company P.O. Box 1244, St. Cloud
Metropolitan Mech Contr 7340 Washington Avenue South, Eden Prairie
Modern Hearint A/C 2318 First Street NE, Minneapolis
P H Services, Co. 1601 67` Avenue North, Brooklyn Center
Perfectin Heating Air Cond 13951 N. 50' Street, Stillwater
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
Page 2
Licenses for Council Approval
March 28, 2005
Pierce Refrigeration 19202 nd Avenue South, Anoka
Quality Refrigeration 6237 Penn Avenue South, Richfield
Riccar Heating A/C 2387 Station Parkway NW, Andover
River Sity Sheet Metal Inc. 8290 Main Street NE, Fridley
Robert's Repair Maintenance 3701 Yates Avenue N, Crystal
Rouse Mechanical 7320 Oxford Street, St. Louis Park
Royalton Heating A/C 4120 85 Avenue North, Brooklyn Park
Schadegg Mechanical, Inc. 225 Bridgepoint Drive, So St. Paul
Sedgwick Htg A/C 8910 Wentworth Avenue South, Minneapolis
Standard Heating A/C 410 W Lake Street, Minneapolis
Superior Heating A/C Elec 21322 nd Avenue North, Anoka
Thermex Corporation 3529 Raleigh Avenue South, St. Louis Park
Utility Partners, Inca 9901 Indigo Trail, White Bear Lake
Wenzel Heating A/C 4131 Old Sibley Memorial Hwy, Eagan
Yale Mechanical, Inc. 9649 Girard Avenue South, Minneapolis
RENTAL
Renewal (All of the following had no calls for service):
5935 Dupont Avenue North (Single Family) Gina Dumas
4707 Eleanor Lane (Single Family) Todd Vlasaty
5521 France Avenue North (Single Family) Leng Wong
5948 Fremont Avenue North (Single Family) Ryan Coller
6777 Humboldt Avenue North (Single Family) Andrey Ryvlin
1531 Humboldt Place North (Single Family) Kwi Ha Wong
4700 Lakeveiw Avenue North (Two Family) Nancy Dahlquist
Initial:
5447 Bryant Avenue North (Single Family) M'Hamed Ben- El -Haffaf
No Calls for Service
The Lilacs (a,b, and c)
a. 5800 Logan Avenue North (1 Bldg., 22 Units) Farnaz Toussi
b. 5820 Logan Avenue North (Single Family) Farnaz Toussi
c. 5830 Logan Avenue North (1 Bldg., 22 Units) Farnaz Toussi
1 Disturbing the peace call
1 Crime against family call
SIGN HANGER
Crosstown Sign 16307 Aberdeen Street NE, Ham Lake
Install This Awning Sign 5345 4 Street, Brooklyn Center
Lawrence Sign 945 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul
Signart Company 2170 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights
Spectrum Sign Systems, Inc. 2025 Gateway Circle, Centerville
Topline Advertising 11775 Justen Circle, Maple Grove
Twin City Sign Images 17201 113 Avenue North, Osseo
City Council Agenda Item No. 7c
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 21, 2005
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement
for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2004 -14, Contract 2004 -H, Shingle Creek
Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements
On March 14, 2005, the City Council conducted a series of two public hearing on the proposed
Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements.
The first hearing was to consider ordering the improvements and authorizing the development of
plans and specifications. The second hearing was to consider certification of proposed special
assessments for the improvement project.
Following the public hearings, the City Council ordered the improvements and directed staff to
prepare plans and specifications. Construction plans, specifications and contract documents have
been completed for the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive project. Staff is prepared to
begin the project bidding process upon authorization from the City Council.
The bidding process would involve advertisement of the project in the City's official newspaper
and in the Construction Bulletin magazine. Sealed bids would be collected, opened on a
scheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer. Staff anticipates
that the bid results will be presented to the City Council for consideration of the contract award at
the May 9, 2005 City Council meeting.
Attached for consideration is a City Council resolution approving the project plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids. Detailed plan sheets will be available for
review at the City Council meeting.
0 6301 Shingle r
g 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
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NOS. 2004 -14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND
SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council, by Resolution No. 2005 -47, ordered
Improvement Project Nos. 2004 -14, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, Storm Drainage,
and Utility Improvements, and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications; and
WHEREAS, staff under the direction of the City Engineer have prepared said plans and
specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The plans and specifications for said improvement project are hereby approved and
ordered filed with the City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in
the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such
improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify
the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened
by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose
responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an
opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash
deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn
Center for 5 percent of the amount of such bid.
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
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 21, 2005
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Award of a Contract, Improvement
Project No. 2005 -07, 2005 Street Seal Coating
BACKGROUND
Based upon previous Council authorization (Resolution No. 2005 -15), bids for the 2005 Street
Seal Coating Project were solicited as part of a joint powers agreement for street maintenance
activities with the cities of Coon Rapids, Andover and Columbia Heights. The intent of this
agreement is to provide an opportunity to obtain lower unit bid prices by combining annual
maintenance work for several communities into one project bid in order to promote a more
competitive bidding environment.
CONTRACT AWARD
Construction contract bids were collected and opened by the City of Coon Rapids on March 4,
2005. The bidding results for Brooklyn Center's portion of the contract are tabulated as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Pearson Brothers $127,057.58
Allied Blacktop $129,040.00
Asphalt Surface Technologies $175,732.50
Of the three (3) bids received, the lowest bid of $127,057.50 was submitted by Pearson Brothers,
Inc. of Loretto, Minnesota. The engineer's construction cost estimate for this project was
$135,100 based on historical bid prices. The lowest bid is approximately six (6) percent lower
than the estimate. This fairly significant savings is most likely the result of the competitive
bidding arrangement provided by the Joint Powers Agreement. A map depicting the roadways
designated for seal coating is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Attached for City Council consideration is a resolution accepting the project bids tabulated by the
City of Coon Rapids and authorizing the award of a construction contract to Pearson Brothers,
Inc. for Improvement Project No. 2005 -07, 2005 Street Seal Coating.
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
a.. 1111[. '•IIr11111111n11 V ■1 ■1....1111111111 •1
All
nw w w ul !nn /h .1111111- fpm r luram: ■7
�l �`'�Oa n/ i� >Q4■pl IR 7!u ■u n■ unnnll
uAq "ganelC iin °ii 11 ..x.
[r I
zu Le long..
rOO fr /IY" V 11.1 %1:1 ij ■ulppp
�r��' 1 �lu� .u.�n.n1�� I►i l V VI ■1T1. 1n■ o.rru. i \t
`r. l�iln r� 1,71111: u■ -7
�4 �...•h /nn1L t' :1111111111��
■11 1_ ul► �Ii� p 7 wum1111. 1■ �11� :11111111111■
E ��1� 1" 1111 1 1, L• Lil�ul
:17.1.[ �i
111111: 11. IrU.O. .1.!'�..
IIIIIIC +c7..nlaunu r ,�I
11nOtluuW
.■r■■[ a crrrr■ I IjI. //1111
n1111111111 �i 111
11 1 1", 111111111111 1, �1
■r1. ■1 �111111�1 1�
1�1�11111 7 !1111111
unuunnuuA nnr
■■■■r■■r] ■11111 111111.
11 1111 1111111 r 11■ i
I�■ rla 111E a -va .c i
o X111■ ,.1 "1 ,fir 111 11 1111111111111
�I[1 -r. ■111. 1 11 i 1 1111./1 /IIIIL
Annml- -m01 1u.�; .0 c n uulunru[,..
unr rr uuulln m■ url. nr 11 C 111 •R�
pnuu umalllllllh oil 1 i
u r n. uuulln umgnll i/ 111
11111:
uum; n1nU mfr �!i�.n 1-
Ir RF. Inq►� /1111 111gj /1 /II 11 1.
Ir7n1113 hp I h1u uur. f II\
III►Ir 1 u1!!hf 1 j1111 IIIn/ C
II �IIII�I i ni /auunul►17�■ I.� /iu►O— 1 1
fa 111 71711 11n rt'r 171111-
:1�/ /1111 IIIIIIIn11
11111::
Cc I ME
r. �:.1.7 n•Il �iiii �Ii1,�� I�� 1 .p i�
i u porn e�
1
.1 polls
mm
iii ��u� i�6 it
111111111111` �t111■
.IIIIrRI[l1�11 .1 III 111■1]�.
t n J
ul >cr[anu
1111111111111
l aw �j�'♦II /III
7:■
O
nll■, l !!!1 .111
111 111 1 111
i
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF A CONTRACT,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-07, 2005 STREET SEAL COATING
WHEREAS, bids for 2005 Street Seal Coating were solicited under the Joint Powers
Agreement for street maintenance activities as authorized by City Council Resolution No. 2005 -15; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids, bids were received, opened, and tabulated
by the City of Coon Rapids on the 4 day of March, 2005. Said bids for Brooklyn Center's portion of the
contract are as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
Pearson Brothers, Inc. $127,057.58
Allied Blacktop $129,040.00
Asphalt Surface Technologies $175,732.50
WHEREAS, it appears that Pearson Brothers, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to order 2005 seal coating
activities, pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement for Street Maintenance
Activities, for Improvement Project No. 2005 -07, according to the plans and
specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of
the City Engineer.
2. Project costs shall be allocated as follows:
Public Works Street Maintenance (43220 6404) $75,600.00
Municipal State Aid Fund (43220 -6404) $51,457.58
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. 7e
Memorandum
Date: 17 March 2005
To: Michael McCauley
City Manager
From: Daniel Jordet
Director of Fiscal Support Services
Re: Designation of Additional Investment Depositories
In January the City Council adopted Resolution 2005 -02 (copy attached)
designating depositories for City funds. Under Minnesota Statutes 427.02, the
City Council must designate depositories.
That resolution included several firms dealing in investment securities. The
currently authorized investment funds are the Minnesota 4 -M Fund, Dain-
Bosworth (now Dain Rauscher), Bremer Investments, Salomon Smith Barney,
Inc., Morgan Keegan Company and the Federal Reserve Bank. In order to
open the field for more variety and perhaps better return on our overall
investment portfolio, I am asking that three depositories be added to the list of
authorized depositories. These companies, in addition to those already
authorized, will be asked to bid on variable laddered portfolios of investments
during the year. This will allow us to take advantage of varied market expertise,
viewpoints and expectations across an assortment of investment professionals.
These specific firms are being proposed because of their knowledge and
experience with municipalities. There are specific needs for safety and security
in municipal investment management. These firms and the professionals
representing them have a track record of success in managing public dollars in a
proper and responsible manner. All three of these firms manage assets for other
Minnesota cities.
A proposed resolution for this authorization is attached.
adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORITES OF CITY
FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted a resolution on
10 January 2005 naming specific depositories for funds of the City as required by Minnesota Statutes
Section 427.02 and indicated by Section 7.01 of the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, additional depositories for investment purposes are available to the City
and are used by other municipalities within the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, these additional depositories must be authorized by the City Council
prior to investments being made with those depositories.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following named brokers are hereby designated as additional depositories to
be used for investment purposes:
Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.
Chandler Asset Management
UBS Financial Services
under the same terms and conditions as are mposed on any and all depositories of the City of
Brooklyn Center.
March 28, 2005
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2o� 02
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS
WHEREAS, Section 7.01 of the City Charter provides the City Council with authority
over City funds that includes the safekeeping and disbursement of public monies; and
WHEREAS, Section 7.01 of the City Charter provides that City funds shall be
disbursed by check bearing the actual or facsimile signature of the City Manager and City Treasurer;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That Wells Fargo Bank Brookdale Office is hereby designated as the depository for
funds of the City of Brooklyn Center.
2. That the following named banks and brokers are hereby designated as additional
depositories to be used for investment purposes:
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Bremer Bank
U.S. Bank, N.A.
U.S. Bank Corporate Trust of St. Paul
Wells Fargo Bank of Minneapolis
Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund (4M Fund)
Dain Bosworth
Salomon, Smith, Barney and Company
Morgan- Keegan and Company
Twin City Federal Savings and Loan Association
The City Treasurer is hereby authorized to deposit funds in accounts guaranteed by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Savings and Loan
Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) or the Securities Insurance Protection Corporation
(SIPC). Funds deposited with designated depositories in excess of the insured
amounts provided by the insurance of individual institutions or companies shall not
exceed the ninety percent (90 of the collateral pledged by the depository to the
City or other such insurance provided by the depository and approved by the City.
3. That Heartland Payment Systems is hereby designated as the clearinghouse
depository for credit card sales at Brooklyn Center Liquor Stores.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -02
4. That U.S. Bank, N.A., is hereby designated as the clearinghouse depository for credit
card sales at the Earle Brown Heritage Center.
5. That Chase Merchant Services, LLC, is hereby designated as the clearinghouse
depository for credit card sales for the Recreation Department and Golf Course.
6. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager, the City Treasurer, or the Deputy
City Treasurer to act for the City in all of its business activities with these designated
depositories.
January 10, 2005
Date U Mayor
ATTEST: wm-
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Kathleen Carmody
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof.
Myrna Kragness, Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor;
and the following voted against the same: None
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
it
City Council Agenda Item No. 7f
Memorandum
Date: 18 March 2005
To: Michael McCauley
City Manager
From: Daniel Jordet
Director of Fiscal Support Services
Re: Statutory Tort Liability Limits
Each year the City Council must choose whether to waive the statutory
limitations on tort liability. If these limitations are waived, additional insurance
should be purchased. To this point, the City Council has chosen to not waive the
statutory Limitations on tort liability. This has saved the City about 7,000 each
year in additional tort liability premium payments.
Staff requests consideration of the attached resolution by the City Council at the
next regular meeting.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY
TORT LIABILITY
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has an option to waive its protection under
the tort liability limitation contained in Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and
WHEREAS, the statutory tort limit is $300,000 per individual and an aggregate of
$1,000,000 per incident; and
WHEREAS, the City has opted not to waive its rights to limited tort liability in past
years and is required to make a declaration of its intention every year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the City does not waive the monetary limits on municipal limit tort liability
established by Minnesota Statues 466.02.
March 28. 2005
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.
i
LEAGUE OF- MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST
LIABILITY COVERAGE WAIVER FORM
Cities obtaining liability coverage from the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust must decide
whether or not to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The
decision to waive or not to waive the statutory limits has the following effects:
If the city does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no
more than $300,000.on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total which all claimants
would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be
limited to $1,000,000. These statutory tort limits would apply regardless of whether or not the city
purchases the optional excess liability coverage.
If the city waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single
claimant could potentially recover up to $1,000,000. on a single occurrence. The total which all
claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would
also be limited to $1,000,000., regardless of the number of claimants.
If the city waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant
could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total which all
claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would
also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants.
Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision.
This decision must be made by the city council. Cities purchasing coverage must complete and
return this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. For further information, contact
LMCIT. You may also wish to discuss these issues with your city attorney.
accepts liability coverage limits of from the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT).
Check one:
The city DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by
Minnesota Statutes 466.04.
The city WAIVES the monetary limits on tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04,
to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT.
Date of city council meeting
Signature Position
Return this completed form to LMCIT, 145 University Ave. W., St. Paul, MN. 55103 -2044
T 7, R!'+T'P iI I /Amin.... 11 /A2N Pnoe 1 of 1
City Council Agenda Item No. 8a
MEMO
To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist
Subject: City Council Consideration Item Planning Commission Application No.
2005 -005
Date: March 22, 2005
On the March 28, 2005 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2005
005 submitted by Greg A. Nelson requesting a Special Use Permit to operate a martial arts
school in the Industrial Park (I -1) zone.
Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -005 and also an area map showing the location of
the property under consideration and the Planning Commission minutes relating to the
Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents.
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their March 10, 2005 meeting and
was recommended for approval.
It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the
application subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Application Filed on 2 -16 -05
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 4 -17 -05 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2005 -005
Applicant: Greg A. Nelson
Location: 6840 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant, Greg A. Nelson, is seeking a special use permit to operate the Minnesota Martial
Arts Academy in an approximate 5,300 sq. ft. tenant space at 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway. The
property in question is zoned I -1 (Industrial Park) and is located on the north side of Shingle
Creek Parkway, easterly of the city garage and maintenance building. It is bounded on the south
by Shingle Creek Parkway with the Metropolitan Council Transit facility on the opposite side of
the street; on the west by the city garage; on the east by another spec office /industrial building.
All of these properties are zoned I -1. To the north of the site is 69 Avenue with R -1 zoned
property containing single family homes and a portion of Palmer Lake park on the opposite side
of the street.
The Martial Arts Academy is regarded as an "instructional use" which is a special use in the C -1
(Service /Office) zone and a permitted use in the C -2 (Commerce) zone. It is an allowable use in
the I -1 zone through the special use permit process.
The applicant has operated his Martial Arts Academy for over 12 years at the Hmong America
Shopping Center, 1910 57 Avenue North. The City is in the process of acquiring this shopping
center for redevelopment purposes, thus Mr. Nelson is required to relocate. He desires to stay in
the general area as he has built a client base and has found the location at 6840 Shingle Creek
Parkway to be acceptable. He is seeking this special use permit pursuant to Section 35 -330,
Subdivision 3e of the zoning ordinance, which allows limited commercial development such as
instructional uses to be located in the I -1 zoning district provided the use can meet the general
standards for special use permits contained in Section 35 -220 and the special criteria outlined in
Section 35 -330, Subdivision 3e.
The applicant has submitted written information including a letter (attached) explaining his
operation and how he believes it meets the standards for special use permits. He points out that
the Minnesota Martial Arts Academy emphasizes physical fitness, self defense and character
development at the same time as upholding the tenets of the martial arts including compassion,
discipline, honor, humility and respect.
The Standards for Special Use Permits require that the proposed special use promote and
enhance the general public welfare and not be detrimental to or endanger the health, safety and
welfare of the public; not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate neighborhood nor substantially diminish or impair property values; not impede the
3 -3 -05
Page 1
normal and orderly development evelopment of surrounding property; be designed so as to minimize traffic
congestion on the public streets; eets• and conform with applicable re the district
P pp regulations of s t m which
it is located. Furthermore, it must be compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable
intensity to permitted I -1 uses and not have an adverse impact upon the industrial park or the
community.
Information has also been submitted regarding existing parking on the site and how the proposed
Martial Arts Academy will not have a negative impact on this aspect of the use. Currently there
are 307 on site parking spaces. The existing office to industrial uses at 6840 Shingle Creek
Parkway is about 7 percent office, 93 percent industrial which requires 169 parking spaces.
Surplus parking exists based on this ratio of office to industrial uses. In fact, an approximate 40
percent officeJ60 percent industrial mix could exist given the amount of available on site parking.
It is anticipated that the Martial Arts Academy would require approximately 26 parking spaces
for its given use. The building owner allocates approximately 14.4 spaces per tenant. The
additional parking for the Martial Arts Academy can be accommodated with out negatively
impacting other tenants in the building. Furthermore, much of the instructional time is off peak
from the normal business hours for the existing tenants on the site. It is not anticipated that
problems associated with this instructional use will exist.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices of the Planning Commission's consideration
have been sent to surrounding property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
All in all, it is believed that the Standards for Special Use Permit and the special criteria for
allowing certain commercial use in the I -1 zoning district are met. It is recommended that the
application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to Greg A. Nelson on behalf of Minnesota Martial
Arts Academy, Inc. as an instructional use in martial arts. No other use, not
comprehended by this application shall be permitted. Any expansion or major
alteration to the use shall be subject to an amendment to this special use permit.
2. The 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 permit approval is exclusive of all si e which is subject to the
PP rY J
provisions of Chapter 34 of the city ordinances and the city's sign policy with
respect to 69 Avenue North.
3 -3 -05
Page 2
•Ilt,.I i ii,L,, ,F I I
d�il0 3 N1H
Q
L� ,T 91 I A
r
MUM
ri !rit .r t ?a nS'a "1 y
yf 7.' t..G O j' 3 w.�lf�:.
r� dew N r3L a•.
s�?�K
T�1 d;,ro.•r„ O .i?F 'w"'i: 4 o :x? t•� r �t�
yt 'i:l'S ��f�r� t il,s• fjS ,R t,y
�w'�xx�'•`.���t •-mr '';1• t f j i� �Tl is' 1eC
O .?ft�`' t fam...� i� e— �{�+�r� �f r l"� �itii' JAY FP r •:..�i a•, �{„ns� 9iy
r 1 O ��7�'� A r y •:�4 V„ r w: S� n hf,r., ��.•t5 wi• F sl ,.{e
'F• .R 'd .f ei ,a
-_t: a i •fie n. �xy
,--1 V £hx e "Mira- t 'is-'�� f .L`"�' j t 6 ns� f
?-1 'V4 °e' .{S''# .n• y 1 `'f' Sur !E }��s�>•1Y
Y '7�� �V y" e: "t �,£i; }y `�Ky���l'�'��is?• t?y: ^•S1� "f t �t
s; 1' .fa L rl yt l Y•`�. 4 i il�`
A T,?•
'f is ff'a: x••'
CIO• 'l•
5
f� r
4 f
LLI
AQN
L� FREEWAI^
W
XERXES AVE. N
d 3
iL
2
Vrf Z
8
M 3
1 1 'I :,T .r::;v �;:w a;x;4i' lT� J VV�9�o z c C
wit s a
M
-e-
t
Tg z)'. M E ''33���� do� dd tq YP '3, ja 4 ,�f t1P5
�k A"+n }F:.� 0 L A '�t�+ &L'§. 5?.. J 5..�+� 1:� J. i� hl•.
r xa �a
00;ns .r
A
�i
t r
pP�S"' 4 1 6 'p
A
a
U
4 g Y �p 3"" q w y "C y R "t p+ 4 '3S. tl� `Yi ,,i
.:S,r 6t m, 1.,. a h� P'€ €mss a3� -Q,t- 3,r :.:ss"�. ka.�? g"�,' -rs xase
.fir
>ti Wiz:
r �.31.
j
"x. x to e. ,v a
n `"�,�.w'€,r`+� -EC?a r ✓»e.r a�.;
�g
.q
z M `i .4"T `i
xy, £z ,J r b: r,, ,te .ro+.: *y s
N t
,x«�^ k„ #z�.4 "°dt yri gs '.3 y r;y' 4M 4',+�. n, .r i t"'� 7 •w rye`" L a
ps:
5` F" S."a x' '�wf: ^a� R i `�F''T'Y f at'fY�' "Ye�� t d
ti�` x a �o. rs e�. h� 4 �;rs �'�ip�
e a
�s;;ae r4 •;2 {5 _��4� c";•�+ t� ia, xt �l�`?” .�s, mar'; 's.°' n�.z �,.i s s .�,n
zh�s'r
VOW .::4 Y'+,i w- a�
;E4 x s 'Y• `4: v3: 3' g
C:" a
�*a..
a s 4 l P q s R4 r
N v n x t .r a.`dti�,
u
m
t
O W N&
M ER E q
M AIN
M t
4" rbv`'e
R'
l 3. Sn ecial Uses
II
a. Foundries provided that the foundry operation is a necessary incident to a principal use
permitted in the I -1 district.
b. Textile mills.
c. Retail sales of products manufactured, processed, warehoused, or wholesaled on the
use site.
d. Accessory off -site parking not located on the same property with the principal use,
subject to the provisions of Section 35 -701.
e. Those commercial developments which, in each specific case, are demonstratedto the
City Council to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses
permitted in the I -1 district generally.
2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses
permitted in the I -1 district generally.
3 Of comparable intensity to permitted I -1 district land uses with respect to
activity levels.
4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity
of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon the
industrial park or the community
an which are described in Section 35 -322,
d, Subsection 1 d, a subparts 1 -6), f, (subparts 2
and 3), g through j; 3 m and 3 p. Such commercial developments shall be subject to I -1
district requirements of Section 35-400 and 35-413 and shall otherwise be subject to the
ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed development represents.
and storage uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the
g• Warehous in g
City Council to be:
1. Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses
permitted in the I -1 district generally.
Cit Ordinance
Center
35-40 ty
ent
Brooklyn C
City o Yn
ty .f
I
,i innesota Martial ,arts ✓academy. Inc.
1916 SV Avenue North, Bruoklin Center, MN 55430 (763) 560-5696
VMV. ""t- 1Ca?COYB A- ZON .CO s
Dear Ronald A. Warren,
Regarding the Standards for Special Use Permits I believe the Minnesota Martial Arts Academy meets the standards set
out by the City Council. Listed on the Special Use Permits Section 35 -220, under section 2, Standards for Special Use
Permits there are 5 areas in which the potential tenant must demonstrate specific criteria:
a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general
welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
The Minnesota Martial Arts Academy is a school which emphasizes physical fitness, self defense and character
development. As a Martial Arts Academy owner for over 12 years is Brooklyn Center I have always had positive relations
with all business and residential neighbors. In fact, the Academy and all of its'students have made great efforts to uphold
the tenets of the martial arts which include compassion, discipline, honor, humility, and respect The Academy strives to
maintain a very professional appearance, and expects professionalism from all of its' instructors and a high degree of
morals from our students. Having a business that is in the business of health, personal safety, the development of
character will only help add a positive image to the warehouse.
b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
or the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the
neighborhood.
As a professional martial arts school it is necessary to uphold a professional appearance, inside and outside of the
Academy. It is a fact that the majority of potential students are concerned with the appearance of a prospective school.
With this in mind it is absolutely necessary to uphold a professional standard in and around the Martial Arts Academy
and this only help the value within the neighborhood.
is c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement
of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
The activities of the Martial Arts Academy will be inside the building just as with all of the tenants of the building.
With all classes inside, the Academy will no different than the other businesses in the warehouse facility. However, our
hours of operation are primarily in the evening after the other tenants are gone. The Academy should in no way impede
the normal and orderly development of the current tenants or neighborhood and will bring more positive interest to the
warehouses and area in general.
d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to
minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
The Minnesota Martial Arts Academy is currently located in a small shopping center called North Brook Plaza. We
have never had any problems with congesting the public streets or cause any problems within the parking lot. The
Academy's class schedule is designed to allow only a specific number of students to come at any one time. This is done to
ensure that class sizes are not too large. Having this type of schedule minimizes congestion, inside and outside the
Academy. The property has adequate ingress and egress already on site.
e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is
located.
The function of our Academy, Martial Arts instruction, is a permitted function with regards to the Special Use Permit
and we will comply with all city regulations. We have been operating within the Brooklyn Center limits for over 12 years
and would like to stay in Brooklyn Center.
Sincer�y
G rkg c son
er and Academy Director
City of Brooklyn Center
Special Use Permits Section 35 -220
2. Standards for Suecial Use Permits
A ec'
sp ial use permit maybe granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the
following are met:
a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general
public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity
for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the
neighborhood.
c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement
of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to
minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it
is located.
3.. Conditions and Restrictions
The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions
upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed
necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this
ordinance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence
and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection therewith.
4. Resubmission
No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a
period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the
applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to
gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time.
5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits
When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, such permit shall
expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his
assignee or successor commences work upon the subject property within one year of the date the special use
permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an
extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use
Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee in an amount as set forth by the
City Council resolution.
Special use permits granted. pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire
within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the subject property pursuant to
such special use permit has not commenced within that time.
In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one eyar, the special
use permit related thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandonment.
KayHarris Real Estate Consultants, 7813 Victoria Circle, Suite 200, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
Telephone: 952.915.4444 Fax: 952.926.9899 Email: kayharris @mn.rr.com Email: martyharrisOmn.rr.com www.kayharrisre.com
nv February 10, 2005
arras 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway
Ron Warren
Planning and Zoning Specialist
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center MN 55430
Dear Ron:
Per our discussion yesterday, enclosing information confirming the parking use for this
property according to the Landlord, Steiner Development.
In preparation for your discussion of this special use permit at the upcoming Planning
Commission meeting February 17, 2005, we have reviewed the current uses at the property
and the proportion of office use at the property. I have enclosed Joe Smith's calculations.
Joe is Vice President at Steiner Development. Since the building is currently 7% office
(7318 square feet of 105,430 square foot building,) the wamber of stalls required for the
building is 36.6 stalls for the office and 131.8 stalls for warehouse; I count 307 stalls.
Also, as we mentioned, the businesses immediately around suites 24 and 25 are not heavy
users.
According to your stipulations for a commercial use, approximately 29 stalls, the allotted
parking (per Landlord) of 14.4 stalls is approximately 15 stalls short. We are showing here
that those additional 15 stalls can be achieved on the site without disturbing other tenants'
use, if we move to those stalls closest to Shingle Creek Parkway.
I will recommend Greg Nelson show the approximate finish of the space, which will
include locker rooms, showers, and an additional restroom, as well as a vestibule into the
office area. Greg is aware these improvements will require permitting.
Thanks for your help on this and let us know if you need additional information.
Best Wishes,
Kay C
Princ pal
Encksure (1)
CC. Greg Nelson, Minnesota Martial Arts Academy
Certified Joe Smith, Steiner Development
Commercial- Inoenment
Member
0 0
0 0
M
O O 4r
Ao
lit
CIP
G
y
J 1
t
H
�j
�y 1
6
N
te?
CA
x
Q
r ep
a' f
cq° Steiner
N rl
r �eVejopMenl I.G. J�
S p p► PROJECT: �1- IINC��E CR�K
t eille p 517E PLAN
&940 Development, Inc. &940 SHINGLE GREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER. P N
3nea.htd� �'y.r,�r.s�t1
SHEET NO: I DATE:
69TH AVE. NORTH
SUIT05 21-22
su,Trs is-so
VACAW
5WT95 23-24"
%ATM 25-26
C V"
SUITES P64
WJM 27
2"
r
0
s
NORTH O
J r
HINC�I -E GREEK P1�Y
4
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
MARCH 10, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Rachel Lund, Rex Newman, and Dianne Reem were present.
Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald
Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Graydon Boeck and
Tim Roche was absent and excused. Sean Rahn was absent and unexcused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 17. 2005
There was a motion by Commissioner Lund, seconded by Commissioner Newman
to approve the minutes of the February 17, 2005 meeting as submitted. The motion passed.
Commissioner Reem abstained as she was not present at the meeting.
CHAIR'S EXPLANATION
Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings,
the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
APPLICATION NO. 2005 -005 GREG A. NELSON
Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2005 -005, a request for a special use permit to operate.
the Minnesota Martial Arts Academy in the I -1 (Industrial Park) zoning district (6840 Shingle
Creek Parkway). The Martial Arts Academy is regarded as an "instructional use" which is a
special use in the C -1 (Service /Office) zone and a permitted use in the C -2 (Commerce) zone. It
is an allowable use in the I -1 zone through the special use permit process.
Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal.
(See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 3 -10 -05 for Application No. 2005 -005,
attached.) Mr. Warren described the circumstances of Mr. Nelson's request explaining that the
City is in the process of acquisition of the shopping center where Mr. Nelson's business is
currently located This acquisition requires his martial arts business to relocate.
Chair Willson inquired if the special use permit would stay with the property should the
applicant leave the site since this is leased property. Mr. Warren stated that the special use
permit would remain with the location for the life of the building as long as the same type of use
existed and all conditions associated with the special use permit were complied with.
3 -10 -05
Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION NO. 2005 -005
There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to open the
public hearing on Application No. 2005 -005, at 7:48 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Greg Nelson, 1932 Teton Trail, Brooklyn Park, introduced himself as the applicant. Mr.
Nelson explained that they have been asked to vacate their space by April 30 th however, they
would not have City Council approval of the special use permit until March 28, 2005. He added
they are facing a time crunch since they cannot start renovating their new site until they receive
City Council approval and asked about an extension regarding vacating their existing space.
Chair Willson responded that an extension might be acceptable but that he was not certain and
noted what staff member to contact regarding an extension of their lease.
Commissioner Reem inquired about employees at the Martial Arts Center and the hours of
operation. Mr. Nelson responded that besides himself there are two paid employees as well as
the students. Classes are held on Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. They
also have an open training session from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. They offer evening classes Monday
through Friday starting at 5:30 p.m. ending by 10 p.m. and are open Saturday from 9 a.m. to 3
p.m. Mr. Nelson added that the space they are proposing to move to will be an expanded space
and the Martial Arts Academy will be in a position to expand their services and meet the needs
of more people than they do now.
Commissioner Reem asked if there would be adequate lighting on the site to provide a safe
environment for the students. Mr. Nelson stated that the lighting was also a concern of his and
has asked the landlord to make some lighting improvements.
Commissioner Lund inquired about the possibility of retail sales on the site. Mr Nelson
explained that only items that would be sold on site would be things used by the student such as
uniforms and videos of martial arts instruction. There would be no outside sales to the public.
Mr. Warren suggested that an item could be added to the conditions of approval acknowledging
that this special use permit is for instructional use only with some incidental sales to the public.
There was a consensus among the Commission to add the item to the conditions.
Chair Willson called for comments from the public.
No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on
Application No. 2005 -005.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
There was a motion by Commissioner Lund, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to close the
public hearing on Application No. 2005 -005, at 7:54 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The
Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application.
3 -10 -05
Page 2
ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2005 -005 GREG A.
NELSON
There was a motion b Commissioner Newman, seconded b Commissioner Lund to
Y Y
recommend to the City Council that it approve Application No. 2005 -005, submitted by Greg A.
Nelson for a Special Use Permit for instructional use in the I -1 (Industrial Park) zoning district
subject to the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to Greg A. Nelson on behalf of Minnesota
Martial Arts Academy, Inc. as an instructional use in martial arts with incidental
associated retail sales. No other use, not comprehended by this application shall
be permitted. Any expansion or major alteration to the use shall be subject to an
amendment to this special use permit.
2. The 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 permit 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.
Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners, Lund, Newman, and Reem and. The
motion passed unanimously.
The Council will consider the application at its March 28, 2005 meeting. The applicant must be
present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require
that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Willson shared updated information following the second Opportunity Site Task Force
meeting. He explained what type of development is being discussed and what proposed housing
may exist in the Opportunity Site.
A discussion followed by the Commission regarding the Opportunity Site and future meetings.
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to adjourn
the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
8:07 p.m.
3 -10 -05
Page 3
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Rebecca Crass
3 -10 -05
Page 4
City Council Agenda Item No. 9a
4 pL1
BROOKLYN CENTER °'sY OF
o ^iira 2a
POLICE DEPARTMENT MN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM:. Scott Bechthold, Chief of Police
DATE: March 24, 2005
SUBJECT: Hennepin County Joint Community and Police Project
During the fall of 2004, Chief Wade Setter from the City of Brooklyn Park and myself were asked to
make a presentation to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners regarding concerns of the
interaction of law enforcement personnel and immigrant and minority group residents of the two cities.
As a result of this presentation, the Hennepin County Board directed Hennepin County staff to collaborate
with the communities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, and the Northwest Hennepin Human
Services Council to create a plan to address the expressed issues. From this collaborative planning
process the following four components emerged:
1. Organizational training for cultural awareness and sensitivity;
2. Community training for cultural awareness and sensitivity;
3. Police /community liaisons; and,
4. Police cadet training
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on March 22, 2005, approved a contingency transfer of
$400,000 to the 2005 Human Services and Public Health Department and the Community Corrections
Department to support the efforts of the communities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to fund this
plan. That plan titled "Hennepin County Joint Community and Police Project" is attached. The dollars
for all program components will be distributed by the Hennepin County departmental accounts for
activities as indicated in the plan. A community based oversight group will guide the delivery of services
as described.
/sb
attachment
Hennepin County
Joint Community,
and
Police Project
A Collaborative Effort of
Hennepin County
and
the Police Departments of
the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park
0
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................3
II INTRODUCTION ..............................4
A. Increasing Need ..............................4
B Strategic Purposes .............5
C. Outcomes ..............................6
D. Need to Act 6
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......7
A. Executive Team ..............................8
B Management Team ..............................8
C. Multi cultural Advisory Committee ......9
D. Community /Immigrant Training ..............................9
E. Cultural /Community Awareness Training for Law Enforcement ............................10
F. Community /Law Enforcement Liaison Representatives ..............................1 I
G. Police Cadet Project .............................12
IV. PROPOSED BUDGET .............................13
3
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent surveys in Minnesota have indicated a shift by some suburban residents in how they view
immigration and immigrants. A variety of problems have arisen in terms of communication among those
with different languages, employment customs and structures, social and religious differences, and a lack
of proper understanding of how American legal and law enforcement systems work. In addition, a
variety and increasing number of conflicts have arisen among and between distinct immigrant groups and
communities, local, "indigenous" residents and local law enforcement entities.
The Joint Community Action and Police Project is a joint effort of Hennepin County, the Cities of
Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, and the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council.
The strategic purpose of this initiative is two- fold:
1) to provide information, assistance and coordination to address both the diverse needs of these
cities' numerous cultures and communities and,
2) to ensure the safety and well -being of all residents within their jurisdictions.
Under the direction of a Project Management Team that is comprised of the four main parties noted
previously, and with input and guidance from a general Multicultural Advisory Committee (as described
below), this project will implement four major activities at a total County cost of $400,000 over the next
24 months. These four project activities are briefly described as:
1. Communitv Input and Training
A series of efforts to include and obtain input from local community groups, leaders and
representatives of immigrant and diverse groups will be initiated.
2. Cultural /Community Awareness Trainine for Law Enforcement
Likewise, local law enforcement agencies and their staff will work with Hennepin County and
local community groups to develop and implement cultural competency training.
3. Creation of Communitv Liaison Officers
The project will create two Community Liaison Officers who will have the responsibility of
relating to both the community and the local law enforcement agencies to facilitate and
provide information and communication between the community and the law enforcement
groups.
4. Creation of Multicultural Oriented Police Cadets
The project will provide each local law enforcement agency with the opportunity to recruit,
train and hire two, new police officers who demonstrate a unique multi cultural perspective
and who bring with them the unique backgrounds essential to working with diverse cultures.
4
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Increasing Need
As many recent national, regional and local studies show, immigration in the regional area is
increasing dramatically and has reached "boom" proportions. In the ten year period between 1990 and
2000 the immigrant population in the U.S. increased from 19.8 million to 31.lmiillion, comprising
approximately 11.1 %0 of the U.S. population. Likewise, the number of foreign born residents in the state
has nearly doubled to almost 260,000 according to the U. S. Census Bureau. Unlike some of the larger
"seabom" cities of New York, Los Angeles, Miami and San Francisco, this "new" wave of immigration is
something relatively unseen to this area but can be seen as a positive testament to our vibrant economy
and well- respected quality of life. More than 80% of all immigrants in the five state region have come to
Minnesota and, as a result, placed it at the center of a massive immigrant growth explosion. In fact,
during that ten year period, Minnesota was. ranked 12 nationally in terms of immigration growth, ahead
of California, Florida and Texas.
Although the growth and increase of immigrant populations has affected numerous rural areas of
Minnesota and the general metropolitan area, the northern suburbs of Hennepin County recently have
seen significant numbers of immigrants in two localities: Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. Large
numbers of West African refugees and immigrants along with Hispanic, East European and Asian
refugees /immigrants have gravitated to this area in the hopes of finding affordable housing and
employment opportunities. Large, low- cost multi family apartment complexes, excellent social services
and the reputation of job opportunities in the surrounding areas have provided a strong impetus for
immigrants and refugees to settle in these cities.
At the same time, these diverse peoples and cultures have experienced conflict with the existing
cultures and customs of the area. Recent surveys in Minnesota have indicated a shift by some suburban
residents in how they view immigration and immigrants. A variety of problems have arisen in terms of
communication among those with different languages, employment customs and structures, social and
religious differences, and a lack of proper understanding of how American legal and law enforcement
systems work. In addition, a variety and increasing number of conflicts have arisen among and between
distinct immigrant groups and communities, local, "indigenous" residents and local law enforcement
entities. The wide variety of groups these cities, with their unique and different customs and traditions
make it difficult for many of these groups to adequately understand each other and, instead of enriching
one another through their respective diversity, have as a result, created barriers to maintaining peace and
order. Without a basic level of stability and safety it will be impossible for all parties to make progress
toward a respect for diversity and /or successful assimilation toward a productive life in America.
The Joint Community and Police Project is a collaborative effort of Hennepin County, the Cities
of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, and the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council.
I�
5
B. Strategic Purposes
The strategic purpose of this initiative is two -fold: 1) to provide information, assistance and
coordination to address both the diverse needs of these cities' numerous cultures and communities and 2)
to ensure the safety and well -being of all residents within their jurisdictions.
The increasing numbers and wide variety of immigrants settling in these areas necessitate a better
understanding of different traditions, expectations and norms among the various immigrant groups and
local law enforcement agencies. The increasing number of social and legal incidents make it imperative
that both community /immigrant groups and local law enforcement agencies obtain a better understanding
of how each operates and why they tend to, or must (in for example, the case of local law enforcement, as
required by law) behave in the way that they do.
The increasing number and greater complexity of social and legal conflicts in these cities clearly
reflect the need for both law enforcement agencies and community groups to better understand each
others' behaviors. Greater knowledge, understanding, and information about each other's differences will
greatly enhance the ability to better resolve and keep incidents from escalating and/or to avoid creating an
ongoing atmosphere of "suspicion and animosity. The respect for the unique and diverse traditions,
customs and norms of immigrant and diverse cultural groups will thereby be enhanced while, at the same
time, the need to sustain and support the indigenous legal and social customs of these host -areas will be
encouraged.
Under the direction of a Joint Project Management Team that is comprised of the four main parties
noted previously, and with input and guidance from a Multicultural Advisory Committee (as described
below), this project will implement four major activities over the next 24 months. These four project
activities are briefly described as:
1. Communitv Innut and Training
A series of efforts to include and obtain input from local community groups, leaders and
representatives of immigrant and diverse groups will be initiated. Following this
information/data- gathering phase, the project will provide training opportunities and
information to help such groups better understand and be more receptive to the actions of local
law enforcement agencies and local city staff.
2. Cultural /Community Awareness Trainine for Local Police
Likewise, local Police Departments and their staff will work with Hennepin County and local
community groups to develop and implement cultural competency training. This training will
be designed to help law enforcement staff and local officials to better handle incidents and
better understand the various immigrant/community groups with their unique traditions,
customs and mores.
6
3. Creation of Communitv Liaison Officers
The project will create two Community Liaison Officers from Hennepin County Corrections
Department who will have the responsibility of relating to both the community and the local
law enforcement agencies to facilitate and provide information and communication between
the community and the law enforcement groups. These individuals will be adept at working
and understanding "both sides" of the issues, i.e., police /law enforcement and local
community /immigrant issues. Community engagement and participation among community
groups and the broader local city government are critical objectives of these positions.
4. Creation of Multicultural Oriented Police Cadets
The project will provide each local law enforcement agency with the opportunity to recruit,
train and hire two, new police officers who demonstrate a unique multi cultural perspective
and who bring with them the unique backgrounds essential to working with diverse cultures.
C. Outcomes
These initial four activities, combined with the sustained efforts of both community and local law
enforcement should result in numerous positive outcomes. It can be expected that:
1) the frequency, intensity and total number of conflict- incidents will be reduced. Local law
enforcement will have a new awareness of how to better approach the different populations and
will be better prepared to address unique situations.
2) Local community groups and parties will have a better understanding of the expectations,
requirements and customs as they interact with local community officials and law enforcement
personnel
3) Local law enforcement will see an increase in the number of culturally diverse officers and
culturally appropriate materials to positively and effectively engage community members.
4) Local community groups will have avenues and specific personnel to communicate with regarding
grievances and questions.
5) The first steps toward creating a replicable model will be created that will enhance the
effectiveness of local law enforcement agencies everywhere in working with new immigrants and
diverse communities within their respective areas.
D. Need to Act
Again, the social, legal and economic needs, conflicts and numbers of diverse community
members is increasing. The fastest growing segments of our population in America are descendants of
recent immigrants. As our current, existing population ages and as the replacement birth rate decreases,
the need for and the reality of, new immigrants in our culture is not likely to disappear. The need to
7
integrate and assimilate these individuals is critical to the safety and well being of both
indigenous/host /majority groups but also the immigrants and other culturally diverse groups.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The plan referenced described below is hopefully a first step toward a more comprehensive and
more thorough model to help immigrants and diverse communities assimilate and participate in safe and
orderly communities while, at the same time, helping indigenous citizens adapt and appreciate the
diversity and strengths of its newest members.
The Joint Community Action and Police Project is a joint effort of Hennepin County, the
Cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, and the Northwest Hennepin Human Services
Council. Again, the strategic purpose of this initiative is two fold:
Project Partners and Executive Group
Project Partners
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
The City Council of Brooklyn Center
The City Council of Brooklyn Park
The Northwest Human Services Council
Area Community/Immigrant Groups and Residents
Exe,cvt><+1 eml�
M
Fleury ��rectcsr �enn'Count� Correetrns
John Mcl n i 1VQag
6 d
er�eatn County H� Se vme
Scot�e 61 h�ef o Pc�l l y t �3rc�ol n ►ter A
ChaefPul�e�Cty
Management Team
Vinodh Kutty Coord. Henn Co. Offc of Multi Cultural Services
Captain Jeffery Ankerfelt City of Brooklyn Park
Captain Laura Johnson City of Brooklyn Park
Ms. Elizabeth Davis -City of Brooklyn Center
Mr. James Glasso City of Brooklyn Center
Susan Blood------------- Northwest Human Services Council
Dr. Bruce M. Nauth ...............Henn Co. Human Services
1) to provide information, assistance and coordination to address both the diverse needs
of these cities' various cultures and communities and 2) to ensure the safety and well -being of all
residents within their jurisdictions.
A. Executive Team
The project will be lead and overall direction provided by an executive team comprised of County
officials from Hennepin County's Department of Human Services (Mr. John Mclaughlin) and
Corrections Department (Mr. Gothriel La Fleur), the Police Chiefs of both the cities of Brooklyn Park
(Chief Wade Setter) and Brooklyn Center (Chief Scott Bechthold).
B. Project Management Team
The project will be governed by a multi- agency management team from among the key
stakeholders including Hennepin County through it's Departments of Human Services and Corrections,
the Cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center through their law enforcement agencies, and the
Northwest Hennepin Human Service Council (see below).
Project Management Team
Hennepin County
Human Services,
Corrections
C of
Brooklyn
City
Of
Brooklyn
Northwest
Center
Hennepin Human
Services
Council
Executive Te�tm�
ientte�an,saunty�
��tc�gkTyn tenter ��tt
Multi Cultural
Joint Management Team Advisory Committee
Hennepin County Human Services Representatives
City of Brooklyn Park Police selected by and from
City of Brooklyn Center Police diverse community
NW Henn. Human Services Council and population groups
within the
narticinatinn areas
9
The project management team will be acting on behalf of their respective agencies and remain
responsible to their host agency. A "chair" selected from its members will act as the lead person to
coordinate the activities of the team and the assist with overall coordination. The management team will
operate together to coordinate the four distinct stmct activrties and to provide direction for each component.
The management team will responsible for the planning and implementation of the overall project and
will be the key decision making and policy development body at the project's operational /day -to -day
level. Consensus will be sought for all activities and decisions at the team level.
C. Multicultural Advisory Committee
A Community Advisory Task Force will be developed to provide the management team and
project activities with input and counsel from local community groups, representatives of the immigrant
groups and other interested parties. In it's initial stages and in an effort to connect as quickly as possible
with the larger community, the management team will likely select whom they feel would be key
representatives to assist with the first stages of planning. However, this group and additional numbers of
individuals will be expanded and further developed by the communities themselves as the project begins
to seek information and input from outside individuals. It is the intent that the advisory group be a conduit
and link to the wider community and that it be a key source of input/feedback for the project's
management. In all cases, it is intended to provide a voice and venue for community members and
individuals to express themselves and to provide feedback to project management. In the initial stages this
advisory group will be provide frequent opportunities to meet and confer with project managers. As the
project moves forward, it is expected that less frequent, but no less than quarterly meetings of the task
force will take place to provide assistance and suggestions to project managers.
D. Community/Immigrant Training
The first of four activities, the Community/Immigrant Training component will begin under the
leadership of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council NWHHSC) which will identify key
members and representative groups in the areas of both cities. With the aid of selected individuals,
NWHHSC and the Hennepin County Office of Multi Cultural Services(HCOMCS) will conduct a series
of forums and meetings over a two month period designed to share the main concepts of the training with
the local communities. It is expected that feedback, input and advice will be sought and obtained from
these groups to identify key elements and critical issues that affect these communities relative to their
interaction with local law enforcement agencies. Concurrent with the feedback sessions will be the
revision of Minnesota Council of Church's curriculum would be part of the overall development of the
training curriculum and is assumed to be in addition to the feedback from the community groups.
10
As this information and input is collected form the community, the data will be analyzed and
synthesized to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop and deliver culturally competent
curriculum and training that will address the identified concerns of the community. Following comment
by community groups of the Draft RFP, the project management Team will issue the RFP through
HCOMCS to solicit the development and implementation of community /immigrant training. Existing
curriculum from the Minnesota Council of Churches will be revised and customized to address the current
project. Simultaneous with the issuance of the RFP, project managers and the advisory task force will
seek sites and appropriate venues for conducting the training and will adjust training as necessary to
accommodate the different cultures /groups. Advertising and culturally appropriate materials will be made
available to inform and prepare groups for specific training events. Following selection of vendors by the
Management Team, the training will begin as advertised to the communities.
Community What Who/By When
immigrant
Training
Management Team select potential initial Hennepin Human Services Council -S. Blood; Mar `05
community/immigrant members for Advisory
Task Force and plan initial community
meetings
Prepare materials /identify sites for first HCOMCS/NWHHSC -S. BloodN.Kutty Mar 05
meetings
Advertise Mtgs in local newspapers /community HCOMCS- Mar /April 05
links
Begin Community Mtgs and Recruit additional HCOMCS /PDs April 05
members for Advisory Task Force-
Collect Data and input from Community I HCOMCS /PD's April 05 I
Synthesize data and identify key issues from HHS /OMS/PD's April 05 1
community
Conduct survey of entities that can conduct HCOMCS March 05
credible cultural competency training
Prepare RFP Draft I HCOMCS /PD's May 05
Consult Task Force on Draft HCOMCS /PDs— June 05
(Simultaneously adapt parts of MN Council of
Churches' Curriculum)
HC issue RFP on behalf of Mgt Team I HCOMCS July 05
Review and award training to vendors I Joint Mgt. Team August 05 I
I Prepare sites /community for training events I HCOMCS- Ongoing Dec 05
"Test" curricula with Advisory Task Force I HCOMCS August 05
Advertise Training I HCOMCS Sept 05
Conduct Training I HCOMCS Vendor Oct 05
Evaluate and Adjust training as needed I HCOMCS Ongoing thru 06
Conduct Quarterly Mtgs for MAC I HCOMCS /PD's Ongoing thru 06
Speakers Bureau will be developed I HHS /OMS/PD's Nov -05
E. Cultural/Community Awareness Training for Law Enforcement
Simultaneous to the development and implementation of community /immigrant training, will be
the development and implementation of training /materials for law enforcement agencies in the area. Both
11
the Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center Police Departments will conduct surveys and conduct
assessments of their staff to ascertain which issues and needs are most frequently problematic and critical
to them in terms of relating to various communities /immigrants in their areas. Data will be collected and
analyzed and a variety of curricula and materials will be examined that best address the identified issues.
Again, like the community training above, effective and relevant training for law enforcement will be
solicited (either independent of the community training or as a component of it) and an RFP will be
authorized and providers selected by the Management Team. It is expected that training will begin for
officers no later than October 2005 and be completed by December 2005.. Significant matching costs (in
excess of $100,000 will be contributed to the project by both cities through time spent by administrative
leadership and time for officers to receive training, plus the cities costs for cadet training (i.e., $60,000).
Additionally, culturally appropriate (multiple languages) materials will be developed for officers to assist
them as they related to and interact with various community groups (i.e., brochures about traffic stops—
appropriate domestic behavior —etc). Some program costs will be incurred to provide translation and to
develop such materials, i.e., $5,000. However, this simple methodology is working well in other cities
and jurisdictions with similar issues and may prove to be a valuable asset for both the community and law
enforcement parties.
Cultural /Community What Wholly When
Awareness Training for
Law Enforcement
Conduct Departmental Survey and
Assessment.(Brooklyn Park PD has BC/BP PD's January 2005
already conducted it)
Synthesize data collected that will identify
communities that the police officers need
help with i.e., Liberian, Hmong, Police Departments/
Chicano/Latino, Somali, African-
HCOMS March 2005
American, Native American, Lao,
Cambodian, Eastern European, etc.
Identify materials /curricula/ agencies that BC/BP PD's/ HCOMS
have effective training and capacity to Feb -Mar 05
provide training
Conduct prepare RFP or contract sole HCOMS
source for appropriate/ credible training June /July OS
for /by law enforcement specialists with
multicultural training capacity
Providers selected Mgt Team —Aug 05
Training Begins Vendor and PD's--Oct 05
F. Community Cultural Liaison Representatives
The Community Cultural Liaison shall be a non -sworn position designed to work as a
representative of the police department within the diverse communities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn
Center while providing information and explanation about police activities within the community. The
12
Cultural Liaison will serve as a resource to the department and the community by responding to inquiries
regarding particular law enforcement events, actions, practices or policies. The Cultural Liaison will keep
the department informed about contemporary community concerns. There will be individual Cultural
Liaisons assigned to the Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center Police Departments. Although they will
focus their work in the community in which they are assigned, they are expected to coordinate their
efforts when appropriate. In addition, it is expected that these liaisons will identify the various diverse
community groups within the community and establish relationships with their formal and/or informal
leadership. They will meet with the groups and/or leadership as necessary and proactively solicit
feedback from community groups regarding law enforcement events, practices or policies within our
communities. It is expected that they will be available for call out outside of normal business hours to
provide assistance to the department and the community on particular issues as needed. In addition, the
Cultural Liaison may be required to respond to the scene of significant events and act as an intermediary
with the community. This also would include responding to community inquiries about specific police
events. Experience has shown that community members frequently have questions or raise concerns
involving police action or activities and overall, the Cultural Liaison will serve as a departmental point of
contact for these inquiries. Further, it is expected that the liaison will act as resource for the community
and the department during investigative activities, including the facilitation of dialogue between the
community and the police department to explain cultural differences and how they are impacted by law
enforcement action during a specific police investigation. Liaisons will need to identify needs and assist
with the development training on diversity issues for departmental employees. At the same time, liaisons
will need to identify needs and assist in the development of community based training on law
enforcement procedures, practices and policies.
Community Cultural What Who/By When
Liaisons
PD's and HCHS/HC Corrections agree Mclaughlin, La Fleuer; Setter;
on position description Bechtold Jan 05
HC Corrections/ PD begin recruitment Mclaughlin, La Fleuer—
of two individuals Mar 05
Interviews selection of candidates Mclaughlin, La Fleuer; Setter;
Bechthold: Mar 05
Liaisons attend multi cultural mtgs. Liaisons April -05
Liaisons attend multi cultural training Liaisons April -05
Liaisons initiate activities in community Liaisons Aug 05
with PD's
Liaisons attend training Liaisons Oct 05
13
9
G. Police Cadet Project
The project will provide each local law enforcement agency with the opportunity to recruit, train
and hire one police cadet each. Cadets will be individuals who demonstrate a unique multi cultural
perspective and who bring with them the unique backgrounds essential to working with diverse cultures.
The increasing number of individuals from diverse cultures in the area highlight the need for
additional officers who have the skills and sophistication to address the many cross cultural issues
emerging in the cities of BP and BC. Although limited in number, as a result of the extensive costs of
recruitment, education, development and certification of qualified individuals and the rigorous selection
process, this effort remains a key component in the effort to better address the needs of law enforcement
and the local multicultural community.
Funds will be provided for each city to recruit, evaluate and hire two police cadets who will
demonstrate a capacity for multicultural and effective law enforcement activities. Although the process
may differ slightly at each city, the basics of the process will include, advertisement of cadet positions,
screening of applicants, meeting of basic police (age, citizen, psychological and physical health)
requirements (by the time their course of study is completed) and academic and practical skills
competency. Although rigorous and demanding, the cadet processes of job shadowinglmentorship,
academic and police skills development and scholarship assistance will offer each successful cadet a
conditional commitment to hire whenever each police department has an opening (This presumes that a
cadet has successfully maintained and sustained their eligibility until the job offer is made). The total cost
of this component is $60,000. Because individual Cadets will progress at different rates up to a possible
three years, no specific timeline is offered. However, the project will begin recruitment as soon as funds
are authorized by the County Board. However, do to the variable rates of participation and completion,
complete expenditure for this activity may not be complete by end of `05 budget cycle and may require an
'06 commitment.
air: �f
i lkl
f, s27 b r.-C A 77 77 1 7- -o�, P,
J4.
4t w4�f��9 �b�slatg ;�P
m„
0 77777 0,
ti O!�r
tee.
City Council Agenda Item No. 9b
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 3/21/05
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services
SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donations of the Brooklyn Ce er Lions
Club in Support of the Earle Brown Days Parade and the Entertainment in the Parks
Program
The Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City a donation of five thousand dollars.
($5,000.00) They have designated that it be used to support the annual Earle Brown Days
Parade. The Earle Brown Days Parade is one of the area's largest, and attracts thousands of
residents and non residents.
Also, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City a donation of two thousand
dollars. ($2,000.00) They have designated that it be used to support the Entertainment in the
Parks Program. The Entertainment in the Parks Program is comprised of a series of musical
concerts held on Tuesday evenings in Central Park from late June through the end of July.
Staff recommends acceptance of these generous donations and asks that they be coded to the
corresponding activity budgets.
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
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATIONS OF
THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE
BROWN DAYS PARADE AND THE ENTERTAINMENT IN THE PARKS
PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City a donation
of five thousand dollars, ($5,000) and has designated it be used to support the annual Earle Brown
Days Parade; and
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City a donation
of two thousand dollars, ($2,000) and has designated it be used to support the Entertainment in the
Parks Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of these donations, and commends the
Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. Acknowledges the donations with gratitude.
2. Appropriates the donations to the corresponding activity budgets.
March 28. 2005
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. 9c
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING APRIL 3-9,2005, TO BE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK
WHEREAS, community development services provided in our community by the Community
Development Department are an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department defines future City directions through
such functions and services as land use and comprehensive planning, development
plan review, redevelopment, economic development, zoning and subdivision
compliance, preservation of existing housing supply, and protective inspections;
and
WHEREAS, among the City's most fundamental ordinances are those which provide standards
for the safe construction of buildings in which people live, work, and play; and
WHEREAS, through the efforts of code officials and their cooperative relationship with the
construction industry, the administration of these health and life safety standards
is assured; and
WHEREAS, the technical knowledge, skills, and abilities of the community development staff
promotes the health, safety, and comfort of this community which greatly depends
on these protective inspections and services; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the services provided by the community development
staff be recognized and appreciated.
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 the week of April 3 through 9, 2005, to be Community Development Week in the City
of Brooklyn Center and encourage all citizens to recognize the contributions that community
development staff make every day to our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life and to create
awareness as to the importance of construction and building codes and to spotlight the role of the
dedicated code official in administering those codes.
March 28, 2005
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Council Agenda Item No, 9d
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU, JR.
WHEREAS, the City Council met in a facilitated workshop on February 5, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the facilitator, Carl H. Neu, Jr., has prepared a Summary of Key
Observations and Conclusions made by the participants during the facilitated workshop.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Summary of Key Observations and Conclusions as prepared by Carl H.
Neu, Jr. attached hereto as Exhibit A be and hereby is received and accepted.
March 28. 2005
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.
E hibit A.
0 COMPANY
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER,
MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP
Conducted on
February 5, 2005
SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND
CONCLUSIONS MADE BY THE
PARTICIPANTS
Submitted by
Carl H. Neu, Jr.
February 7, 2005
Neu and Company and the Center for the Future of Local GovernanceTM, 2005
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP
Conducted on
February 5, 2005
SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MADE BY THE PARTICIPANTS
Submitted by
Carl H. Neu, Jr.
February 7, 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 5, 2005, the mayor, council members, city manager and assistant city
manager of Brooklyn Center conducted a City Council Leadership Workshop. A
copy of the objectives and agenda for this workshop are included in this report as
Appendix A.
IL SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS MADE BY
THE PARTICIPANTS.
A. Identification of the "Big Things" the Council must focus on during
2005.
As an opening discussion, the participants were asked to identify the "five
big things" that council must focus its attention on during the year 2005.
The objective here was to provide all members of the council and the city
manager and assistant city manager an opportunity to discuss their
respective observations about what should be priority issues to be
addressed during this year. The following items were presented by the
participants:
1. City Center /Opportunity site
2. Brookdale
3. Elimination of vacant store fronts and decline
4. Neighborhood streets, curb and gutter program
2
5. Crime prevention reduction
6. Funding of community services
7. Northbrook Center
8. Brookdale Boulevard
9. Community diversity issues
10. High taxes
11. Appropriate use of eminent domain, especially with regard to
redevelopment activities
12. "Government too big" what should city government be doing?
13. Joslyn pollution
14. Intergovernmental relations
15. Demographics of the community consistent with what we are
trying to achieve
16. Residency requirements for employment in the city
17. Dispatch conversion
18. Enterprise funds
After discussion, the majority of the participants identified the following
"big things" as having the highest priority for the year 2005:
City Center /Opportunity site
Brookdale
Northbrook Center
Funding of community services
Dispatch conversion.
3
B. Reexamination of the City Council Goals for the Year 2005.
After completing the exercise /discussion above, the participants then
reviewed the City Council Goals that were adopted for the year 2005. A
copy of these goals is contained in this report as Appendix B.
The following change was made:
1. Elimination of item (4) Focus 2004 under Goal No. 2. The reason
for this elimination is that these action steps identified for 2004
have been completed.
No other changes were made to the goals that have been adopted for 2005.
It was concluded by the majority of participants, however, that while the
council has reaffirmed the goals it adopted for 2005, it should be stated
that Northbrook and Brookdale are areas of continuing emphasis and
priority for the city council because of their importance to the community
and its economic vitality.
C. City Manager Evaluation Process
The participants reviewed the current City Manager Evaluation Form used
by the council. A copy of this form is included in this report as Appendix
C. The following observations or recommendations were made relative to
proposed changes to the City Manager Evaluation Form and City Manager
Evaluation Process.
1. Proposed changes to the City Manager Evaluation Form:
City council members should review the current City Manager
Evaluation Form and submit their proposed modifications to
the form for discussion at a scheduled work session.
It was suggested that a "1 through 5 rating system" be used for
each item evaluated in the form. For example, the current form
has five categories of topics that are reviewed. Within each of
these categories are additional items or subsets pertaining to
the city manager's performance. The rating scale would be
used for each item or subset. The proposed rating scale might
Took something like what appears below:
4
Item Being Rated
Rating:
g
1 2 3 4 5
Did Not Needs Met Exceeded Greatly
Achieve Improvement Expectations Expectations Exceeded
Expectations
Comments:
City Council at the scheduled work session would approve the
changes in terms of format, content, and rating scales to be
used in the City Manager Evaluation Form.
2. Proposed changes to the City Manager Evaluation Process
The council members identified the following proposed steps to be
used for the conduct of the City Manager Evaluation Process:
City manager provides a report on accomplishments to the
council and notes any significant shifts or changes in goals and
priorities may have occurred which need to be taken into
consideration when evaluating his performance.
City council members provide their individual evaluations to
the city attorney.
City attorney prepares a consolidated report.
City council reviews and approves the report that the mayor
will then take to the city manager.
The city manager then responds to the report given to him by
the mayor reflecting a summary of the council's conclusions.
City council makes any appropriate changes or revisions to the
report based on city manager feedback.
Mayor makes public statement as required, p ertaini n g to the
Y p q ,p g
manager's evaluation.
3. Timing of the Evaluation:
5
i
The participants noted that the evaluation should be conducted at
the end of the year, especially when changes in council
membership occur as a result of elections. This will ensure that the
council members evaluating the manager were the ones who
served on council during the evaluation period.
D. Discussion of Council Teamwork and Performance
Four council members, during the afternoon of the workshop, conducted a
comprehensive discussion about working relationships among the
members of city council and the effectiveness of the council's meetings.
I. Observation about city council working relationships and meeting
effectiveness
What is Frustrating Me/Us
What is Going Well? (Council Members)?
No real issues that are Lengthy discussions before
creating divisiveness within council comes to consensus
the council
Congenial discussions Apparent disconnect that
occurs sometimes between
the city council and the city
manager, especially in
dialogues attempting to
clarify issues and increase
understanding.
Increased respect being People don't speak up
shown by council members (sometimes it is difficult to
for each other hear what people are saying)
Good handouts and staff Some members talk too long
work in preparation for the
meetings
Council is better at Amount of detail sometimes
focusing goals and issues "loses" individuals
Council has adjusted to the Nature of some of the issues
budget (some council members may
not agree with the issue or
the approach the council is
taking in dealing with it)
6
Lack of "in depth" analysis
and information
Parliamentary procedures
used during the course of the
meetings
Length of discussions and
debates
Individuals, on occasion,
appear to be taking some
issues personally
Mayor not appropriately
"limiting debate" in a
productive manner.
2. Self Assessment
Once the perceptions listed above were identified, each council
member completed the brief self assessment contained in
Appendix D to this report. Council members then shared their
respective self assessments with the other participants and solicited
feedback and further observations about how others would have
rated them relative to the five items contained in the self
assessment.
The discussion stimulated by the self assessment led to a
comprehensive sharing of observations and ideas about how
council members could work more effectively with each other,
improve overall council performance, and improve the productivity
of council meetings.
3. Ten things team members can do to increase teamwork and
performance.
The council members then explored the ten items listed in
Appendix E to this report. Particular emphasis was given to the
four items that were noted with an asterisk.
E. Suggested Topics and Date for the Fall City Council Leadership
Workshop.
1. Suggested date for the workshop:
7
It was concluded that the workshop should be conducted sometime
between August 22 and September 7. The workshop can be a full
day workshop or one that starts in the afternoon and extends into
the evening. Council members at the next work session will select
a date for the Fall workshop.
2. Suggested items for the Fall workshop agenda:
Review of the City Manager Evaluation Form and Process to
be used to evaluate the manager's performance for the year
2005.
A dialogue between the manager and the council relative to the
council's and manager's expectations of each other and ways
in which they can mutually support each other in the
achievement of their responsibilities and duties. The purpose
here is to strengthen the already productive relationship and
ensure that the council and manager have an opportunity to
discuss fully their working relationship and ways in which they
can mutually support each other in this relationship.
Identifying issues that the city council should be tracking on a
continuous basis and establishing effective systems or means
for tracking these issues.
8
APPENDIX A
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
City Council Leadership Workshop
February 5, 2005
8:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m.
1. Objectives:
Upon completion of this workshop, the participants will have:
a. identified and discussed the 5 most important topics the council members
feel they must address to improve city council leadership performance,
teamwork and productivity /effectiveness as a governing body
b. assessed factors essential to:
achieving and sustaining superior council performance
their collective and individual contributions to the team's success
C. identified the "Big Things" council must focus on during 2005, the
outcomes it desires, and how to set and stay the course necessary to
achieve those outcomes
d. reviewed how council and manager wish to evaluate their respective and
each others' performance within the council manager /staff partnership
e. discussed/updated councils' adopted goals for 2005
f assessed, and identified approaches to, improving procedures, processes,
and policies relating to council meetings and decision making
g. defined a date and list of proposed topics for the Fall Council Workshops.
2. Agenda:
8:30 a.m. Introductions and Overview of the workshop objectives and
agenda.
10
8:45 a.m. Council Focus: the "Big Things" for 2005
10:00 a.m. Review and updating f council's d oals for 200
p g o adopte g 5
11:00 a.m. Evaluating council, council member and city manager
performance.
12:00 Noon Lunch
12:45 p.m. The "5 most important topics" we want to address for improving
city council leadership performance, teamwork and
productivity /effectiveness.
2:00 p.m. Council and council member success factors.
3:15 p.m. Broadcasting of "Other City Council Meetings" on Cable Access
System.
3:45 p.m. Review of, and suggested improvements to, council operating
procedures, processes and policies.
4:30 p.m. Planning for the Fall Council Workshop.
5:00 p.m. Adjourn
Pre workshop Reading Assignment:
Achieving and Sustaining Superior Council Performance
11
APPENDIX B
City Council Goals for the Year 2005.
Goal No. l: Create a new Brooklyn Center "Downtown" blueprint.
(Opportunity Site Brooklyn Center's Central Business
District)
(1) Issue: Defining and building the future
"Downtown" of Brooklyn Center.
(2) Long -term outcome: creation of an exciting and
successful "mixed -use" Downtown for Brooklyn
Center.
(3) Benefits:
a new image and exciting experience for our
community's benefit and future
expanded commercial tax base
attracting new businesses and supporting current
businesses
new excitement about Brooklyn Center and its
Downtown area
utilization of a prime location
"greening" of Brooklyn Center
creating a whole new image for the City
attracting new residents to the community.
(4) Focus— 2005:
Establish a well- defined process for receiving
public input and participation and defining the
key components and parameters desired for the
area. (Meetings, Charettes, etc.)
Define key components and parameters
desired for the future development of the
area.
Solicitation of proposals from development
communities.
Revise of the City's Comprehensive Plan
and related Zoning Ordinances.
i
13
Amend the current funding (T.LF. Tax
District 3) mechanism.
Issue bonds.
Acquire property.
Goal No. 2. Continue funding of community services.
(1) Issue: City's ability to sustain its current
service levels and quality given current funding
situations and declines in LGA funds from the
State.
(2) Long -Term Outcome: The long -term outcome will
be determined by which choices the City makes
pertaining to funding of City services. The
following four approaches need to be taken:
Defining options which might include
levy increases, reducing costs, a mix of
both.
Prioritizing city services so that
available funding can be directed to
high- priority services.
Selecting the option or options the city
wishes to pursue relative to revenue
generation and funding of city services.
Implementing that option and adjusting
city service levels accordingly.
(3) Benefits:
Establishing realistic expectations
among the citizens about what services
the city can provide given current
funding realities and options.
Prioritizing services so that if service
cuts are required as a result of funding
decreases, available funding will go to
the higher- priority services.
14
Seek means of increasing revenues.
(4) Focus 2004:
Council meeting with City Finance Commission
to establish levy for 2005.
Council adopting mil levy increase for 2005.
(5) Focus 2005:
Definition of projected equipment needs and
unfunded future costs anticipated in each of the
City's departments.
Support legislative chap e in L A formula
pp g G
(work with AMM and legislative
representatives).
Develop council consensus on service funding
priorities.
Communicate with the community that the
council is working strongly on building a
stronger future for the City through
concentrating its efforts on the Opportunity Site
and the benefits that can ensure from it for the
entire community.
Goal No. 3: Sustain Code Enforcement, Crime Prevention, and Traffic
Enforcement Efforts.
Goal No. 4: Continue the Street Reconstruction Program.
Important Note: Goals 1 and 2 become the "super ordinate
goals" that will be absorbing most of the council's
leadership and the municipal staff s management capacity
during 2005. Goals 3 and 4 are reflective of the council's
commitment to sustain the efforts these goals addressed
because of their extreme importance to the community.
15
APPENDIX C
2003 FORM
CITY MANAGER EVALUATION FORM
I. City Council Goals for 2003
Responsibility: The City Manager should
implement those goals that can be accomplished through staff
provide support and information to facilitate City Council achievement of its goals
-Overall Evaluation of Work on City Council Goals
Overall, has the City Manager worked to implement and facilitate adopted City Council
g
oals 9
Yes Partially No
Comments:
2. Administrative Support for City Council:
Responsibility
Maintain effective communication, both verbal and written with Council
Maintains availability to Council, either personally or through designated
subordinates
Systematic reporting to Council of current matters involving City government
Materials presented to Council are clear, concise and understandable
Has the City Manager provided the City Council with background and other information to
allow the Council to make informed decisions as described above?
Yes Partially No
Comments:
:7
2003 FORM
Has the City Manager assisted the City Council in. clarifying complex issues and
understanding administrative, legal and procedural requirements?
Yes Partially No
Comments:
3. Chief Administrative Officer duties:
Has the City Manager provided administrative oversight and direction in the following
areas:
City Fiscal affairs (budget, expenditures)
Plans and organizes preparation of an annual budget with documentation that
conforms to the direction received from the City Council
Supervises the utilization of human and fiscal resources within the budgetary plan
Financial reporting is timely and understandable
City operations
Services are delivered in a timely and effective manner (ie. snow plowing, police and
fire response, park maintenance, recreation)
Citizen issues are responded to appropriately and in timely fashion
Issues affecting service delivery are anticipated and dealt with effectively
City projects
Annual street project is undertaken in organized and effective manner
City Enterprise operations
Water, sewer, and storm sewer funds are financially stable and services delivered in
effective and efficient manner
Golf and Liquor funds are operated in a manner that results in meeting financial
targets so that the are self-sufficient g y efficient and meet Council, goals for operation such as
minimum of $75,000 transfer from Liquor Fund
2003 FORM
Earle
Brown Heritage Center is operated as community asset, while meeting
operational self sufficiency from its own revenues
Yes Partially No
Comments:
4. Intergovernmental Relations:
Has the City Manager:
been sufficiently active in participating in municipal organizations to which the City
belongs
had a relationship with other cities that is beneficial to the City of Brooklyn Center
been effective in communicating or representing Council positions to other
governmental bodies
worked cooperatively with other organizations where beneficial to the City of
Brooklyn Center
Yes Partially No
Comments:
5. OVERALL EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE:
Overall, City Manager's efforts to implement and facilitate 2000 Council goals has been:
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
Comments:
19
I
2003 FORM
Overall i
C ty Manager's administrative support of tarty Council has been:
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
Comments:
Overall, City Manager's discharge of administrative duties in fiscal affairs, operations, projects, and
enterprises has been:
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
r
Comments:
Overall, City Manager's efforts in intergovernmental matters have been:
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
Comments:
20
APPENDIX D
f, f
BROOKLYN CENTER
SELF ASSESSMENT
How would you rate your ability to
collaborate with others?
4 consistently 3 often 2 sometimes 1 never
1. 1 request help from others, council
members and the city manager, and give them
assistance in return.
2. 1 pitch in with my fellow council members
to make decisions and get things done in an
effective manner.
3. 1 focus on other people's welfare as much
as on my own.
4. 1 keep others, especially my fellow council
members and the city manager, informed
about what I'm doing if it affects them.
5. 1 am patient in group situations or
meetings, even if it takes time to sort things
out.
3
,22
Appendix E
Ten Things Team Players Do
1. Pitch In and Assist Others
2. Reach Out to Quiet or New
Teammates or Co- Workers
*3. Encourage Teammates Who
Are In Conflict to Talk
Through Their Differences
4. Share Credit You receive for
a Job Well Done a
*5. Suggest Team Building and q
a
Problem Solving Techniques q
You May Know q
Cj
24
x
r
*6. Check to See How Your
Decisions and Actions Might
Affect Others
7. nc ude Everyone in the
nformation Loop When
Appropriate
8. Seek nformation and
Expertise of Others
9. Communicate Your Own
Activity so That t s Pub ic
Know edge
*10. nform Others What They Can
Do to Support Your Efforts a
and Ask Them to Te You What a
You Can Do to Support Their a
and The Team's Efforts.
a
25
City Council Agenda Item No. 9e
MT City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members mody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor
From: Michael J. McCauley
City Manager
Date: March 24, 2005
Re: Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal
Attached are the materials from the March 14`" City Council meeting, the City of
Plymouth's response to the Watershed, and a Draft Letter to the Watershed and Draft
Alternative.
The Draft Letter to the Watershed is set out in separate numbered statements to facilitate
City Council review. The Council may select for inclusion, exclusion, or modification the
various individual points. The Draft letter would support a program of major projects
with some suggested limitations on expenditure levels, City input on projects, and a goal
of insuring that projects are significant within the context of the Watershed. (This is as
opposed to a project that is primarily related to only one City or is benefiting new
development. The proposed clause 7 would restrict these projects to existing waterways
etc. to avoid multi -city funding of new stormwater facilities required for new
developments.)
The Draft Alternate takes the opposite view and would not support the Watershed
Commission's proposal.
1 0 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
DRAFT LETTER TO WATERSHED
The Brooklyn Center City Council supports the concept of undertaking significant capital
projects that will benefit the Watershed as a whole. The proposed funding to support those
capital projects is generally appropriate in concept. The funding mechanisms should be refined
and reduced to specific formulae with readily applied definitions of benefiting and contributing
cities. Consideration should be given to providing that:
1. Projects must be of significance beyond the boundaries of the City in which the
project is located in the case of a project wholly contained within one city.
2. The funding levels are kept in the general amounts set forth in the Watershed
proposal.
3. Cities be allowed to comment on proposed capital improvement plans
4. Capital Improvement Plans have a 5 year horizon and that preliminary capital
improvement plans be developed with a 10 year horizon.
5. Any project added to the next iteration of a 5 year plan must have been identified in
the previous year's 10 year preliminary capital improvement plan.
6. The City within which an improvement project is located shall be afforded the option
of being responsible for the design and administration of the construction project with
funding from the Watershed or requesting that the Watershed be responsible for the
design and administration of the project's construction.
7. Any project included in the plan must be located in and improving an existing
waterway, creek, lake, wetland, or stormwater structure.
8. No plan should result in a City being required to provide funding for projects in any
consecutive 5 year rolling period that exceeds a cumulative total of $10.00 per capita
in such 5 year period without the concurrence of that City's City Council by
Resolution
9. The City
a. Supports the proposed ad valorem tax for the Watershed's portion of the CIP
costs
Or
b. Does not support the proposed ad valorem tax for the Watershed's portion of
the CIP costs
Draft Alternate
The Brooklyn Center City Council does not support the proposed undertaking to have the
Watershed impose an ad valorem tax and to assess the cost of capital projects against
cities in the Watershed. The City prefers the current practice of requiring cooperative
agreements among cities wishing to construct projects benefiting more than one city.
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor
From: Michael J. McCaul
City Manager
Date: March 10, 2005
Re: Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal
Attached is a request from the Watershed Management Commissions for comments on a
proposed Capital Projects funding mechanism that involves the levying of an ad valorem
tax on all properties in the Watershed to fund $125,000 per year in contribution to capital
projects in the watershed. It also proposes assessing 25% of the annual project cost to the
area directly benefiting and 50% to the contributing or benefiting areas.
This would be a departure from past practice by the Watersheds. Currently, there is no
levy for the Watershed and capital projects are undertaken only be negotiated agreement
of the cities involved in a project. Cities under the current schematic have a greater
degree of control over projects than in the proposed change.
Benefits of the conceptual change would relate to the potential to undertake projects that
impact several cities with funding from the watershed. Potential issues are the decreased
local control. With the Watershed, the current structure results in a direct financial benefit
to the consultants by virtue of increased Watershed activity. In the cities, there is no
direct financial benefit to the engineers by virtue of projects undertaken.
Council Member Carmody has been attending Watershed meetings and will likely have
some thoughts at the work session on the pros and cons of the proposal.
Mr. Blomstrom sees some merit in getting some projects that are now languishing for
lack of multi -city consensus going forward, such as the Twin Lake wetland restoration.
The general proposal may need to be tightened up on determining projects that should be
funded through a watershed wide ad valorem tax and imposed contribution upon
impacted cities. Some thoughts would include a formula requiring that 50% of the project
drainage be outside the city where the project is proposed. The concern is to insure that
projects undertaken are of significance beyond an individual city.
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
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS
3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447
Telephone (763) 553 -1144 Fax (763) 553 -9326
February 14, 2005
To Member Cities:
The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions and their Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) have developed the attached proposed Capital Improvement Program Cost Sharing Policy. It is
submitted to you for your review and comment. Additional background material as well as a one page summary
of Decision Items is provided for your use. The Commissions would appreciate your comments on the Decision
Items as well as on whether you believe this is a workable approach by their April 1.4, 2005 meeting.
The Implementation Plan and CIP sections of the Water Quality Plan are the last items to be worked out before
the Commissions propose to adopt the Water Quality Plan through the Major Plan Amendment process. There
will be additional opportunity for city review, comment, and refinement during that lengthy plan amendment
process.
Background
The Commissions' joint Second Generation Watershed Management Plan included a general CIP that identified a
few projects, but noted that more detail would be developed as part of the Water Quality Plan and from the series
of TMDLs and Management Plans to be developed over the next several years.
The draft Water Quality Plan includes an Implementation Plan of management activities and potential capital
projects that have been identified in either lake management plans or the Shingle Creek Corridor Study now
nearing completion. This initial Implementation Plan is expected to be updated on an ongoing basis as TMDLs
and Management Plans are completed and approved. The Implementation Plan includes a variety of activities to
be undertaken to achieve the water quality and other goals. These activities may be:
1. Non structural activities that may be new or extensions of existing activities the cities and Commission
already undertakes, such as increased street sweeping or targeted education.
2. Small projects or activities that don't meet the thresholds usually considered for capital projects, such as
aquatic plant management, shoreline restoration, or small erosion control projects.
3. Capital projects such as detention pond construction, installation of in -line treatment devices, or lake
treatments.
Over the past year or more the Commissions, TAC, and member cities have debated how to finance the projects
and activities that will be identified in the Implementation Plans. Most of the attention has been paid to item #3 in
the list above, as those will be the costliest activities.
The Joint Powers Agreement authorizes three methods for financing capital improvements:
1. A negotiated apportionment of cost.
2. Apportionment of cost to the cities in the same proportion as the operating budget.
3. Certification of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the
watershed.
BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK •CHAMPLIN CRYSTAL- MAPLE GROVE
MINNEAPOLIS- NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE
J: \Shingle Creek \CIPs\L cities req comment on draft CIP policyldoc
February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS
Page 2 of 7
The JPA
further provides that if agreement is not reached to use methods 41 or #2, then by 2/3 vote the
Commission can decide to go forward using method #3. In the ongoing CIP funding discussions, some cities
objected to method #2, given the budget and fiscal constraints that have been especially difficult in the past few
years. Some cities objected to method 43, arguing that since most of their development occurred after the
watershed rules took effect, their taxpayers had already paid for significant water quality improvements through
higher land costs and special assessments and shouldn't have to pay for similar improvements in other cities.
Some cities noted that each project is unique, and it may not be possible to develop a cost sharing strategy that
can be applied to all projects as a uniform formula.
The TAC met twice to discuss various cost sharing strategies and how they might be applied to three projects
identified for inclusion in the Implementation Plan. An important consideration was linking capital projects
funding and specific goals or benefits. Another important consideration was controlling the process so that the
CIP did not become a "laundry list" of projects. Finally, it was important to provide some flexibility in the
process to minimize the times a minor or major plan amendment would be required to amend the CIP.
The committee considered four cost sharing strategies (see attached), and recommended its Option 4 strategy to
the Commission. After reviewing all the options and the TAC recommendation, the Commission agreed that
Option 4 seemed a reasonable compromise. Option 4 is based on the following principles:
There is a benefit to the entire watershed from meeting water quality and management plan goals.
For most projects there is a direct benefit to some area for example, lakeshore or streamside properties.
For most projects there is an upstream area "causing" the need for improvements.
For many projects there is a downstream area "benefiting" from improvements.
Proposed Cost Sharing Policv
For any capital project, 100 percent funding from the ad valorem tax levy or from all cities based on the funding
formula is and would continue to be an option to consider. However, the proposed Cost Sharing Policy would
apportion the cost between the watershed as a whole, the area that receives direct benefit, and the
contributing /indirect benefiting area.
1. For capital projects that have been identified in a Commission adopted or approved TMDL or
management plan:
a. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost of the project.
b. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method spread across all
taxpayers within the watershed.
c. 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:
L 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.
ii. 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.
d. 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.
i
I
February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS
Page 3 of 7
2. Capital Improvement Program policies:
a. While statute requires the CIP to cover at least a 5 year period, until more TMDLs and
Management plans are completed, the initial CIP should be limited to only those few projects that
have been discussed for possible implementation over the period 2006 -2009.
b. For the initial CIP, the Commission's share (the watershed -wide levy) should not exceed
$250,000 annually.
c. Since cities desire funding stability and maximum advance notice of potential expenditures, once
a CIP is approved projects may only be added (or rescheduled) with approval from the affected
cities.
d. Prior to ordering a project, the Commission must receive consent from cities whose cost share
would exceed that shown in the CIP.
3. Non capital, non recurring activity policies:
a. These are operating budget issues and should be considered in the Implementation plan and
annual budget but not in the CIP.
b. For non recurring projects or activities, repurpose the Construction /Grant Match funds that are
now part of each annual budget to allow member cities to apply for matching funds for activities
such as carp removal, shoreline restoration, aquatic plant management
February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS
Page 4 of 7
These tables summarize the apportionment per city that would result from the proposed Cost Sharing Policy for
three projects identified in the CIP. As these projects have not yet been designed, these are general cost estimates.
Project: Wetland 639W -estimated SpA
25% watershed; 25% direct lakeshor 5% in irect lakeshore (Ryan); 50% contributing watershed
City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For
Ad Valorem Collection City Share
FBrooklyn Center $16,138 $97,225
Brooklyn Park I $31,275 I $100,800
Crystal I $11,000 I $97,850
Maple Grove I $21,988
Minneapolis I $8,513 I $4,750
New Hope I $8,960 I $29,925
Osseo I $1,688
Plymouth I $18,688
Robbinsdale I $6,763 I $44,450
TOTAL I $125,000 I $375,000
Project: Creek Restoration in Brooklyn Park estimated cost $500,000
25% watershed; 25% stream frontage; 50% contributing /benefiting area
City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For
Ad Valorem Collection City Share
I Brooklyn Center I $16,138 I $33,750
Brooklyn Park $31,275 I $190,500
Crystal $11,000 I $23,250
Maple Grove $21,988 I $46,250
Minneapolis I $8,513 I $15,000
I New Hope I $8,960 I $19,000 I
Osseo I $1,688 $2,250
Plymouth I $18,688 I $39,500
Robbinsdale I $6,763 I $5,500
TOTAL $125,000 I $375,000
Project: Inline Treatment Devices, Crystal Lake estimated cost $400,000
25% watershed; 25% lakeshore; 50% contributing area
City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For
Ad Valorem Collection City Share
Brooklyn Center L $12,910 1 -I
Brooklyn Park I $25,020
Crystal $8,800
Maple Grove I $17,590
Minneapolis $6,810
New Hope I $7,160
Osseo I $1,350
Plymouth I $14,950
Robbinsdale I $5,410 $300,000
TOTAL $100,000 $300,000
February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS
Page 5 of 7
What are the Commissions proposing?
That the Commissions' Implementation Plan and CIP set forth a Cost Sharing Policy for negotiating project
cost sharing where, for water quality implementation projects identified in a TMDL or water resource
management plan:
The Commission should share 25 percent of the cost
The remaining 75 percent of cost should be shared by benefiting cities based on the proposed
Cost Sharing Policy.
The Commissions' cost share should be funded through the ad valorem tax levy method
That the Implementation Plan and CIP set forth for each proposed project the potential cost to each city based
on the three means of financing projects: 100 percent ad valorem tax levy; 100 percent formula; and the Cost
Sharing Policy.
That the Implementation Plan require that prior to ordering a project consent be received from cities whose
cost allocation under the negotiated option would exceed that shown in the Implementation Plan.
How would a project under this proposal go forward?
The Implementation Plan would identify the cost to each city for each project based on the three types of
financing options set forth in the JPA, with the Negotiated Agreement option calculated according to the proposed
Cost Sharing Policy. Prior to consideration of an individual project, the JPA requires the development of a
feasibility report, an estimated cost, and the proposed allocation of costs. The proposed allocation may be based
on the Cost Sharing Policy, or the cities involved may negotiate an alternate cost sharing method. A public
hearing must be held allowing cities and other interested parties to comment on the project, its costs, and the
proposed cost allocation. If a city's cost allocation would be in excess of the amount identified in the
Implementation Plan, this new proposal would require consent from that city before a project could go forward.
Does the Commission have the authority to fund projects this way?
The existing Joint Powers Agreement authorizes three methods for financing capital improvements:
1. A negotiated apportionment of cost.
2. Apportionment of cost to the cities in the same proportion as the operating budget (often referred to as
"the formula.
3. Certification of some or all of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in
the watershed.
The JPA further provides that if agreement is not reached to use methods #1 or #2, then by 2/3 vote the
Commission can decide to go forward using method #3.
How did the Commission develop this proposal?
Past projects have been funded by negotiated agreement between benefiting cities. As Clean Water Act
implementation turns to addressing nonpoint source pollution, there is increasing emphasis on improving water
quality on a watershed basis. The TMDL and NPDES programs require local agencies, watershed organizations,
and the state to partner on implementation plans that make progress toward water quality goals.
As projects move from water quantity to water quality, it becomes more difficult to identify benefit, which for
water quantity projects is usually defined based on contributing subwatershed, property removed from the
floodplain, etc. Water quality needs and benefits don't necessarily follow from stormwater contribution.
February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS
Page 6 of 7
Some watershed organizations have found the most practical way to deal with this dilemma is to spread the cost
of all capital projects across the entire watershed. In the Shingle Creek/West Mississippi TAC discussions,
objections to that approach were raised, arguing that since in some cities most of their development occurred after
the watershed rules took effect, those taxpayers had already paid for significant water quality improvements
through higher land costs and special assessments and shouldn't have to pay for similar improvements in other
cities.
The proposed Cost Sharing Policy was developed to find a middle ground between watershed benefit and direct
benefit.
Decision Items
For projects financed using the negotiated agreement method:
The entire watershed should contribute a share to the cost of a capital improvement project that implements a
water quality improvement identified in a TMDL or approved water resource management plan.
That share should be 25 percent, with the balance apportioned to cities.
That share should be funded using the ad valorem tax method
A share of the cost apportioned to the cities should be based on direct benefit, for example, share of lakeshore
or share of stream reach.
That share should be 25 percent.
A share of the cost apportioned to the cities should be based on contributing area/downstream benefiting area.
That share should be 50 percent.
For the Implementation Plan /CIP:
The Implementation Plan should identify what each city's cost share would be under the three funding
options.
The Implementation Plan should require that any upward departure from the city's share under the selected
option requires consent of that city.
Watershed Capital Project Cost Allocation Alternatives in the Joint Powers Agreement
100 ad valorem tax Negotiated agreement 100% formula
across watershed across cities in across all cities
"subdistrict responsible for
JPA provides that if an improvement" May be varied by 2/3 vote if
agreement is not reached to one or more members receive
use another method, this disproportionate benefit
method would be used
Proposed Cost Sharing Policy
25% Commission Contribution 75% City Contribution
25% either ad valorem tax 25% direct 50% contributing/
across watershed or benefit area benefiting area
assessment apportioned to all
cities using formula lake upstream watershed
shoreline downstream benefiting
recognizes there is a stream reach watershed
benefit to the entire other lateral
watershed from meeting benefit
water quality goals
CITY OF
PVM0JT1+
March 14, 2005
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I wanted to thank your city for participating in the meeting held at the Plymouth Creek Center in
November to discuss future capital projects and funding scenarios relating to the Shingle Creek
Watershed. The City of Plymouth is very appreciative of the subsequent efforts of the Shingle
Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and the member cities in developing a
proposed cost sharing policy.
On March 8, 2005 the Plymouth City Council considered the Commission's proposed Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) Cost Sharing Policy. I am forwarding the City of Plymouth's
comments on the policy to you so your city is aware of Plymouth's position as the proposed
policy is considered.
The City supports balancing watershed -wide benefit with more direct benefit which the policy
seems to do. The only revision requested by Plymouth is to use contributing flow to determine
the 50 proposed to be apportioned based on contributing area. The flow rate is a more direct
measure of the contribution to the problem being addressed and provides incentive /reward for
storm water management measures taken upstream such as limiting impervious surface and
providing ponding.
I hope this is of assistance in your City Council's deliberations.
Sincerely,
Ginny Black
Plymouth City Council
PLYMOUTH Adding Quality to Life
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 -1482 TELEPHONE (763) 509 -5000
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER N/ww.ci.^lymouth.mn.us
CITY OF
PLYMOUTR
March 11, 2005
Mark Hanson, Chair
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
3235 Fembrook Lane
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mr. Hanson:
On March 8, 2005 the Plymouth City Council considered Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission's SCWMC) proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Cost Sharing Policy.
The City of Plymouth recognizes and appreciates that the SCWMC has gone to great effort to
develop a CIP Cost Sharing Policy that is fair and equitable. The City also appreciates the
opportunity to participate in the process and provide our input on the policy.
The City supports balancing watershed -wide benefit with more direct benefit. The City believes
this is a fairer method of paying for capital projects then one based solely on either property
values as would the ad valorem tax, or based on a combination of area and tax capacity as the
overall operating budget is funded. The proposed Cost Sharing Policy does better at balancing
the benefits then other scenarios we have seen.
We support the policy as proposed with one reservation. The City of Plymouth requests that
contributing flow be used to determine the 50% of project funding that is proposed to be
apportioned based on contributing area. We believe the flow rate is a more direct measure of the
contribution to the problem being addressed by a project and provides incentive /reward for storm
water management measures taken upstream such as limiting impervious surface and providing
ponding.
Again thank you for your efforts developing the Cost Sharing Policy and including the member
cities in the process. We look forward to working with the SCWMC to improve the water
resources of the watershed.
Sincerely,
Laurie Ahrens,
City Manager
PLYMOUTH Addi Quality to i e
nB Lf
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 -1482 TELEPHONE (763) 509 -5000
PRN9I EL UN RELYGLEO PAPER. www.ci.plymouth,IT mus
City Council Agenda Item No. 9f
City Brooklyn y f n Center y
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 23, 2005
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Engineer's Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public
Hearing, 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements
In response to City Council Resolution 2005 -51, staff has prepared the attached feasibility report
for 48 Avenue North between Drew Avenue Nort h and Lilac Drive North. The report provides a
summary of the existing conditions along the project corridor, a preliminary layout for proposed
street and storm drainage improvements, and a preliminary project cost estimate.
The project cost is estimated to be $86,250. Funding for the project is proposed from multiple
sources as described in the feasibility report and as listed below.
Street Special Assessments 29,709.46
Storm Drainage Special Assessments 9,028.22
Storm Sewer Utility 15,681.78
Street Construction Fund 31,830.54
Attached for consideration is a City Council resolution to receive the Engineer's Feasibility
Report, and to call for a public hearing for April 25, 2005 to consider approval of the project.
Legal notice would then be published, and all property owners who could potentially be assessed
for improvements would receive a Notice of Public Hearing via certified mail.
i
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
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND
CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council, by Resolution No. 2005 -51, directed
the preparation of an engineer's feasibility report regarding proposed improvements to the street and
storm drainage system along 48 Avenue North between Drew Avenue North of Lilac Drive North;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared said report, and recommends that the
proposed improvements be considered; and
WHEREAS, a preliminary project cost estimate has been prepared for proposed street
and storm drainage improvements along said segment of 48 Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess a portion of the cost of the street and storm
drainage improvements against properties within the project area; and
WHEREAS, the approximate cost of said J
ro'ect is estimated to be $86,250 and the
p
project funding sources are currently estimated to be:
Street Special Assessments 29,709.46
Storm Drainage Special Assessments 9,028.22
Storm Sewer Utility 15,681.78
Street Construction Fund 31,830.54
Total 86,250.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Engineer's Feasibility Report is received and accepted.
2. A hearing shall be held on the 25 day of April, 2005, in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to pass
upon said improvement project and at such time and place all persons owning
property affected by said improvements will be given an opportunity to be heard
with reference to said improvements.
RESOLUTION NO.
3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing to be published in the
official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the
notice the total cost of the improvement.
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 followin g g voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY
S BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
ENGINEERING: 763 -569 -3340
FAX: 763 -569 -3494
ENGINEER'S
FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
48 TH AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENTS
MARCH 2005
I hereby certify that this feasibility report
was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision, and that I am a duly Registered
Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota
Reg. No. 26437
Todd A. Blomstrom, P.E.
March 24, 2005
Feasibility Report 4e Avenue North Page I
I. OVERVIEW
This report was prepared in accordance with authorization given by City Council Resolution No. 2005 -51
directing staff to prepare a feasibility report for the reconstruction of 48` Avenue North. The proposed
project limits extend from the centerline of Drew Avenue North to the centerline of Lilac Drive North as
illustrated on Figure 1 (Appendix A).
On March 14, 2005, the Brooklyn Center City Council received a petition submitted by Mr. Dale
Greenwald representing Cass Screw and Machine Company, which owns parcels on both sides of 48'
Avenue North between Drew Avenue and Lilac Drive. Mr. Greenwald has indicated that 48`' Avenue
has become highly deteriorated. He has requested that the 48' Avenue be reconstructed to meet
current City design standards.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Drew Avenue and Lilac Drive were recently reconstructed or modified as part of the state highway
improvements along T.H. 100 during the 2003 and 2004 construction seasons. Both streets were
constructed to current City design standards with curb and gutter. The portion of 48` Avenue between
Drew Avenue and Lilac Drive was not reconstructed as part of the TH 100 project.
The existing pavement along 48' Avenue has been in service for over 40 years. The pavement is showing
signs of significant fatigue and distress. It is no longer cost- effective to perform routine maintenance
activities along 48` Avenue (i.e., crack sealing and sealcoating) based on the extent of pavement deterioration
and very poor pavement drainage. Complete replacement of the bituminous pavement section is considered
warranted.
The building located at 3615 48 Avenue has a truck entrance on the north side of the building that is located
below the elevation of the existing street. Storm water runoff from south side of 48 Avenue is directed east,
past this building. During higher volume rain events, the applicant has indicated that storm water will flood
the street and enter the building through the truck entrance. This problem is due to insufficient street grade
and lack of curb and gutter to properly convey storm water runoff to the existing storm sewer system.
Although traffic volumes along this portion of 48` Avenue are fairly low, the street conveys a higher
percentage of heavy truck traffic accessing the adjacent industrial facilities and the existing lumber yard
located to the north along Lilac Drive. A pavement section suited for conveying heavier truck traffic is
needed to support the commercial industrial traffic generated from the properties within the project area.
City staff conducted televising inspection of the existing sanitary sewer along the subject section of 48`
Avenue North. The sewer inspection did not reveal significant damage or deterioration of the existing 8-
inch diameter sanitary sewer located within the project area. The existing 10 -inch diameter water main
along 48` Avenue North is believed to be in reasonably good condition based on the soil material type
located along the proposed project corridor. A review of City records did not reveal a history of water
main breaks or significant water supply problems in the area.
Feasibility Report 49' Avenue North Page 2
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Due to the need for improved pavement drainage, it is proposed to construct curb and gutter along the
length of 48"' Avenue North from Drew Avenue to Lilac Drive North. The proposed improvements do
not include the replacement of the existing curb and gutter currently located along the south side of 48"
Avenue near Lilac Drive. Preliminary street design includes the construction of a low point within the
street near the building located at 3615 48"' Avenue to resolve the flooding issue identified above.
The proposed street improvements include the construction of concrete driveway aprons for properties
located along the south side of 48"' Avenue North. Portions of the driveways, parking areas and
loading docks located along the north side of 48"' Avenue are proposed to be reconstructed with
bituminous materials along with the addition of concrete valley gutter to facilitate storm water
drainage.
B. STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Storm sewer is currently located at the west end of the proposed project area. This storm sewer has
sufficient depth to allow the storm drainage system to be extended east to a low point located near 3615
48``' Avenue as described above. The existing storm sewer system at the west end of the project
consists of 15 -inch diameter pipe with a limited capacity. This will limit the size of the storm sewer
that can be extended into the project area. However, the addition of 15 -inch storm sewer along 48"
Avenue will provide a substantial improvement for street drainage and will minimize local flooding.
C. WATER MAIN AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
S The existing water and sanitary sewer utilities located within the proposed project area appear to be in
good condition. Significant water and sewer improvements are not proposed as part of this project.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS
The total estimated cost for the proposed project is 86,250. Table 1 provides a summary of the
estimated project costs. Funding for the project is recommended from several sources as described
below.
A. Costs and Funding for Street Improvements
The estimated project cost for roadway improvements is $66,150. The preliminary estimate includes
the cost for project administration, engineering and a 10 percent construction contingency. It is
proposed to levy special assessments for street improvements in accordance with the City's Special
Assessment Policy for properties directly adjacent to the proposed street improvements. Special
assessments are not proposed against 4810 Lilac Drive North (Allied Lumber Co.) located farther
north along Lilac Drive. The property owner of this parcel contributed to the cost for pavement
repairs along Lilac Drive during completion of the TH 100 improvements in 2004.
The proposed street assessment rate for the remaining properties is $0.119 for "A" zone areas and
$0.034 for "B" zone areas. These rates would be assessed to all benefited properties as shown on the
preliminary assessment schedule provided on Appendix B. The remaining street improvement costs
not allocated to special assessments should be provided from the City's Street Construction Fund.
Feasibility Report 48`" Avenue North Page 3
B. Costs and Funding for Storm Drainage System Improvements
The estimated project cost for storm drainage improvements is $20,100. The preliminary estimate
includes the cost for project administration, engineering and a 10 percent construction contingency. It
is proposed to levy special assessments for storm drainage improvements in accordance with the
City's Special Assessment Policy for properties directly adjacent to the proposed street
improvements. Special assessments are not proposed against 4810 Lilac Drive North (Allied Lumber
Co.) as indicated above.
The proposed storm drainage assessment rate for the remaining properties is $0.036 for "A" zone
areas and $0.010 for "B" zone areas. These rates would be assessed to all benefited properties as
shown on the preliminary assessment schedule provided on Appendix B. The remaining storm
drainage improvement costs not allocated to special assessments should be provided from the City's
Storm Sewer Utility Fund.
Recommended 2005 Proiect Schedule
March 28 City Council receives feasibility report, declares cost to be assessed, and calls for
Public Hearings
April 25 Public Hearings, City Council authorizes the project
May 3. Bid opening (Include as alternate bid items in City Improvement Project 2004 -14)
May 9 City Council awards contract
June 1 Start construction
September 15 Construction Substantially Complete
Conclusion
The overall condition of the City's street and utility infrastructure systems is critical to the operation,
safety, welfare, and economic health of the entire City. As a result of the infrastructure needs described
herein, and the proposed solutions and estimated costs described in this report, the proposed project is
considered to be necessary, cost effective, and feasible.
Feasibility Report 48`' Avenue North Page 4
Table 1: Cost and Funding
48th Avenue North
Eng Est Street and Storm Drainage Improvements
Sanitary Water Storm Street Estimated
Streets Sewer Main Sewer Lights Total
Estimated Expenditures
Estimated Construction Cost 1 $56,060.001 $0.001 $0.001 $17,035.001 $0.001 $73,095.001
Contingencies (10 I $5,606.00► 1 1,703.501 1 $7,309.50
Administration, Engineering Legal $4,484.001 I I $1,361.501 1 $5,845.50
Reforestation I I I I I I $0.00
Street Lights I I I I I $0.00
Total Estimated Project Costs (Feasibility) $66,150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,100.00 $0.00 $86,250.00
Estimated Revenue I
Street Assessments ($2,806 /unit) $29,709.461 I I I I $29,709.461
Storm Drainage Assessments ($892/unit) I I I $9,028.221 1 $9,028.22
Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund I I I I 0.00
Water Utility Fund I I I I I $0.001
Storm Sewer Utility Fund $4,610.001 I 1 $11,071.781 1 $15,681.78
Street Light Utility Fund I I I 1 1 $0.00
Street Construction Fund $31,830.541 I I I I $31,830.54
Municipal State Aid I I I I I $0.00
Total Estimated Revenue (Feasibility) $66,150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,100.00 $0.00 $86,250.00
Notes
Curb gutter drainage improvement costs allocated to storm sewer utility
Appendix A
i
Feasibility Report 49 Avenue North
R i....:.... .....i ....:....:....i....:..:.i
i....
91
►z,
pg
Z ease
w 4:11-1
gm
q i i i i
7Q 14 IMJt.. w`� M11 m�f oo
n
z
R
s
Appendix B
Feasibility Report 49 Avenue North
3/28/......
48TW AVENUE STREET
FtM:::f_QUAL;INSTALL'MM S:E TF— NCIJNG :0V- r= t TEN:(.1 -Y F= Afts
..:...I tOf' J= i2.... I�.......• ..........................Ai3DR REIK"f:'k
10- 118 -21-42 -0007 14748 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH 16274 I $8,353.45 I 16275 1 $2,538.49
10- 118 -21-42 -0008 13625 48TH AVENUE NORTH 16274 1 $2,558.76 16275 I $777.56
10- 118 -21-42 -0041 14800 LILAC DRIVE NORTH 1 16274 $14,476.21 1 16275 I $4,399.08
10- 118 -21-42 -0044 1361548TH AVENUE NORTH 1 16274 I $4,321.04 1 16275 I $1,313.09
TOTAL ASSESSMENTS I I $29,709.46 1 $9,028.22
1 i 1
1
I
I 1 I i
Pagel
City Council Agenda Item No. 9g
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 19, 2005
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on
Proposed Special Assessments for 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage
Improvements
Assuming the City Council has accepted the Engineer's Feasibility Report for the proposed
improvements along 48 Avenue North, it is recommended that the City Council also call for a
public hearing to consider the proposed special assessments to be levied in conjunction with this
project. A resolution has been prepared that declares the cost to be assessed for the 48 Avenue
Improvements and calls for a public hearing on the proposed special assessments on April 25,
2005 immediately following the improvement hearing.
It is the staff's recommendation that the Council consider holding the special assessment hearing
immediately following the project hearing. The purpose of holding the special assessment
hearing prior to beginning the project is to assure that any objections to or appeals of the
assessments are known prior to entering into a construction contract or issuing bonds to finance
the assessed portion of the project.
The total special assessments for this project are estimated to be $29,709.46 for street
improvements and $9,028.22 for storm drainage improvements.
Attached for City Council consideration is a resolution declaring cost to be assessed and calling
for a public hearing on the proposed special assessments for 48 Avenue North Street and Storm
Drainage Improvements.
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
S adoption: ado p Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48
AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council has accepted the Engineer's Feasibility
Report for proposed street and storm drainage improvements along 48 Avenue North between Drew
Avenue North and Lilac Drive North; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the street and storm drainage improvement portion of said
project is estimated to be $86,250.00; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has prepared a proposed assessment roll showing the
proposed amount to be specifically assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece,
or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that:
1. That portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners for street
improvements is declared to be $29,709.46. That portion of the cost to be assessed
against benefited property owners for storm drainage improvements is declared to be
$9,028.22.
2. A hearing shall be held on the 25th day of April, 2005, in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to pass upon
such assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by
such improvements will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such
assessment.
3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment
to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing,
and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement.
4. The City- Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel
described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing.
RESOLUTION NO.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
>.CtTYOFaRQ0�KL1 N:�:ENTER:PE S:SMENT::RO
3/2$%2005.
8TW AVENUi STREET E &:S7ORM:Si =WER; IMPI OVEMENTS:
JMP.ROV N7
......ME...._..PROJE 14:::::::::::::<'<:::....:::::::::::: 5:
::::::1'. ISM::: Qt3AL:IN$`FA.L•.LIUI NTS:� 1' NtS3N OV> =12a:P tlf7f� OJ=. T 1 (�la).Y A�25
PFD
RTY... ID .DR�S..:.................1€. ��1" I'.#::...... Z��. .::...:Ir��llf.�#....�...:�T QRM
10 -118 -21-42 -0007 14748 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH 1 16274 I $8,353.451 16275 I $2,538.49
10- 118 -21-42 -0008 13625 48TH AVENUE NORTH 1 16274 $2,558.76 16275 I $777.56
10- 118 -21-42 -0041 14800 LILAC DRIVE NORTH j 16274 $14,476.21 1 16275 1 $4,399.08
10- 118 -21-42 -0044 13615 48TH AVENUE NORTH 16274 1 $4,321.04 16275 1 $1,313.09
I
ITOTAL ASSESSMENTS I 1 $29,709.46 I $9,028.22
Pagel
City Council Agenda Item No. 9h
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor
From: Michael J. McCauley
City Manager
Date: March 24, 2005
Re: Additional Audit Services: Payroll
Attached is a letter outlining additional services related to auditing payroll prepared the
City's auditor. The auditor indicated that the cost for Item 1. could be reduced or
increased depending on the sample size. The auditor is prepared to undertake the
additional review as the City Council may direct.
0 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
i
Tautges Redpath, Ltd.
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants
Michael McCauley
City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
As you requested, this letter outlines our standard audit procedure related to payroll and an
estimate to perform additional procedures, if requested.
Standard audit procedures relating to payroll include 1) review of internal controls; 2)
analytical tests; and 3) sampling of individual payroll transactions.
Internal Controls. Audit files contain a narrative of the payroll system. The narrative
documents the payroll process and control procedures. Each year this narrative is
reviewed and updated.
Analytical tests. The use of analytical tests is an efficient approach to auditing payroll.
Analytical tests include comparisons of current year payroll expenditures to prior period
expenditures, comparisons of current year payroll expenditures to current budget and
relate it to the number of personnel. Additionally, payroll record totals are compared to
totals on Form 941.
Sampling of individual transactions. Testing of a selected number of individual
employees is performed to determine that the employee received the authorized rate of
pay, the hours paid were supported by an approved timesheet, that requested
withholdings were made and the net pay was mathematically correct.
We have been asked to provide a quote for performing additional tests of the payroll system
for 2004. We suggest that additional procedures be packaged as an "agreed upon procedures
engagement With this type of engagement the City and the Auditor "agree" on additional
tests /procedures to be performed. We would then perform the requested procedures and
prepare a report of our findings. The Agreed Upon Procedures Engagement could include the
following:
1. For one payroll period, select an additional sample of 25 individuals for testing. The
sample would include individuals from each department. Procedures would include:
a. Trace hours paid to an approved timesheet,
b. Trace wage paid to authorized amount,
c. Determine withholdings are proper and authorized.
White Bear Lake Office. 4810 White Bear Parkway, White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110, USA Telephone: 651 426 7000 Fax: 651 426 5004
Hastings Office. 1303 South Frontage Road, Suite 13, Hastings, MN 55033, USA Telephone: 651 480 4990 Fax: 651 426 5004
HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. is a member of International. A world -wide organization of accounting firms and business advisers.
599201.1
d. Verify existence of employee by reviewing personnel file with specific attention
to start date and termination date.
2. For one payroll period
a. Obtain direct deposit report
b. Determine that routing numbers are unique for all direct deposits (ghost employee
test).
3. Have HLBTR payroll expert meet with City's payroll clerk and obtain detailed
narrative of clerks knowledge of withholding rules
The cost for this "agreed upon procedures engagement" would be at our standard hourly
rates. We estimate the cost for this engagement to be approximately $2,600 to $3,500 as
follows:
Procedure #1 $800 to $1,200
Procedure #2 $200 to $300
Procedure #3 $600 to $800
Engagement management and report preparation $1,000 to $1,200
Total $2.600 to $3.500
If you have any questions, please contact me at 651- 407 -5803.
HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD.
David J. Mol, CPA
DJM:clg
0
599201.1
City Council Agenda Item No. 9i
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director
DATE: March 24, 2005
SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances
Currently there are approximately sixty plus duplexes and/or two family dwellings within
Brooklyn Center. A significant number of these units are now nonconforming. It has been the
practice to require the owners of these properties to maintain a rental license in order to preserve
their rights to use the property as a duplex. Note that the properties were originally constructed
as legal two family structures. It is nor uncommon that these properties are occupied by family
members and no rent is being paid. If the owner does not maintain a rental license for a 2 year
property they lose the right to use the property in the future as rental. This issue is further
complicated by the sale of these properties to new owners with the intent of using the property as
rental. The rental license costs a minimum of $375 if one side is rented and an addition $75 if
both sides are occupied.
Community Development has found the enforcement of the licensing provisions of
Chapter 12 relative to these properties to be extremely time consuming and often contentious. It
is contentious because of the costs of the license, the required inspection of the property and the
likelihood of compliance orders being issued to properties that are not being rented and /or
occupied by family members. Because of the inordinate amount of time we spend on a relative
small number of properties, we believe that the proposed ordinance amendment would address
most of these issues.
The amendment would require the owners of such properties to annually certify to
the City that they are not renting the property. Certification would be on a form developed by the
City and they would not be assessed a fee. Rental properties would still be requires to obtain a
license. Properties that have been certified as non rental, that are nonconforming will retain the
right to use the property in the future and he sold as such.
Other changes in the proposed amendments allow the City to recover expenses from the
applicant's fee. The expenses are those associated with processing rental license applications
including inspections when the application is withdrawn by the applicant. Also, the ordinance
reflects current state law relative to the reconstruction of a nonconforming The owner
g
of a building that at least 50 has been destroyed has 180 days to make application for a
building permit.
It would be the staff recommendation that the Council hold the first reading, set the date
of the hearing for June 13,2005 and refer the issue to the Housing Commission to review and
comment on for Council consideration at the June 13, 2005 Council meeting.
CHARLEs L. LEFEvERE
Attomey at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9215
Email: clefevere @kmnedy- gmven.com
February 25, 2005
Brad Hoffinan
Director of Community Development
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199
Re: Licensing of Duplex Apartments
Dear Brad:
You requested that I draft an ordinance exempting a certain duplex apartments from the requirement
that rental licenses be secured. Licenses are required by Section 12 -901 for a "rental unit A
"rental unit" is defined in Section 12 -201 as "a dwelling or dwelling unit let for rent or lease."
Therefore, whether it is a single family residence or a duplex, no license would be required if the
unit were not being rented or leased. For example, if a family chose to have an adult child live on
the other side of a duplex, without the payment of rent, no license would be required under the
current code.
In the attached draft, I have not provided for an exception from the licensing requirement solely on
the basis of family status. If an owner receives compensation for the rental of a unit, it seems to me
that such a business operator should be responsible to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for
its customers and that the City would wish to assure this through the licensing process without
regard to whether the customer was related to the business owner. If, however, you wish to provide
for an exemption in the ordinance for a landlord renting a unit to a family member, let me know and
I will amend the ordinance accordingly.
It seems to me to make sense to require certification that one or more units of a duplex are not being
rented on an annual basis so that the City will know promptly when a change in status has occurred
that would result in a requirement that the owner secure a rental unit license.
In the attached draft, such certification is required by paragraph 1 of Section 12 -901.
A second aspect of the ordinance you requested was that such certification would be required for a
non conforming duplex to maintain its non conforming status. This provision is included in the
attached ordinance in paragraph 7 of Section 35 -111. State law was recently amended to limit the
CLL- 259761vl
BR291 -16
Brad Hoffinan Ltr
February 25, 2005
Page 2
circumstances under which a city can require that a non conforming use be brought into
compliance. The change to paragraph 5 of Section 35 -111 brings it into compliance with the
statutory changes.
The statute, Minnesota Stat. 462.357, Subd.I(e), provides for a non conforming use abandonment
period of one year. Current City ordinances provide for abandonment of non conforming use status
after two years. I do not believe that it is necessary for the City to change the ordinance to a one
year period if it does not wish to do so. In paragraph 7 of Section 12 -901 in the attached ordinance,
I have followed the two -year abandonment term. If you wish to have the ordinance amended to
provide for a loss of non conforming use status after one year of abandonment, let me know, and I
will amend the draft ordinance accordingly.
Finally, you requested the addition of language authorizing the City to retain a part of license fees,
when a license application is withdrawn, to cover City expenses. That additional language is found
at Section 12 -902 in the attached draft.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:peb
Enclosure
CLL-259761v1
BR291 -16
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13` day of June, 2005, at 7:00
p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance relating to rental
housing and to non conforming uses.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance.
Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3303 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON-
CONFORMING USES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12 -901, 12 -902
AND 35 -111
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 12 -901 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is
amended as follows:
Section 12 -901. LICENSING OF RENTAL UNITS.
1. License Required. No person shall operate a rental dwelling without first having
obtained a license to do so from the City of Brooklyn Center as hereinafter provided. There shall
be two types of licenses: regular and provisional. Provisional licenses are defined in Section 12-
913. An owner of a duplex dwelline that is beinc occupied but is not beiniz let for lease or rent is
not reauired to secure a rental dwelline license provided such owner files with the Citv a
certification. in a form provided by the City. that no rent or anv other consideration is being Daid.
given or provided. directiv or indirectly, by or on behalf of the occupants to the owner. The
owner shall provide such additional information in support of such certification as may be
reauired by the Compliance Official.
2. License Term. Regular licenses will be issued for a period of two years.
Provisional licenses will be issued for a period of six months. All licenses, regular and
provisional, will be reviewed every six months after the beginning of the license term to
determine the license status.
3. License renewal. License renewals shall be filed at least 90 days prior to license
expiration date. Within two weeks of receipt of a complete application and of the license fee
required by Section 12 -902, the Compliance official shall schedule an inspection. No application
for an initial or renewal license shall be submitted to the city council until the Compliance
official has determined that all life, health safety violations or discrepancies have been corrected.
4. Condition of License. Prior to issuance or renewal of a license and at all times
during the license term, a license holder must be current on the payment of all utility fees, taxes,
and assessments due on the licensed property and any other rental real property in the city owned
by the license holder. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minnesota Statutes, Section
278.01- 278.03, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council may on application
waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes or any
portion thereof which remain unpaid for a period exceeding one (1) year after becoming due.
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 2. Section 12 -902 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is
amended as follows:
Section 12 -902. LICENSE FEES. License fees, as set forth by city council resolution,
shall be due 90 days prior to the license expiration date; in the cases of new unlicensed
dwellings, license fees shall be due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
A delinquency penalty of 5% of the license fee for each day of operation without a valid
license shall be charged operators of rental dwellings. Once issued, a license is nontransferable
and the licensee shall not be entitled to a refund of any license fee upon revocation or
suspension; however, the licensee shall be entitled to a license fee refund, prorated monthly,
upon proof of transfer of legal control or ownership. If an applicant withdraws an application
prior to issuance of a license. the fee shall be refunded after deductiniz the costs of inspection and
anv other costs and expenses incurred by the Citv in connection with receivinu and processine
the application.
A fee, as set by city council resolution, shall be charged for all reinspections necessary
after the first reinspection. The reinspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal
for the property, in the case of rental housing and at the time of recertification of occupancy for
nonresidential properties.
Section 3. Section 35 -111 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is
amended as follows:
Section 35 -111. NONCONFORMING USES. Unless specifically provided otherwise
herein, the lawful use of any land or buildin g g existin at the time of adoption of this ordinance
may be continued even if such use does not conform to the regulations of this ordinance,
provided:
1. No such nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a
greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of
this ordinance.
2. Such nonconforming use shall not be moved to any other part of the parcel of land
upon which the same was conducted at the time of the adoption of this ordinance.
3. A nonconforming use of a building existing at the time of adoption of this
ordinance may be extended throughout the building provided no structural
alterations except those required by ordinance, law, or other regulation are made
therein, and provided that no such extension in the floodway overlay zone shall
result in increased flood damage potential.
Excepted from the structural alteration limitation are single family dwellings,
located in residential districts other than RI and R2, provided any structural
alterations or additions shall conform with the requirements of the RI and R2
district, and the Flood Plain regulations as applicable.
ORDINANCE NO.
4. If a nonconforming use occupies a building and ceases for a continuous period of
two years, any subsequent use of said building shall be in conformity to the use
regulation specified by this ordinance for the district in which such building is
located.
5. Any nonconforming use shall not be continued following 50% destruction of the
building in which it was conducted by flood, fire, wind, earthquake, or explosion,
according to the estimate of the Building Inspector, approved by the City Council,
unless aMMlication for a building hermit is made within 180 days of when the
propertv is damaged. If a building permit is applied for. the Citv may impose
reasonable conditions upon the building Mermit in order to mitigate any newly
created impact on adiacent MroMertv.
6. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, where there is a nonconforming use of
land on a parcel with no structure or where three is a nonconforming use of land
(such as storage of equipment and supplies), on which there is a conforming
structure such use shall be terminated within two years following the effective
date of this ordinance.
7. Nonconforming duMlex nronerties in R1 districts shall lose nonconforming use
status and must be brought into comnliance with current code provisions if a two
year period elapses during which the owners do not apply for a rental dwelling
license or file the certificate reauired by Section 12 -901.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30)
days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 2005.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
(Underlining indicates new matter; str4king indicates deleted material.)