Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 04-11 CCP Regular Session Public Copy AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION April 11, 2005 6:OO 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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center April 11, 2005 AGENDA *REVISED 1. Informal Open Forum With City Council 6:45 p.m. provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2. Invocation 7 p.m. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting —The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. 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 28, 2005 Study Session 2. March 28, 2005 Regular Session b. Licenses C. Resolution Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract, Improvement Project No. p g p J 2005 -09, Lift Station Nos. 7 and 10 Control Cabinet Replacement and Water System Security Improvements d. Resolution Authorizing Traffic Signal Agreement No. 87808R with Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 11, 2005 e. Resolution Awarding Contract for Storm Sewer Cleaning and Repairs Along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive 7.5 Presentation Audrey Harris- Blount, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, Regarding Annual Art Contest 8. Public Hearing Item a. 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): CVS Store —This item was first read on March 14, 2005; published in the City's official newspaper on March 24, 2005; and is offered this evening for second reading and public hearing. Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. 9. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Proposal for a Housing Finance Program and the Issuance of a Housing Revenue Note to Finance a Multifamily Housing Project Pursuant to Minnesota Law, and Authorizing the Publication of a Notice of the Hearing -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. b. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club in Support of the Earle Brown Days Youth Golf Tournament Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. C. Staff Report Regarding Earth Day and Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2005, Earth Day in Brooklyn Center Proclamation Declaring April 16 -23, 2005, to be The Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Week •Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt proclamations. d. Mayoral Appointment to Financial Commission Requested Council Action: Motion to ratify Mayoral nomination. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- April 11, 2005 e. Resolution Amending the Schedule for Fees for Planning and Inspection Fees Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. f. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center Regarding Permitted Uses in the CIA Service /Office District -Requested Council Action: Motion to approve first reading, which sets second reading and public hearing for May 9, 2005. g. Staff Report for Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive Improvements, Improvement Project No. 2004 -08 Requested Council Action: Direction on landowner's request. h. 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule Requested Council Action: Motion to amend the 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule to add a joint meeting on May 25, 2005, with the Commissions Chairs. i. Request of Watershed Commissions for Comment on Proposed Capital Improvement P P P Program Cost Sharing Policy Requested Council Action: Discuss and provide direction on response to Watershed Commissions. 10. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 7a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, and Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, and O'Connor DATE: April 11, 2005 SUBJECT: March 28, 2005, Regular Session Minutes Councilmember Niesen requested the following amendments to the March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes: Item 6. Council Report, 5th paragraph, starts with: Councilmember Niesen informed that she met with the City Manager.... 1. Please update this paragraph: Councilmember Niesen informed that she met with the City Manager on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 to discuss issues as outlined on the Agenda she sent prior to the meeting. The main discussion was on how the Council could go forward.... <continue the sentence as provided in packet. 2. Please add to this same paragraph: Councilmember Niesen thanked the City Manager for copying all Councilmembers (Mayor) on the Discussion Agenda she had emailed prior to their 3 -23 -05 meeting, and noted her expectation that since this meeting was communicated to all, that similar process be followed for all Members (Mayor). Councilmember Niesen asked the City Manager if he did so inform all Councilmembers (Mayor) of all private meetings he has had with Councilmembers. The City Manager responded that this was the first time he had received an Agenda. Thank you. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 28, 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 Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Chief of Police Scott Bechthold, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Carmody questioned why the Happy Hollow area would be included in the project with regards to Consent Item 7d, Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Award of Contract, Improvement Project No. 2005 -07, 2005 Street Seal Coating. City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that the surface in the Happy Hollow area was not satisfactory when it was installed. The contractor had provided additional funding for the area be seal coated to address the unsatisfactory surface. Councilmember Carmody asked about Consent Item 7f, Resolution Selecting the No Waiver Option for Statutory Tort Liability. Mr. McCauley discussed the Statutory tort limit of $300,000 per individual and an aggregate of $1,000,000 per incident and informed that with regards to a State claim the amount of potential liability may be waived to the extent that insurance is purchased above the Statutory limits. By not waiving the limits, the City's insurance premiums are lower. Councilmember Lasman questioned if there would be one or two cadets for the City of Brooklyn Center with regards to Consideration Item 9a, Presentation on Hennepin County Joint Community and Police Project. Mr. McCauley informed that he believes it would be one cadet for the City of Brooklyn Center and one cadet for the City of Brooklyn Park. 03/28/05 -1- DRAFT Councilmember a mb L sman uestioned how the City would know if properties are being rented and q ty P P g what the consequences would be for those who are renting without a license with regards to Consideration Item 9i, An Ordinance Relating to Rental Dwellings and Non- Conforming Uses; Amending City Code Sections 12 -901, 12 -902, and 35 -111. Mr. McCauley discussed most issues are complaint driven and that the consequence could lead to prosecution. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the Lions Park area would be paying for seal coating with regards to Consent Item 7d, Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing Award of a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2005 -07, 2005 Street Seal Coating. Mr. McCauley discussed the Lions Park area would not be paying for seal coating and that the streets being seal coated were done in a previous project. Councilmember Niesen questioned what the implication is for a first reading and informed that she needs to understand the difference between a first reading and public hearing. Mr. McCauley discussed that the first reading causes the process to start for a public hearing. Councilmember Niesen informed that she would like to understand some things about Chapter 12 with regards to Consideration Item 9i, An Ordinance Relating to Rental Dwellings and Non- Conforming Uses; Amending City Code Sections 12 -901, 12 -902, and 35 -111, and would not support introducing a first reading and calling for a public hearing. Mr. McCauley informed that the Council can decide not to introduce this ordinance amendment at this time and just direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance; however, staff believes it is reasonable and suggests introduction of first reading and setting second reading and public hearing on June 13, 2005. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes this is an important ordinance and would like to review with the Housing Commission before introducing and setting date for a public hearing. Councilmember O'Connor informed that she would like the March 14, 2005, Regular Session minutes amended to read the following: Paae 3, fifth paraaraph: Councilmember O'Connor stated she does not believe that the Council has to have a Public Hearing because the Planning Commission already had 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. Paae 23, fifth paragraph: Councilmember O'Connor said even if this resolution is not passed, there will still be the responsibility to recycle electronic waste properly. I Councilmember Niesen informed that she would like the March 14, 2005, Regular Session minutes amended to read the following: e 03/28/05 -2- DRAFT Pave 3, fifth paraaranh: 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 indicated that there was no requirement to this particular issue and 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. Paee 3. seventh oaraaranh: 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 the loophole. She said at the last Council meeting agenda Item No. 9b was the rezoning and it was tabled. Paae 4, third oaraizraoh: Councilmember Niesen said if the Council does not vote on the rezoning and does not take action, then Minn. Stat. §462.357 will not matter. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS There was no Work Session agenda. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to adjourn the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 03/28/05 -3- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 28, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1• INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Council met in Informal Open Forum at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Chief of Police Scott Bechthold, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Hugo Linder, 5328 Penn Avenue North, addressed the Council to provide informational materials and discuss Segway transportation. Mr. Linder said that he would like to know more about the restrictions, if any, on this type of transportation before purchasing a Segway. Mayor Kragness thanked Mr. Linder for the materials and informed him that this issue would need to be reviewed by the Police Department. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes the Park and Recreation Commission should also be involved with this review. Mayor Kragness suggested that the Police Department and the Park and Recreation Commission review Segway transportation and that this item be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Linder asked if the City Council agendas are on the City's Website. Mr. Linder was informed that the agendas are on the City's Website and that he would be contacted personally when this item will be on an agenda. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:53 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. 03/28/05 -1- DRAFT 4. 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, Chief of Police Scott Bechthold, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember O'Connor reported that she attended the Housing Commission meeting; an open house for Northwest Communications Television; and the Legislative Breakfast on March 19,2005. Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on March 15, 2005; the Crime Prevention meeting on March 16, 2005; and the Legislative Breakfast on March 19, 2005. She informed that the Police Awards Ceremony will be held on April 20, 2005, at Constitution Hall and that the Crime Prevention Golf Fundraising event will be held on May 20, 2005. Councilmember Carmody reported that she attended the Earle Brown Days Board of Directors Y P Y meeting and informed that the Earle Brown Days events will be the same as last year with the exception of the teen street dance. Mayor Kragness reminded that the slips need to be turned in for participation in the parade and expressed that she believes it is important for the Council to participate in the parade. Councilmember Niesen reported she attended the Financial Commission meeting and informed that there were two applications received for the vacancy on the Financial Commission. She expressed that she was happy to see both of the applicants were present at the meeting. She informed that she attended the Housing Commission meeting to discuss some unfinished business from last year; however, was not able to discuss her unfinished business and was asked to come back in May. Councilmember Niesen informed that she met with the City Manager to discuss how the Council could go forward and connect better with the Planning Commission and comply with the laws as they were intended and not find difficult situations where the Council has to argue amongst themselves with deadlines and trying to meet legal requirements of the law. She discussed that she had asked Mr. McCauley where the legal publications would be published in the Sun Post Newspaper. Mr. McCauley discussed that the official notices of hearings are in the legal publications which are generally in the back of the Sun Post Newspaper. 03/28/05 -2- DRAFT Mayor Kragness reported that she attended a hearing at the State Office Building in St. Paul regarding the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bill to request an extension on the City's TIF District No. 3. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman to approve the agenda and consent agenda with minor amendments to the minutes. Councilmember O'Connor requested that Consent Items 7e, Resolution Designating Additional Depositories of City Funds and 7f, Resolution Selecting the No Waiver Option for Statutory Tort Liability, be removed and placed as Council Consideration Items 9j and 9k. There was discussion regarding g g the process for removing consent agenda items.. Councilmember O'Connor read the language provided on the agenda describing that no separate discussion of consent agenda items will be discussed unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of the Council Consideration items. Councilmember Lasman amended her motion to approve the amended consent agenda, seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the March 14, 2005, Study, Regular, and Work Session minutes with the minor amendments suggested at the Study Session meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the following list of licenses: 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 03/28/05 -3- DRAFT Dave's Appliance Htg Air 1601 37 Avenue NE, Columbia Heights O 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 1520025 th 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. 11050 26 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 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, Inc. 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 03/28/05 -4- DRAFT 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) Famaz 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 Motion passed unanimously. 7e. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-52 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-07,2005 STREET SEAL COATING 03/28/05 -5- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -53 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-07,2005 STREET SEAL COATING The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS This item was removed to Council Consideration Item 9j. 7f. RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY This item was removed to Council Consideration Item 9k. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 8a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-005 SUBMITTED BY GREG A. NELSON. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INSTRUCTIONAL USE IN THE 1 -1 (INDUSTRIAL PARK) ZONING DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS MARCH 10, 2005, MEETING. City Manager Michael McCauley discussed educational uses require a special use permit and that the Planning Commission reviewed the application submitted by Greg A. Nelson and is recommending its approval. He informed that the applicant was present if the Council had any questions. Councilmember Niesen questioned if the Council would be voting on this tonight since there is nothing to rezone. Mr. McCauley discussed that this is a use that is permitted under the zoning code and does not require any change in the underlying zoning. A special use permit simply requires approval with a motion as opposed to an ordinance. Councilmember Carmody questioned what the sign policy would be with respect to 69 Avenue North. Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren discussed that the sign policy deals with a resolution that was adopted by the Council back in the early 1970s with respect to the visibility of wall signs on 69 Avenue North. 03/28/05 -6- DRAFT Councilmember Lasman questioned if the extension that was asked for by the applicant had been worked out. Mr. Warren informed he believes nothing needed to be worked out and that he was not aware of any problems. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if this special use permit is approved, will the space continue its use as a Karate Company rather than industrial. Mr. Warren discussed that the special use permit is for an instructional use and under the classification of use, a special use permit would be granted and go with the land. He further stated that the land could revert to industrial and would not require a special use permit. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -005 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 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. Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. PRESENTATION ON HENNEPIN COUNTY JOINT COMMUNITY AND POLICE PROJECT Chief of Police Scott Bechthold discussed that during the fall of 2004, he and Chief Wade Setter from the City of Brooklyn Park 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: 03/28/05 -7- DRAFT 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. 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. Mayor Kragness questioned how many cadets would be included with the project. Mr. Bechthold informed there would be one for the City of Brooklyn Center and one for the City of Brooklyn Park. Mayor Kragness expressed that she would see it being beneficial to having more than one ethnic background for the two cities and using them as translators since the language barrier seems to be the biggest problem. Mr. Bechthold informed that he believes there would be some cross sharing of resources if that is presented and that the cities now have officers who are bilingual and share those resources. Mayor Kragness asked if the cultural liaison would be from Hennepin County. Mr. Bechthold discussed that is correct and that they will be Hennepin County Corrections employees assigned to the City with direct oversight by the City they are assigned. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the City has groups identified to participate in the project or if that is part of the job to seek groups. Mr. Bechthold discussed the project management team is now in the process of developing the criteria to recruit and create an application process for members of the community to take part on this multicultural advisory board which will be a joint and recruitment effort between the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. Councilmember O'Connor asked Mr. Bechthold if he and the Police Chief from Brooklyn Park solicited this money from Hennepin County. Mr. Bechthold informed they did not and that there was an invitation from the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners asking them to participate in discussions regarding this topic. As part of that meeting they requested staff to work with the communities and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to develop a plan. That in turn created a plan which had been presented to the Hennepin County Board and the Board approved that plan and also approved a contingency transfer of that $400,000 to the budgets for the community corrections and the social services budget. Mayor Kragness questioned what the age group would be for the cadet program. Mr. Bechthold discussed that it would be open to eighteen and older. 03/28/05 -8- DRAFT I Councilmember Carmody questioned how the funding would work for the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council since they are not a member. Mr. Bechthold informed that the funding is from Hennepin County. 9b. 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 Mayor Kragness informed the Lions Club will be celebrating their 50th Anniversary in April and that she would like to express gratitude for their support to youth and the Earle Brown Days events in Brooklyn Center. Mayor Kragness read the resolution expressing appreciation for the donation of $7,000 to be used to support the annual Earle Brown Days Parade and the Entertainment in the Parks Program. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-54 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 3-9,2005, TO BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Declaring April 3 -9, 2005, to be Community Development Week. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adopt Proclamation Declaring April 3 -9, 2005, Community Development Week. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she believes the citizens of Brooklyn Center are the community developers and the ones that maintain and development their own property. She does not believe there is a need to ask citizens to bow down to the Community Development Department and appreciate them; and that it should be the other way around, bowing down to the citizens. Mayor Kragness discussed that proclamations are to provide awareness of what the City staff does for the City and declares a week for departments. She believes this is the least that the Council can do and that this proclamation is very much in order. 03/28/05 -9- DRAFT I Councilmember Niesen questioned if other departments receive proclamations. Mayor Kragness discussed that in the p ast the Council had adopted P ted roclamations for other de artments. Councilmember Niesen expressed she hears Councilmember O'Connor and does not really understand the purpose for proclamations. In her mind she does not know why the Council does not have a whole City staff proclamation. She believes that all viewpoints at this table should be appreciated and respected. Mayor Kragness expressed she believes that out of courtesy to the people who work for the City this is something the Council does for each department. Councilmember Lasman expressed that every department appreciates a thank you and a word of appreciation. She does not believe this is bowing down and acknowledges a job being done well. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9d. RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU, JR. Mr. McCauley discussed this is the item prepared by Mr. Neu summarizing the Council's Retreat that took place in February. Councilmember O'Connor informed that she had some corrections she would like incorporated. On t page 3, after number 18, the sentence reading "After discussion, the participants identified the following "big things" as having the highest priority for the year 2005:" she would like to have the wording changed to the following: After discussion, some of the participants identified the following "big things" as having the highest priority for the year 2005. She believes she did not say that most of the items were her top priorities. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the language could be amended to the majority of the participants since it was the majority of the Council. Councilmember O'Connor said that would be fine. Councilmember O'Connor asked that page 4, fourth paragraph, be amended to read the following: It was concluded by some of the 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. Councilmember Carmody again questioned if the language could be amended to the majority. Councilmember O'Connor said that would be fine. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she does not believe this is something that needs to be voted on and will be voting against. 03/28/05 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen questioned if acceptance of this is something of a required action by the Council. Mr. McCauley informed that this constitutes a meetin g g and the minutes of that meeting. It has been the ractice of the Council p C ncil to adept this report and memorializes an official Council document of what direction is taken based on the meeting. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she believes it is an important thing to vote on because the Council needs to be aware of what was written for approval. Councilmember Carmody discussed she believes that this report does not reflect the views of any one person; it is just a majority finding for a written record. Councilmember Lasman pointed out that the resolution is resolving that the Council agrees this is a summary of key observations and conclusions as prepared by Carl Neu. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-55 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU, JR. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed. 9e. REQUEST Q OF WATERSHED COMMISSIONS FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COST SHARING POLICY Mr. McCauley discussed the watersheds are proposing that the watershed commissions undertake major capital projects with a different approach J oach than what has been used i p P J n the past. In the past, PP p P capital projects have been undertaken b p P J y negotiated agreement between cities or undertaken individually by a city. The watershed is proposing that the watershed'itself would come up with a capital improvement plan to address major watershed capital projects. They are also proposing a funding mechanism that involves twenty -five percent of their project costs raised through an ad valorem tax levied against all the property in the watershed that would be submitted to Hennepin County. Hennepin County would levy the tax on behalf of the watershed. Seventy -five percent of the project would then be paid for by communities; and of the seventy -five percent, twenty -five percent of the whole cost would be paid by cities directly benefiting and having area. The remaining fifty percent of the total cost of the project would be paid by the benefiting communities upstream and downstream. 03/28/05 -11- DRAFT Mr. McCauley discussed that he attempted to break this down into those components with a draft letter so that the Council could provide the watershed with some response. The first issue is broken down into the initial question of does the Council want to respond to the watersheds that undertaking capital projects through the watershed is a concept that the Council would support; or the draft alternative is the Council does not support the watershed becoming involved. If the watershed undertakes some of these projects the City is looking at multi jurisdictional projects that have languished such as the wetlands of Twin Lake which impact Crystal and Brooklyn Center. He informed that in number eight of the draft letter supporting the concept he picked a number to provide a cap formula so that one city would not be overburdened by costs assessed in a five year capital project. In number nine he separated out the issue of an ad valorem tax as part of that component. Councilmember Carmody informed she had a few questions regarding the draft letter and said that she would go in order and is as follows: 1. Is the deterioration on the creek restoration in Brooklyn Park due to the flow or just due to the homeowner? Mr. McCauley discussed that the more you have development upstream from the creek bed, the greater the flow and that flow going though undermines the creek bed to a degree that is not the result of what Brooklyn Park is necessarily doing as much as what Maple Grove is doing by putting more water in. The issue of bank restoration becomes the question of scope and what is causing it. 2. Clarification on the definition t general of he gen 1 amount. a Mr. McCauley discussed that the watershed has proposed a certain level of effort over the three years that are set forth in their example. What he is suggesting is that if the Council comes in with a plan they would be asking for response to it with a rough estimate of ad valorem tax so that the amount cannot double or increase. 4/5. Does the watershed have a list complete for the capital improvements and will the plan sunset automatically? Mr. McCauley discussed there is not a completed list and that this would be a rolling five and ten year with no sunset. Councilmember, Carmody questioned if by agreeing to this would the Council be agreeing to the ad valorem tax indefinitely. Mr. McCauley discussed that this is proposed as an indefinite undertaking. 6. Does the Council limit that they do not want to pay for unnecessary work? Mr. McCauley discussed he believes that is where the funding issues come into effect. 8. Does the Council have to agree on an amount and can the watershed change the amount without the Council agreeing to it? 03/28/05 -12- DRAFT Mr. McCauley discussed this would be a rational way to approach putting a limit on it. He pointed out that this number is not exact and is only being used for discussion to suggest some formula be adopted capping a city's potential cost. Councilmember Carmody asked if the letter from the City of Plymouth's City Manager is talking about the amount of water or the amount of pollutants. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes they are looking at flow rate which would not be a measure of water quality. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the twenty -five percent ad valorem tax would be charged by Hennepin County to all citizens of Hennepin County. Mr. McCauley discussed that it would be charged on all the taxable property within each of the watersheds. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she believes this is a lot of money and that she wished all the cities would take a simpler approach to reducing pollution and runoff by not having so many impervious surfaces. If chloride is the problem in Shingle Creek she wished that the City could reduce the amount of salt along with other cities doing the same thing. Councilmember Niesen informed that she wanted to preface her remarks and make some points since she lives on Twin Lake and has attended Shingle Creek Watershed meetings, along with having worked on some environmental issues and donating to environmental agencies. Looking at this she understands the intent is to clean up water. Minnesota has some waters that have been identified as impaired. It is her understanding that there was impaired water somewhere in Minnesota and in order to get some action done there was a model of local control issued as a watershed district with taxing authority. These people are appointed by the County Commissioners. Per a publication from the League of Minnesota Cities dated February 16, 2005, there was a bipartisan group of Legislators from the House and Senate who introduced the major initiative called "Impaired Waters Legislation This Legislation has not been passed but what is on the table is to collect more than $75 Million in new revenue for Minnesota. The goal is to identify surface water that is polluted, to develop a scientifically based plan identifying where the sources of that pollution can be reduced, and fund the efforts needed to achieve reductions in pollute load. She believes this came after the Shingle Creek Watershed started talking about funding projects. Some of the issues working with what the watershed sent needs to be addressed. First of all, Minnesota has started this new initiative and will be collecting money. She believes that Brooklyn Center has just as much right to have projects worked on as any other city in the State since Twin Lake has been on the top ten most polluted list due to the Joslyn site. 03/28/05 -13- DRAFT Looking at the proposal for Shingle Creek they are talking about funding three types of activities; non- structural ones, small projects, and capital projects. At this time the capital projects is where the money is going to be and it is incredibly expensive to work on water quality issues. Looking at funding capital projects that are covered by the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) there are negotiated portion of costs, an apportionment of costs to the cities in the same portion of their operating budget, and certification of the cost to the County for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed in those nine cities. The Shingle Creek Watershed is proposing another idea which was premised on four principals: one, there is a benefit to the entire watershed meeting water quality and management plan goals; two, that for most projects there is a benefit to some areas; three, for most projects there is an upstream area causing the need for improvement; and four, from any project there is a downstream area that benefits from improvement. Getting into the cost sharing policy it talks about if they do a capital project they figure that the commission share should be twenty -five percent and the City's share should be seventy- five percent of whatever a project costs. She believes that potentially if this is not limited and if this is not worded in a different way, she could possibly receive a bill. She inquired since the City is in a JPA how the Shingle Creek Watershed could write any suggestion that cities should do this model and questioned how that would work because the City does not have the ability. Mr. McCauley discussed if special assessments are levied they would have to be levied by the City, meaning that the City has complete control over what funding mechanism it would use. As discussed two weeks ago, nobody was suggesting that special assessments against properties on a particular body of water was likely to be a practical source of money. The Council itself would have to decide that it wanted to go in that direction. Staff's suggestion looking at it is that the storm drainage utility would be the source of funding. In order to show some specific benefit to the property to sustain a special assessment would require far more energy and time than it would be worth for any money that would be generated by trying to specially assess individual properties. Councilmember Niesen questioned the word likely that had been used. If it is not in writing that this is the way it is going to happen and the Shingle Creek Watershed is using their taxing ability to give this taxing ability to cities, she thinks that is a fine line there and is not sure, but the way the watershed districts are set up, they have the ability adding some tax on and she does not know if they have the ability of saying that they are now giving the cities the ability to add this tax. Mr. McCauley informed that what he believes they are saying is the City will be responsible for paying seventy -five percent of the cost of a project and that it is up to the cities themselves to determine what mechanisms they want to use. The watersheds cannot dictate to the City that it use any of the things they have listed as a laundry list of potential tools available to a City. Each council controls in its own city how it raises its match. 03/28/05 -14- DRAFT The only portion the watersheds have the ability to impose is that they can follow the Statutory requirements and submit to Hennepin County a proposal that Hennepin County levy a general ad valorem tax on all properties in the watershed boundaries. The watershed cannot impose an individualized special method of funding.. It can only, if it follows all of those requirements, have Hennepin County on its behalf do a general ad valorem tax. Councilmember Niesen asked how the Shingle Creek Watershed acted all of these years since its inception funding capital projects. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere discussed that they have not funded any capital projects. Mayor Kragness asked that the Council focus on the draft letter back to the watershed. Mr. McCauley suggested that first the Council has to decide if they like the idea of the watershed doing capital projects. If yes, then he would suggest discussing and deciding on each of the separate items listed in the draft letter. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. McCauley to clarify number eight. Mr. McCauley discussed what number eight is trying to do is simply suggest that a plan, if it is adopted, put a target maximum amount of money that any city would have to pay in any five year rolling period so that there is no undue burden on any one city in the course of any five year consecutive period. Mayor Kragness asked who would be in favor of supporting the proposed ad valorem tax. pP p P Councilmember Niesen informed that she believes the impaired water Legislation that is on the table is important and with the tough economy and Brooklyn Center being known for not having high value houses, she would support working on water initiatives, but not in a vacuum. Councilmember Carmody informed that she had sent an e -mail to Craig Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations assigned to the environmental issues at the League of Minnesota Cities, to ask for clarification regarding the impaired water Legislation. In a response provided it was made clear that they were seeking big projects. Twin Lake would not be high on their list. The only thing mentioned in the Metro area that could get funding is the Met Councils sewage treatment plant. She believes the City will not see funding in the near future and that the good thing about the ad valorem tax and going through the watershed is one way to get things done. She informed that she supports this, otherwise it will not get this done for years and the problem will just get worse with the cost continuing to go up. She still has some questions and serious concerns about certain issues; however, in theory the City needs to start moving ahead. Councilmember Niesen informed that she would like projects to get done; however, there are a lot of issues in the process of identifying who benefits and pays. She would say yes if the costs were going to be spread over the nine e cities in the watershed since they would be able to do it anyways. Mayor Kragness informed that she would support the draft letter. 03/28/05 -15- DRAFT Councilmember Lasman informed that if the City moves in the direction of supporting she does have some concerns about the costs and inquired how the per capita would coincide with the City's storm drainage utilities ability to fund now. Mr. McCauley informed that he was only putting that language regarding the per capita in as a lace mark t i year g g p p marker for discussion and that t would equal about one P q Y debt service on the bonds that will retire. The City would have the capacity to pay ten dollars per capita without having to raise the storm water utility. Councilmember Lasman uestioned if a sunset or language re requesting a reevaluation could be added. q q g Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council wanted to add language that if the watershed undertakes this and develops it, it should reexamine and ask for comments in five or ten years, that would certainly e a very appropriate comment. Councilmember Lasman informed that rather than saying Y Y Y g do support or do not support, she would like to say do support with conditions. Councilmember O'Connor informed she agrees with the draft alternative that states the City does not support the proposed undertaking to have the watershed impose an ad valorem tax and to assess the PP P P g P cost of capital projects against the cities in the watershed. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she has man issues and does not want to give the watershed Y g any indication that whatever else they are proposing was being accepted by submitting the draft letter. Councilmember Carmody suggested that the Council provide the City Manager comments to add or delete to the draft letter by April 11, 2005. Councilmember Niesen questioned the watershed's plan. Mr. LeFevere discussed that last year the watershed adopted its comprehensive storm water management plan which is an overall plan for the district. An element of that one piece is the capital improvement program. The capital improvement plan at that time was developed and the plan simply said that it was going to be developed in the future as the water quality plans became more fully developed. Councilmember Carmody left the table at 9:07 p.m. and returned at 9:09 p.m. Councilmember Lasman expressed that she thought providing comments to the City Manager by April 11, 2005, would be a good idea for him to come up with an accumulative letter that the Council can review at the April 11, 2005, Study Session meeting. Mayor Kragness asked that this item be placed on the April 11, 2005, Study Session agenda. Mr. McCauley discussed that he would incorporate the Council's comments with the first draft and set them forth in a fashion for approval of each item. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to table this item to the April 11, 2005, Study Session meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 03/28/05 3 5 -16 DRAFT 9f. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, 48' AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. McCauley informed this item along with item 9g, 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, relate to one project and could be approved under one motion. He discussed this is the petition project that Cass Screw Machine had requested. The two resolutions would accept the engineer's feasibility report and calls for public hearings on doing the improvements and on special assessments which would be assessed against Cass Screw Machine. Mr. Greenwald, Cass Screw Machine, addressed the Council to express thanks. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-56 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing .resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 9g. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48TH AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -57 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48TH AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 03/28/05 -17- DRAFT 9h. EXPANDING AUDIT FOR PAYROLL SAMPLING Mr. McCauley discussed that at the last meeting Councilmember Niesen brought up possibly having additional payroll sampling and audit. The Auditor had prepared materials describing what the standard audit includes and describing what additional work the Auditor would be willing to undertake. Councilmember Niesen informed she had spoken with the Auditor and found out that it is very common for City Councils to ask them to do an in-depth stud of a certain area eve ear. The P Y every Y Y are proposing to spend a total of $2,600 to $3,500 to see if the City's payroll is being processed correctly. She believes this would be an assurance for payroll and for the City Manager to know that the payroll is being done correctly. She discussed an error with her payroll and expressed that she believes it is the Council's job to expend money out of the City's budget to make sure that payroll is being done correctly. She believes that if the Council were not to authorize this the Council would be doing a travesty of injustice to the taxpayers since there has been a problem with payroll. Mayor Kragness informed she had a discussion with the City Manager and they believe it would a benefit to approve this audit sampling. Mr. McCauley discussed that the audit is essentially the Council's. If the Council feels that it wishes to have this done, he does not oppose. Mayor Kragness expressed she believes that if the Council approves this, it would put aside any of the questions that have been raised and if the Auditor does come up with some problems then they have a direction to work at. Councilmember O'Connor asked Councilmember Niesen if when she found the discrepancies in her FICA deduction if they straightened out the error. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she did not believe to the full extent. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the Auditor would find more problems with FICA by adding an additional twenty -five people to audit. Mr. McCauley discussed that the FICA problem was found by the City's Finance Director, not the Auditor. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the Council had to do all three parts suggested by the Auditor. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Auditor had set forth three separate tasks; additional sampling, obtain direct deposit report and reconcile a complete payroll, and meet with the City payroll clerk and obtain detailed narrative of the clerk's knowledge of withholding rules. Mr. McCauley informed that the Auditor indicated he could do more than twenty -five or fewer than twenty -five and that the price would move off of that estimate based on the audit amount. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would only be in favor of procedure one and would not be in favor of going with more than that. 03/28/05 -18- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen expressed she believes the amount is low and that it is important to know if payroll is being done correctly. She would agree with eliminating procedure three but definitely thinks procedures one and two, for a possible cost of $1,000 plus the report, is well worth the money spent. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to go ahead with procedures one and two, eliminate procedure three, and have the Auditor proceed on that basis thereby saving the possibility of $600 to $800. Motion died due to lack of a second. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to approve all three procedures outlined by the Auditor. Motion died due to lack of a second. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes the engagement management and report preparation would be cheaper by only doing procedure one and would assume that the maximum cost would be approximately between $1,500 and $2,000, which is as far as she would like to go with this audit sampling. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to go ahead with procedure one and the engagement management and report preparation. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9i. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON- CONFORMING USES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12- 901,12 -902 AND 35 -111 Mr. McCauley discussed that staff is suggesting some changes in the rental dwelling and zoning ordinances to streamline dealing with duplexes and/or two family dwellings. There is a significant amount of units now nonconforming in the City and staff has found that the enforcement of the licensing provisions of Chapter 12 relative to these properties has become extremely time consuming and often contentious. This item is on the agenda for two possible actions. One would be to introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading and set second reading and public hearing on June 13, 2005; and the second would be to direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would like to hold off on the first reading, have the Housing Commission review the ordinance, and then put this item on the June 13, 2005, agenda for approval of first reading. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would not be inclined to set a first reading without thoroughly debating this housing law. She believes this is an important issue and with the Council being the highest authority to deal with housing issues, she would like to move ahead with holding off on setting the first reading at this time. She asked that these ideas presented move forward to the meeting with the Council and Commission Chairs and informed that she will be meeting with the Housing Commission in May to further discuss this issue since she has many concerns. 03/28/05 -19- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody suggested that Councilmember Niesen prepare a memo of her concerns to present to the Housing Commission in April so they have time to review her concerns and to discuss in May; and informed that she would like to see the memo before it goes to the Housing Commission to make sure it would be something that the Council agrees on. Mr. McCauley discussed that the text before the Council this evening does not change the policy on rental housing. It attempts to address people who are not subject to the rental housing ordinance in the first instance. This would be an orderly mechanism that relates to establishing and maintaining proof of a nonconforming use." It does not relate to how you rent property or the rules of renting property, it is simply allowing an orderly mechanism for people to do that. With respect to the technical application of license fees, it clarifies that if somebody applies for a license they do not get the entire fee back; they get the fee less what had been spent in terms of staff time up to that point. Councilmember Niesen questioned the sixty plus duplexes and/or two family dwellings that are nonconforming. Mr. McCauley discussed -that they were built at a time when the zoning would allow the construction of a two family dwelling and /or duplex. Some of those areas were rezoned to R -1. When it was zoned R -1 they became nonconforming uses. Councilmember Niesen discussed her property that was built as a mother -in -law apartment which she believes is very common in Minnesota and that she does not know why someone would come into her R -1 zoned house and call it a duplex. She said that the City of Brooklyn Center stands alone on this area and many other areas of the rental ordinance and that is why she wants to discuss this further with the Housing Commission. Councilmember Niesen questioned the following language proposed in the ordinance amendment: An owner of a duplex dwelling that is being occupied but is not being let for lease or rent is not required to secure a rental dwelling license provided such owner files with the City a certification, in a form provided by the City, that no rent or any other consideration is being paid, given or provided, directly 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 required by the Compliance Official. She expressed that she believes it is not acceptable to have government intrusion into people's lives. Mayor Kragness discussed the reason a license is being required is to help pay with staff's time having to inspect two units. Councilmember Niesen debated about that even being an issue. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes this matter would not be an appropriate discussion for the joint meeting with Commission Chairs. She suggested that the timeline be discussed with the Commission Chairs; and that at this time the Council direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. 03/28/05 -20- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. LeFevere informed that this would also amend the zoning code and questioned if the Council would be referring this to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCauley responded that this issue would be sent to the Planning Commission as well. 9j. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS Councilmember O'Connor questioned how many brokers the City had. Mr. McCauley discussed that currently there is one depository which is Wells Fargo; however, the City can deal with nine different agents as outlined in Resolution No. 2005 -02. She inquired how much the City has invested and what the City pays in fees for them handling the money. Mr. McCauley discussed that be believes roughly $20 Million or more and that the City does not buy any individual corporate bonds. When acquiring something there is going to be some type of transaction cost. She inquired how much is paid to Wells Fargo. Mr. McCauley informed that he could get more information on the exact specifics of her questions. Councilmember O'Connor questioned the City's loss or profit over the years on the investments. Mr. McCauley discussed that that the City generally holds to maturity and there is no loss or gain in terms of what was purchased. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-58 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b Councilmember g g Y Y Lasman. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed. 9k. RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification regarding this resolution. Mr. McCauley discussed that Minnesota Law provides that there are Statutory limits under State Law that a person may recover for a tort claim against a governmental body. If the City purchases insurance that would provide more than $300,000 worth of coverage, which does happen in terms of aggregate coverage limits, adopting this resolution would indicate the purchase of insurance through the League Insurance Trust should not be deemed a waiver of the Statutory requirements. This results in a lower premium for the insurance coverage. 03/28/05 -21- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-59 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:01 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 03/28/05 -22- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 7b City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk DATE: April 6, 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 April 11, 2005, are as follows: MECHANICAL Aspen Air Inc. 308 SW 15 Street, Forest Lake Corporate Mechanical 5114 Hillsboro Avenue North, New Hope Hilliard Heating 13790 268' Avenue, Zimmerman Knight Heating Air 13535 89 Street NE, Otsego MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Metro Mitsubishi 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard Iten Chevrolet Company 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard Luther Brookdale Chrysler Jeep Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard Luther Brookdale Chrysler Jeep Dodge 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard RENTAL Renewal: 130072 d Avenue North Marinela and Scott Selseth I fight call 3824 Burquest Lane Bradley Fritz 0 calls for service 5715 Knox Avenue North Xiong Por Yang 0 calls for service Initial: 6712 Beard Avenue North Morris Matthews 2 Disturbing Peace 7013 Fremont Avenue North Mai Thao 0 calls for service 6137 Lee Avenue North Benn Dossman IV 0 calls for service 5207 East Twin Lake Blvd. David Ulhorn 0 calls for service SIGN HANGER G J Awning Canvas Inc. 1260 10 Street North, Sauk Rapids is 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 City Council Agenda Item No. 7c City of Brooklyn Center 03 A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Proposal and Awarding Contract, Improvement Project No. 2005 -09, Lift Station Nos. 7 and 10 Control Cabinet Replacement and Water System Security Improvements Background The 2005 Sanitary Sewer Utility budget includes funding for the replacement of control cabinets and telemetry equipment for Lift Station Nos. 7 and 10. This project is the third year of a planned three -year program to replace control cabinets at a total of six sanitary sewer lift stations. The new cabinets will replace deteriorating outer cabinet structures, system controls and alarm components for the two facilities. The current Water Utility budget includes funding for the installation of chemical feed security improvements and building security improvements for all of the City's nine water supply well buildings. Security improvements for the well buildings were identified as part of the mandatory water system vulnerability assessment that was conducted in response to the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Professional Services In- Control, Inc. has submitted a proposal for professional services to provide detailed system design, system component assembly and software integration of the two control cabinets and the proposed security improvements. In- Control was selected through a competitive interview process in 2003 to provide engineering and software programming services for the City's Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System. The estimated fee for work by In- Control is $83,422. A copy of the professional services proposal is attached for your review. Hardware Purchase The proposal from In- Control, Inc. allows the City of Brooklyn Center to directly purchase a majority of the hardware components necessary for assembly of the new lift station control cabinets and security improvements from factory supply vendors. These components are listed within the attached proposal. The estimated cost for components and equipment to be purchased by the City is $16,000. 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 Electrical Contractor Installation of the components and equipment described above will require the services of an electrical contractor. Construction plans must be prepared by the Consultant before the City can solicit competitive quotes from qualified contractors to perform the installation work. The estimated cost for electrical installation for the projects described is approximately $20,000. Award of this contract will be provided for City Council consideration under a separate resolution. Cost Summary The estimated project expenses and funding sources for the equipment and professional services portion of the system improvements are listed below. Total Est. Cost Funding Source Chemical Feed Security Improvements 8,772.00 49141 -6530 Structure Security Improvements 25,650.00 49141 -6530 Lift Station Control Cabinets 65,000.00 49251 -6409 Requested Action Attached for City Council consideration is a resolution accepting the professional services S proposal from In- Control Inc. of Blaine, Minnesota and authorizing staff to purchase necessary components for the control cabinets and security improvements for Improvement Project No. 2005 -09, Lift Station Nos. 7 and 10 Control Cabinets and Water System Security Improvements. i I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-09, LIFT STATION NOS. 7 AND 10 CONTROL CABINET REPLACEMENT AND WATER SYSTEM SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the 2005 Sanitary Sewer Utility budget includes funding for the replacement of two lift station control cabinets pursuant to a three year control cabinet replacement program initiated in 2003; and WHEREAS, the 2005 Water Utility budget includes funding for installation of chemical feed security and building structure security improvements for the City's water supply wells; and WHEREAS, the City has negotiated a professional services agreement with In- Control, Inc. of Blaine, Minnesota to provide detailed system design, preparation of shop drawings, system component assembly and software integration for the replacement of two control cabinets located at Sanitary Lift Station Nos. 7 and 10 and the for design of said security improvements; and WHEREAS, the City would directly purchase certain components of the proposed improvements and provide these components to In- Control, Inc. for incorporation into the control cabinets and security improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with In- Control Inc. of Blaine, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center for professional services related to the replacement of control cabinets at Lift Station Nos. 7 and 10 and for installation of security improvements for the public water supply system. The estimated cost of said agreement is $83,422.00. 2. City staff is hereby authorized to purchase system components for the control cabinets and security improvements, including cabinet enclosures, programmable logic controllers, motion detectors, telemetry radios and accessories in compliance with the project specifications or as determined by the City Engineer. The estimated cost of said components is $16,000.00. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows: COSTS As Amended Assembly and Integration (In- Control) $83,422.00 Direct Equipment Purchase (City) $16.000.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $99,422.00 (excluding electrical installation) REVENUES Sanitary Sewer Utility $65,000.00 (49251 -6409) Water Utility $34,422.00 (49141 -6530) Total Estimated Revenue $99,422.00 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. Proposal March 30, 2005 Page 1 of 9 To: Brooklyn Center From: John Kurtti Re: Professional Services Agreement 2005 City of Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center, MN Dear Mr. Todd Blomstrom: We are pleased to provide for your consideration our formal quotation for material and services on the above referenced project per your discussion with our Dan Lander. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. System Integration for Chemical Feeders The City of Brooklyn Center "City will be adding selector switches for the chemical feeders at each well. In Control, Inc. "In Control") will provide system integration services for the new selector switches. In Control shall complete the following tasks as part of the system integration for the chemical feeders. Task 1.1 Review of Electrical Drawings Review existing electrical drawings of the well control panels. Prepare a list of hardware components that the City of Brooklyn Center shall purchase as part of this contract. Notify the City of Brooklyn Center that the parts list identified below is accurate prior to the city purchasing same. Task 1.2 Installation Wiring Meet City staff at each well site and convert existing switches to new style. Task 1.3 SCADA Program Changes Modify the existing SCADA computer programs to display changes on the chemical feed switches. Task 1.4 SCADA Checkout Demonstrate the operation at each well site. 10350 Jamestown Street NE Phone: (763) 783 -9500 Blaine, MN 55449 Fax: (763) 783 -9502 _CHEMICAL FEEDER HARDWARE QUANTITY Selector Switches— The City of Brooklyn Center shall provide a 36 hand off automatic selector switch with an extra contact block at each location designated by In Control, Inc. Part number of switch shall be Allen Bradley 800T- J213 with extra contact block 800T -XA Diaital Input Card— The City of Brooklyn Center shall provide a 6 digital input card for each well that requires .more inputs. Our calculations say that six (6) locations require the input cards. Allen Bradley 1746 -IA8. PROJECT SCHEDULE The selector switch modification project will begin April 12, 2005. Construction and system integration work will be completed by July 29, 2005. 2. System Integration for Intrusion Alarms The City will be adding intrusion alarms at each of the nine (9) water supply wells. In Control will provide system integration services for the new intrusion alarms. In Control shall complete the following tasks as part of the system integration for the Intrusion Alarms. Task 2.1 Electrical Drawings and Equipment List Review existing electrical drawings of the RTU control panels. Prepare a list of hardware components that the City of Brooklyn Center shall purchase as part of this contract. Notify the City of Brooklyn Center that the parts list identified below is accurate prior to the city purchasing same. Prepare drawings and specifications to assist the City in soliciting quotes from qualified Electrical Contractors for installation of intrusion alarms. Attend one (1) pre -bid meeting with prospective Electrical Contractors to review drawings and specifications. Task 2.2 Installation Wiring Meet the City of Brooklyn Center's electrical contractor "Electrical Contractor') at each RTU site to ,instruct the Electrical Contractor on the work required and perform inspection of work upon completion. Meet City staff at each RTU site and modify the internal wiring of the control panels to accept the intrusion alarms. Task 2.3 SCADA Program Changes Modify the existing SCADA computer programs to display changes on the intrusion alarms. Modify the existing SCADA OIT program changes at the police department. Modify the "Alarm Autodialer" program. Modify the PLC's at each RTU. Add the time interface as discussed with yourself and Mark Hartflel. Task 2.4 SCADA Checkout Demonstrate system operation at each RTU site. Demonstrate system operation at the police department. Page 2 of 9 INTRUSION ALARM HARDWARE QUANTITY Motion Detector— The City of Brooklyn Center shall provide the 9 motion detector at each well house. Electrical Contractor— The City of Brooklyn Center shall provide 1 Lot the electrical contractor to furnish and install the conduit and field Wring at each well house. PROJECT SCHEDULE The intrusion alarm modification project will begin April 12, 2005. Construction and system integration work will be completed by July 29, 2005. 3. System Integration for New Control Cabinets at Lift Stations 7 and 10 The City will be replacing the control cabinets for two sanitary sewer lift stations in 2005. In Control will provide system integration services for the new control cabinets and will provide assistance in protecting the interests of the City during completion of the cabinet installation by the Electrical Contractor. In Control shall complete the following tasks as part of the system integration for new control cabinets. Task 3.1 Review of Plans and Specifications Review preliminary plans and specifications for two new lift station control cabinets as provided in Exhibit A. Prepare a list of questions or discrepancies for the City to review concerning the plans and specifications. Provide a list of project issues to the City based on a review of the plans and specifications. Task 3.2 Review Meeting Attend a review meeting with City staff to discuss the items identified under Task 3.1. Discuss system integration issues and procedures for the new control cabinets with City staff. Task 3.3 Lift Station Site Visit Pre -Bid Attend one (1) pre -bid site visit and review the site with perspective Electrical Contractors. Provide a summary of issues discussed during the pre -bid meeting and address technical questions from prospective Electrical Contractors. Task 3.4 Produce Lift Station Control Panel Submittal Produce the drawings and submittal for the new lift station control cabinets. Provide approved and stamped drawings back to the City after receiving comments from City staff. Task 3.5 Pre Construction Meeting Attend one (1) preconstruction meeting to discuss project coordination issues and UL listing issues. Document meeting for the City and copy all parties in attendance. Page 3 of 9 Task 3.6 Produce Hardware List Provide a hardware list of components for the control panel that the city should purchase. Review the hardware list with the city. Task 3.7 Purchase Approved Hardware List The City shall purchase equipment items listed on Tables 3.3 and 3.4 of this contract. In Control shall provide equipment items listed on Tables 3.1 and 3.2 of this contract as well as other miscellaneous equipment to be installed within the cabinets pursuant to the preliminary project specifications attached hereto as Exhibit A. Task 3.8 Manufacture Control Panel Receive and inventory hardware and components. Assemble and manufacture two (2) lift station control cabinets pursuant to project specifications and approved shop drawings. Perform bench testing of both panels before delivery to project site. Deliver both panels to the respective project locations. Coordinate delivery and installation with Electrical Contractor. Task 3.9 Pre Shutdown Meeting Attend one (1) meeting with Electrical Contractor and City staff to discuss coordination of the system shutdown including procedures, schedules, and limits of down -time at each lift station. Task 3.10 —Field Inspection Provide a trained system integrator during the transfer and startup of the two (2) new lift station control cabinets. Provide a list of required corrections for the Electrical Contractor based on field inspection of the two (2) control cabinets. Task 3.11 Software Programming Meet with City staff to review the new SCADA screens prior to programming. Program the programmable logic controller, operator interface terminal and SCADA computer to add the two (2) new lift station control cabinets to the existing SCADA system. Integrate the radio transceivers for two -way communication between the control cabinet and the main server located at the Public Works Central Garage Facility. Page 4 of 9 Task 3.12 —1 /O Testing Perform a complete 1/0 testing of the operation of each new lift station control cabinet and SCADA computer. Conduct one (1) meeting with City staff to develop a final punch list for the Electrical Contractor. Task 3.13 Provide Final Report Review the completed project by the contractor. Prepare a report based on the system evaluation outlined above. Provide operations manual arts p p manual, as -built drawings, and copy /printout of software ro rams for both n p g panels. _LIFT STATION 7 Table 3.1 QUANTITY Lift Station 7 Supervisory Control Panel— We shall furnish the 1 Lot new control panel consistent with the specification included in Exhibit A. Radio antenna— We shall furnish the radio antenna to be remote 1 mounted by others. Radio Coax Cable— We will furnish the radio coax cable with 1 Lot connectors per the specifications. Ultrasonic Level— We shall furnish the ultrasonic level transducer 1 Lot with coax cable to be mounted in the wetwell by others. Float Switch— We shall furnish the float switch per the 2 specifications. Float Cable and Anchor— We shall furnish the cable and anchor 1 Lot for the float mounting. Page 5 of 9 LIFT STATION 10 Table 3.2 QUANTITY Lift Station 10 Supervisory Control Panel— We shall furnish the 1 Lot new control panel consistent with the specification included in Exhibit A. Radio antenna— We shall furnish the radio antenna to be remote 1 mounted by others. Radio Coax Cable— We will furnish the radio coax cable with 1 Lot connectors per the specifications. Ultrasonic Level— We shall furnish the ultrasonic level transducer 1 Lot with coax cable to be mounted in the wetwell by others. Float Switch— We shall furnish the float switch per the 2 specifications. Float Cable and Anchor— We shall furnish the cable and anchor 1 Lot for the float mounting. PROJECT SCHEDULE The lift station control panel project will begin April 12, 2005. Construction and system integration work will be completed by October 31, 2005. COMPENSATION In Control shall complete the work identified in the Scope of Services on a time and expense basis at the hourly billing rate schedule attached and made part of this proposal. The estimated cost for completing the work is provided below. In Control will not exceed the estimated cost provided below without first obtaining written authorization from the City of Brooklyn Center. 1. System Integration for Selector Switches 5,777.00 2. System Integration for Intrusion Alarms 23,850.00 (Tower Removed) 3. Lift Station Nos. 7 10 Control Panels 53,795.00 (With Deducts) Page 6 of 9 The following is a list of parts that the city is removing from the hardware quotation provided by In Control, Inc. for lift station 7 and 10. LIFT STATION 7 Table 3.3 Enclosure— The 48 X 48 X 16 inch enclosure with the following Estimate features: Stainless Steel 304, 12 gauge enclosure, 14 gauge $3.401.70 doors, back panel (white), inner doors and hardware, and 18 inch leg kit, vented skirts with screens. In Control, Inc. shall order the enclosure and set delivery date and time but the invoice for the enclosure shall be sent to the City of Brooklyn Center, MN. Please see attached quotation from Wood Lake Weldinq. PLC Processor Allen Bradley programmable logic controller Estimate $198.00 (PLC) MicroLogix 1500, part number 1764 -LSP. PLC Rack— Allen Bradley programmable logic controller (PLC) Estimate $418.24 rack with 12 digital inputs and 12 relay outputs, part number 1764 24BWA. PLC Diaital Input Allen Bradley programmable logic controller Estimate $198.11 (PLC) digital input card with 16 digital inputs, part number 1769 IA16. PLC Analog Input Allen Bradley programmable logic controller Estimate $361.00 (PLC) analog input card with 4 analog inputs, part number 1769 F4. PLC Extension Cable— Allen Bradley programmable logic Estimate $118.87 controller (PLC) extension cable from PLC to external cards, part number 1764 -CRR1. PLC End Can— Allen Bradley programmable logic controller (PLC) 4 Estimate $22.01 end cap, part number 1764 -ECR. PLC Memory Module— Allen Bradley programmable logic Estimate $101.26 controller (PLC) memory module for processor program, part number 1764 -MM1. Radio— MDS radio part number 9701 A. Estimate $781.00 Page 7 of 9 LIFT STATION 10 Table 3.4 Enclosure— The 48 X 48 X 16 inch enclosure with the following Estimate features: Stainless Steel 304, 12 gauge enclosure, 14 gauge $3.401.70 doors, back panel (white), inner doors and hardware, and 18 inch leg kit, vented skirts with screens. In Control, Inc. shall order the enclosure and set delivery date and time but the invoice for the enclosure shall be sent to the City of Brooklyn Center, MN. Please see attached quotation from Wood Lake Weldinq. PLC Processor— Allen Bradley programmable logic controller Estimate $198.00 (PLC) MicroLogix 1500, part number 1764 -LSP. PLC Rack— Allen Bradley programmable logic controller (PLC) Estimate $418.24 rack with 12 digital inputs and 12 relay outputs, part number 1764 24BWA. PLC Digital Input- Allen Bradley programmable logic controller Estimate $198.11 (PLC) digital input card with 16 digital inputs, 9 p g p ts, part number 1769 IA16. PLC Analog Input Allen Bradley programmable logic controller Estimate $361.00 (PLC) analog input card with 4 analog inputs, part number 1769- 1174. PLC Extension Cable- Allen Bradley programmable logic Estimate $118.87 controller (PLC) extension cable from PLC to external cards, part number 1764 -CRR1. PLC End Can— Allen Bradley programmable logic controller (PLC) Estimate $22.01 end cap, part number 1764 -ECR. PLC Memory Module Allen Bradley programmable logic Estimate $101.26 controller (PLC) memory module for processor program, part number 1764 -MM1. Radio— MDS radio part number 9701A. Estimate $781.00 Please confirm part numbers with our purchasing prior to ordering in case of an error in my takeoff. Page 8 of 9 Thank you for your consideration of our offer and for the opportunity to serve you. Sincerely 1 John Kurtti Sales and Marketing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed the day and year first above written. OWNER: City of Brooklyn Center ATTEST: BY: TITLE: CONTRACTOR: In Control, Inc. ATTEST: BY: TITLE: K NNETH A. KAWIECKI Notary Public Minnesota �E xpir�Janu8ry31,2D10 Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT A S LIFT STATION NOS. 7 AND 10 CONTROL CABINETS A. Materials and Construction All materials furnished and construction methods used under this "Division B" shall conform to Appendix A, "Standard Specifications for Materials and Construction" as prepared by the City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department and attached hereto. No deviations or substitute materials will be allowed unless so stated in the Method of Payment section of these special provisions. B. Maintenance of Construction Site The Electrical Contractor and Engineering Consultant shall obtain authorization from the Engineer prior to interrupting the operations of the lift stations. City of Brooklyn Center utility crews shall have access to the lift stations at all times throughout construction. C. Method of Payment Engineering Consultant Payment for all labor, materials, equipment and other miscellaneous items associated with furnishing and installing the two sanitary sewer lift station control cabinets for work to be completed by the Engineering Consultant shall be governed by the provisions of a separate Professional Services Agreement. All equipment and parts for installation on this project shall be new. Salvaged or reuse of equipment or parts will not be allowed. D. Method of Payment Electrical Contractor All work shall be completed under the lump sum bid item as provided in the proposal for the work items itemized below. Partial payments will be made based on the percentage of completion as determined by the Engineer. Contractor shall submit supporting material to assist the Engineer in determining the percentage of completion for partial payments. All equipment and parts for installation on this project shall be new. Salvaged or reuse of equipment or parts will not be allowed. The Contractor shall provide all labor, materials, equipment and incidental items required to complete the work listed below. The example site for what is expected in this project is lift station #8 at 4107 58`' Avenue. 1. Attendance at the pre- construction meeting. 2. Coordination with the City's engineering consultant for installation schedule. 3. Preparation of site for installation of concrete control panel base, conduit, control panel, P supply power su 1 and all other miscellaneous items associated with the field installation of the control panel. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -1 OF 12 4. Coordination with Xcel Energy for power supply and /or switch over to new panel. 5. Control Cabinet The new control panel provided by the owner shall be installed in a location near the existing control cabinet. The electrical contractor shall furnish and install new concrete slabs at both sites. Slabs shall be a minimum of 6" in thickness. Old slabs shall be removed and debris properly disposed of by the electrical contractor. New conduit shall be installed in the new slab between the new control cabinet and the wet well. New control panels shall be mounted on a new concrete foundation pad. Once the new control cabinets are on line, the existing conduit to the old control cabinets shall be removed from the wet wells and holes shall be plugged with a "water plug" type mortar. 6. Power Power shall be moved from the existing control cabinet to the new cabinet and the new power service shall be installed per the NEC code and Xcel Energy. Coordinate with Xcel Energy on the transition. 7. Floats Install two new floats and anchor cable system provided by the owner. 8. Bollards Installation of three (3) protective bollards set in concrete at both lift station sites. City will designate bollard location upon final selection of control panel location. 9. Ultrasonic Install the Class 1 Div 1 rated transducer in the wet well per the NEC code. The transducer shall be provided by the Owner Engineering Consultant. 10. Pump Wiring Provide the wiring of the pumps for this station. 11. Provide and install two (2) direct bury poles with lights at lift #7 and lift #10. See sec. 2010.0 A., for detail. 12. Provide and install two (2) direct bury poles with lights at tower #1 and tower #2. See sec. 2010.0 B., for detail. 13. Replace two exterior light fixtures at well #9. See sec 2010.0 C., for detail. 14. Generator Receptacle The existing generator receptacle shall be removed from the existing control cabinet and installed on the new control cabinet by the electrical contractor. 15. Pre -Bid Visit The bidding contractor is responsible to visit lift stations #7 and #10 as well as lift station 8 (example of installation expectations for the project) prior to the bid. Pre Bid Visit will start at the City Garage, 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, April 11` at 12:30 PM. 16. Site restoration and all other items to complete the field installation work. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -2 OF 12 2001.0 Project Scope This project consists of the replacement of two existing control cabinets. This is the final year of a three -year program to update a total of six lift station control cabinets. The new control cabinets shall be the same as or similar to the city's control cabinets that were installed for lift stations #8 and #9 and are a good reference for what is expected in this project. 2002.0 Existing Lift Station Equipment Lift Station #7 has two (2) Flygt Submersible 4 inch, 2.3 Hp pumps, Model- CP3085 -091. Pumps operate on 240 Volt, Single(1) Phase, 60 Hz. Lift Station #10 has two (2) Flygt Submersible 4 inch, 4.0 Hp pumps, Model- CP3102. Pumps operate on 230 Volt, Single (I) Phase, 60 Hz. 2003.0 Project Location Lift Station No. 7 7131 Willow Lane Lift Station No. 10- 2200 Freeway Boulevard 2004.0 Electrical General 1. Provide a control system, at each of the two aforementioned sites, to automatically control the operation of two pumps at lift #7 and two pumps at lift #10 as required by wet well influent flow. 2. Custom system schematic drawings shall be provided. Manufacturer's catalog cuts or standard drawings showing circuitry not used on this project are specifically not acceptable. All wiring shall be color coded. Each wire shall be tagged with a wire number that directly relates to this project's schematic drawing. All electrical shop drawings shall be reviewed and approved by an electrical engineer for the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. All door mounted and external components shall be identified with a black Micarta nameplate with 1/8" high white letters. All internal components shall be identified. 4. Terminal blocks for control circuitry interconnection shall be NEMA rated 55 amp, 600 volt, tubular screw with pressure plate. They shall snap together and include nylon barriers between terminals. A terminal marking strip shall be included. Intrinsically safe circuits shall have separate isolated terminals. 5. All circuit breakers shall be operable without opening the outer door of the indoor enclosures or the inner door of outdoor enclosures. 6. The control panel shall bear a U.L. standard 508 A, Enclosed Industrial Control Panel serialized label and a UL 698A, industrial control panel relating to hazardous /classified location label 7. Each pump motor shall be provided with a combination circuit breaker motor starter. Circuit breakers shall be thermal magnetic, A "E" frame or better and rated for 10,000 AIC at 240 VAC. Starters shall be NEMA rated. Starters smaller than size 1 and half sizes will not be allowed. Coils and contacts shall be replaceable without removing the motor starter from the enclosure. Overloads shall be ambient compensated quick trip (Class 10) type. Overload reset operators shall be provided to reset the overloads without opening the enclosure door. Solid state overloads are not acceptable. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -3 OF 12 8. Provide a mechanically interlocked, thermal magnetic normal power main circuit breaker and emergency power main circuit breaker. The normal power circuit breaker shall be sized according to system load per the NEC. Generator size, generator receptacle size and system load shall be considered when sizing the emergency power main circuit breaker. Both circuit breakers shall be rated for a minimum of 10,000 AIC at 240 VAC. 9. The normal power main circuit breaker shall be suitable for use as the service entrance disconnect. 10. A properly sized generator receptacle shall be mounted on the side of the pump control panel. It shall include the required poles to properly interface with the generator system voltage requirements. Supplier shall verify that the supplied generator receptacle is the same as the city's existing equipment. 11. Provide a silicon oxide lightning arrester and surge capacitors on the incoming power lines. 2005.0 ULTRASONIC CONTROLLER 1. A multi purpose ultrasonic controller shall be provided and mounted on the control panel inner door. All equipment and accessories as herein specified shall be provided for primary automatic level control 2. The plans and specifications have been prepared on the basis of the Hydroranger 200 controller with a XPS -15F transducer as manufactured by Milltronics Inc. The ultrasonic controller will by supplied by the City of Brooklyn Center. The systems integrator shall install the Milltronics Hydroranger 200, with a XPS -15F transducer. 3. The controller shall provide a 4 -20 mADC or 0 -20 mADC signal proportional to space, material, volume or flow into a maximum of 350, 750 ohms or optionally isolated. The controller shall be capable of reading the differential, head or level as outlined. The acoustic sensor shall be permanently mounted at the measuring site and shall be installed according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Stainless steel anchors, fasteners or hangers must be used in the wetwell. 4. The acoustic sensor /transducer shall be a Milltronics Ultrasonic transducer with a polarized barium titenate crystal with acoustic impedance matching face and transformer. The transducer shall be the Milltronics Ultrasonic transducer Model XPS -15F. 5. The sensor shall be capable of submergence without degradation. The sensor shall function over an ambient temperature range of -4 degrees F to 203 degrees F and shall be rated by FM and CSA for Class I and Class II hazardous environment. The sensor shall transmit and receive an acoustic signal to accurately measure material level or flow. The output signal shall be proportional to level, flow rate or volume from 0 to 100% with a resolution of 0.1 %I. Operational range shall be adjustable by entering new data via keypad without the use of any additional equipment. The controller shall be capable of zero (0) to full scale simulation to assure proper operation with regards to flow charts or pump control parameters. 6. The ultrasonic controller shall be programmed by entering all operational data via a removable non intrusive infrared programming module. There shall be no internal potentiometers or switches used in programming the controller. The removable programming module shall make possible the complete calibration of the controller, or review of operational parameters and measurement values while maintaining NEMA 4X integrity of the transmitter enclosure. 2006.0 ULTRASONIC CONTROLLER PERFORMANCE 1. The ultrasonic controller shall have a four (4) -digit LCD display for viewing parameters and operational data. The controller shall provide six (6) Form C SPDT relays @a 250 VAC 5 amps, EXHIBIT A: PAGE -4 OF 12 non- inductive; contact assignable as alarms, pump control, sample on time or flow or totalizer. Alarms shall be programmable for level, rate of change of level, differential level, loss of echo or temperature. Pump control relays shall be programmable for up to five (5) pumps and shall be able to lag /lead all five if required. The controller shall be capable of logging run times on up to five (5) pumps. The controller shall have EEPROM memory and shall not require a battery to ensure protection of stored data. The controller shall be capable of performing any one of the following operator selectable functions: 1. Material level monitor 2. Space available monitor 3. Differential level monitor 4. Control up to five (5) pumps 5. Volume totalizer 6. Open channel flow meter with eight (8) digit totalizer The manufacturer of the ultrasonic controller shall guarantee for two years of operation of 30 months from date of shipment, whichever occurs first, that the equipment shall be free from defects in design, workmanship, or materials. In the event a component fails to perform as specified or is proven defective in service during the guarantee period, the manufacturer shall promptly replace the defective part at no cost to the owner. 2007.0 BACKUP CONTROLLER 1. Two normally open float switches and delay on de- energizing (DODE) timers shall be provided for backup control. If the wet well level rises to reach the first float, the lead pump shall start and operate until the l' float opens and the lead DODE timer times out. If the level rises to close the 2' float, the lag pump shall start and operate until the 2" d float opens and the lag DODE timer times out. The 2" d float shall also activate a high level alarm and energize the station alarm light. 2. The delay on de- energizing timers shall be set long enough to keep the pumps submerged, while allowing maximum wet well draw down during low flow periods. If the time delay between pump starts causes the pumps to exceed the maximum number of starts allowed by the pump manufacturer, a stop float switch shall be provided. 3. A 120 Vac duplex alternator for lift #7 and lift #10, shall be provided to equalize run times on the pumps. The pumps shall operate through the same alternator on both primary ultrasonic control and backup float control. A three position, 12 /Auto /2 -1 switch shall be provided for lift #7 and lift #10, sequence selection. 4. The backup high level floats in the wet well shall be UL 913 intrinsically safe. 2008.0 INTERFACE WITH EXISTING PUMPS Contractor shall make provisions for interface with existing submersible pumps /motors to monitor seal fail and overtemp conditions including all required relays sockets resets and latching circuits etc. 2009.0 CONTROL CABINET CONFIGURATION 1. A green pump running light shall be provided for each pump. Pump running signals shall be derived from a motor starter auxiliary contact. 2. Separate high and low level alarm indicating lights shall be provided. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -5 OF 12 3. Red seal failure indicating lights shall be provided for each pump. Voltage or current sensing relays as required by the pump manufacturer shall be provided to sense seal failure. The use of general purpose relays or neon lights for seal monitoring is specifically prohibited. When a seal failure condition occurs, the indicator light shall energize but the pump shall remain operational. 4. Red pump motor over temperature alarm indicating lights shall be provided for each pump. In an over temperature condition, the pump shall remain off until manually reset and the over temperature indicating light shall remain energized until manually reset. 5. A switch shall be provided for each pump that will cause the pumps to shut down on an over temperature condition and remain shut down until the condition clears and the pump is manually reset. 6. Red pump failure alarm indicating lights shall be provided for each pump. Pump failure shall occur when a pump is called for but does not start or is running and drops out without being called to stop. Each pump failure circuit shall have an adjustable 0 -180 second time delay. A pump failure condition shall cause the pump to be locked out of operation until manually reset. 7. All indicator lights shall be extra long life, multiple LED type and shall be mounted on the inner door. A lamp test button shall be provided to test all lights. 8. Form "C" auxiliary contacts shall be wired to outgoing terminals, for all alarms indicated by door mounted pilot lights. 9. Provide a door mounted 15 -amp control power circuit breaker. 10. Each pump shall be provided with a door mounted Hand Off -Auto selector switch. Switches shall be rated NEMA 4, a minimum of 7/8" diameter and include removable 10 amp, 600 volt double make double break contacts. 11. Relays shall be general purpose plug -in type. They shall be a minimum of 2 -pole, double throw with contacts rated for 10 amps at 240 VAC. All relay sockets shall be 11 -blade to allow for future expansion. 12. Timers shall be double -pole, double throw, solid state plug -in type. Contacts shall be rated for 5 amps at 240 VAC. Sockets shall be eight -pin octal type. They shall be adjustable from 1 -1023 seconds in one second increments. A time cycle in progress indicating LED shall be provided. 13. A 15 amp, duplex, GFI receptacle and circuit breaker shall be mounted on the door of the enclosure. If the power to the control panel is 240 or 480 VAC, 3- phase, 3 -wire, a control transformer sized 1 KVA above the system full load requirements shall be provided. 14. Elapsed time meters for each pump shall be mounted near the top of the enclosure door. They shall be 6 digit (99999.9 hours) non resetable. Pump running signals shall be derived from a motor starter auxiliary contact. 15. Form "C" auxiliary contacts shall be wired to outgoing terminals, for all alarms indicated by door mounted pilot lights. 16. All control and power equipment shall be mounted in a 14 -gauge stainless steel NEMA /UL 3R enclosure. All hinges shall be full- length, 11 -gauge piano type. Lift -off hinges are specifically not acceptable. All outer doors over 20" in height shall be provided with a pad lockable, 3 -point latch system. A drip shield shall be provided over each outer door. Internal components shall be mounted on a 1/8" 6061T aluminum back plate. Heavy items shall be provided with mounting reinforcements as required. All selector switches, push buttons, pilot lights, motor starter overload reset operators and circuit breakers shall be operable and visible without opening the dead front inner door. The inner door shall be manufactured from 16 gauge, aluminum. Enclosure mounting tabs shall be provided. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -6 OF 12 17. The enclosure shall be mounted on 18" stainless steel high legs. Vented stainless steel skirts shall be provided to cover the incoming conduit and fittings. Skirts and legs shall be of the same material and finish as the enclosure, which is stainless steel. 18. The control panel shall include space for mounting and wiring of the new RTU for the SCADA system. An auxiliary circuit breaker shall be provided to power the RTU. 19. Each enclosure shall be provided with a heater and thermostat to maintain the internal temperature of the enclosure at +30 degrees F during all local outdoor temperature conditions. 20. A stainless steel float mounting bracket shall be provided with stainless steel strain reliefs that support and hold the level control cords. The transducer continuous cords are to run from pump(s) and level controls to the control panel or junction box. No splices shall be made in the wiring for the pumps or floats. The bracket shall be fabricated from stainless steel and attached to the access frame with 300 series stainless steel fasteners. 2010.0 LIGHTING AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS A. Lift Station Lighting and Antenna Installation The control panels shall include an auxiliary circuit breaker for exterior lighting. A 24' fiberglass direct bury pole with a 150 watt high pressure sodium, rectilinear "shoe box type" light fixture shall be supplied and installed by the electrical contractor per manufacturer's instruction at lift #7 and lift #10. The poles shall be flame resistant in accordance with ASTM -D635. The luminaire shall be 150 Watt High Pressure Sodium, IES Type III cut off flat glass lens fixture, die -cast aluminum outdoor luminaire for horizontal mounting, bronze color, 120 Volt CWA Auto Reg Type Ballast with EEI -NEMA twist lock receptacle for photo electrical control. Control shall be normally closed and in accordance with Mn/DOT 3812. American Electric Lighting LuxMaster Series 53 or approved equal. Luminaire shall come equipped with a photo electric control, normally closed, in accordance with Mn/DOT 3812 and to be faced as nearly north as practical, Precision Multiple Controls LM -26275 or approved equal. All luminaries shall have a wattage decal readable from the ground. All cable shall be in 1' /2" Schedule 80 PVC UL Listed conduit. The light fixture and pole shall be matching colors and the fixture shall be sized to match the pole or be an integral unit. A properly sized circuit breaker for the light shall be installed in the control cabinet and labeled "exterior lighting". A new directional antenna shall also be mounted on the fiberglass pole. The new antenna, coaxial cable and coax connectors must be the same as those already in use for the city's SCADA system. Antenna coaxial cable shall be installed in schedule 80 PVC conduit and a weather head shall also be provided. A ground wire must be provided from the antenna to a new ground rod mounted at the base of the antenna mast. A six gauge braided wire shall be provided. The electrical contractor shall salvage existing fiber glass polls at the lift station sites and deliver them to the municipal garage. B. Tower Lighting Security lights are to be installed, one (1) each at tower #1, 6831 France Ave. N. and tower #2, 6900 Dupont Ave. N. The electrical contractor shall furnish and install light poles, fixtures and all necessary parts and supplies. Refer to figures 1 and 2 for approximate light locations. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -7 OF 12 The pole shall be 30 feet in overall length, Class 7 round tapered, fiber glass, direct burial street lighting pole, dark brown in color. Predrilled holes shall accommodate a standard shoebox type luminaire. There shall be predrilled holes for a service cable, and 2" x 5" handhole. Pole shall be of type manufactured by Shakespeare catalog #BS30 -16 or approved equal. The pole shall be located as staked in the field and buried a minimum of 5 feet providing a 25 foot mounting height. Fixture shall be mounted to pole. The lighting poles shall contain a minimum of 65 percent fiberglass and a maximum of 35 percent resins by weight. The laminate shall contain colored pigment the color of the final coating and be uniform color throughout the entire wall thickness. A weather resistant pigmented polyurethane coating with a minimum dry film thickness of 1.5 mils shall be applied to the standards. The poles shall be flame resistant in accordance with ASTM -D635. The luminaire shall be 150 Watt High Pressure Sodium, IES Type III cut off flat glass lens fixture, die -cast aluminum outdoor luminaire for horizontal mounting, bronze color, 120 Volt CWA Auto Reg Type Ballast with EEI -NEMA twist lock receptacle for photo electrical control. Control shall be normally closed and in accordance with Mn/DOT 3812. American Electric Lighting LuxMaster Series 53 or approved equal. Luminaire shall come equipped with a photo electric control, normally closed, in accordance with Mn/DOT 3812 and to be faced as nearly north as practical, Precision Multiple Controls LM -26275 or approved equal. All luminaries shall, have a wattage decal readable from the ground. All cable shall be in 1' /2" Schedule 80 PVC UL Listed conduit. A properly sized circuit breaker for the light shall be installed in the service cabinet and labeled "security lighting C. Well #9 Lighting S Exterior light fixtures two (2) are to be replaced at well #9, 7124 Camden Ave. N. The electrical contractor shall furnish and install two (2) "shoe box" style light fixtures and all necessary parts and supplies. Lights are to be mounted on each of the two (2) existing wood poles. The luminaire shall be 150 Watt High Pressure Sodium, IES Type III cut off flat glass lens fixture, die -cast aluminum outdoor luminaire for horizontal mounting, bronze color, 120 Volt CWA Auto Reg Type Ballast with EEI -NEMA twist lock receptacle for photo electrical control. Control shall be normally closed and in accordance with Mn/DOT 3812. American Electric Lighting LuxMaster Series 53 or approved equal. Luminaire shall come equipped with a photo electric control, normally closed, in accordance with Mn/DOT 3812 and to be faced as nearly north as practical, Precision Multiple Controls LM -26275 or approved equal. All luminaries shall have a wattage decal readable from the ground. The existing fixtures shall be removed and properly disposed of by the electrical contractor. The existing lamps shall be salvaged and delivered to the municipal garage. 2011.0 CABINET MOUNTING The control cabinets shall be mounted on new concrete slabs and securely fastened with a minimum of six (6) stainless steel concrete anchors. The Contractor shall install a new concrete slab at lift #7 and lift #10 and shall remove old concrete slabs at each site and remove demolition material. The new slabs shall be at least 6" in thickness. The new control cabinets shall each be equipped with a new radio, programmable logic controller, UPS (Power Ware by InvenSys, Catalog No. PW5115- 500) and emergency generator electrical connection. ALL EQUIPMENT IN THE SUPPLIED CONTROL CABINETS SHALL BE NEW. REUSE OF EXISTING EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -8 OF 12 Schedule 80 PVC conduit shall be used at both lift stations #7 and #10. Two (2) new floats for lift #7 and two (2) for lift #10 (4 total) shall be supplied. All abandoned conduit shall be removed from the wet wells. The existing holes shall be filled with a "water plug" type mortar. The annular spaces surrounding new conduit runs into the wet wells shall also be filled with a "water plug" type mortar. Any abandoned conduit shall be capped and sealed. The Contractor shall maintain lift station operation during the switch over phase to ensure control of sewage effluent. Sanitary sewer backups must be avoided. 2012.0 SYSTEM OPERATION The function of this telemetry and control system revision is to provide automatic operation and monitoring of equipment at Lift Station #7 and Lift Station #10 and to communicate this operation and equipment status to the Maintenance Garage. Wet well level control set points are adjustable through the operator interface and existing SCADA master. All lift station control panel PLC's communicate with the PLC in the Maintenance Garage control panel via FM transceivers over a radio frequency channel determined and licensed by the FCC. 2013.0 REMOTE TERMINAL OPERATION Motor control and telemetry equipment shall be housed in a NEMA 3R skirted stainless steel pump control panel that is designed to mount on a concrete pad. Operators and display devices required for local operation shall be mounted on interior doors. A heater controlled by a thermostat shall be provided to maintain the panel operating temperature. The lift station PLC's shall communicate with the PLC in the Maintenance Garage control panel via FM transceivers over a radio frequency channel determined and licensed by the FCC. Radios (2) shall be Microwave Data Systems, MDS 4310, 350 -512 MHZ, Radio Transceivers. The MDS radios shall be equipped with diagnostics, to be utilized with existing software. A new telemetry panel shall be installed into the new pump control panel to provide communication with the PLC installed in the Maintenance Garage control panel. PLC's (2) shall be Allen Bradely Micro Logic 1500. New uninterruptible power supplies (UPS's) shall be PowerWare by InvenSys, Catalog No. PW5115 -500. They shall be installed in the new lift station control panels. The UPS maintains telemetry operation during periods of unstable utility power. The Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) inside the lift station enclosure shall provide pump control and monitoring functions and conduct telemetry with the PLC at the Maintenance Garage. A Hand /Off /Auto selector switch shall be provided for each pump to determine the pumps operation. In the "Hand" position the pump will be required to operate. This switch position shall allow the pump to operate under a motor seal failure condition. A motor high current condition sensed by the motor starter overload relay or a high temperature condition shall turn off the pump in the "Hand" position. In the "Off" position the pump shall not be allowed to operate. In the "Auto" position the pumps shall be required to `operate as determined by the wet well level control algorithm and by backup float control circuitry. Alarm conditions of motor high temperature, phase failure and motor high current shall turn off the pump in the "Auto" position. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -9 OF 12 An adjustable pump failure time delay in the PLC shall be provided for all pumps to confirm that pump's operation. Whenever a pump is required to operate, the fail timer shall be initiated and begin to time out. Should the motor starter not be energized before the pump failure time delay has expired, a red light on the interior door shall be turned on indicating that the pump has failed. The fail timer shall be manually reset by pressing the "Pump Fail Reset" button before the pump may again operate. The pump fail time delays shall be adjustable through the operator interface device on the Maintenance Garage control panel door. The PLC's installed in the lift station control panels shall receive an analog current signal that represents the water level in the wet well. The level signal shall be determined by an ultrasonic transducer installed above the wet well and the level shall be generated and displayed by a transmitter unit installed on the lift station control panel's inner door. This level signal will communicate to the PLC at the Maintenance Garage and be displayed on the operator interface device and the process computers. The level signal will be used by the local PLC to automatically operate the lift pumps. The control system software shall be configured to provide wet well level set points to monitor and automatically operate the lift pumps. Set points will be adjustable through the operator interface device at the Maintenance Garage or through the process computers. The following set points and operation time delays shall be provided. Wetwell High Level (XX.X ft) Wetwell Low Level (XX.X ft) Lead Pump Start Level (XX.X ft) Lag Pump 1 Start Level (XX.X ft) Pumps Stop Level (XX.X ft) Pump Start Time Delay (XX sec) Pump Stop Time Delay (XX sec) When the wetwell level signal rises above the "Wetwell High Level" setpoint, or falls below the "Wetwell Low Level" setpoint, that alarm condition shall be determined by the PLC at the lift station control panel. An alarm light will be turned on and the alarm will be communicated to the PLC at the Maintenance Garage. The alarm condition shall be communicated to the process computers. When the wetwell level signal rises above the "Lead Pump Start" level setpoint and remains above it for the duration of the "Pump Start Time Delay the pump designated as the "Lead" pump in the pump rotation shall be required to operate. A contact closure signal shall output to the pump pilot circuit to start the pump. The pump shall continue to be required to operate until the wetwell level signal falls below the "Pumps Stop Level" for the duration of the "Pumps Stop Time Delay Should the wetwell level signal continue to rise to the level of the "Lag 1 Pump Start" level setpoint, and remain above it for the duration of the "Pump Start Time Delay the other pump shall be required to operate. All pumps shall then be required to operate until the wetwell level signal falls below the "Pumps Stop Level" setpoint. An automatic alternator algorithm in the PLC shall designate the "Lead" and "Lag 1" pump for each pumping cycle. The alternator shall be manually adjusted by a three position (1 -2 /Auto /2 -1) selector switch on the inner door of each lift station control panel. EXHIBIT A: PAGE -10 OF 12 The wet well at each station shall be monitored by two float switches that provide back -up control. Each float switch will initiate a time delay (delays de- energization) that requires a lift pump to operate. Separate properly sized adjustable timers, one for start and one for lagl, on the backup float control, shall be provided. Should the wetwell level rise above the lower float switch, the pump that is designated as in the "Lead" position in the pump rotation shall automatically be required to operate. That pump will continue to be required to operate until the wetwell level falls below the float position and the time delay has expired. Should the wetwell level continue to rise above the level of the higher float switch, the next designated pump shall automatically be required to operate. This pump shall continue to be required to operate until the level falls below the float position and the timer delay for that float switch has expired. The higher float shall also determine a wetwell "High Level Alarm" that will light an indicator on the inner door of the lift station control panel and be communicated to the Maintenance Garage control panel for indication and alarm annunciation. Lift stations #7 and #10 shall have an intrusion alarm signal, power /PLC fault signal, UPS fault signal, wetwell high level, pump failure and lag step required signal. In addition lifts #7 and #10 have seal failure alarm signals and over temperature alarm signals for each pump that shall be input to the lift station PLC. Should the PLC receive an over temperature signal, that pump shall be turned off under automatic operation; the alarm shall be annunciated and communicated to the Maintenance Garage control panel. Should the PLC receive a pump seal failure alarm signal, the alarm shall be annunciated and communicated to the Maintenance Garage control panel. 2014.0 SYSTEM INTEGRATION AND PROGRAMMING The City will provide for the system integration and programming work for the new control cabinets. The work provided by the City will be: 1) computer programming of the PLC device in the cabinet; 2) computer programming of the SCADA main control system located at the Central Garage facility; 3) on -site meetings with the Contractor prior to start -up or temporary switch overs; and 4) a SCADA system check of alarms on the start-up day for the new control cabinet. In Control Inc. of Blaine, Minnesota, (763) 783 -9500, currently provided SCADA integration and programming work for the City. It is anticipated that In Control Inc. will assist in providing the above work for this project. The Contractor shall provide for all other work to make the new control cabinets fully operational. The Contractor shall make adequate preparations to minimize delays for the work to be provided by the City. This will include, at a minimum, the following items: 1) control cabinet fully installed and powered prior to requesting integration work; 2) coordination of work and schedule with the Integrator; 3) conducting an on -site meeting with the City and Integrator prior to system start-up or temporary switch -over; and 4) providing a qualified electrician on -site during programming and integration work on the control cabinets and testing of the alarm system. 2015.0 CONTROL CABINET AND APURTENANCES 1. Control cabinet enclosure and float switches shall be purchased by the City and delivered to the Engineering Consultant for assembly and set -up. Upon completion of assembly and set -up, the Engineering Consultant shall deliver the control cabinet and float switches to the project site for field installation by the Electrical Contractor. The Electrical S Contractor shall be responsible for taking delivery, unloading and installation of control cabinets. Proper notification of delivery date and time shall be given to the Electrical EXHIBIT A: PAGE -11 OF 12 Contractor for coordination purposes. The Electrical Contractor shall install or secure the control cabinet and float switches at each project site on the day of delivery. 2. The Ultrasonic level controller and programmable logic controller shall be purchased by the City and delivered to the Engineering Consultant for installation into the control cabinet prior to delivery of the cabinet to the site. 2016.0 WARRANTY Warranty shall be for one year from the date of acceptance of the completed project. 2017.0 SALVAGE All electrical and control equipment removed for the project shall remain the property of the City. Care must be taken by the Contractor to ensure that existing equipment such as PLC's, UPS's, radios and all other electrical components are not damaged. The Electrical Contractor shall deliver the salvaged equipment to a location within the City of Brooklyn Center to be designated by the City. 2018.0 SECURITY The Electrical Contractor shall install and maintain a security fence around the lift station control cabinets while the cabinets are under construction. The security fence shall be locked at times when the Contractor's personnel are not present. The electrical contractor shall provide locks and two sets of keys and provide keys to the City Utility Department prior to installation. 2019. DOWN -TIME The Contractor shall conduct a meeting with City utility personnel prior to any planned shut -down of the lift stations. The maximum down -time for pumps, alarms and communication with the central i SCADA system will be established by the City at the meeting. i EXHIBIT A: PAGE -12 OF 12 I City Council Agenda Item No. 7d City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM a DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 87808R with Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has completed plans and specifications for the replacement of the traffic control signal located at the intersection of Trunk Highway 100 and Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152). Mn/DOT has provided the attached agreement to provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of the new signal system. The project would include reconstruction of the traffic signal posts, mast arms, luminaries, control cabinets and signal units. The proposed signal improvements also include the installation of an emergency vehicle preemption system and a traffic signal interconnect with the existing signal system at 55 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. The installation of the traffic signal interconnect would fulfill one of the recommended traffic improvements identified by the Brooklyn Boulevard Traffic Study that was recently completed by the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County and Mn/DOT. The interconnect would allow Hennepin County to eventually coordinate all signal phases between County Road 10 and T.H. 100. Hennepin County and Mn/DOT would share in the cost to construct the proposed signal improvements. Hennepin County would be responsible for relamping the new traffic control signal; cleaning and painting the traffic signal and cabinets; and maintaining the pedestrian crosswalk markings. As part of the proposed agreement, the City will no longer be required to relamp and paint the traffic signal as currently required by the existing signal agreement dated March 12, 1976. The City would be responsible for the cost and application to secure an adequate.power supply to the signal. Upon completion of this project, the City will thereafter pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the signal system. The City would also be required to relamp and maintain the street lights mounted on the signal poles. Attached for consideration is a City Council resolution authorizing the execution of the traffic signal agreement with Hennepin County and Mn/DOT. 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 AUTHORIZING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 87808R WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation has initiated the preparation of construction plans and specifications for improvements to the traffic control signal system located at the intersection of CSAH 152/Brooklyn Boulevard and Trunk Highway No. 100 north ramps; and WHEREAS, State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation has requested that the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation enter into an agreement to provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of said traffic control signal system as set forth in Agreement No. 87808R. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The City f Brooklyn Center enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Y M Yn Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove the existing raffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal g with street lights, emergency vehicle pre emption, and signing on Trunk Highway No. 100 at CSAH 152/Brooklyn Boulevard; and install interconnect on CSAH 152/Brooklyn Boulevard from Trunk Highway No. 100 to 55 Avenue North in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 87808R, a copy of which was before the Council 2. The Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. 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. MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 87808R BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO Remove the existin g g Traffic Control Signal and Install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Emergency Vehicle .Pre- emption, and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 100 at CSAH 152 /Brooklyn Blvd; and install Interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 100 from.CSAH 152 /Brooklyn Blvd. to 55 Avenue North in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota S.P. 2755 -82 S.A.P. 27- 752 -020 Prepared by Metropolitan Traffic Engineering ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED County of Hennepin $56,700.00 None otherwise Covered -1- Agreement No. 87808R a PARTIES This Agreement is entered into by the State of Minnesota acting through its Commissioner of Transportation, (State), and the County of Hennepin, (County), and the City of Brooklyn Center, (City) RECITALS Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system. The State has determined that there is justification and it is in the public's best interest to remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal including street lights, and signing, (Traffic Control Signal) at the location set out in this Agreement; and install traffic signal interconnect, (Interconnect) on Trunk Highway No. 100 from CSAH 152 /Brooklyn Blvd. to 55 Avenue North in accordance with the State plans, specifications and special provisions designated as State Project No. 2755 -82 (T.H. 100 =212), and State Aid Project No. 27- 752 -020. The City requests and the State agrees to the installation of an Emergency Vehicle Pre emption System, (EVP System) as a part of the new Traffic Control Signal installation. -2- Agreement No. 87808R It is considered in the ublic's best interest p for the County to provide a controller and cabinet (County- furnished materials) to operate the new Traffic Control Signal. The County., City and the State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the new Traffic Control Signal, Interconnect and EVP System: CONTRACT 1. The State will prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal (Preliminary Engineering). 2. The State, with its own resources or by contract, will remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System on Trunk Highway No. 100 at CSAH 152 /Brooklyn Blvd., and install Interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 100 from CSAH 152 /Brooklyn Blvd. to 55 Avenue North pursuant to the plans and specifications for State Project No. 2755 -82, and State Aid.Project No. 27- 752 -020. 3. The State will perform all construction engineering and inspection functions (Construgtion Engineering) in connection with the contract construction and perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause the construction contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner. 4. The cost of construction (Construction Cost) consists of the contract cost of the work or, if the work is not contracted, the actual cost of all labor, materials Count y -3- -3- Agreement No. 87808R x furnished materials and equipment rental required to complete the work. Construction Cost does not include the cost of providing the power supply to the service pole or pad. A Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" is attached and incorporated into this Agreement. The Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" includes all County Construction Costs, and is based on--engineer's estimated unit prices and a lump sum credit for County- furnished materials. The County will participate in 50% of the construction. The County will pay a Construction Engineering charge in an amount equal to 8 percent of the total County Construction Cost less the County- furnished materials covered under this Agreement. 5. The County's estimated total Construction Cost share and Construction Engineering cost is $56,700.00, as shown in the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I The State will prepare a Revised SCHEDULE I based on construction contract unit prices. Upon execution of this Agreement, award of the Construction Contract, and receipt of the State's written request, the County will advance to the State it's total estimated Construction Cost share minus the State's share for the County- furnished materials, which does not include the 8 percent Construction Engineering cost share, as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I 6. Upon completion and acceptance of the contract construction and upon computation of the final amount due the State's contractor, the State will prepare a Final SCHEDULE I and submit a copy to the County. The Final SCHEDULE I will be -4- Agreement No. 87808R 5 based on final quantities, and include all County Construction Cost and Construction Engineering covered under this Agreement. If the final cost of a party's participation covered under this Agreement exceeds the amount of funds advanced by that party, the party will, upon receipt of a request from the State, promptly pay the difference to-the State without interest. If the final cost of a party's participation covered under this Agreement is less than the amount of funds advanced by that party, the State will promptly return the balance to the party without interest. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 15.415, the State waives claim for any amounts less than $5.00 over the amount of the County funds previously advanced to the State, and the County any waives claim for the return of an a less than $5.00 of those funds advanced b either party. P Y 7. The City will be responsible for the cost and application pp ation to secure an adequate power supply to the service pad or pole. Upon completion of this project, the City will thereafter pay all monthly electrical service expenses necessary to operate the Traffic Control Signal, Interconnect and EVP System. 8. Upon completion of this project, a) the City will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the street lights; (2) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacing the luminaire when necessary; and (3) clean and paint the new luminaire mast arm extensions; b) the County will, at -5- Agreement No. 87808R b its'cost and expense: (1) relamp the new traffic control signal; (2) clean and aint the new traffic control signal and cabinet; P g and (3) paint and maintain the pedestrian crosswalk markings; and c) the State will be responsible for the costs to maintain the interconnect and signing, and all other traffic control signal, EVP, and street light maintenance, the County will perform such maintenance and be reimbursed by the State as covered in the Master Agreement No. 87438, between the County and the State. 9. The EVP System will be installed, operated, maintained, or removed in accordance with the following conditions and requirements: a. Emitter units may be installed only on authorized emergency vehicles, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01, Subdivision 5. Authorized emergency vehicles may use emitter units only when responding to an emergency. The City will provide the State's Metropolitan District Engineer or his /her designated representative a list of all vehicles with emitter units. b. Malfunction of the EVP System must be reported to the State immediately. C. In the event the EVP System or its components are, in the opinion of the State, being misused or the conditions set forth in Paragraph b above are -6- Agreement No. 87808R violated, and such misuse or violation continues after the City receives written notice from the State, the State may remove the EVP System. Upon removal of the EVP System pursuant to this Paragraph, all of its parts and components become the property of the State. d. All timing of the EVP System will be determined by the County's Traffic Engineer. 10. Final plans for construction of the traffic control signal work provided in Paragraph 3 will have County approval prior to award of construction contract by the State. Said County approval will be evidenced by signature of the County Engineer in the designated space therefore on the original lan. g P P 11. The construction work provided for herein will be under the direction and supervision of the State. It is agreed; however, that the County will have the right to periodically inspect the cost sharing construction work provided for in Paragraph 3. The State will have the exclusive right to determine whether the work has been satisfactorily performed by the State's Contractor. -7- Agreement No. 87808R s 12. Upon satisfactory completion of the walkways construction to be performed within the project limits under the construction contract, the County or the City will provide for the proper routine maintenance of the walkways, without cost or expense to the State. Routine maintenance includes, but is not limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, patching, crack repair, and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the walkways in a safe and usable condition. 13. Each party will be solely responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof, to the extent authorized by law. Minnesota Tort Claims Act Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736, governs the State's liability. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the County and the City. Each party will be solely .responsible for its own employees for any Workers' Compensation claims. 14. The County will maintain and keep in repair the new Traffic Control Signal, Interconnect, and EVP System. The County will operate the new Traffic Control Signal and EVP System, including timing, as specified in Paragraphs 8 and 9. The County will defend and indemnify the State from any claims arising out of the performance or non performance of the County's obligations under this paragraph. The County's -8- Agreement No. 87808R liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law. 15. All timing of the new Traffic Control Signal will be determined by the County's Traffic Engineer. 16. The State or the County may terminate the terms and conditions covering maintenance and operation contained in Paragraphs 8, 9, 15, and 17, upon providing 30 days notice to the other parties. The County's termination must be accomplished by a resolution of the County Board. The State's termination must be accomplished by a letter from Mn /DOT's Assistant Commissioner. Upon termination, responsibility for the Traffic Control Signal and EVP System will be as follows: a) The County will, at its cost and expense: (1) relamp the new traffic control signal; and (2) clean and paint the new traffic control signal and cabinet; b) The City will, at its cost and expense: (1) maintain the luminaires and all its components, including replacement of the luminaire if necessary; (2) relamp the street lights; and (3) clean and paint the luminaire mast arm extensions; and c) The State will, at its cost and expense, maintain the interconnect and signing and perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. In addition, all timing of the Traffic Control Signal and EVP System will be determined by the State, and no changes may be made except with the approval of the State. -9- Agreement No. 87808R a 17. By signing this agreement, the County and City authorize the State to enter upon the County and City public right of way to install and maintain the new Traffic Control Signal, Interconnect, and EVP System. 18. Upon execution and approval by the County, the City and the State and completion of the work provided for herein, this agreement will supersede and terminate the operation and maintenance terms of Agreement No. 57178M, dated March 12, 1976, between the City and the State, for the intersection of Trunk Highway No. 100 at CSAH 152 /Brooklyn Blvd. 19. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original Agreement, or their successors in office. 20. If the State fails to enforce any provisions of this Agreement, that failure does not waive the provision or its right to enforce it. 21. This Agreement contains all negotiations and agreements between the parties. No other understanding regarding this Agreement, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party. 22. Minnesota law governs this contract. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this Agreement, or its breach, -10- Agreement No. 87808R must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 23. This Agreement is effective on the date the State obtains all required signatures under Minnesota Statutes 16C.05, Subdivision 2, and will remain in effect until terminated by written agreement of the parties. 24. The State's obligation to perform any work, or to let a Contract for the performance of the work, on the State Project referenced above, is subject to the availability of funding from the Minnesota Legislature or other funding source. 25. Authorized Agents a. The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Allan Espinoza, Mn /DOT Metropolitan District Traffic Engineering, or his successor. His current address and phone number are 1500 West County-Road B2, Roseville, Mn. 55113, (651) 634 -2127. b. The County's Authorized Agent for the purpose of administration of this Agreement is Jerry Mortenson, Hennepin County Works, or his successor. His current address and phone number are 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, Mn. 55340, (651) 745 -7673. -11- Agreement No. 87808R C. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Todd Blomstrom, City of Brooklyn Center Public Works, or his successor. His current address and phone number are 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430, (763) 569 3328. -12- Agreement No. 87808R COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST: By Chair of its County Board By: Deputy /Clerk of the County Date: Board And: Date Assistant /Deputy /County Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: By: Assistant County Attorney And: Assistant County Date: Administrator, Public Works APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Date: By: Assistant County Attorney RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Date: By _Director, Transportation Department and County Engineer Date II I -13- Agreement No. 87808R CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: B Mayor Title: Date: Date: -14- Agreement No. 87808R DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Metropolitan District State Design Engineer Engineer Date: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As to form and execution: As delegated to Materials Management Division By: Contract Management By: Date: Date: i -15- RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center enter into an agreement g ent with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: To remove the existing Traffic Control Signal and install a new Traffic Control Signal with Street Lights, Emergency Vehicle Pre emption, and Signing on Trunk Highway No. 100 at CSAH 152 /Brooklyn Blvd; and install Interconnect on Trunk Highway No. 100 from CSAH 152 /Brooklyn Blvd. to 55 Avenue North in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 87808R, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement and any amendments, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota City of Brooklyn Center I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of 2005, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. By: Title: (Seal) City Council Agenda Itiem No. 7e City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Awarding, Contract for Sewer Cleaning and Repairs Along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive During the preliminary design phase of the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Improvement Project, City staff conducted detailed inspections of the existing storm drainage and sanitary sewer systems within the project area. These inspections identified two maintenance issues within the project area that were not previously considered during preparation of the current Capital Improvement Program. Over the past 35 years, approximately 1 to 3 feet of sediment has accumulated within portions of the storm sewer system in Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive. Staff has estimated that approximately 120 cubic yards of material must be removed from the underground drainage system in order to restore the original flow capacity. During the inspection process, minor infiltration repairs were also identified at three sanitary sewer manhole structures and two pipe joints along Shingle Creek Parkway. These repairs are necessary to address cracks or leaks that have developed within the sanitary sewer system. A cured -in -place process can be used to repair the leaks in order to avoid costly excavation work and traffic disruption within Shingle Creek Parkway. Storm sewer cleaning and sanitary sewer repairs for the scope and magnitude as described above are fairly specialized services. Staff has therefore pursued quotations for these repairs through a separate contract process from the proposed Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street and Utility Improvements project. By contracting this work separately, the City would avoid potential subcontractor mark -ups and potentially high bid prices due to the limited equipment and technology available to some contractors bidding on the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Improvement Project. 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 Quotations for the work as described above were collected and opened by the Engineering Division on March 29, 2005. The results of the quotations are tabulated as follows: y Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Sediment Removal Leak Repairs Infrastructure Technologies, Inc. 22,800.00 4,690.00 Veit Company, Inc. $119,250.00 $10,000.00 Visu -Sewer Clean Seal, Inc. Declined Bid 5,450.00 There is a wide disparity in the bid prices to perform the proposed sediment removal work. This is due to the limited availability of specialized equipment required to perform the task of removing the high volume of sediment from the underground storm sewer system. The bid price from Infrastructure Technologies, Inc. is consistent with the engineer's estimate for the work and reinforces the assumption that a cost savings could be realized by separating this work from the proposed street and utility improvements for the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive project. Attached for consideration is a City Council resolution awarding a contract for sewer cleaning and repairs along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive to Infrastructure Technologies, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota. adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SEWER CLEANING AND REPAIRS ALONG SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE WHEREAS, the City has identified the need to perform the removal of accumulated sediment from the storm sewer system and leak repairs to the sanitary sewer system along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive in order to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the storm and sanitary sewer collection systems; and WHEREAS, pursuant to soliciting quotations from three qualified contractors to perform said work on the sanitary and storm sewer system, bids were received, opened, and tabulated on the 29` day of March, 2005. The results of said quotations are tabulated as follows: Storm Sewer Sanitary Sewer Sediment Removal Leak Repairs Infrastructure Technologies, Inc. 22,800.00 4,690.00 Veit Company, Inc. $119,250.00 $10,000.00 Visu -Sewer Clean Seal, Inc. Declined Bid 5,450.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Infrastructure Technologies, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder for both the storm sewer sediment removal quotation and the sanitary sewer leak repair quotation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Infrastructure Technologies, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for sewer cleaning and repairs along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows: RESOLUTION NO. COSTS Engineer's Estimate Per Low Bid Contract $25,000.00 $27,490.00 Contingency (10 2,500.00 2.750.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $27,500.00 $30,240.00 REVENUES Infrastructure Construction Fund $22,000.00 $25,080.00 40700- 6350- 8200414 (Storm Sewer) Infrastructure Construction Fund 5,500.00 5,160.00 40700- 6350- 8200414 (Sanitary) Total Estimated Revenue 27,500.00 $30,240.00 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. 7.5 There are no materials for this item. City Council Agenda Item No. 8a Office of the City Clerk OX City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: April 6, 2005 SUBJECT: 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) At its March 14, 2005, meeting, the Brooklyn Center City Council approved first reading of 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). The second reading and Public Hearing are scheduled for April 11, 2005. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post newspaper on March 24, 2005. If adopted, effective date will be May 21, 2005. Attachments 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 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 11 th day of April 2005 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Northwest Corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard). Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10 AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (C1) Service /Office District zoning classification: Lots threugl; 5, Bleek 1, Gr-i me's Addition. Tha4 pai4 of Lot Subdivision No. 216 lyi h of GFi f 's a ddition and e ast of the west lino e fT e t 1 B 1 1 Aaa•t' Lot 2. Block 1. CVS Brooklvn Boulevard Addition. Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development zoning classification: 4. The following properties are designated as PUD /C2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce): Lot 1. Block 1. CVS Brooklvn Boulevard Addition ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) City Council Agenda Item No. 9a MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: April 6, 2005 SUBJECT: Resolution Calling a Public Hearing The resolution before the City council calls for a public hearing on the refunding of the existing financing of the 112 unit multi family housing development at 7256 Unity. The intent of the refunding (refinancing) is to restructure the existing debt and bring about needed renovations including but not limited to sofitt trim work, hard wired smoke detectors, new cabinets, furnaces garage foundation work, garage roof replacements and garage siding. Community Housing Development Corporation is the nonprofit owner of the project. The principal amount of the new note would be $5,700,000. The public hearing would be held May 9, 2005. Representatives of the Community Housing Development Corporation will be present Monday evening. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF A HOUSING REVENUE NOTE TO FINANCE A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA LAW, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING (a) WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act confers upon cities, the power to issue revenue obligations to finance multifamily housing developments within the boundaries of the city; and (b) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City"), has received from Community Housing Development Corporation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Corporation a proposal that the City assist in financing a Project hereinafter described, through the issuance of a revenue note or obligations (in one or more series) (the "Note pursuant to the Act; and (c) WHEREAS, the Corporation intends to form a limited liability company, the sole member of which will be the Corporation (the `Borrower which will be the owner of the Project; (d) WHEREAS, before proceeding with consideration of the request of the Corporation it is necessary for the City to hold a public hearing on the housing finance program and proposal pursuant to the Act: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing n the housing finance program and proposal of the Corporation will be g g P g P P iP held at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing hereto attached. 2. The general nature of the proposal and an estimate of the principal amount of Note to be issued to finance the proposal are described in the attached form of Notice of Public Hearing. 3. A draft copy of the housing finance program with proposed forms of all attachments and exhibits shall be on file in the office of the City Manager on the date the Notice of Public Hearing is published. 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing to be given one publication in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation available in the City, not less than 15 days nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, substantially in the form of the attached Notice of Public Hearing with such changes as required or approved by Bond Counsel. Aoril 11.2005 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. RESOLUTION NO. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF A HOUSING REVENUE NOTE TO FINANCE A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 9, 2005, to consider a housing finance program of the City and the proposal of Community Housing Development Corporation that the project described below be assisted by the issuance of a revenue housing note under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C. The "Project" consists of the acquisition and renovation of an existing 112 unit multifamily housing facility located at 7256 Unity Avenue in the City and the refunding of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota $5,330,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Ponds Family Housing Project), Series 1993. The Project will be owned and operated by a limited liability company (the Borrower to be formed by, and the sole member of which, will be Community Housing Development Corporation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. The maximum aggregate estimated principal amount of the Note or other obligations to be issued in one or more series to finance the Project pursuant to the housing finance program will be $5,700,000. Subsequent to approval of a housing finance program, the City may issue revenue obligations to finance the housing finance program. The Note or other obligations, as and when issued, will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City, or its housing and redevelopment authority, except the Project and the revenues to be derived from the Project. Such Note or obligations will not be a charge against the City's general credit or taxing powers but are payable from sums to be paid by the Borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement. Further information concerning the housing finance program and the Project may be obtained from the City Manager during normal business hours. At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council of the City will give all persons who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the housing finance program and proposal. Written comments will be considered if submitted at the above City office on or before the date of the hearing. Dated: April 11, 2005. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA By Michael McCaulev Its City Manager RESOLUTION NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to calling for a public hearing on a housing revenue note to finance a housing finance program. WITNESS my hand this 12 day of April, 2005. City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center Page 1 of 2 Maria Rosenbaum From: Brad Hoffman Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:26 AM To: Maria Rosenbaum Subject: FW: City of Brooklyn Center From: Hobbs, Tracie [mailto:THobbs @Briggs.com] On Behalf Of Ganley, Kim Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:19 AM To: Brad Hoffman Cc: sgaley @faegre.com Subject: City of Brooklyn Center Attached is the Resolution calling for the public hearing for the above referenced bonds. The hearing is scheduled for May 9. We will handle the publication. If you have any questions, please let me know. Kim K. Ganley Paralegal Briggs and Morgan, P.A. 2200 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -1396 Direct Dial: (651) 808 -6404 Fax: (651) 808 -6450 <<PCDOCS- 1752009 -v1- Brooklyn_Center Resolution_ Calling_ for_ Public_Hearing_on_ Proposal_ to_Finance_Housing_Program.DOC>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail communication and any attached documentation may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s). It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized person. The use, distribution, transmittal or re- transmittal by an unintended recipient of this communication is strictly prohibited without our express approval in writing or by e -mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this e -mail, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify the above sender so that our e-mail address may be corrected. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney- client or work product privilege. This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan 4/6/2005 City Council Agenda Item No. 9b 01 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: 3/6/05 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager s FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn Cent Lions Club in Support of the Earle Brown Days Youth Golf Tournament The Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City a donation of three hundred dollars. ($300.00) They have designated that it be used to support the Earle Brown Days Youth Golf Tournament. Staff recommends acceptance of this generous donation and asks that it be coded to the corresponding activity budget. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its is adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION OF THE DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS YOUTH GOLF TOURNAMENT WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City a donation of three hundred dollars ($300) and has designated it be used to support the Earle Brown Days Youth Golf Tournament; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the donation 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: L Acknowledges the donation with gratitude. 2. Appropriates the donation to the corresponding activity budget. April 11. 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 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community L MEMORANDUM DATE: April 6, 2005 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Joyce Gulseth, Public Works Administrative Aide SUBJECT: Staff Report Re: Earth Day and the Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Brooklyn Center and five other cities that make up the Shingle Creek Watershed will celebrate Earth Day 2005 with the "Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Beginning Saturday, April 16th through Saturday, April 23` hundreds of volunteers from Plymouth to the Mississippi River will line the banks of Shingle Creek, as well as city parks, trails and streets, picking up everything from pop cans and auto parts to building materials and household appliances. The "Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup" meets one of the public involvement and participation requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) S Phase II Education and Public Outreach Program. The event not only educates persons that trash or other contaminants in the streets, parks, and shorelines eventually end up in our lakes, rivers and streams but also provides opportunities for the public to become involved in the protection of water quality. Watershed Commissioner Grady Boeck will give a brief presentation of the event at the regular session of the Council on April 1 Ph Many of the 37 groups affiliated with the Brooklyn Center Adopt- a- Park/Trail /Street program 12 will concentrate on a cleanup of their assigned sites during the week. On Saturday, April 3 rd r i e breakfast provided b all volunteers are invited to a free p y the Palmer Lake VFW at 2817 Brookdale Drive in Brooklyn Park. Trash bags and cotton gloves will be distributed to volunteers before they are assigned to a public access area along the creek. More than 200 volunteers are expected to participate in the weeklong event. The following proclamations are included for Council consideration: Proclamation declaring April 22, 2005, as Earth Day in Brooklyn Center. Proclamation declaring April 16 -23, 2005 as The Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Week. 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 PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 22, 2005 EARTH DAY IN BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, a sound natural environment is the foundation of a health society and a robust economy; and WHEREAS, local communities can do much to reverse environmental degradation and contribute to building a healthy society by addressing such issues as energy use, waste prevention, and sustainable practices; and WHEREAS, Earth Day 2005 offers an unprecedented opportunity to commit to building a healthy planet and flourishing communities. 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: 1. April 22, 2005 is Earth Day in Brooklyn Center. 2. The City of Brooklyn Center commits itself to undertaking programs and projects that enhance the community's natural environment. 3. The City Council hereby reaffirms its commitment and encourages residents, businesses, and institutions to use Earth Day 2005 to celebrate the Earth and to commit to building a sustainable society by initiating or expanding existing programs which improve energy efficiency, reduce or prevent waste, and promote recycling. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk S PROCLAMATION a DECLARING APRIL 16-23,2005 TO BE THE GREAT SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED CLEANUP WEEK WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is dedicated to preserving and protecting the water resources in our watersheds; and WHEREAS, litter and trash can be washed into our lakes, rivers, and streams, polluting the water and clogging our storm sewers and storm drains; and WHEREAS, citizens can take an active role in protecting water resources by picking up litter and trash and keeping our streets, parks, neighborhoods, and community clean; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions' annual event "The Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup" will take place April 16 -23, 2005. 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: 1. April 16 -23, 2005 to be The Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Week. 2. The City Council hereby reaffirms its commitment to protecting and preserving our water resources and encourages residents, businesses, and institutions to use The Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Week 2005 to help prevent water pollution and preserve our watersheds by participating in a Cleanup Event or by using this time to pick up trash and clean up our homes, businesses, streets, neighborhoods, and community. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk City Council Agenda Item No. 9d City o f Brookly C ente r r Office of the City Clerk e A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk &At 4j� t DATE: April 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Mayoral Appointment to Financial Commission The Financial Commission is composed of a chairperson and six members. There exists one vacancy on the commission with a term expiration of December 31, 2005. Notice of vacancy on the Financial Commission was posted at City Hall and Community Center and on the City's web site and aired on Cable Channel 16 from February 22, 2005, through March 24, 2005. Announcement was made in the March 3, 10, and 17, 2005, editions of Brooklyn Center Sun -Post. Attached for City Council Members only are copies of the applications received: Dan Remiarz 6201 June Avenue North Samuel Tweah 1308 69th Avenue North, #311 Mark Yelich 6018 Beard Avenue North A letter was sent to those persons who previously had submitted an application for appointment to a Brooklyn Center advisory commission informing them of the vacancy and requesting that they call the City Clerk if they are interested in applying for the commission. They were given the choice of either reapplying or having their application previously submitted considered. Notices were also sent to current advisory commission members. A letter was sent to the applicants notifying them that their application for appointment would be considered at the April 11, 2005, City Council meeting. As requested by the City Council, the City Advisory Commission Bylaws and City Council Resolution Establishing the Financial Commission Duties and Responsibilities are not included in the materials but can be found on the City's web site at www.citvofbrooklvncenter.orc and clicking on Mayor/ Council/ Commissions Charter, then Advisory Commissions. The membership roster is also available at this site. Other attachments include: I Memorandu n from Mayor Kragness indicating her nomination. 2) Procedures for filling commission vacancies adopted by the City Council on March 27, 1995. 3) Geographical distribution of current members and applicants. Recommended Council Action: Motion by Council to ratify the Financial Commission nomination by Mayor Kragness with term expiring December 31, 2005. •6301 Shingle Creek Parkwa y y Recreation and Communi 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 C i Office of the Mayor ty of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmember Kathleen Carmody Councilmember Kay Lasman Councilmember Diane Niesen Councilmember Mary O'Connor C* FROM: Myrna Kragness, Mayor DATE: March 31, 2005 SUBJECT: Financial Commission Appointment As outlined in our policy for filling commission vacancies, I would request ratification from Council Members for the following nomination to the Financial Commission: Samuel Tweah 1308 69th Avenue North, #311 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Communi Center Phone TDD Number g y y 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 City of Brooklyn Center Procedures for Filling Commission /Task Force Vacancies Adopted by Council 3/27/95 The following process for filling commission/task force vacancies was approved by the City Council at its March 27, 1995, meeting: Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by Mayoral appointment with majority consent of the City Council. The procedure for filling Commission vacancies is as follows: 1. Notices of vacancies shall be posted for 30 days before any official City Council action is taken; 2. Vacancies shall be announced in the City's official newspaper; 3. Notices of vacancies shall be sent to all members of standing advisory commissions; 4. Applications for Commission membership must be obtained in the City Clerk's office and must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk; g Y 5. The City Clerk shall forward copies of the applications to the Mayor and City tY Council; 6. The Mayor shall identify and include the nominee's application form in the City Council agenda materials for the City Council meetin g at which the nominee is presented; and 7. The City Council, by majority vote, may approve an appointment at the City Pp pp i Council meeting at which the nominee is presented. COUNCIL PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED FOR FILLING COMMISSION VACANCIES I City of Brooklyn Center Financial Commission Geographical Distribution (Chairperson and Six Members) Current Members March 25, 2005 Neighborhoods .Ab, icant 1 Current Members Southeast Robert Anderson 5525 Knox Avenue North Mark Nemec 5538 Camden Avenue North Susan Shogren Smith 600 62nd Avenue North Samuer t" eah Northeast 6th Avenue North #311 w Earl Simons 7201 Knox Avenue North Northwest Robert Paulson 7012 France Avenue North Dan. Remiarz., West Central 42.01" Tu "ne Avenue North Mark Yelicu Central 6Ci18 Beard,Avenue North Donn Escher 3107 65th Avenue North Southwest One vacancy. City Council Agenda Item No. 9e MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Hoffinan, Community Development Director FROM: Larry Martin, Building Official DATE: April 6, 2005 SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the Schedule for Fees for Planning and Inspection Fees On the April 11, 2005 City Council agenda is a Resolution Amending the Schedule for Planning and Inspection Fees. In the past, the State established fees for permits issued by cities. The 2003 Minnesota State Building Code states that fees will be as set forth by a city to commensurate with services provided. The City of Brooklyn Center has not adopted an increase in permit fees since 1999 when the 1997 UBC was adopted. The resolution being considered by the City Council reflects a 6% increase in building permit fees. After consulting with several metro area communities, the 6% increase is in line with what other cities have adopted for fees. Below is an explanation of other fee increases included in the resolution: All reinspection fees will be increased from $47 (Permits) and $25 (Housing) to $50 to reflect the staff time to perform an inspection. The increase in fees for Planning Commission Applications, sign permits, administrative land use permits, and flood plain use permits is the first recommended increase in over 15 years. There is an increase to sewer water permits and the addition of a storm water commercial fee to accurately staff time to perform the inspections. A fee has been added for posting or removing a posting of property as unsafe for human occupancy to reflect staff time to monitor such properties. A fee has been added for plumbing and mechanical plan review when submitted without a building permit containing plans to reflect staff time involved with reviewing plans prior to issuance of permits. A fee has been added for demolition and moving of structures into and out of the city to reflect staff time to inspect and monitor such activity. t e G Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION FEES WHEREAS, Chapter 3, 12, 15, 34 and 35 of he City Ordinances requires the payment of fees for building permits, plumbing permits, mechanical system permits, sewer and water permits, fire suppression permits, sign permits, building maintenance and occupancy reinspections, Planning Commission applications, flood plain use permits and administrative land use permits; and WHEREAS, Chapter 3, 12, 15, 34 and 35 of the City Ordinances further authorizes the setting of various fees by City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution Nos. 86 -123 (adopted 8/11/86), 89 -224 (adopted 11/27/89), 90 -33 (adopted 2/26/90), 95 -174 (adopted 8/14/95), 98 -228 (adopted 12/14/98), and 99 -172 (adopted 11/8/99), together comprise a schedule of fees collected for services by Community Development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to modify and update the fees contained in said resolutions and to adopt a new fee schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to adopt the following fee schedule: Planning and Inspection Fee Schedule 1. Building Permit Fees Building permit fees shall be based on the valuation of estimated building costs. The building valuation shall be computed using the up -to -date average construction cost per square foot established from time to time by the State Building Official. Valuation Fee $1 to $1,000 $49.50 $1,000 to $2,000 $49.50 for the first $1,000 plus $3.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 $2,001 to $25,000 $82.00 for the first $2,000 plus $14.85 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 RESOLUTION NO. $25,001 to $50,000 $423.55 for the first $25,000 plus $10.70 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $691.05 for the first $50,000 plus $7.45 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $1,063.55 for the first $100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $10,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,463.55 for the first $500,000 plus $5.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up $6,013.55 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof A plan check free of 32.5% of the amount of the permit fee is collected for one and two family residences (including townhouses as one family residences). For all other permits, the plan check fee is 65% of the amount of the permit. *Demolition 50.00 Housemoving Permits $200.00 Code Compliance Review Prior to Moving Structure into City $100.00 Posting and/or Removal of Posting for Residential Properties Identified as Unsafe for Human Occupancy 50.00 As required per Section 23 -1501) 2 Plumbing Permit Fees Plumbing pen fees shall be computed as set forth below. a. Minimum fee $25.000 b. Repair or alteration of existing system 2% of estimated cost c. New residential or commercial building 2 of estimated cost S d. Plumbing Plan Review 65% of base permit fee (Only when submitted without a building pen 3. Sewer and Water Permit Fees Description and Fee a. Sewer or water connection 50.00 b. Sewer or water disconnection 50.00 C. Sewer and water disconnection 90.00 d. New Commercial Sewer and water connection $150.00 RESOLUTION NO. e. New Residential sewer and water connection $100.00 f. Commercial/Industrial Fire Line 50.00 g. Water /Sewer Repair 50.00 h. Storm Water 50.00 i. Minimum Fee 50.00 Water and Sewer Inspections on Weekends $20.70/Hour Time and a Half, Minimum Two Hours 4. Fire Suppression Permit Fees Description and Fee a. Fire Sprinkler System (New) First ten heads $40.00 Additional ten heads or fraction thereof 8.00 Standpipes (each) 50.00 Fire pump (including testing) $200.00 Alteration, Repair of Existing System For each $500 valuation or fraction thereof 17.00 Minimum fee 35.00 Fire Suppression Plan Review New commercial construction 65% of base permit fee* 5. Mechanical System Permit Fee Mechanical system permit fees shall be calculated and collected according to the following: a. A mechanical permit shall be required for the installation, for the removal and for the replacement of any in- ground or above ground tanks, vessels and related piping used for the storage of gaseous or liquid fuels or chemicals. Installation, alteration, reconstruction or repair of any heating, ventilating, comfort cooling or refrigeration equipment requires a mechanical permit. Permit fees shall be computed on the basis of the estimated cost of the proposed work except as herein provided. $0 to $500 $25.00 $501 to 50,000 $25.00 plus 2% of value of any amount in excess of 500 Over $50,000 $1,012.50 plus 1% of value of any amount in excess of $50,000 Mechanical Plan Review 65% of base permit fee (Only when submitted without a building permit) RESOLUTION NO. b. A mechanical permit shall be required for gas pipe fitting for connection to any gas burning device, except as herein provided; the fees are set forth below. The appropriate fee for gas water heaters shall be applied to the plumbing rather than a mechanical permit. Description and Fees 2" and less diameter pipe 1 -3 fixtures $5.75 each Additional Openings $2.50 each 2" and over diameter pipe 1 -3 fixtures $15.00 each Additional Openings 3.25 each c. It is not intended that permits shall be required for portable heating ventilating, comfort cooling or refrigeration equipment, nor the replacement of any component part or assembly of an appliance which does not alter its original approval and which complies with other applicable requirements of the building code. 6 Reinspection Fees Reinspection fees shall be collected for each inspection or reinspection when such portion of work for which inspection is called is not complete or when corrections called for are not made. The applicant shall pay the reinspection fee as set forth below: Reinspection Fee $50.00 7. Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance Fees (Chapter 12) Reinspection $50.00 Appeal $50.00 8. Sign Permit Fees Sign permit fees shall be collected before issuance of any sign permit required under the provision of the Sign Ordinance and shall be calculated according to the following: a. The fee for any permanent freestanding or non freestanding sign 50 sq. ft. in area or less shall be $50.00 b. The fee for any permanent freestanding or non freestanding sign over 50 sq. ft. in area shall be $50.00 for the first 50 sq. ft. of gross area or fraction thereof and $15.00 for each additional 50 sq. ft. of gross area or fraction thereof. c. The fee for permits for the installation of any electrical wiring for any sign shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Electric Permit fee schedule and shall be obtained through the City. d. Sign Permit Minimum fee shall be $50.00 e. When required, a sign permit footing inspection shall be $50.00 RESOLUTION NO. I 9. Planning Commission Fees Planning Commission fees shall be collected at the time applications are executed according to the following: Description and Fee a. Rezoning $1050.00 b. Site and Building Plan 750.00 C. Preliminary Plat 300.00 d. Variance 200.00 e. Special Use Permit 200.00 f. Extension of Special Use Permit 100.00 g. Appeal 200.00 h. Determination 200.00 i. Planned Unit Development $1800.00 In addition to the above fees, the applicant shall sign an agreement, on forms provided by the City, to pay the cost of all engineering, planning and legal consulting expenses incurred by the City in processing the above applications. 10. Administrative Land Use Permit Fees Administrative Land Use Permit fees for temporary activity shall be collected before the issuance of any such permit required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance according to the following: Description and Fee a. Out -of -door church functions, civic functions, $50.00/10 days charities, carnivals, etc. b. Off -site signs for civic functions or community $50.00/10 days events. C. Out -of -door nursery and garden center sales $100/30 weeks and displays. d. Miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or $50.00/10 days promotional events. e. Miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or $50.00/30 days promotional events for gasoline service stations. f. Car wash fund raisers. $50.00/10 days H. Flood Plain Use Permit Fees Flood Plain Use Permit fees shall be collected before the issuance of any flood plain use permit required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be calculated according to the following: RESOLUTION NO. Area Fee Up to 1 acre 50.00 1 acre to 5 acres 50.00 /acre Over 5 acres $250.00 plus $37.50 /acre for each acre or fraction thereof over 5 acres BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that this resolution shall be effective June 1, 2005. April 11. 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. Current Schedule for Fees ompanson Prop_ osed Planning and Inspection Fee Schedule Planning and Inspection Fee Schedule 1. Building Permit Fees 1. Building Permit Fees Building permit fees shall be based on the valuation of estimated building costs. The Building permit fees shall be based on the valuation of estimated building costs. The building valuation shall be computed using the up -to -date average construction cost per building valuation shall be computed using the up -to -date average construction cost square foot established from time to time by the State Building Inspector. per square foot established from time to time by the State Building Official. Valuation Fee Valuation Fee $1 to $1,000 $38.75 $1 to $1,000 $49.50 $1,001 to $2,000 $38.75 for the first $1,000 plus $3.05 for each additional $100 $1,000 to $2,000 $49.50 for the first $1,000 plus $3.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 $2,001 to $25,000 $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus $14.00 for each additional $2,001 to $25,000 $82.00 for the first $2,000 plus $14.85 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $423.55 for the first $25,000 plus $10.70 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $643.75 for the first $50,000 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 $50,001 to $100,000 $691.05 for the first $50,000 plus $7.45 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $1,063.55 for the first $100,000 plus $6.00 for each additional $10,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 $500,000 to $1,000,000 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $3,463.55 for the first $500,000 plus $5.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.65 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof $1,000,001 and up $6,013.55 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof *Note: A plan check fee of 32.5% of the amount of the permit fee is collected for one- and two family residences (including townhouses as one family residences). For all other A plan check free of 32.5% of the amount of the permit fee is collected for one and two permits, the plan check fee is 65% of the amount of the permit. family residences (including townhouses as one family residences). For all other Pe rmits, the plan check fee is 65 of the amount of the permit. *Demolition 50.00 Housemoving Permits $200.00 Code Compliance Review Prior to Moving Structure into City $100.00 Posting and /or Removal of Posting for Residential Properties Identified as Unsafe for Human Occupancy 50.00 *As required per Section 23 -1501) Current Schedule for Fees C Proposed 2. Plumbing Permit Fees 2. Plumbing Permit Fees Plumbing permit fees shall be computed as set forth below. Plumbing permit fees shall be computed as set forth below. a. Minimum fee 25.00 a. Minimum fee $25.00 b. Repair or alteration of existing system 2% of estimated cost b. Repair or alteration of existing system 2% of estimated cost c. New residential or commercial building 2% of estimated cost C. New residential or commercial building 2 of estimated cost d. Plumbing Plan Review 65% of base permit fee (Only when submitted without a building permit) 3. Sewer and Water Permit Fees 3. Sewer and Water Permit Fees Description and Fee Description and Fee a. Sewer or water connection 31.25 a. Sewer or water connection 50.00 b. Sewer or water disconnection 31.25 b. Sewer or water disconnection 50.00 c. Commercial sewer and water connection 108.75 C. Sewer and water disconnection 90.00 d. Residential sewer and water connection 77.50 d. New Commercial Sewer and water connection $150.00 e. Commercial/Industrial fire line 31.25 e. New Residential sewer and water connection $100.00 f. Commercial /Industrial Fire Line 50.00 g. Water /Sewer Repair 50.00 h. Storm Water 50.00 i. Minimum Fee 50.00 Water and Sewer Inspections on Weekends $20.70 /Hour Time and a Half, Minimum Two Hours 4. Fire Suppression Permit Fees 4. Fire Suppression Permit Fees Description and Fee Description and Fee a. Fire Sprinkler System (New) a. Fire Sprinkler System (New) First ten heads $40.00 First ten heads 40.00 Additional ten heads or fraction thereof 8.00 Additional ten heads or fraction thereof 8.00 Standpipes (each) 50.00 Standpipes (each) 50.00 Fire pump (including testing) $200.00 Fire pump (including testing) $200.00 Alteration, Repair of Existing System Alteration, Repair of Existing System -For each $500 valuation or fraction thereof 17.00 For each $500 valuation or fraction thereof 17.00 Minimum fee 35.00 Minimum fee 35.00 Fire Suppression Plan Review Fire Suppression Plan Review o New commercial construction 65% of base permit fee* New commercial construction 65 /o of base permit fee Plan review fees based on UBC Section 107.3, Plan Review Fees. Current Schedule for Fees Comparison Proposed 5. Mechanical System Permit Fee 5. Mechanical System Permit Fee Mechanical system permit fees shall be calculated and collected according to the following: Mechanical system permit fees shall be calculated and collected according to the following: a. A mechanical permit shall be required for the installation, for the removal and for the replacement of any in- ground or above ground tanks, vessels and related piping used for a. A mechanical permit shall be required for the installation, for the removal and for the the storage of gaseous or liquid fuels or chemicals. Installation, alteration, replacement of any in- ground or above ground tanks, vessels and related piping used reconstruction or repair of any heating, ventilating, comfort cooling or refrigeration for the storage of gaseous or liquid fuels or chemicals. Installation, alteration, equipment requires a mechanical permit. Permit fees shall be computed on the basis of reconstruction or repair of any heating, ventilating, comfort cooling or refrigeration the estimated cost of the proposed work except as herein provided. equipment requires a mechanical permit. Permit fees shall be computed on the basis of the estimated cost of the proposed work except as herein provided. $0 to $500 25.00 $0 to $500 $25.00 $501 to $50,000 25.00 plus 2% of value of any amount in excess of $500 $501 to 50,000 $25.00 plus 2% of value of any amount in excess of 500 Over $50,000 $1,012.50 plus 1% of value of any amount in excess of $50,000. Over $50,000 $1,012.50 plus 1 of value of any amount in excess of $50,000 b. A mechanical permit shall be required for gas pipe fitting for connection to any gas burning device, except as herein provided; the fees are set forth below. The appropriate Mechanical Plan Review 65 of base permit fee fee for gas water heaters shall be applied to the plumbing rather than a mechanical (Only when submitted without a building permit) permit. b. A mechanical permit shall be required for gas pipe fitting for connection to any gas Description and Fees burning device, except as herein provided; the fees are set forth below. The 2 and less diameter pipe appropriate fee for gas water heaters shall be applied to the plumbing rather than a 1/ 1 -3 fixtures 5.75 each mechanical permit. Additional Openings 2.50 each 2" and over diameter pipe Description and Fees 1 -3 fixtures 15.00 each 2" and less diameter pipe Additional opening 3.25 each 1 -3 fixtures $5.75 each Additional Openings $2.50 each c. It is not intended that permits shall be required for portable heating ventilating, comfort 2" and over diameter pipe cooling or refrigeration equipment, nor for the replacement of any component part or 1 -3 fixtures $15.00 each assembly of an appliance which does not alter its original approval and which complies Additional Openings 3.25 each with other applicable requirements of the Building Code. c. It is not intended that permits shall be required for portable heating ventilating, comfort cooling or refrigeration equipment, nor the replacement of any component part or assembly of an appliance which does not alter its original approval and which complies with other applicable requirements of the building code. Current Schedule for Fees Comparison Prop osed 6. Reinspection Fees 6. Reinspection Fees Reinspection fees shall be collected for each inspection or reinspection when such portion of Reinspection fees shall be collected for each inspection or reinspection when such work for which inspection is called is not complete or when corrections called for are not portion of work for which inspection is called is not complete or when corrections made. The applicant shall pay the reinspection fee as set forth below: called for are not made. The applicant shall pay the reinspection fee as set forth below: Reinspection Fee 47.00 per hour* (One hour minimum) *Reinspection fee based on UBC Section 108.8, Reinspection. Reinspection Fee $50.00 7. Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance Fees 7. Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance Fees (Chapter 12) Reinspection 25.00 Reinspection $50.00 Appeal 50.00 Appeal $50.00 i 8. Sign Permit Fees 8. Sign Permit Fees Sign permit fees shall be collected before issuance of any sign permit required under the Sign permit fees shall be collected before issuance of any sign permit required under provision of the Sign Ordinance and shall be calculated according to the following: the provision of the Sign Ordinance and shall be calculated according to the following: a. The fee for any permanent freestanding or non freestanding sign five square feet in area or less shall be $25.00. a. The fee for any permanent freestanding or non freestanding sign 50 sq. ft. in area or less shall be $50.00 b. The fee for any permanent freestanding or non freestanding sign over five square feet in area shall be $30.00 for the fast 50 square feet of gross area or fraction thereof and b. The fee for any permanent freestanding or non freestanding sign over 50 sq. ft. in $12.50 for each additional 50 square feet of gross area or fraction thereof. area shall be $50.00 for the first 50 sq. ft. of gross area or fraction thereof and $15.00 for each additional 50 sq. ft. of gross area or fraction thereof. c. The fee for permits for the installation of any electrical wiring for any sign shall conform to the State Board of Electricity fee schedule and shall be obtained through the State c. The fee for permits for the installation of any electrical wiring for any sign shall Board of Electricity. conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Electric Permit fee schedule and shall be obtained through the City. d. Sign Permit Minimum fee shall be $50.00 e. When required, a sign permit footing inspection shall be $50.00 Current Schedule for Fees Comparison Prop_ osed 9. Planning Commission Fees 9. Planning Commission Fees Planning Commission fees shall be collected at the time applications are executed according Planning Commission fees shall be collected at the time applications are executed according to the following: to the following: Description and Fee Description and Fee a. Rezoning $700.00 a. Rezoning $1050.00 b. Site and Building Plan 500.00 b. Site and Building Plan 750.00 C. Preliminary Plat 200.00 C. Preliminary Plat 300.00 d. Variance 100.00 d. Variance 200.00 e. Special Use Permit 100.00 e. Special Use Permit 200.00 f Extension of Special Use Permit 50.00 f. Extension of Special Use Permit 100.00 g. Appeal 100.00 g. Appeal 200.00 h. Determination 100.00 h. Determination 200.00 i. Planned Unit Development 1200.00 i. Planned Unit Development 1800.00 In addition to the above fees, the applicant shall sign an agreement, on forms provided by In addition to the above fees, the applicant shall sign an agreement, on forms provided by the City, to pay the cost of all engineering, planning and legal consulting expenses the City, to pay the cost of all engineering, planning and legal consulting expenses incurred by the City in processing the above applications. incurred by the City in processing the above applications. 10. Administrative Land Use Permit Fees 10. Administrative Land Use Permit Fees Administrative Land Use Permit fees for temporary activity shall be collected before the Administrative Land Use Permit fees for temporary activity shall be collected before the issuance of any such permit required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance according issuance of any such permit required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance according to the following: to the following: Description and Fee Description and Fee a. Out -of -door church functions, civic functions, $25.00 /10 days a. Out -of -door church functions, civic functions, $50.00 110 days charities, carnivals, etc. charities, carnivals, etc. b. Off -site signs for civic functions or community $25.00/10 days b. Off -site signs for civic functions or community $50.00110 days events. events. C. Out -of -door nursery and garden center sales $50.00 /30 days C. Out -of -door nursery and garden center sales $100.00/30 days and displays. and displays. d. Miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or $25.00 /10 days d. Miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or $50.00 110 days promotional events. promotional events. e. Miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or $25.00/30 days e. Miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or $50.00/30 days promotional events for gasoline service stations. promotional events for gasoline service stations. f. Car wash fund raisers. $25.00/10 days f. Car wash fund raisers. $50.00110 days Current Schedule for Fees omparison Proposed 11. Flood Plain Use Permit Fees 11. Flood Plain Use Permit Fees Flood Plain Use Permit fees shall be collected before the issuance of any flood plain use Flood Plain Use Permit fees shall be collected before the issuance of any flood plain use permit required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be calculated permit required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be calculated according to the following: according to the following: Area Fee Area Fee Up to 1 acre 25.00 Up to 1 acre 50.00 1 acre to 5 acres 25.00 /acre 1 acre to 5 acres 50.00 /acre Over 5 acres $125.00 plus $18.75 /acre for each acre or Over 5 acres $250.00 plus $37.50 /acre for each acre or fraction thereof over 5 acres fraction thereof over 5 acres City Council Agenda Item No. 9f MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Spec' ist (�f SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Permitted Uses in the CIA Service /Office District DATE: April 6, 2005 On the April 11, 2005 City Council agenda is consideration of a first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Permitted Uses in the C 1 A Service /Office District. This ordinance amendment would establish transient lodging and associated uses as permitted uses in the CIA zoning district and would reconcile any potential land use and comprehensive plan inconsistencies for a planned hotel and water park proposal on vacant land on Earle Brown Drive adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. As you are well aware, the City Council has been concerned about the potential development of the above mentioned site and its effect on adjacent and adjoining properties. The site is approximately six acres in area and has been the subject of potential development proposals over the years. The City's Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the site to control potential future development. o ment. The City Council/EDA has P y a ggressively pursued the development of a hotel on this property since the time of the Calthorpe Smart Growth Study a number of years ago, which recommended such a use in this area. Discussions with potential developers have taken place and recently the EDA entered into a development agreement with Brooklyn Hotel p Yn Partners, LLC for a combination hotel/water park on this site. The property in question is currently zoned C 1 A, which allows service /office uses without any height limitation on the buildings housing such uses. A hotel use is not acknowledged as a permitted use in this zone. To reconcile this and to allow the developer to proceed with his proposal, the City must take action to make the ro osed use consistent with t p p h he zonin g and comprehensive lan for this area. The CIA A district i a p s high rise district and the developer's proposal is for a four to seven story building housing the proposed hotel, restaurant and water park uses. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow transient lodging and associated uses in the C1A zone, which would allow the developers to move forward with their proposal in a manner that would be consistent with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. It should be noted that the ordinance amendment would allow such uses in all C 1 A zoning district. Attached for your review is an area zoning map showing all of the areas within the city that are zoned C1A and in which transient lodging and associated uses would be allowed as permitted uses. The area in which they are located is coincidentally all within the CC Central Commerce Overlay District. The proposed ordinance amendment would not affect the C1 Service /Office district that is limited to buildings of three stories or less in height. Also attached for your review is a copy of the Planning Commission minutes from their meeting on March 31, 2005 at which time they reviewed this proposed zoning ordinance amendment and recommended favorably its adoption. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the ordinance amendment for first reading as recommended by the Planning Commission. RE 111 //I�� t �`1I i 11 /rj/ /1 /1► era rC�id1 Iii llll llllii /i /i1� �w it�i�������I //i lrrrlll /iii /11 iinn 1111i1■ rrllZrrr1e��►� �iriiiiiii�iriri lill�Itii ■liiilrriiiiolli rl'iillil►I i`���� slow or ME Mk yid��� rM Map s. w■ ww ■w ..,n =1 ss� r.a9 11111111171 sw{ SIM Mw 1111111111111M era s.,n X1111 say say sI" _r� tIn s sNW X1111 s�3 wra wsa w� ssy ss� 11111114 wC sue+ wrr 111111121 93 ss f III WE Iowa aw ME ■["_l WWI l,' Art `Ft ss rw I 1111111111111i��i :C tit it Itt1�u Ift11 flit �I s it .fit- S .v iii ►r E �i1� r� I �lAI �s es s_ sip s_ IA w 1lII /yl��i� mss, Z�� _`rtJ v a o S Marl r te! t I_ —t `NM w .U111 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9 day of May, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Permitted Uses in the CIA Service /Office District. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35 -321 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended to read: Section 35 -321. CIA Service /Office District 1. Permitted Uses (No Height Limitation) a. All of the permitted uses set forth in Section 35 -320 shall be permitted in a building or establishment in the C 1 A district. b. Transient Lodaina and Associated Uses. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of .2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 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 31, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Warren administered the Oath of Office to Sean Rahn. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Sean Rahn, Dianne Reem, and Tim Roche 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, Rachel Lund and Rex Newman were absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MARCH 10. 2005 There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2005 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Commissioner Rahn abstained as he 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. DISCUSSION ITEM DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT Mr. Warren stated that the subject being discussed is a draft ordinance amendment regarding permitted uses in the CIA Service /Office district. Generally, all zoning and sign ordinance amendments require review and comment by the Planning Commission with respect to those ordinances, before being submitted to the City Council for consideration. Mr. Warren explained that the proposed ordinance amendment is directly related to a project that has been considered for the vacant CIA zoned property located on Earle Brown Drive adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. For a number of years the City has been concerned about the potential development of this site and the effect it might have on adjacent and adjoining properties. The City Council/EDA has aggressively pursued the development of a hotel on this site since the time of the Calthorpe Smart Growth Study a number of years ago that acknowledged the desirability of such a use in this area. The City acquired the property to control its development and discussions with potential developers have ensued to the point where 3 -31 -05 Page 1 a development agreement has been concluded between the EDA and Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC for a combination hotel/water park development. Mr. Warren explained that the CIA district allows a variety of service and office uses with no zoning limitations on the height of a building. He added that the district is often referred to as a high rise service /office district as opposed to the Cl district that limits building heights to three stories. He noted that the hotel /water park proposed would be consistent with the building height and bulk characteristics of surrounding properties. Mr. Warren added that amending the zoning ordinance to allow transient lodging and associated uses in the C1 zone would allow the use being proposed to take place and maintain consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The developers of the hotel are in a position to move forward and amending the ordinance would allow the hotel development to take place and be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Chair Willson stated the PUD process has helped the city put together developments when several parcels are involved. Since this is only one parcel, is it correct to assume that this ordinance amendment would benefit parcels also zoned CIA located in the Opportunity Site and other locations. Mr. Warren responded that it would allow hotels and associated uses on any CIA zoned property; however, it would not allow these uses in the C1 zone. Commissioner Reem inquired about the height of other buildings located throughout the city. Mr. Warren pointed out the number of stories of various buildings in the city. Commissioner Roche asked about the city's Community Center being in competition with a hotel and water park. Mr. Warren responded that the two will be different facilities and should not be in competition since the hotel water park will be for hotel guests only and not open to the public. Further discussion ensued regarding the draft ordinance amendment. The Commission posed no objections to the ordinance amendment. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT Commissioner Roche made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rahn to recommend to the City Council an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Permitted Uses in the CIA Service /Office District. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Rahn, Reem and Roche. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON CONFORMING USES Mr. Warren explained that this ordinance amendment was on the City Council's agenda and they referred the amendment to Chapter 12 to the Housing Commission for review and comment and the amendment to Chapter 35 to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Mr. Warren directed the Commission to Chapter 35 -111, Subdivision 5 7, regarding nonconforming uses. 3 -31 -05 Page 2 He explained what constitutes a nonconforming use and how a property can be `grandfathered' in creating a non conforming use following a zoning change. Mr. Warren noted that the language that is to be added to Subdivision 5 is a mandated change by the State Legislature. This allows an exception to the prohibition for rebuilding following 50% destruction of a nonconforming use provided a building permit to rebuild is applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. The City Attorney has advised that this language should be added to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Warren explained that the proposed Subdivision 7 is new language that would acknowledge that a nonconforming duplex in an R1 zone would lose its status if no rental license or certification is filed for a two year period. Commissioner Rahn inquired if a non conforming property were destroyed by more than 50 percent, would an owner be allowed to build a structure that is substantially larger er that what existed prior to its destruction. Mr. Warren responded that generally the original footprint must be used and it cannot be altered, enlarged or rebuilt when a non conforming use is destroyed. Mr. Warren further explained Chapter 35 -111, Subdivision 7 regarding rental license requirements of nonconforming uses, specifically two family homes in the RI (One Family Dwelling) zone. He explained the history of tracking and establishing non conforming two family homes when they exist in the R -1 zone. The Commission further discussed the ordinance amendment and asked about city requirements for licensing of single family homes. Mr. Warren g g y briefly explained how the rental license program is administered and what is required of a homeowner of a two family home when it is not actually being used as rental. He further explained the proposed amendment to Chapter 12 regarding certification of two family homes which would create an exemption from licensing requirements. Further discussion ensued regarding the draft ordinance amendment. The Commission posed no objections to the ordinance amendment. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING NON CONFORMING DUPLEX PROPERTIES IN THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT. Commissioner Reem made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rahn to recommend to the City Council an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Non Conforming Duplex Properties in the R -1 Zoning District. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Rahn, Reem and Roche. The motion passed unanimously OTHER BUSINESS Chair Willson reminded the Commission that the next meetings of the Opportunity Site Task Force will be April 6 and April 13, 2005. 3 -31 -05 Page 3 Mr. Warren stated that there will be two business items for the April 14, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass 3 -31 -05 Page 4 City Council Agenda Item No. 9g City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM a DATE: March 3, 2005 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Staff Report for Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive Improvements, Improvement Project No. 2004 -08 I. OVERVIEW This report summarizes the results of a study to investigate potential street improvements near the intersection of Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive. On February 9, 2004, the City Council directed staff to study the feasibility of extending Fremont Avenue to connect with Lilac Drive at 62 Avenue and report back to the City Council in early 2005. The project study area is illustrated in attached Figure 1. The Council initiated the study at the request of Lang Nelson Associates (Lang Nelson), the owner of the senior housing complex located at 6125 and 6201 Lilac Drive. Representatives of Lang Nelson have indicated that the closing of Humboldt Avenue associated with the 2003/2004 improvements at Grandview Park and Earle Brown Elementary School has made traffic access to their property very difficult for senior residents and visitors. Lang Nelson has requested that the City remove the existing cul -de -sac at the north end of the 6100 block of Fremont Avenue and connect Fremont Avenue to Lilac Drive at 62 Avenue. Lang Nelson has indicated that this street improvement would mitigate site access issues associated with the closure of the segment of Humboldt Avenue along Grandview Park. IL BACKGROUND In 1983, the City Council approved a rezoning (from R -3 to R -6) and a Preliminary Plat that established the current lot configurations for the two senior apartment buildings and 32 townhomes that are now located along Lilac Drive. Prior to these approvals, the City conducted a number of neighborhood meetings with interested citizens and neighborhood property owners to discuss the proposed rezoning and site development plans. The 1983 applications mentioned above were the culmination of these deliberations. During the approval process, the City of Brooklyn Center decided to close Lilac Drive at Fremont and 62n Avenues in response to neighborhood concerns regarding additional traffic in the area that may be generated by the higher density development. The City determined that closure of Fremont Avenue would avoid a potentially substantial increase in cut through traffic along Lilac Drive and Fremont Avenue. 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 IL III. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES The requested street improvements would involve some challenges with respect to meeting basic geometric design standards for public streets. 62 Avenue currently intersects with the northern portion of Lilac Drive at an acute angle of approximately 45 degrees. The extension of Fremont Avenue to 62 Avenue and Lilac Drive would produce a through street (Fremont) with a three way intersection at 62 Avenue. This street reconfiguration would result in a short- radius curve (sharp turn) along 62 Avenue as it approaches Fremont Avenue. Engineering standards discourage side street intersections with angles less than 60 degrees. Such intersections result in increased lane encroachments because drivers tend to reduce their driving path by using a portion of the opposing lane for turning movements. Drivers tend to have more difficulty looking past 90 degrees for approaching traffic along the through street. In addition, traffic control devices at this type of intersection tend to be located outside the driver's normal line of sight. The following options were prepared in order to address the issues noted above. A. Option 1: Terminate 62 Avenue North Attached is a drawing showing the potential road modifications for Option 1, which would include the closure of 62 Avenue prior to connecting with Fremont Avenue. Option 1 was developed to avoid a three wy intersection with an acute angle less than 60 degrees as described above. Closure of 62n Avenue would require the construction of a cul -de -sac with a minimum radius of about 38 feet to allow snow plowing equipment to turn around. Construction of a cul -de -sac would require the acquisition of approximately 1830 square feet of easement from the parcel located at 1200 62 Avenue to provide adequate street right of way. Land acquisition could be difficult, time consuming and expensive if the adjacent property owner is unwilling to convey the necessary right -of -way to allow construction of the cul -de -sac. B. Option 2: 3 -Way Intersection with Stop Condition The attached drawing labeled Option 2 illustrates the potential extension of Fremont Avenue and creation of a three -way intersection with 62 Avenue. This configuration would not require land acquisition, but would create an acute angle intersection. In order to mitigate concerns with the intersection, Option 2 includes the establishment of a three- way stop condition at the proposed intersection. An advanced warning sign would be required along Fremont Avenue south of the intersection. The extension of Fremont Avenue would provide an uninterrupted roadway connection between 59 Avenue and Dupont Avenue. A portion of local traffic generated by the Lang Nelson property at 6201 Lilac Drive would shift from Dupont Avenue and 62 Avenue onto Fremont Avenue. A portion of local traffic generated by the Lang Nelson property at 6125 Lilac Drive would shift from Humboldt Avenue and 60` Avenue onto the northern portion of Lilac Drive. A detailed traffic study was not included as part this initial study. C. Option 3: Private Driveway Connection The attached drawing labeled Option 3 illustrates the potential construction of a private driveway connection between the two Lang Nelson properties along the north and west sides of the parcels. Option 3 would not require modifications of the public street and would avoid the issues associated with the acute angle intersection at 62 Avenue. In a addition, this option would not dramatically alter the traffic patterns for potential non- local (cut- through) traffic throughout the neighborhood. Representatives from Lang Nelson have indicated that Option 3 does not provide a user friendly connection between their two buildings for visitors who are not familiar with their facility layout. Lang Nelson has also mentioned that they place a high value on the existing green space along the northern and western portions of the property. The proposed driveway connection would reduce the amount of green space on the property. IV. ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated construction costs for each of the three options discussed above. Options 1 and 2 involve modifications to a public street and should be constructed primarily at the applicant's expense in accordance with standard policy for new subdivisions. Option 3 would involve improvements to privately owned property and would be constructed by the property owner. The construction costs estimates for Options 1 and 2 include approximately $9,000 to relocate an existing overhead power pole to allow the extension of Fremont Avenue. Table 1— Estimated Construction Cost Street Improvement Option Estimated Construction Cost Option 1 $70,500 plus un -known land acquisition costs Option 2 $59,800 using existing right -of -way Option 3 $97,700 Lang Nelson expense V. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information contained in this report, staff recommends the following actions if the City Council wishes to further pursue public street improvements within the study area. 1. Invite a representative from Lang Nelson to the next available City Council meeting to discuss cost participation for Options 1 and 2; determine the willingness of Lang Nelson to underwrite their request for street improvements; and determine Council direction on any City funding participation beyond staff time for engineering design and construction administration. 2. If a satisfactory financing plan is determined, then direct City staff to conduct a neighborhood meeting at City Hall to present the three road improvement options and solicit comments from residents. 3. Direct City staff to prepare a summary of comments received during the neighborhood meeting and present the summary of citizen comments and concerns to the City Council for further consideration. STUDY AREA I k t r r ,may.`• 1 .:.fir ^r r School Site Grandview r Li e ENGINEERING DIVISION Fremont Avenue ���e. O I I PROD N Extension E�a. 2004 -08 FIGURE 1 i omel NORM LLAC DFM z o F r i a►% f'i e r PRRO P ER ACOASTION 1 CURB PROPOSED CURB 1 z .1:� -rl— --e IF RELOCATE r POWER POLE r vicar 1 1 REMOVE T CURB A dt S GUTTER ND BIUMINW PAVEMENT 7 rJ 8130 81316._ OVE C!RB de GUTTER i Q AND BITUL._VOJS PAVEMENT Ln I I I II II II 8724 BLDG. j i i ii Lr I 6118 BLDG- f% rir �f Z� riririi� II 11 it it STOP SIOI 11 -iEL GRAPB)C BCALl 8114 I 11 8112 Pr�r a CITY OF DII�iCOtB'IINIC110N 3, BROOKLYN CENTER I w` NORTH LL.AC DR IMe�F6m1 BNflA7 MIR.. RSf Ra i OP M rB:ls 1 OPTION t OFrn 2 NORTH LR.AC DRNE %a a E STOP SIGN i PROPOSED CUR STOP SIGN 62ND AVE. N.c -z BLDG. 1 __ua1r RELOCATE POWER POLE `STOP SIGN REMOVE CURB GUTTER i i 9 t v 3 11 i1 AND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT T G i Z 6130 �1(tG. 1 -Zy1 iii (n 1 I� W uj .8124 r y' M.,. 0111 BLDG. /401 8118 ii�t1' t, QII 1, I i Q ii II m C ORAPBJC BCAS STOP SIGN 11 1 J GARAGE /6114 11, 11 6112 Cm of s sm NORTH MA C DFiIVVE BROOKLYN CENTER xx OPTION 2 �11vix11n eaunn, wtma r s�rlln s of m ar�ta OAN 3 Flom NOM LLAC DRIVE REMOVE CURB GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MILL CUTJ PROPOSED CURB I- AND GUTTER 1 11 h.U' kv"w' 1,1111 INf /p m I N 118�R S,� �o� BO I GUTTER AND I I I I Y IN OITUty INDUS I I I I GIRARD AV A ENr C �F 1 1 1 rr 1 �1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 I s MILL CUT r TI I "q'f CONSTRUCT 13 t l PARKING SPACES 1 n r l T I I u 1 1 1 i i 1 Q ,yam I ..a�.l GROW sCets 11 a r C.. CITY of LLAC DIM BROOKLYN cerlTErs OpNA "7 20054 CIP" 4 noxcw caum. 11/ESaal ssrxa CF a. isle 0 From: Greg Bronk [maiito:GREG @lanel.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:54 AM To: Todd Blomstrom Subject: Fremont Avenue Street Improvements Todd, Please consider this our formal request to delay the council action and meeting two more weeks. I understand this delay may cause increase expense and construction delay. As I mentioned to you Frank Lang must be able to attend the meeting. Please confirm back to me via email or phone our request has been granted. Thank you Greg Bronk LaNel Financial Group 4601 Excelsior Blvd. St Louis Park, MN 55416 952 920 5338 greg @lanel.com 3/25/2005 L City g Council Agenda Item No. 9h City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: April 7, 2005 SUBJECT: 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule City Clerk Sharon Knutson contacted the Commission Chairs regarding a joint meeting with the City Council and May 25, 2005, was an amenable date for the Commission Chairs. It is recommended to amend the 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule to set May 25, 2005, 6:30 p.m. in the Council /Commission Conference Room as a joint meeting with the Commission Chairs. 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 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: April 7, 2005 Re: Revised Materials Regarding 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 Revised Draft Letter to the Watershed and Draft Alternative. The Revised Draft Letter incorporates, in the underlined material, comments received from Council Member Lasman. These are the only comments received since the Council tabled the item for additional comments. The Revised Draft Letter to the Watershed is still 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. 0 301 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 Page 1 of 1 Michael McCauley From: Kay Lasman Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:48 PM To: Michael McCauley As requested at the meeting, the only changes I would like to see in the draft letter to the watershed commission is a cap on the amount and a sunset or scheduled time for re- evaluation. Thanks. 04/07/2005 REVISED 4 -7 -2005 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. There should be a can on the amount an individual citv would be reauired to nay. An example of a potential mechanism for cannina the fiscal burden on a city could be: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. There should be a scheduled sunset or re- evaluation of the capital Droiect Dro2ram and funding included in anv Droaram adopted. 10. 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 P p 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 Communit To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members rmody, 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. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway y 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 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 Communit y 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 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 14, 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 \CIPAL cities req comment on draft CIP policyldoc February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 2 of 7 The JPA further rovides that i p f 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. 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 #3, 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. Pronosed Cost Sharine 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. 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 I 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 c $500,000 25% watershed; 25% direct lakeshor 5% )inirect lakeshore (Ryan); 50% contributing watershed City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Share Brooklyn Center $16,138 1 $97,225 Brooklyn Park I $31,275 I $100,800 Crystal $11,000 1 $97,850 Maple Grove I $21,988 1 Minneapolis $8,513 1 $4,750 New Hope $8,960 1 $29,925 Osseo i $1,688 1 Plymouth $18,688 1 Rob $6,763 $44 TOTAL $125,000 $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 Ci S Brooklyn Center $16,138 I $33,750 Brooklyn Park $31,275 $190,500 Crystal I $11,000 I $23,250 Maple Grove $21,988 $46,250 Minneapolis $8,513 $15,000 New Hope $8,960 $19,000 Osseo $1,688 1 $2,250 Plymouth $18,688 $39,500 R $6,763 $5, TOTAL $125,000 $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 C ity Share Brooklyn Center I $12,910 Brooklyn Park $25,020 Crystal $8,800 Maple Grove 1 $17,590 1 Minneapolis $6,810 1 New Hope 1 $7,160 Osseo $1,350 Plymouth 1 $14,950 1 1 Rob $5,410 300,000 TOTAL 100,000 $300,000 i 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 P ercent. 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 I 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 i CITY OF PLYMOUTR 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 PRINTEC ON RECYCLED PAPER wwwb.ply mouth. mn.us i i CITY OF PLYMOUT4 March 11, 2005 Mark Hanson, Chair Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 3235 Fernbrook 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 Adding Quality to L je 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 -1482 TELEPHONE (763) 509 -5000 PRWED ON RECYCLED PAPEP www.d. ply mouth. mn.us AGENDA CITY COUNCIL \ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION April 11, 2005 Immediately Following Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Request from Brooklyn Park for resolution of support for Highway 252 Corridor Study 2. Council Member O'Connor discussion of: a. 2005 Budget b. Enterprise Funds c. Previous years' Fund balances 3. Council Member Niesen: Public hearings and notification/cable television messaging equipment 4. Miscellaneous 5. Adjourn City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael I. McCauley City Manager Date: April 7, 2005 Re: Brooklyn Park Request for Corridor Traffic Study Attached are materials Mr. Blomstrom received from his counterparts at Brooklyn Park with a request that the City of Brooklyn Center adopt a similar resolution. As indicated in Mr. Blomstrom's memorandum, he is at a loss regarding the representations in the Brooklyn Park materials that the City of Brooklyn Center staff have been involved or have expressed an interest in the proposed MnDOT corridor study. Mr. Blomstrom has not been involved in such discussions. As you may recall, this subject was not brought up at the March 15, 2004 joint City Council meeting with Brooklyn Park. Last year, Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Blomstrom met with representatives of MnDOT who outlined a concept MnDOT was considering for Highway 252. That concept was deemed unacceptable by Brooklyn Center staff because it would have closed access at 66"' and 73` and placed a diamond interchange at 69"'. The impacts on the entire commercial area along 66"' and the residential area on the east side of 252 were seen as potentially devastating. In sum, staff does not recommend adoption of a resolution requesting a corridor study. Indications to date would suggest that potential impacts of MnDOT's current inclinations on Brooklyn Center would be negative. There would be no reason for the City of Brooklyn Center to request or pay for a corridor study at this time. The beneficiaries of a study would be persons outside Brooklyn Center traveling through the 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.cityofbrookly77,center.org City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Materials from the City of Brooklyn Park Requesting that Mn/DOT Conduct a Corridor Traffic Study along Trunk Highway No. 252 The enclosed materials were provided by the City of Brooklyn Park regarding a request that the Minnesota Department of Transportation initiate a corridor study along T.H. 252. The materials outline Brooklyn Park's concerns regarding the projected increase in traffic volume along the Highway 252 corridor and the potential rescheduling of highway improvements as proposed by Mn/DOT's draft 2005 Transportation System Plan. There is one minor correction that should be noted when reviewing the enclosed materials. Over the past two years, Brooklyn Center Engineering Division staff has not engaged in any substantial discussions with the City of Brooklyn Park staff or Mn/DOT staff concerning the current request for a corridor study. 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.cit3,ofbrooklynce7,tter.org RESOLUTION #2005 -50 RESOLUTION REQUESTING MN /DOT TO INITIATE A CORRIDOR STUDY OF TH 252 WHEREAS, TH 252 is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and provides a very important arterial connection between downtown Minneapolis St. Paul and the north suburban areas of Hennepin and Anoka Counties, and WHEREAS, the existing traffic demands (55,000 vehicles per day) along TH 252 significantly exceed the capacity of the roadway resulting in severe congestion and long delays during the AM and PM peak weekday periods, and WHEREAS, the expected future traffic demands (approximately 75,000 vpd) along TH 252 are projected to substantially increase over the next twenty years, and WHEREAS, TH 252 is located within the Cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center and both Cities have expressed a desire to investigate options to significantly improve the traffic operations along TH 252, and WHEREAS, TH 252 is expected to be included in Mn/DOT's 2005 Transportation System Plan for expansion in the 2024 -2030 time frame, but could be advanced if additional transportation funding is secured. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK that it hereby requests Mn/DOT to initiate a corridor study of TH 252 to identify potential remedial measures and design alternatives to reduce the congestion and delays along TH 252. The foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member Meyer and duly seconded by Council Member Trepanier. The following voted in favor of the resolution: Gearin, Lampi, Mata, Meyer, Schmitz, and Trepanier. The following voted against: None. The following was absent: Simmons. Where upon the resolution was adopted. ADOPTED: Nlarch 7, 2005 STEVE LAMPI, MAYOR #2005 -50 CERTIFICATE STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, hereby certify that the above resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution as adopted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park on March 7, 2005. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this 8th day of March 2005. (SEAL) DEVIN MONTERO, CITY CLERK #2005 -50 City of Brooklyn Park Request for Council Action Agenda Item No: 4.4 Meeting Date 03 -07 -2005 Originating Agenda Section: Consent Department: Engineering Resolution X Prepared B P Y Ordinance N/A Jeff Holstein No. of Attachments 2 Presented By: Doran Cote Item: Request MnDOT to initiate a Corridor Study of TH 252 City Manager's Proposed Action: MOTION SECOND TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2005 REQUESTING MN/DOT TO INITIATE A CORRIDOR STUDY OF TH 252. Overview: The existing traffic demand along Trunk Highway 252 (TH 252) is significantly greater than the capacity of the roadway. This results in severe traffic congestion and long delays during the AM and PM peak weekday traffic periods. The traffic demand along TH 252 is projected to grow from the current 55,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to near 75,000 vpd by the year 2020. This growth is expected to extend the congested time periods to include most of an average day if no remedial actions are undertaken. The City of Brooklyn Park has had staff level discussions with Mn/DOT and the City of Brooklyn Center over the past few years relative to the need to investigate this issue. The first step towards resolving the issue is the completion of a Corridor Study. A Corridor Study will document the existing and expected future traffic impacts and identify remedial measures and/or alternatives to reduce congestion and delays to acceptable levels. The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve a resolution requesting Mn/DOT to initiate a Corridor Study of TH 252. Primary Issues /Alternatives to Consider: This issue was included as one of the City Council's Top Priority Goals,for 2005 -2006. The reconstruction of TH 252 was included in Mn/DOT's 2001 Transportation System Plan (TSP) for a 2016- 2025 implementation. Mn/DOT's "Draft" 2005 TSP includes TH 252 as an expansion project upgraded from an expressway with at -grade signals to a freeway. This project is now planned for the 2024 -2030 time period. The estimated cost to convert TH 252 to a 4 -lane freeway is over $100 million in 2005 dollars. Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: The Cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center may be asked to financially contribute to the Corridor Study. w a e E tt 3 f �p x.' t Aftac &V MOO MA not �V RW not �x co mw my got law r: s k r r Y 4 i g X y,y C' x s 1rt r f w h y� F V Ong l ot 1 z ti h 4.4 RESOLUTION Page 3 RESOLUTION #2005 RESOLUTION REQUESTING MN/DOT TO INITIATE A CORRIDOR STUDY OF TH 252 WHEREAS, TH 252 is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and provides a very important arterial connection between downtown Minneapolis St. Paul and the north suburban areas of Hennepin and Anoka Counties, and WHEREAS, the existing traffic demands (55,000 vehicles per day) along TH 252 significantly exceed the capacity of the roadway resulting in severe congestion and long delays during the AM and PM peak weekday periods, and WHEREAS, the expected future traffic demands (approximately 75,000 vpd) along TH 252 are projected to substantially increase over the next twenty years, and WHEREAS, TH 252 is located within the Cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center and both Cities have expressed a desire to investigate options to significantly improve the traffic operations along TH 252, and WHEREAS, TH 252 is expected to be included in Mn/DOT's 2005 Transportation System Plan for expansion in the 2024 -2030 time frame, but could be advanced if additional transportation funding is secured. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK that it hereby requests Mn/DOT to initiate a corridor study of TH 252 to identify potential remedial measures and design alternatives to reduce the congestion and delays along TH 252. 4.4 LOCATION MAP Page 4 LOCATION MAP TRUNK HIGHWAY 252 PROPOSED CORRIDOR STUDY City of Ch —plan CRY of Coon Ropw. T City of o,... s 35TH AVE (rSAN fa) ••7 V. t BROOKLYN PARK I wmaM Rw 1� He- BA30.DA{L BNK 7M AVE 73TH AVE MT-DWATE 04 o ..TH AVE I ---�yy Bf1ER4yA. .,L OOKLYN CENTER City of Haw Hop. City of Cry.tal LEGEND PROPOSED CORRIDOR STUDY SEGMENT 0 EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS r. �cNCrftts�nvcs�iocAr�oM)p�.afrc 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: April 7, 2005 Re: Work Session Item relating to advertising medium for public hearings Council Member Niesen requested discussion of the use of the message generator for cable television for public hearings. A copy of her e -mail is enclosed. I reviewed this with Mr. Glasoe. Mr. Glasoe advised that staff currently spends 3 to 4 hours a month to change messages. We would note that the City's web site contains the City Council agendas. For the period March 7 April 7, 2005, the City's web site had 27,074 hits, indicating the level of active use of this medium. The Council received the report on viewership of the City Council channel that appears to be relatively small on a regular basis. Ms. Knutson has reviewed the challenges that currently exist in keeping materials updated and consistent. Hearings are scheduled for several types of matters in the City. The Police Department conducts hearings for the use of grant funds. The Police Department places the required legal ads and conducts the hearings. For bond issues, the legal ads may be placed by bond counsel or our financial advisor directly. The City Council agenda placed on the web site is the only unified document relative to City Council meetings and potential actions. The web site technology allows for information to be programmed to appear and be removed. Current reader board technology does not allow for this. A new system may have more capability in that regard. Overall, staff concern was for increased staff time that would be required, the duplication of effort, and a greater chance to either have something that is out of date or incorrect by using the reader board for Council items. We currently publish notices under 2 circumstances: When required by law, or When directed by the City Council. If the City Council identified something for which it wished to solicit public input, the most effective means would generally be: an article in City Watch an article in the Sun Post (over which the City does not have control) placement on City web site. A current example using all of the above would be the solicitation of public participation in the public meetings that the Task Force will be conducting. 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 Mr. Glasoe has also reviewed the current cost estimates for replacing our out of date equipment. Previously a new character generator was required at a very substantial cost. Mr. Gaffron from Cable 12 has advised that new technology using a computer based platform would be less expensive. A new system would cost in the neighborhood of $6,000. The system would still only result in the display of basically static information. If the City Council wanted to replace equipment, it could be considered during the 2006 budget process using monies that are provided by Northwest Cable. Page 2 04/07/2005 i t Page 1 of 1 Michael McCauley From: Diane Niesen Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 3:27 PM To: Michael McCauley Subject: RE: public hearings advertising medium I would like to propose that the Council use BC's scrolling marquee on cable channel to list public hearings /readings: Topic Time and Date of Hearing Location of Hearing to call for more information (to be decided what do we print now In addition to our legal obligation/compliance base for public notice, I would support including items that may be of interest to people and that the Council might like input on. I would also like us to move ahead with morphing the scrolling marquee presentation into a more technologically advanced and consumer friendly format. We should discuss project, steps, timelines and resources. 04/07/2005