Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 05-09 CCP Regular Session Public Copy AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION May 9, 2005 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Adjourn to Closed meeting in All America Conference Room as Economic Development Authority with Attorney Mark Manderscheid to Discuss Litigation: Economic Development Authority v. Hmong American Shopping Center, LLC. et al. Hennepin County Court File No. CD -2743 2. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 3. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4. Miscellaneous 5. Adjourn I City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmember a ody, Lasman, Nies d O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: May 5, 2005 SUBJECT: Economic Development Authority v. Hmong American Shopping Center, LLC. et al A closed meeting regarding litigation is set at the beginning of the Study Session with the attorney representing the Economic Development Authority (EDA) in the eminent domain action to acquire the Hmong American Shopping Center. Mr. Manderscheid will update the EDA regarding the litigation and settlement offers that have been by the Hmong American Shopping Center. 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.cityof'brooklyncenter.org CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center May 9, 2005 AGENDA 1. Informal Open Forum With City Council 6 :45 p.m. provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for 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. April 25, 2005 Study Session 2. April 25, 2005 Regular Session 3. May 2, 2005 Board of Appeal and Equalization b. Licenses C. Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing Date of July 11, 2005, for Consideration of the City's Well Head Protection Plan d. Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2004- 14, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, and Utility Improvements CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 9, 2005 e. Resolution Approving Second Contract Addendum for Driveway Apron Repair and Replacement, Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -01, 02, and 03 and 2000 -19, Contract 2000 -B, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage, Utility Improvements, and Alley Reconstruction 8. Public Hearing Items a. Public Hearing on 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements 1. Resolution Ordering Improvements and Approving Plans and Specifications for 48` Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements 2. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Requested Council Action: Motion to re -open the Public Hearing. -Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt resolutions. b. Unity Place Project 1. Resolution Approving the Issuance and Sale of a Multifamily Housing Revenue Note, Series 2005 (Unity Place Project) and Authorizing the Execution of Documents Relating Thereto -Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. -Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt resolution. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 5 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center Regarding Permitted Uses in the Cl A Service /Office District -This item was first read on April 11, 2005, published in the official newspaper on April 21, 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. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- May 9, 2005 9. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Declaring Earle Brown Days as a Civic Event from June 23 Through June 25, 2005 -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. b. Proclamations Declaring May 15 -21, 2005, To Be Police Week and Public Works Week -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt proclamations. C. Watershed Management Organization Proposed Capital Improvement Plan (Continued from April 25, 2005, meeting) -Requested Council Action: -No action, informational. d. Report from Park and Recreation Commission on Segway personal mobility devices -Requested Council Action: -None, report only. e. Resolution Amending 2005 Budget Authorization for Fire/Emergency Management Support Personnel Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. f. Resolution Authorizing Transitional Plan for Public Safety Dispatching Services Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 7a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION APRIL 25, 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 Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Councilmember Kathleen Carmody was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Council discussed 7a, Approval of Minutes, and the following amendments were suggested: March 28. 2005. Regular Session Page 12, first paragraph should read: 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 where the project is occurring. The remaining fifty percent of the total cost of the project would be paid by the benefiting communities upstream and downstream. Page 20, before sixth paragraph and after sixth paragraph should read: Councilmember Niesen asked what was intended by the words "additional information Could this include a copy of a tax return from the owners; a copy of a tax return from all renters; bank statements of owners and/or renters; or living arrangements explanations? She expressed that she believes it is not acceptable to have government visit the homes of owners and ask about their living arrangements and financial interests and that to do so is a government intrusion into people's lives. 04/25/05 -1- DRAFT Mayor Kragness discussed the reason a Iicense 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 and said there should be no rental inspection of owners' homes. April 11. 2005. Studv Session Page 4, fifth paragraph should read: Councilmember O'Connor expressed concern with the Liquor Store and Earle Brown Heritage Center (EBHC) losses. She questioned what the Council plans on doing with these funds. Mr. McCauley discussed that the EBHC has met its cash flow goal as outlined in the Council Policy and that the preliminary numbers for 2004 was after depreciation and capital projects. The final 2004 numbers will be finalized in May. April 11. 2005. Reaular Session Page 10, fourth paragraph should read: Councilmember Niesen expressed that to be fair and equitable to all residents the application process should be followed and that she would rather see Mr. Remiarz appointed because he was representing an area that is not being represented and has been generally interested. Page 11, first paragraph should read: Councilmember Lasman asked if under the circumstances that Councilmember Carmody described, where they do have to be sought out, if that would be an appropriate charge for that situation. Page 12, first and second paragraphs should read: Councilmember Niesen asked if this ordinance amendment was related to the legal suit that had been filed. Mr. McCauley discussed this was in the works before that legal suit was initiated and staff was looking at it as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept. It appears in the Planning Commission's review that it recommends it should be an outright permitted use. With respect to the litigation, one of the many things involved would be made moot by this in the same fashion it would be mute by a PUD to do the same thing. Councilmember Niesen asked if part of it is alleging that this is against the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCauley responded that he is unaware if it includes that. It has a number of misstatements, one of which is that the City does not allow buildings over four stories, which is the C 1 District, but the C 1 A has no limits. Councilmember Niesen suggested that the Council consider discussing the minutes at the next Council Retreat. Mayor Kragness expressed she believes the minutes should be discussed and suggested that this item be placed on the next Council Retreat agenda. 04/25/05 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen asked if the cosmetology training center with regards to Planning Commission Item 9a, Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -006 Submitted by Diem (Diane) Do Requesting for a Special Use Permit for an Education Use to Operate a Cosmetology Training Center at 3260 County Road 10, would be a tax free use. City Manager Michael McCauley responded that tax exemption is not an item that can be considered in evaluating a land use application. Since the use was as a tenant, there would be no impact on the taxable status of the property. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the money was the Crossings at Brookwood's own funds with regards to Consent Item 7d, Approval of Site Performance Guarantee Reduction (Crossings at Brookwood -6201 Lilac Drive North). Mr. McCauley responded that the money is the Crossings at Brookwood and explained they were required to make a deposit for site performance improvements and conditions. At this time it is being recommended to authorize reduction of $20,000 cash escrow to $5,000 to assure viability of the recently installed landscaping through the winter months. It is anticipated that a final review of the landscape can be made in June of this year and subsequent recommendations will be made to the Council at that time. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Lasman discussed materials from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) regarding Scooter Bills and informed that the Park and Recreation Commission discussed the issue of Segways. Councilmember Lasman questioned the continuing advertisement for dispatchers in the LMC Bulletin. Mr. McCauley discussed that the staffing levels have always been short and that this will be a continuing effort while transitioning with Hennepin County. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to adj ourn the Study Session at 6:35 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 04/25/05 -3- DRAFT i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 25, 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 Ka y Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Councilmember Kathleen Carmody was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. No one wished to address the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:48 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Teresa Rousseau, St. Alphonsus Church, offered the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:01 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Councilmember Kathleen Carmody was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 04/25/05 -1- DRAFT 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Niesen reported she attended the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Organization meeting and that they had discussed the proposed funding issue for capital improvement projects. She informed that she asked questions and received some answers; and that she gave an interview to Cable 12 who is covering the subject. Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the following: April 13, 2005, Opportunity Site Task Force. She discussed that good questions were asked and expressed that it was nice to see that level of interest from so many citizens. She noted that there will be two other public meetings and encouraged those who attended to continue attending. April 15, 2005, Fire Relief Association sponsored Fire Awards Dinner. She expressed this was a great time and opportunity to visit the fireman heroes. April 19, 2005, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. The Commission is discussing the language used in the tobacco free zone and signs that are going to be placed in the parks which would disallow smoking during youth activities in the parks. They are refining the language to make it more appropriate for the City. The Segway mobile device usage in Brooklyn Center was discussed. The Commission supported the idea that State Law would permit such a use and requested that a memo be forwarded to the Police Department and then copied to the Council. April 20, 2005, Crime Prevention Awards. She discussed there were wonderful stories of heroics performed in the City by both police and citizens. There were 23 notable awards presented that evening including Detective Mike Reynolds receiving the Minnesota Chief's of Police Association Meritorious Service Award; and Ms. Dennis Winfield received a Citizen's Service Medal for her son's courageous action during which he gave his life. April 23, 2005, the Great Shingle Creek Cleanup Event. She expressed that she thought this event was very well attended and lots of trash was cleaned up from various parks and along the creek. She wished to thank the Brooklyn Park VFW and the City of Brooklyn Park for hosting the breakfast. Councilmember O'Connor reported that she attended the following: Housing Commission meeting. 04/25/05 -2- DRAFT I Opportunity Site public meeting. She informed that there were several concerns from residents about what is going on in the Opportunity Site. Firefighters Banquet. Police Awards Ceremony. National Night Out meeting. She informed that National Night Out will be August 2, 2005, and that on July 31, 2005, there will be an event in the City Hall parking lot from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Shingle Creek Cleanup. Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission meeting. She informed that she received a handout with regards to the 800 MHz channel for radios and believes it would be something good for the Council to review and discuss to see if this is going to affect the emergency calls that come in for 911. Mayor Kragness asked her to give those materials to Mr. McCauley so he could copy it for the Council. Mayor Kragness reported on the following: She attended the Police Awards Ceremony and discussed that it was a very emotional night. She expressed she hopes that more people will attend this event in the future and expressed thanks to those working in the City's Police and Fire Departments. She attended the CEAP Award Luncheon on April 21, 2005. This luncheon is an appreciation luncheon for the people that volunteer for CEAP. The Cross of Glory Church received a special community award for the quilting that they do for CEAP. She discussed that last Friday and Saturday the Minnesota Mayors Conference was in Brooklyn Center and that she was pleased to host this event for the City. The main topic of discussion was transportation within the area and speakers from the Minnesota Department of Transportation Alliance, Minnesota House of Representatives, and Minnesota Senate participated in a debate about the State's policies. She expressed thanks to Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director, for leading a tour of the City. She noted that on April 28, 2005, the groundbreaking of the Adult Education Building for School District 279 would take place on 71 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman to approve the agenda and consent agenda. 04/25/05 -3- DRAFT I Councilmember O'Connor asked for a correction on the April 11, 2005, Regular Session minutes; Page 6, fourth paragraph. She discussed she believes the motion needed a 2/3 vote and was not passed. City Manager Michael McCauley asked that the City Attorney discuss this matter. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere discussed that the motion was declared passed by the Presiding Officer at the meeting. Councilmember O'Connor said that she did not remember that happening and asked Mayor Kragness if she had said that the motion passed. Mayor Kragness responded that the motion was passed 3/2. Mr. LeFevere and the Council further discussed the ruling and action that was presented at the April 11, 2005, meeting before Councilmember O'Connor moved a motion that the minutes be amended to say that the motion did not pass by a 2/3 vote. Councilmember O'Connor said that she would like the minutes amended to say that the motion did not pass with a 2/3 vote instead of motion passed. Councilmember Niesen seconded the motion on the requested amendment from Councilmember O'Connor. Mayor Kragness asked if the. language written that it was approved pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99 would be acceptable. It was the consensus that the language written pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99 was acceptable. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman amended her motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the previously discussed minute changes and the additional minute amendment request from Councilmember O'Connor; seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion b Councilmember a seconded b Councilmember Niesen to approve the y mb Lasman, se o y pp March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes and the April 11, 2005, Study, Regular, and Work Session minutes as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL St. Cloud Refrigeration 604 Lincoln Avenue NE, St. Cloud i RENTAL Renewal: 421362 nd Avenue North Xeng Yang 6824 Fremont Place David Oium 5818 Humboldt Avenue North Richard Olson 4519 Woodbine Lane Benson Vang Initial: 3007 68 Avenue North Kao Vang 04/25/05 -4- DRAFT SIGN HANGER Nordquist Sign Co., Inc. 312 West Lake Street, Minneapolis Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST 630 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING AT 6110 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2005-66 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST 630 TO CONDUCT LAWFUL GAMBLING AT 6110 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. APPROVAL OF SITE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE REDUCTION (CROSSINGS AT BROOKWOOD 6201 LILAC DRIVE NORTH) A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the site performance guarantee reduction at the Crossing at Brookwood, 6201 Lilac Drive North. Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING 2005 PLANTING LIST OF ALLOWABLE BOULEVARD TREE SPECIES RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -67 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING 2005 PLANTING LIST OF ALLOWABLE BOULEVARD TREE SPECIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 04/25/05 -5- DRAFT 7f. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE DESIGNATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER AS A TREE CITY USA FOR THE THIRTEENTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR; AND A PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 29, 2005, ARBOR DAY AND MAY 2005 ARBOR MONTH IN BROOKLYN CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 2005-68 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE DESIGNATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER AS A TREE CITY USA FOR THE THIRTEENTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to adopt Proclamation Declaring April 29, 2005, Arbor Day and May 2005 Arbor Month in Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. 7.5 PRESENTATION -DAVE MCKENZIE, SEH, REGARDING RAILROAD QUIET ZONE PROCESS Dave McKenzie from SEH addressed the Council and discussed the history and status of the City's application which has been awaiting finalization of Federal Rules. He informed that June 24, 2005, would be the earliest date to implement the quiet zone and summarized the actions that had been taken and the actions still pending. Of the actions still pending they are as follows: update local ordinance, designate a public authority official, install signs, and send notification to the Federal Railroad Association (FRA). Mr. McKenzie informed that the City should not have to do anything for another four to five years once the quiet zone is established. Councilmember Niesen expressed that safety will now be the issue and questioned the signage that will be used for the quiet zone. Mr. McKenzie presented a picture of the yellow signs and informed that the quiet zone will be 24 hours. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 8a. PUBLIC HEARING ON 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 1. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 48' AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 04/25/05 -6- DRAFT 2. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Mr. McCauley discussed that the public hearing for this project was scheduled for this evening; however, the required legal notices for the proposed project will not be completed until May 9, 2005. It is suggested that the public hearing be opened and continued to May 9, 2005. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to continue the Public Hearing to May 9, 2005. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICA'T'ION NO. 2005-006 SUBMITTED BY DIEM (DIANE) DO. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EDUCATIONAL USE TO OPERATE A COSMETOLOGY TRAINING CENTER AT 3260 COUNTY ROAD 10. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS APRIL 14, 2005, MEETING. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -006 submitted by Diem (Diane) Do requesting for a special use permit for an educational use to operate a cosmetology training center at 3260 County Road 10. He informed that the applicant was available if the Council had any questions. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -006 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. The Special Use Permit is issued to Diem (Diane) Do and Mai Ho on behalf of the Hollywood Cosmetology Training Center as an educational use. Any expansion or major alteration of the use not comprehended by this application 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. 04/25105 -7- DRAFT 4. A copy of the applicant's cosmetology school license and cosmetology license shall be kept on file with the city. 5. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-007 SUBMITTED BY C. M. ARCHITECTURE, P.A. ON BEHALF OF MAGNUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. REQUEST FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO REDEVELOP 5512 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD INTO A STARBUCK'S COFFEE SHOP. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS APRIL 14, 2005, MEETING. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -007 submitted by C.M. Architecture, P.A. on behalf of Magnum Development Company requesting for site and building plan approval to redevelop 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard into a Starbuck's Coffee Shop. Councilmember Niesen questioned the additional green space. Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren discussed that there will be a slight addition to the current green space and the addition would include some shade trees along with other types of plantings. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City had contributed any money. Mr. McCauley responded that the City had not contributed any money. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -007 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the building official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 04/25/05 -8- DRAFT 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas as directed by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 9. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 10. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current specifications and details. 11. The plans shall be modified prior to City Council consideration to show the relocation of the order board to the east of its current location to allow additional stacking space at the pick -up window. Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION Mayor Kragness read the resolution expressing appreciation for the donation of $24,500 from the Brooklyn Center Fire Association for the replacement of Fire Engine 6 that is due for replacement in 2006. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-69 Councilmember Niesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 04/25/05 -9- DRAFT 10b. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER WOMEN'S CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMER PLAYGROUND PROGRAM Mayor Kragness read the resolution expressing appreciation for the donation of $200 from the Brooklyn Center Women's Club in Support of the Summer Playground Program. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -70 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER WOMEN'S CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE SUMMER PLAYGROUND PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed unanimously. 10c. DISCUSSION OF CVS DECISION FROM APRIL 11, 2005 (COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNOR) Councilmember O'Connor informed no further attention was needed for this item since the discussion took place as part of the agenda approval. 10d. REPORT ON OPPORTUNITY SITE NOTIFICATION Mr. McCauley discussed Councilmember O'Connor had asked that this item be placed on the agenda and that Community Development Director Brad Hoffman outlined the notification process which had been included in the materials. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she believed the letters mailed did not say what was happening with the Opportunity Site. Mayor Kragness read portions of the letter that was mailed and expressed she believes the letter is clear as to what the City is considering. Mr. McCauley, added that at this time the Opportunity Site is in the planning stage and nothing has been adopted. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she would like to make sure that the lessees know of all the public hearings and understand what is going on. 10e. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, LIONS PARK AREA SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 04/25/05 -10- DRAFT Mr. McCauley discussed that the base bid is recommended for approval to the low bidder of Arcon Construction Company. At this time the alternate bid submitted by Arcon Construction Company is not recommended until the City has a meeting with the neighborhood on the Lilac Drive North extension. The bid of the alternate, if it eventually would be approved, is $48,000 which is close to the engineer's estimate; however, it ranges from a low of $48,000 to a high of $65,000. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-71 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2005 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, LIONS PARK AREA SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 10L COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNOR DISCUSSION OF WHAT CAN BE DONE TO REDUCE POLLUTION IN BROOKLYN CENTER Councilmember O'Connor discussed that she would like to ask Mr. McCauley to direct the appropriate staff to provide ideas of how the City can reduce pollution in Brooklyn Center. She would like to get the ideas of the staff for reducing the amount of salt and pollution runoff that into Shingle Creek and/or the Mississippi River since they work everyday with those items and might know how to reduce the pollution. She asked if this is something that could be accomplished and brought back to the Council at its May 9 or May 23, 2005, meetings. Mayor Kragness discussed since she has been Mayor she knows that each of the departments have worked very hard on trying to reduce pollution and it has been a priority. She believes that Mr. McCauley could send a message to the Department Heads and ask for comments from staff if there might be something in addition that can be done. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council wants to direct a process and report he could have that done and suggested the response time of 60 days. Councilmember O'Connor made a motion that the City Manager solicit suggestions for reduced pollution in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Niesen questioned if there would be a timeframe on that motion. Councilmember O'Connor added to the motion within 60 days. Councilmember Niesen seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 04/25/05 -11- DRAFT log. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. McCauley discussed that at the last meeting the Council requested this item be placed on the agenda. Councilmember Niesen informed that she attended the Shingle Creek Watershed meeting and she would like to go forward with discussing this matter since nothing has been adopted and there are many cities that have not responded. She informed that she gave an interview to Cable 12 and submitted her thoughts; however, she feels that Councilmember Carmody should be present to discuss this matter and asked if this item could be discussed when Councilmember Carmody is able to participate. A motion by Councilmember Niesen to move this item to the May 9, 2005, meeting, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed unanimously. 11. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to adjourn the City Council meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 04/25/05 -12- 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 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MAY 2, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Appeal of Equalization and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Councilmember Kathleen Carmody was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, City Assessor Nancy Wojcik, Hennepin County Assessor Tom May, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Others present were Appraiser Jill Brenna and Appraiser Technician Karen Casto. 2. ASSESSOR'S REPORT City Assessor Nancy Wojcik reported that during the summer of 2004 her office conducted re- inspections for the 2005 assessment of the residential properties located east of Highway 100, south of 57 Avenue and properties west of Highway 100, south of 61 s Avenue North. In addition to all single- family homes located in the review area, all condominiums were also reviewed. The inspection area involved 1,921 residential parcels with exterior inspections on all and 66 percent of those had interior inspections. The interior inspection percentage is down slightly from previous years due to the elimination of a second mailing to remind owners to set an appointment. This was done as a cost saving measure starting in the summer of 2003. In May her office began the re- inspection process which was completed by the end of September. Following the review of scheduled quintile, the focus switched to the residential properties with new improvements, condominiums, commercial/industrial, and apartment properties. All permit review inspections were completed by her staff and commercial inspections by herself. The review of new improvements added an additional 1,000 properties to the inspection total and approximately 600 of these properties required exterior inspections and approximately 400 required interior inspections. The estimated total number of residential properties reviewed in 2004 was approximately 2,921. 05/02/05 -1- DRAFT Ms. Wojcik outlined some of the commonly asked questions from the valuation notices sent in March 2005; 2005 assessment tax capacity payable in 2006 property type breakdown; comparison of the assessed value by property type from 2002 to 2006 tax payable years; comparison of the property tax base by property type from 2003 to 2006 tax years; tax rates across the school districts; homestead tax history; changes made to 2005 assessment; residential assessed value of a median home and tax capacity from 1997 through 2006; assessed valuation changes for single- family residential properties for taxes payable 2006; and residential sale information from the realtors MLS system. The overall value changes made to the 2005 assessments were as follows: Citywide (including all property types) 5.8 percent Citywide (excluding new construction) 5.0 percent Citywide (residential single family detached only) 6.6 percent Citywide (excluding new construction) 6.1 percent Commercial (excluding new construction) 2.1 percent Industrial (excluding new construction) 4.4 percent Apartments (excluding new construction) 3.2 percent Condominiums (excluding new construction) 10.5 percent Co -ops (excluding new construction) 0.3 percent Townhomes (excluding new construction) 6.9 percent Double Bungalows (excluding new construction) 7.5 percent Residential Neighborhoods: River Influence 8.1 percent g P (excluding new construction) 7.8 percent North West 4.7 percent I (excluding new construction) 4.4 percent North East 4.5 percent (excluding new construction) 4.0 percent West Central 4.7 percent (excluding new construction) 4.3 percent South East 9.6 percent (excluding new construction) 9.0 percent South West 11.4 percent (excluding new construction) 11.0 percent Waterfront (includes river /lake properties) 6.1 percent (excluding new construction 5.2 percent 05/02/05 -2- DRAFT Ms. Wojcik reminded that the only issue before the Board is the estimated market value of individual properties. 3. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT REPORT Councilmember Niesen questioned the actual year built and effective year built. Ms. Wojcik discussed that the ear built is the year the roe was built and the Y Y property rty effective year is an age reflective of remodeling to make it comparable to other properties in the market. When an assessment is compared the effective age is considered and a formula is used to set standards so the assessment is consistent. Councilmember Niesen asked if this is the same process used for Hennepin County. Hennepin County Assessor Tom May discussed that the County uses the same process. Councilmember O'Connor questioned the 2006 values being 15 percent over last year's taxable value or fifty percent of the difference. Ms. Wojcik discussed that this was done due to the limited market value corning off on the 2007 assessment. Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification regarding the Board's review for reducing the aggregate assessment by more than one percent. Mr. May discussed that the Board must not reduce the aggregate assessment by more than one percent; and that the City of Brooklyn Center has never had to approach this; however, in a smaller community this can be an issue. Councilmember O'Connor uesti d th q one a total extension rate on all school districts and why School District No. 286 is more than School District No. 1 l for the total market value based rate. Ms. Wojcik discussed that this is a portion of the tax rate. The total tax rate is a total of the tax entities of County, School, etc.; and that School District No. 286 is the same except for the schools portion of the tax rate. Ms. Wojcik added that a referendum can change the market value rate. Councilmember Lasman questioned when the limited market value phases out if the City realizes that gain. Ms. Wojcik discussed that this increases the tax capacity and there are more tax dollars for each entity. Councilmember Niesen questioned if it is a State Standard that the Board may not make an individual estimated market value adjustment change that would benefit the property in cases where the owner has not permitted the Assessor to inspect the property and the interior review of any building or structure; and if pictures taken during an interior inspection are kept on file. Mr. May discussed that it is a State Statute; and Ms. Wojcik discussed that interior pictures are the resident's option and assist in the review of an appeal. The pictures are kept in the Assessing Department property files and guidelines are followed for the Data Privacy Act. Mr. May added that the guidelines depend on the City and that under the Data Privacy Act, residential property files are not protected under Data Practice. 05/02/05 -3- DRAFT RAFT 4. STATEMENT OF THE LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION AND A REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DUTIES Ms. Wojcik discussed the purpose of the Board of Appeal and Equalization that is required by Minnesota Statutes Section 274.01 provides that the governing body of each City or a duly appointed Board will serve as the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization. This review is held each spring and the Board has the responsibility to review the assessed valuation and classification ofproperty within the City. This year's review is limited to the 2005 assessment; which affects taxes payable in 2006. The Board has the authority to change the valuation or classification of a property for the current assessment year (2005). Taxes or prior year assessments are not within the jurisdiction of the Board. Ms. Wojcik outlined materials from the Minnesota Revenue Local Board of Appeal and Equalization handbook to assist in the definition of market value and classification. 5. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE LOCAL BOARD DUTIES No questions were asked regarding the Board duties. 6. APPEARANCES BY TAXPAYERS WITH APPOINTMENTS The following addressed the Council to appeal their 2005 estimated market value: 1. Bill Kenny, 7036 Willow Lane, addressed the Council to express that he believes his estimated market value is not fair and that he would not be able to sell his home for $357,500. Mr. Kenney informed that his neighbors feel his estimated market value is too high and that he had contacted two local real estate agents to do a home market evaluation. The home market evaluation done by the real estate agents estimated the market value to be a low of $275,000 to a high of $285,000. Council and Ms. Wojcik discussed Mr. Kenny's property with the comparable sales. Ms. Wojcik informed his structure value that increased for Mr. Kenny's property was due mass appraisal calculating based on 36 different factors. Councilmember Lasman expressed she believes Mr. Kenny's estimated market value should be reduced to $344,000. Councilmember Niesen agreed. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she believes that Mr. Kenny's estimated market value should be lowered to $340,000. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to reduce Mr. Kenny's estimated market value to $344,000. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 05/02/05 -4- DRAFT 2. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane, addressed the Council to discuss her concerns with the Hennepin County Board process and asked that the Council be careful when sending residents on to the County Board. She informed that she would like to hear her neighbors speak and then would like to readdress the Council regarding her estimated market value. 3. Stephen Cooper, 6632 West River Road, addressed the Council and discussed the easement the City had taken over his land and the outcome of the condemnation proceedings. Ms. Wojcik discussed that her office was not involved in the condemnation proceedings that were completed and that when Mr. Cooper contacted her office regarding the 2005 valuation notice Mr. Cooper was informed that the Board addressed estimated market value only and not the separation of land and building. Mr. Cooper was informed that if he disagreed with the 2005 estimated market value that he would need to set up an interior review to complete a new appraisal of his property. Mr. Cooper declined and it is being recommended to sustain Mr. Cooper's estimated market value of $459,800. Council and Ms. Wojcik further discussed Mr. Cooper's property and the condemnation proceedings. Councilmember Niesen informed that she was disturbed by the disconnect of communication regarding the completion of the condemnation proceedings and that she believes it would be fair to reduce Mr. Cooper's land value. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. Cooper to contact the Assessor's officer to set up an interior appraisal. Councilmember Niesen made a motion to reduce the amount of judgment. Mr. May informed the Council that it would not need to make a motion to refer the appeal back to the Assessor if the Board will reconvene. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she is not confident about what is being done. Ms. Wojcik informed that she would like to review the completed condemnation proceedings and complete an interior appraisal of Mr. Cooper's property. Councilmember Niesen expressed she was fine with that. 4. Todd Paulson, 6408 Willow Lane, addressed the Council to appeal his $383,600 estimated market value and to inform that he had an independent third party, as requested by the City Assessor, do an appraisal on his property. Comparable sales used of similar properties found his property to be over assessed. He discussed that he is willing to have the City Assessor do an appraisal on his property. 5. The following were write -ins and not present to address the Board: George Van Vliet, 3305 and 3423 53` Avenue North LaQuinta Properties Inc., 6415 James Circle North Matthew Schirack, 2701 Freeway Boulevard Amy Fingerhut, 2200 Freeway Boulevard 05/02/05 -5- DRAFT Individual motions for each property were made by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to sustain the 2005 estimated market values on all the above referenced write -ins. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Ms. Wojcik informed that she had recommended the 2005 estimated market value for the property at 6120 Brooklyn Boulevard to be $674,000; however, after a physical review of the property she recommends reducing the 2005 estimated market value to $569,000. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to reduce the 2005 estimated market value for 6120 Brooklyn Boulevard to $569,000. Motion passed unanimously. 7. The following were walk -ins who addressed the Council to appeal their 2005 estimated market values: Mark Klinkner, 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, discussed that his property is in the original condition that the property has had high vacancy with high expenses. He outlined materials that he had prepared regarding the cash flow from his property and expressed that he does not believe there is sufficient income to pay the tax increase. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to have Mr. Klinkner's property reviewed. Motion passed unanimously. Brett Hildreth, 6500 Willow Lane and 501 Bellvue Lane, informed that he would like to have the Assessor's office review both of these properties. It was noted that no motion was needed for properties that were going to be referred back to the Assessor's office for review. 8. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane, readdressed the Council to express concerns about the sale prices at 7224, 6704, and 6500 Willow Lane and reiterate that she will not go to the Hennepin County Board. Ms. Sannes inquired what the City would be doing with the property at 6842 West River Road and questioned if the City would be able to put a portable toilet at Willow Lane Park. Ms. Wojcik discussed that the property at 6842 West River Road is in the process of court proceedings at this time. Councilmember Niesen asked that Ms. Sannes send her an e -mail regarding these requests. Ms. Wojcik informed that she had suggested to Ms. Sannes that she may wish to get a market analysis on her property and that her office would sustain the 2005 estimated market value of $394,400. 05/02/05 -6- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen expressed that she is concerned about the experience Ms. Sannes had with the Hennepin County Board and questioned their process. Mr. May discussed that they need to be notified before June 6, 2005, to set up appraisals and that the County Board will meet on June 13, 2005. If persons appear before the County Board, they are given ten minutes to discuss their appeal and the County Assessor will discuss the appeal for five minutes. There was a motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to sustain Ms. Sannes estimated market value at $394,400. Motion passed unanimously. Ms. Sannes asked again about the property at 6842 West River Road. Mr. McCauley discussed that the City cannot force the property owner to sell or build a house. Ms. Wojcik informed that she could address the homestead status. 7. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to reconvene on May 16, 2005, at 5:30 p.m.; and adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City lerk t Mayor 05/02/05 -7- 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: May 4, 2005 VOL 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 May 9, 2005, are as follows: MECHANICAL Louis Degidio, Inc. 21033 Heron Way, Lakeville Ron's Mechanical 12010 Old Brick Yard Road, Shakopee St. Paul Plumbing Heating 640 Grand Avenue, St. Paul MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Ford 2500 County Road 10 R.L. Brookdale Motors 6801 Brooklyn Boulevard RENTAL Renewal: 350147 th Avenue North (11 Units) Richard Grommes 0 calls 3513 47 Avenue North (11 Units) Richard Grommes 0 calls 6018 Admiral Lane (Single Family) Lutheran Social Service 0 calls 501 Bellvue Lane (Single Family) Brett Hildreth 0 calls 4110 Lakebreeze Avenue North (4 Units) Nhia Her 0 calls Initial 381362 d Avenue North (Single Family) John Maclin 0 calls 1607 Irving Lane North (Single Family) Eugene Sesonga 0 calls 5547 Lyndale Avenue North (Four Units) Brett Hildreth 2 Disturbing peace 5559 Lyndale Avenue North (Single Family) Brett Hildreth 0 calls 5601 Lyndale Avenue North (Four Units) Brett Hildreth 1 Fight call 5344 Twin Lake Blvd. East (Single Family) Takasi Sibuya 0 calls SIGN HANGER Fish and Labeau Signs, Inc. 3320 Winpark Drive, Crystal 0301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community enter Phone TDD Number ber 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 A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing Date of July 11, 2005 for Consideration of the City's Well Head Protection Plan Community public water supply systems in Minnesota are required to delineate, inventory, and manage a wellhead management zone pursuant to the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act of 1989 and the Minnesota Wellhead Protection Rule. Wellhead protection is a means of protecting public water supply wells by preventing contaminants from entering the area that contributes water to the well or well field over a period of time. The wellhead protection area is determined by using technical criteria, such as the physical characteristics of the aquifer and the effects which pumping has on the rate and direction of groundwater movement. S The wellhead protection planning process is separated into two distinct parts. Part 1 involves delineation of the wellhead protection area and drinking water supply management area (DWSMA). Brooklyn Center completed this portion of the planning process last year. Part 2 involves the creation of the wellhead protection plan itself, including goals, objectives, plan of action, evaluation program, and contingency plan. The City of Brooklyn Center is currently involved with Part 2 of the planning process. City staff with the assistance of a consulting engineering firm has developed a draft Wellhead Protection Plan for the City. A draft copy of the executive summary and figure showing the DWSMA are attached to this memorandum. A complete copy of the draft document is available for review in the Engineering Division office. Before the Wellhead Protection Plan can be completed, the City is required to conduct a public hearing to solicit public input and receive comments on the draft document. The Minnesota Department of Health has indicated that the City is also required to provide written notice of the public hearing to neighboring communities and allow for a 60 day comment period prior to the public hearing. Staff is therefore requesting that the City Council establish a date for a public hearing on July 11, 2005 to receive public comment for the proposed Wellhead Protection Program. This would allow staff to include the official date for the public hearing in the notices. 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.cityofbrooklyncenterorg Gj Si °k' ::iii_ ?lll.�',: v. 1 it r A �L Gi .•y ?411111_ 171: .11■„• f v 3 3r i::�.�. CIF I II !rid. `��.y� "11111111. ����I�`, S i or:4ssm IN W. ails -vlmli ..��r.=.-3 l AV H m� s ■ak in- 2 i 11 HZEBS 111 111 1 11 1 I null roa qa IF 1� UKAI 1 Ill. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under the Safe Federal Drinking Water Act, all states are required to have a wellhead protection (WHP) plan. Through this Federal mandate, the Minnesota Commissioner of i Health was granted authority by the Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act (Minnesota Statue 1031, Section 3, Subdivision 5) to prepare a rule specifying WHP measures for public water supply wells. The Minnesota Department of Health administers this WHP s program and it complies with both Federal and State mandates. Under this program every public water supply well in Minnesota is required to have a Wellhead Protection Plan. All public wells in Minnesota must implement WHP measures to protect users from acute health effects relating to disease organisms or chemical contaminants that pose a serious health risk, and from chronic health effects relating to long -term ingestion of chemical contaminants in groundwater. Regulations for this requirement are found under Minnesota I I' Rules parts 4720.5100 to 4720.5590. In Minnesota, the Wellhead Protection process is broken up into two phases, Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 of the wellhead protection.plan presented the 1) delineation of a wellhead protection area (WHPA) and a drinking ater s u p ply man a g ement area DWSMA 2 9 pp Y g and )the i vulnerability ssessments for r the system's s wells and aquifer within n the DWSMA. The C' Y q ity of Brooklyn Center had Part I of the Wellhead Protection. Plan approved on August 24, 2004. The Part I Report was completed by Leggette, Brashears Graham, Inc (LBG). This second portion of the Wellhead Protection (WHP) Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center includes: i The results of the Potential Contaminant Source Inventory, The Potential Contaminant Source Management Strategy, r The Emergency /Alternative Water Supply Contingency Plan, and The Wellhead Protection Program Evaluation Plan. Findings in this report are the result of collaboration between the City, TKDA, LBG, and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). A vulnerability assessment was performed for the aquifer within the DWSMA in Part 1 of this Wellhead Protection Plan. This system is considered to be vulnerable to contamination t 3 12950.000 v rvAr i because it appears that surface water is able to infiltrate and recharge the aquifer. The levels of vulnerability in the DWSMA range from Moderate to Very High. Since the City's wells can receive water from the surface and subsurface, contaminant sources in both areas need to be assessed. The principal sources of contamination would include wells, underground storage tanks, hazardous waste generators, and waste sites. This report shall address all existing and possible future contaminant sources within the DWSMA and how these sources can be effectively managed to prevent groundwater contamination. i 4 12950.000 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2005 FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required to develop a Wellhead Protection Plan for the purposes of protecting the groundwater tributary to the public water supply system; and WHEREAS, a draft version of the Wellhead Protection Plan for the City's public water supply system is completed and available for consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide an opportunity to receive comments from Brooklyn Center residents and neighboring communities regarding the draft Wellhead Protection Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council of the City of Y Y tY Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 11 day of July, 2005, in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider adoption of a Wellhead Protection Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center and at such time and place persons will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to said Plan. 2. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing to be published in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 7d City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2004- 14, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street and Utility Improvements Bid Summary Bids for the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Improvements contract were received and opened on May 3, 2005. The bidding results are provided on the attached bid summary table. The Base Bid portion of the bid documents (Schedule A, B and C) consisted of street and utility improvements along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive, construction of a left turn lane along 69 Avenue North and reconstruction of the mainline portion of the Palmer Lake trail system. Of the four bids received, the lowest base bid of $1,793,220.85 was submitted by Hardrives, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota. The engineer's estimate for the base bid contract items was $1,784,930.90. All four bids were within 10 percent deviation from the estimate. Higher unit bid prices were received for bituminous pavement material. This is likely the result of fluctuating oil prices over the past several months. The bid documents include Schedule D alternate bid items for reconstruction of the existing parking lots located along the north and east sides of the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the driveway entrance to the Inn on the Farm. The bid documents also included Schedule E alternate bid items for street and storm drainage improvements along 48 Avenue North between Drew Avenue and Lilac Drive North. The resulting bid prices for alternate bid items are provided on the attached bid summary table. Hardrives, Inc. provided the lowest overall bid price for the sum total of the base bid and alternate bid items. Recommended Action Attached for considerations is a City Council resolution accepting the bids for the Base Bid Items and Schedule D and E Alternate Bid Items and awarding the Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street Utility Improvements contract to Hardrives, Inc. for the total contract amount of $2,038,021.85. *6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org CONTRACT 2004 -H IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14 BID SUMMARY May 3, 2005 BID SCHEDULE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE HARDRIVES, INC I PARK CONSTRUCTION ARCON CONSTRUCTION C S MCCROSSAN SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE A: SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE I 1,657,320.20 I 1,663,642.15 I 1,724,920.36 I 1,795,869.88 1$ 1,827,473.70 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE B: 69TH AVENUE TURN LANE I 22,435.00 I 25,022.95 I 23,573.71 I 24,399.11 I 29,414.70 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE C: PALMER LAKE TRAIL 105,175.70 I 104,555.75 I 103,055.00 I 123,327.10 I 107,604.53 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE D: HERITAGE CENTER PARKING LOT (ALTERNATE BID ITEMS) 1 113,095.00 1$ 117,126.75 1$ 102,997.50 1$ 122,454.50 I 115,785.00 SUBTOTAL SCHEDULE E: 48TH AVENUE NORTH (ALTERNATE BID ITEMS) I 102,513.00 1$ 127,674.25 I 127,957.61 1$ 104,618.91 1$ 136,516.40 TOTAL SCHE A,B,C,D E 2,000,538.90 2,038,021.85 2,082,50418 2,170,669.50 2,216,794.33 I i i I I I P -1 (2004 -14) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: v RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 2004- 14, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer on the 3rd day of May, 2005. Said base bids were as follows: Schedule A, B and C Bidder Base Bid Amount Hardrives, Inc. $1,793,220.85 Park Construction 1,851,549.07 Arcon Construction Co. 1,943,596.09 CS McCrossan, Inc. 1,964,492.93 WHEREAS, bid documents for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14 included alternate bid items listed under Schedule D for construction of improvements to the parking lots at the Earle Brown Heritage Center and alternate bid items listed under Schedule E for construction of street and storm drainage improvements along 48 Avenue North. Said alternate bids were as follows: Schedule D Schedule E Bidder Alternate Bid Amount Alternate Bid Amount Hardrives, Inc. 117,126.75 $127,674.25 Park Construction Co, Inc. 102,997.50 $127,957.61 Arcon Construction Co. 122,454.50 $104,618.91 CS McCrossan, Inc. 115,785.00 $136,516.40 WHEREAS, it appears that Hardrives, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder as determined by consideration of the sum total of the base bid and alternate bid items. 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 Hardrives, Inca of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, according to the plans and specifications for Schedule A, B, C, D and E contract items therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. n 2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows: COSTS Engineer's Estimate As Amended Per Low Bid Contract $2,000,538.90 $2,038,021.85 Construction Contingency 178.493.09 179.322.09 Subtotal Construction Cost $2,179,031.99 $2,217,343.94 Admin/Legal/Engr. 120,800.00 120,800.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $2,299,831.99 $2,338,143.94 REVENUES Street Assessment 302,440.46 302,440.46 Storm Drainage Assessment 9,028.22 9,028.22 Water Utility Fund 71,564.00 79,994.83 Sanitary Sewer Utility 132,570.50 140,298.00 Storm Drainage Utility Fund 205,349.65 283,686.38 Capital Improvement Fund 124,493.27 123,811.33 Street Construction Fund 62,413.82 77,221.82 EBHC Fund 61700 113,095.00 117,126.75 Municipal State Aid Fund $1.278.877.07 $1.204.536.15 Total Estimated Revenue $2,299,831.99 $2,338,143.94 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 7e City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Second Contract Addendum for Driveway Apron Repair and Replacement, Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -01, 02, 03 and 2000 -19, Contract 2000 -B, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage, Utility Improvements and Alley Reconstruction In the spring of 2001, the City became aware of concrete surface problems with many of the reconstructed driveways and sidewalks within the Garden City Central Neighborhood Improvement Project. These problems primarily consisted of surface popouts, which are the formation of indentions when aggregate particles break out of the concrete surface. The Contractor and the City eventually agreed upon a schedule and method of repair for numerous sections of concrete driveways within the project area. This agreement was formalized in an agreement titled Contract Addendum, Garden City Central Driveway and Sidewalk Repair and Replacement. The Contractor completed concrete repair work as designated in the agreement at no additional expense to the City during the summer of 2003. Project warranty inspections conducted in late 2004 reveled several additional concrete driveways that had deteriorated since being constructed as part of the original construction. The Contractor has recently agreed to reconstruct an additional 69 concrete driveway aprons within the project area in order to address these concrete pavement deterioration issues. Attached is a second contract addendum that provides for the replacement of the concrete driveway aprons. The document includes an exhibit designating the location of specific driveways that would be replaced by the Contractor at no additional expense to the City. Upon completion of the repair work, the City would be required to make final payment in the amount of $31,200.63 consisting_ of the retainage amount from the original contract. The attached resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement with the Contractor. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone dz TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND CONTRACT ADDENDUM FOR DRIVEWAY APRON REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000 -01, 02, 03 AND 2000 -19, CONTRACT 2000 -B, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the Contractor and the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a contract and agreement dated April 26, 2000, providing for street and utility improvements for Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -01, 02, 03 and 2000 -19, Contract 2000 -B, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage, Utility Improvements and Alley Reconstruction; and WHEREAS, the contract called for the Contractor to furnish all labor, materials, and equipment required to perform all of the work described in the Contract; and WHEREAS, significant amounts of installed concrete work do not meet contract requirements for acceptance under the terms of the contract; and WHEREAS, a Second Contract Addendum has been prepared to address defective concrete issues, a copy of which was presented to the City Council for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the Second Contract Addendum for City Contract 2000 -B. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof- and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i SECOND CONTRACT ADDENDUM GARDEN CITY. CENTRAL DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT This Second Contract Addendum is made to this day of February, 2005, by and between Arcon Construction, Inc. ("Contractor") and the City of Brooklyn Center "City'). WHEREAS, the Contractor and City entered into a contract dated April 26, 2000 "Contract's, providing for street and utility improvements for Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -01, 01, 03 and 200 -19, Contract 2000 -B, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage, Water Improvements and Alley Reconstruction, and WHEREAS, the Contract provided that the Contractor would perform all of the work in accordance with the Contract Documents prepared by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, certain concrete work did not meet the requirements of the Contract; and WHEREAS, the Contractor and City entered into an addendum to the Contract on or about March 25, 2003 "Contract Addendum providing for the repair and replacement of concrete work; and WHEREAS, as of the date of this Second Contract Addendum, significant amounts of installed concrete work do not meet the requirements of the Contract and Contract Addendum; and WHEREAS, the Contractor and City have mutually agreed upon certain repair and replacement of the concrete work as specified herein; and WHEREAS, upon performance of the requirements of this Second Contract Addendum, the Contractor's work shall be accepted and all requirements of the Contract and Contract Addendum shall be deemed to be satisfied; NOW THEREFORE, for due consideration the Contractor and City agree as follows: L Scope of Work The Contractor shall, at its own cost and expense, furnish all labor, materials and equipment and perform the concrete repair and replacement work described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference (hereinafter "Work'). The Contractor shall perform all Work in a workmanlike manner, and shall repair any damage to said Work or adjacent properties and facilities resulting during the performance of the Work. II Completion of Work The Contractor shall complete the Work by August 1, 2005. The Contractor shall provide prompt notice to the City upon completion of the Work. The City shall inspect the Work and RJV- 25850ov2 BR291 -232 provide a written acceptance or a written statement identifying any Work not performed as required under this Second Contract Addendum. s 111 Contract Obligations Prior to final acceptance of the Work by the City, all provisions of the Contract, Contract Documents and Contract Addendum shall remain effective and enforceable including all general conditions and special provisions of the Contract, and all performance bond, insurance, and indemnification requirements. Upon final acceptance, the Contractor shall be released from all such obligations. IV Payment Upon execution of this Second Contract Addendum, the City shall pay $31,200.63 to the Contractor in full satisfaction of the City's payment obligations to the Contractor. V Miscellaneous Provisions Contractor shall indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims, demands, or actions for injury or damages arising out of the acts, errors, or omissions of Contractor, its officers, agents, or employees under this Second Contract Addendum. Nothing herein shall waive the City's limitations on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. This Second Contract Addendum constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No other agreement shall be effective except as expressly set forth or referenced and incorporated herein. Any amendment to this Second Contract Addendum shall not be effective unless set forth in writing and executed by authorized representatives of both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties by their authorized representatives have hereunto set their hands as of the date and year first above written. ARCON CONSTRUCTION, INC. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER B Y Be Its /?xe Its Mayor And By And By Its Its City Manager xrv- 258500v2 2 BR291 -232 Exhibit A Revised Final Inspection Garden City Central Contract 2000 -13, Project No. 2000 -01, 02 and 03 Street Street Defective Corrective Name Address Item Action (Note 1) 62nd Ave N I 3000 1 Concrete Surface Failure 1 Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement -123 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3001 Concrete rface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 22 .f Su Dri 0 s P Y 62nd Ave N 3006 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 208 s.f. 62nd Ave N I 3013 I Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement s.f. 62nd Ave N 3100 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 127 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3107 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 198 s.f. 62nd Ave N I 3112 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 128 s.f. 62nd Ave N I 3118 I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 180 s.f. 62nd Ave N I 3119 I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 140 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3124 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 215 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3200 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 190 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3201 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 149 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3206 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 180 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3207 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 122 sJ. 62nd Ave N I 3212 I Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 180 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3301 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 175 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3306 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 124 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3312 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 302 s.f. 62nd Ave N 3318 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 168 s.f. 62nd Ave N I 3319 I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 140 s.f. 62nd Ave N 34015+00 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 157 s.f. 63rd Ave N I 2800 I Concrete Surface Failure 1 Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 170 s.f. 63rd Ave N 2806 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 172 s.f. 63rd Ave N 2819 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 160 s.f. 63rd Ave N 3206 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 230 s.f. 63rd Ave N 3207 I Surf. Failure Curb Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 225 s.f. curb 63rd Ave N 3212 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 194 s.f. 63rd Ave N 3218 I Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 175 s.f. 63rd Ave N 3300 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 186 s.f. 63rd Ave N 3312 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 225 s.f. r1 4 Exhibit A Revised Final Inspection Garden City Central Contract 2000 -13, Project No. 2000 -01, 02 and 03 Street Street Defective Corrective Name Address Item Action (Note 1) 63rd Ave N 3318 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 194 s.f. 63rd Ave N 3401 Surf. Failure (2 d/w) Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 238 s.f. 63rd Ave N Fire Station I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 945 s.f. 63rd Ave N Rainbow Ent. Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 900 s.f. 64th Ave N 2706 I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 149 s.f. 64th Ave N 2818 I Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 133 s.f. 65th Ave N 2630 Large Crack(s) Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 183 s.f. 65th Ave N 2706 I Large Crack(s) Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 163 s.f. 65th Ave N 2712 Large Crack(s) Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 115 s.f. 65th Ave N I 2718 Large Crack(s) Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 48 s.f. 65th Ave N I 2818 I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 54 s.f. Connecting drives Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 65th Ave N 2900 2906 Surf. Failure Crack 343 s.f. and 2 sections of sidewalk 40 s.f. Beard Ave N 6207 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 132 s.f. Beard Ave N 6213 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 145 s.f. Beard Ave N 6219 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 125 s.f. Beard Ave N 6231 I Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 150 s.f. Brooklyn Blvd I 6200 I Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 200 s.f. Brooklyn Drive 6240 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 190 s.f. Brooklyn Drive 6249 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 365 s.f. Brooklyn Drive 6260 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 180 s.f. Brooklyn Drive Park entrance I Surf. Failure/Curb I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 265 s.f. Lawrence Road 3121 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 175 s.f. Lawrence Road 3213 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 140 s.f. Lawrence Road 3300 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 125 s.f. Lawrence Road 3313 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 190 s.f. Lawrence Road 311313117 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 823 s -f. Mumford Road 2918 I Curb Failure Replace 28 I.f. curb gutter Mumford Road 3101 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 162 s.f. Mumford Road 3112 I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 205 s -f. Mumford Road 3207 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 142 s.f. Panes 7 Exhibit A Revised Final Inspection Garden City Central Contract 2000 -B, Project No. 2000 -01, 02 and 03 Street Street Defective Corrective Name Address Item Action (Note 1) 4 Mumford Road 3301 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 262 s.f. Mumford Road I 3312 I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 150 s.f. Mumford Road I 3113 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 130 s.f. Mumford Road I 3213 I Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement- 132 s.f. Mumford Road I 3219 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 265 s.f. Nash Road 2906 Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 214 s.f. Nash Road I 2913 I Concrete Surface Failure I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 285 s.f. Nash Road I 3024 Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 161 s.f. Nash Road I 3019 I Concrete Surface Failure Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 232 s.f. O'Henry Road I 2724 I Large'Crack(s) I Replace Concrete Driveway Pavement 51 s.f. (Note 1) Replacement areas are estimates provided herein for general planning purposes. Actual replacement areas shall include entire curb sections or driveway aprons. Replacement areas will be marked in the field by a City representative. City Council Agenda Item No. 8a City of y o Brooklyn Center *3r A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM w DATE: May 4, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager Q Y FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Hearings on 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements Resolution Ordering Improvements and Approving Plans and Specifications for 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for 48 Avenue North Street and p Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls On April 25, 2005, the City Council opened two public hearings for the proposed 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvement Project. Both public hearings were continued to the May 9, 2005 City Council meeting to allow time to complete the publication of required legal notices. Hearing notices have been published in the City's official newspaper. The first hearing is to order improvements and approve plans and specifications for 48 Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements. The second hearing is to consider certification of proposed special assessments for the project. The proposed project includes roadway and storm drainage improvements along 48 Avenue North from the centerline of Drew Avenue North to the centerline of Lilac Drive North. Proposed street improvements include base preparation, installation of concrete curb and gutter and driveway aprons, bituminous paving and boulevard restoration replacement. Proposed storm drainage improvements include installation of new storm sewers, repair and replacement of existing storm sewers, installation of new and repair and replacement of existing catch basins and manholes. Final project plans were developed since the feasibility report was originally presented to the City Council on March 28, 2005. The main design challenge of this project has been to address a significant flooding problem near the property at 3615 48 Avenue North. The final project plans include the extension of storm sewer and modification of street elevations along 48 Avenue to address this flooding issue. A resolution ordering the improvements and approving project plans and specifications is provided for Council consideration upon closing of the first public hearing. A second resolution certifying special assessments for street and storm drainage improvements along 48 Avenue North is provided for Council consideration upon closing of the second public hearing. 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. cityolbrooklyncenter. org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on March 14, 2005 authorized consideration of street and storm drainage improvements in the area generally described as "48 Avenue North"; more specifically described as follows: that portion of 48 Avenue North between the centerline of Drew Avenue North and the centerline of Lilac Drive North; and WHEREAS, the Council has previously received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, said improvements are necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, the City Council on March 28, 2005 adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding the proposed improvements for 48 Avenue North; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing was held on April 25, 2005 and May 9, 2005 at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence and reports offered at or prior to the April 25, 2005 and May 9, 2005 hearings; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Infrastructure Construction Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax- exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments, or utility fees. The maximum amount of obligations expected to be issued for such project is $38,737.68; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for said project. RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Street and Storm Drainage Improvement along 48 Avenue North from Drew Avenue North to Lilac Drive North are hereby ordered. 2. The plans and specifications for said improvement project are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 4. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 or any success law, regulation, or ruling. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48' AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy Nos. 16274 and 16275; and WHEREAS, assessment rolls, copies of which are attached hereto and part hereof by reference, have been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where street improvement and storm drainage costs are to be assessed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Such proposed assessments, Special Assessment Levy No. 16274 for street improvements and Special Assessment Levy No. 16275 for storm drainage improvements, made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessments against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessments levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years as indicated on the assessment roll. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2006, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment at the rate of five and one half (5.5) percent per annum from October 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before September 30, 2005. After September 30, 2005, he or she may pay the total assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from October 1, 2005 through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close -of- business November 29, 2005, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If the owner wishes to pay off the balance at some point in the future, such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year, RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. 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. CITyiop BRO: OKLYN GENTER:OERTEFIED /ASSESSMENT RILL 18fi?5/28/OQ 4 TFI: aYE�fi1ES .REST R� 5TO M SE4VEI2 IIIAI'IF��I*MI�NT� IMPftf WMEN E�R4JEC 004' 4 TER111I 1 =GtUAL INSTALLMENTS EXTEN ©ING1lER A PE#ttQD CAF TEN (10� YEARS ........Q I ERE :.:.::::..II.E LEV A.... T I I I I 10- 118 -21-42 -0007 14748 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH 1 16274 1 $8,353.451 16275 1 $2,538.49 10- 118 -21-42 -0008 13625 48TH AVENUE NORTH 1 16274 1 $2,558.761 16275 1 $777.56 10- 118 -21-42 -0041 14800 LILAC DRIVE NORTH 1 16274 I $14,476.21 I 16275 1 $4,399.08 10- 118 -21-42 -0044 13615 48TH AVENUE NORTH I 16274 I $4,321.04 I 16275 1 $1,313.09 jTOTAL ASSESSMENTS I I $29,709.46 I I $9,028.22 j I j Pagel City Council Agenda Item No. 8b MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: May 5, 2005 SUBJECT: Unity Place Public Hearing The Community Housing Development Corporation, a non- profit 503c corporation, is the owner of the 112 unit housing complex known as Unity Place (7256 Unity). At he April 11, 2005 Council meeting, the council called for a public hearing to consider the request of the Community Housing Development Corporation to issue approximately $5,700,000 in new debt. The new bond issuance would refinance their existing debt and would provide monies for capital improvements to the site. The current debt is a 1993 housing revenue bond authorized by the City. Note that the debtibond issue is not a financial obligation of the City. Besides restructuring the current debt, the refinancing would be used to replace cabinets, smoke detectors, furnaces, replace sofitt and trim, repair garage foundations, and replace garage doors as well as other repairs including the parking lot and dumpster enclosures. Approximately $710,000 of capital improvements are proposed for the complex. Representatives of the Community Housing Development Corporation will be available Monday evening to answer Council questions. It is the staff s recommendation that the Council approve the request from Community Housing Development Corporation and authorize the new bond issuance. A adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2005 (UNITY PLACE PROJECT) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City on this same date, held a public hearing on a project (as defined below) and on a housing program for the issuance of a revenue note to finance the project; and WHEREAS, sufficient details of the revenue note and other aspects of the financing have been agreed to so that this final note resolution should be adopted on this date. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City as follows: SECTION 1. LEGAL AUTHORIZATION AND FINDINGS. 1.1 Findings. The City hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: (a) The City is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota and is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 462C, as amended (the "Act to assist the multifamily housing development herein referred to, and to issue and sell the Note, as hereinafter defined, for the purpose, in the manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Act and in this Resolution. The City has received a proposal that it issue. its Multifamily Housing (b Y P p Y g Revenue Note, Series 2005 (Unity Place Project), in an amount not to exceed $5,700,000 (the "Note to provide funds to be loaned to CHDC Unity LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, the sole member of which is Community Housing Development Corporation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower to finance the renovation of a 112 unit multifamily rental housing facility (the "Project in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, located at 7256 Unity Avenue in the City, which Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower and to finance the refunding of the City's Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Ponds Family Housing Project), Series 1993 (the "Prior Bonds (the "Refunding (c) As required by the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code the City has on this same date, held a public hearing on the housing program relating to the issuance of one or more revenue notes to finance the Project. RESOLUTION NO. (d) The issuance and sale of the Note by the City, pursuant to the Act, is in the best interest of the City, and the City hereby determines to issue the Note and to sell the Note to U.S. Bank National Association (the "Lender as provided herein. The City will loan the proceeds of the Note (the "Loan") to the Borrower in order to finance the Project and to accomplish the Refunding. (e) Pursuant to a Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement to be entered into between the City and Borrower, the Borrower has agreed to repay the Note in specified amounts and at specified times sufficient to pay in full when due the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Note. In addition, the Loan Agreement and a Regulatory Agreement among the City, the Lender and the Borrower (the "Regulatory Agreement contain provisions relating to the construction, maintenance and operation of the Project, indemnification, insurance, and other agreements and covenants which are required or permitted by the Act and which the City, Borrower and Lender deem necessary or desirable for the financing of the Project. Drafts of the Loan Agreement and Regulatory Agreement have been submitted to the City. (f) Pursuant to a Pledge Agreement (the 'Pledge Agreement to be entered into between the City and Lender, the City will pledge and grant a security interest in all of its rights, title, and interest in the Loan Agreement to the Lender (except for certain rights of indemnification and to reimbursement for certain costs and expenses). A draft of the Pledge Agreement has been submitted to the City. (g) Pursuant to a Mortgage, Security Agreement, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Fixture Financing Statement (the "Mortgage to be executed by the Borrower in favor of the City, the Borrower will secure payment of amounts due under the Loan Agreement and Note by granting to the City a mortgage and security interest in the property described therein. Pursuant to an Assignment of Mortgage to be executed by the City (the "Assignment the City will assign the Mortgage to the Lender. Drafts of the Mortgage and Assignment have been submitted to the City. (h) Pursuant to a Disbursing Agreement (the "Disbursing Agreement by and among the Borrower, the City and Lender, the Lender will disburse a portion of the proceeds of the Note to the Borrower for the renovation of the Project. A draft of the Disbursing Agreement has been submitted to the City. (i) Certain requirements for the tax- exempt status of the Note are set forth in a Tax Compliance Agreement (the "Tax Compliance Agreement by and among the City and Borrower. A draft of the Tax Compliance Agreement has been submitted to the City. 0) The Note will be a special limited obligation of the City. The Note shall not be payable from or charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No holder of the Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Note or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City. The Note shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. RESOLUTION NO. (k) It is desirable, feasible and consistent with the objects and purposes of the t Act to issue the Note for the purpose of financing the costs of the Project and refunding the prior Bonds. (1) The Project constitutes a "qualified residential rental project" within the meaning of Section 142(d) of the Code, and a "multifamily housing development" authorized by the Act, and furthers the purposes of the Act. (m) The purpose of the Project is, and the effect thereof will be,,to promote the public welfare by the reduction of debt service costs and the renovation of a facility used as a multifamily housing development designed primarily for occupancy by persons of low and moderate income. (n) The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the City at a site which is easily accessible to employment opportunities, health facilities and other amenities within the City. (o) The Act authorizes (i) the acquisition and renovation of the Project and the refunding of the Prior Bonds, (ii) the issuance and sale of the Note, (iii) the execution and delivery by the City of the Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, Tax Compliance Agreement, Assignment, Disbursing Agreement and Pledge Agreement, (iv) the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, Assignment, Tax Compliance Agreement and Pledge Agreement, and (v) the performance of all other acts and things required under the constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, Assignment, Regulatory Agreement, Tax Compliance Agreement, Disbursing Agreement, Pledge Agreement and Note valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms. (p) It is desirable that the Borrower be authorized, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Loan Agreement, which terms and conditions the City determines to be necessary, desirable and proper, to complete the renovation of the Project by such means as shall be available to the Borrower and in the manner determined by the Borrower, and with or without advertisement for bids as required for the acquisition and installation of municipal facilities. (q) The payments under the Loan Agreement are fixed to produce revenue sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Note when due, and the Loan Agreement also provides that the Borrower is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. (r) There is no litigation pending or, to the actual knowledge of the City, threatened against the City questioning the City's execution or delivery of the Note, Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, Disbursing Agreement, Tax Compliance Agreement, Assignment or Pledge Agreement or questioning the due organization of the City, or the powers or City of the City to issue the Note and undertake the transactions contemplated hereby. (s) The execution, delivery and performance of the City's obligations under the Note, Regulatory Agreement, Tax Compliance Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Assignment, Disbursing Agreement and Loan Agreement do not and will not violate any order against the City of any court or other agency of government, or any indenture, agreement or other instrument to which the City is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound, or be in conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute (with due notice or lapse of time or both) a default under any such indenture, agreement or other instrument. 1.2 Authorization and Ratification of Proiect. The City has heretofore and does hereby authorize the Borrower, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Lender, to provide for the renovation of the Project by such means as shall be available to the Borrower and in the manner determined by the Borrower, and without advertisement for bids as may be required for the construction and acquisition of other municipal facilities; and the City hereby ratifies, affirms, and approves all actions heretofore taken by the Borrower consistent with and in anticipation of such City. SECTION 2. THE NOTE. 2.1 Authorized Maximum Amount and Form of Note and Interest Rate. The Note issued pursuant to this Resolution shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and shall mature in the ears and amounts y and be subject to redemption as therein specified as J p such may be modified by agreement of the Lender, Borrower and City. The Note shall be issued in the principal amount of $5,085,293. The Note shall bear interest at the annual rate of 5.25% per annum. The sale of the Note to the Lender at a purchase price equal to its stated amount is hereby accepted. The City acknowledges that the Lender may grant participation interests in the Note to other financial institutions in principal amounts of at least $100,000. The final maturity date of the Note shall be not later than 30 years from the date of its issuance. 2.2 The Note. The Note shall be dated as of the date of delivery to the Lender, shall be payable at the times and in the manner, and shall be subject to such other terms and conditions as are set forth therein. 2.3 Execution of Note. The Note shall be executed on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager (the "Authorized Officers In case any Authorized Officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless rtheless be valid and sufficient for all pmP oses the same as if such signatory had remained in office until delivery.. In the event of the absence or disability of the Authorized Officer, such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may act in their behalf, shall without further act or authorization of the City execute and deliver the Note. i� i RESOLUTION NO. 2.4 Delivery of Note. Before delivery of the Note there shall be filed with the Lender (except to the extent waived by the Lender) the following items: (1) an executed copy of each of the following documents: (a) the Loan Agreement; (b) the Pledge Agreement; (c) the Mortgage and Assignment; (d) the Disbursing Agreement; (e) the Regulatory Agreement; (f) the Tax Compliance Agreement; (2) an opinion of Counsel for. the Borrower as prescribed by the Lender and Bond Counsel; (3) the opinion of Bond Counsel as to the validity of the Note and tax exempt status of the Note; and (4) such other documents and opinions as Bond Counsel may reasonably require for purposes of rendering its opinion required in subsection (3) above or that the Lender may reasonably require for the closing. 2.5 Disposition of Note Proceeds. Upon delivery of the Note to the Lender, the Lender shall, on behalf of the City, deposit the proceeds of the Note to be used to refund the Prior Bonds with the trustee for the Prior Bonds and the remaining proceeds of the Note shall be held by the Lender in the Capital Fund established for payment of Project Costs in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement and Disbursing Agreement. 2.6 Registration of Transfer. The City will cause to be kept at the office of the City Clerk of the City a Note Register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, the City shall provide for the registration of transfers of ownership of the Note. The Note shall be initially registered in the name of the Lender and shall be transferable upon the Note Register by the Lender in person or by its agent duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of the Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the City Clerk, duly executed by the Lender or its duly authorized agent. The City may require, as a precondition to any transfer, that the transferee provide evidence to the City that the transferee is a financial institution or other accredited investor under the securities laws. The following form of assignment shall be sufficient for said purpose. I RESOLUTION NO. For value received hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto the attached Note of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer said Note on the books of said City, with full power of substitution in the premises. The undersigned certifies that the transfer is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9 of the Resolution authorizing the issuance of the Note. Dated: Registered Owner Upon such transfer the City Clerk shall note the date of registration and the name and address of the new Lender in the Note Register and in the registration blank appearing on the Note. 2.7 Mutilated. Lost or Destroved Note. In case a Note shall become mutilated or be destroyed or lost, the City shall, if not then prohibited by law, cause to be executed and delivered a new Note of like outstanding principal amount, number and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note, or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note destroyed or lost, upon the Lender's paying the reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection therewith, and in the case of a Note destroyed or lost, the filing with the City of evidence satisfactory to the City with indemnity satisfactory to it. If the mutilated, destroyed or lost Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. 2.8 Ownership of Note. The City may deem and treat the person in whose name the Note is last registered in the Note Register and by notation on the Note, whether or not such Note shall be overdue, as the absolute owner of such Note for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of the Principal Balance, redemption price or interest and for all other purposes whatsoever, and the City shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. 2.9 Limitation on Note Transfers. The Note has been issued without registration under state or other securities laws, pursuant to an exemption for such issuance; and accordingly the Note may not be assigned or transferred in whole or part, nor may a participation interest in the Note be given pursuant to any participation agreement, except as an exempt security or as an exempt transaction. RESOLUTION NO. SECTION 3. MISCELLANEOUS. 3.1 Severabilitv. If an provision of this Resolution shall be held y p or deemed to be or shall, in fact, be inoperative or unenforceable as applied in any particular case in any jurisdiction or jurisdictions or in all jurisdictions or in all cases because it conflicts with any provisions of any constitution or statute or rule or public policy, or for any other reason, such circumstances shall not have the effect of rendering the provision in question inoperative or unenforceable in any other case or circumstance, or of rendering any other provision or provisions contained herein invalid, inoperative, or unenforceable to any extent whatever. The invalidity of any one or more phrases, sentences, clauses or paragraphs contained in this Resolution shall not affect the remaining portions of this Resolution or any part thereof. 3.2 Authentication of Transcript. The officers of the City are directed to furnish to Bond Counsel certified copies of this Resolution and all documents referred to herein, and affidavits or certificates as to all other matters which are reasonably necessary to evidence the validity of the Note. All such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute recitals of the City as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. 3.3 Authorization to Execute Aureements. The forms of the proposed Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, Disbursing Agreement, Assignment, Tax Compliance Agreement and Assignment are hereby approved in substantially the form heretofore presented to the City Council of the City, together with such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by Bond Counsel prior to the execution of the documents and the officers specified in Section 2.3 are authorized to execute the Loan Agreement, Regulatory Agreement, Tax Compliance Agreement, Disbursing Agreement, Assignment and Pledge Agreement in the name of and on behalf of the City and such other documents as Bond Counsel consider appropriate in connection with the issuance of the Note. In the event of the absence or disability of any of the officers specified in Section 2.3, such officers of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may act in their behalf shall without further act or authorization of the City Council of the City do all things and execute all instruments and documents required to be done or executed by such absent or disabled officers. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. 3.4 Not Oualified Tax Exempt Oblieation. The Note does not qualify as a "qualified tax- exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. 3.5 Program. The City has established a governmental program of acquiring purpose investments for qualified residential rental projects. The governmental program is one in which the following requirements of 1.148 -1(b) of the federal regulations relating to tax- exempt obligations shall be met: (a) the program involves the origination or acquisition of purpose investments; L RESOLUTION NO. (b) at least 95% of the cost of the purpose investments acquired under the program represents one or more loans to a substantial number of persons representing the general public, states or political subdivisions, 501(c)(3) organizations, persons who provide housing and related facilities, or any combination of the foregoing; (c) at least 95% of the receipts from the purpose investments are used to pay principal, interest, or redemption prices on issues that financed the program, to pay or reimburse administrative costs of those issues or of the program, to pay or reimburse anticipated future losses directly related to the program, to finance additional purpose investments for the same general purposes of the program, or to redeem and retire governmental obligations at the next earliest possible date of redemption; (d) the program documents prohibit any obligor on a purpose investment financed by the program or any related party to that obligor from purchasing bonds of an issue that finances the program in an amount related to the amount of the purpose investment acquired from that obligor; and (e) the City shall not waive the right to treat the investment as a program investment. 3.6 Headings. Terms. Paragraph headings in this resolution are for convenience of reference only and are not a part hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision hereof. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein shall have the meanings given them in, or pursuant to, the Loan Agreement Adopted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, this 9th day of May, 2005. Mav 9.. 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. 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 giving final approval and authorizing the execution as of various documents in connection with the Multifamily Housing Revenue Note, Series 2005 (Unity Place Project). WITNESS my hand this day of .2005. City Clerk EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA Multifamily Housing Revenue Note, Series 2005 (Unity Place Project) R -1 5 085 2 93 Dated June 2005 FOR VALUE RECEIVED THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "City hereby promises to pay U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, in Roseville, Minnesota, its successors or registered assigns (the "Lender solely from the source and in the manner hereinafter provided, the principal sum of FIVE MILLION EIGHTY -FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY -THREE DOLLARS ($5,085,293), or so much thereof remains unpaid from time to time (the "Principal Balance with interest thereon from the date hereof until the Tender Date (defined below) at the rate of 5.25% per annum, computed on the basis of actual days elapsed in a year of 360 days, and thereafter until paid or otherwise discharged at the rate per annum determined as provided in paragraph 2 below, in any coin or currency which at the time or times of payment is legal tender for the payment of public or private debts in the United States of America, in accordance with the terms hereinafter set forth. 1. Interest: Pavments. Principal and interest shall be payable on this Note in monthly installments due on the 1st day of each month, commencing on July 1, 2005, through and including June 1, 2020 (the "Tender Date in amounts sufficient to fully amortize the principal of this Note based on a 30 year amortization schedule. Commencing on July 1, 2020, and continuing on the 1st day of each month thereafter through and including June 1, 2035 (the "Final Maturity Date principal and interest shall be payable on this Note in monthly installments in amounts sufficient to fully amortize the principal of this Note from the Tender Date through and including June 1, 2035 at the adjusted interest rate established in accordance with Section 2 of this Note. On the Final Maturity Date any remaining unpaid Principal Balance and all accrued and unpaid interest thereon shall be paid in full. Payments shall be applied first to accrued and unpaid interest on the Principal Balance and thereafter to reduction of the Principal Balance. A late payment fee in an amount equal to five percent (5 of the delinquent amount shall be paid with respect to all payments not made within ten (10) days of the date due. 2. Put, Mandatory Tender and Purchase: and Adiustment of Interest Rate. In lieu of providing for a balloon maturity of this Note on the Tender Date, the Lender has agreed to the terms of this paragraph. The Note is subject to a mandatory tender on the Tender Date to CHDC Unity LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the 'Borrower for purchase by the 1760049x2 Borrower, or for purchase by another purchaser selected by the Borrower and approved by the i City. The Lender shall deliver the Note to the Borrower, or its designee, on the Tender Date and this Note shall be purchased from the Lender by or on behalf of the Borrower on the Tender Date for a price equal to the Principal Balance hereof on the Tender Date; provided that the monthly payment due on the Tender Date shall also be due and payable. If this Note is not purchased from the Lender by or on behalf of the Borrower on the Tender Date, the failure to purchase this Note shall constitute an event of default under this Note and an "Event of Default" under the Loan Agreement, and the Lender may exercise its remedies for default, including acceleration of this Note. On the Tender Date, the interest rate of this Note shall be adjusted to an interest rate per annum that will permit the Borrower, with or without the services of a remarketing agent, to remarket the Note at a price equal to one hundred percent of the remaining Principal Balance. The fees and costs of such remarketing shall be borne by the Borrower. The adjusted interest rate and equal monthly payments that amortize the principal of this Note from the Tender Date through the Final Maturity Date shall be set forth on an allonge to this Note. 3. Sufficiencv. In any event, the payments hereunder shall be sufficient to pay all principal and interest due, as such principal and interest becomes due, and to pay any premium or service charge, at maturity, upon redemption, or otherwise. Interest shall be computed on the basis of actual days elapsed in a year of 360 days. 4. Place of Pavment. Principal and interest and premium or service charge, if any, due hereunder shall be payable at the principal office of the Lender, or at such other place as the Lender may designate in writing. 5. Purpose; Citv. This Note is issued by the City to provide funds for a multifamily housing development, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.02, consisting of the acquisition and renovation of facilities owned and operated by the Borrower and the refunding of the City's Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Ponds Family Housing Project), Series 1993. The proceeds of the Note will be loaned to the Borrower pursuant to a Loan Agreement dated as of June 1, 2005, by and between the City and Borrower (the "Loan Agreement and this Note is further issued pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, and pursuant to a resolution of the City Council of the City duly adopted on May 9, 2005 (the "Resolution 6. Security. This Note is secured by a Pledge Agreement dated as of June 1, 2005, between the City and Lender (the "Pledge Agreement and is further secured by a Mortgage, Security Agreement, Assignment of Leases and Rents and Fixture Financing Statement, dated June 1, 2005, executed by the Borrower, as mortgagor, in favor of the City, as mortgagee (the "Mortgage and assigned to the Lender pursuant to the Assignment of Mortgage (the "Assignment of Mortgage The disbursement of the proceeds of this Note is subject to the terms and conditions of the Disbursing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2005, between the Lender, the City and Borrower (the "Disbursing Agreement Certain requirements of law with respect to the project financed by this Note are set forth in a Regulatory Agreement dated as of June 1, 2005, by and among the City, Borrower and Lender (the "Regulatory Agreement Certain 1760049v2 2 I� requirements for the tax- exempt status of interest on this Note are set forth in a Tax Compliance Agreement dated as of June 1, 2005, by and between the City and Borrower (the "Tax Compliance Agreement"). P 7. Waiver of Demand: Extension. The City, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives demand, presentment, protest and notice of dishonor; and to the extent permitted by law, the Lender may extend interest and/or principal of or any service charge or premium due on this Note, including the Final Maturity Date, or release any part or parts of the property and interest subject to the Mortgage or to any other security document from the same, all without notice to or consent of any party liable hereon or thereon and without releasing any such party from such liability and whether or not as a result thereof the interest on the Note is no longer exempt from federal or state income tax. In no event, however, may the Final Maturity Date of the Note be extended beyond June 1, 2034. 8. Prepayment. This Note may be prepaid in whole or in part with the consent of the Lender, but not otherwise, as provided in Section 5.1 of the Loan Agreement and on Attachment E to this Note. A request for consent to any such prepayment shall be given to the holder by certified or registered mail, addressed to the holder at its registered address, not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date proposed for prepayment. If the Lender consents to a prepayment of this Note, in whole or in part, then on the date fixed for prepayment funds shall be paid to the holder at its registered address. Upon any partial or full prepayment of the Principal Balance of this Note, there shall also be paid, with respect to the portion of the Principal Balance prepaid, the accrued and unpaid interest on the Principal Balance to be prepaid and the prepayment premium set forth on Attachment E attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. 9. Acceleration. Upon the occurrence of certain Events of Default, as defined in the Loan Agreement and Mortgage, the Lender may declare the Principal Balance and accrued interest on the Note to be immediately due and payable. 10. Application of Prenavments. Any payment made to prepay this Note shall be applied, first, to any applicable prepayment premium set forth on Attachment E to this Note, second, to accrued and unpaid interest on the Principal Balance to be prepaid and, third, to the Principal Balance to be prepaid. 11. Transfer; Registration. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is only transferable upon the books of the City at the office of its City Clerk, by the Lender in person or by its agent duly authorized in writing, at the Lender's expense, upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the City Clerk, duly executed b the Lender or its duly authorized on agent. U Y Y g P such transfer the City Clerk will note the date of registration and the name and address of the new registered owner in the registration blank appearing below. The City may deem and treat g g PP g Y Y the person in whose name the Note is last registered upon the books of the City with such registration noted on the Note, as the absolute owner hereof, whether or not overdue, for the purpose of receiving payment, or on the account, of the Principal Balance, redemption price or interest and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to the Lender or upon its order shall be valid and effective to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid, and the City shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. 1760044v2 3 12. Incoraoration. All of the agreements, conditions, covenants, provisions and stipulations contained in the Resolution, Mortgage, Assignment of Mortgage, Loan Agreement, Disbursing Agreement, Pledge Agreement, Regulatory Agreement and Tax Compliance Agreement are hereby made a part of this Note to the same extent and with the same force and effect as if they were fully set forth herein. 13. Limited Liabilitv. This Note and interest thereon and any service charge or premium, if any, due hereunder are payable solely from the revenues and proceeds derived from the Loan Agreement and Mortgage and do not constitute a debt of the City, within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, are not payable from or a charge upon any funds other than the revenues and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, and do not give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or any of their officers, agents or employees, and no holder of this Note shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay this Note or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City, and this Note does not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City, and the agreement of the City to. perform or cause the performance of the covenants and other provisions herein referred to shall be subject at all times to the availability of revenues or other funds furnished for such purpose in accordance with the Loan Agreement, sufficient to pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof. 14. Rights on Default. If an Event of Default (as that term is defined in the Mortgage or Loan Agreement) shall occur, then the Lender shall have the right and option to declare, the Principal Balance and accrued interest thereon immediately due and payable, whereupon the same, plus any premiums or service charges, shall be due and payable, but solely from sums made available under the Loan Agreement and Mortgage or other sums paid by the Borrower. Failure to exercise such option at any time shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise the same at any subsequent time. 15. Exercise of Remedies. The remedies of the Lender, as provided herein and in the Mortgage, Loan Agreement, Pledge Agreement and Regulatory Agreement, are not exclusive and shall be cumulative and concurrent and may be pursued singly, successively or together, at the sole discretion of the Lender, and may be exercised as often as occasion therefor shall occur; and the failure to exercise any such right or remedy shall in no event be construed as a waiver or release thereof. 16. Waivers. The Lender shall not be deemed, by any act of omission or commission, to have waived any of its rights or remedies hereunder unless such waiver is in writing and signed by the Lender, and then only to the extent specifically set forth in the writing. A waiver with reference to one event shall not be construed as continuing or as a bar to or waiver of any right or remedy as to a subsequent event. 17. Securities Registration. This Note has been issued without registration under state or federal or other securities laws, pursuant to an exemption for such issuance; and accordingly the Note may not be assigned or transferred in whole or part, nor may a participation interest in the Note be given pursuant to any participation agreement, except in accordance with an applicable exemption from such registration requirements. 1760049x2 4 18. Not Oualified Tax Exempt Oblieation. The City has not designated this Note as a "qualified tax exempt obligation" pursuant to Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all conditions, acts and things required to exist, to happen and to be performed precedent to or in the issuance of this Note do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form as required by law. 1760049v2 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Note to be duly executed in its name and has caused this Note to be dated as of 2005. BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor By Its Manager 1760049v2 6 NOTE REGISTER The ownership of the unpaid Principal Balance of this Note and the interest accruing thereon is registered on the books of the Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, in the name of the holder last noted below. Date of Name and Address Signature of Registration Registered Owner Clerk U.S. Bank National Association 2690 North Snelling Avenue Suite 220 2005 Roseville MN 55113 1760049v2 7 ATTACHMENT E PREPAYMENT OPTION S BREAK FUNDING Prenavment: There shall be no prepayments of this Note, provided that the Bank may consider requests for its consent with respect to prepayment of this Note, without incurring an obligation to do so, and the Borrower acknowledges that in the event that such consent is granted, the Borrower shall be required to pay the Bank, upon prepayment of all or part of the principal amount before final maturity, a Prepayment Fee equal to the maximum of: (a) zero, or (b) that amount, calculated on any prepayment date, which is derived by subtracting: (a) the principal amount of the Note or portion of the Note to be prepaid from (b) the Net Present Value of the Note or portion of the Note to be prepaid on such date of prepayment. "Net Present Value" shall mean the amount which is derived by summing the present values of each prospective payment of principal and interest which, without such full or partial prepayment, could otherwise have been received by the Bank over the shorter of the remaining contractual life of the Note or next repricing date if the Bank had instead initially invested the Note proceeds at the Initial Money Market Rate. The individual discount rate used to present value each prospective payment of interest and/or principal shall be the Money Market Rate at Prepayment for the maturity matching that of each specific payment of principal and /or interest. "Initial Monev Market Rate" shall mean the rate per annum, determined solely by the Bank, on the first day of the term of this Note or as mutually agreed upon by the Borrower and the Bank, as the rate at which the Bank would be able to borrow funds in Money Markets for the amount of this Note and with an interest payment frequency and principal repayment schedule equal to this Note and for a term as may be arranged and agreed upon by the Borrower and the Bank. Such a rate shall include FDIC insurance, reserve requirements and other explicit or implicit costs levied by any regulatory agency. Borrower acknowledges that the Bank is under no obligation to actually purchase and/or match funds for the Initial Money Market Rate of this Note. "Monev Market Rate At Prepavment" shall mean that zero coupon rate, calculated on the date of prepayment, and determined solely by the Bank, as the rate in which the Bank would be able to borrow funds in Money Markets for the prepayment amount matching the maturity of a specific prospective Note payment or repricing date. Such a rate shall include FDIC insurance, reserve requirements and other explicit or implicit costs levied b an regulatory agency. P P Y Y g Y g Y A separate Money Market Rate at Prepayment will be calculated for each prospective interest and/or principal P a Y ment date. "Monev Markets" shall mean one or more wholesale funding mechanisms available to the Bank, including negotiable certificates of deposit, 1760049v2 8 eurodollar deposits, bank notes, fed funds, interest rate swaps, or others. In calculating the amount of such a prepayment fee, the Bank is hereby authorized by the Borrower to make such assumptions regarding the source of funding, redeployment of funds and other related matters, as the Bank may deem appropriate. If the Borrower fails to pay any Prepayment Fee when due, the amount of such Prepayment Fee shall thereafter bear interest until paid at the default rate specified in this Note (computed on the basis of a 360 -day year, actual days elapsed). Any prepayment of principal shall be accompanied by a payment of interest accrued to date thereon; and said prepayment shall be applied to the principal installments in the inverse order of their maturities. All prepayments shall be in an amount of at least $100,000 or if less, the remaining entire principal balance of the loan. 1760049x2 9 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 Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -63 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 ublic hearing on the hous f p g s ng finance program and proposal of the Corporation will be 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. \J A�fil 11.2005 V ►�11�n -4,. Date (J Mayor O ATTEST:' City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -63 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 McCauley Its City Manager City Council Agenda Item Na 8c caf Offi ce of the City Clerk KLYN TER MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Cler DATE: May 4, 2005 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Permitted Uses in the CIA Service /Office District At its April 11, 2005, meeting, the City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Permitted Uses in the CIA Service /Office District. The materials that were presented at the April 11, 2005, meeting are included. This ordinance is offered for second reading and Public Hearing. If adopted, the ordinance adoption will be published in the City's official newspaper on May 19, 2005, and become effective June 18, 2005 (30 days following its legal publication). Attachments MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Spec ist 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 CIA 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. The City Council/EDA has aggressively 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 Partners, LLC for a combination hotel/water park on this site. The property in question is currently zoned C1 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 proposed use consistent with the zoning and comprehensive plan for this area. The CIA district is a 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 CIA zoning district. Attached for your review is an area zoning map showing all of the areas within the city that are zoned C 1 A 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. mi .Fa rrrt as tri N VIII! ►i� •��/a qua alp 1r� v, t1111��. ail IIIat�aarr �ry :r� i�il �tl■ir�� �i■t rrr�r�ttirrrrt ..W4 tct�i �irr W4 tlttl�llrrrr/rm oil wr 11l Nillll �lllllllllllllll tttt�tllitrr tlttltllllllt! ikt IIt� v a—W --11111��"�Ilt� auto �Islas ■tlaw a w 5A aa tirla�► a slits Ilion t F w tm X11111 wra wsa west wsa wsy wiry W1 m ww tt� tai► as M1 n�i d Ca w� tw I F:11i LL' Ii��l -w wr ,111_ �u�i i ww e r r ww VV �I 111 /IIIIItItt�� :G i■ /ll iii i'' �1� r. It IItiE" "1�'��1� Itt` r �w wr �r �i w� ww 1► 001 was�� t�A►s� wa �/w w� w�+n w� wH way w wl�! owl" ■F� w .way w w w w ww w,tta wtta w 111 its �,mw-1 tt■� era �i wi. w. min wiY w�a w i wits ww w ,■r�■�■�ItF.I b F� ■G �C�l ��7 i r� r� W IN wA j �I.. r m A 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 C 1 A 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. C1A 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 CIA district. b. Transient LodEing 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 CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT Mr. Warren stated that the subject being discussed is a draft ordinance amendment regarding permitted uses in the C1A 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 imitations on the height of a building. g gh g. He added that the district is often referred to as a high rise service /office district as opposed to the C1 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 CIA 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 C1A 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 C 1 A 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 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 R1 (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 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 i i i c i 3 -31 -05 Page 4 City Council Agenda Item No. 9a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 23 THROUGH JUNE 25, 2005 WHEREAS, the purpose of Earle Brown Days is to promote the City of Brooklyn Center, its people, and amenities; and WHEREAS, residents, the city, community civic groups, and businesses participate in the annual civic celebration to demonstrate the vitality of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, in order for Earle Brown Days, Inc. to schedule certain events requiring City- issued administrative land use permits, it is necessary for Earle Brown Days to be declared a civic event. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Earle Brown Days are declared a civic event from June 23 through June 25, 2005. Mav 9.2005 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. 9b PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 15-21,2005, TO BE POLICE WEEK WHEREAS, the Congress and President of the United. States. of America have designated May 15 as Peace Officers' Memorial Day and the week in which May 15 falls as National Police Week; and WHEREAS, Police Officers protect and preserve life and property against crime and take personal risks in dealing with those who would threaten the peace of our community; and WHEREAS, Police Officers provide a vital public service; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the services provided by Police Officers be recognized and appreciated. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, with the consent and support of the Brooklyn Center City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of May 15 through 21, 2005, to be Police Week and that our Community joins with other cities to honor all Police Officers everywhere and call upon our citizens to recognize the dedicated public service of the Police Officers of Brooklyn Center. Mav 9, 2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community y MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring May 15 -21, 2005, Public Works Week in Brooklyn Center Attached for Council consideration is a Proclamation Declaring May 15 -21, 2005, Public Works Week in Brooklyn Center. National Public Works Week was instituted by the American Public Works Association in 1960 for the purpose of promoting public education of the services provided by public works departments throughout North America. The proposed proclamation acknowledges the important role that public works infrastructure and services provide in our community. 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 PROCLAMATION 4 DECLARING MAY 15- 21,2005 PUBLIC WORKS WEEK IN BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives; and WHEREAS, the support of an informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as engineering, streets and traffic control, water supply and distribution, wastewater collection, community parks, storm water management, and vehicle fleet management; and WHEREAS, the health, safety, and comfort of this community greatly depends on public works infrastructure and the services provided by public works personnel. 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 May 15 -21, 2005 as "National Public Works Week" in the City of Brooklyn Center, and I call upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing public works services in our community. Date Mayor Attest: City Clerk i City Council Agenda Item No. 9c City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers ody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: April. 21, 2005 SUBJECT: Watershed Agenda Item The Council directed that the watershed capital improvement proposal be placed on the April 25, 2005, agenda. For your convenience the April 11, 2005, materials are included in the packet. 0 6301 Shingle reek Park n g C way Recreation and Community Center Phone T DD 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. 4 0 301 Shingle Creek Parkway 3 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 Day. An example of a Potential mechanism for caPPing the fiscal burden on a citv 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 Drogram and funding included in anv Drogram 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 the CIP costs Draft Alternate The Brooklyn Center City Council does not support the proposed undertaking to have the Watershed impose an ad valorem tax and to assess the cost of capital projects against cities in the Watershed. The City prefers the current practice of requiring cooperative agreements among cities wishing to construct projects benefiting more than one city. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members mody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: March 24, 2005 Re: Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal Attached are the materials from the March 14 City Council meeting, the City of Plymouth's response to the Watershed, and a Draft Letter to the Watershed and Draft Alternative. The Draft Letter to the Watershed is set out in separate numbered statements to facilitate City Council review. The Council may select for inclusion, exclusion, or modification the various individual points. The Draft letter would support a program of major projects with some suggested limitations on expenditure levels, City input on projects, and a goal of insuring that projects are significant within the context of the Watershed. (This is as opposed to a project that is primarily related to only one City or is benefiting new development. The proposed clause 7 would restrict these projects to existing waterways etc. to avoid multi -city funding of new stormwater facilities required for new developments.) The Draft Alternate takes the opposite view and would not support the Watershed Commission's proposal. 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 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 P rojects 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 r g e C eek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS O NS 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 o P P p P p g Cost Sharing Policy. It is submitted to you for your review and comment. Additional a background material as well as a one e summar g page Y 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. Backeround The Commissio ns 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 -Fine treatment devices, or lake treatments. Over the past year or more the Commissions, TAC, and member cities have debated how to finance the projects and activities that will be identified in the Implementation Plans. Most of the attention has been paid to item #3 in the list above, as those will be the costliest activities. The Joint Powers Agreement authorizes three methods for financing capital improvements: 1. A negotiated apportionment of cost. 2. Apportionment of cost to the cities in the same proportion as the operating budget. 3. Certification of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed. BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK •CHAMPLIN CRYSTAL- MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS. NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE J: \Shingle Creek \CIPs\L -cities req comment on draft CIP policyldoc February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 2 of 7 The JPA further provides that if agreement is not reached to use methods #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 g g P 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 Corr mission 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. PCODOSed Cost Sharine Poliev 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: i. 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% in irect lakeshore (Ryan); 50% contributing watershed City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Share Brooklyn Center 1 $16,138 $97,225 'Brooklyn Park $31,275 $100,800 Crystal $11,000 $97,850 Maple Grove $21,988 Minneapolis $8,513 $4,750 New Hope $8,960 $29,925 Osseo $1,688 I Plymouth $18,688 Robbinsdale $6,763 $44,450 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 City Share Brooklyn Center $16,138 $33,750 Brooklyn Park $31,275 $190,500 Crystal $11,000 $23,250 Maple Grove $21,988 $46,250 Minneapolis $8,513 $15,000 New Hope $8,960 $19,000 Osseo $1,688 $2,250 Plymouth $18,688 $39,500 Robbinsdale $6,763 $5,500 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 City Share Brooklyn Center $12,910 Brooklyn Park $25,020 Crystal $8,800 Maple Grove $17,590 Minneapolis $6,810 New Hope $7,160 Osseo $1,350 Plymouth $14,950 Robbinsdale $5,410 $300,000 TOTAL $100,000 1 $300,000 February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 5 of 7 What are the Commissions proposing? That the Commissions' Implementation Plan and CIP set forth a Cost Sharing Policy for negotiating project cost sharing where, for water quality implementation projects identified in a TMDL or water resource management plan: The Commission should share 25 percent of the cost The remaining 75 percent of cost should be shared by benefiting cities based on the proposed Cost Sharing Policy. The Commissions' cost share should be funded through the ad valorem tax levy method That the Implementation Plan and C1P set forth for each proposed project the potential cost to each city based on the three means of financing projects: 100 percent ad valorem tax levy; 100 percent formula; and the Cost Sharing Policy. That the Implementation Plan require that prior to ordering a project consent be received from cities whose cost allocation under the negotiated option would exceed that shown in the Implementation Plan. How would a project under this proposal go forward? The Implementation Plan would identify the cost to each city for each project based on the three types of financing options set forth in the JPA, with the Negotiated Agreement option calculated according to the proposed Cost Sharing Policy. Prior to consideration of an individual project, the JPA requires the development of a feasibility report, an estimated cost, and the proposed allocation of costs. The proposed allocation may be based on the Cost Sharing Policy, or the cities involved may negotiate an alternate cost sharing method. A public hearing must be held allowing cities and other interested parties to comment on the project, its costs, and the proposed cost allocation. If a city's cost allocation would be in excess of the amount identified in the Implementation Plan, this new proposal would require consent from that city before a project could go forward. Does the Commission have the authority to fund projects this way? The existing Joint Powers Agreement authorizes three methods for financing capital improvements: 1. A negotiated apportionment of cost. 2. Apportionment of cost to the cities in the same proportion as the operating budget (often referred to as "the formula. 3. Certification of some or all of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed. The JPA further provides that if agreement is not reached to use methods #1 or #2, then by 2/3 vote the Commission can decide to go forward using method #3. How did the Commission develop this proposal? Past projects have been funded by negotiated agreement between benefiting cities. As Clean Water Act implementation turns to addressing nonpoint source pollution, there is increasing emphasis on improving water quality on a watershed basis. The TMDL and NPDES programs require local agencies, watershed organizations, and the state to partner on implementation plans that make progress toward water quality goals. As projects move from water quantity to water quality, it becomes more difficult to identify benefit, which for water quantity projects is usually defined based on contributing subwatershed, property removed from the floodplain, etc. Water quality needs and benefits don't necessarily follow from stormwater contribution. February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 6 of 7 Some watershed organizations have found the most practical way to deal with this dilemma is to spread the cost of all capital projects across the entire watershed. In the Shingle Creek/West Mississippi TAC discussions, objections to that approach were raised, arguing that since in some cities most of their development occurred after the watershed rules took effect, those taxpayers had already paid for significant water quality improvements through higher land costs and special assessments and shouldn't have to pay for similar improvements in other cities. The proposed Cost Sharing Policy was developed to find a middle ground between watershed benefit and direct benefit. Decision Items For projects financed using the negotiated agreement method: The entire watershed should contribute a share to the cost of a capital improvement project that implements a water quality improvement identified in a TMDL or approved water resource management plan. That share should be 25 percent, with the balance apportioned to cities. That share should be funded using the ad valorem tax method A share of the cost apportioned to the cities should be based on direct benefit, for example, share of Lakeshore or share of stream reach. That share should be 25 percent. A share of the cost apportioned to the cities should be based on contributing area/downstream benefiting area. That share should be 50 percent. For the Implementation Plan /CIP: The Implementation Plan should identify what each city's cost share would be under the three funding options. The Implementation Plan should require that any upward departure from the city's share under the selected option requires consent of that city. r Watershed Capital Project Cost Allocation Alternatives in the Joint Powers Agreement 100 ad valorem tax Negotiated agreement 100% formula across watershed across cities in across all cities "subdistrict responsible for JPA provides that if an improvement" May be varied by 2/3 vote if agreement is not reached to one or more members receive use another method, this disproportionate benefit method would be used Proposed Cost Sharing Policy 25% Commission Contribution 75% City Contribution 25% -either ad valorem tax 25% direct 50% contributing/ across watershed or benefit area benefiting area assessment apportioned to all cities using formula lake upstream watershed shoreline downstream benefiting recognizes there is a stream reach watershed benefit to the entire other lateral watershed from-meeting benefit water quality goals CITY OF PLYMOUT4 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, _J� Ginny Black Plymouth City Council PLYMOUTH Adding Quality to Life 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 -1482 TELEPHONE (763) 509 -5000 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER www.b.PIymouth.mmus CITY OF PLYMOUTR 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 PRIMED CW RECYCLED PAPEP www.b .plymouth.mn.us City Council Agenda Item No. 9d OX City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20, 2005 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation At their meeting last evening, the Park and Recreation Commission, at the request of the City Council, reviewed the use of Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices Segways) on City owned trails and sidewalks. Resident Hugo Linder, of 5328 Penn Avenue N., attended the meeting to discuss the issue. Mr. Linder indicated he was considering purchasing a Segway, but wanted to know if he could legally use it in Brooklyn Center. After an introduction to Segways, how they work and their many uses, the Commission reviewed the current state statutes related to their use. The current statutes in Minnesota allow the "electric personal assistive mobility device" on public sidewalks, trails and residential streets, subject to certain restrictions. In addition, the statute prohibits local authority from imposing any stricter limitations on its use. Although there was some concern by Commissioners as to how such a permissive piece of legislation could have been passed, they acknowledged the legality of using the units on trails and sidewalks. As a result, Mr. Linder was informed that he may use a Segway on Brooklyn Center trails and sidewalks as long as the use conforms to the current state statute. After additional discussion, the Commission, by consensus, recommended that all city departments be made aware of the legality of Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices and their approved uses. As always, please let me know if you have any questions regarding this recommendation, or would like additional information. 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 Minnesota Statutes 2004, 169.212 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Legislature Home Links to the World I Help I Ac Office of the Revisor of Statutes House J Senate Joint departments and Commissions Bill Search and Status Statutes, Laws, and Rules Minnesota Statutes 2004, 169.212 Copyright 2004 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 169 169.212 Operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices. Subdivision 1. Rights and responsibilities of pedestrians. Except as otherwise provided by law, a person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device has the rights and responsibilities of a pedestrian. Subd. 2. Operation. (a) An electric personal assistive mobility device may be operated on a bicycle path. (b) No person may operate an electric personal assistive mobility device on a roadway, sidewalk, or bicycle path at a rate of speed that is not reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device on a roadway, sidewalk, or bicycle path is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the roadway or sidewalk and must use due care in operating the device. (c) An electric personal assistive mobility device may be operated on a roadway only: (1) while making a direct crossing of a roadway in a marked or unmarked crosswalk; (2) where no sidewalk is available; (3) where a sidewalk is so obstructed as to prevent safe use; (4) when so directed by a traffic control device or by a peace officer; or (5) temporarily in order to gain access to a motor vehicle. (d) An electric personal assistive mobility device may not be operated at any time on a roadway with a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour except to make a direct crossing of the roadway in a marked crosswalk. (e) An electric personal assistive mobility device may not be operated at any time while carrying more than one person. (f) A person operating an electric personal assistive http: /www.revisor.leg. state. mn .us /bin/getpub.php pubtype=STAT CHAP_SEC &year =c... 04/27/2005 i Minnesota Statutes 2004, 169.212 Page 2 of 2 mobility device on a sidewalk must yield the right -of -way to pedestrians at all times. A person operating an electric personal assistive mobility device on a bicycle path must yield the right -of -way to bicycles at all times. Subd. 3. Reflectors. An electric personal assistive mobility device may not be operated unless the device bears reflectorized material on the front, back, and wheels, visible at night from 600 feet when illuminated by the lower beams of headlamps of a motor vehicle. Subd. 4. Local regulation. A local road authority may not further regulate the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices, except that a local road authority may allow and regulate the operation of these devices on roadways within its jurisdiction that have a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour. HIST: 2002 c 285 s 4 Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General auestions or comments. http: /www. revisor. leg. state.mn.us/ bin getpub .php ?pubtype= STAT_CHAP_SEC &year =c... 04/27/2005 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- City Council Agenda Item No. 9e 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: May 4 2005 Y Re: Fire Administrative Technician The 2005 budget provides administrative support for the Fire Chief in his roles in fire and emergency management through part-time wages. The position has been funded at close to full -time hours. Over the past few years Chief Boman has requested that the position be made full time to reflect the increased work in Emergency Management and record keeping. Due to budget cuts and reductions in total full time employee overall, his request had not been recommended for inclusion in the budget. A few months ago, the long time administrative technician resigned to take a similar full time position with the City of Coon Rapids. We advertised and interviewed candidates to replace the administrative technician. We saw interviewees drop out when then learned that the position was almost full -time in hours, but provided no benefits. One candidate was hired, but did not prove satisfactory. A review of our process with this position and others indicates that we will not be able to fill this position at the required level of skill and time commitment as a part-time position. Human Resources surveyed other cities and found that many .other departments have a full time position in support. We have managed to get by in the past, but increasing emergency management and record keeping needs and the loss of a person who had previously been able and willing to work almost, full -time without benefits requires readjustment. Chief Boman has also pointed out that over the last 3 years, the Fire Department has been successful in competing for over $300,000 in grant monies. The overall Fire Department budget has been favorably impacted by these grants in reducing costs for equipment that otherwise would have been paid for from General Fund monies. The grants have also allowed us to do training and obtain important equipment that would not have been available. Chief Boman believes that he can absorb the additional partial year costs of fringe benefits in the 2005 budget through reductions in other spending. We will have to address the additional annual cost for fringe benefit costs in the 2006 budget. The proposed resolution authorizes an amendment to the 2005 budget to add a full time administrative technician position. While we have reduced overall employment in 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. cityof brooklyncenter. org response to the budget reductions, fire and emergency operations must have a sufficient staffing capability to meet the increasing requirements and challenges. Page 2 05/04 /2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Ron Boman, Fire Chief Q RE: Full -Time Fire Department Administrative Technician DATE: April 25, 2005 The Brooklyn Center Fire Department has a critical need for a full -time Fire Department Administrative Technician. This position will be responsible for support functions to the Fire Department and Emergency Management operations for the city. The administrative technician position is responsible for classifying and entering all fire department emergency responses into a record management system that feeds into the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). Other responsibilities include electronic and paper file maintenance on fire incidents, commercial properties, etc.; external and internal customer service activities; tracking and reconciling fire department payroll activities; and maintaining the emergency operations plan, fire department rules and regulations, bylaws and standard operating policy manuals. Monthly nd quarterly reports used for firefighter Y q Y P 9 attendance and discipline are generated b the administrative technician, This p g y t e tec c s position also performs research tasks and assimilates data for fire department and emergency management operations when applying for state and federal grants. The fire department has successfully obtained $313,380 in grants over the past three years. The position has been a part-time position in the past (approximately 30+ hours a week). Over the past four years, the need to make the part-time administrative technician position a full- time position has become more evident. It is important that fire department inspections and corresponding violations, firefighter training records, and equipment testing and certifications are properly tracked and documented. In the event of a serious injury or equipment failure, these records will be invaluable to assure that the. fire department has been meeting the standards set forth by OSHA and /or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). These reporting and record keeping requirements are exceeding the department's ability to keep u P 9 q 9 P tY P P This position will also play a role in the fire P revention/ ublic education activities the fire P department performs. The firefighter who currently performs these activities will soon retire and this position will assume the tasks of scheduling events and ordering supplies. In addition, there are increasing demands placed on the city regarding emergency management functions. This position will help in a support role to meet the requirements for updating the emergency plan, plan exercising /drill requirements and recordkeeping /documentation requirements. The fire department has historically operated in a very efficient, cost- effective manner while providing our citizens with many valuable services. A full -time fire department administrative technician position will not deviate from this standard but only enhance fire department services while helping to meeting the requirements of federal and state mandates for fire departments and emergency management functions. If I am allowed to immediately hire for this full -time position, I will be able to do so and stay within my 2005 budget. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING 2005 BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFFING IN FIRE DEPARTMENT/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WHEREAS, a review of administrative support for the Fire Department and Emergency Management activities has been conducted; and WHEREAS, that review indicates an increased workload and need to provide 40 hours of administrative technician support; and WHEREAS, reviewing staffing in other cities and the City of Brooklyn Center's recent efforts to recruit part-time employees indicate that filling 40 hours of Fire Department/Emergency Management administrative technician support is best accomplished through the hiring of a full -time regular employee; and WHEREAS, for purposes of the 2005 Budget, the Fire Chief has identified reductions in part-time wages and various supplies and other operating expenses that would offset the cost of providing fringe benefits for a partial year in 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Y Y tY Center that the 2005 Budget be and hereby is amended to provide for an additional full -time position in the Fire Department and Emergency Management Operations in the 2005 Budget and the City Manager is hereby authorized to approve the hiring of one additional full -time position in the General Fund. Mav 9.2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i City Council Agenda Item No. 9f OX City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members C y, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: May 5, 2005 Re: Transitional Plan for Dispatch One of the items identified in the materials presented to the City Council on November 8 th in connection with transitioning to Hennepin County Dispatch was the need to provide for compensation to retain dispatch personnel through the transition. As discussion with Hennepin County have progressed, it appears likely that opportunities will be presented in two forms for our current dispatchers. 3 positions would be available at Hennepin County that would be filled at the time of conversion in 2006, but the 3 positions would be determined in the next few months. The other opportunity will be to compete for 3 positions that would start in the next few months. The transitional plan recommended for City Council approval provides a severance package designed to provide monetary incentives for those current dispatchers who would remain working in Brooklyn Center until the point of conversion. Those people remaining until dispatch is terminated will not have a great deal of notice as to the date of termination. This will impact their ability to find replacement positions, especially in public safety, in a timely fashion. We also anticipate that we will lose several current dispatchers for those reasons. This will place an additional workload on remaining dispatchers in training and covering shifts. We will also need some flexibility in recruiting replacement workers in this environment of an unknown termination date and a temporary position. There will be uncertainty as to the actual conversion date because it will be coordinated with the conversion at Hennepin County to a new dispatching software package. Experience with conversions indicates that actual conversion dates are generally difficult to really predict, especially in an undertaking of this magnitude at Hennepin County. All of our data has to be converted to insure that the data bases are functional and correct at the time Hennepin County begins dispatching. I met with the dispatchers on April 26 and May 3` to review an initial draft and the proposed transitional plan being submitted for City Council action. The basic outline of the plan for those persons currently working for us and working at the time of termination of dispatch services would: For employees not hired by Hennepin County and not retained in another capacity by the City of Brooklyn Center: 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 1. Provide sick leave severance at the same rate that was provided in 2003 as part of the early retirement incentive package to reduce costs and numbers of employees in response to budget cuts. 2. A holiday pay bonus if the employee forgoes use of most of their otherwise available time off for any leave purpose. Those employees who did not use most of their available leave during this period would be reducing potential overtime and aiding in what will be a challenging period of scheduling. 3. Payment of 6 weeks severance and 3 months cafeteria contribution. For employees retained in a different capacity by Brooklyn Center: 1. Payment of the same holiday bonus (if earned) 2. Maintenance of their current rate of pay for 26 weeks in their new position if that position pays less than their current position. We will have some community station officer positions, but the rate of pay has not been determined. We are in the process of finalizing a job description that will then be sent to our consultant to determine its appropriate compensation under State of Minnesota Comparable Worth requirements. For employees who are hired by Hennepin County, but start at the point of termination of Brooklyn Center dispatching: 1. Payment of accrued sick leave at a 60% payout 2. Payment of the same holiday bonus (if earned) 3. Payment of up to 2 months cafeteria contribution to cover the gap between starting health insurance eligibility at Hennepin County and discontinuance of Brooklyn Center employment For employees hired after August 1, 2005 who are not retained by the City, a severance package would be negotiated to assist in recruitment up to 120 hours of regular compensation and I month's cafeteria contribution. Miscellaneous provisions include a carry over of leave above maximum accumulation amounts. This is generally allowed for persons finding it difficult to use leave because of City scheduling needs. Otherwise, we would have to allow use of the leave at times that might result in the payment of overtime to cover shifts or shift police personnel for coverage. A differential is also allowed if there is job sharing for transitioning that results in combined work above 80 hours in a two week period. Our expectation is that of the 7 currently eligible employees, 3 will start work for Hennepin County at the point of termination and that several will probably leave prior to termination. The anticipated cost of the incentives to keep or hire persons for dispatching in this transitional period will easily be absorbed in the overall cost savings in 2006 when we discontinue the service. Page 2 05/05/2005 I am enclosing for your reference the materials presented on November 8` and St. Louis Park's alternate proposal submitted that evening. Page 3 05/05/2005 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSITIONAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center will be converting Hennepin County dispatching for public safety in 2006; and WHEREAS, the City will be required to provide public safety dispatch services with its own employees and resources until conversion to Hennepin County dispatch in 2006; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to retain the current personnel providing dispatch services, as well as recruit dispatchers during the interim until conversion to Hennepin County dispatching; and WHEREAS, the exact date for conversion to Hennepin County dispatch services will be unknown for some time; and WHEREAS, the dedicated Brooklyn Center dispatch personnel will be displaced in this conversion and the City wishes to provide for a transitional plan that will equitably recognize the contribution made by dispatch personnel remaining with the City through conversion to Hennepin County dispatching services and to be able to retain sufficient personnel to provide dispatch services in this interim period; and WHEREAS, the transitional plan attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A" is a reasonable plan to provide for retention of personnel during the transition to Hennepin County dispatch. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the transitional plan set forth in Exhibit "A" be, and hereby is, approved and the City Manager is authorized and directed to implement such plan. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXHIBIT "A" DISPATCH TRANSITION PLAN 1. Dispatch personnel working in a full time position on or before Julyl, 2005 and working through the date Brooklyn Center terminates its provision of dispatch services who are not either: a. Retained as an employee of the City of Brooklyn Center after the time of transition to Hennepin County Dispatch and termination of Brooklyn Center dispatch services Or b. Hired by Hennepin County to work in Hennepin County's dispatching operations at the time of transition to Hennepin County Dispatch and termination of Brooklyn Center Dispatch Services Shall be eligible for the following severance benefits in recognition of working until termination of Brooklyn Center dispatching: 1. Payment in the amount of 60% of all accumulated sick leave. 2. Payment of a holiday pay bonus as calculated below: a. $1,800 if the total of all types of leave used in the period July 1, 2005 through the date of termination is between 0 and 5 days b. $900 if the total of all types of leave used in the period July 1, 2005 through the date of termination is between 6 and 9 days 3. Payment of severance a to assist in transitionin equal to 6 weeks of regular Y pay g q g pay 4. Payment of the City's full monthly contribution to the City's cafeteria plan for insurance and other benefits for a period of 3 months. Employees shall be responsible for any costs of insurance above the City's cafeteria plan contribution. 2. Dispatch personnel working in a full time capacity on or before Julyl, 2005 who are retained as employees of the City of Brooklyn Center after the time of transition to Hennepin County Dispatch and termination of Brooklyn Center dispatch services will be eligible for the following benefits in recognition of working until termination of Brooklyn Center dispatching: 1. Payment of a holiday pay bonus as calculated below: a. $1,800 if the total of all types of leave used in the period July 1, 2005 through the date of termination is between 0 and 5 days b. $900 if the total of all types of leave used in the period July 1, 2005 through the date of termination is between 6 and 9 days 2. Payment of salary at the rate of compensation at which the employee was being paid at the time of re- assignment for a period of 26 weeks or the rate of compensation of their new position with the City of Brooklyn Center, whichever is higher. 3. Dispatch personnel working in a full time capacity on or before July 1, 2005 working, or within 2 weeks of beginning work, for Hennepin County in Hennepin County's dispatching operations at the time of transition to Hennepin County Dispatch and termination of Brooklyn Center Dispatch Services will be eligible for the following severance benefits in recognition of working until termination of Brooklyn Center dispatching: 1. Payment of a holiday pay bonus as calculated below: a. $1,800 if the total of all types of leave used in the period July 1, 2005 through date of termination is between 0 and 5 days b. $900 if the total of all types of leave used in the period July 1, 2005 through the date of termination is between 6 and 9 days 2. Payment in the amount of 60% of all accumulated sick leave. 3. Payment of the City's full monthly contribution to the City's cafeteria plan for insurance and other benefits for a period of up to 2 months or until Hennepin County health insurance is available, whichever is less.. Employees shall be responsible for any costs of insurance above the City's cafeteria plan contribution. 4. Dispatch personnel hired on or after August 1, 2005 who are not either: a. Hired as a Community Station Officer at the time of transition to Hennepin County Dispatch and termination of Brooklyn Center dispatch services. Or b. Working for Hennepin County in Hennepin County's dispatching operations at the time of transition to Hennepin County Dispatch and termination of Brooklyn Center Dispatch Services Shall be eligible for severance benefits as may be negotiated by the City Manager in order to retain and /or recruit dispatch personnel up to an amount equal to not more than 120 hours of regular compensation and the payment of 1 month's cafeteria plan contribution. 5. The City Manager is authorized to allow dispatch personnel to carry over vacation and holiday pay from 2005 into 2006 above amounts otherwise allowed to be carried over into 2006 from 2005 due to the employee's not taking such leave in 2005 to reduce accumulations below the maximum accumulation limits. 6. If a dispatcher is job sharing between Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center, such employee will be eligible for a differential of 50% on hours worked for the City of Brooklyn Center that when combined with hours worked for Hennepin County in a 2 week pay period exceed 80 hours. A PRELIMANARY PSAP PROPOSAL City of St. Louis Park City of y Golden Valley City of Brooklyn Center October, 2004 I. Location of PSAP City of St. Louis Park Police Station 2. Approximate Operatine Cost Approximately $1,050,000 (2005 estimate) Assumes the addition of 4 dispatch positions (with one being a lead dispatcher) Assumes each city pays the County for CAD/RMS/Mobile fees 3. Proposed Ooeratine Cost Split (initial vear based on 2005 estimate) Brooklyn Center $375,678 Golden Valley $257,632 St. Louis Park $416,690 Formula for establishing the cost split is based simply on the number of 911 calls experienced for each community (used 2003 data from PSC; see below). It is proposed that the final split be based on a three year rolling 911 experience basis. SLP is open to further discussions regarding cost apportionment. COST SPLIT ANALYSIS Brooklyn Golden St. Louis Activity Center Valley Park Totals LOGIS CAD events (2003) 29,790 22,331 32,203 84,324 LOGIS Inquires (2003) 11,686 9,375 13,492 34,553 Total ICRs (2002) 30,315 20,546 33,800 84,661 Total 911 calls processed (2002) 20,405 11,875 21,110 53,390 Part I Part II Crime Reports (2002) 3,975 1,757 3,578 9,310 Total Fire/EMS runs (2002) 1,054 791 3,656 5,501 Totals of Activity Elements 97,225 66,675 107,839 271,739 Percentage of Total Activity Elements 35.78% 24.54% 39.68% 100.00% Allocation of 3 City Dispatch Services 375,678 257,632 416,690 1,050,000 Projected budget for 2005 639,855 284,275 505,377 1,429,507 Projected savings for 1 year 264,177 26,643 88,687 379,507 Projected savings for 5 years 1,320,887 133,213 443,435 1,897,535 4. Start Up Costs Estimated at this time to be approximately $1.5 Million These costs include the transition to 800 MHz, an additional work station, hardware and software, licensing, training etc. 5. Proposed Start Up Cost Split Brooklyn Center $536,700 Golden Valley -$368,100 St. Louis Park $595,200 Formula for establishing this cost split is the same as that used for Operating Costs. The actual dollar amount will vary depending on the actual costs. Any grant funding received will off set the total estimated start up costs and the share for each city will be adjusted proportionately. It is assumed each city will pay for upgrades for its mobile computers, radios and equipment. 6. Timina It is estimated it will take approximately 12 months to undertake the necessary transition to allow for PSAP operations to be fully in place in St. Louis Park. 7. Governance Approach Same as that currently used by Golden Valley and St. Louis Park 8. Other This offer is subject to approval by the city councils of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley and the negotiation of a contract between the three cities. adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING HENNEPIN COUNTY'S OFFER TO PROVIDE DISPATCH SERVICES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center on August 11, 2003, by Resolution No. 2000 -119, expressed interest in entering into discussions with the Hennepin County Board regarding Public Safety Dispatch Services; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board, by Hennepin County Resolution No. 04- 8-3 90, offered to provide dispatch services to the ten cities in Hennepin County not currently served by Hennepin County dispatch services; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 04 -8 -390 provides that cities must notify the Hennepin County Sheriff, in writing, by November 30, 2004, of their commitment to receive dispatch services through the Hennepin County Sheriffs Public Safety Answering Point with out cost; and WHEREAS, such written election to convert to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Public Safety Answering Point at no cost must be done by November 30, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to accept P Hennepin County's offer to convert Brooklyn Center's Public Safety Answering Point Services to the Hennepin County Sheriffs offer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be and hereby is authorized and directed to notify the Hennepin County Sheriff, in writing, by November 30, 2004, of the City of Brooklyn Center's commitment to convert to the Hennepin County Sheriffs Public Safety Answering Point at no cost to the City of Brooklyn Center. November 8. 2004 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLINING TO ACCEPT HENNEPIN COUNTY'S OFFER TO PROVIDE DISPATCH SERVICES TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center on August 11, 2003, by Resolution No. 2000 -119, expressed interest in entering into discussions with the Hennepin County Board regarding Public Safety Dispatch Services; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board by Hennepin County Resolution No. 04 -8- 390, offered to provide dispatch services to the ten cities in Hennepin County not currently served b P tY Y Y Hennepin County dispatch services; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 04 -8 -390 provides that cities must notify the Hennepin County Sheriff, in writing, by November 30, 2004, of their commitment to receive dispatch services through the Hennepin County Sheriffs Public Safety Answering Point with out cost; and WHEREAS, such written election to convert to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Public Safety Answering Point at no cost must be done by November 30, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has reviewed Hennepin County's offer, reviewed the results of a multi jurisdictional study in which the City of Brooklyn Center participated to review potential consolidated dispatch services, the City's current dispatch needs and operations, the potential for contracting with the cities of St. Louis Park or Minneapolis for dispatch services; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has determined that it does not wish to commit to converting the City of Brooklyn Center's Public Safety Answering Point service provision to the Hennepin County Sheriff's department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be and hereby is directed to convey, in writing, to the Hennepin County Board, the City Council's appreciation for the thorough review of the potential to provide public safety answering point services to those cities in Hennepin County not currently served by Hennepin County, and to further convey that the City of Brooklyn Center, while it appreciates the offer to provide services through the Sheriff's Public Safety Answering Point, declines at this time to accept that offer. November 8. 2004 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Memb s Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: November 4, 2004 Re: Dispatch Agenda Item for November 8th At Monday's City Council meeting there are 2 agenda items related to dispatch. The first item will be presentations by representatives of the cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park, with an opportunity for the City Council to ask questions of those representatives. The second agenda item will involve a presentation by Brooklyn Center staff reviewing and updating the materials presented at the October 13 City Council Work Session, a presentation by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, City Council questions, and a choice of two resolutions. One resolution accepts Hennepin County's offer to provide dispatch services through the Sheriff's Public Safety Answering Point and the offer resolution declines to accept the County's offer. The updated powerpoint presentation is attached to this memorandum. Also attached are copies of the letters to Minneapolis and St. Louis Park inviting them to attend the November 8 th City Council meeting. As outlined in the materials for the October 13 Work Session, the Hennepin County offer has a timeline of November 30 for a firm commitment of participation for any city wishing to switch to Hennepin County. The primary question for the November 8 th City Council meeting is whether or not the City of Brooklyn Center wants to accept the County's offer. The other options that would be further developed upon City Council direction, if the Council did not opt to accept Hennepin County's offer, would be: 1. Enhancement of current dispatch operation both in terms of staffing and equipment. 2. Negotiation with either or both St. Louis Park and the City of Minneapolis to develop a long term contract for purchasing services from one of those cities. 3. Negotiation with St. Louis Park and Golden Valley on whether a joint powers agreement could be structured for dispatch (Public Safety Point of Service Answering) services can be developed. 4. Maintenance of current dispatch staffing with upgraded equipment. As previously indicated in the materials for October 13 we need to chart a direction for the future of dispatch. City staff are working under uncertainty that needs to be resolved. 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 1 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org There are major capital expenditures that need to be made if we stay with our own dispatch, undertaken on a cooperative basis if we join a consortium, or avoided altogether if we received service from Minneapolis. Chief Bechthold's evaluation is that our current situation is not a viable long term answer. We have been able to operate through the work of dedicated employees who are covering more than may reasonably be expected as an ongoing situation. HISTORY Brooklyn Center elected not to use Hennepin County Dispatch in the early part of the 1990's when several surrounding communities opted to use Hennepin County dispatch services. Brooklyn Center has operated its own Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), dispatch, since the 1960's. In the summer of 2003, the City, through Resolution 2003- 119, authorized discussions with Hennepin County regarding public safety communications. One of the driving factors behind that resolution was the need to migrate our radio systems to 800 mhz. While we will use consolettes purchased with a grant, the estimated cost of a complete replacement of our dispatch and ancillary equipment to support dispatch (as opposed to the individual radios in squads and portables which will be replaced separately this year if the Council approves the transfer from the Technology Fund) would be around $700,000 Based on 2005 budget numbers, the cost for dispatch operations would be in the range of $545,000. Over the period 2002 —2005, the City has lost roughly $3.4 Million in HACA and Local Government Aid. These lost aids have been partially replaced with increased real estate taxes and a franchise fee. In the summer of 2003, the City participated in a 10 city effort coordinated by the City of St. Louis Park using PSC Alliance to review potential issues and costs associated with various consolidated dispatch concepts. Based on the report from Phase 1, which indicated the potential to reduce costs through consolidation, the cities of St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Richfield, and Brooklyn Center engaged PSC Alliance to conduct a Phase II study to provide a more detailed investigation of facilities and organization for a consolidated dispatch. OPTIONS Chief Bechthold and I have attended meetings with Hennepin County regarding dispatch. We also met with the City of Minneapolis and toured their dispatch center, as well as participated in the consolidation studies coordinated by the City of St. Louis Park. The basic options, as outlined previously are: 1. Status Quo 2. Enhanced Status Quo 3. Consolidated dispatch along the lines of the PSC Alliance Report 2 4. Purchase of dispatch services a. City of Minneapolis b. City of St. Louis Park 5. Hennepin County All of the options have advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantages of retaining our own dispatch relate to local control and the seamless integration of computer aided dispatch and our records management systems. The primary disadvantages of retaining our own dispatch relate to the small size of the operation. If the status quo is retained, we have minimal coverage, training issues related to finding adequate time for training personnel, and the need for a large capital expenditure. Moving to an enhanced status quo improves the staffing situation at an increased cost of operations in the magnitude of $170,000 per year and retains the major capital needs for upgrading. The primary advantages of a consolidated dispatch with St. Louis Park and Golden Valley relate to reductions in the total cost for capital equipment. Another advantage, relative to other outside dispatch scenarios, is the ability to have the full use of our present Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System through Logis. Disadvantages include increased operating costs under the Phase II report. St. Louis Park has indicated that it will be making a proposal to provide service to Brooklyn Center that may be based on a different cost structure than proposed in the Phase II report.) The operating cost increase results from the need to staff the police station with cso's who can maintain the non dispatch activities performed by dispatcher under the present situation. Those costs are estimated at $200,000. The format is similar to the operation of the Golden Valley police department which maintains a 24 hour building. This allows for detention of prisoners, walk -in service, and a support system for officers. Disadvantages include being part of a relatively small operation. Minneapolis has advantages in terms of the depth of their staff, including dedicated fire dispatch, better training due to a larger staff and facilities, and the avoidance of capital costs. Disadvantages include the loss of the integration of Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management Systems (assuming that Minneapolis does not select the same vendor used by Logis for its new system). With Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center would be a user, rather than an operator. Minneapolis appears to be receptive to meaningful participation by Brooklyn Center in the advisory process for dispatch operations. Minneapolis envisioned an 18 hour block with a dedicated Brooklyn Center dispatcher (backed up by the rest of the center). Brooklyn Center would also have its own channel. Issues of ability to protect against greater than inflationary cost increases would need to be addressed if this option were explored. Some concerns have been raised about 2 stage dispatch at Minneapolis where call taking and dispatching of a unit are done by two 3 separate people. Brooklyn Center uses 1 stage dispatch where the same person takes calls and dispatches. Hennepin County uses a modified 2 stage where the call taker dispatches a hot call (one that requires immediate dispatching of personnel) and then a monitor takes over the radio traffic of the already dispatched units. Hennepin County has advantages again in terms of the size of its operation and the elimination of operating and capital costs for dispatch. Chief Bechthold and Chief Boman have observed Hennepin County dispatch operations and found a decent structure and procedures. The governance structure raises issues in terms of responsiveness to the participating communities. Members are on advisory boards, but final decisions rest with the Sheriff. Another issue with Hennepin County is the need to interface their new Computer Aided Dispatch system with our record management. Hennepin County selected a new vendor that has indicated it will overcome this issue to make their system compatible with the Logis Records Management Systems. ISSUES AND QUESTIONS Several issues and questions have been raised by the City Council and employees over the course of the past presentations and discussions. The revised powerpoint presentation that Chief Bechthold will make addresses several of those questions and issues. The powerpoint presentation addresses the general deployment of personnel relative to population and police personnel being dispatched. One of the concerns raised was whether Hennepin County could charge for dispatch services in the future. The policy direction taken by the County Board is not to charge for these services. The Sheriff's personnel do not sense that there is any sentiment to consider charging. However, there is no guaranteed way to assure that Hennepin County will not charge in the future. There is similarly no guarantee if we contract with another City that, over time, the provider of such services would not attempt to increase their charges to Brooklyn Center at a rate in excess of inflation or other cost indices. There was a concern about dispatching fire personnel during the night to avoid paging out the entire department for a matter that can be handled by the duty crew. This concern appears to have been addressed by confirming the ability to summon only the duty crew by advising the County of the protocols to be followed. The manner of accomplishing this may require new or additional pagers or use of systems at the fire stations in different ways than currently is the practice. Another question related to response time. Chief Bechthold, in the presentation, will elaborate on the question. Basically, the time from call to dispatch is the same between the options. Response time generally relates to the time from dispatch to the actual arrival of the dispatched units. There was a question as to basis for capital costs if St. Louis Park sold services to Brooklyn Center. The Preliminary PSAP Proposal from St. Louis Park based its start up cost allocation to Brooklyn Center on a $1.5 Million estimated cost to build/equip an 800 4 Mhz dispatch center. One iteration of PSC Alliance charts for a 3 city operation used the figure of $807,400 for capital expenses predicated on using some existing equipment. This contrasts with PSC Alliance's general estimate of $1.5 Million for equipment and construction for a 4 city operation. The original power point presentation for October 13 used the PSC Alliance 3 city estimate and then proportionately split it 3 ways. The power point was amended for the actual presentation on October 13 to use the capital cost allocation proposed by St. Louis Park. This resulted in a higher capital cost allocation based on the actual Preliminary PSAP Proposal from St. Louis Park than the original powerpoint slide prepared before receiving St. Louis Park's preliminary proposal. The $807,400 figure was significantly lower than all of the previous estimates prepared by PSC Alliance and involved a less comprehensive long term approach to the physical plant providing dispatch services. SUMMARY Brooklyn Center needs to address how dispatch will be provided in the long term. This requires a decision among a number of alternatives, having different operational advantages and disadvantages, as well as very different cost implications. As indicated above, a decision on Hennepin County is required prior to November 30"'. This has been the prime focus of discussion since the consolidation study did not present a structure that would present a cost competitive alternative. Cost is not the only consideration. It must be part of the overall evaluation. The gathering of information has been done on a macro level to compare general ranges of cost. Costs of conversion are generally difficult to fully gauge as actual experience will generally result in some unanticipated equipment, software, or staffing implications. Should the final decision result in a discontinuance of our own dispatch services, we have a general format to operate on a 24 hour basis modeled on the steps taken by Golden Valley when they shifted to St. Louis Park for dispatch services. I would estimate that an additional $100,000 of any savings should be reserved in at least the short term (1 -2 years) to be able to respond to staffing, conversion of system, or capital needs such as a base station or radio upgrades in the field. Additionally, some method of providing monetary compensation for dispatch personnel in staying through a conversion to an outside provider should be part of any potential plan that results in discontinuing dispatch. It would be essential to maintain dispatch through such a conversion process and there should be recognition of the impact on dispatchers who would stay through such a process. 5 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community October 14, 2004 Mr. John Dejung, ENP Director Emergency Communications Department 350 South 5` Street Room B -911 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear Mr. Dejung: The City of Brooklyn Center is considering Hennepin County's offer to provide dispatch services. In connection with that review process, we have shared with the City Council the general outline of the concept that we discussed with Minneapolis. I am enclosing copies of the p g P memorandum presented to the City Council for its October 13`' meeting, the power point presentation comparing potential dispatch options for the City of Brooklyn Center, and a power point presentation made by the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office. At last night's meeting, it was suggested that Minneapolis and St. Louis Park be invited to provide additional information on the conceptual options they would offer regarding dispatch services. Accordingly, I would invite you to submit any additional information regarding the potential for the City of Minneapolis to provide dispatch services that the City Council might consider in its process of evaluating whether to accept Hennepin County's offer of dispatch services or to engage in an in -depth ery review of the other options for dispatch P p services. The City Council will be meeting on November 8 at 7:00 p.m. to review the options and accept or reject Hennepin County's offer. You, or a representative, would be most welcome to make a presentation at that meeting or answer questions regarding how Minneapolis operates dispatch services. Please let me know if you would like to submit any materials and/or participate in the November 8 City Council meeting. Since Michael J. M a ey City Manag Cc: Mayor City Council 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 October 14, 2004 Mr. Tom Harmening City Manager City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 -2290 Dear Mr. Harmening: I shared the materials that you. sent by e -mail yesterday with the City Council in connection with last night's City Council meeting. As you are aware, the City of Brooklyn Center is considering Hennepin County's offer to provide dispatch services. I am enclosing copies of the memorandum presented to the City Council for its October 13 meeting, the power point presentation comparing potential dispatch options for the City of Brooklyn Center, and a power point presentation made by the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office. At last night's meeting, it was suggested that Minneapolis and St. Louis Park be invited to provide additional information on the conceptual options they would offer regarding dispatch services. Accordingly, I would invite you to submit any additional information regarding the potential for the City of St. Louis Park to provide dispatch services that the City Council might consider in its process of evaluating whether to accept Hennepin County's offer of dispatch services or to engage in an in -depth review of the other options for dispatch services. The City Council will be meeting on November 8` at 7:00 p.m. to review the options and accept or reject Hennepin County's offer. You, or a representative, would be most welcome to make a presentation at that meeting or answer questions regarding how St. Louis Park would propose to provide dispatch services. Please let me know if you would like to submit any materials and/or participate in the November 81h City Council meeting. Sincerel Michael J. McC e City Manager Cc: Mayor City Council 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 Public Safety Dispatching Cons'derat'ons and Options Background: August 2003: Phase I Consolidated Dispatch Study April 2004: Phase II Consolidated Dispatch Study June 2004: Received proposal from Mpls Emergency Communications Department July 2004: Received proposal from Hennepin County September 2004: Phase 11 Study completed T'me- Mid- September: Letter to employees updating them on the status of the process. September 20th: Met with fire department officers. September 22nd Met with police department officers. Week of October 4th: Scheduled meetings with all police, fire, and city personnel. October 13th City council work session to review results of Phase II study, and fiscal and operational analysis of all options. November 8th: City council meeting to vote on accepting or rejecting Hennepin County's offer to provide dispatch services. November 30th Hennepin County's deadline for commitment from communities to join sheriff's dispatch. Cirrent D sac h Scenar'o: Single -stage dispatch operation Staffing: 1 dispatch supervisor 6 dispatchers Minimums: 1 Tasks Dispatch After -hours lobby walk -ins Confirm hot files, perform CJIS entries, and run criminal histories Book and maintain surveillance of detainees in the detention facility Process and enter booking and arrest data Station security Transcribe in-custody rrest reports Y p Be available to look for booking photos, research prior histories, and capture information from previous reports Current D'spatch Cha Attract, deve op, and retain a qua ity work force 'I ■Staffing eve s are not proportionate to: ➢Increased volume of public inquiries ➢Job tasks Depth and flexibility for peak periods Rate of change in pub ic safety technoogy Standards and training Costs Myths and Truths (PSC Alliance) Autonomous local PSAPs Not true. Local PSAPs do not cause faster cause faster fire and police responses. In fact, local PSAPs are often responses. too small to manage multiple events quickly causing delays in dispatch. Calls must be dispatched Not true. The PSAP can be located locally. anywhere as long as it .is properly equipped, connected, and managed. Consolidated dispatch Not true. Properly managed consolidated cant meet local needs and dispatch will work with users to establish and protocols. follow "best practices Citizens demand local Not true. Citizens demand quality dispatch dispatch. and field response. Local fire dispatch is Not true. Properly managed consolidated always preferred by fire dispatch is often preferred by fire officials as a better performing option because it officials. handles more fire activity, allowing for more consistency, focus, and practice. Comparing A ternatives Decision Status Quo Enhanced St Louis Park' Minneapolis Iennepiri Parameters Dispatch Dispatch Dispatch Dispatch' x A`County Governance local police local police vmt owelr tvendar /client sheriff functivri, 1 P function function =4 or a' chiefs sit on ffl UAB /SOP adviso board committee chentivendor rY Staffing single -stage single -stage single stage ors two sta e �s j 9 s modified multi -task' multi -task modifiedfi ,24/7 stafiorl� two stage, minimums: 1 minimums: 2 two a stage f f �CSO 24%7 sttion C �e S ?tikf •y" f Procedures local with local with 'hunfforr with local uniform with "16661 uniform with local exceptions'� `�t O ad h k p a exceptions Process ad hoc review oc review exceptions' 50 CAD &RMS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS proprietary CAD gip Coin proprietary CAD Compatibility �Y=k� p f W r a P Y Pnntrak Pnntrak nntrak ith dat dump with future CAD /RMS CAD /RMS CAD /RMS toLOG15 RMS interfece to LOUIS M uhii Capital costs 703,300 $703,30( $5 700 O EM p �r Annual $543,378 $716,878 *$590,000x *$ZO .,000 Operating Costs *Additional $200,000 added for 24/7 station community service officer. Emergency Dispatch Protocol AM �roAIynTcenv Fire MW �ennep�n d nty fc her�� VAN �6y Fire, The person taking the call, dispatches the call. Non- Emergency Dispatch Protocol NOON- `J1` =1 Calx� grookyn Cen er tx Dis�atchet` a,� x F g O ft- A r h. 4 x. 3.'t �'t/'�p� r �"Hen�ep4Xn b Dispatchers Police Units Populations (peak periods) Brooklyn Center Hennepin County East .Police Department p Crystal /Robbinsdale /St. Anthony /New Hope Minimum Police Staff Units Population Staff t' 8 TV 1 1 o aS9�72_.s Call Radio g Taker Monitor l Dispatcher Tasks: Police Combined ➢Dispatch y Units Population Not g x ➢After -hours lobby walk -ins R7 6 -t0 "Z0§ 6732�� ➢Confirm hot files, perform CJIS entries, and run Clerk «Y criminal histories ➢Book and maintain surveillance of detainees in the detention facility ➢Process and enter booking and arrest data Clerk Tasks: ➢Station security ➢DL and MV checks ➢Transcribe in- custody arrest reports ➢Criminal histories ➢Be available to look for booking photos, research prior ➢Warrant checks histories, and capture information from previous reports ➢Limited Hot File CAD RMS Descriptions Computer -Aided Dispatch Records Management System Allows dispatchers to quickly Manages the recording, indexing, g and efficiently handle incident and tracking of detailed record information entering a call and information related to specific routing or dispatching to an events. officer. Records can be retrieved and Can do queries to state DMV modified to reflect current files and NCIC files from CAD. information. Allows for messaging between Many record types can be dispatchers and MCD users. associated with records of the Incident Mapping. same type as well as with records Status Monitors. of different types. Can produce some canned reports. I nterface CAD RMS Brooklyn Center Hennepin County Dispatch Dispatch �Pr,intrak Printrak,_. Hennepin pb n Pr�ntrak t RMS County r�r h 6 f��u a ,eii �:t 1�e�ru Ta it4 f i sf CAD ss.: I S Yk y f p` t x r: Ala S«r *s x1. ,ie.!g�s, ��,z 1¢k'$ ��,A x +r 2k Y.` 3'�5;' a q 's A i t ,s- 7 �r r, rintrak t P Cl n t Cak. T .f .i,..t X "n ci s 9 .4 7 Re o t WritIn System rr Repot Wrrt�n S s em M'.:. .4 Hennepin County Dispatch Cities Police Departments: Fire Departments: Crystal Robbinsdale Robbinsdale West Metro (Crystal /New Hope) New Hope Brooklyn Park Brooklyn Park Excelsior Champlin Maple Plain Corcoran 0 Maple Grove Deephaven Medicine Lake South Lake Minnetonka 0 Mound West Hennepin 0 Osseo Maple Grove Plymouth Medina 0 Rogers Mound 0 St. Anthony Orono a Wayzata Osseo 0 Hamel Plymouth Long Lake Rogers Dayton St. Anthony Loretto Wayzata St. Bonifacius Three Rivers Park Dist Dayton Minnetrista BROOKLYN CENTER DISPATCH FIRE Emergency call entered into CAD Call toned out on fire pager Duty crew calls received by duty crew through ring down phone at the station. I Dispatch monitors units in service and on scene Dispatch monitors fireground operations Makes calls at request of incident commander (i.e. Centerpoint, Excel, etc.) Ability to configure PAR personnel accountability report checks and ability to load alert files HENNEPIN COUNTY DISPATCH FIRE Emergency call entered into CAD i Call is automatically transmitted to alpha pager call is then toned over fire channel Duty calls for duty crew only toned out on duty crew pagers f i Dispatch monitors to check units in service. Fire uses their own private talk group (truck to truck communication/fireground). Dispatch does not monitor fireground operations. At a major incident a tact channel is assigned that is monitored by dispatch. Incident commander communicates with dispatch on fire main channel, Incident commander uses two radios: one for truck to truck (fireground) and one for incident command to dispatch Makes calls at the request of the incident commander (Excel, Centerpoint, etc.) PAR personnel accountability report checks performed automatically and ability to load alert files Response to Council Questions AGENDA CITY COUNCIL \ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORKSESSION MAY 9 Immediately Following Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Council Member Lasman: Discussion of referendum on baseball stadium sales tax 2. Brooklyn Center Business Association: Discussion of recent membership inquiries 3. Miscellaneous 4. Adjourn Page I of I Maria Rosenbaum From: Kay Lasman Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:56 PM To: Michael McCauley Subject: FW: Referendum for Stadium Tax Please place on the work session agenda for discussion. From: john knight [mailto:jtknight20@hotmail.com] Sent: Sun 5/1/2005 1:01 PlYl To: jtknight20@hotmail.com Subject: Referendum for Stadium Tax Hello, The city of Plymouth recently passed a resolution asking county commissioners and legislators to require a referendum on the $353 million stadium sales tax. Will you consider submitting a resolution at your next council meeting? It is clear there is overwhelming voter support in Hennepin County for such a resolution requesting a referendum. Over 70% public support to be exact (see opinion poll). Attached are two Star Tribune articles recent public polling regarding a referendum and my commentary on the stadium tax. I believe the public should have a voice on this issue. Please also consider letters to the editor and contacting legislators. Thanks so much for your thoughts and deliberation on this important matter!! John Knight 5/4/2005 Printer version: Few want to pay for ballpark Pagel of 3 startribu_nec Close window Last update: t,,1ay 1, 2005 at 8:14 AM Few want to pay for ballpark Rochelle Olson Star Tribune Published May 1, 2005 Most Minnesotans still oppose the use of public money for a new Minnesota Twins stadium, even though support is somewhat stronger for a new plan offered last week by Hennepin County and the team, a new Minnesota Poll has found. The poll also found that more than seven in 10 adults, statewide and in Hennepin County, believe county voters should be allowed to vote on a proposed sales tax increase for a ballpark. Overall, less than a third of respondents statewide, 29 percent, support using public money for a ballpark while 67 percent oppose it. Support perks up a bit, however, for the latest plan, under which a 0.15 percentage point increase in the sales tax in Hennepin County would fund a downtown Minneapolis stadium, along with $125 million from the Twins. Statewide, 42 percent approve, while 54 percent of adults oppose the plan, with 45 percent opposing it strongly. In Hennepin County, 58 percent oppose the plan and 36 percent support it. The poll, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, interviewed a representative sample of 825 Minnesota adults and also interviewed 407 Hennepin County residents. A majority of every demographic, geographic, partisan and ideological group opposed using public money. Despite the broad and deep opposition, team and county officials found reason for optimism. "We would expect those numbers [in support] would continue to build" as the team tries to educate the public about the plan, Twins President Dave St. Peter said. "The next 25 days are arguably the most important 25 days in the history of the franchise, so rest assured no stone will be unturned." Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat, who negotiated for the county, said he also expects support to increase as people learn about the plan. The county is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to go to the Legislature for authority to increase the tax to collect $28 million annually to pay for stadium bonds. "I think the reaction to our plan is quite good at this stage," Opat said. Those polled feel strongly about having a referendum. Statewide, 77 percent of the respondents said county voters should have a say in whether the tax is imposed. In the county, 71 percent favor a referendum. The referendum issue is significant because both the Twins and Hennepin County say that a referendum is a deal breaker because it would delay the project and increase the cost. Again, neither Opat nor St. Peter was troubled. http: /www.startribune.com/ dynamic /story.php ?template= print_a &story 5378650 5/4/2005 Printer version: Few want to pay for ballpark Page 2 of 3 Opat called support for a referendum "understandable." "People get called in the middle of dinner, and they're asked about a referendum. 'Sure,' they say," Opat said. But he said referendums are complicated and expensive. "For instance, if the question was: Should the county spend $500 million on social services in 2005? I doubt that would pass, but that's what we spent," he said. St. Peter questioned whether light -rail transit or the Mall of America would have survived referendums. "Those didn't have a referendum. Which one of those projects do you think the state of Minnesota would like to do without now St. Peter said. He also challenged the poll's questions, suggesting that the results to the question, 'Do you want to build a ballpark with no state money?' might have found more support for the new plan, which does not use state money. "We're not discouraged by this, we're also not surprised," St. Peter said. But state House Taxes Committee Chairman Phil Krinkie, R- Shoreview, said the poll results are consistent with public sentiment over the past few years. He said he supports a referendum for any stadium plan. "No matter what the jurisdiction, voters should be able to have a say on such an investment," he said. How about a roof? The poll also asked Minnesotans two questions about a roof for the ballpark. The Twins say they can survive in a new ballpark without a retractable roof, although they would prefer one. Team officials say they will ask the state to pay the bill, projected to be at least $100 million. The majority of Minnesotans, 53 percent, say the Twins should have a roof that opens or closes depending on the weather. Support for the roof drops sharply if state money is involved. Some 75 percent oppose using public money for a roof and 65 percent oppose it strongly. Krinkie, whose committee might be required to hear any proposal to use state money to install a roof, said there was little information being provided about how much money the Twins would contribute and what form it might come in. "We need to know who is going to pay for what, whether it's $10 million a year or an upfront payment," he said. "This is not one of those times when you can just say there will be a player to be named later." The poll results track with previous Minnesota polls. In 1997, 20 percent of respondents supported a publicly funded ballpark while 74 percent opposed it. In July 1999, 18 percent supported while 80 percent opposed. How they see it In the latest poll, women disapprove of the stadium plan more than men do. Of those polled, 64 percent of the women disapproved and 31 percent approved. Of the men, 42 percent disapproved and 54 percent http: /www.startribune .com/dynamic /story.php ?template= print_a &story 5378650 5/4/2005 Printer version: Few want to pay for ballpark Page 3 of 3 approved. Given a choice between a new stadium for the Twins Vikings or Gophers football team 25 percent sa g P p Y the Twins need the stadium more than the others. But the same percentage say that none of them needs a stadium. II I Ted Herzog, a 37-year-old from Minneapolis, is a real fan. He dons a Helga wig for Vikings games and Y p g g g g said he's been a big Twins fan since he was a kid, but he doesn't want the public to help pay for a stadium for either team. "Public funds should be used to pay for things markets won't supply, such as arts programs, public health and safety, childhood immunizations, parks, all kinds of public goods, he said. State aid for a stadium would only serve to enrich Twins owner Carl Pohlad or Vikings owner Red McCombs, he said. "By the way, they have enough money." When the city is laying off teachers and cutting police, using public tax money for a stadium is "the wrong se of the funds. The opportunity cost of that money is very high, especially at a time of a g pp Y Y rY g� P Y budgetary crunch," he said. II Erik Foote, 0o e, a 34- year -old graphic designer who lives in St. Louis Park, said he generally isn't in favor of taxpayer money for pro sports stadiums, but he can live with the new plan. "I'm not dying to spend money on it, but I think the Twins need something. I don't know what the best situation would be, but this isn't the worst," Foote said, adding that he works downtown and would be more likely to attend games outdoors than at the Metrodome. Ginger Stickney, a part-time caretaker in Minneapolis, said she's a moderate Twins fan who watches them once in a while. "I like the Vikings much better, and I still don't think they need a new stadium either," Stickney said. "I think the other one is just fine the way it is. I don't see any reason for a new one." Both Stickney and Herzog say if a new tax is imposed, voters should have a say in a referendum. Staff writer Mark Brunswick contributed to this report. Rochelle Olson is at raolsonnastartribune.conz Coovrieht 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. IC I i http: /www.startribune.com/ dynamic /story.php ?template= print_a &story 5378650 5/4/2005 Printer version: John Knight: Let county voters decide on Twins stadium tax Page 1 of 2 startribune. Close window Last tapdate: April 29, 2005 at 8:00 AM John Knight: Let county voters decide on Twins stadium tax John Knight Published April 29, 2005 I'd prefer not to rain on the parade of the Star Tribune and others promoting a new taxpayer- funded Twins stadium but can we pause for a reality check? There is lots of talk of how small the Twins stadium tax will be. Proponents say it will only cost you a few extra cents for this, a few extra bucks for that. Call it the "invisible tax." The fact is this proposed tax increase amounts to $353 million in new taxes, which is real money our money. As a taxpayer and voter, I am insulted to hear that a referendum "would kill the deal." Hello? Am I missing something here? If the Twins stadium tax cannot pass on its merits with the voters, then it should certainly not be approved by those who are elected to represent our views. Put simply they know it may not pass, so forget what we think. Despite all the glowing newspaper coverage, the bottom line is still the same the public does not want its hard earned tax dollars used to foot the bills of the super- wealthy. Voters are not busy calling their elected officials, begging for a new stadium. The stadium is being forced by a small group of vocal proponents with a vested financial interest including billionaire owner Carl Pohlad, developers with friends in the right places, and the Star Tribune, which has newspapers to sell and downtown land. Add in a few misguided politicians who are hypnotized by the idea of a photo op at a new stadium. The problems with the stadium tax proposal are plenty, but consider this: It provides little protection for taxpayers for cost overruns; taxpayers will likely receive no money if the team increases in value, and the plan calls for no roof at this time. As a Minnesotan, I think it is nice to have a roof in November. This no -roof plan is a sneaky ploy for gaining legislative approval. Just as it is guaranteed that snow will fall in Minnesota, state taxpayers will in time be forced to foot at least $100 million for a stadium roof. Pohlad himself implied this in his public comments. Looking at the numbers honestly, borrowing costs mean Pohlad's contribution is actually lower about 25 percent, not 33 percent. Add in a stadium roof and the public share rises to nearly half a billion dollars 80 percent of the total cost. This is a question of priorities; $353 million could be used for transportation and school funding. Former Gov. Jesse Ventura had something right if you don't tear down perfectly good school buildings after 20 years, why should we abandon our current stadium? Just: to get a few more bucks for team owners via new stadium luxury box seats? This is government waste at is worst. Compare the economics of this proposal to taxpayer funds used to keep Medtronic in town. The Medtronic incentives were several million dollars to continue providing thousands of high -wage jobs in Minnesota. The Twins stadium tax subsidy will be nearly 18 times more money and yet provide only a handful of high -wage jobs, while draining hundreds of millions of dollars out of our economy. This is a bad deal for taxpayers. The economics of major league baseball do need to change. Right now, millionaire players and billionaire owners have it both ways justifying their high incomes while forcing taxpayers to pay for http: /www.startribune.com/ dynamic /story.php ?template= print_a &story 5375334 5/4/2005 Printer version: John Knight: Let county voters decide on Twins stadium tax Page 2 of 2 their facilities. Pohlad says his one -third portion is a "fair -share percentage to pay." That sounds odd to me I would never expect taxpayers to underwrite 66 percent of my company's facilities. Where are the "free- market" Republicans when you need them? Other stadiums have been built with as little as zero public dollars zero. It can be done. We deserve better. I will be contacting my legislators and letting them know that if they approve this without requiring a voter referendum, I will consider them as having individually approved this tax increase. My request is simple: Let the people decide this one. John Knight, Minnetonka, is an employee benefits attorney. Oc Convriaht 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. http: /www.startribune .com/dynamic /story.php ?template= print_a &story 5375334 5/4/2005 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and C uncil Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCaule City Manager Date: May 5, 2005 Re: Brooklyn Center Business Association In October of last year staff received materials soliciting City membership in the Brooklyn Center Business Association. Those materials were included with the October 8, 2004 City Council Update, along with the following: Enclosed are materials that were received regarding a Brooklyn Center Business Association Kick Off Meeting on Tuesday, October 19. At this time, I do not plan to send a staff person to this meeting. In reviewing the materials, it appears that the question is whether or not the business community feels the need to establish an association. As with other community organizations and groups, City staff stands prepared to cooperate with local organizations seeking to do community advancement. With respect to actual membership or formal participation, such matters would be policy determinations for the City Council, such as the City Council's decision to join the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce. Staff have recently been approached again about membership and advertising in the `BC Buzz I have placed this item on the Work Session Agenda for City Council discussion since membership in this type of organization is a City Council policy issue. I think it would be beneficial for the City Council to provide direction as to whether the Council wishes to treat this organization as it does the Twin West Chamber (of which the City is not a member, but makes staff available for updates etc. on request) or be a member as it does with North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce. To this point, staff has acted consistent with the position set forth in the City Council update of October 8` Mr. Hoffman has provided a development update to a meeting of the Brooklyn Center Business Association, but we have not otherwise participated or acceded to the requests for membership and advertising placement. The advertising solicitation made of CARS was for a 2 page ad at a cost of $900 per issue or $1,800 per year for 1 years' advertising in their quarterly publication. There is an additional discount for pre payment of 10 The Membership is $50.00 per year. As we prepare for 2006, the financial situation is not improving at the legislature. The Brooklyn Center Business Association publication is inserted in the Sun Post. We currently mail 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 our recreation brochure to all residents with the City Watch, a greater penetration than the Sun Post. Page 2 05/05/2005 i Join f the Brooklyn Center r Business t Association i The Brooklyn Center Business Association (BCBA) is a newly formed organization promoting area commercial and industrial activities while highlighting the great advantages to being part of Brooklyn Center. BCBA brings together businesses with government units, civic organizations and interested citizens to build a better Brooklyn Center. Any questions, please call 763/549 -8952 or email kvounebemg2aawest.net Fax: 763 -560 -1014 Yearly Investment Schedule Membership Application Sponsoring business $500 Company Business membership $250 Contact name Individual membership $100 Position Non -profit organizations $50 Address City /Zip Don't miss out! Office phone Join BCBA TODAY Direct line Fax Email Membership Advantages Website Regular monthly membership meetings. I am interested in helping the BCBA. Partnerships with other community Annual organizations. Investment Sponsoring business $500 Opportunities to build your business or Business membership $250 advertise in the "BC Buzz" publication. Individual membership $100 Promotion of community events, El Non -profit organizations $50 Helping make Brooklyn Center a better Please make checks payable to: place to work, live and play! .Brooklyn Center Business Association 6066 Shingle Creek Parkway, Box 196 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Page 1 of 1 Jim Glasoe From: Sue LaCrosse Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:31 PM To: Jim Glasoe Subject: BC Buzz FYI, BC Buzz is an insert that goes in the Sun Post 4 times a year. The purpose is to promote commerce community. They have an ad deal basically it works like this. A 1/2 page ad costs $900 per issue. If you commit to one year, you get 50% off. If you commit to one year and pre pay, you get 60% off. It goes in as an insert in the sun post so it is probably a better bargain than the post. You do have to have a membership, which I think Lauri Winters is going to talk to the city manager about the city joining. I put one in you in -box to review. 4/25/2005