Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 06-27 CCP Regular Session Public Copy AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 27, 2005 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 3. Miscellaneous 4. Adjourn I CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center June 27, 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. June 13, 2005 Study Session 2. June 13, 2005 Regular Session 3. June 13, 2005 Work Session b. Licenses C. Resolution Approving Final Plat, CVS PHARMACY BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ADDITION d. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment for Improvement Project No. 2004 -16, Contract 2004 -J, Grandview Park Tennis Court Improvements r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 27, 2005 e. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment to Valley Rich Company, Inc. for Storm Sewer Repairs Along Northway Drive and Lyndale Avenue f. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -01, 02 and 03, Contract 2000 -13, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements g. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees 8. Presentations a. HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD 1. Resolution Accepting Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2004 .Requested Council Action: Motion to approve resolution. b. Jerry Pedlar O 1. Resolution Supporting North Memorial Health Care's Proposed New Health Care Campus and Hospital in Maple Grove Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. C. Opportunity Site Presentation of Task Force Work to Date Requested Council Action: Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) direction. 9. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 Submitted by LHB Architects. Request for Rezoning from C 1 A to PUD /C 1 A and Development Plan Approval Through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process for a 250 Room Hotel and Water Park on a 6.2 acre site to be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its June 16, 2005, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 Submitted by LHB Architects 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (to be addressed 6300 Earle Brown Drive) Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and public hearing on July 25, 2005. e CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 27, 2005 10. Council Consideration Items a. Mayor's Proclamation Recognizing Eagle Scout Troop Member Adam Hockert Requested Council Action: -None. b. Mayoral Appointments to Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission Requested Council Action: Motion to ratify Mayoral nominations. C. Resolution Authorizing Amendment to Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement Establishing the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission to Plan, Control, and Provide for the Development of the West Mississippi Watershed Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. d. Shingle Creek Watershed Proposed Ad Valorem Tax for Bank Stabilization Project in Brooklyn Park Requested Council Action: Council direction. e. Resolution Authorizing Lease Between City of Brooklyn Center and LOGIS for Police Building Space Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. f. Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2005- 12, City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network and Authorizing Expenditures for Related Equipment Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. g. First Reading of an Ordinance for Disposition of Property at Willow Lane Park Requested Council Action: Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and public hearing on July 25, 2005. h. Report on Pollution Reduction Survey of Employees Requested Council Action: -None, report only. e CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4- June 27, 2005 i. Resolution Authorizing Persona/Professional Service Agreement Between the County of Hennepin and the City of Brooklyn Center -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 11. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 7a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, and Councilmembers Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor DATE: June 27, 2005 SUBJECT: June 13, 2005, Regular Session Minutes Councilmember Carmody requested the following amendments to the June 13, 2005, Regular Session minutes: 2. INVOCATION Rev. Jin S. Kim, Church of All Nations, was to offer the Invocation however- a memei4 of silence vffis offered-. In his absence a moment of silence was offered. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Kfagness Pro Tern Kathleen Carmody at 7:01 p.m. 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 JUNE 13, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Pro Tern Kathleen Carmody at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tern Kathleen Carmody and Councilmembers Kay Lasman and Diane Niesen. Mayor Myrna Kragness was absent and excused. Councilmember Mary O'Connor was absent and unexcused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Councilmember Mary O'Connor arrived at 6:07 p.m. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Lasman noted there was a typographical error with the word wave in the Engineer's Feasibility Report on page four with regards to Consideration Item 9a, Resolution Accepting Engineer's Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Improvement Project No. 2005 -05, Contract 2005 -G, Twin Lake Avenue Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements. Councilmember Niesen inquired where the funds come from with regards to Consent Item 7c, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 2005 -11, Freeway Boulevard Bridge Deck Rehabilitation, Bridge No. 27581. City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that the monies would be coming from a separate fund that is covered by an allotment received each year for Municipal State Aid. She inquired what amount of money the City receives each year. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom informed that the City receives approximately $690,000 a year. Councilmember O'Connor arrived at 6:07 p.m. 06/13/05 -1- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen questioned if the accounting for Municipal State Aid was located in the budget. Mr. McCauley discussed that most of the Municipal State Aid Funding is found in the City's Annual Financial Report; however, there is a funding source shown in the budget for the Capital Improvement Plan. Councilmember Niesen questioned who will pay for the vacating ofpublic right -of -way with regards to Consideration Item 9a, Resolution Accepting Engineer's Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Improvement Project No. 2005 -05, Contract 2005 -G, Twin Lake Avenue Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements. Mr. McCauley discussed that the property owners who had petitioned the work to be done would pay and that there would be no formal action taken with regards to the petition at this time for legal issues to be reviewed. Councilmember Niesen questioned how the assessments were calculated with regards to Consideration Item 9b, Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2005 -05, Contract 2005 -G, Twin Lake Avenue Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the assessments are calculated on the total front footage of a property. Councilmember O'Connor questioned why there are some properties that would not pay an assessment with the project. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the curb and gutter are not being replaced north of Lakebreeze Avenue. Mayor Pro Tern Carmody informed that she would like to have Consent Item 7c, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 2005 -11, Freeway Boulevard Bridge Deck Rehabilitation, Bridge No. 27581, removed and e placed as Consideration Item 9g for clarification to the public. Mayor Pro Tern Carmody noted a typographical error in the memo on page one with regards to Economic Development Authority (EDA) Consideration Item 5a, Resolution Transferring $67,000 into the Earle Brown Heritage Center Capital Fund. Councilmember Niesen questioned if materials had been prepared for EDA Public Hearing Item 4a, Purchase and Development Agreement with Volunteers of America for the Sale and Development of Land. Mr. McCauley discussed that complete materials were not available and that the item will remain on the agenda and be continued to June 27, 2005. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Lasman inquired if an event at Lions Park would be possible in September. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it is anticipated to have the pavement done in September and that the southern baseball field would be disrupted during the project.. 06/13/05 -2- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor informed that she had received a complaint regarding dead sod and questioned if the problems with sod dying could be related to the road salt. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that he believes the problem is with the sod quality and not the standard road salt used throughout the State. Mr. Blomstrom noted that this past winter thaw and freeze cycles were very hard on sod. She questioned a pink colored tint to the salt used last winter. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the standard road salt usually has a blue tint and that he would have to ask what the pink tint could have been. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she has a concern with h traffic c the c exiting Highway 100 at France Avenue and questioned if painting would help with the turn. Mr. Blomstrom said that he could check with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS DISCUSSION OF SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED'S PROPOSED AD VALOREM TAX FOR BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT IN BROOKLYN PARK Council discussed a letter that had been received from the watershed with regards to a proposed ad g P P valorem tax for a bank stabilization project in Brooklyn Park since the City is being asked for input. It was the consensus of the Council to place this item on the Regular City Council Agenda for June 27, 2005. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to adjourn the Study Session at 6:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 06/13/05 -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 JUNE 13, 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 6:48 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Carmody and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Mayor Myrna Kragness was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director ofPublic Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, 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 O'Connor to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Rev. Jin S. Kim, Church of All Nations, was to offer the Invocation; however, a moment of silence was offered. 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 Pro Tern Kathleen Carmody and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Mayor Myrna Kragness 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, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 06/13/05 -1- DRAFT 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Lasman reported that the Council had a joint Work Session with Commission Chairs on May 25, 2005. Councilmember O'Connor reported that she attended the Special Housing Commission meeting on June 6, 2005. Mayor Pro Tem Carmody reported that she attended the Housing Commission meeting; a seminar on land use issues; and a watershed meeting. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro Tern Carmody informed that there had been a request to have Consent Items 7c, Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 2005 -11, Freeway Boulevard Bridge Deck Rehabilitation, Bridge No. 27581, and 7d, Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees, removed and placed as Consideration Items 9g and 9h. There was a motion b Councilmember Lasman seconded b Councilmember Niesen to approve the Y Y Pp agenda and consent agenda with those amendments. Motion passed unanimously. 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the May 23, 2005, Study, Executive, Regular, and Work Session minutes and the May 25, 2005, Joint Work Session with Commission Chairs meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICES Ref's Sports Bar and Grill 2545 County Road 10 GARBAGE HAULER Ace Solid Waste, Inc. 6601 McKinley Street, Ramsey Walz Brothers Sanitation P.O. Box 627, Maple Grove 06/13/05 -2- DRAFT MECHANICAL General Sheet Metal Company 2330 Louisiana Avenue N, Minneapolis McQuillan Brothers 688 Hague Avenue, St. Paul Pfiffner Heating Air 6301 Welcome Avenue N, Brooklyn Park Practical Systems 4342B Shady Oak Road, Hopkins Silvernail Enterprises Ltd. 6603 36h Avenue N, Crystal Total Comfort 4000 Winnetka Avenue N, New Hope RENTAL Renewal: 3313 63` Avenue N (Single Family) Yuan Paul Xiong 6724 France Avenue N (Single Family) Chris Prescott 5448 Humboldt Avenue N (Single Family) Francis Kaas 5600 Judy Lane (Single Family) Nita Morlock 5517 Knox Avenue N (Single Family) Roger Harris Initial: 510 61 Avenue N (Single Family) Kamal Ibrahim 5615 Bryant Avenue N (Single Family) Millard Smith Jr. SIGNHANGER DeMars Signs, Inc. 410 93` Avenue NW, Coon Rapids Designer Signs Systems 9975 Flaunders Court NE, Blaine Jones Sign Company, Inc. 1711 Schevring Road, De Pere, WI Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -11, FREEWAY BOULEVARD BRIDGE DECK REHABILITATION, BRIDGE NO. 27581 This item was removed and placed on the agenda as Consideration Item 9g. 7d. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES This item was removed and placed on the agenda as Consideration Item 9h. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 8a. SENIOR HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE REVENUE BONDS AND JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS (EVERCARE SENIOR LIVING, LLC PROJECT) 06/13/05 3 OS -3- DRAFT 1. RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT SENIOR HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE REVENUE BONDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS (EVERCARE SENIOR LIVING, LLC PROJECT) City Manager Michael McCauley discussed this is the project with regards to the Prairie Senior Housing Development being acquired by a new provider and is similar to what was approved for The Ponds where the project going forward in acquisition has the benefit of reducing its cost of capital using tax exempt financing; however, the tax exempt financing does not become an obligation or responsibility of the City. This particular proposal is even one step further removed in that the City of Apple Valley would be the issuing municipality and the City of Brooklyn Center would be approving and authorizing the City of Apple Valley to issue bonds that would be used in four locations to facilitate what Ecumen is proposing. Dana Wollschlager, Director of Real Estate Development for Ecumen, discussed their Shoreview based organization has been around for 140 years. She informed that the four facilities they are proposing to acquire are owned by an organization in Oregon and that this would be an opportunity to have a local owner own all four facilities. They are looking forward to the opportunity to bring this into the Ecumen family and provide quality service to the older adults of the four communities. Councilmember O'Connor asked what would happen if they were not able to pay the bond. Eric Lundy with Piper Jaffrey, who is working with Ecumen on the bond sale, discussed that the bonds are secured by real estate on all four parcels. If one of the four facilities were to have some occupancy issues the other three would hopefully be able to help and at the same time there is a cross collateralization of the cash flows from the properties. There is a fully funded debt service reserve fund of nearly a million dollars and will be held by the trustee in cash and securities in the event there is insufficient cash flow to cover debt service. In the event of a sale the bond holders would take the risk. The City would not be in a recourse position and there would be no impact on the City's credit. Ms. Wollschlager added that as a part of this deal they subordinated their management fees to cover debt service. If they are not able to cover debt service, which she does not see happening since they have never not been able to cover their debt service, they would forgo their management fees. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the prices would be raised at Prairie Lodge. Ms. Wollschlager discussed that they do not anticipate having to raise the prices and will not know until they have the opportunity to see how the operations work. Mr. Lundy noted that, as in any situation, prices will rise over time. Councilmember Lasman asked what services would be provided that is not already being provided. Ms. Wollschlager discussed that she is not sure they would be changing any of the services. All four facilities are unique in the terms of services they provide with traditional, enhanced, and memory care. 06/13/05 -4- DRAFT I Councilmember O'Connor asked if there would be any problem with one of the facilities being in a different state. Ms. Wollschlager responded they do not foresee any problems and that they operate all the same and do business in both North and South Dakota so they are familiar with the regulations and requirements. 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 Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -87 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT SENIOR HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE REVENUE BONDS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT RELATING TO SUCH BONDS (EVERCARE SENIOR LIVING, LLC PROJECT) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Councilmember Niesen questioned if Council Members can abstain from a vote for other reasons other than a conflict of interest. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere discussed there is no legal obligation to vote. Council Members may abstain because they were not at a hearing, do not feel fully informed, etc. and have an obligation to do the job they were put in Office to do but there are times when a Council Member does not feel they are able to vote on an issue and they can abstain. Councilmember Niesen asked if Council Members who wish to abstain could state their reasons for abstentions so that the Council is clear on why they would be abstaining. Councilmember O'Connor discussed that she would abstain because she does not like cities getting bonds for non profit or private companies and getting involved in helping companies borrow money to buy something. Councilmember Niesen questioned the effect of an abstention. Mr. McCauley responded that the effect is the same as a no vote. Motion passed. 0 06/13/05 -5- DRAFT 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -05, CONTRACT 2005 -G, TWIN LAKE AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Mr. McCauley discussed that there was a portion of the 2002 construction project which had to be discontinued because of the water table which had risen from when the project was designed in 2001 for 2002 construction. There were also monitoring issues with respect to pollution and the City had been proceeding cautiously to make certain that problems were not created with going forward. Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom outlined a PowerPoint Presentation and reviewed the project and assessments for the project which is included in the 2005 Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Blomstrom informed that a petition had been received requesting that the northern portion of Twin Lake Avenue be vacated as public right -of -way. At this time no legal action is requested on the petition and staff will discuss this matter with the City Attorney. Should the City proceed with any type of vacation, easements would need to be obtained so the City could assess the watermain on the north end. Mayor Pro Tern Carmody questioned the horizontal drilling level. Mr. Blomstrom responded that they would still drill down approximately seven feet below the road. Councilmember Niesen questioned when the assessments are assessed to property owner's taxes. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that after the July 11, 2005, public hearing, property owners can pay their assessments in full and that towards the end of the year there is a cutoff when interest starts applying. There will more details on the assessment process at the public hearing. She inquired how the assessments are handled when a house is for sale and if it is a public record when someone is selling their home. Mr. McCauley discussed that the assessments would be added to the pending list once the resolution is adopted and that if someone was doing a special assessment search it would not be appended until after July 11, 2005. If they did further inquiry about what was planned, this information is public record. The homeowner would have the duty to disclose at this point in time. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City would still responsible for the water pipes along the properties that are not being assessed. Mr. Blomstrom discussed after the installation and the warranty period is over, the typical arrangement would be that the homeowners would be responsible for the lateral from the home all the way to the watermain. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -88 Councilmember Niesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 06/13/05 -6- DRAFT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -05, CONTRACT 2005 -G, TWIN LAKE AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-05, CONTRACT 2005 -G, TWIN LAKE AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STROM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -89 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -05, CONTRACT 2005 -G, TWIN LAKE AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. STAFF REPORT FOR FREMONT AVENUE AND LILAC DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. McCauley discussed that notifications had been sent to the residents and property owners in the area around the proposed reconfiguration of Lilac Drive. Approximately 30 people attended the public meeting and in the materials were some of the concerns that were raised with respect to pedestrian safety, neighborhood traffic, etc. Also, a petition was received today that was copied for the Council that had been signed by residents of The Crossings. Mr. Blomstrom provided a brief overview of the May 17, 2005, neighborhood meeting and outlined the following concerns that were included with the materials: pedestrian safety; neighborhood traffic; speed control; and funding sources. Mayor Pro Tem Carmody informed that the Council would take public input from those who would like to address this issue. 06/13/05 -7- DRAFT A resident from the Brookwood Townhomes (Ralph) addressed the Council to express that he was confused about why the Council is considering this street modification when most of the residents are against the modification. Mayor Pro Tem Carmody explained that the Council had received a request from The Crossings and the Council agreed to look at the request. Clinton Peabody, corner of 62 "d Avenue and Fremont Avenue, addressed the Council to express that he is against the modification and that he has a bad feeling about the increase in traffic. He discussed for whatever reason the street was cutoff in the first place, it brought a lot of quiet to the neighborhood and he enjoys being able to live in a quiet neighborhood. He asked that the Council help preserve the quietness in his neighborhood. He informed that he had a petition for the Council of approximately 14 residents that were against the modification (this petition was provided to the Deputy City Clerk). Bart Mathews, 1200 62 "d Avenue North, addressed the Council to express that he believes the emergency vehicles have no problem finding their destinations and that this modification would be a mistake with all the children and elderly who walk in the area. He added that he is against the modification. Pete Matthews addressed the Council on behalf of his daughter who lives in the neighborhood and discussed that the primary reason she moved into her home was the cul -de -sac. He expressed that he believes this modification will make the neighborhood streets a racetrack and does not believe there is any merit for this modification other than to the rental property. Anne Sil t 125 rd se h, 1 63 Lane North, addressed the Council to express that she believes this modification will create a thoroughfare and she would like to keep the neighborhood safe and quiet. Wendy Rider, 1409 63 Lane North, addressed the Council to discuss the history of the neighborhood since she has been a resident for 30 years and to express that she would not support the modification. She believes this modification would not fiscally support the use of funds for the City, would devalue her home, be a risk to the elderly, and that all the area needs is better signage for The Crossings. Brian Hulquist, 6100 Fremont Avenue North, addressed the Council to express that he is against the modification and informed that he would be willing to have a sign put in his yard to help the situation. He asked the Council to deny the motion. Mary Lacina, 1221 63 Lane North, addressed the Council to express that she is neither for nor against the modification since she lives in the area and has parents that live at The Crossings. She does have a concern about emergency vehicles and is wondering if a complete study had been done regarding the emergency traffic concerns. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that both the Chiefs of Fire and Police felt that the modification would provide better access; however, were not strong supporters for the modification based on the comments that were said at the neighborhood meeting. 06/13/05 -8- DRAFT S Ms. Lacina expressed that she would not want this modification to go forward if it would mean more taxes and would like some guarantee about that. Paul Brewer from The Crossings addressed the Council to discuss that the petition presented today had 96 residents who are requesting the modification and to outline the history of their concern and request for the modification. He expressed they want to keep the friendly neighborhood and do not want to disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood; however, believes that the modification is needed. They are prepared to participate in the cost of the modification and would like to ask the Council to favorably consider the modification. Discussions continued on the history of the neighborhood streets and cost sharing proposed for the modification. It was noted that the developer would pay 40 percent and the City would pay 60 percent of the total cost for the project with no assessments to the property owners. Frank Lang, Owner of The Crossings, addressed the Council to express that he would like to continue being a good neighbor and believes this modification is very much needed for the residents that live at The Crossings. He believes that they have tried to work this out to the betterment of the City, the residents nearby, and the residents at The Crossings. A resident at the corner of 60` Avenue North and Fremont Avenue North (Herman) addressed the Council to express that he was against the modification and believes if the modification goes forward a 4 -way stop sign will be needed at the corner of 60 Avenue North and Fremont Avenue North. Several of the residents that had previously spoken re- addressed the Council to reiterate that they are against the modification. Council continued discussions regarding the modification proposed and the City's Sign Ordinance that currently would not allow signage for the neighborhood area. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she is not willing to support any taxes for residents and would like to make a motion to discontinue this modification. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to halt further investigation on this modification, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor. Councilmember Lasman expressed that she believes there might be some merit on waiting to make a decision until there is a full Council. She believes she has a responsibility to both groups and after hearing the comments this evening and receiving the petition with 96 signatures she would like to take time to evaluate the issue further and have a decision made with a full Council. She would like to table. Mayor Pro Tem Carmody expressed that she would not support this modification and believes that if it is at all possible another comprise should be considered. Councilmember Lasman voted against the same. Motion passed. 06/13/05 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen discussed that if Lang Nelson would like to write a proposal and come before the Council with another idea she would be willing to take a look at other alternatives besides opening the road. 9d. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON- CONFORMING USES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12- 901,12 -902, AND 35 -111 Mr. McCauley discussed that Community Development staff had proposed an ordinance change with the intent to ease the burden on maintaining a legal nonconforming use for purposes of zoning. The Community Development Department had previously been requiring a rental license primarily as a means of documenting the maintenance of a legal nonconforming use of a duplex. The options that are before the Council are the original proposal which amends and creates some type of a certificate that a duplex is being occupied, but not rented, in terms of receiving monetary compensation; and in Section 35 -111 amends the zoning code to conform to State Statute by giving someone six months regardless of what type of nonconforming use is destroyed to get a building permit. The second option is to do nothing at all. In reviewin g the practice etc., there is no rental licenses required where there is no fee collected. The third option would be exploring the Housing Commissions' recommendation regarding a modified version of a certificate which then raises the issue of what would be a qualifying relative if it was an owner occupied unit and suggests a differentiation between requiring a license for those owner occupied rentals to qualifying relatives who had a written lease. Councilmember O'Connor suggested separating the changes and passing the non controversial items gg P g p g such as the 180 days because it is State Law (number 5 in Section 35 -111), but not pass seven and one. She expressed she is fine with passing the addition where they have to pay part of their license fee if they withdraw their application; and that the controversial items should have the language changed or possibly not pass anything on those. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council chose the no action option staff would come back to the Council with language and the nonconforming 180 days with all other cleaned up language for introduction of a first reading at a later meeting. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she had an issue with Chapter 12 and addressed those issues with a letter to the Housing Commission. During her review of Chapter 12 and in preparing her letter she questioned why some of the Laws ended up the way they did and expressed that the Council should not e afraid is a Home Rule Charter City. She b fra d to look at Laws since the City Y expressed she has a few issues with the rental ordinance the way it is currently written and this proposal brought these issues to her attention. The main issues she has right now are no definition of duplex and that her house has been referred to as nonconforming. I e 06/13/05 -10- DRAFT i Councilmember Niesen expressed that she agrees with the Law change that is proposed in number 5 of Section 35 -111 and agrees that the Council should not enact other parts of the proposed ordinance amendments. She expressed she would like to have the Housing Commission go through using her letter to look in depth at the City's rental ordinance and continue amending the rental ordinance. She likes the Housing Commission recommendations; however, she would like to clarify what type of certification would be asked for in the proposal; and with the proposed language in Section 12 -901, number 1, she believes the language is vague and arbitrary. She discussed that she would like to make a motion to accept number 5 in Section 35 -111 and defer to the Housing Commission to come back with wording that improves and clarifies the rental ordinance. Councilmember O'Connor discussed that she would not mind approving number 5 in Section 35 -111 right now; however, if the City wants to wait she would not mind waiting. Mayor Pro Tern Carmody discussed she attended the Housing Commission meeting and that at the meeting Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren discussed nonconforming uses. She outlined some of the other discussions that took place at the meeting and some of the comments made by the Housing Commission. She asked the City Attorney how this proposal would work. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere discussed that in his letter he expressed this process would be a consumer protection type of law. Generally consumer protection laws do not have exceptions when there is a family relationship. A person who is paying a fee for services is entitled to the same kind of protection even though they are paying the fee to a close or more remote family member. Councilmember Niesen asked that Mr. LeFevere get a copy of her memo that she had prepared to the Housing Commission. Mr. LeFevere informed that if the only thing the Council is prepared to move forward on is number 5 of Section 35 -111, he would recommend not going through the ordinance process at this time. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes this law needs to be fair, enforceable, intelligent, and conformable with all laws and rights people have and that the definition of family needs to be clearly defined. She added that in the current ordinance it is written that servants can live with you and she believes that the word servants needs to be eliminated from the ordinance. Councilmember Niesen informed that she would like to ask the Council to table this and ask the Housing Commission to propose some changes that comprehensibly shorten the law and make recommendations for what it would take for the City to overhaul this law, put in a table of contents, and make sure that it is similar to other housing laws. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if a motion was needed at this time. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would move to give direction the Housing Commission to consider her letter and look at improving, organizing, and clarifying the rental ordinance. 06/13/05 -11- DRAFT I Mayor Pro Tem Carmody expressed that she has an objection to sending Councilmember Niesen's letter to the Housing Commission because she believes the Housing Commission discussed and covered her letter at its meeting. She believes the Housing Commission was uniform in what they were recommending and that this discussion should continue to a Work Session. Councilmember Niesen expressed t Session and informed that she that she would support discussing this at a Work Se P PP g would take the time to draft a table of contents. Councilmember Niesen made a motion directing this discussion to the July 25, 2005, Work Session to allow her time to make a table of contents, highlight and summarize her letter into a one page or less document, and to look at other city ordinances for examples, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor. Motion passed unanimously. 9e. UPDATE ON TWIN LAKE SEDIMENT STUDY Mr. McCauley discussed that the west remediation preliminary goals were developed dated June I, 2005, which will eventually result in a public hearing and processes with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as they negotiate with Joslyn over what would be the final remediation plan. The lake sediment issue is pending while that remediation negotiation goes on and the fish that were collected and being sampled is still being validated with a due date of September 2005. The City's consultant continues to monitor what is happening. Councilmember O'Connor questioned where the west remediation area is located. Mr. McCauley discussed that is the part not contained in the Joslyn redevelopment, north of Twin Lake Avenue and west of Wickes. She inquired if it g oes into the lake. Mr. McCauley discussed that the lake issue is the sediment issue and is the question if they will have to do any remediation. Councilmember Niesen provided a brief history of the area and the study. 9f. DISCUSSION OF 2006 BUDGET: COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNOR Councilmember O'Connor discussed she would like to know if the $79,000 tax levy will be added to the three percent and be a larger percent increase for peoples' property taxes. Mr. McCauley discussed that the $75,000 would be a substitution of a tax used for eneral fund operations to g P replace the $75,000 bond levy that would go away. She inquired how the City would charge people. Mr. McCauley discussed the $75,000 is a general ad valorem tax but the general ad valorem tax is used for debt service. She inquired if the taxpayers would see it as a separate line item on their property taxes. Mr. McCauley responded that in terms of the budget adoption, the debt service levy is adopted as a separate levy adoption in the resolution. Councilmember O'Connor questioned 1 budget would be going u from what it was C stioned if the City's Iota d q tY g g g P in this current year and if it is possible to not have a three percent increase on taxes and maybe make it two percent. Mr. McCauley responded that the total budget is going up and that the City is operating on less money and the net target for the general fund is twosome percent increase overall. The actual expenditure increase that will be developed in the draft budget will be less than three percent in terms of expenditures. 06/13/05 -12- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the Local Government Aid (LGA) for next year will be known by August. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes so and depending on the date the City may get it before the budget Work Session. The State is required to provide the numbers by the end of August and if they wait until the last day of August, staff will not know the numbers for the budget Work Session but should have it before the September preliminary tax certification. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she would like to see the City go down in its taxes and tax rating. 9g. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -11, FREEWAY BOULEVARD BRIDGE DECK REHABILITATION, BRIDGE NO. 27581 Mr. McCauley discussed that this project is to replace the bridge deck which is delaminating and will result in structural failure unless it is addressed. The proposed source of funding for the project is Municipal State Aid (MSA) which is received by the City as part of the collection of gas tax by the State of Minnesota. The City had applied for a grant that would have reduced the amount of State Aid required for the project but was not successful in being award that grant. Mayor Pro Tern Carmody questioned if the grant would have covered the entire project and how much road construction would be effected with the MSA funds. Mr. McCauley responded that it was a partial grant and that it will have an impact on the MSA funds that can be used for doing MSA street projects in the development of the five year Capital Improvement Program. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -90 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -11, FREEWAY BOULEVARD BRIDGE DECK REHABILITATION, BRIDGE NO. 27581 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 9h. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES Councilmember O'Connor questioned when the letters were sent and how the property owners had to get their trees down. Mr. McCauley responded that they have 25 days. She asked if the people listed on this resolution are those who have not responded after the 25 days. Mr. McCauley responded that would be correct. 06/13/05 -13- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor discussed that she believes that some diseased Elm Trees do not look like they are diseased and others are completely dead. She questioned if staff makes any decision on which ones are taken down first. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the City's Tree Inspector marks the trees and is experienced in identifying trees that are diseased. He generally takes them in order as they are marked and does not prioritize them. She inquired if the inspector takes a sampling from the tree to make sure it has the disease. Mr. Blomstrom responded that if a homeowner disagrees with his findings that could be done. Generally, when the inspector meets with property owners and explains the characteristics of the tree, very few disagree. Councilmember O'Connor questioned what a property owner is charged for taking down a tree. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that boulevard trees are done by bid and is based on the diameter of the tree. Trees on private property receive two quotes and are case by case basis. Councilmember Niesen questioned if Xcel Energy has a policy regarding tree trimming. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that he believes Xcel Energy does have a policy; however, he is not certain of the distance. She asked if it would be okay to direct Mr. Blomstrom to get Xcel's policy. Mr. McCauley informed that if the Council would like to direct staff to inquire Xcel Energy's policy that could be done. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -91 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLI C NUISANCE I ANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if people are charged if their trees are removed by the time staff gets there to take the tree down. Mr. Blomstrom responded no and added that there are two things going on with this matter. One, people are not complying and spreading disease, and second, there are others who may not be able to afford it and this special assessment is a tool for getting the trees down. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Niesen made a motion to direct staff to inquire and get a response in writing from Xcel Energy on its current policy for their approach to tree trimming around power lines. She would like to have that on file at City Hall so if anyone inquires about the policy the letter can be referenced. The motion failed for a lack of a second. 06/13/05 -14- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor suggested that Councilmember Niesen inquire about this policy on her q P Y own. Councilmember Niesen said she would be fine with that and would supply the City a PP Y h' copy. 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to adjourn the City Council meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 06/13/05 -15- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL /ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION JUNE 13, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Pro Tern Kathleen Carmody at 10:26 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Pro Tern Kathleen Carmody and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Mayor/President Myrna Kragness was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager /Executive Director Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. DISCUSSION OF SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED'S PROPOSED AD VALOREM t TAX FOR BANK STABILIZATION PROJECT IN BROOKLYN PARK This item was discussed at the Study Session. MISCELLANEOUS Council/Commissioners discussed the 69 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard Development; a complaint received regarding people not picking up after their dogs in Evergreen Park; the Sun Post Newspaper crime statistics; and the letter that is sent to residents regarding tall grass. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Councilmember/ Commissioner Niesen to adjourn the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:37 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor/President 06/13/05 -1- 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: June 21, 2005 jrf 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 June 27, 2005, are as follows: GARBAGE HAULER Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. 2951 Weeks Avenue, Minneapolis BFI Waste Systems P.O. Box 39, Circle Pines Darling International, Inc. 9000382 "d Avenue, Blue Earth T L Sanitation Service P.O. Box 49695, Blaine MECHANICAL Air Comfort Specialists 662 116`' Lane NE, Blaine Dependable Indoor Air Quality Inc. 2619 Coon Rapids Boulevard, Coon Rapids Key Metal Craft 8201 Pleasant South, Bloomington Mike's Gas Service 2275 Cedar Avenue, White Bear Lake Northern Heating A/C Inc. 9431 Alpine Drive NW, Ramsey RENTAL Renewal: Twin Lakes Manor (3305 -3433 53` Avenue North) Twin Lakes Properties, LLP (12 Buildings, 310 Units) 5 assaults, 82 disturbing peace, 5 burglaries, I robbery, I weapons,1 arson, 4 fires, 4 drugs, and 1 loud party 511866 1h Avenue North (Single Family) Scott Hanson 0 calls Willow Lane Apts. (7015 -21 Brooklyn Boulevard) Miller Management Co. (2 Buildings, 58 Units) 3 disturbing peace calls 5200 Drew Avenue North (Single Family) Morris Matthews 3 assaults, 1 fight, and 1 disturbing peace 4200 Lakebreeze Avenue North Michael Lattery (1 Building, 4 Units) 1 disturbing peace and 1 homicide 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org City Council Agenda Item No. 7c City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Final Plat, CVS BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ADDITION On February 28, 2005 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 2005- 02, Preliminary Plat for CVS BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ADDITION. The proposed plat includes the consolidation of eight lots near the intersection of Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) and Bass Lake Road (C.R. 10) into two lots. The applicant, Bear Creek Capital, is now seeking final plat approval from the City Council. As a condition of final plat application, City staff has required the applicant to complete the design for storm water management facilities to control the discharge of storm water from the proposed site development. The applicant is working with representatives from the Cross of Glory Church to obtain necessary easements and property for construction of an expanded storm water pond and an improved storm sewer outlet across the church property. The proposed storm water management improvements would address some existing drainage problems within the church property. The proposed storm water management improvements include the conveyance of Outlot A, Cross of Glory 2 nd Addition from the church to the owner of Lot 2 of the proposed final plat to provide for the construction of an expanded storm water pond. Representative of the church have informed City staff that they feel the storm drainage improvements proposed by the applicant would be mutually beneficial to both the church and the site developer. Unless otherwise directed by the Council, staff will require that all agreements for drainage and utility easements, utility maintenance agreements and cross access agreements be completed and executed by all parties to the satisfaction of the City Attorney before the final plat is released. It is recommended that the City Council approve the final plat, subject to the conditions as specified in the attached resolution. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, CVS BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ADDITION WHEREAS, the City Council on February 28, 2005 approved a Preliminary Plat for CVS BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ADDITION to divide and combine parcels of land located near the intersection of Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) and Bass Lake Road (C.R. 10); and WHEREAS, Bear Creek Capital, LLC. has applied for Final Plat approval as required by City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Final Plat for CVS BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ADDITION is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditions as previously approved by the City of Brooklyn Center City Council and Planning Commission. 2. Any additional requirements for providing a cross access agreement, utility maintenance agreement and evidence of title satisfactory to the City Attorney. 3. Drainage and utility easement documents for construction of storm drainage improvements to be constructed across Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1, Cross of Glory 2nd Addition to serve property within the subject plat boundary shall be executed and delivered to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney prior to release for the final plat. 4. Any additional requirements of the City Engineer. 5. Any additional provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 6. Any other conditions of Hennepin County as required. RESOLUTION NO. Date' Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C VS BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ADDITION R.. No. WIa NL YFY FI',YESE ML4NB OW MWpy1 bw CVA LL4 Ywww4 MM. !'1 IA MNi «MaiF M •wr N M YA•Nw OwvM1 MIFr4 JW w M Caw1Y r Jl /1 -A �✓VL.L VI'TRn Namww M4 NYM«wla «rh G v IIv t la 3•t4F, aN f. 0-1. WwFn Knnul..— .D- ft 4mwb 50421'42'E 538.% 21fe. aN t9t Fsl•wM� LLG Y4rMa MJIM Mwr M •wr N M I a�b.w w.eN w•� Jw4 w M cw.q r M.w Yrw.4 4 1 A.yr..e roaw 1'•� I: 2A0.3S 1- i j tr• 1 .r x. Wtl L wrwlF'F wawa. IlawrM CaalF 1�• I I AIOIaF I I b� I I I I w.t r>I N let Iy .ualrw Wrtatra IrlxFtl TxO, a.awr aw.Y i 1 I I 1 1 I xa+wnr+x N M n•r4au1 wtr r W 1. wl,a 1. xOaYC'F Awalldl a,n•, Q O tM tlmx 4• 11«11• N M IM ON••a. Let 1 ,M LN t; WNY 1. W I 1 QC 1 1 I eWOSUww:. IM «.4 iw a a .w1 m xueawaa InAixn x1�s 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 I C Y yy�Ft9a 1wF1xD1 Sit wm wuMth r«9 M wl N• N Iw 1). I II I 1 l •1 ALa,IXw NI®nma NWAFR IN b 4• wrY.wl rF. M let 1. WwA L C Cj 1 R 1 l l�l I N U a411x'S 4brIpYw sv�b 4 Mw« �Y1 r4 I I I T rr ri 1. N w x.°4„ Ewa YM.. a 1 IM rn•. M •r• 4 M n•wY,. IIrM w M MO a OIIL w t e II 4 Fa4Wi10 A J b l l I I v i N T UJ C w roe N«W W 4WM W CVA L.L0. a Ylnw•4 I4F•. xrWlr B N enry«F Rw MN pw«N b h JF�N Fy b wqr •IA,r 4Y NrtlfN£ I IL 7 j MSNt� ��i�- --,t: i i C, i 1 II 1 Y I. rtIr C� G!'- 4AwNgF�•_ IOTISTt n}xx •.o 1 wl�aai 1. twF�'F j I I I a«wa r e.al r aaip�rO01A' M. LLe. a YM:.b YN4e r«er C Ox1,/r Yrt1. 1 N01R9'12 W 390.34 a .•1 .wr LYE a m 1A liR FFAi IIIE 6 L0T 4 1,, 1 W,pa xlNNltw �e aaq rm 1• 3 I w Nww rrr, W w F�.Mn.r MF,.Le.. Yb..w MLr rwr L C C HURCH z L -._._I 4 �w 1 V v vl I NO11SOVE 149.07 MEASURED Vi.0 1 Owm arcs .m_4 I L` 1 AP11\IT/'t C j 1 AL wi IIVIw 1 1 C'S i� TN/Axl1 Yr�x xvr�N�EwY,Y, wa.ww try rw.«,a vArt C tlM 1 Mw r«,Y M W1W M AMp' MsOM w !Y /N r a•Miw1 w N4a w MY M r M wFpallli Falty/�r Mplpl� M 4w YN Y a aenwt r W •wwF 4,l r Y«w w wmWl• ■w M 1 w I«I I•,I.n1111• N a x00 M x wewlwat N.x. Lt.C. i Nnr.b N•NN xlxNir 4N tlnt «aYIInN• Mw x•al •Yi•Ny FI•,« w M �wr Jia« NI M N «N r tyA•. y I•,Y w.Y M/ M •NM 1•r.sl At« w wn�rF w 0«al r M •wtwF IW1Y W O'xtrw. Ilw•IFYt C•r ANAL FF Dwu4 «�nM .ryw1•J M Yrt a.. Mi Mw n «••Y,n.• w 4An. w W Fxcm •AL p �YW IYyiw,a b N Myw1•. M rIN. Cwn1y YY•ri•r,G M r+M.a GwntF AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOW THUS` Nw 4 WxL R w xNAr (wA mw Mr Fr r wi«N 44 W�inwl�i u,a l b r ]xx> M rww •0.••I W wxa Ft•wtWa 11.0 YMwN• wr4. IlOtllr wn,«w rtNaa F. baF Ilaa,rw xwV RFwp OF Yw w.r nw aww4 b M ,tFr y b M•M •rtrr Y« .q N TI• 8 WAIN OF WA h ra F..P U UC O c.trW w atla•NM�N �Ma lxOA N J«A BaM lM M«,«� Y4r•b u«nw ws m1p 1 F++,• t M�l M .rw pN{ •1 MwlFna ,mna a iw w wr Nr a. by �Yqr .xxrr Jw4�K NO SCALE BONG 5 FEET W WIDTH. ADJONMG LOT YM•,1 N tx.an, hxwY. r wx.. b DWI, me 4«a twrlF tN.n,w LEES. AND 10 FEET W WIDTN.. AOJQIWO --.ft Po e.an.wt Mir• o tl.• Jp' r gHT OF WAY'WES. UNLESS 01HERWSE INDICATED. N n•FaF,a tati wwW II.AN O,Olwl wyrll rM N M wra.F �aC01xIlY 4tCawlAnw,4l AaaY •rlry MI M NIM Owl r M,NNCrtA FOa110N �p pp FxOlyAr /ipalgw w y«a«. M «,r�W W M ar w IIN w N• NM W, MP N 1xx— N WAN N Fi«YFi d.lr YM,«4 N a ,•Ws awMW MnN «N MY M N Ja•0 W Sbr. Y ypWa M «Y,w wmm«b er a Wtal P«W c«iuF Irl•A N C•wx4 C•wry ft— by 0-tr M w M Cawir rt11t•eP Yw 0•at wtF•tl M NY Cwwb.w ;we M aV ar M F,•,YD•. A .er Faw. er Jww. rMw N ..J. •awiw4 Fwwr ar Yw•wb «ww s,rwa xrW ,i+A A. Z v' OTt' OxIMCA O DIWKIN CENIOI, tlrNrTA SCALE W FEET u1us ,w m°on°aaK,ImFO, -4 D FN1I IMNOID twa Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC. M wAWid RAaIOF WAWrO CIVIL RN DINRE RING AND LAN 0 SURVEYING City Council Agenda Item No. 7d City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment for Improvement Project No. 2004 -16, Contract 2004 -J, 2004 Grandview Park Tennis Court Improvements On September 27, 2004, the City Council authorized the award of Improvement Project No. 2004 -16, 2004 Grandview Park Tennis Court Improvements to Dermco- LaVine Construction Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Contractor has completed the contract work and is now requesting final payment for the project. S Improvement Project No. 2004 -16 generally includes the reconstruction of two tennis courts as part of the overall site improvements that were completed during reconstruction of Grandview Park and the Earle Brown Elementary School in 2003 and 2004. The original contract amount was $28,561.00. The final contract amount for work completed under the contract is $28,561.00. There were no change orders for this contract. Attached for consideration is a City Council resolution accepting the work performed and authorizing payment for the final contract amount of $28,561.00 for Improvement Project No. 2004 -16, 2004 Grandview Tennis Court Improvements. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkwa y Recrestaon and Community Center Phone di TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-16, CONTRACT 2004 -J, 2004 GRANDVIEW TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Dermco- LaVine Construction Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: Improvement Project No. 2004 -16, Contract 2004 -J, 2004 Grandview Tennis Court Improvements; and WHEREAS, Dermco- LaVine Construction Company has submitted necessary documents to request final payment for said contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid to the Contractor for said improvements shall be $28,561.00. 2. Project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows: COSTS As Approved As Final Contract $28,561.00 $28,561.00 REVENUES 40100- 6350- 800416 $28,561.00 $28,561.00 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DERMCO LaVINE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. 3417 48TH AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55429 TELEPHONE 7 63/535- 825 0 FAX #763/535 -8335 INVOICE 207142 DATE 5/25/2005 JOB 05011 PO 2004 -16 SOLD TO: JOHN HARLOW PARKS DIVISION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6844 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 -1418 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING: GRANDVIEW TENNIS OURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #2004 -16, CONTRACT 2004-) SPRING 2005 COLORCOATING 4,000.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT 28,561.00 PREVIOUSLY BILLED 1.0/29/04 PAID CK#116279 24,561.00) TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE. 4,000.00 THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS. .TERMS NET 30 DAYS City Council Agenda Item No. 7e City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, Manager Y� City g r FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment to Valley- Rich Company, Inc. for Storm Sewer Repairs Along Northway Drive and Lyndale Avenue On November 8, 2004, the City Council authorized the award of contract to Valley Rich Company, Inc. of Chaska, Minnesota for storm sewer repairs along Northway Drive and Lyndale Avenue. The Contractor has completed the contract work and is now requesting final payment for the project. Storm sewer repairs along Northway Drive generally included the replacement of approximately 55 feet of storm sewer that was beginning to collapse and was resulting in minor settlement of the roadway. This segment of storm sewer was originally installed in 1967. The proposed work along Lyndale Avenue involved the replacement of approximately 110 feet of storm sewer from the existing catch basin on the east side of Lyndale Avenue to the Mississippi River bank. This section of storm sewer originally installed in the 1950s had collapsed near the riverbank due to corrosion. The original contract amount was 20 800.00. The final contract amount for work completed com P under the contract is $20,800.00. There were no change orders for this contract. Attached for consideration is a City Council resolution accepting the work performed and authorizing payment to Valley -Rich Company, Inc. for the final contract amount of $20,800.00 for the work as described above. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX 763 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT TO VALLEY -RICH COMPANY, INC. FOR STORM SEWER REPAIRS ALONG NORTHWAY DRIVE AND LYNDALE AVENUE WHEREAS, City staff identified two unscheduled repairs to the City's storm drainage system along Northway Drive and Lyndale Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center solicited quotations for the repair of said storm sewer segments and awarded the repair work to Valley -Rich Company Inc. of Chaska, Minnesota by City Council Resolution 2004 -163; and WHEREAS, said Contractor has satisfactorily completed the improvements in accordance with the project specifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid to the Contractor for said improvements shall be $20,800.00. 2. Project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows: COSTS As Annroved As Final Contract $20,800.00 $20,800.00 REVENUES 49411 -6409 $20,800.00 $20,800.00 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. VALLEY -RICH CO., INC. 147 Jonathan Blvd. N. Suite 4 INVOICE 9501 Chaska, MN 55318 Phone: (952) 448 -3002 Fax: (952) 448 -3362 BILL City of Brooklyn Center JOB Northway /Lyndale Storms/BC To 6844 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Northway Dr. Lyndale Ave. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center BROOKL Net 0 05/02/2005 1 ITEM NO, QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE: EXTENDED PRICE C04105 $11,100 Second application for payment ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM 20,800.00 NET CHANGE BY CHANGE ORDERS.......... 0.00 CONTRACT SUM TO DATE 20,800.00 TOTAL COMPLETED STORED TO DATE 20,800.00 RETAINAGE........................ 0..00 TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE 20,800.00 LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT 9,700.00 SALES TAX 0.00 CURRENT PAYMENT DUE 11,100.00 BALANCE TO FINISH, PLUS RETAINAGE 0.00 r Anna UNT 11,100.00 11,100.00 City Council Agenda Item No. 7f City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -01, 02 and 03, Contract 2000 -B, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements On April 24, 2000, the City Council awarded Contract 2000 -B to Arcon Construction Company, Inc. of Harris, Minnesota for the construction of the Garden City Central Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvement project. Arcon Construction is now requesting final payment for the project. This project has remained open since substantial completion in the fall of 2000 due to contract warranty issues associated with defective concrete aprons within the project area. The City has entered into two contract addendums to address the replacement of concrete aprons. The first contract addendum was executed in March 2003 to repair numerous aprons within the project area. The City entered into a second contract addendum in May 2005 to provide for the replacement of an additional 69 driveway aprons during the summer of 2005. The second contract addendum stipulates that the City would accept the project and make final payment in the amount of $31,200.63 to the Contractor in full satisfaction of the City's payment obligations in exchange for ge o the replacement of the driveway aprons as warranty work. The original contract amount was $3,778,049.55. The Ci Council approved Change Order No. t1' Pp g 1 on July 24, 2000 and Change Order Nos. 2 and 3 on February 12, 2001 in order to revise the scope of work as described below. Change Order No. 1 consisted of the installation of additional utility and street improvements along almer Lake Circle. Change Order No. 2 consisted of the replacement of additional g r g p sidewalk along 63 d Avenue and Beard Avenue. Change Order No. 3 consisted of additional soil correction work and additional utility repairs within the project area. Supplemental Agreement No. 1 consisted of changes for larger diameter sanitary sewer and additional water main l i improvements along 63` Avenue North. Engineering records show that the Mn/DOT State Aid Office approved Supplemental Agreement No. 1 in August 2000. 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 The total value of work certified for final payment is $4,155,381.52. The Contractor has provided necessary documentation to allow final payment for the project. Attached is a City Council resolution accepting the work performed and authorizing final payment for the final contract total of $4,155,381.52 for Contract 2000 -B, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000 -01, 02 AND 03, CONTRACT 2000 -B, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Arcon Construction Company, Inc. of Harris, Minnesota has completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -01, 02 and 03, Contract 2000 -B, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $4,155,381.52. 2. The estimated project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows: COSTS As Final Contract Quantities $3,777,810.40 Change Order No. 1 70,366.90 Change Order No. 2 90,011.03 Change Order No. 3 191,527.74 Sup. Agreement No. 1 16,665.45 Subtotal Construction Cost $4,155,381.52 Admin/Legal /Eng 239,000.00 Reforestation 28,600.00 Streetlights 89,575.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $4,512,556.52 RESOLUTION NO. REVENUES Street Assessment 866,450.00 Storm Drainage Assessment 288,288.00 Storm Drainage Utility Fund 658,539.32 Water Fund 734,036.12 Sanitary Sewer Utility 711,600.95 Street Construction Fund 952,842.13 Municipal State Aid 300.800.00 Total Estimated Revenue 4,512,556.52 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. 7g i City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: June 22, 2005 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Joyce Gulseth, Public Works Administrative Aide SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway ecreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number y y Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove diseased trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these diseased trees by declaring them a public nuisance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance: PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREENUMBER KRISHN KANAK AGRAWAL 6336 HUMBOLDT AVE N 64 BARBARA NANCY LOGAN 5634 KNOX AVE N 65 SHIRLEY DENNIS SIMPSON 4312 WOODBINE LA 66 FRANCIS HEIGL 6918 OLIVER AVE N 67 RICHARD CYNTHIA BESSETTE 7130 INDIANA AVE N 68 CHURCH OF ST ALPHONSUS 7025 HALIFAX AVE N 69 ROSEMARY CROSBY WILEY 5621 INDIANA AVE N 70 KATHLEEN MOORHOUSE 5700 IRVING AVE N 71 BILL BERTHA ASHFORD 5837 JAMES AVE N 72 TONG YANG DOUA LEE 6021 FREMONT AVE N 73 CARL EDWARDSON 5434 CAMDEN AVE N 74 DENISE JEFFREY PIRK 5427 CAMDEN AVE N 75 ROSE TABARA 5325 CAMDEN AVE N 76 JANELLE PLOTT 5512 IRVING AVE N 77 JEAN DARLING 5318 GIRARD AVE N 78 GLORIA POINTER 6019 BROOKLYN BLVD 79 DELORES FORD 5500 EMERSON AVE N 80 RUSSELL ELEANOR BANKSON 3633 ADMIRAL LA 81 BRANDON BARBARA TROMBLEY 5600 EMERSON AVE N 82 RUSSELL JUNE BENSON 5413 HUMBOLDT AVE N 83 JIM WEINACHT 5906 XERXES AVE N 84,122 GILBERTO CESAR WENCES 5912 XERXES AVE N 85 LOIS MUELLER 6400 XERXES AVE N 86 SHENG THAO 3813 61 AVE N 87 TOU THAO GAO YANG 3819 61 AVE N 88 ROBERT JEAN SCHIEBEL 2120 70 AVE N 89 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER VARIOUS LOCATIONS 90,92 CLARENCE LILAMAE FROBERG 7100 LOGAN AVE N 91 STEVEN JANET JORDAN 5649 WEST RIVER RD 93 RESOLUTION NO. PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS TREENUMBER JANET JOHNSON 5700 BRYANT AVE N 94 JAMES ERIN BURNETTE 5741 BRYANT AVE N 95 TAMMY JAMES HOFFMANN 1009 58 AVE N 96 CHAD LEMM 5856 DUPONT AVE N 97 JUDITH PAURUS 627 58 AVE N 98 LINDA MITCHELL 5325 HUM 3OLDT AVE N 99 PAUL ANDREA EASTMAN 5338 JAMES AVE N 100 GINA MATT MAGON 5602 KNOX AVE N 101 CRAIG LINDA HANKA 5517 JAMES AVE N 102,103 JANET GEPHART 5312 MORGAN AVE N 104 CAROL BLESSING 2107 ERICON DR 105 ERIC JENNIFER WHITE 5537 JUDY LA 106 OFELIA LOPEZ PEDRO HERNANDEZ 5543 JUDY LA 107 RICK CAROA STARCK 4501 63 AVE N 108 LEONARD SHIRLEY ANDERLIE 6813 BEARD AVE N 109 JEFFREY AMY CROSS 5827 EWING AVE N 110 ROBERT ALLISON BINA 5821 EWING AVE N 111 DUANE SHERI WEAVER 340866 AVE N 112 MORRIS MATTHEWS 3019 MUMFORD RD 113 ELLEN NIZNIK 6318 INDIANA AVE N 114 GLENN BERSCHEIT 6401 SCOTT AVE N 115 LARRY SNAZA 5406 66 AVE N 116 REED JOHNSON 6718 SCOTT AVE N 117 PAOLA TRAPOTE 6712 PERRY AVE N 118 STEVEN CUNNINGHAM 6337 EMERSON AVE N 119 LAWRENCE SCHROEDER 6331 EMERSON AVE N 120 JOSEPH GROVES 5337 GIRARD AVE N 121 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor S ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 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. 8a Memorandum Date: 23 June 2005 To: Michael McCauley City Manager From: Daniel Jordet Director of Fiscal Support Service Re: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended 31 December 2004 Presented with this memorandum are the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended 31 December 2004. The essential information in the statements has not changed since the draft review session on 16 May 2005. Some corrections distributions fund balance and corrections to the combined statements have been made but the bottom lines for the various funds have not substantially changed. In addition, a resolution is attached for adoption of the CAFR by the Council as the official financial record for 2004. David Mol and Jeff Wilson of HLB Tautges Redpath, our audit firm for the past three years, will be present at Monday evening's meeting to review the information contained in the financial statements and assist us in responding to questions from the Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by State Statute and City Charter to annually produce financial statements to inform the general public about its financial condition and for submission to the Office of the State Auditor by June 30 each year; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required to have said financial statements audited by and independent auditor and to include in the presentation of the financial statements an Independent Auditor's Report as to the representations made by the City in the financial statements; and WHEREAS, HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. conducted the required audit of the financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2004 and opined that the general purpose financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Brooklyn Center as of December 31, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council of the City y ty of Brooklyn Center that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Brooklyn Center for the year ended December 31, 2004, along with all supporting documentation, is hereby adopted as the official financial record for the 2004 fiscal year. June 27. 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. gal vemorandum Date: 24 June 2005 To: Michael McCauley City Manager From: Daniel Jordet Director of Fiscal Support Services Re: Supplemental Financial Information This morning I received the attached documents from HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. In connection with the 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. They are: Legal Compliance Report This report is the result of examination of the City's practices in relation to State of Minnesota laws and statutes. There were no reportable conditions and the City is in compliance with Minnesota law. Internal Control Report This report is the result of examination of the City's practices for financial management. The day to day management of financial information and flow of the City's funds was found to be fundamentally sound. However, two situations need to be addressed as a result of this review. Grant monitoring and reporting is done in a decentralized manner. It is recommended that we examine having monitoring and reporting centralized in the Finance Division. At some point during the year, a grant payment of 26, 855 was not recorded in City funds. When the situation was discovered, staff contacted the State Department of Finance, requested and received a replacement check for the amount, and immediately deposited the funds into the proper account. Audit Management Letter This report summarizes the information included in the CAFR and allows a quick review of the financial situation of the City and its various funds and programs. These documents, along with the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, are submitted for Council consideration on Monday, 27 June 2005 Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT GUIDE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota We have audited the financial statements of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004, and have issued our report thereon dated April 15, 2005. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the provisions of the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government promulgated by the State Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 6.65. Accordingly, the audit included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures we considered necessary in the circumstances. The Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Local Government covers six main categories of compliance to be tested: contracting and bidding, deposits and investments, conflicts of interest, public indebtedness, claims and disbursements, and miscellaneous provisions. Our study included all of the listed categories. The results of our tests indicate that for the items tested, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota complied with the material terms and conditions of applicable legal provisions. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's City council and management and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. White Bear Lake, Minnesota April 15, 2005 4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 651 4267000 651 426 5004 Fax www.hlbtr.com 1303 South Frontage Road Suite 13 Hastings, Minnesota 55033 651 4804990 651 426 5004 Fax HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. is a member of E International, a world -wide organization of accounting firms and business advisors. I� Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Brooklyn Center Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004 which collectively comprise the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated April 15, 2005. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's internal control over financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting. However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements. One reportable condition is described below. Grant Monitorinc. The City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota is the recipient of several grants from various federal and local agencies. Many of the grants are monitored and reported by staff outside of the finance department. This decentralized system does not allow for oversight by the finance department which would facilitate proper revenue recognition, appropriate monitoring of grant compliance provisions, and accurate preparation of grant financing reporting forms. We recommend the City develop procedures and policies to 4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 651 4267000 651 426 5004 Fax www.hlbtr.com 1303 South Frontage Road Suite 13 Hastings, Minnesota 55033 651 4804990 651 426 5004 Fax HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. is a member of E International, a world -wide organization of accounting firms and business advisors. Report on Internal Control and on Compliance and Other Matters Page 2 centralize the grant monitoring in the finance department. This would enable all grants to be monitored consistently and for the finance department to be aware of grant status and requirements. During our audit testing of grant activity in 2004, a copy of a check was found that had not been recorded in the City's accounting records. The check was dated June 11, 2004 in the amount of $26,855. A monthly procedure of grant reconciliations would have discovered the missing check. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses. However, we believe the reportable condition described above, is not a material weakness. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. We also noted certain additional matters that we reported to management of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota in a separate letter dated May 10, 2005. Report on Internal Control and on Compliance and Other Matters Page 3 This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's management, City council and federal awarding agencies and pass through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. White Bear Lake, Minnesota April 15, 2005 III CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA AUDIT MANAGEMENT LETTER December 31, 2004 Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota We have completed the 2004 audit of the City of Brooklyn Center and have issued our report thereon. Our Independent Auditor's Report is included in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. This Audit Management Letter provides a summary of audit results along with comparisons and trend analysis of financial data. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City. We are available to discuss this report with you. d HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. White Bear Lake, Minnesota May 10 2005 r 4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 651 4267000 651 426 5004 Fax www.hlbtr.com 1303 South Frontage Road Suite 13 Hastings, Minnesota 55033 651 4804990 651 426 5004 Fax HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. is a member of IN International, a world -wide organization of accounting firms and business advisors. i i City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Report Summary REPORT SUMMARY Several reports are issued in conjunction with the audit. A brief summary is as follows: Report Name Elements of Report Overview i Required Reports Comprehensive Annual Financial Financial statements 0 Unqualified (clean) opinion Report (CAFR) Footnotes on the basic financial Supplemental information statements Report on Internal Control and on Internal controls over financial One reportable condition in Compliance and Other Matters reporting internal control Compliance with laws, 0 No findings of regulations, contracts and noncompliance with laws, grants regulations, contracts and grants State Legal Compliance Report Results of testing certain No findings of provisions of Minnesota noncompliance Statutes City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS The basic financial statements of the City of Brooklyn Center are presented in Statements 1 through 8 of the 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Summary of Financial Activitv A summary of financial activity for 2004 is as follows: Increase Fund Balance (decrease) in (Deficit) Transfers Fund Balance/ Net Assets Fund Revenue Expenditures (Net) Net Assets 12/31/04 General $13,235,729 $12,817,896 ($1,465,464) ($1,047,631) $6,969,449 Special Revenue: Housing and Redevelopment Authority 223,523 (223,523) Economic Development Authority 331,980 556,140 223,523 (637) 1,488,129 Earle Brown TIF District 733,526 30,652 (876,000) (173,I26) (1,858,494) TIF District No. 3 20,252,726 500,344 19,752,382 25,871,672 TIF District No.4 228,060 246,644 (18,584) 88,181 Police Drug Forfeiture 27,492 76,952 (49,460) 24,708 CDBG City nitiatives Grant ran t 375,478 346,893 28,585 135,983 Debt Service: General Obligation Bonds 6,163,769 1,167,901 4,995,868 5,903,577 Tax Increment Bonds 2,486,353 2,101,801 876,000 1,260,552 2,697,246 Special Assessment Bonds 1,441,465 1,231,691 209,774 3,186,648 Capital Projects: Capital Reserve Emergency 9,688 9,688 I,346,261 Capital Improvements 238,446 494,693 300,000 43,753 1,801,483 Municipal State Aid for Construction 701,608 (533,816) 167,792 598,373 Infrastructure Construction 1,561,796 3,901,906 2,588,626 248,516 477,695 Earle Brown Heritage Center Improvements 2,741 89,456 200,000 113,285 121,448 Street Reconstruction 621,536 620,464 1,242,000 1,525,891 Technology 27,868 56,444 295,000 266,424 541,424 Enterprise: Municipal Liquor 4,039,536 3,974,865 (125,000) (60,329) 1,158,223 Golf Course 289,360 271,127 18,233 967,545 Earle Brown Heritage Center 3,623,563 4,070,159 (200,000) (646,596) 8,986,203 Recycling and Refuse 215,328 222,821 (7,493) 86,444 Street Light Utility 210,095 165,651 (51,000) (6,556) 116,788 Water Utility 1,622,732 1,540,569 (631,441) (549,278) 9,968,383 Santa Sewer 2,931,056 2 310 645 555 64,797 10 465,062 Sanitary 614 Storm Drainage 1,297,990 765,647 (441,755) 90,588 11,543,663 Internal Service: Central Garage 1,197,190 1,168,066 29,124 6,804,861 EE Retirement 23,646 58,465 (34,819) (17,679) EE Compensated Absences 86,472 74,078 12,394 24,585 Total $64,200,752 $38,241,506 $0 $25,959,246 $101,023,752 City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Proaerty Taxes The City has consistently experienced a solid collection rate for property taxes. A S summary of the tax levy, tax rate and collection rate for the last nine years is as follows: Tax Tax Unpaid Tax Collection Capacity Taxes as of Year Levy Rate Rate 12/31/2004 1996 $6,495,206 97.9% 30.344 1997 6,746,487 98.2% 32.875 1998 7,687,124 99.4% 35.214 27,760 1999 7,896,858 99.0% 36.269 1,451 2000 8,100,334 99.3% 34.645 1,133 2001 8,199,094 96.4% 35.996 10,170 2002 10,442,170 98.0% 57.704 36,721 2003 10,355,287 97.0% 52.792 21,737 2004 10,778,957 95.4% 52.437 481,168 Total $580,140 The tax levy increase for 2002 relates to the elimination of HACA (the City received $1,380,000 in 2001). The delinquent taxes receivable for 2004 consist primarily of Brookdale Mall ($132,000). It is our understanding these taxes have been remitted to the County in 2005. City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Tax Increments A summary of tax increment activity is as follows: 2004 Activity Delinquent Less Delinquent TIF Receivable 2004 OSA 2004 Receivable District Name 12/3112003 Levy TIF Fee Collections Adjustments 12/31/2004 1 Brookwood Housing $2,879 $191,511 ($664) ($184,038) ($8,537) $1,151 2 Earle Brown Farm 112,971 549,394 (1,956) (541,506) (22,555) 96,348 3 TIF #3 Redevelopment 172,625 3,569,557 (10,407) (2,880,505) (208,182) 643,088 4 France Avenue Business Park 228,753 (823) (227,930) Total $288,475 $4,539,215 ($13,850) ($3,833,979) ($239,274) $740,587 The delinquent taxes receivable for TIF No. 3 consist primarily of Brookdale Mall ($521,187). It is our understanding these taxes have been remitted to the County in 2005. City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Special Assessments The City has experienced a solid collection rate for special assessments. A summary of i the collection rate for the last nine years is as follows: Special Assessment Collection Rate Collection Year Rate (1) 1996 94.7% 1997 95.4% 1998 96.9% 1999 95.4% 2000 95.7% 2001 90.7% 2002 93.1% 2003 95.4% 2004 95.2% Current collections as a percent of current levy. City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Financial Statement Analysis Interfund Pavables/Receivables The City had the following interfund advances at December 31, 2004: Fund Receivable Payable General Fund $105,074 MSA Construction Fund 593,069 Tax Increment No. 3 Fund 1,200,000 Earle Brown TIF Fund 1,898,143 Capital Improvements Fund 850,000 Golf Course Fund 850,000 Total $2,748,143 $2,748,143 The interfund loan to the Earle Brown TIF Fund has existed since 1987. During 2004, the City established a formal repayment plan by the adoption of resolution 2004 -91 The interfund loan to the golf course was established in 1998. The loan is interest fee and has annual payments of $55,000 to $65,000 through 2017. For 2004 the amount paid down on the loan was $35,000. i City of Minnes Audit Management Letter General Fund GENERAL FUND The General Fund of the City accounts for current operating expenditures common to all cities. These basic services include (but are not limited to) public safety, public works, parks and recreation, community services and general government. For the City of Brooklyn Center, the General Fund is financed by three major sources: 1) taxes; 2) intergovernmental; and, 3) charges for services. A graph of the major revenue sources is as follows: $12,(0,000 $11,000,000 I $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000.000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2000 2001 I 2002 1 2003 2004 f intergovemmental 1 $4,076,169 $4,135.282 $2,843,629 $1,948,457 $1,419,210 -Taxes $8,745,172 $8,411,513 $11,257,003 I $10,799,074 I $10,025,495 AllOther $1,827,025 $2,405,376 $1,990,604 $2,155,379 $1,791,024 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter General Fund The fund balance of the General Fund decreased by $1,047,631 in 2004 as follows: Budget Actual Variance Revenue $12,982,258 $13,235,729 $253,471 i Expenditures 13,741,342 13,601,980 139,362 Increase (decrease) before other financing sources (uses) (759,084) (366,251) 392,833 Other financing sources (uses): Administrative services reimbursed 784,084 784,084 Transfers to other funds (25,000) (25,000) Total other financing sources (uses) 759,084 759,084 0 Increase in General Fund balance before equity transfer $0 392,833 $392,833 Equity transfer out (1,440,464) Net change in fund balance ($1,047,631) r City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter General Fund The City's December 31, 2004 fund balance was $6,969,449. The City's General Fund balance has been as follows for the past five years: $9,000,000 General Fund Balance $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter General Fund A summary of General Fund balance for the past three years is as follows: General Fund Balance Component 12/31/2002 12/31/2003 12/31/2004 j Reserved for advances to other funds $105,074 $105,074 $105,074 Designated for working capital 6,527,973 6,031,077 6,862,871 Subtotal 6,633,047 6,136,151 6,967,945 Reserved for prepaids 68,279 5,309 1,504 Undesignated 1,228,448 1,875,620 Total $7,929,774 $8,017,080 $6,969,449 Workine Capital Reserve j The City adopted an "adequate fund balance policy formula" in 1980. This policy Y P q P Y P Y defines the minimum fund balance elements. This policy was amended in 2004. A calculation of working capital reserve is as follows: 2002 2003 2004* 1. Items not readily convertible to cash: a. Accounts receivable $53,489 $57,908 b. Advances to other funds 105,074 105,074 c. Restricted assets 131,153 2. Amount appropriated to the ensuing year's budget 3. Amounts reserved to workin g capital: P 45% of current year budget less debt service 6,474,484 5 842 016 (50 -52% of ensuing year's budget) 6,862,671 $6,633,047 $6,136,151 $6,862,671 *The amout of fund balance available at December 31, 2004 is 51% of the 2005 budget. City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Special Revenue Funds are a classification of funds to account for activities segregated by City policy, Federal or State statutes for specific purposes. The City maintained eight Special Revenue Funds during 2004. Housing and Redevelopment Authoritv Fund (202) The HRA has authority to levy an ad valorem property tax for housing and redevelopment purposes. The HRA Fund accounts for property tax levies. A summary of financial activity is as follows: Housing and Redevelopment Authority 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Property taxes $194,766 $207,854 $223,523 Expenditures and other uses: Transfer to EDA 194,766 207,854 223,523 Net change in fund balance 0 0 0 Fund balance January 1 Fund balance December 31 $0 $0 $0 Pursuant to MS 469.033, the HRA's levy limit is an amount equal to 0.0144% of taxable market value. City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds Economic Development Authoritv Fund (203) The EDA Fund accounts for the financial activity of the EDA. In addition to this fund, the Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund accounts for the EDA operations of the Center. A summary of financial activity is as follows: Economic Development Authority 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Property taxes $5,974 $36 Intergovernmental 53,623 188,495 54,273 Investment earnings 29,440 20,276 19,721 Reimbursements 257,986 Other 49,000 89,002 Sale of capital assets 474,648 73,175 Transfer from CDBG 13,500 Transfer from HRA 194,766 207,854 223,523 Total revenue and other sources 820,951 578,838 555,503 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 176,508 124,580 118,632 Supplies 579 2,962 475 Services and other charges 154,052 235,876 143,888 Purchase of land 293,145 Total expenditures and other uses 331,139 363,418 556,140 Net change in fund balance 489,812 215,420 (637) Fund balance January 1 783,534 1,273,346 1,488,766 Fund balance December 31 $1,273,346 $1,488,766 $1,488,129 City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds TIF District No. 2 Earle Brown TIF Fund (277) The Earle Brown TIF Fund accounts for TIF No. 1 (Brookwood Housing) and TIF No. 2 (Earle Brown Farm). A summary of financial activity is as follows: Earle Brown TIF 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Tax increment $815,568 $833,553 $725,544 Investment earnings 4,503 7,982 Total revenue and other sources 815,568 838,056 733,526 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 4,210 18,235 22,170 Interest 11,516 26,420 Services and other charges 2,050 11,314 8,482 Transfer to Tax Increment Bonds Debt Service Fund 1,410,000 653,000 876,000 Total expenditures and other uses 1,427,776 708,969 906,652 Net change in fund balance (612,208) 129,087 (173,126) Fund balance (deficit) January 1 (1,202,247) (1,814,455) (1,685,368) Fund balance (deficit) December 31 ($1,814,455) ($1,685,368) ($1,858,494) City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds The fund deficit is financed by loans from the following funds: $105,074 General Fund 593,069 MSA Construction 1,200,000 TIF No. 3 $1,898,143 Total It is anticipated by management that future tax increment collections will be sufficient to repay the interfund loans. Obligations of this district decreased by $1,425,000 in 2004 as shown below: Balance Balance Bond Issue at 12/31/03 at 12/31/04 Tax Increment Bonds of 1991 $1,425,000 a of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds TIF District No. 3 Fund (278) A summary of financial activity is as follows: TIF No. 3 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Tax increment $2,067,009 $2,308,605 $2,880,586 Investment earnings 150,386 81,399 127,140 Bonds issued 17,245,000 Total revenue and other sources 2,217,395 2,390,004 20,252,726 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 8,945 28,010 Interest 95,881 20,000 Services and other charges 768,293 531,549 500,344 Transfer to Tax Increment Bonds Debt Service Fund 570,000 548,000 Total expenditures and other uses 1,443,119 1,127,559 500,344 Net change in fund balance 774,276 1,262,445 19,752,382 Fund balance January 1 4,082,569 4,856,845 6,119,290 Fund balance December 31 $4,856,845 $6,119,290 $25,871,672 s City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds Services and other charges for 2004 include the following: $427,288 Professional services 71,899 Discount on bonds 1,157 Other $500,344 Total The obligations of this TIF District are shown below: i Balance Balance Bond/Note 12/31/03 12/31/04 Taxable Tax Increment Bonds of 1995 $3,080,000 $2,730,000 Taxable Tax Increment Bonds of 2004D 17,245,000 Total $3,080,000 $19,975,000 The 2004 Bonds were issued to finance the acquisition and clearance of a redevelopment site within TIF No. 3. City of Minnes Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds TIF District No. 4 Fund (279) A summary of financial activity is as follows: TIF No. 4 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Tax increment $139,675 $246,968 $227,930 Investment earnings 1,232 130 Total revenue and other sources 140,907 246,968 228,060 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 4,016 3,118 387 Services and other charges 183,923 202,307 246,257 Total expenditures and other uses 187,939 205,425 246,644 Net change in fund balance (47,032) 41,543 (18,584) Fund balance January 1 112,254 65,222 106,765 Fund balance December 31 $65,222 $106,765 $88,181 Services and other charges for 2004 consist primarily of Twin Lakes Business Park TIF Note repayment. The obligations of this TIF District include the following: Balance 12/31104 Twin Lake Business Park TIF Note $2,350,726 I The TIF note is a limited obligation and repayment is based solely on tax increments received. The City has pledged 97.5% of tax increments collected to the payment of the note. Interest on the note is at 8 City o Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds Police Drug Forfeiture Fund (205) The Police Drug Forfeiture Fund accounts for property and /or cash seized by the police department. A summary of financial activity is as follows: Police Drug Forfeiture 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Investment earnings $2,186 $1,106 $1,022 Forfeiture revenue 27,587 27,571 26,470 Total revenue and other sources 29,773 28,677 27,492 Expenditures and other uses: Supplies 7,936 2,009 21,578 Services and other charges 11,370 55,374 Total expenditures and other uses 7,936 13,379 76,952 Net change in fund balance 21,837 15,298 (49,460) Fund balance January 1 37,033 58,870 74,168 Fund balance December 31 $58,870 $74,168 $24,708 r City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Special Revenue Funds Community Development Block Grant Fund (204) A summary of financial activity is as follows: Community Development Block Grant Fund 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: CDBG $352,000 $201,000 Expenditures and other uses: Shingle Creek tower project 325,000 175,000 Transfer to EDA (CEAP) 13,500 CEAP 13,500 26,000 Total expenditures and other uses 352,000 201,000 0 Net change in fund balance $0 $0 $0 i City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter i Special Revenue Funds Citv Initiatives Grant Fund (286) The City Initiatives Grant Fund accounts for donations received from outside parties. A summary of financial activity is as follows: City Initiatives Grant 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Intergovernmental $82,157 $370,800 $288,830 Investment earnings 2,289 2,532 3,469 Other 57,719 109,006 83,179 Total revenue and other sources 142,165 482,338 375,478 Expenditures and other uses: Personal services 6,219 52,347 108,268 Supplies 24,946 212,808 190,849 Services and other charges 136,845 123,836 47,776 Interest 31 Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund 11,277 Total expenditures and other uses 179,318 388,991 346,893 Net change in fund balance (37,153) 93,347 28,585 Fund balance January 1 51,204 14,051 107,398 Fund balance December 31 $14,051 $107,398 $135,983 City of Br Minnes Audit Management Letter Debt Service Funds DEBT SERVICE FUNDS Debt Service Funds are a type of governmental fund to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of interest and principal on debt (other than Enterprise Fund debt). Current governmental reporting standards do not provide for the matching of long -term debt with its related financing sources. Although this information can be found in the City's i CAFR, it is located in several separate sections of the CAFR. The following schedule extracts information from sections of the 2004 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to provide an overview analysis of long -term debt and its related funding. Assets Pledged for Debt Retirement 12/31/2004 Scheduled Final Fund Deferred Outstanding Property Maturity Fund Description Balance Revenue� Totals Principal Taxes Date Tax Debt: Tax Increment Bonds of 1991 (TIF 2)(376) $273 $273 02/01/04 Refunding Tax Increment Bonds of 1992 (TIF 2)(372) 361,094 361,094 0 02/01/03 Taxable Tax Increment Bonds of 1995 (TIF 3)(378) 37,221 37,221 2,730,000 02/01/05 Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 2004B (TIF 3)(379) 2,470,000 (3) 02/01/11 Taxable Tax In,,.,,..­t Bonds of 2004D (TIF 3)(380) 17,245,000 02/01/20 Total tax increment debt 398,588 0 398,588 22,445,000 0 Special Assessment Debt: Improvement Bonds of 1994 (301) 153,000 9,680 162,680 95,000 02/01/05 Improvement Bonds of 1995 (302) 99,232 19,464 118,696 175,000 73,626 02/01/06 Improvement Bonds of 1996 (303) 462,642 100,588 563,230 470,000 236,853 02/01/07 Improvement Bonds of 1997 (304) 206,976 182,146 389,122 405,000 02/01/08 Improvement Bonds of 1998 (307) 377,393 238,420 615,813 505,000 02/01/09 Improvement Bonds of 1999 (308) 401,354 580,796 982,150 930,000 02/01/10 Improvement Bonds of 2000 (309) 506,912 286,909 793,821 495,000 02/01/11 Improvement Bonds of 2001 (3 10) 385,420 300,681 686,101 565,000 02/01/12 Improvement Bonds of 2003 (311) 314,142 718,453 1,032,595 1,060,000 02/01/13 Improvement Bonds of 2004C (314) 1,010,000 02/01/15 Total special assessment debt 2,907,071 2,437,137 5,344,208 5,710,000 310,479 General Obligation Debt: Refunding State -Aid Street Bonds (306) 4,982 4,982 575,000 04/01/06 Police and Fire Building Bonds (305) 949,658 46,137 995,795 5,405,000 at 02/01/05 Police and Fire Building Bonds of 2004A (314) 5,045,000 02/01/13 Total general obligation debt 954,640 46,137 1,000,777 11,025,000 0 Total All Debt Service Funds $4,260,299 $2,483,274 $6,743,573 $39,180,000 $310,479 "Future tax increment amounts subject to valuation and tax capacity rate fluctuations. (2) Deferred revenue primarily consists of uncollected special assessments. Crossover refundings accounting standards require both bond issues reporting in City's financial statements until crossover date of 2/1/05. City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Debt Service Funds General Obligation Bonds The State -Aid Street Bonds are funded by MSA construction allotments (principal portion) and MSA maintenance allotments (interest portion). The Police and Fire Building Bonds were funded by an annual transfer of property tax monies from the General Fund. Beginning 2004, property tax collections are allocated directly to this fund. 305/314 306 1997B/2004A 1998B Bonds* Bonds Total Revenues: Property taxes $768,774 $768,774 MSA 297,850 297,850 Investment earnings 8,672 5,182 13,854 Total revenues 777,446 303,032 1,080,478 Expenditures: Principal 470,000 270,000 740,000 Interest 264,467 27,850 292,317 Fiscal agent fees 1,030 200 1,230 Total expenditures 735,497 298,050 1,033,547 Net change in fund balance $41,949 $4,982 $46,931 *Excludes crossover refunding bonds escrow activity. City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Debt Service Funds Special Assessment Bonds The Special Assessment Improvement Bonds are funded by property taxes and special assessment collections. A summary of 2004 financial activity is as follows: 301 302 303 304 307 308 309 310 311 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2(X)3 2(X)4 Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Total Revenues: Property taxes $62,823 $64,129 $110,594 $237,546 Special assessments 8,943 11,525 60,459 87,229 90,295 183,545 88,961 127,212 235,054 279,575 1,172,798 Investment earnings 1,839 1,024 5,606 2,527 4,761 7,054 4,992 3,318 31,121 Total revenues 73.605 76,678 176,659 89,756 90,295 188,306 96,015 132,204 238,372 279,575 1.441,465 Expenditures: Principal 90,000 85,000 150,000 105,000 110,(X00 160,000 80,000 80,000 145,M) 1,005,000 Interest 7,632 10,488 27,412 20,683 22,602 47,945 25,135 23,063 33,497 218,457 Fiscal agent fees 978 1,048 1,369 878 690 881 807 602 981 8.234 Total expenditures 98,610 96.536 178.781 126,561 133,292 208,826 105,942 103.665 179,478 0 1.231,691 Net change in fund balance ($25.005) ($19,858) ($2,122) ($36,805) ($42,997) ($20,520) ($9,927) $28.539 $58,894 $279.575 $209,774 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS The fund balances of the Capital Projects Funds were as follows at December 31, 2003 and 2004: Fund Balance December 31, Increase/ Fund 2003 2004 (Decrease) Capital Reserve Emergency $1,336,573 $1,346,261 $9,688 Capital Improvements 1,757,730 1,801,483 43,753 Municipal State Aid for Construction 430,581 598,373 167,792 Infrastructure Construction 229,179 477,695 248,516 Earle Brown Heritage Center Improvements 8,163 121,448 113,285 Street Reconstruction 283,891 1,525,891 1,242,000 Technology 275,000 541,424 266,424 Totals $4,321,117 $6,412,575 $2,091,458 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Capital Reserve Emereencv Fund (406) The Capital Reserve Emergency Fund was established to account for monies held in reserve for catastrophic losses or unforeseen capital items. Financial activity for the past three years is as follows: Capital Reserve Emergency Fund 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Investment earnings $47,174 $31,439 $9,688 Expenditures and other uses: Expenditures 58,976 24,356 Net change in fund balance (11,802) 7,083 9,688 Fund balance January 1 1,341,292 1,329,490 1,336,573 Fund balance December 31 $1,329,490 $1,336,573 $1,346,261 i Brooklyn City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Capital Improvements Fund (401) The Capital Improvements Fund was established to provide funds for major capital outlays. Financial activity for the past three years is as follows: Capital Improvements 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Investment earnings $60,737 $13,494 $9,336 Other 21,005 126,308 122,910 CFL grant 106,200 Transfer from General Fund 285,000 225,000 175,000 Transfer from City Initiatives Fund 11,277 Transfer from Liquor Fund 100,000 125,000 Total revenue and other sources 478,019 364,802 538,446 Expenditures and other uses: Project costs 2,596,999 368,047 494,693 Net change in fund balance (2,118,980) (3,245) 43,753 Fund balance January 1 3,879,955 1,760,975 1,757,730 Fund balance December 31 $1,760,975 $1,757,730 $1,801,483 This fund provides an interfund loan to the Golf Course Fund. The balance of the loan was $850,000 at December 31, 2004. City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds A summary by project is as follows: 2004 Project Expenditures Grandview Park Tennis Court (2004 -16) $24,561 Grandview Athletic Field Lighting (2004 -17) 139,214 Grandview Hockey Rink Lighting (2004 -18) 5,375 Grandview Miscellaneous Improvements (2004 -19) 5,115 Central Park Lighting (2004 -20) 5,995 Grandview Park Youth Activity Center 300,000 Other 14,433 Total $494,693 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Municipal State Aid for Construction Fund (402) The Municipal State Aid for Construction Fund was established to account for the state allotment of gasoline tax collections. Transactions for the past three years have been as follows: Municipal State Aid for Construction 2002 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: MSA construction $1,337,502 $145,387 $604,510 MSA maintenance 90,000 Investment earnings 26,362 72 3,543 Other revenue 3,000 3,555 Total revenue and other sources 1,366,864 145,459 701,608 Expenditures and other uses: Project costs 1,410,361 335,609 Transfer to Infrastructure Fund 533,816 Total expenditures and other uses 1,410,361 335,609 533,816 Net change in fund balance (43,497) (190,150) 167,792 Fund balance January 1 664,228 620,731 430,581 Fund balance December 31 $620,731 $430,581 $598,373 City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Infrastructure Construction Fund (407) The Infrastructure Construction Fund was established to account for improvements financed by special assessments. The financial transactions of this fund for the past three years have been as follows: Infrastructure Construction Fund 2002 2003 2004 Revenues and other sources: Special assessments $260,752 $79,207 $140,982 Intergovernmental 2,487,946 332,182 378,147 Investment earnings 16,232 10,934 98 Other 12,843 24,554 32,569 Bond proceeds 1,196,140 1,002,286 Transfer from General Fund 555,000 480,000 375,000 Transfer from MSA Construction Fund 533,816 Transfer from Water Utility Fund 631,440 Transfer from Sanitary Sewer Fund 555,614 Transfer from Storm Drainage Fund 441,756 Transfer from Street Light Utility Fund 51,000 Residual equity transfer from General Fund 766,343 Total revenues and other sources 4,099,116 2,123,017 4,142,708 Expenditures and other uses: Project costs 5,542,084 1,445,887 3,894,192 Net change in fund balance (1,442,968) 677,130 248,516 Fund balance January 1 995,017 (447,951) 229,179 Fund balance (deficit) December 31 ($447,951) $229,179 $477,695 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds A summary by project is as follows: 2003 2004 Project Expenditures Expenditures River Interceptor (99 -11) $30,047 $188,474 Garden City Central Improvement (00 -01) 6,726 499 Brooklyn Blvd Landscaping (00-21) 1,298 Southwest Area Improvements (02 -01) 187,932 9,275 France Avenue Relocation (02 -04) 197,446 310,872 Garden City South Improvement (02 -05) 115,957 1,000 Shingle Creek Trail (02 -19) 61,784 Happy Hollow Improvements (03 -01, 02, 03, 04) 709,591 264,887 Northport Improvements (04 -01, 02, 03, 04) 29,001 2,560,483 Misc. Concrete Repair (03 -14) 26,002 11,322 Brooklyn Blvd Traffic Study (03 -15) 9,339 Shingle Creek Parkway (04 -12, 13, 14) 359,042 Other 70,764 188,338 Total $1,445,887 $3,894,192 Earle Brown Heritaee Center ImDrovements Fund (408) This fund was established to account for monies set aside for future improvements. C i City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Street Reconstruction Fund (409) This fund was established to account for road projects which are financed wholly or in part by special assessments. This fund was formerly the Special Assessment Construction Fund. Financial transactions for the past two years is as follows: 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Interest income $252 $9,457 Transfer from General Fund 183,639 620,464 Transfer from Liquor Fund 100,000 Franchise fees 612,079 Total revenue and other sources 283,891 1,242,000 Expenditures and other uses Net change in fund balance 283,891 1,242,000 Fund balance January 1 283,891 Fund balance December 31 $283,891 $1,525,891 City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Capital Projects Funds Technologv Fund (410), This fund was established in 2003 to account for funds set aside for technology improvements or major technology renovations /replacements. Financial transactions for the past two years is as follows: 2003 2004 Revenue and other sources: Transfer from General Fund $275,000 $295,000 Investment earnings 4,868 Other 23,000 Total revenue and other sources 275,000 322,868 Expenditures and other uses 56 444 P Net change in fund balance 275,000 266,424 Fund balance January 1 275,000 Fund balance December 31 $275,000 $541,424 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds ENTERPRISE FUNDS The City maintains eight Enterprise Funds as follows: Municipal Liquor Golf Course Earle Brown Heritage Center Recycling and Refuse Street Light Utility Water Utility Sanitary Sewer 0 Storm Drainage City of Brooklyn Minnes Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Municipal Liquor Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Municipal Liquor 2002 2003 2004 Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Sales $3,435,556 100.0% $3,407,990 100.0% $4,026,679 100.0% Cost of sales (2,593,765) (75.5 (2,554,637) (75.0 (3,035,621) (75.4 Gross margin 841,791 24.5% 853,353 25.0% 991,058 24.6% Operating expenses: Personal services 364,054 10.6% 381,227 11.2% 457,919 11.4% Supplies 11,804 0.3% 25,669 0.8% 39,100 1.0% Other services 100,202 2.9% 116,784 3.4% 139,727 3.5% Insurance 7,433 0.2% 6,997 0.2% 11,176 0.3% Utilities 11,828 0.3% 12,636 0.4% 27,066 0.7% Rent 158,702 4.6% 144,499 4.2% 228,632 5.7% Depreciation 35,580 1.0% 35,580 1.0% 35,624 0.9% Total operating expense 689,603 19.9% 723,392 21.2% 939,244 23.5% Operating income 152,188 4.6% 129,961 3.8% 51,814 1.1% Other income (expense) net 29,506 0.9% 22,072 0.6% 12,857 0.3% Transfer to Capital Projects Fund (100,000) (2.9 (100,000) (2.9 (125,000) (3.1 Change in net assets $81,694 2.6% $52,033 1.5% ($60,329) (1.7 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2002 2003 2004 Net cash from operating activities $247,882 $279,607 ($251,812) Less purchase of capital assets (50,932) Subtotal 247,882 279,607 (302,744) Transfer to Capital Improvements Fund (100,000) (100,000) (125,000) Investment earnings 28,169 14,956 9,209 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents $176,051 $194,563 ($418,535) Cash balance at December 31 $801,993 $996,556 $578,021 The primary reason for use of cash is an increase in inventory of $277,000. Comparison With Other Municipal Liauor Stores The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) annually publishes "An Analysis of Minnesota Municipal Liquor Store Operations. The most recent report available is for 2003. The following analysis compares Brooklyn Center's liquor operations with those reported in the OSA report. There are twenty -two metro area cities that operate off -sale only operations. The City of Brooklyn Center ranks 10th in sales among metro area cities. It should be noted that the following comparisons are strictly a comparison of amounts reported. There are a number of factors that affect operating results that are not included in this comparison. These factors include the mix of product sold, philosophy regarding sales techniques such as high volume /lower margin, demographics and location. City of i• Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Gross Marein Analvsis The gross margin of the liquor operations has averaged 21 over the past five years. Gross margin measures the sales less the direct cost of products sold. A comparison to state averages for Minnesota municipal off -sale operations is as follows: Cost of Gross Margin State Sales Sales Amount Percent Average 1999 $3,560,613 $2,694,622 $865,991 24.3% 23.6% 2000 3,584,829 2,734,318 850,511 23.7% 23.8% 2001 3,552,152 2,696,042 856,110 24.1% 24.0% 2002 3,435,556 2,593,765 841,791 24.5% 24.4% 2003 3,407,990 2 554 637 853,353 25.0% 23.9% 2004 4,026,679 3,035,621 991,058 24.6% Not available Source: Minnesota Office of the State Auditor Metropolitan Area Off -Sale Operations Oneratin2 Exvenses Operating expenses for the past several years have been as follows: Percent of Sales Year Amount City State Average 1999 $632,638 17.7% 16.2% 2000 696,830 19.5% 16.5% 2001 643,452 18.1% 16.6% 2002 689,603 19.9% 16.2% 2003 723,392 21.2% 17.7% 2004 939,244 23.3% Not available The City of Brooklyn Center does not compare favorably with State averages for operating expenses. C City of Minnes Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds I Net Income Net income for the past several years is as follows: Amount Percent of Sales State State Year City Average City Average 1999 $249,024 $142,546 6.9% 7.5% 2000 144,577 158,275 3.9% 7.7% 2001 272,734 163,125 7.7% 7.8% 2002 181,694 155,981 5.5% 8.1% 2003 152,033 N/A 4.5% 7.0% 2004 64,671 N/A 1.6% N/A City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Golf Course Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Golf Course 2002 2003 2004 Operating revenue: Sales $278,664 $294,149 $284,992 Operating expenses: Personal services 144,912 126,866 131,383 Supplies 29,219 19,501 15,616 Other services 64,203 88,494 73,313 Insurance 9,003 8,002 7,721 Utilities 13,758 17,208 15,123 Depreciation 13,045 27,912 27,971 Total expenses 274,140 287,983 271,127 Operating income $4,524 $6,166 $13,865 The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2002 2003 2004 Net cash from operating activities $13,165 $38,292 $44,770 Less purchase of capital assets (11,161) Less debt service (50,000) (15,000) (35,000) Subtotal (47,996) 23,292 9,770, Investment earnings 2,606 1,048 1,379 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents ($45,390) $24,340 $11,149 Cash balance at December 31 $37,281 $61,621 $72,770 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Earl Brown Heritage Center 2002 2003 2004 Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Sales $3,480,535 100.0% $3,393,810 100.0% $3,565,197 100.0% Cost of sales (385,341) (11.1%) (1,644,608) (48S (1,889,930) (53.0 Gross margin 3,095,194 88.9% 1,749,202 51.5% 1,675,267 47.0% Operating expenses: Personal services 1,740,912 56.2% 812,146 46.4% 819,068 48.9% Supplies 275,360 8.9% 90,368 5.2% 129,728 7.7% Other services 489,964 15.8% 340,303 19.5% 366,421 21.9% Insurance 34,776 1.1% 30,672 1.8% 32,649 1.9% Utilities 146,742 4.7% 157,339 9.0 170,658 10.2% Rent 88,019 2.8% 104,776 6.0% 93,062 5.6% Depreciation 582,083 18.8% 571,632 32.7% 568,643 33.9% Total operating expense 3,357,856 108.3 2,107,236 120.6% 2,180,229 130.1% Operating income (loss) (262,662) (19.4 (358,034) (69.1 (504,962) (83.1 Other income (expense) net 20,878 0.7% 11,631 0.7% 58,366 3.5% Transfer to other funds (100 (3.2 0.0% (200,000) (11.9 Change in net assets ($341,784) (21.9%) ($346,403) (68.4 ($646,596) (91.5%) The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2002 2003 2004 Net cash from operating activities $324,754 $171,524 $127,818 Investment earnings 22,553 17,376 13,485 Transfer to EBHC Improvements Fund (100,000) (200,000) Other (1,098) Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents $246,209 $188,900 ($58,697) Cash and investment balance at December 31 $666,529 $855,429 $796,733 City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Recvclin2 and Refuse Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Recycling and Refuse 2002 2003 2004 Operating revenue $210,954 $212,271 $214,347 Operating expenses: Other services 215,032 223,504 221,443 Insurance 179 175 1,378 Total operating expenses 215,211 223,679 222,821 Operating income (loss) ($4,257) ($11,408) ($8,474) City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Water Utilitv Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: I Water Utility 1 2002 2003 2004 Operating revenue $1,364,076 $1,530,592 $1,583,450 Operating expenses: Depreciation 698,773 648,115 588,767 All other 873,462 991,576 945,156 Total operating expenses 1,572,235 1,639,691 1,533,923 Operating income (loss) (208,159) (109,099) 49,527 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Income 68,864 46,717 32,636 Transfers net (631,441) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) 68,864 46,717 (598,805) Change in net assets ($139,295) ($62,382) ($549,278) The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2002 2003 2004 Net cash from operating activities $437,240 $628,197 $537,570 Less purchase of capital assets (650,253) (309,930) (34,751) Less debt service (56,302) Subtotal (269,315) 318,267 502,819 Investment earnings 47,077 31,180 26,020 Transfer to Infrastructure Construction Fund (631,440) Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents ($222,238) $349,447 ($102,601) Cash balance at December 31 $1,541,308 $1,890,755 $1,788,154 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Sanitary Sewer Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Sanitary Sewer Fund 2002 2003 2004 Operating revenue $2,664,730 $2,870,109 $2,833,836 Operating expenses 2,550,584 2,556,224 2,310,645 Operating income (loss) 114,146 313,885 523,191 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Income 42,950 77,355 97,220 Transfers (555,614) Change in net assets $157,096 $391,240 $64,797 The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2002 2003 2004 Net cash from operating activities $660,035 $848,185 $998,130 Less purchase of capital assets (1,023,781) (416,742) (142,840) Subtotal (363,746) 431,443 855,290 Investment earnings 42,678 26,473 28,990 Transfer to Infrastructure Construction Fund (555,614) Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents ($321,068) $457,916 $328,666 Cash balance at December 31 $682,184 $1,140,100 $1,468,766 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds Storm Drainage Fund The financial activity of this fund for the past three years has been as follows: Storm Drainage 2002 2003 2004 Operating revenues: User fees $1,377,638 $1,264,512 $1,276,778 Special assessments 429,873 112,254 554 Other 26,363 Investment earnings 5,675 10,237 20,658 Total operating revenues 1,813,186 1,413,366 1,297,990 Operating expenses: Personal services 100,000 Supplies 3,153 3,861 1,917 Other services 126,656 290,369 225,729 Insurance 1,932 1,292 1,328 Depreciation 474,574 513,608 527,619 Interest 36,701 25,835 9,054 Total operating expenses 743,016 834,965 765,647 Transfers out (441,755) Change in net assets $1,070,170 $578,401 $90,588 i i City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Enterprise Funds The cash flow of this fund has been as follows: 2002 2003 2004 Net cash from operating activities $1,126,992 $1,115,712 $1,044,422 Less purchase of capital assets (961,302) (323,343) Less debt service (236,701) (235,835) (229,055) Subtotal (71,011) 556,534 815,367 Investment earnings 5,674 14,321 20,658 Special assessments 429,873 Transfer to Infrastructure Construction Fund (441,755) Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents $364,536 $570,855 $394,270 Cash balance at December 31 $343,221 $914,076 $1,308,346 Street Light Utilitv Fund This fund was established in 2004. The financial activity is as follows: Street Light Utility Fund 2002 2003 2004 Operating revenues: User fees $213,078 $200,224 $208,121 Other 8,060 Investment earnings 966 1,035 1,974 Total operating revenues 214,044 209,319 210,095 Operating expenses: Other services 152,660 146,504 165,651 Transfers (51,000) Change in net assets $61,384 $62,815 ($6,556) City of Brooklyn Minnesota Audit Management Letter Internal Service Funds INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Internal Service Funds are used to account for the financing on a cost reimbursement basis of goods or services provided by one department to another department within the City. During 2004, the City maintained the following Internal Service Funds: Internal Service Funds Cash and Investment Balance December 31, Fund 2002 2003 2004 Compensated Absences $741,038 $795,418 $881,890 Retirement (Post Employment Insurance Benefits) 1,574,666 1,564,375 1,529,053 Central Garage 4,198,486 4,541,395 4,779,713 Total $6,514,190 $6,901,188 $7,190,656 City of Minnesota Audit Management Letter Other Matters OTHER MATTERS As required by Government Auditing Standards, we have issued an internal control report. That report identified one reportable condition relating to grant monitoring. Government Auditing Standards also requires communication of other matters that came to our attention during the audit. They are as follows: Outstanding Checks. The City has five outstanding checks from 2001 ($95) and 16 outstanding checks from 2002 ($5,187). Minnesota Statutes (M.S. 345.41) require unclaimed property held for more than three years be delivered to the State Commissioner of Commerce. Golf Course Z- Taves. The golf course currently prepares a report that summarizes daily cash register activity. These reports are forwarded to the finance department. However, the cash register z -tapes are destroyed. We recommend the z -tapes be retained and forwarded to the finance department. r COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT 1 OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA Michael J. McCauley City Manager Prepared B P y DEPARTMENT OF FISCAL SUPPORT SERVICES Daniel Jordet Director FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 (Member of Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada) X Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal I Table of Principal Officials 6 Organizational Chart 7 FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report 9 Management's Discussion and Analysis 11 1 Basic Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets 19 Statement of Activities 2 0 Governmental Funds Balance Sheet 24 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance 26 Reconciliation of Statement 28 Proprietary Funds Statement of Net Assets 30 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets 32 Statement of Cash Flows 34 Notes to the Financial Statements 37 Required Supnlementary Information: Budgetary Comparison Schedule General Fund 71 Budgetary Comparison Schedule -Earle Brown Tax Increment District 77 Budgetary Comparison Schedule -Tax Increment District No. 3 78 Note A on Budgetary Compliance 79 Combininiz and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules: Nonmajor Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheet 82 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes 83 Subcombining Balance Sheet Special Revenue Funds 87 Subcombining Statement of Revenues Special Revenue Funds 88 Special Revenue Funds- Housing and Redevelopment Authority 90 Special Revenue Funds- Economic Development Authority 91 Special Revenue Funds -Tax Increment District No. 4 92 Special Revenue Funds- Police Drug Forfeiture Fund 93 Special Revenue Funds Community Development Block Grant 94 Special Revenue Funds -City Initiatives Grant Fund 95 Subcombining Balance Sheet -Debt Service Funds 98 Subcombining Statement of Revenue -Debt Service Funds 99 Subcombining Balance Sheet Capital Project Funds 102 Subcombining Statement of Revenues Capital Project Funds 104 Nonmajor Enterprise Funds Subcombining Statement of Net Assets 108 Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes 109 Subcombining Statement of Cash Flows 110 Internal Service Funds Subcombining Statement of Net Assets 112 Subcombining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes 113 Subcombining Statement of Cash Flows 114 STATISTICAL SECTION (unaudited) Government -wide Expenses by Function 116 Government -wide Revenues 118 General Governmental Expenditures by Function 120 General Governmental Revenues and Other Financing Sources by Source 121 Special Assessment Billings and Collections 122 Computation of Legal Debt Margin 123 Ratio of Annual Debt Service Expenditures for General Bonded Debt 124 Miscellaneous Statistical Data 125 Tax Levies and Tax Collections 127 Assessed Value and Estimated Market Value of All Taxable Property 128 Direct and Overlapping Debt Rates (per 1,000) and Tax Levies 130 Ratio of Net Bonded Debt to Assessed Value and Net Bonded Debt per Capita 132 Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt 133 Principal Taxpayers 134 Property Value and Construction 135 Demographic Statistics 136 Schedule of Revenue Bond Coverage 137 Schedule of Insurance Coverage 138 ii T City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community June 23, 2005 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center Transmitted herewith is the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Brooklyn Center for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. Minnesota Statutes and City Charter Section 7.12 require that the financial statements of the City of Brooklyn Center be audited by the State Auditor or a certified public accountant selected by the City Council. These financial statements have been audited by HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Their report is included in the financial section of this report. In addition, HLB Tautges Redpath is required to issue an opinion on the City's management and accounting for grant funds from the federal government. This "Single Audit" opinion, when included, is designed to meet the monitoring needs of federal grantor agencies. That report is issued in a separate letter. Profile of the City of Brooklyn Center The City of Brooklyn Center was incorporated in 1911 and is located in northern Hennepin County. The City has operated under the council- manager form of government since the adoption of the City Charter in 1966. The governing body is comprised of the Mayor and four Council Members elected at large. All members serve four -year terms with two of the Council Members standing for election during each national election year cycle. The Mayor and Council Members hire the City Manager who runs the daily operations of the City. The City of Brooklyn Center provides a full range of municipal services to its citizens. These include police and fire protection services, zoning enforcement, municipal planning, parks and recreation activities, construction and maintenance of streets, provision of water, sanitary sewer, stormwater and street lighting utilities. Community and economic development are facilitated through a Housing and Redevelopment Authority and an Economic Development Authority. The City also has internal departments providing human resources, engineering, financial management and information technology support to these various functions. The City operates a conference and meeting facility at the Earle Brown Heritage Center, municipal liquor, and a 9 hole golf course. 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 1 Financial planning and control for the City of Brooklyn Center is based on the Annual Budget and the five -year Capital Improvement Program. Under Minnesota Statutes, a preliminary property tax levy must be adopted no later than r Se tembe 15 of each year for the ensuing collection. This p Y 9 ears Y establishes a maximum levy that may be subsequently lowered but not raised. Effective establishment of this levy requires a preliminary budget be prepared. The City Manager prepares such a budget each summer and presents it to the City Council in August, prior to the consideration of the preliminary tax levy. In addition, the City Council reviews the recommended rates and charges for enterprise funds and other operations on an annual basis as part of the budget process. Citizens receive a notice of proposed taxes in November based on the preliminary levies established by all taxing districts. Following the receipt of this notice citizens are invited to public hearings known as Truth in Taxation hearings in each jurisdiction. The City's hearing includes information about the budget, the property tax levy and the priorities of the City Council for the coming year as made evident by the budget allocations. Public comment is heard at this hearing and the final property tax levy is adopted at a subsequent meeting. This forms the basis for the budget preparation and presentation framework. In addition, a Capital Improvement Program is reviewed and revised during the budget process each year. This includes projects for which the City must issue debt and /or assess portions of the cost to adjacent or benefited property owners. Because there are limited funds available each year and the City does not wish to issue excessive amounts of debt, these projects must be reviewed and sometimes reprioritized as the Capital Improvement Program is developed each year. Economic Condition and Outlook The City of Brooklyn Center is a northern suburb of the Minneapolis /St. Paul metropolitan area, adjacent to the City of Minneapolis and located 10 miles from downtown Minneapolis. The City is wholly within Hennepin County and encompasses an area of approximately 8.5 square miles. The Mississippi River forms the City's eastern boundary. The City experienced its most rapid growth from 1950 to 1970 when the City's population grew from 4,300 to its peak of 35,173. The 2000 Census data for the City was 29,172, a slight increase from the 1990 Census data of 28,887. The number of housing units has remained stable at 11,430 units, there were 11,704 housing units in 1990. The total estimated market value of real and personal property within the City increased 7.55 in 2004 over 2003, 9.2% in 2003 over 2002 and 12.42% in 2002 2 over 2001. Residential values posted the largest gains going up over 10% in total. Commercial /industrial values are stable for the 2003 to 2004 period reflecting growth in industrial values and declines in commercial values. Demand for starter homes has continued to drive up values of residential property in the City. Major transportation routes in and through the City, including Interstates 94 and 694, and State Highway 100 and 252, have provided a continued impetus for development of a strong commercial tax base in the City along and adjacent to these corridors. Commercial and industrial properties comprised 35% of the City's taxable net tax capacity in 2004, down from 38% in 2003. This demonstrates the shift of tax burden from commercial industrial to residential with the phasing out of the limited market value law. The largest commercial property in the City is Brookdale Mail, a 1,093,931 square -foot regional shopping center. Factors Affecting Financial Condition Major Events of 2004 and Local Economv Brooklyn Center is a mature, developed suburb that is working to revitalize itself. With its affordable housing, excellent schools, beautiful parks, and convenient access, it has the potential to continue to be a vibrant community for many years to come. The revitalization of Brooklyn Center is proceeding on three tracks: replacement and renewal of the commercial areas of the City; replacement and enhancement of its aging streets, utilities, and parks; and the reinvigoration of neighborhoods. The City continued its redevelopment effort in the Brooklyn Boulevard and 69"' Avenue area. This approximately 5.2 acre site contained some of the older commercial property along Brooklyn Boulevard. A Super America convenience store gas station was constructed and opened to further enhance this commercial area. A large new display and service facility for Global Office Furnishings was completed and opened at Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The world headquarters of Caribou Coffee was completed in the Joslyn soils district The total of the three phases in the Joslyn project have added approximately 400 jobs. As part of a planned replacement of the aging infrastructure, the City continued the program for street and utility improvements by reconstructing the Northport neighborhood streets. While streets are replaced, aging water, sanitary and storm sewer infrastructure is also repaired or replaced. These improvements are funded by general obligation improvement bonds supported with special assessments against benefited properties, an operating transfer from the general fund, and funds from the capital projects funds and utility enterprise funds. 3 About one twenty -fifth of the City's streets and utilities are reconstructed each year. It is expected that this will be a perpetual process, since at the end of twenty -five years, it will be necessary to begin the process anew with the streets that were done first. An additional benefit of these neighborhood projects has been the increased interest by residents and their efforts to paint, repair, landscape and further enhance their properties. The hospitality industry contributes a significant amount to Brooklyn Center's economy. Lodging tax again provided almost 345,000 for 2004 fiscal year operations. Plans for a new hotel to augment the success of the City -owned Earle Brown Heritage Center conference and convention facility are under consideration. Infrastructure and Transportation Interstate 94 and Highway 100 improvements were substantially completed and opened in 2004. Access to and from the retail and industrial areas of Brooklyn Center has been greatly improved. In addition, improved traffic flow has made routes through Brooklyn Center much more pleasant for the commuter. Shingle Creek Parkway, a major intra -city corridor for commercial and industrial traffic, will be reconstructed from Northway Drive to Interstate 94 during 2005. Park lighting and sidewalks will also be on the schedule to improve the community infrastructure. Development of utility rate models has improved the City's ability to generate cash flow and schedule improvements to the water and sewer systems. Separate funds for street lighting and stormwater drainage have also helped control and prioritize infrastructure improvements and operations in these areas. Cash Manaaement The City of Brooklyn Center receives interest on all funds deposited by the City in its bank and investment accounts. During 2004 daily funds were moved to a 'sweep" account paying interest on overnight deposits. The rate on this daily sweep rose during 2004 from just under 0.90% per year to a rate at the end of the year in excess of 1.70% per year. This result was negotiated between the city and the bank in exchange for a slightly higher balance being maintained in the operating account. Other funds were invested in various treasury securities and mortgage back securities considered acceptable risks under the "prudent person" investment limitations of Minnesota Statutes. Longer term investments will have a slightly higher rate of interest compared to the overnight "sweep" rates of liquid cash. In addition, the City invests in the 4M and 4MPlus funds sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities. These accounts pay a return 4 higher than liquid cash but lower than treasuries and mortgage backed securities. The advantage of using these funds is liquidity. Treasury management requires a balance between the availability of cash and investment to obtain the highest return without undue risk of public assets. Acknowledoements This report has been prepared following the guidelines recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada. These guidelines assure that presentation of information on the city's financial condition conforms substantially to the high standards of public financial reporting, including generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by the Government Accounting Standards Board. The preparation and publication of this report would not have been possible without the efficient work of the Finance staff of the City. We would like to acknowledge all staff that contributed their efforts to the Finance operations in 2004 and thank them for their dedicated service. We would also like to thank the Mayor and City Council for their support in promoting and maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and management of the City of Brooklyn Center's finances. ull ub� itted, Michael J: ey Daniel Jordet City Ma Director of Fiscal Support Services e 5 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS December 31, 2004 Name Position Term of Office Term Expires ELECTED OFFICIALS Myrna Kragness Mayor Four Years December 31, 2006 Kathleen Carmody Council Member Four Years December 31, 2006 Kay Lasman Council Member Four Years December 31, 2004 Diane Niesen Council Member Four Years December 31, 2006 Robert Peppe Council Member Four Years December 31, 2004 APPOINTED OFFICIALS Michael J. McCauley City Manager Appointed Curt Boganey Assistant City Manager Appointed Charles LeFevre City Attorney Contractual Appointee Sharon Knutson City Clerk Appointed Scott Bechthold Police Chief Appointed Todd Blomstrom Director of Public Works /City Engineer Appointed Ronald Boman Fire Chief Appointed James Glasoe Community Activities, Recreation Services Director Appointed Brad Hoffman Community Development Director Appointed Daniel Jordet Director of Fiscal Support Services Appointed 6 City of Brooklyn Center Organization 2004 Electorate City Council Advisory Commissions Administration City Attorney City Manager Human Resources Communications Information Technology Elections Licenses City Clerk i v I Public Works Police Deuartment Community Activities, Enterarise Engineering Patrol Recreation, and Services Liquor Stores Street Maintenance Investigation Earle Brown Heritage Center Sanitary Sewer Crime Prevention Community Programs Central Garage Community Programs Recreation Programs Storm Sewer Support Services Community Center Water Department Dispatch Government Buildings •Golf Course Park Maintenance Fire Department Fiscal and Surwort Services Communitv Develooment Fire Prevention Accounting Inspections Fire Suppression Audit Economic Development Emergency Preparedness Utility Billing Housing Redevelopment Authority Risk Management Zoning Assessing Planning This a e has been left blank Intentionally P9 s Tautges Redpath, Ltd. Certified Public Accountants and Consultants INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2004 which collectively comprise the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as of December 31, 2004, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 4810 White Bear Parkway White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 651 4267000 651 426 5004 Fax www.hlbtr.com 1303 South Frontage Road Suite 13 Hastings, Minnesota 55033 651 4804990 651 426 5004 Fax HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. is a member of 0 International, a world -wide organization of accounting firms and business advisors. 9 In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated April 15, 2005 on our consideration of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in conjunction with this report in considering the results of our audit. The Management s Discussion and Analysis and the budgetary comparison information as listed in the table of contents, are not a required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota's basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules, supplementary financial information and statistical tables are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. The combining and individual nonmajor fund financial statements and schedules and supplementary financial information have been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, are fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The introductory section and statistical tables have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them. Ilt C. HLB TAUTGES REDPATH, LTD. White Bear Lake, Minnesota April 15, 2005 10 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS As management of the City of Brooklyn Center, we offer readers of the City of Brooklyn Center's financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the City for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. We encourage readers to consider the information presented here in conjunction with additional information that we have furnished in our letter of transmittal, which can be found on pages 1 through 5 of this report. Financial Hi hli hts The assets of the City exceeded its liabilities at the close of the most recent fiscal year by 98,553,058 (Net assets). Of this amount, 3,226,051 (unrestricted net assets) may be used to meet the government's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors in accordance with the City's fund designations and fiscal policies. The City's total net assets increased by 6,785,794. As of the close of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of 50,919,674. Of this total amount, 41,864,901, or 82% is designated or reserved through legal restrictions and City Council authorization. At the end of the current fiscal year the general fund balance of 6,969,449 included 106,578 reserved and 6,862,871 designated. The City's total outstanding debt increased by 22,030,000 during the current fiscal year, from 17,380,000 to 39,410,000. 1 Overview of the Financial Statements The discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to the City's basic financial statements. The City's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government -wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. Government -wide financial statements. The government -wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the City's finances, in a manner similar to a private- sector business. e The statement of net assets presents information on all of the City's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the City is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how the City's net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g. uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). Both of the government -wide financial statements distinguish functions of the City that are principally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues (governmental activities) from other functions that are intended to recover all or a significant portion of their costs through user fees and charges (business -type activities). The governmental activities of the City of Brooklyn Center include general government, public safety, public works, community services, recreation and economic development. The business -type activities 11 Management's Discussion and Analysis of the City include water and sewer, street lighting, liquor operations, golf course, convention center, storm drainage and recycling/ref ise. The government -wide financial statements can be found on pages 19 through 21 of this report. Fund Financial sta t ements A fund d is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over gr p g resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance- related legal requirements. All of the funds of the City can be divided into two categories: governmental funds and proprietary funds. Governmental funds. Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government -wide financial statements. However, unlike the government -wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near -term inflows and outflows of spend- able resource, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near -term financial requirements. Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government -wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government -wide financial statement. By doing so, readers may better understand the long -term impact of the City's near term financial decisions. Both the governmental fund balance sheet and governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and change in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. The City maintains 5 individual major governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental fund balance sheet and in the governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the General fund, the Earle Brown TIF District special revenue fund, TIF District No. 3 special revenue fund, the Special Assessment Bonds debt service fund and the Infrastructure Construction capital projects fund, which are considered to be major funds. Data from the other governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. Individual fund data for each of these non -major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements elsewhere in this report. The City adopts an annual appropriated budget for its general and special revenue funds. A budgetary comparison statement has been provided for those funds to demonstrate compliance with this budget. The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found on pages 24 through 28 of this report. Proprietary funds. The City maintains six enterprise funds as its one type of proprietary fund. Enterprise funds are used to report the same functions presented as business -type activities in the governmental -wide financial statements. The City uses enterprise funds to account for its municipal liquor, golf course, Earle Brown Heritage Center, water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage operations. Proprietary funds provide the same type of information as the government -wide financial statements, only in more detail. The proprietary fund financial statements provide separate information for the municipal liquor, golf course, Earle Brown Heritage Center, water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage operations, street lighting, and recycling/ref ise. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found on pages 30 through 35 of this report. 12 Management's Discussion and Analysis Notes to the financial statements. The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government —wide and fund financial statements. The notes to the financial statements can be found on pages 37 through 70 of this report. Other information. The combining statements referred to earlier in connection with nonmajor governmental funds and internal service funds are presented immediately following the required supplementary information on budgetary comparisons. Combining and individual fund statements and schedules can be found on pages 71 through 114 of this report. Government -wide Financial Analvsis As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indictor of a government's financial position. In the case of the City, assets exceeded liabilities by 98,553,058 at the close of the most recent fiscal year. The largest portion of the City's net assets 48,777,366 or 49 percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g. land, buildings, machinery, and equipment) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that is still outstanding. The City uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the City's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. CITY'S NET ASSETS Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total e 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 Current and other assets $63,573,375 $36,422,171 7,948,797 8,334,766 $71,522,172 $44,756,937 Capital assets 34,583,271 31,739,661 36,359,095 38,348,615 70,942,366 70,088,276 Total assets 98,156,646 68,161,832 44,307,892 46,683,381 142,464,538 114,845,213 Long -term liabilities outstanding 31,770,886 14,193,227 230,000 31,770,886 14,423,227 Other liabilities 11,099,015 6,564,288 1,041,579 2,090,434 12,140,594 8,654,722 Total liabilities 42,869,901 20,757,515 1,041,579 2,320,434 43,911,480 23,077,949 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 12,648,271 14,733,123 36,129,095 37,898,615 48,777,366 52,631,738 Restricted 39,412,423 14,853,260 39,412,423 14,853,260 Unrestricted 3,226 17,817,934 7,137,218 6,464,332 10,363,269 24,282,266 Total net assets 55,286,745 47,404,317 43,266,313 44,362,947 98,553,058 91,767,264 A portion of the of the City of Brooklyn Center's net assets represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance of unrestricted net assets 3,226,051) may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City of Brooklyn Center is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net assets, both for the government as a whole, as well as for its separate governmental and business -type activities. Current assets increased significantly in the Governmental Funds due to the sale of Tax Increment Bonds in the amount of 17,245,000 and the sale of refunding bonds in the amount of 7,515,000. The Tax Increment e Bonds will be used in the acquisition and redevelopment of properties in Tax Increment District No. 3. The refunding bonds will be used to lower the interest cost on the 1994 Police and Fire Bonds and the 1995 Tax Increment Bonds. By issuing new bonds at a lower rate of interest and using those proceeds to pay off the higher rate callable bonds the City will be able to lower its expected property tax levy for bond payments. 13 Management's Discussion and Analysis Similarly, long -term liabilities rose with the sale of the tax increment and refunding bonds. Those amounts will self correct when the refunding issues pay off the outstanding debt of the callable refunded issues in February of 2005. This carries through also to the restricted assets increase in the Governmental Funds. Other liabilities in the Business -type activities decreased with the final transfer of amounts due for payment of contracted infrastructure construction projects. Governmental Activities Government activities resulted in an increase of the City's net assets by 7,882,428, while the overall increase totaled 6,785,794. Key elements of the increase are as follows: CITY'S CHANGES IN NET ASSETS Govemmental Activities Business -type Activities Total 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 Revenues: Program revenues: Charges for services 1,644,583 1,827,716 9,067,849 8,974,412 10,712,432 10,802,128 Operating grants and contributions 933,104 1,627,020 933,104 1,627,020 Capital grants and contributions 2,423,411 1,079,134 2,423,411 1,079,134 General revenues: Property taxes 12,124,040 10,407,613 12,124,040 10,407,613 Other taxes 4,218,209 4,189,148 4,218,209 4,189,148 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 923,374 1,413,913 923,374 1,413,913 Gain on sale of assets 29,202 13,976 29,202 13,976 Unrestricted investment earnings 491,524 426,329 102,696 82,165 594,220 508,494 Other 660,218 588,264 117,864 241,308 778,082 829,572 Total revenues 23,447,665 21,573,113 9,288,409 9,297,885 32,736,074 30,870,998 Expenses: General government 2,725,137 2,565,088 2,725,137 2,565,088 Public safety 7,538,277 7,184,536 7,538,277 7,184,536 Public works 2,482,819 3,002,223 2,482,819 3,002,223 Corrnrainity services 67,324 225,365 67,324 225,365 Parks and Recreation 2,255,231 2,169,482 2,255,231 2,169,482 Economic development 1,683,025 1,759,585 1,683,025 1,759,585 Nondepartmental 818,234 657,174 818,234 657,174 Municipal liquor 939,244 724,897 939,244 724,897 Golf course 271,127 290,990 271,127 290,990 E. Brown Heritage Center 2,180,229 2,109,166 2,180,229 2,109,166 Recycling and refuse 222,821 223,679 222,821 223,679 Water utility 1,533,923 1,645,955 1,533,923 1,645,955 Sanitary sewer 2,310,645 2,567,032 2,310,645 2,567,032 Storm drainage 756,593 838,421 756,593 838,421 Street light utility 165,651 147,293 165,651 147,293 Total expenses 17,570,047 17,563,453 $380,233 8,547,433 25,950,280 26,110,886 Increase in net assets before transfers 5,877,618 4,009,660 908,176 750,452 6,785,794 4,760,112 Transfers 2,004,810 100,000 (2,004,810) (100,000) Increase in net assets 7,882,428 4,109,660 (1,096,634) 650,452 6,785,794 4,760,112 Net assets January 1 47,404,317 43,294 44,362,947 43,712,495 91,767,264 87,007,152 Net assets December 31 55,286,745 47,404,317 43,266,313 44,362,947 98,553,058 91,767,264 14 Management's Discussion and Analysis In the Governmental Activities, property taxes produced an additional 1,716,427. When combined with the transfer of funds from the Business -type Activities for repayment of infrastructure construction expenditures, net assets increased by 7,882,428 in Governmental Funds in 2004. The total increase in the rate of net asset accumulation is primarily the result of the property tax increase. Below are specific graphs which provide comparisons of the governmental activities revenues and expenditures: Governmental Activities 2004 Revenues Unrestricted investment earnings 1.5% Other revenues Charges for services Court fines 2.8% 7.0% 1.3% Operating grants and contributions 15.9% I, Property taxes and Special Assessment 71.5% Governmental Activities 2004 Expenses Interest on long -term Nondepartmental debt 8.6% General government 5.1% J 14.7% Community service and recreation 12.3% Public safety Public works 37.7% J 21.7% 15 Management's Discussion and Analysis I Business -tvae activities Business -type activities decreased net assets by 1,096,634. Below are graphs showing the business -type activities revenue and expense comparisons: Business -Type Activities 2004 Revenues Unrestricted investment earnings Other Revenues 0.9% 2.6% Net Charges for services 96.5% Business -Type Activities 2004 Expenses Heritage Center Sewer 26.9% Vii+ x32.8% Storm Drainage�� 10.7% Minor Enterprise Water 4.8% Golf Course 21.0% 3.7% The Business -type activities transferred 2,004,810 in net assets to the Governmental activities to reimburse Capital Project Funds for utility portions of infrastructure construction costs. Financial Analvsis of the Government's Funds Governmental Funds. The focus of the City's governmental funds is to provide information on near -term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such information is useful in assessing the City's 16 Management's Discussion and Analysis financing requirements. In particular, unreserved fund balance may serve as useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City's governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of 50,919,674. Approximately 26% of this amount 13,337,118) is reserved because it has already been committed 1) to provide for debt service 13,230,540), 2) loans receivable 105,074), and 3) for prepaid items 1,504). The unreserved fund balance of 37,582,556, includes designations for 1) general fund working capital 6,862,871), 2) Special Revenue Funds for housing development 17,173,101), and 3) capital improvements 4,491,811). The balance is undesignated and unreserved 9,054,773). The general fund decreased by 1,047,631 in 2004 due to transfers of fund balance to capital projects and technology reserves. The Earle Brown TIF District fund decreased by 173,126. This decrease was lower than the budgeted decrease of 413,733 in 2004 because tax increments were higher than expected. The TIF District No. 3 fund increased by 19,752,382 in 2004 primarily because of the sale of 17,245,000 in bonds for TIF eligible development expenses. Those funds are carried in their entirety as of December 31, 2004 but will be spent for acquisition and development of properties within the district over the next three years. The Special Assessment Bonds fund increased by 209,774 in 2004 because some required assessments were paid in advance. The Infrastructure Construction fund increased by 248,516 in 2004 largely because of reimbursements accumulated over time in capital improvement projects and the net proceeds of an improvement bond issue. Proprietary funds. The City's proprietary funds provide the same type of information found in the e government -wide financial statements, but in more detail. The unrestricted net assets in the respective major proprietary funds are the municipal liquor fund 996,648, golf course (777,406), Earle Brown Heritage Center 669,593, water utility 2,274,717, sanitary sewer 1 2,231,992 and storm drainage 1,334,440. The municipal liquor, golf course, Earle Brown Heritage Center, water utility, sanitary sewer and storm drainage funds had increases (decreases) in net assets in 2004 of (60,329), 18,233, (646,596), (549,278), 64,797, and 90,588, respectively. Capital Asset and Debt Administration Capital assets. The City's investment in capital assets for its governmental and business type activities as of December 31, 2004, amounts to 70,942,366 (net of accumulated depreciation). This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, infrastructure, machinery and equipment. CITY'S CAPITAL ASSETS (net of depreciation) Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 Land (not depreciated) 3,203,904 3,203,904 3,197,342 3,197,342 6,401,246 6,401,246 Land improvements 287,292 368,088 287,292 368,088 Construction in progress 3,731,004 927,629 3,731,004 927,629 Buildings and structures 13,381,007 14,040,653 10,060,390 12,120,833 23,441,397 26,161,486 Departmental equipment 2,204,854 2,435,047 147,259 327,863 2,352,113 2,762,910 Other park improvements 1,058,974 1,145,575 1,058,974 1,145,575 Streets 11,003,528 9,986,853 11,003,528 9,986,853 Mains and lines 22,666,812 22,334,489 22,666,812 22,334,489 1 Total $34,583,271 $31,739,661 $36,359,095 $38,348,615 70,942,366 70,088,276 17 Management's Discussion and Analysis Long -term debt. At the end of the current fiscal year, the City had long -term bonded debt outstanding of 39,410,000, an increase of 22,030,000 from 2003. Of the total outstanding, 11,025,000 is for general obligation bonds, 22,445,000 for tax increment bonds and 5,710,000 for special assessment bonds. An additional 230,000 of storm sewer revenue bonds is outstanding at year end in the business -type activities Additional long -term liabilities include 857,805 for compensated absences. This is the accumulated vacation and sick leave available but not used by employees at the end of 2004. City's Outstanding Debt I General Obligation Improvement Bonds, General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Long -Term Notes and Compensated Absences Governmental Activities Business -type Activities Total 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 General obligation bonds $11,025,000 6,720,000 11,025,000 6,720,000 General obligation tax increment increment bonds 22,445,000 4,505,000 22,445,000 4,505,000 General obligation special assessment bonds 5,710,000 5,705,000 5,710,000 5,705,000 General obligation revenue bonds 230,000 450,000 230,000 450,000 Compensated absences 857,305 783,227 857,305 783,227 Total $40,037,305 $17,713,227 230,000 450,000 40,267,305 18,163,227 The City maintains an Al rating from Moody's. State statutes limit the amount of general obligation debt a Minnesota city may issue to 2% of total Estimated Market Value. The current debt limitation for the City is 39,199,982. Only 10,450,000 of the City's outstanding debt is counted within the statutory limitation amounting to about 27% of the total limit. Requests for information. This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City's finances for all those with an interest in the government's finances. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Director of Fiscal and Support Services, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430. I i� 18 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS Statement 1 December 31, 2004 Primary Government Governmental Business -Type Assets: Activities Activities Total Cash and investments 49,439,170 6,130,747 55,569,917 Receivables: Interest 95,779 95,779 Accounts 273,201 1,640,086 1,913,287 Taxes 1,436,870 1,436,870 Special assessments 3,220,417 276,455 3,496,872 Internal balances 875,998 (875,998) Due from other governments 741,569 741,569 Prepaid expenses 1,504 160,466 161,970 Inventories at cost 28,120 617,041 645,161 Restricted assets: Cash and investments 7,460,747 7,460,747 Capital assets: Nondepreciable 6,934,908 3,197,342 10,132,250 Depreciable 27,648,363 33,161,753 60,810,116 Total assets 98,156,646 44,307,892 142,464,538 Liabilities: Accounts payable 662,073 437,794 1,099,867 Deposits payable 209,740 209,740 Accrued salaries and wages 200,892 28,184 229,076 Accrued interest payable 406,484 406,484 Unearned revenue 14,566 135,861 150,427 Health insurance liability: Due in more than one year 1,548,581 1,548,581 Compensated absences payable: Due within one year 857,305 857,305 Bonds payable: Due within one year 9,815,000 230,000 10,045,000 Due in more than one year 29,365,000 29,365,000 Total liabilities 42,869,901 1,041,579 43,911,480 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 12,648,271 36,129,095 48,777,366 Restricted for: Debt service 14,570,477 14,570,477 Tax increment purposes 24,841,946 24,841,946 Unrestricted 3,226,051 7,137,218 10,363,269 Total net assets 55,286,745 43,266,313 98,553,058 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 19 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 i Charges For i Expenses Services Functions/Programs Primary government: Government activities: General government 2,725,137 315,120 Public safety 7,538,277 687,731 Public works 2,482,819 23,533 Community services 67,324 Parks and recreation 2,255,231 618,199 Economic development 1,683,025 Nondepartmental 333,669 Administrative services reimbursement (784,084) Interest on long -term debt 1,268,649 Total government activities 17,570,047 1,644,583 Business -type activities: Municipal liquor 939,244 991,058 i Golf course 271,127 284,992 E. Brown Heritage Center 2,180,229 1,675,267 Recycling and refuse 222,821 214,347 Street light utility 165,651 208,121 Water utility 1,533,923 1,583,450 Sanitary sewer 2,310,645 2,833,836 Storm drainage 756,593 1,276,778 Total business -type activities 8,380,233 9,067,849 Total primary government 25,950,280 10,712,432 1 1 i The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 20 Statement 2 Net (Expense) Revenue and Program Revenues Changes in Net Assets Operating Capital Primary Government Grants and Grants and Governmental Business -Type Contributions Contributions Activities Activities Total (2,410,017) (2,410,017) 788,831 (6,061,715) (6,061,715) 90,000 2,423,411 54,125 54,125 54,273 (13,051) (13,051) (1,637,032) (1,637,032) (1,683,025) (1,683,025) (333,669) (333,669) 784,084 784,084 (1,268,649) (1,268,649) 933,104 2,423,411 (12,568,949) (12,568,949) 51,814 51,814 13,865 13,865 (504,962) (504,962) (8,474) {8,474) 42,470 42,470 49,527 49,527 523,191 523,191 520,185 520,185 687,616 687,616 933,104 2,423,411 (12,568,949) 687,616 (11,881,333) General revenues: Property taxes 15,730,170 15,730,170 Franchise fees 612,079 612,079 Grants and contributions not restricted to specific programs 923,374 923,374 Unrestricted investment earnings 491,524 102,696 594,220 Gain on disposal of fixed asset 29,202 29,202 Other 660,218 117,864 778,082 Transfers 2,004,810 (2,004,810) Total general revenues and transfers 20,451,377 (1,784,250) 18,667,127 Change in net assets 7,882,428 (1,096,634) 6,785,794 Net assets beginning 47,404,317 44,362,947 91,767,264 Net assets ending 55,286,745 43,266,313 98,553,058 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 21 This page has been left blank intentionally. 22 i FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1 1 23 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA BALANCE SHEET GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2004 Earle Brown TIF Assets: General District Cash and investments 7,060,259 20,374 Receivables: Interest 95,779 Accounts 22,720 19,365 Current taxes 95,904 Delinquent taxes 467,754 97,499 Special assessments Due from other funds m Due from other governments 19,111 Prepaid expenses 1,504 Advances to other funds 105,074 Restricted assets: Cash and investments 119,153 Total assets 7,987,258 137,238 Liabilities and Fund Balances Liabilities: Accounts payable 353,040 Due to other funds 1,200,000 Due to other governments Accrued salaries and wages 190,883 90 Advances from other funds 698,143 Deferred revenue 473,886 97,499 Total liabilities 1,017,809 1,995,732 Fund balances: Reserved for: Prepaid items 1,504 Loan receivable 105,074 Debt service Unreserved: Designated reported in: General Fund 6,862,871 Special Revenue Funds Capital Project Funds Undesignated reported in: I Special Revenue Funds (1,858,494) Capital Project Funds Total fund balances 6,969,449 (1,858,494) Total liabilities and fund balances 7,987,258 137,238 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 24 Statement 3 TIF Special Other Intra District Assessment Infrastructure Nonmajor Activity Total No.3 Bonds Construction Governmental Eliminations Governmental 24,648,976 3,172,719 (10,999) 7,357,185 42,248,514 95,779 35,346 9,146 174,737 261,314 13,929 6,310 116,143 643,088 34,814 77,572 1,320,727 3,108,539 111,878 3,220,417 1,200,000 (1,200,000) 664,066 58,392 741,569 1,504 1,443,069 (698,143) 850,000 7,341,594 7,460,747 26,527,410 6,330,001 774,091 16,458,859 (1,898,143) 56,316,714 12,017 147,651 96,418 609,126 (1,200,000) 633 2,185 3,731 197,522 (698,143) 643,088 3,143,353 146,560 86,006 4,590,392 655,738 3,143,353 296,396 186,155 (1,898,143) 5,397,040 1,504 105,074 3,186,648 10,043,892 13,230,540 6,862,871 17,173,101 17,173,101 4,491,811 4,491,811 8,698,571 1,737,001 8,577,078 477,695 477,695 25,871,672 3,186,648 477,695 16,272,704 50,919,674 26,527,410 6,330,001 774,091 16,458,859 (1,898,143) Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities are not financial resources, and therefore, are not reported in the funds 32,539,964 Other long -term assets are not available to pay for current period expenditures and, therefore, are deferred in the funds. 4,575,826 Long -term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds. (39,586,484) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of certain activities to individual funds. The assets and liabilities are included in the governmental statement of net assets 6,837,765 Net assets of governmental activities 55,286,745 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 25 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Earle Brown TIF General District Revenues: Taxes and special assessments 10,025,495 725,544 Franchise fees Licenses and permits 678,077 Intergovernmental 1,419,210 Charges for services 678,057 Court fines 254,980 Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 86,208 7,982 Miscellaneous 93,702 Total revenues 13,235,729 733 Expenditures: Current: General government 2,585,597 Public safety 6,642,254 Public works 1,679,440 Community services 67,324 Parks and recreation 1,981,998 Economic development 311,698 30,652 Nondepartmental 333,669 Administrative services reimbursement (784,084) Capital outlay: General government Public safety Public works Economic development Debt service: Principal retirement Interest Fiscal agent fees Bond issuance costs Total expenditures 12,817,896 30,652 Revenues over (under) expenditures 417,833 702,874 Other financing sources (uses): Bond proceeds Discount on bond proceeds Transfers in Transfers out (1,465,464) (876,000) Total other financing sources (uses) (1,465,464) (876,000) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (1,047,631) (173,126) Fund balance January 1 8,017,080 (1,685,368) Fund balance December 31 6,969,449 (1,858,494) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 26 Statement 4 TIF Special Other Intra District Assessment Infrastructure Nonmajor Activity Total No.3 Bonds Construction Governmental Eliminations Governmental 2,880,586 1,410,344 140,982 1,220,227 16,403,178 612,079 612,079 678,077 378,147 1,441,663 3,239,020 22,041 11,428 711,526 254,980 127,140 31,121 98 132,473 385,022 10,528 505,672 609,902 1 3,007,726 ,441,465 551,796 3,923,542 22,893,784 8,444 2,594,041 383,375 7,025,629 127,739 6,928 1,814,107 67,324 1,981,998 386,074 278,126 1,006,550 333,669 (784,084) 137,456 137,456 40,470 40,470 3,765,453 487,765 4,253,218 293,145 293,145 1,005,000 2,746,513 3,751,513 218,457 662,559 881,016 8,234 1,000 48,453 57,687 42,371 26,800 69,171 428,445 1,231,691 3,894,192 5,120,034 23,522,910 2,579,281 209,774 (3,342,396) (1,196,492) (629,126) 17,245,000 1,010,000 7,515,000 25,770,000 (71,899) (7,714) (16,890) (96,503) 2,588,626 2,514,987 (3,098,803) 2,004,810 (757,339) 3,098,803 17,173,101 3,590,912 9,255,758 27,678,307 19,752,382 209,774 248,516 8,059,266 27,049,181 6,119,290 2,976,874 229,179 8,213,438 23,870,493 25,871,672 3,186,648 477,695 16,272,704 50,919,674 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 27 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RECONCILIATION OF THE STATEMENT OF REVENUES, Statement 5 EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different because: Net changes in fund balances total governmental funds (Statement 4) 27,049,181 Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense. This is the amount by which capital outlays exceeded depreciation in the current period. 3,038,633 In the statement of activities, only the gain on the sale of capital assets is reported. However, in the governmental funds, the proceeds from the sale increase financial resources. Thus, the change in net assets differs from the change in fund balance by the cost of the capital assets sold. Revenues in the statement of activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds. 367,861 The issuance of long -term debt (e.g., bonds, leases) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of the principal of long -term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds. Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. This amount is the net effect of these differences in the treatment of long -term debt and related items. (22,250,000) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the cost of certain activities to individual funds. This amount is net revenue attributable to governmental activities. 6,699 Accrued interest reported in the statement of activities does not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, is not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. (329,946) Change in net assets of governmental activities (Statement 2) 7,882,428 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 28 1 I This a e has been left blank intentional/ Y P9 29 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS t December 31, 2004 Business -Type Activities Major Enterprise Funds Municipal Golf Earle Brown Liquor Course Heritage Center Assets: Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents 578,021 72,770 796,733 Accounts receivable net 7,990 275,315 Special assessments receivable Prepaid items 20,799 11,958 Inventories at cost 552,689 1,715 34,789 Total current assets 1,159,499 74,485 1,118,795 Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Land 1,390,402 1,493,300 Land improvements 40,258 327,830 Buildings and structures 192,771 487,946 11,091,389 Machinery and equipment 111,166 11,160 45,544 t Mains and lines Total capital assets 303,937 1,929,766 12,958,063 Less: Allowance for depreciation (142,362) (184,815) (4,641,453) Net capital assets 161,575 1,744,951 8,316,610 Total assets 1,321,074 1,819,436 9,435,405 Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable 154,952 959 226,239 Deposits payable 209,740 Accrued salaries payable 7,754 932 11,623 Deferred revenue 145 1,600 Current portion of long -term debt Advances from other funds 850,000 Compensated absences payable Total current liabilities 162,851 851,891 449,202 Noncurrent liabilities: Accrued health insurance liability Total noncurrent liabilities Total liabilities 162,851 851,891 449,202 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 161,575 1,744,951 8,316,610 Unrestricted 996,648 (777,406) 669,593 Total net assets 1,158,223 967,545 8,986,203 Adjustment to reflect the consolidation of internal service fund activities related to enterprise funds Net assets of business -type activities The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 30 Statement 6 Business -Type Activities Governmental Major Enterprise Funds Other Activities- Water Sanitary Storm Nonmajor Total Internal Total Utility Sewer Drainage Enterprise Enterprise Service Proprietary 1,788,154 1,468,766 1,308,346 117,957 6,130,747 7,190,656 13,321,403 345,723 651,272 261,776 98,010 1,640,086 11,887 1,651,973 269,573 2,864 4,018 276,455 276,455 500 127,209 160,466 160,466 27,848 617,041 28,120 645,161 2,431,798 2,250,111 1,574,140 215,967 8,824,795 7,230,663 16,055,458 23,093 3,389 287,158 3,197,342 3,197,342 368,088 368,088 3,365,558 2,623,691 17,761,355 17,761,355 128,668 179,130 475,668 5,807,809 6,283,477 13,715,708 12,450,492 11,979,555 38,145,755 38,145,755 17,233,027 15,256,702 12,266,713 59,948,208 5,807,809 65,756,017 (9,539,361) (7,023,632) (2,057,490) (23,589,113) (3,764,502) (27,353,615) 7,693,666 8,233,070 10,209,223 36,359,095 2,043,307 38,402,402 10,125,464 10,483,181 11,783,363 215,967 45,183,890 9,273,970 54,457,860 17,023 16,186 9,700 12,735 437,794 52,947 490,741 209,740 209,740 5,942 1,933 28,184 3,370 31,554 134,116 135,861 135,861 230,000 230,000 230,000 850,000 850,000 857,305 857,305 157,081 18,119 239,700 12,735 1,891,579 913,622 2,805,201 1,548,581 1,548,581 1,548,581 1,548,581 157,081 18,119 239,700 12,735 1,891,579 2,462,203 4,353,782 7,693,666 8,233,070 10,209,223 36,359,095 2,043,307 38,402,402 2,274,717 2,231,992 1,334,440 203,232 6,933,216 4,768,460 11,701,676 9,968,383 10,465,062 11,543,663 203,232 43,292,311 6,811,767 50,104,078 (25,998) 43,266,313 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 31 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Business -Type Activities Major Enterprise Funds Municipal Golf Earle Brown Liquor Course Heritage Center Operating revenues: Sales and user fees 4,026,679 284,992 3,565,197 Cost of sales 3,035,621 1,889,930 Total operating revenues 991,058 284,992 1,675,267 Operating expenses: Personal services 457,919 131,383 819,068 Supplies 39,100 15,616 129,728 Other services 139,727 73,313 366,421 Insurance 11,176 7,721 32,649 Utilities 27,066 15,123 170,658 Rent 228,632 93,062 Depreciation 35,624 27,971 568,643 Total operating expenses 939,244 271,127 2,180,229 Operating income (loss) 51,814 13,865 (504,962) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Investment earnings 9,209 1,379 13,485 Special assessments Gain (loss) on sale of capital asset Other revenue 3,648 2,989 44,881 Interest and fiscal agent fees Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) 12,857 4,368 58,366 Income (loss) before contributions and transfers 64,671 18,233 (446,596) Transfers: Transfer to Capital Project Funds (125,000) (200,000) Change in net assets g (60,329) 18,233 (646,596) Net assets January 1 1,218,552 949,312 9,632,799 Net assets December 31 1,158,223 967,545 8,986,203 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 32 Statement 7 Business -Type Activities Governmental Major Enterprise Funds Other Activities Water Sanitary Storm Nonmajor Total Internal Total Utility Sewer Drainage Enterprise Enterprise Service Proprietary 1,583,450 2,833,836 1,276,778 422,468 13,993,400 1,121,288 15,114,688 4,925,551 4,925,551 1,583,450 2,833,836 1,276,778 422,468 9,067,849 1,121,288 10,189,137 361,918 135,907 1,906,195 404,384 2,310,579 148,368 12,572 1,917 77 347,378 237,261 584,639 302,750 1,663,580 225,729 233,061 3,004,581 89,566 3,094,147 9,930 4,773 1,328 2,657 70,234 43,497 113,731 122,190 24,389 152,677 512,103 2,555 514,658 321,694 321,694 588,767 469,424 527,619 2,218,048 523,346 2,741,394 1,533,923 2,310,645 756,593 388,472 8,380,233 1,300,609 9,680,842 49,527 523,191 520,185 33,996 687,616 (179,321) 508,295 26,020 28,990 20,658 2,955 102,696 106,502 209,198 13,262 220 554 14,036 14,036 29,202 29,202 (6,646) 68,010 112,882 50,316 163,198 (9,054) (9,054) (9,054) 32,636 97,220 12,158 2,955 220,560 186,020 406,580 82,163 620,411 532,343 36,951 908,176 6,699 914,875 1 (631,441) (555,614) (441,755) (51,000) (2,004,810) (2,004,810) (549,278) 64,797 90,588 (14,049) (1,096,634) 6,699 (1,089,935) 10,517,661 10,400,265 11,453,075 217,281 44,388,945 6,805,068 51,194,013 9,968,383 10,465,062 11,543,663 203,232 43,292,311 6,811,767 50,104,078 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 33 i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Business -Type Activities Major Enterprise Funds Municipal Golf Earle Brown Liquor Course Heritage Center Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users 3,751,751 284,992 3,532,400 Receipts from interfund services provided Payments to suppliers (3,537,465) (110,445) (2,606,682) Payments to employees (469,745) (132,767) (842,781) Miscellaneous revenue 3,647 2,990 44,882 Net cash flows from operating activities (251,812) 44,770 127,819 Cash flows from noncapital financing activities: Principal repayments on advance (35,000) Transfers out (125,000) (200,000) Net cash flows from noncapital financing activities (125,000) (35,000) (200,000) Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Acquisition and construction of capital assets (50,932) Principal paid on revenue bonds Interest paid on revenue bonds Net cash flows from capital and related financial activities (50,932) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest on investments 9,209 1,379 13,485 Net cash flows from investing activities 9,209 1,379 13,485 Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (418,535) 11,149 (58,696) Cash and cash equivalents January 1 996,556 61,621 855,429 Cash and cash equivalents December 3l 578 021 72,770 796,733 q Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Operating income (loss) 51,814 13,865 (504,962) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation 35,624 27,971 568,643 Changes in assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in receivables 2,367 (10,523) Decrease (increase) in inventories (277,444) 1,865 (371) Decrease (increase) in prepaid expenses 4 (3,594) Increase (decrease) in payables (56,143) (537) 75,768 Increase (decrease) in accrued expenses (11,826) (1,384) (23,714) Increase (decrease) in accrued deferred revenue 145 (18,310) Other nonoperating income 3,647 2,990 44,882 Total adjustments (303,626) 30,905 632,781 Net cash provided by operating activities (251,812) 44,770 127,819 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 34 Statement 8 Business -Type Activities Governmental Major Enterprise Funds Other Activities Water Sanitary Storm Nonmajor Total Internal Total Utility Sewer Drainage Enterprise Enterprise Service Proprietary 1,529,230 2,842,750 1,286,228 416,147 13,643,498 13,643,498 1,1 14,745 1,114,745 (627,517) (1,773,293) (232,326) (376,808) (9,264,536) (345,016) (9,609,552) (370,759) (139,557) (10,033) (1,965,642) (337,958) (2,303,600) 6,616 68,230 553 126,917 79,519 206,436 537,570 998,130 1,044,422 39,339 2,540,237 511,290 3,051,527 (35,000) (35,000) (631,440) (555,614) (441,755) (51,000) (2,004,809) (2,004,809) (631,440) (555,614) (441,755) (51,000) (2,039,809) (2,039,809) (34,751) (142,840) (228,523) (328,324) (556,847) (220,000) (220,000) (220,000) (9,055) (9,055) (9,055) (34,751) (142,840) (229,055) (457,578) (328,324) (785,902) 26,020 28,990 20,658 2,955 102,696 106,502 209,198 26,020 28,990 20,658 2,955 102,696 106,502 209,198 (102,601) 328,666 394,270 (8,706) 145,546 289,468 435,014 1,890,755 1,140,100 914,076 126,663 5,985,200 6,901,188 12,886,388 1,788,154 1,468,766 1,308,346 117,957 6,130,746 7,190,656 13,321,402 49,526 523,191 520,185 33,996 687,615 (179,321) 508,294 588,767 469,424 527,619 2,218,048 523 346 2,741,394 (59,720) 8,914 9,450 (6,321) (55,833) (8,392) (64,225) (258) (276,208) (13,268) (289,476) (362) (8,489) (12,441) (12,441) (44,278) (59,490) (3,352) 11,664 (76,368) 41,131 (35,237) (8,841) (3,650) (10,033) (59,448) 68,275 8,827 6,120 (12,045) (12,045) 6,616 68,230 553 126,917 79,519 206,436 488,044 474,939 524,237 5,343 1,852,622 690,611 2,543,233 S 537,570 998,130 1,044,422 39,339 2,540,237 511,290 3,051,527 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 35 r r r i r r r i This a e has been left blank Intentionally r P9 Y I r I I r i r r r 36 r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Note 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the City) was formed and operates pursuant to applicable Minnesota laws and statutes. The governing body consists of a mayor and four City Council members elected at -large to serve four -year staggered terms. A. FINANCIAL REPORTING ENTITY As required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the City's financial statements include all funds and departments of the City and the City's component units. The component units discussed below are included in the City's reporting entity because of the significance of their operational or financial relationship with the City. BLENDED COMPONENT UNITS Blended component units, although legally separate, are in substance, part of the government's operations; data from these units are combined with data of the primary government. These additional units are the Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in and for the City of Brooklyn Center. The governing board for each Authority is the City Council. The Council reviews and approves I the HRA tax levy and the City provides major community development financing for EDA and HRA activities. Debts issued for EDA and HRA activities are City general obligations. Although the EDA and HRA are legally separate from the City, they are reported as part of the City because the governing boards are the same. Complete financial statements for the EDA and HRA may be obtained at the City offices located at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 JOINT VENTURES AND JOINTLY GOVERNED ORGANIZATIONS The City has several agreements with other entities that provide reduced costs, better service, and additional benefits to the participants. The programs in which the City participates are listed below and amounts recorded within the current year's financial statements are disclosed. Local Government Information Svstems Association (LOGIS) This consortium of approximately 30 government entities provides computerized data processing and support services to its members. LOGIS is legally separate; the City does not appoint a voting majority of its board, and the Consortium is fiscally independent of the City. The total amount recorded within the 2004 financial statements of the City is $439,830 for general services and application upgrades provided. Costs were allocated to the various funds based on applications and/or use of services. Complete financial statements may be obtained at the LOGIS offices located at 5750 Duluth Street, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. t 37 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Loris Insurance Group This group provides cooperative purchasing of health and life insurance benefits for approximately 45 governmental entities. The total of 2004 health and life insurance costs paid by the City was $942,380. Complete financial statements may be obtained from Stanton Group located at 3405 Annapolis Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. OTHER The Brooklvn Center Fire Denartment Relief Association (the Association) The Association is organized as a nonprofit organization, legally separate from the City, by its members to provide pension and other benefits to members in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Its board of directors is elected by the membership of the Association and not by the City Council. The Association issues its own set of financial statements. All funding is conducted in accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes, whereby state aids flow to the Association, tax levies are determined by the Association and are only reviewed by the City. The Association pays benefits directly to its members. The Association may certify tax levies to Hennepin County directly if the City does not carry out this function. Because the Association is fiscally independent of the City, the financial information of the Association has not been included within the City's financial statements. (See Note 15b for disclosures relating to the pension plan operated by the Association.) The City's portion of the costs of the Association's pension benefits is included in the General Fund under public safety. Complete financial statements for the Association may be obtained at the City offices located at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430. B. GOVERNMENT -WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The government -wide financial statements (i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of changes in net assets) report information on all of the nonfiduciary activities of the primary government and its component units. For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. Governmental activities, which normally are supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues, are reported separately from business -type activities, which rely to a significant extent on fees and charges for support. The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function or business -type activity are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or business -type activity. Program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, services, or privileges provided by a given function or business -type activity and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function or business type activity. Taxes and other items not included among program revenues are reported instead as general revenues. Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds and proprietary funds. Major individual governmental funds and major individual enterprise funds are reported as separate columns in the fund financial statements. 38 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 C. MEASUREMENT FOCUS, BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION The government -wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting, as are the Proprietary Fund financial statements. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the government considers all revenues, except reimbursement grants, to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period. Reimbursement grants are considered available if they are collected within one year of the end of the current fiscal period. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences and claims and judgments, are recorded only when payment is due. Property taxes, special assessments, intergovernmental revenues, charges for services and interest associated with the current fiscal period are all considered to be susceptible to accrual and so have been recognized as revenues of the current fiscal period. Only the portion of special assessments receivable due within the current fiscal period is considered to be susceptible to accrual as revenue of the current period. All other revenue items are considered to be measurable and available only when cash is received by the government. The government reports the following major governmental funds: t The General Fund is the government's primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Earle Brown TIF District Special Revenue Fund has the authority to collect tax increments which are used for the historic restoration of the Earle Brown Farm and for debt service payments of bonds which were issued for the same purpose. The TIF District No. 3 Special Revenue Fund has the authority to collect tax increments which are used for various redevelopment projects within the City and for debt service payments of bonds which were issued for the same purpose. The Special Assessment Bonds Debt Service Fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of special assessment bonds. These bonds were sold to finance certain public improvements such as residential streets and storm sewers or the provision of services which are to be paid for wholly or in part from special assessments levied against benefited property. 39 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 The Infrastructure Construction Capital Projects Fund was established to account for the resources and expenditures required for the acquisition and construction of capital facilities or improvements financed wholly or in part by special assessments levied against benefited properties. The government reports the following major proprietary funds: The Municipal Liquor Fund accounts for the operations of the City's municipal off -sale liquor stores. The Golf Course Fund accounts for operations of Centerbrook Golf Course, a 9 hole par 3 course owned by the City. The Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund accounts for the operation of a convention center. The Earle Brown Heritage Center is a pioneer farmstead that has been historically preserved and restored as a modern multipurpose facility. Its convention center can host conferences, trade shows, and concerts seating 1,000 people in either banquet or theater style. The facility hosts many meetings, parties, weddings and receptions. The Water Utility Fund accounts for the provision of water to customers. Administration, wells, water storage, and distribution are included. The Sanitary Sewer Fund accounts for the collection and pumping of sanitary sewage through a system of sewer lines and lift stations. Sewage is treated by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services whose fees represent about 66 of this fund's expenses. The Storm Drainage Fund accounts for the operations and improvements of the storm water drainage system. It incorporates not only the storm sewer system, but also water structures such as holding ponds and facilities to improve water quality. Fees are based upon the amount of water running off a property and vary with both size and absorption characteristics of the parcel. Private sector standards of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1, 1989, generally are followed in both the government -wide and proprietary-fund financial statements to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict guidance of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Governments also have the option of following subsequent private sector guidance for their business -type activities and enterprise funds, subject to this same limitation. The government has elected not to follow subsequent private- sector guidance. As a general rule the effect of interfund activity has been eliminated from the government -wide financial statements. Exceptions to this general rule are transactions that would be treated as revenues, expenditures or expenses if they involved external organizations, such as buying goods and services or payments in lieu of taxes, are similarly treated when they involve other funds of the City of Brooklyn Center. Elimination of these charges would distort the direct costs and program revenues reported for the various functions concerned. 40 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Additionally, the government reports the following fund type: Internal Service Funds account for compensated absences, health care insurance benefits and central garage services provided to other departments of the City on a cost reimbursement basis. Amounts reported as program revenues include 1) charges to customers or applicants for goods, services, or privileges provided, 2) operating grants and contributions, and 3) capital grants and contributions, including special assessments. Internally dedicated resources are reported as general revenues rather than as program revenues. Likewise, general revenues include all taxes. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. The principal operating revenues of the municipal liquor, golf course, Earl Brown Heritage Center, water utility, sanitary sewer, storm drainage and street light enterprise funds are charges to customers for sales and services. Operating expenses for enterprise funds include the cost of sales and services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for an allowable use, it is the government's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. D. BUDGETS The City Charter grants the City Council full authority over the financial affairs of the City. The City Manager is charged with the responsibility of preparing the estimates of the annual budget and the enforcement of the provisions of the budget as specified in the City Charter. Upon adoption of the annual budget resolution by the Council, it becomes the formal appropriation budget for City operations. All budget adjustments must be approved by the Council. Budgets for the General and Special Revenue Funds are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Budgeted expenditure appropriations lapse at year end. Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the appropriation, is not employed by the City because it is, at present, not considered necessary to assure effective budgetary control or to facilitate effective cash management. 41 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 LEGAL COMPLIANCE BUDGETS The City follows these procedures establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: 1. In August, the City Manager submits to the City Council proposed operating budgets for the fiscal year commencing the following January. The operating budgets include expenditures and the means of financing them. 2. The County mails individual property tax notices showing the taxes that would result from the proposed budgets of all taxing units to each property owner in November. 3. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. 4. The budgets are legally enacted with the passage of resolutions by the City Council in the month of December. 5. The City Council must authorize any transfer of budgeted amounts between departments within the General Fund. A transfer of budgeted amounts within individual departments must be authorized by the City Manager. 6. Supplemental appropriations during the year may only be made by the City Council. These amounts must be financed by funds from a contingency reserve set up in the General Fund or by additional revenues. 7. All budget amounts lapse at the end of the year to the extent they have not been expended or re- encumbered by City Council directive in the following fiscal year. 8. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year for all governmental funds with the exception of Debt Service Funds and Capital Project Funds. Formal budgetary integration is not employed for Debt Service Funds because effective budgetary control is alternatively achieved through general obligation bond indenture provisions. Budgetary control for Capital Projects Funds is accomplished through the use of project controls and project length budgets. 9. Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Annual appropriated budgets are adopted for all governmental funds except for the project length Capital Projects Funds and Debt Service Funds. 10. Budgetary control is maintained at the department level for the General Fund and at the fund level for all other governmental funds that adopt annual budgets. 11. Budgeted amounts are as originally adopted, or as amended by the City Council. Individual and aggregate amendments were not material in relation to the original appropriations. BUDGET VARIANCES For the year ended December 31, 2004, expenditures exceeded appropriations in the Economic 1 Development Authority, Police Drug Forfeiture and City Initiatives Grant Special Revenue Funds I by $25,572, $51,952 and $163,789 respectively. 42 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 E. CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash balances from all funds are combined and invested to the extent available in certificates of deposit, U.S. government securities and other securities authorized by State Statute. Investment income is allocated to the respective funds on the basis of applicable cash balance participation by each fund. Investments are stated at fair value, based upon quoted market prices as of the balance sheet date. Investment income is accrued at the balance sheet date. The City provides temporary advances to funds that have insufficient cash balances by means of an advance from another fund shown as interfund receivables in the advancing fund, and an interfund payable in the fund with the deficit, until adequate resources are received. These interfund balances are eliminated on the government -wide financial statements. For purposes of the statement of cash flows the City considers all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. All of the cash and investments allocated to the proprietary funds have original maturities of 90 days or less. Therefore the entire balance in the Proprietary Funds are considered cash equivalents. F. RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES During the course of operations, numerous transactions occur between individual funds for goods provided or services rendered. Short-term interfund loans are classified as interfund receivables /payables." All short-term interfund receivables and payables at December 31, 2004 are planned to be eliminated in 2005. Long -term interfund loans are classified as "interfund loan receivable /payable." Any residual balances outstanding between the governmental activities and business -type activities are reported in the government -wide financial statements as "internal balances." Property taxes and special assessments have been reported net of estimated uncollectible accounts. (See Note 1 G and I) Because utility bills are considered liens on property, no estimated uncollectible amounts are established. Uncollectible amounts are not material for other receivables and have not been reported. G. PROPERTY TAX REVENUE RECOGNITION The City Council annually adopts a tax levy and certifies it to the County in December (levy /assessment date) of each year for collection in the following year. The County is responsible for billing and collecting all property taxes for itself, the City, the local School District and other I I taxing authorities. Such taxes become a lien on January 1 and are recorded as receivables by the City at that date. Real property taxes are payable (by property owners) on May 15 and October 15 of each calendar year. Personal property taxes are payable by taxpayers on February 28 and June 30 of each year. These taxes are collected by the County and remitted to the City on or before July 7 and December 2 of the same year. Delinquent collections for November and December are received the following January. The City has no ability to enforce payment of property taxes by property owners. The County possesses this authority. 43 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes property tax revenue in the period for which the taxes were levied. Uncollectible property taxes are not material and have not been reported. GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes property tax revenue when it becomes both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. In practice, current and delinquent taxes and State credits received by the City in July, December and January are recognized as revenue for the current year. Taxes collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) and taxes and credits not received at the year end are classified as delinquent and due from County taxes receivable. The portions of delinquent taxes not collected by the City in January are fully offset by deferred revenue because they are not available to "finance current expenditures. H. MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT Property taxes on residential agricultural homestead property (as defined by State Statutes) are partially reduced by market value homestead credit (MVHC). This credit is paid to the City by the State in lieu of taxes levied against homestead property. The State remits this credit through installments each year. The credit is recognized as revenue by the City at the time of collection. The City has recorded this with property tax revenue. I. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE RECOGNITION Special assessments are levied against benefited properties for the cost or a portion of the cost of special assessment improvement projects in accordance with State Statutes. These assessments are collectible by the City over a term of years usually consistent with the term of the related bond issue. Collection of annual installments (including interest) is handled by the County Auditor in the same manner as property taxes. Property owners are allowed to (and often do) prepay assessments in full without interest or prepayment penalties. Once a special assessment roll is adopted, the amount attributed to each parcel is a lien upon that property until full payment is made or the amount is determined to be excessive by the City Council or court action. If special assessments are allowed to go delinquent, the property is subject to tax forfeit sale. Proceeds of sales from tax forfeit properties are allocated first to the County's costs of administering all tax forfeit properties. Pursuant to State Statutes, a property shall be subject to a tax forfeit sale after three years unless it is homesteaded, agricultural or seasonal recreational land in which event the property is subject to such sale after five years. I GOVERNMENT -WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City recognizes special assessment revenue in the period that the assessment roll was adopted by the City Council. Uncollectible special assessments are not material and have not been reported. 44 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 GOVERNMENTAL FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Revenue from special assessments is recognized by the City when it becomes measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current fiscal period. In practice, current and delinquent special assessments received by the City are recognized as revenue for the current year. Special assessments that are collected by the County by December 31 (remitted to the City the following January) are also recognized as revenue for the current year. All remaining delinquent, deferred and special deferred assessments receivable in governmental funding are completely offset by deferred revenues. J. INVENTORIES GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS The primary government does not maintain material amounts of inventory within the other governmental funds. Inventories of governmental funds are recorded as expenditures when consumed rather than when purchased. PROPRIETARY FUNDS Inventories in the proprietary funds are valued at cost, using the weighted average method in the Municipal Liquor Fund and the first in/first -out (FIFO) method in the other proprietary funds. The costs of supplies are recorded as expenditures when purchased. K. PREPAID ITEMS Certain payments to vendors reflect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as prepaid items in both government -wide and fund financial statements. r L. CAPITAL ASSETS Capital assets, which include property, plant, equipment and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items), are reported in the applicable governmental or business type activities columns in the government -wide financial statements. Capital assets are defined by the government as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 (amount not rounded) and an estimated useful life in excess of one year. Such assets are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. Major outlays for capital assets and improvements are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets of business -type activities is included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed. For the year ended December 31, 2004, no interest was capitalized in connection with construction in progress. 45 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Property, plant and equipment of the primary government, as well as the component units, is depreciated using the straight line method over the following estimated useful lives: Paved streets 25 years Water and sewer mains and lines 25 years Buildings and structures 25 years Water wells and storage tanks 25 years Sewer lift stations 25 years Street lights and traffic lights 15 years Machinery and equipment 5 -15 years Departmental equipment 5 years M. COMPENSATED ABSENCES It is the City's policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused vacation and sick pay benefits. All vacation pay is accrued in the internal service fund financial statements. A liability for these amounts is reported in governmental funds only if they have matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. In accordance with the provisions of Statement of Government Accounting Standards No. 16, Accounting for Compensated Absences, no liability is recorded for nonvesting accumulating rights to receive sick pay benefits. However, a liability is recognized for that portion of accumulating sick leave benefits that is vested as severance pay. r N. LONG -TERM OBLIGATIONS In the government -wide financial statements and proprietary fund types in the fund financial statements, long -term debt and other long -term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities, business -type activities, or proprietary fund type statement of net assets. Bond premiums and discounts, as well as issuance costs, are immaterial and are expensed in the year of bond issuance. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financing sources. Premiums received on debt issuances are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuances are reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. I O. FUND EQUITY In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report reservations of fund balance for amounts not appropriable for expenditure or legally segregated for a specific future use. Designated fund balances represent tentative plans for future use of financial resources. e 46 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 P. INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenues, expenditures or expenses. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures /expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures /expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures /expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. Interfund loans are reported as an interfund loan receivable or payable which offsets the movement of cash between funds. All other interfund transactions are reported as transfers. Q. USE OF ESTIMATES The preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) requires management to make estimates that affect amounts reported in the financial statements during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates. R. RECONCILIATION OF GOVERNMENT -WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1. EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND BALANCE SHEET AND THE GOVERNMENT -WIDE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS The governmental fund balance sheet includes a reconciliation between fund balance total governmental funds and net assets governmental activities as reported in the government- wide statement of net assets. One element of that reconciliation explains that "long -term liabilities, including bonds payable, are not due and payable in the current period and therefore are not reported in the funds." The details of this $39,586,484 difference are as follows: M Bonds payable 39,180,000 Accrued interest payable 406,484 Net adjustment to reduce fund balance total governmental funds to arrive at net assets governmental activities 39,586,484 47 Y BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA CITY OF BROO R, NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 2. EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL, FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENDITURES. AND CHANGES IN FUND, BALANCES AND THE GOVERNMENT -WIDE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES, The governmental fund statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances includes a reconciliation between net changes in fund balances total governmental funds and changes in net assets of governmental activities as reported in the government -wide statement of activities. One element of that reconciliation explains that "Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense." The details of this $3,038,633 difference are as follows: Capital outlay 4,403,382 Depreciation expense (1,364,749) Net adjustment to increase net changes in fund balances total governmental fiords to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities 3,038,633 Another element of that reconciliation states that "Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the funds." The details of this $367,861 difference are as follows: General property taxes deferred revenue: At December 31, 2003 (391,585) At December 31, 2004 580,140 Tax increment taxes deferred revenue: At December 31, 2003 (288,475) At December 31, 2004 740,587 Special assessments deferred revenue: At December 31, 2003 (3,491,474) At December 31, 2004 3,218,739 Other deferred revenues: At December 31, 2003 (36,431) At December 31, 2004 36,360 Net adjustments to decrease net changes in fiord balances total governmental funds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities 367,861 48 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Another element of that reconciliation states that "the issuance of long -term debt (e.g., bonds, leases) provides current financial resources to governmental funds, while the repayment of principal of the long -term debt consumes the current financial resources of governmental funds." Neither transaction, however, has any effect on net assets. The details of this ($22,250,000) difference are as follows: Debt issued or incurred: Issuance of general obligation bonds (5,045,000) Issuance of general improvement bonds (1,010,000) Issuance of tax increment bonds (19,715,000) Principal repayments: General obligation debt 740,000 General improvement bonds 1,005,000 Tax increment bonds 1,775,000 Net adjustment to increase net changes in fund balances total governmental fimds to arrive at changes in net assets of governmental activities (22,250,000) Note 2 DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS, DEPOSITS In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at those depository banks authorized by the City Council. All such depositories are members of the Federal Reserve System. Minnesota Statutes require that all City deposits be protected by insurance, surety bond, or collateral. r The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of the deposits not covered by insurance or bonds. 1 Authorized collateral includes the legal investments described below, as well as certain first mortgage notes, and certain other state or local government obligations. Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping by the City Treasurer or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. At year -end, the City's carrying value amount of deposits was $4,122,475 composed of bank balances I of $4,318,473. All balances were covered by federal depository insurance or by perfected collateral held by the City's agent in the City's name. f I 49 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 INVESTMENTS Minnesota Statutes authorize the City to invest in the following: a) Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies, its instrumentalities or organizations created by an act of congress, excluding mortgage- backed securities defined as high risk. b) Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are in securities described in (a) above, general obligation tax- exempt securities, or repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements. c) General obligations of the State of Minnesota or any of its municipalities. d) Bankers acceptance of United States banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. e) Commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of the highest quality, and maturing in 270 days or less. f) Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000; a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; certain Minnesota securities broker- dealers; or, a bank qualified as a depositor. r 50 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Balances at December 31, 2004: Carrying/Fair Custodial Credit Risk Category Value Securities Type 1 2 3 Amount Federal agencies 4,444,903 4,444,903 Totals 4,444,903 4,444,903 Investment pools 47,114,515 Deposits 4,122,477 Cash with escrow agent 7,341,594 Total deposits and investments 63,023,489 Petty cash and change 7,175 Totals 63,030,664 Reconciliation to Statement of Net Assets (Statement 1): Cash, cash equivalents, and investments 55,569,917 Restricted cash and investments 7,460,747 Total cash and investments 63,030,664 t The City's investments are categorized above to give an indication of the level of custodial credit risk assumed at year end. Category 1 includes investments that are insured or registered or for which the securities are held by the City or its agent in the City's name. Category 2 includes uninsured and unregistered investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the City's name. Category 3 includes uninsured and unregistered investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty or by its trust department or agent but not in the City's name. Note 3 RECEIVABLES Significant receivables balances not expected to be collected within one year of December 31, 2004 are as follows: Major Funds Earle Special Brown TIF Assessment Infrastructure Water Sanitary Storm Nonmajor General District Bonds Construction Utility Sewer Drainage Funds Total Special assessments receivable $2,173,016 $298,020 $242,615 $2 $3,616 $2,719,844 Delinquent property taxes 10,491 10,491 Delinquent tax increment 97,499 97,499 Loan receivable 105,074 1,443,069 1,548,143 $105,074 $97,499 $2,173,016 $298,020 $242,615 $2,577 $3,616 $1,453,560 $4,375,977 51 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Governmental funds report deferred revenue in connection with receivables for revenues that are not considered to be available to liquidate liabilities of the current period. Governmental funds also defer revenue recognition in connection with resources that have been received, but not yet earned. At the end of the current fiscal year, the various components of deferred revenue and unearned revenue reported in the governmental funds were as follows: Unavailable Unearned Delinquent property taxes receivable (General Fund) 467,754 Delinquent property taxes receivable (Special Assessment Bonds) 34,814 Delinquent property taxes receivable (Nonmajor Funds) 77,572 Delinquent tax increment collections (Earl Brown TIF District) 97,499 Delinquent tax increment collections (TIF District #3) 643,088 Special assessments not yet due (Special Assessment Bonds) 3,108,539 Special assessments not yet due (Infrastructure Construction) 110,200 Grant drawdowns prior to meeting all eligibility requirements (Nonmajor Funds) 8,434 Fees received but unearned (General Fund) 6,132 Fees received but unearned (Special Assessment Construction) 36,360 Total deferred/uneamed revenue for governmental funds 4,575,826 14,566 Note 4 CAPITAL ASSETS t Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2004 as previously reported was as follows: I I I 52 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Beginning Ending Primary Government Balance Increases Decrease Balance Governmental activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land 3,203,904 3,203,904 Construction in progress 927,629 3,731,004 (927,629) 3,731,004 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 4,131,533 3,731,004 (927,629) 6,934,908 Capital assets, being depreciated: Buildings and improvements 18,693,898 18,693,898 Park improvements 2,909,461 28,980 2,938,441 Departmental equipment 6,212,011 338,623 (347,387) 6,203,247 Streets 18,716,998 1,571,027 20,288,025 Total capital assets, being depreciated 46,532,368 1,938,630 (347,387) 48,123,611 Less accumulated depreciation for: Buildings and improvements 4,653,245 659,646 5,312,891 Park improvements 1,763,886 115,581 1,879,467 Departmental equipment 3,776,965 558,516 (337,088) 3,998,393 Streets 8,730,145 554,352 9,284,497 Total accumulated depreciation 18,924,241 1,888,095 (337,088) 20,475,248 Total capital assets being depreciated net 27,608,127 50,535 (10,299) 27,648,363 Governmental activities capital assets net 31,739,660 3,781,539 (937,928) 34,583,271 Beginning Ending Primary Government Balance Increases Decrease Balance Business -type activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land 3,197,342 3,197,342 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 3,197,342 3,197,342 Capital assets, being depreciated: Land improvements 368,088 368,088 Buildings and improvements 17,588,449 172,906 17,761,355 Department equipment 424,734 50,934 475,668 Mains and lines 38,141,067 4,687 38,145,754 Total capital assets, being depreciated 56,522,338 228,527 56,750,865 Less accumulated depreciation for: Land improvements 68,417 12,379 80,796 Buildings and improvements 6,861,200 839,765 7,700,965 Department equipment 289,641 38,768 328,409 Mains and lines 14,151,806 1,327,136 15,478,942 Total accumulated depreciation 21,371,064 2,218,048 23,589,112 Total capital assets being depreciated net 35,151,274 (1,989,521) 33,161,753 Business -type activities capital assets net 38,348,616 (1,989,521) 36,359,095 53 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Depreciation expense was charged to functions /programs of the primary government as follows: Governmental activities: General government 83,102 Public safety 398,684 Public works 628,330 Parks and recreation 254,634 Capital assets held by the governments internal service funds are charged to the various functions based on their usage of the assets 523,346 Total depreciation expense governmental activities 1,888,096 Business -type activities: Municipal liquor fiord 35,624 Golf course fiord 27,971 Earle Brown Heritage Center Fund 568,643 Water utility fiend 588,767 Sanitary sewer fiord 469,424 Storm drainage fiord 527,619 Total depreciation expense business -type activities 2,218,048 CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS At December 31, 2004, the City had construction project contracts in progress. The commitments related to remaining contract balances are summarized as follows: Contract Remaining Project Project Amount Commitment 200401 Northport Streets 2,673,332 83,847 200416 Grandview Park 183,884 9,615 2,857,216 93,462 Note 5 OPERATING LEASES The City leases space for its municipal liquor stores. The leases are both ten -year leases and began in 2000 and 2003. Both leases have options for a ten -year extension. The leases provide for a minimum monthly base rent payment, plus a pro -rata share of common area expenses. In addition, they requires additional lease payments if agreed -upon revenue thresholds are attained. These leases may be cancelled at the City's option if the City ceases liquor operations. Total rental expense under the lease agreements for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 was $288,444 and $142,730, respectively. Future minimum rent payments under the current agreements are as follows: 54 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Total Year Minimum Ending Rents 2005 188,897 2006 193,530 2007 193,530 2008 193,530 2009 193,530 2010 136,158 2011 93,360 2012 93,360 2013 93,360 $1,379,255 Note 6 LONG -TERM DEBT The City issues general obligation bonds and equipment certificates to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities. The reporting entity's long -term debt is segregated between the amounts to be repaid from governmental activities and amounts to be repaid from business -type activities. GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES As of December 31, 2004, the long -term debt of the financial reporting entity consisted of the following: Final Interest Maturity Original Payable Rates Date Date Issue 12/31/04 General Obligation Bonds: Refunding State -Aid Street Bonds 3.55 -4.00% 12/1/1998 4/1/2006 1,585,000 575,000 Police and Fire Building Bonds 4.10% -4.90% 12/1/1997 2/1/2013 7,900,000 5,405,000 Police and Fire Building Refunding Bonds 2.00 -3.35% 1/1/2004 2/1/2013 5,045,000 5,045,000 Total General Obligation Bonds 14,530,000 11,025,000 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds: Taxable Tax Increment Bonds of 1995 6.00 %475% 11/1/1995 2/1/2011 4,560,000 2,730,000 Taxable Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 2004 2.25 0 /6-4.40% 1/1/2004 2/1/2011 2,470,000 2,470,000 Taxable Tax Increment Bonds of 2004 4.75 5.125% 12/1/2004 2/1/2020 17,245,000 17,245,000 Total Tax Increment Bonds 24,275,000 22,445,000 55 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 e Final Interest Maturity Original Payable Rates Date Date Issue 12131/04 G.O. Improvement Bonds: 1994 Street Improvement Bonds 4.10% -5.50% 8/1/1994 2/1/2005 835,000 95,000 1995 Street Improvement Bonds 4.00 0 /6-4.90% 11/1/1995 2/1/2006 780,000 175,000 1996 Street Improvement Bonds 4.20% -5.10% 11/1/1995 2/1/2007 1,440,000 470,000 1997 Street Improvement Bonds 4.00 0 /6-4.70% 12/1/1997 2/1/2008 1,075,000 405,000 1998 Street Improvement Bonds 3.40% -4.20% 12/1/1998 2/1/2009 1,085,000 505,000 1999 Street Improvement Bonds 4.10 -5.00% 12/1/1999 2/1/2010 1,585,000 930,000 2000 Street Improvement Bonds 4.30%4.90% 12/1/2000 2/1/2011 735,000 495,000 2001 Street Improvement Bonds 2.60% -440% 12/1/2001 2/1/2012 730,000 565,000 2003 Street Improvement Bonds 1.45% -4.00% 1/1/2003 2/1/2013 1,205,000 1,060,000 2004 Street Improvement Bonds 2.10 0 /6-3.65% 12/1/2004 2/1/2015 1,010,000 1,010,000 Total G.O. Improvement Bonds 10,480,000 5,710,000 Total bonded indebtedness 49,285,000 39,180,000 Compensated absences payable 857,305 Total City indebtedness governmental activities 49,285,000 40,037,305 BUSINESS -TYPE ACTIVITIES Final Interest Maturity Original Payable Rates Date Date Issue 12/31/04 G.O. Revenue Bonds: 1994 Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds 4.20% -5.40% 8/1/1994 2/1/2005 1,830,000 230,000 Total business -type activities 1,830,000 230,000 56 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Annual debt service requirements to maturity for long -term debt are as follows: General Obligation Bonds Tax Increment Bonds G.O. Improvement Bonds Year Ending Governmental Activities Governmental Activities Governmental Activities December 31 Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest 2005 5,685,000 403,302 3,140,000 806,494 990,000 198,661 2006 875,000 143,028 1,000,000 887,080 1,000,000 167,286 2007 590,000 124,689 1,050,000 847,237 900,000 129,316 2008 600,000 110,552 1,030,000 804,491 720,000 96,798 2009 610,000 93,903 1,095,000 759,214 615,000 70,407 2010 640,000 75,153 1,120,000 710,280 495,000 47,977 2011 640,000 55,632 1,165,000 658,155 340,000 31,111 2012 685,000 34,581 800,000 612,213 270,000 19,234 2013 700,000 11,725 1,240,000 563,763 200,000 10,309 2014 1,305,000 503,319 90,000 4,928 2015 1,380,000 439,550 90,000 1,643 2016 1,450,000 372,338 2017 1,540,000 299,400 2018 1,610,000 220,650 2019 1,720,000 136,325 2020 1,800,000 46,125 Total 11,025,000 1,052,565 22,445,000 8,666,634 5,710,000 777,670 Storm Sewer Revenue Bonds Year Ending Business -Type Activities December 31 Principal Interest 2005 230,000 6,210 Total $230,000 $6,210 On January 1, 2004, the City issued $5,045,000 in General Obligation Police and Fire Building Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A with an average interest rate of 3.00918% to advance refund $4,910,000 of outstanding General Obligation Police and Fire Building Bonds, Series 1997B with an average interest rate of 4.7352 The net proceeds of $4,994,021 were used to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities State and Local Government Series "SLGS Those securities were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to provide for the interest on the refunding bonds before the crossover date and called principal on the refunded bonds on February 1, 2005. The City advance refunded the 1997B General Obligation Police and Fire Building Bonds to reduce future debt service payments by $268,698 and to obtain an economic gain (difference between the present value of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $229,947. The City is responsible for the debt service of the 1997B bonds through the crossover date and the debt service on the 2004A bonds after the crossover date. The debt service of the 2004A bonds before the crossover date is payable from the escrow account. Assets held with the escrow agent total $4,948,936 at December 31, 2004. 57 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 On February 1, 2004, the City issued $2,470,000 in Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004B with an average interest rate of 3.6999% to advance refund $2,370,000 of outstanding Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1995A with an average interest rate of 6.7905 The net proceeds of $2,431,894 were used to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities State and Local Government Series "SLGS Those securities were deposited in an irrevocable trust with an escrow agent to provide for the interest on the refunding bonds before the crossover date and called principal on the refunded bonds on February 1, 2005. The City advance refunded the 1995A Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds to reduce future debt service payments by $147,248 and to obtain an economic gain (difference between the present value of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of $126,651. The City is responsible for the debt service of the 1995A bonds through the crossover date and the debt service on the 2004B bonds after the crossover date. The debt service of the 2004B bonds before the crossover date is payable from the escrow account. Assets held with the escrow agent total $2,392,658 at December 31, 2004. CHANGE IN LONG -TERM LIABILITIES Long -term liability activity for the year ended December 31, 2004, was as follows: Beginning Ending Due Within Balance Additions Reductions Balance One Year Governmental activities: Bonds payable: General obligation bonds 6,720,000 5,045,000 (740,000) $11,025,000 5,685,000 Tax increment bonds 4,505,000 19,715,000 (1,775,000) 22,445,000 3,140,000 G.O. special assessment bonds 5,705,000 1,010,000 (1,005,000) 5,710,000 990,000 Total bonds payable 16,930,000 25,770,000 (3,520,000) 39,180,000 9,815,000 805 Compensated absences 783,227 637,734 (563,156) 857,805 857,805 Total government activity long-term I iabilities $17,713,227 $26,407,734 (4,083,156) $40,037,805 10,672,805 Business -type activities: Storm sewer revenue bonds 450,000 (220,000) 230,000 230,000 For the governmental activities, loans payable are generally liquidated by the general fund. Compensated absences are liquidated by the Internal Service Fund. All long -term bonded indebtedness outstanding at December 31, 2004 is backed by the full faith and credit of the City, including improvement and revenue bond issues. Delinquent assessments receivable at December 31, 2004 totaled $87,633. Note 7 CONDUIT DEBT OBLIGATIONS From time to time, the City has issued Housing Revenue Bonds and Industrial Revenue Bonds to provide assistance to private sector entities for the acquisition and construction of housing, industrial, and 58 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 commercial facilities deemed to be in the public interest. The bonds are secured by the property fmanced and are payable solely from payments received on the underlying mortgage loans. Upon repayment of the bonds, ownership of the acquired facilities transfers to the private sector entity served by the bond issue. Neither the City, the State, nor any political subdivision thereof is obligated in any manner for the repayment of the bonds. Accordingly, the bonds are not reported as liabilities in the accompanying financial statements. As of December 31, 2004, there were six series of Housing Revenue or Industrial Revenue Bonds outstanding, with an aggregate principal amount payable $28,650,000. Several variable debt issues are also outstanding. 59 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Note 8 RESERVED/DESIGNATED FUND EOUITY Fund balances and retained earnings in the various funds have been reserved or designated for the following purposes: Reserved Fund Equity Major funds: General fund: Prepaid items 1,504 Advances to other funds 105,074 Total general fund 106,578 Special Assessment Bonds: Debt service 3,186,648 Nonmajor Funds: Loan receivable 1,443,069 Advances to other funds 8,600,823 Total nonmajor funds 10,043,892 Total governmental funds 13,337,118 Designated Fund Equity Major funds: General fund: Working capital 6,862,871 TIF District #3: 1 Bonding covenants 14,976,420 Statutory housing obligation 2,196,681 Total TIF District #3 17,173,101 Nonmajor Fuds: Capital improvements 4,491,811 Total governmental funds 28,527,783 60 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Note 9 INTERFUND RECEIVABLES/PAYABLES, LOANS AND TRANSFERS Individual fund interfund receivable and payable balances at December 31, 2004 are as follows: Due from Due to t Fund Other Funds Other Funds Major Funds: TIF District #3 1,200,000 Earl Brown TIF District 1,200,000 Total 1,200,000 1,200,000 Advances to Advances From Fund Other Funds Other Funds Major Funds: General Fund 105,074 Earl Brown TIF District 698,143 Golf Course 850,000 Non Major Funds: Capital Improvements Fund 850,000 Municipal State Aid for Constriction Fund 593,069 1,548,143 1,548,143 The above balances are not expected to be eliminated within one year of December 31, 2004. 61 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Interfund transfers: Transfer In Transfer Out Governmental Funds: Major Funds: General Fund 1,465,464 Earle Brown TIF District 876,000 Infrastructure Construction 2,588,626 Nonmajor Funds 2,514,987 757,339 Total govenmental funds 5,103,613 3,098,803 Proprietary Funds: Major Funds: Water Utility 631,441 Sanitary Sewer 555,614 Storm Drainage 441,755 Earle Brown Heritage Center Capital 200,000 Municipal Liquor 125,000 Nonmajor Funds 51,000 Total proprietary funds 2,004,810 Total 5,103,613 5,103,613 Interfund transfers allow the City to allocate financial resources to the funds that receive benefit from services provided by another fund or to provide additional capital and infrastructure funding. In addition, interfund transfers are occasionally authorized to allow redistribution of resources between funds for the most efficient use of funds. In 2004, transfers from the General Fund to nonmajor governmental funds such as the Street Reconstruction and Technology Funds allowed excess fund General Fund balance to be put to use in ways that would reduce the need for taxes or other sources of public funds in the nonmajor funds. 62 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Note 10 LEGAL DEBT MARGIN The City is subject to a statutory limitation by the State of Minnesota for bonded indebtedness payable principally from property taxes. The City of Brooklyn Center's legal debt margin for 2004 and 2003 is computed as follows: December 31 2004 2003 Market value (after fiscal disparities) $1,959,999,100 $1,840,115,300 Debt limit (2% of Market Value $39,199,982 $36,802,306 Amount of debt applicable to debt limit: Total bonded debt $39,410,000 $17,380,000 Less: Improvement bonds (5,710,000) (5,705,000) State Aid Street Bonds (575,000) (845,000) Tax Increment Bonds (22,445,000) (4,505,000) Utility Revenue Bonds (230,000) (450,000) Total debt applicable to debt limit $10,450,000 $5,875,000 Legal debt margin $28,749,982 $30,927,306 Note 11 DEFICIT FUND BALANCES A deficit fund balance exists at December 31, 2004 in the following fund: Unreserved deficit fiord balance Major Funds: Earle Brown Tax Increment Financing District: 1,858,494 Nonmajor Funds: Employee Retirement Benefit Fund 17,679 The deficits are being funded through internal borrowing and will be repaid from future surplus tax increments and construction transfers form utility funds. 63 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Note 12 CONTINGENCIES. SUBSEOUENT EVENTS AND COMMITMENTS A. ARBITRAGE REBATE The Tax Reform Act of 1986 requires governmental entities to pay to the federal government income earned on the proceeds from the issuance of debt in excess of interest costs, pending the expenditure of the borrowed funds. This rebate of interest income (known as arbitrage) applies to governmental debt issued after August 31, 1986. The City issued greater than $5 million of bonds in the years 1991, 1992, 1997 and 2004 and therefore is required to rebate excess investment income relating to these issues to the federal government. The extent of the City's liability for arbitrage rebates on the remaining bond issues is not determinable at this time. However, in the opinion of management, any such liability would be immaterial e B. LITIGATION The City is subject to certain legal claims in the normal course of business. Management does not expect the resolution of these claims will have a material impact on the City's financial condition or results of operations. C. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS Amounts received or receivable from federal and state agencies are subject to agency audit and adjustment. Any disallowed claims, including amounts already collected, may constitute a liability of the applicable funds. The amount, if any, of funds which may be disallowed by the agencies cannot be determined at this time although the City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. D. TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS The City's tax increment districts are subject to review by the State of Minnesota Office of the State Auditor (OSA). Any disallowed claims or misuse of tax increments could become a liability of the applicable fund. Management has indicated that they are not aware of any instances of noncompliance which would have a material effect on the financial statements. e E. PROGRAM COMPLIANCE Federal program activities are subject to financial and compliance regulation. To the extent that any expenditures are disallowed or other compliance features are not met, a liability to the respective grantor agency could result. 64 t CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 F. GRANTS The City approved grants in the amount of $500,000 to Boca Limited Partnership. The grant requires repayment if certain requirements are not met. In turn, the City would be required to return the funds to Hennepin County. G. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS 1 On February 1, 2005 the City paid off the principal amounts outstanding for the 1997 General Obligation Police and Fire Building Bonds and closed the obligation. Funding for this transaction was provided by the sale of the 2004 General Obligation Police and Fire Building Refunding g bonds and sinking fund monies. On February 2005 the City aid off th ty p e outstanding principal for the 1995 G.O. Tax Increment Bonds and closed the obligation. Funding for this transaction was provided by the 2004 G.O. Tax Increment Refunding Bonds. H. CONTINGENT LIABILITY The City entered into two limited tax increment notes with developers whereby the City shall pay the developers the lesser of the scheduled payment or available tax increment. Whether a payment will occur and if so, the amount of the payment(s) are uncertain since all payments are dependent on the City receiving tax increment from the developer's project. As such, this liability has not been recorded in the financial statements. A schedule of the notes outstanding at December 31, 2004 is as follows: Amended Original 12/30/2000 Interest Maturity Note Principal Balance Rate Date Twin Lakes Business Park 2,414,199 2,350,726 8.00% *No maturity date is set. Payments will continue until the principal is paid, or for 10 years, whichever comes first. Note 13 RISK MANAGEMENT The City is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions and natural disasters for which the City carries commercial insurance policies. The City retains risk for the deductible portions of the insurance policies. The amount of these deductibles is considered immaterial to the financial statements. There were no significant reductions in insurance from the previous year or settlements in excess of insurance coverage for any of the past three years. 65 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 Note 14 POST EMPLOYMENT HEALTH CARE BENEFITS The City has provided post- employee health care benefits, as per the requirements of the City Council resolution, for certain retirees and their dependents since 1986. Full time employees have the option of retaining membership in the City's health insurance plan for which the City will pay the single person premium until such time as the retiree is eligible for Medicare coverage or at age 65, whichever is sooner. If the retiree desires to continue family coverage, the additional cost for family coverage shall be paid by the retiree to the City. There are two methods whereby an employee can qualify under this program. First, the employee, on the date of his/her retirement, must meet eligibility requirements for a full retirement annuity under PERA (Note 15A) without reduction of benefits because of age, disability, or any other reason for reduction. In addition, the employee must have been employed full time by the City for the last ten consecutive years prior to the effective date of retirement. Additionally, employees who are retiring after twenty-five years of consecutive service with the City and are eligible to receive a pension from PERA shall have the option of retaining membership in the City's health insurance plan for which the employee will pay the premium until such time as the retiree is eligible to receive a full- retirement annuity under PERA or PERA police. At that time, the City will pay the single- person premium until such time as the retiree is eligible for Medicare coverage or at age 65, whichever is sooner. Employees participate in this program on a voluntary basis. As of December 31, 2004, 12 employees currently participate in this program. The cost of City paid health care premiums for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 was $58,465 and $38,615, respectively. Fund liabilities are paid on a pay -as- you -go basis with investment earnings of the Fund. The $1,548,581 recorded as a liability is not an actuarially determined amount, but the City's best estimate of the future liability. The liability will remain unchanged until a thorough analysis of future liabilities is performed. Note 15 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS STATEWIDE A. STATEWIDE- PERA PLAN DESCRIPTION All full -time and certain part-time employees of the City are covered by defined benefit plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) and the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund (PEPFF) which are cost sharing, multiple employer retirement plans. These plans are established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Chapters 353 and 356. PERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. All police officers, firefighters and peace officers who qualify for membership by statute are covered by the PEPFF. PERA provides retirement benefits as well as disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors upon death of eligible members. Benefits are established by State Statute, and vest after three years of credited service. The defined retirement benefits are based on a member's highest average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. 66 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 The benefit provisions stated in the previous paragraphs of this section are current provisions and apply to active plan participants. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. PERA issues a publicly available financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information for PERF and PEPFF. That report may be obtained by writing to PERA, 60 Empire Drive #200, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55103 -2088 or by calling (651)296 -7460 or 1- 800 652 -9026. FUNDING POLICY Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. These statutes are established and amended by the state legislature. The City makes annual contributions to the pension plans equal to the amount required by state statutes. PERF Basic Plan members and Coordinated Plan members are required to contribute 9.10% and 5.10 respectively, of their annual covered salary. PEPFF members are required to contribute 6.20% of their annual covered salary. The City is required to contribute the following percentages of annual covered payroll: 11.78% for Basic Plan PERF members, 5.53% for Coordinated Plan PERF members, and 9.30% for PEPFF members. The City's contributions to the Public Employees Retirement Fund for the years ending December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 were $223,220, $309,237 and $299,954, respectively. The City's contributions to the Public Employees Police and Fire Fund for the years ending December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 were 272,860, $257,234 and $255,923, respectively. The City's contributions were equal to the contractually required contributions for each year as set by state statute. B. PENSION PLAN BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION PLAN DESCRIPTION The City contributes to the Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief Association (the Association) which is the administrator of a single employer retirement system to provide a retirement plan (the Plan) to volunteer firefighters of the City who are members of the Association. The Association issues a financial report which is available at City offices. FUNDING POLICY AND ANNUAL PENSION COST, The City levies property taxes at the direction of and for the benefit of the Plan and passes through state aids allocated to the Plan, all in accordance with enabling State statutes. The minimum tax levy obligation is the financial contribution requirement for the year less anticipated state aids. 67 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 CONTRIBUTIONS Total contributions to the plan in 2003 were $124,123, of which $0 was levied by the City of Brooklyn Center and $124,123 was from the State of Minnesota. The actuarially determined contribution based on an actuarial valuation performed at January 1, 2004 was $70,401, which represents funding for normal cost of $70,401 and administration of $0. Actual contributions have continued at higher levels to allow for a transition to a defined contribution plan in the future. These higher payments are irrevocable and do not affect the level of future City contributions. They do not constitute an asset of the City. The information below is the most recent data available. Actuarial valuation date 12/31/2003 Actuarial cost method Entry age normal cost method Amortization method Level dollar amount amortized on a closed basis Remaining amortization period 18 years Actuarial assumptions: Investment rate of return 7.5% compounded annually Discount rate for obligations 7.50% Projected salary increases Not applicable Post retirement benefits None Inflation rate Not applicable THREE -YEAR TREND INFORMATION Three Year Trend Information Annual Percentage Net Year Pension of APC Pension Ending Cost (APC) Contributed Obligation 12/31/2001 118,508 100 $0 12/31/2002 118,508 100 0 12/13/2003 124,123 100 0 e 68 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2004 SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS Assets in Excess of Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial (Unfunded) Valuation Value of Accrued Accrued Funded Date Assets Liability Liability Ratio 12/31/2001 2,925,352 2,608,543 316,809 112.10 12/31/2002 2,540,231 2,478,786 61,445 102.50% 12/30/2003 3,090,185 2,781,175 309,010 111.00 RELATED PARTY INVESTMENTS As of December 31, 2004, the Association held no securities issued by the City or other related parties. 69 i 1 i 1 1 i This a e has been left blank intention// Y P9 70 i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GENERAL FUND Page 1 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Revenues: Original Final Amounts (Negative) Taxes: Property taxes and market value homestead credit 9,212,152 9,212,152 9,364,727 152,575 Penalties and interest 3,909 3,909 Lodging tax 660,000 660,000 656,859 (3,141) Total taxes 9,872,152 9,872,152 10,025,495 153,343 Licenses and permits: Liquor and beer 107,700 107,700 118,910 11,210 Building permits 350,000 350,000 280,270 (69,730) Mechanical permits 55,000 55,000 69,137 14,137 Sewer and water permits 1,000 1,000 2,187 1,187 Plumbing permits 35,000 35,000 33,569 (1,431) Garbage licenses 3,100 3,100 3,080 (20) Taxicab licenses 1,300 1,300 Mechanical licenses 6,000 6,000 5,984 (16) Pawn shop licenses 12,000 12,000 3,000 (9,000) Service station licenses 2,800 2,800 2,545 (255) e Vehicle dealer licenses 1,750 1,750 1,750 Bowling licenses 720 720 720 Cigarette licenses 3,000 3,000 3,938 938 Sign permits 3,000 3,000 2,572 (428) Rental dwelling permits 71,000 71,000 93,042 22,042 Amusement licenses 2,000 2,000 1,450 (550) Electrical Permits 40,000 40,000 40,107 107 ROW permits 7,481 7,481 Miscellaneous business license 4,000 4,000 7,035 3,035 Total licenses and permits 698,070 698,070 678,077 (19,993) Intergovernmental: State: Local government aid 877,555 877,555 877,555 Police pension aid 250,000 250,000 254,525 4,525 PERA aid 34,365 34,365 34,365 Fireperson pension aid 92,500 92,500 158,991 66,491 Police training 16,400 16,400 15,040 (1,360) E -911 phone service 15,000 15,000 20,618 5,618 Miscellaneous grants 49,396 49,396 58,116 8,720 Total intergovernmental 1,335,216 1,335,216 1,419,210 83,994 Charges for services: General government charges 30,670 30,670 36,324 5,654 Public safety charges 18,450 18,450 23,534 5,084 e Recreation fees 273,150 273,150 314,415 41,265 Community Center fees 304,550 304,550 303,784 (766) Total charges for services 626,820 626,820 678,057 51,237 71 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GENERAL FUND Page 2 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Revenues: (continued) Fines and forfeits 225,000 225,000 254,980 29,980 Miscellaneous: Investment earnings 150,000 150,000 97,825 (52,175) Change in fair value of investments (11,617) (11,617) Other 75,000 75,000 93,702 18,702 Total miscellaneous 225,000 225,000 179,910 (45,090) Total revenues 12,982,258 12,982,258 13,235,729 253,471 Expenditures: General government: Mayor and council: Current: Personal services 50,989 50,989 46,633 4,356 Materials and supplies 100 100 20 80 Contractual services 77,319 77,319 80,900 (3,581) Total mayor and council 128,408 128,408 127,553 855 Administrative (Manager, Clerk, HR) offices: Current: Personal services 439,131 439,131 446,335 (7,204) Materials and supplies 4,850 4,850 2,908 1,942 Contractual services 47,700 47,700 31,947 15,753 Total administrative office 491,681 491,681 481,190 10,491 Elections and voter registration: Current: Personal services 53,580 53,580 55,930 (2,350) Materials and supplies 1,000 1,000 1,331 (331) Contractual services 31,075 31,075 35,506 (4,431) Total elections and voter registration 85,655 85,655 92,767 (7,112) Assessor's office: Current: Personal services 221,275 221,275 211,409 9,866 Materials and supplies 2,550 2,550 1,324 1,226 Contractual services 38,486 38,486 34,889 3,597 Total assessor's office 262,311 262,311 247,622 14,689 Finance: Current: Personal services 429,382 429,382 403,530 25,852 Materials and supplies 1,550 1,550 1,540 10 Contractual services 10,950 10,950 22,220 (11,270) Total finance 441,882 441,882 427,290 14,592 72 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GENERAL FUND Page 3 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Expenditures: General government (continued): Legal: Current: Personal services 250,000 250,000 251,222 (1,222) Government buildings: Current: Personal services 246,868 246,868 243,714 3,154 Materials and supplies 55,600 55,600, 48,603 6,997 Contractual services 253,013 253,013 326,391 (73,378) Total government buildings 555,481 555,481 618,708 (63,227) Information Technology: Current: Personal services 155,478 155,478 156,112 (634) Materials and supplies 16,000 16,000 16,039 (39) Contractual services 163,013 163,013 167,094 (4,081) Total information technology 334,491 334,491 339,245 (4,754) Total general government 2,549,909 2,549,909 2,585,597 (35,688) Public safety: Police protection: Current: Personal services 4,426,172 4,426,172 4,538,475 (112,303) Materials and supplies 92,372 92,372 86,927 5,445 Contractual services 812,046 812,046 785,021 27,025 Total current 5,330,590 5,330,590 5,410,423 (79,833) Capital outlay 800 800 800 Total police protection 5,331,390 5,331,390 5,410,423 (79,033) Fire protection: Current: Personal services 428,350 428,350 453,377 (25,027) Materials and supplies 48,000 48,000 56,660 (8,660) Contractual services 195,867 195,867 209,094 (13,227) Total current 672,217 672,217 719,131 (46,914) Capital outlay 20,700 20,700 20,700 Total fire protection 692,917 692,917 719,131 (26,214) 73 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GENERAL FUND Page 4 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 e Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Expenditures: Public safety (continued): Protective inspection: Current: Personal services 389,797 389,797 379,524 10,273 Materials and supplies 4,050 4,050 2,560 1,490 Contractual services 66,441 66,441 75,642 (9,201) Total protective inspection 460,288 460,288 457,726 2,562 Emergency preparedness: Current: Personal services 50,903 50,903 46,810 4,093 Materials and supplies 2,400 2,400 931 1,469 Contractual services 9,760 9,760 7,233 2,527 Total emergency preparedness 63,063 63,063 54,974 8,089 Total public safety 6,547,658 6,547,658 6,642,254 (94,596) Public works: Engineering department: Current: Personal services 408,187 408,187 433,932 (25,745) Materials and supplies 3,720 3,720 4,506 (786) Contractual services 38,857 38,857 33,702 5,155 Total current 450,764 450,764 472,140 (21,376) Capital outlay 6,000 6,000 6 Total engineering department 456,764 456,764 472,140 (15,376) Street department: Current: Personal services 646,561 646,561 633,756 12,805 Materials and supplies 144,400 144,400 97,376 47,024 Contractual services 534,189 534,189 476,168 58,021 Total street department 1,325,150 1,325,150 1,207,300 117,850 Total public works 1,781,914 1,781,914 1,679,440 102,474 Community services: Social services: Current: Contractual services 73,024 73,024 67,324 5,700 74 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GENERAL FUND Page 5 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Expenditures (continued): Parks and recreation: Administration: Current: Personal services 438,905 438,905 429,357 9,548 Materials and supplies 11,000 11,000 5,991 5,009 Contractual services 51,650 51,650 53,451 (1,801) Total administration 501,555 501,555 488,799 12,756 Adult programs: Current: Personal services 111,163 111,163 53,329 57,834 Materials and supplies 10,300 10,300 14,659 (4,359) Cost of good sold to public 20,333 20,333 21,953 (1,620) Contractual services 20,623 20,623 89,201 (68,578) Total adult programs 162,419 162,419 179,142 (16,723) Teen programs Current: Personal services 3,434 3,434 1,795 1,639 Materials and supplies 700 700 571 129 Total teen programs 4,134 4,134 2,366 1,768 Youth programs: Current: Personal services 30,139 30,139 32,186 (2,047) Materials and supplies 7,570 7,570 7,173 397 Contractual services 9,100 9,100 660 8,440 Total youth programs 46,809 46,809 40,019 6,790 General programs: Current: Personal services 12,268 12,268 10,201 2 Materials and supplies 75 75 65 10 Contractual services 4,500 4,500 8,684 (4,184) Total general programs 16,843 16,843 18,950 (2,107) Community center: Current: Personal services 378,169 378,169 374,236 3,933 Materials and supplies 17,750 17,750 12,853 4,897 Contractual services 51,800 51,800 66,644 (14,844) Total community center 447,719 447,719 453,733 (6,014) 75 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 9 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE GENERAL FUND Page 6 of 6 For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 1 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) Expenditures: Parks and recreation (continued): Park maintenance: Current: Personal services 508,223 508,223 493,796 14,427 Materials and supplies 56,100 56,100 42,079 14,021 Contractual services 301,221 301,221 263,114 38,107 Total park maintenance 865,544 865,544 798,989 66,555 Total parks and recreation 2,045,023 2,045,023 1,981,998 63,025 Economic development: Convention bureau: Current: Contractual services 330,000 330,000 311,698 18,302 Nondepartmental: Expenditures not charged to departments: Current: Personal services 51,427 51,427 49,367 2,060 Materials and supplies 23,500 23,500 17,122 6,378 Contractual services 338,887 338,887 267,180 71,707 Total nondepartmental 413,814 413,814 333,669 80,145 Total expenditures 13,741,342 13,741,342 13,601,980 139,362 Revenues over (under) expenditures (759,084) (759,084) (366,251) 392,833 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in administrative services reimbursed 784,084 784,084 784,084 Transfers to other funds (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) Transfers of General Fund Equity (1,440,464) (1,440,464) Total other financing sources (uses) 759,084 759,084 (681,380) (1,440,464) Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (1,047,631) (1,047,631) Fund balance January 1 8,017,080 Fund balance December 31 6,969,449 76 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 10 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE EARLE BROWN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT For the Year Ended December 31, 2004 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Positive Original Final Actual (Negative) Revenues: Property taxes 1,104,017 1,104,017 725,544 (378,473) Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 7982 7,982 Total revenue 1,104,017 1,104,017 733,526 (370,491) Expenditures: Services and other charges 25,000 25,000 30,652 (5,652) Revenues over (under) expenditures 1,079,017 1,079,017 702,874 (376,143) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers out (1,492,750) (1,492,750) (876,000) 616,750 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (413,733) (413,733) (173,126) 240,607 Fund balance January 1 (1,685,368) Fund balance December 31 (1,858,494) i 77 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Statement 11 BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO.3 For the Year Ended December 31, 2004 1 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Positive Final Actual (Negative) Original g Revenues: Property taxes 3,472,780 3,472,780 2,880,586 (592,194) Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 127,140 127,140 Total revenues 3,472,780 3,472,780 3,007,726 (465,054) Expenditures: Current: Services and other charges 386,074 (386,074) Debt service: Bond issuance costs 42,371 (42,371) Total expenditures 428,445 (428,445) Revenues over expenditures 3,472,780 3,472,780 2,579,281 (893,499) Other financing sources (uses): 1 Bond proceeds 17,173,101 17,173,101 Transfers out (550,000) (550,000) 550,000 Total other financing sources (uses) (550,000) (550,000) 17,173,101 17,723,101 Net increase in fund balance 2,922,780 2,922,780 19,752,382 16,829,602 Fund balance January 1 6,119,290 Fund balance December 31 25,871,672 78 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE NOTE TO RSI December 31, 2004 Note A LEGAL COMPLIANCE BUDGETS The General Fund budget is legally adopted on a basis consistent with accounting principals generally accepted in the United States of America. The legal level of budgetary control is at the department level of the General Fund. The following is a listing of General Fund departments whose expenditures exceed budgeted appropriations. Final Over Budget Actual Budget Major Funds: General Fund: Elections and voter registration 85,655 92,767 (7,112) Legal 250,000 251,222 (1,222) Government buildings 555,481 618,708 (63,227) Information technology 334,491 339,245 (4,754) Police protection 5,331,390 5,410,423 (79,033) Fire protection 692,917 719,131 (26,214) Engineering department 456,764 472,140 (15,376) Adult recreation programs 162,419 179,142 (16,723) General recreation programs 16,843 18,950 (2,107) Community center 447,719 453,733 (6,014) Special Revenue Funds: Earle Brown T.I.F. District 25,000 30,652 (5,652) T.I.F. District 3 428,445 (428,445) 79 This page has been left blank intentionally. 80 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS A Special Revenue Fund is used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. DEBT SERVICE FUNDS The Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and payment of, interest, principal and related costs on general long -term debt. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS The Capital Project Funds account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities (other than those financed by Proprietary Funds). i 81 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 12 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS December 31, 2004 Total Nonmajor Special Debt Capital Governmental Assets: Revenue Service Project Funds Cash and investments 1,711,655 1,254,035 4,391,495 7,357,185 Receivables: Accounts 8,470 166,267 174,737 Current taxes 1,116 5,194 6,310 Delinquent taxes 31,435 46,137 77,572 Due from other governments 58,392 58,392 Advances to other funds 1,443,069 1,443,069 Restricted assets: Cash and investments 7,341,594 7,341,594 Total assets 1 8,646,960 6,000,831 16,458,859 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable 30,467 65,951 96,418 Accrued salaries and wages 3,731 3,731 Deferred revenue 39,869 46,137 86,006 Total liabilities 74,067 46,137 65,951 186,155 Fund balance: Reserved 8,600,823 1,443,069 10,043,892 Unreserved: Designated 4,491,811 4,491,811 Undesignated 1,737,001 1,737,001 Total fund balance 1,737,001 8,600,823 5,934,880 16,272,704 Total liabilities and fund balance 1,811,068 8,646,960 6,000,831 16,458,859 S 82 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 13 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Total Nonmajor Special Debt Capital Governmental Revenues: Revenue Service Project Funds Taxes and special assessments 451,453 768,774 1,220,227 Franchise fees 612,079 612,079 Intergovernmental 343,103 297,850 800,710 1,441,663 Charges for services 11,428 11,428 Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 24,342 68,498 39,633 132,473 Miscellaneous 356,207 149,465 505,672 Total revenues 1,186,533 1,135,122 1,601,887 3,923,542 Expenditures: Current: General government 8,444 8,444 Public safety 383,375 383,375 Public works 6,928 6,928 Economic development 278,126 278,126 Capital outlay: General government 137,456 137,456 Public safety 40,470 40,470 Public works 487,765 487,765 Economic development 293,145 293,145 Debt service: Principal retirement 231,513 2,515,000 2,746,513 Interest 662,559 662,559 Fiscal agent fees 48,453 48,453 Bond issuance costs 26,800 26,800 Total expenditures 1,226,629 3,252,812 640,593 5,120,034 Revenues over (under) expenditures (40,096) (2,117,690) 961,294 (1,196,492) Other financing sources (uses): Bond proceeds 7,515,000 7,515,000 Discount on bond proceeds (16,890) (16,890) Transfers in 223,523 876,000 1,415,464 2,514,987 Transfers out (223,523) (533,816) (757,339) Total other financing sources (uses) 8,374,110 881,648 9,255,758 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (40,096) 6,256,420 1,842,942 8,059,266 Fund balance January 1 1,777,097 2,344,403 4,091,938 8,213,438 Fund balance December 31 1,737,001 8,600,823 5,934,880 16,272,704 83 t This page has been left blank intentionally. 84 e NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS The City of Brooklyn Center had the following Special Revenue Funds during the year: Housinu and Redevelopment Authority Fund (HRA This fund has authority to levy an ad valorem property tax for the purpose of conducting housing and redevelopment projects. These projects are accounted for in the EDA Fund; all tax proceeds are transferred to that fund. Economic Development Authority Fund (EDA) This fund was established to account for the Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Brooklyn Center. The EDA carries out development activities; it has authority to operate an enterprise. The Earle Brown Heritage Center operates under this authority and a statement of its operations can be found in the enterprise fund section of this report. The EDA also does redevelopment and housing projects, funded by an ad valorem property tax levy and transfers from the CDBG and HRA funds. Tax Increment District No. 4 Fund This fund has the authority to collect tax increments which are used for various redevelopment projects within the City and for debt service payments of bonds which were issued for the same purpose. Police Drue Forfeiture Fund This fund was established to account for property and/or cash seized by Police Department personnel. Community Development Block Grant Fund (CDBG) This fund was established to account for funds received under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Transfers are made from this fund to the Economic Development Authority Fund; projects are accounted for in the Economic Development Authority Fund. City Initiatives Grant Fund Revenues and expenditures from grants received from outside entities are accounted for in this fund. Grant programs for 2002 include several public safety grants, an after school enrichment recreation grant and a local planning assistance grant. 85 I I This page has been left blank intentionally. 86 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 14 NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS December 31, 2004 Total Economic Tax Police City Nonmajor Development Increment Drug Initiatives Special Authority District Forfeiture Grant Revenue Fund No.4 Fund Fund Funds Assets Cash and investments 1,462,866 80,123 45,465 123,201 1,711,655 Accounts receivable 8,098 372 8,470 Current taxes receivable 1,116 1,116 Delinquent taxes receivable 31,435 31,435 Due from other governments 26,855 473 31,064 58,392 Total assets 1,522,272 88,221 45,938 154,637 1,811,068 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable 215 40 21,230 8,982 30,467 Accrued salaries and wages 2,494 1,237 3,731 Deferred revenue 31,435 8,434 39,869 Total liabilities 34,144 40 21,230 18,653 74,067 Fund balance: Unreserved 1,488,128 88,181 24,708 135,984 1,737,001 Total liabilities and fund balance 1,522,272 88,221 45,938 154,637 1,811,068 87 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Housing and Economic Redevelopment Development Authority Authority Fund Fund Revenues: Property taxes 223,523 Intergovernmental 54,273 Charges for services Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 19,721 Miscellaneous 257,986 Total revenues 223,523 331,980 Expenditures: Current: Personal services 118,632 Supplies 475 Services and o ther charges e 143,888 g Capital outlay 293,145 Debt service Total expenditures 556,140 Revenues over (under) expenditures 223,523 (224,160) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 223,523 Transfers out (223,523) Total other financing sources (uses) (223,523) 223,523 Net increase in fund balance (637) Fund balance January 1 1,488,766 Fund balance December 31 1,488,129 88 I� Statement 15 Tax Total Increment Police City Nonmajor District Drug Initiatives Special No. 4 Forfeiture Grant Revenue Fund Fund Fund Funds 227,930 451,453 288,830 343,103 11,428 11,428 130 1,022 3,469 24,342 26,470 71,751 356,207 228,060 27,492 375,478 1,186,533 387 108,268 227,287 21,578 190,849 212,902 14,744 14,904 47,776 221,312 40,470 333,615 231,513 231,513 246,644 76,952 346,893 1,226,629 (18,584) (49,460) 28,585 (40,096) 223,523 (223,523) (18,584) (49,460) 28,585 (40,096) 106,765 74,168 107,398 1,777,097 88,181 24,708 135,983 1,737,001 89 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUND Statement 16 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Budgeted Amounts Actual Original Final Amounts Revenues: Property taxes 225,423 225,423 223,523 Expenditures Revenues over expenditures 225,423 225,423 223,523 Other financing sources (uses): Transfers out (225,423) (225,423) (223,523) Net increase in fund balance Fund balance January 1 Fund balance December 31 I 90 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FUND Statement 17 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Budgeted Amounts Actual Original Final Amounts Revenues: Intergovernmental 54,273 Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 19,721 Miscellaneous 12,000 12,000 257,986 Total revenues 12,000 12,000 331,980 Expenditures: Current: Personal services 166,817 166,817 118,632 Supplies 1,550 1,550 475 Services and other charges 69,056 69,056 143,888 Capital outlay 293,145 Total expenditures 237,423 237,423 556,140 Revenues over (under) expenditures (225,423) (225,423) (224,160) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 225,423 225,423 223,523 Total other financing sources (uses) 225,423 225,423 223,523 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance (637) Fund balance January 1 1,488,766 Fund balance December 31 1,488,129 91 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 FUND Statement 18 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Budgeted Amounts Actual Original Final Amounts Revenues: Property taxes 344,503 344,503 227,930 Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 130 Total revenues 344,503 344,503 228,060 Expenditures: Current: Personal services 387 Services and other charges 10,000 10,000 14,744 Debt service: Principal 335,890 335,890 231,513 Total expenditures 345,890 345,890 246,644 Revenues over expenditures (1,387) (1,387) (18,584) Fund balance January 1 106,765 Fund balance December 31 88,181 92 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND POLICE DRUG FORFEITURE FUND Statement 19 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Budgeted Amounts Actual Original Final Amounts Revenues: Forfeited drug money 25,000 25,000 26,470 Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 1,022 Total revenues 25,000 25,000 27,492 Expenditures: Current: Supplies 25,000 25,000 21,578 Services and other charges 14,904 Capital outlay 40,470 Total expenditures 25,000 25,000 76,952 Revenues over expenditures (49,460) Fund balance January 1 74,168 Fund balance December 31 24,708 r s t t 93 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Statement 20 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Budgeted Amounts Actual Original Final Amounts Revenues: Intergovernmental: Federal grants 244,811 244,811 Expenditures: Current: Services and other charges 244,811 244,811 Revenues over expenditures Fund balance January 1 Fund balance December 31 i 94 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SPECIAL REVENUE FUND CITY INITIATIVES GRANT FUND Statement 21 SCHEDULE OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 1 Budgeted Amounts Actual Original Final Amounts Revenues: Intergovernmental 209,000 209,000 288,830 Charges for services 9,825 9,825 11,428 Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 3,469 Miscellaneous 29,028 29,028 71,751 Total revenues 247,853 247,853 375,478 Expenditures: Current: Personal services 28,686 28,686 108,268 Supplies 134,370 134,370 190,849 Services and other charges 20,048 20,048 47,776 Total expenditures 183,104 183,104 346,893 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 64,749 64,749 28,585 Fund balance January 1 107,398 Fund balance December 31 135,983 i 1 t 1 1 1 95 This page has been left blank intentionally. 96 NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS The City's Debt Service Funds account for three types of bonded indebtedness: General Obligation Bonds Tax Increment Bonds General Obligation Bonds Fund This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for payment of general obligation bonds and interest thereon. Tax Increment Bonds Fund This fund is used to account for the accumulation of resources for payment of tax increment general obligation bonds and interest thereon. These bonds were sold to finance the purchase and redevelopment of the historic Earle Brown Farm and other various redevelopment projects within the City. 97 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET Statement 22 NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS December 31, 2004 Total Nonmaj or General Tax Debt Obligation Increment Service Bonds Bonds Funds Assets Cash and investments 949,447 304,588 1,254,035 Current taxes receivable 5,194 5,194 Delinquent taxes receivable 46,137 46,137 Restricted assets: Cash and investments 4,948,936 2,392,658 7,341,594 Total assets 5,949,714 2,697,246 8,646,960 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Deferred revenue 46,137 46,137 Total liabilities 46,137 46,137 Fund balance: Reserved: Reserved for debt service 5,903,577 2,697,246 8,600,823 Total liabilities and fund balance 5,949,714 2,697,246 8,646,960 98 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND Statement 23 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR DEBT SERVICE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Total Nonmajor General Tax Debt Obligation Increment Service Bonds Bonds Funds Revenues: Property Tax 768,774 768,774 Intergovernmental 297,850 297,850 Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 52,145 16,353 68,498 Total revenues 1,118,769 16,353 1,135,122 Expenditures: Principal 740,000 1,775,000 2,515,000 Interest 375,692 286,867 662,559 Fiscal agent fees 45,770 2,683 48,453 Bond issuance costs 26,800 26,800 Total expenditures 1,161,462 2,091,350 3,252,812 Revenues over (under) expenditures (42,693) (2,074,997) (2,117,690) Other financing sources (uses): Bond proceeds 5,045,000 2,470,000 7,515,000 Discount on bond proceeds (6,439) (10,451) (16,890) Transfers in 876,000 876,000 Total other financing sources (uses) 5,038,561 3,335,549 8,374,110 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 4,995,868 1,260,552 6,256,420 Fund balance January 1 907,709 1,436,694 2,344,403 Fund balance December 31 5,903,577 2,697,246 8,600,823 1 99 i 1 This a e has been lett blank Intentionally P9 100 NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS The City of Brooklyn Center had the following Capital Project Funds during the year: Capital Reserve Emersencv Fund This fund was established in 1997 to account for monies held in reserve for catastrophic losses or unforeseen capital items. Capital Improvements Fund This fund was established in 1968 to provide funds, and to account for the expenditure of such funds, for major capital outlays including, but not limited to, construction or acquisition of major permanent facilities having a relatively long life; and/or to reduce debt incurred for capital outlays. The financing sources of the fund include ad valorem taxation, transfers from other funds, issuance of bonds, federal and state grants, and investment, earnings. Municinal State Aid Construction Fund This fund was established to account for the state allotment of gasoline tax collections used for transportation related construction projects. r Earl Brown Heritage Center Improvements Fund This fund was established to provide a stable source of funds to pay for periodic capital improvements needed at the facility. Technoloizv Fund This fund was established in 2003 to account for funds set aside for technology improvements or major technology renovations and replacements. 101 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING BALANCE SHEET NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS December 31, 2004 Capital e Reserve Capital Emergency Improvements Assets Fund Fund Cash and investments 1,346,261 951,483 Accounts receivable Advance to other funds 850,000 Total assets 1,346,261 1,801,483 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Accounts payable Totalliabilities Fund balance: Reserved: Advances to other funds 850,000 Unreserved: Designated 1,346,261 951,483 e Total fund balance 1,346,261 1,801,483 Total liabilities and fund balance 1,346,261 1,801,483 102 Statement 24 Municipal Earle Brown Total State Aid Heritage Nonmajor for Center Street Capital 1 Construction Improvements Reconstruction Technology Projects Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds 5,304 187,399 1,360,763 540,285 4,391,495 165,128 1,139 166,267 593,069 1,443,069 598,373 187,399 1,525,891 541,424 6,000,831 65,951 65,951 65,951 65,951 593,069 1,443,069 5,304 121,448 1,525,891 541,424 4,491,811 598,373 121,448 1,525,891 541,424 5,934,880 598,373 187,399 1,525,891 541,424 6,000,831 1 103 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Capital Reserve Capital Emergency Improvements Fund Fund Revenues: Franchise fees Intergovernmental 106,200 Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 9,688 9,336 Miscellaneous 122,910 Total revenues 9,688 238,446 Expenditures: Services and other charges 6,928 Capital outlay 487,765 Total expenditures 494,693 Revenues over (under) expenditures 9,688 (256,247) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 300,000 Transfers out Total other financing sources (uses) 300,000 Net increase (decrease) in fund balance 9,688 43,753 Fund balance January 1 1,336,573 1,757,730 Fund balance December 31 1,346,261 1,801,483 104 Statement 25 Municipal Earle Brown Total State Aid Heritage Nonmajor for Center Street Capital Construction Improvements Reconstruction Technology Projects Fund Fund Fund Fund Funds 612,079 612,079 694,510 800,710 3,543 2,741 9,457 4,868 39,633 3,555 23,000 149,465 701,608 2,741 621,536 27,868 1,601,887 8,444 15,372 89,456 48,000 625,221 89,456 56,444 640,593 701,608 (86,715) 621,536 (28,576) 961,294 t 200,000 620,464 295,000 1,415,464 (533,816) (533,816) (533,816) 200,000 620,464 295,000 881,648 167,792 113,285 1,242,000 266 424 1,842,942 430,581 8,163 283,891 275,000 4,091,938 598,373 121,448 1,525,891 541,424 5,934,880 105 This page has been left blank intentionally. 1 106 NONMAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS The City of Brooklyn Center had the following Enterprise Funds during the year: Recvcline and Refuse Fund This fund accounts for the operation of a state- mandated recycling program. Expansion into refuse collection will take place only when there is a clear advantage to be achieved by it. Street Light Utilitv Fund This fund was created to account for expenses related to streetlights within the City. Benefiting properties are billed for these expenses. 107 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS Statement 26 NONMAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS December 31, 2004 Total Nonmajor Recycling and Street Light Enterprise Refuse Fund Utility Fund Funds Assets: Cash and cash equivalents 36,427 81,530 117,957 Accounts receivable -net 50,767 47,243 98,010 Total assets 87,194 128,773 215,967 Liabilities: Accounts payable 750 11,985 12,735 Net assets: Unreserved 86,444 116,788 203,232 Total net assets 86,444 116,788 203,232 108 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, Statement 27 AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS NONMAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Total Nonmajor Recycling and Street Light Enterprise Refuse Fund Utility Fund Funds Operating revenues: Sales and user fees 214,347 208,121 422,468 Operating expenses: Supplies 77 77 Other services 221,443 11,618 233,061 Insurance 1,378 1,279 2,657 Utilities 152,677 152,677 Total operating expenses 222,821 165,651 388,472 Operating income (loss) (8,474) 42,470 33,996 Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 981 1,974 2,955 Transfer to capital project funds (51,000) (51,000) Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) 981 (49,026) (48,045) Change in net assets g (7,493) (6,556) (14,049) Net assets January 1 93,937 123,344 217,281 Net assets December 31 86,444 116,788 203,232 1 109 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 28 NONMAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Total Nonmaj or Recycling and Street Light Enterprise Refuse Fund Utility Fund Funds Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers 211,111 205,036 416,147 Payments to suppliers (222,985) (153,823) (376,808) Net cash flows from operating activities (11,874) 51,213 39,339 Cash flows from non capital financing activities Transfers out (51,000) (51,000) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest on investments 981 1,974 2,955 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents (10,893) 2,187 (8,706) Cash and cash equivalents January 1 47,320 79,343 126,663 Cash and cash equivalents December 31 36,427 81,530 117,957 Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Operating income (loss) (8,474) 42,470 33,996 Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided by (used for) operating activities: Changes in assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in receivables (3,236) (3,085) (6,321) Increase (decrease) in payables (164) 11,828 11,664 Net cash flows from operating activities (11,874) 51,213 39,339 110 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Internal Service Funds are used to account, on a cost reimbursement basis, for the financing of goods or services provided by one department to other departments of the City. Revenues and expenses in these funds are recognized on the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they are earned and become measurable. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which they are incurred. The City's Internal Service Funds included in this section are: Public Emplovees Comnensated Absences Fund This fund accounts for payment of unused vacation and sick leave time and the allocation of such costs to user departments. Public Emplovees Retirement Fund This fund accounts for certain health care insurance benefits for City employees who retire before age 65. Substantially all of the City's full -time police and fire employees and all other full -time employees hired before July 1, 1989 may be eligible for those benefits from the time they quality for an unreduced PERA pension until they reach age 65 or become eligible for Medicare. In the event that future costs would exceed earnings, other funds would be charged for the costs associated with their employees. e Central Garage Fund This fund was established to account for the acquisition and maintenance of all City vehicles and rolling stock equipment. Vehicle and equipment maintenance, repair, and replacement will be provided from rental rates which the Central Garage charges City operating departments for use of the equipment. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS Statement 29 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS t December 31, 2004 Central EE Retirement EE Comp Garage Benefit Absences Total Assets: Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents 4,779,713 1,529,053 881,890 7,190,656 Accounts receivable net 10,038 1,849 11,887 Inventories at cost 28,120 28,120 Total current assets 4,817,871 1,530,902 881,890 7,230,663 Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Machinery and equipment 5,807,809 5,807,809 Less: Allowance for depreciation (3,764,502) (3,764,502) Net capital assets 2,043,307 2,043,307 Total assets 6,861,178 1,530,902 881,890 9,273,970 Liabilities: Current liabilities: Accounts payable 52,947 52,947 Accrued salaries payable 3,370 3,370 Compensated absences payable 857,305 857,305 Total current liabilities 56,317 857,305 913 622 t Noncurrent liabilities: Accrued health insurance liability 1,548,581 1,548,581 Total liabilities 56,317 1,548,581 857,305 2,462,203 Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 2,043,307 2,043,307 Unrestricted 4,761,554 (17,679) 24,585 4,768,460 Total net assets 6,804,861 (17,679) 24,585 6,811,767 112 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND Statement 30 CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Central EE Retirement EE Comp Garage Benefit Absences Total Operating revenues: Charges for services 1,047,210 74,078 1,121,288 Operating expenses: Personal services 271,841 58,465 74,078 404,384 Supplies 237,261 237,261 Other services 89,566 89,566 Insurance 43,497 43,497 Utilities 2,555 2,555 Depreciation 523,346 523,346 Total operating expenses 1,168,066 58,465 74,078 1,300,609 Operating income (loss) (120,856) (58,465) (179,321) Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Investment earnings (net of market value adjustment) 70,462 23,646 12,394 106,502 Gain (loss) on sale of capital asset 29,202 29,202 Other revenue 50,316 50,316 Total nonoperating revenues (expenses) 149,980 23,646 12,394 186,020 Change in net assets 29,124 (34,819) 12,394 6,699 Net assets January 1 6,775,737 17,140 12,191 6,805,068 Net assets December 31 6,804,861 (17,679) 24,585 6,811,767 113 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SUBCOMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS Statement 31 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS For The Year Ended December 31, 2004 Central EE Retirement EE Comp 1 Garage Benefit Absences Total Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from interfund services provided 1,040,667 74,078 1,114,745 Payments to suppliers (345,016) (345,016) Payments to employees (278,990) (58,968) (337,958) Miscellaneous revenue 79,519 79,519 Net cash flows from operating activities 496,180 (58,968) 74,078 511,290 Cash flows from capital and related financing activities: Acquisition and construction of capital assets (328,324) (328,324) Cash flows from investing activities: Interest on investments 70,462 23,646 12,394 106,502 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 238,318 (35,322) 86,472 289,468 Cash and cash equivalents January 1 4,541,395 1,564,375 795,418 6,901,188 Cash and cash equivalents December 31 4,779,713 1,529,053 881,890 7,190,656 I Reconciliation of operating inc met n et cash o o provided (used) by operating activities: Operating income (loss) (120,856) (58,465) (179,321) Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation 523,346 523,346 Changes in assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in receivables (6,543) (1,849) (8,392) Decrease (increase) in inventories (13,268) (13,268) Increase (decrease) in payables 41,131 41,131 Increase (decrease) in accrued expenses (7,149) 1,346 74,078 68,275 Other nonoperatmg income 79,519 79,519 Total adjustments 617,036 (503) 74,078 690,611 Net cash provided by operating activities 496,180 (58,968) 74,078 511,290 114 STATISTICAL SECTION 115 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT -WIDE EXPENSES BY FUNCTION Last two fiscal years (Unaudited) e Fiscal General Public Public Community Parks and Economic Non Year* Government Safety Works Services Recreation Development Departmental 2003 2,565,088 7,184,536 3,002,223 225,365 2,169,482 1,759,585 342,142 2004 2,725,137 7,538,277 2,482,819 67,324 2,255,231 1,683,025 333,669 *Government -wide expenses are not available for years prior to 2003 1 116 1 Table 1 Interest on E. Brown Other Long -Term Municipal Golf Heritage Water Sanitary Storm Enterprise Debt Liquor Course Center Utility Sewer Drainage Funds Total 922,253 724,897 290,990 2,109,166 1,645,955 2,567,032 838,421 370,972 26,718,107 1,268,649 939,244 271,127 2,180,229 1,533,923 2,310,645 756,593 388,472 26,734,364 117 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT -WIDE REVENUES Last two fiscal years (Unaudited) Program Revenues Charges Operating Capital Fiscal For Grants and Grants and Property Year* Services Contributions Contributions Taxes 2003 10,802,128 1,627,020 1,079,134 10,407,613 2004 10,712,432 933,104 2,423,411 11,239,251 *Government -wide expenses are not available for years prior to 2003 t 118 1 Table 2 General Revenues 1 Grants and Contributions Not Restricted Unrestricted Gain on 1 Tax Lodging Franchise to Specific Investment Sale of Increments Taxes Fees Program Earnings Fixed Assets Other Total 3,527,881 661,267 1,413,913 508,494 13,976 829,572 30,870,998 1 3,834,060 656,859 612,079 923,374 491,524 29,202 660,218 32,515,514 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 119 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION Table 3 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Admin. Other Fiscal General Public Public Community Parks and Economic Non- Services Financial Year Government Safety Works Services Recreation Development Departmental Reimb. Uses Total 1995 $2,069,978 $4,598,618 $1,653,358 $41,146 $2,226,121 $209,576 $289,747 ($529,047) $10,559,497 1996 1,968,780 5,022,324 1,649,526 78,442 2,282,054 201,600 317,148 (611,534) 10,908,340 1997 1,992,251 5,089,072 1,868,130 79,800 2,186,686 248,779 311,436 (661,058) 624,637 11,739,733 1998 2,133,829 5,137,108 1,955,108 73,066 2,075,180 313,792 312,625 (731,737) 1,427,001 12,695,972 1999 2,257,957 5,336,622 1,904,205 83,295 2,132,511 383,927 343,925 (670,390) 1,591,039 13,363,091 2000 2,421,762 5,437,360 2,100,865 95,148 2,216,098 397,507 419,789 (795,737) 1,532,238 13,825,030 2001 2,504,392 5,660,600 2,142,064 106,034 2,205,018 392,805 372,056 (767,504) 1,661,877 14,277,342 2002 2,553,426 6,184,663 1,986,692 103,491 2,026,409 340,659 366,282 (596,541) 1,863,910 14,828,991 2003 2,497,608 6,272,875 1,649,405 91,581 2,068,034 316,059 332,608 (607,221) 2,194,655 14,815,604 2004 2,585,597 6,642,254 1,679,440 67,324 1,981,998 311,698 333,669 (784,084) 12,817,896 (a) Table includes General Fund only. Source: City Finance Department records 120 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES BY SOURCE Table 4 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) General Other Fiscal Property Licenses Inter- Charges for Court Financing Year Taxes and Permits g overnmental Services Fines Miscellaneous Sources Total 1995 $5,946,363 $318,202 $3,543,009 $822,530 $178,263 $271,509 $100,000 $11,179,876 1996 6,120,877 402,000 3,618,075 839,583 186,761 328,750 100,000 11,596,046 1997 6,327,890 485,232 3,811,900 757,640 183,270 458,831 100,000 12,124,763 1998 7,949,744 549,067 3,875,392 771,614 193,688 425,319 13,764,824 1999 8,219,491 763,960 3,911,480 739,054 205,460 194,353 14,033,798 2000 8,745,172 632,549 4,076, 169 779,060 180,676 234,740 14,648,366 2001 8,411,513 788,629 4,135,282 688,453 230,408 697,886 14,952,171 2002 11,257,003 823,996 2,843,629 575,748 278,557 312,303 16,091,236 r 2003 10,799,074 827,685 1,948,457 678,875 290,408 358,411 14,902,910 2004 10,025,495 678,077 1,419,210 678,057 254,980 179,910 1,465,464 14,701,193 *State aids were reduced for cities in 2002. Cities were permitted to levy back the aid reductions within specific limitations. Note: Table includes General Fund only. Source: City Finance Department records. 121 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BILLINGS AND COLLECTIONS Table 5 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Percent Current Collections Total Special Percent Collection Collections Fiscal Assessment of of Prior Total to Current Year Billings Amount Billings Years Collections Levy 1995 $476,852 $458,439 96.14% $5,497 $463,936 97.29% 1996 485,019 459,316 94.70% 4,617 463,933 95.65% 1997 498,022 475,080 95.39% 2,470 477,550 95.89% 1998 541,477 524,609 96.88% 24,870 549,479 101.48% e 1999 688,691 657,537 95.48% 34,532 692,069 100.49% 2000 900,481 861,888 95.71% 20,620 882,508 98.00% 2001 868,414 787,769 90.71% 20,620 808,389 93.09% 2002 927,799 863,460 93.07% 65,678 929,138 100.14% 2003 1,064,631 1,018,908 95.71% 75,045 1,093,953 102.75% 2004 966,412 920,604 95.26% 44,563 965,167 99.87% 122 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMPUTATION OF LEGAL DEBT MARGIN Table 6 December 31, 2004 (Unaudited) December 31, 2004 Market Value 1,959,999,100 Applicable Debt Limit (Percentage) 2% Debt Limit 39,199,982 Amount of Debt Applicable to Debt Limit: Total Bonded Debt 39,410,000 Less: Special Assessment Bonds (5,710,000) State Aid Street Bonds (575,000) Tax Increment Bonds (22,445,000) Utility Revenue Bonds (230,000) Total Debt Applicable to Debt Limit 10,450,000 Legal Debt Margin 28,749,982 Source: City Finance and Assessing Department records 123 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RATIO OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES FOR Table 7 GENERAL BONDED DEBT TO TOTAL GENERAL EXPENDITURES Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Total Debt Service Total General as a Percent Fiscal Debt Fund of General Year Principal Interest Service Expenditures Expenditures 1995 $825,000 $1,075,976 $1,900,976 $10,559,497 18.00% 1996 5,125,000 1,106,661 6,231,661 10,908,340 57.13% 1997 1,135,000 1,017,128 2,152,128 11,739,733 18.33% 1998 1,285,000 1,244,923 2,529,923 12,695,972 19.93% 1999 2,085,000 1,323,609 3,408,609 13,363,091 25.51% t 2000 3,970,000 1,282,512 5,252,512 13,825,030 37.99% 2001 2,805,000 1,149,623 3,954,623 14,277,342 27.70% 2002 3,000,000 1,034,139 4,034,139 14,828,991 27.20 r 2003 3,220,000 905,518 4,125,518 14,815,604 27.85% 2004 3,520 000 881,016 4,401 016 12,817,896 34.33% Source: City Finance Department records (1) Amounts for 1996 are higher because of the defeasance of the Tax Increment Bonds of 1985. 124 C CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICAL DATA Table 8 December 31, 2004 Page 1 of 2 (Unaudited) Date of incorporation February 14, 1911 Date of adoption of City Charter November 8, 1966 Date City Charter effective December 8, 1966 Form of government Council- Manager Fiscal year begins January 1 Area of City 8 1/2 square miles Miles of streets: City 105.856 County 6.49 State 10.79 Miles of sidewalks 34.8 Miles of trails 11.2 Miles of storm sewers 84.02 Number of street lights: Owned by NSP 1,039 Owned by City 182 City employees as of December 31, 2004: Authorized regular full -time 150 Temporary or part-time 287 Total 437 Fire protection: Number of stations 2 Number of full -time employees 1 Number of volunteer firefighters 40 Police protection: Number of stations 1 Number of sworn police officers 42 Number of other full -time employees 15 Number of part-time employees 7.5 125 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICAL DATA Table 8 December 31, 2003 Page 1 of 2 (Unaudited) Parks and Recreation: Park property totals 527 acres developed to serve a wide variety of recreational interests. The areas include playlots, playgrounds, playfields, trails, nature areas and an arboretum. Archery range I Playgrounds 20 Park shelters 8 Picnic shelters 10 Ice skating rinks 6 Hockey rinks 5 Softball diamonds 18 Baseball diamonds 5 Tennis courts 14 Basketball courts 19 Football /soccer fields 4 Municipal water plant: Number of connections 8,963 Average daily consumption in gallons 3,346,468 Peak daily consumption in gallons 7,012,000 Plant capacity gallons per day 17,652,000 Miles of water mains 115 Number of fire hydrants 974 Number of wells 9 Number of elevated reservoirs 3 Storage capacity in gallons 3,000,000 Water rate per thousand gallons $1.038 Municipal sewer plant: Number of connections 8,799 Miles of sanitary sewer 105.61 Daily disposal capacity in gallons 10,938,240 Number of lift stations 10 Residential rate per quarter $55.61 Municipal liquor stores (off sale): Number of leased stores 2 2004 sales $4,026,679 Elections: Last general election November 5, 2002 Registered voters 16,676 Votes cast 10,678 Percentage of registered voters voting 64.03% Last municipal election November 2, 2004 Registered voters 17,776 Votes cast 13,803 Percentage of registered voters voting 77.64% 126 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TAX LEVIES AND TAX COLLECTIONS Table 9 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Collections Percentage Collections of Current of Levy of Prior Total Delinquent Year's Taxes Collected Year's Taxes Collections Delinquent Taxes as Year Tax During Fiscal During During Total as Percent of Taxes Percent of Collected Levy Period Fiscal Period Fiscal Period Collections Tax Levy Receivable Tax Levy 1995 $6,501,197 $6,367,437 97.94% ($75,645) $6,291,792 96.78% $288,717 4.44% 1996 6,495,206 6,358,392 97.89% (11,917) 6,346,475 97.71% 208,862 3.22% 1997 6,746,487 6,626,336 98.22% (57,329) 6,569,007 97.37% 186,089 2.76% 1998 7,686,521 7,643,080 99.43% (51,327) 7,591,753 98.77% 146,907 1.91% 1999 7,896,858 7,824,214 99.08% 30,110 7,854,324 99.46% 165,926 2.10% 2000 8,099,965 8,044,715 99.32% 178,306 8,223,021 101.52% 75,070 0.93% t 2001 8,420,298 8,119,854 96.43% (36,320) 8,083,534 96.00% 414,608 4.92% 2002 10,442,170 10,232,645 97.99% 219,067 10,451,712 100.09% 329,237 3.15% 2003 10,355,287 10,048,178 97,03% 214,252 10,262,430 99.10% 391,585 3.78% 2004 10 10 95.56% 273 10,574 98.10% 1 12.25% Source: City Finance Department Records Current tax collections include the market value homestead credit r 127 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ASSESSED VALUE AND ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) 1995 1996 1997 1998 1 Population (1) 28,463 28,502 28,515 28,535 Real property: Tax capacity: City: Residential $9,045,048 $9,485,333 $9,182,859 $9,309,893 Nonresidential 13,567,573 12,837,157 11,082,436 10,657,588 Area -wide allocation (687,295) (586,003) 226,287 537,406 21,925,326 21,736,487 20,491,582 20,504,887 Less tax increment district 1,230,055 1,495,154 1,665,054 2,054,659 Total assessed value 20,695,271 20,241,333 18,826,528 18,450,228 Estimated market value 961,811,400 976,115,400 1,010,170,000 1,085,605,600 Personal property: Assessed value 622,500 573,984 502,668 452,849 Estimated market value 13,532,600 12,477,900 12,566,700 13,006,300 Assessed value as a percent of estimated market value 2.19% 2.11% 1.89% 1.72% Per capita valuations: t Assessed value $749 $730 $678 $662 Estimated market value $34,267 $34,685 $35,867 $38,501 Source: City Assessing Department and Hennepin County records (1) The Metropolitan Council is the source of population estimates. e 128 Table 10 t 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 28,535 29,172 29,172 29,172 29,185 29,185 1 $9,976,862 $8,928,738 $8,495,196 $9,362,788 $10,532,558 $12,177,307 11,002,424 14,093,094 9,225,991 9,430,533 9,821,308 9,903,157 1,504,330 746,438 635,875 875,145 1,097,596 1,023,618 22,483,616 23,768,270 18,357,062 19,668,466 21,451,462 23,104,082 2,533,878 3,296,624 2,450,218 2,538,825 3,134,417 3,122,665 19,949,738 20,471,646 15,906,844 17,129,641 18,317,045 19,981,417 1,164,801,300 1,311,055,600 1,475,520,200 1,659,884,400 1,840,115,300 1,944,996,000 437 707 452 280 568 294 ,680 262,882 273,072 377 13,053,100 13,593,500 13,312,100 13,927,600 13,927,600 15,003,100 1.73% 1.5 8% 1.21% 1.03% 1.00% 1.03% $714 $717 $618 $597 $697 $695 $41,278 $45,408 $51,036 $57,377 $63,078 $67,188 r 129 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA i DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING TAX RATES (PER $1,000) AND TAX LEVIES Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) r Tax Rates in Tax Capacity Rates (1) School Districts (2) Year Vo -Tech No. 286 No. 279 Collectible City (2) School Earle Brown Osseo 1995 31.090 0.000 76.861 70.142 1996 30.344 0.000 58.682 67.155 1997 32.875 0.000 56.260 62.666 1998 35.214 0.000 51.567 56.386 1999 36.269 0.000 59.807 54.337 2000 34.645 0.000 44.356 53.284 2001 35.996 0.000 47.139 56.764 2002 58.901 0.000 26.338 30.213 2003 54.021 0.000 49.817 35.042 2004 52.437 0.000 39.892 23.709 Tax Levies in Dollars 1 School Districts (2) Year Vo -Tech No. 286 No. 279 Collectible City (1) School Earle Brown Osseo 1995 6,501,197 5,367,479 3,288,144 1996 6,495,206 4,850,400 3,863,698 1997 6,746,487 4,472,206 3,708,238 1998 7,686,521 4,322,965 4,042,283 1999 7,896,858 4,293,610 3,800,203 2000 8,099,965 4,218,907 3,670,533 2001 8,420,298 4,238,284 4,073,436 2002 10,442,170 2,032,254 2,064,398 2003 10,354,806 2,483,847 4,342,594 2004 11,319,018 2,966,885 4,239,545 r Source: City Assessing Department and Hennepin County Records. (1) Tax levy includes Brooklyn Center EDA and HRA. (2) Beginning in 1998, a portion of the school levy shown was paid by the state as an education homestead credit. The state -paid portion totaled $2,333,306 in 2001. r r 130 Table 11 Hennepin School Districts (2) County Total City, School, and County No. 281 No l l Special No. 286 No. 279 No. 281 No l l Robbinsdale Anoka Districts Earle Brown Osseo Robbinsdale Anoka 67.197 61.402 45.370 151.763 145.044 142.099 136.304 64.762 64.387 44.170 133.196 141.669 139.276 138.901 63.757 55.588 42.174 131.309 137.715 138.806 130.637 65.350 51.824 45.869 132.650 137.469 146.433 132.907 47.716 54.856 50.276 146.352 140.882 134.261 141.401 48.492 51.792 37.679 127.806 136.743 131.942 135.242 46.678 52.224 45.803 128.938 138.583 128.477 134.023 30.092 29.082 57.795 143.034 146.788 146.909 145.778 29.179 26.941 58.364 162.202 147.427 141.564 139.326 34.258 21.050 51.310 148.397 132.214 142.763 129.555 Hennepin Total County City, No. 281 No. 11 Special Schools and Robbinsdale Anoka Districts County 1 4,814,025 1,269,585 8,557,035 29,797,465 4,397,705 1,441,657 9,403,100 30,451,766 3,899,126 1,361,059 8,854,518 29,041,634 3,750,650 1,420,301 8,964,681 30,187,401 3,150,416 1,276,178 9,471,114 29,888,379 3,116,096 1,316,096 9,916,918 30,338,515 3,076,541 1,407,502 9,677,991 30,894,052 2,015,705 685,458 9,001,798 26,241,783 2,808,387 1,402,903 10,152,265 31,544,802 3,119,986 1,456,125 10,573,789 33,675,348 131 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RATIO OF NET BONDED DEBT TO ASSESSED VALUE AND Table 12 NET BONDED DEBT PER CAPITA Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Less Ratio of Amounts Net Bonded Net Tax Gross in Debt Net Debt to Bonded Fiscal Estimated Capacity Bonded Service Bonded Tax Capacity Debt Per Year Population Value Debt (1) Fund Debt Value Capita 1995 28,463 21,317,771 1996 28,502 20,815,317 0.00% 1997 28,515 19,329,196 7,900,000 82,056 7,817,944 40.45% 274.17 1998 28,535 18,903,047 7,900,000 616,778 7,283,222 38.53% 255.24 1999 28,535 20,387,445 7,575,000 725,868 6,849,132 33.59% 240.03 2000 29,172 20,924,326 7,175,000 725,930 6,449,070 30.82% 221.07 2001 29,172 18,357,062 6,760,000 831,651 5,928,349 32.29% 203.22 2002 29,172 18,793,321 6,325,000 871,970 5,453,030 29.02% 186.93 2003 29,185 19,066,393 5,875,000 958,509 4,916,491 25.79% 168.46 2004 29,185 20,634,434 10,450,000 5,898,383 4,551,617 22.06% 155.96 Source: City Finance Department and Hennepin County records (1) Amount does not include tax increment, state aid street, special assessment, or revenue bonds. 132 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT Table 13 December 31, 2004 (Unaudited) Governmental Unit City's Share Gross Debt Percent Amount Direct Debt City of Brooklyn Center (1) $5,540,000 100.00% $5,540,000 Overlapping debt: School Districts: No. 281 Robbinsdale 160,400,000 5.40% 8,661,600 No. 11 Anoka 186,506,003 1.60% 2,984,096 No. 279 Osseo 205,480,000 5.90% 12,123,320 No. 286 Earl Brown 31,050,000 100.00% 31,050,000 Mettopolitan Council 23,700,000 0.80% 189,600 Metropolitan Transit 176,310,000 0.90% 1,586,790 Hennepin County 382,605,000 1.70% 6,504,285 Hennepin Regional RR Authority 48,555,000 1.70% 825,435 Hennepin County Park Reserve District 40,010,000 2.30% 920,230 Total overlapping debt 1,254,616,003 64,845,356 Total direct and overlapping debt $1,260,156,003 $70,385,356 Direct Overlapping Comparative Net Debt Ratios Chareeable to Citv Total Debt Debt Debt to tax capacity value $20,634,434 341.11% 26.85% 314.26% Debt to market value $1,854,042,900 3.80% 0.30% 3.50% Per capita debt, population 29,185 $2,411.70 $189.82 $2,221.88 Source: City Finance Department, Hennepin County, and I.S.D. #11 records. Includes only general obligation debt which is repaid through roe taxes net of refunded bonds. Y g g P g property nY 133 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL TAXPAYERS Table 14 2004 (Unaudited) of Total City 2004 Net Tax Capacity Taxpayer Type of Business Tax Capacity Value Talisman Brookdale, LLC Shopping Center $1,044,060 5.06% Regal Cinemas, Inc. Theater 234,350 1.14% Brookdale Corner LLC Retail 204,850 0.99% BCC Associates, LLC Office 191,250 0.93% Twin Lake North Apartement 184,613 0.89% Medtronic Industrial 175,650 0.85% Marshall Fields Retail 166,450 0.81% Center Point Apartment 150,750 0.73% Sears Roebuck and Co. Department Store 150,220 0.73% 1 Wickes Furniture Company Industrial 146,110 0.71 Total Market Value $2,648,303 12.84% Total City x Capacity $20,634,434 h' P h' Source: City Assessing Department records 134 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA PROPERTY VALUE AND CONSTRUCTION Table 15 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Commercial New Residential Building Permits Issued Construction Construction Property Value Estimated Year Number Cost Value Units Value Commercial Residential Non Taxable 1995 603 11,948,205 9,541,847 2 153,000 297,268,000 678,076,000 $110,458,200 1996 607 16,647,400 12,527,095 18 1,126,000 284,786,600 703,806,700 108,473,400 1997 796 18,274,806 10,905,475 3 225,000 287,163,000 722,917,000 111,226,700 1 1998 1,482 23,216,525 14,261,800 4 612,900 314,457,700 770,883,400 152,964,200 i 1999 1,745 44,188,569 10,528,100 7 679,600 333,929,200 832,334,600 155,999,500 2000 1,299 20,450,844 13,254,213 3 311,800 358,293,500 837,022,400 164,002,100 2001 956 63,947,218 10,750,000 4 464,000 367,026,000 970,653,400 165,437,000 2002 976 58,089,510 18,680,014 10 1,335,000 529,390,100 1,130,494,300 163,517,000 2003 886 53,918,257 25,423,800 9 1,370,100 557,643,000 1,251,467,299 169,892,900 2004 792 21,613,050 15,653,457 15 1,616,000 567,637,200 1,377,358,800 225,988,400 Source: City Finance, Assessing and Community Development Department records. 135 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS Table 16 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) I School Enrollments (4) City Minneapolis No. 286 Fiscal Unemployment St. Paul No. 11 No. 279 No. 281 Earle Year Population (1) Rate (2) C.P.I. (3) Anoka Osseo Robbinsdale Brown 1995 28,463 3.1% 2.9% 39,152 21,479 13,595 1,658 0 1996 28,502 3.0% 3.1% 39,874 21,664 14,099 1,664 1997 28,515 2.3% 2.5% 40,402 21,992 14,010 1,746 1998 28,535 1.9% 2.0% 40,923 22,028 13,966 1,788 1999 28,535 2.4% 2.2% 40,964 22,171 13,800 1,734 2000 29,172 3.0% 2.6% 41,314 22,017 13,706 1,682 2001 29,172 3.9% 3.3% 41,419 22,041 13,754 1,724 1 2002 29,172 4.8% 4.2% 41,383 21,824 13,656 1,732 2003 29,185 5.90 0 /0 1.7% 41,254 21,698 13,765 1,732 2004 29,185 5.7% 4.4% 41,592 21,620 16,196 1,691 (1) Source: Metropolitan Council (2) Source: Minnesota Department of Economic Security; average rate for the past year 3 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor r (4) Source: Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (Brooklyn Center has parts of these four Districts within the City) 136 CITY OF BROOKLYN O KLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF REVENUE BOND COVERAGE Table 17 Last Ten Fiscal Years (Unaudited) Net Non- Net Revenue Operating Operating Gross Revenue to Debt Year Revenue Revenue Revenue Expenses(1) Available Principal Interest Total Service Storm Drainaee Fund 1995 $788,897 $72,881 $861,778 $184,990 $676,788 $90,625 $90,625 7.47:1 1996 822,980 47,363 870,343 204,969 665,374 110,000 86,390 196,390 3.39:1 1997 856,920 130,651 987,571 198,662 788,909 155,000 79,754 234,754 3.36:1 1998 940,012 916,860 1,856,872 199,694 1,657,178 165,000 72,227 237,227 6.99:1 1999 999,867 1,257,928 2,257,795 156,562 2,101,233 170,000 64,193 234,193 8.97:1 2000 1,074,619 313,068 1,387,687 154,183 1,233,504 180,000 59,144 239,144 5.16:1 2001 1,129,502 280,740 1,410,242 157,110 1,253,132 190,000 53,166 243,166 5.15:1 2002 1,377,638 435,548 1,813,186 231,741 1,581,445 200,000 36,701 236,701 6.68:1 2003 1,264,512 148,854 1,413,366 295,522 1,117,844 210,000 24,990 234,990 4.76:1 2004 1,276,778 21,212 1,297,990 228,974 1,069,016 220,000 25,835 245,835 4.35:1 Source: City Finance Department records. (1) Excludes depreciation and interest on bonds. r 137 C CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE COVERAGE Table 18 Effective December 31, 2004 Page 1 of 2 (Unaudited) Policy Period Type of Coverage and Details From To Liability Limits I. Statutory Liabilitv to Emnlovees a. Worker's Compensation (participant in the 04/01/04 04/01/05 Statutory Limits League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Self- Insured Workers' Compensation Program) II. Liabilitv to the Public a. Comprehensive general liability includes the following additional coverages: (a) All employees as additional insureds (b) Personal injury coverage to include false arrest, libel, slander, wrongful entry or eviction, or invasion of right of privacy. (c) Broad contractual liability (d) Products liability (e) Public officials' liability (1) Bodily injury 04/01/04 04/01/05 $1,000,000 occurrence (2) Property damage 04/01/04 04/01/05 $1,000,000 occurrence (3) Personal injury 04/01/04 04101105 $1,000,000 occurrence b. Automobile liability, comprehensive 04/01/04 04/01/05 (1) Bodily injury $1,000,000 occurrence (2) Property damage $1,000,000 occurrence (3) Uninsured motorist $1,000,000 occurrence c. Liquor stores' dram shop 01/01/04 01/01/05 $1,000,000 occurrence $1,000,000 annual aggregate d. Golf Course and Central Park liquor liability 01/01/04 01101105 $1,000,000 occurrence $1,000,000 annual aggregate e. Personal accident, Volunteers 01/01/04 01101105 $100,000 accidental death $100,000 permanent impairment $400 /week short-term disability $1,000 medical $500,000 per accident 138 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE COVERAGE Table 18 Effective December 31, 2003 Page 2 of 2 (Unaudited) 1 Buildings, Structures, Policy Period and Contents Type of Coverage and Details From To (Replacement Cost) III. Insurance on Citv Property 04/01/04 04/01/05 a. Public and institutional property, all risk, blanket $57,995,249; $2,500 deductible replacement value on buildings. Annual aggregate limit of 1,000,000 on terrorism (1) Civic Center /City Hall $14,658,040 (2) East Fire Station $1,604,350 (3) West Fire Station $3,433,760 (4) Municipal Service Garage $3,529,552 (5) Municipal Garage Property in the Open $75,461 (6) Elevated Water Towers 3 locations $4,312,000 (7) Park Shelter Buildings 9 locations $838,844 (8) Pump Houses 8 locations $1,167,122 (9) Lift Stations 9 locations $1,646,621 (10) Meter Station $21,327 (11) Salt Storage Building $533,190 (12) Outdoor lighting systems 7 locations $351,882 (13) Leased Liquor Store BC Liquor #1 $494,100 (14) Leased Liquor Store BC Liquor #2 $500,000 (14) Pedestrian Bridge 12 locations $2,117,297 (15) Picnic Shelters 10 locations $366,670 (16) Earle Brown Heritage Center $12,392,304 1 (17) Centerbrook Golf Course Club House $431,774 (18) Centerbrook Golf Course Garage $51,353 (19) Lions Park Concession Stand $48,500 (20) Police Station $5,784,800 (2 1) Centerbrook Golf Course Maintenance Building $220,600 (22) Centerbrook Golf Course Storage Building $103,000 (23) Centerbrook Golf Course Property in the Open $207,802 (24) Parks Property in the Open $656,782 Liability Limits b. Boiler and machinery 04/01/04 04/01/05 $40,559,353 Boiler Limit $2,500 deductible c. Automotive physical damage 04/01/04 04/01/05 (1) Comprehensive ACV $2,500 deductible (2) Collision ACV $2,500 deductible IV Criminal Acts a. Faithful performance blanket position $500,000 per occurrence b. Money and securities (broad form) Various c. Depositor's forgery $100,000 139 i This a e has been left blank Intentionally P9 140 Cit y of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 2004 Audit Review June 27, 2005 1► rnbee of Hl B tntemat anal 1 Tautoos'Reclp th.'t. #dam Vii s 3 ,b s *l r� x ��,'zz�€r Comprehensive Audit Annual Financial Management I ca Letter Report Report on State Internal Legal Controls Compliance Report Member of HLB International 2 3 f'autges R edpath, L td. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report financia statements are the responsibi ity of management ndependent auditor reports on the fair presentation of the financia statements "C can opinion" on the 2004 financia statements Member of HLBintemationel Tautges RedPath, Ltd. 3 State Legal Compliance Report Required by Minnesota Statute §6.65 OSA estab fished a task force to deve op audit guide for ega comp fiance Audit guide covers six categories 1) contracting and bidding 2) deposits and investments 3) conflicts of interest 4) public indebtedness 5) claims and disbursement 6) Other miscellaneous provisions Based on tests performed, no comp fiance findings for 2004 Member M HlBintemafional 4 Taulges Redpath. Ltd. Report on Internal Control Based on inquiries and observations not an audit of interns contro dentifies reportab e conditions Reportab e condition defined as "significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting that would adversely affect the City's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data" one reportab e condition noted Member ofHLB Inromatlonal Tautges Redpatfl. Ltd. 5 City Council Agenda Item No. Sb s. N.-orth -.M..-emorial Center Medica- .1 le Grove H• 1 1111jr A r .A1�J r F t, G T 4 'R r i l� "e�' d ^m A�i1� y North Memorial Medical cep 50 Years of Service to the Communitv 4 Independent Health Care Organization 4 Level 1 Trauma Center 4 Emergency Services 4 Ambulance Services 4 Women Children's Services /NICU 4 Heart Center 4 Stroke Center 4 Humphrey Cancer Center 4 Primary Care Physicians, 279 on Staff 4 Specialty Physicians, 606 on Staff 2 North Memorial Medical Center i North Memorial -�3 Campus i e1,lA.enmN ao i Proposed Highway btg S- Maple Grove i _.._.._.._.._.._..I Development and concept approval by Maple Grove City Council (12/04), including required road improvements. The Highway 610 extension is not required for our project. 3 I North Memorial Medical CcW The Grove Campus Plan r Outpatient k^ ry HOSpII,'t I North Memorial Medical Center I Our Plan Phase I Develop a health care campus on our 30 acre site in Maple Grove Emergency Services, Outpatient Surgery, Imaging and Medical Office Building scheduled to open early 2007 Inpatient hospital including 80 beds scheduled to open in 2008 following legislative approval in 2005 Medical /Surgical, Obstetrics, Pediatrics, Behavioral Health, Oncology Phase II Expand inpatient hospital capacity up to 260 beds and build future Medical Office Buildings 5 North rove vial O Bly Lake MonticNb on °>;j Rogers North Memorial Maple Grove campus 1 Exclusive endorsements cerraren0 for Notch Memorial as the 6­14W 0 Oereetd Park hospital of choice from: Pymaven O��"'� Brooklyn Center, Mayor OB klyaCerMr •Brooklyn Park. City Council' Corcoran, Mayor Medidne LA-0 0W. H.P. Crystal, Mayor Dayton, City Council cry", Greenfield, Mayor Noti t Memorial S Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, Mike Opat Rob! insdale C Lupus O apeRS Medicine Lake, City (.on,'[ a. Minneapolis, Council Member, Don Samuels Monticello Big Lake Community Hospital District, Board of Directors Hew Hope. Mayor Plymouth, Mayor Robbinsdale. Mayor Rogers, City Co­ i V4 I I North Memorial Medical CeNer Letters of SUDDOrt Brooklyn Center, Myrna Kragness, Mayor Brooklyn Park City Council, Steve Lampi, Mayor Corcoran City Council, Thomas C. Cossette, Mayor Crystal, ReNae J. Bowman, Mayor Dayton City Council, Douglas Anderson, Mayor Greenfield City Council, Lawrence Plack, Mayor Maple Grove, Mark Steff enson, Mayor Minneapolis City Councilman, Don Samuels New Hope, Martin Opem Sr., Mayor Robbinsdale, Mike Holtz, Mayor Rogers City Council Health Partners, Mary Brainerd, President and CEO Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, Mike Opat Minnesota Neonatal Physicians, Bruce Ferrara, MD, President Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital District, Board of Directors Ridgeview Medical Center, Robert Stevens, President 7 I d r 'lo ow Jo ull 41' ION All i jo t MT 1 6 10 WOW' 111 JON It'll 1 QTA i"M F, North Memorial Medical ceruer Maple Grove Area Market Share 35.0 ni M i pr 30.0 C C 25.0 20.0 I 0 4 O 15.0 r O aD N r N N to 'D.0 rn M M rn �t rn m 5.0 0.0 S North Mercy Methodist Unity Abbott Fairview Memorial Northwestern University 0 Discharges Days Source: M FiA 2003 9 G North Memorial Medical Center The current Twin Cities market has two provider systems that account for over 50% of the inpatient market The other proposals will increase market share for the two largest provider systems and reduce competition Hospital prices in the Twin Cities will likely be higher if other proposals are implemented and competition is reduced "North Memorial's proposal will result in more competition for inpatient services in the Twin Cities market." David W. Cress President and COO "The legislature has a unique opportunity to positively affect health care competition for the State of Minnesota.... Robert J. Town, PhD University of Minnesota 10 North Memorial Medical CerNef Hospital Cost To Consumers NWV QQQQ ;T_. WW W `d Ica 00 Source: 2004 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota "Healthcare Facts" Website 11 North Memorial Medical Center Administrative Costs as a Percentage of Operating Revenue 20.0% 16.0 12.0% p 2002 2003 4.0 0.0 North Allina Methodist Children's Fairview Memorial Source: Minnesota Hospital Association 12 North Memorial Medical Caw Population Growth Rates Primary Service Area Excluding Maple Grove Growth from 2004 -2009 7.0°F 6.0% 5.0°4 4 0.0% ,0% 3.3% 3,01/6 2.9% 20% t.r io 1.0% n 0.0% t I Abbott Fairview Mercy Hospital Methodist North Memorial Unity Hospital Northwestern University Conclusions: The North Memorial population growth outside of Maple Grove is not adequate to replace volume lost to a new Maple Grove Hospital All the other hospitals are in growing markets 13 North Memorial Medical Cerw i Financial Plan North Memorial's current credit rating of A2 by Moody's Investors Service demonstrates financial strength and financial capacity to issue necessary debt to fund our plan No other health care system proposal under consideration has a higher aggregate credit rating North Memorial will be able to access capital markets efficiently and cost effectively Piper Jaffray Co. June 14, 2005 14 North Memorial Medical Center North Memorial's Proposal Is in the public interest 4 Increases competition in the Twin Cities marketplace 4 Improves access to health care 4 Preserves resources in the local community Will develop a complete and comprehensive health care campus -Transfer of existing licensed and staffed beds Most cost effective plan for the community 4 Medical expertise in Trauma, Emergency, Orthopedics, Heart, Stroke, Cancer, Obstetrics, Pediatrics and Neonatology... We Are the Major Provider of Health Care to the Maple Grove Community 15 North Memorial Medical Center Current Legislative Status Regular Session House of Representatives: "North Memorial" Senate: "Criteria and Decision by Commissioner of Health" Conference Committee No Decision Special Session Combining House and Senate Sent to City of Maple Grove Other 16 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE'S PROPOSED NEW HEALTH CARE CAMPUS AND HOSPITAL IN MAPLE GROVE WHEREAS, North Memorial Health Care has a long track record of service in the "northwest corridor" communities; and WHEREAS, North Memorial is sincere in its desire to serve our community and they have already invested significantly in the northwest communities by serving our area residents in multiple ways; and WHEREAS, North Memorial has the leading market position in cardiology, ENT, general medicine, gynecology, neonatology, neurology, obstetrical and newborn care, cancer, orthopedics, urology, trauma, and emergency medicine; and WHEREAS, North Memorial's paramedics, emergency physiciant and emergency transport personnel have trained and worked with northwest communities' first responders for decades; and WHEREAS, the services offered by North Memorial are needed in growing communities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City of Brooklyn Center endorses the plans of North Memorial to build an outpatient heath care campus in Maple Grove and their vision for a hospital on this campus in the future. June 27. 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. 8c Cit y o f Brooklyn n Cen ter 0 77 A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers C ody, Las rf, iesen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: June 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Opportunity Site Task Force Report On Monday night's agenda, representatives of Damon Farber and Associates will provide the City Council/EDA with an update of the work completed by the Task Force to date. The purpose of their presentation is to outline the process and guidelines that are being proposed to receive City Council/EDA input and direction as they proceed to the next phase of the process. 301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation n Community enter g y e na dC yC Phone &TDDNumber 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 JOJUO-1 UANOWS areal Apn4S LjjmojE):pewS,, buileaVA pounoo Aj!o 0 0 j j a u a 8 ,,ee id ApnjS glmoao :pewS„ L# Builagn aoao j �sel aol epue5v sdalS IxaN leiaay Ioafoad soullepino oldweS suoildiaosaa lolalsia swelsAS ouilepino uCisaa sueld paaaa}aad sueld le1}!ul WaWWIS uoisln saipunpoddo pue sisAleud suollipuOO Bullslx3 ssaooad SOOZ LZ aunt b UIJGOW punoo lio aol epuafbr JOIUOO UAJ� Ooa8 r m i cn 3 O? Cn fD G Q O K C C 1 u r k w O O O O O CD (n U) O O N CD O C- C- m n O O O O O O O 0 w 3= CD 0 0 0 n 3 n N 7c 0 5 O O t O O 0 n 0 3 O n n tin CD CL Q. ,-r CD a- t D O n 2 O EE 3 O n O cD M CD cn 0 cn o N O CL o r_ O CD C CD ID CD cOn a a O CD 06) w O O O O O CD (n U) O O N CD ,,eeid ApnjS glmoaJ :pewS„ alnpagoS s.iodolanap of j!wgns o} peage oB 'g lenoiddd l!ounoo APO 01 }uasaad Z L aagwa}daS d leull auasaad g# Bu!laalm aoio �sel 17Z IsnBnd veld dwoo/e!.ialpo BulBpnf /dd�l Ma!na�j L# Bu! }aaw OWOJ Isel IsnBnb dJWsaBuego Bu!uoZ pue ueld dwoo 9# Bu!laaw aoao j ISel L Alnf u!uleu ON SSaaoad spaepuels uB!sep -g ueld Iuasaad Bullaaw o!lgnd 9L aunp spiepuels pou!laa juasa.id pue Indu! ssnosia S# Bullaaw aoao= plsel 9 aunt spaepuels ig Ideouoo pau!Jaa Iuasaad Z# Bu!laaw o!lgnd LL Aew ouilaa of (s)ldoouoo ou!,lap pue Indui nnainaN t# Bullaaw eo.io Jsel 17 Aew Indui aol sjdaouoo ig slsAleue luasaad L# Bu!}aaw o!Ignd L I!add Indui aol sp.iepuels w!la.id/sIdeouoo pau!laa luasaad Bu!laaw aoaod Isel 9 I!add }ndu! aol sldoouoo anileuaaIle luasa.id Z# Bu!Iaaw aoao Asel Z yo,aew I!s!n al! S/ saouanllul/ssaooad/uollonpoajul L# Bu!}aaw aoaoj Jsel Z A.ienaga aiea oI SSaaoad aaJuao UAJ� ooa8 X N Q U U >t c 7; cn O L c }J W O J RI E in cm e kh m LL m, i +gyp r '7 a t d t d 3 T n 3 c F CC d r ID 'r t a� d a`f`t a. If AL V y s r "i p t M" t' 71 g F a) L Q co 'a J 0 m CO o m Q o L VJ vI X W y 4. i n AR f 9 A t o rat ee�j" y a y 4 g 3- I 'a4 '°'buy+y f•f- ti w ek Y C'l Ps 11A JIV r ,F m Ix r c� 8 4 j YJ R f yy a 4� f K 81' jq y s a i a rv' ,,eei ApnIS qlmojE) liewS,, Ix;gluoo uoileliodsuej saiw:.I v-lV F prra 1, -.jv se i,4 'g v Ni 47 jt Y r oil ex 4k Ir jawao uAwojs 11110 1110 11110 1110 11110 N Brooklyn Center IN vyt P J aw a A A i t TO Nord�t Mt�6iH %[P t 7 n y r w, Mvl,o Tea vl H c R utn Tran.3 Slat ion ..r,rr3rs.tH%_ -tr ,2 Rc ;,c T•aii Public Transit Trails Context fLS, V o tray ,it H_ Ravt 7x12 5�dew -��k t ,r.of s._allg Wl.roTrafa Hua PL•c[t[ Rrt,,e,�.,a.,,�[ >,,:�.i,t,, "Smart Growth Study Area„ L U) Ca U Q c a o o cu m o a- 3 o ca L ca E cn tst w k a, 7,s jz Sri. .,ra uj I c c v" �`t c Ne ,n sq ra 13 ,,eeiV ApnjS glmoa!D :pewS,, 1 4 4n A.cpur.�r� c w,v }sofnYd a��µ'7�; 1;'1 r�iuc i vaiuOo soii!mn '8 JaIeM WJOIS �,n,� ,.�,A &4. .�•.zr� t f r a 7 4 q y yy_ yy t M 'm �y gay m w y q S uit �a g b }�7 �kM1� d'�-.mA��A dW of Y rf '.+a.4• ^ba..,# .g„ 'z4F ms' T+ a x� 9 k Y .a.u..u.� n Y S �*x gyp} }r JBJUGO UAJ� Oojq z x „ee id ApnjS glmoaE) :pewS„ saipn1aoddp 7 Ow u r 37�cii(' NZ tiaa a�»a ,aacl�r�I; Suta1S,�s tltJ,E E'41CStl�h 'tak sash pue-1 ivaOefpy aleJ6alul. alep� OOJS 01 UOIIOaUUOO anOJdwj- SAemg61H UJOJJ pue 0 ssaOOV anoJdUJI. I1sueJl 01 UOIIOGUUOO J9119B apinOJd. ul spoogJogy6laN t,l uor 00 6UIISIX3 01 UOIJOaUUOO anoJdwj- mplo int-� 10 sa�ray sapfnoJd �eE� R ssaOay IleJl leuol6a� anoJdual. �f :o[{iage�61aM aN o �eaa aOUasaJd OlnlO aOUegu3. �u ;anapum ia; f ii ►atuy sv .1 a9 4 w'aa” Weld 10 asuaS anbiun e aiewo. �(lluawe ue se JaleM wjojS jo asnad. alp I w uoijeaJaa�j `6ulddogS IMEREP t� a. ana� `6uI�JOM `6UIn1 JOJ saO[Ogo sapinOJd �r i c9i« I ��'I a i� jegj poogJogg6laN m9N e a}eOJO. saipn1Joddp JOIUGO UAJJ OoJB ,eaad ApnjS glmoaE) :pewS„ eaib loa(oad a e!!!n uegan ou uaaaE) pae pea a41 a ell!A Aced a41 laa.ilS ulew a41 AemMied UMOJEI 9!ae3 t R r a P r k eaae ueplodo ilaua aul pue ialuao ulfl loo rg jo Alto aUl Qlgl m enbiun se aps slid spew leul luawdolanap jo paepuels U4lu e Ifanuoo Ipm coeds uado oygnd pue luewuorinua ll!nq all looj uo pue aloAolq `lisueal oilgnd `aeo Aq apssaooe A jlsea aq lllM ewe au1 Apo aql ulgl!m Bulleaaoaa pue Bulddogs `Bul -aoM `Bulny of loadsaa ql!m seologo o weulfp apnoid lllm sued pue coeds llelai `sao jo `5ulsnoq Marl aaluao uAplooa8 jo Apo aul uigl m poogrogq41au lueagin e acuooeq lym eaab ApnlS ulMoaE) pewo aaluao uAl4oaig aq L Iuauaale }S uoisin aajuao UAJ� Ooa8 L Q� L Q U 1 C3 m N CL JC m V1 Q.,; a E CO X gg ,p; 5 ffi Y T b C W MW o h s'.,. uv s rr s� a i. Ae i Nov. A, �91_ �,_'Tuv 1& 4 �10 t CA s w q U7 may. 4. °e �E miki „eeiV ApnjS glmoaE) liewS„ oo AeN\g5lH 5uISSOJO sa5puq ueialsaped 5uilslxa of suoijoauuoo uleluien Aemnjed �aaao altjuigS 10 I SOM s901naas }uaWuaano6 of ssaooe }ualuanuoa pue ales apinoad rP �R s isuea of nd o ssaooe ales a inoa r I. .lq p. d., r Aemqb'H wojj pue ol ssaooe anoidua GI!s GqI 10 gIjou sasn 6uiIsixa agj 01 AIlnlIoauuoo anoidwl 3 y1 o wajsAS deal leuolfia�j jawo alfiuigS of ssaooe anoidwl F Y l 5 r lie” alepooa8 of ssaooe anoidual S� >O� suoiloauuoo asagj oJejllioel dlag of Aaessaoau a inn sIuauaGAoidwi of nd o aagwnu y sasn jueoefpe gjlnn IIj osle q II. Iq Vr pue pnwwoo builsixe aqj of skull apinoid Isnw juawdolanap age r: uiglinn sjoafoad lenpinlpul juaoefpe y�lnn a�ea6a�ul o� pau6isap, si JI aapao uAjl ooa8 jo Alp agj ulglinn anblun si joafoid e g MOIAJanp IxeJUO3 aajuao UAJi Ooa8 eaiv ApnjS yjnnoaE) :pewS„ .IloaIs pue quip ol seaae joopi anbiun inn siaddo s pue slua isaa apinoid ll!M joulsip asn -pamw eqj uigl!m sezeld uegan F saililenb anbiun aqj �aew aauljnj of Ijy oilgnd aleaodaooul aul uiulinn aouasaad oinio e apinoid o} loulsia ash -paxin aui _mot uiglinn paIeaodaooui aq pinoo 5uiplinq builaaw Al!unwwoo y aoeds uado oilgnd aa6ael of ss000e pooh pue seaae J4 o -doap buiIinui `spaeAlinoo aIeniad sluap!saa aoI aoeds uado anbiun apinoad 1. ,tea +n'W^4 a✓ 3 �z 40 of sloafoid aiagl ainblluoo pinogs juawdolanap alenud. aoeds uado Aliunwwoo j �s lelin a se eaae ayj aIowoad o} sail!AIIOe Aliunwwoo s pue sJuana gJIM aoeds uado Al!unwwoo wea6oad saiIilioej leuo160a bUlISIxa 01 sabe�ull apinoad Si ti sleoE) joefoid aql ui ljoals pue dogs of 5uiwoo aldoad se Mann se sIuapisaa nnau JOI saoioyo 10 05M e apinoid of euigwoo aoeds uaaa6 r anissed pue sezeld uegan salm!oej ieuol5aa pue 4o 5uiisixe of pawl aq pinoys aoeds uado paIeaao AlmGN aoeds uado Al!unwwoo lea}ueo au} of sa5e�uij uodn paseq si ueld ayj 10 �aonnaWeaj Ileaano ayl nnainaanp aaa S uado aaluao UAJl ooa8 ,eaad ApnjS glmoaE) jjewS sauaoH uMol uegan Ianal }aaa }s a j }e �(}ini oe ueu sa ed aoao ulaa no s sasn y p pl U Iid sasn Ilelaa anlJeW91le aalleuas ujlM sopeoel uado ouil pue ani enouui aae e i uo `sasn xo 6 a e oww000 r- u� I q i .q, p d joefoid eqj jo seaae aaylo ui sasn Ilelaa Ieljuajod ujlM anljeaao aq of 5uigsinn saadolanap a01 ool �(�lllglxal� apinoad joulsip asn -paxiw auj uiuIinn AIlaeualad }nq t `joa(oad au} jo seaae Ile uigl!m asn paxlua le311aan a}ouaoad 1iejOM aanp 031110 6111snoH Al!suaa wnipaw coeds uado A lunwwoo a o ul ueliodwi ue pue a lnoad =.x: u� l�1 I� p p sasn lepaplsaa pue aoljjo `pejaa posodoid aqj aouequa o pinoo jolalslp asn- paxlua lealuao auk u!ul!M asn olnlo y k ¢ro. salpn1joddo,,. juawulelia}ue Mau 6 U1A0fua sao} lsln pue s}uaplsaa r sa uj!M Ajlnl}oe 6uluana pue sJG�JOM pue sa addogs gjinn Ajlnljoe awijAep a}owoad of pau6lsap sl sasn jo xlua aul flejON aanp 6uisnoH 6uisnoH Al!suea 4 t. nr .d; 4' 'janaj- jaaajs le �(}!nijoe pue coeds uado oilgnd aqj aoaopaa p1nogs sasn MaN }oefoid aqj }o sloulsip Aft ,a jeiluapisai uaay1jou aqj ojui pajeaodmui aq pinogs saleos pue sajAjs 6uisnoq Aaejuawildwoo jo xiw y joulsip asn -paxiw Ajewud ay} i uigl!m paaisap si sasn jo xiw JeoiIJan pue IeIuoziaoy y eaae joa(oad aqj uiylinn sasn jo xiw paaisap ay1 saijijuap! ueld paaaajaad ayl k nnain.aanp sasn jo xiw aa}uaO UAIi ooa8 ,,ee iV ApnjS glmoaE) liewS,, 'sIuauauoainua lanai JaaaIs AipuaiJI ueulsopad pue palepue alowoid pinous sauilapin6 leanjoajiyoab s ae�Ca ueSAa ea `saaasa p y� p I I y� y jo saoeds uado ayj adeys pinous s5uiplinq nnoy pue slaaals ayj of sbuiplinq jo diysuoijelaa au} Apoods pinous seuilapinE) aayloue auo of SJOIJIsip pue aayjoue auo of Sbuippq jo sdiysuoilelaa 9 131ilsip yoea uiylinn s5uiplinq agposap pinous pue loialsip uoea o} oilpads aq pinous sauilapinE) slepajew A}Ilenb gbiq jo asn au} o5einooue IIlM sauilapinE) sia}oeie o ao sejA of loads 6ui6einooua no }inn u5isa bui in ui aiaen a owoad no s saui a in y p PI. q pl y I p. J ails ayj g5noayl anoua Aayl se saloiyan pue suelilsopad of saoualaadxa pauen pue sIuauauoainua A}llenb ably AIIU@ISIsuoo apinoid pinous su5isap leanjoajlyoay F Sleog ,fit juawdolanapaa agl 6uiIisin ao ui 6ui�aoM `ui b' p t 6uinil suosiad jo eouauadxa agj aouequa pue ueld Ileaano agl aouequa lip IL sol}suajoeaego pue sainjeal apnloul ao eoeagwa IIIM soullapin6 s= `aaglea aauab ao alAls leinloaligoae aelnoilied e aquosoid Ilp ao pinogs y' sauiiapin6 jegj jsa66ns jou seop slgl 'ueld aaTseW aqj 10 sanIJoafgo z aqj 6ulll!jlnj uI lueuodwoo leiluessa ue si u6lsap leinjoaligoae �(lllenb g5IH `m r MOIJUOAO aan }�a }iyaad aaluao UAJl oojg „ee iV ApnjS ylnnoaE) liewS„ sainseaw 6uiwleo o!l}eal pue 6ul�aed 199a }s d -uo 10 uolsInoid se qons sane oaf o uauado ana ajelaa n 8 ¢1. sasn juaaapp Is6uowe saijgpej 6ui�jed jo 6uiaegs pue Aouaioi a 6uilowoid aligns alenijd pue oilgnd gloq `sasn Ile aol bui�aed ajenbape apinoad. 3 •sauanlon 4, pajoefoid alepoww000e of Al!oedeo juapigns ap!noad. a7 0 z I N sIs110Aoiq .e 6 vool s pue sueialsopad `SISIJOIOW JOI �(jajes 10 Ianai g61q apinoad. or •spoogaogqBieu pue saij!uawe 6uipunoaans i'I q1!m AI!AIIoauuoo se Bann se ewe Apnjs ui salliadoad f' Ile 01 ssaooe IuaIuanuoo sap!noid golgnn pue puelsaapun ol s SUO OW JOI (sea si JeLIJ SAenn eoa I eOOI 10 aonn au a inoa ZAV r d WOO 'llnoijj!P aq II!M sjol 6ui�aed aoejjns `aIen!ad `a6ael jo uaaped plo sapeoep aqj of suo!jnlos an!I!suas AIlejuauauoainua a pue alge�n �ileoivaouooa 6uipui�oafoid siqj jo a6uallego lsa66! a j aq m }uawdo ana as s! l u! l!m sao!naas !suea n ass pue anijoeajje 6u!p!noad pue Iuauauoa!nua Aipua!aI ueulsoped e aol amsep aqj alp lsop pajeu!wop al!gowolne ue jo sawpai pue speau aq 6u!ouele8 MOIAJOAO ulogepo suejI aaJuao UAIIooa8 „eeiV ApnjS glmoaE) liewS„ suoileool dots snq Jualuanuoo pue uolJeJS I!sueal JOJUGO uAljooa8 WOJI/01 aolnaas I!sueal juanbaal apinoad sjsiloAoiq pue `sueulsoped `s}slaoJOW JOI Ajajes 10 canal gbig apinoad suoijeaado` Iisueal pasodoid pue sawnlon pa}oefoid alepoww000e of alnoi J0109 1100 anla !wwn a uo pedeo uaioi ns a !noa 04112#u” spoogaoggbiau Agaeau gl!M AI!nlIoauuoo aAIJOGIIa ap!noad a: s ae ue s ubisa p I!suejjL oileN loan sle0E) asn paseaaou! aI!nui 01 sa11!uauae lsabbns pue uoplos 'a @qj jo lied se uoileliodsueil oilqnd jo asn @qj a owoad 11p soul a in '011IeaI anouw 01 sauei pue suoijoauuoo umilseped pue aloAoiq `aolnaas I!suea} jo aoueleq e ap!noad ol s! aniIoafgo Aaeuaiad agl alnoi ao}oalloo I!sueal uiew ag# of joafoid ay} jo sewe Ieloiewwoo pue pluap!sai uaoaj ssaooe Jua!uanuoo pue ales ap!noad Il!M sl!eal a�!q pue s�lennap!S eaae joefoid a j jo sjua !saa Mau a j alepoww000e of pa! ow aq of peau II!M eWe agl u!gl!M saoinaas I!suejl bu!Is!xe aql spoogaogg5iau pajuaijo ueu sa ad 6ui eaao ui uawa a ue odwi ue we suoi eaado !suea p l I h l 1. 1 a ri MOIAJanp j!sUej aaJuaO UAJl oojq ,,eojV ApnjS glmoaE) :pewS„ spiepuels Aj!o of bulpi000e poubisep `az!s wnwiuiw ,,g 10 `sulew aale/A'8 saannas nnaN t uo!leool ,asnoq jo �oeq, e woaj sloa(oid lenp!n!pu! 01 suo!Ioauuoo a�eW pue Ae/A jo jq6!�j Al!o ulgl!m paunq aq pinogs sa!l!I!ln IId uoiloaloid aa!l aol pue uolldwnsuoo aalem elgelod aol welsAs uo!lnq!alslp aalem lielsui Y t r 6 oN uoljejS jj!j aalemalsem 5ulls!xa jo Alpedeo anoidwl 4 ainjonalsealui uo!}oalloo aajennajseM ap!n sleoE) •paeW0j anoua of juawdotianap Jot �J0MOWea1 papaau aql 6uigsilgelsa Aq aloa lelln e Aeld Aagl uaas AlleoidAl you aae saillllln g6noglly uo os pue auogdajaj `oujoaja `oijdo aaq!I `nl elgeo 6uipn�oui suoi�oauuoo Allliln jo juauaalduaoo llnj e Aq panaas aq osle lllM joafoad aq l swalsAs Al!l!ln Ileaano aq} IoaJe s}uauaanoadwi lenp!nlpu! moq Alleoilpads `eaae juawdolanapaa aai}ua aqj 10 ssauaaeMU- 96paJnnou�oe osIe Jsnua slesodoid juawdojanap `juejjodwi si sluauodwoo Al!l!ln lenpinipu! 10 soi}sua}oeiego pue azis `uoileool aqj 5uipuelsaapun el!gM eaay Apnjs aiijue eqj jo aaellam pue `Aleles `glleeq eqj of le }in si aanlonalseajui uoiloalloo aalemalsem pue uoilnqulsip aalem jo �ao pr osy nnaln.aanp se.limin aaluao UAJ� Ooa8 ,,eeiV ApnjS Lj jmoaE) pewS„ weaboid buigsi� IW Al!unwwoo e aIowoad pue puod �oojs of 2JNo WAA WAA 'slanal ua6Axo aaIeM anoidwi o} suielunol apinoad h uoi}ebiaai joefoid aol aalem aloAoa�j 'pool) aouego lenuue aql Aq palepunui aq Ipm legl seeie }oaIoad 3 Al!Ienb jelem anoidwi E 49 +s+ .r3 r n x pue eoueueluiew aanlnj `slsoo lelldeo aziwiuiw of paaoldxa I f eq pinogs suolleolidde luaualeaal aalem wiols anileuaaIly spiepue }s (dNO) aoljoead juawo5euelN Isa8 ql!m Aldwoo I 5 L coedsa.��.. uado a ui !M A ewe fueuaiad a auaooa �M as a q� q�. q� q li. M 'loafoad aqj col uoijoalloo aalem wiols leuoi6aa apinoad sle0E) �aaao a16uigs 10 �ioedeo aye 6uinaasaad a�iynn `�aaa� a�6uiy5 �o �(�i�anb aa�aAA �t panoaduai aye pue coeds uado Aliunuauaoo aye jo uoijounj pue aoueuaaop ad aininj auj of leiluesse si joefoid ayj JOI WE)IS (s 96euieap jjeaano ayl :2 MOIAJOAO aolem wjo4S aaJuaO UAJi ooa8 U) a N td3 lie- M L O O cn C cn O O O O cc u O O O O O M Y m W O cu t� Oak �1 U LL oO C C (n p er F ah i N O O f�- O e- O M M O I L O C E O L N V/ W 'Lo r sf LL o LL cu C) cu VN I q a.� tr •ice V J q V�' ,,eaad ApnjS Ll jmoaE) l.iewS„ Ir is r, r iaiaisla pooyjogy6laN r a .t JV pooyaog46,8N x )Iaaa3 016ui jaiva3 asp paxl.w �s p g a 'ifs. �:w a i r' seuijopinE) loialsia ao}uoo UAJJ Ooa8 „ee iV ApnjS glmoaE) :pewS„ oilgnd agj anaas Allowip }eg} sasn GOINGS pue lueinelsaa `llelaa aol panaasaad uiw) NBIGH 6uiplin8 aq llegs shwas g6noagl ao /pue paeA aea�j Aiu-wud 6uole 96eluoal aooll punoa6 jo %x jo wnwiuiw y }uawdolanap paeA aPS paluauo Ilsueal a}elilioel of Aaessaoau uoilelndod agl apinoad of papua}ui pare luoaj si aaoe /sliun x jo Al!suap leiluaplsaa wnwiuiw y spaeu 6ui�laed slopIsla s�oeq�aS aql jo Aluofew eqj alepoww000e saIis/s6uiplinq ol pazill }n aq illM saanjonals 6ul�aed paxiw Ajjeaijaan/sasn leiluapisaa -uou aol uoi }ea eaab cool j wnwiuiw }olalsip slgl ulglinn 6ui�jed ooejjns j uoi}eaaIiload aqj Juanaad pue puel j aaoe aad s}iun 5uluamp ui Ai!suaa jeijuapisa�j elgemol{V asn aqj aziwixew of sasn lelluaplsai ao /pue GOINGS `ooij4o `l eloaawwoo glpi/A oq w nwiuiw :sasn 6uinnolloj aq} jo oml Iseal le apnloul llegs joialsia aldweS aqj ulgl!m aziS jo wnwiuin �oolq goea `Iuawuoainua ueialsaped sollsilels p.iepue }S Juaua olanaa ani}oe ue of aIngialuoo of aapio ul pa6einooua A16uoa }s aae `suolleool aauaoo le Alleioadso `sasn aoinaas 5E g u, y e i 1R14m!i5 5.16 CCi #trxx,rar.eq pue jueane�saa `lleIaa gllnn sIoafoadP asn paxiw paIea6aJul Alleoi PJOA qnq Iisueal ag} of Isasolo pe5einooua aae `6uisnoq Ajlsuap g6iq 6ulpnloul sasn jo AllsuaIul lsag6iq pue Ajalaen Isopeoaq aql sasn aoinaas pue aolllo `ilelai `leguapisaa jo xiw a apinoad of papualul sl joulsia aldweS aql uoljiuijaa Joialsia ooedS uadp aanjoaj!gwV spaeA OWS T sloeglaS aalueo UAJJ Ooa8 aldweS auq/ap!n f) uBisaQ joyj Brooklyn Center Mixed Use Center Characteristics Landuse r 20 Acres Mix of Residential and Commercial uses North of Summit Drive Mix of Office and Commercial uses South of Summit Drive M Ground Floor Uses Primarily Retail Restaurants. Genle Transportation Shared District off street Parking On- Street parking for convenient access. fr6inCo Rd, 10 Safe Pedestrian Crossing at Shingle Creek Parkway to r access the regional trail District Boundaries Parks, Streets Plazas Safe Pedestrian Crossing at County Road 10 to access Brookdale Mall Possible vehicular access from County Road 10 Summit Drive collector road provides good public transit access to heart of mixed -use center Open Space _Y Stormwater is drained into holding pond on north end of i district. Direct runoff to Shingle Creek is cut -off. f Sidewalks will be more generous in this district to allow for r outdoor dining and sidewalk sales, etc.. �.x Decorative paving, lighting, banners and street furnishings will provide necessary pedestrian scale amenities. Central green space is within 1 -2 blocks of district. Site Development Architecture "Smart Growth Study Area" Brooklyn Center Mixed Use Center Typical Roadway Sections a. K.r t. Shingle Creek Parkway Commercial 1 x 4 g d w .art Local Commercial Street Smart Growth Study Area" C D I cn -414 q P p F t ca til ett W r{ a e G ,,eaad ApnjS yjnnoaE) :pewS„ }!un a.in oa i oa uaua o ana a 6uisnoq (Jana 10 �oolq auo ulyl!nn si coeds uaaJ6 leJ}uao d I 4 .S saij!uawe leuo16aJ goeaJ o} s}uaplsaJ Jol ssaooe (sea ap!noJd Minn coeds uaaa6 leJ}ueo ui IleJj asn lllniN aleoS r lepapisaa e aq ll!nn pue slawls Ile uo aq II!nn s� lennap!S r a@J alBuiqS ol jjounj joaJ! j opjsip jo s ua q1nos pue ulaou uo spuod 6 uiplou Ilao Z op pouieap s! JajennuJJojS aoedS uado juawdolanap 10 ap!slno uo sawnlon .r x oilleJl Jay6ly sdaa� pue sanssi Jelnolyan/uelJjsapad sezluJluiw coeds ua9a6 6uole AemIJed r I!un 6ulsnoq AJana 10 loolq auo ulyl!nn ssaooe }!sueJl ollgnd pooh sap!noJd AennWd �aaJO albu'gS AemIJed @OJO 916ulyS 10 110 ssaooe peOJ lelluap!saJ Ieoo­I Sezeld W SI aaaIS sued saue puno8 j I!eJl Ieuo16aJ aqj ssaooe +agyloc} 6 tg: 1 0 1 Aenn Je 98J 915UILIS uo s6ulssoJ ue'J sa a a e 'sJOI!sin'? ssaooe JualuanuOO JOI 6uilied IaaJlS -up s� oolq jo JoiJap ay} uo pajeool 6ul�Jed jaaJjs -j4O uoijejjodsueal w qw aoeds ads j ,pJeA luoil, JOI nnolle 01 �(e/vNed aaJo al6uigS woJj oeq }as sbuiplln8 r n suoijoasJalui Aar le sasn lenjawwoo elq!ssod gl!nn leljuaplsa�j AI!JCW'Jd saJOV 5 1, asnpuel sol�siaa }oeaey� poo�aoq� iaN �aaaO al uiuS Ja�ua� u�(��ooJB Brooklyn Center Shingle Creek Neighborhood Typical Roadway Sections 6 1116 11 I i ilia 'II t Shingle Creek Parkway Residential Area f4 r Mi t x i✓_tn O. r.wq. ita._iww e-m .r �nw f, w..' �fx a 9aeai-A xi- .+w.a�'3 1 i Local Residential Street "Smart Growth Study Area" s O rr� m lZ R5 s cn S w� r n M Ai aM y a J aswr e r p Z 9# Y g 7 N l k i 3 w Z y Wes, #awl U }m:, Cl) b...- ,,.,.Wa. „eeiV ApnjS glmoao liewS„ }iun aanjoajiyoab }uaua olanaa 01!S 6uisnoq AJana 10 oolq auo uIUlIM sI coeds uaaJ6 leJ}uao saipawe leuol6aJ pew of sjuaplsaJ Jol ssaooe (sea a Inoid inn coeds uaaJ6 eJluao uI IeJ asn n p I I I I li W 1 aleos leI}uaplsaJ e aq llinn pue slaoils Ile uo aq IIIM s�lennap!S o 1no sI` J� aaJ a 6ui o ounJ }oaJl }ou }sip o spua u }nos pue. �i I U S 4 r� y}Jou uo spuod 6ulploq Ilao -Z olui pauleJp si JajeMUJJojS i h ooedS uado 'juawdolanap 10 aplslno uo sawnlon oilleil Jay6iq sdaa� pue sanssi Jelnolyan /ueiJjsapad v saziwiuiw coeds uaaJ6 6uOle Acmn Jed IIun 6uisnoq /Jana 10 �oolq auo uIUlIM ssaooe IIsueJ} oilgnd pooh sapinoJd aniJa I!wwnS sez eld 19 s188aIS sued sai.ie j aniJa I!wwnS jo Ijo ssaooe peoJ leijuapisaJ Ieool u Jajuao asn -paxiw aql pue IIeJl Ieuol6aJ aql ssaooe x 01 anua I!wwnS uo s6ulssOJO ue'JIsapad ajeS 'sJOIIsin'8 ssaooe Iuaivanuoo JOJ 6ui�Jed jaaJjS -up s�oolq jo JoiJalui aqj uo pajeool 6ui�Jed jawls gO x uoi d a odsuea 1• coeds ads l pjeA luoil, Job nnolle 01 anIJQ I!wwnS pue AenMJed woJj oegjas sbulplin8 IeijuaplsaH IIV saJoy ZZ y asnpuel soi�siaa�oeaeya poogaogg iaN BM)Jj ed aajuao UAJ OoJB ,,eeiv ApnjS glmoaE) :pewS„ peoN doo- Aem!Ved AeM aup uoiioauuoo deal esn -!IlnW t4j!M (ao1381100) aniaa liaisons a. z suoiJOas AeMpeoM le3l 1— poogaogy iaN em)ljed Jejuao UAJ� Ooa8 ,eeiV ApnjS glmoaE) liewS„ A e. ..a L r r ue�b 3 a r x a A fi 4 Y+ t e M1 e s a x .t e k a Y w °n r f ,tt _p r �Nlt 11 t Sa ewl poogaoqu iaN A emlie r l aa}ua:D uANOOJS „eojV ApnjS glmoaE) :pewS„ aanjoajiyoad juaua olanaa an aoillo '8 }iun t 6uisnoq Aaana 10 �oolq auo ulgllnn sl coeds uaaa6 lealuao saipawe leuoi6ai of aldoad Joauuoo osle 1pm pue aoeds uaaa6 lealuao of OO L Aenng ss000e a6puq ueialsapad }oauuoo Minn heal asn -i}lnW aleos 1 1 ei ua isaa e a inn pue s aaals Ile uo a inns enna i xR� I p. q II. p q II. �I p.S si �aaao 016uigS o} gouna }oaaia aoeds u9aa6 lealueo jo spue g1nos pue gjaou uo spuod 6uiploq Ilao -Z op pauleap sl aa}emwjolS ooedS uedp v* a aoillo R Iiun 6uisnoq Aaana 10 �oolq auo uigllnn ssaooe I lsueal oilgnd pooh sapinoad aniaa I!wwnS sezeld 19 SIMIS sued souepuno8 ioiaisia aajueo asn- paxlua aqj pue heal leuoi6aa aq} ssaooe 01 anlaa I!wwnS uo s6ulssoaO uela}sapad ales M 'saoIlsin'8 ssaooe Iuaivanuoo JOI 6ui�ped jawls -up s�oolq jo aolaap eqj uo pajeool 6ul�aed j9aals uoile:podsueal n sduaea jj0 00 L �(enng6lH 0 1 luaoefpe paIeool aq pinoM A 1�� r coeds 901110 AIisuap aag6iH coeds ads j paeA luoaj aoj nnolle 01 aniaa I!wwnS woaj �oegjas s6uipiing sasn aoi }�o pue lei�uaplsaa �o xilN saaoy 0 L r asn p ue w soilspajoemlo Ja!a 00 eMt4 !H aa}uao UAJJ Ooa8 Brooklyn Center Highway 100 District Typical Roadway Sections „t x r y I I�i ill E RO* 5' b &0440 fx,(t PSYMOg. Tt*"Iu o V T t, Parka 400 i ROW Summit Drive (Collector) "Smart Growth Study Area" ,,ee id ApnjS glmoaE) jaewS„ rim n �t IY iii t I 27' r r P_ ,9 .7 e 1 t soul Sa eWl JOIJISia 00 AeMLIblH aalueo UAIIooa8 ,eeiV ApnjS glmoaE) :pewS„ r r xn r mo �a 11►* K k h Ak �..t kk �Ef w� It i w raw "TM s���� 7 7 77 ic Ali a F Nil f fro VA t Sa ewl laiaaV 1 aajua:D UAJ�Ooag 0 6 N M Q c o o tL M L i� W �L O C� cn G 46 C I VA Af�p IT ggq d i Q� 0 ,,eaad ApnIS glmoaE) :pewS„ ssa.i6oid pefo.id jo Al!unwwoo pue saaumo ssouisnq uaaojui of anuiluo:o paeMJOj anoua o} 1i3uno:D Aji:D WOJJ Jeno.idde leui; IaE) s.aadojanap aoj 0=IN /d -AN azileul:d o} aoao Msel qPm VOM ueld anisuagaadwoo /opoo 6uiuoz ouilej of jjejS Alin /aoao Isel eqj ql!m 4ioM IXON UeW aajuao u J�ooa8 ctrotlt�.uunuauo,) jntzctq Ike w s,�lttt.�o�s�• /o��t�stta� slttt�!(ttsttct .�'�luc�JS el,�aljrj.�.th' �)S3 JI s�lnt.�o.��s�.r�c�.m.j tt<�ttrnQ aa;uao UAI)iooa8 weal wdL qjC AInf ao}uao UAJJ Ooa8 City Council Agenda Item No. 9a Agenda Item 9a i MEMORANDA TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: June 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application 2005 -010 In the staff report to the Planning Commission it is stated that the applicant is proposing a four (4) hotel and a six (6) story hotel in conjunction with their water park. The developer wants to clarify that the Embassy Suites Hotel which is referred to in the staff report as a six (6) story building is in fact a seven (7) story building. The C -IA zoning does not limit the height of buildings and staff would recommend that the Council approve the application modified to reflect a seven (7) story hotel. MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: June 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application 2005- 010 Council will note that Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 (Embassy Suites Hotel) has been processed as a PUD. The PUD provisions of the zoning ordinance was used even though the current zoning (C -IA) allows for the proposed development. The use of the PUD ordinance allows for deviations or variances from the requirements of the underling zoning. The alternative is to grant a variance to the zoning ordinance which in turn creates a precedence or new standard for the underlying zoning requirements. In essence, a future development could demand a similar variance even though it is neither desirable nor logical from the City's perspective for that particular application/development. Also, the standards for granting a variance are very stringent. Using the PUD approach, the City literally creates a PUD zoning and enters into a binding contract with the developer relative to the variances that are approved and we avoid the establishment a future binding precedence. MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist w- Subject: City Council Consideration Item Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 Date: June 21, 2005 On the June 27, 2005 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 submitted by LHB Architects requesting Rezoning /Development Plan Approval PUD /C1A through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a 250 room hotel and water park on a 6.2 acre site to be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their June 16, 2005 meeting and was recommended for approval through Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -02 (attached). It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. A resolution outlining the history of the application along with findings and conditions of approval is offered for the City Council's consideration. Also, an ordinance amendment redescribing the property to be rezoned within this Planned Unit Development is offered for first reading by the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the draft resolution and, by motion, approve the first reading of the ordinance amendment describing the property to be rezoned. Application Filed on 5 -19 -05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 7 -18 -05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005 -010 Applicant: L H B Location: 6300 Earle Brown Drive Request: Rezoning/Development Plan Approval -PUD /CIA The applicant, Scott Anderson on behalf of L H B Architects, is seeking rezoning from CIA (Service Office, no height limit) to PUD /C1A (Planned Unit Development/Service- Office, no height limit) of a vacant 6.2 acre site located on the east side of the west leg of Earle Brown Drive adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. (Property will be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive.) This application also involves development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of a 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant and an enclosed attached water park facility. The property in question is currently zoned CIA and is bounded on the west and north by Earle Brown Drive with a six story office building and I -94 right of way on the opposite sides of that street; on the east by the Earle Brown Heritage Center; and on the south by another high rise office building (City County Federal building). The City Council has long been concerned about the potential development of this property and its effect on adjacent and adjoining properties. Eventually the City's Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired the site for the purpose of controlling potential future development. The City Council/EDA has aggressively pursued the development of a hotel on the property since the time of the Calthorpe Smart Growth study of a number of years ago, which recommended such a use in this area. Discussions with potential developers have led to the EDA entering into a development agreement with Oliver Companies for a combination hotel/water park on this site. Earlier this year the City Council, after recommendation by the Planning Commission, approved an ordinance amendment allowing transient lodging and associated uses as permitted uses in the C 1 A zoning district. This action makes the hotel use consistent with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan for this area which recommends office /service business uses for this area. The applicant's plan as part of this Planned Unit Development is to build a four and six story, 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant attached to a four story high water park facility. The hotel would be attached to the east of and south of the enclosed 32,000 sq. ft. water park feature. An enclosed walkway connection between this complex and the Earle Brown Heritage Center would also be made tying the two facilities together for their joint benefit. The applicant is seeking the PUD /CIA rezoning to accommodate the above hotel/water park facility. The CIA underlying zoning designation is proposed because it acknowledges the 6 -16 -05 Page 1 proposed use as a permitted use in the zoning district. The applicant is seeking modifications to the CIA requirements to allow no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive street right of way. This modification is proposed to make a more efficient use of the site which is slightly smaller than necessary to accommodate parking and landscaping requirements. The applicant has not proposed site considerations to off set or mitigate the negative aspects of the plan. Plan considerations will be offered to off set this that are consistent with previous approvals or encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip requirement. The land in question is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for office /service business (CIA) uses. Transient lodging and associated uses are permitted in the CIA district, therefore, the proposal is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case C 1 A) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment issues. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned in this case, the applicant is seeking modifications to allow no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive street right of way. The City Council has previously allowed encroachments into the 15 ft. green strip requirement along street right of way when an approximate 3 to 4 ft. high decorative fence has been provided to off set the lack of buffer area between the street and adjacent parking lots. Such was the case at the 69 and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment where a combination pier and wrought iron fence was provided in areas where the green strip was less than 15 ft. The Super America Planned Unit Development on 57 Avenue and Logan provided a similar feature. We have discussed with the applicant the possibility of providing some type of fencing in this area and have suggested that used in the 69 and Brooklyn Boulevard and SA developments as an example or the possibility of extending the wood rail fence associated with the Earle Brown Heritage Center all along the abutting Earle Brown Drive right of way. Their landscape plan, as will be shown later, proposes landscaping in the Boulevard portion of the street right of way. This landscaping and fencing should provide an appropriate buffer to off set the lack of 15 ft. of green strip in this area. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35 -210 of the zoning ordinance as well as being consistent with the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208. The Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. The applicant has 6 -16 -05 Page 2 submitted written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must no constitute "spot zoning" which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the city's policy and against the various guidelines which have been established for rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal. A. Is there a clear public need or benefit? The applicant comments that the addition of a full service hotel is viewed as a major asset to the Earle Brown Heritage Conference Center. He notes that their proposal will give the Earle Brown Heritage Center the ability to attract a new level of client to the facility, which can improve its position in the conference, meeting and convention market. It is the staff's opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the City and also is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposal should balance the business needs of the adjoining Earle Brown Heritage Center and the adjoining properties in this area. As mentioned previously, the Calthorpe study recommended a hotel for this site and the recent Opportunity Site study considers this a positive for the development and redevelopment of this area. This hotel/water park proposal should be a positive factor in providing benefits to the Earle Brown Heritage Center as the Earle Brown Heritage Center will provide positive reinforcement for the hotel/water park. The City Council/EDA has actively pursued such a use of this property and the proposal is seen as providing a public need or benefit. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant comments that the project is a permitted use within the CIA zoning classification and will provide substantial support functions for the surrounding land uses. The staff would concur with these comments. As mentioned previously, the zoning ordinance was recently amended to allow transient lodging and associated uses as a permitted use in the CIA zoning district. The CIA zoning district allows 6 -16 -05 Page 3 service /office uses in buildings without a height limit such as in he C1 zoning district. In the C 1 zoning district buildings are limited in height to three stories. The office buildings on the west side of Earle Brown Drive and south of the site in question are all over six stories in height. The hotel portion of the proposed facility would be four stories and six stories in height while the water park feature connecting the two portions of the hotel would be four stories high. Building wise, this facility is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses. A physical connection is proposed between the new facility and the Earle Brown Heritage Center for the joint benefit of the two uses. C. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant answers simply yes. We would concur noting that consideration of the proposed uses was undertaken at the time the City Council amended the zoning ordinance to allow transient lodging and associated uses as a permitted use in the CIA zoning district. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicant notes that they are not aware of substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area, but comments relative to the recent change in the CIA zoning classification. The staff would comment that the CC Central Commerce Overlay District has been expanded to include this area, however, there has been no other recent zoning classification changes in the immediate area. This area was rezoned to CIA in the mid to late 1980's to acknowledge high rise service /office commercial uses in this area. Prior to that time the property had been zoned I -1 (Industrial Park) and commercial development was handled through the granting of a special use permit. The City Council at that time felt the high rise development was appropriate and the buildings in this are reflect that. E. In the case of city initiated zoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The applicant comments that this is not a city initiated rezoning proposal. Although this is not a city initiated proposal, the city has pursued the development of a facility such as this for this site over a number of years. 6 -16 -05 Page 4 S F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant simply comments yes to this guideline. The staff believes that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We have previously noted the request from the applicant for no 15 ft. green strip along the Earle Brown Drive right of way. A condition of approving the plans for this development should provide for some type of fencing/screening in this area such as that approved in the 69` and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment or as has been suggested an extension of the wood rail fence similar to that surrounding the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The use itself seems compatible with the Earle Brown Heritage Center and, in fact, complimentary to as well. The Heritage Center is also considered compatible with and complimentary to the hotel/water park facility. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicant notes that the site is generally suited to the use proposed except with respect to size. The project site is slightly smaller than necessary to meet the parking and landscape buffer requirements. The subject property is not unsuited for uses allowed in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location. Service /office uses would be appropriate in this area and a building of the height and bulk of the proposed hotel facility certainly fits into this site. The site is impacted by a curved roadway which makes it slightly more difficult for development. Topography and location do not cause problems with respect to the development of the property. It is a site suited for the uses allowed in the CIA zoning district of which the proposed hotel/water park are permitted uses. H. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of the zoning district warranted by 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable Land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. the best interest of the community? The applicant notes that the rezoning will not result in the expansion of a zoning district. The staff would note that the proposal appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a development that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan. It is also believed to be in the best interest of the community 6 -16 -05 Page 5 with respect to the compatibility of the City's Earle Brown Heritage Center and this facility. Both should prove beneficial to the other. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant responds that the addition of a full service hotel gives the Earle Brown Heritage Conference Center the ability to attract a new level of clientele to the facility which can improve its position in the conference, meeting and convention market. They note that successful conference centers help a community become more attractive and prosperous and create opportunities to introduce growth and investment that will stimulate economic growth as visitors are potential investors and consumers. We would concur with the applicant's comments with respect to this guideline. We do believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and will lead to a development that can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses and should be beneficial to the Earle Brown Heritage Center and be in the general interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL, As mentioned previously, the proposal is for a four and six story 250 room hotel with a 100 seat restaurant attached to a four story high, 32,000 sq. ft. water park facility. An enclosed walkway would connect the new facility to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The water park feature will not be open to the public generally. It is designed for the use of patrons and patrons of the Heritage Center. The restaurant will, however, be open to the general public. No conference rooms or meeting rooms will be offered in the hotel. The Earle Brown Heritage Center/ meeting rooms will serve the needs of the hotel. The water park will be located in a 32,000 sq. ft. enclosed space that is four stories high. The building meets setback requirements and takes advantage of a provision in the zoning ordinance that allows a commercial building to be as close to an interior property line as three feet rather than ten feet, provided that the exterior wall of the building conforms in all respects with the requirements of the State Building Code. This wall is located along a portion of the east property line adjacent to a Heritage Center Building. The applicant and the City's Building Official have met to discuss this matter. The Building Official believes it may be necessary to have a clear area between the hotel and the existing Heritage Center building. After determining what the distance might be, it may be necessary to provide a deed restriction on the Heritage Center property preventing buildings from being constructed in this area. This will need to be reviewed further and recommendations from the Building Official will be based on code compliance and building construction considerations. 6 -16 -05 Page 6 ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site will be at four locations along Earle Brown Drive. Two of the access points are shared accesses, one with the City Council Federal building to the south and the other to the Earle Brown Heritage Center to the east. The two non shared accesses line up with the access drives across Earle Brown Drive serving the office buildings on the opposite side of the street. A total of 350 parking spaces are provided based on hotel, restaurant and employee parking requirements. The zoning ordinance requires one parking space for ever hotel room and one parking space for every hotel employee at the maximum shift. The restaurant parking formula is one space for every two restaurant seats and one space for every restaurant employee. The employee count for the hotel and restaurant at the maximum shift is 50 employees. A total of 350 parking spaces are, therefore, required and provided. The plans indicate a parking width of 8 ft. rather than the required 8 ft. 8 in. Adjustments must be made to meet the minimum requirements which in turn may effect meeting the parking requirements. Parking spaces are provided around the north, west and south portions of the building. Driving lanes are aligned as best as possible with adjoining parking lots at the Earle Brown Heritage Center and the City County Federal building. Concrete parking delineators are provided to form the drive lanes accessing the building. A canopy for a drop off area is provided to the hotel by the main entrance on the north side of that building. A service area is to be provided along the east side of the hotel. The connection to the Earle Brown Heritage Center is along the south wall of the hotel connecting to the water park as well. Parking and driving areas will be bound by B- 618 curb and gutter as indicated on the plan. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Work/City Engineer. Attached is a copy of his written comments with respect to this proposal. The site is approximately 6.2 acres and, it is my understanding, that it will be required to have a formal Watershed Management Commission review. Storm sewer will be provided throughout the site to collect storm water to be conveyed into an existing pond that serves the City County Federal building and the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Calculations need to be submitted to show that this pond is sufficient to handle drainage from this site. It was originally designed to meet the Watershed standards in the mid 1980's when the Earle Brown Heritage Center was redeveloped and the office building to the south was developed. These matters will need to be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for the property. Sanitary sewer and water are available within the Earle Brown right of way and sewer and water connections are made to the building at three different locations as shown on the utility plan. The Director of Public Works notes that the existing 8 in. sanitary sewer is not adequate to serve the proposed hotel/water park development. Earle Brown Drive is proposed for reconstruction in 2006 and the existing sanitary sewer could be replaced with 12 in. sewer if authorized by the City Council. 6 -16 -05 Page 7 ,r A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed hotel/water park was completed by Bensboof and Associates, Inc. and it attached with the memo indicating that existing facilities will be able to adequately accommodate the traffic generated by this proposed development. The Commission's attention is directed to the Director of Public Works' memo relating to the proposed development. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. The site is 6.2 acres and requires 412 landscape points. The landscape plan provided shows a total of 375 points and indicates a point requirement of only 374 points. The landscape plan should be revised to provide an additional 37 landscape points to meet the minimum 412 required. The landscape plan relies more heavily on shrubs than is recommended by the landscape point system. Only 25 percent of the landscape points required should be in shrubs, a maximum of 103 points. Their plan provides 136V2 landscape points for shrubs. A better distribution of landscape should be provided in the revised landscape plan. The existing plan calls for only six shade trees, three to the east and three to the west of what might be considered the main entrance to the site. These are Redmond Linden. Eighty seven decorative trees are provided such as Japanese Tree Lilac, Columnar Crab Apple, and Clump River Birch. These are provided in the green strip which is within the boulevard right of way area around the perimeter of the site and up close to the water park portion of the building as well as in front of the main hotel entrance on the north side of the building. Decorative trees are also provided on the island areas at the access points to the site and in a "pocket plaza" located between the south portion of the hotel and the indoor water park. Eight coniferous trees are provided, six of which are in the boulevard right of way area and two on the divider areas between the parking facilities. Two hundred seventy three shrubs such as Compact American Vibernum, Rose Pavement Foxy, Russian Cypress, Green Mound Alpine Currant and Mount Ai Fother ilia are located around the site at different Airy g t locations. It is recommended that the landscape plan be revised to meet the point distribution system and the total number of points required for a 6.2 acre site. Additional shade trees would be in order and perhaps some additional coniferous trees also. It is also recommended as noted previously that a decorative fence at least 3 %2 to 4 ft in height be provided where there is no minimum een strip provided. This would be along he north and PP g west sides of the site. A wood rail fence such as at the Earle Brown Heritage Center might be in order. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations of the proposed building. The hotel portion of the building would have an exterior treatment of brick with metal decorative panels and aluminum windows. The water park portion of the building would be precast concrete with 6 -16 -05 Page 8 metal panels and aluminum windows. Skylights are to be located both on the hotel and the water park portions of the building. The walkway connecting the hotel/water park with the Earle Brown Heritage Center appears to be metal panels and aluminum windows. A canopy extends out from the north side of the building where there is a pick up drop off area. LIGHTING /TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35 -712 of the city ordinances requires that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at a intensity level greater than 10 foot candles measured at property lines abutting street right of way or non residentially zoned property. No glare is allowed to emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the standard is not exceeded. Freestanding light poles are proposed at 13 different locations on the site plan. Eight of these are single headed lights, while five are double headed lights. The lights are located primarily in the island areas around the west and north side of the building with lights also serving the parking and service areas on the east side of the building and the parking lot on the south side of the building. No trash enclosure location is shown on the plans. It is assumed that the trash will be collected in the service area and no outside trash facilities will be located on the site. If this is incorrect, the plan should be modified to show the location of an appropriate trash container. PROCEDURE This PUD /C1A proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan in hand. As such, it must follow the normal rezoning process. Generally the Planning Commission seeks Neighborhood Advisory Group input with respect to Rezonings and Planned Unit Developments. In this case, the Planning Commission is the Advisory Group for the commercial/industrial park area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and have been sent to surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission, following public hearing should consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared in anticipation of a favorable reaction to this proposal. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and various conditions related to the development plan. 6 -16 -05 Page 9 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2005 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Oliver Companies Hotels Water Park Preliminary Site Plan Review Planning Commission Applications 2005 -10 Public Works Department staff reviewed the following preliminary documents submitted for review under Planning Commission Application 2005 -010 for the vacant parcel located west of the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Layout and Surfacing Plan, dated May 19, 2005 Grading Plan, dated May 19, 2005 Utility Plan, dated May 19, 2005 Detail Sheets, dated May 19, 2005 Site Survey, dated May 19, 2005 Site Removal and Erosion Control Plan, dated May 19, 2005 The following comments and recommendations regarding the preliminary site plans are provided for your consideration. Site Lavout The applicant is proposing to develop Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Farm Addition for the establishment of two hotel buildings and an indoor water park facility. The following general comments are provided based on a review of the site layout. 1. Parking spaces are dimensioned to be 8 -feet in width on the Layout and Surfacing Plan. City Ordinance Section 35 -702 describes minimum dimensions for surface parking spaces. The Ordinance indicates a minimum parking space width of 8'8" for general surface parking. 2. The Layout Plan indicates that the west and north edge of the parking lot would have essentially zero setback from the property /right -of -way line. 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 3. The Developer shall relocate the existing light standards and bases as shown on the site removal plan at the Developer's expense. 4. Additional drainage and utility easement may be necessary within the site if the storm water detention pond must be expanded to accommodate the proposed site development. 5. The applicant shall coordinate site development plans with Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Quest Communications and all other private utility companies. Water Sunnly and Sanitary Sewer Service The proposed development site is currently served by public water and sanitary sewer within Earle Brown Drive. Water service to the water park building and southern hotel building is currently available from a 10 -inch diameter water main within Earle Brown Drive. Water service to the northern hotel building is available from a 12 -inch diameter water main along the northern portion of Earle Brown Drive. The following conditions and modifications shall be incorporated into the site design. 1. The existing 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer within Earle Brown Drive adjacent to the proposed development does not have adequate capacity to serve the proposed land use within the development. The City's Capital Improvement Program includes a project to reconstruct Earle Brown Drive along the western and northern boundary of the property in 2006. This street project could be revised to replace the existing sanitary sewer with larger 12 -inch diameter sanitary sewer (maximum) to increase the conveyance capacity of the sewer system near the property. Increased sanitary sewer capacity for the proposed development is therefore contingent upon the City Council authorizing the replacement of sanitary sewer along Earle Brown Drive. 2. The total maximum discharge rate to the public sanitary sewer system from the site (including both hotels and water park) shall not exceed 450 gallons per minute under any circumstances. This capacity limitation assumes that the sanitary sewer within Earle Brown Drive is replaced with larger diameter pipe. 3. Sanitary sewer manholes shall be placed near the right -of -way or at the connection point to the public sanitary sewer for all sewer services serving restaurants or other central kitchen facilities. 4. A backwash recycling basin shall be incorporated into the design of the water park to limit the outflow to a maximum peak discharge rate of 50 gallons per minute to the public sanitary sewer system. Total site discharge shall not exceed 450 gallons per minute. 5. Sanitary sewer service to the water park building shall be reduced to an 8 -inch diameter pipe to reflect the requirements of Item 4 above, unless the applicant submits supporting information showing the necessity for a sewer service pipe grade less than 0.4 percent. 6. The Utility Plan indicates a proposed 18 -inch diameter water service extending from the right -of -way to the water park building. An 18 -inch diameter water service would significantly exceed the capacity of the water main within the street. The water service to the water park building shall be reduced to a maximum diameter of 8- inches unless the applicant provides technical data such as engineering calculations or fire code requirements justifying a larger water service diameter. 7. The existing gate valves on the water service stubs shall be inspected and tested by the developer's contractor prior to extending service lines into the site. The developer shall replace or repair the existing gate valves at the developers expense if the Supervisor of Public Utilities determines that repairs or replacement of the valves is necessary. 8. The Utility Plan shows a separate fire (sprinkler) line and domestic service line branching from each water service prior to entering the buildings. Gate valves or PIVs shall be placed on each service branch prior to entering the buildings to allow isolation of individual water lines. 9. The applicant shall pay City and Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer connection charges and City water connection charges for each of the three buildings. 10. All utility extensions shall meet City of Brooklyn Center design standards. The location and method of connection to the existing sanitary sewer and water mains shall be subject to approval by the Supervisor of Public Utilities. Storm Water Management The proposed site improvements would covert a substantial portion of the site to impervious surface. NPDES regulations require that land development projects incorporate construction and post construction storm water best management practices to control the rate and quality of storm water discharges. The applicant has previously indicated that they wish to utilize the existing storm water basin adjacent to the site for storm water management. 1. The preliminary site plan documents did not include storm water design calculations or other supporting drainage information. The applicant shall provide a site storm water management plan, including drainage calculations and detailed design drawings for proposed storm water management facilities, to the Engineering Division for review prior is to submitting revised site plans for a building permit. 2. Post construction storm water best management practices shall be incorporated into the site plan to adequately address all storm water management requirements as established by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. These standards can be found at: httD:// www. shinQlecreek.oriz/annendixb.Ddiz. 3. Storm water management facilities shall be incorporated into the site development plans to sufficiently control the total discharge rate from the site to avoid overloading the existing outlet from the pond and the storm sewer system within Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. 4. The Utility Plan shall be revised to include storm sewer piping to convey runoff from all parking areas to the storm water management pond. 5. Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to starting site grading operations. The owner /developer shall be responsible for the prompt removal of all dirt and mud tracked onto public streets from the site during construction. 6. An NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. A Storm Water Management Plan must be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to initiating site construction. Traffic Analysis A Traffic Impact Study was conducted for the proposed hotel and water park development by the transportation consultant that is currently assisting the City with the Opportunity Site Study. A copy of the Traffic Impact Study report is attached to this memorandum. The above comments are P rovided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Subsequent approval of the final site plans may require additional modifications or easement dedications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, gas and electric service, final grading and geometric design as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. BENSHOOF ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ti 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE TWO HOPKINS, NIN 55343 (952) 238 -1667 FAX (952) 238 1671. April 6, 2005 Refer to File: 05 -24 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Blomstrom, City of Brooklyn Cer er FROM: Edward F. Terhaar and David C. May RE: Results of Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Hotel Near the Earle Brown Center PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to present results of our traffic impact study for a proposed hotel and restaurant near the Earle Brown Center in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Our work to date has involved an estimation of the number of trips generated by this development and the determination of impacts on the surrounding roadway network. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Location Characteristics The site for the proposed hotel and restaurant is located on the east side of Earle Brown Drive, north of Summit Drive and east of Shingle Creek Parkway, as shown in Figure 1. The Earle Brown Center is located farther to the northeast on Earle Brown Drive east of the development site. Office buildings are located on the west side of Earle Brown Drive opposite the development site. Access to a shopping center (featuring a Target) is located south of Summit Drive, opposite Earle Brown Drive. "fir■ I "i j nVEJ iE BEARD n 1� AYE. i31 kaff ,J� 1 u+ Bt va 'a660TT C� m p .ry L! rAlt AVE. ZF o c' p s5 j JI ZENITII 1 AVE. C� 2 z kV O n v V �J �{I t r f r -Yoh (PL. JI YORK t AVE., 7� _r' XE m z�LXERXES I avE._.ti .x _.IWASNBUR m AvE Z x> c n m m ti T) I Tl n m #R C7 v[II ..Et•1T JI VIKEM AVE. AVE, a m L TON AVE. y f ql t m Shingle l Y 4S� NRUSSELL AV E 5 (t S ri ��e� Y OUEENI X` kn 1 l 09 PENNI AVE. ni'a k l¢` CREEK o AVE. 0t.IVER1�4t� t AVE. C' tA. r O x NEW TON IIw O ITr I>R! ,.Rz� q j i3t7 rAREE� it i_(?RGAtt l�i AVE. 0 n :IORCANIeg F 0 �yt p (w 'U NL D. d F LOGAtt i r�`v 1-t AVE. Vtlox Cn AVE. tACAN�1 I� AVE,�Isi p 3 1 w AVE, AVE, rn r I� KNO w V�.� N. `'Pp b 2 s JADES �a I(��I >y �.JAAi JA ]I JI AV 7 1... w AVE. 0 fRVINGllr IF an m IRyluc. AVE r, AV E. avE N. III c w I s AVE. f If 9 t itt.tLTBCILnT AVE. �Ic N. 0�i P Y r z«r GIR I AVE. L4 t n I AVE. GIRARO AVE. a m FRE6tCtlJ7 1� AVE- II` GIRARU �t �l_ AVE. Y L N• f o� 11' FRE !WO T Pi... II FREI{NTtT 1 m t Im 'EMERSOti C+ �s FR IEtiOFtT zsw I �f. I AVE. -0 N. 9 I "AVE. AvE.. x. n I° AVE. `Q _n IP' EMER�ISON IN II A z I o+ "d s EFa iERSONj .kVI A ((v°" AVE. N-11 I I td. n '1 rn I I3tIP0IIT J_ 1 A VE. J �Ot f n 4 _VAt36� tt kVE: 1sst rn Py VE. 11 fd. I ti II_:_,__�� m cOL M SRYA.T II ilA l I< N I BR �AttT W t C) I�avE. I II E! II tt 1 I M. ALDRIC�1 t� aV� SS`` ii _j I 1 o 1 iI I� I b n E3 0, I av E. I(' CAF.1t}EN A E �I AVE. II lI N. a t V, y. r b Z II.- LYNOA HE an j RI1 R I� 0 <I1r� DALLAS j:< RD, #ix an R RIVtRWO cLA•� +x V 1 K'ti. o ti V EERIfALE RQ IL ro Mr. Todd Blomstrom -3- April 6, 2005 Development Characteristics The proposed development consists of a 225 room hotel and a 150 seat restaurant within the hotel. An indoor water park is also planned for the property, however, the use of the water park is projected to be exclusive to hotel guests (no additional vehicle trips are generated). Access to the development will be provided via two exclusive driveways from Earle Brown Drive, with tie -ins provided to two existing driveways from Earle Brown Drive. Figure 2 shows the proposed development site plan.. Existing Roadwav Characteristics Summit Drive, Earle Brown Drive, and the Target shopping center access intersect at a four -way intersection approximately 500 feet east of Shingle Creek Parkway. The intersection is currently controlled by stop signs for southbound traffic on Earle Brown Drive and for northbound traffic exiting the Target shopping center. The eastbound approach of Summit Drive has a dedicated right turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through/left -turn lane. The westbound approach of Summit Drive has a shared through/left -turn lane and a shared through/right -turn lane. The southbound approach of Earle Brown Drive and the northbound approach of the shopping center access each have a dedicated right -turn lane and a shared through/left -turn lane. Summit Drive has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. ExistinQ Traffic Volumes In order to determine the baseline traffic volumes, turning movement counts were conducted on Thursday, March 10, 2005 from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The resulting existing volumes recorded through these counts are presented later in this report. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Traffic forecasts were established for existing conditions, the year 2007 with only background growth "no- build" condition), and the year 2007 with development trips "build" condition). The traffic forecasts consist of existing traffic volumes, background growth, and new development trips. Trip generation rates for all uses in the area were established based on data presented in the seventh edition of Trip Generation (2003), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 5 PARKWO STALLS 'r' WATER PARK 3?,OOp 3 FT. 1 4 ((I'-- eiw'entriai 404 i 1 c bxrae N APP M SCALE 0 120 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 2 PROPOSED HOTEL SITE SITE PLAN BENSHOOF ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSAMDPUNKERS Mr. Todd Blomstrom -5- April 6, 2005 Development Trip Generation Table 1 presents the resultant trips generated by the development during the weekday AM peak hour, and Table 2 presents the resultant trips generated by the development during the weekday PM peak hour. Table 1 Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Adjusted Gross Trips Gross Trips New Trips Pass -By Trips Use Size i In Out In Out In Out In Out Hotel Meeting Rooms 225 Rooms 77 49 77 49 77 49 0 0 Quality Restaurant 150 Seats 2 i 2 2 2 2! 2 0 0 TOTAL j 79 51 79 51 79 j 51 0 0 Table 2 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Adjusted Gross Trips Gross Trips New Trips Pass -By Trips_ Use Size In Out In Out in Out I I n Out Hotel Meeting Rooms 1 225 Rooms 1 70 63 70 63 7 63 1 0 0 Quality Restaurant 150 Seats 26 13 j 19 10 15 8 1 4 2 TOTAL j 96 76 f 89 I 73 85 71 1 4 2 It is expected that a percentage of the gross vehicle trips generated by the restaurant will occur internal t to site (i.e., from the hotel to the restaurant and vice versa). A reduction of 25% was applied to the gross vehicle trips for the restaurant during the PM peak hour. The adjusted gross trips generated by the development site can be classified into one of the following trip types: New Trips Trips solely to and from the subject development Pass -By Trips Existing through trips on Summit Drive that will include a stop at the development site For PM peak hour trips generated by the restaurant, 80% of the trips generated were determined to be new trips, and 20% were determined to be pass -by trips from Summit Drive. For AM peak hour restaurant trips and all hotel trips, all trips were determined to be new trips. Mr. Todd Blomstrom -6- April 6, 2005 Directional Distribution of Trins In general, new trips generated by the development will be distributed as follows: 75% to /from west on Summit Drive towards Shingle Creek Parkway 15% to /from east on Summit Drive towards TH 100 0 5% to /from the Target shopping center 5% to /from Earle Brown Drive towards the Earle Brown Center Pass -by trips generated by the development are expected to be distributed as follows: 65% from WB Summit Drive 35% from EB Summit Drive Background Growth in Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes on Summit Drive are expected to increase regardless of the proposed development due to continuing growth in the area. Based on the most recent available daily traffic volume counts in the area, through volumes on Summit Drive were increased by 2% per year in order to account for such growth in traffic volumes by the year 2007. Total Proiected Traffic Volumes After accounting for existing volumes, background volume growth, and volumes due to the proposed development, we have prepared the total volume forecasts shown in Figure 3. This figure shows the projected weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for each of the following scenarios: Existing Conditions 2007 No -Build (background traffic growth) 2007 Build (background traffic growth plus development trips) A.M. PEAK HOUR N lo w to t W 0 NOT TO SCALE u a 63/63175 r� �r 80/83183 �I 13/13/13 y 146/1 I SUMMIT DR. 128/133/133 v cj T 36136/36 T T T 2005 EXISTING 2007 NO -BUILD lu F 2007 BUILD XXIXXIXX P.M. PEAK HOUR a N 0 z o: m NOT TO SCALE cv o�� m M 32/32/45 41/41/ 0/339 41/41141 66/66/134 SUMMIT DR, 158/164/161 91 t CV 2007 NO-BUILD 2007 BUILD XX/XX= CITY OF FIGURE 3 BROOKLYN CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY FOR WEEKDAY PROPOSED A.M. AND P.M BENSHOOF ASSOCIATES, INC. HOTEL SITE PEAK HOUR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS TRAFFIC VOLUMES Mr. Todd Blomstrom -8- April 6, 2005 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The intersection of Summit Drive'and Earle Brown Drive was analyzed to determine the impacts of traffic generated by the proposed hotel and restaurant development. Capacity analyses were performed using Highway Capacity Software (HCS). The results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which range from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. The LOS results are shown in Figure 4. During the weekday AM peak hour, both approaches of Summit Drive operate at LOS A under all three scenarios. Right turns from both the southbound Earle Brown Drive approach and the northbound shopping center approach operate at LOS A under all three scenarios, while northbound and southbound left turns and through movements operate at LOS C under all three scenarios. During the AM peak hour, all movements operate at acceptable levels of service under all three scenarios. During the weekday PM peak hour, both approaches of Summit Drive operate at LOS A under all three scenarios. Right turns from the southbound Earle Brown Drive approach operate at LOS B under all three scenarios. Through movements and left turns from the southbound Earle Brown Drive approach operate at LOS C under existing conditions and the 2007 no -build scenario, and LOS D under the 2007 build scenario. Right turns from the northbound shopping center approach operate at LOS A under all three scenarios. Left turns and through movements from the northbound shopping center approach operate at LOS C under existing conditions, LOS D under the 2007 no -build scenario, and LOS E under the 2007 build scenario. During the weekday PM peak hour, the northbound and southbound left turn and through movements experience increased delays due to the background growth and trips generated by the proposed development. While the increased delays will make these movements less desirable, it is our opinion that motorists will not find these movements overly difficult or unsafe. Rather, motorists will need to wait slightly longer before finding an acceptable gap in traffic to enter onto Summit Drive. In addition, traffic exiting the Target site does have other access alternatives available. A.M. PEAK HOUR N Q M 1 VVVV m NOTTO SCALE A/A/A A/A/A A/AIA A/A/A SUMMIT DR. NA/A OR 91 2005 EXISTING a 2007 NO -BUILD t-u F-- 2007 BUILD n xX/X m P.M. PEAK HOUR N a m m NOT TO SCALE m�e m v NAIA A/A/A AIAJA SUMMIT DR. A/A/A A/A/A eta (a) 2 2005 EXISTING Lu 2007 NO -BUILD 2007 BUILD 0 xxcxx= 5 CITY OF FIGURE 4 [BRO CENTER TRAFFIC STUDY FOR WEEKDAY PROPOSED A.M. AND P .M. HOTEL SITE PEAK HOUR OOF ASSOCIATES, INC. TATIDNENRINEER SANDPLANNERS LEVELS OF SERVICE Mr. Todd Blomstrom -10- April 6, 2005 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis presented in this report, we have concluded the following: The proposed hotel and restaurant development are estimated to generate 130 trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 162 trips during the weekday PM peak hour. During the weekday AM peak hour, all turning movements from both directions of Summit Drive at the western intersection with Earle Brown Drive operate at LOS A under existing conditions, the no -build scenario, and under post development buildout. Left turns and through movements from Earle Brown Drive and from the Target shopping center operate at LOS C under all three scenarios; right turns operate at LOS A. During the weekday PM peak hour, all turning movements from both directions of Summit Drive at the western intersection with Earle Brown Drive operate at LOS A under existing conditions, the no -build scenario, and under post development buildout. Left turns and through movements approaching Summit Drive from Earle Brown Drive operate at LOS C under existing conditions and the no -build scenario; the movements operate at LOS D under post- development build conditions. Left turns and through movements approaching Summit Drive from the Target shopping center operate at LOS C under existing conditions, LOS D under the no -build scenario, and LOS E under post development build conditions. We are confident the subject intersection will be able to adequately accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed development. The existing two -way stop control at the intersection will function adequately under the post development build condition. 3�Gfi+�'��/ III 1111 I/I III I/111%11��1� 11 X11111 /f M191 s 1111 1 R� ■1 ■/I��IIlliirl■ ti ��Siu� f /11111 l��■ 1111 N1/ ■111111���111wM� I �►�/1/ 1 �i 1111 I r f11 I�i�i��i ■r1�11■ I� z�� 111 i :11111::1 1■ 1 11111 111 11 Ia1����� Ifli 11� II /Ilflii 1!'1 1� ■/r��d 1111'11 11111f f! �1 1� 3' 1111 /111/3 /i1 /f1 �fif1 /1• R n n;tmi� If IIIIIIf� Ifrrfll s A11 ■rrlrlr�l Rik 1 �►�11 11111111 ,fi ���it\ r<a ��a I rye d „r ;r ���I� III /III�11 soil NO ,:p :r r� rr 111 111111111 11 rr rr r��r �r /1r11r1 11 pqi! \ms s` F� rr■ rr �r is r r� rr rr �i►ia► irr �,t: 11 1 1�1�i ii�i1 11 �r., .s�� rr .r r 11 1 1111 111 Ii Q i� �i© 1111 I�i�7��i1 4' E 4 _Yr Y f ONE I t. 1 M1A lwa Wwools. MN 55'01 TEL 60/3384029 FAX 6IM33640M MINNEAPOLIS s DULUTH e n.a I J OLIVER. 4 COMPANIES B OU GRAND AVENUE, DIA.UfH, MN 55807 m l I I„�' 114MBY CERWY the Uft pl., ped0w_ t a port .m prquad by ants ageidm aMl� an a dd Lkmr Role»md En undo 11 7 I 61 0r St61e d t6nnmin mm 0 m OLIVER CO. HOTELS 3 WATERPARK h BROOKLYN CENTER, ANN SITE S URVEY see14'38 au. C1.00 rr. 250 IN, R AP•w REMOTE EMSiNG 1 s JAN Sft 45 caxAE>E ax a AxD r PLAEE TEMPORARY n.' c INLET PROTECTION an" 1 SBT 14'38 "E .131 07 FAIL SNS71�OIt 10—mot YN 55101 F GW33 -MSS 117 IBM EDS1aD la m MINNEAPCXIS DULUTH PLACE two" M nw y _INLET PRO7ECTILM PR07ECT EA6NTG TELUHC Z YART REMOTE EIOSTNG CURB �i> Ih REMOVE EDS7NG RDIOYE E)PSTNG TREE i r. L STANDARD AND BASE RDA0W DRSIING CDN(GlTE PAD x; PEACE TEMPORARY t WET PROlEL110H ....e•�..... ,ti PROTECT EXISTING YpAlR)I75 (119 3), C01LRE= RArk E OLIVER 1 MUM TPSIRIG 130.39, WOOD RAIL EENCE� N8'7�'10'3B'W `G =a.•; COMPANIES g 5113 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE B DULUTH, MN 55801 RDAW IDISTNG REMOTE EXISTING LIGHT CwxTE CURB STANDARD Me BASE NWi gITT[N f" talmRUCTTa ENTRANCE N REMOTE EI MNG TREE M •a.. Na-M M ".ft ID WR IFrdN of 1 HEM MR'" Net NN PW. spedr h It a r •m urM y 6a�NgaviMdl a�M Uw i an a My ticenx0 UA Proleaki.W En —w the s'' Ia•a d Slate d (I BITUMINOUS f Trm AN PMRa aNe Twar. m v tpu 'r G6 am lm I11V e M)bro I dEd P =I •NIL rbn =eta n Tn SET OLIVER CO. PRO,ECT HOTELS Robe ENS;NG BI raT CURB Sit ,l p a. REMOTE RENOLES z i:im "'er EXISTING EMSTINC WATERPARK REI E' DYE S,d1Y SiODI 1 E X I S T I N G S SE BROOKLYN CENTER, MN r c S SITE REMOVAL AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN I 14 1 n RNCE� C2.00 I AH— smi. 459 MM sse FAX e�1NieN I. w 1 ...p' Nip,,ml.CUpM� ?iw 7 j u ,�4 MINNEAPOLIS a DULUTH L LLU I� P 0 m. ad rum F 12r- J OLIVER PROPOSED WATER PARK PROPOSED HOTEL 4 COMPANIES 5713 GRAND AVM)F, Wn 8 DULVni, MN 55807 somix law W-1 w' I �i m 1 HFAEBY 03iNFT MIPt Ms �L r mm. -r i vw' a Mbl 1 unan a aa I 1 1 nrm a Hwxn MIC meHr,I atr MR: f8 Rxw I 1 P p PROPOSED HOTEL OLIVER CO. HOTELS &WATE v Ax PAIPaIC AIOI�F➢; 1 Pat •'m W-A rs r m x iS1AVRNl b H ALLS P P[s xsm No MsrAwwr awmti n nAUa /��y snw o m suui sine ine L SME MA LAYOUT AND E L I wx I l s .aa In.Awolr wa on No amu nrn t.sme f PAM L loon DIM FAp T. SURFACING PLAN t .w I, ne eRArrl R Wm 4 MN 5540+ TEL 60/33620A FAX $12/3WM MINNEAPOLIS s DULUTH r i 1. j. OLIVER PROPOSED WATER PARK PROPOSED HOTEL COMPANIES 5713 GRAND AVENUE, SURE B DULUTH, MN 55807 m W e^0P` me b i on o�i *«t Lkmwd Pmfeseimd Engnew wMer ft a �r>♦wulc ar.eww b r•w wD4YI IIIIf. PROPOSED HOTEL OLIVER CO. HOTELS r .,4, W 9O[ m4pwE le P MR q K 66 wIQ ..4T AO i /0465 WATERPARK BROOKLYN CENTER, MN GRADIN G r' T PLAN C4.00 tsa rMa ewnw Bwth q fi T� $uN1 150 t 0 2 /3 3.1M 55101 Fu 60/]SeiOY MW /.FILBcwOLa 4 MINNEAPOLIS a OU UTN V J I u Y OLIVER COMPANIES 5713 GRAND AVENUE, BUTTE 8 DULUTH, MN 55807 I YN-0 PO 1V.A. -ems a m-at 'a uuri i w'ma'w n r e I Rh 1 t I: wraao I sw sM,aM urmia OLIVER CO. �r I I HOTELS WATERPARK 7 b 4 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN z t I; UTILITY r L� X PLAN C5.00 I NC PAPS 19 POTENTIAL PR SESESD A6 PLLWFM7 EDOVBfS TO SITE 750 Third AANNIA STORM W ATER POU unON ILwq EXILING BABES CM 7-10.111111 L REMAL RAN' PREVENT OT -VIE EiE)AEE R ERMIR R D)0ED EAWDER SDI Soda 450 PREVEN PI (SWPPP) R MN 55 01 5 U NOTES FOPOKQ GPARS: tlM, TAAllNi RM' fEKM S MA LFT -SIR [ILLS Me ASDA E A D1LUfASi LLIN AS ERAS: TED owmo-70H NOTES: l ale MT TENS, MMIT VA9: VARR I N VAST' PE 9 CP I' 'Al i ww OPERATIO FAX 60/376 tae A LRATIRS R WAS NN 10 E EOTRE6 AW RHER INRIPLL Mi[AVLS XNIIF M IMPOSE VIIN A°0.1fA.df AEOlAlIX1' �E L )RE C00RK'O7 IS ES%NL9C TO? CDKYIN6 VIIN INE EESOL SENTIENT, MA C REW�TS F OLUTIOI CONTROL EO RDIEW, R ARMABLE ECLARI Y AGENCIES IRO[, ASIA DTTSIE R COR)R[TWN LORIS LIE AS P01uTB R TIE CNN QRAVPU ypPO M@/ /NNrIMMIRAPw EXISTING OT -SSTL Sm VAIR Mar AISOPEE IDES ARE MINDS) R sm C s0' SNIN6, L AMR tlMRKTIR IML CMLRUCMN R WLINNfd ME PA,V[ENR 15 R 9PFAD VATRS L VETLSIS ti TDI 12 IDLE IF SITE CRS,'L ?C BOO.ITFR L SESSION LR1EL PLAN! NjNU MINNEAPOLIS v DULUTH CIRPLEIE N6 VNDW6 WIC"OVE CAQVIN O [STAM19E0 IN OIKR AREAS IORREE BI DMIRUCTDI TIE, fLWL LABOILI(WB W !0t KCAII �61ECTIIX 9mO.[ CiEEN IEOGEB ffF -Sf1E SFGRM Va'R "All BI�NEE PEEKS AE INDICATED IN R OPERATIONS LAND. *PROPITIATE EASES AE IN PLACE 10 Kt, IECE EOBRI ENTS RADA NIB LIMIT PL II' 9 M MRS PERRY IS RCENEB FOR ?IRS PFUCt fi IETiOE R F/tR SLABLIATIOR 19 E ESRJIS(BLC ER CRNFrING R ?RAC LA11tRATBN R R SITE TO ECi R COV R am ET. DEERS GILL, R.ARUI L AiEACPL RTC' LAARSDE MIS, MB SPEC SECT M PEER? iiiiii MS 6' MIMMIiO A W S TO DID PRO05N, AC CCITT, THE R I .0 CTTR :S A 1F R ER(i SIN IR£, 1EIRITI)L ESTNV�,f. AND ORDSiq COURSE Im IMSIR RED �y R UTN EN El A IDPDINI VIN R EONS N41 M. I 10 S I I MUICWTA IRIMIOE' O2R7. IAWS L (MASHES' VM'FREf, NIL D.MB EN' POLLUTION mT MEEY VEAL KERA PEER, N) 0E/L1, 10 AI501NEE S':OII TIAX 2 3 RA VARR S ASSOCIATED SI CA SIN [C R T i ACTIVITY vAt IF ?INS PENT NT CSIAEISKS CRATBM O VARR OWilf VOLE 0A7 ww FEW MEWBSR 9KAMD WASHED ROCK ESONALIIRE VAIR O VR1CR3 R R STAR TRN CO6RAEfi01 ACTIVITIES THAT IISTIRB DE OR WE AM R RIVAL LAND MR CTMAET R (15TPF S 094191 0) W12 DAIC FEET 0) MTA AT 651:891 -1457 CRY THEIR AMID AT mpcssMkm vlgtw /st:rmoterh/wmAlrr Nbi W mrAN A M R R REVS R IEAMN PLANTS M0 MRICATION JOVE m" CE FILM IAOAC RE; STORAGE AM SETrEGG MOOTED [*Sir 5F0ENA[R POR r AN `4" Ar s�._o• MY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE e R COfIAI[TR IS ESP0ISIEE FR IOPlEi11G IRE APPLICATION, HIM, MWEG LW STOGIE ME SETIML FR A NURRIT Y m R R FART, AEON T T NTERVAL$ AT 5' NAZ SPAOIR SPE'RR'All /E, SID 17mmaiM6 RUN W THE MD. W moakfIR CS RE RGVIED M MITE SRMR7ATCR PJ10 11,11 7 MYS KTFA R PoSIMAN00 MR R R fDRfTED API'1IU101 N f 751 R SYCES"t GENERATED ER NPRVBDS WADED IS ALINE EWTCB R RE ,r RAYS NE. AFAMCIKE16Ni AWRTTN W R MCA EXISTING R -SIIt SIOVAIR RR6 FOR WATERY. ZORAAtAE IAAx c R !PEER VILL IS9)E A 'COVERAGE LERR' TO ACNMWFEAE 1.1 (UNFREE. CRY S`OVARA IN NRIW "AIR MIRES EXITED O j R MR AID A/C STORMIER TON AMMMW NDI VATCR VELE mus IT N FASRC AIADRAIB: RSCx SIOIMAIR POE VRLIE AVAME TO PRUCT 47" IT f D %cArY .a f! BA0631 Mi4 Iu0E0 IT AfiFA CRSIRET IS V Nll j R E M N6 LR IVES CSMIISEB TRIAL SiRILiUIDT ,aMGF Px NANNIL SCa ,AROADING T fit ffi EN)E1EKfS, 9NMt WTC1 R RORMTDY 1R iK SPCA IM M E,Mf ViI.LK 857 AC� 011.195 RI TENS V1UE ACLU EMT PRIDE E4AMNEi EKLOEB AEAI am R OVER me M. r 'TTY' 0BC TEFL CNOEA ?WS VIVR CLEW ES ICTELS ,V6 VAW-. M STEAMED JJ I. SILPAflf PRIL96 R R EMS ME SPECIFICATIONS NTPAff.B M R [RlfNti CALDAA ?l05 MTCA L72/� I 6' IAN. PLANS] MW MOMS EL, C 00 L PLANS] F1KI01 AS it[ SPENT VATR )ALInWI 'WAS l AOANES TANOI M AuB EASRNENTS R LAYOUT AN [RIBA RAID) REVMI M RS awm EWED R FE PUIRI. ASUK RTAMIW.RT FOR EVEVIG #0 ACCEPTER O! IOWYIG M DROENTS, N6, FR IMLE7➢TOL w N. O IS !F9TEWD i j P� EIL'MTAM AE FEM E ^'TV' C)IAw^iL71 M6 1� MTP RWND` P yq OLIVER =in R6 R SV4R, ASE C M Truro NIB ICIOENND R R SLTATBM G rc ANQ PRA W M: ENS Er NlY S1ABE I I COMPANIES IABSEr 1'EVR7.1 ANA EERIE DMr A 1[L Now." R/C, iAPE RE. mm t AFTER ER RLKTBM Rip CM S/RETWI O WNR)Df RE REF SPEC SHEET CIA, 'SRC t$aEa I.W N6 SPCC SECTION M MO TICIL MIi to� O C akUKTO IL, FUN SSTTARIIAtDO, GREW. IS a HE mintl5 /1 EROSION PROTECTION FENCE 5713 GRANDAVID&E, &M B ND DINARS PRR0y6 O R Dp)AEN1S RAT VICE M TEND DESTRUCTION ADOTINNLT, REAL E KEY PR='S I AT ALL LOVE WATER PLETS WINCH REAIVE `uT °"I D LLn, MN V A7 T FRONT MIUEB AREAS. ET. KIAL I KEY CIM FR BALI PROTECTION! r. LE II S R ME HAt K CO S MAT TIE wRE11R11 ILK BEES I" rM MCB LT AC ETAL. L[ASI SAYS NN rlAr R m11EA[IRe NE AI91(1 A[SIOygIR r9 mlLiflL WIN THE PERW KEOEHEN;S R KVWLE FOR 'RECORD EIRTDT AS RETIRED BT R PURR eTANDMDCONNTPUCTON DATwW Nlb Rµ Anr NWAt PAwvetivn I PERSON ESOSIEE W MEET NP EPLREATDA Tuw4 wAte sNwEq N•P LL AT RESPONSIBLE 9 TDSIR!E1FR ACTIVITY EOREEN(r M EU'IEA R iK CArbAd m•drq PERT?. M AEETIR t0 NFACTIM. MEO ELSEWX K R Plk6 90 AS KSDN,RB L TIE [ERA gTMLiR WELL VEGETATED AREA SECPIGlE16, RE DDUE, WI AE IDr IRURB ;D Y TAD frrrAl DIRL'NRRGE HOSE a IFq ME EAew A PERSON V!0 YNL E EIDRLRC FOR LOG TO CN,p,ARM L MINICMNE R WE ERAKAY SAVES VARR NNWEENI SYSIOI A NRT PROT SI G CVMOIG STREIT 9OL ST9PIFS FRO! MEET USING [RC50N ROORO FENCE CLAMPS I FOREST I IMT qal qiA v SIEET SERIW Ftl.TER GAO' RS DESIGNATED EY am u. w .w TEN w uhv [VARR AMONG TO STAR R, SHEET CLOG �cn MT dxc d qbt 1 O CCMIRIC'04 ACTIVITY MOTOR NO 6ON,[NNCC gyleeyw, 5 MILE 9OlL'IDI R X M01 AM•EIEE EKLEr 1 d ON, St 1 ��qARNLB R MUCT MISTS R A SIT: ME C CD6IPXIEI FOR Iva OV S me M IT. SOEEL[: INTAKE N06E f�7lLLArmxl�rr t[:St`•" ATTADO M1EA PARR TOTALING APMEN IDY 72,5N E, VCHICLLS MM RESIRM WELL VEGETATED. GW9ST AREA PlM1G A R` ENDRS, 00 RE WAS MINIM WPWIIATEY 159 IDES R MSRRED SEA 11614L1 L EEIlA1 Ck7201 RCVRTIIII MA riR" COORLL EST MNYVCNT PLUS VIEW R AREA E ORR711LY RASED WAS PRACTICES DWI) AS FEL04 DISCHARGE NOSE f cow Ter RE NEED CRLELIDL TOTE. OPERVES6 AREA VA. FOAL' ARmoomi 1% N,ES, U FARM ID INR W"Na, NET, TDP7pf'Y DIPS N6 TEAL PERVB16 AREA VRl COWL SPWYONTELT LM ACES V FETHitNAO' A A w mioARen wuac uArrAa LMLIIEI ISO ?Et,IR AD ¢$SFS L PROTEIN. TO SDEE ARAB POLLUTANT MEitWES PEN SLR, EM M,CKLIM WE WELL VEGETATED, OfUSST AREA PUMP Is w.AA•o c•nww• ::e, S NC I [TOTING EET 56 RAPER END SECTION PMICCTIR NITANE M OLIVER CO. BR$ LTC HAS A n DE PE, O f R EUNENDING 3'iBPES MA FELNM7 EDEVannM Wwr 41AIHED IK SING R TK IIlRI1EAE[ AEA IO AtIDDMIE IRE pMM D I ETACL IL9BAIMRI ALPS UM C7MSFECTIOL HOTELS IRE. A IACFEY R lit STON)AAAIER VILL K KVRiCI to AN R -LEN PO6 RELY IYCIECIIR FOR WTI OLCT$ mWMgs sMNhm•Ae fvmmn- omen2AeluUlea 0zu.n,- AMAN •I..W, a bt. �Am 7 Me PR OCEDIU AE TYPE R 7[MOARY MONTH N6 RESIDENT Min 645 A €S14KON VEETAIIV'E GRIM 10 MEDIA 910" FIRE AREAS MST"m BT ")��TIe •unv. ilroy Netl Haop.W4ofbgqPp udw yTFV g1v VDnuaon. COOiacro ACTIVITY RANI AS E4RIIEB IN I HERN6 SE SPECPEA ?BM A wnWI•mAewntxm• rbm lbebaxwubu c N mgoi,al Y .A k l "°E WATERPARK IIABLIE L6]PRES gwWea --P- RPWed Nwy brcovw Si lbll. Spmeb•pNWibAkml V MARL C) 9ERS M6 SRC SECTION B?315,'EMSIIEM CS!KVOM, N6 EDWIN AEeikbkfmrgleevnml MtMw Waz low --Alai BROOKLYN CiEN7 MN 116TECi AN MdM1AM ALPS OP:lA 91SfECilO1 Ae.m::.n O•Ie,N•A,s•NAa. fl 11 Baw +bAtlbeim.—I ®r>.rt+...a a.dyeoma mLk. vor anrtvw Pd.oYOnbTw,.a�AAa AAr Y+a nLJ.vb..Aru,:.em,o-0•o. e.m. Mo wNM U.FOMAM TYPE ERiWEW ER47711NE \cX ?WL MB S[MExI mom MR RE mltiR.001 ID0.Ef01 erm wl,me�Mum,ProdNeAwamU. eam Pnb Almu bs PmiEaL )A.p,A.0 „u be .b TS +k+WAeoro. 1,tAET N6 PEgOES plreN on NNpw ADaAm u>m 34L P.,Mm)e. Nvu 4ma•asmmU,o.e,nAb a...A Rm.Ar.. w0b SWF RIAA.04 EF CIVIL IT MB LANDSCAPE a1 SKFiS ERVIDT VAOM VEGETATIVE GROWTH TO AREAS MS?LSEB M x�Tmbxnm n.s,lwn„w„o,aA�r,Aeb bw 6:pvp.Yk ®bN4emim.YA mN ACIIVIR,K ESR PLAINS IKS IN PL SPECPICATHIRS rk I�, cW ,oa INFORMATION E VEN AND INSIDE R ACaKLAIED SEDNCNi To STEM VARR USK AM LOVE °W° •Od "•m` d R )Q P ALPS TM— iry.meNVllb•nNIII— Nw] D.xmum pIwiraCb F w uvntw avvmw,••wnw•wvwe UxuuwnwrvC &DETAILS rvM1WM1AUa u 4w. ]10-. utlbkes .HOdd be SnNwH AMAmmxd. RFEENCE RS SEETM FR UICATIR6 R APPLICABLE RAPS FANrDegl AMA be vaperaed dARy. xDrry OADbbm 1• detevetl,IwmlNnR ADaO ceew kmrOf,ltly erM not m•urne wiASr prDD�n H wm dd. USE 06 FOR AMI'm ERR AIR DEWATERING FILTER BAG IPNLET PROTECTION O1 WB IAFN® 6n r C 6.00 260 TWA Aran L, Lehr la Plw r> CL02M c PnxTMEHE Iwo liq r..u.wn.nly QOSE CELL FOAM PANEL CCrPAG1E0 RACNi.l u.. w.ra•1 cw.enN WSRATKw iNK]f. Sogs u0 aab6.g .n.r. TEL s MN 55E01 rB. q•N •0,0 Sr sla a. eaA7e.m2s Tp. B c.n. •r sLOPE CUTTER TO MATCH 3• R FAX 61L72/ -top wm• •Dlu) u•le SLEEVE NON& PARKING LOT DRAIJAGE TIP CUTTER OUT AS REO'O R MIW /NNNllBCny[gN 1 s MINNEAPOLIS a ULUTH 1 DULUTH XTED MGM T 22 1-443 1 09 m SU qw a .rn 1 LY 1 (Mx) u m sTN®FD Em. A, -GsM1 (Fpe 3721 -Tp. B SM. J F R :NngoDO, of Rwlir., NOTES: SLOPE psr t(. (DN G I. REF. SPEC SECTION 02717, T k 'TRENCHING BACNFDLNC. 1B' I ^B� Y AS1Y D •12) 2. USE 2' TH ICK NES SE S COMBINED FIRM MAKE ALTERNATE CarnW...Nn Y•L STAGGERED ED ION'S TO MINIMIZE FROST PEN ENTRY 7 mot (22 M POINTS. Wb.N q rwPY.. D3s3. NOTES: F1 r�.11n s' Dwwn.lw PIPE INSULATION 1. PROVIDE REVERSE CURB (OUTFALL CURB) FOR ARCING CURB q&5 (ASTM D n m ADJACENT TO FRONT OF BLDG TO GRAIN WATER IN DIRECTION OF PAVEMENT CONTOURS. DO NOT CHANNEL STORM WATER ]FN°M.. °ww RUNOFF IN GUTTER. MW rwm N Prw.rtw• REFER 70 2. Rc. c..c....c MNDOT STANDARD PLATE 71021. Nonswsv L R. DETAD. 2X13.00 SCHEDULE FOR I LASTING INFO. anrc Q.- w 0SNA Ww— N PRECAST CONCRETE t I _C�1 W18 CURB k GUTTER SECTION en• Inlwdiwp..BY1F COVER SLAB aR•i.rw••q •1.W a• .MH..n or ar.ai.�ia)P y a PRECAST BARREL UNO a SECTION i DENVER A N""L COMPANIES HIC PR ECAST SEWE MANHOLL L 5713 GRAND AVDM ROTE 8 1 DUUTN, ANJ 55807 `N1N 2 OVEAIMNG aaw PRECAST CONCRETE eASE A• r•w...• .Y s, M I- .s. NOTES: 1. PRECAST RISER SECTIONS OF VARIABLE HEIGHTS MAY BE USED AS NECESSARY r F, (NOT INDICATED). YN-M w sq.rNA Z. PROVIDE STEPS (NOT INDICATED). KO .AR a1eaN 3. PROVIDE 27' OFFSET OPENING OVER OUTLET PIPE. I K EBY QRRY Uot U s Pon, spsNR.s- I K. GROUT PIPE CONNECTIONS TO STRUCTURE. a rypl P•sWa DY ma a Indw m i, 7 m, B EN¢ I w s N 'l e 1.1 SEWER STRUCTURE I .F w u. SIAM or I"—(. I I —�m1 I I eATMA.F: r nm a r,w,m N•re rwT•.r N m w,r rlgAr ..rr sr I,Oka, >r axm e.lo.. vwNrrwVAS 1 SEMON R-R S' o R r VALK T s c LTl01 IronnMa IN•.J� Ba..l rnwa• 1O1 s•e• DETAIL 1 /C13.0• It N,DFI:f N•E: RoWu• a.e.•e mi•01iv^O1 0 u DENVER CO. MIwPN ..Pw.•h. HOTELS OR w� ED;;P I y E�EaTE :�K WATERPARK mr..fu. rWNnl- V MIX r I 6• AGGREWIE IASE CaIISE tTYPJ I —1 VY /1T S VEM CARSE GENT�p DINE BROOKLYN u.l MN G JTT OKIS. —I l2• SITUIII GA MSC COARSE ♦I BITTER /A.7�d 6• CL S AGCJEWTE USE I. NOTES: 1. E%fENO AGGREGATE BASE COURSE V (MIN) BEYOND CURB AND WALL( EDGES AS INDICATED. 2. REF. CRAGING PLANS FOR PROPOSED GRADES. ANTEGRALLY CAST POSITIVE 3. WALK SEPARATES FROM CURB FOR THE DRIVE ADJACENT TO 12TH STREET. REF. SHEET C3.O0. SLEEVE SEAL MECHANICAL SEAL 11 MECHANICAL SEWER JOINTS /51 TYPICAL ROAD SECTION "E Gtr R r olrm ec r C OA.WS NR �W 1 250 TM'd A— R.. Stile 150 nE LAST NOTE: I6100DpMR. AIM 55101 TrnuL PLACEMENT ABOVE LATTER cawE FWR GALVANIZED HUSH GUARD 1. CURB MATERIAL TEL 6R/3384029 SECTIONS FORMED RECYCLED MATERML FA9 1 0/33 ANCHOR PER MANUFACNRER'S USE 2 TIE W nom MRt /mllB�ay.mP BOLT 2. PROVIDE WHEEL STOP Wlnl FASTENERS I¢. SPACE(5) FOR STORM WATER MINNEAPOLIS a DULUTH PER JOINT MINIMUM Y -I RtP-� RUNOFF TO FLOW UNDER WHEEL A -A STOP. Prye C e P F 1 r 1 int Cu Y Rds. ��P -RAG 8' LENGTH 1 3 I I AUA STALL SIGN fi I E 1 I l I PA R KI NG PARKING UM 0 ADA ST DEDTE"LE �C WHEEL STOP 1 I i I I I 1 O q0A STA LOCATIONS (1- SIOEO) 15 1 .2 FAB NWI L 11 J 8 8. 2 2 HEAVY �6' 12' STEEL YAN ACCESSIBLE' SIGN 21 73 SECTION B 2• SREL PIPE, 24 8.5 RouxO, SET w 9.7 DA RF TO SRE PLAN 48 CONCRETE 27 30 11.0 cR SBREAGE mGTUEIn. -D. L I 38 15.5 42 18.9 SPECIFIED MATERIALS ARE FOR I I 26' 48 22.5 HAND PLACED ANDD�� 54 26.5 RP -RAP E� B 3 8o 50.9 v I 88 35.5 1 1 72 40.5 2' 78 A7.2 A A Ewe a CURER 1 I 4 -D 58' I e' STEEL 8s 52.9 90 58.9 LL3� unD I__ i Emow li T-12• 2' OLIVER Q le' STEa 'x0 .ARxwc, ERE uNE' scx WR« RED LERERe ON A wxRE REELECTNE eM: %cRaxn. 4 8 COMPANIES Q 2.- STEEL •9iw• PLAN vlEw 5713 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE B EE. Lan 2e w sc DULUTH, MN 55807 Q Iz' ,e• •xB rARI scN WRN aACR IERERS BN A —ECiM eAC%cRau«D. NOTE: SEE SPECIFlGTON SECTION 02317. TRENLHnO AND LBU.T[ ERBM Puc EDGE EE MT« vAN AcC[SSWIE rsLE. W* FOR RIP RAP MID GEOTE%TIE FABRIC FILTER. 02e FLARED END SECTION NOTE. REFERENCE SHEET C115 F FOR e UvOUI. mob,/ p 2. REERENC E SPCC. 15 OR A00.. IxfO. C7 I J. LOCATE —ER M ADA MEAL t' ERON PAVEMENT EOCE. CENRREe VM« STN1. yI}a M 11BIRA n RARE RWnI I R 7 CERm Uel Uu FIa4 apWYR.W- SI GN DETAIL TYPICAL Ba a N9a, .m pEPaed er RW a wda my 6sI a ti-A" and BNA I an a my liulRed Prolnfimd Engnear Mnda BIe Ten of the Sleta al YiWemin 9)"Aw. OI —a RAV[ IenRW M Rmw MC e6 RUfv NIpELT RRIE OLIVER CO. HOTELS WATERPARK BROOKLYN CENTER, MN RL DETAILS RL 01nAptow DRAWER dM uWC®R r MADE. Wen RA M C8W00 1 250 TNrO ArmxY Nu SROs 150 mwm.poh, YN 55101 TEL 6R/53a -2020 f.. FAX 521321 -2015 �z1 MINNEAPOLIS a DULUTH 350 PARKING STALLS p H' I I I �I SOD fir I�I_I LLI L ,Mf. Rt101 ■Am rtRl I,OaK G a1RIRtS pr. 5 I ro 1 r�. c rwluwrt ser. "gas p aue SERVICE AREA u... COMPA �NROOR WATT PARl a RE B 32,9 pp3 "T: DULU 55807 ...p 5713 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE UTN MN WX Nr x a Y M mniwYrrAnr/smr¢MmnrlmnMoa.L M 1 as /ac U'� Lm mml WM nE ra rs m PaM '�Irm nn srlpu l A soo! PLANT MATERIALS SCHEDULE: P 1 am I mlrma as .._f_YM iGE6fRIR 1__O�.alA1M �i i1D�ruRlltla a e a 7. m.anRe '111a1.d Rm1ao LNM I 2 112" I SOD m I SAigo laFoua ,IIF216E TFEE LLIC 1 1/2. 2B Haim IRIrt: 1 0. Wok mk— MUUVR MWM I 1 1/2 OLIVER CO. I 27 I No aa21 1 1/ as HOTELS I' A IaMYM ND I1mBmm 5m OamROm.l N1R tl 4 I PYRa RAxki I WATERPARK 1 BROOKLYN CENTER MN w., lamltl r g aYlmwia SIRP. ROOI aasm[ Dm c rm rROI su1Rm ,&M6 M YIIDI ND srt¢ DIQ 96 I 16un. 11Foeun •mROlral' COIPICf m[ArAR YFUwR1 I K For v DmT1a,Rx mac RDam 22 I Fm Fm w7w I KFm 1 PRELIMINARY e1 A. W* a/awdo M 55M 1 CIPIRSS I K POf LANDSCAPE PLAN 31 I no *MC,- w a• 15m on ww cwa I K pm a aj--A Q I FaO.* -W WRa W MW AN FDKWW I K FOF w'..•,i. a /r awl Rr. loc A 4 2 r L1.00 Z50 TWO A"wie MIPU AM 66101 D R 23 4 1 E TAX $0/ FAX 601M.1061 L t b 4 L b b 1. r L L I L L r b AbnRJE APOL19 a DULUTH f 4 b L Y Y r Y b w Y 1 b r r 4 r 4 4 t 1• r r r b 4 r 4 Y r L U Y Y Y Y M Y b Y 4 r 4 YYrrYbbL LY {I J' ti b 4 Y Y LYYYrY 4rYrrr rYY aM i 0 YYrY AI b U b r Y �Nr Yb YYN li i Y Y Y r Y Y Y r tl M rY4r� OLIVER COMPANIES Y Y Y Y Y I Y 4 r Y Y Y 4 h v:. AVEM,SM1E8 4 4YY INDOOR WATER PARK St13 wLLrrK uN mT o 32,000 SR, FT. 11 Y Y 4 Y b• Y Y y r Y y r Y r r r >_n-• w smt I WRE6T CERV Y m INF plm. p-ft- -LINK TO EARL fW �C(Ij 1— .1 q t MF Y waaa Gglnwr uneb me 4\L Inl SIaH of Nnnnola RRMYPr I I, r r r r N r N r mm M w1YRn Ywc •.nP1 ML Rt lb.�. 1. Y b Ir I...� N r... l 7rI (M'�nf•P�4 41•.m• Y Y 1 4 �LJ IRp(EI XMRi b OLIVER CO. T �«r, HOTELS r r r 1 Y 6 r Y i r II r I b n WATERPARK oco BROOKLYN CENiFJZ MN Y Y a r Y 11� Y Y r 4� Y 1 Y I' �,I� MnnYE lllp QI w w r Y 4 Y b Y b b b b Y Y Y Y b Y♦ 4 r As N M r r L Y Y r Y r r 4 r Y II a Y r r N Y r 1 r u� 1 w iff 1 1. PHOTOMETRIC PLAN in A. L 1 I Pis`• w a urr.e 1 c f.ia i Ye r•r Y I M 1F' bei PRd® Rb VIF E1.01 200 7.q AH wm IwI. 450 CAL.. A z—, 1 A42 MetaN.Qdo.An. UVIV D mv..no.. AN 3110" TEL m0'/ N-x" fFAtO m u eweAfms I._ FAX 69 /31940N t »s +wener.ae..t.n+y�w PQ UK*- PT[ ASi JUC?'Nf r�x /��SIAA FIA +,.pe. AINF /.PIILieOUPCM ASt T4 .E: M x WN APOl1O a DLXUTM t ,.y. aw >rn Aflli,f~ r.y rMn'r� 91 ,$.I :-r'.,."" .n°` M.+; -.ice r I n 5 r rt. :....-.....,w�.. nc ASF W@1 F1NY n •rte,,,,`*' C.T LIVER 4 IIL,7NmV/Azfa7 jvo- COMPA MIUM UN 5W ra�e femTUl b mu[ a'Aaen LOIIiM f wI. .wt f Pw� rWRIC[R p t m[ xraiw mniiret s.. mn.a r..r coma[ mu r v nM< {�nA< ny Mcl wpwr6bn ad IM I an o x 39 I Nam I—f I Prelewbnd Enpl .na tM f we Nrn b IM Stet. PI Akxree.la 11P vr W mw w T rw. IMAM: m[ Mr..w CemroA Mrx Pori new T.mIG[ W �A AOAmeY� I nro a nnntp .PC inera e.nwr I l7K Mt: en o4 $r• lmo11♦RAR nm[Ow'a OLIVER CO. HOTELS WATERPARK e0.mCWK MN Oxi16 TIC ELECTRICAL SITE SCHEDULE m: vvowe KIM" m E1.02 D Metal Panels x Brick C 413 Aluminum Window A Eli' af A South Elevation Scale 1/32 =1' SON B East Elevation skylights scale 1132 I' EWA r Metal Panels Aluminum Window Precast Concrete 6 O Skylights C West Elevation Metal Panels Brick a, OLIVER CO. HOTELS WATER PARK D North Elevation BROOKLYN CENTER, MN Scale 1132^ -V P.U.B. SUBMITTAL 0A. V1.0 0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -02 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005 -010 SUBMITTED BY LHB ARCHITECTURE WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 submitted by LHB Architecture proposes rezoning from C1A (Service- Office, no height limit) to PUD /C1A (Planned Unit Development/Service- Office, no height limit) of a 6.2 acre site located on the east side of the west leg of Earle Brown Drive (to be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive); and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval for a 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant and a 32,000 sq. ft. water park facility on the above mentioned site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June 16, 2005 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance and the City' s Compre- hensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2005 -010 submitted by LHB Architecture be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing a green strip along the Earl Brown Drive right of way that is less than 15 ft. This modification from the C1A ordinance standard is justified on the basis of the development plan being an appropriate plan for this area and that it is off set or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved site plan. 4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City' s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2005 -010 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations. 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 building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements. 4. A minimum B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. I Li 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 11. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 12. The applicant' s storm water management plan shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the ClA underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 14. The development plans shall be modified in the following manner. a. To provide a 3 1 /ito 4 ft. high decorative fence along the edge of the property line abutting the Earle Brown Drive right of way to off set or mitigate the negative aspects of a reduced green strip. The decorative fence shall consist of concrete piers and wrought iron similar to that provided at the 69' and Brooklyn Boulevard project. b. A modified landscape plan to be consistent with the landscape point system requiring 412 landscape points and a proper distribution of plantings on the site. c. Modification to the parking plan to provide a minimum parking space width of 8 ft. 8 in. Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary 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 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005 -010 SUBMITTED BY LHB ARCHITECTURE WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 submitted by LHB Architecture proposes rezoning from CIA (Service Office, no height limit) to PUD /C1A (Planned Unit Development/Service- Office, no height limit) of a 6.2 acre site located on the east side of the west leg of Earle Brown Drive (to be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive); and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval for a 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant and a 32,000 sq. ft. water park facility on the above mentioned site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June 16, 2005 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 2005 -010 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -02 on June 16, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 2005 -010 at its June 27, 2005 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City's Compre- hensive Plan and the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2005 -010 submitted by LHB Architecture be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing a green strip along the Earl Brown Drive right of way that is less than 15 ft. This modification from the ClA ordinance standard is justified on the basis of the development plan being an appropriate plan for this area and that it is off set or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved site plan. 4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. 6. In light_ of the above considerations, it is believed that the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2005 -010 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations. 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 building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements. 4. A minimum B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. RESOLUTION NO. 6. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped are g g p as to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 11. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 12. The applicant's storm water management plan shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the C1A underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 14. The development plans shall be modified in the following manner. a. To provide a 3 '/z to 4 ft. high decorative fence along the edge of the property line abutting the Earle Brown Drive right of way to off set or mitigate the negative aspects of a reduced green strip. The decorative fence shall consist of concrete piers and wrought iron similar to that provided at the 69' and Brooklyn Boulevard project. RESOLUTION NO. b. A modified landscape plan to be consistent with the landscape point system requiring 412 landscape points and a proper distribution of plantings on the site. c. Modification to the parking plan to provide a minimum parking space width of 8 ft. 8 in. June 27. 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 OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25`" day of July, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (to be addressed 6300 Earle Brown Drive). 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 REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (TO BE ADDRESSED 6300 EARLE BROWN DRIVE) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1180. Service /Office District (CI-A). The following properties are bereby established as being within the (C 1 -A) Service /Office zoning classification: Let Lot 2, Block 1, Brooklyn Farm Plat Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development zoning classification: 6. The following nroperties are designated as PUD /Cl -A (Planned Unit Develonment/Service /Office District): Lot 1. Block 1. Brooklvn Farm Plat Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of July, 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 REGULAR SESSION JUNE 16, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Rachel Lund, Rex Newman, Sean Rahn, Dianne Reem, and Tim Roche were present. Also present were Councilmember Kathleen Carmody, Community Development Brad Hoffman, Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 12.2005 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2005 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2005 -010 LHB ARCHITECTS Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2005 -010, a request from LHB Architects for rezoning from CIA to PUD /CIA of a vacant 6.2 acre site located on the east side of the west leg of Earle Brown Drive adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The application involves development plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of a 250 room hotel containing a 100 seat restaurant and an enclosed attached water park facility. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 6 -16 -05 for Application No. 2005 -010, and the City Engineer/Public Works Directors report, attached.) Mr. Warren further explained that the proposed plan is for a four and six story, 250 room hotel attached to a four story high water park facility. An enclosed walkway connection between this complex and the Earle Brown Heritage Center would also be made tying the two facilities together. Commissioner Boeck asked if the fence being required in lieu of the 15 ft. green strip be tied in with the fence located at the Earle Brown Heritage Center and be so stated in the conditions of 6 -16 -05 Page 1 approval. Mr. Warren responded that a specific fence type could be added to Condition No. 14a based on the Planning Commission's recommendation for decorative fencing. PUBLIC HEARING— APPLICATION NO. 2005 -010 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2005 -010, at 8:53 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for comments from the public. Mr. John Sheehan, Cambridge Commercial Real Estate, explained that he specializes in hospitality facilities and represents the applicant along with the architect and landscape architect. In response to a comment by Commissioner Roche, Chair Willson commented on a post card that had apparently been mailed to a number of citizens in Brooklyn Center from an anonymous group called the Concerned Citizens for Responsible Growth in Brooklyn Center. He pointed out that the card erroneously implied that the Planning Commission would be discussing and commenting on the financing for the proposed hotel/water park. He noted that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to comment and make recommendations on the site and building plan proposed and zoning ordinance issues only. It was not the Commission's function to comment on the financing and that they would not be entertaining such comments. Chair Willson inquired about the fencing and landscaping on the site. Mr. Sheehan responded that the fencing will not be an issue and they will provide fencing on the site as requested by the Commission. Mr. Bruce Chalupsky, landscape architect for LHB architects, explained that they will make modifications to the plan to provide what the city requires for landscaping. He added that additional coniferous trees could be added as suggested by the Commission. Commissioner Boeck stated that the report indicates that the water park will not be offered to the public `generally' and asked for further clarification. Mr. Sheehan responded that there are no plans to offer the water park for use by the general public. It will be available only to patrons of the hotels and the Earle Brown Heritage Center. A key would be required to gain entrance to the hotel water park. Mr. Warren pointed out that there are no accommodations on the site for additional parking for people wishing to use the water park that are not hotel guests. Commissioner Lund asked to be shown on the plan specifically where lighting would be located on the site. Mr. Warren pointed out to the Commissioners where the lighting would be placed in the parking lot areas. Mr. Roger K. Logan, 5548 Humboldt Avenue North, asked who is funding this project. Chair Willson explained that, to the best of his knowledge, this project would be funded privately, however, funding of the project is not an issue reviewed by the Planning Commission. 6 -16 -05 Page 2 Mr. Howard Roston, 1728 Trail Road, Mendota Heights, stated that he was an attorney representing the Concerned Citizens Group, and that the funding should be a part of the comments of the Commission along with the PUD. Chair Willson asked Mr. Roston for more information regarding the group he is representing. Mr. Roston stated that his organization is set up as a non profit group in the State of Minnesota and they do not think that the standards for the PUD have been satisfied and would recommend denial of the application. He added that as far as the funding goes there are public funds being used. Chair Willson again stated that the Planning Commission does not take into consideration funding for any site and building plan application. Mr. Roston continued by stating that one of the things the Planning Commission does take into consideration is whether or not there is a public need. He stated that he feels it is important to take that into consideration when considering funding. There is $2,000,000 of TIF money going into this project and because of that they feel that TIF should not be used for a private project. In addition to TIF, the City has essentially transferred ownership of this property to the developer with a non payment requirement for 20 years. He went on to say that they think that the use of TIF does address the public use concerns under the PUD requirements and therefore should be denied. He added that there also seems to be some storm water management questions unanswered and there are significant questions regarding the capacity of sanitary water sewer particularly and should be figured out before the city approves development of the last available parcel in the city. Chair Willson stated that State law authorizes local governments to utilize Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as a development/redevelopment tool. The City Council authorizes such funding mechanisms for qualifying projects under these guidelines. Commissioner Boeck asked if Mr. Roston is familiar with TIF. Mr. Roston responded yes. Commissioner Boeck asked if Mr. Roston is aware that TIF is utilized in all the northwest suburbs such as Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Maple Grove, etc? Mr. Roston responded that he feels that in this case it (TIF) is being misused. Commissioner Roche asked how many members there are of the Concerned Citizen's Group and who the president is? Mr. Roston responded that he did not know the number in the group nor could he recall the president's name. At the urging of an unidentified member of the audience Mr. Roston provided the name of the president, that being Mr. Raymond Kittleson. 6 -16 -05 Page 3 Mary Revard, 1333 68"' Lane N, stated that she feels that the whole project ruins the integrity of the area and would prefer something that benefits the senior citizens in the area. She added that the existing roads cannot handle traffic and feels that small businesses would be a better fit for the area. Wayne Paulson, 5330 Colfax Avenue North, stated that the city does not.need another hotel in Brooklyn Center especially with a water park since there is already one in Brooklyn Park. He added that there are already 10 or 12 hotels in the area and they are not filled up. He stated that he has talked to hotels in the area and they are against this proposal. Bonnie Jude, 1315 63 Lane N, asked if there has been any other development proposal presented to the city for this area. Chair Willson stated that a use such as this application has been in the City's long range planning for several years and this is the first interested applicant/developer for such a use. Ms. Jude responded that she sees this as a good use for the area and it will bring back some life to an area that seems to be dying. Rosemary Gordon, 6666 Xerxes Place N, stated that Mary Jo Copeland had presented a proposal for this area a number of years ago. Mr. Warren responded that Mary Jo Copeland's proposal never was formally submitted to the City Council and that a proposal such as hers would have required a rezoning of the property from commercial to residential. He added that after a town meeting with the Brooklyn Center residents, there were informal discussions with the city and it was determined that it was not a proposal that the City wished to pursue through a rezoning. Ms. Gordon stated that she wanted to talk about the hotel situation in Brooklyn Center and feels that there are already too many hotels in the city which has increased crime in the city. Roger K. Logan, 5548 Humboldt Avenue North, stated that he has lived in Brooklyn Center for 18 years. There are too many hotels in the city and they hardly have any customers. More hotels will only go broke. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2005 -010. Commissioner Lund left the meeting at 9:20 p.m. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2005 -010, at 9:24 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. 6 -16 -05 Page 4 ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -002 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -02 regarding the recommended disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -010 submitted by Scott Anderson of LHB Architects for Rezoning from C 1 A to PUD /C 1 A and Development Plan Approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for a 250 room hotel and water park on a 6.2 acre site to be addressed as 6300 Earle Brown Drive. The motion passed unanimously. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Newman, Rahn, Reem and Roche. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution No. 2005 -02 is made part of these minutes by attachment. The Council will consider the application at its June 27, 2005 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Willson gave an update on the June 15, 2005 Opportunity Site Task Force meeting to the Commission. He added that they are presenting a status update to the City Council at the June 27, 2005 meeting. Chair Willson announced that this is Commissioner Reem's last meeting and he expressed his appreciation for her hard work and professionalism on the Commission for the past 12 years. There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9: 35 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass 6 -16 -05 Page 5 City Council Agenda Item No. 10a X ty of KLYN TER MAYOR'S PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Adam Hockert is a member of Boy Scout Troop #542; and WHEREAS, Adam Hockert has achieved the Eagle Scout rank, which is the highest advancement rank within the Boy Scout organization; and WHEREAS, to earn the Eagle Scout rank, a Boy Scout must fulfill several requirements in the areas of leadership, service, and outdoor skills and must earn at least 21 merit badges and plan, manage, and perform a pre approved community service project; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate to recognize the achievements and service of Eagle Scout Adam Hockert. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, do hereby congratulate Adam Hockert on achieving Scouting's highest honor, the rank of Eagle Scout. June 27. 200; Date Mayor f e A4ay 28, 2005 PROT ECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT Hi, my name is Adam is to inform you about y Hockert and I am a the polluting you may member of Boy Scout be doing unintentionally. I in Troop 542. I am cur- T- s 11 rently working on the Storm drain pollution rank of Eagle Scout. can come from a num- r�--, One of the requirements ber of places that most hj of this rank is what we people don't even think call an Eagie Scout Pro- about. Yard run -off can jest. The project I have come from things like r chosen is to raise public over fertilizing, not i awareness of the dan- cleaning up leaves and I j gers of intentional and grass clippings, and Project target area includes streets from Brooklyn Blvd unintentional polluting leaving pet waste on to Xerxes and from 66th Avenue to 63rd Avenue of our rivers and your lawn. Hosing off streams. With the help your driveway and friendly little reminders on the of a group of volunteers cleaning your vehicle in street, we can stop the prob- from my troop there is a the street or in your lem of illegal dumping. To- new addition to all of driveway can cause gether we can keep Minne- the streets in our harmful chemicals and sota's creeks, streams, rivers, neighborhood. In front automotive fluids to and lakes free of pollutants. of all of the storm drains drain into the street. All All you have to do is, Please are painted signs say- of these problems can Don't Pollute! ing, "Please! Don't be easily solved with the Pollute! Drains To information in this flier. Your Friend, Inside this issue: Creek!" These have Adam Hockert Protecting our Environment 1 been put in place to With your help, and the Project Scope stop the growing prob- Facts You Should Know f 2 wa ste such as anti- of illegally dumping PLFASC! DON'T POLLUTE! Facts You Should Know s wa freeze, motor oi pet i� What Can You Do To Help 3 waste, and lawn chemi- where To Dump Pollutants a cals down storm drains. DRAINS TO CRI?EK The purpose of this flier PACE 2 STORM DRAINS WATER POLLUTION U LD KN W FACTS Yuu SHOW Vt True or False and to clean Shingle Creek. thousands of communities on Most of this money will be it's way south. coming from the residents of Water in the storm Brooklyn Center in the form The pollution from our drains goes through a of your city utility bill, prop- storm drains effect filtration .system like erty taxes and special funding Only the water and the the water from your from the state, but mostly it things living in it? sink? is from utility users like you. The pollution from our Fa lse False Throughout the City of Brook- storm drains never ef- Hazardous chemicals that en- lyn Center there exists a fects anyone else ter the normal water flow maze of underground drains envirommnet? system not only effect the liv- totaling 84 miles, that link the ing creatures in the water, storm drains we see on our False but will also be absorbed into city streets directly to one of The storm drains in this tar- (Continued on page 3) thirteen different runoff loca- get area empty into Shingle tions, including neighborhood Creek. You can see from the or regional ponds and creeks. map at the right that Shingle Creek r =l_ r It doesn't cost the city flows south from v the Brooklyn Cen- r 4-4; B any money to main- �s 1._: ter area, past high- l z x tain and clean our cur- r way 100 and then i rent sewer system 1 Y starts its south- and runoff sites? eastward trek to- i,; wards the Missis- False sippi River and fl- ,1F Each year the City of Brook- nally empties into U, i t lyn Center spends approxi- the mighty river l t 1 4 .-lass mately $700,000.00 to main- just east and north --4-, _sue fain our storm water dra of L dale inage Yn Avenue stem. This total includes and 42nd Avenue supplies to repair existing and in north Minneapo- II.� damaged sewers, labor costs, lis. From there the ak fuel costs for operating utility Mississippi flows trucks and street sweepers, over 1,000 miles maintenance of these vehicles south to the gulf of Shingle Creek flows from the Brooklyn Center neighbor Mexico, effecting hoods and empties into the Mississippi River i J S TORES DRAINS WATER POLLUTION PAGE 3 WH T CAN You Do To, H EL P (Continuedfrom Me 2) After doing lawn work, bag or compost any the river bed, and the sur- leaves or grass clippings. rounding soil. These c hemi- Use zero phosphorus fertilizer and follow cols that get absorbed into a p p lication d Sweep spilled the soil will then effect the p rop er a pp p rocedures. p s p plant life that grows around fertilizer off of paved surfaces. Never over use the river area, which other fertilizer. land animal use for food on a Dispose of pet waste; don't just let it sit in your regular basis. There is also yard. the concern of the chemicals Keep your vehicle tuned up and clean up any seeping through the soil and oil leaks or spills from paved surfaces. entering the natural water ta ble, which is where we get ✓Wash your car on the lawn or at a carwash, not our everyday drinking water in the driveway or street. from Dispose of automotive fluids, paint, and other hazardous materials properly. Avoid using pesticides and other lawn chemi- cals or use them responsibly. Keep them off paved surfaces. Report any suspicious dumping to the proper authorities as soon as r possible. Don't Litter fi-. Remember, anything that is dumped into the storm R: drain will end up in the Gulf of Mexico after it has done it's damage to the environment in our neighborhood. "ELP KEEP SHINGLE CREEK CLEAN AND BEA T R IL Picture Taken Near The Brooklyn Center Community Center PAGE 4 STORAi DRAINS WATER POLLUTION an D M P W o re C Hennepin County Drop-off Facility 8100 Jefferson Highway 763-348-3777 Offers Droo-off of manv of the followino Items Aerosol Cans (With contents) 0 Fluorescent Light Bulbs Antifreeze Mattress, Box Spring Appliances Oil and Oil Filters Batteries Paint Bicycles Home Use Pesticides Computers, Electronics, TVs and Stereos Scrap Metal Gasoline, Kerosene, Flammables and Fuel 0 Tires Household Hazardous Waste The following facilities will take used motor oil Valvoline 8550 Edinburgh Pkwy, Brooklyn Park 763-493-5625 Valvoline 5602 Lakeland Ave, Crystal 763-536-8254 Douglas Drive Service Center 3401 Douglas Drive, Crystal 763-537-4074 New Hope Automotive 7140 42nd Ave N, New Hope 763-535-5599 Texaco 6840 Humboldt Ave, Brooklyn Center 763-560-5410 Prepared By: Adam Hockert Life Scout 1. Boy Scout Troop 542 Viking Council alaas@msn.com City Council Agenda Item No. 10b Office of the City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: June 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Mayoral Appointments to Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission Park and Recreation Commission The Park and Recreation Commission is composed of a chairperson and six members. There exists one vacancy on the commission due to the resignation of Craig Hauger. The terms of office for members of the Park and Recreation Commission are staggered three -year terms. The remainder of the term of office for the vacancy expires December 31, 2007. Notice of vacancy on the Park and Recreation Commission was posted at City Hall and Community Center and on the City's web site and aired on Cable Channel 16 from May 6, 2005, through June 6, 2005. Announcement was made in the May 12, 2005, edition of Brooklyn Center Sun -Post. Attached for Cary Council Members only is a copy of the application received: Muriel Lee 7204 Perry Court West Planning Commission The Planning Commission is composed of a chairperson and six members. There exists one vacancy on the commission due to the resignation of Dianne Reem. The terms of office for members of the Planning Commission are staggered two -year terms. The remainder of the term of office for the vacancy expires December 31, 2006. Notice of vacancy on the Planning Commission was posted at City Hall and Community Center and on the City's web site and aired on Cable Channel 16 from May 6, 2005, through June 6, 2005. Announcement was made in the May 12, 2005, edition of Brooklyn Center Sun -Post. Attached for City Council Members only is a cop of the application received: Eric Berns 3800 51st Avenue North e 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 Memo to Michael J. McCauley Page 2 June 23, 2005 Mayoral Commission Appointments Information Relevant to Both Commissions A letter was sent to those persons who previously had submitted an application for appointment to a Brooklyn Center advisory commission informing them of the vacancies and requesting that they call the City Clerk if they are interested in applying for either commission. They were given the choice of either reapplying or having their application previously submitted considered. Notices were also sent to current advisory commission members. A letter was sent to the applicants notifying them that their application for appointment would be considered at the June 27, 2005, City Council meeting. As requested by the City Council, the City Advisory Commission Bylaws and City Council Resolutions Establishing the Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission Duties and Responsibilities are not included in the materials but can be found on the City's web site at www.citvofbrooklvncenter.orR and clicking on Mayor/ Council/ Commissions/ Charter, then Advisory Commissions. The membership roster is also available at this site. Other attachments include: 1) Memorandum from Mayor Kragness indicating her nomination. 2) Procedures for filling commission vacancies adopted by the City Council on March 27,1995. 3) Geographical distribution of current members and applicants. Recommended Council Action: Motion by Council to ratify the Park and Recreation Commission nomination by Mayor Kragness with term expiring December 31, 2007; and the Planning Commission nomination by Mayor Kragness with term expiring December 31, 2006. Office of the Mayor City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmember Kathleen Carmody Councilmember Kay Lasman Councilmember Diane Niesen Councilmember Mary O'Connor FROM: Myrna Kragness, Mayor 9 ��Q'' DATE: June 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission Appointments As outlined in our policy for filling commission vacancies, I would request ratification from Council Members for the following nominations: Park and Recreation Commission Muriel Lee 7204 Perry Court West Planning Commission Eric Berns 3800 51st Avenue North 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 Procedures for Filling Commission /Task Force Vacancies Adopted by Council 3 /27/95 The following process for filling commission/task force vacancies was approved by the City Council at its March 27, 1995, meeting: Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by Mayoral appointment with majority consent of the City Council. The procedure for filling Commission vacancies is as follows: 1. Notices of vacancies shall be posted for 30 days before any official City Council action is taken; 2. Vacancies shall be announced in the City's official newspaper; 3. Notices of vacancies shall be sent to all members of standing advisory commissions; 4. Applications for Commission membership must be obtained in the City Clerk's office and must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk; 5. The City Clerk shall forward copies of the applications to the Mayor and City Council; 6. The Mayor shall identify and include the nominee's application form in the City Council agenda materials for the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented; and 7. The City Council, by majority vote, may approve an appointment at the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented. COUNCIL PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED FOR FILLING COMMISSION VACANCIES City of Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission Geographical Distribution by Park Service Area (P.S.A.) (Chairperson and Six Members) Current Members June 23, 2005 Park Service Area Applicants Current Members P.S.A. 1 Thomas Shinnick 5324 Oliver Avenue North P.S.A. 2 Gail Ebert 1613 Irving Lane Roger Peterson 151171 st Avenue North P.S.A. 3 Muriel Lee Bud Sorenson 7204 Perry Court West 6901 Toledo Avenue North Richard Theis 3006 Thurber Road P.S.A. 4 P.S.A. 5 John Russell 5312 N. Lilac Drive One vacancy. City of Brooklyn Center Planning Commission Geographical Distribution (Chairperson and Six Members) Current Members June 23, 2005 01 Current Members Southeast Northeast Sean Rahn 601 70th Avenue North, 114 Timothy Roche 816 69th Avenue North Tim Willson 6718 Colfax Avenue North Northwest West Central Rachel Lund 4502 58th Avenue North, #301 Central Rex Newman 3107 61 st Avenue North Southwest Eric Berns Graydon Boeck 3800 51st Avenue North 5601 Indiana Avenue North One vacancy. I City Council Agenda Item No. 10c City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers C ody, Lasman, n, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: June 20, 2005 SUBJECT: West Mississippi Watershed Joint Powers Agreement Amendment In April of 2004 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004 -31 authorizing an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission. At the same time the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2004 -30 approving an amendment to the JPA for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Agreement. Both amendments were to address the proposal that Brooklyn Center advanced that there be a cap on the increase in assessments to the member cities for each watershed. The City of Brooklyn Park did not approve the JPA amendments for both the West Mississippi and Shingle Creek Watershed Management Organizations. The City of Champlin did not approve the amendment for the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission. Subsequent to the adoption of Resolution No. 2004 -31, Mr. LeFevere sent the enclosed letter of August 19, 2004, requesting an amendment that would revise the amendment adopted pursuant to Resolution No. 2004 -31. That amendment was not placed on a City Council agenda because the cities of Brooklyn Park and Champlin had not approved the original amendment, nor had they approved the proposed revised amendment. I took the position that it was not a useful use of City Council time and energy if this was a nearly academic exercise in passing an amendment that would not become effective due to the positions of the cities of Brooklyn Park and Champlin on amending the JPA. Councilmember Carmody has requested that the Council consider the revised amendment to the amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission. Accordingly, the proposed revised amendment has been placed on the City Council agenda for City Council consideration. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL, AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has entered into a joint and cooperative agreement for the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission; and WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed that large and substantial increases in annual assessments have been approved by the Board of the watershed commissions; and WHEREAS, such increases require the participating cities to either levy general ad valorem taxes or collect storm water fees to cover such substantial increases; and WHEREAS, it would be appropriate for the participating cities to create a mechanism to limit increases in assessments upon the cities as set forth in the proposed amendment to the amended joint and cooperative agreement which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by references Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the proposed amendment are reasonable and proper. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the amendment to the amended joint and cooperative agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A be and hereby is approved and the Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute such amendment on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. June 27, 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. Exhibit A AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the cities of Champlin, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Minneapolis and Osseo, all of which are Minnesota municipal corporations (the "Member Cities WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Member Cities are parties to a joint powers agreement forming the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission entitled the AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED (the "Joint Powers Agreement the effective date of which was January 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Member Cities wish to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter provided; NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained in the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter amended, the parties agree to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as follows: 1. Article VIII. FINANCES is amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this agreement and in accordance with the procedures as established by law and in the manner as may be determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies, authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive deposits of public moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of Commission funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the Treasurer or the Treasurer's Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be required to file with the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be determined by the Board. The Commission shall pay the premium on said bond. Subdivision 2. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies, development of an overall plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be used for normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated as an improvement cost and processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of this Article. The annual contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50 on the net tax capacity of all property within the Watershed and fifty percent (50 on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the West Mississippi Watershed governed by this Agreement. Subdivision 3. CLL- 240808v2 1 WE405 -1 Exhibit A (a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted under Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined by the Commission as the amount to be assessed against each member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the Commission for each project. Each member further agrees to pay to or contract with the member governmental unit awarding said contract for the improvement, its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 4. The member awarding the contract shall submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the member being billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after receipt of the statement. The member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members of the tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the Commission may by a vote of 2 /3rds of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed to fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. It is expressed as a goal of this Agreement that cost sharing of capital improvement costs be assigned and agreed to by members pursuant to Article VIII, Subdivision 7, Subsections 1 and 2 of this Agreement. Without such agreement, all improvements will be constructed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 10313.251. The Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with money provided by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B251. The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax levy resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the Commission and remitted to the County on or before October 10th of the date prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the Commission shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103D.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent to the Clerk of each member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Board. CLL- 240808v2 2 WE405 -1 Exhibit A The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member governmental unit together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member. The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon written notice from any member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of any and all modifications or amendments. Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 5 below, each member agrees to provide the funds required by the budget. If no objections are submitted to the Board, each member agrees to provide the funds approved by the Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications or amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then existing members of the Board. The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the Board in such a manner as to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed. Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 6 below, upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable vote of a majority of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental budget requiring additional payments by the members within 60 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require any member to contribute in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable property within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries in any one calendar year. Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.245, which authorizes a Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each member City to pay the costs of planning and for the purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine maintenance of facilities. Subdivision 5. Assessments levied against Member Cities for general fund purposes are subject to all of the following limitations: 1. Assessment Cao. A. Definition. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "Assessment Cap" means the total amount that the Commission may levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year without the consent of a majority of Member Cities. The Assessment Cap for 2004 'is $119,450. Thereafter, the Assessment Cap will increase or decrease each year based, pro rata, on the annual change in the consumer price index (U.S. City Average, All Items, All Urban Consumer) to the end of the second quarter of the preceding year. (For example, the Assessment Cap for 2005 will be adjusted on the basis of the change in the CPI from the end of the second quarter of 2003 to the end of the second quarter of 2004.) CLL- 240808v2 3 WE405 -1 Exhibit A B. Limitation and Citv Consent. The Commission may levy an amount for general fund purposes in excess of the Assessment Cap only with the consent of a majority of Member Cities expressed by resolutions duly adopted by the city councils before September I' of the preceding year. The Commission may request authority to exceed the Assessment Cap for one or more years. If a majority of Member Cities do not consent to the levy of an assessment in excess of the Assessment Cap, the Commission may levy an amount up to the Assessment Cap and the Commission will make necessary changes to the budget. 2. Limitation on Increase of Assessment. The Commission may not assess a total levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year in an amount that exceeds 120% of the previous years' assessment without the consent of a majority of the Member Cities given in the same manner as described in paragraph 113 above. 3. Limitation Based on Tax Canacitv. The Commission may not assess a levy or combination of levy and supplemental levies against the Member Cities for general fund purposes in any one year that requires any member to contribute an amount in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of that portion of the city lying within the Watershed. Subdivision 6. Sunolemental Budeet and Limit on Assessment. The Board may adopt a supplemental budget in accordance with Subdivision 4. However, the amount assessed against the Member Cities for general fund purposes, when added together with other assessments for general fund purposes for the same year, may not exceed the limitations on assessments set forth in Subdivision 5 without the consent of the Member Cities. The consent of the Member Cities shall be secured in the same manner as is provided in Subdivision 5, except that the September 1 deadline for Member City approval does not apply. Subdivision 7. Cost Allocation for Capital Projects. The Commission shall apportion to the respective members on either (1), (2) or (3) of the following bases: (l) A negotiated amount to be arrived at by the members who have lands in the subdistrict. It is anticipated that most capital improvements will be made under this provision; or (2) (a) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to each member on the basis of the net tax capacity of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total net tax capacity in the West Mississippi Watershed area governed by this Agreement. CLL- 240808v2 4 WE405 -1 I Exhibit A (b) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to each member on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the West Mississippi Watershed governed by this Agreement. (c) Capital costs allocated under the 50% area 50% net tax capacity formula herein set forth may be varied by the Commission by a 2 /3rd vote of all eligible members if: (1) any member community receives a direct benefit from the capital improvement which benefit can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk benefit, or (2) the capital improvement provides a direct benefit to one or more members which benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of fairness a modification in the 50150 formula. (d) Credits to any member for lands acquired by said member to pond or store storm and surface water shall be allowed against costs set forth in Subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this Section. (3) If agreement is not reached to proceed as set forth in Subsection 1 or 2 of this Subdivision and if the project is constructed and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251, the members understand and agree that said costs will be levied on all taxable property in the watershed as set forth in the statute. Section 2. This amendment shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of a certified copy of a resolution approving said amendment by all nine Member Cities. Said resolutions shall be filed with the Chair of the West Mississippi Watershed Commission, who shall certify the effective date of the amendment in writing to all Member Cities. The effective date of the amendment shall be when approved by all of the Member Cities and when the mayor and other authorized city representatives have executed the amended agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned government units, by action of their governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.201 through 103B.255 and Section 471.59. Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its And by: Its CLL- 240808v2 5 WE405 -1 Exhibit A Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK Its Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF CHAMPLIN By: Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF MAPLE GROVE By: Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF OSSEO By: Its And by: Its CLL- 240808v2 6 WE405 -1 AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the cities of Champlin, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Minneapolis and Osseo, all of which are Minnesota municipal corporations (the "Member Cities WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Member Cities are parties to a joint powers agreement forming the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission entitled the AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED (the "Joint Powers Agreement the effective date of which was January 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Member Cities wish to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter provided; NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained in the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter amended, the parties agree to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as follows: 1. Article VIII. FINANCES is amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this agreement and in accordance with the procedures as established by law and in the manner as may be determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies, authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive deposits of public moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of Commission funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the Treasurer or the Treasurer's Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be required to file with the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be determined by the Board. The Commission shall pay the premium on said bond. Subdivision 2. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies, development of an overall plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be used for normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated as an improvement cost and processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of this Article. The annual contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50 on the net tax capacity of all property within the Watershed and fifty percent (50 on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the West Mississippi Watershed governed by this Agreement. Subdivision 3. CLL- 240808v2 1 WE405 -1 (a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted under Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined by the Commission as the amount to be assessed against each member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the Commission for each project. Each member further agrees to pay to or contract with the member governmental unit awarding said contract for the improvement, its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 4. The member awarding the contract shall submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the member being billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after receipt of the statement. The member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members of the tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the Commission may by a vote of 2 /3rds of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed to fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. It is expressed as a goal of this Agreement that cost sharing of capital improvement costs be assigned and agreed to by members pursuant to Article VIII, Subdivision 7, Subsections 1 and 2 of this Agreement. Without such agreement, all improvements will be constructed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 10313.251. The Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with money provided by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax levy resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the Commission and remitted to the County on or before October 10th of the date prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to le for maintenance the Commission �'Y mm ssion shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103D.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent to the Clerk of each member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Subdivision 4. On or before July I of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes g o es of the then existing members of the Board. CLL- 240808v2 2 WE405 -1 The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member governmental unit together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member. The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon written notice from any member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of any and all modifications or amendments. Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 5 below, each member agrees to provide the funds required by the budget. If no objections are submitted to the Board, each member agrees to provide the funds approved by the Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications or amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then existing members of the Board. The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the Board in such a manner as to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed. Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 6 below, upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable vote of a majority of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental budget requiring additional payments by the members within 60 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require any member to contribute in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity_ of all taxable property within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries in any one calendar year. Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.245, which authorizes a Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each member City to pay the costs of planning and for the purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine maintenance of facilities. Subdivision 5. Assessments levied against Member Cities for general fund purposes are subject to all of the following limitations: 1. Assessment CaD. A. Definition. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "Assessment Cap" means the total amount that the Commission may levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year without the consent of a majority of Member Cities. The Assessment Cap for 2004 is $119,450. Thereafter, the Assessment Cap will increase or decrease each year based, pro rata, on the annual change in the consumer price index (U.S. City Average, All Items, All Urban Consumer) to the end of the second quarter of the preceding year. (For example, the Assessment Cap for 2005 will be adjusted on the basis of the change in the CPI from the end of the second quarter of 2003 to the end of the second quarter of 2004.) CLL- 240808v2 3 WE405 -1 B. Limitation and Citv Consent. The Commission may levy an amount for general fund purposes in excess of the Assessment Cap only with the consent of a majority of Member Cities expressed by resolutions duly adopted by the city councils before September 1 of the preceding year. The Commission may request authority to exceed the Assessment Cap for one or more years. If a majority of Member Cities do not consent to the levy of an assessment in excess of the Assessment Cap, the Commission may levy an amount up to the Assessment Cap and the Commission will make necessary changes to the budget. 2. Limitation on Increase of Assessment. The Commission may not assess a total levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year in an amount that exceeds 120% of the previous years' assessment without the consent of a majority of the Member Cities given in the same manner as described in paragraph 1B above. 3. Limitation Based on Tax Capacity. The Commission may not assess a levy or combination of levy and supplemental levies against the Member Cities for general fund purposes in any one year that requires any member to contribute an amount in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of that portion of the city lying within the Watershed. Subdivision 6. Supplemental Budget and Limit on Assessment. The Board may adopt a supplemental budget in accordance with Subdivision 4. However, the amount assessed against the Member Cities for general fund purposes, when g P added together with other assessments for general fund purposes for the same year, may not exceed the limitations on assessments set forth in Subdivision 5 without the consent of the Member Cities. The consent of the Member Cities shall be secured in the same manner as is provided in Subdivision 5, except that the September 1 deadline for Member City approval does not apply. Subdivision 7. Cost Allocation for Capital Projects. The Commission shall apportion to the respective members on either (1), (2) or (3) of the following bases: (l) A negotiated amount to be arrived at by the members who have lands in the subdistrict. It is anticipated that most capital improvements will be made under this provision; or (2) (a) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to each member on the basis of the net tax capacity of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total net tax capacity in the West Mississippi Watershed area governed by this Agreement. CLL- 240808v2 4 WE405 -1 (b) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to each member on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the West Mississippi Watershed governed by this Agreement. (c) Capital costs allocated under the 50% area 50% net tax capacity formula herein set forth may be vaned by the Commission by a 2 /3rd vote of all eligible members if any member community receives a direct benefit from the capital improvement which benefit can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk benefit, or (2) the capital improvement provides a direct benefit to one or more members which benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of fairness a modification in the 50150 formula. (d) Credits to any member for lands acquired by said member to pond or store storm and surface water shall be allowed against costs set forth in Subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this Section. (3) If agreement is not reached to proceed as set forth in Subsection 1 or 2 of this Subdivision and if the project is constructed and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251, the members understand and agree that said costs will be levied on all taxable property in the watershed as set forth in r the statute. Section 2. This amendment shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of a certified copy of a resolution approving said amendment by all nine Member Cities. Said resolutions shall be filed with the Chair of the West Mississippi Watershed Commission, who shall certify the effective date of the amendment in writing to all Member Cities. The effective date of the amendment shall be when approved by all of the Member Cities and when the mayor and other authorized city representatives have executed the amended agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned government units, by action of their governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.201 through 103B255 and Section 471.59. Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its And by: Its CLL- 240808v2 5 WE405 -1 Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK By: Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF CHA1vLPLIN By: Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF MAPLE GROVE By: Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF OSSEO By: Its And by: Its CLL- 240808v2 6 WE405 -1 470 Pillsbury Center 1 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 Graven (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax C H A R T E R E D http: /www.kennedy- graven.com CHARLES L. LEFEvERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial(612)337 -9215 Email: clefevere @kennedy -b aven.com August 19, 2004 Michael McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 Dear Mr. McCauley: I represent the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission "West Mississippi as legal counsel. Last winter, at the request of the City of Brooklyn Center, an ad hoc committee was fornied to consider amendment of the joint powers agreements that govern the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. The committee was made up of interested commissioners and representatives of the cities. The committee's efforts resulted in a draft amendment to the joint powers agreements of both Shingle Creek and West Mississippi. These changes limited the amount the Commissions could charge against member cities for annual administrative expenses. Under the proposed amendments this "cap" can be exceeded only by the approval of a majority of the member cities. These amendments were endorsed by the Commissions, which recommended approval to their member cities. As drafted, the joint powers agreement amendment would establish a cap indexed to the year 2004 and increased annually in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. The amount of the cap was set at the amount of the total assessments for the year 2004. Committee members felt that the current level of activity of the Commissions was appropriate and should continue, but that further increases should be subject to approval by the member cities. Using the 2004 assessments to establish the cap for future assessments was appropriate for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Assessments in that amount will allow Shingle Creek to continue its operations in the future as it has in the past. However, using the 2004 assessments to establish the ca r rr in West Mississippi was a mistake. At the time the joint powers agreement amendment was prepared, it did not occur to committee CLL- 252100v1 WE405 -1 M. McCauley Ltr August 19, 2004 Page 2 members that a cap based on the 2004 assessment would not allow the Commission to continue the same level of operations. West Mississippi had built up a substantial cash reserve, and several years ago the Commission decided to spend those reserves down rather than increase assessments against the member cities to fund the increased level of administrative activity required by accelerated development within the watershed and by the Second Generation Watershed Management Plan. Using these reserves has allowed the Commission to subsidize charges to the cities for several years. However, the reserves will be spent down to target levels ($76,000) before the end of 2005 if there are no increases in City assessments. To allow West Mississippi to continue operations at current levels would require an assessment to the cities of $119,450 (for 2004 operations) if there were no contribution from reserves. This is the number that should have been used to set the cap for West Mississippi assessments to member cities. The West Mississippi Commission has directed me to prepare an amended joint powers agreement using the correct number and forward it to the member cities, along with the Commission's recommendation that the substitute joint powers agreement amendment be adopted. The attached amendment is identical to the one forwarded to you early this year except that the amount of the cap on page 5, in Article VIII, Subdivision 5. 1, has been changed from $76,200 to $119,450. This amendment will not increase the budget for the year 2005 which has already been transmitted g Y Y to the cities. The Commission had planned to continue to spend down the cash reserves using $26,750 in 2005, leaving a total contribution from cities of $92,950. The Commission requests and recommends that the City adopt the attached joint powers agreement amendment. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Please send the executed amended joint powers agreement to Judie Anderson, the Commission's secretary at 3235 Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447 Very truly yours, c 1 1 ems- Xk Charles L. LeFevere CLL:peb Enclosure cc: Graydon Boeck Judie Anderson cLL- 2521oovi WE405 -I adoption: Member Diane Niesen introduced the following resolution and moved its e RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -31 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL, AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has entered into a joint and cooperative agreement for the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission; and WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed that large and substantial increases in annual assessments have been approved by the Board of the watershed commissions; and WHEREAS, such increases require the participating cities to either levy general ad valorem taxes or collect storm water fees to cover such substantial increases; and WHEREAS, it would be appropriate for the participating cities to create a mechanism to limit increases in assessments upon the cities as set forth in the proposed amendment to the amended joint and cooperative agreement which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by references Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the proposed amendment are reasonable and proper. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the amendment to the amended joint and cooperative agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A be and hereby is approved and the Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute such amendment on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. February 23. 2004 Z�� P ✓o 2�� Date Mayor I� ATTEST: V A/" �Iyuld?J7�v( City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kay Lasman and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bob Peppe, Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, and Diane Niesen; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -31 Exhibit A AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the cities of Champlin, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Minneapolis and Osseo, all of which are Minnesota municipal corporations (the "Member Cities WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Member Cities are parties to a joint powers agreement forming the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission entitled the AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED (the "Joint Powers Agreement the effective date of which was January 31, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Member Cities wish to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter provided; NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained in the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter amended, the parties agree to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as follows: 1. Article VIII. FINANCES is amended to read as follows: Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this agreement and in accordance with the procedures as established by law and in the manner as may be determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies, authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive deposits of public moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of Commission funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the Treasurer or the Treasurer's Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be required to file with the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be determined by the Board. The Commission shall pay the premium on said bond. Subdivision 2. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies, development of an overall plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be used for normal maintenance of the CLL- 240808v1 1 WE405 -1 RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -31 Exhibit A facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated as an improvement cost and processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of this Article. The annual contribution by each member shall 0 be based fifty percent (50%) on the net tax capacity of all property within the Watershed and fifty percent (50 on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the West Mississippi Watershed governed by this Agreement. Subdivision 3. (a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted under Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined by the Commission as the amount to be assessed against each member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the Commission for each project. Each member further agrees to pay to or contract with the member governmental unit awarding said contract for the improvement, its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 4. The member awarding the contract shall submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the member being billed agrees to pap its proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after receipt of the statement. The member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members of the tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the Commission may by a vote of 2 /3rds of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed to fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. It is expressed as a goal of this Agreement that cost sharing of capital improvement costs be assigned and agreed to by members pursuant to Article VIII, Subdivision 7, Subsections 1 and 2 of this Agreement. Without such agreement, all improvements will be constructed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. The Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to CLL- 240808v i 2 WE405 -1 RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -31 Exhibit A be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or p in part with money provided by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 10313.251. The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax levy resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the Commission and remitted to the County on or before October 10th of the date prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the Commission shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103D.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent to the Clerk of each member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Board. The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member governmental unit together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member. The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon written notice from any member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of any and all modifications or amendments. Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 5 below, each member agrees to provide the funds required by the budget. if no objections are submitted to the Board, each member agrees to provide the funds approved by the Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications or amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then existing members of the Board. The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the Board in such a manner as to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed. Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 6 below, upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable vote of a majority of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental budget requiring CLL- 240808v 1 3 WE405 -1 RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -31 Exhibit A additional a ments b the members within 6 F Y Y 0 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require any member to contribute in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable property within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries in any one calendar year. Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.245, which authorizes a Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each member City to pay the costs of planning and for the purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine maintenance of facilities. Subdivision 5. Assessments levied against Member Cities for general fund purposes are subject to all of the following limitations: 1. Assessment Can. A. Definition. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "Assessment Cap" means the total amount that the Commission may levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year without the consent of a majority of Member Cities. The Assessment Cap for 2004 is $76,200. Thereafter, the Assessment Cap will increase or decrease each year based, pro rata, on the annual change in the consumer price index (U.S. City Average, All Items, All Urban Consumer) to the end of the second quarter of the preceding year. (For example, the Assessment Cap for 2005 will be adjusted on the basis of the change in the CPI from the end of the second quarter of 2003 to the end of the second quarter of 2004.) B. Limitation and Citv Consent. The Commission may levy an amount for general fund purposes in excess of the Assessment Cap only with the consent of a majority of Member Cities expressed by resolutions duly adopted by the city councils before September I" of the preceding year. The Commission may request authority to exceed the Assessment Cap for one or more years. If a majority of Member Cities do not consent to the levy of an assessment in excess of the Assessment Cap, the Commission may levy an amount up to the Assessment Cap and the Commission will make necessary changes to the budget. 2. Limitation on Increase of Assessment. The Commission may not assess a total levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year in an amount that exceeds 120% of the CLL- 240808vl 4 WE405 -1 RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -31 Exhibit A previous years' assessment without the consent of a majority f the Member it' ty Cities given to the same manner as described in paragraph 1 B above. 3. Limitation Based on Tax Caoacity The ,Commission may not assess a levy or combination of levy and supplemental levies against the Member Cities for general fund purposes in any one year that requires any member to contribute an amount in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of that portion of the city lying within the Watershed. Subdivision 6. Suuolemental Budeet and Limit on Assessment. The Board may adopt a supplemental budget in accordance with Subdivision 4. However, the amount assessed against the Member Cities for general fund purposes, when added together with other assessments for general fund purposes for the same year, may not exceed the limitations on assessments set forth in Subdivision 5 without the consent of the Member Cities. The consent of the Member Cities shall be secured in the same manner as is provided in Subdivision 5, except that the September 1 deadline for Member City approval does not apply. Subdivision 7. Cost Allocation for Capital Projects. The Commission shall apportion to the respective members on either (1), (2) or (3) of the following bases: (1) A negotiated amount to be arrived at by the members who have lands in the subdistrict. It is anticipated that most capital improvements will be made under this provision; or (2) (a) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to each member on the basis of the net tax capacity of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total net tax capacity in the West Mississippi Watershed area governed by this Agreement. (b) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to each member on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the West Mississippi Watershed governed by this Agreement. (c) Capital costs allocated under the 50% area 50% net tax capacity formula herein set forth may be varied by the Commission by a 2/3rd vote of all eligible members if: CLL- 24oaosvl WE405 -1 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -31 Exhibit A any member community receives a direct benefit from the capital improvement which benefit can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk benefit, or (2) the capital improvement provides a direct benefit to one or more members which benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of fairness a modification in the 50/50 formula. (d) Credits to any member for lands acquired by said member to pond or store storm and surface water shall be allowed against costs set forth in Subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this Section. (3) If agreement is not reached to proceed as set forth in Subsection 1 or 2 of this Subdivision and if the project is constructed and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251, the members understand and agree that said costs will be levied on all taxable property in the watershed as set forth in the statute. Section 2. This amendment shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of a certified copy of a resolution approving said amendment by all nine Member Cities. Said resolutions shall be filed with the Chair of the West Mississippi Watershed Commission, who shall certify the effective date of the amendment in writing to all Member Cities. The effective date of the amendment shall be when approved by all of the Member Cities and when the mayor and other authorized city representatives have executed the amended agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned government units, by action of their governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B201 through 103B.255 and Section 471.59. Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its And by: Its Cu.- 240808v) 6 WE405 -1 RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -31 Exhibit A Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK By: Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF CHAMPLIN By: Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF MAPLE GROVE By: Its And by: Its Dated: CITY OF OSSEO By: Its And by: Its 1 CLIENTS \S\SHINGLEC\7PA \021304Memo to Mgrs \AmendmenttoWMloint &CoopAgt.doc CLL- 240808v1 7 WE405 -1 City Council Agenda Item No. lOd City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: June 21, 2005 9 SUBJECT: Shingle Creek Watershed Commission Proposal to Levy an Ad Valorem Tax for Brooklyn Park Project Attached are the materials that were included for the June 13, 2005, Work Session. This item was to be placed on the Regular Agenda for June 27, 2005, to determine if the City Council wished to take a position on this proposal. Below are two alternate responses: Alternate 1, in onnosition to ad hoc use of ad valorem taxes. The City of Brooklyn Center City ouncil does not support a one time ad valorem tax le for the Y pP �'Y proposed Shingle Creek Greenway and Channel improvement in the City of Brooklyn Park from the Hampshire Avenue Footbridge to Brooklyn Boulevard. The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center supports a comprehensive capital improvement plan and funding for major projects undertaken in the Shingle Creek Watershed. It does not support the use of ad valorem taxes on an ad hoc basis, as opposed to a systematic basis that is supported by a majority of the cities and provides a multi -year program to address major capital projects for the Shingle Creek Watershed. Alternate 2, in favor. The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to advise the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission that it supports the proposed participation by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission through an ad valorem tax for the amended CIP to construct the proposed Shingle Creek Greenway and Channel Improvements in the City of Brooklyn Park from the Hampshire Avenue Footbridge to Brooklyn Boulevard. 0 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS 3235 Fembrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447 Telephone (763) 553 -1144 Fax (763) 553 -9326 May 25, 2005 Dear City Clerk, Member Cities: The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions propose the attached minor plan amendment to their joint Second Generation Watershed Management Plan. This minor plan amendment would revise the existing CIP to provide more detail on one proposed project in that CIP and to amend its estimated cost and funding source. The Shingle Creek Commission also proposes to order construction of that improvement project. Pursuant to the Commissions' Joint Powers agreements, this letter provides 45 -day notice of a joint public hearing on the CIP amendment and proposed improvement project at the July 14, 2005 Commission meeting, to be held at 12:45 pm at the Commissions' usual meeting place, Edinburgh USA, 8700 Edinbrook Crossing, Brooklyn Park. This hearing will also serve as the public meeting required to be held to explain proposed minor plan amendments. Publication and legal notice of this hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103B.251 and a project feasibility report will be submitted prior to the hearing date. Attached to this letter is a coov of the minor plan amendment notice to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. and Tables G -2 and G -3 from the Plan as or000sed to be amended. This cover letter provides supplemental information, including information on the process as well as more detailed information on the specific project. Process The Commissions are proposing to take three separate but related actions simultaneously. All three actions require notice and a public meeting or a public hearing. More information about these proposals is presented below and in the attached notice of proposed minor plan amendment. 1. The first is consideration of a minor plan amendment to amend the Second Generation Plan CIP. Minnesota Rules provide that watershed management organizations may make minor amendments to their approved, adopted plans under the following conditions: The proposed amendment must meet certain standards to be considered minor. For CIP amendments, the CIP must have set forth the proposed improvements but either the detail was lacking or has changed. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) must agree that the proposal is a minor plan amendment. If the amendment is to a CIP, the County must approve the revised project description, cost, and proposed funding. Hennepin County typically conducts a public hearing to consider whether to approve a revised CIP. To approve a minor plan amendment, the Commissions must first send copies of the proposed amendment to the affected cities, county, Metropolitan Council, and state review agencies for comment. The Commissions must then hold a public meeting to explain the proposed minor plan amendment. The Commissions may then consider comments and choose to act upon the amendment. Once adopted by the Commissions, the amendment is approved (subject to county approval if it is a CIP amendment). SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS 2. The second action is consideration of an improvement project. Under the authority of the Joint Powers Agreement and State Statutes 103B.251, the Shingle Creek Commission proposes to consider ordering the project described in detail below. This action requires 45 -day notice to the member cities and an improvement project hearing. A two- thirds majority of Commissioner votes is required to order a project. 3. Finally, the third action is the proposed certification of a tax levy to Hennepin County to fund 25 percent of the cost of the proposed project. Under the authority of the Joint Powers Agreement and State Statutes 10313.251, the Shingle Creek Commission proposes to fund its 25 percent share of the cost of the proposed project through a tax levy on all taxable property in the Shingle Creek watershed. This action requires an improvement project hearing. A two thirds majority of Commissioner votes is required to order a project. Cities desiring to comment on the proposals may send written comments prior to the hearing to be entered into the record, may have a staff member verbally deliver city comments at the public hearing, or choose to have their Commissioner convey city comments. r7-71 rT,-1 Project Limits —J Proposed Project lit The Second Generation Management Plan CIP includes a 4 proposed $40,000 Shingle Creek Commission contribution to a project to be considered for 2005 called "Shingle Creek Greenway and Channel Improvements." This plan amendment provides more detail for this project, which is proposed as the Flow ecological restoration of approximately 2500 feet of Shingle I i Creek in Brooklyn Park, from the Hampshire Avenue footbridge to Brooklyn Boulevard. 7 The proposed project is currently in design, with a feasibility r Bt utei, report expected June 20, 2005. The estimated project cost is $200,000- 400,000. Based on the preliminary design conducted to date, the Commission's technical advisors believe that $300,000 is a reliable planning figure. The proposed Commission contribution is 25 percent of that amount, or $75,000 based on the planning estimate. That figure may go up slightly or down based on the final cost estimate in the June 20 feasibility report. The current CIP assumed that the Commission's contribution would be funded by contributions from all nine member cities in accordance with the same formula used for the general city assessments. The Commission proposes in this revision to amend that to fundinu from a one -time ad valorem tax levv. Thus, there would be no direct cost to the member cities from the Commission's share. The estimated cost to the owner of a $250,000 home in the watershed would be a one -time charge of $1.65. The City of Brooklyn Park would contribute the remaining 75 percent of the cost of the project. The project design is based on the findings of the Shingle Creek Corridor Study. Shingle Creek is currently designated an Impaired Water for chloride and dissolved oxygen. It is almost certainly going to be designated an Impaired Water for impaired biota on the 2006 state 303(d) list. A TMDL will be prepared for dissolved oxygen in 2006. The expected biological impairment listing will also require a TMDL. The Corridor Study evaluated in a general way the types of issues that will be looked at in more depth in those SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS TMDLs. Streambank erosion, lack of buffer zones, lack of in- stream habitat, "flashy" hydrology, and nutrient/sediment loading from the watershed were all identified as potential contributors impairments. The study recommended that ecological restoration and management principles be used to improve and manage the Creek and its corridor over the coming decades to address these impairments. It is the Commission's conclusion that the elements being incorporated into the final design of this project would benefit the entire watershed by proactively addressing water auality and ecological impairments identified by the State's TMDL program, improving Shingle Creek water quality and ecologic integrity in the following ways: The five -foot dam just upstream of the Brooklyn Boulevard crossing would be replaced by rock cross vanes. Grade and erosion control along the length of the project would be provided by the installation of approximately 15 J- cross vanes and 17 j- vanes. Rock vanes reduce bank erosion by deflecting flow into the center of the channel. They also encourage the creation of ~w scour holes, and mimic the riffle -pool structure found in natural streams. •yam rr Turbulent flow over the vanes aerate the water, increasing dissolved C oxygen. The vanes and pools provide habitat for macroinvertebrates, fish, and other aquatic life. (Above) Rock cross vane (Relnw) Rnrk T -vane F— orn.* FI M Conceptual Cross 5ectlon, 5hingle Creek T°"°`" L� Buffer 100 year elevation Plan Buffer 1 •l ted pant bar T ���?'i.......... "Wenck New Feb 2005 low -flow Exlstmg channel channel These rock vanes would divert flow into a new, low -flow channel that would be created in the bed of the existing channel. This channel would convey water during times of low flow, reducing stagnation and loss of dissolved oxygen. Where the new channel would at low flows expose streambed, that exposed area would be seeded with native wetland plants. Additional erosion control and bank stabilization would be provided by planting the streambanks with live stakes (budding branches) of willow and other low, woody vegetation. A vegetated buffer will be established on both sides of the creek, which for the most part are currently turf grass with scattered trees and some native plantings. This buffer will reduce nutrient loading from runoff and erosion, reducing algal blooms and increasing dissolved oxygen. The project area includes two wide areas >I00' wide) with small islands. This project would divert low flows to one side of the island, creating a wetland backwater area on the other side of the island. The backwater area would provide habitat and refugia for aquatic life. SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Thank you for your review of this proposed amendment and project. Please submit your comments to Mark Hanson c/o JASS at the watershed office. Questions may be directed to Ed Matthiesen P.E., Engineer for the Commissions, at Wenck Associates, 763 479 -4208. Sincerely, 4 I h Mark Hanson, City of New Hope Chair, Shingle Creek WMC Grady Boeck, City of Brooklyn Center Chair, West Mississippi WMC Cc: Commissioners SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS 3235 Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447 Telephone (763) 553 -1144 Fax (763) 553 -9326 May 25, 2005 Mr. Brad Wozney Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 RE: Minor Plan Amendment Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission's Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Dear Mr. Wozney: The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions propose a minor plan amendment to the Shingle Creek and ff est Mississippi Second Generation Watershed Manavement Plan (Second Generation Plan) to allow for the construction and funding of a stream restoration project brought forward by the city of Brooklyn Park to reduce erosion, improve water quality and increase habitat on Shingle Creek. The minor plan amendment would amend the Capital Improvement Program and Work Plan (Tables G -2 and G -3 of the Plan) to specify in more detail that the 2005 CIP project described as Shingle Creek Greenway and Channel Improvements is the project Shingle Creek Restoration, Brooklyn Boulevard to Hampshire in the city of Brooklyn Park, and to revise the Commission contribution from $40,000 to $75,000* to be funded from an ad valorem tax rather than the Commission assessments. Please note that while the Commissions completed a joint Management Plan and thus both Commissions need to amend the plan, only property in the Shingle Creek watershed would be subject to any ad valorem tax approved for this proposed project The Commissions have called for a public hearing on July 14, 2005 to consider the proposed minor plan amendment, the CIP as amended by this project, and the proposed project. This letter provides notification of the proposed minor plan amendment and solicits comments from interested parties. Table 1. Proposed Minor Plan Amendment As Approved In The As Proposed In The Second Generation Plan Minor Plan Amendment 2005 Capital Project Shingle Creek Greenway and Shingle Creek Restoration, Brooklyn Channel Improvements Boulevard to Hampshire Commission Contribution 1 $40,000 I $75,000* Funding Source I Commission assessments I Ad valorem tax *The Commission's intent is that 25% of the estimated cost of this project would be contributed by the Commission from the ad valorem tax levy. While the initial estimate is that this project would be in the $200400,000 range, the project is currently under design and a feasibility report and a revised cost estimate will be provided prior to the public hearing when formal notice is given in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.251. This notice assumes a project cost of $300,000 and Commission share of $75,000. Brooklyn Park would fund the balance of the project cost SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Project Purpose The Second Generation Plan sets forth an action plan for the improvement of water resources in the two watersheds. Key to the action plan is the development of resource specific management plans. In 2004 -5 the Commission completed a Shingle Creek Corridor Study that identified specific problem areas on Shingle Creek, and presented a set of ecological restoration principles that could be used by cities to construct improvements. The study does not include specific projects but sets forth design criteria to be used to provide for ecological restoration of form, function, and water quality. During the development of the Corridor Study, a group of Brooklyn Park residents approached the Brooklyn Park City Council and the Shingle Creek WMC to request consideration of a streambank stabilization project north of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Brooklyn Park City Council authorized development of a feasibility report to construct an ecological restoration project on the reach between Brooklyn Boulevard and the Hampshire Avenue footbridge consistent with the Shingle Creek Corridor Study, and has requested the Commission to consider funding 25 percent of the cost through an ad valorem tax across all the property in the Shingle Creek watershed. Using $300,000 as the estimated construction cost, the amount to be levied is estimated to be $75,000. To calculate the tax impact of a given levy, divide the proposed levy by the total net tax capacity in the watershed ($113,835,900 in 2004). $75,000/$113,835,900 $0.000659/ of tax capacity. Table 2. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax From a $75,000 Levy_ Taxpayer Tax Ad Valorem Tax Ad Valorem Capacity Tax Taxpayer 1$150,000 home I $1,500 I Capacity Tax $0.99 I $500,000 apt I $6,250 $4.12 1$250,000 home I $2,500 I $1.65 1$500,000 C/I $9,250 I $6.09 1$350,000 home I $3,500 I $2.31 1$1,000,000 C/I I $19,250 I $12.68 This cost sharing proposal is similar to the proposed CIP and cost sharing policy being discussed separately by the Commission and member cities except that Brooklyn Park has agreed to contribute all of the balance of 75 percent of the project cost. The project under consideration includes full or partial removal of the dam at Brooklyn Boulevard; channel regrading to create a low -flow channel and eliminate large pools behind the dam; installation of several rock vanes to provide grade control and serve as riffles; streambank stabilization with native vegetation and root wads, with hardscaping across from stormsewer outfalls and at curve scour points; and tree removals and buffer plantings. The project extends from Brooklyn Boulevard north to the Hampshire Avenue footbridge. The project length is approximately 2,500 feet. The design concept for this project benefits the watershed by addressing water quality impairments identified by the State's TMDL program, improving Shingle Creek water quality and ecologic integrity in the following ways: SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COISSIO BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK- CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPEMOSSEONPLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Increasing aeration with rock vanes and riffles and by creating a low flow channel to carry base flows, reducing stagnation. This will address the current dissolved oxygen (DO) impairment. Decreasing sediment loads from streambank erosion by bioengineering streambanks, addressing the upcoming biologic impairment listing. Decreasing nutrient loading by buffering direct runoff from adjacent lawns, addressing the DO impairment; Improving biologic integrity by creating habitat for fish, macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic and terrestrial life, addressing the upcoming biologic impairment listing. The Corridor Study and the proposed stream improvements in the existing CIP were actions developed in response to issues identified by the public during the development of the Second Generation Plan. Selected issues and responsive actions are shown in the table below. Table 3. Second Generation Plan Work Plan and CIP Issues and Actions (Appendix G) Issue Action in Work Plan (WP), CIP, Plan CIP establishes a construction /grant match fund to assist in the Water quality in Shingle Creek should be construction of improvements as identified in management plan improved 0 Plan encourages the construction of streambank stabilization and habitat restoration Drojects WP and CIP include a project to develop a Shingle Creek The natural beauty and recreational Corridor Plan. opportunities of the creek and river should CIP establishes a construction/grant match fund to assist in the be capitalized upon with expanded trails, construction of improvements as identified in Corridor Plan parks, and access 0 Plan promotes Shingle Creek and other rivers and streams as greenways Native habitat should be evaluated and WP and CIP include a project to develop a Shingle Creek protected Corridor Plan Runoff volumes and lack of vegetative Rules and Standards require installation of buffer strips between border has led to stream degradation and wetlands and watercourses and development and redevelopment erosion that should be evaluated and projects improved a WP and CIP include a project to develop a Shingle Creek Corridor Plan. In accordance with Minnesota Rules 8410.0140, we are sending copies of this proposed plan amendment to the affected cities, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and the state review agencies for their review and comment. Copies of the minor plan amendment will also be made available on the SCWM website (www.shinelecreek.ore). Written comments should be sent to the address shown below. As provided by Minnesota Rules 8410.0140, the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi WMCS will conclude that this is a minor plan amendment and proceed accordingly unless we hear to the contrary from the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) within 45 days of your receipt of this amendment. The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi WMCs anticipate holding a public hearing and taking action on this minor plan amendment at their July 14, 2005 meetings. SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Thank you for your review of this proposed amendment. We look forward to BWSR's determination that this is a minor plan amendment. Please call either Charlie LeFevere, the SCWM WMC legal advisor, at 612- 337 -9215 or Ed Matthiesen, P.E., the SCWM WMC engineer, at 763 4794208 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark Hanson, City of New Hope Chair, Shingle Creek WMC qqAo(�p P" Grady Boeck, City of Brooklyn Center Chair, West Mississippi WMC Please send written comments to: Mr. Mark Hanson, Chair Shingle Creek WMC c/o JASS 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Enclosure Proposed Amended Plan Pages (2 pages) cc: Commissioners City of Brooklyn Center City Clerk Hennepin County Joel Settles City of Brooklyn Park City Clerk Hennepin Conservation District Justin Blum City of Champlin City Clerk Department of Natural Resources Dale Homuth City of Crystal City Clerk Pollution Control Agency John Hensel City of Maple Grove City Clerk Department of Health Terry Bovee City of Minneapolis City Clerk Department of Agriculture Becky Balk City of New Hope City Clerk Metropolitan Council Judy Sventek City of Osseo City Clerk City of Plymouth City Clerk City of Robbinsdale City Clerk SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO 0 U) Table G -2 w 0 Capital Improvement Program o am (Combined Watersheds) G) n w m m o. CL o 1` m 2003. 1 2004 1 2005 I 2006 I 2007 1 2008 1 2009 I 2010 j 2011 1 2012 i d N Resource Management Y M N Projects L C Water Quality Plan $12,5001 I 1 I I I I 1 0 CD CD Practical Use Goals Plan 1 $10,0001 I 1 1 1 1 Shingle Creek Corridor Plan 1 1 M3 $30,0001 1 I 1 1 1 1 m Resource Management Plans 1 $15 1 1 $40,0001 1 $40,0001 1 2. n BMP Evaluation 1 1 $35,000 1 1 1 Evaluate creek 100 year 1 1 I $40,000 $40,000 elevation 3 Mississippi River Corridor Plan 1 1 $7,5001 1 1 1 1 1 y 3` Generation Plan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 i $125,000 3 3 N Capital Projects Twin Lake Restoration (WMO $45 000 N Share) Shingle Creek lffiPF9V@FnentS $40,000 0 )testnrati i r oklvn 175 o aoulevard to H an_4 ire 0 1 Local Project Match $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 Channel Improvements $50,000 $25,000 $25,000 0 Wetland /habitat restoration $65,000 $50,000 $50,000 5' CL 6 CL y m 4 x Appendix G Proposed Minor Plan Amendment. Deletions are shown in stFikeeu additions are shown in double u nderline Table G -3 u 2003 -2012 Estimated Budget and CIP(Total SCWM WMC) 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Opening Balance ri $344,996'' $182,731 $144,031 $126151 98,441 78 451 INCOME $387,000 $354,000 $440,000 $465,000 5490,000 $515,000 Assessments $225,000 $324,000 $410,000 $435,000 $460,000 $485,000 Other $162,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 EXPENSES* $549,265 $392,700 $457,880 5492,710 $509,990 $522,260 Ene /Admin/Leeal/Misc* $203,900 $262,700 $270,590 $278,710 $287,070 $295,680 Proerams 53.500 97.500 $107.290 $114.000 $120.420 $126.580 Volunteer assisted monitoring 11,500 17,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 23,000 Commission monitoring 22,000 22,500 28,630 30,060 31,560 33,140 Education and web site 20,000 40,000 42,000 44,100 46,300 48,620 NPDES activities 13,000 13,660 14,340 15,060 15,820 Education grants 5,000 5,000 5,500 5,500 6,000 Resource Memt Proiects $291.865 12.500 40,000 50.000 47.500 40.000 2nd generation plan $155,850 TMDL study $113,000 Twin Lakes homeowner ed 18,015 Water resource mgmt plan Water quality plan 12,500 Shingle Creek mgmt plan 30,000 Practical use goals plan 10,000 TMDL Implementation Wetland mgmt plan 15,000 BMP evaluation 35,000 Eva] creek 100 yr elevation 40,000 40,000 West Miss unspecified project 5,000 MNRAA Tier II status 7,500 Construction/Grant Match Fund 20.000 40.000 50.000 55.000 60.000 Closing Balance $182,731 $144,031 $126,151 98,441 78,451 71,191 *Assumes 3 -5 percent annual growth. Construction /Grant Match Fund Opening Balance 15,888 S 26,535 5 16,948 67.535 S 58.974 Capital contribution 20,000 40,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 Ad valorem tax co i i $75.0 Capital Proiects Twin Lake Restoration 45,000 Shingle Creek �haneel g �-1 40 we s- Rreatoratiop, 75.0 Brooklyn Bouleva to Hampshire Wetland/habitat restoration 65,000 Local project match 25,000 e- o X94 =4 Closing Balance 20,500 15,888 67.535 58.974 93.474 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-6 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan May 994 ,luly20D5 City Council Agenda Item No. 10e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LEASE BETWEEN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND LOGIS FOR POLICE BUILDING SPACE WHEREAS, attached to and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 1 is a proposed lease between LOGIS and the City of Brooklyn Center for use of approximately 1,000 square feet of space on the second floor of the Police headquarters building; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions set forth in the proposed lease attached hereto as Exhibit 1 appears to be reasonable and proper. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manger be and hereby are authorized to execute the proposed lease attached hereto as Exhibit 1 on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center with such finalization of the exact language to be set forth in the Exhibits as are deemed acceptable by the City Manager to finalize the exact descriptions set forth in the Exhibits. June 27, 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Curt Boganey, A45 DATE: June 20, 2005 SUBJECT: LOGIS Lease agreement Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of the attached lease between The City of Brooklyn Center and LOGIS. This lease will allow LOGIS use of 600 square feet of excess space on the second floor of the Police headquarters building at 6645 Humboldt Avenue North for a computer service back -up center and 400 square feet of space to be used as an emergency operations area to be used on an as needed basis. Background: Nearly a year or more ago, LOGIS approached several member cities about the possible availability of space that could be used to establish a back -up computer center. This center would function on a 7 day 24 hour basis as a parallel system to the computers located at the LOGIS headquarters at 5750 Duluth Street, Golden Valley. LOGIS evaluated the potential sites and approached Brooklyn Center at the beginning of the year indicating that our Police headquarters was the preferred site and asked to negotiate a lease arrangement. The attached six year lease is the result of our negotiations with the LOGIS representatives. This lease provides for the use of approx. 600 square feet of space on the second floor of the police building as a computer center. This center will be staffed on a regular basis and will run parallel with the main computer systems at the LOGIS headquarters. Having this back -up system helps to assure uninterrupted service to LOGIS users in the event that one of the systems is shut down due to disaster or planned repair. In the event of a disaster this agreement allows the use of 400 additional square feet of open space adjacent to the original enclosed space. This added space will be used by the additional emergency LOGIS personnel that will be needed during such an event. Funding: The lease provides that LOGIS will pay the City of Brooklyn Center 9.00 per square foot rent plus $5.00 per square foot operating expense for the 600 square computer service area. The additional unfinished s ed emergency operating space of 400 square feet will be leased at a rate of $5.00 per square foot plus $3.00 operating expense. This rent will be collected in the event that the space is used and the amount will be pro- rated. This agreement is expected to generate at minimum 8,400.00 revenue in the first year, of which $5,400 will be net income each of the six years. The operating expense rate will be adjusted annually in accordance with the CPI. Because fiber optic connections to the main headquarters is necessary, LOGIS has agreed to fund 66% of the cost of extending fiber from City Hall to the police building. Based on the recently received project bids for the fiber optic work, LOGIS share of this $47,015 expense is $31,029. Revenue Summary 31,029 Fiber Contribution 32.400 Six Years Net Income 63,429 Estimated Total City ncome and Capital Contribution ty p Co button Summary: The City has been asked to lease space to LOGIS for a back -up computer service center. The staff has negotiated a lease for Council consideration. If approved this six year lease will provide approx. 600 square feet of space for computer system backup service on the second floor of the police headquarters plus 400.square feet of space to be used on an emergency basis. Approval of this lease is expected to generate $32,400 in net income over the term plus a contribution of 31,029 toward the cost of extending fiber optic service from City Hall to the Police station. The Police chief was a member of the City negotiating team and is in support of the project. Please let me know if you have questions. C: Chief Scott Bechthold Kevin Pikkaraine Ebhc carpet COUNCIL.MEM Exhibit 1 LEASE AGREEMENT This Lease Agreement "Lease is made and effective this day of 2005, by and between LOGIS "Tenant and City of Brooklyn Center "City City is the owner of land and improvements commonly known and numbered as: Citv of Brooklvn Center 6645 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 and legally described as follows (the "Building City makes available for lease a portion of the Building designated as: Police second floor expansion area, approximately 600 square feet of unfinished building area for the exclusive use as Tenant's computer facility herein (the "Leased Premises In addition the City will also provide approximately 400 square feet of unfinished building area adjacent to this area for use during emergencies by the Tenant as an emergency operations area herein (the `Emergency Area City desires to lease the Leased Premises to Tenant and Tenant desires to lease the Leased Premises from City for the term, at the rental and upon the covenants, conditions and provisions herein set forth. THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein, contained and other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed: 1. Term. A. City hereby leases the Leased Premises to Tenant, and Tenant hereby leases the same from City, for an "Initial Term" beginning August 1, 2005 and ending July 31, 2011. City shall use its best efforts to give Tenant possession as nearly as possible at the beginning of the Initial Term. If City is unable to timely provide the Leased Premises, rent shall abate for the period of delay. Tenant shall make no other claim against City for any such delay. B. Prior to the end of the Initial Term the City will negotiate in good faith with Tenant for additional lease terms as long as the facility and space are available for lease by the City of Brooklyn Center and requested by Tenant. CLL- 261124v 1 1 BR2914 Exhibit 1 2. Rental. Tenant shall pay to City during the Initial Term rental of $9.00 a square foot for area defined as Leased Premises per year, payable in 12 monthly installments plus an operating expense of $5.00 a square foot per year due and payable with the annual rent. Operating expense shall cover the cost of all utilities, security and common area maintenance services and shall be adjusted annually as of August first in accordance with the CPI -U (U.S. City Average All Items). A. Each installment payment shall be due in advance on the first day of each calendar month during the lease term to City at: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 or at such other place designated by written notice from City to Tenant. The rental payment amount for any partial calendar months included in the lease term shall be prorated on a daily basis. B. When Emergency Area is required by Tenant for emergency use, Tenant shall pay an annual lease rate of $6.00 per square foot pro -rated for the number of days or partial days of usage plus an operating expense of $3.00 per square foot (adjusted as of each August first for the CPI -U), prorated for the period of usage, payable with the first monthly rent payment due more than one month after such emergency use. 3. Use Notwithstanding the forgoing, Tenant shall not use the Leased Premises for the purposes of storing, manufacturing or selling any explosives, flammables or other inherently dangerous substance, chemical, thing or device. 4. Sublease and Assignment. Tenant shall have the right without City's consent, to assign this Lease to a corporation with which Tenant may merge or consolidate, to any subsidiary of Tenant, to any corporation under common control with Tenant, or to a purchaser of substantially all of Tenant's assets, provided any such assignee is a government unit or joint powers organization. Except as set forth above, Tenant shall not sublease all or any part of the Leased Premises, or assign this Lease in whole or in part without City's consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. e CLL- 261124v1 2 BR291-4 Exhibit I 5. Repairs. During the Lease term, Tenant shall make, at Tenant's expense, all necessary repairs to the Leased Premises. Repairs shall include such items as routine repairs of floors, walls, ceilings, and other parts of the Leased Premises damaged or worn through normal occupancy, except for major mechanical systems or the roof, subject to the obligations of the parties otherwise set forth in this Lease. 6. Alterations and Improvements. Tenant, at Tenant's expense, shall have the right following City's consent to remodel, redecorate, and make additions, improvements and replacements of and to all or any part of the Leased Premises from time to time as Tenant may deem desirable, provided the same are made in a workmanlike manner and utilizing good quality materials. Tenant shall have the right to place and install personal property, trade fixtures, equipment and other temporary installations in and upon the Leased Premises, and fasten the same to the premises. All personal property, equipment, machinery, trade fixtures and temporary installations, whether acquired by Tenant at the commencement of the Lease term or placed or installed on the Leased Premises by Tenant thereafter, shall remain Tenant's property free and clear of any claim by City. Tenant shall have the right to remove the same at any time during the term of this Lease provided that all damage to the Leased Premises caused by such removal shall be repaired by Tenant at Tenant's expense. All improvements made to satisfy Tenant's requirements shall be made at Tenant's expense. Emergency Area shall remain unimproved. At the end of this agreement, all improvements to the building will revert to City ownership or upon demand of the City they shall be removed by Tenant at its expense, returning the area to its original condition. 7. Insurance. A. If the Leased Premises or any other part of the Building is damaged by fire or other casualty resulting from any act or negligence of Tenant or any of Tenant's agents, employees or invitees, rent shall not be diminished or abated while such damages are under repair, and Tenant shall be responsible for the costs of repair not covered by insurance. B. City shall maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the Building and the Leased Premises in such amounts as City shall deem appropriate. Tenant shall be responsible, at its expense, for fire and extended coverage insurance on all of its personal property, including removable trade fixtures, located in the Leased Premises. CLL- 261124v1 3 BR2914 Exhibit 1 C. Tenant and City shall, each at its own expense, maintain a policy or policies of comprehensive general liability insurance with respect to the respective activities of each in the Building with the premiums thereon fully paid on or before due date, issued by and binding upon some insurance company approved by City, such insurance to afford minimum protection of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit coverage of bodily injury, property damage or combination thereof. City shall be listed as an additional insured on Tenant's policy or policies of comprehensive general liability insurance, and Tenant shall provide City with current Certificates of Insurance evidencing Tenant's compliance with this Paragraph. Tenant shall obtain the agreement of Tenant's insurers to notify City that a policy is due to expire at least (10) days prior to such expiration. City shall not be required to maintain insurance against thefts within the Leased Premises or the Building. 8. Utilities. City will provide access to and allow the use of all building utilities including heating, cooling, local telephone, UPS, and back -up generator service for connection to Tenant's equipment. Cost of all utilities shall be covered by City. 9. Access to Fiber optic cabling. City shall provide the required fiber optic lines from City Hall to the Police Building. The installation shall include a 72 strand fiber optic single mode cable with 24 strands allocated to Tenant and 48 strands allocated to the City. Tenant shall reimburse City 66% of the actual cost of the Fiber Optic line installation from City Hall to the Police Station. Upon reimbursement, Tenant shall have and maintain ownership of 24 of the fiber optic strands that span between City Hall and the Police Building. This ownership shall continue past the end of this agreement and will be managed under the LOGIS /Brooklyn Center INET agreement. 10. Custodial Maintenance. City will provide reasonable routine custodial maintenance service for the leased premises. 11. Entry. City shall have the right to enter upon the Leased Premises at reasonable hours to inspect the same, provided City shall not thereby unreasonably interfere with Tenant's business on the Leased Premises. CLL.261124v1 4 BR291 -4 Exhibit 1 12. Common Areas and Restricted Areas. City will provide normal use of all common areas for use by Tenant's employees. Tenant's employees will not enter restricted areas. Common areas and restricted areas are depicted on the attached Exhibit A. 13. Access. City will provide 24 hour 7 day a week access to all leased space. 14. Parking. During the term of this Lease, Tenant shall have the non exclusive use, in common with City, other tenants of the Building, their guests and invitees, of the non reserved common automobile parking areas, driveways, and footways, subject to rules and regulations for the use thereof as prescribed from time to time by City. City reserves the right to designate parking areas within the Building or in reasonable proximity thereto, for Tenant and Tenant's agents and employees. Tenant hereby leases from City 3 parking spaces during non emergency times and 12 parking spots during emergencies, such spaces to be on a first come -first served basis. 15. Building Rules. Tenant will comply with the rules of the Building adopted and amended by City from time to time and will cause all of its agents, employees, invitees and visitors to do so. All changes to such rules will be sent by City to Tenant in writing. The initial rules for the Building are attached hereto as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein for all purposes. 16. Damage and Destruction. Subject to Section 7 A. above, if the Leased Premises or any part thereof or any appurtenance thereto is so damaged by fire, casualty or structural defects that the same cannot be used for Tenant's purposes, then Tenant shall have the right within ninety (90) days following damage to elect by notice to City to terminate this Lease as of the date of such damage. In the event of minor damage to any part of the Leased Premises, and if such damage does not render the Leased Premises unusable for Tenant's purposes, City shall promptly repair such damage at the cost of the City. In making the repairs called for in this paragraph, City shall not be liable for any delays resulting from strikes, governmental restrictions, inability to obtain necessary materials or labor or other matters which are beyond the reasonable control of City. Tenant shall be relieved from paying rent and other charges during any portion of the Lease term that the Leased Premises are inoperable or unfit for occupancy, or use, in whole or in part, for Tenant's purposes. Rentals and other charges paid in advance for any such periods shall be credited on the next ensuing payments, if any, but if no further payments are to be made an such Y P Ym Y CLL- 261124v l 5 BR291-4 Exhibit 1 advance payments shall be refunded to Tenant. The provisions of this paragraph extend not only to the matters aforesaid, but also to any occurrence that is beyond Tenant's reasonable control and that renders the Leased Premises, or any appurtenance thereto, inoperable or unfit for occupancy or use, in whole or in part, for Tenant's purposes. 17. Default. If default shall at any time be made by Tenant in the payment of rent when due to City as herein provided, and if said default shall continue for fifteen (15) days after written notice thereof shall have been given to Tenant by City, or if default shall be made in any of the other covenants or conditions to be kept, observed and performed by Tenant, and such default shall continue for thirty (30) days after notice thereof in writing to Tenant by City without correction thereof then having been commenced and thereafter diligently prosecuted, City may declare the term of this Lease ended and terminated by giving Tenant written notice of such intention, and if possession of the Leased Premises is not surrendered, City may reenter said premises. City shall have, in addition to the remedy above provided, any other right or remedy available to City on account of any Tenant default, either in law or equity. City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages. 18. Quiet Possession. City covenants and warrants that upon performance by Tenant of its obligations hereunder, City will keep and maintain Tenant in exclusive, quiet, peaceable and undisturbed and uninterrupted possession of the Leased Premises during the term of this Lease. 19. Condemnation. If any legally constituted authority condemns the Building or such part thereof which shall make the Leased Premises unsuitable for leasing, this Lease shall cease when the public authority takes possession, and City and Tenant shall account for rental as of that date. Tenant shall be entitled to recover no compensation from the condemning authority for any loss or damage caused by the condemnation other than relocation benefits. Neither party shall have any rights in or to any award made to the other by the condemning authority. 20. Subordination. Tenant accepts this Lease subject and subordinate to any mortgage, deed of trust or other lien presently existing or hereafter arising upon the Leased Premises, or upon the Building and to any renewals, refinancing and extensions thereof, but Tenant agrees that any such mortgagee shall have the right at any time to subordinate such mortgage, deed of trust or other lien to this Lease on such terms and subject to such conditions as such mortgagee may deem appropriate in its discretion. City is hereby irrevocably vested with full power and authority to subordinate this Lease to any mortgage, deed of trust or other lien now existing or hereafter placed upon the Leased Premises of the Building, and CLL- 261124v1 6 BR291-4 Exhibit 1 Tenant agrees upon demand to execute such further instruments subordinating this Lease or attorning to the holder of any such liens as City may request. In the event that Tenant should fail to execute any instrument of subordination herein required to be executed by Tenant promptly as requested, Tenant hereby irrevocably constitutes City as its attorney in -fact to execute such instrument in Tenant's name, place and stead, it being agreed that such power is one coupled with an interest. Tenant agrees that it will from time to time upon request by City execute and deliver to such persons as City shall request a statement in recordable form certifying that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications, that the same is in full force and effect as so modified), stating the dates to which rent and other charges payable under this Lease have been paid, stating that City is not in default hereunder (or if Tenant alleges a default stating the nature of such alleged default) and further stating such other matters as City shall reasonably require. 21. Notice. Any notice required or permitted under this Lease shall be deemed sufficiently given or served if sent by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: If to City to: Michael McCaulev. Citv Manaeer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 If to Tenant to: Mike Garris. Director LOGIS 5750 Duluth Street Golden Valley, MN 55422 City and Tenant shall each have the right from time to time to change the place notice is to be given under this paragraph by written notice thereof to the other party. 22. Waiver. No waiver of any default of City or Tenant hereunder shall be implied from any omission or failure to take any action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated, and no express waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the express waiver and that only for the time and to the extent therein stated. One or more waivers by City or Tenant shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. CLL- 261124v 1 7 BR291-4 Exhibit 1 23. Memorandum of Lease. The parties hereto contemplate that this Lease should not and shall not be filed for record, but in lieu thereof, at the request of either party, City and Tenant shall execute a Memorandum of Lease to be recorded for the purpose of giving record notice of the appropriate provisions of this Lease. 24. Headings. The headings used in this Lease are for convenience of the parties only and shall not be considered in interpreting the meaning of any provision of this Lease. 25. Successors. The provisions of this Lease shall extend to and be binding upon City and Tenant and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. 26. Consent. City shall not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent with respect to any matter for which City's consent is required or desirable under this Lease. 27. Performance. If there is a default with respect to any of City's covenants, warranties or representations under this Lease, and if the default continues more than fifteen (15) days after notice in writing from Tenant to City specifying the default, Tenant may, at its option and without affecting any other remedy hereunder, cure such default and deduct the cost thereof from the next accruing installment or installments of rent payable hereunder until Tenant shall have been fully reimbursed for such expenditures. 28. Compliance with Law. Tenant shall comply with all laws, orders, ordinances and other public requirements now or hereafter pertaining to Tenant's use of the Leased Premises. City shall comply with all laws, orders, ordinances and other public requirements now or hereafter affecting the Leased Premises. 29. Final Agreement. This Agreement terminates and supersedes all prior understandings or agreements on the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be modified only by a further writing that is duly executed by both parties. CLL- 261124v1 8 BR291 -4 Exhibit 1 30. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed, construed and interpreted by, through and under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease as of the day and year first above written. [City] [Tenant] CLL- 261124v 1 9 BR291 -4 i O I O O O p- I O O O O ee ee 89��98 (88 09 99 ee 09 a A e 08 V b_ D ci B Ulm t am go Law Q CT V 999009 BBBBBB88 I 7;7;; k r r r 7 City Council Agenda Item No. lOf Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -12, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FIBER OPTIC NETWORK AND AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FOR RELATED EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 2005 -12, City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and IT Coordinator on the 9 day of June, 2005; and WHEREAS, Access Communications is the lowest responsible bidder as determined by consideration of base and alternate bids; and WHEREAS, LOGIS will participate in the cost of the fiber optic project; and WHEREAS, related fiber equipment is required to implement the fiber optic project in addition to the laying of fiber optic cable. 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 and directed to enter into a contract with Access Communications, Plymouth, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center for Improvement Project No. 2005 -12 according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk; and be it further resolved that the costs of the fiber optic project and required equipment be allocated as follows: Technology Fund $18,360 LOGIS $31,030 Sanitary Sewer Fund $12,831 Water Fund $12,831 Earle Brown Heritage Center Capital Fund $22,907 June 27. 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 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: June 21, 2005 Re: Fiber Optic We are proposing phase II of connecting City facilities with fiber optic cable. One of the major impetuses for phase II is the police station. Connecting the police station will enhance our communication speeds with State and other agencies. Additionally, it is necessary in order to contract with Logis for their back -up facility. The Logis facility does a number of things for the City. It reduces the cost of fiber optic, provides us with access on site to Logis' back up facility, and provides us with a modest net revenue stream of around $5,400 per year. Fiber optic extension to the Earle Brown Heritage Center was approved as part of the Capital Improvement plan for the EBHC at the June 13` meeting. There are cost savings for equipment and communication services, as well as income generating potential for clients utilizing the facility who require high speed fiber connections. Fiber optic extension to the public works garage reduces similar areas of equipment and communication costs. To fully utilize our geographic information system at the public works garage without adding duplicative equipment requires a high speed connection to City Hall. The capital costs of the project for the fiber optic itself and $2,375 of equipment at each location would be split as follows: Logis o $31,030 (66% of total to police of $47,015) Technology Fund for police connection o $18,360 Earle Brown Heritage Center Capital Fund o $22,907 Water Fund o $12,831 (50% of total to public works garage) Sanitary Sewer Fund o $12,831 (50% of total to public works garage) 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 Among the benefits of fiber optic will be the ability to reduce the costs of the next replacement of telephone systems when the current equipment has reached its useful life and become obsolete. Operating costs are detailed in Ms. Hartwig's memorandum. The basic savings come from centralizing servers and equipment and reducing the hardware needs at each of the remote (outside City Hall) sites and the elimination of telephone lines to communicate between buildings. Ms. Hartwig has been very diligent and successful at researching and implementing cost saving measures in information technology and communications. Page 2 06/22/2005 MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Patty Hartwig, Information Technology Coordinator�V Subject: City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration of Phase II City Hall to Police, Public Works, Earle Brown Heritage Center Date: June 17, 2005 City of Brooklvn Center Fiber Optic Network Phase I In 2003 LOGIS began a 5 -year project to work with member Cities to create a fiber infrastructure that would manage the increasing demands for bandwidth on the City's internal and external applications, voice and data communication, and video, security and radio systems. Under current technology parameters, it is anticipated that fiber would be a twenty -year plus solution. The goals of the Fiber Infrastructure Project are to: Connect LOGIS member communities with seamless high -speed connections to LOGIS, County, State, and other City's applications and provide effective and efficient Internet access to City buildings. Reduce administration and problems that are caused by bandwidth. With fiber optic cable, speed would increase to 1000MB (1 GB) and would continue to increase as other technology advances. These speeds have become necessary as applications needs grow and higher -speed Internet access is needed. Increase abilities of the City's local area networks (LAN), data and voice communication and video, security and radio systems. Simplify the network architecture. Will allow the City to downsize the amount of capital and support that is needed to maintain multiple sites; consolidating IT equipment from several buildings into one central location. A simplified network is easier to manage and secure. Enhance reliability. No longer dependent upon Qwest for building -to- building voice and data communications. Other municipalities with fiber architect have experienced minimal downtime with their fiber network. In October 2003 Brooklyn Center City Council committed to the participation in the Fiber Infrastructure Project with LOGIS and Hennepin County Library in Phase I, fiber from LOGIS to Brooklyn Center City Hall. Attached are the City Council documents associated with the approval of Phase I. This link was completed and turned "live" in November 2004. Late in 2004 Hennepin County Library withdrew its initial commitment to this Project. LOGIS funded Memorandum to MMcCauley Page 2 June 17, 2005 Hennepin County's anticipated portion keeping Brooklyn Center's commitment to the City Council approved $60,000. City of Brooklvn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration for Phase H In 2005 LOGIS selected Brooklyn Center as the first choice for a back -up hot site for their operations. The proposed location for the LOGIS hot site would be in the expansion area on the second floor of the Police Building. The fiber to the Police Building is necessary to carry out the agreement with LOGIS. LOGIS has agreed to fund 66% of the Fiber costs associated with the link from City Hall to Police. In May 2005 the City solicited bids for Phase H of the Fiber Optic Network Project. The primary bid was for fiber between City Hall and Police, Alternate 1 was for City Hall to Public Works, Alternate 2 was for City Hall to Earle Brown Heritage Center. Attached are the bid results. Fiber to City Hall for all three locations would result in the estimated expenses over a five -year period of $111,929, with LOGIS funding 66% of the Police link. If there is no Fiber solution, the estimated expense over a five -year period would be $178,770. Attached are details of expenses and operational benefits by location with and without the Fiber solution. If you have further questions, let me know. Thanks. Attachments City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe From: Michael J. McCaule City Manager Date: October 9, 2003 Re: Fiber Optic Project Logis and Hennepin County library are proposing to construct fiber optic infrastructure from Robbinsdale to Brooklyn Center City Hall. The connection would go to the Hennepin County Library and then to City Hall. We would, under the proposal, share in the cost with Hennepin County and thereby reduce the overall cost to the City of that connection. The approximate cost to the City would be $60,000 of an estimated $98,000 cost for extending the link from Robbinsdale. Logis and Hennepin County Library are requesting a commitment now for a Spring 2004 project. An additional $8,000 of direct equipment costs would be associated with actually utilizing the connection. Logis is requesting an immediate decision on commitment for this joint project. This opportunity is part of a multi jurisdictional effort to jointly construct fiber optic infrastructure. The Robbinsdale School District project is being used as part of this opportunity to aggregate efforts to reduce overall costs. In speaking with Logis today, I was informed that when they solicited alternate proposals to evaluate costs, the costs to connect the City would be closer to $135,000 to $160,000. The joint effort would be significantly lower. I also inquired regarding the cost allocation between the City, Logis, and Hennepin County Library. The allocation was based on the potential number os facilities that would be served in Brooklyn Center and the corresponding strands (24 strands are being proposed) in the fiber optic line. Hennepin County would us 2 strands and Logis would use 2 for their own purposes. The remaining strands would be for Brooklyn Center or potentially to allow connection of another entity through Brooklyn Center with a recoupment of part of the initial cost to us from that entity upon connection. It appears that expanding use of technology and opportunities for greater use of Logis rather than local servers will push us to use fiber optics or other means to expand capacity. I am skeptical that we would achieve cost savings to amortize the full cost of fiber optics in the short term. However, I believe that we will migrate to fiber optics sooner or later. Going forward with a joint project would position us to utilize the opportunities that fiber optic do and will present. In order to achieve modest cost reductions in the short term, the police station would need to be connected. That cost is estimated at $48,000 for police and $27,000 for the public 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.cityolbrooklynce?iterorg works garage. Additional study and review needs to be undertaken on the full program and phasing for the use of fiber optics before embarking on those connections. I am attaching materials prepared by Ms. Hartwig while I was on vacation (she is currently on vacation.) These materials are illustrative of some of the future issues and opportunities. Her estimates would indicate that future connections for fire, the golf course, and liquor store would not make any financial sense. Some of the potential payback is long term relative to future phone system costs and operating costs. Other saving potential may be speculative. The overall view of fiber optic in the immediate term is that it could provide modest operating cost savings (generating partial payback on the investment in the next few years), but that we will probably need to migrate to fiber optic and participation in a consortium to bring at least the first phase to City Hall would make sense. The funding would most likely come from the capital project fund. While there are unknowns as to timing and exact usage, I feel confident that we will need to migrate to fiber optics over the next few years. This opportunity to participate in the Robbinsdale School District build out with Logis will allow us to connect, based on Logis evaluation, at a substantially lower cost than going it alone at a later date. BROOKLOENTER FIBER OPTIC NETWORK BID Improvement Project No. 2005 -12 Bid Opening Results June 9, 2005 -10 a.m. P�)d Access Collins MasTec Estitnafed Costs' Communications Parsons Electric MP NexLevel Electrical Systems North America Required Link (Police) $55,698 $47,015 $87,300 $98,745 $129,523 $131,285 Alternate 1 (Public Works) x 29,9T $23,287 $27,090 $39,897 $38,248 $49,056 Alternate 2 (Earle Brown) x $,s $20,532 $22,525 $33,064 $32,530 $36,544 TOTAL*` $90,834 $136,915 $171,706 $200,301 $216,885 Fiber installation and termination only does not include necessary fiber network equipment. "All dollar amounts rounded to nearest whole dollar. June 9, 2005 City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration of Phase II City Hall to Police, Public Works, Earle Brown Heritage Center Estimated Expenses Estimated Expenses Over Five -Years Voice Data Building to Building Communications Estimated Expenses With LOGIS Funding With Fiber Phase II Uwst PRI 0 TI Server Firewall Switch Router Adtran 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Over Five -Years 66% of Police Link Police 11 10 11 10 12 10 10 1$52,390 1$3,000 1$3,000 1$3,000 1$3,000 11$64,390 11$33,360 (Public Works 10 10 10 10 11 1 10 1$28,662 1$3,000 [$3,000 1$3,000 1$3,000 11$40,662 11$40,662 Earle Brown Heritage Center 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 !$25,907 1$3,000 1$3,000 1$3,000 1$3,000 11$37,907 11$37,907 City Hall (Phase I Fiber Completed 11/2004) 1 N/A 3 0 2 0 0 f 1 I I I II II FZ' tt A t E� lan I IWx- [$10 6;959 r1$.9.00 M' =1$9 >O0M 1$91,0 W [$9,000K, 14 2,9 5 9 11$111,929 Estimated Expenses Voice Data Building to Building Communications Estimated Expenses Without Fiber Phase II Q-tPRI UvaatTt Server Firewall Switch Router Adtran 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Over Five -Years Police 11 12 11 10 12 11 14 1$19,940 1$6,440 1$6,440 1$12,440 1$6,440 11 11$51,700 Public Works 10 11 11 10 11 11 12 1$15,450 [$3,275 1$3,275 1$9,835 1$3,275 11 11$35,110 Earle Brown Heritage Center I1 11 11 10 13 11 12 1$25,220 1$13,720 1$13,720 1$20,280 1$13,72011 11$86,660 City Hall (Phase I Fiber Completed 11/2004) 11 1N /A 13 11 12 11 10 1$5,300 1$0 1$0 I$o I$o 11 11$ f a..,,a Lo4 -AmmWi .z 1XIMM A $23;43 1$2a;43'S'1 U o w 1$2X2M 11$178,770 City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration of Phase 11 June 17,2005 City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration of Phase II City Hall to Police Estimated Expenses $52.390 $47,015 Installation and Termination of Fiber $600 Two (2) GBIC Cards (Data) $1,775 Two (2) Fiber Modems and Adapters (Voice) $3,000 Fiber Maintenance (Locates, Relocates, and Break/Fix) (Annual Expense) Estimated Savings over Five -Year Period $51.700 619,940 in 20061 $2,950 Eliminate Data T1 Point to Point City Hall to Police $3,490 Eliminate Voice T1 Point to Point City Hall to Police $400 Eliminate the purchase of two (2) Adtrans TSU replaced every 5 years at $1,000 each [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] $600 Eliminate the purchase of two (2) Adtrans TSU 120 replaced every 5 years at $1,500 each [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] $500 Eliminate the purchase of one (1) Router replaced every 5 years at $2,500 each [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] $2,400 Eliminate the replacement of back -up data device and tapes replaced every 3 years at $6,000 [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.1 Operational Benefits Simplify the network architecture. Will allow the City to downsize the amount of capital and support that is needed to maintain multiple sites; consolidating IT equipment from several buildings into one central location. A simplified network is easier to secure. Enhance reliability. No longer dependent upon Qwest for building -to- building voice and data communications. Other municipalities with fiber architect have experienced minimal downtime with their fiber network. Increase City data network communications up to l OOOMB+ (1 GB) speeds, meeting the demands of software applications, Internet access and end -user speed performance. At best, current connections are 1.5MB, the capacity of a Qwest T 1 dedicated data line. Increase State of Minnesota, Hennepin County and City of Minneapolis applications performance from 128K to 100MB. Increase Internet performance from 768K up to 8MB. Centralize data back up at City Hall location. Police staff no longer required to put daily back up tape into on -site server. Potential sharing of video and card security system of all City buildings. City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration for Phase II June 17, 2005 City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration of Phase II City Hall to Public Works Garage Estimated Expenses $28.662 $23,287 Installation and Termination of Fiber $600 Two (2) GBIC Cards (Data) $1,775 Two (2) Fiber Modems and Adapters (Voice) $3,000 Fiber Maintenance (Locates, Relocates, and Break/Fix) (Annual Expense) Estimated Savines over Five -Year Period $35.110 615.450 in 20061 2 ,950 Eliminate Data/Voice T1 Point to Point City all to Public Works Garage e g $600 Eliminate the purchase of two (2) Adtrans TSU 120 replaced every 5 years at $1,500 each [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006] $500 Eliminate the purchase of one (1) Router replaced every 5 years at $2,500 each [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] $2,512 Eliminate the purchase of an additional server to address Public Works Garage Geographic Information Systems (GIS) needs replaced every 3 years at $6,000 (2006) and $6,557 (2009) [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] $460 Eliminate the purchase of server software for GIS first year $1,000, following years $325 [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] Operational Benefits Simplify the network architecture. Will allow the City to downsize the amount of capital and support that is needed to maintain multiple sites; consolidating IT equipment from several buildings into one central location. A simplified network is easier to secure. Enhance reliability. No longer dependent upon Qwest for building -to- building voice and data communications. Other municipalities with fiber architect have experienced minimal downtime with their fiber network. Increase City data network communications up to I OOOMB+ (1 GB) speeds, meeting the demands of software applications, Internet access and end -user speed performance. At best, current connections are 756K, the capacity of a Qwest T1 shared voice and data line. Increase Internet performance from 768K up to 8MB. Potential sharing of video and card security system of all City buildings. Potential savings by using fiber for City radio system. A consultant would have to assist in determining the cost savings and operational benefits. Eliminate the need to purchase additional server for Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Public Works Garage staff is currently limited to the use of GIS because of the connection speeds between City Hall GIS server and Public Works Garage. Public Works inability to gain access to City GIS affects daily operations and restricts the use of technology that would be of great benefit to the City. City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration for Phase II June 17, 2005 City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration of Phase II City Hall to Earle Brown Heritage Center Estimated Exbenses $25,907 $20,532 Installation and Termination of Fiber $600 Two (2) GBIC Cards (Data) $1,775 Two (2) Fiber Modems and Adapters (Voice) $3,000 Fiber Maintenance (Locates, Relocates, and Break/Fix) (Annual Expense) Estimated Annual Savines over Five -Year Period (EBHC BudQct) $56,380 ($20.420 in 2006) Estimated Annual Savines over Five -Year Period (General Fund Budged $30,280 64.800 in 20061 $2,920 Eliminate Data/Voice T1 Point to Point City Hall to EBHC $600 Eliminate the purchase of two (2) Adtrans (TSU) replaced every 5 years at $1,500 each [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] $500 Eliminate the purchase of one (1) Router replaced every 5 years at $2,500 each [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] $1,256 Eliminate the separate server for EBHC, share exiting City Hall server that has capacity for EBHC needs. Eliminate the purchase of server hardware for separate server at EBHC replaced every 3 years at $6,000 (2006) and $6,557 (2009). Share the server and software costs on existing City Hall server between Enterprise and General Funds. General Fund would also be reduced $1,256 annually over five -year period. [If Fiber not approved, this expenditure would be in 2006.] $4,800 Eliminate Voice PRI service at EBHC, pull service from City Hall, sharing the monthly cost of $800 between Enterprise and General Funds. General Fund would also be reduced $4,800 annually. $1,200 Eliminate current DSL connection used for client operations. Ouerational Benefits Simplify the network architecture. Will allow the City to downsize the amount of capital and support that is needed to maintain multiple sites; consolidating IT equipment from several buildings into one central location. Consolidation of Earle Brown Heritage Center server to existing City Hall server. A simplified network is easier to secure Enhance reliability. No longer dependent upon Qwest for building -to- building voice and data communications. Other municipalities with fiber architect have experienced minimal downtime with their fiber network. Increase City data network communications up to 1000MB+ (1 GB) speeds, meeting the demands of software applications, Internet access and end -user speed performance. At best, current connections are 756K, the capacity of a Qwest TI shared voice and data line. Increase Internet performance from 768K up to 8MB. Centralize data back up at City Hall location. Earle Brown Heritage Center staff no longer required to put daily back up tape into on -site server. Potential sharing of video and card security system of all City buildings. City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration for Phase II June 17, 2005 I City Hall to Earle Brown Heritage Center (continued) Provide high -speed Internet access to clients for data and video conferencing. Video conferencing is limited under current capabilities of DSL service. In the fall of 2004 Earle Brown Heritage Center invested $7,737 to have the ability to offer high -speed Internet access thru DSL service in most of their rooms. In September 2004 one client rented 16 high -speed connections at $250 each ($300 each is the typical rental fee, but volume allowed for discount), resulting in $4,000 revenue. Because these clients also rented computers through a vendor recommended by Earle Brown Heritage Center, the Center received $100 each for the rental of 15 computers, resulting in $1,500 revenue. Under LOGIS's current assessment structure, the City pays a flat annually rate for Internet service, regardless on numbers and usage. A fiber connection would allow for the marketing of enhanced Internet speeds and video conferencing capabilities. These services would be a revenue generator for the Earle Brown Heritage Center. City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration for Phase II June 17, 2005 City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration of Phase II City Hall to Earle Brown Heritage Center, Police, Public Works Garage Estimated Annual Savinizs over Five -Year Period $5.300 ($5.300 in 2006) $500— Eliminate the purchase of one (1) Router— replaced every 5 years at $2,500 each $560 Eliminate the purchase of one (1) Firewall replaced every 5 years at $2,800 each City of Brooklyn Center Fiber Optic Network Consideration for Phase II June 17, 2005 City Council Agenda Item No, 10g CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Agenda Item 10g Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25`" day of July, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance providing for the sale of certain land in the City. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at .763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR CERTAIN LAND IN THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I. BACKGROUND 1.1. By deed dated the City acquired real property in the City legally described as: The east 192.5 feet of Lot 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57, except the east 92.5 feet of the south 420.67 feet thereof. (the "Subject Property"). 1.2. The conveyance of the Subject Property included in the description of the Subject Property land that the transferor did not intend to convey to the City and the City did not intend to acquire. That part of the Subject Property that was inadvertently included in the description thereof is described as: That part of the east 92.5 feet of Lot 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57, lying south of a line parallel to and 420.67 feet north of the north right of way line of County Road 130. (the "Excess Property"). 1.3. The City wishes to correct this erroneous legal description and release the Excess Property to its intended owner. II. SALE OF PROPERTY 2.1. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute a quit claim deed to the Excess Property and take all steps necessary to effect the transfer thereof. III. EFFECTIVE DATE 3.1. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of .2005. Mayor ATTEST: Ci ty Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the25th day of July, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance providing for the sale of certain land in the City. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR CERTAIN LAND IN THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I. BACKGROUND 1.1. By deed dated the City acquired real property in the City legally described as: The east 192.5 feet of Lot 12, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57, except the east 92.5 feet of the south 420.67 feet thereof. (the "Subject Property"). 1.2. The conveyance of the Subject Property included in the description of the Subject Property land that the transferor did not intend to convey to the City and the City did not intend to acquire. That part of the Subject Property that was inadvertently included in the description thereof is described as: The north 33 feet of the east 92.5 feet of the south 420.67 feet of Lot 12, Auditor's Subdivision (the "Excess Property"). 1.3. The City ishes t lea description and release Excess ty to correct this erroneous legal d sc iption se the Property to its intended owner. 11. SALE OF PROPERTY 2.1. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute a quit claim deed to the Excess Property and take all steps necessary to effect the transfer thereof. III. EFFECTIVE DATE 3.1. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: Kenned y Graven c CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax hnp://www.kemedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager, Brooklyn Todd A. Blomstrotn, P.E., Director of Public Works FROM: Charlie LeFeverp (612) 337 -9215 Bonnie Wilkins (612) 337 -9225 DATE: May 5, 2005 RE: Osseo Schools Willow Lake Addition Plat This Memorandum addresses the boundary issue affecting property owned by the City that was disclosed on the above referenced preliminary plat. Attached is a portion of the plat for reference. The attachment shows "Lot 12" of Auditor's Subdivision No. 57. The City owns all of Lot 12 except for the portion labeled "Exception" (shown in the bottom right corner of the attachment). (The City's portion of Lot 12 will be referred to hereafter as the "City Property" and the portion not owned by the City will be referred to as the "Exception The area in question is identified on the attachment b cross-hatching. The question itself is whether the bound line between the City Y g q boundary Y Property and the Exception is the northerly line (marked "Line A or the southerly line (marked "Line B As will be explained below, there are persuasive arguments that the common boundary line is Line B. The issue arises because of the legal description used to convey a portion of the City Property to the City. That legal conveyed to the City the "east 192.5 feet of Lot 12, except the east 92. S feet of the south 420.67 feet thereof." The area consisting of the east 92.5 feet of the south 420.67 feet is the Exception. The ambiguity as to the boundary line relates to the terminology "the south 420.67 feet" of Lot 12 and centers on whether the "south 420.67 feet" of Lot 12 is measured from the centerline of the county road shown on the Auditor's Subdivision plat (now 69 Avenue North) or the right of way line of the county road. If measured from the centerline, the boundary is Line B; if measured from the right of way line, it is Line A. BLW- 262169vl BR291 -256 There is no controlling law in Minnesota that deals explicitly with how to measure lots created by Auditor's Subdivision. In practice, some people propose that, where a road is shown on the Auditor's Subdivision map, the boundary of any lots abutting the road is the road right of way line. Others, however, contend that, because an Auditor's Subdivision does not dedicate streets, the abutting lot lines extend to the center of the street (which in this case is the section line). In this case, the plat for Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 supports that latter of these positions. The east and west boundary lines for Lot 12 (and other abutting lots), as shown on the subdivision plat, are extended by dotted lines to the center line of the county road, and there are marks indicating that the length of the east and west boundary lines are to be measured from the center line. In sum, while it is not free from doubt, there are credible arguments that the southerly lot line for Lot 12 is the centerline of the county road (also the section line). If that is the case, then Line B is the appropriate common boundary between the City Property and the Exception. There is, however, a fence located in the proximate location of Line A that suggests that the City and/or the owner of the Exception may regard Line A as the common boundary. According to Charles Webb, the Surveyor who prepared the plat, the fence appears to be a "boundary fence' that is, a fence installed for the purpose of marking a property line. Further, the fence is located where one would expect it to be if the southern boundary of Lot 12 were the right of way line. That is, the right of way line is 33 feet north of the centerline, and Line A is 33 feet north of Line B. It thus appears that, when the property was surveyed at some point in the past, the surveyor measured the "south 420.67 feet 'of Lot 12 from the right of way line rather than the centerline. The upshot of this discrepancy is that the City may own an additional 33 feet of land south of the fence. Conversely, of course, the owner of the Exception may have less land than currently contemplated. (What the owner of the Exception actually considers the lot line's location to be is speculative. So far as we know, no one has spoken with that owner. If the Exception owner installed the fence, however, we could presume he or she intended the line to be Line A.) The City has at least three options to deal with this boundary issue. First, the City can bring a proceeding in state district court to establish the common boundary line and to determine who owns the disputed area between Line A and Line B. The City likely would want to do this only if it wanted to take possession of the disputed area since, if the owner of the Exception asserted that Line A was the correct line, it is possible litigation could be lengthy and costly. Even though the City has persuasive arguments that Line B is the correct line, it is possible the court would find that Line A is the common boundary. Second, the City can quit claim its interest in the area south of Line A to the owner of the Exception. A quitclaim deed does not carry any warranties of title and can be given even when a party has no interest in the property whatsoever, so it would not be necessary to determine whether the City in fact does own the 33 -foot area south of Line A. The City can either waive or seek compensation from the owner in connection with the quitclaim deed. BLW- 262169v2 2 BR291 -256 I Third, the City can take no action, maintain the status quo and wait until either a need for that land arises or the owner of the Exception raises the issue. This alternative typically would carry the risk that the other owner might acquire the property by adverse possession; however, with some exceptions, public land cannot be acquired by adverse possession. Based on further discussion with City staff, the preferred option is the second of the foregoing options (without requiring compensation). Accordingly, we have prepared an ordinance (a copy of which is attached) authorizing City staff to execute and deliver an appropriate quit claim deed to the owner of the Exception any interest the City may have south of Line A. BLW- 262169v2 3 BR291 -256 Cor. Of Litt 12 NW lcofl, Of Lat 12; 1 209 s- AW. SCS Ntt. 67 !J Lute of Lot 12 t NM'$"43'E 192.48 w rPn p 1 4 1 1 1 Cev Of L ot U. AM. S nn Nth t 1 rTl lb 89 `57'09 *W Z.1h�C► M i OM A V, y x o 589 0 57 09 f 21751 --W Car. Of Sec 26. Np 119; 9*9 21 60 r so 444_4.- BLW- 262169v2 4 BR291 -256 City Council Agenda Item No. lOh 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: June 22, 2005 Re: Solicitation of Sugg7ions om Employees At the April 4 City Council meeting the Council directed that employees be solicited for suggestions to reduce pollution in Brooklyn Center. Attached is a memorandum from the Deputy City Clerk outlining the solicitation that was made. 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 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 goes 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- OX City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk :of- DATE: June 22, 2005 SUBJECT: Employee Survey Regarding Pollution Attached please find a copy of the Employee Newsletter that was prepared requesting employee suggestions on ways to reduce pollution. This Newsletter was delivered with paychecks on May 6, 2005, with a response deadline of June 17, 2005. I received no suggestions; and as reported at the agenda meeting this week, the Department Heads did not receive any suggestions. 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 Brie, fs A monthly newsletter for Brooklyn Center Employees Anniversaries Hansen 5111170 Sue LaCrosse 5/31177 DISCOUNT TICKETS Wi lliam Koncar 5128185 RandyRobarge 5(27186 May 200511 The City- County Federal Credit Koreen Bartlett 5118188 Union has the following tickets. Natalie (Jlmer 5116/92 You do not have to be a mem- KeIIY W Iso n 5f28/92 ber to get the tickets; however, Taylor McDonald 5126193 if you are not a member you Jeffrey Nyland 5/31/94 will have to pay in cash. Jessica McDonald 5113196 Employee Suggestions Wanted Matthew Koegl 5101197 Vallev Fair Jamie Vansteenbergen 5112197 At its A ril 25 Cit Council meetin the City Council Adult $21.90 Barbara Bryan 5104198 p Y g' Child $12.95 (up to 48 David Trombley 5104198 requested the City Manager to solicit suggestions from Shelley Schwaninger 5119198 employees on ways to reduce pollution. If you have any Renaissance Festival Karen Wall 5125198 suggestions please submit them to your Department Adult $13.25 Michael Marsh 8/ 2 6/98 Head or send them via e-mail to Maria Rosenbaum b Child $6.50 7�nae Cole 5/10/99 Y Sharon Norenberg 5/17199 June 17. Food Book $5.00 BeniaminRiviere 5118100 Brian Peters 5130100 AMC Andrew Kraemer 5101/01 Discount Cost: $5.50 Gary Wieser 5/01101 HR Update *Special engagements ex- $usan RemiesKe 5107101 New Employees cluded. Please check newspa- Troy Peasley 5 107/04 Welcome to the following employees who started or will start Per listings, website, or the box R9bbecca Bole 5108102 soon: office for this information. Leanna Sevitts 512o/02 Virginia Carter FT Police Secretary/Receptionist W Ison 5120102 Mann Theaters chutte 5129102 Esther Eberle PT Police Secretary/Receptionist Discount Cost: $5.50 Robin Sivill 5115/03 Peter Netzel Civil Engineering Intern St. Louis Park, Plymouth, and DereK Nelson 5102/M Jill Berger Finance Technician Minneapolis locations. Philip Nereson 5103/04 Clara Hilger Assistant Finance Director (Starting on 5115) (Minneapolis location Show Mary Wold 5103/04 Michael Peterson 5/30/04 time's are not listed online.) Recruitments Discount movie tickets may not The employee recognition section Police Officers Conducting interviews be used for admission to movies OF the newsletter uses an em- Support Services Manager- Conducting backgrounds listed in the newspaper or ployee most recent hire date. Set Crew Open until filled online with an asterisk( occasionally we have employees Seasonal Maintenance Conducti backgrou who have worked for the City and g Tires Plus Pick up your Card come back to work for the City PT CSO Closed 4/29 at the Receptionist Desk. after a period of time. On fortu- Mechanic Open until 5/20 natelY, we are not able to tracK the cumulative years of service in the Minnesota Zoo offers a 20% employee newsletter. ThanK You Zoo admission discount for for your continued service to the Farewell FREE. Pick up your discount City' Receptionist Desk. h cards at the Rece Todd Pearson, Police Officer, has accepted a position with car p i Xr` i► the City of Big Lake Police Department. Caron Snoopy Wristband City Offices Deb Hanssen, Police Officer, has accepted a position with passes $15.95 the City of Champlin Police Department. Any questions please call 549 and the 6000 or visit website at: Community Center Farewell and Best wishes Todd and Deb! Closed www.cefcu.org emorial Day We would like to offer our condolences to John LaChance May 30 and his family. John's brother died in a car accident on April 20. Please keep him and his family in your thoughts and prayers. Editor /Contributors Maria Rosenbaum, Karen Casto, Helga Eekhoff, Kathy Flesher, Jeanie Mueller, Sue LaCrosse, and Kelli Wick City Council Agenda Item No. 10i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference is Exhibit A as a Personal /Professional Service Agreement between the County of Hennepin and the City of Brooklyn Center for participation in a police cadet program as set forth in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to authorize participation in the cadet program; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Personal/Professional Service Agreement are to reimburse the City of Brooklyn Center for costs involved in hiring a police cadet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute the Personal/Professional Service Agreement set forth in Exhibit A on behalf of the City of Brooklyn O Center. June 27. 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 p g g voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Q BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT MN MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Bechthold, Chief of Police DATE: June 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Hennepin County Joint Community and Police Project Enclosed are three (3) copies of a new contract with Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department for the recruiting, assessing and training of a new police cadet. The primary goal of this agreement is for the City to recruit, support and sustain an individual who is sensitive to the multi cultural issues that are facing our community. Following the successful cadet training, the City will have the option to hire said cadet as a regular, full -time police officer. Background During the fall of 2004, Chief Wade Setter from the City of Brooklyn Park and myself were asked to make a presentation to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners regarding concerns of the interaction of law enforcement personnel and immigrant and minority group residents of the two cities. As a result of this presentation, the Hennepin County Board directed Hennepin County staff to collaborate with the communities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, and the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to create a plan to address the expressed issues. From this collaborative planning process, the following four components emerged: 1. Organizational training for cultural awareness and sensitivity; 2. Community training for cultural awareness and sensitivity; 3. Police /community liaisons; and, 4. Police cadet training The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on March 22, 2005, approved a contingency transfer of $400,000 to the 2005 Human Services and Public Health Department and the Community Corrections Department to support the efforts of the communities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to fund this plan. The dollars for all program components will be distributed by the Hennepin County departmental accounts for activities as indicated in the plan. A community based oversight group will guide the delivery of services as described. /sb Exhibit A Contract No: A051115 PERSONAL /PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," A -2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department, 300 South Sixth Street, Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, hereinafter referred to as the "DEPARTMENT" and City of Brooklyn Center, on behalf of the Brooklyn Center Police Department, 6645 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430, hereinafter referred to as the "PROVIDER". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the COUNTY, on behalf of the DEPARTMENT, wishes to purchase the services of the PROVIDER to recruit, assess and provide training for one police cadet position at the City of Brooklyn Center Police Department; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the COUNTY, on behalf of the DEPARTMENT, and the PROVIDER agree as follows: 1. TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT The PROVIDER agrees to furnish services to the COUNTY during the period commencing August 1, 2005 and terminating December 31, 2005. The cost of this Agreement shall not exceed THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00). 2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED The PROVIDER will recruit community /immigrant sensitive individuals as police cadets with the option to hire said cadets upon satisfactory completion of the cadet program. The primary goal of this agreement is for the provider to recruit, support and sustain an individual who is sensitive to the attendant issues facing the community of Brooklyn Center, and who, after passing certain requirements, may be enrolled as a police cadet. Following successful cadet training, the Brooklyn Center Police Department will have the option to hire said cadet as a regular, full -time police officer. HCA Form No. 1012005 (Revised 09/04) 1 Exhibit A Eleven basic activities will be conducted to achieve the project goal, including: 1 Cadet Trainee position announcement made public 2) Applicants shall have been introduced to the department, career and selection process 3) Candidates will have completed a written police test and cadet form 4) Cadet interview process will be completed 5) A police panel interview will be concluded 6) Background investigation will have been conducted 7) Chief's interview will have taken place 8) Medical exam will have been taken and passed 9) Psychological exam will have been taken and passed 10) Drug test will have been taken and passed 11) Cadet contract signed These services are more fully described in Attachment A, attached hereto and made part of this Agreement. 3. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES Payment for services shall be made directly to the PROVIDER after completion of the services upon the presentation of a claim in the manner provided by law governing the COUNTY'S payment of claims and /or invoices. The PROVIDER shall submit monthly invoices for services rendered on forms which may be furnished by the COUNTY. Payment shall be made within forty-five (45) days from receipt of the invoice. 4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The PROVIDER shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services herein. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the PROVIDER as the agent, representative, or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The PROVIDER is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The PROVIDER represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the PROVIDER or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the PROVIDER under this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the COUNTY, and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment, including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the PROVIDER, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the COUNTY. The PROVIDER shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the HCA Form No. 1012005 (Revised 09/04) 2 Exhibit A COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re- employment Compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. 5. NON DISCRIMINATION a. PROVIDER agrees to adhere to Hennepin County's AIDS Policy which provides that no employee, applicant, or client shall be subjected to testing, removed from normal and customary status, or deprived of any rights, privileges, or freedoms because of his or her AIDS status except for clearly stated specific and compelling medical and /or public health reasons. PROVIDER shall establish the necessary policies concerning AIDS to assure that COUNTY clients in contracted programs and PROVIDER's employees in COUNTY contracted programs are afforded the same treatment with regard to AIDS as persons directly employed or served by the COUNTY. 6. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE a. The PROVIDER agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the PROVIDER, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and /or anyone for whose acts and /or omissions they may be liable in the performance of the services required by this Agreement, and against all loss by reason of the failure of the PROVIDER to perform fully, in any respect, all obligations under this contract. b. In order to protect the PROVIDER and those listed above under the indemnification provision, the PROVIDER agrees at all times during the term of this Agreement, and beyond such term when so required, to have and keep in force the following insurance coverages: HCA Form No. 1012005 (Revised 09/04) 3 Exhibit A Limits (1) Commercial General Liability on an occurrence basis with contractual liability coverage: General Aggregate $1,000,000 Products Completed Operations Aggregate 1,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury 1,000,000 Each Occurrence Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage 1,000,000 (2) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation Statutory If the PROVIDER is based outside the State of Minnesota, coverage must apply to Minnesota law Employer's Liability. Bodily injury by: Accident —Each Accident 100,000 Disease— Policy Limit 500,000 Disease —Each Employee 100,000 (3) Professional Liability—Per Claim and Aggregate 1,000,000 The professional liability insurance must be maintained continuously for a period of two years after the termination of this Agreement. The PROVIDER shall not commence work until it has obtained required insurance and filed with the Contract Administrator (see Section 12), a properly executed Certificate of Insurance which clearly evidences required insurance coverages. The certificate(s) shall name Hennepin County as the certificate holder and as an additional insured for the liability coverage(s) with respect to operations covered under the Agreement. Copies of insurance policies shall be promptly submitted to the COUNTY upon written request. 7. DATA PRIVACY PROVIDER, its officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and subcontractors agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and implementing regulations, if applicable, and all other applicable HCA Form No. 1012005 (Revised 09/04) 4 Exhibit A state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. PROVIDER agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any claims resulting from PROVIDER's officers', agents', owners' partners', employees', v lunteer assignees' or subcontractors' g ,p o s, ssig unlawful disclosure and /or use of such protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 8. RECORDS AVAILABILITY /ACCESS Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, Subd. 5 (as may be amended), the PROVIDER agrees that the County, the State Auditor, the Legislative Auditor or any of their duly authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the PROVIDER and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such materials shall be maintained and such access and rights shall be in force and effect during the period of the Agreement and for six (6) years after its termination or cancellation. 9. SUCCESSORS. SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS The PROVIDER binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the COUNTY in respect to all covenants, agreements and obligations contained in the contract documents. The PROVIDER shall not assign, subcontract, transfer or pledge this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in art, nor assign an monies due or to become due to it hereunder without P g Y the prior written consent of the COUNTY. Permission to subcontract, however, shall under no circumstances relieve the PROVIDER of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. Further, the PROVIDER shall be fully responsible for the acts, omissions, and failure of its subcontractors in the performance of the herein specified contractual services, and of person(s) directly or indirectly employed by subcontractors. Contracts between the PROVIDER and each subcontractor shall require that the subcontractor's services be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions herein specified. A consent to assign shall be accomplished by execution of a form prepared by the COUNTY and signed by the PROVIDER, the assignee and the COUNTY. 10. MERGER AND MODIFICATION a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items HCA Form No. 101 2005 (Revised 09/04) 5 Exhibit A referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. b. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. 11. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION a. If the PROVIDER fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, this shall constitute a default. Unless the PROVIDER's default is excused by the COUNTY, the COUNTY may upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be just cause for the COUNTY for delaying payment until the PROVIDER's compliance. In the event of a decision to withhold payment, the COUNTY shall furnish prior written notice to the PROVIDER. b. Upon cancellation or termination of this Agreement: 1. At the discretion of the COUNTY and as specified in writing by the Contract Administrator, PROVIDER shall deliver to the Contract Administrator copies of all writings so specified by the COUNTY and prepared by the PROVIDER pursuant to this Agreement. The term "writings" shall be construed to mean and include: Handwriting, typewriting, printing, photocopying, photographing, facsimile transmitting, and every other means of recording, including electronic media, any form of communication or representation, including letters, works, pictures, drawings, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof. 2. The COUNTY shall have full ownership and control of all such writings. The PROVIDER shall have the right to retain copies of said writings. However, it is agreed that the PROVIDER without the prior written consent of the COUNTY shall not use such writings for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever; shall not assign, license, loan, sell, copyright, patent and/or transfer any or all of such writings; and shall not do anything which in the opinion of the COUNTY would affect the COUNTY's ownership and /or control of such writings. C. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the PROVIDER shall not be relieved of liability to the COUNTY for damages HCA Form No. 1012005 (Revised 09/04) 6 Exhibit A sustained by the COUNTY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the PROVIDER. Upon notice to the PROVIDER of the claimed breach and the amount of the claimed damage, the COUNTY may withhold any payments to the PROVIDER for the purpose of set -off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the COUNTY from the PROVIDER is determined. Following notice from the COUNTY of the claimed breach and damage, the PROVIDER and the COUNTY shall attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith. d. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to the COUNTY under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and /or equity. e. The COUNTY's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. f. This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice. 12. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION In order to coordinate the services of the PROVIDER with the activities of the Human Services and Public Health Department/Resource Development Area so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, Nan Wheeler, Contract Analyst, or her successor shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the COUNTY and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and the PROVIDER. 13. COMPLIANCE AND NON DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION a. The PROVIDER shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, regulations, rules and ordinances in force or hereafter enacted. b. If the source or partial source of funds for payment of services under this Agreement is federal, state or other grant monies, PROVIDER shall comply with all applicable conditions of the specific grant, attached hereto and incorporated herein. C. The PROVIDER certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either the federal government or the State of Minnesota as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings. HCA Form No. 1012005 (Revised 09/04) 7 Exhibit A 14. SUBCONTRACTOR PAYMENT PROVIDER shall pay any subcontractor within ten days of the PROVIDER's receipt of payment from the Counties for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. The PROVIDER shall pay interest of 1' /2 percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100.00 or more is $10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than $100.00, the PROVIDER shall pay the actual penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest penalties from a prime contractor must be awarded its costs and disbursements, including any attorney's fees, incurred in bringing the action. 15. PAPER RECYCLING The COUNTY encourages the PROVIDER to develop and implement an office paper and newsprint recycling program. 16. NOTICES Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the originating Department at the address given in the opening paragraph of the Agreement. Notice to the PROVIDER shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of the Agreement or if not stated therein, then to the address stated in PROVIDER's Form W -9 provided to and on file with the COUNTY. 17. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The PROVIDER affirms that to the best of PROVIDER's knowledge, PROVIDER's involvement in this Agreement does not result in a conflict of interest with any party or entity which may be affected by the terms of this Agreement. The PROVIDER agrees that, should any conflict or potential conflict of interest become known to PROVIDER, PROVIDER will immediately notify the COUNTY of the conflict or potential conflict, specifying the part of this Agreement giving rise to the conflict or potential conflict, and will advise the COUNTY whether the PROVIDER will or will not resign from the other engagement or representation. 18. PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE PROVIDER agrees that the terms "Hennepin County" or any derivative thereof shall not be utilized in any promotional literature, advertisements of any type or form or client lists without the express prior written consent of the COUNTY. HCA Form No. 101 2005 (Revised 09/04) 8 Exhibit A 19. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the herein parties and performance under it. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation hereunder will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the herein parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HCA Form No. 1012005 (Revised 09/04) 9 Exhibit A COUNTY BOARD APPROVAL City of having signed this Agreement, and the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on the day of and pursuant to such approval, the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Reviewed by the County STATE OF MINNESOTA Attorney's Office By: Chair of Its County Board Date: ATTEST: Deputy /Clerk of County Board And: Assistant/Deputy /County Administrator CITY OF By: Its: And: Its: City organized under: Statutory Option A Option B Charter HCA Form No. 1012005 (Revised 02/05) Exhibit A ATTACHMENT A Exhibit A WORKSTATEMENT Page 1 of 2 Background: The Joint Community /Police Partnership is a joint effort of Hennepin County, the Cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center and numerous community groups to address a variety of cultural and law enforcement issues which have emerged in these two northwestern suburban areas. Under the initiative of a Hennepin County Commissioner and the police chiefs of both aforementioned cities, a proposal was developed and approved by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to address two strategic issues. The project intends to: 1) provide information, assistance and coordination to address the diverse needs of these cities' numerous cultures and communities; and 2) ensure the safety and well -being of all residents within their jurisdictions. Under the direction of a Project Management Team that is comprised of selected managers from both of the Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center Police Departments, Hennepin County Human Services /Public Health Department, and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, and with input and guidance from a general, Multicultural Advisory Committee of residents selected from within the communities, (to be established in July '05), this project will implement four major activities of which the Cadet Training component is one. Primary Program Contract Goal: Recruit, Sustain, Hire One Cadet The primary goal of this agreement is for the provider to recruit, support and sustain an individual who is sensitive to the attendant issues facing theses communities and who, after passing certain requirements, may be enrolled as a police cadet. Following successful cadet training, the Brooklyn Center Police Department will have the option to hire said cadet as regular, full -time police officer. Activities: Eleven basic activities will be conducted to achieve the project goal, including: 1) Cadet Trainee Position Announcement Made Public, 2) Applicants shall have been introduced to the Department, Career and Selection Process, 3) Candidates will have completed a written Police Test and Cadet Form, 4) Cadet Interview Process will be completed, 5) A Police Panel Interview will be concluded, 6) Background Investigation will have been conducted 7) Chiefs Interview will have taken place, 8) Medical Exam will have been taken and passed, 9) Psychological Exam will have been taken and passed, 10) Drug Test will have been taken and passed, 11) Cadet Contract Signed. A -1 Exhibit A WORKSTATEMENT Page 2 of 2 Reporting: Provider will attend monthly meetings of Project Management Team and provi de written and oral progress of the cadet training reports to the Contract Program Manager (i.e., Dr. Bruce M. Nauth). Copies of written reports will also be forwarded to the Hennepin County Contracting Administration Representative (i.e., Ms. Nan Wheeler). Outcomes: The following outcomes are expected as a result of the project: 1) Provider will have recruited and enrolled one cadet trainee. 2) Provider will provide monthly written and verbal progress reports of cadet's recruiting /hiring /training progress. 3) Provider will have completed 50% of the preceding 11 activities for 1 candidate within the first five months of the project. 4) Provider shall provide cadets with salary and fringe costs (as evidenced by signed time cards), new employee technology package, entry level screening tests, uniforms and equipment and education /college scholarships costs in conformance with the budget, attached hereto as Attachment page A -3. A -2 Exhibit A Joint Community /Police Project Brooklyn Center Police Cadet Training Component ,r f F., r.;.. ;;:r :...:.r:.' r•:r• -.r .a.-- .:F:`t: 'f'•' :U r.:, ,rr •tf'? t` •f•'f,f: fr. ;f, -SHOW f, /,f„l:$?;sfif!� ;'::•k.{. :f :.r F ff :f:f :•:9::tG'. .t•;ff 3r /I. sc. ff.: fr ,r:. ,'•:r'.:•:Y:s'i'•'.':' /.•f +fr :.?ti;:%,:_:: Ui +.i /l•: rr•: fv:: ::.x:!r.- ::r. •r ✓Yh.'.:•rs•:.Ju.:•::{ -s.: f/ rr. �::C}:;.... ,•r r::F 3 :o: :rl:F •.3` r n.... .:.f.:4n'•3+ f. i7! r.... r......, -:n ..r. r.r.::. ?.�t:h.,.r:.. Yi. J. r: s•:} in.. ...r..:.r.. :f;'%r.• +Mxiiiiiiie iii.... ..fr.... r• /,G.• F"'�N:: J.•rsf `'•S rr {r.. s:.: }rf•':::.; r: :M:: :•rr::r •.:v: r ,af.:•:: -i::r: •r: v:.v...v:.,. .r::.r:::::: r Y':S.Y•': ;y:> 'y %�r l F... .rv::}. }::vv: ?`2': E r t ........0 sts t:.}:: t.}::.>::.:::.}::.::::.:: ttt. 3}:.::.:.. }:::t. }...:<t:tt::...:..'�:.... tJFI. m .1a.:.Tecn .I k ....�ac...� iii::::i::i:::::i:f:�i'i''fi::i iiiii:i.i:::iiiii:i: ".::::iii::: is ii::::::i::::::�::.: viii: ii: ii:::.: i} ii:. i::. i:. i:. i::.:::::• i::•::.:}} i}::: �::.i:.::.i:.:i.::.:. }:.:.ii:pi v:. i:. is :ii }i:.i:::. }i::i ?i }iiiii::t• }i }iii:. }:::.i:.iSiii:4 }i•: Et``ere Bt'ee l�oafm, Pcolo(3 rrns ct€�rn n �s� :3,fl I flQ 2 �t� ?i::: ��i::ii>.:': <j2<Y2. >.s Mi la-: :::i:::::.:::::::.::....:.:::::......:............. r repa�r:.ii:::i:::<:i:<:::: >i A #t- r• h ?r r f 4 y rir'r r r }2r F J ]J_ {•ti:, r :0 `f r N •f {r}3{ -r{C: r;•% /i:: h +.b r,.�l •fj ,r. 3, tfi�:k,{•G. Fyr �Y ,/f E.' .::'r !i {f,. +!f°f:? i:� WIN _r,.l f': r. %src ..ifr"sf'•f. fr: }�f;.!{n:,:::•so-fsf %f':' 'tx r ;+i. }•:::s :try •r f b,cr'• ::r:• }f Y:sr .}k::, 3:} :;•r: }s ::.tj j i r.,ffy, oft• j r. y%; ^:::;%:a:; .f ••r i;•�''Y.'+.'r r. lf.. f;•,�;Y/ T�:r :•tt?;` V/f {f:F' f,'' }�s r/ >�`�.r'' �Y .{rf% /�s•�• •J•' r,,;rrtfi; }.f{+ r� /r�f��F9 f f 4 r Yf/r� r �fi ��G:f.'•�;`�1��/r v''r r °h'r' �Y>yu /rn`�f� A rF,' �f.. 1 r t r ,•,of:�.? rr`�.. ft:'; :•:'urr'3.. ..,xi»x!r?!mm....: f 'Y" f2 f.*f,. •erA��M+tf., .,.,,.y r �+vrn»tnf�e}ti:,we :rmY r n}•,ym.v r•/}y ::FX,. ;y...:;,.,v.;"";y •:Y {'y t::: 'q✓. Fyfsr yi r %r? :r;"•• if+�k%f9vrf. ?;:�it::fr; }{Y.4y:r.,'':f'r,3fr� �•rl ..s'»' ::���4�F.•�42':;':. �ys, ..x.. .S'.• r ii /r•,� frff};.s-':Rfty '•^Sf ..,1{/.•` f /�/r..•, .t�vr. ;'v ff, N !vF r'TC' ZZ ,��,';17•: f` �r ...as;:f r./ r/.. :e::..:r. t�,. r••/. f r. {r, {1.. r :.:;rr f r .�}:;"4- '',',f'?:. ;rrr,•r. ...yr.•r.'f// f 7 fi y"•e� .r? .....::f::F /,..C..v..: /f::: r:.Ol:•: /.irt} G }•s:.rr, ;r{/ },;{i..; r, h•;:,•, rrY.::•''> fir •irrr •s ?.:::r %...4 :a ty y,. y /s,'v'3�,�lr�s. rs '`fG{ frlr i- ...r..d. r.:.b..r ...ts... :r r.^':' 3...} ..•f.': /.o.':....ar ...s ...df. rr ;r• :•:,y;;:: ••.v: :r:::.. I r r:.. -.;..r .r;;N:iY:: }t• :i., t:.:f ts•: :frk {•:r .:yv_ }•.r,r;t.:::••r.•_ }3:?: rrf :•;y +rr r J r....f �f:2!: ,j. "!Y''?�''f "�`',r� y:n� Y;i :;�:f f. r.. 3 �••r., J•:. r t� thy.. f r f •yf,: t "{r''rflf 1, f' .rifE.Fi. rj.,✓' jr' r%''' :;.•rr: }3i•., t: {FFr r, r.,., j �,,;tff;rf rr :i%''',:;F:;:s;: rx?i ;:,:r•{ �`y'jr s �{r. rfr. t: r::. fi�f{ G�t f:>.. f t•. ct� s;.::: r�3// rfr:?!/r f}: ��Yf:f }:�Sr ,•spy. >St3�!�::.:r;•3'!f�:r 5� {.t• r .�%n >s` w. i4.•r. rf :v••.: ?v;_. :.f %f ff ?.:iitr''.f ff.. .3. w•r :li' },t:v 3r '+G' {f /Y!'. 'fCY.(•fr f' rjr i /f ?;'y:?Jj f� ;l� :'r iii: r..:i' {:•jj rr; t'.', }'r';'!'' rC r'•'�+t•{.- rfF {p{fF +r tf f.� A {f� l r f�Y i- Ti :fi :'r fir:.! J •r F r •r t j' y. r.;{ •:rte :if :,a,f. ::Y' .r{ frrr{r: r ?.y y�.. f:' %F F`.{j,�.* r ;ks{ ff v. +r•' ,i. f r {.r•�`. ..r'r 'f:F: t'Y f }ti' '3.%', {i +'Ef.Y f. ONE Y'- .✓,:r•:: %f'r{ r;¢�•,• rf{- /rr, {r ..s: f fr;f }r.�r,.ffF. i.•`.✓ fff.:'} rON f/ ri�f; f /::f} 9c rF %f{ f f fE i{ /rF• .¢rYr tYs:S :..{r.': f{: }`:.r:rr:. Fv:r n•.vfF. s +.fr`f r:•r•,:rYv;..r."f; F;r c, 3�! s�f±! t K af ':S r.::'• r irt{:• t:. fy;; r•, r; tr; y :.;f'f:.ir: ?;tt.:: yr.r y. %.�;4•r; };y; a !1 Y! ?t` tt /Y. MI NE r.:fr ':Sf' ?trlu"� 3 '3 r rv:. l..rS.Y •rr.::I.•f;;�• ?'r,;. •'r��•' }Y,::�r•;r;.. :,_SSyF•fy::r:3 "•.r ;;y; %f +•r.•:: -vr. ..Y Ir:r r•. .r�• }6Y;rr.:::? •yr r"r: rr.Gf: •F.n: s} y, {FV. ;t.,. ;r.,, ;.l:.f f., ,fr •'f:�'?.. {i r N;! .•�•'r -fcf .f• �:r ry,r •r :f;:.:rr�: •/{i.:: r,,:g!:..,.�:... r.r.,•.t:;f'�; sl�Jrsv r:.,�, h Y., yf..:. 31:•{: :'.'r 'r„yr {nG {r.,,•:.rl•: !G y >r frI/ .'r,'`n.,•, ?r yf•y ''.t 3; f{ f �ff•'•5i rP s s r r� ,rrr s yy t f 3 r+ rr: .r ;f f✓x ?fir;{ r rr %y.,?r' '3,firr, :.,{r.. .�''r .r .•�.FF.,.r :.:e:yf Sr r o fr of F� t: r. F }fy:r ?r.:f }•f •;yf�y »•:rf•r }.�3 ?�i'/'y.,fr,;;- ff. {ir .:f: r i f 3�� :•,Sf•.':. it /i {{rrr,.r::;3'.:0�'''.'•r�i% ::f,. ;f•,i;::F.r, f• {.d•: ry.Y :r;:,`u!: 'r3,,;. q z� y. r� +`.'i {''"{j"� {:fr .yy,: 3 i:Y r 1 !,f .}trr f{, y.... +J':•. .jrR}''•, i �`1'.:•t.,'..�f�,r�:it: /Y!r`:;fi:•t•3 {nr //,,r, F/,.��:Yf...� ,;t:_ ;+,f ':!:3 �!G. X'"•�;r•.9;,:.r•.1Ji{ t:t 4 'ffk:!rr.':" /s�; ;f f l F:: }f:F },Y••;:r r•...;:.fi.'f:. sf{.:,' f• fif-; r- s',r rr: Fr +:t3:Y• }o ;•:St$nfa/!:. ��`r:`••;s:c.r �F .yF n,:. .t�ftiff �Y: f. }vtrFtt -.cy. r .,y: f {r:r��'t:;�f:rtyrr:�.: :�'.Y r �f :•F .�•x•.,r.;.c: :..r..t� }.�f.'�sv:�: y{ r....,.: ir... ...`Y:'r :...:..,..:3rv:!- ..r.:r .i t ».vrr:: !r ...:•:::..ff�n �r�r..:: r.:.::. .s %•rr. �,r,. /.:.r: r:< rr }F. ?rffn,•rJ.•:...r /:,r: .::f: r:}�lfrrr:rJ/ }?9f A -3 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL \ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION June 27. 2005 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Starting at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Council Member Carmody: Discussion of approaching other City Councils regarding Shingle Creek Watershed Commission capital plan proposal approval. 2. Council Member Niesen: Council debriefing regarding Lang Nelson road configuration change request 3. Council Member Carmody: Vii Minneapolis North surv Visi sN 5 1 y 4. 2005 2006 City Manager Contract on Compensation 5. View recent news videos on EDA acquisition of Hmong American Shopping Center 6. Miscellaneous 7. Adjourn II t 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: June 20, 2005 Re: Work Session Agenda 1. Council Member Carmody: Discussion of approaching other City Councils regarding Shingle Creek Watershed Commission capital plan proposal approval. a. Council Member Carmody requested a City Council discussion of her proposal to ask to be placed on other city council agendas to discuss the proposed Shingle Creek Watershed Commission proposal to consider amending the joint powers agreement to fund major capital projects. Some cities have not yet provided responses to the Watershed Commission. 2. Council Member Niesen: Council debriefing regarding Lang- Nelson road configuration change request a. Council Member Niesen requested a Council debriefing of the Lang- Nelson request and discussion of a decision- .making template overlay as set forth in the attached e- mails. b. A copy of the relevant minutes and rough estimation of staff time and expense is included. 3. Council Member Carmody: Visit Minneapolis North survey a. Council Member Carmody requested a discussion of the attached survey she received from Visit Minneapolis North. I also received the same survey from Visit Minneapolis North. There are long term issues related to what is most advantageous to the City of Brooklyn Center's hospitality industry with respect to commonality of interest of participating cities and balanced promotion. Currently, sports is a major focus of Visit Minneapolis North. Sports generates weekend and special event lodging use. Brooklyn Center still benefits from that due to the lack of lodging capacity in Blaine. That may be changing as Blaine is actively promoting a hotel facility adjacent /near the Blaine Sports Center. In the past, we have had discussions regarding the allocation of promotional funding to promote the Heritage Center. This is also an area of concern in terms of the orientation of a convention and visitors bureau as it might expand its geographic base. 4. 2005 2006 City Manager Contract Amendment on Compensation a. Enclosed is a memorandum and a survey of 2004 compensation for the cities used in comparing City Council and employee wages. 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.cit,yofbrooklyncenter.org r t To: Mayor Kragness, Council Members Lasman, Niesen, O'Connor From: Council Member Carmody Date: June 21, 2005 Re: Shingle Creek Watershed Meetings I met with Ginny Black, Council Member from Plymouth on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, to discuss how we should proceed with the other member cities of the Watershed Management Organization to decide if we are going to do the Minor Plan Amendment that was discussed previously. She has worked in the environmental field for years and is very knowledgeable about issues confronting all of us. We agreed to start with a meeting with Steve Lampi, Mayor of Brooklyn Park. Brooklyn Park is a critical city that has been sitting on some of the decisions the watershed needs to make. Nobody, including their commissioner. seems to know what they are planning for the future in regards to the watershed, with the exception of the current addition for the bank restoration project. We need to know what direction Brooklyn Park will take because all of the other cities are in limbo until we have a direction. Ginny, several members of the Watershed and I all feel that there is a strong impetus on the Hemlepin County Commission to change us to a Watershed Management District. If that occurs, then we lose all control and the authority goes to whomever is our elected watershed commissioner. More importantly, we would then be assessed a 100% ad valorem tax to fund the watershed district and all of their projects. Our Hennepin County Commissioner, Mike Opat, is specifically ready to change to a district and Ginny added that the two commissioners representing parts of Plymouth are willing to change it also. Because of all these factors, I am asking for your support to contact Brooklyn Park and other city councils in the watershed with Council Member Black to garner input and support for this issue and move it along. At out meetings, we will discuss the Watershed Management District vs. Watershed management Organization, the funding tool as worded in the Minor Plan Amendment, and the development of a new CIP. r City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Commicnity To: Mayor Kragness and C it Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: June 20, 2005 Re: Work Session Item 2 regarding Lang Nelson Engineering estimates the expenditure of time after the City Council requested a preliminary design to be: City Engineer 16 hours Engineering Technician 32 hours Engineering administrative support personnel 4 hours An additional 1 hour of administrative time Nvas also spent. There were two mailing to 270 residents 0210 in postage total) and $4,000 in outside engineering survey costs. Attached are copies of the relevant minutes and City Council packet materials, along with a chronology. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Page I of 1 Michael McCauley From: Diane Niesen Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 8:17 AM To: Michael McCauley Subject: RE: Please add to WS agenda I'm not inclined to want lots of documents copied again but thanks. I'm just looking for a general -type discussion from councilmembers' and staffs point of view; a debriefing on the issue and how it proceeded. I want to understand staff costs in a big picture sort of way. I'm hoping the discussion will help me draft a decision process flowchart that provides a solid base for preliminarily moving forward on any issue, or stopping at the gate. If you have materials that you would like to present as support for staffs point of view, please include. From: Michael McCauley Sent: Thu 06/16/05 2:40 PM To: Diane Niesen Subject: RE: Please add to WS agenda I will place on the work session agenda. In addition to your e-mail and a rough idea of resources expended, would you like any of the previous council packet materials on this topic included? From: Diane Niesen Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:04 PM To: Michael McCauley Subject: Please add to WS agenda Please add this item to our next work session agenda: Council debrief regarding Lang Nelson's road configuration change request It would be helpful if you could provide an idea of BC resources spent on this request, that the Council just voted down. The idea is to discuss how the City Council can learn from this to prevent future mis- direction of BC resources in cases where the vote /outcome might be predicted. Often, things need to be explored and latitude given in order to come to well- supported conclusions. However, in this instance, I feel, personally, that I could have applied some better decision making logic in advance of an actual vote to move forward. My goal is to see if we, as a Council, can begin crafting a decision making template overlay not unlike a checklist that will better serve all stakeholders. 06/20/2005 i Fremont Avenue North and Lilac Drive North Request for Street Improvements December 8, 2003 First Discussion Regarding Request for Street Improvements February 9, 2004 Appearance Regarding Request for Street Improvements April 11, 2005 Staff Report Regarding Street Improvements June 13, 2005 Staff Report Regarding, Street Improvements and Draft Minutes z Jerald Blamey, Financial Commission 11/25/96 12/31/03 Robert Cambanes, Charter Commission 7/21/99 7/20/03 JoAnn Campbell- Sudduth, NWHHSC Commission 1/28/03 7/30/03 Lloyd Deuel Housin g Commission 9/25/95 12/31/03 Y Ernie Erickson, Housing Commission 8/28/89 12/31/03 Sylvester Knapp, Commission 6/7/ y pp, 95 6/7/03 Todd Paulson, Charter Commission 3/21/95 5/8/03 John Whitehead, Planning Commission 2/8/99 12/31/03 Gavin Wilkinson, Financial Commission 10/13/98 12/31/03 R. Carl Wolter, Charter Commission 3/21/95 3/22/03 (The highlighted names are those who were present to receive a certificate.) RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -198 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF MEMBERS WHO HAVE SERVED ON CITY COMMISSIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. 8c. LANG- NELSON ASSOCIATES REGARDING REQUESTED STREET IMPROVEMENTS, 6100 BLOCK, FREMONT AVENUE NORTH Mr. McCauley discussed that Lang Nelson Associates, owners of the apartment complex at 6125 and 6201 Lilac Drive North, had requested a project proposal to remove the cul -de -sac and connect Fremont Avenue to Lilac Drive at 62" Avenue. Paul Brewer, Lang- Nelson Associates representative, addressed the Council to discuss the request and ask that the Council consider paying half the cost of the project. He expressed that he believes the project would be a positive improvement and beneficial for the neighborhood. He asked that the project be considered for 2004 as part of the City's construction plans. Council discussed the request and considered options that were feasible. Councilmember Lasman expressed that she would like to hear from residents regarding the proposal before making any decisions. Councilmember Niesen questioned if any alternatives had been considered such as signing or doing the project in 2005. 12/08/03 -8- x T Mr. Brewer informed that they had considered signs for the traffic issues; however, the signing would not help the residents trying to get from one building to the next; and that they were hoping to have something done in 2004 due to the traffic concerns. Mr. McCauley suggested that if the Council would like to consider the request for the project, the Council could continue to review options at a work session. Councilmember Niesen informed that she might support the work being done and the City helping with the funding in 2005. Councilmember Peppe asked if the funding could come from the Economic Development Authority (EDA). Mr. McCauley responded that might be possible. It was the consensus of the Council to continue reviewing the options for responding to this request. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9a. CONSIDERATION OF 2004 BUDGET 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS AND A MARKET VALUE TAX LEVY FOR THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR 2004 2. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FINAL MARKET VALUE LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICES AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 469.033 FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2004 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2004 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGETS 5. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2004 DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGETS 6. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2004 CAPITAL PROJECT FUND BUDGETS 12/08/03 -9- City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: December 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Cul -De -Sac at Fremont Avenue and ilac Drive Lang Nelson, the owners of the apartment complex at 6125 and 6201 Lilac Drive North, met with City staff in the spring of this year. Following that meeting, Lang Nelson conducted a meeting with neighbors regarding their proposal to remove the cul -de -sac and connect Fremont Avenue to Lilac Drive at 62nd Avenue as described in the attached materials from Mr. Blomstrom. In those initial discussions with Lang Nelson, City staff took the position that the cost of any such project would have to be born in its entirety by Lang Nelson and that a process of ascertaining neighborhood input and reaction would be essential to any final position on this proposal. From a staff standpoint, reconnecting the roads would appear to be a reasonable proposal, provided the entire cost was paid for by the benefiting property, which would be the Lang Nelson apartments and that the neighborhood was comfortable with that reconnection. Lang Nelson has requested that they be placed on the December 8 City Council agenda. As indicated in Mr. Blomstrom's memorandum, this project is not part of the Capital Improvement Program, nor would City staff be in a position to conduct public meetings and design this project in 2004. The purpose of the Capital Improvement Program is to plan and allocate resources for street projects. Additionally, there is no funding identified from a City standpoint to participate in a reconnection. The roads in this area do not require reconnection for any purpose required by the City itself. As also noted previously, before any project would be undertaken or considered, it would be necessary to gauge the neighborhood's feelings on the proposal. I would recommend that the City Council take no action with respect to this request and indicate that the City would not entertain a proposed reconnection unless the entire cost of the project was covered by Lang Nelson. Those project costs would also include the cost of preparing sufficient materials and information to conduct public meetings to ascertain whether there was concurrence in the neighborhood for the proposal. While City staff resources would not be available to do the necessary survey and design work for a project due to the demands of currently planned and budgeted projects, if Lang Nelson was willing to pay the entire cost of the project, a private engineering firm could be engaged to design and supervise a project earlier than this project could be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program assuming the project would receive sufficient neighborhood agreement. Attached is correspondence that was received in June from a resident expressing her opposition to the proposal. 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 fib 0.3 G l T o t MEMORANDUM X B _R �TcR DATE: November 21, 2003 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Staff Report on Requested Street Improvements, 6100 Block, Fremont Avenue North Lang Nelson Associates, representing the owners of the apartment complex located at 6125 and 6201 Lilac Drive North, have submitted a request for street improvements along Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive. The proposed street improvements would include the removal of an existing cul -de -sac and connection of Fremont Avenue to Lilac Drive at 62 Avenue as shown on the attached figures. Representatives of the apartment complex have indicated that the closing of Humboldt Avenue associated with the current improvements at Grandview Park and Earle Brown Elementary School has made traffic access to their property very difficult for current and future.residents. Two letters pertaining to this request are attached for your review. The attached memorandum from Ron Warren provides some background regarding the original decision to close Fremont Avenue to the current street configuration. Funding for this project is not included in the City's 2004 Capital Improvement Program. The owners of the apartment complex have offered to assume half of the cost of the requested street improvements in the form of special assessment to their property based on a preliminary construction cost estimate between $34,000 and $35,000. Although a construction cost in this range appears to be a fairly reasonable assumption for initial discussion purposes, further engineering analysis would be required in order to establish an accurate budget for the proposed improvements. Lang Nelson Associates have requested that this issue be placed on the December 0 City Council agenda for consideration. MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning S ialist SUBJECT: Brookwood Development DATE: December 1, 2003 You have requested some background/historical information regarding the closing of Lilac Drive North in the vicinity of Fremont and 62' Avenues North. This closing, and the current configuration were done in conjunction with the Brookwood Apartment and Townhome development in 1983. The two apartment buildings are now known as the Crossings at Brookwood and are addressed as 6125 and 6201 Lilac Drive, In 1983, the City Council approved a rezoning from R -3 (Multiple Family Residence- Townhomes) to R -6 (Multiple Family Residence -4 or 5 Story Buildings), a Preliminary Plat that established the current lot configurations and Site and Building Plans for the two senior apartment buildings and 32 townhomes that are now on the sites. Prior to these approvals, the City and neighboring property owners and interested citizens held a number of neighborhood meetings at which time details of the proposal were discussed, debated and formalized. The 1983 applications mentioned above were the culmination of these deliberations. It was during that time that it was decided to close Lilac Drive at Fremont and 62 in response to neighborhood concerns for additional traffic in the area. Closing the street would eliminate what was expected to be a lot of cut through traffic associated with the development of the two apartment buildings. There was also a need to deal with drainage issues in the southern part of the project, which allowed the street closing to be incorporated into the drainage modifications that were made at that time. We recommended to the owners of the Crossings at Brookwood, when they proposed opening Lilac Drive, that they seek neighborhood input because there was so much neighborhood and public involvement into the closing of Lilac Drive. My understanding is the biggest objection to the reopening of Lilac Drive North is that residents in the area do not want to bear any of the costs associated with it. I hope this memo addresses your inquiry. If you need additional information or care to discuss this further, please contact me. 7 rI i Bit r ^r i Y 1� e '.r` �'y 2 I z .r r 's r �z I r 7� a a r l k it is. ti t Y' t 4' y M A S Jf r s t 0 11,. r j 1" .v rs 4, F 'r "7:�f�s'� i 1 1 x 'i? I t a- F M r 1, x xro r�.k3t4 G'9 U E S j f t st -t< 1 ,5 r ak! t f i` L i �p i s i >7 �1 1 r "f� r s a v., .c �7 ��•�r A� t" 't Y �.h.. 5 �t #2x r^- t.:•t a! 1 r�;= r 4 t 4 i frr* 1 f 't 3 1� I t v', s i+�rui.i a,i z. r fit. r„ ;L r.+ 1 .,p r t +'.$is 7�,� Y z' t:, r N 4 ���j r Y 7 s a r MW 7 t ti y �/{Y' ..t t; up a �r r>�r h �'i� `4 t s r k xr '"a F a n l t t T t +I #..1 .v N s a r F f !F t 5 .+s�« 1 Y Q a .f?`.;,y y1 i +4 t fi r .y {rte s r e- S�X .r" Sri ..,.�1 ��i +t d �,,E:.�i e� t qr r t �r ✓�'r b �.t3.i '�i ��ir 5 ro' i a Ifr '3 L It r I 1 X i Rrtt��A �F T t r Y t 3 a 'r. s v T' .7< 15 r F! �rx ay r•yxw }�n i r ",r s:d u'Fa� �1:::'i .tY z� ..i� I t �"�+,7{" Y X 1� .♦:'1� x d"�-s r a' r fir: it a3 MAX 3 a J r r cd' it t i r�'R 7 y I 't t- `gar W-. 1 ti Rt'{ "n z?"tz yµ#2 k f �:�,I�yps l R t s I t t F.. r e i t x r te_ `W J n t �4. y� T .`.e I Isar t `z�'�t �'fo f i t r`: r i t :r .:4 '�T "r:f F r u r{ �st S`k a: .ly ja' Y V rt �r>r I ,s 7,.r��� r t�• 7 r 7.t s t" ?k :C >S ..ir j y� I� '��'k',,. IS 10, 5 i y tt S Nil F�.:. .7 z, t ',Jr 'fit y r ;9 s l r �s L >k is t x a F zT 2 I 1 ,s. d F ✓?"1' F z_ r�aX"�i'� :rr,:4, a I. ..1 U .i is Lrr yY 1 i- s l "i F a :t ja4• �i sJ v ?'t z•K4a s'CF„'i AM y 1 r t l- j a 5 '!i' p t rG fu 4 f:�� H' v e „t 1 �v .1 S d 4 It.�r 1m 1 fl: 1� 9 1 BLD L v 777/// B t 8AlENdNT ELEV 83900 I C3 0 •i ((J� 23 1VOFZTff o C I o r Gam♦' 6120 T. B45.87 Al TC84ZSC BC.BENCN MARK wO TOP OF "YD- NO. LILAC OR ELEV 849.66 FTtEuorrT 8 ..L........... p. NOTE: CONTTACTOP.S SHALL MTI-1• h ?NIC GASW, WP.THEP!: 5TA' POWEi AND t_ti- 9ELI. AT TIY.E OF oons $OCTIO -Y. 850.._...._ 8 t FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADEr �EJOSTING PROFILE t i I EXIST NG PROFILE 1 845 j..__ e 8&SEYENI FLOOR 11 BASEMENT; rl 84Q FLODR YAI _ELEV B3 Y N ATFJr 5o t I l t t 1 t I !'ecn dra wis+g B w— I I L I 105 H g 0-40 rt PLUG, B35.AT PLOD 83492 i a34 571IXi5TINV R NW' t• ......o „.tt.. /983 I 1NV83i80 ID(ISU- f��Fr11LrFiwf.8345^ r ®ll ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED August 13, 2003 PROFESSIONAL PROPER MANAGEMENT Todd Blomstrom Director of Public Works /City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: The Crossings Dear Mr. Blomstrom: As owners of The Crossings senior rental community we have always have a keen interest in traffic patterns and street configurations adjacent to our community. Since the closing of the street adjacent to Earle Brown Elementary school, the traffic both from our current residents and future residents have had a very difficult time attaining access to the Crossings. As you are well aware we invited 126 neighborhood families and our residents to attend a meeting to discuss the termination of the cul de sac to make a through street adjacent to our buildings. As a result, we feel that the new street pattern will not only enhance accessibility to the Crossings, especially with the closing of the Humboldt access, but it will also be highly beneficial to the neighborhood. It is with this information, which I request that the city immediately proceed with the study and construction of the street modifications. It is essential that the project be completed within two years because it has a very strong impact on the area. As I stated before, I definitely do not feel it would be appropriate for any assessment to come from any neighboring properties but completed entirely through city funding. As you may know, we would like to go forward with a $1,000,000 plus construction project on our Crossings. That decision awaits your response. Appreciate your attention. Cordially, LANG LSON ASSOC IBC. Francis W. Lang President 4601 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 650 u ['Iinneapolis, nesota 55416 d 952 920 -0400 W Fax 952 920 -0982 infoCa,'lane�.com FIN AL GROUP November 20, 2003 Todd Blomstrom Director of Public Works /City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway R- i 1 r` ro rT: ccn�n :oak li Le 1r1innosota JJ`TJV Re: The Crossings Street Construction Dear Mr. Blomstrom: As we have discussed, and as owners of The Crossings apartment complex, )�7e are hereby requesting that the city add to its 2004 street projects, the opening of North Lilac Drive between 61S and 62 street and that the construction be scheduled for early in the construction season. We are making this request with the understanding that the estimated cost of improvements and construction is between $34,000 and $35,000. With that understanding we are prepared to assume half the cost of the improvement by way of an assessment against our,property. We would also ask that the design of the new street be compatible with the,new parking lot that we have constructed at our site. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours LANEL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. Pau G. V Brewer President cc: Frank Lang Gene Nelson Greg Bronk 4601 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 601 Z Ivlinneapo is fv1ir� 55416 E 952 920 -5338 a Fax 952- 925 -5640 7f. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2004 -01 AND 02, CONTRACT 2004 -A, NORTHPORT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -23 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTNOS. 2004 -01 AND 02, CONTRACT 2004 -A, NORTHPORT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7g. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -24 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 8. APPEARANCE LANG NELSON ASSOCIATES Frank Lang, President and CEO of Lang Nelson Associates, addressed the Council to express the importance of the request that had been previously considered by the Council to reopen Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive; and to discuss their request of signage for the area. He believes the reopening of these streets would make traffic more viable to the Crossings Senior Rental Housing Community; and that the signage would be beneficial for helping with the difficulties in getting to their buildings. 02/09/04 -4- Council discussed the options available for the reopening of the streets in 2004 and 2005 and the cost sharing for the project if done in 2004 or 2005. Mr. Lang informed that they would be sharing the costs of the roadway if feasible and constructed and that he would like to accomplish the reopening in 2004. City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that the City does not have the capacity to complete a feasibility study in 2004 with City staff and that if the Council were to consider a feasibility study in 2005 staff would be able to develop a feasibility study and solicit neighborhood input. The alternate was to hire a consulting firm at a substantial cost. Councilmember Carmody informed that she would not be in favor of a feasibility study in 2004. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the request for signage. Mr. Lang discussed that having signage would help substantially. Mr. McCauley discussed that temporary signage would be allowed under the City's Sign Ordinance. He suggested that Mr. Lang provide the signs and that the City could be responsible for installing the signs. Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom suggested that the signs be reviewed for size and language requirements before allowing the signs to be installed. Councilmember Lasman made a motion to direct staff to install signs supplied by Lang Nelson once City staff had approved them. Seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Councilmember Carmody abstained. Motion passed. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she abstained because she was not sure how the signage would be allowed tied to the first construction prof ect instead of the second construction project. Mr. McCauley discussed that the signage would be temporary until the construction of the park project was complete this fall or next spring. The approval of the signage was not intended for permanent signage. A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to direct staff to begin a feasibility study for possible construction in 2005. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9a. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF STORM SEWER EASEMENT AT GARDEN CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, OSSEO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 279 Mr. McCauley discussed that this ordinance vacation was requested from Osseo School District No. 279 to vacate a portion of easement along the north side of the Garden City Elementary School building. The school district has executed a new storm sewer easement for the portions of 60 inch diameter storm sewer that are being relocated to allow the northern expansion of the school building. 02/09/04 -5- FIN AL GROUP January 26, 2004 Michael J. McCauley, City Manager Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Cul De Sac Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive Dear Mr. McCauley: As a follow up to our meeting with you and the city engineer, we wish to reiterate that it is extremely important to the continued viability of the Crossings senior rental housing community that Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive be reopened so through traffic can take place in that area. With the closing of Humboldt Avenue the confusing traffic patterns in the neighborhood became much worst which has caused a dramatic decrease in rental traffic to our property. In talking with city staff and from the neighborhood meeting that we held this past summer, it would appear that everyone agrees it makes since to open up the street to improve the traffic flow. The main issue is who pays for this cost. As you have indicated the city procedure requires that an engineering analysis and feasible study be done before you can proceed to open a street or do street improvements. This is certainly your issue not ours. In our discussions with you we indicated that we felt the improvements should be added to the 2004 construction program. As Frank Lang indicated to you, we feel that it is the city's responsibility to do the feasibility study and the design work as well as contracting for the construction but that we are willing, should the project go forward, pay for half of its cost. 4601 Excelsior Boulevard, Suite 601 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 952 920 -5338 Fax 952 925 -5640 Michael J. McCauley, City Manager January 26, 2004 Page 2 of 2 We would like this recommendation to go before the city council so this matter can get into the 2004 schedule. It is my understanding that this will be before the council at its February 9 1h meeting. Sincerely, LANEL FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 1 Paul G. Brewer President PGB:mc City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley DATE: January 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Request of Lang Nelson Mr. Blomstrom and I met with a representative of Lang Nelson and I subsequently met with Mr. Lang and Mr. Brewer of Lang Nelson. We agreed that the matter would be placed on the January 26, 2004, City Council meeting for a report and a request. for direction from the City Council. Following the presentation regarding the connection of Lilac and 62" at Freemont Avenue to the City Council in December, Mr. Blomstrom requested proposals from engineering firms to prepare a feasibility study on a road connection. As outlined to the City Council in December, the City engineering staff is fully engaged in the development of this year's planned street improvement projects. We are operating with a reduced staff due to budget cuts that correspondingly decreases our internal capacity. Three engineering firms provided proposals to conduct a detailed feasibility study that would develop three alternate alignments for the intersection for presentation to neighborhood meetings. These feasibility studies would include general details for three alternate alignments, a survey, and location of utility lines and other structures for purpose of developing three alternate alignments. The cost of the feasibility study ranges from a low of $11,000 to a high of $19,000. A private engineering firm could conduct a feasibility study in time for a potential construction of improvements in 2004. Such construction would, if it occurred in 2004, be toward the later part of the construction season in 2004. An alternate approach to developing a feasibility study would be for City staff to conduct a feasibility study that would be ready for review in early 2005 for possible construction in 2005. Such a process would occur if the City Council were to direct staff to include this in the 2005 project planning process. In discussions with representatives of Lang Nelson, their position is that they would be willing to share equally in the costs of this street connection. That cost sharing would include the costs of a feasibility study. However they would agree to share the costs only if a street connection were actually built. The current Capital Improvement Plan does not include a connection of Lilac and 62 at Freemont in the five -year project projection. Nor is there a street project in the neighboring vicinity of these roadways. If the City Council were to choose to include the development of a project for connecting Lilac and 62 "d it would be an additional undertaking that is not currently budgeted for or funded. 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 F.4X (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www. cityo fb rookl3 org If a suitable alignment could be developed that would meet the needs of the Lang Nelson properties and be compatible with the neighborhood, there would certainly be a benefit associated with that connection. However the issue is essentially a policy issue for the City Council in terms of prioritizing the expenditure of resources and the priority that would be associated with this undertaking as compared to other undertakings. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council whether you would like one of the following to occur: 1. Proceed with a feasibility study in 2004 using the services of a private engineering firm. 2. Include this in the work plan for development of a feasibility study and neighborhood meeting for the first part of 2005. 3. Defer any action on this request until either: a. Lang Nelson commits to paying the entire cost of the project, including the engagement of a consulting engineering firm (or alternatively that the City would y o ld pay for the feasibility study and Lang Nelson would pay for the costs of road construction); or b. Direct staff to take no action until a neighborhood project would be identified that would include the potential connection of these streets. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9g. STAFF REPORT FOR FREMONT AVENUE AND LILAC DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-08 Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom outlined the three options for modifying Fremont Avenue near Lilac Drive which are as follows: Option 1 Terminate 62 °d Avenue North $70,500 Option 2 3 -Way Intersection with Stop Condition $59,900 Option 3 Private Driveway Connection $97,700 Mayor Kragness questioned if there was room behind the facility to run a road in that location. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it would be tight and impacts the green space making Option 3 a big drawback. Mr. Blomstrom informed that there is a big unknown with Option 1 because it would require some land acquisition from the adjacent property owner to form a cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac that is proposed in the preliminary drawings was the minimum radius that would be needed to turn a snowplow around and to build that there was not enough existing right -of -way at this time to construct a cul -de -sac. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that if the Council wishes to further pursue any of these improvements the financial agreements need to be pinned down between the City and Lang Nelson as to how the costs would be split. After a decision is tentatively made he would recommend that staff conduct a public meeting with the neighborhood since there is some potential issues or concerns throughout the neighborhood. After the neighborhood meeting staff could summarize the comments received and present them to the Council at which time the Council could approve or disapprove pursuing a public improvement project in that area. Mayor Kragness questioned if there would be a signage problem with Option 2. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it is a difficult intersection and there are some traffic issues with Option 2. Councilmember Carmody questioned what would happen after the curb and gutter is removed with Options 1 and 2. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it is currently public right -of -way and he would recommend that the City hold that as public right -of -way for the time being. She inquired if there had been any discussions with the property owners. Mr. Blomstrom responded that there had not been any discussions with property owners. Mr. McCauley added that the question of cost would be one asked by property owners and that is why a meeting had not taken place yet. 04/11/05 -13 Councilmember Carmody questioned if when the Council had discussed this before if the financing option would have been a 50150 percent split. Mayor Kragness responded that she believes it was going to be determined on the timing of project. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the consideration of the project started in February 2004 and it became too late to do the construction last year. The Council requested that staff prepare a study over the winter to avoid consultant fees and make a report this year. Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification regarding the financing. Mr. Blomstrom indicated the financing would need to be established by the Council and that staff is not recommending special assessments on this project. Mr. McCauley added that part of the reason special assessments are not being considered is that the staff does not see this realignment as providing a benefit to those homes in the area. Frank Lang, CEO and President of Lang Nelson, addressed the Council to express that life safety and the health of seniors are the concerns to be addressed not only by his residents but other residents in the area. Councilmember Lasman asked if traffic counts had been done to see what kind of an implication the acute angle intersection would have on the safety. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that there had been no traffic counts along 62 Avenue North. He believes that most of the traffic coming to or from the north building are going north on Lilac Drive until they get to Dupont Avenue and then traveling north/south on Dupont Avenue. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she thinks more of other types of traffic especially in a neighborhood like this and believes that the City needs to have intersections. She questioned why reconnection of Lilac Drive and making more of a green space to the east of the cul -de -sac and cutting off the Fremont Avenue was not considered. Mr. Blomstrom discussed they had studied a lot of options and that was one that was looked at; however, the edge of the right -of -way would extend through an existing parking lot and expands outside of the public right -of -way. Another issue with this option would be creating an acute intersection further down the road. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she believes Options 1 and 2 should be considered for the meeting with the property owners and let residents look at those options in order to get a more formal structure; however, she is leaning more towards Option 2. Mr. McCauley discussed there are two parts with Options 1 and 2. Option 1 is far more volatile and the cost range is not clearly delineated. The $70.500 represents an anticipated cost of construction and deconstruction. If the City were to acquire property from the homeowner on 62 Avenue North, the cost is unknown. Option 2, while it certainly has volatility, is far less volatile than Option 1. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she does think it is important to show the neighborhood some options to broaden the scope of discussions even though she does not believe that Option 1 would be favorable. 04/11/05 -14- Mayor Kragness questioned if there had been any recent discussions regarding the cost sharing with Lang Nelson. Mr. Blomstrom informed that there had been no recent discussions. Mr. Lang questioned how Option 2 went from approximately $30,000 to $59,800. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the costs were estimated without the benefit of a field study and that was the reason they suggested before getting into a deep discussion of financing and making decisions conducting a feasibility study. There were a couple of things that had come up and one was one of the streets not being able to be salvaged and would need to be widened to the minimum street width for a two -way public street which added to the cost. Another issue was the removal of a utility pole, which was brought up as an unknown during the initial discussions. The utility pole will need to be removed and there is a substantial cost. The other issues are pavement markings, stop signs, and things that are proposed to mitigate for some of the traffic issues with the acute angle intersection. Councilmember Niesen asked Mr. Lang why he had expanded the parking lot at the senior housing complex. Mr. Lang discussed that they had placed an 8,000 square foot addition onto the building and expanded the parking lot in order to accommodate that addition since they were not able to provide underground parking. Councilmember Lasman expressed she favors Option 2 and believes that the project should be something both the City and Mr. Lang work together on for financing. Mr. Lang informed that Option 2 is the only viable position for them to be in and that he thinks Option 2 is a good one to be supported from both the residents' standpoint and neighborhood standpoint. In terms of economics and with the substantial difference in cost, he is blown away by the doubling of the cost estimate. Mr. Lang discussed the senior housing economics and informed that at the time discussions started he was willing to pay approximately $15,000, which was half, and that is what he is willing to pay today. Mayor Kragness expressed that the financial aspect is something that really needs to be considered and asked what year this project would be considered for improvements as part of the Capital Improvements Program (C1P). Mr. Blomstrom responded that it is beyond 2011 at this point and it is because a bit of the neighborhood already had curb and gutter and the streets are not as deteriorated as other streets. Councilmember Carmody discussed originally she was thinking that the project was going to be split 50150 percent. She asked how the Council would feel about a comprise and suggested a 60/40 percent split with the City being 60 percent and Lang Nelson being 40 percent since the residents at the complex are residents of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to know what the neighbors feel about the project before making any financial decisions. 04/11/05 -15- Mayor Kragness informed that the last time the Council discussed this she received some calls from the neighbors and half of them were for the project and half of them not for the project. She thinks it is important that this road be constructed and if there could be some agreement on the financing of the project it would be beneficial to all. She asked Mr. Lang if he would be able to talk to his partners to see if they are able to come up with more than $15,000. Mr. Lang asked about the tim eframe and plan; and Mayor Kragness asked what the plan would be to get this project completed this year. Mr. McCauley discussed an alternate was placed in the current bid documents for the street reconstruction project to seek the potential ability to do the work in 2005. If there is going to be a meaningful opportunity for the neighborhood, as well as have the ability to do it as an alternate should this go forward with the alternate, there needs to be something figured out in the next two weeks to start the process. Mr. Blomstrom added that the numbers provided are estimates and are subject to bids. He is hoping to be able to bid this project as part of this year's CIP to keep the costs as low as possible. Councilmember Carmody asked if the Council were to approve their part and Mr. Lang finds that they are able to fund their part, can the project move forward in the next two weeks. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council agrees and Mr. Lang notifies the City that they are able to fund their portion then staff would be able to begin scheduling the meeting to keep on track so that a decision could be made. Mayor Kragness expressed that she believes it is important to move this project forward this year. Mr. Lang indicated that he would let the Council know this week about their funding options. Councilmember Carmody made a motion to direct staff to work with Lang Nelson and come up with an agreement; develop a neighborhood meeting to present Options 1 and 2 to the residents; and use a 60/40 percent split, the City being 60 percent and Lang Nelson being 40 percent on the financing. Mr. McCauley discussed in order for this to align, Lang Nelson has to be in agreement with the Council and he believes that Lang Nelson is not considering Option 1, so as part of the neighborhood meeting discussions, Option 1 would only be to show the alternatives considered. Councilmember Lasman seconded the motion. Councilmember Niesen asked if there would be a ceiling limit. Mr. McCauley discussed at this time there are no firm dollar figures from both sides and will be able to be considered 1 no o until the bids are received. Motion passed unanimously. 9h. 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE Mr. McCauley recommended May 25, 2005, for a joint meeting with the Commission Chairs and amending the 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule to add May 25, 2005, 6:30 p.m., in the Council /Commission Conference Room. 04/11/05 -16- M:r City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 2005 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Staff Report for Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive Improvements, Improvement Project No. 2004 -08 I. OVERVIEW This report summarizes the results of a study to investigate potential street improvements near the intersection of Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive.. On February 9, 2004, the City Council directed staff to study the feasibility of extending Fremont Avenue to connect with Lilac Drive at 62 Avenue and report back to the City Council in early 2005. The project study area is illustrated in attached Figure 1. The Council initiated the study at the request of Lang Nelson Associates (Lang Nelson), the owner of the senior housing complex located at 6125 and 6201 Lilac Drive. Representatives of Lang Nelson have indicated that the closing of Humboldt Avenue associated with the 2003/2004 improvements at Grandview Park and Earle Brown Elementary School has made traffic access to their property very difficult for senior residents and visitors. Lang Nelson has requested that the City remove the existing cul -de -sac at the north end of the 6100 block of Fremont Avenue and connect Fremont Avenue to Lilac Drive at 62 Avenue. Lang Nelson has indicated that this street improvement would mitigate site access issues associated with the closure of the segment of Humboldt Avenue along Grandview Park. II. BACKGROUND In 1983, the City Council approved a rezoning (from R -3 to R -6) and a Preliminary Plat that established the current lot configurations for the two senior apartment buildings and 32 townhomes that are now located along Lilac Drive. Prior to these approvals, the City conducted a number of neighborhood meetings with interested citizens and neighborhood property owners to discuss the proposed rezoning and site development plans. The 1983 applications mentioned above were the culmination of these deliberations. During the approval process, the City of Brooklyn Center decided to close Lilac Drive at Fremont and 62 Avenues in response to neighborhood concerns regarding additional traffic in the area that may be generated by the higher density development. The City determined that closure of Fremont Avenue would avoid a potentially substantial increase in cut through traffic along Lilac Drive and Fremont Avenue. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org III. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES The requested street improvements would involve some challenges with respect to meeting basic K s i g eometric des gn standards for public streets. 6� Avenue currently intersects with the northern p ortion of Lilac Drive at an acute angle of approximately 45 p g Pp Y degrees. The extension of Fremont Avenue to 62 nd Avenue and Lilac Drive would produce a through street (Fremont) with a three way intersection at 62 "d Avenue. This street reconfiguration would result in a short- radius curve (sharp turn) along 62 Avenue as it approaches Fremont Avenue. Engineering standards discourage side street intersections with angles less than 60 degrees. Such intersections result in increased lane encroachments because drivers tend to reduce their driving path by using a portion of the opposing lane for turning movements. Drivers tend to have more difficulty looking past 90 degrees for approaching traffic along the through street. In addition, traffic control devices at this type of intersection tend to be located outside the driver's normal line of sight. The following options were prepared in order to address the issues noted above. A. Option l: Terminate 62 Avenue North Attached is a drawing showing the potential road modifications for Option 1, which would include the closure of 62 Avenue prior to connecting with Fremont Avenue. Option 1 was developed to avoid a three way intersection with an acute angle less than 60 degrees as described above. Closure of 62 Avenue would require the construction of a cul -de -sac with a minimum radius of about 38 feet to allow snow plowing equipment to turn around. Construction of a cul -de -sac would require the acquisition of approximately 1830 square feet of easement from the parcel located at 1200 62 Avenue to provide adequate street right of way. Land acquisition could be difficult, time consuming and expensive if the adjacent property owner is unwilling to convey the necessary right -of -way to allow construction of the cul -de -sac. B. Option 2: 3 -Way Intersection with Stop Condition The attached drawing labeled Option 2 illustrates the potential extension of Fremont Avenue and creation of a three -way intersection with 62 Avenue. This configuration would not require land acquisition, but would create an acute angle intersection. In order to mitigate concerns with the intersection, Option 2 includes the establishment of a three way stop condition at the proposed intersection. An advanced warning sign would be required along Fremont Avenue south of the intersection. The extension of Fremont Avenue would provide an uninterrupted roadway connection between 59` Avenue and Dupont Avenue. A portion of local traffic generated by the Lang Nelson property at 6201 Lilac Drive would shift from Dupont Avenue and 62n Avenue onto Fremont Avenue. A portion of local traffic generated by the Lang Nelson property at 6125 Lilac Drive would shift from Humboldt Avenue and 60` Avenue onto the northern portion of Lilac Drive. A detailed traffic study was not included as part this initial study. C. Option 3: Private Driveway Connection The attached drawing labeled Option 3 illustrates the potential construction of a private driveway connection between the two Lang Nelson properties along the north and west sides of the parcels. Option 3 would not require modifications of the public street and would avoid the issues associated with the acute angle intersection at 62 Avenue. In addition, this option would not dramatically alter the traffic patterns for potential non local (cut through) traffic throughout the neighborhood. Representatives from Lang Nelson have indicated that Option 3 does not provide a user friendly connection between their two buildings for visitors who are not familiar with their facility layout. Lang Nelson has also mentioned that they place a high value on the existing green space along the northern and western portions of the property. The proposed driveway connection would reduce the amount of green space on the property. IV. ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated construction costs for each of the three options discussed above. Options 1 and 2 involve modifications to a public street and should be constructed primarily at the applicant's expense in accordance with standard policy for new subdivisions. Option 3 would involve improvements to privately owned property and would be constructed by the property owner. The construction costs estimates for Options 1 and 2 include approximately $9,000 to relocate an existing overhead power pole to allow the extension of Fremont Avenue. Table 1 Estimated Construction Cost Street Imtirovement Option Estimated Construction Cost Option 1 $70,500 plus un -known land acquisition costs Option 2 $59,800 using existing right -of -way Option 3 $97,700 Lang Nelson expense V. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information contained in this report, staff recommends the following actions if the City Council wishes to further pursue public street improvements within the study area. 1. Invite a representative from Lang Nelson to the next available City Council meeting to discuss cost participation for Options 1 and 2; determine the willingness of Lang Nelson to underwrite their request for street improvements; and determine Council direction on any City funding participation beyond staff time for engineering design and construction administration. 2. If a satisfactory financing plan is determined, then direct City staff to conduct a neighborhood meeting at City Hall to present the three road improvement options and solicit comments from residents. 3. Direct City staff to prepare a summary of comments received during the neighborhood meeting and present the summary of citizen comments and concerns to the City Council for further consideration. a n +..H dL L Yw y 4e♦ it yI 3 T 4; t S_ N LL pi N L t k IR DD i +�4 C r o et �i� if k. ell,.:" tCj jJ*:>f TK4a„*I�:, nn. dWW f E W rt _r •e'�krc. t 1 !I' y it r t.,, t?+ $1 a ,1 .f tY t y d r, t 'ir t r c •4 �'r t ..a`�. ay.�.,..? x ,Rr Z t a» c -4 F 3 ,.�ry U t j >S �t vpti f •►7,� 1;' w• F" t1t \Z ,r('Y', �f 5 t♦ enV FIN—H PneMO' .i W �`Wv y `y. .^Kbv> Y i+� �,7,�.•1i ;r',�f�fr �r��..+J' t. yx A L fix y.«s Z VI uj NZ wart JI�'#a" r f �1 r x J re =r •QA` v igyb ^t L`� urn 1F! 1' f P 1 l� 4 ^V�. f W., t bow t k,.' x n AAP .r•Pr. tTl OPT►viq 1 NOFaH uL.A C DAW PROPERTY ACAUISTION 1828 S.F. j i f, 1200 V. ROPOSED CURB PROPOSED CURS 1 I i 1 etnG RELOCATE POWER POLE i I l REMOVE CURB Me GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 7 cMC. 8131 viiiiii rt i 15130 i It 4 Ir OVE CIRO GUTTER j AND BITU6 VOUS PAVEMENT O U 1 'C p 1 i t_ W i i r II I l I F 11 I 1 I� 6124 MLL Off .J o e 5 BtJ)C. It j `y i i I I I 4 11 11 +art i ice!! a I STOP STOP Stxl 1 J�GARAGE r e rr i II 11 71 1 ORMP9C 9C/I11 /i 111 11 r rT T 8114 11 i 8112 i rrr a CITY OF s I DrlKET ..TON 3 BROOKLYN CENTER I mm LL�C DFWE r OPTION 1 reJraN comm. �_xs� IFQi Nn a or m rsA 6 n I AN 1 uI H�2 i to 1 S II M I I 1 Y 1 r 1 l 1 m l l 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 3 t I I 14�• I I �I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I,I,I.Y I 11 I l II II i i I I i l i l i 11 1 11 1 I I 1 ti ��\lll 11 II F I D 0 0 1 w,L ryi Al 4 f �q I I I 1 11 EMERSON y I i a 111�711 i OEM" Im i OF SUN 3 ,I.>E NCIRT i 1 r e C DINE 1 -REMOVE CURB do GUTTER AND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 1 1 �1 1 M 1 1 1 1 ``j 1 I' i i `t•lf' 1 I I I, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1 �T �1 1 I I 1 11 I I I I I 1 1 1 MILL CUT PROPOSED CURB J AND GUTTER I 1 1 1 a a a 111\11V q 1 '1 1 1 ,gyp p 6 18 RA OIt 1tS Y q 1 1 1 1 q a �1 1 ik GU ANO B& 1 i 1 r N ITUMINOUS I 1 a r GIRARD AVE._ fT AVEMENT 11 v t vc��� AA vA VA A f f� I 1 1 1 I' I I I I I 2 racy j p 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' It MILL CUT CONSTRUCT 13 tl 1 I I 1 i PARKING SPACES ii 1 I� n i TLIF i� CRAPIM sc.0 A a G CITY OF {�,�g 4 ai6i JcBON I BROOKLYN CENTER 1Pti 1� I L.LAC DRIVE r 2005- -nc OPTION 3 x901 Mo"m cam".. ,M9o5991 SIM /lO 2 f! m WEM 1 From: Greg Bronk [mailto:GREG @Ianel.com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:54 AM To: Todd Blomstrom Subject: Fremont Avenue Street Improvements Todd, Please consider this our formal request to delay the council action and meeting two more weeks. I understand this delay may cause increase expense and construction delay. As I mentioned boned to you Frank Y Lan must be able to attend the meeting. Y 9 Please confirm back to me via email or phone our request has been granted. Thank you Greg Bronk LaNel Financial Group 4601 Excelsior Blvd. St Louis Park, MN 55416 952 920 5338 greg @lanel.com 3/25/2005 MOT City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community N MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Staff Report for Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive Improvements On May 17, 2005, City staff conducted a neighborhood meeting at City Hall to present the potential street modifications to Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive as directed by the City Council. Written notification of the meeting was mailed to 273 residents and property owners within the notification boundary as shown on the attached figure. Written notification of the meeting was also sent to the resident manager for the senior apartment complex and to Lang Nelson. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 area residents, a City Council Member, City staff and a representative of Lang Nelson. A majority of the attendees appeared to be from the single family or townhome residences within the study area. City staff provided a brief presentation of the street improvements that have been requested by Lang Nelson. A copy of the presentation slides are attached to this memorandum. Staff summarized the potential street improvements as illustrated in Option 2 of the report presented to the City Council on April 11, 2005. The following is a summary of the various questions and comments provided by residents at the neighborhood meeting. 1. Pedestrian Safety Concerns Several residents expressed concern regarding potential impacts to pedestrian safety if the roadway were modified to allow through traffic along Fremont Avenue and Lilac Drive. These concerns included the safety of younger school children walking through the neighborhood on their way to the Earle Brown Elementary School. Other attendees indicated that many seniors and area residents walk along Lilac Drive, which appears to be a fairly quiet street in its current configuration. 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 2. Neighborhood Traffic Concerns Residents provided several comments or questions regarding the potential changes in traffic that could occur as a result of the requested street modifications. Traffic concerns expressed at the meeting consisted of two basic issues: 1) the street connection would change the quiet character of the neighborhood; and 2) the street connection would provide a short cut through the neighborhood for drivers traveling to the school/park area or drivers wanting to avoid Dupont Avenue. Two residents at the meeting indicated that they would like the improved traffic accessibility for emergency vehicles responding to calls within the neighborhood and at the senior apartment complex. p p i 3. Speed Control Issues Some residents suggested that passive traffic calming measures should be included in the design such as a small traffic circle or speed bumps. Staff discussed the challenges of speed bumps within public streets and the limited amount of public right -of -way to construct a full traffic circle. One resident suggested a small traffic circle or planter be placed within the proposed intersection similar to some applications in Minneapolis or other communities. 4. Funding Sources and Other Options Residents asked if the project would involve special assessments as a method of funding the requested improvements. Staff indicated that special assessments against single family and townhome properties were not being recommended to the Council at this time. Another resident commented that public money should not be used to fund the requested street modifications. Residents questioned if the connection between the two buildings could be constructed on private property (Lang Nelson property). Staff briefly discussed the option included in the April 11` City Council report showing the roadway connection on the Crossings Senior Apartment site. A representative from Lang Nelson discussed the various difficulties with constructing the private driveway connection. ,.1F� F I --+•r Yd v::, f �P"' i�l�lil8tve:.li. f :r r tl 1►F,r,,,,,,, f c yt r. Y ',m g J l �l F I .y,. c y 1 4 Via #i f ,1. Yqt MiiJ'..e�' l i w Y ..�R a.. T+ t i ?3 �b Y s r,. rF M I F �i .r. F g, F �n 4 Vr,� i�'^.� •i.- �+r i h r s i F s r q t _F �y w +C" K f j ,a �.i. y R i,. A ,,.eg;if t 5 �,w..r�- �3 y�y_� r F, Y,r� Y r r k N. �t r �i r w... 3..'� -°art�""s w a �-a.a �a-: .�.a'.. rz. ��r rte, i"` r 4 F_ i .Y,�' a y s �'•t -r Bret rl r rE �r �d ,�3, i ...-gin —�z�x7 a ,w ,.""......r.. .g.e::, •.oa�e �.re..::. u i ri fi b. t 'i` 1'' x, fi 1, jr �T� t.• Notification r� F' F� Boundary .S Y R F. f K •r Y i, �7 i v. yyLpp T• I M eeting Notification Boundary rY I OPT10w 2 NOWH L" C DWNE Q a STOP 9GN 1200 \PROPOSED CU STOP SIG!( 62ND AVE. N.� on BLDG. RELOCATE L ZL II III POWER POLE \-STOP SIGN REMOVE CURB k GUTTER t7'j 11�'-`� II AND BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT--L r L ARG. 6131 i 11 6130 11 -V Ld 1 �L 1 I 4 ru art C BLDG. i �-3— _li fine rAl i I I O tl 1 °1T i It 11 I 6,26 It d 0�1° STOP SIGN it Z II GARAGE Ili oo 11 ry 11 i 6114 11 (y 11 i 6112 CITY OF s m�TCONNFAUC!" DFM BROOKLYN CENTER w 2005- OPTION LLAC aPnaN 2 •.U.d„n stmrRa w Cr m fsRS I I I ,d USES 11r irl ve North r s Nei -z -)or'lood A4eetin g g a 5 �x�x art t c iiak rJItJ�l� s ved Request for Street Improvements 2003 1 Discussions with City Council in February 2004 mal Neighborhood Meeting by Lang Nelson rdered the Preparation of an Engineering Report mmarized the Evaluation of Various Options scussed Report with Applicant on April 11, 2005 it Directed Staff to Meet with Neighborhood Residents it Comments and Input on the Requested street modifications K r �f s! S L J J r/.� To 0 .A 4 u F "vp� r ✓b �;tr�,R 3 ,k +mob ,4°i. 5... +1 A V at a '``�'�'��'p �a� .'r .'rTti7�• �'�fii�l .��w.,e,�S `.��i �t'�ffi�F'` �R'�� i tyt�� r iM e s`,:,z`� �"w, P ,�.f vAPt; t '3; S" as 1.m� x- ate.: r�t,�'14,�� r,�J. f 36.4' j.4'�i"�� t, 6.� 7 4M y wi 445 xN,, fi y 1FI�:t'4i ��r *`r r e-'•�� "t�1. �s`. t r i r `i 4 ii Mf �q gg d r y�. ry v�'.�� �f v •flP W 4 f a, m y,�.,,q{,• L.�,A..rt. `i+l�>i'�}S+N v 1 C t a d a i tr `�su aC t it r, nY.:• r .YdaS z j eaxi' X b s 1 75 Y� i'� t t •r r'..i.:tr, i, #"7K �3 1 1 's r t, tixs k, 7R_ s M L r 1 1 i z i�1�tt c {�fg4 i Ta S f yg(� ^T A S h da'�4 �°"�"`S}^�.0 E •d' u k.s q 4` n, x z; S i AS"t r a.L. k IN i.t:415 a YX d per r,. �t•' �s.i:�: atS 5���� s is I m`� .•a" v f t l i 3 ��pp gg Iy Y t r` 5t �r `F>� r �..f' t l S e ss '�.r. _r 3 x J" s S t j L h�`-�' S Zea EY F iL y +.rtn3:rq pp� 'cfwc W, �1� r,R sue_ R- +'4 s x:�: si If �'"�P t. X F, s1e a TZc s C f E. MT g V AR •E S� tl y a 's"� ss!r ''�%4� t t }'`"t� 5s, E 6 t §a: t flii 1 x saa. sr K Bpi t IM U1 Y AN a .A 'i'.:c•.Ir`$a M AN s g j�.� i fi`g a r tie as is `s a i art r �w� �1,• F�.. j t...:li®e3di�1�` #�C 'xJ Pa ad S T j 4C s�, a s�& I t W �K •a..= '4. gyp' f •ti1 a n �"4 �p 0 It- (1,., rr M 1 YA '.a�i e A I F. I +i p FIisGk d ++++771 �v�e isnA -w{r A a n K4' T't I�it� R,'. °+tt t s� `11 t ty x7 �S, ,g yyhgkl�'3 sDaiCFZ! a t �'1. R. logs 5 k �"r RSR :ra °Lk?' gyp °E 6 Cv A. u„bY td �e'4t VhtS#i'�.�c c n`"r �c.•��, ,r af'j C l •C:.< .a ..h*Zf4ciW�• 11 .wMa�.•ai• >+l .xi ..xr..r.x.,piu "a.. W„ r .J �a� .,ri a c ,�sa f T t'r+ e b �c. �{�ey n� m �4p f„4 !!X}�5 r A 1 u i} A� •P pp ii.ifl 1 4'� �sW: n� f Ye� a2- :i!'mw t. /�t�. �g e ++k ���Paf L >eXdT.4SWf rfr' 9M➢ Y 1 T•• sN'�" e J y .i Yi 4 'F �f �,x{F� �if' 5 }FM-d C5 C ..N df R f i. f' i f �n T f ASS its us f G5::�� ggvv s �Y,Y,�c�..'3.YYM. .r£5 •Y �4 K i 'F:�� 'i^ n �i+ q �6 t �3t° a y �'�k ri fi' e.. t ai ar�F tti.0 e..�. F� a�,,^55 v fr d 4 �M,p' �:�'F�`�3lpd._ rs �g ry� t a r r. t* ry t p• NtP IT 'T..� O r Rr"w �R. UIR 4 MV l n�* tA snt 'Y i �*r�, -R.. r* .!�i� �"rl.' E .�ts�, r•`" �8..: sx: ''S'� a' s� .`=fit �k� Y q�"�:'. g' y a�g� s, '�-4 is r" ,7' 1 y" v N ,,.r'• T�: as 3 1 ata� a ;,�n.•a',i,�'') a' R n z s`� R' x� ��i4i: 'x� c �48.v s �v Y 5 �'di.; e• ^i A a''.� �,3 'v? L."; �•m• nrh r ^'y',Jt x�� ai ii? •�'.,"t i�1. �Ff �a".,1*" �y .r ":mot S e +'j �i t F +s: s3e... .yx a {+.a t�'%�. x� 'w .�q� ��T�j✓ y �A qS�f r 4 °.3' kc sp »fit "�r r 2;y Lii�� rs '33 s 7'x'�'3s �6p +-c r y �;i!' es 9 �.ar~; r�Y 3. '+TV"t.��,''a.T�°C*•y!:- S�eL,�+ .A 6 �t.� e w.:4� fia���.., z 73T'` n. 6J t �7Hr1 V �.���J��� ;;•f�l'I"i"I�I�f� �t rl•i•rl�I��'� r a t k V u i RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -05, CONTRACT 2005 -G, TWIN LAKE AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-05, CONTRACT 2005 -G, TWIN LAKE AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STROM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -89 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -05, CONTRACT 2005 -G, TWIN LAKE AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. STAFF REPORT FOR FREMONT AVENUE AND LILAC DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. McCauley discussed that notifications had been sent to the residents and property owners in the area around the proposed reconfiguration of Lilac Drive. Approximately 30 people attended the public meeting and in the materials were some of the concerns that were raised with respect to pedestrian safety, neighborhood traffic, etc. Also, a petition was received today that was copied for the Council that had been signed by residents of The Crossings. Mr. Blomstrom provided a brief overview of the Mav 17, 2005, neighborhood meeting and outlined the following concerns that were included with the materials: pedestrian safety; neighborhood traffic; speed control; and funding sources. Mayor Pro Tem Carmody informed that the Council would take public input from those who would like to address this issue. 06/13/05 -7- DRAFT A resident from the Brookwood Townhomes (Ralph) addressed the Council to express that he was confused about why the Council is considering this street modification when most of the residents are against the modification. Mayor Pro Tern Carmody explained that the Council had received a request from The Crossings and the Council agreed to look at the request. Clinton Peabody, corner of 62 Avenue and Fremont Avenue, addressed the Council to express that he is against the modification and that he has a bad feeling about the increase in traffic. He discussed for whatever reason the street was cutoff in the first place, it brought a lot of quiet to the neighborhood and he enjoys being able to live in a quiet neighborhood. He asked that the Council help preserve the quietness in his neighborhood. He informed that he had a petition for the Council of approximately 14 residents that were against the modification (this petition was provided to the Deputy City Clerk). Bart Mathews, 1200 62 Avenue North, addressed the Council to express that he believes the emergency vehicles have no problem finding their destinations and that this modification would be a mistake with all the children and elderly who walk in the area. He added that he is against the modification. Pete Matthews addressed the Council on behalf of daughter who lives in the neighborhood and discussed that the primary reason she moved into her home was the cul -de -sac. He expressed that he believes this modification will make the neighborhood streets a racetrack and does not believe there is any merit for this modification other than to the rental property. Anne Silseth, 1125 63 Lane North, addressed the Council to express that she believes this modification will create a thoroughfare and she would like to keep the neighborhood safe and quiet. Wendy Rider, 1409 63 Lane North, addressed the Council to discuss the history of the neighborhood since she has been a resident for 30 years and to express that she would not support the modification. She believes this modification would not fiscally support the use of funds for the City, would devalue her home, be a risk to the elderly, and that all the area needs is better signage for The Crossings. Brian Hulquist, 6100 Fremont Avenue North, addressed the Council to express that he is against the modification and informed that he would be willing to have a sign put in his yard to help the situation. He asked the Council to deny the motion. Mary Lacina, 1221 63 Lane North, addressed the Council to express that she is neither for nor against the modification since she lives in the area and has parents that live at The Crossings. She does have a concern about emergency vehicles and is wondering if a complete study had been done regarding the emergency traffic concerns. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that both the Chiefs ofFire and Police felt that the modification would provide better access; however, were not strong supporters for the modification based on the comments that were said at the neighborhood meeting. 06/13/05 -8- DRAFT Ms. Lacina expressed that she would not want this modification to go forward if it would mean more taxes and would like some guarantee about that. Paul Brewer from The Crossings addressed the Council to discuss that the petition presented today had 96 residents who are requesting the modification and to outline the history of their concern and request for the modification. He expressed they want to keep the friendly neighborhood and do not want to disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood; however, believes that the modification is needed. They are prepared to participate in the cost of the modification and would like to ask the Council to favorably consider the modification. Discussions continued on the history of the neighborhood streets and cost sharing proposed for the modification. It was noted that the developer Nvould pay 40 percent and the City would pay 60 percent of the total cost for the project with no assessments to the property owners. Frank Lang, Owner of The Crossings, addressed the Council to express that he would like to continue being a good neighbor and believes this modification is very much needed for the residents that live at The Crossings. He believes that they have tried to work this out to the betterment of the City, the residents nearby, and the residents at The Crossings. A resident at the corner of 60"' Avenue North and Fremont Avenue North (Herman) addressed the Council to express that he was against the modification and believes if the modification goes forward a 4 -way stop sign will be needed at the corner of 60"' Avenue North and Fremont Avenue North. Several of the residents that had previously spoken re- addressed the Council to reiterate that they are against the modification. Council continued discussions regarding the modification proposed and the City's Sign Ordinance that currently would not allow signage for the neighborhood area. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she is not ,willing to support any taxes for residents and would like to make a motion to discontinue this modification. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to halt further investigation on this modification, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor. Councilmember Lasman expressed that she believes there might be some merit on waiting to make a decision until there is a full Council. She believes she has a responsibility to both groups and after hearing the comments this evening and receiving the petition with 96 signatures she would like to take time to evaluate the issue further and have a decision made with a full Council. She would like to table. Mayor Pro Tern Carmody expressed that she would not support this modification and believes that if it is at all possible another comprise should be considered. i Councilmember Lasman voted against the same.. Motion passed. 06/13/05 -9- DRAFT Z Councilmember Niesen discussed that if Lang Nelson would like to write a proposal and come before the Council with another idea she would be willing to take a look at other alternatives besides opening the road. 9d. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON CONFORMING ORMING USES• AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12-901,12-902, AND 35 -111 Mr. McCauley discussed that Community Development staff had proposed an ordinance change with the intent to ease the burden on maintaining a legal nonconforming use for purposes of zoning. The Community Development Department had previously been requiring a rental license primarily as a means of documenting the maintenance of a legal nonconforming use of a duplex. The options that are before the Council are the original proposal which amends and creates some type of a certificate that a duplex is being occupied, but not rented, in terms of receiving monetary compensation; and in Section 35 -111 amends the zoning code to conform to State Statute by giving someone six months regardless of what type of nonconforming use is destroyed to get a building permit. The second option is to do nothing at all. In reviewing the practice etc., there is no rental licenses required where there is no fee collected. The third option would be exploring the Housing Commissions' recommendation regarding a modified version of a certificate which then raises the issue of what would be a qualifying relative if it was an owner occupied unit and suggests a differentiation between requiring a license for those owner occupied rentals to qualifying relatives who had a written lease. Councilmember O'Connor suggested separating the changes and passing the non controversial items such as the 180 days because it is State Law (number 5 in Section 35 -111), but not pass seven and one. She expressed she is fine with passing the addition where they have to pay part of their license fee if they withdraw their application; and that the controversial items should have the language changed or possibly not pass anything on those. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council chose the no action option staff would come back to the Council with language and the nonconforming 180 days with all other cleaned up language for introduction of a first reading at a later meeting. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she had an issue with Chapter 12 and addressed those issues with a letter to the Housing Commission. During her review of Chapter 12 and in preparing her letter she questioned why some of the Laws ended up the way they did and expressed that the Council should not be afraid to look at Laws since the City is a Home Rule Charter City. She expressed she has a few issues with the rental ordinance the way it is currently written and this proposal brought these issues to her attention. The main issues she has right now are no definition of duplex and that her house has been referred to as nonconforming. 06/13/05 -10- DRAFT Page 1 of 1 Michael McCauley From: Kathleen Carmody Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:39 PM To: Michael McCauley Subject: FW: Growth Survey Visit Minneapolis North Importance: High Attachments: Growth Survey 05.pdf I got this survey. I am wondering if adding more cities would help or hinder our situation. How should I, or should I respond. Do we want to do this as a council response versus each individual council member? Kathleen From: Brent Haugen mailto: brent @visitminneapolisnorth.com] Sent: Tue 6/14/2005 8:08 AM To: bob @visitminneapolisnorth.com Subject: Growth Survey Visit Minneapolis North Dear Member Stakeholders, Please take a look at the attached document concerning future growth for Visit Minneapolis North. An e -mail memo went out in yesterday alerting you to this questionnaire. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Bob Musil, Executive Director at 763.566.7722 ext 15 or bob,(c,vvisitm nne�ol Thank you for your input, Brent J. Haugen Tourism Communications Manager Visit Minneapolis North 6200 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Suite 248 Minneapolis, MN 55430 763.566.7722 or 800.541.4364 ext 16 fx: 763.566.6526 Our NEW Visitor Guide is out, request yours today! 06/15/2005 Organizational Growth Questionnaire for Stakeholders June 13, 2005 Response Request Date: Wednesday, June 29 2005 Membership Situation: Visit Minneapolis North is a convention and visitors bureau (CVB) which consists of eleven cities. Those are: Anoka, Arden Hills, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Ham Lake, Maple Grove, Mounds View and Shoreview. Over the past two years, and continuing through 2005, the CVB is being presented with several opportunities as they relate to growth of its current area of service. Four cities, which immediately border our existing membership area, are rapidly developing not only in terms of lodging, but with important destination products which will attract more sports, meeting and convention, and tourism business to our region. The four cities are Ramsey, Elk River Otsego and Rogers. In recent months, the CVB has been approached by representatives from two of these four cities, Ramsey and Otsego about possible membership opportunities. Including these four cities as members would increase our available lodging inventory by seven properties, expose the CVB sales staff to new customer bases, add significant features and benefits to our overall regional destination product, increase the CVB's ability to compete and generate an estimated $250,000 in additional revenue to the organization. As a stakeholder of Visit Minneapolis North. your response to this questionnaire will provide useful information to the Board of Directors as it considers future organizational growth opportunities. Opportunities /Summary of Community Assets Ramsev Lodging Comfort Inn Suites Sports /Meeting Venues Diamonds Sports Complex, Links at Northfork Attractions Game Fair. Kellv farm Chamber Anoka Area Chamber of Commerce Other Great River Road Community, Hwy 10 corridor, Ramsey Town Square development, trail system I s Elk River Lodging AmericInn Lodge Suites, Country Inn Suites, Elk Motel Sports /Meeting Venues Elk River Arcna Attractions Historic Downtown District, Mississippi River Chamber Elk River Area Chamber of Commerce Other Great River Road Community, Hwy 10 corridor, Sherburne County Seat. several community festivals Otsego Lodging Holiday Inn Sports /Meeting Venues Blackwoods Conference Center Attractions Wildwoods Water Park: Chamber 1 -94 West Chamber of Commerce Other Great Road community, bordered by Elk River and Rogers on Hwy 101 Rogers Lodging AmericInn, Super 8 Sports /Meeting Venues Wellstead Conference and Event Center, North Community Softball Fields Attractions Cabela's, Ellingson Car Museum Chamber I -94 West Chamher Other Gateway community to North Metro Area from West on 1 -94 QUESTIONS: 1. Should Visit Minneapolis North actively engage in conversations with the previously listed Communities about membership opportunities? Oppose Support Undecided 2. Are there any additional communities not mentioned that should be considered for membership? Please List: 3. Are there any of these communities that should not be considered for membership? Please list: 4. Additional Comments (optional) *PLEASE FORWARD THIS COMPLETED PAGE VIA FAX, 763.566.6526, ATTENTION: BOB MUSIL BY WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29 2005. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and ncil Members Carmo Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: June 20, 2005 Re: 2005 and 2006 Salary The legislature passed and the governor signed a change in the salary cap law. The salary cap had been $114,288. It has been raised to $132,333 effective August 1, 2005. Non -union and union employees received a 3% increase in wages effective January 1, 2005 and will receive a 3% increase in wages on January 1, 2006. I have deferred discussion of my compensation pending a resolution of the salary cap legislation. My salary in 2004 was $112,706 per year. A 3% increase would have exceeded the salary cap in effect on January 1, 2005. I would propose that my employment contract be amended to provide the same increase as received by other city employees for 2005 and 2006 (with the actual salary increase for 2005 phased in to comply with the salary cap) as follows: 2005 Compensation o $114,288 for the period January 1, 2005 July 31, 2005 o $116,087 for the period August 1, 2005 December 31, 2005 2006 Compensation o $119,569 Attached is a 2004 salary survey using the cities used for City Council and labor negotiation comparison. The salary cap has artificially compressed compensation for city managers. As indicated in the survey form, some cities have exceeded the cap using car allowance and deferred compensation. Others have provided additional vacation. Another impact on the average /median wages has been recent turnover in positions. 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 2004 Deferred Weeks Population City Manager Car Allowance Total w /car Compensation Va cation GrandTotal Golden Valley 20,39 see note 109,180 $5121 $115,324 $115,324 Maplewood 080 35 $114,275 $114,2 6.00 $114,275 Fridley 27 469 $107,286 $306 $110,960 $110,960_ Richfield 34,876 $108,576 $400 $113,376 $4,000 117,376 New Hope 20 $107,987 $338 $112,037 $3,750 7.55 $115,787 Roseville 33,949 $110,000 $500 $116,000 $0 3.00 $116,000 st Cr al 22 8 Y 74 $99,800 $500 $105,800 $105,800 White Bear Lake 24 $103 $325 $107,774 $6,240 4.00 $114,014 Brooklyn Center 29,180 $112,706 $0 $112,706 $0 4.00 $112,706 Shoreview 26,374 $103,900 $375 $108, $108,400 Average $1.07,758 $362 $111,665 $113,064 Median $108,282 $375 112,372 $114,145 Brooklvn Center as Per cent of Average 104.59% 0.00% 100.93% 99.68% o Q Median 104.09% 0.00 /o 98.74% o II 100.30% I The information on deferred compensation is the amoun reported in a survey conducted by Ms. Wick �1 ld was in add 'p packages k and others It does not indic addition to PER A. whether some of these deferred com; esnation acka es are in addition to or in lieu of PERA. Richfi I I