Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 10-24 CCP Regular Session Public Copy I AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 24, 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 October 24, 2005 AGENDA *Revised 1. Informal Open Forum With City Council 6:45 p.m. provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2. Invocation 7 p.m. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting —The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. 4. Roll Call 5. Pledge of Allegiance 6. Council Report 7. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda —The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. October 10, 2005 Study Session 2. October 10, 2005 Regular Session 3. October 10, 2005 Work Session b. Licenses C. Approval to Dispose of Surplus Fire Radios to Small Rural Fire Departments in the State of Minnesota d. Approval of Site Performance Guarantee Release for Douglas Metal Specialties, 4906 and 4912 France Avenue North e. Provisional License Renewal 5240 Drew Avenue North CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 24, 2005 *Revised 8. Random Acts of Kindness Presentation of Recognition and Certificate Ceremony 9. Public Hearings a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Parks and Recreation —This item was first read on September 26, 2005; published in the official newspaper on October 6, 2005; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. b. An Ordinance Relating to Rental Dwellings and Non Conforming Uses; Amending City Code Sections 12 -901, 12 -902, and 35 -111 —This item was first read on September 26, 2005; published in the official newspaper on October 6, 2005; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: Motion to open the Public Hearing. —Take public input. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion to adopt ordinance. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for Assistance Provided by the City of Plymouth Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. b. Proposed Resolution from Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission *Requested Council Action: Council decision on whether it wishes to adopt resolution. C. Resolution Accepting 2005 Annual Deer Management Implementation Plan Report and Adopting the City Manager p g y Recommendations Therein Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 11. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 7a Sharon Knutson From: Curt Boganey Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:59 PM To: Sharon Knutson Subject: FW: October 10 minutes corrections Here are the proposed changes from Council Member Carmody. From: Kathleen Carmody Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 3:32 PM To: Curt Boganey Subject: October 10 minutes corrections Curt, Where are two corrections that l would like to make to has minuses for OctoW 16, 2000. 1. On the top of the second page of the Study Session, could we make a small grammatical correction and change the part of the First paragraph that says "it is going good" to "it is going well 2. On the second page of the Work Session, in the seventh paragraph, Council Member Lasman asks if I could get the meeting packet for the watershed, read it and report to the council at the Monday City Council meeting. No response from me is in the minutes. I would like it to read "Council Member Carmody stated that the Watershed meeting packets are not available until the Friday prior to the meeting. This left her with only three days to read it and the council meeting packet and provide input. She did not feel she could always accomplish that prior to the meeting." Thanks, Kathleen 10/24/2005 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 10, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, and Mary O'Connor. Councilmember Diane Niesen 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, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. Councilmember Diane Niesen arrived at 6:01 p.m. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Lasman discussed Item No. Sa, Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -014 submitted by GiGi Yanis requesting a Special Use Permit to conduct a home occupation that involves customer traffic at 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard, regarding whether there was any type of licensing requirements or other regulation for this type of business. Mayor Kragness stated she believed the business was already operating as there is a sign and lights in the yard. City Manager Michael McCauley responded that an individual can have a home occupation without a special use permit if it doesn't involve customer traffic at the residence. Councilmember O'Connor said she had submitted a correction to the September 26, 2005, Study Session minutes. The correction was on page 3, second paragraph, adding a second sentence to read, "If multiple family dwellings paid a minimum of $450 per building, revenues would increase by $40,000." Councilmember O'Connor inquired about Item No. 7e, Resolution Amending the 2005 Central Garage Budget to Provide for the Early Order /Purchase of One Tandem Axel Dump Truck, Equipment No. 11, regarding whether there was a trade -in for the current truck. Mr. McCauley responded that the City has in the past ordered some equipment early to save anticipated increased costs in the new year, but paid for it in the budgeted year. He further stated that there would be salvage value from the current truck. Councilmember Carmody inquired about Item No. 7d, Resolution Awarding a Contract With Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services, Improvement Project No. 2005 -05, Twin Lake Avenue Reconstruction, and what fund the money would come from, as it was not listed in the resolution. Mr. McCauley responded it would be funded to the project. Councilmember 10/10/05 -1- DRAFT O'Connor inquired about checking for contamination in the water and whether it would be a bigger job because of the storm water. Director of Public Works Todd Blomstrom responded that it is a complicated process to dewater, but it is going good and the contractor has been pumping less than what was anticipated. Councilmember Carmody discussed Item No. 9c, Resolution Designating the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as the Basis for All Incident Management in the City of Brooklyn Center, regarding whether the Emergency Declaration was for any type of disaster or just terrorist attacks. Mr. McCauley responded it was for any type of disaster and that the Mayor declares an emergency; the resolution is the federal requirement for designating NIMS. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS COUNCIL MEMBER O'CONNOR: HOUSING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS Councilmember O'Connor referred to the April 2, 2003, City Council meeting minutes, relating to proposed amendment to Chapter 12 rental license, noting that the consensus of the Council was .41 per dwelling unit as the number for excessive calls, and she inquired if it was currently .65. Councilmember Carmody said there were changes that were made to the provisional license ordinance after that meeting. Councilmember O'Connor said the Housing Commission had inquired how the provisional rental license ordinance was working out. Councilmember Carmody responded that there was one provisional license that had come before the City Council. Mr. McCauley said the Police Chief gave a report last year, and there was an overall reduction in the calls for service. He stated that the one complex that was issued the provisional license had submitted a mitigation plan and had been working to reduce the calls for service. Councilmember O'Connor referred to the draft Ordinance amendment for Section 19 -1303 of the City Code of Ordinances relating to parking and storage of vehicles and inquired of the status. Mr. McCauley responded that the Council did not accept it, nor did it accept the draft ordinance for recreational vehicle storage or driveways. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the Planning Commission will study regarding the request to limit the number of vehicles in driveways. Councilmember Carmody responded that the Planning Commission will look at cars overall rather than specific types of cars as the Housing Commission reviewed. Councilmember Lasman said the reason this issue is being reviewed is there is a whole new set of circumstances and this is one way to address preserving neighborhoods and housing. Councilmember Niesen said she hadn't received any complaints regarding this issue and raised the issue of families with teenagers with cars and where cars are to be parked, as they cannot park on the street. 10/10/05 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody stated she has seen several residences in which cars are parked on the grass next to the driveway rather than on the driveway, and she wants a set number and location for cars and vehicles. Councilmember Lasman stated that neighborhoods need to be preserved to keep and protect the good quality of life in the suburb. She said the Council loosened the regulations for larger garages to allow for storage of vehicles, boats, trailers, etc. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Niesen inquired about the high water level in Twin Lake. Mr. Blomstrom responded there was a massive amount of water that came through the watershed. Councilmember Lasman asked when the street sweepers would be on the roads and also when tree debris removal in the parks would take place. Mr. Blomstrom responded the challenge with the street sweeper right now is that there is so much debris along the streets that the dump truck has to run simultaneously with it, and the dump trucks are all being used for resident tree debris removal. With regard to parks clean -up, it depends on how long the resident tree debris removal process takes, but hopefully this winter. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the Twin Lake sediment study and fish results. Mr. Blomstrom said he hadn't receive any results but could contact the consultant to get an update. Councilmember Niesen requested a left turn arrow at the east/west traffic light on Northport Drive and Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Blomstrom said it is an awkward intersection, as there is no stacking area for vehicles. He stated it is a Hennepin County traffic signal. Councilmember Niesen raised the issue of the EDA purchasing the lot at the southwest corner of 63rd Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard, as it is too small for any development. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adj ournment of the Study Session at 6:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 10/10/05 -3- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 10, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager /Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. Mayor Kragness opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Shar Bjerke, 7020 Dallas Road, addressed the Council regarding damage done to her lawn by the City crews when they removed the tree debris from her front yard. She said she received three estimates to repair the damage. City Manager Michael McCauley said she could submit her claim and estimates to the City Clerk, and the City would then submit the claim the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION A moment of silence was offered for the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. 10110105 -1- DRAFT 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager /Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Lasman expressed appreciation to the City crews for the clean-up of the tree debris from the storm damage throughout the city. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve the consent agenda and agenda as amended, with amendments to the September 26, 2005, Study and Regular Session minutes as discussed in the Study Session, and the following consent items were approved: 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 22, 2005, Emergency Meeting; September 26, 2005, Regular, Study, and Work Session. 7b. LICENSES MECHANICAL Commercial Plumbing Heating Inc. 24428 Greenway Ave, Forest Lake Fore Mechanical 3520 88` Ave NE, Blaine RENTAL Renewal: 5400 Irving Ave N (Single Family) Paul Choua Vue 5329 Queen Ave N (Two Family -One Unit) Alvin Stachowski 7110 Riverdale Road (Single Family) James Nelson Initial: 1604 68th Lane (Single Family) David Brooks 5301 Dupont Ave N (1 Bldg, 6 Units) Spencer Ung 5316 5320 Russell Ave N (Two Family) Daniel Hedlund 10110105 -2- DRAFT 7c. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL REGISTERED LAND SURVEY FOR APPLE AMERICAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -145 7d. RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT WITH SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -05, TWIN LAKE AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -146 7e. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2005 CENTRAL GARAGE BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE EARLY ORDER/PURCHASE OF ONE TANDEM AXEL DUMP TRUCK, EQUIPMENT NO. 11 G RESOLUTION NO. 2005- 147 7f. RECEIVE AND ACCEPT REPORT ON 5013 66TH AVENUE NORTH PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNT Motion passed unanimously. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 8a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-014 SUBMITTED BY GIGI YANIS REQUESTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONDUCT A HOME OCCUPATION THAT INVOLVES CUSTOMER TRAFFIC AT 5549 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS SEPTEMBER 29, 2005, MEETING. Mr. McCauley clarified a question that was asked in the Study Session with regard to a sign in the applicant's front yard and explained the applicant had applied for and received a permit for the sign just over a month ago. He said the Special Use Application was reviewed by the Planning Commission and was recommended for approval. Councilmember O'Connor inquired if there was any cost to the applicant. Mr. McCauley responded the cost of the Planning Commission Application for a Special Use Permit is $200, but there is no annual fee or license. Councilmember Niesen raised the question of the language in the Planning Commission Information Sheet, paragraphs three and four, with the reference to the word "should" rather than "must." She inquired what the conditions, guidelines, or requirements are for granting this application and whether it is something that the Council has discretion. Mr. McCauley responded the City Ordinances set forth standards that guide the issuance of a Special Use Permit, and if an applicant complies with the standards set forth in the ordinance, then it is a 10/10/05 -3- DRAFT required granting and the City cannot arbitrarily come up with criteria for the applicant's plan. He further explained that a home occupation with customer traffic requires a Special Use Permit because it is in a residential area, and there are criteria for the amount of traffic and activity conducted by the home occupation. Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren addressed the Council and said the definitions for home occupations cite certain activities that aren't found in the definition for special home occupations, and, those are compared to other similar, comparable home occupations that have been granted. He said this particular application was looked at being akin to some counseling businesses, and with regard to zoning implications it was no different than a beauty salon in terms of customer traffic and hours of operation. He further said if the applicant can show that the home occupation is incidental and secondary to the residential use of the property, then it is eligible to be a home occupation if it meets the zoning criteria. He said there are certain types of home occupations that the City Council hasn't granted event with a Special Use Permit, such as automobile repair. Councilmember Niesen inquired why it was acceptable to erect a sign in her yard before approval of the home occupation. Mr. Warren responded the applicant was not operating a business in the home but conducting the operation at outside events away from the home. He said it was under that basis and that understanding that the applicant applied for and was given a sign permit. Councilmember Niesen inquired about sign requirements with relation to size and lighting. Mr. Warren responded there are two types of signs that are allowed, one for properties along major thoroughfares, which allows a six square foot sign. He continued in the non -major thoroughfare areas of the City, only a two and one -half square foot sign, s allowed. He said the sign can be lighted, but cannot flash or chase if it is outside. He said she is only permitted to have one sign for which a permit is required. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -014 submitted by GiGi Yanis subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. The special use permit is granted for a home occupation involving customer traffic related to palm and tarot card readings to be conducted on an appointment only basis at 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard. The home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be ground for revocation. 3. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off street on improved space provided by the applicant. Vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12, of the City Ordinances. 10/10/05 -4- DRAFT 4. The hours of operation shall be between the hours of 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Customers shall be served on an appointment only basis. 5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Building Official with respect to safety related matters following inspection of the property. 6. There is no over the counter sales of merchandise comprehended through the granting of this special use permit. Any sales related to this home occupation shall be conducted off premises. Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 16 THROUGH 22, 2005, TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES WEEK Mayor Kragness read a Proclamation Declaring October 16 Through 22, 2005, to be Administrative Services Week. Councilmember Carmody said she had received compliments from citizens who had called City Hall for assistance after the storm and the receptionists were very helpful and responsive. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded adoption of a Proclamation Declaring October 16 Through 22, 2005, to be Administrative Services Week. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9b. RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REPORT PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU, JR. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-148 Mr. McCauley said the report prepared by Mr. Carl Neu is the summary and minutes of the Council retreat. Councilmember O'Connor said she doesn't care to accept the report and will vote no mainly because she doesn't agree with what came up at the retreat. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 2005-148 Receiving and Accepting Observations and Conclusions Report Prepared by Carl H. Neu, Jr. Mayor Kragness inquired if Councilmember O'Connor had objections to the way that it was reported or what happened at the retreat. Councilmember O'Connor said that something she said at the retreat was not in the final report, but in general she doesn't agree with a lot of the conclusions that were 10/10/05 -5- DRAFT made at that retreat. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9c. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) AS THE BASIS FOR ALL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -149 Mr. McCauley said the City currently uses the Minnesota Incident Management System (MIMS) which is similar to the National Incident Management System (NIMS). He stated the federal government has mandated the use of the National Incident Management System in order to be eligible to receive federal grants; and it is recommended to adopt the National Incident Management System. Mayor Kragness inquired if the City is required to file duplicate reports, one with each agency. Mr. McCauley responded that he is unaware of the reporting requirements but there is the requirement to certify that the City uses NIMS when applying for grants or declarations. He said he wouldn't want the City to not be eligible for federal grants or federal disaster grant money. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 2005-149 Designating the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as the Basis for All Incident Management in the City of Brooklyn Center Councilmember O'Connor inquired who wrote the resolution. Mr. McCauley responded Fire Chief Boman. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the cost is of the National Incident Management System. Mr. McCauley responded he is unsure, but did not think it would be particularly significant because everyone in the state will have to use National Incident Management System protocols. Councilmember O'Connor inquired what is incident management. Mr. McCauley said it is the way in which the City structures and responds to emergencies, including training and command and response. Councilmember O'Connor referred to the resolution and said it states the federal government has to develop the system, but it doesn't state the levels below the federal government needs to develop it. Mr. McCauley responded affirmatively that the federal government develops the system and the City adopts the federal system as the standard for Incident Management. Councilmember O'Connor said the City had its own natural disaster with the September 21 storm and believes it was handled just fine locally. She said the City doesn't need any money from the federal government, and believes it is much better to handle situations from the bottom up. 10/10/05 -6- DRAFT Mayor Kragness referred to the resolution, noting the Governor of the State of Minnesota has designated the N1MS as the basis for all incident management in the State of Minnesota. She said the City is, in turn, designating the National Incident Management System. Councilmember Carmody said she supports this resolution because if something were to happen in which the City did need federal funds to clean up the infrastructure, it is important to receive those funds. Councilmember Niesen inquired about the emergency declaration. Mr. McCauley responded it was only informational; under the City Code of Ordinances, the Mayor is empowered to declare a local emergency. Councilmember Lasman referred to the resolution and said she was pleased to know that the City was working with other governmental agencies as a team on incident management on interoperable communications, consolidated action plans, and unified command structures. She further stated the City cannot work alone on emergency situations and cannot function as efficiently. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. Councilmember O'Connor inquired what would be the result of the emergency declaration. Mayor Kragness said the Mayor would be responsible to call the Governor if there were an emergency and need for assistance in the City. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the Mayor had done that (with relation to the September 21 storm). Mr. McCauley responded the Mayor had a conference call with other Mayors and the Governor regarding receiving assistance, and the State provided two trucks and some other equipment. 9d. RESOLUTION AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. 2005-150 Mr. McCauley said there are three parts to the storm water management planning services. He said the first part is updating the local water management plan as required by State Statutes and to be in compliance with the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission. Mr. McCauley said the second part is storm water infrastructure maintenance planning, which includes developing a rationalized plan for how ponds in the City would be rejuvenated. He explained that ponds collect and take materials out of the water stream so there is less polluting going into the watersheds from storm events because they are captured, but that also means that the sedimentation would have to be removed from the ponds. He stated the City needs to evaluate when that would be planned and what it would cost, as well as look at a more rationalized long -term strategy such as the elimination of small ponds and the use of regional ponds. He informed that the City is responsible for private ponds even though they are private and they would have to be worked into that equation. He said this study would give the City information that can be used for capital planning and development of a long -term plan and program in establishing future storm water utility rates to fund major rehabilitation and maintenance work for public storm water ponds. He stated the 10/10/05 -7- DRAFT City currently does not have that information, and it needs a system of sampling and checking to detennine what stage these ponds are at so that a determination can be made as to whether or not they will need remediation sooner or later than expected. Mr. McCauley stated the third part of the contract relates to addressing local flooding problems along portions of the trunk storm sewer under Interstate 94 near 59th Avenue. He said plans need to be developed to replace this trunk storm sewer to alleviate flooding situations, and this requires specialized design work to go underneath an interstate to replace the sewer. He said Mr. Blomstrom received proposals from three firms and has recommended the proposal from Bonestroo Associates based on its highly detailed scope of services and experience with completing similar projects, especially as it relates to the challenges associated with the pipeline under the interstate. Councilmember Niesen said any effort towards water improvement is good and inquired if this was in the budget and what length of time would be covered by the plan. Mr. McCauley responded there is money in the 2005 storm water utility budget and the proposal amount exceeds that, however, there would be funding in the 2006 budget that would be sufficient to cover the cost. He said he hopes the plan will provide a 15 to 20 year picture, and then a framework can be developed to identify when updates should occur. Councilmember Niesen asked if the watershed is involved. Mr. McCauley said it is a separate undertaking by the City because it is dealing specifically with the City's system. He said it could impact the watershed with issues such as consolidating small ponds into regional ponds. Councilmember Carmody inquired if the capital costs would be funded from the storm water utilit Y q P Y and the maintenance costs from the General Fund. Mr. McCauley responded it would all be funded from the Storm Water Utility Fund. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the consolidating of the small ponds into regional ponds would look like. Mr. McCauley said as an example, at Centerbrook Golf Course there are series of ponds that are connected with the City of Minneapolis in a regional pond. He said the runoff from Brookdale and its surrounding area drains into the regional pond at the golf course and then works its way to the regional pond in Minneapolis. He said because of this type of large massive pond with aeration, there are no weeds and it isn't partially full. He also stated that a regional ponds could be a conceptual idea for redevelopment rather than requiring a developer to put in a number of small ponds, which also means giving up valuable commercial property. He said it would be have to be reviewed whether it is feasible or cost effective to consider in long -term planning. He said Palmer Lake is also used for some regional detention. Councilmember O'Connor expressed concern with some of the small ponds and the danger for children and safety issues, noting the pond at Earle Brown Elementary School. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the pipe under Interstate 94 could be cleaned out rather than replaced and what the cost would be. Mr. Blomstrom responded that cleaning had been looked at, but the area is approximately 300 acres draining through a 30 -inch pipe and even cleaned out it is radically undersized for that large of a drainage area. He said as part of this study, the pipe size is 10/10/05 -8- DRAFT what the consultant will need to determine, and it may even need to be two or three pipes crossing the roadway. With regard to cost, he said the main purpose of this part of the study is evaluating the project and estimating how much it will cost. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City's Engineering Division could do a lot of this work rather than spending $75,000 to do planning. Mr. Blomstrom explained there are three parts to the study, and with regard to tunneling, it is a very specialized business which Bonestroo has experience with. He said Bonestroo would do the surveying, preparing plans, initial design, writing reports, and there would be a whole team involving people with different specialties in tunneling and storm water computer modeling. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 2005-150 Awarding a Professional Services Contract for Storm Water Management Planning Services. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9e. AMENDED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES FOR STORM CLEAN -UP AND RESPONSE RESOLUTION NO. 2005-151 Mr. McCauley said at the September 22 meeting Mr. Blomstrom had prepared an initial estimate of the costs of storm clean-up. He said Mr. Blomstrom has prepared an updated cost estimate, which includes more detailed information with respect to resources that the City has used. He said the resolution would increase by roughly $55,000, the authorization from $300,000 to $355, 000. He said the basic changes from the first resolution would be $5,000 more in Market Street Energy Company LLC for tree grinding and disposal and miscellaneous services from $50,000 to $100,000 based primarily on the contracts for security for the dumping site, excess fuel, overtime, and miscellaneous contractors. Mr. Blomstrom showed a PowerPoint presentation on the storm clean -up effort. He explained the progress of the City crews with regard to tree debris clean -up and said there are four crews working full -time on the clean -up. He said the pace is slower than anticipated due to the volume of debris, and crews are working block by block through the neighborhoods. He reminded that the last day for residents to place tree debris at the curb is October 10, and the public drop -off site at the former Jerry's New Market is open until Monday, October 17. He said the clean -up effort will continue through October and into November, but that does not include removal and grinding of stumps. He reviewed the preliminary cost estimates, which include equipment rentals, contractors, excess fuel, generators for the water system, security, and miscellaneous electrical repairs. Mayor Kragness inquired if the holes would be filled in the yards where there were downed boulevard trees. Mr. Blomstrom said there hasn't been much planning for that yet, but it will need to be reviewed and planned. He also explained that large equipment is operated to remove this amount of debris and there will be some rutting in the front yards. 10/10/05 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Lasman inquired about the 24 -hour dump site security and if it was needed for trucks to operate round the clock or for safety. Mr. Blomstrom said the security company has done a very good job of controlling the site and not just policing it to avoid mattresses and appliances, but also providing information and coordinating and guiding residents to where they need to dump the materials. Councilmember O'Connor raised the question of how much money is in the fund and where will the extra money come from. Mr. McCauley responded there is roughly $300,000 above the minimum fund balance in the Capital Reserve Emergency Fund, so that would be the primary source. He said the remainder would come from a source other than the Capital Reserve Emergency Fund, possibly the Utilities Fund because some of the costs relate to keeping the utilities running with emergency generators. Councilmember O'Connor inquired if the money would be spent this year and whether it would make the City below budget at the end of the year. Mr. McCauley responded there is no budget for this; but if funds are transferred from the Capital Reserve Emergency Fund, then it would be a transfer from that fund. He said if the expenses are left in the General Fund, then it would be a transfer to the General Fund which would offset the over- budget in those areas. He further stated the Council would have a resolution presented before the end of the year that would transfer the funds to cover these costs. Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 2005-151 Amended Resolution Authorizing Additional Expenditures for Storm Clean-Up and Response. Motion passed unanimously. 9f. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE FEES RESOLUTION NO. 2005-152 Mr. McCauley said based on the Council's discussion at the recent Work Session, he prepared two alternates for Council consideration. He said both alternates would reduce the cost for renewal of a single- family rental dwelling license and the cost for renting one side of a duplex. He said both alternates have the same fee structure for single- family and duplexes, and the differences are in the multi family dwelling fees. He said Alternate #1 has a $200 per building plus $18 per unit fee; Alternate #2 has $250 per building plus $13 per unit. He stated both alternates raise approximately the same amount of revenue that is projected to be raised by the current fee structure. He said one of the assumptions that is based in both alternates is that there continues to be the increase in the number of single family rental dwelling units. Councilmember Carmody inquired about the pending licenses that are on hold and how those would be affected since the proposed fees won't take effect until January 2006. Mr. McCauley explained that some of the licenses that are on hold were in response to the proposal to have a registration for a non conforming use. He said City Attorney Charlie LeFevere's opinion has clarified that a license is not required for a structural non conforming use. He said with respect to those licenses that are 10/10/05 -10- DRAFT pending and are required to have a rental license, the applicant is required to pay the current fee under the current fee structure. Councilmember Niesen reviewed the two alternates with regard to the total fees for multi family dwellings. She said if the Council thinks that multi family complexes are better able to shoulder the costs, then it would make sense to adopt the resolution. Councilmember O'Connor agreed and suggested Alternate #1 because it brings in more revenue, but it doesn't penalize small complexes. Councilmember O'Connor moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded adoption of RESOLUTION NO. 2005-152 Amending the Schedule for Rental Dwelling License Fees (Alternate #1). Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 10/10/05 -11- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL /ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION OCTOBER 10, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council /Economic Development Authority met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at 8:13 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager /Executive Director Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. COUNCIL MEMBER CARMODY: DISCUSSION OF WATERSHED COMMISSION APPOINTMENT FOR JANUARY 2006 Councilmember Carmody said that since the watershed is considering ad valorem taxes across the Shingle Creek Watershed and perhaps, in the future, the West Mississippi Watershed, she would recommend a Council Member serve as the City representative on the watershed commissions rather than a resident. She stated that someone needs to be held accountable for such decisions, and she doesn't think it is fair to put the current commissioner, Grady Boeck, in that position. Councilmember Niesen said she is not in favor of having a Council Member be the representative for the watershed commissions. She stated the whole idea of the body is to do what's best for water quality issues. Grady Boeck, Brooklyn Center's Watershed Commission Representative, addressed the Council and said the watershed commission cannot levy a tax, only request the money. He further stated Hennepin County or the City would have to authorize the tax. He indicated he would not have a problem not serving as the representative. Councilmember Niesen discussed Mr. Boeck's engineering background and said she believes that is an important qualification for serving on the commission. Mr. Boeck stated that other communities have the City Engineer attend alongside the representative for advisement, and the City Engineer is usually a member of the watershed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). 10/10/05 -1- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody said she disagreed with the representative needing a technical background, and that is the basis for the TAC. She said there are issues discussed by the watershed, and they are not taking into consideration the City's position, or the City's position is not being communicated to the watershed commissions. Councilmember Niesen said she had talked with someone in Minneapolis regarding its watershed district and reviewed some of the ideas associated with that type of structure. Councilmember Carmody stated that Brooklyn Center is mostly developed, so there are fewer watershed issues than other growing communities. She raised the issue of whether the City would save money by paying $1,000 for permit review rather than sharing in the total cost overall. Mr. McCauley responded that if the City were to capture the same amount of money, it could pay more using the formula. There was discussion regarding the watershed management organizations, including the structure, dues and fees, meeting expenses, and meeting times. Councilmember Niesen explained some of the differences with a watershed district structure, most notably that it is led by an independent staff person rather than an attorney or engineering firm. She suggested drafting a letter to the watershed commissions with a list of suggestions or ideas to effect a change to lower costs overall and presenting copies at a watershed meeting. Councilmember Niesen raised the issue of how the area for a watershed district is drawn. Mr. McCauley responded it is determined by hydrology, the natural flow of the watershed. Councilmember Lasman asked if, rather than rehabilitate or change the organization, Councilmember Carmody would be willing to get the watershed agenda and discuss it with the Council and then communicate the voting consensus of the Council to the City's watershed representative. She said that trying to change the organization is a pretty large task. Mr. McCauley said there were two situations, the first was the City representative on the commission, and the second was the structural organization of the watershed. He reviewed the current model for City representation on the watershed commission, which was a citizen representative nominated by the Mayor. He said changing the structure of the watershed could be very political Councilmember Niesen offered to put together some information for the Council to review regarding watershed districts. COUNCIL MEMBER O'CONNOR: HOUSING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS This item was discussed at the Study Session. 10/10/05 -2- DRAFT MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Niesen inquired if anyone from the Housing Commission had contacted the City Manager to discuss the direction of the Commission. Mr. McCauley responded that a meeting was scheduled with the Assistant City Manager, Mayor, and Housing Commission Chair on Wednesday, October 12. Councilmember O'Connor asked if there would be a rescheduled budget Work Session to review the enterprise funds. Mr. McCauley responded it would be combined with the budget Work Session scheduled for November 21. Councilmember O'Connor raised the issue of why smoke detectors for single family rental dwellings were required to be hard wired, but not for each unit of a multi family rental dwelling. She believes it is wrong to have two different standards. Councilmember Carmody said the reason that smoke detectors need to be hard wired is that the tenants remove the batteries. She requested information on why the ordinance is written that way. Mr. McCauley said he would report back to the Council. Councilmember O'Connor inquired if there was a response to a letter received by Carolynne Darling in which she expressed appreciation for the work of the City crews in the storm clean -up. Mr. McCauley responded affirmatively. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember Commissioner Carmody adjournment of the City Council /Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:15 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor/President 10110105 -3- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 7b City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community TO: Michael J. McCauley, City ManagTr FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: October 19, 2005 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval The following companies /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on September 26, 2005, are as follows: COMMERCIAL KENNEL Brooklyn Pet Hospital 4902 France Ave N Cutting Edge Pet Care Inc. 4900 France Ave N Pandora's Box Veterinary Clinic 4902 France Ave N MECHANICAL Automatic Garage Door Fireplace 8900 109th Ave N, Champlin Benck Mechanical Inc 628 230th Ave, Somerset, WI RENTAL Renewal: 4619 66th Ave N Michael Barlow none 6401 Scott Ave N Glen Berscheit domestic assault inflicted bodily harm; violated protection order Initial: (All properties had no calls for service) 4006 61st Ave N Walter Harfiel 5742 Fremont Ave N Bruce Goldberg 5528 Humboldt Ave N Bruce Goldberg 6825 -27 Noble Ave N Christian Vitale 7013 Regent Ave N Dang yang SIGNHANGER Leroy Signs 6325 Welcome Ave N, Brooklyn Park 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway .Y Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org City Council Agenda Item No. 7c NrF'� vo F� Brooklyn Center Fire Memorandum FIRE DEPT. TO: Curt Boganey Asst. City Manager FROM: Ron Boman Fire Chief SUBJECT: Old Fire Radios' DATE: October 17, 2005 Brooklyn Center Fire has a number of old fire apparatus radios and Handi- Talkies which are 12 to 15 years old and have very little if any value left in them. During our conversion to 800 MHZ we received a Federal FEMA grant for replacement of most our new radio equipment. I would like to give our old equipment to some very needy small rural fire departments that currently have no equipment and could. make very good use of our old equipment. This would allow us to share with those lest fortunate than us that have received no federal grant money. I doubt that we could sell much of our old equipment and it will be put too much needed use. City Council Agenda Item No. 7d MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren Planning nd ng Zoning Specialist l SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Release DATE: October 19, 2005 The following site performance guarantee being held by the City for completion of various site improvements should be recommended to the City Council for release: Douglas Metal Specialties (4906 4912 France Avenue North) Planning Commission Application No. 2002 -014 Amount of Guarantee $5,000 (Cash) Obligor Douglas Glenn All site improvements for which a site performance guarantee was posted have been complete with respect to this 2002 project. An as built survey and other engineering related items have been completed. The City Council authorized reduction of the original $15,000 cash escrow to $5,000 on May 24, 2004 pending completion of landscaping adjacent to the TH 100 right of way. Two shade trees and five coniferous trees were to be planted in this area following completion of the MNDOT highway project. The landscaping has been installed and has proven viable. The owner has requested a release of the financial guarantee based on completion of the project. It is recommended that the City Council authorize release of the remaining $5,000 cash guarantee based on the completion of this project. City Council Agenda Item No. 7e MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, Assistant City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: October 24, 2005 O SUBJECT: Provisional License Renewal 5240 Drew Ave. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City uncil a pprove the application for provisional rental license at h' Pp Pp P 5240 Drew Avenue North. BACKGROUND: Mr. James DeBellis received that attached letter from the City Manager informing him that his application for a renewal of his provisional license would be before the City Council of the 24' of October. Mr. DeBelli's application was inadvertently left off of this evening's agenda for Council consideration. Mr. DeBellis, who is attempting to sell this property, had been assured that it would be considered by the Council this evening. As such, I would hope that the Council would consent to including Mr. DeBellis' application for renewal of his provisional rental license at tonight's Council meeting. As the Council is aware, Mr. DeBelli's property has been a problem property in the past and under Chapter 12 of the City's ordinances was only eligible for a provisional license. A provisional rental license is for a six (6) month period to be review by the Council at that time and extended for another six (6) months. In order to be eligible fora regular rental license, the applicant must be in compliance with the calls for service provisions of the ordinance for a twelve (12) month period. As noted in the City Manager's letter date October 7, 2005, Mr. DeBellis has cooperated with the City and his property at 5240 Drew Avenue has been complying with the requirements of the ordinance. As such, the property is eligible for a renewal of the provisional rental license. Mr. DeBellis has submitted his application for renewal and has paid the license fee. It would be my recommendation that the Council include Mr. DeBellis'application for renewal for consideration at this evenings meeting. It would also be my recommendation that his application be approved. Mr. DeBillis will be present at this evenings meeting should the Council have any questions of him. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community October 7, 2005 Mr. James DeBellis 8397 Shadow Creek Drive Maple'Grove, MN 55311 RE: 5240 Drew Avenue North Provisional License Dear Mr. DeBellis: Your provisional license application will be presented to the City Council at its October 24, 2005 meeting. The Police Department has advised that substantial progress has been made with respect to reducing police calls. I am enclosing a copy of Section 12 -913 relating to provisional licenses. In No. 4 of Section 12 -913, the licensee (you) are required to submit a monthly report describing the steps you have taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Apparently, this section has not been followed, however, I have been advised that you have worked with the police department with substantial progress noted in your provisional license application has occurred. Thus, we are willing to waive that particular requirement for the past. However, you should comply with this section while under a provisional license. In reviewing the documentation that you have supplied, a simple restatement of that information, if that information continues to be correct, would suffice as a monthly report, along with any other changed information regarding the preceding month. We appreciate your cooperation over these past few months in addressing the issues at 5240 Drew Avenue North and look forward to the point in time when there will be a 12 month continuous period with police calls below the threshold for a provisional license so that a regular license may be considered. Sincerely, Michael J. McCauley City Manager CC: Community Development Enclosure 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Section 12 -913. PROVISIONAL LICENSES. 1. Licensed multiple dwellings, with five or more units, that have generated an average of .65 or more police or fire calls per dwelling unit in a preceding one year period as specified below are eligible only for provisional licenses. Properties with provisional licenses may qualify for a regular license only after a one year period with fewer than .65 police or fire calls per dwelling unit. a. Police and fire calls that are counted in determining whether a provisional license is required include the following types of calls or events, all of which are hereby declared to constitute a nuisance or other disorderly conduct: (i) calls or events listed in Section 12 -911; (ii) calls or events categorized as part one crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System, including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson; (iii) calls or events categorized by the police department as one of the following: a) Firearms (Minn Stat. 609.66 609.67) b) Weapons /dangerous weapons (Minn Stat. 609.02 subd.6 609.66) City Ordinance 19- 402 c) Drug paraphernalia (Minn Stat. 152.092) d) Loud persons City Ordinance 19 -1201 e) Gambling (Minn Stan. 609.755 609.76) f) Loud parties City Ordinance 19 -1201 g) Prostitution (Minn Stat. 609.321) h) Noise cars /dogs City Ordinance 1-110- horns/radios City Ordinance 19- 1201,02,03 i) Fights City Ordinance 19 -203 j) Drugs/narcotics and/or narcotic precursors (Minn Stat. 152.01) k) Allowing curfew /status offenses /underage drinking —City Ordinance 19- 301,19 -304 1) Disorderly conduct (Minn Stat. 609.72) m) Property damage City Ordinance 19 -211 n) Assaults 5th degree non domestic City Ordinance 19 -204 o) Public disturbance City Ordinance 19 -202 p) Fire alarms City Ordinance 5 -112 q) Interference with a peace officer (Minn Stat. 609.50) r) Unlawful assembly (Minn Stat. 609.705) City Ordinance 19 -1105 s) Presence at unlawful assembly (Minn Stat. 609.175) t) Terrorist threats (Minn Stat. 609.713) u) Loitering City Ordinance 19 -201 (iv) The City Manager may determine that multiple incidents shall be counted as a single call in appropriate cases. b. Calls will not be counted for purposes of det erminin g whether a provisional license is required where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of "Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a). C. The period of time used to determine whether a provisional license is required is the twelve (12) month period ending two months before the six-month review period described in section 12- 901(2). d. The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of calls described in paragraph (1) (a) above. 2. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls described in paragraph (1) (a) to a level that qualifies for a regular license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as: changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, and security personnel. 3. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and r the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan, the Council will consider, among other things, the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire calls and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire calls. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license, the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire calls. 4. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. City of Brooklyn Center Date of Application: 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 t MTMW Phone: 763 -569 -3300 Fax: 763 569 -3494 Six -Month Provisional Rental Dwelling License Application Six-Month Provisional Rental License Fees: Multi Family—/ Bldgs Units Multiple Family: $11250/building plus $7.50 /unit Pursuant to Section 12 -913 of the City Ordinances, a licensed multiple dwelling, with five or more units, that has generated an average of .65 or more police or fire calls per dwelling unit in a preceding one year period as described in the ordinance is eligible only for a provisional license. Properties with a provisional license may qualify for a regular license only after a one -year period with fewer than .65 police or fire calls per dwelling unit. The applicant acknowledges that the rental property for which the applicant is applying for a provisional license has generated calls for service that exceed .65 per unit. Complete Name, Address, Telephone Number, and Birthdate of Each Owner. Name: bP R e' tu 1" Last Fus� Middle Address: V(J Street City State Zip Code Phone No. :Z�� 3/,5 C< �9 Cell No.-7 0 ',29 -S V 2 Date of Birth "2Y�' I Z Address(es) of Dwelling(s): 5 y0 V Al Name of Dwelling or Complex: The undersigned hereby applies for a provisional rental dwelling license and acknowledges receipt of a copy of City Ordinance Section 12 -913 and acknowledges the provisions of the Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance have been reviewed. r n I, l E RELLtLbeing first duly sworn, upon his/her oath deposes and says that he /she is the person who has executed the foregoing application and that the staterngts m4de herein are true of his/her own knowledge and belief. Notarized Signature of Owner p ;RB E CA S. CRASS Subscribed and sworn to be .e me t day of I 200r tIC- MINNESOTA Notary Public Signature My Commission"' r r City Use Only: Check No. Ref No. Account No. 4205 P visional License Fee l`� Sid Date Rec: 10 (o Q License Expiration Date 0-3/ Calls for Service No. City Council Meeting Date /0 ,l 4 D 4 Notice Received/City Manager by 10- Mitigation Plan Received 0 (0 0 r- James A. DeBellis 8397 Shadow Creek Dr. Ph/Fax: 763- 315 -1898 Maple Grove, MN 55311 Cell: 763 -257 -5413 City of Brooklyn Center Re: 5240 Drew Ave. N. Provisional License Reaplication Mitigation Plan October 6, 2065 To Whom It May Concern: We are happy to report that the mitigation plan submitted last November has succeded very well in solving police call issues at the apartment building. In the first few months, we removed seven of the ten apartment tenants, and had only our three best tenants until late May of this year. All new tenants have been screened (through Rental Reasearch, Inc.) in accordance with city ordinance. Police calls have been at a minimum this year, and the building is now gaining a spirit of community. It is only the high number of calls from a few months last year that are now keeping us slightly above the .65 threshhold, and we believe that by December we will be in full compliance with that limit. The calls since the institution of our mitigation plan have been well below the allowed limits. Do to the success of the plan, we intend to roll-over the same plan for the renewal period. Additionally my wife, Melanie, has taken a personal interest in the property and has been making near -daily visits as well as many cosmetic improvements inside and out She has replaced Troy Norberg as the building manager. As we have the building under contract for sale to a new owner, we do not wish to install drastically new policies and practices at this time. The buyer is an experienced landlord We will do everything with a record of successful management ry g to ensure that the building will be ready to come off of provisional status concurrently with his purchase in mid- December. Today for the first time I heard of something called monthly reports. I have no idea what they entail, what form to use, where to get them or who to send them to. However, Mr. Norberg was often in weekly contact with Becky and others in Police Administration during the first term of the Provisional License, and there was no lack of reporting or communication with the city. And the monthly police call reports speak for themselves. Sincerely, Ja es A. DeBellis CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Cash Receipt eceipt Date 10/6/2005 eceipt Number 25959 JAMES DEBELLIS 5240 DREW AVE 10100.4205 187.50 RENTAL LICENSE Total Receipt Amount 187.50 107987 15:56:22 1 Ll BROOKLYN CENTER `'TY °F ge e ren to POLICE DEPARTMENT MN MEMORANDUM TO: Mike McCauley, City Manager FROM: Lt Scott Nadeau DATE: October 7, 2005 SUBJECT: 5240 Drew (James DeBellis) Pursuant to your request, the following is a breakdown of the counted calls for service to 5240 Drew since December 2004, when Mr. De Bellis was subject to a provisional license: December 2004: Anri12005 1- assualt 1- assualt 11- disturbing peace 10- disturbing peace 1- weapons 1- weapons Overall calls for service 1.30 Overall calls for service 1.20 January 2005: 1- assualt Mav 2005 11- disturbing peace 1 -assualt 1- weapons 10- disturbing peace 1- weapons Overall calls for service 1.30 Overall calls for service 1.20 February 2005 1- assault June 2005 11- disturbing peace 1- assualt 1- weapons 10- disturbing peace 1- weapons Overall calls for service 1.30 Overall calls for service 1.20 March 2005 1- assault 11- disturbing peace Julv 2005 1- weapons 1- assault 7- disturbing peace Overall calls for service 1.30 1- weapons Overall calls for service .90 M September 2005 August 2005 1- assault 1- assault 4- disturbing peace 4- distubing peace 1- weapons 1- weapons Overall calls for service .60 Overall calls for service .60 In the spirit of compromise we have removed the crime against family calls and the rules and regulations call from our tracking sheets. As you can see, the property located at 5240 Drew did not meet the below .65 criteria until August 2005. Under Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 12 -913, the property must maintain below .65 for a one year period. Therefore, this property would not be eligible for regular licensing until August 2006. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. *The calls for service are tallied by removing the prior year's calls on a month to month basis. SN/bb City Council Agenda Item No. 8 City Council Agenda Item No. 8 Random Acts of Kindness Presentation of Recognition and Certificate Ceremony 1. City Council read nominations received for Random Acts of Kindness 2. Certificates issued to those nominees present 3. City Council will call RECESS to join the nominees for a photograph to be included in the next City Watch resident newsletter 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: October 20, 2005 SUBJECT: Random Acts of Kindness Since 1997 the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random Acts of Kindness during the month of October. An article seeking nominations, along with a nomination form, was printed in the Fall 2005 edition of the City resident newsletter, Citv Watch. Random Acts of Kindness nomination forms were made available at the customer service counters at the Community Center and City Hall, and a letter was sent out to community organizations. Information about Random Acts of Kindness and a nomination form were available on the City's web site. This year 11 people were nominated to receive recognition for their Random Acts of Kindness. Attached are copies of the nominations. A letter was sent to the nominees that were identified (and carbon copied to the nominator) inviting them to participate in the Random Acts of Kindness recognition at the City Council meeting to be held October 24, 2005, at 7 p.m. A copy of the letter sent on behalf of the City Council is attached. Those persons attending the recognition will receive their certificates at the meeting. The certificates will be mailed to those nominees who are unable to attend the meeting. Nominee I. Nominated By Anonymous I Debbie Bonnes Boyce Bible I Anne Taylor Blain Byrd I Ken and Bonnie Lukes Tom Corwin I Ken and Bonnie Lukes Gail and Keith Danielson I Karen Bolstad Terry Gunderson I Kay Lasman Doris Johnson I Kathleen Carmody Janice Jungwirth Sue LaCrosse Luis Perez Ortiz I Fred and DeAnna Larson Bill Varhol I Ken and Bonnie Lukes Attachments 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn. Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org S C 3s Lech 40- c 1b wed,,,, act& -7 c 2 )8 pr le Ave PJ BMI)Kly Certtr M N -zZya9 andom Acts of Kindness N s omination Form I /we, -u..' would like to nominate the following person, persons, group, classroom, 3 business, churc etc. for Rand Ac to be celebrated during Cities Week in October. Name: ,'U (_t.� Y Address:-��- l -ALT L�'i�( i i l fl 1� C�Y U 1'1�. N 5��� (include Street, City, Zip Code) Brief summary of kind act j ,�ti7n Use additional paper if needed. Return Nomination Form by October 3, 2005, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 h 1- i J S 11'1 i I i 1��..rn.c,� I 7 tj L4 r Vie. w 0 uA k:� kq--� c, erK)� L-tvc tt&A�j J City of Brooklyn Center\ Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator J Name: l Street Address: Kenneth Veronica Lukes 3300 62nd Avenue North City, State, Zip Code: Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Telephone: S 6f 9�> Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Individual's, Name: Name of Organization or Group: Bf q,t r, B�rhd Street Address: Street Address: 3 (2 h d V 0 City, State, Zip Code: M N 55`f T I City, State, Zip Code: y 60 h Ce Z Telephone Telephone: 3 4 ,5 9- 37 8 Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) Blain Byrd is a neighbor directly east of our house. The morning after the storm of the 21st, as soon as a saw started in the morning, Blain came over and used his brawn to move tree limbs and trunks from our driveway to the front of the street. Along with my husband and daughter, Blain worked hard and consistantly until the task was finished. After that random act of kindness, he also offered to help in erecting a replacement fence for our six foot fence between our properties that was destroyed in the storm. In addition to this, he offered the use of his trailer to haul non tree debris. His random acts of kindess are all the more apppreciated because they were both needed and unexpected. We are grateful for neighbors like Blain. Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 3, 2005, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. I City of Brooklyn Center Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator I Name: i Kenneth Veronica Lukes Street Address: 3300 62nd Avenue North City, State, Zip Code: Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Telephone: 1 6 Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Ind'vidual's Name: Name of Organization or Group: Y_ W Street Address: Street Address: 336 GZt14k ity, State, Zip Co e: City, State, Zip Code: rCaK(�h �etj etr M s 5 11 2- 7 Telephon�: Telephone: Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) Tom Corwin is our neighbor directly west of our house. He missed out on the excitement of the storm because he was out of town. The minute he saw the extent of the damage to our property, he offered his services. First of all, he offered the use of his two wheeler to carry the tree stumps and roots from our back yard to the curb in front of the house. He also helped move the debris onto the two wheeler and wheeled it out front. The two wheeler was a blessing because it easily glided over the torn up lawn. In addition, Tom worked in Saturday's heat sawing roots and hauling the heavy debris. The biggest challenge were the roots from our sixteen ton back yard tree that came down in the storm. That work is started and with Tom's promise of continued help, my husband and he will eventually complete the task. We are grateful for Tom's offer of help at a time when we really needed it. His random act of kindness means much more than words can tell. Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 3, 2009, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. 1 enclosed the pictures simply to show the extent of the damage and why we needed and appreciated all the help we got. Each neighbor used his unique tools and talents to help ease the transition from storm to normalcy. We're about in the middle of that spectrum right now and wanted to show our appreciation to all of them for their random acts of kindness. I u t9 Ifi e a I� Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form I /we, d V 2 h O I S �Q would like to nominate the fotlowin person, ersons business, church, etc. for Random Acts of Kindness, to be celebrated during Cities Week in O sober. p group, clas Name: COL r j t?[ f Q`1 I' (f I.S0In Address: 51 CP�� Ei' S�i'Y:L9 (include Street, City, Zip Code) Brief summary of kind act: Return Nomination Form by October 3, 2005, to: Use additional paper if needed. City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Oat( bCtn (�r �un Y eq c 1 5 Y 7 5 d cz n ,6 Y C 2Q n Vn C�rac, Q ti.VA tC� w R s Car 4/ b e-1 PS ah �5 (C- atYL 5' rop �e rh a rt P/' 7 4e also han j ors ark d o f� .efc, So mY S ha ue (s r �k� s O4-o Y°,1-d e 'PIN G�d✓� �ldo!'. a 4 I r �Y12 iYl n e Cary( �'d 0 J I p 0/- j L V S d C (-2-i 'f o n v;fe rh-e r (a c arre- c S 1 4;U� it 0C/b r c r i� LL rrc 73 vi tit in!: rt C t itic'r`. .1 r:1 �s 4� ()i. ),ii) ((iN9 September 27, 2005 Dear City of Brooklyn Center, 1 would like to nominate Terry Gunderson, for the Random Acts of Kindness Program. Terry is a volunteer who comes to Woodland Elementary each and every school day, in all types of weather, and assists the Safety Patrols in keeping students and adults alike safe, as they cross the roadway to get to school each day. Her kindness, generosity, and dedication to the well being of our students should be acknowledged and is greatly appreciated! Sincerely, ay Lasman Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Q� f -0.S t­,�k`2 would like to nominate the following person ers n business, chufbh, etc. for Random Acts of Kindness, to be celebrated during Cities Week in October. p o s group, classroom, Name: r Y' Address: q a l V c rA (include Sttt-et, City, Zip Code)' City of Brooklyn Center Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator Name: 1< a -F Ieen l.armod Street Address: 7d aq .Knox ve N City, State, Zip Code: 8 roo K tfn C rtkr AI N 5Yy3o Telephone: Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Individual's Name: Dor So h nsovt. Name of Organization or Group: Street Address: Street Address: 7 b I Lawn Ave N City, State, Zip Code V City, State, Zip Code: �twlCl �'en -kr �N Telephone: &43 Telephone: Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) �Augtist 7, 1 iTo Sharon Knutson, BC aCity Clerk From: Kathleen Carmody r te: random Aets'ofKindness'Award Nominee A recently met Dons Jo who lives at 7018 LogannMe.' N. She has a neighbor nn her I eighties that wishes to still live in her home, although she has health problems and has a difficult time with the up keep and maintenance of her home. Doris meets once a week 1 iwith the neighbor and the home health care nurse, who comes to check on this elderly, neighbor. Doris works in the health care field She frequently checks on the neighbor when' it is li very hot or the weather is bad, to make sure that she is okay. When Doris was relatpg E this information to me, it was obvious that she used ,great tact and concern in helping th� woman to stay safe and help her remain in her home 5 think it says a lot for a city when we have residents dike this thafshow compassion for 1 Bone another and I hope others learn from Doris how to serve as an example of such s`fva!{iJ��... ..n, w... .m.. ...,e.,«...v:c.ax..c. x ..0 s. w3..2v;.: ma.o-ar'+.�rw+4•a .a�> Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 3, 2005, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form I/we, Sue LaCrosse, would like to nominate the following person, persons, group, classroom, business, church, etc. for Random Acts of Kindness, to be celebrated during Cities Week in October. Name: Janice Junowirth Address: 5521 Girard Ave N. Brooklvn Center 55430 (include Street, City, Zip Code) Brief summary of kind act: Janice Junowirth is a communitv center member who comes in almost every day. In late November of 2004. she asked if she could buv decorations and decorate our Holidav tree. She bought boxes and boxes of bulbs. garland. and other decorations and spent m a_My volunteer hours meticulously decoratino our tree. Beca o f her kindness, our tree wa transformed into a work of art. It was lust in time for our annual Hollv Sundav Event. Durino December. manv customers commented on the aoroeous tree. She donated all these decorations to the community center. Return Nomination Form by October 3, 2005, to: Use additional paper if needed. City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 F v n M a IN ME c 4 w s e a r f Y i t Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Iiwe, t'1 4EA d DfAny\ L&r would like to nominate the following person, persons, group, classroom, )business, church, etc. for Random Acts of Kindness, to be celebrated during Cities Week in October. Name: �Address: (include Street, City, Zip C d6 e) rief summa of kind act: summary Ou \j WbIJOCL Ne 4 a lour- _^S kk �d as raAAk htr lUAW 're, tint �10�5 C, Via mz c-u- Ava, �e" is ObA) -s --lo u„1 &vt U,ej cis X u �J Use additional paper if needed. U Return Nomination Form by October 3, 2005, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 City of Brooklyn Center \X Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator Name: Kenneth Veronica Lukes Street Address: 3300 62nd Avenue North City, State, Zip Code: Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Telephone: 7(.3— Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Individual's Name Name of Organization or Group: q r 6 Street Address: Street Address: 3 31 8- (a Z r a. \f o City, State, Zip Code: City, State, Zip Code: r v 1 4 r, S's Y,; Telephone: 3 9 SCI- 9 S9'7 Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) The morning after the storm, Bill Varhol, a neighbor from three doors down, whom we had never even met, showed up bright and early with his gas powered chainsaw. (With power gone, electric saws were of little use.) Bill set to work cutting away the branches of the two downed trees, sawed the trunk, which freed up a vehicle trapped by the downed tree. In the process, he ran out of gas for the chainsaw and had to go home for more. A chain also broke and he willingly replaced that. By the time he finished, the driveway was immaculate. We were extremely grateful to him. When my husaband asked what we could pay him, he said, "That would drive me away. I'm doing this because I want to help This was a random act of kindness that we were truly appeciative of. It went a long way towards resuming normaility after the disaster. Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 3, 2005, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community Sample Letter to Notify Nominees October 11, 2005 Nominee Dear Nominee: Since 1997 the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random Acts of Kindness. Again this year the City Council has received nominations to recognize Brooklyn Center residents and groups who have performed random acts of kindness that help make our community a wonderful place to live and work. Congratulations! You have been nominated for Random Acts of Kindness and will be recognized by the Mayor and Council Members during their City Council meeting on October 24, 2005. The City Council meeting starts at 7 p.m. and is held at Brooklyn Center City Hall in the Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center. Your presence would be greatly appreciated. Enclosed is a copy of the nomination. If you have any questions, please contact City Clerk Sharon Knutson at 763 -569 -3306. Sincerely, Myrna Kragness, Mayor Kathleen Carmody, Council Member Kay Lasman, Council Member Diane Niesen, Council Member Mary O'Connor, Council Member Enclosure cc: Nominator (w /o enclosure) 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org RaLdom of Ir r oss awarded to: SAMPLE Nominee's Name Here for contributing to the community spirit of Brooklyn Center October 24, 2005 Date Mayor City of Brooklyn Center.` Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form Nominator Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Nominee Individual or Organization or Group Individual's Name: Name of Organization or Group: Street Address: Street Address: City, State, Zip Code: City, State, Zip Code: Telephone: Telephone: Brief summary of kind act (use additional sheets if necessary or submit separate letter) Return Nomination Form BY OCTOBER 3, 2005, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, Office of the Mayor, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Random Acts o f Kindness Since 1997, the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random Acts of Kindness. In October the Brooklyn Center City Council recognizes all Brooklyn Center residents and groups who have performed Random Acts of Kindness that help make our community a wonderful place to live and work. Anyone can nominate someone who has performed an act of kindness over the past year. You may send a card or letter, or drawings or photographs of people performing kind acts, or use the City's nomination form on the reverse side of this page. All Random Acts of Kindness nominees are recognized by the City Council during an October meeting and presented a certificate. The nominations are displayed at City Hall during the month of October. Join us in celebrating kindness in our community. Nominate an individual or group today! Walk a neighbor's dog Pick up litter (Adopt -A- Street or Donate your time to perform lawn Park) services for give to the elderly or disabled Collect mittens or socks and Y g Collect soda can tabs for recycling those in need and give the proceeds to the Ronald Care for the sick McDonald house Volunteer in the community Make a paper chain with an act of (schools, hospitals, churches, etc.) kindness written on each link Be a good neighbor Smile at someone who is frowning Plant a tree Feed a stranger's expired parking Call a lonely person meter Open a door Donate to a food shelf or clothing In the grocery store, let a stranger shelter behind you with only one item go Draw a picture of someone first performing a kind act Bake a hot dish for someone who Photograph someone being kind to just returned from the hospital another Pick up the mail for a senior citizen Thank your secretary, boss, teacher, on your block each day or friend for the little things they do Give blood Read to a child Adopt a homeless pet at the Humane Give flowers, just because Society Offer a ride Donate time at a senior center Give a compliment Pat someone on the back Tutor a student Be a Safety Patrol and help kids get to and from school safely City of Brooklyn Center Random Acts of Kindness Page 1 of 1 I F MEN U r s Home Random Acts of Kindness What is a Random Act Mayor /Council /Commissions /Charter of Kindness? Since 1997 the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Most people try to fulfill City Code of Ordinances Random Acts of Kindness. During October the Brooklyn obligations in life like Center City Council recognizes all Brooklyn Center doing their fair share of New Residents residents and rou s who have chores and su pporting g p performed Random Acts of Kindness that help to make our community a and comforting their Community /News /Events p y families and friends wonderful place to live and work. but these deeds are City Services /Departments expected of us. When Parks Recreation Anyone can nominate someone who has performed an we make the extra act of kindness in the past year. You may send a card effort of being kind Employment or letter, or drawings or photographs of people when we aren't performing kind acts, or look for the City's nomination expected or required to and surprise someone, Earle Brown Heritage Center form in an upcoming City Watch newsletter. Your including ourselves Cultural Diversity nomination will be displayed at City Hall, so feel free to this is a "Random Act make your nomination colorful and attractive. of Kindness", a good Government Links deed that is truly the All Random Acts of Kindness nominees are recognized embodiment of Disclaimer /Copyright g compassion and caring. by the City Council during an October meeting and are presented a certificate. Search GO We look forward to hearing from you. Join us in Full Site celebrating kindness in our community! 0This Section Check out Random Acts of Kindness Recipients 2004! Search Tips IRandom Acts-of _Kindness._Nom_inato..n_.__Form 2005 Ideas for Random Acts of K indness This is the official site of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Home I Mavor /Council /Commissions /Charter I Citv Code of Ordinances I New Residents I Community /News /Events I Citv Services /Deoartments Parks Recreation I Emolovment I Earle Brown Heritaae Center I Cultural Diversitv I Government Links I Disclaimer /CoDvriaht Powered by ittp: /www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/ index. asp? Type =B_ BASIC& SEC fB5559EI3- 4249- 4B81- 8BAB -D... 10/12/2005 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community August 30, 2005 Dear Community Member: Since 1997, the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random Acts of Kindness. In October the Brooklyn Center City Council would like to recognize all Brooklyn Center residents and groups who have performed Random Acts of Kindness that help to make our community a wonderful place to live and work. We hope that you will join us in making this a significant celebration for our community. We are asking that you or someone you know send us a card or letter, or use the enclosed nomination form, nominating someone who has performed an act of kindness in the past year. You may also send us drawings or photographs of people performing kind acts. Your nomination will be displayed at City Hall, so feel free to make your nomination colorful and attractive. Random Acts of Kindness nominees will be formally recognized by the City Council during its October 24, 2005, meeting. All nominees will receive recognition by the City Council in the form of a commendation. By separate card, please be sure that we receive the name and address of your nominee so that we can be certain that the City Council's commendation will be received by your nominee. You and your nominee are invited to attend the City Council recognition on October 24 at City Hall, 7 p.m. A letter will be mailed to you and your nominee prior to the meeting to confirm the date and time of the recognition. We look forward to hearing from you. Join us in celebrating kindness in our community! Sincerely, Myrna Kragness, Mayor Kathleen Carmody, Council Member Kay Lasman, Council Member Diane Niesen, Council Member Mary O'Connor, Council Member Enc. is 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Brooklyn Peacemaker Center, Inc. North Hennepin Area Chamber Boy Scouts of America 7240 Brooklyn Blvd, Suite 205 229 1 st Avenue NE 5300 Glenwood Avenue �klyn Center MN 55429 Osseo MN 55369 Golden Valley MN 55422 Brookdale Hennepin Library Brown College Minnesota School of Business Molly Schaaf g Molly Creek Parkway 6870 Shingle Creek Parkway 6050 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 B C Charitable Foundation Twin West Chamber B C Community Education c/o Phil Cohen 10550 Wayzata Blvd 6500 Humboldt Avenue North 5501 Humboldt Ave N Minnetonka MN 55305 Brooklyn Center Avenue 5543 o Brooklyn Center MN 55430 B C Friendship Quilters Wovenhearts of BC Joanne Holzknecht 6001 Earle Brown Drive 2618 65th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center Lioness Brooklyn Center Lions Club Twin Lake North Betty Russell Tom Shinnick 4539 58th Avenue North 5312 North Lilac Drive 5324 Oliver Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 4 klyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 CEAP Service League of Hennepin County B C Rotary Medical Center c/o Carrie Engh 6840 78th Avenue North 701 Park Avenue Bremer Bank Brooklyn Park MN 55445 Minneapolis MN 55415 -1829 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center MN 55429 B C Women's Club Evelyn Byron The Crossings at Brookwood Community Corner 2701 O'Henry Road 6201 Lilac Drive North 1500 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center Sun -Post View Point Shingle Creek Sarah Schwartz, Editor Earle Brown Terrace 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway 4080 West Broadway #113 6100 Summit Drive North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Robbinsdale MN 55422 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Courage Center The Prairie Lodge at Earle Brown North Hennepin Comm College Volunteer Coordinator Volunteer Valley Road 6001 Earle Brown Drive 7411 85th Avenue North Golden Valley MN 55422 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Park MN 55445 faities Senior Trans. Greater Mpls Girl Scout NW Community y Rita De Bruyn Peggy Erickson North N Avenue 4221 Lake Road 5601 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Park 6900 Winnetka A A nue N Robbinsdale MN 55422 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 RSVP Maranatha Place Maranatha Care Center Volunteer Coordinator 5415 69th Avenue North 5401 69th Avenue North e East Hennepin Avenue Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 eapolis MN 55413 Brooklyn Historical Society Volunteers In Action 3300 C P. O. Box 29345 Inc. 4148 Winnetka Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 3300 County Road 10 #212 Y Brooklyn Center MN 55429 New Hope MN 55427 Visit Minneapolis North North Suburban Kiwanis HHSC Robert Musil Warren Lindquist NW NW Earle Brown Drive Suite 230 6200 Shingle Ck Pkwy Ste 248 7030 Ewing Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN Drive Suite Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Osseo Community Education New Beginnings Christian Center Northbrook Alliance Church 11200 93rd Avenue North 7054 Brooklyn Boulevard 6240 Aldrich Avenue North Maple Grove MN 55369 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Cross of Glory Lutheran Church Moving On Up Church Ministry Korean Presbyterian Church of MN 5929 Brooklyn Boulevard 6834 Humboldt Avenue North 5840 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 0 Apostolic Lutheran Church North Berean Evangelical Free Church Brooklyn United Methodist Church 6630 Colfax Avenue North 6625 Humboldt Avenue N 7200 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center Church of Christ Brookdale Covenant Church Fellowship Baptist Church 6206 Lilac Drive North 5139 Brooklyn Boulevard 5840 Lilac Drive North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brookdale Christian Center BC Church of the Nazarene Harron United Methodist Church 6030 Xerxes Avenue North 501 73rd Avenue North 5452 Dupont Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Jehovah Jireh Church of God in Christ Korean Evangelical United Methodist Lutheran Church of the Master 6120 Xerxes Avenue North 6830 Quail Avenue North 1200 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Peran Church of the Triune God Hmon Community Alliance Church Spiritual Life Church 9 Y P 5827 Humboldt Avenue North 6240 Aldrich Avenue North 6865 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 St. Alphonsus Church Good Shepherd Fellowship Christ Temple W Halifax Avenue North 6900 Humboldt Avenue North 4801 63rd Avenue North klyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Champlin Park High School Jackson Middle School Evergreen Park Elementary School Principal Principal Principal 6025 109th Avenue North 6000 109th Avenue North 7020 Dupont Avenue North Champlin MN 55316 Champlin MN 55316 Brooklyn p Center MN 55430 Palmer Lake Elementary School Garden City Elementary School Brooklyn Junior High School Principal Principal Principal 7300 Palmer Lake Drive West 3501 65th Avenue North 7377 Noble Avenue North Brooklyn Park MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Park MN 55443 North View Junior High School Park Center Senior High School Northport Elementary School Principal Principal Principal 5869 69th Avenue North 7300 Brooklyn Boulevard 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Park MN 55428 Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Brooklyn Center MN 55428 Robbinsdale Middle School Sandburg Middle School Robbinsdale Cooper High School 3730 Toledo Avenue North 2400 Sandburg Lane Principal Robbinsdale MN 55422 Golden Valley MN 55427 8230 47th Avenue North New Hope MN 55427 Highview Alternative Program Brooklyn Center Jr -Sr High Earle Brown Elementary 4139 Regent Avenue North Principal Principal Robbinsdale MN 55422 6500 Humboldt Avenue North 1500 59th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 UPDATED 8/09/05 I Jean Schuster Judy Thorbus Housing Commission Housing Commission Housing Commission 1 67th Lane North 6265 Brooklyn Drive Brooklyn Center MN 554 lyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 David Johnson Mary Barrus Housing Commission Housing Commission Housing Commission Brooklyn Center MN 554 3500 Admiral Lane 5441 Camden Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Mark Yelich Stan Leino Kris Lawrence- Anderson Housing Commission Housing Charter Commission Housing Charter Commission 6018 Beard Avenue North 7118 France Avenue North 5213 Eleanor Lane Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Donn Escher Earl Simons Samuel Tweah Financial Commission Financial Commission Financial Commission 3107 65 Avenue North 7201 Knox Avenue North 1308 69th Avenue North, #311 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Robert Anderson Robert Paulson Susan Shogren Smith Financial Commission Financial Commission Financial Commission 5525 Knox Avenue North 7012 France Avenue North 600 62nd Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Mark Nemec Arvid (Bud) Sorenson Financial Commission Park Recreation Commission 5538 Camden Avenue North 6901 Toledo Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 John Russell Muriel Lee Roger Peterson Park Recreation Commission Park Recreation Commission Park Recreation Commission 5312 North Lilac Drive 7204 Perry Court West 15 11 71st Avenue North Brooklyn enter MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Yn Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Thomas Shinnick Gail Ebert Richard Theis Park Recreation Commission Park Recreation Commission Park Recreation Charter Commission 5324 Oliver Avenue North 1613 Irving Lane 3006 Thurber Road Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Rachel Lund Sean Rahn Timothy Roche Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission 4502 58th Avenue North, #301 5740 Irving Avenue North 816 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 lwman Eric Berns Tim Willson Pla ng Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission 3107 61 st Avenue North 3800 51 st Avenue North 7007 Dallas Road Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 554 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Graydon Boeck Gary Brown H. Bruce Lund Planning Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission Indiana Avenue North 7012 Willow Lane North 4502 58th Avenue North, #301 yn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Eileen Oslund Edward Nelson Richard T. Phillips Charter Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission 6000 Ewing Avenue North 5236 Great View Avenue North 7200 Logan Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Brooklyn enter MN 42 55 9 Brooklyn Center MN 4 yn yn 55 30 Charter Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission Brooklyn Center MN Brooklyn Center MN Brooklyn Center MN Elizabeth Dorsey Hatle James D. Holst Charter Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission 5508 Logan Avenue North 6107 Bryant Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Harold Middleton Roni Brunner Charter Commission Charter Commission Charter Commission 5418 Oliver Avenue North 4701 Twin Lake Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Audrey Harris- Blount NWHHSC Advisory Commission NWHHSC Advisory Commission Charter Commission 3429 53rd Avenue North, #106 Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Amy Luesebrink Watershed Commission Watershed Commission NW Suburbs Cable Communications 5557 James Avenue North Brooklyn Center MN 55430 City Council Seeking Nominations for City of Brooklyn center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Random Acts of Kindness Brookl Center, MN 55430 -2199 Nominate an individual or group today! Official web site www. c i tv of b ro o klv n e e n ter. ore Once 1997, the City of Brooklyn Center has celebrated Random e-mail: info ci.brooklyn center.mn.us Acts of Kindness. During the celebration of Cities Week to be City Hall (763) 569 -3300 held in October, the Brooklyn Center City Council would like to Recreation (763) 569 -3400 recognize all Brooklyn Center residents and groups who have Emergency 911 performed Random Acts of Kindness that help to make our Police non emergency (763) 569 -3333 community a wonderful place to live and work. We hope that you Job Information Line (763) 569 -3307 will join us in making this a significant celebration for our Persons with hearing or speech impairment are served by the community. MN Relay Service 711 (TTY/Voice) Mayor Myrna Kragness Voicemail: (763) 569 -3450 The City Council is asking that you nominate someone who has mayorkragness @ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us performed an act of kindness in the past year. You may send a Councilmember Kathleen Carmody card or letter, or drawings or photographs of people performing Home: (763) 566 -3114 kind acts, or use the City's nomination form. Your nomination councilmembercarmody ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us will be displayed at City Hall, so feel free to make your Councilmember Kay Lasman nomination colorful and attractive. Voicemail: (763) 569 3448 councilmcmberlasman@ci.brooklyn-ccnter.rrm.us All Random Acts of Kindness nominees will be recognized by the Councilmember Diane Niesen City Council during an October meeting and be presented a Voicemail: (763) 569 -3445 councilmemberniesen ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us certificate acknowledging their kind act. Councilmember Mary O'Connor Voicemail: (763) 569 -3447 We look forward to hearing from you. Join us in celebrating councilmemberoconnor ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us kindness in our community! City Manager Michael J. McCauley Ideas for Random Aets of Irmdness City�ncii, Meetings City C6unctl Regular Session meetings are held the 2 and V Volunteer"'at our child's school? 4th Monday ofthe month:at 7 P%t. r Y Y V Help a neighbor weed br plant a =garden ufonal' pen Forum is hold at 6 4gtvtrere Council 1r ."Sing at a nursing home.' rrieettngs far persdns� who =wish to" addr-ess "the "City Couneil 1: Call or,visit a hotnebound.person about t sous t�ot�sch I6d, on 'the agenda V Mow a neighbor's grass: Cz#y Cottnctl Work Sesslop§ are hehd" immediately following V Clean graffiti from neighborhood walls and buildings the Rcig lar Session City;Council"meetings. 1i Plant.a tree in your neighborlood... Watch. City Goundil meetings live on cable Channel 16. v Read "to "a child: Replays, shown Tuesdays at, "G:30 PM and °Wednesdays" at Volunteer 2'.30 AM and 1 :30 V at an agency,that heeds help AM V Collect goods for'your local food shelf. y Donate time at a senior center,, Gall "City Hall "to verify meeting dates (763) 569 -3300 "or visit, V "Give.blood:" the "City's web site www.eityofbrookivneenter.ori= Random Acts of Kindness Nomination Form I /we. would like to nominate the following person, persons, group, classroom, business, church, etc. for Random Acts of Kindness, to be celebrated during Cities Week in October. Name: Address: (include Street, City, Zip Code) Brief summary of kind act: Use additional paper if needed. Return Nomination Form by October 3, 2005, to: City of Brooklyn Center, Random Acts of Kindness, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 City Council Agenda Item No. 9a rBR OOKLYN of M 3 Office of the City Clerk NTER MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk 4W40�� DATE: October 19, 2005 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Parks and Recreation At its September 26, 2005, meeting, the Brooklyn Center City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Parks and Recreation. The materials that were provided in the September 26, 2005, City Council agenda packet are also included for reference. The second reading and Public Hearing are scheduled for October 24, 2005. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post newspaper on October 6, 2005. If adopted, effective date will be December 3, 2005. Attachments 0;Z City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, 2005 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation- Ordinance Revisions At their meeting last evening, the Park and Recreation Commission completed their review of the City's Parks Ordinance. This intensive review included review of the City's current ordinance and the review of ordinances from other cities. After due consideration, the Commission unanimously approved a motion recommending the following changes to the Ordinance: Changing the definition of Parks and Open Space to: Parks, Open Space, Trails and Waterways. -Changing the definition of Motorized Vehicle to include motorized foot scooters. Changing the designated park hours to; Parks are closed... between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Changing references to the Director of Recreation to City Manager or City Manager's Designee. Changing references to Recreation Department to Community Activities, Recreation and Services Department. Attached is an Ordinance Amendment that makes the recommended changes. Please let me know if you have any questions this recommendation, or if you would like additional information. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24th day of October, 2005, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 13 of the City Code of Ordinances relating to parks and recreation. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. 13 -101, DEFINITIONS, is amended in the following manner: Parks, aiA-Open Space. Trails. and Waterways Any area located in the Citv which is reserved, designated, or used for active or passive recreation, and which is owned, operated, or controlled by the City, or which is located within the City but owned, operated, or controlled by another governmental unit. Motorized Vehicle Any vehicle having a self contained unit for propelling the vehicle by means of converting stored energy. Motorized vehicles include but shall not be limited to automobiles, trucks, motor bikes, mini bikes, snowmobiles, motorized foot scooters and battery powered carts. Section 2. Section 13 -102 is amended in the following manner: Section 13 -102. CURFEW AUTHORIZED. No person, unless engaged in official City business, shall enter upon or use any park and recreation facilities of the City of Brooklyn Center, including all park and open space property, improved or not, and all equipment and facilities thereon, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 65 a.m. one half hour- befer, •..h;, r- i s cc *ief- when such arks and open ace or facilities are posted b sign noting the p p p p Y� g curfew hours; provided, however, that such posting shall be by order of the City Council. The fact that any person not engaged in official City business as authorized or delegated by the City Manager is present in a posted park and open space during said curfew hours shall be prima facie evidence that said person is there unlawfully. ORDINANCE NO. Section 3. Section 13 -103 is amended in the following manner: Section 13 -103. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PROHIBITED. No person shall bring into any park nor possess, display, consume or use intoxicating liquors nor 3.2 percent malt liquors in any park unless a permit has been issued by the Citv Manager or Citv Manager's Designee Difeeter of Reer-ea4ieffi Such permits shall be limited to duly organized local organizations operating under a constitution and bylaws and which shall have been in existence for at least one year. Section 4. Section 13 -107 is amended in the following manner: Section 13 -107. SELLING PROHIBITED. No person shall sell any article whatever in any City park or open space unless specifically authorized by the Citv Manager or Citv Manager's Designee D of Reer -e tie Section 5. Section 13 -109 is amended in the following manner: Section 13 -109. FIREWORKS PROHIBITED. No person shall discharge any fireworks within the City parks and open spaces without the written permission of the Citv Manager or City Manager's Designee Dir -ee*er of Reereatie Section 6. Section 13 -110 is amended in the following manner: Section 13 -110. CAMPING PROHIBITED. No person shall camp nor set up tents, shacks, trailers or any other temporary shelter for the purpose of camping in any City park or open space without the written permission of the Citv Manager or Citv Manager's Designee Section 7. Section 13 -111 is amended in the following manner: Section 13 -111. UNAUTHORIZED GOLFING PROHIBITED. No person shall play or rc p a t i ce golf nor use golf equipment of any kind in a City park or open space except under the direct supervision of an employee of the Communitv Activities, Recreation and Services Department depaA ent of par 4s and r or as a scheduled part of the City's park and recreation program. ORDINANCE NO. Section 8. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of .2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) City Council Agenda Item No. 9b CJ Of Office of the City Clerk TER MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Mana r FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: October 19, 2005 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Relating to Rental Dwellings and Non Conforming Uses; Amending City Code Sections 12 -901, 12 -902, and 35 -111 At its September 26, 2005, meeting, the Brooklyn Center City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Relating to Rental Dwellings and Non Conforming Uses; Amending City Code Sections 12- 901, 12 -902, and 35 -111. The materials that were provided in the September 26, 2005, City Council agenda packet are also included for reference. The second reading and Public Hearing are scheduled for October 24, 2005. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post newspaper on October 6, 2005. If adopted, effective date will be December 3, 2005. Attachments City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, an onnor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager C DATE: September 21 2 p 005 SUBJECT: Ordinance Relating to Rental Dwellings and Non Conforming Uses Attached is a copy of an opinion dated September 16, 2005, by Charlie LeFevere. In that opinion, Mr. LeFevere recommends elimination from the March ordinance proposal of the proposed Section 7 regarding losing non conforming status without registration. Enclosed also are the minutes and materials from the several meetings at which the ordinance changes have been discussed. The proposed ordinance for introduction has removed the previously proposed certification process for duplexes that do not have a rental dwelling license. Based on Mr. LeFevere's opinion, there would not be a particular point in certification. As has been previously discussed, the issue with respect to non conforming uses is governed by Zoning Law and issues relating to rental licenses applied to properties that are rented. Thus, whether a property is rented does not necessarily impact the ability to maintain a non conforming use under Zoning Law. Similarly, rental licensing applies without respect to zoning to those housing units that are rented. The proposed ordinance does retain the proposed amendment to Section 12 -902 specifying that application fees are refunded after deducting costs or expenses that have been incurred with respect to the application. It also includes the proposed change to Section 35 -111 (5) to specify the applicable period of time within which a building permit must be applied for in the event of destruction of 50 percent or more of a non conforming use. With the elimination of the previously proposed language relating to certification and non conforming duplex properties in R -1 Districts which have been removed, we would recommend introduction of the proposed ordinance relating to the refunding of application fees and the time period within which to apply for a building permit in the event 50 percent or more of a non conforming structure has been destroyed. 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 Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24 day of October, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance relating to rental housing and to non- conforming uses. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON- CONFORMING USES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12 -901, 12 -902, AND 35 -111 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 12 -902 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Section 12 -902. LICENSE FEES. License fees, as set forth by city council resolution, shall be due 90 days prior to the license expiration date; in the cases of new unlicensed dwellings, license fees shall be due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. A delinquency penalty of 5% of the license fee for each day of operation without a valid license shall be charged operators of rental dwellings. Once issued, a license is nontransferable and the licensee shall not be entitled to a refund of any license fee upon revocation or suspension; however, the licensee shall be entitled to a license fee refund, prorated monthly, upon proof of transfer of legal control or ownership. If an applicant withdraws an application prior to issuance of a license, the fee shall be refunded after deducting the costs of inspection and anv other costs and expenses incurred by the Citv in connection with receiving and processing the application. A fee, as set by city council resolution, shall be charged for all reinspections necessary after the first reinspection. The reinspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal for the property, in the case of rental housing and at the time of recertification of occupancy for nonresidential properties. Section 2. Section 35 -111 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Section 35 -111. NONCONFORMING USES. Unless specifically provided otherwise herein, the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use does not conform to the regulations of this ordinance, provided: 1. No such nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 2. Such nonconforming use shall not be moved to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. I ORDINANCE NO. 3. A nonconforming use of a building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be extended throughout the building provided no structural alterations except those required by ordinance, law, or other regulation are made therein, and provided that no such extension in the floodway overlay zone shall result in increased flood damage potential. Excepted from the structural alteration limitation are single family dwellings, located in residential districts other than R and R2, provided any structural alterations or additions shall conform with the requirements of the R1 and R2 district, and the Flood Plain regulations as applicable. 4. If a nonconforming use occupies a building and ceases for a continuous period of two years, any subsequent use of said building shall be in conformity to the use regulation specified by this ordinance for the district in which such building is located. 5. Any nonconforming use shall not be continued following 50% destruction of the building in which it was conducted by flood, fire, wind, earthquake, or explosion, according to the estimate of the Building Inspector, approved by the City Council, unless anWication for a building hermit is made within 180 days of when the monertv is damaged. If a building hermit is annlied for. the Citv may impose reasonable conditions upon the buildins hermit in order to mitigate anv newly created impact on adiacent nronerty. 6. Upon the effective date of this ordinance where there is a nonconforming use of land on P g a parcel with no structure or where three is a nonconforming use of land (such as storage of equipment and supplies), on which there is a conforming structure such use shall be terminated within two years following the effective date of this ordinance. Section 3. 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: (Underlininiz indicates new matter; striking thfough indicates deleted material.) CHARLES L. LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215 email: clefevere@kennedy- graven.com September 16, 2005 Mr. Mike McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 RE: Regulation of Duplex Uses Dear Mike: There are structures in R -1 zones used as two family structures (or duplexes) that are non- conforming because they were legal at the time they were established but do not conform to current zoning code standards. You have asked for a general description of the laws relating to this non conforming status, how it is maintained by a landowner and how non conforming status may be lost. The City currently has under consideration changes to its rental dwelling licensing ordinance. You have also asked for a description of the relationship between such licensing and the non- conforming status of duplex uses. Under City Code Section 35 -310, the uses permitted in an R -1 zone include "one family dwellings." Under Section 35 -311, uses permitted in the R -2 zone include "one and two family dwellings." The definition section of the Code, Section 35 -900, contains the following relevant definitions: Dwelling A building, or portion thereof, designed or used predominantly for residential occupancy of a continued nature, including one family dwellings, two family dwellings, and multiple family dwellings, including earth- sheltered homes and manufactured homes; but not including hotels, motels, commercial boarding or rooming houses, tourist homes and recreational vehicles, such as travel trailers, camping trailers, pick -up campers, motor coaches, motor homes and buses. CLL- 267975v1 BR291-4 Mike McCauley Ltr Septmber 16, 2005 Page 2 Dwelling, One Family A residential building containing one dwelling unit. Dwelline, Two Familv (duplex) A residential building containing two dwelling units. Dwelling Unit A single residential accommodation which is arranged, designed, used, or intended for use exclusively as living quarters for one family; must include complete permanently installed kitchen facilities. Where a private garage is structurally attached, it shall be considered as part of the building in which the dwelling unit is located. Family Any of the following definitions shall apply: 1. A person or persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, together with his or their domestic servants or gratuitous guests, maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit. 2. Group or foster care of not more than six wards or clients by an authorized person or persons, related by blood, marriage, or adoption, together with his or their domestic servants or gratuitous guests, all maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit approved and certified by the appropriate public agency. 3. A group of not more than five persons not related by blood, marriage, or adoption maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit. In most cases, a use is either clearly a single family residential use or clearly a duplex use. That is, where a single family lives in a single unit with one kitchen, having meals together, having a common household budget, and the like, it is clearly a single family residential use. If there are two units in the building, separated by walls without doors, with separate entrances, each with its own kitchen, with the inhabitants of each unit living as separate households with separate budgets, not having a common kitchen, and the like, it is clearly a duplex use. Although most cases fall clearly into one of these categories, there are occasionally cases that are in the gray area between the two. For example, a second kitchen or kitchenette may be added to what is otherwise clearly a single family residential structure so that a live -in mother -in -law can have an occasional meal on her own schedule, connecting doorways can be added between duplex units, second units in a duplex can be occupied by adult children who continue to share CLL- 267975v1 BR291 -4 Mike McCauley Ltr Septmber 16, 2005 is Page 3 meals at a common kitchen in the first unit, and the like. There is essentially an unlimited number of combinations of family and non family relationships, financial arrangements between occupants of a single structure, structures they occupy, appliances in a structure, how the structure is used for the preparation of meals, etc. I know of no definition of single family residential use or two family residential use that will clearly put all cases into one category or the other. To decide whether a use is a single family residential use or a two family use, one would have to look at all of the circumstances including the structure and how it is used, the financial arrangements between the parties, and the legal and personal relationships between the parties. Fortunately, cases in the gray area, between uses that are clearly one family uses and uses that are clearly two family uses, come up infrequently, at least in my experience. Ordinarily, a single family residential use in a duplex zone is not a problem because single family residential uses are ordinarily also permitted in R -2 zones. Likewise, it is rare for a property owner to attempt to establish a true duplex use in a single family residential zone in a single family home since single family homes do not lend themselves to two truly separate household operations. In the case of a non conforming duplex use in a zone that does not permit such uses (such as an R -1 zone), most owners of a duplex would either choose to maintain duplex status or convert to a single family residential use, depending on which of these two options was the most economically advantageous. Under City Code, a two family dwelling is a residential building containing two dwelling units. A dwelling unit is "a single residential accommodation which is arranged, designed, used or intended for use exclusively as living quarters for one family." Therefore, a structure can qualify as a duplex if it is either built as a duplex (that is, it is arranged, designed and intended for use exclusively as living quarters for two families) or used as a duplex (that is, "used" exclusively as living quarters for two families). In either case, there must be a complete, permanently installed kitchen facility in each unit. In other words, a building or use can be defined as a duplex, and therefore qualify for non conforming use status if it was lawfully established prior to rezoning of the property, in one of two ways. The first would be a classic duplex building, with separate entries, basements, garages, and kitchens, with no passage between the two units, etc. This would be a duplex that was "arranged, designed,... or intended for use exclusively as living quarters" for two families. The second way to qualify as a duplex would be for a building that was not necessarily designed, intended, or arranged for use exclusively by two families, but nevertheless had a separate kitchen facility and was used with two parts of the structure being used exclusively as living quarters for a one family unit. CLL- 267975v 1 BR291-4 Mike McCauley Ltr Septmber 16, 2005 Page 4 Therefore, if a building does not have two kitchens, it cannot be used as a two family dwelling. Even if the building has two kitchens, it will be allowed to be used for a two family dwelling in an R -1 zone only if it has maintained, and continues to maintain, its non conforming status. Non conformities can be either non- conforming structures (such as a structure with a non- complying side yard setback) or non conforming uses (such as a real estate office in an R -1 zone) or both. Under the Brooklyn Center City Code, if the building is built as a true duplex, the non- conforming use status would remain as long as the structure continued to meet that part of the definition that provides that there are two "single residential accommodation[s] which [are] arranged, designed or intended for use exclusively as living quarters for one family; [each of which] must include complete permanently installed kitchen facilities." If the owner of such a structure voluntarily converted it to a single family dwelling (for example, by removing the second kitchen and adding doorways for interior circulation), it would then lose its non conforming status and would have to comply with code provisions thereafter. If such a classic duplex -type building were destroyed by flood or fire, or other such casualty, the owner would have the right to rebuild it as a duplex subject to certain limitations. In other cases, a building may not have been built as a classic duplex that was "designed" with two units, each exclusively for the use of a single family, but may still qualify as a grandfathered duplex dwelling because it has two kitchens and was "used" as two separate dwelling units, each exclusively as living quarters for one family. This might be something like a mother -in -law apartment attached to a single family residential home if each had a kitchen and the main home and the "apartment" are each used exclusively as living quarters for a family. In such a case, if the structure is used as a duplex, but is not arranged, designed or intended for use exclusively as a duplex, a non conforming status would depend on the continuing use of the structure as a two family dwelling, Under the current code, if the use were discontinued for a two -year period, the grandfathered status would be lost and any further use would have to comply with current code provisions. The licensing of rental units is a separate, but related question. Units are required under the current code to be licensed if they are let for rent. A single family home can be owner occupied, as can one or both units of a duplex. Likewise, a single family home can be rented as can one or both units of a duplex. In the case of a classic duplex, that is clearly designed as a two -unit building, it will be fairly easy to maintain non conforming status. However, in the gray areas, such as mother -in -law apartments, or other structures or arrangements that are not clearly two- family situations, the licensing of a unit may help to establish that it continues to be a bona fide, two family dwelling and maintain its grandfathered status. CLL- 267975v 1 BR291 -4 Mike McCauley Ltr Septmber 16, 2005 Page 5 If there is no rent or other consideration changing hands, the Code does not require that the units be licensed. However, if there is any question about whether the use continues to qualify for non conforming use status (the mother -in -law apartment or other gray areas referred to above) the proposed Code amendment provides for the filing of a certificate that would not only show that no rental dwelling license was required, but would also serve as evidence that the owner used and intended to continue to use the structure as a two family dwelling. The current draft of the ordinance amendment, in Section 3, amending Code Section 35 -111 adds a new paragraph 7, which provides: 7. Non- conforming duplex properties in R -1 districts shall lose non- conforming use status and must be brought into compliance with current Code provisions if a two -year period elapses during which the owners do not apply for a rental dwelling license or file the certificate required by Section 12 -901. Upon further reflection, I would recommend that this paragraph be deleted. Failure to properly license a facility or to file a certificate showing that one or two units are not being rented is probably not a sufficient basis to take away a non conforming status, which is a substantial property right. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:peb CLL- 267975v 1 BR291 -4 Councilmember Niesen expressed she believes the amount is low and that it is important to know if payroll is being done correctly. She would agree with eliminating procedure three but definitely thinks procedures one and two, for a possible cost of $1,000 plus the report, is well worth the money spent. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to go ahead with procedures one and two, eliminate procedure three, and have the Auditor proceed on that basis thereby saving the possibility of $600 to $800. Motion died due to lack of a second. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to approve all three procedures outlined by the Auditor. Motion died due to lack of a second. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes the engagement management and report preparation would be cheaper by only doing procedure one and would assume that the maximum cost would be approximately between $1,500 and $2,000, which is as far as she would like to go with this audit sampling. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to go ahead with procedure one and the engagement management and report preparation. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9i. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON- CONFORMING USES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12- 901,12 -902 AND 35 -111 Mr. McCauley iscussed that staff is suggesting some changes in the rental dwelling and zoning Y gg g g g ordinances to streamline dealing with duplexes and/or two- family dwellings. There is a significant amount of units now nonconforming in the City and staff has found that the enforcement of the licensing provisions of Chapter 12 relative to these properties has become extremely time consuming and often contentious. This item is on the agenda for two possible actions. One would be to introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading and set second reading and public hearing on June 13, 2005; and the second would be to direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would like to hold off on the first reading, have the Housing Commission review the ordinance, and then put this item on the June 13, 2005, agenda for approval of first reading. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would not be inclined to set a first reading without thoroughly debating this housing law. She believes this is an important issue and with the Council being the highest authority to deal with housing issues, she would like to move ahead with holding off on setting the first reading at this time. She asked that these ideas presented move forward to the meeting with the Council and Commission Chairs and informed that she will be meeting with the Housing Commission in May to further discuss this issue since she has many concerns. 03/28/05 -19- Councilmember Carmody suggested that Councilmember Niesen prepare amemo ofher concerns to present to the Housing Commission in April so they have time to review her concerns and to discuss in May; and informed that she would like to see the memo before it goes to the Housing Commission to make sure it would be something that the Council agrees on. Mr. McCauley discussed that the text before the Council this evening does not change the policy on rental housing. It attempts to address people who are not subject to the rental housing ordinance in the first instance. This would be an orderly mechanism that relates to establishing and maintaining proof of a nonconforming use. It does not relate to how you rent property or the rules of renting property, it is simply allowing an orderly mechanism for people to do that. With respect to the technical application of license fees, it clarifies that if somebody applies for a license they do not get the entire fee back; they get the fee less what had been spent in terms of staff time up to that point. Councilmember Niesen questioned the sixty plus duplexes and/or two family dwellings that are nonconforming. Mr. McCauley discussed that they were built at a time when the zoning would allow the construction of a two family dwelling and/or duplex. Some of those areas were rezoned to R -1. When it was zoned R -1 they became nonconforming uses. Councilmember Niesen discussed her property that was built as a mother -in -law apartment which she believes is very common in Minnesota and that she does not know why someone would come into her R -1 zoned house and call it a duplex. She said that the City of Brooklyn Center stands alone on this area and many other areas of the rental ordinance and that is why she wants to discuss this further with the Housing Commission. Councilmember Niesen questioned the following language proposed in the ordinance amendment: An owner of a duplex dwelling that is being occupied but is not being let for lease or rent is not required to secure a rental dwelling license provided such owner files with the City a certification, in a form provided by the City, that no rent or any other consideration is being paid, given or provided, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of the occupants to the owner. The owner shall provide such additional information in support of such certification as may be required by the Compliance Official. Councilmember Niesen asked what was intended by n Could the words "additional information". oul this include a copy of a tax return from the owners; a copy of a tax return from all renters; bank statements of owners and/or renters; or living arrangements explanations? She expressed that she believes it is not acceptable to have government visit the homes of owners and ask about their living arrangements and financial interests and that to do so is a government intrusion into people's lives. Mayor Kragness discussed the reason a license is being required is to help pay with staff's time having to inspect two units. Councilmember Niesen debated about that even being an issue and said there should be no rental inspection of owners' homes. 03/28/05 -20- Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes this matter would not be an appropriate discussion for the joint meeting with Commission Chairs. She suggested that the timeline be discussed with the Commission Chairs; and that at this time the Council direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. LeFevere informed that this would also amend the zoning code and questioned if the Council would be referring this to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCauley responded that this issue would be sent to the Planning Commission as well. 9j. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS Councilmember O'Connor questioned how many brokers the City had. Mr. McCauley discussed that currently there is one depository which is Wells Fargo; however, the City can deal with nine different agents as outlined in Resolution No. 2005 -02. She inquired how much the City has invested and what the City pays in fees for them handling the money. Mr. McCauley discussed that be believes roughly $20 Million or more and that the City does not buy any individual corporate bonds. When acquiring something there is going to be some type of transaction cost. She inquired how much is paid to Wells Fargo. Mr. McCauley informed that he could get more information on the exact specifics of her questions. Councilmember O'Connor questioned the City's loss or profit over the years on the investments. Mr. McCauley discussed that that the City generally holds to maturity and there is no loss or gain in terms of what was purchased. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -58 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed. 03/28/05 -21- 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 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- 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 Tem 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- 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 that she would support discussing this at a Work Session and informed that she 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 Junel, 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 goes 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. 9E 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 general fund operations to 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 if the City's total budget would be going up from what it was 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- DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS DISCUSSION OF CONCEPT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF AREA PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED FOR SENIOR HOUSING ON 57 Mr. McCauley outlined the materials regarding the question of whether the Economic Development Authority would like to entertain the possible acquisition through negotiation of the properties across from Northbrook that would be voluntarily sold by their owners. Mayor Kragness expressed that she believes the City needs to focus on the Opportunity Site and would like to wait on the senior housing project. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she does not believe the City should buy properties. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to do nothing with the project at this time. DISCUSSION OF WATERSHED COMMISSION UPDATE ON CAPITAL PROJECTS ETC. Councilmember Carmody discussed the new information she had received from attending the recent watershed meeting. She informed that she was concerned about the cost of the project going from $300,000 to $757,400. She believes that this project will move forward at the next meeting in August. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL MEMBER NIESEN'S SUGGESTED RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE CHANGES Councilmember Niesen informed that she had been focusing her time on the City Manager's evaluation form and asked that this item be discussed at the August 8, 2005, meeting. DISCUSSION OF POLICY REGARDING CHANGES TO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Councilmember Carmody asked that an item be prepared to require minute changes be provided in writing and at the Council table by 6:00 p.m. of the night the minutes are to be approved. Council discussed the proposed amendment that had been prepared for an addition to the Council Handbook. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she believes it would be less work to adopt the minutes at the meeting the minutes are first presented and would create more work to delay the minutes. Mayor Kragness expressed that she believes if the minute changes were in writing that it would be easier for Council to review and act on minute changes. 07/25/05 -2- 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 AUGUST 8, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council /Economic Development Authority met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at 8:15 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager /Executive Director Michael McCauley and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. DISCUSSION OF STATE LAW REQUIRING POLICY ON OUT OF STATE TRAVEL BY ELECTED OFFICIALS This item is continued from the Study Session. Councilmember O'Connor inquired if there was a policy on staff travel. Mayor Kragness responded that the City Manager is in charge of staff travel. City Manager Michael McCauley added that Council approves the budget which includes staff travel expenses. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN'S SUGGESTED RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE CHANGES Councilmember Niesen distributed and outlined the memo she prepared of items that she would like to bring to the Housing Commission. She expressed that she believes making the following revisions in the City's rental ordinance it would serve the stated purpose of Chapter 12 and would be simplified, streamlined, objective, and enforceable. Housing definitions are provided in the property tax database, zoning code field. Brooklyn Center adopt the rental licensing provisions of New Brighton, including which was done in part with Brooklyn Center's approval of their Conduct on Licensed Premises. In any case, R1 and R2 rental property is defined as that which is non owner /family occupied and non homesteaded, both objective measures of compliance. is 08/08/05 -1- Zoning and code enforcement continue to be enforced as in including provision for density. Organization in Chapter 12 include having all provisions related to rental property within one section number, with sub section numbers as indicated. Have Housing Commission review and propose any revisions /clarifications for associated rental property definitions such as: family, dwelling, dwelling unit, multiple family dwelling, owner, rental dwelling, or dwelling unit. If the term duplex is to be considered, add to definition section. Terms found in other ordinances (e.g. Zoning Chapter 35) should be similarly updated. Have Housing Commission review penalties for appropriateness to desire purpose and ability to be enforced. Council discussed the items presented by Councilmember Niesen, zoning issues, non conforming uses, zoning density, and land uses. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would like to have the three -strike rule for renters. Councilmember Lasman expressed that she believes the City needs to stay on top of this issue and use every tool possible. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she believes if a property is homesteaded it should be left alone; and when a duplex is occupied by the owner, and the other side is rented, the owner should not have to pay $375. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would like to know if an owner does not continue renting or occupying as a two family property for two years, do they lose the property as rental. Mr. McCauley responded that he would like to inquire of the City Attorney to clarify that requirement. Councilmember Niesen informed that she would be willing to give a little on the items presented before going to the Housing Commission and recommended deleting the following items from her list: Brooklyn Center adopt the rental licensing provisions of New Brighton, including which was done in part with Brooklyn Center's approval of their Conduct on Licensed Premises. Zoning and code enforcement continue to be enforced as in including provision for density. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes the collection of rental fees should be put on hold. Mr. McCauley suggested that the Council wait for the City Attorney's review of the zoning issue. He advised that there are two distinct issues: 1. What activities would be licensed for rental housing, such as whether to license owner occupied duplexes; and 2. Zoning matters related to land use, such as a two family use in a single family zoning district which is a non conforming use, but the right to that non conforming use can be abandoned. 08/08/05 -2- MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager M FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist SUBJECT: Report on Recommendations from Housing Commission Regarding an Ordinance Relating to Rental Dwellings and Non- Conforming Uses; Amending City Code Sections 12 -901, 12 -902 and 35 -111 DATE: June 7, 2005 At the March 28, 2005 City Council meeting the City Council referred the above titled ordinance to the Housing Commission for review and comment. Review of the proposed ordinance was on the Housing Commission's April 19, 2005 meeting agenda. A quorum of the Housing Commission was not present at the April 19, 2005 meeting. Review of the proposed ordinance was on the Housing Commission's May 17, 2005 Housing Commission meeting agenda. A quorum was present at the May 17, 2005 meeting but the Commission considered other business at the May meeting which did not allow time for consideration of the proposed ordinance amendment. At the end of the May Housing Commission meeting, the Commission set June 6, 2005 as a special meeting date to consider the ordinance amendment. The Housing Commission met on June 6, 2005 to consider the proposed ordinance amendment. A quorum was present at the June 6 th meeting. After review and discussion of the proposed ordinance, the Housing Commission unanimously approved the following recommendations /amendments: 1. Duplexes that are occupied by its owner and/or persons who qualify for a relative homestead status should not be required to obtain a rental license. Persons qualifying under this provision would be required to complete a certification indicating their relationship regarding homestead or relative homestead status. The Commission believes qualifying relatives living in a duplex should not be required to obtain a rental license. In making this recommendation, the Commission believes the City should not be concerned whether or not persons who qualify for a rental license exemption based on relative status actually make any type of payments to the relative who is the owner of the duplex. 2. In situations where a duplex owner occupant has non related occupants living in one half of the duplex and not paying rent or other consideration, the Commission recommended that these persons should not be required to obtain a a rental license but would be required to complete a certification as required by the current proposed ordinance. 3. The Commission recommended that if there is a formal rental agreement executed between qualifying relatives in a duplex, then these persons should be required to obtain a rental license. In this recommendation, the Commission believed that a written rental agreement created an explicit landlord/tenant relationship even if the owner and tenant were related. A copy of the original proposed ordinance amendment is included with this memorandum. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 11 m day of July, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance relating to rental housing and to non conforming uses. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3303 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON- CONFORMING USES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12 -901, 12 -902 AND 35-111 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 12 -901 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Section 12 -901. LICENSING OF RENTAL UNITS. 1. License Required. No person she eat e 11 operate e a rental dwelling without first having q P P g g obtained a license to do so from the City of Brooklyn Center as hereinafter provided. There shall be two types of licenses: regular and provisional. Provisional licenses are defined in Section 12- 913. An owner of a duplex dwelline that is beine occupied but is not beine let for lease or rent is not required to secure a rental dwelline license provided such owner files with the City a certification. in a form provided by the City. that no rent or any other consideration is beine paid.. given or provided, directly or indirectly. by or on behalf of the occupants to the owner. The owner shall provide such additional information in support of such certification as may be required by the Compliance Official. 2. License Term. Regular licenses will be issued for a period of two years. Provisional licenses will be issued for a period of six months. All licenses, regular and provisional, will be reviewed every six months after the beginning of the license term to determine the license status. 3. License renewal. License renewals shall be filed at least 90 days prior to license expiration date. Within two weeks of receipt of a complete application and of the license fee required by Section 12 -902, the Compliance official shall schedule an inspection. No application for an initial or renewal license shall be submitted to the city council until the Compliance official has determined that all life, health safety violations or discrepancies have been corrected. 4. Condition of License. Prior to issuance or renewal of a license and at all times during the license term, a license holder must be current on the payment of all utility fees, taxes, and assessments due on the licensed property and any other rental real property in the city owned by the license holder. In the event a suit has been commenced under Minnesota Statutes, Section 278.01- 278.03, questioning the amount or validity of taxes, the City Council may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may be granted, however, for taxes or any portion thereof which remain unpaid fora period exceeding one (1) year after becoming due. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. Section 12 -902 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Section 12 -902. LICENSE FEES. License fees, as set forth by city council resolution, shall be due 90 days prior to the license expiration date; in the cases of new unlicensed dwellings, license fees shall be due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. A delinquency penalty of 5% of the license fee for each day of operation without a valid license shall be charged operators of rental dwellings. Once issued, a license is nontransferable and the licensee shall not be entitled to a refund of any license fee upon revocation or suspension; however, the licensee shall be entitled to a license fee refund, prorated monthly, upon proof of transfer of legal control or ownership. If an armlicant withdraws an aDDlication Drior to issuance of a license. the fee shall be refunded after deductine the costs of insDection and anv other costs and expenses incurred by the Citv in connection with receivine and Drocessine the aDDlication. A fee, as set by city council resolution, shall be charged for all reinspections necessary after the first reinspection. The reinspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal for the property, in the case of rental housing and at the time of recertification of occupancy for nonresidential properties. Section 3. Section 35-111 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is amended as follows: Section 35 -111. NONCONFORMING USES. Unless specifically provided otherwise herein, the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use does not conform to the regulations of this ordinance, provided: 1. No such nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 2. Such nonconforming use shall not be moved to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 3. A nonconforming use of a building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be extended throughout the building provided no structural alterations except those required by ordinance, law, or other regulation are made therein, and provided that no such extension in the floodway overlay zone shall result in increased flood damage potential. Excepted from the structural alteration limitation are single family dwellings, located in residential districts other than RI and R2, provided any structural alterations or additions shall conform with the requirements of the R1 and R2 district, and the Flood Plain regulations as applicable. ORDINANCE NO. 4. If a nonconforming use occupies a building and ceases for a continuous period of two years, any subsequent use of said building shall be in conformity to the use regulation specified by this ordinance for the district in which such building is located. 5. Any nonconforming use shall not be continued following 50 destruction of the building in which it was conducted by flood, fire, wind, earthquake, or explosion, according to the estimate of the Building Inspector, approved by the City Council, unless aDDlication for a buildine permit is made within 180 days of when the nronertv is damaeed. If a buildine permit is aDDlied for. the Citv may impose reasonable conditions upon the buildine Dermit in order to mitieate anv newly created impact on adiacent r)mDertv. b. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, where there is a nonconforming use of land on a parcel with no structure or where three is a nonconforming use of land (such as storage of equipment and supplies), on which there is a conforming structure such use shall be terminated within two years following the effective date of this ordinance. 7. Nonconformine duplex nronerties in R1 districts shall lose nonconformine use status and must be broueht into comoliance with current code provisions if a two vear Deriod elapses durine which the owners do not apply for a rental dwelline license or file the certificate reouired by Section 12 -901. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Underlinine indicates new matter; sifik4iig thfeugh indicates deleted material.) MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager er g FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: March 24, 2005 SUBJECT: Amendment to Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances Currently there are approximately sixty plus duplexes and/or two family dwellings within Brooklyn Center. A significant number of these units are now nonconforming. It has been the practice to require the owners of these properties to maintain a rental license in order to preserve their rights to use the property as a duplex. Note that the properties were originally constructed as legal two family structures. It i g s nor uncommon that these properties ar Y erti e occupied b family P P P Y Y members and no rent is being paid. If the owner does not maintain a rental license for a 2 year property they lose the right to use the property in the future as rental. This issue is further complicated by the sale of these properties to new owners with the intent of using the property as rental. The rental license costs a minimum of $375 if one side is rented and an addition $75 if both sides are occupied. Community Development has found the enforcement of the licensing provisions of Chapter 12 relative to these properties to be extremely time consuming and often contentious. It is contentious because of the costs of the license, the required inspection of the property and the likelihood of compliance orders being issued to properties that are not being rented and/or occupied by family members. Because of the inordinate amount of time we spend on a relative small number of properties, we believe that the proposed ordinance amendment would address most of these issues. The amendment would require the owners of such properties to annually certify to the City that they are not renting the property. Certification would be on a form developed by the City and they would not be assessed a fee. Rental properties would still be requires to obtain a license. Properties that have been certified as non rental, that are nonconforming will retain the right to use the property in the future and be sold as such. Other changes in the proposed amendments allow the City to recover expenses from the applicant's fee. The expenses are those associated with processing rental license applications including inspections when the application is withdrawn by the applicant. Also, the ordinance reflects current state law relative to the reconstruction of a nonconforming property. The owner of a building that at least 50 has been destroyed has 180 days to make application for a building permit. It would be the staff recommendation that the Council hold the first reading, set the date of the hearing for June 13,2005 and refer the issue to the Housing Commission to review and comment on for Council consideration at the June 13, 2005 Council meeting. CHARLES L. LEFEvERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215 Email: clefevere@kennedy- gmven.com February 25, 2005 Brad Hoffman Director of Community Development City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 Re: Licensing of Duplex Apartments Dear Brad: You requested that I draft an ordinance exempting a certain duplex apartments from the requirement that rental licenses be secured. Licenses are required by Section 12 -901 for a "rental unit A "rental unit" is defined in Section 12 -201 as "a dwelling or dwelling unit let for rent or lease." Therefore, whether it is a single family residence or a duplex, no license would be required if the unit were not being rented or leased. For example, if a family chose to have an adult child live on the other side of a duplex, without the payment of rent, no license would be required under the current code. In the attached draft, I have not provided for an exception from the licensing requirement solely on the basis of family status. If an owner receives compensation for the rental of a unit, it seems to me that such a business operator should be responsible to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for its customers and that the City would wish to assure this through the licensing process without regard to whether the customer was related to the business owner. If, however, you wish to provide for an exemption in the ordinance for a landlord renting a unit to a family member, let me know and I will amend the ordinance accordingly. It seems to me to make sense to require certification that one or more units of a duplex are not being rented on an annual basis so that the City will know promptly when a change in status has occurred that would result in a requirement that the owner secure a rental unit license. In the attached draft, such certification is required by paragraph 1 of Section 12 -901. A second aspect of the ordinance you requested was that such certification would be required for a non- conforming duplex to maintain its non conforming status. This provision is included in the attached ordinance in paragraph 7 of Section 35 -111. State law was recently amended to limit the CLL- 259761 vl BR291 -16 Brad Hoffman Ltr February 25, 2005 Page 2 circumstances under which a city can require that a non conforming use be brought into compliance. The change to paragraph 5 of Section 35 -111 brings it into compliance with the statutory changes. The statute, Minnesota Stat. 462.357, Subd.l(e), provides for a non conforming use abandonment period of one year. Current City ordinances provide for abandonment of non- conforming use status after two years. I do not believe that it is necessary for the City to change the ordinance to a one- year period if it does not wish to do so. In paragraph 7 of Section 12 -901 in the attached ordinance, I have followed the two -year abandonment term. If you wish to have the ordinance amended to provide for a loss of non conforming use status after one year of abandonment, let me know, and I will amend the draft ordinance accordingly. Finally, you requested the addition of language authorizing the City to retain a part of license fees, when a license application is withdrawn, to cover City expenses. That additional language is found at Section 12 -902 in the attached draft. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:peb Enclosure CLL- 259761vl BR291 -16 City Council Agenda Item No. 10a its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH WHEREAS, on September 21, 2005, the City of Brooklyn Center suffered damage due to a severe storm, resulting in hundreds of downed trees and power outages to much of the community, including all of the City's municipal wells; and WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth provided the use of a 300kw portable generator to the City of Brooklyn Center immediately following the storm; and WHEREAS, the portable generator assisted in providing an emergency power supply for the City of Brooklyn Center's water distribution system in order to maintain water service and fire protection during the power outage; and WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth has also provided the use of two tandem dump trucks to assist in the clean-up effort of tree debris removal and disposal; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to acknowledge and express the community's appreciation for the City of Plymouth's assistance in responding to the storm damage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the aid and assistance provided by the City of Plymouth is hereby recognized and appreciated b the City Council an he communit f Brooklyn pp y y d t un ty o yn enter. C October 24. 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. 10b 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: October 19, 2005 SUBJECT: Proposed Resolution from Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission Councilmember O'Connor recently distributed to the City Council copies of materials she received from Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission NWSCCC) regarding opposition to the proposed federal telecom legislation. Attached are copies of those materials the City received from NWSCCC with a cover letter from Executive Director Greg Moore. City Staff has no position on the proposed resolution. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Council decision on whether it wishes to adopt resolution. Attachments 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MINNESOTA TO SUPPORT CONTINUED AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGARDING FRANCHISING OF CABLE SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Minnesota (herein "City through its City Council adopts this Resolution to express its concern about proposals coming before Congress that will adversely affect the ability of local governments to continue to franchise cable services; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale created a joint consortium known as the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (herein "NWSCCC approximately twenty (20) years ago to streamline cable television administration in our area and to ensure that the needs and interests of each member city was represented in regard to the initial development, installation and continued operation of cable television through our cities' public rights -of -way; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has proven to be an effective, efficient model for developing and administering cable franchises, addressing concerns about the use of public right -of -way, and handling customer service issues; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has developed a national standard for providing local programming that promotes civic involvement, public awareness of community news and events via public, educational and government cable channels; and WHEREAS, NWSCCC has provided each member city with the tools to efficiently televise city meetings, and provide citizens with gavel -to -gavel coverage and easy access to their local government officials and the decision- making process; and WHEREAS, by providing gavel -to -gavel coverage of local government meetings and local news, NWSCCC has promoted openness and accountability, a key ingredient to successful government and strong communities; and WHEREAS, the NWSCCC has advised the City of recent proposals which Congress is considering that would change the role of local governments in granting cable franchises and negotiating franchise agreements with local cable operators that meet the unique needs and interests of communities; and WHEREAS, on behalf of the City and other communities that are part of the NWSCCC, the NWSCCC has written to Congressional members requesting help with the preservation of local control, a copy of which letter is attached; and WHEREAS, because Congress is giving increasing consideration to principles that threaten the interest of the City and other members of the NWSCCC as well as cities throughout the country, the City believes that through this Resolution now is the time for local government to take a stand to protect the local authority and it is absolutely essential for Congressional representatives to fully understand the importance of retaining the current structure of local franchising authority, which has proven itself to be an effective system for governing the utilization of public rights -of -way by private industry offering cable and related services; and has spawned an important local communications tool; and WHEREAS, many communities throughout the country, including the City and the other members of the NWSCCC consortium, expended substantial sums to negotiate franchises that ensure that local needs are met, including the development of local community programs and televised public meetings of community interest; and WHEREAS NWSCCC and its member cities have worked diligently with cable service providers to offer service to all citizens within the franchise area without regard to location or income status; and WHEREAS, certain Congressional legislation has the potential to destroy these community benefits, robbing communities of rightful sources of revenue for utilization of public right -of -way, and WHEREAS, the proposals under consideration would eliminate the ability of the City and other NWSCCC cities to: Cablecast city meetings, Replace aging cable television equipment; Provide the award winning local newscasts and community programming covering our franchise area; Offer public access facilities for to allow citizens to produce local, community oriented and diverse programming services; and Ensure that all citizens of the community are offered access to cable television regardless of their income status or location. NOW, THEREFORE, in a regular meeting assembled of the City, it is resolved as follows: 1. That the City hereby vigorously opposes any federal legislation that will reduce the right of local governments to approve and administer franchised cable services; to charge reasonable franchise fees for the use of the right -of -way; to establish benefit requirements including public, educational, and governmental access channels, including funding, facilities, and equipment for such channels; and to require dedicated capacity or institutional network systems for educational and governmental purposes. 2. That representatives serving the City and each of the Member Cities of the NWSCCC, within the United States Senate and House of Representatives be made aware of this Resolution, and that they be invited to confer with community leaders to become better informed on the special needs and interests of the City and other Member Cities of the NWSCCC, and to commit to fight against any form of legislation that will reduce the rights of localities with regard to local franchising and cable system administration and enforcement. 3. That a copy of this Resolution shall be provided to each of the Member Cities that is part of the NWSCCC and shall be also through a certified copy delivered immediately after its passage to the members of the U.S. Congress serving this City. Passed and Adopted this day of 2005. CITY OF MINNESOTA By Its Mayor NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 6900 Winnetka Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 763 -536 -8355 September 29, 2005 Michael McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Dear Mr. McCauley, The Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission at its September 15 meeting requested the NWSCCC attorney, Adrian Herbst, to prepare a resolution opposing proposed federal telecom legislation. The proposed legislation would substantially reduce or eliminate the rights of local governments to collect franchise fees, and to provide community television including city council meetings, public access programming, and Channel 12. The NWSCCC is recommending that each of its nine member cities review and adopt the Resolution and then send it to their Congressmen and Senators. The NWSCCC has previously written our Representatives expressing our strong opposition to this proposed legislation and it is vital that member cities also express their concerns on an issue which is so adverse to our interests. Enclosed is the proposed Resolution as well as a summary of the various bills. It would be helpful if you would send copies of your adopted Resolution to the NWSCCC attorney, Adrian Herbst. Sincerely, Gre Mo )re Executt Director Northwest Suburbs Cable Communication Commission Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Crystal Golden Valley Maple Grove New Hope Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale THE BALLER HERBST LA W GROUP, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 377N GRAIN EXCHANGE BUILDING 301 FOURTHAVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 1(877) 501 -1389 (612) 339 -2026 (612) 339 -4789 (facsimile) www.baller.com ADRIANE. HERBST WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE: (612) 339 -2018 2014 P STREET, N. W., SUITE 100 aherbs[@baller.com WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (102) 833 -5300: (202) 833 -1180 (facsimile) September 28, 2005 Michael McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Federal Legislation Threatening Local Cable Television Authority Dear Mike: We have attached to this letter a brief update titled, "Current Events in Communications Reform Affecting Localities." Additionally, we have included a Resolution for consideration by your community. Recent events have made it clear that local governments must take a stand if they are to protect their interests and authority with regard to cable television and related services. Localities have the authority under current federal law, including the federal Cable Acts, to establish requirements for cable service operators using public right -of -way for development and operation of cable systems. As part of this authority, localities receive franchise fees, have authority to establish customer service standards, develop standards and requirements to protect the use of public rights -of -way and issues concerning public safety, require community benefits including channels for public, educational, and governmental use as well as funding, facilities, and equipment for those purposes, and, in addition, capacity on cable systems for governmental and educational purposes. Current and pending federal legislation as outlined in the attached paper, including S. 1504, S.1349, and HR.3146, will have the affect of either eliminating or substantially reducing the rights of local governments to franchise cable operators, severely limit franchise fees paid to a locality for use of public right -of -way, limit the public, educational, and governmental access channels and funding for those purposes, and requirements for dedicated capacity on the system for public use. Additionally, localities may be severely limited in its authority with regard to the management and control of right -of -way use. September 28, 2005 Page 2 It is absolutely essential that local governments take a stand now to preserve their rights and to make known to their elected officials in Congress that the Bills that are pending in Congress are vigorously opposed by local government, not in the best interest of communities, and by way of resolution or other means, insist that the elected Congressional members representing the community listen to local officials and stand up for the rights of local government and the preservation of the current franchising scheme. It is clear to us that the only reason why Congress is considering change is due to the interests of big telecom companies that want the right to offer competitive cable services, but also want to skip having a franchising process with local government. This is most unfortunate inasmuch as localities are currently able to negotiate franchises that meet their community needs and interests and over the years since initially franchising cable operators, localities have developed positive relationships with cable providers that demonstrate that the current system of franchising and rights and interests of localities has worked well and has made possible that the unique and differing interests of localities throughout the country can be met without undue hardship to the providers. There is no reason why this same structure or scheme of development of cable services cannot also be reasonably applied to new entrants such as the large telecom providers who would now like to compete with the incumbent cable operators. The attached Resolution is most urgent. Your elected representatives in Congress must be made aware now of your interests and concerns and you as a community leader must insist that they either meet with you or discuss this most serious matter. If the pending legislation is passed, not only will your community stand to lose substantial revenues from franchise fees, it will also lose a very valuable local communication service that your community has the right to have a part in ensuring that your special needs will be met. I have been asked by many of my clients to educate local governing bodies about what is taking place and what they can do. I would be pleased to provide you with this assistance. Additionally, it would be most appreciated if you will copy me on any transmittal of a Resolution adopted by your community so that I can monitor on behalf of you and others the response to this letter and the actions taken by communities. This will also be helpful for me to be in a position to inform the leaders of national organizations for municipalities about local support and to provide them with information and resolutions of communities who have taken steps to let Congress know about their concerns. truly yours, Adrian E. Herbst AEH/dnd Attachment NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TELECOMMUNICATIONS REFORM AND YOUR COMMUNITY: WHAT YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW! September 2005 THE BALLER HERBST LAW GROUP, P. C Adrian E. Herbst 377N Grain Exchange Building 301 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 339 -2018; (612) 339 -4789 (facsimile) aherbst @baller.com Casey E. Lide 2014 P Street, N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 833 -3301; (202) 833 -1180 (facsimile) casey@baller.com THE BALLER HERBST LA W GR O UP, P. C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3 7 7N GRAIN EXCHANGE BUILDING 301 FOURTHAVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 1 -(877) 501 -1389 (612) 339 -2026 (612) 339 -4789 (facsimile) www.baller.com ADRIAN E. HERBST WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE: (612) 339 -1018 2019 P STREET, N W., SUITE 200 aherbst@baller.com WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 833 -5300; (201) 833 -1180 (facsimile) Adrian E. Herbst heads the Minneapolis office of The Baller Herbst Law Group. For more than 25 years he has been on the cutting edge of cable and telecommunications matters, providing regular consulting and legal assistance to municipalities throughout the United States. This has included the initial franchising processes for cable communications as well as renewals, transfers of ownership, and a wide -range of administrative enforcement matters and development of local programming and issues related to local programming. Recently, his work has expanded with the broadband services offered in cable and telecommunications systems to include planning, competition policy, and internet services. He has served as a key member of many national organizations in programs to provide assistance to local governments, including International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA), National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), the Alliance for Community Media and the National League of Cities (NLC). He has served in many capacities on behalf of these national organizations, including developing model ordinances for IMLA and chairing a specialized rights -of -way taskforce for NATOA that developed policies and guidelines for local units of governments throughout the country. He has served as President of the Minnesota Trial Lawyers Association and Vice President of the League of Minnesota Cities and is also a member of various other legal organizations including the Federal Communications Bar Association, and the Telecommunications Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association. Mr. Herbst has a unique background in municipal and governmental law and policy, having been a full -time City Attorney and elected City Councilman for 16 years for the City of Bloomington, Minnesota. While serving as City Attorney, Mr. Herbst led a group that was instrumental in the development of the initial franchises for cable services. As a result of this experience, he advised many municipal organizations both on the state and national level to help initiate procedures and guidelines for cable franchising. Further, because of this unique background, he was selected to serve as General Counsel for the Economic Development Authority for the City of Bloomington, Minnesota and was instrumental in the acquisition of land for development, public financing, and spearheaded the creation, development, and negotiation of a development agreement that led to the development of the Mall of America, the largest single shopping mall and attraction center in the country. Mr. Herbst has been a recognized national leader in municipal law matters and, in particular, cable and telecommunications and as such has been a regular presenter on behalf of various organizations. He has recently spoken at the regional and national conferences for NATOA, IMLA, MACTA, as well as in workshops and seminars for The Pennsylvania League, The Kansas City Webmasters Conference, The Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association and the League of Minnesota Cities. CURRENT EVENTS IN COMMUNICATIONS REFORM AFFECTING LOCALITIES I. Introduction For anyone involved in the world of telecommunications, cable and broadband, this is a tumultuous time, to say the least. Against an uncertain backdrop of looming telecom reform in Congress, state and federal regulators are struggling with how best to promote the deployment of robust broadband nationwide, to protect the concept of universal service, to reduce regulatory barriers to competitive entry, and, with regard to the offering of video services by traditional telcos, whether the traditional local role in cable franchise administration will exist at all in the future. This briefing paper attempts to provide an overview of the most important developments over the past year from the perspective of local government administrators. We focus in particular on the recent push in some states and in Congress to abolish local franchising of cable video services in favor of "one size fits all" franchising at the state or federal level. These efforts amount to a direct threat to local authority, and to the locality's traditional role as the regulator and administrator of the public rights of way. More concretely, these measures would almost certainly reduce local revenue, in some cases by a substantial amount. In addition to challenges to local franchising, we provide a brief overview of a number of other topics of interest, including a high -level review of federal telecommunications reform efforts, an update on efforts to thwart and to allow municipal provision of broadband services, the transition to digital television, the current status of "multicast must carry," and the implications of the Brand X case. II. State and Federal Threats to Local Franchising Authority While telecommunications companies such as Verizon have long talked about entering the video service business, only in the past 18 months has Verizon (and, to a lesser extent, SBC, BellSouth and other incumbents) done so to an appreciable degree. Verizon and SBC promptly drew state and federal lawmakers' attention to the fact that, before they may offer video service in a given local area, the Cable Act of 1992 requires that they first obtain a franchise from the local government. To this point, Verizon has obtained at least ten local franchises nationwide for its video service. Nevertheless, Verizon and SBC maintain that local franchising for the deployment of video services is untenable to the telco incumbents. The cable industry, which has operated under such a requirement for decades, opposes their efforts vociferously. SBC in fact has taken a harder line than Verizon, insisting that its IPTV service is not subject to the Cable Act's local franchising requirement at all. On September 14, 2005 SBC filed a petition with the FCC to make a ruling to that effect. Unlike Verizon, SBC has not yet pursued any local franchise for the delivery of its video service. In the name of promoting the rapid deployment of competitive service and reducing regulatory overhead (Verizon has claimed it would take 50+ years to obtain the necessary franchises nationwide), the telco incumbents have found plenty of sympathetic, lawmakers at the state and federal levels. A. State Initiatives Texas At the state level, the most recent and highest profile battle was in the state of Texas. SBC and Verizon promoted a bill to abolish local franchising in favor of a single statewide franchising regime, to be administered by the Texas Public Utility Commission. SBC reportedly had 124 lobbyists involved at the Texas Statehouse. On the other was the cable industry, together with some local government groups. SBC and Verizon ultimately prevailed, and Governor Perry signed the bill abolishing local franchising in Texas into law on September 7, 2005. The Texas law is a crucial development in that it provides additional impetus and clout for the incumbent telcos to pursue similar measures in other states. It also strengthens their hand with regard to their push in Congress for national video franchise legislation. Other States Immediately after SBC succeeded in Texas, BellSouth in North Carolina brazenly attempted to accomplish the same thing by inserting language in a "technical corrections" bill (normally used to fix punctuation and typos), introduced near the close of the North Carolina legislative session. It would have relieved BellSouth of all cable related franchise requirements. The cable industry and local governments raised a furor, and the North Carolina Senate committee excised the language. Observers expect BellSouth to try again next session. A debate about one size fits -all statewide franchising has been underway in New Jersey for nearly a year. The New Jersey Municipal League has indicated that it is working closely with all parties, and that it does not necessarily oppose statewide franchising. Verizon, in an effort to sweeten the deal, has said it would pay 3% of gross revenues for statewide franchise in New Jersey, instead of the 2% it would be obligated to pay under most local franchises. While there is as of yet no legislation pending, Verizon is expected to cause legislation to be introduced sometime after the November elections in New Jersey. The notion of statewide franchising is not entirely new, and Texas is not the first state to have adopted that approach. For some time the state of Florida has franchised video providers at the state level, as does Puerto Rico. B. Federal Initiatives There are currently three pieces of legislation within Congress that directly threaten the role of localities in cable franchising and right of way administration, To various degrees, these bills (S.1504 (Ensign/McCain), HR.3146 (Blackburm/Wynn), and S.1349 (Smith/Rockefeller)) would completely gut local authority to administer the right of way, at least insofar as it related to the deployment and offering of communication services. The legislation would reduce revenue available to localities, would potentially eliminate funding for PEG channels, would remove any incentive to provide institutional networks or other in -kind services, and would place customer service regulation in the hands of the FCC (with enforcement to occur at the state level). On the brighter side, draft legislation was recently released by the House Commerce Committee staff which, while reflecting the same general concepts as the other three bills, appears to provide a more balanced approach. It is crucial to note that the following bills are only a starting point, and reflect the state of the debate only at this moment. Other legislation will undoubtedly be introduced, modifications will be made and compromises reached as the "sausage factory" kicks into high gear over the next 18 months. 5.1504 (Ensign McCain): "Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005" The Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005 is the first Congressional foray into comprehensive telecom reform. It is 75 pages long and covers a great deal of territory in addition to cable service franchising, including municipal broadband, telecom price regulation, and program access. It is a highly deregulatory bill, and is backed enthusiastically by the incumbent telecommunications companies. From the perspective of local governments, it is a nightmare. The following are some of the main points of S.1504 relating to local franchising: Inconsistent terms of existing franchises are preempted. All state and local franchise regulation not expressly allowed by the bill is prohibited. Specifically prohibits any regulation of build -out redlining: "A video service provider may not be required to build out its video distribution system in any particular manner." Franchise fees may still technically be imposed by state or local government, but would be limited to "cost of compensating such local government for the costs that it incurs in managing the public rights -of -way used by such provider." Does not provide for franchise fee audit. No fees may be charged providers for work in the rights of way. Restricts meaning of "gross revenue" to revenue received directly from video subscribers, excluding non subscriber revenue such as launch fees, home shopping commissions, and advertising. Prohibits telecommunications service revenue from being used in "gross revenue" calculation. PEG: limits locality to no more than four PEG channels, but provides no funding for them. (Current cable franchises typically include provision for funding.) Location and grouping of channels left to the operator. Does not provide for common "in- kind" services, such as institutional networks and local emergency alert systems. Customer service. No local regulation that gets shifted to the FCC. FCC would be required to adopt new customer service standards, to be enforced by states, not local units of government (although there is a provision for a "local contact" whose sole duty apparently is to pass along any complaints or issues to the state commission). States may not impose standards higher than those adopted by the FCC. Locality may not charge for construction permits for work in the right of way. If an "emergency," the provider may proceed with the work without notifying the local or state government. Perpetual franchise. There is no term limit. No ability for locality to revisit needs, examine changes in technology, and alter requirements for future franchises accordingly. Other important requirements that directly affect the locality, and that are normally included in local franchise agreements, are mentioned in the Ensign bill (and thus arguably prohibited). Potentially could be included in an FCC rulemaking on customer service, but no assurances that they will be addressed adequately: Safety code compliance Local office requirement Insurance and indemnity requirement Requirement to restore private property damaged by providers Requiring personnel to carry ID badges, and trucks to be clearly marked Reaction to the Ensign bill by local governments has been critical, to say the least. The National League of Cities estimates that the Ensign bill would cost municipalities nationwide approximately $3 billion on lost revenues from cable and telephone companies. It also prevents local governments from regulating the price, terms and quality of service. The bill also poses a direct threat to public access television. The Ensign bill's sole treatment of PEG channels is to limit the locality to four of them. It allows the cable operator to choose where the channels may be located on the lineup, and how they may be grouped. It contains no provision for the cable operator to fund the PEG channels. The Association for Community Media (ACM) has produced an extensive criticism of the bill, located at httD:// www .alliancecm.oriz/index.nh id =201. HR.3146 (Blackburn Wynn) 5.1349 (Smith Rockefeller): "Video Choice Act of 2005" Unlike the Ensign bill outlined above, these companion bills in the House and Senate do not attempt to reform telecommunications law generally. Their purpose is restricted to the concept of nationalizing the cable franchising process. They parallel the Ensign bill's franchise nationalization provisions in a number of respects, and from the perspective of local officials, the bills' shortcomings are similar. Key points of the legislation include: Creates a new regulatory category for "competitive video service provider," excluding them from all other provisions of Title VI (but specifically retaining certain obligations, i.e., retransmission consent, must -carry, etc.). Defined as "any provider of video programming, interactive on- demand services, other programming services, or any other video services who has any right, permission, or authority to access public rights -of -way independent of any cable franchise." Essentially refers to existing providers of telephony services that wish to provide video. No requirement for additional franchise. Existing users of right of way would be exempt from obtaining additional franchise for the provision of video services. Franchise fees would still exist and would be paid to the locality, calculated with reference to gross revenues "attributable to the provision of such service within the provider's service area." No rate regulation by local, state or federal bodies. Existing franchise agreements with competitive video service providers "shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act for the term of such agreement." No provision for carriage of PEG channels by competitive video service providers nor PEG financial support. Bill imposes minimal obligations on competitive video providers, which may prompt incumbent cable operators to file suit on level playing field grounds. No build -out or anti redlining requirements, arguably. No provision for franchise fee audits. No provision for institutional networks or in -kind compensation. House Commerce Committee Staff Draft Legislation (Dingell/Barton) On Thursday, September 15 the House Commerce Committee staff released consensus draft legislation that, like the Ensign bill, is an attempt to enact wholesale reforms to the Communications Act. The following are the key points of the bill's treatment of video services and video franchising: Provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over "broadband video service providers." Prohibits rate regulation, including the basic tier. Eliminates the notion of local franchise negotiation and local franchise agreements for broadband video service providers. Broadband video service providers must register with the FCC, the state commission, and any local franchising area in which it seeks to offer services. After FCC notifies locality that registration statement has been accepted by it, the franchise becomes effective 15 days after the local franchising authority receives from the provider: a franchise bond payment, if required, a statement by the provider "agreeing to any public, educational, and governmental use designated by the local franchising authority under section 304(b) of this Act and a designation of a local agent Franchises to be of uniform duration, to be set by the FCC, and FCC is to establish procedures for transfer, renewal, and extension.. Franchise fees up to 5% of gross revenues may be assessed by a local franchising authority. "Gross revenues" defined relatively broadly. Franchise permits construction in right of way, but provider is responsible for "safety, functioning, and appearance" of property, and the provider must bear the cost of construction, repair, and compensation to affected property owners. Local franchise authority is permitted to impose "reasonable time, place and manner restrictions" on construction and maintenance in the right of way. PEG capacity: local franchise authority "may designate broadband video service provider capacity for public, educational, or governmental use in the local franchising area, so long as such use is comparable to the obligations the local franchising authority applies" to existing cable operators and other broadband service providers in the area. Institutional networks: a local franchise authority "may designate or use" broadband video service provider "capacity" for public, educational and governmental use, but cannot require the construction of networks. Redlining: FCC is to adopt regulations prohibiting income -based redlining. Build -out requirements: the draft legislation includes a blank placeholder for "Build- out." Program access: includes non discrimination and exclusivity provisions. Consumer protection: FCC is tasked with adopting national consumer protection standards. States may enforce but may not expand them. III. Telecommunications Reform For several years now, industry observers have recognized that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not well- suited to the reasonable and predictable regulation of modern broadband communications systems. Some say it has failed miserably from the get -go. While others may not be as harsh, the clear consensus at this point is that something needs to be done to update federal telecommunications laws to deal with IP- enabled services. There appears to be a growing consensus that the silo approach of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in which various services are placed into "telecommunications service" and "information service" boxes, with profound regulatory implications based on that categorization, is probably not the best way to deal with the current world of IP- enabled communications services, in which various services are now simply applications running over any number of kinds of IP- enabled pipes. MCI and others are promoting a "layers" approach to telecom reform, where the regulation would be guided by what level of the network layer the service or facility in question lies, and not by what services are in fact delivered to the consumer. Voice- over -IP, for instance, would conceivably fall within an "applications" layer, while a broadband connection itself may be regulated as a "services" or perhaps a "transport" layer. Fiber optic, copper, and coaxial cable could be regulated at a "facilities" layer. In any event, the debate is raging. Key externalities that promise to affect the outcome include universal service reform (who pays into it, who receives it), intercarrier compensation (whether access charges and reciprocal compensation are retained), and, potentially, obligations to comply with federal wiretapping laws (CALEA). All indications are that no meaningful telecommunications reform bill will be passed this year. Doing so by the end of 2006 is more realistic, but even that may be optimistic. As mentioned above, Sen. Ensign's S.1504 is the first legislative attempt to tackle telecom reform. It is a highly deregulatory bill backed by the incumbent telecommunications industry the stated purpose of which is to "establish a market driven telecommunications marketplace, to eliminate government managed competition of existing communication service, and to provide parity between functionally equivalent services." It has been referred to as a "wish list" of the incumbent telecommunications providers. Notably, the bill defines "broadband communication service" as "a communications service enabling the trans- mission of communications at a capacity greater than 64 kilobits per second," which is even less than the FCC's much- maligned definition of 200kbps. There is no indication that the Ensign bill is going anywhere soon. There have been no hearings yet in the Senate on the bill, and companion legislation has not introduced in the House. As also mentioned above, the House Commerce Committee staff recently released draft telecom reform legislation. It, too, is highly deregulatory, at least in terms of broadband providers. It prohibits rate regulation of "Broadband Internet Transmission Services VoIP, and broadband video service providers. It does, however, require such providers to register with the FCC and state commissions before providing service. The draft House staff bill also imposes interconnection obligations on BITS and VoIP providers, tasks the FCC with a rulemaking relating to universal service, contains provisions relating to consumer privacy, and numerous other provisions IV. Municipal Provision of Broadband Services Until the past year, the question of whether municipalities can be prohibited from providing communications network services was solely a state issue. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League, in which it held that states may permissibly prohibit localities from providing such services, there has been a flurry of incumbent backed efforts to thwart municipal broadband in statehouses around the nation. Multiple initiatives to restrict or prohibit municipal networks were introduced in fourteen states over the past year, and, to the g P reat credit of backers of municipal broadband all but a handful were defeated. Those that did pass were often weakened enough to be more or less workable for municipalities. Now the battle has moved to the federal level as well. Clearly, incumbent providers increasingly view municipal communications networks as a competitive threat. In addition to the statehouses, incumbents are now lobbying for enactment at the federal level of legislation restricting or outright prohibiting municipal networks. H.R.2726 (Rep. Sessions): "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who worked for SBC for 16 years, and who has over $500,000 worth of SBC stock options, and whose wife still works for the company, sponsored legislation the effect of which would be to utterly eliminate any competitive municipal broadband efforts. H.R. 2726 the "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" succinctly states that "neither any State or local government, nor any entity affiliated with such a government, shall provide any telecommunications, telecommunications service, information service, or cable service in any geographic area within the jurisdiction of such government in which a corporation or other private entity that is not affiliated with any State or local government is offering a substantially similar service." The term "substantially similar" is left undefined. 5.1504 (Sen. Ensign): "Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005" Sen. Ensign's telecom deregulation bill also includes a provision that restricts municipal broadband services. While not an outright prohibition along the lines of the Sessions bill, the Ensign bill presumes that local governments possess competitive advantages that it should not. and that it is appropriate to transfer any such public advantages to the established providers, without also subjecting them to the corresponding duties and accountability in serving the public interest that apply to local governments. (A more complete analysis of the Ensign bill's provision restricting municipal broadband networks is available at httD /www.baller.com/Ddfs/Baller Response Sen EnsiiZn.ndf.) 5.1294 (Lautenberg /McCain): "Community Broadband Act of 2005" In response to the Sessions and Ensign bills, a broad -based consortium of local government groups, consumer interest organizations, and technology companies have backed the introduction of legislation specifically allowing the creation of municipal broadband networks, should a locality choose to do so. Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Sen. John McCain introduced the "Community Broadband Act of 2005" (5.1294) which provides: "No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such provider." In addition, the Lautenberg /McCain bill obligates localities to apply its regulatory ordinances and rules to any public provider of communications, without discrimination. House Commerce Committee Staff Draft Legislation In addition, the recently released House Commerce Committee draft telecom reform legislation contains a provision friendly to municipal broadband. Similar to the Lautenberg/McCain bill, the House draft legislation states: Neither the 1934 Act nor any State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider of BITS, VOIP services, or broadband video services from providing such services to any person or entity." It also obligates local governments to apply its ordinances and regulations equally to any municipal provider of broadband services. V. Conclusions and Recommendations The $64,000 question is, "What shall local governments do There is a great deal of uncertainty as to the continuing role of local government and the regulation and oversight of cable services. Primarily, this has been brought about by the large telecom providers' desire to provide competitive services to cable operators. They argue that they should be entitled to skip the local franchising process on the basis that the franchising process is too time consuming, too expensive, and would likely impose build -out requirements that may not be conducive to the provider's desire to maximize short-term revenue. Meeting local requirements of serving entire franchise areas can create a dilemma. Further, the telecom providers argue, and we believe have convinced members of Congress and the FCC, that with broadband local or even state control is no longer appropriate, and that all regulation of broadband- related matters should be handled at the federal level. At the beginning of cable franchising, visionaries recognized that public rights -of -way were a valuable resource, and the grant of a franchise to a cable provider should be made with the understanding that the provider would provide certain benefits for the community in exchange for availing itself of that resource. This led to locally imposed obligations to provide diversity of programming, opportunities for community expression, educational services, government communication services, and a range of other benefits. Many local governments have expended tremendous public dollars to build relationships with cable providers to meet their local needs, and in many instances community access and PEG programming has evolved thanks to the contribution of significant public expenditures, not to mention the time and talent of persons and resources within individual communities. This should not be taken away. No two communities are exactly the same. Each has a separate personality and the needs and interests of communities vary considerably. Having the authority to negotiate franchise agreements that meet community needs must be preserved to carry on with the opportunity for community benefit. Much of this may be lost if federal legislation prescribes a "one- size fits -all" approach. [Under the House bill, a prospective competitive franchisee has to agree to PEG guidelines produced by the LFA before it is awarded a franchise. Where is the loss of local control and localized decisions in that case Some voices in Washington claim that competition alone will protect the interests of communities and consumers. We do not believe that. Competition between providers may have some impact, but there is little doubt in that it will not bring about the preservation of the community benefits now derived from the rights communities have in franchise negotiations with cable providers. Moreover, with the ongoing mega- mergers and vertical integration in the industry, the idea that meaningful, effective competition exists in the communications and video programming realm is becoming less and less tied to reality. The above Bills may be rewritten and changed numerous times before finalization. Now is the time for local action. We recommend the adoption by local governments of a resolution expressing their sense about the importance of local control and local interests in these matters. Local governments must demand that their Congressional delegation listen to them, and that they understand the importance and interests of their communities A resolution is a considerably stronger form of expression than a simple letter, and would be likely to receive due attention at each community's Congressional delegation. We also suggest that communities go beyond this, and insist that their elected leaders and political persons with contacts provide the information necessary to ensure that the elected Congressional delegation will stand up for the rights of local governments, and preserve local interests and the franchising process that is now in place. City Council Agenda Item No. lOc Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 2005 ANNUAL DEER MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REPORT AND ADOPTING THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS THEREIN WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a deer management plan to create an acceptable environmental balance that will facilitate the peaceful co- existence of citizens and wildlife; and WHEREAS, the plan requires an annual progress report each summer regarding implementation of the annual strategies; and WHEREAS, the second season of plan implementation has been completed and a determination has been made that the number of deer in Brooklyn Center continues to exceed the recommended norm of fifteen to twenty deer per square mile of habitat area; and WHEREAS, the excessive numbers of deer continue to represent a pubic nuisance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that it does hereby accept the 2005 Deer Management Implementation Plan report and adopt the recommendations of the City Manger encompassed therein. October 24, 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. Brooklyn Center Deer Management Program 2005 Annual Report Introduction In response to ongoing and increasing citizen complaints regarding the nuisance created by a growing deer presence in the city, a community meeting was held at the Community Center on July 30 2003. Following this meeting the City Council directed the establishment of a task force and development of a deer management plan. On October 27 2003 the City Council approved the Deer Management Plan per the taskforce recommendations. In accordance with the plan the City has conducted two deer harvesting effort using bow hunters. Each hunt has taken place within the city limits of Brooklyn Center in the Palmer Lake Basin Area. As required by the Plan this annual report is prepared to document the annual plan implementation progress. Summary of December 2004 deer hunt As part of the deer reduction effort in the City of Brooklyn Center an in- season bow hunt was scheduled for December of 2004. In review of the most practical days in December it was decided that a two week block starting on December 6th through December 17. Five hunts days were then selected on weekdays that fell within that timeframe. At the time of the final selection of the five hunt days, the City of Brooklyn Park was not able to assist or join in on the hunt. The goal of this hunt was 20 deer taken from the Palmer Lake area that fell within the Brooklyn Center boundaries. (There is a large portion Palmer Lake basin that crosses into Brooklyn Park.) Following is a total of deer taken: The start time was sunrise to 1030 hours each day Dav 1 December 6th Five doe were taken in the first day of the hunt. Two of the taken deer did require tracking, but were located and removed. (14 hunters in the park.) Dav 2 December 7 th There were no deer taken on this day. There were 14 hunters in the park, but swampy water made several areas unreachable. Temperatures were above freezing and there was no snow. Dav 3 December 10 One deer was taken on this day. The deer was a buck. Again the weather and ground conditions played a role in reaching the deer that had moved the island area of Palmer Lake. (14 Hunters in the park) Dav 4 December 13 There were no deer taken on this day. Efforts to move the deer from the Brooklyn Park side of the park failed to produce any clear shots as the deer would just move to the Palmer Lake Island. (14 hunters in the park.) Dav 5 December 17 On the final day zero deer were taken. Half of the hunters (7) left their stands to help to and get the deer to move from the island area but the ones that did move simply ran to Brooklyn Park. There was a very large gathering of deer standing on the Brooklyn Park side. Total deer taken from the hunt was six (6). There was no fetal count due to the early stage of the birthing season. This number taken was substantially less that what was expected and a discussion was held with the hunt coordinators in an effort to improve future hunts. Summary of the hunt coordinators discussion: Breakdown of'the deer taken: Doe Five (5) Buck One (1) Total Six (6) Areas of Concerns: The biggest concern of the hunt was the problem getting the deer to move from the Palmer Lake island area which was surrounded by swampy ground. This was an area that a shot could not be taken because the deer would not have been able to be recovered. Moving the deer was also tough because of the unstable swampy ground. Another concern from the hunters was that deer would stray to the outer boundaries of the hunt area and that shots were prohibited outside of the boundary. (This was a safety concern raised by police and would not be comprised. All shots taken must be directed into the basin area not towards the outside of the park. Once the hunters were in their deer stands they observed the deer on the wrong side of their stand creating a shot towards the outside of the park.) 2 Sug Lestions: The hours of the hunt, which had been set by the deer task force at sunrise to 1030 hours should be opened up to pm hours. They felt the deer would just stay in the island area in the am hours and they might be able to get them to move better in the evenin g hours. The hardest element of the hunt results to prepare for is the weather and ground conditions. It was hoped that December would be the best month to hunt because the ground is often frozen and covered with snow. December is also the last month of the season for bow hunting without a permit. In this hunt the ground conditions were poor. Complaints /problems: There were two phone calls received at the police station regarding the hunt, both were questions about the hunt and when the park would be open. Outside of those calls, this hunt had no remarkable incidents. Estimated Cost to Implement January 2005 Hunt Cost of police overtime, aerial mapping, notices: 1,793.00 Monitoring Records Table I Aerial Deer Survey Brooklyn Center I Brooklyn Center 2 Brooklyn Center 3 District West District Central District East Brooklyn Park Crystal/MAC Total March 2002 4 65 9 I 38 I Unknown f Februar 11 25 0 43 29 108 2004 February 22 37 22 NA NA 81 2005 Reported Deer Accidents 2003 Nine 2004 Nine thru August 2005 Sixteen thru August 3 2005 Recommendations Education In 2003 the City posted the adopted deer management plan on the city Web Site. The Sun Post and Channel 12 provided news coverage and background information regarding the purpose and results of the first deer management bow hunt. The City published an article in the winter 2004 City Watch explaining the Deer Mgt Plan and its goals. In the spring of 2004 the City ontacted the cities of Brooklyn Pa a ty yn rk, Crystal and the Metropolitan Airport Commission regarding our plan and goal to reduce the deer population and encouraged their involvement olvement in this effort. To date none of the adjacent Cities have expressed a strong interest in joint removal activities. It is recommended that the City continue its education strategy as outlined in the Deer Management Plan. Monitoring Monitoring of deer accidents and complaints should continue in 2005. Feeding Ban The City should continue enforcement of the feeding ban. Population Control As indicated in the Deer Mgt plan, the optimum number of deer for an urban area is fifteen to twenty per square mile of habitat area. The Deer Mgt Plan sets a goal maximum of twenty deer per square mile of habitat area. With 751 acres of habitat in Brooklyn Center the maximum goal for Brooklyn Center is 21 deer. As established in the table above, there were eighty -one deer in the three Brooklyn Center Districts on February 25, 2005. Because several of these deer were does with fetus, the actual number in Brooklyn Center today have certainly grown to a larger number by this date. Therefore a third deer reduction hunt is recommended. To improve the results from the last hunt it is recommended that this third deer harvest take place under special permit from the DNR in January 2006. This hunt will be conducted in a fashion similar to the first hunt. Bait will be used and the Metro Bow Hunter Resource Base will conduct the hunt. After reviewing the result of the last hunt it is the considered opinion of staff and MBRB representatives that hunt over -bait in January when the ground is frozen will be the most effective option available. 4 It is also recommended that the hunt occur in two locations, Shingle Creek Park and Kylan Preserve Park where we have observed an increasing number of deer from the last aerial survey. Brooklyn Park We will continue to encourage cooperation with Brooklyn Park for our reduction program in the Palmer Lake Basin Area. CrystaUMAC We will continue to encourage the Airport Commission to implement a deer reduction strategy on Airport property in cooperation with the City of Crystal. 5 City of Brook Center Aeria- Deer Surveys 2 25 -05 T Bib La 78th Lam d A W y 1, A Wr Lk d, rb Are ,,yy d g g 6� m w F 75L Are 75thA J d— Wwd Dr F> Q4tb 112 Ave 74th AYa 74th An pp A PH7 Av. 4 i� Gl 73>d Way y �73ui y IdAn W 73rd Ave CiL 73ai Are g K gyp* Woo dbiae La A A 72tdAre W Q 72 O 7Si nM M Ave 71s1 71et AVe 4 LW ggg y g12>x1 An P A 70th AVe 70th Ave 70tbAw Vh A.a 79th An Ilrims La nr�wn La 8P1b Ave 1P 68th An FC 9 661E An 68tdAva Sy�j Gsa'�P'cwy A 68ihAn ZZ A 67th Ave Al 67th Ava R 67th AreO 57 Q io b7 y ddtt N7 Have La ra 66thAn 66th Ave dE(g8� 66th Arepve w=beda La Q �1 x to 65tb An 3 65tL An 6 01 Ave 65th�^A 65th v1� A4 Snt R A y Pa Rd 841bAn ��4 F 641h Ave St O H=y Rd NaabRd ,}QndAn yy 6lat S dAva W 9 l &.d An ea 61.d Ave bl.I o V 's Q bldA7 .o Q, g a ggg O V E 60th Ave I a h x 59th Ava 551E Aye 4 a 59th An 58th Ava 571LAVa eN 4 d zz E d S A An N a 56th ve S' 5 56tb Ave d 6l�Ar�' Q $56th Am v-0 so- Pair of ti d a d Eagles s,>�n� d w w a i 55th Are 55kI 55tb Are S q ..rrpp ,B me Ply WU bim Hlvd 53;1 P1 .S �y Lilac z ,PPF 54th Are 54thA—N 54tbAnN U O 53rd Ava S �S z z 53x�4veN 53m9AerN w 15 d z z' AreN 52 v {y z o z z 4V� Axpgeli��Arc fl 4 4 S7ni Ave C d u SZrd f�}e n, z sl PP gg d CCC777 9 I 52. An Oak St D n ro .K d 01 d d S 3"671 5] AvC N d Aw�N d 51Ave e z i e z 11 >n z Palmer Lake 31 50th AV' N SOtb .raf 49 l ff j Ave amew A F 49th &eemArs Ilk Shingle Creek 6 z IUI 0 th An N Are 43tbAre North Twin 22 <N x Y 48 ,,,�ma Miss �v 0 d 47thAnN Q %A 461,2A- ��4 Miss R. Island 22 45Th nN Tot al 81 AMA" 46th AwN jAwN 44ffi lr2>� kbA z a y u 45th AreN n 456 AvaN f� n U 44th AnN44tb A—N x a O z 441hAnN Pc 14th P.v�i N a K y reN t' ,q 9 Mddxed Pl FA ilie Pl A D Z z z a 5� 43cdAwN 43;l A -N w eo 431SAWN W 8 42nd 1f2 AV¢N z z z 0 36tb AreM a r z z