HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 02-23 CCP Regular Session Public Copy
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
February 23, 2004
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions
2. Miscellaneous
3. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits
4. Adjourn
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 23, 2004
Immediately Following Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M
City Council Chambers
1. Locomotive Horns
2. Rental License Fees
3. Watering Ban Update
4. Miscellaneous
5. Adjourn
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
To: Mayor Kragness and cil Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe
From: Michael J. McCauley
City Manager
Date: February 18, 2004
Re: February 23` Work S ssion Agenda
1. Previously you received a memorandum from the City Attorney outlining the federal rule
that would govern locomotive horns at crossings. That memorandum, a copy of which is
attached for your convenience, details a substantial study and process that would have to
be undertaken in order to adopt an enforceable and defensible ordinance.
a. Given the substantial use of resources necessary to pursue the development of an
ordinance, I would propose that this matter be deferred as part of the development of
goals for 2005 to determine if this issue would be selected by the City Council for the
commitment of substantial resources.
2. Attached is a memorandum from Sharon Knutson comparing our rental license fees with
several cities. Brooklyn Center imposes fees on a 2 year cycle. The comparison cities
impose annual fees. Our fees for small buildings can result in a lower fee than for a
duplex. It is suggested that our fees be increased to address the smaller building issue and
also be adjusted across the board since they have not been changed for a few years. If the
Council wished to consider increasing fees, an ordinance.could be prepared for fees to be
charged in 2005.
3. In following up on the citizen inquiry at open forum on drip irrigation, it has been
determined that we should proceed to create a more formal structure. The current summer
watering ban is based on a loose use of emergency powers and not on a formal ordinance
structure. This raises issues about enforceability and clarity. Staff and the City Attorney
are working on a proposed ordinance to address the summer watering ban and to explore
language that would accommodate drip irrigation, if that was feasible and appropriate.
a. Todd Blomstrom did contact the resident and advise that use of the drip system
would be permissible under the current arrangements.
4. Miscellaneous
5. Adjourn
arc
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
MEMORANDUM XBR %LY N
TER
DATE: January 29, 2004
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Locomotive Horn Operations
Kennedy Graven has provided the attached letter outlining the status of the Interim Final Rule
on Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings from the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA). The FRA a iiounced publication of the rule on December 18, 2003, but
the rule is not effective until December 18, 2004. The letter provides a fairly comprehensive
review of the issues that would need to be addressed if the City Council wishes to pursue the
establishment of a quite zone near the Azelia Avenue railroad crossing. Some basic work tasks
would be necessary in order to reach a point where an informed decision would be possible on
the establislunent of a quiet zone. These tasks are listed below.
1. Determine Public Authority Confirm that the City of Brooklyn Center is the sole entity
with jurisdiction over the safety and maintenance of the railroad crossing (in addition to
the FRA).
2. Evaluate Existing Safety Devices Review Supplementary Safety Measures installed
during construction of Azelia Avenue in 2002 to determine compliance with the
requirements of the new rule.
3. Conduct Risk Assessment Determine if the Quiet Zone Risk Index for the Azelia
crossing is at or below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT) given the
existing supplementary safety measures. If the risk index is above the NSRT, determine
additional measures necessary to lower the risk index below the NSRT.
4. Summarize Necessary Improvements Assemble a list of safety improvements necessary
to meet the rule requirements based on the above analysis. Calculate the estimated cost
for such improvements.
Obviously, there is a time /cost commitment to complete the above tasks. Please let me know
how you would like to proceed on this issue.
GADeptsTublic Works\ Administration \Traffic\Locomotive Homs \Summary Memol- 29- 04.doc
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
Graven (612) 337 -9300 telephone
(612) 337 -9310 fax
C H A R T E R E D http: /www.kennedy- graven.com
MICHAEL T. NORTON
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337 -9242
Email: tnnorton@kennedy- gmven.com
January 14, 2004
Todd Blomstrom
City Engineer
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430- .2.199
RE: Brooklyn Center Train Whistle Ordinance
Dear Todd:
I have been following the progress of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in developing an
interim train horn rule which addresses the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail ade crossings
in light of the City's consideration of an ordinance regulating the sounding of train whistles/horns at
Azelia Avenue North. On December 18, 2003, the FRA announced publication of "Interim Final
Rule on Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings" (Interim Rule, or Rule). This
Rule is not effective until December 18, 2004. As a result, Mimi. Stat. 219.166 "Establishment of
Quiet Zones still is the governing authority for purposes of establishing quiet zones in which the
sounding of horns, whistles or other audible warnings by locomotives is regulated or prohibited,
until the Rule is final.
In order to assist you in determining whether to recommend to the city council that an ordinance
limiting use of train whistles in the vicinity of Azelia Avenue North be implemented, it is necessary
review the impact of the Rule on the ordinance. I have attached the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) publication of Rule for your reference.
Discussion
The Rule requires that locomotive horns must be sounded at public highway -rail crossings, unless
one of the several exceptions to that requirement is applicable. 49 CFR 222.1. The Rule will
apply to all railroads unless the railroad operates freight or passenger trains on tracks which are not
part of the general railroad system, and rapid transit operations which are not connected to the
general railroad system. 49 CFR 222.5.
It is the clear intent of the FRA, and the statutory requirements found in 49 U.S.C. 20106, that the
Rule preempts any state or local law, rule, regulation or order covering railway crossings, unless
additional and more stringent regulations are required to eliminate or reduce local safety hazards, or
unless such local regulations are not incompatible with the Rule.
MTN- 242136v5
BR291-4
City of Brooklyn Center
January 14, 2004
Page 2 of 5
The Rule requires that locomotive horns on the lead locomotive must be sounded fifteen to twenty
seconds prior to arriving at each crossing, but not more than one quarter mile in advance of a
crossing. 49 CFR 222.21. However, the Rule does provide for the creation of "quiet zones" in
rail corridors, where train horns at crossings in these corridors may be regulated if the regulations
are consistent with the requirements of the Rule. 49 CFR §222.1, 222.35 -.57 and related
appendices.
The minimum requirements for quiet zones pursuant to 49 CFR 222.35, et seq., are as follows:
Minimum length one -half mile along the length of railroad right -of -way.
Active grade crossing warning devices consisting of flashing lights and gates which
control traffic over the crossing and which conform to federal standards:
Advance warning signs which advise motorists that train hones are not sounded at the
crossing, confonning to federal standards.
Quiet zones can be established by the "public authority" if the quiet zones are consistent with the
Rule. A "public authority" means the entity responsible for safety and maintenance of the railroad
crossing tracks at a public highway -rail grade crossing. Thus, in order for a municipality to
establish a quiet zone, it must first be determined which public entity (or entities) controls the
roadway crossing or crossings. If more than one public authority has jurisdiction, than either all the
public authorities must agree to establishment of the quiet zone, or they must jointly or by
delegation take the required actions: 49 CFR 222.37. The public authority once determined, may
establish a quiet zone without applying to or receiving the approval of the FRA, if the quiet zone
meets the minimum requirements of 49 CFR 222.35, and if the public authority complies with 49
CFR 222.39. The public authority may establish a quiet zone in this manner if one of the
following requirements are met:
Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) identified in Appendix A of the Rule are
implemented.
The Quiet Zone Risk Index is at or below the nationwide significant risk threshold
(NSRT) a measure of risk to the motoring public calculated pursuant to Appendix D of
the Rule and
o Quiet Zone Risk Index is at or below NSRT without implementation of SSMs;
o SSMs are implemented which reduce the quiet zone risk index to a level at or below
NSRT;
o SSMs are implemented which reduce the quiet zone risk index below the risk level
existing if locomotive horns sounded at all public crossings in the quiet zone.
If the public authority cannot meet the requirements discussed above, the public authority may still
apply to the FRA and its Associate Administrator for approval of a quiet zone. However, approval
of the quiet zone would still require one or more safety measures which would include SSMs,
Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) or a combination of such safety measures. There are rigorous
application information requirements detailed in the Rule. 49 CFR 222.40(b).
MTN- 242136v8
BR291-4
City of Brooklyn Center
January 14, 2004
Page 3 of 5
In reviewing the proposed draft ordinance addressing the Azelia Avenue crossing, it is clear that the
ordinance, if implemented by the city council, would be preempted upon final implementation of
the Rule on December 18, 2004, unless the minimum requirements of 49 CFR §222.35 are met, as
well as the requirements of 49 CFR 222.39. The ordinance could not qualify for automatic
approval as a "Pre -Rule Quiet Zone" because it was not implemented prior to December 18, 2003,
and it is not clear at present whether the crossing SSMs meet the minimum requirements of 49 CFR
222.35 and the other requirements of 49 CFR 222.39 and 222.41. While it is possible that the
Rule could still be modified, based upon additional comments received by the FRA in the period
prior to December 18, 2004, it is unlikely that local public authorities will be permitted by the FRA
to implement quiet zones without also implementing most, if not all, the safety procedures found in
the Rule.
You inform me that the Azelia Avenue crossing was rebuilt as part of the reconstruction of France
Avenue. The new crossing appears to have many, if not all, the SSMs required by the Rule. See
e.g_ 49 CFR 222.35 and .39. Thus, if the City chooses to pursue creating a quiet zone at Azelia
Avenue North, you may first wish to consider the costs of reviewing the Rule and its appendices to
determine whether the improvements at the crossing meet the requirements of the Rule (49 CFR
222.35 and .39(a), as well as conducting the risk analysis discussed above in order to meet the
minimum requirements found in 49 CFR 222.35, and the requirements of 49 CFR 222.39 and
222.43. Conducting the risk assessment will also assist in addressing public concerns over safety
and address potential liability issues. In this connection, your analysis would include whether the
risk at the crossing is less than the NSRT, or whether snaking additional safety improvements to
compensate for loss of the train horn as a warning device would reduce the average risk below the
NSRT, by implementing SSMs and/or having a risk index below the NRST. Id. It may be the case
that the new SSMs meet the requirements of the Rule and only minor additional actions needs to be
taken at the crossing in order to establish a quiet zone without seeking FRA approval. 49 CFR
222.39. If so, I would still recommend that the ordinance be redrafted to include appropriate
findings of need for the quiet zone, as well as findings concerning compliance with the Rule to
address potential liability to the City if a quiet zone is established. In this connection, it is not
possible now to state the relative level of risk of liability to the City if a quiet zone is approved.
However, if the City follows the Rule, makes a reasoned policy decision based on a good record, I
believe it is likely that such a decision will be viewed as a discretionary act which is typically
immune from liability under Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 and applicable case law authority.
One of the important considerations for the City as it determines whether to establish a quiet zone is
the potential significant cost of SSMs for the Azelia Avenue crossing or other potential quiet zones
in the City. The Rule does not place the responsibility of establishing and providing safety
measures such as SSMs and ASMs on the affected railroad, but rather on the appropriate public
authority or traffic control authority in control of the railway crossing. The Minnesota
Commissioner of Transportation has significant authority under current statutes to address safety at
rail crossings. See, e.�, Minn. Stat. §219.17 -.44. The Commissioner can order installation of
crossing gates or other devices, at the expense of the railroad. Minn. Stat. 219.24. It does not
appear that this authority is preempted by the Rule, but it is also unclear how the Commissioner will
respond to the Rule. Thus, it is uncertain how much of the expense of implementing SSMs will be
MTN- 242136v8
BR291 4
City of Brooklyn Center
January 14, 2004
Page 4 of 5
forced onto local cities and towns. It could be the case that the affected railroad or railroads would
negotiate participation in the costs of such devices.
The City ould also pursue avenues of relief from the sounding of train horns at Azelia Avenue or
ty p g
other potential quiet zones, other than trying to implement costly SSMs. For example, the
respective railroad may voluntarily cease sounding horns at individual crossings not within a quiet
zone, if the train speed is fifteen (15) miles per hour or less, and flaggers are used to warn motorists.
49 CFR 222.33. Further, it is also possible for a public authority and the railroad to request a
waiver of the Rule, either jointly, or individually, if agreement on a joint petition cannot be reached.
49 CFR §222.15.
Recommended Actions
Based on the foregoing, I suggest the following steps to assist in making a decision whether to
establish a quiet zone which includes the Azelia Avenue crossing:
Review status of existing crossing safety devices in light of 49 CFR 222.35 and .39,
and Appendix C.
Conduct risk assessment. 49 CFR 222.39 and Appendices C and D.
Determine whether minimum quiet zone requirements can be met. 49 CFR 222.35.
Assessment of additional costs, if any, required to meet the Rule.
Determine whether quiet zone may be established by the City or public authority. 49
CFR 222.39 (a). If not,
Review application requirements for public authority applications to FRA.
Redraft ordinance in light of conclusion re: compliance with 49 CFR 222.35 and .39.
Deternine when to involve affected railroads in process.
Develop public process for ordinance consideration or if FRA application is required,
P p P pP
authority to apply for FRA quiet zone approval.
There may be other steps you find appropriate to include as you move through the suggested basic
framework.
Conclusion
Until December 18, 2004, if the City desires to implement a quiet zone without meeting the
requirements of the Rule discussed above, the City is not preempted from doing so. There are
identical issues which should be addressed as outlined in my memo of July 10, 2003 if the City
chooses this approach. However, an ordinance not meeting the requirements of the Rule will be
preempted when the Rule is final. Therefore, you should consider whether addressing the train
noise at Azelia Avenue will be more effective if the City develops factual support for an ordinance
establishing a quiet zone which will meet the requirements of the Rule. If so, the ordinance should
be redrafted to include additional findings in support of establishing a quiet zone, and to establish
compliance with the Rule.
MTN- 242136v8
BR291 -4
City of Brooklyn Center
January 14, 2004
Page 5 of 5
Ve ly yours,
Michael T. Norton
MTN.jsv
I
MTN- 242136v8
BR291-4
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: February 12, 2004
SUBJECT: Rental License Fees
In May 2001 the City Council reviewed and discussed rental license fees. In August 2001 the City
Council adopted a resolution increasing rental dwelling license fees to offset the expenses incurred by
the City for rental inspection and prosecution services. The new fees were effective in 2002.
The biennial fee structure adopted in 2001 included two rates, one for single- and two family dwellings
($150 per unit), and another for multiple family dwellings ($150/bldg., plus $10 /unit). For many rental
properties the current fee structure recovers the costs to the City for rental inspection. However, the
multiple family dwellings in which there is one building with 14 or fewer units pays a rental license fee
of $160 to $290, less than the two family license fee of $300. Of the City's 68 multiple family
dwellings, there are 41 complexes whose rental license fees are less than that of a two family dwelling.
The license fee for these 41 multiple dwelling complexes does not cover the costs associated with
providing rental inspection and prosecution services.
A fee survey of other cities that license rental property has been completed and the results are attached.
The fee structure varies by city, with some issuing annual licenses and others setting fees per unit only
or charging flat rate fees per unit group. I've converted each city's data to a two -year license fee in
order to make an accurate comparison.
The fee structure the City has established could remain the same, however, to cover the costs of City
rental inspection services, a minimum rental license fee of $450 for multiple family dwellings could be
established. The fee would generate approximately $10,000 of revenue to cover the inspection costs.
I've attached a resolution that would amend the rental license fees and establish the minimum fee for
multiple family dwellings.
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
Rental License Fee Comparison To Other Cities February 2004
1 (License Fee for Multi Family Dwellings 1 I I
(Brooklyn Center 1$150 /bldq, plus $10 /unit (Two -year fee) OR $75 /bldq, plus $5 /unit Annually
Brooklyn Park 1$165/1 -14 units; $11 /unit for 15+ units (Annual Fee) 1
Crystal ($120 /bldq, plus $5 /unit (Annual fee) I 1
(New Brighton 1$9.30 /unit (Annual fee) 1 I 1
Robbinsdale $200/3 unit; $250/4 -12 units +$100; $15 /unit for 13+ units (Two -year fee) OR
$100/3 unit; $125/4 -12 units +$50; $7.50 /unit for 13+ units Annually
TWO -YEAR RENTAL LICENSE FEES (Brooklyn Center compared to two -year cost for other cities)
1 Brooklvn Center IBrooklvn Park ICrvstal (New Brighton (Robbinsdale I
(Single Family 1 $1501 $1501 $2001 No Feel $1001
(Two- Family 1 $3001 $3001 $2401 No Feel $1751
11 Bldg w/3 Units 1 $1801 $3301 $2701 $55.801 $2001
11 Bldg w/4 Units 1 $1901 $3301 $2801 $74.401 $3501
11 Bldg w/5 Units 1 $2001 $3301 $2901 $93.001 $3501
11 Bldg w/6 Units 1 $2101 $3301 $3001 $111.601 $3501
11 Bldg w/7 Units 1 $2201 $3301 $3101 $130.201 $3501
11 Bldg w/8 Units 1 $2301 $330 $3201 $148.801 $3501
11 Bldg w/9 Units 1 $2401 $330 $3301 $167.401 $3501
11 Bldg w /10 Units 1 $2501 $3301 $3401 $186.001 $3501
11 Bldg w/11 Units 1 $2601 $330 $3501 $204.601 $3501
11 Bldg w/12 Units 1 $2701 $330 $3601 $223.201 $3501
11 Bldg w/13 Units 1 $2801 $3301 $3701 $241.801 $3651
11 Bldg w/14 Units I $2901 $3301 $3801 $260.401 $3801
11 Bldg w/15 Units I $3001 $3301 $3901 $279.001 $3951
11 Bldg w/16 Units 1 $3101 $3521 $4001 $297.601 $4101
Revenue Increase With $450 Minimum License Fee
For Multiple Family Dwellings
P Y s g
Of Of Rental License Total Rental Increase
Bldgs Units Fee Under License Fee In Revenue
$150/ $10/ Current Total Of Total Rental If $450 If $450
Bldg Unit Fee Structure Complexes License Fees Minimum Minimum
11 13 1 $1801 11 1 $1801 1 $4501 $2701
11 14 1 $1901 119 1 $3,6101 1 $8,5501 $4,9401
11 15 1 $2001 11 1 $2001 1 $4501 $2501
11 16 1 $2101 12 1 $4201 1 $9001 $4801
1 17 1 $2201 13 1 $6601 1 $1,3501 $6901
1 18 1 $2301 11 1 $2301 1 $4501 $2201
1 110 1 $2501 11 1 $2501 1 $4501 $2001
11 111 1 $2601 19 1 $2,3401 1 $4,0501 $1,7101
11 112 $2701 14 1 $1,0801 1 $1,8001 $7201
11 1,18 $3301 11 1 $3301 1 $4501 $1201
1 122 I $3701 11 1 $3701 1 $4501 $801
1 124 1 $3901 11 $3901 1 $4501 $601
2 18 1 $3801 11 $3801 1 $4501 $701
1 145 I $10.4401 1 $20.2501 $9.8101
4
Member introduced the following
adoption: its
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR RENTAL DWELLING
LICENSE FEES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted Resolution No.
2001 -113 on August 13, 2001, which amended the fees to be charged for rental dwellings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it wishes to establish a minimum
fee for multiple family dwellings to offset the expenses incurred by the City for rental inspection and
P Y g ex P
prosecution services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to amend the City's fee schedule for rental dwelling licenses as
follows:
Rental Dwellings Biennial Fee
Multiple Family Dwelling
Each Building $150
Each Unit $10
Minimum Fee $450
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 MEETING
City of Brooklyn Center
February 23, 2004 AGENDA
1. Informal Open Forum With City Council 6:45 p.m.
provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the
agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be
used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements,
or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with
citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be
used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing
the citizen for informational purposes only.
2. Invocation 7 p.m.
3 Call to Order Regular Business Meeting
-The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the
meeting.
4. Roll Call
5. Pledge of Allegiance
6. Council Report
7. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
-The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted
by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered at the end of Council Consideration Items.
a. Approval of Minutes
Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote
on the minutes.
1. February 9, 2004 Study Session
2. February 9, 2004 Regular Session
3. February 9, 2004 Work Session
b. Licenses
C. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment,
Improvement Project No. 2003 -14, Contract 2003 -F, 2003 Miscellaneous Concrete
Repairs
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 23, 2004
d. Approval of Application and Permit for a Temporary On -Sale Liquor License
Submitted by St. Alphonsus Parish, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, for an Event to be
Held March 13, 2004
8. Public Hearing
a. Proposed Use of 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Funds
Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2004 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of
Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements
-This item was approved for first reading on January 26, 2004; published in the
official newspaper on February 5, 2004; and is offered this evening for a second
reading and public hearing.
Requested Council Action:
Motion to open Public Hearing.
-Take public input.
Motion to close Public Hearing.
g
Motion to adopt resolution.
9. Council Consideration Items
a. Amend 2004 City Council Meeting Schedule
Requested Council Action:
Motion to amend the March 15, 2004, Joint Work Session with Commission
Chairs to a Joint Meeting with the Brooklyn Park City Council at 6:30 p.m.,
in the Brooklyn Park Council Chambers; and to reschedule the Joint Work
Session with Commission Chairs to April 5, 2004, 6:30 p.m., in the
Council /Commission Conference Room.
b. Proposed Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement: Watershed Management
Commissions
Resolution Authorizing Amendment to Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement
Establishing a Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission to Plan, Control,
and Provide for the Development of the Shingle Creek Watershed
Resolution Authorizing Amendment to Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement
Establishing a West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission to Plan,
Control, and Provide for the Development of the West Mississippi Watershed
Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolutions.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 23, 2004
C. Resolution Authorizing Addendum to Employment Contract with City Manager
Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
d. Update on Dangerous Dogs
-An Ordinance Relating to the Regulations of Dangerous Dogs and Potentially
Dangerous Dogs in the City; Amending Chapter 1 of the Brooklyn Center City Code
Requested Council Action:
Council direction.
e. Report on Homeland Security
Requested Council Action:
-None, report only.
10. Adjournment
City Council Agenda Item No. 7a
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 9, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 6:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, and Deputy City
Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
Council discussed agenda items 7a, Approval of Minutes; l Od, Report Regarding Calls for Service
with Provisional Rental Licenses; 8, Appearance from Lang Nelson Associates; and l Ob, Resolution
Transferring $200,000 into the Earle Brown Heritage Center Capital Improvement Fund.
Councilmember Carmody had requested that an amendment be made to page six on the January 26,
2004, Regular City Council meeting minutes to read the following:
Councilmember Carmody informed that one of her recommendations would be to put a
pedestrian access at the Cub Foods corner.
MISCELLANEOUS
Council discussed the play equipment at Willow Lane Park; the City's Ordinance relating to violent
dogs; the recent fire at the Willow Lane Park shelter building; and the future plans for the Brooklyn
Boulevard Gateway Study.
DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS
JOINT MEETING WITH BROOKLYN PARK
Council discussed possible dates for a joint meeting with the Brooklyn Park City Council. It was the
consensus of the Council to inquire about the possibility of a meeting with the Brooklyn Park City
Council on March 15, 2004.
02/09/04 -1- DRAFT
If March 15, 2004, will work for the Brooklyn Park City Council, a letter will be sent to the Brooklyn
Center Commission Chairs to reschedule their joint meeting with the Council to March 29, 2004.
TIMING OF OPEN HOUSES AT FIRE STATIONS WITH CITY COUNCIL
City Manager Michael McCauley informed that the Fire Chief is exploring two Saturdays in May for
the Open Houses with the City Council. Councilmember Lasman informed that she would not be
available on May 1, 2004.
DISCUSSION ON QUARTERLY WATERSHED REPORTS
Councilmember Niesen discussed that she believes it would beneficial to have reports provided to
the Council as to what is going on with the watersheds and to keep the Council informed about
environmental issues. Mr. McCauley informed that there are City staff members who attend the
watershed meetings and if the Council was comfortable with a report from City staff that could be
arranged. It was the consensus of the Council to have a staff report provided quarterly to the
Council
DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL TRAINING /CONFERENCES
Council discussed the conferences available in 2004. Councilmember Lasman informed that she
would be attending the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference in March.
Councilmember Carmody informed that she would be attending the League of Minnesota Cities
Conference in October. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to attend the National
League of Cities Congress of Cities Conference in December 2004 and League of Minnesota Cities
in October.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the Study
Session at 6:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
02/09/04 -2- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
FEBRUARY 9, 2004
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 at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager /Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney
Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
1`:o one wished to address the Council.
2. INVOCATION
A moment of silence was observed.
3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 7:01 p.m.
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney
Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
02/09/04 -1- DRAFT
6. COUNCIL REPORT O
Councilmember Carmody reported that she attended the Brooklyn Center 93` Birthday Celebration
Event; and informed that the Brooklyn Center Police Department will be hosting two Community
Outreach meetings on February 18 and February 19, 2004, at the Community Center.
Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended a Metropolitan Transit Workshop on January 27,
2004; Special Events Committee meetings on January 27 and February 5, 2004; and the Brooklyn
Center 93` Birthday Celebration Event on February 7, 2004.
Councilmember Niesen informed that the Metropolitan Transit has a survey on -line regarding new
bus routes to and from the new Transit Station in Brooklyn Center; that there is a Town Hall meeting
on February 12, 2004, at the Community Center in the Phil Cohen Room; and that the Brooklyn
Historical Society will be hosting an event January 29 through May 1, 2004.
7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the
agenda and consent agenda with the suggested amendment to the January 26, 2004, Regular City
Council minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion b Councilmember Lasman seconded Councilmember Niesen to approve the Janu
y Co by C pp January
26, 2004, study, regular, and work session minutes, with the following amendment on page 6 of the
regular meeting minutes reading:
Councilmember Carmody informed that one of her recommendations would be to put a
pedestrian access at the Cub Foods corner.
Motion passed unanimously.
7b. LICENSES
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the following
list of licenses. Motion passed unanimously.
RENTAL
Renewal:
6230 Kyle Avenue North Warren McLaughlin
6821 Noble Avenue North Reuben and Diane Ristrom
6835 Noble Avenue North Robert Berglund
02/09/04 -2- DRAFT
Initial:
2106 Brookview Drive Roy Underhill
6731 Bryant Avenue North Chuma Ikegwuani
5825 Colfax Avenue North Beulah Hill
5006 France Avenue North Michael Mohs
7c. RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMBERSHIP IN NORTH HENNEPIN AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-21
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMBERSHIP IN NORTH HENNEPIN AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
7d. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
EASEMENT WITHIN THE FINAL PLAT FOR TANAMI 2 ND ADDITION
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve first reading
and set second reading and public hearing on March 22, 2004. Motion passed unanimously.
7e. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND
CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS.
2004 -01, 02, 03 04, NORTHPORT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET,
STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -22
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2004 -01, 02, 03 04, NORTHPORT
AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
02/09/04 -3- DRAFT
7f. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2004 -01 AND 02, CONTRACT 2004 -A,
NORTHPORT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-23
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS.
2004 -01 AND 02, CONTRACT 2004 -A, NORTHPORT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
7g. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS,
DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC
UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS
RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -24
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED
REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
8. APPEARANCE
-LANG- NELSON ASSOCIATES
Frank Lang, President and CEO of Lang- Nelson Associates, addressed the Council to express the
importance of the request that had been previously considered by the Council to reopen Fremont
Avenue and Lilac Drive; and to discuss their request of signage for the area. He believes the
reopening of these streets would make traffic more viable to the Crossings Senior Rental Housing
Community; and that the signage would be beneficial for helping with the difficulties in getting to
their buildings.
02/09/04 -4- DRAFT
Council discussed the options available for the reopening of the streets in 2004 and 2005 and the cost
sharing for the project if done in 2004 or 2005. Mr. Lang informed that they would be sharing the
costs of the roadway if feasible and constructed and that he would like to accomplish the reopening
in 2004.
City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that the City does not have the capacity to complete a
feasibility study in 2004 with City staff and that if the Council were to consider a feasibility study in
2005 staff would be able to develop a feasibility study and solicit neighborhood input. The alternate
was to hire a consulting firm at a substantial cost.
Councilmember Carmody informed that she would not be in favor of a feasibility study in 2004.
Councilmember Niesen inquired about the request for signage. Mr. Lang discussed that having
signage would help substantially. Mr. McCauley discussed that temporary signage would be allowed
under the City's Sign Ordinance. He suggested that Mr. Lang provide the signs and that the City
could be responsible for installing the signs. Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom
suggested that the signs be reviewed for size and language requirements before allowing the signs to
be installed.
Councilmember Lasman made a motion to direct staff to install signs supplied by Lang Nelson once
City staff had approved them. Seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Councilmember Carmody
abstained. Motion passed.
Councilmember Carmody iscussed that she abstained because she was not sure how the signage
y e g g
would be allowed under the City's Ordinance. Mr. McCauley discussed that the signage would be
temporary until the construction of the park project was complete this fall or next spring. The
approval of the signage was not intended for permanent signage.
A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to direct staff to begin a
feasibility study for possible construction in 2005. Motion passed unanimously.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9a. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF STORM SEWER
EASEMENT AT GARDEN CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, OSSEO
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 279
Mr. McCauley discussed that this ordinance vacation was requested from Osseo School District No.
279 to vacate a portion of easement along the north side of the Garden City Elementary School
building. The school district has executed a new storm sewer easement for the portions of 60 inch
diameter storm sewer that are being relocated to allow the northern expansion of the school building.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
02/09/04 -5- DRAFT
No one wished to address the Council.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-03
Councilmember Peppe introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION F STORM SEWER EASEMENT AT GARDEN
O
CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, OSSEO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 279
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember
Lasman. Motion passed unanimously.
9b. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 11-717,23-1900, AND 23 -1902 OF
THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE
CONDUCT OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING IN THE CITY
Mr. McCauley discussed that the City allows lawful gambling within its boundaries and has adopted
an ordinance with regulations more stringent than State Law. The City's ordinance was revised in
2003 to update the definition of lawful gambling to include paddletickets and tipboard tickets. The
listing inadvertently excluded "bingo which is also considered a type of lawful gambling (such
events are generally held in schools). This ordinance amendment is a housekeeping amendment that
would amend the City's Charitable Gambling Ordinance to replace the specific types of lawful
gambling operations with the term "lawful gambling." If in the future the State Law changes to add
other types of lawful gambling operations or removes or renames existing types, the City's
Ordinance would not need to be amended since it refers to the broader term "lawful gambling" and
not the specific types.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to open the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the Council.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to close the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2004 -04
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
02/09/04 -6- DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 11 -717, 23 -1900, AND 23 -1902 OF THE
BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF
CHARITABLE GAMBLING IN THE CITY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember
Peppe. Motion passed unanimously.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
10a. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR JOINT AND
COOPERATIVE USE OF FIRE PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT
Mr. McCauley discussed that this agreement is similar to the Police Department's agreement and
seems to be reasonable.
Councilmember Niesen inquired if this agreement is new and why it would be necessary. Fire Chief
Ron Boman discussed that the City currently has an agreement with the North Suburban Area;
however, this agreement would allow the City to receive more aid within Hennepin County.
Mayor Kragness questioned if the City is obligated to pay for called for aid. Mr. McCauley
responded that the City does not pay when Hennepin County is called for aid.
City Attorney Charlie LeFevere raised the question of an overlap between the two agreements. Mr.
Boman informed that he does not believe there would be any overlap with the two agreements.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-25
Councilmember Peppe introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR JOINT AND COOPERATIVE USE OF FIRE
PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Lasman. Motion passed unanimously.
10b. RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING $200,000 INTO THE EARLE BROWN
HERITAGE CENTER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Mr. McCauley discussed that last year a Capital Fund had been established to provide an ongoing
funding mechanism for capital items. A review of operations indicates that $200,000 would be an
appropriate transfer for this fund from the Earle Brown Heritage Center Operating Fund.
02/09/04 -7- DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-26
Councilmember Lasman introduced the amended resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING $200,000 INTO THE EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
loc. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
Mr. McCauley discussed that the City is required to adopt an All Hazard Mitigation Plan as part of
its own Emergency Operations Plan. This plan allows the City to be eligible for Federal Disaster
Funds in the future.
Mr. Boman outlined a PowerPoint Presentation discussing the objectives, emergency management,
and examples of the mitigation plan.
Councilmember Niesen asked if this would be something that the Council adopts every year. Mr.
Boman responded that the City would be required to adopt this plan every three years.
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-27
Councilmember Lasman introduced the amended resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AN ALL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
10d. REPORT REGARDING CALLS FOR SERVICE WITH PROVISIONAL
RENTAL LICENSES
Mr. McCauley discussed that the Police Department had provided a report for the calls for service
after the first three months. Letters had been mailed to the owners of properties that have a .30 calls
per unit or higher inviting them to meet with the Police Department to discuss the concern that this
number is excessive and more than likely will exceed the .65 calls per unit before the end of the 12-
month period. It is the intent to work with the property owners to help mitigate the problem(s)
before they are in violation of the ordinance and subject to provisional licensing.
02/09/04 -8- DRAFT
11. ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to adjourn the
City Council meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
02/09/04 -9- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF T14E CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
FEBRUARY 9, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 8:27 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Pe e.
Also resent: City Manager Michael pp p y g ae McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE LETTER TO EDITOR
Council discussed a possible letter to the Editor regarding Brooklyn Center's taxes. It was the
consensus of the Council to have the letter prepared by Councilmember Carmody. Mayor Kragness
asked that Councilmember Carmody provide a copy to the Council before having the letter
published.
DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL TRAINING /CONFERENCE
This item was discussed at the Study Session.
DISCUSSION OF QUARTERLY WATERSHED REPORTS
This item was discussed at the Study Session.
REVIEW OF POTENTIAL RESOLUTION ON JOSLYN WEST CLEAN -UP
STANDARDS
City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that the Pollution Control Agency (PCA) is reviewing
the clean up of the Joslyn west area. City staff is reviewing the advisability of requesting that the
clean up be to open space standards which would be higher than would be required if there was no
potential that the land would be used at some future time where there would be public access or use.
He suggested that staff continue formalizing the review and provide a letter to the Council for
consideration that will notify the PCA that the review is consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
02/09/04 -1-
Councilmember Niesen expressed concern about the clean up in the neighborhood area and that
she believes the clean up needs to be to the highest level.
It was the consensus of the Council to have staff continue the review and to prepare a letter to be
considered by the Council.
TIMING OF OPEN HOUSES AT FIRE STATIONS WITH CITY COUNCIL
This item was discussed at the Study Session.
DISCUSSION OF CURRENT STATUS OF BROOKDALE
Mr. McCauley informed that there had been no response to the notice of default and discussed the
approaches being considered for the Economic Development Authority.
Council discussed and was in consensus to continue reviewing the situation in a timely manner.
JOINT MEETING WITH BROOKLYN PARK
This item was discussed at the Study Session.
CITY MANAGER EVALUATION DISCUSSION
Council reviewed the evaluation form and it was the consensus of the Council that the City Manager
had worked to implement and facilitate the City Council's Goals for 2003.
Council discussed salary and was in consensus of two percent now and an additional one percent in
July 2004; and to include the car allowance with salary after the one percent increase in July 2004.
MISCELLANEOUS
There were no miscellaneous items discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the Work
Session at 10:23 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
02/09/04 -2-
City Council Agenda. Item No. 7b
i
I�
OMT City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: February 18, 2004
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 February 23,
2004.
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
Qwest Communications 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway
MECHANICAL
Knott Mechanical 710 Pennsylvania, Golden Valley
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
City Council Agenda Item No. 7c
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL
PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2003-14, CONTRACT 2003 -F,
2003 MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE REPAIRS
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota has completed the following
improvements in accordance with said contract:
Improvement Project No. 2003 -14, Contract 2003 -F, 2003 Miscellaneous Concrete
Repairs
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that:
1. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the
contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement
under said contract shall be $37,066.45.
2. Project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows:
COSTS As Estimated As Final
Contract Quantities $34,326.50 $37,066.45
Contingencies 3.400.00 0
Total Estimated Project Cost: $37,726.50 $37,066.45
REVENUES
Infrastructure Const. Fund $37,726.50 $37,066.45
40700 8200314
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
City of
MEMORANDUM BROOKLYN
CEA'TER
DATE: February 17, 2004
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
r
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment,
Improvement Project Nos. 2003 -14, Contract 2003 -F, 2003 Miscellaneous
Concrete Repairs
On September 22, 2003, the City Council awarded Contract 2003 -F to Thomas and Sons
Construction, Inc. of Rogers, Miimesota for the construction of the 2003 Miscellaneous Concrete
Repairs Improvement project. Thomas and Sons Construction has completed the contract work
and is now requesting final payment for the project.
The original contract amount was $34,326.50. No change orders are proposed for this project.
An additional 127 square yards of driveway pavement was replaced as part of the contract. This
work was done in order to address driveway grade problems for the five properties within the
project area. The additional project cost for this work is less than 10 percent of the original
contract amount.
Attached is a City Council resolution accepting the work performed and authorizing final
payment in the amount of $37,066.45 for the contract.
City Council Agenda Item No. 7d
Office of the City Clerk
O X City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
1
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerlt,,,�
DATE: February 19, 2004
SUBJECT: Application and Permit for a Temporary On -Sale Liquor License Submitted By St.
Alphonsus Parish, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, for an Event to be Held March 13, 2004
St. Alphonsus Parish, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, has submitted an application and permit for a
temporary on -sale liquor license for an event to be held on March 13, 2004. The applicant has satisfied
the City's requirements and submitted the $25 license fee, along with a certificate of coverage for liquor
liability insurance.
It is recommended that the City Council approve the application and permit for a temporary on -sale
liquor license submitted by St. Alphonsus Parish. After Council review, the application and permit will
be forwarded to the St. Alphonsus Parish representative, who is responsible for submitting the permit
application to the State Liquor Control Division for approval.
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
M
APPLICATION N Abu .D PERMIT
FOR A 1 TO 411AY TFNIPORA.R ON -SA IJ,1.,IQUOR, LICENSE
;xzaization or local oet Iintited 10 3 permits in a 12 math p mead)
TYPE' Oft PRINT INT
NAME t)Itt "ahI*IMkTlQN1 DATE ORGANIZED TAY SM -NiTIT 1 tip BER
-f I l P h?�.j SuS �c�.2 S h Q Sc S L )2 0 1 4
S'1`]tl 11' Li.11 tI 41 C'1° ST',ATF :X11' CC }I)I
D ct �r-e_ ►mil c Cam-. v�• r S-S K Z S
1 ''rAI't'I.,ICATIoN BUSINESS PHONE, Cr-hurct`) I flclhil.P14ON'
V— 4D-4 4v�5
T) ;AI F S I,IC)l iC)1t Wll:,l.131': fifi)I:!) (1 tv it dalvs TI T E 01' O R Its I
RC'.Al�1pJ.RT l�
C 2 c i, 1 Z UU L4 p t.1:1.1i v CKkR. FABLE S6 IGIOU'," J C }'1`llER Nt7NPR41F47'
(2TMANI1 "TON t7TTIt FWD NAME v
rA.111)ItT,ti`a >c N
ORGANIZA'T (ON-1 01-yiCut'S NTAT%jr, �1)1)1t1=5S
t3ltG AI<2I`L.rA'IION OFFICER" NAls°Il' AMPESS
1 P -1tiod %vileme licemgc %vill lic usod. Irim cottctrr(r= nrca, dcvriho
Will the a ppslicgttt contract for igstw cating liquor azr%im! 11'so, Vive tDse naKuc attd aldrems nI alic U(jum hemwe pa%nvi the.w ice.
Will the oppFlicant carry liquor 11'so. the. �rrier' s nank and aniti of e9verage.
(R`C }`l 1; ltt ttraae a is aKnt snartdntn)3 D.., C- eX�71U 1 i G I'Y�l u+ (.ta4 E I e e- f .S v C �b t� O a a Ce a-4.
APPROVAL
APPI 1CrATJON 11I118'I' BE APPRt)VFj) .B)( C1111'011. C:O[I>\'i'1• BEF'ORK SUBMITTING TO LIQUOR CONTROL
OUNTY r DD K1 t�a__.1 P/l+e r.._ DATE .AI' APP ROM
I 9
SIGNATURT CM' CLTf(Ia OR COUNTY OFFICIAL APl'IIOVF.D LIQUOR COSTIROI.1J)MxTolt
NOTE: Do not serfarate these two parts, sc.nd both parts to thr address above anti the original signed 1rr this divisie %n
will be returned as the keose, Stthmit to the City or �C'otinq at least 30 days before: the v.vent.
P."-'9079(8195)
9079(8195)
F 0 4 09PN t;N% 4!0 2 51 %y43," 211 2/2
>,t`
Certificate of Coverag �'N' 1" 3 Hate 2/18i2004
Certificate holder This Certificate is Issued as a matter of information only and
Archdiocese of St. Paul 4viinneapol is confers no rights upon the holder of this certificate. This certificate
Chancery Office
226 Summit ,avenue does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded below.
St. Paul, MN 55102 Company Affording Coverage
THE CATHrOLIC MUTUAL RELIEF SOCIETY
10843 OLD MILL RD STE 300
Covered Location OMAHA, NE 68154
Church of St Alphorsus
7025 Halifax Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, NN 55429-1394
Cotierages r
This is to eertii'y that the tov'erages listed below have been issued to the certificate holder named above for the certificate
indicated, notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this
Certificate may be issued or muy pertain, the coverage afforded described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions and
conditions of such coverage. Limits shown may have been reduced by paid claims.
Type of Coverage Cartt "ruare Number I Coverage Erreetive Coverage Expiration
Date Date Limits
i
Property
heal Personal Fropert)• i
General Liability i General Aggregate
I Prodectls.CotrtpJQP Agg
Ocxurrcace Personal Atdv Injury
Clalms Made $589 7/1 /2003 7/1/2004 IEachOccarrewee 1500
IFire Damage (Any one tire)
lKed Exp (Anyone person)
Ezcasa Ltalbillty
85$9 7/1/2003 7+'1/2004 Lwh Occurrence 1500,000
Other
i
Each Occurrence
llcscrlptlon of Qperstioo .e lLJCAtiJnslyeiticdesSpeeial Items
Covcrage is verified for the St, Patrick's Day Celebration to be held on March kl'�2004, in the St. Alphonsus School gymnasium.
Includes Li,quorLiability. 13
Holder of rt,lirate d Yr'-
m I mix i:.,t, l ,i r.
Should any of the above described coverages be cancelled
City ofBrookl •n 1' before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will
/t endeavor to maxi 30 days written notice to the holder of
n+er certificate named to the left, but failure to mail such notice shall
impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company,
Its agents or reprt sentatives.
Authorized Representative
01110011$9 r'
City Council Agenda Item No. 8a
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2004
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY
AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, through execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has developed a proposal for the use of
Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on
February 23, 2004, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing
and community development needs and priorities on the City's proposed use of an estimated
from the 2004 Urban Hennepin County CDBG.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that it approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin
County CDBG Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review
and inclusion in the 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program.
Project Budget
Household Outside Maintenance $22,000
for the Elderly
Community Emergency Assistance Program $13,500
Rehabilitation of Private Property $203,529
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes and
directs the Mayor and its City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required
Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 2004 CDBG Program.
February 23. 2004
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialise
DATE: February 18, 2004
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Proposed Use of 2004 Community Development Block Grant
Funds and Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2004 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and
Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and
Any Third Party Agreements
Hennepin County has notified the City of Brooklyn Center that its share of the 2004 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement is $239,029.
Congress has passed the 2004 Omnibus Budget Bill so it is unlikely that the CDBG
appropriation to the Department of Housing and Urban Development will be adjusted. The 2004
amount of $239,029 is $5,782 less than the City's 2003 allocation.
Brooklyn Center is one of 43 Hennepin County cities participating in the Urban Hennepin
County CDBG program. In this program, federal dollars from HUD flow to the County and are
dispersed to the 43 participating cities. The 2004 CBDG allocation for the entire county is
$3,514,000 which is $85,000 less than the County's 2003 allocation.
The federal authorizing statute for the CDBG program requires that each funded activity meet
one of three national objectives: benefiting low and moderate persons, preventing or
eliminating slums and /or blight and meeting urgent community needs. The federal statute
also specifies that each recipient receiving funds must insure at least 70 percent of the CDBG
expenditures during the program year must be used for activities benefiting very low and
low income persons. Each city must meet this requirement at the local level.
Based on the 2004 CDBG allocation, meeting the 70 percent requirement means that $167,320 of
the estimated $239,029 allocation must be expended on programs and services directly
benefiting low income persons. Low income persons are defined as persons with incomes
ranging from 50 percent (very low income) to 80 percent (low income) of the median household
income in the Minneapolis /St. Paul metropolitan area as defined by HUD. As an example, a four
person household earning $38,350 annually would be defined as a very low income household
and four person household at $56,500 income annually is defined as low income.
SUMMARY OF CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CDBG PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Allocation of $22,000 for Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly
(H.O.M.E.) program. This project has been part of the CDBG program for ten
years. The H.O.M.E. program provides minor maintenance and repair for persons 60
years of age and older and/or permanently disabled individuals. Services provided
include painting, interior and exterior and minor home maintenance repair including
installation of grab bars, minor repairs including windows, sidewalk, house trim, etc.
Fees are charged to persons using services based on a sliding fee scale relative to
income, pursuant to Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines for
low and moderate income. Senior Community Services, the administrator of the
H.O.M.E. program, also makes available its Senior Outreach Program to assist elderly
and disabled residents who have violations in the areas of the city housing code. In
2003, the H.O.M.E. program completed projects at 18 households.
2. Allocation of $13,500 to the Community Emergency Assistance Program Inc.
(CEAP) to provide funds to CEAP's Handy Works Program. The Handy Works
Program provides chore services to seniors and disabled persons at little or no cost
and includes services such as lawn mowing, snow shoveling, housekeeping,
household maintenance, painting and raking. CEAP also is to provide assistance to
seniors and disabled persons with code violations under the city's housing code.
CEAP and Senor Community Services are to coordinate referrals between the two
agencies. CEAP is to focus on less complex code enforcement items and Senior
Community Services addresses the more complex code enforcement issues up to and
including major problems such as "garbage house" situations. In 2003 the Handy
Works program assisted 127 households with 865 chores completed.
3. Allocation of $203,529 for rehabilitation of private property. This program
provides for rehabilitation and repair of single family homes of low and moderate
households. The money is provided in the form of a loan with a repayment and lien
period of 15 years. The loan must be repaid if the home is sold anytime within the 15
year period. Depending on the income of the loan recipient, between 3 to 6 percent
interest is charged on the loan for the first ten years of the 15 year lien. If the
homeowner remains in the home for 15 years, the loan is forgiven. The maximum
amount of the loan is $25,000, which includes federally mandated lead abatement if
required. Depending on the individual house, lead abatement can comprise a
substantial portion of the loan. This program is administered by Hennepin County
staff. Since the program's inception in the 1970's over 280 Brooklyn Center homes
have been repaired under this CDBG activity.
ADMINISTRATIVE REOUIREMENTS
Pursuant to program requirements, each city receiving a CDBG allocation from the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG program is limited to a 15 percent cap on public service projects. Both
the CEAP and H.O.M.E. program are categorized as pubic service projects. Based on the
estimated allocation for 2004, continued funding of the H.O.M.E. and CEAP program at $22,000
and $13,500 respectively would fall under the 15 percent cap.
Hennepin County has indicated that no more than three activities should be undertaken in each
city receiving CDBG funds and that each activity should have a budget of at least $7,500.
Copies of the CDBG Request for Funding forms for each of the three recommended projects are
attached.
ADDITIONAL REOUEST FOR CDBG FUNDING
The city has received an additional request for funding under the public service category. The
request is for $5,000 from Home Line. A copy of Home Line's request is included with this
memorandum.
PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
FOR 2004 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY
AGREEMENTS
The attached public hearing notice was published in the February 5, 2004 edition of the Brooklyn
Center Post. Hennepin County requires a public hearing be held on the use of CDBG funds, and
that the 2004 CDBG programs be submitted to Hennepin County by March 5, 2004. A
resolution approving the 2004 CDBG program has been prepared for City Council consideration.
Funding for the 2004 CDBG program would be made available by July 1, 2004 and CDBG funds
must be spent no later than December 31, 2005. The City's 2004 CDBG funds can be
reallocated anytime during the 18 month period between July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005 by
action of the City Council after conducting another public hearing regarding the reallocation of
CDBG funds.
The Shingle Creek Tower project has received its final payment from 2003 CDBG funds. The
project is complete and no additional CDBG funds are necessary.
The resolution included with this memorandum also authorizes signature of the Subrecipient
Agreement, which is the agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center
relative to CDBG funds and also any third party agreements that would be executed by the city
and third party vendors such as Senior Community Services and the Community Emergency
Assistance Program (CEAP).
2004
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1.
City: Brooklyn Center
2. Project Name: HOME (Household Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
3. Contact Person/ Phone No. Ron Bloch/ (952) 541 -1019
B. PROJECT DATA
1. CDBG Funding Request (needs to be same as council resolution) 22.000
2. Is this an existing CDBG- funded project? X Yes No
3. Leveraged Funds: (What other public or private funds does project include? If none,
indicate w /check here- None:
Amount See #10 Source See #10
Amount Source
Amount Source
4. Project Location: Address or Citywide X
5. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible, including the local
need(s) the project will address)
Senior Community Services will continue to provide home maintenance services with an
emphasis on exterior painting jobs (see attached program summary). In addition, Senior
Community Services will also, through involvement of its Senior Outreach Program's licensed
social workers, work to gain voluntary compliance of elderly and disabled residents who have
violations in areas of the housing code.
6. Consolidated Plan Priorities: Using the Priority Summary identify what priority(ies) the
project will meet. (Note: If a proposed project is a low urban county priority, you must explain
why it has a higher priority in your community.)
Priority(ies) project will address Public Service Needs: Senior Services BenefltinQ low and
moderate income persons Hiuh Priority
Continue
7. Describe anticipated results /accomplishments the project will have. (number of
persons/ households to be assisted /served, number of housing units to be rehabbed /built, etc.)
In 2003 the project served 22 Brooklyn Center residents (18 households). It is anticipated
that approximately the same number will be served in 2004.
8. Describe how project will assist the community in achieving your Livable
Communities Act goals (if applicable)
9. Implementation Schedule: (Identify major project tasks to occur during within the first 12
months of the 24 month expenditure period.
Task On -coins delivery of services includinc Date CDBG Year 2004
Maintenance (minor repairs in the areas of
camentrv. plumbinc. concrete work. electrical and interior /exterior paintine), some "Chore
Services such as lawn mowins and cleaning_ may be done in conjunction with home
maintenance services.
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component —i.e; administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
BUDGET/ SOURCE OF FUNDS
Component CDBG Other (identify)
Public Services /Eden Prairie 6,688 $100,000 Client fees
Public Services /Edina 9,316 16.684 Edina/EEHF
Public Services/Richfield $22,000 44,602 United Way
Public Services /Minnetonka $16,000 52,574 GMCC
Public ServicesBrooklvn Center $22,000 10,000 Contributions
84,592 Hen County
Project Totals $76,004 $308,452
Jr
H 0 E
6
HOME can :help you with
r
Indoor or outdoor painting jobs
Installing bathrooth safety bars
r Securing handrails ti
Fixing running toilets or leaky sinks
Repairing door's that "stick"
Sealing cracks in caulking
Other minor home repairs r
Free Estimates for Large Scale Jobs
Rates Based on a Sliding Contribution Scale According to Income
CALL H.O.M.E.
(763) 504 -6985
H.O.M.E. is a program of Senior Community Services, a non profit United Way agency dedicated to providing
services to senior citizens in suburban Hennepin County, and sponsored by the city of Brooklyn Center.
Attachment
H.O.M.E.
(Household Outside Maintenance for Elderly)
Program Summary
SUMMARY PARAGRAPH The H.O.M.E. Program is a homemaker, maintenance and chore
services program designed as a cost effective alternative to rising costs of long term care for the
elderly. It currently operates in the cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Eden
Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth, Richfield,
Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park. The Program maintains a core staff of trained individuals to
assure prompt, quality services and a skills bank component. Clients are asked to pay for services
based on ability (sliding fee scale).
TARGET POPULATION Consumers of H.O.M.E. services are residents age 60+ or people
with disabilities who live independently and need some affordable in -home services in order to
maintain their residence. The Program serves clients who need assistance but are not financially
able to afford the full cost of the service as well as frail older adults who require services
designed to meet their needs.
SERVICES The philosophy of the H.O.M.E. Program is to help maintain independence for
elders and avoid premature nursing home placement by providing homemaker, maintenance and
chore services. Clients are asked to pay based on a sliding -fee scale. Homemaker services
include housecleaning, food preparation, grocery shopping, doing laundry and window washing.
Assessments are made and services provided according to the specific needs of each client for
type of service, time and frequency. Chore/home maintenance services include snow removal,
lawn care, installation of security features, carpentry, minor plumbing, interior /exterior painting,
weatherization, minor roof repair and other jobs needed to enable elderly residents to remain in
their homes, as well as maintaining their homes in an accordance with community standards.
STAFF Home maintenance and homemaker services are provided by workers who are trained
in the techniques of working with elders. Skills Bank Workers (independent contractors) are also
utilized to provide chore services. Staff reports to a Program Director, who is responsible for
their supervision and daily Program operation. Other staff and volunteers provide administrative
and clerical support.
FACILITY Services are delivered in the homes of elderly residents. Program offices are
located at Creekside Community Center, 9801 Penn Ave. South, Bloomington and 7940 55"' Ave.
North, New Hope. A satellite office is located at the Minnetonka Senior Center.
PLACEMENT PROCEDURE Clients gain access to the Program either directly by contacting
the H.O.M.E. office or by referral from an area agency.
FUNDING SOURCES Revenues are derived from client fees, a homemaking services contract
with Hennepin County, the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches (GMCC) in support of
chore services, cities in which the Program operates, the United Way, and contributions from
clients and Friends of HOME, an organization that solicits donations from businesses, churches
and community groups.
ASSISr
F
i A 9�
J
D
January 30, 2004
Mr. Tom Bublitz
Community Development Specialist
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Bublitz:
Community Emergency Assistance Program, Inc. (CEAP) requests your consideration of the
following grant proposal for the 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
available in the amount of $13,500. The grant will be used to fund CEAP's HandyWorks
Chore Program.
CDBG funds allow CEAP to continue to serve Brooklyn Center seniors and disabled persons,
specifically with chore services, and also Meals on Wheels. CEAP offers many other services
including food, clothing, special events, and financial assistance. The services that we
provide are of great value to those who have a demonstrated need in our community. The
majority of our clients are low income and qualify under HUD guidelines.
We hope that the City of Brooklyn Center will again join with CEAP in support of families and
seniors in our community. As we have just received our 990 from our auditors, and a new
insurance policy certificate, I am enclosing this information, should you need it to keep on
file. Please contact me if you need additional information. I can be reached at 763 -566-
9600, ext. 26, or by email at lea nn.santana(d)cean.com. Thank you!
Sincerely
LeAnn Santana
Contract /Grants Manager
6840 78th Ave. N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 (763) 566 -9600 Fax (763) 566 -9604
1201 89th Ave. N.E., Suite 130 Blaine, MN 55434 (763) 783 -4930 Fax (763) 783 -4927
www.ceap.com Affih-$
2004
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Brooklvn Center
2. Name of Organization: Communitv Emeraencv Assistance Proaram. Inc. (CEAP)
3. Contact Person: Tom Hardin or Steohen Klein Phone Number: 763 566 -9600
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Grant Amount Requested: 13.500
2. Is this request to fund an existing project? X Yes No
Is this an existing project Brooklyn Center CDBG- FUNDED Project?
X Yes No
3. Leveraged Funds:
Amount See 10 Source See #10
4. Project Location:
Address: 6840 78 Avenue North. Brooklvn Park. Minnesota 55445
Is the program available Citywide? X Yes No
5. Project Description:
Program Name: CEAP Senior Services- HandvWorks Chore Proaram
Where will the program activities be carried out? In the cities of Brooklvn Park.
Brooklvn Center. Osseo. East Chamolin and the Camden area of Minneapolis.
CEAP HandvWorks Program: Chore services are provided at little or no cost to
seniors and disabled persons. Services include lawn mowing, snow shoveling,
housekeeping, household maintenance, painting and raking. A Senior Services
(which includes both Senior HandyWorks and Meals on Wheels) 2003 Budget is
enclosed. Referrals for senior services are taken from family members, clients,
medical workers, churches, government workers, and other social service agencies.
CEAP's HandyWorks program will also resolve some code violations for resident
seniors and permanently disabled persons. CEAP will determine which code
violations it is capable of resolving.
CEAP also provides Meals on Wheels hot prepared meals, delivered by
volunteers to homebound seniors and disabled persons Monday through Friday.
Needs Met
CEAP is the only social service organization in Brooklyn Center that provides the
majority of these services. Senior Community Services also provides some
household maintenance and painting services. Low cost chores are usually not
available through private business. Most of our clients are low income and need
subsidized or low cost services through CEAP. CEAP participates in a metro -wide
network of providers to avoid duplication of services.
6. Consolidated Plan Priorities:
Priority (ies) Public Service Needs: Senior Services Benefitina low and
moderate income persons Hiah Prioritv
7. Describe anticipated results /accomplishments project will have.
B providing By p idmg these programs to seniors and disabled persons in Brooklyn Center,.
CEAP hopes to help them remain in their homes longer. These services are
oftentimes the only things keeping people from having to enter assisted -care
facilities. CEAP served Brooklyn Center residents in the following ways in 2003:
127 households utilized HandyWorks chore services
865 chores were completed
139 households also received Meals on Wheels
Measurement of results: All chores performed for clients are tracked on a
HandyWorks version of Filemaker Pro. We have a Senior Service Director and a.
Senior Services Assistant who coordinate both programs and who do intakes on
clients, sets up client files, track all services and conduct follow up with clients.
CEAP also has a senior service outcome initially designed for the United Way. The
outcome: Area seniors and disabled persons will feel less isolated and feel more
connected with their community and others. We measure this outcome by
conducting surveys by phone and mail, at least once per year. Our target is that 75%
of our clients will report feeling less isolated, and more able to live more
independently as the result of CEAP's services. In 2002 over 78% of CEAP's senior
service clients reoorted feelina less isolated and 79% feel thev remain more
independent. 98% of persons with disabilities reported that CEAP's services helped
them increase their ability to live independently. 2003's statistics are currently being
tabulated.
8. Describe how project will assist community in achieving your Livable
Communities Act goals. (if applicable)
9. Implementation Schedule: Identify the major project tasks to occur during the first
12 months of the 18 month expenditure time period.
Task Month /Date
This is a year round, continuing program that has activities in every month.
HandvWorks: Chore projects currently occur on an ongoing basis. Homemaking is
done on an ongoing basis and includes: cleaning, window washing, floor cleaning,
dusting, etc. Many of the chores are seasonal. Fall raking, winter snow shoveling,
and warm weather lawn care, are coordinated with the Senior, Services staff and their
workers /volunteers. They update the client and job database on a daily basis. CEAP
also performs minor home repair, maintenance and painting projects by request. The
request can be made by a senior /disabled adult or by a referring agency or city. We
will attempt to resolve city code violations, if it is within the scope of our program,
contracted workers, and volunteer groups. Surveys are conducted a minimum of
two times per year. One survey is the client satisfaction survey, and the other is the
outcome measurement survey.
Meals On Wheels: Meals are currently being delivered five days per week.
Weekend and holiday meals are also available. The coordinator ensures that there
are enough volunteers to deliver the meals, and that the client database is updated
Daily. Surveys are conducted a minimum of two times per year. One survey is the
client satisfaction survey and the other is the outcome measurement survey.
10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component —i.e.
administration, planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.
Total Senior Services Budget for Calendar Year 2004: $323,934
An itemized budget for both the agency and Senior Services is included as an
attachment.
BUDGET /SOURCE OF FUNDS
Component CDBG Other
CEAP Handy Works Program $13,500
Project Totals 13,500
How can you help HandyWorks? z G �NCY ASS /Sl,�
Nc
andyWorks is always in need of workers
and volunteers. If you know of anyone
in the area who would like to work with J y
CEAP's HandyWorks Program call (763) 566- 3
9600. Thank You! v o Oj
Community Partners
andyWorks is funded in part by CEAP,
the Older Americans Act grant through
the Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging
Incorporated (MAAA), the Minnesota Board A chor ram to hel
on Aging, and by the United Way. p rog ram g p
HandyWorks is nun by the Greater Minneapolis senior citizens and disabled
Council of Churches and MAAA. This program
is provided through a Purchase of Service adults live independently in
Agreement with Hennepin County. their Own homes.
"My experience with HandyWorks has been
very self rewarding to the extent that I feel I get
more from it than the people I am assigned to
help. I come away from each assignment
feeling better about myself and my world thank r
when I started. g/
Wesley, a Han dyWorker
Resources
Ch ON
CEAP's Meals on Wheels (763) 566 -9600 rkg
Nurse Healtbline, Inc. (800) 420 -6877
Senior Linkage Inc (900) 333 -2433 n
Hennepin Co. Home Sry (612) 348-4500 p
o
Revised 06 -2003
www.CEAP.com
N&*yV orkg TM 0
What is HandyWorks? How do I become a NOTE: All services depend
andyWorks is a program designated
HandyWorks client? on availability of workers to
to assist seniors and disabled adults perform the tasks.
y ou must: 1) live in CEAP's service
with home chores. HandyWorks is area and 2) be 60 years or older, or
coordinated through the Greater a disabled adult. If you meet these
Minneapolis Council, of requirements call (763) 566 -9600 and ask What se are provided?
Churches. HandyWorks qi*.% for HandyWorks.
has been operating for Seasonal Outdoor Work 1• Clean and change storm windows, rake
over 20 years. It began
as a series of different How are workers hired? leaves, clean gutters, trim shrubs, etc.
neighborhood organizations responding orkers are hired from the Minor Home Maintenance
to seniors who needed help with community to become independent
housekeeping pair broken windows, leak faucets or
in and ardwork. There are y
P g Y contractors. Workers are paid by unsafe porch steps, perform minor
17 HandyWorks programs in the the client as soon as the work is electrical carpentry or plumbing jobs,
Minneapolis /St. Paul area. completed. There is a criminal install locks; do minor weatherization
background check done on all workers. tasks and interior painting jobs. No roof
What area does CEAP Please call CEAP's HandyWorks for the repair.
current suggested rates.
HandyWorks program serve?
"If it were not Yard work and Snow Removal
s�
EAP's HandyWorks program Lawn mowing and trimming, weeds and
for the snow removal.
serves Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn HandyWorks
Center, Champlin, Osseo, and the program, Routine Indoor Housekeeping
area of Minneapolis north of I would not be Vacuum, clean floors, kitchen, bathroom,
44 Avenue North. able to stay in and laundry. No food re aration
my own home.
1 P
personal care or mobility
assistance.
t'
p
The workers
are very
generous with
their time and
also helpful. That is really appreciated.
A United Way
Ellen, a HandyWorks client Affiliated Agency
w LEAP. co m
Minnesota Common Grant Application Form
I LEAP SENIOR SERVICES PROJECT BUDGET
EXPENSES
Item Amount %FT /PT
Salaries and wages (breakdown by individual
position and indicate full- or part- time.)
Senior Services Director $33,660 100 %FT
Sr. Services Assistant $23,460 100 %FT
Independent Contractor Labor HandyWorks $5,645 PT- Hourly
SUBTOTAL $62,765
Insurance, benefits and other related taxes $14,280
Consultants and professional fees $1,600
Travel $214
Equipment $2,500
Supplies $65,285
Printing and copying $500
Telephone and fax $1,446
Postage and delivery $1,658
Rent, utilities, building insurance $4,223
In -kind expenses $108,049
Depreciation $2,317
Other Administrative and Fundraising
Executive Director $12,437 15 %FT
Assistant Director $10,073 15 %FT
Sr. Programs Officer $8,841 15 %FT
Accounting Technician $4,458 15 %PT
Contract /Grants Manager $4,930 15 %FT
Volunteer Special Events Coordinator $6,248 15 %FT
Maintenance Engineer $3,854 15 %FT
Administrative Assistant $4,247 15 %FT
Receptionist $3,359 15 %FT
Insurance, benefits and other related fees $14,612
TOTAL Administrative and Fundraising. $73,059
Total Expense $337,896
Difference (Income less Expense) S-13,962
1-/2000
Minnesota Common Grant Application Form
LEAP SENIOR SERVICES PROJECT BUDGET
INCOME
Source Amount
Support
Government grants $0
Foundations $12,813
Volunteers of America $48,358
United Way or other federated campaigns $34,932
Individual contributions $98,640
Fundraising events and products $100
Membership income $0
In -kind support $108,049
Investment income $0
Revenue
Government contracts $542
Earned income $0
Other- Community Development Funds $20,500
$0
Total Income $323,934
112000
4:00 PM Community Emergency Assistance Program
01/19/04
Budget Worksheet
04-05
Budget
Ordinary Income /Expense
Income
Contributions Income
Restricted
Business 12000
Congregations 19600
Foundations 140412
Individuals
Organizations 44570
Total Restricted 216,582.00
Unrestricted
Business 52700
Congregations 156000
Foundations 112135
Individuals 70000
Memorials 2170
Organizations 77415
Total Unrestricted 470,420.00
Total Contributions Income 687,002.00
Fees for Service 140
Government Funding
Anoka County 52800
Anoka County Hmis /other agency 52700
Anoka County Homeless 50000
Anoka Transportation 9460,0
CDBG .26600
FEMA Brooklyn Ctr 52000
FEMA -Anoka County 22500
HandyWorks Henn. Cty 500
HandyWorks Title 3 21 150
Hennepin County 72000
Hennepin Cty Homeless 15500
MOW Title 3 35000
NWHHSC 40100
Other Government Funding 8500
Vitamin Settlement 0
"ry Hennepin Cty v
Total Government Funding 543,950.00
HandyWorks Pre screening 2400
Investment Income
Gains /loss in Value 0
Interest 8200
Total Investment Income 8,200
Miscellaneous Income 13100
Page 1 of 4
4:00 PM Community Emergency Assistance Program
01119/04
Budget Worksheet
Budget
Net Assets Re] From Restriction
Origination Fees 9400
Program Fees 112900
Repayment Income
Bad Debt Recoveries 500
Needs of People 3700
Purchase Loans 39500
Repair Loan 4940
Total Repayment Income 48,640
United Way
General Support 264672
Individual Designations 14300
Other 20000
Total United Way 298972
Total Income 1,724,704
Expense
Automobile Expense 785
Bad Debt 636
Bank Card Fees 450
Bank Service Charges 1021
Client Allowances 0
Conferences /Meetings 7500
Contract Labor 16585
Data Processing 6200
Depreciation Expense 20000
Dues, Fees Subscriptions 5588
Employee Recognition 3190
Equipment Rental 814
Furniture Equipment 11402
Insurance
Disability Life Insurance 8584
Health Insurance 56265
Liability Insurance 8500
Total Insurance 73349
Interest Expense
Finance Charge 0
Total interest Expense 0
Licenses and Permits 36
Miscellaneous 2215
Needs of People
Food 118983
Loans
Family Loans
UW Auto Leases 0
Family Loans Other 0
Page 2 of 4
4:00 PM Community Emergency Assistance Program
01/19/04
Budget Worksheet
Budget
Total Family Loans 0
Purchase Loans 59356
Repair 3420
Total Loans 62776
Program Supplies 96879
Repair Grants 38472
Shelter 247645
Special Needs 44605
Transportation 17806
Utilities 18714
Total Needs of People 645,880
Payroll Expenses
403(b) Co. Contribution 28639
FICA Co. Contribution 39971
Gross Wages
Funeral Pay
Holiday Pay
PTO Pay
Regular Pay 697080
Gross Wages Other
Total Gross Wages 697080
Medicare Co. Contribution 9326
SUTA 3953
Payroll Expenses Other 1794
Total Payroll Expenses 780,763
Postage and Delivery 9456
Printing and Reproduction 6631
Professional Fees
Audit 16000
Computer 15000
Consulting 2500
Payroll Service 1100
Total Professional Fees 34,600
Rent 25569
Repairs
BuildinglGrounds Repairs 3230
Computer Repairs 322
Equipment Repairs 7184
Total Repairs 10736
Security Expense 885
Supplies
Maintenance 3267
Office Supplies 13148
Page 3 of 4
4:00 PM Community Emergency Assistance Program
01/19/04
Budget Worksheet
Budget
Total Supplies 16415
Telephone
Cell 438
Computer Connections 5418
Long Distance 324
Monthly 3444
Total Telephone 9624
Training 680
Travel Ent
Meals 100
Mileage
Mileage Staff 6015
Mileage Volunteer 249
Mileage Other
Total Mileage 6,264
Total Travel Ent 6,364
Utilities
Gas and Electric 9571
Rubbish 1995
Water 764
Total Utilities 12330
Volunteer
Volunteer Recognition 6000
Total Volunteer 6000
Total Expense 1,715,704
Page 4 of 4
CEAP HandyWorks 2001, 2002, 2003:
4327 Jobs were performed
707 Seasonal Outdoor
39 Heavy Indoor
133 Minor Repairs
2067 Mowing /Snow Removal
790 Routine Indoor
591 Other
647 Households Served
Requiring 7,333 Hours of Labor
Totaling $47,553 Labor /Materials Cost
Average Labor /Materials Cost per Job $10.99
CEAP Meals on Wheels 2001, 2002, 2003:
77,400 Meals Delivered
682 Clients
CEAP Senior Services 2001, 2002, 2003:
63% live alone
77% of HandyWorks Clients are female
89% Caucasian
7% Pan African
1% Native American
1% Asian
2 Other
11 Under Age 60
16% Age 60 -69
73% Age 70
Volunteerism, CEAP Senior Services 2001, 2002 2003:
can
Volunteer Donated
.x s
v otiiiitecr nuiii "s Lviratcd n tt ann vv Gruk n a r rvgram
14,242 Volunteer Hours Donated Meals on Wheels Program
Total Volunteer Hours 17,871
Value of Donated Services $296,480
C:`My Documents12004 Application BP CDBG.doc 6
CEAP Board of Directors December 4, 2003 i
i
IW oan Bednarczyk Joyce Lemmer
25 Jackson Street Anoka, MN 55303 11356 North Heights Drive Coon Rai MN
W 763/712 -7441, H- 763/753 -2284, F- 763/421 -4230 9 p ids 55 4 33
jbednarczyk @ststephenchurch.org 763/754 -5952 F- 763 862- 43031emr2 @aol.com
Pastoral Minister, St. Stephen Catholic Church Church of the Epiphany
Myrnell Brusegaard Jamie Morrow Vice President
8300 Penn Ave., N. 1171 Yuma Lane Plymouth, MN 55447
Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 W- 651/379 -5887, H- 763/473 -3694, F- 651 379 -5803
W- 763/520 -0549, H- 763/566 -8762, C- 612/816 -0573 jlmorrow @goodwilleasterseals.org.
myrnellb@courage.org Goodwill /Easter Seals
9 9
Representative -Cross of Glory Lutheran Church
Courage anne Radotich
e Center
g 707 89th Avenue NE Blaine MN 55434
Reverend Heidi S. Caldwell W- 763/784 -1329, H- 763/421 -0756, F- 763/784 -0652
7217 West Broadway Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 jradotich @churchofsttimothy.com
W- 763/560 -8958 F- 763/560 -5623 Pastoral Minister, Church of St. Timothy
heidic @princeofpeacechurch.org Ellen Raeker
Pastor, Prince of Peace Lutheran Church 451 Rice Creek Terrace Fridley, MN 55432
Karen Hillerman H- 763/754 -1811
Mail Stop S064, 625 Fourth Ave., S, Minneapolis rogelcats @msn.com
W- 612 340 -6422, H- 763 785 -9543 Retired Physician, Mu/ticare Assoc. Medical Clinics
karen.hillerman @thrivent.com St William's Catholic Church
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans
Phillip Roche, Treasurer
Steve Houtz 5301 Brooklyn Boulevard
4334 Xerxes Ave., N., Minneapolis, MN 55412 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
Ohriv 2- 529 -6187 steven.houtz @thrivent.com W- 763/533 -3888, H- 763/535 -8097, F- 763/533 -3788
Financial for Lutherans proche @solutionmarketing.net
Representative -St. A/phonsus Catholic Church
Laura Jaeger Pamela Schwarz
5500 80th Avenue N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 3141 Dean Court, Minneapolis, MN 55416
W- 952/917 0117, H- 763/560 -7663
laura @bjtechserv.com W- 952/857 -6812, H- 612/836 -1151, F- 952/857 -7019
Community Relations Specialist, ADC Foundation pamela_schwarz @yahoo.com OR
pamela.schwarz@gmacrfc.com
Eva Jeppson GMAC -RF, Inc
2386 Lehman Lane Blaine, MN 55449
W- 763/574 -2000, H- 763/792 -0304, F- 763/571 -6565 Ronald F. Stuede Co
1890 127th Ln. NW Coon on Rapids, MN 55448
St. Phillips Lutheran Church W- 763/514 -1890, H- 763/755 -6548, F- 763/514 -1856
Realtor, Coldwel/ Banker Burnet ron.stuedemann @medtronic.com
Director of Technical Patient Serv., Medtronic, Inc.
Mike Johnson
6715 Timber Crest Drive Rebecca White, Secretary
Maple Grove, MN 55311 4239 Vincent Avenue N Minneapolis, MN 55412
W- 612/643 -2057, H- 763/550 -7775 W- 612/752 -0866, H- 612/529 -8260
ohnson
m whiterl @welisfargo.com
Director of Admin
j fAdminmpls.org Plymouth Christian Youth Center Financial Analyst, Wells Fargo Online Investments
Marc A. Kermisch President
4850 Harbor Lane N. Plymouth, MN 55446 LEGAL ADVISOR
W- 763 765 -4208, F- 763 765 -3819
marc @kermisch.com Cell- 763/443 -2794 Richard McGee
Program Manager, Hartford Life 8028 Morgan Circle Brooklyn Park, MN 55444
0 H- 763/560 -8608
athleen Mary Kiemen, SSND -Past President richardmcgee @attbi.com
9600 Regent Avenue N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Attorney
W- 763/424 -8770, H- 651/224 -1283 F- 763/424 -4327
srkate @st- gerard.org
Dirctor of Outreach, St. Gerard's Catholic Church
2004
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Community: Brooklvn Center
2. Project Name: Rehabilitation of Private Pronertv
3. Contact Person/Phone No. Tom Bublitz. 763 -569 -3433
B. PROJECT DATA
1. Funding Request $203.529.00
2. Is this a request to fund an existing CDBG- funded project? X Yes No
3. Leveraged Funds: (What other public or private funds does project include? If none,
indicate w /check here None: X
Amount Source
4. Project Location: Address or Citywide X
5. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible and identify
what, if any, alternative funding sources have been considered for this project.)
To provide funds for the rehabilitation of existing homes of low and moderate income
owners. This is an ongoing program to support the rehabilitation of existing single family
dwellings. Since the program's inception in the mid 1970's, over 280 homes have been
rehabilitated under this program.
6. Consolidated Plan Priorities: Using the list provided, identify what priority(ies) the
project will meet. (Note: If a proposed project is a low Urban County priority, you must
explain why it has a higher priority in your community.)
The project meets the consolidated plan priority by providing rehabilitation of existing
units occupied by low income households.
7. Describe anticipated results /accomplishments projects will have. (number of
persons/households to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be rehabbed/built,
etc.)
i
This is a continuous project. It is estimated Brooklyn Center will complete 10 to 12
homes with this allocation and completion of the same will be approximately 18 months.
8. Describe how project will assist community in achieving Livable Communities Act
goals. (if applicable)
Project will assist in achieving Metropolitan Livable Communities Act goals by helping
to preserve affordable housing.
9. Implementation Schedule: (Identify the major project tasks to be performed and when
they will occur.)
Task Date
Rehabilitation of Private Probertv 18 months
10. Budget: Specify total p roject budget b major p roject component i.e.• administrati
g P y p g y p p
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
BUDGET /SOURCE OF FUNDS
Component CDBG Other
Rehabilitation $179,106
County Administrative Fee (12 S 24.423
Project Totals $203,529
HOME
r
p
Office Phone: 612/728 -5770
3455 Bloomington Avenue Hotline: 612/728 -5767
Minneapolis; MN 55407 Fax: 612/728 -5761
Mr. Tom Bublitz
City of Brooklyn Center
60301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center 55430 January 13, 2004
Dear Mr. Bublitz:
This letter is to request funding in the amount of $5,000 from the City of Brooklyn Center's
Community Development Block Grant Program to support HOME Line's services for renters.
As you may know, HOME Line began as a project of Community Action for Suburban Hennepin in
1992. Following our spin -off from CASH in 1999, we continued to be funded by that agency for
two years, until June of 2001. The funding from CASH has ended and we are seeking support
from cities in suburban Hennepin County that we have served and continue to serve.
HOME Line's tenant hotline receives many calls each year from Brooklyn Center residents;
there were 207 in 2003. Since we started up the hotline we have assisted 2,700 Brooklyn
Center renters households- -6,750 people when all family members are counted. In addition,
our award winning high school presentations (on becoming a successful first -time renter)
have been given 45 times to Brooklyn Center and Osseo -Park Center High School classes,
reaching 865 students.
Through help we have provided, Brooklyn Center tenants have recovered $13,476 in illegally
withheld security deposits and have gotten almost $49,493 returned to them in rent
abatements (refunds for substandard conditions).
Along with the County's CDBG Request Form I am enclosing a one -page sheet summarizing our
hotline's service to Brooklyn Center residents.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this application. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please call me at 612/728 -5770, extension 106 or Mike Vraa, our
managing attorney at extension 113.
Sincerely,
5 a
Charlie Warner
Executive Director
enclosures as noted
Tenant Advocacy in Minnesota
HOME Line Renters' "Hotline"
Brooklyn Center
Information on calls during the period 1/1/92 through 12/31/2003
Number of Calk Per Year
Over the past twelve years a total of 2,700
Brooklyn Center renters have contacted 300. 1 6 9 3 286 285 zz5 256 Y13 216 219 198 207
HOME Line. This represents service to
200. 1�
approximately 6,750 residents when all sz 93 94 ss ss 97 ss r ss oo T 01 oz 03
family members have been counted.
The vast majority (over 98 of Brooklyn Callers' Incomes 1992 -2002
Center callers to HOME Line are low or very
low income. These income categories are very LOIN "0
those used by the U.S. Department of H.U.D.: 89%
LOIN
Moderate
Very Low: incomes below 50% of the metro median 2%
Low: incomes between 50% and 80% of the metro
median
Moderate: incomes above 80% of the metro median.
HOME Line has helped Brooklyn Center
residents recover money from their landlords.
High School Renter's Education Tenants have received $13,476 back from
improperly withheld security deposits and
HOME Line's High School Community $49,493 in rent abatements (refunds for
Renter's Education Program provides advice substandard conditions).
on tenant rights and responsibilities. This free The Hotline receives approximately 9,000
presentation covers most things that first time calls per year. Careful records are taken for
renters are likely to encounter, including each call, including the reason the tenant
roommate problems, evictions, security called. These are the top ten topics in
deposits and repair problems. Brooklyn Center over the last twelve years
In the last ten years, HOME Line has been to (followed by the number of calls):
45 classes with Brooklyn Center students 1. Repairs 588
speaking to 865 students. 2. Evictions 462
Brooklyn Center High School 22 classes, 3. Notice to Vacate 267
speaking to 413 students; 4. Security Deposits 256
Osseo -Park Center High School 13 classes, 5. Break Lease 131
speaking to 288 students; 6. Tenant Screening 117
Park- Center Alternative School 2 classes, 7. Financial Aid 109
speaking to 21 students; 8. Lease Questions 99
Osseo Area Learning Center 8 classes, 9. Housing Search 93
Speaking to 143 students. 10. Privacy/Intrusion 69
i
2004
URBAN HENNEPIN .COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
(Use one form per project)
L GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Community: Brooklyn Center
B. Project Name: HOME Line
C. Contact Person/Phone No.: Mike Vraa; 612/728 -5770, x -113
IL PROJECT DATA:
A. ,Funding Request $5,000
B. Is this an existing CDBG-FUNDED Project? Yes x No
C. Leveraged Funds: (What other public or private funds does project include? If non,
indicate w /check here None)
SECURED FUNDING
The McKnight Foundation
$125,000 per year for three years; general support
December 2001 November 2004
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
"Outreach and Training Grant OTAG)
$450,000; January 2, 2001 September 30, 2004
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
Tenant Organizing and Education Grant
$150,000 over four years; February 3, 2001 December 31, 2004
Otto Bremer Foundation
General support for statewide services and advocacy
$35,000, two -year grant ($20,000 first year, $15,000 second year), February 2002
The Minneapolis Foundation
General funding pp to support expansion of activities
$50,000 one -time grant, July 2003 -June 2004
HOME Line CDBG Application to Brooklyn Center
January 13, 2004
Page 2.
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Hotline service to Greater Minnesota
$43,450 two -year grant; July 2003 June 2005
Christian Sharing Fund of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis
Support for MN Alliance of HUD Tenants (MnAHT) outreach campaign
$12,000; May 2003 -April 2004
Headwaters Fund
Training and leadership development for MnAHT tenant leaders
$5,000 one time; June 2003
Hennepin County Family Homeless Prevention Program
Legal representation in eviction cases
$30,150 contract; July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004
Hennepin County Fair Housing Initiative
Educational program on fair housing issues
$10,000 one -time May 2003
Greater Minnesota Housing Fund
$25,000 for expansion of organizing and advocacy services to Greater Minnesota
October 2002
Bloomington HRA
$10,000 one -time grant for tenant services to Bloomington residents
January 1, 2002 December 31, 2003
City of Plymouth Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
$7,500 for tenant services to Plymouth residents; July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004
City of Eden Prairie Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
$4,013 for tenant services to Eden Prairie residents; July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004
City of Minnetonka- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
$690 for tenant services to Minnetonka residents; July 1, 2003 -June 30, 2004
City of Maple Grove- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
$4,191 for tenant services to Maple Grove residents; July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004
City of Edina Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
$996 for tenant services to Edina residents; July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004
City of Richfield Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
$2,500 for tenant services to Richfield residents; July 1, 2003 June 30, 2004
HOME Line CDBG Application to Brooklyn Center
January 13, 2004
Page 3.
A. Project Location: Address: Citywide
B. Project Description: (Describe the project in as much detail as possible, including the local
need(s) the project will address.)
The following is a brief description of the programs and activities of HOME Line that would be
provided to Brooklyn Center residents under this grant:
HOME Line runs a tenant hotline that has been in operation since 1992. The tenant hotline
receives roughly 9,000 calls per year. The hotline, staffed by three staff attorneys and dozens of
law student volunteers per year, helps tenants by listening to their situation and advising them of
their rights and responsibilities under the law. We occasionally represent tenants in court on
eviction or serious repair issues. HOME Line has helped 2,700 Brooklyn Center callers to our
hotline since 1992; over 98 of these callers have been very low or low income people.
HOME Line has also sent speakers to 577 high school classes in the last twelve years speaking
to over 15,014 students about how they can be successful renters. HOME Line's attorneys have
also spoken at numerous other events, including C.L.E.s (Continuing Legal Education seminars),
landlord meetings, seminars on landlord/tenant law to police officers, etc. We have made our
presentations at 45 classes with Brooklyn Center students (Brooklyn Center and Osseo Center
Center High Schools), speaking to a total of 865 students.
A. Consolidated Plan Priorities: Using the Priority Summary and HUD Table 2A -B, identify
what priority(ies) the project will meet. (Note: If a proposed project is a low
urban county priority, you must explain why it has a higher priority in your
community.)
Priority(ies): From HUD Table 2B: Public Service Needs Tenant/Landlord
Counseling (High Priority Need Level)
A. Describe anticipated results /accomplishments the project will have. (Number of
persons /households to be assisted/served, number of housing units to be
rehabilitated/built, etc.) We anticipate assisting approximately 200 Brooklyn
Center renter households over the hotline during the program year and making at
least two or three educational presentations at Brooklyn Center and Osseo Center
Center High Schools (80 students).
HOME Line CDBG Application to Brooklyn Center
January 13, 2004
Page 4.
B. Describe how project will assist the community in achieving your Livable
Communities Act goals (if applicable): NA
C. Implementation Schedule: (For the time period 7/1/03 to 6/30/04, identify major project
tasks to be performed and when they will occur.)
Task: Renter counseling over hotline Date: Ongoing
Task: High school presentations Date: Late fall and late spring
A. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component i.e., administration,
planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.)
Comnonent SOURCE OF FUNDS
CDBC7 Qther (identifva
Procram services imnlementation 55.000 5487.200
(Other sources of funding are shown in our response to Item II. C.., above)
Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park Sun-Post/Thursday, Feb. 5, 2004 25A
LEGAL NOTICES
City of Brooklyn Center
(Official Publication)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
2004 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM
Notice is hereby given that the City of Brooklyn Center in
cooperation with Hennepin County, pursuant to Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, is holding a public hearing on February 23, 2004,
at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
at the Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
The public hearing is on the housing and community
development needs and the City's proposed use of the
estimated 2004 Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program planning allocation of
$239,029.
In addition, between July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005, it is
estimated that no additional program income from
previously funded CDBG activities will be available to the
City.
The City of Brooklyn Center is proposing to undertake the
following activities with 2004 Urban Hennepin County
CDBG funds starting on or about July 1, 2004.
Neighborhood Public Service Projects $36,000
Rehabilitation of Private Property $204,029
For additional information on the priorities, proposed
activities, level of funding and program performance,
contact the City of Brooklyn Center at 763 -569 -3300 or the
Hennepin County Housing, Community Works and Transit
Department of Transit and Community Works at
612- 348 -9260.
The public hearing is being held pursuant to MS 471.59.
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.
(February 5, 2004) P1 BPBLOCKGRANT
City Council Agenda Item No. 9a
City Council Agenda Item No. 9b
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe
FROM: Michael J. McCaule
DATE: February 18, 2004
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement: Watershed Management
Commissions
At the end of 2002, the Council supported a proposal to seek amendment of the. Joint Powers
Agreement for the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions that
would place limits on increases in assessments. In 2003 the assessment for the Shingle Creek
Watershed increased 50 percent to undertake a special project related to the NPDES Phase II process.
Upon completion of the project, the watershed commission did not roll back the substantial increase
and in fact proposed additional substantial increases in assessments. The proposed amendment, as
outlined in Mr. LeFevere's memorandum, makes substantial progress in placing limitations on the
ability of the watershed management commissions to increase assessments on participating cities.
By providing that a majority of participating cities must authorize an increase in the annual
assessment that would exceed the annual change in the Consumer Price Index, City Councils will be
able to review and impact assessment increases beyond inflation.
9 301 Shingle Creek Parkway g C ee a way Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A SHINGLE CREEK
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL, AND
PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHINGLE CREEK
WATERSHED
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has entered into a joint and cooperative
agreement for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed that large and substantial increases in
annual assessments have been approved by the Board of the watershed commissions; and
WHEREAS, such increases require the participating cities to either levy general ad
valorem taxes or collect storm water fees to cover such substantial increases; and
WHEREAS, it would be appropriate for the participating cities to create a
mechanism to limit increases in assessments upon the cities as set forth in the proposed amendment
to the amended joint and cooperative agreement which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
references Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the proposed amendment are reasonable
and proper.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the amendment to the amended joint and cooperative agreement attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A be and hereby is approved and the Mayor and City
Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute such amendment on behalf of the City of Brooklyn
Center.
February 23. 2004
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A WEST MISSISSIPPI
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL, AND
PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI
WATERSHED
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has entered into a joint and cooperative
agreement for the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission; and
WHEREAS, concerns have been expressed that large and substantial increases in
annual assessments have been approved by the Board of the watershed commissions; and
WHEREAS, such increases require the participating cities to either levy general ad
valorem taxes or collect storm water fees to cover such substantial increases; and
WHEREAS, it would be appropriate for the participating cities to create a
mechanism to limit increases in assessments upon the cities as set forth in the proposed amendment
to the amended j oint and cooperative agreement which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
references Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the proposed amendment are reasonable
and proper.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the amendment to the amended joint and cooperative agreement attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A be and hereby is approved and the Mayor and City
Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute such amendment on behalf of the City of Brooklyn
Center.
February 23. 2004
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.
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
gy p (612) 337 -9300 telephone
raven (612) 337 -9310 fax
«,n h": /www.kennedy- graven.com
CHARTERED
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 13, 2004
To: Managers and Administrators of Member Cities
of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions
From: Charlie LeFevere
Re: Proposed Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement
By memo dated December 4, 2003, a copy of which is attached, I forwarded it to
each of the Member Cities, copies of a proposed Amendment to the Joint Powers
Agreement of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management
Commissions requesting comments from the Member Cities.
No comments were received. Therefore, the agreement (or two agreements for cities
that are members of both organizations) is submitted for consideration and approval
by your City Councils.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Please forward
executed copies of the agreements to Judie Anderson, the Commission Secretary, at
3235 Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447.
Upon receipt of executed copies from all Member Cities, the Secretary will notify all
cities and provide a copy of the Amended Joint Powers Agreement.
Cc: Commissioners
J:\ CLIENTS\S\SHINGLEC\JPA \021304Memo to Mgrs\9243402v1.doc
CLL- 243402v1
SH220 -1
SHINGLE CREEK WFTERSHEO MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447
Telephone (763)553 -1144 FAX (763)553 -9326
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 4, 2003
To: Managers and Administrators of Member Cities of the Shingle Creek
and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions
From: Charles L. LeFevere
Re: Pronosed Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement
At the request of the City of Brooklyn Center, an ad hoc Committee of interested representatives of cities
that are members of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions was
formed to consider amending the joint powers agreements of those organizations. The goal was to give
member cities greater control over the annual general fund assessments charged by the Commissions to
finance their activities.
The result of the efforts of that committee was a proposed amendment to the joint powers agreements.
The amendment is the same for both organizations. Briefly, the amendment makes the following
changes:
1. The assessments for general fund purposes for the year 2004 will be set as an "Assessment Cap".
The Cap will be increased (or decreased) each year thereafter based on changes in the Consumer
Price Index.
2. The Assessment Cap cannot be exceeded by the Commission without the consent of a majority
of the member cities.
3. In addition, the Commission cannot increase the assessment by more than 20% in any one year
even if such an increase would be within the Assessment Cap without the consent of a
majority of member cities.
4. The current Joint Powers Agreement does not allow a levy that requires any member to
contribute an amount in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of that portion
of the city lying within the watershed. That limitation remains in the proposed amendment.
5. The agreement currently allows the Commission to impose a supplemental levy. Such a levy
might be needed, for example, to cover unforeseen expenses due to state mandates or litigation.
The proposed amendment also allows supplementary assessments. However, the supplementary
assessment together with the regular annual assessment for any one year cannot exceed the limits
noted above without city consent.
BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE
Attached to this memo is a draft of the proposed Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreements and a
black -lined version showing changes from the current agreement. Copies of both proposed amendments
are attached if your city is a member of both Commissions. THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE
SUBMITTED TO YOU AT THIS TIME FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ONLY NOT FOR
ADOPTION.
Comments from your city on the proposed amendment are requested by December 31, 2003. The
Commission is not submitting the proposed amendment for adoption at this time because it wishes to
avoid having to amend the agreement based on comments or objections of one city after others have
already formally acted to approve the amendment.
After December 31, 2003, the ad hoc committee and the Commission will consider the comments
received and forward a final draft for consideration for adoption by all member cities. The amendment
will not be in effect for either Commission until approved by all member cities.
Please address any comments, questions or suggestions to me at the above address or, if you prefer, to
the Chairman of the ad hoc committee, Curt Boganey, Assistant City Manager at Brooklyn Center.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
CLL:peb
Attachments
cc: Curt Boganey
Judie Anderson
Ed Matthiesen
Commissioners
Alternate Commissioners
J: \CLIENTS\S\SH NGLECUPA\#240814v 1- MemotoMana eersreAmendmentstoJPA\SCmemo.wpd
BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE
Exhibit A
AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal,
Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale, all of which are Minnesota
municipal corporations (the "Member Cities
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Member Cities are parties to a joint powers agreement forming the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Commission entitled the AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHINGLE
CREEK WATERSHED (the "Joint Powers Agreement the effective date of which was May 1, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Member Cities wish to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter provided;
NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter amended, the parties agree to amend the Joint Powers
Agreement as follows:
1. Article VIII. FINANCES is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this
agreement and in accordance with the procedures as established by law and in the manner as may be
determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust
companies, authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive deposits of public
moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of
Commission funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the
Treasurer or the Treasurer's Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be. required to file with
the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be
determined by the Board. The Commission shall pay the premium on said bond.
Subdivision 2. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be
used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies,
development of an overall plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase
and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be used for
CU- 2376160 1
SH220 -1
Exhibit A
normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated
as an improvement cost and processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of this Article. The annual
contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50 on the net tax capacity of all property
within the Watershed and fifty percent (50 on the basis of the total area of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed each year to the total area in the Shingle Creek Watershed.
Subdivision 3.
(a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted under
Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the
engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined by the Commission as the amount to be assessed
against each member as a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each
member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the Commission for each project.
Each member further agrees to pay to or contract with the member governmental unit awarding said
contract for the improvement, its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the
determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 4. The member awarding the contract shall
submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the
member being billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after
receipt of the statement. The member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members of the
tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the Commission may
by a vote of 2 /3rds of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed
to fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program
of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.251. It is expressed as a goal of this Agreement that cost sharing of capital improvement costs be
assigned and agreed to by members pursuant to Article VIII, Subdivision 7, Subsections 1 and 2 of this
Agreement. Without such agreement, all improvements will be constructed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.251. The Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to
CLL- 237616v1 2
SH220 -1
Exhibit A
be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with
money provided by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. The levy and
collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax levy
resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the Commission and remitted to the
County on or before the date prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the
Commission shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota Statutes, Sections
103D.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent
to the Clerk of each member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the
ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall
require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Board.
The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member
governmental unit together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member.
The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon written notice
from any member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all
members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of any and
all modifications or amendments.
Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 5 below, each member agrees to provide the funds
required by the budget. If no objections are submitted to the Board, each member agrees to provide the
funds approved by the Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications
or amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then
existing members of the Board.
The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the Board in such a manner as
to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed.
Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 6 below, upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable
vote of a majority of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental budget requiring
CTL- 237616v 1 3
SH220 -1
Exhibit A
additional payments by the members within 60 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require
any member to contribute in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable property
within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries in any one calendar year.
Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.245, which authorizes a
Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each member City to pay the costs of planning
and for the purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine maintenance of facilities.
Subdivision 5. Assessments levied against Member Cities for general fund purposes are subject
to all of the following limitations:
1. Assessment Can.
A. Definition. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "Assessment Cap" means
the total amount that the Commission may levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any
year without the consent of a majority of Member Cities. The Assessment Cap for 2004 is $262,750.
Thereafter, the Assessment Cap will increase or decrease each year based, pro rata, on the annual change in
the consumer price index (U.S. City Average, All Items, All Urban Consumer) to the end of the second
quarter of the preceding year. (For example, the Assessment Cap for 2005 will be adjusted on the basis of
the change in the CPI from the end of the second quarter of 2003 to the end of the second quarter of 2004.)
B. Limitation and Citv Consent. The Commission may levy an amount for general
fund purposes in excess of the Assessment Cap only with the consent of a majority of Member Cities
expressed by resolutions duly adopted by the city councils before September I" of the preceding year.
The Commission may request authority to exceed the Assessment Cap for one or more years.
If a majority of Member Cities do not consent to the levy of an assessment in excess of
the Assessment Cap, the Commission may levy an amount up to the Assessment Cap and the Commission
will make necessary changes to the budget.
2. Limitation on Increase of Assessment. The Commission may not assess a total levy
against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year in an amount that exceeds 120% of the
CLL- 237616v1 4
SH220 -1
Exhibit A
previous years' assessment without the consent of a majority of the Member Cities given in the same
manner as described in paragraph 1B above.
3. Limitation Based on Tax Capacity. The Commission may not assess a levy or
combination of levy and supplemental levies against the Member Cities for general fund purposes in any
one year that requires any member to contribute an amount in excess of one -half of one percent of the net
tax capacity of that portion of the city lying within the Watershed.
Subdivision 6. Supplemental Budget and Limit on Assessment. The Board may adopt a
supplemental budget in accordance with Subdivision 4. However, the amount assessed against the Member
Cities for general fund purposes, when added together with other assessments for general fund purposes for
the same year, may not exceed the limitations on assessments set forth in Subdivision 5 without the consent
of the Member Cities. The consent of the Member Cities shall be secured in the same manner as is provided
in Subdivision 5, except that the September 1 deadline for Member City approval does not apply.
Subdivision 7. Cost Allocation for Capital Projects. The Commission shall apportion to the
respective members on either (1), (2) or (3) of the following bases:
(1) A negotiated amount to be arrived at by the members who have lands in the subdistrict
responsible for the capital improvement.
(2) (a) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to
each member on the basis of the net tax capacity of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed to the total net tax capacity in the Shingle Creek
Watershed area governed by this Agreement.
(b) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to
each member on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries
of the watershed each year to the total area in the Shingle Creek Watershed
governed by this Agreement.
(c) Capital costs allocated under the 50% area/50% net tax capacity formula herein
set forth may be varied by the Commission by a 2 /3rds vote if:
CLL- 237616v1 5
SH220 -1
Exhibit A
(1) any member community eceives a direct benefit from the capital
tY P
improvement which benefit can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk
benefit, or
(2) the capital improvement provides a direct benefit to one or more
members which benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of
fairness a modification in the 50150 formula.
(d) Credits to any member for lands acquired by said member to pond or store storm and
surface water shall be allowed against costs set forth in Subsections (a), (b) and (c) of
this Section.
(3) If agreement is not reached to proceed as set forth in Subsection 1 or 2 of this
Subdivision and if the project is constructed and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 103B.251, the members understand and agree that said costs will be levied on all
taxable property in the watershed as set forth in the statute.
Section 2. This amendment shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of a certified copy of a
resolution approving said amendment by all nine Member Cities. Said resolutions shall be filed with the Chair
of the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, who shall certify the effective date of the amendment in writing
to all Member Cities. The effective date of the amendment shall be when approved by all of the Member
Cities and when the mayor and other authorized city representatives have executed the amended agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned government units, by action of their governing
bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 103B.201 through 103B.255 and Section 471.59.
Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By:
Its
And by:
Its
CLL- 2376160
SH220 -1
Exhibit A
Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
By:
Its
And by:
Its
Dated: CITY OF CRYSTAL
By:
Its
And by:
Its
Dated: CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
By:
Its
And by:
Its
Dated: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
By:
Its
And by:
Its
Dated: CITY OF NEW HOPE
By:
Its
And by:
Its
CLL- 237616v1 7
SH220 -1
Exhibit A
Dated: CITY OF OSSEO
By:
Its
And by:
Its
Dated: CITY OF PLYMOUTH
By:
Its
And by:
Its
Dated: CITY OF ROBBINSDALE
By:
Its
And by:
Its
J:\ CLIENTS \S \SHINGLEC\JPA \021304Memo to Mgrs\ AmendmenttoSCJoint &CooperativeAgtdoc
CLL- 237616v1
SH220 -1
WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
3235 FERNBROOK LANE PLYMOUTH, MN 55447
TELEPHONE (763)553 -1144 FAX (763)553 -9326
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 4, 2003
To: Managers and Administrators of Member Cities of the Shingle Creek
and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions
From: Charles L. LeFevere
Re: Proposed Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement
At the request of the City of Brooklyn Center, an ad hoc Committee of interested representatives of cities
that are members of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions was
formed to consider amending the joint powers agreements of those organizations. The goal was to give
member cities greater control over the annual general fund assessments charged by the Commissions to
finance their activities.
The result of the efforts of that committee was a proposed amendment to the joint powers agreements.
The amendment is the same for both organizations. Briefly, the amendment makes the following
changes:
1. The assessments for general fund purposes for the year 2004 will be set as an "Assessment Cap
The Cap will be increased (or decreased) each year thereafter based on changes in the Consumer
Price Index.
2. The Assessment Cap cannot be exceeded by the Commission without the consent of a majority
of the member cities.
3. In addition, the Commission cannot increase the assessment by more than 20% in any one year
even if such an increase would be within the Assessment Cap without the consent of a
majority of member cities.
4. The current Joint Powers Agreement does not allow a. levy that requires any member to
contribute an amount in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of that portion
of the city lying within the watershed. That limitation remains in the proposed amendment.
5. The eement currently allows the Commission to im pose a supplemental levy. Such a y p pp vY levy
might be needed, for example, to cover unforeseen expenses due to state mandates or litigation.
BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO
The proposed amendment also allows supplementary assessments. However, the supplementary
assessment together with the regular annual assessment for any one year cannot exceed the limits
noted above without city consent.
Attached to this memo is a draft of the proposed Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreements and a
black -lined version showing changes from the current agreement. Copies of both proposed amendments
are attached if your city is a member ofboth Commissions. THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE
SUBMITTED TO YOU AT THIS TIME FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ONLY NOT FOR
ADOPTION.
Comments from our city on
y ty the proposed amendment are requested by December 31, 2003. The
Commission is not submitting the proposed amendment for adoption at this time because it wishes to
avoid having to amend the agreement based on comments or objections of one city after others have
already formally acted to approve the amendment.
After December 31, 2003, the ad hoc committee and the Comrnission will consider the comments
received and forward a final draft for consideration for adoption by all member cities. The amendment
will not be in effect for either Commission until approved by all member cities.
Please address any comments, questions or suggestions to me at the above address or, if you prefer, to
the Chairman of the ad hoc committee, Curt Boganey, Assistant City Manager at Brooklyn Center.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
CLL:peb
Attachments
cc: Curt Boganey
Judie Anderson
Ed Matthiesen
Commissioners
Alternate Commissioners
J: \CLMNTS\S\SHINGLECVPA\# 240814v 1- MemotoManagersreAmendmentstoJPA \WMmemo.wpd
BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN MAPLE GROVE OSSEO
Exhibit A
AMENDMENT TO AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
TO PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the cities of Champlin, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn
Park, Maple Grove, Minneapolis and Osseo, all of which are Minnesota municipal corporations (the
"Member Cities
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Member Cities are parties to a joint powers agreement forming the West Mississippi
Watershed Management Commission entitled the AMENDED JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO PLAN,
CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED (the
"Joint Powers Agreement the effective date of which was January 31, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Member Cities wish to amend the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter provided;
NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in the Joint Powers Agreement as hereinafter amended, the parties agree to amend the Joint Powers
Agreement as follows:
1. Article VIII. FINANCES is amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this
agreement and in accordance with the rocedures as established b law and in the manner as may be
P Y Y
determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust
companies, authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive deposits of public
moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of
Commission funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of whom shall be the
Treasurer or the Treasurer's Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be required to file with
the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as shall be
determined by the Board. The Commission shall pay the premium on said bond.
Subdivision 2. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be used
for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies, development of an
overall plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices to
measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may also be used for normal maintenance of the
CLL- 240808v1 1
WE405 -1
Exhibit A
facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated as an improvement cost and
processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of this Article. The annual contribution by each member shall
be based fifty percent (50 on the net tax capacity of all property within the Watershed and fifty percent
50% n th
o e basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries of the watershed each year to the
Y
total area in the West Mississippi Watershed governed by this Agreement.
Subdivision 3.
(a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted under
Article VII, Subdivision 3. Each member agrees to contribute to said fund its proportionate share of the
engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined by the Commission as the amount to be assessed
against each member as 'a cost of the improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each
member, setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the Commission for each project.
Each member further agrees t pay to or contract with the member governmental unit awarding g P Y g gs aid
contract for the improvement, its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in accordance with the
determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 4. The member awardin g the contract shall
submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during construction and the
member being billed agrees to pay its proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after
receipt of the statement. The member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members of the
tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the contributions shall be necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the Commission may
by a vote of 2 /3rds of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Commission decide to proceed
to fund all or any part of the cost of a capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program
of the plan pursuant to the authority and subject to the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.251. It is expressed as a goal of this Agreement that cost sharing of capital improvement costs be
assigned and agreed to by members pursuant to Article VIII, Subdivision 7, Subsections 1 and 2 of this
Agreement. Without such agreement, all improvements will be constructed pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103B.251. The Commission and Hennepin County may establish a maintenance fund to
CLL- 240808v1 2
WE405 -1
Exhibit A
be used for normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with
money provided by Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251. The levy and
collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Hennepin County based upon a tax levy
resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible members of the Commission and remitted to the
County on or before October 10th of the date prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to levy for
maintenance, the Commission shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 103D.915 and 103D.921 and acts amendatory thereof and in addition thereto. Mailed
notice shall be sent to the Clerk of each member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the
ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget approval shall
require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the Board.
The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member
governmental unit together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member.
The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon written notice
from any member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice to all
members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the members of any and
all modifications or amendments.
Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 5 below, each member agrees to provide the funds
required by the budget. If no objections are submitted to the Board, each member agrees to provide the
funds approved by the Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications
or amendments to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then
existing members of the Board.
The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the Board in such a manner as
to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed.
Subject to the limitations of Subdivision 6 below, upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable
vote of a majority of all eligible votes of then existing members may adopt a supplemental budget requiring
CLL- 240808vi 3
wE405 -1
Exhibit A
additional payments by the members within 60 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require
any member to contribute in excess of one -half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable property
within the watershed or within any member's corporate boundaries in any one calendar year.
Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.245, which authorizes a
Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each member City to pay the costs of planning
and for the purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine maintenance of facilities.
Subdivision 5. Assessments levied against Member Cities for general fund purposes are subject
to all of the following limitations:
1. Assessment Can.
A. Definition. For purposes of this subdivision, the term "Assessment Cap" means
the total amount that the Commission may levy against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any
year without the consent of a majority of Member Cities. The Assessment Cap for 2004 is $76,200.
Thereafter, the Assessment Cap will increase or decrease each year based, pro rata, on the annual change in
the consumer price index U.S. City Average, All Items All Urban Consumer to the n
ty g end of the second
quarter of the preceding year. (For example, the Assessment Cap for 2005 will be adjusted on the basis of
the change in the CPI from the end of the second quarter of 2003 to the end of the second quarter of 2004.)
B. Limitation and Citv Consent. The Commission may levy an amount for general
fund purposes in excess of the Assessment Cap only with the consent of a majority of Member Cities
expressed by resolutions duly adopted by the city councils before September 1 51 of the preceding year.
The Commission may request authority to exceed the Assessment Cap for one or more years.
If a majority of Member Cities do not consent to the levy of an assessment in excess of
the Assessment Cap, the Commission may levy an amount up to the Assessment Cap and the Commission
will make necessary changes to the budget.
2. Limitation on Increase of Assessment. The Commission may not assess a total levy
against Member Cities for general fund purposes in any year in an amount that exceeds 120% of the
CLL- 240808v 1 4
WE405 -1
Exhibit A
is previous years' assessment without the consent of a majority of the Member Cities given in the same
manner as described in paragraph 1B above.
3. Limitation Based on Tax Capacity. The Commission may not assess a levy or
combination of levy and supplemental levies against the Member Cities for general fund purposes in any
one year that requires any member to contribute an amount in excess of one -half of one percent of the net
tax capacity of that portion of the city lying within the Watershed.
Subdivision 6. Supplemental Budget and Limit on Assessment. The Board may adopt a
supplemental budget in accordance with Subdivision 4. However, the amount assessed against the Member
Cities for general fund purposes, when added together with other assessments for general fund purposes for
the same year, may not exceed the limitations on assessments set forth in Subdivision 5 without the consent
of the Member Cities. The consent of the Member Cities shall be secured in the same manner as is provided
in Subdivision 5, except that the September 1 deadline for Member City approval does not apply.
Subdivision 7. Cost Allocation for Capital Projects. The Commission shall apportion to the
respective members on either (1), (2) or (3) of the following bases:
(1) A negotiated amount to be arrived at by the members who have lands in the subdistrict. It is
anticipated that most capital improvements will be made under this provision; or
(2) (a) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to
each member on the basis of the net tax capacity of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed each year to the total net tax capacity in the West
Mississippi Watershed area governed by this Agreement.
(b) Fifty percent of all capital costs or the financing thereof shall be apportioned to
each member on the basis of the total area of each member within the boundaries
of the watershed each year to the total area in the West Mississippi Watershed
governed by this Agreement.
(c) Capital costs allocated under the 50% area 50% net tax capacity formula herein set
forth may be varied by the Commission by a 2 /3rd vote of all eligible members if:
CLL- 240808vl 5
WE405 -1
Exhibit A
(1) any member community receives a direct benefit from the capital
improvement which benefit can be defined as a lateral as well as a trunk
benefit, or
(2) the capital improvement provides a direct benefit to one or more
members which benefit is so disproportionate as to require in a sense of
fairness a modification in the 50150 formula.
(d) Credits to any member for lands acquired by said member to pond or store storm
and surface water shall be allowed against costs set forth in Subsections (a), (b)
and (c) of this Section.
(3) If agreement is not reached to proceed as set forth in Subsection 1 or 2 of this
Subdivision and if the project is constructed and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 10313.251, the members understand and agree that said costs will be levied on all
taxable property in the watershed as set forth in the statute.
Section 2. This amendment shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of a certified co of a
P g PY
resolution approving said amendment by all nine Member Cities. Said resolutions shall be filed with the Chair of
the West Mississippi Watershed Commission, who shall certify the effective date of the amendment in writing to
all Member Cities. The effective date of the amendment shall be when approved by all of the Member Cities and
when the mayor and other authorized city representatives have executed the amended agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned government units, by action of their governing
bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 10313.201 through 103B.255 and Section 471.59.
Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By:
Its
And by:
Its
CLL- 240808v1 6
WE405 -1
Exhibit A
Dated: CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
B:
Y
Its
And by:
Its
Dated: CITY OF CHAMPLIN
By:
Its
And by:
Its
Dated: CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
By:
Its
And by:
Y
Its
Dated: CITY OF OSSEO
By:
Its
And by:
Its
J:\ CLIENTS \S\SHINGLEC\JPA \021304Memo to Mgrs \AmendmenttoWMJoint &CoopAgt.doc
CLL- 240808v1 7
WE405 -1
I
City Council Agenda Item No, 9c
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
WITH CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the City Manager's Employment
Contract; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a performance review of the City
Manager; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 43A.17 Subd. 9 includes compensation
such as car allowances as part of the total compensation subject to the provisions of Section 43A.17
Subd. 9; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and City Manager wish to directly include the City
Manager's car allowance as part of the City Manager's compensation in Section 8, Paragraph A of
the employment agreement by and between the City and the City Manger; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and City Manager have agreed that the City
Manager's current compensation, excluding car allowance, shall be increased at the same rate as
provided for non -union employees generally.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute an addendum to the
Employment Contract with the City Manager to provide for the same increase in compensation,
exclusive of car allowance, as provided to non -union employees of two percent on January 1, 2004,
and one percent on July 1, 2004; and for such addendum to provide that the City Manager's car
allowance shall be discontinued effective July 1, 2004; and that the City Manager's annual salary be
increased by the amount of the car allowance provided in the existing contract addendum for the year
2003 by and between the City Manager, such addition of the annual amount of the car allowance to
the City Manager's salary to be effective July 1, 2004, after the salary increase of one percent on July
1, 2004; and that on and after July 1, 2004, the City Manager shall be reimbursed for actual mileage
driven at the current Internal Revenue Service mileage rate.
February 23, 2004
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof:
p g g
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
ADDENDUM TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Addendum is made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City and Michael J. McCauley
(hereinafter referred to as the "Manager as of the 1st day of January, 2003.
WHEREAS, the City and Manager have entered into an employment agreement
dated November 27, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Employment Agreement and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement as hereinafter
set forth; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in the
Employment Agreement and herein. City and Manager agree that the Employment Agreement is
amended as follows:
1. Section 8, paragraph A) of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the
following sentences:
"Effective January 1, 2004, the Manager's annual salary shall be One Hundred Six
Thousand Two Hundred Forty Four Dollars ($106,244) per year."
"Effective July 1, 2004, One Hundred Seven Thousand Three Hundred Six Dollars
plus Five Thousand Four Hundred ($107,306 plus $5,400), totaling One Hundred
Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred Six Dollars ($112,706)."
2. Section 8, paragraph C) of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the
following sentence:
"Effective July 1, 2004, such monthly car allowance shall be discontinued and shall
be added to Manager's annual salary and the Manager shall be reimbursed for
personal automobile use for trips, meetings, work, and other use related to his
employment at the rate consistent with Internal Revenue Service regulations."
Except as explicitly modified in this Addendum, the Employment Agreement shall continue to be in
full force and effect.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA EMPLOYEE
By:
Myrna Kragness, Mayor Michael J. McCauley
B
Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
City Council Agenda Item No. 9d
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 2004,
at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance relating to the
regulation of dogs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3308 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF DANGEROUS
DOGS AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOGS IN THE CITY;
AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Brooklyn Center City Code Chapter 1 is amended by adding new Sections 1 -250
through 1 -280 as follows:
Section 1 -250. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of Sections 1 -250 through 1 -280, the
terms defined in this Section shall have the meaning given them. Terms not defined in this
Section shall have the meaning given them in Section 1 -101 of this Code.
1. Dangerous dog. Dangerous dog means any dog that has:
a. without provocation. inflicted substantial bodilv harm on a human being
on public or private property:
b. killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's
property: or
C. been found to be potentially dangerous. and after the owner has notice that
the dog is potentially dangerous. the dog aggressively bites, attacks. or
endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals: or
d. been determined to be a dangerous dog by the City or any other
governmental iurisdiction.
2. Potentially dangerous dog. Potentially dangerous dog means any dog that:
a. when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public
or private property;
b. when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a
bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property,
other than the dog owner's property. in an apparent attitude of attack:
ORDINANCE NO.
C. has a known nrMensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked.
causing iniury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic
animals, or
d. been determined to be a potentially dangerous dog by the City or any other
governmental iurisdiction.
3. Prover Enclosure. Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a
securely enclosed and locked Den or structure suitable to prevent the animal from
escaping and Droviding protection from the elements for the dog. A DroDer
enclosure does not include a porch. ratio. or any part of a house, garage, or other
structure that would allow the doe to exit of its own volition, or any house or
structure in which windows are oven or in which door or window screens are the
only obstacles that Drevent the doe from exiting.
4. Owner. Owner means any person. firm, comoration. organization, or deDartment
possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care. custody. or
control of a doe.
5. Great bodilv harm. Great bodilv harm means bodilv iniury which creates a high
Drobability of death. or which causes serious permanent disfigurement. or which
causes a Dermanent or Drotracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
6. Substantial bodilv harm. Substantial bodilv harm means bodilv iniury which
involves a temDorary but substantial disfigurement. or which causes a temDorary
but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.
Section 1 -255. DECLARATION OF DANGEROUS OR POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS DOGS.
1. Notice to Owner. If the animal control officer determines after an investigation
that a dog is potentially dangerous or dangerous according to the criteria in
Section 1 -250 (1) or (2), the animal control officer will serve a notice of intent on
the owner of the dog to declare the doe Dotentiallv dangerous or dangerous. Such
notice shall inform the owner of this designation, the basis for the designation, the
Drocedures for contesting the designation as described in Section 1 -255 (2) (a) and
the result of the failure to contest the designation as described in Section 1 -255 (2)
ORDINANCE NO.
2. Contesting Declaration of Dangerous or Potentially Dangerous Dogs.
a. If the owner of a dog has received a notice of intent under Section 1 -255
(1). the owner may reauest that a hearing be conducted to determine
whether or not such a designation is iustified. Such reauest must be made
in writing and delivered to the City Manager within 14 days of receipt of
the notice of intent.
b. If the owner fails to contest the notice of intent within 14 days. the owner
forfeits the right to a hearing and the declaration of the dog as potentially
dangerous or dangerous is final. The City Manager will then issue a
declaration to the owner and the owner must comely with all applicable
reauirements of this Section or cause the dog to be humanely destroyed or
removed from the City limits.
3. Hearing Procedure. Within ten days after receiving the owner's reauest for a
hearing. the City Manager will notifv the doe owner of the hearing date. The
hearing will be scheduled within forty -five days. The hearing will be conducted
by the Animal Control Review Panel. which will consist of three members. as
appointed by the Mayor. The owner may call witnesses and present evidence on
his or her behalf. A simple maioritv of the members of the Panel is necessary for
a finding that the dog is either dangerous or potentially dangerous. The Panel
must inform the owner of its decision in writing and must state the reasons for its
decision.
4. Effect of Findings. If the Panel finds that there is a sufficient basis to declare the
dog potentially dangerous or dangerous. the owner must .immediately comply with
all applicable reauirements of this Ordinance or immediately cause the dog to be
humanely destroyed or removed from the City limits.
5. Anneal. If the owner of the doe disputes the decision of the Panel. the owner may
anneal the decision of the Panel to the City Council. An anneal to the City
Council must be in writing and submitted to the City Manager within 14 days of
the Panel's decision. The owner may anneal the decision of the City Council in
accordance with nrocedures under state law.
Section 1 -260. REVIEW OF DECLARATION. Beginning six months after a dog is
declared a potentially dangerous or dangerous doe. an owner may reauest annually that the
Animal Control Officer review the designation. The owner must Drovide evidence that the dog's
behavior has changed due to the dog's age. neutering, environment. completion of obedience
training that includes modification of aggressive behavior. or other factors. If the Animal
Control Officer finds sufficient evidence that the doe's behavior has changed, the Dotentiallv
dangerous or dangerous designation may be rescinded.
i
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 1 -265. REGISTRATION.
I. Requirement. No person may own a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog in
the City unless the dog is registered as provided in this Section.
2. Certificate of Registration. The City Manager will issue a certificate of
registration to the owner of a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog if the owner
presents sufficient evidence that:
a. a proper enclosure exists for the dog and all accesses to the premises are
posted with clearly visible warning signs issued or approved by the
Animal Control Officer. that there is a potentially dangerous or dangerous
dog on the propertvi
b. in the case of a dangerous dog only. a surety bond to be held by the City
Clerk has been issued by a surety companv authorized to conduct business
in this state in a form acceptable to the City Clerk and the City Attorney in
the sum of at least $50.000. pavable to any person iniured by the
dangerous doe. or a policy of liability insurance has been issued by an
insurance companv authorized to conduct business in this state in the
amount of at least $50.000. insuring the owner for any personal iniuries
inflicted by the dangerous doe
C. the owner has paid the annual registration fee as provided for in this
j Section: and
d. the owner has had microchip identification implanted in the dangerous dos
or potentially dangerous dog as reauired under Minn. Stat. &347.515.
3. Wamine Sign. If the City issues a certificate of registration to the owner of a
potentially dangerous dog or dangerous dog under Section 1 -265 (2). the City will
provide, for posting on the owner's propertv, a copv of a warning symbol to
inform children that there is a dangerous dog on the propertv. The City may
charge the dog owner a reasonable fee to cover its administrative costs and the
costs of the warning symbol.
4. Fee. The City will charge the owner an annual fee to obtain a certificate of
registration for a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog.
5. Tag. A potentially dangerous or dangerous dog registered under this Section must
have a tae. issued by the City. identifying the dog as potentially dangerous or
dangerous. This tag must be affixed to the dog's collar and worn by the dog at all
times.
1
ORDINANCE NO.
6. Exemption. Dogs may not be declared potentially dangerous or dangerous if the
II
threat. iniurv. or damage was sustained by a person:
a. who was committing. at the time. a willful trespass or other tort upon the
premises occupied by the owner of the dog:
b. who was provoking, tormenting. abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can
be shown to have repeatedly, in the past. provoked, tormented. abused. or
assaulted the dog: or
C. who was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
7. Law Enforcement Exemption. The provisions of this Section do not apply to dogs
used by law enforcement officials for police work.
Section 1 -270. POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND DANGEROUS DOGS:
ADDITIONAL REOUIREMENTS.
1. Enclosure. An owner of a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog shall keep the
doe. while on the owner's propertv. in a proper enclosure. If the dog is outside
the proper enclosure. the dog must be muzzled and restrained by a substantial
chain or leash and under the phvsical restraint of a responsible person. The
muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from biting anv person
or animal but that will not cause miury to the dog or interfere with its vision or
respiration.
2. Registration Renewal. An owner of a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog
must renew the registration of the dog annually until the dog is deceased. If the
dog is removed from the iurisdiction, it must be registered as a potentially
dangerous or dangerous dog in its new iurisdiction.
3. Death or Transfer. An owner of a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog must
notifv the Animal Control Officer in writing of the death of the dog or its transfer.
and must. if reauested by the Animal Control Officer. execute an affidavit under
oath setting forth either the circumstances of the dog's death and disposition or the
complete name. address. and telephone number of the person to whom the dog has
been transferred.
4. Sterilization. The Animal Control Officer may reauire a potentially dangerous or
dangerous doe to be sterilized at the owner's expense. If the owner does not have
the animal sterilized. the Animal Control Officer may have the animal sterilized at
the owner's expense.
ORDINANCE NO.
5. Rental Pronertv. A person who owns a Dotentiallv dangerous or dangerous dog
and who rents Dronertv from another where the dog will reside must disclose to
the nronertv owner prior to entering the lease agreement and at the time of anv
lease renewal that the person owns a notentially dangerous or dangerous dog that
will reside at the nronertv.
6. Sale. A person who sells a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog must notify
the purchaser that the Animal Control Officer has identified the dog as notentially
dangerous or dangerous. The seller must also notify the Animal Control Officer
with the new owner's name. address. and telephone number.
Section 1 -275. SEIZURE.
I. Immediate Seizure. The Animal Control Officer or anv police officer may
immediatelv seize anv notentially dangerous or dangerous dog if:
a. within 14 days after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially
dangerous or dangerous. the dog is not registered as reauired under Section
1 -265:
b. in the case of a dangerous doe. within 14 days after the owner has notice
that the dog is dangerous. the owner does not secure the Droner liabilitv
insurance or suretv coverage as reauired under Section 1 -265 (2) (b):
C. the dog is not maintained in the -Droner enclosure:
d. the dog is outside the Droner enclosure and not under Dhvsical restraint of a
responsible Derson: or
e. after the owner has been notified that the dog is Dotentiallv dangerous or
dangerous. the dog bites or attacks a Derson or domestic animal.
2. Reclaimed. A Dotentiallv dangerous or dangerous dog seized under Section 1 -275
(1) may be reclaimed by the owner of the dog upon Davment of impounding and
boarding fees. and Dresenting Droof to the Animal Control Officer that the
requirements of Section 1 -265 and Section 1 -270 will be met. A dog not
reclaimed within seven days of seizure may be disposed of as Drovided in Minn.
Stat. 05.71. subdivision 3. The owner is liable to the City for costs incurred in
confining and disposing of the dog.
ORDINANCE NO.
3. Subseauent Offenses. If a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor for
violating a provision of Section 1 -265 or 1 -270. and the person is charged with a
subseauent violation relating to the same doe, the Animal Control Officer may
seize the dog. If the owner is convicted of the crime for which the dog was
seized, the City may destroy the dog in a proper and humane manner and the
owner is responsible for paving the cost of confining and destroying the animal.
If the person is not convicted of the crime for which the dog was seized, the owner
may reclaim the dog upon pavment to the City of a fee for the care and boarding
of the dog. If the dog is not reclaimed by the owner within seven days after the
owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed. the doe may be disposed
of as provided under Minn. Stat. 635.71. subdivision 3. The owner is liable to the
City for the costs incurred in confining. impounding. and disposine of the dog.
Section 1 -280. DESTRUCTION OF DOG IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Notwithstanding Section 1 -265 to 1 -275. a dog that inflicts substantial or great bodily
harm on a human being on public or private mopertv without provocation may be
destroyed in a proper and humane manner by the Animal Control Officer. The doe may
not be destroyed until the dog owner has had the opportunity for a hearing as described in
Section 1 -255.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal
publication.
Adopted this day of .2004.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337 -9300 telephone
(612) 337 -9310 fax
d NW WA T E ,R,. D http: /www.kennedy- graven.com
CHARLES L. LEFEvERE
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215
Email: clefevere @kennedy graven.com
September 3, 2003
Mr. Michael McCauley
City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Regulation of Dogs
Dear Mike:
We have previously discussed certain information about the regulation of dogs in general, and
potentially dangerous dogs and dangerous dogs in particular. The Council requested a list of
additional regulations that it might consider for regulation of dogs.
First, for background information, State law provides certain definitions for dangerous dogs and
potentially dangerous dogs, in Minn. Stat. 347.50, subd. 2 and 3:
Subd. 2. Dangerous dog. "Dangerous dog" means any dog that has:
(1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a
human being on public or private property;
(2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the
owner's property; or
(3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has
notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites,
attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.
Subd. 3. Potentially dangerous dog. "Potentially dangerous dog"
means any dog that:
(1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal
on public or private property;
(2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a
pP p
person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private
CLL- 236939v1
BR291-4
Mike McCauley Letter
September 3, 2003
Page 2
property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of
attack; or
(3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack
unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or
domestic animals.
The term "substantial bodily harm" is defined in Minn. Stats. 609.02, subd. 7a as follows:
Subd. 7a. Substantial bodily harm. "Substantial bodily harm" means
bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or
which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function
of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily
member.
The attached table shows existing local and state regulations relating to dogs, potentially dangerous
and dangerous dogs, and additional restrictions that the City Council may wish to consider. In
addition, I would recommend the state law provisions on dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous
dogs be incorporated into the City Code and that procedures be established for making dangerous
dog and potentially dangerous dog determinations by the City.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:peb
Enclosure
CLL- 236939v1
BR291 -4
RESTRICTIONS SANCTIONS IN ADDITION TO PROSECUTION
Existing Additional Existing Additional
All Dogs 1 -110 nuisance to keep dog 19 -105 can order nuisance lose right to keep dogs if
in manner that abated excessive dog -at -large
unreasonably annoys charges
I -111 cannot run at large impound dog if excessive
19 -104 only 2 dogs older dog -at -large charges
than 6 months
Microchip identification Add restrictions applicable add sanctions applicable
Potentially to dangerous dogs to dangerous dogs
Dangerous
Dogs
dog must be registered annual fee dangerous dog can be killed if it
must be enclosed in proper require sterilization can't be impounded without
Dangerous Dogs enclosure no more than one dangerous serious risk or it has made more
posted warning on property dog per household than one attack.on a person
$50,000 insurance (City Code)
annual fee up to $500 MS347.56 authorizes animal
microchip identification control authority to destroy a
muzzled and leashed if dog that has inflicted
outside its enclosure substantial or great bodily harm
may require sterilization on a human
notification to landlord MS 347.54 dog may be seized
required if restrictions violated and court
notification to purchaser of may order destruction of dog
dog required upon conviction
dangerous dog tag MS 347.54 dog seized for
second violation and destroyed
upon conviction
CLL- 234875v1
BR291-4
f
City Council Agenda Item No. 9e
Homeland Security
Emer ency Management
date
Fe rua 04
Introduction
Emergency Management r to
September 11, 2001
Vs.
Emergency Management After
September 11, 2001
#1 Improvement:
Increase in co aborafon, coop
and commun'cat'on.
Federal Level
Priority to Home'- Security
Better coordination of Federal res s
ncrease in resources to the coca- rev
Better communication flow
Standardized a system
2
State Level
Department of Emergency Man ent has
become the Department of Homela ecurity
and Emergency Management i
Coordinates State resources
Coordinates resources and communicatio
from the Federal level to the local level
State priorities:
Crim -Net
Statewide 800 MHz system
2
County Level
County -wide assessment and egy
program
County -wide emergency p updat
County -wide mutua� aid pact
Grant apps ications
gaining opportunities
Specialzed resources
2
Local Level
Emergency management team
Emergency operations p =an
Emergency operations center
Equipment purchased and training
Annua- exercise
2
,44,*
Ajeww