Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003 02-24 CCP Regular Session
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 24, 2003 6:00 p.m. Council Commission Conference Room 1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2. Council Member Carmody: Joint Meeting with Housing Commission 3. Miscellaneous 4. Adjourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING Public Copy City of Brooklyn Center February 24, 2003 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 10, 2003 - Study Session 2. February 10, 2003 - Regular Session b. Licenses C. Approval of Site Performance Guarantee Release/Reductions: - Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth, 6107 -6121 Brooklyn Boulevard -IHOP Restaurant, 5601 Xerxes Avenue North CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 24, 2003 • d. Resolution Approving Issuance of an On -Sale, Class B Intoxicating Liquor License to Ref's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. dba/Ref's Sports Bar & Grill e. Resolution Approving Issuance of an On -Sale, Class D Intoxicating Liquor License to GCT- Brookdale, LLC, dba Goose Creek Tavern & Grill f Resolution Authorizing the City of Brooklyn Center to Enter. Into an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Agreement No. 83632 -R, Trunk Highway No. 100 Improvements, State Project No. 2755 -75 g. Authorization to Submit Application for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II h. Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement with Wenck Associates to Complete a Diagnostic Study and Management Plan for Twin Lakes 8. Public Hearing a. Proposed Use of 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block • Grant Funds - Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements - Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolution. 9. Council Consideration Items a. Proclamation Declaring March 2003 to be Minnesota FoodShare Month - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt proclamation. b. Proclamation Declaring April 27 Through May 4, 2003, As Days of Remembrance - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt proclamation. C. Report on Riverbank Protection Project, Improvement Project No. 1999 -11 - Requested Council Action: -None, report only. • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 24, 2003 d. An Ordinance Repealing Chapter 2 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center and Adopting a New Ordinance Regarding the Disposition of Abandoned and Unclaimed Property - Requested Council Action: - Direction from the Council. 10. Adjournment I • 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 10, 2003 CITY HALL COUNCIL /COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Kay Lasman, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe. Mayor Myrna Kra ness was absent and excused. Also resent were City Manager Michael Yrn g p Y g McCauley, Interim Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Sharon Klumpp, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS • Council discussed agenda items Tj, Resolution Requesting a Variance from Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid Rules, Improvement Project 2002 -05, Xerxes Avenue North Reconstruction (Northway Drive to I -94); 8a, Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -002 Submitted By Dean Gannon Requesting for Site and Building Plan Approval to Construct a 4 -unit Townhome Complex at the Northeast Corner of 50 Avenue North and France Avenue North (5000 France venue North); and 9d, Resolution Adopting the City of Brooklyn Center Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan. Councilmember Niesen informed the Council that she is not comfortable with adopting agenda item 9d, Resolution Adopting the City of Brooklyn Center Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan, since she is not familiar with the plan and does not like the last paragraph on page 33 of the plan. She questioned if eminent domain was used. City Manager Michael McCauley informed that eminent domain was being used and is still in process of having the preparatory work done. Interim Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Sharon Klumpp discussed the area in question. DISCUSSION OF ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER HIRING PROCESS Councilmember Niesen discussed that she is not happy with the candidate selected for the Assistant City Manager position and expressed concern about risks the City Council could face if the selected candidate is hired. • 02/10/03 -1- DRAFT She stated that she believes the City Council should have a say in the hiring process since they are • Elected Officials and suggested that the City Council consider amending the City Charter to allow this to happen. Mayor Pro Tem Lasman informed Councilmember Niesen that she understands her position and discussed that she believes the City Charter is the best protection for the City. Council further discussed the selected candidate and expressed their opinions. REQUESTS FOR COUNCIL RESOLUTION This item was discussed at the Informal Open Forum. MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous items discussed. ADJOURNMENT The City Council adjourned the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. • City Clerk Mayor • 02/10/03 -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 10, 2003 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 Pro Tern Kay Lasman, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe. Mayor Myrna Kragness was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Interim Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Sharon Klumpp, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Amy Luesebrink, 5557 James Avenue North, addressed the Council to discuss a resolution she had • provided for the Council's consideration regarding the support for Xcel Engergy's Metro Emissions Reduction Project. Council discussed and it was noted that this resolution would be added to the agenda for consideration. Dan Remiarz, 6201 June Avenue North, addressed the Council to request that the Informal Open Forum be televised and stated that he would like something in writing as to the outcome of his request. Councilmember Niesen informed Mr. Remiarz that she supports his request and discussed that one of her goals, as a new Councilmember, is to look at how the City communicates with citizens. Mayor Pro Tem Lasman discussed that the decision to not televise Informal Open Forum was because some citizens were intimidated by being on camera and not televising the Informal Open Forum would help citizens to feel more comfortable about addressing the City Council. Mayor Pro Tern Lasman suggested that this issue be placed on a City Council Work Session agenda to discuss and that the City Manager keep Mr. Remiarz informed. ADJOURN INFORMAL OPEN FORUM A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to adjourn the informal open forum at 6:59 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION • Bob Jechorek offered the invocation. 02/10/03 -1- DRAFT 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING • The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Lasman at 7:03 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Kay Lasman, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe. Mayor Myrna Kragness was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Interim Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Sharon Klumpp, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, Acting City Engineer Scott Brink, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE i The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. i 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Niesen and Councilmember Carmody reported that they attended the 92 Birthday Celebration on February 8, 2003. Mayor Pro Tem Lasman reported that she attended D.A.R.E. Graduation Ceremonies on January 28, 2003, January 30, 2003, and February 4, 2003. She attended the Special Events Committee meetings on January 30, 2003, and February 6, 2003; the 92 n Birthday Celebration on February 8, 2003, and the Snow Days in the Park Event on February 1, 2003. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the addition of agenda item 9j, Resolution Supporting Xcel Energy's Metro Emissions Reduction Project. Motion passed unanimously. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the minutes of January 22, 2003, joint meeting with the Charter Commission; and the February 27, 2003, study and regular sessions. Councilmember Niesen abstained from the January 22, 2003, minute approval. Motion passed. 7b. LICENSES A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the following list of licenses. Motion passed unanimously. 02/10/03 -2- DRAFT • • GASOLINE SERVICE STATION, Qwest Communications 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway MECHANICAL Silvernail Ent. Ltd 6603 36 Ave N, Crystal RENTAL Renewal: 6721 5 th Street North Matthew Bolen 5909 June Avenue North Janine Atchison Initial: 6753 Humboldt Avenue North Kwi Ha Wong - Suburban Properties (Formerly Morning Sun Investments) 7c. APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM LAWFUL GAMBLING LICENSE FROM THE EARLE BROWN ELEMENTARY PTA FOR AN EVENT TO BE HELD ON APRIL 11, 2003 A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the application for exemption from lawful gambling license from the Earle Brown Elementary PTA for an event to be held on April 11, 2003. Motion passed unanimously. • 7d. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE IMPROVED FUNDING OPTIONS FOR CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -19 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE IMPROVED FUNDING OPTIONS FOR CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION AND CONSENT ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR CHI -CHI'S RESTAURANT RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -20 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AND CONSENT ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR CHI -CHI'S RESTAURANT 02/10/03 -3- DRAFT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember e Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7f. RESOLUTION AND CONSENT ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR RAINBOW FOODS RESOLUTION NO. 2003-21 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AND CONSENT ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR RAINBOW FOODS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7g. RESOLUTION AND CONSENT ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR CUB FOODS RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -22 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AND CONSENT ORDER IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTY FOR CUB FOODS • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7h. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYING OF CITY -OWNED PARCEL TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESOLUTION NO. 2003-23 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYING OF CITY -OWNED PARCEL TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7i. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS 02/10/03 -4- DRAFT I • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-24 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR 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 b Councilmember g g Y Y Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7j. RESOLUTION REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE AID RULES, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2002 -05, XERXES AVENUE NORTH RECONSTRUCTION (NORTHWAY DRIVE TO I -94) RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -25 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE AID RULES, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2002 -05, XERXES AVENUE NORTH RECONSTRUCTION (NORTHWAY DRIVE TO I -94) • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. S. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 8a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2003-002 SUBMITTED BY DEAN GANNON. REQUEST FOR ' SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 4 -UNIT TOWNHOME COMPLEX AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 50' AVENUE NORTH AND FRANCE AVENUE NORTH (5000 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH). THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT IT JANUARY 30, 2003, MEETING. City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -002 submitted by Dean Gannon requesting for site and building plan approval to construct a 4 -unit townhome complex at the northeast corner of 50"' Avenue North and France Avenue North (5000 France Avenue North) had been approved by the Planning Commission at its January 30, 2003, meeting and is recommended for approval by the City Council. 02/10/03 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen informed the Council that she had a few questions and inquired if Planning • and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren was going to do a presentation on the issue. Mr. Warren outlined the application submitted and noted that on the eighth condition approved by the Planning Commission, the application would need to replace the curb and gutter. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application 2003 -002 subject to the following conditions: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure the completion of site improvements. 4. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. S. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of building • permits. 6. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 7. All work performed and materials used for the construction of utilities and curb and gutter shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details. 8. All driveways in this development shall be either blacktop or concrete in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 9. The landscape plan shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to include additional shrubbery around the foundation of the building and in the green strip areas between the driveways. 10. The proposed landscaping along the north side of the site is considered to be an acceptable substitute for meeting the screening requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 02/10/03 -6- • 6 DRAF T 11. The roe owner shall execute • property rty e e an appropriate sidewalk easement, as approved by the City Engineer, for the portion of bituminous sidewalk at the southwest corner of the site. Said easement shall be executed prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 12. The owner shall obtain a rental dwelling license from the City of Brooklyn Center if the townhome units are to be rented. 13. The owner shall replat the roe or file a condominium declaration per the p P rty p Minnesota Condominium Act if the units are to be sold separately. Councilmember Niesen asked if there would be two or four driveways. Mr. Warren responded that there will be four driveways and that they will comply with the standard width of the City's Ordinance. Councilmember Peppe questioned if the properties will be market value. Applicant Dean Gannon addressed the Council and informed that the properties will be market value. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -002 subject to the above listed conditions. Motion passed unanimously. • 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. RESCHEDULE FEBRUARY 18, 2003, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TO FEBRUARY 24, 2003, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mr. McCauley suggested that the Council reschedule the February 18, 2003, City Council Work Session to February 24, 2003, immediately following the Regular City Council meeting so that all Council Members would be able to attend the Work Session. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to reschedule the February 18, 2003, City Council Work Session to February 24, 2003, immediately following the Regular City Council meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, SECTION 4.05, OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER Mr. McCauley discussed that the Charter Commission recommended an ordinance amendment to Chapter 4, Section 4.05 in order to comply with State Law. Councilmember Peppe questioned Section 3.01 that had been previously discussed with the Charter Commission. Mr. McCauley informed that the approval for this ordinance amendment is for Chapter 4, Section 4.05, and that the • public hearing will be to only move forward with Section 4.05. 02/10/03 -7- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve first reading • and set second reading and public hearing on March 10, 2003. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Mr. McCauley discussed that this resolution relates to agenda item 9h, LOGIS Police Software, and that the resolution authorizes a transfer from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund. This transfer will reduce the Police Department Support Services budget for 2002 and support the Council's goal of providing capital for projects of this nature and accounting for them in the Capital Projects Fund. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-26 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Niesen uestioned how to proceed with raisin a discussion regarding agenda items. O q P g g g g She believes there are times when motions are made quickly not allowing the opportunity for discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Lasman explained the process the Council has been practicing. Councilmember Niesen suggested that the Council discuss this issue at a work session. 9d. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CRITICAL AREA AND MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA PLAN Mr. McCauley discussed that the City is required to adopt under various laws a Critical Area Plan and requested Mr. Warren to provide a presentation on the proposed plan. Mr. Warren outlined the materials prepared for the Council and discussed sections of the proposed Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan. Steve Cooper, 6632 West River Road, addressed the Council to discuss and express concerns he has with the riverbank project. He believes that the riverbank is not in any danger and suggested that the Council consider the reports that have been done regarding the project. 02/10/03 -8- DRAFT • • Janet Jordan, 6640 West River Road, addressed the Council to reiterate what Mr. Cooper had discussed and to inform the Council that she will loose her deck if the project moves forward. She believes there has been no satisfaction with the seven property owners involved and that there is no valid reason for this project. Lisa McNaughton, 6632 West River Road, addressed the Council to suggest that the City Council warrant further discussion of this project for the sake of all property owners involved. Mr. Warren informed the residents that the requested action this evening is to adopt the Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan, not the riverbank project. Mayor Pro Tem Lasman questioned if the plan was approve this evening if the riverbank project would continue. Mr. McCauley informed the Council that the riverbank project had already been approved by the City Council. He suggested that the Acting City Engineer Scott Brink prepare a report on the history and the actions taken on this project and to make the report available for the City Council and the neighbors involved. Councilmember Peppe discussed that after hearing the comments this evening he would like to have this project re- examined. He believes that Mr. Cooper has a good argument and that the Council needs to get more up to speed on this project and maybe even visit the project area. • Council further discussed the project area and the eminent domain process used for the project. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere informed the Council that he believes that the eminent domain process could be put on hold. Mr. Brink informed that real estate appraisals are currently be done and that there are additional easements required. There has been no offers or condemnations at this point. Councilmember Niesen informed that she is confused about this plan and is not ready to vote at this time. She questioned why the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is in the Critical Area Plan and when it was written or last reviewed. Mr. Warren informed that the Critical Area Plan was written last fall and that the CIP is required as part of the plan. He provided a history and the methodology used for creating and updating the Critical Area Plan. Councilmember Peppe proposed that the Council adopt the resolution adopting the Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Plan and to put the riverbank project on hold to such a time the Council can get up to speed on the project. Councilmember Carmody seconded that motion. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she had issues of her own recently and that she believes no matter who is employed, someone needs to call or do something to make the communication strong regarding projects such as this. • 02/10/03 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody questioned what residents would need to be notified. Mr. Cooper • addressed the Council and informed that he would assume responsibility for the neighbors. RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -27 Councilmember Peppe introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CRITICAL AREA AND MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember Peppe made another motion to put the riverbank project on hold to such a time the Council can get up to speed on the project. Motions passed unanimously. 9e. BIDS RECEIVED FOR AIR PAKS AND TURNOUT CLOTHING FOR FIREFIGHTERS - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FIFTY -TWO SETS OF TURNOUT CLOTHING FOR FIREFIGHTERS - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE FROM MINNESOTA FIRE AGENCIES PURCHASING CONSORTIUM SELF CONTAINED • BREATHING APPARATUS, CONTRACT NUMBER NZ- 2002 -4, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THIRTY -FOUR SCOTT AIR PAK'S, THIRTY -FOUR SPARE AIR CYLINDERS, AND ONE RIT PAK FOR FIREFIGHTERS Mr. McCauley discussed that Fire Chief Ron Boman had solicited bids and that the two resolutions would accept the quotes received for turnout clothing and firefighter equipment. Councilmember Carmody requested that more descriptive materials be included with the agenda to help the Council better understand things they are not familiar with. RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -28 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FIFTY -TWO SETS OF TURNOUT CLOTHING FOR FIREFIGHTERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. 02/10/03 -10- DRAFT • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-29 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE FROM MINNESOTA FIRE AGENCIES PURCHASING CONSORTIUM SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS, CONTRACT NUMBER NZ- 2002-4, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THIRTY -FOUR SCOTT AIR PAK' S, THIRTY -FOUR SPARE AIR CYLINDERS, AND ONE RIT PAK FOR FIREFIGHTERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. 9L RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING AND SUPPORTING APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND FEDERAL HOME PROGRAM BY RESTART INCORPORATED AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEPTIVITY TO AN LCA (LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT) FUNDING AWARD Mr. McCauley discussed that the Council may wish to defer this item since there is so much uncertainty at this time. He informed the Council that representatives from Restart, Inc. were present if the Council wished to hear from them. • Jim Jasper, Executive Director of Restart, Inc., addressed the Council to provide information regarding their request and ask the Council to consider moving forward with their request. Councilmember Peppe discussed that he has in the past opposed to these types of request and that he would have to be consistent with his opinions and not vote in favor of this issue. Councilmember Niesen asked Councilmember Peppe to explain why he would not be in favor of this issue. Councilmember Peppe discussed his opinion and the similar issue that had happened with Shingle Creek Towers. Mayor Pro Tem Lasman discussed that at this time of uncertainty she does not believe the City has the funds to approve this request. Patricia Gurel, representative with Restart Inc., addressed the Council to discuss the grant application process with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and asked if the Council would continue with support of acknowledging and supporting the applications for funding to the MHFA even if they could not approve the funding. • 02/10/03 -11- DRAFT Mr. McCauley informed the Council that the resolution could be amended to remove the language • that would authorize any funding and that the amended resolution could be adopted with the direction to amend the title, remove the language in the third and fourth WHEREAS, and the second clause on page two of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-30 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following amended resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING AND SUPPORTING APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND FEDERAL HOME PROGRAM BY RESTART INCORPORATED The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. 9g. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE MATTER OF BROOKLYN CENTER VERSUS XCEL ENERGY, ET AL. REGARDING CONDEMNATION AWARD FOR THE 5001 INVESTMENTS AS REQUIRED FOR THE FRANCE AVENUE PROJECT Mr. McCauley discussed that this settlement agreement in the matter of Brooklyn Center versus Xcel Energy, Et. Al, regarding condemnation award for the 5001 investments as required for the France e Avenue Project is contingent on approval of the City Council. Councilmember Niesen expressed her concern with this settlement agreement since she was involved with this project and discussed she cannot vote on this settlement agreement due to a conflict of interest. She believes that the Council needs to listen more to citizens when issues are raised regarding the spending of their tax dollars and that something like this cannot happen again. Mayor Pro Tern Lasman questioned if this item could be tabled. Mr. LeFevere informed that the settlement agreement is contingent upon the City Council's approval and that the City would not be able to contest due to the passage of time. Councilmember Peppe stated that he believes the Council should have been made aware of this issue earlier and questioned who pays the additional costs when occurred. Mr. LeFevere informed the Council that the State would pay the additional costs. Councilmember Carmody recapped the eminent domain used on the 53` Avenue project. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to approve the settlement agreement in the matter of Brooklyn Center versus Xcel Energy, Et. Al, regarding condemnation award for the 5001 investments as required for the France Avenue Project. Councilmember Niesen abstained. Motion passed. • 02/10/03 -12- DRAFT • 9h. LOGIS POLICE SOFTWARE Mr. McCauley informed the Council that approval is needed to move forward with the budgeted plan to participate in the Police software conversion through LOGIS. This issue may resurface to discuss if the Council would like to pay cash. A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve participation in the LOGIS Police software conversion. Motion passed unanimously. 9i. HAPPY HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2003 -01, 02 AND 03, HAPPY HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS - RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2003 -01 AND 02, CONTRACT 2003 -A, HAPPY HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS • Mr. McCauley discussed that the process for the Happy Hollow project is proposed to have the project adopted at the same time the project is ordered and that the materials included would set the date of the public hearing on the assessments at the same time as the public hearing on the project itself. This process will be a potential savings for the City and save on staff time. Mayor Pro Tern Lasman questioned the process that will be used for setting the assessments. Mr. McCauley informed that the resolutions would be drafted to state that interest would not be started until fall. Councilmember Carmody questioned when mailings regarding the project are sent to residents. Mr. Brink informed the Council that a newsletter starts after the construction begins. RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -31 Councilmember Peppe introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2003-01,02 AND 03, HAPPY HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS • 02/10/03 -13- DRAFT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember • Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-32 Councilmember Carmody ntroduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Y � r RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FORIMPROVEMENT PROJECTNOS. 2003 -01 AND 02, CONTRACT 2003 -A, HAPPY HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. 9j, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING XCEL ENERGY'S METRO EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROJECT Mr. McCauley discussed this resolution was added to the agenda at the request of Amy Luesebrink, a resident of Brooklyn Center. Ms. Luesebrink addressed the Council to discuss the purpose of the resolution and to request support for the approval of the resolution. Councilmember Carmody made a motion to approve the resolution. • Councilmember Peppe stated that he has a concern with adopting this resolution since a dollar amounts are not available or in writing. Ms. Luesebrink informed the Council that she believes Xcel Energy is projecting roughly three to four dollars for residential properties. Mayor Pro Tern Lasman informed Ms. Luesebrink that she believes this resolution is a worthwhile cause; however, the timing is not right and thanked her for bringing the issue forward. Councilmember Niesen stated that she supports the issue and the interest and suggested getting more information and to inquire about a regional group. A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to deny the resolution. Councilmember Carmody abstained. Motion passed. I 02/10/03 -14- DRAFT • 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the City Council meeting at 9:36 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor • • 02/10/03 -15- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 7b City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community * Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk DATE: February 19, 2003 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval The following have a lied for City license a g pp ty s s 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 24, 2003. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Qwest Communications 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway MECHANICAL J T Enterprises 1400 Goose Lake Road, Gem Lake RENTAL Renewal: • 421362 d Avenue North Xeng Yang (Zero calls for service 2002) 5500 Bryant Avenue North Nedzad Ceric (10/4/02, a domestic related to stabbing, no further ord. 12 -911 related calls) 5239 Drew Avenue North William Washington (Zero calls for service 2002) 4708 Lakeview Avenue North Gary Scherber (Zero calls for service 2002) Initial: 6037 Ewing Avenue North Thor Yang (Zero calls for 2002) TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Centerfield Bar and Caf6 1501 Freeway Boulevard Rainbow Foods 6350 Brooklyn Boulevard TAXICAB Darrin Billig P.O. Box 29443, Brooklyn Center Larry Togar - Pioneer Taxi 38"' Burns Drive, Dayton 0 3 1 01 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 MEMORANDUM • TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Spe * ist �J- SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Release/Reduction DATE: February 19, 2003 The following site performance guarantees are being held by the City for the completion of various site improvements and should be recommended to the City Council for release and reduction as the case may be: 1. Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth (6121 Brooklyn Boulevard) Planning Commission Application No. 98017 Amount of Guarantee - $43,600 (Surety Bond) Obligor — Brookdale Motors, Inc. All site improvements and conditions for which a site performance guarantee was posted for this Planned Unit Development, encompassing an expansion of the building and a storage lot, have now been completed. The City Council in August of 2001, authorized the reduction of the above $43,600 guarantee to $10,000 on the basis of completed site • work to that point. A required 6 ft. high opaque screen fence along the west and south property lines of the abutting storage lot had not yet been completed. The obligor, Mr. Bill Bartram, representing Brookdale Motors, Inc., never submitted the reduced financial guarantee so the City is still holding the original $43,600 surety bond. The required screen fence has recently been installed and completed. It is recommended that the City Council authorize the release of the financial guarantee being held to assure the completion of all site improvements based on the completion of this project. 2. IHOP Restaurant (5601 Xerxes Avenue North) Planning Commission Application No. 2002 -008 Amount of Guarantee - $46,000 (Letter of Credit) Obligor — Diversified Construction Most of the site improvements and conditions for which a site performance guarantee was posted for the development of the IHOP Restaurant have been completed. Remaining improvements include some landscaping, the final wear course for the parking lot and submission of the as -built survey of the property. The final parking lot wear course and the landscape improvements will be completed in the spring of this year. The contractor, Diversified Construction, has requested a reduction of their financial grantee based on guarantee the work comp leted to this date. • It is recommended that the City Council authorize reduction of the $46,000 financial guarantee to $23,000 based on the completion of the work to this date. • City Council Agenda Item No. 7d Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON -SALE, CLASS B INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO REF'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL, INC. DBA/REF' S SPORTS BAR & GRILL WHEREAS, Ref's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., dba/Ref's Sports Bar & Grill has applied for an On -Sale, Class B Intoxicating Liquor License for the establishment located at 2545 County Road 10 within the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, Ref's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. is a corporation in good business standing; and WHEREAS, Ref's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. has submitted all appropriate fees and necessary documentation for their liquor license and a thorough background investigation has been conducted by the Brooklyn Center Police Department regarding the company officer(s) and the company itself and nothing was found in that investigation that would preclude the issuance of a liquor license to Ref's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, upon the recommendation of the City Manager, that the issuance of an On -Sale, Class B Intoxicating Liquor License to Ref's Sports Bar & Grill, dba/Ref s Sports Bar & Grill for the period of February 24, 2003 through December 31, 2003 is hereby approved. 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. • : " CENTF BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Michael McCauley FROM: Chief Scott Bechthold DATE: February 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Ref's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., dba/Ref's Sports Bar & Grill On -Sale Class B Intoxicating Liquor License All required documentation and appropriate fees regarding the application of an On -Sale Class B Intoxicating Liquor license have been submitted. • I am requesting that this application go on the council agenda for the February 24, 2003, meeting for council approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. /kh • City Council Agenda Item No. 7e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON -SALE, CLASS D INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO GCT- BROOKDALE, LLC. DBA/GOOSE CREEK TAVERN & GRILL WHEREAS, GCT - Brookdale, LLC, dba/Goose Creek Tavern & Grill has applied for an On -Sale, Class D Intoxicating Liquor License for the establishment located at Brookdale Mall within the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, GCT - Brookdale, LLC is a limited liability company in good business standing; and WHEREAS, GCT - Brookdale, LLC has submitted all appropriate fees and necessary documentation for their liquor license and a thorough background investigation has been conducted by the Brooklyn Center Police Department regarding the company officer(s) and the company itself and nothing was found in that investigation that would preclude the issuance of a liquor license to GCT - Brookdale, LLC, dba/Goose Creek Tavern & Grill. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, upon the recommendation of the City Manager, that the issuance of an On -Sale, Class D Intoxicating Liquor License to GCT - Brookdale, LLC, dba/Goose Creek Tavern & Grill for the period of February 24, 2003 through December 31, 2003 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • BROOKLYN CE �Q►OOKLYtI "r�9 NTER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Michael McCauley FROM: Chief Scott Bechthold DATE: February 18, 2003 SUBJECT: GTC- Brookdale, LLC, dba /Goose Creek Tavern & Grill On -Sale Class D Intoxicating Liquor License All required documentation and appropriate fees regarding the application of an On -Sale Class D Intoxicating Liquor license have been submitted. • I am requesting that this application go on the council agenda for the February 24, 2003 meeting for council approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. /kh • City Council Agenda Item No. 7f I MEMORANDUM • DATE: February 19, 2003 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, Consulting Engineer -/ 1 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the City of Brooklyn Center to Enter into an Agreement With the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Agreement No. 83632 -R, Trunk Highway No. 100 Improvements, State Project No. 2755 -75 Summary Explanation The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has completed plans providing for the re- construction of T.H. 100 from Twin Lakes to 50`" Avenue North, also known as Segment 4 of the larger T.H. 100 project. The Segment 4 project is currently scheduled to be let (opening of bids) on February 28, 2003. The main purpose of the Agreement is to provide for the responsibility and cost of City facilities impacted as a result of the T.H. 100 reconstruction. As part of the construction, significant • portions of City utilities (sanitary sewer and water) will be impacted, resulting in reconstruction and /or relocation of these facilities. The costs for this work are divided between Mn/Dot and the City in accordance with Mn/Dot policy for trunk highway constructions. This work will include the construction of new utility crossings, and the construction of new sanitary sewer and water main pipes in several locations. The actual location and nature of the utility work is provided on the Mn/DOT construction plans, and attached to the Agreement. The portion of the utility cost attributable to the City, per this agreement, is $142,778.82. Funds have previously been earmarked from the water and sanitary sewer utility funds to adequately cover this cost. All work and inspection will be provided by Mn/DOT under their contract, and will be open to review and inspection by the City. It is recommended that the City Council authorize adopting a resolution entering into an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Agreement No. 83632 -R, Trunk Highway No. 100 Improvements, State Project No. 2755 -75. Attached is a copy of the agreement for your information, and the referenced agreement exhibits are also available. Two original copies each of the Agreement and a Resolution have been provided for execution. • i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AGREEMENT NO. 83632 -R, TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100 IMPROVEMENTS, STATE PROJECT NO. 2755 -75 WHEREAS, The State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has issued construction plans providing for the reconstruction of T.H. 100 within the City of Brooklyn Center, from Twin Lakes to 50` Avenue North; and WHEREAS, said reconstruction of T.H. 100 will impact certain portions of City sanitary sewer and water main facilities; and WHEREAS, said portions of City utility facilities will require relocation and reconstruction as part of the roadway reconstruction; and WHEREAS, Mn /DOT has prepared Agreement No. 83632 -R to address City utility facilities impacted by roadway construction and to address related cost responsibilities; and WHEREAS, City staff and the City Attorney have reviewed said Agreement. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center shall enter into Agreement No. 83632 -R with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and hereby directed to execute Agreement No. 83632 -R with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation. 3. The City of Brooklyn Center shall provide a lump sum payment in the amount of $142,778.82 to the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the City' s share of sanitary sewer and water main construction and construction engineering to be performed upon and along Trunk Highway No. 100 from the south corporate City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard under State Project No. 2755 -75. 4. Said Agreement shall be subject to further review of the City Attorney as may be necessary. • RESOLUTION NO. • Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • N .�NNESOr 4 o Minnesota Department of Transportation a . CP ,vkw� Memo Metro Division Office Tel: (651) 582 -1333 • Final Design, Waters Edge Fax: (651) 634 -2162 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Date: February 12, 2003 To: City of Brooklyn Center Attn: Diane Spector, Public Works Director 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 -2113 From: Richard F. Scarrow Metro Design Coordinator Subject: Proposed Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 83632 (Revised) S.P. 2755 -75 (T.H. 100 =130) Fed. Proj. NH 0100 (302) City cost for T.H. 100 sanitary sewer and water main construction Transmitted herewith in duplicate is a proposed revision to the original agreement • with the City of Brooklyn Center, sent to the City on January 10, 2003. This revision incorporates the changes proposed by the City and agreed to by the State. The agreement provides for payment to the State of the City's share of the costs of the sanitary sewer and water main construction to be performed on T.H. 100 from the south corporate limits to Brooklyn Boulevard. The "Exhibit A" attachments to the original agreement will remain as part of this revised agreement. Kindly present this revised Agreement to the City Council for their approval and execution that includes original signatures of the City Council authorized City officers on both copies of the revised Agreement. Also required are two original copies of a resolution passed by the City Council authorizing its officers to sign the agreement on its behalf. A suggested form of such resolution is enclosed. It is requested that the executed agreements and resolutions (two originals of each) be forwarded to this office as soon as possible. A copy will be returned to the County when fully executed. This Project is currently scheduled for a March 14, 2003 letting. cc: File Maryanne Kelly - Sonnek — Municipal Agreements Aamir Turk — Design Engineer Liz Benjamin — Construction Engineer Wayne Norris — Area Engineer • • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER RESOLUTION i IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 83632 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes: To provide for a lump sum payment in the amount of $142,778.82 by the City to the State as the City's share of the costs of the sanitary sewer and water main construction and associated construction engineering to be performed upon and along Trunk Highway No. 100 from the south corporate City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard under State Project No. 2755 -75 (T.H. 100 =130). IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the are (Title) authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. CERTIFICATION • I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center at an authorized meeting held on the day of 2003, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. (signature) (Type or Print Name) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 2003 (Title) Notary Public My Commission Expires • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER RESOLUTION IT IS RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn Center enter into Mn/DOT Agreement No. 83632 with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation p for the following purposes: To provide for a lump sum payment in the amount of $142,778.82 by the City to the State as the City's share of the costs of the sanitary sewer and water main construction and associated construction engineering to be performed upon and along Trunk Highway No. 100 from the south corporate City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard under State Project No. 2755 -75 (T.H. 100 =130). IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the are (Title) authorized to execute the Agreement and any amendments to the Agreement. CERTIFICATION • I certify that the above Resolution is an accurate copy of the Resolution adopted by the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center at an authorized meeting held on the day of 2003, as shown by the minutes of the meeting in my possession. (signature) (Type or Print Name) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 2003 (Title) Notary Public My Commission Expires • PRE - LETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA Mn /DOT SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT NO. SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 83632 -R S.P. 2755 -75 (T.H. 100 =130) Fed. Proj. NH 0100(302) The State of Minnesota AMOUNT ENCUMBERED Department of Transportation, and The City of Brooklyn Center (None) Re: City lump sum payment for sanitary sewer and water main • construction by the State on AMOUNT RECEIVABLE T.H. 100 from the south corporate City limits to $142,778.82 Brooklyn Boulevard I THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". • 1 i • 83632 WHEREAS, the State is about to perform grading, surfacing, drainage, noise and retaining wall, signing, lighting, and bridge construction and other associated construction upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 100 from Twin Lakes in the City of Robbinsdale to Brooklyn Boulevard in the City in accordance with State plans, specifications and special provisions designated as State Projects No. 2755 -75 (T.H. 100 =130), No. 2755 -27280 (T.H. 100 =130), No. 2755 -27A74 (T.H. 100 =130) and No. 2755 -27R08 (T.H. 100 =130) and in the records of the Federal Highway Administration as Minnesota Project NH 0100(302); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.45, subdivision 2, allows for City -owned utility relocation to be included in a State construction contract, and City payment for such relocation in accordance with applicable statutes and rules for utilities on trunk highways; and • WHEREAS, the State contract includes City owned sanitary sewer and water main relocation construction to be performed within the Trunk Highway No. 100 right -of -way limits; and WHEREAS, the City has expressed its willingness to participate in the costs of the sanitary sewer and water main relocation construction and associated construction engineering in a lump sum amount as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, in connection with the State contract, frontage road, storm sewer and pond construction to be performed along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 100 will be covered under Agreement No. 83633 between the State and the City of Robbinsdale; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and • cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 2 • IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 83632 ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE Section A. Contract Award The State shall advertise for bids and award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder for State Projects No. 2755 -75 (T.H. 100 =130), No. 2755 -27280 (T.H. 100 =130), No. 2755 -27A74 (T.H. 100 =130) and No. 2755 -27R08 (T.H. 100 =130) in accordance with State plans, specifications and special provisions which are on file in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation at St. Paul, Minnesota, and are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Section B. Direction and Supervision of Construction The State shall direct and supervise all construction activities performed under the construction contract, and perform all • construction engineering and inspection functions in connection with the contract construction. All contract construction shall be performed in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and special provisions. Section C. Plan Chanqes, Additional Construction, Etc. In consultation with the City, the State may make changes in the plans and contract construction, which may include the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement, and shall enter into any necessary addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements with the State's contractor that are necessary to cause the contract construction to be performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. However, the State's Metropolitan Division Engineer at Roseville or his authorized representative will inform the appropriate City official of any proposed addenda, change orders and supplemental agreements to the construction contract that will • affect the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. 3 7 • 83632 Section D. Satisfactory Completion of Contract The State shall perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause the construction contract to be completed in a satisfactory manner. Acceptance by the State of the completed contract construction shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the City as to the satisfactory completion of the contract construction. ARTICLE II - INSPECTION BY THE CITY The City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement shall be open to inspection by the City. The City shall be adequately notified by the State of all City -owned utility construction activities in as timely a manner as possible. If the City believes the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement has not been properly performed or that the construction is defective, the City shall inform the State Division • Engineer's authorized representative in writing of those defects. Any recommendations made by the City are "not binding on the State. In consultation with the City, the State shall have the right to determine whether the State's contractor has satisfactorily performed the City cost participation construction covered under this Agreement. ARTICLE III - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE CITY Section A. SCHEDULE "I" and EXHIBIT " A " A SCHEDULE "I" and color -coded EXHIBIT " A " are attached and incorporated into this Agreement. The SCHEDULE "I" includes all City cost participation construction items and the construction engineering cost share covered under this Agreement, and is based on engineer's estimated unit prices. EXHIBIT " A " shows all City cost participation sanitary sewer and water main removal and construction • covered under this Agreement. 4 • Section B. City Cost Participation Construction 83632 100 Percent shall be the City's rate of cost participation in all of the sanitary sewer and water main removal and construction as shown in "Yellow" on EXHIBIT " A " , to be performed upon and along Trunk Highway No. 100 from the south corporate City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard under State Project No. 2755 -75 (T.H. 100 =130). The construction includes those removal and construction items as tabulated on Sheet No. 2 of the attached SCHEDULE "I ". i Section C. Construction Engineering Costs The City shall pay a construction engineering charge in an amount equal to 8 percent of the total cost of the City participation construction covered under this Agreement. • ARTICLE IV - PAYMENT BY THE CITY The City's share of the costs of the contract construction plus the 8 percent construction engineering cost r g g s share is the sum of $142,778.82 as shown in the attached SCHEDULE "I ". The City shall advance to the Commissioner of Transportation the City's full and complete lump sum cost share of $142,778.82 as shown in the attached SCHEDULE " I, " after the following conditions have been met: A. Execution and approval of this Agreement and the State's transmittal of it to the City. B. The State's award of the construction contract. C. Receipt by the City of a written request from the State for the • advancement of funds. 5 • 83632 ARTICLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS Section A. Plan Changes The City may request changes in the plans. If the State determines that the requested plan changes are necessary or desirable, the State will cause those plan changes to be made. Section B. Replacement of Castings The City shall furnish the State's contractor with new castings and parts for all inplace City -owned facilities constructed hereunder when replacements are required, without cost or expense to the State or the State's contractor, except for replacement of castings and parts broken or damaged by the State's contractor. Section C. Utility Permits • Upon the City's receipt of a fully executed copy of this Agreement, the City shall submit to the State's Utility Engineer an original permit application for all City -owned utilities to be constructed hereunder that are upon and within the trunk highway right -of -way. Applications for permits shall be made on State form "Application For Utility Permit On Trunk Highway Right -Of -Way" (Form TP2525). The City, through the State, shall submit to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the plans and specifications for the construction or reconstruction of its sanitary sewer facilities to be performed under the construction contract and obtain, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 115.07 or Minnesota Rules 7001.1030, subpart 2C, either a permit or written waiver from that agency for that construction or reconstruction to be performed by others under the construction contract. When the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency issues that permit or waiver, the City will promptly furnish the State a copy of • that permit or waiver so that the State's contractor may perform the construction or reconstruction. The City is advised that pursuant to 6 83632 • Minnesota Rules 7001.1040, a written application for the permit or waiver must be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at least 180 days before the planned date of the sanitary sewer facility construction or reconstruction. Section D. Maintenance by the City Upon satisfactory completion of the France Avenue, France Drive, France Place, 47 Avenue North, 50 Avenue North and Lakeside Avenue North construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the roadways and all of the facilities a part thereof, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, resurfacing and seal coating and any other maintenance activities • necessary to perpetuate the roadways in a safe and usable condition. Upon satisfactory completion of the France Avenue, France Drive, France Place and 47 Avenue North storm sewer facilities construction and all other storm facilities construction located outside the Trunk Highway No. 100 fencing, retaining walls and noise walls to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper routine maintenance of those facilities, without cost or expense to the State. Routine maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, removal of sediment, debris, vegetation and ice from structures, grates and pipes, repair of minor erosion problems, and minor structure and pipe repair, and any other maintenance activities necessary to preserve the facilities and to prevent conditions such as flooding, erosion, sedimentation or accelerated deterioration of the facilities. • 7 • 83632 Upon satisfactory completion of the City -owned utilities construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of those utilities, without cost or expense to the State. Upon satisfactory sfactor completion of the walkways Y P and trails construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper routine maintenance of the walkways and trails, without cost or expense to the State. Routine maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, snow, ice and debris removal, patching, crack repair, and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the walkways and trails in a safe and usable condition. Upon satisfactory completion of the Noise Walls No. RNl, No. N2 and • No. N3 construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of and keep in repair the City's side of those walls, without cost or expense to the State. Section E. Additional Drainage Neither party to this Agreement shall drain any additional drainage into the storm sewer facilities to be constructed under the construction contract, that was not included in the drainage for which the storm sewer facilities were designed, without.first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. The drainage areas served by the storm sewer facilities constructed under the construction contract are shown in a drainage area map, EXHIBIT "Drainage Area ", which is on file in the office of the State's Division Hydraulics Engineer at Roseville and is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. 8 • 83632 Section F. Examination of Books, Records, Etc. As provided by Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of each party relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by each party, and either the legislative auditor or the state auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from final payment. Section G. Claims Each party is responsible for its own employees for any claims arising under the Workers Compensation Act. Each party is responsible for its own acts, omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of others and the results thereof. Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736 and other applicable law govern liability of the State. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law govern liability of the City. Section H. Agreement Approval Before this Agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be approved by a City Council resolution and receive approval of State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or his authorized representative. ARTICLE VI - AUTHORIZED AGENTS The State's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Maryanne Kelly - Sonnek, Municipal Agreements Engineer, or her successor. Her current address and phone number are 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mailstop 682, St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 296 -0969. The City's Authorized Agent for the purpose of the administration of this Agreement is Scott Brink, Acting City Engineer, or his • successor. His current address and phone number are 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430, (763) 569 -3332. 9 O N TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized officers. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By Mayor By Division Engineer Date Approved: By B y State Design Engineer Title Date Date COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division By • Date OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Approved as to form and execution: By Date • 10 S.P. 2755 -75 (T.H. 100 =130) Date: February 7, 2003 _- Fed. Proj. NH 0100(302) Sanitary sewer and water main construction located - - -- -- - on T.H. 100 from the south corporate City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard to start approximately November 25, 2002 under a State contract A NON FEDERAL AID --- - - - - - - -- -- - tY — - - $132 202.61 Total City Construction Cost From Sheet No. 2 Construction Engineering (8 %) 10,576.21 1 Total City Cost' (1) Amount of lump sum advance payment based on engineer's estimated unit prices as described in Article N of the agreement -1- • • 03632 41 1 J , 11 pill NEW affim I sNomm 1 Mill m - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - - 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 0.01 950,000.00 9,500.00 2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D EACH 0.01 30 000.00 300.00 2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE D EACH 0.01 20 000.00 200.00 2104.501 REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN. FT. 1,347.00 9.50 12,796.50 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (SANITARY) - LIN. FT. 609.00 3.50 _ 2,131.50 2104.501 REMOVE FORCE MAIN - LIN. FT. 424.00 9.50 _ 4,028.00 2104.509 REMOVE VALVE BOX EACH 6.00 50.00 300.00 2104.523 SALVAGE CASTING EACH 2.00 90.00 180.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EACH 4.00 500.00 2,000.00 2503.603 8" DUCTILE IRON PIPE SEWER CLASS 52 LIN. FT. 1,016.00 25.00 25,400.00 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 5.00 500.00 2,500.00 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 2.00 1,600.00 3,200.00 2504.602 8" BEND 45 DEGREE EACH 1.00 385.00 385.00 2504.602 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 3.00 700.00 2,100.00 2504.602 10" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 3.00 900.00 2,700.00 2504.603 VALVE NUT EXTENSION LIN. FT. 7.00 100.00 700.00 2504.603 4" WATER MAIN DUCTILE IRON CLASS 52 _ LIN. FT. 56.00 19.00 1,064.00 W 2504.603 6" WATER MAIN DUCTILE IRON CLASS 52 LIN . FT. 315.00 22.00 6,930.00 2504.603 8" WATER MAIN DUCTILE IRON CLASS 52 LIN FT. 305.00 - 25 00 7,625.00 2504.603 10" WATER MAIN DUCTILE IRON CLASS 52 LIN FT. 517.00 28.00 14,476.00 2504.603 18" STEEL CASING PIPE LIN. FT. 320.00 60.00 19,200.00 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUND 1 2 .40 2,520.00 2506.503 RECONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLE LIN. FT. 37.00 250.00 9,250.00 2506.521 INSTALL CASTING EACH 2.00 345.50 691.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH 1.00 250.00 - - 250.00 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 0.01 177,561.00 1,775.61 TOTAL $132,202.61 n - ----------------- -2- • City Council Agenda Item No. 7g MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 2003 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Klumpp, Interim Assistant City Manager/Director o 1 Works SUBJECT: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase H— Authorization to Submit Y Application Revised NPDES II Submittal Dates Implementation of NPDES Phase II requires operators of small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) serving populations of less than 100,000 to apply for an NPDES permit on or before March 10, 2003. The application must include a summary of the MS4's storm water pollution prevention program. This requirement is the result of an amendment to the federal Clean Water Act, first enacted in 1987 to improve the quality of the nation's water. On February 14, 2003, the City received notification from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that the deadline for submitting the storm water pollution prevention program has been extended by 60 days to May 9, 2003. In effect, this action creates two deadlines as shown below: • March 10, 2003 Near Final Application— application form is completed and an extension is requested May 9, 2003 Final, Fully Signed Application —the full application and final storm water pollution prevention program summary must be submitted. The MPCA notice also included new forms to be completed and submitted as part of the application process. These new forms request additional information not requested on previous working forms supplied to the City. The staff committee working on Brooklyn Center's submittal believes that additional work is needed with the addition of these new forms and that adoption of the storm water pollution prevention program should be placed on a future Council meeting, instead of the February 24 meeting, as originally planned. Delaying this matter would be consistent with information received from the League of Minnesota Cities suggesting that cities take the additional time made available by the extension to review and revise their storm water pollution prevention programs accordingly. Background Information City staff has participated in the League of Minnesota Cities' Guide Plan project, which was organized to assist cities with completion of the application and developing a storm water pollution prevention program, as approved by the City Council last year. Dave Peterson, Deputy Public Works Director and John Harlow, Superintendent of Streets and Parks attended League- sponsored training on November 5, 2002. These two individuals, along with the Acting City . Engineer and Interim Director of Public Works, constituted the staff committee that has been working on the City's application for the NPDES permit since last November. As a small MS4, the City of Brooklyn Center must apply to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by developing and implementing a storm water management plan that addresses six minimum control measures and identify existing or planned best management practices to address each minimum control measure listed below: 1. Public education and outreach, 2. Public involvement and participation, 3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination, 4. Construction site runoff control, S. Post construction storm water management in new developments or redevelopments, and 6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations. The staff committee developing the storm water pollution prevention program has been guided by three objectives. Objective 1 Staff has sought to leverage the City's public education and public involvement activities working closely with the plans being developed by the Shingle Creek Watershed and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Objective 2 The City already has many elements of a storm water pollution prevention • program in place. Wherever possible, the staff will build on existing best management practices. Objective 3 City staff is identifying best management practices to be implemented over the five -year duration of the permit. Wherever possible, the City will leverage its resources by working with the Shingle Creek Watershed and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. Recommendation It is recommended that the Council adopt a motion authorizing the NPDES application to be filed with the MPCA on or before March 10, 2003 and directing staff to complete the storm water pollution prevention program allowing for Council review, input and adoption prior to the May 9, 2003 deadline. • City Council Agenda Item No. 7h • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 20, 2003 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Klumpp, Interim Assistant City Man r/ irecto of Public Works SUBJECT: Agreement with Wenck Associates to Complete the Twin Lakes Diagnostic Study and Management Plan On February 25, 2002, Council received a staff report on the proposed Twin Lakes Management Plan. Then, on April 22, 2002, Council authorized the City to enter into a contract with Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) in the amount of $92,358 to conduct a diagnostic study of Twin Lakes and to develop a management plan for the lakes. In December, MWH decided to close its Minnesota office. All of the water resources staff working on this project became part of Wenck Associates. MWH had completed all of the work involving data analysis of water samples taken from Twin Lakes and had billed $52,200. With $40,158 of the contract remaining, MWH recommended that the City initiate a contract with Wenck Associates that would allow the former MWH employees to complete the study. • Wenck Associates has submitted a new contract, a revised scope of services, budget and timetable to the City for its consideration. The City Attorney has reviewed the contract and offered a revision that has been incorporated into the agreement. Staff has reviewed the scope of services, budget and timetable for the project and recommends completing the study. The remaining funds to complete this project have been allocated already in the Storm Water Utility Fund. The completion date for the project is July 30, 2003. Upon approval of this agreement with Wenck Associates, the City will terminate the agreement with MWH and make final payment for the work completed to date. It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with Wenck Associates to complete a diagnostic study and management plan for Twin Lakes in the amount not to exceed $39,785. • • adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WENCK ASSOCIATES TO COMPLETE A DIAGNOSTIC STUDY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TWIN LAKES WHEREAS, improving Twin Lake water quality is a priority for the City; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2002, the City entered into an agreement with Montgomery Watson Harza to prepare a diagnostic study and management plan for Twin Lakes; and WHEREAS, Montgomery Watson Harza staff assigned to this position are now employed by Wenck Associates due to the closing of Montgomery Watson Harza's Minnesota office; and WHEREAS, Wenck Associates has submitted an agreement and revised scope of services, timetable, and budget to complete this project; and • WHEREAS, adequate funds to complete this project have been allocated in the Storm Drainage Utility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Wenck Associates to complete the Twin Lake Diagnostic Study and Management Plan. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: • and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 2002 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Howard, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Contract for the Twin Lake Management Plan On February ^ 5, 2002, staff presented a report to Council on the proposed Twin Lakes Management Plan. Monitoring stations _need to be set up at this time to begin collecting water quality data. Council action is required to approve a professional services contract with Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH). Background Improving the water quality in Twin Lakes, especially Upper Twin Lake, has been a priority for a number of years. A few years ago, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission • undertook a Twin Lakes diagnostic study to try to determine the source of the excessive phosphorus loading and identify possible means of reducing it. The study concluded that the wetland complex to the north of Upper Twin Lake, extending to the east and north of Crystal airport, was the likely source of the phosphorus and that restoration of the wetland would probably significantly reduce the phosphorus being discharged into the lake. Working with the watershed engineer, Montgomery Watson Harza , we have developed a plan of action that we hope will ultimately lead to completion of water quality improvements. Grant proposals have been submitted to help fund the proposed wetland restoration improvement project, but the project has not been funded. Discussions with the granting agencies suggest that the project would score higher if additional study and a lake management plan were completed. This is the approach taken recently for Prior Lake, which successfully competed for and was awarded Federal Clean Water Act grant funds to construct improvements. Discussion MWH has submitted a proposal to prepare a Twin Lake Management Plan and to conduct diagnostic studies to better define the specific improvements. MWH is the engineer for Shingle Creek Water Management Organization and is familiar with Twin Lakes and completed the original diagnostic study. The Management Plan would be developed by working with lakeshore • residents, agencies charged with overseeing various aspects of surface water quality, elected officials, and City staff. The Management Plan would identify short and long term goals for water quality, recreation, fish and wildlife, and other issue areas identified in the process. Also 2 • included would be a set of short and long -term management strategies. The estimated cost of diagnostic studies is approximately $93,000. About $30,000 of that total would be for the development of the Management Plan itself. There will likely be some overlap with other activities such as the Twin Lakes Homeowner Education Project and the watershed 2" Generation Plan, so the actual cost may be less than that. The balance of the cost, or about $63,000, is the cost of the additional lake and wetland monitoring, data analysis, modeling and more detailed management options. The 2002 Storm Drainage Utility budget includes $100,000 for Twin Lakes diagnostic testing and design of improvements. Recommended Action It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing a professional services contract with Montgomery Watson Harza in the amount of $93,000. • • MEMORANDUM • DATE: February 21, 2002 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Work &-0-1� SUBJECT: Staff Report RE: Proposed Twin Lake Management Plan As you know, improving the water quality in Twin Lakes, especially Upper Twin Lake, has been a priority for a number of years. A few years ago, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission undertook a Twin Lakes diagnostic study to try to determine the source of the excessive phosphorus loading and identify possible means of reducing it. The study concluded that the wetland complex to the north of Upper Twin Lake, extending to the east and north of Crystal Airport, was the likely source of the phosphorus and that restoration of the wetland would probably significantly reduce the phosphorus being discharged into the lake. Working with the Watershed engineer, Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH), we have developed a plan of action that we hope will ultimately, lead to completion of water quality improvements. • If acceptable to the Council, we will bring to the Council on March 11, 2002 a resolution adopting the action plan and authorizing a professional services contract to take the next steps in that action plan. Action Plan Grant proposals have been submitted to help fund the proposed wetland restoration improvement project, but the project has not been funded. Discussions with the granting agencies suggest that the project would score higher if additional study and a lake management plan were completed. In addition, there are other activities that are specifically associated with Twin Lake and others with water quality in general that should be considered for implementation. The Action Plan is comprised of four steps: 1. Develop a Twin Lakes Management Plan; 2. Complete additional diagnostics on Twin Lake and the associated north wetland to refine the proposed improvement project; 3. Implement the local controls, best management practices (BMPs), and education programs identified in the management plan; and 4. Construct the wetland restoration and any other improvement projects identified in the plan. I have been working with Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) to develop a proposal to prepare a • Twin Lake Management Plan and to conduct additional diagnostic studies to better define the specific improvements. This is the approach taken recently for Prior Lake, which successfully competed for and was awarded federal Clean Water Act grant funds to construct improvements. 2 The Management Plan would be developed by working with lakeshore residents, agencies charged with overseeing various aspects of surface water quality, elected officials, and city staffs of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Robbinsdale. The Management Plan would identify short and long term goals for water quality, recreation, fish and wildlife, and other issue areas identified in the process. Also included would be a set of short and long term management strategies. Other actions that are part of the overall action plan include implementation of the required shoreland management ordinance and surface water management ordinance; refinement of operations within the Twin Lakes subwatershed; and implementation of the Twin Lakes Homeowner Education Project, which is a joint collaboration between the watershed and the Hennepin Conservation District (see attached) and funded by the Metropolitan Council. The action plan would also include the construction or programming of the proposed wetland restoration project, as well as any other projects that might be generated through the management plan process. Cost and Process The estimated cost of steps one and two above is $93,000. The specific tasks are shown in the attached memo from Joe Bischoff of MWH. About $30,000 of that total would be Phase I, or the • development of the Management Plan itself; the actual cost would be dependent on the number of meetings. There will likely be some overlap with other activities such as the Twin Lakes Homeowner Education Project and the watershed 2 nd Generation Plan, so the actual cost may be less than that. The balance of the cost, or about $63,000, would be for Phase H, the cost of the additional lake and wetland monitoring, data analysis, and modeling and more detailed management options. The 2002 Storm Drainage Utility budget includes $100,000 for Twin Lakes diagnostic testing and design of improvements. I have had some discussions with staff from Crystal, who would be willing to participate financially in the development of the management plan, although their resources are more limited. Staff from Robbinsdale is unsure of their ability to participate financially. To move this project along, Brooklyn Center will have to provide the bulk of the funding. If Council believes this is the route to take, then the process would be as follows. We would bring to the Council at the March 11, 2002 meeting a resolution adopting a Twin Lakes Water Quality Action Plan and awarding a professional services contract to Montgomery Watson Harza in accordance with the attached scope of work and budget. I would recommend contracting with MWH rather than obtaining proposals from other consultants as that firm is intimately familiar with the lake system, and it prepared the initial Twin Lake diagnostic study. I would immediately enter into more formal discussions with Crystal and Robbinsdale about the • possibility of their financial participation in developing the management plan. I would hope to have some at least informal indication of what that participation might be by March 11 . MWH 3 would then immediately begin setting up the lake and wetland monitoring so it is in place for spring snowmelt. MWH and the three cities would immediately start bringing in other agencies, especially the EPA, so that the plan and diagnostic study are all consistent not only with local needs but also with the requirements for their improvement project grant funds. We would expect that public meetings would begin by late spring, with a final report by the end of the year. Role of the Watershed When it does come time to construct improvements, those projects would be constructed by as joint powers projects with other cities such as Crystal. Under the current watershed joint powers agreement the watershed itself does not undertake construction projects; it only identifies them. Member cities are then responsible for undertaking and financing the projects. Since Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and to a lesser extent Robbinsdale would be most impacted by these improvements, they are the cities that would be responsible for the improvements. The 2002- 2006 CIP programs $100,000 in 2003 for construction of improvements to improve water quality in Twin Lakes. • • PROJECT SERVICES AGREEMENT Twin Lake Diagnostic Studv and Management Plan (Project Name) This Project Services Agreement (Agreement) outlines the terms and conditions under which Wenck Associates, Inc. ( Wenck), will provide environmental engineering and consulting services to Brooklvn Center (Client) for Twin Lake Diagnostic Study and Management Plan (Project). 1. Work to be Performed. Wenck shall furnish professional engineering services to conduct the project. The scope of work and schedule of deliverables for the project are set forth in Attachment A. Wenck is solely responsible for determining the means and methods of performing the services described. 2. Changes. The Client may, at any time by written order, make changes within the scope of this Agreement in the Services to be performed. If such changes cause an increase or decrease in cost of, or time required for, performance of any Services under this Agreement, whether or not changed by any order, an equitable adjustment shall be made and this Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly. Any claim of Wenck for adjustment under this clause must be asserted in writing within forty -five (45) days from the date of receipt by Wenck of the notification of change unless the Client grants a further period of time before the date of final • payment under this Agreement. 3. Rates and Fees. The fees for this project are set forth in Attachment B to this Agreement. 4. Pavment for Services Rendered Pursuant to an Authorization. Payment by Client for properly rendered services shall be due within 30 days of receipt of an invoice. If Client objects to any portion of an invoice, Client shall notify Wenck of the objection within fifteen days and shall work diligently, and in good faith, with Wenck to resolve any objections. 5. Standard of Care,. In performing this project, Wenck shall assign qualified personnel and perform its services with the skill, diligence, and quality control measures ordinarily exercised by a recognized professional environmental engineering and consulting firm performing services of a similar nature at the same time and in the same geographical area. Wenck acknowledges that Client will be relying in part upon the accuracy, competence, and full performance of Wenck's services. 6. Compliance with Laws and Facilitv Safetv Rules. Wenck and any subcontractors retained by Wenck shall comply with applicable laws, ordinances, statutes, rules and regulations in effect at the time the services are performed. In addition, when at facilities owned by Client, Wenck and its subcontractor shall comply with the facility's personnel safety rules and applicable conditions or requirements of any permit or government authorization, order, or • directive pertaining to activities at that facility. Provided, however, that any facility specific requirements will be made available to Wenck prior to performing the services. CADocuments and Settings \sklumppU.ocal Settings \Temp\ProjectServicesAgreement Brooklyn Center.doc Pagel of 3 • 7. Confidentialitv. With regard to "Confidential Information: (a) Wenck shall keep all Confidential Information in a secure location and shall not disclose any Confidential Information to any party except as authorized by the terms of this Agreement, or specifically authorized in writing by Client, or as required by a subpoena, warrant or court order. (b) Wenck shall not use Confidential Information for any purpose except to perform services pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. (c) Wenck shall immediately notify Client, in writing, upon receipt of a request for disclosure of any Confidential Information. 8. Indemnitv. Wenck agrees to indemnify and hold Client harmless from any claim, cause of action, demand or other liability of any nature or kind (including the costs of reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness fees) arising out of any negligent act or omission of Wenck or any subcontractor of Wenck in connection with work performed under the terms of this Agreement. Client agrees to indemnify and hold Wenck harmless from any claim, cause of action, demand or other liability of any nature or kind (including the costs of reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness fees) arising out of any negligent act or omission of Client or • any agent of Client in connection with work performed under the terms of this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver by the city of limitations on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 9. Insurance. During the terms of this Project, Wenck shall maintain, at its expense, worker's compensation insurance, liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage, and other insurance with the minimum coverages listed below. These policies are to be issued in the broadest form commercially available under standard terms and conditions and shall be underwritten by insurers with adequate financial resources. Cover Tvpe Coveraize Limits Worker's Compensation Statutory Automobile Liability Insurance $1,000,000 combined single limit CGL ......................... ............................... $2,000,000 aggregate and $1,000,000 each occurrence Excess liability $5,000,000 each occurrence and *Professional Liability $2,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate *Includes pollution coverage for professional liability and contractor's pollution liability Upon request by Client, Wenck shall submit certificates of insurance evidencing compliance with these requirements. • CADocuments and Settings \sklumppU.ocal Settings \Temp\ProjectServicesAgreement Brooklyn Center.doc Page 2 of 3 10. Nature of Relationship. Wenck is an independent contractor and will not act as an • agent or employee of Client for any purpose. 11. Representatives. will be the representative for Wenck for the purpose of this Agreement. will be is representative for the purposes of this Agreement. 12. Governing Law This Agreement is made in the State of Minnesota and shall be governed by its laws. Both Client and Wenck wish to avoid disputes relating to or arising out of this Agreement. In the event of any dispute or perceived problem, each pledges to give notice to the other party and to first seek an amicable resolution. All disputes arising out of this Agreement shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Minneapolis, MN, in accordance with the then current construction industry standards of the American Arbitration Association. ON BEHALF OF ON BEHALF OF WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. Name: Name: Title: Title: • Date: Date: • C Documents and Settings\sklumpp \Local Settings \Temp\ProjectSer icesAgreemenl Brooklyn Center.doc Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A • SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1: Develop goals and issues for Twin Lakes including public, city official, and agency inputs. This scoping action will be the basis for developing appropriate goals and actions. Task la. Hold two public input meetings to identify issues important to the residents of the Twin Lakes watershed. Task 1b. Hold one public officials meeting to identify issues important to the cities in the Twin Lakes watershed. Task 2: Develop public information education p p on and participation action plan. Task 2a. Develop objectives for a comprehensive public information and education program for the Twin Lakes watershed. This task will be coordinated with the current Twin Lakes Homeowner Education project. Task 2b. Develop specific actions and potential resources for implementation of a public information and education program for the Twin Lakes watershed. Task 3: Develop an action plan for a lake and watershed characterization for Twin Lakes. • Task 3a. Develop a preliminary lake characterization by identifying and summarizing past studies in Twin Lakes. Task 3b. Develop a preliminary watershed characterization using GIS data and previous studies conducted in the watershed. Task 3c. Identify and prioritize watershed and lake issues, data gaps, and data needs. Task 4: Develop goals and actions to determine the best management strategies for protecting and improving the beneficial uses (as designated by the State of Minnesota) of Twin Lakes. Task 4a. Develop objectives for a comprehensive watershed management plan for the Twin Lakes watershed. Task 4b. Develop specific actions and potential resources for implementation of the watershed - planning program for the Twin Lakes watershed. Task 5: Identify potential funding sources appropriate for the development and implementation of the Twin Lakes' watershed and Lake management plan. Task 5a. Identify and summarize potential funding sources for implementation of the Twin Lakes Watershed Management Plan. • • Task 6: Develop goals and an action plan for the comprehensive watershed and lake management plan. Included in the implementation phase would be a plan for tracking the progress of implementation of the plan. Task 6a. Develop objectives for the organization and implementation of the comprehensive management plan for the Twin Lakes watershed. Task 6b. Develop specific actions and potential resources for implementation of the comprehensive management plan for the Twin Lakes watershed. PHASE II Task 1 (including subtasks la through lc) have been previously completed by MWH. Wenck Associates has reviewed these data. Based on this review, we have determined that the data are both valid and appropriate for this analysis. As such, we assume responsibility of completion of the remaining tasks based on the previously collected data set. Task 2. Analyze water quality data for Upper Twin Lake and the wetland complex. Task 2a. Evaluate data for quality assurance and quality control. Task 2b. Analyze wetland data for P loading and potential cause of P release (pH, DO). • Task 2c. Model nutrient cycling in Upper Twin Lakes using BATHTUB to identify eutrophication potential. Task 2d. Develop final report outlining results, management options and alternatives for reducing P loads into Upper Twin Lake. Task 3. Identify potential alternatives for reducing P -loads to Upper Twin Lake and develop budgets for each scenario. TWIN LAKES MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DIAGNOSTIC STUDY SCHEDULE Task Completion Date J Resume Work March 15, 2003 Complete Diagnostic Study (Phase II Tasks 2 and 3) April 30, 2003 i Final Diagnostic Study May 15,'2003 Conduct Meetings May and June 2003 Draft Management Plan June 30, 2003 Final Management Plan July 30, 2003 Progress reports will be provided monthly to the City of Brooklyn Center and the Watershed Commission. • • DELIVERABLES: 1. Final Twin Lakes management plan outlining current issues and understanding, as well as a management framework for improving the quality of Twin Lakes. The management plan will include a list of potential management options and associated costs for the Twin Lakes watershed. 2. Final diagnostic study that identifies the eutrophication sources and potential of Twin Lakes. The study will also evaluate the large DNR wetland in the north subwatershed for nutrient loading to Twin Lakes. • • ATTACHMENT B I PROJECT BUDGET Rates ` 1 EAM $135 JMB $100 WP $ 56 Hours Revenue Cost I Task # PHASE I Task EAM JMB CJM WP I EAM JMB CJM WP SUM Develop primary goals and issues for Twin 1 Lakes including public, city official, and agency I 1 a 8 8 10 1 $1,080 $ 800 $ $ 560 1 $ 2,440 I 1b 8 8 10 $1,080 $ 800 ( $ $ 560 $ 2,440 I _ + Develop a public information, education and $ 4,880 2 paticipation action plan. I I I I Subtotal $ 9,760 __l 2a 1 4 1 $ 1351 $ 400 $ I $ I $ 535 2b 1 - 1 4 $ 1351 $ 400 $ I $ $ 535 I I Develop an action plan for a lake and watershed Subtotal $ 1,070 3 characterization for Twin Lakes. 1 3a 2 6 _ 1 $ 270 1 $ 600 1 $ I $ I $ 870 I 3 8 1 _ 1 $ - I $ 8001 $ I $ 1 $ 800 3c 2 I 8 { $ 270 $ 800 1, $ $ $ 1,070 l I I Subtotal $ 2,740 I Develop goals and actions for comprehensive 4 watershed planning. I 4a 1 7 1$ 135 1$ 700 1$ 1$ I $ 835 1 �4b 1 6 $ 135 $ 600 $ 1 $ - $ 735 1,570 Identify potential funding sources appropriate for l the development and implementation of the 5 Twin Lakes watershed and Lake management 1 5-a 2 8 $ 276($ 800 $ $ - $ 1,07o I Develop goals and an action plan for for the Subtotal I $ 1,070 orgnaization and implementation of the developed comprehensive watershed and lake 6 management plan. -- y 6a 2 8 $ 270 I $ 800 $ $ - 1 $ 1,070 6b 2 6 - l l $ 270 $ 800 $ I $ - $ 1,070 I I Subtotal $ 2,140 Document Production I 1 I 40 I $ II $ $ I $ 2,240 I $ 2,240 $ 2,240 l I I I (PHASE II ll 1 I I I I I I I I I 2 Data analysis and reporting 1 1 I I I Data Analvsis 2b 60 I $ - I $ 6,000 $ I $ - I $ 6,000 BATHTUB Modelino 2c I I 50 I $ - I $ 5.000 I $ I $ I $ 5,000 Data Reporting 2d 80 l $ - i $ 8.000 1 $ $ - $ 8,000 1 I 1 I $ 19,000 3 Alternative Analysis and Budgeting 1 I I I I I 3a 8 10 10 1_$1,0801 $ 1,000 1 $ 840_ I $ - $ 2,920 $ 2,920 I -I 1 $ I Total 38 283 10 60 1 $5,130 $28,300 $ 840 I $3,360 I 37,630 1 37630 I l 1 I overall 391 I I I I I I Labor $ 37,630 Computer $ 1,955 Total $ 39,585 I Mileage $ 200 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I Proiect total $ 39,785 i City Council Agenda Item No. 8a II � MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist J %� DATE: February 19, 2003 SUBJECT: Public Hearing, City of Brooklyn Center, 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program • Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements At the January 27, 2003, City Council meeting, the Brooklyn Center City Council approved Resolution 2003 -16, Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Use of 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Funds. The public hearing is scheduled for February 24, 2003. A copy of the public hearing notice is included with this memorandum. • Hennepin County has notified the City of Brooklyn Center that Congress has not yet approved the fiscal year 2003 HUD budget, which includes 2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. As of the date of this memorandum, Congress has still not approved the 2003 HUD budget. Hennepin County has directed municipalities to use the 2002 CDBG allocation for 2003 planning purposes. Brooklyn Center is one of 43 Hennepin County cities participating in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. In this program, federal dollars from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) flow to the county and are disbursed to the 43 participating cities. The 2002 CDBG allocation for the entire county was $3,525,000. Hennepin County staff has indicated this amount will likely be slightly reduced for 2003. The Federal authorizing statute for the CDBG program requires that each funded activity meet one of three national objectives: benefiting low and moderate income persons, preventing or eliminating slums and /or blight and meeting urgent community needs. The Federal statute also specifies that each grantee must ensure at least 70% of the CDBG expenditure during the program year must be used for activities benefiting very low and low income persons. In the past, the County has managed and met this requirement at the County level and individual cities did not have to meet the 70% requirement at the local level. Due to an increase in the amount of funds allocated and expended on activities removing or preventing slums or blight by cities, the County could no longer ensure that it could meet the statutory requirement. Each City has to meet this requirement at the • local level. Page 1 For 2003, using the 2002 CDBG allocation, meeting the 70% requirement means that $164,161 of • the total estimated $234,516 allocation must be expended on programs and services directly benefiting low income persons. Low income persons are defined as persons with incomes ranging � g from 50% (very low income) to 80% (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 a four person household at $54,400 income annually is defined as low income. SUMMARY OF CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 2003 CDBG PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Allocation of $175,000 for Shingle Creek Tower Project. In 2002, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a development agreement with BOCA Limited Partnership to provide $500,000 in CDBG funds for the acquisition/rehabilitation of Shingle Creek Tower Apartments, the 122 unit apartment building south of City Hall. The City's use of CDBG funds on the project is part of a total project funding package consisting of numerous sources including a new federal mortgage loan, state funding, funding from Hennepin County, housing revenue bonds and tax credits. The City allocated $150,000 from its 2001 CDBG allocation, $175,000 from the 2002 CDBG allocation and the final allocation is $175,000 from the 2003 CDBG allocation. 2. 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 nine 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, and minor repairs including windows, sidewalk, house trim etc. Fees are charged to persons using the 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 assisted 20 Brooklyn Center residents. A copy of Senior Community Services CDBG request is included with this memorandum. Representatives from Senior Community Services will be at the February 24 public hearing. 3. Allocation of $13,000 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 Senior 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 including major problems such as "garbage house" situations. In 2002 CEAP assisted • 110 Brooklyn Center residents with the Handy Works Program. A copy of CEAP's CDBG request is included with this memorandum. Representatives from CEAP will be at the February 24 public hearing. Page 2 • 4. Allocation of $24,516 for rehabilitation of private property. This program provides up to $15,000 per household for rehabilitation and repair of homes of low income households. The money is provided in the form of a loan, which would be repaid when the house is sold, or at the end of 30 years, whichever come first. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS Prior to March 7, 2003, each city in the Urban Hennepin County consortium must conduct a local public hearing and adopt a council resolution on the proposed use of CDBG funds. CDBG administrative requirements indicate that each CDBG activity should have a budget of at least $7,500 unless funds are committed jointly with other municipalities to carry out a single activity. This dollar amount has been set by the County to avoid numerous small allocations of CDBG funds that would be cost prohibitive to administer by the County. Each city receiving a CDBG allocation from the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program is limited to a 15 percent cap on public service projects. Based on the 2002 estimated allocation, this amount is $35,177 which is 15 percent of the 2002 allocation of $234,516. Based on the recommendations for funding, the H.O.M.E. program and CEAP Handy Works program, the total allocation could not exceed $35,000. CEAP's request is for $13,500 and staff has contacted CEAP and indicated that based on the 2002 estimates and the likelihood of reduced funding, their request should be reduced • by $500. CEAP has indicated this would not be a problem and the $13,000 recommended allocation for CEAP reflects the 2002 allocation for the Handy Works program. Once the actual 2003 CDBG allocation from HUD is determined, the City Council can allocate any additional 2003 funds to approved CDBG activities without holding another public hearing as long as the dollar amount of the allocation is less than $10,000. Since the adjusted allocation will likely be less than the city's total 2002 allocation, staff recommends making the required allocation adjustment in the "rehabilitation of private property" activity. ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR CDBG FUNDING The City has received a request for $5,000 in CDBG funding from HomeLine. The request from HomeLine would fall into the category of public service activities and as a result would fall under the 15 percent cap for such activities. PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION Following completion of the public hearing, a resolution approving projected use of funds for 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizing signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any third party agreement has been prepared for Council consideration. • Page 3 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2003 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 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 24, 2003, 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 $234,516 from the 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant 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 J budget Shingle Creek Tower Project $175,000 Household Outside Maintenance $22,000 for the Elderly Community Emergency Assistance Program $13,000 Rehabilitation of Private Property $24,516 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 2003 CDBG Program. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: • whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City of Brooklyn Center (Official Publication) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 2003 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 24, 2003, 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 de- velopment needs and the City's proposed use of the esti- mated 2003 Urban Hennepin County Community Devel- opment Block Grant Program planning allocation of $234,516. In addition, between July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, it is es- timated that no additional program income from previ- ously funded CDBG activities will be available to the City. The City of Brooklyn Center is proposing to undertake the following activities with 2003 Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting on or about July 1, 2003. Activity Budget Shingle Creek Tower Project $175,000 - Neighborhood Public Service Projects $35,000 Rehabilitation of Private Property $24,516 For "additional information on the priorities, proposed ac= tivities, level of funding and program performance, contact the City of Brooklyn Center at 763.569 -3300 or the Hen- nepin County Housing, Community Works and Transit Department ofT ansit 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 Clark at 763- 569 -3300 to make arrangements. (February 6, 2003)PI/Block Grant BC I • SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone: (952) 541 -1019 FAX: (952) 541 -0841 E -mail: scs @seniorcommunity.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS John C. Boeder January 23, 2003 President Gordon Hughes 1st vice President Mr. Tom Bublitz Peter Coyle Community Development Specialist 2nd vice President City of Brooklyn Center John Lawson 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Treasurer Brooklyn Center, Mn 55430 John Gray Secretary Dear Mr. Bublitz: Francis Hagen Past President Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Brooklyn Bob Bean Center allocate $22,000 from it's share of Community Member -at -Large Development Block Grant (CDBG) Year 2003 funds to support the HOME Program. This amount is the same as provided by the City Gloria Johnson Member -at -Large in the current CDBG year. Enclosed is a Hennepin County Request for Funding application filled out for the City to facilitate Marty Gurltz Alko Higuchi our request. 9 ght Johnson vin Johnson Brooklyn Center's CDBG funds will be leveraged from client fees, Laurie Lafontaine funding from the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches Rep. Ann Lenczewski (GMCC) and from donations. The HOME Program operates on a Kevin Max slidi fee scale. GMCC fundi Federal Title III monies, Dr. Chinyere (Ike) Njaka g 9� 9 Dotty O'Brien helps to subsidize chore services. Friends of HOME, an Senator Gen Olson organization that solicits private donations, provides contributions Curtis A. Pearson as well. Mary Tambornino Leonard J. Thiel Tom Ticen If you have any questions, or if the Mayor and City Council would Benjamin F. Withhart like to have an informational presentation, please let me know. Executive Director & C.E.O. Sincerely, PROGRAMS �? • Multi- Purpose -�°t . Senior Centers • Senior Outreach Ron Bloch • H.O.M.E. Program Administrator • Transportation A Founding Member of O ners I A United Way Agency 2003 • URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST FOR FUNDING (Use one form per project) A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: Bmoklvn CPntPr 2. Project Name: HOME (HD-usehold & Out Maintena for Elderly) 3. Contact Person/Phone Ron Bloch e o. 1541 -1019 B. PROJECT DATA 1. Funding Request $22.000 2. Is this an existing CDBG- FUNDED Project? _2L Yes _ No 3. Leveraged Funds: (What other public or private funds does project include ?) Amount $ SPe # 10 Source See # 10 • 4. Project Location: Address 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 intends to increase the number of residents served through the HOME Program, primarily in exterior painting jobs (see Attached Program Summary). In addition Senior Community Services will also, through involvement of it's Senior Outreach Program's licensed social workers, work to gain voluntary compliance of elderly and dsiabled residents who have violations in areas of the housing code. 6. Consolidated Plan Priorities: Using the list provided identify what priority(ies) the project will meet. (Note: If proposed project is a low Urban County priority you must explain why it has a higher priority in your community) Priority(ies) Public Service Ne eds: S enior S ervice s - Benefitina low and moderate income pr ons - High Priority i 7. Describe anticipated results /accomplishments project will have. (number of • persons /households to be assisted /served, number of housing units to be rehabbed/built, etc.) In 2002 the project served 32 Brooklyn Center residents (20 households). It is anticipated that approximately the same number will be served in 2003 8. Describe how project will assist 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 18 month expenditure period) Date Task Month/ DatQ On -ooino delivery of the following services: 2003-2004 Maintenance - Includes minor repairs in the areas of • caroentrv. olumbino. concrete. electric & oa intino. Also includes lawn mowing and snow removal in se ason Homemakina - Includes window w , shine . floor cle aning ina vacuumina. duStina. shoQoina. doina wa3h. etc. 10. Budget: (Specify total project budget by major project component -i.e., administration, planning, construction, acquisition, direct grants, public service.) BUDGE /SOURCE OF FUNDS Corr onent CDBG Other (identifv`! Public Services /Eden Prairie $ 10.320 $173.000 Client fees /Edina $ 9.350 $ 16.650 Edina/EEHF /Richfield $ 22,700 $ 42,820 United Way /Minnetonka $ 15.381 $ 60.574 GMCC /Brooklyn Center $ 22.000 $ 10.000 Friends of HM $104,592 Hen County Project Totals .$79.751 $407.636 NOTE: A copy of the HOME Program Budget is attached showing all anticipated • expenses and revenues for the Program 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 program designed as a cost - effective alternative to long term care for the elderly operating in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Center, St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale, Crystal, Plymouth, New Hope and Golden Valley. Persons with disabilities are also eligible for the services. The project maintains a core staff of trained individuals to assure prompt, quality service and a skills bank component. Clients are asked to contribute according to their ability to pay, based on a sliding 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 pay the full cost of service as well as frail older adults who require services designed to meet the needs of vulnerable elderly. SERVICES - The philosophy of the H.O.M.E. Program is to maintain independence for elders and avoid premature placement in nursing homes by providing homemaker, maintenance, and chore services. Clients are asked to contribute based on a sliding - fee scale. Homemaker services include housecleaning, food preparation, grocery shopping, non - medical personal care, and laundry. 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, window washing, painting, weatherization, minor roof repair and other maintenance jobs needed to enable elderly residents to remain in their homes, as well as maintaining their homes in an acceptable manner. STAFF - Home maintenance and homemaker services are provided by workers who are trained in the necessary skill areas and techniques for working with older persons. Skills Bank Workers are also utilized to provide chore services. Staff report to a Program Director, who is responsible for the management and supervision of H.O.M.E. Other staff and volunteers provide administrative and clerical support. FACILITY - Services are provided in the homes of elderly residents. Offices are located at Creekside Community Center, 9801 Penn Ave. South, Bloomington 55431, and 7940 55th Ave North, New Hope, a satellite office is located at the Minnetonka Center. PLACEMENT PROCEDURE - Clients gain access to the program either by a referral from an area agency or by calling the H.O.M.E. office and requesting service. FUNDING SOURCES - Revenues are derived from client Fees, Hennepin County, the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches (GMCC), municipalities in which the • program operates, the United Way, and contributions from clients and the community through an associated organization called Friends of HOME. HOME Program 2003 Operating Budget w/ Gov't Revenue Detail • REVENUE _ W Contributions /Friends of HOME 10,000 United Way 42,820 Government Revenue ---- - - - - -- Bloomington (CDBG) 20,000 Bloomington (HRA) 20,000 Brooklyn Center 22 Eden Prairie 10,320 Edina (CDBG & EEHF) 26,000 Golden Valley 4,500 Greater MPIs Council of Churches 60,574 Hennepin County Minnetonka 15,381 Plymouth 6,000 Richfield ( 22,700 School Di strict 281 5,000 Sub -total Gov't Reven Y. 317,067 Client Fees 173,000 Total 542,887 EXPENSES Salaries & Wages 378,954 Benefits & Taxes 92,382 Office Rent 2,581 Equipment Repair /Maint. 1,649 Telephone 4 Postage 2,087 Printing & Publications 4,118 Supplies 12,212 Professional Fees /Skills Bank Workers 73,496 Mileage ( 6 Conferences & Meetings 2,740 Insuran 2 , 898 ----- - - - - -- - , .......:.......... --------------- -- Memberships & Subscriptions 1,190 Miscellaneous 212 Depreciation P � 551 Allocation of Admin. 16,529 Total 602,481 • Net Excess (Deficit) ($59,594) Gg NCY ASSIS74 J= -909 U February 11, 2003 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 2002 -2003 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 home delivered chore services. CEAP offers many other services including food, clothing, special events, home - delivered meals, 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. Please contact me if you need additional information. Sin erely, *Lenn a ntana 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 ®R. www.ceap.com ° W" AfFlumd Agmnqr 2003 • URBAN HENNEPIN COUNT_ Y CDBG PROGRAM REQUEST FOR FUNDING A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: Brooklvn Center 2. Name of Organization: Communitv Emerqencv Assistance Prooram. Inc. (CEAP) 3. Contact Person: Tom Hardin or Stephen 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 Program Where will the program activities be carried out? In the cities of Brooklvn Park. Brooklvn Center, 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 senior 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. By providing 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 thing keeping people from having to enter assisted care living situations. CEAP served Brooklyn Center residents in the following ways in 2002: • 124 Brooklyn Center residents with the Meals on Wheels • 110 residents with the HandyWorks program in 2002 • 25,000 meals were delivered • 800 chores or 1,656 hours were provided to Brooklyn Center residents in 2002. . 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. In 2001 over 76% of CEAP's senior service clients reported feelina less isolated and 79% feel thev remain more independent. Results for 2002 are not yet tabulated, but are anticipated to be above • 75 %. 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 24 -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 current) being delivered y g five days per week. Weekend and holiday eals are also so 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 2003: 1337,896 An itemized budget for both the agency and Senior Services is included as an attachment. • f LEAP SENIOR SERVICES PROJECT BUDGET — CALENDAR YEAR 2003 • INCOME Source Amount Support Government grants $0 Foundations $12,813 Volunteers of America $48,358 United Wav 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 • • • I CEAP SENIOR SERVICES PROJECT BUDGET — CALENDAR YEAR 2003 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 Postaae 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 Fundraisin; $73,059 Total Expense $337,896 Difference (Income less Expense) $ - 13,962 • 2!2000 I • I ORGANIZATION BUDGET 7/02 TO 6/03 This format is optional and can serve as a guide to budgeting. If you already prepare an organization budget that contains this information please feel free to submit it in its original form. Feel free to attach a budget narrative explaining your numbers if necessary. INCOME Source Amount Support Government grants S 283,851 Foundations S 99,500 Corporations S 25,731 United Way or other federated campaigns S 289.343 Individual contributions S 57,066 Fundraising events and products S Membership income S In -kind support S 923,000 Investment income S 15,625 Revenue Government contracts S 134,532 Earned income S 112,568 • Misc. S 5,000 Churches S 146,252 Organizations S 169,524 Loan Repayments S 118,467 Total Income $2,380,459 EXPENSES Item Amount Salaries and wages S 616.033 Insurance. benefits and other related taxes S 13 7,723 Consultants and professional fees S 14.685 Travel S 6.960 Equipment 5 9.5 Suoplies S 12.041 Printing and copying S 7.500 Telephone and fax S S.b 16 Posta17e and delis et S Rent. utilities and BldL Expense S - * 5.84 In -k expenses S 9 =3.000 Depreciation &, Reser- e for rep_ lacement S _ 1.14.6 Misc. S 5.200 • Need of People S 543.5 =5 `v- oiunietr R:.coLnninon S —'...0 Dues and Memberships Total Expense S_.380.459 Difference (Income less Expense) S 0 • COMMUNITY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BOARD OF DIRECTORS - 2002 Board Member Elected Affiliation Term Expires Joan Bednarczyk 1998 St. Stephens 2004 Ronald Stuedemann 2002 Medtronic /CDA 2005 Jerry Blamey 2000 Cross of Glory 2003 Franz Hoefferle 2001 Mercy Hospital 2004 Joen Grieb -Ott 2001 Epiphany Catholic Church 2004 Laura Jaeger 1998 ADC Foundation 2005 Eva Jeppson 2000 St. Phillips Lutheran 2003 • Bob Kelly 2000 Brooklyn United Methodist 2003 Richard McGee 1997 Attorney at Law 2005 Marc Kerrnisch 2000 Financial Info. Mgmt. 2003 Kathleen Mary Kiemen 1995 St. Gerard's 2004 . Jamie Morrow 2000 Easter Seals 2005 Jeanne Radotich 1998 St. Timotheys 2004 Ellen Raeker 2000 St. Williams 2004 Rebecca White 2000 Wells Fargo Brokerage 2005 Pastor Heidi Caldwell 2001 Prince of Peace 2004 Joyce Ellis 2001 St. Alphcnsus 2003 Pamela Schwarz 2002 Medtronic 2004 HandWorkgT.4 • • What is HandyWorks? How do I become a HandyWorks client? NOTE: All services. depend 1 j an gram designed is a on availability-of workers to . 1 program designed , ou must: 1) live in CEAP s service area perform the tasks. disabled adults with home to assist seniors and V p 1 and 2) be 60 years or older, or a disabled adult. If you meet these requirements call chores. HandyWorks is (763) 666 -9600 and ask for HandyWorks. What services are provided? coordinated through the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches. Seasonal Outdoor (Work HandyWorks has been operating For over How are workers hired? Clean and change storm windows, rake 20 years. It began as a series of different leaves, clean gutters, trim shrubs, etc. ne.ighbor.hood organizations responding to or.kers are hired from the conimunity seniors wbo needed to become independent contractors. d help with •Minor Home Maintenance Workers are paid by the client as soon as the housekeeping and yardwork. There are Repair brakes windows, leaky faucets or 17 HandyWorks programs in the work is completed. There is a criminal unsafe porch steps, perform minorelectrical, Minneapolis /St. Paul area. background check done on all workers• carpentryor plumbingjobs, install locks, do Please call CEAP's HandyWorks for the minor weatherization tasks and interior current suggested rates. What area does CEAP's painting jobs. No roof repair. HandyWorks program serve? If it were not for the HandyWorks • Yardwork and Sno« Retnoval program, I would not be able to stay in Lawn mowing. and trimming, weeds and EA P's Ha.ndyWo.rks program serves Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, my own home. The workers are snow removal.. Champlin east of Highway 169, and the very generous with their time and also Routine Indoor Housekeeping area of Minneapolis north of Vacuum, clean floors, kitchen, bathroom, 44th Avenue North. helpful. That is really appreciated." and laundry. No food preparation, personal care or mobility assistance. - Ellen, a ; HandyWorks client: re - w P. c z How can you help HandyWorks? z w H andyWor.ks is always in need of CI ASSISrA,r workers and volunteers. If you know I of anyone in the area who would like to .� �O ti work with CE.A.P's HandyWorks Program call (763) 566 -9600. Thank You! ! V � C ow. Community Partners H andyWorks is funded in part by CEAI, g tl. Older Americans Act grant through the Metropolitan Area Agency on Aginglncorporated (MAAA), the Minnesota Board on Aging, and by the United Way A chore program to HandyWorks is run by the Gre help senior citizens Minneapolis Council of Churches and MAAA. and disabled adults live "My experience with HandyWorks has independently in their been vei y self rezvai- to the extent that I own homes feellgetYore fi•onz it than the people I aY J assigned to help. .I come away from each # assignment feeling better about myself and c° A on my ivor °ld than when I started. " - Wesley, a HandyWorker kmdyV Resources Ib v Z�� CEAP's Meals on Wheels (763) 566 -9600 Z m m Nurse Healthline, Inc. (800) 420 -6877 W t-, i-, Seoi.or Linkage Line (800) 333 -2433 0 •� 00 G + 0 C 0 a O x U a4 E� w HOME p O ® CD 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 December 30, 2002 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, • almost 200 in 2003 -- nearly one every work day. Since we started up the hotline we have received 2,493 calls from Brooklyn Center renters. In addition, our award - winning high school presentations (on becoming a successful first -time renter) have been given 39 times to Brooklyn Center and Osseo -Park Center High School classes, reaching 772 students. Through help we have provided, Brooklyn Center tenants have recovered almost $13,000 in illegally withheld security deposits and have gotten almost $25,000 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, (1 4' ' 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 12/31/2002 Over the past eleven years a total of 2,493 Number of Calls Per Year Brooklyn Center renters have contacted 400 189 300 286 285 225 256 213 216 219 198 HOME Line. This represents service to 200 1 16 mom , , , approximately 6,232 residents when all 0 1 M r 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 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 those used by the U.S. Department of H.U.D.: Very Low 88% tow Very Low: incomes below 50% of the metro median I ul/0 Low: incomes between 50% and 80% of the metro Moderate median 2% Moderate: incomes above 80% of the metro median. • HOME Line has helped Brooklyn Center High School Renter's Education residents recover money from their landlords. Tenants have received $12,839.19 back from HOME Line's High School Community improperly withheld security deposits and Renter's Education Program provides advice $24,843 in rent abatements (refunds for on tenant rights and responsibilities. This free substandard conditions). presentation covers most things that first time The Hotline receives approximately 8,000 renters are likely to encounter, including calls per year. Careful records are taken for roommate problems, evictions, security each call, including the reason the tenant deposits and repair problems. called. These are the top ten topics in In the last ten years, HOME Line has been to Brooklyn Center over the last eleven years 39 classes with Brooklyn Center students (followed by the number of calls): speaking to 772 students. 1. Repairs 558 Brooklyn Center High School 22 classes, 2. Evictions 410 speaking to 413 students; 3. Notice to Vacate 254 Osseo -Park Center High School 13 classes, 4. Security Deposits 233 speaking to 288 students; 5. Financial Aid 107 Park - Center Alternative School 2 classes, 6. Break Lease 106 speaking to 21 students; 7. Lease Questions 93 Osseo Learning Center 2 classes, speaking 8. Housing Search 92 to 50 students. 9. Privacy/Intrusion 86 10. Rent Increase 63 • 2003 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.: Charlie Warner; 6121728 -5770, x -106 11 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 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development "Outreach and Training Grant "( OTAG) $450,000; January 2, 2001 - - September 30, 2 Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Tenant Organizing and Education Grant $150,000 over flour years; February 3, 2001 - December 31, 2004 The Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation General support for hotline expansion to Anoka and Dakota Counties $35,000 one -time grant made March 2002 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 HOME Line CDBG Application to Brooklyn Center • December 30, 2002 Page -2. The Minneapolis Foundation General funding to support expansion of activities $50,000 per year for two years, April 2001 City of Plymouth - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $7,500 for tenant services to Plymouth residents; July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003 City of Eden Prairie - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $10,000 for tenant services to Eden Prairie residents; July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003 City of Minnetonka- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $690 for tenant services to Minnetonka residents; July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003 City of Maple Grove - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $3,082 for tenant services to Maple Grove residents; July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003 City of Edina - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $1,000 for tenant services to Edina residents; July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003 Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning $30,000 two -year ($15,000 per year) grant for hotline expansion; July 2001 - June 2003 • Hennepin Count - Family Homeless Prevention Program subcontract from CASH P Y Y 9 ( ) Legal representation in eviction cases $30,150 contract; July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002 Greater Minnesota Housing Fund $25,000 for expansion of organizing and advocacy services to Greater Minnesota October 2002 FUNDING REQUESTED, DECISION PENDING Wells Fargo $5,000 for HOME Line's high school education program submitted September 2002 The St. Paul Foundation $40,000 per year for 3 years hotline and high school programs in ea'st area submitted November 2002 • • HOME Line CDBG Application to Brooklyn Center December 30, 2002 Page-36 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 8,000 calls per year. The hotline, staffed by 4 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 2,493 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 500 high school classes in the last ten ears speaking to P g Y P g over 12,549 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 39 classes with Brooklyn Center students (Brooklyn Center and Osseo -Park Center High Schools), speaking to a total of 772 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 two or three educational presentations at Brooklyn Center and Osseo Park Center High Schools (80 students). • • HOME Line CDBG Application to Brooklyn Center December 30, 2002 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.) Component SOURCE OF FUNDS CDBG Other (identifv) • ProQram services implementation $5.000 5491.500 (Other sources of funding are shown in our response to Item II. C.., above) • City Council Agenda Item No. 9a PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 2003 TO BE MINNESOTA FOODSHARE MONTH • WHEREAS, hunger exists in communities even in the best of economies; and WHEREAS, nearly half of hungry Minnesotans are children twelve years old and younger; and WHEREAS, the fastest growing groups of hungry Minnesotans are senior citizens and people who are working; and WHEREAS, the creeping effects of hunger in the life of an individual or family can range from poor health and slowed recovery om in jury and illness to 0 �' ) ry p oor performance at school and at work; and WHEREAS the impact on this on lives and communities can be devastating; and WHEREAS, food shelves in Minnesota distribute about thirty millions pounds of donated and purchased food annually to ease the sting of hunger; and WHEREAS, due to the slowed economy, visits have increased dramatically at every food shelf in the State this year, by an average of ten percent; and • WHEREAS, the food shelves in Brooklyn Center have also seen a significant increase in need; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota FoodShare March Campaign is responsible for acquiring about half the food distributed annually through food shelves; and WHEREAS, the success of the Minnesota FoodShare March Campaign depends upon the participation of businesses, civic groups, schools, congregations, and individuals in every community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, with the consent and support of the Brooklyn Center City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of March 2003, to be Minnesota FoodShare Month in Brooklyn Center, and urge everyone in this community and in communities throughout the State to donate food items and /or funding to the local food shelf during March to ensure that all of our neighbors will have enough food to share fully in the life of our community. Februaav 24, 2003 Date Mayor ATTEST: • City Clerk I 0 4 -T rev. 12102 �-�— — (Will be updated �� with full 2002 H unger: numbers in February 200.3.) the physical and mental condition that comes from not eating enough food due to insufficient economic, family or community resources. Hunger exists in families where members take turns eating or eat smaller meals to make food last longer. + 1.32 million eo le visited Minnesota's food P P 43 percent of food shelf clients work. 35 shelves in 2001. This is a nearly 10% percent are retired or have a disability increase from 2000, the largest increase in a which P revents work. decade. Man food shelves Many have ex P eri- enced a 50/0 increase. We are well on our + People using food shelves do not make way to record increase for 2002: up another enough income to cover their basic needs: 10% from last years' already elevated num- only an average of $8.36 per hour. Low bers. wages without benefits, child care expenses, skyrocketing housing costs, and high out -of- + Food shelves distributed 29 million pounds pocket medical expenses make working of food in 2001, up from 26 families vulnerable to hunger. million in 2000. The increase in pounds of food and people served are linked to rising ' In the past ten years, the average unemployment. worker's salary rose 9 percent. His rent rose 34 percent. Last year, Minnesota's food shelves distributed less food than the year before to + The poverty rate ($18,100 for a family of more people. four) is an annual income number used to determine federal and state benefits. It has + Nearly half of the hungry who visit food not been updated to reflect today's actual shelves are children. Hungry kids have diffi- cost of living. This means many deserving culty learning and have more families in dire straits still cannot qualify for medical problems and absenteeism than housing and child care subsidies or food children with adequate nourishment. stamps. ?0 percent of 311 food shelf clients in 2001 The minimum wage of $5.15i'hr does not were elderly. even approach self - sufficiency. greater minneapolis;council of churches � g Sources: Working ano Sull Hungry 001: � � M - - I , , i_0 . Hunger Solutions i lmneso�; Hunger Solutions' purvey or =ood Shelves 120011, Quartery food snelf , 2002.,17ordahle r ousiny srcgrcm = �;oiuction .Report 00001: Office of the Legisiative Auditor. Hunger 'n,-lmertco 2001.).Arnemcas Second Harvest National Hunger Stuay, U.S Dept. of Health and Human Services _002 Pove ^, Gulde!ines: 1tto:;;asoe.nhs.govrpever yi0= oovertv.rtrn i , I .gM rci/fOO Download from our web site, and get all the resources you need to plan a great campaign without leaving your desk! Save time Just click on the "March Campaign" menu item and select congregation, school or civic group, corporation, or food shelf. Get what you need when you need it, no waiting s easy. y for the mail. It's quick, and it' . Save money: yours and ours! You pay no postage & handling costs, we pay no printing costs. Find your local food shelf Click on "find a food shelf" to find contact information for y our nearest food shelf. Always call ahead to find out their needs and hours. Learn more The Minnesota FoodShare web site has up -to -date information about hunger, other FoodShare initiatives, and other hunger organizations. Or, contact us: Minnesota FoodShare 61 2/721 -8687 ext. 326 toll -free 888/315-7390 foodshare @grncc.org City Council Agenda Item No. 9b PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 27 THROUGH MAY 4, 2003, AS DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE • WHEREAS, the Holocaust was the state - sponsored, systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945. Jews were the primary victims — six million were murdered; Gypsies, the handicapped, and YP pP Poles were also targeted for destruction or decimation for racial, ethnic, or national reasons. Millions more, including homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents, also suffered grievous oppression and death under Nazi tyranny; and WHEREAS, the history of the Holocaust offers an opportunity to reflect on the moral responsibilities of individuals, societies, and governments; and WHEREAS, we the people of the City of Brooklyn Center should always remember the terrible events of the Holocaust and remain vigilant against hatred, persecution, and tyranny; and WHEREAS, we the people of the City of Brooklyn Center should actively rededicate ourselves to the principles of individual freedom in a just society; and WHEREAS, the Days of Remembrance have been set aside for the people of the City of Brooklyn Center to remember the victims of the Holocaust as well as to reflect on the need for respect of all peoples; and • WHEREAS, pursuant to an Act of Congress (Public Law 96 -388, October 7,1980) the United States Holocaust Memorial Council designates the Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust to be Sunday, April 27, through Sunday, May 4, 2003, including the international Day of Remembrance known as Yom Hashoah, April 29. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, with the consent and support of the Brooklyn Center City Council, do hereby proclaim the week of Sunday, April 27, through Sunday, May 4, 2003, as Days of Remembrance in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, and in honor of the survivors, as well as the rescuers and liberators, and further proclaim that we, as citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center, should strive to overcome intolerance and indifference through learning and remembrance. February 24. 2003 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • r • UNITED r � STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM Dear Mayor: The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in accordance with its Congressional mandate (Public Law 96 -388, 10/7/80) is leading the nation in the annual Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, commemorated this year from Sunday, April 27 through Sunday, May 4. The Day of Remembrance, Yom Hashoah, is April 29. In keeping with the critical issues our nation currently faces, this year's observance will mark the 60 anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, an event that has come to epitomize the profoundly human instinct to resist tyranny against all odds. The anniversary itself provides the theme for this year's memorial ceremony, captured in an unusually timely phrase lifted directly from history: "For Your Freedom and Ours. " On April 23, 1943, the Jewish Fighting Organization in Warsaw, desperate to inform the world about its plight, issued a communique in which their passionate determination was characterized as "a battle being waged for your freedom as well as ours." A translation of the full text of the communique has been included with this letter, for your reference. • Today, as the Museum begins the observance of its 10 anniversary, individual and communal acts of heroism and resistance to evil during the Holocaust serve as powerful examples of how our nation and its citizens can — and must — respond to acts of hatred and inhumanity. In these very challenging times, your personal leadership in this national commitment to remember is essential, as you set an example for your city and the nation. Thus, we respectfully encourage you to issue, as was done in the past, a special Days of Remembrance Proclamation for distribution to the citizens of your city. A sample is enclosed for your consideration and convenience. A background piece on the theme is enclosed and we encourage you to access the Museum's website at www »- -arg for further information on Days of Remembrance. We are grateful for your leadership and support in this important endeavor. Sincerely, Benjamin Meed Chairman, Days of Remembrance Enclosures 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place. SNN; Washington. DC 20024 -2126 • Tel (202) 488 -0400 • Fax (202) 488 -2690 • ww-w.ushmm.org For Your Freedom and Ours Days of Remembrance April 27 -May 4, 2003 •A battle is being waged for your freedom as well as ours. For you and our human, civic, and national honor and dignity. " Appeal from the Jewish resistance fighters in the Warsaw ghetto, April 23, 1943 The United States Congress established the Days of Remembrance as our nation's annual commemoration of the victims of the Holocaust, and mandated the creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as a permanent living memorial to the six million Jews as well as millions of others murdered by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. The Museum has designated "For Your Freedom and Ours" as the theme for the 2003 Days of Remembrance in honor, and in remembrance, of those courageous individuals in the Warsaw ghetto who valiantly rose up against their Nazi oppressors sixty years ago. Before World War H, Warsaw was home to the largest and most dynamic Jewish community in Europe, with a population of around 375,000 Jews. Under German occupation beginning in September 1939, the Warsaw ghetto, established in 1940, became the largest of its kind in Europe. Between July and September 1942, the Germans deported almost 300,000 Jews from Warsaw to the Treblinka killing center. Just over 60,000 Jews remained in the ghetto— mostly the young and able- bodied. For them, resistance was a last, desperate option, since their families had already been killed and they had few illusions about their future in the ghetto. After the end of the deportations in September 1942, Jews in the Warsaw ghetto began preparations to resist the final destruction of the ghetto. The Jews intensified their preparations after the .Germans deported 5,000- 6,000 more Jews from Warsaw to Treblinka in January 1943. Most people sought to prepare bunkers and hiding places to evade the Germans. Mordecai Anielewicz, the leader of the uprising, organized Jewish volunteers into units to prepare for battle, but their greatest need was for weapons. A few young resistance fighters who were tive outside the ghetto, such as Michal Klepfisz, A ie Wilner, and Vladka Peltel (Meed) used their contacts with e Polish underground to obtain weapons and explosives, and smuggled them into the ghetto. Klepfisz also organized small workshops producing Molotov cocktails and hand grenades. Jewish fighters faced the overwhelmingly superior forces of the Germans. On April 19, 1943, on the eve of the Jewish observance of Passover, German SS and police units began the final destruction of the ghetto. As German troops entered the ghetto, the Jewish inhabitants went to their hiding places and bunkers, defying German orders to report for deportation. Hela Los, for example, hid with her brother and parents on the roof of their apartment house. By refusing to comply with the Germans' orders, they became part of the uprising. In the first days of fighting, Anielewicz commanded hundreds of lightly armed Jewish fighters in street battles with the Germans. On the third day of the uprising, in an attempt to force the Jews out of hiding and quell the resistance, the Germans began to burn and demolish the ghetto, building by building. Jewish fighters made sporadic raids from their bunkers, but the Germans systematically reduced the ghetto to rubble. On May 8, the bunker at 18 Mila Street, headquarters of the Jewish Fighting Organization, fell. Anielewicz and those with him died in this battle. Word of the German destruction of the Warsaw ghetto spread across occupied Europe, and newspaper accounts were published in New York and London. With no military capacity of assisting the Warsaw ghetto fighters and preoccupied with other strategic priorities, political and military authorities in Great Britain and the United States – though aware of the uprising – could not respond. On May 16, after blowing up the main synagogue, the Germans declared the liquidation of the ghetto complete. Yet the defeat of the Warsaw ghetto uprising was, and remains, a significant symbolic victory for the Jews who fought their German persecutors. The Germans had planned to liquidate the ghetto within three days. The ws actively resisted for nearly a month. Approximately 1200 poorly armed members of the united Jewish qWistance fought about two thousand well -armed and well - equipped units of SS, Waffen SS, German air force, police and auxiliary police personnel. Those who resisted so bravely demonstrated, with passionate determination, that active resistance was possible. The destruction of the Warsaw ghetto did not end the Jewish resistance. Some resistance fighters succeeded in escaping from the ghetto to join partisan groups in the forests around Warsaw. Benjamin Meed, for n example, worked with other members of the underground to rescue ghetto fighters, bringing them out through the sewers and finding hiding places for them. Mendel Rozenblit and his family managed to escape to the outskirts of Warsaw. Some Jews who escaped the destruction of the ghetto, like Marek Edelman, later joined the August 1944 uprising of the Polish underground in Warsaw. • Some Poles who were not Jewish aided the Warsaw ghetto resistance. Members of the Polish underground organization Zegota, like Irena Sendler, provided false papers, hiding places, and other support for Jews. Individuals like Pawel (Paul) Zenon Wos and his family members, also hid Jews from the Nazis. Jozef Wilk, a member of the Polish resistance, was killed as his unit of the underground Polish Home Army attempted to demolish a section of the Warsaw ghetto wall in support of the uprising. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was the largest Jewish uprising during the Holocaust, and the first armed urban uprising in German- occupied Europe. Between 1941 and 1943, underground resistance movements developed in approximately 100 ghettos in German- occupied Eastern Europe (about one - fourth of all ghettos), mostly in Poland, Lithuania, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine. In the forests of occupied Europe, Jewish partisans banded together to carry out acts of sabotage and provide safe havens for those who fled the ghettos. Jewish prisoners staged mass uprisings inside three killing centers in occupied Poland, attacking guards with stolen weapons at Sobibor and Treblinka and blowing up one of the gas chambers at Auschwitz - Birkenau. The Jewish fighters and their commanders in Warsaw were under no illusion that their resistance would lead to rescue. They knew that their chances of survival were minimal, but they chose to fight and die to defend the honor of the Jewish people. Their revolt was an act of protest. In remembering those who took a determined stand against the Nazis, we honor the memory of those who perished and are in turn reminded that the moral conscience of the individual is one of the greatest weapons against indifference and. evil. Communique issued by the Z.O.B., or Jewish Fighting Organization, on April 23,1943: Poles, citizens, freedom fighters! From out of the roar of the cannon with which the German Army is battering our homes, the dwellings of our • mothers, children, and wives; From out of the reports of machine -guns which we have captured from the cowardly police and SS men; From out of the smoke of fires and the blood of the murdered Warsaw ghetto, we — imprisoned in the ghetto — send you our heartful fraternal greetings. We know that you watch with pain and compassionate tears, with admiration and alarm, the outcome of this war, which we have-been waging for many days with the cruel occupant. Let it be known that every threshold in the ghetto has been and will continue to be a fortress, that we may all perish in this struggle, but we will not surrender; that, like you, we breathe with desire for revenge for the crimes of our common foe. A battle is being waged for your freedom as well as ours. For you and our human, civic, and national honor and dignity. We shall avenge the crimes ofAuschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Majdanek! Long live the brotherhood of arms and blood offighting Poland! Long live freedom! Death to the hangmen and torturers! Long live the struggle for life and death against the occupant. [This appeal was prepared by underground couriers on the "Aryan" side of the Warsaw ghetto and posted by them, most of whom were Jews living under assumed identities as Polish Christians.] Search the Web site of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for more information about each of the individuals mentioned here as well as for information on conducting an observance: www.ushmm.org • Warsaw Ghetto Chronology: September 1, 1939 German forces invaded Poland. 40 eptember 28, 1939 Warsaw surrendered to the Germans. October 4, 1939 Germans appointed a Jewish Council for Warsaw. December 1, 1939 Germans required Jews in Warsaw to wear an identifying badge. October 12, 1940 German officials formally established a ghetto in Warsaw. Days later the ghetto was sealed from the surrounding city. July 22, 1942 Systematic deportation of almost 300,000 Jews from the Warsaw ghetto to the Treblinka killing center began. July 23, 1942 Jewish council chairman Adam Czerniakow committed suicide rather than assist in the deportations. January 18 -21, 1943 Germans deported 5,000 -6,000 Jews from the Warsaw ghetto to the Treblinka killing center. April 19, 1943 Nazi officials initiated the final destruction of the ghetto in Warsaw. The Jewish uprising began. May 8, 1943 German forces captured the bunker housing the Warsaw ghetto fighters' headquarters. 4 ay 16, 1943 The Germans blew up the Tlomacki synagogue in Warsaw to signal the destruction of the ghetto and the end of the uprising. - Books: Bartoszewski, Wladyslaw T. The Warsaw Ghetto: A Christian's Testimony. Boston: Beacon Press, 1988. Donat, Alexander. The Holocaust Kingdom. Washington, D.C.: Holocaust Library, 1999. Gutman, Israel. Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1994. Hilberg, Raul, Staron, Stanislaw, and Kermish, Joseph, eds., The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow: Prelude to Doom, trans. Stanislaw Staron. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1999. Kermish, Joseph, ed., To Live and Die with Honor: Selected Documents from the Warsaw Ghetto Underground Archives O.S. (Oneg Shabbath), trans. M. Z. Prives, et al. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1986. Meed, Vladka. On Both Sides of the Wall. Washington, D.C.: Holocaust Library, 1993. Ringelblum, Emmanuel. Notes from the Warsaw Ghetto: The .journal of Emmanuel Ringelblum. New York: Schocken, 1974. Film: O e Warsaw Ghetto, 1969 BBC Production. Uprising, 2001 Warner Home Video. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, 1993 Ergo Media, Inc. r UNITED r � STATES • HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY 2003-2013 Holocaust Remembrance Day is a day that has been set aside for remembering the victims of the Holocaust and for reminding Americans of what can happen to civilized people when bigotry, hatred and indifference reign. The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, created by act of Congress in 1980, was mandated to lead the nation in civic commemorations and to encourage appropriate Remembrance observances throughout the country. Observances and Remembrance activities can occur during the week of Remembrance that runs from the Sunday before through the Sunday after the actual date. While there are obvious religious aspects to such a day, it is not a religious observance as such. The internationally - recognized date comes from the Hebrew calendar and corresponds to the 27 day of Nisan on that calendar. That is the date on which Israel commemorates the victims of the Holocaust. In Hebrew, Holocaust Remembrance Day is called Yom Hashoah. 2003 Tuesday, April 29 • 2004 Sunday, April 18 2005 Thursday, May 5 2006 Tuesday, April 25 2007 Sunday, April 15 2008 Thursday, May 1 2009 Tuesday, April 21 2010 Sunday, April 11 2011 Sunday, May 1 2012 Thursday, April 19 2013 Sunday, April 7 The Holocaust is not merely a story of destruction and loss; it is a story of an apathetic world and a few rare individuals of extraordinary courage. It is a remarkable story of the human spirit and the life that flourished before the Holocaust, struggled during its darkest hours, and ultimately prevailed as survivors rebuilt their lives. We encourage you to join with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in observing the Days of Remembrance. For further information, please contact: Days of Remembrance, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, S.W., Washington, DC 20024 or see the Museum's web page at www.ushmm.gov. • 100 Raoul Wallenberg lace SW Washin ton D 2 -2 -� g g C 0024 126 •Tel (202) 488 0400 • Fax (202) 488 _690 • NAwAw.ushmm.org City Council Agenda Item No. 9c i MEMORANDUM • DATE: February 20, 2003 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, Consulting Engineer SUBJECT: Report on Riverbank Protection Project, Improvement Project No. 1999 -11 Following is a brief report that summarizes the purpose, history, project development, and current status of the above referenced project. This Memorandum attempts to provide a report that is both comprehensive but brief, and should not therefore be considered all inclusive. Some supporting correspondence and documentation is also attached to the report. 1. Overall Purpose of Proiect The proposed project provides for stabilizing up to 800 linear feet of eroding bank along the Mississippi River. This erosion is threatening the integrity of an 18 -inch diameter sanitary sewer interceptor located directly beneath the bank. Much of the erosion can be attributed to • undercutting of the bank, which causes gradual sloughing and collapse over time. The bank is very steep at this location and ranges in height from 12 -18 feet. The location of the sewer pipe and riverbank is shown per the attached Exhibit 1. Nine individual properties are located along the riverbank where the stabilization work is proposed to occur. The primary purpose of the proposed project is to protect the existing sanitary sewer from the eroding forces of the Mississippi River. Another benefit of the project is the prevention of loss of private property due to the described erosion. Damage and/or loss of the sewer pipe would result in the direct discharge of significant amounts of raw sewage into the river. The City of Minneapolis' domestic water intake is located less than 2 miles downstream of this sewer. This intake provides the source of all potable water for the City of Minneapolis and several suburbs. In addition, damage or loss of the pipe would also likely cause the immediate flood of river water into the downstream sewer pipe and cause flooding at a sanitary sewage lift station that serves approximately 1/3 of the City of Brooklyn Center (Exhibit 2). The potential back up of sewage into thousands of basements, and the threat of contamination to a public drinking supply source are serious concerns that have induced a sense of urgency in preventing such an event. Also, the continued erosion of the riverbank itself (with or without the catastrophic erosion of a sewer pipe) will continue to cause property loss in the future. The bank erosion has been confirmed by reports from property owners themselves, and visual observations. In summary, maintaining the integrity and operation of this sewer pipe is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. • Riverbank Protection Report Summary (2-20-03) 1 This issue became a concern as early as the late 1980's when City maintenance crews were • dispatched to the bank to prevent a sudden washout and erosion of the bank as a result of heavy rains that occurred during early spring when the ground was still frozen. In later years, further evidence of erosion and preventive actions by the City during periods of high river levels underscored the need to take further action on a more permanent and long -term manner. The evaluation of different alternatives and the preparation of a feasibility report to address specific alternatives and costs were subsequently prepared. The report evaluated several alternatives including relocating the sewer pipe, as well as different alternatives for stabilizing of the bank itself. This feasibility report and the subsequent process that followed are explained further in this memorandum and attachments. As a legal regulatory agency and stakeholder with the Mississippi River, and because of the agency's experience and expertise with the Mississippi River and projects of this nature, the St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been actively involved in this process. The Corps of Engineer's involvement has included the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and preparation of design plans, as described further in this memorandum. 2. Existing Sewer, History and Concerns The existing 18 -inch diameter concrete sewer pipe was constructed in 1960, and is located within an existing 20 -foot wide utility easement. As shown per Exhibit 3, the sewer pipe travels south from the north boundary of the City down the center of Willow Lane until reaching the property identified as 6720 Willow Lane. At that point the sewer turns easterly toward the bank of the • river, turns south and runs parallel and adjacent to the river for approximately 800 feet, turns west at 6620 Willow Lane and returns to the center of Willow Lane and continues southward toward the Lift Station. It is unknown why Willow Lane does not extend through the middle 800 feet where the sewer runs under the riverbank, as the properties were laid out and platted prior to 1960. Through this portion along the river, the sewer pipe is located within a 20 -foot wide utility easement. Additional easements are required for the bank stabilization project as proposed in order to provide temporary vehicular access for the construction, and additional permanent easements for the placement of rock stabilization (rip -rap). The proposed bank stabilization design is described further in this memorandum. As previously mentioned, the Riverbank issue became a concern as early as the late 1980's when City maintenance crews were dispatched to the bank to prevent a sudden washout and erosion of the bank as a result of heavy rains that occurred during early spring when the ground was still frozen. At that time surface water from adjoining properties rushed toward the river, forming a channel over the sewer pipe, exposing it, and nearly washing a portion of it into the River. Emergency measures, including the immediate placement of fill material prevented loss of the pipe. In April of 1997, the Mississippi River reached near record flood levels. Loss of the sewer again became a very urgent and serious concern, more specifically at 6632 West River Road where obvious sloughing of the bank near the manhole and above the pipe was highly visible. City crews again engaged in emergency preventive measures by placing several loads of large • concrete debris and riprap on the bank at the manhole to prevent collapse. This work was Riverbank Protection Report Summary (2-20-03) 2 • particularly unsettling to crews at the time, as the high river levels made it impossible to see the bank itself below the manhole, making effective placement of the material difficult. In addition, other concerns were visually observed elsewhere along the bank and monitored accordingly. Private property owners have expressed concerns of the loss of property due to erosion of the bank at other locations. Noticeable loss of maintainable property has been expressed by some property owners, particularly toward the north end of the project area. However, it has been somewhat difficult to quantify the specific amounts of property that have been lost over the years. Past surveys and old aerial photographs have been searched. However, in comparing "as- built" record drawings from 1960 with more recent surveys, it does appear that substantial loss of the riverbank and property has occurred. Durnam Island splits the Mississippi River into two channels at this location. In past years, the "main" channel ran east of the Island, or adjacent to the City of Fridley. In more recent years, it is believed that the main channel has migrated to the west channel, or adjacent to the Brooklyn Center riverbank. This raises the concern for erosion potential even higher. 3. Whv This Proiect? In addition to the events previously mentioned, observations and the professional opinion of the United States Army Corps of Engineers have underscored the urgency to take action. Continued erosion and eventual collapse of the bank and pipe are likely to occur, the question is how soon. • An evaluation was conducted to choose the best course of action is further described in this memorandum. In evaluating the need for this project, the City has retained the assistance of the Corps of Engineers. The Corps' overall knowledge and professional experience with the Mississippi River is essential when dealing with a problem of this nature. Their experience with flood protection, erosion protection, hydrology and design is highly recognized, and their professional opinions respected. We do recognize that providing the protection needed, while balancing . aesthetic concerns of property owners is a difficult balance, and efforts to respect this balance and reflect it into a design are explained further. The Mississippi River is an extremely powerful and unpredictable force of nature. Measures to provide safety, including protection of public and private property against potential harm should not be underestimated and taken lightly. In this instance, the protection and safety and welfare of the general public extend well beyond the immediate properties, as previously explained. 4. Process Initial Work The events of April 1997 raised the urgency of proactively searching for protective measures. At that time, staff entertained many possibilities, including relocating the sewer, fortifying the bank, and doing nothing. For each of the first two ideas, different scenarios for each were looked at in • concept. For example, if the pipe were to be relocated, could it be moved to West River Road or Riverbank Protection Report Suminary(2- 20 -03) 3 run through the center of the existing properties? If the sewer were to remain in place, what • could be done with the bank; riprap, sheet piling, or other? Available record drawings and data were gathered; site walks and informal discussions with some property owners were initiated. It became obvious that there were many alternatives with many cost potentials to consider. The City retained the engineering firm of WSB Associates to evaluate alternatives and prepare a feasibility report. Upon completion of a report in December of 1999, the City further retained WSB to explore and refine alternatives further, obtain public input, and make recommendations for a preferred alternative. Feasibility Report and Project Development The WSB Report essentially evaluated five alternatives. Sketches, descriptions, pros and cons p and an estimated cost were provided for each alternative, and are attached per Exhibit 4: Alternative 1 Full Slope Embankment Protection with Riprap Alternative 2 Partial Slope Embankment protection with Riprap Alternative 3 Steel Sheeting with Rip Rap Alternative 4 Bio- Engineered Embankment Alternative 5 Relocate Sewer. The alternatives of protecting the embankment vs. relocating the sewer were compared and considered. Relocation of the sanitary sewer (in addition to a much higher estimated cost), • presented other technical difficulties as well. For example, relocating the sewer would change its location with regards to existing private services (i.e. the sewer would move to the west side of the homes from its present east side location). This would in effect necessitate a re- design and re- construction of the sanitary sewer services, at a significant additional cost to homeowners. If the sewer were relocated to West River Road, the surface elevation of the street is 15 -20 feet higher than the top of the riverbank. The individual sewer services would require an extension in length of up to 300 feet for some properties, and a new pipe would therefore require bury at a very significant depth (up to 30 feet or more). The impacts and costs related to the street and existing utilities along West River Road, design and reconstruction of services, removal of trees and disruption to private property, additional permanent and construction easements required, and landscaping and restoration work would all need to be considered in addition to the estimated cost. The issue of the eroding riverbank and impacts to private properties would also remain. Based upon the alternatives evaluated, WSB recommended undertaking a rigorous bank treatment in the areas of the river bank that are subject to the most flow ranges (plus or minus 10 feet), and not removing vegetation above that elevation in order to lessen the impact on aesthetic qualities in the area, still protect the sewer line, protect the bank, and provide a feasible cost. Riverbank Protection Report Summary (2-20-03) 4 The Feasibility Study also recommended that funding for the project be pursued through the U.S. • Army Corps of Engineers. In the spring of 2000 the city requested assistance from the Corps of Engineers under the authority of Section 14, of the Flood Control Act of 1946. The Corps of Engineers Section 14 program assists communities in protecting public infrastructure that is threatened by stream bank erosion., Under this authority, the Corps performs a study and Environmental Assessment. In October of 2001, residents were notified that surveys and data collection would be conducted along the river at their properties in order to assist the Corps of Engineers in conducting the Environmental Assessment. Later that year, the Environmental Assessment was prepared and distributed by the Corps of Engineers (see Exhibit 5). This document was distributed to several Federal, State, and local agencies for comment. As part of the Section 14 Program, the City was required to enter into an agreement with the Corps of Engineers that identifies the responsibilities for each party in completing the project. A Project Cooperation Agreement was brought before the City Council on April 8, 2002, which the City Council approved. Under the terms of the agreement, the Corps of Engineers selects a contractor and performs construction administration of the project. The City is responsible for securing the necessary easements from property owners. Project costs are shared between the Corps of Engineers-(65 %) and the City (35 %). Funds have been earmarked within the Capital Improvements Program to cover the City's share of the costs. Throughout this process, the Riverwood Association and property owners were routinely updated (correspondence attached), • along with updates in the City Watch newsletter and Sun Post. Continued Public Input and Response to Concerns It has been stated that residents have had no notification or input during the course of this project. Attached to this report are examples of some of the many correspondences and contacts conducted with residents (Exhibit 7). In May of 2002, the City began the process for identification of easements needed to allow for construction of the riverbank protection work. A 20 -foot utility easement already exists for the sewer pipe itself. Additional easements needed include "temporary" or construction access easements, and permanent easements for placement of the rock riprap. Essentially, the existing properties extend to the river itself. Permanent easements needed include portions of property located between the existing sewer easement and the river. Since that time, many meetings and correspondences have been provided to local property owners (see attached correspondence). These included at least 3 scheduled group meetings at the site, and also included several undocumented individual site visits and telephone conversations with property owners. Representatives of the Corps of Engineers and the City frequently met with property owners to discuss concerns regarding aesthetics, tree removals, bank appearances, and many other issues. Specific technical questions relating to the hydraulics of the river itself were also addressed by the Corps, and provided to residents in the update letter forwarded to residents dated August 29, 2002. • Riverbank i e yank rrotecnm Report Summary (2-20-03) 5 • The Corps of Engineers has developed a design that is similar to the design as recommended in the WSB Feasibility Report (Exhibit 6). This design has subsequently been tweaked and refined as the process has moved forward and public comment has been received. The Corps has diligently listened to many of the same concerns that were expressed by Mr. Steven Cooper at the February 10, 2003 Council Meeting with regards to their proposed design. They have in good faith, tried hard to address concerns and balance aesthetic considerations against the long- term need to insure a design that will provide the protection and life needed. Most recently the plans have been revised to address concerns as follows: • The area of exposed riprap has been reduced by placing topsoil (with seeding and wood fiber blanket) on the upper portion of the bank. Prior to this revision, the plans still provided for preservation of the upper portion of the bank and preservation of existing trees as much as possible by hand placing riprap where needed. This revision further reduces the amount of exposed riprap, and extends and enlarges the "green" or vegetative face of the bank. This will allow for additional vegetative plantings in addition to at least some existing trees that will be preserved. It has always been the intent of the design to provide the protection needed, and still maintain as much of an environmentally friendly appearance as possible. The entire riverbank is not proposed to be "obliterated ". • The bench area at the toe of the slope has been removed, which changes the riprap thickness. This reduces the distance of rock to be extended into the river itself, and • should alleviate much of the concern regarding the extension of riprap into the river channel. • Identification of additional trees for preservation shall be negotiated with the Contractor prior to awarding of a contract. • Concerns by some residents concerning their decks or accesses to the river have been expressed. During development of the plans, it has been the intent to either re- locate or work around these existing decks. Another option that has been suggested is to provide compensation to property owners for the decks along with the easement compensations. In any event, the Corps has worked with residents on this issue, and it will be addressed accordingly. During the course of working with residents, the City has been working to complete surveys and legal work required for easement acquisitions. The specific easement areas proposed are needed regardless of the stabilization alternate selected, or refinement of design. At this time, easement descriptions, property appraisals, and fair compensation amounts have been determined. Evergreen Land Services and Orion Appraisals have provided assistance to the City in this regard. If the City Council chooses to proceed with this project, the next step would be to extend easement acquisition offers to the individual property owners. • Riverbank Protection Report Summary (2-20-03) 6 • 5. Summary and Recommendations It is recommended that the City Council proceed forward with the project as proposed. There is much at stake to consider; not only for the immediate riverbank properties, but for the entire City of Brooklyn Center and other communities as well. This proposed project can arguably be considered a "win -win" proposal for everyone: the City's infrastructure will be protected, and private property owners will be provided protection of their property from the unpredictable forces of the Mississippi River, at no direct cost. Per the Project Cooperation Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Corps of Engineers pays roughly 65% of the project cost, while the City pays 35 %. At the time of the Agreement (April 2002), the City's share of the costs was estimated to be $160,000. The actual amount cannot be determined or refined further until a revised cost estimate is prepared by the Corps of Engineers (based on the revised plans), easements are acquired, and a construction contract is negotiated by the Corps with a Contractor. However, it is recommended that the City continue to exercise its intent in accordance with the Agreement in order to maintain the availability of funding from the Corps. • • Riverbank Protection Report Summa (2- 20 -03) 7 ry EXHIBIT 1 cIR., w w o Q u- sAL aj W CIq ng' CA P- i0 0D ` DR. u - wI a c MEADOWW00D 75th ` 0o AVE. 74th WAY y�AY I N w L,. El w Lu z CT. 74 AVE. = DR. > E1 gZ T. 2 > 1- -® T2 741 th -® o: I AVE. Q I g h WAY RIG � Q v > CT. z 74th a AVE N RICE CRE�� 6/ P 1P M °° Q -® c w 73rd I CA > ? o 73%2 a WAY WAY I 1 n 66th WAY AVE.\ ` Q ° 73rd AVE. N. 65 %2 w - 67th P \ \ \� `L \\ � \\ . \\ \ \\ \ \\ ° ` \�\ WAY > N w�WOODBINE o WOOD SINE LA. ° °� 1 I M1S 5155 1 p P1 ` WAY Z ; i Q� �- a l 72nd AVE: w ) ALDRICH o w I o !Z ''' CT. 72nd AV. a P i- _ a —'AMY LA. y� PJF.• > w w J (1A1551551P64 I�26Aih WAY a _' A. x 71st AVE. Q Q �� 1 t z cnI w 72 nd s'L �? I J ��ti cr 63 /z WAY SYLVAN FRCUF x � a ° > > 0 1 r 4 DR. 63rd WAY > o � Q Q a a z 70 th AV. 1�th u AVE. N o 13. AVE. > 62%2 WAY � � DR � ti CO MET IRVING LA. � EMERSON LA. 3 �� 62 nd W z uj L A. ;DR 69th AVE. N. 69th AVE. N. I RIVER 61 = a ~ m cc 68th LA. W 2 — I EDGE WAY ¢ Q = F Z w w WAY '- V) 67th ,° a a >p >_ Durnam 61st WAY HUM8OLT a I I `'' 41 `'' LA. z w Island Pro ect o 13. ALDEN W AY z z z PL. w Location Lth . 67th- (Part of rY Z 60 th 4 4� N. a u A Brooklyn CHARLES 5T. ul F; > 59 WAY ~ ~ ~ Park) I a "' `n N r w a 59 th AV ° I z 4 a u 66th \ a N v lA N N M 0- u` m J 58 th AV AV. 65th AVE. _ 764th 57th a AV E. � 57th AVE. 102 94 694 I a t v moo' z JW D R. - �� 1 CAMDEN La 3rd LA. > I Q a AVE. Cr. r ° 100 I 100 62nd, 94 ENTURA Pv' c w �'' La ° > HORIZON CZR' �P aQ z a AV a a 61 st > > > . 5 �' _ " CROWN 10. u 4 z z a z � z w 1 O 3ra WAY Q - C 60 th v Q Q w Jo J o 2 0 52 1 52nd m > ° u m Q i 1- WAY z 59th 59th w AV. N. J I w ° I.- AVE N. ` z° ' 58 th I AV. 58 th I AV E. N. J 51st AVE. N.E. I IO 1. HUGHES AVE. z z z Z z I z 2.CLEARVIEW ST. z z z z z 3. TOPPER LA. 5 57 th AV E. 57 th AVE. N. ( q. HORIZON DR. I I 51 i L 5. PANORAMA 6. PILOT AVE. ■ WSB Project No. 1156.00 Date: November 24,1999 350 Westwood Lake Office Brooklyn Park, Minnesota Mi Wayzata Boulevard WSB Mim�eapoiis, MN 55428 6 12-64148M F AX F 541 -1700 PROJECT LOCATION MAP Map 1 d Aaoeiafu, Inc INFRASTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS ` F CTURTT 1 r" ►��°+ .+ �� r��'. a� r� A 7// �! X114#!!! 1�l��ra' �r Iry [�■ �-ea:a � � +.�,�..e>,aWt�ewae ;a+ d� �.'p■..�Ci aF r. ��iw+ r �C7 ;��Ejlilleri�A17�C F q �i �i� "Fa�a ri�I� e rr su! i7■ rr WF l� 1 113 ■ ad + ■� ■F■ ^ Im MW An bs 1we , i • e,7 a ,, I � = , � / -- L1�.1 .:! �= `■�rr liY 311 ! ■ X11 • � • • � -- ���� rti lial r �r�i1��� ! F! ', lir y.ti ! tan i`f ►y + e . +_ *. t � �■�dr•■si +rs r■,..+ +tai r �. � , +ti`'� '� ras � w ♦ate rr � l ' lom � rr is FEW !� >►�I ,��■ + iv �r! w- rr■r Fay � � i r ar ■ n rr r �a r t■.rr " >. u■r mm r, ■� iFA rr Yr nri >rr, e+ E t ■rf r. k ' + w !� i � -�■ ++ +- +■: it +! r� �� Er. mm 00 71WIAM in T riZZ XM / +:i2 +`L" r•13 itii 1Y.:.T.7G� . � lrrz +r + S iN I rey ses W� ■ ■ i ■ ■Ya^l i y't�- ! !+� !!1178± +;ryG �. - 4r/■3�1YLL ? ?L it ffl ■� +iY�J � awn ■m. ��7 rra r'� �/ _ cam � :)• +7 irSr �y i5! —! rr 7�1 lil:�a� • . ;;�?1 i11t� ram ■_Y _ L-7' + i +- ♦.1lV� r -E tlog .c:ri r��iKl.'7Mi+r r.+.■ char � IM 0 Ab jw 1 ■ ''ai d � � �� �� ��a: � ,� G •lddr � ■hO I I I r•Ildla■p 11•�,C .. � :•mmlao ox •ouddv w •oss�du P dVW WU3N30 4W 1 S1N3W3bu103b 31V1S3 1V3b el �x 1owlaa Tnra as N01103108d NNVB i '�"Te 81 I I etle 3NrON3 dO edYOO > r1OCUMIn - 1nr1 . 1O ill N011035 EXHIBIT 3 r AWbY 3H1 d0 1N3W1bVd30 b31N3O NA IHOObB X . OR LIMITS I ppp�r �„ _,_• � �� I ezz J -� . I1 x o l i Ind`' X W W j. i ~ Val . I I v x ■.I■.■ 1 ' I � 11 l u X / v! 204.000 x X I 1� X /xula y W u Imo. / - , EXISTING SANITARY SEWER (M6 X sr.■ i 1 x m.] g_ 417.1 m.. X 2 X ° 1 1 D1 3w _ t � L bt C X \ — �f - r 1 ` - � '� S I, ` \ • W V r EXHIBIT 3 Cf EXHIBIT 4 r . 2 t F S .:t ., H 7\ �{ �,�• 6, s ,M sti<� v � �' fh`�j I e �'�£ ` � \ 4 �� S' ,F � N� L. � ��� �Gt .k�� LtE' 4. �. +K •. ' .. M. AiN r� .•tom• ■PE4 P=4 ■ pm1 PO ■� 0 Q) Alk AS II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Site Conditions • The Mississippi River bank parallel to the sanitary s PP p Lary ewer alignment has significantly eroded along the toe of the slope. From the toe of the slope to the top'of the bluff it appears to be at a 1 foot vertical to 1 foot horizontal slope, and in some locations steeper. There is a significant amount of vegetation and tree growth along the river bank helping slow the bank erosion process; however, many of these trees have significant root exposure due to the erosion and are in jeopardy of collapsing. The City of Brooklyn Center has placed some boulders and concrete debris along the toe c of the slope at the east side of the project limits. (See pictures at the end of Section I1.) Other items found within the project limits during our site investigation are three residential decks, several stairway accesses leading down to the river, and a few corrugated metal pipe outlets leading into the river. These structures are also being adversely affected by the erosion of the Mississippi River bank. B. Geotechnical Data Soil borings and tests have been taken along the existing sanitary sewer alignment to determine the soil and groundwater conditions at locations that were determined to be the most critical along the sewer line. This information was necessary to evaluate the • existing stability of the river bank and, thus, develop alternatives of maintaining the stability of the bank by minimizing, if not preventing, undercutting of the toe of the slope. In summary, the findings of the soil study indicated approximately 7.3 feet of sandy fill material overlying fine to medium and fine sand at the boring sites. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 17.5 feet below ground surface (corresponding to an elevation of 804.5 feet). Because of the free - draining soils present, water levels within these soils will rise and fall with fluctuating river levels. No confining layers were discovered during the soil investigation. The full geotechnical evaluation entitled "Geotechnical Exploration for Mississippi River Bank Stabilization, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota" (June 28, 1999), is included in Appendix A. C. River Stage The Mississippi River flow elevation fluctuates dramatically throughout a year. Since 1997, the Mississippi River flow elevation fluctuated between a low of 806.53 feet and a high of 816.53 feet, with a normal flow elevation of 810.53 feet. This information was taken from the United States Geological Survey (USGS), ID 05288500, which is located downstream from the Coon Rapids Regional Dam, which is indicative of elevations within our project limits. To put this information in Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 3 perspective, the toe of the existing river bank within our project limits varies from approximately 804 feet to 806 feet, while the top of the existing river bank elevation within our project limits varies from approximately 814 feet to 820 feet. _ • D. Televised Sanitary Sewer Line The City of Brooklyn Center televised the 18 sanitary sewer line earlier this year. Upon review of this tape, it appears that the sewer line has a few minor deficiencies, but as a whole is in fairly good condition. This leads us to believe that if the shoreline river bank erosion is controlled, the sanitary sewer line should function properly well r-, into the foreseeable future. E. Past Studies In January 1998, a report by Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) stated that the shoreline erosion of the bank, although typical of a river, would continue and cause slope failure unless protected. In this report, SEH suggested two methods to stabilize the river bank. This report, which includes photographs of portions of the existing bank, is included in Appendix B. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 4 III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Six options were identified as possible approaches to correcting the erosion problem. Five of • these alternatives considered different methods of providing bank -stabilization. The remaining alternative addresses relocation of the sanitary sewer line. A. Alternative No. I - Full Slope Riprap and Geotextile Protection This alternative proposes to clear and grub the entire 750 feet of river bank area and excavate the river bank to form a uniform 2:1 side slope. After the river bank side slope has been shaped, a Geotextile fabric would be placed under a Class IV Riprap material. The Geotextile fabric would be pined down at all the edge and seam locations. The Geotextile fabric and Class IV Riprap material would be toed a minimum of 2 feet into the river bank at the sides and top of the river bank. This application would be placed approximately 10 feet into the river. Listed below are some benefits and drawbacks associated with this alternative. Benefits: • Relative ease of installation. • Little aesthetic degradation. • Provides a scenic view of the Mississippi River and Durham Island. • Minor inconvenience for adjacent residents with respect to construction time. • Hinders the erosion process. • Avoids inconvenience of relocating the 750 -foot section of sanitary sewer line. Drawbacks: • There would still be possible undercutting of the Class IV Riprap support soil at the base of the Riprap. • Most of the trees along the river bank would need to be removed. An effort would be made to minimize tree removal. • Utility sheds, decks, fire pits, and other miscellaneous items would need to be temporarily relocated or removed and replaced to allow for construction operations. • Cost of reforestation along the top of the river bank. The following two pages will show application details and a cost breakdown for this alternative. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 9 2'-0" CLASS IV RANDOM RIPRAP TOP OF RIVER BANK WATER LEVEL EL. VARIES —� 2 0 o 0 EXISTING RIVER p� BOTTOM SLOPE O p0 O +1 VARIES 0 � o 10' 00 � �Q °0 O r 00 0 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC EXIST. 18" SANITARY TYPICAL RIPRAP SECTION SEWER LINE NO SCALE 2'-0" CLASS IV RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS IV RANDOM RIPRAP TOE -IN 2'-0" MIN. — O GEOTEXTILE FABRIC EXISTING RIVER BANK TYPICAL TOE — IN SECTION NO SCALE 3o � Lake Office Park, Minnesota wse Plea Na. „5.00 : r,o n� z4, ,sss S p 8441 eWli m Boulevard J Minneapolis, MN 55428 612,541-4800 FULL SLOPE RIPRAP AND City of Brooklyn Park FAX 541-1700 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC Figure 1 ;. TRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS PROTECTION // Cost Total Description Units Quantity Per Unit Cost ' I Mobilization .. LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 Clearing & Grubbing AC 0.8 $3,000 $2,400 Slope Excavation CY 1000 $5 $5,000 I Class IV Riprap (2' depth) CY 2800 $50 1 ' $ 140,000 I Type IV Geotextile Fabric SY 4200 $2 $8,400 I I Seed (including topsoil) Sy 1000 I $6 I $6,000 Structure removals and replacements I LS I 1 I $15,000 I $15,000 Subtotal I $186,800 1 120% Contingency $37,360 Estimated Construction Cost $224,160 130% Engineering/LegaUAdministrative Fees $67,248 • Estimated Project 1 Cost of Alternative No. l I $291,408 NOTES: * Cost estimate is based on stabilization of 750 lineal feet of shoreline with approximately 20 feet vertical height and 30 foot slope banks. * Cost estimate does not include any tree, shrub or landscaping replacement, which may be necessary in some areas. • Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 page 11 B. Alternative No. 2 - Toe of Slope Riprap and Geotextile Fabric Protection This alternative proposes to clear and grub the toe of the slope for the entire 750 feet • of river bank area. After the toe has been cleared and grubbed, a berm consisting of a Geotextile fabric, granular filter, and Class N Riprap would be constructed. This berm would be constructed to an approximate width of 16 feet at the'base to a width of 8 feet at the top, and to a height of approximately 6 feet, in which 2 feet of the berm would be constructed under water. The Geotextile fabric would be pined down at all the edge and seam locations. The Geotextile fabric and Class N would be toed -a minimum of 2 feet into the bank at the sides and top of the river bank. Listed below are some benefits and drawbacks associated with this alternative. Benefits: • Relative ease of installation. • Little aesthetic degradation. • Most of the trees and vegetation along the river bank would remain. • Minor inconvenience for adjacent residents with respect to construction time. • Hinders the erosion process. • Avoids inconvenience of relocating the 750 -foot section of sanitary sewer line. Drawbacks: • There would still be undercutting of the Class N Riprap support soil at -.the base of the Riprap. • Decks would need to be removed and replaced to allow for construction operations. • During high water, - erosion of the river bank above the berm would continue. The following two pages will show application details and a cost breakdown for this alternative. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 12 • EXISTING RIVER BANK SLOPE VARIES EXISTING RIVER BANK TO BE REMOVED 2' -0" CLASS IV ® RANDOM RIPRAP 8 ' - 011 + T! _ = o GRANULAR FILTER co WATER LEVEL EL. VARIES CD 80° La cbo�`� o � 0p rl c > O - " EXIST. 18 i SANITARY VARIES FROM SEWER LINE 0 TO 4' i 1 01 -ON EXISTING RIVER O BOTTOM SLOPE VARIES GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPICAL RIPRAP BERM SECTION NO SCALE 350 Westwood LaM Office ' `- -- Brooklyn Park, Minnesota WSMied No. 1158.00 Date: Novenber24,1 6011 ways BmIlarana Minneapolis, MN 55428 SB TOE OF SLOPE RIPRAP AND 'o=& 812-541-44100 City City of Brooklyn Park FAX 541 -17 FABRIC C Fi ure 2 PROTECTION TRUC7URE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS �� �E�&_l::.. «=FY.F '.:b3:rmr.= --wa, ` n.- at+�aw.s-wrla� ♦ .. cost Total Description Units Quantity Per Unit Cost Mobilization LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 Clearing & Grubbing AC 0.2 $3,000 $600 Slope Excavation CY 100 $5 $500 Granular Filter (2' depth) CY 1000 $25 $25,000 Class N Riprap (4' depth) I CY 2000 $50 I $100,000 Type N Geotextile Fabric SY 1400 $2 I $2,800 Seed (including topsoil) I SY 500 I $6 I $3,000 Structure removals and replacements I LS 1 i $12,000 I $12,000 Subtotal $153,900 20% Contingency $30,780 Estimated Construction Cost $184,680 • 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $55,404 Estimated Project Cost of Alternative No. 2 I $240 NOTES: * Cost estimate is based on stabilization of 750 lineal feet of shoreline with approximately 20 feet vertical height and 30 foot slope banks. . * Cost estimate does not include any tree, shrub or landscaping replacement, which may be necessa ry in some areas. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 14 C. Alternative No. 3 - Steel Sheeting, Riprap, and Geotextile Fabric Protection This alternative proposes to clear and grub the entire 750 feet of river bank area. • After the clearing and grubbing has been completed, a 10 -foot section of steel sheeting would be driven 8 feet into the ground, leaving a 2 -foot section exposed. The top of this steel sheeting would have a cap plate and be placed Hoot above normal river flow elevation. The slope would then be backfilled with a combination of granular borrow, Geotextile fabric, and Class IV Riprap. The Geotextile fabric would be pined down at all the edges and seam location. The Geotextile and Class IV Riprap material would be toed a minimum of 2 feet into the river bank at the sides and top of the river bank. Listed below are some benefits and drawbacks associated with this alternative. Benefits: • Further undercutting of the bank will be prevented. • Little aesthetic degradation. • Provides a scenic view of the Mississippi River and Durnam Island. • Minor inconvenience for residents with respect to construction time. • Avoids inconvenience of relocating the 750 -foot section of sanitary sewer line. Drawbacks: • This alternative is likely one of the most difficult and expensive erosion controls • to be constructed. • Existing boulders in the Mississippi River channel may cause problems with respect to placement of the steel sheeting, and all sections may not be able to be driven the full recommended 10 feet of depth. • Most of the trees along the river bank would need to be removed. An effort would be made to minimize tree removal. • Utility sheds, decks, fire pits, and other miscellaneous items would need to be temporarily relocated or removed and replaced to allow for construction operations. • Cost of reforestation along the top of the river bank. The following two pages will show application details and a cost breakdown for this alternative. See Appendix D for sample specification for steel sheet piling. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 15 T . EXISTING RIVER BANK SLOPE VARIES 2' -0" CLASS IV RANDOM RIPRAP GEOTEXTILE FABRIC o c 2 �tf NORMAL WATER LEVEL Q - EXIST. 18" SANITARY SEWER LINE COMMON BORROW �W w EXISTING RIVER BOTTOM. STEEL SHEET PILING - WlCAP PLATE SLOPE VARIES I � SHEET PILING W /RIPRAP PROTECTION NO SCALE • M Westwood Lake Office Brooklyn Park, Minnesota WS B Protect No. 1156 Date: November 14,1999 8441 Wayzata Boulevard SB Minneapolis, MN 55426 � e12- 504e00 STEEL SHEET PILING, RIPRAP AND City of Brooklyn Park aarK,� F AX 541 GEOTEXTILE PROTECTION Fi gure TRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS 3 • ., . - n _ .. M. - �n �j r mn n nm imnw . ,r nm Cost Total _ Description Units Quantity Per Unit Cost Mobilization LS - 1 I $18,000 I $18,000 I Clearing & Grubbing AC 0.8 $3 000 2 ! I $ ,400 Granular Borrow Cy I 1800 $5 I $9,000 Class IV Ri ra 2 depth) Rip rap t P ) � CY I 1500 � $50 � � $75,000 Type IV Geotextile Fabric I SY I 2000 $2 I $4,000 Sheeting (along river) I SF 7500 ( $30 $225,000 Seed includin topsoil) Seed ( including P ) � Sy 1000 I $6 I $6,000 Structure Removals & Replacements i LS I 1 I $12,000 $12,000 Subtotal $351,400 20% Contingency $70,280 Estimated Construction Cost $42.1,680 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees 1 $126,504 q I Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No. 3 J $548,184 NOTES: * Cost estimates are based on stabilization of 750 lineal feet of shoreline with approximately 20 feet vertical height and 30 foot slope banks. * Cost estimate does not include any tree, shrub or landscaping replacement, which may be necessary in some areas. : Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection .::.. City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 17 D. Alternative No. 4 - Concrete Mat Stabilization abilizahon This alternative proposes to clear and grub the entire 750 feet of river bank area and 4 • excavate the river bank to form a uniform 2:1 side slope. After the river bank side slope has been shaped, articulated cable-reinforced erosion control mats would be placed. These mats would be tied together at the seams for the entire 750 feet. We propose to place approximately 10 feet of the articulated cable - reinforced erosion control mats into the river and extend it up the bank vertical elevation of 5 feet above normal water level. The articulated cable - reinforced erosion control mats are supplied with a Geotextile fabric attached to the bottom of the mats. The erosion control mats would be pined down at all the edges and seam locations, and be toed a minimum of 2 feet into the river bank at the sides and top of the river bank. The top of the slope would have topsoil, seed, and wood fiber blankets placed to re- vegetate the area. Listed below are some benefits and drawbacks associated with this alternative. Benefits: • Little aesthetic degradation. • Provides a scenic view of the Mississippi River and Durnam Park Island. • Minor inconvenience for adjacent residents with respect to construction time. • Hinders the erosion process. • Avoids inconvenience of relocating he 750 -foot sectio g n of sanitary sewer line. Drawbacks: • This alternative is likely one of the most difficult erosion controls to be constructed. • Lack of aesthetic qualities until vegetation is re- established. • There would still be possible undercutting of the concrete erosion control mats at the base of the mat. • Most of the trees along the river bank would need to be removed. An effort would be made to minimize tree removal. Cost of reforestation along the top of the river bank. The following two pages will show application details and a cost breakdown for this alternative. See Appendix C for additional application details. Feasibility Report „x.... ; Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 18 PROPOSED RIVER BANK SLOPE TOE CABLE CONCRETE 2'- 0" MIN. INTO • RIVER BANK AT TOP & SIDES EXISTING RIVER BANK r SLOPE VARIES f 2 ARTICULATED CABLE CONCRETE +1 EROSION CONTROL MATS / _ NORMAL WATER LEVEL 10'- 0" o y I H EXIST. 18" SANITARY SEWER LINE COMMON BORROW EXISTING RIVER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BOTTOM SLOPE ATTACHED TO VARIES CABLE CONCRETE TYPICAL CABLE CONCRETE SECTION NO SCALE ARTICULATED CABLE CONCRETE EROSION CONTROL.MATS F]n._ o EXISTING RIVEn - BANK _ TYPICAL TOE -IN SECTION NO SCALE W0 Westwood Lake Office Brooklyn Park, Minnesota WSB PTIed No. 1156.00 Date: November 24,19M vll'... TB 8441 Wayzata BotAevard Minneapolis, MN 55428 •�..► e +Z�•+ ARTICULATED CABLE CONCRETE City of Brooklyn Park PAX S " "°° EROSION CONTROL MAT Figure 4 tTRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS 4 • 3 Cost Total Description Units Quantity Per Unit Cost Mobilization LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 Clearing & Grubbing AC 0.8 $3,000 $2,400 Slope Excavation CY 1000 $5 $5,000 Articulated Cable Concrete Erosion SF 18000 $12 $216,000 Control Mats w /Anchors Common Borrow CY 1000 $5 $5,000 Seed (including topsoil) SY 1000 $6 $6,000 Wood Fiber Blankets ' SY 850 $1.25 $1,063 Structure Removals & Replacements ( LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 Subtotal $260,463 20% Contingency $52,093 Estimated Construction Cost $312 �• 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $93,767 Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No. 4 I $406,3221 !1 NOTES: * Cost estimates are based on stabilization of 750 lineal feet of shoreline with approximately 20 feet vertical height and 30 foot slope banks. * Cost estimate does not include any tree, shrub or landscaping replacement, which may be necessary in some areas. I � I I Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No, 1156.00 Page 20 �.I E. Alternative No. 3 - Bloengineered Embankment This alternative would utilize bioengineering to stabilize the embankment by use of a . combination of synthetic and natural means. This process would involve clearing and excavating the entire slope in order to place a base layer of filter gravel. A layer of common fill would then be placed and compacted on top of the base layer. Next a cellular confinement system (such as Geoweb® - refer to Appendix Q would be placed, expanded, and filled with a soil and aggregate mixture, then wrapped in coir fabric. Additional sections would be filled and stacked as shown in Figure 5. After placement is completed, the bioengineered bank would be vegetated with native plants and shrubs. The top of the slope would have topsoil, seed, and wood fiber blankets placed to re- vegetate the area. The new river bank, along with re- establishing vegetation, provides the bank protection necessary to prevent failure and potential loss of the sanitary sewer line. Listed below are some benefits and drawbacks associated with this alternative. Benefits: • Provides durability and erosion resistence while reintroducing the natural aesthetic characteristic of the existin g embankment. • Avoids inconvenience of relocating the 750 -foot section of sanitary sewer line. • Vegetation would be replenished. • Minor inconvenience to adjacent residents. • Hinders the erosion process. Drawbacks: • Past history with this product leads us to believe that this product is not suited for areas where fast river or ice flows are present. • High maintenance with fluctuating river levels. • Lack of aesthetic qualities until vegetation is re- established. • There would still be possible undercutting of the concrete erosion control mats at the base of the mat. • Most of the trees along the river bank would need to be removed. An effort would be made to minimize tree removal. • Cost of reforestation along the top of the river bank. The following two pages will show application details and a cost breakdown for this alternative. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection ` City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 11 I • ?OPOSEO RIVER ft SLOPE- - FISTING RIVER BANK r _ _OPE VARIES IOENGINEERED LOGS 0 / co ORMAL WATER LEVEL o C H EXIST. 18" SANITARY l SEWER LINE • COMMON BORROW XISTING RIVER OTTOM SLOPE 'ARIES BIOENGINEERED EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION NO SCALE ' WSB p*ct No. 1156.00 Date: November 44,1M �:,, • ,, 350 We�ood � Office Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 8441 Wayzata Boulevard ti TB Minneapol* MN 55428 BIOENGINEERED EROSION CI of Brooklyn Park C i t y Y I `"'w- FAX u' " "°° Figure 5 CONTROL PROTECTION :TRUCTURE - ENGINEERS - PLANNERS I Cost Total Description Units Quantity Per Unit Cost Mobilization LS 1 $10,000 I $10,000 Clearing & Grubbing AC 0.8 $3,000 $2,400 Slope Excavation CY, 1200 I $5 I $6,000 Filter Gravel Cy J 900 I $8 $7,200 Common Borrow CY + 1800 I $5 $9,000 Aggregate & Topsoil Wrap in Coir CY 1800 $50 $90,000 Fabric Seed (including topsoil) SY I 1000 I $6 ' $6,000 Wood Fiber Blankets SY I 850 ` $1.25 $1,063 Plants & Shrubs LS I 1 � $10,000 I $10,000 Structure Removals & Replacements LS 1 $15,000 I $15,000 Subtotal $156,663 20% contingency $31,333 Estimated Construction Cost $187,995 30% Engineeiing/Legal/Admimstrative Fees $56,399 Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No. 5 I $244,3941 NOTES. * Cost estimates are based on stabilization of 75011neal feet of shoreline with approximately 20 feet vertical height and 30 foot slope banks * Cost estimate does not include any tree, shrub or landscaping replacement, which may be necessary in some areas. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection - City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 23 F. Alternative No. 6 - Sanitary Sewer Line Relocation This alternative would consist of abandonment of approximately 1,000 lineal feet of • 18" sanitary sewer next to the Mississippi River and relocate with 24" sanitary sewer westerly within easements and southerly along the easterly right- of-way line of Trunk Highway 252 and easterly to existing 18 ", sanitary sewer on Willow Lane. Also, new 8" sanitary sewer lateral lines with 4" service lines would be required to reconnect existing . services to the proposed 24" sanitary sewer. Listed below are some benefits and drawbacks associated with this alternative. Benefits: !� 0 Have a new sanitary sewer line in service. • Remove sanitary sewer line from erosion danger. ® 0 Easier construction with respect to land accessibility. ' Potentially more cost - effective than shoreline protection. • Does not alter the riverbank or its vegetation as the inplace line would be q abandoned. ® Drawbacks: • Major inconvenience to adjacent property owners and residents. • • Relocating and reconnecting sanitary sewer line poses difficulties. q Possible service interruption. • Easement acquisition through residential properties. • Cost of landscaping restoration. The following two pages will show application details and a cost breakdown for this alternative. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection ' City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 24 i e: � �� t tr k r - ° j4i r f •t).� �'� v b1 � � f qq � /.: i �: h� � � s �*fi . � } � s'.L. .Mr4 r • � �• . f !' `t 3 �S'.F ` �Yt`I. �F l�'�« K' t . {T'r 1 �i�yltl� }apt`• '�i .� - yi .�r �' Q.l t ,r r�L y, /gyp •a •�_ iX wi t e a,. `•v �1 t� .VS 'n4 1 3 An a � � L ,• ' ' ; r � X I S T I NG 18 S AN °`� i. SEWER LINE TO 6I •1 h r � H to J- i, � '•�/ • 1 f?• r 1 '�l 5 t' � 1` r' .ry� x 5.,, �( jo b , tJr 1R t '..,yt� /. •� `'fit ::... . � �i . 1S:ti I �� ' f f 6 .� 4�!; 1, 7 ;,q y � '.i s � � /'� : 53�'" 5^' •.i I�;l,.'� -r / � 111 �.�, y 1 .,� / 'ry � 1f '�tr Fk t • ,��� 1 �y . r � t �' r � �f,'rti _• :11 x • Cost . Total ® Description Units Quantity Per Unit Cost Mobilization LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 $4,000 $4 24" HDPE LF 1320 $100 $132,000 8" PVC SDR 26 LF ' $2D $700-- Manhole Castings I EA 6 $300 $1,800 48" Diameter Manhole LF 110 $150 $16,500 4" PVC Service Pipe LF 800 $20 $16,000 8 x 4" Wye EA 1 $50 $50 24" x 4" Wye ( EA 3 ) $300 $900 Connect to Existing Manhole I EA 2 $700 $1,400 I Reconnect Services EA 7 $500 I $3,500 Clean-outs EA 3 $200 $600 • Remove & Replace Curb & Gutter LF 750 $10 $7,500 Remove & Replace Conc. Aprons SY 100 $50 $5,000 Remove & Replace Bit Drive SY 2000 $17 $34,000 a Sod (including topsoil) SY 5000 $8.00 $40,000 Easement Acquisition LS 1 $20,000 $20,00 , Subtotal I $298,950 20% Contingency g Y $59,790 Estimated Construction Cost $358,740 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $107,622 Estimated Project Cost of Alternative No. 6 $466,362 NOTE: Cost estimate does not include any tree, shrub or landscaping replacement, which may be necessary in some areas. Feasibility Repoli Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. II 56.00 Page 16 i IV.. SUM" Y/ CONCLUSION /RECOMMENDATION This feasibility report investigates alternatives available to address a potential future failure of a sanitary ewer line ne that is located immediately west of the Mississippi River in the • vicinity of properties from 6626 West River Road to 6712 West River Road. This sanitary sewer line is subject to failure if the river banks continue to erode and cause°undermining of the soils in the vicinity of this line. This report looked at alternatives ranging from stabilizing the river bank by using a variety of different bank stabilization methods, to relocating the sanitary sewer line adjacent to West River Road where future erosion of the bank would be of no concern. These bank stabilization alternatives range from utilizing g u zing steel sheet piling, nprap, cable concrete, and bioengineering methods to stabilize the bank slope and prevent further erosion, thereby protecting the sanitary sewer line from subsequent failure. These alternatives also range from providing bank stabilization measures only near the toe of the slope, to running bank stabilization measures all the way to the top of the Mississippi River bank. Extending bank stabilization measures to the top of the bank provides a more rigorous bank stabilization treatment, but costs more and would require extensive trees and vegetation removal on the bank slopes, which provide a natural appearance as well as some bank stability at this time. The alternative to relocate the sanitary sewer line adjacent to West River Road would eliminate the need for the City to undertake these bank stabilization practices, but would not eliminate the erosion in this area and would result in continued erosion and impact to the private property owners having structures adjacent to the river. • Based on a review of the various issues relating o these design parameters, it is g gn our general opinion that undertaking a rigorous bank treatment only in the areas of the river bank that are subject to most flow ranges (plus or minus 10 feet), and not removing vegetation above this elevation, would result in less impact to the aesthetic qualities of the area, allow a lower cost project to be constructed, and should protect the sanitary sewer line in the foreseeable future from failure due to erosion and slope failure. If an alternative such as this is utilized, it will be necessary to continue to monitor the area to evaluate the ability of this bank protection method to protect the sanitary sewer in the long term. This study provides an estimate of cost for six alternatives, five of which assume the bank will be stabilized and the existing sanitary sewer line will remain in place. The sixth alternative consists of relocating the sanitary sewer line adjacent to West River Road and doing nothing along the Mississippi River bank. A summary of the alternatives and their associated cost is provided below. Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 2 7 Alternative No. 1- Full Slope Riprap and Geotextile Fabric Protection Estimated Construction Cost $224,160 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $67,248 • Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No.1 I $291,408 Alternative No. 2 - Toe of Slope Riprap and Geotextile Fabric Protection n Estimated Construction Cost $184,680 n 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $55,404 Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No. 2 + $240,084 Alternative No. 3 - Steel Sheeting, Riprap, and Geotextile Fabric Protection Estimated Construction Cost $421,680 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $126,504 Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No. 3 I $548,1841 Alternative No. 4 - Concrete Mat Stabilization Estimated Construction Cost $312,555 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $93,767 • Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No. 4 I $406,322 Alternative No. 5 - Bioengineered Embankment Estimated Construction Cost $187,995 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $56,399 Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No. S I $244,394 Alternative No. 6 - Sanitary Sewer Line Relocation Estimated Construction Cost $358,740 30% Engineering/Legal/Administrative Fees $107,622 Estimated Project Cost ofAlternative No 6 J $466,362 Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection . , City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project.No. 1156.00 "''" Page 28 Based on our review of the alternatives and the issues associated with them, we would recommend that the City give strong consideration to Alternative No. 2. This alternative is recommended for the following reasons: • This alternative would have the least impact for adjacent residents. • No additional easement should need to be acquired. Although this method may not completely stop the erosion process, it should hinder the erosion process well into the foreseeable future. • This alternative will minimize the impact to the existing vegetation. • The cost associated with this type of bank treatment is the lowest. • Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection _ City of Brooklyn Center =; WSB Project No. IIS6.00 Page 29 V POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES Below is a list of potential funding sources that are available for this type of project. • State of Minnesota We believe the best possible fundin source urce for this type of project is through Your local and state legislative representatives. It is our recommendation that the City of Brooklyn Center contact these representatives and request them to add a section to one of their bills funding this project. The state representatives for the City of Brooklyn Center are as follows: I � Contacts. Representative Phil Carruthers Senator Paul Wellston 217 State Office Building 2550 University Ave. W. . St. Paul, MN 55155 -1606 St. Paul, MN 55114 -1025 Senator Linda Scheid Senator Rod Grams 317 SOB State Office Building . 2013 Second Avenue N. Minnesota Senate Anoka, MN 55303 St. Paul, MN 55155 -1606 • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE) Streambank Stabilization Program Purpose: To construct bank protection to protect endangered highways, public e works, nonprofit public services such as schools and hospitals, etc. The program may accept this project, as further erosion could result in a sewage break, which would dump into the Mississippi River. Guidelines: The ACOE will fund an initial study of the problem at federal expense up to $40,000; the remainder is cost - shared. Local government is eligible. The maximum federal expenditure per project is $1 million. Any project cost in excess must be provided by local cash contribution. Projects are cost- shared and nonfederal parties are required to contribute a minimum of 35% of the total project cost; of which 5% must be a cash contribution. Other responsibilities apply with respect to post - construction maintenance. I � Contact: Mr. Nathan Kathir Mr. Tom Crump St. Paul District Corps of Engineers Attn: Management and Evaluation Branch 190 5 Street East St. Paul, MN 55101 -1638 (651) 290 -5569 (651) 290 -5284 e Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection -. City of Brooklyn Center WSB Project No. 1156.00 Page 30 • Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) id T o Purpse: o prove assistance to land owners and local overnme • g nts to offset some of the cost of installing erosion, sediment, and water quality practices. Guidelines: Eligible projects include erosion control structures among others. rs. Local governments are eligible. The cost share amount ranges from $5,000 to $50,000. Contact: Mr. Wayne Zellmer Board of Water & Soil Resources 1 West Water Street St. Paul, MN 55107 (651) 297 -7361 • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters (AIN DNR) Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program Purpose: To provide technical and financial assistance to local governmental units for conducting flood damage reduction studies and for planning and implementing flood damage reduction measures. Guidelines: Local units of government are eligible. It is the Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program, and request amounts range from $50,000 • to $200,000. Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance Program Purpose: Grant funding is available by the Flood Damage Reduction Grant t Assistance Program. Guidelines: Local government units are eligible. Request amount u q p to $300,000 total cost for small re grants funded directly by the DNR and greater than $300,000 for large grants. Contact: Mr. Dean MN DNR Division of Waters 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 -4032 (651) 772 -7910 Feasibility Report Mississippi River Sanitary sewer and River Bank Protection City of BrookI yn Center WSB Project No. 1156 00 Page 31 EXHIBIT 5 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE 9 I 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL, MN 55101 -1638 • REPLY TO November 26, 2001 ATTENTION OF Environmental and Economic Analysis Branch Planning, Programs, and Project Management Division SUBJECT: Bank Stabilization, Mississippi River, Hennepin County, Minnesota Dear Interested Parties: Enclosed for your information and review is the Environmental Assessment for Bank Stabilization on the Mississippi River in Hennepin County, Minnesota. We are distributing this report to concerned agencies, interest groups, and individuals. If you have any comments on the proposed action, please provide them within 30 days. The Section 404(b)(1) evaluation is being distributed as part of This report in lieu of a. separate Section 404 public notice. Anyone may request a public hearing on this project. The request must be submitted in writing to the District Engineer within 15 working days of the date of this letter. The request must clearly state the interest that the project would affect and how the • project would affect that interest. All requests for a hearing and comments on the document will become an official part of the project file and will be available for public examination. Please address all correspondence on this project to the District Engineer, St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers, Attention: Environmental and Economic Analysis Branch, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1638. Sincerely, W Enclosure Dennis Anderson Acting Chief, Environmental and Economic Analysis Branch EXHIBIT 5 r • Copy furnished: FEDERAL U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Twin Cities Field Office 4101 East 80th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55425 U.S. Geological Survey District Chief 2280 Woodale Drive Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 Natural Resources Conservation Service 600 Farm Credit Building 375 Jackson Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1854 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue - • Washington, D.C. 20004 Mr. David A. Ulrich (Separate Letter) U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency Region V 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 -3590 Federal Emergency Management Agency = Region V 536 South Clark Street, 6` Floor Chicago, Illinois 60605 STATE OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Department of Agriculture 90 West Plato Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 Minnesota Department of'Health • Metro Square Building 121 East 7th Place St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources One West Water Street Suite 200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 Minnesota Department of Public Service 200 Metro Square Building 121 7th Place East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Mr. Thomas Balcom (5 Copies) (Separate Letter) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55146 Mr. Lawrence Zdon (Separate Letter) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -4194 Minnesota Department of Transportation Waterways Section Suite 925 Kelly Annex 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources One West Water Street, Suite 200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 -2039 Minnesota Historical Society State Historic Preservation Officer 345 Kellogg Boulevard West St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 -1906 Dr. Mark Dudzik Office of the State Archaeologist Fort Snelling History Center St. Paul, Minnesota 55111 LOCAL • City Administrator City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Hennepin County Administrator Hennepin County Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 LIBRARIES Minnesota Legislative Reference Library 645 State Office Building St. Paul, Minnesota_ 55107 -1408 Environmental Conservation Libray of Minnesota 300 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401 • Brookdale- Hennepin Area Library 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SECTION 14, STREAM SANK PROTECTION SUNVE%4ARY Major Findings and Conclusions The purpose of this environmental evaluation is to assess the impacts of various measures to protect aportion of eroding stream bank along the Mississippi River in the city of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Erosion from the Mississippi River is threatening about 750 feet of a major 18 -inch sanitary sewer located 15 -25 feet from, and parallel to, the riverbank. Alternatives considered to protect a reach of eroding stream bank included several variations of the selected plan, relocation of the sewer line and taking no action. An environmental review of the proposed action indicates that the project would not result in significant effects to the environment and that probable effects in the area would be short-term and minor. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. If the public review identifies significant issues, a revised NEPA document may be prepared. A 404(b)(1) evaluation has been prepared. A State Water Quality Certificate (Section 401) has been applied for and will be obtained before construction. Relationship to Environmental Requirements • p . The proposed action would comply with Federal environmental laws, Executive Orders and policies, and State and local laws and policies including the Clean Air Act, as amended; The Clean Water Act, as amended; The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended; the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended; Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management; and Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands. The proposed action would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses. Therefore, the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 does not apply to this project. NEED FOR AND OBJECTIVES OF ACTION Slope failure from erosion of the riverbank is threatening to cause the failure of an 18 -inch sanitary sewer. The affected area is located upstream of the drinking water intake for the City of Minneapolis. This study is authorized by Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is located along the Mississippi River in the city of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, directly upstream of the Interstate 694 Bridge (Exhibitl). The existing conditions are described in the following paragraphs. i Natural Resources • The proposed project would be constructed along a 750 -foot stretch of the west bank of the Mississippi River directly upstream of the Interstate 694 Bridge (Exhibit 2). The riparian vegetation in the area is confined to small trees and shrubs in a suburban residential area of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The river fishery includes the following species; walleye, northern pike, yellow perch, sunfish, crappie, bullheads, carp, white sucker, river redhorse, darters, shiners, and minnows. This is comparable to other rivers in the area. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were contacted by telephone. No State or Federally listed threatened or endangered species are evident in the immediate project area. Cultural Resources The area of potential effect for the project has been surveyed for cultural resources. As a result of that survey, a subsurface scatter of historic artifacts was identified in shovel tests and along the eroding riverbank. The deposits are for -the- most -part are deeper than 30 to 40- centimeters with the highest density of material in the northern portion of the project area in the 60 to 80- centimeter level. Surface disturbance in the project area from sewer -line and house construction extends to -a depth of 30 to 40- centimeters. No prehistoric resources nor historic structures or buildings were identified in the project area. • Socioeconomic Resources The proposed project area is located in the city of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, in east central Minnesota. It is approximately 9 miles north of Minneapolis, Minnesota and is part of the Minneapolis /St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area. The 2000 population of Brooklyn Center is 29,172, an increase of 1.0% from 1990. Hennepin County's 2000 population totaled 1,116,200, an increase of 8.1% from 1990. Hennepin County ranks first in total population of Minnesota's 87 counties. The Hennepin County labor force totaled 685,470 in August 2001, with an unemployment rate of 3.3 %, compared to 3.2% for the State of Minnesota and 4.9% for the United States. The most significant industries in Hennepin County are services (35.1% of employed persons); retail trade (15.3 %); manufacturing (11.8 %); and finance, insurance, and real estate (10.9 %). According to information from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the 1999 per capita income for Hennepin County was $42,313, compared to $30,742 for the State of Minnesota and $28,546 for the United States. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives considered for stabilizing the bank in the eroded reach included no action, sewer • relocation, and bank protection measures. Bank protection measures included bioengineering 2 features and placement of riprap. Due to the type of erosion in this area and the impacts • associated with the sewer line failing, selection of a proven/durable method such as rock riprap was the most beneficial. In addition, the unstable nature of the riverbank eliminated those alternatives that required site grading. No Action (Without- project Condition) If no action would be taken, the bank erosion would continue until some action was taken by local units of government. Without action, there would be a high potential for failure of the bank and consequent failure of the sewer line with the possibility of contamination of the City of Minneapolis drinking water supply. Alternatives Not Selected Several construction alternatives were considered but not selected. Sewer relocation would avoid the necessity of bank stabilization but would be very costly. Bioengineering techni ues' were not ry y g g q considered to be sufficiently proven for this application. Alternatives that would include site grading were not considered to be feasible. Selected Plan The proposed protection plan consists of the placement of a layer of riprap on the failing bank up • to elevation 817 msl, which corresponds to a 50 -year flood event. The section would have a slope of 1V on 1.75H. Less than ' /z acre of river bottom would be affected. Access to the site would be provided by a 25 -foot wide temporary road extending firom the dead -end of Willow Drive to the .riverbank and then parallel to the river through the project area connecting to another dead end on Willow Drive at the other end of the project (Exhibits 2 -5). ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS No significant adverse impacts would result from construction of the proposed project. As specified in Section 122 of the 1970 Rivers and Harbors Act, potential project impacts on the parameters listed in Table 1 were considered in arriving at a final determination. In compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a 404(b)(1) evaluation has been prepared (Enclosure A). Natural Resources Rock for riprap would be obtained from an operating quarry. No new land would be excavated. Material would be placed directly on the embankment and at the toe without excavation or . i smoothing. Most construction, including rock placement would take place from the top of the bank avoiding the use of machinery close to, or in, the river. Access to the construction site would be constructed from the end of an existing road and extend to the riverbank and along the • top to the next road creating a loop for one -way traffic for rock delivery. No access to the toe of 3 the bank would be required. Clearing f trees and shrubs would be required along the edge of the g q g g riverbank to permit placement of material but this vegetation would be lost if the bank failed. Plantings of native species would be done to all disturbed areas after completion of the construction. Because of the limited extent of the proposed action, impacts on fish and wildlife resources would be minimal. Instream and riparian habitat is limited in the area of active bank failure. Therefore the project would not adversely affect wetlands, aquatic habitat or threatened or endangered species. Adverse effects would be limited and short-term because they are associated with construction. Temporary localized increases in turbidity may occur with disturbance of the river bottom during construction but these would be expected to be minimal and would end once the rock was in place. No additional turbidity would be expected because rock with a minimum of fines (small particles) would be used. Best Management Practices would be used to limit erosion from the construction site and sedimentation in the river. Construction specifications would require that clean erosion control equipment be used to avoid the spread of invasive species like purple loostrife (Lythrum salicaria). The installation of rock in the riverbed would be limited but would have a minor positive effect on fish habitat in the immediate area since it would halt sedimentation from further bank failure and would provide stable substrate for benthic macroinvertebrates. Executive Orders The provisions of executive orders 11988 Activities in flood lain and 11990 (Wetland • protection) would be satisfied. The project would prevent damage to existing facilities rather than encourage floodplain development. There are no wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed project. Only riverbank would be protected. . Cultural Resources Because the intact cultural deposits identified in the project area are 40- centimeters or deeper below disturbed surface horizons, and because the project will not involve any shaping or grading of the riverbank or adjacent upland, the intact cultural deposits are effectively below the area of potential effects for the project. Socioeconomic Effects There would be no significant social or economic impacts that would result from construction of the proposed project. Rather, reconstruction would have a positive impact on public health and safety in the area after the project is complete. During riprap placement, short-term negative impacts would likely occur in the following areas: an increase in noise levels and disruption of normal community traffic patterns. These effects would be attenuated through the appropriate placement of construction and safety signage. These effects would be short lived and terminate when construction is complete. • 4 COORDINATION • Coordination with the public and overnment agencies has been maintained durin •the g g g , planning process. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources were contacted (Enclosure B). No special concerns were identified by the U.S. Fish. and Wildlife Service. Both agencies agreed with the evaluation that the net effect of the proposed action would not be significant. A determination of no historic properties affected has been verbally coordinated with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and a letter conveying this determination has been sent to that office. Written concurrence with this determination from the SHPO is expected. (Enclosure B). This report will be sent to interested citizens and the following agencies: Federal Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey . U.S. Department of Agriculture- Forest Service Natural Resources Conservation Service • State of Minnesota Department of Agriculture Department of Public Safety Department of Health Department of Natural Resources Department of Transportation Pollution Control Agency State Historic Preservation Officer Board of Soil and Water Resources Legislative Reference Library Others Brooklyn Center City Administrator Hennepin County Administrator • 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MATRIX Section 122 of the River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91 -611) ; MAGNITUDE OF PROBABLE IMPACTS BENEFICIAL EFFECT NO APPRECIABLE ADVERSE EFFECT PARAMETER I SIGNIFICANT I SUBSTANTIAL I MINOR EFFECT MINOR I SUBSTANTIAL I SIGNIFICANT " A. SOCIAL EFFECTS 1. Noise I ! X (Temporary) 2. Aesthetic Values 1 I ){ 3. Recreational Opportunities ( X 4. Transportation I X X (Temporary) 5. Public, Health and Safety I I X 6. Community Cohesion (Sense of Unity) I I I X I I 7. Community Growth and Development I I X 8. Business and Home Relocation I I X I I 9. Existing and Potential Land Use I I X I 10. Controversy ! X I I I B. ECONOMIC EFFECTS 1. Property Values X I 2. Tax Revenues X 3. Public Facilities and Services X 4. Regional Growth X 5. Employment X 6. Business Activity I I X 7. Farmland/Food Supply I X 4 I 8. Water Supply X I 9. Flooding Effects I 10. Energy Needs and Resources I I X C. NATURAL RESOURCE EFFECTS 1. Air Ouality . X 2. Terrestrial Habitat X I 3. Wetlands X 4. Aquatic Habitat X (Temporary) 5. Habitat Diversity and Interspersion X 6. Biological Productivity X 1 7 7. Surface Water Ouality ; X 8. Water Supply + + 1 9. Groundwater I I X 10. Soils I I + X I I I 11. Threatened or Endangered Species I I X D. CULTURAL RESOURCE EFFECTS 1. Historic Architectural Values X 2. Pre - Historic and Historic I 6 M ,tgr�ty ('1�Fe Sri,:. w 1 +00 0 2 +00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6 +00 7 +00 8 +00 8 +96.02 = 10 +1 I M 5 I t t t ► t t t I t t I I • o MH J T , i , O En c m m. "� SCREEN f HOUSE cp + " U BBO { ' 6 +00 M H 8 cl 7 +0 4 s +oo I � 0 Q ' W . 1 z +ooi� H CMP CU I t 8" RCP 102 �— i8 " 8+0 a H CMP 18" RCP 101 , LVERT RCP 103 MH a STEPS CULVERT QDECK - ECK SHORELINE a a SS 1 PP f •R i VAR � �' SHORELINE n M SS I '1 Volu,11L 1 +50- 2 +is : 754t 145 L y�:w 725-4 30 Z(, '7SOA q - : 2ca 3z San a O. S/+ut Vb 7 r s o : 323 4, ('— ?�� G oj 125 ^� 7 so - 1i' l 7S' 117 So $43 j l u cD co r rn Lo Co 00 Q i .y N ^ N N T N N c0 OC N , � . N N N N N 00 m C, _ ... 830 - 830 .820 \� _ - 820 1.75 8 - - 11.00 - 810 8 O 0 7 N-7 EST WSEL= 800.7' AREA ROCK = 145 SO FT \- 0 0 LENGTH SLOPE TO GRUB = 30 FT 790 - - 790 780 .780 0 50 4 100 � BROOKLYN CENTER S - ECTION 14 STUDY N' SCOUR PROTECTION DESIGN • - SECTION 2 +25 .. ... , - .. - . _ ' -, _ :.:Kr ^rte:?:;,,• .. ari. _ .. ' . ... ....... .............. ..... .n r.. ..n..w....... .:..........nm.m. :.. :...v- ...5w....a .. .. .. ... y �: .r .w ..1.: �.. ..' ... :i, <.:,•'.J••.aM� V #S�wM•: ..•. '�£: .T .. _;' 1f7.,u1�!yr4j�L.._..a`�.1'1.i - n w - ... _wF�f�'�MV"�' a .. ..._ � •:rv'�i�l�::rt...•.i.'.:._.a. , •Sim. � .. .t .i %� e .�l ! i' T S. }��uy �• w��N � '_Jw^. =:. ry'a x 330 p MANHOLE.? 8 3,0 320 820 INVERT= 812.58' - 1.75 3 10 - 1.00 810 0 - EST WSEL= 799.9' AREA ROCK = 180 SO FT LENGTH SLOPE TO GRUB = 30 FT 7y0. .. .....,_:..:..:�. ............._._. ...... ., ... .. .. - 790 780 , 780 0 50 100 PIS BROOKLYN CENTER S ECTION 14 STUDY SCOUR PROTECT HON DESIGN. _ ^� SECTION 4 +25 • .. . ...... wr.. .. ...... ...... ...r. �.. ... c.... ..v. .. ..... ..P4rf " . .- •^'fR�•nvr?Y `}W :%1..• t} }i.' 830 - 830 820 - 820 1.75 m - :� 1.00 - 81 800 N7 EST WSEL= 799.9' AREA ROCK.= 190 SO FT 800 LENGTH SLOPE TO GRUB = 30 FT \.. 7.9,x- 790 780.. _ 780 { 0 50 100 BROOKLYN CENTER - SECTION .14 STUDY r j= SCOUR PROTECTION • DESIGN } _ ;� SECTION .7' +50 : }. _ Enclosure A Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation 404(b)(1) EVALUATION STREAMBANK PROTECTION ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Location - The proposed erosion control project is located along an approximately 800 -foot reach of the Mississippi River north of the Interstate 694 Bridge, in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Plate 1). B. General Description - Slope failure from erosion of the ,riverbank is threatening to cause the failure -of a section of the riverbank containing an 18 -inch sanitary sewer. The sewer is buried in the riverbank riverward of a row of suburban residences in an_ area vegetated by turf, trees and shrubs. Because of the failing bank little riparian habitat is present. C. Authority and Purpose - This study.is authorized by Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. Its purpose is to increase bank stability and prevent damage to the sanitary sewer. • D. General Description of Dredged or Fill Material 1. General Characteristics of Material - The riprap would be clean graded rock. 2. Ouantitv of Material — The quantity of riprap would be 5,000 cubic yards. There would be no excavation of the bank. 3. Source of Material - The riprap would be obtained from an active quarry. ' E. Description of the Proposed Dischame Sites 1. Location - Proposed fill activities would take place along 800 feet of eroding bank and the toe on the Mississippi River in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. Size - An area of less than 1 /z acre of river bottom would be affected by the placement of riprap. Clearing and grubbing of the bank would encompass about 1 /2 acre. 3. Tvpe of Site - The riprap would be placed on the eroding bank and toe. 4. Tvpes of Habitat - The immediate project area is predominantly vegetated with • residential landscaping with scattered small trees along the bank. The lower slopes of the 8 embankment are poorly vegetated with grass and shrubs and leaning trees. Fish habitat is • degraded by the slumping of eroded material. 5. Timine- and Duration - Construction would be initiated in 2002. It is estimated that the project would take about 4 months to complete. F. Description of Disposal Method - Riprap would be placed along the riverbank using machinery working from the top of the bank. There would be no excavation or smoothing of the bank and no machinery working in the river. H. FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS A. Physical Substrate Determinations 1. Substrate Elevation and Slope - The proposed action would alter the existing ground " line to approximately 1 V:1.75 H. No significant change in elevation would occur. 2. Sediment Type - The river channel and bank are primarily silty sand. 3. Dredzed/Fill Material Movement - No movement of fill material is expected to take place. 4. Physical Effects on Benthos - Some benthic organisms would be covered b fill g Y • activities. New benthic species could colonize the area after riprap placement. Sedimentation of benthic habitat would be reduced by erosion control. 5. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts - Because the placement of the material would have only minimal impacts, no special actions to minimize adverse impacts would be taken. B. Water Circulation. Fluctuation. and Salinity Determinations 1. Water - The proposed action would not affect water quality. It would not change the existing salinity levels, water chemistry, clarity, color, odor, taste, temperature, dissolved gas levels, nutrient levels or eutrophication potential. 2. Current Patterns and Circulation a. Current Patterns and Flow - The proposed action would not appreciably alter current or flow patterns. b. Velocity - The main channel velocities would not be appreciably altered. c. Stratification - The proposed fill activities would have no effect on the development of stratified conditions in the river. d. Hydrologic Regime - The proposed fill activities would not affect the hydrologic regime of the project area. • 9 I Normal Water Level Fluctuations, - The proposed action would not affect water level fluctuations. • 4. Salinitv Gradient - Not applicable. • 5. Actions Taken to Minimize Impact - Since project impacts would be minor, measures to minimize impacts would not be feasible. C. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determination 1. Exnected Chances in Suspended Particulates and Turbiditv Levels in the Vicinitv of the Disposal Site - Although some minor temporary increases in turbidity would occur during project construction, levels of turbidity would return to normal after project construction. 2. Effects on Chemical and Phvsical Properties of the Water Column - No effects are expected on light penetration, dissolved oxygen, toxic metals and organics, pathogens or the aesthetics of the water column during construction or after the project is in place. 3. Effects on Biota - Effects on biota would be minimal. No losses of benthic organisms would be expected to result from placement of riprap. Benthic organisms would be expected to colonize the newly riprapped bank and the boulder clusters. 4. Actions Taken to Minimize ImT)acts - None required. D. Contaminant Determinations, - The fill material would be clean rock placed on the river bottom and would not introduce contaminants into the aquatic system Neither the material nor . its placement would cause relocation or increases of contaminants in the aquatic systems. E. Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations 1. Effects on Plankton - No effect expected. 2. Effects on Benthos - No losses of benthic organisms would be expected to result from placement of riprap since the sloughed bank material provides minimal habitat. However, benthic organisms would be expected to colonize the riprap after construction. 3. Effects on Nekton - No effect expected. 4. Effects on Aquatic Food Web, - No significant or long -term effects on the aquatic food web are expected. 5. Effects on Special Aquatic Sites - Nos special aquatic sites located mt s are loc e m the project p q p o }ect area; therefore, no effects on such sites are expected. • 6. Threatened and Endanzered Species - No known federally -listed or State -listed 10 e threatened or endangered species would be affected by the proposed action. • 7. Other Wildlife - Some temporary disturbances of wildlife could result from equipment operations during construction. Some grass, brush and trees on the embankment would be removed by the proposed action. Because of the limited extent of the proposed action, actual displacement of wildlife would be minor. 8. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts - No actions are required because of the lack of impacts associated with the proposed action. F. Proposed Disposal Site Determinations 1. Mixing Zone Determination - Not applicable. Material would not be dispersed. 2. Determination of Compliance with Applicable Water Oualitv Standards - The fill material would be obtained from an operating quarry. Since only clean rock would be used, State water standards would not be violated because of project- related activities. 3. Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics - The proposed action would result in no adverse effects on municipal or private water supplies; recreational or commercial fisheries; or water - related recreation, aesthetics, parks, national historic monuments, or similar preserves. G. Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem - Implementation of the • proposed action would cause no significant cumulative impact on the aquatic ecosystem. H. Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem - No significant secondary effects would be expected. IIL FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE WITH RESTRICTIONS ON DISCHARGE The proposed fill activity would comply with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act. No significant adaptations to the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines were made for this evaluation. Other alternatives considered included variations of the selected plan and no action. These alternatives were not selected because they would be more expensive or were not as effective as the selected plan. A more detailed discussion of the alternatives is in the detailed project report. The proposed fill activity would comply with all State of Minnesota water quality standards, Section 307 of the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The proposed fill activities would not have a significant impact on human health and welfare, including municipal and private water supplies, recreational and commercial fishing, plankton, fish, wildlife and special aquatic sites. The life stages of aquatic organisms and other wildlife would not be adversely affected. No significant adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem diversity, • productivity- and stability, or on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values would occur. 11 • Since the proposed action would result in so few adverse effects, no additional measures to minimize impacts would be required. On the basis of this evaluation, I specify that the proposed placement of rock fill for bank stabilization complies with the requirements of the guidelines for discharge or placement of fill material. Robert L. Ball Date Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer 12 i Enclosure B Correspondence 13 RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION • August 24, 2001 PERSON CALLING: John T. Shyne MVPPM -E 651- 290 -5270 PERSON CALLED: Wayne Barstad MNDNR 651- 772 -7940 Subject: Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Section 1.4 1. I called Mr. Barstad to discuss the potential effects of the proposed action on the natural resources in the vicinity of the 2. I explained the need for the proposed action and how the selection of the plan was made. 3. Mr. Barstad said that the plan sounded like a reasonable approach. He said that.he would contact me if the area fish and wildlife managers had any additional concerns. • • 14 Shyne, John T MVP • From: Shyne, John T MVP Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:07 PM To: 'Nick_Rowse @tws.gov' Subject: RE: Brooklyn Center Bank Stabilization Thanks Nick, we require compliance with NPDES in our plans and specs but we should add more specific language regarding purple loosestrife. I'll take care of that. Regards, John - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Nick_Rowse @fws.gov [mailto:Nick Rowse @fws.gov) Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 4:40 PM To: Shyne, John T MVP Subject: Re: Brooklyn Center Bank Stabilization John, I recommend that all measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation by implemented both prior to and during construction. These'would include••• silt fencing, covering exposed surfaces with filter fabric, etc. Make sure the equipment is clean and will not spread around invasive species including purple loosestrife. I concur with your conclusion of not likely to adversely impact any federally listed species. Nick Rowse • Fish and Wildlife Biologist 612 --725 -3548 x210 "Shyne, John T MVP" <John.T.Shyne @mvp02.usace To: "Nick Rowse (E- mail)" <Nick_Rowse @fws.gov> .army.mil> cc: Subject: Brooklyn Center Bank Stabilization 08/17/2001 04:_06 PM Nick, I have a bank stabilization project at Brooklyn Center coming up. They are trying to do it on an accelerated schedule although they usually forget to leave time for us. The location is the Mississippi River just upstream of 694 a short distance, on the west bank. The bank, which is failing by undercutting, contains an 18" sanitary force main. Several alternatives were considered including relocating the sewer line and bioengineering but I think that the selected plan, not yet designed,' will be providing rock " rotection for the bank.for about 750 feet. I don't believe that they plan o work in the river but may work along the base putting rock in front of them as they go. They may have to clear some vegetation (some already leaning) to place the rock. 1 " The location is 6626 to 6712 West River Road. The Minneapolis water intake. is downstream of this site. et me know if you have any specific concerns or need more info. Pictures ere taken. I have concluded that this project would not have significant adverse_ effects on endangered or threatened species. Please inform me if you . concur. Thanks, John John T. Shyne Fishery Biologist, PM -E St. Paul District, US Army Corps of Engineers 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1638 Phone: 651.290.5270 Fax: 651.290.5258 2 I I Enclosure C Finding of No Significant Impact I I I i5 I • F DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE • 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL, MN 55101.1638 - REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Environmental and Economic Analysis Branch Planning, Programs and Project Management Division DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers, has assessed the environmental impacts of the following project: STREAMBANK PROTECTION, ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, NIINNESOTA • The intent of this project is to provide bank protection along the Mississippi River in Hennepin County in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The proposed. project involves the. protection, using riprap, of about 800 linear feet of eroding riverbank. This finding of no significant impact is based on the following factors: the project would have no adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources or on air and water quality; the project would have short-term minor impacts on the social environment; the project would have no impact on the cultural environment; and continued coordination would be maintained with appropriate State and Federal agencies. The environmental review process indicates that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. Robert L. Ball Date Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer � Printed on Recycled Paper EXHIBIT 6 f I ... j I HTN. AVE. x. I L� I pTN. AVE. N. C D u_ u , are Y$ 1 A N A U A $ re.rp Q1. < A DT 1` t fI GOT: AVE I - _ 67TH. A aix. A sr A If - NORTH DAKOTA Sn � M[fD1E50TA 1 § MICHIGAN - ' BR PROJECT LOCATION HIGH CENTER SCHOOL D •-. - 'r R. - WISCONSIN 6 uTx A x 5017711 DAKDTA M O IREHM 5 S PARK EAST FINE F REEWAY BI.V[ $STN AVE. N: STATIONZ SS AVE_ J ) PROJECT $STN N LOCATION w _I LEGEND __�.w.nr B STATE ,tOYA, __„ - n _ , H RIVERS L LASES u AVE N LOCATION WP - ......... I I �•�••• VISTRICT ECU _ OANIIS , A S , NATIO RCtMMitf ....... Lot I LA . LOCK AND DAN SCALE W MILES m y 1 W AVE N • B x 631W L ', •!' ci GENERAL CROSS - REFERENCING SYMBOLS 1 sE10 AvE'N DETAIUSECTION �er raioErA L Ttll$ � r SUPPL INFORMA 10N a(�NTEAIS vINE uerta T r1L.$ r� E: GIST AVE N D SU PPLEME N TAL INF a ANOTIEER MA■Ir$ R S - �P;EIF.IITAL INFg1YATi[N rvR■v ICENTE 1Rr1E11 y `da S$CTltrl/DETAILI „ . FRONT 940E S IA SI1$T [ ELEVATION SECTION p� gA1pvIE iR nnnnn �,• W 50111 AY$ N q tp < PANII SCHOOL VIE■1 17� y Aly^ € 6 _ YvjG3X�b�EiEl�iFi O S 2 SEena M IV wr$$ SEOTtM M ■/ ��"Q�6Es °4 �IIr alarx M vt$v a1oN1 a s �>S pp 8 W .��� VICINITY MAP � ARE aurlNO ANOTIYA MAnw ����� BROOKLYN CENTER. MINNESOTA .,� S S a A A CONSTi01CTION DRAWING INDEX ij/ 3 AE} Sy ON W l AT :YNeaL ■. y g DRAWIND No. ISNT! f iE DRA ■IN$ , XxoixElI DRAWING p O GENERAL ORP �liu'•S, !IESLRIPTION 1 L.O. N0. .. `�..� F ` j� - •, 1 LOG1TI A VtaNITF WPS MYINR INM J LEIENS I C - J OIOOOVIC L - 1n - oOAGt ( GENERAL. LEGEND CSOOOIMR ]J] CI -xx-u TE GRAYING S- IE- LYiIIO S $MIND LOCATION LIMITS OF WIN S KMI - Lm M FRIECTIM LN a Q� Z I- a -EVxxN $ $EEncw IC$lxaoot W Y �. �` bz CISK1000t A PROJECT ALIGNIENT _ RINt FILL V Z � J �U b'o Q m ��w J r FERENCE ORI�'i'�uGS . {7N 1 R RI- 'AE/R10f 1 MTOROORAIAIC DATA. r C = ( T - . S"bI�SI/7O•R Cl11x0 Slmoti Q Z Y rrArl,xa NWl{R, h , CTSiD00R ■ P. I. POINT J (� BASIN-TN t 1 Iv T REF - �' SN H0. 1 l0 /97 •' - 1 —N1SY8 O ' Ammw eraMwo � • T �1 ai .t rnx � � � ll e• u� o me w _ x• Via= �_; 9 m y VVV - • s X•) Ix V � i [� i i x - �. , X x i i C x ix ix x . x ix n i x ix ix i x .x i x . x I e; x _ s` - - - — > .................... — X pmv i x N er r e a r � ^^• F. i • A F•Z� N En x X S'PI X � Xg W IFO AC Of FACE NO T I* 01STNM . ��• Nor PIPING LM NG • —� NOT DOW x - � � X +o NOT +15tC'l s a l l N ' to Nor - V " 8 ••� � y g � big arm" L NENOK iNEE + D NqT OF t Fi T Nm eu r . : KWK 1REE srNNm IW' RCP . - — -- - • n.. S"E" IV am 1.71W _ ul t ki. Nt,. .. � Yi tY OI 1.7= . , � � s � rArRS , w , 1160>a'M Saw NFPLACEO n ANO l NE�LACE 0 TE T: er o p � EtEP+ —NEE NO ,. � ' T NLwYED AN0 •�" ad REULACEO IT • RElDVE Aw � NEE UM ,. . DEC X 7 R WYED AND NFILACED R DINNERS x o BENCHMARK ELEVATION ( DESCRIPTION. l7 P PLAN VI NOTESS EM ` oo sm W E ' 82E.96 SANITARY YANI0.E COVER LOCATE+ .. ON a°WTN ENE OF WILLOW DRIVE 30 0 70 1. VU ICAL DAIM IS N .t.Y.D. moat 6 iAN W N 621.57 ]ANITAIIT W EDGE E W RA NE LOCALE+ • . tl 1 i ] /[LT iN 0 Z. tANITArt1' YWIQES E.t.l.t.t. ANO 0 7NALL K UFEO N 0. q U tL0 OF ER. SCALE IN FEET N THE f ELO. A t IE CCNNEttINa 7NE% EAR W'T MI +ANITAW CO WNN0.E WI I. ]MALL 6fFD T+ OFF 11Yi1] OF m IR0.1[CT FEATOLEN. p FEET ►+U III OF . y. Sc m g LIMIT] REFEII To IAN W t 620.1117 SANITARY IWYO SANITARY L[ VER. � \vI • ,. INOVIOE A NNIIW [lEARAtICE rF 7 FEET FROI 1'IIE EAN w w 1 o EES.SI UK T Y tOFECOVER l0utE0 ] tAxl ART LII tM iNFSE ANEAS WEIIE THE IIF6 I] EW1U. NN SA S ANITA RY OF WAW. - ` ` OMRIMW MWN AN t Eat.,! O E N D W IaN ER DRIVE. `V BASIN -T- a NDRTx um v nuw OILY[. rn� CC/fN0.01 EN7 ]_op a , ts�� et0 ,- �— T Ig .W1 eLM111 n nu . ue NOT /��e uno a1oy1 e10 te• °epffpy tTa t• a fa0f°EiL7Nly IbCRFtLL M ►naiEerloN /y, _ F• W1111es1 iMetOlSe A, a DATE e10 :• 4 t 1 EFE/oOr[i pu°tMGE sot NTeR01.0ete I1FegMAT'rla. +v w:a m usi , xE r s ii :`T°A�w*"tiErwa rml BENCH. � EST esF'.,ee`* — - - - - ' - - - - - -- 100 A -m I 70 -1 0 0 10 =e , ' ae +e w w To no SECTION �/I'�� e0 fro 1°e BANK PROTECTION a,0lM Le! - - rpOtIBe T � t ego � -- 1 - \\ the 0 e10 - 1M tmavel. sit eL 7e1. :` 0 EtiT no-Mr. r • H 011 L791 $_ •' •100 fit ' y AM e to • w w w w Be 70 -7 g w .. SECTION � BMA PROTECTION - 2 ue - 3 ^ 1- exsta+o awuo Lac Olga 920- •�� -` T .. no cCEC • \\ tL TAMES 120 O w am" - 11 "m Twomn US I lie i R - - .. ZZ 7d tv eR L7m edr ta;B,.7M.e• O' ILMJ IN id ----- -- •-- - - - - -- � 0 �l _ Ica 0 - •d0 a 18 to i ^ w 7e ee w. leo a SECTION ' B ' ANK PROTECTION � . OMMNO MyW10• BASIN -i- •. 1 6 1 v 1 1 C A , ., - us RrsT C•rpr A D A 'IrrOYVq PLA[E OT `t AV big 67TH. AVE N. C 6 t I y ' \ • ; .•4 O N L i 2 I ,``,` ', fMW� �Ip' II ��A « iL1 11 Q NORTH DAKOTA ~` 6TTH. A ' In MINNESOTA MA MICHIGAN PROJECT LOCATION j __i —_ -- a 3 BROOKLYN CENTER - i 1 "lw •• MISCONSIN ! E NI FAI SCHOOL j• IIVJJ SOUTH DAKOTA _sr.y D t' 'IREHOU b .".... RA / > PARK t r Mn nna & CyI EAST FIR= td' fR EErAT. BIVG clTN AVE. N. STATION PROJECT GET" AVE / J LOCATION •'+, ;, LEGEND to R IM 6uwMSE! _ �- R IMS i LAKES g LOCATION MAP 2 6K AV u - ----- DISTRICT 8ORID411ES "I - .1 —�•�� -� ' /y NATIONAL BORAIARIES 4„ . " , 1 20 , - - - - - - 9{ LM LOCK AND 041 sCAIE W MLLES N'�' A r '• 61� � '� GENERAL CROSS — REFERENCING SYMBOLS ° g; ma y/ I DETAIL /SECTION O sECnauo TU[ TtTLF sl; ` ' t. • N. ` = SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION A aENTEPEO A IMER �' u li° 1 4 L iu 10l 100 t_] 5 y � .Io - DETAIL/SECTION VSECTION Z sEelloNioETAIL TInE a '" : r oN ANOTHER Wurtro 4� r R + SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION F".. 'CE It 9{ REO NWDER yy y 33 W .�•� ' SCALE, SECTION /pETA1l1 r"F o u3 S e OS F FRONT SIDE vICEVMEWREfO'nlroER ' E E pEE L� � -1 ELEVATIdi SECTION �Aa vlEVl $gYCg,rjl die ~ M sl r e D . 1`NpV nnnnn� IEr �. .•. -3 � :% iARK SCN00. 15P� z 2910, s 2 SECTION CUT w AA/S9! El 3 W` VIEW crow ON viiW SWnrarti ow NO Di g tt � y „ G VICINITY MAP . SANE ORANING ANOTHER ORA►I M s e • OG . BROOKLYN CENTER. MINNESOTA N . CONSTRUCTION DRAWING INDEX DETAIL Sr1MOl. W , I IIETAiI SYIRIOL w Z O i 3 VIEW Sxaw ON 1 SATE DRAWING �, VY E AWOi11E D � O � C13 � > j (DRAWING NO.jSHTj DESCRIPTION I I.D. NO. �' l.1.! Z 1 � GENERAL DRAWINGS `�''-' ' ' Q ltl ^ Mi•a- o0/DOI I 1 LOCATION A VICINITY MAPS OMWIND INDE:t A AEMw GENERAL LEGEND - (J W W�L d•Z ' x �� 111 .. I� 1 - - 10 WTM BONING LOCATION [(WITS IF YOiWI W a a Uz¢ o � CIVIL /SITE DRAWINGS T 4. 2 FI° Yom!' -61 YDD1 RAN - LIMITS OF PROTECTION S SECTIONS 1 - S AND DETAIL , O"-m"C N101.0at Y a O f-• Z M-P6 -it /rot q1j r/1 Z Z 00]JnPGT6100E.ODN .ti '% .��.,� R PAW CY ALICNIENY FILL � :,E ...A I"'�LU POINT O 0 Yw V Jc REFERENCE DRAWINGS 1 Y- NC- 11/03! 1 i RE 0 6ERCN YNW ----Q euT 0 o 1 FLOW DURAT ESTATE REQUI JANUARY _ L WP O 0171 - DW/ m BNOOI_CT11-DUR/ I C� UA 1 IAIMY JUNE 1 BROON_CTR.DIRI.DON � � DRASrR NDYWER; 1 BROON_CTR�IRR 2 FLOW ORATION NS l ILLY - DECEAERI BROOK- CM- DR12.DGN • F.I. Palm �C y^'S ROCKFILL I- O WNOON_CTR.NVWIOS 7 ROY NrOKOGRAP115 ifR2 -2001 ' BROOK-MYO. S.ODN �- O MOON_C1R.AATINO A ELEVATION - FLOW RATING CURVE _ BROOK- CTRAATINC.00i1 VVy (L 0 A m _ . t R i r 1 I•I I F t _F i teLpwuwd 1 ✓ i G x ,/ I �" • \� ^n � le'7nVE AND REPLA<$ � / DO NOT DIS7IRB _- \�. I F ROaUtL MK�EIEN7~a I / 1.1c rluar LASE NORTH D olsTlwe \ IAAEA ULAC BUSHES X \ \ / i� i •fLL DISTUM ON SS .. j � '• - LA/Y 1 �� a ACCESS Naito ' , ; ' WAR LIMITS Y Z f"� 00 NOT , €$ REYOVE TREE ,,��11 y , • x • l \ �- !. , 1 { / L.L,Y DIST" -- - - - %C• y L_,7 f 1 /'--\ w iENCE J 1 \�� \� J '' ,� -- f-� { }1• 1 L oo wi of ► - � No NEW ` \y : - -- �� '`. 1MIC,Lim," ;./ Tt E-- l D_- AND PIUUI -M. TOPSOI AND SEED- nCC -- -'t�Q""t_.--�- '•' -"t ^• _ N� �$ ���� �•_ SHED W LL TOPSOIL 015 / 30 �`. ' % . Y i•' .7 - OT�NERf '�- a'�:_ -1 _ 1 1 _ r ' REAMY�EO _ 1 • .. _ i! _ IE7LL r 1Y al I.TSN STAiRSw J . WARP EXIS i R °� - ""'� G R O UND eQ AM OD NOT • S DIS , - _ - 7Yw. r0m STAIRS 1 TUR0. 1 -L+ - k _.'� - i a •''�� - 'JI -- -- ._ i -" BIRD NWSES -.•/• 7NY]D 7Ti1R5 YM .. ._ ., ._. _..e•_CC t -�- - — - /- CC sMUx oaa g �_� /� _ .INRASG � RBiti^+VM+IiPIMRF , y W ��_ • ^- 1MVE AIM ST AND D OEa RE= REPLI.CF �9a-,. v VIVA ,r,r•••�� NEREInOYE,AND yNIR? qN , iiaN %TEII NR Z 3.: (J p _ SEM < n E 1Y ST14 STAINS AND DECK 16ji ORa110 -YAK 7 O YIRMD- VDD7 TOPSOIL AND SEED- x � o BENCHMARK ELEVATION DESCRIPTION SAN W E 022.06 DOE S"T OF Y MANHOLE COYER 11,11 LOCAT PLAN VIE Y NOTES! w 0 .. aN SDUiN END SILLOS DRIVE 70 E 0 SO SO 1. VERTICAL DATUM IS N.0.V.0- XSEN M W f II2.BT SMITHY NANMIE COVER LOCATED • , .KALE IN FEET { 2. SMITHY MANHOLES S.S.T.f.l. ANO 10 SMALL BE USED AS t � Y ] FEET FR011 FDOE DF Wit, - DFlICNMARRS IN TINT ilELO A BASELINE HALL SE THESE £ y SAN W 1 til.lt SMITARY MANHOLE COVER L OF 3 ". OCATED S ECT T CT MMNOLEB SHALL S EE USED 70'OFi i1E LIMIT OF m I FEET FRaI EODE - PPIM FEAINES. SAN W S I f20.0T SMITARY MOMOLE COYER. S• =.VW I WINE E LIMITS WIN TO J AREAS THAT ARE OIST . ►ROVIOE A YINfWY CLEMANCE DF 7 BEE SAN W ! I f2S.S! I SMITMT � WMMLE COYER LOCA7E0 SMIfT�� LINE IN THESE AREAS Ie1FDE T FROM THE THE PIPE IS SNALLOr. ON TOP 6 BANK. ED IIReEO. SAN W f0 ( 571.12 ( SANITARY E DF COYER DRIVE. S. PLACE SM ON TURF oRAYMO NUMBER: } DN MWiM END of rI LLM DRIVE. • " }.. 6001 A 1 N 1 n i n 1 F 1 F 1 fllr 2 DF ] 1 ' - 1 11 t a70 7 ` ` �El0aTSq OROIW tf1C - I70 "� 1f1YUPROPSOL Uf Mq C�P0 820 - - A TRA1191gN �h�il lWNta -'• --•-- NOTESs orrY -120 i t, rATEa SUiACE f110sx As a oATE aF wmcr. sEf Tta. J REfisFJICE ORAI1R05 Fa RT01faLOetc 111FO1W Ilo - t • TIME Inu s 'uefT.s rmr esxa. - - - - -- L73 - Ito O - a ' /r IWG6ty -- -- - - • HO - NoO tl TISOe1m — - T oo aa (( $ t , -]0 •to -to o to to b AO SO b 7p of 780 SECTION r, w too BANK PROTECTION Ifo'- - 4 � om. t7tatlo tilt - ..-- W111NE 7 _ -- =2110NROPfOL 120 •- -- - --. ,/ \•'� WO00 FOM KIIm NLLOI • - 1120 —� SA' TOPWL AM I® "m d IILft p A. - d i g 110 - o EL uhf IL IIL14 e1Nt TOP OF ROCW L W no 3 $ — 3 cS 41 sot -' 11WYAt WATER LM 1100 w �Sa ` 7" - 4 110.0 s „ w 42- RoCWU c'an's TMcKme S w '' 11 000 , 14 d C� THK3w s 1.78 Tao . : I t = -70 -20 -00 0 t0 ' to So b so TO 7e "7w lrowu g . V so w 100 SECTION 2 �.- 'BANK PROTECTION sVWI o no' z3< / - Lm _ RIRPAP /TOPSOIL /�. \\ 130 TRANSITION y A ) W O GO � - Ito Ito x i Ito w LTf f ' u u Soo - -- t 'NBWL WATER Lnm a n _ S0O L m — 7fo � UN UM WARY 71W70Efs � 666 Tw s s 1 s 0 -30 f0 -t0 0 10 to 30 Too. w so a TO w w toe SECTION y BANK PROTECTION Q"wlSO Munk. - slroot - A t F i • 1 . cF t 11 SNT 7 OF 3 • 1 ..... .... . ......... -... .. . . .. .. •. .._.,ice,...- .,`--.- .,.....�.... i EXHIBIT 7 l- 2— = c � �k1 =ftti� �� GL.: �.` ! �- - �.t? 1 �(�%.- ;�C.- '�L�...t..��� ,.• "�.._.���,....�� �.� -��` L�' - .G-G �� 1 l c;l "Z - �� t �•k,lti- J u:L W .'�iL• � /�f/G !�.1- L- 7!(.i,.,� ���' ��L/�� ./�- (.�'C�� /" . s 'r� -{ ./f �' Lx--� G�'C� "1 2 ��; L- G"�.L� �..-�•�.Q. � `� ,�,�f= .� � �' d � LL•� -r -� )�.� /�� � -.fit �tia� •-L�� ,/L ��- �J � GZ - 'Z- GC'�� �EL�` �z�� - �le dc, ar ze . e �•'t.. t� C�'-- LC..�I -Z- � 1.�. ,J t�!'" G�" ✓C/• l� Lam. -r!c'� �Z,d �G "'? -/' r Az . Ale & e.co- 11 2 x4e BIZ v - �� Q,, •�R -��G -fit, _ ��ti2,��' f/� J -�G+ -� All a-4 ate. la�a ,fie / / / - ✓G �"`'� - Y J • City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Khunpp, Interim Assistant City Manager/Director of orks DATE: December 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Quick Take Memo In April 2002, the Brooklyn Center City Council entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to place a rock riprap along an area of the Mississippi River, bank where continued erosion threatens the integrity of approximately 800 feet of sanitary sewer. The estimated project cost is $300,000. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will pay 65 percent ofproject costs and the City will pay the remaining 3 5 percent. An attached map shows those properties affected by this project. The decision to proceed with this project was based on a feasibility study that examined six alternatives, including relocation of the sewer and a take -no -action approach. The U.S. Corps of Engineers conducted an environmental assessment for this project and issued a finding that the project will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment. Construction of the project requires the acquisition of permanent and temporary easements from affected property owners. Through neighborhood meetings, status reports and conversations with City staff, property owners have been advised that the City would be identifying the boundaries of needed easements and working with Evergreen Land Services to establish the value of the easements. All property appraisals will be completed early January. During February, Evergreen Land Services will be contacting property owners with offers. Because we have worked closely with the property owners, we expect that it will be possible to negotiate offers with most by March 1. However noting the urgency of moving forward with this project, we believe it is important to have an authorization in place allowing the City to initiate condemnation proceedings in the event that we cannot obtain agreements with every affected property owner. Attached is a resolution prepared by the City Attorney authorizing condemnation proceedings for the Mississippi Riverbank Protection Project, City Project No. 99 -11. Adoption of this resolution will enable the City to follow the process outlined in state law to complete a "Quick- Take" of any easements that have not been successfully negotiated with affected property owners. With this authorization in place, the City can begin the 90 -day "Quick- Take" process in early March. Based on this timetable, construction could begin in June, depending on weather conditi ons and the river levels. 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 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community December 4, 2002 Mr. Stephen W. Cooper 6632 West River Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Riverbank Protection Project Dear Mr. Cooper: Your November 14 letter to me stated concerns you have about the Mississippi Riverbank Protection Project planned by the City of Brooklyn Center in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This project, which has been developed over the last four to five years with input from the owners of affected properties, is needed to stabilize the riverbank and prevent further erosion that could cause approximately 750 feet of an existing 18" sanitary sewer line to fail. Failure to move forward with this project would expose the sewer line to continued erosion that would eventually cause the line to break. Breakage of the line could result in the flooding of a downstream sewage lift station that serves approximately one -third of Brooklyn Center. A • break in the sewer line could also result in contamination of the drinking water supply for the City of Minneapolis if sewage entered the Mississippi River upstream from Minneapolis' drinking water intake. In April 2002, the Brooklyn Center City Council entered into an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct this project following a feasibility study of six alternatives and an environmental assessment conducted by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, which subsequently issued a finding of no significant impact. Relocating the sanitary sewer line and taking no action were among the alternatives studied. The selected alternative provides for placement of a rock riprap at the eroding bank and toe of the Mississippi River. The U.S. Corps of Army Engineers found this alternative to be a proven method for riverbank stabilization that will not affect water quality or appreciably alter current water flows or water level fluctuations. Trees and shrubs along the edge of the riverbank will be cleared to allow the placement of rock but this vegetation also would have been lost with a failure of the bank. Native species of plant will be planted in areas disturbed by this project. It is important to note that the placement of rock will not extend along the full slope of the riverbank and therefore preserves much of the vegetation existing at higher elevations. Moreover, the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers has included a landscape architect on the project team to assist with landscaping issues. 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 I hope this letter provides you with additional information about the reasons for moving forward • on this project. If you still have further questions about this project and the timetable for construction, please contact Scott Brink, Acting City Engineer, at (763) 569 -3300. Sincerely Myrna Kragness Mayor cc. Council Members Michael McCauley, City Manager Sharon Klumpp, Interim Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Scott Brink, Acting City Engineer • • DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL, MN 55101 -1635 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF November 25, 2002 Project Management and Development Branch Planning, Programs and Project Management Division SUBJECT: Brooklyn Center Streambank Protection Project Mr. Stephen W. Cooper 800 Ceresota Building 155 Fifth Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -2526 Dear Mr. Cooper: We received your letter dated November 19, 2002, in which you expressed concerns with the streambank protection project being planned along the Mississippi River in Brooklyn Center, • Minnesota. The City of Brooklyn Center requested the Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to protect the sanitary sewer that runs along the Mississippi River. Without protection, erosion caused by the Mississippi River may result in the sewer line being damaged and raw sewage being spilled into the river. We have planned and designed a solution and presented it to the city. Given the existing site conditions and risks associated with losing the sewer line, the project meets Corps of Engineers criteria for bank protection. As a result of previous meetings with you and other property owners, we have modified the plan to try to incorporate the comments and concerns. A summary of our responses to the previously identified concerns is attached. We will continue to work with the City of Brooklyn Center concerning their need to protect the sewer line and provide support, if requested, to further address the concerns identified in your letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 290 -5307. Sincerely, Charles P. Spitzack Chief, Project Management and Development Branch Attachment Brooklyn Center, Section 14 — Stream Bank Protection Project Response to comments/concerns identified during the Brooklyn Center Meetings held on . Wednesday 08/07/2002 and Tuesday 08/27/2002, both at 6:OOpm at Stephen Cooper's and Lisa McNaughton's Residence. Attendees: COE - Joe Mose & Doug Crum , City - Scott Brink, Owners — Stephen Cooper, Lisa McNaughton, Steve Jordan, Brendan McCarthy, Bob Nystrom Joe & Doug discussed potential modifications to existing riprap design to try and address the total loss of vegetation issue and concerns about amount of rock being extended into river and loss of sand beach areas: The toe could be modified to be self launching to reduce bench area, and allow select trees within riprap slope to remain during construction. In addition, shrubs and other vegetation could be replanted above top elevation of riprap. The following additional questions came up during the discussions: The responses found below -v er e t .. ,. r T e e pr e pa red bl Joe Mo. >e, COE. .nput fog the ,r t- , drazElrL questions were provided ti �,y senior Hydraulic Engineer, Stu Dobberpuhl, on 9%13102. Input for the responses addressing the vegetation concerns were provided by Doris Sullivan, senior Landscape Architect on 10124102. 1. Why is alternative 2 from the 1998 Feasibility Report not used? It is less expensive and less intrusive by going only partway up the bank. Response - Alternative 2 shows rock placement to top of sewer line, which is same elevation that is currently proposed. The figure used in the feasibility study is not accurate at showing total vertical and horizontal impact of rock placement. This alternative showed • excavation at the toe of the slope, which would cause additional instability to the slope and place the sewer line in greater risk. 2. What is the effect of the proposed project on flood elevations? Response - Based on h modeling expertise, the senior hydraulic engineer stated that the proposed project would need to approach 2% of the available cross section of the 100 year, flood event to have any noticeable effect on the flood stage /velocity. 3. Can wing dams/groins with larger boulders be placed at select locations to reduce bank erosion (and help with sand/sediment deposition)? Can this be done in combination with reduced riprap placement? Response - This would be a more costly approach, this alternative would require significant Hydrologic and Hydraulic modeling, if site conditions are not appropriate, or if the wing dams are designed /placed incorrectly, this action would cause more damage in those locations. 4. Is placement of larger rocks on a steeper slope an option and what is the cost? Response - Existing slopes are near the angle of repose, therefore placement of boulders could be no steeper. This alternative would be a more costly approach due to mechanical placement requirements for individual rocks. This alternative would still result in the loss of the beach areas. • 1 Brooklyn Center, Section 14 — Stream Bank Protection Project S. What is cost and feasibility f constructing a modular retaining wall at mid height? A tY g g Sh • rough estimate discussed at the meeting was 5400 per linear foot (upon further discussion, this estimate was thought to be too low, and a modular wall could not withstand flood flows). Response - Modular wall would not be recommended. A reinforced concrete wall with deep footing would be a structural alternative. This is not feasible due to the excavation required and the limited work area between the river and the sewer line. Any excavation could result in disturbing the existing sewer line. 6 What is the flood level above the manholes? (based on hydrograph and elevation -flow rating curve, it looks like 65,000 cfs should cause flood elevation at 814.5 which is below the top of manhole elevation. Owners stated that the 2001 and 1997 floods were above manholes). Response -See FEM,4 Flood Insurance Rate Map for this area and cross section. The FEMA ;nap shoal , ater elevation for Zone .4 (100 rear level) at elevation 819, the top of manhole elevations range from 820.07 to 825.58. 7. What type and how much vegetation can be placed on/in riprap and on slope above riprap? Response - Based on consultation with our senior Landscape Architect, the riprap can be designed to support topsoil placement, which would allow grasses, shrubs and flowers to be planted on top of upper edge of riprap. Small trees could be replanted above riprap • as long as thev are not within the sewer line easement. Trees located near the top 2 to 4 feet of the riprap area and above the riprap area, could be left in place by taking precautions while placing and contouring riprap. Trees that would end up with over 24- inches of riprap covering the roots or against the trunk of the tree could experience impacts. Only trees that do not cause significant restriction to riprap placement would be considered for leaving in place. A list of potential plants to be used is found at the end of these responses. 8. One property owner expressed concern that the plan makes the river look like a "rock lined culvert" and pushes boat access out 20' -30' and may damage boats, covers the sand beach and changes the character of the tree lined river, which is a valuable and unique area on the river. However, the homeowners as a group appear to remain favorable to the project and are very much opposed to the disturbance to their properties that would occur if the sewer line were to be relocated to the front of the houses. Response - The Corps will revise the plans and specifications to allow vegetation to be left in place and /or replaced on the upper edge of the slope. These measures can be accomplished without reducing the protection to the sewer line. The added cost for these measures will be identified separately during contract negotiations since these costs would be considered betterments to be paid for by the City of Brooklyn Center. Damages associated with tree /vegetation removal could be paid to property owners as part of the cost of easements that will be acquired by the city. On September 26, 2002 the Corps made further contact with the NPS and MNDNR concerning the MNRRA. • 2 Brooklyn Center, Section 14 — Stream Bank Protection Project 9. The owners stated that the west branch Channel (thalweg) is closer to the west bank at • cross- section 2 which may require much more rip rap to reach bottom and would take away part of the deeper channel. The accuracy of the surveys is questionable since they do not show this, the cross sections in general show more beach (river bottom) than seems evident from site observations, and the surveys were apparently obtained by an intern working for the City, and appear intended for hydraulic modeling more than construction. Response - The cross sections are adequate for estimating project costs. The uncertainty with rock quantity is covered in the 30% contingency factor. During the meeting it was emphasized that the top of protection elevation, slope of rip rap and limited excavation were assumptions that drive the design, and that very little could be done to further modify the design and still provide adequate protection of the sewer line. The factor that would have the most effect at reducing the amount of riprap would be changing the top elevation. Based on continuing discussions with the acting City Engineer, the city wishes to maintain the recommended protection height of the riprap. A copy of the Project Fact Sheet including Environmental Assessment and FONSI was given to Stephen Cooper (he stated that he would provide copies to other land owners). Information about the plantings for use as slope protection in Brooklyn Center: • Planting on soil placed over riprap • Native grasses • Blue grass, rye, fescue seed mix* • Sod • Native forbes which are flowering native prairie plants • Day lilies, hosta, other hardy perennials • Smaller spireas, forsythias or other small shrubs that provide erosion control Planting above riprapped area • Everything listed above • Most coniferous trees and shrubs • Smaller deciduous trees like crab, birch, or multi- stemmed Japanese lilacs and serviceberry. • Most shrubs like honeysuckle, viburnum, lilac, euonymous *Least expensive Undesirable plants would include amur maple, sumac, fOsespirea, and buckthorn that spread. There really isn't much to limit what is planted unless natives only, are requested. • 3 11 /Z0 /LUUL 17:50 FAX 8512905258 USACE PM OFFICE r . ., X1002 CIWOF MDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 - (763) 571 -3450 • FAX (763) 571 -1287 November 22, 2002 Joe Mose pave Peterson US Army Corps of Engineers City of Brooklyn Center 190 E. Fifth St. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway St. Paul, NM 55101 -1638 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Mose and Mr. Peterson: T hank you• for the information you provided to [lie City of Fridley staff regarding the riverbank stabilization project along the Mississippi River riverbank across from Fridley. As you are both aware from our telephone conversations, one of the residents impacted by this effort to protect a sanitary sewer line, Stephen Cooper, wrote a letter to the Mayor of Fridley. Our telephone conversations and the Environmental Assessment faxed to us showed that: ■ The key purpose of this project is to secure a 750' stretch of sanitary sewer line that runs through the back yards of approximately seven homeowners along the Mississippi River approximately . across from the southern half of Dumam Island. ■ The City of Brooklyn Center has evaluated five alternatives for securing the eroding riverbank, and finds the option to install riprap the one that best qualifies for financial assistance from the Federal Government. ■ The interior condition of the sanitary sewer has been evaluated and it is not expected to need to be replaced For at least another 25 years. The sanitary sewer line could be relocated into the front yards of the affected property owners, but that would be very costly and the property owners would still need to address the erosion problem in their back yards ■ Most of the affected property owners are in support of the selected solution. - - ■ Attempting to stabilize the riverbank through revegetation is not considered a viable ' alternative due to the unstable nature of the sandy soils along the bank- It is also not been proven to be as effective in preventing future erosion as the installation of riprap, ■ If the sewer line fails, it would contaminate the Minneapolis drinking water supply. ■ Trees and other shrubbery needs to be removed in a 30' wide area along the riverbank for access of heavy equipment to install the riprap. It is estimated that this involves the removal of 10 -20 trees. ■ The City and the Corp hope to install this project this winter to minimize damage to property While the Fridley City staff is concerned about the loss of vegetation along the riverbank in view from our largest apartment complex and Riverfront Park, we understand the financial constraints of this project. We agree that ultimately, the main goal of your selected solution to the erosion problem must be to protect the Minneapolis water supply. Please consider Fridley's views as you move forward in thus project and keep in mind our visual and recreational interests in the west side of the Mississippi River, as well as the east side in our own community, � Sones � •• J Environmental Planner r:r - F riA1eV Fn%irnnrnAnthl r ni i nj QPP ��ENT OF lye' • c� y m • A United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ARON 3, %b Mississippi National River and Recreation Area IN REPLY REFER To': I 1 I E. Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1256 L8003 -2 December 6, 2002 Stephen W. Cooper 800 Ceresota Building 155 Fifth Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 -2526 Dear Mr. Cooper: I am writing in response to your November 14 letter regarding ' a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 14 Streambank Protection project on the Mississippi River in Brooklyn Center. Thank you for your letter and for bringing this project to our attention. The National Park Service (NPS) was not notified about the Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project so did not comment on it. Since receiving your letter, we have obtained a copy of thc" EA from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The public review period for the EA has passed, but it is our understanding that the project requires a Public Waters Permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources before work can proceed. NPS will have an opportunity to comment at that time. Our review will focus on the proposed project's consistency with goals of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) - Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). Again, we appreciate hearing of your concerns. We would be glad to work with you and other property owners, the City of Brooklyn Center, the Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Natural Resources to address concerns and help implement Mississippi River Critical Area and MNRRA policies as they relate to the bank stabilization project. The MNRRA CMP can be viewed online at httn:Hww /miss /info /cmo /index.html or we will mail a plan if you request it. We will copy you on any review comments we prepare for this proposal. In the meantime, if you have additional questions or concerns, please call me or Kate Hanson at (651) 290 -3030, ext. 223. Sincerely, JoAnn M. Kyral 1 Superintendent - cc: Michael.Mc Cauley, City of Brooklyn Center Joseph H. Mose, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Toni Hovey and Sandy Fecht, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Tom Goodrum, Metropolitan Council ' ,.. _nom � ";�* �. - J ' • o � ; _ � .. Stephen W. Cooper* Stacey R Everson" *Also admitted in Georgia * *Also admitted in Iowa November 14, 2002 Kay Lasman , 4407 Woodbine Lane Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Dear Council Member Lasman: As a resident of Brooklyn Center who has invested in this community, I ask you, as one of our elected officials, to assist in preventing the harm to a significant portion of the city's Mississippi River bank. I am wwritlhg to, express corlcem about Brooklyn Center's Planning Departmenf''s and; the Army' ` . r . Corps of Engineers' plan,to strip approximately 700' of Mississippi �Ziver front VFvirtually all vegetation and permanently destroy the natural river bank. The city's - aiid Army Corps . f : • Engineers' plan to replace the natural bank with slabs of rock stretching 45' out into the river is unwise and unnecessary. The plan seeks permanent easements to assure no new planting occurs. This would permanently destroy an area of natural trees, bushes and plants which support abundant wildlife and replace it with a shoreline that emulates a Los Angeles culvert. This stretch of Mississippi River, running north from 6620 West River Road, is beyond the pool created by the St. Anthony Falls Dam, which ends at about the Camden Rail Road Bridge, and below the pool created by the Coon Rapids Dam, and, thus, is a rare stretch of natural Mississippi River. The riverbank has natural beauty and wildlife, including blue herons, beavers, an occasional fox and a wide variety of other wildlife. It is directly across from Dunham Island, also known as Peace Island, which is undeveloped parkland where bald eagles, egrets, herons, and hawks nest and a wide variety of other animals frequent or live. This stretch of river also hosts a rich variety of fish and water fowl. Under the current rock will go from the river bottom forty -five feet _out in - the channel ; ,—to more than twenty feefup the bank and will stretch over seven hundred feet_of riverbank: This is over a Hundred thousand cubic feet of rock which will, at hig;h'water, displace a sihiilar - amount of water, forcing it to go somewhere else. This will create an unnatural, deforested, twenty foot • t high, forty -five foot wide, seven hundred foot long rock pile, where natural river bank had previously existed. It does permanent damage to the river, the wildlife, and surrounding 800 Ceresota Building • 15_ Fifth Avenue South • Minneapolis, NIN 55401 -2526 • Telephone: 612- 338 -3533 • FAM 612 - 338 -3596 i THE COOPER LAW FIRM, CHARTERED Attorneys at Law • property. The project will also require removing trees and other plants from the properties that are on the river to bring in the rock and heavy earth - moving equipment. Many of these trees are mature trees. Access to the river for boating or other water activities will be significantly hinged This project, if done, may shift the river channel by filling in part of the existing channel and, thus, displace the water flow which could impact not only Dunham (a.k.a Peace) Island, but, possibly the Fridley shoreline on the op posite river bank as well. Immediatel down river from the area addressed by the is where the most pronounced floodinhreats occurred in recent years, and tct co i ncrease the risk of flooding there by moving water more rap ' .i _cTk_ e idly to the site of pre r. It noes not appear the residents to the so ut h of th project have seen alerted to the existenc and'conse uent risks of thi A, "The explanation t$at ' there is no sewer line to protect south of the project fails to address the increased risk to homes there. I realize the importance of protecting the poorly placed eighteen -inch sewer line from possible future harm, however, the risk to the line seems exaggerated and generalized. The line has been there for decades.. Even in the last five years, where we experienced two record floods, little erosion occurred in most areas of this bank. Thus, an approach that targets actual areas where a possible future risk exists would be wiser. • The ro osal is far more expensive than better solution such as placing boulders at laces P � P � r ng r where there actually is erosion, thereby allowing the root structure of the extensive vegetation to assist in holding the bank in place. It is only because of the removal of all of this vegetation that it becomes necessary to dump tons upon tons of rock in the river and on the bank. Disturbingly, this expensive solution does not address at all the most immediate threat to the sewer. The project does not make the bank any higher, it just changes it to rock slabs rather than vegetation. If the water comes up just a few more feet than it d id in recent floods,-it-will still go ` over the bank an create te serf ; ol r roblems__.o the „poorly placed sewer line, possibly cau sing p - spiTlage, as t he water_w_ be above the„ sewer. The piacmg of so much rock in the river channel reduces cuTiic feet in the channel, thereby actually increasing somewhat the risk that the water will go over the bank. In light of how close the river has come to going over the bank in recent years, this is a real concern that the project does not address. It may be more immediate than that of the slow erosion. Obviously, relocating the sewer line would remove both of these risks. The proposal is needlessly harmful in its scope, clumsy in its proposed execution and bad public policy. Despite strong and consistent opposition to the proposal, little has been done to address the concerns raised. Even those that wish to see the bank reinforced have concerns about the scope of this proposal. It wastes needed resources, both natural and economic, and should not proceed at anywhere near the present scale. The proposal envisions making the bank a rock fortress to endure at least a half century of river movement. Protecting the eighteen inch sewer • line could be achieved at much less cost. I THE COOPER LATE FIRM, CHARTERED Attorneys at Law • I ask that you review this proposal and consider whether it is consistent with public policy and the long term objectives of your mission. The Mississippi River is a national and local resource which should not be so cavalierly despoiled. A siifirantly scaled ba sk reject- can- presvtve_the n river look and habitat slow or Prevent erosion so as to keep safe the poorly placed s ewer — line „and save taxpayer dollars and natural resourpes., strategically placed on the bank without removing ve etation ma hav to be replenished eve twenty to thin ear bu does less harm, costs less, and achieves the obleetive of slowing erosion.- °;�,. f The only concessions the planners have made to the numerous concerns raised is to replant vegetation in yards outside the extensive area which will be rocked and to let a few trees remain within the rock pile. This does little to address the magnitude of this insult to the natural beauty of the area and risks created by it. The project seems to be primarily driven by the Army Corps of Engineers' position that any solution in which it is involved must last for at least fifty years and remain unchanged for that time. This makes for foolish policy. T his eighteen inch sewer 11 r may not even be in use in twenty -five years. Placing additional boulders or rock as required every decade or so, in h places actually needed, is far cheaper and more sensible than spending hundreds of thousands of . dollars to rock the entire bank just to make sure that nothing could erode any part of the bank for • fifty years. I would appreciate y r feedback on this matter. Hopefully, needless harm to the river, as well as litigation, can be av ded. . Sincerely, Stephen W. Coo er • City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community. November 7, 2002 RE: Riverbank Protection Project Project Status Dear Resident: The purpose of this letter is to update you on the status of the Riverbank Protection project. The meetings conducted with residents over the past several months have been very helpful in assisting the City and Corps of Engineers through this process. Since our last neighborhood meeting, Joseph Mose of the Corps of Engineers has been coordinating with design individuals at Corps to further review the. plans and try to address specific questions and issues raised. This has been a challenging task, as. balancing concerns of property owners with the required structural design for protection can sometimes be difficult. Enclosed with this.letter for your information, are written responses to some of the questions that have been raised by residents. Essentially, we have reached a point where the rock rip-rap protection design plans cannot be modified much further without. compromising the integrity and life of the structure that the Corps can standby. Mr. Mose is continuing to address aesthetic concerns with the assistance of a landscape architect. Also, we are continuing to review the construction work boundaries to limit tree removals as much as possible. I am also hoping to arrange, another neighborhood meeting sometime within the next couple of weeks. I am also available to meet with you individually if you desire. As previously expressed, the. City is very concerned of the potential impacts to property and the trunk storm sewer as a result of continued bank erosion. We therefore have a responsibility and sense of urgency to accomplish the work as soon as reasonably possible. Our timetable is to have. the site available to a Contractor for construction early next year. Weather conditions and river levels will have an influence on when the work can specifically occur. We therefore need to proceed.with the process of easement acquisitions to allow the Contractor to be ready to commence work when conditions will allow. As mentioned previously, the City has retained the services of a real estate professional to determine fair compensations for the acquisition of easements that are required to perform the proposed improvements. The individual who will be performing this work for the City is Matthew S. Storm of Evergreen Land Services Co. (952/930 - 3100). Mr. Storm should be contacting you soon if he has not already. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityof brooklyncenter. org Thank you for your continued cooperation, understanding, and patience through this process. Again, T.am also available to meet with you at your convenience or answer questions and can be contacted at (763) 569 -3340. Sincerel c .E. Acting City Engineer cc: Joseph H. Mose, Corps of Engineers Matt Storm, Evergreen Land Services, Co. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community August 29, 2002 RE: Riverbank Protection Project Project Status Dear Resident: Thank you for your continuing cooperation as we continue to work towards development of a plan to protect the riverbank adjacent to your property. Following is an update of the project status. As you are aware, the City of Brooklyn Center has been working cooperatively with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and residents over the past several months to develop a plan to prevent erosion of the riverbank by your property. The City is especially interested in this project in order to protect a large sanitary that traverses directly alongside and underneath the riverbank. If erosion of the bank continues, the sewer pipe will be endanger of collapsing. This would not only cause sewer back -ups into potentially thousands of homes, but would also result in the discharge of large amounts of sewage directly into the Mississippi River. In addition, continued erosion of the bank and • loss of the sewer would result in significant losses of your property. We are therefore actively engaged in developing a protection plan. The area of concern is generally 750 lineal feet of riverbank running from 6632 West River Road to 6712 West River Road. The Corps of Engineers has developed a `rip -rap" or rock protection plan to protect the riverbank and sewer at this location, and the plan has been presented to residents at informal meetings at the site over the past few months. We apologize that the last couple of meetings have been conducted on relatively short notice, and we have attempted to telephone each of you directly for each meeting. Because at least some of the residents have been unable to attend meetings, we are providing you this update. While the basic plan provides for the intended protection of the riverbank as required, some residents have expressed concerns. More specifically, concerns have included the change in physical appearance that would result, continued ability to provide for boat access, river impacts, losses of trees, etc. The Corps has taken these concerns into account, and is continuing to review and refine the design accordingly. Refinement of a satisfactory design is a continuing challenge when trying to balance the long term erosion protection needs vs. physical changes and appearance vs. overall cost of the project. However, the Corps of Engineers is continuing to work diligently to develop a design that hopefully everyone can eventually work with and accept. We expect to be meeting with residents again sometime within the next few weeks. 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) 5V 9d,7k Protection Update 8 -29 -02 / ww w. cityofb roo lyncenter. org City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community O addition to developing an acceptable design, temporary easements, or access and construction easements will be needed from property owners. Upon further study and/or refinement of the proposed construction plan, you will eventually be contacted by a real estate professional who will discuss easement acquisition specifics and compensations further. The individual who will be performing this work for the City is Matthew S. Storm of Evergreen Land Services Co. (952/930- 3100). Upon acceptance of a construction design and property access authorizations, we would expect construction to commence sometime shortly thereafter. Again, thank you for your continued cooperation, understanding, and patience as we continue to develop this project. As mentioned, I expect to be conducting another informational meeting with residents at the site sometime within the next few weeks. If you have any questions in the mean time, please feel free to contact me at 763/569 -3340. Sincerely, Scott A. Brink, P.E. Acting City Engineer • Cc: Joseph H. Mose, Corps of Engineers Matt Storm, Evergreen Land Services, Co. Jane Chambers, Assistant City Manager 0 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 5 �$g , nk Protection Update 8 -29 -02 2 www.cityolbroolyncenter.org i Response to comments /concerns identified during the Brooklyn Center Meeting on Tuesday • 08/27/02, 6:O0pm at Stephen Cooper's Residence. Attendees: COE - Joe Mose & Doug Crum, City - Scott Brink, Owners _ Stephen Cooper, Lisa McNaughton, Steve Jordan, Brendan McCarthy, Bob Nystrom Joe & Doug discussed potential modifications to existing riprap design to try and address the total loss of vegetation issue and concerns about amount of rock being extended into river and loss of sand beach areas: The toe could be modified to be self launching to reduce bench area, and allow select trees within riprap slope to remain during construction. In addition,' shrubs and other vegetation could be replanted above top elevation of riprap. The following additional questions came up during the discussions: All responses were prepared by Toe Mose. Input was provided for hydraulic questions by senior hydraulic engineer Stu Dobberpuhl, on 9113102 Input for vegetation concerns was provided by Doris Sullivan, senior. Landscape Architect on 10124102 1. Why is alternative 2 from 1998 Feasibility Report not used? It is "less expensive and less intrusive by going only partway up bank. Alternative 2 shows rockplacement to top of sewer line, which is same elevation that is currently proposed. The figure used in the feasibility study is not accurate at showing total vertical and horizontal impact of rock placement. This alternative showed excavation at the toe of the slope, which x)ould cause. • additional instability to the slope and place the sewer line in greater risk 2. What is the effect of the proposed project on flood elevations? Based on hydraulic modeling expertise, the senior hydraulic engineer stated that the proposed project would need to pproach 2% of the available cross section of the 100 year flood to have any noticeable effect on flood stage/velocity. 3. Can wing dams/groins with larger boulders be placed at select locations to reduce bank erosion (and help with sand/sediment deposition)? Or in combination with reduced riprap placement? This would be amore costly approach, this alternative would require significant H &H modeling, if site conditions are not appropriate, or if designed /placed incorrectly, wing dams would cause more damage. 4. Is placement of larger rocks on a steeper slope an option and what is the cost? Existing slopes are near the angle of repose therefore placement of boulders could be no steeper. This would be a costly approach due to mechanical placement requirements for individual rocks. This alternative would still result in the loss of the beach areas. S. What is cost and feasibility of constructing a modular retaining wall at mid height? Rough estimate at meeting was $400/LF Joe thought this estimate w g ( gh to was too low, modular wall could not withstand flood flows). Modular wall would not be recommended. A reinforced concrete.wall with deep footing would be a structural • alternative. This is not feasible due to the excavation required and the limited work area between the river and the sewer line. Any excavation could result in disturbing the existing sewer line. 1 6. What is the flood level above the manholes? (based on hydrograph and elevation -flow rating curve, it looks like 65000 cfs should cause flood elevation at 814.5 which is below • manholes. Owners stated that the 2001 and 1997 floods were above manholes).. See FIS maps for this area and cross section. FIS maps show water elevation for Zone•A at 819, the MH elevations range from 820.07 to 825.58. 7. What type and how much vegetation can be placed on/in riprap and on slope above riprap? Based on consultation with our senior Landscape Architect, the riprap can be designed to support various depths of topsoil, which would allow grasses, shrubs and ,flowers to be planted on top of upper edge of riprap. Small trees could be replanted above riprap as long as they are not within the sewer line easement. Trees located near the top 2 to 4 feet of the riprap area could be left in place by taking precautions while placing and contouring riprap. Trees that would end up with over 24- Inches of riprap covering the roots or against the trunk of the tree could experience impacts. Only trees that do not cause significant restriction to riprapplacement would be considered for leaving in place. A list of potential plants to be used is attached 8. One property owner expressed concern that the plan makes the river a "rock lined culvert" and pushes boat access out 20' -30' and may damage boats, covers the sand beach and changes the character of the tree lined river, which is a valuable and unique area on the river. However, the homeowners as a group remain favorable to the project and are very much apposed to relocation of the sewer to the front of the houses as an option. The Corps will revise the plans and specs to allow vegetation to be left in place and/or replaced on the upper edge of the slope. These measures can be accomplished • with out reducing the protection to the sewer line. The added cost for .these measures will be identified separately during contract negotiations since these costs would be considered betterments to be paid for by the City of Brooldyn Center. Damages associated with treelvegetation removal could be paid to property owners as part of City's Real Estate costs. On September 26, the Corps made further contact with the NPS and AYNDNR concerning the MNRRA 9. The owners stated that the west branch Channel (thalweg) is close to the west bank at cross- section 2 which may require much more rip rap to reach bottom and would take away part of deeper channel. The accuracy of the surveys is questionable since they do not show this, the cross sections in general show more beach that seems evident from site observations, and the surveys were apparently obtained by an intern working for the City, and appear intended for hydraulic modeling more than construction. The cross sections are adequate for estimating project costs. The uncertainty with rock quantity is covered in the 30% contingency factor.. During discussions it was emphasized that if the top of protection, slope of rip rap and limited excavation were assumptions that drive the design, then very little could be done to modify design. The factor that would have the most effect at reducing the amount of riprap is changing the top elevation. Based on continuing discussions with the acting City Engineer, the city wishes to maintain the recommended protection height of the riprap.' • A copy of the Project Fact Sheet including Environmental Assessment and FONSI was given to Stephen Cooper (he will provide copies to other land owners). 2 Y Information about the plantings for use as slope protection in Brooklyn Center. • Planting on soil placed over riprap • Native grasses • Blue grass, rye, fescue seed mix* • Sod • Native forbes which are flowering native prairie plants • Day lilies, hosta, other.hardy perennials • Smaller spireas, forsythias or other small shrubs that provide erosion control Planting above riprapped area • Everything listed above • Most coniferous trees and shrubs • Smaller deciduous trees like crab, birch, or. multi- stemmed Japanese lilacs and serviceberry, • Most shrubs like honeysuckle, viburnum, lilac, euonynmus *Least expensive Undesirable plants would include amur maple, sumac, falsespirea, and buckthorn that spread. There really isn't much to limit what is planted unless natives only, are requested. • 3 City of Brooklyn Center y A Millennium Community May 21, 2002 SUBJECT: RIVERBANK PROTECTION PROJECT Dear Resident: A second meeting is scheduled for the affected property owners on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 6:30 pm. Lets meet on the street in front of 6620 Willow Lane. The purpose of the meeting is to determine if there is adequate support for the project, discuss the revised plans, easement acquisition and possible construction schedule. Revised sets of plans will be provided at the meeting. I hope to see you on May 28. If you have any questions or are unable to attend the meeting please call me to set up another time to meet at 763 -569 -3332. Sincerely, Todd Howard, PE City Engineer 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 3, 2002 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Howard, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Project Cooperation Agreement for the Riverbank Protection Project The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a study and environmental assessment for protecting the City's sanitary sewer located adjacent to the Mississippi River. The Commander of the Mississippi Valley Division has approved the study and the Corps of Engineers is now requesting that the City execute a Project Cooperation Agreement. City Council authorization is required to execute the agreement. Background In December of 1999 WSB and Associates completed the Mississippi River Sanitary Sewer and River Bank Protection Feasibility Report. The purpose of the report was to evaluate erosion along the Mississippi River that is threatening to cause failure of approximately 750 feet of a sanitary sewer main. A map showing the location of the erosion is attached. The study evaluated six alternatives for preventing failure of the pipe. The feasibility study also recommended that funding for the project be pursued through the US Army Corps of Engineers. In the spring of 2000 the City formally requested the Corps of Engineers assistance under the authority Section 14, of the Flood Control act of 1946. The Corps completed a study and environmental assessment for protection of the sanitary sewer. The study recommended placing rock fill along the 750 -foot reach of the Mississippi River. The proposed project would require temporary and permanent easement from seven property owners. Discussion The Corps of Engineers Section 14 program assists communities in protecting public infrastructure that is threatened by stream bank erosion. Under this authority the . ty Corps performs a study and environmental assessment. Upon completion of the study, the City is requested to enter into an agreement with the Corps that identifies the responsibilities of each party for completing the project. Under the terms of the project cooperation agreement the Corps of Engineers would select a contractor and construction administration of the project. The City would be responsible for i securing necessary easements. from the seven affected property owners. Pro_ ject costs would be shared between the Corps of Engineers (65 %) and the City (35 The project is identified in the Capital Improvement Program for 2003. The City's portions of project costs are currently estimated at approximately $160,000. The sanitary sewer fund has adequate funds to complete the project. The Riverwood Association has been updated routinely over the past year on the status of the project. A meeting will be scheduled with affected property owners within the next few weeks pending approval of the project cooperation agreement. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing the execution of the Project Cooperation Agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers for the Riverbank Protection Project. f Y Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE RIVERBANK PROTECTION PROJECT WHEREAS, erosion along the Mississippi River is threatening to cause failure of a portion of sanitary sewer main; and WHEREAS, the City has requested U.S. Army Corps of Engineers assistance under Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed a study and environmental assessment to protect the sewer main; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center desires to enter into a Project Cooperation Agreement for construction of the Emergency Streambank Protection Project. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Y tY tY n Y Center, Minnesota that: 1. The Project Cooperation Agreement is subject to the review of the City Attorney. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Project Cooperation Agreement between the Department of the Army and the City of Brooklyn Center for construction of the Emergency Streambank Protection Project. April 8, 2002 Date Mayor � ATTEST: - City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bob Peppe and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Kay Lasman,.Ed Nelson, Bob Peppe, and Tim Ricker; and the following voted against the same: none; ":'_ whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. oALD`6` s I m d 1 CI,Q u �LACh2 _ FRF Q �v0' W W 75th c AVE. �El a L. wwoo � - ` < u MEADO WAY I 6� Q W i • DR. � wI � 74th th i w Z T. 74/2 A u W 74 th ¢ AVE. > RICE CRE��` W4Y6� -- �ZK24. < c ui CT. Toth ae .9 AVE. w 73rd o s 66 WAY N N _ < --O = 7 zi WAY 3 f— wAY I t 65% x 67tti . .� W a C ? CO ¢ �. \\ 73rd AVE. N.\\\ �\ \\ \ I WAY AVE•w\ �� \� \ 0 51PP F`.\ WOOD BINE LA. WOOD E , y�515 Q < <�� ^� BIN z I s C 0• W P > c 72nd AVE. u�i < ALDRICH T2nd AV• a l g15 V1p� WAY < SATELLITE L A i y CT. ui — o ` Ml5 6A ors 6g th - vs --4-AMY LA. 0 Z J�' 4 W -� r ot/" WAY SYLVA,y �RCUF a x� 71st AVE. - yG� c -j J ? , ! 63rd WAY 4 > 0 O G OR. o e AVE. N. 3 13. 62!/2 W lY CO MET a OR Li 0 < I 4 Z 70 th AV. ,�p'�t` ° S 62 nd �� � R WAY z J L ,2 � AVE. > 3 > IRVING LA. EMER50N LA . A _ c 1 ¢ RIVER I= Q AVE. N• Q I EDGE i 69th AVE. N. 69th ( WAY ` H a N 68th LA. WAY - �t; > � 4 252 Durnam I 61st WAY w ae ui 67tn < '� > I z z HUMB ' Island I 13. ALDEN WAY 60 }h LA. W Hro jeCt o a PL. W Location (Part Of CHARLES ST. 67th¢ � /2 WA N.t I <� Brooklyr > 59Y • 67th AVE- 4y park) 1 _ < - 59 th AV a '` N C4 58 th AV i tA ° a. o m J ..� 'i Q o 57th -� 65th AV. 65th AVE. C s� a� "i 57th AVE. `r 64 th AV E. ` _94 OWN OR. CAMDEN U p, ui / La i? 3rd AV Cr. W EN7URA }� G I 00 100 5Zn HORIZON cis, CROWN R ¢ z 61 st < AV < O 53rd 0 L i c %? ° w4Y > cr 7 t, Z Z < Z y Z W I U. 52nd t 52 j o -K zz P.- WAY o u l = 59th W AV, N. W ` in 59th I 1 .,� AVE_ N. I 51 AVE. N.E. 58 th AY E. N. 1. HUGHES AVE. 58 th AV. I 2. CLEARVIEW ST. z z z z z z = I 3. TOPPER LA. Z z Z z AVE. N. 4. HORIZON DR. ST 5T th AV E. 57 th I , 5. P ANORAMA Z 6. PILOT AVE. .. ;q^^- •5:2'1' ^�1Y2^;: i�e4,x:;Y ;:.4.= _;�: �.'; ^. v :. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community November 27, 2001 Richard D. Carlson St. Paul District Army Corps of Engineers Economist - Management and Evaluation Branch 1905 th Street East St. Paul, MN 55101 -1638 , SUBJECT: EMERGENCY RIVER BANK PROTECTION Dear Mr. Carlson: This letter is a follow -up to our conversation regarding the impacts of a failure of the sewer main along the river. The sanitary sewer main carries waste from approximately twenty -five percent of the City or approximately 7,500 residents,,two schools and a 150 -acre commercial/industrial area. In the event of a failure, effluent from this sewer line would be discharged directly • into the Mississippi River. While the environmental and health effects would be difficult to pre - determine, fines from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency could be $10,000 per day plus clean-up costs. There is also a likelihood that the bank failure and pipe break may occur during high water on the Mississippi River. This would be the worst -case scenario in that the sewer may back up into homes and businesses in the northeast quarter of the City. Downstream the sanitary sewer system would be inundated with river water and could not accommodate normal flows and potentially backing up sewage into another quarter of the City. Please call me at 763 -569 -3332, if you have any questions or require additional - information. Sincerely, ✓7 .5-y�� Todd Howard, P.E. City Engineer Encl 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 r . / rr City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community • October 16, SUBJECT: RIVERBANK PROTECTION PROJECT Dear Resident: This letter is to inform you that City staff will be in your area surveying and collecting data in the vicinity of the sanitary sewer easement located adjacent to the river. The data collected will be used in a report and environmental assessment on protecting the riverbank along your property. The report will be presented to the affected homeowners in February. We anticipate this data collection work will be completed by the end of the week. Please accept my apologies for the late notification. We look forward to working with you in the upcoming months. Please do not hesitate to call me at 763 -569 -3332 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Todd Howard City Engineer 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 City of Brooklyn Center Agreat place to start. A great place to stay. • June 7, 1999 Stephen W. Cooper 6632 West River Road Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Cooper: You have been identified as the owner of the property at the above address. The City of Brooklyn Center owns and operates a sanitary sewer that crosses the rear of your property, and adjacent.to the Mississippi River. The sewer pipe parallels the Mississippi River directly under the west bank and turns back to the west along your south property line to Willow Lane. Recently(in 1997) the Mississippi River reached unusually high levels during the spring season. The water levels raised concerns relating to the stability of river bank and the sewer directly beneath it. The City has therefore begun some preliminary assessment of the bank and storm line to determine what actions, if any, may need to be pursued. In order to assess the situation better, some soil testing is needed. A large vehicle with an auger • to perform soil borings must have access to the river bank. A large vehicle would likely need to traverse across at least a portion of your property to reach the desired testing site. I am therefore seeking your permission to allow this access. I do not anticipate any damage to your property. However, any disturbed areas would be restored appropriately. I would like to meet with you at your property at your convenience to discuss this further. Please contact me at 569 -3332. Your cooperation and understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, zl 4-a47 Scott A. Brink, P. E.' City Engineer • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer • RIVERBANK (SANITARY SEWER) PROTECTION PROJECT PROJECT PROGRESSION AS OF 02- 11 -03. Following is a general chronology of actions and dates through February of 2003. However, this chronology should not be considered fully comprehensive. For example, numerous other communications and notifications with residents and other agencies (written and verbal) are not listed herein. April, 1997 Mississippi River reaches flood levels. Riverbank near south manhole (Cooper property) shows signs of possible collapse; City Public works crews provide emergency protection (install concrete and rip -rap on bank at manhole). May, 1997 City commences preliminary investigations of alternative solutions (relocating sewer vs. stabilizing bank) October 28, 1997 City and S.E.H. inspect bank from land and river (Fire Dept. Boat) August 28, 1998 S.E.H. provides conceptual diagrams for bank protection. March 9, 1999 City investigates concepts further; requests WSB Consultants to present a proposal to a prepare feasibility report to address concepts, alternatives, and costs. • June 7, 1999 Property Owners notified of upcoming geotechnical work (soil borings) related to evaluating alternatives for protecting the sewer and stabilizing the riverbank. June 28, 1999 City retains STS to conduct geotechnical report August, 1999 Sanitary Sewer televised and inspected by City (Infratech). October, 1999 Infratech cleans sewer (primarily root infiltration) December 1999 WSB submits Feasibility Report (evaluates options: relocation of the sewer, and different designs of bank protection, etc.) February 2000 Sewer is again televised and inspected April 4, 2000 WSB is authorized to perform additional work to further refine Study and Report December 22, 2000 Report submitted by City to Corps of Engineers (COE) requesting assistance April 2001 Draft Plans and Specifications completed by COE October 16, 2001 Notice sent to residents by City, notifying them of surveys and data collection to be conducted along riverbank. November 26, 2001 Environmental Assessment prepared and distributed by COE April, 2002 Loucks Associates directed to provide land surveying services to assist in easement identification and acquisition. April 8, 2002 City Council provided project update and approves Project Cooperation Agreement with COE April 19, 2002 Residents notified of Project Cooperation Agreement, and notified • of resident informational meeting scheduled for May 19, 2002 Riverbank Protection Update 02 -11 -03 1 May 14, 2002 Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) signed b City, along with � Y Y g • submittal of $112,700 to COE for City share of costs. May 19, 2002 Information Meeting conducted at site with residents by City Engineer (Todd Howard) May 28, 2002 Information Meeting conducted at site with residents by City Engineer (Todd Howard) May 30, 2002 Orion Appraisals, Inc. retained to provide real estate appraisal services for purposes of easement acquisitions. August 7, 2002 Scott Brink (City), Joe Mose (COE), and Contractor (a Contractor familiar with the type of proposed construction) conduct information meeting with residents (at site — Cooper property) August 27, 2002 Scott Brink (City), Joe Mose (COE), and COE Hydrologist conduct information meeting with residents at site (Cooper property) August, 2002 Evergreen Land Services Company retained by City to provide land acquisition/easement services along with Orion Appraisals August 29, 2002 Update letter sent to residents — stating that Corps is further reviewing plans to address resident concerns. September 25, 2002 COE, City, and Evergreen Land Services meet to discuss project status of project. October 30, 2002 COE, City, and Evergreen Land Services again meet to discuss project status. - • November 6, 2002 Project update letter sent to residents. December 9, 2002 City Council provided project update and passes Resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings for easement acquisition purposes. January -Feb 2003 Orion Appraisals, Inc. completes appraisals and calculates fair compensation amounts for easements acquisitions, subject to Corps of Engineer's approval. February 10, 2003 All project work halted at direction of City Council. • Riverbank Protection Update 02-11-03 2 • City Council Agenda Item No. 9d Memorandum Date: February 3, 2003 To: Michael McCauley City Manager From: Douglas Sell Director of Fiscal and Support Services RE: Chapter 2 — City Ordinances Revised Ordinance We have worked with the City Attorney on a revised section of City Ordinances that addresses abandoned or forfeited property. The current Ordinance is cumbersome and limits actions by the City to dispose of abandoned or forfeited property in an efficient manner. The new Ordinance streamlines the process without limiting the property owners rights. Key differences are noted as follows: • Old Ordinance: No definitions. New Ordinance: The new ordinance provides for definitions of abandoned and unclaimed property consistent with state statute. This clarifies what property will be classified as abandoned or unclaimed. Old Ordinance: The procedure for disposing of property covers sections 2 -101 through 2 -108. Section 2 -105 contains a requirement that the City Manager receive approval of the City Council for items exceeding a $100 before disposing or appropriating the item(s) for city use. New Ordinance: The new procedure, Section 2 -102 a -e, adopts state statute. This provides a detailed process as well as specific provisions for property owners. It removes the $ 100 limitation. This will permit the City Manager to determine the most appropriate method of disposal of abandoned or unclaimed property while retaining property owner rights. Old Ordinance: Abandoned vehicles require additional procedures to comply with state statutes. The old ordinance does not provide for the requirements as contained in current statutes. New Ordinance: These sections provide for circumstances under which a vehicle may be considered abandoned; the actions permitted to remove and store the vehicle and the hearing and disposal of an abandoned vehicle. The new ordinance provides broader authority to deal with abandoned vehicles under the • current state statute. i A public hearing to consider this ordinance should be noticed by adoption of the attached • notice. If you have any questions, please let me know. • i • mem McCauley Ch 2 Ordinance 020303 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will e e Y g p g b held on the day of , 2003, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance repealing Chapter 2 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center and adopting a new ordinance regarding the disposition of abandoned and unclaimed property. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the deputy city clerk at 769 -569 -3308 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND ADOPTING A NEW ORDINANCE REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 2 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby repealed in its entirety. • Section 2. Chapter 2 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by adding the following new sections: CHAPTER 2 — ABANDONED AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY Section 2 -101. DEFINITIONS. a. "Abandoned Property" means property that, after appropriate notification to the property owner, the owner fails to redeem, or property to which the owner relinquishes possession without reclaiming the property. b. "Unclaimed Property" means property lawfully coming into the possession of the City and remaining unclaimed by the owner. Section 2 -102. DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. a. Procedure. Except for vehicles impounded pursuant to § 2 -103, et seq. of this Chapter, all abandoned and unclaimed property will be disposed of as provided in this section, which is adopted pursuant to M.S. §471.195, as it may be amended from time to time. ' � 1 b. Storage The department of the city acquiring possession of the abandoned or . unclaimed property will arrange for its storage. If city facilities are unavailable or inadequate, the department may arrange for storage at a privately -owned facility. C. Claim by Owner. The owner may claim the abandoned or unclaimed property by exhibiting satisfactory proof of ownership and paying the city any storage or maintenance costs incurred by it. A receipt for the abandoned or unclaimed property must be obtained upon release to the owner. d. Sale After the abandoned or unclaimed property has been in the possession of the City for at least 60 days, the property may be sold to the highest bidder at a public auction or sale or by a private sale through a nonprofit organization that has a significant mission of community service. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee may decide whether the sale will be public or private. If the sale is to be by public auction, the City shall give ten days' published notice describing the abandoned or unclaimed property found or recovered and to be sold, and specifying the time and place of the sale. The notice must be published at least once in a legal newspaper in the city. , e. Proceeds. The proceeds of the sale will be placed in the general fund of the City. If the former owner makes application and furnishes satisfactory proof of ownership within six months of the sale, the former owner will be paid the proceeds of the sale of the abandoned or unclaimed property less the costs of • storage and the proportionate part of the cost of published notice and other costs of the sale. Section 2 -103. ABANDONED VEHICLES. a. Incomoration of State Statute. M.S. Chapter 168B, and Minn. Rules Chapter 7035, as they may be amended from time to time, are hereby adopted by reference. Except as provided in Section 2 -105 of this Chapter, the disposition of abandoned vehicles shall be governed by M.S. Chapter 168B. b. Additional Findings. The City finds that, in circumstances involving certain health and safety concerns, it is necessary to apply more stringent regulations than those contained in M.S. Chapter 168B. Accordingly, the City adopts the following additional regulations in Sections 2 -104 and 2 -105. Section 2 -104. VIOLATION TO ABANDON MOTOR VEHICLE. A person who abandons, parks, keeps, places or stores any junk vehicle or inoperable vehicle on any public, or on any private property without the consent of the person in control of the property is guilty of a misdemeanor. • 2 • Section 2 -105. AUTHORITY TO IMPOUND VEHICLES. a. Inoperable or iunk vehicles on public property. No person shall park, keep, place, store or abandon any junk vehicle or inoperable vehicle on a public street, alley, or public property within the city. The City Manager or Manager's designee or any peace officer employed or whose services are contracted for by the city may take into custody and impound any inoperable or junk vehicle. b. Unauthorized vehicles. The City Manager, Manager's designee, or any peace officer employed or whose services are contracted for by the city, may take into custody and impound any unauthorized vehicle under M.S. § 169.041 as it may be amended from time to time. A vehicle may also be impounded after it has been left unattended in one of the following public locations for the indicated period of time: 1. On a highway and properly tagged by a peace officer, four hours; 2. Located so as to constitute an accident or traffic hazard to the traveling public, as determined by a peace officer, immediately; or 3. That is a parking facility or other public property owned or controlled by a unit of government, properly posted, four hours. • C. Illegally parked vehicles. The City Manager, Manager's designee, or any peace officer employed or whose services are contracted for by the city, may take into custody and impound any vehicle that is illegally parked, the owner of which has been ordered to remove it. d. Vehicles impeding- road or utility activities. The City Manager, Manager's designee, or any peace officer employed or whose services are contracted for by the city, may take into custody and impound any vehicle that is impeding, obstructing, or interfering with the repair, construction, or maintenance activities of public utilities or public transportation. Except in an emergency situation, reasonable notice must be given to the vehicle owner or user of such activities. e. Vehicles obstructine traffic or emergencv response. The City Manager, Manager's designee, or any peace officer employed or whose services are contracted for by the city, may take into custody and impound any vehicle, whether occupied or not, that is: (1) found stopped, standing, or parked in violation of an ordinance or state statute; (2) reported stolen; or (3) impeding firefighting or other emergency activities, snow removal or plowing, or the orderly flow of traffic. £ Notice and heariniz. • 3 1. The notice and hearing requirements in this paragraph do not apply to • vehicles described in Section 2- 105(c) — (e). 2. Before impounding a junk vehicle or inoperable vehicle, the Manager or a p g authorized designee must give 10 days' written notice through service - by mail, by posting a notice on the property, or by personal delivery to the owner of or erson in control p on of of the property on which the vehicle is located. When the property is occupied, service upon the occupant is deemed service upon the owner. Where the property is unoccupied or abandoned, service may be by mail to the last known owner of record of the property or by posting on the property. The notice must state: a) A description of the vehicle; b) That the vehicle must be moved or properly stored within 10 days of service of the notice; C) That if the vehicle is not removed or properly stored as ordered, the vehicle will be towed and impounded at an identified location; d) That the vehicle may be reclaimed in accordance with the procedures contained in M.S. §168B.07 or disposed of in accordance with M.S. §16813.08; and e) That the owner of the vehicle or the owner of or person in control of the property on which the vehicle is located may in writing • request a hearing before the City Manager or authorized designee. 3. Heariniz, action. If a hearing is requested during the 10 -day period, the City Manager or authorized designee must promptly schedule the hearing, and no further action on the towing and impoundment of the vehicle may be taken until the City Manager's decision is rendered. At the conclusion of the scheduled hearing, the City Manager or authorized designee may (1) cancel the notice to remove the vehicle; (2) modify the notice; or (3) affirm the notice to remove. If the notice is modified or affirmed, the vehicle must be disposed of in accordance with the city's written order. g. Imt)oundinE! procedures. The impounded vehicle will be surrendered to the owner by the towing contractor only upon payment of the required impound, towing and storage fees. Vehicle impounding will be conducted in accordance with M.S. Chapter 168B, governing the sale of abandoned motor vehicles. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. • 4 Adopted this day of , 2003. • Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Underline indicates new matter; brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) • • 5 CITY PROPERTY - CHAPTER 2 Section Custody of Found Property Excepting Animals and Motor Vehicles . ............................................ 2 -101 Claimsby Owner . ............................................................................................................................. 2 -102 Claimby Finder . .............................................................................................................................. 2 -103 Transfer of Unclaimed Moneys to General Fund . ........................................................................... 2 -104 PublicSale of Unclaimed Property .................................................................... ..............................2 -105 Dispositionof Proceeds . .................................................................................................................. 2 -106 Claim by Former Owner after Public Sale ......................................................... ..............................2 -107 SummaryDisposal ............................................................................................. ..............................2 -108 Custody of Abandoned and Unclaimed Motor Vehicles ................................... ..............................2 -201 Rightto Reclaim ................................................................................................ ..............................2 -202 ImmediateDisposition ........................................................................................ ..............................2 -203 PublicSale........... ............................................................................................... ..............................2 -204 Dispositionof Proceeds ..................................................................................... ..............................2 -205 Disposalof Vehicles Not Sold ........................................................................... ..............................2 -206 5/7/97 CHAPTER 2 - CITY PROPERTY OPER Y Section 2 -101. CUSTODY OF FOUND PROPERTY EXCEPTING ANIMALS AND MOTOR VEHICLES. The city manager shall establish administrative provisions for receiving and safekeeping found property and money coming into possession of the City of Brooklyn Center in the course of its municipal operations. A receipt shall be issued to the person finding such property or money and causing it to be delivered to the custody of the City. Such property shall be stored in a safe place and such money deposited with the city treasurer for a period of two months unless claimed by the true owner. Upon expiration of the two month period said property or money shall be subject to disposal under this ordinance as unclaimed property or money. Section 2 -102. CLAIMS BY OWNER. During such two month period the city manager may deliver such property or order such money paid to the true owner thereof upon proof of ownership satisfactory to the city manager, after ten days notice by mail to other persons who may have asserted a claim of true ownership. In the event ownership cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the city manager, he may refuse to deliver such property or order the payment of such money to anyone until ordered to do so by court. Section 2 -103. CLAIM BY FINDER. If the true owner does not claim property or money during the two month period, the city manager may release such unclaimed property or order such unclaimed money to be paid to the person who found same, if at the time of delivery to the City of Brooklyn Center such finder indicated in writing that he wished to assert a claim to the property or money as a finder. Section 2 -104. TRANSFER OF UNCLAIMED MONEYS TO GENERAL FUND. If any such money is not claimed by the true owner or by the finder within the two month period, the city manager shall cause such money to be transferred to the General Fund of the City. Section 2 -105. PUBLIC SALE OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. Upon expiration of the two month period unclaimed property remaining in the possession of the City of Brooklyn Center shall be appropriated for City use upon approval by the city manager, if such item of property is valued less than $100 and upon approval by the city council if such item of property is valued greater than $100 or shall be sold at public sale by the city manager. The city manager shall cause one week published notice of public sale in the official newspaper, describing therein the article to be sold and the date, time and place of the sale. Any unclaimed property offered for public sale but not sold, and not suitable for appropriation for City use, shall be deemed to be of no value and shall be disposed of in such manner as the city manager directs. Section 2 -106. DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS. Upon completion of a public sale of unclaimed property, the city manager shall cause the proceeds therefrom to be deposited in the General Fund of the City. ? -1 5/7/97 Section 2 -107. CLAIM BY FORMER OWNER AFTER PUBLIC SALE. The former true owner of property sold at public sale according to the provisions of Section 2 -105 shall, upon application to the city clerk within six months of the date of public sale and upon furnishing satisfactory proof of former ownership, be paid the respective sale price proceeds from the General Fund of the City. Section 2 -108. SUMMARY DISPOSAL. The city manager may, without notice and in such manner as he determines to be in the public interest, dispose summarily of any property coming into his possession which he determines to be dangerous or perishable.. He shall make a record of the pertinent facts of the receipt and disposal of such property. Section 2 -201. CUSTODY OF ABANDONED AND UNCLAIMED MOTOR VEHICLES. The city manager shall establish administrative provisions for receiving and storing abandoned and unclaimed motor vehicles coming in to the possession of the City of Brooklyn Center in the course of its municipal operations. He shall mail to the registered owner, if any, and to all readily identifiable lien holders of record a notice of possession of the motor vehicle within 10 days of the taking of same. The notice shall set forth the date and place of the taking, the year, make, model and serial number of the motor vehicle, shall inform the owner and any lien holders of their right to reclaim the vehicle, and shall inform that failure to exercise reclamation rights shall be deemed a waiver by them of all right, title and interest in the vehicle and a consent to the disposal of the vehicle through sale or other means. In the event of inability to determine with reasonable certainty the identify and address of the vehicle owner, the notice shall be published once in the official newspaper. Section � n 2 _02. RIGHT TO RECLAIM. At any time within 15 days after the date of notice to the owner said owner may claim his motor vehicle upon furnishing satisfactory proof of ownership and upon payment of all handling and storage charges resulting from taking the vehicle into custody. Section 2 -203. IMMEDIATE DISPOSITION. An unclaimed or abandoned motor vehicle which is more than seven model years of age, not in operating condition and which does not display a currently valid license plate shall immediately be eligible for sale or disposed of by other means and shall not be subject to the notification and reclamation provisions of this ordinance. Section 2 -204. PUBLIC SALE. At any time upon expiration of 15 days after mailing of notice to the registered owner, if any, an unclaimed or abandoned motor vehicle shall be sold at public sale by the city manager following published notice thereof. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to impair any lien of a garage keeper or the right of a lien holder to foreclose. Section 2 -205. DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS. Upon completion of public sale of unclaimed or abandoned motor vehicles, the city manager shall cause the net proceeds thereof to be deposited in the General Fund of the City. The net proceeds shall be the sale price less any costs of handling, storing, or selling such unclaimed or abandoned vehicle. The net proceeds of a sale shall be paid to the former owner of the vehicle or to the entitled lien holder upon application to the city clerk and upon furnishing satisfactory proof of ownership within ninety days of the date of sale. 2 -2 5/7/97 Section 2 -206. DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES NOT SOLD. In the event an unclaimed or abandoned motor vehicle proves unsalable, the city manager may dispose of it pursuant to Section 168B.10 of the Minnesota Statutes. 2 -3 5/7/97 a AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION February 24, 2003 Immediately Following Regular City Council Meeting Council Commission onfer C ence Room 1. Code Enforcment 2. Police Department reorganization plan 3. Council Member Lasman: policy on liquor in Constitution Hall 4. Mayor Kragness: Taxicab licensing regulations 5. Council Member Carmody: Earle Brown Days Overtime & Fireworks 6. Proposal from developer for liquor store at 69 & Brooklyn Blvd. 7. Civil legal fee increase and Schedule for Requests for Proposals 8. Meeting with commission chairs and commission recognition 9. Next work session date 10. Miscellaneous 11. Adjourn City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Coun ' embers Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley DATE: February 18, 2003 SUBJECT: City Council Work Session Agenda 1. CODE ENFORCEMENT This item is on the agenda pursuant to the Council's request to review and discuss the code enforcement program. Chief Bechthold will be attending the work session for this item and the next item. 2. POLICE DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION PLAN Enclosed is a draft reorganization plan that Chief Bechthold is proposing for police operations. Chief Bechthold's plan would create the position of Lieutenant and outline a more systematic review of activity in the City by splitting the City into two areas for purposes of developing more proactive responses and conducting outreach meetings. With the change to a civilian crime prevention position, the overall budgetary impact of reorganization should be neutral. 3. COUNCIL MEMBER LASMAN: POLICY ON LIQUOR IN .CONSTITUTION HALL Council Member Lasman has requested that the City Council discuss the current policy that prohibits alcoholic beverages in City Hall and Constitution Hall. Council Member Lasman was approached by the Lions regarding this policy as it would impact a use they might consider for an event in Constitution Hall. 4. MAYOR KRAGNESS: TAXICAB LICENSING REGULATIONS This item is placed on the work session agenda to review materials that were assembled regarding taxicab licensing for direction from the City Council. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org I . 5. COUNCIL MEMBER CARMODY: EARLE BROWN DAYS OVERTIME & FIREWORKS Council Member Council wants to discuss the Earle Brown Days committee meeting that she recently attended and questions regarding continued City funding for the parade and fireworks in light of the budget situation. 6. PROPOSAL FROM DEVELOPER FOR LIQUOR STORE AT 69' AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The developer at 69 and Brooklyn Boulevard is proposing to enter into negotiations for a potential municipal liquor store in connection with his development. In previous City Council discussions of this matter, I suggested and the Council concurred in the suggestion that staff would not devote time to exploring a municipal liquor store. Since that discussion, I have been approached by the developer with a concept that would have the developer fully improve and furnish the space, with the exception of inventory and computer equipment. We are also in the mists of the State budget crisis. Thus, I wanted to have another discussion with the City Council so that you could provide direction in light of the recent contact with the developer. 7 CIVIL LEGAL FEE INCREASE Enclosed is a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding increases in fees from Kennedy and Graven. Under City policy, the City would solicit proposals for civil legal services in 2003. This item is on the agenda to discuss the Council's direction on this matter. Civil legal services were re- appointed in 2000 after a review process and solicitation of proposals. Civil services were re- reviewed in 2001, but not with the solicitation of proposals. 8. MEETING WITH COMMISSION CHAIRS AND COMMISSION RECOGNITION The City Council work session with Commission Chairs is scheduled for March 17. The Commission Recognition event is scheduled for April 21. This item is on the agenda to discuss the format for the meeting with the Commission Chairs, to see if the Council wishes to follow the format that has been used in the last few years. It is also on the agenda to discuss the format for the actual recognition event on April 21. 9 NEXT WORK SESSION DATE Especially as the potential resolution of the State budget deficit progresses, it will be important for the City Council to be engaged in the approaches that need to be developed in order for the City to respond. As you know the great p y g difficultly is that many proposals will be floated and until the Legislature has enacted a Bill and the Governor has signed it, we will potentially have no really good idea as to the impacts on the City. We have begun the process of assembling information in order to develop options for a response. The City Council may wish to consider conducting a work session on these matters after the meeting with Commission Chairs on March 17. Other potential dates for consideration might be March 31 and April 7. El El ❑ El EJ ❑ BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE El 11 DEPARTMENT ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ CODE ENFORCEMENT °❑ PROGRAM SUMMARY a 2000, 2001, & 2002 El Cl El ❑ VIOLATION SUMMARY Actions Taken 2000 ( 2001 2002 First Letters 1,127 988 1,132 Second Letters 386 I 323 402 j Thank You Letters 1,076 969 1,081 Citations /Formal 49 52 15 El Complaints Unfounded 41 12 1 Complaints Total Violations 1,810 1,455 1,582 ❑ ENFORCEMENT FJ U ■ Citations were issued to individuals that o were unwilling to comply 0 ■ Formal complaints were filed for those individuals who were unwilling to contact us ❑ ❑ ■ Extensions were granted for individuals with large projects or to those who were o financially unable to comply, but were aggressively working with us to find solutions 1 ❑ El El IMPROVEMENTS IN 2002 El 11 ❑ o ■Increased direct ■ Assistance in getting o communication with supplies needed for low ❑ violators 11 Higher focus on "problem Income families El o houses' ■ Increased neighbor ❑ ■ Increased cooperation involvement with code D with apartment complexes violations ■ Direct partnership with the :1 Community Development ■ Higher public staff awareness of program ■ Increased referrals to social service agencies GG El EJ GOALS FOR 2003 ❑ ■ Division of City by the NLO team provides: • I NLO for west side & I NLO for east side of city E ♦ Higher level of y communication with residents j• Improved compliance 7 rate I • Increase focus on "Problem houses" • Overall improved monitoring of the City 2 b Piera Palazzolo ,Police Department's Reorganization Plan Purpose The plan being presented is directed toward improving operations responsiveness Improving Operations • Improves the flow of information up and down the chain of command • Balances the structure of the organization to insure decisions are made at the proper level and management span of control is equally divided • Personnel are use in more efficient and effective manner • Cost effective Title goes here 1 Piera Palazzolo / Responsiveness The'reorganization plan provides the esseht�ial structure for the new Crime Reduction Strategy that moves the departmentfrom the traditional reactive organization to a proactive organization Using the reorganization as a base, the CRS incorporates five other objectives: 1. Crime Mapping 2. Area Management Teams 3. Internal Monthly Meetings 4. Directed Patrol Management 5. Community Association Meetings Current Org Chart a,• Title goes here 2 Piera Palazzolo Proposed Org Chart CM1ceI , nemmmNn.N _ TeaM�nan \ Degan ' LealanaN Lleulenanl 1-u m Atl a EeM Seda Waal sedan .1- e U Manager , sargaaN SeryeaM Daleclrvea D,pa1M / Teamt Team) suparvce T... n SeigeaN ScM1ml Lasim Recor�E Taam2 Teem4 � NLO NLO Z / Reorganization Recommendations 4; Positions Vacant Captain and Administrative Sergeant become 2 Lieutenant Positions AN supp*staff put under direct responsibility of Administrative Manager Svrom officerfronn Patrol becomes assigned to Drug Task Force Crime pre.mion dulled�ecome assigned to NLOs. Eliminates the sworn Crime Prevention Offi�r and gives each sector a NLO for code enforcement and crime Orevvention duties. , Reassign the Training /Relief Sergeant from Patrol to oversee the supervisory and management duties of the Detective unit. Staffing TITLE CURRENT PROPOSED Chief, 1 1 I Captains 2 1 Lieutenants 0 2 Sergeant's", 6 5 Detectives 7 6 Officers 26 Patrol 26 Patrol 1 bkme Prev 1 DTF (Total Sworn 4S 42 NLO's 1 2 Total 44 \ 44 Title goes here 3 I • ►t Piera Palazzolo COST /SAVINGS CURRENT BUDGET PROPOSED NEW COST POSITION POSITION BUDGET DIFFERENCE Current 74,232 Captain 74,232 0 Captain Vacant 74,232 Lieutenant 73,128 -1,104 Captain ( Admin 63,814 Lieutenant 73,128 +9,314 i Sergeant \_ Detective 61,108 \qfficer DTF 58,608 -2,400 DTF Crime Prev 72,494 NLO 39,125 - 33,369 Officer (sal +ben) (sal +ben) TOTALS 345,780 318,221 ! 27,559 Questiohs /Comments g i 11 `, Title goes here 4 Mic hael McCaul - reorg memo to cm.doc Page 1 �RpOKLY W CEIVTF9 POLICE BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Bechthold, Chief Of Police DATE: December 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Reorganization Pursuant to our conversation last Tuesday, I am providing you with the following three spreadsheets with updated information on the reorganization plan. Spread Sheet One • All three columns are the true authorized staffing levels with no additions. • Column three reflects the recommendations of the reorganization plan which includes: 1. One second in command as either a Captain or Deputy Chief 2. The current vacant Captain's position is downgraded to the first Lieutenant position 3. The current Administrative Sergeant is upgraded to the second Lieutenant position 4. The Drug Task Force position is filled with an officer vs. detective 5. The sworn Crime Prevention Officer is eliminated and replaced with one additional Neighborhood Liaison Officer Spread Sheet Two • This sheet is a cost benefit analysis with the Captain as second in command. • The Lieutenant's salary is figured by using the average high of the 10 city comparison group. • It should be noted that by using the same comparison group for Captain, the average high is 72,804. The Stanton Five average high for Captain is 80,208. • In figuring the Drug Task Force officer position, I used the 2002 top patrol rate plus on call pay as stipulated under 30.4 of the contract. • The costs for holding back an additional vehicle have been dropped. Spread Sheet Three • This sheet is a cost benefit analysis with a Deputy Chief as second in command. • The Deputy Chief's salary is figured by using the average high of the 10 city comparison group. Michael McCauley - reorg spread sheet 2.doc _ _ Page 1 Spread Sheet 2 Captain as Second in Command Current Budgeted Position after Newly Cost Position Amount Reorganization Budgeted Differential Amount Current Captain $74,232 Captain $74,232 $0 Vacant Captain $74,232 Lieutenant $73,128 $ 1,104 Administrative $63,814 Lieutenant $73,128 - $9,314 Sergeant (does not include OT) Detective $61,008 Officer $58,608 $2400 (Drug Task Force) (Drug Task Force) Crime Prevention Neighborhood Officer $72,494 Liaison Officer $39,125 $33,369 (salary + benefits) (salary + benefits) TOTALS: $345,780 $318,221 $27,559 in savings Michael McCauley - re org spre she et 3.doc Page 1 Spread Sheet 3 Chief Deputy as Second in Command Current Budgeted Position after Newly Cost Position Amount Reorganization Budgeted Differential Amount Current Captain $74,232 Chief Deputy $82,987 - $8,755 Vacant Captain $74,232 Lieutenant $73,128 $1,104 Administrative $63,814 Lieutenant $73,128 - $9,314 Sergeant (does not include OT) Detective $61,008 Officer $58,608 $2400 (Drug Task Force) (Drug Task Force) Crime Prevention Neighborhood Officer $72,494 Liaison Officer $39,125 $33,369 (salary + benefits) (salary + benefits) TOTALS: $345,780 $326,976 $18,804 in savings Brooklyn Center Police Department wo POtIGE SPREAD SHEET 1 Proposed Thru Authorized Existing Reorganization Chief 1 1 1 Captains 2 1 1 Lieutenants 0 0 2 Sergeants 6 6 5 Detectives 7 6 6 Officers 26 Patrol 26 Patrol 26 Patrol 1 Crime Prevention 1 Crime Prevention 1 DTF Officer 43 41 42 NLO 1 1 2 Total 44 42 44 Michael McCauley - Reorg Paper2.doc Page 1 It a: i� 1� 3 5 I Reorganization of the 1 Brooklyn Center f Police Department 2002 3 Prepared by Chief Scott Bechthold September 17, 2002 ;i 1 Michael McCa uley - Reor Paper2 Page ` r Change is rarely easy work. It requires a special kind of determination - a willingness to.. have the courage of one's conviction.. and humility to learn, adapt and grow.. It involves looking in the mirror.. preserving the best, and reinventing the rest. Looking forward requires leadership in -mastering the process of constant change,.. anticipating, learning and adapting and adjusting strategies and practices.. i 3 { ** Carly Fiorina, CEO of Hewlett - Packard I. PURPOSE The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the current organization structure of the Police Department. The organization is timely in that there are currently a number of positions v vacant in the Police Department as well as the near implementation of the Department's j; 2 Michae McCa uley - Reo P aper2.doc Page 3 i 3 Crime Prevention Strategy. The reorganization plan being presented is directed toward improving operations and responsiveness with the Departments organization structure. This includes improving the flow of information up and down the chain of command and insuring decisions are made at the proper level. ii �3 II. BACKGROUND 3 The Police Department is comprised of four Divisions including Administration, Patrol, Detectives, and Support Services. 3 3 Administration Administration consists of the Chief of Police and the Administrative Technician. The a office of the Chief coordinates and administers all divisions in the department by implementing strategy in crime prevention and crime suppression. The Chief of Police serves as liaison to other City departments, neighboring communities, and criminal justice agencies. The Administrative Technician is responsible for gathering and disseminating statistical data to residents, City staff, and Department personnel. This position is also responsible for providing crime analysis as well as planning and research for Department programs. i Patrol The Patrol Division consists of a Captain, Patrol Sergeants, Patrol Officers, Community Services Sergeant, and a Crime Prevention Officer. Uniformed officer's respond to calls for service of both emergency and non - emergency natures. In addition, the patrol 1 division conducts proactive patrol in residential and commercial areas to deter crime. 1 Officers seek to make a positive difference in the lives of the residents of Brooklyn Center and the community as a whole. , The central philosophy of the Patrol Division is the concept of Community Policing. Community Policing allows the residents and businesses of the community the opportunity to take an active role in the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the deterrence of crime in their neighborhoods and business areas. Allowing residents and businesses to actively participate with the police form strong ties between the community and the police department. This philosophy creates a stronger sense of community for residents, businesses, and the police. 3 k L Michael McCauley - Re org Paper2.do Page 4 Investizations The Investigative Division consists of a Captain, Detectives, and a School Liaison Officer. The primary goal of the Detective Division is to provide centralized investigative resources to the other components of the department. The investigative process includes case evaluation, assignment and management; evidence gathering, securing and preservation for court; identifying, apprehending and assisting with the prosecution of criminal cases; and maintaining a working relationship with the various prosecuting entities, corrections departments and other law enforcement agencies. f Detectives conduct investigations of criminal offenses through proactive and reactive response. Proactive response includes surveillance of high crime areas, gathering intelligence information on known or suspected criminals, and participating in purchasing contraband (such as illegal drugs or stolen property). Reactive investigations are i conducted when a criminal offense is reported and there is physical evidence to gather and process, there are victims, suspects, and witnesses to be interviewed, and supporting documentation to be researched and evaluated. These actions prepare the case for presentation in criminal court. In addition to criminal investigations being conducted, the Detective Division is responsible for conducting Background Investigations for liquor licenses, employee backgrounds, and other licensing issues. SuAnort Services The Support Services Division consists of both sworn and civilian personnel that provide support to all Police Department Divisions. i I Public Safety Dispatchers are the critical link between the public and emergency service personnel. Dispatchers are responsible for dispatching police, fire, and ambulance calls for service through the automation of the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Mobile Computing Device (MCD) systems. Dispatchers are also responsible for booking prisoners and maintaining the holding facility. The dispatch function is under the direction of the Detective Captain. Community Service Officers (CSO's) are utilized to perform police - related duties that do not require a sworn police officer. These duties include, but are not limited to, responding to complaints concerning animals, monitoring private and commercial property for junk vehicles and other city ordinance violations. The Neighborhood Liaison Officer assists other City departments and works directly with Community Development ' to assist in ordinance enforcement and related activities. The Administrative Sergeant supervises the CSO's, and Neighborhood Liaison Officers. 4 . .. Michael McCauley - Reorg Paper2.do Page The Records staff processes and coordinates information generated by all Divisions within the Department. Their activities include transcription, dissemination and storage of police reports along with proper classification of crimes that is mandated by the State of Minnesota. The Property/Evidence function is responsible for the proper receiving, tracking, storage, and return or disposal of all property. The Property Room Supervisor is responsible for coordinating the disposal of City property through an auction service. The Administrative Manager supervises the Records staff and Property Room Supervisor. The Administrative Manager is also responsible for the administration of the l Department's budget, all police purchasing, liquor licenses, gambling licenses, pawnshop . licenses, handgun permits, and other miscellaneous permits as required by State and City regulations. s i Current Oreanizational Structure The organizational structure of this Department includes the Chief of Police, who coordinates the activities of all Divisions and who reports directly to the City Manager. The Captain of Patrol, the Captain of Detectives, the Administrative Manager, and the Administrative Technician support the Police Chief. As a result of recent retirements, the current organizational structure needs to be evaluated. It is necessary to determine whether it best serves the current and future needs of the Department. 1; The current organizational chart is shown: i �i i it 5 Michael McCauley - Reorg P aper2.doc Page 6 3 Brooklyn Center Police Department _ Organizational Structur h ' / L� 1 ' O C hiefo fPo lice ( u - ) IF Il Time Detective Patrol Administrative Administrative. _. Captain Captain Manager Aide (IFull -Time) - (1Full- -Time) (IFull- -Time) (IFuRTime) , i Patrol Cr'un e P reventio n Pro pertyRoom - _ Sergeants Officer Supervisor ` (6Frr16Time) (57Frd1 -Time) (1Full -Time) I , Detectives Public Safety patrol D.A.R.E. Classification Comm Supervisor Officers Officers Technician (%FuA -Time) (IFu1FTime) (23.57 Full-Tim e) (86 Full -Time) (1Fu11- -Time) .. ...... _ .... S Cho olliaison Public Safety Community Secretary/ , Officer Dis patchers Service Officers Receptionist (I Fuli -Tim e) (6 Fu# -Time) ... (2 FT, L2 FTE) - ._....... (3 FUJI -Tim e) .... ... .... - .. Cadets Data Entry .. Clerk ... _. . 6 FTE) (.5 FTE ) ? Neighborhood Records liaison Clerk - - (/Full -Tim e) (9 FTE) is - _.... Type . ..... (2.2 FTE) 6 Michael McCauley - Reorg Paper2.d Page 7 3 III. FINDINGS Reoreanization and Reinvention The Brooklyn Center Police Department is a typical police agency with traditional police responses to problems in the community, which makes it a more "reactive" organization rather than a "proactive" police department. A citizen would place a call, and an officer would respond. Little was done, however, to prevent the necessity for this call. However, the Department took steps in 2001 to move toward a crime reduction strategy. This strategy incorporates the four following components: 1. Patrol Area Management Teams 2. Internal Monthly Meetings 3. Directed Patrol Management 4. Community Outreach Meetings ` Partnerships with the community are necessary to meet their needs and concerns. The Department has accountability for what occurs in the community, and this is a key strength for focus. 1. Patrol Area Management Teams The Department will divide the City of Brooklyn Center into two sectors, East and West. A management team will be assigned to each Patrol Area, consisting of one Lieutenant, one Sergeant, one Detective, one Officer per shift, and a Neighborhood Liaison Officer. Each member of the Patrol Area Management Team will perform his or her responsibilities. a The Team meets each month and on an "as- needed" basis to discuss ongoing needs of the Patrol Area community. This strong, diverse collaboration forms a solid foundation for success and become advocates for the community. 2. Internal Monthly Meetings Each Lieutenant of the Patrol Areas will receive their sector's crime statistics, maps, etc. before the Internal Monthly Meeting. They will then identify the problem areas and devise strategic, proactive responses. An Internal Patrol Area meeting will be scheduled, with the Chief and Deputy Chief in attendance. These problem areas and strategic responses will be presented, and the Chief and Deputy Chief will hold the Patrol Area Lieutenant accountable for past and future responses. 3. Directed Patrol Management A procedure will be developed to track all complaints filed with the Department, for 7 Michael McCauley - Reorg Pa per2.doc accountability purposes. This procedure, the Directed Patrol Assignment Form, is a # written record of a complaint, issue or concern about almost any problem in the !° community. Each Action Form will be designated a number by the Lieutenant of that Patrol Area, and will be tracked by the Lieutenant to ensure it is resolved in an appropriate manner. The Action Form will then be sent to the appropriate unit for action, and once resolution is reached the Action Form is returned to the Lieutenant of that Patrol Area. The Form must contain a description of the results and actions taken to reach resolution. The Lieutenant then contacts the original complainant with the results to l: ensure satisfaction of all parties. These results are also disseminated at the Internal' Monthly Meetings and the Community Outreach Meetings. The Chief and Deputy Chief also receive copies. i 3� 3; 4. Community Outreach Meetings A critical component of this reorganization is the quarterly Community Outreach Meeting. In each Patrol Area community leaders will publicize these Community Outreach Meetings through a variety of Cable 12, print media, and announcements. Patrol Area Lieutenants will have an area setup to provide information about the Patrol 0 Area, including maps, crime statistics and crime prevention tips. Citizens can become acquainted with Department personnel, developing an effective partnership that meets the i needs of the community. As the Patrol Areas may differ in problems and concerns, Area Team Members may develop strategies and responses that meet the needs of their sector. IV. REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS ➢ Recommendation One: Current Captain position should be elevated to the rank of Deputy Chief. The Deputy Chief would be responsible for the direct administrative and operational activities of the Department as delegated by the Chief of Police. This includes the direct oversight of the Patrol Lieutenants, Detective Sergeant, and Administrative Manager. ➢ Recommendation Two: 1 The vacant Captain position should be modified to become one of two newly created Patrol Lieutenant positions, and the Administrative Sergeant position should be elevated to the second Patrol Lieutenant position. The Patrol Lieutenants would be responsible for implementing the crime reduction strategy for their respective areas, assuming supervisory duties, and balancing the administrative workload of the Patrol Division. 8 Michael McCauley - Reorg Paper2. Page 9� i ` 3 ➢ Recommendation Three: All civilian and support staff would be put under the direct responsibility of the Administrative Manager. This would ensure clearer lines of authority and communication of all support personnel. The direct operational activities for the areas of responsibility under the Administrative Manager include: records, dispatch and community service officers. ➢ Recommendation Four: The Detective assigned to the Drug Task Force (currently vacant) would be replaced with a sworn officer from the Patrol Division. This would be a three - year assignment and give patrol officers a career enhancement opportunity. ➢ Recommendation Five: Reassign crime prevention duties from a sworn Officer to the Neighborhood Liaison Officer function. This drops one sworn Officer position from the authorized strength and adds one full time Neighborhood Liaison Officer position. This would give each of the Patrol Area Teams a designated Neighborhood Liaison Officer. Each NLO would be responsible for code enforcement and crime prevention. Furthermore, the NLO's will work closely with the entire Patrol Area Team on major crime prevention initiatives (i.e., National Night Out, Safety Camps, etc.). ➢ Recommendation Six: Reassign the Training/Relief Sergeant from Patrol to oversee the supervisory and management duties of the Detective unit. This will provide for direct day -to -day supervision of the detectives, school liaison officer, drug task force officer and the investigative technician. It will also provide for greater management of the overall unit as well as case assignments and major criminal investigations. 3 S The proposed organizational chart is shown below: 'i 3 9 Michael McCauley - Reorg Paper2.doc Page 70 i3 3 { .a 3j �1 I i 3 t 3 I i I 3 1 4' k 3 i 10 . . Y - g. P Page 11 Mich ael McCaule Reor P er2.doc Brooklyn Center Police Department Reorganization Structure 2002 Chief of Police Administrative ... - '_... ,. -... .. ... - -. - Technician ... ... -. _Deputy Chief Patrol Patrol Detective Administrative Lieutenant Lieutenant Sergeant Manager West East .. - Sergeant Sergeant Dispatch Team Team Detectives Supervisor I 3 Sergeant _ Sergeant Drug Task Team ..,.... Force _ Team T .... ....._.. .... Clerical ... 4 - Officer . Neighborhood Neighborhood Investigative Community ' Liaison 'Liaison Technician Service Officer Officer - - _.:....._. -. ..... Officers 11 Michael McCau - Re org Paper2.doc Page 12� Current Budgeted Position after Newly Cost Position Amount Reorganization Budgeted Differential O-Y� Amount Current Captain $74,232 Deputy Chief $79,000 - $4,768 Vacant Captain $74,23.2' Lieutenant $73,356 $876 Administrative $68,814 Lieutenant $73,356 - $4,542 Sergeant Detective $61,008 Officer $61,008 $0 (Drug Task Force) (Drug Task Force) Crime Prevention Neighborhood Officer $56,628 Liaison Officer $30,000 $26,628 TOTALS: $334,914 $316,720 $18,194 in savings Other Cost Considerations (Holding back one vehicle from auction for Administrative use) • Lost Revenue from Auction $5,000.00 • Maintenance Costs $2,807.00 $7,807.00 in costs Reorganization Plan — Overall Budget 12 Michael McCauley - Reorg Paper2.doc Page 13.1 $18,194.00 Savings $ 7,807.00 Costs $10,387.00 TOTAL REORGANIZATIONAL SAVINGS E 13 I 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: January 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Followup on Taxicab Licensing As requested at the January 13, 2003, City Council Open Forum, attached is information Maria Rosenbaum compiled from surrounding cities regarding taxicab licensing. I've also included a copy of Brooklyn Center's taxicab ordinance and a copy of the agenda materials from 1993, the last time the insurance requirements were increased as recommended by the City's risk manager. Please let me know if you need additional information. Attachments 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org ` CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council M •,; ceting Date 11/22/93 Agcnda Item Numbcr V a/ t REQUEST FOR „COUNCIL CONSIDERATION z: * Si `4 ITEM DESCRIMON: s °- >= An Ordinance Amending Chapter 21 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Transportation =_ r { DEPT. APPRO Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk . MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOADIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUNEY ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets. attached ) John. R. Simacek, vice president of American Risk Services, Inc., is recommending updates to the City Ordinances in the area of insurance requirements. Section 21 -103 of the City Ordinances "m reflects his recommendation for increasing the insurance requirements for taxicabs. " Section 21 -105 adds a requirement for taxicabs to provide a copy of a vehicle inspection certificate issued by a public agency in the Twin Cities metropolitan area within the past three months from the date of application for license and defines the Twin Cities metropolitan area. This requirement will eliminate our present administrative process to have the taxicab inspected at our inspection station, currently Duke's Amoco. With the elimination of the required inspection at Duke's Amoco, the City will save the cost of the - inspection fee ($15 per taxicab). RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 21 of the City Ordinances Regarding '.r• Public Transportation. �v CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER / Notice is hereby given that a public hearin g will be held on the day of , 1993, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 21 of the City Ordinances regarding public transportation. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 21 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 21 -103. INSURANCE POLICIES. Before a license shall be issued to any operator, he shall [deposit with] furnish the city clerk a certificate[s] of insurance issued by an insurance company who has a Certificate of Authorization from the State of Minnesota (licensed) . [duly licensed to transact such business in Minnesota.] Such insurance shall insure the taxicab owner and driver against loss from liability for damages on account of bodily injuries or death[,] or for damages to property resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of any taxicab to be licensed_[, and agreeing to pay any judgment creditor to the extent of the amounts specified in such policy. The limit in an such insurance policy shall Y p y h 11 be not less than $100,000 for bodily injuries to or death of one person, $300,000 on account of any accident resulting in injuries to and /or death of more than one person at a total of $50,000 liability for damage to property of others, rising out of any one accident.] The policy shall cover all. owned. hi rpd . or nonowned vehicles used by the operator. The minimum limits to be carried shall not be less than: 1. Bodilv Iniury Liabilitv a. $250,000 each Derson b. $500,000 each occurrence 2. Property Damaae Liabilitv A. $250,000 each occurrence ORDINANCE NO. Evidence of such insurance wi be in the form of a Certificate of Insurance (AC0 RD or its eaua_valent) and shall state that the insurance cannot be canceled. nonrenewed. or underao anv major chancre in coveraae without 30 days prior written notice. Such Certificate shall be furnished to the city clerk prior to the issuance of anv license. Section 21 -105. EXAMINATION OF TAXICABS. Prior to the use and operation of any vehicle as a taxicab under the provisions of this ordinance, said vehicle shall comply with rules and regulations prescribed in this ordinance. Licensed vehicles may from time to time be subject to inspection by the police department upon reasonable notice. The applicant applvina for a taxicab license shall provide a coov of a vehicle inspection certificate issued by a oublic aaencv in the Twin Cities metropolitan area wi_th,in the past three months from the date of application for license. Taxicabs must be in a thoroughly safe condition and must be clean, sanitary and of good appearance. The TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA is defined as beina comprised of the counties of Anoka. Carver. Dakota. Hennepin. Ramsev. Scott. and Washinaton. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1993. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) Northwest BusinessC;ampus 3033 Campus Urive, Suite A418 American Risk Services, Inc. Minneapolis, NIN 55441 -2667 TO: (612) 559 -7300 Fax: (612) 559 -7640 November 5, 1993 Ms. Sharon Knutson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: CiWs Ordinance Reaardins Taxicabs Dear Sharon: Per your request I am enclosing my suggested wording for Section 21 -101 of CHAPTER 21 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. I am assuming that there are no off - street taxicab stands or parking areas owned by the taxicab companies. If there are, then we should make some additional insurance requirements relative to General Liability coverages. The previous limits of liability under this ordinance were as follows: Bodily Injury Liability S 100,000 each person S 300,000 each occurrence Property Damage Liability $ 50,000 each occurrence In today's values these limits are very low, accordingly, the limits I show are the recommended limits. I have not contacted the insurance carriers to see the availability of these limits, but will do so and advise you accordingly. I hope this fully complies with your request. Please let me know if you do have any questions. Sin y, t Zhn R. Simacek V President JRS /na Enclosure Risk Management . Employee Benefits Consultants CHAPTER 21 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Section 21 -103. INSURANCE POLICIES. Before a license shall be issued to any operator he /she shall furnish the City Clerk a Certificate of Insurance issued by an insurance company who has a Certificate of Authorization from the State of Minnesota (licensed). Such insurance shall insure the taxicab owner and driver against loss from liability for damages on account of bodily injury or death or for damage to property resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of any taxicab to be licensed. The policy shall cover all owned, hired or non -owned vehicles used by the operator. The minimum limits to be carried shall not be less than: Bodily Injury Liability $ 250,000 each person $ 500,000 each occurrence Property Damage Liability $ 250,000 each occurrence Evidence of such insurance shall be in the form of a Certificate of Insurance (ACORD or it equivalent) and shall state that the insurance cannot be canceled, nonrenewed or undergo any major change in coverage without 30 days prior written notice. Such Certificate shall be furnished to the City Clerk prior to the issuance of any license. CHAPTER 21 - PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Section 21 -101. DEFINITIONS. Unless otherwise expressly stated, whenever used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings: Taxicabs shall mean and include any motor vehicle engaged in the carrying of persons for hire, whether over a fixed route or not, and whether the same is operated from a street stand or subject to calls from a garage, or otherwise operated for hire; but the term shall not include vehicles subject to control and regulation by the Minnesota Public Service Commission. Street shall mean and include any highway, street, alley, avenue, court, or lane in the City of Brooklyn Center. Taxicab drivers shall mean and include any person who drives a taxicab, whether such person be the owner of the taxicab or employed by a taxicab owner. Operator shall mean and include any person owning or directing the use of one or more taxicabs used for hire upon the streets of Brooklyn Center. Persons shall mean and include an individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or any similar organization. Taximeter shall mean a meter instrument or device contained in and attached to a taxicab which measures mechanically the distance driven and the waiting time upon which a fare is based. Section 21 -102. LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall operate or permit a taxicab owned or controlled by him to be operated as a vehicle for hire upon the streets of the City of Brooklyn Center without first having obtained a taxicab license. Provided, however, that any taxicab licensed to operate in any other municipality of this State may carry passengers from said municipality where so licensed to any place or point within the City of Brooklyn Center and may receive passengers for carriage to such municipality where so licensed; but owners and drivers of such vehicles shall not be permitted to solicit business in the City of Brooklyn Center or otherwise operate a taxicab on the streets of Brooklyn Center without being licensed under the provisions of this ordinance. Each applicant for a taxicab license shall apply to the city clerk for such license and must be at least eighteen years of age, must conform to applicable laws of Minnesota, and must furnish to the city clerk information covering each vehicle to be so licensed, giving the full name and address of the owner, the class and passenger - carrying capacity of each vehicle, the mileage and length of time a respective vehicle has been in use, the make of vehicle, the vehicle registration number, and such other information as the city clerk may require. The city clerk or his/her designee is empowered to conduct any and all investigations to verify the information on the application, including ordering a computerized criminal history inquiry obtained through the Criminal Justice Information System and/or a driver's license history inquiry as recorded by the State Department of Public Safety on the applicant. City of Brooklyn Center 21 -1 City Ordinance Section 21 -103. INSURANCE POLICIES. Before a license shall be issued to any operator, the operator shall furnish the city clerk a certificate of insurance issued by an insurance company who has a Certificate of Authorization from the State of Minnesota (licensed). Such insurance shall insure the taxicab owner and driver against loss from liability for damages on account of bodily injuries or death or for damages to property resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of any taxicab to be licensed. The policy shall cover all owned, hired, or nonowned vehicles used by the operator. The minimum limits to be carried shall not be less than: 1. Bodily Injury Liability a. $250,000 each person b. $500,000 each occurrence 2. Property Damage Liability a. $250,000 each occurrence Evidence of such insurance will be in the form of a Certificate of Insurance (ACORD or its equivalent) and shall state that the insurance cannot be canceled, nonrenewed, or undergo any major change in coverage without 30 days prior written notice. Such Certificate shall be furnished to the city clerk prior to the issuance of any license. Section 21 -104. TAXICAB FEE. The applicant applying for a taxicab license shall pay an annual license fee, as set forth by City Council resolution, for each vehicle to be so licensed. Section 21 -105. EXAMINATION OF TAXICABS. Prior to the use and operation of any vehicle as a taxicab under the provisions of this ordinance, said vehicle shall comply with rules and regulations prescribed in this ordinance. Licensed vehicles may from time to time be subject to inspection by the police department upon reasonable notice. The applicant applying for a taxicab license shall provide a copy of a vehicle inspection certificate issued by a public agency in the Twin Cities metropolitan area within the past three months from the date of application for license. Taxicabs must be in a thoroughly safe condition and must be clean, sanitary, and of good appearance. The TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA is defined as being comprised of the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. Section 21 -106. DISPLAY OF LICENSES AND MARKINGS. The operator of every taxicab shall display in a conspicuous place on the inside of the taxicab a copy of the license issued for said taxicab. In the event a license is issued covering more than one vehicle,, sufficient copies of said license shall be provided to the licensee for each of the vehicles covered. Every taxicab soliciting or accepting business on the streets of Brooklyn Center shall have some designation of the character of the vehicle painted in plain visible letters thereon. City of Brooklyn Center 21 -2 City Ordinance Section 21 -107. TAXIMETER REQUIRED. All taxicabs operated under the authority of this ordinance shall be equipped with taximeters fastened in front of the passengers, visible and readable to them at all times of day and night. The taximeter shall be operated mechanically by a mechanism of standard design and construction, driven either from the transmission or from one of the front wheels by a flexible and permanently attached driving mechanism. Taximeters shall be sealed at all points and connections to prevent manipulation which would affect recording and reading reliability. The taximeter shall have thereon a flag to denote when the vehicle is employed and when it is not employed, and it shall be the duty of the driver to throw the flag of such taximeter into a nonrecording position at the termination of each fare trip. Taximeters shall be subject to inspection from time to time by the police department. Upon discovery of inaccurate taximeter operation, the licensee shall be ordered to cease operation until the taximeter is repaired and approved to resume operations upon Brooklyn Center streets. Section 21 -108. RATES. Every taxicab operated under this ordinance shall display in view of all passengers a rate card setting forth the authorized rates of fare. Rates charged shall be set forth by City Council resolution. The driver of any taxicab shall, upon demand by the passenger, render to such passenger a receipt for the amount charged, either by a mechanically printed receipt or by a specially prepared receipt on which shall be the name of the owner, license number, amount of meter reading or charges, and date of transaction. Section 21 -109. TAXICAB DRIVER'S LICENSE. No person shall drive ataxicab in the City of Brooklyn Center unless said person possesses the appropriate license or licenses required under the provisions of Minnesota law. Said license or licenses shall be displayed in full view of all passengers while such driver is operating a taxicab. Section 21 -110. SEPARABILITY. Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision, or part and if any section, provision, or part shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision, or part thereof. Section 21 -111. PENALTIES. Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. City Br ty f •oklyn Center 21 -3 City Ordinance L_ City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk DATE: January 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Taxicab Survey I have concluded the taxicab survey and have the following to report. The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is no longer working with cities regarding the regulation of taxicabs in the metropolitan region. The issue ended in October last year when the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis opposed to a joint movement of control. Dave Christenson, from the Metropolitan Council, provided that information since Clarence Shallbetter retired last year. Attached is a table regarding the information gathered and copies of the ordinances that were available. Several of the cities surveyed have an ordinance; however, the ordinance is not regulated. None of the cities surveyed have a separate license for the driver of a taxicab. Along with the cities you requested I gathered taxicab information from the City of Bloomington and the MAC. The City of Golden Valley requires taxicabs to be licensed by the City of Bloomington or the MAC. Please let me know if you need any further assistance on this issue. 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 City Insurance Ordinance Comments Repealed Requirements Brooklyn Park $50,000 - bodily injury Yes Only license 424 -8000 (Linda) $100,000 - for injuries to companies. more than one sustained in the same accident They have none in the $25,000 - property City of Brooklyn damage Park. Columbia Heights No No longer license 706 -3678 (Shelly) taxicabs. They do require them to be licensed by another entity. Crystal 1 No 2000 531 -1000 (Janet) Fridley $25,000 - bodily injuries Yes 571 -3450 (Deb) Not less than $50,000 because of bodily injury $5,000 against loss for damage to property Golden Valley Yes Taxicabs must be Stopped licensing 593 -8000 (Jeanine) licensed by the City of approximately in Bloomington or the June 2001 MAC. New Hope $200,000 - bodily injury Yes They have not 531 -5100 (Val) $500,000 - for injuries to licensed taxicabs in more than one sustained in many years. the same accident $100,000 - property damage Robbinsdale I I No Approximately 537 -4534 (Diane) four to years St. Louis Park Yes Do not license 952- 924 -2525 (Ann) taxicabs and/or drivers and have not done so in years. Bloomington $100,000 - bodily injury Yes $300,000 - injuries to more than sustained in the same accident $50,000 - property damage Metropolitan Minimum of: Yes Airports $200,000 Commission (MAC) $600,000 612- 726 -5578 (John) $200,000 for bodily injury and property damage 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax C H A R T E R E D http: / /www.kennedy- graven.com CHARLES L. LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215 Email: clefevere @kennedy- graven.com December 24, 2002 Michael McCauley City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 Re: Rates for Legal Services Dear Mike: In the past, I have received a request for information about our rates for legal services for the upcoming year early in your City's budgeting process. As year -end approaches, I do not find any record that I have forwarded such information to the City. Our rates in effect since January 1, 2002, have been $122 per hour for city attorneys working on general civil matters; $127 per hour for litigation, administrative proceedings, and EDA projects; and $135 per hour for costs passed through to developers. Rates for clerks and paralegals have been at the rate of $86 and $91 per hour respectively. Commencing January 1, 2003, we propose to increase these rates, as has been our practice in the past, to cover the increased cost of doing business. We propose to increase the hourly rates for all of the above categories by $3.00 per hour. The monthly retainer, which has been at $850 since January 1, 2000, will remain at $850 per month. In March, 2003, I will have served as city attorney for 16 years. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the City Council and staff during that time and appreciate the opportunity to serve as legal counsel for the City. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:peb I CLL- 225331vl BR291-4 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2003 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Klumpp, Interim Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Analysis of Liquor Operations from 1999 -2002 A developer has contacted the City with a proposal to locate a second municipal liquor store at Brooklyn Boulevard and 69 Avenue North. As preliminary background to that request, you have asked for a financial analysis of the City's liquor operations. To prepare this analysis, year -end financial statements from 1999 through 2002 have been reviewed. It should be noted that the 2002 statements are preliminary because the 2002 audit is currently in progress. History of Operations from 1999 through 2002 During the years of 1999 and 2002, many changes occurred in the City's liquor operation due to the opening and closing of stores. In 1999 the City operated the Humboldt, Boulevard, and Northbrook stores. The City owned the space occupied by the Humboldt store and rented the space occupied by the Boulevard and Northbrook stores. The last day of sales for the Humboldt store and the Boulevard store was May 27, 2000 and June 24, 2000, respectively. BC Liquor opened on July 1, 2000, and the Northbrook store closed on March 24, 2000. To recap, Brooklyn Center operated three stores from January 1999 through May 2000, and two stores from June 2000 through March 2001. Since April 2001, the City has operated only one store, BC Liquor, at 56 Avenue North and Xerxes. List of Attached Reports and Analyses The following information is attached for your review: • Preliminary financial statements for Municipal Liquor Fund for the year ending December 31, 2002 (page 5), • Comparative Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Retained Earnings for the Municipal Liquor Fund for the years ending December 31, 2001, 2000, and 1999, (page 6) and • Historic overview of Brooklyn Center liquor operations from 1978 -2002 (page 7). Drawing on this financial data, the following charts have been prepared: • A chart and graph showing liquor fund sales and operating expenses from 1999 through 2002 (pages 8 -9), • An analysis of liquor store sales from 1999 through 2002 (page 10), • An analysis of the liquor operation's net operating income with a comparison of net operating income to annual sales (expressed as % of sales), (page 11) 1 • An analysis of personnel costs as a percentage of sales from 1999 to 2002 (page 12), • An analysis of rent costs from 1999 to 2002, (page 13), and • A chart showing year -end retained earnings from 1999 to 2002 (page 14.) Observations Several observations can be drawn from this information. 1. Annual Sales. Over the last four years, the average annual sales have been $3,533,287. In 2002, annual sales were $3,435,556. This is the only year during this time period when the City operated just one store. 2002 annual sales were $97,732, or 2.77 %, less than the four -year average. While the economic downturn probably accounted for some of this drop, having only one store may have also played a role. The variance of actual monthly sales in 2002 compared to average monthly sales shows only two months in 2002 —June and August, where monthly sales exceeded the average. 2. Net profit margin. Net operating income expresses the difference between operating revenues and operating expenses, before capital expenses and transfers to the Capital Project Fund. When compared to sales generated for the same period, net operating income as a percentage of sales provides a basis for analyzing the operation's ability to generate profit. This analysis essentially parallels operating decisions. In 1999 when three stores were in operation, the highest margin of 6.48% occurred. The margin dipped to 4.27% the following year, primarily as the result of cost implications to start up BC Liquor and close the Humboldt and Boulevard stores. In 2001, the margin increased to 5.99% reflecting personnel savings and a savings in operating only one store for three fiscal quarters. The margin drops again to 4.34% in 2002, the result of lower than average sales and increased operating expenses, most notably personnel and rent. 3. Personnel costs. Personnel costs account for roughly 50 % -60% of operating expenses. BC Liquor has three full time staff and 19 part-time staff. To review these costs, personnel costs have been expressed as a percentage of sales. This percentage varies from a low of 9.40% in 2001 to a high of 11.60% in 2000. The highest ratio occurred in 2000 as the City made the transition to the new BC Liquor store —the same year that the former liquor operations manager retired. In 2001, a study was conducted to compare wages paid to part time employees at BC Liquor to rates paid by other municipal liquor stores. Based on the study, part time wages were increased by approximately 10 percent at the beginning of 2002. 4. Rent. Rent has fluctuated during this four -year period as the City consolidated the municipal liquor operation into one a prime retail location. Currently, BC Liquor leases 6,300 square feet from Welsh Companies at $14.50 per square foot or $91,350. In addition, the lease contains a provision for percentage rent calculation. This provision gave the City a lower rent structure and created a mechanism for the leasing company to share part of the risk associated with a new operation. For the first five years under the lease, or until 2005, additional rent is 2 paid at the rate of 1.5% on gross sales in excess of $3 million. For 2002, that amount is expected to be $6,533. In 2001, that amount was $4,249. The lease also specifies how common area maintenance costs (CAM) will be calculated. CAM for 2001 was $9,500 higher than projected. The City expressed its unhappiness with Welsh Companies' inability to do a better job containing maintenance costs. We have been assured that costs will be better controlled in 2003. 5. Retained earnings. Retained earnings have increased from $861,865 in 1999 to $1,149,310 in 2002, or by approximately one -third over the four -year time period. Retained earnings ensure adequate cash flow in the Municipal Liquor Fund and also provide the resources needed to fund the start-up costs of a second operation, if a decision to do so is made in the future. The amount of retained earnings needed for cash flow purposes is $700,000 based on an analysis of monthly cash disbursements. Other considerations for adding a second liquor store. 1. Stable source of revenue. The liquor operation consistently has generated revenue for the City. Since 1978 annual operating income has averaged $143,053. Transfers to other City funds have averaged $90,000 for the four -year period of 1999 -2002. Transfers in 2001 and 2002 were higher than for 1999 and 2000 because of costs associated with the BC Liquor start up. With the State's proposed reduction in Local Government Aid, the revenue that can be generated from the liquor operation becomes even more important. 2. Opportunity to increase market share. One of the primary considerations for locating a liquor store is its access to potential customers. This factor was a leading consideration for the decision to open BC Liquor near Cub Foods. Traffic counts for the existing and proposed locations conducted by Hennepin County in 2001 and expressed as Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) (see page 15), are as follows: BC Liquor (existing location) Brooklyn Boulevard North of 57th (CR 10 to I -694) 21,200 South of 57th (CR 10 to TH 100) 21,500 CR 10 (57th) 15,200 (Brooklyn boulevard to Xerxes) 22,200 (Xerxes to Shingle Creek Parkway) Xerxes (56th to CR 10) 9,536 56th Ave. N. (Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes) 4,056 3 69 and Brooklyn Boulevard (proposed location) Brooklyn Boulevard North of 69th (69th to City Limit) 31,800 South of 69th (I694 to 69th) 41,000 69th Brookl Boulevard to Fran 2 69th ( Brooklyn France) 1 ,713 69th (Brooklyn Boulevard to West City Limit) 9,700 While additional market research is needed, these traffic counts show that the proposed location for a second store would have access to a high number of potential customers. 3. Impact of a second store. Another consideration is the impact that a second store would have on the existing operation. Answering this question requires market data and financial projections beyond that which have been assembled for this report. Obviously, sales at a second store would benefit the Municipal Liquor Fund as long as sales volume increases and operating expenses stay the same or decrease, relative to sales. The municipal liquor operation would need to focus on the total market share it captures and as well as the performance of both stores. 4 LIQUOR FUND Statement of Revenues & Expenses . For the One Month and Years Ended December 31, 2002 and 2001 December December YTD YTD 2002 2001 2002 2001 OPERATING REVENUES Liquor Sales $ 125,352 $ 137,054 $ 1,137,260 1,167,470 Wine Sales 62,038 63,266 407,296 400,688 Beer Sales 148,329 156,483 1,759,100 1,829,214 Mix Sales - Nontaxable 2,142 2,154 22,307 18,231 Mix Sales - Taxable 4,035 3,519 34,578 35,729 Miscellaneous Sales 5,677 7,399 75,015 101,155 Bottle Deposit Revenue (34) (26) 0 (335) Total Sales 347,539 369,849 3,435,556 3,552,152 COST OF SALES Liquor 91,778 101,271 836,721 865,871 Wine 42,140 43,601 275,787 275,278 Beer 115,488 122,525 1,364,536 1,421,884 Mix - Nontaxable 1,712 1,527 16,291 12,635 Mix - Taxable 2,712 2,606 24,154 27,161 Miscellaneous 4,231 4,432 55,870 77,057 Delivery Charges 1,472 1,541 13,852 12,510 Inventory Variance & Breakage 449 0 6,554 3,644 Total Cost of Sales 259,982 277,503 2,593,765 2,696,040 GROSS PROFIT 87,557 92,346 841,791 856,112 OPERATING EXPENSE Salaries and Wages 24,789 25,669 303,516 280,256 Fringe Benefits 3,226 4,184 57,740 53,596 Supplies 2,676 2,369 11,806 15,095 Purchased Services 461 474 5,010 5,372 Communications 957 996 11,429 11,881 Repair & Rental 33,275 14,782 173,439 144,947 Other Contractual Services 4,387 2,849 31,920 31,416 Logis Charges 659 730 11,452 8,767 Central Garage Charges 0 57 469 799 Insurance (561) 30 7,432 8,930 Utilities 884 1,660 11,828 19,147 Administrative Service Transfer 1,819 2,229 21,819 26,761 Depreciation 10,273 3,102 44,911 36,487 Total Operating Expense 82,845 59,131 692,771 643,454 NET OPERATING INCOME 4,712 33,215 149,020 212,658 NONOPERATING REVENUE Miscellaneous Revenues 0 1,000 1,931 3,860 Refunds & Reimbursements 0 0 73 680 Gain on Sale of Property 0 0 0 300 Unrealized Gain/Loss on Inv. 0 23,509 0 23,509 Interest Earnings 0 27,727 4,130 31,727 INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CAPITAL OUTLAY & TRANSFER $ 4,712 $ 85,451 $ 155,154 272,734 Capital Outlay (18,820) (8,599) 0 0 Capital Project Fund Transfer 100,000 110,000 100,000 110,000 NET INCOME LOSS $ (76,468)$ (15,950)$ 55,154 162,734 R E L r 5 City of Brooklyn Center Municipal Liquor. Fund COMPARATIVE STATEMENT.OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS �. For the Year Ended December 31, 2001 , aoco, 6a2d i 9 Q9 Sales 2001 2000 1999 Liquor $1,167,470 $1,168,994 - $1,137,459 Wine 400,688 373,666 346,560 Beer 1,829,213 1,841,592 1,852,088 Soft drinks � . 53,960 .59,319 65,162 Other merchandise 100,821 141,258 159,344 Total Sales . 3,552;152 3,584,829 3,560,613 Less: Cost of Sales 2,696,042 2,734,318 2,694,622 Gross Margin 856,110 850,511 865,991 Ooeratina Expenses Personal services 333,850 415,887 Supplies 15,096 20,989 387.260 Other services 16 89,071 99,258 85,923 Insurance 8 9,538 Utilities 8 19,146. 19,481 25,433 Rent 140,873 117,.659 69,922 Depreciation 36,488 14,018 39,821 Total Operating Expenses 643,452 696,830 632,638 Operating Income 212,658 153,681 233,353 Nonooeratino Revenues (Ex eases Investment earnings 31,727 30,929 Change in fair value of investments 23,509 (12,738) 18,910 Other revenue 4,840 4,189 (7,266) Interest and fiscal agent fees (515) 6,620 Loss on sale of fixed assets ( 2,593 ) (30,989) _ Total Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 60,076 (9,124) 16 Operating Transfers to Other Funds 110,000 75,000 75,000 Net Income 162,734 69,557 174,024 Retained Earnings January 1 931,422 861,865 687,841 Retained Earnings December 31 $1,094,156 $931,422 $861,865 6 BROOKLYN CENTER LIQUOR 1978 -2002 Year Sales Cost of Sales Gross Margin Operating Income 1978 $ 2,109,778 $ 1,709,303 $ 400,475 $ 128,140 1979 $ 2,289,874 $ 1,839,003 $ 450,871 $ 148,511 1980 $ 2,404,379 $ 1,940,294 $ 464,085 $ 133,885 1981 $ 2,477,234 $ 1,967,827 $ 509,407 $ 144,911 1982 $ 2,469,630 $ 1,967,921 $ 501,709 $ 94,515 1983 $ 2,421,996 $ 1,908,786 $ 513,210 $ 98,866 1984 $ 2,345,475 $ 1,840,087 $ 505,388 $ 103,817 1985 $ 2,388,513 $ 1,841,870 $ 546,643 $ 131,234 1986 $ 2,465,749 $ 1,890,311 $ 575,438 $ 139,675 1987 $ 2,527,159 $ 1,930,254 $ 596,905 $ 162,594 1988 $ 2,583,594 $ 1,977,728 $ 605,866 $ 148,787 1989 $ 2,414,126 $ 1,844,619 $ 569,507 $ 111,154 1990 $ 2,455,551 $ 1,863,843 $ 591,708 $ 101,163 1991 $ 2,678,840 $ 2,025,288 $ 653,552 $ 136,651 1992 $ 2,664,667 $ 2,011,103 $ 653,564 $ 134,327 1993 $ 2,615,955 $ 1,976,173 $ 639,782 $ 102,535 1994 $ 2,698,373 $ 2,023,603 $ 674,770 $ 148,125 1995 $ 2,696,776 $ 2,043,179 $ 653,597 $ 143,120 1996 $ 2,850,307 $ 2,157,659 $ 692,648 $ 167,957 1997 $ 3,006,982 $ 2,295,705 $ 711,277 $ 176,015 1998 $ 3,200,585 $ 2,433,185 $ 767,400 $ 174,749 1999 $ 3,560,611 $ 2,694,622 $ 865,989 $ 230,755 2000 $ 3,584,828 $ 2,734,318 $ 850,510 $ 153,164 2001 $ 3,552,152 $ 2,696,040 $ 856,112 $ 212,658 2002 $ 3,435,556 $ 2,593,765 $ 841,791 $ 149,020 Total $ 67,898,690 $ 52,206,486 $ 15,692 $ 3,576,328 Average $ 2,715,948 $ 2,088,259 $ 627 ,688 $ 143,053 7 LIQUOR FUND SALES & OPERATING EXPENSES 1999 TO 2002 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 — = 1999 Sales 2000 Sales 250,000 2001 Sales 1111111111111111111112002 Sales + 1999 Op. Expense 200,000 — 2000 Op. Expense x-2001 Op. Expense r 150,000 —a - 2002 Op. Expense — 100,000 - 50,000 — 0 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 8 LIQUOR FUND LIQUOR SALES AND OPERATING EXPENSES 1999 -2002 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 1999 Sales 245,755 237,269 272,854 282,959 299,849 301,806 338,807 309,592 289,792 309,463 303,121 369,344 3,560,611 2000 Sales 253,947 263,893 298,948 302,443 322,142 262,119 280,201 305,338 311,696 283,828 306,998 393,275 3,584,828 2001 Sales 268,081 272,025 313,321 263,143 291,165 314,797 292,402 320,429 276,233 270,330 300,376 369,849 3,552,151 2002 Sales 240,499 249,352 289,403 267,947 288,295 300,745 292,282 327,450 261,523 270,301 300,219 347,539 3,435,555 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 1999 Expenses 237,802 228,074 263,601 265,590 277,432 283,234 310,567 289,428 271,014 283,072 282,608 337,434 3,329,856 2000 Expenses 240,782 246,388 277,961 279,730 303,919 272,114 269,280 297,235 292,962 282,253 301,207 367,833 3,431,664 2001 Expenses 260,434 274,941 289,326 251,543 276,439 286,645 271,357 297,940 254,435 257,508 282,291 336,634 3,339,493 2002 Expenses 238,895 241,760 271,408 261,327 273,598 281,777 276,559 302,790 257,007 259,959 278,628 342,827 3,286,535 Net Operating Income: 1999 7,953 9,195 9,253 17,369 22,417 18,572 28,240 20,164 18,778 26,391 20,513 31,910 230,755 2000 13,165 17,505 20,987 22,713 18,223 (9,995) 10,921 8,103 18,734 1,575 5,791 25,442 153,164 2001 7,647 (2,916) 23,995 11,600 14,726 28,152 21,045 22,489 21,798 12,822 18,085 33,215 212,658 2002 1,604 7,592 17,995 6,620 14,697 18,968 15,723 24,660 4,516 10,342 21,591 4,712 149,020 9 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LIQUOR STORE SALES 1 Humboldt, Boulevard, & Northbrook ;2s;tores Boulevard & Northbrook Northbrook & BC Liquor BC Liquor VARIANCE AVERAGE ACTUAL 2002 1999 2000 2001 2002 SALES TO AVERAGE January 268,081 240,499 252,071 (11,572) February 237,269 1302,443 63,893 272,025 249,352 255,635 (6,283) March 272,854 98,948 313,321 289,403 293,632 (4,229) April 282,959 263,143 267,947 279,123 (11,176) May 299,849 322,142 291,165 288,295 300,363 (12,068) June 301,806 262,119 314,796 300,745 294,867 5,879 July 338,807 280,201 292,402 292,282 300,923 (8,641) August 09,592 305,338 320,430 327,450 315,703 11,748 September 289,792 311,696 276,233 261,523 284,811 (23,288) October 309,463 283,828 270,330 270,301 283,481 (13,180) November 303 306,998 300,377 300,219 302,679 (2,460) December 393,275 369,849 347,539 370,002 (22,463) Total 3,560,611 3,584,828 3,552,152 3,435,5551 3,533,287 (97,732) NOTES: Humboldt Liquor's last day of sales was May 27, 2000 Boulevard Liquor's last day of sales was June 24, 2000 BC Liquor opened July 1, 2000 1 1 Northbrook Liquor's last day of sales was March 24, 2001 /liquor /liquor/MonthlySalesSummary 10 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LIQUOR STORE FUND - NET OPERATING INCOME l Humboldt, Boulevard, & Northbrook ;1store ores Boulevard & Northbrook Northbrook & BC Liquor BC Liquor Variance % Of % Of % Of % Of Average Actual 2002 1999 Sales 2000 Sales 2001 Sales 2002 Sales Net Op. Income To Average January 7,951 13,165 7,647 1,604 7,592 (5,988) February 9,195 17,505 (2,916) 7,592 7,844 (252) March 9,253 20,987 23,995 17,995 18,058 (63) April 17,369 22,713 11,600 6,620 14,576 (7,956) May 22,417 18,223 14,726 14,697 17,516 (2,819) June 18,572 (9,995) 28,152 18,968 13,924 5,044 July 28,240 10,921 21,045 15,723 18,982 (3,259) August 20,164 8,103 22,489 24,660 18,854 5,806 September 18,778 18,734 21,798 4,516 15,957 (11,441) October 26,391 1,575 12,822 10,342 12,783 (2,441) November , ovember 20,513 5,791 18,085 21,591 16,495 5,096 December Ak 25,442 33,215 4,712 23,820 (19,108) Total 230,755 6. 153,164 4.27% 212,658 5.99% 149,020 4.34% 186,399 (37,379) NOTES: Humboldt Liquor's last day of sales was May 27, 2000 Boulevard Liquor's last day of sales was June 24, 2000 BC Liquor opened July 1, 2000 Northbrook Liquor's last day of sales was March 24, 2001 / liquor /liquor/MonthlySalesSummary 11 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LIQUOR STORE FUND - PERSONNEL COSTS Humboldt, Boulevard, & Northbrook 2 stores Boulevard & Northbrook Northbrook & BC Liquor BC Liquor Variance % of % of % of % of Average Actual 2002 1999 Sales 2000 Sales 2001 Sales 2002 Sales Personnel Cost To Average January qW t 30,882 32,496 31,405 1,091 February 29,712 31, 173 32,752 28,174 30,453 (2,279) March 31,803 34,498 28,090 32,015 31,602 414 April 31,787 33,336 23,447 29,897 29,617 280 May 31,017 35,059 26,579 32,504 31,290 1,214 June 31,340 32,349 25,347 28,270 29,327 (1,057) July 33,223 33,845 26,149 30,069 30,822 (753) August 31,357 34,382 28,738 30,707 31,296 (589) September 30,413 33,367 25,839 28,170 29,447 (1,277) October 31,376 36,273 27,979 31,612 31,810 (198) November 33,276 35,617 28,199 29,327 31,605 (2,278) December 44,606 29,853 28,015 35,893 (7,878) Total 387,260 10.88%1 415,889 11.60%j 333,8541 9.40% 361,2561 10.52 %1 374,565 (13,309) NOTES: Humboldt Liquor's last day of sales was May 27, 2000 Boulevard Liquor's last day of sales was June 24, 2000 BC Liquor opened July 1, 2000 1 1 Northbrook Liquor's last day of sales was March 24, 2001 /liquor /liquor/MonthlySalesSummary 12 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LIQUOR STORE FUND - RENTAL EXPENSE l Humboldt, Boulevard, & Northbrook ;IstoreBC ores Boulevard & Northbrook Northbrook & BC Liquor Liquor Variance % of % of % of % of Average Actual 2002 1999 Sales 2000 Sales 2001 Sales 2002 Sales Rental Expense To Average January - - February - - March - - April - - May - - June - - July - - August - - September - - October - - November - - December - - - Total 1 69,9221 1.96%1 117,6601 3.28% 140,873 3.97% 155,175 4.52%j 120,908 34,268 NOTES: Humboldt Liquor's last day of sales was May 27, 2000 Boulevard Liquor's last day of sales was June 24, 2000 BC Liquor opened July 1, 2000 1 1 Northbrook Liquor's last day of sales was March 24, 2001 /liquor /liquor/MonthlySalesSummary 13 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LIQUOR FUND RETAINED EARNINGS Preliminary 1999 2000 2001 2002 Beginning Balance 687,841 861,865 931,422 1,094,156 Net Income 249,024 144,557 272,734 155,154 Transfer Out (75,000) (75,000) (110,000) (100,000) Ending Balance 861,865 931,422 1,094,156 1,149,310 14 �,• . ..M 1 �� I♦ � 1 1 �� � � t ►�11�It111i ,� Iit .. Ill��r / / /�.► f 1 I 1 rttn/c�! 11,11111 �F ■EIE�l�►l 111/! it1 1111 '. ■ ■■ � 1 � 1111111 �i �i , �■�� o � � � _' � 111111 ►���I IIICWI/ /// � �, - Irt1P ♦ / tt /1/1 � ■ir iii � i�l� 11 : �� �� ��' rlttttltlr■rr�s� ��rt�rttr�I,� t111�!!�.IIIItr1 iiii © 1/'• i �IIr11tt �s Iii rt�� 1 11 1 11■ /1/ //■�,* # IIII � 1 / � ►I �I�It111111 � �"�c ?i �� ' BAN 1 / 1 El �� � a. .a �Mrlr �rer���srtfl� �� Im: � .. �, 1� trtt jam a Kill Li E INNER II ■Irr � C"I , ■yam /�� © ■� i , 11111 1 1 r 1 ilium ■ •