HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 11-10 CCP Regular Session Public Copy
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION -
November 10, 2003
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions
2. Miscellaneous
3. Adjourn
I
• * * **
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Revised
City of Brooklyn Center
November 10, 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. October 20, 2003 - Joint Work Session with Financial Commission
2. October 27, 2003 - Study Session
3. October 27, 2003 - Regular Session
4. October 27, 2003 - Work Session
b. Licenses
•
** Revised **
•
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- November 10, 2003
C. Approval of Site Performance Guarantee Release /Reduction for CSM Corporation
(3280 Northway Drive)
8. Public Hearings
g
a. Franchise Fee Ordinances
1. An Ordinance Imposing an Electric Franchise Fee on Northern States
Power's Operations within the City of Brooklyn Center
2. An Ordinance Imposing a Natural Gas Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy
Minnegasco's Operations within the City of Brooklyn Center
-These items were first read on September 22, 2003, published in the official
newspaper on October 2, 2003, offered for second reading and public hearing on
October 27, 2003, at which time were tabled.
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to reintroduce revised ordinances and set new date of public hearing
• on December 8, 2003.
3. An Ordinance Amending City Ordinance 97 -09 Granting an Electric
Franchise Fee on Northern States Power's Operations Within the City of
Brooklyn Center
-This ordinance amendment is offered this evening for first reading and setting
second reading and public hearing on December 8, 2003.
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and public hearing
for December 8, 2003.
b. An Ordinance Relating to the Brooklyn Center Building Code: Amending Brooklyn
Center City Code Sections 3 -101, 3 -102, and 3 -103
-This item was first read on October 13, 2003, published in the official newspaper on
October 23, 2003, and is offered this evening for second reading and public hearing.
- Requested Council Action:
-Open the public hearing.
-Take public input.
-Close the public hearing.
- Motion to adopt ordinance.
•
• * *Revised **
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- November 10, 2003
C. An Ordinance Amending Sections 11 -604 and 11 -704 of the Brooklyn Center Code
of Ordinances Regarding Applications for Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
-This item was first read on October 13, 2003, published in the official newspaper on
October 23, 2003, and is offered this evening for second reading and public hearing.
-Requested Council Action:
-Open the public hearing.
-Take public input.
-Close the public hearing.
- Motion to adopt ordinance.
d. An Ordinance Relating to the Deer Hunting Within the City of Brooklyn Center for
the Purpose of Population Control
-This item was first read on October 13, 2003, published in the official newspaper on
October 23, 2003, and is offered this evening for second reading and public hearing.
-Requested Council Action:
-Open the public hearing.
• -Take public input.
-Close the public hearing.
- Motion to adopt ordinance.
9. Planning Commission Item
a. Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -019 Submitted by DLR Group. Request
for Planned Unit Development Amendment to Build an Approximate 27,000 sq. ft.
Office /Industrial Building for Global Industries on a 2.3 Acre Parcel of Land Located
at the Northwest Corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its October 30,
2003, meeting.
1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No.
2003 -019 Submitted by DLR Group.
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
10. Council Consideration Items
a. Resolution Amending City Council Handbook Regarding Protocol for Agenda
Action Items and E -mail
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
•
** Revised **
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4- November 10, 2003
b. Resolution Amending Section 3 of the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations By
Adding a Section Relating to Prohibiting Firearms at Work
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
C. Resolution Approving an Application to the Hennepin County Environmental
Response Fund
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
d. Resolution Establishing 2004 Street and Storm Drainage Assessment Rates
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
e. Resolution Setting the Interest Rate on Special Assessments for 2004
- Requested Council Action:
• - Motion to adopt resolution.
f. 2004 Public Utility and Service Charge Rate Study
- Resolution Adopting 2004 Sewer Utility Rates, Fees and Charges
- Resolution Adopting 2004 Water Utility Rates, Fees and Charges
- Resolution Adopting 2004 Street Light Rates and Charges
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolutions.
g. Resolution Designating Use of Funds Received from Single Family Mortgage
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Taxable Series 1992A
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
h. Resolutions Setting Bond Sales
- Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $5,080,000 General
Obligation Police and Fire Building Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A
- Resolution Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $2,490,000 Taxable
General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004B
- Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolutions.
• 11. Adjournment
City Council Agenda Item No. 7a
• MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
JOINT WORK SESSION WITH FINANCIAL COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20, 2003
COUNCIL /COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met for a joint Work Session with the Financial Commission and
was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Peppe. Also present: City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager /Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
Financial Commission Members present: Jerald Blarney, Timothy Elftmann, Jay Hruska, and Gavin
Wilkinson.
• UTILITIES
City Manager Michael McCauley discussed the 2003 -2007 utility rate study and the targets contained
and outlined the agenda materials regarding water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, street light, and
recycling utilities. He informed that the draft budget will be high on revenues because they were
premised on last year's rate study and that the revenues will be revised to reflect the lower rate
increases that are being proposed for water and sanitary sewer and the absence of rate increases for
storm water and recycling.
Council discussed sanitary sewer responsibilities, the total increase cost to residents for utilities, and
street light shortages.
DRAFT ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGETS (NON - UTILITY)
Mr. McCauley discussed the draft Enterprise Fund Budgets for Centerbrook and the Earle Brown
Heritage Center. He informed that staff would be incorporating the pro forma for an additional
liquor store into the 2004 proposed budget now that a lease has been approved.
• 10/20/03 -1- DRAFT
ROUGH DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN •
Mr. McCauley discussed the draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and informed that there is one
transfer that is being considered of approximately $180,000 of monies received in connection with
housing bond refundings that was placed in the General Fund this year upon receipt. He informed
that he would like to be able to make some of the budgeted street improvement transfers from the
General Fund Budget if possible between now and the December 8, 2003, City Council meeting.
Council discussed the park shelters included in the CIP, lighting at the parks, the Opportunity Site,
and court settlements.
NOVEMBER 17, 2003, MEETING
Councilmember Niesen inquired about the break down of the impacts on total bills with the proposed
rate increases. Mr. McCauley discussed that the breakdo per year would be $8.16 for residential
and $2.08 for seniors. L to 4&W Waft /Qnd StWeeCi
Mr. McCauley discussed that staff will work to finalize the General Fund for Truth in Taxation. The
major issues for the General Fund Budget are the wages and benefits for employees. Insurance will
be increasing approximately thirteen percent and deductibles are being doubled. He will come back
with new proposed rates on November 17, 2003, and hopes to have a much clearer picture for the
General Fund Budget.
MISCELLANEOUS •
Mr. McCauley discussed that Assistant City Manager Curt Boganey and previous Interim Assistant
City Manager Sharon Klumpp will be supporting the Fiscal and Support Services Director position
after October 31, 2003.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the Work
Session at 8:10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
10/20/03 -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
STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 27, 2003
CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager /Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, and Deputy
City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
• City Manager Michael McCauley discussed new materials received regarding Public Hearing item
9d, Franchise Fees. He suggested that this item be tabled during the Regular City Council meeting to
allow for both parties to propose a fixed meter charge. If at the November 10, 2003, City Council
meeting flat fees were acceptable then new ordinances would be substituted. If the flat fee would not
work a suggested percentage fee would remain.
Mr. McCauley discussed that the City had received information regarding an environmental grant for
the Northbrook Shopping area and that staff will look into the information received and consider
making a grant application to ratify already accepted resolution.
Council discussed Council Consideration Items l Og, Resolution Accepting City Council Workshop
Summary of Key Observations and Conclusions Report and Adopting City Council Goals for 2004;
7f, Resolution Recommending Award of Contract for Construction, Mississippi Riverbank
Protection Project, Improvement Project No. 1999 -11; 7d, Resolution Approving Final Plat,
TANAMI 2 nd Addition, 10f, Recommendations of the Deer Management Task Force; and 10e,
Resolution Allocating Additional Local Funding for Livable Communities Demonstration Grant.
It was the consensus of the Council to eliminate Goal 6, Support Phase III of Joslyn Site
Development By: working with the developer to complete Phase III, from the proposed 2004 City
Council Goals.
• Councilmember Lasman expressed that she would like to see the bow hunting only on weekdays if
the plan is adopted.
10/27/03 -1- DRAFT
Councilmember Niesen asked if copies were available of the phase one market study for the Little •
Asia Project. Mr. McCauley informed that he believes so and that he would check with staff.
SELECTION OF DATE FOR CITY COUNCIL FACILITATED RETREAT
Council discussed the possible dates for the City Council Facilitated Retreat. It was the consensus of
the Council to schedule December 15, 2003, 4:00 p.m.
MISCELLANEOUS
Council continued discussion regarding the deer hunting in Brooklyn Center.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the Study
Session at 6:44 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
•
•
10/27/03 -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
OCTOBER 27, 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 Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney
Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
Jim Gersetich, 7118 Indiana Avenue North, addressed the Council to ask that they consider
• amending the watering ban to allow his drip irrigation system to run more than the ban allows. City
Manager Michael McCauley responded that staff would look into this request and that a report will
be made to the Council.
ADJOURN INFORMAL OPEN FORUM
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the
Informal Open Forum at 6:47 p.m.
2. INVOCATION
Mayor Kragness offered the Invocation.
3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 7:03 p.m.
• 10/27/03
-1- DRAFT
4. ROLL CALL •
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager /Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Director of Public
Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk
Maria Rosenbaum.
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited
6. COUNCIL REPORT
Councilmember Carmody reported that on October 21, 2003, she attended the Earle Brown Days
meeting, a Metro Transit meeting, and the Housing Commission meeting.
Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended an event called Hands Together for Kids on
October 23, 2003. She provided information and phone numbers for some the programs discussed at
this event.
Councilmember Niesen reported that she attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on
October 21, 2003; and that the Park and Recreation Commission has a vacancy. •
Councilmember Niesen asked that residents interested in watching other surrounding City Council
meetings to contact her for a survey that she is conducting.
Mayor Kragness reported that she was asked to participate in a Welcome to the City at the Education
Conference for the African Academy; and that she attended a Hennepin County Shape Up luncheon,
and the Red, White, and Blue Sunday event at Woodcrest Church.
7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve
the agenda and consent agenda with the amendment of moving l Of, Recommendations of the Deer
Management Task Force, to the beginning of Council Consideration Items. Motion passed
unanimously.
7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve the
October 13, 2003, study, regular, and work session meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
10/27/03 -2- DRAFT r
• 7b. LICENSES
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve the
following list of licenses. Motion passed unanimously.
2:00 A.M. OPTIONAL CLOSING LIOUOR LICENSE APPLICATION
Ref's Sport's Bar and Grill 2545 County Road 10
MECHANICAL
Comfort Plus Heating and Cooling 7050 20"' Avenue South, Centerville
St. Cloud Refrigeration 604 Lincoln Avenue NE, St. Cloud
RENTAL
Renewal:
5105 Brooklyn Boulevard - George Lucht
5843 Fremont Avenue North (7 Units) - D & J Properties
5329 Queen Avenue North - Alvin Stachowksi
Initial:
7113 Halifax Avenue North - Linda Schoenberger
5812 Girard Avenue North - Alpha Kalaghe - Mshihiri
5600 Judy Lane - Nita Morlock
6912 Morgan Avenue North - Farhan Abdullahi
• 7c. PROCLAMATION DECLARING NOVEMBER 20, 2003, AS FEED
AMERICA THURSDAY
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve
Proclamation Declaring November 20, 2003, as Feed America Thursday. Motion passed
unanimously.
7d. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, TANAMI 2 ND ADDITION
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -159
Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, TANAMI 2 ADDITION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Lasman. Motion passed unanimously.
7e. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, 5000 FRANCE AVENUE
ADDITION
• RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -160
10/27/03 -3- DRAFT
Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: e
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, 5000 FRANCE AVENUE ADDITION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Lasman. Motion passed unanimously.
7L RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR
CONSTRUCTION, MISSISSIPPI RIVERBANK PROTECTION PROJECT,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1999 -11
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-161
Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
MISSISSIPPI RIVERBANK PROTECTION PROJECT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1999-11
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Lasman. Motion passed unanimously.
8. RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS PRESENTATION OF RECOGNITION AND
CERTIFICATE CEREMONY •
Mayor Kragness discussed that 12 people had been nominated to receive recognition for their
Random Acts of Kindness, with one person receiving three nominations. She presented certificates
to those present while the Council read each nomination.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9a. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF LAND AT 69"'
AVENUE AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that this ordinance would provide for the disposition of
land at 69 Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway as part of the development for the 69 Avenue
project.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the Council.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. •
10/27/03 -4- DRAFT
• ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -16
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF LAND AT 69"' AVENUE AND
SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
9b. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (1501
FREEWAY BOULEVARD)
Mr. McCauley discussed that this ordinance amendment would be housekeeping to codify the
language in regards to the Planned Unit Development.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to open the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the Council.
• A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-17
Councilmember Niesen introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (1501 FREEWAY BOULEVARD)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember
Lasman. Motion passed unanimously.
9c. INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE
PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF
THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING
DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS USES IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF THE CITY
Mr. McCauley discussed that a moratorium had been created on the development or placement of
new religious buildings due to the City's study of an Opportunity Site.
• 10/27/03 -5- DRAFT
This moratorium would permit the City to consider the impact such development will have as well as •
the appropriateness of different zonings for church development.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
Richard Bunin, Attorney for Bethel World Outreach Church, addressed the Council in opposition of
this ordinance and asked that the Council not adopt this ordinance. He informed that his clients had
just contacted him today regarding this issue and that he does not have all the details regarding this
issue; however, he believes there would be discrimination involved.
Natt Friday, Senior Pastor, addressed the Council to discuss that they have been in the City for
approximately four years and have been meeting at Northview Junior High. They started looking for
a new location and received financing to move forward with this location in Brooklyn Center.
Adolphus Bates, Minister, addressed the Council asking them to allow their project to move forward
and expressed that he would like to appeal the ordinance.
Kedrick White, Pastor, and also one of the architects for the project addressed the Council to inform
that they had a plan discussed on August 18, 2003, with City staff and that there was no indication of
this type of ordinance development. He informed that he is appealing to the Council.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public •
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Peppe discussed that he believes the City is deeply religious and that this is a tough
decision for the City Council; however, property value and tax capacity are important to the City at
this time and in the future. He expressed that he believes the Council needs to approve this
ordinance in order to continue with the Opportunity Site and look at the future of Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Niesen questioned what the potential damages could be to the City. City Attorney
Charlie LeFevere discussed that there is always the possibility the City could be sued. She expressed
that she believes that the State Aid impacts have made a difference for the issue of Brooklyn Center's
tax base and that the Opportunity Site needs to be considered.
Councilmember Lasman expressed that she believes in places to gather; however, the idea of more
tax base, services, and jobs in Brooklyn Center is very paramount in trying to create more tax base
for Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Carmody asked if it would be possible for staff to locate a site not in a moratorium
location. Mr. McCauley informed that staff could assist.
10/27/03 -6- DRAFT •
• Mayor Kragness asked if the City had received any money from the Bethel World Outreach Church.
Mr. McCauley responded that at this time they have not submitted an application and no money had
been received. She expressed that she understands the disappointment and informed that she
believes since the Opportunity Site has been in the works for sometime and it needs to be continued
to help with the tax base of Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Niesen informed that she would support this ordinance and that she hopes that they
will be able to find another location in Brooklyn Center.
ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -18
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS
AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND
REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS USES IN CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF THE CITY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Kragness expressed that she hopes staff will work to find another place in Brooklyn Center.
• 9d. FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCES
1. AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON
NORTHERN STATES POWER'S OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER
2. AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE FEE
ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO'S OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Mr. McCauley requested that these ordinances be tabled until the November 10, 2003, City Council
in order for a different approach to be considered. He discussed that the City had received
suggestions from CenterPoint Energy and that one of the things suggested is a flat meter fee.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to open the Public
Hearings. Motion passed unanimously.
Dale Greenwald, business owner in Brooklyn Center, addressed the Council to express that he is
happy to be in Brooklyn Center and that he knows his business is a big utility user. He will wait to
see what approach the City takes on the franchise fees.
• 10/27/03 -7- DRAFT
Barbara Obershaw, Twin West Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council to express that they •
are in opposition of franchise fees and asked that if and/or when franchise fees are determined that
they are reasonable.
Darrin Lar, Xcel Energy, addressed the Council to inform that franchise fees are not Xcel's favorite;
however, they will continue to work with staff.
Al Swintek, CenterPoint Energy, addressed the Council to express that he agrees a flat fee is more
equitable and predictable and that they will continue to work with the City Attorney and City staff.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Public
Hearings. Motion passed unanimously.
A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to continue the Public
Hearings to the November 10, 2003, City Council meeting. Motion passed unanimously.
9e. CONSIDERATION OF RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A CURRENCY
EXCHANGE LICENSE SUBMITTED BY COMMUNITY MONEY
CENTERS, INC. DBA MONEY CENTERS, 6219 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A CURRENCY
EXCHANGE LICENSE TO COMMUNITY MONEY CENTERS, INC. DBA
MONEY CENTERS, 6219 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN
CENTER, MINNESOTA
Mr. McCauley discussed that the City is required by State Statute to hold a public hearing and render
a decision regarding the renewal application for a currency exchange license. There have been no
significant problems at this location.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the Council.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public
Hearing. Motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-162
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE TO
COMMUNITY MONEY CENTERS, INC. DBA MONEY CENTERS, 6219 BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
10/27/03 -8- DRAFT •
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b y Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
(The Council amended the agenda to move 10f to the beginning of the Council
Consideration Items.)
10f. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
- RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEER
MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
- RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2003 -2004 DEER MANAGEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
- RESOLUTION ADOPTING LONG -TERM DEER POPULATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey provided an overview and discussed
the recommendations of the Deer Management Task Force. During the overview he recognized the
following members that worked over the past eight weeks to complete this process:
Deer Task Force Members
Janice Baertchy
Jeff Gelhar
• Bob Gross
Todd Hanson
Vic Henry
Art Lenius
George Olzenak
Tim Peterson
Tom Quist
Russ Terwey
Citv of Brooklvn Center Advisors
Dave Peterson
Curt Lund
Kevin Benner
Curt Boganey
Department of Natural Resource Advisors
Bryan Lueth
City of Brooklyn Park Representative
Lee Folstad
Mr. Boganey informed that this year the focus will be on the Palmer Lake area with other areas to
follow next y ear.
10/27/03 -9- DRAFT
Mayor Kragness asked if anyone would like to comment on this issue. •
Mitchel Jacques, 5948 Vincent Avenue North, addressed the Council to ask how the area will be
controlled when the hunts are taking place. Mayor Kragness responded that there will be signage,
notifications, and the Police Department will be surrounding the area.
Councilmember Lasman asked if the area would be flagged. Mr. Boganey responded that the area
will be flagged and that in addition to the Police Department helping, there will be volunteers to
help.
Tom Weaver, 5948 Vincent Avenue North, addressed the Council to ask who would be doing the
hunting. Mr. Boganey informed that an organization will be chosen and that the organization chosen
will have to abide by guidelines recommended by the Task Force. Mr. Weaver expressed that he has
a concern about the notification process since he knows he himself does not read the paper or watch
a lot of television. Mr. Boganey informed that a letter would notify residents within a quarter mile.
Councilmember Carmody commended the Task Force for doing a great job on this issue. Mayor
Kragness also commended the Task Force and expressed thanks for all the time spent during the
process.
Councilmember Carmody inquired if Brooklyn Park would be sharing in the hunt for the Palmer
Lake area. Mr. Boganey discussed that there is not enough time for the hunt this year to approach the
City of Brooklyn Park; however, he believes that the City of Brooklyn Park will want to work with •
the City of Brooklyn Center in the future.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -163
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT TASK
FORCE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-164
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2003 -2004 DEER MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
10/27/03 -10- DRAFT •
• RESOLUTION NO. 2003-165
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING LONG -TERM DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would prefer that the hunts take place on weekdays.
Mr. McCauley suggested that the Council make a motion.
A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to have the hunts only
on weekdays. Motion passed unanimously.
10a. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF
DON PETERSON FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Mayor Kragness read the Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Don Peterson for
his Dedicated Public Service on the Park and Recreation Commission.
• RESOLUTION NO. 2003-166
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF DON PETERSON
FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
10b.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSIN APPRECIATION G P ATION FOR THE GIFT OF
BROOKLYN CENTER CRIME PREVENTION IN SUPPORT OF SUMMER
FUN -SQUAD PROGRAMS
Mayor Kragness read the Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Gift of Brooklyn Center Crime
Prevention in Support of Summer Fun -Squad Programs.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -167
Councilmember Niesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE GIFT OF BROOKLYN CENTER
. CRIME PREVENTION IN SUPPORT OF SUMMER FUN -SQUAD PROGRAMS
10/27/03 -11- DRAFT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember •
Lasman. Motion passed unanimously.
loc. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE GIFT OF THE
BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE 2003
HALLOWEEN PARTY
Mayor Kragness read the Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Gift of the Brooklyn Center
Lions Club in Support of the 2003 Halloween Party.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-168
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE GIFT OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER
LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE 2003 HALLOWEEN PARTY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
10d. REPORT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT SWEEP
Mr. McCauley reported on the most current report from the Code Enforcement Team and discussed •
the total number of violations is 1,112; with 878 first letters, 255 second letters, 950
compliance /thank you letters, and 19 citation/formal complaints. One of the concerns is illegal
parking and the Code Enforcement Team had decided to no longer provide 14 days to residents for
moving an illegally parked vehicle.
Mayor Kragness asked what the Code Enforcement Team would be doing instead of the 14 -day
notice. Mr. McCauley informed that they would try making contact by knocking on the door and
depending on the issue, their discretion will be used.
Mayor Kragness asked what more could be done to eliminate the number of citations. Mr.
McCauley discussed that it is a difficult issue to control due to turnover in residents.
Councilmember Carmody questioned the reasons for delays for some orders when there are some
orders that have major success. Mr. McCauley responded that he does not recall specifics; however
believes nature plays a part.
10e. RESOLUTION ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL LOCAL FUNDING FOR
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION GRANT
Mr. McCauley discussed that this resolution would allocate additional funding to complete the
preliminary studies for the Little Asia Project. He provided a brief overview of the project and •
informed that the reason for the additional funding would be to study an additional location.
10/27/03 -12- DRAFT
Councilmember Niesen asked about the money that had been budgeted and allocated; and for an
explanation of the budget sheet that had been provided in the materials. Mr. McCauley and
Community Development Director Brad Hoffman explained the components of Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) and the money budgeted and allocated for the project. Mr. Hoffman informed that
the additional $27,000 is proposed from the Economic Development Authority's TIF No. 3 and
would approve a proposal with Barbour/LaDouceur Architects to continue the site design for two
locations, public hearings, and initial site planning for linking future development in the Opportunity
Site to the Little Asia Project.
Councilmember Niesen asked what would happen to the site that is not chosen for the project. Mr.
McCauley discussed that there would be a different approach for the architect which may have
additional expenses.
Councilmember Niesen informed that she will support this resolution and asked that future tables be
clearer.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -169
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL LOCAL FUNDING FOR LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION GRANT
• The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Carmody. Motion passed unanimously.
10L RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
- RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEER
MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
- RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2003 -2004 DEER MANAGEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
- RESOLUTION ADOPTING LONG -TERM DEER POPULATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN
This item was moved to the beginning of Council Consideration Items.
log. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SUMMARY OF
KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REPORT AND ADOPTING
CITY COUNCIL GOALS FOR 2004
Council discussed Goal 6, Support Phase III of Joslyn Site Development By: working with the
developer to complete Phase III, and was in consensus of removing Goal 6 since the development is
near completion.
•
10/27/03 -13- DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -170
Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SUMMARY OF KEY
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS REPORT AND ADOPTING CITY COUNCIL GOALS
FOR 2004
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember
Niesen. Motion passed unanimously.
10h. 2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
Mr. McCauley requested that the Special Session on November 17, 2003, be canceled and that the
Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission start at 6:30 p.m.
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to amend the 2003
City Council Meeting Schedule canceling the Special Session and starting the Joint Work Session
with the Financial Commission on November 17, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
10i. SET DATE OF FACILITATED COUNCIL RETREAT
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to set December 15, •
2003, 4:00 p.m. for the Council Retreat. Motion passed unanimously.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn
the City Council meeting at 9:12 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
0
10/27/03 -14- 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
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
OCTOBER 27, 2003
CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 9:19 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob
Peppe. Also present: City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of
Operations Curt Boganey, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOLS (POTENTIAL CITY COUNCIL HANDBOOK
AMENDMENTS)
City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that he had prepared two proposals for discussion that
may be helpful in formalizing procedures and expectations for City Council e -mail and
• standardization of procedure on agenda items.
Council discussed and was in consensus of the proposals with the exception of an amendment to
the agenda procedure to clarify procedure when discussion has been terminated by motion and to
eliminate portions requiring the parliamentarian to provide advice without being asked.
Mr. McCauley informed that he would have the amendments made to the City Council Handbook
and bring this back to the Council for approval.
MISCELLANEOUS
There were no miscellaneous items discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to adjourn the work
session at 9:42 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
• 10/27/03 -1- DRAFT
City Council Agenda Item No. 7b
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
• TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy, Clerk
DATE: November 6, 2003
SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval
The following companies /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has fulfilled
the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and
paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on November 10, 2003.
MECHANICAL
Alliant Mechanical Inc. 3650 Kennebec Drive, Eagan
Brooklyn Aire 8862 Zealand Avenue North, Brooklyn Park
Dale Huber Co. 1200 West Highway 13, Burnsville
Expert Sheet Metal Inc. 30 West Main Street, Bethel
North Country Aire 29617 Riverridge Road, Isanti
PMR Mechanical, Inc. 2414 East 26 Street, Minneapolis
RENTAL
Renewal:
5308 Emerson Avenue North - Phillip and Ginger Luoma Anderson
• No calls
Riverwood Estates Apartments (84 Units w/164 Total Calls) - Donald Kasbohm
05 Assaults
06 Domestic
29 Disturbing the Peace
22 Suspicious activity
04 Burglary
15 Medical
24 Theft
01 Robbery
01 Alarms
03 Crimes against family
07 Vandalism
02 Obscenity
03 Parking violations
01 Fire
01 Rules and Regulations
01 Forgery
22 Misc. /Other
01 Drugs
06 Motor Vehicle Theft
01 Obstruction of justice
02 Obscenity
02 Sex Crimes
01 Animal Complaint
0301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
Page 2
Licenses for City Council Approval
November 10, 2003
•
Initial:
5650 Humboldt Avenue North - Syed Raza
072403 Theft
6342 Lee Avenue North - Timothy Cioni
No calls
6523 Unity Avenue North - WaYee Xiong
102903 Aid and Assist
051303 All Other
SIGNHANGER
Leroy Signs 6325 Welcome Ave N, Brooklyn Park
•
•
City Council Agenda Item No. 7c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Sp ialist a
Z'
SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Release
DATE: November 5, 2003
The following site performance guarantee being held by the City for completion of various site
improvements should be recommended to the City Council for release:
CSM Lakeside Limited Partnership (3280 Northway Drive)
. Planning Commission Application No. 2002 -005
Amount of Guarantee - $25,000 (Performance Bond)
Obligor — CSM Lakeside Limited Partnership
All site improvements for which a site performance guarantee was posted for this 2002
development have been completed. An as built survey has been submitted to the Engineering
Department and all landscaping has been installed and is viable. It is recommended that the City
Council authorize release of the $25,000 performance bond posted based on the completion of
this project.
i
•
City Council Agenda Item No. 8a
•
City of Brooklyn Center A2,onAd at at
A Millennium Community
•
To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe
From: Michael J. McCauley
City Manager
Date: November 10, 2003
Re: Changes to Electric Franchise Ordinance and Franchise Fee Ordinance
Attached are revised franchise and franchise fee ordinances for Excel. The revisions to
the Franchise ordinance would be to:
- specifying in Section 1 all of the sections of Ordinance 97 -09 that are being
amended
- correcting typographical errors:
• Section 2 Subdivision 1. inserting the year 2023 for 2003
• Section 2 Subdivision 4 changing "fr" to "for" in the second to the last
sentence and in line 8 deleting "metered" and inserting "electric"
before service to be consistent with change earlier in that sbudvision
• Section 2 Subdivision 5 changing "fess" to "fees"
•
• Section 10 changing "an" in the first line to "and"
-
Removing the proposed language changes in Section 2 Subdivision 5, except
the additional language at the end of the paragraph. This removes the
proposed language specifying "electric" energy and the language on imposing
a franchise fee on the sale of natural gas. We propose to accomplish the
solution to the issue of parity between gas and electric by consent in advance
by Excel to the proposed schedules for gas fees.
- The fees for small Commercial Industrial (Electric) with no demand would be
reduce to $3.00 per month and small Commercial Industrial (Electric) with
demand would be raised to $20.00 per month.
- We would subsequently introduce and amendment to the Centerpoint
franchise to put them on equal footing relative to the imposition of fees for
using the right of way with Excel by receiving the franchise in lieu of other
fees for work in the right of way.
These changes are part of the continuing discussions with Excel to develop a framework
that will work for both parties.
0 01 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number
r e
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityofbrookl j,ncenterorg
CITY OF BROOKLYN NT
CE ER
• Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8 day of December, 2003, at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an ordinance amendment granting Northern States Power Company an
electric franchise fee ordinance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon
request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify he Deputy City Clerk fy p y ty k at 763 - 569 -300 to
make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY ORDINANCE 97 -09 GRANTING AN
ELECTRIC FRANCHISE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER'S OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 97 -09 Section 2. Subdivision 1,
Section 9 Subdivisions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 and Section 10 are hereby amended as follows:
Section 2. FRANCHISE.
Subdivision 1. Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of twenty (20)
• years ternlinating on December 8. 2023, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light,
heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of the City
as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company
may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the
Public Ways and Public Grounds of City, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company
may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject,
however, to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the City pursuant to ordinance and
to the further provisions of this franchise agreement.
Section 9. FRANCHISE FEE.
Subdivision 1. Fee Schedule. During the term of the franchise hereby granted, and in lieu
of any permit or other fees being imposed on Company, the City may impose on Company a
franchise fee {not to exceed an amount determined} by collecting the amounts indicated in a Fee
Schedule set forth in a separate ordinance from each customer in the designated Company Customer
Classification. {for metered service at each and every customer location based on a Fee Schedule
similar to the following: } The parties have agreed that the franchise fee collected by the Combanv
and raid to the City in accordance with this Section 9 shall not exceed the following amounts
through December 31.2008:
Customer Classification Amount per month
Residential $ 1.48
Small C & I and Municipal with no demand charge $ 3.00
is Small C & I and Municipal with demand charge $ 20.00
Large &I
g $ 96.00
ORDINANCE NO.
•
Public Street light $12.00
Municipal PumninEz non - demand & demand $12.00
{The amount from each customer in the Customer Classification shall be deternnined so that the
total amount collected annually from all customers does not exceed what is estimated by Company
to be 2% of total annual revenues from the sale of electric energy delivered through meters owned
or read by Company within the City. The separate ordinance must impose a franchise fee on the
residential class, which on an annual basis, totals at least 2% of Company's estimated total annual
revenues to be collected from all residential customers within the City. Company shall within thirty
(30) days of City's request provide City with revenue estimates for establishing a Fee Schedule.}
Subdivision 2. Separate Ordinance. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a separate
ordinance duly adopted by the City Council, which ordinance shall not be adopted until at least sixty
(60) days after written notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon Company by
certified mail. The fee shall not become effective until the be --inniniz of a Company billing month
at least sixty (60) days after written notice enclosing such adopted ordinance has been served upon
Company by certified mail. Subdivision 2.5 shall constitute the sole remedy for solving disputes
between Company and the City in regard to the interpretation of, or enforcement of, the separate
ordinance. No action by the City to implement a separate ordinance will commence until this
ordinance is effective. {A separate ordinance which imposes a lesser franchise fee on the residential
• class of customers than an amount which collects 2% of the estimated total annual revenues from
the residential class shall not be effective against Company, unless the fee imposed on each other
Customer Classification in the Fee Schedule is reduced so that the total annual amount estimated to
be collected in any other Customer Classification shall not, as a percentage of the estimated total
annual revenues in that Customer Classification, exceed the percentage being collected from the
residential class.} The payment of a franchise fee as provided by this Subdivision 9.2 does not
relieve Company from paying fees to City unrelated to the installation, ownership, or operation of
electric facilities, such as building permit fees.
Subdivision 4. Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly, and shall
be based on the amount collected by Company during complete billing months during the period for
which payment is to be made by imposing a surcharge equal to the designated franchise fee for the
applicable Customer Classification in all customer billings for {metered} electric service in each
class. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month followiing the period for which
payment is made. The franchise fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time, however,
each change shall meet the same notice requirements and not occur more often than annually and no
change shall require a collection from any customer for {metered} electric service in excess of the
amounts specifically permitted by this Section 9. The time and manner of collecting the franchise
fee is subject to the approval of the Commission, which Company agrees to use its best efforts to
obtain. No franchise fee shall be payable by Company if Company is legally unable to first collect
an amount equal to the franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by
imposing a surcharge in Company's applicable rate for electric service. Company may pay the City
• the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for
uncollectibles, refunds and corrections of erroneous billings. Company agrees to make its records
ORDINANCE NO.
• available for inspection p n by the City at reasonable times provided that the City and its designated
representative agree in writing not to disclose any information which would indicate the amount
paid by an identifiable customer or customers or any other information regarding identified
customers. In addition. the ComDanv agrees to Drovide at the time of each Davinent a statement
summarizinp- how the franchise fee Davment was determined, including information showing any
adiustments to the total surcharge billed in the Deriod for which Dayrnent is being made to account
for any uncollectables, refunds, or error corrections.
Subdivision 5. Condition of the Fee. The separate ordinance imposing the fee shall not be
effective against Company unless it lawfully imposes and the City quarterly or more often collects a
fee or tax of the same or greater equivalent amount on the receipts from the sales of energy within
the City by any other energy supplier, provided that, as to a supplier, the City has the authority to
require a franchise fee or to impose a tax. The "same or greater equivalent amount" shall be
measured, if practicable, by comparing amounts collected as a franchise fee from each similar
customer, or by comparing, as to similar customers, the percentage of the annual bill represented by
the amount collected for franchise fee purposes. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to
energy sales for any energy use related to heating, cooling, or lighting, as well as to the supply of
energy needed to run machinery and appliances on premises located within or adjacent to the City,
but shall not apply to energy sales for the purpose of providing fuel for vehicles. If the ComDany
specifically consents in writing to a franchise or separate ordinance collecting or failinE to collect a
fees from another energy suDDlier in contravention of this Section 9.5. the forevoinQ conditions will
• be waived to the extent of such written consent.
Subdivision 6. is reserved for future use. {Subdivision 6. Permitted Adjustments. If
following the effective date of a separate ordinance as described in Subdivision 9.2 the Commission
by Final Order approves a change in Company's electric rates resulting in a general rate increase for
one or more Customer Classifications, Company shall calculate and send to the City a letter setting
forth the amount, as a percentage, or authorized increase for each classification of customer within
sixty (60) days after Company receives the Final Order. The amount of the franchise fee that may
be imposed by the City may be increased from the Fee Schedule in the separate ordinance to an
amount not to exceed the percentage for the applicable Customer Classification stated in the
Company's letter times each monthly amount set forth in the Fee Schedule and adding the resultant
amount to the applicable amount set forth in the Fee Schedule. In this manner the franchise fee
collected or permitted to be collected from each class of customer can increase by the same
percentage as Company's electric rate increase.
During the period where the City has imposed a franchise fee by separate ordinance under
Subdivision 9.2 there is no waiver of the right to impose the amendment if the City does not seek an
increase in any franchise fee immediately after any such letter from Company, and, if the City so
chooses, the City can combine the percentages derived from one or more rate case, to the extent not
previously applied by the City, in setting the amount of the franchise fee, so that the City is not
prejudiced by delaying any action to impose or increase the franchise fee. }
•
ORDINANCE NO.
• Section 10. FRANCHISE REOPENER.
{If at any time after the date hereof, Company is collecting and paying a franchise
fee in two or more cities, in the seven - county metropolitan area, based on a franchise ordinance
adopted by such cities after the date of this franchise agreement, and in which cities Company was
not paying a franchise fee in February, 1997, the City may give Company Notice to amend this
franchise agreement to authorize collection of a franchise fee substantively identical to the franchise
fee being collected in two or more cities identified in the Notice. If Company refuses to do so within
ninety (90) days after receiving said Notice from the City, the City may terminate this franchise
agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written Notice unless Company gives Notice to the City
within said thirty (30) day period that it will immediately agree to accept an amendment of this
ordinance authorizing collection of a fee under this franchise agreement on the same terms and
conditions and in an amount not exceeding the fee being collected in two or more cities referenced
in the City's Notice. In addition, after) After this franchise agreement has been in effect {for 10
years, j until January 31, 2014 the City may give Company Notice that it desires to amend the
franchise to incorporate specific provisions which Company has agreed to in the franchise for two
or more other cities of the second, third, or forth class in the seven - county metropolitan area, based
on a franchise ordinance adopted by such cities after the date of this franchise agreement, which
cities are identified in the Notice. If Company refuses to do so within ninety (90) days after
receiving said Notice from the City, the City may terminate this franchise upon thirty (30) days
prior written notice unless the Company within that time provides Notice to the City that it will
immediately agree to accept an amendment to this ordinance incorporating the desired franchise
provisions existing in two or more other cities as referenced in the City's Notice. In addition,
• effective at the beamniniz of the Comnanv billinLy month after January 31, 2009, the Citv mav,
increase the amounts shown in the fee schedule in Section 9.1 provided that no amount in the
schedule shall be increased by more than 5% in anv individual vear and provided the Company
receives notice at least 60 days prior to the effective date of such increase.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following
its legal publication.
Adopted this day of .2003.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN YN CENTER
TER
• ' Notice is hereby given that a public e
Y g p hearing will be held on the 8th day of December, 2403, at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter. as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an electric franchise fee ordinance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons
are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at
763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON
NORTHERN STATES POWER DB /A XCEL ENERGY FOR PROVIDING
ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Code is hereby amended to include the following Special
Ordinance.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Brooklyn Center City Council has determined that it is in
the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that
provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Brooklyn Center.
(a) . Pursuant to City Ordinance No. a Franchise Agreement
between the City and Northern States Power Company, d/b /a Xcel Energy, the City has
the right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy in amount and fee design as set forth
in Section 9.1 of the Xcel Energy Franchise and in the fee schedule attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Xcel Energy
under its Electric Franchise in accordance with the schedule attached hereto and made a part of
this ordinance, commencing with the Xcel Energy's February 2004 billing month for January
2004 useage.
This fee is an account -based fee on each premise and not a meter -based fee. In the event
-that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only
one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account.. If a premise has two or more meters
being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification,
which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise.
If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed
to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy
delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one
premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question
ORDINANCE NO.
arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy.
used at all similar premises in the city will control.
Subd. 3. Payment The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City_ in accordance
with the terms set forth in Section 9.4 of the Franchise.
Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such
utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xcel Energy will surcharge its customers in the
City the amount of the fee.
Subd. 5. Record Support for Pavment. Xcel Energy shall make each payment when
due and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement
summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any
adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to
account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections.
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this
ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement.
Subd. 7.. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this
ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions_ in the Franchise, the effective date of the
fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the
publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon
Xcel Energy by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by Xcel Energy's representatives '
that Xcel Enery will abide b the provisions of this u
Y p s S bdivision 7, provided fee collection will
not commence before the. later of the Company billing" month set forth in subdivision 2 or the
..first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee.
Subd. 8. Fee Review. The City Council may review this Ordinance from time to time to
determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the
City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the
Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall
give Xcel at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change' , Subject to the
City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of Xcel to any ,proposed
increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication
ORDINANCE NO.
j
Effective Date
EXHIBIT A
XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE
FEESCHEDULE
Class Fee Per Premise
Residential $1.48 per month
Sm C & I — Non -Dem $3.00 per month
Sm C & I — Demand $20.00 per month
Large C & I $96.00 per month
Public Street Ltg $12.00 per month
Muni Pumping N/D $12.00 per month
'MuniPumping — Dem $12.00 per month
Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the
City on a quarterly basis as follows:
January —March collections due by April 30.
i r April — June collections due by July 31.
July':-" September collections due by October 31.
"October — December collections due by January 31.
_ t
City of Brooklyn Center
• A Millennium Community M T
To: Mayor Kragness and C cil Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe
From: Michael J. McCaule
City Manager
Date: November 7, 2003
Re: Franchise Fees Ordinances
Based on discussions with Excel, we are proposing to substitute a fixed meter (or user)
charge per month for a percentage franchise fee. Both Excel and Centerpoint strongly
favor a fixed monthly charge to a percentage fee. The advantage of a fixed monthly
charge is that it is level and predictable. The disadvantage is that it is fixed and does not
increase as inflation or growth generate higher utility bills. Conversely, it is an advantage
in that we would not be adding additional burden to businesses and residential customers
if there was a spike in energy prices or unusually cold or hot weather.
Using a flat rate resolves our issues with Excel over whether we can charge 3% instead of
2 %. The proposed flat rates would generate slightly less, based on 2002 consumption
• figures, than a 3% franchise fee. It would generate roughly $76,000 more per year than a
2% franchise fee. Attached is a spreadsheet showing the difference in amounts collected
using 3% franchise fees verses flat customer charges by customer class. Large
commercial electric customers would pay less under the flat charge and it would also in
effect cap any single large electric user at $96.00 per month.
The draft ordinances accompanying this memo may be modified in response to further
discussions /negotiations with Excel and Centerpoint, but would be along these general
lines.
Assuming that there is concurrence from the utilities so that the proposed revision to
Excel's franchise ordinance can be accomplished as part of an agreement to set the level
of flat rates at an amount greater than the equivalent of the current 2% cap, I would
propose that these ordinances be substituted for the previous ordinances.
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway y Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
Gas • Per Custome Electric• Per C*r
2002 # meters Revenue Franchise Per month # meters Revenue Franchise Per month
Residential 8371 $5,147,306 3.00% $154,419 $1.537 Residential 11287 $6,533,985 3.00% $196,020 $1.447
Commercial A 215 $91,059 3.00% $2,732 $1.059 Sm C& I non Demand 622 $621,531 3.00% $18,646 $2.498
Comm. Ind. B 145 $252,297 3.00% $7,569 $4.350 Sm C &I Demand 353 $2,851,519 3.00% $85,546 $20.195
Comm. Ind. C 286 $2,217,340 3.00% $66,520 $19.382 Large C &I 93 $5,141,075 3.00% $154,232 $138.201
SVDF A 40 $836,551 3.00% $25,097 $52.284 Public Street light 25 $168,630 3.00% $5,059 $16.863
SVDF B 7 $555,820 3.00% $16,675 $198.507 Muni Pumping non- demand 10 $2,299 3.00% $69 $0.575
LVDF 0 $0 3.00% $0 municipal pumping demand 8 $69,444 3.00% $2,083 $21.701
Total 9064 $9,100,373 $273,011 12398 $15,388,483 $461,654
total both: $734,666
Normal Weather $9,353,128
Gas Electric
2002 # meters Per month Annual # meters Per month Annual Per month total
Residential 8371 $1.48 $148,669 Residential 11287 $1.48 $200,457 $2.96
Commercial A 215 $1.57 $4,051 Sm C& I non Demand 622 $12.00 $89,568
Comm. Ind. B 145 $5.00 $8,700 Sm C &I Demand 353 $12.00 $50,832
Comm. Ind. C 286 $20.00 $68,640 Large C &I 93 $96.00 $107,136
SVDF A 40 $50.00 $24,000 Public Street light 25 $12.00 $3,600
SVDF B 7 $96.00 $8,064 Muni Pumping non- demand 10 $12.00 $1,440
LVDF 0 $0 municipal pumping demand 8 $12.00 $1,152
Total 9064 $262,124 12398 $454,185 Total both: $716,309
� Revised
Ordinances
•
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
• Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of December, 2003, at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an electric franchise fee ordinance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons
are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at
763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON
NORTHERN STATES POWER DB /A XCEL ENERGY FOR PROVIDING
ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Code is hereby amended to include the following Special
Ordinance.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. The Brooklyn Center City Council has determined that it is in
the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that
provide natural gas and electric services within the City of Brooklyn Center.
• (a) Pursuant to City Ordinance No. ' a Franchise Agreement
between the City and Northern States Power Company, d/b /a Xcel Energy, the City has
the right to impose a franchise fee on Xcel Energy in amount and fee design as set forth
in Section 9.1 of the Xcel Energy Franchise and in the fee schedule attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
Subd. 2. Franchise Fee Statement. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Xcel Energy
under its Electric Franchise in accordance with the schedule attached hereto and made a part of
this ordinance, commencing with the Xcel Energy's January 2004 billing month.
This fee is an account -based fee on each premise and not a meter -based fee. In the event
that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only
one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters
being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification,
which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise.
If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed
to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy
delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one
premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question
arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy
• used at all similar premises in the city will control.
ORDINANCE NO.
Subd. 3. Pavment. The said franchise fee shall be payable to the City in accordance
with the terms set forth in Section 9.4 of the Franchise.
Subd. 4. Surcharee. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission allows the utility company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse such
utility company for the cost of the fee and that Xcel Energy will surcharge its customers in the
City the amount of the fee.
Subd. 5. Record Support for Pavment. Xcel Energy shall make each payment when
due and, if requested by the City, shall provide at the time of each payment a statement
summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any
adjustments to the total surcharge billed in the period for which the payment is being made to
account for any uncollectibles, refunds or error corrections.
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this
ordinance will be resolved in accordance with Section 2.5 the Franchise Agreement.
Subd. 7. Effective Date of Franchise Fee. Notwithstanding the effective date of this
ordinance and notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the Franchise, the effective date of the
fee collected under Subdivision 2 of this ordinance is the later of ten (10) days after the
publication or after the sending of written notice enclosing a copy of this adopted ordinance upon
Xcel Energy by certified mail. It has been agreed to in advance by Xcel Energy's representatives
that Xcel Energy will abide by the provisions of this Subdivision 7, provided fee collection will
• not commence before the later of the Company billing month set forth in subdivision 2 or the
first billing month commencing 20 days after the foregoing effective date of the franchise fee.
Subd. S. Fee Review. The City Council may review this Ordinance from time to time to
determine whether to continue, terminate or modify the fee. If the Council deems it to be in the
City's best interest to continue the fee in its current form, no Council action is necessary. If the
Council deems it to be in the City's best interest to terminate or modify the fee, the Council shall
give Xcel at least sixty (60) days written notice prior to the proposed change. Subject to the
City's rights under Minnesota law, the City shall obtain the consent of Xcel to any proposed
increase in the fee but may unilaterally decrease or terminate the fee.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of .2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication
• Effective Date
ORDINANCE NO.
EXHIBIT A
•
XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE
FEESCHEDULE
Class Fee Per Premise
Residential $1.48 per month
Sm C & I — Non -Derr $12.00 per month
Sm C & I — Demand $12.00 per month
Large C & I $96.00 per month
Public Street Ltg $12.00 per month
Muni Pumping N/D $12.00 per month
MuniPumping — Dem $12.00 per month
Franchise fees are to be collected by the Utility in the amounts set forth in the above schedule, and submitted to the
• City on a quarterly basis as follows:
January — March collections due by April 30.
April — June collections due by July 31.
July — September collections due by October 31.
October — December collections due by January 31.
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8 day of December 2003, at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
• Parkway, to consider a natural gas franchise fee ordinance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped
persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City
Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE FEE ON
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO'S OPERATIONS WITHIN THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Code is hereby amended to include the following Special
Ordinance.
Subd. 1. Pumose. The Brooklyn Center City Council has determined that it is in the best
interests of the City to impose a franchise fee or equivalent fee on those public utility companies
that provide gas or electric services within the City. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2003 -06, a
Franchise Agreement between the City and CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
( "CENTERPOINT "), the City has the right to impose a franchise fee.
Subd. 2. Franchise Fee. A franchise fee ( "Fee ") is hereby imposed on CENTERPOINT
• under its natural gas Franchise as set forth in the fee schedule attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit "A" commencing with the CENTERPOINT January 1, 2004
billing month.
This fee is an account -based fee on each premise and not a meter -based fee. In the event that an
entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter at a single premise, but only one
account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. If a premise has two or more meters
being billed at different rates, the Company may have an account for each rate classification,
which will result in more than one franchise fee assessment for electric service to that premise.
If the Company combines the rate classifications into a single account, the franchise fee assessed
to the account will be the largest franchise fee applicable to a single rate classification for energy
delivered to that premise. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one
premise, each premise (address) shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question
arises as to the proper fee amount for any premise, the Company's manner of billing for energy
used at all similar premises in the city will control.
Subd. 3. Payment. The Fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set
forth in the Franchise.
Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City acknowledges that CENTERPOINT may choose to add
the full amount of the Fee as a customer surcharge to reimburse the Company for the Fee.
CENTERPOINT shall provide to the City a copy of the proposed customer bill line item
describing the Fee thirty days before the first bill collecting the Fee is sent to customers.
ORDINANCE NO.
• Subd. 5. Proof of Customer Usage. CENTERPOINT shall make each payment when
due and shall quarterly furnish a complete and correct statement of gross operating revenues for
said quarter. CENTERPOINT shall permit the City and its designated representative reasonable
access to the company's records for the purpose of verifying such statements.
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this
ordinance will be resolved in accordance with the Franchise.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30)
days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
• Effective Date:
•
ORDINANCE NO.
EXHIBIT A
CENTERPOINT ENERGY GAS FRANCHISE
FEESCHEDULE
Class Fee Per Premise
Residential $1.48 per month
Commercial A $1.53 per month
Commercial Industrial B $5.00 per month
Commercial Industrial C $20.00 per month
SVDF A $50.00 per month
SVDF B $96.00 per month
LVDF $96.00 per month
i
i
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
• Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8 day of December, 2003, at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an ordinance amendment granting Northern States Power Company an
electric franchise fee ordinance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon
request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to
make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY ORDINANCE 97 -09 GRANTING AN
ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER'S
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 97 -09 is hereby amended as
follows:
Section 2. FRANCHISE.
Subdivision 1. Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of twenty (20)
• years terminatina on December 8, 2003, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light,
heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of the City
as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company
may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the
Public Ways and Public Grounds of City, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company
may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject,
however, to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the City pursuant to ordinance and
to the further provisions of this franchise agreement.
Section 9. FRANCHISE FEE.
Subdivision 1. Fee Schedule. During the term of the franchise hereby granted, and in lieu
of any permit or other fees being imposed on Company, the City may impose on Company a
franchise fee {not to exceed an amount determined} by collecting the amounts indicated in a Fee
Schedule set forth in a separate ordinance from each customer in the designated Company Customer
Classification_ {for metered service at each and every customer location based on a Fee Schedule
similar to the following:) The parties have agreed that the franchise fee collected by the Comnanv
and paid to the Citv in accordance with this Section 9 shall not exceed the following amounts
through December 31.2008:
Customer Classification Amount per month
Residential $ 1.48
Small C & I and Municipal with no demand charge $ 12.00
• Small C & I and Municipal with demand charge $ 12.00
Large C & I $ 96.00
ORDINANCE NO.
•
Public Street light $12.00
Municipal Pumping non -demand & demand $12.00
{The amount from each customer in the Customer Classification shall be determined so that the
total amount collected annually from all customers does not exceed what is estimated by Company
to be 2% of total annual revenues from the sale of electric energy delivered through meters owned
or read by Company within the City. The separate ordinance must impose a franchise fee on the
residential class, which on an annual basis, totals at least 2% of Company's estimated total annual
revenues to be collected from all residential customers within the City. Company shall within thirty
(30) days of City's request provide City with revenue estimates for establishing a Fee Schedule.}
Subdivision 2. Separate Ordinance. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a separate
ordinance duly adopted by the City Council, which ordinance shall not be adopted until at least sixty
(60) days after written notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon Company by
certified mail. The fee shall not become effective until the be2inniniz of a Company billing month
at least sixty (60) days after written notice enclosing such adopted ordinance has been served upon
Company by certified mail. Subdivision 2.5 shall constitute the sole remedy for solving disputes
between Company and the City in regard to the interpretation of, or enforcement of, the separate
ordinance. No action by the City to implement a separate ordinance will commence until this
ordinance is effective. {A separate ordinance which imposes a lesser franchise fee on the residential
• class of customers than an amount which collects 2% of the estimated total annual revenues from
the residential class shall not be effective against Company, unless the fee imposed on each other
Customer Classification in the Fee Schedule is reduced so that the total annual amount estimated to
be collected in any other Customer Classification shall not, as a percentage of the estimated total
annual revenues in that Customer Classification, exceed the percentage being collected from the
residential class.) The payment of a franchise fee as provided by this Subdivision 9.2 does not
relieve Company from paying fees to City unrelated to the installation, ownership, or operation of
electric facilities, such as building permit fees.
Subdivision 4. Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly, and shall
be based on the amount collected by Company during complete billing months during the period for
which payment is to be made by imposing a surcharge equal to the designated franchise fee for the
applicable Customer Classification in all customer billings for {metered} electric service in each
class. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which
payment is made. The franchise fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time, however,
each change shall meet the same notice requirements and not occur more often than annually and no
change shall require a collection from any customer for metered service in excess of the amounts
specifically permitted by this Section 9. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is
subject to the approval of the Commission, which Company agrees to use its best efforts to obtain.
No franchise fee shall be payable by Company if Company is legally unable to first collect an
amount equal to the franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by
imposing a surcharge in Company's applicable rate for electric service. Company may pay the City
• the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for
uncollectibles, refunds and corrections of erroneous billings. Company agrees to make its records
ORDINANCE NO.
• available for inspection by the City t reasonable times provided that the City and its designated
ty p tY �
representative agree in writing not to disclose any information which would indicate the amount
paid by an identifiable customer or customers or any other information regarding identified
customers. In addition, the Company aerees to provide at the time of each pavment a statement
summarizine how the franchise fee navment was determined, includine information showine any
adiustments to the total surcharee billed in the period fr which pavment is beine made to account for
any uncollectables, refunds, or error corrections.
Subdivision 5. Condition of the Fee. The separate ordinance imposing the fee shall not be
effective against Company unless it lawfully imposes and the City quarterly or more often collects a
fee or tax of the same or greater equivalent amount on the receipts from the sales of electric energy
within the City by any other electric energy supplier, provided that, as to a supplier, the City has the
authority to require a franchise fee or to impose a tax and imposes a franchise fee on the sales of
natural eas enerev durine any in which there is a franchise fee imposed on the Company's
sales. The "same or greater equivalent amount" shall be measured, if practicable, by comparing
amounts collected as a franchise fee from each similar customer, or by comparing, as to similar
customers, the percentage of the annual bill represented by the amount collected for franchise fee
purposes. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to electric energy sales for any electric energy
use related to heating, cooling, or lighting, as well as to the supply of electric energy needed to run
machinery and appliances on premises located within or adjacent to the City, but shall not apply to
energy sales for the purpose of providing fuel for vehicles. If the Companv specifically consents in
• writine to a franchise or separate ordinance collectine or failine to collect a fess from another
enerev supplier in contravention of this Section 9.5. the foregoine conditions will be waived to the
extent of such written consent.
Subdivision 6. is reserved for future use. {Subdivision 6. Permitted Adjustments. If
following the effective date of a separate ordinance as described in Subdivision 9.2 the Commission
by Final Order approves a change in Company's electric rates resulting in a general rate increase for
one or more Customer Classifications, Company shall calculate and send to the City a letter setting
forth the amount, as a percentage, or authorized increase for each classification of customer within
sixty (60) days after Company receives the Final Order. The amount of the franchise fee that may
be imposed by the City may be increased from the Fee Schedule in the separate ordinance to an
amount not to exceed the percentage for the applicable Customer Classification stated in the
Company's letter times each monthly amount set forth in the Fee Schedule and adding the resultant
amount to the applicable amount set forth in the Fee Schedule. In this manner the franchise fee
collected or permitted to be collected from each class of customer can increase by the same
percentage as Company's electric rate increase.
During the period where the City has imposed a franchise fee by separate ordinance under
Subdivision 9.2 there is no waiver of the right to impose the amendment if the City does not seek an
increase in any franchise fee immediately after any such letter from Company, and, if the City so
chooses, the City can combine the percentages derived from one or more rate case, to the extent not
previously applied by the City, in setting the amount of the franchise fee, so that the City is not
• prejudiced by delaying any action to impose or increase the franchise fee. }
ORDINANCE NO.
•
Section 10. FRANCHISE REOPENER.
{If at any time after the date hereof, Company is collecting an paying a franchise fee
in two or more cities, in the seven - county metropolitan area, based on a franchise ordinance adopted
by such cities after the date of this franchise agreement, and in which cities Company was not
paying a franchise fee in February, 1997, the City may give Company Notice to amend this
franchise agreement to authorize collection of a franchise fee substantively identical to the franchise
fee being collected in two or more cities identified in the Notice.If Company refuses to do so within
ninety (90) days after receiving said Notice from the City, the City may terminate this franchise
agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written Notice unless Company gives Notice to the City
within said thirty (30) day period that it will immediately agree to accept an amendment of this
ordinance authorizing collection of a fee under this franchise agreement on the same terms and
conditions and in an amount not exceeding the fee being collected in two or more cities referenced
in the City's Notice. In addition, after} After this franchise agreement has been in effect {for 10
years,} until January 31, 2014 the City may give Company Notice that it desires to amend the
franchise to incorporate specific provisions which Company has agreed to in the franchise for two
or more other cities of the second, third, or forth class in the seven - county metropolitan area, based
on a franchise ordinance adopted by such cities after the date of this franchise agreement, which
cities are identified in the Notice. If Company refuses to do so within ninety (90) days after
receiving said Notice from the City, the City may terminate this franchise upon thirty (30) days
prior written notice unless the Company within that time provides Notice to the City that it will
• immediately agree to accept an amendment to this ordinance incorporating the desired franchise
provisions existing in two or more other cities as referenced in the City's Notice. In addition,
effective at the beainnina of the Combanv billine month after January 31, 2009, the Citv may
increase the amounts shown in the fee schedule in Section 9.1 provided that no amount in the
schedule shall be increased by more than 5% in anv individual vear and Drovided the Comn_ anv
receives notice at least 60 days Drior to the effective date of such increase.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following
its legal publication.
Adopted this day of .2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
• (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
• Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th_ day of December, 2003, at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the- matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an ordinance amendment granting Northern States Power Company an
electric franchise fee ordinance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon
request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to
make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY ORDINANCE 97 -09 GRANTING AN
ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER'S
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 97 -09 is hereby amended as
follows:
Section 2. FRANCHISE.
Subdivision 1. Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of twenty (20)
• years terminating on December 8, 2003, the right to transmit and furnish electric energy for light,
heat, power and other purposes for public and private use within and through the limits of the City
as its boundaries now exist or as they may be extended in the future. For these purposes, Company
may construct, operate, repair and maintain Electric Facilities in, on, over, under and across the
Public Ways and Public Grounds of City, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance. Company
may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these purposes, subject,
however, to such reasonable regulations as may be imposed by the City pursuant to ordinance and
to the further provisions of this franchise agreement.
Section 9. FRANCHISE FEE.
Subdivision 1. Fee Schedule. During the term of the franchise hereby granted, and in lieu
of any permit or other fees being imposed on Company, the City may impose on Company a
franchise fee {not to exceed an amount determined) by collecting the amounts indicated in a Fee
Schedule set forth in a separate ordinance from each customer in the designated Company Customer
Classification_ {for metered service at each and every customer location based on a Fee Schedule
similar to the following: } The parties have agreed that the franchise fee collected by the Company
and paid to the City in accordance with this Section 9 shall not exceed the following amounts
through December 31, 2008:
Customer Classification Amount per month
Residential $ 1.48
• Small C & I and Municipal with no demand charge $ 12.00
Small C & I and Municipal with demand charge $ 12.00
Large C & I $ 96.00
ORDINANCE NO.
is Public Street light $12.00
Municipal Pumnina non -demand & demand $12.00
{The amount from each customer in the Customer Classification shall be determined so that the
total amount collected annually from all customers does not exceed what is estimated by
Company to be 2% of total annual revenues from the sale of electric energy delivered through
meters owned or read by Company within the City. The separate ordinance must impose a
franchise fee on the residential class, which on an annual basis, totals at least 2% of Company's
estimated total annual revenues to be collected from all residential customers within the City.
Company shall within thirty (30) days of City's request provide City with revenue estimates for
establishing Fee Schedule.
.}
Subdivision 2. Separate Ordinance. The franchise fee shall be imposed by a separate
ordinance duly adopted by the City Council, which ordinance shall not be adopted until at least sixty
(60) days after written notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon Company by
certified mail. The fee shall not become effective until the beginning of a Company billinj4 month
at least sixty (60) days after written notice enclosing such adopted ordinance has been served upon
Company by certified mail. Subdivision 2.5 shall constitute the sole remedy for solving disputes
between Company and the City in regard to the interpretation of, or enforcement of, the separate
ordinance. No action by the City to implement a separate ordinance will commence until this
ordinance is effective. separate a lesser franchise i {A sep to ordcziazzce which imposes fee on the f f
• residential class of customers than an amount which collects 2% of the estimated total annual
revenues from the residential class shall not be effective against Company, unless the fee imposed
on each other Customer Classification in the Fee Schedule is reduced so that the total annual
amount estimated to be collected in any other Customer Classification shall not, as a percentage
of the estimated total annual revenues in that Customer Classification, exceed the percentage
being collected from the residential class.) The payment of a franchise fee as provided by this
Subdivision 9.2 does not relieve Company from paying fees to City unrelated to the installation,
ownership, or operation of electric facilities, such as building permit fees.
Subdivision 4. Collection of the Fee. The franchise fee shall be payable quarterly, and shall
be based on the amount collected by Company during complete billing months during the period for
which payment is to be made by imposing a surcharge equal to the designated franchise fee for the
applicable Customer Classification in all customer billings for {metered} electric service in each
class. The payment shall be due the last business day of the month following the period for which
payment is made. The franchise fee may be changed by ordinance from time to time, however,
each change shall meet the same notice requirements and not occur more often than annually and no
change shall require a collection from any customer for metered service in excess of the amounts
specifically permitted by this Section 9. The time and manner of collecting the franchise fee is
subject to the approval of the Commission, which Company agrees to use its best efforts to obtain.
No franchise fee shall be payable by Company if Company is legally unable to first collect an
amount equal to the franchise fee from its customers in each applicable class of customers by
imposing a surcharge in Company's applicable rate for electric service. Company may pay the City
• the fee based upon the surcharge billed subject to subsequent reductions to account for
uncollectibles, refunds and corrections of erroneous billings. Company agrees to make its records
ORDINANCE NO.
• available for inspection by the City at reasonable times provided that the City and its designated
representative agree in writing not to disclose any information which would indicate the amount
paid by an identifiable customer or customers or any other information regarding identified
customers. In addition, the Companv agrees to provide at the time of each payment a statement
summarizing how the franchise fee pavment was determined, including information showing anv
adiustments to the total surcharge billed in the period fr which payment is being made to account for
any uncollectables, refunds, or error corrections.
Subdivision 5. Condition of the Fee. The separate ordinance imposing the fee shall not be
p p g
effective against Company unless it lawfully imposes and the City quarterly or more often collects a
fee or tax of the same or greater equivalent amount on the receipts from the sales of electric energy
within the City by any other electric energy supplier, provided that, as to a supplier, the City has the
authority to require a franchise fee or to impose a tax and imposes a franchise fee on the sales of
natural gas energy during any period in which there is a franchise fee imposed on the Companv's
sales. The "same or greater equivalent amount" shall be measured, if practicable, by comparing
amounts collected as a franchise fee from each similar customer, or by comparing, as to similar
customers, the percentage of the annual bill represented by the amount collected for franchise fee
purposes. The franchise fee or tax shall be applicable to electric energy sales for any electric energy
use related to heating, cooling, or lighting, as well as to the supply of electric energy needed to run
machinery and appliances on premises located within or adjacent to the City, but shall not apply to
energy sales for the purpose of providing fuel for vehicles. If the Company specifically consents in
writing to a franchise or separate ordinance collecting or failing to collect a fess from another
• energy supplier in contravention of this Section 9.5, the foregoing conditions will be waived to the
extent of such written consent.
Subdivision 6. is reserved for future use. {Subdivision 6. Permitted Adjustments. If
following the effective date of a separate ordinance as described in Subdivision 9.2 the
Commission by Final Order approves a change in Company's electric rates resulting in a general
rate increase for one or more Customer Classifications, Company shall calculate and send to the
City a letter setting forth the amount, as a percentage, or authorized increase for each
classification of customer within sixty (60) days after. Company receives the Final Order. The
amount of the franchise fee that may be imposed by the City may be increased from the Fee
Schedule in the separate ordinance to an amount not to exceed the percentage for the applicable
Customer Classification stated in the Company's letter times each monthly amount set forth in
the Fee Schedule and adding the resultant amount to the applicable amount set forth in the Fee
Schedule. In this manner the franchise fee collected or permitted to be collected from each class
of customer can increase by the same percentage as Company's electric rate increase.
During the period where the City has imposed a franchise fee by separate ordinance under
Subdivision 9.2 there is no waiver of the right to impose the amendment if the City does not seek
an increase in any franchise fee immediately after any such letter from Company, and, if the City
so chooses, the City can combine the percentages derived from one or more rate case, to the
extent not previously applied by the City, in setting the amount of the franchise fee, so that the
City is not prejudiced by delaying any action to impose or increase the franchise fee. }
• Section 10. FRANCHISE REOPENER.
� Original
Ordinances
•
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 27`� day of October 2003, at 7:00 p.m. or
• as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an
electric franchise fee ordinance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at
least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 - 569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN
STATES POWERS OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DOES .
SECTION 1. The City Code is hereby amended to include the following Special Ordinance.
Subd. 1. Purpose The Brooklyn Center City Council has determined that it is in the best
interests of the City to impose a franchise fee or equivalent fee on those public utility companies that
provide gas or electric services within the City. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 97 -09, a Franchise
Agreement between the City and Northern States Power, dba Xcel Energy ( "NSP "), the City has the right
to impose a franchise fee.
Subd. 2. Franchise Fee. A franchise fee '
( Fee) is hereby imposed on NSP under its electric
Franchise in the amount of 3.00% of the gross revenue of NSP operations within the City applied to each
customer on an equal percentage basis, commencing with the NSP January, 2004 billing month.
• Subd. 3. Pavment. The Fee shall be payable to the City in accordance with the terms set forth in
the Franchise.
Subd. 4. Surcharge,. The City acknowledges that NSP may choose to add the full amount of the
Fee as a customer surcharge to reimburse the Company for the Fee. NSP shall provide to the City a copy
of the proposed customer bill line item describing the Fee thirty days before the first bill collecting the
Fee is sent to customers.
Subd. 5. Proof of Customer Usage. NSP shall make each payment when due and shall quarterly
furnish a complete and correct statement of gross operating revenues for said quarter. NSP shall permit
the City and its designated representative reasonable access to the company's records for the purpose of
verifying such statements.
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance
will be resolved in accordance with the Franchise.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days
following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 2003.
ATTEST: Mayor
• City Clerk
Date of Publication Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 27" day of October 2003, at 7:00 p.m. or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider a
• natural gas franchise fee ordinance. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at
least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A NATURAL GAS FRANCHISE FEE ON
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO'S OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER
THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The City Code is hereby amended to include the following Io un Special
g Ordmance.
Subd. 1. Pu ose. The Brooklyn Center City Council has determined that it is in the best
interests of the City to impose a franchise fee or equivalent fee on those public utility companies that
provide gas or electric services within the City. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2003 -06, a Franchise
Agreement between the City and CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco ( "CENTERPOINT "), the City has the
right to impose a franchise fee.
Subd. 2. Franchise Fee. A franchise fee ( "Fee ") is hereby imposed on CENTERPOINT under its
natural gas Franchise in the amount of 3.00% of the gross revenue of CENTERPOINT operations within
the City applied to each customer on an equal percentage basis, commencing with the CENTERPOINT
January 1, 2004 billing month.
• Subd. 3. Pavment. The Fee shall be payable to the City n accordance
the with the terms set forth in
he Franchise.
Subd. 4. Surcharge. The City acknowledges that CENTERPOINT may choose to add the full
amount of the Fee as a customer surcharge to reimburse the Company for the Fee. CENTERPOINT shall
provide to the City a copy of the proposed customer bill line item describing the Fee thirty days before the
first bill collecting the Fee is sent to customers.
Subd. 5. Proof of Customer Usage. CENTERPOINT shall make each payment when due and
shall quarterly furnish a complete and correct statement of gross operating revenues for said quarter.
CENTERPOINT shall permit the City and its designated representative reasonable access to the
company's records for the purpose of verifying such statements.
Subd. 6. Enforcement. Any dispute, including enforcement of a default regarding this ordinance
will be resolved in accordance with the Franchise.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days
following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 2003.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
Date of Publication Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
i
City Council Agenda Item No. 8b
• CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 10'' day of November, 2003, at 7:00
p.m. at City Hall, 6,301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Brooklyn Center City
Code provisions relating to building codes.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance.
Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUILDING
CODE: AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE SECTIONS 3 -101, 3-
102, AND 3 -103
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDAINS THAT SECTIONS
3 -101, 3 -102 AND 3 -103 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE ARE AMENDED AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 3 -101. Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 16B.59 to 16B.75, one copy of which is on file in the office of the city
clerk is hereby adopted as the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center. Such code is hereby
• incorporated in this ordinance as completely as if set out in full.
A. The following chapters of the Minnesota State Building Code are adopted and
incorporated as part of the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center:
1. 1300 — Administration of the [Minnesota] State Building Code
2. 1,3,01 —Building Official Certification
3. 1302 — Construction Approvals
4. 1303 — Minnesota Provisions of the State Building Code
5. [4.] 1305 — Adoption of the [1997 Uniform Building Code including Appendix
Chapters] 2000 International Building Code
[a. 3, Division I, Detention and Correctional Facilities]
[b. 12, Division II, Sound Transmission Control]
[c. 29, Minimum Plumbing Fixtures]
6. [5.] 1307 - Elevators and Related Devices
•
• ORDINANCE NO.
7.
1309-2000 International Residential Code
8. 1311 - Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
9. [6.] 1315 - Adoption of the [1996] 2002 National Electrical Code
10. [7.] 1325 - Solar Energy Systems
[8. 1330 - Fallout Shelters]
11. [9.] 1335 - Floodproofing Regulations
12. [ 10.] 1341 - Minnesota. Accessibility Code
13. [11.] 1346 Adoption of the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code
14. [12.] 1350 - Manufactured Homes
15. [13.] 1360 - Prefabricated [Homes] Buildings
• 16. 1361 - Industrialized/Modular Buildin2s
17. [14.] 1370 - Storm Shelters (Manufactured Home Parks)
18. [15.]4715 - Minnesota Plumbing Code
19. 7510 - Minnesota Fire Code
20. [16. 7670 -] Minnesota Energy Code, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7670 as provided
in Minnesota Statutes Section 16B.617, and Minnesota Rules. Chanters 7672.
7674. 7676 and 7678.
B. The following optional appendix chapters of the [1997 Uniform] Minnesota State
Building Code are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for the
City of Brooklyn Center:
[1. 3, Division III, 1992, One- and Two - Family Dwelling Code]
[ 2. 15, Reroofing]
1.3. 19, Exposed Residential Concrete]
[ 4. 31, Division II, Membrane Structures]
• ORDINANCE NO.
1. [5.] 33 K Excavation and Grading
[C. The following optional chapters of Minnesota Rules are hereby adopted and incorporated
as part of the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center:]
2. [l.] 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems, with [option 8] Subpart 2
[2. 1310, Building Security]
3. 1335, Floodproofing regulations parts 1335.0600 to 1335.1200.
Section 3 -102. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
A. The building official, acting under the administration of the community development
director [of planning and inspection], is hereby authorized to implement and enforce the
provisions of the building code and to delegate enforcement authority to his
subordinates.
B. Right of Entry. Upon presentation of proper credentials the building official or his duly
authorized representatives, may enter at reasonable times any building, structure, or
• premises in the City to perform the duties imposed upon him by the building code.
C. Stop Orders. Whenever any work is being performed contrary to the provisions of the
building code, the building official may order the work stopped by written notice served
on persons engaged in doing or causing such work to be performed, and such persons
shall forthwith stop such work until otherwise authorized by the building official.
D. Occupancy Violations. Whenever any building is being used contrary to the provisions
of the building code, the building official shall issue notice and order such use
discontinued.
The notice and order shall:
1. Be in writing.
2. Describe the location and nature of violation.
3. Establish a reasonable time for the remedy of any violation.
•
• ORDINANCE NO.
4. Be served upon the owner or his agent or the occupant, as the case
may require. Such notice may be deemed to be properly served
upon such owner or agent, or upon any such occupant, if a copy
thereof is: served upon him personally, or sent by registered mail
to his last known address, or as a last resort posted in a
conspicuous place in or about a subject building.
E. Hazardous and Substandard Buildings. All buildings which are structurally unsafe, or
not provided with adequate egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise
dangerous to human life, or which in relation to existing use constitute a hazard to safety
or health or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation,
obsolescence, or abandonment are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be
abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal in accordance with the provisions
of Minnesota Statutes 463.15 through 463.26.
F. Board of Appeals. A Board of Appeals is hereby created for the purpose of hearing and
rendering a determination regarding conflicting interpretations of the provisions of the
building code and regarding conflicting opinions of the suitability of alternate materials
and methods of construction. The Board of Appeals shall consist of the city council
which may engage qualified persons to provide technical advice on matters under
• consideration. Appeals to the board must be filed in writing with the city clerk. Within
thirty days after an appeal is filed the Board of Appeals shall hear the appeal, providing
not less than five business days notice to the appellant of the time and place for hearing
the appeal. All decisions of the board shall be reported to the state building inspector
within fifteen days after such decision is made.
G. Violations and Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to
erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish,
equip, use, occupy, or maintain any building or system, or cause the same to be done,
contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the building code. Any person, firm, or
corporation who does any act or admits to do any act which constitutes a violation of the
building code shall, upon conviction thereof by lawful authority, be punishable by a fine
not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety
(90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment together with the costs of prosecution.
Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate
offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder.
•
• ORDINANCE NO.
Section 3 -103. PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS.
A. Permits Required. No person, firm, or corporation shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter,
repair, improve, remove, convert, move, or demolish any building or structure in the
City, or cause the same to be done, nor shall an person, firm or corporation o oration install
P IP ,
alter, or repair any of the following systems without first obtaining an appropriate permit
from the building official as follows:
1. Building Permit
2. Plumbing System Permit
3. Electric System Permit
4. Mechanical System Permit
5. Fire SuT)Dression
6. Fire Alarm
• B. Eligibility for Permits. Any person is hereby declared eligible for a building permit,
plumbing system permit, electric system permit, and mechanical system permit to do
work which complies with the provisions of the building code on premises or that part of
premises owned and actually occupied by him as his homestead. However, no permit
will be issued to other than Minnesota licensed plumbers for connections to the City
sewer and water systems. Any person engaged in the business of installing water
softeners shall be eligible for a plumbing system permit to connect water softening or
filtering equipment, provided openings have been left for that purpose making it
unnecessary to extensively rearrange or alter the water piping system.
Otherwise, permit issuance shall be limited as follows: Permits to do work on plumbing
systems shall be issued only to Minnesota licensed plumbers, permits to do work on
electric systems shall be issued only to Minnesota licensed electricians, and mechanical
system permits shall be issued only to those licensed by the City of Brooklyn Center or
to Minnesota licensed plumbers.
C. Application for Permits. To obtain a permit the applicant shall first file a written
application therefor on a form furnished for that purpose. Application shall:
1. Identify and describe the work to be covered by the permit.
2. Describe the specific location at which the proposed work is to be done.
• ORDINANCE NO.
3. State the intended use or occupancy in the case of a building permit.
4. State the valuation of the proposed work and be accompanied by construction
documents and other information as reauired by the code.
5. Be signed by the permittee or his authorized agent.
6. Provide such other information as reasonably may be required by
the building official.
D. Submission of Plans and Specifications. Each application for a building permit shall
include [at least two sets of plans and specifications in the case of one and two family
dwellings and residential accessory buildings; and] at least three sets of plans and
specifications [in the case] for one and two family dwellings and residential accessory
buildings, all multiple family dwelling and accessory buildings, commercial buildings,
industrial buildings, and other nonresidential buildings. Building plans and
specifications shall bear the certification of a Minnesota registered architect and/or
engineer in the case of all multiple family buildings and nonresidential buildings, and in
all other cases when required by the building official. At the discretion of the building
• official plans and specifications need not be submitted for the following:
[1. One -story building additions of Type V conventional wood stud
construction with an area not exceeding 600 sq. ft.]
[ 2. Group U, Division 1, occupancies of Type V conventional wood
stud construction.]
[ 3. Minor projects.]
Plans and specifications shall be drawn with sufficient clarity and detail to assure total
conformity with provisions of the building code, as determined by the building official.
Computations, stress diagrams, and other data sufficient to justify the plan detail shall be
submitted when required by the building official.
Plans for all new one and two family residential buildings and building additions shall
include an accurate dimensioned plot plan showing the size and location of all existing
and proposed buildings, and the legal boundaries of the property. An accurate survey of
the property certified by a Minnesota registered land surveyor shall be submitted when
required by the building official. Plans for all other buildings and building additions
shall include an accurate dimensioned site plan as approved under the requirements of
the zoning ordinance.
•
• ORDINANCE NO.
Information appropriately certified, relative to soil conditions, topography, and the like
shall be submitted as required by the building official.
Each application for a plumbing system, electrical system, or mechanical system permit
shall include detailed plans and specifications when required by the building official.
Such plans and specifications shall bear the certification of a Minnesota registered
architect and /or engineer when required by the building official.
E. Issuance of Permits. The application, plans, and specifications filed in support of a
permit shall be reviewed by the building official to assure conformance to the
requirements of the building code and compliance with other laws and ordinances of the
City. Upon payment of an established permit fee the building official shall formally
endorse the submitted plans and specifications as "approved" and shall issue a permit
therefor to the applicant. Approved plans and specifications shall not be changed,
modified, or altered during construction or installation without authorization from the
building official. The building official may issue a "partial permit" for the construction
or installation of a part of a building or system before the complete plans and
specifications have been submitted, provided that adequate information and detailed
statements have been submitted complying with pertinent requirements of the building
code. The issuance of such a "partial permit" shall not represent unqualified assurance
® that a permit for the entire building or system will be issued.
The issuance of a permit shall in no circumstances be construed as license to violate any
of the provisions of the building code. Neither shall the issuance of a permit based upon
erroneous or ambiguous plans and specifications constitute approval to violate
provisions of the building code or of any other ordinances of the City.
F. Permit Expiration, Suspension, or Revocation. Every permit issued by the building
official under the provisions of the building code shall expire by limitation and become
null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced
within [60] 180 days from the date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized
by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a consecutive period of [120] 180 days at
any time after the work is commenced. Within a one year period from date of expiration
an expired permit may be renewed provided there are no changes proposed from the
original plans and specifications and provided that a fee is paid amounting to one -half of
the amount required for the original permit.
The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the
provisions of the building code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of
incorrect information supplied, or in case of violation of any ordinance or regulation or
any of the provisions of the building code.
• G. Permit Fees.
ORDINANCE NO.
1. Building Permit Fees. The fee for any building permit shall be
determined by the fee schedule adopted by city council resolution
based on the valuation of each building Project. The building
rp of ect valuation referred to therein shall be computed using the
up -to -date average construction cost per square foot established
from time to time by the State building inspector.
2. Plumbing Permit Fees. Fees shall be calculated according to the
schedule set forth by city council resolution.
3. Electrical System Permit Fees. Fees shall be calculated and paid
according to the schedule set forth by city council resolution.
4. Mechanical System Permit Fees. Fees shall be paid according to
the schedule set forth by city council resolution.
5. Double Fee for Work Started Without Permit. Where work for
which a permit is required by the building code is commenced or
undertaken before a permit has been obtained, the fees above
S specified shall be doubled; but the payment of such double fee
shall not relieve persons from fully complying with requirements
of the building code or other City Ordinances.
6. Fee Refunds. There shall be no refund of any permit fee collected
in accordance with this chapter when the fee so collected is one
hundred dollars ($100) or less. For permits which are canceled
after issuance, where no authorized work has been done, a refund
of eighty percent (80 %) of the permit fees collected in excess of
$100 may be granted; in no case shall the fees retained exceed
$150. If any work authorized by the permit has been started, the
amount of fees retained, over and above the $100 maximum, shall
be determined by the Building Official commensurate with the
percentage of work completed. Plan checking fees are not
refundable.
All claims for refunds shall be made in writing by the original
permittee and shall be made within [one hundred eighty (180)]
forty -five (45) calendar days from the payment of said fees.
•
ORDINANCE NO.
Appeals for relief from the above refund policy shall:
- be made in writing by the original permittee.
- be made within [one hundred eighty (180)] forty -five (45)
calendar days from the payment of said fees.
- include a detailed explanation of circumstances which are the
grounds for the appeal.
H. Inspections. All work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the
building official and his representatives. Additionally, the building official may require
the permittee to employ an approved, qualified special inspector who shall work under
the jurisdiction of the building official to inspect construction work involving specialized
knowledge and skill. Permittees shall cooperate with the building official in calling for
inspections on those segments of the work as determined by the building official.
No reinforcing steel or structural framework or other system work shall be covered or
concealed without first obtaining the approval of the building official. There shall be a
final inspection and approval of all buildings and systems when completed and ready for
occupancy and use.
I. Certificate of Occupancy. No building or structure [except those in Groups R -3 and M]
• shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a
building or structure or portion thereof shall be made unless the building official has
issued a Certificate of Occupancy therefor. Changes in the character or use of a building
shall not be authorized if a new or proposed use is more hazardous in terms of life and
fire risk than in the existing use. Upon a determination that a building complies with the
provisions of the building code, the building official shall issue a certificate of
occupancy in a form of his or her determination. A temporary certificate of occupancy
may be issued at the discretion of the building official for a particular portion of a
building prior to completion of the entire building.
Adopted this day of , 2003.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
nd
(U erline indicates new matter; brackets indicate matter to be deleted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director
DATE: June 18, 2003
SUBJECT: Chapter 3 Amendment
This amendment to Chapter 3 of the City's Ordinances is offered for a first reading. The
amendment reflects the State of Minnesota's move to the new 2000 International Building Code.
The previous state code was the Uniform Building code. Adoption of the state code is mandatory
to assure uniform building requirements throughout the metro area.
•
•
City Council Agenda Item No. 8c
I
• CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 10th day of November, 2003, at 7
p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Sections 11 -604 and 11 -704 of the Brooklyn
Center Code of Ordinances Regarding Applications for Intoxicating Liquor Licenses.
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in
advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 11 -604 AND 11 -704 OF THE
BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING
APPLICATIONS FOR INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. City Code Section 11 -604 relating to applications for on -sale wine
licenses is amended as follows:
Section 11 -604. APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSE. Every application for a
• license to sell intoxicating liquor shall be verified and filed with the City Manager's designee. In
addition to the information which may be required by the state commissioner of public safety's
form, the application shall contain the following:
5. If the applicant is a corporation or other organization and is applying for an
"on -sale wine" license, the following:
d. The application shall contain a list of all officers or directors of said
comoration or association. The application shall also contain a list of all
persons, who, singly or together with their spouse, or a parent, brother,
sister [ofJ or child of either of them, own or control an interest in said
corporation or association in excess of 5% together with their addresses and
all information as is required of a single applicant in Subsection 3 of this
Section.
Section 2. City Code Section 11 -704 relating to applications for on -sale
intoxicating liquor licenses is amended as follows:
Section 11 -704. APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSE. Every application for a
license to sell intoxicating liquor shall be verified and filed with the City Manager's designee. In
addition to the information which may be required by the state commissioner of public safety's
form, the application shall contain the following:
5. If the applicant is a corporation or other organization and is applying for an
"on -sale liquor" license, the following:
• ORDINANCE NO.
d. The application shall contain a list of all officers or directors of said
corporation or association. The application shall also contain a list of all
persons, who, singly or together with their spouse, or a parent, brother,
sister, [of] or child of either of them, own or control an interest in said
corporation or association in excess of 5% [or who are officers or directors
of said corporation or association] together with their addresses and all
information as is required of a single applicant in Subsection 3 [above] of
this Section.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days
following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of .2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
• City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
•
Office of the City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson City Clerk p
DATE: November 5, 2003
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Sections 11 -604 and 11 -704 of the Brooklyn Center Code of
Ordinances Regarding Applications for Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
At its October 13, 2003, meeting, the City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Amending
Sections 11 -604 and 11 -704 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances Regarding Applications for
Intoxicating Liquor Licenses and set second reading and public hearing for November 10, 2003.
Notice of Public Hearing was published in the City's official newspaper, Brooklyn Center Sun -Post, on
October 23, 2003.
• If the City Council adopts the ordinance, the ordinance will become effective on December 10, 2003.
Attachments:
1. An Ordinance Amending Sections 11 -604 and 11 -704 of the Brooklyn Center Code of
Ordinances Regarding Applications for Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
2. Memo dated October 8, 2003, that was included in the October 13, 2003, City Council agenda
packet
4 P 301 Shingle Creek Parkway g a kway 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
Office of the City Clerk
OX City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City M er
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
DATE: October 8, 2003
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Sections 11 -604 and 11 -704 of the Brooklyn Center Code of
Ordinances Regarding Applications for Intoxicating Liquor Licenses
On August 11, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2003 -09, An Ordinance Amending
Chapters 11 and 23 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances, Relating to Liquor Licensing and
General Licensing Regulations. The purpose of the amendment was to provide a reasonably consistent
process for administering all license applications. After reviewing the State liquor licensing forms and
further review of the City liquor licensing forms, there are two sections in the City's Liquor Ordinance
that require changes to maintain consistency in the application process.
. In Section 11 -604, subd. 5(d), regarding applications for on -sale wine license, language should be added
to require a corporate applicant to submit a list of all officers or directors. In Section 11-704, subd. 5(d)
regarding applications for on -sale intoxicating liquor licenses, language should be amended to require a
corporate applicant to submit a list of all officers or directors, however, the requirement that the officers
or directors provide the information that is required of a single applicant should be stricken. Attached is
an ordinance amendment that incorporate the recommended changes to these Sections. If the City
Council approves first reading of the ordinance, the second reading and public hearing will be held
November 10, 2003.
Attachment
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
City Council Agenda Item No. 8d
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 10 day of November, 2003, at
• 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to City Code
Section 19 -401 relating to hunting.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance.
Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO DEER HUNTING WITHIN THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
POPULATION CONTROL
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 19 -401 is amended as follows:
Section 19 -401. HUNTING[,] AND DISCHARGING OF FIREARMS [, EXCEPTIONS
HUNTING PROHIBITED].
1. Prohibition. All hunting with firearms and bow and arrows and discharaing of
firearms within the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby prohibited.
• [DISCHARGING FIREARMS PROHIBITED. Discharging of firearms within the City
of Brooklyn Center is hereby prohibited provided, however, that]
2. Exceptions. The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to
a. members of duly organized gun clubs shooting or practicing on lands owned
or leased by their club and licensed by the City; or
b. [to] trap shooters shooting on grounds selected for that purpose by tbp City- or
c. [to] firing salutes over the graves of soldiers or ,,,,�� I b�%' 444 e
L 'l
d. the harvesting of deer pursuant to a Deer Management Plari"as llowed' under
hermit issued by the Citv Manager or Citv Manager's desianee and subiect to
anv conditions and limitations established by the City Manaaer.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal
publication.
Adopted this day of 2003.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
• Date of Publication Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
Office of the City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk 4 4 �
DATE: November 5, 2003
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: An Ordinance Relating to Deer Hunting Within the City of Brooklyn
Center for the Purpose of Population Control
At its October 13, 2003, meeting, the City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Relating to
Deer Hunting Within the City of Brooklyn Center for the Purpose of Population Control and scheduled
second reading and Public Hearing for November 10, 2003.
Notice of Public Hearing was published in the City's official newspaper, Brooklyn Center Sun -Post, on
October 23, 2003.
• If the City Council adopts the ordinance, the ordinance will become effective on December 10, 2003.
Attachment:
1. An Ordinance Relating to Deer Hunting Within the City of Brooklyn Center for the Purpose of
Population Control
2. Memo dated October 9, 2003, that was included in the October 13, 2003, City Council agenda
packet
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
W
• MEMO
DATE: October 9, 2003
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Cu 4a ey, Assistant City Manager Director of Operations
SUBJECT: Hunting Ordinance Amendment For The Purpose Of Gun Control
Attached is an ordinance relating to deer hunting within the City of Brooklyn Center.
This ordinance has been drafted in response to discussions and recommendations of the
Deer Management Task Force. The Task Force will be recommending bow hunting as a
means of reducing the deer herd in Brooklyn Center. The hope of the Task Force is that
some Deer removal will occur during the current bow - hunting season that ends December
31, 2003
The current city ordinance prohibits the discharge of firearms including bow hunting
within the City limits except in very limited circumstances. This ordinance if adopted
would allow bow hunting within the City limits as means of harvesting deer under a
permit issued by the City Manager or conditions established by the City Manager. It is
• expected that the Council approved Deer Population Management Plan will spell out the
essential conditions and criteria under which a permit may be issued.
Because, an ordinance requires several weeks before it can take effect, we are asking the
Council to approve this ordinance on first reading at this time. Please let me know when
you have questions.
•
i
City Council Agenda Item No. 9a
i
�I
• MEMO
To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning S ialist
Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 2003-
019
Date: November 5, 2003
On the November 10, 2003 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2003-
019 submitted by Matthew Johnson, DLR Group requesting a Planned Unit Development
Amendment for construction of a 27,000 sq. ft. office /industrial building.
Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning
Commission Application No. 2003 -019 and also an area map showing the location of the
property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, the
Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and
• other supporting documents.
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their October 30, 2003 meeting and
was recommended for approval by the Commission through adoption of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2003 -03.
It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the
application. A resolution approving the application containing various recommended findings,
considerations and conditions is offered for the City Council's consideration.
• Application Filed on 10 -02 -03
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 12 -01 -03 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2003 -019
Applicant: DLR Group
Location: Northwest Corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment
The applicant, Matthew Johnson on behalf of DLR Group, is seeking an amendment to the
Planned Unit Development approval for this area to build an approximate 27,000 sq. ft.
office /industrial building for Global Industries on a 2.3 acre parcel of land legally described as
Tract B, RLS 1690, located at the northwest quadrant of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek
Parkway. The property is zoned PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development /Industrial Park) and is
bounded on the north by Parkway Circle, a private access roadway serving various developments
to the north and west of this site; on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway with an industrial
building on the opposite side of the street; on the south by Freeway Boulevard, with C -2 zoned
property containing Chi Chi's Restaurant on the opposite side of the street; and on the west by
the Americlnn Hotel.
• This site is the same site for which the City Council approved a PUD rezoning and development
plan for a Country Harvest Buffet Restaurant (which was never built) under Planning
Commission Application No. 94014 on November 28, 1994. This site, with the Country Harvest
Buffet development plan, was also acknowledged in a City initiated PUD/I -1 rezoning of a larger
area including this property and surrounding property under Planning Commission Application
No. 95009 which was approved by the City Council on July 10, 1995. On November 25, 1996,
the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 96020 which was a request for
a Planned Unit Development amendment for a four story Americlnn on the westerly portion of a
4.12 acre parcel which contained the site currently under consideration. This 4.12 acre site was
later replatted to create two tracts, one for the Americlnn (Tract A, RLS 1690), the other a site for
future development (Tract B, RLS 1690) containing a storm water management basin serving the
immediate area. A condition of the approval of the PUD under Application No 96020 was that
the area for future development was subject to an amendment to the Planned Unit Development
and that the City would not allow this area to be developed as a fast food/convenience food
restaurant or a gasoline service station.
The applicant's proposal for the 27,000 Global Industries office /industrial building is the
amendment being sought to finalize development in this PUD. Global is a wholesale furniture
distribution operation with a showroom and office component.
As the Commission is aware, the PUD process involves a rezoning of land to the PUD
designation followed by an Alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This
• 10 -30 -03
Page 1
• underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the
Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case I -1)
would apply to the development proposal unless the City were to determine that another standard
or use would be appropriate given mitigating circumstances that are offset by the plans submitted
by the developer. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed
flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment problems.
Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by
the City Council on the development plans. The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and,
therefore, is subject to meeting the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines
that are contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Also, proposals must be
consistent with Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit
Developments. Attached for the Commission's review are copies of Section of 35 -208 and 35-
355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance.
The rezoning of the property to the Planned Unit Development designation was accomplished
with the November 27, 1994 approval for the Country Harvest Buffet Restaurant and the July 10,
1995 Planned Unit Development approval that accommodated appropriate common parking
areas for the properties located in this general area. The approval of the AmericInn development
was an amendment to the previously approved PUD proposals. The applicant in this case is not
seeking any modifications in terms of the rules governing uses and structures in the underlying
I -1 zoning district. The proposed office /industrial building for a wholesale furniture operation is
• considered a permitted use in the I -1 zoning district. As will be shown in the subsequent review
of the development plan, no requests for modifications for such things as building setbacks,
parking requirements, landscape and other standard requirements for developments are being
sought by the applicant in this case. Findings as to the appropriateness of such a development
consistent with the 1 -1 underlying zoning designation have been made generally for the parcel of
land under consideration. Approval of the development plan, however, should acknowledge
compatibility with the Policy and Review Guidelines of Section 35 -208 and the provisions of
Section 35 -355 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted written comments as to
how they believe their proposal meets the guidelines established in Section 35 -208. This letter is
attached for the Commission's review.
The applicant indicates that he believes the proposed project can be considered a public benefit
by bringing a positive exposure of an international company to the City of Brooklyn Center. He
adds that the proposal is compatible with surrounding land use classifications and that the
development is financially sound and will provide greater employment diversity to the
community. The development plan will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for this
particular zoning district and comply with the applicable regulations.
The staff believes that the proposed use of the property will be, as shown later in the report,
consistent and compatible with the immediate area surrounding the property as well as those in
the general vicinity. The proposal appears to be a good use of the property in the context of
• 10 -30 -03
Page 2
i
• overall development in this area and will be a good long range use and can be considered to be in
the best interests of the community.
STIR ANT) RT JILDTNG PT AN PROPOSAT
The proposal, calls for an approximate 27,000 sq. ft. office /industrial building for Global
Industries which is a wholesale furniture distribution use. The building will contain a showroom
and office component but will be primarily a warehousing and storage facility. The building will
be located in the approximate center of the 2.3 acre site immediately east of the Americhm. The
building has a curved footprint following the contour of Shingle Creek Parkway by maintaining
at least a 50 ft. building setback from the street right of way line.
AC CESS/PARKTNCT
Access to the property is gained via shared accesses along Freeway Boulevard and Parkway
Circle. The shared accesses are with the Americlnn and were established at the time that
development was approved. No direct access from Shingle Creek Parkway will be granted to this
site. The access from Freeway Boulevard will require vehicles to enter the Americlnn site before
accessing the Global Industry property. The access to the north is divided by the property line
separating the two sites. Appropriate cross access and parking agreements were established with
the development of the Americhm, however, the developer should assure that these documents
have been properly filed.
• Parking for the proposed building will be on the north and west sides. Parking calculations
indicate 6,747 sq. ft. of office space and 20,091 sq. ft. of industrial space. At one parking space
per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area of office, 34 parking spaces are required; at one space per 800
sq. ft. of gross floor area for the industrial /warehouse component, 25 parking spaces are required
for a total of 59 spaces. A loading area will be provided at the northwest corner of the site where
four loading docks are proposed. It is recommended that a masonry wall be extended along the
north side of the loading area to screen this area from abutting uses to the north.
DR ATNAGE /GR ADINGJ 71 TTTES
The applicant has provided grading, drainage and utility plans which have been reviewed by the
Director of Public Works /City Engineer. The Commission's attention is directed to his October
6, 2003 memorandum regarding his review of the plans. He notes that based on the survey data
submitted, it appears that the majority of an existing water main was constructed outside of an
existing utility easement. The water main will be relocated within the easement as proposed by
the development plans. He indicates also that storm water run off from this site, the Americlnn
and the Minnesota State High School League offices currently flows to an existing storm water
management basin located at the southeast corner of the site. This basin was originally planned
during preparation of storm water management feasibility for this Shingle Creek Business Center
in 1986. He makes comments as to the fact that the applicant will need to revise plans to show
the existing 27 inch diameter storm sewer extending across the southern portion of the site; field
• 10 -30 -03
Page 3
• locate the existing catch basin structure near the westerly property line, verify structural condition
and replace casting as necessary; revise the drainage plan to show the invert, pipe size, pipe grade
and material of the existing outlet pipe for the detention basin; install rip rap material at the inlet
and outlet pipes of the detention basin; provide an earthwork calculation showing that the
proposed grading within the drainage easement will not result in a net decrease in the storage
capacity of the storm water detention facility; and provide storm water drainage calculations to
the Engineering Department for review. He also notes that an erosion control plan shall be
developed for the proposed site work; an NPDES construction site erosion control permit must
be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and the grading plan shall be revised
to show side slopes along the detention facility at a maximum of 1 to 4 or flatter.
T.ANl7SCAPTNCT
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to
evaluate such plans. They have not provided particular species of landscaping but rather
provided points based on shade trees, coniferous trees, and decorative trees. We assume there
will be a variety of each of the types of trees provided. Their plan is to provide nine shade trees,
primarily along the Shingle Creek green strip and Freeway Boulevard green strip. Thirteen
coniferous trees will be interspersed amongst the shade trees in these same areas. Twenty
decorative trees are proposed with 17 being located along the west side of the building and three
at the northeast corner of the site. The amount of landscape points proposed for the property is
198, which is what is required for an office /industrial use with over 25 percent office in the
• industrial zone. The point system they have used is based on 2.25 acres, however, the
topographical survey submitted with the plans indicates that the total acreage for this site is
2.3030 acres. This would require a slight increase in the number of points required to 201.
There should not be a problem adjusting the landscape plan to rectify this inconsistency.
BT M .DTNQ
The building elevations show two options for the exterior building treatment. Both options show
two types of masonry finish and metal wall panels. In Option One there would be a smooth
masonry finish with a half inch recess finish. Option Two has a raked finish and a broomed
finish. The various finishes provide different looks to the building, both of which appear to be
attractive. Hopefully a decision can be made as to which exterior treatment the applicant
proposes to provide.
T.IGUITTNCT /TRASH
The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the locations for various exterior lighting.
Seven light poles will be installed to service the area, five of which will be basically along the
property line separating the Americlnn with this site. Two will be located in the north parking
lot. Also, building mounted lights will be provided around the exterior of the building. The type
of fixture for the parking lot lights is not shown but should be a cut off type, which will direct
light downward on the site and should not create glare. The lighting plan indicates the foot
candles at various locations which are consistent with the ordinance requirements.
• 10 -30 -03
Page 4
• The site plan does not indicate a trash enclosure area, and it is my understanding that trash will
be located within the loading dock area inside the building.
PROCEDURE
As pointed out previously, this proposal is an amendment to the Planned Unit Development
proposal for this area. As such, it is required to follow the procedures contained in Section 35-
355 regarding Planned Unit Developments. This requires a public hearing which has been
scheduled. Notices have been sent and a notice has been published in the Brooklyn Center
Sun/Post. Normally with rezonings or Planned Unit Developments, the affected Neighborhood
Advisory Group is contacted to seek review and comment. The Planning Commission itself
serves as the Advisory Group for development proposals within the industrial park area.
Therefore, no notices beyond that required for the public hearing have been sent. All in all, we
believe the plans to be in order and, therefore, would recommend approval of the amendment for
the development of the Global Industries office /industrial building. Approval of this application
should acknowledge findings, considerations and conditions that are comparable to those made
in previous City Council resolutions. A draft Planning Commission resolution is offered for the
Commission's consideration. This resolution outlines the Commission's consideration of this
matter and also recommended considerations and conditions for approval.
• 10-30-03
Page 5
� t I t'1 f�1 1 1 �- --�- -- d ► w - � --
d T
o
I
N �
A
I � ?
tn
Ul
LU
"r
I
- loewnH o
JAMES CtR. M.
� AD1211 � m� 4
....+ N
Lo
c l
Ln
r n 4 ° •N 'snv s
i
• c� iiRil� � O O
p Q
1 "�°� I O NMO
11
1
�ll� U o
1Z1 -
�� ^ Y`• ...
' I , �
C ;3
?•� S aU f i of ' �
'N I� 4 ) i'7rC KL
• I z •i f�. !l��iJ
a,
:f i �• '�` a r .•' YS• tSid�}•/ r'`�1< rr � r Y t
A °l; Y7'�TS+fj �Jt I� �F i� jj+t!�+�:s .��.•,'�,�sr 41= i����./�.Ytij�•�yC ;? �!
..� iL i • cy't'T ft r: t rCTr.. +j: y :ji�' ll: R} ,' 1 ^.a.�•t. h;t{.„ :' '.t/• f,(�t tt,, s !ti ;ft
:.d G;;sr: r ii • ,? r 4� � �l' a :, :s3' '} . 7;, :n + %� � ,. ,� •TS ��`�{.
3 � ).11:*:' r ::;. t• }rf .t ,;f "T -13.: ^! 5 sr•.... y"a ! . �':f „.
u�• i 1 f ' v M,� 'K��y Y. . .R'y }F . i j'•! �i �iN.•.• ��..
��Y�,;,�,�1h }�,. •Sy�r��%Siii:�`•�1 '� .;', t� "t� '� ,N} ,ct` " ?bc G. . t r.. �a.; ?•: Heir,
) kj .jja•'t a +�,; . e.t.a .l r ' r. { r..N fa'1 } : i:; er • ♦;.•' a J fi a 4''
.�vR ;y t� r . t Y i :2 t • t / St S'. •• r f t` �.�^.;• •.
:`,'r��G:G9.':�'4.•w:':'!�''ij yi�' " "f.S�r+.'r: I�y' rar .:' �• .ai�' ��; .; of ° � 'i' '�'Qjr j ':.� t'�•_ -7
't �� tY2 i!�':.'►• ! f ` • � IA: y r. • ' . .� ; v : � ` t _ i ai.9' .r; �• ��'
•ra�?ld:� � '�' j ff gg � ,st • 7f * � �St.�i' �.f . f . jv
?! :i :�w`•ie a Y M��i:) t � J•• R tJ 3� !1Y J: N FS 'ti '
4 '1,;;tt °a��"'�"A=.•,iF� SN »:{i7?'.:.xr9:^t _ +i• +;Ix�t1•' rra. t Y•yi• n ^ e f t «ti �t'a4'•3tlt� ;'l 4• . t' �_•'.
J.. 4, r q 4.r4a. •._!
^; .,[ f:' "•, �:i.W1 .•.` . r �d y r L
_ .,'� , :.�i!`.S t y S (�'!jyt'��{=t. %:.��!� ;,.y.•ti : r�i''A�i ra i'l'•• 45fi•5,j.�;ra�iv�
� r% ��.;���. .e f 411 �'e �>�i ,�� • � � 4/� Y ';: } �U' ,t t� • ' • ? .!':3.
_ « 't F�y. k„�r- r+t'� \, k2 l�+� •�. � ° •iy s � . '.'� { �`'r, •• . s
i�� • R ti L x� ''rte . : 4 F, • . q r :rr:�
'L� �\ f'�s ��.rY4�St:l�tf•(U {V�{j ���
City of Brooklyn Center
Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
• 1. Purpose
rn e
The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use
classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes
to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City
Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
2. Policy
It is the policy of the City that: A) Zoning classifications must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and, B) Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning ", defined as a
zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the
Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles.
3. Procedure
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and
against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City.
4. Guidelines
A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit?
• B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surroundin g land use
classifications?
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the
subject property?
D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the
subject property was zoned?
E. In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident?
F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed
zoning districts?
G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted'in the present zoning district, with .
respect to size, configuration, topography or location?
H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive
planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3) The best
interests of the community?
I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an
• individual parcel?
Section 35 -208
Revised 3 -01
•
Section 35 -341. 0-2 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
a. Public parks, playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational uses of a
noncommercial nature.
b. Commercial recreational facilities of a semi -open nature such as golf courses and golf
driving ranges.
c. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when located on the same
property with the use to which it is accessory but not including any business or
industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following:
1. Off - street parking.
2. Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields.
3. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
• Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose.
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land
development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site
features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design.
Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations.
a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed
by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either
the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the
City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning
classifications for the various parts of the PUD.
When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the
Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED."
b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing
• City of Brooklyn Center 35 -45 City Ordinance
• the underlying zoning district subject to the following:
1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at
the time of rezoning to PUD.
2. Regulations are modified b implication only to the extent necessary to comply
Y p Y �'Y p Y
with the development plan of the PUD.
3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD- MIXED, the Council shall specify
regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district.
c. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land
adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD
district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the
zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD- MIXED, the
underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as
a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the
most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties.
Subdivision 3. Development Standards.
a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the
floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights -of -way, unless
the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists:
1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding
neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain
feature of importance to the neighborhood or community;
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way from property
which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as
and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or
3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the
development will be used as a buffer between the uses.
b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with
Section 35 -400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed
these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted
standards.
• City of Brooklyn Center 35 -46 City Ordinance
•
C. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35 -400
to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to
the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a
screening treatment or other mitigative measures.
d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking
requirements contained in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance unless the developer can
demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the
grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD.
The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the
property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are
otherwise approved by the City.
Subdivision 4. General Standards.
a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted
lot within a PUD.
b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted
provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section.
• c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Y Y Y p
d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or
subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance
with the approved development plan and site plan.
e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets,
utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to
modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council
may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are
not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found
that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City, except that these
subdivisions and plans must be in conformance with all watershed, state, and federal
storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements.
Subdivision 5. Application and Review.
a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The
development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation
• City of Brooklyn Center 35 -47 City Ordinance
• by the Planning Commission.
Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and
Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as
the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the
following:
1. Street and utility locations and sizes;
2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas;
3. A grading plan, including temporary and permanent erosion control provisions;
4. A landscape plan;
5. A lighting plan;
6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development;
7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development;
8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas;
9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be
constructed in at least the first phase of development; and
10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications.
Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and
accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City.
b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice
of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice
shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35-
210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and
make
such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding
the plan within the time
limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance.
c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City
Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City
Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by
Section 35 -210 of this ordinance.
• City of Brooklyn Center 35 -48 City Ordinance
Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and
conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided
in Section 35 -208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the
rezoning upon the following criteria:
1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section;
2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and
4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking
facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and
landscaping.
The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be
necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district.
d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval
pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically
required by Section 35 -230, the developer shall submit such information as may be
• deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed
development with the approved development plan.
The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in substantial
compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean
that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously
approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more
than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased
by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open
space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage
of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent.
e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development
agreement in a form satisfactory to the City.
f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by
Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously.
g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35-
230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued
• City of Brooklyn Center 35 -49 City Ordinance
® DLR Group
• Architecture Engineering Planning Interiors
9521 West 78th Street
September 30, 2003 Minneapolis, MN 55344 -3853
tel 952/941 -8950
fax 952/941 -7965
City of Brooklyn Center minneapolis @dlrgroup.com
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway www.dlrgroup.com
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199
Attn: Ronald Warren
Re: Global North, Brooklyn Center, MN
4003120 -00
Dear: Mr. Warren
We are submitting the Global North project, located at the NW corner of the Shingle Creek
Parkway and Freeway Blvd intersection, for PUD Amendment to be reviewed at the regular
planning commission meeting scheduled for November 13, 2003. This letter is being written in
response to the guidelines establishes in Section 35 -208, "Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review
Guidelines ".
A. This proposed project does serve as a public benefit due to the fact that the project is being
developed by an International Company and will bring further positive exposure to the City
of Brooklyn Center. In addition, of all of the projects that have been proposed for this site,
• this project is one of the few that has not been a restaurant of gas station.
B. The existing zoning and Planned Unit Development is compatible with the surrounding
land use classification. The project consists of approximately 6,000 SF of office space and
21,000 SF of warehouse space with four truck docks and a drive -in dock. None of the
truck trailers will be parked overnight.
C. The current zoning or PUD districting has not impeded the project. The only issue at large
is the cost of soil amendments to bring the building pad up to acceptable building code
driven standards. The current zoning/PUD has provided a financial environment that will
help make this project feasible.
D. We are currently unaware of any substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the
area since the property was zoned as a PUD.
E. The current PUD zoning will allow Global to develop the site with an industry that is
financially sound and provide greater employment diversity to the community, beyond just
restaurant and service stations.
F. The project will respond to all ordinance driven restrictions such as, but not limited to, the
screening of roof top mechanical equipment so they can not be seen from the ground,
signage will conform to current ordinances, building materials are precast, window curtain
wall and metal wall panels of colors that will blend with the surrounding buildings,
landscaping will include a sprinkler system and trees, building setbacks to help create a
landscape buffer, and 59 additional parking stalls will be provided that will also meet the
current ordinances. This project will have no problem responding to any of the other
published ordinances that are in place.
G. This project is perfectly suited to the current PUD zoning that is in place for this site.
H. This amendment to the current PUD zoning is in the best interests of the community due to
the fact that it is occurring within a current PUD and is able to respond to many of the
•
Minneapolis Chicago Colorado Springs Des Moines Farmington Honolulu
P g Kansas City Milwaukee
Omaha Orlando Overland Park Philadelphia Phoenix Portland Sacramento Seattle Tampa
Ronald Warren
September 30, 2003
Page 2
purposes of a PUD such as development of a currently empty site, a building that will
• blend with the surrounds as well as have its own architectural identity and bring further
character to the neighborhood, the existing retention pond will be improved for better
water retention and sedimentation of storm water drainage. These are many of the goals
that a PUD is founded on.
I. This project does demonstrate merit beyond the interest of the current owner due to the
fact that the building and site are being developed to maintain good visibility of the
adjacent hotel from the intersection of shingle creek and freeway blvd (a responsive
neighbor). The retention pond is being cleaned up, de- brushed, and the storm water inlets
are being improved for better storm water management, trees and landscaping are being
g p g p g g
incorporated to further enhance the site from the adjacent roadway as well as create a more
pleasant curb appeal. In .Addition, the external design of the building is sensitive to the
large box image, which is often projected by a warehouse, by developing the articulation of
the facade to reduce the visual scale as well as create a playful, yet subtle, mosaic image.
We are excited about this project and the opportunities that the City of Brooklyn Center has
made possible to date. This site will provide Global with easy access to the surrounding
metropolitan area and the clients it serves, as well as providing the City with more economic
diversity. If we can clarify any other outstanding issues please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
DLR Group
i
• Matthew C. Johnson
Principal in the Firm
CC: Jon Soll ( Global; tax, 856.596.5684)
•
DLR Group
Minneapolis, Minnesota
tel 952/941 -8950
fax 952/941 -7965
XBRO Iy of KLYN
MEMORANDUM R
DATE: October 6, 2003
TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works t
SUBJECT: Global North — 2050 Freeway Blvd
Planning Commission Application 2003 -019
The Public Works Department reviewed the following plans sheets as submitted for review
under Planning Commission Application 2003 -019 for the Global North facility.
• Topographic Survey, Sheet CO. 1, dated September 26, 2003
• Site Demolition Plan, Sheet C1.1, dated September 25, 2003
• Site Layout Plan, Sheet C2.1, dated September 29, 3004
• Site Grading and Drainage Plan, Sheet C3.1, dated September 29, 2003
• Site Mechanical Utilities Plan, Sheet C4.1, dated September 29, 2003
• The preliminary site plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least
the following conditions:
Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer
An 8 -inch diameter water main currently extends across the northern portion of the site. This
main was installed during development of the AmericInn site to provide a loop between the 12-
inch diameter water main within Freeway Boulevard and the 10 -inch diameter water main within
Shingle Creek Parkway. An 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer service is stubbed to the southwest
corner of the property to serve the proposed building.
1. Based on the survey data submitted, it appears that a majority of the existing water main
within the site was constructed outside of the utility easement. The water main will be
relocated back within the easement as proposed by the site development plans.
2. The location of the proposed gate valve shall be shifted approximately 12 feet toward the
western property line. The existing tee and unutilized service stub shall be removed to
avoid future maintenance problems.
3. The applicant shall coordinate water shut -down for valve installation with the Water
Utility and owners of Americlnn.
• 4. The applicant shall verify that the existing sanitary structure located in the southwest
corner of the property is structurally sound and watertight. The casting elevation shall be
adjusted to surface grade prior to connecting the sewer service to the building plumbing.
GADepts\Public WorksTngineering\Development & Planning \Global North \Site Plan reviewl0 -6.doc
• 5. A utility connection permit will be required for the proposed water main. Water and
sanitary sewer connection charges will be due at the time of permit application.
6. The proposed site plan shall be subject to the approval of the City Fire Chief, including
hydrant spacing requirements and any other requirements of the Fire Department.
Storm Water Drainage
Storm water runoff from the Global North, Americlnn and Minnesota State High School League
properties currently flows to the existing storm water management basin located at Shingle
Creek Parkway and Freeway Blvd. The basin was originally planned during preparation of a
storm water management feasibility study for Shingle Creek Business Center in 1986. The
applicant will need to complete the following items.
1. Revise plans to show the existing 27 -inch diameter storm sewer extending across the
southern portion of the site to the detention basin.
2. Field locate the existing catch basin structure near the western property line, verify
structural condition, and replace casting as necessary.
3. Revise the drainage plan to show the invert, pipe size, pipe grade and material of the
existing outlet pipe for the detention basin.
• 4. Install rip ap material at the inlet and outlet pipes of the detention basin.
p Pp
5. Provide an earthwork calculation showing that the proposed grading within the drainage
easement will not result in a net decrease in the storage capacity of the storm water
detention facility.
6. Provide HyrdoCad (or equivalent) storm water drainage calculations to the Engineering
Division for review. The existing detention basin shall be expanded as necessary to
maintain a high water level of 845.5 for the 5 -year, 24 -hour storm event. .
Site Layout and Grading
1. An erosion control plan shall be developed for the proposed site work. Erosion control
measures shall be installed prior to starting site grading operations.
2. An NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site.
3. The grading plan shall be revised to provide side slopes along the detention facility at a
maximum of 1:4 or flatter.
•
GADepts\Public WorksTngineering\Development & Planning \Global North \Site Plan reviewl0 -6.doc
i -
GLOBAL NORTH
,ow
w
0
2050 FREEWAY BLVD
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN GENERAL STRUCTURAL
55430 G "z s.MEDLEAD ERRE "IATID� �o::o�P °; EEL _ _
mi Eae nc c�AR�riRS. vEi "E: RE.e
.✓ r i t
CIVIL s : PR M.MGPL n.aRSTLEVEL.AREAS - -
_
, .
OWNER GRAPRIC &MVFY - Un AL
s TE = cruRU OETaLS -
_
C3 t SITE G quo OF TIE
SITE PLwe
G 1 MECRq,aCA1.l?4�TIEE PLW
GLOBAL INDUSTRIES MECHANICAL�� = "�
ACP AM RE B -- r
17 WEST STOW ROAD ARCHITECTURAL
P.O. BOX 562 Ptt DR,E - 1-E CODE PUN Ms MEC ARIC AL6CNEDULESARDDETAIS L_1
MARLTON, NJ 08053 Al211 «P " —A. RDOMP' «IS "S°EDnE PLUMBING
oP PUw
PHONE: 856.596.3390 S n - AREnA
A]+ WNL SECTOMB P,1 PLUMBI AREAS
FAX: 856.596.5684
CONTACT: JON SOLL FIRE PROTECTION SKETCH REDERING IS FOR CONCEPT ONLY
AN[ NOT BE ACCURATE
OTECTIDR PLAn AREA A
PPS 2 P,RE PROTFCiIDR PLAn � eREAB
ARCH ITE T
C /ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL
9
ED, ECTRICA<S
DLR GROUP E. ar" 9
Ez�co ARE
w>!RP ARE L. . °,... ' "• m. r, ..,.,, :...
9521 WEST 78TH STREET _ "A �~ ` to
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55344.3853 E°: SPECIAL S.STEMSP «. RE , ..R e P °;� 5 ", z =
PHONE: 952.941.8950 �" ° „ °.° ^•° E
FAX: 952.941.7965 .......
CONTACT: NATHAN MILLER
GENERAL CONTRACTOR „° ° m
Lli C)
ANDERSON BUILDERS v
.
4208 PARK GLEN ROAD a. , mom , ...... ....
h
,
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 REGIONAL MAP MAPOUES1 COM
PHONE: 952.927.5400
FAX: 952.927.5444 ,..�....�.
CONTACT: GREG ANDERSON ' ' " "'•" ,°„, m ° ° ^^ "' �
�P pp - F vcnn A an ..
It
�
a LOCAL MAP MAPOUESTCOM
L 0 �61
z
z
�o ,
W w S
> Y
W
cGNGRETE LURE
w 725G.a� r , 3 o.,. ___ ___��______- �_ -___._ _
NBa'15'397 >� 1
-- vv �
= --7� �.n
_
PARKING � i I � g �� rc n � s ,r re z,ra« unEa
- 1133.88
8 y �.�' I vE- :vv., -.t E+cculn� . xEEUErn I
25'13'11 G-
I �
I I _A81 E �+ U
33.34
p
O
- - Rw j c�
w' ,wc[i,acoa - ..�« -�. �
S FREEWAY
288 1
RO `, " s.n :e , - ;E,
:
s
TOP
� OGRAPHIC AL
SURVEY
2050 FREEWAY BLVD. O i
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN €
w I..
,E ,m cu e�c' 1 I Englnem Surw,ore - � E ;
!!'''��' lonASCepe ArcRilecle Q
•
, II
�b I
i
�A
_ � '
•/ l i i j N
/-- -- -- -+ I —�
_L-
gill
/ s Ln —t—
i
�1 m _, I
I
C �
z
_-- --
DLR Group I C2.1 SITE LAYOUT PLAN I DEVELOPMENT
A�dntcpure Engvreemg Wannrcq Mlemrz GLOBAL NORTH
F
Z
ZW
0 a
LU
CL
r
Iv
l
I .
I r
I
r
i
r
r I
r l Q
I nxun rtow ¢cvnna - v ao , --I
w
4 f z
I �
r o=
�m
w O
I ' r
F—
U)
r ,
.I pL I r � Uaa
,
is
SITE GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
• • i
,
l
I �f
I
,
G i
S• .4 SE �__ — J� I
,
• / s; I
,
�e6a
E ru I
,
ti
m
v
z
C4.1 SITE MECHANICAL UTILITIES PLAN DESIGN
16 DLR Group m DEVELOPMENT
A,,,,— E , „,e; ,, M,.�R GLOBAL NORTH �,.a
• Il i I 1
I
I
_ I
i 1
, I 1
1
1 ,
1 ,
I
1
s _
/g?
�v
1
�..� , '
a �sarl� +,��iSau I
L
L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN DESIGN
DLR Group DEVELOPMENT
GLOBAL NORTH.a
Z
LU
ul o _1
Lu
�
ul
o
- 'I �ml IR
n WEST ELEVATION
- i
IRIQi1 [I[ff11IC111iI1f1111i1i1tltl ° � ' � i i ! 6 �I
n EAST ELEVATION
N
Z
n� n n nm _ > UJI
JO
w Z
NORTH ELEVATION - WAREHOUSE ^ SOUTH ELEVATION - WAREHOUSE J
O Q
D' m
w 0
X - j
w CD
4 n
F
F1 F1
<
a��
n NORTH ELEVATION - SHOWROO n SOU H ELEVATIO - SHOWROOM �D ETAI' DETAIL DETAIL
3
s" t
as DETAIL /mil DETAIL
DETAIL DETAIL n C DETAIL D DETAIL
-" C D TAIL C 61
•
• l •
b.Y a.E az az 0o IS I. I., °.. to to to LEGEND NOTES �
Z
IS an to be an b.° to a.° a.. ax ax .. I. as a. b. as V. be It a.. a.x I. a.{ ao an 50 z a �
to to bo to to to an bn ao by to to to b1 5z as I., as bs b.0 b0 by Io 1.1 It t0 as as bz L. to to h 5n w 0 !�
W
> f
to to It to be bo to It on ao bn b.. I. to as as 1.E 1.., 1. 1. It ' is 50 5., 5.1 b.s 1.3 Io a. bz o.1 to to 5.0 to W
5a bo 5o to 0e b.o 5.0 oe to 5a ba It a3 as 1.x 3 4 x3 o, Ss Sa as' ..o { s.i 5e 3e 14 by oa b.1 o.o to to to e.°
aY be So bo a° 0o to I bl a3 b3 b. bs I. Ss 3. .o is 5z .a 59 Se So 4e os !o S.. It o. oz b° be be ee o0
W. to be 5° to ' be to b, as b3 to bo 1.1 1.3 0.. ro '!1 IS 1. 53 t.3 Lo to 11 11 i{ bo b4 be to 'to I. o° to
ao So e 0 to an a.o b,. be 54 be 9z 1 L L i.0 1. 1 . 50 1 s .zs � :• .. av o. 03 as o,a to to to 5a
bo 1. o.0 5.0 5,0 I. I I b.z It 1.1 o.e 4.0 13 Wi o.e as os as I 0 to It 1, to to a b.0 53 n. al ee to It e0 be
to IS a.1 b. I.o to 51 5.4 is b.. b. 53 b3 be' to to t t an to I.s bs az b{ as b.. an to to b,o
b,o
to 5.1 - b.3 as to io iz is 5s oa 1.2 ba Ia to bz b° bo a.o to it bs by to bo be bo to to
00 6 to ,50 5.1 'z.z .a. {, :.e is IS SA b3 5a t.. to 0a I. IS to ie a.. 'U b.1 bn 5.0 on n bn
IS an 'A. b3 ba lzz 5o iz os I. as b0 4 to an It It 50 5� bs oz 0.1 an- It bo on to
to to I. a. 0s as 5,1 ;, i.e 5a 1.3 bs -, b3 - ,b e.s o0 on 0n to It }o 1.s az b1 to 0.o as 1. V.
It as 1.i i.� S.s Se is 30 ba, 5.0 1. bo to a.. to au 44 b.s as o1 to bn 0o to
bn 1, to to ln 3s' Ss in is ° b> o.o to to to - an ' -an . to b.3 b{ 5,1 to a° to r Yn
ba IS' t.1 a1 lz 53 ko i.. 1c b h 1. It to to bn It I S is b a1 ai to b.0 to to
It b.. a{ o. 12 5.e 5,3 bs oa 19 b> 1e to It en to oe to 0 b.z 1.e o.1 0. to 00 0,o b.0
bn 1, 4 I 1.1 1. i.i i.z an la be iz to IS bo on to 1. 1.e to bz a{ to to 1'0 1. o° Z
g
ao b1 IS b. to a, S0 a.o !, io: bo to b,e ae bo b0 0o b.e !s b3 b. bl to to Ie 7. 1 d =
t W F-
It I '�{' be 5., To Sa ie o.s Iz as b.i z to b bn IS I. 10 I. o, bl bo to It 1... as t cr
.: L <n O
a.3 be Li .o,l a.z a.. '4 1.0 5e 1.s ao b a.. to to 50 1 .0 e bz 51 0.1 0.0 6o to 0 It
J z
• U J
to a. 'ox 13 13 Ss b. .3 Y.E ` be a, 01 to to to I to a, a{ t I. to ee to Q
5.o as ;
IS bz IS is 4.v io 4a .ba o. b, 1 I. be b3 b3 b{ 3. to I. bo It to („) O
W J
on h IS os iz 51 50 ... 4z a3 6 _N o.° to to o.. az 0.1 ae o° 00 3.o ao 00 S j (D
J
to I. 5.1 b. I,. 4s :$g i.z 16 to b `�1 an 50 5 d is e.. 51 5a °o on I. to en t
o° as az 5s b 3.0 '4.0 3v 1. b.0 be d o 00 5s a3 51 5{ on bo to I. 0o ao
W. e r t-
h. bz" 1. to U 5.. s ,5s 11 1' 6.a I. .o b.o bz a.{ bu to b.0 to 6o to b.e O
° Wt
IS 5.. by iz !.. "1. 50 4a: 1z Iz to ! I as 1. o, to an o0 0o to to I.
B.1 IS be bo 1.7 5.3 No .3 Ss 5a ' 1a bo a.s 1.2 o. to 5.1 to to a.0 b° It It &o I
b3 b.z IS to is IS Ior. is 5:9„ IS 1° 1.6 ba 18 $4 1.1 to It an to IS b0 '10 to
to on ba b3 ba 1..1 5.3 04 to an o,e 1- 6.1 b.. 12 b3 b.1 to to an to b,o as to to
be It oo 1.0 a1 to a.. as ^' be t° S.. 1e 06 14 az %.1 11 1.0 to a° 5o t I to to to
F
I. 5e b0 bo bo 03 Bz as 53 oa e. 5.a 5z 5.1 a1 50 0,0 I. So 53 50 b.o IS ba 1 5e
to to to b,o to to al 5.1 b{ b.l bl I a{ 5a 6.0 0.0 5.0 It to IS It 5.° on b0 I ao L £' �
0.0 0.o to to °.0 5.e as to 5.0 50 0.o as I., oo °.°a.o ho It to , 5e be to an to 1'. a.0 u w
5n ba. on bn oo be IS to I.o to to It IS be 54 to to to to It to be a0 IS It 50 0 u
1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN
d
to ., , to an to an U be a.° to 1. an IS U to to b.o a3o
A
• adoption: Member Boeck introduced the following resolution and moved its
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -03
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2003 -019 SUBMITTED BY
DLR GROUP
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 94 -253 adopted on November 28, 1994
and City Council Resolution No. 95 -157 adopted on July 10, 1995, approved a PUD/I -1 rezoning of
the general area located northwesterly of the intersections of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek
Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center approved Planning
Commission Application 96020 on November 25, 1996, which was an amendment to the Planned
Unit Development allowing the development of an AmericInn on Tract A, RLS 1690 and
acknowledging future development of Tract B, RLS 1690 to be other than a fast food/convenience
food restaurant or gasoline service station; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -019 has been submitted
by DLR Group as an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for this area to allow
construction of an approximate 27,000 sq. ft. office /industrial complex on Tract B, RLS 1690; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on October
30, 2003 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development
amendment were received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development
amendment request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings
contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit
Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission
of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2003 -019
submitted by DLR Group be approved in light of the following considerations:
1. The Planned Unit Development amendment is compatible with the standards,
purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in
question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of
comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding
• land.
i
• 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under this Planned Unit Development
amendment is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with
City Ordinance standards for the I -1 underlying zoning district.
4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered compatible with the
recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city.
5. The Planned Unit Development amendment appears to be a g ood long range use of
the existing land and can be considered an asset to the community.
6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating
rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met
and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council the approval of Application No. 2003 -019 be
subject to the following conditions and considerations:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with
respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
• 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be
determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
permits.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment
shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet
NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to
facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas as
approved by the City Engineer.
2
• 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee.
10. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement with the City for the
maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as recommended
by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
11. The plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to show:
a. A masonry screen wall along the north side of the proposed loading dock area.
b. Modification to the landscape plan to provide 201 landscape points
c. Exterior building treatment that is in accordance with building elevations
submitted and dated October 30, 2003.
12. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to
the City of Brooklyn Center's standards specifications and details.
13. The applicant shall obtain an NPDES permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and shall also provide adequate erosion control as approved by the City's
Engineering Department.
14. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to
• be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of permits.
Said agreement shall acknowledge the Planned Unit Development amendment and
shall be filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits
for this development. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the
development plans submitted with this application.
Chair
AT EST
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Newman and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Erdmann, Newman, and Reem
and the following voted against the same: None
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
3
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
• RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2003 -019 SUBMITTED BY
DLR GROUP
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 94 -253 adopted on November 28, 1994
and City Council Resolution No. 95 -157 adopted on July 10, 1995, approved a PUD/I -1 rezoning of
the general area located northwesterly of the intersections of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek
Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center approved Planning
Commission Application 96020 on November 25, 1996, which was an amendment to the Planned
Unit Development allowing the development of an AmericInn on Tract A, RLS 1690 and
acknowledging future development of Tract B, RLS 1690 to be other than a fast food/convenience
food restaurant or gasoline service station; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -019 has been submitted
by DLR Group as an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for this area to allow
construction of an approximate 27,000 sq. ft. office /industrial complex on Tract B, RLS 1690; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on October
• 30, 2003 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development
amendment were received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning
Commission Application No. 2003 -019 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003 -03
on October 30, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Planning Commission Application No.
2003 -019 at their November 10, 2003 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this Planned Unit Development
amendment request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings
contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit
Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2003 -019 submitted by DLR Group be approved in light of
the following considerations:
• 1
RESOLUTION NO.
1. The Planned Unit Development Amendment is compatible with the standards,
• purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The Planned Unit Development Amendment will allow for the utilization of the
land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of
comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding
land.
3. The utilization of the property as proposed under this Planned Unit Development
Amendment is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with
City Ordinance standards for the I -1 underlying zoning district.
4. The Planned Unit Development Amendment is considered compatible with the
recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city.
5. The Planned Unit Development Amendment appears to be a good long range use of
the existing land and can be considered an asset to the community.
6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating
rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met
and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community.
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that
approval of Application No. 2003 -019 be subject to the following conditions and considerations:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with
respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be
determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
permits.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment
shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet
NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to
facilitate site maintenance.
• 2
RESOLUTION NO
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
. Ordinances.
8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas as
approved by the City Engineer.
9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and
utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee.
10. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement with the City for the
maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as recommended
by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
11. The plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to show:
a. A masonry screen wall along the north side of the proposed loading dock area.
b. Modification to the landscape plan to provide 201 landscape points
c. Exterior building treatment that is in accordance with building elevations
submitted and dated October 30, 2003.
12. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to
the City of Brooklyn Center's standards specifications and details.
• 13. The applicant shall obtain an NPDES permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and shall also provide adequate erosion control as approved by the City's
Engineering Department.
14. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to
be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of permits.
Said agreement shall acknowledge the Planned Unit Development amendment and
shall be filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits
for this development. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the
development plans submitted with this application.
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.
3
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
• OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
October 30, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Stephen Erdmann, Rex Newman, and
Dianne Reem were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning
and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca
Crass. Commissioner Sean Rahn was absent and excused. Commissioner Whitehead was
absent and unexcused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 25.2003
There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem,
to approve the minutes of the September 25, 2003 meeting as submitted. The motion passed.
Commissioner Boeck abstained since he was not at the meeting.
• CHAIR'S EXPLANATION,
Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings,
the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
APPLICATION NO. 2003 -019 DLR GROUP
Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2003 -019, a request for a Planned Unit Development
Amendment to build an approximate 27,000 sq. ft. office /industrial building for Global
Industries on a 2.3 acre parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and
Shingle Creek Parkwa y. The property is zoned PUD /I -1 Planned Unit Development/Industrial
Park). ( p
Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal.
(See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated October 30, 2003 for Application No. 2003-
019 and the Director of Public Works /City Engineer's memo dated October 6, 2003, attached.)
A Planned Unit Development Rezoning of this property was approved on November 27, 1994,
with approval of a Country Harvest Buffet Restaurant, which was never built. A subsequent
PUD approval accommodated appropriate common parking areas for the properties located in
this general area and was approved on July 10, 1995. A PUD amendment was approved in 1996
for the AmericInn and the division of the property, which created the 2.3 acre parcel under
consideration in this application
•
10 -30 -03
Page 1
• Commissioner Erdmann expressed his concern with the close proximity of the entrance to the
site along Freeway Boulevard as it relates to the neighboring site access and parking. The
applicant explained that the plan creates a "dead end" zone in the parking lot, which was their
original plan. Mr. Warren stated that this could reviewed in more detail with the applicant prior
to the issuance of permits to provide for the best possible access situation given the established
location for the access.
PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2003 -019
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to open the
public hearing on Application No. 2003 -019 at 8:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Willson called for comments from the public.
The Architect, Matthew Johnson, introduced himself and passed out elevation drawings to the
Commissioners. Mr. Johnson explained that he has been working with the owner to try to keep
costs low and explained some of the differences between the plans submitted with the application
and those shown at tonight's meeting reflecting changes to the building exterior plans. He also
explained revisions to the windows on the building that they are proposing. Mr. Johnson asked
for clarification as to what is required of the screen wall along the loading dock. Mr. Warren
responded that it should be sufficient height to fully screen the view of any truck trailers parked
in the loading area.
• Commissioner Reem inquired about truck access on the site. Mr. Johnson responded that trucks
would enter and exit on Shingle Creek Parkway and not Freeway Boulevard.
No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on
Application No. 2003 -019.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to close the
public hearing on Application No. 2003 -019, at 8:26 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commission
agreed that the building exterior presented this evening by the applicant was acceptable and
should be included as part of the recommended plan submission.
The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application.
ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2003 -019 — DLR GROUP
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman to approve
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003 -03 regarding the recommended disposition of
Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -019 submitted by DLR Group.
The Council will consider the recommendation at its November 10, 2003 meeting. The applicant
• must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission
will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration.
10 -30 -03
Page 2
• OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Reem asked Mr. Warren about a sign at a dentist office along Brooklyn
Boulevard. She stated that it appears to be larger than what is allowed. Mr. Warren responded
that he would check it out. Commissioners further inquired about the Evans Nordby parking lot.
Mr. Warren responded that as best as he can determine it meets with what was approved but that
he has received a few complaints from residents and will look at the screening question further.
The Commissioners further discussed the site near the Wickes Distribution Center where
Caribou Coffee will be located.
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Boeck, to adjourn
the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
8:40 p.m.
Chair
• Recorded and transcribed by:
Rebecca Crass
•
10 -30 -03
Page 3
City Council Agenda Item No. 10a
i
City Brook y f n Center y
A Millennium Community
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kra ness Councilmembers Carmody, Niesen and Pe
Y g Y� � pp e
FROM: Michael J. McCaule
DATE: November 6, 2003
SUBJECT: Amendments to City ouncil Handbook
Attached is a resolution amending the City Council Handbook regarding protocols for agenda action
items and e -mail. Based on the Council's continuing discussions regarding enhancements to City
Council processes, the attached resolution provides a standardized format to handle agenda action
items, other than public hearings. (The City Council Handbook already contains a similar protocol
for conducting public hearings.) This proposed protocol will clearly delineate the format for
handling action items.
• The City Council electronic mail protocol is in response to Council discussion with the City Attorney
regarding ways to ensure that e -mails are handled in accordance with State Law. The proposed
policy clearly defines when and how e -mail would be used by City Council Members so as to avoid
any possible questions with respect to the Open Meeting Law or other issues.
10 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
i
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL HANDBOOK REGARDING PROTOCOL FOR
AGENDA ACTION ITEMS AND E -MAIL
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a City Council Handbook on January 23, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to modify its Handbook, adding protocol for agenda action
items and e-mail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
that the City Council Handbook be and hereby is amended to add the following language to the section entitled
Agenda as follows:
Protocol for All Action Items on the Agenda (those following the Consent Agenda, other than Public
Hearing):
1. Mayor states subject matter of the agenda item.
2. Mayor calls upon the City Manager to provide a staff report
a. City Manager
i. Reports on the agenda item
3. Mayor asks if there are any questions from the City Council
a. Council asks questions
• i. Discussion is not in order at this point
ii. Statements of opinion or position are not in order at this point
4. Mayor asks if there is a motion after the opportunity for City Council questions
5. Council makes and seconds motion (for purposes of discussion)
6. Mayor asks if there is any discussion on the motion:
a. In order at this time are:
i. Comments
ii. Statements support/opposition
iii. Additional questions
iv. Germane motions
1. table
2. amend
b. Mayor recognizes Council Members wishing to discuss
i. All Council Members shall have an opportunity to discuss before a member shall be
recognized to speak more than once
ii. Council Members shall directly address the specific motion and keep their remarks
germane to that motion
iii. Council may make motion to limit or terminate discussion
1. This motion shall not be in order until each Council Member shall have had an
opportunity to speak on the motion.
c. Mayor asks if there is further discussion (unless discussion has been terminated by motion)
i. If there is none
7. Mayor calls for a vote on the motion
a. Mayor restates motion if requested by a Council Member
• 8. City Council votes on the motion
RESOLUTION NO.
•
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City
Council Handbook be and hereby is amended to add the following language to the section entitled Policy on
Council Use of Electronic Mail and Voice Mail as follows:
City Council Electronic Mail Protocol
In addition to the general policies regarding the use of City e-mail, the following protocol shall be observed by the
City Council Members with respect to the use of e-mail and avoidance of possible Open Meeting Law issues:
1. City Council members will not e-mail between or among themselves except for the limited purpose of-
a. Notifying Council Members that they will not be able to attend a meeting of the City Council, a
City Commission, or other meeting to which they have been invited as a City Council Member
2. City Council Members may direct e-mail to the City Manager, without copy to the City Council, any
requests that items be placed on an agenda or informational items that they would like to have the City
Council receive.
a. The City Manager will place agenda request items on the appropriate agenda upon the Council
Member's request or place an item on a work session agenda to discuss with the City Council
whether the Council wishes to have the item placed on an agenda.
b. The City Manager will distribute general informational items received from City Council
• members through the weekly update or City mail.
c. If the City Manager fails to place an item on either a regular or work session agenda, a Council
Member may raise the issue under the miscellaneous portion of a Study Session or Work Session.
City Council members may raise requests to place an item on a future agenda during the
miscellaneous portion of the study or work session agendas without having first requested their
placement through the City Manager.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
•
To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members C asman, Niesen, and Peppe
From: Michael J. McCauley
City Manager
Date: October 24, 2003
Re: Council Protocols: Possible Additions to City Council Handbook
There are two proposals for City Council discussion that may be helpful in formalizing
procedures and expectations in two areas:
a) City Council e -mail
b) Standardization of procedure on agenda items.
The e -mail proposal would provide a clear policy on the use of e -mail that would avoid
any gray areas regarding whether a Council Member should e -mail another Council
Member. The protocol would also provide the expectation that if the City Manager did
not place an agenda request on a work session agenda or regular agenda, the Council
Member would use the miscellaneous portion of a study or work session agenda to raise
• the issue for City Council direction on placing the matter on the appropriate future
agenda.
The City Council Handbook currently specifies a format for handling public hearings that
outlines when questions can be asked following staff presentation. Robert's Rules of
Order has rather formal and limiting procedures that may not be appropriate for a small
legislative body, (which is acknowledged in Robert's Rules itself). I have placed on the
Work Session Agenda a proposed protocol for your consideration and discussion that
might serve a useful purpose in developing a standard format for all agenda items. This
format is a modification of the format currently set forth in the City Council Handbook
for public hearings. This format has an opportunity for questions before a motion is made
and then an opportunity for discussion after a motion is made. The protocol would limit
City Council discussion to the time after a motion is made and limit that discussion to
matters germane to the actual motion. Questions, not statements of position or debate,
would be in order prior to a motion. Questions could also be made during the
discussion/debate period. The protocol acknowledges current City Council handbook
policy and Robert's Rules of Order provisions for motions to terminate or limit debate,
but expands on those provisions to indicate that such a motion is not in order until all
City Council members who wish to speak on a motion have had the opportunity.
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(768)569-3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityofbrookly?7.center.org
• City Council E -mail protocol
In addition to the general policies regarding the use of City e -mail, the following protocol
shall be observed by the City Council Members with respect to the use of e -mail and
avoidance of possible open meeting law issues:
1. City Council members will not e -mail between or among themselves except for the
limited purpose of:
a. Notifying council members that they will not be able to attend a meeting of the
City Council, a City Commission, or other meeting to which they have been
invited as a City Council Member
2. City Council members may direct e -mail to the City Manager, without copy to the City
Council, any requests that items be placed on an agenda or informational items that they
would like to have the City Council receive.
a. The City Manager will place agenda request items on the appropriate agenda upon
the Council Member's request or place an item on a work session agenda to
discuss with the City Council whether the Council wishes to have the item placed
on an agenda.
b. The City Manager will distribute general informational items received from City
Council members through the weekly update or city mail.
C. If the City Manager fails to place an item on either a regular or work session
• agenda, a Council Member may raise the issue under the miscellaneous portion of
a Study Session or Work Session. City Council members may raise requests to
place an item on a future agenda during the miscellaneous portion of the study or
work session agendas without having first requested their placement through the
City Manager.
•
Protocol for all action items on the agenda (those following the consent agenda):
•
1. Mayor states subject matter of the agenda item.
2. Mayor calls upon the City Manager to provide a staff report
a. City Manager
i. Reports on the agenda item
3. Mayor asks if there are any questions from the City Council
a. Council asks questions
i. Discussion is not in order at this point
ii. Statements of opinion or position are not in order at this point
4. Mayor asks if there is a motion after the opportunity for City Council questions
5. Council makes and seconds motion (for purposes of discussion)
6. Mayor asks if there is any discussion on the motion:
a. In order at this time are:
i. Comments
ii. Statements support/opposition
iii. Additional questions
iv. Germane motions
1. table
2. amend
b. Mayor recognizes Council Members wishing to discuss
i. All council members shall have an opportunity to discuss before a member
shall be recognized to speak more than once
• ii. Council Members shall directly address the specific motion and keep their
remarks germane to that motion
iii. Council may make motion to limit or terminate discussion
1. This motion shall not be in order until each Council Member shall
have had an opportunity to speak on the motion.
c. Mayor asks if there is further discussion
,i. If there is none
7. Mayor calls for a vote on the motion
a. Mayor restates motion if requested by a Council Member
8. City Council votes on the motion
Other considerations /thoughts:
The Handbook does not provide for a parliamentarian. The Council may wish to consider
designating the City Attorney as the parliamentarian and having the parliamentarian directed
to raise a point of order in the event there is a departure from the protocols to assist the
presiding officer and council in staying on track with adopted protocols or with questions
related to motions and amendments.
•
I
City Council Agenda Item No. lOb
Cit o Brooklyn
y f n Center
y
A Millennium Community
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kra ness Councilmembers Carmody, Niesen and Pe
Y g , Y, , , pp e
FROM: Michael J. McCaule ?andRegaulations DATE: November 6, 2003
SUBJECT: City ersonnel Rule Prohibitin Firearms
tY g
The attached policy amendment would clearly prohibit persons other than sworn police officers or
police personnel handling weapons as part of their assigned tasks, from possessing firearms while
working in their official capacities. This policy is consistent with the recent changes in State Law.
While the City may not prohibit weapons carried by the general public, the changes in law do allow
the City, an employer, to to regulate the possession of weapons b employees, other than having
t3', p Y, g p P Y g
them in the trunks of their personal cars. This policy reflects changes made by a number of cities to
clearly delineate that employees, other than police officers or persons assigned to specific tasks,
• should not be carrying weapons when working for the City. This policy also prohibits having
weapons in vehicles while being driven for City business, even if it would be the employee's
personal vehicle. This policy provides guidance to our employees and would prohibit the presence
of weapons while such personnel are discharging their duties. The presence of weapons in the work
place, especially in areas where there are children, would be in appropriate and create potentially
dangerous situations.
0 301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Communit y Center Phone & TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 3 OF THE CITY'S PERSONNEL RULES AND
REGULATIONS BY ADDING A SECTION RELATING TO PROHIBITING FIREARMS
AT WORK
WHEREAS, on September 8, 1997, the Council adopted the City's Personnel Rules and
Regulations by Resolution No. 97 -161; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is in the public interest to provide for a safe work
environment for City employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
that the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations, Section 3 Conduct and Ethics, is amended by adding a new
subsection 3.11 as follows:
3.11 The possession or carrying of a firearm by City of Brooklyn Center employees, other than
sworn Police Officers, is prohibited while acting in the course and scope of employment for
the City, including working in City buildings, on City property or at any off -site location, and
while driving or riding in a City -owned vehicle in any location on behalf of the City. The
term "possession" includes but is not limited to storing firearms in lockers, desks, file
cabinets, etc., or in City -owned vehicles. For the purposes of this policy, employees are full -
and part-time regular employees; temporary, seasonal and recurring employees; City Council
members; City Advisory commission members; fire fighters; interns; volunteers; and
independent contractors.
• Any firearms brought onto City -owned parking areas by an employee must be placed out of
sight in a personal vehicle. The vehicle must be locked and all reasonable precautions taken
to prohibit unauthorized entry into the vehicle.
If a City employee drives his or her personal vehicle on any City business, including
responding to on -call work from home after regular work hours, he or she must remove any
firearm(s) from the vehicle prior to use of the vehicle for City business.
Non -sworn employees of the Brooklyn Center Police Department may handle firearms as
necessary to fulfill their job requirements such as marking or transporting evidence and
performing assigned tasks in the Police Department property room.
Violations of this policy are subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the City's
disciplinary procedures policy.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
• and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
City Council Agenda Item No. lOc
• Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO THE HENNEPIN
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND
WHEREAS, an application requesting grant funds from the Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund has been prepared for submission by the Economic Development
Authority (EDA) of Brooklyn Center, and
WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used for a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment of the Hmong American Shopping Center property; and
WHEREAS, the State Statute which created the Environmental Response Fund
requires approval by the governing body of the City for submission of a grant request to the
Environmental Response Fund.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Council supports the Environmental Financial Grant Application
submitted to the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services on November 1, 2003,
by the EDA of Brooklyn Center for the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the Hmong
• American Shopping Center property.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist
DATE: November 4, 2003
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving an Application to the Hennepin County Environmental
Response Fund
Earlier this year, the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services provided funding
to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on the Hmong American Shopping Center,
which has been identified as a potential redevelopment site. The Phase I study was funded
entirely by Hennepin County's Suburban Brownfield Assessment program and was completed in
April 2003.
The Phase I environmental study noted several environmental conditions, most of which were
relatively routine, but it also noted the following areas of concern:
• • Two closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites associated with former
gasoline stations exist on the southern portion of the property. Both sites were closed
with residual soil and groundwater contamination.
• One drycleaner formerly located in the northern portion of the site. Solvents are often
associated with drycleaners and may have impacted soil and/or groundwater if
improperly disposed.
In order to assess the extent and severity of the suspected contamination, if any exists at the site,
a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would have to be conducted. A Phase II study
involves physical investigation of the site including soil borings and analysis and examination of
ground water through the drilling of monitor wells.
For the past several months, staff has been working with the Hennepin County Department of
Environmental Services to secure funding for a Phase II environmental assessment. The
County's Bronwfield Assessment Grant program, funded by the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), was identified as a source of funding to conduct a Phase II on the site.
Unfortunately, expenditure of funds on other projects in the County depleted the EPA funds so
that the Phase 11 could not be funded exclusively with this program. Hennepin County indicated
to staff that the Phase II could possibly be funded with a combination of funds from the
Environmental Response Fund, a competitive grant program offered by Hennepin County, and
the EPA Brownfield's Assessment Fund.
•
•
With less than a week to submit the Environmental Response Fund (ERF) grant application after
county notification, staff prepared and submitted the application to Hennepin County by the
November 1, 2003 deadline. The total estimated cost of the Phase II assessment is $53,428. The
ERF application is for $37.000 with the remaining $16,428 coming from the EPA Brownfield
Assessment ro am. No matching fund
p gr g s are required by the EDA or the City. The resolution
before the City Council expresses support for submission of an Environmental Response Fund
application from the EDA to Hennepin County for the Phase II study. The State Statute, which
authorized the Environmental Response Fund, requires that the Governing Body of the City must
approve a resolution supporting the application. A copy of the grant application is included for
Council review with the EDA agenda along with a companion EDA resolution.
•
•
City Council Agenda Item No. lOd
I�
MEMORANDUM ""°`
BROOKLYN
CENTER
• DATE: October 30, 2003
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing 2004 Street and Storm Drainage Assessment Rates
Each year the City Council establishes assessment rates for Rl, R2, and R3 residential zoned
properties based on the City's Special Assessment Policy. Within these zoning districts, the
assessment rate for street improvements is based on a "unit amount" that applies to all single
family residential properties and represents a specific portion of the average cost for
reconstructing a typical residential street. Street assessments for non - residential and R4 to R7
residential properties are computed separately for each project.
The Special Assessment Policy indicates that a portion of the cost of substantial upgrades to the
storm drainage system can also be assessed and the assessment portion shall be the same as the
assessable portion of residential street improvement costs.
The average cost per single family residential lot for street and storm sewer improvements was
determined based on the 2003 average bid prices for the Happy Hollow Neighborhood Street
• Reconstruction Project. The resulting average construction costs per lot are $7,015 per lot for
street improvements and $2,230 per lot for storm drainage improvements.
Staff recommends that a value of 40 percent (specific portion) be used in establishing the street
and storm drainage assessment rates for 2004. Using the estimated construction costs provided
above, this would result in a unit amount of $2,806 for street improvements and $892 for storm
drainage improvements. The total assessment amount would be $3,698 per R1 single family
residential lot for street and utility reconstruction projects in 2004. The total special assessment
for the 2003 neighborhood reconstruction project was $3,320 per R1 residential lot.
Below is a summary of the project funding sources if the recommended special assessment rates
are applied to the Northport Neighborhood Project tentatively scheduled for 2004. The total
funding amount is calculated based on the current project estimate of $3.3 million in the 2004
Capital Improvement Program and includes 185 lots within the project area.
Per Residential Lot Percent of TOTAL
Special Assessments $ 3,698 21%
Water Utility (City) $ 3,310 18%
Sanitary Sewer Utility (City) $ 3,080 17%
Storm Sewer Utility (City) $ 2,830 16%
Street Light Utility (City) $ 460 3%
• Street Construction Fund/MSA (City) $ 4,472 25%
Total $17,850 100%
adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2004 STREET AND DRAINAGE SPECIAL
ASSESMENT RATES
WHEREAS, the residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage
improvements are annually reviewed and approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the residential assessment rates should be adjusted annually to be
effective January 1; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 street and storm drainage assessment rates for R -1, R -2 and R-
3 zoned districts are based on a percentage of the estimated costs for street and storm drainage
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the R -4, R -5, R -6 and R -7 zoned districts will continue to be assessed
• based on an evaluation of project cost and project benefit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The residential street and storm drainage special assessment rates for street
reconstruction shall apply to properties in R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned districts. These
rates shall also be applied to parcels of property in other land use zones when such
parcels (a) are being used as one - family or two - family residential sites at the time the
assessment roll is levied; and (b) could not be subdivided under the then- existing
Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage reconstruction effective
January 1, 2004 shall be as follows:
Land Use 2004 Assessment Rates
R -1 zoned, used as one - family $2,806 per lot (street)
site that cannot be subdivided $892 per lot (storm drainage)
RESOLUTION NO.
•
Land Use 2004 Assessment Rates
R -2 zoned, or used as a two - family $37.41 per front foot with a
site that cannot be subdivided $2,806 per lot minimum (street)
$11.89 per front foot with a
$892 per lot minimum (storm drainage)
R -3 zoned (per unit) Assessable frontage x $37.41 (street)
Number of residential units
Assessable frontaee x $11.89 (storm )
Number of residential units
3. The residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage reconstruction shall not
apply to R -4, R -5, R -6 or R -7 zoned districts. The assessment rates for street
• reconstruction for R -4, R -5, R -6 or R -7 zoned property shall be based on an
evaluation of the project cost and the project benefit for each project.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
City Council Agenda Item No, 10e
X WR vTEn
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 30, 2003
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works 7)4?
SUBJECT: Resolution Setting the Interest Rate on Special Assessments for 2004
Each year the City Council establishes interest rates fors special assessments levied against
p g
private property based on the City's Special Assessment and Internal Loan Interest Rate
Policy. For special assessments, this policy states that the goal is to not unfairly burden the
property owner, but yet recover the cost of borrowing from outside sources, recover the
cost of administering the special assessments, and protect the City from the possibility that
special assessment prepayments might impair the City's ability to service the bonds.
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt an interest rate on special assessments
of 5.5 percent for 2004. This was calculated by reviewing the interest rate from the City's
• most recent sale of improvement bonds with a ten year final maturity, adding two (2)
percent to cover the overhead costs described above, and rounding to the nearest one -half
percent in accordance with the Interest Rate Policy. The interest rate for special
assessments was 5.5 percent in 2003. Attached is a description of the General Obligation
Improvement Bond used for this calculation.
•
$1,205,000
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
General Obligation Improvement Bonds
Series 2003A - POST SALE
PRICING SUMMARY
Maturity Type of Bond Coupon Y YP Yield Maturity Y Value Price Dollar Price
2/01/2004 Serial Coupon 1.450% 1.450% 145,000.00 100.000% 145,000.00
2/01/2005 Serial Coupon 1.850% 1.850% 130,000.00 100.000% 130,000.00
2/01/2006 Serial Coupon 2.300% 2.300% 125,000.00 100.000% 125,000.00
2/01/2007 Serial Coupon 2.650% 2.650% 125,000.00 100.000% 125,000.00
2/01/2008 Serial Coupon 2.950% 2.950% 120,000.00 100.000% 120,000.00
2/01/2009 Serial Coupon 3.200% 3.200% 120,000.00 100.000% 120,000.00
2/01/2010 Serial Coupon 3.450% 3.500% 115,000.00 99.687% 114,640.05
2/01/2011 Serial Coupon 3.700% 3.750% 110,000.00 99.653% 109,618.30
2/01/2012 Serial Coupon 3.850% 3.900% 110,000.00 99.619% 109,580.90
2/01/2013 Serial Coupon 4.000% 4.000% 105,000.00 100.000% c 105,000.00
Total - - - - 1,205,000.00 - - 1,203,839.25
BID INFORMATION
Par Amount of Bonds ................. ............................... $1,205,000.00
Reoffering Premium or ( Discount ) ............................. (1,160.75)
Gross Production ....................... ............................... $1,203,839.25
• Total Underwriter's Discount (0.703 %) ..................... $(8,467.20)
Bid (99. 201 %) ............................ ............................... 1,195,372.05
Accrued Interest from 01/01/2003 to 01/09/2003....... 767.72
Total Purchase Price .................. ............................... $1,196,139.77
Bond Year Dollars ...................... ............................... $6,425.42
Average Life .............................. ............................... 5.332 Years
Average Coupon ........................ ............................... 3.3126873%
Net Interest Cost ( NIC) .............. ............................... 3.4625289%
True Interest Cost ( TIC) ............. ............................... 3.4544109%
Springsted Incorporated File = BROOKL -1.SF -Series 2003A - POST SALE- SINGLE PURPOSE
Advisors to the Public Sector 12/ 9/200211:17 AM
•
Page 2
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
• adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SETTING THE INTEREST RATE ON SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR 2004
WHEREAS, the City Council levies special assessments for neighborhood street
projects, delinquent utility bills and other services provided to property owners that go unpaid; and
WHEREAS, amounts outstanding are certified to Hennepin County for collection
with property taxes; and
WHEREAS, by City Policy, interest is to be charged on outstanding amounts certified
to Hennepin County for collection with property taxes; and
p tY p p Y ,
WHEREAS, the interest rate to be charged is two percent over the net interest rate for
the most recent City General Obligation bond sale rounded up to the next one -half percent; and
WHEREAS, the most recent General Obligation bond sale resulted in a net interest
• rate of 3.46 percent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the interest rate charged on outstanding special assessments for
2004 is 5.5 percent.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
City Council Agenda Item No. lOf
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
To: Mayor Kragness an uncil Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe
From: Michael J. McCaul
City Manager
Date: November 6, 2003
Re: Utility Rates
We are proposing modest increases in water, sanitary sewer, and street light utility rates.
These rate increases of 2.8% for water and sanitary sewer and 3% for street light utility
correspond to the operating needs of the utilities and the proposed street reconstruction
contribution and other capital replacement needs for these funds. Based on the projected
balances, these funds would be near or slightly above the fund balance targets
recommended by the Financial Commission and adopted by the City Council
No increase is being proposed for storm water or recycling. Storm water fund needs will
be reviewed in connection with planning for future pond maintenance needs and the
increasing regulatory obligations being imposed by the federal government. With the
upcoming retirement of bonds, we may be able to avoid increases for several years, or
possibly decrease rates depending on the results of planning for future capital and
maintenance needs.
Recycling has sufficient funds in the near term to cover anticipated costs without an
increase. There has been no increase in recycling fees for several years. As fund balances
are depleted, an increase in fees is anticipated in the near future. Another potential impact
on fees would be associated with the proposal being discussed among the New Hope,
Crystal, and Brooklyn Center to have an annual clean -up pick -up as was done in 2002.
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
MEMORANDUM ot ya r
BROOKLYN
• CENTER
DATE: November 6, 2003
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting 2004 Sewer Utility Rates, Fees and Charges
Resolution Adopting 2004 Water Utility Rates, Fees and Charges
Resolution Adopting 2004 Street Light rates and Charges
.... ... .............. - -, -. 1-11 . .... ..............................
Attached are three resolutions establishing the 2004 rate schedules for the Water, Sanitary
Sewer and Street Light Utilities. The proposed rates are based on the information presented at
the City Council and Financial Commission Joint Work Session on October 20, 2003. Water
and sanitary sewer rates are proposed to increase by 2.8 percent and street light quarterly
charges are proposed to increase 3.0 percent. Rate increases for Storm Sewer and Recycling
Utilities are not proposed for 2004.
•
•
GADeptsTublic Works\ Adininistration\Council\En.-ineering\Ne Rates Memo.doc
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2004 SEWER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities be self -
supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the "Public Utility Rate Schedule" and shall
be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, financial requirements for the utility funds have been identified and
reviewed by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
that the following Sewer Utility rates, fees and charges are hereby adopted and shall be effective for all billings
issued on or after January 1, 2004.
2004 SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Sewer Rates, Fees and Charges
Base Rate Quarterly Residential
Single Family Apartment Senior Citizen
Year 2004 $55.61 $38.86 $30.58
Non - Residential Rate
Year 2004 $2.22 per 1,000 Gallons
•
SAC Charge set by MCES Fees Fee Established by MCES
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge Greater of $3.00 or 10% of unpaid balance
Certification for collection with property taxes $30.00
Line cleaning charge Labor, materials, equipment and overhead
Sanitary Sewer Connection Established annually by resolution
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
• and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2004 WATER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities be self -
supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the "Public Utility Rate Schedule" and shall
be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, financial requirements for the utility funds have been identified and reviewed
by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
that the following Water Utility rates, fees and charges are hereby adopted and shall be effective for all billings
issued on or after January 1, 2004.
2004 WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Water Rates, Fees and Charges
Base Rate
• Year 2004 $1.038 per 1,000 Gallons
Quarterly Minimum Rate
Meter Size 2004 Ouarterly Minimum Chartee
5/8" $7.20
3/4" $11.31
1"
$14.39
1 %" $18.50
2" $35.98
3" $71.96
4" $122.33
6" $280.64
8" $529.42
10"
$705.21
Fees
Purchase Water Meter 5/8" or 3/4" $50.00
Purchase Water Meter Larger than 3/4" Cost plus $2.00
Fire protection inspection $50.00
Private hydrant maintenance Labor, materials, equipment and overhead
•
RESOLUTION NO.
•
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge Greater of $3.00 or 10% of unpaid balance
Certification for collection with property taxes $30.00
Service Restoration $30.00
Monday through Friday (except holidays)
Between the hours of 7:30 AM and 3:00 PM
Service Restoration $30.00
Saturday, Sunday, Holidays and
Between the hours of 3:00 PM and 7:30 AM
Delinquent meter reading per account $2.00 -First Quarter
(per consecutive quarter) $4.00- Second Quarter
$8.00 -Third Quarter
$10.00 -Fourth and subsequent Quarter
Curb stop stand pipe repair $40.00
Hydrant Meters
• 5/8" or 3/4" Meter
Deposit $100.00
Daily Rental $2.00
Monthly Rental $20.00
Minimum Rental $20.00
Hydrant Meters
2 1/2" Meter
Deposit $700.00
Daily Rental $14.00
Monthly Rental $140.00
Minimum Rental $140.00
Water Connection Established annually by resolution
ACH service charge $ .50 per quarter per customer
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
• and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
• Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2004 STREET LIGHT RATES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities be self -
supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the "Public Utility Rate Schedule" and shall
be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, financial requirements for the utility funds have been identified and
reviewed by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
that the following Street Light Utility rates and charges are hereby adopted and shall be effective for all billings
issued on or after January 1, 2004.
2004 STREET LIGHT UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Street Light Rates and Charges
Quarterly Rates
Customer 2004 Ouarterly Charge
• Per Dwelling Unit:
Single, Double and Multiple Family Residential $3.12
Per Acre:
Parks $5.20
Schools, Government Buildings, Churches $10.40
Retail and Service - Office $15.60
Commercial and Industrial $15.60
Vacant Land and Open Space As Assigned
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge Greater of $3.00 or 10% of unpaid balance
Certification for collection with property taxes $30.00
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
• and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMORANDUM BROOTurn
CENTER
•
DATE: October 15, 2003
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program and Rate Analysis
Capital Improvement Program
Attached for your review is the preliminary 5 -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the
2004 budget. The revised CIP is based on projects previously identified in the 2003 budget with
the following modifications.
1. Construction costs have been adjusted to 2004 levels using the ENR Construction Cost
Index. This index adjusts for annual increases in construction labor and material costs.
2. The CIP was extended out to the year 2008 with additional street and utility
reconstruction projects as identified in the neighborhood street improvement program.
3. The 73` Avenue reconstruction project originally schedule for 2003_ was rescheduled for
• 2004 construction. This project will be completed jointly with the City of Brooklyn Park.
4. The recently created street construction fund was added to the CIP.
5. Construction costs for curb & gutter drainage improvements on non -MSA streets were
transferred to the storm water utility fund.
Rate Analysis
A preliminary rate analysis was completed for the water, sewer, storm sewer and street light
utilities as well as the street construction fund to determine appropriate annual rate adjustments.
These adjustments were determined based on the need to maintain adequate fund balances during
completion of the projects identified for construction in the CIP. The attached tables provide the
details of the analysis performed for each fund. The table below summarizes the proposed 2004
rate adjustments as compared to the estimated rate adjustments included in the 2003 CIP.
Annual Adjustment
Fund 2003 CIP 2004 CIP
Water Utility 3% 2.8%
Sewer Utility 3%. 2.8%
• Storm Sewer Utility 3% 0%
Street Light Utility 3% 3%
Street Construction See Below
• Water Utility Fund — A proposed 2.8 percent annual rate adjustment over five years will maintain
a fund balance above the cash reserve target through 2007 and will result in a deficit of 8 percent
below the cash reserve target in 2008. One of the street reconstruction projects in 2008 may
need to be delayed as described in the street construction fund narrative below.
Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund — A proposed 2.8 percent annual rate adjustment over five years will
provide approximately $280,000 over the cash reserve target through 2008. This additional fund
balance may be necessary to address new sewer system requirements currently being considered
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Storm Sewer Utility Fund — No increase in rate is proposed at this time. The current rate will
adequately fund the storm sewer utility for the 2004 CIP. Although the current rate analysis
indicates that the fund balance will exceed the cash reserve target, a substantial increase in
expenditures is expected due to the NPDES Phase II requirements initiated by the Environmental
Protection Agency in 2003. These additional expenditures will be determined during 2004 and
included in the 2005 CIP. A rate increase may be necessary in 2005.
Street Light Utility — A 3.0 percent increase is proposed for the 2004 budget. The current
funding analysis shows that this increase will not be adequate to fund the capital expenditures
• included in the current 2004 CIP. These expenditures are associated with the neighborhood
street reconstruction program. It is recommended that a portion of the street light capital
expenditures (approx. 30 %) be transferred to the street construction fund in order to meet the
cash reserve target through 2008.
Street Construction Fund — The rate analysis assumes an initial fund transfer into the street
construction fund of approximately $1,300,000 and an initial annual revenue amount of
$650,000. It is also assumed that the annual revenue amount will be derived from the proposed
franchise fee and this amount will increase in proportion to an annual increase in electric rates of
3 percent. Cash reserves would be maintained through 2007, but drop substantially in 2008.
This indicates that one of the street projects identified in the neighborhood street reconstruction
program for 2008 will likely need to be delayed until 2009 if additional funding is not available.
•
• 2004 - 2008 Cap avement Program
City 0f en Center •
October 16, 2003
Funding
Year Project Description Sources
Special Street Capital Water Utility Sewer Utility Storm Sewer Street Light MSA Grants Total Project
Assessment Construction Improvements Utility Utility Cost
Collections Fund Fund
2004
2004 Grandview Park Football/Soccer field, lights, baseball field and playground $ 338,200 $ 338,200
2004 73rd Avenue Humboldt to Palmer Lake $ 66,000 $ 97,000 $ 63,300 $ 59,800 $ 57,200 $ 343,300
2004 Northport Improvement Project Neighborhood street project $ 614,900 $ 548,200 $ 612,300 $ 569,400 $ 523,500 $ 85,000 $ 348,400 $ 3,301,700
2004 Shingle Creek Pkwy Street improvement project $ 271,600 $ 10,300 $ 10,300 $ 20,500 $ 358,700 $ 671,400
2004 Evergreen Park Sidewalks Sidewalk construction $ 51,200 $ 51,200
Total 2004 $ 952,500 $ 696,400 $ 338,200 $ 685,900 $ 639,500 $ 601,200 $ 85,000 $ 707,100 $ 4,705,600
2005
2005 Central Park Lighting $ 235,700 $ 235,700
2005 Earle Brown Improvement Project Street improvement project $ 111,900 $ 159,900 $ 271,800
2005 Tangletown Improvement Project South Street improvement project $ 744,600 $ 817,400 $ 657,500 $ 620,800 $ 582,800 $ 86,500 $ 3,509,600
Total 2005 $ 856,500 $ 817,400 $ 235,700 $ 657,500 $ 620,800 $ 582,800 $ 86,500 $ 159,900 $ 4,017,100
2006
2006 Garden City Park Shelter bldg $ 92,200 $ 92,200
2006 Kylawn Park Shelter bldg, trails and lights $ 194,700 $ 194,700
2006 Riverdale Park Shelter bldg $ 35,900 $ 35,900
2006 Dupont Avenue Improvement Project Street improvement project $ 391,806 $ 116,800 $ 110,200 $ 27,500 $ 275,400 $ 921,700
2006 Humboldt Avenue Improvement Project Street improvement project $ 205,000 $ 102,500 $ 51,200 $ 410,000 $ 768,700
2006 Tangletown Improvement Project North Neighborhood street project $ 502,200 $ 684,700 $ 456,900 $ 431,400 $ 408,600 $ 60,800 $ 2,544,600
2006 Lift Station #9 Pump replacements and forcemain replacement $ 205,000 $ 205,000
2006 Lift Station #2 Pump, FM, and Interceptor replacements $ 307,400 $ 307,400
Total 2006 $ 1,099,000 $ 684,700 $ 322,800 $ 676,200 $ 1,105,200 $ 436,100 $ 60,800 $ 685,400 $ 5,070,200
2007
2007 West Palmer Lake Park Sheller bldg $ 102,500 $ 102,500
2007 Riverwood Improvement Project Street improvement project $ 597,900 $ 757,900 $ - $ 581,300 $ 548,900 $ 581,900 $ 75,100 $ 3,143,000
2007 Freeway Blvd Improvement Project Street improvement project $ 307,400 $ 20,500 $ 51,200 $ 20,500 $ 409,900 $ 809,500
Tota12007 $ 905,300 $ 757,900 $ 102,500 $ 601,800 $ 600,100 $ 602,400 $ 75,100 $ 409,900 $ 4,055,000
2008
2008 East River Improv Project Street improvement project $ 509,800 $ 525,900 $ 276,400 $ 453,100 $ 402,900 $ 56,200 $ 113,000 $ 2,337,300
2008 Maranatha Improv Project Neighborhood street project $ 701,000 $ 840,500 $ 394,800 $ 612,400 $ 564,500 $ 89,000 $ 3,202,200
2008 Nonhway Drive Improv Project Street improvement project $ 123,000 $ 8,200 $ 8,200 $ 7,200 $ 146,600
2008 Xerxes Avenue Improv Project Street improvement project $ 236,700 $ 10,300 $ 10,300 $ 10,300 $ 338,200 $ 605,800
Total 2006 $ 1,570,500 $ 1,366,400 $ $ 689,700 $ 1,084,000 $ 984,900 $ 145,200 $ 451,200 $ 6,291,900
Notes
Estimated costs are adjusted from 2003 CIP using ENR Construction Cost Index
Projects scheduled for 2008 are under further study. One of these projects may be delayed until 2009 based on funding availability
Non -MSA curb & gutter costs have been transferred to Storm Water Utility
Water Utility Fund Rate Analysis
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Revenues
Water Service $ 1,262,500 $ 1,297,850 $ 1,334,190 $ 1,371,547 $ 1,409,950 $ 1,449,429
Misc. Operating $ 225,100 $ 228,800 $ 234,500 $ 238,200 $ 241,900 $ 245,600
Misc. Non - operating $ 30,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Total Revenues $ 1,517,600 $ 1,536,650 $ 1,578,690 $ 1,619,747 $ 1,661,850 $ 1,705,029
Expenditures
Personal Services $ 328,477 $ 352,318 $ 369,934 $ 388,431 $ 407,852 $ 428,245
Supplies $ 159,050 $ 170,250 $ 175,358 $ 180,618 $ 186,037 $ 191,618
Services $ 425,555 $ 438,322 $ 451,471 $ 465,015 $ 478,966 $ 493,335
Depreciation $ 588,100 $ 578,000 $ 610,000 $ 630,000 $ 650,000 $ 670,000
Debt Service $ 0 $ $ $ $ $
Total Expenditures $ 1,501,182 $ 1,538,890 $ 1,606,763 $ 1,664,064 $ 1,722,855 $ 1,783,197
Capital Outlay $ 667,550 $ 685,900 $ 673,938 $ 710,433 $ 648,073 $ 761,300
Total Cash Requirement $ 2,168,732 $ 2,224,790 $ 2,280,700 $ 2,374,497 $ 2,370,928 $ 2,544,497
Cash Reserve Target $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
Beginning Cash Balance $ 1,541,308 $ 1,478,276 $ 1,368,136 $ 1,276,126 $ 1,151,376 $ 1,092,299
Revenues $ 1,517,600 $ 1,536,650 $ 1,578,690 $ 1,619,747 $ 1,661,850 $ 1,705,029
Expenditures $ (2,168,732) $ (2,224,790) $ (2,280,700) $ (2,374,497) $ (2,370,928) $ (2,544,497)
Depreciation Add -Back $ 588,100 $ 578,000 $ 610,000 $ 630,000 $ 650,000 $ 670,000
Ending Cash Balance $ 1,478,276 $ 1,368,136 $ 1,276,126 $ 1,151,376 $ 1,092,299 $ 922,831
Additional sums necessary $ 77,169
to meet Cash Reserve Target
Assumptions:
Cash basis
All assumptions are predicted on Cash Basis presentation.
Revenues
Rate increases would be 2.8% per year across the board and are based on 1.25 billion gallons billed per year.,
Expenditures
Supplies and Services increase at a total rate of 3% annum.
Depreciation increases at a rate of approximately 3% per annum.
Capital outlay is from the 2004 CIP and adjusted for estimated ENR Construction Index for each year in the five year period.
Revised 10/16/03
•
Sewer Utility Fund Rate Analysis
• 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Revenues
Sewer Charges $ 2,725,380 $ 2,804,760 $ 2,884,140 $ 2,963,520 $ 3,042,900 $ 3,129,000
Misc. Operating $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
Misc. Non - operating $ 30,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Total Revenues $ 2,755,380 $ 2,814,760 $ 2,894,140 $ 2,973,520 $ 3,052,900 $ 3,139,000
Expenditures
Personal Services $ 120,263 $ 148,142 $ 155,549 $ 163,327 $ 171,493 $ 180,068
Supplies $ 20,100 $ 17,315 $ 17,834 $ 18,369 $ 18,921 $ 19,488
Services $ 1,865,647 $ 1,742,398 $ 1,794,670 $ 1,848,510 $ 1,903,965 $ 1,961,084
Depreciation $ 432,100 $ _ 458,000 $ 470,000 $ 485,000 $ 500,000 $ 0
Debt Service $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total Expenditures $ 2,438,110 $ 2,365,855 $ 2,438,053 $ 2,515,206 $ 2,594,379 $ 2,160,640
Capital Outlay $ 633,390 $ 639,500 $ 636,320 $ 1,161,151 $ 646,242 $ 1,196,533
Total Cash Requirement $ 3,071,500 $ 3,005,355 $ 3,074,373 $ 3,676,357 $ 3,240,621 $ 3,357,173
Cash Reserve Target $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 $ 950,000
Beginning Cash Balance $ 682,184 $ 798,164 $ 1,065,569 $ 1,355,336 $ 1,137,499 $ 1,449,778
Revenues $ 2,755,380 $ 2,814,760 $ 2,894,140 $ 2,973,520 $ 3,052,900 $ 3,139,000
Expenditures $ (3,071,500) $ (3,005,355) $ (3,074,373) $ (3,676,357) $ (3,240,621) $ (3,357,173)
Depreciation Add -Back $ 432,100 $ 458,000 $ 470,000 $ 485,000 $ 500,000 $ 0
Ending Cash Balance $ 798,164 $ 1,065,569 $ 1,355,336 $ 1,137,499 $ 1,449,778 $ 1,231,605
W dditional sums necessary $ 151,836
to meet Cash Reserve Target
Assumptions:
Cash basis
All assumptions are predicted on Cash Basis presentation.
Revenues
Rate increases would be 2.8% per year across the board and are based on 1.323 billion gallons billed per year.
Expenditures
Supplies and Services increase at a total rate of 3% annum.
Depreciation increases at a rate of approximately 3% per annum.
Capital outlay is from the 2004 CIP and adjusted for estimated ENR Construction Index for each year in the five year period.
Revised 10/16/03
•
Storm Sewer Utility Fund Rate Analysis
. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Revenues
Storm Sewer Fees $ 1,235,000 $ 1,235,000 $ 1,235,000 $ 1,235,000 $ 1,235,000 $ 1,235,000
Misc. Operating $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
Misc. Non - operating $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Total Revenues $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000
Expenditures
Personal Services $ 0 $ 18,898 $ 19,843 $ 20,835 $ 21,877 $ 22,971
Supplies $ 20,500 $ 20,900 $ 21,527 $ 22,173 $ 22,838 $ 23,523
Services $ 236,848 $ 83,013 $ 85,503 $ 88,068 $ 90,711 $ 93,432
Depreciation $ 326,600 $ 514,000 $ 523,000 $ 532,000 $ 541,000 $ 550,000
Debt Service $ 239,540 $ 238,250 $ 236,210 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total Expenditures $ 823,488 $ 875,061 $ 886,083 $ 663,076 $ 676,425 $ 689,926
Capital Outlay $ 410,785 $ 601,200 $ 597,370 $ 458,178 $ 648,719 $ 1,087,145
Total Cash Requirement $ 1,234,273 $ 1,476,261 $ 1,483,453 $ 1,121,254 $ 1,325,144 $ 1,777,071
Cash Reserve Target $ 540,000 $ 540,000 $ 540,000 $ 540,000 $ 540,000 $ 540,000
Beginning Cash Balance $ 343,221 $ 680,548 $ 963,287 $ 1,247,834 $ 1,903,580 $ 2,364,436
Revenues $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000 $ 1,245,000
Expenditures $ (1,234,273) $ (1,476,261) $ (1,483,453) $ (1,121,254) $ (1,325,144) $ (1,777,071)
Depreciation Add -Back $ 326,600 $ 514,000 $ 523,000 $ 532,000 $ 541,000 $ 550,000
Ending Cash Balance $ 680,548 $ 963,287 $ 1,247,834 $ 1,903,580 $ 2,364,436 $ 2,382,365
O dditional sums necessary
to meet Cash Reserve Target
Assumptions:
Cash basis
All assumptions are predicted on Cash Basis presentation.
Revenues
Rate increases would be 2.8% per year across the board based on current rates and charges.
Expenditures
Supplies and Services increase at a total rate of 3% annum.
Depreciation increases at a rate of approximately 3% per annum.
Capital outlay is from the 2004 CIP and adjusted for estimated ENR Construction Index for each year in the five year period.
This analysis does not include future maintenance costs associated with new NPDES Phase II requirements from EPA
NPDES Phase II costs will be developed and incorporated into 2005 Rate Analysis
Revised 10/16/03
•
Street Light Utility Fund Rate Analysis
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Revenues
Street Light Fee $ 205,575 $ 211,742 $ 218,095 $ 224,637 $ 231,376 $ 238,318
Misc. Operating $ 0$ 0$ 0 _$ 0$ 0$ 0
Misc. Non - operating $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Total Revenues $ 215,575 $ 221,742 $ 228,095 $ 234,637 $ 241,376 $ 248,318
Expenditures
Personal Services $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Supplies $ 2,500 $ 2,900 $ 2,987 $ 3,077 $ 3,169 $ 3,264
Services $ 145,000 $ 156,193 $ 160,879 $ 165,705 $ 170,676 $ 175,797
Depreciation $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
Debt Service $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total Expenditures $ 147,500 $ 159,093 $ 163,866 $ 168,782 $ 173,845 $ 179,061
Capital Outlay $ 51,090 $ 85,000 $ 88,663 $ 63,878 $ 80,860 $ 160,274
Total Cash Requirement $ 198,590 $ 244,093 $ 252,528 $ 232,660 $ 254,706 $ 339,334
Cash Reserve Target $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Beginning Cash Balance $ 30,361 $ 47,346 $ 24,995 $ 561 $ 2,539 $ (10,790)
Revenues $ 215,575 $ 221,742 $ 228,095 $ 234,637 $ 241,376 $ 248,318
Expenditures $ (198,590) $ (244,093) $ (252,528) $ (232,660) $ (254,706) $ (339,334)
Depreciation Add -Back $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Ending Cash Balance $ 47,346 $ 24,995 $ 561 $ 2,539 $ - 10,790 $ - 101,807
0 Additional sums necessary $ 49,439 $ 47,461 $ 60,790 $ 151,807
to meet Cash Reserve Target
Assumptions:
Cash basis
All assumptions are predicted on Cash Basis presentation.
Revenues
Rate increases would be 2.8% per year across the board based on customer base of 8,415 residential customers and
538 others. All other revenues would remain flat over the five year period.
Expenditures
Supplies and Services increase at a total rate of 3% annum.
Depreciation increases at a rate of approximately 3% per annum.
Capital outlay is from the 2004 CIP and adjusted for estimated ENR Construction Index for each year in the five year period.
Based on this analysis, a portion of annual reconstruction project street light costs will need to be funded from other sources
Revised 10/16/03
•
Street Construction Fund Rate Analysis
• 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Revenues
Fund Transfer $ 1,300,000 $ 650,000 $ 668,200 $ 686,910 $ 706,143 $ 725,915
Misc. Operating $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
Misc. Non - operating $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Total Revenues $ 1,300,000 $ 655,000 $ 673,200 $ 691,910 $ 711,143 $ 730,915
Expenditures
Personal Services $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Supplies $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
Services $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
Depreciation $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0
Debt Service $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total Expenditures $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Capital Outlay $ 0 $ 696,400 $ 837,835 $ 719,363 $ 816,175 $ 1,508,250
Total Cash Requirement $ 0 $ 696,400 $ 837,835 $ 719,363 $ 816,175 $ 1,508,250
Cash Reserve Target $ $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 800,000
Beginning Cash Balance $ 0 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,258,600 $ 1,093,965 $ 1,066,512 $ 961,479
Revenues $ 1,300,000 $ 655,000 $ 673,200 $ 691,910 $ 711,143 $ 730,915
Expenditures $ 0 $ (696,400) $ (837,835) $ (719,363) $ (816,175) $ (1,508,250)
Depreciation Add -Back $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Ending Cash Balance $ 1,300,000 $ 1,258,600 $ 1,093,965 $ 1,066,512 $ 961,479 $ 184,144
• Additional sums necessary $ 615,856
to meet Cash Reserve Target
Assumptions:
Cash basis
All assumptions are predicted on Cash Basis presentation.
Revenues
Transfer /deposit estimated to' increases at 2.8% per year based on anticipated electric rates.
Expenditures
Capital outlay is from the 2004 CIP and adjusted for estimated ENR Construction Index for each year in the five year period.
Revised 10/16/03
•
City Council Agenda Item No. lOg
OX City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers ody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe
FROM: Michael J. McCauley
DATE: November 5, 2003
SUBJECT: Transfer of Series 1992C Final Distribution of Asset
Attached is a memorandum from Springsted explaining the source of funds received by the City from
the U.S. Bank Trust in the sum of $183,639.01. These monies were placed into the General Fund
upon their receipt. The resolution would direct that those monies be placed into the Street
Construction Fund so as to be available to support the ongoing neighborhood street reconstruction
program.
4 0301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number
g y y
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
85 E. SEVENTH PLACE, SUITE 100
SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 -2887
• 651 - 223 -3000 FAX: 651 - 223 -3002 S P R I N G ST E D
Advisors to the Public Sector
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Sundberg
City of Brooklyn Cen�r
FROM: Kathleen Aho
DATE: September 16, 2003
SUBJECT: $335,000 Residual Interest Revenue Bonds, Series 1992C (Convertible
Capital Appreciation Bonds)
The City recently received a check for $183,639.01 from US Bank Trust as trustee for the above
referenced transaction. You have asked for an explanation of the source and potential uses for
• the funds. This memo will address your questions.
In 1992, the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Moorhead and Columbia Heights, and the Robbinsdale
EDA (the "Issuers ") issued three single family housing bond issues. The first, $5,810,000 Single
Family Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds, Taxable Series 1992A, was used to refund the
remaining outstanding bonds of a 1982 issue sold jointly by the Issuers. The 1982 issue
provided money for below market rate mortgages in each of the four cities. The mortgages
made were pledged to the payment of the 1982 issue, and subsequent to the refunding, to the
payment of the 1992A, 1992B and 1992C issues and in that order of priority.
Due to the accumulation of assets within the trust estate for the 1982 issue, it was also possible
to sell bonds in addition to the 1992A Bonds that were backed by the mortgages from the 1982
bonds. The mortgage income was pledged first to pay the 1992A Bonds, then applied to pay a
1�99213 Bond Series ($1,310,000 Residual Interest Revenue Bonds, Series 1992B), and finally to
pay the 1992C Bond Series. Proceeds of the 1992B Bonds and 1992C Bonds were distributed
among the Issuers to be used "to finance the cost of essential functions of such governmental
unit ". Brooklyn Center received $341,387.31 from 1992B and $87,301.34 from 1992C.
Because of the stress tests that had to be met in order to sell the original bonds, assets (in the
form of outstanding mortgages) in excess of what was needed for debt service accumulated in
the 1992 trust estates. Once all the series of 1992C Bonds were paid, the Trustee continued to
collect any remaining mortgages due. The pay down of the remaining mortgages in essence
converted the trust assets to cash and the check the City recently received is its share of the
final distribution of assets from the 1992 transactions.
• I have checked with Barbara Portwood, Leonard Street and Deinart, who was bond counsel on
the 1992 transaction. She has informed me that the City is free to use the proceeds received
for any City purpose,
CORPORATEOFFICE: SAINT PAUL, MN • Visit our website at www.springsted.com
IOWA KANSAS MINNESOTA • VIRGINIA WASHINGTON,DC • WISCONSIN
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING USE OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM SINGLE
FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, TAXABLE SERIES
1992A
WHEREAS, the cities of Brooklyn Center, Moorhead, and Columbia Heights and
the Robbinsdale Economic Development Authority issued single family housing bonds; and
WHEREAS, in connection with refunding of those bonds, funds were accumulated
that have been distributed among the issues as a final distribution of assets from the 1992
transactions; and
WHEREAS, those funds may be used for any city purpose; and
WHEREAS, the reconstruction of neighborhood streets is a high priority and is in
need of additional funding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the $183,639.01 received from the U.S. Bank Trust from the series 1992C
convertible capital appreciation bonds which was deposited in the General Fund upon receipt be and
hereby are designated for use in the neighborhood street reconstruction project and that the same be
• transferred from the General Fund to the Street Construction Fund.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
City Council Agenda Item No. 10h
8S E. SEVENTH PLACE, SUITE 100
SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 -2887
651- 223 -3000 FAX:6SI- 223 -3002 SPRINGSTED
Advisors to the Public Sector
A P rA rl
• i
,
l
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Myrna Kragness Mayor
Members of City Council
Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Robert Thistle
Executive Vice President
DATE: 10/20/2003
SUBJECT: Refunding (refinancing) opportunities on the City's General Obligation Police
and Fire Bonds, Series 1997A and Taxable General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds Series 1995A
• BACKGROUND
I am writing to review refunding opportunities of the above mentioned bonds. Currently in this
low interest rate environment, we expect the City can achieve interest cost savings on the two
above mentioned bond issues by refunding these issues in advance of their first call date, which
is February 1, 2005. (A call date is the first time the bonds are allowed to be refinanced
according to the bond documents.) The type of advance refunding we are recommending is
called a crossover refunding. This type of refunding takes advantage of current low interest
rates and borrows money in advance of the call date. The proceeds of the refunding bonds will
be placed in escrow accounts with a major bank and invested in U.S. government securities.
These securities and their earnings are structured to pay interest on the new bonds until the
optional prepayment date (February 1, 2005) of the old issues, at which time the escrow
account will crossover and prepay all the remaining principal of the old issues. The City will
continue to pay the originally scheduled debt service on the two old issues until their call date of
February 1, 2005. After the call date, the City will cross over and begin making debt service
payments on the new bonds, taking advantage of the lower interest rates starting with the
August 1, 2005 payments. This process is very similar to refinancing a home mortgage.
REFINANCING TESTS OF THE TWO ISSUES UNDER REVIEW
There are two tests that need to be made in order to undertake a crossover refunding. The first
is the saving level. This is somewhat arbitrary but I use the rule of thumb that the savings
• should be double the cost of issuance of the new bonds. In these cases both issues past this
test.
CORPORATE OFFICE: SAINT PAUL, MN • Visit our website at www.springsted.com
IOWA KANSAS MINNESOTA VIRGINIA WASHINGTON, DC WISCONSIN
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
October 20, 2003
Page 2
. The second test is the 3% test imposed by the State on Minnesota. This test requires that a .
crossover refunding must save at lease 3% of the refunded debt service. Both of the issues
pass this test at this time.
REFINANCING TESTS OF THE TWO BONDS UNDER REVIEW
The 1995A GO taxable TIF Bonds have a remaining principal of $2,490,000 after refunding.
This refinancing passes both tests. The refunding would save approximately $106,000 on a
future value basis and its cost of issuance is approximately $35,000. The refunded debt service
savings is 3.7% versus the required 3%
The 1997B GO Police and Fire bonds have a remaining principal of $5,080,000 after refunding
and would save approximately $217,000 on a future value basis. This refinancing passes both
tests. The saving is five times greater that the cost of issuing the new bond, $40,000 versus
$217,000 in savings. The refunded debt service savings is at 3.6% verses the required 3 %.
RECOMMENDATION
All bond sale analyses that are done in advance of the sale have a measure of uncertainty to
them as they are prepared based upon the current market rates and sold a month later at the
current market rates that prevail at that time. Markets change every day - some times up and
some times down; they can change based upon events, volume of sales and sometimes for no
apparent reason. We have been in a very low interest rate environment for over a year and
there is general agreement that the market on the short term will stay in the same range.
Having said that, I want to point out that we do not speculate on the status of future market
trends, we base our recommendations on the actual data we currently have available.
We would recommend that you proceed to set a competitive sale on both issues with a set sale
of November 10 and selling of December 8 Should the markets move higher by the
December 8 th sale date we would recommend at that time that the Council pass what is called a
parameters resolution. This resolution will allow The City Manager, mayor and Springsted to
negotiate a sale with a bank or underwriter using the two tests mention above as the perimeters
in determining a minimum transaction savings level. Should a sale not take e place due to future
market conditions, the City exposure will be limited to a Moody's rating analysis which would be
approximately $5,000 as a preferred issuer. Often they will give a credit to a future bond issue if
it is in the same year. I understand that the City will have a GO improvement issue in 2004.
The perimeters approach provides the City maximum flexibility in getting these transactions
completed to the benefit of the citizens of Brooklyn Center.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
• adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED
SALE OF $5,080,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION POLICE AND FIRE
BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004A
A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
(the "City "), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its $5,080,000
General Obligation Police and Fire Building Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A (the "Bonds ") to
refund in advance of maturity the February 1, 2006 through February 1, 2013 maturities of the
City's General Obligation Police and Fire Building Bonds, Series 1997B, dated December 1,
1997; and
B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul,
Minnesota ( "Springsted "), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell
these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and
C. WHEREAS, pursuant to Amendment to Addendum A of Agreement for
• Continuing Disclosure Services and Amendment to Addendum B of Agreement for Arbitrage
and Rebate Monitoring copies of which are on file with the City Manager, the City will retain
Springsted to provide continuing disclosure and arbitrage and rebate monitoring.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted
to solicit bids for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds.
2. Meeting; Bid Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place
specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering
sealed bids for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. The Manager, or his designee, shall open
bids at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal.
3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the
negotiation thereof are fully set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and
hereby approved and made a part hereof.
4. Official Statement. In connection with said competitive negotiated sale,
the Manager and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with
Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to
execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
• 5. Continuing Disclosure and Rebate and Monitoring Services.. The Manager
of the City is hereby authorized to execute the Amendment to Addendum A of Agreement for
Continuing Disclosure Services and Amendment to Addendum B of Agreement for Arbitrage
and Rebate Monitoring, and the City hereby authorizes Springsted to provide continuing
disclosure and rebate and monitoring services.
6. Authorization to Negotiate. The City Manager and Springsted are hereby
authorized to negotiate a private sale of the Bonds if on the sale date no bids for the sale of the
Bonds satisfy the 3% savings test required by Minnesota law in which event the City Council
will meet at a later date to approve the private sale of the Bonds.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
• and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
• STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a
full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City,
duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the City's
$5,080,000 General Obligation Police and Fire Building Refunding Bonds, Series 2004A.
WITNESS my hand this day of , 2003.
•
Clerk
•
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
• THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE
THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE
FOLLOWING BASIS:
TERMS OF PROPOSAL
$5,080,000
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
GENERAL OBLIGATION POLICE AND FIRE BUILDING
REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004A
(BOOK ENTRY ONLY)
Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Monday, December 8, 2003, until 10:00 A.M.,
Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint
Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of
the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day.
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS
Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the
• time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to
constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the
manner in which the Proposal is submitted.
(a) Sealed Bidding. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223 -3046
to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted
prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final
Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223 -3000 or fax (651) 223 -3046 for inclusion in
the submitted Proposal.
OR
(b) Electronic Biddine. Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via
PARITY& For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by
PARITY® shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY&
Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY®
for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the
requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY® shall have
any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or
ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor
PARITY® shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid or for any failure in the
proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages
• caused by the services of PARITY& The City is using the services of PARITY® solely as a
communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY® is
not an agent of the City.
1544596v1 A -1
RESOLUTION NO.
• If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY &,
this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY &, including any fee
charged, may be obtained from:
PARITY®, 40 West 23rd Street, 5th Floor, New York City, New York 10010, Customer
Support, (212) 404 -8102.
DETAILS OF THE Bonds
The Bonds will be dated January 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2004. Interest will be
computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months.
The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
2006 $580,000 2008 $600,000 2010 $640,000 2012 $685,000
2007 $590,000 2009 $620,000 2011 $655,000 2013 $710,000
* The City, reserves the right, after�proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or
reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction
will be made in multiples of $3, 000 in any of the maturities. in the event the principal
amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any remium offered or any discount taken by
the successful bidder will be increased or reduced a percentage equal to the percentage
by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced.
Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial
bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption
and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest
to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of
Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form.
BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM
The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of
Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond,
representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be
registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ( "DTC "),
New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual
purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof
of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its
participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as
registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of
DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial
owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of
beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to
• deposit the Bonds with DTC.
1544596v1 A -2
RESOLUTION NO.
REGISTRAR
• The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City
pp g Y
will pay for the services of the registrar.
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The Bonds will not be subject to payment in advance of their respective stated maturity dates.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to refund in
advance of maturity the February 1, 2006 through February 1, 2013 maturities of the City's
General Obligation Police and Fire Building Bonds, Series 1997B, dated December 1, 1997.
TYPE OF PROPOSALS
Proposals shall be for not less than $5,039,360 and accrued interest on the total principal amount
of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ( "Deposit ") in the form
of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $50,800, payable to
the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety
Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of
• Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted
Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify
each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are
awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to
submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire
transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the
next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the
Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The
Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no
interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser
fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No
proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the
meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to
another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples
of 51100 or 1/8 of 1 %. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity
shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional
proposals will be accepted.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true
interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in
• accordance with customary practice, will be controlling.
1544596v1 A -3
RESOLUTION NO.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any proposal or of
• matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals
without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply
with the terms herein.
BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION
If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment
therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the
issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser. of the
Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance
shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the
Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall
be the responsibility of the purchaser.
Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the
purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on
the Bonds.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the
Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect
• thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the
Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers
shall be paid by the purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the
purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of
Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-
litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal,
or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than
12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has
been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City
for any loss suffered by the City reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for
Y Y P p
payment.
CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a
Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking ") whereunder the City will covenant for
the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about
the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and
required by SEC Rule 15c2- 12(b)(5).
•
1544596v1 A -4
RESOLUTION NO.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
The City as authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information
Y P p gp
relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement
within the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of
the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser
is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place,
Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223 -3000.
The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the
maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other
information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect
to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter
or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than
seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior
managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 150 copies of the
Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the
senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for
purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter.
Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its
proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a
contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring
the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement.
• Dated November 10, 2003 BY ORDER OF THE City council
/s/ Sharon Knutson
Clerk
•
1544596v1 A -5
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
• adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE
OF $2,490,000 TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT
REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004B
A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the
"City "), has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its $2,490,000
Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004B (the "Bonds ") to
refund in advance of maturity the February 1, 2006 through February 1, 2011 maturities of the
City's Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1995A, dated November 1,
1995; and
B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul,
Minnesota ( "Springsted "), as its independent financial advisor and is therefore authorized to sell
these obligations by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and
C. WHEREAS, pursuant to Amendment to Addendum A of Agreement for
• Continuing Disclosure Services a copy of which is on file with the City Manager, the City will
retain Springsted to provide continuing disclosure services for the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Springsted to
solicit bids for the competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds.
2. Meeting: Bid Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place
specified in the Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering
sealed bids for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. The Manager, or his designee, shall open
bids at the time and place specified in such Terms of Proposal.
3. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation
thereof are fully set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby
approved and made a part hereof.
4. Official Statement. In connection with said competitive negotiated sale, the
Manager and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with
Springsted and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to
execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
is 5. Continuing Disclosure and Rebate and Monitoring Services. The Manager of
the City is hereby authorized to execute the Amendment to Addendum A of Agreement for
Continuing Disclosure Services and the City hereby authorizes Springsted to provide continuing
disclosure for the Bonds.
6. Authorization to Negotiate. The City Manager and Springsted are hereby
authorized to negotiate a private sale of the Bonds if on the sale date no bids for the sale of the
Bonds satisfy the 3% savings test required by Minnesota law in which event the City Council
will meet at a later date to approve the private sale of the Bonds.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
• and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
• COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a
full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City,
duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to the City's
$2,490,000 Taxable General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2004B.
WITNESS my hand this day of , 2003.
• Clerk
EXHIBIT A
• THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE
THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE
FOLLOWING BASIS:
TERMS OF PROPOSAL
$2,490,000*
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
TAXABLE GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT
REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2004B
(BOOK ENTRY ONLY)
Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Monday, December 8, 2003, until 10:00 A.M.,
Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint
Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of
the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day.
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS
Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the
• time of sale specified above. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to
constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the
manner in which the Proposal is submitted.
(a) ,Sealed Bidding. Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (651) 223 -3046
to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted
prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final
Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (651) 223 -3000 or fax (651) 223 -3046 for inclusion in
the submitted Proposal.
OR
(b) Electronic Bidding. Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via
PARITY& For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by
PARITY® shall constitute the official time with respect to all Bids submitted to PARITY&
Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY®
for purposes of submitting its electronic Bid in a timely manner and in compliance with the
requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents nor PARITY® shall have
any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or
ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents nor
PARITY® shall be responsible for a bidder's failure to register to bid or for any failure in the
proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages
caused by the services of PARITY®. The City is using the services of PARITY® solely as a
communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY® is
not an agent of the City.
15449141 A -1
I
RESOLUTION NO.
If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY®,
• this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY ®, including any fee
charged, may be obtained from:
PARITY®, 40 West 23rd Street, 5th Floor, New York City, New York 10010, Customer
Support, (212) 404 -8102.
DETAILS OF THE Bonds
The Bonds will be dated January 1, 2004, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest
payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2004. Interest will be
computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months.
The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
2007 I $425 2009 $415 1 201 I $415,000
* The City reserves the right, after�p roposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or
reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction
will be made in multiples of $3, 000 in any of the maturities. in the event the principal
amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken by
the successful bidder will be increased or reduced�by a percentage equal to the percentage
by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced.
• Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial
bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption
and must conform to the maturity schedule set forth above at a price of par plus accrued interest
to the date of redemption. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify "Years of
Term Maturities" in the spaces provided on the Proposal Form.
BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM
The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of
Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond,
representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be
registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ( "DTC "),
New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual
purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof
of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its
participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as
registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of
DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial
owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of
beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to
deposit the Bonds with DTC.
•
15449141 A -2
RESOLUTION NO.
REGISTRAR
• The City will name the registrar that shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City
J pp g Y
will pay for the services of the registrar.
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The Bonds will not be subject to payment in advance of their respective stated maturity dates.
SECURITY AND PURPOSE
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and
credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge tax
increment revenues from Tax Increment District Number 3. The proceeds will be used to refund
in advance of maturity the February 1, 2006 through February 1, 2011 maturities of the City's
Taxable General Obligation Tan Increment Bonds, Series 1995A, dated November 1, 1995.
TAXABILITY OF INTEREST
The interest to be paid on the Bonds is includable in gross income of the recipient for United
States and State of Minnesota income tax purposes, and is subject to Minnesota Corporate and
bank excise taxes measured by net income.
TYPE OF PROPOSALS
Proposals shall be for not less than $2,472,570 and accrued interest on the total principal amount
of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ( "Deposit ") in the form
of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $24,900, payable to
the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany the proposal. If a Financial Surety
Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of
Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted
Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify
each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are
awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to
submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire
transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the
next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the
Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The
Deposit received from the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no
interest will accrue to the purchaser, will be deposited by the City. In the event the purchaser
fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No
proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the
meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to
another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples
of 51100 or 1/8 of 1 %. Rates must be in level or ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity
• shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional
proposals will be accepted.
15449141 A -3
RESOLUTION NO.
AWARD
• The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true
interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in
accordance with customary practice, will be controlling.
The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any proposal or of
matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals
without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply
with the terms herein.
BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION
If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment
therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the
issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the
Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance
shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the
Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall
be the responsibility of the purchaser.
Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the
purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on
• the Bonds.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the
Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect
thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the
Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers
shall be paid by the purchaser.
SETTLEMENT
Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the
purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the
purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of
Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-
litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal,
or equivalent,
funds that shall be received at the offices of the Cit y or its designee not later than
12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has
been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City
for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non - compliance with said terms for
payment.
• CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
On the date of actual issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the City will execute and deliver a
Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking ") whereunder the City will covenant for
15449141 A -4
RESOLUTION NO.
• the benefit of the owners of the Bonds to provide certain financial and other information about
the City and notices of certain occurrences to information repositories as specified in and
required by SEC Rule 15c2- 12(b)(5).
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information
relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly final Official Statement
within the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of
the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser
is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place,
Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (651) 223 -3000.
The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the
maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other
information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect
to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter
or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than
seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior
managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 80 copies of the Official
Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior
managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes
of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any
• underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is
accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual
relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt
by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement.
Dated November 10, 2003 BY ORDER OF THE City council
/s/ Sharon Knutson
Clerk
15449141 A -5
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
November 10, 2003
Immediately Following Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M
City Council Chambers
1. Update and discussion of potential development discussions for EDA property on
Brooklyn Blvd. and 70th
2. Review of Association of Metropolitan Municipalities draft policies
3. Miscellaneous
4. Adjourn
Page 1 of 1
I
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
I
To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and Peppe
From: Michael J. McCauley
City Manager
Date: November 6, 2003
Re: Work Session Agenda
1. Brad Hoffman will provide a briefing to the City Council regarding interest that
has been expressed in developing the EDA owned land on Brooklyn Blvd. north
of 70'' for a medical /office use.
2. Attached are materials from AMM seeking input from city councils on their
priorities for the 2004 legislative session. In the past the Council has reviewed the
priorities and the consensus of that review is forwarded to AMM.
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400
City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
I.
W
Association of
Metropolitan
Municipalities
October 20, 2003
Dear AMM Member:
This year's AMM Policy Adoption Meeting will be held on Thursday, November 20,
as part of a larger day of meetings and events for metro -area cities. We hope you will
join us for a day that begins with a luncheon meeting of the Metropolitan Area
Management Association (MAMA), followed by a half -day conference jointly
sponsored by AMM and the League of Minnesota Cities. The day will conclude with
AMM's policy adoption meeting, dinner and a panel discussion featuring legislative
leaders.
Enclosed you will find materials for the Policy Adoption Meeting, details about the
half -day conference and legislative panel, and information on how to register. If you
can't join us for the entire program, please feel free to participate when you can. I
look forward to seeing you November 20
Sincerely,
Gene Ranieri
Executive Director
145 University Avenue West
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044
Telephone: (651) 215 -4000
Fax: (651) 281 -1299
E -mail: amm @amm145.org
2003 METRO MEETING
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES & ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES
Mayors, councilmembers, Thursday, Nov. .20
mans managers and administrators— four. P °rots sherat °r�
g 1330Indiistrial -Blvd. -
join LMC, AMM and your neighbors 1Vlnneapolis; M 554
or an information - packed day.
MAMA: Luncheon
Noon- -Guest.speaker Tom.:.
Get the information y ou need to meet Weaver, Metrop
y Council Regional Adriiinis-
the ever - changing needs of your community. trator. ..
Cost: $18 person,, billed...
Don't miss this opportunity to separately from LMC /) M1
meeting lea se specify
■ Learn from your neighbors about their experience when reserving.
with cooperation and consolidation
• Get up -to -date information on how to avoid
expensive land -use litigation in your city
LMC /AMM Meeting
• Participate in AMM's policy adoption meeting
0'= 8:OOp,m: =See meet
• Join legislators in exploring metro and greater ing agenda on reverse.:. .
Minnesota issues
Cost: $30 ,per person
AMM Policy
Adoption Meeting
f 5 :15. p.m.
ASSo(iation o f Cost: no additional .cost
L of�nneso& GUe6 Metropolitan
cseo prom sn exnmee
M
uniti p alitie5
Please RSVIP f or i Laurie Jennings at (651) 215-4000
MEETING AGENDA
12.00 p.m. MAMA Luncheon (Separate event, please specffy when registering)
Guest speaker: Tom Weaver, Metropolitan Council Regional Administrator.
1:30 p.m. Registration
2:00 p.m. Cooperation and Consolidation
In these tough fiscal times, cities are being urged to consider more cooperation and
consolidation as alternatives to tax increases or service cuts. Discover what metro cities are
doing and the lessons to be learned from metro projects. Eric Willette, LMC policy research
manager, unveils the results of a recent LMC survey.
2:30 p.m. ' Cooperation and Consolidation - Learning from our Neighbors
A panel of metro city officials will share case studies from their own successes and failures.
Participate in this dialogue facilitated by Kevin Frazell, LMC member services director, and
see what we can learn together!
4:30 p.m. Land -Use Risk Management
Land use claims are increasingly expensive for Minnesota cities. In fact, they have become one
of the most expensive claim areas for the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
(LMCIT). Tom Grundhoefer, LMC general counsel, will update you on the latest legislative
and judicial developments, including the specifics of complying with the 60 -day rule.
5 :15 p.m. AMM Policy Adoption Meeting
Participate in discussion and adoption of AMM's 2004 legislative policies and consideration
of a bylaws change.
(Non AMM members are welcome to stay and listen or proceed to the social hour.)
6:00 p.m. Social Hour and Dinner
Remarks by LMC and AMM Presidents
Hear from LMC President Mark Voxland and AMM President Veid Muiznieks on the
priorities of the two associations, including the "Walking a Mile: the City Official Exchange
Program."
7:00 p.m. Legislative Panel
Balancing the Needs and Wants of Metro and Greater Minnesota
Each legislative session brings more pitched rhetoric about the growing "divide" between the
metro area and greater Minnesota. Four distinguished legislative leaders help us explore the
reality versus perception behind this rhetoric.
Sen. Ann Rest (DFL -New Hope), Assistant Majority Leader
Sen. Dick Day (R- Owatonna), Minority Leader
Rep. Bill Kuisle (R- Rochester), Chair, House Transportation Finance Committee
Rep. Joe Atkins (DFL -Inver Grove Heights)
8:00 p.m. Adjourn
Association of
Metropolitan
Municipalities
MEETING NOTICE
AMM Policy Adoption Meeting
Thursday, November 20, 2003
5:15 — 5:45 p.m.
Four Points Sheraton
1330 Industrial Blvd., Minneapolis
AGENDA
1. Call to Order / Welcome
2. Discussion and Adoption of 2004 Legislative Policies
3. Discussion and Action on Proposed Bylaws Amendment
4. Other Business / Announcements
5. Adjourn
Enclosed lease c t legislative 'e that have been developed
find a o of he 20041e islati policies p copy g p p
and recommended by AMM's four policy committees. The proposed policies have
beer , � viewed by the AMM Board of Directors and are hereby presented for a vote of
the fu membership. If you have questions or concerns regarding the proposed
policies, please feel free to contact Executive Director Gene Ranieri, prior to the
Policy Adoption Meeting, at (651) 215 — 4001.
145 University Avenue West
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044
Telephone: (651) 215 -4000
Fax: (651) 281 -1299
E -mail: amm @amm145.org
E
# TV "i
Assodation of
Metropolitan
Municipalities
October 20, 2003
TO: AMM ,Member Cities
FR: AMM Board of Directors
RE: Proposed Bylaws Amendment
The Board of Directors has approved the following amendment to Article V; Section
2 of the AMM Bylaws and hereby forwards it to the full membership for their
consideration:
Article V. Section Z Failure to Pay Dues
Dues shall be payable annually and will be billed to member cities in January.
Any member which has failed to pay its dues by the first of may March
following the due date shall be stricken from the membership roll.
Reinstatement shall be upon such terms and conditions as prescribed by the
Board. Any member may withdraw from the organization upon payment of all
dues to date and by noting the Executive Director of the Association in
writing.
The proposed amendment will be subject to a vote of the membership at the AMM
Policy Adoption Meeting on Thursday, November 20, 2003. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding this bylaws amendment, please contact Gene Ranieri
at (651) 215 — 4001.
145 University Avenue West
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044
Telephone: (651) 215 -4000
Fax: (651) 281 -1299
E-mail: amm @amm145.org
Association of 2004 Legislative Priorities
Metropolitan MEMBER BALLOT
Municipalities
Municipal Revenue & Taxation (1)
I -A Levy Limits
Please select the top I -B _ Local Government Aid (LGA)
five (5) policies that I -C _ Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC)
you believe AMM I -D _ Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
should focus on I -G _ Transit Funding
during the 2004 I-K — Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
legislative session. I-O_ Aggregate Mining Fee
General Legislation (II)
II -A_ Mandates & Local Authority
II -B _ City Enterprise Activities
Please bring ur 11-C _ Firearms on City Property
g y
completed ballot with II -D Compensation Limits
you to the Nov. 20 Housing & Economic Development (111)
Policy Adoption Meeting III -C — Livable Communities
or fax it to AMM at 111- E_State Role in Affordable Housing
(651) 281 - 1299 111 -H Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
no later than 111 -1 _ State Role in Redevelopment/Reinvestment
Wednesday, Nov. 19.
III -J — "This Old House "/"This Old Shop"
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
IV -G _ Local Zoning Authority
IV -H _ Regional Growth
IV -1 _ Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Name: IV -K_ Natural Resource Protection
IV -L — Water Management
Transportation (V)
V -A Transportation Funding
City: V -B _ Metropolitan Transportation Referendum
V -C _ Regional Transit System
V -D _ Transit Operating Subsidies
WE _ Road Access Fee
V -F _ Transportation Utility
V -1 _ Red Light Cameras
January 2004
Q
lei i
Legislative
0 C S
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
145 University Ave. W. ♦ St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044
Phone: (651) 215 -4000 ♦ Fax: (651) 281 -1299
E-mail:amm@amm145.org
Table of Contents
Municipal Revenue & Taxation (1)
-A Levy Limits ........................................................................ ............................... 1
I -B Local Government Aid (LGA) ............................................. ............................... 1
-C Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) .......................... ............................... 1
I -D Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution ...................................... ............................... 2
-E Class Rate Tax System ...................................................... ............................... 2
-F Limited Market Value (LMV) .............................................. ............................... 2
I-G Transit Funding .................................................................. ............................... 2
I -H State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property .... ............................... 2
W Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility ......................... ............................... 3
I-J Revenue Diversification ..................................................... ............................... 3
-K Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases ....................... ............................... 3
I -L City Revenue Stability & Fund Balance .............................. ............................... 3
-M Price of Government .......................................................... ............................... 3
I -N Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) Under - Funding .................. 3
1 -0 Aggregate Mining Fee ....................................................... ............................... 4
General Legislation (II)
II -A Mandates & Local Authority ............................................... ............................... 5
II -B City Enterprise Activities .................................................... ............................... 5
II -C Firearms on City Property .................................................. ............................... 5
11 -D Compensation Limits ........................................................ ............................... 5
II -E 911 Telephone Tax ............................................................. ............................... 5
II -F 800 MHz Radio System ..................................................... ............................... 6
II-G State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance .................... ............................... 6
Housing & Economic Development (111)
INA City Role in Housing .......................................................... ............................... 7
111 -6 City Role in Lifecycle and Affordable Housing .................... ............................... 7
III-C Livable Communities ......................................................... ............................... 8
III -D Inclusionary Housing .......................................................... ............................... 8
III -E State Role in Affordable Housing ....................................... ............................... 9
Ill-F Federal Role in Affordable Housing ................................. ............................... 10
111-6 Economic Development Responsibilities ......................... ............................... 10
III-H Tax Increment Financing (TIF) .......................................... ............................... 10
1114 State Role in Redevelopment/ Reinvestment ........................ .............................11
111-J "This Old House "f This Old Shop ........................................ .............................11
2004 Legislative Policies
Contents
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
IV A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance ............................... ............................... 13
IV -B Roles & Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council ........ ............................... 13
IV -C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members ..................... ............................... 14
N -D Funding Regional Services .............................................. ............................... 14
IV -E Regional Systems ........................................................... ............................... 14
Review of Local Comprehensive Plans ............................ ............................... 15
IV G Local Zoning Authority ..................................................... ............................... 15
IV-H Regional Growth .............................................................. ............................... 15
N -I Comprehensive Planning Schedule ................................. ............................... 16
IV-J Adjacent Counties ........................................................... ............................... 16
IV K Natural Resource Protection ............................................ ............................... 17
IVL Water Management ......................................................... ............................... 17
IV M Funding Regional Parks & Open Space .......................... ............................... 18
Transportation (V)
V -A Transportation Funding ................................................... ............................... 19
V -B Metropolitan Transportation Referendum ......................... ............................... 19
V -C Regional Transit System .................................................. ............................... 19
V -D Transit Operating Subsidies ............................................ ............................... 20
V -E Road Access Fee ........................................................... ............................... 20
V -F Transportation Utility ........................................................ ............................... 20
V -G HighwayTurnbacks & Funding ......................................... ............................... 20
V -H '3C' Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role .......................... 21
V-1 Red Light Cameras ......................................................... ............................... 21
V -J Airport Noise Mitigation ................................................... ............................... 21
V -K Cities Under 5,000 Population ......................................... ............................... 21
V -L County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula .. ............................... 22
V -M Municipal Input (Consent) for Trunk Highways ................... ............................... 22
Committee Rosters
Municipal Revenue Policy Committee ......................................... ............................... 23
Housing and Economic Development Policy Committee ............ ............................... 24
Metropolitan Agencies Policy Committee ................................... ............................... 24
Transportation and General Government Policy Committee ........ ............................... 25
ii Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
AMM MISSION STATEMENT
To serve as the primary representative of the collective
interests of all metropolitan cities on metropolitan issues
and statewide issues with metropolitan significance.
AMM MEMBERS
1. Afton 27. Fridley 53. Plymouth
2. Andover 28. Golden Valley 54. Prior Lake
3. Anoka 29. Hastings 55. Ramsey
4. Apple Valley 30. Hopkins 56. Richfield
5. Arden Hills 31. Hugo 57. Robbinsdale
6 Bayport 32. Independence 58. Rosemount
7. Blaine 33. Inver Grove Heights 59. St. Anthony
8. Bloomington 34. Lake Elmo 60. St. Francis
9. Brooklyn Center 35. Lakeville 61. St. Louis Park
10. Brooklyn Park 36. Long Lake 62. St. Michael*
11. Burnsville 37. Mahtomedi 63. St. Paul
12. Champlin 38. Maple Grove 64. St. Paul Park
13. Chanhassen 39. Maplewood 65. Savage
14. Chaska 40. Mendota Heights 66. Shakopee
15. Circle Pines 41. Minneapolis 67. Shorewood
16 Columbia Heights 42. Minnetonka 68. South St. Paul
17. Coon Rapids 43. Mound 69. Spring Park
18. Cottage Grove 44. New Brighton 70. Sunfish Lake
19. Crystal 45. New hope 71. Wayzata
20. Eagan 46 Newport 72. West St. Paul
21. Eden Prairie 47. Nort geld* 73. White Bear Lake
22. Edina 48. North St. Paul 74. Woodbury
23. Excelsior 49. Oak Park Heights 75. Woodland
24. Falcon Heights 50. Oakdale
25. Farmington 51.Orono
26 Forest Lake 52. Osseo
* = Associate Member
2004 Legislative Policies iii
Municipal Revenue&
Taxation (1)
I A Levy Limits
The AMM strongly opposes levy limits and urges the legislature not to re -enact them for 2005 and
beyond. The AMM also opposes the imposition of artificial mechanisms such as valuation freezes,
payroll freezes, reverse referenda, super majority requirements for levy, or other limitations to the local
government budget and taxing process. Expenditures for capital improvements such as infrastructure
reconstruction should not be subject to levy limits.
1 -B Local Government Aid (LGA)
Local Government Aid (LGA), the only remaining form of general purpose state aid to Minnesota cities,
was significantly reduced and reformed by the 2003 Legislature — at a significant cost to most metro-
politan communities. As a result of these changes, 82 of the metropolitan area's 138 cities no longer
receive any LGA.
AMM supports the continuation of Local Government Aid (LGA) to assist those cities who's public
service needs and costs exceed their local ability to pay, but believes the 2003 reforms fall short of
creating a state aid system that is accepted as both fair and understandable. At this time, the state
should avoid any further changes to the "need" or "ability -to -pay" components of the LGA formula, until
a comprehensive and inclusive study of Minnesota's system of tax revenue sources to fund local govern-
ment services has been undertaken.
In the meantime, cities that receive no LGA, and therefore fund the majority of their services entirely
through local revenues, should be exempt from state- imposed levy limits.
I t -C Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC)
The MVHC is a state aid to individual homestead property taxpayers. It is based on the value of the
individual's property and is shown on the tax statement as a tax reduction from the State of Minnesota.
If the state cannot fully fund MVHC, it should restructure the credit to the level of available funds. For
the state to continue to award MVHC without reimbursing local governments violates the principle of
truthh in taxation.
2004 Legislative Policies 1
Revenue & Taxation
E
1 -D Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
The AMM opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fiord social or physical metropolitan programs since it
results in a metropolitan-wide property tax increase hidden from the public.
AMM supports the continuation of the fiscal disparities program until such time as an appropriate
replacement is developed.
I -E Class Rate Tax System
The AMM opposes a change from the class rate tax system to a market value system, which would
cause tremendous shifts of tax burden between classes of property, or applying future levy increases to
market value, since this would further complicate the property tax system.
I -F Limited Market Value (LMV)
The AMM strongly opposes extension of artificial limits in valuing property at market for taxation
purposes to additional property classes since such limitations shift tax burdens to other classes of
property and create disparities between properties of equal value. The Legislature should monitor the
effects of the LMV phase -out to avoid excessive tax burden increases to currently benefiting properties.
The AMM believes that enhanced targeting for special circumstances better serves the tax system.
I-G Transit Funding
Removing transit operating expenses from the property tax and funding them with a percentage of
revenues generated by the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MV ST) was one component of the property tax
reform package enacted by the 2001 Legislature. Prior to this reform, transit operations in Minnesota
were much more dependent on the property tax as a funding source than transit operations in other
states. The removal of transit operations from the property tax allowed the state to both reverse this
unusual dependence and to provide an equal amount of net property tax relief across the state. The
AMM strongly opposes undoing this reform and returning transit operating expenses to the property
tax.
I -H State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property
The 2001 Property Tax Reform Act shifted general education funding to the state, and fiinded it, in part,
with a state roe tax on commencal/mdustnal and cabin property. Since cities only source of
P P rt3' P PAY Y
general funds is the property tax, AMM would oppose extension of a state levied property tax to
additional classes ofproperty.
2 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
i
Revenue & Taxation
14 Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility
The AMM opposes proposals for exempting Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) from the personal
property tax. Under no circumstances should local units of government and their taxpayers be required
to shoulder the burdens of tax relief for IOUs.
The personal property tax is a significant portion of the metropolitan fiscal disparity pool and, if elimi-
nated, would have a metropolitan-wide property tax impact.
W Revenue Diversification
The AMM supports revenue diversification for cities in order to reduce reliance on the property tax.
The AMM opposes legislated reduction or limitation of various license fees, development fees or other
general fees which would force increased property taxes to pay for related services.
W Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
The legislature should reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local government purchases without
requiring a reduction in other aids.
I -L City Revenue Stability & Fund Balance
The state should not attempt to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds are necessary to
maintain fiscal viability, meet unexpected or emergency resource needs, purchase capital goods and
infrastructure, provide adequate cash flow and maintain high -level bond ratings.
I -M Price of Government
The price of government calculation in regard to local governments should be based on (1) changes in
the sum of the levy and state aids, and (2) examination of long -term trends, not single year events. In
addition, consideration should be given to service provision transfers between governmental units,
increased demand for services by citizens and legislative mandates or tax rate changes.
I -N Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) Under - Funding
The 2001 legislature increased employer and employee contributions to PERA by 0.35 percent each,
made some administrative changes in qualification, and extended the amortization period from 20 to 30
years to deal with PERA's long -term funding deficiency. Recent analysis has indicated that some of the
trends leading to the deficiency have slowed or possibly reversed.
2004 Legislative Policies 3
Revenue & Taxation
The state should carefully nal future actuarial reports and experience studies to determine ifthe
Y Y� mP �
2001 contribution rate increases and plan modifications ar e sufficient to cover the plan's deficient y . The
state should assist local governments in covering any deficiency that may still exist.
1-0 Aggregate Mining Fee
In order to provide an incentive for the extraction of local aggregate resources prior to urbanized
development and in order to help offset the negative impacts of aggregate mining on local communities,
the state should authorize cities and townships to collect a host community fee of not less than 30 cents
per ton from the operators of aggregate mines, with the fee proceeds to be deposited in the
municipality's general fund.
r
4 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
General Legislation
11 -A Mandates & Local Authority
The AMM opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority or create mandated
additional tasks requiring new or added local costs without a corresponding state appropriation or
funding mechanism. New unfunded mandates cause increased property taxes which impede cities'
ability to fund traditional service needs.
11 -13 City Enterprise Activities
AMM supports cities' authority to establish city enterprise operations in response to community needs,
local preferences, state mandates or to ensure residents' quality of life. Creation of an enterprise opera -
lion allows a city to provide the desired service while maintaining financial and management control. The
state should refrain from infringing on this ability to provide and control services for the benefit of
community residents.
II -C Firearms on City Property
The Citizens Personal Protection Act should be amended to allow cities to prohibit handguns in city -
owned buildings, facilities and parks. This would allow locally - elected officials to determine whether to
allow pertnit- holders to bring guns into municipal buildings, liquor stores, city council chambers and city -
sponsored youth activities. It is not AMM's intention for cities to have the authority to prohibit legal
Weapons in parking lots, on city streets or city sidewalks.
II -D Compensation Limits
The Legislature should acknowledge that all state and local governments, not just school districts, must
be competitive in recruiting and retaining upper level management employees. In addition, there is no
correlation between the compensation of citizen volunteers and career public sector professionals.
Therefore, the state should repeal or modify laws limiting the compensation of a person employed by a
statutory or home rule charter city to the governor's salary.
II -E 911 Telephone Tax
The AMM supports an increase in the current charge per phone line 911 access fee to provide neces-
sary and mandated upgrades and modifications to 911 systems in public safety answering point (PSAP)
2004 Legislative Policies 5
General Legislation
locations throughout the state. This fee increase is needed to maintain reliable emergency communication
services and to comply with the FCC mandate for cell phone automated location identification. The
increased funds should be distributed to the local PSAPs in a fair and appropriate manner.
Additionally, cities must be directly involved in the process of examining PSAP consolidation as man-
dated by the 2003 Legislature. Consideration must be given to public safety, financial and best practice
factors.
Il -F 800 MHz Radio System
The AMM supports the continuation of the Metropolitan 800 MHz Radio System legislation and board,
as long as cities are not forced to modify their current systems or become part of the 800 MHz Radio
System until they so choose. The system should provide a phased transition guaranteeing uninterrupted
service and be technically capable of allowing communities the flexibility to form various coordinated
arrangements for dispatching and service provision. In that one of the prime advantages of this system is
the fact that local public safety agencies and other units of local government throughout the region will be
able to communicate with each other, regional funding of the entire system should be considered.
11-G State Paid Police and Fire Medical Insurance
♦ The state must fully fund programs that pay for health insurance for police and fire employees
required under M.S. 299A.465, as amended in 1997, for police and fire employees hurt or killed in
the line of duty.
♦ The Legislature must clarify whether M.S. 299A.465 applies to injuries incurred prior to June 1,
1997 (the effective date of the law).
♦ The Legislature must clarify the amount of an employer's contribution under M. S. 299A.465 and
whether it changes over time.
♦ The Legislature must identify a single public entity as the authority for making the disability determi-
nation for purposes of the benefits assigned under M.S. 299A.465, establish the minimum criteria
used to determine ability to work, and set a percentage threshold of disability for eligibility into this
program.
6 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing & Economic
Development (111)
Introduction
While the provision of housing is predominantly a private - sector, market -driven activity; all levels of
government – federal, state and local – have a role to play in facilitating the production and preservation
of affordable housing in Minnesota.
AMM's housing policies recognize the intergovernmental nature of this issue — starting with policies A
through D, which outline the role of cities. Cities are responsible for much ofthe ground -level housing
policy in Minnesota– including land -use planning, building code enforcement, and often times, the
packaging of financial incentives. However, the state must also play a maj or role by empowering local
units of government and providing a variety of funding programs and tools. Policy E addresses the
state's responsibility to provide financial resources and establish a general direction for housing policy.
Finally, policy F speaks to the urgent need for the federal government to increase its financial support for
the production and preservation of affordable housing.
III -A City Role in Housing
In the state of Minnesota, the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market- driven
activity. However, all cities facilitate the development of housing via responsibilities in the areas of land -
use planning, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations and many cities choose to play an additional
role by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in state and regional housing
programs and supporting either local or county -wide Housing and Redevelopment Authorities. Cities
are also responsible for ensuring the health and safety of local residents and the structural soundness and
livability of the local housing stock via building permits and inspections.
AMM strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities' authority to carry out these
functions in a locally determined manner.
111 -13 City Role in Lifecycle and Affordable Housing
AMM supports lifecycle and affordable housing and recognizes that it is key to the economic and social
well being of individual communities and the region. Cities can facilitate the production and preservation
of Lifecycle and affordable housing by:
♦ Applying for funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
2004 Legislative Policies 7
Housing and Economic Development
♦ Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into new and existing
neighborhoods;
♦ Expediting review processes; and
♦ Working to reduce locally- imposed development costs.
Ill -C Livable Communities
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) program operated by the Metropolitan Council provides a
voluntary, incentive -based approach to affordable housing development, brownfield clean -up and
mixed -use, transit- friendly development/redevelopment. AMM strongly supports the continuation of
this approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local communities.
Currently the LCA program is primarily fielded via a Metropolitan Council property tax levy, which is
subject to levy limits. AMM supports the loosening or removal of these levy limits as well as the
appropriation of additional state funds for this program in order to allow it to more fully meet the dem-
onstrated need that currently exists in the metropolitan area.
The 2004 Minnesota Legislature should enact and fund a public infrastructure grant program as part of
the Livable Communities Act (LCA). The public infrastructure grant program should be based on the
objectives ofthe LCA.
Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering the costs of administering the
program. Re mainin g interest earnings not used for program administration should be considered part of
the LCA funds and used to fund grant requests from the established LCA accounts, according to
established funding criteria.
The Metropolitan Council, in cooperation with the LCA participants, should develop a benchmark to
measure a city's efforts in regards to affordable housing. The benchmark should replace the Affordable
Life -Cycle Housing Opportunity Amount (ALHOA).
111 -D Inclusionary Housing
AMM supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed -use neighborhoods through-
out a city and would support enabling legislation that authorizes cities to utilize new and innovative
means of achieving this goal. However, AMM does not support passage of a mandatory inclusionary
housing law that would require a certain percentage of units in all new housing developments to be
affordable to households at a particular income level.
Advocates of a mandatory inclusionary housing law often point to its use in Montgomery County,
Maryland. However, AMM does not believe the situation or experiences of Montgomery County are
8 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing and Economic Development
broadly applicable or transferable to the Twin Cities metropolitan region, given this area's development
stage, housing market and state - local government structure. Furthermore, a close look at the Mont-
gomery County experience shows that the production of affordable housing units has fallen -off signifi-
cantly from the levels achieved in the mid- 1980's to the point where, today, it is not achieving large -
scale production of affordable housing units.
Mandatory inclusionary housing policies are based on the assumption that in every new housing devel-
opment cities are capable of providing enough regulatory relief, via things such as density bonuses and/
or fee waivers, for the developer to produce below market rate units without a direct financial subsidy
or cross - subsidization from the other houses in the development. While AMM does believe there are
cost savings to be achieved through regulatory reform, density bonuses, and fee waivers, AMM does
not believe a mandatory inclusionary housing approach can achieve the desired levels of affordability
solely through these steps.
III -E State Role in Affordable Housing
By establishing and funding statewide housing programs, to be administered by the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency (MHFA), the legislature establishes a general direction/prioritization for the state on
housing issues. The state's financial support ofhomeless shelters, transitional housing, supportive senior
housing, and low - income family housing is essential to communities throughout the state and should be
continued.
In recent years, the State of Minnesota has been an active partner in addressing lifecycle and affordable
housing issues. However, AMM believes the state's continued, and increased, participation is essential
to addressing this ongoing issue.
Therefore, the state should:
♦ Increase funding, including state general fund appropriations, for MHFA's development and redevel-
opment, supportive housing and housing preservation programs and appropriate new funds to help
establish affordable housing land trusts.
♦ Continue the policy of using MHFA's investment earnings for housing programs.
♦ Amend the tax exempt bond allocation statute to maximize its availability for affordable rental
housing.
♦ Provide exemptions from or reductions to the sales, use and transaction taxes applied to the devel-
opment and production of affordable housing.
♦ Repeal the $50 reduction from a person or household's monthly Minnesota Family Investment
Program grant ifthey are residents ofpublic or Section 8 housing.
♦ Authorize cities to amend their comprehensive plans, in order to facilitate increased lifecycle and
affordable housing, with a simple majority vote of the city council, rather than a super majority.
2004 Legislative Policies 9
Housing and Economic Development
III -F Federal Role in Affordable Housing
The AMM strongly believes that the financial support of the federal government is necessary in order to
address the affordable housing challenges facing this, and other, metropolitan areas.
Historically the federal government has been a major partner in the provision of affordable housing for
low and moderate - income individuals and families. However, during the last twenty years, the federal
government has significantly reduced its commitment and its financial support — reducing the amount of
funds available for the production of affordable housing and eliminating key tax credit programs.
A recent report by the Congressionally - commissioned Millennial Housing Commission reaffirms that
there is a federal role in the provision of low and moderate - income housing, and calls for new or ex-
panded programs in the areas of housing production, tax - exempt bonding, and federal tax credits, as
well as increased flexibility for states spending federal block grant dollars. AMM believes the
Commission's report should serve as a starting point for a federal housing policy that reinserts the
federal overnment as an active partner with state and local governments and the private sector.
g g p
p
AMM urges the Governor, the Legislature and local governments throughout the region to adopt
memorializing resolutions and utilize other means, such as public forums and roundtable discussions, to
inform federal officials and members of Minnesota's Congressional delegation of the urgent need for
federal support.
III -G Economic Development Responsibilities
The state of Minnesota should continue to recognize cities as the primary unit of government responsible
for implementing economic development policies and land use controls. However, the state should
adopt policies that encourage cities to j ointly plan for and implement economic development projects.
New or amended economic development programs designed to address specific economic circum-
stances within cities or counties should use problem definition as the criteria rather than geographic
location, city size or similar criteria.
111 -H Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has been and continues to be the primary tool available to local commu-
nities for assisting economic development, redevelopment and housing projects. However, recent
judicial decisions and property tax reforms have raised several issues that could require legislative
action. Among the issues are the changing nature of redevelopment, such as the emergence of mixed-
use developments and the concept of economic obsolesce vs. blight; potential shortfalls resulting from
the tax reforms and the scheduling of activities within the TIF district. During the 2004 session, the
legislature should:
10 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing and Economic Development
• Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIF districts and, if warranted, provide cities with
additional authority to pay for possible TIF shortfalls.
• Define "mixed -use" developments and allowable uses of TIF in such developments.
• Eliminate the five -year rule and provide for plan amendments to be approved by a certain date but
allow implementation to occur after that date.
111 -1 State Role in Redevelopment / Reinvestment
The need to undertake redevelopment /reinvestment activities is a natural part of the development cycle
experienced by all cities. Redevelopment allows local communities to adjust to changing market condi-
tions, better utilize existing public infrastructure, and maintain a viable local tax base. However, due to
the higher up -front costs of redevelopment, as compared to greenfield development, desirable redevel-
opment proj ects often require public assistance.
The State of Minnesota has a responsibility to work with local governments to provide a practical,
flexible and multi- purpose mix oftools, resources and authorities that will allow local communities to
address the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities of redevelopment.
AMM supports the establishment of a statewide redevelopment fund with an appropriation from the
2004 bonding bill. The fund should be administered by the Department of Employment and Economic
Development, with grants awarded on a competitive basis. Proportional allocations of the grant funding
should be earmarked for the metropolitan area and Greater Minnesota, with the provision that any
unused allocation can be transferred to the other allocation.
lll-J "This Old House" / "This Old Shop"
AMM supports the reenactment of the "This Old House" law (MS273.11 subd. 16), which allowed
owners of older homestead property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or
improvements to the home. AMM also supports passage of similar legislation for owners of older
commercial/industrial property who make improvements that increase the property's market value by at
least 12 %.
2004 Legislative Policies 11
Housing and Economic Development
i
12 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
IV -A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
The statutorily- defined Twin Cities metropolitan region is made up of 193 cities and townships covering
over 3,000 square miles in seven counties. The effective and efficient delivery of certain public services
and the continued economic growth of this region is enhanced by the existence of a regional entity to
provide coordination and facilitate cooperation.
Therefore, AMM supports the continued existence of a metropolitan governance system for the pur-
pose of:
♦ Facilitating long -term region -wide planning with the cooperation and consideration of the affected
local units of government; and
♦ Planning for and providing those public services that are needed by the region, but cannot be
effectively and efficiently provided by local governments or the state.
With or without the Metropolitan Council as it exists today, the region needs some entity to perform
these functions. However, the Twin Cities' metropolitan governance structure should not be granted,
nor should it assume, general local government or state agency powers.
IV -B Roles & Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council
The primary responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council are to:
♦ Plan for the orderly and economical development of the metropolitan area by preparing a compre-
hensive development guide that includes long -range comprehensive policy plans for the transporta-
tion, aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space systems.
♦ Review local comprehensive plans for compatibility with the plans of neighboring communities,
consistency with Metropolitan Council policies and conformity with metropolitan system plans.
♦ Provide specific regional services and administer select regional grant programs as assigned by state
or federal law.
2004 Legislative Policies 13
Metropolitan Agencies
I
♦ Provide technical assistance, research and information to local writs of governm ent.
Any additional responsibilities taken on by, or authority granted to, the Metropolitan Council should be
the result of a specific statutory assignment or grant.
IV -C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members
I I
Members of the Metropolitan Council should be selected via an open process that includes an opportu-
nity for local governments and other stakeholders to provide meaningful input. Council members should
be understanding of and responsive to the districts they represent while also serving the best interests of
the region. Metropolitan Council members should serve fixed, staggered terms.
IV -D Funding Regional Services
The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities through a combina-
tion of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants.
User fees should be set by the Metropolitan Council via an open and visible process that includes public
notice and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that will: l )
support effective and efficient public services, based on commonly accepted industry standards; and 2)
allow for sufficient reserves to ensure service and fee stability over the long -term.
Fee proceeds from one service should not be used to fund another regional service or program.
IV -E Regional Systems
There are currently four regional systems defined in statute — transportation, aviation, wastewater
treatment and recreational open space. The purpose ofthese regional systems and the Metropolitan
Council's authority for them is clearly outlined in state statute. In order to alter the focus or expand the
reach of any of these systems, the Metropolitan Council must seek a statutory change.
The system plans /statements preparedd by the Metropolitan Council for these regional systems should be
specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional investments in order to allow for consider -
ation in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans
will be j udged for consistency and the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than
not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans.
Additional regional systems should only be established if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or
concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the four
existing regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and an established
regional or state funding source. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that
might be established.
14 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Metropolitan Agencies
IV -F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council should:
♦ Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan is more likely
than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one of the four
system plans.
♦ Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the legislature on plan amendments and
development applications.
♦ Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for substantial impact
on systems plans.
♦ Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but not pre-
scribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the Metropolitan Land Use
Planning Act (LUPA).
IV -G Local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning. Local zoning decisions should not be conditioned upon
the approval of the Metropolitan Council or any other governmental agency. AMM strongly opposes
the creation of any appeals board with the authority to supersede city planning or zoning decisions.
IV -H Regional Growth
The most recent regional population forecasts project an additional 930,000 people and 460,000
households for the seven - county metropolitan area by the year 2030.
In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high quality of life:
♦ natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and development/reinvestment;
♦ significant new resources will have to be found for transportation and transit; and
♦ new households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second -ring suburbs, and
developing cities through both development and redevelopment.
2004 Legislative Policies 15
Metropolitan Agencies
In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies:
♦ the state ofMinnesota must contribute additional financial resources — particularly in the areas of
transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing development, and the preservation of
parks and open space;
♦ the Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue to work with
cities in a collaborative, incentives -based manner; and
♦ metropolitan counties and school districts must be brought more thoroughly into the discussion.
Overall, it is the Metropolitan Council's role, through the regional development guide and its accompa-
nying policy plans, to set broad regional goals and then provide cities with technical assistance and
incentives to achieve those goals. Local governments are ultimately responsible for zoning, land use
planning and development decisions within their borders.
IV -1 Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Cities are scheduled to complete new comprehensive plans in 2008. The adoption of a new metropoli-
tan development guide does not warrant a change in this schedule.
Any future changes to the schedule for local comprehensive planning should be accompanied by the
statutory establishment of a complementary schedule for regional planning. This schedule should: (1)
protect cities from being forced into a state of perpetual planning in response to regional actions; and (2)
ensure sufficient time for cities to understand and incorporate regional policies into their local planning
efforts.
IV-J Adjacent Counties
As the Twin Cities region continues to grow and expand outward, it will become increasingly important
for the traditional seven - county region to work collaboratively with the 12 adjacent counties in Minne-
sota and Wisconsin, and the cities within those counties. There are environmental, transportation and
land -use issues that cannot be solved by the seven - county area alone.
Therefore, representatives ofthe state, the Metropolitan Council, and the counties adjacent to the Twin
Cities metropolitan area should begin meeting on a regular basis regarding growth management strate-
gies for the Minnesota counties. The Wisconsin counties should be included when appropriate. These
strategies should focus on policies that can be implemented by local governments within the adjacent
counties and by state agencies, rather than by extension of the Met Council's jurisdiction to additional
counties. All strategies should complement and recognize growth management policies currently being
16 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Metropolitan Agencies
implemented within the seven - county metropolitan area.
Regional services should be extended to communities in the adjacent counties only ifthere is a specific
problem that can be best resolved by extending the service. The area receiving the services must pay
for the service extension and agree to growth management strategies consistent with those of the seven -
county metropolitan area.
IV -K Natural Resource Protection
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and
maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of provid-
ing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. However, any additional steps
taken by the Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that:
♦ The state has a significant role to play in the protection of natural resources — especially when those
resources are significant to a multi- county area that is home to more than 50 percent of the state's
population and atravel destination for many more. Given the limited availability ofresources and the
artificial nature of the metropolitan area's borders, neither the region nor individual metropolitan com-
munities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing and protecting these
resources.
♦ The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRI /A) is not a regional
system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive plans under the Metropolitan Land Use
Planning Act.
♦ The protection of natural resources will have to be balanced with the need to accommodate growth
and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more affordable housing and pro-
vide transportation and transit connections. Decisions about the zoning or land -use designations of
specific parcels of land not already contained within a public park, nature preserve or other protected
area are, and should remain, the responsibility of local units of government.
1V-1L Water Management
As the Twin Cities region plans for approximately one million new residents by the year 2030, the state
of Minnesota, the Metropolitan Council and individual local governments are facing increasing federal
regulations related to water quality and increasing concerns about the adequacy of our water supply.
These challenges cannot be resolved by shifting the responsibility and cost for regulatory compliance
onto local units of government. They will require financial participation from the state.
Any future changes to state statute and/or administrative rules pertaining to surface water and ground -
2004 Legislative Policies 17
Metropolitan Agencies
water management should seek to clarify responsibilities and reduce duplication among the various
levels of government involved. AMM opposes any changes that will result in additional unfunded
mandates being placed on local units of government or in the reduction of cities' authority in the area of
land -use pl anriing .
In order for cities to participate in their local Water Management Organizations (WMOs) to the best of
their ability, individual city councils should have the authority to appoint a representative of their choice
to their local WMO Board. Therefore, legislation enacted in 1999, limiting who may represent cities on
WMO boards should be repealed.
IV -M Funding Regional Parks & Open Space
In the seven - county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve the role of state parks. There-
fore, the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improve -.
ment of these parks. State funding should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks.
18 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
i
i
Transportation (V)
V -A Transportation Funding
The AMM strongly supports increased funding for transit and highways, both of which are a critical
j need in the metropolitan area. In addition, funding for mass transit, including transit ways, light rail or
heavy rail in existing corridors, should be dedicated in a manner consistent with current highway funding.
Funds allocated to the metropolitan area should be flexible so that the most efficient and cost effective
transportation solution may be chosen and the main metropolitan problem (congestion relief) can be
addressed.
The AMM supports a constitutional amendment dedicating the motor vehicle sales tax and/or other
revenue source to a new Surface Transportation Multimodal Fund from which an appropriate amount is
allocated to the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund to replace the auto license -tab fee reduction of
2000, and the remaining amount to be used for transit and/or highway needs as priority dictates.
The AMM supports a general gas tax increase, gas tax indexing, and adequate funding for transit. All
non - transportation programs should be funded from sources other than currently dedicated transporta-
tion funds.
V -B Metropolitan Transportation Referendum
Th e AMM supports a metropolitan area referendum for an additional half-cent or full-cent sales tax to
support major highway '
and transit needs in the metropolitan area, the caveat that current state
pp
p �
funding sources, amounts and percentages for the metropolitan area are maintained.
Additional major funding is needed for the metropolitan transportation system over and above current
sources and levels. This is due to projected population increases totalling nearly one million by 2030,
congestion approaching grid lock, and the significantly greater cost of road construction in the metro
area versus rural areas.
V -C Regional Transit System
The Twin Cities metropolitan area needs a multi -modal regional transit system that serves both commut-
ers and the transit - dependent. The transit system should be composed -of a mix of HOV lanes, express
and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit and commuter rail corridors de-
signed to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should be
2004 Legislative Policies 19
Transportation
regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure routes of service that correspond to the region's changing
travel patterns.
In order to slow the growth in congestion and provide regional residents and visitors with a realistic
alternative to the automobile, the regional transit system needs a funding source that is both stable and
capable of growing with the region. The AMM is opposed to legislative directives that constrain the
ability of metropolitan transit providers to provide a full range of transit services, including reverse-
commute routes, suburb -to- suburb routes, transit hub feeder services or new, experimental services that
may show a low rate of operating cost recovery from the fare box.
V -D Transit Operating Subsidies
The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is now expanding to include
rail transit and dedicated busways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this system should
come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of individual cities and
counties should not be singled out to fund the operation of specific transit lines or routes of service
within this regional system.
V -E Road Access Fee
In order to fairly provide for major street improvements of primary benefit to a particular subdivision
development but not directly assessable and to allocate cost so that new growth pays its fair share, the
legislature should authorize cities to establish, at their option, a road development access charge to be
collected at the time that subdivisions are approved and/or at the time building permits are issued similar
to park dedication fees.
V -F Transportation Utility
The AMM supports legislation to authorize cities to establish a transportation utility for street construc-
tion and reconstruction of aging infrastructure, similar to the existing storm water utility, so that costs of
improved facilities can be more fairly charged to the users rather than the general population as a whole.
V -G Highway Turnbacks & Funding
The AMM supports jurisdictional reassignment or tumback of roads on a phased basis using functional
classification and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding
of roadway improvements and continuing maintenance.
Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increases, to absorb the
additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal turnback fund is
not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks.
20 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Transportation
V -H `3C' Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role
The AMM supports continuation of the Transportation Advisory Board TAB a ma jority of local
PIS (TAB), J tY
P ry )
elected officials membership on the TAB itself and the TAB process, which was developed to meet
federal requirements for designation of the Metropolitan Council as the Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion that is responsible for the continuous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning
process to allocate federal funds among metropolitan area projects. This process requirement was
reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the 1998
Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 st Century (TEA21).
V -1 Red Light Cameras
The AMM requests legislative authorization for governmental units, including cities, to enforce traffic
laws and promote public safety on Minnesota's streets and highways through the use of cameras at
light - regulated intersections. Motion imagining recording system technology has been proven and is
currently used by law enforcement departments in numerous states, municipalities and other countries.
At a minimum, the state should authorize a pilot proj ect or proj ects on municipal streets in the metro-
politan area.
V-J Airport Noise Mitigation
AMM supports noise abatement programs and expenditures designed to minimize the impacts of
MAC- operated facilities on neighboring communities. The Metropolitan Airports Commission should
determine the design and geographic reach of these programs only after a thorough public input process
that considers the priorities and concerns of the impacted cities and their residents. The MAC and state
should seek long -term solutions to fund the full mitigation package as adopted in 1996 for all homes in
the 64 -60 DNL impact area. Noise abatement efforts should be paid for by fees and charges collected
from airport users, as well as state and federal funds.
V -K Cities Under 5,000 Population
Currently cities under 5,000 population receive no state funding or MSA funds for collector or arterial
streets regardless of traffic volume, origination and/or destination. Current CSAH distribution to metro-
politan counties is inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area. Criteria
such as the number of average daily trips should be established in a small city local road improvement
program for funding qualification and a distribution method devised. Possible funding sources include the
five- percent set -aside account in the Highway User Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal
accounts and/or state general fund.
2004 Legislative Policies 21
Transportation
V -L County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
The AMM suppoits modification of the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distribution formula to
more fairly account for total vehicle miles traveled on metropolitan county CSAH funded roads. Al-
though only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area they account for nearly 50% of the vehicle
miles traveled. The metro counties receive less than 20% of the CSAH distribution and have instituted
city cost participation, whereby cities are now forced to pay up to 45% of a CSAH road project cost in
some areas.
V -M Municipal Input (Consent) for Trunk Highways-
The previous municipal consent statute for trunk highways was unclear, allowed multiple sign- offtimes
including just prior to bid letting and allowed proj ect delay. MnDOT never invoked an appeal. The
current statute as totally re- written in 2001, provides for MnDOT to submit detailed plans with city
cost estimates at a point one and a half to two years prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings
are held for citizen/business/municipal input. If MnDOT does not concur with requested changes,
MnDOT may appeal. Currently, that process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the
results of the appeal board are binding on both the city and MnDOT.
The AMM opposes any change to the current statute that would allow MnDOT to totally disregard the
appeal board ruling for state trunk highways. The result of such a change would significantly minimize
MnDOT's desire or need to negotiate in good faith with the city for appropriate project access and
alignment. Plus it would make the public hearing and appeal process meaningless.
22 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Committee Rosters (VI)
Municipal Revenue Policy Committee
Mike Gamache, Mayor, Andover (Committee Chair)
Greg Andrews, Director of Finance, Brooklyn Park
Mark Berhnardson, City Manager, Bloomington
Patrick Born, Finance Director, Minneapolis
Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
Sherry Butcher, Councilmember, Eden Prairie
William Droste, Mayor, Rosemount
Walt Fehst, City Manager, Columbia Heights
Pat Harris, Councilmember, St. Paul
Eric Johnson, City Administrator, Oak Park Heights
Gary Joselyn, Councilmember, Crystal
Jim Keinath, City Administrator, Circle Pines
Jack Kryst, Manager, Project Planning & Fianance, Minneapolis
Tom Lawell, City Administrator, Apple Valley
Dennis Maetzold, Mayor, Edina
Linda Masica, Councilmember, Edina
Mike Mornson, City Manager, St. Anthony
Bruce Nawrocki, Councilmember, Columbia Heights
Don Rambow, Finance Director, White Bear Lake
Douglas Reeder, City Manager, Brooklyn Park
Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator, Cottage Grove
Jim Smith, Councilmember, Independence
Jerry Splinter, City Manager, Coon Rapids
Steve Stahmer, Assistant to the City Manager, Hopkins
Jim Willis, City Administrator, Inver Grove Heights
2004 Legislative Policies 23
Committee Rosters
Housing and Economic Development Policy Committee
Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley (Committee Chair)
Janis Callison, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Sharon Cassen, Councilmember, New Hope
Ultan Duggan, Councilmember, Mendota Heights
Pamela Frantum, Sr. Planner, Minneapolis
Regina Harris, HRA Director, Bloomington
Jon Hohenstein, City Administrator, Mahtomedi
Andrea Jenkins, Councilmember Assistant, Minneapolis
Ron Rankin, Community, Development Director, Minnetonka
Mary Riley, Councilmember, Rosemount
Steve Stahmer, Asst. to the City Manager, Hopkins
Bob Streetar, Community Development Director, Columbia Heights
Blair Tremere, Councilmember, Golden Valley
James Verbrugge, City Administrator, Rosemount
Liz Workman, Councilmember, Burnsville
Heather Worthington, City Administrator, Falcon Heighs
Metropolitan Agencies Policy Committee
Beverly Aplikowski, Mayor, Arden Hills (Committee Chair)
Bill Barnhart, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
Charlie Crichton, Councilmember, Burnsville
Craig Dawson, City Administrator, Shorewood
KlaraFabry,Public Works Director, Minneapolis
Anne Hurlburt, Community Development Director, Plymouth
Dean Johnston, Councilmember, Lake Elmo
Larry,Lee, Community Development Director, Bloomington
Tom Link, Community Development Director, Inver Grove Heights
Terry Schneider, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Jim Smith, Councilmember, Independence
24 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Committee Rosters
Transportaton and General Government Policy Committee
Steve Larson, Mayor, New Brighton (Committee Chair)
Michael Amery, Councilmember, Maple Grove
Steve Cherney, Councilmember, Burnsville
Chuck DeVore, Councilmember, White Bear Lake
Steve Elkins, Councilmember, Bloomington
Klara Fabry, Public Works Director, Minneapolis
Marcia Glick, City Manager, Robbinsdale
Mary Hamann- Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley
Bill Hargis, Mayor, Woodbury
Jon Haukaas, Director ofPublic Works, Fridley
Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence
Mike Klassen, St. Paul
Mark McNeill, Administrator, Shakopee
Pete Meintsma, Mayor, Crystal
Joan Molenaar, Councilmember, Champlin
Veid Muiznieks, Councilmember, St. Paul Park
Ellsworth Stein, Airport Relations Commission, Mendota Heights
Gertrude Ulrich, Councilmember, Richfield
Karen Lowery Wagner, Government Relations Representative, Minneapolis
2004 Legislative Policies 25