Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 05-09 CCM Regular Session 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 MAY 9, 2005 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Council met in Informal Open Forum at 6:48 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Will Dahn, 5733 Knox Avenue North, addressed the Council to discuss his concern regarding the number of vehicles being parked on residential properties. He requested that the Council consider amending City Ordinance Chapter 35, Sections 35 -310 and 35 -311, to limit the number of vehicles and not to exceed six vehicles in the RI district and four vehicles in the R2 district. He asked that if no amendment is made that Chapter 35, Section 35 -711 be fully enforced. Mr. Dahn informed that he had prepared amendments that he would like to have incorporated to Chapter 35. Councilmember Carmody discussed that the Housing Commission has dealt with this issue and it has been a concern for many years; and suggested having the Housing Commission review the amendments that Mr. Dahn prepared. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she disagrees with limiting the number of vehicles on residential properties. Mayor Kragness asked that Mr. Dahn leave copies of his requested amendments. The Informal Open Forum adjourned at 6:59 p.m. 2. INVOCATION A moment of silence was observed. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:01 p.m. 05/09/05 -1- 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the Groundbreaking Event for School District No. 279's Adult Education Building on April 28, 2005; the Dedication of Baseball Fields in Brooklyn Center to Doug Darnell on April 30, 2005; and the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast on May 7, 2005. Mayor Kragness reported that she attended the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast on May 7, 2005. She informed that there are openings on the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission; and that she had received a letter from the Metropolitan Council with regards to their budget cuts and the delay on routes. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Niesen asked that Consent Item 7e, Resolution Approving Second Contract Addendum for Driveway Apron Repair and Replacement, Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -01, 02, and 03 and 2000 -19, Contract 2000 -B, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage, Utility Improvements, and Alley Reconstruction, be removed to Council Consideration. Councilmember O'Connor asked that Consent Items 7c, Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing Date of July 11, 2005, for Consideration of the City's Well Head Protection Plan, and 7d, Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, and Utility Improvements, be removed to Council Consideration. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the amended agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Consent Items 7c, 7d, and 7e, to Council Consideration Items as 9g, 9h, and 9i. Motion passed unanimously. 05/09/05 -2- 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the April 25, 2005, Study and Regular Session minutes and the May 2, 2005, Board of Appeal and Equalization minutes. Councilmember Carmody abstained from the vote. Motion passed. 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL Louis Degidio, Inc. 21033 Heron Way, Lakeville Ron's Mechanical 12010 Old Brick Yard Road, Shakopee St. Paul Plumbing & Heating 640 Grand Avenue, St. Paul MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Ford 2500 County Road 10 R.L. Brookdale Motors 6801 Brooklyn Boulevard RENTAL Renewal: 3501 47 Avenue North (11 Units) Richard Grommes 3513 47 Avenue North (11 Units) Richard Grommes 6018 Admiral Lane (Single Family) Lutheran Social Service 501 Bellvue Lane (Single Family) Brett Hildreth 4110 Lakebreeze Avenue North (4 Units) Nhia Her Initial 381362 d Avenue North (Single Family) John Maclin 1607 Irving Lane North (Single Family) Eugene Sesonga 5547 Lyndale Avenue North (Four Units) Brett Hildreth 5559 Lyndale Avenue North (Single Family) Brett Hildreth 5601 Lyndale Avenue North (Four Units) Brett Hildreth 5344 Twin Lake Blvd. East (Single Family) Takasi Sibuya SIGN HANGER Fish and Labeau Signs, Inc. 3320 Winpark Drive, Crystal Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2005, FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S WELL HEAD PROTECTION PLAN 05/09/05 -3- This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed as Council Consideration Item 9g. 7d. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed as Council Consideration Item 9h. 7e. RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND CONTRACT ADDENDUM FOR DRIVEWAY APRON REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000 -01, 02, AND 03 AND 2000 -19, CONTRACT 2000 -B, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed as Council Consideration Item 9i. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8a. PUBLIC HEARING ON 48' AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 1. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 2. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS City Manager Michael McCauley discussed this project was one petitioned by Cass Screw Machine and that the Council could proceed with the public hearings at this time. Both public hearings have completed the legal requirements for publication. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to re -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. 05/09/05 -4- RESOLUTION NO. 2005-72 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -73 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48' AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. UNITY PLACE PROJECT 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2005 (UNITY PLACE PROJECT) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO Mr. McCauley discussed that Community Housing Development Corporation which owns Unity Place is proposing to refinance its existing debt and with that refinancing fund roughly $710,000 of capital improvements. The Unity Place bonds would not be an obligation of the City of Brooklyn Center and is a mechanism that allows them to reduce their overall cost of borrowing which then allows them to run the housing that they are running. Community Development Director Brad Hoffman noted that prior to Community Housing Development Corporation taking ownership of this complex it was a troubled complex and has now been operated and maintained in a fashion where it is a non -issue of housing. Councilmember O'Connor asked why they need to borrow $5.7 Million to do a $710,000 renovation. Mr. McCauley discussed they currently have outstanding debt and this would be similar to a home refinancing where their new interest will be at a lower rate. I 05/09/05 -5- Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City covered their last loan and if they are making proper payments on the current loan. Mr. McCauley responded that the City had covered their last loan and that they are making proper payments. She inquired how much they still owe and how many years are left on the loan. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes it is roughly $5 Million; and Councilmember Carmody suggested opening the public hearing to have the representative from Community Housing Development Corporation discuss this issue. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Janet Pope, Community Housing Development Corporation, addressed the Council and discussed that the current bonds would be due in 2020 and that they are going to amortize them over seventeen years. Ms. Pope discussed with the interest rate dropping they were able to lock with a lower interest rate and will be able to secure funds to do some rehabilitation and lower their annual debt payments to help secure the property for the long term. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the interest would have to be paid if they pay off the debt early. Ms. Pope discussed that there would be prepayment penalties; however, it is worth it for them to do this since they will be able to secure money for rehabilitation. Councilmember O'Connor asked if it would not be better to just borrow $710,000 to do the renovation and not redo the loan. Ms. Pope informed that they had analyzed that but since they are able to lower the annual debt payments with the refinance they are getting two benefits, the $710,000 to do the rehabilitation and lowering their annual debt payment. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City would have to pay if they default on the loan payment. Mr. McCauley discussed the City would not have to pay and that the bonds are not the City's obligation. If they default then the lender would look only to the Community Development Housing Corporation and the pledge of the property as security. The documents clearly indicate that the only obligation of the City is to pay whatever it is that comes from Unity Place in payments to the bond holders. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the reduction is in interest rates. Ms. Pope discussed that it is about .65 percent and is going from 5.9 percent to 5.25 percent. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she does not like the City getting involved when she believes this organization could take care of itself. Mayor Kragness discussed that the City has done this with other entities and this allows them to get better interest rates with no obligation to the City. 05/09/05 -6- Councilmember Niesen asked if there is any administrative cost to the City. Mr. McCauley discussed they pay the City and that under the Federal Tax Policy it allows this type of low income housing access to tax exempt financing rates. She inquired if the City did not go this route and help them if they would be looking at a higher interest rate as a private entity. Mr. McCauley discussed f they would be paying taxable interest rates which could easily be two points higher. Councilmember Lasman wished to point out that this improves the housing in that neighborhood with no financial obligation to the City and believes it is positive for the City. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-74 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2005 (UNITY PLACE PROJECT) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember Carmody discussed that before Community Housing Development Corporation took over Unity Place it was expensive to the City because of the crime rate and since then the crime rate has dropped dramatically. She believes this would be an excellent use for them and that it is wonderful that they are doing the rehabilitation. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 8c. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE C1A SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT Mr. McCauley discussed for sometime it has been a goal to put a hotel on the property adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center which is located in the CIA district. When the City previously looked at this it was assumed that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to deal with the issue of a hotel use in the CIA would be used since it was not a permitted use. The Planning Commission in reviewing this has recommended a different tact which would be to make hotel /motel types of uses an outright permitted use in the CIA district. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. 05/09/05 -7- A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the current zoning was for hotels and what else is allowed under that zone. Mr. McCauley discussed C2 and Planning Zoning Specialist Ron Warren added that C2 zoning district is a general commerce zoning district that allows a variety of retail, restaurants, commercial uses and all uses allowed in a C 1 zone, and a variety of special uses such as automobile dealerships, motor vehicle repair, gas stations, convenience food restaurants, etc. Councilmember O'Connor questioned what the purpose is of having C2 and CIA with one being service office and one being commercial. Mr. Warren discussed that generally the C 1 and the C 1 A districts are the same with respect to allowable uses. With the CIA allowing all uses in the C1 district expect there is no height limit on structures located in the CIA district. The Cl and CIA districts are considered a less intense commercial zoning district than a C2 district. The rationale behind the recommendation is related to height, bulk, and density of the buildings. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification regarding the area of the proposed hotel. Mr. Warren discussed that the C 1 A area shown with the report shows all of the property that was zoned C 1 A in the City. She expressed that her concern was with blocking the sun and would not want to approve this if there would have been a lot of areas zoned where building a high -rise would potentially block people's sun rights. Mr. Warren discussed that on this particular site, the sun could be blocked whether it is an office building or a hotel because they are both going to have the potential of being over three stories. Councilmember O'Connor asked how the lawsuit was coming. Mr. McCauley informed that there is a hearing on Wednesday. If the Council wanted to be advised with respect to the litigation, the Council could request that the attorney representing the Economic Development Authority (EDA) in the litigation schedule a closed session to discuss that litigation for an update. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she believes this hotel proposal was considered for approval by the Council as a PUD and that zoning at that point was not an issue. Councilmember Lasman discussed that in the materials it is noted that the EDA had aggressively pursued the development of a hotel on this property since the Smart Growth Study which was a number of years ago. ORDINANCE NO. 2005-04 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT 05/09/05 -8- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 23 THROUGH JUNE 25, 2005 Mayor Kragness read the resolution declaring Earle Brown Days as a Civic Event from June 23 through June 25, 2005. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-75 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 23 THROUGH JUNE 25, 2005 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. PROCLAMATIONS DECLARING MAY 15-21,2005, TO BE POLICE WEEK AND PUBLIC WORKS WEEK Mayor Kragness read both proclamations declaring May 15 -21, 2005, to be Police Week and Public Works Week. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adopt both proclamations. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she does not believe there is a need to spend time putting proclamations together telling the citizens to become aware of what the staff does and believes that staff just needs to do the work and show residents that it is being done as efficiently as possible. She informed that she would be voting against these proclamations. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9e. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 25, 2005, MEETING) Councilmember Niesen discussed the previous discussions regarding the letter received from the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Organization and the draft letter that was prepared in response to the watershed's proposal with regards to funding for capital improvement projects. 05/09/05 -9- Councilmember Niesen informed that one of the questions she asked at the last watershed meeting was if the intent of the proposal is to identify lakeshore and streamside owners and singling them out for special assessments. The answer she received was yes that was the intent. When she asked the Chair if he meant that would include lakeshore and streamside owners, his response was yes that was JJ' the intent. She informed that she had sent Mr. Matheson an e -mail and did get a response back 1 confirming that and she wished to express that she does not feel as a taxpayer in Brooklyn Center that the Council should in anyway step forward before many cities have even responded to the watershed's proposal and say that the City agrees with that. Councilmember Niesen discussed the City Manager had identified in an e -mail that the City would not be inclined to special assess property owners. She believes that is a fair assessment; however, she does not feel that Brooklyn Center should step forward and say that they potentially could take seventy -five percent of an assessment. The watershed has no power or authority to tell a city how to tax their residents to pay for the portion that they would be billed for an improvement. The question then is why would they even suggest it if they have no power or authority. She expressed she would like to have more discussions if the Council is going to go that route and would like to have this message get to the watershed that the Council would agree to undertake an ad valorem tax across the watershed according to the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to see how it works out. Councilmember Niesen informed that she believes assessing a certain amount should be in writing so that everyone knows; or the Council needs to say thanks for suggesting the models of funding to recoup money from citizens; however, the City will be handling that at its own decision. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes the indication from Mr. Matheson was that no one placed an importance or credence with the special assessment because they all acknowledge that they did not have any right to do that. If the City does not approve the twenty -five percent as the watershed ad valorem tax, and then the funding proposal, the rest of it really does not matter and that is the hurdle they are trying to get over. The other alternative is a hundred percent and they can basically do that without cities approving it. She expressed she would like to see this option and believes it is fair for all the cities involved. Councilmember Carmody informed that she had stayed at the meeting a bit longer than Councilmember Niesen and wished to note the following for clarification. The watershed would be spending $1 Million per year on projects and the total maximum ad valorem tax that City taxpayers would have to pay as an ad valorem tax would be $32,276 per year under the current formula. She discussed that many cities had not responded to the watershed's proposal and that she had indicated that the City of Brooklyn Center had three Council Members who were in favor with conditions. 05/09/05 -10- Councilmember Niesen asked Mr. McCauley if he had any comments to add. Mr. McCauley discussed that he would like to comment on an issue that was not raised. The per household, versus per capita basis of a per household limit would raise would be about 1/3 the amount of money that the per capita would raise. When the City looked at the source of funds, it felt that it could sustain the per capita within some period of three to five years which would be enough money to get something substantial happening. The other part which has been mentioned to the Council, and the Council has not taken formal action, is a recommendation that the storm water utility be the source of City funding. The Council might wish to take a formal position on the source of funding. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would agree with making a formal action; however, she would argue strongly against accepting the premise that individual properties be recognized as benefiting and subject to billing. She believes that Mr. Matheson made it clear that the watershed had gone that direction and she disagrees. She would like to have the Council support the JPA and also make mention that the Council does not agree with the isolation of individual people as benefiting and having to shoulder twenty -five percent of the costs in anyway. She asked that in addition to what had already been drafted for a response to the watershed that verbiage be added that says the Council recognizes that cities are the ultimate decision makers on how their citizens will be billed and that the Council does not agree with the premise of identifying twenty -five percent of cost to individual lakeshore or streamside owners. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere wished to clarify that the watershed commission has not suggested that twenty -five percent be assessed against any individual property owners. The concept is that twenty -five percent would be charged to the city benefiting, not individual property owners. He further discussed the earlier process which was an attempt for cities that do not face these issues everyday to figure out what their options were in paying for capital projects if the watershed commission was going to go forward with constructing capital improvement projects. Councilmember Carmody q uestioned what the Council would need to do to move forward. Mr. McCauley suggested if the Council would like to direct him to make a draft proposal for the next meeting to address memorializing what Brooklyn Center intends to do so that it is clear that it is not intending to assess individual property owners and is planning to look at the source of funding with the existing storm water utility. Councilmember Niesen made a motion to direct the City Manager to write up a proposal to include verbiage that states Brooklyn Center's intent, seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember O'Connor asked that an amendment be made to that motion to add direction to the watershed that the City does not want to take on the cost of any sole source pollution and take over others responsibility to clean up Shingle Creek. 05/09/05 -11- Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes that would be a separate issue and would like to revisit that issue. Councilmember O'Connor said she was fine with that; however, wanted to ask if this consideration was given to sole source pollution sites and how they are going to take care of their pollution. Mr. LeFevere informed that he was not at all meetings and at this time can not respond; however, he does believe that it is not the intention of the watershed or any watershed to take on responsibilities that private entities have under environmental rules that assign cleanup responsibility. Councilmember O'Connor rescinded her motion. Mr. McCauley reiterated that the motion on the table would be to direct staff to draft language for Council consideration at the next meeting with respect to the funding mechanism and the Council's position on not intending to specially assess any individual property owners. Motion passed unanimously. 9d. REPORT FROM PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ON SEGWAY PERSONAL MOBILITY DEVICES Mr. McCauley discussed that the resident who had approached the Council regarding Segway devices was present and that the matter had been considered by the Park and Recreation Commission who reviewed the Statute. He discussed that the Statute is straight forward and clear with respect to the ability to operate Segway devices on paths, sidewalks, and in the absence of a trail or sidewalk on a street with a speed limit under 35 miles per hour; and that there is no age limitation on the operation of a Segway. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she believes the Legislation was poorly written with no age limitation included and that there may be potential problems. 9e. RESOLUTION AMENDING 2005 BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR FIRE/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PERSONNEL Mr. McCauley discussed that there has been an increase over the last few years in the requirements that the City faces with the emergency management training, equipment, and grants, etc. The City had managed to staff emergency management and the fire service with almost full -time hours but without a full -time position. Fire Chief Ron Boman has made requests in the last few budgets; however, those requests had not been included in the budget due to cuts in Local Government Aid (LGA). This issue is no longer being able to be put off since the person who was working almost full -time without benefits has left. Staff surveyed and found that the City is somewhat unique in not having a full -time support position. Staff is asking for Council approval changing what is almost a full -time part -time position into a full -time authorized position. Mr. Boman has reviewed his budget and for purposes of the 2005 Budget believes that he can make some reductions in otherwise planned spending to cover the cost of benefits for the remainder of the year; however, 2006 will be an issue with respect to the budget. 05/09/05 -12- Councilmember Carmody asked for clarification regarding the administrative staff for the police and fire departments. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Fire Chief has only administrative staff person for the Fire Department and that the Police Department has more than just one for administrative j staff. ` Councilmember Lasman outlined the position responsibilities since she sometimes get questions as to why the Council would approve positions and expressed that she would support the approval for this full -time position. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-76 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING 2005 BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR FIRE /EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PERSONNEL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she does not feel she has enough information about this position. She inquired if the cities surveyed were volunteer fire departments and if the survey was conducted after the employee left. Mr. McCauley responded yes to both questions. She asked for clarification regarding why the survey was done. Mr. McCauley discussed that the survey was done after the recruitment and the Fire Chief lost some of his best candidates because the position did not have benefits for the part-time, almost full -time, position. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes it would be helpful to have amounts of money included and asked for the numbers for this position. Mr. McCauley discussed that the number is understated a bit because of the value of accrued time off if it is not used that might have to be paid off. The benefit portion would cost roughly $8,000 a year. The pay rate would be the same as what the employee was being paid and the number of hours budgeted would go up a few hours. Councilmember Niesen asked if the position had been considered for restructuring since no one has been in the position; and if the Police Department has been helping out with the workload. Mr. McCauley discussed that no one in the Police Department has been doing the work. The Fire Chief is trying to do some of the work himself and the employee who left has been helping him on evenings and weekends. Councilmember Niesen voted against the same. Motion passed. 9f. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSITIONAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING SERVICES 05/09/05 -13- Mr. McCauley discussed staff is asking for approval of a plan for incentives that would provide compensation incentives for someone who would stay with the City until transiting to Hennepin County. It is anticipated that three people would be hired by Hennepin County who would stay working for the City until they transition to Hennepin County; and that the City will lose some current dispatchers. However, if the City is able to retain them as well as recruit temporary people with some additional compensation it will work to the City's benefit in providing dispatch services until the City converts to Hennepin County. The basic outline staff is looking at is the degree to which people would voluntarily choose not to use more than five days worth of leave for scheduling and thus reduce overtime. The City would also provide a payment of accrued sick leave on the same basis when voluntary retirements were solicited in 2003 to address LGA cuts. This would be treating people who would stay until the end in the same fashion that the City treated employees a couple years ago when the City paid sixty percent of sick leave rather than thirty -three and 1/3 percent of sick leave. For those people who would go to Hennepin County, the City would provide them with transitional health insurance coverage because there is going to be a gap before they are eligible for Hennepin County insurance. For the employees that would stay, not go to Hennepin County, and not be retrained by the City, they would find themselves unable to commit to when they are going to start a new job and the City would provide six weeks severance on top of the holiday pay, if they earned it, and three months worth of insurance assistance. For those employees hired after the City gets into this process, it would be a much lower benefit because of the training issue, etc. Mr. McCauley discussed if the City were to operate dispatch for only seven months in 2006 it would save roughly $175,000 in employment costs. If everyone that is working today stayed until dispatch services were done and no one took more than five days of holiday, the maximum cost would be approximately $42,500 verses $175,000 in savings. Councilmember Niesen asked if the dispatchers have seen this plan. Mr. McCauley informed they had seen the plan and that he had met with them the last two weeks. When he met with them two weeks ago he had a draft plan and then last week he met with them to finalize the plan that had an added holiday bonus which was a direct result in their identifying the staffing issue and wanting to have some monitory recognition if people forego taking leave to make it easier for everyone else. Councilmember Carmody questioned what requirements are needed for providing dispatching services. Mr. McCauley discussed that there are probably some educational minimums; however, on the job training could be used. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-77 Councilmember Niesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSITIONAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING SERVICES 05/09/05 -14- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 9g. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2005, FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S WELL HEAD PROTECTION PLAN Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification on the 60 day comment period prior to a public hearing. Mr. McCauley discussed that the neighboring communities would be the cities themselves that the City sends the notice to. Councilmember O'Connor asked about the map that was included with the materials. Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom discussed that the map is trying to illustrate capture zones which includes the nine municipal wells that the City operates to supply water to the water system. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the City has a shallow water table. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the geology throughout Minnesota varies and in Brooklyn Center there are different characteristics that allow surface water to infiltrate into the ground and reach the lower levels of the aquifer where the City draws it municipal water. The City has very sandy soils and allows water to percolate into the ground very rapidly. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the City's water is polluted. Mr. Blomstrom discussed this map does not indicate that the City's water is polluted. It just indicates that the City has a higher vulnerability in some areas than other areas and need to take more aggressive actions to protect the ground water in Brooklyn Center which is the purpose of the wellhead protection plan that is being formulated at this time. Councilmember O'Connor asked how expensive this plan will be to implement. Mr. Blomstrom P p P discussed there are essentially goals and strategies and that is how the City manages land use and manages storm and surface water in Brooklyn Center. Those practices do not necessarily have a high front end cost like constructing structures; they are more of practices and policies that are implemented in the future. Councilmember O'Connor asked what is expected to come out of this plan. Mr. Blomstrom said it will give the City a tool to manage the land uses in the areas that have the higher vulnerable rate and also establishes goals for the City. One of the goals is to reach private wells within districts. There may be homes that were developed in the early 1950's that were never connected onto the water system or were originally on a private well. Once those homes connect to the water systems, the wells tend to be neglected, not used, and they are a direct conduit into the aquifer for Brooklyn Center. As the City moves ahead with this plan, the City may come up with a program to actually address capping those wells if they are not using them. 05/09/05 -15- RESOLUTION NO. 2005-78 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2005, FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S WELL HEAD PROTECTION PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 9h. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Councilmember O'Connor questioned why this item was on the Consent Agenda when the public hearing for the project had not taken place. Mr. McCauley discussed that the item was on the Consent Agenda and printed before being caught that the item should have been after the public hearing. The solution would have been to rescind the action if needed. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-79 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 91. RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND CONTRACT ADDENDUM FOR DRIVEWAY APRON REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000 -01, 02, AND 03 AND 2000 -19, CONTRACT 2000 -B, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION Councilmember Niesen asked if there were any issues like this before. Mr. McCauley discussed that the City had an issue like this in the southeast area where a batch of bad concrete was used. On a prospective basis, the City has increased the quality requirements on the concrete to try avoiding any type of repetition. He noted that the contractor has been very standup about meeting the obligations and working with staff on this issue. 05/09/05 -16- Councilmember Niesen asked if all driveways will be redone and if the residents have been notified. Mr. McCauley discussed they will take out all the identified driveways needed and repair them. Mr. Blomstrom added that staff has not notified residents yet and was waiting to see if the Council would accept the addendum. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-80 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND CONTRACT ADDENDUM FOR DRIVEWAY APRON REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000 -01, 02, AND 03 AND 2000 -19, CONTRACT 2000 -B, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the City Council meeting at 9:04 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 05/09/05 -17-