Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 03-28 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 MARCH 28, 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 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Chief of Police Scott Bechthold, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Hugo Linder, 5328 Penn Avenue North, addressed the Council to provide informational materials g p and discuss Segway transportation. Mr. Linder said that he would like to know more about the restrictions, if any, on this type of transportation before purchasing a Segway. Mayor Kragness thanked Mr. Linder for the materials and informed him that this issue would need to be reviewed by the Police Department. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes the Park and Recreation Commission should also be involved with this review. Mayor Kragness suggested that the Police Department and the Park and Recreation Commission review Segway transportation and that this item be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Linder asked if the City Council agendas are on the City's Website. Mr. Linder was informed that the agendas are on the City's Website and that he would be contacted personally when this item will be on an agenda. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:53 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 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 7:01 p.m. 03/28/05 -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, Chief of Police Scott Bechthold, 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 O'Connor reported that she attended the Housing Commission meeting; an open house for Northwest Communications Television; and the Legislative Breakfast on March 19, 2005. Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on March 15, 2005; the Crime Prevention meeting on March 16, 2005; and the Legislative Breakfast on March 19, 2005. She informed that the Police Awards Ceremony will be held on April 20, 2005, at Constitution Hall and that the Crime Prevention Golf Fundraising event will be held on May 20, 2005. Councilmember Carmody reported that she attended the Earle Brown Days Board of Directors meeting and informed that the Earle Brown Days events will be the same as last year with the exception of the teen street dance. Mayor Kragness reminded that the slips need to be turned in for participation in the parade and expressed that she believes it is important for the Council to participate in the parade. Councilmember Niesen reported she attended the Financial Commission meeting and informed that there were two applications received for the vacancy on the Financial Commission. She expressed that she was happy to see both of the applicants were present at the meeting. She informed that she attended the Housing Commission meeting to discuss some unfinished business from last year; however, was not able to discuss her unfinished business and was asked to come back in May. Councilmember Niesen informed that she met with the City Manager on Wednesday, March 23, 2005, to discuss issues as outlined on the Agenda she sent prior to the meeting. The main discussion was on how the Council could go forward and connect better with the Planning Commission and comply with the laws as they were intended and not find difficult situations where the Council has to argue amongst themselves with deadlines and trying to meet legal requirements of the law. She discussed that she had asked Mr. McCauley where the legal publications would be published in the Sun Post Newspaper. Mr. McCauley discussed that the official notices of hearings are in the legal publications which are generally in the back of the Sun Post Newspaper. 03/28/05 -2- Councilmember Niesen thanked the City Manager for copying all Councilmembers (Mayor) on the Discussion Agenda she had emailed prior to their 3 -23 -05 meeting, and noted her expectation that since this meeting was communicated to all, that similar process be followed for all Members (Mayor). Councilmember Niesen asked the City Manager if he did so inform all Councilmembers (Mayor) of the agenda he has had with Councilmembers. The City Manager responded that this was the first time he had received an Agenda. Mayor Kragness reported that she attended a hearing at the State Office Building in St. Paul regarding the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Bill to request an extension on the City's TIF District No. 3. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman to approve the agenda and consent agenda with minor amendments to the minutes. Councilmember O'Connor requested that Consent Items 7e, Resolution Designating Additional Depositories of City Funds and 7f, Resolution Selecting the No Waiver Option for Statutory Tort Liability, be removed and placed as Council Consideration Items 9j and 9k. There was discussion regarding the process for removing consent agenda items. Councilmember O'Connor read the language provided on the agenda describing that no separate discussion of consent agenda items will be discussed unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of the Council Consideration items. Councilmember Lasman amended her motion to approve the amended consent agenda, seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the March 14, 2005, Study, Regular, and Work Session minutes with the minor amendments suggested at the Study Session meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL Air Conditioning Associates 689 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul Air Masters Inc. 5885 149 Street West, Apple Valley Alliant Mechanical, Inc. 3650 Kennebec Drive, Eagan 03/28/05 -3- Amtech Lighting Services 6077 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Stillwater Associated Mechanical 1257 Marshall Road, Shakopee Assured Heating A/C 334 Dean Avenue East, Champlin CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp 13562 Central Avenue NE, Anoka Centraire Htg & A/C 7401 Washington Avenue South, Eden Prairie Cronstroms Htg A/C 6437 Goodrich Avenue, St. Louis Park D J's Heating & Air Cond 6060 LaBeaux Avenue NE, Albertville Dave's Appliance Htg & Air 1601 37 Avenue NE, Columbia Heights Ditter, Inc. 820 Tower Drive, Medina Excel Air Systems 2075 Prosperity Road, Maplewood Fireside Hearth & Home 2700 Fairview Avenue North, Roseville Flare Heating 9303 Plymouth Avenue North, Golden Valley Golden Valley Heating 5182 West Broadway, Crystal Guyer's Builder's Supply 13405 15 Avenue North, Plymouth Harris Companies 909 Montreal Circle, St. Paul Heating & Cooling Two Inc. 18550 County Road 81, Maple Grove Home Energy Center 15200 25 Avenue North, Plymouth Kleve Heating & Air 13075 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie Knott Mechanical Inc. 710 Pennsylvania Avenue South, Golden Valley LBP Mechanical Inc. 315 Royalston Avenue North, Minneapolis Lux Company 5217 84`" Avenue North, Brooklyn Park M & D Plumbing & Htg Inc. 11050 26 Street NE, St. Michael Marsh Heating & A/C 6248 Lakeland Avenue North, Brooklyn Park McDowall Company P.O. Box 1244, St. Cloud Metropolitan Mech Contr 7340 Washington Avenue South, Eden Prairie Modern Hearint & A/C 2318 First Street NE, Minneapolis P & H Services, Co. 1601 67 Avenue North, Brooklyn Center Perfectin Heating & Air Cond 13951 N. 50' Street, Stillwater Pierce Refrigeration 19202 nd Avenue South, Anoka Quality Refrigeration 6237 Penn Avenue South, Richfield Riccar Heating & A/C 2387 Station Parkway NW, Andover River Sity Sheet Metal Inc. 8290 Main Street NE, Fridley Robert's Repair & Maintenance 3701 Yates Avenue N, Crystal Rouse Mechanical 7320 Oxford Street, St. Louis Park Royalton Heating & A/C 4120 85`" Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Schadegg Mechanical, Inc. 225 Bridgepoint Drive, So St. Paul Sedgwick Htg & A/C 8910 Wentworth Avenue South, Minneapolis Standard Heating & A/C 410 W Lake Street, Minneapolis Superior Heating A/C & Elec 21322 nd Avenue North, Anoka Thermex Corporation 3529 Raleigh Avenue South, St. Louis Park Utility Partners, Inc. 9901 Indigo Trail, White Bear Lake Wenzel Heating & A/C 4131 Old Sibley Memorial Hwy, Eagan Yale Mechanical, Inc. 9649 Girard Avenue South, Minneapolis 03/28/05 -4- RENTAL Renewal (All of the following had no calls for service): 5935 Dupont Avenue North (Single Family) - Gina Dumas 4707 Eleanor Lane (Single Family) - Todd Vlasaty 5521 France Avenue North (Single Family) - Leng Wong 5948 Fremont Avenue North (Single Family) - Ryan Coller 6777 Humboldt Avenue North (Single Family) - Andrey Ryvlin 1531 Humboldt Place North (Single Family) - Kwi Ha Wong 4700 Lakeveiw Avenue North (Two Family) - Nancy Dahlquist Initial 5447 Bryant Avenue North (Single Family) - M'Hamed Ben -El- Haffaf No Calls for Service The Lilacs (a,b, and c) a. 5800 Logan Avenue North (1 Bldg., 22 Units) - Farnaz Toussi b. 5820 Logan Avenue North (Single Family) - Farnaz Toussi c. 5830 Logan Avenue North (1 Bldg., 22 Units) - Farnaz Toussi 1 Disturbing the peace call 1 Crime against family call SIGN HANGER Crosstown Sign 16307 Aberdeen Street NE, Ham Lake Install This Awning & Sign 5345 4`" Street, Brooklyn Center Lawrence Sign 945 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul Signart Company 2170 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights Spectrum Sign Systems, Inc. 2025 Gateway Circle, Centerville Topline Advertising 11775 Justen Circle, Maple Grove Twin City Sign Images 17201 113` Avenue North, Osseo Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2005-52 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14, CONTRACT 2004 -H, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 03/28/05 -5- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-07,2005 STREET SEAL COATING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-53 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-07,2005 STREET SEAL COATING The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS This item was removed to Council Consideration Item 9j. 7f. RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY This item was removed to Council Consideration Item 9k. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM 8a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2005-005 SUBMITTED BY GREG A. NELSON. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INSTRUCTIONAL USE IN THE I -1 (INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONING DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS MARCH 10, 2005, MEETING. City Manager Michael McCauley discussed educational uses require a special use permit and that the Planning Commission reviewed the application submitted by Greg A. Nelson and is recommending its approval. He informed that the applicant was present if the Council had any questions. Councilmember Niesen questioned if the Council would be voting on this tonight since there is nothing to rezone. Mr. McCauley discussed that this is a use that is permitted under the zoning code and does not require any change in the underlying zoning. A special use permit simply requires approval with a motion as opposed to an ordinance. 03/28/05 -6- Councilmember Carmody questioned what the sign policy would be with respect to 69 Avenue North. Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren discussed that the sign policy deals with a resolution that was adopted by the Council back in the early 1970s with respect to the visibility of wall signs on 69 Avenue North. Councilmember Lasman questioned if the extension that was asked for by the applicant had been worked out. Mr. Warren inform h informed he believes nothing needed to be worked out and that he was not aware of any problems. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if this special use permit is approved, will the space continue its use as a Karate Company rather than industrial. Mr. Warren discussed that the special use permit is for an instructional use and under the classification of use, a special use permit would be ranted p p g and go with the land. He further stated that the land could revert to industrial and would not require a special use permit. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -005 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. The special use permit is issued to Greg A. Nelson on behalf of Minnesota Martial Arts Academy, Inc. as an instructional use in martial arts with incidental associated retail sales. No other use, not comprehended by this application shall be permitted. Any expansion or major alteration to the use shall be subject to an amendment to this special use permit. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. Tenant improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 4. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the city ordinances and the city's sign policy with respect to 69 Avenue North. Motion passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. PRESENTATION ON HENNEPIN COUNTY JOINT COMMUNITY AND POLICE PROJECT 03/28/05 -7- Chief of Police Scott Bechthold discussed that during the fall of 2004, he and Chief Wade Setter from the City of Brooklyn Park were asked to make a presentation to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners regarding concerns of the interaction of law enforcement personnel and immigrant and minority group residents of the two cities. As a result of this presentation, the Hennepin County Board directed Hennepin County staff to collaborate with the communities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, and the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to create a plan to address the expressed issues. From this collaborative planning process the following four components emerged: 1. Organizational training for cultural awareness and sensitivity; 2. Community training for cultural awareness and sensitivity; 3. Police /community liaisons; and, 4. Police cadet training. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on March 22, 2005, approved a contingency transfer of $400,000 to the 2005 Human Services and Public Health Department and the Community Corrections Department to support the efforts of the communities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to fund this plan. The dollars for all program components will be distributed by the Hennepin County departmental accounts for activities as indicated in the plan. A community based oversight group will guide the delivery of services as described. Mayor Kragness questioned how many cadets would be included with the project. Mr. Bechthold informed there would be one for the City of Brooklyn Center and one for the City of Brooklyn Park. Mayor Kragness expressed that she would see it being beneficial to having more than one ethnic background for the two cities and using them as translators since the language barrier seems to be the biggest problem. Mr. Bechthold informed that he believes there would be some cross sharing of resources if that is presented and that the cities now have officers who are bilingual and share those resources. Mayor Kragness asked if the cultural liaison would be from Hennepin County. Mr. Bechthold discussed that is correct and that they will be Hennepin County Corrections employees assigned to the City with direct oversight by the City they are assigned. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the City has groups identified to participate in the project or if that is part of the job to seek groups. Mr. Bechthold discussed the project management team is now in the process of developing the criteria to recruit and create an application process for members of the community to take part on this multicultural advisory board which will be a joint and recruitment effort between the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. 03/28/05 -8- Councilmember O'Connor asked Mr. Bechthold if he and the Police Chief from Brooklyn Park solicited this money from Hennepin County. Mr. Bechthold informed they did not and that there was an invitation from the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners asking them to participate in discussions regarding this topic. As part of that meeting they requested staff to work with the communities and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to develop a plan. That in turn created a plan which had been presented to the Hennepin County Board and the Board approved that plan and also approved a contingency transfer of that $400,000 to the budgets for the community corrections and the social services budget. Mayor Kragness questioned what the age group would be for the cadet program. Mr. Bechthold discussed that it would be open to eighteen and older. Councilmember Carmody questioned how the funding would work for the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council since they are not a member. Mr. Bechthold informed that the funding is from Hennepin County. 9b. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATIONS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS PARADE AND THE ENTERTAINMENT IN THE PARKS PROGRAM Mayor Kragness informed the Lions Club will be celebrating their 50th Anniversary in April and that she would like to express gratitude for their support to youth and the Earle Brown Days events in Brooklyn Center. Mayor Kragness read the resolution expressing appreciation for the donation of $7,000 to be used to support the annual Earle Brown Days Parade and the Entertainment in the Parks Program. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-54 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATIONS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS PARADE AND THE ENTERTAINMENT IN THE PARKS PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 3-9,2005, TO BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Declaring April 3 -9, 2005, to be Community Development Week. 03/28/05 -9- A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adopt Proclamation Declaring April 3 -9, 2005, Community Development Week. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she believes the citizens of Brooklyn Center are the community developers and the ones that maintain and development their own property. She does not believe there is a need to ask citizens to bow down to the Community Development Department and appreciate them; and that it should be the other way around, bowing down to the citizens. Mayor Kragness discussed that proclamations are to provide awareness of what the City staff does for the City and declares a week for departments. She believes this is the least that the Council can do and that this proclamation is very much in order. Councilmember Niesen questioned if other departments receive proclamations. Mayor Kragness discussed that in the past the Council had adopted proclamations for other departments. Councilmember Niesen expressed she hears Councilmember O'Connor and does not really understand the purpose for proclamations. In her mind she does not know why the Council does not have a whole City staff proclamation. She believes that all viewpoints at this table should be appreciated and respected. Mayor Kragness expressed she believes that out of courtesy to the people who work for the City this is something the Council does for each department. Councilmember Lasman expressed that every department appreciates a thank you and a word of appreciation. She does not believe this is bowing down and acknowledges a job being done well. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9d. RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU, JR. Mr. McCauley discussed this is the item prepared by Mr. Neu summarizing the Council's Retreat that took place in February. Councilmember O'Connor informed that she had some corrections she would like incorporated. On page 3, after number 18, the sentence reading "After discussion, the participants identified the following "big things" as having the highest priority for the year 2005:" she would like to have the wording changed to the following: After discussion, some of the participants identified the following "big things" as having the highest priority for the year 2005. She believes she did not say that most of the items were her top priorities. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the language could be amended to the majority of the participants since it was the majority of the Council. Councilmember O'Connor said that would be fine. 03/28/05 -10- Councilmember O'Connor asked that page 4, fourth paragraph, be amended to read the following: It was concluded by some of the participants, however, that while the Council has reaffirmed the goals it adopted for 2005, it should be stated that Northbrook and Brookdale are areas of continuing emphasis and priority for the City Council because of their importance to the community and its economic vitality. Councilmember Carmody again questioned if the language could be amended to the majority. Councilmember O'Connor said that would be fine. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she does not believe this is something that needs to be voted on and will be voting against. Councilmember Niesen questioned if acceptance of this is something of a required action by the Council. Mr. McCauley informed that this constitutes a meeting and the minutes of that meeting. It has been the practice of the Council to adopt this report and memorializes an official Council document of what direction is taken based on the meeting. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she believes it is an important thing to vote on because the Council needs to be aware of what was written for approval. Councilmember Carmody discussed she believes that this report does not reflect the views of any one person; it is just a majority finding for a written record. Councilmember Lasman pointed out that the resolution is resolving that the Council agrees this is a summary of key observations and conclusions as prepared by Carl Neu. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-55 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING SUMMARY OF KEY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS PREPARED BY CARL H. NEU, JR. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed. 9e. REQUEST OF WATERSHED COMMISSIONS FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COST SHARING POLICY Mr. McCauley discussed the watersheds are proposing that the watershed commissions undertake major capital projects with a different approach than what has been used in the past. In the past, capital projects have been undertaken by negotiated agreement between cities or undertaken individually by a city. The watershed is proposing that the watershed itself would come up with a capital improvement plan to address major watershed capital projects. 03/28/05 -11- They are also proposing a funding mechanism that involves twenty -five percent of their project costs raised through an ad valorem tax levied against all the property in the watershed that would be submitted to Hennepin County. Hennepin County would levy the tax on behalf of the watershed. Seventy -five percent of the project would then be paid for by communities; and of the seventy -five percent, twenty -five percent of the whole cost would be paid by cities directly benefiting and having area where the project is occurring. The remaining fifty percent of the total cost of the project would be paid by the benefiting communities upstream and downstream. Mr. McCauley discussed that he attempted to break this down into those components with a draft letter so that the Council could provide the watershed with some response. The first issue is broken down into the initial question of does the Council want to respond to the watersheds that undertaking capital projects through the watershed is a concept that the Council would support; or the draft alternative is the Council does not support the watershed becoming involved. If the watershed undertakes some of these projects the City is looking at multi jurisdictional projects that have languished such as the wetlands of Twin Lake which impact Crystal and Brooklyn Center. He informed that in number eight of the draft letter supporting the concept he picked a number to provide a cap formula so that one city would not be overburdened by costs assessed in a five year capital project. In number nine he separated out the issue of an ad valorem tax as part of that component. Councilmember Carmody informed she had a few questions regarding the draft letter and said that she would go in order and is as follows: 1. Is the deterioration on the creek restoration in Brooklyn Park due to the flow or just due to the homeowner? Mr. McCauley discussed that the more you have development upstream from the creek bed, the greater the flow and that flow going though undermines the creek bed to a degree that is not the result of what Brooklyn Park is necessarily doing as much as what Maple Grove is doing by putting more water in. The issue of bank restoration becomes the question of scope and what is causing it. 2. Clarification on the definition of the general amount. Mr. McCauley discussed that the watershed has proposed a certain level of effort over the three years that are set forth in their example. What he is suggesting is that if the Council comes in with a plan they would be asking for response to it with a rough estimate of ad valorem tax so that the amount cannot double or increase. 4/5. Does the watershed have a list complete for the capital improvements and will the plan sunset automatically? 03/28/05 -12- Mr. McCauley discussed there is not a completed list and that this would be a rolling five and ten year with no sunset. Councilmember Carmody questioned if by agreeing to this would the Council be agreeing to the ad valorem tax indefinitely. Mr. McCauley discussed that this is proposed as an indefinite undertaking. 6. Does the Council limit that they do not want to pay for unnecessary work? Mr. McCauley discussed he believes that is where the funding issues come into effect. 8. Does the Council have to agree on an amount and can the watershed change the amount without the Council agreeing to it? Mr. McCauley discussed this would be a rational way to approach putting a limit on it. He pointed out that this number is not exact and is only being used for discussion to suggest some formula be adopted capping a city's potential cost. Councilmember Carmody asked if the letter from the City of Plymouth's City Manager is talking about the amount of water or the amount of pollutants. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes they are looking at flow rate which would not be a measure of water quality. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the twenty -five percent ad valorem tax would be charged by Hennepin County to all citizens of Hennepin County. Mr. McCauley discussed that it would be charged on all the taxable property within each of the watersheds. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she believes this is a lot of money and that she wished all the cities would take a simpler approach to reducing pollution and runoff by not having so many impervious surfaces. If chloride is the problem in Shingle Creek she wished that the City could reduce the amount of salt along with other cities doing the same thing. Councilmember Niesen informed that she wanted to preface her remarks and make some points since she lives on Twin Lake and has attended Shingle Creek Watershed meetings, along with having worked on some environmental issues and donating to environmental agencies. • Looking at this she understands the intent is to clean up water. Minnesota has some waters that have been identified as impaired. It is her understanding that there was impaired water somewhere in Minnesota and in order to get some action done there was a model of local control issued as a watershed district with taxing authority. These people are appointed by the County Commissioners. • Per a publication from the League of Minnesota Cities dated February 16, 2005, there was a bipartisan group of Legislators from the House and Senate who introduced the major initiative called "Impaired Waters Legislation ". This Legislation has not been passed but what is on the table is to collect more than $75 Million in new revenue for Minnesota. The goal is to identify surface water that is polluted, to develop a scientifically based plan identifying where the sources of that pollution can be reduced, and fund the efforts needed to 03/28/05 -13- achieve reductions in pollute load. She believes this came after the Shingle Creek Watershed started talking about funding projects. Some of the issues working with what the watershed sent needs to be addressed. First of all, Minnesota has started this new initiative and will be collecting money. She believes that Brooklyn Center has just as much right to have projects worked on as any other city in the State since Twin Lake has been on the top ten most polluted list due to the Joslyn site. • Looking at the proposal for Shingle Creek they are talking about funding three types of activities; non - structural ones, small projects, and capital projects. At this time the capital projects is where the money is going to be and it is incredibly expensive to work on water quality issues. Looking at funding capital projects that are covered by the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) there are negotiated portion of costs, an apportionment of costs to the cities in the same portion of their operating budget, and certification of the cost to the County for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed in those nine cities. The Shingle Creek Watershed is proposing another idea which was premised on four principals: one, there is a benefit to the entire watershed meeting water quality and management plan goals; two, that for most projects there is a benefit to some areas; three, for most projects there is an upstream area causing the need for improvement; and four, from any project there is a downstream area that benefits from improvement. • Getting into the cost sharing policy it talks about if they do a capital project they figure that the commission share should be twenty -five percent and the City's share should be seventy - five percent of whatever a project costs. She believes that potentially if this is not limited and if this is not worded in a different way, she could possibly receive a bill. She inquired since the City is in a JPA how the Shingle Creek Watershed could write any suggestion that cities should do this model and questioned how that would work because the City does not have the ability. Mr. McCauley discussed if special assessments are levied they would have to be levied by the City, meaning that the City has complete control over what funding mechanism it would use. As discussed two weeks ago, nobody was suggesting that special assessments against properties on a particular body of water was likely to be a practical source of money. The Council itself would have to decide that it wanted to go in that direction. Staff's suggestion looking at it is that the storm drainage utility would be the source of funding. In order to show some specific benefit to the property to sustain a special assessment would require far more energy and time than it would be worth for any money that would be generated by trying to specially assess individual properties. Councilmember Niesen questioned the word likely that had been used. If it is not in writing that this is the way it is going to happen and the Shingle Creek Watershed is using their taxing ability to give this taxing ability to cities, she thinks that is a fine line there and is not sure, but the way the watershed districts are set up, they have the ability adding some tax on and she does not know if they have the ability of saying that they are now giving the cities the ability to add this tax. Mr. McCauley informed that what he believes they are saying is the City will be responsible for paying seventy -five percent of the cost of a project and that it is up to the cities themselves to determine what 03/28/05 -14- mechanisms they want to use. The watersheds cannot dictate to the City that it use any of the things they have listed as a laundry list of potential tools available to a City. Each council controls in its own city how it raises its match. The only portion the watersheds have the ability to impose is that they can follow the Statutory requirements and submit to Hennepin County a proposal that Hennepin County levy a general ad valorem tax on all properties in the watershed boundaries. The watershed cannot impose an individualized special method of funding. It can only, if it follows all of those requirements, have Hennepin County on its behalf do a general ad valorem tax. Councilmember Niesen asked how the Shingle Creek Watershed acted all of these years since its inception funding capital projects. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere discussed that they have not funded any capital projects. Mayor Kragness asked that the Council focus on the draft letter back to the watershed. Mr. McCauley suggested that first the Council has to decide if they like the idea of the watershed doing capital projects. If yes, then he would suggest discussing and deciding on each of the separate items listed in the draft letter. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. McCauley Mr. Mc aule discussed what to clarify number eight. C Y g fY g Y number eight is trying to do is simply suggest that a plan, if it is adopted, put a target maximum amount of money that any city would have to pay in any five year rolling period so that there is no undue burden on any one city in the course of any five year consecutive period. Mayor Kragness asked who would be in favor of supporting the proposed ad valorem tax. Councilmember Niesen informed that she believes the impaired water Legislation that is on the table is important and with the tough economy and Brooklyn Center being known for not having high value houses, she would support working on water initiatives, but not in a vacuum. Councilmember Carmody informed that she had sent an e -mail to Craig Johnson, Intergovernmental Relations assigned to the environmental issues at the League of Minnesota Cities, to ask for clarification regarding the impaired water Legislation. In a response provided it was made clear that they were seeking big projects. Twin Lake would not be high on their list. The only thing mentioned in the Metro area that could get funding is the Met Council's sewage treatment plant. She believes the City will not see funding in the near future and that the good thing about the ad valorem tax and going through the watershed is one way to get things done. She informed that she supports this, otherwise it will not get this done for years and the problem will just get worse with the cost continuing to go up. She still has some questions and serious concerns about certain issues; however, in theory the City needs to start moving ahead. Councilmember Niesen informed that she would like projects to get done; however, there are a lot of issues in the process of identifying who benefits and pays. She would say yes if the costs were going to be spread over the nine cities in the watershed since they would be able to do it anyways. 03/28/05 -15- Mayor Kragness informed that she would support the draft letter. Councilmember Lasman informed that if the City moves in the direction of supporting she does have some concerns about the costs and inquired how the per capita would coincide with the City's storm drainage utilities ability to fund now. Mr. McCauley informed that he was only putting that language regarding the per capita in as a place marker for discussion and that it would equal about one year debt service on the bonds that will retire. The City would have the capacity to pay ten dollars per capita without having to raise the storm water utility. Councilmember Lasman questioned if a sunset or language requesting a reevaluation could be added. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council wanted to add language that if the watershed undertakes this and develops it, it should reexamine and ask for comments in five or ten years, that would certainly be a very appropriate comment. Councilmember Lasman informed that rather than saying do support or do not support, she would like to say do support with conditions. Councilmember O'Connor informed she agrees with the draft alternative that states the City does not support the proposed undertaking to have the watershed impose an ad valorem tax and to assess the cost of capital projects against the cities in the watershed. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she has many issues and does not want to give the watershed any indication that whatever else they are proposing was being accepted by submitting the draft letter. Councilmember Carmody suggested that the Council provide the City Manager comments to add or delete to the draft letter by April 11, 2005. Councilmember Niesen questioned the watershed's plan. Mr. LeFevere discussed that last year the watershed adopted its comprehensive storm water management plan which is an overall plan for the district. An element of that one piece is the capital improvement program. The capital improvement plan at that time was developed and the plan simply said that it was going to be developed in the future as the water quality plans became more fully developed. Councilmember Carmody left the table at 9:07 p.m. and returned at 9:09 p.m. Councilmember Lasman expressed that she thought providing comments to the City Manager by April 11, 2005, would be a good idea for him to come up with an accumulative letter that the Council can review at the April 11, 2005, Study Session meeting. Mayor Kragness asked that this item be placed on the April 11, 2005, Study Session agenda. Mr. McCauley discussed that he would incorporate the Council's comments with the first draft and set them forth in a fashion for approval of each item. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to table this item to the April 11, 2005, Study Session meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 03/28/05 -16- 9E RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, 48' AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. McCauley informed this item along with item 9g, Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for 48`" Avenue North Street and Storm Drainage Improvements, relate to one project and could be approved under one motion. He discussed this is the petition project that Cass Screw Machine had requested. The two resolutions would accept the engineer's feasibility report and calls for public hearings on doing the improvements and on special assessments which would be assessed against Cass Screw Machine. Mr. Greenwald, Cass Screw Machine, addressed the Council to express thanks. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-56 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, 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. 9g. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48TH AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 2005-57 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48TH 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. 03/28/05 -17- 9h. EXPANDING AUDIT FOR PAYROLL SAMPLING Mr. McCauley discussed that at the last meeting Councilmember Niesen brought up possibly having additional payroll sampling and audit. The Auditor had prepared materials describing what the standard audit includes and describing what additional work the Auditor would be willing to undertake. Councilmember Niesen informed she had spoken with the Auditor and found out that it is very common for City Councils to ask them to do an in -depth study of a certain area every year. They are proposing to spend a total of $2,600 to $3,500 to see if the City's payroll is being processed correctly. She believes this would be an assurance for payroll and for the City Manager to know that the payroll is being done correctly. She discussed an error with her payroll and expressed that she believes it is the Council's job to expend money out of the City's budget to make sure that payroll is being done correctly. She believes that if the Council were not to authorize this the Council would be doing a travesty of injustice to the taxpayers since there has been a problem with payroll. Mayor Kragness informed she had a discussion with the City Manager and they believe it would a benefit to approve this audit sampling. Mr. McCauley discussed that the audit is essentially the Council's. If the Council feels that it wishes to have this done, he does not oppose. Mayor Kragness expressed she believes that if the Council approves this, it would put aside any of the questions that have been raised and if the Auditor does come up with some problems then they have a direction to work at. Councilmember O'Connor asked Councilmember Niesen if when she found the discrepancies in her FICA deduction if they straightened out the error. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she did not believe to the full extent. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the Auditor would find more problems with FICA by adding an additional twenty -five people to audit. Mr. McCauley discussed that the FICA problem was found by the City's Finance Director, not the Auditor. Councilmember Carmody questioned if the Council had to do all three parts suggested by the Auditor. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Auditor had set forth three separate tasks; additional sampling, obtain direct deposit report and reconcile a complete payroll, and meet with the City payroll clerk and obtain detailed narrative of the clerk's knowledge of withholding rules. Mr. McCauley informed that the Auditor indicated he could do more than twenty -five or fewer than twenty -five and that the price would move off of that estimate based on the audit amount. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would only be in favor of procedure one and would not be in favor of going with more than that. 03/28/05 -18- Councilmember Niesen expressed she believes the amount is low and that it is important to know if payroll is being done correctly. She would agree with eliminating procedure three but definitely thinks procedures one and two, for a possible cost of $1,000 plus the report, is well worth the money spent. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to go ahead with procedures one and two, eliminate procedure three, and have the Auditor proceed on that basis thereby saving the possibility of $600 to $800. Motion died due to lack of a second. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to approve all three procedures outlined by the Auditor. Motion died due to lack of a second. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes the engagement management and report preparation would be cheaper by only doing procedure one and would assume that the maximum cost would be approximately between $1,500 and $2,000, which is as far as she would like to go with this audit sampling. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to go ahead with procedure one and the engagement management and report preparation. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9i. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL DWELLINGS AND NON- ' CONFORMING USES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 12- 901,12 -902 AND 35 -111 Mr. McCauley discussed that staff is suggesting some changes in the rental dwelling and zoning ordinances to streamline dealing with duplexes and/or two - family dwellings. There is a significant amount of units now nonconforming in the City and staff has found that the enforcement of the licensing provisions of Chapter 12 relative to these properties has become extremely time consuming and often contentious. This item is on the agenda for two possible actions. One would be to introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading and set second reading and public hearing on June 13, 2005; and the second would be to direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would like to hold off on the first reading, have the Housing Commission review the ordinance, and then put this item on the June 13, 2005, agenda for approval of first reading. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would not be inclined to set a first reading without thoroughly debating this housing law. She believes this is an important issue and with the Council being the highest authority to deal with housing issues, she would like to move ahead with holding off on setting the first reading at this time. She asked that these ideas presented move forward to the meeting with the Council and Commission Chairs and informed that she will be meeting with the Housing Commission in May to further discuss this issue since she has many concerns. 03/28/05 -19- Councilmember Carmody suggested that Councilmember Niesen prepare a memo of her concerns to present to the Housing Commission in April so they have time to review her concerns and to discuss in May; and informed that she would like to see the memo before it goes to the Housing Commission to make sure it would be something that the Council agrees on. Mr. McCauley discussed that the text before the Council this evening does not change the policy on rental housing. It attempts to address people who are not subject to the rental housing ordinance in the first instance. This would be an orderly mechanism that relates to establishing and maintaining proof of a nonconforming use. It does not relate to how you rent property or the rules of renting property, it is simply allowing an orderly mechanism for people to do that. With respect to the technical application of license fees, it clarifies that if somebody applies for a license they do not get the entire fee back; they get the fee less what had been spent in terms of staff time up to that point. Councilmember Niesen questioned the sixty plus duplexes and/or two - family dwellings that are nonconforming. Mr. McCauley discussed that they were built at a time when the zoning would allow the construction of a two - family dwelling and/or duplex. Some of those areas were rezoned to R -1. When it was zoned R -1 they became nonconforming uses. Councilmember Niesen discussed her property that was built as a mother -in -law apartment which she believes is very common in Minnesota and that she does not know why someone would come into her R -1 zoned house and call it a duplex. She said that the City of Brooklyn Center stands alone on this area and many other areas of the rental ordinance and that is why she wants to discuss this further with the Housing Commission. Councilmember Niesen questioned the following language proposed in the ordinance amendment: An owner of a duplex dwelling that is being occupied but is not being let for lease or rent is not required to secure a rental dwelling license provided such owner files with the City a certification, in a form provided by the City, that no rent or any other consideration is being paid, given or provided, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of the occupants to the owner. The owner shall provide such additional information in support of such certification as may be required by the Compliance Official. Councilmember Niesen asked what was intended by the words "additional information". Could this include a copy of a tax return from the owners; a copy of a tax return from all renters; bank statements of owners and/or renters; or living arrangements explanations? She expressed that she believes it is not acceptable to have government visit the homes of owners' and ask about their living arrangements and financial interests and that to do so is a government intrusion into people's lives. Mayor Kragness discussed the reason a license is being required is to help pay with staff's time having to inspect two units. Councilmember Niesen debated about that even being an issue and said there should be no rental inspection of owners' homes. 03/28/05 -20- Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes this matter would not be an appropriate discussion for the joint meeting with Commission Chairs. She suggested that the timeline be discussed with the Commission Chairs; and that at this time the Council direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to direct the Housing Commission to review and report on the ordinance prior to June 13, 2005. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. LeFevere informed that this would also amend the zoning code and questioned if the Council would be referring this to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCauley responded that this issue would be sent to the Planning Commission as well. 9j. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS Councilmember O'Connor questioned how many brokers the City had. Mr. McCauley discussed that currently there is one depository which is Wells Fargo; however, the City can deal with nine different agents as outlined in Resolution No. 2005 -02. She inquired how much the City has invested and what the City pays in fees for them handling the money. Mr. McCauley discussed that be believes roughly $20 Million or more and that the City does not buy any individual corporate bonds. When acquiring something there is going to be some type of transaction cost. She inquired how much is paid to Wells Fargo. Mr. McCauley informed that he could get more information on the exact specifics of her questions. Councilmember O'Connor questioned the City's loss or profit over the years on the investments. Mr. McCauley discussed that that the City generally holds to maturity and there is no loss or gain in terms of what was purchased. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-58 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember O'Connor abstained. Motion passed. 03/28/05 -21- 9k. RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification regarding this resolution. Mr. McCauley discussed that Minnesota Law provides that there are Statutory limits under State Law that a person may recover for a tort claim against a governmental body. If the City purchases insurance that would provide more than $300,000 worth of coverage, which does happen in terms of aggregate coverage limits, adopting this resolution would indicate the purchase of insurance through the League Insurance Trust should not be deemed a waiver of the Statutory requirements. This results in a lower premium for the insurance coverage. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-59 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION SELECTING THE NO WAIVER OPTION FOR STATUTORY TORT LIABILITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:01 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. M /Yr City Clerk Mayor 03/28/05 -22-