Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 02-24 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 FEBRUARY 24, 2003 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in informal open forum at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Interim Assistant City Manager/Director of Public Works Sharon Klumpp, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. No one appeared to address the Council. ADJOURN INFORMAL OPEN FORUM A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to adjourn the informal open forum at 6:42 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Ulyssess Boyd from the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast Committee 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. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Bob Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Interim Assistant City Manager /Director of Public Works Sharon Klumpp, Acting City Engineer Scott Brink, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 02/24/03 -1- i 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended a Juvenile Diversion Grant meeting on February 12, 2003, and a Special Events Committee meeting on February 18, 2003. She informed that there would be a Heritage Festival at the Brooklyn Center Senior High School on March 23, 2003. Councilmember Peppe reported that he visited the riverbank project area on February 22, 2003, to get a better vision of the project. Councilmember Niesen reported that she received the Brooklyn Center Community Guide and that she believes the guide is a valuable publication. She commended staff on the City's Website and informed that she is pleased with the City's Website. Mayor Kragness informed that she was having telephone problems and apologized if anyone was trying to get a hold of her. She discussed that the Goose Creek Tavern at Brookdale Mall will be opening the first week of March and that she toured the restaurant and viewed a menu. Councilmember Carmody reported that she attended the Earle Brown Days Board of Directors meeting and the Housing Commission meeting on February 18, 2003. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the request to refer Consent Agenda Item 7a, Approval of Minutes to the work session; and removing Consent Agenda Items 7f, Resolution Authorizing the City of Brooklyn Center to Enter Into an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Agreement No. 83632 -R, Trunk Highway No. 100 Improvements, State Project No. 2755 -75, and 7h, Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement with Wenck Associates to Complete a Diagnostic Study and Management Plan for Twin Lakes to Council Consideration Items. Motion passed unanimously. 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to refer the minutes of February 10, 2003, study and regular sessions to the work session. Motion passed unanimously. 02/24/03 -2- 7b. LICENSES A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve the following list of licenses. Motion passed unanimously. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Qwest Communications 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway MECHANICAL J T Enterprises 1400 Goose Lake Road, Gem Lake RENTAL Renewal: 421362 d Avenue North Xeng Yang 5500 Bryant Avenue North Nedzad Ceric 5239 Drew Avenue North William Washington 4708 Lakeview Avenue North Gary Scherber Initial: 6037 Ewing Avenue North Thor Yang TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT_ Centerfield Bar and Cafe 1501 Freeway Boulevard Rainbow Foods 6350 Brooklyn Boulevard TAXICAB Darrin Billig P.O. Box 29443, Brooklyn Center Larry Togar - Pioneer Taxi 38 Burns Drive, Dayton 7c. APPROVAL OF SITE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE RELEASE/REDUCTIONS: BROOKDALE CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, 6107 -6121 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD -IHOP RESTAURANT, 5601 XERXES AVENUE NORTH A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve the site performance guarantee release /reductions for Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth, 6107 -6121 Brooklyn Boulevard; and IHOP Restaurant, 5601 Xerxes Avenue North. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON -SALE, CLASS B INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO REF'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL, INC. DBA/REF'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL 02/24/03 -3- I RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -33 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON -SALE, CLASS B INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO REF'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL, INC. DBA/REF' S SPORTS BAR & GRILL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON -SALE, CLASS D INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO GCT- BROOKDALE, LLC, DBA GOOSE CREEK TAVERN & GRILL RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -34 Councilmember Carmody ntroduced the following resolution and moved its Y � adoption: r RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF AN ON -SALE, CLASS D INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE TO GCT- BROOKDALE, LLC, DBA GOOSE CREEK TAVERN & GRILL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 7E RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AGREEMENT NO. 83632-R, TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100 IMPROVEMENTS, STATE PROJECT NO. 2755-75 This item was removed from the consent agenda and placed on Council Consideration as agenda item 9e. 7g. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT APPLICATION FOR NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PHASE II A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve authorization to submit application for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Phase II. Motion passed unanimously. 02/24/03 4- 7h. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WENCK ASSOCIATES TO COMPLETE A DIAGNOSTIC STUDY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TWIN LAKES This item was removed from the consent agenda and placed on Council Consideration as agenda item 9f. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. PROPOSED USE OF 2003 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS - RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2003 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that each year the City is required to conduct a public hearing regarding the use of Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding. The proposed 2003 Urban Hennepin County CDBG funding for review is as follows: Shingle Creek Tower Project $175,000 Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly $ 22,000 Community Emergency Assistance Program $ 13,000 Rehabilitation of Private Property $ 24,616 A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared to address the Council. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -35 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2003 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS 02/24/03 -5- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion y passed unanimously. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 2003 TO BE MINNESOTA FOODSHARE MONTH Councilmember Lasman read the Proclamation Declaring March 2003 to be Minnesota FoodShare Month. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to adopt Proclamation Declaring March 2003 to be Foodshare Month. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 27 THROUGH MAY 4, 2003, AS DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Declaring April 27 Through May 4, 2003, as Days of Remembrance. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adopt Proclamation Declaring April 27 Through May 4, 2003, As Days of Remembrance. Motion passed unanimously. 9e. REPORT ON RIVERBANK PROTECTION PROJECT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1999 -11 Mr. McCauley stated that Acting City Engineer Scott Brink had prepared a report outlining the history and status of the project in response to direction from the City Council at its meeting on February 10, 2003. Mr. Brink outlined, highlighted, and summarized the information prepared for the Council before asking for questions from the Council. Mayor Kragness raised the issue of properties with docks and plans for replacement after construction. Mr. Brink informed the Council that the property owners have participated in discussions and that this issue has not been resolved. Originally the City had discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the contractor either working around the docks or putting them back in place. There have been discussions about compensating the properly owners accordingly for their docks if they were to lose them. The City will work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the property owners on issues affecting docks, because the DNR is the agency responsible for permitting the docks. Mayor Kragness believes this is important because people may be buying their properties for access to the river. Councilmember Peppe questioned the outcome of alternative five. Mr. Brink discussed that he was 02/24/03 -6- not present when the alternatives were evaluated. In discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers he did ask about the bioengineer design and the fear with that alternative is that it involves some cutting into the bank and this type of application has not been proven long -term. There was discussion regarding riprap and how it is anchored, the wood fiber blanket, and whether or not it is the best option in this case. Joe Mose, representative from the Army Corps of Engineers, addressed the Council stating that riprap is placed at a 1 to 1.75 slope and the rock should not slide down the bank. However, he did indicate that some erosion would be expected to occur. The slope is sandy and if any excavation is done on the slope, it will continue to slide. This option did not require any excavation and would place the riprap on the existing bank at an angle and thickness that would protect the sewer line and address the rock height issue. The height of rock currently proposed is 814.5 feet above sea level, which is a 50 -year flood elevation on the Mississippi River. He explained that the wrapped materials allow things to grow behind them and that they have gotten a lot of encouragement from the DNR to use that material. Councilmember Peppe asked where they have used this type of application in the past. Mr. Mose discussed that he has not used this before and that he could find out where it has been used. Councilmember Niesen asked Mr. Mose if he had been the lead person on this project from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Mose informed that he has been the lead person; however, he has only been involved in this since April 2000, which was submitted to the City as a Section 14 request. Discussion ensued regarding communication with the property owners. Mr. Mose informed that last summer he was out on a number of site visits with residents and prior to that he did site visits with the City's previous City Engineer, Todd Howard. Mr. Brink informed that the direct contacts have been with the seven property owners; however, Mr. Howard on a couple of occasions visited with the Riverwood Association, which encompasses not only that neighborhood but also some of the property owners north of I -694, and discussed that there were some articles in the Sun Post as well. Councilmember Niesen inquired if there have been a lot of changes based on what the residents have wanted. Mr. Mose informed that they have tried and done what they can to accommodate resident concerns regarding such things as elevations, tree coverage, and vegetation along the bank. Mr. Brink said it is a tough balance because they are looking at providing a final product that protects the sewer and protects the properties but when dealing with the Mississippi River there may be some disruption or change in appearance. Councilmember Peppe inquired about alternative five, particularly as it relates to the shoreline. He believes there is already protection for the riverbank and as a Council they have to pay attention to the effects relating to the shoreline and also the repercussions to properties south of the project. Mr. Mose informed that this project would not have an effect on the properties to the south. Councilmember Peppe expressed a concern with what this does to the residential property values along the river and wants to make sure that everything has been done to address all of the concerns raised. Mr. Mose informed that they had not looked at that specifically and have not run into a situation like this where they have been asked to do the work and then the residents were not on board with trying to protect their properties from erosion. Mr. Mose reminded that they are not 02/24/03 -7- serving the residents directly they are serving the public entity of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Niesen questioned if relocating the sewer line is the expertise of the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Mose discussed that as part of the Section 14 Flood Control Project they could not get involved in a relocation effort. The Corps can do stream bank erosion protection, under Section 14. Councilmember Niesen questioned if the cost would be shared with the City paying 35 percent if the pipe were to be relocated. Mr. Brink said that the cost of relocating the sewer would be the City's entire responsibility. Mayor Kragness questioned if there were any residents who wished to address the Council. Bill Newman, 6712 West River Road, addressed the Council to express that he is strongly in favor of going through with this project as proposed. He did have some minor concerns about aesthetics; however, he believes the Acting City Engineer as well as the Army Corps of Engineers has worked to address some of the concerns. He informed that he is against moving the sewer to West River Road. Robert Nystrom, 6700 West River Road, addressed the Council to discuss that his bank has eroded 48 feet and that he believes this project needs to be done. Pat Meuwissen, 6704 West River Road, addressed the Council to agree with Mr. Newman and Mr. Nystrom and to state that he is in favor of the project. Brendan McCarthy, 6654 West River Road, addressed the Council and said he has seen a lot of erosion in the three years he has lived at this property. He believes that something needs to be done. Steven Cooper, 6632 West River Road, addressed the Council to discuss his concerns about the number of residents who have the mistaken impression that the options are either run the sewer out the front or change the plan in the back; the 50 -year solution; and the communications involved with this project. He informed the first contact he received was a letter saying they were going to ask for easements. Mr. Cooper believes protecting the sewer does not require a 50 -year solution. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. Cooper if he had an alternative solution. Mr. Cooper believes there are several alternatives and suggested to selectively rock the bank where it needs to be rocked or maybe use wing dams. Mr. Cooper asked the Council to allow more opportunity for input on how to solve this other than the option that is before them now. Janet Jordan, 6640 West River Road, addressed the Council to express her concern with the issue of losing river access and discuss that she believes this project would destroy the quality of life. She expressed her disappointment with the communication and informed that the first time she was contacted was May 2002. Ms. Jordan discussed her opinion regarding option three. Mr. McCauley explained if the sewer line and the properties were effectively protected by an ad hoc placement of rock as opposed to an integrated designed system, it would be protecting the northerly portion so that it can take the flow. If there was not an integrated system, he believes the question 02/24/03 -8- would be can portions be done separately and be able to protect and stay ahead of erosion. Mr. Mose informed that if the project is not engineered, it could accelerate the erosion. Councilmember Lasman questioned if this study had been done and the Council opted not to go ahead with this project what would happen if there were a catastrophic event and a lift station failure caused basements to flood. Would the City not then be liable because the City would not have exhibited due diligence in prohibiting that from happening. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere discussed that liability needs to be thought about in two parts. In terms of liability for the damages caused to basements and so forth, the City would not be liable. The Army Corps of Engineers would probably find the City immune because the City had made a legislative decision weighing various environmental factors. Councilmember Peppe discussed whether relocating the sewer addressed the problem. He does not understand why the sewer was designed the way it was and now wants the best option to be determined. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she hears the urgency and given the communication issues would like to question if project approval could be extended to come up with a neighborhood solution. She questioned who would be losing river access. Mr. Brink informed that the City would not know until they hear from the DNR regarding the permit that was sent in a few weeks back. He informed that the DNR would have the final say regarding the docks. Mayor Kragness asked when this project would start. Mr. Brink informed there are easements that still have to be acquired. There are offer letters ready to send with compensation amounts for residents to consider. If a condemnation process were started, there would be another 90 days added on to the project. At this point, once the easements are acquired, the Army Corps of Engineers actually negotiates a contract with a contractor to do the work. Paul Oman, a resident in Brooklyn Center, addressed the Council to discuss a similar experience that Rochester recently went through on the Zumbro River. Councilmember Niesen questioned what the Council is looking at doing since there was a motion on February 10, 2003, to stop the project process. She would like to know if the other options are possible to explore and suggested spending another month or two to develop more numbers to come up with a more win, win situation. She believes more communication, planning, and development of the numbers is not unreasonable and questioned if the Council would be amenable. Councilmember Carmody discussed she would not be in favor of delaying this project anymore. The Council has heard from five of the residents that are in favor which is a majority. She believes the Council should use democracy and let the project go through. Councilmember Carmody made a motion that the Council forward this project based on the majority of residents being in favor of the project. Councilmember Niesen noted that this was not a public hearing. 02/24/03 -9- Councilmember Lasman questioned where the project was prior to February 10, 2003, when the process was interrupted. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Council had approved moving forward with the acquisition of the eminent domain and had previously approved an agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers. The project had been approved and the acquisition of property necessary to do the project had been approved. Based on the motion at the meeting on February 10, 2003, staff did not go forward with sending out offer letters. Councilmember Lasman questioned if the motion by Councilmember Carmody puts the project back on track as to where it was before. Mr. McCauley informed that he believes Councilmember Carmody's motion would be to proceed with the project as previously authorized. Councilmember Peppe informed that he agrees something has to be done; however, he wants unanswered questions answered. He questioned what could be done that is better suited to maintain property values and give everyone what they want to stop this erosion. He noted that the reason that he is backing down on this is that he believes there have been some interesting things brought up that have not come forward before. It is important to the residents who have purchased these properties as it relates to the marketability in our City. Councilmember Carmody disagrees that giving more time would help the situation. There is no control over the DNR and no need for the considerable amount of money and staff time to research this project further. Mr. Brink discussed the proposed design is a design that the Army Corps of Engineers is willing to stand by and delaying the project could compromise the funding, particularly if they cannot provide the 50 -year design. The other issue is the easements. In order to keep the process moving, the easements are needed regardless of the design. Mr. Mose informed that the Army Corps of Engineers would not be pulling the funding for the project at this point. But a significant delay in the project could result in freeing up the funds for other similar projects. It is important to know that modifications to the plan or additional costs to the plan may end up being City costs. Councilmember Lasman seconded Councilmember Carmody's motion. Councilmember Peppe discussed before a vote is taken that for the record, he is for a project to stop the erosion; however, he is against the unanswered questions even for the people that want the proj ect. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification on the motion made by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember Carmody recapped her motion to move the project along with the easement talks moving forward and work with the Army Corps of Engineers. Councilmember Niesen questioned if she was suggesting that the Council vote on some kind of design. Mr. McCauley said that everything had been previously authorized and was put on hold at the February 10, 2003, City Council meeting. When the agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers was approved, it authorized the project. In December 2002, the City approved acquiring the interest in real property necessary to effectuate the 02/24/03 -10- agreement previously authorized with the Army Corps of Engineers. Councilmember Niesen questioned if she could offer a friendly amendment to the motion to proceed with the easement work and allow the Army Corps of Engineers to work with the residents to come up with modifications and to present the cost estimates to the Council since the Army Corps of Engineers has stated that they are willing to do so. Mr. McCauley asked if the intent of the motion was to authorize the Army Corps of Engineers and the Acting City Engineer to continue meeting with residents to discuss potential modifications. The basic design is subject to tweaking and working with options but it would basically be what has been presented. The Army Corps of Engineers would not be going into design options other than the 50- year design. Ms. Jordan addressed the Council and discussed that she is not sure at this point if her dock is going to stay or go and whether or not she will have river access. She believes that the City already has an easement for the sewer system, ten feet on either side and now the City wants to take a 99 -year easement that goes from the ten feet of sewer down her riverbank. Mr. LeFevere clarified that the easement would be a perpetual easement. Ms. Jordan questioned why they need more of her property. Mr. Brink discussed the purpose of the permanent easement between the sewer easement and the river is for the placement of the rock. It is for the protection of the riverbank. The City will not own the property. Mr. Mose informed that the easement is called a Channel Improvement Easement, and it is a perpetual easement to construct, operate, and maintain the channel improvement works on, over, and across the land described in the schedule. Mr. McCauley discussed the unknowns are in terms of the DNR. If the DNR does not grandfather in the structures then the structures are lost. That would be an impact on the residents that are living along the river. If the answers from the DNR are unfavorable to the homeowners which would impact their ability to use the river, is the City going to protect the sewer line in the fashion described? Mayor Kragness called for a vote on the motion. Councilmember Carmody, Lasman, and Mayor Kragness voted in favor. Councilmember Niesen and Peppe voted against the motion. Motion passed. Following discussion, Councilmember Niesen made a motion to have the final design come back to the Council. Councilmember Peppe seconded the motion. Councilmember Niesen questioned if that would mean periodically updates would be provided to the Council. Mr. McCauley informed that the Council would receive updates. Mr. McCauley discussed as it currently stands nothing would be coming back before the Council for authorization. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would prefer that the Council have the final design come back before the Council so that they are aware exactly what is going on. Councilmember Niesen asked the Council for consideration of at least that much, which she does not 02/24/03 -11- believe, is asking a great deal. Mayor Kragness discussed the Council had already approved the project and there would not be an option for approving the project again. Mr. Lefevere discussed his concern is if the design has some uncertainty and if that uncertainty has any consequences in terms of the easement that is needed, that could frustrate the condemnation actions. He is not sure how that works for the timing but if the sense of the motion is that this project is still up in the air, and still has not been approved by the Council, that could have an effect on the ability to proceed with condemnation. Councilmember Niesen questioned the time frame. Mr. LeFevere discussed that they will not start the condemnation until some effort has been made to acquire the easements by negotiations. At the end of March they may have an idea which properties are left so that condemnation can be started. Condemnation takes 90 days from the commencement of action to complete. If during the next month decisions were made about designs then there would not be a problem. He wanted to alert the Council that he would not want to start the process on condemnation and have a challenge be successful because the Council had left the design up in the air and therefore it was not clear whether the easements were actually needed for the design that was going to get built. Councilmember Niesen questioned if what she is hearing is that there would be a 30 -day window. She requested that time be taken to have the Army Corps of Engineers work with the residents to see what they come up with and believes that would be a win, win situation and would not put the City at risk. Mayor Kragness noted that there was already a motion passed to move the project forward and she does not believe another motion is necessary. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes Councilmember Niesen's motion would be different. If he understands the motion it would not authorize the City to go forward with the final design without further action of the City Council. Mayor Kragness reminded that would create a problem and requested that Councilmember Niesen rescind that motion. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification from Mr. LeFevere if there was a 30 -day window of time to finalize the design. Mr. LeFevere advised that if the Council decides the question in the next 30 days, it would not cause a problem with condemnation. Lisa McNaughton, 6632 West River Road, addressed the Council saying that she believes this issue has been divisive and that the communications have been misleading. She asked that the Council help them get their questions answered and take this issue seriously. Ms. McNaughton informed that she would support Councilmember Niesen's motion. Councilmember Peppe asked if the Council would have to vote on eminent domain. Mr. McCauley informed that the Council has already authorized the eminent domain. Councilmember Carmody noted that she does not intend to vote in favor of this motion. She believes that this would delay and add costs to the project. 02/24/03 -12- Councilmember Niesen recapped her motion calling for a 30 -day window of time during which communications between the Army Corps of Engineers and the residents would occur to see if the design could be tweaked; and to have this come back to the Council to consider what the costs might be. Mr. McCauley said that the motion would be to have final approval of the design brought back to the Council within the next 30 days and not to proceed with a final design until further approval of the Council. Councilmember Niesen said that would acceptable. Councilmember Carmody asked if this is being done within the parameters of what Mr. Mose discussed. Councilmember Niesen informed that it should be done within the parameters. Councilmember Carmody stated that is fine. Motion passed unanimously. The Council took a recess at 9:22 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. 9d. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 2 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND ADOPTING A NEW ORDINANCE REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY Mr. McCauley discussed that this ordinance amendment had been prepared by staff and the City's Attorney to repeal Chapter 2 of the City Ordinances and adopting a new ordinance regarding the disposition of abandoned and unclaimed property. The current ordinance limits actions by the City to dispose of abandoned or forfeited property in an efficient manner. The new ordinance streamlines the process. It was the consensus of the Council to have this item placed on the March 10, 2003, agenda for introduction and to set second reading and public hearing. 9e. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AGREEMENT NO. 83632-R, TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100 IMPROVEMENTS, STATE PROJECT NO. 2755-75 Councilmember Niesen had requested that this item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. She inquired how much the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) would be paying and if this was part of the original agreement. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the utilities were to proceed under Trunk Highway 100, under State Law, the City is responsible for those costs. The City has carried monies in the utility portion of the Capital Improvement Fund to pay for utility work that would happen under Trunk Highway 100 itself. This agreement would be for a lump sum estimated cost of reconstructing the utilities under Trunk Highway 100. Councilmember Niesen questioned if staff is satisfied with this agreement since all the media about the incorrect bidding of Mn/DOT and asked Mr. McCauley if he had worked on this and what the issue was when this item was pulled from the January 27, 2003, agenda. Interim Assistant City 02/24/03 -13- Manager/Director of Public Works Sharon Klumpp discussed that when the item was pulled there was some question whether the cost was a good estimate. She noted that the estimate has been reviewed and did not change much. The contract was reviewed by the City Attorney and based on some of his comments as well as concerns that staff had, there were requested language changes recommended to Mn/DOT and those requests had been added. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-36 Councilmember Niesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AGREEMENT NO. 83632 -R, TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100 IMPROVEMENTS, STATE PROJECT NO. 2755 -75 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. 9f. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WENCK ASSOCIATES TO COMPLETE A DIAGNOSTIC STUDY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TWIN LAKES Councilmember Niesen had requested that this item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. She believes this item deserves attention in the community and wished to express thanks to staff for working on Twin Lakes and the water quality. She was not aware that there were costs to the City without having the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission participate. She questioned if the costs would be shared between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. Mr. McCauley discussed that a new consulting firm is taking over for the consulting firm with whom the City entered into the contractor. The City was unable to get funding from Crystal and Robbinsdale and went forward with the Council's concerns about doing something rather than doing nothing. The Shingle Creek Watershed Commission is not participating in funding. He believes they were involved in trying to get grant funding, which the City was unable to get. This is a City expense through the storm water utility. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-37 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WENCK ASSOCIATES TO COMPLETE A DIAGNOSTIC STUDY AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TWIN LAKES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 02/24/03 -14- 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the City Council meeting at 9:35 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk a May 02/24/03 -15-