Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 01-27 CCP Regular Session Public Copy • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER January 27, 1997 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Council Report 5. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Application for Authorization for an Exemption from Lawful Gambling License from Anoka County Pheasants Forever • b. Approval of Application for Authorization for an Exemption from Lawful Gambling g License from Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc. C. Resolution Appointing Michael J. McCauley as Responsible Authority for Purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act d. Resolution Appointing Jim Glasoe as Alternate Director to the Board of Directors of Hennepin Recycling Group e. Pay Equity Compliance Report f. Resolution Appointing Commissioners to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission g. Resolution Appointing Commissioners to the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission h. Resolution Authorizing Application to the Metropolitan Council for MNRRA Plan Funding Assistance • i. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -11, Elevated Storage Tank Repair - Tower No. 2, and Authorizing a Request For Proposals for Engineering Services II I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- January 27, 1997 j. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -10, SCADA and INTRAC Systems Replacement, and Authorizing a Request for Proposals for Engineering Services k. Resolution Accepting Quotation and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Elgin Pelican Sweeper #43 1. Resolution Accepting Quotation and Authorizing the Purchase of Accessories for Dump Truck #93 m. Resolution Accepting Quotation and Authorizing the Purchase of Accessories for Dump Truck #94 n. Resolution Modifying Employee Recognition Programs o. Resolution Recognizing Employees with 20 or More Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Brooklyn Center p. Licenses • 6. Open Forum 7. Public Hearing a. Application for License to Operate a Pawn Shop at 1964 57th Avenue North, Suite 17, Submitted by Cash `n Pawn - Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Decision by Council on application. 8. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 97001 submitted by St. Alphonsus Parish. Request for Special Use Permit and Site and Building Plan approval to construct a 22,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing church for a meeting hall and additional space in the education wing. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its January 15, 1997, meeting. - Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 97001 submitted by St. Alphonsus Parish subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. • • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- January 27, 1997 b. Planning Commission Application No. 97002 submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi. Request for Preliminary Plat approval to combine properties into a single parcel for construction of an approximate 18,000 sq. ft. automobile dealership. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its January 15, 1997, meeting. 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding the Rezoning Classification for Certain Land Brookdale Mitsubishi - Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 97002 submitted by Brookdale Mitsubishi subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. - Motion to approve first reading of ordinance and set February 24, 1997, for public hearing and second reading. 9. Council Consideration Items a. Discussion of Having Regular Report from Council Liaisons to Commissions - Requested Council Action: - Discussion of proposal. • b. Report on Mallard Creek Twinhome Association - Requested Council Action: - Receive report. C. Mayoral Appointments 1. Financial Commission (1 vacancy) 2. Human Rights and Resources Commission (3 vacancies) 3. NW Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission (1 vacancy) 4. Park and Recreation Commission (1 vacancy) - Requested Council Action: - Motion by Council to ratify Mayoral nominations. d. The Assessment Stabilization and Senior Deferral Programs - Requested Council Action: - Receive report. e. Resolution Accepting Engineer's Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Improvement Project Nos. 1997 -01, 02, and 03, Orchard Lane West, Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. • • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- January 27, 1997 f. Presentation on Police, Fire, and Americans with Disabilities Act Building Requirements - Requested Council Action: - Presentation by City Manager. 10. Adjournment EDA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER January 27, 1997 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Commission Consideration Item • a. Resolution Authorizing Acquisition, Establishing Offer of Just Compensation, Authorizing Negotiation and Execution of Purchase Agreement, Authorizing Payment for Acquisition, Closing Costs and Relocation Claims for Various Properties Located in the 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project - Requested Commission Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. 5. Adjournment • City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstrom, Lasman, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager�`� ' t DATE: January 27, 1997 J SUBJECT: Request from Earle Brown Days Committee Last Friday the Earle Brown Days Committee submitted the attached memorandum requesting the Council consider it at its January 27, 1997, meeting. The request is to waive the rental fee of the Earle Brown Heritage Center for Earle Brown Days events. Attachment 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer - BROOKLYN MINNESUTA 1 OP fR1E1DJN1Q ��� MEMO TO: Brooklyn Center City Council FROM: Henry Dorff, Earle Brown Days Chairperson DATE: January 24, 1997 SUBJECT: Use of Earle Brown Heritage Center The purpose of the Earle Brown Days festival is to promote the City of Brooklyn Center. The residents, community civic groups and businesses participate in the City's annual celebration. This is a request for the Earle Brown Days committee to host events at the Earle Brown Heritage Center on Sunday, June 30, 1997 and for the council to waive the rental fee. • The request is to use Carriage Hall A, Carriage Hall B and the parking lot for a classic car show, swa p meet , toy show and the Junior Ambassador Coronation (formerly Junior Royalty). Heritage Center labor expended for setting up, taking down and cleaning up for the events will be paid by Earle Brown Days at the rate of $15 per hour. • Earle Brown Days 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway ■ Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ■ (612) 569 -3400 • EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER 6155 Earle Brown Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: January 27, 1997 TIME: 2:13 PM TO: Michael McCauley PHONE: 569 -3300 City Hall FAX: 569 -3494 FROM: Mark Lynch, DOS PHONE: 6121569 -6300 EBHC FAX: 6121569 -6320 RE: Information Regarding Earle Brown Days Cc: Judith Bergeland Number of pages including cover sheet: 2 Mr. McCauley: As Judith Bergeland requested I am sending'attached memo elaborating fixed • costs to EBHC for hosting Jr. Royalty and Car Show as part of Earle Brown Days. You will also find expenses Incurred for audio- visual equipment. These figures are based on previous events held at EBHC at current pricing. If you have questions or need clarification please don't hesitate to call me at 569 -6322. Regards, Mark Lynch EB DAYS JR. ROYALTY Room Rental (Carriage Hall B) 500.00 1 AMX Wireless Remote 25.00 1 Microphone '0.00 1 Microphone 17,50 1 Microphone Mixer 25.00 1 Floor Podium 45.00 1 Projection Cart 10.00 1 7x10 Projection Screen 60.00 1 Slide Projector 25.00 1 Grand Piano 175.00 6 Staging Risers 240.00 Sales Tax 38.84 EBHC OVERHEAD Janitorial ( 2 @15.00) 30.00 Event Labor (8 @ 15.00) 120.00 Set Up/Tear Down Labor (16 @ 15.00) 240.00 • Fixed Expenses (4,320 sq ft x $48.00 @ sq 568.11 ft divided by 365 days) EB DAYS CAR SHOW Room Rental (Carriage Hall A) 1,400.00 1 Cassette Recorder 35.00 1 Mixer 25.00 2 Staging Risers 80.00 Sales Tax 9.10 4 Electrical Hookups 140.00 Event Labor (8 @ 15.00) 120.00 EBHC OVERHEAD Janitorial (2 @ 15.00) 30.00 Set Up/Tear Down labor (18 @ 15.00) 270.00 Fixed Expenses (8,640 sq ft x $48.00 @ sq 1,136.22 R divided by 365 days Grand Total 5364.77 • eR ppKtl(N CENt� BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT PULICE - MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Kline, Chief of Police DATE: January 9, 1997 SUBJECT: Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License (Raffle) • On January 7, 1997 the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License from Anoka County Pheasants Forever. This application is for an event to be held at the Earle Brown Heritage Center on March 8, 1997. This application has been approved and will be returned to the Pheasants Forever representative after City Council review. The Pheasants Forever representative will forward it to the State Gambling Control Board. If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, you must notify me within 30 days according to Minnesota State Statute. Scott Kline Chief of Police SK:kh • LG= For B Use Only Revos/ss Minnesota Lawful Gambling — Application for Authorization for an Fee Paid I' • Check # Exemption from Lawful Gambling License Initals Date Recd Organhzaff /nformatJon Organization Name Previous lawful gambling exemption number P�r�ok Ce P � e�. sgh� s ci �`�.?e � �(— U j 9q Street City State Zip Code County la.'t L.► �.ca`� S� N. Z) l c; , ^ „ V \%3 SS Y3 Y A no t; Name of Chief Executive Officer of organization (CEO) Daytime Phone number of CEO First Name Last Name Name of rganizaUon Treasurer First rst Name Last Name Daytime Phone Number of Treasurer Type of Nonprofit Organizatron Check the box below which best describes Check the box that indicates the type of proof attached to this application your organization by your organization: IRS letter indicating income tax exempt status Fraternal Q veterans Certificate of good standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office Religious�.�A charter showing you're an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organization Ey" O E — ther nonprofit U Proof previously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board Gambling Premises Information Name of Establishment where gambling activity will be conducted Street City State Zip Code County lsom� CctSS a.r �.-a..o 1�.r`.T Q roolct Cc M(X. SS `l3b [tin Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing) Check the box or boxes w ch indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting = 0 - Bingo Raffles M *Paddlewheels F1 "Pull -tabs ED 'Tipboards 'Equipment for these activities must be obtained from a licensed distributor Be sure the Local Unit of Government and the CEO of your organization sign For Board Use Only the reverse side of this application. Date & Initials of Specialist Local Unit of .Government Jurisdiction .Is this gambling premises located within city limits? (2� Yes ED No If Yes, write the name of the City: City Name If No, write the name of the County and the Township: County Name Township Name Check the appropriate status of the Township: organized unorganized Q unincorporated Local Unit Of Government Acknowledgment 1. The city must sign this application if the gambling 3. DO NOT submit this application to the Gambling Control premises is within city limits. Board if it is denied by the local unit of government. 2. The county and township must sign this applica- 4. NOTE: A Township may not deny an application. tion if the gambling premises is not within city limits. Upon submission of this application to the Gambling Control Board, the exemption will be issued not more than 30 days (60 days for cities of the 1st class) from the date the local unit of government signed the application, provided the application is complete and all necessary information has been received, unless the local unit of government passes a resolution to specifically prohibit the activity. A copy of that resolution must be received by the Gambling Control Board within 30 days of the date filled in below. Cities of the first class have 60 days in which to disallow the activity. City or County Acknowledgment of Receipt of Township Acknowledgment of Awareness of Application Application Signature of person receiving application Signature of person acknowledging application • Date Received: Date Signed: Title of person receiving application Title of person acknowledging application Oath' of Chief Executive Officer I have read this application and all information is true, accurate and complete. a -14� � Date: / - - 7 - 2 - 7 Submit the application at least 45 days prior to your scheduled date of activity. Be sure to attach the $25 application fee and a copy of your proof of nonprofit status. Mail the complete application and attachments to: Gambling Control Board 1711 W. County Rd B Suite 300S Roseville, MN 55113 This publication will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. Questions on this form should be directed to the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at (612)639 -4000. • Hearing impaired individuals using a TDD may call the Minnesota Relay Service at 1- 800 - 627 -3529 in the Greater Minnesota Area or 297 -5353 in the Metro Area. The information requested on this form will be used by the Gambling Control Board (GCB) to determine your compliance with Minnesota Statues and rules governing lawful gambling activities. All of the information that you supply on this form will become public information when received by the GCB. P HEASAWS ANOKA COUNTY #13 12773 Lincoln Street N.E. Blaine, Minnesota 55434 January 7, 1997 Kim Hieser Brooklyn Center Police 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, N1N 55430 Dear Kim: As per our conversation enclosed you will find a application for lawful gambling. Please feel free to call me at 574 -2313 should you have any question. Your help on this is greatly appreciated! ! ! Sincerely; A oeonsior Chapter President • eR pOKLYN CEyT BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT PUCE .MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Kline, Chief of Police DATE: January 14, 1997 SUBJECT: Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License (Raffle) On January 14, 1997 the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License from the Minnesota Bowhunters, Inc. This application is for an event to be held at the Earle Brown Heritage Center on April 12, 1997. This application has been approved and will be returned to the Minnesota Bowhunters representative after City Council review. The Minnesota Bowhunters representative will forward it to the State Gambling Control Board. If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, you must notify me within 30 days according to Minnesota State Statute. Scott Kline Chief of Police SK:kh • L:G220 For Board Use Only Rev06/96 Minnesota Lawful Gambling Fee Paid Application for Authorization for an • Check # Exemption from Lawful Gambling License Initals Date Recd Or an�zatioh nformation g Organization Name �_ - Previ lawful gambling exemption number Street Ci State' ip Code County /;_/ q M 1v -oil—? Le,-L Name of Chief Executive Officer of organization (CEO) f Daytime Phone number of CEO First Name Last Name Y)- 2. -l3 iv N ame ot org* ization T reasurer Daytime Phone Number of Treasurer First Name Last Name 114*7 w z ) J ? Y/ 300? Type of Nonprofit Organization Check the box below which best describes Check the box that indicates the type of proof attached to this application your organization by your organization: IRS letter indicating income tax exempt status � Fraternal Q Veterans Certificate of good standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office 0 Religious El A charter showing you're an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organization [Q - tither nonprofit C21 f previously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board Gambl�n Premises Information g Name of Establishment whe a gambling activit will b conducted c .,(r _7i^ c9G4/ 1�1 ei r ptic aP -- Street City State Zip Code County &,1 YOI."Lt ��'• /"ao lC �v^ 1 IS Date(s) of act ivity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing) �� t Chec the box or boxes whi ' dicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting 0 "Bingo affles F "Paddlewheels 71 "Pull -tabs 0 'Tipboards 'Equipment for these activities must be obtained from a licensed distributor li Be sure the Local Unit of Government and the CEO of your organization sign For Board Use Only Date &Initials of Specialist the reverse side of this application. Z Local Unit of Government Jurisdiction Is this gambling premises located within city limits? 0' Yes [] No If Yes, write the nay of the City: City Name ti^uv L If No, write the name of the County and the Township: County Name Township Name Check the appropriate status of the Township: Q organized Q unorganized Q unincorporated Local Unit Of Government Acknowledgment 1. The city must sign this application if the gambling 3. DO NOT submit this application to the Gambling Control premises is within city limits. Board if it is denied by the local unit of government. 2. The county and township must sign this applica- 4. NOTE: A Township may not deny an application. tion if the gambling premises is not within city limits. Upon submission of this application to the Gambling Control Board, the exemption will be issued not more than 30 days (60 days for cities of the 1st class) from the date the local unit of government signed the application, provided the application is complete and all necessary information has been received, unless the local unit of government passes a resolution to specifically prohibit the activity. A copy of that resolution must be received by the Gambling Control Board within 30 days of the date filled in below. Cities of the first class have 60 days in which to disallow the activity. City or County Acknowledgment of Receipt of Township Acknowledgment of Awareness of Application Application Signature of person receiving application Signature of person acknowledging application • Date Received: Date Signed: Title of person receiving application Title of person acknowledging application Oath of Chief Executive Officer I have read this application and all information is true, accurate and complete. Date: Submit the application at least 45 days prior to your scheduled date of activity. Be sure to attach the $25 application fee and a copy of your proof of nonprofit status. Mail the complete application and attachments to: Gambling Control Board 1711 W. County Rd B Suite 300S Roseville, MN 55113 This publication will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. Questions on this form should be directed to the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at (612)639 -4000. Hearing impaired individuals using a TDD may call the Minnesota Relay Service at 1- 800 -627 -3529 in the • Greater Minnesota Area or 297 -5353 in the Metro Area. The information requested on this form will be used by the Gambling Control Board (GCB) to determine your compliance with Minnesota Statues and rules governing lawful gambling activities. All of the information that you supply on this form will become public information when received by the GCB. Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING MICHAEL J. MCCAULEY AS RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR PURPOSES OF THE-MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.02, Subdivision 16 requires that the City of Brooklyn Center appoint one person as the Responsible Authority to administer the requirements for collection, use, and dissemination of any set of data on individuals, government data, or summary data within the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council is concerned with the responsible use of City data and wishes to satisfy this concern by appointing an administratively qualified Responsible Authority as required under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 13.02, Subdivision 16. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that City Manager Michael J. McCauley be appointed as Responsible Authority for the purposes of meeting all requirements of the Minnesota Government • Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. �O Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING JIM GLASOE AS ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 88 -24 authorizing Brooklyn Center's membership in a joint powers group known as the Hennepin Recycling Group with Crystal and New Hope to implement joint recycling programs; and WHEREAS, Michael J. McCauley serves as Director to the Board of Directors and the joint powers agreement allows a member to appoint an Alternate Director to represent the City in the absence of the Director. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Jim Glasoe be appointed to represent the City as Alternate Director of the Board of Directors of Hennepin Recycling Group. • Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City of Brooklyn Center Memorandum TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Nancy Gohman, Assistant City Manager /Human Resources Director % \ DATE: January 21, 1997 SUBJECT: Pay Equity Compliance Report - Report Information Current as of 12/31/96 The City of Brooklyn Center was notified by the Department of Employee Relations that we must submit our Pay Equity Information as required by the Local Government Pay Equity Act of 1984. Our jurisdiction was found in compliance based on our 1994 report, and now our next regular report is due January 31, 1997. This report must show data in place as of December 31, 1996. This report is required by the Local Government Pay Equity Act M.S. 471.991- 471.999 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 3920. Reporting requirement letter dated November 15, 1996 is • attached. Also, attached is the required pay equity report that must be submitted to DOER by the end of this month. In conducting preliminary runs of the data on pay equity it appears we are in compliance. I ask this information go before City Council at its regular City Council meeting of January 27, 1997 for their information. After the Council has received this information, I will forward it to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations along with complying with the official postings. It is essential that the Council receive this information prior to January 31, 1997. If there is a problem with submitting the data by January 31, 1997, the City could be found in non - compliance with pay equity and would be subject to penalties. As always, if you have questions regarding this please don't hesitate to ask me. Minnesota Department o Employee Relations L a,lcrslup 01Li IM7111�rSi1iO ill 111WIL171 r!S0l0V� 1 741741�014:11C November 15, 1996 TO: Local Government Officials City Clerk, Administrator or Manager Superintendent of Schools County Personnel Director or Auditor 4 1- FROM: Karen L. Carpenter ,,�� a j" Deputy Commissioner /Acting Comm;sssioner RE: PAY EQUITY REPORT FORMS Thank you for your previous cooperation in meeting requirements to comply with the 1984 Local Government Pay Equity Act. I am pleased to report that currently over 95 percent of all local government jurisdictions are in compliance with the Act. We have been working with the remaining jurisdictions to help them come into compliance. As you know, your jurisdiction was found to be in compliance based on your 1994 report, and now your next • report is due January 31, 1997. This report must show data in place as of December 31, 1996. This packet contains the material you will need to file your 1997 Pay Equity Implementation Report. (Only one -third of all jurisdictions are reporting in 1997, so your neighboring jurisdictions may have other reporting dates.) This report is required by the Local Government Pay Equity Act, M.S. 471.991 - 471.999 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 3930. The materials enclosed are: • Instructions for Completing the Pay Equity Implementation Report • Pay Equity Report Form (white) • Benefits Worksheet and Instructions (green) • Salary Range Test Example/Exceptional Service Pay Test Example (pink) • Definitions Sheet (blue) • Pay Equity Report "Notice" Form (yellow) Please mail or hand deliver your report to the Department of Employee Relations on or before January 31, 1997. Any reports not postmarked or received by DOER on or before that date will be found out of compliance. When the review of your report is complete, you will receive a notice informin you whether your jurisdiction is "in compliance" or "out of compliance." Please be assured that you will be informed promptly when this decision is made, and that no penalties or other negative consequences will occur before y ou receive that notice. Jurisdictions receiving an "out of compliance" notice will have an opportunity to make adjustments and come into compliance. • However, any jurisdiction which does not come into compliance within the time allotted by DOER to make adjustments will receive a second "out of compliance" notice and �vilI be subject to a penalty. The penalty is a 5 percent reduction in state aid payments or 5100 per day, whichever is greater. :A) Centenniai Office Building. • 650 Ceda- 6t. • St. Paul, `tai 551:3 -10 • (612) 97 -1134 a DL (61-) 2 97 - An e:7uai -1bC9rtuni:_: emp(o.er Page 2 November 15, 1996 • As you can imagine, the department receives many requests for information. We ask that before you call us, you read the enclosed information carefully. You will find the answers to many of your questions. For urgent questions, you may call Faith Zwemke, the department's pay equity coordinator, at (612) 296 -2653. If you are hearing impaired or deaf, please call our Telecommunications for the Deaf (TTY) line at (612) 297 -2003. Please be patient if you call us and receive a recorded message. We will respond as soon as possible. Enclosures payequiAgeneraR84 i Pay Equity implementation Report Send completed report to: Pay Equity Coordinator For Department Use Only Department of Employee Relations • 200 Centennial Building Postmark Date of Report 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 -1603 (612) 296 -2653 (Voice) Jurisdiction ID Number (612) 297 -2003 (TDD) e Name of Jurisdiction C City 2 ® City ❑ County ❑ School ❑ Other: « Address City State Zip d m 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 t Contact Person Phone CL Nancy Gohman I ( 612 ) 569 -3300 0 The job evaluation system used measured skill, effort, © No salary ranges /performance differences. responsibility and working conditions and the same system was used for all classes of employees. ❑ Check here if both of the following apply; otherwise, leave Check the system used: blank. ❑ State Job Match a. Jurisdiction does not have a salary range for any job class. ❑ Designed Own (specify) b. Upon request, jurisdiction will supply documentation showing that inequities between male and female = Consultant's System (specify) classes are due to performance differences. c ® C HR Focus PDI Note: Do not include any documentation regarding ❑ Other (specify) performance with this form. ' L m Q An official notice has been posted at © Health insurance benefits for male and female classes City Hall - Employee Bulletin Boards of comparable value have been evaluated and: (prominent location) informing employees that the Pay Equity Implementation p ❑ There is no difference and female classes are not Report has been filed and is available to employees upon m at a disadvantage. request. A copy of the notice has been sent to each exclusive t There is a difference and the maximum salaries representative, if any, and also to the public library. The report ❑ 1 was approved by: a reported include the monthly amount paid by the City Council employer for health insurance. (governing body) Q Information in this report is complete and accurate. Myrna Kra�n (chief elected official , print! 0 The report includes all classes of employees over which the jurisdiction has final budgetary approval authority. (chief elected official, signature) Mavnr (title) (date) Result from Salary Range Worksheet a t y 133.33 % is the result of average years to salary range maximum for male classes divided by the m W. average years to salary range maximum for female classes. a ►° m Results from Exceptional Service Pay Worksheet C O C as ® 200 or less of male classes receive ESP. a ' s % is the result of the percentage of female classes receiving ESP divided by the percentage ° W ° = of male classes receiving ESP. ,o 0 m c $ 7 ,779 ,?14 is the annual payroll for the calendar year just ended December 31. F- CL a (Pan' F on Back) paveCrvt.omo PART F: Jolt Class Information Report Date 1 2/31/ 9 6 City of Brooklyn Center Contact Person Nancy Go (Name of Jurisdiction) 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Phone 569 -3300 (Address) Brooklyn Center, MN .55430 To convert an hourly (City, State, Zip) multiply to a monthly rate, multiply hourly rate by 173.1 A lJ C 1) E f tf 11 1 J Number of Number of Class Comparable Minimum Maximum Years N Years Exceptional Male female Type Work Value Monthly Monthly to of Service CIa5S-1111C Iin 1RIMCS EnIPIMSS M.T [)sthTRlnisl Salax 31110tx Mtt•� Ss IYLFS< L'dy 1. Pr Comm. Ctr. Aide 3 2 B 33 $ 910 s • 996 2 2. PT Babysitter 0 4 F 33 s ue_ s 1,022 3 1. Pr EBHC Housekeeper 0 4 F 33 s 11177 s 1,431 4. PT EBHC Cus t . 1 1 B 33 s L177 s ? ,431 _ 5. PT Asst. Pre -Sch. Teach. 0 2 F_ 3 3 s 1 5 1,317 i 6 , Custodian 5 0 M 33 s 1 s 2,256 _ 7. PT EBHC Setup Crew 8 0 M 33 s 1,177 s 1,431 R Pr Golf Club House 11 3 1 B 37 s 1,074 S 1,256 4 9 PT Liq. Clerk /Stock /Cash 6 9 B 37 s 910 s 1,482 if). PT EBHC Clerk /Ty pist 0 1 F 42 s 1 ,489 S - 1,811 it Pr Golf - Club House 1 1 0 M 42 s 1 .308 s 1,490 4 12 PT Liq. Cashier /Off. Asst. 0 1 F 42 s 1,295 s 1,740 I Pr EBHC Hostess 0 7 F 42 s 1,211 s 1,475 14. PT Night Desk Clerk 1 1 B _ 42 s 1,24() s ip_ 15, P E1311 Maint . 4 0 M 42 s 1,381 s 1,681 1 PT EBHC Crew Chief 2 1 B 42 s 1,317 s 1,603 Please make additional copies of this form as needed to allow space for all the job classes in your jurisdiction. Room to: Faith 7.wemke. I)eparlment of Employee Relations, 200 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155 -160) (1uestions: Call (612) 296 -1651 (voice) (IDD) Max.and 0 297-2003 salary for full -time positions include lnontlAbal.th insurance contributions. PART F: .lob Class Informalion Report Dale 12 /31/96 City of Brooklyn Center Contact Person _ Nancy GOhman (Name of Jurisdiction) 6301 Shing Creek Parkway Phone 569 -3300 (Address) Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 To convert err hourly rate to a monthly rate, (City, State, Zip) multiply hourly tale by 173.3 A D C 1) ri 1' G 11 I f Number of Number of Class Comparable Minimum Maximus► Years 9 Years Exceplirnr:d Male remale Type Work Value Monthly Monthly to 4r of Servicc Qa5slills Cutvlmsa Eulw M F. B 1Job 11'QhrM S>Ilrtr - S.rs 6m Max, ssl hxc - 1 PT Comm. Ctr. Sup 5 0 M 42 S 1,568 s 1,750 1.5 2 PT Asst. Golf Mgr. 1 0 M 42 $ 1,629 $ 1,785 4 3. Receptionist 0 2 F 42 s 1,996 s 2,353 4. PT Records Clerk 0 1 F 42 s _ 1,646 s 2,003 S Secretary /Typist 0 8 F 43 s 2,212 s 2,616 6 PT Sec /Typist 0 5 F 43 s 1,688 s 2,054 7. Night Srv. Person 1 0 M 4 s 3,003 s 3,003 11 B. PT Clerk /Typist PD 0 4 F 46 s _1,$6_ s 2,267 9. PT [lead Teacher- Presch. 0 1 F 48 s 1,967 s 2 ,392 3 10 PT Eng Aide I 2 3 B 49 $ 1 288 s 1,490 II Seasonal Street /Pks. 18 1 M 49 s 1,288 s 1,490 12. PT Golf Maint. II 3 0 m_ 49 s 1 ' 118_ s 1 204 4 H . PT Golf Ranger 6 0 M 49 s 970 s 1 ,057 4 _ 1 4. Prop Room Sup 1 0 M 49 s 2 , 258 $ 3,043 15 PT Code Enf. Off. 2 0 M 49 s 1,908 s 2,322 16. Code Enforcement 1 M _ ! s ? � 25A s - 1 flea-,;c make additional copies of this form as needed to allow space for all the job classes in your jurisdiction. Reinm In: Paidr 7_wemkc, Department of Employee Relations, 200 Centennial Building, 659 Cedar Street, St. pail, MN 55155 -1607 Oucstions: Call (612)196.1653 (voice) 297 -2003 (7 DD) aycyuit/gcacral/961 Max. at 0 salary for full. -time positions include monthllealth insurance contributions. PART F: ,lob Class In(ortitat(ots Iteport Date 1 2/31/96 — City of Brooklyn Center Nan Cohman Contact Person Y (Name of Jurisdiction) 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Phone 569 -3300 (Address) To convert an hourl Rroolclyn Center, MN 55430 y (City, Stale, Zip) multiply to a monthly rate, multiply hourly rate by 173.3 A 1) C 1) E Number of Number of Class Comparable Minimum Maxinwm Years N Ycars Exceptional Male Female Type Work Value Monthly A4onlhly to Qr of Service CIA55ilk Emph=s Employees M­1 Ustlllstlutsl S -61my- Sella- Mak Scilks_ I'ax 1. Pol. Class Officer 0 1 F 49 s -2.258 s 3,043 2. Eng /Assessing /Util I 0 3 F 49 s 2,258 s 3,043 3. Mechanic 4 3 0 M 51 s 3,161 s 3,161 18 4 EBHC Asst. Innkeeper 0 1 F 52 s 1,996 s 2,003 5. PT Lifeguard 10 15 _ _B_ 52 S 1,187 s 1,369 1 .5 6. Asst. Aquatic Sup. 0 2 F 52 s 1,421 s 1,551 1.5 7 Maint II . 23 1 M 52 s 2,298 s 3,047 3.5 R Acct /Util Tech 0 2 F 52 s 2,405 s 2,851 9 PT Golf Maint I 1 0 M 52 s 1,360 s 1,551 4 10. Adm . Intern 1 0_ 52 s 2 s �— , 080 s 1 11. Assessment /Adm Tech 0 2 F_ s _2,563 s ue_ 12. EBHC Maint. Cust. 1 0 M 52 _ s 2,405 s ue_ I.I. Dispatch 1 5 F 55 s 2,563 s 3,043 14. Pub. Sry . Adm . Aide 0 j_ _F 57 s 2,61 R s 3 j I I _ 15 Maint. Custodian 2 0 M 5_ s 2,854 S - 3,323 1 Payroll /Personnel Tech 0 1 F 58 s 2,854 s 3 , 323 Hease make additional copies of this form as needed to allow space for all the job classes in your jurisdiction. Itclurn to: failh 7,wen►ke. Deparlmenl of Employee Relations, 200 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, SL Paul, KIN 55155 -1603 t1ucslions: Call (612) 296 -2653 (voice) 297 -2003 (1 DD) �aycquit/gencral /961,11 Max.and salary for full-time positions include monthloalth insurance cont:rihuti_ons. PART F: Job Class Information Report Dale 12/31 City of Brooklyn Center Contact Person Nancy Goliman (Name of )utisdiclion) 6301 Shi Creek Parkway Phone 569 -3300 (Address) � To convert an hourly Brookl Center, MN 55 +30 (City, State, Zip) fate to a 1110111111Y tale, multiply hourly rate by 177.3 A 1) C 1) li f U II 1 ) Number of Number of Class Comparable Mininmrn Ma%I11►111n Years 8 Years I•:rccplionrd Male female Type Work Value Mnntbly Monlhly to qt of Service classlitIc Ulal Enialu m M .r.B I1st4.Cainls) SAW- Salsrx. Mg& Ss +Yk&.. r oy 1 Detective 6 0 M 58 s 4,133 S 4,133 23 L ongevit y 2. Police Officer 23 4 _ M_ 58 s 2 , 948 s3,95 .._ 3 _ LQUgQYUY 3. Aquatics Supervisor 0 1 F 59 s 2,632 s 3,127 4 Golf Supervisor 1 0 M 59 s 2,632 $ 3,127 5. Liquor Supervisor 1 1 B 59 s 2,632 s 3,127 6. Eng . Tech III 3 0_ _ jj_ 63_ s 2.980 5 1,551 7. Pub. Srv. MIS Tech 0 1 F 63 s 2,980 s _3,551 a EBHC Salesperson 2 1 B 63 s 2,869 s 3,415 9 Housing Inspector 0 1 F 63 s 2,854 s 3,397 M IIR /Purch. /Dep. City Clerk 0 1 F 63 s _2,980 s 3,551 11. Maint. Sup. 1 0 _ M_ 69 5 3,110 5 ' A T1 12 Staff Srv. Sup. PD 0 1 F 70 _ s 2,869 s 3, 416 6 13. Sergeant 5 0 M 65 s 4,303 $ 4,303 28 Lo ngevity 1 4. AChtt /Com Srv. Sgt. 1_ 1_ _B—_ — S A,358 S A x 358— --2 1cngP._ Ti j5 EBHC Sales Dir 1 0 M 71 s 3,271 s 3,905 16 EBHC Innkeeper 1- _0 M 71 3,271 s 3,905 Please make additional copies of this form as needed to allow space for all the job classes in your jurisdiclion. Rehrtn to: faith Zwc►nke. Department of Employee Relations, 200 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155 -1603 t1UCS111r115: (AII ( 296 -1657 (voice) 297 -2003 (1DD) •aycgoit /general /96pn1 ii<�x. and i salary for full -time positions include monthllealth insurance contributions. PART r: Job Class Inforntalion Report Dale 12/3 1/96 City of Brooklyn Center (Name of Jurisdiction) Contact person Nancy GOlutlan 6301 Shin C ree k Parkway phone 569 -3300 (Address) Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 To convert an hourly (City, Slate, Zip) tale to a monthly laic, multiply hourly rate by 173.3 A Il C D 1: F Ci 11 I 1 Number of Number of Class Comparable Minirnum Maxhnum rears N Years Exceptional Llass_Litls Male Female . I . ype work value Monthly Monthly to of of Service Em ployees Gnttlluy -Us LJ r. u Unl yAnIs1 SAIAM Wmy- b 1, Adm. Analyst P.D. 0 1 F 72 s 3,344 s 3,994 2. Bldg. Inspector `�_ 0� m_ 3 S s .'i,883 3. Program Sup. Rec. 1 2 B 73 s _ 3,419 s 4,085 4. EB11C Maint. Sup. 1 0 M 74 s 3,419 s 4,085 s City Clerk 0 1 F 75 s 3,496 $ 4,178 6. Comm. Dev. Specialist 1 0 M 75 s 3,496 s 4,178 7 Appraiser II 1 0 M 75 $ _3,127 s 3,80- 8. Sup Public Utils 1 0 M 76 s _3,401 s _4,063 9. Sup Streets /Pks. 1 0 M 76 s 3 , 718 s _4,448 _ M Staff Acct. 1 0 M 78 s 3,574 $ 4,274 IL Bldg Official 1 0 M 78 s 574 s 4,274 12. _Liquor Store MQr. 1 0 m_ --7a— s 4,153 $- ,n1 S - u. Plan &Zone Specialist 1 0 M 80 s 822 s 4.945 14. Public Srv. Coord. 1 0 M 80 s 3,655 s 4 372 Is. Eng. Tech IV 1 0 M 81 s 3,718 s 4,448 - 1 �, HIS Coordinator 1 0_ m_ --82_ s _3,gog s G.,F,RI please rnake additional copies of this form as needed to allow space for all the Job classes in your jurisdiction. Iteturn lo: i'aith 7.wenrke, Department of Fmployee Relations, 200 Cenienniai Iluilding, 658 Cedar Strcet, St. Paol, MN 55155 -1603 (Jucstions: Call (612) 296.2653 (voice) 297 -2003 (1 DD) Max. and Im salary for I_t111 -time positions include monthloal.th insurance contributions. �ayequiv�enerav9G1t1 PART F: Job Class Information Report Date 1 2/ 31/9 6 City of Brooklyn Center Contact person Nancy Column (Name of Jurisdiction) 6301 Shin Creek Parkway Phone 569 -3300 (Address) To convert an hourly Brooklyn Center, MN 554 30 rate to a monthly talc, (City, Slate, zip) multiply hourly tale by 173.3 A 11 C 1) 1: 1: Number of Number of Class Comparable Minimum Maximum Years H Yeats Exceptional Male female Type Work Value Monthly Monthly to 4r of Service S lasslitlt< UnplQ.xs:sa EmQlt2 ss M-E 11 [hrizi'stinis) SMKY- Snlatx Max.- ScrAsti_ Lay 1. EBIIC Mgr 0 1 F 82 s 3,909 s 4,681 2 Supt. Public Works 1 0 M 84 s 4,377 s 5,250 3. City Engineer , r 1 0 M 85 s 4,795 s _ 5,759 ,1. Captain 2 0 M 85 s 4,478 s 5,373 5 Asst. City Mgr /H.R. Dir. 0 1 F 85 s 4,478 s 5,373 6 Recreation Dir. 1 0 M 86 s 4,687 s 5,627 7. Assessor �_ 0 86 s - 4,581 s 5,499 R. Fire Chief 1 0 M 88 s 4,431 s 5,390 9. Asst. Fin. Dir. 1 0 M 89 s 4,377 S 5,251 M. Comm. Dev. Dir. 1 0 M 91 s 4,740 s 5,772 II Police Chief 1 0 M 93 s 5,032 s 6,132 12. Public Services Dir. 0 1 F 98 s5, 520 s 6.734 11. Finance Director 1 0 M 99 s 5,032 s 6,286 14 City Manager 1 .0 M 114 s 6,683 s 6,683 1 s. s s 16. s s Please make additional copies of this form as needed to allow space for all the job classes in your jurisdiction. Itctunt to: Failh Zwemke, Department of Employee Relations, 200 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155 -1603 Ouestions: Call (612) 296 - 2653 (voice) 297 - 2003 (1 DD) �ayequit /general /'16pr1 Max.and h salary for full -time positions inclr.r(le monthloal.th insurance contributions. Posting date 1/28/97 Jurisdiction Name: City f Brooklyn Center ty yn NOTICE 1997 Pay Equity Report This jurisdiction is submitting a pay equity implementation report to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations as required by the Local Government Pay Equity Act, Minnesota Statutes 471.991 to 471.999. The report must be submitted to the department by January 31, 1997. The report is public data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. That means that the report is available to anyone requesting this information. • This notice is being ent to all exclusive representatives if an in this jurisdiction. In g P � Y) J addition, this notice must remain posted in a prominent location for at least 90 days from the date the report was submitted. For more information about this jurisdiction's pay equity program, or to request a copy of the implementation report, please contact: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn C enter, Illy 55430 Nancy Gohman,_ Assistant Gztu.Manager /Huma Resources Directo (local contact person's name, address, telephone) 569 -3300 For more information about the state pay equity law, you may contact: Pay Equity Coordinator Minnesota Department of Employee Relations • Second Floor, Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 -1603 payequit/general/97notice Member introduced the following resolution and moved is its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING COMMISSIONERS TO THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Diane Spector is hereby appointed as Commissioner and Scott Brink is hereby appointed as Alternate Commissioner representing the City of Brooklyn Center on the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission for the term February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1999. Date Mayor • ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • V Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING COMMISSIONERS TO THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Diane Spector is hereby appointed as Commissioner and Scott Brink is hereby appointed as Alternate Commissioner representing the City of Brooklyn Center on the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission for the term February 1, 1997, through January 31, 1999. Date Mayor • ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ,5h • MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialig 4J Subject: Resolution Authorizing Application to the Metropolitan Council for MNRRA Plan Funding Assistance Date: January 22, 1997 On the January 27, 1997 City Council Agenda is a resolution authorizing application to the Metropolitan Council for MNRRA funding assistance. The purpose of the resolution is to seek funding assistance for the purpose of reviewing existing City plans and ordinances as they relate to Mississippi River corridor planning. Funding assistance is being provided by the National Park Service through the Metropolitan Council for local units of government in the Mississippi River corridor to bring their • communities into compliance with the requirements of the State Critical Areas Act and to encourage participation in the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area ( MNRRA) program established by Congress under Public Law 100 -696, Title VII, November, 1988. The City has a Critical Area Plan which was adopted as part of the current Comprehensive Plan in the early 1980's. The City, however, never adopted a Critical Area ordinance at that time. The last known correspondence with the Environmental Quality Board (EQB), the state agency reviewing these matters, was a Critical Area ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission which was submitted for EQB review in September, 1984. The City has been operating under the Critical Area interim regulations since that time. The City is required to have a Critical Area ordinance of its own as well as a Shoreland Management ordinance both to be in compliance with the state Critical Area requirements. A Shoreland Management ordinance is being prepared as part of the current Comprehensive Plan update by BRW, the consulting firm retained by the City for the Comprehensive Plan assistance. We are also now in the process of receiving further evaluations of our Critical Area Plan from the Metro Council staff. The funding assistance can be used to defray consulting costs related to the ordinance review and preparation, as well as staff time and publication costs incurred by the City. It should also be noted that this updating of the Critical Area Plan and relevant ordinances would put the City on track for possible further MNRRA grants for property acquisition in the Mississippi • River area. This might be something that the City would wish to pursue in the future. The thing to keep in mind is that the City is required to adopt a Critical Area ordinance and a Shoreland Management ordinance regardless of whether or not we utilize this funding assistance. The application deadline is January 31, 1997. The staff will put together a more detailed budget request and work program as part of the application process. However, we do not anticipate this to exceed $10,000. The funding assistance requires a 50% match on the part of the City of Brooklyn Center. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the recommended resolution to seek the MNRRA funding assistance. • • • its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR MNRRA PLAN FUNDING ASSISTANCE WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center includes areas within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area ( MNRRA), established by Public Law 100 -696 and within the state Mississippi River Critical Area, originally designated in 1976 by Executive Order pursuant to the Minnesota Critical Areas Act of 1973, as amended in 1991 to include MNRRA; and WHEREAS, the Critical Areas Act requires that local governments within the critical area adopt and implement plans and ordinances that meet standards and guidelines that are approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; and WHEREAS, the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan (the Plan), effective May 22, 1995, incorporates the existing state law and standards for the Mississippi River Critical Area as well as other existing state, local and regional land use authorities in order to implement the Plan; and • WHEREAS, full implementation of the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan also depends on local governments updating their plans and ordinances to voluntarily incorporate the additional resource protection goals in the MNRRA plan, as tailored to local needs; and WHEREAS, the National Park Service has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Council to provide financial and technical assistance to local governments for implementation of the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan and has authorized the Metropolitan Council to provide funding assistance to local governments for the review and assessment of Critical Area and all other relevant local plans, ordinances and enforcement systems to determine if they conform to the MNRRA Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit an application for MNRRA Plan Funding Assistance to the Metropolitan Council in an amount not to exceed $10,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Brooklyn Center provide at least a 50% match for the project costs and will use the MNRRA funding assistance to review and assess existing plans and ordinances in order to determine how to update such plans and ordinances for compliance with state law and/or voluntary conformance with the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan. • Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • • MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City Enginee SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -11, Elevated Storage Tank Repair - Tower No. 2, and Authorizing a Request for Proposals for Engineering Services The City of Brooklyn Center currently utilizes three (3) above ground elevated storage tanks to serve the City's water distribution system. The towers are essential in providing adequate fire protection, system wide pressures and supply, and overall economic efficiency for the entire system. The towers are a large and important investment to the City. They therefore must be maintained properly in order to insure their service life and serviceability to the City. Periodic inspections and maintenance activities are therefore performed throughout the life of the towers. Because water tower inspection and repair activities are very unique and specialized, they are normally • performed by consultants and contractors who specialize in this type of work, and who also have attained the appropriate regulatory certifications. The three towers were last inspected by AEC Engineering Company in 1995. Attached are report summaries provided by AEC outlining these specific needs and recommendations. As shown, the repairs needed can generally be summarized as re- coatings of the tank surfaces along with some minor structural repairs. Tower #2 (69th and Dupont) was last coated and repaired in 1984. Its coatings are generally in good condition but require repair, especially the exterior coating. Miscellaneous interior and exterior repairs are also required. With the recommended repairs to the coatings, the overall coatings should be satisfactory for an additional five to seven years - possibly even ten. If the structural coating repairs are not completed on a timely basis, the City risks major structural damage to the elevated storage tank, requiring even more costly repairs, rendering the unit unavailable for an extended period of time. Loss of one -third of the water system's storage would severely impact fire flow and could result in water use restrictions. The City's Capital Improvement Program recognizes the need to perform these repair activities and earmarks estimated costs for specific years as follows: Tower No. 2(69th at Dupont) 1997 $250,000 • Tower No. 3(Centerbrook Golf Course) 1998 $625,000 Tower No. 1(69th at France) 1999 $180,000 • A Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional services has been developed for the purposes of hiring a consultant to develop plans and specifications, construction services, and inspection. The estimated cost of those professional services is $25,000, which is included in the $250,000 overall project estimate. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -11, Elevated Storage Tank Repair - Tower No. 2, and Authorizing a Request for Proposals for Engineering Services. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1997 -11, ELEVATED STORAGE TANK REPAIR - TOWER NO. 2, AND AUTHORIZING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council recognizes the need and obligation to adequately maintain the City's water distribution and storage system; and WHEREAS, inspections have been performed for the City's three elevated water storage reservoirs; and WHEREAS, the inspection reports provide certain repair and maintenance needs and recommendations, including tank coating and structural repairs; and WHEREAS, the 1997 water utility budget includes $250,000 for the repair of water tower #2; and WHEREAS, the City desires the services of a professional consultant with experience and expertise relating to said maintenance activities for the purposes of developing plans and specifications, and providing construction inspection to complete said recommended repairs; and • WHEREAS, a Request for Professional Services (RFP) has been developed by the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1997 -11, Elevated Storage Tank Repair - Tower No. 2 is hereby established. 2. The City Engineer is authorized to solicit proposals from at least two qualified consultants with proven expertise in providing design and construction services for elevated storage tank repairs. 3. All project costs shall be financed from the Water Utility Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member • and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MN WATER TOWER NO. 2 REPAIR AND REHABILITATION PROJECT CONTACT Scott Brink, City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (612) 569 -3300 SUBMITTAL DATE Three (3) copies to the above address, by March 14, 1997, 4:00 p.m. CST SELECTION DATE The proposals will be reviewed by the Director of Public Services, City Engineer, Superintendent of Public Works, Supervisor of Public Utilities, and additional City staff as appropriate. The intent of the selection process is to review proposals submitted by at least three qualified consultants, and make a recommendation to the City Council. • INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center is interested in retaining an engineering consultant to assist the City in providing for the repair and rehabilitation of Water Tower No. 2, located at the intersection of 69th Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. Complete services are desired to review previous inspection reports, make recommendations, prepare plans and specifications, and provide construction management and inspection services for the entire project. The City is committed to providing the following: • Previous reports and studies(the most recent inspection was 1995) • Any other available existing data on Tower No. 2 • Assistance in obtaining other related information in City files pertaining to the project if needed PROJECT COMPLETION DATES The City's goal is to complete the repair project during the 1997 or 1998 construction season. ■ April 1, 1997 Notice to Proceed • ■ June 3, 1997 Plans and Specifications Completed ■ July 9, 1997 Open Bids • BACKGROUND AND GENERAL PROJECT SCOPE Water Tower No. 2 was constructed by CBI in 1960 and is a welded steel double ellipsoidal type tank with a storage capacity of 1 million gallons. The location of the tower is in Evergreen Park in the northeast part of the City of Brooklyn Center at the intersection of 69th Avenue North and Dupont Avenue North. The tank was last inspected in May of 1995. The inspection consisted of a full examination of the interior and exterior coatings. Existing state regulations at the time of the inspection classified neither of the coatings as lead based paint. A copy of the inspection report is available at the City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department, located at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. As stated, both the interior and exterior coatings were in relatively good shape at the time of the report. It is expected that the majority of the repair contract would consist of various coating repairs and some miscellaneous structural modifications and repairs. The specific repair items are described in more detail in the inspection report. Other notes and considerations are as follows: • The tower's importance to the City's water system, fire protection, and overall safety cannot be understated. It shall therefore be required that the tank will be removed from service for only a very minimal amount of time. • At this time, it is expected that at least some PCS(Personal Communication Services) companies may have facilities mounted on the tower at the time of the repair work. Special consideration will be required to avoid conflicts and /or costly interferences between the repair work and any other facilities that may exist. DESIGN FAMILI R TY The consultant selected will be required to demonstrate competency in the following areas: 1. Water tower construction and maintenance. 2. Knowledge of the most recent regulations and standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Department of Health, OSHA, AWWA, ASTM, National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), and any other appropriate industry and regulatory agencies. 3. Cost estimating and cost control 4. Construction Management In addition, the consultant will be required to provide at least 3 references of similar water • tower repair projects that have successfully been completed. SCOPE OF PROJECT • 1. Initial Site Visit and Consultations a. The Consultant shall meet with City of Brooklyn Center representatives at the project site to review project scope and complexity, design criteria, related requirements, view existing conditions, and gather data from the City engineering files. Additional consultations shall, where necessary, clarify the technical requirements and objectives of this contract and may be in the form of letters and /or telephone conversations. b. The Consultant shall provide documentation of meetings and data provided. C. The Consultant shall ascertain the applicability of information provided, review data for completeness, and notify the City of any additional data required. It shall be the responsibility of the Consultant to determine, by site inspection procedures, the reliability of all the drawings which they choose as reference. 2. Reconnaissance and Field Survey a. The Consultant shall visit the site to gather any additional field data as needed. • b. Consultation with State and local regulatory agencies to determine required information for permit applications as it relates to the design and execution of the entire project will be required. The City of Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for the actual permit application(s). 3. Recommendations and Costs The Consultant shall analyze the inspection reports and all other appropriate data, and prepare recommendations and a cost estimate prior to preparing plans and specifications. The consultant shall work with City staff to provide design and cost alternatives to assist the City in meeting the City's desired objectives and budget constraints. 4. Plans and Specifications a. The consultant shall prepare construction drawings as necessary to provide for the complete repair and rehabilitation of the tank as recommended. These drawings shall include all details and specifications necessary for repair of the facilities to the satisfaction of the City, and all other appropriate approval agencies. • b. The drawings shall include all necessary site maps, plans, elevations, sections, • details, and notes as needed or necessary to adequately show, explain or describe all features of the project. The contract drawing sequence shall follow CSI format (i.e. site work followed by structural, mechanical, electrical, etc.). C. Drawings shall be prepared using Autocad Version 12 or later, or equivalent. Upon completion of the project, as -built records shall be provided to the City in both hard copies and a digitized format compatible with Autocad Version 12. The consultant shall prepare all technical specifications for the tower rehabilitation and repair along with any related construction work. These specifications shall describe all materials, equipment and construction methods required for repair of the above facility. The Technical Specifications shall conform to the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format unless otherwise directed by the Engineer. 5. Cost Estimate Following the completion of the plans and specifications a quantity takeoff and a detailed itemized construction cost estimate for the entire project shall be provided. 6. Construction (Project) Management • Upon completion of plans and specifications, the consultant shall provide all documents and services to provide for bidding, award, construction, inspection, and project management for final completion and acceptance of the tank repair and rehabilitation. Project Management Services provided by the Consultant shall include but not be limited to the following: contract management, inspection and complete project coordination. PROPOSAL CONVENTS The following will be considered minimal contents of the proposal: 1. A restatement of the goals and objectives and the project tasks to demonstrate the responder's view of the project. 2. An outline of the responder's background and experience with similar projects. Identify personnel to conduct the project and detail their training and work experience. No change in personnel assigned to the project will be permitted without approval of the City. • 3. A detailed work plan identifying the work tasks to be accomplished and the budget • hours to be expended on each task and subtask. The work plan shall also identify the deliverables at key milestones in the project as well as any other services to be provided by the City. The City staff intends to be actively involved with the project, and a minimum of three (3) status meetings are to be contained in the work plan in addition to any data collection or input/review meetings. 4. A listing of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of at least three (3) references for whom the respondent has performed water tank rehabilitation design services. FEES AND EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT The proposal shall state the total lump sum fee and itemized breakdown of specific tasks for all design, inspection and construction management services proposed by the consultant in response to the City's Request for Proposal. Design services shall be considered complete upon award of contract for the project. The proposal should also include a schedule of hourly billing rates for each category of professional, technical and clerical employees. Specifically, provide an hourly rate for each employee who may be involved in design and construction engineering services (construction administration and construction observation). Also, include rates of miscellaneous charges, such as copies and mileage. LIMITATIONS This Request for Proposal does not commit the City of Brooklyn Center to award a contract and pay costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal of this request, or to procure a contract for services or supplies. The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel in part or its entirety this Request for Proposal if it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to do so. • ELEVATED WATER TANK INSPECTION REPORT 1,000,000 GALLON CAPACITY TOWER NO.2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA AEC PROJECT NO. 95502-43 by AEC ENGINEERING INC. 400 First Avenue North Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55401 TEL: (612) 332 -8905 FAX: (612) 334 -3101 I certify that this inspection report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. —r � 1455ic l � Registration #20342 Dated 5 �' " 5 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 1.0 TANK DATA AEC Project No.: 95502 -43 AEC Proposal No 55120694.01 Customer: city of Brooklyn Center. MN Phone: (612) 569 -3418 Street /City /State /Zip: 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Broo I n Center. Minnesota Customer Contact: Dave Peterson Tank Owner: City of Brooklyn Center MN Phone: (6121 569 -3418 Tank Owner Contact: Dave Peterson Owner's Tank Designation: Tower No. 2 Tank Description: Double Ellipsoidal Tank Location (Street/City/State/Zip):-- Dupont Avenue North & 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center. Minnesota Purpose of Inspection: Tank examination and interior & exterior coating evaluation Date of Inspection: May 11, 1995 Inspected By: Robert Kollmer NACE No 1291 and Kelly Muhern NACE No 1692 Type of Inspection: AEC Standard Existing Steel Water Storage Tank Inspection Manufacturer: CBI Construction Date: 1960 Serial No.: 8 -0618 Design Code: AWWA D100 • Capacity: 1.000.000 Gallon Type of Construction: Welded Yes Riveted No Number of Support Columns: Ten Tank Diameter: 76' +/- Height: Overall ShelVBalcony 1140 Height to: HWL 163' LWL 127' Type of Access to Tank Interior: Exterior ladders to roof Tank Construction Drawings:__ Unknown `I Previous Inspection Records: AEC - 1984 EXISTING COATING INFORMATION INTERIOR EXTERIOR Date Last Coated 1984 1984 Coating Contractor OPC OPC Surface Preparation SP10 SP6 Paint System E og_xy /Urethane Paint Manufacturer _ Tnemec Tnemec • Lab Lead Test Paint Chips Yes Yes i Interior Dry N/A Pa ge 1 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 Structural Evaluation Based on the inspection data, it appears that some miscellaneous structural modifications and repairs are required. 2.2 Coating Evaluation 2.2.1 Lead Content Analysis The total lead content of the interior and exterior coatings was analyzed. The results in Appendix D show a Below Detectable Limits (BDL) percent lead content for the interior wet coating and a 0.031 percent content for the exterior dry coating. Current State regulations classify neither the interior nor the exterior coatings as lead -based paint. Removal of lead based paint must be performed in accordance with applicable local, state and Federal regulations. Reconditioning specifications must include provisions for full containment as well as provisions to prevent hazardous waste generation. 2.2.2 Interior Coating i It appears that the tank was last coated in 1984 by Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. The tank coatings are now eleven years old. According to available records the tank was not inspected during the warranty period and any coating failures repaired. It appears the tank has not been inspected since 1984. A properly applied and maintained immersion service epoxy coating should provide 15 to 20 years of service. Overall, the interior coating is in good to excellent condition with only two to five percent failure below the high water level (HWL) and five to ten percent failure above the HWL. The coating is repairable and should be repaired within two to four years. See photos in Appendix A. .Page 2_ City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWr AEC Project No. 95502 -43 40 2.2.3 Exterior Coating It appears that the tank was last coated in 1984 by Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. The exterior coating on the lower sections of the support colums and the wet riser has been damaged by vandalism (rock damage). It is in good condition and requires only minor repairs at areas of structural modifications, random minor coating failures and vandalism damaged areas. The exterior should be repaired with an epoxy /urethane coating system, similar to those manufactured by the Tnemec Company within two to four years. See photos in Appendix A It is more cost effective to repair the exterior and the interior coating at the same time. 2.3 Repair and Reconditioning Cost Estimate The costs for structural repairs, repairing the interior and exterior coatings are estimated at $208,650.00. • This estimate is based on current pricing. For up- to-date competitive bids the project should be bid nine to twelve months before the scheduled starting date. An experienced tank coating contractor with the proper crew and equipment should be able to complete the project in four weeks. 2.4 Remaining Tank Life Based on the inspection data, if the recommended structural and coating repairs are completed within the next two to four years, the tank will be satisfactory for continued service provided that it is inspected regularly. The tank and coating should first be inspected within the warranty period and every three to five years thereafter. A new interior and exterior coating, if applied and maintained properly, should last 15 to 20 years. If the existing tank coatings (already eleven years old) are repaired as recommended it should extend their service life for an additional five to seven years. Pape 3 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on an evaluation of the inspection data, the recommendations are: 3.1 Interior Structure 3.1.1_ Seal weld the inside of the joint between the roof plate and the manways. Seal weld the inside of the dollar plate overlap- joint. These welds will prevent rust streaking and corrosion in areas inaccessible to paint and maintain tank structural integrity. See photos 2 and 3. 3.1.2 To facilitate future interior work and eliminate a possible safety hazard, remove the spider ring. It is not required for structural support. See photos 3 and 4. 3.1.3 To prevent rust streaks and corrosion, caulk the lapped plate joints between the roof plates and the upper shell torus section with epoxy caulk. See photo 5. 3.1.4 Seal weld the intermittently welded vortex breaker at the tank shell at the overflow pipe. This will prevent rust streaking, corrosion, and possible ice damage. See photo 5. 3.1.5 Replace the one 24 x 18 inch oval manhole gasket located in the bottom of the wet riser. 3.1.6 Install a welded -in -place 4 foot diameter grating at the top of the wet riser. This grating should be capable of supporting a painter's rigging. For details, see AEC Drawing No. 1 S. Having this arrangement facilitates future maintenance of the riser interior. The grating prevents anyone from falling down the wet riser. Remove the existing ice and corrosion damaged hand rail. See photo 6. 3.1.7 Seal weld with 3/8 inch fillet weld the intermittently welded stiffener angles on the flat floor plate over the top cone section of the wet riser. This will comply with AWWA D100 -84. There are 2 stiffeners below the High Water Line (HWL) which are not seal welded. Refer to photos 6 and 7. 3.1.8 Cathodic Protection (see 3.3) 3.1.9 Remove all erection bracket scab marks and weld spatter below the HWL by air arc gouging, cutting torch, or grinding. There are approximately 1100 erection bracket scab marks. Repair the tank 4 surface by welding and grinding. This will comply with AWWA D100 -84. See photos 8 through 13. This will require approximately 310 man hours of welding and grinding. Page 4 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 A 3.2 Interior Wet Coating 3.2.1 Overall, the interior coating is in good condition with only two to five percent coating failures below the High Water Line (HWL) and five to ten percent coating failure above the HWL. The coating is repairable and should be repaired within two to four years. See photos 2 through 16. 3.2.2 After structural repairs are completed, all the reservoir surfaces at areas of structural repairs and coating failures should be spot abrasive blasted and coated with a light - colored polyamide epoxy system (similar to the Tnemec Series 20 Pota -Pox Epoxy). 3.3 Cathodic Protection System (C.P.) 3.3.1 The reservoir does not have a Cathodic Protection system. Although it is considered an inexpensive form of interior coating protection, it may not be required if the coating is applied properly. The cost of a Cathodic Protection System is not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. • 3.4 Exterior Structure 3.4.1 Replace the tank vent/finial with a removable top mushroom vent, similar to the one shown on AEC Drawing No. 6S. See photos 17 and 18. The existing vent, cover and screen are badly corroded The new vent and vent screen design should meet AWWA D100 -84 and local Health Department Regulations. The removable top will improve ventilation and provide access to the tank interior during reconditioning. 3.4.2 Install two 24 -inch diameter round, hinged roof manways, approximately 120 degrees from the existing roof manway. See photo 19. This will provide additional ventilation during the interior surface preparation and coating and the tank should comply with OSHA Confined Spaces Entry requirements. See AEC Drawing No. 7S. • I Page 5 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EVVr AEC Project No. 95502 -43 3.4.3 Remove the rolling roof ladder wheels, the connection to the roof ladder support angle and the roof ladder support angle. Weld the ladder assembly and the connecting hand rail permanently to the tank. See AEC Drawing No. 11 S and photos 17, and 20 through 23. Install a circular 12 foot diameter roof hand rail conforming to OSHA regulations to enclose the vent/finial and connecting to the roof ladder hand rail. See AEC Drawing No. 11 S. Modify the roof ladder hand rail to enclose the existing roof access manway. Remove the upper section of the roof ladder. The roof ladder is not required unless the roof slope exceeds a 5 inch in 12 inch slope. A non -skid walkway is required for slopes between 5 in 12 and 2 in 12. Install a non -skid walkway within the area of the hand railing. 3.4.4 Install a separate aircraft warning obstruction light bracket next to the roof vent and remove the existing light on the vent. Install the obstruction light on the new bracket. See photo 17 and AEC Drawing No. 8S. 3.4.5 The existing balcony hand rail does not meet OSHA top -of -rail height requirements. See photo 24. Either it should be modified to meet OSHA Requirements or other alternative safety measures need to be �• employed. Alternative measures include posting signage and requiring all personnel using the balcony to be connected at all times with a safety lanyard. Modify the balcony hand railing by installing an opening in the hand rail at the access ladder to provide safe transition from the ladder to the balcony. See photo 25. The cost of these items is included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. 3.4.6 Install a ladder safety climb device conforming to OSHA regulations on the roof ladder. See photos 22 and 23 and AEC Drawing No. 21 S. 3.4.7 Install one 24 -inch diameter shell style manway in the bottom section of the wet riser, 180 degrees from the existing manway. The existing 24 x 18 inch oval manway located in the bottom of the wet riser is too small to comply with OSHA regulations. This will improve the ventilation during reconditioning and the tank should comply with OSHA Confined Spaces Entry requirements. For a typical shell manway, see AEC Drawing No. 19S. See photos 26 and 27. 3.4.8 Install an overflow pipe screen retainer and new screen meeting Health Department regulations. Use a corrosion resistant, heavy- gauge, No. 4 mesh screen. See photo 28, and AEC Drawing No. 17S. 3.4.9 Remove scab marks at the base of the access ladder support column. • Refer to photos 29 and 30. Page 6 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 3.5 Exterior Coating 3.5.1 It appears that the tank was last coated in 1984 by OPC, Inc.. The coating is in good condition and requires only minor repairs at areas of structural modifications and coating failures. Coating repairs should be performed concurrently with interior coating repairs. See photos 17 through 32. 3.5.2 The coating on the lower sections of the wet riser and the support columns has been moderately damaged by vandalism. It should be removed and replaced within two to four years with an epoxy /urethane coating system, similar to those manufactured by the Tnemec Company. See photos 26 and 27. 3.5.3 The exterior coating is not classified as lead based paint However, due to the tank location, using conventional open air dry abrasive blasting methods to repair the coating may cause visible air emissions and fugitive particulate matter problems. Reconditioning specifications must be designed in conformance with local, State and Federal requirements. • 3.6 Site 3.6.1 The area around the tank should be graded to drain standing water away from the support columns and wet riser foundation. The top of the foundations should be at least four to six inches above grade. This will eliminate corrosion on the base plates for the support columns and wet riser. See photo 30. The cost of this item is not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. 3.6.2 The Owner should consider modifying the existing overhead electrical power lines to underground lines as a safety factor when performing maintenance on the tank. See photo 31. The cost of this item is not included in the Engineer's Cost Estimate. Page 7 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 4 4.0 INSPECTION AND EVALUATION METHODS 4.1 Scope 4.1.1 The tank was evaluated on the interior and exterior in conformance with the following: a. AEC Engineering Proposal No. 55102694.01. b. General guide lines of AWWA Standard D101, 'Inspecting and Repairing Steel Water Tanks, Standpipes, Reservoirs, and Elevated Tanks for Water Storage.' c. AEC 'Procedures for Inspection of Existing Steel Water Storage Tanks' dated January 10, 1995. 4.1.2 The inspection of the base metal and coatings on interior and exterior surfaces included only areas accessible without scaffolding or special rigging. Where possible, the base metal and coating on the interior wet surfaces were examined from a rubber raft while the tank was being drained. 4 101 4.1.3 Tank plate thickness was measured at random locations on the liquid holding shell. The overall structural condition of the tank was visually examined. 4.1.4 No structural analysis was done to determine if the tank design complies with the AWWA D100 -84 Standard for 'Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage.' However, any observed non - conformance to the AWWA D100 -84 standard is noted in this report. 4.1.5 Although compliance with OSHA regulations was not a part of this inspection, any unsafe conditions or violations of current OSHA regulations which were observed are noted in this report. Page 8 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 • 4.2 Evaluation Techniques 4.2.1 5 i P The tank site was evaluated for r er drainage and conditions p op g a I aff ecting access. I : Also, the following site dimensions were obtained: distance to fence(s), power lines, owner buildings, public property, private property/buildings, school /playgrounds, public parks and other property. 4.2.2 Foundations The tank concrete foundations were visually examined for cracks, spalling, condition of grout, indications of distress /settlement, and elevation above grade. 4.2.3 Tank Plate Thickness Plate thickness measurements were taken using ultrasonic methods (UTM). The readings were taken using a digital readout Nova D -100 • Ultrasonic Thickness Gage Serial No. UT-008 which has a dual element probe (transducer). The probe's transmitter element sends a short ultrasonic pulse to the material. The pulse, reflected as an echo from the opposite, parallel receiver element, returns to the probe's receiver element. The round trip time is directly related to the material's thickness. 4.2.4 Coating Thickness Interior and exterior coatings, where accessible, were tested in accordance with Steel Structures Painting Council SSPC- PA2 -82 'Measurement of Dry Film Thickness with Magnetic Gages,' using PosTector -2000 Type 2 with fixed probe, Serial No. DF -005 magnet flux gages. 4.2.5 Coating Adhesion Adhesion testing of the coating to the steel was performed by ASTM D3359: Shear Adhesion Test, Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test. In addition, a subjective coating adhesion evaluation was performed using a pen knife. i Page 9 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 • 4.2.6 Coating Cure The cure of the interior wet coating was evaluated with the manufacturer's recommended field methodindustry standard procedures. 4.2.7 Coating Serviceability The estimated remaining coating life or serviceability evaluation was performed using a wide variety of inspection instruments such as dry film thickness gauge, pen knife, Tooke gauge, adhesion tester(s), and 30x microscope. The instrument inspection was combined with a close visual inspection of all the interior coating's accessible areas. This was done to detect any holidays (misses), skips, runs, sags, surface contaminants, overspray, dry spray, poor coating cohesion, inter -coat delamination, loss of adhesion to the substrate, adverse conditions of the steel underneath the coating, or any other defects. 4.2.8 Coating Lead Content Analysis Samples were taken of the various types of coatings present on the interior and exterior surfaces. These coatings were tested in conformance with ASTM D -3335 Standard Test Methods for Concentrations of Lead in Paint. Copies of the Laboratory Analysis are included in Appendix D. • Pa ge 10 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1,000,000 Gallon Capacity EWT AEC Project No. 95502 -43 5.0 ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATES The following cost estimate is based on a construction schedule of four weeks. 5.1 Interior Structural Repairs - $ 37.725.00 5.2 Interior Wet Coating Complete Repair $ 22.950.00 Type of Coating - Epoxy System 5.3 Exterior Structural Repairs $ 35.75Q.00 5.4 Exterior Coating * Complete Repair $ 91.725.00 Type of Coating - Epoxy /Urethane System 5.5 Engineering Specifications and Inspection Fee $ 20.500.00 ,._ 5.6 Estimated Total Cost $ 208.650.00 ■ *Includes cost for containment. AEC ENGINEERING, INC. f prepared and certified by: ollmer er Coating Systems _ NACE Certified Coatings Inspector No. 691 Report certified by: Abi Assadi, Ph.D., P.E. Structural Engineering Supervisor Date • Page 11 1� V MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer,.-,jy SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -10, SCADA and INTRAC Systems Replacement, and Authorizing a Request for Proposals for Engineering Services The safe and successful operation of the City's water and sanitary sewer facilities depends heavily on two existing automated monitoring systems. This includes monitoring of all sewage lift stations, water supply production facilities, elevated storage tank water levels, and alarm security. These two systems are near the end of their useful lives, and need replacement. It is proposed to replace them with a single system that can also include other alarm systems at other City facilities. The water SCADA (Supervision, Control, And Data Acquisition) for the water production system was installed in 1987. Using radio telemetry, it monitors pumpage at the well houses and levels in the towers. It is used to automate control of the system based on specific, changeable parameters. For example, the system can be set to run two particular wells until demand reaches X flow, then allow a particular tower to be drawn down to Y level, then start up a third particular well, and so on. The • system also monitors various alarms at the well houses (for example, low temperature, intruder, power outage) and includes an autodialer to page on -call maintenance personnel in case of an emergency . All this data is saved on computer. The system has a graphical interface so the operator can at a glance see a graph of total demand, flow, tower levels, which wells are pumping, etc. The INTRAC system monitors sewer lift stations. This system queries each lift station hourly to determine if an alarm condition (for example, high water, power outage) exists. The alarm system provides a means to detect lift station malfunctions before they lead to sewer backups or other problems. The INTRAC system monitors lift station conditions 24 hours a day, freeing up utilities personnel for other maintenance activities. Both of these systems are outdated. Parts are increasingly more difficult to find. Both require a high level of costly vendor support, INTRAC from Motorola and SCADA from the firm Dynamic Systems. The SCADA system was actually tailored, built, and programmed to our specific needs. The custom - built telemetry and control boards are proprietary. Due to advances in radio telemetry and microprocessor hardware and software controls, newer systems use generic RTUs and off the shelf software which requires much less customization. The newer systems are more user- friendly and staff maintainable. It is proposed to replace the two obsolete systems with a single modern SCADA system. The currently available systems are much more reliable and easier to maintain, and benefit from advances in microprocessor technology. • If these systems are not replaced, at some point in the future one or both will fail and not be repairable, or will be very costly to repair. Without the automated system, maintenance staff will return to manual control and inspection, at the expense of other maintenance activities. The Capital Improvement Program has earmarked $50,000 in 1997, and $325,000 in 1998 to provide • for design services and final installation of a new system. It is anticipated at this time that professional services for system study, design, and specifications would be completed in 1997 with final installation completed in 1998. It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -10, SCADA and INTRAC Systems Replacement, and Authorizing a Request for Proposals for Engineering Services. • • • adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1997 -10, SCADA AND INTRAC SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council recognizes the need and obligation to adequately operate and maintain the City's water and wastewater facilities, including well production facilities, water storage reservoirs, and sewage lift stations; and WHEREAS, said facilities are operated and monitored with the assistance of 2 separate automated systems that are difficult to maintain and considered outdated; and WHEREAS, the public welfare, safety, and efficient operation of these facilities depends upon reliable monitoring equipment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised that the current outdated systems be replaced with a single more modern system to ensure reliability and operating cost; and • WHEREAS, it has been recommended to the City Council that a professional consultant with expertise in developing such a system be retained by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit prospective design professionals to provide such services; and WHEREAS, the 1997 Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility budgets each include $25,000 to finance such services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1997 -10, Improvement Project No. 1997 -11, SCADA and INTRAC Systems Replacement is hereby established. 2. The City Engineer is authorized to solicit proposals from at least two qualified consultants with proven expertise in providing design and construction services for SCADA system development and installation. 3. All project costs shall be financed from the Sewer and Water Utility Funds. • • RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • DRAFT DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM (SCADA) Contact: Scott Brink, City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (612) 569 -3300 SUBMITTAL DATE Three (3) copies to the above address, by March 15, 1997, 4:00 p.m. CST SELECTION The proposals will be reviewed by the Director of Public Services, City Engineer, Superintendent of Public Works, Supervisor of Public Utilities, and additional City staff as appropriate. The intent of the selection process is to review proposals submitted by at least three qualified consultants, and make a recommendation to the City Council. INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center is interested in retaining an engineering consultant to assist the City in evaluating, planning, designing, and installing a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA). The City of Brooklyn Center is a fully developed first tier suburb of the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. The current population is approximately 29,000 people. The City's water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are continuously monitored and /or controlled to assure the systems operate in a safe, reliable and efficient manner. The utility control system was initially installed as two separate systems. The sanitary sewer monitoring system, installed in 1981, provides alarm notification for the 10 sanitary lift stations. The water distribution control system, installed in 1986, provides control and monitoring for 9 wells and 3 elevated storage tanks. • In the last 10 years, utility demands have grown and expanded while the instrumentation and • control systems have been difficult to continually upgrade and serve the City in the most efficient manner. As a result, the instrumentation and control systems are several generations behind in technology and consist of a mixture of obsolete and soon -to -be obsolete components and technologies.. PROJECT COMPLETION DATES The City's goal is to complete the repair project by 1998. • April 10, 1997 Notice to Proceed • October 1, 1997 Plans and Specifications Completed • December 3, 1997 Open Bids BACKGROUND AND GENERAL PROJECT SCOPE The following General Scope of Services is anticipated: PART I - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT A. Initial Meetings and Consultations • 1. The Consultant shall meet with City of Brooklyn Center representatives to review project scope and complexity, design criteria, related requirements, view existing facilities, and gather available data from City files as needed. Additional consultations shall, where necessary, clarify the technical requirements and objectives of this contract and may be in the form of letters and /or telephone conversations. 2. The Consultant shall provide documentation of meetings and data provided. 3. The City is committed to providing all available records, drawings and appropriate data as needed. 4. The Consultant shall ascertain the applicability of information provided, review data for completeness, and notify the City of any additional data required. It shall be the responsibility of the Consultant to assure themselves of the reliability of all drawings and data they choose as reference. B. Reconnaissance and Field Surveys 1. The Consultant shall visit appropriate City facilities as needed to gather any additional field data and information. • 2. Consultation with State and local regulatory agencies to determine required • information for permit applications as it relates to the design and execution of the entire project will be required. The City of Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for the actual permit applications(s). C. Preliminary Design, Recommendations, and Cost Estimates 1. The Consultant shall analyze the gathered documentation, discussions, and all other appropriate data, and prepare recommendations and a cost estimate prior to preparing plans and specifications. The consultant shall work with City staff to provide design and cost alternatives to assist the City in meeting the City's desired objectives and budget constraints as follows: 2. The Consultant shall work with City staff to identify control, monitoring, record keeping, maintenance, and general operational requirements. 3. The Consultant shall present feasible alternatives and cost estimates for instrumentation and control system upgrades or replacement. PART II - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS A. Based on the agreed -upon alternatives, the Consultant shall prepare plans and • specifications for bidding, permitting and construction of Instrumentation and Control System Upgrades or Replacement. Plans and specifications shall be prepared in a manner that assures that competitive bids will be received on new equipment which will be supported by the manufacturer during its entire service life. B. The Consultant shall provide additional Project design services as required. Includes submittal of plans and specifications for State approval, attend meetings with City staff and City Council, and provide general Project support. C. The Consultant shall prepare sufficient copies of plans and specifications for use in obtaining competitive bids for Project. D. The Consultant shall provide information regarding the Project to prospective bidders and conduct a pre -bid meeting at the site for prospective bidders. E. The drawings shall include all necessary site maps, plans, elevations, sections, details, and notes as needed or necessary to adequately show, explain or describe all features of the project. The contract drawing sequence shall follow CSI format (i.e. site work followed by structural, mechanical, electrical, etc.). F. The drawings shall be prepared using AutoCAD Version 12 or later, or equivalent. Upon completion of the project, as -built records shall be provided to the City in both hard copies and a digitized format compatible with AutoCAD Version 12. • G. Following the completion of the plans and specifications a quantity takeoff and a detailed itemized construction cost estimate for the entire roject shall be provided. P P PART III - CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION The Consultant shall provide construction services and contract administration as follows: A. During Bidding Phase, the Consultant shall provide the following services: 1. Answer bidders' questions and prepare required addenda. 2. Prepare bid tabulation and assist the City in evaluating bids and in assembling and awarding contracts. B. During the Construction Phase, the Consultant shall provide the following services: 1. Consult with and advise the City and act as the City's representative as provided in the Contract Documents. 2. Attend and assist the City with pre - construction conference to be attended by the Contractor, the City and others as may be requested by the City. 3. Make visits to the site to observe the progress and quality of the executed work of the Contractor and to determine in general if such work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. 4. Review and approve (or take other appropriate action with respect to) shop drawings, samples, and other data which the Contractor is required to submit. 5. Determine payments to the Contractor based on on -site observations of progress. 6. Observe initial start-up of all major process areas, coordinate operator training, document construction changes and provide the City with copies of final record drawings. 7. Conduct a final inspection of the work to determine if the work has been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents and if the Contractor has fulfilled all of his obligations thereunder, make a recommendation, in writing, for final payment to Contractor and provide written notice to the City and the Contractor that the work is acceptable (subject to any conditions therein expressed). • • PROPOSAL CONTENT /REVIEW CRITERIA The selected Consultants are requested to submit a proposal which addresses the following issues: A. Experience Provide a summary of applicable experience in the design and installation of Utility Instrumentation and Control Systems. 1. The consulting firm shall be a full service firm with proven experience and commitment to the water and wastewater industry. 2. To ensure the most efficient design the consulting firm shall provide an example of a City wide on -line electrical energy demand management system installed locally within the last 3 years. 3. The consulting firm shall provide evidence of experience with non - proprietary control system designs. The consulting firm shall provide complete plans sets and project summaries for two projects within the last two years that include • Adjustable Speed Drives, PLC based radio telemetry, and Energy Management Systems. Submitted projects shall include individual control panel drawings to help review level of detail. The project summaries shall contain a project description including client information, location, and year of contract relationship. 4. The consulting firm shall provide a summary of the project team, including resumes of each team member. B. Content The following will be considered minimal contents of the proposal: 1 A restatement of the oals and objectives and the project tasks to demonstrate g J P J the responder's view of the project. 2. An outline of the responder's background and experience with similar projects. Identify personnel to conduct the project and detail their training and work experience. No change in personnel assigned to the project will be permitted without approval of the City. 3. A detailed work lan identifying the work tasks to be accomplished P fY g and the P budget hours to be expended on each task and subtask. The work plan shall P P • also identify the deliverables at key milestones in the project as well as any other services to be provided by the City. The City staff intends to be actively involved with the project, and a minimum of three (3) status meetings are to be contained in the work plan in addition to any data collection or input/review meetings. 4. A listing of the names, addresses and telephone numbers of at least three (3) references for whom the respondent has performed control system design and implementation services within the last 3 years. 5. Identify those areas where it will be necessary to retain the services of other professionals during the design and inspection/contract administration phases. FEES AND EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT The Consultant shall identify professional services fees as follows: 1. PART I - Project Initiation and Preliminary Design. 2 PART II - Plans and Specifications including complete design of the • Instrumentation and Control System. 3. PART III - Construction/Contract Administration including preparation of a bidding document for use by the City, review of bids, recommendation of contract award, oversight of system installation, and processing of contract payment documents as required. The proposal should also include a schedule of hourly billing rates for each category of professional, technical and clerical employees. Specifically, provide an hourly rate for each employee who may be involved in design and construction engineering services (construction administration and construction observation). Also, include rates of miscellaneous charges, such as copies and mileage. The City shall pay the firm for services on the basis of the approved fee or fee schedule per the proposal as approved by the City. LIMITATIONS TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Request for Proposal does not commit the City of Brooklyn Center to award a contract and pay costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal of this request, or to procure a contract for services or supplies. The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel in part or its entirety this Request for Proposal if it is in the best interest • of the City of Brooklyn Center to do so. If, for any reason, the firm selected is not able to commence services under its proposal within 30 days after its award, the City reserves the right to award the contract to the next most qualified firm. The City will retain ownership of • all plans, modifications and specifications prepared under the proposal. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL Three (3) copies of the proposal shall be submitted to: Scott Brink, City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (612) 569 -3300 no later than March 15, 1997, 4:00 P.M., CST PROPOSAL EVALUATION Following receipt of proposals, City staff will review the information provided and submit findings and recommendations to the City Council for contract award. • .5K • MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: David Peterson, Public Works Superintendentpa SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Quotation and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Elgin Pelican Sweeper An appropriation in the amount of $84,105.00 was approved in the 1997 central garage capital outlay budget for the purchase of one (1) Elgin Pelican Sweeper. The replacement of the Elgin Pelican Sweeper is through the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture contract awarded to McQueen Equipment, Inc. The bid price of the Pelican Sweeper is as follows: I- Elgin Pelican Sweeper $89,743.00 S.E. Dual Hydro • 1- Freight 500.00 I- Options per quote 1.020.00 TOTAL $91,263.00 I- Deduct for Series P - 3,348.00 I- Trade -in #43 Sweeper - 10.000.00 TOTAL $77,915.00 Tax paid by City of Brooklyn Ctr 5.031.98 TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE $82,946.98 We recommend acceptance of this purchase as appropriated in the 1997 capital outlay budget. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) ELGIN PELICAN SWEEPER WHEREAS, an appropriation of $84,105.00 was approved in the 1997 central garage capital outlay budget for the purchase of one (1) Elgin Pelican sweeper; and WHEREAS, it is possible for the City of Brooklyn Center to participate in the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture to purchase the Elgin sweeper; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture contract for street sweepers was awarded to McQueen Equipment Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The purchase of one (1) Elgin Pelican sweeper, under the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture in the amount of $82,946.98, is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager n ,. Y FROM: David Peterson, Public Works Superintendent r SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Quotation and Authorizing Purchase of Accessories for Dump Truck #93 An appropriation in the amount of $39,500.00 was approved in the 1997 central garage capital outlay budget for the purchase and installation of accessories for dump truck #93. Dump Truck #93 was authorized and purchased in 1996 through the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture. Delivery and payment was made in 1997. The accessories on the Minnesota State 1996 -97 Cooperative Purchasing Venture contract awarded to J -Craft, Inc., are as follows: • Dump Body • Hydraulic System • Controls • Underbody Plow • Wing Plow • Lighting Systems The cost of these items installed is: $30,130.00 The front plow and plow mount will be purchased with written quotations from McQueen Equipment, Inc., installed by City of Brooklyn Center in the amount of: $8,251.00 We recommend acceptance of this purchase as appropriated in the 1997 capital outlay budget. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ACCESSORIES FOR DUMP TRUCK #93 WHEREAS, an appropriation of $39,500.00 was approved in the 1997 central garage capital outlay budget for the purchase of dump truck #93 accessories, including: dump body and hydraulics, controls, wing plow, underbody plow, and lighting package; and - WHEREAS, it is possible for the City of Brooklyn Center to participate in the 1996 Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture, contract #30415363, thru January 31, 1997; and WHEREAS,the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture contract was awarded to J -Craft Inc.; and WHEREAS, the written quote received from J -Craft Inc is as follows: Purchase and installation of accessories for dump truck #93: $30,130.00 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The purchase and installation of accessories for dump truck #93, under the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture in the amount of $30,130.00 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: • whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM • DATE: January 21, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager Y� tY g FROM: David Peterson, Public Works Superintendent. SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Quotation and Authorizing Purchase of Accessories for Dump Truck #94 An appropriation in the amount of $39,500.00 was approved in the 1997 central garage capital outlay budget for the purchase and installation of accessories for dump truck #94. Dump Truck #94 was authorized and purchased in 1996 through the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture. Delivery and payment was made in 1997. The accessories on the Minnesota State 1996 -97 Cooperative Purchasing Venture contract awarded to J -Craft, Inc., are as follows: • Dump Body • Hydraulic System • Controls • Underbody Plow • Wing Plow • Lighting Systems The cost of these items installed is: $30,130.00 The front plow and plow mount will be purchased with written quotations from McQueen Equipment, Inc., installed by City of Brooklyn Center in the amount of: $ 6,338.00 We recommend acceptance of this purchase as appropriated in the 1997 capital outlay budget. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF ACCESSORIES FOR DUMP TRUCK #94 WHEREAS, an appropriation of $39,500.00 was approved in the 1997 central garage capital outlay budget for the purchase of dump truck #94 accessories, including: dump body and hydraulics, controls, wing plow, underbody plow, and lighting package; and WHEREAS, it is possible for the City of Brooklyn Center to participate in the 1996 Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture, contract #30415363, thru January 31, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture contract was awarded to J -Craft Inc.; and WHEREAS, the written quote received from J -Craft Inc is as follows: Purchase and installation of accessories for dump truck #94: $30,130.00 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The purchase and installation of accessories for dump truck #94, under the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture in the amount of $30,130.00 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption do tion of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b member P g g Y Y and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: i and the following voted against the same: • whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I�_ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MODIFYING EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION PROGRAMS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has both an Employee Service Recognition Program and Employee of the Quarter /Year Program; and WHEREAS, the Employee Action Committee has reviewed both programs and made a recommendation to eliminate the Employee of the Quarter /Year Program and modify the Employee Service Recognition Program by adding recognition to regular part-time employees effective January 1, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Employee Action Committee believes that the work, service, and dedication of our regular part-time employees should also be formally recognized. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Employee of the Quarter /Year Program be eliminated and the Employee Service Recognition Program also include recognition of regular part-time employees as part of • our Employee Service Recognition Program and, further, that the City Manager be authorized to modify the Employee Service Recognition Program with funds for such awards through the general operating budget. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • City of Brooklyn Center • Memorandum To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Nancy Gohman, Assistant City Manager/Human Resources Directo ' DATE: January 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Modification of Employee Recognition Programs The Employee Action Committee made up of staff members from all divisions of the City of Brooklyn Center have reviewed the Employee Recognition Programs over the past year. The EAC surveyed employees, asking for comments and recommendations regarding the programs. EAC survey results recommended the following changes in programs as listed below. Employee of the Quarter/Year: Adopted in 1995 as recommended by the Communication Coordinator. After review of this program, the Employee Action Committee has recommended that • it be eliminated. The Employee Action Committee will be looking into an enhanced version of employee recognition in the future. Employee Service Recognition Program Employee Service Recognition Program recognizes employees for 5, 10, 20, 25, and 30 years of service with the City of Brooklyn Center. In the past, this program has been exclusive to full -time employees. After review of this program, the Employee Action Committee has recommended that our regular part-time employees should also be included in the service awards. The City benefits from the work, service, and dedication of our regular part- time employees who work for the City just as much as the City benefits from all the years of service from our full -time employees. Recommended Action: The Employee Action Committee recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution which modifies Employee Recognition Programs by elimination of the Employee of the Quarter/Year and also updating in the Service Recognition Program to also honor regular part - time employees consistent with full -time employees for service. • City of Brooklyn Center Employee Service Recognition Program Effective January 1, 1997 the City of Brooklyn Center's Employee Service Recognition Program will include recognition of part-time City employees for their years of service to the City. The program recognizes all regular full -time and part-time employees who work 20 or more hours a week year round for the City of Brooklyn Center. The recognition is accomplished by the presentation of awards by City Manager, or by the Department Director. Awards are for recognition of years of service as follows: Five years Awards such as City of Brooklyn Center sweatshirt and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to employee. 10 years Awards such as an engraved paperweight or engraved key chain and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 15 years Awards such as an engraved letter opener, pocket knife or desk clock and a • personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. 20 years Awards such as an engraved desk set and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. Council recognizes years of employment at a Council meeting. 25 years Awards such as an engraved wall clock or wristwatch and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. Council recognizes years of employment at a Council meeting. 30 years Awards such as an engraved weather instrument and a personalized letter from the City Manager are given to the employee. Council recognizes years of employment at a Council meeting. Awarded Upon Retirement to Employee Who Has Completed Ten Years of More of Service: Awarded personalized council resolution giving thanks for the work and dedication of the retiring employee mounted on a plaque presented by the City Manager. Employee recognition program is funded through the budget. • �D • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING EMPLOYEES WITH 20 OR MORE YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS the City of Brooklyn Center has an Employee Service Recognition tY Y Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council, citizens, and other staff members recognize and appreciate the dedicated hard work and service of our City employees who have served 20 years or more; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that each employee's service to the City be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following employees are hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center for their dedicated public service: • Thirty or More Years of Service Twenty or More Years of Service Gary Giving, Engineering Tech III (33) Joel Downer, Police Captain (24) Scott Kline, Police Chief (3 1) Stephen McComb, Police Captain (24) Robert ob Dirks, Police Officer (23) Twenty -five or More Years of Service John Ptak, Police Sergeant (23) Gregory Weeks, Police Sergeant (28) Ronald Warren, Plan/Zone Specialist (23) Al Hartmann, Engineering Tech III (27) Orlander Nelson, Parks Maintenance (22) Kathy Flesher, Rec Program Supervisor (27) David Peterson, Public Works Super (22) John Bentzen, Parks Maintenance (27) Jean Dorweiler, Pub Safety Dispatcher (22) Ron Pearson, Public Safety Dispatcher (26) Melvin Larson, Streets Maintenance (22) Larry Hansen, Street Maintenance (26) Brad Hoffman, Comm Dev Director (2 1) Richard Fryer, Police Officer (25) Lloyd Knutson Streets Maintenance 21 John Harlow, Supv of Streets & Parks (2 1) Gerald Olson, Liquor Stores Manager (2 1) Cathy Hennessey, Police Sergeant (21) David Grass, Police Sergeant (21) • RESOLUTION NO. • Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: January 22, 1997 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval The following g have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses and submitted appropriate applications and paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on January 27, 1997: Mechanical Systems • Advanced Energy Services, Inc. 3650 Annapolis Lane, Plymouth Albers Mechanical Services, Inc. 200 W. Plato Blvd., St. Paul Carver Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 116 Peavey Road, Chaska Centraire Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 7402 Washington Ave., Eden Prairie Cronstroms Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 6437 Goodrich Ave., St. Louis Park Egan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 7100 Medicine Lake Road, Minneapolis Fireplace Showroom, Inc. 225 County Road 81, Osseo Golden Valley Heating & Air Cond. 5182 W. Broadway, Crystal Harris Contracting Company 2300 Territorial Road, St. Paul Heating & Cooling Two, Inc. 18550 County Road 81, Maple Grove Home Energy Center 15200 25th Ave. N., Plymouth Horwitz, Inc. 5000 N. Highway 169, Minneapolis Lakeland North Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 16041 Kangaroo St. NW, Anoka Maple Grove Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 401 County Road 81, Osseo Market Mechanical 8701 Wyoming Ave. N., Brooklyn Park P & H Services Co., Inc. 1601 67th Ave. N., Brooklyn Center PRS Mechanical, Inc. P. O. Box 68111, Minneapolis Ron's Mechanical, Inc. 12011 Old Brick Yard Road, Shakopee Standard Heating & Air Cond. Co. 410 West Lake St., Minneapolis Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Ave. N., Minneapolis Vogt Heating & Air Cond. 3260 Gorham Ave., St. Louis Park • Yale, Inc. 9649 Girard Ave. S., Bloomington • Licenses -2- January 22, 1997 Rental Dwellings Renewals: Vinh and Ha Ly 6007 Brooklyn Blvd. Curtis Cady 6915 Brooklyn Blvd. Richard Olson 5818 Humboldt Ave. N. Patricia Beier 5300 -04 Vincent Ave. N. Donald Sobania 3701 47th Ave. N. Sign Hangers Lawrence Sign 945 Pierce Butler Route, St. Paul Topline Advertising 1471 92nd Lane NE, Blaine Tobacco Related Products Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Creek Parkway • • - 7a , 3 City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers C y, Hils Las , and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: January 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Moratorium on Pawn Shops E Attached lease find the materials prepared b Ronald A. Warren and Charles L. LeFevere. To P P P Y summarize the materials, Mr. Warren has identified several potential zoning issues not currently addressed in our zoning code. Basically the zoning issues potentially to be considered would be the City of Richfield approach which provides for certain distances between pawn shops and other specified uses, and the second issue is whether the City, in looking at the general commercial zoning, would identify portions of the C -2 zoning that perhaps should be rezoned to some other commercial designation, which commercial designation would not include a regional • operation such as a pawn shop. With respect to licensing, the City's very comprehensive licensing ordinance would appear to address the public concerns regarding the operation of a pawn shop. If the City Council wished to consider a moratorium, it would have to relate to zoning since the licensing issues are fairly well explored and addressed in the ordinance. As indicated in Mr. LeFevere's memorandum, there are several issues that are involved in the whole concept of a moratorium. To summarize, in response to the Council's direction, staff has reviewed possible areas of consideration that would support or provide a rational basis for considering further study of the City's zoning as it would relate to pawn shops. That review has generated two basic categories of zoning matters. The first relates to the City of Richfield approach to providing specific distance limitations for pawn shops, and the second relates to whether portions of the City currently zoned C -2 are sufficiently different in character from other areas zoned C -2 (i.e., comparing the large regional C -2 zones generally west of Highway 100 with the smaller C -2 zoned areas north and east of Highway 100 having significantly smaller land masses and more influence by residential areas). 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 PILLSBURY CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 FAX # (612) 337 -9310 Date: January 23, 1997 Our File No.: BR291 -4 TO: Mike McCauley City of Brooklyn Center FAX #: 569 -3494 FROM: Charlie LeFevere Direct Dial #: (612) 337 -9215 COMMENTS: Number of pages including cover sheet: 8 If a problem arises, call Lucy Radler at (612) 337 -9280. NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This fax contains confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) listed above. Distribution or disclosure to any individuals not so listed is strictly prohibited. • 8/i 30td 0IE6GEEZI9 QI NaAVNO V A03NN3N:W0N1 ZZ: bI__GG- _C -N'dr 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Stmt Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 tckphonc (612) 337 -9310 fax o-mail: aztysC�k..nnedy- r�ra�en.com CHARTERED C HARLES I- LEFV'vEn Attonwy at Law Dina Dist (612) 337 -9215 January 23, 1997 Mr. Michael McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Moratorium on Pawn Shops Dear Mike: At the last City Council meeting, staff was requested to report on whether the City could impose • a moratorium on the creation of new pawn shops in the City. The City has the authority under Minn Stat § 462.355, subd. 4 to adopt interim ordinances for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The purpose of the moratorium must be to allow the City time to conduct studies or hold hearings on changes to its comprehensive plan, zoning .code, or subdivision regulations. State law limits the period of a moratorium to an initial period of one year. The moratorium can be extended for additional periods of up to 18 months. However, the period established for the moratorium should be no longer than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the studies or hearings on amendments to the City's official controls. The imposition of a moratorium on pawn shops was upheld in the case of Wedemever v. City of Minneapolis, (Minn. App. 1995) 540 N.W.2d 539. A copy of that case is attached. Although the moratorium was upheld in the Wedemever case, such a moratorium is subject to legal challenge; and in some cases, courts have held moratorium ordinances to be unlawful. If a moratorium is challenged, and the City prevails, it would nevertheless incur legal expenses and costs, and the cost associated with the commitment of staff time and resources. If the ordinance were challenged successfully, the City would incur these same expenses and, although it would be unusual in a zoning type case, there is the possibility that the City would also be required to pay damages, costs, and attorneys fees of the prevailing party. The basic issue in a challenge would be whether the City's ordinance was in fact reasonably • necessary to protect public interests or whether it was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and enacted for improper purposes. As I have noted in earlier letters to the City Council, I w ould expect that the moratorium previously adopted by the City Council for pawn shops, which did not result in any change to the City's ordinance code, would be offered as evidence that the City merely intended to stop this business from coming into town because of neighborhood opposition 6/Z 3OV8 . 0I E6LEEZ i 9 = D I N3AVaO V AORNN3U = W0NI ZZ : bI L EZ -NVr Mr. Mike McCauley January 23, 1997 Page 2 or the unpopularity of pawn shops generally. That is not to say that the City would necessarily lose a challenge to a moratorium ordinance. However, the City Council should only adopt a moratorium if it is reasonably comfortable that there are land use reasons to believe that a moratorium is necessary to protect the planning process. Very truly yours, Charles L. LePevere CLL:ds Attachment • • 8/E 3f) bd 0LE6GEEZL9 UI N311o2t� S JSa3NN3}I W02I3 ZZ= 6L L6- EZ -NHf .FIS WEDEMEYER v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS '- 12inn. 539 7 Cite as SW %.W-U 339 (MIMApp. 2995) citron of his license and city attorney draft interim ordinance impos- he have conflicted on Charles E. WEDEMEYER, Appellant, ing moratorium on such applications does not U-L points out require same formal procedures which are 11•aw tuber of the v statutorily required for adoption of interim ulatory Services Com- CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Respondent. ordinance, and ordinance providing for the i the al License fi and the No. CS- 95-139L freeze does not exceed the authority of the Rental se Board city and is a proper and legitimate exercise eeting of this commit- Court of Appeals of Minnesota. of the city's general power and its responsi- ed the committee not i bility to regulate land use and development of Zeman's license, (;) Nov. 28, 1995. in the public's interest. M.SA § 462.355, -d the committee of subd. 4; Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordi- other problems boa Applicant for conditional use permit nances, § 534.4i0(c)(1)_ perty, and (4) Cherry- brought action reeze on full council to revoke County, 5. Zoning and Planning e-131 dons. The Distri�et Court, Hennepin County, John J. Sommerville, J., granted city's mo- Statute which permits interim ordi- from the record that, lion for summary judgment, and applicant nances regulating, rest ri cling, or prohibiting ive order, the district appealed. The Court of Appeals, Daniel F' any land use or development is permissive :he issue of the alleged Foley, Acting J., held that: (1) freeze on and does not prohibit less formal approaches. between Zeman and conditional use applications resulting from M.SA § 462.365, subd. 4. .iestion of whether the council member's request that city attorney ivated by personal or draft interim ordinance imposing moratorium 6- Zoning and Planning e-6 -want to Zeman's sub- does not require same formal procedures It is within legitimate general powers of a.m. See Northpointe, which are statutorily required for adoption of municipalities to exercise their police powers While w e interim ordinance; (2) munici y re gulating land use and development, and express no Pam' maY enact b re lution of this issue, we moratorium on development; and (3) specula- power to regulate includes the power to pro - rt to address it in re- tion that council member whose request to hibit certain businesses in des otective order on re- the city attorney to draft moratorium com- individual's right too ip d areas; perate specific business menced freeze on consideration of applica- at specific location is subordinate to munid- tions laded sufficient understanding of the pality's police power, and no individual can II.S100- pawnshop industry was insufficient to prove acquire a vested right to a articular zoning . P g bad faith or discrimination i properly determined scheme. n., Code of Ordinances Affirmed. 7. Zoning and Planning x601 not unconstitutionally not denied procedural L Appeal and Error a=S63, 934(1) Municipalities have wide latitude in ex- ?eman cannot maintain ercising their police powers in zoning ded- es under 42 U.S.C. On appeal from summary judgment, re- lions, and their decisions are generally undis- leprivation of his right viewing court must view the evidence in light turbed if the decision bears substantial rela- 3ecause we hold that most favorable to nonmovitxg party and de- tion to legitimate public interest. I in awarding the city termine whether any genuine issues of mate - Zeman's inverse con- rial fact exist and whether district court S. Zoning and Planning e- 86 mand for trial on this erred m applying the law. Under the general police powers, munie- 2. Appeal and Error x893(1) ipality may enact moratorium on develop - 'reversed in art, and Court of ment as long as it is of limited duration and p Appeals reviews questions of law de novo. appropriate studies or zoning ordinances are expeditiously adopted. M.S.A- § 462.355, 3. Zoning and Planning' 6 subd. 4. ,eRS.srcti Zoning ordinance is valid if it is comple- 9. Zoning and Planning 586 mentary to a statute. 4. Zoning and Planning o 131 Minnesota has not adopted a specific test to evaluate the propriety of interim Freeze on conditional use application re- freeze on conditional use applications. . PP ns . suiting from council member's request that M.S.A. § 462.3$ subd. 4. mills S/b 30Vd 0 t EG4aaZ t 9' Q t N3AV80 V A43NNaU = W0NA ZZ = bI G6- CZ-NVr t 540 Minn. 540 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES 10. Municipal Corporations e-M9 Considered and decided by PARKER, Zoning and Planning Q-611 P .J•, and LANSING and FOLEY, JJ. Municipal ordinances enacted pursuant OPINION to the police power are generally valid, ab- sent affirmative proof that restriction is DANIEL F. FOLEY, Judge. - clearly discriminatory or arbitrary and with- A municipality's temporary suspension of a out any substantial relation to the public conditional use permit application to operate health, safety, or general welfare, and manic- a business, which did not conform to the ipality's zoning decision is not arbitrary or municipality's comprehensive zoning plan, capricious when at least one of the rationales pending consideration and adoption of a rnor- for the decision is reasonably related to the atorium ordinance on the issuance of such promotion of the public health, safety, or p e ts did not exceed the municipality's all. general welfare of the community. thority nor was the temporary suspension IL Zoning and Planning e W enacted in bad faith or in a discriminatory fashion - Applicant had burden of showing that stated reasons for city's suspension of permit FACTS applications were either without factual sup- Appellant Charles Wedemeyer leased a va. port or legally insufficient, cant store in the Camden neighborhood of 12. Zoning and Planning d86 Minneapolis in December 1993. The Itxnne- • Speculation that council member whose apolis comprehensive zoning plan placed the request to the city attorney to draft morato- store site in a Community Service District rium on conditional use permits for pawn (B3S -2). Wedemeyer hoped to open a pawn- shops in community service districts com- shop at the site. Pawnshops are a noncon- menced freeze on consideration of applica- forming use in all Community Service Dis- tions lacked sufficient understanding of the tracts and pawnshop owners must possess a pawnshop industry was insufficient to prove conditional use permit to operate in those bad faith or discrimination- Minneapolis, areas. Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Minn., Code of Ordinances, §§ 5 34A70(c)(1), § 540.1410(13) (1995). Wedemeyer applied 540.1410(13). for a conditional use permit to operate a i pawnshop on the site on April 12, 1994. Syllabw by the Court On April 15, 1994, Minneapolis Council Member Alice Rainville asked the Minne - Minneapolis Ordinance section apolis City Attorney to draft a moratorium 554A70(c)(1), which permits a temporary ordinance on permits, licenses, and other ap- freeze on conditional use permit applications p er,& necessary to operate pawnshops in while the city council considers ordinances Community Service Districts. A proposed relating to the subject or area of the permit moratorium ordinance was read at the Min - application. does not exceed the council's au- neapolis City Council meeting later that day thority and is a valid municipal ordinance. and the council referred the matter to its Zoning and Planning Committee for public hearings. Roger A Peterson, Therese Dosch When Rainville asked the city attorney to Anderson, Peterson, Engberg & Peterson, draft a moratorium ordinance, processing of Minneapolis, for appellant. Wedemeyer's conditional use permit appliea- SureIl Brady, City Attorney, Michael T. Lion stopped in accord with Minneapolis Code Norton, Assistant City Attorney, Minne- of Ordinances section 534.470(c)(1) (1990) apolis, for respondent. (hereinafter RICO). On June 10 Wedemeyer ' Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals. art. V1. § 2. serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. MINN F, t -.w i e/S 39tr'd 0tES4CEZi9 :01 N3l1V80 I AaRNN3M:W EZ 46- EZ -NVr :IES WEDEMEYER o. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS Minn. 541 aftsa o u.w.zd S39 c Mna -496 1995) -tided by PARKER, applied for a waiver from the prvices=g Mvwwota Pub. Utils.. Comm'n, 3 358 N.W.2d and FOLEY, JJ. freeze. 6;39, 642 (Minn.1984). On June 11, 1994, the Zoning and Planning Committee of the city council scheduled a I. EY, Judge.- public hearing on the proposed moratorium Wedemeyer argues that MCO ordinance for June 21. At the June 21 hear- § 534.470(c)(1) exceeds the authority delegat- npormy suspension of a I ing, Rainville and others spoke in support of ed municipalities b the Minnesota Le it application to operate + to mun y �- not conform to the the proposed ordinance and explained that lature and violates certain procedural re- id id no ive zoning pawnshops had a negative connotation and quirements_ MCO s" 4.470 allows the city to were not a good match for Community Ser- o zoning interim p t � and adoption of a mor- ado b rdinances when the n the issuance of such vice Districts. The committee endorsed the ci is conducting studies or holding hearings proposed moratorium - The city council on proposed modifications to the city's com- temporary suspension :d the ra suspen sion on adopted the moratorium ordinance on July 1, prehensive zoning plan. These ordinances or in a discriminatory and it became effective on July 9, 1994. are passed in the same manner as other l� The Zoning and Planning Committee con- ordinances. There is always a gap in time sidered Wedemeyer's waiver application on between the introduction of a proposed ordi- 1CTS August 2. The committee recommended dem- nance and its effective date. MCO Wedemeyer leased a va al, and the city council denied the waiver on § 534.470(c)(1) fills that gap: amden neighborhood . of August 12. 1994. From either the date of introduction of nber 1993. The Minn- Wedemeyer brought the present action such interim ordinance, or from the date zoning plan placed the seeking a declaratory judgment that MCO the planning director or a city council tmunity Service District § 534.470(c)(1) is invalid and that the city member requests the city attorney to draft :r hoped to open a pawn - froze his application in bad faith or with such interim ordinance for introduction at awnshops are a noncon- discrimination- Both parties moved for sum - the next regularly scheduled council meet - 'onmmunity Service Dis- mazy judgment. The district court granted ing, no use, development, project or subdi- owners must possess a summary judgment to respondent city, and Vision shall be established, nor shall any nit to operate in those Wedemeyer appeals that judgment building permit, administrative waiver, re- i). S Of Ordinances view or approval of any application, or any -emeyer a ppli e d ISSUES application for a variance or conditional =e perttut to operate a I. Is MCO § 534.470(c)(1) a valid munici- use permit be granted or further pro - te on April 12, 1994. pal ordinance? cessed, which concerns] the geographical X. ;Minneapolis Council IL Was the interim freeze on Wedemey- area or subject matter of the interim ordi- nance, pending a final decision on the wMe asked the '-Minn- - er's conditional use permit application enact- adoption n the interim ordinance. v to draft a moratorium ed in good faith and without discrimination:' licenses, and other ap- [31 Zoning ordinances must be consistent operate pawnshops in ANALYSIS with the Minnesota Constitution and star - Districts. A proposed 11,21 On appeal from summary judg utes. State v. Clarke Plumbing &Heating, :e was read at the Min- ment. a reviewing court must view the evi- Ina, 238 Mimi. 192, 194, 56 N.W.2d 667, 669 1 meeting later that day deuce in a light most favorable to the non- (1952). An ordinance is valid if it is comple- erred the matter to its moving party and determine whether any mentary to a statute. City of St. Paul v g Committee for public genuine issues of material fact exist and Olson 300 Minn. 4.55, 456, 220 N.W.2d 484, whether the district court erred in applying 485 (1974). sked the city attorney to + the law OfferdaU v. Uniw7rdy of Minn. The Minnesota Legislature granted munic� ordinance, processing of ( Hozps. & Clinics, 426 N.W2d 425, 427 ipalities the general authority to implement zonal use permit applica- (Miinn.i988). The parties have stipulated to comprehensive zoning plans. Minn.Stat. :d with Minneapolis Code the facts and dispute only the application of §§ 462.351, 253 (1994). It has granted mu- -ion 534.470(c (1990) the law. Interpretation of zoning ordinances aicipalWes the specific authority to enact in- On June 14 Wedemeyer is a question of law. Frank's Nursery Sales, terim ordinances to regulate, restrict, or pro- 1= v City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608 hibit any use or development in order to (Minn.1980). This court reviews questions of protect the planning process. Minn.Stat. law de novo. Frost —Eenco Elea Ass v. § 46'2.3.55, subd. 4 (1994). • B/9 3�Vd 0t£64 £EZt9 =QI N9AVN0 V A02NNSM:WONA £Z: bi 46- £Z -NVr 542 Minn. 540 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES 14.51 Wedemeyer argues that the freeze abuse this power. See Alexander a City of on conditional use applications applied under Minneapolis, 267 Minn. 1a5, 155 -,�9, 1 ' MCO § 534 470(cKl) may have the same ef- N.W2d 583, 586 (1963) (rejecting hold order ' * fect as an interim ordinance enacted under of indefutite du tic ding per n on builmits for i % Minn.Stat. § 462.355, subd. 4, , and therefore, property uses that conformed to the requires the same formal procedures re- zoning plan). The interim freeze on Wed quired by the statute. But Minn.Stat. met'er's conditional use permit a S 462.355, subd. 4 is permissive; it does not lasted o a pplication eleven weeks. The freeze appli prohibit less formal approaches. The statute for a brief period of time while the city Permits interim ordinances regulating, re- council held hearings and considered a mom stricting, or prohibiting any land use or de- torium ordinance. Wedemeyer's concern velopment. Minn.Stat § 462.355, subd. 4. about abuse of this process did not material. The Minneapolis ordinance merely freezes ize in this case. applications pending decisions on moratorium ordinances Wedemeyex contends that the freeze pro, MCO § 534.470(c)(i). The state cess failed to follow proper procedures re. ute and the ordinance do not conflict; they quired to Pam an ordinance. This a rnnent provide different procedures that yield differ presupposes that the interim stay must fol- ent results The ability of the city to stay low the same procedures as ordinances, Permit applications protects the integrity of MCO § 554.470(c)(1) provides for an info the art's planning Process and complements process to enact these temporary stays, and rather than _xceeds the authority of the stat- ute does not require a formal ordinance. Public hearings and committee considerations on [6) Minnesota has long recognized the pawnshops in Community Service Districts legitimate general powers of municipalities to were ongoing throughout the eleven -week exercise their Police powers by regulating freeze. Statutes mandating procedures for land use and development Alexander Co. v. enacting ordinances do not apply. CJ of Owatomnct 222 Minn. 312, 325, 24 Policy concerns weigh heavily in favor of N.W2d 244, 251 (1946); In re Witsorc, 32 perntitting municipalities to enact interim Minn. 145, 148, 19 N -W- 72.q, 724 (1884)- The Sy on conditional use permit applications Power to regulate includes the power to pro - Wedemeyer argues that a city must formal?y lubit certain businesses in designated areas• pass an ordinance amen Alexander Co., 722 Minn. at 331, 24 N.W2d dh►8 its zoning plan at M. An individual's before a permit application. Under right to operate a that system, a city would need to anticipate specific business at a specific location is sub - all future, and Possibly harmful, uses for ordinate to the municipality's police power: Property and enact formal Ordinances before no individual ran acquire a vested right to a any applications were submitted or else it Particular zoning scheme. State ex rel. Rose would be effectively estoppel from rejecting y Eros Lumber &Supply co, u Clovsing, 198 or even delaying those applications. Zoning ` Minn. 35, 44 -45, 268 N.W. 844, 849 (1936). decisions require time and attention. Alm- 1 81 Municipalities have wide latitude in qui4 .308 Minn. at 67, 245 N.W.2d at 827. exercising their police powers in zoning dew- Upholding only moratoria that take effect lions. Their decisions are generally undis after the adoption of a formal moratoriums turbed if the decision bears a substantial ordinance would be — like locking the stable relation to a legitimate public interest. Alec- after the horse is stolen.' " Id. (quoting ander Co., 222 Minn. at 3213 -24, 24 N.W2d at DOWnizam D. City Council. 58 FZd 7$4 ig$ 251. Under the general police powers, mu- (E.D.Va.1932)). nicipalities may enact a moratorium on Bevel- The permissive nature of Minn.Stat opment as long as it is of limited duration § 462:,355, subd. 4, the broad police powers of f and appropriate studies or zoning ordinances a municipality to enact an interim moratori- are expeditiously adopted. Al mquist v. urn, and public policy concerns all favor he Town of Marshan, 308 Ddinn_ 52, 65, 245 validity of MCO § 34.470(c)(1). The ordi E N -W.2d 819, 826 (1976). Municipalities may nance does not exceed the authority of tl•,e i r.d. 9/4 3!)V8 01E6GEEZi9 =QI N3l VaO V A43NN3X: WOa bZ; bt 46- EZ -NVr WEDEIEYER v. CITY OF X[N EAP'OLIS Minn. 543 caw`. s,o r 4m a d 33 (MW=AVP. 1"5) '.er U. City of Qty and is a proper and legitimate exercise munity Service Districts. Preserving the 1z8-A 125 of the city's general power and its responsi- status quo pending further study of compre- Igrder bility to regulate land use and development hensive zoning plans constitutes "good faith." is for in the public's interest- Carl Bolander & Sons, Inc. v. City of -Winne- to the city's Eapolis, 378 N.W.2d 826,830 (MinnApp.1985), ze on Wede II. review denied (Minn Feb. 14, 1986). Al- t application (s) Wedemeyer argues that the city s though the record does not explain the rea - 'reeze applied a uspension of his permit application Was en- sons for the initial stay on Wedemeyer's ap- iiile the city acted in bad faith or with discrimination. plication, the freeze preserved the status quo .ered a mora- Minnesota has not adopted a specific test to on all• conditional use permits for pawnshops -es concerns evaluate the propriety of an interim fre=eze on pending further consideration- That consid- not material- applications. eration resulted in a valid moratorium ordi- i Hance eleven weeks later. Wedemeyer spec - e freeze pro 1101 Generally, municipal ordinances en- slates that Rainville, whose request to the :rocedures re- acted pursuant to the police power are valid, city attorney commenced the freeze, lacked 'his argument absent affirmative proof that the restriction sufficient understanding of the pawnshop in- tay must fol- is clearly discriminatory or arbitrary and dustay. On the stipulated facts subrsitted to ordinances. without any substantial relation to the public the district court, this is insufficient to prove ,r an informal health, safety, or general welfare. Naegele bad faith or discrimination. See Oscar P. .ry stays, and Outdoor Advertising Co- v. Village of Minna - Gustafson Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 231 ,ante. Public tonka, 281 Mimi. 492, 494, 162 N.W.2d 206, Minn. 271, 276 -77, 42 N.W.2d 809, 812 (1950) :derations on 209 (1968). A municipality's zoning decision (motives of legislator are normally irrele- rice Districts is not arbitrary or capricious when at least vant). eleven-week one of the rationales for the decision is rea - rocedures for sonably related to the promotion of the pub- pt y. lic health, safety, or genersl welfare of the DECISION ly in favor of community. $t Croix Dev., v. City of Minneapolis Code of Ordinances section enact interim Apple Valley, 446 N.W.2d .,92, 398 (Minn. 540.470(c)(1), freezing conditional use permit App- 1989), review denied (Minn. Dec 1, 1989), applications while the city council considers m y ordinances affecting the area or subject mat- s zoning plan 1111 . Wedemeyer bears the burden of ter of the permit application, is a valid munic- ation. Under showing 'that the stated reasons are either ipal act. The stay of Wedemeyer's condition- [ to anticipate without factual support or legacy insufficient, al use permit application for a nonconforming ifuL uses for Parranto Bros., Ina v City of New Brig use during the city council's consideration of nances before ton. 425 N.W2d 585, 589 (Minn.App.1988), a moratorium ordinance on new pawnshop -d or else it review denied (Minn. July 4 190. Some conditional use permits in Community Ser- •om rejecting moratoria have been rejected as arbitrary vice Districts was a valid municipal art. .ons. Zoning and capricious. See Ostmnd u Village of N. Affirmed +ntion. Alm S"t. PGV4 275 Minn. 440, 446 -47, 147 N.W.2d W2d at 827. 571, 575 ( 1966) (invalidating two -year freeze take effect on building permits for permitted uses of a moratorium property when city produced no evidence .ng the stable that freeze was neeewar y to protect �t public Id (quoting interests); Medical Serv& v. City of S avage, O SRE7 NtM6Ex 5YSlEM F2d 784, 788 487 N.W.2d 263, 267 (MinnApp.1992) (invali- r dating moratorium on building permits for a of Minn.Stat, permitted use when city was aware of devel- ilice powers of opment plans for over two years). rim moratori- (121 The parties stipulated that the city all favor the enacted the freeze on Wedemeyer's condi- 1). The ordi- tional use permit application out of concern ithority of the forth .propriety of pawnshops in the Com- • Y e/e ROV8 0I£5G££ZI9:OI N311d2I0 8 XQ3NN3}I °W02l3 SZ =b[ _L_6- -SI'd� _ • MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren Planning d Zoning S ecialist . g g p Subject: Pawn Shops Date: January 22, 1997 You have requested me to do a quick survey of some metro area suburban communities with respect to how they deal with pawn shops under their zoning regulations as opposed to licensing requirements. You have also requested comments on how the City might provide some zoning regulations in response to City Council questions about pawn shops. Attached for your review are copies of a recent survey of various municipalities with particular attention to licensing requirements. I attempted to contact a number of these communities to try to ascertain if they had special zoning requirements. For the most part, these communities, with • the exception of Edina and Maple Grove, allow pawn shops in general commercial zones (one also allows them in an industrial zone). Bloomington and Richfield classify pawn shops as conditional uses requiring a public hearing and city council approval in addition to their licensing provisions. The balance of the communities allow pawn shops as permitted uses. The communities I contacted regarding zoning regulations included Blaine, Champlin, Eden Prairie, Edina, Fridley, Golden Valley, Richfield and St. Louis Park. These communities regulate pawn shops primarily through licensing regulations with the pawn shops being permitted uses in commercial zoning districts. Some communities have licensing restrictions prohibiting pawn shops from being within certain distances of churches and schools. Three hundred feet seems to be a common distance. Two communities I contacted, Fridley and St. Louis Park, limited the total number of pawn shop licenses within the city to three. Two communities, Edina and Maple Grove, indicated their zoning ordinance does not permit pawn shops in any zoning district. Both communities, however, acknowledged that this was probably an indefensible position and they will have to establish regulations allowing such uses. One community I contacted, had more detailed zoning regulations regarding pawn shops than others. Attached is a copy of a portion of the City of Richfield's Zoning Ordinance relating to pawn shops. They establish a 1,000 ft. separation from schools, churches, daycares, public libraries or government buildings and also require 1,000 ft. separations from other pawn shop • operations, second hand goods operations, auction houses or consignment auction houses. Also, pawn shops are not allowed to be within 250 ft. of residentially zoned property. We have discussed the possibility of establishing a separate neighborhood commercial zoning district that would allow only certain neighborhood oriented commercial uses, not including pawn shops. Non - neighborhood oriented commercial uses would be restricted to commercial zones not in close proximity to neighborhood areas. Another way of dealing with this issue might be to prohibit pawn shops from abutting, or being within a certain distance of, any residential zone. We do this currently with gas stations, car washes, amusement centers, saunas and massage parlors. These may be areas that the City Council might wish to look at in terms of regulations relating to pawn shops. I hope this memo adequately addresses your inquiry. If you have other questions or need additional information, please contact me. • Richfield City Code (Zoning) C -2 District 526.27, Subd. 18 Subd. 18. Pawn operations, secondhand goods operations which require a license under Section 1186 of the City Code, auction houses, and consignment auction houses, provided the following conditions are met: a) such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from any school, church, daycare.center, public library, or governmental building; b) such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from any existing pawn operation, secondhand goods operation which requires a license under Section 1186 of the City Code, auction house, or consignment auction house; c) such uses shall be located not less than 250 feet from residentially zoned property; d) such uses shall be screened, as approved by the City; e) the business operator shall secure all applicable licenses and approvals from the city, county, state, or other applicable jurisdictions before the conditional use permit shall become effective; f) off- street parking requirement: (i) pawn operations and secondhand goods operations which require a license under Section 1186 of the City Code shall provide at least five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or ten parking spaces, whichever is greater; and (ii) auction houses and consignment auction houses shall provide at least 35 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 70 parking spaces, whichever is greater. g) such uses shall be contained within a completely enclosed building, and no outside storage, display, or sale of merchandise shall be permitted; h) exterior loudspeakers or public address systems shall not be audihlc from any residential parcel: i) auction houses and consignment auction houses shall have designated on -site loading and drop -off areas which are designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements; j) such uses shall not be operated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day; and k) such uses which were legally established on or before November 22, 1993 shall be classified as legal nonconforming uses, and subject to the provisions of Section 511,13 of this code. BLAINE SECTION: 15 -110 to 15 -126 YEAR ADOPTED: 1992 FEE: $12,000 phis it $500 application Re and a $5,000 bond. s IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: Valid drivers license containing at photo or any picture identification. r' DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: Yes. AUTOMATIC BOLDING PERIOD: 30 days after records have been made available to police. PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes. i c REDEMPTION PERIOD: 30 days after report to police; nn individual may redeem an item pawned 3 working days after the report Is made to the police. t STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? Yes. ` BUFFER ZONE: Not allowed within 300 feet ofa school or church. METHOD OF PAYMENT: By check only. PHOTO OR VIDEO'OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE: Minors; illegal aliens; conviction within five years ofreceiving stolen property, sale of stolen property, sale ofcontrolled substance, burglary, robbery, damage or trespass to property, felony theft, larceny, or fraud; revocation of license within five i yeas; a person not of "sufiicienl good moral character and repute "; a person ww410 would adversely affect the public heahh, safely, or welfare. r s HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? No. r RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS: A pawnbroker shall give to the person selling or depositing an nliclo afproperty a plain written or printed ticket or receipt for the article sold or deposited showing the tcmu of such sale or loan. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: 711e City of Blaine requires Oat if any goods, articles, or tNngs no advertised in any public paper of the City of Ulalno as having been lost or stolen and such goods come into the possession of any pawnbroker, 1144 pawnbroker must, upon actual notice thereof, immediately thereafter notltj+the Chief of Police that such goods are in the pawwnbrokees posse alon. no amibroker is not to dispose of such property until %vritlen outhoMy to do w is detailed from the Chief of Polices. i t i s • • • BLOOMINGTON SECTION: 14.295.12 TO 14.295.25,02 YEAR ADOPTED: 1991 FEE' $1,584 plus a $1,500 investigalion fee. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: Valid drivers license; a Minnesota identiftcartiwt card; or a photo identiRcalion issued by the state ofresidency ofthe person from +vhom the item was received. No military identificallon, welfare cruds, or other Identification can be acccpled. DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: Yes. AUTOMATIC MOLDING PERIOD: 30 days after the date of the sale or pa++n. PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes. REDEMPTION PERIOD: 30 bays; An individual may i0cem art item pmtmcd 72 tours after the item was received on deposit by the pawnbroker, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No. BUFFER ZONE: Pawruhops ore conditional uses III tilt 13•2 zoning district. METHOD OF PAYMENT: Not regulated. PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? Yes. A pawnbroker Is tequired to take either a photograph or a still video ofeach person selling or pa+ +ntng any itern of property. We still video photograph is taken the video camera mud zoom In on" person pavming or selling the mcrchandist so as to include a ctoso -up ofthe pzrson`c face. The video photograph must also be teferenoed by time and date so as to correspond to the ntetchandlu sold or pawned by the person. The photographs and video tepes must be kept by the pawnbroker for four (4) months. INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE: Minors; a person who has been convicted of any crime dticcity relatod to the occupation licensed u prescribed by Minnaow Statutes, Secdton 364.03, Subd.1, and who has not shown oontpelent evidence of aul3iclaA rehabilitation and pram► fitness to porfoms the duties of a pawnbroker as prescribed by Minnesota Stamm Section 364.03, Subd. 3.; a person ift is not a citizen ofthe United States or a resident alien; a person wito is not of good morel character or repute; or a person who holds an intoxicating liquor licerue with the city. HOURS OF REGULATION OPERATED? Yes. No pawnbroker can keep the pa++rtshop open for the transaction of business on any day ofthe week before 7 ;00 s.m. or after 10 ;00 P.M. RECEIPT REQUIREMENT: The receipt provided to the seller or pledger of any item of properly received by a pawnbroker must detail lho atwusi rate o interest charged pawned t f e on a td 'tetra received. In oddition, die receipt must Include Uw name, address and phone nun tber of the pawnbroker; the date on %hich theitem was received by the pawnbroker; a description ofthe item reoeivtd arid amount paid to the pledger or seller in exchange for the item pawned or sold; the signature ofthe pawnbroker; the Panic and addreu ofthc stiller or pledger; and the lea regular husinas day by + +h m m ich the item be redeemed by the pledger without risk lhal the item will be sold, and the amount necessary to redecm the pawned item on that dste. H U ffB CENTER SECTION: 23-601 TO 23.533 YEAR ApOPTED; UNKNOWN u l; '12, 000 plus 631,500 iAvAd wa fee Ire/ Ct d& P f3ACh7 bond. 7 IDENTHICATSIN r' ftEQUIRBMgN\'TS: Vetilpietire ddvaS licerse;6noC[ldal sfaUe •' 14n10 iiarrliitcatletti • Lttiled 9iator p�� or a railitsry I.D. r i DAILY REPORT TO FOLICS REQUIRED: yes. AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD: 12 days a ftu the&" ordm e evt►xt to tha pollee a PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOIA < ! Y 1 , 1 REDEMPTION PERIOD: 12 days a tlar tU dale of the tepod to Gte police; As indi %Uud rray todmn an itrTpatvnad 72 traurs alas d , Dan was reca+r4 on deporlt, alcludngbLn CJs and legal hoU4s}s STOWAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION Na bate peccsSacAcrr Isy narerei.em I pledpe or otLarssiae aoaept fot amai�uerst araate aqy tautd ad1 susmmda riot, b "Jlgmck. ascitotablade, ksiry at oWaimilu %%Up0A or &erairu. h BUFFER ZONE: No! silm.sd ai0ri4 700 fort c�a rc�,00l of churtb METROD OF PAYMENT: BIC44 «4y. PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? Not rogrdrw INELIGIBEUTY FOR LICENSE: pagion vho is not a oilittsr a rrtidaetl alievk at sgsan algal it s Lrspnscjic& I to wa/ua a 6oe{cgnearsl eus/ tlreeaoial ofr erdigatioa dse to the vaawiltblli tye>1 ietroesstiaa; a raitof flpeasoa wbr has baern *Wmi L*[ stau Of &&I I bw roleris$ tartct�viag Rnlea ptapcKy. aslt ofAoLm pcopaq• at e - tmw aye topropecty. opm3ionofmkwm ae, ofWV law ofor dirstrwe- vigargthebtus�uY'*��Y.1hat1 &+ss8t®rtsmgasr ylate of the liums 4FUDadca dente has hsd a psulbrAv Home revolte4 a pa a n C, a aOt ` c►ihln fisp bearrufldoestgoodtowd awer *P LID Tatoorw3 pub cc�dttarrisaisnatto Pat icLeannebeforethsOkyCoandl Mimi ir� ol4ption) �aafetyastrata(altae HOURS OT OPERATION REGULATED? Yea From 9: 00pm.8 flxudeytnT: oOa. tn. hloadayroie' o? atYssaMrexxivo4rsapledgsouwx� ,QAorpsrdu:al psustroker, on etprether day sosuch property asy be rm 4W in w# 7:00 n at and clwedhokaiu m ( in Cfti— DAY ant TIes AU944m. All pawadraparnarib. lsgivirrg py; RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS: A paan)tokat mustprovidea tsoeipl trhiel►iadudea t6�e tdrep tm6tdrpFwwe n+ambtfa!'f5etwirus, tM dets oa +vlei.� do Tara uuu eIa (tied, s d�a>plioa of the item pun*w.sod, std 0i! p< &AWs d;nrturo. BROOKLYN PARK SECTION: 466 :00 TO 466 :155 YEAR ADOPTED: 1989 FEE: $10,000 plus a $500 iuvealigalion fee and a $5,000 bond. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: A pawnbroker can only accept a valid picture driver's licerue; a picture identification; or a Medicard. DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED; Yes. AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD 70 days after the dale of report to the police. PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes. REDEMPTION PERIOD A person w1io pawns an Akin has at least Ave (S) montlu to redurrt the item before it may be sold by the pawnbroker. �I STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No; but a pasvttbtoker may not aceive as a pledge or otherwise accept for oonsigment or sale any revolver, pLttol, sawed-of shotgun, automatic rifle, blackjack. switchbladc knift. or other sl miss weapons or flreamu. BUFFER ZONE Not allowed within 100 feet of a school w clinch. METHOD OF PAYMENT: Bycsslsorcheck. PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE A minor; a person who within five years of the license application date has been convicted of receiving stolen property, sale of stolen properly or controlled substance, burglary, robbery, damage or treapaw to property, or any law of ordinance regulating the business of pawnbroker, a person who Is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien; a person who within live years of the license application date has had a pasmbioker lioems revoked; a person whom the City Council delamines not to be of suflicitm good moral character or repute; a person who would adversely aflZcl the public health, safety or wetllue after a public hearing and tavestigation. IJOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? No. RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS A pasmbtoker must provide a receipt to the seller ss'bich includes the addreu mud phone number of the pawnshop, the date on which the item was received, a description of the item purchucd, and the urdnaser's signature. i t t i ' 1 fft: HAMPLAIN SECTION: 11 -901 To 11 -911 YT+JAR ADOPTED: 1989 �r u f 14.000 pfw a fSp00 biy6 a:ed S97 U epp Ercliu rev. 0 IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: atxliaadvrryl;crrtseaaffiee( , } s(8 fr�rS ea0 paste ilanlifitpliom er say Mecku& f' DAILY REPORT TO POLICE. REQUIRED: t AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD; a bu pc d hom d�poated �i h crporcf,nu4 by wtg W unleaiar Can be sold xpa:n?W to k roll cma! 6om tlu pbnx s G bttaness rdUe wpm Nait en vial 48 ►at#a &A* a myr of tht ra�e(d( (egaied b ttha ordUwvr t ka been Hale a%s fe to Uu Chw i td �+ a ctepl rpm pamsits m of ow Ct i f of Pot ►x. PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD1 ya• �I REDEMPTION PERIOD / hyper aonNfa hmahallhav eatimtt'a&P9*10dweo-eltrnbi be . .. � sat4 EyfnePeNekr4et. .. STORAGE OF WMARMS PROVISION? Ho BUFFER ZONE;: Nut drullediafataasroturordinatw-- MVMOD OPPAYMSNT: ByoAordtaic. PHOTO OR VUMO OR CUSTOMERS RKQ' uu EDY tda [N6LIGiHHdTY FOR LICI+NSE: Vidal too.Mtbin Ile From din Qv ayeasor an) lawr olulaj eotirft< d( nteg�, ofsestveas :MU ofa ooadruasd tthamaae rroperwQa dtusbm; &"A rd""m"*4 a %bm datemerasraado is ON wave of dw apficaot 6v 6m. 8t+4 mk" rP"atia%as b&wy in ftmA B a kmm , roam bytbs &M&arito *at*, A t me or - me aft& office pawtetFtsp ordiruacp; and ki arq�meNa vrith hetdt(ti bmitdp;. ptrotitioas a ma u low. tai qg sasiotaoaa�e tr ga pmAaoss of cods HOURS OR OPERATION R£GOLAIMD? Y- No prop(w4 received froc(9m p.m. SaWdayto M am. Monday, tea( gt■rty 09m 48y bdore 10 s m, rwom trey d+y srlet 9M' p.a in sid , aopaMnb:oterdtal 6r foe btisitsts QrtCI[tistmaa My,1Ac>keigvio; myi arm s SUWAy. RK<~[PT REQUIRBMCNn; Ap► wr5rolermtei give tulbe pawn scttingordtpcunu +nartis�or tltesrtidesotlord : tdeh ti P�P�' apleulttri [onorpraudtidcdormcaiptbr axstgtlle tetsza ofarrfi okceloft 1 t. U. I CRYSTAL SECTION: 1175,01 TO 1175 :63 YEAR ADOPTED: 1989 FEE S 10,000 plus a $5,000 bond and a $331 inveatigalioo fse for each Intaestcd individual; $746 investigation at is charged per informed individual who has lived Out-of-date in the Iasi 10 years; a t pawnbroker ,just alto get a secondhand dealers lictme, which it $313 plus a 13,000 bond. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS A valid picture drive#% lkettte or a picture identification. ; r DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: Yes. i� AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD: 12 days. t PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? yes. t �I REDEMPTION PERIOD: A person wto pants an item shall have at least four (4) months to redeem the item before it may be sold by the pawnbroker. t STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No; but a pawnbroker may not•reccive as a pledge or otherwise accept for consignment or sale any revolver, pistol, taved- off %hotgun, awottralic d0c, blackjack, switchblade knife, or other similar weapons or fireurim BUFFER ZONE: Not allowed %vilhin 300 feet of a school or church. METHOD OF PAYMENT Dy cash or check; secondhand dealers must pay for an dens at the licensed place of business by check. c c PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. r c pe rson INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE: A minor; a :son ►vho is t}ol a citizen of the United Slate* or re*idottt alien; a minor, a person wito t within five years of the I'tceiue application dale has been convicted of receiving stolen property, Isle of t t stolen properly or controlled subatanee, burglmy, robbery, damage or ttespaa to propctty, or any la►v or ordinance regulating the busincu ofpaumbroker, a person who within five yearn of the license application date has had a pawnbroker license revoked; a person who the City Council detemunes not to be of suflicicnl good moral character or ropulo; or when the City Council detetrrsines, sAa invenigallon and public hearing, if required, drat issuarwe or renewal of a license to a person would adversely elTccl the public health, esfely or welfare. HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? No. 7 r RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS A panibroktt murt provide a receipt to the seller or consignor of any dent which utdudes the address t and phone number of the business, the date on vthich the i(em was received, a deectiplion of Elio item purchased, and the purchaser's siptature. NOTE: The City of Crystal currently halt a moratoriutn in place while staff studies whether a new ordinance is needed. DULUTI1 SECTION: 36 -1 to 36 -12 YEAR ADOPTED: 1914 FEE: S250 plus a $250 application fee and a $2,000 bond. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: A Mhutesota drivers licetute or nonqualificatiou cerlificate or, if a person has no Minnesota drivers license or nonqualification certificate, then some other form of identificatiou issued to the perxon by a govemmenial body or a recognized organization which shows either a picture or includes a physical description ofthe person, or both. DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: Yes. i AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD: Mty person pledging or pawning any article with any pawnbroker shall have duce (3) months to redeem the same before the pledge or pawn becomes forAited. No personal properly deposited with or purchased by any lioemee can be sold or permitted to be redeemed from such Ilocisee until 48 hours aAcr a copy of the police rceords are made availoblo to the city. !i PROVISION ALLOYING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes. REDEMPTION PERIOD: three (3) months. I STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No. BUFFER ZONE: Not detailed in pawnshop ordinance. METHOD OF PAYMENT: By cash or check. PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. " r INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE; Not detailed in pa +tinshop ordinance. t HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? Yes. No pawnbroker shall receive a pledge ox pawn or putchaw any goods between thshoura of 12 Midnight on Satutdays and 12 Midnight on Sundays, or between the hours of 11.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. on any other day of the week. t RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS: Not detailed in pawnshop ordinance. a „ t t t i EDEN PRAIRIE NO ORDINANCE LICENSING PAWNBROKERS; ZONING RESTRICTIONS APPLY EDINA NO ORDINANCE LICENSING PAWNBROKERS; ZONING RESTRICTIONS APPLY rRIDLEY RECENTLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE; COPY UNAVAILABLE AT TIME OF PRINTING. $8,000 fee plus a $400 investigation fee GOLDEN VALLEY $12,000 fee; $1,500 investigation fee. Regulated by Police Department; ordinance unavailable at time of printing HOPKINS SECTION: 1180.01 to 1180.25 YEAR ADOPTED: 1991 FEE: $7,000 plus $3,000 bond and a $500 application fbe, i IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS A valid Minnesota driver's license; a valid Minnesota identification card; or a valid photo identification issued by the state of r residency of the person front whom die item was reoeived and one other Conn of idenlifeation. t DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: Yes. i AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD 30 days for painted items; 10 days for purchased items. j PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes but ainaximum hold of6monihs. t t REDEMPTION PERIOD: 30 days. t r , I STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No. ? r DUFFER ZONE Not detailed in pasmshop ordinance. METHOD OF PAYMENT: By duck ouly. PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE A nthtor; a person wlto has been oon of any crime directly related to the occupation license, as prescribed by Minnesota � Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 2, and who has not shown competent evidence ofsuf dent rehabllitalion and present fitness to perform the duties of a pawnbroker as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 364.03, Subd. 3; a person who is not a citizen or resident alien; a person who holds an intoxicating liquor Hoene, in ate city; or a person who in the judgment of the City t c Council is not the real party in intend or beneficial owner of the business operated. t r HO URS OF OPERATION REGULATED? Yes. No pasmbroker shall be open for the uansadion of business on any day of the +week before 7.00 a.m, or Off 10:00 p.m. c RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS Every pawnbroker shall deliver to the person pawning, pledging, selling, leaving or depositing any articles, a certificate numbered to oorespond wiat the entry of the licensee's records. The certificate dealt contain an accurate doseripiion ofthe property, the amount of money loaned upon or pledged therefore, the date, time, and place of receipt of the item. ate name, address, date of birth and description from tvho the item was received, and the identification number from one of the forms Identificallo t allowed under the ordinance. 7 t t MAPLE GROVE NO ORDINANCE LICENSING PAWNBROKERS MINNEAPOLIS SECTION: 321.10 - 321.220 YEAR ADOPTED: 1981 r r FEE; 6369 plus a $5,000 bond and a $$9 application fee. r IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS A valid driver's license, containing a picture; a valid state of Minnesole identification card, containing a picture. i DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: Yes. c c AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD: 12 days after the date of report to police. s c PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes. t r REDEMPTION PERIOD An individual may ruleem an item Viet he or she has pawned 72 hours after the item was received on deposit, excluding . Sundays and holidays. Any person who pawr►s an item shall have at least four (4) months to redeem the item before it may be sold. STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No. BUFFER ZONE Not detailed in pimmshop ordinance. r METHOD OF PAYMENT: By check only. c PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. ` c L INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE 1•he proposed use is in conflict with the toning code; the proposed use is in conflict with any health, building, building � maintenance, or other provisions of the city code or state law; the applicant has failed to comply with one or more provisions of t die ordinance, fraud, miuepresentalion, or bribery in securing the licam', fraud, misrepresentation, or false statement made In the course of the applicant's business; violation within the proceeding five yenta orany law relating to theft; damage, or ttcspLu to property, sale oft, controlled substance, or operation ors, business. HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? No. RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS Every pawnbroker must provide upon request a receipt to the seller or consignor of any item and maintain a duplicate of that � receipt for three years, which mull igelude the name, address and phone number of the business; the date and time and place of L receipt; an accurate doscription of the item purchased; the signature of the purctuuer•. acrd Ure identification number front the t drivees license or state I.D. card. L MINN A'ONKA RECENTLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE, COPY UNAVAILABLE AT TIME OF PRIN'T'ING. Fee: $10,000 plus a $500 investigation fee and a $5,000 bond, PLYMOUTH SECTION: 1160.01 - 1160.57 YEAR ADOPTED: 1990 r r . F FEE: $12,000 plus a $1,300 investigation fee and a $5,000 bond. a c IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT'S: A valid picture drivers license or a Miwtesots identification card. r• DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: t' AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD: 12 days. cl PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes. 1 REDEMPTION PERIOD: A person who pawns au item %hall have at least four (4) months before it may be sold. An individual may redeem an item t pawned within 12 hours dkr the item was received on deposit, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No; but a pawnbroker %nay not receive as a pledge or otherwise accept for consigswrnent or We any revolver, pistol, sawved•ofi' shotgun, automatic rifle, blackjack, or switchblade knife. BUFFER ZONE: Not allowed within five hundred feel of a school • C METHOD OF PAYMENT: By cash orclKck. 0 PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. c c INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE: A person who is not a clizen or resident alien; a minor; a person who within five years of the license application date has been r. convicted of receiving stolen property, sale of stolen property or it controlled substance, burglary, robbery, damage or uespus ' to property, or any taw or ordinance regulating the busluess of pawnbroker, a person who xvithin five years of the license c application date has had a pawnbroker license revoked and not renewed by tho City or other govertrmenlel agency; a person who the City Council delerrnines not to be of good moral character or repute; or when the City Council delemtin Oct investigation and public hearing, that issuance or renewal of a license would adversely affect tho public health, safety, or welfare. HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? No. RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS: A licensed pawnbroker must provide a receipt to rho soller or consignor of any item whleh includes the address and phone number of the business, the date on %vldch the propety +was received; a description of the item purchased, and the purchasers signature. h U % , . u • i i RICHFIELD SECTION: 1186.01 - 1186.39 YEAR ADOPTED: 1991 FEE: $1,730 plus a $1,200 Investigation fee and it S1,300 bond. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: A valid pioure driver's (ionise or an official state picture idtwifics(ion. DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQU[RED: Yes. AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD: 12 days. PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes, REDEMPTION PERIOD: 60 days. An individual may redeem an itcut pawned )2 hours after the item +vas received on doporit, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No. BUFFER ZONE: Not detailed in pawnshop ordinance. METHOD OF PAYMENT: By cash or check. PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE: A petnn u?to is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien: a minor, a person who has been convicted of any state or federal law relating to roceiving stolen property, sale ofstolen property or controlled substance, burglary, robbery, theft, damage, or trespass to property, operation of a business or any law or ordinance regulating the business of pa+ +nbrokore; a person who within five years of the lieetue application dale has had a pawnbroker Ilcen" revoked; a petson who the City Council detrnnines not to be oftufllcient good moral character and repute. HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? No. RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS: A pawnbroker must provide a receipt to the seller or oonsignor of any items which includes the address end phone number of the ticonaees business, the date on which the Item was received, a description of the Item purchased, and the purch"ces signature. i t c ROCHESTER SECTION: 111.01 - 111.14 YEAR ADOPTED: 1990 FEE: $30 plus a S20 application tte and a $7,000 bond. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: A driver's license, photo iderdification card, vote identification card on it state prescribed fomh, or hfedicwd. DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: Yes. AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD 14 calendar days after the dale of report to police: % PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE FOLD? Yes. i REDEMPTION PERIOD 14 days, llowever, an individual may redeem er ite t that he or she has pawned *1 any time more than 72 hours OW the item was received on deposit, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. j STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No. sl BUFFER ZONE Not detailed in pa %%whop ordinance. c METHOD OF PAYMENT By cash or check. r , PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUHRED? No. I INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE Not specifically detailed in ordinance. HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? No. RECE[PT REQUIREMENTS A pawnbroker roust provide upon request a recolpl to the seller or consignor of any item, which shall idclude the name, address and phone number of tho licensed business; the date on which the item was received by the licensee; a description of the item pawned or purchased; the amount paid for the item; and the signature of the licensee or its agars!; and if pawned, a date after which the. item will be sold or otherwise disposed of by the licensee. r t r t i c l r t s � ST, LOUIS PARK SECTION: 13 -1320 - 13 -1324 YEAR ADOPTED: 1992 FEE: $zso IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: Not regulated. DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED No. Pawnbrokers are required to keep a register dctailing the property received and the person from %vfwm it was racaived for c thirty days for tnspeoion by police ofRoen• No daily teporta are sent to the police department under the pawnshop ordinwwc. AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD: Not detailed in ordinance. i PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Not spocilicallydetailedinordinance. REDEMPTION PERIOD Not specifreally detailed in ordinance, t c STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? BUFFER ZONE: Not detailed ice ordinance. METHOD OF PAYMENT: Not detailed in ordinance. PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? No. INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE: Not detailed lit ordinance. HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? .RECEIPT REQU IREMENTS. "{7ro receipt Iwo detail a description of the property, the time, name and place of residence of the person leavins the property, � the amount foamed on the property, the intctaa charged, and the tlmc when the loan fall$ due. t c t ADDITIONAL PROVISION The City allo►tis, only Ihree pawnshops within its corporate limits c c c t r ST. PAUL SECTION: 344,01 - 344.06 YEAR ADOPTED: 1956 FEE: 5810 phts a $3,000 bond. IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: A % driver's license containing a picuue or a Minnesota identification. i DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED Yes_ AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD 90 days for pavo-A items, 30 days for property purchased. Motor vehicles are exempt from the thirty day holding period. PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes. i REDEMPTION PERIOD: 90 days. t STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? NI licensees must maintain an electric burglar alarm system for the entire 11censed premises, t . BUFFER ZONE: Not detailed in ordinance, METIIOD OF PAYMENT Not detailed in ordinanco. t PHOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? Camera survvillsnoe is required only when during any sixty day period more than one percent of alt transactions by the lic tree involve stolen property. INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE Any person Wto Inu been convicted of violating any law related to theft, burglary, receiving stolen property, sale ofcontrolled substance, or of any infraction of the temts and provisions ofthe City's pavmshop ordinance, provided that in denying any licensed based upon such conviction the City hupedor mutt follow the procedures of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 364. HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? Yes. No business may be transacted on any day of the %%vek before 7 :00 a.m. or after 10.00 p.m. t RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS no pawnbroker must glvc to the person negotiating the loan or selling property a written or printed receipt for the property r received tar the loan or purchase and such receipt must correspond with the information on the pawn or by forms required by t the city police department. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: The City of S1, Patti requires that if any goods, articles, "things are advertised in any public paper ofdte city of St. Paul as t having been lost or stolen and such goods come into tho possession of any pawnbroker, the pawnbroker must, upon actual r notice thereof, immedlately thereafter not4 the Grief of Polioo that such goods are In the pawnbroker's possession. The t a�vnbroker is not to dis ss of such pto cdy until written aut ri to do to is detailed from the Chief of Police. J r SHAKOPEE SECTION: 6.28 YEAR ADOPTED: 199a t FEE: $300 phis a $330 inve stigation fee, c IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS A valid Mitutesota drivers license; a Minnesota idenlificnlion card issued by the Department of Public Safely; or a photo t identification Issued by the stale of residency of tlto person frosu whom the ilern was received. DAILY REPORT TO POLICE REQUIRED: Yes. i AUTOMATIC HOLDING PERIOD 30 days on items for which weekly police reports are requited. i PROVISION ALLOWING FOR POLICE HOLD? Yes. ' t' REDEMPTION PERIOD: 30 days. STORAGE OF FIREARMS PROVISION? No. r �I BUFFER ZONE Not detailed in otdinance. t METHOD OF PAYMENT AN purchases and pas%ns by the pawnbroker over $60 must be made by check. PIIOTO OR VIDEO OF CUSTOMERS REQUIRED? Yes. A pa"ubroker must run a video tape during All hours of operation. Tapes must be retained a mlidmum of thirty days. the quality of llte tape must be sufficient to clearly identify the seller or pledger and to clearly identify Ote goods involved in the transaction. Bach tape mug automatically record the date and time ofeach transaction. Upon request, the video taps shall be made available to the city police dputment. INELIGIBILITY FOR LICENSE: Minors; persons who hold a city liquor license; persons %sho are involved in legal gambling with the ttxoeplion of lottery licketr, persona who are delinquent on taxes. t t HOURS OF OPERATION REGULATED? Ycs Hours ofoperalion are limited to betwecn 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m, each day. e RECEIPT REQUIREMENTS A receipt must include the name, address, and phone number ofthe liomuA business; the date on which the item was received � by the licensee; a description of the Ran received; a signature of the lioerueo and seller or pledger, the deadline by which the t itent must be recleaned by the pledger without risk that the item will be sold and the amount necessary to redeem the pawned item on that date; the amount of interest charged on the pawned item; and the name and address orate seller or pledger. IU t pawnbroker must keep it copy of each receipt for at least four years. t r 470 ( L.6.re C ntv ♦ 200 SYULI SuuL SUCC Winnapalls NtN )5402 (&I,;) 337 -93rD -91(10 ha eta i (613) 337 fss e-mail: ucycC'kwuudy -Seven eam • ; CH CnAiLES L. LEFLwER2 Astemey at Lxw Tama txal (612) 337.0:15 ! January 13, 199 Mr. Michael McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center .LMN 55430 RE: Pawn Shoo License ADDliCatiOn Dear Mike: i Lasr rnorith, the City denied dhc application of ('a-h n Pawn for a pawn shop license because the property propo.wd as the locations of the pawn shop was not eligible for a license due to non - payment of razes. Recause the City Council decided to deny the license on the basis of non- ; payment of taxes, other issues which were addressed in my letter of December 12, 1996, (a copy of which is attached) wcrc not discussed by the Council. However, I understand that the taxes on the property have now bccri paid and that the applicant has submitted a new application for a license to conduct a pawn shop business at the same location. Obviously the denial of the license on the basis of non payment of taxes is not an option at this time. Therefore, the Coundl • may wish to consider the other options and issues addressed in my letter of Decrmher 12. One option of the City Council is to grant the license to the applicant. Another option is to deny the license; however, denial would have to be basCd on one of dic grounds cct forth in the City's licensing ordinance. Those grounds are noted on pages l and 2 of the attached Icttar. On the basis of the staff reports sulxiii tcd at the true of the prior license application. I am not aware i of any faurs which would it -ally justify dcnnyitig the license. On pages 4 through 6 of the attached letter. I discuss the regulation of pawn shops through zoning ccxic provisions. The proposed use does not scan to violate any provisions or the zoning code. 'Therefore, denial of the application on the ground that it is in violation of the current provisions of the Zoning ccdc is, not an option for the Council. Unless new facts come to light during the eon.ideratioa of the license application, there does not appear to be a legally defensible basis for denying the license under the cur:cm provisions of the Brooklyn Center city code. CLC116117 84291 -t • Mr. Mike McCauley Janttary 13, 1997 13'agc 2 At pages 3 through 6 of the attached letter, I discuss die impusition of a moratorium on pawn shop development. A moratorium is nor a denial of the application. but rather a "freeze" on consideration or ,granting such applications until hearings or studies can be conducted to consider amendments to the City's coning code. As noted in the attached letter, the imposition of a moratorium ordinance may be subject to legal challenge. It may be chali ngod, for example—on the grounds that it is arbitrary and capricious and has no rational basis. i assume that someone challenging the ordinance would argue that there is no legally sufficient ground, based on legitimate land use concerns, to treat the pawn j shop use any differently than other businesses that are permitted in the district. The fact that the Brooklyn Center City Council previously imposed a moratorium on pawn shops and that no zoning code amendments were made upon completion of that moratorium would probably be offered as evidence that the purpose of the moratorium ordinance ix simply to stop an unpopular business from coming imp town rather than an action by the City Council based on a legitimate concern that the current zoning code does not provide adequate control to protect the public as it relates to land use concerns such as parking, compatibility of uses, ctc. If a moratorium is imposed and, after the moratorium is tcrtninnted, there are changes to the zoning code. which would prevent the operation of a pawn shop at the proposed location, those code amendments may also be subject to legal challenge on the same grounds. However, if the Council feels that there are legitimate land use concerns which justify imposition of a moratorium on pawn shops, it should direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions and • ordinances to impose a moratorium for consideration at a later City Council meeting. In this regard, it would be helpful if the Council could specify: 1. The uses to which the moratorium is to apply. 2. The area covered by the m=,ttuciurrr (the moratorium could he City wide or a smaller part of the City if the City Coun6l's cuncems do not justify imposition of a moratorium on a City-wide basis). 3. The length of time the moratorium is to be in effect. Although state law allows moratoriums, and extensions. for a period of up to two and one -half years, the time the Council may actually impose a moms rium in any one case would be subject to the f requirement that it be for a reasonable period of time - that is, a period of tlrne which is scmally necessary to conduct the required studies, public hearings, and the like. 4. The specific nature of investigations or srudie.s which the Council feels to be necessary or desirable. • Mr. Mike McCauley January 13. 1197 • Pugc 3 I It would also be helpful if the Council could specify land use conccrns about pawn shop operations which justify the moratorium. i Vcry truly yours. Charles L. L-Fevere CLL:1h i Enclosure i .. 4 i I i City of Brooklyn Center Notice of Public Hearing on An Application for License to Operate a Pawn Shop Pursuant to City Ordinance Section 23 -610, notice is hereby given that apublic hearing will be held on the 27th day of January, 1997, at 7 p.m., or as saon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to consider an application for license to operate a pawn shop, submitted by Cash `n Pawn, at 1964 57th Avenue North, Suite 17, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (Northbrook Plaza). Any person having an interest in or who will be affected by the proposed license will be permitted to testify at the hearing. J" `kA YC_. Sharon Knutson City Clerk (published in the January 15, 1997, Brooklyn Center Sun -Post) • • 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN.55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax OW e -mail: acrys@kennedy- graven.com CHARTERED CHARLES L. LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215 December 12, 1996 Mr. Mike McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Park-way Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RE: Pawn Shop License Application Dear Mike: A pawn shop operation has recently applied for a license to do business in the City of Brooklyn Center. You have asked for my opinion explaining the law relating to consideration of this application and the options available to the City Council. I. GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF LICENSE BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANT. As I explained to the City Council prior to the public hearing on this matter, the Council has very limited discretion for denying a business license. Section 23 -611 of the City Code provides that the City Council may refuse to grant a license for one or more of the reasons set forth in Section 23 -627. That section provides that licenses may be denied, suspended or revoked for one of the following reasons: a. The operation of the business is in conflict with any provisions of this ordinance; b. The operation of the business is in conflict with any health, building, maintenance, zoning, or other provision of this ordinance or law; C. The licensee or the business premise fails to conform with the standards for license application contained in this section; d. The licensee has failed to comply with one or more provisions of this section or any statute, rule or ordinance pertaining to the business of pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer, • e. Fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing a license; =114 %65 611119'_ -4 Mr. Mike McCauley • December 12, 1996 Page 2 f. Fraud, misrepresentation or false statements made in the course of the applicant's business; g. Subject to the provisions of law, the licensee has been convicted of any state or federal law relating to receiving stolen property, sale of stolen property or controlled substances, burglary, robbery, theft, damage or trespass to property, operation of a business, or any law or ordinance regulating the business of pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer. I am not aware of any evidence which would provide a sufficient basis for denial of the license based on any of these stated grounds. II. DELINQUENT AND UNPAID TAXES. §23 -613 a of the City's code of ordinances provides that a license will not be issued for any place or for any business if taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the City or the State of Minnesota on the licensee's business premise are delinquent and unpaid. It is my understanding that the taxes on the property at which the applicant proposes to conduct its business which were due in 1996 are unpaid. State law provides that taxes are certified as "delinquent" by the County Treasurer on the first business day of January of each year for each parcel of real property against which taxes remain unpaid. Minn. Stat. §279.02. Taxes on this parcel would presumably become delinquent by certification by the County Treasurer on January 2, 1997 under state law. The consequence of such certification is that additional interest is charged on the unpaid taxes. There is a question whether the City ordinance should be interpreted in the same way - that is, whether the use of the term "delinquent" in this City ordinance is the same as that �f state -law. Al though the City Council is in. the .hest, position to interpret the intent of its own ordinance, I am inclined to believe that the term "delinquent" in the City ordinance was not intended to mean that overdue taxes are not delinquent until they are certified as delinquent by the County. The term "delinquent" in common usage simply means that an obligation is due and unpaid. Using this definition, the location proposed by the applicant would not be eligible for a license. I am inclined to believe that this meaning was intended by the City Council for two reasons. The first is that, whatever public purpose was intended by §23 -613, I see no reason to distinguish between taxes which are due and unpaid on December 31 as opposed to taxes which are due and unpaid on January 2. The second is that the ordinance states that the premise is ineligible if taxes are "delinquent and unpaid." If the definition of "delinquent" in state law was • intended, there would have been no reason to state "delinquent and unpaid because all delinquent taxes are necessarily unpaid. CLL114795 6F2?1 -4 Mr. Mike McCauley • December 12, 1996 Page 3 Nevertheless, there is a reasonable basis for argument about the meaning of §23 -613 based on the state law definition of delinquent; and the initial interpretation of this code provision rests with the City Council. The way in which this term is interpreted may be based in part on the purpose of the ordinance. It seems to me that there could be three different purposes for this requirement in the ordinance. The first possible purpose is simply to secure the payment of taxes. In some cases, such a requirement may result in the prompt payment of taxes. However, in other cases it will not. I am informed by the representative of the property manager that funds will be made available for the payment of taxes only if the property can be leased. Assuming this to be true, the City would be more likely to secure payment of taxes if it were to issue a license so that the pawnshop operation would generate lease payments which could be used for tax payments. If the Council wishes to facilitate payment of taxes, it could do so by interpreting the term "delinquent" in accordance with state law so that taxes, though overdue and unpaid, are not yet deemed to be "delinquent ", and therefore the premise is eligible for a license. A second possible purpose for the requirement 'is that the non - payment of taxes may be an indication that the applicant is financially troubled. In a highly regulated business such as liquor sales or pawnshops, where the public interest may be harmed by a licensee who is prompted by financial need to cut corners (such as liquor sales to minors or receiving stolen goods), issuance of a license may not be in the public interest. The effectiveness of such a provision to protect the public is arguably not great when, as is the case here, the owner of the property who has not paid the taxes and may be experiencing financial difficulties is unrelated to the applicant/tenant. However, the fact. that the ordinance does not perfectly serve the public interest in all cases does not make the ordinance fatally defective; and a financially strapped owner/licensee should 'not be able to avoid the ordinance requirements by the simple expedient of selling the property to a separate legal entity so that the licensee and the prepeemj owner are unrelated. A third possible purpose of the ordinance requirement is related to the second, but would apply whether or not the owner and the applicant were the same person. The Council may have had in mind the idea that a pawnshop is more likely to become a blighting influence, or a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, if the property is not properly policed or maintained. If an owner has been unable to pay taxes, securing a stream of revenue for lease payments might assist in assuring payment of taxes; but if substantial revenues must be diverted to the payment of taxes, the owner may not have sufficient funds to provide adequate security, maintain lighting in parking areas, repair broken windows, remove graffiti, and generally maintain the property. If the Council had • this purpose in mind in adopting §23 -613, it would seem to make sense to interpret the term "delinquent" as simply meaning overdue and determining that the premise is not eligible for a license. CLL114765 BRi91 -4 Mr. Mike McCauley • December 12, 1996 Page 4 III. CONTROL OF PAWNSHOPS THROUGH LICENSING Pawnshops are regulated by state law. Additionally, the City of Brooklyn Center has adopted its own ordinance regulating pawnshops. At the time of adoption of this ordinance, an effort was made to base the ordinance on the most stringent regulatory ordinances available from other cities as a model. There may be ways of adding even more regulatory provisions to the pawnshop licensing ordinance to provide greater protection to the public, but I have not yet discussed with the police department whether there are ways in which the ordinance can be supplemented. IV. CONTROL OF PAWNSHOPS BY ZONING A. Zoning Control Generally. The City may regulate pawnshops through the zoning ordinance in the same way that other businesses are regulated. For example, pawnshops may only be permitted in certain zones, have specified parking requirements, and the like. It should first be noted, however, that the City does not have the authority to exclude businesses entirely from the t City unless such businesses constitute a legal nuisance. A nuisance is something which causes a material annoyance, inconvenience, damage, or discomfort to a substantial number of members of the public. Examples would be businesses which generate noxious odors, health risks, unreasonable noise, and the like. A business may be either a nuisance ep r se or a nuisance in fact. A nuisance ep r se is a use which is of such a nature that no matter how it is controlled, regulated or conducted, it causes an unreasonable damage to the public at large. An example might be a pig feed lot in a residential neighborhood. A use or activity which is not a nuisance ep r se may nevertheless be, or become, a nuisance by reason of the way the business is conducted. Such a use would be referred to as a nuisance in fact. For example, a chemical mixing business in an industrial zone may not be a nuisance if it h2s proper air filtration and emission controls; but without them it may be a nuisance in fact. A city council may not make something a nuisance merely by declaring it to be one. There must be some basis in fact for such a declaration; and, if challenged in court, the City would have to establish that there are actual characteristics of the business which constitute a legal nuisance, either a nuisance ep r se or a nuisance in fact. In two relatively recent cases, Minnesota Courts have ruled that city councils may not exclude businesses which are not nuisances. Both cases involved the City of St. Louis Park, and the uses involved were a ready -mix plant and an automobile reduction yard. Apple Valley Red -E -Mix v. City of St. Louis Park (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) 259 N.W.2d 313; Golden v. City of St. Louis Park, Minn. 1963) 122 N.W.2d 570. • Arguments could be made that some pawnshop businesses are nuisances due to the way they conduct business (such as receiving stolen goods and the like). However, I believe LL'_1476s 9R33i -4 Mr. Mike McCauley December 12, 1996 Page 5 that it would be a difficult case to make given the extensive regulation at both the state and local level of this particular kind of business. As noted above, even if a business is not a nuisance, it may nevertheless be regulated through the zoning code provided the ordinance provisions have a reasonable and rational basis. The Council could make a determination that certain parts of the City were not appropriate locations for pawnshops as long as the exercise by the City Council of that legislative discretion had a reasonable justification and was not arbitrary or capricious. There may be reasons related to land use concerns why this proposed location is not appropriate or other zoning controls currently in the code are not adequate to protect the public; however, I am not currently aware of any such reasons. I have no reason to believe, for example, based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, that there is a more appropriate zone. for such uses or that current parking requirements and other zoning code provisions are not adequate for this type of business. In any case, I believe that there is no dispute that the proposed location for this business is one which is allowed by the zoning code, and that the business would not be in violation of any of the provisions of the zoning code. As a permitted use in conformance • with the requirements of the zoning code, the Council would not have a basis to deny the license. Once the business is established, it would be a lawful, nonconforming use, and would be entitled to remain at that location even if the zoning code were amended at a later date to exclude such uses from this area of the City. If the Council believes that there is a reasonable basis to believe that current zoning controls are not sufficient to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the only way to justify refusing to grant the license and allowing the business to begin operations would be to impose a moratorium on such uses while the land use issues are being further studied. B. Temporary Regulation of Pawnshops by Moratorium. If the Council concludes that it is necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and the planning process by the imposition of a moratorium, it has the legal authority to adopt a moratorium ordinance preventing commencement of such businesses while studies are underway. However, before deciding to adopt such a moratorium, the Council should consider several factors. First, a moratorium may be challenged as having no reasonable, rational basis and being imposed solely for the purpose of preventing a business from coming into town. To defend such a challenge, the Council should be prepared to articulate a reasonable, rational basis for the belief that the current land use controls are inadequate and that a • study would be reasonably likely to result in a change to the provisions of the City's ordinances. In this regard, the justification should be based on concerns about inadequate land use controls (for example, parking or inappropriate zoning) rather than a concern CLL1147b: BR291 -4 Mr. Mike McCauley • December 12, 1996 Page 6 about the adequacy about the licensing provisions. This is because licensing provisions can be changed at a later date, and existing businesses can be made subject to amended licensing requirements. Therefore, it is not necessary to prevent a business from being established through the use of a moratorium while licensing ordinances are being considered. Second, the City has already adopted a moratorium on pawnshop businesses in the past. In April of 1994 the City adopted a moratorium on pawnshops until December 31, 1994. That moratorium did not result in any amendments to the City's zoning code or other land use controls. The fact that the past moratorium did not result in a change to zoning code provisions would lend credence to a claim that the City's real purpose in adopting a moratorium in this case is simply to prevent this particular business from being established because certain neighbors are opposed to it. The City Council may not impose a moratorium merely because it objects to having a particular kind of business in the City, because it would prefer to have a different business at that location, or because neighbors object to it. Very truly yours, • S ` Charles L. LeFevere CLL:lh • CLL114765 BR29,_q O �ao%IYN CEI*j Brooklyn Center Police Department O POLICE Memo TO: City Manager Michael McCauley w FROM .�„uati Detective Mike Kaulfuss � �cr� ft DATE: December 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Survey of the City of Fridley and Robbinsdale Pawn Shops""" 0 r . M. : I received your memo dated December 3, 1996, about a survey o �.. f. 'esenence with '.4 .. pawn shops, specifically two, to include Robbinsdale. Since I,dti 8. ckground �. ;, investigation on the pawn shop that is currently trying to e of Brooklyn Center, I dealt mainly with both the City of Robbinsdale , , Fridi ecause of that and the limited amount of time that I had to accomplish t€istrictly with Robbinsdale and Fridley respectively._ • I first went to the City f Fridley and t "" ? e Re r w ve h elpful ty y � � � � ewitzer. Rev�ntze as ry h p stating that he has been the main. the pawn shops in the City of Fridley. The City of Fridley limits their lic ` ` shops where currently there are three licensed pawn shops in the City o : ­_s 'dawn America which Rewitzer stated that he had one problem within the lase hich basically involved a sting of two undercover officers going in and pa � en when asked for identification, the person who was pawning the.it Turn �„ ther undercover office and asked for his ID g statin he did not have >� one. Thimt'= th and the ordinance which clearly states that the person �.. ,. eir license , ^. x11,1- ; Pa u�nn iti o be the owner of the item and cannot use anyone else's driver's license, or s . >` e A e store, or even a friend to use their name to pawn the particular item. Pawn M " IR as�ited for this at that time. Rewitzer also stated that they usually confiscate about > tvery two weeks through NCIC checks that come back as stolen items from that :. h lar pawn shop. This is approximately an average of the amount of stolen items recovered r b . this particular store. Rewitzer told me that Cash and Pawn in the City of Fridley is probably the better of the pawn shops that he has to deal with. It is run through their management a lot stronger, and has clear and concise rules for the employees to follow. Even with this system, the Fridley Police Department still recovers about one item a month through NCIC checks for stolen items that were either pawned or sold to the pawn shop and were on the shelves awaiting the appropriate amount of time while the checks were being run. 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 Telephone (612) 569 -3333 - TDD (612) 561 -5720 - Ra (612) 561 -0717 - Crime Tips (612) 561 -6649 Emergency 9 -1 -1 Memo to City Manager Michael McCauley Page 2 12/11/96 • Rewitzer stated that there was also another license issued to Express Auto Pawn which is now changed their style of doing business and strictly deals in automobiles and does not have any items bought or pawned other than the car business. Rewitzer "stated that he has not had any problems with this, although, he admits that he does not understand that type of system very well. Detective Kaulfuss and Rewitzer had an opportunity to speak for awhile at which time Kaulfuss thought that possibly the City Council of Brooklyn Center was contemplating not allowing a pawn shop into the city. Rewitzer stated that he and his administration had spent a lot of time with this, but felt that there is no way to stop a pawn shop into coming in, but the only way to do it is to have a clear and concise ordinance such as some of the things that Kaulfuss pointed out when he did the original background. Rewitzer stated that you should audit the pawn shop on a regular basis, and keep on top of the problems that may exist with particular management style. You also should have to make sure the items are computerized and put onto disk to assist the police department epartment clerical division to work with record checks. Some of the other P roblems are the type of cliental that pawn shops attract. This cliental will often clash with other pedestrian traffic going to other neighboring businesses. Pawn shops are basically suited for constant auto traffic that comes in and out with people bringing items to either be sold or purchase items from the store. Rewitzer added that there was no legal way to stop the pawn shops, and the only way . that he sees, after doing this for many years, is to have a strict ordinance intact so that the police department can regulate the way the pawn shops do business. Rewitzer also stated that he thought that the pawn shop detail should be a line -item or a budget item on the city council so that money comes back to the police department to fund the investigation or the constant monitoring of the pawn shops. Rewitzer offered to Kaulfuss a break down of a number of hours that he was required to produce to his administration back in 1995. Rewitzer stated that the report done, was just a modest version of what a detective's time would be in doing the day -to- day things that pawn shops require. This study also showed what a police clerk's hours could possibly be just in the records data entry and the NCIC checks. As you'll notice in the report, Detective Rewitzer has the amount to be a little over 515,000 per year. Kaulfuss also received from Rewitzer a report prepared by Greg Brooker who is the city attorney for Bloomington, MN. In that report, you'll find interesting case law regarding cities involvement with issuing licenses to pawn shops. Kaulfuss highlighted a section titled "Total Bans" under that section, it states that cities cannot prohibit pawn shops from operating, but states there are some flaws in the case laws presently on the books. Kaulfuss found out from both Fridley and Robbinsdale, apparently one pawn shop basically takes up to one fourth of the detective's time in doing the required amount of investigation that comes with this type of detail. So, as you can see, there is a good deal of time, energy, and money spent in just monitoring one pawn shop let alone any future pawn shops that would want to come in • after that. Memo to City Manager Michael McCauley Page 3 12/11/96 Detective Kaulfuss then went down to the Robbinsdale Police Department and spent time with Detective Mark Johnson. Johnson has been assigned to their awn shop detail for approximately P P PP Y the last couple of years. Johnson deals strictly with one pawn shop in the City of Robbinsdale that being Pawn America. Johnson reports that Pawn America was closed down once for selling a piece of equipment that was not held the acquired amount of time on the shelf. What this means is that the item was on the shelf to be held the specific amount of time, was sold, and then turned out to be stolen and had to be recovered from the person that bought it. Johnson also points out, much like Rewitzer did in Fridley, that a big problem is the employees. Johnson reports that they often record the wrong numbers since they don't spend enough time looking for the serial numbers and use other numbers that are printed on individual items which constantly come either back with false hits of being stolen, or never comes back as stolen when, in fact, the right serial number was not used. Johnson stated that he has not had the time or budgeted time through his office to do an audit, which he admits should be done quarterly. Kaulfuss points out that Rewitzer does audit all his pawn shops in Fridley quarterly to keep a balance or a handle on any potential problems. Johnson admitted that he has not done an audit, and feels that the city should budget some time for him to do one soon. Johnson also has a system where the clerk runs all the checks at night since they have a computerized system and a disk is dropped off daily so that a clerk at night can run the checks and leave him the hits for that information in the morning. Johnson points out that they've had two times in the last six months where items that were originally checked to see if they were stolen came back as stolen weeks after the original check. An example of this would be if someone was on an extended trip and left their home for over a month. They would not be able to come back and report something stolen for possibly up to five weeks from when it was stolen. Then giving the amount of time that it takes to type the report, process it through in the administrative system of the police department, it could be six to seven weeks before it's actually entered. Johnson asked if a system could be developed so that items that are pawned or sold to the pawn shop could be actually rechecked during a time to see if they come back stolen. Johnson reports that currently that one -fourth to one -third of his time is spent on the one pawn shop, Pawn America, in their city. Johnson pointed out that the city was involved in a lawsuit with Pawn America over some wording in the ordinance and some zoning problems that the city had. The lawsuit is currently settled and the findings are not disclosed. Johnson also was helpful in introducing Kaulfuss to their Assistant City Manager who gave a report or study done by Desyl Peterson who is the Minnetonka City Attorney. In this report, which will be included in the councils' packet, is a report that was reviewed by the Robbinsdale • City Council when looking at problems regarding their pawn shops. There was also a finding of Memo to City Manager Michael McCauley Page 4 12/11/96 fact, which include the conclusions and recommendations by the City of Robbinsdale, when the council had open meetings to discuss the problems or potential problems with pawn shops in the City of Robbinsdale. There are some interesting conclusions in this stating that basically the burden is on the city to show why a license should not be renewed. It goes also into stating something about economic enhancement strategy and zoning for pawn brokers. This may not be the kind of thing that can be considered know because of the process for the pawn shop is too far along, but it could be something of interest in the upcoming years. One of the biggest problems was the cliental coming into Pawn America in the City of Robbinsdale who were upsetting to the people walking by the front of the building going to other business in that particular area. It was always recommended that if,it was possible to zone areas so that a pawn shop could be away from, or in like an old town district so not to bother other people walking to places of business by the use of the sidewalk such as walk -in traffic. They point out quite clearly that pawn shops only attract drive -in type of customers. Finally in the report, are some actual legal cases which can be reviewed by the city attorney stating the city's obligations in either licensing or not being able to deny a license for pawn shops. I hope all this information is helpful to you. It appears that pawn shops are here to stay, but that • there has to be a working relationship between them, the police department, the city, and its citizens. Through my experience and training, I believe that there is a way to monitor the pawn shops and work with the management under strict rules and guidelines. These guidelines, which is in the form of a strong ordinance, will assist the police department in regulating the pawn shop's operations. It appears that there is no other way to stop this type of operation, (although public opinion might not be in favor of it) but it does seem to be much easier to handle if these types of guidelines are in place. Pawn shops are definitely a lot of added work and responsibility for the police department, but it is not something that can't be handled efficiently and legally as is done in other cities. Please review the information I have included along with this report. If you have any other questions, please feel free to call me at any time. MK:vt Enclosures • The Cost of Pawn Shop Regulation • 1 -1 -95 to 9 -30 -95 Police Investigator's Hours 10 Fridley cases resulting in recovered property.. 66 hrs 26 outside agency cases resulting in recovered property.. 23 hrs 5 additional Fridley cases requiring investigation.. 11 hrs 3 additional outside agency cases requiring investigation.. 12 hrs Transaction checks per outside agency requests.. 39 hrs Transaction checks against Fridley stolen reports.. 60 hrs Records review, pattern analysis, crime detection, liaison duties, oversight.. 39 hrs Ordinance conformity audit.. 16 hrs Design & maintenance of computerized recordskeeping database.. 40 hrs Records data entry.. 96 hrs Automated Pawn Shop meetings.. 8 hrs Total Investigator's Hours.. 410 hrs Pawn. shop regulation accounted for 254k of Investigator -'.s. time during the period. Police Clerk's Hours NCIC checks for stolen articles.. 98 hrs Records data entry.. 144 hrs Total Clerk's Hours.. 242 hrs • The Salary Costs Investigator's hours.. 410 x Investigator's hourly wage.. 21.43 $ 8786.30 Clerk's hours.. 242 x Clerk's hourly wage.. 13.17 $ 3187.14 Total Salary Costs.. $ 11,973.44 Some duties, such as records data entry have been assumed entirely by the Police Clerk. By ignoring one -time duties (such as the database design) and extrapolating from the routine and continuing duties, an accurate estimate of future regulation hours can be determined. Police Investigator's Hours 29.5 hrs /month Police Clerk's Hours 47 hrs /month Using the above hourly salary figures, the following regulation costs can be determined: Inv. hrs. 29.5 x $ 21.43 = $ 632.18 Clk. hrs. 47 x $ 13.17 = $ 618.99 $1251.17 per month $ 15,014.04 per year For regulation of ONE pawn shop. • Attached are selected pages from this document. STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF PAWN • GREG BROOKER ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNEY BLOOMINGTON, M "ESOTA 2215 W. OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMWGTON l�f 55431 (612) 9434753 1995 UPDATE FOR CITY ATTORNEYS FEBRUARY 10-11, 1995 ' T= rAri ' MR. 31DOFM' S PMR ESSICN t VL CONCLUSION VIL APPENDIX Bloomington Ordinance Licensing Pawnbrokers Minnetonka Ordinance Licensing Pawnbrokers Minneapolis Ordinance Licensing Pawnbrokers Maple Grove Ordinance Defining Pawnbrokers as a Nuisance A Survey of Pawnbroker Ordinances in Minnesota (May 1994) 1994 Bill for an Act Studying the Pawnbroker Industry (Vetoed by the Governor) i • B. Criminal Misconduct of Pawnbrokers. Minnesota Statutes Section 609.81 This old provision prohibits pawnbrokers from: (1) lending money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law; (2) possessing stolen goods and refusing to permit a law enforcement officer to examine them during usual business hours; (3) after having sold pledged goods, refusing to disclose to the pledgor the name of the purchaser or the price for which the property sold; (4) making a loan on a pledge to a person under lawful age without the written consent of the person's parent or guardian. • C. Data Practices Provision. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subd. 13. Data that uniquely describe stolen, lost, confiscated, or recovered property or property described in pawn shop transaction records are classified as either private data on individuals or nonpublic data depending on the content of the not public data. D. State- Regulated Loan Companies. Minnesota Statutes Section 56.002. The chapter on state - regulated loans and state- licensed Ioan companies does not apply to "persons doing business under and as permitted by any law of this state or of the United States relating to ...licensed pawnbrokers." the police. Iri Liberman v Cervantes, 511 S.W.2d 835, 837 (TMo. 1974), the Missouri Supreme Court noted: This business is one of a class where the strictest police regulation may be imposed. The requirement of photographs is reasonably connected with the object and purpose of the ordinance as a whole, which is "to keep the pawnbrokers' business free from great abuse by thieves disposing of stolen goods in their shops." They are all made in the interest of the public, and are intended for the detection and prevention of crime. The attached Bloomington ordinance requires either a 2 X 2 photograph of each customer be taken or a close -up video with the time and date detailed. Such a requirement has been found to aid law enforcement agencies in identifying persons suspected of stealing property. The requirement may also deter some people from attempting to pawn or sell stolen merchandise, • thereby preventing the pawnshop from being used as a vehicle for converting stolen property to quick cash. D. Warrantless Inspections Warrantless inspections of business records of licensed pawnbrokers, as authorized by state statute, does not violate the Fourth Amendment in light of the important governmental interest furthered by regulatory inspections of pawnshop records and the limited threat these inspections pose to reasonable expectations of privacy of business people. In Mpperman v. State, 626 S.W.2d 507, 512 (Tex. Crim. 1981), the Texas Criminal Court . of Appeals stated: The inspection of the business records of the State licensed •' pawnshops is essential to the State's efforts to effectively deter them and minimiz its consequences, just as the inspection of federally licensed liquor and firearms dealers is central to federal efforts to • o & v Nor Memorial Me cal Center . Minnesota Dept. of Heakk 423 N.W.2d 73? A . 1988. In addition, a �� PP ) 4 city council is vested with broad authority in determining whether to issue or renew a license, and the scope of review by the courts is narrow. See Kayo Oil Co. v. City of H opkin s , 7 H ns, " � 9 N.W.2d 612 .1.986 P ��- APP ) . However local officials must base a denial of a license on "articulable and legally sufficient reasons." See F- TO., Inc. v Town of Marion, 375 N.W.2d 815, 819 (2\4inn. 1985); see also Tamarac Irv4 Inc. v. City of Long Lake, 310 N.W.2d 474 (1 fi 1981). If the basis of a license denial is a criminal conviction, the licensing authority must make findings under the state Criminal Rehabilitation Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 364.01-364.10 (1994). E. Limitation on Number of Licenses Issued In lvfinnesota, a limitation on the number of certain types of licenses within a has been upheld as a valid exercise of police powers. See Kayo Oil �y P P Co. v. City of Hopkins, 397 N.W.2d 612 (\Tnn. App. 1986)(cap on liquor licenses upheld); Minneapolis Street Railwcry Co. v City of 1nneapolis, 236 2YEnn. 109, 52 N.W.2d 120 (1952)(same). IIL Pawnbroker Licensing and Regulations A. Nature of Regulation Because of the facility that it furnishes for the commission of came, the business of pawnbrokers is one which belongs to a class where the strictest •. police regulation may be imposed. In reviewing the history of e a Supreme Court observed: pawnbrokers, the P lvani P �y P licensing ordinance. In Gopher Sales Co. x City of Austin, 246 N inn. 514, 520, 75 N.W.2d 780, 784 (1956) the state supreme court stated: No person can acquire a vested right to continue, when once licensed, in a business, trade, or occupation, which is subject to control and regulation under the proper exercise of a municipality's police power. As we stated in State v. Minneapolis -St Paul M A. Commission: "A license confers upon the licensee the right to engage in the licensed business only for the term specified in the license. A prior expired license is functus officio and confers no rights upon the licensee named therein, except in certain cases where by statute it entitled him to a renewal upon compliance with specified conditions." (footnote and citations omitted] Although Gopher Sales was decided nearly forty years ago, it has been cited with approval in several more recent cases. See, e. g., Voettiner v. Commissioner ofLiucation; 376 N.W.2d 444, 448 (.W- =. App. 1985)(no vested right to a license to teach medical office procedures). B. Compelling State Interest Government has a compelling state interest in the regulation of businesses and occupations. The requirement of a license as a condition precedent to the privilege of carrying on the business is a legitimate exercise of the police powers of the state. See Pilla v American Bar Association, 407 F. Supp. 451 (D. Malin. 1975) affd 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1976); Franklin Theatre Corp v City of iVinneapolis, 293 Nliinn. 519, 198 N.W.2d 558 (1972). The Nfimiesota Supreme Court has held that where local legislative action is within the scope of the police powers and where the enactment presents fairly debatable questions as to its reasonableness, • wisdom, and propriety, the determination of such questions is not for the courts, but rather for the local legislative body. See Stare v. United Parking Stations, 235 'Minn. 147, 50 N.W.2d 50 (1951). r� F. Fingerprinting of Customers A municipality may validly require pawnbrokers to fingerprint their customers. See Miller v. Murphy, 143 Cal App. 3d 337, 191 Cal Rptr. 740 (1983); Medias v. City oflndianapolis, 216 Ind. 155, 23 N.E2d 590 (1939), see also Note, supra, 125 ALR 590. G. Regulation of Hours Cities may regulate the hours a pawnshop is open to transact business. See Solof v. City of Chattanooga 180 Tenn. 296, 174 S.W.2d 471 (1943); Hyman v Bol&ici; 153 Ky 77, 154 S.W. 369 (1913); Butte v. Paltrovich, 30 Mont. 18, 75 P 521 (1904). See also Note, "Validity of Statute or Ordinance Fi)dng Closing Hours for Certain Kinds of Businesses," 55 ALR 242 (1928 & 1994 Supp.). H. Bond Requirement Requiring pawnbrokers to furnish a bond as a condition of licensure has been upheld as valid. See Grand Rapids v Braudy, 105 Mich 670, 64 N.W. 29 (1895). L Recordkeeping Requirements Courts have upheld ordinance provisions requiring pawnbrokers to keep a record of all property pawned, together with the names, addresses, and descriptions of persons pawning it. In addition, provisions requiring such information be forwarded to the police have been upheld against arguments • . of unreasonable search and seizure. See Shuman v. City of Forr Wayne, 127 Ind 109, 26 N.E. 560 (1891); Avfeaias v. City of Indm=olis, 216 Ind 153, 23 N.E.2d 590 (1939). See also Ciry of St. Paul v. Lytle, 69 Minn 1, K Total Bans Whether a city has the power to totally ban pawnshops is unclear in the case law. It has been held that regulations so onerous as to amount to a prohibition of pawnshops is not permissible. See 54 Am. Jur. 2d Moneylenders and Pawnbrokers sec. 2; see also Iforron v. Ozy of ,I1facon, 111 Ga 162, 36 S.E. 627 (1900); Louisville v Pooley, 136 Ky 286, 124 S.W. 315(1910); Rodge v Kelly, 88 Miss 209, 40 So 552 (1906). However, the cases supporting such a proposition are quite old, and there is a contrary opinion in the case law. See Wood v Krepps, 168 Cal 382, 143 P. 691 (1914); Levinson v Boas, 150 Cal 185, 88 P. 825 (1907). There appear to be no recent cases discussing a city's right to ban pawnshops as a matter of zoning or as a "nuisance." Some Minnesota cities specifically list pawnshops as nuisances in their zoning ordinances. (See attached Appendix) A fairly recent Mumesota Court of Appeals decision, however, may have some applicability to this unresolved issue. See Apple Valley Red- E-XfTZ v. City of St. Louis Parr 359 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. App. 1984)(absent a court determination that a business is a public nuisance or a nuisance per se, a city cannot.legislate that business out of existence; court left open the issue of whether a city can generally eliminate a use within its boundaries without showing that the use is injurious to. the public health, safety, or welfare). L. Buffer Zones. In addition to confining pawnshops to certain zoning districts, several cities erect buffer zones around pawnshops in order to prevent such uses ftom • being close to certain "se==* a uses" such as schools arks licensed child > schools, centers, and libraries. Such buffer zones are common in the zoning laws to pawnshops, treating the pawnbroker's transaction as a Ioan with property as collateral. The Nfinnesota statute is unclear, and it is likely that the Attorney General will be asking the legislature to clarify its intent. There is a separate statute, however, that prevents a pawnbroker from "Iending money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law" —which at least implies that the general usury statute applies to pawnbrokers. In the states that have applied the usury rates to pawnbrokers, the pawnshops have revamped their stores as "buy -sell" operations, in which the pawnbroker buys the used or new property from the customer at one price and reseUs - it for another. This "revamping" can present problems to • the local licensing authority when it attempts to enact licensing ordinances for such "buy -sell" businesses. Defining such businesses is difficult without including every retail store in a city, and -equal protection issues may be presented depending on the distinctions made. Pawnbrokers may also attempt to avoid a statutory maximum on "interest" by labeling what formerly was the interest charged on the pawn as "holding fees." Minnesota may not face these issues if the usury statute is deemed to not apply to pawnbrokers. i 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard O O Minnetonka. Minnesota 55345 Telephone (612) 939 -8266 • Fax (612) 939 -8248 City Attorney's Office June 26, 1996 Providing Prosecution Services for the Cities of Winneronka. N innetonka Beach, 1V nnetruta, Orono and St. Bonifacius Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Robbinsdale 4221 Lake Road Robbinsdale, MN 55422 RE: Applications of Robbinsdale Financial & Pawn, Inc. Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed and submitted to you is my report regarding the pawnshop applications. I also write separately, however, to discuss two peripheral issues. First, at the public hearing which I conducted, one citizen asked that the issue of the licenses be placed on the ballot. I explained that the City Council could not do so and that the only ballot opportunity for citizens is an initiative petition. In retrospect, I believe that explanation was not adequate and may have created unrealistic expectations. The City Council cannot place the license issue on the ballot. Our government is not a true democracy where everyone can vote on everything. Rather, we are a representative democracy. Citizens elect representatives to make the necessary decisions. Those elected representatives cannot delegate their decision- making power and obligation to the voters. They must make the decisions. The Robbinsdale City Charter provides the initiative and referendum power to the people, however. The initiative power allows citizens to propose an ordinance and then have the voters decide whether it should be adopted. The referendum power allows citizens to have an ordinance adopted by the City Council "referred" to the voters to decide whether it should become effective. In both cases, the initiative and referendum powers apply only to ordinances. No other type of action can be taken by the voters. Further, even though the citizens may initiate an ordinance, that ordinance will be • judged by the same standards as a Councii- adopted ordinance. In other words, if the law prohibits the Council from adopting a particular ordinance, that same ordinance cannot be adopted by the people. State law provides that a city cannot prohibit Robbinsdale City Council June 26, 1996 Page 2 pawnbrokers from locating in the city, regardless of whether this law is adopted by the Council or the citizens. Therefore, the initiative power does not appear to be very useful to the citizens in this situation. The second issue is the zoning for pawnbrokers. The Council has adopted an ordinance regulating the location of pawnbrokers by using certain minimum distance requirements. This is a very valid approach to zoning. It has been upheld numerous times in the context of regulating adult uses. The Council may wish to consider another alternative. The Economic Enhancement Strategy for Downtown Robbinsdale suggests that pawnbrokers be prohibited from the Downtown area. Based on conversations with your staff, this would appear to allow no area in the community for pawnbrokers, and thus would not be allowed. The Strategy also notes, however, that the Old Town district is planned for small, pedestrian- oriented shops. Other areas of Downtown are planned for more auto- oriented businesses. The minimum distance approach results in the pawnshops being allowed principally in the Old Town district. Perhaps you would like to consider allowing pawnshops in the more auto - oriented portions of the Downtown, even though they might be closer to some of the uses you are trying to protect. I understand that this decision involves weighing one priority versus another. I offer it simply as an alternative for you to consider. It was my honor to be of assistance to you in this matter. I hope that your trust in me was well- placed and that I have served you appropriately. Sincerely, Desy, L. Peterson Minnetonka City Attorney • . BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROBSINSDALE, MINNESOTA In the Matter of: The Applications of Robbinsdale FINDINGS OF FACT, Financial & Pawn, Inc. for a Renewed CONCLUSIONS, AND and Expanded Pawnbrokers License RECOMMENDATIONS The undersigned hearing officer was appointed by the Robbinsdale City Council to conduct a public hearing and prepare findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations regarding the applications of Robbinsdale Financial & Pawn, Inc. for • a renewed and expanded pawnbroker's license. The hearing officer conducted a public hearing on June 19, 1996, from 7:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. The applicant was given 15 minutes at the beginning of the hearing to present its application and 10 minutes at the end to respond to public comments. Approximately 90 minutes was provided for public comments. More members of the public wished to speak than the allotted time allowed. As a result, the hearing officer invited written comments from both the public and the applicant, to be submitted by Friday, June 21, 1996. The hearing officer also requested additional materials from the City of Robbinsdale. Attached as Exhibit A is a list of the written materials reviewed by the hearing officer. In addition, the hearing officer requested comment from the attorneys representing the applicant and the City regarding certain legal issues. • 1 • Based upon the written materials and verbal comment, the hearing officer cer makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Robbinsdale Financial and Pawn, Inc., has held a pawnbroker's license issued by the City of Robbinsdale since July 1991. In April 1992, the applicant received a license to expand its operations. Since that time, it has operated its business on the properties located at 4122, 4124 and 4126 West Broadway ( "the Existing Property'). The Existing Property is leased, not owned, by the applicant. 2. The Robbinsdale City Council has annually renewed the applicant's pawnbroker's license after holding public hearings in the years 1992 through 1995. • Little public opposition was expressed at those public hearings. P p ear ngs. The City Council has attached a number of conditions to each license renewal. 3. On April 19, 1994, the City Council suspended the applicant's pawnbroker's license for five days, upon a finding that the applicant had violated the City's pawnbroker's ordinance. The applicant had sold a pawned item without waiting the required holding time. 4. In 1995, the City Council adopted two ordinances which in part restricted the locations for pawnshops. The ordinances did not allow a pawnshop on either the Existing Property or the Expansion Property (which is defined below) and made the applicant's existing store a non- conforming use. The applicant has obtained a • 2 • temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of those ordinances. Accordingly, 9 Y, they cannot be considered in this proceeding. 5. On or about March 13, 1996, the applicant submitted an application to expand the business to include the properties at 4130, 4132, 4134, and 4136 West Broadway ( "the Expansion Property "). The Expansion Property is owned by a different landowner than the Existing Property. 6. On May 7, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing on the applicant's expansion request. Approximately 19 people spoke against the expansion. One speaker submitted a petition with approximately 1245 signatures which opposed the expansion. The City Council directed the city attorney to prepare findings of fact for denial. • 7. On May 21, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5241 denying the expansion application because the proposed configuration violated certain building code and zoning code requirements. 8. On May 23, 1996, the applicant submitted a revised application for the Expansion Property and an application for a renewed license for the Existing Property. The revised applications eliminated the building code and zoning code problems that were part of the first application. 9. On June 19,1 ,996, a public hearing was held on both applications. Besides a representative of the applicant, 19 people spoke. Eighteen were opposed either to the expansion or to the existence of the pawnshop. One spoke in support 3 of the applicant. One speaker submitted by reference the lengthy petition previously submitted to the City Council. 10. The applicant's representative alleged that the basis for the citizen opposition is the race of the applicant's customers. None of the citizens who spoke based their opposition on the customers' race. 11. The people who spoke, and who subsequently provided written comments, based their opposition on a number of concerns. Not all of the stated concerns are legally relevant to the Council's consideration. Listed below is a brief statement of the concerns following by a finding as to their relevance: a. CONCERN: Pawnshops are not a beneficial business and do not belong in the City. • FINDING: Not relevant. The City ordinance specifically allows Pawnshops to exist in the City, and completely excluding them is not allowed by Minnesota law. b. CONCERN: The applicant's employees came outside to view items instead of conducting the transactions within the store. FINDING: Not relevant. The City's requirements do not prohibit the applicant's employees from going outside to look at items. There were no allegations that the City's requirements for documenting and photographing transactions have been violated. C. CONCERN: The behavior of the customers within the immediate area of the pawnshop is inappropriate. FINDING: This concern is relevant and will be analyzed below. d. CONCERN: Citizens and customers of other businesses are afraid of the applicant's customers and will not shop or allow their children to go alone Downtown. One business owner alleged a loss of 50 0 , 1 0 in her business since she opened 1' /Z years ago. • 4 FINDING: This concern is related to the one immediately above and will be discussed below. e. CONCERN: The police calls to the applicant's business have tripled since 1993. FINDING: The amount of police calls is relevant and will be analyzed below. f. CONCERN: The applicant's business is a ready market for stolen property. FINDING: The fact that the business receives some stolen property is an unavoidable part of the business and cannot be used to deny the business's existence. It is relevant only to the need for regulation. g. CONCERN: The applicant's business is contrary to the City's plans and goals for the Downtown redevelopment. FINDING: This is relevant and will be discussed below. • h. CONCERN: The applicant's business preys on minorities and people of low income by charging a high interest rate and paying below market prices. FINDING: This is not relevant. The interest rates charged are regulated by a new state law, Minnesota Laws, 1996, Chapter 404. i. CONCERN: The applicant's customers shoplift at the Tom Thumb store. FINDING: This is not relevant. The applicant is not responsible for the conduct of its customers in areas away from its own business premises. j. CONCERN: The expansion will eliminate four existing businesses. FINDING: This is not relevant. The City cannot prohibit one business from expanding simply to allow other businesses to exist. 12. Three of the concerns are relevant to the Council's determination and must be examined in more detail to ascertain if there is sufficient evidence to be • 5 considered. These three are: customer behavior, police activity, and consistency with City plans and objectives. A. CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR 13. Four people testified about being the subjects of harassing conduct from the applicant's customers or people accompanying the customers. This conduct occurred within the immediate area around the applicant's businesses. Chris Richardson, owner of an adjacent business, reported that pawnshop customers have parked in the parking lot in front of her store. When going to and from the pawnshop, they have called her obscene names and displayed obscene gestures. Rosie Olson, owner of another adjacent business, reported similar behavior. Paula Mazzacano, a City resident, reported being the victim of similar harassing behavior on one occasion • from people in the cars waiting for the pawnshop customers. Claudia Fuglie stated that for a period of three ears she has been the subject ect of harassing r comments from people coming out of the applicant's business. Ms. Fuglie transports herself by wheelchair, and the individuals have made statements such as, "Look at that cripple." 14. In addition, Robbinsdale Police Department records include an investigation report, Case # 96 -4910, in which a police officer met with Ms. Fuglie and another resident, Brenda Sous, on May 16, 1996. Ms. Sous reported similar kinds of harassing comments about her gender, race, and physical handicap from customers of the applicant. Ms. Sous and Ms. Fuglie both alleged that the frequency of such incidents is increasing. 6 15. Besides the harassing behavior, Ms. Richardson and Ms. Olson reported that pawnshop customers or their companions leave litter and play their car stereos very loudly when going to or from the applicant's store. Kathy Russell, another citizen, reported witnessing loitering outside the applicant's business. From a shop across the street, she saw one individual go back and forth between the pawnshop and his car approximately 10 times in 15 minutes. 16. - In written comments, Ms. Olson reported that on June 20, 1996, a car with four occupants drove into the parking lot in front of her store. The parking lot is next to the applicant's business. When the vehicle occupants saw the sign saying "No Pawn Shop Parking," they walked to one of the nearby store entrances and spit into the doorway. She reported that this was typical of the kind of conduct exhibited • frequently by the applicant's customers. She reported other Cher examples: pawnshop customers waiting in the parking lot staring through the front door at her lone female employee, three men calling a woman a name, others making lewd gestures or remarks, staring at women as they walk by, spitting toward people, arguments, and loud obnoxious behavior. 17. Doug Marsh, the president of Litho Masters, which is a business across the street from the applicant's business, also submitted written comments. He reported observing the following conduct exhibited by the applicant's customers: shouting, children being left alone in cars, fist fights, trash dumped from cars, and many very verbal arguments. He reported intoxicated people coming into his business, but did not provide any information connecting those people to the applicant's 7 business. He also stated that he is looking for another area to relocate his business and that the applicant's pawnshop is one of the main reasons for his search. 18. In written comments, residents Deborah Comeaux and Mary Ambrose spoke of their fear caused by groups of people loitering on Broadway. They did not identify, however, that these were applicant's customers. B. POLICE AcTIvITY 19. Robbinsdale Police records indicate that all calls for service to the applicant's business has increased from 42 in 1992 to 54 in 1995. This information does not support the allegation that the police calls to the applicant's shop has tripled. 20. Comparisons with other businesses in Robbinsdale do not show a disproportionate number of police calls for the applicant's business. In 1995, the TCF Bank and drive -up facility had a total of 54 police calls, the same number as the applicant's business. The Tom Thumb store had 70 calls; Merwyn Drug Store had 47 calls; Rainbow Foods had 166 calls; and Wards had 69 calls. 21. For.the present applications and all previous applications, the Robbinsdale Police Department reported no reasons to deny the applications. C. CONSISTENCY wrrH CITY PLANS AND OBJECTIVES 22. Three people stated their beliefs that the expansion of the applicant's business would be inconsistent with City plans and objectives. Jerome Ruffenach, former member of the City Council and Planning Commission, stated that in 1990, the City Council established the improvement of the Robbinsdale business district as their number one priority. He stated that the City has spent over $1 million to improve the • 8 business district to attract more customers and businesses. He stated that a pawnshop was not mentioned as a need for a healthy, viable business district. 23. Bill McKee stated that he felt the expansion of the applicant's business would undercut the diversity of having a lot of little shops. 24. Jean Hosterman, a former member of the City's Planning Commission, stated that the City had plans for revolutionizing the downtown, including the "Streetscape," (which was the improvement of the streets, sidewalks, lighting, and other public infrastructure). She said the plans envisioned many little shops that would invite people to walk up and down the street, with a restaurant to sit and talk. She stated that the expansion would not fit this vision because the shop would be too big and too dominant. • 25. In 1993, the City Council contracted for the re aration of the Economic P P Enhancement Strategy, Downtown Robbmsdale 1993, by the HyettPalma consulting firm. This document has been accepted and is being implemented by the City Council and the Robbinsdale Economic Development Authority. The report designates three Downtown districts. The Existing Property and the Expansion Property are located in the "Old Town" district. The recommended economic focus for this district is stated on p. 74: Independently owned and locally owned retail, food, and service businesses that specialize in providing hometown products and appeal in a pedestrian- oriented, intimate, and urban setting. Regarding customer access, the report recommended on p. 81: Old Town should be marketed as being primarily a pedestrian zone where • pedestrians are given first priority over other forms of traffic. 9 • The testimony and staff reports indicated that the applicant's business is heavily dependent on auto - oriented traffic rather than pedestrians. 26. Regarding safety, the report stated on p. 79: Downtown Robbinsdale will not be able to retain or increase its appeal unless customers and potential customers perceive Downtown to be safe. Therefore, making Downtown safe, in reality and in appearance, must be a top priority. . Regarding the applicant's business in particular, the report stated at p. 81: Throughout the course of this project, employees, customers and potential customers of Downtown repeatedly said they feel "intimidated" and "threatened" by people who congregate and "hang out" in front of the pawn shop and temporary employment agencies located Downtown. Even if those who are "hanging out" do not pose a real threat to personal safety, the fact that they are viewed as being intimidating is sufficient to keep Downtown users away, according to local customers interviewed and surveyed in conjunction with this project. • The report recommended prohibiting dditional awn shops in Downtown. g P P 27. The City of Robbinsdale has designated the Downtown as both a redevelopment area and tax increment district. The City has invested substantial public funds in enhancing the Downtown area. Large amounts of dollars have been invested in the Streetscape improvements. In addition, the City has purchased property, demolished substandard structures, and provided the land at reduced costs to private parties for redevelopment into the Town Center, Hoglund's, Robin Steak House, and McDonald's sites. It has provided funds to several business for rehabilitation of their properties. From September 1994 to September 1995, the public funds for this Commercial Building Financial Assistance Program totaled $308,777. 10 • CONCLUSIONS A. RENEWAL LICENSE 28. Parties who invest substantial resources in a business are entitled to a reasonable expectation of continuing to receive that license. The burden is on the City to show why the license should not be renewed. 29. The facts do not justify the serious economic harm to the applicant which would result from a failure to renew the pawnbroker's license. 30. The police activity and police recommendations provide no evidence to justify a denial of the renewal license. 31. The City's plans and objectives for the Downtown area do not justify a failure to renew because they have been in place for a number of years. A denial on that basis would be considered arbitrary because the City has previously granted licenses despite those policies and plans. 32. The evidence establishes that the behavior of some pawnshop customers within the immediate area of the business is inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating. That does not rise to the level of a violation of ordinance requirements, however, and should not be used to deprive the applicant of its continuing expectation to operate its business. Nevertheless, it does cause significant concern about the responsible operations of the business and justifies the addition of a condition to the license. This condition should require the licensee to design and implement a program to significantly reduce the incidents of such inappropriate behavior from its customers while they are in close proximity to the business premises. • 11 • 33. Staff has recommended that all of the conditions attached to the 1995 license be attached to this license. Two of those should be deleted. Item number 4 has been preempted by new state law regarding maximum interest rate charges. Item number 9 could be interpreted to be contrary to the temporary restraining order currently in effect. 34. Staff has proposed six new conditions. The first one dealing with the automated pawn system is authorized by city ordinance and may be imposed. The two dealing with fire code issues may be combined into one requirement. The remaining three proposed conditions should not be imposed. The requirement for a conditional use permit for a satellite dish on the roof is preempted by revised Rule §25.104 of the Federal Communications Commission, adopted February 29, 1996. • The requirement to combine the two parcels into one or to close all openings between the two properties is unfair because the staff should have required this when the applicant first applied for a license and before it invested funds to create the current shop configuration. The requirement for the property owner to comply with the Housing Maintenance Code for the residential dwelling units on the second floor has no relation to the licensed business. This issue should be addressed directly with the property owner. B. EXPANSION 35. There is no right to expect the issuance of an expanded license request, which should be treated the same as a new license application. A new license is considered a privilege, not a right. • 12 • 36. While the applicant has met the minimum requirements for a pawnbroker's license, this does not deprive the City Council of its right to exercise its discretion in a reasonable manner. 37. There are rational and legally - relevant reasons, supported by the evidence, which are sufficient to justify denial of the expansion application. 38. The concerns regarding increased police activity were not supported by the evidence and are not a basis for denial. The concerns about customer behavior and inconsistency with City plans, however, are supported by the evidence. 39. There was evidence of numerous incidents of inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating behavior by the applicant's customers within the immediate area of the applicant's business operations. The applicant's surveillance occurred for only a • few hours on a few days and does not outweigh the testimony of actual incidents. Y 9 y Until the applicant takes action to significantly minimize these incidents, expansion of the business causing n increase in customers is not appropriate. Althou h most 9 9 businesses are not held responsible for the conduct of their customers, highly regulated businesses such as liquor establishments and pawnbrokers may g q P Y appropriately be denied expansion opportunities because of the negative impacts caused by their customers. 40. There was evidence supporting the concern that expansion of the pawnshop is inconsistent with the City's plans and objectives for the Downtown area. The City has invested considerable public funds in rehabilitating and revitalizing this area. The inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating conduct of some of the • 13 applicant's cants customers is direct! counter to the goals of attracting I I Y • 9 businesses and customers. It is difficult to attract new businesses when the applicant's shop is P P generating negative influences sufficient to cause one existing business to consider relocation. 41. In addition, the Old Town district of Downtown is planned for small shops catering to pedestrians. A larger pawnshop catering to auto - oriented traffic is not consistent with this plan. 42. Staff has proposed a number conditions to be attached tt ed if a license expansion is granted. Several of these deal with fire and building code requirements and would be covered by the general requirement to comply with those codes. The others require improvements consistent with the Design Guidelines and Streetscape • theme. All but one of these is appropriate. Section 1135.27 of the City Code allows the Council to require the applicant to make "reasonable improvements to the proposed business premises or the property upon which the business premises is situated.' Although the Design Guidelines are still in draft form, the license requirement allows the City to impose them even though they are not applicable to other businesses at this point. A review of the guidelines reveals that they appear generally reasonable. The requirement for the sign to be consistent with the Design Guidelines should not be imposed, however. The City's current sign ordinance allows a pylon sign, but the draft Design Guidelines do not. Signs have certain protections under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is not reasonable to prohibit a sign which the existing ordinance clearly allows. • 14 • RECOMMENDATIONS 43. The applicant's existing license should be renewed subject to the following conditions: a. The licensee must comply with all of the conditions attached to the 1995 license, with the exception of items number 4 and 9. b. When a new automated pawn system is available in Minneapolis, the licensee must electronically transfer transaction data to a host computer as designated by the Chief of Police. C. The licensee must comply with all applicable building and fire codes. d. The licensee must formulate and implement a program which significantly reduces the incidents of inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating behavior of its customers towards others located in the immediate area of the licensee's business. 44. The applicant's request for expansion may be denied for the following • reasons: a. The applicant's business has attracted customers who have exhibited inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating behavior towards others located in the immediate area of the applicant's business. This behavior has generated adverse impacts on nearby business owners and the residents of Robbinsdale by discouraging, rather than attracting, customers and citizens to frequent Downtown Robbinsdale. b. The expansion of the applicant's business is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Robbinsdale in redeveloping and revitalizing its Downtown. The inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating behavior of some of the applicant's customers have discouraged rather than attracted customers and businesses. The larger size and auto - orientation is contrary to the small -shop, pedestrian orientation planned for Old Town. 45. If the City Council decides to grant the expansion application, the expanded license should be subject to the following conditions: a. All of the conditions attached to the renewal license. 15 b. Parking lot development, landscaping improvements, and architectural design of the building to be consistent with the draft Architectural Design Guidelines for Downtown Robbinsdale, May 1996, and the Streetscape theme. Dated: June 26, 1996 Respectfully Submitted, Desyl . Peterson Attorney Registration No. 85777 Minnetonka City Attorney 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 612- 939 -8200 MEMORANDUM The following legal analysis provides the framework for the conclusions and recommendations provided. Few Minnesota court cases discuss the subject of granting a pawnbroker's license. Many cases discuss the subject of granting a liquor license. These cases recognize the broad discretion granted to city councils in determining whether or not to issue or renew a liquor license. This discretion is based on the highly regulated nature of alcoholic beverages and the potential for illegal activity at liquor establishments. Pawnbroker's licenses are comparable to liquor licenses for the same underlying reasons: 16 I • The business of pawnbrokers because of the facility it furnishes for the commission of crime, and for its concealment, is one which belongs to a class where the strictest police regulation may be imposed. 7 McQuiilin, Municipal Corporations §24.335 p p (3rd Ed). Therefore, the case law governing liquor licenses provides guidance to city councils in reviewing pawnbroker's licenses. When a license has previously been issued, parties who have invested substantial resources in reliance are entitled to a reasonable expectation of continuing to receive the license. The burden is on the city to show why the license should not be renewed. Tamarac Inn, Inc. v. City of Long Lake, 310 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. 1981). For a new license, however, where the minimum requirements for a license are satisfied, the council must consider the application, but the council is by no means • divested of its legislative authority and responsibility to pass upon the merits of the application. The council may base its decision on specific objections raised by community residents whose lives would be directly affected by the proposed license. County Liquors, Inc. v. City Council of the City of Minneapolis, 264 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 1978). The council's action must be reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious; therefore, the concerns of the citizens must not be speculative or unwarranted. Anton's Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 375 N.W.2d 504 (Minn.App.1985). The Anton's Inc. case is similar to present situation. A liquor license holder wanted to expand her operations to include the second floor and provide live entertainment. The Court recognized that this would mean more customers, staying later, of a younger age and more boisterous behavior and that this would increase the • 17 likelihood of disturbances to the neighboring residents. The Court upheld the city's decision in denying the expansion. Likewise, in this situation, the citizens' complaints are regarding the current and potential behavior of the licensee's customers and the projected ill effects on the neighborhood. Therefore, this provides a proper basis for denying an expansion. A city council may deny an application when it feels the business would be contrary to the best interests of the city. In Polman v. City of Royalton, 249 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 1977), the Court upheld a city council's decision to deny a license, even though the applicant had met the minimum qualifications, because the council believed that the existing three liquor establishments were enough and ovgrtaxed their law enforcement. This provides support for denying a license because it would be • contrary to a city's redevelopment plans. A city council may impose conditions in a license which are not part of its regulations. In Bergmann v. City of Melrose, 420 N.W.2d 663 (Minn.App.1988), the Court upheld a city council's decision to require the licensee to provide a family restaurant, based on the community's needs and existence of other liquor licensees. The Court characterized this as one of the concessions that a licensee must make to enjoy the benefits of obtaining the license. This provides support for attaching various conditions to the license which are not part of the ordinance, as long as those conditions are reasonable and based on the community's health, safety, and welfare. 18 EXHIBIT A WRITTEN MATERIALS REVIEWED BY THE HEARING OFFICER 1. 1996 application for renewal of Robbinsdale Financial & Pawn , Inc. for 4122, 4124, and 4126 West Broadway. 2. Revised 1996 application for expansion of Robbinsdale Financial & Pawn, Inc. for 4130, 4132, 4134, and 4136 West Broadway. 3. A chronology of events from May 2, 1989 through June 21, 1994, prepared by staff. 4. Temporary Injunction Order, dated December 19, 1995. 5. Order Amending Temporary Injunction Order, dated January 11, 1996. 6. Staff report dated May 7, 1996, to the City Council regarding expansion application, with attachments. 7. Staff report dated May 17, 1996, regarding findings of fact for denial, with • attachments. S. City Council minutes from the meetings of May 7 and May 21, 1996. 9. Staff report to the hearing officer dated June 17, 1996, regarding the renewal application. 10. Staff report to the hearing officer dated June 17, 1996, regarding the expansion application, with attached department reviews. 11. Memorandum dated June 18, 1996, from the Robbinsdale Police Chief. 12. Section 1135, Robbinsdale City Code. 13. Economic Enhancement Strategy, Downtown Robbinsdale 1993, Hyett Palma consulting firm. 14. Downtown Robbinsdale Architectural Design Guidelines, May 13, 1996 draft. 15. City of Robbinsdale, Downtown Redevelopment Plan and West Broadway Feasibility Study, November 1991, pp. 8 - 15. • 1 16. Downtown Robbinsdale, Commercial Building Financial Assistance Program, September 1994 to September 1995. 17. Memo from Robbinsdale Police Chief dated June 21, 1996, with attached Robbinsdale Police Department computer printouts regarding calls for service, Investigation Report for Case # 96 -3086, and Stolen Property Recovery Reports. 18. Robbinsdale Police Department Investigation Reports, Cases # 96 -4909 and 96- 4910. 19. One page computer printout from the Robbinsdale Police Department submitted by Chris Richardson. 20. Letter from Doug Marsh, President of Litho Masters. 21. Letter dated June 21, 1996, from Rosie Olson, owner of Wolff Tanning, with attached newspaper articles. 22. Letter dated June 21, 1996, from Deborah Comeaux. 23. Letter dated June 21, 1996, from Mary Ambrose. 24. Staff report and minutes from Council meetings of July 18, 1995, August 10, 1995, and September 19, 1995, regarding adoption of new ordinance. 25. Letter from Timothy Welch dated June 21, 1996, on behalf of the applicant, with accompanying Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and numerous attachments. Note: A letter was received June 25, 1996, from Linda Yousef, but was not considered because it was submitted after the deadline given. • 2 OWN CEN BROOKLYN CENTER - - NIP POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Michael McCauley FROM: Chief Scott Kline DATE: November 6, 1996 SUBJECT: Pawn Shop Application and License Cash n Pawn 1964 57th Ave N, Suite 17, Brooklyn Center The background investigation has been completed with regard to the application submitted for a pawnbroker license by Cash n Pawn. • Investigator Michael Kaulfuss did background checks on the entire board of directors. He also visited two of their stores, one in Fridley and one in Hopkins, to view their operations and to observe transactions first hand. Inv. Kaulfuss found that the systems and procedures Cash n Pawn has in place with regard to sales, storage, and labeling of merchandise are extremely efficient and unique to their business. In addition, both the Fridley and Hopkins Police Departments were contacted and both stated that they have an excellent working relationship with Cash n Pawn and that Cash n Pawn does go out of their way to work with the local police department. There is nothing that was found in the investigation that would preclude Cash n Pawn from being granted a license to operate a pawn shop. • cash%.mcm I 0 �no%LYN C BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT PO MEMORANDUM TO: Chief Scott Kline FROM: Detective Mike Kaulfuss DATE: 11 -04 -96 SUBJECT: Pawn Shop Second Hand Dealer Application and License Detective Kaulfuss, on 10- 04 -96, was asked to do a background on a pawn shop application and license request from Cash and Pawn International, which is located at 1000 Shelard Parkway, Suite 405, in St. Louis Park MN 55426. Allen Cross, who is the chief financial officer and secretary for Cash and Pawn, submitted the application to the City with hopes of getting a license granted so that Cash and Pawn could operate a business at 1964 57th Avenue North, Suite 17, in • Brooklyn Center, which would be considered the Northbrook Shopping Center. Detective Kaulfuss reviewed all the forms filled out by the chief financial officer, such as the original general information application, along with all the personal information for the president, CEO Jackie Don Hartsoe. Detective Kaulfuss also received the names and personal information and releases for information from the entire board of directors, which consist of the following gentleman, Craig Avery, Stanford Baratz, Terry Wayne Lieberman, James Ostenson, and Peter Ramme. All these gentleman listed were considered board of directors along with Jackie Hartsoe and Allen Cross. Background checks were run on the entire board of directors at the time the information was provided, with negative results. Detective Kaulfuss had an opportunity to meet with Jack Hartsoe who explained background information surrounding Cash and Pawn of Minnesota. Cash and Pawn operated in other cities in the state of Minnesota, which included the city of St. Paul, with two locations, the city of Hopkins and the city of Fridley. Cash and Pawn International also owned six other stores in the state of Missouri and the state of Indiana. Kaulfuss learned that the store to be opened in the Northbrook Shopping Center, would be started with an advance of $300,000.00 cash capital from Cash and Pawn International to start the store out in operation. This was a standard mode of operation expenses that Cash and Pawn has used in other new store locations. All of the money was coming from Cash and Pawn International with no private investors other than corporation money. Jack Hartsoe provided • p o ided personal background information about himself along with personal references. Kaulfuss learned that Hartsoe had originally been with Cash America Memorandum • Page 2 Investments until being hired by Cash and Pawn people and eventually buying into the business and becoming the president and CEO, as well as a partner. Hartsoe also provided letters from the city of Hopkins Police Department, as well as the city of Minnetonka and the Department of Consumer Credit, all dealing with the Cash and Pawn organization. Kaulfuss checked personal references, first with a Mark Margolis, who is the president of Select International. Mr. Margolis stated that he had known Hartsoe for approximately five years and originally hired him away from the major company to come work for Cash and Pawn and actually worked underneath Margolis. Margolis stated at that time Mr. Hartsoe proved to be a very hard worker, very honest and had a very good personality. Margolis stated that Hartsoe eventually became a partner along with other board of directors and eventually, Margolis sold the business along with others to the current owners of Cash and Pawn. Margolis only had high praise for Jack Hartsoe work ethnic. Kaulfuss then contacted a Tom Horn, who is the executive director of the National Pawn Brokers Association. Tom Horn stated that he had known Jack Hartsoe for approximately five years and found him to be extremely active on the board of directors of the National Pawn Brokers Association and to be a completely honest individual, and a hard working businessman. Mr. Horn stated that he thought Jack Hartsoe's character was outstanding and would be an asset to the business community. Detective Kaulfuss then contacted the Fridley Police Department, a Detective Larry Farber, as well as Detective Bob Rewitzer. Both Farber and Rewitzer were very familiar with Cash and Pawn, since they had several pawn shops in their city. Both detectives stated that they have not found any problems with Cash and Pawn, in fact has seen the business go to great lengths to work well with the police department and work within the guidelines set to them through the licensing requirements. Both Detective Farber and Rewitzer made recommendations of what .possibly the city of Brooklyn Center should look at, in regards to changing the ordinance or fitting the ordinance into what seems to work best for the proper operation of pawn shops within the City. These recommendations would be brought up to the administration from Detective Kaulfuss' findings. On 10- 24 -96, Detective Kaulfuss had an opportunity to inspect the Cash and Pawn operation in the city of Fridley. Jack Hartsoe brought Kaulfuss over there at which time, opened up the books and showed Kaulfuss the operation of how items are either pawned or bought out right at that particular store. Detective Kaulfuss was able to observe some sales take place as well as the storage and labeling system in the back room. Kaulfuss found the systems to be very unique and extremely efficient. Kaulfuss found the location to be very clean and the employees very friendly. • Memorandum Page ; Detective Kaulfuss then had the opportunity to contact the Hopkins Police Department, at which time he spoke to a Sgt. David Haffermann. Sgt. Haffermann is very much involved with the Cash and Pawn operation in the city of Hopkins. Sgt. Haffermann stated that he found the staff, as well as the administration for Cash and Pawn to be most cooperative, and has never had any problems. Haffermann stated that the Cash and Pawn in his city goes to great lengths to work well with the police department and has even done more than is expected of them on several occasions. Sgt. Haffermann also stated that Cash and Pawn themselves, has even assisted in the apprehension of some suspects selling large amounts of stolen property, which the police department was able to make an arrest on. Sgt. Haffermann also stated that he has other pawn shops in the city and does not'have this kind of cooperation with any other pawn shops. On 11- 04 -96, Detective Kaulfuss was able to be taken on a tour through the Cash and Pawn in Hopkins, by the chief financial officer, Allen Cross. Detective Kaulfuss, while there, observed the staff work in a very efficient and friendly manner to the customers in the store. Kaulfuss was able to tour the back room and found it to be very orderly, with all items properly marked with both names, dates and times of either the pawn or the sale. Kaulfuss was shown the video tape equipment used in recording the individuals selling any merchandise to Cash and Pawn either • through a pawn loan or an out right sale. This was very helpful, since a color video tape recording system is being requested by the city of Brooklyn Center to assist the police department in the apprehension of any suspects pawning or selling items that were later to be found stolen. Detective Kaulfuss learned that 75% of all items pawned at the pawn brokers are picked up by the owners within the required amount of time. . Detective Kaulfuss was very pleased in dealing with both the president, CEO Jack Hartsoe, and the chief financial officer, Allen Cross, regarding Cash and Pawn. Both gentleman were extremely helpful, very honest and open regarding the business and their dealings with various police departments throughout the state of Minnesota and the Midwest. Detective Kaulfuss finds no reason why Cash and Pawn should not be granted a license to operate a pawnshop second hand dealer business at the Northbrook Shopping Center. MKJI • City of Brooklyn Center Notice of Public Hearin g on An Application for License to Operate a Pawn Shop Pursuant to City Ordinance Section 23 -610, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will . be held on the 25th day f November, r, 1996, at 7 p.m., oar as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to consider an application for license to operate a pawn shop, submitted by Cash n Pawn, at 1964 57th Avenue North, Suite 17, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Any person having an interest in or who will be affected by the ro osed license will be permitted to testify at the e P P P fy hearing. Sharon Knutson City Clerk (published in the November 13, 1996, Brooklyn Center Sun -Post) 1• • City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: November 21, 1996 SUBJECT: Proposed Pawn Shop The legal notice regarding the proposed pawn shop was published in the November 13, 1996, Brooklyn Center Sun -Post and posted on the public notice board at City Hall. Apparently a person residing in the area of the proposed pawn shop prepared a flyer in opposition to the pawn shop and distributed it to area neighbors. I have had several calls from residents in the general area of the pawn shop voicing opposition and requesting their opposition be forwarded to the Council for the November 25, 1996, public hearing. Opposed to Pawn Shop Deb Iverson lives two blocks away • Harry H. Pobig lives on Logan Ave. N. Margaret Engstrand lives on Brookview Drive Ray Sigurdson 5631 Hillsview Road Beatrice Waitkus 5430 Oliver Ave. N. Beatrice Humbert 5801 Knox Ave. N. Anonymous caller (11/18/96) lives in area Ruth Pope 5700 Knox Ave. N. Selma Albrecht 5707 Knox Ave. N. Marilyn Albrecht 5707 Knox Ave. N. Doris Schlaht 5341 Penn Ave. N. Don Mailey 2101 Brookview Drive Anonymous caller (11/19/96) lives in area Julie Winkels 5744 Logan Ave. N. Sue Nelson lives in area Robert and Margo Tessman 1900 Brookview Drive Anonymous caller (11/20/96) lives in area Anonymous caller (11/20/96) lives in area Peter and Loretta Kuznia 2418 Ericon Drive Theron Peterson 2207 Ericon Drive • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MY 50430 -2199 - City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 - &ff (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative ActionlEqual Opportunities Employer MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: November 25, 1996 SUBJECT: Proposed Pawn Shop - More Opposition Following is a continuation of residents calling to voice opposition to the proposed pawn shop for Northbrook Center. Opposed to Pawn Shop Louie Larson unknown address Mrs. Kermit Klefsaas area resident Mrs. Bond unknown address Anonymous caller lives in area Anonymous caller lives in area Bobby and Charlene Abraham 2100 55th Ave. N. • AFFIDAVIT OF JONATHAN D. GALLOP REGARDING THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL AT ITS NOVEMBER 25, 1996, MEETING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1. That I am the supervising attorney for the Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. law firm located at 1915 57th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. 2. That the law firm of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. is a contributing member of the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce and employs residents of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. That the law firm of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. supports the merchants opposing the permit /license to do business of a proposed pawn shop on the 1900 block of 57th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center. 4. That this Affidavit is not a comment on the potential owner's ability and/or reputation. 5. That I believe there is not a significant need for a pawn shop in this vicinity and I believe it would not be in the best interests f the surrounding residents. Further your affiant sayeth not. Jona�i Gallop f Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of November, 1996. Notary Public rac 4 JDG : ja \council. mtg • Lila Companies Comprehensive Real Estate Services • 3:00 Normandale Boulevard, Suite Zoo Minneapolis, Minnesota 33437 H12.397.7700 Fax 897.7701 November 25, 1996 Michael J. McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Northbrook Plaza - Public Hearing Cash & Pawn Dear Mr. McCauley: I am the individual party at Welsh Companies, Inc. primarily responsible for the leasing activity I. Northbrook Plaza and have been working with the above referenced tenant. The reason for this correspondence is to regrettably inform you that neither myself or Mr. Kevin Connolly, Property Manger for the above referenced property, will be in attendance at this evenings meeting. We regularly attend such meetings and place a tremendous amount of importance upon such attendance, however; scheduling conflicts will not allow our presence this evening. As such, I thought I would take a moment to bring a couple of points to light which may come of issue this evening. Among those attending the meeting this evening will be a few representatives from Cash & Pawn whose primary interest is to describe their business and share information with concerned citizens or City officials which may dispel the negative connotations which sometimes are associated with the Pawn industry and quite often give rise to some concern of nearby residents. As vvdtlh any business, it is often the particular o not the tyue of business that makes a particular business a good neighbor or not. Additionally, Ms. Nancy Murdakes of Towle Real Estate, will be in attendance to assist in any way that she may. Until approximately a week ago, Ms: Murdakes worked in conjunction with me to lease the property on behalf of the Receiver, Welsh Companies. She has since become affiliated with Towle Real Estate, however; she has been intimately involved with the transaction and is very familiar with the property. Welsh Companies was named the Receiver through a court order this past February and since that time has worked very diligently to find tenants for the center. Upon the receipt of this assignment the property was 50% vacant, was in an extreme state of disrepair and was experiencing a steady loss of tenants. Many of the remaining tenants were surviving on a month to month tenancy and many sited slow and eroding sales. The lack of occupancy at the center made the center vulnerable to vandalism and loitering causing increased incidence of crime at the center which in turn must have had some unpleasant effect upon the surrounding • neighborhood. Since receiving the management and leasing assignment our primary goals have been to stop the physical erosion at the property, to find stable tenants to create positive cash flow to fund other necessary improvements and to proceed to make those physical changes that the property can afford in order to clean up the property and make it a safer place to do business. • We have accomplished many things since February to work toward our goals. We have leased space to the Salvation Army who has opened a new store in the center and which reports that the Northbrook location is currently one of the strongest in the- Twin Cities. Securing this larger tenant is the first step to stabilize the tenancy at the center and to attempt to attract additional tenants. Please keep in mind , there is tremendous competition across the highway for tenants at properties such as BrookdaleSquare, Brookview Plaza and Shingle Creek Shopping Center. Often times these centers are felt to be stronger locations for businesses than Northbrook Plaza. We regularly grant economic concessions in order to secure tenants for Northbrook Plaza. We currently have a 13 % vacancy rate and we continue to attempt to find qualified tenants for the remaining space. Additionally, we have stabalized the sales at the center allowing current tenants to move forward with renewal of their leases, thus causing further stabalization of the tenancy. Mr. Connolly has implemented new standards for Landscaping, snow plowing, lighting, and building maintenance at the property to insure that Northbrook Plaza is presented as cleanly as possible while being is a safe retail center for the merchants and their customers. In closing, I would like to share with you our positive recommendation for Cash & Pawn. Upon review, I have found their other locations in town to be well presented and conducted with the utmost respect for sound business practices. These communities have sited no incidents of concern relative to their tenancy. The people from Cash & Pawn regularly work in close conjunction with various law enforcement entities to ensure the clean reputation of their product and in fact purchase a significant amount of their product on the wholesale market. I am sure that the representatives from Cash & Pawn and Ms. Murdakes will be pleased to answer any question that you or the residents of the neighborhood may have. 'Please feel free to contact me should there be questions that need additional response. Both Mr. Connolly and myself would be pleased to be available for further conversation. Sincerely, Jenni reene Retail asing Representative -172 cc. Kevin Connolly Nancy Murdakes /via facimile Steve Cook/via facimile 0 y a-1 40 MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specia st V�• ' Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 97001 Date: January 22, 1997 On the January 27, 1997 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 97001 submitted by St. Alphonsus Church requesting a Special Use Permit and Site and Building Plan approval to construct a 22,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing church for a meeting hall and additional space in the education wing. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 97001 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, • the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their January 15, 1997 meeting and was recommended for approval. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission. • Planning Commission Information Sheet • Application No: 97001 Applicant: St Alphonsus Church Location: 7025 Halifax Avenue N Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit The applicant requests Site and Building Plan approval and a Special Use Permit to construct an approximate 22,000 sq. ft. meeting hall and educational wing addition to the existing St. Alphonsus Church located at 7025 Halifax Avenue North. The new addition would be located primarily to the west of the existing church building and somewhat to the south of the main entrance to the building.. The property in question is zoned R -1 (One Family Residence) and is bounded on the north by single family residential homes facing 71st Avenue North; on the east by Halifax Avenue North with single family homes on the opposite side; on the south by 70th Avenue North with single family homes and the intersections of Indiana and June Avenues; and on the west by R -5 and R -3 zoned property containing various office buildings, a multiple family residence and a single family residence. Churches are special uses in the R -1 zoning district. The addition consists of classrooms and educational space, a kitchen area and meeting hall along the west side of the existing church building, south of the school building and a new entry and -athering area along the south side of the existing church. • ACC S/P ARKNG Access and parking for the site are being altered slightly. The new addition will eliminate some existing parking in the southwesterly parking lot. The church is proposing to alter the parking and driving areas along the south or main entrance into the church to accommodate a new canopy which will extend out over a drop off area. Additional parking is to be added by expanding the southwesterly parking lot to the south into an existing greenstrip area. The new greenstrip will be approximately 45 ft. from the property line which is well in excess of the minimum 15 ft. greenstrip requirement. Three foot high berms are proposed along the southerly side of the expanded and altered areas to provide headlight screening from residential property on the south side of 70th Avenue North. The applicant's proposal does not change the number of access points to the site, but proposes to shift the center entrance to the property along 70th Avenue which currently aligns approximately across from Indiana Avenue. Their proposal would move this entrance approximately 45 ft. westerly of its existing location which would create an approximately 80 to 85 ft. offset as measured from the center line of Indiana Avenue to the center line of the altered entrance to the church parking lot. The City typically looks for offsets to be a minimum of 125 ft. Or to have driveways line up across from street intersections. It is recommended that the plan be modified t 11, -9" PaL-e 1 to zither offset the entrance at least 125 ft. from the Indiana Avenue intersection or to align the • entrance across from Indiana Avenue at least as it is now. The parking requirement for churches is one parking space for every three seats in the main church building. There are currently 1.400 seats in the existing church and no expansion to that seating is proposed. Therefore, 467 panting spaces are required by the City's Zoning Ordinance for this facility. The meeting room. classroom, kitchen apd entrance expansion will not add to the parking requirement for the church. As mentioned previously, the building expansion will eliminate 71 parkin, stalls Iocated to the west of the existing church facility. The applicants are proposing to add 67 new stalls b expanding the southwester) parking t. Y P � y a p , to The total number of parking spaces on the property will, therefore, be 470 stalls. This exceeds by three the 467 parkin, spaces required by the zoning ordinance. DRANAGE/ RADNG TTILITIFS The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plan with respect to drainage, grading and utilities. Attached is a copy of the City Engineer's January 3, 1997 memo regarding his review of the proposed addition. He notes, based on the size of the parcel, that the site grading plan will be subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. The Watershed's Engineer is in the process of reviewing the plan, but it will not be before the Watershed Commission until their first meeting in February. Any approval recommended by the Planning Commission should be subject to a condition that the applicant ant must comply • PP P Y conditions imposed by the Shingle Creek Watershed ��Iana,ement Commission. The City Engineer notes the changes to the parking lot and recommends that concrete curb and gutter be installed for all newly constructed areas. Surmountable curb and g utter will be provided at the main entrance area where a canopy will extend out over the drop off area. Surmountable curb and gutter is also proposed at a ramp leading to the new entry at the southwest corner of the building. New storm sewer is proposed for the southwest parkin, lot to replace an existing storm sewer system that will need to be relocated because of the proposed church expansion. The storm drainage system will lead into a retention pond proposed for the southwest corner, of the site. This retention pond is subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and is sized to handle drainage from the existing buildable portion of the church site. The westeriv half of the church site, lo approximately west of June Avenue is being contemplated for some possible fixture use. Some discussion has occurred regarding the possible use of some of this property for senior housing. However, that decision and those plans are not a part of the proposal at this time. Any fixture use of the westerly portion of the St. Alphonsus Church property for other than what it is being currently used, will require additional approval from the City Council as well as the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. There has also been some discussion regarding a possible regional pond for this area. That too is not part of the current plan and is subject to further review and approval. In the meantime. the retention facility proposed by the church is to • 1 -15 -97 Pane accommodate the current proposed expansion area. • LANDSCAPING The proposed landscape plan calls for new landscaping to supplement the existing landscaping on the site. Thirteen Sugar Maple, four Marshall's Seedless Ash and five Skyline Honeylocusts are proposed primarily around the new addition and in the areenstrip areas along 70th Avenue North. Three Colorado Spruce are l v p panned along with 14 Sparkler Crabapple trees also primarily in the green strip areas. Over 200 shrubs will be located around the foundation for the new addition. These shrubs include Crimson Pygmy Barberry, Carol Macke Daphne, Hughes Juniper, Arcadia Juniper, Siberian Carpet, Dwarf Alberta Spruce, Anthony Waterer Spirea, Gold Flame Spirea, Daphne Spirea. Little Princess Spirea, Holmstrip White Cedar and Compact :American Cranberry Bush. Churches are not acknowledged under the landscape point system used by the Planning Commission to recommend landscape plans. The total value of the proposed landscaping is approximately 363 points. This coupled with existing landscaping on the site including 30 shade trees, 20 evergreens and at least 25 to 30 shrubs would come to over 800 landscape points for the area including the St. Alphonsus church and school. This covers approximately ten acres and is comparable to landscaping requirements for an office development. The proposed landscaping on the site, therefore, appears to be appropriate. BUILDING • The proposed building exterior will match the existing exterior of the church. This includes matching the existing stone along with stucco. brick and brick pilaster at various locations on the building addition. The building exterior will be accented by stone soldier course and brick soldier course at various locations, again to match the existing exterior of the St. Alphonsus church and school. One inch insulated glass in aluminum frames are typical for windows and doors in the new additions. The new canopy extending out over a drop off area will be stucco to match the existing stucco and contain stone columns also to match the existing stone on the church building. LIGHT The proposed plan calls for some new lighting relating to the proposed addition. Approximately seven freestanding lights on 16 ft. high poles are proposed around the new parking lot areas and the new building area. These would be a square beam cut off directing light downward and avoiding alare off of the site. Forty -two inch high bollard type lighting is also proposed by the walkway areas and both horizontal and vertical flood lights are indicated on the plan. As with all lighting, it should be situated such that it is directed on the site and not create Glare affecting adjacent properties. The foot candle limit at the property line is three. SPECI -r LSE STa • 1 -1� -9" Page As a special use in the R -I zone, the church and any expansion is subject to the standards • contained in Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). Regarding Standard A, we certainly do not believe that the expansion for a meeting hall and educational wing will somehow be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. It should be a welcomed addition to the church community. As to Standard B, the expanded facility should not be injurious to the enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor should it adversely affect property values in the neighborhood. As to Standard C, the proposed expansion will not impede normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. Finally, with respect to Standard D, it is not anticipated that the addition nor parking lot improvements will cause congestion in the public streets, provided the plans are amended to address the proper offset for the relocated driveway from the Indiana Avenue intersection. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. RECOMMENDATION Altogether, the proposal appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The Special Use Permit is granted for the expansion of the St. Alphonsus church for a meeting hall and educational win, including a kitchen facility. The use may not be altered or expanded beyond the specific approval without being consistent with the • City's zoning regulations or an amendment to the Special Use Permit. '. Building plans for the expansion project are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 1. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on costs estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of approved site improvements. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinance as determined by the Building Official. 1 -1; -97 Page '' 7. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new or improved driving and • parking areas. S. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior release to the of the performance guarantee. 9. The storm drainage system, grading plan and the design of the water detention facility are subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 10. Ponding areas required as a part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with + Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits. 11. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. 12. The plan shall be modified to provide a proper offset of a least 125 ft. for the proposed relocated access from the center line of Indiana Avenue or align with Indiana Avenue. y • • 1 -15 -97 Page 5 OOf£ , / � f " 111IIi'JJJjlll _^ � L J _ N 3AY II N 3AY GOOK UY3a x , \�.`�� \`:.`. \� \•,� \ - _ _ 1(_j -- Doss Z 'io 1 AVE N MY IL3NOIU � )y •� Su r REM AVE. N. _ Al 3AY A009£ O�RE�M A �%�%T� � fi N AM e _ — - - - - C �� _ - 10 l L 1 Ll� ` _ < <; !y w �J�L N 3AY 9HIA3 1 ENG AYE. N. �T_ 9NI _ �-�� OM W_1�----- '-'-`' AVE. N 3AY 33NYV4 °r I'Mi AvE• }1 • "f' 000 ► N 3AY S31I89 - _ ._ Q ``: GRII s AVE -- N. 6RIIES / V 0011 �+ r-^t < - - - - �{ 1 - ND NI may- - N 3AY XY411YN MA 16 i Dolt V3 N I N 3AY YINI(MI •P \ \ / - - 1 I =I O vN►IONI INDIANA A / 3F Vf omt o ow JIAIE AVE 14. H 3AY 3101 - •� < `\ N - lt5 _ _ _ _� 4� 009 'CIS 0091, = a 3 _ �v 3 DDS P-4 CJ z - - - - I ~31 H 3AY 1100YM - - N HOOYM OOLI tb� MAJOR AVE. N. - --- ^, .�. - - N N MY 3190N u _u_Lr� C V " NOp :�-J_l_� NOBLE AVE. N. Ow _- • s IK1N0 ootl N MY 01JYTDNO t G c'lf3 ° 0(IgIMO AVE. N. - -- Y \.• `•�' AIII 8 _ - o. — � — N 3AY AHU3d IC ffi o Z ERRY AVE. N. - jj 11 — VE. — N. U PERRY �' — - - - 11 _` - v_N.. Ai. F. r N 3AY lIYfl0 l - - - OU L_ f - - - IL AVE. N. DDIS RfDF IT Vf. U. "N - - - LLLJJJJt� f 1. H , ti c K _ _ GfIiS AVE. N. w } �` GEHr AVE 1T 3AY M9M J. DoZS VICT E. N. LLOOS l - It A YE. CJ�r�i - - - - -I_ _ rrIT -- WIR 1At itII CLARK LAFSttI -- 11 n .r n..a. • neoarr ? ,.•arr III At P140" �rf emu• n w� o �.. ..... ....... � \ ,,,err,\ :) "' ^' III - IT U, 1. ZZ 74— 4k • fhM„\ r. I �/ - r 1Ff11nr Hell - c • _. �� ` l Ier.rtA'O rOUCAtK111A1_ V _ •� A001110114 oft CA - f:> �) nnnn rluf (� J �:>i) 1 .. !'i► (so) (ti1J �s:l 'ssl (sl) '. ! �. 1 1 1 . 1 , 1 wlRrnlrrrl CURY. .�r•+..r....i._. LARt ►11 At, I. In. ♦ -r �. .+n.. -sin . ( 1 r. I �_ 1 � — 1 SOVUI ELEvArtON_._ .__.. rr, ..,.r.,,.,.,4.,,- r..sl «• «_ --•-- __ .. fus (II) I °� l' ls) (II (it? 1:•) ivr) (,1 »wM.r• '--\ ; — i i •�{ 1 �._-- .___...___ .+. •. + r .., RANT At r1foffoll" r1.75 r••1+ .1 1 Iln.•.w eetnr � !! f — .. 1 ; ? r 1.0. C!" It (t•1 �si(r(st .. r ; ' , ^�'- �`\ �•, ,, UFEINO HAIL ` AOt71110HR IT� i:il f ITJ7TI J771'CT 119BIII LLEVAIIpN Or . SCHOOL ADDITION 1.HerM IU.vntmr/S Ell : «::. °.. +. _ °;.» i,•rr 1•�t r�•) ISI) LIB •.,r,..I, ... .,., ,•�,�.... ,. ; WIRTAImi n ... CLARK. tARStil \ ' VT_ 7 J 11 I il) C [ Ii i l.[J�:CCCI r ...... ... r { u.Iv,rESt v \mon,G secrwrr., __ . - - — • Ell AIMI i — ---- -'— i .. --- Al PIrMIPgA (��tl ?ftt {r�SOUI\{ SEC flail Ell AHD -M —\ J7 _ 1 I' I •• Igv»n.. at..n _., FOUCATIO101 �_ _ ) • Af1D111(I1111 y I1 1 A . e (�ll? gill, SOVIH.Sa10olJDOI flail, SEC lJOrI - - - - -- 5f C rnl„! - -- _ ns 3 Of [,I( J_ I MOU UNI114vlj a ... .. ....... .... ._.... I!� _ ���.{i MJ�jtj�,( , � ' 14L • G01 � [f� r_ a•'�� ww.w. •w w.ww •. «.N Iw :b•1 •Y:�•IWI • , I ^ yyy ��� 777 WWW �(�� I � j� I' 1 C17 EI7' Ey/ 7 f ' YY •xMMIr 1Y 1iIWwY 11 i•wurl '. r ■ � ��I �- �I�� l 1 1) d) 60401isuav W1401 VDAU41 14V —G"x (1) G) Ivil GIMAM :: �' 1 _ �l 1 .:c� Eli �li������l�ll��l�i��lll_� =Z,:,1.;.,. X., r . .1.1 YII•iiM1 N.1 au/ I wwa•/ �._ ` k � [r1 •/'� .�i 1 1 I 1 `\ , 11 � 1) N: ,.:::> . I - JI `Y _ J.� Gj E ��ii`` � I I I � (I al I I I ) I I '. b.w t.4NNiNwN w1.111.1..111 WYM /a•y .•.n NII1 11•Iw.lu Nw a»/ � 1 • �� __ .._ lr 1 ' 1 9310to 0141MY14 1.1 11.1.11 u. .nx.••i •-- • � � 1161mvi n! TH m11s"0114 I ::::: Wvw X. ....... - ... .:::. � I l l l l l l l l l i l l l l l J.LI.I r�- �-�. -- _.» �,,, a1�Y11•I�IY .� �' -_ - __ -- - :_ -- 1 YI I I I I l l l l (l l l l l l l l l l l ((l 1 1 l! I I I� I I I I I► I I I I• 11�sav1 �� _ _ _ 1 1' ��.. l�� -- - ilifluBi Ion 01111NY14 UDINIrIrJ filr,Vnf. IICIItDIK / .._ ... _ _. th WIi TAI or I • .... «.. o.......... (VARY• • ...... .....,..,... IARSF1i . Arrbilnrb Inc R iiill�illlili lllllrilill111� - . � 1 ' 41f�li fflifffl��f!ffillllilflllfllflf ` �� \{/ "':;..::::: SAINT Al rNO n •• lrouela {- IG liili!IlllHJ.�_.._ — rAn/tN n f. q rIT t � n w r Y 1 1 1 i I I I I I I I I f i l l n c, n —..� ^^ `" , ^ IIIII!111f�Ifiifllliffilf � u1,lIM , «........- ^ n ^ uNl .Y•�r �` ♦ AND RDUCAPOMA _ I. T nn n Illllilllllll!IIIIIIII �,.....,....... �'� • � ....... i n ^ Drf' .' t7 .�rillftflflff��J, *� �• i' ,J I I w � ~rt ' * � r•i ... ._. ... .. �.�!!!l LI1J __.._.... n n A. i. j:......« 70111 AVOIlif i w -., _...... � .n« �. r..., � ' nnt•'s Yserr «:i, r . ,xrm �:waNm ..- .- - rAttnml.nr w. r .. ... ..•r. •.r F V ... 1A . n .. _ PS.1 114. AJA 4lll �.� � olyJrajuJul I1 )U1114) 11 ywrgt ^wy4 do C� C v► _ UIINUAV f .. ._. i Ju •. ulna 4LU()N - _ I l.lol 11 .. _ l • _ W� alalf 0 .� 1 »,.• ♦ W« •./ M•.N .111 kL ./ /wl,•INS I.r aMIIMI I/Y •J 41.1 l I• it • 1 ' NI IJ . I ' . I•., . ,.. w I» Y.yl^Y .. a4w •.••I•.• /..:�..+,i +���.w.nr 6 ••..) .a u..t - v Si v 1 51l U1J )vuJ/J 1'J Ic u - .. 1 .• A , J J'1 1• ,': :.l , I - - __ Y tu.ruu,IY l • a\ II. NIuM3 Iy Jluur// %w••4/ IuIJ y.y.wr. ry/ OI •. r.l ..I+ WVU uo VAJUAOU '1 % '• lo) . � I I �� •• _ V .•• 1 4•..— _.a�_..� JJJIIu,bi57J 1V9J1 + _ �� •, ..I\\\ttt _.... �� ._ —._A 1� '1 nCra QL. -- ....� 1 j _ I_— __....�6_ �.�.�. �..r .... •4w• A - — YYYY JII .1r. .Yq.M'•� ,u 1. _ r AYVw/N1YY. 01 r� yolnyp ryAOU04dI B YIIYNOIIdIY 1NIYY r •1 '� "` �•••- ^��„'• IIYI ..... �' ....._ ��: P s 1 L X ' - -• ....__.__..__�� y ' IftIJO dr",o ; S Ei1Al - lei -- -- . _ • _ 1_�•+L , w. 1 1 �...�•, .... "...1.....1 w. _I(!x — 71 7 W11.11 1• '0/111 1 , ,+....:' {''- .1 I 1 I 1 11 �1 .�::'t.•��:��_�:._. :... ...� . ;« _� , =illiiillll�lliillllll. ►1 I�, �L,I . , . S 1 , , ... � ' ` ' ;�YlYgl l' ' (llililililliilillllll•L.1� .� s . IOU Of. WA WA - mil 1 I u+•ai lu : Ial.. .i��. • u " ii ua� ..1141 t ' �' ; ; I° I t` � • '� J ` .... ,..., .•.. • w....w �. 1VN71OD1 I , 1 ..1 ` fir r •. �.•:. i�a.. �.:, •.......u...o..0 .� ..1iw. 1 ..4._........•� 1 � 1 � � •..� � ( i � i 1 I I ,..,. ...,.•, ..1.•, .1....1...1....11, ti. i ,,� � •� �, ._'.-1..... � � j ,ewa.. U..n .:; ;. ii us :.IJ N 1 �; bla. •� �• , 1 _ - - , 1 I i •..,..., r1 ti _r lu +n" 111 � ; .;: 1:... . 1 'S116N YJYIYVm V DIYLIVu lYlllll15 LYII (it uAl - 1 •.•1 WI X11 ' � •_ -, • I L I (JJI ,C...., •Ili •n_1 I I i , ,� ,� , 4 4 � 1 _ � f V5 Jf10 JI V15 tl711J00 L-.LOW •wl.., 1 11 .r . 1 o �• - t • • aurncn S A 1E Rflt cAl r i I I n e' w n w r .:•n n n v � ( �., ` • 11 '_ r _ �i ' • I � w w�M ��� r�. � t• I' � , i , 1 riTrrriTiTr� — FIT rrnur�n r ,.N.r ary•o •. r ' 1 • r ' t ♦i I� I I I I I I t (! i I i f F •r•rr nr r 1 r ; ... • .1 r:�i ytr�nr., I 7 I I ;tln ftAL VIIUIY IIUILS. t''� P' . I'r tl I I I I I I t I � •. N — / ,. •�+ !�mrr' rn. � � � : i ,�......r,..r . w... �.r. .. r nnr rr. I 4 ' � � � � � f , � � � � �� �� .w.r 1 ,) i , : � J .I .. ,• � rI'r .r• o; r.r r. .w. r... ._. .. ...r... .. .. I In• r I 1 Ii.Ni•„ _ 1 f .r, - .,. rwr, r... I I_ - -: 11 t , d - ,r 1 � - 11' f!r ► 1 .7 ILj 1 t �•.. � i `ti�' r• r.- •• .) / .,., r ..,...r. r..... r..r r ., r•..r_:; "r... 70TH - -• 1 � - - - ., o,.•r". N_ORTII .. '- - �••' :,� .. r... ...r rn ... t . r .., i x 7 MUM lMf IMO Md'Oge ••• .« - tr•rrn. trw ( rrrrn n /r•r • .• •r . . /.•r d u•I Mn r� ,nw4 r�rn .. ' M hen•ve vre rrr Atreml�ue l i /li /71., nr• y N7'1 ![rMmCN nr rUM •xrr • MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1997 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review St. Alphonsus Church Addition I have reviewed the above preliminary plat and offer the following comments at this time. Comments are based upon plans provided by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and received by the City on December 20, 1996. 1. The plan essentially provides for an addition to the west side of the existing church building. Included are revisions and adjustments to the existing parking lots, and the installation of storm sewer and on -site storm water retention. Based upon the size of the parcel. the site grading plan.will be subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management ement Commission. At this time the Watershed's engineer is reviewing the plan. Any approval of the site plan should also be subject to any additional approvals of the Shingle Creek Watershed ylanagement Commission. 2. It appears that substantial portions of the P arking lot will be re- worked. It is therefore recommended that concrete c g cu and utter be installed for all newly constructed parking lots. �. Based upon the size of the parcel, storm water retention will be required. A detention facility is proposed on the southwest portion of the property. Design of the retention facility shall be al subject to the review and the approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Discussions have also occurred regarding the possibility of a "regional" pond to serve not only the church property, but potential redevelopment lands adjacent to this ro erty and Brooklyn Boulevard. g' P F In the event such a re tonal facility should be constructed. it is possible that the smaller retention facility proposed may no longer be needed. It is recommended that the site engineer further review and evaluate the proposed drainage and storm sewer, system to accommodate the potential of a future regional facilin% If the proposed on -site retention facility is approved and constructed, a drainage • and utility easement shall be provided, and a utility and maintenance agreement shall be entered into by the City and St. Alphonsus. 4. No additional utility work(sanitary sewer or water) has been proposed. Any further utility requirements shall be subject to further review by the Ci ty Building Official. • • Revitw OF Rezonin" • Where property within the municipality has ben rezoned for a less restrictive land use .. s upon P petition of the owner or his agent pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, and where no structural work thereon has commenced within two (2) years of the date of the rezoning action by the City Council, the Planning Commission may review the zoning classification of the property in the light of the Comprehensive Plan and make appropriate recommendations to the City Council which may include the recommendation that the subject property be rezoned to permit a more restrictive use in conformance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 3 -? ' Io SPECIAL USE PERMITS. Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in the district. Before a building or premises is devoted to any use classified as a special use by this ordinance, a special use permit must be granted v P _ d b the ' P _ City Council. The following rules shall govern applications for a special use permit: 1. Procedures a. A "Special Use Permit" application shall be initiated by the owner of the subject property or his authorized agent. The application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing, study and report and may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has received the recommendation of the Commission, or until seventy-eight (73) days have elapsed from the date of referral of the application without a report by the Planning Commission. The date of referral is defied as the date of the public hearing. _ , Tae applicant Q pp or his authorze.. agent shall fill out and submit _ b to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application, copies of which are available at the municipal omces, together with a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution. The application shall be riled with the Secretary of the Pl'' o n_ Commission at least fourteen (14) days before the date of the public hearing. _ c. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission' y placing the application upon the agenda of the Commission's nett rev,:lar meeting, provided; however, that the Secretary may g , with the a -pproval of the Cha=' an of the Commission, place the Application on the aenda for a special .. _ meeting of the P!arining Commission. • -6 • d. No less than seven (7) days before the date of the hearin�z, the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners or occupants of all property within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject property when it is within the RI or R2 districts; and to the property owners or occupants of all property within 350 feet (including streets) of the subject property when it is within any district other than R1 or R2. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the procet-dings hereunder. e. The Planning Commission shall report its recommendation to the City Council not later than sixty (60) days f ollo wi ng ( ) folio vtn the date of referral to the Commis f. The application and recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (13) days following the recommendation of the Planning Commission, or in the event the Commission has failed to make a recommendation, within seventy -eight (73) days of the date of referral to the Commission. g Tne City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty -eight (43) days of the recommendation by the Planning Commission, or in the event the Commission has failed to' make anv recommendation within one hundred and ei • g (103) days of the date of re ht referral t o the Commission. h. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Planning Commission and of the City Council during which the appiicati:on i consi dered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Commission or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records, or other information (see Section 35 -230 Plan Approval) requested by the Commission or the City Council r nor the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. I• Tne Secretary of the Planning Commission, following the Commission's action upon the application, and the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action Taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. ?. Standards for St�ec�aI t se Permits A special use per-nit may be zanted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: a. T I s tab lish -ment, mainie:lanc.' or operation of the speciai us- `.Fill proliiOtZ and • enhance the aeaeral public "reifare and will not be detrimem ai to or endan?er the public health. sa.e -y. ricor-als or comfort. i b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of ocher property in the • immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted. nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. C. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress. egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction. maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ordinance. In all cases in which special use pennurs are granted. the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees • as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection therewith. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the Cit Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the Council for resubmission at an earlier time. �. Revocation and EVension of Special Use Pe --nits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. such Permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council ,,less the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the subject property within one year of the date the special use pe —m 't is granted, or unless before the expiration of th one year pe riod the appiicant shall apply for an extension thereof by tilling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Pe;: application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee in an amount as set forth ov the City Council resolution. • J Special use pernits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction • upon the subject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit related thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandonment. Section 35 - PLA:v APPROVAL. It is declared to be the policy of the City to preserve and promote an artractive, stable residential and business environment for its citizens through encouraging well conceived. high quality developments. To this end, imaginative architectural concepts shall be employed in the design of buildings and in the development of respective sites. In this regard, every person, before commencing the construction or major alteration of a structure, except one and t family dwellings and buildings accessory thereto, shall make application for plan approval from the City Council. Plan approval may be required in conjunction with special use permit consideration. The following rules shall govern applications for plan approval. I. Procedures a. A "Plan Approval" application shall be initiated by the owner of subject properrry or by his authorized agent. The applicant shall till out and submit to the Secretary of the • Planning Commission a "Plan Approval" application, copies of which are available at the municipal offices, together ,vith a lee in an amount as set forth by Cit Council resolution. The application shall be tiled with the Secretary of the Commission at least fourteen (14) days prior to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. b. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission by placing the application upon the agenda of the Commission's next regular meeting; provided, however, that the Secretary may, with the approval of the Chairman of the Commission, place the application on the agenda for a special meeting of the Planning Con - mission. C. 711 Planning Commission shall report its recommendation to the City Council not later than si.Yty (60) days following the date of referral to the Commission. 1 fie date ofrerer-ral is defused as the date upon which the application is first considered by the Planning Commission. d. Tice a �-, recommendation , Dplication �.d :e..ommendation of :.h.. place d on Commission shall be ptac.,d Q on the a or the City Council within eighteen (IS) days follov,:ng the recommendation of the Planning Con :mission, or in the event the Commission has failed to make a rzcor:^,mendatior.. within se -eight (7S) days of the date of refer -ai to the • Com=ission. ; -g -- -�- -- -- - - - - - -- • MINUTES F O THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 1997 CALL T O RDER The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting called to order by Chair Willson at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Mark Holmes, Rex Newman, and Dianne Reem were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Arlene Bergfalk. Commissioners Donald Booth and Brian Walker were excused. APPROVAL O F MINUTES - DECEMBER 12, 1996 There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to approve the minutes of the December 12, 1996 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. • .ADJOURN 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to adjourn the 1996 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The 1996 Planning Commission adjourned at 7:35 p.m. OATHS O OFFICE Mr. Warren administered oaths of office to Tim Willson and Dianne Reem, each reappointed to the Planning Commission for a two -year term expiring on December 31, 1995. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Commissioner Willson called to order the 1997 Planning Commission at 7:36 p.m. with Commissioners Holmes, Newman, Reem, and Willson present. Commissioners Donald Booth and Brian Walker were excused. ELECTION OF 1997 CHAIR AND 1997 CHAIR PRO TEM There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to nominate Commissioner Willson to the position of 1997 Chair of the Planning Commission. Nominations were closed. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Chair Willson, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to nominate Commissioner ,Holmes to the position of 1997 Chair Pro Tern, of the Planning Commission, Nominations were closed. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -15 -97 1 • CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 97001 ST. ALPHON S P ( SU AMM Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97001, a request for site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a meeting hall and educational wing addition to the St. Alphonsus Church, 7025 Halifax Avenue North. Prior to consideration of this application, N&. Warren stated that although Commissioner Holmes is a member of the applicant church, he is not a member of its building committee; therefore, according to the City Attorney, Holmes' participation in discussing and voting on this application does not present a conflict of interest. Commissioner Holmes affirmed that he is not a member of the church's building committee. The Secretary presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location and site and building plans for the project. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 97001 dated 1 -15 -97 attached. ) The 22,000 s .ft. addition includes classroerri educatora'. ace Q a, space, kitchen, and a meeting hall to be constructed on the west side of the existing church building along with a new entry and gathering area to be built on the south side of the present building. A canopy • will be built extending over the drop -off area at the south/main entry. The property is zoned R -1; churches are a special use in that zoning district. Parking on the site will be altered slightly; however, the resulting number of spaces will exceed that required by the zoning ordinance. The applicant's proposal to shift the center entrance/access along 70th Avenue creates a 80 -85 ft. offset measured from the center line of Indiana Avenue to the center line of the altered entrance. The staff recommends modification to the plan by either offsetting the entrance at least 125 ft. from the Indiana Avenue intersection or aligning the entrance across from Indiana Avenue (as it is now) to conform with City standards. Mr. Warren described the applicant's drainage, grading and utility plans which include new storm sewer /drainage system. He referred to the City Engineer's 1 -8 -97 memorandum regarding the plans. P Based on the size of the parcel, the site grading plan is subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Preliminary findings from the Commission raise no concerns with the applicant's plans. According to Mr. Warren, the landscaping, lighting and the proposed building exterior plans appear appropriate. As a special use in the R -1 zone, the church and any expansion is subject to specific standards outlined in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Warren compared the plans with the four standards and stated the standards are fully met for a special use permit, provided the plans are amended to urovide for • the proper offset for the relocated driveway from the Indiana Avenue intersection. 1 -15 -97 2 —Z�, - -...v .J. mss- -i,L -- G. �C�.�I I.GIJi CK r UJ • Mr. Warren stated the application appears to be in order and recommended approval subject to conditions 1 -12 outlined in the staff report which includes the access modification. Chair Willson called for questions from the Commissioners. In response to Chair Willson's inquiry regarding drainage on the site, Mr. Warren explained the existing run -off patterns. He was not aware of any problems because the existing sewer system and the large unimproved area adjacent to the site accommodate nun -o$: Further, the applicant's plans include installation of a new storm sewer system and construction of a water detention facility. Mr. Warren pointed out that future development of the westerly half of the church site and redevelopment of any adjacent areas would likely require construction of a regional pond for drainage purposes. Commissioner Reem inquired who will determine the location of the proposed access and whether future development would impact the work connected with this project. Mr. Warren stated the City Engineer will work with the applicant on the access question and indicated farther development of the church property would likely require an additional access. YBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 97001 ST ALPHONSUS CHURCID There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to open the public hearing on Application No. 97001 at 8 :15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mike Wirtanen, general architect for the project, stated there are four catch basins on the north property line of the site and run -off from the new addition will be taken care of by the retention pond. He clarified the use of the two entrances into the buildings at the front entry-way and noted that curb • and gutter installation will fully meet the A.D.A. requirements. With respect to the access, Mr. Wirtanen explained that the plans were developed taking into consideration a large 'ice on the property which is to remain untouched. He stated, however, that the plans will be revised to move the access 125 ft. from the Indiana Avenue intersection as recommended and the driveway will be curved around to allow for the tree. Although this revision will displace some parking, the requirements will still be met. Construction is expected to begin in March or April. Commissioner Holmes inquired whether the project is subject to any open space requirement. Mr. Warxen explained that is controlled by ordinances covering parking, setbacks, etc. Following discussion, the Commissioners did not interpose objections to the site and building plans or to the special use permit requested under Application No. 97001, submitted by St. Alphonsus Church. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 9700 1) There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to close the public hearing at 8 :20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for further questions from the Commissioners. There were none. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 97001 • There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 97001, a request for site and building plan approval 1 -15 -97 3 C�Si -.- %1771 1 J� Di �D1 1 VC. C'C.NIal f'rilzC U� • and a special use permit, submitted by St. Alphonsus church, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Special Use Permit is granted for the expansion of the St. Alphonsus'church for a meeting hall and educational wing including a kitchen facility. The use may not be altered or expanded beyond the specific approval without being consistent with the City's zoning regulations or an amendment to the Special Use Permit. 2. Building plans for the expansion project are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of approved site improvements. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic Bore extinguishing system • to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinance as determined by the Building Official. 7. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new or improved driving and parking areas. 8. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 9. The storm drainage system, grading plan and the design of the water detention facility are subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 10. Ponding areas required as a part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits_ 11. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. • 1 -15 -97 4 __ - v �� � _� l_ G, G' U -vG I.GYIGK r - ,;Ur- r1 • 12. The plan shall be modified to provide a proper offset of at least 125 ft. for the relocated access e proposed from the enter line of Indiana Avenue or align with Indiana Avenue. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Holmes, Newman, and Reem. The motion asse p d unanimously. The Council will consider the recommendation at its Monday, January 27, 1997 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Commissioners will require that the application be returned to the Commission for re- consideration. Chair Willson recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 97002 (BROOKDALE MITSUBISHI Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97002, a request from Brookdale Mitsubishi for r p lat ap to combine into one P ��azY P Pp lot four parcels of land addressed as 7223, 7227, 7231, and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location of the parcels. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 9746 % dat,d i -15 -97 attached.) This new lot when combined with a triangular shaped parcel of land located contiguous to the subject property in the City of Brooklyn Park will comprise the site for the Brookdale • Mitsubishi automobile dealership, Planning Commission Application No. 96017, approved by the Council on January 13, 1997. This application responds to an approval condition that requires replatting the four properties in Brooklyn Center into a single parcel and the adjoining piece of property in Brooklyn Park be dedicated to the site through a legal encumbrance. Mr. Warren described the individual parcels which when combined will total 7.035 acres, The legal description for the new plat will be Lot 1, Block 1, Metro Motors Addition. Mr. Warren referred to the City Engineer's memorandum dated 1 -8 -97 regarding the preliminary plat. Drainage and utility easements associated with the parcels will need to be vacated or eliminated as part of the filing of the new plat to accommodate construction of the buildings on the site. The City n :veer is ve3' Y g �n g whether a formal easement vacation ordinance is necessary or if filing of the new plat will adequately eliminate those easements. Mr. Warren stated the preliminary plat appears to be in order and recommended approval of the application subject to conditions 1 -5 outlined in the staff report. Chair Willson called for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Newman inquired whether Brooklyn Park has approved the replatting. Mr. Warren explained that since the parcel in that city was already a part of the previous Red Lobster Restaurant site, agreement to the platting should be routine. Newman also inquired about the status of the small piece of the site located on the south side of Shingle Creek. Mr. Warren indicated that while the piece is unusable by the owner, • it will remain a part of the repatted property to avoid potential future ownership /tax issues. 1 -15 -97 5 71I G %1G1.L1 i 1 VG I.CiY 1 GK 'i':ahG �1b • PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 97002 There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to open the public hearing on Application No. 97002 at 8:45 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Tim O Dougherty, representing the applicant, requested re- consideration of the need for a 10 ft. wide utility asement on the north orth. side of the re lasted property as recommended t r ommen b he City P P PAY Y Y Engineer. - Commissioner Reem inquired when the project will begin. Depending upon weather, document processing time, and resolution of the easement issue, work could commence within 60 -120 days. Following discussion, the Commissioners did not interpose any objections to the preliminary plat request under Application No. 97002. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING) APPLICATION NO 970021 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to close the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for further questions from the Commissioners. There were none. ACTION RECONIlVIENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 97002 There was a motion by Conmissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to recommend • to the Council that it approve Application No. 97002, a request from Brookdale Mitsubishi, for preliminary plat approval of parcels of land located at 7223, 7227, 7231, and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard, and a parcel of land located in Brooklyn Park contiguous to the properties, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the city ordinances. 3. The existing 10 ft. wide and 15 ft. wide drainage and utility easements located along either side of the driveway serving the current lot configuration shall be eliminated in a manner approved by the City Attorney, 4. The triangular shaped piece of property located in Brooklyn Park and adjacent to the subject property shall be dedicated to the use of this site through a legal encumbrance as approved by the City Attorney. Said encumbrance shall be filed with this plat at Hennepin County. 5. The area on the preliminary plat indicated as delineated wetland shall be protected by an easement in a manner and form approved by the City Attorney. Voting for: Chair Willson Commissioners • Holmes, Newman, and Reem. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -15 -97 6 ------ � .����_�� ��:,,Z.M r.,oc u. The Council will consider the recommendation at its Monday, January 27 1997 i� eeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Commissioner will require that the application be returned to the Commission for re- consideration. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Warren reviewed the status of the Brooklyn Boulevard improvement project. It appears that future plans probably consist of no more than milling and the street by Hennepin County. The Secretary distributed the full 1997 Commission meeting schedule and noted a correction: March 29 should be March 27. Mr. Warren informed the Commissioners that the first meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force will be at 7 p.m., Monday, February 3, 1997, in the Council Chambers. Subsequent meetings (including a public hearing) will be held in April, May, June, and July 1997. Commissioner Reem informed the Secretary and the Commissioners that she will be absent from the February 12 and March 27 Commission meetings. AAJOUX NNffiWr There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Reemm, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. • Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Arlene Bergfalk TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial • 1 -15 -97 7 • MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning nd Zoning S Tt 0- g g ecialist P Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 97002 Date: January 22, 1997 On the January 27, 1997 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 97002 submitted by BrookdaIe Mitsubishi requesting Preliminary Plat approval to combine four existing lots, addressed as 7223, 7227, 7231 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard, into a single lot as comprehended under the recent Planned Unit Development approval granted for an 18,000 sq. ft. automobile dealership at this location (Application No. 96017). Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 97002 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their January 15, 1997 meeting and was recommended for approval. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission. Also recommended for the City Council's consideration is a first reading on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land ( Brookdale Mitsubishi). This is a housekeeping ordinance amendment that will redescribe the properties rezoned through the Planned Unit Development approved for Brookdale Mitsubishi under City Council Resolution No. 97 -09 on January 13, 1997. The new description established by the platting will be utilized in this ordinance amendment. It is recommended that the City Council adopt for first reading the proposed ordinance amendment. • Planning Commission Information Sheet • Application No. 97002 Applicant: Brookdale Mitsubishi Location: 7223, 7227, 7231, & 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot, four parcels of land addressed as 7223, 7227, 72;1 and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard. This new lot when combined with an approximate 11,159 sq. ft. triangular shaped parcel of land located contiguous to the subject property, but in the city of Brooklyn Park, will comprise the site proposed for the Brookdale Mitsubishi automobile dealership comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 96017. The property in question is that for which rezoning and site and building plan approval under the Planned Unit Development process (Application No. 96017), was granted by the City Council on January 13, 1997. One of the conditions of that approval required that the property in Brooklyn Center be replatted into a single parcel of land and that the triangular piece of property in Brooklyn Park be dedicated to this site through a legal encumbrance. This application is , therefore, in response to that condition. y The property in question is bounded on the north by the common boundary line between the • cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park with the Toyota City Dealership and the small triangular shaped parcel of land mentioned above on the opposite side of the boundary; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard with C -1 zoned land containing the Re/Max real estate office building on the opposite side; on the south by R -3 zoned land containing the Creek Villa townhomes; and on the southwest by Shingle Creek and R -3 zoned land containing the Unity Place Co -op on the opposite side of the creek. The property addressed as 72;5 Brooklyn Boulevard and legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond, is the site of the former Red Lobster Restaurant. This parcel along with 7227 Brooklyn Boulevard, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Red Lobster Addition, containing an off -site parking lot dedicated for the sole use of the Red Lobster building and the approximate 11,159 sq. ft. triangular parcel of land located in Brooklyn Park made up the entire Red Lobster complex which has been abandoned. The total area of these three parcels is 134,535 sq. ft. or 3.033 acres. The property addressed as 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard, Iegally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond is 110.542 sq. ft. or 2.537 acres and contains a 6,031 sq. ft. building formerly occupied by the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP). This parcel is an irregularly shaped parcel with a long arm of land leading out to Brooklyn Boulevard containing an access road serving all the adjoining parcels. The parcel addressed as 7223 Brooklyn Boulevard, legally described as Lot 1. Block 1, Red Lobster Addition, is a vacant 1.409 acre parcel adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. • 1 -15 -97 Page 1 The total acreage of the plat in Brooklyn Center will be 6.773 acres. The total acreage for the • dealership, including the triangular shaped land in Brooklyn Park, will be 7.035 acres. As previously mentioned, the property in Brooklyn Park must be legally encumbered for the sole use of the Brooklyn Center property through a proper encumbrance approved by the City Attorney and filed with the final plat for this property. Currently there are 15 ft. wide drainage and utility easements Iocated both east and west of the existing access road servicing the parcels in question and part of the CEAP property. Also, 10 ft. wide drainage and utility easements are located on the CEAP property adjacent to the property line. These easements will have to be either vacated or eliminated as part of the filing of the new plat in order for Brookdale Mitsubishi to locate the buildings as they are proposing under the plan approved for Application No. 96017. The City Engineer is verifying whether a formal easement vacation ordinance will be necessary or if the riling of the new plat will be sufficient to eliminate these easements. The purpdse of these easements was to establish building and parking setbacks on the lots from the access road servicing the various properties under the existing configuration of the properties. The preliminary plat shows the location of delineated wetlands on the westerly portion of the property. This area will need to be protected by an easement. The City Engineer is also recommending standard 10 ft. wide drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the newly established lot. The proposed legal description for the new plat will be Lot 1, Block 1, Metro Motors Addition. A public hearing has been scheduled and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. RECOMMENDATION The preliminary plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: I- The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ?. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the city ordinances. he existing 10 ft. wide and 15 ft. wide drainage and utility easements located along either side of the drivewav serving the current lot configuration shall be eliminated in a manner approved by the City Attorney. ~ z. The triangular shaped piece of property located in Brooklyn Park and adjacent to the subject property shall be dedicated to the use of this site through a le?al encumbrance as approved by the City Attorney. Said encumbrance shall be tiled «zth this plat at • 1 -15-97 Page Hennepin County. • 5. The area on the preliminary plat indicated as delineated wetland shall be protected by an easement in a manner and form approved by the City Attorney. • • 1 -1; -97 Pate 3 0011 , - - - -- r �l - - -- - - -- If JAY XYll T.,1 - - I I T N 11Y Y►tr101t1 crx r 111010,11A AVE It - IAY.vw CEO ►► C �� J J r JlA1E jr JUIE . _ �. J� ►.i t•� It 3.iY 311Y \ ' ._� I AVE 1. _- C1 y y -1�r 7 KYLE )1 3A 311 U 1. 1 — ti ` ���I ► ••• vim► - - _ - - -- _ _. _ -- .- - - un 11 any llorYt1 COO 1 - 3 11011 _ -- ff 6tAJ011 A 1 VE. t . ..���-►'p ►_1 l- --- ---- ---- ,•.�, -r - -- — ►�oa.E'>�vE. It. v ; r •, �, f AVE. It. ~ I it 1NY (IVY AVE. 11. - -- -- y � r• R '^ l� It 3AY 1 EMY AVF. 11. Ni •` .. t .•i- , 'J to 1 Vt. If. PERRY �:. ;- J ,�r ►..� _. Jj 1 (.� G C = ►� _ _ _ �i iiwE. ►�. �. � � - r - - � ,� t. I t 1 It lAY 111 .� ' "V'U► = �n – : � _ - _ 1 ' l._ L1- :L[_.I -1..�. J._L.. _ -1- �- b ►_ < I ► C•, RS a - - - - - - _. l_I_I__IJ - - - P .GEtI Avi. H. � •� V � \\ GEIIf AVE. ii. �l, t- - - - - - - - - - • � � __ i - - - __ 4, N -lAY ) 1 ^-r \ �`• - - -- - _ _ i__I.1 t 1 �. v. Sc�f ( AVE. 11 - A Y 0 (1 3101 r � ► '.. t - - - - - - - rot i . DO AVE 0o►s � o , ( - i _ j � � ) t o AVE. tl, z �1- -- ( -t-t -� It 3AY 1 '\ t "" ~ d -t: — . - - -- -- I1?1. 1 j rill 4 Y U OMS UU III T VIII _ ,. .. _ - in>tl r>r 3n - �l► ►1 tu 1tt r �. .-- - -_ _ �.�1_U.1lLLl1 -L VERA UNi AVE. Y [J /' V / /( 7NOO` 'S ��YjI � y �_ '' \ , `• t ! • �.% � �f � ♦ f = � t o r fix -44 j CA ry;:Yt J J /l /�, v / r •, : f >,, ,z „ + � , ♦ lyric � �; ;i . � � Q 3 q AN a _ It It If r, t 1�! L Yfiqu Jk l � r � n ♦ a r tZY r I;nr1+ J j+' a fur. ftf[' , �sy/,+tr.1 / ;Av t / li G 4 Al P 5 ' ' ' ;y i ► I! t let �,'' � � /` 3 • j � t •tt tt'ttDDDU�� jjj �!lIJJ ir � i = �g� I • MEM0RANDUN1 DATE: January 3, 1997 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Review Nfetro Motors Addition A preliminary plat prepared by Harry S. Johnson Companies, Inc, was received by the City on December 23, 1996. I have reviewed the plat and offer the following comments at this time: 1. The plat will be subject to the review and approval of Hennepin County. 2. The final plat will require additional drainage and utility easements around proposed wetland and ponding areas. flood plains, and around the perimeter of the property. The plat may also be subject to additional easement requirements of • Hennepin County along Brooklyn Boulevard. The property owner shall be required to sign into a maintenance and utility agreement with the City prior to any further approvals. 4. The plat and related site plan shall be subject to any additional requirements of the Shingle Creep Watershed Management Commission. • ID v_ — _..-__ A na= �,i —r 1. -GF'4 C;[ ri -i4'C d- • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TSB PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF NM NESOTA REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15, 1'997 CALL TO DjaER The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting called to order by Chair Willson at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Mark Holmes, Rex Newman, and Dianne Reem were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Arlene Bergfalk. Commissioners Donald Booth and Brian Walker were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 12. 1996 There was a motion by Commissioner Reem,, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to approve the minutes of the December 12, 1996 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURN 1996 PL- G COMMISSION There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to adjourn the 1996 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The 1996 Planning Commission adjourned at 7:35 p.m. OATHS OF OFFICE Mr. Warren administered oaths of office to Tim Willson and Dianne Reem, each reappointed to the Planning Commission for a two -year term expiring on December 31, 1998. CALL TO ORDER AND R QLL CALL Commissioner Willson called to order the 1997 Planning Commission at 7:36 p.m. with Commissioners Holmes, Newman, Reem, and Willson present. Commissioners Donald Booth and Brian Walker were excused. ELECTION OF 1997 CHAIR AND 1997 CHAIR PRO TEM There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to nominate Commissioner Willson to the position of 1997 Chair of the Planning Commission. Nominations were closed. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Chair Willson, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to nominate Commissioner . Holmes to the position of 1997 Chair Pro Tern of the Planning Commission. Nominations were closed. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -15 -97 1 _ -.,,�, �� �_ "`c -vim cr rra:c rJ� • CHAIR'S McLANATION Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an „advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 97001 (ST ALPHONSUS PABB -M Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97001, a request for site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a meeting hall and educational wing addition to the St. Alphonsus Church, 7025 Halifax Avenue North. Prior to consideration of this application, Mr. Warren stated that although Commissioner Holmes is a member of the applicant church, he is not a member of its building committee; therefore, according to the City Attorney, Holmes' participation in discussing and voting on this application does not present a conflict of interest. Commissioner Holmes affirmed that he is not a member of the church's building committee. The Secretary presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location and site and building plans for the project. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 97001 dated 1 -15 -97 attached.) The 22,000 sq.ft. addition includes classrooms, educationa' space, kitchen, and a meeting hall to be constructed on the west side of the existing church building along • with a new entry and gathering area to be built on the south side of the present building. A canopy will be built extending over the drop -off area at the south/main entry. The property is zoned R - churches are a special use in that zoning district. Parking on the site will be altered slightly; however, the resulting number of spaces will exceed that required by the zoning ordinance. The applicant's proposal to shift the center entrance /access along 70th Avenue creates a 80 -85 ft. offset measured from the center line of Indiana Avenue to the center line of the altered entrance. The staff recommends modification to the plan by either offsetting the entrance at least 125 ft. from the Indiana Avenue intersection or aligning the entrance across from Indiana Avenue (as it is now) to conform with City standards. .Mr. Warren described the applicant's drainage, grading and utility plans which include new storm sewer /drainage system. He referred to the City Engineer's 1 -8 -97 memorandum regarding the plans. Based on the size of the parcel, the site grading plan is subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Preliminary findings from the Commission raise no concerns with the applicant's plans. According to Mr. Warren, the landscaping, lighting and the proposed building exterior plans appear appropriate. As a special use in the R -1 zone, the church and any expansion is subject to specific standards outlined in the zoning ordinance. IVtr. Warren compared the plans with the four standards and stated • the standards are frilly met for a special use permit, provided the plans are amended to provide for the proper offset for the relocated driveway from the Indiana Avenue intersection. 1 -15 -97 2 1 - VC. l..=i`11 C-M r`r+UG Ur • Mr. Warren stated the application appears to be in order and recommended approval subject to conditions 1 -12 outlined in the staff report which includes the access modification. Chair Willson called for questions from the Commissioners. In response to Chair Willson's inquiry regarding drainage on the site, Mr. Warren explained the existing run -off patterns. He was not aware of any problems because the existing sewer system and the large unimproved area adjacent to the site accommodate run -off Further, the applicant's plans include installation of a new storm sewer system and construction of a water detention facility. Mr. Warren pointed out that future development of the westerly half of the church site and redevelopment of any adjacent areas would likely require construction of a regional pond for drainage purposes. Commissioner Reem inquired who will determine the location of the proposed access and whether future development would impact the work connected with this project. Mr. Warren stated the City Engineer will work with the applicant on the access question and indicated further development of the church property would likely require an additional access. PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 97001 ST ALPONSUS C IRC There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to open the public hearing on Application No. 97001 at 8 :15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Mike Wirtanen, general architect for the project, stated there are four catch basins on the north property line of the site and run -off from the new addition will be taken care of by the retention pond. He clarified the use of the two entrances into the buildings at the front entry-way and noted that curb and gutter installation will fully meet the A.D.A. requirements. With respect to the access, Mr. Wirtanen explained that the plans were developed taking into consideration a large tree on the property which is to remain untouched. He stated, however, that the plans will be revised to move the access 125 ft. from the Indiana Avenue intersection as recommended and the driveway will be curved around to allow for the tree. Although this revision will displace some parking, the requirements will still be met. Construction is expected to begin in March or April. Commissioner Holmes inquired whether the project is subject to any open space requirement. Mr. Warren explained that is controlled by ordinances covering parking, setbacks, etc. Following discussion, the Commissioners did not interpose objections to the site and building plans or to the special use permit requested under Application No. 97001, submitted by St. Alphonsus Church. CLOSE RUBUIC HEARING APPLICATIO NO. 97001 There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to close the public hearing at 8 :20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for further questions from the Commissioners. There were none. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 97001 • There was a motion by Commissioner Reen), seconded by Commissioner Newman, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 97001, a request for site and building plan approval 1 -15 -97 3 tli ...`. /1`:I7r iI :.» bi- Cµ.a`JZ)iI C. "'C- QI-vC. i'C-N1r -M t'Fl7C U4 • and a special use permit, submitted by St. Alphonsus church, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Special Use Permit is granted for the expansion of the St. Alplionsds'church for a meeting hall and educational wing including a kitchen facility. The use may not be altered or expanded beyond the specific approval without being consistent with the City's zoning regulations or an amendment to the Special Use Permit. 2. Building plans for the expansion project are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 4. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of approved site improvements. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. • 6. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinance as determined by the Building Official. 7. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new or improved driving and parking areas. 8. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 9. The storm drainage systern, grading plan and the design of the water detention facility are subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 10. Ponding areas required as a part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by approved easement. The easement document shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of permits. 11. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. • 1 -15 -97 4 __.,;p C1��+�_...._� ... ,1G�,ui�vC 12. The plan shall be modified to provide a proper offset of at least 125 ft. for the proposed relocated access from the center line of Indiana Avenue or align with Indiana Avenue. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Holmes, Newman, and Reem. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the recommendation at its Monday, January 27, 1997 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Commissioners will require that the application be returned to the Commission for re- consideration. Chair Willson recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. APPLICATIO —N NO 97002 (BROOKDALE MITSUBISHI Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97002, a request from Brookdale Mitsubishi for preliminary plat approval to combine into one lot four parcels of land addressed as 7223, 7227, 7231, and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location of the parcels. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 970GA dated 11-15-97 attached.) This new lot when combined with a triangular shaped parcel of land located contiguous • to the subject property in the City of Brooklyn Park will comprise the site for the Brookdale Mitsubishi automobile dealership, Planning Commission Application No. 95017, approved by the Council on January 13, 1997. This application responds to an approval condition that requires replatting the four properties in Brooklyn Center into a single parcel and the adjoining piece of property in Brooklyn Park be dedicated to the site through a legal encumbrance. Mr. Warren described the individual parcels which when combined will total 7.03 5 acres. The legal description for the new plat will be Lot 1, Block 1, Metro Motors Addition. Mr. Warren referred to the City Engineer's memorandum dated 1 -8 -97 regarding the preliminary plat. Drainage and utility easements associated with the parcels will need to be vacated or eliminated as part of the filing of the new plat to accommodate construction of the buildings on the site. The City Engineer is ve ifying whether a formal easement vacation ordinance is necessary or if filing of the new plat will adequately eliminate those easements. Mr. Warren stated the preliminary plat appears to be in order and recommended approval of the application subject to conditions 1 -5 outlined in the staff report. Chair Willson called for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Newman inquired whether Brooklyn Park has approved the replatting. Mr. Warren explained that since the parcel in that city was already a part of the previous Red Lobster Restaurant site, agreement to the platting should be routine. Newman also inquired about the status of the small piece of the site located on the south side of Shingle Creek. Mr. Warren indicated that while the piece is unusable by the owner, • it will remain a part of the replatted property to avoid potential future ownership /tax issues. 1 -15 -97 5 '_, _•,. -�•_•' '71�+:a::.i_ 1. C_ LGiYiC[ PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 97002) There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to open the public hearing on Application No. 97002 at 8:45 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. NIr. Tim ODougherty, representing the applicant, requested re-consideration of the need for a 10 ft. wide utility easement on the north side of the replatted property as recommended by the City Engineer. Commissioner Reem inquired when the project will begin. Depending upon weather, document processing time, and resolution of the easement issue, work could commence within 60 -120 days. Following discussion, the Commissioners did not interpose any objections to the preliminary plat request under Application No. 97002. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGI APPLICATION NO 970021 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to close the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for further questions from the Commissioners. There were none. ACTION RECONEVIENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 97002 . There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 97002, a request from Brookdale Mitsubishi, for preliminary plat approval of parcels of land located at 7223, 7227, 7231, and 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard, and a parcel of land located in Brooklyn Park contiguous to the properties, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the city ordinances. 3. The existing 10 f. wide and 15 ft. wide drainage and utility easements located along either side of the driveway serving the current lot configuration shall be eliminated in a manner approved by the City Attorney. 4. The triangular shaped piece of property located in Brooklyn Park and adjacent to the subject property shall be dedicated to the use of this site through a legal encumbrance as approved by the City Attorney. Said encumbrance tY Y anc shall be filed with this plat s p at Hennepin County. 5. The area on the preliminary plat indicated as delineated wetland shall be protected by an easement in a manner and form approved by the City Attorney. Voting for: Chair Willson, Commissioners Holmes, Newman, and Reem. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -15 -97 6 14K I' -fib Th e Council will consider the recommendation at its Monday, January 27, 1991 mebting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Commissioner will require that the application be returned to the Commission for re- consideration. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Warren reviewed the status of the Brooklyn Boulevard improvement project. It appears that future plans probably consist of no more than milling and he street b Hennepin Count g Y . p y The Secretary distributed the full 1997 Commission meeting schedule and noted a correction: March 29 should be March 27. Mr. Warren informed the Commissioners that the first meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force will be at 7 p.m., Monday, February 3, 1997, in the Council Chambers. Subsequent meetings (including a public hearing) will be held in April, May, June, and July 1997. Commissioner Reem Wormed the Secretary and the Commissioners that she will be absent from the February 12 and March 27 Commission meetings. ADJOMN There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. • Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Arlene Bergfalk TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial • 1 -15 -97 7 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 244tt a day of Few 1997, at at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (BROOKDALE MITSUBISHI) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner. . Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (C -1). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (Cl) Service /Office District zoning classification: [Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond Addition.] Section 35 -1190. COMMERCE DISTRICT (C2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (C2) Commerce District zoning classification: [Lot 3, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond Addition.] Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development zoning classification: 4. The follow' rties are designated as PUD /C2 (Planned Unit Develol2ment/Commercel • Lot 1 Block 1 Metro Motors Addition: Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication • Adopted this day of , 1997. ORDINANCE NO. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) • • �w City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carm , Hilstro Lasm and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager ' DATE: January 23, 1997 SUBJECT: City Council Liaison Reports Mayor Kragness requested that an agenda item be discussed regarding having regular reports from City Council Members on the activities of the commissions for which they serve as liaisons. The suggested format would be to include in Council Reports an update from Council liaisons regarding the activities of their commissions. This would then result in a regular report once a month after the commission meetings if the City Council wished to implement this format. • • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer �6 IMPACT MANAGEMENT SERVICES._.____.__:... _ 5637 BROOKLYN BOULEVAR • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5! December 3,1996 Kristen Mann 5415 East Twin lake Boulevard Brooklyn Center, Mn 55429 Dear Ms. Mann: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Mallard Creek Twinhome Association located near 69th and Unity Avenue in Brooklyn Center. This 18 -year old complex consists of 134 homeowners/ voters. These homeowners have a real need to dedicate their private streets to the city. The two cul -de -sac streets I am speaking of are 70th & 71st Circle N. just off Unit Avenue. These are p resentl y p g 1 y p y well - maintained streets in which all city maintenance vehicles, such as fire trucks and plowing types, have no problem driving through without having to back up. The reasons for interest in such a dedication are as follows: 1) The homeowners are paying the same taxes as others in Brooklyn Center and are not receiving the same benefits. In fact, identical homes blocks apart receive different benefits and pay the same taxes. 2) The city is in the business of street maintenance and has such expertise whereas the association must reinvent the wheel everytime something must be done. 3) The city already plows most of the streets within the association grounds; why have the city plows pass up two one -block streets? In fact, the city sometimes forgets and plows the private streets. The fact is they are better • equipped to handle streets than most private contractors. The association has made an attempt in the past of dedicating the streets to the city and a city ordinance was cited dealing with the set back of homes on these two blocks. The fear of the city t that time was the magnitude of the probl Y , g p rrpin Llec. - 2 - • i.e. how many others are out there that would want to do likewise. According to a city engineer and our own canvasing of the entire city, we find no other similar situations as ours. And, of course, unlike Brooklyn Park, no new developments will take place in our city. In fact, in our canvasing, we found many streets that were much harder to maintain or similar to ours that were already being maintained by the city. There are many deadend streets in Brooklyn Center where the plow cannot turn around and must back up. I think you will agree that after analyzing this situation, you will be in favor of approving the dedication of these two streets to the city. The result will be a fairer treatment to these homeowners without taking on a great degree of new responsiblity for the city. A win -vrin situation for the city council. The homeowners would be happy to attend a meeting to answer any questions you might have regarding this subject as they are eagerly looking forward to obtaining a solution to the problem. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future. I can be reached by phone at 533 -0960 or fax at 533 -1849 to answer an q uestions. Yq Sincerely, FOR E MALLARD REEK TWINHOME ASSOCIATION Roger A. Gorman Property Manager cc: City Council Members Board of Directors, Mallard Creek • City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. January 22, 1997 Mr. Roger A. Gorman Property Manager Impact Management Services 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Gorman: City staff has reviewed the letter that you sent to the City Council regarding the Mallard Creek Twinhome Association request to have the City take over the maintenance of private streets. Attached is a copy of the analysis done by Diane Spector, Director of Public Services. This report will be presented to the City Council at their regular meeting of January 27 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. City staff would be happy to meet with you to discuss the recommendation contained in Ms. Spector's memorandum prior to the City Council meeting. You are certainly welcome to present any comments or observations that you may have regarding your request directly to the City Council. z McC ey ger enc. cc: Mayor and Council Members Diane Spector • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, IWN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer Public Services Department In MEMORANDUM Govt Buildings TO: Michael McCauley FROM: Diane Spector "� Engineering �,/ SUBJ: Request From Mallard Creek Twinhome Association Streets Re: Dedication of Private Streets VTO DATE: January 13, 1997 Parks I have reviewed the letter from Mr. Roger Gorman from the Mallard Creek Public Twinhome Association regarding his request that the City accept the dedication Utilities of street easements over two private streets in the twinhome area. Representatives of the developer and later the associations have made similar requests since the time the development was built. I offer the following comments: Recreation e 1) Because these two streets were developed as private streets, they did not have to meet the right of way requirements of the platting ordinance. The existing right of way is 32 feet, which is essentially the street width Central Garage back of curb to back of curb. The platting ordinance requires 60 feet, with the additional right of way providing for snow storage, utility placements, and maintenance and construction easements. The developer chose to develop these as private streets because there was insufficient area for both adequate public right of way and developable parcels. If the City chose to accept the proposed dedication, we would also need to obtain easement dedications from each adjacent property owner providing us with the authority to encroach upon their private property for snow storage, curb and gutter repair, catch basin repairs, and any other type of maintenance which would require the City to enter upon or otherwise use their private property. There are 65 parcels which abut the two private streets and thus 65 maintenance easements needed. 2) As these are private streets, the development did not have to meet some of the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Many of the units abutting 70th and 71st Circles do not meet setback requirements. Section 35-400 of the zoning ordinance requires that one and two family dwellings be set back at least 35 feet from the right of way line. If these streets were to be dedicated to the public, in the event a catastrophic event such as a fire, flood, or storm destroyed at least 51 percent of a unit, that unit • could not be rebuilt because it could not meet these minimum requirements. January 13, 1997 • Page 2 3) As private streets, 70th and 71st Circles are not subject to all of the provisions of the ordinances which regulate uses of public streets, which actually could be an advantage to the Association. For example, on a private street, the Association can establish a speed limit which is lower than the state- mandated 30 mph. As a public street, the speed limit must be 30 mph and may only be lowered by the Commissioner of Transportation after an extensive traffic study. As a private street, the Association may allow overnight parking, whereas as a public street overnight parking would be banned. Of course, the Association would be responsible for enforcing these regulations. 4) The cul -de -sacs at the end of these streets are of a 45 foot radius. The platting ordinance requires a 50 foot radius. Circles with a radius less than 50 feet are very difficult to plow with our equipment. We have not been able to satisfactorily clean the public cut -de -sacs with our standard plows. It now takes a few to several days after a storm to get different equipment out to get the circles, hammerheads, and dead ends reasonably clear. Private services are actually better equipped to provide this type of service because they generally use smaller, more maneuverable equipment. In addition, because of the short setbacks and the numerous driveways, there is very little snow storage available on these streets. Snow accumulations of more than a few inches must be hauled out. Snow hauling is one of our street maintenance division's lowest priorities. If the City were to take on maintenance of 70th and 71st Circles, the property owners in the cul -de -sacs may see a lower quality of service for snowplowing than that to which they are accustomed. • 5) The construction of these streets is substandard compared to the typical residential street. These streets were built with 4" of class 5 aggregate base and 2" of bituminous wear course. A typical City street is constructed with 6" of class 5 base, 2" of bituminous base course and 1 1 /2" of bituminous wear course. These streets will not be as long -lived as a typical residential street, will require more patching, crack sealing, overlay, and sealcoating than a typical city street, and will need to be reconstructed relatively soon. Under our Pavement Management Program a public street in that condition would likely receive only minimal street maintenance until it came up for reconstruction. For public street improvements, abutting property owners would be subject to special assessments, which per property for 1997 are $2,000 for streets and $650 for storm drainage. 6) We have fairly minimal as- builts for these streets and utilities, but we do know that some portions of the sanitary sewer were installed at depths shallower than recommended standards. The watermain on 71st Circle loops with the watermain on 72nd Circle, which is also a private street with private utilities. Before the City could consider accepting dedication of water, sanitary, and storm utilities, the sanitary and storm sewers would have to be televised at the Association's expense, and the watermain and hydrant leads potholed. These inspections would be necessary to document the condition of the utilities. Maintenance agreements would have to be revised. 7) The City Attorney would require review of title to the parcels which would be dedicated as street easements to determine if the there are encumbrances or defects which might limit the • City's ability or desire to make investments in maintenance and construction. This would be at the Association's expense. January 13, 1997 • Page 3 8) The argument that the townhome property owners are paying the same taxes as other properties but not getting the same level of services reflects a common misperception. Many property owners believe that their property taxes go to pay for the services which are provided directly to their property, or in other words, if $1 of their property taxes goes towards snowplowing that $1 pays for the snowplowing on the street in front of their house. In reality, that $1 is their share of the cost of providing snowplowing throughout the city. I'm assuming that the residents of the Association drive on Unity Avenue, 69th Avenue, and other City maintained streets and receive the benefit of snow removal and other maintenance performed there. . 9) Mr. Gorman notes that "The city is in the business of street maintenance and has such expertise whereas the association must- reinvent the wheel everytime something must be done." There are numerous private management firms with substantial experience in property maintenance; contracting with such a firm may be an option for this Association. There are also property association advocacy groups that might be sources of good information. Finally, the various associations in Brooklyn Center may wish to organize themselves similar to the way the apartment owners and managers organized themselves into the Association for Rental Management of Brooklyn Center. Associations can then share the expertise gained by their peers so that they don't have to `reinvent the wheel' everytime something new comes up. 10) There are fifteen townhome or apartment developments in the City with private roadways: • ♦ Madsen Floral Townhomes ♦ Moorwood Townhouses ♦ Evergreen Estates ♦ Creek Villas ♦ Marvin Gardens ♦ Victoria Townhouses ♦ Unity Place Co -ops ♦ Mallard Creek Townhomes ♦ Earle Brown Farm Townhomes ♦ Humboldt Square Estates ♦ Rosemary Terrace ♦ Earle Brown Farm Estates ♦ Riverwood Townhomes ♦ Hi Crest Square Estates ♦ Brookwood Townhouses In addition, there are private roadways in the commercial area south of CR 10 between Xerxes and Brooklyn Boulevard and in two locations in the industrial park north of I -694. In all cases these developments were constructed with private roadways because the abutting property owners or owners' associations 1) desired more control over the roadway than they could have with a public street, or 2) accepted the responsibility of private roads so that they could benefit in other ways, such as the ability to: build a greater number of units; have increased flexibility; • utilize less costly substandard construction; build utilizing substandard setbacks; and have other relief from ordinance requirements. January 13, 1997 • Page 4 In summary, the City has been approached a number of times by various townhome associations which, faced with increased maintenance costs, have requested the City to take over the burden of maintenance. This is a burden that the developer accepted, and of which the property owners were presumably fully aware when they purchased their properties. If the City were to accept public dedication of these streets, it would be placing itself in the difficult and undesirable position of having to tell people they cannot rebuild their property after it has been damaged, or they cannot remodel or add on to their property because they would not conform to setback requirements. There would also be a not insignificant additional expense for maintenance of substandard streets and utilities. • • • MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmember Kathleen Carmody Councilmember Debra Hilstrom Councilmember Kay Lasman Councilmember Robert Peppe FROM: Myrna Kragness, Mayor A f '0 A DATE: January 23, 1997 SUBJECT: City Advisory Commission Nominations As outlined in our policy for filling commission vacancies, I would request ratification from Council Members for the nomination of the following persons: Financial Commission Michael Weidner 6319 Scott Avenue North Human Rights and Resources Commission • Karyn Huemoeller 3101 Quarles Road Leona Raisch 2106 55th Avenue North Shawn Taylor 3955 69th Avenue North Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission Bonnie Jude 1315 63rd Lane Park and Recreation Commission Richard Theis 3006 Thurber Road ® MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk Jlaw *mw_s t DATE: January 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Mayoral Appointments: 1) Financial Commission; 2) Human Rights and Resources Commission; 3) Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council; and 4) Park and Recreation Commission Financial Commission s on On December 31, 1996, the Financial Commission term of Lee Anderson expired, and he chose to resign from the Commission, leaving one vacancy on the Financial Commission. Attached for City Council Members only are the applications received as follows: Stephen Erdmann 4919 61 st Avenue North Michael Weidner 6319 Scott Avenue North Human Rights and Resources Commission • In November 1996, Dean Nyquist resigned from the Human Rights and Resources Commission; in mid - December 1996, Commissioner Charles Forrest informed the City he was moving to Brooklyn Park; and on December 31, 1996, the term of Commissioner Charlotte Nesseth expired, leaving three vacancies on the Human Rights and Resources Commission. Attached for City Council Members only are the applications received as follows: Karyn Huemoeller 3101 Quarles Road Leona Raisch 2106 55th Avenue North Shawn Taylor 3955 69th Avenue North Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission On December 31, 1996, the term of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commissioner Phyllis Owens expired, and she chose to resign from the Commission, leaving one vacancy on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission. Attached for City Council Members only are the applications received as follows: Bonnie Jude 1315 63rd Lane Park and Recreation Commission On December 31, 1996, the Park and Recreation Commission term of Kay Lasman expired, and she submitted a letter of resignation from the Commission, leaving one vacancy on the Park and • Recreation Commission. Attached for City Council Members only are the applications received as follows: Victor Henry 5819 June Avenue North Richard Theis 3006 Thurber Road �I Mayoral Appointments Page 2 January 23, 1997 Notice of vacancy on the commissions was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post on December 30, 1996, and January 8, 1997. Notice was posted at City Hall and Community Center and aired on Cable Channel 37 from December 1, 1996, through January 17, 1997. g �'y A letter was sent to those persons who previously had submitted an application for appointment to a Brooklyn Center advisory commission notifying them of the vacancy. Notices were also sent to current advisory commission members. Attached is a memorandum from Mayor Kragness indicating her nominations. Letters were sent to each applicant notifying them that their application for appointment would be considered at the January 27, 1997, Council meeting and they were invited to attend. Attached is a table which indicates the geographical distribution by neighborhood of the applicants and current members of the commissions. Also attached are the procedures for filling commission vacancies adopted by the City Council on March 27, 1995. Recommended Council Action: • Motion by Council to ratify the nominations by Mayor Kragness with terms expiring as follows: Financial Commission (one vacancy) term to expire 12/31/99 Human Rights and Resources Commission (three vacancies) one term to expire 12/31/97 one term to expire 12/31/98 one term to expire 12/31/99 Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Commission (one vacancy) term to expire 12/31/98 Park and Recreation Commission (one vacancy) term to expire 12/31/99 Attachments • • City of Brooklyn Center Financial Commission Geographical Distribution (Chairperson and Six Members) Applicants and Current Members January 23, 1997 Neighborhoods P�L�c�� Current Members Southeast Northeast Jerald Blarney 7136 Willow Lane North Northwest W e st ent C ra 1 gh Ron Christensen 61 June Avenue North • ::........:.....:...........:.;;;:;;:.;;:::::.::::.::.:: ;.::;.::::::.:;;:::;::;;:.::::. Lawrence a ce P et erson 30 J ve North 5830 une A venue N Central Donn Escher 3107 65th Avenue North Southwest Jay Hruska 5012 North Lilac Drive Ned Storla 4206 Lakeside Avenue North #328 One vacancy. • City of Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission Geographical Distribution (Chairperson and Eight Members) Applicants and Current Members January 23, 1997 Neighborhoods ��1��,. t Current Members Southeast ea st ... Sherry Maddox t;:.;;:.; :..:::::'.::.;:.:.r.:::.:::::.: 5711 Knox Avenue North Northeast Rhonda Braziel 7224 Newton Avenue North -i: Northwest S haron A htelik :::<►.. E?; ?::::::::::> :i::i«i::<:<:::i:;;; >: >i::i::ii 3213 Thurber Road West Central Neng Yang • 4306 63rd Avenue North Central ancy Doucette t... ... ::;:.; .....::::::::.:::.: ;::. 5949 Zenith Avenue North Southwest Wayde Lerbs 5107 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Three vacancies. • City of Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission Geographical Distribution by Park Service Area (P.S.A.) (Chairperson and Six Members) Applicants and Current Members January 23, 1997 Park Service Area Applican #s Current Members P.S.A. I Thomas Shinnick 5324 Oliver Avenue North P.S.A. II Gail Ebert 1613 Irving Lane P.S.A. III Richard Theis Bud Sorenson 3006 Thurber Road ;i 6901 Toledo Avenue North • P.S.A. IV Vrctor Henry 5$19 June Avenue North P.S.A. V Art Mead 3825 56th Avenue North Don Peterson 3715 58th Avenue North John Russell 5312 N. Lilac Drive One vacancy. • City of Brooklyn Center Procedures for Filling Commission/Task Force Vacancies Adopted by Council 3/27/95 , The following rocess for fillip commission/task force vacancies was approved b the City Council P g PP Y tY at its March 27, 1995, meeting: Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by Mayoral appointment with majority consent of the City Council. The procedure for filling Commission vacancies is as follows: 1. Notices of vacancies shall be posted for 30 days before any official City Council action is taken; 2. Vacancies shall be announced in the City's official newspaper; 3. Notices of vacancies shall be sent to all members of standing advisory commissions; 4. Applications for Commission membership must be obtained in- the City • Clerk's office and must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk; 5. The City Clerk shall forward copies of the applications to the Mayor and City Council; 6. The Mayor shall identify and include the nominee's application form in the City Council agenda materials for the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented; 7. The City ouncil b majority vote may approve an appointment at the City tY � Y J t3' � Y PP Ply Council meeting at which the nominee is presented. • MEMORANDUM DATE: January 9, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Services�� SUBJECT: The Assessment Stabilization and Senior Deferral Programs Previously the Council discussed eliminating the Assessment Stabilization Program and relying on the Senior Deferral Program to provide some assessment relief. This memo provides background, and summarizes the recommended amendments to the existing Senior Deferral program to "fine tune" it and reduce the long -term costs to both the participating property owners and the City. Council Direction Requested 1) The Assessment Stabilization Program was initiated with no designation of a permanent funding source, and thus no guarantee that the City would be able to continue making such grants. There are not sufficient funds available in the Local State Aid fund to continue the program and also to finance the other improvements for which the fund was established. Therefore, unless the Council designates another source of funding, the Assessment Stabilization Program should be • discontinued. Council direction needed: Should the Assessment Stabilization Program be formally discontinued? 2) Brooklyn Center first adopted an assessment deferral program for seniors in 1978. This program is still in place and available to "take over" for the Assessment Stabilization Program for senior homeowners. After an extensive review I believe the existing program is adequate, except in two areas. It is in these areas that Council direction is necessary: a) The income limit for participation in the senior deferral program is established as the HUD two- person low income limit, regardless of household size. In 1996 that limit is $33,300. I would recommend changing that cap to the very low income limit, by household size. For 1996, this would reduce the cap for a two- person household from $33,300 to $21,850. Council direction needed: Should the income cap be changed to the very low income limit by household size, or retained at the HUD two person low income limit? b) The current policy requires interest to accrue indefinitely on the deferred part of the assessment. Some young seniors could continue to own their homes for fifteen or twenty more years, with interest continuing to add up. I would suggest limiting the accrual of interest to the term of the assessment. Council direction needed: Should the accrual of interest be limited to the term of the original assessment, or continue until the deferred assessment is paid? • I will prepare a resolution for future Council action amending the Special Assessment Policy in accordance with the Council's direction. . January 9, 1997 Page 2 Background When the Assessment Stabilization Program (the ASP) was initiated in 1993, it was virtually unique. Only two other cities had implemented a similar program, Bloomington and St. Cloud, and Bloomington had discontinued it after a short time. The primary reason why such a program is not more widespread is that cities generally do not have means to finance assessment reductions. In fact, the emphasis is generally placed in the opposite direction -- how much can be justifiably assessed, to minimize the amount which would have to be financed from other sources, such as the General Fund or Public Utilities. I have had inquiries about the ASP from several cities who are also undergoing systematic street improvement programs, but none have chosen to implement such a program, based on its cost. In 1993 1 estimated that over the course of the 20 year Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program the ASP would cost $3.1 million, or an average of $110,000- 160,000 annually. At that time the City Council designated the Local (or "Undesignated ") State Aid Fund as the temporary source of financing for the program, understanding that the Fund could not in the long term finance both that program and the types of improvements for which the fund is generally used (sidewalks, trails, traffic signals, roadway enhancements and beautification). The only other viable source of funding • identified was CDBG. Over the past three years, the City has spent over $260,000 in Assessment Stabilization grants, over half of that sum in 1996 alone. A permanent source of funding still has not been identified, and in Fall, 1996,1 advised the Council that unless one were identified soon I would recommend eliminating the ASP and instead relying on the already existing Senior Deferral program. Over the past three years, 63 percent of the ASP grants have been made to seniors. The Council's concern has been and still is the impact of special assessments on families struggling with home ownership. With three years of data now it is interesting to point out that over the seven improvement projects and 994 residential properties assessed in the past three years, 61 grants were made to families not headed by a senior. And only 10 of those grants were made to families making less than $20,000 per year. (For this purpose, a family is a household with more than one person.) The bulk of the ASP grants have been made to single - person senior households with annual incomes between $10- 20,000 and two- person senior households with incomes between $20- 30,000. Senior Deferral Program The attached memo is a review of the existing senior deferral program, which was first established in 1978. The theory behind the deferral program is that if an assessment represents an increase in the value of a property due to an improvement, then for some property owners that cost should be postponed to the point at which that gain is realized -- when the property is sold. Seniors as a group • are least likely to see a future benefit from the future gain in value, while younger property owners are likely to take that gain and transfer it to a new property. January 9, 1997 • Page 3 Table 1 Assessment Stabilization Program Grant Recipients, 1994 -1996 By Family Size, Income, and Senior Status ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME FAMILY <$10,000 $10- 20,000 $20- 30,000 $3040,000 $40- 50,000 Grand SIZE Non Senior Non Senior Non Senior Non Senior Non Senior Total 1 1 14 9 49 4 12 0 0 0 0 89 2 1 0 4 10 8 36 0 1 0 0 60 3 0 0 2 1 8 4 2 0 0 0 17 4 0 0 1 0 9 1 6 0 0 0 17 5 0 0 1 0 6 0 2 0 1 0 10 6 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 • Grand Total 2 14 18 60 41 53 13 1 1 0 203 As the review indicates, the deferral program as it currently exists is for the most part fair and adequate. However, I do recommend certain modifications which would reduce the long term cost for both the participating property owners and the City. These modifications are: 1) Limit the accrual of interest on deferred assessments to the same number of years as the term of the original special assessment levy; and 2) Change the income cap from the HUD two- person low income level to the HUD very low income level. The first modification would place a limit on interest accrual. Without such a limit a young senior continuing to own the property for more than ten years could easily build up more interest than he or she would have paid had they simply made installment payments on the assessment and paid it off in ten years. The second modification would reduce the number of potential deferrals and thus the amount the City would have to finance from other sources. As the program review points out, the greater the volume of deferrals, the less comfortable raters and investors are in the City's assessment financing • bonds. The revised income cap would primarily affect seniors whose income exceeds $20,000. MEMORANDUM • DATE: December 3, 1996 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Services SUBJECT: Senior Deferral Program This memo provides a review of the City's assessment deferral program for seniors and persons who are retired due to illness or disability. (For convenience's sake, I will refer to this as the "senior deferral program," understanding that it includes the broader group defined by statute.) Three options for potential amendment of the existing policy are presented, with a recommendation made to retain the existing policy with some minor amendments. Background Minnesota Statutes provides cities with the authority to defer some or all of special assessments for senior citizen homeowners and homeowners who are retired due to illness or injury, for whom it would be a hardship to pay the assessments (see Attachment 1). The deferral is in effect until the eligible person no longer owns or homesteads the home or the hardship no longer exists, when the deferred • assessment becomes due in full. Cities are given broad discretion in establishing the parameters of their policy, including the definition of "hardship." Consequently, almost every city's policy on this matter is different. Brooklyn Center's current policy (see Attachment 2) is to provide a deferment of a portion of a special assessment for qualifying persons so that the annual payment on all assessments does not exceed 1 - percent of the property owners' income. In other words, if the total income of all persons residing at the property was $10,000, the maximum annual payment on the assessment allowed would be $150. Based on the term of the assessment and the interest rate, an amount to be assessed which would result in a payment of $150 is calculated. At a term of 10 years and 7 percent interest, which is typical of today's street improvements, an assessment of $882.36 would result in a first years' payment of $150. Anything above $882.36 would be deferred. Brooklyn Center first adopted this policy in 1978, and it has been amended a few times to reflect changing statutes. Over those 18 years, perhaps ten roe owners have chosen this option. About a I P property rtY P half dozen deferments were granted when four alley paving projects were completed in 1989. A few other deferments were granted for various street paving projects over the years. The Council is considering eliminating the Assessment Stabilization Program and relying solely on the deferral program to provide some measure of assessment relief. The following table summarizes the pros and cons of the Senior Deferral Program as compared to the Assessment Stabilization Program (ASP), from the perspectives of City and homeowner, and City and homeowner cost. • • Table 1 Page 2 Pros and Cons of the Senior Deferral Program Compared to the Assessment Stabilization Program Perspective Assessment Stabilization Senior Deferral - Pro Senior Deferral - Con Program Homeowner Assessment is permanently Some or all of the Deferred assessment with reduced by amount of the assessment is postponed, interest comes due at grant reducing amount due property transfer, reducing immediately sale proceeds Provides relief to both seniors and non - senior households, Deferred assessment is a lien based on income and family on the property size City Provides relief to both seniors Provides relief for senior Provides relief only to and non - senior households, households and households senior households choosing based on income and family headed by retired, disabled to participate size persons Many seniors are unwilling to enter into a debt and would not participate, reducing its effectiveness Homeowner Reduced Reduced in short term For persons who own the cost property more than ten years after the deferral, the total principle and interest paid is actually greater than simply making installment payments on the full assessment City cost Nonrecoverable cost to the Rather than an outright Some or all the assessment City, currently estimated at grant, the assessment is is deferred to some unknown about $140,000 or more per eventually collected, with point in the future year: about $100,000 from interest Local State Aid and $40,000 Deferment has to be from Storm Drainage Utility financed from some other source until collected Options The goal of the senior deferral policy should be a program which is easily explained and easily administered, and which treats property owners equitably at a reasonably low cost to the City and to the property owners. If more emphasis is to be placed on the deferral program, the Council could consider • three options for amendment. • 1) Continue the program as is, with some minor modifications. Page 3 2) Amend the program so that the part of the assessment which is not deferred is closer to the amount recipients would have paid under Assessment Stabilization. 3) Adopt an "all or nothing" policy. That is, if an applicant is eligible, the entire amount of the assessment is deferred, rather than some portion depending on income. The most difficult aspect of reviewing the existing policy and its potential results when applied to future projects is projecting the number of persons who would apply for the deferment. A number of seniors have commented that they would rather not have any debt "hanging over their heads," and that unless they were absolutely not able to do so would rather pay the assessment in full. In fact, about 40 percent of all property owners, and about half the property owners who received an Assessment Stabilization Grant in 1996 have already prepaid their assessments in full, in cash. Since there have been so few deferrals granted in the past, we have very little experience to go on. Many other cities contacted for this report stated that they make few deferrals as well. However, to give some perspective, and to illustrate the most extreme scenario, I went through the following exercise. If all those seniors who received an Assessment Stabilization grant in 1996 were to apply and be eligible for a senior deferral based on today's policy, what would happen? The table below details some costs associated with each of the options suggested above and detailed below. t Table 2 Impact if All Senior 1996 Assessment Stabilization Grant Recipients Participated in Assessment Deferral Instead Assessment Deferral Senior Deferral Senior Deferral Stabilization Program: Program: Program: All or Program Current Amended Nothing Total Amount Assessed to $148,475 $148,475 $148,475 $148,475 Senior Grant Recipients Total Grants Made to Seniors $86,800 Total Paid By Senior Grant $61,675 $90,756 $60,672 $0 Recipients Total Deferred $57,719 $87,803 $148,475 Total Certified for Immediate $148,475 $90,756 $60,672 $0 Collection CITY COSTS: Total Grants From All Funds $140,297 Total Financed Until Some $57,719 $87,803 $148,475 • Future Collection • First Option -- Existing Program Page 4 Under the existing program, property owners with incomes less than the HUD two - person low income limit (in 1996 $33,300) are eligible to defer assessments. The maximum annual payment on all assessments should not exceed 1 - 1 /z percent of annual income. Finally, interest accrues on the unpaid assessment until it is paid. Possible Amendments The existing policy has seemed to work well. It can be difficult to explain, but better program materials, which are being developed, would help seniors better make an informed decision. There are two amendments which I believe should be considered: 1) limiting the accrual of interest, and 2) amending the income cap. 1) A concern of seniors considering the program is the continued accrual of interest on the deferred assessment. It is possible that some young seniors could stay in their homes for fifteen or twenty years after the deferral. Twenty years of simple interest on a $2,475 assessment would be $3,465, for a total due of $5,940. Many cities limit interest in some manner, specifying either a term (such as the term of the original assessment) or an amount (such as no more than 50 percent of the principle). I would suggest placing a limitation on the number of years over which the deferral accrues interest. I would suggest limiting interest accrual to the term of the original assessment. 2 The current income ca for the two-person 1 w i e l it. At p program is the HUD income nom un $33, 300 annual income, under our current program the applicant would be able to "afford" to pay $2,938, which is actually greater than the assessments we charged in 1996 and probably will charge in 1997. I would_ recommend changing that Cap to the very low income limit. by household size. For 1996, this would reduce the cap for a two - person household from $33,300 to $21,850. A one person household would be capped at $19,100. In the scenario where all 1996 ASP grant recipients would have applied for a deferment, under the reduced cap only 16 of the 61 receiving grants would have been ineligible for deferment. Second Option -- Modify So Closer to Assessment Stabilization Assessment Stabilization is structured so that the lowest income property owners receive progressively more grant than the low income property owners. However, the senior deferral is a straight - percentage formula. Thus, the very lowest income property owners, who received a full grant or very close to it under the ASP, would under senior deferral be responsible for a sizable assessment. As can be seen in the table below, which summarizes rants made to seniors in the four 1996 project areas, under the g P J ASP program the seniors in the lowest income group paid an average of $47 of the total $2,475 assessment. Under the current deferral ro ram, the would an average $715 assessment. To P g Y pay g bring the average assessment paid under the deferral closer to the average assessment paid under the SP program the maximum income limit would have to be reduced from its current 1 - /2 percent to a limit of one percent of income. In fact, at one percent, the average assessment less deferral for property owners with incomes more than $20,000 is actually ess than the amount aid under the ASP. Y P • Page 5 Table 3 Average Assessment Which Would be Paid By Senior 1996 ASP Recipients Under Assessment Stabilization and Two Deferral Scenarios INCOME GROUP <$10,000 $10- 20,000 $20- 30,000 TOTAL Average Assessment *, ASP $47 $773 $1,741 $1,011 Average Assessment @ 1 - %* $715 $1,330 $2,023 $1,488 Average Assessment @ 1 %* $476 $887 $1,357 $995 # grants awarded to seniors 8 32 21 61 *Note: In this table, "Assessment" means the charge that the property owner is responsible for immediately. In other words, under ASP, the total assessment less the grant, and for the two deferral options, the total assessment less the amount to be deferred. @1 -'h% means assuming the maximum annual payment is 1 -'h percent of income; @1 % assumes the maximum is lowered to one percent of income. Possible Amendments Amending the existing policy so that the amount in excess of 1 percent of income rather than 1 - percent would be deferred would bring the amounts which seniors would be responsible for closer to the amounts they would pay under the ASP. However, for property owners with incomes greater than about $20,000, seniors would actually pay less under the amended deferral program than under ASP. It might be possible to design a "hybrid" model which would provide for different rates for different income levels, to emulate the progressivity of the ASP program, but that would not be consistent with the goal of an easily explained, easily administered policy. Implementing the amended income caps described above would "fix" much of this problem because the property owners at the upper end of the income groups would no longer be eligible for the program. If the Council desired the deferrals to be closer in benefit to the ASP, then 1 would recommend that the 1- V2 ercent of income ca be reduced to one Percent i 2f income, Further, w uld recommend that th income cad for eligibility be amended to be the HUD very low income can by household size Third Option -- "All or Nothing" Some cities utilize an "all or nothing" approach -- in other words, if the applicant meets requirements, the entire assessment is deferred. If the hardship requirements are not met, no part of the assessment is deferred. Where this type of an approach is used, the deferral program is limited to a very few cases, utilizing very stringent income requirements. • Unless these types of deferrals are very limited, the program can very quickly become sizable. This increases the amount which has to be financed from other sources. One such source is to roll this • Page 6 amount into the bonds financing assessment collections. However, the more the amount financing deferred assessments to be collected "at some future unknown date" increases compared to the total, the less comfortable raters and investors will feel about the City's ability to repay the bonds on a timely basis with future assessment collections. Again, since it is very difficult to predict how many seniors would take advantage of such a program, it is difficult to evaluate such a programmatic change. At a minimum, if this option is to be considered seriously, the income threshold should be reduced dramatically. As can be seen in the above table, 61 seniors received assessment stabilization grants in 1996. If the income limit was dropped to $10,000, then eight seniors would have been eligible for deferral, for a total deferred of $19,800. If the limit were dropped to $15,000, then 22 seniors would have been eligible, for a total deferred of $54,450. The "all or nothing" approach provides a substantial benefit to the lowest income property owners but if it is to remain cost effective, it cannot provide as broad a benefit as the existing policy. I would not recommend amending the poliC to o implement an "all or nothing "aD roach Summary Among the goals of a deferral policy should be a program which results in the least cost to the property owners which participate. The second option above, which would reduce the assessment due • immediately under the deferral program to close to that which would be due under the ASP, would seem at first to be a reasonable way to proceed. Likewise, the "all or nothing" approach would totally eliminate the need to pay any assessment up front. While this may seem a worthy objective -- to reduce for the lowest income property owners the assessment due immediately — it actually is counter productive in that in the long run it costs the property owners more than if they had simply made installment payments. This is because interest is calculated on the unpaid balance. For an assessment in current payment, the principal balance declines every year, and the amount of interest charged declines every year as well. However, a deferred balance never changes and thus full interest keeps getting added year after year. The table below shows how these charges can accumulate_ Table 4 Total Principle and Interest Paid by Household of $15,000 Income Comparing Total Paid With No Deferrals to Total With Deferrals Amount Certified Amount Deferred Total Payments No Deferrals $2,475 $0 $3,471.21 Deferred, Assuming 1 - 1 h% Income Limit $1,324 $1,151 $3,790.44 Deferred, Assuming 1% Income Limit $882 $1,593 $3,929.67 • Note: Table assumes a $2,475 assessment with a ten year term at 7 percent interest. Also assumes that for the deferred options, owners make installment payments on the reduced amount, and that interest accrues on the deferred amount for a maximum of ten years. • Page 7 Recommendation It is my recommendation that the current senior deferral program be amended to 1) limit the accrual of interest to the same number of years as the term of the original special assessment levy; and 2) change the income cap from the HUD two - person low income level to the HUD very low income level by household size. The senior deferral program was not included in the City's special assessment policy document, primarily because the Assessment Stabilization Program effectively replaced it. A resolution which amends the existing special assessment policy to eliminate the Assessment Stabilization Program and to add the amended special assessment deferment policy is attached. • • ATTACHMENT 1 637 PUBLIC 'NPRO"'EMEYM OTHER PROCEEDINGS 435..01 435.193 SENIOR CITIZEN'S OR RETIRED AN DISABLED PERSONS HA�RD- SHIP SPECUL aSSESSME`+ DEFERRAL. Notwithstanding the provisions of any taw-to the contrary, anycouncv, statutory or Nome rule charter city, or town, mating a special assessment may, at its discretion, defer the payment of that assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 vears of age or older or retired by virtue of a permanent and total disability for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. Any county, statutory or home rule char- ter city, or town electing to defer special assessments shall adopt an ordinance or resolu- tion establishing standards and guidelines for determining the existence of a hardship and for determining the existence of a disability, but nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the determination of hardship on the basis of exceptional and unusual cir- cumstances not covered by the standards and guidelines where the determination is made in a nondiscriminatory manner and does not give the applicant an unreasonable preference or advantage over other applicants. History: 1974 c 106 s 7; 1976 c 195 s 3; 1981 c 80 s I 435.194 PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN DEFERRED ASSESSMENT. The homeowner shall make application for deferred payment of special assess- ments on forms prescribed by the county auditor of the county In winch the homestead is located. Where the defer ed assessment is granted, the auditor shall record a aocice thereof with the county recorder of said county which shall set forth the amou -*It of the assessment. The taxing authority may determine by ordinance or resolution the amount • of interest, if any, on the deferred assessment and this rate shall be recorded by the audi- tor along with and in the same manner as the amount of the assessment. History: 1974 c 206 s 8; 1976 c 181 s 1: 1976 c 195 s 4 435.195 TERMINATION OF RIGHT TO DEFERRED PAY 91EN T. The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) the death of the owner, provided that the spouse is othe wise not eligible for the benefits hereunder, (b) the sale, transfer or subdivision of the property or any part thereof; (c) if the property should for any reason lose its home- stead status; or (d) if for any reason the taxing authority deferring the payments shall determine that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. History: 1974 c 206 s 9 • ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF BROOKLYN CEV"TER JUNE, 1990 SPECIAL ASSESSi LENT DEFEFUNIENT POLICY WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provide for the deferment of special assessments and specify the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center found and determined that deferral of special assessments for certain persons is in the public interest and passed-City of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 78 -87 providing for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older and Resolution No. 85 -143 extending that provision to persons retired due to permanent and total disability. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the special assessment deferral policy is hereby amended to provide for deferral of special assessments certified after the adoption of this resolution [June 11, 1990] under the following conditions: 1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January 1st of the year in which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability. 3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as: a. An annual income at or below a level to be established annually [$21,650 in 19901; and b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments from previously- existing special assessment levies plus the first year of the current levy will exceed 1 -lh percent of the applicant's annual income. 4. The portion of the current levy which will be deferred will be that portion of the levy against the applicant's property which requires a first year installment payment which, when added to the applicant's annual payments from previously existing special assessment levies, would result in an aggregate total of special assessment installments totaling more than 1 -I /h percent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above 1 -' /z percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred. 5. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure -to -pay charges for City services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments, assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not be included in calculating the maximum 1 - percent aggregate payment defined in paragraph 4 above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that interest at the rate for that particular assessment levy shall be added to the deferred assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.195; and • BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that e th n�ht to defer assessments in hereby terminated when the subject property owner no longer meets the criteria established in this resolution except that a surviving spouse of a qualified applicant need not meet the age requirement. ATTACHMENT 3 DATE: January 30, 1996 TO: Urban Hennepin County Subrecipients and HONM Participants FROM: Y K IMark Hendrickson, Office of Planning and Development SUBJECT: 1996 Section 8 Income Limits (Effective December 14, 1995) Below are the current Section 8 income limits for low- income (80% of median) and very low income (50% of median) households. In addition, income for households at 60% and 30% of median income are provided. These income limits are based on HUD estimates of 1996 median household income. The U.S. median family income has increased to $41,600. The Minneapolis /St.Paul N[SA median income has increased from $51,000 to $54,600. The U.S. median family income is used as a `cap" in calculating income for households at 80% of median income. These income limits musrbe.used in calculating household income eligibility for all HUD funded activities which ned to document low /moderate income benefit. These income limits are effective until further notice: MS A: MPLS. /ST. PAUL FY 1996 INIEDIAlY HOUSEHOLD DICOME: $54,600 Household (80 %) (60"0) (50`" °) C30 °) Size _ - Low.Income .' Very Low - - Income - 1 Person 22 29 100 900 19 I 00 1 1 ' • +. I 500 2 Person 33,300 26,200 ' 21,850. 13,100 3 Person 37,450 29,500 24,550 14,750 - 4 Person 41,600 32,750 27,300 16,400 5 Person 44,950 35,350 29,500 I 17,700 6 Person 48,250 38,000. I 31,650 19,000 7 Person I 51,600 40,600 33,850 20,350 i 8 Person + 54 43,900. , 36,050 :21,650 • The r C96 Federal Poverty Guidelines will be published in late February. P!e:se call me at 541 -7084 if you would like this information sent to you. Hennepin County 0fn' cc of Planning 6 1 Development, Development Planning Unit, 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 260, i Iinnctonlza, NLN 55305 1 ;Iail Coae: 604 Phone: (612) 541.7050 Fax: (612) 541 -7090 ATTACHMENT 4 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy SECTION IV. ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL PROGRAM There shall exist a program to defer a portion of the special assessments of qualifying persons under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195. Said program shall defer the payment of a portion of certified special assessments by property owners who are at least 65 years of age or older or who are retired due to permanent and total disability whose households meet certain financial characteristics. A. Eligibility 1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January 1st of the year in which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability. 3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as: a• An annual income for the applicant's household size which is at or below the "Very Low Income" limit established annually by HUD for the Minneapolis and St Paul Metropolitan Area. b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments from previously- existing special assessment levies plus the first year of the current levy will exceed 1 - percent of the applicant's annual income. B. Calculation 1. The portion of the current levy which will be deferred will be that portion of the levy against the applicant's property which requires a first year installment payment which, when added to the applicant's annual payments from previously existing special assessment levies, would result in an aggregate total of special assessment installments totaling more than 1 -1 /2 percent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above 1 - percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred. 2. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure -to -pay charges for City services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments, assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not be included in calculating the maximum 1 - percent aggregate payment defined in paragraph B.1. above. • January, 1997 Page 8 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy C. Interest Simple interest at the rate and for the term of that particular assessment levy shall be added to the deferred assessment. After the term of the assessment expires. no more interest will accrue. D. Termination The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amount accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrance of one of the following events: 1. The death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the benefits. 2. The sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property or any part thereof. 3. If the property should for any reason lose its homestead status. 4. The City Council determines that a hardship no longer exists. January, 1997 Page 9 r . Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 93-49 established an Assessment Stabilization Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that sufficient funds are not available to continue financing said Assessment Stabilization Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 78 -87 established a policy providing for the deferral of special assessments under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195. Said policy was subsequently amended by Resolutions 85 -143 and 90- 137;and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the City's Deferment of Special Assessments Policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 94 -274 adopted a Special Assessment Policy which incorporated numerous policies related to special assessments for improvement projects into a single document. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the City of Brooklyn Center's Special Assessment Policy is hereby amended as follows: 1. The Assessment Stabilization Program is hereby discontinued. 2. The Deferment of Special Assessments Policy is hereby amended as follows: a. "Financial hardship" is defined as having an annual income for the household's size which is at or below the "Very Low Income" limit established annually by HUD for the Minneapolis and St. Paul Metropolitan Area. DRAFT Resolution No. b. Simple interest on the deferred assessment shall accrue only over the term of the original assessment. After the term of the assessment expires, no more interest will accrue. 3, The City of Brooklyn Center's Special Assessment Policy is hereby amended to delete references to the Assessment Stabilization Program and to insert the Deferment of Special Assessments Policy as amended by this resolution. Date Mayor • ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • q r MEMORANDUM • DATE: January 21, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer.' /% ' SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Engineer's Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Improvement Project Nos. 1997-0102, and 03, Orchard Lane West, Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements. A feasibility report and preliminary design have been completed for the above referenced project. The project was previously established by the Council in 1996, and (2) informational meetings have been conducted with residents and property owners since then. Attached is a variety of information that has previously been provided to the Council and residents, along with brief summaries of the individual neighborhood informational meetings. The attached feasibility report provides a detailed breakdown of the specific project costs. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution to receive the Engineer's Feasibility Report, and to schedule a public hearing to consider approval of the project on • February 24, 1997. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1997 -01, 02, AND 03, ORCHARD LANE WEST, STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council has previously directed the preparation of an engineer's feasibility report regarding proposed improvements to the streets, storm drainage system, and public utilities in the Orchard Lane West Area, an area generally described as all streets in the City of Brooklyn Center located south of I -94, and west of Orchard Lane. WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared said report, and recommends that the proposed improvements be considered; and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost - effective, and feasible; and WHEREAS, costs have been estimated for these proposed street, utility, and storm sewer improvements; and WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess a portion of the cost of the street improvements • against all properties within the project area; and a portion of the storm drainage improvements within designated sections of the project area; and WHEREAS, the cost to be assessed to the properties is estimated to be: STREET IMPROVEMENT STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT 1997 -01 1997 -02 Special Assessments $1,078,610 $334,100 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. A public hearing shall be held on the 24th day of February, 1997, in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to hear and pass upon said improvement project and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by said improvements will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to said improvements. 2. The Deputy City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of public hearing to be published in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice of the total improvement costs. • • RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ENGINEERING. 569-3340 FAX. • 569 -3494 ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR • O LANE WEST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1997 -01, 02 &03 JANUARY, 1997 1 hereby certify that this feasibility report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesot Re. No. 767 Scott Brink City Engineer January 21, 1997 • Feasibility Report Orchard Lane West Page 1 OVERVIEW Figure 1) These proposed projects include roadway and utility improvements for the Orchard Lane West neighborhood, more specifically all public streets as shown in Figure 1. The general improvement area consists of all streets located south of I- 94/694 and west of Orchard Lane. This report was prepared in accordance with previous direction of the City Council on October 15, 1996 and that staff would conduct Public Information meetings. On November 13, 1996 and December 5, 1996, public information meetings were conducted. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS STREETS Improvement Project 1997 -01 (see Figure 2) All of the streets in the proposed project area are classified as local residential streets, originally constructed in conjunction with utility installations in the mid to late 1950's. All of the existing streets are very flat, without curbs and gutters. On average, the streets are 30 feet wide, with a pavement thickness of 1.5 to 3.0 inches. These streets are aging and showing fatigue and distress, particularly along their unprotected edges. The City's Pavement Management Program indicates that it is no longer cost - effective to routinely maintain these streets i.e. patch and sealcoat g Y ( � . Complete ) P reconstruction is recommended. • It is ro osed to reconstruct these streets as tw P P o lane roadways measuring 30 feet in width with a structural capacity for the current volume and vehicle distribution. Concrete curbs and gutters and driveway aprons would be installed as part of the improvement. On -street parking would continue to be allowed in accordance with the City's parking ordinances. Traffic volumes on most of these streets are typical of local residential streets, with little "through" traffic. However, 65th and Unity Avenues often carry some slightly higher volumes than the other streets. Existing sidewalks (see Figure 2) within the project area are located on the north side of 65th Avenue between Orchard Avenue and Unity Avenue. There is also sidewalk located along the east side of Unity Avenue between 63rd and Winchester. Cost estimates in this report include installation of pedestrian ramps and replacement of defective sections of sidewalk. No additional sidewalks or trails are included in the cost estimates. The cost estimates in this report do include a lump sum allocation ($65,000) for planting boulevard trees in appropriate areas and an allocation of ($75,000) for upgrading street lighting (see Figure 6). No costs are included for "under grounding" overhead power and CATV lines. Feasibility Report Orchard Lane West Page 2 STORM DRAINAGE • Improvement Project 1997 -02 (see Figure 3 for proposed storm sewer system) The existing storm sewer system in the project area was installed on a per development basis and is inadequate. Previously ordered hydraulic and technical studies of this drainage area have shown that additional storm sewer should be constructed to alleviate the frequent localized drainage problems. Survey results received from residents also indicates many localized incidents of standing water and /or flooding. g Several drainage and storm sewer improvements were completed in 1996 as part of the Orchard East Area project. An additional parallel 48" diameter storm sewer was also constructed along 65th Avenue from Indiana Avenue to Orchard Avenue, as a continuation of the system installed as part of the regional pond constructed at I -694 and Brooklyn Boulevard(MCTO Park and Ride). These improvements will also assist in providing drainage improvements for the Orchard West area as well. However, localized improvements in Orchard West must still be completed and connected with last year's improvements in order for the entire system to function and serve everyone effectively. Figure 3 shows a preliminary concept for storm drainage improvements to serve the project area. Essentially, the project design provides for installation of additional storm sewers and catch basins to provide additional pick -up points throughout the neighborhood, thereby allowing streets to be regraded to provide more positive drainage, and to minimiz localized flooding. Based on this design, the total estimated cost for storm drainage improvements relating to this project g P g P J is $642,469, and is outlined further in this report. SANITARY SEWERS Improvement Project 1997 -03 (see Figure 4) The sanitary sewer line in 65th Avenue is a 12" concrete pipe, whose condition as evidenced by televising, is deteriorating due to the hydrogen - sulfide gasses produced by septic sewage. This pipe serves as a primary conveyor of waste water for a significant portion of the neighborhood. All other sanitary sewers in the project area are 8 inch diameter clay pipe, installed in the mid to late 1950's. Because these sewers were constructed without gaskets in the joints, they are subject to a modest level of ground water infiltration. Often, it would not be cost - effective to eliminate this infiltration if the pipe itself were in good condition. However, while there are no capacity problems, city maintenance records, along with a televised inspection of all sewers in this area document a significant tree root infiltration problem and some structural defects in the sewer mains. Surveys received from residents also indicate frequent plugging of service lines that can often be attributed to root penetration of the pipe joints. Therefore, all sewer mains identified with these problems are proposed to be replaced. Services identified as having the same or similar problems would also be replaced between the main and the property line. It is proposed that to reconstruct all sanitary sewer as shown per Figure 4. • Feasibility Report Orchard Lane West Page 3 This report also includes a cost estimate for replacing approximately 195 feet of spot repairs for isolated cracked or damaged pipe. • It is estimated that 272 sanitary sewer services would be replaced with the new sanitary sewer installation and 27 services at various locations would be replaced due to the severe root infiltration previously mentioned. However, these quantities typically increase throughout the project, as more home owners come forward and request the City to repair their service. Additional information regarding sewer problems was received from property owners during the public participation process. Based on that information and additional review of other available information, final recommendations will be made during the final design process and project cost estimates will be revised accordingly. WATER MAINS Improvement Project 1997 -03 (see Figure 5) A concern regarding the quality of potable water in the Orchard West area has been expressed over the past several years. Much of the water main distribution system in the neighborhood is approximately 40 years old and constructed of cast iron pipe. Available records indicate that the pipes installed at the time were "un- lined ", meaning that their resistance to corrosion is much poorer than pipe available today. In addition, many of the homes in Orchard West were plumbed with galvanized piping which over time can deteriorate and cause flow problems within individual households. Also, the large distance between this neighborhood and the City's wells and water storage facilities may also contribute to the creation of stagnant flows or hydraulic "dead spots" in the system. Approximately eight years ago, a recommendation was made to replace all cast iron pipe in the Orchard West neighborhood. However, a decision was made not to do the replacement work at that time. Instead, attempts to alleviate the quality problems were provided by the addition of circulation pumps and the addition of a corrosion inhibiting chemical(zinc orthophosphate). Significant problems apparently still exist as a result of the surveys we have received. We are therefore proposing to replace all of the old cast iron pipe throughout the neighborhood with ductile iron pipe. The City has also responded to water main failures or "breaks" in this area in recent years. In addition, a computerized water distribution model has been completed for the entire City. With this model, pipe flow rates can be analyzed for the entire City. By revising the size of certain water main pipes at specific locations, flows can be enhanced to possibly reduce some of the stagnant flow conditions that appear to exist in this part of the City. Figures 5A and 513 show how certain pipe segment sizes can be revised to enhance circulation (pipe travel time) for the entire area, and particularly for those segments where the water travel time is greater than 24 hours. It is expected that overall water quality throughout the project area would improve as a result of these proposed improvements. However, crystal clear water for every household cannot be guaranteed due to the internal piping and plumbing in some households. • Feasibility Report Orchard bane West Page 4 ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS (see Figure 6) Costs and Funding for Street Improvements Project No 1997 -01 • The estimated cost for roadway i for all streets in this project area ' y p s s pr � is $1,603,242. If street lighting improvements are included, the estimated cost for those roadway improvements is $1,678,242. It is proposed to levy special assessments for street improvements in accordance with the rates adopted by the City Council on January 13, 1997. The rates adopted by the City Council provide for a standard 1997 residential street assessment rate of $2000 per residential property. This rate would be assessed to all benefitted properties as shown in Figure 1. City owned property at Orchard Lane Park, along with portions of church and school property are proposed to be assessed at the 1997 commercial rate per square foot, for the actual amount of frontage at a depth of 200 feet. On this basis it is estimated that special assessments totaling $1,078,610 would be levied for street improvements. Since this would represent over 50 percent of the estimated total costs for street improvements, these improvements can be processed and completed in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. Costs and Funding for Storm Drainagc System Improverngnts, Project No 1996 -02 The estimated cost for storm drainage improvements within the Orchard Lane West area is $642,469. This includes the cost of storm sewer construction throughout the project area. • It is ro osed to levy special assessments for storm drainage improvements ' accordance w' P P y P g p m accordan with the rates adopted by the City Council on January 13, 1997. Application of this rate to properties benefitted by these improvements will result in estimated special assessments of $650 per single family residential unit. The total cost to be assessed would be $334,100. Costs and Funding for Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Improvements, Project No 1996 -03 The estimated cost of sanitary sewer repairs and /or replacements is $747,637, and the estimated costs for water main repair and /or replacements is $1,335,718. As previously noted, these cost estimates are preliminary at this time. However, all such costs would be funded by their respective utility funds, in accordance with established policy for such improvements. • Feasibility Report Orchard Lane West Page 5 Recommended 1997 Project Schedule January 27 City Council receives feasibility report and calls for public hearing • February 24 Public Hearing, City Council may authorize the project and order preparation g tY Y P J P P of plans and specifications February 24 Approve plans and specifications, authorize Ad for Bids March 12 First date of advertisements in Post and Construction Bulletin April 3 Bid opening April 14 City Council awards contract April 24 Preconstruction conference May 1 Start construction September 8 Special Assessment Hearing October 17 Substantial completion Conclusion • The overall health of and condition of the City's infrastructure ty stru tore system (streets, sewers, utilities) is critical to the safety, welfare, and economic health of the entire City. As a result of the infrastructure needs, solutions, and estimated costs described in this report, the proposed project is necessary, cost effective, and feasible. Scott Brink City Engineer Reg. No. 17657 • Feasibility Report Orchard Lane West Page 6 CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK ueoe 3ololsoll 911 5(34 11157 279 �u 3 }119 -31 -1) -0117 O 9- xl- Iron LIMITS CITY C & "" CENTER � � � 4 73 :` � . mil J BROOKLYN i g L 731. C r 4 p b ♦ ° N 5312 _ 571] ° P Z ^ y x307 5309 7307 3.109 3307 a3" •3 •3 � 5]30 $331 ° $3] "' P ♦ ° 3307 S]a 5300 1 N 5]01 5)00 5330 N a $331 w u +• y = 5300 awl : r $us 6324 ' ; 1'•'' A27 5324 D2Jt 3230 $337 7230 531 7330 =F sne 5338 •:•':T!.`,: a]IS s]a9 tl DO - N st]0 et2s 5134 sus $224 5225 5224 �lJ SJ /e • ;:1 Eblilj 5319 _ : : i f s2a $224 i; S #1 i $311 $ w o ° S all• 7213 1306 3219 O 53U Z !]q 6313 5311 klia; 5317 330! uU 6219 alts 5]06 : dl4?i 7!.•.;. S.70e 5>a Slle 3119 3x11 6213 5211 3213 3712 •5307 5309 5307 3301 3211 �5�1Ri SJO7 521] n 3700 tjf • .. 5300 3700 5:13 521: 6x13 3207 5:00 5 ]ol D 53011 5701 SSpR. 5]01 5213 5x09 $207 520. U. 3207 _ 5213 7207 5308 5207 5300 5x12 ; ;d1 'tiZjx:: b21] 3219 D 321]. 5207 5201 $200 3101 6200 5201 I S:Ix • .. P w C 7200 = 3130 O 1333 Z 5700 $xo7 3208 ::: 321ij i�i0_ 5x07 5206 9 S �• r 5131 $130 3131 a13o 3131 O 3207' `1 5170 3124 .NI w° 320(1 5201 -°�• A `�. 2 Si34 3123 3124 3125 51x4 5123 Stle n " SCOTT ASE• N• tl S SS 2f 2 $ 110 w 3118 5119 sole silo 5113 site slit o SI1J }u: 5113 p S02 6117 3111 511] 5112 3113 D 3112 Stl] SIOe N Y. "♦' 8 N ° ♦ sloe 5107 ' 3107 3100 3107 - 4 w o �7 5107 • r ° sloe 3107 3106 5107 3106 5106 D P w S ♦ slot 5100 3101 f- : ° 3 y D S!A :., 5100 slot Z 3100 3101 3100 soli s �U y ;, N• 1 � S S?AY slot pw yp w p N sou �x 5013 301: 5013 1020 $013 0000 s REGENT AVE �! Z 7Yidi w # �i g R 3007 31, 3007 301 ° ° ^ ♦ 3008 6007 3001 6001 $000 5019 SC w 8 S • ♦ • 5012 cool 8500 $oot 4918 Tj 5013 � ° • ° soo �'`, � � • S Y T � � � 4 4918 �soo7 491] {913 s 4 $ 4 '� � � y w tl w P P 4f12 4913 D ±PI�Ei: G p S S L 0601 4906 5001 ♦ u k Y Y § N ° i 4907 {800 S • I�i 4919 • w g .°. 01 '3 ^��'i {! {921 !41 3 L _ } }� 111 4900 N o w X N • ♦ S pp a s S 4 4913 8 & 4008 �' Pi N G L r U ° N ♦ Y 3 4818 N19 L CS P 4907 ° O r Nii v 4 r iii y ^ ° ° RFi r 4413 4012 U f 4001 s J PERRY AVE. N• „ § N ° s 411(17 4006 Y ° ^ ° 4en N o' ♦ ° N � & ♦ � p Qq 4001 4000 p N ° 4.0, 111181: mon 0 „ C S m rn j CITY 0 OOKLYN PARK WEST BROOKLYN CENTER LIMITS UNITY AVE. N• w TOLEDO AVE. N. z O ° , z -c 0 6 D z � 0-- = Q D A i N D _ s;? D I O Z SCOTT y � C TT VE. N z D REGENT AVE. N. REGENT AVE. N. Z i rn QUAIL AVE. N. QUAIL AVE. N. D AVE. N. I� PERRY z PERRY _ N. . ......... `11 m � n� , • eROaavr+ ce4yER CITY UMITS CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK UNITY AVE. N. rn TOLEDO AVE. N. O u L m m m n�i �- m Z 0 0 " Z _ m m (� ill Z sco _ _ > — COTT VE. N Z O REGENT AVE. N. REGENT AVE. N. f D ol I r • QUAIL AVE. N• QUAIL AVE. N• D AVE. N. > D !� PERR PERRY AVE. N. m m D ORCHARIPAVE. N O m 2 o a r � � o i z ENVIRONMENTAL B VE. N. t MAJOR AV. PRESERVE ARBORETUM KYLAWN EE AVE. PARK v L♦ C rn _w CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK WEST BROOKLYN CENTER LIMITS UNITY AVE. N. rn �' TOLEDO AVE. N. i rn z C D r z I Y r i Z -� < r Z I D i A C C i i D •! � � � r i z ca `" � i COTT ' _.. -.._ D i C) i � SCOTT AVE. N. i z i -+ i D REGENT AVE. N. r REGENT AVE. N. i rni QUAIL AVE. N. i QUAIL AVE. N. _ •_.._..�.._.._.._. AVE. N. i z AVE. N. PERRY ._.._.._., -..- I C t'17 ORCHA RD LANE WES T AREA i 1 - 94 ;u U ! F ! ' FHO .i z� 66TH. AVE. N. i ---- - - - - -- - - - - - -- Qi i WINCHESTER LA. Y Y i 1 cf i 65TH. AVE. N. } --- - P -- -- - --- - -- - - -- _.._.. _ DR. - ui i Q ! i W : (n F- Q 1 •J :v Q : SEE � 64TH AVE. ` a ! ' CHANGE AS WATER W W ; MODEL STUDY TO r mmw FLOW CHARACTERISTICS Y 1 ELEANOR LA. P ! o �.._.._.. ._. j m J 1 � � 0 0 ! 63RD. AVE. N. N - NC' �_ CD • ! V L i W I Z I 1 Z! i BOULDER LA. w �! ¢i 62ND. AVE. N. w i t i i i s i 61 ST. AVE. N. • CITY OF CRYSTAL REPLACE ALL WATERMANS N PROJECT AREA WATERNWNS i FIGURE 5 FIGURE 2: Cybernet Model Representation of Orchard Lane West Area J102 �J167 —��'' J117 1100 r 694 94 J1200 8 1207 11210 1212 J1202 6" N 6 J1212 J1215 6 " 1217 N, ORCHARD LANE 6" ( PARK 2 120 22 J1220 �i N� I J1222 1225 6 ., -.& / / J1 2721 �N N 6» 1231 J1217 6' w 1 I 01 123 1231 J1232 8 " J1235 I J1 245 ` 1 J1230 6» i 8W I J1242 ! J1265 6''I 1 J1260 1 I 1 ( I 6"1 N I ,� 6 N ` I ; CT I " `w I J1257 6 11v ► I !'� 6 \ 1 6 „ , I' ►1 I L � I J�252 J132� I 11 1312 J131 1 1320. I 5�, \ I » iN 6„ J1315 w 1 6 (� ��CA ; ► $� N $ „J1355104135710” I 111255 1337 11 X32 1322 I 6� o pI » I I �Jd� � ' I J1335 I 1362 I �J1352 ! ` i I I 1 1 J1350 6 " F I 6` °' ` -4 �� I (1 1365 �� i 6 „ 16„ (wca l i ° N- 6" J1365 1 1 1377i' I I 11370 J1375 65 = JUNCTION NUMBER SCALE IN FEET 1365 = PIPE NUMBER 6» = NEW PIPE SIZES 6 = EXISTING PIPE SIZES TO REMAIN 0 F IGURE 5A 1000 11 /1-; /oa L � Figure 3 Hydraulic Analysis of the Orchard Lane West Area Existing Hydraulics Proposed Hydraulics Pipe Pipe Travel Pipe Flow Pipe Pipe Travel Pipe Flow Pipe Number Time (hours) Rate (gpm) Diameter (in.) Time (ho urs) Rate (gpm) Dia meter (in .)* 1207 4.38 8.11 6 4.67 13.52< >< <'' >r< > ><'''> 1210 1.29 6.44 6 1.32 6.26 6 1212" 148.11 0.04 6 148.11 0.04 6 1215 3.50 2.12 8 2.42 1217 10.18 3.95 6 13.53 2.97 6 1220 2.02 5.09 6 2.10 4.91. 6.:. :.. ,. :..... 1222 2.17 3.14 8 2.20 3.11: 1225 8.36 4.39 6 10.74 3.426 1227 0.63 10.96 6 0.76 9.01 6 ................. 1230 1.41 5.04 8 1.77 4.04. .: .. ....:.:::::.:.................. 1231 14.37 1.46 8 5.08 4.13 8 1232 18.31 0.73 8 9.53 1.41 8 1235 3.26 9.95 8 2.67 12.15 8 1237 1.81 5.87 6 2.59 4.10 6 1240 0.40 17.63 6 0.60 21.18 > » > €#<; >' > >'> 1252 15.64 1.48 6 8.86 2.61 ' ... ...............6.... :::........ 1255 9.06 1.02 6 8.49 1.09 6 1257 37.75 0.75 6 22.20 1.28 6 1260 3.11 4.04 8 1.97 &< >> • 1262 12.10 1.27 g 7.89 1.10 6 1265 2.72 1.70 6 2.72 1.70 6 1310 10.00 1.51 8 13.02 1.16 8 1312 16.56 1.30 6 9.41 2.28 6 1315 70.58 0.38 6 40.26 0.66 6 1317 8.77 3.37 6 6.27 4.71 6 1320 12.15 0.63 6 4.54 1.68 6 1322 7.29 4.36 6 12.91 2.47 6 1332 3.31 4.30 8 3.67 3.88 8 1337 8.09 7.31 10 7.88 1350 2.16 3.79 6 6.29 1.30 6 1352 1.71 4.68 6 2.13 6.67 1355 0.73 18.65 10 0.87 15.61 1357 0.90 24.01 10 1.02 21.35 10 1360 0.69 32.09 10 0.75 29.56 10 1362 24.40 0.83 6 9.52 2.12 6 1365 219.10 0.23 6 19.74 1.43 6 1367 6.37 1.23 6 4.05 1.93 6 1370 7.21 3.53 6 6.53 3.90 6 1372 2.98 4.89 6 4.80 1375 6.30 4.02 6 6.09 4.15 6 1377 1.68 4.77 6 1.64 4.89 6 1380 6.44 5.19 6 6.45 5.19 6 ''' Shaded cell • s indicate new pipe diameters " Pipe 1212 is a dead end cul- de-sac FIGURE 5B Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. ORCHARD.XLS, Pipe Data 11/12/96 Sheetl • COSTS & FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS ORCHARD LANE WEST - FEASIBILITY SUMMARY 1/11/96 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE STREET SANITARY WATERMAIN STORM ESTIMATED SEWER SEWER TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,341,584.00 $ 622,852.00 $ 1,157,471.00 $ 527,245.00 $ 3,649,152.00 CONTINGENCY (10 %) $ 134,158.00 $ 62,285.00 $ 115,747.00 $ 52,724.00 $ 364,914.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,475,742.00 $ 685,137.00 $ 1,273,218.00 $ 579,969.00 $ 4,014,066.00 ADMIN, ENG., LEGAL $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 62,500.00 $ 250,000.00 REFORESTATION $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 STREET LIGHTS $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 1,678,242.00 $ 747,637.00 $ 1,335,718.00 $ 642,469.00 $ 4,404,066.00 ESTIMATED REVENUE STREET ASSESS 54% $2,000/UNITXX 514 UNITS $1,028,000.00 - $,1,028,000.00- PARKASSESSMENTS $ 27,840.00 $ 27,840.00 CHURCH ASSESSMENT $ 6,900.00 $ 6,900.00`' SCHOOL ASSESSMENT- $ 15,670.00 $ ..', 15,870.00 SANITARY SEWER FUND $ 747,637.00 $ 747,637.00` WATER FUND $1,335,718.00 $ 1;335,718.00'. STORM DRAINAGE ASSESS 44% = $650 / UNITX 514 UNITS $ 334,100.00 $ 334100.00': SIDEWALK- LOCAL STATE AID FUND $ 34,165.00 $ x'34,165.00! STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY FUND $ 308,369.00 $ 308,369.00 �. OTHER FUNDS $ 565,467.00 $ '565,467.00 TOTAL EST. REVENUE $1,678,242.00 $ 747,637.00 ;$1,335,718.00 $ 642,469.00 $ 4,404,066.00 E:%ENGIPROJECT197PROJ W RCHARDW ES7%FEASBYR EV2. DI V • FIGURE 6 Page 1 September 10, 1996 Dear Property Owner /Resident: Brooklyn Center will soon be in the fourth year of its twenty year program to improve streets, utilities and storm drainage throughout the City. At this time, the City is performing preliminary engineering survey work to determine the feasibility of reconstructing the streets and utilities in your neighborhood in 1997. Development of a preliminary feasibility study does not mean that an improvement project has been approved, or necessarily will be approved. The study is intended to look into neighborhood needs in more detail, make better cost estimates, and review the possibility of improvements with neighborhood residents. All this information is then brought back to the Council, which will then decide if an improvement project is warranted. If the Council takes that next step, by law no final decision may be made without a formal public hearing on the matter. This letter is to inform you that 1) an improvement project is being considered for your neighborhood in 1997; 2) you may notice City survey crews and private sewer televising crews working in your neighborhood to gather information about existing street grades and conditions of utilities; and 3) when we complete this initial gathering.of data there will be a public informational meeting, probably in late October or November. All property owners in the proposed project area (see the attached map) will receive a letter seven to ten days before the meeting is scheduled. Why Your Neighborhood? There are several reasons why we are looking at your neighborhood for 1997. First, a detailed storm drainage study conducted as a part of the development of the pond at the park and ride site showed that there were extensive storm drainage improvements needed in the entire area of the City west of Brooklyn Boulevard. A significant portion of these improvements has been completed this year as part of the Orchard East neighborhood improvement project. However, some additional storm drains need to be constructed in your neighborhood to complete the system. This past summer, you have probably noticed the large storm sewer pipes installed along 65th, and the "dry pond" grading in the Orchard Lane Park area. These improvements are also intended to benefit your neighborhood as well by allowing the storm water from large rainfall events to move to the east more efficiently and reduce much of the standing water and flooding that often occurs. Incidently, the "dry pond" constructed in Orchard Lane Park is intended to be a temporary holding area for storm water after heavy rainfalls. It is expected that typically after heavy rains, the basin will fill with water, drain, and be dry again in a matter of hours. Otherwise the basin and skating area will • remain dry the majority of the time, just as it always has. Second, many of the streets in the neighborhood come up in our Pavement Management Program (PMP) as needing to be reconstructed rather than sealcoated. The PMP is a computer program which analyzes surface and subsurface information about streets and predicts how much longer the pavement will last. Unfortunately, many of the other streets, the ones which don't look as bad and are on the borderline between sealcoating and reconstruction, are the streets that need new storm sewers or other utility repairs. Third, the water main system in your neighborhood is in need of at least some rehabilitation and replacement. The City has long recognized the need to improve water quality and circulation deficiencies in your neighborhood based on complaint histories as well as our maintenance records. Many of the mains are aging and in need of replacement. As part of the preliminary engineering study, we hope to get a better grasp on the extent and specific nature of these needs. Fourth, inspection records also show some significant portions of sanitary sewer that are either deteriorating or experiencing large infiltrations of ground- water. Again, the preliminary , engineering study will allow us to better determine exactly how much of the sewer is really deficient and in need of replacement. The result is that we are preliminarily looking at reconstructing all the streets in your neighborhood, adding storm sewer where necessary, and repairing water and sanitary sewer mains where necessary. A special note to the property owners north of 65th Avenue: Some of you have called the engineering office inquiring if our street was going to be improved in 1997 and were told q g Y , g g P that it was not in the rel' p urinary plan. On first analysis, we had proposed not reconstructing these streets along with the others because their overall condition appeared to be better than others in the study area. However, there are a number of good engineering reasons why it would be prudent and most cost effective to consider the streets north of 65th for improvements at the same time as the rest of the neighborhood. For example, assuming those streets could go another five years before reconstruction, it wouldn't make any sense to run heavy construction equipment over the brand new streets in the surrounding neighborhoods. Financing If an improvement project is approved for your area, it would be funded in part by special assessments. The City's current policy is that about 40 percent of the cost of street improvements is assessed to the roe owners and six percent is aid for with general P ne property m' sixty P P g city unds. In the Orchard East Neighborhood area being v per tY g improved ed this summer, the cost g P P property was $1,850. This is a per lot assessment, it is NOT based on a per foot charge. We would expect that assessments which hich might accompany a project in your neighborhood would • be greater than that, probably by a few hundred dollars. Where substantial new drainage improvements occur, the City's policy is to assess benefitting property owners about 40 • percent of the cost. In the Orchard East Neighborhood, the cost per property was $625. More detailed information regarding the results of the preliminary engineering and project financing studies, including special assessments, will be discussed at the informational meeting later this fall. We also will be sending out a packet of information in case you are unable to attend the meeting. In order to provide an accurate and comprehensive assessment of the neighborhood's needs, your input and suggestions are valuable and needed. We have therefore included a survey that should only take a few minutes to fill out and send back to us. We request that the survey be returned by September 27, 1996. Your input is appreciated. In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call us in the Engineering Division at 569 -3340. I also encourage you to visit the area north of 71st Avenue North between Noble Avenue and France Avenue (the area north of St. Alphonsus Church), which was reconstructed in 1995, to get an idea of the finished product, and the area east of you, north of 63rd Avenue (Orchard East), to get an idea of work in progress. Finally, I encourage you to take advantage of some fine summer /fall evening or weekend to take a walk and look closely at the streets in your neighborhood. Aside from improving infrastructure, we're always looking for good ideas to improve the general appearance of our neighborhoods and parks, and would welcome your suggestions. • Sincerely, Scott Brink, P. E. City Engineer cc: Mayor Myrna Kragness Council Members City Manager • INFORMATIONAL REPORT ORCHARD LANE WEST CONDITION ANALYSIS • As part of the City -wide improvement program, we utilize a comprehensive analysis of the entire City to determine which neighborhood improvements should occur and when. I have reviewed the infrastructure in the Orchard, Lane West area, and offer the following information: The Overall Infrastructure Condition in the Area The majority of the infrastructure (streets and utilities) in your neighborhood is approximately 40 years old and aging. Adequate and reliable infrastructure is essential in providing for the health, safety, and welfare of all citizens, as well as contributing to the overall stability and quality of life of the neighborhood. Water Mains A concern regarding the quality of potable water in the Orchard West area has been expressed over the past several years. Much of the water main distribution system in your neighborhood is approximately 40 years old and constructed of cast iron pipe. Available records indicate that the pipes installed at the time were "un- lined", meaning that their resistance to corrosion is much poorer than pipe available today. In addition, many of the homes in Orchard West were plumbed with galvanized piping which over time can deteriorate and cause flow problems within individual households. Approximately eight years ago, a recommendation was made to replace all cast iron pipe in the Orchard West neighborhood. However, due to the large cost of the project and proposed assessments, the decision was made not to do the replacement work at that time. Instead, attempts to alleviate the quality problems were provided by the addition of circulation pumps and the addition of a corrosion inhibiting chemical(zinc orthophosphate). However, significant problems apparently still exist as a result of the surveys we have received. We are therefore proposing to replace all of the old cast iron pipe throughout the neighborhood. The City has also responded to water main failures or "breaks" in this area in recent • years. Drainage and Storm Sewers Hydraulic studies and a large amount of feedback from residents have indicated that the existing storm sewer and drainage in this area is deficient, particularly during and after heavy rainfalls. The City has received responses from residents reporting flooded basements, ponding water in streets and yards, and overall poor drainage during heavier rains. Hydraulic studies have recommended that additional storm sewer be constructed in the Orchard West area to help reduce these problems. Several drainage improvements have already been completed "downstream" of the Orchard West Area, including storm sewer construction in the Orchard East area, and the construction of storm water retention basins at Orchard Park and Bob Cahlander Park. Construction of additional storm sewer improvements in the Orchard West neighborhood will complete the system in this area of the City. Sanitary Sewers The City has inspected (televised) the sanitary sewer system in your neighborhood. A significant portion of these sewers are aged and showing signs of decay, and infiltration of roots and groundwater. In order to eliminate potential sewer back ups, pipe failures, and property damage, all deteriorated sewer and lateral connections should be identified and replaced. In addition, property owners have provided and are encouraged to provide to the City any additional information regarding any specific sewer problems that you may have experienced. The televising inspection has revealed many sewer services with root problems at the connection to the main. • Streets The City utilizes a computerized pavement management system to inventory and program all streets within the City. Streets are numerically rated according to the amount of surface (pavement) and subsurface distress and condition. Because the majority of streets in the City are relatively similar in age (approximately 40 years), most of the streets in the City are nearing the end of their useful design life, and have similar pavement condition ratings. The streets in Orchard West are typical of these streets. The typical design life of a street is usually 20 -25 years. The expenditure of large amounts of maintenance dollars have allowed the streets to last as long as 40 years or more. Because of their extended age, the City's streets have reached a condition where normal maintenance practices can no longer be feasible. The streets originally were not constructed to the same standards practiced today, and poor drainage in the area has contributed to the wear and tear induced by traffic and age. As part of this proposed project, the streets should be reconstructed to approximately the same width, with adequate base and structural support. Concrete curb and gutter would also be included to provide for improved drainage and long term durability. Other Infrastructure Neighborhood street improvement programs also provide opportunities for other utilities (Le, Minnegasco, NSP, U.S. West, etc.) to upgrade their facilities in conjunction with the City improvements. At this time, the City is working with these other utilities to identify any problem areas, or facilities in need of replacement. The comprehensive plan shows no new sidewalks or trails for this area, and none are currently proposed in this project. Summary While some other streets in the City may appear to be in poorer condition than your particular street, the overall age and condition of most streets in the City are relatively similar. Because of age and continued deterioration of all streets, the amount of maintenance needs have spiraled. Street maintenance funding allocations have not kept adequate pace with these increased needs and costs. The overall condition of all streets, therefore, continues to decline. • Selection of the Orchard West Area as a priority for improvements has been elevated as a result of the water quality concerns and other infrastructure needs. The water system needs have been documented, and the need to improve the system has always been considered necessary. As part of a larger improvement project to improve all infrastructure for years to come, this would be the most feasible and opportune time to perform these improvements. While the storm sewer system is in need of improvement throughout the City, a large percentage of feedback received during very heavy rains comes from the western part of Brooklyn Center, including the Orchard West Area. Because of property damages experienced by flooding, we recognize a responsibility to correct this problem when the opportunity arises. The condition of the sanitary sewer makes the area a higher priority as well. Not only is the condition of the facilities a concern, but excessive groundwater infiltration into the sanitary sewer translates to higher waste water treatment costs for the entire City. Our overall assessment of the infrastructure and improvement needs in your neighborhood are based upon the best information we have available. We will also be obtaining more information as our preliminary design continues. However, as residents of the neighborhood, you may have specific experiences and /or insights and suggestions that we may not be aware of. Your input is therefore encouraged and appreciated. In summary, the Orchard West Area was prioritized based upon the overall infrastructure needs and priorities in relation to other neighborhoods throughout the City. In the interest of the City at large and your neighborhood, we believe this is the most prudent and responsible course of action to take at this • time. Scott A. Brink, City Engineer SURVEY • This survey P Y g our will help us better understand needs in neighborhood. Please return this survey by September 27, 1996. You may also call us at 569 -3340 to talk about these issues. Thank you for your cooperation. Scott Brink, C ity Enginee 1. Our sewer televising shows a number of sanitary sewer services with moderate to severe root infiltration. Have you experienced any problems with sanitary sewer service, such as having the service cleaned out to the street? How often? Do you have boulevard trees near your service? • 2. Our evaluation of the storm drainage system is that it is inadequate or undersized. Do you have a problem with drainage or flooding? In the street, your yard, your basement? I In the ast there have been some complaints regarding the domestic water distribution P � P g g system in your neighborhood. Are you currently experiencing any problems or concerns with the following: water pressure, water quality, etc? Any additional comments or concerns? 4. We have been referring to this project as the "Orchard Lane West" improvement, for • lack of anything better to call it. Does the neighborhood have a name for itself that you would prefer? 5. What other concerns do you have? Are there traffic problems? Specific code enforcement needs? Street lighting? What kinds of ideas do you have for neighborhood beautification? Are you interested in workshops on topics such as landscaping, ideas for home remodeling, etc. ? Do you need blockwatch group information? Should you have questions or need more information, please contact the engineering department at 569 -3340. Your name: Address: Please return by September 27, 1996 to: Engineering Department • City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 • October 30, 1996 Dear Resident: You are invited to an informational meeting regarding proposed neighborhood improvements: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 6:30 p.m. Orchard Lane School Cafeteria Several weeks ago you received a letter saying that your neighborhood was being considered for street, utility, and park improvements in 1997. We have completed a preliminary review of conditions in your neighborhood, and will describe in more detail our findings and our recommendations at this November 13 meeting. When considering a neighborhood improvement project, we go through a process of informational meetings with the neighborhood. After we develop a preliminary design, the City Council holds a formal public hearing at a Council meeting to take public comment and decide if the project should be done. We are still early in the process. One more informational meeting will likely be held before i the City Council will decide if it will hold a public hearing to consider the project. Background As you are aware, Brooklyn Center is a mature, developed city which is entering a phase of redevelopment and renewal. The need to stabilize the condition and value of our neighborhoods is a challenge we all face over the next several years. One of the first challenges is dealing with our aging streets and utilities. Over two thirds of the residential neighborhoods in our community were developed in the 1950's, and the streets are now around 40 years old. The expected life of pavement is 20 years. Through an extensive (and expensive) maintenance program we have extended the life of our streets, but we now need to consider replacing them. Three years ago the City began a program of neighborhood renewal. Neighborhood by neighborhood we are working our way through the entire city rebuilding or rehabilitating our infrastructure. We are also working to coordinate public works improvements with other programs such as increased code enforcement, and new programs such as landscaping and remodeling workshops. These improvements do include using special assessments to pay for a portion of the project costs. This cost will only get more expensive if we wait to address these needs. It is our hope that by investing in public improvements (streets, utilities, parks, street lighting), private improvements (landscaping, remodeling, driveway replacements), and "social" improvements (eliminating problem • properties, resolving traffic complaints), we can renew a sense of community and neighborhood pride. • Proposed Improvements Enclosed with this letter is a short report by City Engineer Scott Brink on the findings of our preliminary studies. As you know, the project under consideration is the reconstruction or rehabilitation, as necessary, of all the streets and utilities in the project area, an area which we call Orchard Lane West. - The main reason why we propose improvements in your neighborhood at this time is because of water main distribution and storm drainage needs. As many of you know, there have been on -going concerns regarding the quality of water dispensed at many households in your neighborhood. At this time, we are proposing to replace the majority of water main pipe in Orchard West. There has also been a history of flooding in certain areas of your neighborhood during heavier rainfalls. The storm drainage system for the whole "subwatershed" (the area of the City which drains east to Shingle Creek), of which your neighborhood is a part, has been inadequate. The pond constructed at the Park and Ride site, the additional trunk storm sewer constructed along 65th Avenue, and the "dry pond" constructed in Orchard Lane Park, were the first steps in a whole program of improvements designed to upgrade drainage in the entire central western area of the city. As the Engineer's report briefly points out, in your neighborhood we are looking at adding additional storm sewer and replacing existing pipe with larger pipe. We have also found through sewer televising that segments of the sanitary sewer in your neighborhood suffer from extensive root infiltration. We need to consider • replacing those mains, and residential services between the main and property lines to reduce the problems that many of you have with sewer backups. Preliminary maps showing the areas proposed for specific utility improvements will be provided at the November 13 meeting. Informational Meeting At the meeting on November 13, we will review this information in general, and discuss what kinds of improvements we think are needed. Thank you for your responses to the survey that was previously mailed. This has helped us better understand not only the physical problems, but the other types of improvements you would like to see in your neighborhood. If you have not returned the survey, please bring it with you to the meeting, or mail it to us if you cannot attend. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call us in the Engineering Division at 569- 3340. I hope to see you on November 13 at Orchard Lane School in the cafeteria, at 6:30 p.m. Sincerely, Diane Spector DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES • cc: Mayor Kragness and City Council Members Dear Resident: November 26, 1996 You are invited to an informational meeting regarding proposed neighborhood improvements: Thursday, December 5, 1996 6:30 p.m. Orchard Lane School Cafeteria 6201 Noble Avenue North At this meeting we will present essentially the same information regarding the proposed improvement project as at the November 13, 1996 informational meeting. As at that meeting, we will spend the bulk of the time individually reviewing proposed plans, reviewing sewer tapes, and in one -on -one and general question and answer sessions. When considering a neighborhood improvement project, we go through a process of informational meetings with the neighborhood. After we develop a preliminary design, the City Council holds a formal public hearing at a Council meeting to take public comment and decide if the project should be • done. We are still early in the process. After these informational meetings, we will send out more information to you before the City Council will decide if it will hold a public hearing to consider the project. As a reminder, what is proposed in your neighborhood is the complete reconstruction of streets including installation of curb and gutter, replacement of all the watermain, replacement of about half the sanitary sewer main, and the installation of new storm sewers. Preliminary maps showing the areas proposed for specific utility improvements were provided at the November 13 meeting, and will be again available, somewhat more refined, at the December 5 meeting. We also have information regarding which sanitary sewer services should be replaced, and which boulevard trees will likely have to be remove to provide for service replacement. Finally, we will again have sewer televising tapes available so that individuals can view the condition of their sanitary sewer services. Thank you for your responses to the survey that was previously mailed. This has helped us better understand not only the physical problems, but the other types of improvements you would like to see in your neighborhood. If you have not returned the survey, please bring it with you to the meeting, or mail it to us if you cannot attend. We will again have copies of the summary of survey responses at this meeting. • • We have prepared brochures addressing common questions asked by residents of areas where improvement projects are proposed. These were very popular at the November 13 meeting, so we have enclosed them with this mailing so that everyone can receive this information. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call us in the Engineering Division at 569- 3340. I hope to see you on December 5 at Orchard Lane School in the cafeteria, at 6:30 p.m. If you are interested in viewing the televising tape of your sewer service, we will be available starting at 6 p.m. Sincerely, Diane Spector DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES cc: Mayor Kragness and City Council Members • • MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 1996 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Services_ SUBJECT: Orchard Lane West Neighborhood Meeting Report The first informational meeting with the Orchard Lane West neighborhood to discuss potential street and utility improvements in 1997 was held at Orchard Lane School on Wednesday, November 13. Approximately 130 neighborhood residents attended, representing approximately 20 percent of the households in the neighborhood. In attendance besides myself were the following City staff: ♦ Scott Brink, City Engineer; ♦ Jim Glasoe, Public Services Coordinator; ♦ Dave Anderson, Senior Engineering Technician; ♦ Dave Peterson, Public Works Superintendent; ♦ Mark Hartfiel, Public Utilities Supervisor; • ♦ John Harlow, Streets and Parks Supervisor; and ♦ Sgt. Dave Grass, Community Services Sergeant Also in attendance was Councilmember Kathleen Carmody. We opened the meeting with a short presentation providing the background of the 20 year Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program, a short review of existing conditions and proposed improvements, a mention of proposed special assessments, and a presentation showing what sewer televising can reveal, how galvanized plumbing can collect mineral deposits and cause low internal water pressure, and displaying a root mass taken from a sewer service in the Orchard East area which was plugging the entire service. We then took a 20 minute break for small group discussions and one -on -one questions, and then reconvened for a general question and answer period. Information which was available to the residents during the break and before and after the meeting was a very preliminary analysis of probable sanitary sewer main and sewer service replacements, and an identification of probable tree removals based on trees located directly over sewer or water services or located within one foot of the edge of the street. We also had handouts covering Answers to Commonly Asked Questions and Common Water Quality Complaints, and also the results of the surveys. All the sewer televising tapes were available, and we were able to show many residents video of their sewer service. Not everyone who was interested was able to view the tapes because of the number of people in attendance, but we will make those tapes available at other times so that anyone who is interested can see their service. We were careful to point out to the residents that while the replacement of water mains throughout • the neighborhood and reconfiguring the system in accordance with the water supply model recently completed will greatly improve the quality of water in the distribution system, we could not • guarantee everyone crystal -clear water at the tap should the project go forward. The proposed improvements will provide a very significant improvement in water quality. Replacement of the unlined cast iron pipe with ductile iron pipe means water will not sit in the pipes and absorb iron. Judiciously changing pipe sizes will improve movement of water and thus detention times will be greatly reduced. However, many homes in this neighborhood were built with galvanized plumbing, not copper, which can cause internal water problems, including reduced water pressure. Some residents do not maintain their water softener as they should, and this can lead to problems. If the project does go forward we assured the residents that we would do what we could to help diagnose internal problems and suggest solutions so that all residents could benefit as much as possible from the water system improvements. Even if residents have internal piping problems they will still see a significant benefit and improvement in water quality. Staff have compiled lists of typical questions asked by residents during both the small group sessions and the full group Q &A session. In general, questions pertained to the mechanics of a project -- when would construction start, what could we expect, how is it determined if a tree has to come out, how do assessments work. In the middle of the meeting a resident asked for a show of hands of those who were in favor of the project, and those opposed. Virtually the entire group raised their hands as in favor of the project. About three said they were undecided, and four were opposed to the project. • There were very few questions about some of the "non- project" topics which were mentioned in the surveys. There was no mention of neighborhood speeding traffic and what could be done, few questions regarding street lights. A number of people mentioned code enforcement in the surveys, and Sgt. Grass did speak to the issue during his presentation, encouraging residents to call in complaints. It may be that these topics will be brought up at later meetings. In summary, the general tone of the meeting was very positive. Residents asked thoughtful questions and desired the process to continue on to more detailed design and cost analysis. We should be ready to have an additional informational meeting the first or second week of December. This would provide an opportunity for those who weren't able to attend the November 13 meeting to get more information and also for us to present additional information. If the Council desired the project to continue forward in the process, then: ♦ The meeting results and the more detailed design and cost estimates could then be brought to the Council in January to determine if it is desired to call a public hearing in late February. ♦ A public hearing could be held the end of February. ♦ If the project is ordered, plans and specifications could be finalled, bids taken, and a contract awarded by the end of April or beginning of May, for an early start to construction. This is the process which was used last year for all four street projects, and it proved very successful. The large neighborhood project was out very early for bids, and we received very good prices because of it. • Cc: 1997- 01,02,03 (5) Attachments i • MEMORANDUM DATE: December 6, 1996 TO: Diane Spector, Director of Public Services FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer SUBJECT: Orchard Lane West Improvement Project (1997 -01) Neighborhood Informational Meeting No. 2 December 5, 1996, 6:30 P.M., Orchard Lane West Elementary School A second informational meeting was held for property owners for the above proposed improvement project(the first meeting was held November 13). Attending from the City were Dave Peterson, Dave Anderson, Jim Glasoe, and Scott Brink. Approximately 30 -35 individuals attended the meeting. A show of hands revealed that about 10 people or less had attended the November 13 meeting, and the remainder had not. The presentation by staff was therefore essentially the same as that presented at the earlier meeting. A similar format was followed: a 30- 40 minute presentation, followed by a coffee break, followed by a general wrap -up question and answer session. • The meeting seemed almost identical to the first meeting in terms of the resident's desire /acceptance for the project and the types of questions that were asked. There were no residents who openly spoke out against the project, and many who spoke with staff during the break and afterwards expressed their desire to see the project proceed ahead. Following are examples of the questions that were asked. Where will the work start first? What is the schedule? Access to my property... will I be notified when I can't get to my property? How long will it take to complete the project? Driveways..... how much of the driveway is replaced? A resident on Howe Lane requested a need for more street lights. There were many questions relating to the sewer replacements and the replacements of the services. Which ones would we replace ?, etc. Would we also replace the water services? A question was asked regarding the dry pond in Orchard Park. One resident asked how the City can afford to replace the water mains now, but couldn't 8 years ago? The same resident expressed a concern regarding dust control on the project, that someone in his household has asthma and dust was a concern of his. A question regarding the replacement of trees was asked. Another resident suggested we make a skating rink on the pond at Cahlander Parka - -An interesting side note is that no one brought up any questions or concerns regarding any traffic speed problems. • The meeting ended just after 8:00 P.M. City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. r MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstro asman, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: January 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Presentation on Police, Fire, and Americans with Disabilities Act Building Requirements City Manager will update Council and give presentation. • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer