Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 04-28 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 28, 1997 • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER April 28, 1997 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation - Pastor McKinley Moore, Jehovah Jireh Church 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 Minutes - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. March 18, 1997 - Council/Park & Recreation Commission 2. March 24, 1997 - Regular Session 3. March 31, 1997 - Special Work Session b. Resolution Appointing Kristelle Berg as Alternate to the Board of Directors of LOGIS c. Resolution Appointing Jane Chambers to the Board of Directors of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council d. Application for Temporary Beer License - St. Alphonsus Church e. Resolution Awarding a Contract for Professional Services for Design and Construction Management, Improvement Project No. 1997 -14, Water Utility Conservation Measures £ Resolution Awarding a Contract for Professional Services for Design and Construction Management, Improvement Project No. 1997 -10, Replacement of SCADA and INTRAC Systems • g. Licenses CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- April 28, 1997 • 6. Open Forum 7. Public Hearing a. Resolution Approving Modifications No. 1 and No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3, and Making Findings with Respect Thereto - Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolution. 8. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 97005 submitted by Timothy Thompson. Request for a Variance approval to allow an addition to a detached garage at 5945 Camden Avenue North resulting in an accessory building that exceeds both the 1,000 sq. ft. maximum size of a single accessory building and also the ground coverage of a principal building. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this application at its April 17, 1997, meeting. - Requested Council Action: • - Motion to deny Planning Commission Application No. 97005 submitted by Timothy Thompson (denial recommended by Planning Commission). b. Planning Commission Application No. 97007 submitted by Popehn Limited Partnership . (Hiawatha Rubber Company). Request for a Site and Building Plan approval to construct a 37,440 sq. ft. addition to the Hiawatha Rubber Company building located at 1700 67th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its April 17, 1997, meeting. - Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 97007 submitted by Popehn Limited Partnership (Hiawatha Rubber Company) subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Acknowledging Donation from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for Arbor Day Program - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. b. Discussion of Utility Billing Collection Procedures - Requested Council Action: • - Council discuss utility billing collection procedures. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- April 28, 1997 • C. Resolution Approving the Local Storm Water Management Plan - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. d. Resolution Adopting the Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. e. Resolution Authorizing Contract and Policy Amendments Regarding Life Insurance - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. f. Heritage Center Open House - Requested Council Action: - Discussion of participation criteria. g. Report on Code Enforcement Plan for 1997 - Requested Council Action: -City Manager will give a verbal report. 10. Adjournment • �D QTR j 70 - 79th Ave. N.E. 1 INC. , (612) 574 -0407 Fridley, MN 55432 April. 1997 Introducing Tried & True Tools, Inc. Tried_.& True Tools is a "family owned specialty retail business selling new & used `tool "s & "machines to small businesses, professional tradesmen, and hobbyists., We are unique'in -also accepting used tools for"resale on trade - in, consignment, or purchase. These tools come from current users and those who no longer use tools including retirees, estates and those whose needs have r We . chan ed: serve e ve the community by offering tools & machines for. sale at competitive prices, and providing_ a.fair and honest marketplace for the remarketing of tools and machines. We are presently located in a 5600 square foot facility in Fridley, where we have been in business since 1989. We are,here before the City Council of.Brooklyn Center because we are seeking' larger facilities for our business. - We have found a site that would be suitable located in the Northbrook Shopping Center. Our due diligence has revealed that the City of Brooklyn "Center has ordinances governing Second Hand Dealers that are costly, restrictive and would be so cumbersome as to preclude any location within Brooklyn Center from consideration. The.present ordinance makes no distinction between Pawn Shops and Specialty Second Hand Goods Dealers. Difficulties that we in the present ordinance:. • Restrictions do not allow business on Sundays. • Record keeping and reporting requirements are cost prohibitive and impractical. • Holding of merchandise prior to being able to resell it. • Bond Requirements are an additional expense. • License .fees are prohibitive. - • Other - communitiesunder consideration . forour "business do. not have such ordinances, (Fridley, New Hope, Plymouth) or are repealing them (Brooklyn Park). We recognize that the concern of the City Leaders is the potential marketing of stolen property, and we have taken steps to discourage this within our business. These steps need not be prohibitive to economical business practice. These steps include: • Identification Required, records of sellers retained. RECYCLED PAPER y / " • Sellers records contain adequate description to allow us to locate their merchandise within our``.store.- Herchandise.within store is identified as to its source. • Open Door policy for all Law Enforcement to inspect merchandise and records • In the few cases we_have experienced of stolen property, our records have allowed the.Police to make a positive case against criminals. For Tried & True Tools- to consider a location within the City of Brooklyn Park, the present,ordinance would need to make a distinction between Pawn Shops and Specialty Second Hand Goods Dealers. This could be accomplished either through exemption, or by creation 'of a new sub- category within the ordinance. We respectfully request that the City .Council of Brooklyn Park examine the barriers to business of unusual business hours restrictions, highly detailed records that are expensive to create while being of little use to law enforcement and overnight reporting of these records, merchandise holding, and prohibitive, unnecessary bond and license fees. We would welcome a visit to our store by anyone who would like to see first hand our business. Sincerely, Paul Williams, President Tried & True Tools, Inc. r DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARCH 18, 1997 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sorenson called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sorenson, Commissioners Ebert, Peterson, Theis, and Shinnick were present. Commissioners Mead and Russell were excused. Also, in attendance were City Councilmembers Kay Lasman and Robert Peppe, City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, and Acting Recreation Director Jim Glasoe. Mayor Kragness entered the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Councilmember Carmody entered the meeting at 6:48 p.m. Councilmember Hilstrom entered the meeting at 6:54 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 18 1997 There was a motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Commissioner Mead to approve the February 18, 1997, minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The motion passed. Mayor Kragness joined the meeting at 6:42 p.m. PARKS City Manager McCauley introduced a set of questions for the City Council and Commission to consider in preparation for the development of 5- and 20 -year plans for parks and recreation programming. He indicated that a specific long -range plan needed to be developed for capital expenses related to the parks. He asked the Commission and Council to consider the concept of major and minor parks in the system. Councilmember Carmody joined the meeting at 6:48 p.m. Public Services Director Spector showed a map of the existing parks and their facilities. She then discussed the possibility of developing four or five "destination parks. " These parks might have lighted pleasure and hockey rinks with warming houses; larger playgrounds; groomed ball fields; • 3/18/97 -1- DRAFT staffed summer programming; tennis and basketball courts; biffs and other more capital and maintenance intensive activities. The remaining neighborhood parks might have smaller playgrounds; basketball courts; picnic shelters and perhaps a ball field for pickup games. Councilmember Hilstrom jointed the meeting at 6:54 p.m. Councilmember Hilstrom wanted all parks to still be useable by the neighborhoods, with appropriate facilities including trails and benches by playground equipment. City Manager McCauley urged the Commission to develop an inventory of existing facilities and prioritize needed replacements on the basis of creating destination parks. After some discussion there was consensus that consideration should be given to establishing major parks and refocusing capital expenditures and programming efforts. An inventory will be g P Pe P g g rY developed and replacements prioritized. COMMUNITY CENTER Public Services Director Spector asked Commissioners and Councilmembers to indicate what they believed the focus of the Community Center should be. She referred specifically to items such as handicapped accessibility, ty, the wading pool, and the need for family locker room space. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if attendance figures were available for the wading pool. Acting Recreation Director Glasoe indicated that there was no specific attendance • figures for the wading P 1� g pool, but that b combining registration figures with general Y g g � � attendance, an estimate could be established. i Commissioner Ebert believed the wading pool is an important amenity and should be relocated or renovated. Councilmember Carmody asked about the possibility of dedicated space for a senior citizen center. Commissioner Sorenson indicated the Commission had discussed the possibility but recommended all spaces should be non - dedicated and able to accommodate multiple uses. He stated that although a dedicated Senior Center was not recommended, if a space can be designated during the daytime hours, it may be worthwhile. After discussion, the consensus opinion appeared to be that the Community Center should be positioned to provide opportunities for all age groups, with a focus on youth and families. COMMISSION /COUNCIL RELATIONSHIP Public Services Director Spector asked Commissioners and Councilmembers if the current working relationship was meeting each group's expectations. 3/18/97 -2- • R irFn in icated that he would like to see the Council Liaison to the Commission ' reporting on the Commission's activities at the City Council meetings. Mayor Kragness indicated this item was on the agenda for an upcoming Council work session. Both groups indicated this type of "face to face" meeting was the most F roductive. Councilmember Lasman expressed a desire to have the City Council invited to join the Parks and Recreation Commission on its annual tour of parks. Acting Recreation Director Glasoe will put the tour item on an upcoming Commission agenda. TWIN LAKE PARK Councilmember Carmody asked for Commission's feelings regarding Twin Lake Park. She expressed concern regarding the City's liability exposure because of swimming at the park. She asked if the Commission might consider selling the property. Public Services Director Spector indicated she was not certain how saleable the land was, as a large portion was within the current flood plain. Also, because the issue of how the City acquired the property is unclear, City Manager McCauley will investigate if the City can legally sell the property. Councilmember Lasman indicated that for some time she has considered Twin Lake Park a "diamond in the rough" and would like to see it developed into a swimming beach. Commissioners indicated a desire to keep all current park land. After additional discussion, it was decided the Commission will discuss the issue once ownership issues are clarified. SET MEETING DATE The next meeting was set for April 15, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room A of City Hall. MEETING ADJOURNED Commissioner Shinnick made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peterson to adjourn the . meeting at 9:10 p.m. The motion passed. City Clerk Mayor 3 %18/97 -3- • DR AFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 24, 1997 CITY HALL, CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council me: in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Kay Lasman. and Robert Peppe. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Public Services Director Diane Spector, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary LeAnn Larson. INVOCATION • Invocation was given by Reverend Howard Sortland, Cross of Glory Lutheran Church. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Hilstrom recently attended the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C. Discussion centered on efforts to stop passing unfunded mandates. Mayor Kragness noted that two open houses have been held already at Fire Station 41 (63rd Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard). Two open houses at Fire Station 42 (65th Avenue and Dupont Avenue North) are forthcoming: Thursday, April 10, from 7 -9 p.m., and Saturday, April 19, from 1 -4 p.m. The public is encouraged to attend. Councilmember Carmody recently attended a League of Minnesota Cities meeting in which discussion focused on tax increment financing, land use planning, and property tax reform. Councilmember Lasman stated that April 16, 1997, will be Awards Night for Crime Prevention, 7 p.m., held at Constitution Hall.' Also, sponsorship has been obtained to fund the youth activity program for this coming summer. 3/24/97 4/ � 97 - D RAFT APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Hilstrom requested the minutes of the Feb 24 1997 -- Regular Session • �'Y e b removed from the agenda for clarifications. A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the removal of approval of minutes passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 97 -56 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINAL EYEWEAR PURCHASE POLICY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Hilstrom and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 97 -57 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE GOLF COURSE FAIRWAY MOWER • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Hilstrom and passed unanimously. LICENSE TO UTILIZE EXPLOSIVES PERMITS FOR THE HOWE COMPANY A motion was made by Councilmember Carmody to approve the license request from the Howe Company to utilize explosives permits. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom and passed unanimously. LICENSES Mechanical Svstems Delmar Furnace Exchange, Inc. 4080 83rd Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Rental Dwelling Initial: Chu and Kim La 4110 Lakebreeze Avenue ?North x/24/97 • " RAFT Renewal: • Shingle Creek Tower 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway Bartholmew Dabrowski 5001 Ewing Avenue North Bobby and Sandy Robson 1107 57th Avenue North Sign Hanger Graphic House, Inc. 9204 Packer Drive, Wausau, WI Tobacco Related Products TGI Friday's 2590 Freeway Boulevard OPEN FORUM There were no requests for open forum. PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN TRACT A REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NUMBER 1572 (SUNLITE PROPERTIES) City Manager McCauley explained that this item was first read on February 24, 1997, published in the official newspaper, and was being offered for a second reading and public hearing. • A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to open the public hearing passed unanimously. No one appeared for the public hearing. A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to close the public hearing passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 97 -04 Member Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NUMBER 1572 (SUNLITE PROPERTIES) The motion for the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Carmody and passed unanimously. • 3/24/97 _3_ DRAFT COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF ERIC • MARQUARDT FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE CHART R COMMISSION Mayor Kragness expressed recognition and appreciation of Eric Marquardt for his dedicated public service on the Charter Commission from August 31, 1995, to December 1, 1996. RESOLUTION NO. 97-58 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF ERIC MARQUARDT FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE CHARTER COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Hilstrorn and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING DONATIONS FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS Mayor Kragness noted that the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has resented to the City a check • P tY for three thousand dollars ($3,000) and has designated that it be used for the annual Sunday in Central Park activities. In addition, the Lions have donated three hundred dollars ($300) designating that it be used for outdoor conservation programs. Mayor Kragness expressed the City's appreciation for these generous contributions. RESOLUTION NO. 97-59 Member Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING DONATIONS FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Carmody and passed unanimously. 3/24/97 -4- • DRAFT PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 13 THROUGH 19 1997 AS VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK A motion was made by Councilmember Carmody to declare April 13 -19, 1997, as Volunteer Recognition Week. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lasman and passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF UTILITY BILLING COLLECTION PROCEDURES City Manager McCauley explained that over the last several years staff has been concerned that the current set of utility billing collection procedures may not serve the citizens in the best way. The cornerstone of the current process is the threat that water service will be shut off if the bill isn't paid. Angry and potentially dangerous confrontations are possible when the maintenance crew is sent out to actually shut water off, which promotes an atmosphere that is not customer service oriented. A moratorium was placed on winter water shut -offs at the direction of the Council. As part of the moratorium, the Council requested an additional study on possible approaches to delinquent water bills. The majority of neighboring cities who were surveyed assess the delinquent utility bills as part of the real estate taxes through special assessments. The options would be to reinstate the previous water shut -off policy with a winter moratorium • as currently in place or to consider an assessment policy whereby unpaid water bills would be certified and paid as part of the real estate taxes. Finance Director Charlie Hansen discussed some of the pros and cons of each option. The advantage to the water shut -off policy is that repayment tends to occur more frequently. The disadvantage is that it consumes a great deal of staff time as well as confrontational issues for the water utility crew and the process of physically shutting off water and checking that it remains turned off. The advantage to an assessment procedure is that we do not have to deal with issues of persons being without water service because of unpaid bills, and while there is a negative of involvement of Finance Department time to certify bills, send notices, and acts-ally have the matter certified to the County Auditor, the confrontational aspects and the use of utility crew time is eliminated. The disadvantage is that relying upon assessing to property taxes will lengthen the collection cycle. However, the water fund has a large enough cash balance so that this won't cause cash flow problems, and fees and interest can be charged on the assessment to largely replace any lost investment income. Mayor Kragness inquired about the number of past due bills at present. Mr. Hansen responded that 700 -800 were "delinquent" at present. • 3/ _5_ UhAi= Councilmember Hilstrom inquired if the assessment collection cycle could be revised from the present annual certification. Mr. Hansen responded that the unpaid bills could be assessed • twice a year and suggested trying this option for a year. Councilmember Hilstrom and Mayor Kragness spoke in favor of the current shut -off policy with the winter moratorium on shut -offs as being the best incentive to pay the unpaid utility bills. Councilmember Lasman stated that the water fund had enough cash balance to avoid cash flow problems. Changing to an assessment policy seemed to be less dangerous for City personnel. She stated the Council should consider that the majority of neighboring cities use assessing to taxes over the shut -off policy. Councilmember Hilstrom requested that staff do a cash analysis to determine the net cost savings of assess to taxes versus the current shut -off policy. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED INVESTMENT POLICY City Manager McCauley explained that the City's present written investment policy has been in force since 1990. Events of recent years have made the existing policy somewhat out -of- date, and several changes need to be made to bring the policy up -to -date. This amended investment policy is based on recommendations of the Government Finance Officers Association, Minnesota State Statutes, the City Charter, and the Financial Commission. • City Attorney LeFevere noted that Section III should be amended to denote the proper delegation of authority in order to be consistent with the City Charter. RESOLUTION NO. 97-60 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution, with the addition of the suggested wording of City Attorney LeFevere regarding Delegation of Authority, and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDED INVESTMENT POLICY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lasman and passed unanimously. SOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR CITY INSURANCE POLICIES AND CONTRACTS FOR THE INSURANCE ANCE A ENT AND INSURANCE CONSULTANT FOR 1997 City Manager McCauley explained that this resolution authorizes renewal of the following insurance contracts for the period of January 1, 1997, to January 1, 1998: Comprehensive 3/24/97 -6- • DRAFT Property and Casualty Insurance, Worker's Compensation Insurance, Boiler and Machinery Insurance, Accident Plan for Volunteers, Open Meeting Law Defense, and Liquor Liability • Insurance. Also, several contracts for the insurance agent and insurance consultant need to be extended. RESOLUTION NO. 97-61 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR CITY INSURANCE POLICIES AND CONTRACTS FOR THE INSURANCE AGENT AND INSURANCE CONSULTANT FOR 1997 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lasman and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1997-14. RETROFIT OF SEVERAL WELLS WITH ASDs FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION City Manager McCauley explained that this was the third phase of a three -part recommendation for reducing energy costs. This process would involve the installation of adjustable speed drives (ASDs) on the motors of five of the wells and a time of day clock/timer on a sixth well. This improvement would offer substantial savings for the City. This resolution establishes the project and authorizes the City consultant, TKDA, to apply on the City's behalf for participation in the NSP loan program. Through the NSP Local Government Energy Conservation Program, the City could obtain no cost financing for this improvement, which is estimated to cost about $210,000. NSP provides the capital up front for the improvement costs, and then the improvement is paid back over ten years through future energy savings. The City's engineering consulting costs are reimbursed, except for some types of construction supervision costs. Thus, the only up -front expense to the City would be an estimated $5,000 for engineering costs not reimbursed under the Program. Councilmember Hilstrom inquired if the number of wells in Brooklyn Center was sufficient. Public Services Director Diane Spector noted that based on the last water study, there appears to be no need to dig any additional wells. There may be a need for additional storage of water within the next ten years, however, due to possible change in water treatment and/or conservation measures. Ms. Spector also stated that the water study will be updated within four years. Councilmember Hilstrom requested a copy of the previous study and the time line for the future study. • 3/24/97 -7- R A F T RESOLUTION NO. 97-62 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1997-14, RETROFIT OF SEVERAL WELLS WITH ASDs FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Peppe and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT METRO MOTORS ADDITION City Manager McCauley explained that this resolution was for the platting of property to be developed by Brookdale Mitsubishi. The Council approved the preliminary plat at the January 27, 1997, City Council meeting. Approval of the final plat was recommended subject to the review and approval of Hennepin County and any outstanding conditions required by the City. RESOLUTION NO. 97 -63 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT - METRO MOTORS ADDITION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lasman • and passed on a vote of Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, Peppe and Mayor Kragness voting aye; Councilmember Hilstrom voted nay. Mayor Kragness conv get well wishes t ., y � s o Tony Kuefler, former City Council member. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: LeAnn Larson 3/24/97 _g_ MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA It SPECIAL WORK SESSION MARCH 31, 1997 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in a special work session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Kay Lasman, and Robert Peppe. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Community Development Director Brad Hoffinan, and Council Secretary LeAnn Larson. I. LOGIS Mike Gams, Executive Director of LOGIS, inquired whether the City might consider issuing revenue bonds on behalf of LOGIS. LOGIS currently leases space within the Freeway Business Center IV complex. Due to expansion needs and a.desire to level operational costs, LOGIS is seeking to construct its own building on a parcel of land within the City located at 69th and Shingle Creek Parkway. Because LOGIS is a local government entity, it can take advantage of public sector bond financing to fund the land and construction costs. These bonds would require Council approval for their issuance; however, the City would have no risk nor obligation for repayment of the bonds. LOGIS is willing to make a payment in lieu of taxes to the City should it be allowed to build in Brooklyn Center. Dave Kennedy, with Kennedy & Graven, noted the similarity to the industrial revenue bonds issued by the City in 1979. The City is allowed a maximum of $10 million in bank - qualified bonds in a given year. Mr. Garris explained that LOGIS would be paying the delinquent taxes on the parcel should the concept of issuance of bonds by the City be approved by the Council. Community Development Director'Brad Hoffman stated that access impediments make this parcel less marketable than other commercial land. Council questions and comments centered on the loss of revenue and tax base if this parcel became tax exempt; little remaining developable land in the City; and, possible bonding within 3/31/97 -1- • d� RAFT 1997 already for Brookdale, ponding, Police Department/Fire Department needs, and special ` assessments. . Councilmember Hilstrom asked how much tax exempt land is presently in the City and the subsequent tax base "lost." Mr. Hoffman will look into this matter. Council consensus was unanimous in opposition to the idea of issuing revenue bonds on behalf of LOGIS due to the $10 million "limit" of bank - qualified bonds, the negative impact to the TIF district (and school district), and the number of tax exempt parcels already in the City. II. REPORT ON HERITAGE CENTER STUDY: JAMES M KLAS MARQUETTE ADVISORS James Klas, from Marquette Advisors, gave a brief presentation on the Heritage Center Study. The Earle Brown Heritage Center has made significant strides since the 1993 study, achieving better than break -even operations for the first time in 1996. Several recommendations in the 1993 Marquette report have been achieved: City payment for facility use, reduction/reallocation of advertising costs, increased sales staff efforts, creation of package prices, increased business meetings, streamlined booking practices, and improved budgeting. Recommendations in the 1993 report which haven't been achieved are: the sale /lease of inn or • live -in manager, improved highway signage, and change of name for the facility. The Inn remains unprofitable. However, it has a positive impact on the complex as a whole. Bond- related legal restrictions limit the options for changing the basic operating structure of the Inn. The preliminary recommendations of Marquette at present are: 1) Continue to pursue ways to improve the Inn/Earle's operating performance under the current structure. 2) Conduct negotiations with the Hilton or other area hotel for joint management of the Inn. 3) Increase available meeting space as office space becomes available. 4) Complete improvements to lower level meeting rooms. 5) Improve communication with Brookdale Center. 6) Improve highway signage /consider name change. 3/31/97 _�_ • . :..m 7) Increase accountability of facility management for meeting budget goals. 8) Create " mission statement" for the Heritage Center. • 9) Create a reserve fund for capital . pi al improvements. 10) Increase parking as funds become available. A formal report from Marquette will be forthcoming. City Manager McCauley asked for a more quantitative analysis of the Inn in relation to the Heritage Center - -a way to objectively track and demonstrate the worth of the Inn to the Heritage Center. Mr. McCauley stated that a proposed time line for future capital improvements would be prepared by June 1997. There was general Council discussion. III. COUNCIL ITEM COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AT COUNCIL MEETINGS Mayor Kragness suggested that Council members bring reports to the Council meetings from • the Commissions when the Commissions have news, projects, etc. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested including short news items from the Commissions in the City newsletter. PRAYER BREAKFAST DATE AND LOCATION Mayor Kragness noted that the Prayer Breakfast would be on April 19, 1997, at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS In relation to recent Council action regarding the Heritage Festival, Mayor Kragness stated that she believed the Council was micro- managing City Manager McCauley when it came to community contributions, and that he should be allowed to use his discretion in giving small contributions upon request within the limits of the budget. Councilmember Hilstrom stated that the Council should vote on these issues and the Heritage Festival issue shouldn't be Mr. NlcCauley's decision. She further noted that the Heritage Festival did not follow the application process as all other groups did. 3/31/97 DR AFT Councilmember Carmody agreed with Councilmember Hilstrom that the Heritage Festival should not get special treatment in this case. Councilmember Peppe expressed dismay at the inaccuracy of a recent editorial in the Sun -Post shedding a negative light on the Council. He suggested Discover the Center once again assist the Heritage Festival. The general consensus was to keep the existing policy of Council review of all applications for donations annually in preparation of the budget. POTENTIAL BOND ISSUE: INVOLVING CITIZEN GROUPS /COMMITTEES UPDATE OF POLICE/FIRE DESIGN /OPTIONSMEETINGS Mayor Kragness stated the importance of involving citizen groups/committees in any potential bond issue for the Police/Fire Departments design and options. Mr. McCauley will be presenting a more interactive presentation in May on the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with the various options. He will also be presenting this information to the area civic organizations. Mr. McCauley noted that the Riverwood I �a Nei Association has offered to assist in getting accurate information to the residents. DATE OF NEXT WORK SESSION The date of the next Council work session will be April 23, 1997, 7 p.m. IV. STAFF ITEM UPDATE ON 53RD AVENUE PROJECT City Manager McCauley updated the Council on relocation issues. DJ .URN A 0 IE NT A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. passed unanimously. I � City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: LeAnn Larson 3/31/97 -4- Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING KRISTELLE BERG AS ALTERNATE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LOGIS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a joint and cooperative agreement with other governmental units of the State of Minnesota to create Local Government Information Systems ( LOGIS) on May 1, 1972; and WHEREAS, as stated in Article IV, Section 2, of the joint and cooperative agreement of LOGIS, each member shall be entitled to one alternate director who shall be entitled to attend meetings of the Board and who may vote in the absence of the member's director; and WHEREAS, an alternate director for the City of Brooklyn Center is needed to represent the City's director, City Manager Michael J. McCauley, in his absence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that MIS Coordinator Kristelle Berg be appointed to represent the City of Brooklyn Center as alternate to the Board of Directors of LOGIS. • Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved t its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING JANE CHAMBERS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement with 13 other communities to form the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council on December 8, 1975; and WHEREAS, as stated in Article IV, Section 3, of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, Inc., members of the board of directors and alternates shall be appointed by the governing body of each party. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Assistant City Manager /Human Resources Director Jane Chambers be appointed to represent the City of Brooklyn Center on the board of directors of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. • 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. • ..J c ��pORLYN CEpT BROOKLYN CENTER '+ POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Kline, Chief of Police DATE: April 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Application for Temporary Beer License St. ACphonsus Church - Church Picnic • On April 17, 1997, the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for a Temporary Beer License from St. Alphonsus. This application is for an event to be held at the church located at 7025 Halifax Ave on Sunday, June 29, 1997, from 1:30 pm until 6:00 pm. They will be having security at this event and only beer will be served. Certificate of appropriate insurance coverage along with the $10 fee has been submitted. If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, please advise. The attached application only needs your signature. Scott Kline Chief of Police SK:kh • a1phsu97.mem City of Temporary Beet P Y Brooklyn Center License Application Organization Name: INEORINTATION nN C'(1N'1'e rT PERSON -FOR OR e NT7 P'I' Name: Address: 4;42, Home Phone: Work Phone: ENE ON F(TARnNfr THE F,VENT Name of Event: ( ocation of Event: .laarw (Cry, Suca Zip), Y a- Date(s) of Event: ti 2 , 12 F 7 Time(s) of Event: Security For Event: Signature of Applicant: Date: / F Return completed application with fee (S10 /day) to the Brooklyn Center Police Dept. Brooklyn Center requires proof of $300,000 dram shop liquor liability insurance with the City of Brooklyn Center named as an additional insured. This should be in the form of a certificate of insurance or an insurance binder. However, if your event is being held on City property, such as a City park, you are required to have proof of $500,000 dram shop liquor liability insurance with the City of Brooklyn Center named as an additional insured. • Application Approved: Date: City ,'v(arager Dec-M r • THE CATHOLIC MUTUAL RELIEF SOCIETY 4223 CENTER ST, OMAHA, NE 68105 CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is to certify that the following coverage is in force issued in the name of: ARCHDIOCESE OF ST PAUL - MINNEAPOLIS CHANCERY OFFICE 226 SUMMIT AVENUE ST PAUL, MN 55102 Certificate Number: 8589 Term: 7 /01/96 - 7/01/97 Covered Premises: Location /Property ST ALPHONSUS, 7025 HALIFAX AVE N, BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 -1394 Real Property Personal Property D eductible Coinsurance Additional CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Protected Person(s) General Liability 500,000 Medical Payments (Combined single limit) (Each person - excluding school students) Excess Liability 1,000,000 COMMENTS: COVERAGE EXTENDS TO PARISH PICNIC HELD ON PARISH GROUNDS ON JUNE 29, 1997. INCLUDES LIQUOR LIAB In the event of cancellation of this coverage the Society will mail notice thereof to: CHANCERY OFFICE ST PAUL, MN Should any of the above described coverages be cancelled before the expiration dates thereof, the carrier will endeavor to mail 30 days written notice to the certificate holder, but failure to mail such notice will impose no obligation nor liability upon the Society. �ated at OMAHA, NEBRASKA This 11TH Day of APRIL 1997 BY Form Number D70110 Authorized Reprdsentative ENDORSEMENT (TO BE ATTACHED TO CERTIFICATE) • Effective Date of Endorsement April 11, 1997 Charge — — — Credit — — — Certificate Holder Archdiocese of St Paul — Minneapolis Location St Paul, MN Certificate No. 8589 of The Catholic Mutual Relief Society is amended as follows: ADDITIONAL PROTECTED PERSON(S) It is understood and agreed that Who is a Protected Person(s) (Section II) is amended to include as a Protected Person(s) the person or organization shown below, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the designated premises used by the Protected Person(s), and then only while the Protected Person(s) is using the described premises. Additional Protected Person(s): City of Brooklyn Center Designated Premises and Use: St Alphonsus, Brooklyn Center, MN will have a Parish • Picnic on Parish Grounds on June 29, 1997. Includes Liquor Liability Authorized Representative PKS- 123(1 -89) 5� • MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, Manager Y� Y g FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Awarding a Contract for Professional Services for Design and Construction Management, Improvement Project No. 1997 -14, Water Utility Conservation Measures On March 24, 1997, the City Council approved a resolution establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -14, Retrofit of Several Wells with ASDs (Adjustable Speed Drive) for Energy conservation. The resolution also authorized the city's consultant (TKDA) to prepare an application to NSP for participation in the Local Government Energy Conservation Program. Upon receipt of acknowledgment from NSP, staff was also authorized to negotiate a professional services contract with TKDA for the development of plans and specifications and construction services for installation of the retrofit equipment. Staff has received notification from NSP to proceed, and have therefore prepared a professional services agreement for Council consideration. • Detailed background information and an explanation of the NSP program were provided at the March 24 meeting. Recommendation Authorize the execution of an agreement for professional services with TKDA. The consultant would prepare plans and specifications which would subsequently be reviewed and approved by the Council. We would then advertise for bids, and award a contract for the improvement to the lowest responsible bidder. The improvement would be done by contract with the City, and the City would own the improvements. Under the NSP program, the loan would cover the cost of preparing plans and specifications in an amount not to exceed 15 per cent of the improvement costs ($31,000). Construction engineering fees( $5500) would not be covered under the loan and would be paid from the Water Utility Fund. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _ RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1997 -14, WATER UTILITY CONSERVATION MEASURES WHEREAS, an Energy Study and Audit conducted for the City's water production facilities by the engineering consulting firm of TKDA and Associates, Inc., identified various capital improvements and rocedural changes which could be implemented to reduce energy P P costs in the operation of the water utility; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer and utility staff have reviewed said study with NSP and have determined that the recommended capital improvements of retrofitting five wells with adjustable speed drives and one additional well with a time of day clock/timer are feasible and could result in significant energy savings; and WHEREAS, NSP operates a Local Government Energy Conservation Program to provide no -cost financing of capital improvements which result in substantial energy savings; and WHEREAS, said retrofit project would be eligible to be fully funded but for some • minor consulting osts through a no cost loan from NSP to the water utility, be repaid through g g , tY P future energy savings; and WHEREAS, Improvement Project No. 1997 -14, Retrofit of Several Wells With ASDs for Energy Conservation has been established by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted materials for participation in the Local Government Energy Conservation Program to NSP; and WHEREAS, approval of the City's application has been received from ,NSP; and WHEREAS, staff has developed a professional services contract for development of plans and specifications and construction services with TKDA for Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with TKDA providing professional services for the design and implementation of Improvement Project No. 1997 -14. • RESOLUTION NO. • 2. Costs associated with this project shall be funded by 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 oted against gauLSt the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • -.6 • MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City EngineerO SUBJECT: Resolution Awarding a Contract for Professional Services for Design and Construction Management, Improvement Project No. 1997 -10, Replacement of SCADA and INTRAC Systems On January 7 1997, the City Council approved Resolution No. 97 -21, establishing Project No. 1997 - rY tY PP g J 10, SCADA and INTRAC systems replacement. Staff was also authorized to solicit proposals from at least two qualified consultants with proven expertise to provide professional services for this project. Staff contacted several professional firms and received proposals from two qualified consultants. Presented in this memorandum is a report and recommendation regarding the retaining of a consultant for professional services. Background 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 um in etc. P P g 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(Remote Terminal • Units) and off the shelf software which requires much less customization. The newer systems are more user- friendly and staff maintainable. Recommendations and Cost 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. On January 27, 1997, the City Council approved a resolution authorizing a request for proposals for engineering services. Consultant Selection and Evaluation • An RFP (Request for Proposal) was prepared by staff and forwarded to six (6) different consultants. Responsive proposals were received by two firms: Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson, and Associates(TKDA), and Bolton and Menk. Other consultants contacted who did not respond cited either existing heavy work loads or scheduling difficulties. It should also be mentioned that professional services for the development of a SCADA system are very unique, and finding consultants with proven experience in this area has not been easy. The proposals submitted by TKDA and Bolton and Menk were reviewed by the City Engineer, Superintendent of Public Works, and Supervisor of Public Utilities. City staff also met with the project staff of each of these firms for further information gathering and evaluation. Criteria considered during the evaluation were as follows: 0 The consultant's overall understanding of the City's needs and requirements, including: 0 Overall presentation and detail of the proposal itself. • The consultant's ability to address key areas of importance as identified by the City, both in their proposal, and in meeting with City staff. • The consultant's previous experience with SCADA systems. • The experience and understanding of the consultant's key personnel to be assigned to the project. • Schedule and Cost. • After a thorough evaluation, it was determined that both firms are highly qualified and capable of providing services. However, staff is recommending that a contract for professional services be awarded to TKDA, for among the following reasons: • TKDA staff, through their proposal, meetings with staff, and site visits, appeared to have the clearest understanding of the City's system and needs. One of these needs is the establishment of an energy management control system. They are proposing the providing of on -line electrical demand monitoring at each well. This will ultimately assist in the overall lowering of energy and operating costs throughout the entire system. TKDA has already conducted an energy audit of the City's system, and is keenly aware of deficiencies and specific areas needed for improvement. In addition, TKDA has successfully installed similar energy management control components for the Cities of St. Louis Park and Minnetonka, and both cities have expressed considerable satisfaction with their end products. • It was felt by staff that TKDA's proposal more specifically addressed detailed solutions to the City's specific needs (for example, what they would propose to do at each well, lift station, and water tower). Actual hours and project costs were very specific and accountable to each detailed task. Although TKDA's overall estimated services cost ($55,500) was higher than Bolton and Menk's ($42,000), their explanation and justification appeared to be more thorough and accountable. A general breakdown of each consultant's estimated fees are as follows: TKDA Bolton & Menk Preliminary Design $15,300 $11,500 • Final Design/Plans and Specifications $28,500 $14,000 Construction Administration $11,700 $16,500 These amounts are normally based upon the actual working hours needed to complete specific project tasks. Staff analyzed the actual breakdown of required tasks and hours provided by each consultant. In particular, TKDA expects to expend considerable additional hours in the development of the plans and specifications. Upon further examination, this appears to be justified based upon the amount of detail and justification that TKDA has provided for each project component. Past experience has shown that consultants usually require more hours to finnish a project than initially estimated. Because of the extra level of detail provided in TKDA's estimates, staff's level of confidence in their overall estimated cost is realistic and firm. • TKDA has previously been retained to provide plans for mechanical and energy management retro -fits to existing well pumps. Because the proposed SCADA system would integrate quite closely with these improvements, the retainage of TKDA would seem to make the most sense for purposes of avoiding any potential discrepancies or duplication of services. This may in effect alleviate possible confusion and reduce additional costs in the long run. Recommendation Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with TKDA for professional services to be executed by the City Manager. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _ RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1997 -10, REPLACEMENT OF SCADA AND INTRAC SYSTEMS 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 n facilities, water storage reservoirs, and sewage lift stations; and WHEREAS, said facilities are operated and monitored with the assistance of two 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, safety, and efficient operating costs; and • WHEREAS, the City Council has established Improvement Project No. 1997 -10, SCADA and INTRAC Systems Replacement; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) and solicited prospective design professionals with proven expertise and experience to provide such services; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received responsive proposals from the following two qualified consultants: TKDA, and Bolton and Menk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The firm of Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates (TKDA), be authorized to provide engineering services for design and construction services for Improvement Project No. 1997 - 10, in accordance with the provisions provided in the proposal submitted by TKDA dated March 14, 1997, titled "Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) for the City of Brooklyn Center". An agreement for services shall be developed with TKDA by the City Engineer and executed by the City Manager. • • RESOLUTION NO. 2. All costs shall be financed from the Sewer and Water Utility Funds. 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: April 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval The following companies /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses and submitted appropriate applications and paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on April 28, 1997: • MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. 689 Pierce Butler Route Flare Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. 9303 Plymouth Ave. N. Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 4451 W. 76th St. Sabre Heating & Air Conditioning 14505 21st Ave. N., Ste. 230 MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. Iten Chevrolet Company 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. RENTAL DWELLINGS Arlene Sutton 7106 France Ave. N. Jack and Nancy Wold 5907 -09 June Ave. N. Norbert and Dolores Volbert 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #122 Sharon Haugen, Julie Haugen Dorothy Janssen 4806 Twin Lake Ave. N. Mark Johnson, Reza Vojoodi 5211 Xerxes Ave. N. Outreach Community Center 507 69th Ave. N. • 7o-- Member introduced the following resolution and • moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS NO. 1 AND NO.2 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03 AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City ") as follows: 1. The Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "EDA ") and this Council, have previously approved Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project "), a housing development and redevelopment project established by the EDA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.108, as amended, and in order to finance the public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the City and the EDA in connection with the Redevelopment Project, the EDA and the City have approved Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 03 (the "Financing Plan"), which establishes Tax Increment Financing District No. 03 (the "District "). The Board of Commissioners of the EDA have approved Modification No. 1 ( "Modification No. 1 ") and • Modification No. 2 ( "Modification No. 2 ") to the Financing Plan. Modification No. 1 eliminates certain parcels from the District, and Modification No. 2 adds the same parcels back to the District. In addition, Modification No. 1 provides for an administrative re- categorization of estimated public costs contained in the Financing Plan. 2. On April 28, 1997, this Council held a public hearing on Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2 after notice of the public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. At such public hearing, all persons desiring to be heard with respect to Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2 were given an opportunity to express their views with respect thereto. 3. This Council has previously found that the District is a redevelopment district within the scope of Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subd. 10, and the Council finds neither Modification No. 1 nor Modification No. 2 will change such prior findings. The basis for this finding is contained in Exhibit II -C to Modification No. 1 and Exhibit II -C to Modification No. 2. Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2 further serve the original goals and purposes of the City and EDA in approving the Redevelopment Project and the Financing Plan. 4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.175, Subd. 4, it is hereby found that: a. The District is a redevelopment district as defined in Minnesota Statutes • Section 469.174, Subd. 10, for the reasons set forth in previous findings by this Council and set forth in Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2, and the approval of Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2 does not alter these previous findings. RESOLUTION NO. b. In the opinion of this Council, the proposed development to be undertaken in accordance with the Redevelopment Project would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and therefor the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. c. The Financing Plan, as amended by Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2, conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. d. The Financing Plan, as amended by Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2, will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development of the area subject to Redevelopment Project by private enterprise. e. The City confirms its election of the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (a), with respect to the District. • 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. • • Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 Original Plan Adopted: December 19, 1994 Modification No. 1 Dated: April 28, 1.997 Prepared by: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 85 E. Seventh Place, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55101 -2143 (612) 223 -3000 • • INTRODUCTION On December 19, 1994, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center and the Board of Commissioners of he t Economic Development Authority the "Authority") i p y ( ut onty) nand for the City of Brooklyn Center, established Tax Increment Financing District No.3 (the "TIF District ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and Sections 469.124 through 469.179. Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") for the TIF District involves the elimination of six (6) parcels from the TIF District and an administrative recategorization of the estimated public costs. The current estimated market values and net tax capacity values of the six P • Y parcels to be P eliminated from the TIF District have been recently reduced below their original certified values. Such reductions have been primarily the result of successful tax petitions by selected property owners. Since these tax petitions did not result in a corresponding decrease in the original values of these parcels, it is the City's and EDA's intention to remove these parcels from the TIF District through Modification No. 1, and then add them back to the TIF District through Modification No. 2. In this way, the original values of these six parcels will be adjusted downward to their current level, which the City believes is a fair and consistent representation of the value of these properties. • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Changed By Modification Section No.1 Page AStatutory Authority ....................................... ............................... No B Statement of Objectives .............................. ............................... No C Housing Development and Redevelopment Plan Overview ........ No D Description of Property in District No. 03 ..... ............................... Yes 1 -3 E Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District ................ Yes 4 -5 F Property To Be Acquired ............................. ............................... No GEstimate of Costs ........................................ ............................... Yes 5 H Estimated Amount of Loan /Bonded Indebtedness ....................... No I Sources of Revenue .................................... ............................... No J Original Tax Capacity .................................. ............................... Yes 6 K Amount of Captured Tax Capacity .............. ............................... Yes 7 L Duration of the District ................................. ............................... No M Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ........................ No N Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District ................ No O Limitation on Administrative Expenses ........ ............................... No P Necessary Improvements in the District ....... ............................... No • Q Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement ...................... ............................... No R Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment ........ ............................... No S Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............................... No T Excess Tax Increments ............................... ............................... No U Requirement for Agreements with the Developer ....................... No V Assessment Agreements ............................ ............................... No W Administration of District and Maintenance of Tax Increment Account ............................ ............................... No X Financial Reporting Requirements .............. ............................... No YMunicipal Approval ...................................... ............................... No ZCounty Road Costs ..................................... ............................... No AA Reduction in State Tax Increment Financing Aid ........................ No EXHIBIT II -A Boundary Map of Tax Increment Financing District No. 03.......... Yes EXHIBIT II -B Cashflow Analysis and Base Value Analysis ............................... No EXHIBIT II -C Data on Qualifications as a Redevelopment Tax Increment........ Yes FinancingDistrict ....................................... ............................... EXHIBIT it -D Copy of the Special Act ................................ ............................... No EXHIBIT 11 -E Prior Planned Improvements ........................ ............................... No • City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota D. Description of Property in District No. 03 • As per Modification No. 1 As of the date of this modification, TIF District No. 03 encompassed 242 parcels and all adjacent and interior right -of -ways as identified below: Site A (Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Area) 27- 119 -21 -33 -0005 27- 119 -21 -33 -0081 27- 119 -21 -33 -0007 27- 119 -21 -33 -0082 27- 119 -21 -33 -0008 27- 119 -21 -33 -0083 27- 119 -21 -33 -0010 27- 119 -21 -33 -0084 27- 119 -21 -33 -0011 27- 119 -21 -33 -0085 27- 119 -21 -33 -0012 27- 119 -21 -33 -0086 27- 119 -21 -33 -0013 27- 119 -21 -33 -0087 27- 119 -21 -33 -0014 27- 119 -21 -33 -0088 27- 119 -21 -33 -0016 27- 119 -21 -33 -0089 27- 119 -21 -33 -0017 27- 119 -21 -33 -0090 27- 119 -21 -33 -0018 27- 119 -21 -33 -0091 27- 119 -21 -33 -0019 27- 119 -21 -33 -0092 27- 119 -21 -33 -0020 27- 119 -21 -33 -0093 27- 119 -21 -33 -0021 27- 119 -21 -33 -0094 27- 119 -21 -33 -0022 27- 119 -21 -33 -0095 27- 119 -21 -33 -0023 27- 119 -21 -33 -0096 27- 119 -21 -33 -0024 27- 119 -21 -33 -0099 27- 119 -21 -33 -0025 27- 119 -21 -33 -0100 • 27- 119 -21 -33 -0026 27- 119 -21 -34 -0008 27- 119 -21 -33 -0027 28- 119 -21 -41 -0124 27- 119 -21 -33 -0028 28- 119 -21 -41 -0125 27- 119 -21 -33 -0046 28- 119 -21-44 -0001 27- 119 -21 -33 -0047 34- 119 -21 -21 -0003 27- 119 -21 -33 -0048 34- 119 -21 -21 -0004 27- 119 -21 -33 -0049 34- 119 -21 -21 -0005 27- 119 -21 -33 -0050 34- 119 -21 -21 -0006 27- 119 -21 -33 -0051 34- 119 -21 -21 -0007 27- 119 -21 -33 -0052 34- 119 -21 -21 -0008 27- 119 -21 -33 -0053 34- 119 -21 -21 -0009 27- 119 -21 -33 -0054 34- 119 -21 -21 -0020 27- 119 -21 -33 -0055 34- 119 -21 -21 -0021 27- 119 -21 -33 -0056 34- 119 -21 -21 -0022 27- 119 -21 -33 -0057 34- 119 -21 -21 -0023 27- 119 -21 -33 -0058 34- 119 -21 -21 -0024 27- 119 -21 -33 -0059 34- 119 -21 -21 -0027 27- 119 -21 -33 -0060 34- 119 -21 -21 -0028 27- 119 -21 -33 -0061 34- 119 -21 -21 -0029 27- 119 -21 -33 -0062 34- 119 -21 -21 -0030 27- 119 -21 -33 -0063 34- 119 -21 -21 -0031 27- 119 -21 -33 -0064 34- 119 -21 -22 -0007 27- 119 -21 -33 -0065 34- 119 -21 -22 -0008 27- 119 -21 -33 -0066 27- 119 -21 -33 -0067 • 27- 119 -21 -33 -0069 27- 119 -21 -33 -0080 'i .SPRINGSTED Page 1 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Site A (Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Area) (continued) • 34- 119 -21 -22 -0009 34- 119 -21 -22 -0015 34- 119 -21 -22 -0010 34- 119 -21 -22 -0016 34- 119 -21 -22 -0011 34- 119 -21 -22 -0017 34- 119 -21 -22 -0012 34- 119 -21 -22 -0018 Site B (Brookdale Area) 02- 118 -21 -13 -0024 03- 118 -21 -14 -0034 02- 118 -21 -13 -0025 03- 118 -21 -41 -0001 02- 118 -21 -13 -0026 03- 118 -21 -41 -0002 02- 118 -21 -13 -0027 03- 118 -21 -41 -0013 02- 118 -21 -13 -0028 03- 118 -21 -41 -0014 02- 118 -21 -13 -0029 03- 118 -21 -41 -0015 02- 118 -21 -23 -0015 03- 118 -21 -41 -0016 02- 118 -21 -23 -0016 03- 118 -21 -41 -0017 02- 118 -21 -23 -0017 03- 118 -21 -41 -0018 02- 118 -21 -23 -0019 03- 118 -21 -41 -0019 02- 118 -21 -23 -0021 03- 118 -21-41 -0020 02- 118 -21 -23 -0022 03- 118 -21 -41 -0023 02- 118 -21 -24 -0019 03- 118 -21-44 -0026 02- 118 -21 -31 -0049 03 -118 -21-44 -0030 02- 118 -21 -31 -0055 03- 118 -21 -44 -0032 02- 118 -21 -31 -0056 03- 118 -21 -44 -0033 02- 118 -21 -32 -0008 03- 118 -21 -44 -0034 02- 118 -21 -32 -0009 10- 118 -21 -11 -0010 • 02- 118 -21 -32 -0010 10- 118 -21 -11 -0011 02- 118 -21 -32 -0011 10- 118 -21 -12 -0001 02- 118 -21 -32 -0012 10- 118 -21 -12 -0056 02- 118 -21 -42 -0004 10- 118 -21 -12 -0057 02- 118 -21-42 -0031 10- 118 -21 -13 -0003 02- 118 -21 -42 -0032 10- 118 -21 -13 -0006 02- 118 -21 -42 -0033 10- 118 -21 -13 -0042 02 -118 -21-42 -0034 10- 118 -21 -13 -0051 02- 118 -21 -42 -0035 10- 118 -21 -13 -0059 03- 118 -21 -14 -0001 10- 118 -21 -13 -0060 03- 118 -21 -14 -0019 10- 118 -21 -13 -0061 03- 118 -21 -14 -0021 10- 118 -21 -13 -0062 03- 118 -21 -14 -0022 10- 118 -21 -13 -0063 03- 118 -21 -14 -0024 10- 118 -21 -13 -0064 03- 118 -21 -14 -0026 10- 118 -21 -13 -0065 03- 118 -21 -14 -0030 10- 118 -21 -13 -0066 03- 118 -21 -14 -0032 10- 118 -21 -13 -0067 03- 118 -21 -14 -0033 10- 118 -21 -13 -0068 Site C (Willow Lane /252 Area) 35- 119 -21 -13 -0006 35- 119 -21 -13 -0020 35- 119 -21 -13 -0011 35- 119 -21 -14 -0004 35- 119 -21 -13 -0012 35- 119 -21 -14 -0008 • 35- 119 -21 -13 -0013 35- 119 -21 -14 -0011 35- 119 -21 -13 -0019 35- 119 -21 -22 -0005 '► SPRINGSTED Page 2 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Site C (Willow Lane /252 Area) (continued) 35- 119 -21 -22 -0007 36- 119 -21 -13 -0079 35- 119 -21 -22 -0008 36- 119 -21 -13 -0080 35- 119 -21 -22 -0010 36- 119 -21 -13 -0107 35- 119 -21 -22 -0011 36- 119 -21 -13 -0108 35- 119 -21 -22 -0051 36- 119 -21 -13 -0110 35- 119 -21 -22 -0052 36- 119 -21 -13 -0111 35- 119 -21 -23 -0001 36- 119 -21 -13 -0112 35- 119 -21 -23 -0002 36- 119 -21 -24 -0046 35- 119 -21 -24 -0003 36- 119 -21 -24 -0047 35- 119 -21 -24 -0004 36- 119 -21 -31 -0011 35- 119 -21 -24 -0005 36- 119 -21 -31 -0014 35- 119 -21 -41 -0003 36- 119 -21 -31 -0016 35- 119 -21 -41 -0008 36- 119 -21 -31 -0017 35- 119 -21 -41 -0014 36- 119 -21 -31 -0045 35- 119 -21 -41 -0015 36- 119 -21 -32 -0002 35- 119 -21 -41 -0018 36- 119 -21 -32 -0006 35- 119 -21 -41 -0019 36- 119 -21 -32 -0010 35- 119 -21 -42 -0006 36- 119 -21 -32 -0013 35- 119 -21 -42 -0010 36- 119 -21 -32 -0056 35- 119 -21 -42 -0011 36- 119 -21 -32 -0059 35- 119 -21 -42 -0012 36- 119 -21 -32 -0065 36- 119 -21 -13 -0008 36- 119 -21 -32 -0066 36- 119 -21 -13 -0009 36- 119 -21-42 -0007 36- 119 -21 -13 -0010 36- 119 -21 -42 -0008 36- 119 -21 -13 -0011 36- 119 -21-42 -0009 • 36- 119 -21 -13 -0026 36- 119 -21 -42 -0010 36- 119 -21 -13 -0027 36- 119- 21-42 -0011 36- 119 -21 -13 -0028 36- 119 -21 -42 -0012 36- 119- 21 -13- 0029 36- 119 -21 -42 -0013 36- 119 -21 -13 -0030 36- 119 -21 -42 -0015 36- 119 -21 -13 -0031 36- 119 -21-42 -0016 36- 119 -21 -13 -0032 36- 119 -21 -42 -0017 36- 119 -21 -13 -0033 36- 119 -21-42 -0018 Modification No. 1 hereby eliminates the following six (6) parcels from the TIF District (all located within Site B /Brookdale Area): PID Address Name 02- 118 -21 -23 -0015 2802 Northway Drive Summerchase 02- 118 -21 -31 -0055 N/A Brookdale Parking 02- 118 -21 -31 -0056 2501 County Road 10 Kohl's 02- 118 -21 -32 -0008 1108 Brookdale Center Brookdale Mall 02- 118 -21 -32 -0010 1265 Brookdale Center Penneys Auto Building 03- 118 -21 -44 -0026 1297 Brookdale Center Sears See the map in Exhibit II -A for the location of the TIF District and those six parcels • eliminated by Modification No. 1. iA SPRINGSTED Page 3 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District • As per Original TIF Plan The City and the Authority, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, finds that District No. 03 to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed through the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad rights -of -way. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection, including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify • substantial renovation or clearance. A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonable available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. If the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is not disqualified as structurally substandard, the municipality may make such a determination without an interior inspection or an independent, expert appraisal of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building... (c) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. • SPRINGSTED Page 4 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota As per Modification No. 1 • The 236 parcels in the TIF District (after elimination of the six parcels listed in Section D) have been investigated by City and Authority staff, and each of the three non - contiguous areas of the TIF District have been found to meet the requirements of a redevelopment district. A complete report of the findings is located in Exhibit II - C. A5-per Original TIF Plan District No. 03 is created pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Act and the Special Act. The Authority intends to implement the Plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Special Act. G. Estimate of Costs As per Modification No 1 The estimated public costs associated with District 03 are adjusted and listed below: Estimate of Public Costs Mod. 1 Original Adjusted � sted Qualified Costs u et Budget • Land Acquisition a. Commercial $ 7,000,000 $ 7,000,000 b. Industrial 8,000,000 8,000,000 Public Improvements a. Streetscape 4,500,000 4,500,000 b. Public Works /Stormwater 3,500,000 3,500,000 Demolition and Relocation 0 0 Site Preparation 0 1,000,000 Administrative, Legal, Engineering, and Consulting Fees 2,900,000 2,900,000 Housing Development Account 5,000,000 5,000,000 Property Acquisition of Multifamily Units Rehabilitation of Multifamily Units Acquisition of Blighted Single- Housing 9 Rehabilitation of Blighted Senior Housing Contingency 1,000.000 0 Total Estimated Project Costs $31.900.000 $31,900.000 As per Oriainal TIF Plan Any funds to be expended for off -site improvements outside the boundaries of District 03, but within the boundaries of Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1, would be less than 25 percent of total tax increment generated by District No. 03, including administrative costs, provided that tax increment deposited in the • housing development account may be spent on eligible housing activities located anywhere in the City, as provided in the Special Act. ►1: SPRINGSTED Page 5 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota J. Original Tax Capacity • As per Modification No 1 The Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) of the TIF District prior to Modification No. 1 was $8,079,022. Upon elimination of the six (6) parcels listed in Section D, the ONTC of the TIF District will be reduced by $3,079,464 to a total of $4,999,558. The Original Tax Capacity Rates for the TIF District were based on taxes payable in 1995 and are listed according to the location of that portion of the TIF District in each of the four (4) indicated independent school districts. Original Net Tax ISD Capacity Rate 11 136.304% 279 145.044 281 142.099 286 151.763 As per Original TIF Plan Each year, the Hennepin County Department of Property Tax and Public Records will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of District No. 03 to calculate the tax increment payable to the City and the Authority. In any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity in the tax increment financing district above the annual percentage of annual increase, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total tax capacity in District No. 03 declines below the original tax capacity, no additional valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the OTC was certified, the amount the OTC has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change in tax - exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements; 4. change in the use of property and classification; or 5. change in state law governing class rates. • r. SPRINGSTED Page 6 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota K. Amount of Captured Tax Capacity • As per Original TIF Plan Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 4, and Minnesota Statutes Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 03, upon completion of all phases of the project, will annually approximate $4,700,000. The City requests 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of debt and current expenditures. As Per Modification No 1 Estimated Total Net Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion $ 9,699,558 Less: Original Net Tax Capacity (4.999.558 Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity $ 4,700,000 e • ►'i SPRINGSTED Page 7 Exhibit II -A Boundary Maps of Tax Increment District No. 3 • . t 1 � r l�l! 7 � � +lutnu Ie1 j�J :� '/ u•In. lull .1r i D 4arr'' i It :Ii - Abdul LL 2 eel a pkul AlC Uar 't ¢u ■ 3 / a'. � .,t . lum 1 I Cl/Y if p77SLR mu!w. .aLL.a j 1 \ i - . A�lt1.C. �yl A el C 1, U` —L•{ - n/n (at \ © ua,ea i•, =� - It 3 _._ —, _ - ../r, _- - - - - -- •_ luu lit �I (� r - , a _ 1 tlr k 1e O x•1 ,r ...[ tit ! i y l _ [6Y` .n._ - -- y. j_ �l _ �Y:!"_:/ l . A �1-• ` dl[ „N.. sJ� _ uc .-- LW -!A It 1d1!1- r -.P y •x . Il , � v N -- (. /�N ' /� 1 ] 1- ,7 r a � i ! � itco • � t r f Y R a Y7l - 1 _r ftlt - I OA" 4. C I (( lace w 'S • yat lr/1 _.pt af. t4,w k i y a Ali in # i •tea �+ I X* ..a . K 44 Si r, A rc• y --'iae y Elm. .II •� J S uea.l .x . m tarun UMILU 7 i i . Ilao at „ ir . .af 70 ■,xa .., . 0 ,C7 a au r. Iwo m / ali[ 1_ -- a - - -� { a• - :Ll!:! _ \ 1 t WWI— r _ l ”' y 1 -< It .`1 .111 �• �FGF 0,r, _i�• t,a ii«. ;y 0 Q ,w l l� y 7 v wets•!an -- \ ' -- _ _ttl:�...e,l_ __ l 0C xo ' - '• :[ _. ! rn r l `rti'u7 � D �!_ �--- -- -- cuss e>i_tl ,-_ - - ; 2 i :i , ,. , t■ � � t --- -- - -' -- - flake :LL.. n '�"• -" lh clean , Q� . - IN'_ "1 i !9 _ W-1.4 . 1[1!51!1 _1.n_ ` ,.t �°�to.:S 641 0-. tY__ t.[,w..,. a dnu! pp q -- -- ail tj m 1 Ifio 1 J i d„ 6l) , �; o aa,ta • 6 4, IoW 4 !:futeal.n wile e1 [ ; i 1!Y �'� �oY wl..•1 •.a r ' 4anlul ••t r ' Ke 61W to 1 9f_"I° °tl _ -- P' °.a•a/r i __.[ :_ -il .. e- ioa 1.1 •x+ • _ [ -- —.__ _. _ses4t! •K « - e+tlu e,t � — � • 11 !� it. °t • \ Will i - �N \m laud k so tl.f• .-. •Nlo.0 _.. _. — .._.._ .1 /A/I!N n, , 1111 ,;.� J 'Pose .Y, a'--_ -. a • CITY Uf tj�ruur, iw I u u► �I(IIII ; {V' >,Y (� „ _n T im r 1 n fir,! fr; -� rrrrrr n r - rrt_ _ r-- �' ���'„I����I,a>Ylv>•, ^��, �� n 1( All N A � �I_. - IU 00 AVE N ICOIT All N "me - --_ -- MUM All N �I - rrm 1 r i1 i _3100 Al l_I oukil AYFN AVE, F y I t111_ Ali dj _ _ U p. 1 f , ►EMf All N ` - .. - - - - JV• - _ o . -• 190 _ - OW40. A_ -M, L � 1;1 BAOVAB All N n -FFffFF El Il ona 1 ,A -� Q .--. - - - -- n �.j 1 -- _1 _ - - - — - Ek101 E All N L_1 -Jet -� , m uoo W 70 O 3: — - — _ - � - .1 � 1 - IN AA AVE N m � c E — — _ _!CE Wig_ _ - 4 two — - _ O � T _. -- � � — _ 190.1 - K1tE f 'Afl Z 11 � Ln E AYE N Z W wim 1 -a A -+ �' ' -4 -' — 1 — F A lU � _ - O A AVE N I l i 1 0 1 YJO �� FT n Z A'A- --A C ^ " IIOINU All N - lfAi All IN N _ — - - oil _ � �J►E�AY . _ ��� ��� � IIW JZ � = - _ — cellos Al N O D Z �- — tf,d.l_lshl =1 l_l l 1 11.111111 -- A T fA.WQ AYf N Ti- -ffflV-11 F EYING All N )1 HE1.I_IA�_I W OBEY AVE N 3KO N AVE N f- - - -� BEAM AtE N 3 4c A0wlI All N It CAI � ' 1•' � I<��� IENIIII AVE N )tW 1 Tux A%% N l..1_! - W_11_I1_U 11Ll_tl(1W� J I LI IJ I_L [II1_� =1_[ [11I11J [11''11 Iff .,I� ►�_ -,J R-l a i1 LiW1_� _Wlullj�� l >— LLJ C) L . T C2 �`�� 1II11.I1ll� i � cn f - d _ L9 d z z U��d z 0 U LZ Z wi 0 LLJ Ln _ .1 � ? v'k"� � ?: � a • C � ~ Ofd W U- 10 ' AA' '` lr'r � 11 1 'A . CD ° IMA [V H f J ° I 1T ';w I j'' °c�r xr'r i K .7 .?` a �.r•'2 _ _ - rr r � �'Y ' � �1�11' -I ; .�. ,'� s •r . i — 'r _nb ._ ..,�.- � � - --- - 1 y' {{ r`•ticf ;'i � jt; �, {y,Ik : '� {Jr 1 NI _ Z _ .: j'ao - - 1 r - - 3a� AE. - H I The he R ^ • ti;�}• f' r • '�r �'� . • �' ► , i • - - _ d AN! lA� 1 AVL K - -� — ) ,Fa6 _ - T 1 [1 < \ ;r • U I)I' • l '. • • LMt MR PW _ 14 PA PAL I ACE ( -1 � , I — — -- _ off — H IM - OFASQ! /gj 4n1. AYE. N. r ' ` � 1111• ~ i. � 1 - fi — . _" 1'f` _ --- i I ` nns. AVE. Air 1 �b 4 1 + 6 94 d — - I P7 I AT w Im it i •I. _ a w t TK i',t tyl - ri�.j -- - �14llfsif�2f1 �X /� �A• a �', sr' "d _ 94 t M r ► RD AMtt � �� � t_� _ � ' 1� - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03 SITE C (WILLOW /252 AREA) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 1 1 ,'',i '�i ` ' ,,, ��� 1 jjj ' � I j ' I' � I �u -� ��UU�� � � Y'. i ;.: ter l C -11 1 , . V µlj_ � ,�I r r _I ; r _� t ��I "A_ 4) y �I ti 3tv tna �a ) t t-; i S '`', g �. `Ili Mis ilIt .1. �C.!P_ fj A I i i m __ ��� jji``�z ;tmC'•' _ fll �� LLIi:_LLJ _.. 1�� � I.. LJ 1.1�� � TI l � . M . r anAp E -�IIt IIsI LUUM F Q ,' E Mj PER ' � M I r J f ) }i ._.�."1 (ro,iws [ I ] -- �.•� -�-L 1111: I ► uJ �' Z Rt V I,IIIDI Z o Q a T cv m • ows Ir0 I U 2 0 IN i raj .i~ •O m V- w O .G O co - - " _ ' � � �� • •ter .+�,�K,.. � � r �; .'�y >�`•� h �� R '..Km TT' T' .r 3�y 1111/Ci i "T f J ; • •L`\'a • 1 1 W , ; ' ��� h } {�: uw �—{- -1 I pl n. �- - -�"�l ���- 1_ { ` `� �� , ��l,.Y • u� r I F 4 La LJ1 yrL� c' - =- i I 4 _ 1 LL rr Exhibit II -C • Data on Qualifications as a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District Exhibit II -C Data on Qualifications as a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District As per Modification No. 1 (TIF district with six parcels removed) Total Occupied Total Number of Total Parcel Parcels Percent Number of Substandard Percent Parcels Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Occupied Buildings Buildings Substandard SITE A (Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Area) 94 4,272,219 4,129,733 96.66% 75 49 65.33% SITE B (Brookdale Area) 66 5,617,624 5,520,037 98.26% 76 48 63.16% SITE C (Willow /252 Area) 76 7,388,997 5,708,525 77.26% 84 51 60.71% • • Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Modification No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 Original Plan Adopted: December 19, 1994 Modification No. 1 Dated: April 28, 1997 Modification No. 2 Dated: April 28, 1997 Prepared by: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 85 E. Seventh Place, Suite 100 • St. Paul, MN 55101 -2143 (612) 223 -3000 • INTRODUCTION On December 19, 1994, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center and the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority (the "Authority ") in and for the City of Brooklyn Center, established Tax Increment Financing District No.3 (the "TIF District ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 through 469.047 and Sections 469.124 through 469.179. Modification No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan ") for the TIF District involves the elimination of six (6) parcels from the TIF District and an administrative recategorization of the estimated public costs. • The current estimated market values and net tax capacity values of the six parcels to be eliminated from the TIF District have been recently reduced below their original certified values. Such reductions have been primarily the result of successful tax petitions by selected property owners. Since these tax petitions did not result in a corresponding decrease in the original values of these parcels, it is the City's and EDA's intention to remove these parcels from the TIF District through Modification No. 1, and then add them back to the TIF District through Modification No. 2. In this way, the original values of these six parcels will be adjusted downward to their current level, which the City believes is a fair and consistent representation of the value of these properties. • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Changed By Modification Section No.2 Page AStatutory Authority ....................................... ............................... No B Statement of Objectives .............................. ............................... No C Housing Development and Redevelopment Plan Overview ........ No D Description of Property in District No. 03 ..... ............................... Yes 1 -4 E Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District ................ Yes 4 -5 F Property To Be Acquired ............................. ............................... No G Estimate of Costs ........................................ ............................... No H Estimated Amount of Loan /Bonded Indebtedness ....................... No I Sources of Revenue .................................... ............................... No JOriginal Tax Capacity .................................. ............................... Yes 5 -6 K Amount of Captured Tax Capacity ............... ............................... Yes 6 -7 L Duration of the District ................................. ............................... No M Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ........................ No N Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing District ................ No O Limitation on Administrative Expenses ........ ............................... No P Necessary Improvements in the District ....... ............................... No Q Limitation on Qualification of Property in Tax Increment District Not Subject to Improvement ...................... ............................... No R Limitation on the Use of Tax Increment ........ ............................... No S Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............................... No T Excess Tax Increments ............................... ............................... No U Requirement for Agreements with the Developer ....................... No V Assessment Agreements ............................ ............................... No W Administration of District and Maintenance of Tax Increment Account ............................ ............................... No X Financial Reporting Requirements .............. ............................... No Y Municipal Approval ...................................... ............................... No ZCounty Road Costs ..................................... ............................... No AA Reduction in State Tax Increment Financing Aid ........................ No EXHIBIT II -A Boundary Map of Tax Increment Financing District No. 03.......... Yes EXHIBIT II -B Cashflow Analysis and Base Value Analysis ............................... No EXHIBIT II -C Data on Qualifications as a Redevelopment Tax Increment........ Yes FinancingDistrict ....................................... ............................... EXHIBIT II -D Copy of the Special Act ................................ ............................... No EXHIBIT II -E Prior Planned Improvements ........................ ............................... No • City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota D. Description of Property in District No. 03 • As per Modification No. 1 As of the date of this modification, TIF District No. 03 encompassed 242 parcels and all adjacent and interior right -of -ways as identified below: Site A (Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Area) 27- 119 -21 -33 -0005 27- 119 -21 -33 -0069 27- 119 -21 -33 -0007 27- 119 -21 -33 -0080 27- 119 -21 -33 -0008 27- 119 -21 -33 -0081 27- 119 -21 -33 -0010 27- 119 -21 -33 -0082 27- 119 -21 -33 -0011 27- 119 -21 -33 -0083 27- 119 -21 -33 -0012 27- 119 -21 -33 -0084 27- 119 -21 -33 -0013 27- 119 -21 -33 -0085 27- 119 -21 -33 -0014 27- 119 -21 -33 -0086 27- 119 -21 -33 -0016 27- 119 -21 -33 -0087 27- 119 -21 -33 -0017 27- 119 -21 -33 -0088 27- 119 -21 -33 -0018 27- 119 -21 -33 -0089 27- 119 -21 -33 -0019 27- 119 -21 -33 -0090 27- 119 -21 -33 -0020 27- 119 -21 -33 -0091 27- 119 -21 -33 -0021 27- 119 -21 -33 -0092 27- 119 -21 -33 -0022 27- 119 -21 -33 -0093 27- 119 -21 -33 -0023 27- 119 -21 -33 -0094 27- 119 -21 -33 -0024 27- 119 -21 -33 -0095 27- 119 -21 -33 -0025 27- 119 -21 -33 -0096 • 27- 119 -21 -33 -0026 27- 119 -21 -33 -0099 27- 119 -21 -33 -0027 27- 119 -21 -33 -0100 27- 119 -21 -33 -0028 27- 119 -21 -34 -0008 27- 119 -21 -33 -0046 28- 119 -21-41 -0124 27- 119 -21 -33 -0047 28- 119 -21 -41 -0125 27- 119 -21 -33 -0048 28- 119 -21- 440001 27- 119 -21 -33 -0049 34- 119 -21 -21 -0003 27- 119 -21 -33 -0050 34- 119 -21 -21 -0004 27- 119 -21 -33 -0051 34- 119 -21 -21 -0005 27- 119 -21 -33 -0052 34- 119 -21 -21 -0006 27- 119 -21 -33 -0053 34- 119 -21 -21 -0007 27- 119 -21 -33 -0054 34- 119 -21 -21 -0008 27- 119 -21 -33 -0055 34- 119 -21 -21 -0009 27- 119 -21 -33 -0056 34- 119 -21 -21 -0020 27- 119 -21 -33 -0057 34- 119 -21 -21 -0021 27- 119 -21 -33 -0058 34- 119 -21 -21 -0022 27. 119 -21 -33 -0059 34- 119 -21 -21 -0023 27- 119 -21 -33 -0060 34- 119 -21 -21 -0024 27- 119 -21 -33 -0061 34- 119 -21 -21 -0027 27- 119 -21 -33 -0062 34- 119 -21 -21 -0028 27- 119 -21 -33 -0063 34- 119 -21 -21 -0029 27- 119 -21 -33 -0064 34- 119 -21 -21 -0030 27- 119 -21 -33 -0065 34- 119 -21 -21 -0031 27- 119 -21 -33 -0066 34- 119 -21 -22 -0007 27- 119 -21 -33 -0067 34- 119 -21 -22 -0008 • SPRINGSTED Page 1 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Site A (Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Area) (continued) • 34- 119 -21 -22 -0009 34- 119 -21 -22 -0015 34- 119 -21 -22 -0010 34- 119 -21 -22 -0016 34- 119 -21 -22 -0011 34- 119 -21 -22 -0017 34- 119 -21 -22 -0012 34- 119 -21 -22 -0018 Site B (Brookdale Area) 02- 118 -21 -13 -0024 03- 118 -21 -14 -0034 02- 118 -21 -13 -0025 03- 118 -21 -41 -0001 02- 118 -21 -13 -0026 03- 118 -21 -41 -0002 02- 118 -21 -13 -0027 03 -118 -21-41 -0013 02- 118 -21 -13 -0028 03- 118 -21 -41 -0014 02- 118 -21 -13 -0029 03- 118 -21 -41 -0015 02- 118 -21 -23 -0015 03- 118 -21 -41 -0016 02- 118 -21 -23 -0016 03- 118 -21 -41 -0017 02- 118 -21 -23 -0017 03- 118 -21 -41 -0018 02- 118 -21 -23 -0019 03 -118 -21-41 -0019 02- 118 -21 -23 -0021 03- 118 -21-41 -0020 02- 118 -21 -23 -0022 03- 118 -21 -41 -0023 02- 118 -21 -24 -0019 03- 118 -21 -44 -0026 02- 118 -21 -31 -0049 03- 118 -21 -44 -0030 02- 118 -21 -31 -0055 03- 118 -21 -44 -0032 02- 118 -21 -31 -0056 03- 118 -21 -44 -0033 02- 118 -21 -32 -0008 03- 118 -21 -44 -0034 02- 118 -21 -32 -0009 10- 118 -21 -11 -0010 • 02- 118 -21 -32 -0010 10- 118 -21 -11 -0011 02- 118 -21 -32 -0011 10- 118 -21 -12 -0001 02- 118 -21 -32 -0012 10- 118 -21 -12 -0056 02- 118 -21 -42 -0004 10- 118 -21 -12 -0057 02- 118 -21 -42 -0031 10- 118 -21 -13 -0003 02- 11.8 -21 -42 -0032 10- 118 -21 -13 -0006 02- 118 -21 -42 -0033 10- 118 -21 -13 -0042 02- 118 -21 -42 -0034 10- 118 -21 -13 -0051 02- 118 -21 -42 -0035 10- 118 -21 -13 -0059 03- 118 -21 -14 -0001 10- 118 -21 -13 -0060 03- 118 -21 -14 -0019 10- 118 -21 -13 -0061 03- 118 -21 -14 -0021 10- 118 -21 -13 -0062 03- 118 -21 -14 -0022 10- 118 -21 -13 -0063 03- 118 -21 -14 -0024 10- 118 -21 -13 -0064 03- 118 -21 -14 -0026 10- 118 -21 -13 -0065 03- 118 -21 -14 -0030 10- 118 -21 -13 -0066 03- 118 -21 -14 -0032 10- 118 -21 -13 -0067 03- 118 -21 -14 -0033 10- 118 -21 -13 -0068 Site C (Willow Lane /252 Area) 35- 119 -21 -13 -0006 35- 119 -21 -13 -0020 35- 119 -21 -13 -0011 35- 119 -21 -14 -0004 35- 119 -21 -13 -0012 35- 119 -21 -14 -0008 • 35- 119 -21 -13 -0013 35- 119 -21 -14 -0011 35- 119 -21 -13 -0019 35- 119 -21 -22 -0005 2A SPRINGSTED Page 2 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Site C (Willow Lane /252 Area) (continued) 35- 119 -21 -22 -0007 36- 119 -21 -13 -0079 35- 119 -21 -22 -0008 36- 119 -21 -13 -0080 35- 119 -21 -22 -0010 36- 119 -21 -13 -0107 35- 119 -21 -22 -0011 36- 119 -21 -13 -0108 35- 119 -21 -22 -0051 36- 119 -21 -13 -0110 35- 119 -21 -22 -0052 36- 119 -21 -13 -0111 35- 119 -21 -23 -0001 36- 119 -21 -13 -0112 35- 119 -21 -23 -0002 36- 119 -21 -24 -0046 35- 119 -21 -24 -0003 36- 119 -21 -24 -0047 35- 119 -21 -24 -0004 36- 119 -21 -31 -0011 35- 119 -21 -24 -0005 36- 119 -21 -31 -0014 35- 119 -21 -41 -0003 36- 119 -21 -31 -0016 35- 119 -21 -41 -0008 36- 119 -21 -31 -0017 35- 119 -21 -41 -0014 36- 119 -21 -31 -0045 35- 119 -21 -41 -0015 36- 119 -21 -32 -0002 35- 119 -21 -41 -0018 36- 119 -21 -32 -0006 35- 119 -21 -41 -0019 36- 119 -21 -32 -0010 35- 119 -21 -42 -0006 36- 119 -21 -32 -0013 35- 119 -21 -42 -0010 36- 119 -21 -32 -0056 35- 119 -21 -42 -0011 36- 119 -21 -32 -0059 35- 119 -21 -42 -0012 36- 119 -21 -32 -0065 36- 119 -21 -13 -0008 36- 119 -21 -32 -0066 36- 119 -21 -13 -0009 36- 119 -21 -42 -0007 36- 119 -21 -13 -0010 36 -119 -21-42 -0008 36- 119 -21 -13 -0011 36- 119 -21 -42 -0009 • 36- 119 -21 -13 -0026 36- 119 -21 -42 -0010 36- 119 -21 -13 -0027 36- 119 -21 -42 -0011 36- 119 -21 -13 -0028 36- 119 -21 -42 -0012 36- 119 -21 -13 -0029 36- 119 -21 -42 -0013 36- 119 -21 -13 -0030 36- 119- 21-42 -0015 36- 119 -21 -13 -0031 36- 119 -21 -42 -0016 36- 119 -21 -13 -0032 36- 119 -21-42 -0017 36- 119 -21 -13 -0033 36- 119 -21 -42 -0018 Modification No. 1 hereby eliminates the following six (6) parcels from the TIF District (all located within Site B /Brookdale Area): PID Address Name 02- 118 -21 -23 -0015 2802 Northway Drive Summerchase 02- 118 -21 -31 -0055 N/A Brookdale Parking 02- 118 -21 -31 -0056 2501 County Road 10 Kohl's 02- 118 -21 -32 -0008 1108 Brookdale Center Brookdale Mall 02- 118 -21 -32 -0010 1265 Brookdale Center Penneys Auto Building 03- 118 -21 -44 -0026 1297 Brookdale Center Sears See the map in Exhibit I1 -A for the location of the TIF District and those six parcels • eliminated by Modification No. 1. ice: SPRINGSTED Page 3 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota . Is per Modification No 2 • Modification No. 2 hereby adds the following six (6) parcels to the TIF District (all located within Site B /Brookdale Area): PID Address Name 02- 118 -21 -23 -0015 2802 Northway Drive Summerchase 02- 118 -21 -31 -0055 N/A Brookdale Parking 02- 118 -21 -31 -0056 2501 County Road 10 Kohl's 02- 118 -21 -32 -0008 1108 Brookdale Center Brookdale Mall 02- 118 -21 -32 -0010 1265 Brookdale Center Penneys Auto Building 03- 118 -21 -44 -0026 1297 Brookdale Center Sears See the map in Exhibit II -A for the location of the TIF District and those six parcels added by Modification No. 2. E. Classification of the Tax Increment Financing District As per Original TIF Plan The City and the Authority, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, finds that District No. 03 to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, as defined • below: (a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one of the following conditions, reasonably distributed through the district, exists: (1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) the property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities, or excessive or vacated railroad rights -of -way. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection, including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. A building is not structurally substandard if it is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code • at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a SPRINGSTED Page 4 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonable available evidence, such as the size, type, • and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. If the evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is not disqualified as structurally substandard, the municipality may make such a determination without an interior inspection or an independent, expert appraisal of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building... (c) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements until 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains improvements. As per Modification No 1 The 236 parcels in the TIF District (after elimination of the six parcels listed in Section D) have been investigated by City and Authority staff, and each of the three non- contiguous areas of the TIF District have been found to meet the requirements of a redevelopment district. _ A complete r p to eport of the findings is located m Exhibit II C. As per Mo if p d ication No. The 242 parcels in the TIF District (after addition 'of the six parcels listed in Section D) have been investigated b City and Authority staff, and each of the three non-contiguous 9 Y Y Y gu us areas of the TIF District have been found to meet the requirements of a redevelopment district. A complete report of the findings is located in Exhibit II -C. • As per Original TIF Plan District No. 03 is created pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Act and the Special Act. The Authority intends to implement the Plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Special Act. J. Original Tax Capacity As cer Modification No 1 The Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) of the TIF District prior to Modification No. 1 was $8,079,022. Upon elimination of the six (6) parcels listed in Section D, the ONTC of the TIF District will be reduced by $3,079,464 to a total of $4,999,558. As per Modification No 2 The Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) of the TIF District prior to Modification No. 1 is calculated at $4,999,558. Upon addition of the six (6) parcels listed in Section D, the ONTC of the TIF District will be increased by $1,811,623 to a total of $6,811,181. iii SPRINGSTED Page 5 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota As per Modification No 1 • The Original Tax Capacity Rates for the TIF District were based on taxes payable in 1995 and are listed according to the location of that portion of the TIF District in each of the four (4) indicated independent school districts. Original Net Tax ISD Capacity Rate 11 136.304 % 279 145.044 281 142.099 286 151.763 As per Original TIF Plan Each year, the Hennepin County Department of Property Tax and Public Records will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of District No. 03 to calculate the tax increment payable to the City and the Authority. In any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity in the tax increment financing district above the annual percentage of annual increase, a tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total tax capacity in District No. 03 declines below the original tax capacity, no additional valuation will be captured and no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the OTC was certified, the • amount the OTC has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. change in tax - exempt status of property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements; 4. change in the use of property and classification; or 5. change in state law governing class rates. K. Amount of Captured Tax Capacity As per Original TIF Plan Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 4, and Minnesota S tatutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 03, upon completion of all phases of the project, will annually approximate $4,700,000. The City requests 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of debt and current expenditures. As Per Modification No 1 Estimated Total Net Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion $ 9,699,558 Less: Original Net Tax Capacity (4.999.558 • Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity $ 4,700,000 ii SPRINGSTED Page 6 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota As Per Modification No. 2 • Estimated Total Net Tax Capacity Upon Project Completion $11,511,181 Less: Original Net Tax Capacity (6.811.181 Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity $ 4,700,000 • • i� SPRINGSTED Page 7 Exhibit II -A • Boundary Maps of Tax Increment District No. 3 •n 141 T1 -- - ---- ety - -- ni - w', n%,i p 117 J Oei n M7 e_ ,! .a - vF maF t F7 Mfg I;; ��� On . t•• a, - . +e . / M. a Tt►q' +v.t•ire o mtrlra '1! U - -- -- — -- — i w 1,, POP$ f - a,7ge 7`d A - �t •_ (1 W --- w t•..n, i _� ' .o r , u. wtrrt" S f^" — -p T: T om? Fi A GGFI - - . 1,. u• �' � - - r 1 t:.•al i a ' R7�n '- � � �' ,167 w TJ•VI♦ — --- - -- f - r .'c -o1 .. as r» oat — .,,. n,t•ttl - -- - o ri - arty - u if -zw -- � w ■ v..yrl RR7 �s eon � -- Y 1 — - -• tii.1-p T - - LLJ R .. ` , 7 eetl a r 6 TI € IF731" � � r ' +1,....� y, ..7;7_ - tea* - - -- - -- i t, � •.� - -- ��, -. _ a rala 0 it --- r.% ( ..iE �- -� • Y w ti,• 7F11t O tl pan eai 717 ca LLJ t•L ___"'555 �7. F--I .. !� O ICU 7 t- • 1' LiJ w.,.,i ` r _ rrr: _• ; to 3 - -i -- - — Bolt .._ .nt i, r ♦ ► W. -'�•, i 1✓ CL. + u. Trot Q CCC • ! ! wt•.+ „ = � `��� } 3 •t r � � t @ !t , =� -- Iffy: ,n �- ttau: E - twct f 1 . v, v Ql -- `! +t•. +. A7 RV •m - • �� ♦, Y r 1'.tllll/ [ .„ ia... ,w„G r0 t'' s / t +n..� � j ` l• "� t l'vi • . e v r 7 z ( ' r }, I c e -:,7d } 1 t t a! b 1 ITa f .: a f,p 7S w F7 54ii act o t A - F..n� ' - -- _ W n 1 F' 1 rtn11.. .tK _�- . a. f ,.,,y J -- - - - ■R • / a_ o. ��, „ . �i:t'n tint j 0: ,,1 '•� tr S -- Q -l1 f . t "t d a T% • 1 - __' ..___ �7 f.r _ � + vYt l: Tf,ldfl • -_. -_ -_. A :7 1T ' µ' -' ❑ 4 r .�___. -. _`x �;_- m 0 0 t 7 1111 7 _ 1 _..s A- F%-]tti'- - "tn / „ �: I TJ 1 ' - all: I,Ft �` + r• w _ 2 __r -- -- ° 1 „W r `,. - r arm: - - - -� •, r _ -- ;i 1( s,. Tic Al _ 1. Y� arat /'� . : ! n 1f7 Rnf1rP '••.,y ___ ____ .•. -- -- - -- 71 /S Nt7 M A /!J �` , °"7 m i 11 w n:a t rrtJ J 1:7'ttt7t7 � 1 `k lrrl e.7nr t t ���9 ��� -110.1 ' � � � 0; `�1 C' • • - - MY WX N MY )OWN N A NY 11oNt. 11 111 -- .1 N 3 \r OVr39 N MY ro9t Al My &We v_ _ i I I ► 1 1 - ;J L! I l { � 1 � — J { I � Dort _ _ - _ , N 3\r 9N1Jt1 _ Iwl AYE. [-[ -� - i `� y ' ' \\) - - Q OnK ,L [�I_I RI ILII�I11u� 1J� N 3\ DINYI W IN - - v WEB F1 I a) j Z N 3\Y rYJI - - 0121 - - -- - - MY YIN TV _ _ _ Cd { 1 N 3 \r nhioJi �J -- _ � _ — - — " �_L1i _ < �W" .� f� „ +Yi _I 3nv YNYIaN Z J Z N MY MCI - -d -__- I I 1r RIM (�I�T� L Z N MY 311 �jD —� — ~ ° O LLJ I I g — I 0791 -� P 1�3 N 3 \r >r� YN - -- _ _ A� ��i -- 1 lI W LL N 3\Y Iwo" .— �_�_L�._� � � _ L prat z sr _�_ -- - i_. _ v O - -- --- ( q� — - - -- R€ AVE. - )�' Lj 11J _ auo T' _ ? w _ "MY OYYIUYO tn N MY JW)I N O MC N 3\r 11Ytt� - i [ , - _, ,, T TY ci N _ lid l I _ - � Mlc LLL11 __ --� ,. N MY U137JY - - oozs N 3\r If 3\v ooJnl If omc A �lllflll�� �y .1 1� —W�' N 1-Y I'M WI ,,.._ - v<r e'n. 1)f /1 /I All 1!100 *17 -10 �11c� 'J f l_ll_I I_lE [l [ I [1_I� f11l1IJ Lei =�1J HM -A L_l_J 0 LLJ I LA- 'r mail �ULU - . f o 0 tn LU ul �wui ui V --' Z Q Z_ H A. Z C� O E ce QOZ_ Lu .S'I r' ::F F LJ U-j LA- - H - Hl V W Am a J1 T c U f`t` .;. •J +P ,('. ,r , , � , - _ - - - -- _..1 - f - - 1fD00 t ' - — 1 Y1. I J_l.Ll_��_LC no A _ - - . r; r•ri ;�' r', y� If`rj. l l):, - �NI r - :_ - - - - - Z6 AJE.�N � : 3 1 .a� '�•r�.r.�� y 1 i 1., ,1 '.�4 .-. i ' 1 '' � — — _ _ 1 ( � ._�— n ,� , f r• , . �r , �' _ - _ - ,L ._ LI� A,i to fls A VE. y1 ym 1 1 LI AYE. — : - — rey - _.. ri _ - -- - - - _ - - - - - - IU.r mm — T / ,41 /t� L!1/1 E ' A�F - 'p� �' - 4 _ — H l i` '; '• ' - - -1 - _ = I + I I I I 1 OIN A -- - - - 1RY1NO LA. - � - ` TN. AVE. / _�/ � , � ' � � t l � r ' ► ' � .. Unr-�: — T - - AVE. J cm. E T t e l l ( ►` I M rAT t1R. rfn�_AV¢. K _ — 7r _ r = -- _ -- 1 ww >. rn - W , — 'IL 694 ffflTtl i r ' A, w ,, • .� ( n � r jr i411tlllidll � Ir :�l 1. L_ 11_ — — � (✓ j � ��_ -_� S7m 1N� N. � ll - - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 03 SITE C (WILLOW /252 AREA) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 'T ` I � � j �_ • i �T - '' ' l(t �..�j CSC ^ N, i 19 ",� � � x, �: }• ` CIA --- �- JOIN- AWfMff aww Le �< X +ana m - s {{ tL•- „ • y am , - /�/. t VKC 0 2 1 _ C2 TM. Ai,• ..., 1 r, r fo ~� .a 1 V. r WMa t W.- ER ��,\� � �,1 � � •< � � � � 'k >C Y '� �i te -- t� l/ L 1 I 4 —� . • � ( Rai � -� -� _� :_ J r -- -- -- — -- — Area of the Six (6) Parcels Removed by Modification No. 1 and Added Back by Modification No. 2 -" Within Site B (Brookdale Area) of .Y•.. -f'`'' i Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 Exhibit II -C • Data on Qualifications as a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District Exhibit II -C Data on Qualifications as a • Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District As per Modification No. 2 (TIF district with six parcels added back) Total Occupied Total Number of Total Parcel Parcels Percent Number of Substandard Percent Parcels Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Occupied Buildings Buildings Substandard SITE A (Brooklyn Boulevard /69th Area) 94 4,272,219 4,129,733 96.66% 75 49 65.33% SITE B (Brookdale Area) 72 9,238,701 8,857,834 95.88% 92 55 59.78% SITE C (Willow /252 Area) 76 7,388,997 5,708,525 77.26% 84 51 60.71% • U • MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialis'�e?.CA LJ Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 97005 Date: April 21, 1997 On the April 28, 1997 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 97005 submitted by Timothy Thompson requesting a variance to allow an addition to a detached garage at 5945 Camden Avenue North resulting in an accessory building that exceeds both the 1,000 sq. ft. maximum size of a single accessory building and also the ground coverage of a principal building. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 97005 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 April 17, 1997 meeting and was recommended for denial (4 to 1 vote) on the grounds that the Standards for Variance contained in the Zoning Ordinance, particularly Standard `a' regarding hardship and Standard `b' regarding uniqueness, are not met. The Commission discussed the possibility of recommending an ordinance amendment that would allow any single accessory building to exceed 1,000 sq. ft. in area but did not recommend such action. The Commission also did not believe it would be appropriate to amend the ordinance to allow accessory buildings in total to exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, deny the application on the same grounds as recommended by the Planning Commission. • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 97005 Applicant: Timothy Thompson Location: 5945 Camden Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 35 -310, Subdivision lb 3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 20 ft. by 30 ft. addition to an existing detached garage which would create an accessory building exceeding 1,000 sq. ft. and which would also exceed the ground coverage of the principal building on that lot. The property in question is located in an R -1 zoning district and is surrounded by other single family homes. The above cited section of the Zoning Ordinance allows detached or attached accessory buildings and carports provided the ground coverage of any single accessory building shall not exceed 1,000 sq. ft.; that no more than two accessory structures are permitted on any one residential premise; and that the total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. The applicant has submitted a letter and various drawings showing his proposal. His existing house has ground coverage of 1,261 sq. ft., while his existing detached garage is 720 sq. ft. As the applicant's letter points out, he would like to add 600 sq. ft. (20 ft. by 30 ft.) to his existing • garage in order to house four vehicles that he wishes to keep inside at all times. The Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission, sitting as a Board of Adjustments and Appeals, to recommend and the City Council approve variances from the literal provisions of the enforcement would cause undue hardship ordinance in instances where their strict o P because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. The provisions of the ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the property, must be the proximate cause of the hardship. Circumstances caused by the property owner or his/her predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the Standards for Variances, contained in thte Zoning Ordinances, are met. These standards include the following: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. • 4 -17 -97 Page 1 • c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. It should be noted that the economics of a situation alone have not been considered to be a hardship under the meaning of standard `a' above. The applicant's letter addresses how he believes his request meets the Standards for Variance. As indicated previously, he desires the variance in order to house four vehicles within an accessory building. He notes that the positioning of his present garage is not conducive to adding a third and fourth stall to the north side of the building. Also, the character of the houses and lot sizes in this particular area are oversized and his proposal would not be out of place if allowed. The provisions of the ordinance would not allow him to add a 30 ft. by 20 ft. addition to create a tandem style garage and would require him, therefore, to build a second detached structure behind his existing garage to be accessed by driving through the existing garage. He also notes that he believes the tandem style garage will minimize site line impacts on Camden Avenue and that surrounding neighbors will not notice a significant change in the mass of the building given his proposal. • In summary, the applicant states that he believes that it is reasonable to grant the two variances he requests in that they are consistent with the spirit of the zoning code; they avoid an operational and functional obsolescence that would be created by the strict adherence to the ordinance in achieving shelter for the four cars; do not negatively impact the value, enjoyment or safety of the adjacent property; and they have little to no negative impact on the aesthetics of the site lines of the property and its improvements. A review of the variance proposal and the Standards for Variance leads the staff to believe and recommend that no ordinance related hardship has been shown. The idea of having one or two accessory buildings that would exceed the ground coverage of the home seems definitely to be contrary to the concept of principal and accessory buildings. The City's ordinances have long held that an accessory building or buildings should not be larger than the principal structure. In fact, prior to the adoption of the current provisions, accessory buildings were limited to being no more than 75 percent of the ground coverage of the principal building. The City's ordinances also do not even require that properties have an accessory structure or garage. The applicant's situation is not unique. It is not uncommon for persons requesting additional garage space to construct two accessory buildings situated in such a way that additional overhead doors have to be constructed to access the second building. To be required to put up a second building as the applicant's drawing shows, in order to get additional space, is not uncommon nor • 4 -17 -97 Page 2 • is it a hardship in the sense that the zoning ordinance refers. It is, rather, an inconvenience. As mentioned previously, the additional cost to comply with the ordinance provisions does not by itself constitute hardship. As noted, the applicant's situation is not necessarily unique to his parcel of land. Others have desired to have more accessory building space than their principal building, or to have a garage larger than 1,000 sq. ft. in area but have found ways to accommodate their needs and desires in a manner consistent with the provisions of the ordinance. To grant a variance in this situation, would basically mean that similar requests for more accessory space than principal building ground coverage should also be granted. If the Commission is sympathetic to the applicant's case, an ordinance amendment, rather than a variance, should be pursued in order to allow equal application of the ordinance on a city -wide basis. The current accessory building provisions (Section 35 -310, Subdivision lb 3) were adopted in 1981. They were adopted after denying a variance request to allow the construction of a garage that would exceed 75 percent of the ground coverage of the principal building on a particular site. In that particular case, the applicant was requesting to build a 24 ft. by 26 ft. garage that would be the same size as her 24 ft. by 26 ft. house. The Planning Commission at that time reviewed the provisions and determined that it was essential that no one accessory building, or combination of accessory buildings, should exceed the g coverage of the principal building. They believed that two accessory buildings per lot was enough and that a single accessory • building of 1,000 sq. ft. was large enough because the building code limited accessory buildings on floating slabs at that time to 1,000 sq. ft. The building code has since been amended to allow accessory buildings to be larger than 1,000 sq. ft. provided they meet certain other requirements of the building code. The Commission may wish to discuss further the possibility of an ordinance amendment which might affect the applicant's proposal in part at least. Again, we do not recommend a variance or an ordinance amendment that would allow an accessory build to exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. We have some reservations about large accessory buildings being a temptation to be used for other purposes such as non - permitted home businesses or attempting to convert them to habitable space and having accessory living arrangements in them. Other provisions in the ordinance limit accessory buildings to 15 ft. in height. We do not propose to change these either. Again, the Planning Commission may wish to discuss these matters and possibly recommend changes to the ordinance if they believe they are appropriate. With respect to the applicant's request for a variance, we recommend that it not be granted on the grounds that the Standards for Variances, particularly standard `a' regarding hardship and standard `b' regarding uniqueness, are not met. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been sent. • 4 -17 -97 Page 3 y HI 11 1 .• : ' _ 1 11 Iil 111111 111 ■ 1111 ■1 ��■ """ 11111 ��� ' C /11 . .., II Ilt t It � 1111�� ■Illi 1 , ��, ♦� �► � / 11 I llillllll f f 1■ 11 � /1 11� iii 1'� ' �.: � 1111111 1► ,. . � 1 i i ft I t � � ■ 1 1 1 t1 1 1111 11 ��1 ► / 111 1 IIIII ■ ■/i ■■ � 1�1'1� 1 � 11 ���111 � X111 1 � /1 11 1 1 II 1 1 �i�111 1 II :1 HIM, �� ■' ■ I�I . 1 1 � 1 1 11 111 ■��11/ 11 NEI ■ 11111 1 �11� ■ .. �� . ��1�'a ► • - 111 ��� • March 31, 1997 Board of Adjustments and Appeals Brooklyn Center City Council Mavor of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkwav Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Council and Planning Commission Members: Thank you for the opportunity to present my application for a variance for the addition of a 20' by 30' addition to my existing detached garage at my home at 5945 Camden Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. Currently, my home is served by a detached garage which, because of the wav it is situated; makes it impossible to get more than two cars inside at one time. I own four vehicles that are newer and/or in excellent condition that I would like to keep inside at all times. My request for a variance covers two points in the existing ordinance. 1) T hat a garage that is appurtenant to a residential dwelling should not exceed 1,000 square feet in size and that 2) That a garage should not be larger in square footage than a home. • The hardshi of strictly adhering P � b to the ordinance in my attempt to be able to have four vehicles inside would be embodied in the following statements: 1) That the house and garage positioning is not conducive to being able to access a third and fourth garage stall by adding on to the garage to the north (see drawing), or building a separate new garage on the property, There is little to no room to get around or past the existing garage to the north and the existing garage is right against the south property line setback. 2) That the character of the houses and lot sizes on this particular block are such that an oversized garage does not either lookout of lace nor p o does it render the lot with little to no green space. The lots are 210 feet or more deep and at least 80 feet `tilde. This Garage addition would produce a garage that would be less than 10% of the total lot area of the property. 3) That by constructing the addition (30' by 20') in tandem style, I will be able to access and service the garage by one garage door rather than three garage doors in the case where I had to build a third detached structure behind my existing garage which I could only effective reach by driving through the existing garage and into the detached second garage. 4) That by constructing the addition (30' by 20') in tandem style, as shown on my drawing, I will minimize a) The site line impact from Camden Avenue as a result of narrow angle depth perception; will not change the current appearance of an existing detached two car garage. b) • That the surround neighbors will not notice a significant change in mass of building; site disturbance or consistency and quali _ q ty of construction. The addition will be design to be the • same, matching height of S' to the roof trusses (rather than the 10' allowed ) with the siding color and roof materials will be identical to the existing structure. c) That the improvement will be aesthetically pleasing to surrounding property owners and will not pose any nuisance, or endanger public welfare in any manner. In summary, I believe that it is reasonable to grant these two variances in that they are consistent with the spirit of the zoning code; they avoid an operational, and functional obsolescence that would be created by the strict adherence to the Ordinance in achieving shelter for the four cars; do not negatively impact the value, enjoyment, or safety of the adjacent properties; and they have little to no negative impact on the aesthetics of the site lines of the property and its improvements. Respectfully Submitted, Tim Thompson • 5915 Camden Avenue North Brooklyn Center, iii t 5543 1 tltl r �1� !k.r —_ TVA_ ul Irl1 ler► 1 Irl► tli► t 0r J � 1.01 (DOl 0 to sc 1 Ire � for) Iw1J 1 1 tell �' � Ir1► � Irf! � r1t � l »I Y. 1_ ( - Wi • p(A - - - 5' 1 � 'A J LARt[N'f Ab • y ► 1091 '� Ir IN! lil ' IM IM► ► r ryl r M•r/'•1! 1011 1 r (1 r • ( loot / Ir11 r lir) z e "► 2 . .. '•+ �Jll p_- -- Irol al - -- N L 9 ++�— --- .'Y.IL - -- - - -- 111 - - -- , AVON' 110 — 1 10 ►r• r , Illr► r p _ 1111 It01 • 10.1 � '• t ` e t • r 1 ]el 11► w r 0 11i^1 r 1 11 t 1441 of —Lit— it 1 k i ; • Irrl � ._ 1►.1 + " 1 a rr— IT I► — ' — ' — " ref , Itoll Mill 1 lift r Iml ' ' r 110.1 t 11011 IIV r I �o•I ' Hoff ! �� Ir11 lsll (+11 r 1 ro+1t ' 1101► 1 �u f jl 1 1111 ! ►' r 0 AI _ I1!► lit if � - - -_ -_•__- as -� • 1!101 1 j 1! +Q l.l► / ' 1 NI ' Q 1 i71 , itl -- - nn_— 1►> ' ' — - .J••.1__ till j . Af,Tff _ l " u 11 11111 ' 1401 1 l ifl _ nl.ti r ro! . • .t�1 _ 1111► 1 1 •y I HI 1 v p 1 all r 1111) ( Ito) « r lfel lirl 1 , 1 /n �• !Ln 1 « L.JI -. _ " • " 1101 it « " • 5911 AVE N • w r • 1 �1 » 1 ►•1 (Vol u rl , orc K O$ }pl i • ��y u >�v� 51, b G I � 1921 I , I 009 I ' I i t i i r I 1 „ i Y Y , � i Q 1 1, ' I I I I 1971 i ozL Si V.I jl. +.nf i1 Z ��cvodo{ j �szs • • e -E� �.Urc�tcTrusS T' russe -S H/11 Pi4c-1, .2 zxtr Studs i I i I I _...__...u.__----=-- ! � � .�' i ��/ i � '' � f ,; %� i .�,�� � r ,;- { S ' ,�- 4 � ,; �� i � ; '/ ` 1 �`� � � f ��� 1 1 � i �, ` � I t \ 1 i �`�� `` � I 11 k \ \\ `• ' I \\ � �. i ,� 1 \ � � j .,. ..,. ..�.._..... �..._..., � _ . . � • • / V L iS *T , g •'4 T X 2301 gig -- - _..._._. - .. • T O _ '10 uq puns TO 2i S S ' 8 ua -1 • , ..5 ------------------------------------------ / VT / 6-G c Section 35 -310. Rl ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. I. Permitted Uses a. One family dwellings. b. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or industrial accessory uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. 2. Renting of not more than two indoor parking spaces. 3 Accessory buildings or carports, either detached or attached to the dwelling building, subject to the following limitations: aa. The ground coverage of any single accessory building shall be no greater than 1,000 square feet. bb. No more than two accessory structures shall be permitted on any one residential premises. cc. The total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. 4. Public recreational structures in parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 5. Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. 6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as defined in Section 35 -900. 7. Signs as permitted by the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. 8. A temporary real estate tract office for the purpose of selling lots on the tract upon which it is located. 9. The renting of not more than two sleeping rooms by a resident family, provided • adequate offstreet parking is provided. 35 -16 V Building floor plans, elevations, sections and outline specifications, including materials proposed. VI Existing and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility provisions as may be required. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions as deemed necessary to protect the public interest and to secure compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. The conditions may include the execution and submission of a Performance Agreement with a supporting financial guarantee that the subject property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in 1. conformance with the plans, specifications and standards. Section 35 -240. VARIAI�ICES. In instances where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of this zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to an individual property under consideration, the City Council shall have the power to grant variances, in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the property must be the proximate • cause of the hardship, circumstances caused by the property owner or his predecessor in title shall not ( constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. The following rules shall govern applications for a,variance from the strict requirements of this ordinance: I. Procedures a. A "Variance" application shall be initiated by the owner of the subject property or his authorized agent. The application shall be referred to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for public hearing, study, and report and may not be acted upon by the City Council until it has received the recommendation of the Board, or until seventy -eight (73) days have elapsed from the date of referral of the application without a report by the Board. The date of referral is defined as the date of the public hearing. b. The applicant shall fill out and submit to the Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals a "Variance" application, copies of which are available at the municipal offices, together with a fee in an amount as set forth by City Council resolution. The application shall be filed with the Secretary of the Board at least fourteen (14) days before the date of the public hearing. • 35 -11 C. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall refer the matter to the Board by placing the application upon the agenda of the Board's next regular meeting; provided, however, that the Secretary may, with the approval of the Chairman of the Board, place the application on the agenda for a special meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. d. No less than seven (7) days before the date of the hearing, the Secretary to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners or occupants within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings thereunder. e. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall report its recommendations to the City Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Board. f. The application and recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Board, or in the event the Board has failed to make a recommendation, within seventy -eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Board. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty -eight • 48 days of e r ecommendation the Board of Adjustments and A eals or in the th b ( ) Y Y J PP eve recommendation, one h ed and t eia nt the Board has failed to make any within hundred �h (108) days of referral to the Board_ h. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and of the City Council during which the application is considered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Board or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records or other information requested by the Board or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. i. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals following the Board's action upon the application, 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. • >> -12 2 Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and - restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. • 35 -13 APR. -23' 97IW'E0► 12:11 TIMESAVER SECRET. TEL:612 421 9511 A uui '2� f 'C7 � 9 • NBNUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING CONMSSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 1997 V" JJ CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck , Rex Newman, Dianne Reem, and Brian Walker were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Lorri Kopischke. Commissioners Donald Booth and Mark Holmes were excused. Chair Willson noted a letter of resignation which had been presented to the City by Commissioner • Donald Booth. The Secretary noted the letter had been forwarded to the Mayor and the appropriate personnel and the process of reappointment to the seat would be commenced. APPROVAL OF M1I=S - MARCH 13, 1997 There was a motion by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1997 meeting as submitted. Voting for: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Reem, and Walker. Commissioner Newman abstained. The motion passed. 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. ACTION NO. 97005 (TIMOTHY THONiPSOM Mr. Warren noted that the applicant was not present and requested that this item be considered later in the meeting. The Commission agreed to consider this item later in the meeting. • 4 -17 -97 Page 1 APR. -23' 97 (WED) 12:12 TINIESAVER SECRET. TEL:612 421 9611 P. 002 • APPLICATION NO. 97006 (SPIRITUAL LIFE C13M Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97006, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 900 seat church on the vacant 4.4 acre parcel of land located at the southwest quadrant of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location and site and building plans for the new proposal. (See Planning Commission Application Information Sheet for Application No. 97006 dated 4 -14 -97 attached.) Mr. Warren stated access to the property is to be gained via 24 foot wide drive ways located along Xerxes Avenue and two along Freeway Boulevard, one at the northwest corner of the site near Shingle Creek Parkway and the other along the southeasterly portion of the site. There are two access drives on the opposite side ofFreeway Boulevard to the west of this site and one on Freeway Boulevard to the south of this site serving the townhouse complex. None of the proposed accesses appear to line up directly with the existing accesses except possibly the Xerxes access with the officPlmdustrW building to the east. Locations of the accesses should be reviewed and noted on the plan for possible adjustment. The City Engineer has expressed concern for the northwesterly access along Freeway Boulevard possibly being too close to Shingle Creek Parkway. However, there also is concern about the access alignment with the access to the townhouses on the opposite side of the street. The access to the townhouses along the south portion of Freeway Boulevard appears to be about midway between the proposed access for the church and the comer of Freeway Boulevard. • These access issues need to be reviewed and resolved. Mr. Warren noted the applicant has not submitted a grading, drainage or utility plan and one must be provided before a favorable recommendation can be made. The site is 4.4 acres and would not normally require Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review and approval. City records indicate that a portion of this site is wetlands and therefore, a wetland delineation and Watershed review and approval will be necessary. The landscape point system for this 4.4 acre site requires 392 Iandscape points. The project data summary indicates that 379 landscape points are to be provided. This is 13 points short of the minimum required. When totaling points, staff finds only 356 landscape points. Also the zoning ordinance requires parking lot screening where parking lots containing more than six cars across the street from residentially zoned property. This is the case along Freeway Boulevard across from the Earle Brown Farm Estates Townhouses. It is also common in the industrial park area to provide berming along Shingle Creek Parkway in an effort to screen the parking lot at street level. The landscape issues will need to be provided and resolved in the grading, drainage or utility plan. Mr. Warren stated the submitted plans are not sufficient enough to make a recommendation to approve. All the outstanding matters have been reported to the applicant's architect. The application should be tabled until an appropriate plan is presented. Mr. Warren noted the State Statute of limitation of 60 days for reviewing this plan. • 4 -17 -97 Page 2 APR.-23'91(WED) 12:13 TIMESAVER SECRET. TEL:612 421 9511 P. 003 e Pastor Judy, Spiritual Life Church, stated she did not anticipate a large amount of traffic from the site during peak traffic hours. Services are held on Sunday morning and Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday evenings. She stated she did not feel there would be an issue with the wetlands. She noted the church had been located a 6500 Shingle Creek Parkway for 10 years and the parish has outgrown that site. It has become necessary for the church to relocate and they would like to remain in the City of Brooklyn Center. Chair Willson asked if the site would be vacant during the day. Pastor Judy noted there are 8 office workers on the site during business hours. The Church also hosts a week long camp meeting 1 -2 times per year. She noted this would bring revenue to the City as the attendees would utilize the hotels and restaurants in the area Commissioner Newman questioned the possible expansion of the Church. Pastor Judy stated if the Church required expansion, they would rent space from other nearby office buildings and utilize a shuttle bus for transportation. Commissioner Boeck questioned the location of the drive ways. He also suggested a cooperative agreement in regard to drainage may be necessary with the adjacent property owner and asked if the berm would be provided and landscaping adjusted to comply with the ordinance. e The Architect reported a survey of the site will be conducted next week. He stated he was concerned with moving the access points due to the topography of the site. The cooperative agreement may be necessary because the storm sewer actually goes across the adjacent property owners driveway. The Architect stated it is his intent to comply with all recommendations of the City Engineer. In response to Commissioner Walker, the Architect explained the exterior of the building will be white or cream color with plumb colored glazing, frames and flashings. There was a motion by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Reem to table consideration of Application No. 97006, Spiritual Life Church, to provide adequate information for the Commission to make a recommendation to approve. 'doting for. Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Newman, Reem, and Walker. The motion passed unanimously. Y APPLICATION NO. 97007 (ROPTIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - HIAWATHA RUBBER COMPANY Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97007, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 37,440 square feet addition to the Hiawatha Rubber Company building located at 1700 67th Avenue North. Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location and site e and building plans for the new proposal. (See Planning Commission Application Information Sheet for Application No. 97007 dated 4 -17 -97 attached.) 4 -17 -97 Page 3 ;APR. -23' 97(1k'ED) 15:57 TIMESAVER SECRET, TEL :612 421 9511 P. 001 • Mr. Warren explained access to the site would remain unchanged and would be via 67th Avenue and James Avenue. The parking lot to the east of the building would be expanded all the way back to 15 feet of the rear property line and would serve as loading space for the expanded building and additional parking for the site. There are currently 49 parking spaces serving the existing building and an additional 50 parking spaces would be constructed along the east side to the rear of the proposed loading area 36 more parking spaces could be constructed in the back of the building, but the applicant has proposed to defer these parking spaces and to install them only if needed in the future. The proposed 99 parking spaces appear to be adequate given the applicant's expressed parking needs. Staff is recommending however, a proof of parking agreement between the City and the owner of the property to construct up to 36 more parking spaces if required in the future_ The applicant is in agreement with this request. Mr. Warren explained the grading, drainage and utility information. He noted the City Engineer has expressed concern regarding the close proximity of the back wall on the proposed addition to the existing utility easement. He is reviewing the plan to determine the exact location of the utilities in the easement and to determine if the close proximity may affect either the utility lines or the building foundation. Mr. Warren outlined the landscaping plan and noted it was in conformance with the landscape point system used to evaluate such plans He noted the plans do not indicate additional lighting but stated staff is concerned that lights be directed down onto the property. Mr. Warren stated the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to conditions 1 -13 outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Boeck stated the site plan was not detailed in regard to the drainage on the site. He suggested a condition be added to approval of the site plan that states, "All drainage should be retained in this site." Commissioner Reem asked if there would be additional Iighting on the site. Bernie Herman, Architect', stated there would be wallpacks installed on the east side of the building. A 1.5 foot candle would be maintained at the edge of the parking area No other additional lighting would be installed. Commissioner Walker asked if there would be any change in the nature of the work performed in the building. James Popehn, President of Hiawatha Rubber and Partnership Limited, stated 1/3 of the area would be used for expansion. The remaining 2/3 would be open warehouse space or light industrial. He noted it was possible the space would be sublet to other companies. • 4 -17 -97 Page 4 APR. - 23' 91(WED) 15:58 TIMESAVER SECRET. TEL:612 421 9511 P.002 • ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 97007 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 97007, a request submitted by Popehn Limited Partnership (Hiawatha. Rubber Co.) far site and budding plan approval to construct a 37,440 square foot addition to the Hiawatha Rubber building located at 1700 67th Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to the applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of approved site improvements_ 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on- ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. • 5. 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 Ordinances. 6. The underground irrigation system shall be extended to all new landscape areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around the expanded parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 10. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on the site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current Standard Specifications and Details. • 12. Additional lighting proposed for this site shall be provided in conformance with Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4 -17 -97 Page 5 APR. -23' 97 (WED) 12 :14 TIMESAVER SECRET. TEL :612 421 9511 P. 006 • 13. A Proof of Parkin A eement acknowledging g gr gmg the need to install up to 36 parking spaces on the site upon determination of the City shall be executed and filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 14. All drainage shall be retained and held on the site. Voting for. Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Newman, Reem, and Walker. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the recommendation at its Monday, April 28, 1997 meeting. The applicant must be present. Chair Willson recessed the meeting at 8:56 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9 :00 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 97005 (TIMOTHYTHOMPSON) Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97005, a variance request to allow an addition to a detached garage at 5945 Camden Avenue North resulting in an accessory building that exceeds both the 1,000 square feet maximum size of a single accessory building and also the ground coverage of a principal building. • Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to show the location and site and building plans for the new proposal. (See Planning Commission Application Information Sheet for Application No. 97005 dated 4 -17 -97 attached.) Mr. Warren explained the above cited section of the Zoning Ordinance allows detached or attached accessory buildings and carports provided the ground coverage of any single accessory building shall not exceed 1,000 square feet; that no more than two accessory structures are permitted on any one residential premise; and that the total ground coverage of the accessory building or buildings shall not exceed the ground coverage of the dwelling building. The applicant's existing house has a ground coverage of 1,261 square let, while his existing detached garage is 720 square feet. He would like to add 600 square feet to his existing garage in order to house four vehicles that he wishes to keep inside at all times. There is an optional plan which would conform to the ordinance in which the applicant would build a 528 square feet accessory building to the west of the existing garage. This would require a second garage door on the first accessory building to allow access to the second accessory building Mr. Warren advised that the applicant states he believes that it is reasonable to grant the two variances in that they are consistent with the spirit of the zoning code; they avoid an operational and functional obsolescence that would be created by strict adherence to the ordinance in achieving shelter for the four cars; do not negatively impact the value, enjoyment or safety of the adjacent Property, and they have little to no negative impact on the aesthetics of the site lines of the property and its improvements. 4 -17 -97 Page- 6 APR.-23'97(WED) 15:58 TIMESAVER SECRET. TEL:612 421 9511 • Mr. Warren stated staff believes and is recommending that no ordinance related hardship exists. Granting the variance would be contrary to the concept of principal and accessory buildings. The City's ordinances have long held that an accessory building or buildings should not be larger than the principal structure. The applicant's situation is not unique. Mr. Warren advised that if the Commission is sympathetic to the applicant's case, an ordinance amendment rather than a variance, should be pursued. The current accessory building provisions were adopted in 1981. They were adopted as the Planning Commission believed that two accessory buildings per Iot were enough and that a single accessory building of 1,000 square feet was large enough because the building code limited accessory buildings on floating slabs at that time to 1,000 square feet. The building code has since been amended to allow accessory buildings to be larger than 1,000 square feet provided they meet certain other requirements of the building code. Mr. Warren stated staff does not recommend a variance or an ordinance amendment that would allow an accessory building to exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. With respect to the applicant's request for a variance, staff recommends that it not be granted on the grounds that Standards for Variances, particularly standard `a' regarding hardship and standard `b' regarding uniqueness, are not met. PUBLIC HL• ARING (APPLICATION NO. 97005) There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Boeck to open the public • hearing at 9:22 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Timothy Thompson, 5945 Camden Avenue, stated he did not desire to construct a second accessory budding as he felt the addition to the existing garage would keep the buildings in line and was more appealing to his neighbors. He noted the four neighbors abutting his property were in favor of the first proposal. Chair Willson asked if a stipulation could be attached to approval that this building be for no other use than housing four vehicles. Mr. Warren stated this was not possible. He stated however, that the typical definition of an accessory building includes storage of equipment and vehicles. He noted it was not allowable under the ordinance to utilize an accessory building as habitable space. Commissioner Boeck expressed concern that if the City continued to allow larger accessory buildings, they would be used as habitable space. He felt the ordinance should remain as is. If Mr. Thompson would like to build the 'second accessory building, he was in approval. He stated he would vote to deny the request for variance. Commissioner Walker stated he was concerned that granting this variance would set a precedent which could affect the quality of life in Brooklyn Center. He felt the ordinance should remain as is • and the variance should be denied. 4 -17 -97 Page 7 APR. - 23'9 "1(WED) 12 :15 TIMESAVER SECRET. TEL :612 421 9511 P. 008 • Mr. Thompson stated he would e using e cc p o b srng th accessory space for the storage of his boat, truck, car, snowmobile trailer and lawn equipment. Commissioner Newmann stated he felt there was some case that the property was unique with regard to the lot being long and narrow and the power line which would require that two accessory buildings would have to be located further apart. He stated he did not want to change the ordinance but felt this variance would be appropriate. He noted the City Council is looking for diversity in housing stock and this proposal would provide diversity. He stated he felt this was an aesthetically good proposal, would not set a precedent and that he would vote in favor of the variance. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 97005) There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Walker to close the public hearing P on c at 9:50 .m. The motion carried d unanimousl . Y AACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 97005 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to recommend to the Council that it deny Application No. 97005, a request submitted by Timothy Thompson, 5945 Camden Avenue, for a variance request to allow an addition to a detached garage that exceeds both the 1,000 square feet maximum size of a single accessory building and also the ground coverage of a principal building as the Standards for Variance, particularly standard `a' regarding hardship and • standard `b' regarding uniqueness, are not met. Voting for: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Reem, and Walker. Commissioner Newman voted against. The motion passed. The Council will consider the recommendation at its Monday, April 28, 1997 meeting. The applicant must be present. APPLICATION NO 97004 (LINE DRIVE BATTING CAGES Mr. Warren informed the Commissioners that the applicant requested that Application No. 97004 be withdrawn. There was a motion b Commission y Commissioner Boeck, seconded b Commissioner Reem to acknowledge the Y g withdrawal of Application No. 97004, Line Drive Batting Cages, as requested by the applicant. Voting for: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Newman, Reem and Walker, The motion passed unanim ously. DISCUSSION ITEMS MODIFICATIONS T T lNC DISTRICT O. 3 IF>•CA O AX REMIENT N Mr. Warren noted the City Council has established April 28, 1997, as the public hearing to consider • two modifications to the Tax Increment Financing District No. 3. 4 -17 -97 Page 8 APR. -23' 97 (WED) 15:59 TIMESAVER SECRET. TEL:612 421 9511 P. 004 • There was a motion by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Newman, that the modifications to Tax Increment District No. 3 conform to the general plan for development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. Voting for: Chair Willson, Commissioners Newman, Reem, and Walker. Commissioner Boeck abstained. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Mr: Warren noted there may be a request before the Planning Commission to allow a sewer hook-up to an accessory building. Although there is nothing specific in the ordinance to address this issue, it has long been City policy to not allow sewer hook -ups to an accessory budding. There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to direct the Secretary to prepare a draft ordinance amendment to prohibit connection of sanitary sewer to accessory buildings to concur with City policy in the past and to bring the amendment back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Voting for. Chair Willson, Commissioners Boec S Newman, Reem, and Walker.. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Reem expressed her concern that the City was still addressing code enforcement in t regard to cleaning up areas of the City. Mr. Warren stated the City was still pursuing this and was looking for Code Enforcement personnel. The City would also be looking at exterior maintenance of homes this year in the concentrated code enforcement effort. Mr. Warren stated there was no further business to bring before the Commission. The next Commission meeting will be on Thursday, May 1, 1997. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10 :15 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Lorri Kopischke • TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 4 -17 -97 Page 9 MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: R .a .&J Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Special st Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 97007 Date: April 18, 1997 On the April 28, 1997 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 97007 submitted by Popehn Limited Partnership (Hiawatha Rubber Co) requesting site and building plan approval to construct a 37,440 sq. ft. addition to the Hiawatha Rubber Company building located at 1700 67th Avenue North. . Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 97007 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 April 17, 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 recommended by the Planning Commission. • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 97007 Applicant: Popehn Limited Partnership (Hiawatha Rubber Company) Location: 1700 67th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is requesting Site and Building Plan Approval to construct a 180 ft. by 208 ft. (37,440 sq. ft.) addition to the existing Hiawatha Rubber Company building which is located at 1700 67th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned I -1 (Industrial Park) and this light manufacturing facility is a permitted use in this zoning district. The subject site is located on the north side of 67th Avenue where it intersects with James Avenue North. It is bounded on the west, east and south by other I -1 zoned land and on the north by R -5 (Multiple Family Residence) zoned property. The Medtronic facility is immediately to the west of the subject site; the Earle Brown Farm Apartments are to the north; the TCR Corporation is located to the east; and 67th Avenue and other industrial uses are to the south. The proposed addition would be to the north side (or back) of the existing building and would add a manufacturing and warehousing area to this building. ACCESS/PARKING • v'a 67th Avenue and James Avenue Access to the site would remain unchanged and would be i North. The parking lot that is currently located along the east side of the building would be extended all the way back to within 15 ft. of the rear property line. This area would serve as loading space for the expanded building and additional parking for the site. Currently there are 49 parking spaces serving the existing building with seven being in the front along 67th Avenue North. One of these parking spaces is a designated handicap parking space. Forty -two existing parking spaces are located along the east side of the building and an additional 50 parking spaces would be constructed along the east side to the rear of the proposed loading area. Thirty -six more parking spaces could be constructed in back of the building, but the applicant has proposed to defer these parking spaces and to install them only if they would be needed in the future. The parking requirement for the total 77,047 sq. ft. building would be 113 parking spaces. This is based on 4,583 sq. ft. of office requiring 23 parking spaces (at one parking space for every 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area) and 72,400 sq. ft. of manufacturing/warehouse space requiring 90 parking spaces (at one parking space for every 800 sq. ft. of floor area). The proposed 99 parking spaces appear to be adequate given the applicant's expressed parking needs. We would, however, recommend that a joint parking agreement between the City and the owner of the property be executed requiring the construction of up to 36 additional parking spaces should the City determine they are necessary in the future. It is my understanding that the applicant does not object to such an agreement. 4 -17 -97 Page 1 • GRADNG/DRANAGE/UTILITIES As part of the applicant's submittal for this proposed expansion, they have provided grading, draining and utility information. The existing building is hooked up to City water and sewer located in the 67th Avenue North right -of -way. There is a 30 ft. wide utility easement running west to east through the north portion of the site. The proposed building expansion would be up to this utility easement line. Sanitary sewer and water lines are located within this 30 ft. easement. I,t appears that the applicant is proposing to connect to the existing water main and existing sanitary wer located in this easement to provide such utilities to the expanded area. �'Y P P The City Engineer has expressed a concern regarding the close proximity of the back wall on the proposed addition to the existing utility easement. He is reviewing the plan to determine the exact location of the utilities in the easement and to determine if the close proximity may affect either the utility lines or the building foundation. The drainage plan calls for the extension of an existing storm sewer along the east side of the building. This would be extended to service the expanded parking and loading area proposed to be located to the north of the existing parking area. The new area will be required to have B -612 curb and gutter to assist with site drainage. This site is 3.78 acres and, because of its size, it is not required to have Watershed Management review and approval. Attached for the Commission's review are two memos from the City Engineer (dated 4/1/97 and • 4/14/97) regarding his review of the plan. LANDS CAPING /S CREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to evaluate such plans. This 3.7 acre site is required to have 252 landscape points. There currently are 16 existing Green Ash trees located primarily around the perimeter of the existing building. Two Welch Junipers are located g e e entrance to the build and S preading p o ted aloe, either side of t g p � Junipers are located between the building and the 67th Avenue North ri The applicant proposes to continue the Ash tree plantings along the east roe line b adding four PF F P A P � � property rtY Y d more trees along the perimeter greenstrip. The Zoning Ordinance requires, where an I -1 use abuts with an R -4, R -5, R -6 or R -7 use at a property line, that a 50 ft. buffer area be established. This buffer area may not be used for buildings, loading or other industrial activities and must be landscaped. It is also required to have a screening device, either fencing or landscape screening as determined by the City Council. It should be noted that parking may come within 15 ft. of the property line where the industrial and multi - residential uses abut. The applicant is proposing to provide screening along the north property line by adding 13 Colorado Blue Spruce trees to be planted approximately 25 ft. on center. A chain link security fence is also proposed around the back and east side of the facility. It should be noted that parking garages are located immediately • to the north of the property line servicing the apartment building to the north of this site. This 4 -17 -97 Page 2 • provides some additional screening between the apartment building itself and this industrial area. It is believed that the proposed screening of Spruce trees should be appropriate for this area. The applicant intends to seed the proof of parking area and leave this area as a grassy area between the building and the property line. BUILDING The building exterior will be a continuation of the existing building which is primarily a single score concrete block with break off concrete block accents. Again, this finish will be continued along the proposed building expansion. The expansion is to provide additional manufacturing and warehousing space for the expanded use. Building docks will be located along the east side of the building. LIGHTING /TRASH The plans do not indicate any additional lighting, however, it is anticipated that lighting will be provided in the newly expanded area. Our concern is primarily that lights be directed down onto the property and not create glare spilling over to adjoining properties, particularly the residential property to the north. No outside trash facilities are indicated on the site plan. It should be noted that any outside trash facilities must be screened from view with opaque screening. • RECOMMENDATION Altogether the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: L Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on- ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. 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 ordinances. 4 -17 -97 Page 3 • 6. The underground irrigation system shall be extended to all new landscape areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around the expanded parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 10. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on the site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current Standard Specifications and Details. 12. Additional lighting proposed for this site shall be provided in conformance with Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance. • 13. A Proof of Parking Agreement acknowledging the need to install up to 36 parking spaces on the site upon a determination of the City shall be executed and filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 4 -17 -97 Page 4 ��:,�r�V►� ate: 1'1.1 \ \ \�Z �`�����SO, �,+��.� ,• '�� �► • f• ,,t` `�/ i CI� 11'1111 ■ NMI •,.� K/u w w[ n.e tKll v /° urinr urar[ rtr, .. ........ ... .... ..... -.. -. _. _. _.. .... - ...._. -� MAGI.. -..... / ... M1C•1 / BEIF p NAn uC �l • , �° 1 IW llrrtOfli D��p.Y�l.1fY�'N�v.L 1L APC x 1 CT I�w.ra r fan -I. `� ' ' i � , � 11 - �! ^�a9 _ -'�¢ }�; � I t - N ial ' Kr6•re• IYttaDY f90.[Lt Imo " r.-% x t«l• : ; k— Ir. w ct /- ua.• elrull fy.l Lull I �� / Abr xYA M 10[1 [ICtalA6� �x a6tK ...ol HAWAT}1A fiJ61 61OO"YN tAAx 1WI, . —A nr6v.r tma. r f I //t W I ON +, I ... t � / t ' qa 0{Mt�6trK u• . r rc K 1; I K I '• I z WIOSCAPE Pall[ SYStEM Awurs15 i 61 j : C YIIAWI nd3� Wxlgll fgi11G kRYL / wK w g narl wr N[ w I RWtf nWt R IN iY. i fw a am.ti• wt .aaat ' A/ , z mo a .ala / \ l / � t n..t ta..•s t laa . r . u . r .rl taa I , /� /� I rte•1 rtaeaa r r ••a • r rn -re Iwt C � t � �I 1� � 1 urra[•tnt -+•wi /; , �I a ( 1 i ' 01 — NGRS IDCt • i] t A•Ii• .. /li -N r iM t M, I r • ,� I I r l trNro , crlotp ( , Y ° at w t '. . - / / �i M r�.a mr•c .ra •o twr, wK 1r -Y nc ' 11 - .! ._.- N. �. q' -a•grt ._.... __... ._._. _.__.._ _.- ..._._. _. .._._ _.________����. —__ _____ _ ____ -. _.__L1 O Meeau arot xl6u LOS tnmrlaadKtt.uo•t I.M wwn r 461 f• 1 YM It rr NI IN tAN' - - talt Irl •k IAI(16CJ7S MOML PL L u foeC.i q 14tr / w wt Mlr IGGn6 Ira i �l ! L.IY, LCUND: J f wpc vp r a 1. -- A .xN r a 6►a6 a w —1 aau 1 1a 7wN q r,r 1 1 a 06-0 O Yr'aL ......... /tAlr4 W— l a OM .,[ 111r 11441' t 1/10[/I( ta•xclr O [!rt u txaa106 ra tYOma - -_— Iun96 Vr✓1 W11llr hnl•e ° Do It k l? ttae a t•4e tieteKs r •[ 41g1 O a .00i °•nru Ra ..an t1oG' '. �. /. �; 1 WY 461r: IIiN wwlta x•Dli xa.0 WixlCYal IW •a.mra .' /,/ •/� • M r1tlla6 R 1 tWl ww+a Yr,r>< ra+ Ina Kaeai 6 I .. ttt ini�uf4 1 6r� �6e au MKI / O.rrcw w W f° • be IF tat•ttty w •u a • tml ': ` 1 ', ' / _ . .. ._..... -._.. .T /- •.t•c Ytorral . Itar+ r n xr+q IxK a • u tutu won •.. ., . +\`,1 •\ _ . rWA 1164!. xlu...•i Y.Mq t 1.••t4l'l ore,[au Mt r Over! rr •+e+e•s u fW v w� . 1 /• ,. ,,, \ GL._.�l 66a w.Lf +Y . 1IS11 q n igat . Iv W4 AGOYrC a •rx a YrM •�w+o M rr �a —Awn. w. ..a r •.+r ,....:: � nwtu YG . ww r n. t wort tarpclu .•LL •re•0 u blflea q Ku.r •M • _. ``� / _ �% \� •wlrw ru . toe r n tw . Iaa r rlvtt Iona • O a/I r tra u M y , n r W C Y rr r ti . lol° r aK Kr ru 6rntar • .laslrat w / _. � \� tyxrtu AI rase aKt•.ai r w fa.rr4tr • •! Ir r rtrl.rl ' U `\ / Yaw.aa wi � ' /•'" : � M a r — M rho '- rtfut•r11 tu+uuw wtr •' '/ � .. � .. �� YM1• L4G Imxra7 1 �� �Yru /Y MO. LL 'Mr A, w6 ueuruL .._ Lea% \ • Ita twit 11 1 ro /n) ... .. . alt Aw t t flu tN11 u G rea Q .. _..... _ I � ._ e•o P.n.I�l1 xK Iw 4 •r.a xew q K L•tu uru w taw• •r r tw6uxr I �tl[ua w v a ra q �'I I _ �`! ' �.- YIPK OtYx Lgy1. P 9 k a..�.w.WK I Y a 1/Y M tvu xrau M6( 1 L. -Y \ / CL— CAR fty6w -. w q r1o4 w mlut - uu qn r+ nrt . qJ r aasrtu K Ir[[q �r —I ..f __._._ rw6w nnru `\ � "a uao'u w /x6 tu+ tavr a re . s. S[LI uR1 . _ -•_— q4. r a I.I•lf sem lfPr° . IW tMt n - r•w lit a• r.w Irn 1 ° w la a r.►ac x.w wrras ra n.m SITE dC LANI - P(KOIWIIC' i ntgawcwf - i PLAN k DEi lu•I• araariKa r .rrYC ta. ►.fn xz rxcvuof6_I nes nxnw xx nvlormlrrae rLAal.o _ _ — xx r•ar.tutlNR tLal r.ra •ii f 947 NO s Al z M LOS T" UM w mn IM MR of wM '�— L InwNi mo M'ld HOO -' --- _ lca.+nom w>eo imrwloal 1w ay.wn w a i �N 1'41'1 �+ I RAA1o1 1 � _..... • f , i �� + DMII/.11 1t i8 '� 'T T 1 U38" n LY AYFI I elm woo� *�. " tM t8 , I I — A.••'f � 1 1 1 q4 1 1 � y , frO-GH CUYN699 - ___- M _ —_ -- a.� R'_ -- _ __.. _ S.F, _ ___._ _ _ . _ Fa _ . _ ___ _ .. 7: e• _ _ ..iIi ' � I'.ai . _ .- mo Eb m on LDK SHOIIVA313 801031x3 nn LnSs cmv iaoc a rwoo - m Is KIM JUL HLL NOlLdA3 61B"3N1 I I 01 O B 9 S 1 D l (1 NOl1dA313 "I" - �. 0 U (y ,l ot)~ 'Hair» KMoow NOUdl13'H 1943 EL _ 1 11 , 1(- �.,�, e�tli -W Mai- (fir +�1OyS DyR�1. ..l1M , O1�JiFl..1CJ 1 Z C / S 9 C • Ron Warren From: Scott Brink To: Ron Warren Subject: Hiawatha Rubber - Proposed Expansion Date: Tuesday, April 01, 1997 3:11 PM I have reviewed the proposed site and landscape plan prepared by Bernard Herman Architects, Inc. (undated). I can offer the following comments at this time, based on the limited amount of information available: 1. The entire site apears to be less than 4 acres in size, so no aproval requirement from the local Watershed is anticipated. 2. The proposed building expansion falls directly agains a utility easement that includes three known utilities: water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. This is a concern, in that the specific location of the utilities is not shown on the plan. If the addition is constructed too close to any utility, this may cause present construction and future problems for either the utilities and /or building, in terms of future maintenance and potential problems for each: particularly if the building foundation is constructed too close to a pipe. It is recommended that the exact location of the utilities be verified, that the type of required building foundation be known, and that a sufficient separation distance be considered. 3. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. The single catch basin is not enough to sufficiently drain the entire existing and proposed parking lot. Significant ponding in the parking lot would occur. The existing variance in elevations, and drainage for the future parking area must also be considered. Location of roof drains should also be considered. Drainage impacts to properties immediately adjacent to this property must also be considered. • 4. The plan needs to show if additional utility connects (sewer and water) are needed. 5. Screening /landscaping in consideration of adjacent properties (particularly the apartments) should be evaluated further in the grading and landscaping plan. 6. All new parking areas mus have concrete curb and gutter (8612 min.) • Page 1 Ron Warren From: Scott Brink To: Ron Warren Subject: Hiawatha Rubber Co. - More Comments Date: Monday, April 14, 1997 3:12PM Ron, Here are some additional comments as a result of the updated plan recently received (Sheet A1, Bernard Herman Architects, dated 4- 3 -97): 1 . It apears that 2 additional handicapped parking stalls need to be available. 2. It is assumed that existing and future concrete curb and gutter terminate and begin at the same locations as bituminous pavement. This should be verified. 3. Storm Drainage A. The existing storm sewer is a private line. The owner should verify that this line(12 inch) is adequate enough to carry significant rainfall events from the entire property, including the number of catch basins that are needed. Design calculations are recommended B. It is recommended that the proposed storm line be extended further to the north to pick -up proposed future parking on the northwest part of the property. C. It is not shown how drainage will affect adjacent properties, particularly down - spouts on the new building. Additional runoff should not run to the adjacent properties. Swales, or apropriate grading • measures should be provided. 4. The existing hydrant on the north end of the proposed addition should be relocated to where it can be made accessible (from the parking lot). Siamese connection needed and fire access point? 5. A new water service connection is shown, but no new sewer. Perhaps it is not needed? 6. The north side of the new building apears to be about 10 feet from the water -main. Depending on the soil conditions, depth and type of footings, etc., the main may need protection from potential disturbance. • Page 1 qa, MEMORANDUM • DATE: Aril 1 April 7, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Acting Recreation Director SUBJECT: Resolution Acknowledging Donation from the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for g g Y Arbor Day Program The Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City a donation of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and has designated that it be used for the May 14 Arbor Day activities at Northport School. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB FOR ARBOR DAY PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City a donation of two hundred fifty ollars $250 and has designated that it be Y used for the May 14 Arbor Da � ) g Y Y activities at Northport School; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the donations and commends the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. Acknowledges the donation with gratitude. • 2. Appropriates the donations to the designated forestry program. 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: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C H DATE: April 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Discussion of Utility Billing Collection Procedures The issue of utility billing collection procedures was discussed at the March 24, 1997 City Council meeting. The City Council directed staff to do a further survey other cities regarding their collection practices and to develop a comparison of costs of certification by special assessment to the property taxes process verses the water shut off process. This cover memo has the summary of those studies and supporting detail is attached. I learned of four cities that have switched from one process to the other and contacted them for information. Cities that haven't switched for a long time tend to not have information about the advantages or costs of one process verses the other. The Cities of Lakeville, • Apple Valley and Eagan all switched from shut offs to certification processes in the last few years. Lakeville was the first to switch and feels it is more efficient. Apple Valley is spending more Finance Department staff time on the certification process while Eagan is spending less time. This is due to Apple Valley's decision to provide monthly notices to their delinquent customers which is very time consuming. The City of Brooklyn Park temporarily switched from shut offs to certification from 1993 to 1995. This was for the sole purpose of saving time during a conversion to a new computer system and they never intended to make it permanent. Accordingly, they didn't really study the issue and couldn't offer much information. More information on their experiences is attached. In discussions with Brooklyn Center staff, LOGIS staff, and the other cities, I have come to the conclusion that we could save substantial time by both the Finance staff and the Public Utilities staff by switching to the certification process. The reasons for this are two fold. We already spend a great deal of time on the shut off process. Since shutting off the water is such a drastic step, we repeatedly notify the customer. Under a certification process, we would do fewer notices. The second factor is that LOGIS has developed a certification module in the utility billing system which automates most of the steps. Most of the steps we follow for shut offs are manual and very labor intensive. We would be on our own to automate the shut off process since so few cities use it. More detail on the • certification and shut off processes are attached. We should consider another utility billing change at the same time. This would be to • require the bills of all residential rental properties to be in the name of the owners. Properties where multiples dwelling units are served by one water meter are already required by state law to be billed to the owner. Current Brooklyn Center policy allows the owners of single family rental property to put the bill in the renter's name. This creates a large volume of transactions for us as renters come and go, names on the account must be changed, and final bills must be generated. It will cause an additional problem with certifications since we will have to take extra steps to ensure that we are certifying the special assessment to the name of the owner. In conclusion, I recommend switching from the shut off process to certification by special assessment to the property taxes for the collection of delinquent utility bills. Time saved by the Public Utilities staff could be used to meet the increased maintenance needs of our system as it ages. Time saved by the Finance staff could be used to compensate for the reduction of one full time position which was removed from our department last summer and for which we haven't been able to properly redistribute our work load amongst the remaining staff. More importantly, the c n change would provide better service to our customers and avoids g confrontational and dangerous emus encounters between staff and citizens. • If the City Council decides to continue with the shut off process, I recommend that we do not repeat the winter moratorium on shut offs. Since the winter shut off moratorium was enacted last -fall, a large back log of six to eight hundred delinquent accounts has built up which will need to be mailed the arrangement letter informing them that they would have to pay the account or see their water shut off. When shut offs were done on a continueous basis, about 60 red tags per month were hung warning residents of the water shut off if their account weren't paid. If the shut off process is resumed now, it will take at least three months and possibly more to work through the back log. It could be time for the next winter moratorium before we would et current with the accounts that are delinquent g q now. This will significantly impact the operations of the Finance and the Public Utilities Departments. • • MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C H DATE: April 21, 1997 SUBJECT: Comparison of Utility Billing Collection Procedures The City Council and staff have been discussing the merits between the utility bill collection practices of shutting off water service verses certification by special assessment to the property taxes. The following is a comparison of what is involved in each approach. BACKGROUND ON UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM The City of Brooklyn Center bills about 9,000 customers for water, sanitary sewer, storm • drainage, and recycling services. Each property is billed once a quarter. The city is divided into six cycles and one of these cycles is billed every two weeks. The total amount billed in 1997 for the four services will be $4,478,000 according to estimates in the budget. The amount billed, but not yet collected, normally represents less than one month's billings. WATER SERVICE SHUT OFF PROCESS Utility bills are generated on the day scheduled for their cycle and are due 28 days from the billing date. Bills unpaid after 34 days have a 10% penalty applied to them and a delinquent bill is generated on the 35th day. The penalty is based on what it costs the City to deal with delinquent accounts, although the time spent on each account varies widely. Delinquent bills are due on the 56th day from the original billing date. Accounts unpaid on that date are sent an arraignment letter stating that they must pay 25 % of the bill within 14 days and the full balance within 30 days. If the letter isn't signed and returned, a red tag is delivered to the property on the 70th day warning that the service will be shut off in five days if the account isn't paid in full. At this point some customers pay in full, some will make a partial payment and sign the • letter agreeing to pay the rest, and some will let the service be shut off. Some customers will wait until our maintenance staff is at the property to shut off service and then either pay or claim they mailed in the payment. We exercise flexibility in dealing with partial • payments and payment plans since our goal is to get the account paid rather than to shut off service. In cases where partial payments are involved, the maintenance staff can make as many as three trips to the property to deliver red tags or finally shut off service. Shutting off water service requires a special wrench, but we have experienced a resident somehow getting a wrench and turning their service back on with out paying the bill. The entire schedule is built around the goal of getting the account paid before 90 days pass and the account is due for billing again. Producing the arrangement letters takes one staff person a full day for each cycle. Logging the letters as they come back in, answering phone calls regarding the letters, monitoring payments to verify that payment plans are kept, preparing red tags, answering phone calls regarding red tags, monitoring payments to verify which tagged accounts are to be shut off for non payment, and dealing with irate customers who have been shut off takes substantial addition time spread out through every working day of the month. CERTIFICATION BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO PROPERTY TAX PROCESS Utility bills will generated on the day scheduled for their cycle and be due 28 days from • the billing date. Bills unpaid after 34 days will have a penalty applied to them and a delinquent bill is generated on the 35th day. If the City adopts this approach, it may be time to reevaluate the penalty and select something less than 10%. The delinquent bill will have a message on it warning the customer that the bill may be certified to their property taxes if not paid. The utility billing system will monitor account balances and automatically pend delinquent accounts for special assessment. Pending is a process whereby potential special assessments are listed on the assessing records so that if a special assessment search is done on a property for sale, the buyer is informed of the liability. The utility billing system will monitor payments and automatically unpend accounts which are paid. At predetermined dates (probably twice a year), a notice of a public hearing on proposed special assessments will be mailed out. The utility billing system will select the delinquent accounts based upon criteria set by policy (number of days delinquent and minimum amount delinquent), add a $30.00 certification fee, and create a file of data to be merged into a letter to create the notice. Staff will have to spend time at this point verifying that we have the correct owner's name for rental properties which have been billed to the renter. • This notice will be sent by first class mail. The Engineering Department currently sends • street improvement notices by certified mail and only realizes about a 90% delivery rate because people are away from home so much and won't respond to the tag left by the mail carrier that they have certified mail waiting for them at the post office. If people suspect the certified mail is a delinquent notice, they may be even less inclined to go to the post office to pick it up. The city Attorney has confirmed that sending the public hearing notice by first class mail will comply with the requirements in state law. By state law, people are allowed a minimum of 30 days after the hearing to pay the assessment. The utility billing system will monitor payments and remove them from the certification role. At the end of 30 days, the utility billing system will produce a final assessment role to be certified to Hennepin County and automatically remove the certified amount from the customer's account. • • • City of Lakeville Switching from Water Shut Offs to Certification of Delinquent Bills Based on discussion with Dennis Feller, Finance Director Lakeville switched from using water shut offs to certifying delinquent utility bills by special assessment to the property taxes about 20 years ago. Reasons for the change were that they felt water shut offs had the following disadvantages: They were concerned about the possibility that the maintenance personnel sent out to do the shut offs would be assaulted. They felt doing water shut offs was creating polarity between customers and the city. Other observations following the change to certification are as follows: Certification preserves the dignity of the resident and increases goodwill compared to shut offs. Certifying delinquent accounts is easier to administer and more efficient and effective than shut offs. Lakeville certifies twice a year. Lakeville charges a $25.00 certification fee. • City of Apple Valley • Switching from Water Shut Offs to Certification of Delinquent Bills Based on discussion with George Ballenger, Finance Director Apple Valley switched from using water shut offs to certifying delinquent utility bills by special assessment to the property taxes about two years ago. Reasons for the change were that they felt water shut offs had the following disadvantages: Staff spent a lot of time on shut offs. Maintenance personnel were required to accept money for delinquent bills outside of the normal cash control processes. There was liability for shutting off water to a building where there may be special medical or heating needs for water. Apple Valley already had a policy of only billing owners. Before shutting off water, the renter had to be notified and allowed time to contact owner. • Other observations following the change to certification are as follows: Certification resulted in more work for the Finance staff. Apple Valley bills every customer monthly. They also chose to send a separate letter to delinquent accounts every month warning them that they were in danger of being assessed. Under the shut off system, they still assessed 30 to 40 accounts each year for a total of $3,000 to $5,000. Now they certify twice a year. Each time there are about 150 accounts with balances totaling $15,000 to $20,000 assessed. Apple Valley charges a $25.00 certification fee. • City of Eagan Switching from Water Shut Offs to Certification of Delinquent Bills Based on discussion with Tom Pepper, Assistant Finance Director Eagan switched from using water shut offs to certifying delinquent utility bills by special assessment to the property taxes a couple of years ago. Reasons for the change were that they felt water shut offs had the following disadvantages: They were concerned about the safety of maintenance personnel sent out to do the shut offs. They felt the experience of having their water shut off was humiliating to the customer. Other observations following the change to certification are as follows: • The change is a huge time saver for the staff, both maintenance and office. They experience far more delinquencies, he didn't know how many off hand. Eagan certifies twice a year. Eagan charges a $25.00 certification fee. • iU.Dinr4 rAWA viii Ur dDOJJ4U4 i'UULIUUU �-• city of eagan MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VANOVERSEKE DATE: OCTOBER 17, 1994 SUBJECT: UTILITY BILLING SHUT OFF PROCEDURES UTILITY BILLING DELINQUENT ACCOUNT PENALTIES Utility BI lna Shu# Off Pro _Pdures As part of our continuing review of all operations in trying to gain efficiencies and enhance services, I have become increasingly concerned about the amount of City resources • allocated to our current shut off procedures in utility billing. The process takes a great deal of time with the utility billing clerks in typing shut off notices and sending them out by certified mail, in follow-up telephone calls and in coordination with maintenance department employees. Maintenance employees spend a considerable amount of time in delivering notices when the certified mail is not picked up, in shutting off service and then in collecting outstanding balances and turning the service back on to the various residences. After discussing this situation with other cities, 1 have come to the conclusion that the entire billing system would probably work better if the current process were changed and we no longer shut off service for nonpayment of o i out standin g ill g b s. Lakeville, for example, has made the change and now certifies past due accounts semi- annually. Currently, the City of Eagan annually certifies accounts that are not subject to shut off. Those accounts include any that do not have water service, i.e. sanitary sewer only or storm drainage only and rental property. A number of years ago we required that utility bills on rental property become the obligation of the property owner and not of the renter for the City's purposes. That change removed rental property from the shut off process and resulted in the uncollectible accounts being certified. This has been very beneficial to the operation of the utility billing process. In addition to what 1 consider to be an excessive allocation of resources dedicated to this • shut off process, there are two other areas of concern that impact my recommendation to make this change. First, although it is not the City's fault, we create a tremendous amount of ill -will by shutting off water service. While a number of the citizens involved are repeaters and should learn, this is the only contact with City government that a lot of u- L1 - yi IU.ilnir! f Avid vlli vc LaUAV uu,/UU3 \ • UTiUTY BILLING OCTOBER 17, 1994 PAGE 2 these people have and it is not pleasant. It has been the experience in Lakeville that customers appreciate the account being certified to the taxes_ They have found that the process happens fairly quietly and the customers are somewhat humbled but they are not humiliated which tends to happen in the shut off process_ Secondly, in discussing the situation with Wayne Schwan he made me aware of his concern for the safety of maintenance employees in performing the actual shut off operation. There is a great deal of hostility exhibited toward these employees and we believe there is the potential for confrontations that could result in personal injury and /or property damage. Unfortunately, the tendency toward increased violence in our society has the potential to surface in this operation. it is my opinion that we can more efficiently certify delinquent accounts on a semi - annual basis (April and October) then we can shut them off as we currently operate. There would no doubt be more accounts going delinquent because the shut off process does tend to be a deterrent for some customers. There would be a small cash flow impact because some of the service fee revenues would not come In until the taxes were paid • in the following year. That cash flow loss can be overcome by charging an appropriate interest rate on the assessment and by adding the necessary certification fee. Financially, this process would probably become more expensive to the customer in paying through the tax collections than In paying the bill on a current basis. This of course is the nature of any credit situation. The only additional exposure to the City would be on any account that actually went into bankruptcy. Without shutting off and certifying semi - annually, the balances would tend to get a Tittle larger for about three months. If a bankruptcy were filed during that period, the City's loss would be a little greater than it is under the shut off system. That is a very small exposure as we have a very limited number of bankruptcies in any given year. - Utility Billing ae-Hng rent AccountPonall fA4 The City's utility billing ordinance c =endy provides for a 10% penalty on unpaid accounts. In the event a bill remains unpaid, it accrues another lo% penalty each quarter. Consequently, a $i00 unpaid bill for the first quarter of the year would Increase to $133.10 by the end of the year by accruing a 10% penalty for the next three quarters. That original bill of $100 would include a penalty amount of $33.10 by the end of the year. Assuming that the accounts are no longer shut off, more of them will go delinquent and these penalty provisions will be magnified. We are questioned from time to time about how we can legally charge such a high rate of interest Our response is that we do not charge interest but instead collect a penalty. Our system has been designed to encourage payment and not to provide credit to people who choose not to pay the bill. We have forted our customers to borrow elsewhere if they wanted credit to avoid Paying our penalty. With all the marketing for credit cards, citizens have become quite educated U? 1 I U : 3 1,i& r 11 Vr LAUiil :V yDOJj1 4 1UU ? /UU3 , • UTILITY BILLING OCTOBER 17, 1994 PAGE 3 about interest rates, annualized charges and those types of things. I am recommending that we change our penalty structure to e 1 X% per month which Is consistent wfth other charge accounts. This would make our system look more tike a competitive, commercial enterprise and less like a monopoly. I believe this change would increase our receivables and cause us to extend credit in ways that we have not In the past, although in my opinion it would be an appropriate change. We, of course, have the lien and certification system so we do not end up with uncollectible accounts as is the case with commercial enterprises in the private sector. I would expect that overall collections would remain approximately the same with penalties /Interest on a per account basis going down but with more accounts paying interest Please let me know how you would like to proceed with these recommendations. In the event you agree with them, we need to have the City Council consider them. They both would require a City Code amendment and I would like to implement the change January 1, 1995, if it is to be undertaken. • I believe the shut-off situation is the more critical of the two, however, l think they would work best if completed together. Thank you for your consideration. AN3 Finan actor /City Clerk cc: Tom Colbert Tom Pepper EJV /Jeh • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 05/22/95 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA NO.: y. 2 ITEM: ORIGINATING PUBLIC HEARING FOR SHUT OFF OF DELINQUENT DEPARTMENT: • WATER ACCOUNTS - CYCLE 2 FIN /ADMINSER DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY: asrov BETTY PETERSON PARK BROOKLYI�I PRESENTED BY: Proposed Action Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: MOTION , SECOND , TO DIRECT CITY STAFF TO SHUT OFF WATER SERVICE TO DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS IN CYCLE 2, ROUTES 2 & 5, WHO HAVE NOT SHOWN CAUSE WHY THEIR SERVICE SHOULD NOT BE TERMINATED. MOTION , SECOND , THAT THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED TO THE CITY CLERK AS HAVING MADE SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS WILL NOT BE SHUT OFF. The effect of this action will be to shut off water service on delinquent accounts in cycle 2 unless satisfactory payment arrangements have been made. Overview In 1980 a shut off program was instituted whereby water service would be • discontinued to delinquent accounts. The accounts selected for shut off are at least 6 months in arrears. In 1993 the shut off program was temporarily discontinued on an experimental basis. After reviewing the amount of delinquent utility accounts certified to the property taxes for the past six years, it was determined that it would be appropriate to once again begin the shut off program. The amount certified to taxes when the shut off program was in effect ranged from $21,095.00 to $51,697.00 each year. The amount certified during the two years that the shut off program was on hold ranged from $143,056.00 to $173,329.00. Utilizing the shut off program will allow us to increase our cash flow in the water utility fund, decrease our receivables, and reduce the amount of paperwork and staff time during the yearly certification process. Additional Information o Copy of the published notice. O Copy of the letter to delinquent customers. O Copy of the payment arrangement form. Alternatives The City Council has the following alternatives available for dealing with this issue: • Direct the staff to shut off the water service of those who have not shown cause why their service should not be terminated. Taking this action will result in various efficiencies for the city and would be consistent with previous council actions. • 2. Direct the staff not to shut off the water service of those who have not shown cause. This would result in a larger number of delinquencies being certified to the tax rolls. 3. Not take any action at this time. If this action is taken the City Council would need to direct the staff as to what additional information is needed to make a decision. Recommendation Staff recommends alternative number 1. • • I:I ADM INS ERWCENSEI WPFILES IBETTYIUTILBILUSHUTO FF. RCA MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C H DATE: March 18, 1997 SUBJECT: Discussion of Utility Billing Collection Procedures Over the last several years, the staff has developed a concern that our current set of utility billing collection proceedures may not serve our citizens in the best possible way. The cornerstone of our current process is the threat that water service will be shut off if the bill isn't paid. This has several undesirable consequences. Residents in financial difficulty make promises they can't keep in order to postpone a shut off. The staff becomes skeptical of the residents due to the experience of seeing payment promises broken. Angry and potentially dangerous confrontations are set up when the maintenance crew is sent out to actually shut water off. This set of experiences promotes an atmosphere that is the opposite of a customer service orientation. • A moratorium was placed on winter water shut -offs at the direction of the City Council. As part of the moratorium, the City Council requested an additional study on possible approaches to delinquent water bills. Since the imposition of the moratorium, The Finance Division has surveyed our neighboring cities. Thirteen cities responded. Only Blaine, Brooklyn Park, and Columbia Heights shut off water for delinquent utility bills. The remaining ten cities assessed the delinquent utility bills as part of the real estate taxes. Relying upon assessing to property taxes will lengthen our collection cycle. Whatever its faults, the water shut off usually results in the bill being paid. Many people now wait until the crew is at their door before they pay the bill. With an assessment procedure, they will wait until they receive notice that the balance is being assessed, or until it shows up on their property tax statement. The water fund has a large enough cash balance so that this won't cause cash flow problems and fees and interest can be charged on the assessment to largely replace any lost investment income. The maintenance crews will save time since they will no longer be sent out to do shut offs. However, the Finance Division staff will probably spend more time on assessments then they currently spend on shut offs. At the end of February 1996, our accounts receivable balance was $311,515.77. At the end of February 1997, it had increased by $33,069.74 to $344,585.51. Of this 10.6% increase, 3.4% can be attributed to the rate increases that went into effect on January 1, • 1997. The other 7.2%, or $22,462.45 can be assumed to result from the shut off 1997. The other 7.2 %, or $22,462.45 can be assumed to result from the shut off • moratorium. This has a relatively minor impact on the cash resources of the water fund. The options before the City Council would be to reinstate the previous water shut -off policy with a winter moratorium as currently in place or to consider an assessment policy whereby unpaid water bills would be certified and paid as part of the real estate taxes. The advantages to the water shut -off are as indicated that repayment tends to occur more frequently. The disadvantage is that it consumes a great deal of staff time as well as confrontational issues for the water utility crew and the process of physically shutting off water and checking that it is not turned back on. The advantage to an assessment procedure is that we do not have to deal with issues of persons being without water service because of unpaid bills, and while there is a negative involvement of Finance Division time to certify bills, send notices, and actually have the matter certified to the County Auditor, the confrontational aspects and the use of utility crew time is eliminated. An additional issue for the City Council is whether it wishes to do as several of our surrounding cities do, and have water billing paid by the building owner rather than by each individual tenant. This would have the advantages of streamlining our billing process, reducing the number of duplicate billings, reducing the number of customer name changes, and related delinquency problems. Time savings from • billing only the owner would help to offset the time required to assess delinquent bills. • SURVEY OF SURROUNDING CITIES REGARDING DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS CITY SHUTS OFF WATER ASSESS TO TAXES Blaine X Brooklyn Park X Columbia Heights X Coon Rapids X Cottage Grove X Crystal X Fridley X Golden Valley X Maple Grove X Minnetonka X • New Brighton X New Hope X Robbinsdale X • MEMORANDUM DATE: April 24, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Services SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Local Storm Water Management Plan This is a housekeeping measure whereby the Council provides final approval of the City's Local Storm Water Management Plan. The City Council provided preliminary approval on June 13, 1994. The Plan was then submitted to the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions for comment and revised on the basis of those comments. The Plan was then resubmitted to the two commissions and the Metropolitan Council for comment, final revisions were made, and the Plan approved by the two commissions on March 13, 1997. History The nine municipalities having area within the Shingle Creek Watershed first prepared a joint Water Resources Management Plan in 1974. That plan was used by the cities for planning and reference, • but it was never officially adopted as a planning document, nor did the cities organize themselves in any kind of official relationship. Minnesota Laws of 1992, Chapter 509, mandated that all watersheds in the Metro area be governed by watershed management organizations. The nine cities in Shingle Creek and the five cities in West Mississippi elected to organize as joint powers organizations. The statutes further require that these organizations are to prepare and adopt official planning documents regarding the water resources within the watershed boundaries, and that municipalities are to prepare their own Local Plans further defining specific efforts and controls relating to water resources management. The two watersheds prepared plans which were adopted May, 1990. In early 1992, Brooklyn Center engaged the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates (BRAA) to prepare the City's Local Plan. The Council later appointed a citizen's advisory task force to help formulate priorities and advise the staff, consultant, and Council regarding local storm water management planning. The Task Force made its final report to the Council at the June 13, 1994 meeting, and was subsequently disbanded. Revisions The revisions which were made to the preliminary plan after its approval by the Council were primarily technical and organizational. None of the conclusions, recommendations, or strategies for achieving compliance with the statutes or the watershed plans have been revised or amended from • the preliminary versions which was submitted by the Task Force and preliminarily approved by the Council. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOCAL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statutes require that all watersheds in the Metropolitan Area be governed by watershed management organizations; and WHEREAS, said watershed management organizations must prepare and adopt official planning documents regarding the water resources within the watershed boundaries; and WHEREAS, local municipalities within respective watersheds must prepare their own Local Plans that further plan for, protect, and manage water resources; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council granted preliminary approval of the City's Local Storm Water Management Plan on June 13, 1994; and WHEREAS, final comments of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission, and the Metropolitan Council have been incorporated into the Local Plan; and • WHEREAS, said Local Plan received approval from the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions on March 13, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Local Plan is now ready for final approval by the City Council in• accordance with Minnesota Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the City of Brooklyn Center Local Storm Water Management Plan is hereby' accepted and granted final approval. 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. SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION • RESOLUTION 97 -2 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOCAL PLAN PREPARED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has been organized as a joint powers watershed management organization pursuant to the authority set forth in Minnesota Statutes 103B.211, and WHEREAS, this WMO has prepared a water management plan which has been reviewed by all appropriate state and local agencies and has been approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and WHEREAS, the water management plan of this Commission and Minnesota Statutes require that local water management plans be prepared as required by Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and in accordance with the Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8410, and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has retained the firm of Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates to assist the local staff in the preparation of the City's local water management plan, and • WHEREAS, the plan has been duly submitted to this Commission for review and the Commission's consulting engineers have commented on the content of the plan, and the City and its consulting engineers have made the suggested modifications as recommended by this Commission's engineer, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 103B.211, Subd. 1 (2) authorizes the WMO to review and approve local water management plans and to take other actions necessary to be sure that the local plan is in conformance with the WMO plan and the standards set forth therein, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, as follows: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center Surface Water Management Plan prepared by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates and dated August 1996, is hereby approved. 2. This Commission has reviewed the plan and hereby determines that the plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 and 8410.0170, and contains the requirements for local plans including: (a) a table of contents; (b) an introduction and purposes statement; (c) an executive summary; (d) a land and water resource inventory; (e) establishes goals and policies; (f) sets forth the relationship of the goals and policies to local, regional, state, and federal plans; (g) establishes problems and suggested corrective actions; (h) outlines financial considerations; (i) sets forth the • implementation priorities; and 0) establishes an amendment procedures; and the plan contains the necessary appendix documents. • 3. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Subd. 4, the Brooklyn Center plan shall be approved by the City within 120 days of this action, and the City shall amend its official controls in accordance with the plan within 180 days after approval. 4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Subd..5, and consistent with the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Plan, the City shall submit amendments to the local water management plan to this Commission for review and approval in accordance with state statutes and Minnesota Rules. Commissioner Craig Cooper made a motion to adopt the foregoing resolution, and Commissioner Mark Hanson seconded the motion. The following voted in favor thereof: Diane Spector, Brooklyn Center; Kevin Larson, Brooklyn Park; Tom Mathisen, Crystal; James Kujawa, Maple Grove; Cooper, Minneapolis; Hanson, New Hope; Ron Quanbeck, Plymouth; and Maria D'Andrea, Robbinsdale; and the following voted against the motion: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 13th day of March, 1997. • Ch Attest: a�c�c. -coo o Recording Secretary • WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION • RESOLUTION 97 -1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOCAL PLAN PREPARED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission has been organized as a joint powers watershed management organization pursuant to the authority set forth in Minnesota Statutes 103B.211, and WHEREAS, this WMO has prepared a water management plan which has been reviewed by all appropriate state and local agencies and has been approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and WHEREAS, the water management plan of this Commission and Minnesota Statutes require that local water management plans be prepared as required by Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and in accordance with the Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8410, and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has retained the firm of Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates to assist the local staff in the preparation of the City's local water management plan, and • WHEREAS, the plan has been duly submitted to this Commission for review and the Commission's consulting engineers have commented on the content of the plan, and the City and g g P Y its consulting engineers have made the suggested modifications as recommended by this Commission's engineer, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 103B.211, Subd. 1 (2) authorizes the WMO to review and approve local water management plans and to take other actions necessary to be sure that the local plan is in conformance with the WMO plan and the standards set forth therein, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission, as follows: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center Surface Water Management Plan prepared by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates and dated August 1996, is hereby approved. 2. This Commission has reviewed the plan and hereby determines that the plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules 8410.0160 and 8410.0170, and contains the requirements for local plans including: (a) a table of contents; (b) an introduction and purposes statement; (c) an executive summary; (d) a land and water resource inventory; (e) establishes goals and policies; (f) sets forth the relationship of the goals and policies to local, regional, state, and federal plans; (g) establishes problems and suggested corrective actions; (h) outlines financial considerations; (i) sets forth the • implementation priorities; and 0) establishes an amendment procedures; and the plan contains the necessary appendix documents. • 3. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Subd. 4, the Brooklyn Center plan shall be approved by the City within 120 days of this action, and the City shall amend its official controls in accordance with the plan within 180 days after approval. 4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Subd. 5, and consistent with the West Mississippi Watershed Management Plan, the City shall submit amendments to the local water management plan to this Commission for review and approval in accordance with state statutes and Minnesota Rules. Commissioner James Kujawa made a motion to adopt the foregoing resolution, and Commissioner Kevin Larson seconded the motion. The following voted in favor thereof: Diane Spector, Brooklyn Center; Larson, Brooklyn Park; Jack Bittle, Champlin; and Kujawa, Maple Grove; and the following voted against the motion: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 13th day of March, 1997. CJ,t6k 63 U1 C e Chair Attest: Recording Secretary • 9� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BIAS /HATE CRIME RESPONSE PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to take a proactive approach to making and keeping Brooklyn Center a positive place to live, work, and visit for all,persons; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission has proposed a bias /hate crime response plan for the City of Brooklyn Center which is attached hereto and incorporated here and by reference is Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center supports and approves of this program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the bias /hate crime response plan is adopted. • 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. • EXHIBIT A • BIASMATE CRIME RESPONSE PLAN In response to a bias /hate crime, and at the victim's request, the following will occur: 1) Immediate Response. • Upon receiving notice from the staff liaison of an incident, an assigned Responder will call the victim to set up a visit. • This visit will allow the responder to ask questions to determi P q ne which community partners to notify (according to victim's requests and LMHRC guidelines). • The victim will be given a disclaimer that the Responder is not a legal advisor or investigator. 2) Initiate Network Response. • Notify the staff liaison and mayor of the response. • Contact the State Project Coordinator, LMHRC, to seek support and ensure that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights is notified. • Identify if the affected area is participating in a neighborhood watch • program. Crime watch coordinator would contact the neighborhood watch block captain. The goal would be to have one of the victim's neighbors attend the interview, thus adding a familiar face to the process. • The city staff will send letters to the media, conduct interviews with local cable channel, and plan/ conduct community -wide response when appropriate, and first and foremost with the victim's approval. • Conduct follow -up contact. Follow -up contact should be made within one week, in person or by phone. Check on any recurrences, other problems, and offer continued support. • Subsequent follow -up within one month (if appropriate). • The team and network representatives involved in the response shall meet as necessary, review the process, and take action or make needed changes. 3) Review Response. • The Response Team shall review the overall process. • The Response Team shall send letters of appreciation to the network representatives involved. • The Response Team shall inform the City Manager and Police Chief of the outcome. • 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, DATE: April 23, 1997 SUBJECT: Basic Life Insurance Benefits The current contract language in the police union contract and the City's personnel policy provides that the basic $10,000 life insurance policy provided for full -time employees is included in the maximum contribution for insurance made by the City. In 1997, the payroll practice reflected the language in the contracts and the policy. The police union has filed a grievance with respect to including the $1.70 per month premium in the maximum insurance contribution. Mr. Hansen has reviewed the actual practice over the past few years and determined that the City has not included the $1.70 life insurance premium in the maximum contribution cap. This puts • the City in the position where past practice has resulted in payment for health insurance up to the maximum provided in the contract and full payment of the $1.70 life insurance premium. The cost to the City of paying for a $10,000 life insurance policy for all of the full -time employees would be roughly $3,200 per year (at a cost of roughly $20.40 per employee per year). Given the past practice of having provided $10,000 worth of life insurance coverage outside the insurance caps, it would not be fruitful for us to pursue grievance arbitration on this issue. I would recommend that the City Council authorize and addendum to the contractual language to provide that the City will provide $10,000 of life insurance coverage for each full -time employee in the various bargaining units and the unrepresented employees. The supervisory union's contract has language providing for this benefit already. e 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, JWN 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 its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT AND POLICY AMENDMENTS REGARDING LIFE INSURANCE WHEREAS, the City's past practice has been to pay the full cost for a $10,000 life insurance policy on each full -time employee; and WHEREAS, contractual and policy language relating to the payment of insurance proceeds would indicate that the premium for life insurance should be included in the maximum contribution for insurance payments; and WHEREAS, it would be reasonable and cost - effective to simply provide for the premium outside any contribution maximums. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be and hereby is authorized to execute addenda with the collective bargaining units representing organized employees to provide that the City will pay the full cost of a $10,000 life insurance policy for each full -time employee and that such life insurance policy premium payment shall be in addition to or excluded from computation in calculating a maximum insurance benefit payment for employees in the collective bargaining agreements with • the represented employees except for such employees whose collective bargaining agreement already provides for such benefits level. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that with respect to employees not represented by a collective bargaining agreement that applicable policies be and hereby are amended that the City, in addition to the maximum provided contribution for insurance benefits will pay the full cost of a $10,000 life insurance policy for full -time employees. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the actions taken by this resolution shall relate back to and take effect as if adopted on January 1, 1997. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member • and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 3 City of Brooklyn Center 9� A great place to start. A great place to stay. • MEMORAN1 DUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstrom, Lasman, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manage �~ DATE: February 20, 1997 SUBJECT: Heritage Center Open House In discussions with Heritage Center staff, the Historical Society, and the Earle Brown Days Committee, there has been support for a community open house at the Heritage Center. This community open house would allow us to showcase the facility and its potential for many different types of uses. I would propose that we conduct an open house on Sunday, June 22. In connection with this open house, I would propose inviting non - profit, community- based, non - political organizations to join with us in showcasing both the facility and the community. The general criteria that would be used for community -based groups participating in the open house would be that their • proposed activities would be complimentary to the main goal of allowing residents the opportunity to tour and enjoy the facility and become aware of its potential. Some of the proposed activities would include period costumed tour guides from the Historical Society and period displays. I am requesting that the Council support this proposal. This concept, in addition to marketing the Heritage Center, would allow communit residents the opportunity to tour and explore the facility in an atmosphere that would also include social and entertainment value for them. 6341 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, .tilt/ 55430 -2199 - City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD :Number (612) 569 -3400 0 FLY (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer HERITAGE CENTER OPEN HOUSE • City Manager McCauley explained the concept of holding a community open house at the Heritage Center on Sunday, June 22, 1997. The Heritage Center staff, the Brooklyn Historical Society, and the Earle Brown Days Committee are in support of this community open house PP tY P to showcase as the facility d ' t its potential for many different types of uses. In conjunction with this open house, non - profit, community -based, non - political organizations would be asked to join in showcasing both the facility and the community. This opportunity would allow community residents the opportunity to tour and explore the facility in an atmosphere that would also include social and entertainment value for them. Councilmember Peppe inquired about the possible ways for promoting the Heritage Center. Mr. McCauley said that anyone considering retreats, conferences, banquets, meetings, etc., for their group or activity would have the opportunity to go through the facility. Publication would be done in newsletters and other sources. Mayor Kragness noted that the public should take advantage of this excellent opportunity to see such a fine facility. Councilmember Hilstrom stated that the City should reimburse the Heritage Center for staff time and other costs involved to remain consistent with the current policy. Mr. McCauley remarked that staff time would be minimal, only for some setup and cleanup. Costs could be split, perhaps. He further stated that an advertising for the open house would result . Y s It m • b P increased business opportunities for the Heritage ge Center. Councilmembers Peppe and Carmody expressed agreement in the idea of splitting the costs with the Heritage Center. Mr. McCauley suggested the Council authorize the tracking of marginal costs in order to split the costs of the open house between the City's general fund budget and the Heritage Center's budget. Councilmember Lasman asked if the marketing of this open house could "piggyback" the advertising announcements done by the Earle Brown Days Committee. Mr. McCauley said yes; the Committee was willing to cooperate. A motion was made by Councilmember Carmody to proceed with the idea of holding an open house at the Heritage Center on Sunday, June 22; 1997. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lasman and passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF PAWN SHOPS City Manager McCauley responded to several inquiries regarding zoning issues and pawn shops from the last Council meeting. He suggested that the Planning Commission might look at pursuing various options, such as establishing greater distance limitations between pawn shops • 2/24/97 -10- V ' - • •B Otis March 17, 1997 E 3 7ANqHISKORIC RESTORATION INN-EXHIBIT HALL-CONIT -NTI05 CENTER Ms. Madeleine Roche Brooklyn Historical Society 816 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Ms. Roche: The Earle Brown Heritage Center is planning an Open House scheduled for Sunday, June 22, 1997. The goal of the open house is to allow the community's residents to come and tour the facility, educate people about how the facility is currently used, experience a feelin g of the history Earle Brown's Brooklyn Farm creates for Brooklyn Center, and to have a fun family day. There will be no admission fee. What does this have to do with you? We would like to invite local, non - profit organizations in the community to participate in this exciting day. If your organization has a way to help us • promote this open house and has an idea which would enhance the goal of the open house we'd like to hear about it on the enclosed form. In return, if you would like to tell the community about your non - profit organization and it's contribution to the community, we would provide a display table for that purpose. It would be up to you to staff your table. All local non - profit organizations who meet the above criteria will be eligible to participate. However space is limited and we may not be able to accommodate everyone's desire to join us. We will be looking for the most fun, unique and creative ideas to enhance this event. Please use the enclosed "Let Me Help" form and return it in the enclosed postage paid envelope. Sincerely, Judith L. Bergeland General Manager JB : rch Enclosure • 6155 Earle Brown Drive, Brooklyn Center, NIN 55330 (612) 569 -6300 FAX: (612) 569 -6320 T? Brooklyn Center Clubs and Organizations - As of May 1, 11996 Glufa. ur :Qrganl..tian :....;,::......R ;......unat Pars AARP - 55 Alive Mature Drivin Cour Lorraine Conradi,Co 3325 Sumter Ave St Louis Park r , 55426 -5590 L r ABLE Diane Zietler . 5307.Northport Drive B Center 55429 537 -8000 c Arnerican Little League Gary Linder 806 72nd Ave N Br ookly n Center 55430 561 -5 853 L Boy Scouts of America M ike Sirn onet 5300 Glenwood Avenue ;G olden V alley 55422 5 -45 50 J Brookdale Hennepin Ar Lib rary _ '�j 6125 Shingle Creek Pkwy Br ooklyn Center 56430166 r v Brooklyn Center Babe R uth M ike St reitz 5813 Pearson Drive Brookl Center 5542915 Brooklyn Center Ch amber o f Cornmer Mary W elch 6205 Earle Brown Dr Suite1 Brook Cent 55430 566 - 8650 i v Broaki n• Cer► t�rs.Cha ritable�Fdund�Yiort•' -- - ` � - .8 erleBmwn DrSuite�t= Brooklyn Center 55430 566 -8650 _{ Brookly Cen ter Charter Co mmissio n Eileen Oslund 6000 Ewing 4ve N Brooklyn Center bb4 29 537 L , Brook C enter Community Education Doug Darno 6500 H umbol dt Av N Brooklyn Center 55430 561 -8460 m rooklyn Center Family Resource C enter Linda H anka 6 826 H umboldt Ave N Brooklyn Cent 55430 561 -2481 0 Brooklyn Center Friendship Quilt Joanne Holzk 261 65th Av N Brooklyn C enter 5 5430 561 -1219 r7 Brooklyn Center 1-lousing Commission Robert T orres 4501 Winchester LN Brookl Cent 554 29' ; 537 - 0 813 Brooklyn Center Human Right Commiss Way L erbs 5107 E ast Tw in l K BLVD Broo Center 55429 53 -99 25 m k . - - -. - Cl n ire 1 -lu Mi ke .. Av n� 4 v Ce nter F�i 4 1 56 0-9763 c�IUUKIyff �.u1rcr,1 uutll.�a tuu 1- dire 1 lurrinc 564 Eme rson B rooks n ente 4_0 IV Brook G inter Lio Cl ub Ole Ne lson 1 57 31 Gi rard Ave N B rookl yn Cent 55429 566-4925 Brooklyn Center Parks & Recreation Com m. I Bud S orenson 6 301 S hingle Cr Pk wy Brooklyn Ce nter 55430 5_69 -3300 Brooklyn Center Planning Commis Tim Willson 6 718 Colfax Ave Brookly Center 55430 566 -6423 55430 569-3333 13rooklyn Center Ce nter Rolla© Association - Charl L eFevere 470 Pillsbury Pk wy Center • Minneapolis 1 Cnter { 554 02 33 -92 15 Y Y y B rookly n Center Women's Club Edith Middlton 4710 58th Ave N apt 316 Crystal G 55429 :533 -0532 1 4 Brooklyn Center Youth Football - Grandv Kurt Schuman �'- w s.�,..•••. ' .' 5 61 9576 — - -- - - -= .. -- -- - - -- -- - - - - -- -- -- — -- - - — - 'Brooklyn Center Youth Football- Willo LN Dave Martin 6012 Colfax Ave N Brook C enter 55430'7 Q, -- - -- - — w V Broo Community Band Paul Schierenbeck 7908 Orchard Ave N Brooklyn P ark 55443 560 -2 oruo k lyn nrstoric iA Suk;reiy __ C ., (iJJI . Brooklyn 5 `�i13- Y 1 13rooklyn Swim Club Cathy Stork 1 4710 Wingard Ln Brooklyn Center 55430 560 -2490 v 0 n1 Page 1 of 2 r T) i Brooklyn Twins Supper Club Kathy Flasher 6301 Sh ingle Cr ee k Pkw Brooklyn Center 55430.569-3400 CEAP L Courage Cunlur Volunt Courdill 3915 Go lden Vall Rd 'Golden Valtay 5542 588-0811 Earle Brown Da Com mittee S LaCro 6301 Shingle Crook Pkwy Brooklyn Center 55430 569-34 ;', Earle Brown Heritage Center Judith Borgeland 6155 Earle Brow Dr Brooklyn Center 55430 569 -6300 �'•Fiucs Cit z �` :ilUr I ran p vitallui: Rita Da Bru'yi 14221 Lake Rd 1 1ub t -: F. - dale 5r- 6 -4534 Grcissfic�ci Radlci:Cb Airplane Club b :mss Tndd J elle = - a•��j ifr�2qq'' 1 421 -0592 Greate Minneapol Girl Scout Council — - Peggy Erickson 5601 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn Center 55429 535 - 4602 r, Happy Face Squares Dou & Bonnie Johnson 1660 75 112 A ve N Brooklyn Park 55428 561 -8052 =� Hennepin, Artist's Associati (Joan 535 -4969) Robin Gallery 4915 42nd Ave N Rob 55422 \� Leisure Time of Brooklyn Cen ter !Ruth Geissler 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brookly Center 5543Q 561 0702 Natio Little League iJoe LaRose 5327 Logan Ave N Brooklyn Center 55 566 -1357 North Motro Convention & Visitors Bu reau jDawn H_o_ud_ ek -Walz 6205 Earle Bro wn Dr #100 Brooklyn Center 55430'566-7722 l North Metro Stamp Club L Bakke P.Q. Box 27126 Minnea 55427 544-9542 Ri North Suburban Kiwanis Warren Lindquist 7030 Ewing Ave N Brooklyn Cen ter 55429 561 -6624 F ri - .. -- __.._ - -- - - - - 1 . - - -- NW Hennepin Hum Services Council Patty Wilder 7601 Kentucky A N !Brooklyn P ark 55 493 -2802 Osseo C ommunity Education Lee Skavan D ir. 11200 93rd A N :Mapl Grove 553 69 425 -413 \ �+ Out Of S ight C lub (contact Lions Diane Zietle 7021 Unity Av N Brooklyn Center 55430 566 -4188 RSVP Volunteer C 2021 East Henn Min neapoli s 331 -4467 Senior Answer Lino Information /Refarra 333 -2433 Senior Community Service De bbio Bold ! 939-1333 j� Sertorna Club Krueger Gallery of Homes Kurt Johnson 6045 Brooklyn BLVD lBrooklyn Cent 55429 533 -7000 J; j Suburban Henn E nergy Assis Program Barbara Ritchie 4 100 Vernon Ave S -. -_ St Louis Par - k 5 5416 93 -337 ry — - - - - - -- — - - - __- -- -- - - - -- Success By Six -NW Henn. Human Se rvices Eliza G ardner 7601 Ken tucky Ave N !Brooklyn Par 55428 493 -2802 Volunteers In Action 4148 Winnetka Ave N New Mope 554271522-0293 0 -A r T � t Pa e2of2 'T' 9 I