HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 07-14 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Public Copy
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
July 14, 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.
I. May 22, 1997 - Joint Session with Financial Commission
2. June 16 1997 - Special Work Session
b. Resolution Approving an Agreement for Risk Management Consulting Services
C. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -15, Pool Ozonization System,
Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids
d. Resolution Approving Supplemental Agreement # 1, Improvement Project Nos. 1997-
04, 05, and 06, Contract 1997 -F, France Avenue, 69th Avenue to North City Limits,
Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements
e. Resolution Amending the City of Brooklyn Center's Special Assessment Policy
f. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees
g. Site Performance Guarantee Release - Moorwood Townhomes (5825, 27, 29, 31, 33,
and 35 Lake Curve Lane)
h. Licenses
• 6. Open p Forum
• CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- July 14, 1997
7. Planning Commission Item
a. Planning Commission Application No. 97008 submitted by Robert Elledge. Request
for a Special Use Permit to conduct truck rental business from an existing service
station located at 6840 Humboldt Avenue North. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of this application at its June 26, 1997, meeting.
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 97008 submitted by
Robert Elledge subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission.
8. Council Consideration Items
a. Resolution Ordering the Razing and Removal of a Hazardous Building and Further
for the Abatement of Public Nuisances, Safety and Health Hazards and Other
Ordinance and Statutory Violations with Respect to that Real Estate Located at 5501
Brooklyn Boulevard, Legally Described as Tract #, Registered Land Survey No. 40
in the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
• b. Resolution Authorizing and Approving Participation in Cooperative Activities of
Minnesota Police Recruitment System
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
C. Resolution Expressing Support for Brooklyn Boulevard Improvements and
Rescinding Resolution No. 96 -235
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
d. Set Dates for City Council Meetings
-Requested Council Action:
- Motion to set City Council meetings as follows:
• Wednesday, August 20, 1997, at 7 p.m. in Conference Room B, City Hall, for
general work session
- Saturday, August 23, 1997, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. at Earle Brown Heritage Center
for facilitated Council goal setting session
- Monday, September 8, 1997, 6:15 p.m. in Conference Room B, City Hall, for
recognition reception for City Advisory Commissions
e. Update on Code Enforcement
• Requested Council Action:
- Council receive information.
• CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- July 14, 1997
f. Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of the Property at 6236 Brooklyn Boulevard
Requested Council Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
g. Regulation of Secondhand Goods Dealers
Requested Council Action:
- Council discuss.
9. Adjournment
EDA AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
July 14, 1997
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
• 2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
-The following items are considered to be routine by the Economic Development Authority
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
consent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration Items.
a. Approval of Minutes
- Commissioners not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote
on the minutes.
1. June 23, 1997 - Regular Session
b. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for
Bids for Sale and Removal of Houses in the 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage
Project
4. Commission Consideration Items
5. Adjournment
•
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND FINANCIAL COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
JOINT SESSION
MAY 22, 1997
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council and Financial Commission met in a joint meeting called to order by Mayor
Kragness at 7 p.m. in Conference Room B, City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Kay Lasman, and Robert
Peppe, Financial Commission Chair Donn Escher, and Commissioners Ned Storla and Ron
Christensen. Also present were City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Assistant City Manager Jane
Chambers, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. Financial
Commissioners Jerald Blarney, Jay Hruska, Larry Peterson, and Michael Weidner were absent.
• FINANCIAL COMMISSION UPDATE
Financial Commission Chair Escher reported that at the last Council meeting he made a presentation
on behalf of the Financial Commission regarding the revision to the Capital Improvements Fund
Expenditure Policy, and the policy was adopted by the City Council
DRAFT BUDGET CALENDAR AND DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
City Manager McCauley stated this is the beginning stage of the budget process and the purpose of
this meeting is for the City Council and Financial Commission to raise issues and provide input in
the preparation of the 1998 budget. Mr. McCauley summarized the budget calendar and suggested
the Council schedule a budget work session prior to the August 18, 1997, work session.
City Manager McCauley gave an overview of the estimated sources of financing for the budget,
which includes approximately 52% property taxes, 30% intergovernmental, 7% services charges,
4% lodging tax, and the remaining 7% is transfers and miscellaneous. He then, reviewed how the
budget is appropriated by function, which is estimated at 43% public safety, 19 % recreation, 15%
general government, 12% public works, 3% transfers out, 3% unallocated, 2% Convention Bureau,
2% debt services, and 1% Social Services.
• 5/22/97
-1-
Chair Escher explained that in the early 1990s the City employees conducted a service prioritization.
on how to increase revenues or decrease spending.
Councilmember Hilstrom indicated she would like the City to look at the possibility of participation
in more joint powers agreements and sharing of costs. She would like to add this as one of the goals
for this year.
Discussion ensued regarding a bond referendum for City building needs. City Manager McCauley
indicated the City component of property taxes could go up if it is a successful bond election.
Councilmember Carmody asked if there would be increased operating expenses with relation to the
P g ex P
1998 budget if the bond election is successful.
Councilmember Lasman inquired about the recreation director position. City Manager McCauley
stated the City is evaluating the park and recreation division.
COUNCIL ISSUES/DIRECTION ON BUDGET/BUDGET PROCESS
Councilmember Hilstrom discussed the issue of code enforcement, one of the Council's established
goals. City Manager McCauley said currently the code enforcement officers are in the police
department budget, however, one full -time code enforcement officer could be reallocated to the
community development department. Councilmembers Carmody and Hilstrom asked whether the
position is called code enforcement officer or community services officer. •
There was discussion regarding Brookdale and any effects it may have on the City budget.
Councilmember Hilstrom indicated it was hopeful that the Governor would sign the $2 million bill
for redevelopment of Brookdale. Financial Commission members strongly encouraged the City
Council to keep Brookdale a top priority.
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS
City Manager McCauley presented a list of joint powers agreements in which the City participates.
Councilmembers Hilstrom and Carmody expressed concern with the Five Cities Senior
Transportation Program, especially as it relates to serving only seniors and does not include travel
to doctor appointments. Councilmembers recommended the City start the process to establish a new
program or look at other options. Regarding Project PEACE, Councilmembers recommended
looking at alternatives such as a joint powers agreement with another city.
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Manager McCauley requested Council direction on the social service requests for the 1998
budget process. Councilmember Hilstrom said that previously the Human Rights and Resources
Commission would evaluate the social service requests and make recommendations to the Council.
5/22/97 -2-
DR
L-11`-`� L
Financial Commission Chair Donn Escher and Financial Commissioner Ned Storla left the meeting
• at 9:40 p.m.
Councilmembers agreed to the form and format for application for contractual services, the same
format as last year. Letters will be sent to those agencies who applied last year and notice will be
posted regarding the process for applying for funding, emphasizing the deadline to apply.
Councilmembers will review the requests.
City Manager McCauley recommended the City Council request the Financial Commission to
develop a policy regarding social service requests.
Councilmember Hilstrom requested a list of all the City's professional services and when the
contracts expire.
COMMISSIONER OPAT'S REQUEST
Council discussed a letter dated May 12, 1997, which Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat
wrote to Mayor Kragness regarding ISTEA funding as it relates to Brooklyn Boulevard. City
Manager McCauley will call Commissioner Opat to schedule a work session with the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
• The meeting adj ourned at 10 :15 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
• 5/22/97
-3-
DRAFT
• MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
SPECIAL WORK SESSION
JUNE 16, 1997
CITY HALL
4:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council met in a special work session and was called to order by Mayor pro tern Kathleen
Carmody at 4:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor pro tem Kathleen Carmody, Councilmembers Debra Hilstrom, Kay Lasman, and Robert
Peppe. Also present were City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Assistant City Manager Jane
Chambers, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat,
Commissioner Opat's Aide Dan Kennedy, Hennepin County Transportation Division Manager Jim
• Grube, and Executive Director of Brooklyn Community Chamber of Commerce Kent Campbell.
Mayor Myrna Kragness was absent and excused.
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
The purpose of the meeting was for the City Council and Hennepin County representatives to discuss
the ISTEA funding as it relates to Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Opat outlined concerns
regarding letting the current ISTEA funding lapse. Commissioner Opat suggested that the City
Council consider an approach with the County to target the year 2000 for the project. The County
would undertake acquisition negotiations with Mr. Grube personally taking charge of the right -of-
way acquisition.
City Manager McCauley recommended revisiting the cost split on right -of -way. He also indicated
we can be creative about funding sources.
Mr. Grube will send a letter to include with a resolution of support for the first meeting in July.
RAIL DEMONSTRATION
There will be a Hennepin County rail transit demonstration on Wednesday, July 2, 1997. A brief
program, refreshments, and train tours will take place in Osseo/Brooklyn Park at 63rd Avenue North
and County Road 81 at 9:30 a.m. and also at Robbinsdale Farm and Garden Store parking lot at 2
p.m.
6/16/97 _1
DRAFT
HENNEPIN COMMUNITY WORKS •
BRW will submit plans by September. The City will review plans for 53rd with the County and
design centers.
Ms. Spector expressed appreciation for the mill and overlay projects.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
•
6/16/97 -2-
�IJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C
Jane Chambers, Assistant City Manage 91c
Sharon Knutson, City Clerk A)?-
DATE: July 9, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals for Risk Management Consultant
The City's Policy and Procedure for Proposals for Financial Professional Services has a schedule
which calls for doing a request for proposal (RFP) for risk management consultant during 1997.
On April 14, 1997, the City Council approved Resolution 97 -71 which approved specifications
for this RFP. The City has retained a risk management consultant since 1988. The purpose of
the consultant is to provide a source of expertise in analyzing risks, evaluating control programs
and insurance coverages, monitoring claims, and being alert to insurance industry changes in a
way that only a person working full time in risk management can achieve. City staff retain the
responsibility for managing the City's risk with the advice of the consultant. The specifications
called for continuing the service on the same level currently provided. Service from the current
consultant has been costing $468 a month or $5,616 a year and was last increased on March 1,
1995 when it went from $445 to $468 per month.
RFPs were sent out to consultants known to have experience in municipal risk management and
two responses were received. The three of us formed an interview panel. Risk Management
Resources, Inc. was interviewed on June 11 and Berkley Risk Services was interviewed on June
12, 1997. Our evaluation of the two firms based upon both their written proposals and the
interviews is as follows:
Risk Management Resources, Inc.
Risk Management Resources, Inc. submitted a proposal which responded to the services requested
exactly as they were listed in the specifications. However, in the opening paragraph of the written
response and much more so in the interview, it was clear that they advocate a much more active
role for the consultant than just an advisor. This was especially true in the area of workers'
compensation insurance. They proposed to be more involved in evaluating operations to identify
and avoid accidents and more involved in managing workers' compensation claims. This
increased involvement requires more hours of work on their part and results in higher costs. They
proposed a fee of $1,200 per month or $14,400 per year.
• Risk Management Resources, Inc. also submitted an alternate proposal in which they would
become the City's risk management department. They would take over a number of management
duties currently handled by the Finance Director and the City Clerk. While this would include
the City's property, liability, and other insurances, it became obvious that the great emphasis
would be in the area of managing workers' compensation. In this, they would be called
immediately for any employee injury at any time of the day or night and would respond
immediately to the accident site. They would write and disseminate policies to employees,
manage treatment through medical clinics, approve insurance company payment of claims, do
monthly facility inspections, and approve insurance premium billings and audits. They proposed
a fee of $1,750 per month or $21,000 per year.
The discussion with Risk Management Resources, Inc. opened our thinking to other possible ways
to manage the City's exposure to risk. It was apparent that there would be benefits to having risk
managed by a person or group whose sole focus is in that discipline. The primary one being that
there should be a reduction in the number of accidents and the severity of accidents and resulting
claims. However, none of us on the interview panel felt confident enough to predict that the
reduction in insurance premiums would be sufficient to offset the increased fees for the risk
management consultant.
Berkley Risk Services, Inc.
Berkley Risk Services, Inc. has served as the City's risk management consultant since 1988.
Their service during that time has always been professional and has met every need the City has
asked them to address. They submitted a proposal which responded to the services requested
exactly as they were listed in the specifications. This represents a level of service and types of
• services which have proven to be beneficial in actual practice over the years. They propose to
revisit some issues such as surveys of facilities and assessment of risks which need to be done
periodically, but not every year. They proposed a fee of $500 per month or $6,000 per year for
the first year.
Recommendation
While it became clear that there are other strategies for performing risk management, the cost
would be higher and the benefits difficult to predict or quantify. Based upon the written proposals
and the interviews, we recommend continuing to retain Berkley Risk Services, Inc. as the City's
risk management consultant. We have asked them to accept a seven month extension to this first
agreement at a 3 % increase so that we would get back on a basis where all insurance contracts and
related agreements could be approved at the same time each year.
its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR RISK MANAGEMENT
CONSULTING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Policy and Procedure on Requests for
Proposals for Financial Profession Services; and
WHEREAS, proposals for risk management consulting services are scheduled to
be solicited in 1997 in accordance with this policy; and
WHEREAS, requests for proposals for risk management consulting services were
solicited and two responses were received and evaluated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that:
1. The proposal of Berkley Risk Services, Inc. to provide risk management
consulting services is hereby approved.
2. The proposed fees of $500 per month for the eriod of August 1997
P �
through July 1998 and $515 per month for the period of August 1998
through February 1999 are hereby approved.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
b Berkley Risk Services, Inc.
May 22, 1997
Mr. Charlie Hansen, Finance Director
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199
RE: Request For Proposal (RFP)
Dear Mr. Hansen:
Thank you for the opportunity for Berkley Risk Services, Inc. (BRS) to submit the following
proposal based upon your RFP.
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
General Obiective
. To develop and /or maintain a comprehensive Risk Management Program for The City of
Brooklyn Center (City) that efficiently uses the resources and reduces the probability of injury
to the public and employees or damage to property.
Berkley Risk Service's method is to work on a team approach, bringing together a team of
skilled professionals under the direction of John Simacek who will be the overall account
coordinator.
Conflict of Interest Statement
BRS will not benefit from a commission or any sort of financial arrangement as a result of our
work or recommendations. BRS does not have any organizational conflict of interest.
Background Information and Experience of BRS
Berkley Risk Services, Inc. (BRS) is a property and casualty risk management firm which
specializes in the development and administration of innovative group and single - employer
alternative insurance programs designed to support long term customer needs and compliment
the traditional insurance industry.
As a member of the Berkley Risk Management Services Group and the W. R. Berkley
Corporation, BRS is able to offer additional benefits in servicing and providing risk based
support to its clients.
•
�)?il tiCOUIlLI A)CIIIIC ` )Lldl, SLIICC 1110 • \IInne.tpoli..s. \11nnnot.i ;;io - 2- 02, • [O12) h-{?1J11 • Hx (Ili 2) 1
1 `.frnwer of Rrrklo Ri,k \1;n:hC;ncn[ `m ice, G1,0UP
City of Brooklyn Center
Request for RiskManagement Services
May 2Z 1997
• BRS provides some or all of the following program management functions for its clients:
• Non insurance contract review and interactive negotiations,
• Fee negotiations
• Claim administration
• Loss Control consulting
• Develop risk management information systems
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Primary Objectives
1. Assist with identification and measurement of all exposures to the risk of loss, including
the review of any activities and /or programs under consideration.
2. Assist with the selection of risk management techniques and methods of treatment to
address identified exposures.
3. Review risk management procedures, including loss control and safety programs. This
will include review of personnel procedures which may place the City of Brooklyn
Center at risk.
4. Assist with the set -up and monitoring of loss control programs covering property,
• liability, workers' compensation, and safety to the general public. This will include
meeting with the City's employee safety committee.
5. Assist with assessment of risk retention capabilities of the City to determine whether
this capacity and deductibles or self - insurance are properly balanced.
6. Assist with the preparation and processing of annual insurance renewals.
a Preparation of bid specifications.
b. Preparation of recommendations regarding purchase action.
7. Monitor the City's incurred claims including property damage, Liability, and workers'
compensation.
8. Assist with allocation of risk management costs to budgetary units.
9. Assist with development of budget figures for insurance premiums and /or self insured
funds for each fiscal year.
10. Advise on insurance requirements for contracts and agreements entered into by the
City.
11. Provide up to date information concerning insurance issues such as trends and
proposed legislation.
t 12. Provide a source for answers to risk management problems as they occur.
Brooklyn\6p.doc Page 2 of 5
City of Brooklyn Center
Request for Risk Management Services
May a.. 1997
Proposal Requirements:
A. Experience of the firm in risk management consulting in the state of Minnesota.
BRS acquired American Risk Services, Inc. (ARS) In 1995. ARS provided risk
management consulting to corporate and municipal clients since 1979. Each consultant has
over 17 years experience in risk management with average experience being 27 years.
B. Experience of the firm with jurisdictions of comparable characteristics to the City of
Brooklyn Center.
Our risk management public liability and workers' compensation clients includes:
City of Hutchinson City or Rosemount City of Bloomington
City of Apple Valley City of New Hope
City of Fairmont City of Brooklyn Center
City of St. Anthony City of St. Louis Park
We also are a consultant for Metropolitan Airports Commission and other municipalities and
municipal groups. Private sector organizations, such as American Crystal Sugar Company,
ProGold Limited Liability Company, Hubbard Milling Company, Ryan Construction Company of
MN, Inc., SciMed Life Systems, Inc., HealthEast, plus many more, of a similar nature to the
services proposed.
Please see schedule of similar jurisdictions, including the contact persons, that we presently
service for references.
• C. Identify the person(s) who will be the primary contact with the City. List the qualifications
ty uali
q
and experience of the person(s). Identify -the person who will back -up the primary contact
should he /she become unavailable for any reason. Include resumes.
Personnel assigned will be:
Primary Consultant: John R. Simacek. (612) 376 4253
Back - up Consultant: Bill Kloepfer (612) 376 4233
Mr. Simacek has over 46 years in the insurance industry; including 34 years managing
underwriting and loss control units plus 12 years in risk management consulting.
Mr. Kloepfer has over 17 years in the insurance and risk management fields.
The Curriculum Vitae are enclosed.
D. References relating to similar services to cities over the last three years with comparable
characteristics to the City of Brooklyn Center.
See "B" above and enclosed listing.
•
Brooklynufp.doc Page 3 of 5
City of Brooklyn Center
Request for Risk,Wanagement Services
.tifay 22. 1997
•
E. Identify the Fees for the service for at least the first year.
Our fees are as follows:
Annual Monthly
Continuous Counsel Services: $6,000 $ 500
We will guarantee that our second and third year fees will not increase by more that 5%
per year.
III. SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Risk Management and Insurance Program
Objective:
The goal of risk management is the preservation of the assets and earning power of the entity.
Assets and earning power can be impaired by a number of physical perils as well as by legal
liabilities. Our risk management review will assist in identifying and quantifying the risk of your
City. Upon completion of this review, coupled with Brooklyn Centers risk taking and risk
transfer philosophy, we will analyze your present risk managementlinsurance program to see
how the program will respond predictably to losses. We will also assist in the developing of
services rendered by the insurance brokers and carriers.
• Past Information:
Berkley Risk Services, Inc. and the previous company, American Risk Services, Inc., has
served the City of Brooklyn Center since 1988. During this time we have assisted the City with
the following projects. This is only a partial listing:
• Completed a Risk Management Audit identifying items that needed improvement,
• Continuous review of the Risk Management program seeking improvements,
• Negotiated a "Fee for Service" basis of compensation for the insurance agency with a
written agreement as to duties, in lieu of commission,
• Directed that the Insurance policies be written "Net of Commission" to properly identify
actual insurance costs,
• Authored the first City Safety manual and program, assisted the City in rewriting this
manual to their specific needs,
• Assisted the City in forming the first Safety Committee after displaying the need for such a
program,
• Assisted the City in establishing a complete building inspection program, including
furnishing the check lists, for loss prevention,
• Attended frequent Safety Committee meetings, being available to assist in questions of
safety /loss prevention, insurance and other similar considerations,
• Worked with the City's legal counsel on insurance and transfer of risk requirements,
• Reviewed City ordinances and suggested phraseology in regard to transfer of risk and
• insurance requirements,
Brooklyn\rfp.doc Page 4 of 5
City of Brooklyn Center
Request for Risk Management Services
May 22. 1997
• • Was available to all Department personnel for advise in regard to safety, insurance
requirements and transfer of risk concerns,
Authored ordinances to assist in loss control, i.e. Skate board, rollerblading ordinance.
• Worked with the Design and Construction Management on the building of the Earle Brown
Farm Heritage Center,
• Worked with Legal Counsel in regard to contracts for the Earle Brown Farm Heritage
Center.
We have been available whenever necessary.
I want to thank the City for our past association and hope to continue to provide the City their
Risk Management needs.
Questions concerning this response to Brooklyn Center's RFP can be directed to:
John Simacek or Bill Kloepfer, ARM
Risk Management Consultant ultant Senior Consultant
Phone (612) 376 -4253 Phone: (612) 376 4233
F
ax: 612 376 -4299
Fax: ( 612) Fax: 612 376 4
Fax: ( 612) 299
E -mail: jsimacek @berkleydsk.com E -mail: bkloepfer @berkleydsk.com
Again, we want to thank you for the opportunity to present this bid.
Respectfully m' ed:
John R. Simacek
Risk Management Consultant
•
stooxlyn\6p.doc
Page 5 of 5
5/20/97 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Listing of Municipality Clients
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Av. North, New Hope, MN 55428 -4898
Larry Watts Director of Finance
531 -5131
5315136 Fax
Type of Contract: Continuous Counsel Service
City of Fairmont
100 Downtown Plaza
P. O. Box 751, Fairmont, MN 56031
Jim Zarling Director of Finance
(507) 238 9461
(507) 238 9469 Fax
Type of Contract: Continuous Counsel Service
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West, Rosemount, MN 55068 -0510
Tom Burt Administrator
3222006
Jeffrey A. May Director of Finance
3222031
4235203 Fax
Type of Contract: Continuous Counsel Service
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418 -1699
Roger A. Larson, Director of Finance
7898881
7819323 Fax
Type of Contract: Continuous Counsel Service
City of Hutchinson
111 Hasan Street S. E., Hutchinson, MN 55350
Ken Merrill Director of Finance
(612) 587 5151
(612) 234 4240 Fax
Type of Contract: Continuous Counsel Service
•
RFD- OTHE.XLS 1997 Prepared by. Berkley Risk Services, Inc.
•
JOHN R. SIMACEK
Risk Management Consultant
Berkley Risk Services, Inc.
Currently serving as an independent contractor Risk Management Consultant, John
Simacek brings a broad insurance and loss control background to Berkley Risk
Services, Inc. (BRS). Since serving in the Marine Corps during the Korean
Campaign, John has held numerous professional insurance positions including
Underwriter with Iowa National Insurance Company and United States Fidelity &
Guaranty Insurance Company; Underwriting Manager, Loss Control Manager,
Premium Audit Manager, and Regional Underwriting Manager with Transamerica
Insurance Group; Vice President and Chief Operating Officer with Lakeland Fire
and Casualty Company; Vice President with FBS Insurance; Risk Manager Pro
Tern with First Bank System, Inc.; and Vice President with American Risk
Services, Inc.
• John has been a public speaker on various risk management issues, having spoken
before such organizations as the Ice Skating Institute of America's National
Convention, in Las Vegas, Nevada; Minnesota Government Finance Officers
Association; St. Paul Chapter of the National Association of Accountants; as well
as for other Continuous Education courses.
He has served as an officer or director of various local and national boards,
commissions and associations. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for
the Metropolitan Public Airport Foundation, having also been its President and
Chairperson. He is also the current Chairperson of MSP Airport Travelers
Assistance. He is a past Chairperson of the City of Richfield Planning
Commission; past President of the Underwriting Managers Association; past
member of the Governing Committee, Minnesota Automobile Insurance Plan; and
a past officer and director of the Kiwanis organization, the U. S. Amateur Hockey
Association, and the U. S. Amateur Hockey Association Referees' Association.
•
\:oJ
•
BILL KLOEPFER
SENIOR CONSULTANT
Berkley Risk Services, Inc.
Bill Kloepfer joined Berkley Risk Services, Inc. February 1997 and serves as
Senior Consultant. During the preceding 17 years, he had a successful career at
Liberty Mutual as an Account Executive. His responsibilities were to solicit new
customers, offer Risk Management advice to existing customers, and coordinate
loss control, claims, and administrative support on his accounts. Several of his
clients were listed among the Top 100 Public and Private Companies in Minnesota.
For 22 years Bill also served in the United States Army Reserve at Ft Snelling.
Bill currently serves on one non -profit board in various capacities, including:
Director, and Vice President.
• Bill is a graduate of North Dakota State University with a Bachelors Degree in
Mathematics and Economics. He holds the Associate Risk Management (ARK
designation.
•
•
MARK T. FLATEN
Vice President
Berkley Risk Services, In
Mark Flaten joined Berkley Risk Services, Inc. July 1995 and serves as Vice
President. During the preceding 15 years, he had a successful Risk Management
and Employee Benefit consulting firm that developed sophisticated programs for
clients in the public /governmental (cities, schools, airports), non -profit and for -
profit sectors. In addition, he has held various positions in the insurance/risk
management field for Continental Insurance Companies, Kemper Group and
Heritage Insurance Company. He also served in the United States Air Force in
Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict.
Mark currently serves on several corporate boards in various capacities, including:
Director, Treasurer, and Finance Committee Chair of Volunteers of America, Inc.;
Director and Finance Committee Chair of the Volunteers of America Health
Services; Chair of Volunteers of America Care Facilities; Director of Volunteers of
America of Minnesota; Director of States Self- Insurers Risk Retention Group,
Inc.; and Director of the Nonprofits' Insurance Association, An Interinsurance
Exchange.
Mark has given numerous speeches on various risk management and employee
benefits topics to many organizations, such as the Swedish Trade Council in
Stockholm, Sweden, the National Accountants Association, and the CPA Society
of Minnesota for Continuing Education credits.
Mark is a graduate of Mankato State University with a Bachelors Degree in
Chemistry and a minor in Political Science.
05-L)6-9 TL'E 10:24 FAA 312 627 0610 2002
• ** * * * * * ** *DRAFT * * * * * * * ** * **
National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA.
CHICAGO REGIONAL OFFICE
500 West Madison Street A Member Company
Chicago, Illinois 60606 American Intematlonal Gmup
(312) 930 -5300
B1 iDER OF INSURANCE CONFIRMATION LETTER
April 30, 1997
JODI KATZENBERGER
BERKLEY RISK SERVICES INC.
920 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
• RE: BERKLEY RISK SERVICES, IT IC
Miscellaneous Protessional Liability
POLICY EFFECTIVE 04/30/97 TO 04/30/98
Tab#: 00000041496,
1 am pleased to enclose the binder of coverage for the above captioned account which
was drafted in accordance with our agreement. Please review said binder for accuracy
and contact National Union Qnor to the effective date of policy coverage of any
inaccuracy(ies) found within the issued binder. If National Union does not hear from you
prior to the effective date of policy coverage it will be understood that the binder has
been accepted as an accurate description of the agreed upon terms of coverage.
Very truly yours,
05.06:91 TL 10:.5 F_ -kX 312 627 0640 2003
0 D RAF
BINDER OF INSURANCE
:'atonal Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh. PA_
Name of Insurance Company binding coverage (Insurer)
April 30, 1997
IODI KA77ENBERGER
BERKLEY RISK SERVICES INC.
920 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
RE: BERXLEY RISK SERVICES, INC.
Miscellaneous Professional Liability
POLICY EFFECTIVE 04 /30/97 TO 04/30/98
Taber 00000041496
Dear Jodi
We arc pleased to confirm the binding of coverage in accordance with our agreement as set forth below and subject
to the conditions set forth below:
POLICY INFORMATION (POLICY)
•
INSURED: BERKLEY RISK SERVICES, INC.
INSURED ADDRESS: 920 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 700
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402
TYPE OF POLICY: Miscellaneous Professional Liability
BASIC FOIL44: 26901 (0918'1)
INSURANCE COMPANY: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A.
POLICY NUMBER: 485 -35 -07
EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/30/97 EXPIRATION DATE: 04/30/98
LIMIT OF LIABILITY: 52,000,000 per Wrongful act subject to, 52,000,000 aggregate
RETENTION/DEDUCTIBLE: S100,000
OTHER TERMS: Per Insurer quote/indication letter dated 01/00/00 attached except as
indicated below.
PRE.'fIIUM: S77,000
COMMISSION: 0%
IMPORTANT
CONDITIONS OF BINDER: See below
•
05 06 • 9 T i:E 1 0: 2.9 F .A. S J 12 d_'- 0644 �, 00;
•
MODIFTCATTON OF QUOTE T FTt•t:R OR O THER rNSTR11=01115
rONDITTONS OF B)TIDER
When signed by the Insurer, the coverage described above is in effect from 12:01 AILt of the Effective Date listed above to 12:01 AM
of the Expiration Date listed above pursuant to the terms, conditions and exclusions of the policy form listed above, any policy
endorsements described in the quote/indication letter referenced above, and any modifications of such terms as described in this
binder's section entitled, Modification of Quote Letter Or Other Instructions referenced above. Unless otherwise indicated, this
Binder may be canceled by the Insured, or by the Broker on the behalf of the Insured, by written notice to the Insurer or by the
surrender of this Binder stating when thereafter such cancellation shall be effective. Unless otherwise indicated, this Binder may be
canceled by the Insurer prior to the Effective Date by sending written notice to the Insured at the address shown above stating when,
not less than thirty days thereafter, such cancellation shall be effective. Unless otherwise indicated, this Binder may be canceled by
the Insurer on or after the Effective Date in the same manner and upon the same terms and conditions applicable to cancellation of the
policy form listed above. If cancellation of this Binder, by or on the behalf of either the Insured or the Insurer, is effective after the
Effective Date, then the Insurer shall be entitled to the earned premium. on a pro -rata basis, for the covered period. Issuance by the
Insurer and acceptance by or an the behalf of the Insured of the policy shall render this Binder void except as indicated below.
A condition prr=cdent to coverage afforded by this binder is that no material change in the risk occurs and no submission is made to
the Insurer of a claim or circumstances that might give rise to a claim between the date of this binder indicated above and the
Effective Date.
gill II rM PAYMFiyT
Mwur accounting procedures require that payment be remitted within 30 days of the effective date of coverage or 15 days from the
billing date, whichever is later. We appreciate your compliance with this procedure.
We appreciate your business acrd hope that we can be of further service to you in the firture.
Bound by:
Date
KURT GRA"NZETTO
National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, PA.
•
5�
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 7, 1997
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager -
FROM: Jim Glasoe, Acting Recreation Directo
SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -15, Pool Ozonization
System, Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for
Bids
The 1997 Capital Improvements Fund budget includes $60,000 for the addition of an
Ozonization system to the Community Center pool's current filtration system.
Ozone is an alternative method of sanitization and recirculation of pool water. It uses ozone to
treat the water by preforming three basic functions. Ozone disinfects by killing bacteria and
viruses on contact. It also acts as an oxidizing agent, promoting the chemical decomposition of
contaminates and other byproducts. In addition, ozone aids in a process known as
microfloccuation, which is the binding together of residues for easier filtration.
• An ozone filtration system for the Civic Center swimming pool will provide the following cost
and safety benefits:
1) Reduce chemical and labor costs associated with our annual pool shut down.
2) Reduce water staining and build up of oil and scum on all swimming pool
surfaces.
3) Reduce structural corrosion resulting in less painting maintenance in the pool
environment.
4) Reduce chemical use and labor costs for cleaning filters for the swimming pool.
5) Improve safety by eliminating once a week pool shocking with liquid chlorine,
thereby reducing chemical handling.
6) Improve safety by improving water clarity for lifeguards.
P g ty �
7) Eliminate eye irritation and the strong odors of chlorine.
8) Provide a more enjoyable swimming experience for adults and children by the
improved aesthetics of pool environment.
A resolution establishing Improvement Project No. 1997 -15, Pool Ozonization System,
approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids is attached for
consideration.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1997 -15, POOL
OZONIZATION SYSTEM, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the 1997 Capital Improvements Fund budget provides for the installation
of an ozone filtration system for the Community Center pool; and
WHEREAS, the engineering firm of Follestad and Barrett Associates has prepared
plans and specifications for said improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that:
1. Improvement Project No. 1997 -15, Pool Ozonization System is hereby
established.
2. The plans and specifications as prepared by the consulting engineer are hereby
approved.
• 3. The estimated project costs are established as follows:
Contract $45,000
Contingency (15 %) 6,750
Subtotal Construction $51,750
Admin., Legal, Eng. ,(13 %) 6,800
Total Est. Cost
Improvement Project 1997 -16 $58,550
4. All costs for Improvement Project 1997 -15, will be financed by the Capital
Improvements Fund.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
• MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 7, 1997
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Supplemental Agreement #1, Improvement Project Nos. 1997-
04, 05, and 06, Contract 1997 -F, France Avenue, 69th Avenue to North City Limits,
Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements.
On June 9, 1997, the City Council awarded a contract to Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. for
street and utility improvements on France Avenue North from 69th Avenue to 73rd Avenue. These
improvements also include the installation of an emergency water interconnect with the City of
Brooklyn Park. This essentially provides for a new 12 inch distribution main connecting Brooklyn
Park(73rd Avenue) with the City of Brooklyn Center's Tower No.1 and 69th Avenue trunk water main.
This will provide the City with an emergency water source in the event of a power or other well
shutdown at the City's well supply facilities.
An existing 8 inch cast iron water main pipe currently serves the properties along France Avenue.
During construction of these types of projects, older cast iron mains have often been replaced,
• depending on past maintenance histories or replacement needs. Because the 8 inch line on France did
not appear to have the same degree of maintenance history problems as other cast iron pipes, it was
decided at the time of design to leave the existing main in service while the new 12 inch interconnect
line was constructed. This would have allowed a faster construction of France Avenue, eliminated
water shut -offs and inconveniences to adjacent and surrounding properties, and provided a significant
cost savings to the City. However, after further examination and discussion, this option does not
appear to be the most desirable.
The proposed location of the new distribution main was originally located along the east side of France
Avenue. However, prior to the bid opening, the City was notified by Minnegasco that a potential
conflict existed between the proposed main and a large steel gas main. The general location of existing
gas mains are 15 feet from roadway centerline, which would have allowed installation of the 12 inch
water main at 10 feet from centerline. Just prior to the bid opening it was found that the gas main was
11 feet from centerline. Disruption of this gas line did not appear to be in the best interest of all parties.
Therefore, the location of the trunk water main was relocated to the west side of France Avenue, and a
notice of addendum was quickly sent to all prospective bidders just prior to the bid opening date. At
that time, it was believed that the original plan of preserving the existing main and constructing a
parallel new main would still work.
Since the bid opening and award, we have continued to review options and are now convinced that the
original design of the new parallel main should be changed. In addition to the water main work, deep
sanitary sewer and service repairs have also been programmed as part of the work. The combined
sewer repair and new water main work will result in excavations and trenches in very close proximity
• to the existing 8 inch cast iron main.
Although the work could still conceivably be done in this manner, the new sewer crossings in
• particular would likely disturb and undermine the bedding of the existing main, thus resulting in
possible settling of the pipe and subsequent future maintenance problems. This is especially a concern
due to the more fragile nature of older cast iron pipes. The work may have no impact on the main
whatsoever, or, we could find ourselves in a few years excavating the new street to repair a water main
break.
After further consideration and discussion, it is recommended that the existing 8 inch main be removed,
and that the proposed 12 inch trunk main be upgraded to a 14 inch diameter size to provide adequate
service as both a local service line and trunk distribution link. This would result in one water main of
reliable material and construction rather than two separate lines. Any fears regarding the reliability of
the existing pipe and future maintenance costs would also be eliminated. Temporary water service
would be provided to property owners during construction, and the project would be allowed to
proceed ahead quickly and on schedule. In retrospect, this is the best option, and we regret that this
determination was not made sooner. Replacement of the cast iron main and services is also consistent
with the work performed on other projects, such as Orchard West.
A Supplemental Agreement has been negotiated with Thomas and Sons. The unit prices submitted by
Thomas and Sons are consistent with the unit prices they have provided on similar projects. This
would result in an increase in the total contract amount from $563,060.80 to $636,773.30. The
Engineer's Estimate at bid letting was $658,014.65. The specific extra line item costs are as follows:
• Increase in size of the trunk main and valves from 12 in. Dia. to 14 in. Dia.
• Temporary water services and curb boxes
• • Removal of the existing 8 inch cast iron pipe
• New permanent water services
It is recommended that the
City Council approve the attached Supplemental Agreement. A resolution is
attached for Council consideration.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
• its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #1, IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NOS. 1997-04,05, AND 06. CONTRACT 1997 -F, FRANCE AVENUE, 69TH
AVENUE TO NORTH CITY LIMITS, STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, On June 9, 1997, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount
of $563,060.80 to Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. for Improvement Project Nos. 1997 -04,
05, and 06; and
WHEREAS, It has been deemed necessary to revise the design and construction
of water main improvements; and
WHEREAS, a Supplemental Agreement in the amount of $73,712.50 has been
prepared to provide for the water main improvement revision as designed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
1. Supplemental Agreement # 1 in the amount of $73,712.50 between the City
of Brooklyn Center and Thomas and Sons Construction Inc. is hereby
approved. All costs shall be charged to the Water Utility Fund.
2. Project costs and revenues are hereby revised as follows:
COST
As Amended As Amended Per
Estimated Project Costs Per Low Bid Supplemental Agreement #1
Contract $563,061 $563,061.00
Contingency(10 %) 56,30 $ 56.306.00
Subtotal Construction Cost $619,367 $619,367.00
Supplemental Agreement #1 $73,712.50
Admin. /Legal /Engineering $ 68,000 $ 68,000.00
Reforestation/Street Lights 30,000 $ 30.000.00
Total Estimated Proj. Cost $717,366 $791,079.50
•
RESOLUTION NO.
REVENUES
As Amended As Amended Per
Estimated PrQ Costs Per Low Bid Supplemental Agreement #1
Street Assessments $118,000 $118,000.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility $105,200 $105,200.00
Water Utility $ 95,950 $169,662.50
Storm Drainage Assessment $ 38,350 $ 38,350.00
Regular Municipal State Aid $468,000 $468,000.00
Storm Drainage Utility ($54,067) ($38,350.00)
Local State Aid ($54,067 ($69.783.00)
Total Estimated Revenue $717,366 $791,079.50
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
r DATE: July 8, 1997
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Services
SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the City of Brooklyn Center's Special Assessment Policy
At its June 23, 1997 meeting the City Council discussed and agreed to 1) eliminate the Assessment
Stabilization Program and 2) amend the senior deferral program to redefine "financial hardship" as
being an income for the household's size which is at or below the "very low income" limit
established annually by HUD. The attached resolution orders these two changes. Attached is a
marked up version of the affected special assessment policy, and a clean copy of the entire policy as
amended.
Under the amended policy, the income cap would be revised as follows:
Table 1
Proposed Revised Income Cap
Senior Deferral Program
Household Current Income Revised. income
Size! Cap Cap
1 person $34,800 $20,050
2 34,800 22,900
3 34,800 25,800
4 34,800 28,650
•
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
® , ASSESSNER4 STABILIZATION PROGRAM
There shall e3tisf an Assessment Sta-bilization Pragrmm to assist 1 operty owner,
assessmew levied against hatnesteaded properties awited by persons whose hattseholds ftleet eerfai
fiftftneittl eharaeteristies.
A. Eligibil-ty
rry
to pay. Propefties mest be zatted Ri or R2 or used fts R! or ,
Fund, Gr&-m shall be made direetly to the Speeiai Assessment tiat to the
individtttk4 property awiter. Grants will redeee or fully pay dte ftssessment
Heftnepin Ems_
residentiai or State Aid street 4nprevemettts in residential arefts
stem sewer imtaliftfiett itt residential areas
1. Property awners whase grass fttmily itteame ttftd site piftee them ftt 69 pere
or less of the 1114D "Very J=aw itteatne" limit shall re...i. -in 4te fttli
ftmauftt of the
Property owners whose gross fitmily ineetne fttid site piftee thent at the Very
amount F.4dway between the Very I=ew imaine and I=aw liteatite RwAts are not.
eiigible to re
1
•
June, 1997 Page 8
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
r
SECTION IV. ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL PROGRAM
There shall exist a program to defer a portion of the special assessments of qualifying persons
under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195. Said program shall defer the
payment of a portion of certified special assessments by property owners who are at least 65 years of
age or older or who are retired due to permanent and total disability whose households meet certain
financial characteristics.
A. Eligibility
1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded;
2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January 1st of the year in
which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is
owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability.
3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as:
a• An annual
• income for the applicant's household size which is at or below the "Vero
Income" limit established annually by HUD for the Minneapolis and St Paul
Metropolitan Area: and
b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments from previously - existing
special assessment levies plus the first year of the current levy will exceed 1 -
percent of the applicant's annual income.
B. Calculation
1. The portion of the current levy which will be deferred will be that portion of the levy
against the applicant's property which requires a first year installment payment which,
when added to the applicant's annual payments from previously existing special
assessment levies, would result in an aggregate total of special assessment installments
totaling more than 1 - percent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the
current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above 1 -
percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred.
2. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure -to -pay charges for City
services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments,
assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be
deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not be
included in calculating the maximum 1 - percent aggregate payment defined in
paragraph B.1. above.
•
June, 1997 Page 9
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
•
C. Interest
Simple interest at the rate of that particular assessment levy shall be added to the
deferred assessment, calculated from the date interest started to accrue on the original
_ levvy (usually the October 1 immediately following the certification date) to the date of
payment of the deferred portion of the assessment
D. Termination
The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amount
accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of one of
the following events:
1. The death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the
benefits.
2. The sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property or any part thereof.
3. If the property should for any reason lose its homestead status.
• 4. The City Council determines that a hardship no longer exists.
•
June, 1997 Page 10
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
is its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 93-49 established an Assessment
Stabilization Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that sufficient funds are not available to
continue financing said Assessment Stabilization Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 78 -87 established a policy
providing for the deferral of special assessments under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
435.193 through 435.195. Said policy was subsequently amended by Resolutions 85 -143 and 90-
, 137; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the City's Deferment of Special
• Assessments Policy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution No. 94 -274 adopted a Special
Assessment Policy which incorporated numerous policies related to special assessments for
improvement projects into a single document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the City of Brooklyn Center's Special Assessment Policy is
hereby amended as follows:
1. The Assessment Stabilization Program is hereby discontinued.
2. The Deferment of Special Assessments Policy is hereby amended as
follows:
"Financial hardship" is defined as having an annual income for the
household's size which is at or below the "Very Low Income" limit
established annually by HUD for the Minneapolis and St. Paul
Metropolitan Area.
Resolution No.
•
3, The City of Brooklyn Center's Special Assessment Policy is hereby
amended to delete references to the Assessment Stabilization Program and
to insert the Deferment of Special Assessments Policy as amended by this
resolution.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
• The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. GENERAL POLICIES .......................................
A. Initiation of Public Improvement Projects ...........................
B. History ..................................................
C. Financing and Assessment Policies Applicable to all Types of Improvements ....
SECTION 11. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS .................................. 2
A. Standards for Surface Improvements ............................... 2
B. Assessment Formula for Surface Improvements ........................ 3
1. Residential Streets ..................................... 3
2. Municipal State Aid Streets ............................... 4
3. Alleys ............................................. 5
SECTION Ill. SUBSURFACE IMPROVEMENTS .............................. 5
A. Standards ................................................ 5
• B. Water Mains .............................................. 5
C. Sanitary Sewer ............................................ 6
D. Storm Drainage ............................................ 7
SECTION IV. ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL PROGRAM ............................ 8
A. Eligibility ................................................ 8
B. Calculation ..................... I .......................... 8
C. Interest ................................................... 9
D. Termination ............................................... 9
June, 1997 Page i
•
SECTION I. GENERAL POLICIES
A. Initiation of Public Improvement Projects
Public improvement projects may be initiated by petition of affected property owners.
Public improvements may also be initiated by the City Council when, in its judgment, such
action is required.
The Capital Improvements Program shall detail a program of street improvements
based on Pavement Management Program data, street and utility maintenance records,
Municipal State Aid Standards, and the Local Storm Water Management Plan.
B. History
In 1964, the Village Council approved a Special Assessment Policy which detailed
matters regarding the financing of public improvements as the community developed. This
Policy has been periodically amended, and related policies approved by separate resolution. In
1985, a substantial change in policy was approved by resolution, when the City abandoned
residential assessments based on frontage to adopt a policy based on residence unit. This policy
is intended to incorporate all policies related to improvement project financing. It is
understood that this policy cannot anticipate every situation, and that certain circumstances may
justify deviations from this policy.
C. Financing and Assessment Policies Applicable to all Types of Improvements
When an improvement is constructed which is of special benefit to properties within a
definable area, it is the intent of the City Council that special assessments be levied against the
benefitted properties within that area to the extent that the costs of such project can be deemed
to benefit the properties. The following general principles shall be used as a basis of the City's
assessment policy:
1. The "project cost" of an improvement shall be deemed to include the costs of all
necessary construction work required to accomplish the improvement, plus
engineering, legal, administrative, financing, and other contingent costs.
2. The "assessable cost" of an improvement shall be defined as being those costs which, in
the opinion of the City Council, are attributable to the need for service in the area
served by the improvement. Said "assessable cost" shall be equal to the "project cost"
of the current project, minus any credit attributed to remaining useful life expectancy or
to that part of the improvement deemed to benefit the community as a whole.
June, 1997 Page 1
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
• 3. Terms of special ial assessments shall be as follows:
a. Street improvements - 10 years
b. Bituminous alley improvements - 10 years
Concrete alley improvements - 20 years
C. Water and sanitary sewer hookups and improvements 10 years
d. Storm sewer improvements - 10 years
Interest is charged at a rate established by the City Council at the time of certification
of the levy.
SECTION H. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
Surface improvements shall include grading and base construction, sidewalks, curb and
gutter, surfacing, resurfacing, undergrounding overhead utilities, landscaping, beautification, and street
lighting.
A. Standards for Surface Improvements
1. Arterial streets —shall be of "9 ton" design, of adequate width to accommodate
projected traffic volumes. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of all arterial
streets unless specifically omitted by the City Council, and shall be of the width
approved by the City Council.
2. Collector streets -- (including commercial and industrial access streets) shall be of "7
ton" design, or "9 ton" design, based on anticipated usage, and shall normally be
constructed in accordance with state aid standards. Sidewalks may be provided on one
or both sides of all collector streets in accordance with the comprehensive plan and
shall be at least 5 feet in width, unless otherwise approved by the Council. Wherever
feasible, a boulevard at least 7 feet in width shall be provided, measured from the street
face of curb to the street face of the sidewalk.
3. Residential streets —shall be of "5 ton" design, 30 feet in width, measured between
faces of curbs or edge of street, unless otherwise approved by the Council. The
Council may order the construction of sidewalks when such construction is warranted.
4. Alleys, in residential areas, shall be of "5 ton" design. Alleys shall be of bituminous
construction unless drainage or other conditions require concrete.
5. Street lighting, when installed, shall be installed in accordance with the Council's
policy on street lighting. Mid -block lights may be installed when the length of one
block from the centerline of one intersecting street to the next intersecting street
exceeds 700 feet, or when it is determined that a special public safety benefit would
accrue.
June, 1997 Page 2
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
B. Assessment Formula for Surface Improvements
The assessments to be levied against properties within the benefitted areas shall be
distributed to those properties on the basis of the following provisions:
1. Residential Streets
a. For residential properties zoned R1, the assessment to be applied against each
non- subdividable property shall be a unit amount established annually by the
City Council. Said assessment is intended to represent a specific proportion of
the average cost of making a typical improvement, such as the average cost of
reconstructing a typical block of residential street. For properties which may
be legally subdividable into two or more lots, the assessment to be applied shall
equal the maximum number of lots allowable times the unit assessment. The
assessment shall be calculated as follows:
1. For reconstruction or resurfacing of a residential street, the average
cost of a typical similar project shall be multiplied by the Council's
designated proportion to be assessed. The total assessed shall be
divided by the average number of lots to be assessed to determine the
unit assessment.
2. Absent any other policy changes, such as an increase in the proportion
of cost to be assessed, the unit assessment shall be adjusted annually to
reflect cost of living increases as measured by the Construction Index.
b. For residential properties zoned R2, the assessment shall be applied on a front
foot basis said unit be' calculated w
m calcu at d as follows: The R1 unit e
g assessment shall
be divided by 75 feet, to determine the front foot rate. The minimum
assessment for an R2 property shall be the Rl unit assessment.
C. For residential properties zoned R3, the assessment shall be applied per unit on
the following basis. The R2 front foot rate shall be multiplied by the total feet
of frontage to determine the total benefit. The total benefit shall be divided by
the total number of units in the development to determine the unit rate.
d. For R4 to R7 properties, commercial, industrial, institutional, or special use
properties, the benefits and resulting assessments shall be determined on an
individual project basis.
e. For those properties zoned Rl or R2 having frontage on two or more streets,
special assessments shall be levied for improvements on only one of those
frontages, at the owner's choice. For example, a property on the corner of A
street and B Avenue may choose to be assessed when A street is improved, or
• B Avenue, but not both.
June, 1997 Page 3
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
2. Municipal State Aid Streets
a. For properties that are not commercial or industrial in project areas which are
primarily residential in character:
I . Benefitting properties abutting a state aid designated street shall be
assessed in the same manner as those abutting other residential streets.
2. In those cases where a municipal state aid street improvement project
removes parking from a residential street where parking was previously
allowed, no special assessments shall be levied. Where parking
arrangements have been made, special assessments shall be levied.
b. For properties which are commercial or industrial in project areas which are
primarily residential in character, and for those properties in commercial areas:
1. Commercial and industrial properties shall be assessed based on an area
(acreage) basis. An "A" zone of benefit shall be determined on a
project basis, but would typically include that area of all properties
abutting the street to be improved, extending to a depth of 200 feet or
the property depth, whichever is less. A "B" zone of lesser benefit
may be established to identify those properties or portions of properties
which do not abut the improved roadway, but which accrue benefit.
2. Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, benefitting properties
within this category will be assessed for 70 % of the total project cost.
The Brooklyn Center State Aid Fund will be liable for the remaining
30% of the project costs.
3. If there is a combination of commercial, industrial and residential
properties, the commercial - industrial rate will be determined by
calculating an equivalent footage rate based on assessing 70 % of the
total project cost, while the residential properties will be assessed in
accordance with Subsection 2.a. of these policies.
3. Alleys
a. The cost of installation, resurfacing, or reconstruction shall be assessed on a
unit basis. Forty percent of the cost to be assessed shall be assessed equally to
all owners of lots abutting the alley. The remaining 60 percent shall be
assessed equally to all owners of lots currently having access to the alley.
June, 1997 Page 4
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
• b. The cost to be assessed shall include all project costs. For properties where a
non -hard surfaced driveway exists, the cost of constructing an asphalt driveway
between the paved portion of the alley and property line, minus the cost of sod
restoration for an equivalent area, shall be individually computed and added to
the uniform assessment for the specific property involved.
SECTION M. SUBSURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
Subsurface improvements shall include water distribution lines, sanitary sewer lines and storm
sewer lines, ponds, or other drainage improvements.
A. Standards
Subsurface improvements shall be made to serve current and projected land use. All
installations shall conform to the minimum standards therefore as established by those state,
local, or federal agencies having jurisdiction over the proposed installations. All installations
shall also comply, to the maximum extent feasible, to such quasi - official, nationally recognized
standards as those of the American Insurance Association (formerly National Board of Fire
Underwriters).
Service lines to the property line of each known or assumed building location shall be
installed in conjunction with the construction of the mains.
B. Water Mains
All properties shall be assessed their share of the cost of installing water main to serve
the property and the cost of installing the water service line between the water main and the
property line. In addition, all properties shall be assessed their share of city-wide or area
improvements such as distribution mains, wells, above ground storage, and elevated storage
tanks.
1. For those improvement projects where existing main or appurtenances are repaired or
replaced, including service replacement to the property line, no special assessments
shall be charged. The full cost of said improvements shall be financed by the Water
Utility Fund.
2. For those improvement projects where main or appurtenances are installed to provide
new service to previously unserved properties, the full cost of said improvement shall
be assessed, with the basis being the Engineer's determination of benefit to each newly
served property.
3. All properties not previously assessed for water main, storage, and source
improvements shall be charged at the appropriate rate as established by the most
current "Water Hookup Fee Schedule ", unless the City Council by previous or current
action has established a different rate.
June, 1997 Page 5
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
• a. For those ro rties zoned R1 or R2, the hookup fee shall be charged on a unit
F Pe F g
basis. If the City had previously installed a water service to the property and
the property had not been assessed, the rate shall be "residential unit with
service." If the service had not been installed, the property shall be assessed
the "residential unit without service" rate, and the property owners shall be
responsible for the full cost of installing a service from the main to the
building.
b. For those properties not zoned R1 or R2, the hookup fee shall be charged on a
combination front foot and area basis. The total lineal feet of frontage shall be
charged at the front feet rate. This charge shall represent the hookup fee for
that part of the property from the property line to a depth of 135' or the back
property line, whichever is less. That part of the property outside the "front
135 feet" shall be charged a hookup fee based on area, at a rate per 100 square
feet. Properties for which one or more services have been extended to the
property line which had not previously been assessed for those services shall be
charged the residential service rate per service. Properties without services
shall be responsible for the full cost of installing service from the main to the
building.
C. Sanitary Sewer
All properties shall be assessed their share of the cost of installing sanitary sewer
laterals to serve the property and the cost of installing the sanitary sewer service line between
the street and the property line. In addition, all properties shall be assessed their share of city-
wide or area improvements such as interceptors and pumping stations.
1. For those improvement projects where existing lateral or appurtenances are repaired or
replaced, including service replacement to the property line, no special assessments
shall be charged. The full cost of said improvements shall be financed by the Sanitary
Sewer Utility Fund.
2. For those improvement projects where lateral or appurtenances are installed to provide
new service to previously unserved properties, the full cost of said improvement shall
be assessed, with the basis being the Engineer's determination of benefit to each newly
served property.
3. All properties not previously assessed for sanitary sewer, interceptor, or pumping
station improvements shall be charged at the appropriate rate as established by the most
current "Sanitary Sewer Hookup Fee ", unless the City Council by previous or current
action has established a different rate.
June, 1997 Page 6
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
a. For all ro erties, the hookup fee shall be charged on a front foot basis. If the
P P P g
City has previously installed a sanitary sewer service to the property and the
property had not been assessed, the rate shall be "residential unit with service
If the service had not been installed, the property shall be assessed the
"residential unit without service" rate, and the property owners shall be
responsible for the full cost of installing a service from the main to the
building.
D. Storm Drainage
All properties shall be assessed their share of the cost of installing storm drainage
facilities to serve the property. In addition, all properties shall be assessed their share of city-
wide or area improvements such as interceptors and detention ponds.
1. For a project which includes construction of a storm sewer interceptor, detention pond,
or other regional facility, an engineering study shall establish the distribution of benefit
and determine the assessable portion of the project cost.
The assessable cost of a storm sewer interceptor or detention pond shall be assessed
equally per unit of area (square foot, acre, etc.) over the entire district served by the
• interceptor or detention pond.
The assessment is generally levied in the current year of construction of the interceptor
storm sewer or detention pond, and it is entirely likely that a large number of properties
will be assessed which do not receive immediate and total drainage relief. It is,
however, considered that such properties do 'accrue benefit from the interceptor storm
sewer since the interceptor is available to receive lateral storm sewer connections, or
the detention pond or other regional facility may provide relief from storm events of
greater magnitude than a 5 year storm.
2. For those improvement projects where existing lateral or appurtenances are repaired or
replaced, or slightly upgraded, no special assessment shall be charged. The full cost of
said improvements shall be financed by the Storm Drainage Utility Fund.
3. For those improvement projects where laterals or appurtenances are installed to provide
new service to previously unserved properties, or where service is substantially
upgraded, a portion of the cost of said improvement shall be assessed. Said portion
shall be the same as the assessable portion of residential street improvement costs, as
established in subsection B.l.a.
June, 1997 Page 7
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
•
SECTION IV. ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL PROGRAM
There shall exist a program to defer a portion of the special assessments of qualifying persons
under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195. Said program shall defer the
payment of a portion of certified special assessments by property owners who are at least 65 years of
age or older or who are retired due to permanent and total disability whose households meet certain
financial characteristics.
A. Eligibility
1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded;
2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January Ist of the year in
which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is
owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability.
3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as:
a. An annual income for the applicant's household size which is at or below the "Very
Low Income" limit established annually by HUD for the Minneapolis and.St.Paul
Metropolitan Area; and
b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments from previously- existing
special assessment levies plus the first year of the current levy will exceed 1 -
percent of the applicant's annual income.
B. Calculation
1. The portion of the current levy which will be deferred will be that portion of the levy
against the applicant's property which requires a first year installment payment which,
when added to the applicant's annual payments from previously existing special
assessment levies, would result in an aggregate total of special assessment installments
totaling more than 1 -'h percent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the
current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above 1 -
percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred.
2. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure- to-pay charges for City
services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments,
assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be
deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not be
included in calculating the maximum 1 - percent aggregate payment defined in
paragraph B.1. above.
June, 1997 Page 8
City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy
C. Interest
Simple interest at the rate of that particular assessment levy shall be added to the
deferred assessment, calculated from the date interest started to accrue on the original
levy (usually the October 1 immediately following the certification date) to the date of
payment of the deferred portion of the assessment.
D. Termination
The option to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all amount
accumulated plus applicable interest, shall become due upon the occurrence of one of
the following events:
1. The death of the owner, provided that the spouse is otherwise not eligible for the
benefits.
2. The sale, transfer, or subdivision of the property or any part thereof.
3. If the property should for any reason lose its homestead status.
4. The City Council determines that a hardship no longer exists.
June, 1997 Page 9
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 9, 1997
TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Joyce Gulseth, Administrative Aide
v
SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased
Trees
The attached resolution represents the official p off 1 Council action required to expedite removal of the
trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures.
It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for council consideration each meeting
during the summer and fall as new trees are marked.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE
REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 07/14/97 )
WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Tree Removal Agreement
has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn
Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove diseased trees on the
owners' property; and
WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these diseased trees by
declaring them a public nuisance:
NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
1. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared
to be a public nuisance:
TREE
PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER
- --------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
CITY OF B.C. CENTRAL PARK 50
CITY OF B.C. CENTRAL PARK 51
CITY OF B.C. CENTRAL PARK 52
CITY OF B.C. CENTRAL PARK 53
SHARON PARRIOTT 4406 WOODBINE LA 54
CITY OF B.C. CITY GARAGE 55
CITY OF B.C. CITY GARAGE 56
BRIAN & MELONIE THYMIAN 4741 LAKEVIEW AVE N 57
CITY OF B.C. BELLVUE PARK 58
VINCENT & ANNA MAE POLLEY 5800 HUMBOLDT AVE N 59
DEBORAH BASTIAN 1808 57TH AVE N 60
THOMAS & PHYLLIS POMEROY 6700 SCOTT AVE N 61
KARL TROUTFETTER 6907 GRIMES AVE N 62
ROBERT & CHARLENE ABRAHAM 2100 55TH AVE N 63
RICHARD STRONG 516 62ND AVE N 64
LOREN CROWE 6234 NORTH LILAC DR 65
•
RESOLUTION NO.
• 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property
owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5)
business days in which to contest the determination of the City
Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall
be filed with the City Clerk.
3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a
hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal
costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges,
shall be specially assessed against the property.
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.
r
MEMO
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Speci ist I J .
SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Release
DATE: July 8, 1997
The following site performance guarantee being held be the City Council for the completion of
various site improvements should be recommended to the City Council for release:
Moorwood Townhomes
5825, 5827, 5829, 5831, 5833 and 5835 Lake Curve Lane
Planning Commission Application No. 79038
Amount of Guarantee - $5,000 (Cash Escrow)
Obligor - Principal Construction, Inc. (Thomas Wilkinson)
This marks the completion of the last six townhouse units of the Moorwood Townhomes, which
are located north of County Road 10 at Shores Drive. The project has a long history going back
to its original approval as the Shores Townhomes in 1970, a Darrell Farr development. Four
model units were constructed in 1971 followed by an additional 20 units for which building
permits were issued in 1972. The project ran into trouble and was foreclosed on in 1976 at
which time foundations for 16 more units were covered. In 1979 Planning Commission
Application No. 79038 was approved for Hot Line Realty to finish the project with a different
model home. Hotline Realty took permits for the 16 remaining units in 1980 but never built any
of them. Six of these units were built by Hilltop Builders in 1983. The Moorwood Townhomes
Homeowners Association acquired the building site for four units and decided not to build them
but rather incorporated the property into their common area. Principal Construction, Inc. in
1996, acquired the site for the six remaining units and has completed construction of them. All
sight improvements for the complex have been completed over time and Principal Construction,
Inc. posted a financial guarantee to assure completion of foundation landscaping, driveways,
sidewalks and trash enclosures. The work is complete and the improvements are viable.
It is, therefore, recommended that the City Council authorize the release of the $5,000 financial
guarantee being held to assure the completion of site improvements for this project.
SH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk �vf/'✓✓!n,/� J
DATE: July 10, 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 July 14, 1997:
. Amusement Devices - Operator
Chuckwagon Grill 1928 57th Avenue North
Davanni's 5937 Summit Drive
Hilton Minneapolis North 2200 Freeway Boulevard
K -Mart 5930 John Martin Drive
MCTO 6845 Shingle Creek Parkway
Nickels and Dimes, Inc.
d.b.a. Tilt #243 1328 Brookdale Center
Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Avenue North
Amusement Devices - Vendor
CDL 12322 Business Park Blvd. N., Champlin
Theisen Vending Company 3800 Nicollet Avenue S., Minneapolis
Garbage and Refuse Collection
Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. 2523 Wabash Avenue, St. Paul
Environmental Refuse 4123 Russell Avenue North, Minneapolis
Hilger Transfer, Inc. 8550 Zachary Lane, Maple Grove
Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P. O. Box 26, Redwood Falls
T & L Sanitation Service, Inc. P. O. Box 34695, Blaine
•
Licenses -2- July 10, 1997
•
Mechanical Systems
Energy Solutions International, Inc. 1385 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights
Paul Falz Company, Inc. 359 Atwater Street, St. Paul
Marsh Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. 6248 Lakeland Avenue North, Brooklyn Park
Osseo Stove and Feed 115 Central Avenue, Osseo
Rickert Heating and Air Conditioning 10355 Quaker Lane North, Maple Grove
River Cities Mechanical, Inc. 14960 Afton Boulevard, Afton
Rental Dwellings
Initial:
Francis and Lorri Kaas 5448 Humboldt Avenue North
Randolph and Cynthia Stahl 6224 Noble Avenue North
Michael Cederberg 7230 West River Road
Renewal:
Michael and Jane Danielson 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue North
Heinz Pollinger 4207 Lakeside Avenue North, #320
Lewis and Vivian Hedlund 5316 Russell Avenue North
Fred and Judie Swenson 5340 -44 Russell Avenue North
Douglas Finch 6637 Xerxes Place North
Tobacco Related Products
Walgreen Company
d.b.a. Walgreens 404320 6390 Brooklyn Boulevard
•
MEMO
To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
From: Ronald A. Warren nni �
Pla ng and Zoning Speciah� 6
Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 97008
Date: July 9, 1997
On the July 14, 1997 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 97008
submitted by Robert Elledge requesting a special use permit to conduct a truck rental business
from an existing service station.
Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Planning Commission A PP P g Application No. 97008 and also an area ma showing the location of the
property under consideration, a site plan for the proposed use, 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 June 26, 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
S Application No. 97008
Applicant: Robert Elledge
Location: 6840 Humboldt Ave N
Request: Special Use Permit
The applicant is seeking a special use permit to rent up to four trucks at the Humboldt Unocal,
6840 Humboldt Avenue North. The property in question is located at the southeast corner of
69th and Humboldt Avenues North and is zoned C -2. It is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue
with other C -2 zoned property on the north side; on the east and south by the Humboldt Square
Shopping Center; and on the west by Humboldt Avenue with Neil's Total convenience store /gas
station on the opposite side. Truck rental d leasing is listed as a special use in the C -2 zoning
o s T kr alan
PP g P
district per Section 35 -322, Subdivision 3 o.
The applicant, Mr. Robert Elledge owner of Humboldt Unocal, has submitted a letter (copy
attached) describing the proposed truck leasing operation. He indicates that he would like to
offer up to four Ryder trucks for rent at his business location. He states that the trucks would be
parked in the rear of the building and would range in size from 10 ft. to 24 ft. in length. He adds
that the trucks will be parked so that they are out of the way and will always be locked so they
cause no safety problems. He also points out that the trucks parked on the lot should have no
effect on any neighboring business and sees the proposal as offering additional needed services
• to residents of the area.
Mr. Elledge has also submitted a site plan showing the location of parking, the building and fuel
islands on the property. The central issue with respect to this application is simply whether or
not there is adequate parking available on the site for the proposed truck rental operation in
addition to the required parking for the gasoline service station.
Gasoline service stations are required to provide parking on the basis of service bays and
employees. Three parking spaces are required per service bay plus one parking space for each
day shift employee and parking for up to two service vehicles. Humboldt Unocal contains three
service bays and there are four employees at the maximum shift. Mr. Elledge does not run a
convenience store and only sells some incidental items relating to the fueling and service
operation. The plan shows five parking spaces at the northeast corner of the site and five parking
spaces at the southwest comer of the site. Three additional parking spaces, along with parking
for four Ryder trucks ranging in size from 10 ft. to 24 ft. are located at the southeast corner of the
site. The applicant has one service vehicle which he proposes to park at the south end of the
building. There is also space available at the northwest corner of the site for parking an
additional service if one should be located on the property.
The parking plan shows adequate circulation around the site and the ability to provide the
required parking for the operation and up to four Ryder trucks that could be offered for rent. We
6 -26 -97
Page 1
recommend that the longer vehicles be parked closer to the east property line at the southeast
corner of the site to avoid the potential for traffic congestion circulating around the service
building.
Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of Section 35 -220, Subdivision 2 of the city
ordinances containing the standards for special use permits. We find no conflict between the
applicant's proposal and these standards. It does not appear that the operation will have a
detrimental effect on the general public welfare, be injurious to surrounding property nor impede
the normal and orderly development or redevelopment of surrounding property. We believe
adequate measures are being taken to provide necessary on site parking and the applicant is
willing to restrict the number of vehicles on the site to no more than four, which should not cause
congestion on the site.
It should be noted that the addition of Ryder trucks on the property does not warrant additional
signery above and beyond that authorized by Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. Signs for the
truck rental will have to be incorporated into allowed signery for the property.
A public hearing has been scheduled with respect to this special use permit and notices have been
sent to surrounding property owners.
RECOMMENDATION
i All in all it appears that this application is in order and the standards for special use permits are
met. Approval, is therefore, recommended subject to at least the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is granted for a truck rental operation involving no more than
four trucks in conjunction with the automobile service station use at 6840 Humboldt
Avenue North. No other uses, other than those approved in conjunction with this and
the previous special use permit are comprehended by this approval.
2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations
and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. No banners, pennants, streamers, balloons or other attention attracting devices may be
used in conjunction with the storage and display of these vehicles on the site other
than that which is authorized under administrative permits comprehended under the
city's zoning ordinance.
4. This special use permit approval does not comprehend any additional signery other
than that allowed under Chapter 34 of the city ordinances.
5. The parking of rental trucks shall be confined to the southeasterly portion of the site
6 -26 -97
Page 2
® as shown on the site plan with the longer vehicles being parked closest to the east
property line.
•
• 6 -26 -97
Page 3
,;� 11111 111111, 1111, 111N ..
11 11 �11 11
EMMONS
e 11111/ 111■ 1111 ,
11111 1112M
t1 11 11111■ 11 � ■t1 ■ ■� • 11
■.. MAN 1■�11 ■■■ ,
�IM ■ ■
S :, , 1 . �% ■ry ■ 11/ 111
�a.u�.•+ --
NONE
� 1 111111 ► °� °�������������� ��:i ■ 11111 II ,1
� 1 /// 1 ' 11 ������� � e����, � � .� _ _ � _ 111■ /■■111 ■ ;,'
' �i�i�e� ; : ��i�i� , . �, ., 4 . - • 1� : 11!111 /I � . ,
11- 11�1�1�,, ! ��i�i� • � ��i�i� :. 1■
11 ■11 111■ �: ,1
W ■ ■
111 ����������������� /111 /' 111 ■ ■1■■ -. 11 11111 1 �■: , 1
11 ■ ■11 1111111 1; �,►� • , ��� �11111„i ' = ./
1111 11111 4 11/ 111■ /• X111 �:� ; y :� 111- -� 111
11 : � 1 � 1111 , I��1�1 ����.�►► � �
/ 1111/ 1111111. ■ 111 ■ ' 11 " ��'�
y
/ � � ■11111 � � 1■ ■
' 111■ 1,
1 '
.�-°� �,��� �� ■ 11111 ��1■ 1�i/ t0 , "' '„ 1
, 2Y
tAivn- 0►Y BAY BAY BAY 13 AY RYDEr�
SCApL' S SPgttS
b S' 20 — RVDER
fs o
7 SP! *«S QYDfR
io'
RYDER
BAY it
3L Cam. ; Svc. DAY I
6Q BAY
2y HUMBoL-r {,
D
ISLAN i
LRNO- i oo.oeD
SCAPE
000
PLAN ra (L
CANOPY
Q _
PAY
it
0- [S LANDS EMPcoyfE
� ENTRANCE-
5 3PXE5 EM PLoYEc.
Fa " x ?-0 ,
E MPLOYE c �
EihPL uYEE
_ -- S! rE PLAN —
LMl05CAPt + �y
I ScAt_E
LF�NOSCAPE LANDSCAPE
ENTRAiSC� �N7RANcE •
- -- - -- -- H U M 13O L T AV E - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- -- _... _ ..... y
Section 35 - 220. SPECIAL USE PEP" 1 1IT,
2. Standards for Special use Permits
A special use permit may be granted by the City Council after
demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met:
(a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
special use will promote and enhance the general
welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger
the public health, safety, morals, or comfort.
(b) The special use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property n the immediate
e
vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values
within the neighborhood.
(c) The establishment of the special use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district.
(d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to
provide ingress, egress and parking so designed
as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
(e) The special use shall, in all other respects,
conform to the applicable regulations o£ the
district in which it is located.
3. Conditions and Restrictions
The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may
impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment,
location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special
use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest
and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord-
inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted,
• the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it
may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec-
tion therewith.
4. Resubmission
No application for a special use permit which has been denied
by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve
(12) months from the date of the final determination by the City
Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly
discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to
gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier
time.
5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits
When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro-
visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further
action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the
applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub-
• ject property within one ear of h to
Y the date the special use permit is
granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the
applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and
submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special
Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an
additional fee of $15.00.
Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a
prior ordinance of Brooklyn. Center shall expire within one year of
the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub-
ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced
within that time.
Ln any instance where an existing and established special use
• is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re-
lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon-
ment.
HUMBOLDT UNOCAL
6840 HUMBOLDT AVE N
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 -
JUNE 9, 1997
TO: CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER
FROM: HUMBOLDT UNOCAL
ROBERT ELLEDGE, OWNER
SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF INTENTIONS FOR SPECIAL USE
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD RYDER TRS TRUCK RENTAL TO MY EXISTING
SERVICE BUSINESS LOCATED AT 69TH AND HUMBOLDT. RYDER TRS
WILL HELP INCREASE CUSTOMER TRAFFIC VOLUME INTO MY
LOCATION, THEREBY INCREASING tilY BUSINESS AND OFFERING
ADDITIONAL NEEDED SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF BROOKLYN
CENTER.
I WILL HAVE AT ANY GIVEN TIME HAVE 1 -4 RYDER TRUCKS PARKED
ON MY LOT. THE TRUCKS WILL BE PARKED IN THE REAR OF THE
BUILDING. THE TRUCKS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 10'- 24'. THESE TRUCKS
• WILL BE PARKED SO THEY ARE OUT OF THE WAY, AND ALWAYS
LOCKED UP, SO THEY WILL CAUSE NO SAFETY PROBLEMS.
THE TRUCKS ARE 1 -3 YEARS OLD, LOOK APPEALING AND WILL NOT
LVIPAIR ANY PROPERTY VALUES.
I HAVE RENTED TRUCKS (JARTRA�TN) FROM ANOTHER LOCATION IN
CRYTAL FOR SIX YEARS, (1980 -1986 ), AND I WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL AT
IT. I AM CONFIDENT THAT MY NEW BUSINESS VENTURE WITH RYDER
WILL BE EVEN MORE SUCCESSFUL.
THE 14 TRUCKS THAT WILL BE PARKED IN MY LOT SHOULD HAVE NO
EFFECT ON ANY NEIGHBORING BUSINESS. AS YOU KNOW I AM IN THE
SERVICE BUSINESS, AND WE CONSISTENTLY HAVE CARS AND TRUCKS
PARKED IN OUR LOT WITH NO PROBLEMS.
IN CLOSING, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT IN TODAY'S BUSINESS
WORLD, A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER NEEDS TO EXPAND HIS BUSINESS
WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO
HEARING FROM YOU REGARDING THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE.
SINCERELY,
ROBERT ELLEDGE
• OWNER, HUMBOLDT UNOCAL
•
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
JUNE 26, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in a study session and was called to order by Chair Tim Willson at
7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Mark Holmes, Brian Walker, and Commissioner-
appointee Stephen Erdmann were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning
Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission Recording
Secretary Arlene Bergfalk. Commissioners Rex Newman and Dianne Reem were excused.
OATH OF OFFICE
• Mr. Warren administered the oath of office to Stephen Erdmann, appointed by the Council as
Commissioner to fill a vacant term expiring on December 31, 1 997. Mr. Erdmann is eligible for
reappointment to the Planning Commission upon expiration of this term.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 29 1997
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the
minutes of the May 29, 1997 meeting, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Erdmann abstained.
CHAIR'S EXPLANATION
Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the
Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
APPLICATION NO.. 97008 (ROBERT ELLEDGE HUMBOLDT UNOCAL)
Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97008, a request submitted by Robert Elledge for a special
use permit to provide Ryder truck rental service at the Humboldt Unocal, 6840 Humboldt Avenue
North.
Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to describe the location and site
• plan which shows the position of parking, the building and fuel islands on the property. (See
attached Planning Commission Application Information Sheet dated 6- 26 -97.) Truck rental and
leasing is a special use allowed in the C -2 zoning district.
The applicant requests the special use permit to offer up to 4 rental trucks ranging in size from 10
feet to 24 feet in length. The locked vehicles will be parked out of the way to provide adequate
circulation on the property and will not affect the required parking, as detailed in the staff report, for
the service station customers, employees, and service vehicle(s). According to Mr. Elledge's
application materials, the rental of vehicles provides an additional essential service to residents and
gives him the opportunity to expand his business.
Mr. Warren explained that the proposal does not conflict with the standards for issuing special use
permits contained in Section 35 -220, subdivision 2, of the City ordinances. Specifically, the
operation will not have a detrimental effect on the general public welfare, be injurious to surrounding
property, nor impede the normal and orderly development or redevelopment of surrounding property.
Furthermore, adequate parking and circulation on the property are maintained and a limitation of
four available rental vehicles justifies granting a special use permit. The staff recommends approval
of granting the special use permit subject to 5 conditions contained in the staff report.
Chair Willson called for questions from the Commissioners. Circulation, parking, and signage
related to the proposed new service were considered. Mr. Warren responded to questions and
clarified acceptable signage on the property with respect to the proposed new service.
PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 97008 ROBERT ELLEDGE HUMBOLDT UNOCAL)
There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Walker to open the
public hearing on Application No. 97008 at 7:52 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Robert Elledge, owner of the Unocal service station, indicated he would answer questions from
the Commissioners.
Mr. Tony Ouellette, owner of the Humboldt Square shopping center, expressed concern that storage
of rental vehicles in the southeast corner of the service station property will obscure the signage of
the donut shop in the shopping center, and questioned whether the service is in the best interest of
the community.
Mr. Warren described the proximity of the donut shop signage to the planned parking of the trucks.
It appears that encroachment will be avoided.
Discussion issues included: entrances to the service station, prior elimination of a service road
related to the child care facility, overhang of parked rental trucks, limits of City ordinance authority,
and shopping center ownership responsibility. It was noted that the service station site, owned by
Mr. Elledge, is a parcel separate from the shopping center.
•
6 -26 -97 2
Mr. Elledge stated the shopping center owner recently sheared trees on green space adjoining the
is service station property. Elledge assured that rental vehicles will be parked to avoid overhang on
to adjacent property.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 97008
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close the public
hearing on Application No. 97008 at 8:20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Recognizing that the request complies with the standards for special use permits, the Commission
did not interpose objections to granting a special use permit to provide truck rental service at
Humboldt Unocal, 6840 Humboldt Avenue North, subject to certain conditions.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 97008 ROBERT ELLED E
HUMBOLDT UNOCAL
There was a motion by Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Boeck, to recommend
to the Council that it approve Application No. 97008, a request submitted by Robert Elledge,
Humboldt Unocal, for a special use permit to provide Ryder truck service rental at 6840 Humboldt
Avenue North, subject to the following conditions:
I . The special use permit is granted for a truck rental operation involving no more than
four trucks in conjunction with the automobile service station use at 6840 Humboldt
Avenue North. No other uses, other than those approved in conjunction with this and
the previous special use permit, are comprehended by this approval.
2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations
and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. No banners, pennants, streamers, balloons or other attention attracting devices may
be used in conjunction with the storage and display of these vehicles on the site other
than that which is authorized under administrative permits comprehended under the
city's zoning ordinance.
4. This special use permit approval does not comprehend any additional signery other
than that allowed under Chapter 34 of the city ordinances.
5. The parking of rental trucks shall be confined to the southeasterly portion of the site
as shown on the site plan with the longer vehicles being parked closest to the east
property line.
Voting for: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Erdmann, Holmes, and Walker. The motion
passed unanimously.
•
6 -26 -97
The Council will consider the recommendation at its Monday, July 14, 1997 meeting. The applicant
must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Commissioners will require
that the application be returned to the Commission for re- consideration.
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35
Mr. Warren directed the Commissioners' attention to a draft ordinance amendment distributed at the
meeting prepared by the Secretary based on the Commission's discussion at its May 29, 1997
meeting and a directive from the City Council. The amendment contemplates revising Chapter 35
regarding accessory buildings in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts.
The specific discussion point involves elimination of the current 1000 sq. ft. size or ground coverage
limitation of an accessory building on a residential property. Mr. Warren reviewed applications
regarding accessory buildings recently denied by the Commission and Council, explained the state
statutes and city ordinance requirements regulating accessory uses, and responded to questions from
the Commissioners.
The Commissioners discussed the effects of increasing the allowable size of a single accessory
building. They agreed to eliminate the 1,000 sq. ft. limitation on the size of a single accessory
building and utilize State Building Code provisions only to limit the size of an accessory building.
However, because of the size of existing homes and residential lots in Brooklyn Center it would not
be appropriate to allow construction of any accessory building that would be larger in size than the
primary residence.
• The Commissioners agreed to editorial changes recommended by the Secretary that sets forth the
limitations regulating accessory buildings in residential districts into Section 35 -530. This change
removes the limitations from Sections 35 -310 and 311 and referencing Section 35 -530 so as to
include all the limitations in one subsection for clarity and simplification.
Commissioner Boeck suggested adding a clarifying phrase into Section 35 -310, l .b.9: "The renting
of not more than two sleeping rooms in the principal building, by a resident family, providing
adequate off - street parking is provided." (New material underscored.) The Commissioners agreed
to this clarification.
ACTION REGARDING AMENDING CHAPTER 35
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Walker, to recommend
to the Council that it approve the revisions recommended by the Secretary and suggested by
Commissioner Boeck to Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding buildings in R -1 and R -2
districts. The motion passed unanimously.
However, recognizing this issue is of specific interest to Commissioner Newman who is absent from
this meeting, the Commissioners agreed to table final action on the matter.
•
6 -26 -97 4
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Holmes to table final
action to July 17, 1997 on the draft amendment to Chapter 35 of the city ordinances. The motion
passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Warren rioted the next meeting of Commission is on July 17 and the Comprehensive Plan
meeting is on July 21. Chair Willson informed the Secretary and the Commissioners that he will be
absent from the July 17 Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to adjourn the
Planning Commission study session. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
9:00 P.M.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Arlene Bergfalk
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial
6 -26 -97
3 City of Brooklyn Center Ya-
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, lstrom, man, an Peppe
FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
DATE: July 10, 1997
SUBJECT: 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard
As you are aware, the property at 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard has been the source of neighborhood
complaints due to trash and its deteriorated condition. Compliance orders were issued and the
trash and the yard was removed but the structure itself remains both an eyesore and structurally
compromised. The attached materials will allow the issuance of an order to raze and remove this
hazardous building and thus abating a public nuisance created by its current deteriorated and
unsafe condition.
•
•
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
GARSON AND GLELLI.�ND
ATTORNEYS AT I.A
PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
JEFFREY A. CARSON 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY. SUITE 305 TELEPHONE
WILLIAM G. CLELLAND (612) 561 -2800
ELLEN M. SCHREDER MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55430-2190 FAX
ANN L. HARBINSON (612) 561 -1943
17 June 1997
Mr. Michael McCauley, City Manager
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard
Dear Mike:
I enclose a Resolution and Order for the razing and removal of
• the hazardous building and abatement of public nuisances regarding
5501 Brooklyn Boulevard.
Once the council has passed the resolution and issued the
Order, please provide me with a copy thereof, and I will arrange
for service upon the interested parties and proceed with
enforcement.
Sincerely,
CARSON AND CLELLAND
William 6. Clelland
WGC:ajp
Enclosures
• adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE RAZING AND REMOVAL OF A
HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND FURTHER FOR THE ABATEMENT OF
PUBLIC NUISANCES, SAFETY AND HEALTH HAZARDS AND OTHER
ORDINANCE AND STATUTORY VIOLATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT
REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 5501 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS TRACT E, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 40 IN THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes §463.15 et seq defines a hazardous building or
hazardous property as any building or property which because of inadequate maintenance,
dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition or abandonment constitutes a fire hazard or
hazard to the public safety or health; and
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center City Ordinances §19 -103 specifically defines as
nuisances and prohibits the same, the presence on any real property of any accumulation of rubbish,
garbage, junk, disused furniture, appliances and the like; and
v WHEREAS, the razing and removal of a hazardous building and the abatement of
public nuisances is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by elimination
of dangerous conditions, attractive nuisances and for the elimination of harborage for vermin, rats
and other animals who may pose a danger to the public safety and to provide for the proper storage
of refuse and garbage, thereby providing for more sanitary and safe conditions and to further protect
the integrity and desirability of neighborhoods by prohibiting the storage of junk and other refuse
in residential areas; and
WHEREAS, City Inspectors have inspected the above - described premises on March
27, 1997, and found that the single - family home is in extremely poor condition, suffering from the
structural failure of its center beams, causing the ceiling to sag to the center, many areas of cracked
and/or missing plaster on walls, exposed asbestos wrapping on duct work, deteriorated floor
coverings, substandard and/or missing sinks, toilets and plumbing, exposed and improperly
performed wiring; and
WHEREAS, City Inspectors have determined that the structural deficits of the
property are such that it cannot be rebuilt and that further the structure is unsafe and unsound; and
WHEREAS, on said date City Inspectors also observed garbage bags on or about the
premises which had been ripped open and the garbage, refuse, junk and contents thereof spread
• around the yard and further observed trash, broken furniture, refuse and rubbish in and about the
house; and
0 RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, said property was previously occupied by its record owners, Chris H.
Colbjoinsen and Anne M. Colbjornsen, husband and wife, as joint tenants who have now abandoned
the property; and
WHEREAS, Bank United of Houston, Texas, the mortgagee, has caused a mortgage
foreclosure proceeding to be undertaken, resulting in the sale of the property; and
WHEREAS, following said mortgage foreclosure sale, title to said property shall pass
to the United States government Department of Housing and Urban Development because of its
guarantee of said loan; and
WHEREAS, said property is encumbered by a tax lien in favor of the United States
government, Internal Revenue Service, Document Nos. 4844524 and 50423 respectively.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER THAT:
1. The City Council finds that the single - family dwelling at 5501 Brooklyn
Boulevard is a hazardous building because of inadequate maintenance,
® dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary conditions and abandonment and
constitutes a hazard to the public safety and health, and the City Council
further finds that the resence of debris, fu e
re s garbage, disused p , a g g, s d furniture
and similar materials is a public nuisance and public health and safety hazard
in violation of Chapters 19 and 12 of the ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center.
2. The razing and removal of the single - family dwelling and the abatement of
nuisances there by the removal of all debris, including the above- described
refuse and rubbish is hereby ordered by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center as follows:
1. Razing and removal of the single - family dwelling at 5501 Brooklyn
Boulevard with removal of all debris thereafter and the filling of the
excavation with clean fill to grade.
2. Removal of all garbage, trash, debris, refuse, disused furniture and the
like at the time of the removal of the building.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to cause and carry out the abatement
described herein and to perform all other tasks and functions reasonably incident thereto and to keep
• an accurate record of the cost of all actions and proceedings herein, including administrative time,
attorney's fees and costs and disbursements and to send a statement of such costs to the landowners
and occupants who are directed herewith to pay the same.
• RESOLUTION NO.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof.
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
• ORDER FOR THE RAZING AND REMOVAL OF
A HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND THE
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES
The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,
pursuant to Resolution No. herewith orders Chris H.
Colbjornsen and Anne M. Colbjornsen, husband and wife as joint
tenants, Bank United of Houston, Texas and the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development to raze and remove that
single - family dwelling at 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center,
Hennepin County, Minnesota which has been declared to be a
hazardous building and hazardous property within the meaning of
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 463.15, et seq and to further abate the
public nuisances existing thereon within 30 days from the date of
the service of this Order upon you. If there is no compliance with
this Order, a Motion for summary enforcement of this Order shall be
made to the Hennepin County District Court unless an answer is
filed herein within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this
Order upon said parties pursuant to Minnesota Statute §463.18.
If no compliance with this Order shall have taken place or no
Answer contesting this action filed herein or if such Answer is
filed and the Court orders the enforcement of this Order, then the
City of Brooklyn Center shall cause the building to be razed and
removed and all public nuisances abated pursuant to Minnesota
Statute §463.21 with all costs of repair, razing, correction and
removal, including attorney's fees and administrative costs, to be
a lien against the real estate on which said building was located,
•
said lien to be levied and collected only as a special assessment
• in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 and the
provisions of Minnesota Statute 5463.161.
City of Brooklyn Center
Dated:
Michael McCauley, City Manager
t 2
��pOKLYN CENTF
BROOKLYN CENTER
• 4
POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager Michael McCauley
FROM: Chief Scott Kline >.
DATE: June 30, 1997
SUBJECT: Minnesota Police Recruitment System (MPRS)
Attached please find a resolution authorizing and approving the City's participation in the
cooperative activities of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System.
The City was a defendant along with MPRS (which is a joint powers organization) and 35 other
• Minnesota cities in two companion civil actions in Hennepin County District court relating to the
recruitment and hiring of minority persons.
Per a court order dated November 7, 1996, the City and MPRS are obligated to undertake certain
activities relating to the recruitment and hiring of minority persons and MPRS has offered to
undertake some of these activities on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center in order to fulfill
their obligation set forth in the court order.
By allowing MPRS to handle the compiling and reporting requirements for the court we would
be able to present our information in the standardized format developed and would save staff
expense necessary to develop and catalogue all of the activities as well as prepare the ongoing
reports mandated.
It is requested that the Brooklyn Center City Council approve this resolution authorizing and
approving participation in the cooperative activities of the Minnesota Police Recruitment system.
•
97mprs.mem
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES OF MINNESOTA POLICE RECRUITMENT
SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is a defendant along with the Minnesota
Police Recruit System, a Minnesota joint powers organization ( "MPRS "), and 35 other Minnesota
cities in two companion civil actions in Henenpin County District court entitled Fields v. MPRS et
al. and Starks v. MPRS, et al. District Court File Numbers EM 93 -213 and EM 93 -219 (collectively
refereed to as the "Action "); and
WHEREAS, by order of the court dated November 7, 1996 (the "Order ") in the
action, the defendants are obligated to undertake certain activities relating to the recruitment and
hiring of minority persons; and
WHEREAS, the MPRS has offered to undertake certain of such activities on behalf
of defendant cities which wish to act cooperatively to fulfill their obligation as set forth in the Order,
on terms and conditions established by the MPRS; and
• WHEREAS, the city council has determined that it is in the best interests of the city
to participate cooperatively in the MPRS program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that:
1. The City authorizes and approves participation in the cooperative activities
of the MPRS in accordance with the terms and conditions established for
such participation by the MPRS.
2. The City of Brooklyn Center is authorized and directed to take such actions
as are necessary to participate in the MPRS program.
3. Data provided by the City to the MPRS are to be administered in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and the MPRS shall maintain data on
individuals in accordance with statutory provisions applicable to that data.
4. The city clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
president of the MPRS.
•
RESOLUTION NO.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
p YP P
MINNESOTA POLICE RECRUITMENT SYSTEM Draft of 1/30/97
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION
IN
MPRS COOPERATIVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ACTIVITIES
1. Background and P=ose The Minnesota � urp so a Police Recruitment System (MPRS) and thirty-
six named Minnesota cities are defendants in two companion civil actions in Hennepin
County District Court entitled Fields v. MPRS, et al. and Starks v. MPRS, et al. District
Court File Numbers EM93 -218 and EM93 -219 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"Action "). Pursuant to order of the court dated November 6, 1995 in the Action, thirty-
four of the defendant cities submitted to the court a proposed Affirmative Action Program
(hereinafter the "Program "). The Program was approved by the court with certain
modifications and the defendant cities were ordered to undertake certain other activities
relating to the recruitment and hiring of minority persons by order of the Court dated
November 7, 1997 (hereinafter the "Order "). The MPRS Board of Directors has
determined that it would be more efficient and economical to undertake certain of these
activities on a cooperative basis including any of the defendant cities who wish to
participate in accordance with the terms established from time to time by the MPRS
(hereinafter the "Participating Cities ").
•
2. Description of Activities and Services The MPRS will undertake to provide for
Participating Cities the following services. In the event it is determined that it is
impractical or undesirable for any reason for the MPRS to provide any one or more of
the listed services, Participating Cities will be so advised in writing.
2.1. Develop, update and maintain, for use by Participating Cities checklists and
descriptions of affirmative action activities discussed in the Program and the
Order. Such activities enerall include:
g Y
2.1.1. maintain a list of recruiting resources and periodicals, publications and
or to be notified of job openings and career opportunities
2.1.2. identify Minority Persons and extend offers of employment or participation
in either "pipeline" or entry level police positions
2.1.3. prepare and transmit introductory public relations materials to specified
community groups, agencies, DARE and police liaison officers, etc.
2.1.4. publish information about ride -along programs or mentoring programs to
• minority persons and organizations
2.1.5. offer speakers on the subject of law enforcement careers
CLL117127 1
MP110 -2
2.1.6. participate in career days or fairs
2.1.7. make efforts on the part of DARE officers, police liaison officers and
others to encourage minority youth to consider a career in law enforcement
2.1.8. collect and maintain data on the racial makeup of such positions or
organizations as police reserves or Explorer Scouts and make efforts to
encourage greater participation by minority persons
2.1.9. follow specific procedures, as outlined in the Program, for recruitment and
selection of "pipeline" and entry level police positions
2.2. Develop for use by the Participating Cities, reporting forms to be used to
document compliance with the Program and the Order. Forms will be developed
to facilitate reporting the relevant activities to the court in complete and orderly
submissions. Such forms would document such activities as:
2.2.1. identification of minority persons and extension of offers of employment
or other participation in both "pipeline" and entry level police positions
including detailed documentation of the city's action, the identity, race and
number of interested and eligible persons identified for positions and the
identity race and number of offers of such positions extended to applicants
for such positions.
• 2.2.2. distribution of written materials on law enforcement careers to community
groups, agencies, DARE officers, police liaison officer, etc.
2.2.3. dissemination of information on ride -along or other mentoring programs
to minority persons and organizations
2.2.4. extension of offers to provide speakers on law enforcement careers and
providing such speakers
2.2.5. participation in career days or fairs
2.2.6. outreach by DARE and police liaison officers- to minority youth
encouraging them to consider a career in law enforcement
2.2.7. collection of data on racial makeup of such positions or organizations as
police reserves or Explorer. Scouts and outreach efforts to encourage
greater minority participation
2.2.8. procedures followed in recruitment and selection of both "pipeline" and
entry level police positions
2.2.9. other activities, whether or not included in the Affirmative Action
• Program, which are unique to the reporting city
CLL117127
MP110 -2 7
2.3. Collect and retain reporting forms from Participating Cities together with any other
• materials which Participating Cities direct to be retained or submitted to the court.
2.4. Collect from the Participating Cities relevant statistics on selection of minorities
for entry level police positions.
2.5. Make such periodic reports to the court on behalf of the Participating Cities as are
required by the Order.
2.6. Undertake certain affirmative action activities on behalf of Participating Cities
which are more economically or effectively accomplished b the cooperative effort
P Y p
of the cities than b each or all
y of the cities acting independently. Such activities
include the following:
2.6.1. develop relationships through outreach activities with recruiting resources
and individuals who can be helpful in disseminating information and
recruiting activities.
2.6.2. develop brochures or literature relating to law enforcement careers and
career opportunities generally and provide for distribution of such
information to various community groups,agencies, publications, etc. and
specifically to appropriate offices of Minneapolis and St. Paul public
schools.
•
2.6.3. maintain a list of persons who are willing to provide speakers in law
enforcement careers and providing this information to interested
community groups, schools, etc.
2.6.4. collect information on the availability of financial assistance to persons _
who wish to pursue education in law enforcement and provide for the
distribution of such information to the cities, community groups, high
schools, etc.
IT Seek modification of, or release from the Order. No such modification shall be
undertaken without prior notification to Participating Cities; and Participating
Cities are free to decline to participate in any submission to the court, and to
secure and provide their own representation in any such proceeding.
3. Election to participate Any city which is a defendant in the Action and which does not
have due and unpaid financial obligations to the MPRS may apply to become a
Participating City by filing with the secretary of the MPRS a certified resolution of its
city council authorizing such participation and agreeing to share in the costs of providing
such services. Each such city shall become a Participating City upon approval and
acceptance of the form of the city's resolution by the MPRS Executive Committee.
• 4. Termination of Participation by the MPRS The Executive Committee ma terminate
participation by any city upon a determination that the financial obligations of that city
=117127
MP110 -2 j
• to the MPRS are unpaid and delinquent. Such termination shall not release the city from
its obligation to meet its financial commitment to the MPRS.
5. Allocation of Costs and Payment All costs of providing services shall be shared by the
Participating Cities on the following basis: twenty (20) percent of such costs shall be
divided equally among the participating cities and eighty (80) percent of such costs shall
be divided pro rata on the basis of the population served by the cities' police departments
as of April 1, 1993 (population to be determined on the basis of Metropolitan Council
estimate for cities in the metropolitan area and on the basis of the State Demographer's
estimate for cities outside the metropolitan area.) Costs include but are not limited to
consultant fees, printing and publication costs, insurance premiums, accounting and audit
fees, attorney's fees, and administration costs incurred by the MPRS in connection with
such activities and services. Invoices from the LMCD to Participating Cities shall be paid
within sixty (60) days of the date of mailing of such invoices.
6. Withdrawal from Participation Any City may withdraw from participating at any time
by filing with the President of the MPRS a resolution of its city council providing for
such withdrawal, stating therein the effective date of withdrawal which may be any date
on or after the date of adoption of the resolution. Such resolution shall be filed within
ten (10) days of its adoption. The obligation of a withdrawing city to pay its share of
costs incurred by the MPRS will cease beginning with costs incurred by the MPRS on or
after the next January 31 st occurring sixty (60) days or more after the effective date 0 * f
• withdrawal; a withdrawn city will be obligated to pay its share of all costs incurred by the
MPRS prior to said January 31 st. Any city may elect to provide its own representation
in court or to make substitute or supplementary reports to the Court either by withdrawing
from participation or without withdrawing from participation.
7. Compliance with Minnesota Data Practice Act Data provided by Participating Cities or
any of the defendant cities shall be administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 13 and the MPRS shall maintain data on individuals in accordance with statutory
guidelines.
8. The MPRS will not undertake to represent cities which are defendants in the Action but
which are not Participating Cities.
•
CLL117127
MP110 -2 4
MIKE OPAT 612- 348-7881 O�
COMMISSIONER " =l FAX - 348 - 8701
0
mike.opat ®co.hennepin.mn.us
.ma
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A -2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487 -0240
June 25, 1997
Mayor Myrna Kragness
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MNN 55430
Dear Mayor Kragness:
Please extend my thanks to the City Council and staff for taking the time to meet
with me last Monday regarding the future of Brooklyn Boulevard. I was heartened to
learn that we continue to share a common goal of improving Brooklyn Boulevard in
the vicinity of 69` Avenue North and bolstering the business community in the area. I
• was especially happy to hear the Council shares my opinion that we should not
surrender Federal ISTEA funds awarded for street reconstruction and streetscape
enhancement because of uncertainties related to property acquisition. I believe, as a
result of our meeting, that we agree it would be prudent to retain our rights to the
ISTEA funds and do everything within our power to get construction underway by
2000.
In order to reaffirm the City Council's support for the retention of the awarded
ISTEA funds, it will be necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution rescinding
Resolution No. 96 -235, which expressed the (then) Council's intent to delay the project
indefinitely. It is requested that the Council adopt the resolution of project support as
soon as possible, and forward a copy to me. I have attached a draft resolution for your
reference. The draft covers the issues we discussed, including the desire to continue the
project; the role of the County in negotiating right -of -way issues, and the desire of
both City and County to make repairs to the road surface as soon as possible this year.
Upon receipt of the Council's final resolution of support, I will ask County Public
Works staff to reactivate the project and work with City staff for the orderly and
timely transfer of project responsibility to the County.
On the last point, the County has programmed a mill /overlay project for the
Brooklyn Boulevard corridor between Halifax Avenue and 71" Avenue North. A
(b 1) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
- 2 - JUNE 25, 1997
• contract for the work will be awarded on ul 22 and work
J y should begin shortly
thereafter.
In closing, I appreciate the Council's assistance in scheduling the meeting last week,
and I look forward to working with the City on this and other issues of mutual
interest to the citizens and business operators in the community.
Sincere r
MIK OP
1st Di ict Commissioner
Enclosure
MJO /cck
cc: Vern Genzlinger
Jim Grube
•
•
• Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENTS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-235
WHEREAS, on November 25, 1996, the City Council of Brooklyn Center, via
adoption of Resolution No. 96 -235, expressed reservations regarding the total cost of improving
Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) between 64th Avenue North and 71st Avenue North, including
right of way acquisition and streetscape enhancement costs; and
WHEREAS, via said Resolution No. 96 -235, the City Council expressed its intent
to surrender ISTEA funds for the Brooklyn Boulevard streetscape enhancements and seek Hennepin
County postponement of the road reconstruction project in favor of a pavement mill and overlay
improvement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to receipt of said Resolution No. 96 -23 5, Hennepin County has
indicated a desire for the parties to retain all ISTEA funds previously awarded for roadway
reconstruction and streetscape enhancements, while postponing said improvement until the year
• 2000; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has also expressed its willingness to provide for the
pavement mill and overlay of Brooklyn Boulevard between 64th Avenue North and 71st Avenue
North in 1997.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that it reaffirms its support for the improvement of Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH
152), including streetscape enhancements, between 64th Avenue North and 71 st Avenue North by
the year 2000, and requests of Hennepin County that it be responsible for right of way acquisition
necessary to accommodate the improvements with the City being responsible for its proportionate
share of the right of way acquisition costs related thereto; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in expressing its support for the improvement
of Brooklyn Boulevard, the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No. 96 -235 and reaffirms its
support for the use of ISTEA funds previously awarded to Hennepin County for roadway
improvements and Brooklyn Center for streetscape improvements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council reaffirms its support for the
performance of a pavement mill and overlay project-along said segment of Brooklyn Boulevard by
Hennepin County in - 1997.
•
• RESOLUTION NO.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Fj
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 '
i
DATE: July 9, 1997
SUBJECT: Set Dates for City Council Meetings
I would ask that the Council set the dates and times for City Council Work Sessions as follows:
Wednesday, August 20, 1997 7 p.m.
General Work Session
Conference Room B, City Hall
Saturday, August 23, 1997 9 a.m.
® Facilitated Council Goal Setting Session
Earle Brown Heritage Center
Monday, September 8, 1997 6:15 p.m.
Recognition Reception for Commissions
Conference Room B, City Hall
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy; Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
3 City of Brooklyn Center
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmod ilstrom asman, and Peppe
FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
DATE: July 10, 1997
SUBJECT: Update on Code Enforcement
Materials will be mailed out on Friday regarding July 14, 1997, City Council Agenda Item No.
8.e, Update on Code Enforcement.
•
•
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
•
MEMO
To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
From: Rebecca S. Crass �)
Subject: Code Enforcement
Date: July 14, 1997
Listed below are the current statistics on the code enforcement `sweep'. I'd like to point out
that although we have sent out 840 compliance order letters, these numbers reflect a total of only
194 properties in compliance. Because many of the violations cited are given 30 to 60 days to
comply, we have not completed follow -up inspection for many of the violations. If there is any
additional information you would like to present to the City Council, please let me know.
Compliance orders issued (number of letters sent) 840
Violations cited 1581
• ; Properties in compliance at time of reinspection 194
Citations requested for non- compliance 90
Formal complaints requested for non - compliance after citation 5
The following shows how many properties have one or more than one violation:
No. of Violations 1 2 3 4 5 6
No. of Properties 100 422 194 97 20 8
The attached map highlights the areas of the city where the initial inspections have been
completed.
CC: Brad Hoffrnan
I if it If if it it it if st If to I I I ►A 6w I F. it I I
c arrr
cl, 1 L . L J
11101 I-El
tffNQ7. .1
tl
Flu ' l li . r
*
L I T. u
� /i x" A
rF Y Y. � '� _- a /l' /yi� y r G y , r ,�G / �,. ld�t F���� . E II 1. , t'.. , r�€_. •. -� . I �j � r_ i i.. r ti��'� - ��/ /r /, � 7T[ 'r' - � ��,:. p R:� 1 1. 1 1 II 1 )
—' � . � ;I(-r�� _ 1 - ��ii /x /.,�lSr r r', iii/ ,� .� _ I.. J_ � l� �4�1 �I� (�� / � i .� .,..».
lT. a i 1 T
6 ,R _ � = C ' � 2 ��` .-- 'tt'L. $ - Fi� \'�`•o c�r<.aF�. -- a„ 1P . - ���� i II �i j ,�� � f ' i 1 .,..
� tii a — _.se�T> )(- az ' �� \�' _—_ - -_ \� 1 t*..n —. �' ��� f.- } I I � y
META
FE!, flj c� 1 � • - {�I� =�: 1 I � x/75 �� #�'r1�� (, �tb�i�l- i� = i 1 �
1ERWiBFB g
Wilfffi 'IM wl
aMnC
P-1 l
`k As VT x k
`� ��. - � l , #.�� �I�{ ! 1a'' MIMI em \' I .
FIA
02
MUM
CIA
Vf_4
a� - ji
P-LP
LOX STREET 02
INDEX I �J� F.
fl
I M"
IF
Al
i A S
ii R
1 %y %/' �I IFi� RS /- ���J t. .1T J'l
U
± 1 -_ 11 `: t . �_.. _ .�• - - // _ "� ' �/ILY��L38���rf ' -�I V��1� - 1 ' ' I. ; ! v..a ...
_ _ _ __ = f _ l �r � {� ,r � I � � .. - ,�-. _ � r, . � (( �T I �� • r 11
-_ - i �% , E4T � � �� F r z� � - � _ '� J!�� �tl�` _ � ��::. I lip ��-f9� IE� .`� �
Um u
'Till
"T1 T! 11] 1
BROOKLYN ZONING DISTRICTS
CENTER
RE51DEAtZ' 004MROE
M109LE
TWIN
C2 AWSTRY
OPEN SPACE 7r,
=4 M
DENVES FL000WAY (100 YEM)
—
X. sauna
cirr
I- - Irrin - T DENOTES FLWD
fMj%� ( 100 TEAM OTTUAL RMRS t
WA "Mmy M
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
•
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT 6236
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the owner of the property at 6236 Brooklyn Boulevard has offered to
sell said property to the City of Brooklyn Center for municipal purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the purchase of the property is in the
public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that:
1. The City Council hereby approves the purchase of the property at 6236 Brooklyn
Boulevard at a price of $90,000 and according to the terms and conditions of the
attached purchase agreement.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the
attached purchase agreement and other such instruments as may be required to
• complete the transaction contemplated by the purchase agreement.
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 7F
A great place to start. A great place to stay.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, ilstrom, sman, d Peppe
FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
DATE: July 10, 1997
SUBJECT: 6236 Brooklyn Boulevard
The owner of the property at 6236 Brooklyn Boulevard has offered to sell it to the City at the
sum of $90,000. This is the property adjacent to the current fire station and liquor store. In
looking at the potential redevelopment of the site, as well as the general plan to eliminate
residential uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, acquisition of this property would appear to be
reasonable and timely. This will allow greater flexibility in designing a new fire station and
provide the potential for additional opportunities such as retention of a liquor store operation.
For future planning, having the ability to not be completely landlocked with the current
• fire /liquor site would be useful and would also remove a residential use and be part of the
redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard. The monies for this acquisition would be taken from the
Capital Improvement Fund. Having the opportunity to acquire this adjacent property as it is
offered by the property owner is far more cost effective than if it were to be acquired at some
later date through City- initiated acquisition.
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300
Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494
An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
•
1. PARTIES. This Purchase Agreement is made this day of 1997
by and between NANCY A. DAHL, a single person ( "Seller ") and the CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "Buyer ").
2. SUBJECT PROPERTY. Seller is the owner of that certain real estate (the "Property")
located at 6236 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally
described as follows:
That part of Lots 18 and 19, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 18; thence running
South along the East line of said Lot 18, 120 feet; thence running West parallel with the
North line of said Lot 18, 495.22 feet; thence running North parallel with the East line
of said Lot 18, 86 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence
running North parallel with the East line of said Lot 18, 107 feet; thence running West
parallel with the North line of said Lot 18, 246.56 feet more or less to a point in the
Easterly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No. 152; thence running Southeasterly
along said Easterly right of way line 116.84 feet more or less to a point in a line drawn
parallel with the North line of said Lot 18 from the actual point of beginning; thence
running East along said parallel line 206.4 feet more or less to the actual point of begin-
ning.
• 3. OFFER/ACCEPTANCE. In consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained
Buyer offers and agrees to purchase and Seller agrees to sell and hereby grant to Buyer the
exclusive right to purchase the Property and all improvements thereon, together with all
appurtenances, including, but not limited to, garden bulbs, plants, shrubs, trees, and grass.
4. PERSONAL PROPERTY INCLUDED IN SALE. The following items of personal
property and fixtures owned by Seller and currently located on the Property are included in this
sale: None.
5. PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS:
A. PURCHASE PRICE: The total Purchase Price for the real estate and personal
property included in this sale is is Ninety Thousand and No /100ths Dollars
($90,000.00).
B. TERMS:
(1) BALANCE DUE AT CLOSING. Buyer agrees to pay the Purchase Price
to Seller by check on the Closing Date according to the terms of this
Purchase Agreement.
• (2) ASSUMPTION OF EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS. The Buyer, in its
discretion and in partial payment of the purchase price, may, to the extent
1
assumable, assume or take title subject to any existing indebtedness
• encumbering the Property, in which case the cash to be paid at the time of
closing shall be reduced by the then remaining indebtedness.
(3) DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE. Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller
agrees to execute and deliver a Warranty Deed conveying marketable title
to the Property to Buyer, subject only to the following exceptions:
a. Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations.
b. Reservation of minerals or mineral rights to the State of Minnesota,
if any.
C. Utility and drainage easements.
(4) DOCUMENTS TO BE DELIVERED AT CLOSING. In addition to the
Warranty Deed required at paragraph 5.B.(4) above, Seller shall deliver to
Buyer:
a. Standard form Affidavit of Seller.
b. Waiver of relocation benefits, as required by paragraph 17 of this
Agreement.
•
C. Such other documents as may be reasonably required b Buyer's
Y Y q Y Y
title examiner or title insurance company.
d. Keys for all buildings on the Property and garage door openers, if
any.
6. REAL ESTATE TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
A. Seller shall pay at or prior to closing all real estate takes due and payable in 1996
and prior years.
B. Seiler shall pay at or prior to closing the balance of all special assessments levied
prior to closing.
C. Real estate taxes due and payable in 1997 shall be prorated as of the date of
closing between Buyer and Seller.
D. Seller shall provide for payment of all special assessments pending as of the date
of this Purchase Agreement by escrowing an amount equal to two times the
estimated amount of special assessments. Buyer shall assume special assessments
that become pending after the date of this Purchase Agreement, except that Seller
• shall at all times be responsible to pay special assessments, if any, for delinquent
sewer or water bills, removal of diseased trees, snow removal, or other current
2
services provided to the Property by the assessing authority while the Seller are
• in possession of the Property.
7. MARKETABILITY OF TITLE. The Seller shall promptly provide Buyer with the
abstract of title to the Property, which Seller agrees to have certified to a current date, at Seller's
cost. Buyer shall have twenty (10) days after receipt of the abstract to examine the same and
to deliver written objections to title, if any, to Seller. Seller shall have sixty (60) days after
receipt of written objections to cure title defects. Seller shall permit no additional encumbrances
to be made upon the Property between the date of this Purchase Agreement and the Closing Date.
8. COSTS TO CLEAR TITLE. Seller shall bear any and all costs to clear title to the
Property. In the event Sellers fail to clear title to the extent herein required, the Buyer may clear
title to the extent required and charge the cost of clearing to the Seller.
In the event that title to the Property cannot be made marketable by the Seller by the
Closing Date, then, at the option of the Buyer, this Purchase Agreement shall be null and void
and the Earnest Money shall be refunded to the Buyer.
9. CLOSING DATE. The closing of the sale of the Property shall take place on or before
July 15, 1997, or at such earlier or later date as may be mutually agreed upon by the Seller and
Buyer. The closing hall take lace at the offices of Kennedy & Graven Chartered 470
g P Y ,
Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, MN 55402, or such other location as mutually agreed upon by the
parties.
• 10. POSSESSION. The Seller shall deliver ossession of the Property to Buyer b 10:00
P P Y
p.m. on the Closing Date in the same condition as the Property existed on the date of this
Purchase Agreement, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
11. DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY. If the Property is damaged prior to closing, Buyer
may rescind this Purchase Agreement by notice to Seller within twenty -one (2 1) days after Seller
notify Buyer of such damage, during which 21 -day period Buyer may inspect the real property,
and in the event of such rescission, the Earnest Money shall be refunded to Buyer.
12. CONDITION OF PROPERTY. Seller shall remove all debris and all personal property
from the Property prior to closing. If all such items have not been removed from the Property
by the last date for closing, the City may withhold $2,000 from the Purchase Price to be applied
to the costs incurred by the City in securing the removal of such items. Seller shall hold the
Buyer harmless for the disposal of personal property left in or at the Property by the Seller after
the Closing Date. Seller has not received any notice from any governmental authority as to the
existence of any dutch elm disease, oak wilt, or other disease of any trees on the Property.
Seller's warranties and representations contained in this paragraph 12 shall survive the
closing of this transaction.
Buyer shall have the right to have inspections of the Property conducted and to test for
the presence of asbestos containing materials prior to Closing.
•
13. DISCLOSURE; INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. Seller discloses
• that there (IS) (IS NOT) an individual sewage treatment system on or serving the Property. If
there is an individual sewage treatment system on or serving the Property, Seller discloses that
the system (IS) (IS NOT) in use, and Seller further disclose that the type of system is a
system and the location is shown on map attached to this Purchase
Agreement.
14. CONDITION OF SUBSOIL AND GROUND WATER. Seller hereby warrants to
Buyer that during the time the Seller has owned the Property there have been no acts or
occurrences upon the Property that have caused or could cause impurities in the subsoil or ground
water of the Property or other adjacent properties. This warranty shall survive the closing of this
transaction.
15. WELL DISCLOSURE. Buyer acknowledges receipt of a well disclosure statement,
which is attached to this Purchase Agreement as Exhibit A.
16. SELLER'S WARRANTIES. Seller warrants that buildings, if any, are entirely within
the boundary lines of the property. Seller warrants that there is a right of access to the real
property from a public right -of -way. Seller warrants that there has been no labor or material
furnished to the property for which payment has not been made. Seller warrants that there are
no present violations of any restrictions relating to the use or improvement of the Property.
These warranties shall survive the closing of this transaction.
• 17. WAIVER OF RELOCATION BENEFITS. Seller acknowledges that the Seller
contacted the Buyer and requested that the Buyer purchase the Property. Prior to the Seller's
making that request, the Buyer had not indicated to Buyer any intent of acquiring the Property.
Seller has been fully informed on all matters regarding relocation benefits, and voluntarily waives
any offer or further relocation assistance, services, payments and benefits for which Seller would
otherwise be eligible, and agrees to execute an instrument to that effect and deliver the same to
Buyer at Closing. This agreement to waive relocation benefits is made voluntarily and is not
made under threat of acquisition by the Buyer.
18. NO BROKER INVOLVED. The Seller and Buyer each represent and warrant to the
other that there is no broker involved in this transaction with whom it has negotiated or to whom
it has agreed to pay a broker commission. Buyer agrees to indemnify Seller for any and all
claims for brokerage commissions or finders' fees in connection with negotiations for purchase
of the Property arising out of any alleged agreement or commitment or negotiation by Buyer, and
Seller agrees to indemnify Buyer for any and all claims for brokerage commissions or finders'
fees in connection with negotiations for purchase of the Property arising out of any alleged
agreement or commitment or negotiation by Seller.
19. NO MERGER OF REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES. All representations and
warranties contained in this Purchase Agreement shall not be merged into any instruments or
conveyance delivered at closing, and the parties shall be bound accordingly.
• 20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AMENDMENTS. This Purchase Agreement constitutes the
entire agreement between en the parties, and no other agreement prior to this Purchase Agreement
A
In P g
4
or contemporaneous herewith shall be effective except as expressly set forth or incorporated
• herein. Any purported amendment shall not be effective unless it shall be set forth in writing and
executed by both parties or their respective successors or assigns.
21. BINDING EFFECT. This Purchase Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.
22. NOTICE. Any notice, demand, request or other communication which may or shall be
given or served by the parties shall be deemed to have been given or served on the date the same
is deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid and addressed as
follows:
a. If to Seller: Nancy A. Dahl
6236 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
b. If to Buyer: City of Brooklyn Center
Attn: Brad Hoffman
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
23. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. This Purchase Agreement may be specifically enforced
by the parties, provided that an action for specific enforcement is brought within six months
Y P g
• after the date of the alleged breach. This paragraph is not intended to create an exclusive remedy
for breach of this agreement; the parties reserve all other remedies available at law or in equity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of the date written
above.
SELLER
BUYER
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By
Its Mayor
• By
Its City Manager
5
470 Pillsbury Center /l
200 South Sixth Street VVV
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337 -9300 telephone
(612) 337 -9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedv- graven.com
CHARTERED
CHARLES L. LF,IFEVERF.
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215
June 23, 1997
Mr. Michael McCauley
City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center MN 55430
RE: Regulation of Secondhand Goods Dealers
Dear Mike:
The City has received a request from Mr. Paul Williams, the President of Tried & True Tools,
Inc. to amend the City's ordinances so that secondhand goods dealers are not subject to the same
regulatory requirements as pawn shops. The City Council has requested further information
about the options available to it in the regulation of secondhand goods dealers.
Mr. Williams has provided me with a letter explaining his position, a copy of which is attached,
and copies of a number of pawn shop and secondhand goods dealers ordinances from other cities
in the area. After review of these materials, it appears that the regulations in other cities range
from no regulation of pawn shops or secondhand goods dealers to the comprehensive regulation
v } rise ;jiv7s and J�.i.W%4 n1. =vOdJ dCaier$ sliijiiar tv the Ordiitaii�;�„i iJ: BTOvMlyn x - n' r.
The City Council has the option of adopting regulatory ordinances anywhere within this range.
That is, the Council has eliminate all regulation, leave the regulations as they are or even impose
stricter regulations, or follow some course between these alternatives. If the Council wishes to
consider changes, it seems to me that there are several categories of changes which might be
considered:
1. The first option would be to delete all secondhand goods dealers from the regulations
unless the transaction involves a pawn.
2. Second, the City Council could consider exempting secondhand goods dealers where the
transaction involves a consignment sale. This exemption would be based on the
assumption that a thief will be less likely to dispose of goods at such an establishment
because of the risk of being apprehended when collecting payment at a later date. I have
eF.t�i -4
Mr. Michael McCauley
• June 23, 1997
Page 2
found no other ordinances which exempt consignment sale dealers entirely, although, as
described below, the City of Robbinsdale has relaxed the regulatory requirements
somewhat for consignment dealers.
3. Third, the Council could exempt additional businesses from the licensing provisions of
the ordinance. The ordinance now exempts certain businesses and activities from
licensing requirements such as firearms dealers and garage sales. The Council could add
additional businesses to the list of businesses which are exempted. As in the cage of
consignment sales, the i=dea behind such a change would be that there are certain
categories of secondhand goods businesses which are not likely to be used to dispose of
stolen goods. It is possible, of course, that any types of goods may be stolen and
disposed of at secondhand goods dealers; however, there may be businesses where the
likelihood of this occurring is so small that the regulations of the ordinance are not
reasonably necessary. It seems to me that if the Council wishes to pursue this course, it
may be prudent to seek the advice of the Police Department about the likelihood that
stolen goods might be disposed of at any such business. It may be that some categories
of goods are more likely to be stolen and "fenced" such as electronic equipment
(televisions, VCRs, computers), coins, and bicycles, and the City Council might not wish
• to treat such businesses differently from pawn shops. Others which the Council might
wish to exempt from the regulations might include dealers in clothing, sporting goods,
antiques, video and audio tapes, computer games, or perhaps secondhand goods dealers
who deal in transactions of less than a certain specified amount of money.
From reviewing the ordinances of other cities, it appears that some cities have seen fit to
exempt businesses which are not made exempt under the Brooklyn Center ordinance.
These include the following:
a. Secondhand books, magazines, sound or video recordings or films (Spring Lake
Park, Blaine).
b. Goods sold at a public market (Spring Lake Park, Blaine).
C. Furniture, clothing, and related accessories (Blaine).
d. Recyclers, including but not limited to motor oil, aluminum, iron, glass, plastics,
and paper (Coon Rapids).
e. Resale of merchandise returned to the seller after an initial sale by the seller
(Coon Rapids).
• I -4
Mr. Michael McCauley
• June 23, 1997
Page 3
f. Secondhand clothing and linens (Coon Rapids).
g. Dealers of wire and cable regulated under Minnesota Statutes, Section 32.5E.21
(Coon Rapids).
h. Secondhand books, magazines, video or audio tape, compact discs, films, or
electronic game cartridges (Coon Rapids).
i. Charitable organizations t
that take used items f n
b ed to or n _ compensation (Coon Rapids).
j. Clothing and personal accessories including costume jewelry (Crystal - this type
of secondhand goods dealers requires a license, but it is different from the
secondhand goods dealers licenses required for other businesses).
k. Bona fide antiques or collectibles (Robbinsdale).
1. The business of buying or selling secondhand goods when such business is
incidental to and not the primary business of a person (Robbinsdale).
• 4. A fourth option would be to relax the restrictions to make them less burdensome to
businesses in the City. As noted above, the regulations of other cities range from
comprehensive regulation of pawn shops and secondhand goods dealers to no regulations
at all. Therefore, it is not practical to describe all of the requirements of the ordinance
which could be amended to reduce the burden on business owners. 1 assume that the
provisions of the ordinance which are most troublesome to Mr. Williams are described
in the attached letter from him.
Amending the ordinance to accommodate these concerns is a matter within the discretion
Of i;,e City Council. nether to make any given change is a matter of balancing the
burdens to businesses against the public purpose secured by the regulation. in most cases,
the purpose of the regulation complained of seems to be to aid in the control of
transactions involving stolen property. It may be appropriate, therefore, before making
any such changes to consult with the Chief of Police for his assessment of the importance
of the provision in meeting this public purpose.
5. The fifth approach to addressing the concerns raised by Mr. Williams would be to relax
restrictions which apply to some businesses but not others. One of the fundamental
arguments of Mr. Williams is that secondhand goods dealers, particularly "specialty"
secondhand goods dealers, should not be subject to the same restrictions which apply to
• Cl�
Mr. Michael McCauley
June 23, 1997
Page 4
pawn shops. In reviewing the ordinances of other cities, it appears that in most cases the
regulations apply equally to pawn shops and secondhand goods dealers. However, there
are a number of exceptions
scattered through these ordinances w provide for less
P which g P
burdensome regulations in the case of some such businesses than others. Examples of
these differences in regulations include the following:
Coon Rapids requires the registration, but not licensure, of "Class C" secondhand goods
dealers. Class C secondhand goods dealers are defined as persons have fewer than 60
transactions per year. Class C dealers must report transactions on forms provided by the
city, but are not subject to the more strict records retention and reporting plans applicable
to pawn shops and Class A or Class 8 secondhand goods dealers (i.e. those who have a
greater number of annual transactions). Moreover, the records retention and reporting
requirements for secondhand goods dealers may be relaxed by the chief of police.
In Crystal, the license fees and bonds are lower for secondhand goods dealers than for
pawn shops.
Robbinsdale has a separate license, and requires no bond, for consignment house dealers.
• Record keeping is the same for all secondhand goods dealers, but daily reporting
requirements are not applicable to consignment house dealers, and no video recording of
the transaction is required for consignment house dealers.
One of the ideas suggested by Mr. Williams is to create a category of "specialty" secondhand
goods dealers, i.e., one who deals only in one category of goods. He then suggests that such
specialty dealers would either have less restrictive provisions or be exempt from the regulations.
This idea does not seem to have been followed by any city among those whose ordinances I
reviewed. A number of businesses are exempted because of the specific kind of goods which
are dealt in (for example clothing), but I have found no ordinances which exempt businesses only
because they deal exclusively ely in a single Cate Tor of goods.
�� g Y
Please let me know if you have any further questions on any of these issues.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:lh
M "3 1
�D-TR �1
70 79th Ave. N.E. tNC.L (612) 574 -040/
Fridley, MN 55432
` � L✓ rnn
May 30, 1997
Mr. Charles L. LeFevere
Kennedy & Graven
470 Pillsbury Center
200 S Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Second Hand Goods Dealers Ordinances
Dear Mr. LeFevere:
Thank you for time and effort in working with this issue. Enclosed are copies of ordinances of other
communities and contact names for communities that do not regulate second hand goods dealers.
Please bear in mind as you research this issue that no community presently has ordinances that regulate
• second hand goods dealers in a manner that provides a reasonable business environment. It is our
experience as a business in this industry that the needs of the community can be met with simpler, less
expensive controls. Elements of existing ordinances that are worthwhile and workable include:
Zoning Requirements
Second hand goods dealers by nature depend on a customer base that is larger than a "neighborhood" type
of zoning. Requiring a location zoned for business and /or retail is a reasonable requirement for second hand
goods dealers.
Id entification of Sellers
Requirement of state identification card or drivers license has proven adequate for the needs of law
enforcement.
Recor
It is not always possible at the time of receipt due to time constraints to generate any but the bare minimum of
records. In practice, the identification of the individual is established, and the items are marked (sometimes
as a lot) as coming from that individual. Industry practice is to mark the item so as to identify its source. Our
level of records allows us to find that item within our store.
Payment by Check
• A reasonable minimum should be established to avoid writing checks for trivial amounts (less than $20).
RECYCLED PAPS
Rights of Police
• Any legitimate dealer would support open records for olice inspection of merchandise, seizure or requested
PP P police. P q
holds.
These controls have provided law enforcement with enough evidence in the few cases of theft we have
encountered to obtain criminal conviction. They are sufficient to discourage fencing of stolen property. What
thief would put his booty on public display after providing positive identification of himself?
Existing ordinances for second hand goods dealers are mostly an edited version of pawn shop ordinances.
This model is inappropriate for the specialty second hand goods dealer. The single common element
between pawn shops and specialty second hand goods dealers is used merchandise. This does not justify
the expensive, difficult level of control imposed on pawn shops. Elements of pawn shop ordinances that are
too cost! and cumbersome y be some mciude:
Merchandise Holding Periods
This concept originated from the model pawn shop ordinance. It is an integral part of how pawn shops
operate, they need to hold pawned items anyway. It is expensive and impractical in a specialty second hand
shop. It adds additional handling, record keeping, space requirements, and delays return on investment.
Consignment operations become awkward. It is of marginal value in providing a window of time to detect and
recover stolen merchandise. It assumes that there is such a significant amount of merchandise that is stolen
as to require all merchandise to be subjected to this additional expense.
Records
• It is not always possible at the time of receipt due to time constraints to generate any but the bare minimum of
records. Most ordinances require a "complete and accurate description... including but not limited to
manufacturers name, serial number, Operation Identification number, and any other identifying
characteristic... ". This level of detail is impractical to achieve. Industry practice is to mark the item so as to
identify its source. Our level of records allows us to find that item within our store. We are considering
reducing that level of detail, as it is impractical for low value items. Recording every conceivable identifying
characteristic of every item can't be done in our business in a timely and cost efficient manner. Items that are
no longer in our possession (sold, returned, or lost) seem to be a moot point for law enforcement.
Reporting of Records to Police
This is an idealistic concept. It assumes that someone will read through all these reports and attempt to
match up stolen property. In practice, it is the proverbial needle in a haystack. The vast majority of
transactions are legitimate. Attempting to match a list of stolen items to all the reports filed by pawn shops
and dealers is unlikely to yield enough success to assure consistent utilization of these reports. Our
experiences are that few victims of theft have records of serial numbers, or even an accurate idea of what
was stolen. Police regularly encourage these unfortunate individuals to call or visit the pawn shops and
dealers to find their items. It is extremely rare that anyone finds their. item in a shop.
These reports are expensive to produce, and impossible to do in the time allotment typically allowed. They
are of questionable value to law enforcement, and expensive to review. It is more practical for law
enforcement to look over the goods at a dealer from time to time.
Restricted Transactions
Obliterated and missing serial numbers are routine in tools & machines. Serial tags on tools are often
• vulnerable to damage in normal use. Some companies will remove serial tags from items that are being
disposed of for record keeping purposes, or to break the chain in case of a product liability law suit.
Manufacturers" will remove serial tags from items that are warranty problems. These sometimes are then
i
repaired by individuals and put into service. While a VCR with the serial number ground off is suspicious, this
is not true of a plumbers drill with the serial tag missing.
Restrictions of Business Hours
Why should these dealers be singled out for restriction of business hours that are not usual and customary
for any other retailer?
If the City of Brooklyn Center desires to amend the ordinance regarding second hand goods dealers, I
recommend that consideration be given to creating special categories of second hand goods dealers.
Specialty second hand dealers would be a method to differentiate some second hand dealers from pawn
shops. General merchandise type second hand dealers could be added to the definition of pawn shop.
Second hand specialty dealers presently successfully self regulate in other communities. The history of
specialty second hand healers' relationship with the police calls the need for license into question,. I fail to
see any value to the community or to in licensing by itself. Imposing an entire set of regulations and fees on
an industry that has shown itself to be beneficial to law enforcement is unfair and unreasonable. As an
alternative to extensive regulation of second hand goods dealers, require that any business (regardless of the
dealer's "primary " business) found to be in possession of stolen merchandise be able to show the source of
that item, or be in violation of ordinance. Repeated violation could result in additional penalty, providing a
mechanism to control illicit businesses. Perhaps other types of ordinances could be devised to deal with
stolen property directly. A reasonable minimum value of such merchandise for records to be required should
be kept in mind, to avoid unreasonable record keeping for low value items.
It should be born in mind that it is not the legitimate storefront business that cause the majority of problems.
I hope that you find this helpful. Please call on me if I can help in any way. I look forward to our next
• meeting.
Sincerely,
Paul Williams, President
Tried & True Tools, Inc.
AM