Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 11-24 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL MEETING Public Copy City of Brooklyn Center November 24, 1997 AGENDA 1. Call to Order Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 P tY .m. P 2. Informal Open Forum with City Council - Provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but. rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting - 7 p.m. 4. Roll Call • �. Invocation 6. Council Report 7. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. October 29, 1997 - Joint Session with Charter Commission b. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1998 -08, Reforestation of 1997 Street Improvement Project Areas. Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- November 24, 1997 C. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No, 1998 -09, Construction of Public Safety Facility, 67th and Humboldt Avenues North; Improvement Project No. 1998- 10, Demolition of Old and Construction of New West Fire Station, 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard; and Improvement Project No. 1998 -11, East Fire Station Remodeling d. Resolution Designating 1998 Planting List of Allowable Boulevard Tree Species e. Licenses 8. Public Hearing a. An Ordinance Vacating a City Roadway for Park Purposes -This item was first read on October 27, 1997, published in the official newspaper on November 5, 1997, and is offered this evening for a second reading and public hearing. - Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. ® -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt ordinance. 9. Planning Commission Item a. Planning Commission Application No. 97014 submitted by Jehovah -Jireh Church of God in Christ . Request is for a special use permit to operate a child care facility at the church located at 6120 Xerxes Avenue North. This application was first considered by the Planning Commission at its November 13, 1997, meeting and was recommended for approval. - Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 97014 submitted by Jehovah -Jireh Church of God in Christ subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Commending Second Grade Students at Evergreen Park Elementary School - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. b. Public Utility Rate Study - Resolution Adopting the 1998 Water Utility Rate Schedule - Resolution Adopting the 1998 Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Schedule i • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -;- November 24, 1997 - Resolution Adopting the 1998 Storm Drainage Utility Rate Schedule - Resolution Adopting the 1998 Recycling Rates - Resolution Adopting the 1998 Water and Sanitary Sewer Hookup Rates - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolutions. C. Resolution Establishing 1998 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessments Rates - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. d. Resolution Amending the Special Assessment Policy Regarding Streets in Commercial Districts Which are Not Municipal State Aid Routes - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. e. Resolution Amending the Policy_ Regarding the Sanitary Sewer Rate for the Elderly - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. ® f: Resolution Adopting a Schedule f i Delinquent Pub Utili Ac p � or Certifying n Delinque blic Ltili 5 counts as Special Assessments to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. g. Resolution Authorizing Retention of Carson and Clelland for City Prosecution Services and Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Contract - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. h. An Ordinance Amending Chapters 11, 12, 13, and 23 of the City Ordinances; Replacing the Term "Nonintoxicating "with "3? Percent Malt' - Requested Council Action: - Council discuss. Motion to approve first reading of ordinance and set December 15, 1997. for public hearing and second reading. i. Resolution Authorizing Engagement of Construction Management Firm for Police and Fire Building Projects - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- November 24, 1997 j. Set Date for Council Retreat - Requested Council Action: - Council discuss. k. Set Date and Time for City Council Work Session - Requested Council Action: - Motion to set date for general Council work session as December 1, 1997, at 7:15 p.m., Conference Room B, following the 7 p.m. special session. 11. Adjournment CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -5- November 24, 1997 EDA MEETING City of Brooklyn Center November 24, 1997 AGENDA 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 a-enda 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. August 25, 1997 - Regular Session 1 September 8, 1997 - Regular Session 4. Commission Consideration Items a. Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of 6944, 6950, and 69 -56 Brooklyn Boulevard -Requested Commission Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. 5. Adjournment D'RAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CHARTER COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA OCTOBER 29, 1997 CITY I -i \LL CALL TO ORDER The meeting- was called to order at 7:0-5 p.m. by Charter Commission Chair Tim Willson. ROLL, CALL . 1a\ , . �/lvrna Kra�ness, Counciimembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Kay Lasman. and Robert Peppe; Charter Commission Chair Tim Willson. Charter Commission members Walter Bursch. Nancv Carlson, Sy Knapp. Stanley Leino. Eileen Osltmd, Rodney Snyder, Diane Swanson, and Carl Wolter. Absent and excused: Charter Commission members Elizabeth Hatle James Holst and Janice Thielsen. _absent and unexcused: Charter Commission members Todd Paulson and Ted Willard. RECOGNITION OF CAROLE BLOWERS A plaque �� as presented to Carole Blowers in recognition of her many years of service as Administrative Assistant to the Charter Commission. CITY COUNNCIL /CHARTER COMMISSION DISCUSSION Charter Commission Chair Willson informed the Council that the Charter Commission was not currently v, on a compelling issue. He indicated all members have reviewed the City Charter. Charter Commission Chair Willson said the City Council has been supportive of recommendations made by the Charter Commissica. Mayor Kraaness asked if there are needs of the Charter Commission. Chair Willson responded the Charter Commission could use some assistance with the issue of the Administrative Assistant. He explained the Charter Commission budget needs to be increased. Mavor Kragness recommended the Charter Commission check with North Hennepin Community College. • 10!29 7 -1- DRAFT There was discussion regarding hiring an Administrative Assistant for the Charter Commission. Chair Willson explained the City Manager suggested the minutes be taken by one of the Charter is Commission members. He said the problem is that there can be severe difference of opinion regarding Charter items, and this would restrict the Charter Commission member. Commission Member Snyder said the Executive Board met to discuss the Administrative Assistant issue, and they believe the $10 - $12 per hour range is too low to attract someone. Chair Willson indicated that the Charter Commission budget would have to be increased before they could pay more than that. Mayor Kragness recommended the Charter Commission review what other cities of similar size are doino with regard to minutes and the budaet. She also recommended contacting the League of Minnesota Cities. She noted the past Administrative assistant received an increase each year; however, the Charter Commission budget was never increased. Discussion ensued regardin- the Charter Commission budget. Charter Commission members indicated legal costs can be excessive depending on the issue. Mayor Kragness recommended the Charter Commission submit their budget request to the City Manager early next year. There was discussion regarding City staft7Council relationships and City Manager performance evaluation. vlavor Kragness explained that the Council goal setting sessions have been very helpful with regard to these issues. Commission 'Member Leino said he was pleased to see the Council goals listed in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post, so residents are informed on Council issues. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. City Cleric Mayor 10/29;97 7h i MEMORANDUM DATE: November 19, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer' rW SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1998 -08, Reforestation of 1997 Street Improvement Project Areas, Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids As part of the following improvement projects, funds were included for the reforestation of any tree removed due to the reconstruction process: Improvement Project Nos. 1997 -01, 02 & 03, Orchard Lane West Improvement Project Nos. 1997 -04, 05 & 06, France Ave. No. A resolution is attached which will establish this improvement project, order preparation of plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids. Funding for these tree replacements was set aside when financing for the respective projects was established. Funding for the Orchard West replacement trees was allocated in the same manner as street improvements, that is, a combination of GO bond proceeds and special assessments. Funding for the France Avenue improvements will come from Municipal State Aid for the tree replacements. The City's project reforestation program allows property owners to replace trees lost'-) to 1, that is, two new trees for every mature tree lost. This is the State Aid standard. We provide property owners with a choice of trees. Thev may choose to have one larger tree planted rather than two smaller trees. This is the choice of many residents who may not have room on their property for many additional trees. One larger tree is also less costly to the City than two smaller trees. The project as established assumes the maximum number of trees. Residents will then be given a choice on trees, so that when the Council approves the specifications, the final count of trees should be known. The estimated total project cost is 580.600. • its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1998 -08, REFORESTATION OF 1997 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREAS, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, Improvement Project Nos. 1997 -01, 02 & 03, Orchard Lane West and Improvement Project Nos. 1997 -04, 05 & 06, France Avenue provided for the reforestation of those trees removed due to construction; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined the extent of these replacements; and ' WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of the Special Assessment Fund for the respective Improvement Projects. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1998 -08, Reforestation of 1997 Improvement Project Areas is hereby established. 2. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare plans and specifications and advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1998 -08. 3. The estimated project costs are established as follows: Project Area Orchard France Ave. Total Lane West 1998 -08 Contract S- 5 5,000 $15,500 570,500 Contingency (10 %) S 5, 500 81,500 $7,000 Subtotal S60.500 817,000 877_,500 Construction Eng, Legal, 52,4001 8700 83,100 Admin. (4%) 1 Total S62.900 517,700 580,600 Estimated Project Cost • RESOLUTION NO. 4. The estimated project funding sources are established as follows: Improvement No. 1997 -01, 02 & 03 1997 -04, 05 & 06 Project Area Orchard Lane France Ave West Special $62,900 $ 2,650 Assessments Construction Fund MSA $15,050 Total $62,900 $17,700 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: November 19, 1997 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Service SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1998 -09, Construction of Public Safety Facility, 67th and Humboldt avenues North; Improvement Project No. 1998 -10, Demolition of Old and Construction of New West Fire Station, 63rd and Brooklvn Boulevard; and Improvement Project No. 1998 -11, East Fire Station Remodeling This housekeeping resolution would formally establish as improvement projects the three building projects to be financed from bond proceeds, and includes the necessary declaration of intent to use bond proceeds language which is required by IRS rules. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1998 -09, CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY, 67TH AND HUMBOLDT AVENUES NORTH; IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1998 -10, DEMOLITION OF OLD AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WEST FIRE STATION, 63RD AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD; AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1998 -11, EAST FIRE STATION REMODELING WHEREAS, on November 4, 1997 the electorate of Brooklyn Center authorized by referendum vote the issuance of $7.9 million GO bonds to finance the following public improvements: • The construction of a new public safety facility at 67th and Humboldt Avenues; • The demolition of the west fire station at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard and the construction of a replacement fire station; and • The remodeling of the east fire station at 65th and Dupont Avenues North; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to expend monies from the Capital Improvements Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and • WHEREAS the Cary reasonably expects to reunburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax - exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes. The maximum amount of obligations expected to be issued for such project is $7,900,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project Nos. 1998 -09, 10, and 11 are hereby ordered. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement. 3. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2, or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. Resolution No. • Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM DATE: November 19, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Joyce Gulseth, Public Services Administrative Aide v SUBJECT: Resolution Designating 1998 Planting List of Allowable Boulevard Tree Species As per City Ordinance, Section 20, TREES, the Cite Council annually adopts a resolution designating allowable boulevard tree species. This list includes a variety of cultivars and some ornamental trees. Section 20 -200, subd. 3 assures that all boulevard trees will be located so as to avoid creating future sight distance problems. Staff recommends maintaining the same species list as was designated in 1997. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING 1998 PLANTING LIST OF ALLOWABLE BOULEVARD TREE SPECIES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center promotes a diverse urban forest so as to minimize the spread of tree disease, and WHEREAS, section 20-402 of the ordinances provides for an annual listing of allowable boulevard tree varieties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the following trees are hereby designated as allowable boulevard tree species for 1998: Ash (Autumn Purple) Linden (American) & cultivars Crabapple (Flowering) & cultivars Linden (Littleleaf) & cultivars Ginko Maple (Norway) & cultivars Hackberry Maple (Red) & cultivars • Honeylocust (Imperial, Shademaster, Skyline. Maple (Sugar) & cultivars Thornless) Oak (Pin) Oak (white or Bur) Date Mavor 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. 7E MEMOR ANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley. City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: November 19, 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 November 24, 1997: CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT P.Q.T. Company 5040 Brooklvn Boulevard P.Q.T. Company 5801 Xerxes Avenue North GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Brooklyn Center Municipal Garage 6544 Shingle Creels Parkway Seaport, Inc. d /b /a Total 6830 Brooklvn Boulevard RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Delbert Ray and Ione DeLong 5 11 France Avenue North Renewal: Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Avenue North 9131 Akbar Sajady 4207 Lakeside Avenue North #326 Scot and Michal Frenzel 5256 East Twin Lake Boulevard TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS Brooklyn Center Municipal #1 1500 69th Avenue North Brooklvn Center Tklunicipal #2 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center Municipal 43 1966 5 7t Avenue North Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 North Lilac Drive Tobacco Warehouse, Inc. 6014 Shingle Creel: Parkway Seaport, Inc. d /b /a Total 6830 Brooklvn Boulevard MEMORANDUM • DATE: November 19, 1997 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Service "' SUBJECT: An Ordinance Vacating a City Roadway for Park Purposes Presented tonight for a second reading and public hearing is an ordinance which would vacate a City roadway for park purposes. This roadway is within the North Mississippi Regional Park, specifically, it is the access road in the old Riverridge Park, which runs from 57th Avenue to the boat launch/fishing pier area. This roadway was turned back by Mn/DOT to the City. This ordinance would vacate the roadway for City street purposes. Hennepin Parks intends to retain the roadway for park purposes. • • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice • Ni i r v Q hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24th day of November, 1997, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance to vacate a public roadway. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City lerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ements. g ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A CITY ROADWAY FOR PARK PURPOSES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The segment of former Mn/DOT Trunk Highway 94 described below, which was turned back to the jurisdiction of the City of Brooklyn Center, is hereby vacated: Beginning in the City of Brooklyn Center at a point on the easterly side of the state highway right of way of Trunk Highway No. 94, said point is located approximately 20 feet north and approximately 575 feet east of the center of Section 1, Township 118 North, Range 21 West; thence northerly along the centerline of an access road for approximately 3,900 feet to a point on the southerly side of the state highway right of way of Trunk Highway No. 694, said point is located approximately 1150 feet east and approximately 1160 feet north of the south quarter corner of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21 West and there terminating. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1997. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) u c t o JptAL� tJ m fJOX AVf - - N L i c� �' "' � z ur J JAMES i- m ni r' JAMES AVE N a IKVIIJC AVE N J �' < N 3AV LOl09Y{fiN _ -- H CO RD 110 57 t {J1MH01_Q T AVE tJ ` r t - G - O � � o GIRARD AV --Cr) Ff f J F141,10I1JT AVE N FREMONT AV N t � o - - -- – — FbJF KSOJJ - FHEKS J AVE 11 �r r _ - m ca �i ___QUNOtJT AV ti _r! m rn J' 01 if CY) COLF AVE N17 s rT t'COE_FAX AVE N N ° z � C m N - -- - y r> < < BRYANT N(YAN f AV PI rn rill m AL(-K7 z Z _ CAMDEN AVE N /� )l , AI_ D K I C l J i A VE tJ ALQK I (N AVE N CWADEN OR. CAMC; AV N N � rn 1S J CAMf) CAMDEN AVE [1 � x � L Y1JpA LE AVE N m c n i - h' RIDGE - P�1R,Y WILLOW LA N i m 0 l A c c,r cn c„ c �' i rn rn rn co)) /( crnn a) y_ .r. y Y Y Y r= D Y T D D D D = �1 (rl fTl [TI tr1 m m m m f71 m m m m m 4_ Z_ z z G z z z z z z 94 MEMORANDUM To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning nd Zoning S ecialist ?tie g g P Subject: City Council Consideration - Planning Commission Application No. 97014 Date: November 19, 1997 On the November 24, 1997 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 97014 submitted by Jehovah -Jireh Church of God in Christ requesting a Special Use Permit to operate a child care facility. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 97014 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, a plan for the proposed site, 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 November 13, 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. i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application filed on 10/30/97 Application No: 97011 City council action should be taken Applicant: Jehovah -Jireh Church of God in Christ by 12/29/97 (60 days) Location: 6120 Xerxes Ave N Request: Special Use Permit The applicant, Jehovah -Jireh Church, is seeking a special use permit to operate a child care facility out of their church building which is located at 6120 Xerxes Ave N. The property in question is zoned Rl (Single Familv Residence) and is bounded on the north by Brooklyn Drive with single family homes on the opposite side of the street; on the east by City owned park and open space property; on the south by the Brookdale Christian Center Assembly of God Church; and on the west by Xerxes Avenue with single family homes on the opposite side of the street. Both churches and accompying uses such as child care or day care are considered special uses in the R1 zoning district. • The applicant's representative, Danita Alderson, has submitted written information regarding their proposed operation at the church. Their program is required to be licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services and they are seeking such licensing to provide child care for u to 29 children. The applicant is pro g osin to offer two types of child care: one being P p .P P _ P preschool to serve up to 20 children (age 33 months thru pre - kindergarten age) and the other after school care to serve up to nine school age children (kindergarten thru 12 years). These programs would be offered Mondav thru Friday between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on a year around basis. The information provided indicates that the Jehovah -Jireh Church child care program will exist as a non - profit, tax exempt entity incorporated separately. It is sponsored by the church, zoverned by a Board of Directors, which include representatives from the congregation. The applicant indicates that the Director of the center and the staff have educational backgrounds and experience that meet or exceed the State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services, licensing P P regulations. The proposed staff to child ratio will be two staff members to 20 preschool age children and one staff member to nine school age children. The information lists various program activities for daily indoor and outdoor activities. The applicant has provided a site plan showing the location of the facility and where, within the facility, the preschool classrooms will be located as well as the after school care classrooms. The site plan also shows a child pick -up and drop off area located in the parking lot south of the building and the location of the child care entrance which would be at the southwesterly corner of the building. A large fenced in area for ciav and outdoor activities is located on the east side of the building as well. As previously indicated the program is required to be licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. Also required are inspeC, ions - the city's building? official and the t.re c let. 11!13/97 Page I The building official has been at the site and is evaluating it for compliance with various building code requirements. It should be noted that this area had been used as a school in the past by the Brookdale Christian Center. Compliance with recommendations of the building official and fire chief should be a condition of any approval for this application. The applicant has also provided written comments with respect to the standards for special use permits contained in Section 3-220 of the city's zoning ordinance (copy attached). Special use permits may be granted only after a finding that all standards for special use permits have been met. The applicant indicates their commitment to the welfare of the community by providing a pro - active role in facing the concerns of our society. They believe that they can assist parents by providing a safe and nurturing environment for their children that addresses the whole child; physically, spiritually and intellectually. They indicate that the use and maintenance of the property in which the child care facility will be housed must adhere to the strictest of safety standards. They will seek to meet and exceed local building codes and licensing regulations to assure the well being of the children for which their services are provided. The commissions attention is directed to the applicant's comments for further information. We see no conflict with the standards for special use permit and the proposed child care operation that will be conducted by the Jehovah -Jireh Church. A public hearing has been scheduled for this application and notices have been sent. RECOMMENDATION In general, the application appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the followinv conditions: 1. the special use permit is issued for a child care/day care facility serving up to 29 children in a preschool and after school program. Any expansion or alteration of these operations will require an amendment to this special use permit. ?. The child care /day care operation shall receive the proper licensing from the Nfinnesota Department of Human Services and copy of the license shall be kept on file wth the City. J. The premises will be brought into compliance with applicable state and local regulations relating to fire safetti health and building code standards for this operation as determined by the building official and fire chief. • 11 13,;97 Pave 4. The special use permit is subiect to all other applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation there of may be grounds for revocation. 11, 13' 97 Pane L-A I,- i ��Wfl _-AVE. k7 - I J!4 v _; 1 ___ �\ 1 I I "k I lflm k 4 4, 4 c \ i ( A AVE I! �/, [ I En>yy Ill AVE. ,1.3FI[111 �.���_ �.., —_ _ �, r -1 [ 1 l � I o � � � �= _ .gad; t • I I ( -I 1 -I II E .__� �- y � - _- -- in W'b —Aj r-1 OP 69 Al x CS-f- U1 , ------ L '��Ali AVE, COW )o ��� } 1 �1 I 111 [� [ 1 [ [ [1.1 It.� � � � � � �.� - 1_�.� EE�_1- — — =f _ _ = XX ---- -- I - r - I FITIAT , - C -!l AVE. xex o . Fook:ing From II re Q Ax 0 Q O�c � -1— 50 Corses 1-110h Red Brick ,� (� �,�(1 ►� �. C."b`c C... E�.`C1'C `( 2'�V1(.1� , Sloping / to 33 Corses center i Leh ov b - ce h C.. C.. �i � (�tookl��r� Cer�fE;r�, Minrtesot�_1 / � riseing to 95 Corses all three sides Windows each side C doors Front - Stuco back +++✓✓✓ 7 9" Front !� .door openntng - ('G 3' 6" other J � Brick wlncW ws ---- ----- -- - - - -- 9" Brick Windows i \ aStCJf''S Class Rooms T Off icu Hall Study BI x;k n 32' Block — ?Y G S\1 ea\ CA35 s aw Boller Room / �onrnS CD`tE! 801 g„ 31' 91 90' to' I J `�`�. Windows �� Block Block Block v Jehovah Jireh Church Of God In Christ 6120 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 October 30, 1997 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Planning Commission /City Council Members: This application is being made by the Jehovah Jireh Church of God in Christ, in compliance with the City of Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance for a special use permit for the property located at 6120 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN. The nature of use has been detailed and accompanies this application for the Planning Commission's consideration. Please find the following enclosures: Application Description of Service Standard of Use Site Design A representative of the Jehovah Jireh Church of God in Christ will be present at the November 13, 1997 public hearing. If questions regarding this application should arise prior to this date, please contact me at (612)529 -1612. Thank you. Sincerely', Danita Alderson i Description of Service • This is a summarization of the basic parameters of the proposed program for the Jehovah Jireh Child Development Center. Governance of Child Care Program The center will exist as a non profit, tax- exempt entity incorporated separately. Its sponsor will be the church, governed by a board of directors to include representatives form the congregation. Staff Qualifications The Director of the Center and the staff have educational backgrounds and experience that meet or exceed the State of Minnesota Department of Human Service licensing regulations. Total Ages and Numbers of Children to be Served 20 Preschool (33 months thru pre - kindergarten) 9 School Age (kindergarten thru 12 years) Number of Groups for each Age 2 Preschool 1 School Age Proposed Staff -to -Child Ration 2 Staff to 20 Preschool 1 Staff to 9 School Age Program Options Full Day After School Care for School Age Center Operation Open 6:30am to 6:00pm Monday thru Friday Year Round Program Activity Schedule The following interest areas will be utilized daily for indoor and outdoor activities, quiet and active activities, teacher- directed and child- initiated play: Large motor activities Fine motor activities Dramatic or practical life activities Creative arts and crafts Religion Science Math Sensory stimulation activities Music Center Operation Closed New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day. If the holiday falls on Saturday, it will be observed on Friday. If the holiday falls on Sunday, it will be observed on Monday. The center also closes for one Professional Day each year for staff inservice training. The center is closed on the days between Christmas and New Years Day. Special Services Offered Food service: Snacks and catered lunch Parent Information: community resource phone numbers and brochures Enhanced educational opportunities Offsite field trips Onsite field trips lessons, etc. i Standards for Use • Our commitment to the welfare of the community existed prior to establishing a child care facility. We, as a church realize we must take a proactive role in facing the ills and concerns of our society. One such concern, is the ever increasing need for quality child care. We believe we can assist parents by providing a safe and nurturing environment for their children that addresses the whole child h sicali spiritually program can I enhance he p Y y, p y and intellectually. Our p g only t state of community with the instillation of Christian values that are life- oriented. Use and maintenance of the property in which the child care facility will be housed must adhere to the strictest of safety standards. We seek to meet and exceed the local building codes and licensing regulations that influence the quality and safety of the facility so as to assure the well being of the children who are directly affected by a safe environment. In assessing he current and f e g future needs of the community we feel the need for a quality child care is in keeping with the communities natural progression and growth. The property layout and hours of operation are constructed so as to not infringe upon the traffic flow of the public streets. Please see the enclosed site design. • ...whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of f God. I Corinthians 10:31 i Section 35 -220. 3P- C .`,L USE PER% TS 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 P and enhance the general welfare and will not bedetzimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjcvment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize tza:fic congestion in the public stree (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, con orm to ' je > - �� e appl�. cab__ regulations district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning ... ng Commission may recommend and 'he City Council may . T,p CS e ..� suc: conditions and restri upon the estanlishme ^.t location, construction, :maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of t ^.e public interest and to secure: compliance with r =_cuirements specified in this ord- inance. in all cases in whit:h . special use permits are granted, • the City Ccunc -;! na require suc: 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 (l2) months 'from the date o= t.' ^.e final detez-ndnat;an 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 t2he City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. w S. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Per7tits 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 Comsnissicn or the City Co unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- Ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the _: , app�l�car.t shat apply extension p_ 1y nor an ext_nsior. ,.:.ereo� by filling out and t stbmi _n �e S she Planning ec- g � rotary of - .._ _ Commission a "Special Use Permit application - =questin such extension y - -i - g on and pa additional fee of $15.00. g an Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance ot 3reckiyr.. Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub - feet property pursuant to such =ecia " use pee., tit has not commenced with... t at tire. • :� I any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a e ,cd O f .rear, the scec_a1 use pe rlit - lazed thereto shall e<�ire one year �ol_cwi. ..,ent. - ^g the date o; abandon- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOkLY. CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA ESOTA REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 13, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Tim Willson at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Beeck, Dianne Reem, and Rex Newman were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning CommissioriPlannina and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Arlene Bergfalk. Commissioners Mark Holmes and Brian Walker were excused. Commissioner Steve Erdmann entered the meeting at 7:40 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1997 There was a motion by Commissioner NevTnan, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve the minutes of the October 16 1997 meeting as submitted. The motion P assed unanimously. Commissioner Boeck 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. 97014 (rEHOVAH -JIREH CHURCH) Chair Willson introduced Application No. 97014, a request submitted by Jehovah -Jireh Church for a special use permit to operate a child care facility out of its church building located at 6120 Xerxes Avenue North. The application was filed on 10 -30 -97 and City Council action should be taken by 12 -29 -97 (60 days). Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to describe the zoning and location of the property and a site plan submitted by the applicant. (See attached Planning Commission Application Information Sheet dated 11- 13 -97.) The site plan shows the location of the class rooms for preschool child care and for after school care, drop off and pick up locations, the child care entrance, and the fenced out door activity area. Child and /or day care services are considered soecial rises in the R1 zoning district. y 11 -li -97 i The applicant is currently seeking the required licensing by the Minnesota Department of Human Services to serve up to 29 children. In addition, the facility requires inspections by the City's building official and the,fire chief, and compliance with any recommendations . The building official is currently evaluating the facility's compliance with building code requirements. A copy of the State license must be provided to the City. A special use permit may be granted after a finding that all standards for such permits have been met. Mr. Warren stated he believed the application contains no conflicts with the five standards for special use permits outlined in Section 35 - ?20 of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, based on its review of the application, the staff recommends approval of the special use permit for the operation of a child care facility by the Jehovah -Jireh Church, subject to the four conditions outlined in the staff report. Chair Willson called for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Boeck requested clarification regarding the need for a special use permit since the church is already occupying this site under a special use permit. He also inquired who sets the limitation of 29 children. According to Mr. Warren, this application represents an activity that is a special use within a church facility. This area had been used as a school in the past by another organization. GIs. Danita Alderson, the applicant's representative, stated that the facility can accommodate 29 children based on the State's licensing requirement of 35 sq. ft. of area per child. V PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 97014, JEHOVAH -JIREH CHURCH) There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck. seconded by Commissioner Reem, to open the public hearing on Application No. 97014 at 7:5 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. GIs. Danita Alderson, 1618 Oliver Avenue North. Minneapolis, the applicant's representative, was present to answer Commissioners' questions. Ms. Alderson stated that a sliding fee structure following the guidelines of the Minneapolis Day Care Association will be implemented. She explained that while the need for a day care facility originated with members of the church's congregation, use of the services will not be restricted in any way, but will be open for use by anyone needing child care. The school will not, however, provide transportation services at this time. Programs. including food service, will be offered Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. year- round. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION 9 , 014 There was a motion by Commissioner Neiman, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to close the public hearing on Application No. 97014 at 7: p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ne Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Jehovah -Jireh Church's request for a special use permit to operate a child car.- tacillty. subject to certain conditions. 11 -13 -97 ACTION RECO [k[ENDNG APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 9701 (JEHOVAH -JIREH CHURCH) There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 97014, a request submitted by Jehovah -Jireh Church for a special use permit to operate a child care facility in its church building at 6120 Xerxes Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued for a child care/day care facility serving up to 29 children in a preschool and after school program. Any expansion or alteration of the operations will require an amendment to this special use permit. ?. The child care /day care operation shall receive the proper licensing from the Minnesota Department of Human Services and copy of the license shall be kept on file with the City. I The premises will be brought into compliance with applicable state and local regulations relating to fire safety, health and building code standards for this operation as determined by the building official and fire chief. 1. The special use permit is subject to all other applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. • Voting for: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Erdmann, Newman. and Reem...The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the recommendation at its Mondav, November 24, 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. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Warren noted that henceforth applications presented to the Commission will ir_clude the action deadline date as indicated on the _application considered at this meeting. The Commissioners agreed to reschedule its next meeting to Wednesday, December 17, 1997. Mr. Warren indicated that the 1998 schedule of Commission meetings will be similar to this vear's schedule. Meetings held in January and February will be on Wednesdays rather than Thursdays, however. the final schedule will be available after the Council meeting schedule is established. Mr. Warren referred to the Commissioners' discussion at its October 16 meeting on a preliminary plan in progress by Pep Boys, a retail auto parts and service company, to be located at Brookdale Square. At that meeting. it was pointed out that re- zoning of adjacent areas appeared necessary to allow approval of the application. New information found from t- arther study of zoning maps indicates the affected areas are already zoned open space (0 -1). therefore it appears that the 11 -13 -97 application can go tornvard without the rezoning process. Verification of the zoning information is in process. ADJOURNNtENT There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:1 "? p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Arlene Bergfalk TimeSaver tiff Site Secretarial, Inc. I, 100 Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION COMMENDING SECOND GRADE STUDENTS AT EVERGREEN PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WHEREAS, the second grade students at Evergreen Park Elementary School . recently hosted Councilmember Kathleen Carmody for an informative session regarding City issues; and WHEREAS, the interest and questions asked by the students demonstrated a knowledge of and sincere interest in manv of the issues currently facing the city; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to recognize the second grade students and their teacher, Mrs. Page, at Evergreen Park Elementary School for taking the time to inform themselves and be interested in the many exciting things that are happening in our city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the second grade students and their teacher at Evergreen Park Elementary School be and hereby are recognized for their interest in and knowledge of issues facing the City of Brooklyn Center. 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: November 12, 1997 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Service6 SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Utility Rates for 1998 The City Council annually reviews water, sanitary sewer, recycling and storm drainage utility rates to ensure that the utilities' financial goals are met. Attached to this item is the 1998 rate review. The rates of each of the four utilities are reviewed in individual papers. A fifth paper addresses the water and sanitary sewer hookup charges. It is my recommendation that the Council adopt the following 1998 rates. These rates are necessary for a number of reasons. Although utility staff strive to operate and maintain the utility systems as efficiently as possible, the cost of materials such as water • treatment chemicals continues to rise, as does the cost of electricity used to power well and lift station pumps and natural gas to heat well houses. If the recommended rates are adopted the annual utility bill of the average residential customer would increase 2.5 percent, or roughly $9.00. The annual bill of the average senior customer would also increase about 3.3 percent, or about $6.56. WATER UTILITY Resolution 96 -225 raised the water rate to $0.89 per 1000 gallons in 1997. To best meet the financial needs of the utility, I recommend that the Council maintain a rate of $0.89 per 1000 gallons for 1998. A resolution establishing the 1998 water utility rate schedule is provided for Council consideration. SANITARY SEWER UTILITY Resolution 96 -226 raised the residential quarterly rate to $43.75 in 1997, and the non- residential rate of $1.75 per 1000 gallons. I recommend that the Council increase these rates in 1998 to a residential quarterly rate of $45.25, and the non - residential rate of $1.80 per 1.000 gallons. These rates would best meet utility financial goals. A resolution establishing the 1998 sanitary sewer utility rate schedule is provided for Council consideration. STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY • Resolution 96 -227 increased the residential quarterly rate to $8.25 per lot and the base rate to $33 per REF acre. These rates are not sufficient to meet utility financial goals. I recommend that the Council consider raising the quarterly rates from $8.25 per lot to $9.00 per lot, and the base rate from $33.00 per REF acre to $36.00 A resolution establishing the 1998 storm drainage utility rate schedule is provided for Council consideration. UTILITY HOOKUP CHARGES Resolution 94 -212 states charges are increased annually based on inflation. I recommend increasing charges 2.8 percent, based on the increase in the CPI from August 1996 to August 1997. A resolution establishing the 1998 utility hookup charges is included for Council consideration. RECYCLING UTILITY Resolution 96 -229 established a rate of $2.15 per month per household for recycling services beginning January 1, 1997. HRG has indicated that the above rates are sufficient to meet utility financial goals. I recommend that the Council reaffirm this rate for 1998. A resolution establishing the 1998 recycling rate is included for Council consideration. Table 1 Average Annual Utility Costs, Typical Residential Customers 1997 Rates Compared to Recommended 1998 Rates Residential Senior 1997 1998 1997 1998 Recycling $25.80 $25.80 $25.80 $25.80 Water $114.66 $114.66 $28.00 $29.00 Sanitary Sewer $175.00 $181.00 $96.00 $99.56 Storm Drainage $33.00 $36.00 $33.00 $36.00 TOTAL $348.46 $357.46 $183.80 $190.36 Percent Increase ? .5 7 3.3 'C 1 ■ 1998 Ut St + ++ Prepared for Brooklyn Center City Council By the Public Services Department October 27, 1997 FEW 1 i i �" City of Brooklyn Center 1998 Utility Rate Study Summary i The City Council annually reviews established public utility rates to ensure their adequacy to meeting financial goals. The Public Services Department strives to meet these goals while keeping rates as affordable as possible. The total utility bill paid by a resident of Brooklyn Center continues to be lower than in most area communities. Water Utility: The schedule at the end of the Water Utility report labeled Option 1 shows a continuation of current rates for 1998 and small increases the next four years. This option meets all utility financial requirements. Option 2 shows the projected effect of modest increases in rates for 1998 and subsequent years. With the exception of the periodic painting of water towers and the possible need for a water Average Residential 1997 1998 treatment facility in the future, most capital outlays Utility Customer Charge Charge in the water utility will be main replacements associated with neighborhood street improvements and other infrastructure repair. Recycling $25.80 $25.80 It is recommended that the Council adopt the rates Water $114.66 $114.66 shown on Option 1. This would result in no Sanitary Sewer $175.00 $18:1.00 increase in water rates in 1998, with rates remaining at $0.89 per 1000 gallons. Storm Drainage $33.00 $36.00 Major improvement projects scheduled for 1998 include: Replacement of our SCADA monitoring Total $348.46 $357.46 system, coating repairs and painting of tower #3 Percent Increase 2.5% and water main replacement associated with the 1998 neighborhood street reconstruction in the Bellvue and St. Alphonsus areas. Sanitary Sewer Utility: Option 1 shows the projected effect of no rate increase for 1998 and modest increases over the next four years. Option 2 shows the impact of a modest increase for 1998, followed by similar increases the next four years. Staff recommends Option 2, as it provides for a modest infusion of dollars into a fund that has spent a large portion of its fund balance for system improvements the past two years. This option would result in a rate increase to $45.00 per quarter for a typical residential customer. Capital improvements for 1998 will include: replacement of our INTRAC monitoring system, replacement of portions of the sanitary sewer lines as a part of the 1998 neighborhood street improvement program. and other minor infrastructure or equipment repair. Detailed analvsis of future capital needs for all utilities can be found in the Capital Improvements Plan. Storm Drainage Utility: Option 1, the only option presented, • shows a moderate increase in 1998 rates with no increases in the following four years. Average Senior Utility 1997 1998 Charge Customer Charge A financial management priority for the storm drainage utility is the accumulation of a minimum cash balance of $500,000. This balance is necessary to provide for Recycling $25.80 $25.80 adequate cash flow and provide flexibility water $29.00 $29.00 in programming projects. Sanitary Sewer $96.00 $99.56 Future capital and operating needs are Storm Drainage $33.00 $36.00 still under study. The Phase II Local Water Management Plan is expected to be completed in early 1998. This study will Total $183.80 $190.36 include operating and maintenance Percent Increase 3.3% recommendations, and a refined capital improvement program that includes water quality as well as neighborhood projects. This information will be essential to developing and refining the short and long term financial plan for the utility. For 1998, staff recommends Council adopt the rates shown in Option 1. Adopting Option 1 would . result in a rate increase from $33.00 per base acre in 1997 to $36.00 per acre in 1998. The average residential quarterly rate per lot would increase from X8.25 in 1997, to $9.00 in 1998. Capital improvements scheduled for 1998 include: Completion of the Shingle Creek Regional Pond, storm sewer work associated with the neighborhood street reconstruction, continued work on Phase II of our storm water plan and other water quality improvements. During the development of the 1999 operating budget and 1999 CIP, the rates will continue to be studied to determine the charges necessary in future years to ensure the integrity of the fund while meeting maintenance and construction goals. Recycling Utility: The Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) has adopted their budget for 1998 and it maintains current service levels with no increase in fees for 1998. Rates will remain at $2.15 per month. Utility Hook Up Charges Hook up charges are increased annually based on inflation. Charges were increased 2.8 percent, based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index from August 1996 to July 1997. zr Summary Staff recommends small increases in sanitary sewer and storm drainage rates for 1998. If the recommended rates are adopted, the annual utility bill of the average customer would increase by approximately 2.5 %. The annual bill of a senior customer would increase by 3.3 . BROOKLYN CENTER WATER UTILITY 1998 RATE REVIEW Background The City Council on November 12, 1996 adopted Resolution 96 -225, which established water rates for 1997. The Council annually reviews established rates for their adequacy and makes adjustments as necessary. Water Utility Financial Performance, 1996 The water utility's financial performance in 1996 was better than expected. While projected revenues were slightly higher than expected, expenditures were also slightly lower than anticipated. The resulting net operating income, (operating revenues minus operating expenditures) was 21 % higher than budgeted. It is estimated that revenues and expenditures in 1997 will be about as projected. While it is estimated that operating costs will be down slightly. revenues from a very wet summer should also be lower than anticipated. Of note in the 1998 operating budget is a reduction in utility costs of approximately $30,000. This savings is possible as a result of a recent energy improvements to the well pumps. Capital Outlays The major capital improvement projects planned for 1998 include water main improvements associated with the Bellvue and St Alphonsus neighborhood street improvement program and the replacement of the SCADA (Supervisory Control Data Acquisition) system which controls well sequencing and water tower levels. With the exception of periodic painting and coating repairs of water towers and the possible need for a water treatment facility in the future, most capital outlays in the water utility will continue to be main replacements associated with neighborhood street improvements and other minor infrastructure repair. Rate Setting Considerations The attached schedule labeled Option 1 shows a continuation of current rates. This option meets all utility financial requirements. Option 2 shows the projected effect of small increases over the next four years. Recommendation As it meets current utility fund nd needs, it is recommended that the Council adopt the rates shown on Option 1. This would result in no increase in rates in 1998, with rates remaining at $0.89 per 1000 gallons. Impact of Recommended Rate Increase Table 2 below illustrates the impact the recommended rate increase would have on the summer water bills of various types of customers. The summer bill is typically the highest bill of the year. Table 2 Impact of Recommended Water Base Rate Increase Summer Water Bills of Various Customers Type of Customer 1997 1998 Charge Charge RESIDENTIAL Low Use (Minimum) $7.25 $7.25 Average Use (38) 33.82 33.82 High Use (116) 103.24 103.24 Apartment, 36 Units (630) 561.00 1 561.00 CONINIERCIAL Car Dealership (235) $209.15 $209.15 Heavy Commercial Use 768.96 768.96 Table 4 is a summary of 1998 water rates per 1000 gallons for a number of Metro area cities. Brooklyn Center continues to have one of the lower rates in the area. Table 4 i 1998 Water Rates of Various Metro Area Cities CITY PER CITY PER 1000 G, 1000 G New Hope $1.95 Robbinsdale $1.55 Golden Valley 1.92 Richfield 1.37 Blomington 1.86 Andover 1.21 Minneapolis 1.65 Plymouth 1.07 Crystal 1.64 Fridley 1.00 Osseo 1.55 Brooklyn Center 0.89 Brooklyn Park 1 1.55 1 Maple Grove 1 0.86 Other Fees and Charges The water utility rate schedule contains a number of fees and charges in addition to rates for . service. The followin- list describes each fee or charge and its current level. Fees A. 518 " X 314 " Water Meter Property owners are currently charged $50.00 for a water meter when a water account is opened with the City. The City then buys the water meter from the property owner when the water account is closed, and the new owner is then charged for the water meter when the new account is opened. Since most of the water meters in the City are of this size, it is administratively convenient to charge the same fee to all accounts. B. 3/4" or Larger Water Meter Property owners requiring water meters larger than the standard residential water meter are charged the cost of the meter plus a $2.00 administrative fee. Since there are far fewer of the larger meters, it is not as difficult to administer the buy -back of the water meters. C. Fire Protection Inspection Property owners with fires sprinkler systems are charged an annual fire inspection fee of P Y � P $50.00 to test the fire sprinkler system. D. Private Fire Hydrant Maintenance Property owners who have privately owned fire hydrants located on their property are billed the cost of labor, materials, equipment and overhead whenever the City performs maintenance of their fire hydrants. Charges A. Delinquent Account Charge The present delinquent account charge is $3.00 or 10 percent of the utility bill, whichever is greater. It applies to the bill as a whole. B. Certification to Taxes The special assessment service charge for delinquent accounts recovers the cost of certification with the County Auditor of the delinquent amounts to taxes. It is recommended that this fee remain at $30.00, which is consistent with the certification fee for diseased tree and weed destruction. C. Restoration of Service - Monday to Friday, Except Holidays, Between the Hours of 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The restoration of service charge during working hours is $25.00, and includes the cost of one hour labor, labor additive, and vehicle rental. It is charged in all instances where a customer's water has been turned off, whether by a customer's request or for non - payment of utility bills. D. t r Res o ation of Service - Anytime Saturdms, Sundays and Holidays and Between the Hours of 3:00 p. m. and 7 :30 a. m. on Monday Through Friday Except Holidays Restoration of service during off hours is much more expensive because Public Utility employees are called back to work for a minimum of two hours at overtime pay. The restoration of service charge is $75.00 during these hours. E. Delinquent q Meter Reading The delinquent meter reading charge is designed to motivate water customers into reading their own meter and forwarding the meter reading card to the Citv for billing. The current charge is: $2.00 the first and second consecutive time a reading card is • not returned. The charge increases to $5.00 the third time, and to $10 the fourth time. After four quarters, the customer must either submit a reading card or schedule a meter reading, or face water shutoff. F. Water Hookup Charge Properties that have never been assessed, or not fully assessed for water are charged a hookup charge when water hookup is requested. The charge is intended to cover the cost of the lateral water main, supply, and trunk capital investment in the water system. It is calculated on a per lot basis for single family residential and on a linear foot plus square foot basis for all other properties. It is established annually by resolution. G. Hydrant Meter Charges The hydrant meter charges are for meters that attach to fire hydrants used as a temporary water connection, usually for construction projects. The City has two sizes of hydrant meters, 5/S" x 3/4" and 2 t/� ". The charges for the smaller meter include $100.00 deposit, $1.00 per day rental, $20.00 minimum charge, and the cost of the water used at the prevailing water rate. The charges for the larger meter include $700.00 deposit, $7.00 per day rental or $100.00 per month rental, $35.00 minimum charge and the cost of water used at the prevailing water rate. H. Curb Stop tand P ipe Repair P P P City crews are called in to repair curb stop stand pipes for private properties due to damage or settling. In cases where the curb stop stand pipe is bent or otherwise damaged, a substantial amount of time can be involved in repair. A standard charge of $40.00 is charged for each curb stop stand pipe repair. e:AenoApubutiRrates \watrat98 WATER *ITY RATE STUDY: 1998 Option: 1 12- Nov -97 Publutihwatrat98 -, - -- 06 -Oct 9/ 1991k> 198f> 183? 3 1899 1 200q 2E7f3:1: 2L1tS2 EXPEND/ - 1IRES 1) Operations Personal Service 376,422 354,630 335,931 341,534 351,780 362,333 373,203 384,400 contractual 141,897 136,268 101,629 111,834 115,189 118,645 122,204 125,870 Supplies & Materials 87,234 87,393 98,020 95,500 98,365 101,316 104,355 107,486 Utilities 151,405 124,005 145,781 139,100 146,055 153,358 161,026 169,077 Insurance 12,981 10,511 0 13,495 14,170 14,878 15,622 16,403 state Connection surcharge 43,218 46,364 49,000 47,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 Depreciation Expense _ 241,25 230,236 _ 222,000 257,0 2 7_0,000 280,220 280,000 _ 280,000 TOTA EX PENDITURES _ _ $1,05 $98 9,407 $952,361 $1,005,463 $1,041,559 $1,076,530 $1,102,411 $1,129,236 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues 968,257 1,049,352 1,108,050 1,112,500 1,160,250 1,185,750 1,211,250 1,236,750 Water in MGAI_ 1,200,000 1,249,000 1,245,000 1,250,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 RATE PER 9 Q00 GAk :. a� 56 ... ; ... gal ;3 $O S91� $ 50 91 SQ: 513 5a :....... $07 3) Miscellaneous Operating 80,577 70,804 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 11,049 24,884 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) Tower Rental 0 0 0 15,22 15,586 _16,786 17,290 17,808 T TOA REVENUES - -_ $1,059,883 $1,145,040 $1,178,0 $1,197,725 51,245,836 51,272,536 51,298,540 $1,324,558 PROJ ECTED INCOME OR Z25,689 :5 iS� �204,2�T 518f f�00 $ 196 129 X195:322 _ 6) In Earn 2 66, 561 _ 281,36 4 260,0 198,427 131,564 116,489 113,859 120,887 NET INCOME i}R $272;03@ $4R6,S97 $A85,709 X390,689 5335,$Q1 $312F95, S3t3R987 $3 f6.21Q< r - -- 1 99'.ii: 1996 » 1997 _ 7998 1999 20013 2001' 2002 D-mc r C)N CASII & INVESTMENT S. 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $4,535,288 $4,419,660 $4,483,103 $3,421,154 $2,268,343 $2,008,434 $1,963,079 $2,084,267 8) Capital Outlay (350,265) (1,125,585) (1,769,658) (1,800,500) (865,750) (637,850) (468,800) (801,200) 9) Net Income or Loss 272,036 436,997 485,709 390,689 335,841 312,495 309,987 316,210 10) Depreciation Add back 241 251 230,736 222,000 257,000 270,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 11) Pod of Year Gasht (r1v 54 A9964 54 4S3,9t33 . $3.421 1v4 fi225$�34:3 $2�Q8;434 51 :953 U79 52,084 26T. 59 QyA yc WATER 0;1 RATE STUDY: 1998 Option: 2 12- Nov -97 • PublutOwatrat98 0 6-Oct-g - / 199k1 -< 1996. 1'py! 1.99€f 1899 2000 ;s 21301;:;: 2D?2 EXPENDITURES - 1) Operations Personal Service 376,422 354,630 335,931 341,534 351,780 362,333 373,203 384,400 CC) l li r a Gtnal 141,897 136,268 101,629 111,834 115,189 118,645 122,204 125,870 Supplies & Materials 87,234 87,393 98,020 95,500 98,365 101,316 104,355 107,486 Utilities 151,405 124,005 145,781 139,100 146,055 153,358 161,026 169,077 Insurance 12,981 10,511 0 13,495 14,170 14,878 15,622 16,403 State Connection Surcharge 43,218 46,364 49,000 47,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 46,000 Depreciation Lxpe;nse 2 41,251 230,L36 222,000 257,000 270 280 ,000 280,000 280,000 TOTAL E - $1,054,408 $989,407 $952 $1,005,463 $1,041,559 $1,076,530 $1,102,411 $1,129,236 REVENUFS 2) Billing Revenues 968,257 1,049,352 1,108,050 1,137,500 1,185,750 1,211,250 1,236,750 1,262,250 Water in MGAL 1,200,000 1,249,000 1,245,000 1,250,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 RATERER 100,0 GAL 0 R6 Q 86 $0 89. Q $1 S0 93 . ..... . 84 96 3 J..:: : . ...... 54 „�9 3) Miscellaneous Operating 80,577 10,804 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 11,049 24,884 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) Tower Rental 0 _ _ 0 0 _ _ _ 15,225 15,586 16,786 17,290 17,808 TO TA L REVEN $1,059,883 $ 1,145,040 51,178,050 $1,222,725 - $1,271,336 $1,298,036 $1,324,040 $1,350,058 PROJCTS^p fNCOM6 QR I ASS $ 475 $155,633 X225,689 $217,262 X229,7. ?7.. $221;:506 $227629 _6) Interest Earn _ _ 266,561 281,3 260,0 198,427 1 33,014 119,502 118,525 127,304 NET I NCOM E £3R :LOSS _ $272,036 $4:W997 S 165 709 :: $ 15,689: 5362,79.1 $ 41,£ 08 $340Ri64 3 $3Q 8,128: 1995' 199fi 1937 1.J98 -1999 2060 20011 2DQ2 -- -- - - - - - -- -- - - -- - . EI FECT ON CASH & INVES'7 MEN TS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $4,232,606 $4,419,660 $4,483,103 $3,421,154 $2,293,343 $2,060,384 $2,043,542 $2,194,897 8) Capital Outlay (350,265) (1,125,585) (1,769,658) (1,800,500) (865,750) (637,850) (468,800) (801,200) 9) Net income or Loss 272,036 436,997 485,709 415,689 362,791 341,008 340,154 348,126 10) De)xeciation Add -back 241,251 230,236 222,000 257,000 270,000 280,000 280,000 280,000 1 if end :of Year<G�1s11 fnv &441.9�iG4 4,483.90.: <. 42!,154 . X43 X2'4 t1) g q< . :::: . ,. f..:.:. r.... F ..:.... .. -:::, £?:.. .... s4 42 2 1 ,$9::. :... b2c!01E83: BROOKLYN CENTER SANITARY SEWER UTILITY 1998 RATE REVIEW Background The City Council on November 12, 1996 adopted Resolution 96 -226, which established sanitary sewer rates for 1997. The Council annually reviews established rates for their adequacy and makes adjustments as necessary. Sanitary Sewer Utility Financial Performance, 1996 The sanitary sewer utility's financial performance in 1996 was not as good as expected, largely as a result of higher than anticipated charges from the Metropolitan Council, Environmental Services (MCES). These charges account for approximately 75% of the expenditures in this utility. MCES underestimated their charges by $120,000. This increase was offset by somewhat lower than anticipated expenditures for the remainder of the utility but performance was lower as revenues came in close to the anticipated. Revenues for 1997 are coming in as expected and should be sufficient to cover expenditures. Capital Outlays Substantial outlays were made for 1996 projects that included the replacement of Lift Station #1, replacement of some sanitary sewer lines as a part of the 1997 neighborhood street improvement program, and for the sanitary improvements associated with the France Avenue street improvement project. Capital projects planned for 1998 include replacement of some sanitary sewer lines as a part of the 1998 neighborhood street improvement program, and other minor infrastructure or equipment repair. In addition, replacement of the INTRAC automated supervision and alarming system is scheduled for 1998. Rate Setting Considerations Option 1 shows the projected effect of no increase in 1998 followed by small rate increases over the subsequent years. Option 2 shows the impact of modest increases in rates over the next five years. The most important consideration regarding the sanitary sewer rates is the need for capital improvements. The sanitary sewer fund has financed several major capital improvements in the past few years. Because the balance in this fund was considered excessive, these large 10 improvement projects were paid for from cash reserves rather than bond revenues. In addition, the neighborhood projects undertaken in the past few years have required considerably more sewer main improvements than expected. As a result, the fund balance of the sanitary sewer utility has been reduced in excess of 50% during the last three years. Recommendation Staff recommends Option 2, as it provides for small increases which would bring the fund balance above its one million dollar ($1,000,000) floor. Impact of Recommended Rate Increase Table 2 below illustrates the impact the recommended rate increase would have on the summer sanitary sewer bills of various types of customers. The summer bill is typically the highest of the four quarters. Table 2 Impact of Recommended Sanitary Sewer Base Rate Increase Summer Quarterly Utility Bills of Various Customers Type of Customer 1997 Charge 1998 Charge RESIDENTIAL Senior 824.06 824.89 Residential 43.75 45.25 Apartment, 36 Units 1,102.00 1,140.48 COINLMERCIAL Car Dealership 5410.00 8434.12 Heavy Commercial Use 1,512.00 1,600.95 Table 3 is a summary of 1998 sanitary sewer rates per 1000 gallons for a number of Metro area cities. Brooklyn Center is in about the middle of the range of rates in the area. Table 3 1998 Quarterly Sanitary Sewer Charges of Various Metro Area Cities (Converted to Quarterly Rate Where Necessary) CITY PER CITY PER QUARTER QUARTER Osseo $79.43 Crystal 57.02 New Hope 73.50 Maple Grove 56.03 Brooklyn Park 65.08 Robbinsdale 49.71 Hopkins 64.65 Blaine 45.50 Fridley 64.50 Brooklyn Center 45.25 Plymouth 57.19 Anoka 42.50 Andover 57.10 Bloomington 41.80 Other Fees and Charges The sanitary sewer utility rate schedule contains a number of fees and charges in addition to rates for service. The following list describes each fee or charge and its current level and describes any recommended amendment. Fees The only fee for sanitary sewer service is the SAC (Service Availability Charge) unit charge, which is established by Metropolitan Council, Environmental Services. This fee goes directly to MCES. Charges A. Delinquent Account Charge The present delinquent account charge is 53.00 or 10 percent of the utility bill. It applies to the bill as a whole. y B. Certification to Taxes The special assessment service charge for delinquent accounts recovers the cost of certification with the County Auditor of the delinquent amounts to taxes. The charge is currently $30 which matches the certification fee for diseased tree and weed destruction accounts. C. Line Cleaning Charge The line cleaning charge recovers the cost of cleaning City sanitary sewer lines due to misuse by the property owner. The most common infraction is grease build up due to improper sewering of restaurant greases. The charge is actual labor, materials, equipment, and overhead. D. Sanitary Sewer Hookup Charge Properties that have never been assessed, or not fully assessed for sanitary sewer, are charged a hookup charge when water hookup is requested. The charge is intended to cover the cost of the lateral sanitary sewer main and is calculated on a linear foot basis. It is established annually by resolution. e:Aene \pubutil \rates\sewrtt98 SANIT�SEWER RATE STUDY: 1998 OPTI • PURates \sewrat _ 06 1::095 196F1 1917 1:99$ 1999 :. 20Q0(01 2G1Qx EXPF_NDITURES 1) Operations Personal Survive 186,002 182,608 209,883 222,599 229,277 236,155 243,240 250,537 Contractual Service 137,176 129,272 67,052 147,735 153,644 159,790 166,182 172,829 Supplies & Malerials 11,110 8,515 20,444 18,750 19,688 20,672 21,705 22,791 Utilities /Insurance 24,960 25,813 21,590 27,525 28,351 29,201 30,077 30,980 Depreciation Expense 114,132 127,040 132,000 185,000 190,550 196,267 202,154 208,219 Capital Outlay Subtotal: City O &M Expense $473,380.00 $473,248.00 $450,969.00 $601,609.00 $621,509.62 $642,085.10 $663,358.99 $685,355.69 MCES Charges $1,327,420.00 _ $1,557,774.00 $1,475, $ 1,525,000.00 $1,555,500.00 $1,586,610.00 $1,618,342.20 $1,650,709.04 _ TA L EXPENDI $1,800,800.00 - $2,031,022.00 51,925,969.00 $2,126,609.00 $2,177,009.62 $2,228,695.10 $2,281,701.19 $2,336,064.74 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $2,282,067 $2,182,455 $2,246,744 $2,253,580 $2,352,224 $2,452,313 $2,537,661 $2,633,600 Hesulenual Accts 6,610 6,610 6,305 6,280 6,255 6,230 6,205 6,180 fluer:i+ t(y Ghc age .. 842 511. 842.:50 543 ?5 943 7:5 $A5 25 $46 T5 848 5: 9$1700 Senior Accts 2" 150 2,150 2 2,200 2,225 2,250 2,275 2,300 Quarterly CEtmrge $23.40: $21::40 624 O6, 824 416 $24 SS 825 7T 926 54: 927:541; Apartment Accts 3,515 3,515 3,510 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Quarterly Charge $29.75 $29.75 $30.63 $30.63 $31.68 $32.73 $33.78 $35.00 Non n scdential Water 285,000 290,700 296,500 302,400 308,400 314,600 320,900 327,300 RATE PER 7000 GAL $T.TO, 91;70' 9 [ 76 $1.70. 54:80 S7 30 :: $1,85: 8280 3) Miscellaneous Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 4) Miscellaneous Nun operating 4,270 557 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5) huen;st Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 0 101/11 REVENUFS $2,286,337 52,183,012 $2,24 $2,254,580 52,353,224 52,453,313 $2,538,661 $2,634,600 I PFiOJtrT6J3 1N4)ME QR �AS�ri s;48a,537! x.151,930 8329<.775 >! $I27,57;1> 175,.�::1�F 4424; 536: 817. Ei`SBA; >,. 5 _....,......_ ... :.,.. , 6) Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 238,419 165,450 102,470 79,759 64,402 36,949 33,888 ...4 NET INGOM6 Of LOSS $723 95G $317 �F40 $� 245 $207, 731? 4f3,f;1fi S2#i1�afi6 3:335,5?$; 195 #998 199 1999 .0�#2 v 1997< EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,419,193 $2,876,856 $1,766,723 $1,375,149 $1,110,378 $637,044 $584,277 $638,679 8) Capital Outlay (1,280,515) (1,697,605) (947,819) (657,500) (904,500) (510,600) (438,600) (673,600) 9) Net Income or Loss 723,956 317,440 424,245 207,730 240,616 261,566 290,848 335,579 10) Depreciation Add back 114,132 127,040 132,000 185,000 190,550 196 267 202,164 208,279 111 end Qf Year Cash 2 Inv ,$ 376 766 $1:,7641 723 31, 375;148 .< $1.1;10 37 @ $637 Q44 5584;37' 5638 f78 5508.#77 Unrestricted lnvestments 2,976,766 1,766,723 1,375,149 1,110,378 637,044 584,277 638,679 508,877 SANITA *SEWER RATE STUDY: 1998 OPTIO• • PuRaws%sewrat98 _- 06 -Oct- 97 1 199 197:: 198 :1199 200: 1: 95 2d?Ot 2042 EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 186,002 182,608 209,883 222,599 229,277 236,155 243,240 250,537 contractual survice 137,176 129,272 67,052 147,735 153,644 159,790 166,182 172,829 Supplies & Materials 11,110 8,515 20,444 18,750 19,688 20,672 21,705 22,791 Utilities /Insurance 24,960 25,813 21,590 27,525 28,351 29,201 30,077 30,980 Depreciation Expense 114,132 127,040 132,000 185,000 190,550 196,267 202,154 208,219 Capital Outlay S(ibtotal: City O &M Expense $473,380.00 $473,2 48.00 $450,969.00 $601,609.00 $621,509.62 $642,085.70 $663,358.99 $685,355.69 MCES Charges $1,32_ 7,420.00 $1,557,774. $1,475,000.00 $1,525,000.00 $1,555,500.00 $1,586,610.00 $1,618,342.20 $1,650,709.04 REVENUES 1 EXPENDITURES $1,800,800.00 $2,031,022.00 $1,925,969.00 $2,126,609.00 $2,177,009.62 $2,228,695.10 $2,281,701.19 $2,336,064.74 2) Billing Revenues $2,282,067 $2,182,455 $2,246,744 $2,343,460 $2,442,636 $2,527,548 $2,623,050 $2,745,490 He idenual Accts 6,610 6,610 6,305 6 280 6,255 6 230 6 205 6,180 flu ©rferty L'herce 342 50 $42;:50 3A3 75 945 25: $45 75 $48 25' 850 Of/ % X52 U(1: Senior Accts 2,150 2,150 2,175 2,200 2,225 2,250 2,275 ..... fluerterly Cfr�ege 523 405 523 40 524 06 824 89 825 7# 8Z6 84 827 5f1.: 528 :6U Apartment Accts 3,515 3,515 3,510 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Quarterly Charge $29.75 $29.75 $30.63 $31.68 $32.73 $33.78 $35.00 $36.40 Non residential Water 285,000 290,700 296,500 302,400 308,400 314,600 320,900 327,300 RATE . !PER 1000 GAL $1.70' $170 95 2 GG, 2.10< 3) Miscellaneous Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) Miscellaneous Non operating 4,270 557 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5) Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 0 l0/A1 RF VENLIFS $2, 286,337 $2,183,012 $2,247,744 $2,344,460 $2,443,636 $2,528,548 $2,624,050 $2,746,490 !'RQJ6G1� tNGpl�l5 Qi t p"�S!i S48�a,537j151 „3.Jg22.�'775 $217,#351;:;65 62729'8�a2 ; .... ,. .4.2, 4.9 4IQ,4251. 6) Interest Earnings (700% By 1996) 238,419 165,450 102,470 79,759 69,615 47,708 49,635 58,656 NET INCQIIJIf± pFi;t pSS 23 $317 4 $336'22 S3�t7 56i3 t 195 ~9s 1 �9sa�3 x0o( xoa xvaz EFFECT ON CASH & INVF_STMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,419,193 $2,876,856 $1,766,723 $1,375,149 $1,200,258 $822,550 $855,777 $1,011,315 8) Capital Outlay (1,280,515) (1,697,605) (947,819) (657,500) (904,500) (510,600) (438,600) (673,6001 9) Net Income or Loss 723,956 317,440 424,245 297,610 336,242 347,560 391,984 469,082 10) Del )re ciation Acid back 114,132 127,040 132,000 185,000 190,550 196,267 202,154 208,219 111 E nd: Qf Yeax Cash Ir,v $2.970,766 $1<756 723 37 49 _.. z �.::: 1 5,1 ... $1 200 X58. 5822 550 65ar7771 031 315 $7 Q16 _. UnresUicted Investments 2,976,766 1,766,723 1,375,149 1,200,258 822,550 855,777 1,011,315 1,015,016 BROOKLYN CENTER STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY • 1998 RATE REVIEW Background The City Council on November 12, 1996 adopted Resolution 96 -227, which established storm drainage utility rates for 1995. The Council annually reviews established rates for their adequacy and makes adjustments as necessary. The Phase I study of the City's storm drainage system, (Storm Water Management Plan) has been completed. The Phase II study is underway and will be completed in early 1998. An essential part of this process will be the anticipated development of a financial plan, which will be implemented in 1998 and subsequent years. Storm Drainage Utility Financial Performance, 1996 The storm drainage utility's financial performance in 1996 was not as good as anticipated. Although operating revenues and expenditures came in about as expected, greater than anticipated capital expenditures and a large unpaid assessment from the Metropolitan Transit left the retained earnings lower than originally anticipated. In addition, revenue bonds were not sold in 1996 to cover the special assessment portion of the project. • A financial management priori for the storm draina utility drainage utili is the accumulation of a minimum cash balance of $500,000. This balance is necessary to provide for adequate cash flow and provide flexibility in programming projects. If a $500,000 balance had been maintained in 1997, the impact of the unpaid assessment would not have been as significant. Operating revenues for 1997 are coming in about as expected and should be sufficient to cover expenditures. In addition, the aforementioned assessment from Metropolitan Transit is expected in 1997, as well as the sale of revenue bonds to cover the special assessment portion of the 1996 project. Capital Outlays Capital improvements scheduled for 1998 include: Completion of the Shingle Creek Regional Pond, storm sewer work associated with the neighborhood street reconstruction, continued work on Phase II of our storm water plan and other water quality improvements. Future capital and operating needs are still under study. The Phase II Local Water Management Plan is expected to be completed in early 1998. This study will include operating and maintenance recommendations, and a refined capital improvement program that includes water quality as well as neighborhood projects. This information will be essential to developing and refining the short and long term financial plan for the utility. • Options The schedule labeled Option 1 shows a modest increase in rates for 1998 and no increase in subsequent years. Future rate increases would be recommended upon completion of the second phase of the Water Management Plan. Recommendation For 1998, staff recommends Council adopt the rates shown in Option 1. Adopting Option 1 would result in a rate increase from $33.00 per base acre in 1997 to $36.00 per acre in 1998. The average residential quarterly rate per lot would increase from $8.25 in 1997, to $9.00 in 1998. RECOMMENDED QUARTERLY 1998 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATES Classification/Land Use 1997 1998 BASE RATE $33.00 $36.00 1: Cemeteries, Golf Courses 8.25 9.00 2: Parks 16.50 18.00 3: Single Family, Duplex, Townhouse 8.25/lot 8,25/lot 4: Schools, Government Buildings 41.25 45.00 5: Multiple Family, Churches 99.00 108.00 6: Commercial and Industrial 165.00 180.00 7: Vacant Land As As Assigned Assigned Table 2 details the 1998 storm drainage charges of area cities for residential properties. • • Table 2 1998 RESIDENTIAL STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATES CITY QUARTERLY CITY QUARTERLY RATE RATE Hopkins $9.50 Roseville $4.50 Richfield 9.25 Crystal 4.20 Bloomington 9.10 Robbinsdale 3.50 Brooklyn Center 9.00 Fridley 3.00 New Hope 5.00 Golden Valley 3.00 Note: Cities on the lower end of the quarterly rate scale typically fund only their watershed district dues, and in some cases some other minor operational costs for the utility. Cities on the upper end are actively constructing storm drainage improvements from the fund. e:I.eneAoubutil \rates \sdura198 • • 0 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE STUDY: 1998 OPTION: 1 12- Nov -97 PURA I ES:sdurat98 _ 06 O ct-97 ;1995. 199(2 199fi: >: 1998 1999 2W0 ZQDl 2002i' _ - EXPEJVDITURES _ _. 1) Operations $184,990 $204,969 $184,027 $168,932 $174,000 $179,220 $184,597 $190,134 Persunal Services 102,708 126,234 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 Supplies 25 858 900 500 0 0 0 0 Contractual Services 80,141 76,396 80,627 66,432 0 0 0 0 Insurance 2,116 1,481 2,500 2,000 0 0 0 0 Other Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Depreciation 5, 4_7 1 4 1,7 5 6_ 57,000 83,000 _ 87,150 95, 000 95,000 95,000 10 TAL E $190,461 $246,725 $241 $251,93 $261,150 $27 4,220 $279, $2 85,134 REVENUES - - - -- - - - - -- - 3) Billing Revenues $788,897 $822,980 $858,000 $936,000 $936,000 $936,000 $936,000 $936,000 REF Acres 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 BASS Rla1 PAR / CR S�0 . QO $ 2(70 $33 00 $9B 0Q 535 Qfl... $36 t $ 6 0Q> .. .... . Hesidential rate per lot $7.50 $8.00 $8.25 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 $9.00 Schools & govt buildings per acre $37.50 $40.00 $41.25 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 Multiple fancily & Churches per acre $90.00 $96.00 $99.00 $108.00 $108.00 $108.00 $108.00 $108.00 Commercial and industrial per acre $150.00 $160.00 $165.00 $180.00 $180.00 $180.00 $180.00 $180.00 4) Nonoperating Revenues ($18,044) $46,934 0 0 0 0 0 0 101A1 REV0V1JL -S $770,853 $869,914 $858,000 $936,000 $936,000 $9 36,000 $936,000 $936 ,000 NAT OP�RATIN(i INCQM6 $580,x;32 $623,189 b 616',973 $684,068 $f74 �a0:: 5661,70 8656,443 5654.865 5) interest Income 2 18,428 30,746 45,738 - - 1NCOME.AYAIt &OR C/iE*1TAE PROJtCTS $.580,32 ':$623 7'.$9 ;:' 8616;973 $$84 D$8C77 '74Q 2U8 _[- ;ssa.3!as 56;804 1 d9`v >i 19A�a ':> 1997 9.936 1:99 «R(]4E1f31:::.. EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 5) Start of Year Cash & Inv $2,019,251 $1,309,718 ($177,005) ($20,706) $49,831 $317,718 $530,095 $788,589 6) Capital Outlay ($1,204,471) ($1,150,000) ($1,058,327) ($943,000) ($531,250) ($611,950) ($536,300) ($747,200) 7) Net Income or Loss 580,392 623,189 616,973 684,068 677,740 680,208 687,149 696,604 Special Assessments $0 $0 $10,614 $10,159 $9,704 $9,249 $8,794 $8,339 Bond Sales /Prepays $0 $0 $600,603 $170,000 $262,500 $279,380 $244,200 $394,920 Receivable /Misc. 167,531 308,500 8) Debt Service (90,925) (198,815) (238,095) (242,190) (237,957) (239,510) (240,350) (240,500) 9! Depredation Add Sack 5,471 41,756 57,000 83,000 87,150 95,000 95,000 95,000 10) Entf of Year Casli & lnu 51:;309 718 (8177,005} f $20;706) 549,$31 5317 718:: $530 09:5 5758;589. X895;751 1998 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP RATES BACKGROUND Utility hookup rates are adjusted annually to account for inflation. This year the change in the Twin Cities Consumer Price Index was 2.8 percent. Accordingly, the proposed water and sanitary sewer hookup rates for calendar year 1998 have been increased 2.8 percent. RECOMMENDATION Approve the following hookup rates: Current Rates Proposed Rates Type of Property /Assessment 1997 1998 WATER HOOKUP Single Family Residence With S3,605.00 $3,706.00 Service* Single Family Residence Without 2,755.25 2.832.50 Service* Frontage (front 135 feet) $36.72 per front foot $37.75 per front foot Area (area outside front 135 feet) S11.33 per 100 square feet $11.65 per 100 square feet Service Hookup S850.00 5875.00 SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP Frontage S21.34 per front foot S21.94 per front foot Service Hookup 5850.00 S875.00 The difference between these two rates are: "With service" means a service was installed to the property line at the time the water main was installed, but the property did not hook up to city water and was never assessed for the service. "'Without service" means no service was ever installed. A property now choosing to hook up would pay the hook up charge to the city, and hire a private plumber to install a service out to the water main. • BROOKLYN CENTER RECYCLING UTILITY • 1998 RATE REVIEW Background The City Council on November 12, 1996 adopted Resolution 96 -228, which established recycling utility rates for 1996. The Council annually reviews established rates for their adequacy and makes adjustments as necessary. Recycling Financial Performance The recycling fund is primarily comprised of fees paid to Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) for recycling services and, the charges to individual households to cover those costs. Some incidental expenditures and revenues are included for container sales and supplies. Performance for 1997 is projected to provide for a net operating income of approximately $15,000. Rate Setting Considerations The Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) has established and approved its 1998 operating budget. In that budget, HRG has indicated that Hennepin County will not decrease the recycling entitlement currently given to all HRG Communities. As a result, HRG has indicated that there will be no need for an increase in fees for 1998. The' rate will be maintained at 52.15 per household per month. Recommendation It is recommended that the rate established for 1998 in table 1, be implemented as planned, Rates would be maintained as follows: TABLE 1 RECOMMENDED RECYCLING UTILITY RATES Recycling Rate Per Month 1997 1998 Residential Households (Per Month) 52.15 $2.15 Residential Households (Annual) $25.80 $25.80 Member Q introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1998 WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, a municipal Public Utilities Division exists for the purpose of providing and maintaining water and sanitary sewer facilities for the citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the City Charter that the Public Utilities Division be a self - sustaining entity through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges; and WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Ordinances state, "The City Council shall adopt by resolution schedules of water and sanitary sewer rates, fees, and charges which schedules shall be known as the Public Utilities Rate Schedule ". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following Water Utility Rate Schedule be adopted with the current rate maintained effective for all billings issued after January 1, 1998. WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE 1. WATER RATES BASE RATE AMOUNT PER YEAR 1.000 GALLONS 1996 $0.86 1997 $0.89 1998 Proposed $0.89 • RESOLUTION NO. QUARTERLY MINIMUM RATE 1997 QUARTERLY 1998 METER SIZE MINIMUM CHARGE CHARGE 5/8" x 3/4" $ 7 Same 3/4 $ 11 if 1 S 14 It 1 1/2 „ $ 18 it 2" $ 35 „ 3 11 S 70 4„ $119 6" $273 „ „ $ $515 10" $686 it 2. FEES PRESENT PROPOSED Water Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 550.00 Same 3/4" or larger Cost Plus 52.00 Same Fire Protection $50.00 Same Inspection Private Fire Hydrant Labor, Materials Same Maintenance Equipment and Overhead 3. CHARGES PRESENT PROPOSED Delinquent Account Greater of Quarterly 53.00 or 10% Same Certification to Taxes Per Account 530.00 Same Restoration of Service Monday to Friday Except Holidays • Between the Hours of 7 :30 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. 525.00 Same RESOLUTION NO. 3. CHARGES (continued) PRESENT PROPOSED Restoration of Service Anytime Saturday, Sunday and Holidays and Between the Hours of 3:00 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. on Monday Through Friday Except Holidays $75.00 Same Delinquent Meter Reading $2.00 1st & 2nd qtr. Same Per Account $5.00 3rd quarter $10.00 4th quarter (consecutive) Curb Stop Stand Pipe Repair $ 40.00 Same Hydrant Meters 518" x 3/4" Deposit 5100.00 Same Daily Rental S 1.00 Same Minimum Rental $ 20.00 Same 2 1/2 n Deposit 5700.00 Same Daily Rental $ 1.00 Same Monthly Rental 5100.00 Same Minimum Rental S 35.00 Same Date Mavor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1998 SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS. a municipal Public Utilities Division exists for the purpose of providing and maintaining water and sanitary sewer facilities for the citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the City Charter that the Public Utilities Division be a self - sustaining entity through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges; and WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center Ordinances state, "The City Council shall adopt by resolution schedules of water and sanitary sewer rates, fees, and charges which schedules shall be known as the Public Utilities Rate Schedule ". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following Sanitary Sewer Utility Rate Schedule be adopted with the proposed rate effective for all billings issued after January 1, 1998. SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE 1. RATES QUARTERLY RESIDENTIAL RATES SINGLE SENIOR YEAR FAMILY APARTMENT CITIZEN 1996 $42.50 529.75 $23.40 1997 $43.75 530.60 $24.00 1998 Proposed $45.25 $31.68 $24.89 NON- RESIDENTIAL RATES PER 1,000 FIXTURE YEAR GALLONS UNITS 1996 $1.70 $2.65 1991 $1.75 $2.75 1998 Proposed $1.80 $2.80 RESOLUTION NO. • 2. FEE PRESENT PROPOSED SAC Charge Set by MCES Set by MCES 3. CHARGES PRESENT PROPOSED Delinquent Account Greater of Quarterly $3.00 or 10% Same Certification to Taxes Per Account $30.00 Same Line Cleaning Charge Labor, Materials Labor, Materials Equipment and Equipment and Overhead Overhead Sanitary Sewer Hookup Established Established Annually by Annually by Resolution 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. • its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1998 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, it is a requirement of the Brooklyn Center City Charter that Brooklyn Center's municipal utilities be self - sustaining entities through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees, and charges: and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Services has reviewed the financial requirements of the Storm Drainage Utility and has developed a recommended rate schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following schedule of Storm Drainage fees will be in effect as of January 1, 1998: CHARGE PER QUARTER PER ACRE Classification/Land Use 1997 1998 BASE RATE $33.00 536.00 1. Cemeteries, Golf Courses 8.25 9.00 2. Parks 16.50 18.00 3. Single Family, Duplex, Townhouse I 8.25/lot 9.00/lot 4. Schools, Government Buildings 41.25 45.00 5. Multiple Family, Churches 99.00 108.00 6. Commercial and Industrial 165.00 180.00 7. Vacant Land As Assigned As Assigned • RESOLUTION N0, Date Mavor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1998 RECYCLING RATES WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is a member of the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG). which is a joint powers group formed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 1987, Section 47L59; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the joint powers agreement was to create an organization by which the member cities may jointly and cooperatively provide for the efficient and economical collection, recycling, and disposal of solid waste within and without their respective corporate boundaries, all in compliance with Minnesota Waste Management Act, Minnesota Statutes. 1987. Chapter 115A; and WHEREAS, the HRG has established a curbside recycling program for its member cities to meet the requirements of Hennepin County Ordinance No. 13, Solid Waste Source Separation for Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 89 -11 authorizes the City to establish rates for recycling services; and r WHEREAS, the HRG has established a rate.of $1'5 per month per household for recycling services beginning January 1, 1998, and WHEREAS, the rates for recycling services established by the HRG reflect the amount needed to fund the City's curbside recycling program after the projected reimbursement of recycling program costs from Hennepin County. 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the above described rates established by the HRG for recycling services are hereby approved. r Date Mavor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1998 WATER AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP RATES WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 74-45 and 77 -113 provided for the annual adjustment of water assessment rates for non - single- family residential and single- family residential rates, respectively; and WHEREAS, said adjustment in water hookup rates is to be effective January 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 88 -05 changed the month from which the annual price index change is to be calculated from October to'July; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that the change in the Twin Cities Consumer Price Index from July 1996 to July 1997 was an increase of 2.8 percent; and • WHEREAS City policy, based on Village policy established in April, 1956 i t ty P Z g P Y P s o calculate the cost of sanitary sewer hookup based on the average cost of a lateral system of sanitary sewers for a standard Village lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the water and sanitary sewer hookup rates effective January 1, 1998 will be as follows: Type of Property /Assessment 1998 Rate WATER HOOKUP Single Family Residence with Service $3,706.00 Single Family Residence without Service $2,832.50 Frontage (front 135 feet) $37.75 per front ft. Area (area outside front 135 feet) $11.65 per 100 sq. ft. Service Hookup $875.00 SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP Frontage 521.94 per front foot • Service Hookup $875,00 RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Service .� SUBJECT: Resolution Establishin Assessment Rates for Street Improvement Projects in Residential Areas in 1998 In accordance with the City's Special Assessment Policy, the City Council annually establishes assessment rates for street improvement projects. It is the intent of the Council that special assessments are levied against any property that can be deemed to benefit from such an improvement. Assessments for residential properties are made on a unit basis which applies to all single family residential ro ertie p p s benefittina y from any street ear, improvement project that P P J Y and are intended to represent a specific portion of the average cost of reconstructing a typical residential street. Assessments for non - residential or multiple family residential projects are computed separately for each project. • In 1997, the Council adopted a unit rate for street reconstruction of 2 000 er arc p o $ p parcel and for storm drainage improvements $650 per parcel that provided for an average 37 percent of the project cost to be assessed. Staff recommends the proposed assessments for 1998 be increased to a per unit rate for street reconstruction of $2,060 per parcel and for storm drainage improvements of $670 per parcel. Total assessments for 1997 would then be $2,730 per parcel, compared to $2,60 in 1997, a 3 percent increase. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction will apply to properties in R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned districts. These rates will also be applied to parcels of property in other land use zones when such parcels (a) are being used as one - family or two - family residential sites at the time the assessment roll is levied; and (b) could not be subdivided under the then - existing Subdivision Ordinance. I i S Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 1998 STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -34 established residential street and storm drainage special assessment rates for street reconstruction ro'ects; and P J WHEREAS, the residential assessment rates are annually reviewed and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the residential assessment rates should be adjusted annually to be effective January 1; and WHEREAS, the proposed street assesment rates for 1998 are equivalent to 37 percent of an average project cost; and WHEREAS the R -4 R -5 R -6 an -7 d R zoned districts should be assessed based on an evaluation of project cost and project benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The residential street and storm drainage special assessment rates for street reconstruction shall apply to properties in R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned districts. These rates shall also be applied to parcels of property in other land use zones when such parcels (a) are being used as one - family or two - family residential sites at the time the assessment roll is levied, and (b) could not be subdivided under the then- existing Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction effective January 1, 1998 shall be as follows: Land Use 1998 Assessment Rates R -1 zoned, used as one - family $2,060 per lot (street) site that cannot be subdivided $ 670 ge er lot storm drainage) P ( �) Resolution No. Land Use 1998 Assessment Rates R -2 zoned, or used as a two - family $27.47 per front foot with a site that cannot be subdivided $2,060 per lot minimum (street) $8.93 per front foot with a $670 per lot minimum (storm) R -3 zoned Assessable frontage x $27.47 (street) Number of residential units Assessable frontage x $8.93 (storm) Number of residential units 3. The residential assessment rates for street reconstruction shall not apply to R -4, R- 5, R -6, or R -7 zoned districts. The assessment rates for street reconstruction for R- 4, R -5, R -6, or R -7 zoned property shall be based on an evaluation of the project cost and the project benefit for each project. 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: November 20, 1997 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager ` r FROM: Diane Spector, Director of Public Service SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the Special Assessment Policy Regarding Streets in Commercial Districts Which Are Not Municipal State Aid Routes At the November 17 1997 work session, the Council discussed the City's special assessment policy regarding streets in commercial districts which are not designated as Municipal State Aid routes. The City's special assessment policy and practice currently calls for 100 percent of the cost of such improvements to be assessed to the abutting properties, compared to 70 percent of the cost for a state aid route. The Council was interested in comparing our policy to that of the City of Brooklyn Park. According to the Brooklyn Park City Engineer, for street reconstruction, 70 percent of the cost is • assessed to the abutting property owners, regardless of the type of street improvement. In other words, MSA routes, commercial streets, and streets are all assessed the same percent of cost. It was the Council's consensus that the Special Assessment Policy be amended so that 70 percent of the cost of improvements to streets in commercial districts be assessed, whether the street is a state aid route or not. Attached to this memo is an excerpt from the policy which would show the language as marked up and as amended. A resolution adopting the policy change is also attached. In summary, if the Council adopts this policy amendment, residential properties would be assessed a unit rate which is about 37 percent of the cost of an average project, while commercial and industrial properties would be assessed 70 percent of the actual cost of a project. City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy r 2. Municipal State slid Streets a. For properties that are not commercial or industrial in project areas which are primarily residential in character: 1. 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 totally 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 percent of the total project cost. The Brooklyn Center Municipal State Aid Fund regular account will be liable for the remaining 30 percent 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 percent of the total project cost, while the residential properties will be assessed in accordance with Subsection 2.a. of these policies. 3. Other Streets 1. Commercial and industrial properties abutting streets which are not designated as Municipal State Aid routes shall be assessed in the same manner as properties abutting State Aid routes, as detailed in Subsection 2.b above. 0 November, 1997 Page 4 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy U nless o therwise approved by th it Council. enefi in r U o s e City Co c b tt �p properties within this cate;ory will be assessed for 70 percent of the total project cost. The Brooklyn Center Municipal State Aid Fund local account will e liable for the r 0 p ercent of pr b b o e m 1?�p �� ct cost. I � 43. 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. 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 III. SUBSURFACE IMPROVEi\IENTS Subsurface improvements shall include water distribution lines, sanitary sewer lines and storm sewer lines, ponds, or other drainage improvements. A. Standards Subsurface improvements shall 1 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 November, 1997 Page 5 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY REGARDING STREETS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS WHICH ARE NOT MUNICIPAL STATE AID ROUTES WHEREAS, the City Council by Resolution 94 -274 adopted a Special Assessment Policy which incorporated numerous policies related to special assessments for improvement projects into a single document; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that commercial and industrial properties benefit from a street improvement in the same amount whether that, property abuts a street which has been designated a Municipal State Aid route or a street which carries no such designation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Special Assessment Policy is : hereby amended to provide that all street improvements benefiting commercial and industrial properties shall be assessed 70 percent of the total project cost, or a rate equivalent to 70 percent of the total project cost. This policy amendment shall serve as a general guide in determining the benefit conferred on commercial and industrial properties to assist the Council in making findings that a specific project has resulted in a special benefit to be assessed pursuant to Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: • whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. GENERAL POLICIES ........ ............................... 1 A. Initiation of Public Improvement Projects ........................... 1 B. History ................... ............................... 1 C. Financing and Assessment Policies Applicable to all Types of Improvements .... 1 SECTION Il. 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. Other Streets .......... ............................... 4 4. Alleys .............. ............................... 5 SECTION III. 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 ................ ............................... 8 C. Interest .................... ............................... 9 D. Termination ................ ............................... 9 • November, 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. ?. 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. • November, 1997 Page 1 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy • 3. Terms of special 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 II. 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. November, 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: i 1. For reconstruction or resurfacing f a residential street the v g 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 being calculated as follows: The R1 unit assessment shall be divided by 75 feet, to determine the front foot rate. The minimum assessment for an R2 property shall be the R1 unit assessment. P 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 R1 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. • November, 1997 Page 3 L� - City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy e 2. Municipal State Aid Streets a. For properties that are not commercial or industrial in project areas which are primarily residential in character: 1. 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 totally 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 percent of the total project cost. The Brooklyn Center Municipal State Aid Fund regular account will be liable for the remaining 30 percent 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 percent of the total project cost, while the residential properties will be assessed in accordance with Subsection 2.a. of these policies. 3. Other Streets 1. Commercial and industrial properties abutting streets which are not designated as Municipal State Aid routes shall be assessed in the same manner as properties abutting State Aid routes, as detailed in Subsection 2.b above. • November, 1997 Page 4 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy • 2. Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, benefitting properties within this category will be assessed for 70 percent of the total project cost. The Brooklyn Center Municipal State Aid Fund local account will be liable for the remaining 30 percent of project cost. 4. All ey s 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. b. The cost t assessed h project costs. 'es wh r o be shall include all For properties where a P J P P 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 III. 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 November, 1997 Page 5 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy • 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. a. For those properties zoned R1 or R2, the hookup fee shall be charged on a unit 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 November, 1997 Page 6 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy • 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. a. For all properties, the hookup fee shall be charged on a front foot basis. If the 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 November, 1997 Page 7 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy • 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.1.a. • e November, 1997 Page 8 City of Brooklyn Center Special Assessment Policy e SECTION IV. ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL PROGRAM There shall exist a program to defer a portion of the special assessments of qualifying persons under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195. Said program shall defer the payment of a portion of certified special assessments by property owners who are at least 65 years of age or older or who are retired due to permanent and total disability whose households meet certain financial characteristics. A. Eligibility 1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January 1st of the year in which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability. 3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as: a. An annual income for the applicant's household size which is at or below the "Very • Low Income" limit established annually by HUD for the Minneapolis and St.Paul Metropolitan Area; 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 - /2 percent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above 1 - percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred. 2. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure -to -pay charges for City services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments, assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not be included in calculating the maximum 1 - /2 percent aggregate payment defined in paragraph B.1. above. • November, 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 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. • November, 1997 Page 10 MEMORANDUM ge- TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director C H DATE: November 19, 1997 SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the Policy Regarding the Sanitary Sewer Rate for the Elderly Background The Brooklyn Center City Council initiated a Senior Citizen sanitary sewer rate by motion in 1978, extended it in 1980 and 1982, and adopted Resolution 83 -124 to put the current program into effect in January, 1984. A study had found that Brooklyn Center senior citizens used only 55% of the average water used by all Brooklyn Center residences. Water is billed based upon consumption as shown by the water meter, but sanitary sewer is billed as a flat rate to all homes. It was decided to create a senior citizen sanitary sewer rate which would be 55 % of the flat rate. To be eligible for the reduced sewer rate, the head of household or spouse must be 62 years of age or older, and no more than two persons may permanently reside in the residence. The maximum limitation of two may be exceeded if the additional persons are at least 62 years of age or disabled. In addition, each household must fill out an Application for Elderly Resident Sanitary Sewer Rate form and return it to the Utility Department by December 31 of each year. Analysis Each year, the Utility Department sends out approximately 2,175 applications to households which are already on the senior citizen rate so they may reapply. We often get comments from the citizens asking why we do this since "I got a year older, not younger!" We also experience a couple of dozen cases each year where for various reasons, the household doesn't return an application to us. We must then take them off the senior citizen rate and put them on the full rate. They become irate when the next bill comes and we must have them fill out the application so that we came put them back on the senior citizen rate. • In our experience, the only times when a household does lose the senior citizen status is when the ownership changes or when additional family members move in. We usually find out about ownership changes when they happen because the new owners come in to the Assessing Department to get the property listed in their name. Instances where additional family members move into a home happens a handful of times each year and the residents often are honest enough to report them to us prior to that year's application process. Rental Properties There are some properties which are rented out and the occupants meet the qualifications for age and number of persons in the household. This wasn't a concern in the past because landlords put the bill in the renter's name. The renter received the reduced rate directly. The City Council approved a policy change earlier this year stating that the utility bills shall be in the name of the property owner. It was the intent of the Sanitary Sewer Rate for the Elderly policy to benefit the occupant of the home, not to a non - resident landlord. The following procedures are proposed: 1. The landlord will apply on behalf of the senior renters and the renter will also be required to sign the application. This insures that the renter is confirming their qualification for the program and that the renter knows there is a benefit which should come to them. 2. Applications will be required annually to deal with the higher turnover in rental property and the fact that the city doesn't find out about changes in occupancy. j. The landlord will notify the City if that senior renter moves out in the middle of the year and reapply if the new renter qualifies for the program. 4. The landlord will agree to pass the benefit of the reduced rate through to the renter. A separate application for rental properties will be developed with features to insure compliance with the program. The City doesn't have a cross reference between rental properties and senior sewer rate properties. This prevents us from knowing how many such properties exist, but there are at least some. • Recommendation • One of the principles of internal control design is that the internal control shouldn't cost more than the potential loss it is intended to prevent. Considering the postage cost of mailing out 2,175 applications each year, the staff time involved, and the bad public relations caused by dropping from the senior rate two dozen households who didn't return an application, we have concluded that this internal control is costing more that it is worth. Dropping the annual application will result in a few household staying on the senior rate after an additional family member moves into the house. I am recommending that the City Council approve the attached resolution which discontinues the practice of requiring owner occupied senior citizen households to reapply for that status each year. They would still be required to apply once when they first go on the senior citizen rate. A new process is also established to continue to provide the reduced rate to seniors in rental properties. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE POLICY REGARDING THE SANITARY SEWER RATE FOR THE ELDERLY WHEREAS, the City Council found it to be in the best interest of the City to initiate a senior citizen sanitary sewer rate in 1978 and to adopt Resolution 83 -124 to put the current program into effect in January 1984; and WHEREAS, the City staff has evaluated the current program and recommended a change in operations to eliminate the requirement for seniors to reapply each year; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that a sanitary sewer rate for the elderly is established as follows: 1. The rate is available to properties being billed residential sanitary sewer rates and where the head of household or spouse has attained the age of 62 years or older and a maximum of 2 persons permanently reside there. • 2. The maximum of 2 persons in the residence may be exceeded by any additional persons who are at least 62 years of age or who are disabled. Residents of owner occupied homes applying for this program shall complete an application provided by the city once when entering the program and agree to notify the city of any changes in their household which might change their eligibility for the program. 4. Landlords of rental properties may apply for this program on behalf of their senior renters by annually completing an application provided by the city, agreeing that the benefit of the reduced rate shall flow through to the renter, and agreeing to notify the city of any changes in the rental of the property or the renter's household which might change their eligibility for the program. 5. Falsification of information submitted on the application or failure to notify the city of changes in eligibility shall constitute a violation of Chapter 4 of the City Ordinances and may be prosecuted according to Section 4 -501 of Chapter 4 of the Ordinances. 6. The sanitary sewer rate for the elderly shall be equal to 55 % of the rate established annually for single family homes. • RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM • TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director H DATE: November 19, 1997 SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting a Schedule for Certifying Delinquent Public Utility Accounts as Special Assessments to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls The City Council approved a change in procedure this year to use special assessment to the property taxes as a primary method of collection of delinquent utility bills instead of shutting off water service. We have just completed our first full special assessment cycle under this policy. The attached resolution approves a schedule for certifying delinquent utility accounts as special assessments twice during 1998. This is a change from 1997 when certification was only done once. We are attempting to fine tune the administration of this policy as we gain experience with it. One aspect of that is to find the best balance between inducing residents to come current with their payments verses the administrative burden of going through the process multiple times each year. A majority of the cities we surveyed last spring indicated that they only certify once a year. Most of the rest certify twice. A few certify more than twice a year. I am recommending that the City Council approve the use of certification for use twice in 1998, according to the attached calendar, as an experiment into the most efficient number of times per year to do assessments. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SCHEDULE FOR CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS AS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the City Council has found it to be in the best interest of the City to adopt Resolution 97 -86 which specified certification by special assessment to the property taxes as the primary means of collecting delinquent public utility accounts; and WHEREAS, minor elements of the process can change from year to year and can be better set in an administrative procedure approved annually by the City Council at the time utility rates are adopted; and WHEREAS, staff is proposing to certify special assessments on two occasions in 1998 as the best balance between prompt collection of delinquent accounts and efficiency in the collection process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the attached Utility Account Special Assessment Calendar for 1998 is adopted. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER UTILITY ACCOUNT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CALENDAR FOR 1998 1998 1998 FIRST SECOND ACTION ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT Mail original utility bill on or before 12/1/97 6/4/98 Mail delinquent utility bill on or before 12131/97 7/9/98 Delinquent utility bill due on or before 1128/98 7/29/98 Certification cut -off date (accounts pended by) 1/30/98 7/31/98 Mail notice of public hearing to property owner and Notice of public hearing must be published in official newspaper Request levy number 2118/98 8126/98 Public hearing 3/9/98 9/14/98 Deadline for prepayment without additional interest 4/8/98 10/14/98 Deadline for prepayment to avoid inclusion on next year's taxes 4/9/98 11/25/98 Deliver final certification levy roll to Hennepin County 4/10/98 11/30/98 pubuW \policies \ca lend ar.xls 11/19/97 10:49 AM City Brooklyn y f oklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Hilstrom, Lasman and Peppe From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager i Date: November 19, 1997 Re: Prosecution Services Pursuant to the Council's recently adopted schedule for reviewing legal services, solicitation was made for prosecution services. Each law firm in Brooklyn Center was sent a notice that proposals would be accepted and a notice was placed in the newspaper. We received 3 proposals from law firms. One law firm meets the requirement of having an office in Brooklyn Center by having its principle offices here. One law firm proposes to operate from its principle offices in Coon Rapids and use the offices of another law firm located in Brooklyn Center. The third law firm proposes that they would locate a branch office if selected, with principle offices in downtown Minneapolis. The fee structures are as follows: Carson & Cielland Brooklyn Center $70.00 per hour for attorneys Flat fee of $20.00 per complaint $25.00 per hour for legal assistants no charge for fax & photocopies Barra, Guzy, & Steffen, Ltd. Coon Rapids Option 1. Retainer equal to average of last 3 years (This would be approximately $115,000) 6 jury trials (beyond that and appeals at hourly rates) no charge for support personnel no charge for fax & photocopies Option 2. $90.00 per hour for attorneys $50.00 per hour for paralegals 530.00 per hour for law clerks 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, :YIN 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 Tallen & Baertschi • Minneapolis $75.00 per hour for attorneys Complaints at $37.50 for misdemeanors $75.00 for gross misdemeanors $40.00 per hour for legal assistants Photocopies 20 cents per page Charge for mileage Subscription for all officers of Minnesota Police Briefs Option: $110,000 per year - including 3 jury trials and one appeal $55.00 per hour above that Based on a review of these ro a would t proposal from Carson and Clelland. os is I o d recommend he ro p p p p The hourly charge is the lowest. We currently average 10 to 12 jury trials per year and the options offered by the other firms would generally result in a similar or higher charge than we have experienced with Carson and Clelland. The billings for the past three years have been: 1994 $112,137 1995 $119,825 1996 $113,040 including S2,399 of code enforcement/civil work Carson and Clelland is the only firm with its principle offices in Brooklyn Center providing the complete access to our officers for complaints and other service. The volume of activity requires a substantial presence in Brooklyn Center to handle the work flow of complaints. The service from Carson and Clelland has been outstanding. Both criminal prosecution and code enforcement have been handled efficiently and very effectively. There would be no advantage financially to the proposals from the other two firms and a reduced access to service. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RETENTION OF CARSON AND CLELLAND FOR CITY PROSECUTION SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT WHEREAS, the Council has previously directed the City Manager to solicit and receive proposals for the provision of prosecution services; and WHEREAS, in accordance with such directive, the City Manager has received three proposals and has selected from those proposals Carson and Clelland for consideration by the Council. and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed, the written proposal submitted by the firm which the City Manager has recommended for consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. that the law firm of Carson and Clelland is hereby selected and designated as the Brooklyn Center prosecuting attorney and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute a contract for prosecution services as set forth in the proposal for 1998, with renewals upon mutual agreement for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001 pursuant to the City Council's policy for reviewing prosecution services, unless terminated earlier by either the City or Carson and Clelland. 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. SECTION I. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The City of Brooklyn Center is accep p for legal Y p i p p y prosecution services for criminal cases for the City. Included in this RFP are the following: 1. A more detailed description of the services to be provided. 2. An outline of proposal requirements. Submitted proposals will be reviewed by a committee whose members will consist of representatives from those City of Brooklyn Center departments with ordinance enforcement personnel. This committee will make recommendations to the city manager. The city manager will review the committee's recommendations and will recommend to the city council no more than two firms as finalists for city council consideration. In order to insure a fair review- and selection process firms submitting proposals are specifically requested not to make other contacts to the City staff or council members regarding these proposals SECTION II. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS A. Proposals should be submitted to Sharon Knutson, City Clerk, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creels Parkway. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Proposals must be received no later than 4:30 p.m. on November 14, 1997. B. All proposals submitted must provide information as indicated in this request. Any other information that the proposer wishes to include for evaluation and consideration by the City as part of the proposal may also be included. SECTION III. REQUIRED CONTENTS FOR PROPOSALS A. Firm Background 1. Name of firm ?. Address(es), phone number(s), and FAX number(s) of the firm J. Brief history of the firm 4. Number of attorneys by their specialties �. Number of paralegals by their specialties 6. Number and position titles or supp personnel .p -i- 7. Description of office organization (organizational chart) S. Flow cha art of work process for municipal prosecution work B. Attorney Qualifications 1. Identify each attorney, paralegal, and support personnel who will be supplying services for which the City will be billed. ?. For each person identified, please state: (a) their relevant academic training and degrees (b) a description of their prior experience in prosecution of criminal matters and an estimate of the hours or percentage of their work in this area during the past four years (c) number of years with your firm, position title(s) and years in these positions, and areas of responsibility with your firm (d) other background or experience which may be helpful in evaluating your proposal A description of the proposed allocation of work between the attorney(s) and support persornlel identified (i.e., who will be the primary prosecutor and what work will be handled by junior partners, associates or paralegals). �. Current principal responsibilities for individual designated as primary prosecutor including a statement indicating future availability. A description of the availability of and identification of experienced backup prosecutors in the case of illness, turnover, or other loss of personnel. 6. A description of housing building code, fire code and nuisance enforcement experience. including results and recovery of costs and fees for the City. C. Firm Qualifications 1. The names and telephone numbers of three client references whom the City may contact. If your finn has represented any municipalities or governmental agencies during the last four _years, state the name of that municipality or agency and the name, title, and telephone number of a reference at that municipality or agency whom the City may contact. If your firm has represented such an entity but does not wish the City to contact that entity, list the name of the municipality or agency_ and state your reasons why no contact is requested. 2. A statement of how the workload of Brooklyn Center would be accommodated and what kind of priority it would be given. 3. Statement of total 1996 and 1997 year -to -date billings related to municipal prosecution services and percentage of municipal prosecution services to total billings. D. Fees 1. Your proposal for the dollar amount of fixed and/or hourly fees and costs your firm will charge for providing the legal prosecution services for criminal matters to the City of Brooklyn Center covered by your proposal. For the hourly fees portion of your proposal, please identify the hourly rate of each attorney, paralegal, and support personnel. Include a separate hourly rate for formal complaint processing. Also state separately the rate for any firm cost items to be billed (e.g., photocopying). ?. The City of Brooklyn Center requests monthly billing'statements which: (a) itemize the date of services (b) identify the attorney, paralegal and/or support personnel providing the services (c) list time spent (d) provide a detailed description of the services performed (e) state the fees for those services (f) organize billing for prosecution on the basis of case number (g) summarize monthly (and annually) prosecution costs by type of case If another billing format will be proposed. please describe that format and provide a sample. SECTION IV. PROSECUTION SERVICES DESCRIPTION The services and qualifications that are required for prosecution of criminal cases include, but are not limited to the following: A. Prosecution of gross misdemeanor. misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor cases, including traffic violations, DWI cases. theft, and code violations. B. Prosecution of all gross misdemeanor, misdemeanor, and petty misdemeanor cases that occur in Brooklyn Center and are initiated by the Minnesota State Highway Patrol. C. Drafting complaints representing the City at court appearances, including omnibus • hearings, pretrial conferences, court and jury trials, and post conviction hearings. D. Attorney staffing to represent Brooklyn Center in Division II court for the current assi of two to three days per week plus jury trials. E. Preparation of regular reports of prosecution activities and staff. F. Advise and consult with city inspection staff regarding abatement of nuisances and other City code violations. G. Meetings between the primary prosecutor and chief of police to review prosecution matters to occur every three to four weeks. H. Office located within city limits of the City of Brooklyn Center while under contract for prosecution services. I. Have a FAX machine located at your firm's office. J. The primary prosecutor for the City must have a minimum of at least five years experience. Experience will consist of at least weekly handling of prosecution matters in addition to the experience of prosecuting at least fifteen jury trials. • K. Support staff capable of issuing 900 formal complaints in a year with a two week or p p less turnaround time period to the police department. L. Support staff that can issue gross misdemeanor complaints immediately on persons held in custody. SECTION V PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD A. The City intends to award a contract to the proposer evaluated to be best qualified to perform the work for the City. Cost and other factors considered. Primary evaluation will be based on ability to provide competent and effective prosecution services. B. Based upon the evaluation, the city manager will recommend to the city council the selection of the firm judged to be the most responsive and responsible proposer. The actual selection of the firm and contract award will be made by the city council. C. The City shall not be liable for an expenses incurred by the proposer including, but not limited to. expenses associated with the preparation of the proposal, preparation of a cost proposal or final contract negotiations. D. The Citv of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to reject any and all proposals or to request additional information from all proposers. SECTION VI. CONTRACT EXECUTION • A. Contract Negotiations Notwithstanding a contract award, the City reserves the right to negotiate the final terms and conditions of the contract to be executed. Should the City and the proposer to whom the contract is recommended to be awarded be unable to mutually agree upon the entire contract, the City reserves the right to discontinue negotiations, select another proposer or reject all the proposals. Upon completion of negotiations agreeable to the City and the proposer, a contract shall be executed. B. Contract Ethics 1. No elected official or employee of the City who exercises any responsibilities in the review, approval or implementation of the proposal or contract shall participate in any decisions which affects his or her direct or indirect personal or financial interest. 2. It is a breach of ethical standards for any person to offer, give or agree to Give any City employee or council member, or for any City employee or council member to solicit, demand. accept, or agree to accept from another person or firm, a gratuity or an offer of employment whenever a reasonably prudent • person would conclude that such consideration was motivated by an individual, group or corporate desire to obtain special, preferential, or more favorable treatment than is normally accorded to the general public. 3. The firm shall not assign anv interest in this contract and shall not transfer any interest in the same without the prior written consent of the City. 4. The firm shall not accept any client or project which places it in a conflict of interest with its representation of the City of Brooklyn Center. If such a conflict of interest is subsequently discovered, the City shall be promptly notified. • PROPOSAL FOR PROSECUTION LEGAZ SERVICES FOR i TEE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Submitted by Carson and Cleliand, Attornevs at Law I i I TABLE OF CONTENTS Proposal Professional Resume of Jeffrey A. Carson . . . . . . . . Tab 1 Professional Resume of William G. Clelland . . . . . . . . Tab 2 Professional Resume of Ellen M. Schreder . . . . . . . . . Tab 3 Professional Resume of Ann L. Narbinsen . . . . . . . . . . Tab 4 Organizational Chart and Work in Progress . . . . . . . . . Tab 5 Survey of Attorney's Fees for Legal Prosecution Services Tab 6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tab 7 • The law firm of Carson and Clelland is pleased to accept . the invitation of the City of Brooklyn Center to continue to provide prosecution legal services. Our firm has had a long- standing commitment to the practice of municipal law, particularly including Prosecution. Our firm serves as attorney for seven suburban communities, representing many of them for more than 20 years. The firm will bring and maintain a high level of expertise and commitment to excellence as to the representation of the City Brooklyn Center. LAW FIRM BACKGROUND The law firm of Carson and Clelland, LLP, is located at Suite 305, 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, across the street from the Brooklyn Center City Hall and the Hennepin Count Bivision II Courthouse urthouse where the city's criminal cases are heard. The firm recently began its 19th year and has been located in the City of Brooklyn Center since its inception, first at 5901 John Martin Drive, and since 1982, at its present location. The law firm telephone number is 501 -2800, and the facsimile number is 561 -1943. The partners of the firm, Jeffrey A. Carson and William G. Clelland, were admitted to the practice of law in the State of Minnesota in 1972 and 1975 respectively, and have been associated with one another for the past 22 years. Mr. Carson and Mr. Clelland practiced law together as associates in another law firm from 1975 to 1979, during which time they were both prosecuting attorneys for the City of Brooklyn Center and other communities, and they formed their present law firm in 1979 as partners. In addition to the two senior attorneys who are partners, the firm • employs Ellen M. Schreder, who has been an attorney with the firm for seven years and Penn L. Harbinson, who was first a law clerk and is now an attorney with the firm. Law firm personnel also includes two full -time paralegals, two fu11 -time secretaries and a part -time secretary /bookkeeper. The firm is engaged in the general practice of law with a substantial commitment to municipal law and criminal prosecution. The firm devotes approximately 50% of its time for its municipal clients, providing both civil legal services and criminal. prosecution for the Cities of Spring Lake Park, in Anoka County, and the Hennepin County communities of Greenfield, Corcoran, Maple Plain and the Township of Hassan. The firm is also counsel for the City of Brooklyn Center, providing criminal prosecution services and related civil services and also is the prosecuting attorney for the City of Independence. Every paralegal and legal secretary has a vocational, technical certificate. The paralegal in charge of criminal administration, Ms. Susanne Tillman, has been with the firm for 12 years. She works exclusively as the paralegal in charge of criminal administration and the liaison between our firm and the police reports. She is responsible for managing and keeping track of all information and case files, drafting all Complaints, serving as the liaison between the prosecuting attorney and the city police departments for the selection and procurement of witnesses, 2 evidence and for related matters. Other support personnel of the • firm have been trained to perform these duties and are able to do so competently to both assist Ms. Tillman and to substitute for her at times of absence. An organizational chart and flow chart for work in progress is included as an attachment to this proposal at Tab S. Prior to forming their own law firm, Mr. Carson and Mr. Clelland provided civil and municipal prosecution services for the Hennepin County communities of Brooklyn Center, Greenfield, Corcoran, Independence, Medina and Maple Plain, and the City of Spring Lake Park in Anoka County. Upon the formation of Carson and Clelland in 1979, the Cities of Maple Plain, Corcoran, Greenfield and Spring Lake Park continued to retain the firm as its counsel. . The firm was pleased that the City of Brooklyn Center again selected the firm to serve as prosecuting attorney in 1989, continuing until the present. The Township of Hassan 'selected the firm as its township attorney in 1985, and the City of Independence selected the firm as prosecution counsel in 1995. The firm complements its municipal practice by also practicing in the fields of business, commercial litigation, real estate, personal injury, family law, banking and all aspects of trial work. Representative clients include Norwest Bank, Camden office, the MidAmerica Bank of Roseville, Iten Chevrolet Company and Iten Leasing Company and other well -known local businesses. • 3 The resources of the law firm include all photocopying facilities, computers, a facsimile machine and Westlaw and other means of computer research. Although the firm has never been a party to any proceeding arising out of any municipal or prosecution services, nonetheless, the firm believes that it is prudent to maintain professional liability insurance in the aggregate amount of $1,500,000.00. ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS The individual professional resumes of each attorney in the firm are attached to this proposal. As an introduction to those requmes, the firm is pleased to say that Jeffrey A. Carson and William G. Clelland have practiced law together for 22 years. Mr. Carson serves as the primary civil attorney for all municipal clients,, spending approximately 70% of his time on municipal work, • including attendance at all required council meetings, serving as general counsel to the city administration, staff and council members, preparing legal memoranda, Ordinances, Resolutions and other written material for the administration and counsel, together with the preparation and representation of all civil, municipal litigation matters in Court. Mr. Carson has extensive knowledge and experience in the areas of zoning, special use permits, variances, planning, land development, condemnation and special assessment projects and has also had extensive experience with liquor issues, both municipal and private. Mr. Carson also has a substantial business and civil practice. d • William 1 G. C ; Clelland serves s a chief rosecut_n p 5 attorney for the firm's seven municipal clients. The responsibilities p p nsibillties as chief prosecuting attorney, including the establishment and maintenance of lea negotiations atio P g ns standards for all cases, supervision of the associate attorneys who perform prosecution services, regular and ongoing liaison with the city staff, chiefs of police and police departments of each city in coordination of all prosecution services with the municipal police departments. In addition to serving as the chief prosecuting attorney for these communities, Mr. Clelland personally serves as the primary prosecuting attorney for the City of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Clelland was the prosecuting attorney for Brooklyn Center from 1975 to 1979 and was reappointed prosecuting attorney in 1989 and presently serves in that capacity. As his resume indicates, Mr. Clelland has tried more than 150 criminal jury trials which are in addition to the civil cases and trials conducted and has successfully negotiated literally tens of thousands of criminal cases over the years. Ms. Schreder and Ms. Harbinson serve as supporting prosecuting attorneys for the City of Brooklyn Center and each shares the prosecution duties for the Cities of Maple Plain, Independence, Greenfield, Corcoran and the Township of Hassan in Hennepin County and Spring Lake Park, in Anoka County. All attorneys in the firm are available for and competent in prosecution. In terms of organization, Mr. Clelland has the primary responsibility for establishing the guidelines for the initiation, supervision and prosecution of criminal cases, including decisions as to what charges, if any, shall be brought and the establishment • and maintenance of standards regarding appropriate plea negotiations, disposition of those cases according to the standards and the trial if the case is not settled. The law firm believes that plea negotiations gatiatiors serve a necessary and useful function to resolve cases according to their individual merits and characteristics, but also believes that negotiations must be conducted only in a responsible and conservative manner with just consideration for the rights of victims and the punishment of those adjudged guilty. The firm has always had a strong policy of involving and supporting victims and for the payment of restitution by offenders to the victims. Mr. Clelland, Ms. Schreder and Ms. Harbinscn each spend approximately 50% of their practice on prosecution and prosecution- related matters. HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT Mr. Clelland has always believed that one of the most important functions of a city prosecutor is worsting closely with city staff for the enforcement of city ordinances, particularly as they pertain to housing maintenance, zoning, health and sanitation and regulation of rental dwellings. Successful enforcement of these ordinances is vital if a community is to truly retain its quality of life. An inattention to this enforcement involves a decline in housing, a rise in crime rates, a decline in property values and damage to a city's reputation. o Over the years, Mr. Clel y -ard has worked closely with the Brooklyn Center staff, including Ron Warren, Brad Hoffman and City Inspectors Atchison, Fisher, Larson and others, as well as members of the police department to effectively enforce all of these ordinances. In 1996, when the city undertook an inspection of the exterior of all single- family homes, Mr. Clelland conducted training sessions for the inspectors and the Chief Code Enforcement Officer, Pierre Roddy, so that all persons would have some legal training as to the enforcement of the Code and more particularly, the initiation and maintenance of criminal proceedings where necessary. Although there was a high level of voluntary compliance, a number of citations had to be issued to recuire recalcitrant homeowners to remove junk vehicles, rehabilitate premises and generally clean up the properties. Often the court system has not treated ordinance violations very seriously. The court has adopted what is known as the "payables" list which are violations which can be paid with a nominal fine without a mandatory court appearance. Ordinance violations such as barking or unleashed or unlicensed dogs, failure to abide by a Compliance Order, possession of a junk vehicle and the like are citations which are payable. Issuing citations in this form would not have helped the City of Brooklyn Center resolve problems with recalcitrant homeowners since many would pay a nominal fine and the violation would remain. Recognizing this, Mr. Clelland counseled city inspectors to • write each citation and charge each offense as a public nuisance by reason of the underlying facts. The designation of an offense as a public nuisance requires a mandatory court appearance and thereby permitted the prosecuting attorney to ensure that the violation had been abated or corrected before the case was resolved. Although there was a high level of compliance, many citations had to be issued. In each case, the violation was corrected as a result of. criminal prosecution and in addition, our firm assessed a $100 fine to each homeowner to help reimburse the city for the expenses of enforcement. Fines were reduced only in cases of legitimate hardship, such as involving persons who are elderly and on fixed incomes or those who were indigent. Cn a much broader scale, M.r. Clelland is proud of his efforts in resolving the extensive an wide -scale problems with apartment complexes in the city, most notably Timber Ridge and Brookside Manor. As city officials know, the Timber Ridge complex declined significantly, both physically and socially, and became virtually uninhabitable by reason of the high incidence of crime and the physical dilapidation of the apartments and common areas. The owner, Harold Liefschultz was selling the property on a Contract for Deed to Andrew Grossman and Nicholas Forette. As the owner, Liefschultz had relinquished all of his responsibilities. The contract purchasers, Grossman and Forette, were receiving all of the rents but providing virtually no rehabilitation, maintenance or 8 upkeep to the property, such that it fell into extraordinary decline. Mr. Clelland personally initiated and maintained prosecution against Grossman and Forette, resulting in the conviction of both men and repayment by them to the city of a total of $8,000.00 in prosecution costs to reimburse the city for the enforcement. Mr. Clelland then undertook the successful prosecution of Harold Liefschultz and upon conviction, he paid $2,000.00 to the city, resulting in total restitution to the city of $10,000.00. In addition, the criminal prosecution and the civil enforcement prompted the sale of the property to James Soderberg, who has beautifully rehabilitated and restored the complex, such that it is now a great asset for the city. Last year, a similar decline was noticed at Brookside Manor and upon their non - compliance, Mr. Clelland personally initiated and completed criminal prosecution against its owners, Roger and Betty Anda. As a result of their conviction, in addition to rehabilitating the premises, Mr. Clelland negotiated the payment by the Andas to the city of the sum of $5,000.00 to reimburse the city for the enforcement. Recently, Mr. Clelland concluded criminal proceedings against the owner of Su.Tnmerchase Apartments for various unresolved violations. These violations have now been corrected, and the owner of Summerchase has reimbursed the city the sum of $1,250.00. Mr. Clelland has now begun enforcement efforts involving the High Crest apartment complex, and we expect to be similarly successful. 9 Mr. Clelland, along with the city staff, has always tried to maintain an excellent and helpful relationship with landlords in the city. Mr. Clelland has attended and addressed many meetings of the area managers as well as the owners of individual complexes so that problems can be discussed and resolved. However, in cases where a landlord has been recalcitrant and /or has refused to comcl77 with city Compliance Orders, there has always been effective, persistent enforcement resulting in the ultimate correction of the violation, conviction of the'offender and reimbursement to the city for its costs of enforcement. OFFICE LOCATION The firm has always maintained its office in the City of Brooklyn Center, at its present location across from city ha11 and the police department for the past 15 years. Having a fully - staffed, working office in close proximity is very important, because the police department visits cur office at least several times a day for the quick conveyance of reports and other information and officers will often come and wait for us to type Complaints which are needed on an immediate basis. All attorneys in the firm are available to draft Complaints and otherwise respond to requests for information or advice whenever it is necessary, and our proximity to city hall ensures a rapid and immediate response in all cases. ALLOCATION OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Mr. Clelland will continue as the prL Teary prosecuting attorney for the city with support from Ms. Schreder and Ms. Harbinson. Mr. 1� Clelland would also. serve as the primary attorney for areas of selected civil enforcement which complement criminal prosecution. As always, the firm will give the needs of the City of Brooklyn Center the highest priority. FEES Our firm bills each municipal client monthly, itemizing the date of service, the attorneys and support personnel providing the service, indicating the time spent on each matter, the fee charged and setting forth the description of the services performed. The firm will continue its regular hourly prosecution rate at $70.00 per hour for all criminal prosecution work. Our firm will continue its flat rate charge of $20.00 per Complaint for what we consider to be standard criminal Complaints. More complex or involved Complaints are billed at the attorney's regular hourly rate. The hourly rate of the legal assistant shall remain at $25.00 per hour. There is no additional billing for incidental costs such as routine photocopying or facsimile, but there shall be a billing of actual charges for out -of- pocket costs, such as the purchase of medical reports, service of subpoenas, any exceptional photocopying and Westlaw. The firm's hourly prosecution fee of $70.00 per hour compares favorablv with other suburban communities. Attached to this proposal at Tab 6 is a survey of 12 Minneapolis suburbs, showing that our firm's hourly fee for prosecution is at or below the prevailing rates, substantially in some cases. 11 Law =LM REFER.E.AtCES The firm is pleased to have the City of Brock-Lyn Center contact any persons listed at Tab ? of this proposal to discuss the firm's performance over the years. Respectfully submitted, CARSON AND CLELL.AND C- ,iiand PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF JEFFREY A. CARSON Jeffrey A. Carson is a 1972 graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School and entered the private practice of law upon graduation with the Anoka /Brooklyn Center law firm of Shieffer, Hadley, Bakke & Jensen. In 1976, the law firm divided and Mr. Carson remained in Brooklyn Center with the newly formed firm of Schieffer & Carson. In 1979, Mr. Carson and Mr. Clelland formed the present firm of Carson and Clelland with its office in Brooklyn Center. The law firm has always had an emphasis in the municipal field. Mr. Carson has practiced in this area extensively since 1972, presently acting as lead civil attorney for the municipalities of Spring Lake Park, Corcoran, Greenfield, Maple Plain and Hassan Township. His work includes attendance at council /board meetings, general counsel to municipal administration, staff and council /board members, preparation of ordinances, resolutions, legal memoranda and the conduct of civil litigation as required. Mr. Carson has worked within the eminent domain process in dozens of cases, mainly on behalf of the above - mentioned municipalities. Additionally, for the past two years, he has served as a commissioner and has been appointed by the Hennepin County District Court to hear and determine value or damages in several condemnation cases. As part of his municipal condemnation work, Mr. Carson has worked with relocation specialists and is familiar with the terms and requirements of the Uniform Relocation Act. Mr. Carson is familiar with and has practiced before many administrative agencies, including the Metropolitan Council, is Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and several county boards. Mr. Carson has extensive experience with municipal liquor operations and has acted as a special hearing officer for liquor license revocation proceedings. Approximately 70 percent of Mr. Carson's time is spent an municipal matters. In addition to his municipal practice, Mr. Carson maintains a limited e 'n 1 enera g 1 practic,. i._ the areas or real estate, land use, general business and civil litigation. He has also represented other municipalities when conflict situations arise. Mr. Carson is rated "A -V" in the Martindale - Hubbell legal directory, the highest rating available for practicing attorneys. • PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF WILLIAM G. CLELLAND William G. Clelland was graduated from the University of Minnesota with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1970 and then served from 1970 to 1972 in the United States Army stationed in the Pentagon in the office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Force Development. Upon return from military service, Mr. Clelland entered law school at the University of Minnesota in 1972 and was graduated in 1975. Upon his admission to the bar, Mr. Clelland began employment as an associate attorney ith the law firm -of Schieffer, Hadl Y r Y, Bakke & Jensen, later known as Schieffer and Carson which was substantially devoted to the practice of municipal law. Mr. Clelland's duties consisted of serving as prosecuting attorney for the Hennepin County communities of the cities of Brooklyn Center, Greenfield, Corcoran, Independence and Maple Plain and the City of Spring Lake Park in Anoka County in addition to developing a general civil practice. Mr. Carson and Mr. Clelland left the law firm of Schieffer & Carson in 1979 to form their firm of Carson and Clelland. The firm grew to three attorneys in 1983 and added its fourth attorney in 1989. When the firm of Carson and Clelland was formed, the cities of Spring Lake Park, Greenfield, Corcoran and Maple Plain remained municipal clients of the firm for whom Mr. Clelland continued to prosecute. In 1989, the City of Brooklyn Center awarded its contract for prosecution services to the firm, designating Mr. Clelland as lead prosecutor. in 1995, the City of Independence also selected the firm as prosecuting attorney. • For the past 22 years, Mr. Clelland has served as chief prosecuting attorney for these communities, developing and establishing the standards by which cases are initiated, prosecuted and negotiated. In addition to actually prosecuting cases himself, Mr. Clelland serves as the direct supervising counsel for the two associates who also prosecute. Mr. Clelland estimates that he has tried more than 150 criminal jury trials, more than 1,000 criminal court trials and literally thousands of arraignments and pre -trial conferences. In addition to providing prosecution services, Mr. Clelland has performed civil municipal services upon request, including service as labor counsel, further including the preparation and arbitration of grievances, contract mediation and interest arbitration and civil enforcement of city ordinances involving housing maintenance, Compliance Orders and the like. In addition to his municipal practice, Mr. Clelland practices in the fields of corporate and business law, personal injury, real estate, commercial law and all aspects of civil trial law. Mr. Clelland has personally tried more than 100 civil trials to conclusion and has represented a number of local businesses over the years, including Iten Chevrolet Company, Iten Leasing Company and their associated companies since 1980 and has performed general civil work for Norwest Bank Camden office since 1982 and the MidAmerica Bank of Roseville since 1994. For the past 11 years, Mr. Clelland has served as an arbitrator through the American Arbitration Association, hearing commercial and insurance cases. Mr. Clelland is a member of a panel of personal injury lawyers appointed by the Supreme Court to specifically hear and decide disputes regarding no -fault benefits between insureds and their insurance companies. Mr. Clelland also serves as an adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota School of Law teaching a course in the prosecution of domestic abuse cases and supervising student attorneys who serve as student prosecutors. Recognizing the serious problem of domestic abuse, and its widespread impact on society as well as its exceptional impact upon families, Mr. Clelland has worked for many years in the field of domestic abuse prosecution and enforcement and in that regard working closely with representatives of Project Peace, the city's domestic abuse service for the advocacy of victims. Mr. Clelland is particularly proud of his firm's accomplishment over the years of the effective prosecution of domestic abuse cases with the appropriate punishment of offenders, the extension of all possible services to victims and always with the encouragement for counseling, treatment and reconciliation as the parties desire. Mr. Clelland is rated "A -V" in the Martindale - Hubbell legal directory, which is a rating established upon the confidential rating of attorneys in the community. An "A -V" rating is the highest rating of legal ability and ethics which can be obtained. PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF ELLEN M. SCHREDER • Ellen M. Schreder received her Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice Studies from the University of Minnesota in 1984. Following graduation, she was employed as a courtroom clerk in the Hennepin County District Court for a year and a half, after which she became a correctional officer at the Hennepin County Adult Correctional Facility, commonly known as the workhouse. - Ms. Schreder began her legal studies at the William Mitchell College of Law in August, 1986, initially continuing her employment as a corrections officer and later working as a law clerk in the Hennepin County Attorney's Office and later as a judicial clerk to the Honorable John W. Borg and Gary Larson, Judges of the Hennepin County District Court. As a judicial clerk, Ms. Schreder's duties . were primarily in Family Court and involved reviewing pleadings and other various documents from attorneys and then drafting Fauni.ly Court Orders pursuant to the Judge's direction. Ms. Schreder completed law school in December, 1989, graduating with honors. Following graduation from law school, she returned to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office as an Assistant County Attorney for the prosecution of juvenile offenses. She was responsible for the initiation and prosecution of all juvenile matters involving all offenses from the least serious which are known as the petty misdemeanors to the most serious which are felonies. She personally processed nearly 1,000 cases the first year and handled cases in all phases, including decisions to charge or not to charge, investigation, plea negotiations and trial. She has actually tried 25 to 30 cases as court trials, since the juvenile system does not afford the right to jury trial. She has tried several jury cases while in the employ of Carson and Clelland. Ms. Schreder left the County Attorney's Office and joined Carson and Clelland in December, 1991, to afford herself the opportunity to develop a general practice, including the development of her practice in the area of family law, while still having the opportunity to serve as a municipal prosecutor. She spends approximately one -half of her time engaged in criminal prosecution and, under the guidelines developed by the firm, makes decisions as to the initiation of prosecution, the conduct of plea negotiations and the trial of cases not resolved. Ms. Schreder is the primary prosecuting attorney for the cities of Spring Lake Park, Independence, Maple Plain, Greenfield, Corcoran and the Township of Hassan in Hennepin County and serves as a back -up prosecutor for the other communities when the other prosecutors in the firm are not available. PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF ANN F-A.RBINSON Ann Haro i nson grew up in the City of S_ '< 7 _: _ where her parents st reside. She received a Bachelor's Degree in political science from the Tinivers-itv cf Minnesota in 1992, graduating Wi th honors. She began her legal sCudies a-- William Mitchell Collece 0 Z 7 aw Fa o 1993. There, She was active in student government and the Law Review where she was an Assistant Editcr cf the Law Rev'ew. She began wo-r1{1n 7- g a Carson a, e 4 Clelland in Scri cE 1995 as a law clerk. She grad : Law Schocl in the Boring (:)- 1 99 wi - la ud e , -'L-. hono magna == l aud e , and short1v af Qassing the Minnesota Eta Bar 'Exam, vegan wcrkina as an aT:tornev at Carson and Clell-=nd. Ms. Harh- spends over one-half of her time enaacTea -mi_ral - crosecut 4 1 on serving as the cr-mare crcsecu` I__ra - -::J _ __rnev -' IZ he Cities of Corcoran and C-reen �L L - _1 4 - and fo r the 7owns'.-1 ­io of Hassan. She a so ser as a '--ack u�:� -,rosecuLcr for the Cities c Mazle ?lain, indecendence, ­7 -C� ',�e Ce and S-_ Wnen 7 -- crosecu in the - -Firm are unavaila' !e Her work as a prosecutor involves drafzina and reviewing ccmclaints, neact-Jazlons W-L,_­ a­_ and pro se def"endanzs, witness preparation and triall. She '­as - -_rigid 4 Sever _J , ury and numerous COU-Z Ms. :;_rbnson also trace -ces -ne cz:ner- f__= I'- areas cf commercial a c - a rd y or aniza[lonal Chart and Work in Procyress Wiiliam G. C!elland -imarl and Sucervisin Attc Eisen M. Sc7reder Ann L. Harbinscn Asscciate At�temey Asscciate Aherne i Susanne Tiilman e = r'.CmInlSirallVe ,�.- sisiani' i City Staff and Incoming Renor:s Susanne Poiice Department Requests for Complaints —� Hsu ne Tiiiman William G. Cie;land Inquiries Ellen'vl. Schreder Ann L. Haroinson Compiaints Drafted Case Preparation Witness Selection Attornev Reuly — rte William G. C elland i M. Schroder �zn L. Haroinson i Direct Requests for :-advice end Le2a1 Se �nornev Reuiv i SURVEY OF ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR LEGAL PROSECUTION SERVICES In connection with this Request for Proposal, our firm surveyed 12 municipalities adjacent to Brooklyn Center as to the hourly rate charged by their attorneys providing prosecution services. The survey shows that the firm of Carson and Clelland has among the lowest hourly rates. CITY HOURLY RATE Fridley $70.00 Crystal $80.00 Brooklyn Park Flat annual rate: $175,000.00 Hopkins $75.00 Plymouth Flat rate of $15,450.00 per month Maple Grove $82.50 Robbinsdale $95.00 Golden Valley $80.00 Edina $95.00 St. Louis Park $67.25 Richfield $65.00 Eden Prairie $65.00 to $100.00, depending upon attorney seniority. Brooklyn Center $70.00 REFERENCES The law firm of Carson and Clelland is pleased to invite the City of Brooklyn Center to contact these clients of the firm for information about the firm and its performance over the years. City of Brooklyn Center Michael McCauley 569 -3300 City Manager Scott Kline 569 -3333 Chief of Police City of Spring Lake Park Barbara Nelson 784 -6491 City Clerk /Treasurer David Toth 784 -6491 Chief of Police City of Maple Plain Donald Loebrick 479 -0500 City Clerk /Treasurer Larry Bailey 479 -0500 Director of Public Safety: City of Corcoran Stacy Doboszenski 479 -2266 Administrator City of Greenfield Gail Lippert 477 -6464 Administrator Township of Hassan Gary Morrison 428 -4100 Administrator Iten Chevrolet Company Peter Iten 50'1 -9220 Marty Iten 561 -9220 Norwest Bank Camden David Norris 60'7 -3431 Vice President PROPOSAL FOR PROSECUTION SERVICES CITY OF BROOKLYN" CENTER TALLEN & BAERTSCHI 4640 IDS Center 80 S. Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 -2224 Telephone: (612) 337 -5577 Facsimile: (612) 349 -3995 November 11, 1997 Proposal for Prosecution Services for the City of Brooklyn Center The law firm of Tallen & Baertschi hereby proposes to provide prosecution services for the City of Brooklyn Center. Questions concerning this proposal may be addressed to Paul Baertschi or Steven Tallen. 1. Firm Background Tallen & Baertschi is a law firm devoted primarily to municipal prosecution. The firm consists of Steven M. Tallen and Paul D. Baertschi as partners, Philip C. Carruthers, who is "of counsel," and two legal assistants, Marijo Witte and Jacqueline Scott. The f= currently handles misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor prosecution matters for the Cities of Medina, Loretto, Robbinsdale, Rockford, Maple Grove, and the Lake tilinnetonka Conservation District. Tallen also serves as Special Assistant Prosecuting attorney for the Cities of Minneapolis, Hopkins, and Minnetonka, prosecuting cases in which the City Attorney's Office have a conflict of interest. Philip Carruthers is the prosecuting attorney for the Cities of Deephaven and Woodland. Baertschi currently is the chief prosecutor for the City of Robbinsdale. Ron Latz is an attorney with whom Tallen & Baertschi has had an on -going contractual relationship to handle various court matters when there are scheduling conflicts. Between the four attorneys, we have over 44 years of experience as prosecutors. We are experienced attorneys who have made a commitment to representing our, clients' best interests in the area of municipal prosecution. As experienced prosecutors, we will be ready to assume our duties on the first day of our appointment. There will be no period of decreased efficiency while we learn our way around the courthouse or police station. In fact, there would be some increased efficiency since we currently prosecute for two other major cities at the Brookdale Courthouse. All attorneys are available to city police officers during non - business hours. Telephone lines are forwarded after business hours to an answering service or pager. Home numbers will also be made available to the police department. The work process or flow chart for municipal prosecution work varies with the task. Requests for formal complaints are received by the legal assistant and logged in with a date and number. The legal assistants prepare the initial draft of most complaints to keep expenses to a minimum. The attorney reviews and revises the draft complaint, which is finalized, sued, and sent to the police department for signature and filing. Legal assistants calendar trial dates and issue notices and subpoenas to witnesses. Legal assistants send victim impact letters to crime victims. Routine questions are often handled by the legal assistant, but the prosecutors directly confer with witnesses and victims to clarify facts and gather input for handling the case. Research work is either done by the attorneys through the use of library resources in the office or at a law library. In addition, we have Westlaw and Minnesota law on CD -ROM in the office for very cost - effective research. We occasionally use contract law clerks on complex issues. Finally, we have a file of memoranda on various topics, and the Minnesota Police Briefs newsletter, which is prepared by Paul Baertschi, for research assistance. Minnesota Police Briefs is a summary of all criminal law cases and has been published monthly since 1988. It is a valuable source of information on developments in the Courts as well as new laws. Our office is located at Suite 4640, IDS Center, Nlmneapolis. A branch office would be located in Brooklyn Center to be staffed as the needs of the City require. II. AttorneyOualifications See the attached resumes for the detailed background of each attorney. Paul Baertschi has been a prosecuting attorney for 15 years. Baertschi has tried hundreds of court trials, approximately 50 jury trials, and has argued ten cases before the appellate courts. Baertschi edits and publishes "Minnesota Police Briefs," a monthly newsletter of recent court decisions directed to police and other criminal justice professionals. (A copy of the most recent issue is attached.) He has also lectured at the Minnesota Criminal Justice Institute. Baertschi is the principal prosecutor for the City of Robbinsdale and the City of Rockford (Hennepin County portion). . Steven Tallen was a police officer for the City of Golden Valley from 1975 through 1985. From 1986 through 1992, Tallen's practice was essentially full -time municipal representation with misdemeanor prosecution accounting for approximately 90 percent of his time. The remainder was devoted to other police- related projects such as the drafting of ordinances, nuisance abatement, police training, and civil representation of our client cities in police - related litigation. Tallen has also been active in the area of continuing education for attorneys, speaking at numerous legal seminars on drunk driving prosecution, and the relationship between the prosecuting attorney, the police, defendant, and the courts. At the present time, Tallen is the chief prosecutor for the Cities of Maple Grove, Medina, Loretto and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Tallen has tried literally hundreds of court trials, over 50 jury trials, and argued more than 20 criminal cases before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Perhaps, because of his police background, Page 2 Tallen has enjoyed exceptionally good relationships with his police clients. Tallen has the commonality of experience to appreciate and understand the needs and concerns of the line officers and supervisors. Philip Carruthers is the prosecuting attorney for the Cities of Deephaven and Woodland. Carruthers is a member of the Minnesota Legislature. While the Legislature is in session, Tallen acts as the principal prosecuting attorney for those cities and Baertschi serves a backup prosecutor. We have substantial experience in Code enforcement and nuisance abatement, having tried and obtained injunctions against an illegal junk yard, gravel mining and residential waste storage, to name a few. Reimbursement for clean-up costs were ordered in some cases where the City incurred that expense. Further detail is available upon request. III. Work Allocation We propose that Paul Baertschi be the chief prosecutor for the City of Brooklyn Center. In that capacity, Baertschi would review and sign complaints, would be the principal contact with the police department, and would be the principal attorney handling the prosecution services, including arraignments, pretriais, jury trials, and court trials. Services would also be provided by Tallen, Latz, and Carruthers. We anticipate that Baertschi will handle 65% to 75% of the work personally, including approving complaints, handling arraignments and trials. Tallen will personally handle most of the remaining work. The balance of work would be performed by Latz and Carruthers. 'We do not anticipate that the above work allocation will change as long as the City is satisfied. y IV. References City of Medina Interim Chief Ed Belland 2052 County Road 24 Medina, N N 55340 Telephone: 612-473-9209 Rick Rabenort (Medina chief until approximately June 1, 1997 and now Chief of Police for the City of Red Wing) Telephone: 612 -385 -3131 Page 3 Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distract Captain William Chandler Hennepin County Sheriff's Department Box 187 4141 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Telephone: 612- 471 -8528 John Spetch Chief of Police City of Robbinsdale 4101 Hubbard Avenue North Robbinsdale, MN 55422 Telephone: 612- 537 -4534 Laurel Hersey Assistant City Attorney City of Minnetonka 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 -1597 Telephone: 612- 939 -8200 Sharon Gerhman- Discoll Hennepin County Chapter Administrator Mothers Against Drunk Driving 8700 West 36th Street St. Louis Park, NIN 55426 Telephone: 612-938-0700 Suzanne Murdock District Court Supervisor Hennepin County District Court Division 3 12601 Ridgedale Drive Minnetonka, MN 55305 Telephone: 612- 541 -7000 Harlan Johnson Chief of Police City of Deephaven 20225 Cottagewood Road • Page 4 Deephaven, MN 55331 Telephone: 612 -474 -7555 Sherman Otto Chief of Police Maple Grove Police Department 9401 Fernbrook Lane Box 1180 Maple Grove, NiN 55311 -6180 Telephone: 612 -494 -6100 Please feel free to contact any of the above references. All the municipal references listed above have received direct legal services from Tallen & Baertsclu. Others listed have worked closely with Tallen & Baertschi for an extended period of time and can comment on work quality and commitment to excellence in prosecution services. V. Billings for Municipal Prosecution Work • Billings for municipal prosecution work are estimated at the following percentage for 1992 through 1996. 1992 70% 1996 80% 1993 -1996 80% 1997 80% V1. Fees Option 1. Hourly Fee Proposal We believe standard hourly billing rates are preferable to a fixed fee as the City pays only for actual work performed. In addition, since we prosecute for two other major communities at the Brookdale Courthouse, we would anticipate a reduction in time currently being billed to the City due to scheduling efficiency. A. Attornevs Work performed by attorneys would be billed at $75 per hour in increments of one -tenth of an hour. Pa 5 B. Legal Assistants Worked performed by legal assistants would be billed at $40 an hour. Legal assistants only bill for tasks that would normally be handled by an attorney, but can be effectively handled with proper training and experience as a cost and time savings. C. Complaints Complaints would be billed at'' /2 hour of the attorney rate for a misdemeanor complaint and an hour for gross misdemeanor complaints. Legal assistants' time for complaints would not be billed. D. Expenses Photocopying would be billed at $.20 per page, and Westlaw fees would be billed at actual cost to the firm. Mileage reimbursement would be at standard rates established by the Internal Revenue Service (currently 31.5 cents per mile). E. Miscellaneous The firm would provide at no cost to the City a subscription for all sworn police officers to Nlinnesota Police Briefs. This publication keeps police officers up -to -date on the developments in the courts and Legislature on criminal law matters and is printed on a monthly basis. Option 2. Flat Fee Proposal This option calls for a $110,000 annual fee plus expenses covering all services imcludimg up to three jury trials per year and one appeal. If, due to unusual circumstances, there are more trials or appeals, the City would be billed at $55 per hour for the additional matters. The reduced hourly rate is designed to distribute between the City and the firm the financial risk of handling additional trials and appeals beyond the expected number. This proposal removes financial incentives to either plea bargain too much on the one hand, or try more cases on the other hand, since the hourly rate is lower than normal. A subscription for Minnesota Police Briefs would be included in the flat fee. There would be no additional fees for preparing complaints or other services. VII. Prosecution Services We pride ourselves in rendering consistent, high - quality prosecution services to our municipal clients. We are extremely knowledgeable prosecutors with the Pale 6 commitment to excellent communication and training. Seminars and special topics will be provided at the City's request. When developments that require urgent attention are occurring, we will communicate those matters promptly to the police department via a fax alert. Reports on prosecution activities can be prepared as needed. We are always alert to cost - saving measures regardless of whether it is in our financial interest to do so. For example, Tallen successfully lobbied for changes in criminal rules several years ago that resulted in being able to tab charge gross misdemeanor complaints for drunk driving. This resulted in less work by the firm in the prosecution area and cost saving's to our clients. Our commitment is to provide efficient and cost - effective services. We are aware of and are sensitive to police departments' needs to save costs on police over -time where possible and attempt to obtain a reasonable amount of fine revenue for the City. We are proud of our record in enhancing fine revenues for the cities that we represent. We also realize that one usually cannot measure the quality of service in economic terms, but more so in achieving the important, but intangible goal of justice. Costs such as incarceration expenses may be necessary to achieve this goal. We have conducted prosecutions for city code violations and other nuisances and have also handled civil enforcement. We can provide services in both areas if requested and can advise on the relative advantages and disadvantages of proceeding by civil enforcement. MITI. Conflict of Interest Tallen & Baertschi does not represent any governmental units that would pose any foreseeable risk of a conflict of interest. We are very alert to issues of the appearance of impropriety, as well as actual conflicts -of- interest. Whenever a name is encountered that may be a conflict of interest, careful checks are conducted to identify the conflict. A referral to an independent attorney is made for handling any conflicts. We would anticipate utilizing prosecutors that represent clients in the same Court division when referring to outside attorneys for conflict of interest. We are happy to confer with the City either in advance or on an ad hoc basis in terms of those attorneys selected for conflict work. We are careful to avoid such conflicts and would more likely err on the side of protecting the integrity of the process than otherwise. IX. Non-discrimination By submitting this proposal, we certify that neither Tallen, Baertschi, Carruthers nor Latz discriminate against any person in violation of any federal, state, or local regulations. PaQ g e 7 RESL OF PAUL D. BAERTSCHI 46.10 IDS Center 30 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, NE - (613) �3 -5-77 Facsimile (612) 349 -3995 E''ERIENCE. 1991 - Present TALLEN+ & BAERTSCI7- (1993 to present); BAERTSCHI & ASSOCIATES (1991 to 1993),'Minneapolis, '_'v '. Criminal law practice: Chief prosecuting attorn ey for the =ties ofRobbinsdale and Rocl6ord. Assistant prosecuting art omev for the City ofyiaple Grove. 193 ATTORti`EY (Nember - Board of Directors, 199 1) HOLMES & GR.�V +, CI-i_\.RTERED (1989- 1991); L .:EVERE, LEFZEIZ, INTNTEDY, O'BRI=` & DR.AWZ (1987- 1989),.�1inneanolis, NIiinresota. Positicn with Holmes & Graven practicing in the areas of prosecution, municipal law, litigation and criminal defense. o _ 1 .983 - 1987 yCCTC ��'T QZ'ti i TO IS _N= COLN - Ty ATTORvr-Y'S OrrICE, Cambridge, 2 esota. Senior Assistant County Atz crney position handling felony, gross misdeineancr and misdemeanor prosecvt`ons. 198 -1- 198 a 77 n FREDERICK R. KOPPLL�+ AND ASSOCIATES, lfinneapoiis, tifinnesota. Position INith dtigation emphasis including family law, business drzaricn. =:mmal defense and appeals. 1931 - 19s -i CjC74N CT4 i r'C A7 7.�CI{SON+ COT_N STA��'S ATTO -NEY'S OFFICE, IuTphyscoro, Illinois. First Assistant State's A -tome; in six a torrev office handling c.:r;unal prosecuticn including felonies, rnisdemeaners and juvenile; civil res�ensibilities including advisupg county board and officers, aariinis rea;ew and appelate wcr - :c; supe ^rised lax cierks. 19S i _1770R �N�ST CEN�� LIE CIS LLGA:. .SSIS ��'CL, C-alescur , "i�iin0is. o ve. ^. s v and a l ulr la litigati cs on: ae�re :eped <rareus iticr, pract d c r -his new 'e ?ai aid c�.e super•�ised ser:cr `c=,,s and once prec° ores _ tee., �QL'Cat :Cr CrCIeC; C:reC Cr a-�d VCIL' itv�;S. EDUCATION: cQ uthen, Min is T'rivennt Scboo fT.aw• J.D. May, 19 9. R- adie;{ U ritierSity B. lnu istration of Criminal Justice, December, 1974. attended 1972 - 1971. ACffiEtiTE Creator and editor a ,esQta police Beefs ", a monthly subscnption- based legal newsletter on criminal law. Subscribers include most major police departments including the State Patrol and private attorneys. Author, 1990 DWI chapter of the Law Enforcement Training '-Manual for the lvfnnesota County Atornev's .Association. Lecturer at the C riM inai Justice Institute, August 1991 on -Minnesota Supreme Court dew signs. PUBLICATIONS: "Resisting Enhancement: Collateral Attacks on Guilty Pies", Be ^cn and Bar, November 1983. `'high Speed Pursuits"', yFrn s to Eaai ,� December 1988. • RESL OF I STEM —& l i. TALLEN PE TORtitAT10r BOM: September 16, 1949 Admitted to the Minnesota State Bar: May 22, 1981 B.A. (1975) University of Minnesota J.D. (1981) William Mitchell Colle;e of Law ao nx-� SS jQY �L EXPERIE�+CE 1994 - Present: Tallen & Baertschi 1992 - 1995: Attornev, Carruthers & Taller - Partner 1989 - 1992: Attorney, Holmes & Graven, Chartered - Dire ctor Chief prosecutor for the cities of Plymouth, Medina, Loretto and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Special Assistant City Attorney for the City of Minneapolis handling conflict cases. 1985 - 1989: Attorney, LeFevere, Lerler, Kerinedv, O'Brien & Drawz, a Professional Association - Associate 1981 1985 Attorney, Sale P tactitioner 19;5 - 198 Police Officer, City of Colden Valley, Minnesota PR0FESSIOr AL ; kFFII:LATIOv: linnesota State Bar Association f ennepin County Bar Association Hennepin County Suburban Prose--utcr's Association Arbitrator, American A- bjl ration Asscc:aticn C— D D4 FORtiLkTION: Member, Ninnesota DRZ Task Force Instisctor, -Nfinnesoca State Judicial T_-aining School Lecturer, Minnesota Ins ""tute of Legal = ducaticn, and numerous POST ce ='� -led seminars pHILIP C. CxR- RL"IHERS E,UERMN CE: 0 1394 - Present: Of Counsel, TaLen and Baertschi i992 - 1992: Partner, Carruthers & Tallen 1985 - 1992: Parmer, Luther, Ballenhin & C=Uthers 1982 - 1984: Partner, Nichols, Starks, Carruthers & Kaster 1979 - 1981: Associate, Nichols and Kruger My practice consists of criminal prosecution, general civi.I and business litigation, and insurance law. I have served as the prosecuting attorney for the cities of De=haren and Woodland since 1979 and as assistant prosecutor for threw other local Bove- rnments• I have substantial trial and appeal court experience in both crir,zirai and civil rases. EDU CATION: 1979 J.D., University of Minnesota Law School 1978 - 1979 Note and Comment Editor, Minnesota Law ReV' N 19 7 5 B.A., University of Minnesota Nfaior: Political Science 1974 Phi Beta Kar>va 1390 Graduate, Joint Taal Advocacy Course for Prosecuting and Defense A iornevs, sponscr°,d by M =eseta Count; Attoneys' Association BAR ,ADMISSIONS: 1979 State of Nfiuinescta, Federal District Court for the Disu ct of I E=escta, and the Eizhh Circuit Court of Appeals PUBLIC SERVICE: 1987 - Present Member - Nf nneseta rouse of Rerr°sentaz ves - Disu ct 47B (Bros I Center and Brooklyn Par's) E1erted in 1986 and re- elected in 1983, 1990 and 1992 Elected Hcuse Nfaicrity Leader in 199 1983 1985 Member - tiietropolitan Council of Twin Cities Area AWARDS AND HONORS: 1991 Legislator of the Year, Mnnesota Peace and Police Officers Association, for work in the criminal justice field 1992 Government Leaders Against Drunk Driving Award, given by the Minnesota ILADD Chapter for Iesiative work in combating drunk driving AV rating, Martindale- Flubbell Law Dictionary (Rating of "Very High which is generally the highest rating, in both Legal Ability and General Recommendation PROFESSIONAL ORGA,rZZATIONS: Member, Hennepin County and Minnesota State Bar Associations Member, National District Attorneys Association • Member, Minnesota Trial Lawyers Assc�iation 1990 199 Barrister, Warren Burger Inn of Court 19SS - Present A bitrator, American A.rbitmt:on Asscciation RONALD S. LATZ PROFESSIONAL. At' ornew?artner Latz & Latz, 1995-present went tz, p EXPERLEitiCE: Cciminal prosecution throw: Tallen & Baertschi; employment discrimination; criminal defense; personal injury; civil litigation. Assistant Attornev General State of Minnesota 1989 -1995 Public Safety Division 1990 -1995 Implied consent trial prosecution and appellate advocacy; Administrative Hearings; Legislative work; Client advice; Driver /vehicle services; Crime victims; No -fault L-is ran ee. Human Services Division 1989 -1990 • Chemical dependency, mental health and licensing units. Drug ruse Resistance Education (D.A_R_E.) 1989 -1995 • Represented the Minnesota DARE. Advisory Council on legal, policy and non -profit corporation matters. Associate Artornev. Robert Latz, P.A., Minneapolis, �vN 1988 -1989 • Plaintiffs sex discrimination class aeon lawsuit in federal court; Legislative lobbving for small business trade association. Member, Minnesota State and Hennepin County Bar Associations • Lecturer Minnesota State Bar Association • Continuing Legal Education Seminars on DWI law. EDUCATION: Harvard Law School, Cambridge, 1vLk J.D, June, 1988 A�itiires: • tiVIiliston Negotiation Competition • Law & Medicine Society � a r i p • L Services Ce - Jama � lainrRoxbury University of Wisconsin Madison, WI B.A in Political Science with Honors, Ph* Beta Kappa, June, 1955 A ctivities: _Ame Enterprse Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. CO 'A LYIL'NITY City Council Member St. Louis Park, tiN, 1994- Present ACT 'V=S: =.le ^:can Cancer Societ l - Hennepin lirit Board Member, 1997 vletrccolitan Interfaith Council for Affordable Housing, Bcard Member 1996- • present Anti- Defamation Lea,-.ie • Associate National Commissioner • National Civil Rights Committee Board 'Member Jewish Community Relations Council of Ntinnesota and the Dakotas • Regional Board, 1991 -1997 • Secretary, 19941996 League of Women Voters - St. Louis Park St. Louis Park Community Education Advisory Council, 1991 -1995 TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Leadership Development Program 1995 -96 St. Louis Park Park Land & Open Spaces Advisory Committee Oak HE Neighborhood Association BAR A.DNi A.NCE: N�Ennescta, L.S. District Court, and 8th Circuit Court of Appeals • I'll 08ITCUTIO11 I CliAlt'i' 1, 3. T. 6* fi. 1'ollec IT E3� - - - -- 1. 7.. Ctdel Front Chief CornpInint file 1' Complfifnl, tah Case — Cornplalut —� Prosecutor Complaint Prog ecutor to 1'rrllce (;orntrinlill it _ Chnr l;e or ifecelved Draft Reviews Drafted ;signs _ Dept. with 1 Cftatloo filed L.A. t coil Taint �Ir alrr Court A whir Court -- Report Complaint Review _ Denied. by Chief Letter to Prosecuto P olice De pt. Prosecutor Wends this and subsequent _ _ Hn. 15n. Court 1G. 11a. 1Ja i Ho t Gullt y_� — Disposition Proceedings Pretrial _— Dismissal Cou rt Itclrort _ Notice, 1 L _ 'Trial -- 9. Victim — Pretrial/ 17,. I' / First Notlfle.ntloo (?nuribrrs - - - - - -- -- — Witness ___ 14h. 15h. Court ti V r I I-I Notieenfind [ Uullty _� r'rrsenlrn�r ���cnrance tlira Suhpoe.tills A IJil. / — InveslfPnlivn 1 Oullty i lea �1,.A.) - , - - -- Jury `fa• or other 't'ria Culity Plea le olintioll - -� Tit . or other Not Guilty Disposition Pfe vtlallvti - -_— lt cpvrt -- IAn. 1G. Disposition 18h. 19. Senten c1111; Iteport Probation Hearin — L.A. Violation llisc lurife L.A. nenvtet legal Aiiltlant *MINN E SOT A POLICE BRIEFS VoL X No. 10 -Paid D. Baertschi, Editor- October 1997 PA,RT Standing to Challenge: T C➢ Residential Search -- Peering in Window The Supreme Court finds that -4 Standing to Challenge: .RECENT AUANNESOTA even tfrouglr defendant was present Residential Search— DECISIONS by invitation in the' lease holder's. Peering in Window ` a artrnent tor' the F. . Pip ase gage 1 r�YY£'St S2QYCh e bagging: cocaine defendant has l standing to challenge thele,ality of i F Inventory Search! Stop for Parkin— Seiz the search of. the apartment as society recoa —mzes. the. valuable. Offense rsht.ofowners or lease.liolde s ta> paSe Probable Cause — Collective V A ° -'' invit., persons into the pr 'ot I Knowledge of Department their homes. The court: rinds the Expert Testimony— The court aru`ms a detention and search of the apartment Susceptibility to search of two men waLking down the unreasonable_ because when a. Coercion. street approximately two hours after a police office- walked across the Page Z convenience store robbery where the -ass, climbed. behind bushes and rwo individuals immediately stopped peered into the around floor 4 Battered Women's and turned around on seeing the apartment from a distance of 3 Syndrome Evidence: officers. the men appeared to act P :aches. without a search. warrant, page 3 nervous, aeceared to be pretending to " this conduct: constituted: a search. use a phone. and oarially matched a that was unreasonable under *he Appeai :F ram. Stay: of ` description of the robbers. There was Fourth, amendment. State v: ,, adjudication probable cause for a search upon Wavre Carer_ C -9f -1368, State - page finding he individuals to be n v_ Melvin Johns: C9- 9 j possession of coin roils and lottery 9li:1r97. % Name Calling in. tickets based upon the toilet ive argument knowledge of facts reported to the - Page'= department_ even though the officers conducing :he search did not know auto Stop for Rio Rear License i Fifth amendment the addirorai :acs justifying the Plate Light Privilege-- Sentencing. 7ne cour- :rods that petitioner's search at he time o[ he search. tate - page S v c'Iiort Ple: ,-on. C_- 96- 251, Ct. vehicle was properly stopped where the offtcer could not o b se rve anv App., Uapuoi. 9/3"X9 - lice ^.se plate lights while foilowing the vehicle several miles. Haugen v. Commissioner C7"a Ct app.. ( �resoca Pau 3rie s s a ccmprer,easive rc 4[ tv ;umrrar ur `amnesoca ooe;late ae isions and U.S. Sucr °me as via as e.ec:ea _e_s,ons ruiunwiue e lint .v�rh .:rimtnai law .� .egsau�e �ur^mar- s nc ac::.d annually. Puolisned mor.nry ,v ' �uL 3�._ R'SC.,.I. P..-� . -6�0 :DS :ricer. `.(inreaooiis, titti _ _10. -___�, :e.eorene :o i ac mi e ,49. suoscrtpcions are S90 per year j ` 75:)e. . e� v•G;euc :r,nuat index. Discount avaiiabie :or muit ;oie ;ubsc.,.otions. i_ ,ovr2nt 199" by P.-kUL 3,-_ER P .k No .omcr, .)r :his ,)ubiica may I earouu,: :u without .vrctten crnissicn. ` NII :NNFSOT.a POLICE BRIEFS PAGE 1 Unpub1.9 /15197. results. State v. Stradcuer. C3 -97- C onfessions r 373, Ct. App. 9/9/97. Inventory SearchlStop for Parkin; Cffease E--pert Testimony— j Evidence Rkversing the Court of Apceals's Susceptibility to Coercion Decision finding the search valid; I In an appeal from a denial of Prior Consistent Statement the Supreme: Court here finds that post- conviction relief. following Tne court affirms an adjudication a police: officer- cantor. make a: ; defendant's conviction for firs and disposition for the juvenile Ttrry stop to utvestdaate a parkin ' dezee criminal sexual conduct the vioiaz on. T.e court also rinds tl ac court here funds that. expert accused of misdemeanor heft finding i where a police officer's sole ! testimony dealing With trio that a prior statement by a witness that motivation in conducting au suscectability of defendant to was consistent with the witness's n r,1 coercion was: property. excluded at tesrrriany was admissible, since the inventory search of an automobile ; witness tesnfed, was subject to cross is *.o: discover evidence ofa Crime ! he Rasmussen hearing cliaBengina 1 exam anon and was helpful to the the search. is unreasoaable. The j the admissibility of defendant's: n al court in evaluating he witness's search roust be conducted, at least. ;statements, but should nave hoer,. credibility. In the Matter o f the allowed' to be. admitted: at for the- purpose. ©i I r in Panes Pip , Welfare ofR.G., C7 -97 -339, C� App., obtaining an inventory:. The.' defendant's trial. The case , . I Unpubi. 919197. original: decision. of the: tr al court j reversed and remanded, for.:, new suppressing evidence is reinstated.. i '1ial• A: promise' that.:. efeadant. l Line -up and Impeachment by State u_ Kevin Hbli ? es . C5 -9b -9I ' would receive treatment did'aot render defendant's confession Prior Conviction S.0 9/l'97. The court finds that a photo line -up involuntar /. $i xler v. State _C5 ­ was not imoermissibly susQestive and 9L7-b31; C Aptr: i.6i97 :. finds no abuse of discre.. in Technical Violations — \'o allowing defendant's prior conviction Suppression for a similar robbery offense to be i ne court finds that even if there T used for it peachment. The court DL1 was error in a judge ffom a different noted that defendant was able to set county issuing a search warrant, his theory of the case to the jury by failure to hand he search wa. ant to Right to Counse? and Test Refusal wav of an alibi witness and a the defendant. failure to return the Toe court off ring a distract coot chatlense to eye witness search warmnt to the proper court. and tmdmg hat pettioner was provided a ideri=. cation, and finds that he was aile_ed violation of a treaty, such telephone'000k to contact an attorney not denied a fair'al. State v. Kevin technical violations are not sufficient ana indicated he did not need anv ( Johnson. CO -96 -213 - Ct. App., to require the suppression of the d-uirs additional time to make phone calls, linpubi. 9/ and. therefore, finds petitioner's right - of the search. State v, Terrance to counsei was vindicated The court Morris C- -96 _553, Ct. App., Prior Sea Crime —Seven Years Ago linpubi. 9/9/97. also aff�s a finding that petitioner In defendant's trial for trst dezee retuned tesrng i spite of his criminal sexual conduct, the court Probable Cause for Warrant tea i nony hat with his sinus problem, finds no error in admiring Screigl he could not give an adequate breath evidence of a riot similar sexual Defendant called 911 to repon he p fac- that `.ie shot an intruder. Poiice sample. Gressoehtme J. assault occurring approximately sever art ved and found he victim lying on Commissioner C9 -97 -149, Ct. App., years ago when :he defendant was a the t1cor and conducted a protective lirpuol. 9/?�97. juvenile. The court finds that the s ;veec, whereupon police 'Located State's case was weak, as the victim defendant %vith a girl and additionai Suppression for Violation of Right vas .triable to tesnf due to her young firearms. Poiice sealed he home and i to Counsel ate. and there were no other apciied for an obtained a search The de endant •.,vas read the wimesSes. State v. Klemm, Cf -96- implied consent advisor/, requested to war -anti a, Ct. a p., t npuol. 9/15197. nti before compietirg any -- . , p. additionai investigation. i fie coup ' e x it a 'awver, but was apt 1 Tinos That here was urobabie cause for afforded ,hat opper unity. Tine State - en Babv_ Syndrome accented ft an order suppressing the finds I and DAI _=h `Nor - anL and h L [ham rest results. 1ne cou;�. lids haz ine Ip�t aff=S de.enCflhL'3 tvicence concernlrig naSCOtiCS was grope v seized. Star v. Vorr C -1 -96- sine e e ^ea ^.t was read he implied cot rc.:cn for caret d ear °e t:ncuc;. 9/9 "9 ". ons „c adwser.,, de neanc had r the un�� _rnonal mur 'or zhe vio;er it ro cour.sei prior .o and shiak`nz of a voun= ,.mild. ndirg 7.c v ;c!adon oC has right to Courset j s i n z Co z vy a va.. rats ucpression of the wst s c;r an ;ai e . ,cence ins . uctton MINNESOT. -k POLICE BRIEFS PAGE regarding excluding any rational conviction for fourth and fifth degree were reinstituted in 1995 after two hypothesis consistent with innocence, controlled substance crimes. State v. potential defense witnesses died. The court Finds that there was direct Burman C5- 96 - Ct. App., Held, based on the lack of showing of O vid.ace of .zuiIt in defendant's Unpubl. 9/9/97. the relevance of the testimon of the onfession. There was no error in two defense witnesses, the court finding that the defense was not concludes that defendant was not surprised or preiudic.d by the State's SenteneinJ denied the night to a speedy trial or introduction of "dirnue axonal injure' due process. State v.-Li ulder_ CO -96- '(DAI) testimony. State v. Gentry C9- Concurrent — Consecutive 2202, Ct. App., Unpubi. 9/2, 96 - 2344, Ct. App., Unpubl. 9/16197. Sentences Defendant was sentenced to one Interstate Pursuit Prior Criminal Record— year of imprisonment for a ;toss Minnesota police followed Statements Made by Defendant misdemeanor assault and a staved defendant into North Dakota and T'ne court ;finds that in defendant's sentence of two years and six months arrested him and returned him to trial for flint degree assault and on a felony fifth degree assault. :Minnesota without bringing him aggravated robbery, the trial court Defendant's probation violation was before a North Dakota magiscate, properly admitted a statement made later revoked on .the felony, but he which is required by North Dakota by defendant, "Just spent six years in was denied credit for time served on law. The Court finds that the prison [soj I am not going to leave no the misdemeanor, in effect imposing violation of North Dakota's Fresh evidence.'' fine statement was a part the sentences consecutively. The Pursuit Statute does not require of the immediate episode and was - court finds that defendant is entitled suppression of the marijuana found important to show the defendant's to credit for time served on the gross because the marijuana was not found active participation in the offense. misdemeanor, since consecutive as a product of the violation. State v. Eusene Sandberg C7 -96- sentencing is a departure from the Defendant has waived the issue of the _343, Cr _ App., Unpubi. 919197. 1 r Lies, an lawfulness of the investigatory sentencing guide d the court = stop, did not consider or order consecutive but the court finds le stop proper in n's Syndrome sentences. State ,r Sheldon Bell, C2 - anv event. Stare v. Robert Rosas, C l- Battered Wome Evidence_ 97 -994, Ct Apo., Unpubi. 9/23x'97. 97 -114, Ct. App., linpubl. 9130197. T'ne court amrms.defeadant.'s < Public Defender Eligibility • conviction or attempted. murder in..! Restitution amount The coon : ncs no error in Tne court did not err in finding that the second degr e reJectina the defendant was not elig b1e for a defendant's contention that xpert ; ordering restitution for four stolen =' public defender where he quit his job testimony on: battered. women's:, ! bank deposits, even though defendant to make time for the u al and testified svndrome should not have beeri. j pied guilty to the offense based upon that he could obtain reemployment admitted:. The. Supreme Court ; an admission to taking• oniv two of the immediately at an average income of holds that expert testimony 'on deposits. Tine coup finds that the battered women. syndrome State showed by a preponderance or S3,000-S4, 500 moss per month. preseared durst, the prosecat3oa:'s `; the evidence that he defendant stofie Defendant's conviction .s reversed for case in. chief is admissib4. if four deposits. State v. Mara. CX -97- failure to instruct the jury on specific intent for stalking, even though ntroduc °d after the victim`s 1 Ct. App. 91 defendant did not object to the -edibility has been attacked bvthe: instructions. ions. Mate v. Romans C7-96- defense if it helps the jury Modification of Sentence _3 I_, Ct. App., Unpubi. 9/30/9,". understand the vic tin's i ae court of irns a denial or inconsistent statements or delay g;' perrioners petition for post- Juror Contact with Defendant se °icing prosecution;. and the.xpert convic ^;on relief. finding that the 1 ne court aifums a denial of post - does not offer an opinion as: to court lacked authcriri to modify a convic ion relief, finding that whether the vfctim suffers: from the; ; ,awful, partiaiiv- executed sentence defendant was not entitled to syndrome. State v. Grec nQer. Cl -' after its execution. Scott Larson v_ re ^resentation by he public defender 9f- L ;96.S.C� 9i 1.8/97. State C4-97-57, Cc. App., Unpubi. n a post- convic ; ;on proceeding where 9/30197. he received such r.presenmtion an pis direct appeal. A counsel's Controlled bv— Credibility j ' refusal to initiate contact with a urar rote zcurt finds that die :estimonv = - ��SCel7YZPDLIS r wro alle,ed � _ had contact xit, `: 1 . of a c eedv Taal —Dead Witnesses .rson 1xho agreed to urcaase j Sp defendant during :h. trtai did not das_s yam ce 'e ^cant :n exc anse nor constitute inerective assistance of De encant evils _n"rsed with Megai a re_arrme ^.radon of woe:: release - apoe,laie counsel ;. nson v Mate 3ar o!ir,Z chin s n 1993. but the vas crraborated ficiently - C3 - 97 - 69=. C.. Apo. 9i =0/97. and suf e chases xer....isnn!ssed. The _harges a ! to sustain derendant'� - i ,VliN'NESOTA POLICE BRIEFS PAGE 3 Zonin, Violation — Expanding Criminal Sexual Conduct— Refusal to Reinstate and Non-Conforming Use Sufficienev of Evidence Discharge Bond The court affi-ms defendant's the court affirms a denial of post - Tne court fords no error in the trial conviction for a zoning violation for conviction relief, and finds sufficient court refusing to reinstate and an unlawful extension of a residendal evidence to sustain defendant's discharge a bond to secure the 0 use by building a deck, next to a conviction for third degree crimiral appearance of the defendant where mobile home that was permitted to sexual conduct. Scrub v. State, CX- defendant failed to make two court remain in the City as a non- 97 -614, Ct Apo., Unpubl. 9/23/97. i appearances, the surety took no action conforming use. State v. T'nibodeau, to obtain defendant's presence at his C3 -96 -2419, Ct. App., Unpubl. Post - Conviction Relief — Prison second appearance date or explain its 9/30/97. Conditions failure to do so, even thous the The court affirms a denial of post- surety assisted Li defendant's untimely Jury Instructions— Lesser Crimes conviction relief, finding that claims apprehension. State v. Louis and Eye Witness Identification of the uncorstituriona! ty of the prison Williams C4 -97 -267, Ct. App. in defendant's trial for third degree work requirement and wage 9/ l6i97. assault and terroristic threats, the withholding are not property brought court finds no error in refusing to in apost- conviction relief perilion. instruct the jury that they should treat Chambers v. State. C3 -97 -924, Ct 4ppeal From Stay of with caution the evewitness App., Unpubl. 9/23/97. Adjudication. identification testimony presented. The court finds that: a.stay of Tne court also finds no error in failing Proving Quantity of Drugs adjudication is a "pretr al orde°x in to instruct the jury an the Jesse: forensic science chemist tesnied a non felony proseeurion- and,. included offense of fifth degree concerning a laboraror found iii he�efore ;. is: appeatabte by: the State. 3'he court finds than assault where there were two seaarate defendant's five -stall garage and the acs of assault charged, dfdl degree stated that the laboratory was capable dis�ict Eourc e red in grantin a: and third degree, for striking the of producing between 100--' grans' of adjudication and reverses victim twice, and based upon the of methamphetamine, and calculated a , Tud3es Randall. and: Norton arguments. the juri could not have quantity of methamnhelamine I dissented! frorzT the majorty beta confused as to whether filth I produced 'based upon residue o eouuon of the sevenudQP panez. dezee assault was a lesser included ephedrne tom the manuracz=aCr State v- t noma :: et m: . and gate v offense. State v .�nthon Lee C2 97- process. Tne court /inns that he Stare L annort. e* al.. C3- 97 -�b3,. 'Ct. • Ct..�pp., Lnpui 9/`'3/97. Caned to prove that defendant pp g /lg `�' 7 ' manufac7ured 50 gems or more or Aggravated Kidnaping — Release in metharnohetamine. State v. Traxler, Safe Place C3-96-243 Ct App., Unpubl. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel— The court ::ere characrerzes the 9I16i97. Failure to Call Witness pre- dismissal of an aggravated The court affirms a denial of k Lnz chase as "an orde Jurisdiction— P roving Age cenrioner's pe_alion -or post - ! noacting only the potential [n a case where the age of the conviction relief based upon sentence," since the State could still defendant was a disputed faces ineffective assistance of post - ,-v defendant to s male robbery and dote. ^.dart pleaded amity n adult tour conviction counsel for failure to call ordinary idnacins. The court also and received a stay or imposition of the trial counsel as a witness where refused to cate2_oniZe the dismissal sentence on a Char of third decree the attomey made the assessment that order as a disT_issai based on a lezal criminal sexual ` conduct, while calling the trial counsel on this claim dererminaribn, but rather a tactual maintainlnz that he was under age 13. would do more harm than good. dere: that the victim was Heidi where a defendant present Lorenzo J'ohnson V. State C6 -97 -539, released in a sale place. [Editor's credible evidence hac he is under age Ct. App., Unpubi. 9/9/97. Note: i ne rutiona!e of the court 13 and the court has not certified zhe charade ^zi'ng a dismissal of a charat case for adult prosecuron. the district Post - Conviction Relief — Ineffective as merety impacting sentence is court must make actual findings on he i Assistance of Counsel Clear v ailac :eus s the opinion of this issue of azt. and may not accept pt the ll i ne court finds that the failure of tdircr. i .e court unnecessan.;v plea. The nviction is re versed and I defendanr to raise his claim of dodatd ,slue of dec:ding the soft I r °.^.landed .or _ur't'ier findings. Stare ineffective assistance or counsel on i glace' issue,', Mare `✓ William v Rojas C3- 97-s C :. Aen. direct anpeat did not parr tits claim. ri Moore C'< 9 " - "33. mot. App.. C npubl. a petition °or post - conviction ' ',Vh(ie :. ^,e court was concerned abou I i the _'aiiure or de ease counsel to cross amine an expert or presenr testimony of an irdependeat tiUNNESOTA POLICE BRIEFS PAGE 4 psychologist at sentencing, the court Ends that p has failed to PART II DISCL -tLWER prove the second prong of the ne ective assistance of counsel We have used our best e to 4s aiun, namely chat the outcome of the C FROl OTHE provide accurate information herein. encencing'a would have been However, no warranty of acc lracv different but for these presumed J_UR1SDICTI0_',*SS is made. Inde research or errors. Brravloc:< v. State. G1 -97 -317, legal consultation is recommended Ct. Apo., linpubl. 9/9/97. Fifth ;amendment PnvUege Sentencing Replaying Evidence for Jury In this case, the court. found that The court afi'urns a denial of a,crimiaai defendant who: leaded< petirioner's petition for post- guilty to distributing cocaiste, hut' conviction relief, Finding many of his reserved the right to contest' the-: claims to be barred and a claim of amount of drugs for which. slie ineffec ive assistance of appellate should be held responsible; did not. counsel to Iack merit. The court finds have a Fifth amendment right not j that the trial court's decision to allow to testify during the sentencinz I the jury to review a videotape of poor Thecourt2ound no =orin:holding: quality during deliberations without against the defeudant Her. i-e-fusalto: making a record did not violate cesrify : on: that issue; at Vie.; petitioner's rights. SCIzQer v. State, sentencing hearn There was no C? -97 -160, Ct. App., L npubl. 9i9/97. evidence that: defendant's testimony could expose: her to Name Cailing in :.-argument prosecution for other. offenses.. � The: court finds at: tie. l LT v.(itche'c1 : :96- 1605.(�rd :Cis. xn prosecutor s comments duria� 2inal 9/9/97).. arg-lment: at: de ±ennant?a :itu�t trial '':, that the aef ndant.was a'`aroukl be I, punl,' with a. "pathetic little life" Disclosure of CIient Name • was an: improper. attack: on the Tlne court upholds a 525,000 civil tiefendant's: character,. but in :limit penalt'r imposed against a Iaw firm for of overwhe=inz evidence: against re sing to disclose m e name of the thedefendant.suchcommentswe : e :'' client in a Form 3300 e irrencv not so prejudicial as to den u transaction report that must be Sled dereneanta fair trial. State v. Ives where the client pays the law Linn C0-96 r7Z3, S.Ct ::9f 11, 9 , _ over S10.000 in cash for legal services. ine f-;-.n asser%d a defense of client conr:denr.'ality and Juvenile Certification to .adult prejudicing client interests. Ge -ald Court Lefcour P.C. v. S. 96 - (_d. The court finds no error in Cir.9 /10i97). certir ing a juvenile accused of planning two murders far prosecution Megan's Law Constitutional as an aduitwhere the juvenile wiled in The court upholds the public numerous treatrZent programs, notincaron provisions of New successfully compieang only one_, and Jerse;r's [e` =an's Law" repuirnQ there was not 3ufticie time to !teat prosecutors to ciassirr by degee of the uveniie and no other viabie oeron sk sex offenders and disclose that for - rearnent. in -he Matter of the information to the public. E.B. v. Cir. s, O191). Acc., i:ncuci. 9/9/97. I .MINNES0 POLICE BRIEFS PAGE PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Submitted by: BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. 400 Northtown Financial Plaza 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard Coon Rapids. ?N - 5 54'23 Phone: (612) 783 -3123 Fax: (612) 780 -1777 ATTN: Gregg V. Herrick With "Of Council" offices located at TUZINSKI & ASSOCIATES 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, NIN X5=129 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section pate A. Firm Background .................................................................................. ............................... l B. Attorney Qualifications ..........:............................................................... ..............................5 C. Firm Qualifications ................................................................................ ..............................7 D. Fees ....................................................................................................... .............................12 Exhibit I . Resumes PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES A. FIRM BACKGROUND For purposes of this proposal, Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. has formed an of council relationship with Christopher Brevik and Tuzinski and Associates to provide quality legal services to the City of Brooklyn Center under this contract. 1. Brief History Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. Our law firm was founded in 1939 by the late Honorable Joseph E. Wargo. In 1952, the firm became known as Wargo & Barna and shortly thereafter as Wargo, Barna & Guzy. In 1981, the firm became known as Barna, Guzy, Merrill, Hynes and Giancola, Ltd. as a result of the continued growth of the firm. On January 1, 1991, Barna, Guzv, ivlerril' & Hynes, Ltd. merged with the law firm of Steffen & Munstenteiger, P.A. of Anoka, Minnesota. This law firm, originally founded in Anoka in 1976, had Grown from a firm of two attorneys. The current firm of Barna, Guzy &- Ste Ltd. is a composite of two strong firms which grew and prospered in the metropolitan area as a result of their dedication to prompt and professional service to their clients. In addition to the late Honorable Joseph E. Wargo. the firm has produced six district court judges currently chambered in the Tenth Judicial District. The firm is also proud of Robert A. Guz service to the Minnesota State Bar Association as its President for 1992 -1993. Currently, our firm is comprised of 26 attorneys and 11 paralegals. Tuzinski & Associates James J. Tuzinski has been engaged in private practice since 1969 when he formed a partnership with Dean Nyquist and Larry G. Jorgenson in a firm known as Nyquist, Jorgenson & Tuzinski. Larry Jorgenson ultimately became a district court judge for the Ninth Judicial District. Subsequently, Jim has worked with the firms of Welter, Rosenthal & Tuzinski and Rogers & Tuzinski until he formed the law firm of Tuzinski & Associates in 1993. Since 1969, Jim has been serving the public as a general practitioner and has officed in Brooklyn Center for almost the entire period of time. Currently, the firm consists of three attornevs and four support staff and offices out of Boulevard Plaza at 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Center. i 2. Number of attorneys /specialties. Municipal Law James D. Hoeft Gregg V. Herrick Labor and Public Bernard E. Steffen Employment Scott M. Lepak Criminal Law Christopher Brevik Family Law Beverly K. Dodge Elizabeth A. Schadincy Jeanette I. Tuzinski y Personal Injury /Criminal Russell H. Crowder Jon P. Erickson Estate and Tax Richard A. Merrill William F. Huefner Real Estate /Corporate Michael F. Hurley Daniel D. Ganter, Jr. Robert A. Guzy Jeffrey S. Johnson. Lawrence R. Johnson Kristi R. Riley Charles M. Seykora Herman L. Talle James J. Tuzinski Jeannette Tuzinski Employment Law and David A. Cossi Business Litigation Darrell A. Jensen Bradley A. Kletscher Thomas P. Malone Joan 'NI. Quade Susan A. Roehrich Malcolm P. Terry 3. Number of paralegals /specialties. As stated above, the firm currently has 10 paralegals assigned to the following practice groups: Municipal Prosecution I R:,ai Estate _ Tuzinski & Associates 2 0 Employment/Litigation 2 Family 2 Probate and Estate Planning 1 Personal Injury In addition to the paralegal for prosecution, we employ one full time law clerk dedicated to the prosecution contract. 4. Availability to City Police during non - business hours. The prosecution attorneys would be available to the Police Department 24 hours per day. Each of the attorneys would provide the Department with their home telephone numbers, cellular phone numbers and e -mail addresses. Each of the attorneys also have access to the firm's prosecution computer network from their homes. S. Number and type of support personnel and technical support capabilities. The two firms have over 30 support personnel members assigned to the following areas: Office Administration Marketing Computer Networking and Support Word Processing Accounting y Our office network operates on the Windows 95 platform, with Microsoft. Groupwise as our communications platform and MicroSoft Word 97 as our word processing platform. We have internet capabilities and will provide the Police Department access to our prosecution database to allow remote review of case progress. b. Flowchart or work process for municipal work. The prosecution attorneys are responsible for all work product of the municipal law/prosecution practice group. Their primary responsibilities are court representation, charge consideration, and case disposition. The paralegal is responsible for file preparation, witness contact, subpoenas, complaint drafting and officer notification. The law clerk is primarily responsible for research and complaint drafting. The secretary is responsible for file maintenance. scheduling and miscellaneous communications. V 7. Office Location(s). 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard, Suite 400, Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 I B. ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS 1. Identify each attorney nd key sup e g y � pp p who will be supplyin services for which the City will be billed. Greg- V. Herrick, Attorney James D. Hoeft, Attorney Scott M. Lepak, Attorney Christopher E. Brevik, Attorney James J. Tuzinski, Attorney Marne Gibbs - Hicke, Paralegal Quentin F. Shafer, Law Clerk 2. For each person identified, please state: a. Relevant academic training and degrees. Personal resumes of Grey- V. Herrick, James D. Hoeft, Scott M. Lepak, Christopher E. Brevik, James J. Tuzinski and Marne Gibbs -Hicke are attached as Exhibit 1. b. A description of their prior municipal experience in prosecution and an estimate of the percentage of their work in this area from 1992 through the present. Please refer to Exhibit 1 for prior municipal experience in prosecution. Below is an estimate of the percentage of their work in the area of prosecution from 1992 through the present: Gre-` V. Herrick 45% James D. Hoeft 40% Marne Gibbs -Hicke 100% 3. A. description of the proposed allocation of work between the attorney(s) and support personnel identified (i.e., who will be the lead Prosecution attorney and what work will be handled by junior partners, associates, or paralegals). Gre-- V. Herrick will be identified as the lead prosecution attorney. The allocation of work is anticipated to be as follows: 50% Mr. Herrick, 25% Mr. Hoeft, 25% Mr. Brevik. Mr. Lepak will step in as needed as a back up for the prosecution team. Ms. Gibbs -Hicke is currently allocated 100% to prosecution work. She will continue to work exclusively on prosecution matters. Associate attorneys will be utilized to handle routine prosecution matters. Associate attorneys would be used primarily for arraignment appearances and non - controversial • i court trials. We work with out cities to ensure that capable staff members provide quality legal representation. • =1. Current principal responsibilities for individual designated as lead Prosecution attorney including a statement future availability. Gregg V. Herrick is currently responsible for prosecutions for the Cities of Columbia Heights and St. Francis. Greg is also the city attorney for St. Francis and Champlin. Both Mr. Herrick and Mr. Hoeft have adjusted their current schedules to accommodate for any potential scheduling conflicts with their existing prosecution duties. Both are excited about this additional opportunity and would adjust their schedules accordingly. We have never experienced any problems with availability in our current prosecution services, and will assure the City of Brooklyn Center that availability will not be an issue. Our current office technology allows Gregg and Jim to be "in their office" at any time of the day. yV 5. A description of the availability of and identification of experienced backup prosecutors in the case of illness, turnover, or other loss of personnel. Jon Erickson is a litigator with Bama, Guzy & Steffen and has worked as an Anoka County Attorney for five years and worked as a Wabasha County Attorney for three years. Malcolm Terry is a litigator with Barna, Guzy & Steffen and has worked for the City of St. Louis Park as an assistant prosecutor. 6. A description of housing building code, fire code and nuisance enforcement experience, including results and recovery of costs and fees for the City. The attorneys at Barna, Guzy & Steffen have been involved in traditional and non- traditional code and nuisance enforcement techniques. Traditionally, cities have looked primarily to criminal laws to enforce code and nuisance violations. An approach we have developed and promoted among our municipalities is administrative enforcement. An administration enforcement strategy levies fines and requires clean up through a city sponsored administrative hearing. The results of this approach have been extremely cost effective over traditional enforcement techniques. Crean up is g enerally accomplished quicker and fees paid for violations go directly to the city without any portion being paid to the county or state. I • -6- C. FIRM QUALIFICATIONS I. Provide the names and telephone p one numbers of three client references who the City may contact. MunicipaJ references are required. Columbia Heights Police Department Attn: Thomas Johnson, Chief of Police 559 Mill Street NE Columbia Heights, NN 55421 Phone: 782 -2840 St. Francis Police Department Attn: Byron Froh, Chief of Police P.O. Box 730 St. Francis, NN 55070 Phone: 753 -1264 City of Champlin Attn: Kurt Ulrich, City Manager 11955 Champlin Drive Champlin, YIN 55316 Phone: 42 1 -8 100 • If the firm has represented aav Minnesota municipalities or governmental agencies from 1992 through the present, state the name of that agency, and the name, title, and telephone number of a reference at that agency whom the City may contact. ANOK.A COUNTY John (Jay) McLinden Administrator Anoka County Courthouse 325 East Main Street Anoka. MN 55303 (612) 421 -4760 ANOKA- HENNEPIN Richard D. Nybeck INDEPENDENT SCHOOL Operations /Facilities Director DISTRICT 1 -4 1'11 11299 N.W. Hanson Blvd Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (612) 422 -5525 CASS COUNTY Sharon Anderson, Auditor Cass County Courthouse Walker, MN 55484 (2 18) 547 -3300 CITY OF CHAMPLIN Kurt Ulrich City Administrator Champlin City Hall 11955 Champlin Drive Champlin, MN 55316 (612) 421 -8100 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Ken Anderson HRA 590 40 Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (612) 782 -2854 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walter Fehst 590 40 Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (612) 782 -2800 CITY OF COON RAPIDS Alden C. Hofstedt City Attorney City of Coon Rapids 11155 Robinson Drive Coon Rapids. MN 55433 (612) 767 -6495 CROW WIEN"G COUNTY Donald Ryan County Attorney 326 Laurel Street Brainerd, VN 56401 (218) 825 -1813 CITY OF FRIDLEY William Burns, City Manager 6431 University Ave NE Fridley, tiN 55432 (612) 571 -3450 FREEBORN COUNTY Euzene Smith County Administrator 411 South Broadway Albert Lea, MN 56007 (507) 377 -5115 CITY OF ", -kPLE GROVE Al Madsen, City Manager 9401 Fernbrook Lane Maple Grove. MN 55369 ,(612) 656 -3606 • -8- MARTIN COUNTY Russ Wille County Coordinator Martin County Courthouse 201 Lake Avenue Suite 100 Fairmont, MN 56301 (5 07) 238 -3126 MINNESOTA STATE Morey Anderson COLLEGES AND Acting Chancellor UNIVERSITIES Capital Square Building 550 Cedar Street Suite 203 St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 296 -3391 MONTICELLO BIG LAKE Barb Schwientek COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Executive Director DISTRICT 1013 Hart Boulevard Monticello, tiN »362 (6 12 271 -2211 MORRISON COUNTY Tim Houle Morrison County Courthouse Administration Building Little Falls, MN 56345 (320) 632 -2941 NMOWER COUNTY Craig Oscarson. Coordinator Mower County Courthouse Austin, MN 55912 (507) 437 -9483 CITY OF RAMSEY Linda Waite -Smith 15153 Now Boulevard Ramsey. MN 55303 (612) 427 -1410 CITY OF ST. FRANCIS Steve Bjork, City Planner 23307 St. Francis Blvd. NW P.O. Box 730 St. Francis, MN 55070 (612) 753 -2630 • -9- SAINT PAUL RAMSEY Barbara Lawrence MEDICAL CENTER Human Resources (now REGIONS HOSPITAL) 640 Jackson Street St. Paul, MN 55101 -2595 (612) 221 -8525 REDWOOD COUNTY Cheryl Hanson Redwood County Courthouse P.O. Box 130 Redwood Falls, MN 56283 SHERBURNE COUNTY David Loch County Coordinator 13880 Highway 10 Elk River, NN 55330 (612) 441 -8665 STEARNS COUNTY George Rindelaub, Coordinator Stearns County Courthouse St. Cloud, NN 56302 (320) 255 -6057 STEELE COUNTY David Severson Executive Secretary Steele County Courthouse 111 East Main Street Owatonna, NN 55060 (507) 451-55060 TODD COUNTY Stan Sumey County Commissioner Todd County Courthouse Lona Prairie, NN 56347 (320) 732 -4519 �. A statement of how the workload of Brooklyn Center would be accommodated and what kind of priority it would be given. The workload would be primarily assumed by Gregg Herrick, James Hoeft and Christopher Brevik. Gregg Herrick would be the lead attorney and would be responsible for all work performed on behalf of Brooklyn Center. Because of the number of skilled attorneys available to service the City, we will be able to provide priority service to the City of Brooklyn Center. :associate attorneys in our firms v. ill handle some of the routine work but the pre- trial /trial hearings would be handled by • -10- Gregg Herrick. James Hoeft, or Christopher Brevik. In our current prosecution • contracts, we prepare over 1,000 complaints per year. We strive to maintain a turnaround rate on those complaints of one month or less. That same standard would apply to our contract with the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. Statement of 1992 through 1996 billings for municipal Prosecution work as a percentage of total billings for those years. The municipal prosecution work for the years 1992 through 1996 represent approximately 1% of the total firm billings for those years. -i 1- D. FEES Barra, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. /Tuzinski & Associates offer to the City of Brooklyn Center either a retainer option or an hourly fee option upon the terms and conditions set forth below: Onion 1. Retainer We will perform criminal prosecutions for a retainer amount equal to the average prosecution fees paid by the City for the past three years (1997, 1996, 199) with adjustments for change in volume and court dates if necessary. We will guaranty this flat fee for two years, at the end of which time the retainer amount would be reviewed based upon the volume of cases and an inflationary index. [1995 +1996 +1997] _ 3 = prosecution retainer for 1998 and 1999 The retainer would include six jury trials per year. Any additional jury trial time would be billed at the non - retainer hourly rate as set forth in option ? below. Appeals and forfeiture proceedings would also be billed at said non- retainer hourly rate. No separate charges will be made for clerical services, printing, mileage, photocopies or facsimile. Westlaw charges are billed to the City at the same rate as charged to the firm, currently 54.30 per minute. • Option 2. Hourly Fees Attorneys S90 /hour Paralegal S50 /hour Law Clerk S30/hour The minimum increment of time billed for service is two tenths of an hour (2). No separate charges will be made for clerical services, printing, mileage or facsimile. `Vestlaw charges are billed to the City at the same rate as charge to the firm, currently $4.30 per minute. -1?- We appreciate the opportunity to be considered by the City to provide these important services. If you have any questions or would like to set an interview to discuss the proposal further, please feel free to give us a call. Sincerely, BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. Jelyrey S: Jo President • ROBERT A. CUZY CHARLES M. SEYKCRA BERNARD E. STErF N B ' Go DANIEL D. CANTER, JR. RICHARD A. MERRILL BEVERLY K. DODGE DARRELL A. !ENSEN GREGG V. HERRICK JEFFREY S. JOHNSON JAMES D. HOEF r RUSSELL H. CROWDEF j JOAN M. QUADS !ON R ERICKSON B ama Guzy & Ste�fe Ltd. SCOTT M.LEpAK LA WRENCE R. JOHNSON i ) ELIZABETH A. SCH DAVID,-\. COSS` A T; ORNEYS AT LAW WILLIAM F. HUEFlc. THOMAS R MALONE BRADLEY A. KLETSCHER MICHAEL r. HURLEY "� tLV Nort town Financial Plaza SUSAN A. RCEHRICH VIRGIL C. HERRICK ?00 Goon Ra iC1S boulevard MALCOLM R TERRY HERMAN L_ TALLE P Minneapolis, MN 55433 -5894 ROBERT C. HYNEs 1933.1993 (612) 780 -8500 FAX (6 12) 780 -1777 PERSONAL RESUME GREGG V. DERRICK EDUCATION Harnline University School of Law, J.D., 198 Macalaster College, B.A., 198? Fridley High School, 1977 CAREER SYNOPSIS Currently Shareholder with Barn, a, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. Practice in municipal, criminal and real estate. ' City Attorney for the Cities of Champlin and St. Francis. Eight years municipal experience as Assistant City Attorney for the City of Fridley. Criminal Prosecutor for the Cities of St. Francis and Columbia Heights. November 1986 — July 1991 Associate with Herrick & Ne%vman. Assistant City Attorney for the Cities of Fridley and St. Francis. June 198 — October 1986 Judicial Law Clerk for the Tenth Judicial District. CIVIL AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Minnesota State Bar Association Hennepin County Bar Association Anoka County Bar Association — Chairman of Governmental Section Chairman, Board of Directors — Southern Anoka County Chamber of Commerce • ROBERT.- Gt,'Zl CHARLES M. SEYKORA BERNARD E STE FEN B DANIEL D. GANTER, JR. RICHARD A. MERRILL BEVERLY K. DODGE DARRELL A. JENSEN GREGG V. HERRICK JEFFREY S. JOHNSON JAMES D. HOEFT , 'S-,ELL H. CROWDER JOAN M. QUADE !CN P. ERICKSON L-A Cc R. JOHNSO\ Barna > G uzy & Steffen, Ltd SCOTT M. LFTAK L ELIZABETH A. SCHADING D, COSSI ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILLIAM F. HUEFNER TH S P. MALONE BRADLEY A. KLETSCHER MICHAEL F. HURL C1 L.. 1 i `}l,L NOCCl1tO�vn F.n3nC131 Plaza SUSAN A. RCEHRICH VIRGIL C. HERMAN L. TARLL ti 7 00 Coon Rapids Boulevard MALCOL.M P. TERRY Minneapolis, MN 55433 -5894 ROBERT C.HYNES 1935 -1993 (612) 780 -8500 FAX (612) 780 -1777 PERSONAL RESUME JAMES D. HOEFT EDUCATION Hamline University School hool of Law, J.D. c l aude, 1 9 um la , 985 • University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, B.A. cum laude, 1982 Oconomowoc High School,'Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, 1978 CAREER SYNOPSIS July 1991 —Present Shareholder with Barna, Guzv & Steffen, Ltd. Practice in municipal civil and prosecution and real estate. City Attorney for the City of Columbia Heights. Assistant City Attorney for the Cities of St. Francis and Champlin. Criminal prosecutor for the Cities of St. Francis and Columbia Heights. Ten years municipal experience as Assistant Citv Attorney for the City of Fridley. Certified Real Property Law Specialist. Responsible for firm's municipal law practice group. January 1986 — July 1991 Associate with Herrick & Newman. Assistant City Attorney for the Cities of Fridley and St. Francis. Handled conflict prosecutions for the City of Fridley. January 198 —June 198 Intern with 3M, General Counsel office. Emphasis on redraft of employee handbook and private employer surveillance of employees. CIVIL AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Minnesota State Bar Association (MLRE Board of Directors) Anoka County Bar Association . Chair. Board of Directors — Wildwood Vlanor / Osborne Senior Apartments President. Board of Directors — Southern Anoka Communitv Assistance (SAGA) Fridley Community Education — Instructor Unity Hospital — Instnlctor for "I Can Cope cancer education — Cancer Resource Center A n aual cc aa:n o; ci ner RCFERT A. GUZY CHARLES M. SEYKORA BERNARD E. S EFrEN ; DANIEL D. CANTER, JR. RICHARD A. MERRILL BEVERLY K. COCG£ DARRELL A. JENSEN GREGG V. HERRICK JEFFREY S. JOHNSON JAMES D. HOEFT RUSSELL H. CROWDER JOAN M. QUADE ON R ERICK'SON L ahSld S teffen Ltd. SCOTT M. LEDAK LA%'REN'CE R. JCHNSCN � Gu[ y & LJ l DAVID .-�. COSS( EL2�(3ETH A. SCFr -\T 0RNEYS AT LAW WILLIAM E HUEF?:11 THOMAS D. Lt-kLONE BRAL`LEY A. KLETSC IER MICHAEL F HURLEY 400 Northtown Financial PI SUSAN A. RCEHRICH V'IRGIL C. HERRICK 7(�Q Coon R a p ids Boulevard MALCCLtit D. TERRY HERMAN L. TALLE P Minneapolis, itiIN 55433 -5894 ROBERT HYNES 935 -1943 (612) 780 -85CO FAX (612) 780 -17 77 PERSONAL RESUME SCOTT M. LEPAK EDUCATION University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., 1987 University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point, B.S., 1984 CAREER SYNOPSIS 1995 to Present Shareholder with Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. - Practice in public sector labor and employment law, public and private compensation and benefits law including drafting and reviewing cafeteria plans, welfare benefit plans, reviewing and providing consulting services on planning, implementing and administering public sector pension plans and public sector self- insurance health plans and litigating retiree insurance benefits. Equal Employment Opportunity /Affirmative Action Coordinator for Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. and Chair of the Barnes G uzy & Steffen, Ltd. Total Quality Culture Subcommittee. 1988- 1995 Associate with Barna, Guzy & Steffen Ltd. Coon Rapids, Minnesota. 1986- 1988 Law Clerk with Steffen & Munstenteiger, P.A. Consultant on Affirmative Action/EEOC. 1983 -1984 Tutor at University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point CIVIC A_ D PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES American Bar Association Minnesota Bar Association Anoka County Bar Association General Counsel for Alexandra House Shelter for Battered Women and Children Ill ARTICLES Co- author, Unilateral Action: Unfair Practices and the Dutv to Bargain; A Manama , c ement Perspective. Minnesota Institute of Legal Education, Public Sector Labor Law, October 1989. Co- author, Resolution of a Sexual Harassment Claim Once the Investigation is Completed. Minnesota State Bar Association. Continuing Legal Education. 27th Annual Criminal Justice Institute, August 1992. Co- author, Retiree Health Insurance: The Aftermath of Mower County. Minnesota Institute of Legal Education. Public Sector Labor Law, October 1992. REPORTED APPELLATE DECISIONS Master Asphalt Co. v Voss Const Co Inc of Minneapolis 535 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. 1995). Matter of Proposed Locke Lake Project Fridley 528 N.W.2d 875 (Minn.App. 1995). Law Enforcement Labor Services v. County of Mower, 483 N.W2d 696, 15 Employee Benefits Cas. 1291 (Minn. 1992). • Law Enforcement Labor Services v. County of Mower, 469 N.W.2d 496, 141 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2069, 13 Employee Benefits Cas. 2366 (Minn. App. 1991). Siaurdson v. Isanti County 448 N.W.2d 62, 51 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1181 (Minn. 1989). State by Cooper v Mower County' Social Services 434 N.W.2d 494, 69 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 517 (Minn. App. 1989). AFSCNIE Council 14 v. St. Paul Ramsey Hospital 425 N.W.2d 318 Minn. App. 1988 18 ( Minn. . ) Erickson v. Erickson 430 N.W.2d. 499 (Minn. App. 1988). State by Cooper v. Mower Cotmty Social Services 428 N.W.2d 491 (N.-linn. App. 1988). REPORTED NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISIONS St. Paul - Ramsev Medical Center and AFSCNIE Council 14 and State of Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services 291 NLRB No. 114 (Nov. 21, 1988). TUZINSKI & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Boulevard Plaza 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 OFFICE (612) 560 -3900 FAX (612) 566 -4416 is James J. Tuzinski Paralegals Jeanette M. Tuzinski June M. Tuzinski Patricia K. Sjogren Of Counsel Joyce V. Zumberge Christopher E. Brevik Administrative Assistant Darci -Jo King PERSONAL. RESUME CHRISTOPHER F. BRE,VIK EDUCATION William Mitchell College of Law, J.D., 1995 St. John's University, B.A., 1989 Detroit Lakes High School, 1985 CAREER SYNOPSIS Currently • Private practice in criminal defense, civil litigation, family law, real estate, employment law, immigration law, and bankruptcy since 1995. February 1995 - March 1995 Law Clerk with Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly. Assisted law firm with immigration project for international corporation. October 1994 - January_ 1995 Law Clerk with Fetterly & Gordon. Emphasis on personal injury litigation, products liability litigation, insurance law, and fire law. December 1992 - March 1994 Law Clerk with NordicTrack, Inc. Emphasis on international law, employment law, products liability, advertising law, real estate and litigation. CIVIL A.ND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Volunteer Lawyer's Network • Judicare of Anoka County Legal Assistance of Washington County Minnesota Friends of the Orphans TUZINSKI & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Boulevard Plaza 7050 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 OFFICE (612) 560 -3900 FAX (612) 566 -4416 James J. Tuzinski Paralegals Jeanette M. Tuzinski June M. Tuzinski Patricia K. Sjogren Of Counsel Joyce V. Zumberge Christopher E. Brevik Administrative Assistant Darci -Jo King PERSONAL. R .TA_INIES 1 TUZ INSKI EDUCATION William Mitchell College of Law, J.D., 1968 College of St. Thomas, B,A., 1952 St. Agnes High School, St. Paul, 1946 CAREER SYNV�OPSIS urrentiv President of Tuzinski & Associates. Practice in real estate, family law, criminal defense, bankruptcy, and probate since 1969. Arbitrator for American Arbitration Association. Agent for Attorney's Title Guaranty Fund. CIVIL AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Osseo Boulevard Business Club - Charter Member (Predecessor to the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce) Brooklyn Center Historical Society - Charter Member & Incorporator Community Emergency Assistant Program - Founding Member American Legion - Member Adolescent Drug Treatment Center - Board of Directors • ROBERT A. GUZY CHARLES M. SEYKORA BERNARD E. STEFFEN DANIEL D. GANTER, JR. RICHARD A. MERRILL I JEFFREY S BEVERLY K. DODGE GRECC A. JENSEN V. HERRICK JEFFREY S. JOHNSON I RUSSELL H. CROWDER TAMES D. F{OEFT JOAN M. QUADE J ON R P. NCE R . J N Barra Guzy & Steffen Ltd. SCOTT NI. LEPAK LAWRENCE R. JOHNSON > > ELIZABETH A. S OS S I DAVID A. �-`.� ATTO WILLIAM F. HUEF THOMAS P. MALONE S AT � W BRADLEY A. KLETSC' MICHAEL F HURLEY 400 Nord town Financial Plaza SUSAN A. ROEHRiCH VIRGIL C. HERRICK �O MALCOLM P. TERRY HERMAN L. TALLE 2' ,0 Coon Rapids Boulevard Llinneapolis, SIN 55433 -5894 ROBERT C.HYNI S ,935 -1993 (612) 780 -8500 FAX (6 2) 780 -1777 PERSONAL RESUME NIARVE GIBBS -HICKS EDUCATION Bethel College, Bachelors of Arts degree in Business and Organizational Studies, January 1997 University of Minnesota, Criminal Justice Studies, 1986 -1989 North Hennepin Community College, Associate of Applied Science, 198 Emphasis in legal studies, Graduate of the A. Bar Association Certified Paralegal Program CAREER SYNOPSIS 1992 — Present Municipal Paralegal, Barna, Gury & Steffen, Lui., Coon Rapids, Minnesota. Open and prepare City of Columbia Heights and City of St. Francis prosecution files u)r Court Trials, Jury Trials and Pre - trials. Contact police officers and witnesses regarding testimony. Prepare and draft gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor complaints. 1990-1992 Municipal Paralegal, Jensen, Hicken, Gedde anti Scott, P.A., Anoka, Minnesota. Open and prepare all City of Anoka and City of Falcon Heights prosecution files for Court Trials, Jury Trials and Pre - Trials. Contact witnesses and police officers regarding their testimony. Prepare and draft gross misdemeanor and misdemeanor formal complaints. 1989— 1990 Intelligence Research Paralegal, Federal &reau of7nvestigation, Washington, D.C. Provide direct operational support ongoing investigations. M >i P PP for on oln_ . Ia>�.ta.n liaison with other Government agencies to ensure information is accurately executed. Prepare intelligence reports for circulation throughout the United States Intelligence Community. • .'ti E:;u.,t �,rguaunuc "t ¢;clover 1986— 1989 Investigative Paralegal, Federal Bureau o Investigation, Minneapolis, olis, Minnesota. g p Review, analyze and evaluate investigative data involving major cases. Formulate reports from information obtained from witnesses, sources and pertinent evidence. 1983 — 1986 In -Court Deputy, Anoka County Courthouse, Anoka, Minnesota. Ensure court is in state of readiness, take courtroom minutes, assign future court dates. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Voting Member of Minnesota Paralegal Association 1994 Faculty Member of the Minnesota Criminal Justice Institute Volunteer Staff Member of the Anoka County Crisis Nursery Nonlawyer Member of the Minnesota Mate Bar Association • City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. i MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City DATE: November 20, 1997 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapters 11. 12, 13, and 23 of the City Ordinances; Replacing the Term "Nonintoxicating" with "3.2 Percent Malt" Recently legislation was enacted with regard to a political subdivision using the terminology "nonintoxicating liquor." 11innesota Statutes, Section 340A.411, Subd. 3 prohibits a city 'from issuing a license with the term "nonintoxicating liquor." For the 1995 renewal liquor licenses, the terminology has been changed to "3.2 Percent _Ialt Liquor License "; however, several sections in the City Ordinances use the term "nonintoxicating liquor." I have looked through the Ordinance book and the following sections should be amended to remove the term "nonintoxicating" and replace with "12 percent malt." -Chapter 11— Liquor Ordinance Section 11 -101, Subd. 2; Section 11 -104. Subd. 1; Section 11 -106, Subd. 4; Section 11- 107.2; Section 11 -112. Subd. 1 -6 and 5 -Chapter 12— Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance Section 12 -911. Ld -Chapter 13 —Parks and Recreation Section 13 -103 -Chapter 23— General Licensing Regulations Section 23 -301: Section 23- 2109.8.1 Attached is a draft ordinance amendment which replaces the term "nonintoxicating" with "3.2 percent malt." Attaclurnents 6,301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center. JOIN 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 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 10 Notice is hereby given that a public y g p bl c hearing will be held on the 15th day of December, 1997, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance amending Chapters 11, 12, 13, and 23 of the City Ordinances; replacing the term "nonintoxicating" with "3.2 percent malt." Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 11, 12, 13, AND 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES; REPLACING THE TERM "NONINTOXICATING" WITH "3.2 PERCENT MALT" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: i 1. f h Section Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances o the City P Y Y of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: ernNINTGXIG n TINE 3 PERCENT MALT LIQUORS Section 11 -101. DEFINITION OF TERMS. Subdivision 2. "Beer" or " & 3.2 percent malt liquor" means any malt beverage with an alcoholic content of more than one -half of one per cent by volume and not more than three and two - tenths percent by weight. Section 11 -104. LIABILITY INSURANCE. Subdivision 1. Insurance Required. At the time of filing an application for any on -sale or off -sale i 3.2 percent malt liquor license, the applicant shall file with the chief of police proof of financial responsibility for liability which shall be subject to the approval of the city council. The issuer or surety on any liability insurance policy or bond shall be duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, and all documents shall be approved as to content, form and execution by the city attorney. The licensee and the City shall be named as joint insureds on the liability insurance policy. The policy shall be effective for the entire license year. Section 11 -106. GRANTING OF LICENSE. Subdivision 4. Licensed premises who are Granted both on -sale wine and on -sale '�' 3? percent malt liquor licenses by the city council are authorized to sell beer with an alcohol content in excess of 3.2 percent. ORDINANCE NO. Section 11 -107. PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR LICENSE. 2. Who has, within the past five years, been convicted of a felony, or any law of this state or local ordinance relating to the manufacture, transportation or sale of 5 3.2 percent malt or of intoxicating liquors. Section 11 -112. RESTRICTIONS ON PURCHASE AND CONSUMPTION. It is unlawful for any: Subdivision 1. Licensee or his employee to permit any person under the age of 21 years to consume 3. 2 percent malt liquor on the licensed premises. Subdivision 2. Person to procure nonintoxieatiitg 3.2 percent malt liquor for any person under the age of 21 years. Subdivision 3. Person to induce a person under the age of 21 years to purchase or procure ttottintexieatiitg 3.2 percent malt liquor. Subdivision 4. Person under the age of 21 years to misrepresent his age for the • purpose of obtaining y 3.2 percent malt liquor. Subdivision 5. Person under the aue of 21 vears to consume any 3.2 percent malt liquor. Subdivision 6. Person under the age of 21 years to possess any 3.2 percent malt liquor with intent to consume it at a place other than the household of his parent or guardian. Subdivision S. Person under the age of 21 years to consume any intoxicating liquor or xieati- 3.2 percent malt liquor unless in the household of his or her parent or guardian and with the consent of his or her parent or guardian. Section 2. Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 12 -911 CONDUCT ON LICENSED PREMISES. 1. It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to see that persons occupying the licensed premises conduct themselves in such a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly. For purposes of this Section. a premises is disorderly at which any of the following activities occur: d. The unlawful sale of intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor. ORDINANCE NO. Section 3. Chapter 13 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 13 -103. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PROHIBITED. No person shall bring into any park nor possess, display, consume or use intoxicating liquors nor nenintaxieatittg 3.2 percent malt liquors in any park unless a permit has been issued by the director of recreation. Such permits shall be limited to duly organized local organizations operating under a constitution and bylaws and which shall have been in existence for at least one year. Section 4. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 23 -301. LICENSE REQUIRED. No person shall conduct or permit public dancing in any public establishment within which intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor is licensed to be sold or consumed unless a public dance license shall have been issued by the City Council. Licenses shall be issued for one (1) year periods expiring December 31. The annual fee for a public dance license shall be as set forth by City Council resolution. Section-23-2109. LOCATION OF AMUSEMENT DEVICES. B. Licensed amusement devices shall be allowed to be located as secondary or incidental uses in the following commercial establishments: 1. establishments holding an on -sale -_ 3.2 percent malt liquor license, an on -sale intoxicating liquor license, an on -sale wine license or an on -sale club license. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1997. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 11 City of Brooklyn Center _A great place to start. A great place to stay. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstrom, Lasman, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: November 20, 1997 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Engagement of Construction Management Firm for Police and Fire Building Projects We requested and reviewed proposals for construction management services for the police and fire building projects. Ms. Chambers reviewed the proposals and checked references with other cities. Bossardt Corporation has experience with the construction of two police stations and one fire station. They also have extensive municipal construction management experience for other municipal buildings. Based on the conversations Ms. Chambers had with other municipalities and discussions with the architect for the police building, we feel that Bossardt Corporation would be a good choice. The initial review of fee ro osals from construction man a nt p p a firms also had Bossardt Corporation as the lowest initial proposal for construction management services. One other firm, after the receipt of request for proposals, did modify their proposal and reduce their proposed cost below the cost proposed by Bossardt Corporation. However, our evaluation of the services to be performed and the personnel assigned with experience in this type of municipal construction causes us to recommend Bossardt Corporation for the provision of this service. Ms. Chambers also negotiated a lower and fixed cost fee from Bossardt Corporation after the initial proposals. Our recommendation for construction manaaement is to improve the process of construction and to monitor the cost and material so as to have these projects come in on budget and in the time frame allowed. Many municipalities have been using construction management to overcome some of the difficulties associated with using a general contractor. The anticipated process basically substitutes construction management for the cost of a general contractor so that the overall cost of the project is the same, with fewer surprises. • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center,ti 55430 '?199 City Hall & TDD tiumber (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • F:LY (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer 0 Oatl Construction Management Proposals 5- Nov -97 Company Experience Personnel Approach Fee Bossardt Corporation 2 Police Identified PM on CM phase Lump Sum 2.5 °,6 of co nstruction costs + 1 Fire 2 Senior One Pr oj.Supt $10,400 max per month project superin uper assigned - Est. 10 months Estim I fe based on takin out _ _ Archi and CM fe es from _ Revised Flat Fee $275,000 $284,000 $180,000 + $ 104,000 Plus on -site job trailer (g eneral conditions This to be based on approved upfront max cap i15 000 - - -- — -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- _-- - CAM 3 County Jails 5 p erson team no time estimate Design, Bid Const ruction, 2 County Law Centers with 1 Construction Post- Construction Phases, and 1 Fire Station Coordinator - -- $299,000 - - -L - plus gene ral con ditions requir Amcon 2 Fire One Public Safety Identified - $315,100 $187,600 + $127 ,500 on site Current SW Metro PM and Field Super CM oversight based on 2.5% construction Training Facility will name additional 2 Field Supers - -- doesn't mention general cond itions 9 month const Stahl Construction experience Team no time e stimate - $325,000 174,500 + 1 50,480 - - - - -- -- - .- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- - CM experience? - Project Manager ' doesnt mention ge neral c onditions 2 Fire Stations on site? _ _ _ E V 2 Police, 1 Fire Principal in Charge - 9 _ 10 m onths $326,900 1 50,600 + 176,300 Submitted revised fixed fee -- - -------- Project Manager construction does not refer to gener conditions reduced supervision $251 ,311 team -how much personnel on job re experi ence? _ lots of ice - ca pacity ? — Kraus Anderson 5 Fires and 1 Police team, project manager 7 month $328,000 fixed fee no one on team assigned 2n proj ect manager does not refer to general co nditions had any of these 2 s - - - - -- - -- - -- pr ojects , all exper schools -- ---------- - - - - - -- commercial - CPMI - - multiple, but listed a s Team 13 m onths $382,500 estimated, open to g uaranteed max "cost" m anageme nt on -site mgr 5 yrs ex ge neral conditi ad ditional on -site assist 3 yrs see break -out of est. hours Page 1 its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRM FOR POLICE AND FIRE BUILDING PROJECTS WHEREAS, bonds have been authorized through a referendum for police and fire construction projects; and WHEREAS, request for proposals (RFPs) have been solicited for construction management services for police and fire construction projects; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has received several proposals and has selected from those proposals Bossardt Corporation for consideration by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City Manager be and hereby is authorized to enaaQe the services of Bossardt Corporation to perform required construction management services for the police and fire building projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to execute a contract with Bossardt Corporation for construction management services related to the police and fire building projects upon terms and conditions as set forth in the proposals submitted by the respective construction management firm as set forth in the attachment to 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. DOSSARDT ConvottxrtoN Pnifrsxlonul Cunxtrucdon Urinagers November 19, 1997 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 53430 -2199 ATTENTION: Ms_ Jane A C hambers, Assistant City Manage RE: CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT POLICE /FIRE BUILDING PROJECTS Dear Ms. Chambers: Further to our telephone conversation today, November 19, 1997, we are pleased to confirm the following revisions to our October 17, 1997 Proposal: 1) The construction management fee has been reduced from $180,000 to $171,000 based on an approximate total' construction cost of $6,850,000, and will be a fixed fee. 2) The on -site supervision costs will be capped at $104,000 based on a ten (10) month construction phase. If the construction phase is longer than that Bossardt Corporation will be at risk for any overruns. The resultant total compensation for #1 and #2 above will be fixed at $275,000. 3) Reimbursable costs (indicated under the on -site office) other than on -site supervision will be capped at $13,000 and will be billed at a cost not -to- exceed that amount. In addition, we would like to confirm that all critical path scheduling is included in our fixed compensation amount and that the anticipated construction phase schedule would start on April 1, 1998. Jane, we trust the above accurately outlines our verbal agreement and will allow the City Council to take action on our selection as your Construction Manager at the November 24 1997 City Council meeting. • 7400 16tn) 8oulmni • Suite X1400 - Minneopulls, YN 35439.2326 • (612) 3.71.540.4 • Pc" (612) 831.1268 d ��:aa sst az t Laaessos woaj • 1 City of Brooklyn Center Page Two Thank you for considering our firm for these great projects. We are looking forward to beginning our work as soon as we receive your direction to do so. Yo s very truly, John R. Bossardt President 3RB:P%F —. cc: Charlene Jasan • L66t'aZ'iT 1J�Jd55Q3 WQ1� l� City of Brooklyn Center c1 A great place to start. A great place to stay. r MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstrom, Lasman, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager - DATE: November 20, 1997 SUBJECT: Council Retreat I have spoken with Carl Neu about available dates at the end of February or the beginning of March for a Council retreat as discussed at the last Council retreat. Mr. Neu would be available as follows: February Friday the 27th Saturday the 28th ,N—larch Fridav the 13th Saturday the 1 4th I would like to discuss dates for the Council retreat at the November 24, 1997, Council meeting so that arrangements could be made pursuant to the Council's preference on this matter. i 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, 11-Y,55430-2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Communitv Center Phone & TDD Number (612; 569 -3400 • FeLY (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action; Equal Opportunities Employer City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstr m, Las , and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: November 19, 1997 SUBJECT: Set Date and Time of City Council Wort: Session I would ask that the Council set date of general Council Work Session as December 1, 1997, at 7:15 p.m., following the 7 p.m. Special Session. The Council Work Session will be held in Conference Room B, City Hall. • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, YIN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number i 612) 569 -3400 • FAY (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /EquaZ Opportunities Employer