Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 12-16 CCP Regular Session • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- December 16, 1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER December 16, 1996 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Moment of Silence 4. Council Report 5. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. November 18, 1996 - Special Work Session 2. November 25, 1996 - Regular Session 3. December 2, 1996 - Special Work Session b. Resolution Acknowledging and Congratulating Darrell Meehan as the City of Brooklyn Center Employee of the Quarter, Third Quarter 1996, and Congratulating All Third Quarter Nominees C. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project No. 1995 -11, Contract 1995 -E, Corrugated Metal Pipe Sanitary Sewer Trunk Relining d. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 1997 -07, Contract 1997 -A, Replacement of Underground Storage Tanks and Fuel System, Central Garage e. Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1 for Orchard Lane East Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, Improvement Project Nos. 1996 -01, 02, and 03, • Contract 1996 -B CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -5- December 16, 1996 f. Approval of Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo and Application for Authorization to Conduct an Excluded Raffle from the Willow Lane PTA g. Consideration of 1997 Liquor Licenses h. Licenses 6. Open Forum 7. Public Hearing a. Application for License to Operate a Pawn Shop at 1950 57th Avenue North, Suite 17, Submitted by Cash `n Pawn -Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to approve application for license to operate a pawn shop. b. Resolution Approving Modifications No. 1 and No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 and Making Findings with Respect Thereto - Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolution. C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Relating to the Regulation of Charitable Gambling; Amending Section 11 -717, Paragraph 2 -This item was first read on November 25, 1996, published in the official City newspaper on December 4, 1996, 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. d. An Ordinance Amending Chapters 12 and 19 of the City Ordinances Relating to the Abatement of Nuisances and Housing Code Violations; Amending Sections 12 -1201, 12 -1206, and 19 -105 -This item was first read on November 12, 1996, published in the official City CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -6- December 16, 1996 • newspaper on December 4, 1996, 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. e. Consideration of 1997 Budget 1. Resolution Approving a Final Tax Capacity Levy for the Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Providing Informational Service, and Relocation Assistance Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 469.001 through 469.047 of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year 1997 I 2. Resolution To Authorize a Final Tax Levy for 1997 Appropriations for the General Fund, the Street Improvement Debt Service Funds, the E.D.A. Fund, and the H.R.A. Fund Budgets • 3. Resolution to Adopt the 1997 Final Budget 4. Resolution to Adopt the 1997 Proposed Budgets for the Special Revenue Funds 5. Resolution to Adopt the 1997 Proposed Budgets for the Capital Projects Funds 6. Resolution to Adopt the 1997 Proposed Budgets for the Enterprise Funds 7. Resolution to Adopt the 1997 Proposed Budgets for the Internal Service Funds - Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolutions. 8. Council Consideration Items a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances Regarding Refunds of Permit Fees - Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve for first reading of ordinance and set January 13, 1996, for public hearing and second reading. • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -7- December 16, 1996 b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter Ordinances g Ater 3 of the City O nances Regarding the Minnesota State Building Code - Requested Council Action: - Motion to approve for first reading of ordinance and set January 13, 1996, for public hearing and second reading. C. Resolution Approving Allocation of Damages and Authorizing Payment Thereof (MPRS settlement) - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. d. Resolution Supporting the Six -Lane Option and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Reconstruction of Highway 100 Between Highway 55 and 50th Avenue North - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. e. Mayoral Appointments of Council Liaisons to City Commissions for 1997 Councilmember Hilstrom, Financial Commission Councilmember -elect Lasman, Housing Commission - Councilmember Carmody, Human Rights and Resources Commission - Councilmember -elect Peppe, Park and Recreation Commission - Requested Council Action: - Motion to ratify Mayoral appointments. f. Mayoral Reappointments to City Advisory Commissions - Requested Council Action: - Motion to ratify Mayoral nominations. g. Resolution Approving the Contract for Local 49 (Public Works Maintenance) and the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Years 1997 - 1999 - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. h. Resolution Setting Salaries and Benefits for the Calendar Year 1997 - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. i. Set Date for First City Council Meeting in January 1997 - Requested Council Action: - Motion to set date for first City Council meeting for January 13, 1997, at 7 • p.m., Council Chambers. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -8- December 16, 1996 i j. Resolution Appointing Auditors for the Year Ended December 31, 1996 "Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. 9. Adjournment I • DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 18, 1996 CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM B CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special work session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Kristen Mann, and Charles F. Nichols, Sr. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Public Services Director Diane Spector, and Council Secretary LeAnn Larson. I. COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Hilstrom updated the City Council on her attendance at the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities p p es (AMM) meeting last week. At that meeting all of the proposed policies for the AMM legislative agenda passed. There was brief discussion relating to some of the AMM legislative goals. Councilmember Carmody reported that she had attended the Orchard Lane West Neighborhood meeting last week. The response from the vast majority of the residents in attendance at the meeting was very positive toward the project. Mayor Kragness inquired as to whether other Councilmembers besides herself would be attending the public private partnership meeting in St. Paul on November 19. Councilmembers Carmody and Hilstrom indicated that they thought they would be attending. II. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PRESENTATION ON NORTH METRO CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU City Manager McCauley asked that Mr. Patrick Laniel's presentation regarding the North Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau be added as the first item. Mr. Laniel, Executive Director, provided the Council with an overview of the operations of the Convention & Visitors Bureau. The Convention & Visitors Bureau serves the northern suburban communities of • 11/18/96 -1- D RAFT Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Fridley, and Maple Grove. Mr. Laniel also discussed the efforts of the Convention & Visitors Bureau to utilize the Earle Brown Heritage Center. • The Earle Brown Heritage Center was estimated by Mr. Laniel to be responsible for roughly 30 percent of the hotel bookings in Brooklyn Center. Mayor Kragness commented on the marketing effort of the Convention & Visitors Bureau using the "Discover the Quiet Side" slogan. UPDATE ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD MEETINGS WITH Mn/DOT AND HENNEPIN COUNTY Public Services Director_ Diane Spector updated the Council on recent meetings between her staff, Hennepin County, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In those meetings, an alternate concept was discussed. The alternate concept would build the original project from 69th Avenue North on Brooklyn Boulevard north and from I -694 south on Brooklyn Boulevard. The modification would be that only existing right -of -way would be used between the I -694 interchange and 69th Avenue North. This would result in three lanes of travel and dedicated turn lanes with the center median and no intersection at 68th Avenue North. This would also mean that the enhancements between I -694 and 69th Avenue North would not be feasible within the available right -of -way. Ms. Spector used a drawing to show the locations of the potential improvements on a modified plan. The modified plan would require acquisition of the Pilgrim Cleaners property and several of the adjacent properties, but would not require acquisition of property from the auto dealers. • After the discussion of some of the ros and c f proceeding, the general consensus f p ons o pr eeding, g al o the Council was that the were not interested in having a project pursued that would not have t Y g P J P o he enhancements relating to plantings and trails constructed. The Council's preference was for staff to pursue having the existing roadway improved with a mill and overlay and possible median strip to reduce accidents from left turning traffic between the freeway and 69th Avenue North. As part of the discussion and presentation, Ms. Spector advised the Council that the City would lose the ISTEA funding for the enhancements and that pursing the original design would put the project off at least five to ten years. There was also discussion relating to the traffic needs of the project and the enhancement request. As part of the discussion, it was identified that the exact costs of the modified project were unknown and that the current Phase One environmental study being conducted by Hennepin County would assist in providing that information. The City Manager explained to the Council that the request of the Council had been simply to find out whether or not the Council would have any interest in a modified plan. As indicated in the discussion, the exact cost and source of funding was unknown as to this part of the project, as well, since this had arisen in the conversations between City staff and Hennepin County. The City Manager wanted the Council to be advised of those discussions and to set the course for staff response to those discussions with Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. • 11/18/96 -2- DRAFT SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS IN 1997 There was discussion of the proposed schedule for commission meetings in 1997. Councilmember Carmody indicated that the months chosen were fine but she preferred to have the meetings on the regular commission meeting dates rather than on the proposed third Monday. The general consensus was in favor of scheduling the meetings on the regular commission meeting dates during the months selected. The City Manager advised that this matter would then be put on the City Council agenda for formal action. COUNCIL RETREAT IN 1997 General discussion of this item indicated that scheduling a meeting for a Council retreat in February would appear to be the general preference. The City Manager will contact Carl Neu regarding available dates in February to schedule a meeting during the week beginning after 2:00 p.m. or on a weekend, if possible. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GROWTH OPTIONS City Manager McCauley then brought up the draft regional growth statement prepared by the North Metro Mayors Association (NMMA) regarding a draft regional growth statement of the Metropolitan Council. The City Manager advised the Council that the NMMA was working on a response to the Metropolitan Council's growth management strategy proposal. The basic • thrust of the NMMA was to deal with urban sprawl and the impacts of leap frog development beyond the seven county metropolitan area. There was some general discussion amongst the Council regarding the impacts of growth and a few specific sections of the NMMA statement. III. BUDGET ITEMS COMMUNITY CENTER WADING POOL The first budget item discussed was the community center wading pool. City Manager McCauley advised that the current draft budget contains $75,000 to renovate the wading pool to comply with the requirements of Hennepin County. Included in the Council's materials was the letter that they had previously received from Hennepin County advising that the pool would be closed unless it was renovated to meet the standards described in the letter. There was discussion regarding supervision of the wading pool and the inability to see from the pool area into the wading pool due to the solid partial wall. There was discussion with respect to whether or not a project could be constructed that would replace the solid wall with some type of see - through material to improve visibility and safety. There were questions from the Council of Ms. Spector regarding the possibility that the County might allow additional time to complete the renovations; Ms. Spector will contact the County. • 11/18/96 -3- URAFT The Council generally felt that they wished to have a more comprehensive plan relating to the wading pool /community center as a whole and the potential project for the police station and • additional City offices. The desire to have a comprehensive approach to all of these building needs indicated that the $75,000 should be removed from the draft budget at this time so that the resolution of the wading pool issue could be part of the overall building plans. EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER The next item of budget discussion was the Heritage Center. City Manager McCauley advised the Council that the proposed budget for the Heritage Center predicted that operations would cash flow. He also advised, however, that this would not cover the capital cost needed for improvements at the Heritage Center. And, the current numbers indicated that there was a strong likelihood that the Heritage Center would be able to cash flow operations in 1996, also. The bookings year -to -date for 1997 events are roughly $300,000, as compared to $200,000 worth of bookings at the same time in 1996. The City Manager recommended that the budget provide for approximately $50,000 from the tax increment fund to cover capital cost in 1997 for the Heritage Center. These monies would be dispersed at the end of 1997 to the extent needed based on the actual operations at the Heritage Center. The tax increment financing project was designed to provide capital monies for the Heritage Center. The specific capital projects that would be undertaken at the Heritage Center would be the computer equipment described in the proposed budget, the carpet extractor, the carpeting for the Carriage Hall, Tack Room, and lower level hall, and the • electronic door closures. Deferred would be the fire alarm system upgrade and the upgrading of signage. There was some discussion with the Council regarding the reasons for the exclusion of some items and the inclusion of others. The City Manager outlined that the computer equipment was generally required for the Heritage Center to function as indicated in the narrative. The carpet extractor was necessary for the turnaround use of the facility, and that currently rental of a unit was being done on an uneconomical basis as compared to ownership. The carpeting was required in order for the facility to function and have bookings. The electronic door closures related to a safety issue of smoke, as well as the amenities of not having doors propped open for a conference center of this type. The fire alarm system upgrade and signage upgrade were deferred so as to make the cost manageable in 1997. City Manager McCauley discussed some of the modifications that he had made to the proposal that the Council had in their materials. Approximately $40,000 of expenses in the proposed Heritage Center budget will be recommended for removal by the City Manager. These generally related to the capital items discussed and a substantial decrease in monies for advertising at the Inn and the use of an advertising agency. Some money was left in to allow flexibility for the use of professional advertising assistance in developing materials but at a greatly reduced amount. 11/18/96 -4- DRAFT The City Manager also discussed the reorganization in the budget presentation which created • an administration division and the attempt to have the presentation more readily provide a marginal analysis for the cost of operating Earle's. Councilmember Hilstrom stated that she believed good measurable goals for each division should occur to allow measurement of achievements in the budget. The Council inquired as to the relative profitability of the catering operation versus other operations. The City Manager suggested that the conference center and catering need to be viewed as one entity. That entity, combining the conference center and catering, is generally providing the cash flow. The office rental provides a contribution to the operation, but the Inn and Earle's is in a loss position. The City Manager also discussed the need to find a successor tenant to the tenant that will be leaving the D barn in 1997. The proposed budget has only a partial year's revenue but does have the entire year's expenses, since the expenses will continue past the lease. Councilmember Hilstrom inquired whether or not the costs of the work done by the Finance Department were spread out in each department. The City Manager advised that the administrative charges were charged out in the Heritage Center budget. There were questions also about the liquor stores and golf course. The City Manager advised that the liquor store and golf course budgets do contain an administrative service charge for other work performed by the Finance Department. • GENERAL FUND AND OTHER FUNDS ROUGH DRAFT The Council then had further discussion of the need for measurable goals in the budget. The City Manager outlined the changes that have occurred in the budget and suggested that the larger picture should be viewed in this context. There has been a substantial change in the format of the budget which has been more time consuming than he had anticipated and that the goal setting within the budget document did vary from each department but that this did represent substantial progress toward a usable document. Councilmember Nichols discussed the need to use the budget as a planning tool for addressing goals. Councilmember Hilstrom stated that she felt there was a need for improvement in the goals within the budget in order to have accountability for those operations and to have the Manager accountable for his performance in that regard. TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING The Council then discussed the Truth in Taxation hearing that will be held on December 4, 1996. City Manager McCauley inquired as to setting an additional Council work session for December 2 so that staff could provide the improvements to the budget document and inquire of the Council as to any final changes in the document prior to the December 4, 1996, Truth in Taxation hearing. The City Manager also indicated that there would be a rough overview of what would be presented at that hearing so that any items that the Council wished to have • 11/18/96 -5- DRAFT included in the Truth in Taxation presentation could be added prior to the Truth in Taxation hearing itself Councilmember Hilstrom raised the issue of whether the final levy should be reduced from the four percent levy. Councilmember Hilstrom discussed the tax increases that have been experienced by residents. The City Manager outlined that the tax capacity of the City had decreased for taxes payable in 1997 which has the result of increasing the percentage increase in taxes, especially for homeowners whose properties have increased in value. He also outlined that with a number of houses going over the $72,000 valuation there would be on a percentage basis a disproportionate increase in those people's property taxes simply due to the change from one percent to two percent tax capacity rate for the value more than $72,000. The City Manager discussed the potential difficulties in developing a 1998 budget if the proposed 1997 levy were reduced in that, if a bond referendum passed for a fire /police building, an operational levy increase for 1998 would be overshadowed by the increased levy for the bonds. Since no increase in the levy for 1998 above the bond referendum levy might be necessary, the proposed 1997 level of funding would be important to go into the 1998 budget. The Council had questions regarding the average house value in Brooklyn Center, as well as the distribution of increases in property taxes. The Council wished to have information provided regarding the number of households receiving property tax increases of ten percent or more. The City Manager indicated that he would inquire of the assessor as to this information and provide the information at the work session. • ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Nichols to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 p.m. passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: LeAnn Larson 11/18/96 -6- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 25, 1996 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, Kristen Mann, and Charles F. Nichols, Sr. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary LeAnn Larson. MOMENT OF SILENCE • A moment of silence was observed. COUNCIL REPORTS There were no Council reports. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the agenda and consent agenda as printed passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve minutes of the November 12, 1996 -- Regular Session as printed passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 96 -230 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • 11/25/96 -1- DRAFT RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING A DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER WOMEN'S CLUB FOR RECREATION PROGRAMS • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Mann and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 96 -231 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING 1997 PLANTING LIST OF ALLOWABLE BOULEVARD TREE SPECIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Mann and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 96-232 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1997 -08, REFORESTATION OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREAS, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Mann and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 96 -233 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1996 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1996 -12, CONTRACT 1996 -D The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Mann and passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 96-234 Member Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 11/25/96 -2- i DRAFT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS FOR SHINGLE CREEK • REGIONAL POND FUNDING The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Mann and passed unanimously. LICENSES A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the following licenses passed unanimously. Christmas Tree Sales Malmborg's, Inc. 5120 Lilac Drive North Courtesy Bench U.S. Bench Corporation 3300 Snelling Avenue, St. Paul Mechanical Systems Heating & Cooling Two, Inc. 18550 County Road 81, Maple Grove Master Mechanical, Inc. 901 East 79th Street, Bloomington Rental Dwellings • Initial: William Modell 3713 47th Avenue North Renewal: Presbyterian Homes Asst. Living Earle Brown Commons Twin Lakes Properties, LLP Twin Lakes Manor Terry L. Hartmann 6804 Fremont Place North Ralph T. Guimont 5903 Halifax Place North Gary Scherber 4708 Lakeview Avenue North Howard & Harriet Oien 3606 58th Avenue North Eugene Hess 3218 63rd Avenue North Ruth Kalanquin 5348 70th Circle North Curtis Cady 1312 72nd Avenue North OPEN FORUM Jerald Blarney, representing the Riverwood Neighborhood Association, spoke of the success achieved by the Association in cooperation with the City. He suggested a three -point proposal to insure redevelopment of the 10+ acre site in the Riverwood Neighborhood: 1) a resolution by the Council and EDA stating the beginning of redevelopment in 1997, with a timetable of • 11/25/96 _3_ DRAFT stages; 2) resumption of regular meetings between the Association and the Community Development Director for planning and updates; and 3) a cooperative effort with the • Community Development Director and a committee of the Association to explore marketing possibilities and opportunities with developers and to be an integral part of a marketing plan. Certificates of Appreciation "for outstanding service and contributions which have assisted in the growth and development of the Riverwood Neighborhood Association" were presented to: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstrom, Mann, and Nichols, Sr., City Manager McCauley, and Planning and Zoning Specialist Warren. (Community Development Director Hoffman and Community Development Specialist Bublitz will receive certificates, also.) PUBLIC HEARINGS APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO OPERATE A PAWN SHOP AT 1964 57th AVENUE NORTH. SUITE 17 SUBMITTED BY CASH `N PAWN City Manager McCauley outlined the application before the Council. He advised that an issue regarding the license application existed due to unpaid real estate taxes on the parcel. The City Attorney would be asked to provide an opinion regarding eligibility since the ordinance precludes issuance of a license for a pawn shop where taxes are delinquent and unpaid. Full information on the tax situation would be given to the City Attorney. • A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to open the public hearing passed unanimously. Jack Hartsoe, president/CEO of Cash `n Pawn International in St. Louis Park, stated that the pawn industry fills the void left by banks being unwilling to lend small loans for relatively short periods of time. Mr. Hartsoe, further noted the general stigmatization of pawn businesses as negative, but pointed out that the Cash `n Pawn locations in several metro communities share a mutual working relationship with each police department and run respectable businesses. Mayor Kragness stated that the Brooklyn Center Police Department had done an extensive investigation into Cash `n Pawn International, its officers and board of directors. Other police departments in the metro with Cash `n Pawn locations noted the cooperative, honest working relationships with the Cash `n Pawn shops. Several residents spoke against issuing a license for a pawn shop to Cash `n Pawn: Deb Iverson, 2006 Ericon Drive; Steve Erdmann, 4919 61st Avenue North; Nancy Carlson, 6024 Aldrich Avenue North; Jim Dahlberg, owner of Acme Typewriter in Northbrook Plaza; and another resident. Mr. Hartsoe answered several Council questions relating to typical transactions and procedures, 11/25/96 -4- • DRAFT fees, cooperation with police, and signage. He further explained that customers are typical • people, not criminals, looking for a short-term, non- recourse loan. A representative of Welsh Companies, property managers of Northbrook Plaza, wanted to go on record with a positive recommendation for Cash `n Pawn. Welsh Companies have strived for stable improvements to the property, and tenant vacancy at Northbrook has dropped from 50 percent vacancy to 13 percent vacancy since February 1996. A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Mann to close the public hearing passed unanimously. Council consensus was to table any action on the ordinance until the December 16, 1996, Council meeting in order to get clarification from City Attorney LeFevere regarding the issue of "delinquent" and "unpaid" taxes and whether the premises were eligible to be licensed. A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to table the public hearing until December 16, 1996, passed unanimously. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 95 -02, AS EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 96-4. EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE SITING OF ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS • City Manager McCauley stated that this ordinance was an emergency ordinance necessary to extend the moratorium on the siting of adult establishments until March 30, 1997. This ordinance covers the gap between the current moratorium that ends in November and the effective date of the extension. Additional time is needed to study this issue, and the Planning Commission and Council will be meeting to resolve this issue. A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the public hearing passed unanimously. There was no public input. A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to close the public hearing passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 96-20 Member Mann introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 95 -02, AS EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 96-4, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE SITING OF ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS • 11/25/96 -5- DRAFT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member • Carmody and passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren introduced Planning Commission Application No. 96020 submitted by Dakota Hospitality Company. This is a request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to build a 42,244 square foot, four -story AmericInn at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application subject to the following considerations: 1. The development plans are compatible with the standards, purposes, and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The development plans will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is consistent with, complimentary to, and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the development plan will conform with City ordinance standards and is considered to be a reasonable use of the property. 4. The development plans are considered compatible with recommendations in the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City. 5. The development plan appears to be a good, long -range use of the existing land and can be considered to be consistent with other motel developments in the area and is in the best interest of the community. Don Wold, one of the Dakota Hospitality developers, was questioned about the three -year length of time in order to either develop or improve the part of the subject lot identified as "future development." Councilmember Carmody inquired if improvements to that portion of the development couldn't be, achieved sooner than three years. Mr. Wold responded that they really need this length of time to insure a suitable companion venture at this location. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve Planning Commission Application No. 96020 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, and utility plans including appropriate easements are subject to 11/25/96 -6- mom DRAFT review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. • 3. A site erformanc p e agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on- ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas with the exception of the east side of the parking lot as referenced in condition #14. 9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements, and utility • service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility storm drainage systems prior to issuance of permits. 11 The plan shall be modified in the following manner: A. To meet the 50 -foot building setback requirement from the Freeway Boulevard right -of -way line. B. To clarify the total number of units proposed for the development. C. Modification to the driveway access on Freeway Boulevard to be consistent with City Ordinance requirements and to provide proper radii for the two northerly accesses on Parkway Circle. D. To provide a concrete parking delineator /protector at the north end of the row of parking closest to the building. E. To provide details of the trash enclosure area showing material to be used to provide proper screening. r 11/25/96 -7- DRAFT 12. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the • City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details. 13. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. The area identified on the site plan as "future development" shall be seeded in a manner to allow appropriate maintenance. If, after three years from the date of issuance of the building permits for this project, this area is not developed or improved, additional landscaping, underground irrigation, and B -612 curb and gutter shall be installed in accordance with City Ordinances. The performance guarantee for this project shall not be released in its entity until this area is developed or said required improvements have been completed. 15. Further development of the area identified "future development" is subject to amendment to this Planned Unit Development. The City will not allow this area to be developed as a fast food/convenience food restaurant or a gasoline service station. The development agreement mentioned in Condition # 13 will acknowledge this restriction or limitation. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGULATING THE USE OF WATERCRAFT ON TWIN LAKES. ADDING NEW SECTIONS 19- 1900,19 -1901, AND 19 -1902 City Manager McCauley presented an overview of the ordinance, tabled from the November 12, 1996, Council meeting, which amends Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances regulating water craft use on Twin Lakes. New sections on slow -no wake zones, exceptions, enforcement, and penalties would be added. This ordinance amendment comes from the Twin Lakes Use Task Force after two years of consideration. Mr. McCauley presented copies of minutes of task force meetings, various correspondence items, and other information pertaining to the issue, along with copies of materials from the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale. Councilmember Carmody noted that this ordinance amendment was the "fruit of the task force's labor," but wondered if this amendment was a "heavy hammer" beyond the watercraft statutes as mandated by the State at present. Other aspects discussed included land erosion at high water levels and possible establishment of additional speed controls at those times; additional signage posted regarding speed limits; • 11/25/96 -8- DRAFT and affording additional personnel /resources in order to enforce the stricter requirements of this • amendment. Council consensus was to drop this issue for now. Letters will be sent to the cities of Robbinsdale and Crystal stating Brooklyn Center's intention not to adopt this ordinance amendment. Rick Arntson, 4224 Lakeside Avenue North, asked Council to consider allowing parking on the street again near the access at Twin Lake Beach. Councilmember Nichols remarked that he helped establish the restricted parking in that area and doesn't care to change the restrictions. Paul Oman, 5239 Twin Lake Boulevard East, outlined his recent letter to City Clerk Sharon Knutson regarding several restrictions imposed by the city of Robbinsdale at its public launch which directly affect the use of Middle and Upper Twin Lakes and is the core of this issue. Council consensus was to discuss options of resolving this issue with Robbinsdale in the future. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING; AMENDING SECTION 11 -717, PARAGRAPH2 City Manager McCauley outlined the change in ordinance language dealing with leases between the licensee and the charitable organization. The current restriction of $700 per month • maximum rent charged would be changed to an amount of rent not to exceed that authorized by law. A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Nichols to approve the first reading of the ordinance and set December 16, 1996, for a public hearing and second reading passed unanimously. SET DATE FOR COUNCIL WORK SESSION FOR MONDAY DECEMBER 2 1996 AT 7 P.M.. CONFERENCE ROOM B CITY HALL A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to set the date of December 2, 1996, 7 p.m.,Conference Room B, City Hall, for a Council work session passed unanimously. SET DATES FOR MEETINGS WITH CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to set the following dates for meetings with City Advisory Commissions passed unanimously. February Housing Commission • 11/25/96 -9- 1 DRAFT March Park and Recreation Commission • April Human Rights and Resources Commission May Financial Commission September Planning Commission October Charter Commission The joint meeting would be scheduled for the commission's regular meeting during the designated month as requested by the Council SET DATE FOR FACILITATED COUNCIL WORKSHOP FOR THURSDAY FEBRUARY 20 1997 AT 2 P.M.. EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER A motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to set the date of February 20, 1997, 2 p.m., Earle Brown Heritage Center, for a facilitated Council workshop passed unanimously. The facilitator will be Carl Neu. RESOLUTION STATING THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS City Manager McCauley discussed the Council's request that Hennepin County proceed with a mill and overlay project on Brooklyn Boulevard with consideration given to the advisability of a continuous center median between the I -694 interchange and 69th Avenue North to reduce • the incidence of traffic accidents due to unrestricted left turn activity along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Metropolitan Council will be notified that the City of Brooklyn Center will not be in a position to utilize the ISTEA TEP funding for the Brooklyn Boulevard Enhancement project prior to its sunset date. The City Manager further noted the Council's position that until the total costs are identified and the City would find sufficient resources to undertake the project, staff would continue to work with Hennepin County and Mn/DOT on developing this additional information and to explore future grant funding to seek replacement for grant funding that will be lost due to the timing of the delayed project. The potential complete widening project to provide greater traffic movement and the desired enhancements identified by the Citizens Advisory Committee will not be undertaken until the entire project can be accomplished as per the Council's direction. RESOLUTION NO. 96-235 Member Nichols introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION STATING THE CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Carmody and passed unanimously. • 11/25/96 -10- MAYORAL APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO SERVE ON FINANCIAL COMMISSION • Mayor Kragness has requested that Council ratify the nomination of Jerald Blarney, 7136 Willow Lane North, to the Financial Commission to fill the unexpired term of Phillip Roche, term to expire December 31, 1997. A motion by Councilmember Nichols and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the nomination of Jerald Blarney to serve on the Financial Commission passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: • LeAnn Larson I i 11/25/96 -11- �.. R -- o MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL WORK SESSION DECEMBER 2, 1996 CITY HALL, CONFERENCE ROOM B CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special work session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Charles F. Nichols, Sr. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, City Assessor Stephen Baker, and Administrative Intern Steve Sydow. Councilmember Mann was absent. TRUTH IN TAXATION There was general discussion regarding the truth in taxation meeting set for Wednesday, December 4, 1996. City Manager McCauley explained how he would give his presentation to the public. He explained the details of the general fund by discussing revenue and expenses, highlighted with overhead transparencies. Mr. McCauley also discussed how taxes were calculated and the impact of taxes on homeowners. BROOKDALE There was general discussion on Brookdale. The future and the City's role in development was discussed. 1997 BUDGET The Councilmembers took this time to ask questions and to request changes to the budget. The Council consensus was to remove the proposed $50,000 transfer from the Earle Brown Farm Tax Increment Financing District to the Heritage Center and use $50,000 of anticipated earnings from the Center in 1996 as a carryover to cover the budgeted capital expenditures in 1997. • 12/02/96 -1- DRAFT COMMISSIONS There was general discussion regarding Council liaisons to City commissions for the new year. The new assignments are: • Carmody Human Rights and Resources • Lasman- Housing • Peppe -Park and Recreation • Hilstrom - Financial COUNCIL SEATING Mayor Kragness assigned seats for Council meetings. The senior Councilmembers will be moving in one chair, Mr. Peppe will be seated next to the secretary, and Ms. Lasman will be seated next to the City Manager. CITY MANAGER SALARY The Council discussed the City Manager's salary with a preliminary consensus on amending the Manager's contract to provide an annual salary of $81,000 for 1997. • ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Steve Sydow 12/02/96 -2- • i MEMORANDUM Date: November 26, 1996 To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager a 1 From: Nancy Gohman, Assistant City Manager /Human Resources Director Subject: Resolution Acknowledging and Congratulating Darrell Meehan as the City of Brooklyn Center Employee of the Quarter, Third Quarter 1996, and Congratulating All Third Quarter Nominees On April 24, 1995, the City Council approved a request by the Employee Action Committee to implement an Employee of the Quarter and Employee of the Year program. On November 25, 1996, public works department employee Darrell Meehan was named Employee of the Quarter, Third Quarter 1996. Members of the Employee Action Committee recommended the City Manager select Mr. Meehan as Employee of the Quarter. For his efforts, Darrell will receive a rotating plaque for his work area, a copy of a resolution, A photo plaque with his name to hang in City Hall for the quarter, and recognition in city and community publications. Darrell is also a candidate for Employee of the Year 1996. Other nominees for Employee of the Quarter, Third Quarter 1996 were Bill Vetter, also from the public works department, and City Clerk Sharon Knutson. All candidates should be congratulated for their hard work and efforts during the quarter. • Member introduced the following resolution and • moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING AND CONGRATULATING DARRELL MEEHAN AS THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER, THIRD QUARTER 1996, AND CONGRATULATING ALL THIRD QUARTER NOMINEES WHEREAS, Darrell Meehan was selected Employee of the Quarter, Third Quarter 1996, by the Employee Action Committee; and WHEREAS, Bill Vetter and Sharon Knutson were also nominated for Employee of the Quarter, Third Quarter 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Darrell Meehan, Bill Vetter and Sharon Knutson be acknowledged and congratulated for their hard work and efforts during the quarter. • Date May or 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: December 10, 1996 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer 7 SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Work Performed, and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project No. 1995 -11, Contract 1995 -E, Corrugated Metal Pipe Sanitary Sewer Trunk Relining The project consisted of the relining and rehabilitation of approximately 1.3 miles of corrugated metal trunk sanitary sewer main, and the relining of almost 700 feet of concrete storm sewer pipe. This project was essentially completed in December of 1995. Final payment was withheld pending the completion of some miscellaneous repair items that were identified upon final inspection. The Contractor has completed these remaining work items. • The original contract bid was $845,220.00. The final total work completed was $866, 875.00. The higher amount can be attributed to an under- estimation of some quantities in the original contract. Because it has been the City's intent to either rehabilitate or replace all corrugated sanitary sewer pipe within the City, all corrugated metal pipe identified during the course of the project was therefore relined. It should be noted that the original Engineer's Estimate for this project was $1,078,000. Payment for the project has been from the City's respective utility funds (sanitary sewer and storm drainage). It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution releasing final payment to Insituform, Inc. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED, AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -11, CONTRACT 1995 -E, CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SANITARY SEWER TRUNK RELINING WHEREAS, Insituform, Inc. has completed construction of the above project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Insituform, Inc. has completed the specified work under said contract and contract is accepted and final payment is approved according to the following schedule: As Estimated Project Costs Per Low Bid As Final Contract $845,200 $866,875 *Deductions $2,013 (Deductions include traffic control and storage rental costs) Est. Total Project Costs $845 200 $864 862 J , As Amended Estimated Project Revenue Per Low Bid As Final Public Utility Fund Sanitary $769,390 $787,288 Storm Drainage $75,630 $77,574 Total Est. Project eve 0 4 � Revenue $845,20 $86 ,862 2. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $864,862. • 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: December 6, 1996 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer AQ SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 1997 -07, Contract 1997 -A, Replacement of Underground Storage Tanks and Fuel System, Central Garage As reported previously to the City Council in September of 1996, the City of Brooklyn Center currently utilizes three (3) underground storage tanks at the Public Works Garage facility. The tanks are used b the City's maintenance fleet. In order to comply with recent! established requirements Y tY P Y Y 9 of the EPA and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, these tanks must be removed and replaced by January 1, 1998. Replacement/relocation of the pumps and re- fueling system will also be necessary. It is estimated that the cost of this replacement will be about $175,000, financed from the Capital Improvements Fund and the Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities. The 1996 CIP had included this improvement as a part of a potential 1997 project called "Site Improvements," and estimated at $325,000. That project also included such improvements as a ring road, enhancement of berming, improvements in the storage yard and cold storage building. We don't anticipate a need to construct • those other improvements now for several years. At their September 23, 1996 meeting, the City Council authorized Nova Environmental Services, Inc. to provide professional services for the tank and fuel system replacements. Their services include the following tasks: data review and field surveys, preparation of bid plans and specifications, bid solicitation and recommendation, contractor oversight and inspection, and g P environmental testing services. Nova Environmental has completed plans and specifications, and the project is now ready to advertise for bids. Because of the tight time constraints, it is important that the project proceed ahead in a timely fashion. It is anticipated that the work can be completed before the summer of 1997, when many of the contractors will likely be busy performing the same work at schools and for other agencies and institutions. An early start on this project will hopefully enable the City to receive competitive bids for the work. It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorizing an advertisement for bids. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. _ RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1997 -07, CONTRACT 1997 -A, REPLACEMENT OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND FUEL SYSTEM, CENTRAL GARAGE WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council recognizes the obligation and necessity of adhering to federal and state environmental requirements; and WHEREAS, three underground petroleum storage tanks at the City Garage must be removed and replaced to meet these regulations by January 1, 1998; and WHEREAS, a professional consultant, approved by the City Council and directed by the City Engineer has completed plans and specifications for the replacement of said tanks and the re- fueling system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project No. 1997 -07, Contract 1997 -A, Replacement of Underground Storage Tanks and Fuel System, Central Garage are hereby • approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 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: December 11, 1996 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer 1 Dave Anderson, Sr. Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1 for Orchard Lane East Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, Improvement Project Nos. 1996 -01, 02 and 03, Contract 1996 -B On April 22, 1996, the City Council awarded a contract for the subject improvement to Thomas & Sons Construction Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota. The contract amount was $2,369,969.90 and 15% contingencies in the amount of $355,495.35 were approved by Resolution No. 96 -87. The contingencies are to cover the cost of construction for those items that are unknown at the time of plan preparation, omissions and utility conflicts. The total amount of Change Order No. 1 is $169,825.79, or 7.1% of the approved 15% contingencies. The Contractor and Engineering Department agree to carry any extra work invoices and.overruns of quantities until the contract has been substantially completed. This eliminates the necessity to prepare change orders each month for Council approval. The City also benefits by continuing interest earnings on unexpended funds. Change Order No. 1 consists of those items considered overruns of the original contract unit amounts, those items unknown at the time of plan preparation and those items encountered during construction that required field changes and no unit prices were provided. Change Order No. 1 is broken down into five categories: 1. Unit Price Overruns 2. Street Construction Extra Work 3. Storm Sewer Extra Work 4. Sanitary Sewer Extra Work 5. Water Main Extra Work • . Category No. 1 Unit Price Overruns (Attached Payment Voucher No. 8) Item 46 One section of 36" RCP was not included on the original bid form. $29,711.90 Item 86 Bituminous Driveway Patch - Increased quantity to facilitate improved driveway slopes. $20,002.84 Item 87 4" Concrete Sidewalk - Increased quantity on 65th Ave due to excessive storm sewer trench width. $23,418.50 Subtotal Category No. 1 $73,133.24 Category No. 2 Street Construction Extra Work (Attached itemized Change Order No. 1) Item Nos. 7,10,11,38 and 44 resulted from field changed street grades to facilitate driveway slopes and improved street drainage. $10,588.37 Item 40 - Landfill type material on Marlin Dr. removed and hauled to landfill $367.90 Item 58 Relocated trail from Park & Ride not in original plans. $723.51 Item 64 - Construction staking error required additional fill and grading. $825.00 Subtotal Category No. 2 $12,504.78 Category No. 3 Storm Sewer Extra Work (Attached itemized Change Order No. 1) Item Nos. 14,47,48,49,50 and 56A were reinstalled due to human error in use of new instrument. $3,197.86 The remaining items are self explanatory and are for subgrade correction of bad soils, field changes to facilitate grade changes around existing utilities. $26,606.59 Subtotal Category No. 3 $29,804.45 Category No. 4 Sanitary Sewer Extra Work (Attached itemized Change Order No. 1) The extra work encountered in this category covers unknown sanitary sewer service locations, wrong service locations based on erroneous AS -Built data, temporary field connections and grade changes to avoid conflicts with other utilities. Subtotal Category No. 4 $16,583.76 Category No. 5 Water Main Extra Work (Attached itemized Change Order No. 1) The extra work required includes relocating existing water mains to avoid conflicts encountered in the field during construction, lowering shallow residential water services and abandoning water main. Subtotal Category No. 5 $37,799.56 SUMMARY Category No. 1 $73,133.24 Category No. 2 $12,504.78 Category No. 3 $29,804.45 Category No. 4 $16,583.76 Category No. 5 $37,799.56 Total Change Order No. 1 $169,825.79 It is recommended that the City Council approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $169,825.79. A Resolution is attached for Council consideration. • its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO.1 FOR ORCHARD LANE EAST STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1996 -01,02 and 03, CONTRACT 1996 -B WHEREAS, the City Council on April 22, 1996 by Resolution No. 96 -87 awarded Improvement Project Nos. 1996 -01, 02 and 03, Orchard Lane East Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements to Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc; and WHEREAS, extra work was performed by Thomas & Sons Construction in accordance with the specifications, in the amount of $169,825.79. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Change Order No. 1 is hereby approved roved and payment a ment is authorized to Thomas & Sons Construction in the amount of $169,825.79. 2. The original contract amount of $2,369,969.90 is increased by $169,825.79 and the amended contract shall be $2,539,795.69. 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 Contract No. 1996 -B 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Project No. 1996 -01, 02 & 03 • Payment Voucher No.8 For Period Ending: December 10, 1996 City of Brooklyn Center to: Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. P.O. Box 303 Rogers, MN 55374 -0303 Telephone: 428 -2229 Amount of Contract: $2,369,969.90 Date Approved: April 22, 1996 Project Description: Orchard Lane East Value Less Less Funds of Work Charges 5 Less Net Project Account Encumbered Certified and Percent Previous Amount Number Number To Date To Date Deducts Retained Payments Due 96 -01,2,3 6413 -4560 $2,369,969.90 $2,369,969.85 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $169,825.79 $169,825.79 $2,539,795.69 $2,539,795.64 $ 126,989.78 $2,251,477.36 $ 161,328.50 This is to certify that work items shown on this statement of work certified herein have been actually furnished for the referenced project in accordance with plans & specifications approved and that the total work is 100% complete. • Date: City Engineer CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CERTIFICATION This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge, information & belief, the quantities and values of work certified herein are a fair approximate estimate for the period covered by this voucher. Date: CONTRACTOR I hereby recommend payment of this voucher. Date: Director of Public Services CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Date: City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Hold check and call when ready. _ Send check to address shown above. • E:IENGW ROJECTBBPROJECTICONTRACTV )601PAYe.XLS THOMAS & SONS CONSTRUCTION, INC. PERIOD ENDING: DECEMBER 10, 1996 PAY VOUCHER NO. 8 ORCHARD LANE EAST - IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1996 -01,02 & 03 CONTRACT 1996 -B CONTRACT AS BID STREET SAN /TARYSEWER WATERMA/N STORM SEWER TOTAL NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY QUANTITY PRICE QUANTITY EXTENSION TO DATE EXTENSION TO DATE EXTENSION TO DATE EXTENSION TO DATE EXTENSION TO DATE EXTENSION i MOBILIZATION - LS S 44,400.00 1 1 44,400.00 0.25 $ 11,100.00 0.25 $ 11,100.00 0.25 $ 11,100.00 0.25 S 11,100.00 1 $ 44,400.00 2 FIELDOFFICE LS $ 3,500.00 1 $ 3,500.00 0.25 $ 875.00 0.25 $ 875.00 0.25 $ 875.00 0.25 $ 875.00 1 $ 3,500.00 3 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS S 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00 0.25 S 3,750.00 0.25 S 3,750.00 0.25 $ 3,750.00 0,25 S 3,750.00 1 S 15,000.00 4 COMMON EXCAVATION CY 1 3.60 16086 S 57,909.60 16086 $ 57,909.60 16086 $ 57,909.60 5 MUCK EXCAVATION CY S 0.01 500 $ 5.00 500 $ 5.00 500 $ 5.00 6 SELECT GRARBORROW (CV) CY $ 0.01 500 $ 5.00 500 S 5.00 500 $ 5.00 7 REMOVE CONC. SWK SY $ 2.00 500 1 1.000.00 848.3 $ 1,696.60 848.3 $ 1,696.60 8 REMOVE CONC DAN SY $ 3.00 1648 1 4,944.00 1640.6 $ 4,921.80 - 1640.6 1 4,921.80 9 REMOVE B -618 CURB & GUTTER LF 1 3.00 138 i 414.00 138 1 414.00 138 1 414.00 10 REMOVE BIT PAVEMENT SY 1 0.65 68901 $ 44,785.65 68901 $ 44,785.65 68901 1 44,785.65 11 REMOVE BIT. D/W PAVEMENT SY S 1.50 4638 1 6,957.00 4638 $ 6,957.00 4638 S 6,957.00 12 SAWCUT CONCRETE LF $ 2.50 1476 $ 3,690.00 1476 $ 3.690.00 1476 $ 3,690.00 13 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS LF $ 1.30 4395 S 5,713.50 3988 S 5,184.40 3988 $ 5,184.40 14 WATER FOR DUST CNTRL MGAL $ 25.00 420 $ 10,600.00 713.6 S 17,840.00 713.6 1 17,840.00 15 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROSTA $ 90.00 203.8 $ 18,342.00 203.8 $ 18,342.00 2038 . $ 18,342.00 16 AGG. BASE CLASS 5 CY $ 5.00 13980 $ 69,800.00 13960 $ 69,800.00 13960 $ 69,800. DO 17 BASE COURSE MIX (2 ") SY $ 2.00 61035 S 122,070.00 62448 $ 124,896.00 62448 S 124,896.00 18 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK GAL $ 1.40 3053 1 4,274.20 3000 $ 4,200.00 3000 $ 4 200 00 19 WEAR COURSE MIX. (1 1/2') SY $ 1.70 61035 S 103,759.50 61102 1 103,873.40 61102 S 103.873.40 20 SALV. B REINSTALL HYD EA 1 500.00 15 $ 7,500.00 18 $ 9,000.00 1B $ 9,000.00 21 NEW WB -59 HYDRANT EA $ 1,700.00 11 $ 18,700.00 9 S 15,300.00 9 S 15,300.00 22 EXPOSE VALVE EA $ 200.00 6 $ 1,600.00 23 ADJUST VALVE EA $ 120.00 18 $ 2,160.00 23 $ 2,760.00 23 S 2,760.00 24 REMOVE ALL CIP•DIP (ALL SIZES) LF $ 0.30 6650 $ 1,995.00 6660.5 $ 1,998.15 6660.5 S 1,998.15 25 6" DIP CLASS 52 LF $ 17.00 2200 $ 37,400.00 3519 S 59,823.00 3519 S 59,823.00 26 8' DIP CLASS 52 LF $ 19.00 3020 $ 57,380.00 3090 S 58,710.00 3090 $ 58,710.00 27 12" DIP CLASS 52 LF $ 26.00 2124 $ 55,224.00 2278 $ 59,176.00 2278 S 59,176.00l 28 PIPE FITTINGS - ALL SIZES LB $ 1.85 7800 $ 14,430.00 5413 $ 10,014.05 5413 $ 10,014.05 29 6" VALVE EA $ 390.00 50 $ 19,500.00 29 $ 11,310.00 29 1 11,310.00 30 8" VALVE EA S 525.00 B $ 4,200.00 10 S 5,250.00 10 $ 5,250.00 31 12" VALVE WITH MANHOLE EA $ 1,600.00 4 $ 6,400.00 3.5 $ 5,600.00 3.5 S 5,600.00 32 COR -TEN BOLTS EA $ 2.00 1200 $ 2,400.00 382 $ 764.00 382 S 764 -00 33 1" CORP COCK / CURB STOP & BOX EA $ 120.00 122 ' $ 14,640.00 96 S 11,520.00 96 $ 11,520.00 34 1" COPPER PIPE LF $ 10.00 3750 $ 37,500.00 2770.5 $ 27,705.00 2770.5 S 27,705.00 35 SALVAGE CASTINGS (SAN) EA S 50.00 69 $ 3,450.00 63 $ 3,150.00 63 $ 3,150.00 36 REMOVE EXIST. STORM & SAWSTRUCT. EA $ 500.00 2 $ 1,000.00 41 $ 20,500.00 41 $ 20,500.00 37 REMOVE EXIST. STORM PIPE (ALL SIZES) LF $ 24.00 90 $ $160.00 633 $ 15,19100 633 $ 15,192.00 38 CRUSHED ROCK PIPE BEDDING CY S 18.00 250 S 4,500.00 692.7 $ 12.468.60 692.7 S 12,46840 39 12" RCP CL LF $ 24.00 32 $ 768.00 81 S 1,944.00 81 $ 1,944.00 40 15" RCP CL 5 LF $ 18.00 5599 S 100,782.00 5568.6 S 100,234.80 5568.8 $ 100,234.80 41 18" RCP CL 3 LF 1 23.00 525 $ 12,075.00 507.8 $ 11,679.40 507.8 S 11,879 .40 42 21" RCP CL 3 LF $ 24.00 1433 $ 34,392.00 989.1 S 23,738 .40 989.1 $ 23,738.40 43 24" RCP CL 3 LF S 28.00 543 S 15,204.00 1024.8 1 28,694 .40 1024.8 $ 28,694.40 44 27" RCP CL 3 LF $ 38.00 108 S 4.104.00 98 $ 3,724.00 98 S 3,724.00 45 30" RCP CL 3 LF $ 40.00 557 S 22,280.00 827 $ 33,080.00 827 S 33.080.00 46 36" RCP CL 3 LF $ 79.00 853 $ 67,387.00 853 $ 67,367.00 853 S 61.387.00 47 42" RCP CL3 LF S 90.00 472 S 42,480.00 454 6 40,860.00 454 S 40,860.00 46 48" RCP CL 3 LF S 114.00 2017 S 229,938.00 1958 $ 223,212.00 1958 3 223,212.00 48 24" RCP APRON W /GUARD EA $ 850.00 1 S 850.00 1 S 850.00 1 S 850.00 49 36" RCP APRON W/ GUARD EA $ 1 1 S 1,500.00 1 S 1 1 S 1 Page 1 i S� 50 42" RCP APRON WAGUARD EA S 1,750.00 1 $ 1,750.00 1 $ 1,750.00 1 $ 1,750.00 51 36" RCP 7 114 BENDS EA $ 240.00 12 $ 2,880.00 13 $ 3,120.00 13 S 3,120.00 52 42" FABRICATED BEND EA S t,800.00 1 $ 1,800.00 53 C STORM MH 0' -10' EA S 1,000.00 77 $ 77,000.00 70 S 70,000.00 70 - $ 70,000.00 54 5' STORM MH 0' -10' EA $ 2,400.00 3 $ 7,200.00 4.5 S 10,800.00. 4.5 S 14800.00 55 6' STORM MH 0' -10' EA $ 2,400.00 1 $ 2,400.00 2 S 4,800.00 2 $ 4,800.00 56 SPECIAL MH'S - 65TH & LEE LS $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8,000.00 1 $ 8.000.00 57 IW SPECIAL -6331 ORCHARD LS S 7,500.00 1 $ 7,500.00 1 S 7,500.00 1 $ 7,500.00 58 CATCH BASIN STRUCTURE 27" EA $ 700.00 66 $ 46,200.00 65 $ 45,500.00 65 S 45,500.00 59 EXTRA DEPTH OF MANHOLE LF $ 80.00 51.5 $ 4,120.00 54.46 S 4,35610 54.46 S 4,356.60 60 SPECIAL MH- 65TH&ORCHARD LS $ 30,500.00 1 $ 30,500.00 1 S 30,500.00 1 $ 30,50.00 61 REBUILD SANITARY MH LF $ 100.00 95 $ 9,500.00 62 4' SANITARY MH 0' -10' EA $ 1,000.00 41 $ 41,ODO.00 32 $ 32,000.00 32 $ 32,000.00 63 8" PVC SANITARY(O' - 10) LF $ 14.00 3704 $ 51,856.00 3670 $ 51,380.00 3670 $ 51,380.00 64 8" PVC SANITARY (10'42) LF $ 16.00 2293 $ 36,688.00 2293 $ 36,688.00 2293 $ 36,888.00 65 8" PVC SANITARY (12' -14') LF S 17.00 1300 $ 22,1DO.00 1300 $ 22,100.00 1300 $ 22,100.00 66 8" PVC SANITARY (14' - 16') LF $ 18.00 332 $ 5,976.00 332 $ 5,976.00 332 $ 5,976.00 67 12" PVC SANITARY (10' -12) LF $ 20.00 362 $ 7,240.00 362 $ 7,240.00 382 S 7,240.00 68 12" PVC SANITARY (12' -14') LF S. 20.00 593 $ 11,860.00 593 $ 11,660.00 593 $ 11,860.00 69 12" PVC SANITARY (14' -16') LF $ 28.00 1295 $ 33,670.00 1295 $ 33,670.00 1295 $ 33,670.00 70 12" PVC SANITARY (WAS LF $ 26.00 60 $ 1,560.00 - 71 8" PVC SAN. REPAIR (ALL DEPTHS) LF $ 60.00 472 $ 28,320.00 283 $ 16,980.00 283 $ 16,980.00 72 4" WYE ON NEW MAIN EA $ 35.00 230 $ 8,050.00 176 $ 6,160.00 176 $ 6,160.00 73 4" SANITARY SERVICEFROM NEW MAIN) LF $ 10.00 5115 $ 51,150.00 5263 $ 52,630.00 5283 $ 52,630.00 74 4" SANITARY SERVICE FROM OLD WYE L.F. S 11.00 720 $ 7,920.00 1485 $ 16,335.00 1485 $ 18,335.00 75 4" WYE AND ADAPTER TO EXIST. EA $ 35.00 24 $ 840.00 22 S 770.00 22 $ 770.00 76 CONN TO SANITARY MWREDO BENCH EA S 275.00 4 $ 1,100.00 10 S 2,750.00 10 S 2,750.00 77 ADJUST SAN MH CASTING EA $ 140.00 17 S 2,380.00 31 $ 4,340.00 31 S 4,340.00 78 TRANSPLANT TREE (1 " -5 ") EA $ 70.00 62 $ 4,340.00 79 CLEAR TREE - ALL DIA. - ALL SPECIES EA $ 65.00 108 $ 7,020.00 112 $ 7,280.00 112 $ 7.28000 80 GRUB STUMP EA S 85.00 108 $ 9,180.00 100 $ 8,500.00 t00 $ 8,500.00 81 B - 618 CURB & GUTTER LF $ 5.50 29070 $ 159,88590 27890.3 $ 153,396.65 27690.3 S 153,396.65 82 B -612 CURB & GUTTER LF $ 15.00 40 $ 600.00 33.8 S 507.00 33.8 $ 507.00 83 MACHINE FORM BIT CURB LF S 6.00 105 $ 630.00 84 6" CONCRETE DAN SY $ 18,00 10330 S 185,940.00 9031.9 S 162,574.20 9031.9 S 162,574.20 858 "CONCRETE DAN SY $ 30.00 75 $ 2,250.00 68.5 $ 2,055.00 681 $ 2,055.00 86 BIT, D/W PATCH I TRAIL PATCH SY $ 26.00 505 $ 13,130.00 833.56 $ 21,672.56 833.56 $ 21,672.55 87 4" CONCRETE SAW S.F $ 3.50 2500 S 8,750.00 2500 $ 8,750.00 2500 $ 8,750.00 86 2" HI- DENSITY INSULATION SF $ 0.60 3012 $ 1,807.20 710 $ 426.00 710 S 426.00 89 SOD W14" TOPSOIL SY S 1.78 50450 S 89,801.00 51813 $ 92,227.14 51813 $ 92,227.14 90 ORCHARD PARK POND LS $ 12,000.00 1 $ 12.000.00 0.75 $ 9,000.00 0.75 S 9,000.00 91 REPAIR IRRIGATION SYSTEM EA $ 100.00 22 $ 2,200.00 92 TEMP. WATER SYSTEM LF $ 2.25 7705 $ 17,336.25 7705 $ 17,336.25 7705 S 17,336.25 93 SIGN SALVAGE LS $ 500.00 1 $ 500,00 0.5 $ 250.00 0.5 $ 250.00 94 CONCRETE REVETMENT BLANKET I SF 1 $ 6.00 512 1 $ 3,072.00 1 1 704 $ 4,224.00 704 S 4,224.00 SUBTOTAL CERTIFIED TO DATE - CONTRACT 1996 -B $ 2,369 969.90 $ 937,456.00 S 319,754.00 $ 312,417.45 $ 800,340.40 S 2.369.969 85 CHANGE ORDER NO 1 46 36" RCP CLASS 3 LF $ 79.00 $ 29,711.90 376.1 S 29,711.90 376.1 $ 29,711.90 86 BIT DIW PATCH/ TRAIL PATCH SY S 26.00 $ 20,002.84 769.34 $ 20,002.84 769.34 $ 20,002.84 1 87 4 "CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF $ 3.50 $ 23,416.50 6691 $ 23,418.50 6691 $ 23,418.50 1 ITEMIZED EXTRA WORK INVOICES $ - 96,692.55 $ 12,504.78 $ 16,583.76 $ 37,799.56 $ 29,804.45 S 96,69155 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NOA $ 169,825.79 S 55 926.12 S 16,58178 $ 37 799.56 $ 59,516.35 S 169,825.79 TOTAL CERTIFIED TO DATE - CONTRACT 1998 -8 $ 2,539 S 993,384.12 $ 336,337.76 $ 350.217.01 S 859,856.75 S 2,539 795.64 I Pape 2 CONTRACT 1996 -B ORCHARD LANE EAST E: 1 ErIGNROJECT n46PROAORCRn140,9501114V IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1996 -01,02 It 03 (1996,November, 15) TNOMAS8 SONS, INC RECEIVED INVOICES SERIES 964900 CHANGE ORDER NO.1 Verified for payment Meeting on Nov. 13,1990 -,fir c. ix t •rtr r}•; r.�.t ,„�p;r .c , _ .., ,4{`ypq., :.. ... } 8 y w 7 I -. •� . ,.i r 1.,.,, .3 / , f"r7�Nf('Y�i7'A a �?" 1 �:$1'v `. fi'`�, L�,1 - il` 4 � 1 v1 ' 1�• j "., e ",��'''r ,lr I. i ,i.i'. tr• r;; lr`'i�j�1 =01 STREE7C0 O ��c`r'�f , 4R c. . ,. .... ='T. AMOUNT OUE RUNNING ITEM O. GATE INVOICE NO. AMOUNT DESCRIPTION AUTHORIZED I RIZED CN coda DEED rHOMAS d SONS BALANCE N 7 5120196 964907 $3,334.43 Recalculate grades on June Ave. Dave A. 1996.01 f 3,334.43 S 3,334.43 10 5120196 964910 $3.531.03 Recalculale grade June- 63 -64th Dave A. 1996 -01 f _ 3,531,03 S 6,865.46 11 5120/96 964911 $3,297.09 Recalculate grade June 64 -651h Dave 1996 -01 $ 3,297.09 f 10,162.55 38 6121196 964938 $ 164.26 Recalculate grades Martin Dr. Dave 1996.01 S 164.26 S 10,326 81 4U 6121196 964940 f 367.90 Haul 2 bads of landfill material to Monticello Dave 199601 S 367.90 S 10,694.71 44 6121196 964944 261.56 Change grades on Kyle Dave 199601 S 261.56 S 10.956.27 69 7/29096 964958 S 723.51 Relocate trail from Park 8 Ride Dave 1996.01 S 72351 f 11,679.78 64 9125196 964964 f 962.50 175 [on. Class 5- pay as unit (222 CY or • to 150 Ion) Dave 199601 Deny( $137.50) It 825.00 S 12,504.78 SUB107AL- STREETC6f SIRUCTION f 12,504.78 ,•nI;T��t .••1�1��T,��j1�r�li�'' e• �� �'' >,�'.�'•+ +lu.:'z7Jas �:4x. t, 1:1 + 7 + � - ' ' 7•" ��,,��.. � l Fe 11996 STORM.SEWE 1 "1 r k r 1 ,g I 5120196 964901 647.1 Pea' excsvallon- Marlin Park storm DaveA ' 1996 -02 S • 647.10 f 647.10 5122/96 Letter f. 2,730.00 48'. 7 112 hands al $ 910.00 ea, DaveA 1996 -02 3 2,730.00 f 3,377,10 13 615196 964913 f 1,721.50 Reprove 6 reinstall 2 CB on Winchester La. DaveA/Gary 1996.02 $ 1.727.50 $ 5,104.60 14 615196 964914 f 248.68 Reset 2 C.B. on Winchester La. DeveA/Gary 1996 -02 $ 248.68 S $353.28 Page 1 • Oil • 24 615196 964924 S 286.11 Temp storm Conn. no of 63rd & Indiana Gary 1996 -02 S 286.11 $ 5,639.39 25 615/96 964925 S 365.48 Repair joint In 54" storm Gary 1996.02 S 365.48 $ 6,004.87 26 6/5/96 964926 ; 307.56 Relay 15' between COI & CO 4 Gary 1998 -02 f 303.56 S 6,308.43 29 6/19/96 964929 f 785.48 Move CB 166 to fit curb on 651h Ave. Gary 1996-01 f 785.48 S 7,093.91 J6 6/19196 964936 S 4 N.65 Remove and replace III" RCP MH M44 Dave 1996 -03 11 414.65 f 7,508.56 37 6121796 964937 f 124.01 Construction point In fiberglass lined RCP Dave 1996.02 124.01 f 7,632.57 42 6/21196 964942 $ 2,658.25 Change grade, Instal manhole on Marlin Dave 1996 -02 f 2,658.25 f 10,290 82 46 713/96 964946 f 1,189.59 Remove eslst CB, replace 48" alruclure,63071ndlana El i Da 1898.02 S 1,189.59 $ E 47 7/3!96 964947 f 8I' Remove &relocate C9 34, Kyle Ave. Dave 19984)2 $ 86753 S days 48 7/3196 964948 ; 863.53 Remove d relotate CB 73, Kyle Ave. 1888.82 S 863.53 ; 49 7IN96 964949 $ 511.60 Remove & replace CS 63 1 216 3 1 8 Indiana Dave 1996.02 S 511.60 $ 13,71907 50 7/3/96 964950 f 605.36 Remove & relocate CB 31 on Indiana Dave 1996.02 S 60536 ; 14,324.13 51 713 964951 f 1,172.38 Remove & relocate CB 46 on Indiana Dave 1996-02 1 - F- l i S 1.172.78 f 15,496.79 55A 7129196 964955A S 410.07 Lee & Kathrene, redo CB 45 & 47 Oave I996 -02 $ 410.01 f 15,906.86 56A 8115/96 964956A f 105.16 Relocate C.B. 058 Dave 199802 f 105.16 f 16,012.02 59 7129196 964959 S 1,141.24 661h & Lee, remove and reinstall CB65 Dave 1996 -02 i 1,141.24 S 17,157.26 60 7129196 964960 f 2,413.14 65th & Malr, Storm sewer modification Dave 1996 -02 f 2,413.14 S 19,566.40 63 9110196 964963 $ 538.79 Connect house drain to atmm6412 Orchard Dave 1996.02 $ 538.79 f 20,105.19 ; i Page 2 • � s 67 9127196 964967 f 459.54 Install Dap gale In sewer at Orchard Ave north of 63rd Dave 1998 -02 $ 459.54 $ 20,564.73 68 10114/96. 964968 S 2,005.18 Install Arch bend Dave 199602 MS206,35 f 2,005.18 $ 22.569.91 69 10114196 964969 S 1,450.93 Install drain file In Martin Park Dave 1996 -02 f 1,450.97 S 24,020.84 70 10116196 964970 S 1,155.00 Replace fence at 6333 Orchard Lane Dave 1996.02 S 1,155.00 $ 25,175.84 71 10/25/98 964971 S 999.00 Remove CMP at Orchard pond Dave 5998 -02 $ 999.00 $ 26,174.84 72 111121% 964972 f 1,035.35 Build Bulkhead M Noble M11 Dave 1996 -02 f 1, 035.35 $ 27,210.19 73 1 I/t2/96 964973 f 2,269.50 Sand DII abandoned pipes Dave 1998.02 f 2,269.50 f 29,479.69 74 11/12/96 964974 $ 324.76 Load, I1au11opsoil to Marlin Park Dave 1998 -02 i 324.76 S 29,801.45 SUBTOTAL •STORM SEWER f 29,804.45 ! 1996- 03{SAN!TA,. EWERV,, � �� I t , r �iSxSfit•.r t s �r yi. "- 4. p 1 4 5120/96 964904 604.66 8443 June • Sanitary service not alive - _ Gary ary 1998 -03 604.66 604.66 5 5120/96 964905 225.95 MIS- located main It" repair Gary 1996 -03 225.95 030.61 6 5/20/96 964906 992.23 4112 -85th MIS located sen8ary sewer service Gary 1998 -03 992.23 182104 0 5120796 964909 $694.16 6506 Indiana - Mislocaled San service Osw A 199603 S 694.18 2517 9 5120196 964909 $231.51 6612 Indiana • Two sets of Iles to sanitary Dave A 1998 -03 S 231.51 2748.51 15 6/5/96 964915 - S 207.82 Service location wrong Gary 1996 -03 $ 207.82 S 2,956.33 17 6/5196 964917 S 41567 Sanitary service location wrong Gary 19913 -03 S 415.67 S 3,372.00 18 615/96 964916 $. 211.16 Sanitary service location wrong Gary 1996-03 f 211.16 f 3,583.16 Page 3 0 • • 19 615/96 964919 S 421.28 Sanitary service location wrong Gary 1996 -03 _ f 421.28 $ 4,004.44 20 615/96 964920 f 331.93 Sanitary service location wrong Gary 1996 -03 _ f 731.93 $ 4,338.37 21 6/5/96 964921 f 768.52 Temp corm. to Marlin sanitary Gary 199603 $ 768.52 f 5,104.89 22 6/5/96 964922 S 829.29 6325 Indiana son. service Gary 1996 -03 S 829.29 S 5,934.18 23 615195 964923 f 414.65 Variry sanitary elev al Indiana 8 65th Gary 1996 -03 f 414.65 f 6,348.83 27 615/96 964927 f 510.49 Sanitary service location wrong Gary 199603 $ 510.49 $ 8,859.32 28 6 /19 196 964926 f 119.88 Remove d replace anti-syphon on temp Dave 1996 -03 f 11988 $ 6.979.20 31 6/19/96 964931 S 860.71 12' DIP out of MI 111 Dave 1996 -03 S 1,41917 S 8,399.17 32 6119196 964932 $ 622.05 Locale sand. service /6412 Marlin Or. Dave 199603 $ 622.05 f 9,021.22 33 6/ 19/98 964933 f 1,03630 Sand. services at 64188419 Marlin Dave - 1996 03 $ 1,0 36.70 S 10,057.92 34 61 t9/96 964934 f 462.59 6407 Marlin 7 Sanitary 6 Water off/ Water repace copper Dave 199603 f 482.59 f 10,540.51 39 6/21196 964939 f 301.05 6319, 6325 Kyle - missed services 1996-03 f 301 05 - -- —_ f 10,540.51 45 6121/96 964945 S 510.50 Services on Kyle: 6331, 6325, 6330, 6324 Dave 199603 f 510.50 — f 11,051.01 54 7119196 964954 f 705.77 65 d Orchard • relay sanitary sewer / grade change Dave 1996.03 _ S 705.77 f 11,756.78 55 7119/96 964955 f 2,198.16 Lower sanitary sewer 65th d Mayor Dave 1996 -03 i 2,198.16 f 13,954.94 61 7129/96 964961 $ 139.61 65th 6 Orchard, Install DIP for sanitary Dave 1996.03 f 139.61 S 13,954.94 66 9127196 964966 f 2.62882 Disconnect 6 redesign services from Orchard shelter Dave 1996 -03 f 2,628.82 $ 16.583.76 SUBTOTAL • SANitARY SEWER $ 16,583.76 Page 4 I! 1996 -03 WATERMAIN - 1 2 5120196 964902 f 8,390.97 Lower watermaln at Noble and Orchard Park Dave 1996 -03 S 8,390.97 8390.91 —_ 3 5126/96 964903 S 5,800.80 Cut In 12 ■ 6 fee. abandon 6 on Indiana Dave 199603 S 1,377.68 S 4,423.12 $ 12,814.09 12 615/96 964912 S 7,020.92 Abandon 6 "CIP1 Activate 12" DIP Indiana Ave DaveA 199603 $ 702092 S 19,835.01 16 615195 964916 f 2,117.10 6' Gale valvelMadin B Indiana ]rod.D.va DaveA 1996.03 f 2.123.10 f 21,958.11 30 6119196 964930 S 574.20 608 B' DIP Dave 1996 -03 f 1,110.12 f 23,068.23 JS 6119/96 964935 $ 1,362.61 6407 Marlin . restrain 6' 45 bend and replace bolts 199603 f 1,36267 f 21,470.90 41 6/21/96 964941 S 70483 Excavate and locale 6' watermaln 641h 6 Kyle 199603 S 70483 f 24,43090 43 6/11196 964943 S 2,76158 Offset watermaln Lee Winchester Dave 199603 S 2,76158 $ 27,t92.48 52 713/96 964952 S 3,226.86 Offset walennaln on 661h 6 Lee for new storm Dave 199603 S 3,226.88 S 30,419.34 53 7/19195 964953 f 8,628.49 Conflict- offset watermaln 651b 6 Lee new valve 6 bends Dave 19%03 f 6.628.49 f 37,047.83 Sf. 7129195 964956 f 751.73 Lower water services at t 1 addresses on Lee Ave Dave 199603 f 751.73 S 37,79956 ' SUBTOTAL - WATERMAIN f 37,799.56 TOTAL AMOUNT - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $ 96,692.55 $ 96,692.55 I I I rage 5 i I � CJzNt� BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Kline, Chief of Police DATE: December 9, 1996 SUBJECT: Application (Excluded Bingo & Excluded Raffle) - Willow Lane PTA On December 9, 1997, the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo and an Application for Authorization to Conduct an Excluded Raffle from the Willow Lane PTA. Both applications are for an event to be held at the Willow Lane Elementary School on February 21, 1997. I have signed approval for this license. If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, you must notify me within 30 days according to Minnesota State Statute. Scott Kline Chief of Police SK:kh • willow4.mem LG240B (F'!jv. 1rz1re3) Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo Part 1 of 2 • (If your organization has been licensed or exempted in the current calendar year, you are not eligible to apply for excluded bingo) Fill in the unshaded areas of this application and send it to the Gambling Control Board at least 30 days prior to the activity. Organization Informatio FOR BOARD USE ONLY Organization /f _ I ❑ S ❑ C II � / /�� Lid ° .. p NA Street Oahe: Actnniy A r l fi cay State + Zip co�oe � Type of nonprofit organization (check one : !V s ❑ Fraternal Veteran ❑ Religious her nonprofit organization Type of proof of nonprofit status attached (check one): 0 Certificate of Good Standing - Minnesota Secretary of State's Office Internal Revenue Service Affiliate of Parent nonprofit organization (charter) Excluded Bingo Activity Information - ..:.... _ Has your organization held a bingo event in the current calendar year? No Yes If yes, list the dates that bingo was conducted aw 1 � Ch k one: bingo event will be one of four or fewer bi events your organization will hold this year. Ch of bingo event: - 2 n F 0 _ R ❑ The bingo event will be conducted (up to 12 consecutive days) in connection with a: County Fair - Date(s) of bingo event State Fair - Date(s) of bingo event Civic Celebration - Date(s) of bingo event Print the name of the person in charge of the bingo event Daytime Phone Premises xvhereexcluded bingo wi'11 be conducted Name of premises LO► I I, Co w Lai r er Street Address n & �„ V ) City Q , T OR County Township (Be sure to complete Part 2) white - Original Yellow - Board LG240B cam. na,rea> Minnesota Lawful Gambling • Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo Part 2of2 Organization Name G�ILLOLy �r► / Chief Executive O,�ficer's Signature The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my Imowledge. Chief ecutive Officer's signature Name (please print) Date Qs f eIk7 d rl17 czI Unit of + overrtment Acknowledgment and Apprdvai • e city must sign this application if the gambling premises is located within city limits. • The county AND township must sign this application if the gambling premises is located within a township. • If this application is denied by the local unit of government, it should not be submitted to the Gambling Control Board. Township: A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application (Minn. Stat. 349.213, Subd. 2). Name of City OR County Name of Township l nok-i 4 n C2rtk/ y signature below, the kcal unit of government here y B y signature below, the township acid7owledges approves this application for excluded bingo activity at that the organization is applying for excluded the premises located within their jurisdiction. bingo activity within the township limits. Signature of person approving application for local unit Signature of person acknowledging application for of government. (Sign above) for township. (Sign above) Title Rece' ad Title Date Received j Township is: Organized ❑ Unorganized ❑ N- Attach letter Unincorporated ❑ Acknowledgment of Registration (For Board Use +Only) Your request to conduct excluded bingo has been received and is acknowieged by the £xecutrve Director of the Gambbrigontrol Board AcM owledged b y Gambling ;Control: Board` D ate Send the completed registration form with your organization's proof of nonprofit status to. Gambling Control Board white- Original 1711 W. County Road B, Suite 300 South Yellow- Board • Roseville, MN 55113 t= OR'.BOARD USE ONLY This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. r , IJIS :r C: Director . RECE�v�D Minnesota Congress of- Person to Con-.ac: D. Armstrong Parents, Teachers and y Students Telephone Nurr,be.- (312) 886 -4718 • 1910 West County Road B Suite 102 Re'. Reciy to. EO:201:TPS Roseville, MN 55113 Da:A December 5, 1983 This is in reply to your letter dated October 6, 1983 Our records indicate that you were issued the following: Exemption letter dated A ugust 1 1945 Section of Code 501(c)(3) Foundation Status (501(c)(3) only) 509( a)(2) Based on the above the tax exempt status of your organization still remains in effect. • Sincerely yours, LPL ?titir / Timothy F. Lambin Chief, EP /EO Review Staff r Your Group Ruling number is 0870 Due to a substantial backlog we have experienced delays in responding to taxpayer requests. Please excuse this inconvenience.. • f Alinneota Congremg of agent ?fie � ocberg anb otubentg CHARTER FOR LOCAL ASSOCIATION TWO Vdifieg that the Willow Lane Parents, Teachers and Students Association of Osseo organized September 1986 is an authorized. unit of the Minnesota Branch of the National Congress of Parents, Teachers and Students and is entitled to all rights and privileges thereto. I State President State Tr urer L.G240R c (Rev. 1/21/93) Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application for Authorization to Conduct an Excluded Ramie (if your organization has been licensed or exempted in the • current calendar year, you are not eligible to apply for excluded raffle) Fill in the unshaded areas of this application and send it to the Gambling Control Board at least 30 days prior to the activity Organization Ir} fornYatiori: FOR B tJ.SE OhILY Organization / Stree D D a e r � �v City i, State Z code OttierActwrty 13 X. r ©l�l �t'r 4a Type of nonprofft organization (check one): Fraternal mal Ve teran ran ❑ Religious Other nonprofit organization Type of proof of nonprofit status attached (check one): e " c rtrf cat e of G ood t S andin Minnesota Secretary seta ec a 9 - M ry of State's s Office ❑ Internal Revenue Service Affiliate of Parent nonprofit organization (charter) Excluded Raf, f1e Activity Information The value of AH raffle prizes in a calendar ma ear not exceed $750 Y Y Date of raffle drawing 2 b 1 1997 Total market value of raffle prizes $ - 7 5 Q - Q 0 I Y)A X I rr u r yl !/ / Name of person in charge of raffle Sal: LL ra r7c ; Phone Premises >tuhere exciucled ra„e will beconducted Name of premises .. Pv x I lo Larl e, E[e M Scher � Street Address -7 0 a o Pe,rry Av 0 City OR County AW Township ro 0 I�-� �-e "Je F Chief Execufzve 0,,'iceris Signature The information provided above is corn lete and accurate to the best of my knowledge, Chief Executive Officer's signature N (please print) n Date J ulie- F Acknow led gment of 12egistraton I~ Board Use Onl Y } .:.:;:.. . Your request to conducf excluded raffle has beets Kecetved and acknowledged by tie Executnte a►rectar of th i e Ga mbm :: Control.: oa . .:..............._._..... ....:. ........:.....:.:... Acknowled etl b`` 9 . Y .. Gambling ControFBoard Date • Send the completed registration form with your organization's proof of nonprofit status to. Gambling Control Board White - Original 1711 W. County Road B, Suite 300 South Yellow - Board Roseville, MN 55113 This form will be made available in alternative FOR 130AR6 usE orvl_Y format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • December 17, 1996 Department of Gaming Gambling Control Division Rosewood Plaza South, 3rd Floor 1711 West County Road B Roseville, MN 55113 To Whom It May Concern: The City of Brooklyn Center has received and reviewed an Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo and an Application for Authorization to Conduct an Excluded Raffle from the Willow Lane PTA for an event to be held on February 21, 1997, at the Willow Lane Elementary School located at 7020 Perry Ave N within the city of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The City of Brooklyn Center has waived the 30 day period to withdraw our approval. Should you have any questions regarding the waiver, please feel free to contact me at 569 -3300. Sincerely, Michael McCauley City Manager MM:kh • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer e �ppKLYN CFpT� BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Michael McCauley FROM: Chief Scott Kline DATE: November 25, 1996 SUBJECT: Consideration Of 1997 Liquor Licenses All liquor licenses within the City of Brooklyn Center run concurrent with the calendar year. In the case of intoxicating liquor, club, and wine licenses, forms must be forwarded to the State of • Minnesota before the renewal date to inform them of the licenses granted by the City. A complete list of all licenses to be renewed for 1997 is also attached. It is requested that the City Council approve the issuance of liquor licenses for 1997. SK:kh • council/971ig1ic.req 1996 Liquor Licenses • CLASS A On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License (80% or greater food) & Sunday GMRI, Inc. dba/ The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant # 1253 1601 James Circle North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 CLASS B On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License (50 to 79% food) & Sunday Apple American Limited Partnership of Minnesota dba/ Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar 1347 Brookdale Mall Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Chi- Chi's, Inc. dba/ Chi -Chi's Mexican Restaurante 2101 Freeway Boulevard • Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Madden, James E. Earle Brown Bowl, Inc. dba/ Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 GR of Minnesota Inc. dba/ The Ground Round 2545 County Road 10 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Davidson Hotel Properties. dba/ Hilton Hotel 2200 Freeway Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 • Steven J. Nelson, Inc. dba/ Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Class B On -Sale Intoxicating (50% to 79% food) & Sunday - continued: Ithaca Restaurant, Inc. d/b /a Pavilion Restaurant/Rookies Bar & Grill 1501 Freeway Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Class F & Sunday On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License D'Amico's Catering, Inc. d/b /a D'Amico Catering at Earle Brown Heritage Center 6155 Earle Brown Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 On -Sale Club Intoxicating Liquor License Duoos Bros. American Legion, Post 630 dba/ American Legion 4307 70th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 On -Sale Wine Licenses Dayton's Iron Horse Liquors, Inc. dba/ Dayton's Brookdale Inn 1100 Brookdale Center Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Denny's, Inc. dba/ Denny's Restaurant # 1284 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Fuddruckers, Inc. dba/ Fuddruckers • 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 On -.Sale Wine Licenses (continued) • Yun's Restaurant Inc. dba/ Denny's #6887 6401 James Circle Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 On -Sale Non - Intoxicating Liquor Licenses: Donald G. Campagne dba/ Beacon Bowl 6525 West River Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Donald Castleman dba/ Chuckwagon Grill 1928 57th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 • City of Brooklyn Center Centerbrook Golf Course & Central Park 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Jeffrey Krueger dba/ Daddy -O's Cafe 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Davanni's, Inc dba/ Davanni's Pizza and Hot Hoagies 5937 Summit Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dayton's Iron Horse Liquors, Inc dba/ Dayton's Brookdale Inn 1100 Brookdale Center Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 On -Sale Non - Intoxicating Liquor Licenses (continued): • Denny's Inc. dba/ Denny's Restaurant # 1284 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Fuddruckers, Inc. dba/ Fuddruckers 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Scoreboard Pizza, Inc. dba/ Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Yun's Restaurant Inc. dba/Denny's #6887 • 6401 James Circle Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Jack Shubert d/b /al 50's Grill 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Off -Sale Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor License Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. d/b /a Jerry's New Market Brookdale 5 801 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 SuperAmerica Group Div of Ashland Oil, Inc. . d/b /a SuperAmerica #4160 6545 West River Road Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Off -Sale Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor Licenses (continued) • SuperAmerica Group Div of Ashland Oil, Inc. d/b /a SuperAmerica #4058 1901 57th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 License Totals: Class A =1, B = 7, F = 1, Wine = 4, Club = 1� On -Sale = 11 Off -Sale = 3 Total Licenses = 28 • • liglic /licensee.lst 11/96 pOKLYN CENT BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Michael McCauley FROM: Chief Scott Kline %\" DATE: November 25, 1996 SUBJECT: Annual Liquor License Report Attached please find the annual liquor license report prepared by Staff Services Supervisor Kim Heiser for the 1996 licensing period. All Brooklyn Center liquor licenses are up for their annual renewal at this time. After a complete review of calls for service to all of our establishments, it was determined that there were no city ordinance or state statute violations pertaining to liquor sales or service. At this time, the police department can see no reason to refuse any establishment the renewal of their appropriate liquor license for 1997. SK:kh s annliq.mem BROOKLYN CENTER e*001(LYNCFIyTF9 POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Kline, Chief of Police FROM: Kim Heiser, Staff Services Supervisor DATE: November 20, 1996 SUBJECT: Annual Liquor License Report The following is a summary of all police activity involving those business establishments within the City of Brooklyn Center possessing intoxicating liquor licenses, classes A through F, Wine, On -Sale Club, On -Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor and Off -Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor. The reporting period is November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996. Any establishment not specifically mentioned had no calls for service. None of the calls listed were related to violations of city ordinance or state statutes by employees of the respective establishments. During the reporting period there was a greater emphasis placed on liquor establishment checks by police officers at closing time. This was in response to a request by the police administration. CLASS A: On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License (80% or greater food) & Sunday The Olive Garden Italian Restaurant - 1601 James Circle North Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 32. Aid and Assist 2 Alarms 7 Forgery 1 Property Damage Accidents 2 • Lockout 8 Miscellaneous Public 4 Suspicious Activity 4 Theft 4 • CLASS B: On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License (50 -79% or greater food) & Sunday Applebees - 1347 Brookdale Center Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 40 Aid & Assist 5 Disorderly Conduct 1 Forgery 4 H &R Property Damage 1 Lockout 2 Miscellaneous Public 9 Motor Vehicle Theft 1 Property Damage Injury Accident 1 Robbery 1 Suspicious Activity 3 • Theft 11 Weapons Offense 1 Chi Chi's - 2101 Freeway Blvd Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 39 Accidents (Prop Damage & PI) 2 Aid & Assist 3 Alarms 6 Driving Violations 1 Lockout 7 Misc Public 7 Suspicious Activity 2 Theft 9 Traffic Accident - PI 1 Vandalism 1 • • Earle Brown Bowl - 6440 James Circle N Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 91 Aid & Assist 11 Animal Complaints 1 Assault 6 Disturbing Peace 1 Domestic 1 Drugs 1 Fight 7 Fire 1 H &R Prop Damage Acc 3 Kidnapping 1 Lockout 10 Misc Public /All Other 28 Motor Vehicle Theft 2 Robbery 1 Suspicious Activity 3 • Theft 8 Traffic Accident - PD 2 Vandalism 4 The Ground Round - 2545 County Road 10 Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 45 Aid & Assist 6 Alarms 5 Disturbing Peace 1 Fight 1 Forgery 1 H &R Prop Damage 2 Lockout 9 Misc Public 8 Suspicious Activity 3 Theft 6 • Traffic Accidents 3 Hilton Hotel - 2200 Freeway Blvd • Total calls for service 11/l/95 - 10/31/96: 117 Aid & Assist 10 Alarms 6 Assault 3 Driving Violations 3 Domestic 1 Fight 2 Fire 1 Forgery 1 H &R Property Damage 5 Lockout 8 Misc Public 27 Motor Vehicle Theft 1 Suspicious Activity 15 Theft 27 Traffic Accidents 2 Vandalism 5 Lynbrook Bowl - 6357 N Lilac Drive Total calls for service 11 /1/95 - 10/31/96: 52 Aid & Assist 3 Alarms 1 Assault 1 Burglary 1 Disturbing Peace 1 Domestic 1 Drugs 1 Fight 2 Fire 2 Forgery 1 Lockout 3 Misc Public 14 Motor Vehicle Theft 1 • Lynbrook Bowl continued Suspicious Activity 7 Theft 5 Traffic Accident 3 Vandalism 5 Rookies Bar & Grill (Days Inn) Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 161 Aid & Assist 20 Assault 5 Driving Violations 2 Disturbing Peace 3 Domestic 1 Drugs 3 • Fight 9 Fire 1 Forgery 1 H &R Property Damage Acc 1 Lockout 4 Misc Public /All Other 57 Motor Vehicle Theft 4 Obstruct Justice 1 Robbery 1 Sex Crimes 1 Suspicious Activity 14 Theft 20 Threats 1 Traffic Accident 2 Vandalism 9 Weapons Offense 1 i CLASS F: On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License & Sunday • D'Amico's Catering At Earle Brown Heritage Center Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 4 Lockout 1 Suspicious Activity 1 Theft 2 ON SALE CLUB Intoxicating Liquor License Duuos Brothers American Legion Post 630 Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 5 Aid & Assist 3 Burglary 1 Disturbing Peace 1 ON -SALE WINE & Non - Intoxicating Malt Liquor Denny's - 3901 Lakebreeze Ave Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 26 Aid & Assist 3 Fight 1 Forgery 1 Lockout 4 Misc Public 8 Suspicous Activity 1 Theft 6 Traffic Accident 1 Vandalism 1 • • Fuddruckers - 2800 Shingle Creek Pkwy Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 26 Aid & Assist 3 Alarms 11 Fire 1 Misc Public 6 Obscenity 1 Robbery 1 Suspicious Activity 1 Theft 1 Traffic Accident 1 ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR 50's Grill - 5524 Brooklyn Blvd • Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 11 Aid & Assist 1 Alarms 1 H &R Property Damage Acc 1 Robbery 2 Suspicious Activity 1 Theft 3 Traffic Accident - PI 1 Vandalism 1 Beacon Bowl - 5625 Lyndale Ave N Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 1 Suspicious sous Activit 1 Y • G& of Brooklyn Center /Centerbrook Golf Course & Central Park Total calls for service l l / 1 /95 - 10/31/96: 35 Alarms 10 Fire 1 Miscellaneous Public 10 Suspicious Activity 3 Theft 7 Vandalism 4 Chuckwagon Grill - 5720 Morgan Ave N Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 11 Alarms 2 Misc Public 5 Suspicious Activity 3 Traffic Accident 1 • Daddy-O's - 6219 Brooklyn Blvd Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 2 Theft 2 Davanni's Pi77a & Hot Hoagies - 5937 Summit Drive Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 14 Disturbing Peace 1 Lockout 5 Miscellaneous Public 4 Suspicious Activity 1 Threats 1 Traffic Accident 2 • Scoreboard • Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 8 Misc Public 5 Open Bottle 1 Suspicious Activity 1 Theft 1 OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR Jerry's NewMarket - 5801 Xerxes Ave N Total calls for service 11/ 1 /95 - 10/3 1 /96: 96 Aid & Assist 5 Alarms 1 DL Violations 3 Domestic 1 Financial Transaction Fraud 1 Fire 1 Forgery 3 H &R Property Damage Acc 1 Lockout 11 Misc Public 21 Motor Vehicle Theft 2 Robbery 2 Suspicious Activity 6 Theft 34 Traffic Accidents 1 Vandalism 3 SuperAmerica (West River Road Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 167 Aid & Assist 17 • Alarms 1 • u erA continued Animal Violations 5 Assault 3 Driving Violations 6 Drugs 1 Fire 5 Forgery 1 H &R Property Damage Acc 4 H &R PI 1 Lockout 26 Misc Public 34 Motor Vehicle Theft 2 Robbery 1 Suspicious Activity 5 Theft 46 Threats 1 Traffic Accident 7 Weapons Offense 1 Suj2erAmerica (57th Avenuel Total calls for service 11/1/95 - 10/31/96: 107 Aid & Assist 6 Detoxed 1 Disorderly Conduct 1 Disturbing Peace 1 Driving Violations 5 Forgery 2 H &R Property Damage Acc 1 H &R PI 1 Lockout 11 Misc Public 21 Motor Vehicle Theft 2 • Suspicious Activity 9 Theft 42 Traffic Accidents 3 Weapons Offense 1 liglirlanmpt City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: December 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Licenses 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 December 16, 1996: • Bowling Ally Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Courtesy Bench U. S. Bench Corporation 3300 Snelling Avenue, Minneapolis Gasoline Service Station Brookdale Unocal 76 5710 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center Municipal Garage 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway Humboldt Unocal 76 6840 Humboldt Avenue North U. S. Post Office 6848 Lee Avenue North Bill West's Service Center 2000 57th Avenue North Mechanical Systems General Sheet Metal Corporation 2330 Louisiana Avenue North, Minneapolis Key -Tec Services P. O. Box 180, Rogers Pool and Billiards Tables Chi- Chi's, Inc. 2101 Freeway Boulevard Public Dance • Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer Memo to Michael J. McCauley • Page 2 December 12, 1996 Rental Dwellings Renewal: Kenneth Solie/Village Properties Evergreen Park Manor Gary �' River Glen Earl J. Backer 7018 Brooklyn Boulevard John and Diane Stephens 3824 Burquest Lane Greg and Kathleen Voge 5018 Ewing Avenue North Todd M. McDonald 7013 Girard Avenue North Orval and Marya Hage 7215 Girard Avenue North Roland J. Scherber 4714 Lakeview Avenue North Jerry and Karen Fobbe 4811 Lakeview Avenue North Raymond and Rosanne Marshall 5637 Northport Drive Henry R. Johnson 6736 Scott Avenue North Joseph Veidel 7104 Unity Avenue North Edward Sass 5103 Xerxes Avenue North Irma Vogel 2841 67th Lane North • er n Si Hanger g DeMars Signs 410 93rd Avenue NW, Coon Rapids Tobacco Related Product Brooklyn Center Municipal #1 1500 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center Municipal 42 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center Municipal #3 1966 57th Avenue North Brookdale Unocal 76 5710 Xerxes Avenue North Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 North Lilac Drive Duoos Bros. American Legion 4630 4307 70th Avenue North Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Jerry's NewMarket 5801 Xerxes Avenue North • • Kennedy 470 Pillsbury Ccn,er 200 Svudi Sixth Sma Minneapofh MN 55402 (f i 2) 337 -9300 telephone (( 12) 337 - 9�I11 6s e- tntil: arr)a(4Dketutedy- bmvrn.rnm CHARTFRED Cx, RLss L. LSFEv Attvmcy at 1A" I Dinxi Disc (6512) 377-9215 December 12, 1996 1 Mr. Mike McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RE: Pawn Shop License Apnlica(ion • 1 Dear Mike: A pawn shop operation has recently applied for a license to do business in the City of Broo Center. You have asked for my opinion explaining the law relating to consideration of this { application and the options available to the City Council. 1. GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF LICENSF, BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS OF 1 APPLICANT. As I explained to the City Council p6or to the public hearing on this matter, the Council has very limited discretion for denying a business license. Section 23-611 of the City Code provides that the City Council may refuse to grant a license for one or more of thr, reasons set forth in Section 23 -6127. That section provides that licenses may be denied, suspended or revoked feu• one of the following reasons: a. The operation of the business is in conflict with any provisions of this ordinance; b. The operation of the business is in conflict with any health, building, maintenance, zoning, or other provision of this ordinance or law-, C. The licensee or the business premise faits to conform with the standards for license application contained in this section: d. The licensee has failed to comply with one or more provisions of this section or ® any statute, rule or ordinance ptn to the business of pawnbroker or ; secondhand goods dealer; i e. Fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in securing a license; i CLLL1d755 z .d A N3nd2i9 '8 )lQ3NN3A 9T:60 96, 2T 33(l i Mr. Mike McCauley December 12. 1596 Page 2 f. Fraud. misrcprcacntation or false statements made in the course of the appli,c business; g. Subject to the provisions of low, the licrnsee has been convicted of any state or � federal law relating to receiving stolen property, sale of stolen property or controlled substances, burglary, robbery. theft. damage or trespass to property, operation or a bu!tincss, or any law or ordinance regulating the business of pawnbroker or secondhand goods dealer. I ani not aware of any evidence which would provide a sufficient basis for denial of the license based on any of these stated grounds. i 11. DELIINQUE'NT AND UNPAID TAXRS. §23 - 613 a of the City's code of urdinanccs provides that a license will not be issued for any place or for any business if taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the City or the State of Minnesota on the licensee's business premise are delinquent and unpaid. j Tt. is my understanding that the taxes on the property at which the applicant proposes to conduct its business which were due in 1996 are unpaid. Static law provides that taxes are certified as "delinquent" by the County Treasurer nn the first business day of January i of each year for each parcel of real property against which taxes remain unpaid. Minn - §279.02. Taxes on this parcel would prfsuably become delinquent by certification m by the County Treasurer on January 2, 1997 under state law. The consequence of stcch certification is that additional interest is charged on the unpaid taxes. 'T'here is a question whether the City ordinance should be interpreted in the same way - that is, whether the use of the term "delinquent" in this City ordinance is the same as that i of state law. Although die City Council is in the best posidon to interpret the intent of its own ordinance, I am inclined to believe that the turn "delinquent" in the City ordinance was not intended to mean that overdue taxes are not delinquent until they are certified as delinquent by the County. The term "delinquent" in common usage simply means that an obligation is due and unpaid. Using this definition, the location proposed by the applicant would not be eligible for a license. T am inclined to believe that this meaning was intended by the City Council for two reasons. The first is that, whRmvcr public purptne was intended by §23 -613, 1 see no reason to distinguish between Wex whirls aic due and unpaid on December 31 as opposed to taxes which are due and unpaid on January 2. The second is that the ordinance states that the premise is ineligible if • taxes are "delinquent and unpaid." If the definition of "delinquent' in state 13�v was intended. there would have been no reason to state "delinquent and unpaid because all delinquent taxes are necessarily unpaid. CLL!1476S ptt:t91 -? d N3AU85 1 8 M13WH3>1 LT :6 0 96 , 2T :)3(l i Mr. Mike McCauley December 12, 1996 . Page 3 Nevertheless, then is a rcamnable basis for argument about the meaning of §23 -613 based on die state law definition of delinquent; and the initial interpretation of this torte provision rests with the City Council. The way in which this term is interpreted may be based in part on the purpose of the ordinance. It seems to ate that there could be three different purposes for this requirement in the ordinance. The first possible purpose is simply to secure the payment of taxes. In some cases, such a requirement may result in the prompt payment of taxes. However, in other cases it will not. I am informed by the representative of the property manager that funds will be made i available for the payment of taxes only if the property can be leased. Assurning this to be true, the City would be more likely to secure payment of taxes if it were to issue a license so that the pawnshop operation would generate lease payment.% which could be used for tax payments. if the Council wishes to ;Facilitate payment of taxes, it could do so by interpreting the term - delinquent" in accordance with state law so that taxes, though overdue and unpaid, are not yet deemed to be "delinquent ", and therefore the premise is eligible for a license. A second possible purpose for ncr, mquircment is that the non - payment of taxes may he i an 'vindication thatthe applicant is financially troubled. In a highly regulated business such as liquor sales or pawnshops, where the public interest may be harmed by a licensee who is prompted by financial need to cut corners (such as liquor sales to minors or receiving stolen goods), issuance of a license may not be in the public interest. The effectiveness of such a provision to protect the public is arguably not great when, as is the case here, the owner of the property who has not paid the taxes and be experiencing financia eal tr l difficulties is unrelated to the applicant/tenant. However, the fact that the ordinance does nor perfectly serve the public interest in all cases does not snake the ordinance fatally defective; and a financially strapped owner/licensre should hot be able to avoid the ordinance requirements by the simple expedient of selling the property to a separate legal entity so that the licensee and the properry owner arc unrelated. A third possible purpose of the ordinance requirement is related to the second, but would apply whether or not the owner and the applicant were the same person. Tlic Council may have had in mind the idea that a pawnshop is more likely to bzcome a blighting influence, or a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, if the property is not properly policed or maintained. If an owner has been unable to fray taxes. securing a stream of revenue for lease payments might assist in assuring payment of taxes; but if substantial revenues must be diverted to the payment of taxes, the owner may not have sufficient funds to provide adequate security, maintain lighting in parking areas, repair • broken windows, remove gryffid, and generally maintain the property. If the Council had this purpose in mind in adopting 423 -613, it would seem to make sense to interpret the term "delinquent" as simply mcarting overdue and determining that the premise is not eligible for a liceme. 1 CLL11CJh� 6R2 °7. -s t7 d N3AU�O '8 J43NN3>i 21::60 96, Zt 03Q Mr. Mike McCauley December 12, 1996 Page 4 i III CONTROL OF PAWNSHOPS THROUGH LICENSING} Pawnshops are regulated by state law. Additionally, the City of Brooklyn Center has adopted its own ordinance regulating pawnshops. At the time of adoption of this ordinance, an effort was made m base the ordinance on the most stringent regulatory i ordinances available, from other cities as a model. There may be ways of adding even more regulatory previsions to the pawnshop licensing ordinance to provide greater protection to the public, but I have not yet discussed wit the police department whether there are ways in which the ordinance can be supplemented. i IV. CONTROL OF PAWNSHOPS BY ZONING • A. Zoning Control Generally. The City may regulate pawnshops through the zoning ordinance in the same way that other businesses are regulated. For example, pawnshops may only be permitted in certain zones, have specked parking requirements, and the like. It should first be noted, however, that the City does not have the authority to exclude businesses. entirely from the City unless such businesses constitute a legal nuisance. A nuisance is something which I causes a material annoyance, inconvenience, damage, ar discomfort to a substantial number of members of the public. Examples would be businesses which generate noxious odors, health risks, unreasonable noise, and the like. A business may bb either a nuisance Per sc or a nuisance in fact. A per ,e is a use which is of such a nature that no matter how it is controlled, regulated crr c c iductcd, it causes an unreasonable damage to the public at large. An example night be a pig food lot in a residential neighborhood. A use or activity which is not a nuisance per sc may nevertheless be, or become, a i nuisance by reason of the way the business is conducted. Such a use would be referred to as a nuisance in fact. For example. a chemical mixing business in an industrial zone may not be a nuisance if it has Proper air filtration and emission controls: but without .them it may be a nuisance in fact. A city council may not make something a nuisance merely by declaring it to be one. There must be some basis in fact for such a declaration: I and, if challenged in court, the City would have to establish that diets. are actual characteristics of the business which constitute a legal nuisance, either a nuisance ep — se or a nuisance in fact. In two rclativclY recent cases, Minnesota Courts have ruled that city councils may not exclude businesses which are not nuisances. Both cases involved the City of St. Louis Park, and the uses involved were a ready -mix plant and an automobile reduction yard. ApAlc Valley Red -E -Mix v. City o f Loui Par (Minn. , Ct. App. 1984) 259 N.W.2d 313: Golden v. City of St. Louis Pa& Minn. 1963) 122 • N. W.2d 570. Arguments could be made that some pawnshop businesses arc nuisanoeS due to the way i they conduct business (such as receiving stolen gouds and the like). However, I believe MJJ 1415. BAVI-d S'd N3Atizf9 1 8 ,MMM3>f 8T:60 961 ET 03C Mr. Mike McCauley December 12, 199( Page 5 j that it would be a difficult case to make given the extensive regulation at both the state , and local level of this particular kind of business. As noted above, even if a business is not a nuisance, it may nevertheless be regulated through the zoning code provided the ordinance provisions have a reasonable and rational basis. The Council could make a determination div certain parts of the City were not appropriate locations for pawnshops as long as ihr, exercise by the City Council of that Iegislative discretion had a reasonable justification and was not arbitrary or capricious. There may be reasons related to land use concerns why this proposed location is not appropriate or other zoning controls currently in the code are not adequate to protect the public; however, I am not currently aware of any such reasons. I have no reason to believe, for example, based on the evidence presented at the public hearing., that there is a more appropriate zone for such uses or that current parking requirements and other ® zoning code provisions are not adequate for this type of busincsx. Tn any case, I believe that there is no dispute that the proposed location for this business is one which is allowed by the zoning erode, and that the business would not be in violation of any of the provisions of the zoning code. As a permitted use in conformance with the requirements of the zonning axle, the Council would not have a basis to deny the � license Once the business is established. it would be a lawful, nonconfbMing use. and would be entitled to remain at that location even if the zoning code were amended at a later date to exclude such uses from this area of the City If the Council believes that there is a reasonable basis to believe that current zoning controls art not sufficient to protect the public health. safety and welfare, the only way to justify refusing to grant the license and allowing the business to begin operations would be to impose a moratorium on such uses while the land use issues are being furtber studied. j i $. Temporary Regulation of Pawnshops by Moratorium. If the Council concludes that it is necessary to protect the public health, safety and genial welfare and the planning process by thr, imposition of a tttoratorium, it has the legal authority to adopt a moratorium ordinance prey*cnting commencement of such busi ne s ses, while studies are underway. However, before deciding to adopt such a moratorium, the Council should consider arverai factors. First. a moratorium may be challenged as having no reasonable, radortai basis and being im occd solely for the purpose of reventing a business fr on7 coming into town. 1'0 deferid such a challenge, the Council should be prepared to articulator a reasonable, • rational basis for the belief that the current land use controls are inadequate and that a study would be reasonably likely to result in a change to the provisions of the City's ordinances. In this regard, the justification should be based on concerns about inadequate land use controls (for example, parking or inappropriate zoning) radar than a concern GLLLLd765 FR2 ?L -1 9 * d N3Adel9 '8 A43NN 6T:60 96, 2T D3Q 4 Mr. Mike McCauley i December 12, 1996 Page 6 about the adequacy about the ligens4ng provisions. This is because likxnsing provisions j can be changed at a data dare, and exisrine businesses can be made subject to amended licensing requirements. Therdurc, it is not nea-msary to prevent a business from being established through the u%c of a moratorium while licensing ordinances are being considered. Second, the City has already adopted a moratorium on pawnshop businesses in the pat In April of 1994 the City adopted a moratorium on pawnshops until Deccn ber 31, 1994. That moratorium did not result in any amendments to the City's 7cming Lode or other land use controls. The fact that the past moratorium did nut result. in a change to zoning code provisions would lend credence to a claim That the City's real purpose in adopting a moratorium in this case is simply to prevent this particular business from being ® established because cemin neigh1mrs are opposed to it. The City Council may not impose a moratarium merely hecause it objects to having a particular kind of business in the City, because: it would prefer to have a different business at that location, or bcc3use neighbors object to it. Wry truly yours. i Charles L. L.eFevere CLL:Ih 1 • CLLIld ?55 d N3A'dZ�5 '8 J43NN3A 6T: 9 , 2T D3Q 1 e nUILLYN CE11 Brooklyn Center Police Department PO410E Memo TO: City Manager Michael McCauley ,.A'la FROM Detective Mike Kaulfuss a } ,2v H , i �x'N232 Y,h DATE: December 11, 1996 X22 : K,, 2 ,; SUBJECT: Survey of the City of Fridley and Robbinsdale Pawn Shops -- 2p0l t : . ..? <a I received your memo dated December 3, 1996, about a survey of.,.,e�s>rience with ..<22; 222 �; ,., pawn shops, specifically two, to include Robbinsdale. Since I,dl ck ound p p y trying " "``t`"ty f Brooklyn Center, investigation on the awn shop that is currentl t n to o wi I dealt mainly with both the City of Robbinsdale, Frid, 22>' because of that and the :•,R2�k,Y422: ",'`•:2`222`" 2'`ittk` +`• limited amount of time that I had to accomplish th y' �.0 ctly with Robbinsdale and Fridley respectively. ,2, >`w • '�Ail`.2�2''� I first went to the City of Fridley and title Rewitzer. Rewitzer was very helpful stating that he has been the main,;. 4tlainl the pawn shops in the City of Fridley. The " "I hr Opy hops where currently there are three licensed City of Fridley limits their lice s � P awn shops in the City o ,• America which Rewitzer stated that he had one problem within the 1eY which basically involved a sting of two undercover officers c e, � going in and pa lien when asked for identification, the person who was .1�� . - .atilt' pawning then turnfther undercover office and asked for his ID stating he did not have one. Thxx#their and the ordinance which clearly states that the person 2 .. 22 ..,, pawitio be the owner of the item and cannot use anyone else's driver's license or a q p, " . i w store, or even a friend to use their name to pawn the particular item. Pawn 2 €�.ua Cited for this at that time. Rewitzer also stated that they usually confiscate about < „<r w€3 every two weeks through NCIC checks that come back as stolen items from that �p`ilar pawn shop. This is approximately an average of the amount of stolen items recovered 22222 _ .,Att,y, v bm this particular store. Rewitzer told me that Cash and Pawn in the City of Fridley is probably the better of the pawn shops that he has to deal with. It is run through their management a lot stronger, and has clear and concise rules for the employees to follow. Even with this system, the Fridley Police Department still recovers about one item a month through NCIC checks for stolen items that were either pawned or sold to the pawn shop and were on the shelves awaiting the appropriate amount of time while the checks were being run. 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 Telephone (612) 569 -3333 • TDD (612) 561 -5720 • Fax (612) 561 -0717 • Crime Tips (612) 561 -6649 Emergency 9 -1 -1 Memo to City Manager Michael McCauley Page 2 • 12/11/96 Rewitzer stated that there was also another license issued to Express Auto Pawn which is now changed their style of doing business and strictly deals in automobiles and does not have any items bought or pawned other than the car business. Rewitzer stated that he has not had any problems with this, although, he admits that he does not understand that type of system very well. Detective Kaulfuss and Rewitzer had an opportunity to speak for awhile at which time Kaulfuss thought that possibly the City ouncil of Brooklyn Center was contemplating not allowing ty yn P g g a pawn shop into the city. Rewitzer stated that he and his administration had spent a lot of time with this, but felt that there is no way to stop a pawn shop into coming in, but the only way to do it is to have a clear and concise ordinance such as some of the things that Kaulfuss pointed out when he did the original background. Rewitzer stated that you should audit the pawn shop on a regular basis, and keep on top of the problems that may exist with particular management style. You also should have to make sure the items are computerized and put onto disk to assist the police department clerical division to work with record checks. Some of the other problems are the type of cliental that pawn shops attract. This cliental will often clash with other pedestrian traffic going to other neighboring businesses. Pawn shops are basically suited for constant auto traffic that comes in and out with people bringing items to either be sold or purchase items from the store. Rewitzer added that there was no legal way o stop the awn shops, and the only wa g Y P P P Y Y that he sees, after doing this for many years, is to have a strict ordinance intact so that the police department can regulate the way the pawn shops do business. Rewitzer also stated that he thought that the pawn shop detail should be a line -item or a budget item on the city council so that money comes back to the police department to fund the investigation or the constant monitoring of the pawn shops. Rewitzer offered to Kaulfuss a break down of a number of hours that he was required to produce to his administration back in 1995. Rewitzer stated that the report done, was just a modest version of what a detective's time would be in doing the day -to- day things that pawn shops require. This study also showed what a police clerk's hours could possibly be just in the records data entry and the NCIC checks. As you'll notice in the report, Detective Rewitzer has the amount to be a little over $15,000 per year. Kaulfuss also received from Rewitzer a report prepared by Greg Brooker who is the city attorney for Bloomington, MN. In that report, you'll find interesting case law regarding cities involvement with issuing licenses to pawn shops. Kaulfuss highlighted a section titled "Total Bans" under that section, it states that cities cannot prohibit pawn shops from operating, but states there are some flaws in the case laws presently on the books. Kaulfuss found out from both Fridley and Robbinsdale, apparently one pawn shop basically takes up to one fourth of the detective's time in doing the required amount of investigation that comes with this type of detail. So, as you can see, there is a good deal of time, energy, and money spent in just monitoring one pawn shop let alone any future pawn shops that would want to come in • after that. Memo to City Manager Michael McCauley Page 3 t 12/11/96 Detective Kaulfuss then went down to the Robbinsdale Police Department and spent time with Detective Mark Johnson. Johnson has been assigned to their pawn shop detail for approximately the last couple of years. Johnson deals strictly with one pawn shop in the City of Robbinsdale that being Pawn America. Johnson reports that Pawn America was closed down once for selling a piece of equipment that was not held the acquired amount of time on the shelf. What this means is that the item was on the shelf to be held the specific amount of time, was sold, and then turned out to be stolen and had to be recovered from the person that bought it. Johnson also points out, much like Rewitzer did in Fridley, that a big problem is the employees. Johnson reports that they often record the wrong numbers since they don't spend enough time looking for the serial numbers and use other numbers that are printed on individual items which constantly come either back with false hits of being stolen, or never comes back as stolen when, in fact, the right serial number was not used. Johnson stated that he has not had the time or budgeted time through his office to do an audit, which he admits should be done quarterly. Kaulfuss points out that Rewitzer does audit all his pawn shops in Fridley quarterly to keep a balance or a handle on any potential problems. Johnson admitted that he has not done an audit, and feels that the city should budget some time for him to do one soon. • Johnson also has a system where the clerk runs all the checks at night since they have a computerized system and a disk is dropped off daily so that a clerk at night can run the checks and leave him the hits for that information in the morning. Johnson points out that they've had two times in the last six months where items that were originally checked to see if they were stolen came back as stolen weeks after the original check. An example of this would be if someone was on an extended trip and left their home for over a month. They would not be able to come back and report something stolen for possibly up to five weeks from when it was stolen. Then giving the amount of time that it takes to type the report, process it through in the administrative system of the police department, it could be six to seven weeks before it's actually entered. Johnson asked if a system could be developed so that items that are pawned or sold to the pawn shop could be actually rechecked during a time to see if they come back stolen. Johnson reports that currently that one -fourth to one -third of his time is spent on the one pawn shop, Pawn America, in their city. Johnson pointed out that the city was involved in a lawsuit with Pawn America over some wording in the ordinance and some zoning problems that the city had. The lawsuit is currently settled and the findings are not disclosed. Johnson also was helpful in introducing Kaulfuss to their Assistant City Manager who gave a report or study done by Desyl Peterson who is the Minnetonka City Attorney. In this report, which will be included in the councils' packet, is a report that was reviewed by the Robbinsdale City Council when looking at problems regarding their pawn shops. There was also a finding of Memo to City Manager Michael McCauley Page 4 • 12/11/96 fact, which include the conclusions and recommendations by the City of Robbinsdale, when the council had open meetings to discuss the problems or potential problems with pawn shops in the City of Robbinsdale. There are some interesting conclusions in this stating that basically the burden is on the city to show why a license should not be renewed. It goes also into stating something about economic enhancement strategy and zoning for pawn brokers. This may not be the kind of thing that can be considered know because of the process for the pawn shop is too far along, but it could be something of interest in the upcoming years. One of the biggest problems was the cliental coming into Pawn America in the City of Robbinsdale who were upsetting to the people walking by the front of the building going to other business in that particular area. It was always recommended that if it was possible to zone areas so that a pawn shop could be away from, or in like an old town district so not to bother other people walking to places of business by the use of the sidewalk such as walk -in traffic. They point out quite clearly that pawn shops only attract drive -in type of customers. Finally in the report, are some actual legal cases which can be reviewed by the city attorney stating the city's obligations in either licensing or not being able to deny a license for pawn shops. I hope all this information is helpful to you. It appears that pawn shops are here to stay, but that there has to be a working relationship between them, the police department, the city, and its citizens. Through my experience and training, I believe that there is a way to monitor the pawn shops and work with the management under strict rules and guidelines. These guidelines, which is in the form of a strong ordinance, will assist the police department in regulating the pawn shop's operations. It appears that there is no other way to stop this type of operation, (although public opinion might not be in favor of it) but it does seem to be much easier to handle if these types of guidelines are in place. Pawn shops are definitely a lot of added work and responsibility for the police department, but it is not something that can't be handled efficiently and legally as is done in other cities. Please review the information I have included along with this report. If you have any other questions, please feel free to call me at any time. MK:vt Enclosures The Cost of Pawn Shop Regulation 1 -1 -95 to 9 -30 -95 Police Investigator's Hours 10 Fridley cases resulting in recovered property.. 66 hrs 26 outside agency cases resulting in recovered property.. 23 hrs 5 additional Fridley cases requiring investigation.. it hrs 3 additional outside agency cases requiring investigation.. 12 hrs Transaction checks per outside agency requests.. 39 hrs Transaction checks against Fridley stolen reports.. 60 hrs Records review, pattern analysis, crime detection, liaison duties, oversight.. 39 hrs Ordinance conformity audit.. 16 hrs • Design & maintenance of computerized recordskeeping database.. 40 hrs Records data entry.. 96 hrs Automated Pawn Shop meetings.. 8 hrs Total Investigator's Hours.. 410 hrs Pawn shop: regulation accounted: for 25% of Investigator ".s. during the period. Police Clerk's Hours NCIC checks for stolen articles.. 98 hrs Records data entry.. 144 hrs Total Clerks Hours.. 242 hrs • The Salary Costs Investigator's hours.. 410 x Investigator's hourly wage.. 21.43 $ 8786.30 Clerk's hours.. 242 x Clerk's hourly wage.. 13.17 $ 3187.14 Total Salary Costs.. $ 11,973.44 Some duties, such as records data entry have been assumed entirely by the Police Clerk. By ignoring one -time duties (such as the database design) and extrapolating from the routine and continuing i duties, an accurate estimate of future regulation hours can be determined. Police Investigator's Hours 29.5 hrs /month Police Clerk's Hours 47 hrs /month Using the above hourly salary figures, the following regulation costs can be determined: Inv. hrs. 29.5 x $ 21.43 = $ 632.18 Clk. hrs. 47 x $ 13.17 = $ 618.99 $1251.17 per month $ 15,014.04 per year For regulation of ONE pawn shop. (• Attached are selected pages from this document. STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF PAWNBROKERS GREG BROOKER ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 2215 W. OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 (612) 948 -8753 1995 UPDATE FOR CITY ATTORNEYS FEBRUARY 10-11, 1995 FEP ,1',N D WIZ�iW :4Ft. BFOOKER' S PM SSION l • VL CONCLUSION VII. APPENDIX Bloomington Ordinance Licensing Pawnbrokers Minnetonka Ordinance Licensing Pawnbrokers Minneapolis Ordinance Licensing Pawnbrokers Maple Grove Ordinance Defining Pawnbrokers as a Nuisance A Survey of Pawnbroker Ordinances in Minnesota (May 1994) 1994 Bill for an Act Studying the Pawnbroker Industry (Vetoed by the Governor) • B. Criminal Misconduct of Pawnbrokers. Minnesota Statutes Section 609.81 This old provision prohibits pawnbrokers from: (1) lending money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law; (2) possessing stolen goods and refusing to permit a law enforcement officer to examine them during usual business hours; (3) after having sold pledged goods, refusing to disclose to the pledgor the name of the purchaser or the price for which the property sold; (4) making a loan on a pledge to a person under lawful age without the written consent of the person's parent or guardian. • C. Data Practices Provision. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.82, subd. 13. Data that uniquely describe stolen, lost, confiscated, or recovered property or property described in pawn shop transaction records are classified as either private data on individuals or nonpublic data depending on the content of the not public data. D. State - Regulated Loan Companies. Minnesota Statutes Section 56.002. The chapter on state- regulated loans and state- licensed loan companies does not apply to "persons doing business under and as permitted by any law of this state or of the United States relating to ...licensed pawnbrokers." • the police. In Liberman v Cervantes, 511 S.W.2d 835, 837 (Mo. 1974), the Missouri Supreme Court noted: This business is one of a class where the strictest police regulation may be imposed. The requirement of photographs is reasonably connected with the object and purpose of the ordinance as a whole, which is "to keep the pawnbrokers' business free from great abuse by thieves disposing of stolen goods in their shops." They are all made in the interest of the public, and are intended for the detection and prevention of crime. The attached Bloomington ordinance requires either a 2 X 2 photograph of each customer be taken or a close -up video with the time and date detailed. Such a requirement has been found to aid law enforcement agencies in identifying persons suspected of stealing property. The requirement may also deter some people from attempting to pawn or sell stolen merchandise, thereby preventing the pawnshop from being used as a vehicle for converting stolen property to quick cash. D. Warrantless Inspections Warrantless inspections of business records of licensed pawnbrokers, as authorized by state statute, does not violate the Fourth Amendment in light of the important governmental interest furthered by regulatory inspections of pawnshop records and the limited threat these inspections pose to reasonable expectations of privacy of business people. In Kipperman v. State, 626 S.W.2d 507, 512 (Tex Crim. 1981), the Texas Criminal Court . of Appeals stated: The inspection of the business records of the State licensed t' pawnshops is essential to the State's efforts to effectively deter theft and minimiz its consequences, just as the inspection of federally licensed liquor and firearms dealers is central to federal efforts to North Memorial Medical Center v Minnesota Dept of Heahk 423 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. App. 1988). In addition, a city council is vested with broad authority in determining whether to issue or renew a license, and the scope of review by the courts is narrow. See Kayo Oil Co. v. City of Hopkins, 397 N.W.2d 612 (Minn. App. 1986). However, local officials must base a denial of a license on "articulable and Iegally sufficient reasons." See E. TO., Inc. v Town of Marion, 375 N.W.2d 815, 819 (Minn. 1985); see also Tamarac Intl Inc. v. City of Long Lake, 310 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. 1981). If the basis of a license denial is a criminal conviction, the licensing authority must make findings under the state Criminal Rehabilitation Act, Mmnesota Statutes Sections 364.01 - 364.10 (1994). t E. Limitation on Number of Licenses Issued In Minnesota, a limitation on the number of certain types of licenseswi a city has been upheld as a valid exercise of police powers. See Kayo Oil Co. v City of Hopkins, 397 N.W.2d 612 (Minn. App. 1986)(cap on liquor licenses upheld); Minneapolis Street Raihvay Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 2361vfinn. 109, 52 N.W.2d 120 (1952)(same). III. Pawnbroker Licensing and Regulations A. Nature of Regulation Because of the facility that it fi wishes for the commission of crime, the business of pawnbrokers is one which belongs to a class where the strictest police regulation may be imposed. In reviewing the history of pawnbrokers, the Pennsylvania Su reme Court observed: P � �' P licensing ordinance. In Gopher Sales Co. v City of Austin, 246 ivfinn. 514, 520, 75 N.W.2d 780, 784 (1956) the state supreme court stated; No person can acquire a vested right to continue, when once licensed, in a business, trade, or occupation, which is subject to control and regulation under the proper exercise of a municipality's police power. As we stated in State v Minneapolis -St. Paul M. A. Commission: "A license confers upon the licensee the right to engage in the licensed business only for the term specified in the license. A prior expired license is functus officio and confers no rights upon the licensee named therein, except in certain cases where by statute it entitled him to a renewal upon compliance with specified conditions." (footnote and citations omitted] Although Gopher Sales was decided nearly forty years ago, it has been cited with approval in several more recent cases. See, e. g., Voettiner v. Commissioner of &&cation, 376 N.W.2d 444, 448 (' !inn. App. 1985)(no vested right to a license to teach medical office procedures). B. Compelling State Interest Government has a compelling state interest in the regulation of businesses and occupations. The requirement of a license as a condition precedent to the privilege of carrying on the business is a legitimate exercise of the police powers of the state. See Pilla v American Bar Association, 407 F. Supp. 451 (D. Nf=. 1975) affd 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1976); Franklin Theatre Corp v. City of Mnneapolis, 293 Minn. 519, 198 N.W.2d 558 (1972). The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that where local legislative action is within the scope of the police powers and where the enactment presents fairly debatable questions as to its reasonableness, wisdom, and propriety, the determination of such questions is not for the r courts but rather for the local ve le islati body. See State v. United � y Parking Stations, 235 'Nfmn. 147, 50 N.W.2d 50 (1951). F. Fingerprinting of Customers A municipality may validly require pawnbrokers to fingerprint their customers. See Miller v. Murphy, 143 Cal App. 3d 337, 191 Cal Rptr. 740 (1983); Me&as v. City of Indianapolis, 216 Ind. 155, 23 N.E2d 590 (1939), see also Note, supra 125 ALR 590. G. Regulation of Hours Cities may regulate the hours a pawnshop is open to transact business. See Solof v. City of Chattanooga, 180 Tenn. 296, 174 S.W.2d 471 (1943); Hyman v Boldrick, 153 Ky 77, 154 S.W. 369 (1913); Butte v Paltrovich, 30 Mont. 18, 75 P 521 (1904). See also Note, "Validity of Statute or Ordinance Fixing Closing Hours for Certain Kinds of Businesses," 55 ALR • 242 (1928 & 1994 Supp.). H. Bond Requirement Requiring pawnbrokers to furnish a bond as a condition of licensure has been upheld as valid. See Grand Rapids v Braudy, 105 Mich 670, 64 N.W. 29 (1895). L Recordkeeping Requirements Courts have upheld ordinance provisions requiring pawnbrokers to keep a record of all property pawned, together with the names, addresses, and descriptions of persons pawning it. In addition, provisions requiring such information be forwarded to the police have been upheld against arguments of unreasonable search and seizure. See Shuman v City of Fort Wayne, 127 Ind 109, 26 N.E. 560 (1891); Afedias v. City of ln&anapolis, 216 Ind 155, 23 N.E.2d 590 (1939). See also City of St Paul v. Lytle, 69 Minn. 1, K Total Bans Whether a city has the power to totally ban pawnshops is unclear in the case law. It has been held that regulations so onerous as to amount to a prohibition of pawnshops is not permissible. See 54 Am. Jur. 2d Moneylenders and Pawnbrokers sec. 2; see also Morton v. City of Macon, 1 I 1 Ga 162, 36 S.E. 627 (1900); Louisville v. Pooley, 136 Ky 286, 124 S.W. 315(1910); Rodge v. Kelly, 88 Miss 209, 40 So 552 (1906). However, the cases supporting such a proposition are quite old, and there is a contrary opinion in the case law. See Wood v. Krepps, 168 Cal 382, 143 P. 691 (1914); Levinson v Boas, 150 Cal 185, 88 P. 825 (1907). There appear to be no recent cases discussing a city's right to ban pawnshops as a matter of zoning or as a "nuisance." Some Minnesota cities specifically list pawnshops as nuisances in their zoning ordinances. (See attached Appendix) A fairly recent Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, however, may have some applicability to this unresolved issue. See Apple Valley Red -E Mix v. City of St. Louis Parr 359 N.W.2d 313 (Mnn. App. 1984)(absent a court determination that a business is a public nuisance or a nuisance per se, a city cannot.legislate that business out of existence; court left open the issue of whether a city can generally eliminate a use within its boundaries without showing that the use is injurious to. the public health, safety, or welfare). L. Buffer Zones. In addition to confining pawnshops to certain zoning districts, several cities erect buffer zones around pawnshops in order to prevent such uses from • being close to certain "sensitive uses" such as schools, parks, licensed child care centers, and libraries. Such buffer zones are common in the zoning laws to pawnshops, treating the pawnbroker's transaction as a loan with property as collateral. The Minnesota statute is unclear, and it is likely that the Attorney General will be asking the legislature to clarify its intent. There is a separate statute, however, that prevents a pawnbroker from "lending money on a pledge at a rate of interest above that allowed by law " - -which at least implies that the general usury statute applies to pawnbrokers. In the states that have applied the usury rates to pawnbrokers, the pawnshops have revamped their stores as "buy -sell" operations, in which the pawnbroker buys the used or new property from the customer at one price and resells for another. This "revamping" can present problems to the local licensing authority when it attempts to enact licensing ordinances for such "buy -sell" businesses. Defining such businesses is difficult without including every retail store in a city, and equal protection issues may be presented depending on the distinctions made. Pawnbrokers may also attempt to avoid a statutory maximum on "interest" by labeling what formerly was the interest charged on the pawn as "holding fees." Minnesota may not face these issues if the usury statute is deemed to not apply to pawnbrokers. 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard OO Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Telephone (612) 939 -8266 • Fax (612) 939 -8248 City Attorney's Office June 26, 1996 Providing Prosecution Services for the Cities of Minnetonka, Winnetonka Beach, Minnetni ra, Orono and St. Bonifacius Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Robbinsdale 4221 Lake Road Robbinsdale, MN 55422 RE: Applications of Robbinsdale Financial & Pawn, Inc. Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed and submitted to you is my report regarding the pawnshop applications. I also write separately, however, to discuss two peripheral issues. First, at the public hearing which I conducted, one citizen asked that the issue of the • licenses be placed on the ballot. I explained that the City Council could not do so and that the only ballot opportunity for citizens is an initiative petition. In retrospect, I believe that explanation was not adequate and may have created unrealistic expectations. The City Council cannot place the license issue on the ballot. Our government is not a true democracy where everyone can vote on everything. Rather, we are a representative democracy. Citizens elect representatives to make the necessary decisions. Those elected representatives cannot delegate their decision- making power and obligation to the voters. They must make the decisions. The Robbinsdale City Charter provides the initiative and referendum power to the people, however. The initiative power allows citizens to propose an ordinance and then have the voters decide whether it should be adopted. The referendum power allows citizens to have an ordinance adopted by the City Council "referred" to the voters to decide whether it should become effective. In both cases, the initiative and referendum powers apply only to ordinances. No other type of action can be taken by the voters. Further, even though the citizens may initiate an ordinance, that ordinance will be • judged by the same standards as a Council- adopted ordinance. In other words, if the law prohibits the Council from adopting a particular ordinance, that same ordinance cannot be adopted by the people. State law provides that a city cannot prohibit • Robbinsdale City Council ty c June 26, 1996 Page 2 pawnbrokers from locating n the city, regardless of whether 9 tY, ether this law is adopted o ted b P Y the Council or the citizens. Therefore, the initiative power does not appear to be very useful to the citizens in this situation. The second issue is the zoning for pawnbrokers. The Council has adopted an ordinance regulating the location of pawnbrokers by using certain minimum distance requirements. This is a very valid approach to zoning. It has been upheld numerous times in the context of regulating adult uses. The Council may wish to consider another Y e alternative. The Economic Enhancement Strategy for Downtown Robbinsdale suggests that pawnbrokers be prohibited from the Downtown area. Based on conversations with your staff, this would appear to allow no area in the community for pawnbrokers, and thus would not be allowed. The • Strategy also notes, however, that the Old Town district is planned for small, pedestrian- oriented shops. Other areas of Downtown are planned for more auto - oriented businesses. The minimum distance approach results in the pawnshops being allowed principally in the Old Town district. Perhaps you would like to consider allowing pawnshops in the more auto - oriented portions of the Downtown, even though they might be closer to some of the uses you are trying to protect. I understand that this decision involves weighing one priority versus another. I offer it simply as an alternative for you to consider. It was my honor to be of assistance to you in this matter. I hope that your, trust in me was well- placed and that I have served you appropriately. Sincerely, Desy L. Peterson Minnetonka City Attorney • BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA In the Matter of: The Applications of Robbinsdale FINDINGS OF FACT, Financial & Pawn, Inc. for a Renewed CONCLUSIONS, AND and Expanded Pawnbrokers License RECOMMENDATIONS The undersigned hearing officer was appointed by the Robbinsdale City Council to conduct a public hearing and prepare findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations regarding the applications of Robbinsdale Financial & Pawn, Inc. for • a renewed and expanded pawnbroker's license. The hearing officer conducted a public hearing on June 19, 1996, from 7:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. The applicant was given 15 minutes at the beginning of the hearing to present its application and 10 minutes at the end to respond to public comments. Approximately 90 minutes was provided for public comments. More members of the public wished to speak than the allotted time allowed. As a result, the hearing officer invited written comments from both the public and the applicant, to be submitted by Friday, June 21, 1996. The hearing officer also requested additional materials from the City of Robbinsdale. Attached as Exhibit A is a list of the written materials reviewed by the hearing officer. In addition, the hearing officer requested comment from the attorneys representing the applicant and the City regarding certain legal issues. • 1 • Based upon the written materials and verbal comment, the hearing officer makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1 The applicant, Robbinsdale Financial and Pawn, Inc., has held a pawnbroker's license issued by the City of Robbinsdale since July 1991. In April 1992, the applicant received a license to expand its operations. Since that time, it has operated its business on the properties located at 4122, 4124 and 4126 West Broadway ( "the Existing Property "). The Existing Property is leased, not owned, by the applicant. 2. The Robbinsdale City Council has annually renewed the applicant's pawnbroker's license after holding public hearings in the years 1992 through 1995. Little public opposition was expressed at those public hearings. The City Council has attached a number of conditions to each license renewal. 3. On April 19, 1994, the City Council suspended the applicant's pawnbroker's license for five days, upon a finding that the applicant had violated the City's pawnbroker's ordinance. The applicant had sold a pawned item without waiting the required holding time. 4. In 1995, the City Council adopted two ordinances which in part restricted the locations for pawnshops. The ordinances did not allow a pawnshop on either the Existing Property or the Expansion Property (which is defined below) and made the applicant's existing store a non - conforming use. The applicant has obtained a • 2 • temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of those ordinances. Accordingly, 9 Y. they cannot be considered in this proceeding. 5. On or about March 13, 1996, the applicant submitted an application to expand the business to include the properties at 4130, 4132, 4134, and 4136 West Broadway "the Expansion Property"). Th Y e Ex ansion Pro a is P p Property owned by a different landowner than the Existing Property. 6. On May 7, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing on the applicant's expansion request. Approximately 19 people spoke against the expansion. One speaker submitted a petition with approximately 1245 signatures which opposed the expansion. The City Council directed the city attorney to prepare findings of fact for denial. • 7. On May 21 1996 the City Council Y � � ty adopted Resolution No. 5241 denying the expansion application because the proposed configuration violated certain building code and zoning code requirements. 8. On May 23, 1996, the applicant submitted a revised application for the Expansion Property and an application for a renewed license for the Existing Property. The revised applications eliminated the building 9 code and zoning code problems that were part of the first application. 9. On June 19,1996, a public hearing was held on both applications. Besides a representative of the applicant, 19 people spoke. Eighteen were opposed either to the expansion or to the existence of the pawnshop. One spoke in support 3 • of the applicant. One speaker submitted by reference the lengthy petition previously submitted to the City Council. 10. The applicant's representative alleged that the basis for the citizen opposition is the race of the applicant's customers. None of the citizens who spoke based their opposition on the customers' race. 11. The people who spoke, and who subsequently provided written comments, based their opposition on a number of concerns. Not all of the stated concerns are legally relevant to the Council's consideration. Listed below is a brief statement of the concerns following by a finding as to their relevance: a. CONCERN: Pawnshops are not a beneficial business and do not belong in the City. FINDING: Not relevant. The City ordinance specifically allows pawnshops to exist in the City, and completely excluding them is not allowed by Minnesota law. b. CONCERN: The applicant's employees came outside to view items instead of conducting the transactions within the store. FINDING: Not relevant. The City's requirements do not prohibit the applicant's employees from going outside to look at items. There were no allegations that the City's requirements for documenting and photographing transactions have been violated. C. CONCERN: The behavior of the customers within the immediate area of the pawnshop is inappropriate. FINDING: This concern is relevant and will be analyzed below. d. CONCERN: Citizens and customers of other businesses are afraid of the applicant's customers and will not shop or allow their children to go alone Downtown. One business owner alleged a loss of 50% in her business since she opened 1' /z years ago. 4 • FINDING: This concern is related to the one immediately above and will be discussed below. e. CONCERN: The police calls to the applicant's business have tripled since 1993. FINDING: The amount of police calls is relevant and will be analyzed below. f. CONCERN: The applicant's business is a ready market for stolen property. FINDING: The fact that the business receives some stolen property is an unavoidable part of the business and cannot be used to deny the business's existence. It is relevant only to the need for regulation. g. CONCERN: The applicant's business is contrary to the City's plans and goals for the Downtown redevelopment. FINDING: This is relevant and will be discussed below. h. CONCERN: The applicant's business preys on minorities and people of low income by charging a high interest rate and paying below market prices. FINDING: This is not relevant. The interest rates charged are regulated by a new state law, Minnesota Laws, 1996, Chapter 404. i. CONCERN: The applicant's customers shoplift at the Tom Thumb store. FINDING: This is not relevant. The applicant is not responsible for the conduct of its customers in areas away from its own business premises. j. CONCERN: The expansion will eliminate four existing businesses. FINDING: This is n relevant. of a evant. The City cannot prohibit one business from expanding simply to allow other businesses to exist. 12. Three of the concerns are relevant to the Council's determination and must be examined in more detail to ascertain if her i t e s sufficient evidence to be • 5 considered. These three are: customer behavior, police activity, and consistency with City plans and objectives. A. CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR 13. Four people testified about being the subjects of harassing conduct from the applicant's customers or people accompanying the customers. This conduct occurred within the immediate area around the applicant's businesses. Chris Richardson, owner of an adjacent business, reported that pawnshop customers have parked in the parking lot in front of her store. When going to and from the pawnshop, they have called her obscene names and displayed obscene gestures. Rosie Olson, owner of another adjacent business, reported similar behavior. Paula Mazzacano, a City resident, reported being the victim of similar harassing behavior on one occasion • from people in the cars waiting for the pawnshop customers. Claudia Fuglie stated that for a period of three years she has been the subject of harassing comments from people coming out of the applicant's business. Ms. Fuglie transports herself by wheelchair, and the individuals have made statements such as, "Look at that cripple." 14. In addition, Robbinsdale Police Department records include an investigation report, Case # 96 -4910, in which a police officer met with Ms. Fuglie and another resident, Brenda Bous, on May 16, 1996. Ms. Bous reported similar kinds of harassing comments about her gender, race, and physical handicap from customers of the applicant. Ms. Bous and Ms. Fuglie both alleged that the frequency of such incidents is increasing. • 6 • 15. Besides the harassing behavior, Ms. Richardson and Ms. Olson reported that pawnshop customers or their companions leave litter and play their car stereos very loudly when going to or from the applicant's store. Kathy Russell, another citizen, reported witnessing loitering outside the applicant's business. From a shop across the street, she saw one individual go back and forth between the pawnshop and his car approximately 10 times in 15 minutes. 16. In written comments, Ms. Olson reported that on June 20, 1996, a car with four occupants drove into the parking lot in front of her store. The parking lot is next to the applicant's business. When the vehicle occupants saw the sign saying "No Pawn Shop Parking," they walked to one of the nearby store entrances and spit into the doorway. She reported that this was typical of the kind of conduct exhibited • frequently by the applicant's customers. She reported other examples: pawnshop P p p nshop customers waiting in the parking lot staring through the front door at her lone female employee, three men calling a woman a name, others making lewd 9 estures or remarks, staring at women as they walk by, spitting toward people, arguments, and loud obnoxious behavior. 17. Doug Marsh, the president of litho Masters, which is a business across the street from the applicant's business, also submitted written comments. He reported observing the following conduct exhibited by the applicant's customers: shouting, children being left alone in cars, fist fights, trash dumped from cars, and many very verbal arguments. He reported intoxicated people coming into his business, but did not provide any information connecting those people to the applicant's • 7 • business. He also stated that he is looking for another area to relocate his business and that the applicant's pawnshop is one of the main reasons for his search. 18. In written comments, residents Deborah Comeaux and Mary Ambrose spoke of their fear caused by groups of people loitering on Broadway. They did not identify, however, that these were applicant's customers. B. POLICE ACTIVITY 19. Robbinsdale Police records indicate that all calls for service to the applicant's business has increased from 42 in 1992 to 54 in 1995. This information does not support the allegation that the police calls to the applicant's shop has tripled. 20. Comparisons with other businesses in Robbinsdale do not show a disproportionate number of police calls for the applicant's business. In 1995, the TCF Bank and drive-up facility had a total p ty of 54 olice calls, Is, the same number as the applicant's business. The Tom Thumb store had 70 calls; Merwyn Drug Store had 47 calls; Rainbow Foods had 166 calls; and Wards had 69 calls. 21. For.the present applications and all previous applications, the Robbinsdale Police Department reported no reasons to deny the applications. C. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY PLANS AND OBJECTIVES 22. Three people stated their beliefs that the expansion of the applicant's business would be inconsistent with City plans and objectives. Jerome Ruffenach, former member of the City Council and Planning Commission, stated that in 1990, the City Council established the improvement of the Robbinsdale business district as their number one priority. He stated that the City has spent over $1 million to improve the 8 • business district to attract more customers and businesses. He stated that a pawnshop was not mentioned as a need for a healthy, viable business district. 23. Bill McKee stated that he felt the expansion of the applicant's business would undercut the diversity of having a lot of little shops. 24. Jean Hosterman, a former member of the City's Planning Commission, stated that the City had plans for revolutionizing the downtown, including the "Streetscape," (which was the improvement of the streets, sidewalks, lighting, and other public infrastructure). She said the plans envisioned many little shops that would invite people to walk up and down the street, with a restaurant to sit and talk. She stated that the expansion would not fit this vision because the shop would be too big and too dominant. 25. In 1993, the City Council contracted for the preparation of the Economic Enhancement Strategy, Downtown Robbinsdale 1993, by the HyettPalma consulting firm. This document has been accepted and is being implemented by the City Council and the Robbinsdale Economic Development Authority. The report designates three Downtown districts. The Existing Property and the Expansion Property are located in the "Old Town" district. The recommended economic focus for this district is stated on p. 74: Independently owned and locally owned retail, food, and service businesses that specialize in providing hometown products and appeal in a pedestrian - oriented, intimate, and urban setting. Regarding customer access, the report recommended on p. 81: Old Town should be marketed as being primarily a pedestrian zone where pedestrians are given first priority over other forms of traffic. 9 The testimony and staff reports indicated that the applicant's business is heavily dependent on auto - oriented traffic rather than pedestrians. 26. Regarding safety, the report stated on p. 79: Downtown Robbinsdale will not be able to retain or increase its appeal unless customers and potential customers perceive Downtown to be safe. Therefore, making Downtown safe, in reality and in appearance, must be a top priority. . Regarding the applicant's business in particular, the report stated at p. 81: Throughout the course of this project, employees, customers and potential customers f "intimidated" and o Downtown repeated) said the feel intimidated Y Y "threatened" by people who congregate and "hang out" in front of the pawn shop and temporary employment agencies located Downtown. Even if those who are "hanging out" do not pose a real threat to personal safety, the fact that they are viewed as being intimidating is sufficient to keep Downtown users away, according to local customers interviewed and surveyed in conjunction with this project. • The report recommended rohibitin additional awn shops in Downtown. P 9 P P 27. The City of Robbinsdale has designated the Downtown as both a redevelopment area and tax increment district. The City has invested substantial public funds in enhancing the Downtown area. Large amounts of dollars have been invested in the Streetscape improvements. In addition, the City has purchased property, demolished substandard structures, and provided the land at reduced costs to private parties for redevelopment into the Town Center, Hoglund's, Robin Steak House, and McDonald's sites. It has provided funds to several business for rehabilitation of their properties. From September 1994 to September 1995, the public funds for this Commercial Building Financial Assistance Program totaled $308,777. • 10 • CONCLUSIONS A. RENEWAL LICENSE 28. Parties who invest substantial resources in a business are entitled to a reasonable expectation of continuing to receive that license. The burden is on the City to show why the license should not be renewed. 29. The facts do not justify the serious economic harm to the applicant which would result from a failure to renew the pawnbroker's license. 30. The police activity and police recommendations provide no evidence to justify a denial of the renewal license. 31. The City's plans and objectives for the Downtown area do not justify a failure to renew because they have been in place for a number of years. A denial on that basis would be considered arbitrary because the City has previously 9 ranted licenses despite those policies and plans. 32. The evidence establishes that the behavior of some pawnshop customers within the immediate area of the business is inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating. That does not rise to the level of a violation of ordinance requirements, however, and should not be used to deprive the applicant of its continuing expectation to operate its business. Nevertheless, it does cause significant concern about the responsible operations of the business and justifies the addition of a condition to the license. This condition should require the licensee to design and implement a program to significantly reduce the incidents of such inappropriate behavior from its customers while they are in close proximity to the business premises. • 11 • 33. Staff has recommended that all of the conditions attached to the 1995 license be attached to this license. Two of those should be deleted. Item number 4 has been preempted by new state law regarding maximum interest rate charges. Item number 9 could be interpreted to be contrary to the temporary restraining order currently in effect. 34. Staff has proposed six new conditions. The first one dealing with the automated pawn system is authorized by city ordinance and may be imposed. The two dealing with fire code issues may be combined into one requirement. The remaining three proposed conditions should not be imposed. The requirement for a conditional use permit for a satellite dish on the roof is preempted by revised Rule §25.104 of the Federal Communications Commission, adopted February 29, 1996. The requirement to combine the two parcels into one or to close all openings between the two properties is unfair because the staff should have required this when the applicant first applied for a license and before it invested funds to create the current shop configuration. The requirement for the property owner to comply with the Housing Maintenance Code for the residential dwelling units on the second floor has no relation to the licensed business. This issue should be addressed directly with the property owner. B. EXPANSION 35. There is no right to expect the issuance of an expanded license request, which should be treated the same as a new license application. A new license is considered a privilege, not a right. 12 • 36. While the applicant has met the minimum requirements for a pawnbroker's license, this does not deprive the City Council of its right to exercise its discretion in a reasonable manner. 37. There are rational and legally- relevant reasons, supported by the evidence, which are sufficient to justify denial of the expansion application. 38. The concerns regarding increased police activity were not supported by the evidence and are not a basis for denial. The concerns about customer behavior and inconsistency with City plans, however, are supported by the evidence. 39. There was evidence of numerous incidents of inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating behavior by the applicant's customers within the immediate area of the applicant's business operations. The applicant's surveillance occurred for only a few hours on a few days and does not outweigh the testimony of actual incidents. Until the applicant takes action to significantly minimize these incidents, expansion of the business causing an increase in customers is not appropriate. Although most businesses are not held responsible for the conduct of their customers, highly regulated businesses such as liquor establishments and pawnbrokers may appropriately be denied expansion opportunities because of the negative impacts caused by their customers. 40. There was evidence supporting the concern that expansion of the pawnshop is inconsistent with the City's plans and objectives for the Downtown area. The City has invested considerable public funds in rehabilitating and revitalizing this area. The inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating conduct of some of the • 13 • applicant's customers is directly counter to the goals of attracting businesses and customers. It is difficult to attract new businesses when the applicant's shop is generating negative influences sufficient to cause one existing business to consider relocation. 41. In addition, the Old Town district of Downtown is planned for small shops catering to pedestrians. A larger pawnshop catering to auto - oriented traffic is not consistent with this plan. 42. Staff has proposed a number conditions to be attached if a license expansion is granted. Several of these deal with fire and building code requirements and would be covered by the general requirement to comply with those codes. The others require improvements consistent with the Design Guidelines and Streetscape • theme. All but one of these is appropriate. Section 1135.27 of the City Code allows the Council to require the applicant to make "reasonable improvements to the proposed business premises or the property upon which the business premises is situated." Although the Design Guidelines are still in draft form, the license requirement allows the City to impose them even though they are not applicable to other businesses at this point. A review of the guidelines reveals that they appear generally reasonable. The requirement for the sign to be consistent with the Design Guidelines should not be imposed, however. The City's current sign ordinance allows a pylon sign, but the draft Design Guidelines do not. Signs have certain protections under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is not reasonable to prohibit a sign which the existing ordinance clearly allows. • 14 • RECOMMENDATIONS 43. The applicant's existing license should be renewed subject to the following conditions: a. The licensee must comply with all of the conditions attached to the 1995 license, with the exception of items number 4 and 9. b. When a new automated pawn system is available in Minneapolis, the licensee must electronically transfer transaction data to a host computer as designated by the Chief of Police. C. The licensee must comply with all applicable building and fire codes. d. The licensee must formulate and implement a program which significantly reduces the incidents of inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating behavior of its customers towards others located in the immediate area of the licensee's business. 44. The applicant's request for expansion may be denied for the following • reasons: a. The applicant's business has attracted customers who have exhibited inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating behavior towards others located in the immediate area of the applicant's business. This behavior has generated adverse impacts on nearby business owners and the residents of Robbinsdale by discouraging, rather than attracting, customers and citizens to frequent Downtown Robbinsdale. b. The expansion of the applicants business is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Robbinsdale in redeveloping and revitalizing its Downtown. The inappropriate, disrespectful, and intimidating behavior of some of the applicant's customers have discouraged rather than attracted customers and businesses. The larger size and auto - orientation is contrary to the small -shop, pedestrian orientation planned for Old Town. 45. If the City Council decides to grant the expansion application, the expanded license should be subject to the following conditions: • a. All of the conditions attached to the renewal license. 15 • b. Parking lot development, landscaping improvements, and P 9 p architectural design of the building to be consistent with the draft Architectural Design Guidelines for Downtown Robbinsdale, May 1996, and the Streetscape theme. Dated: June 26, 1996 Respectfully Submitted, Desyl V1 Peterson Attorney Registration No. 85777 Minnetonka City Attorney 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 612- 939 -8200 • MEMORANDUM The following legal analysis provides the framework for the conclusions and recommendations provided. Few Minnesota court cases discuss the subject of granting a pawnbroker's license. Many cases discuss the subject of granting a liquor license. These cases recognize the broad discretion granted to city councils in determining whether or not to issue or renew a liquor license. This discretion is based on the highly regulated nature of alcoholic beverages and the potential for illegal activity at liquor establishments. Pawnbroker's licenses are comparable to liquor licenses for the same underlying reasons: • 16 • The business of pawnbrokers because of the facility it furnishes for the commission of crime, and for its concealment, is one which belongs to a class where the strictest police regulation may be imposed.. 7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations §24.335 (3rd Ed). Therefore, the case law governing liquor licenses provides guidance to city councils in reviewing pawnbroker's licenses. When a license has previously been issued, parties who have invested substantial resources in reliance are entitled to a reasonable expectation of continuing to receive the license. The burden is on the city to show why the license should not be renewed. Tamarac Inn Inc. v. City f Long g Lake, 310 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. 1981 ). For a new license, however, where the minimum requirements for a license are satisfied, the council must consider the application, but the council is by no means • divested of its legislative authority and responsibili ty to upon the merits of the pass P application. The council may base its decision on specific objections raised by community residents whose lives would be directly affected by the proposed license. County Liquors, Inc. v. City Council of the City of Minneapolis, 264 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 1978). The council's action must be reasonable and not arbitrary and capricious; therefore, the concerns of the citizens must not be speculative or unwarranted. Anton's Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 375 N.W.2d 504 (Minn.App.1985). The Anton's Inc. case is similar to present situation. A liquor license holder wanted to expand her operations to include the second floor and P rovide live entertainment. The Court recognized that this would mean more customers, staying • later, of a younger age and more boisterous behavior and that this would increase the 17 • likelihood of disturbances to the neighboring residents. The Court upheld the city's decision in denying the expansion. Likewise, in this situation, the citizens' complaints are regarding the current and potential behavior of the licensee's customers and the projected ill effects on the neighborhood. Therefore, this provides a proper basis for denying an expansion. A city council may deny an application when it feels the business would be contrary to the best interests of the city. In Polman v. City of Royalton, 249 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 1977), the Court upheld a city council's decision to deny a license, even though the applicant had met the minimum qualifications, because the council believed that the existing three liquor establishments were enough and overtaxed their law enforcement. This provides support for denying a license because it would be • contrary to a city's redevelopment plans. A city council may impose conditions in a license which are not part of its regulations. In Bergmann v. City of Melrose, 420 N.W.2d 663 (Minn.App.1988), the Court upheld a city council's decision to require the licensee to provide a family restaurant, based on the community's needs and existence of other liquor licensees. The Court characterized this as one of the concessions that a licensee must make to enjoy the benefits of obtaining the license. This provides support for attaching various conditions to the license which are not part of the ordinance, as long as those conditions are reasonable and based on the community's health, safety, and welfare. 18 • EXHIBIT A WRITTEN MATERIALS REVIEWED BY THE HEARING OFFICER 1. 1996 application for renewal of Robbinsdale Financial & Pawn , Inc. for 4122, 4124, and 4126 West Broadway. 2. Revised 1996 application for expansion of Robbinsdale Financial & Pawn, Inc. for 4130, 4132, 4134, and 4136 West Broadway. 3. A chronology of events from May 2, 1989 through June 21, 1994, prepared by staff. 4. Temporary Injunction Order, dated December 19, 1995. 5. Order Amending Temporary Injunction Order, dated January 11, 1996. 6. Staff report dated May 7, 1996, to the City Council regarding expansion application, with attachments. 7. Staff report dated May 17, 1996, regarding findings of fact for denial, with • attachments. 8. City Council minutes from the meetings of May 7 and May 21, 1996. 9. Staff report to the hearing officer dated June 17, 1996, regarding the renewal application. 10. Staff report to the hearing officer dated June 17, 1996, regarding the expansion application, with attached department reviews. 11. Memorandum dated June 18, 1996, from the Robbinsdale Police Chief. 12. Section 1135, Robbinsdale City Code. 13. Economic Enhancement Strategy, Downtown Robbinsdale 1993, Hyett Palma consulting firm. 14. Downtown Robbinsdale Architectural Design Guidelines, May 13, 1996 draft. 15. City of Robbinsdale, Downtown Redevelopment Plan and West Broadway Feasibility Study, November 1991, pp. 8 - 15. • 1 • 16. Downtown Robbinsdale, Commercial Building Financial Assistance Program, September 1994 to September 1995. 17. Memo from Robbinsdale Police Chief dated June 21, 1996, with attached Robbinsdale Police Department computer printouts regarding calls for service, Investigation Report for Case # 96 -3086, and Stolen Property Recovery Reports. 18. Robbinsdale Police Department Investigation Reports, Cases # 96 -4909 and 96- 4910. 19. One page computer printout from the Robbinsdale Police Department submitted by Chris Richardson. 20. Letter from Doug Marsh, President of Litho Masters. 21. Letter dated June 21, 1996, from Rosie Olson, owner of Wolff Tanning, with attached newspaper articles. 22. Letter dated June 21, 1996, from Deborah Comeaux. 23. Letter dated June 21, 1996, from Mary Ambrose. • 24. Staff report and minutes from Council meetings of July 18, 1995, August 10, 1995, and September 19, 1995, regarding adoption of new ordinance. 25. Letter from Timothy Welch dated June 21, 1996, on behalf of the applicant, with accompanying Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and numerous attachments. Note: A letter was received June 25, 1996, from Linda Yousef, but was not considered because it was submitted after the deadline given. 2 BROOKLYN CENTER �QOO�YN �FNr�9 � POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager Michael McCauley FROM: Chief Scott Kline ` DATE: November 6, 1996 SUBJECT: Pawn Shop Application and License Cash n Pawn 1964 57th Ave N, Suite 17, Brooklyn Center The background investigation has been completed with regard to the application submitted for a pawnbroker license by Cash n Pawn. • Investigator Michael Kaulfuss did background checks on the entire board of directors. He also visited two of their stores, one in Fridley and one in Hopkins, to view their operations and to observe transactions first hand. Inv. Kaulfuss found that the systems and procedures Cash n Pawn has in place with regard to sales, storage, and labeling of merchandise are extremely efficient and unique to their business. In addition, both the Fridley and Hopkins Police Departments were contacted and both stated that they have an excellent working relationship with Cash n Pawn and that Cash n Pawn does go out of their way to work with the local police department. There is nothing that was found in the investigation that would preclude Cash n Pawn from being granted a license to operate a pawn shop. • cash%.mem BROOKLYN CENTER - r POLICE DEPARTMENT POLIU CE MEMORANDUM TO: Chief Scott Kline FROM: Detective Mike Kaulfuss DATE: 11 -04 -96 SUBJECT: Pawn Shop Second Hand Dealer Application and License Detective Kaulfuss, on 10- 04 -96, was asked to do a background on a pawn shop application and license request from Cash and Pawn International, which is located at 1000 Shelard Parkway, Suite 405, in St. Louis Park MN 55426. Allen Cross, who is the chief financial officer and secretary for Cash and Pawn, submitted the application to the City with hopes of getting a license granted so that Cash and Pawn could operate a business at 1964 57th Avenue North, Suite 17, in Brooklyn Center, which would be considered the Northbrook Shopping Center. Detective Kaulfuss reviewed all the forms filled out by the chief financial officer, such as the original general information application, along with all the personal information for the president, CEO Jackie Don Hartsoe. Detective Kaulfuss also received the names and personal information and releases for information from the entire board of directors, which consist of the following gentleman, Craig Avery, Stanford Baratz, Terry Wayne Lieberman, James Ostenson, and Peter Ramme. All these gentleman listed were considered board of directors along with Jackie Hartsoe and Allen Cross. Background checks were run on the entire board of directors at the time the information was provided, with negative results. Detective Kaulfuss had an opportunity to meet with Jack Hartsoe who explained background information surrounding Cash and Pawn of Minnesota. Cash and Pawn operated in other cities in the state of Minnesota, which included the city of St. Paul, with two locations, the city of Hopkins and the city of Fridley. Cash and Pawn International also owned six other stores in the state of Missouri and the state of Indiana. Kaulfuss learned that the store to be opened in the Northbrook Shopping Center, would be started with an advance of $300,000.00 cash capital from Cash and Pawn International to start the store out in operation. This was a standard mode of operation expenses that Cash and Pawn has used in other new store locations. All of the money was coming from Cash and Pawn International with no private investors other than corporation • money. Jack Hartsoe provided personal background information about himself along with personal references. Kaulfuss learned that Hartsoe had originally been with Cash America Memorandum • Page 2 Investments until being hired by Cash and Pawn people and eventually buying into the business and becoming the president and CEO, as well as a partner. Hartsoe also provided letters from the city of Hopkins Police Department, as well as the city of Minnetonka and the Department of Consumer Credit, all dealing with the Cash and Pawn organization. Kaulfuss checked personal references, first with a Mark Margolis, who is the president of Select International. Mr. Margolis stated that he had known Hartsoe for approximately five years and originally hired him away from the major company to come work for Cash and Pawn and actually worked underneath Margolis. Margolis stated at that time Mr. Hartsoe proved to be a very hard worker, very honest and had a very good personality. Margolis stated that Hartsoe eventually became a partner along with other board of directors and eventually, Margolis sold the business along with others to the current owners of Cash and Pawn. Margolis only had high praise for Jack Hartsoe work ethnic. Kaulfuss then contacted a Tom Horn, who is the executive director of the National Pawn Brokers Association. Torn Horn stated that he had known Jack Hartsoe for approximately five years and found him to be extremely active on the board of directors of the National Pawn Brokers Association and to be a completely honest individual, and a hard working businessman. Mr. Horn stated that he thought Jack Hartsoe's character was outstanding and would be an asset to the business community. Detective Kaulfuss then contacted the Fridley Police Department, a Detective Larry Farber, as well as Detective Bob Rewitzer. Both Farber and Rewitzer were very familiar with Cash and Pawn, since they had several pawn shops in their city. Both detectives stated that they have not found any problems with Cash and Pawn, in fact has seen the business go to great lengths to work well with the police department and work within the guidelines set to them through the licensing requirements. Both Detective Farber and Rewitzer made recommendations of what . possibly the city of Brooklyn Center should look at, in regards to changing the ordinance or fitting the ordinance into what seems to work best for the proper operation of pawn shops within the City. These recommendations would be brought up to the administration from Detective Kaulfuss' findings. On 10- 24 -96, Detective Kaulfuss had an opportunity to inspect the Cash and Pawn operation in the city of Fridley. Jack Hartsoe brought Kaulfuss over there at which time, opened up the books and showed Kaulfuss the operation of how items are either pawned or bought out right at that particular store. Detective Kaulfuss was able to observe some sales take place as well as the storage and labeling system in the back room. Kaulfuss found the systems to be very unique and extremely efficient. Kaulfuss found the location to be very clean and the employees very friendly. Memorandum • Page 3 Detective Kaulfuss then had the opportunity to contact the Hopkins Police Department, at which time he spoke to a Sgt. David Haffermann. Sgt. Haffermann is very much involved with the Cash and Pawn operation in the city of Hopkins. Sgt. Haffermann stated that he found the staff, as well as the administration for Cash and Pawn to be most cooperative, and has never had any problems. Haffermann stated that the Cash and Pawn in his city goes to great lengths to work well with the police department and has even done more than is expected of them on several occasions. Sgt. Haffermann also stated that Cash and Pawn themselves, has even assisted in the apprehension of some suspects selling large amounts of stolen property, which the police department was able to make an arrest on. Sgt. Haffermann also stated that he has other pawn shops in the city and does not 'have this kind of cooperation with any other pawn shops. On 11- 04 -96, Detective Kaulfuss was able to be taken on a tour through the Cash and Pawn in Hopkins, by the chief financial officer, Allen Cross. Detective Kaulfuss, while there, observed the staff work in a very efficient and friendly manner to the customers in the store. Kaulfuss was able to tour the back room and found it to be very orderly, with all items properly marked with both names, dates and times of either the pawn or the sale. Kaulfuss was shown the video tape equipment used in recording the individuals selling any merchandise to Cash and Pawn either • through a pawn loan or an out right sale. This was very helpful, since a color video tape recording system is being requested by the city of Brooklyn Center to assist the police department in the apprehension of any suspects pawning or selling items that were later to be found stolen. Detective Kaulfuss learned that 75% of all items pawned at the pawn brokers are picked up by the owners within the required amount of time. Detective Kaulfuss was very pleased in dealing with both the president, CEO Jack Hartsoe, and the chief financial officer, Allen Cross, regarding Cash and Pawn. Both gentleman were extremely helpful, very honest and open regarding the business and their dealings with various police departments throughout the state of Minnesota and the Midwest. Detective Kaulfuss finds no reason why Cash and Pawn should not be granted a license to operate a pawn shop second hand dealer business at the Northbrook Shopping Center. MKJI • • City of Brooklyn Center Notice of Public Hearing on An Application for License to Operate a Pawn Shop Pursuant to City Ordinance Section 23 -610, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of November, 1996, at 7 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to consider an application for license to operate a pawn shop, submitted by Cash n Pawn, at 1964 57th Avenue North, Suite 17, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Any person having an interest in or who will be affected by the proposed license will be permitted to testify at the hearing. Sharon Knutson City Clerk (published in the November 13, 1996, Brooklyn Center Sun -Post) • City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: November 21, 1996 SUBJECT: Proposed Pawn Shop The legal notice regarding the proposed pawn shop was published in the November 13, 1996, Brooklyn Center Sun -Post and posted on the public notice board at City Hall. Apparently a person residing in the area of the proposed pawn shop prepared a flyer in opposition to the pawn shop and distributed it to area neighbors. I have had several calls from residents in the general area of the pawn shop voicing opposition and requesting their opposition be forwarded to the Council for the November 25, 1996, public hearing. Opposed to Pawn Shop Deb Iverson lives two blocks away . Harry H. Pobig lives on Logan Ave. N. Margaret Engstrand lives on Brookview Drive Ray Sigurdson 5631 Hillsview Road Beatrice Waitkus 5430 Oliver Ave. N. Beatrice Humbert 5801 Knox Ave. N. Anonymous caller (11/18/96) lives in area Ruth Pope 5700 Knox Ave. N. Selma Albrecht 5707 Knox Ave. N. Marilyn Albrecht 5707 Knox Ave. N. Doris Schlaht 5341 Penn Ave. N. Don Mailey 2101 Brookview Drive Anonymous caller (11/19/96) lives in area Julie Winkels 5744 Logan Ave. N. Sue Nelson lives in area Robert and Margo Tessman 1900 Brookview Drive Anonymous caller (11/20/96) lives in area Anonymous caller (11/20/96) lives in area Peter and Loretta Kuznia 2418 Ericon Drive Theron Peterson 2207 Ericon Drive • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer • MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: November 25, 1996 SUBJECT: Proposed Pawn Shop - More Opposition Following is a continuation of residents calling to voice opposition to the proposed pawn shop for Northbrook Center. Opposed to Pawn Shop Louie Larson unknown address Mrs. Kermit Klefsaas area resident Mrs. Bond unknown address Anonymous caller lives in area Anonymous caller lives in area i Bobby and Charlene Abraham 2100 55th Ave. N. • AFFIDAVIT OF JONATHAN D. GALLOP • REGARDING THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL AT ITS NOVEMBER 25, 1996, MEETING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1. That I am the supervising attorney for the Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. law firm located at 1915 57th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. 2. That the law firm of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. is a contributing member of the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce and employs residents of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. That the law firm of Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. supports the merchants opposing the permit /license to do business of a proposed pawn shop on the 1900 block of 57th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center. 4. That this Affidavit is not a comment on the potential owner's ability and /or reputation. 5. That I believe there is not a significant need for a pawn shop in this vicinity and I believe it would not be in the best interests f the surrounding residents. Further your affiant sayeth not. Jo / t/D, Gallop Y Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of November, 1996. Notary Public Ace JDG : ja \council. mtg • Companies Comprehensive Real Estate Services • 8200 Normandale Boulevard, Suite 200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 53437 612.897.7700 Fax 897.7704 November 25, 1996 Michael J. McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Northbrook Plaza - Public Hearing Cash & Pawn Dear Mr. McCauley: I am the individual party at Welsh Companies, Inc. primarily responsible for the leasing activity at Northbrook Plaza and have been working with the above referenced tenant. The reason for • this correspondence is to regrettably inform you that neither myself or Mr. Kevin Connolly, Property Manger for the above referenced property, will be in attendance at this evenings meeting. We regularly attend such meetings and place a tremendous amount of importance upon such attendance, however; scheduling conflicts will not allow our presence this evening. As such, I thought I would take a moment to bring a couple of points to light which may come of issue this evening. Among those attending the meeting this evening will be a few representatives from Cash & Pawn whose primary interest is to describe their business and share information with concerned citizens or City officials which may dispel the negative connotations which sometimes are associated with the Pawn industry and quite often give rise to some concern of nearby residents. As with any business, it is often the particular operator not the type of business that makes a particular business a good neighbor or not. Additionally, Ms. Nancy Murdakes of Towle Real Estate, will be in attendance to assist in any way that she may. Until approximately a week ago, Ms: Murdakes worked in conjunction with me to lease the property on behalf of the Receiver, Welsh Companies. She has since become affiliated with Towle Real Estate, however; she has been intimately involved with the transaction and is very familiar with the property. Welsh Companies was named the Receiver through a court order this past February and since p g P az'Y that time has worked very diligently to find tenants for the center. Upon the receipt of this assignment the property was 50% vacant, was in an extreme state of disrepair and was experiencing a steady loss of tenants. Many of the remaining tenants were surviving on a month to month tenancy and many sited slow and eroding sales. The lack of occupancy at the center made the center vulnerable to vandalism and loitering causing increased incidence of crime at the center which in turn must have had some unpleasant effect upon the surrounding • neighborhood. Since receiving the management and leasing assignment our primary goals have been to stop the physical erosion at the property, to find stable tenants to create positive cash flow to fund other necessary improvements and to proceed to make those physical changes that the property can afford in order to clean up the property and make it a safer place to do business. We have accomplished many things since February to work toward our goals. We have leased space to the Salvation Army who has opened a new store in the center and which reports that the Northbrook location is currently one of the strongest in the Twin Cities. Securing this larger tenant is the first step to stabilize the tenancy at the center and to attempt to attract additional tenants. Please keep in mind, there is tremendous competition across the highway for tenants at properties such as Brookdale Square, Brookview Plaza and Shingle Creek Shopping Center. Often times these centers are felt to be stronger locations for businesses than Northbrook Plaza. We regularly grant economic concessions in order to secure tenants for Northbrook Plaza.. We currently have a 13% vacancy rate and we continue to attempt to find qualified tenants for the remaining space. Additionally, we have stabalized the sales at the center allowing current tenants to move forward with renewal of their leases, thus causing further stabalization of the tenancy. Mr. Connolly has implemented new standards for Landscaping, snow plowing, lighting, and building maintenance at the property to insure that Northbrook Plaza is presented as cleanly as possible while being is a safe retail center for the merchants and their customers. In closing, I would like to share with you our positive recommendation for Cash & Pawn. Upon review, I have found their other locations in town to be well presented and conducted with the utmost respect for sound business practices. These communities have sited no incidents of concern relative to their tenancy. The people from Cash & Pawn regularly work in close conjunction with various law enforcement entities to ensure the clean reputation of their product and in fact purchase a significant amount of their product on the wholesale market. ® 1 am sure that the representatives from Cash & Pawn and Ms. Murdakes will be pleased to answer any question that you or the residents of the neighborhood may have. Please feel free to contact me should there be questions that need additional response. Both Mr. Connolly and myself would be pleased to be available for further conversation. Sincerely, Jenni reene Retail asing Representative - 7 -7752 CC. Kevin Connolly Nancy Murdakes /via facimile Steve Cook/via facimile 7b Memorandum To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Specialist Date: December 11, 1996 Subject: Resolution Approving Modifications No. 1 and No. 2 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 and Making Findings with Respect Thereto Both the EDA and the City Council will be asked to consider modifications to TIF District No. 3. In brief, the modifications would remove six parcels from the district. The six parcels to be removed have had significant reductions in value since the inception of the district. These same six parcels would then be reinstated into the TIF district. The result of the actions would be to reduce the base value of the district to reflect the current market values of the properties in question. At the time the district was established, a base value, or total market value of the property in the district was set. The base value represents one of the "lines" of sorts upon which TIF is • determined. TIF is based upon additional value above the base value. Also, at the time the district was established, the current tax rate was set. TIF is determined by the set tax rate times the next tax capacity above the base value. TIF does not capture increases in tax rate. The parcels to be removed and reinstated have lost over $20,000,000 in value since the district was established. That means there would have to be $20,000,000 in new value added to the district before any TIF monies would be generated. If Brooklyn Center is going to undertake a redevelopment role in Brookdale or other areas of the city, we need to address this problem. This TIF district represents the primary and only viable financial tool to address many of the concerns expressed by the community. On Monday evening, City staff and Springsted will attend the City Council meeting to discuss this proposal and answer questions. Member introduced the following resolution and 40 moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING MODIFICATIONS NO. 1 AND NO.2 TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3 AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City "), as follows: 1. The Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "EDA ") and this Council, have previously approved Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Project "), a housing development and redevelopment project established by the EDA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.108, as amended, and in order to finance the public redevelopment costs to be incurred by the City and the EDA in connection with the Redevelopment Project, the EDA and the City have approved Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (the "Financing Plan"), which establishes Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (the "District "). The Board of Commissioners of the EDA have approved Modification No. 1 ( "Modification No. 1 ") and Modification No. 2 ( "Modification No. 2 ") to the Financing Plan. Modification No. 1 eliminates certain parcels from the District, and Modification No. 2 adds the same parcels back to the District. In addition, Modification No. 1 provides for an administrative recategorization of estimated public costs contained in the Financing Plan. 2. This Council on December 16, 1996, held a public hearing on the Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2 after notice of the public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. At such public hearing all persons desiring to be heard with respect to Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2 were given an opportunity to express their views with respect thereto. 3. This Council has previously found that the District is a redevelopment district within the scope of Minnesot a Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, and the Council finds neither Modification No. 1 nor Modification No. 2 will change such prior findings. The basis for this finding is contained in Exhibit II -C to Modification No. 1 and Exhibit II -C to Modification No. 2. Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2 further serve the original goals and purposes of the City and EDA in approving the Redevelopment Project and the Financing Plan. 4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, it is hereby found • that: RESOLUTION NO. • a. The District is a Redevelopment District as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 469.174, Subdivision 10, for the reasons set forth in previous findings by this Council and set forth in Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2, and the approval of Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2 does not alter these previous findings. b. The proposed development to be undertaken in accordance with the Redevelopment Project, and in the opinion of this Council would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and therefor the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. c. The Financing Plan, as amended by Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2, conforms to the general plan for the development of the city as a whole. d. The Financing Plan, as amended by Modification No. 1 and Modification No. 2, will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the city as a whole for the development of the area subject to Redevelopment Project by private enterprise. e. The City confirms its election of the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3, Clause (a), with respect to the District. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 16th day of December, 1996, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Relating to the Regulation of Charitable Gambling. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF CHARITABLE GAMBLING; AMENDING SECTION 11 -717, PARAGRAPH 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: • Section 11 -717. GAMBLING REGULATIONS. 2. Use of the licensed premises shall be by means of a written lease agreement between the licensee and the charitable organization. The lease shall be for a term of at least one year; a copy shall be filed with the police department, and also a copy must be kept on the premises and available for public inspection upon request. Leases shall be governed by the following: a• [Maximum rent that may be charged is $700 per month.] The amount of rent charged may not exceed the amount authorized by law. b. Rental payments may not be based on a percentage of profits from gambling. C. The charitable organization may not reimburse the licensee for any license fees or other gambling related expenses incurred by the licensee. d. The only form of gambling that shall be permitted on the licensed premises shall be pull -tabs approved by the state. e. Pull -tabs shall only be sold from a booth used solely by the charitable • organization, and pull -tabs shall neither be sold by employees of the licensee nor sold from the bar service area. ORDINANCE NO. • f. The construction and maintenance of the booth used by the charitable organization shall be the sole responsibility of the charitable organization. g. The lease shall contain a provision permitting the licensee to terminate the lease if the charitable organization if found guilty of any violation of state or local gambling statutes, ordinances, or rules and regulations. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1996. Mayor • ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) • 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street I RE= Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax e -mail: attys@kennedy- graven.com CHARTERED CHARLES L. LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215 , November 18, 1996 Michael McCauley City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Regulation of Charitable Gambling Dear Mike: • a staff report for the city council meeting of I recently came across ep y g September 11, 1995 in which P Cam Andre, the Interim City Manager, suggested to the city council that Section 11 -717 of the city code be amended to allow charitable gambling licensees to pay as much as the law allows for rent of the licensed premises. In checking my code book, it does not appear that such an ordinance was ever adopted. I do not recall whether we ever prepared such an ordinance. The current ordinance limits the amount which licensees can pay for pull -tab operations to $700 per month. This was based on much earlier version of state law, which has since been amended limited rule of the charitable gambling to provide that lease payments may be 1 ted by g g control board provided that such rules do not prescribe a limit of less than $1,000 per month. A copy of the staff report, and a proposed ordinance, are attached. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, • Charles L. LeFevere CLL /cmm Enclosures CLL113347 HY,i91-4 comwil Nccung DWz Q -i 1 -95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agcud. Item Numba Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PULL -TAB OPERATIONS Department Approval: i J Cam Andre, Interim City Manager vlanager's Review/Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the ordinance providing for this change. Summary x 1 an �y p anon: (supporting documentation attached YES • Earle Brown Bowl and Lynbrook Lanes request a change in the ordinance regulating the amount that can be charged for rental space for pull-tab operations to allow the maximum permitted in state statutes. Currently the ordinance permits $700 and the state statutes permit $1,000. It is suggested that the ordinance (Section 11 -717) be amended to delete "5700 per month" and substitute "would be allowed by state statute." The applicants state that the Lions Club (sponsors of the operation) are in agreement with the proposal. r i - Earle -`B "n Botivl 6440 James 'Circle North Brooklyn Center,' Minnesota 55430. . - _ his - • .- .: _.. -.. - . Exie Buwn Bawd r.August 17, B ' 1995 _ a v Vim l \ t ,•* ,. i . , _ F - _ v y l Y r , l 1 . _ t , C i t z of� Brooklyn 'Center- Cit _. yn .. 6301: -Sfiin 1e =Cr g eek'.Parkway `= Brooklyn '.Center, MN- 55430 r - ; �On behalf : of_Steve Nelson of_Lpnbrook Lanes and me, r I._would like.to see�the'liquor changed to Eoincide with.the State: law .re ardin u11 t.. abs. I - g g. _ - i have talked to. - the . pull tab people and they are agree _able: - - _ - - Tfiank`you. for pour consideration in tfizs matter ' _ mot' _ _ - •Sihcereily ° ,. - .._ James E. - Mad en - ' President - Earle_ Brown ` Bowl - Steve elson President Lynbrook Lanes °JEX:J cm = - _ Res:aurart (6 560 -9242 Fun Center (61_) 566 -6250 7c CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 16th day of December 1996, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, consider An Ordinance Amending Chapters 12 and 19 of the City Ordinances Y, g p tY Relating to the Abatement of Nuisances and Housing Code Violations. 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 12 AND 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AND HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 12- 1201,12 -1206, AND 19 -105 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 12 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 12 -1201. COMPLIANCE ORDER. Whenever the compliance official determines that any building or portion thereof, or the premises surrounding any of these, fails to meet the provisions of this [ordinance] Chapter a compliance order setting forth the violations of the ordinance and ordering the owner, occupant, operator, or agent to correct such violations shall be issued. This compliance order shall: 1. Be in writing. 2. Describe the location and nature of the violations of this ordinance. 3. Establish a reasonable time for the correction of such violation and notify of appeal recourse. 4. Be served upon the owner or agent or occupant, as the case may require. Such notice shall be deemed to be properly served upon such owner or agent, or upon any such occupant, if a copy thereof is: a. Served upon owner, agent or occupant personally; or • b. Sent by registered mail to his last known address; or c. Upon failure to effect notice through (a) and (b) as set out in this • ORDINANCE NO. section, posted at a conspicuous place in or about the building, or portion thereof, which is affected by the notice. Section 12 -1206. EXECUTION OF COMPLIANCE ORDERS BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY. Upon failure to comply with a compliance order within the time set therein and no appeal having been taken, or upon failure to comply with a modified compliance order within the time set therein, the criminal penalty established hereunder notwithstanding, the City Council may, by resolution, -hollowing a hearing upon not less than ten (10) days notice to the landowner cause the cited deficiency to be remedied as set forth in the compliance order. The cost of such remedy shall be a lien against the subject real estate and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, but the assessment shall be payable in a single installment. Section 2. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 19 -105. ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF COST. When any nuisance is found to exist, the health officer of the City shall order the owner or occupant thereof to remove the same, at the expense of the owner or occupant, within a period not to exceed 10 days, the exact time to be specified in the notice. [Upon failure of the owner or • occupant to abate the nuisance, the Director of Planning and Inspection shall cause said nuisance to be abated, shall certify the cost thereof to the City Clerk, and the City Clerk shall certify said costs to the county auditor to be extended on the tax roll of the County against the real estate from which the nuisance has been abated, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 145.22, 145.23, and 412.221.] Said order may be appealed following the same procedures as are set forth in Sections 12 -1202 and 12 -1203. Compliance orders may be executed and special assessments levied by the City under the same circumstances and following the same procedures as are set forth in Section 12 -1206. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication • Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) Member introduced the following resolution and moved 7! F / its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL TAX CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PROVIDING INFORMATIONAL SERVICE, AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469.001 THROUGH 469.047 OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1997 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center entitled a "Resolution Establishing the Final Tax Levy for the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year 1997 "; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes currently require certification of a final tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor on or before December 27, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469.033, Subdivision 6, must by resolution consent to the final tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that a special tax be levied upon all real and personal property within the City of Brooklyn Center at the rate of 0.0144% of taxable market value of all taxable property, real and personal, situated within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and not exempted by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota or the valid laws of the State of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said property tax levy be used for the operation of the Brooklyn Center housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provision of MSA 469.001 through 469.047. 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. 7) a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A FINAL TAX LEVY FOR 1997 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE GENERAL FUND, THE STREET IMPROVEMENT DEBT SERVICE FUNDS, THE E.D.A. FUND, AND THE H.R.A. FUND BUDGETS WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center is annually required by Charter and state law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes require certification of a final tax levy to Hennepin County on or before December 27, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. There is hereby levied upon all taxable property lying within the City of Brooklyn Center, a proposed tax levy of the following sums for the purpose indicated: GENERAL FUND (without debt) $6,191,121 STREET IMPROVEMENT DEBT SERVICE -94 67,830 STREET IMPROVEMENT DEBT SERVICE -95 68,578 STREET IMPROVEMENT DEBT SERVICE -96 114,907 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $6,442,436 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 179,124 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 114,927 $6,746,487 2. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this resolution to be certified to Hennepin County so that said sum shall be spread upon the tax rolls and will be payable in the year 1997. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: • whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7g3 • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 FINAL BUDGET WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is annually required by Charter and state law to adopt an annual budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the appropriations for budgeted funds for the calendar year 1997 shall be: 1. APPROPRIATIONS: GENERAL FUND: Preliminary Organizational Unit Amount General Government $2,053,620 Public Safety 5,224,169 Public Works 1,969,690 Social Services 80,000 Parks & Recreation 2,296,742 'Convention & Tourism 206,570 Risk Management 167,000 Unallocated Department 202,700 Reimbursements from Other Funds - 699,141 Transfers to Capital Projects Funds 394,197 Transfers to Debt Service Funds 230,440 TOTAL GENERAL FUND $12,125,987 STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 94 DEBT SERVICE FUND $113,765 STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 95 DEBT SERVICE FUND $101,275 STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 96 DEBT SERVICE FUND $51,600 H.R.A. SPECIAL OPERATING FUND $139,483 E.D.A. SPECIAL OPERATING FUND $3,324,989 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR BUDGETED FUNDS $15,857,099 • RESOLUTION NO. 2. ESTIMATED REVENUES GENERAL FUND: General Property Taxes $6,239,878 Special Assessments 2,000 Sales Taxes on Lodging 435,000 Licenses & Permits 300,160 Intergovernmental Revenue 3,671,405 General Government Services Charges 21,020 Public Safety Service Charges 19,900 Recreation Fees 862,624 Fines & Forfeitures 192,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 282,000 Transfers from Other Funds 100,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE BY SOURCE $12,125,987 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEBT SERVICE FUNDS: • Special Assessments $127,825 Miscellaneous Revenue 15,000 Transfers from General Fund 230,440 TOTAL .DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUE BY SOURCE $373,265 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: General Property Taxes $121,179 Intergovernmental Revenue 18,304 TOTAL H.R.A. FUND REVENUE BY SOURCE $139,483 ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: General Property Taxes $173,750 Miscellaneous Revenue 122,000 Transfers from H.R.A. & C.D.B.G. Funds 398,454 TOTAL E.D.A. FUND REVENUE BY SOURCE $694,204 • TOTAL REVENUES FOR BUDGETED FUNDS $13,332,939 • 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. Adopted \ —app • • 7g • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by Charter and state law to adopt an annual budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the budgets for the following funds for the year 1997 shall be: SPECIAL REVENUE ESTIMATED FUNDS REVENUES: APPROPRIATIONS: E Brown Tax Increment Distr. $1,412,981 $1,242,000 Tax Increment Distr. #3 $281,416 $260,000 Community Dev Block Grant $258,971 $258,971 • TOTAL $1,953,368 $1,760,971 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. • 7�s • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by Charter and state law to adopt an annual budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the budgets for the following funds for the year 1997 shall be: CAPITAL PROJECTS ESTIMATED FUNDS REVENUES: APPROPRIATIONS: Capital Improvements Fund $336,436 $383,753 M.S.A. Construction Fund $653,000 $528,000 Special Assessment Construction $4,025,500 $4,025,500 • TOTAL $5,014,936 $4,937,253 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by Charter and state law to adopt an annual budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the budgets for the Enterprise Funds for the year 1997 shall be: OPERATIONS: ESTIMATED REVENUES: APPROPRIATIONS: Liquor Stores $2,868,100 $2,829,881 Centerbrook Golf Course $329,535 $321,606 Earle Brown Heritage Center $2,665,208 $2,569,651 Water Utility $1,393,774 $1,027,799 Sanitary Sewer $2,430,912 $2,003,529, Storm Drainage $1,237,669 $479,122 Recycling $220,000 $220,000 ------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- TOTAL $11,145,198 $9,451,588 CONSTRUCTION: APPROPRIATIONS: Earle Brown Heritage Center 1 $98,997 Water Utility $1,444,750 Sanitary Sewer $596,250 Storm Drainage $907,250 TOTAL $3,047,247 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor • thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1997 PROPOSED BUDGETS FOR THE INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by Charter and state law to adopt an annual budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the budgets for the following funds for the year 1997 shall be: INTERNAL SERVICE ESTIMATED FUNDS REVENUES: APPROPRIATIONS: Public Employees Retirement $60,000 $60,000 Central Garage $1,794,076 $1,794,076 TOTAL $1,854,076 $1,854,076 • 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. • U C interoffice ice M E M O R A N D U M to: MIKE MCCAULEY from: CLAYTON A. LARSON subject: ORDINANCE 3- 103,G,6. FEE REFUNDS date: May 22, 1996 This new ordinance section sets policy on requests for permit fee refunds. It allows the City to retain a minimum of $50 and a pro -rated amount up to $100 for any permit issued. An appeal process is also P provided. The City puts staff time into any permit issued. The Uniform Building Code allows up to an 80% refund of permit fees. On a minimum charge building permit, $35, the amount retained would be only $7. This certainly is not adequate compensation for issuing the permit and then writing a refund check. This amendment is necessary to assure the City of that adequate compensation for the work done. Minneapolis has a very simil P ry ar oli which I used a P s a model ordinance. ance, • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13—th day of January 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 Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances regarding refunds of permit fees. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING REFUNDS OF PERMIT FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 3 -103 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 3 -103 G Permit Fees 6. FEE REFUNDS. There shall be no refund of any permit fee collected in accordance with this chapter when the fee so collected is fifft dollars ($50) or less For permits which are canceled after issuance where no authorized work has been done a refund of fifty percent 50 %) of the permit fees collected in excess of $50 may be granted: in no case shall the fees retained exceed $100 If any work authorized b,�the_permit has been started the amount of fees retained, over and above the $100 maximum, shall be determined by the Building. Official commensurate with the percentage of work completed Plan checkin fees are not refundable. All claims for refunds shall be made in writing by the original nal permittee and shall be made within one hundred eighly (180) calendar days from the payment of said fees Appeals for relief from the above refund policy shall: - be made in writing by the original permittee. - be made within one hundred eigh1y(1801 calendar days from the payment of sa id fees. - _include a detailed explanation of circumstances which are the grounds for the appeal. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days ® following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of , 1997. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk I • MEMORANDUM Date: December 9, 1996 To: Michael McCauley, City Manager From: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director Subject: An Ordinance Amending Section 3 -101 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 3 of the City's Ordinances (City building code) adopts by reference the State Building Code. By State statute, the State Building Code applies statewide and supersedes the Building Code of any municipality. In essence, the State's Building Code is Brooklyn Center's Building Code. Our current ordinance reflects the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code. Modification and reorganization of that code occurred in 1975. The ordinance before the Council for a first reading reflects the changes adopted by the State in 1995. By adopting the proposed modifications of the ordinance, the Council will make the City's consistent with the language tY l� e g • of the State Building Code. This proposed ordinance can be characterized as a housekeeping effort. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of January, 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 amendment to Chapter 3 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances regarding the Minnesota State Building Code. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 3 -101 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 3 -101 Building Code. The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to APT. 8W. 16B.59 16 " Minnesota Statutes, sections 16B.59 to 16B.75 one copy of which is on file in the office of the city clerk, is hereby adopted as the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center. Such code is hereby incorporated in this ordinance as completely as if set out in full. A. The following chapters are adopted by referenee as part of the 1990 M4mesata State Building Go of the 1994 Minnesota State Building Code are adopted and incorporated as hart of the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center- 4. Gbapter 1305 Adoption of the 1988 Uniform Building Gode by Referertee The 1987 ANSI A 17.1 E3ode for Elevators, and Related Deviees is a 29. a. Required Pro-visions TJ13G Appendix Chapter 35 Sound Trammissio.n. • E$tttral ORDINANCE NO. 5. Ghapter 1315 Eleetrieal Code 6. Ghapter 13-25 Solar Energy Systems 7. Gliapter 1330 Teebttieal Requirements for Fallout Shelters 8. Chapter 1335 Floodproofing Regulations (wheft reqttired) 9. Ghapter 1340 Faeilities for the Handieapped 14. GhVter 1365 Variation of Smw Loads 15. Ghapter 1370 Made! Energy Gode Administrative Rtile 7640 a. UBG Appendix Ghapters 1, 1-2, Division 1, 26; 38, 55 and 70 1:7. G-hapter 1305.6905 speeial fire suppression systems with option 3808(e) 8. 18. Ghapter 1319 Building Seettrity and FPR Seetions 200.2 to 1405.3 l: 1300 - Minnesota Building Code 2. 1301 - Building Official Certification 3. 1302 - State Building Construction Approvals 1 1305 - Adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code including Appendix • Chapters: a. 3 Division I Detention and Correctional Facilities ORDINANCE NO. • 6 12 Division II Sound Transmission Control c. 29. Minimum Plumbing Fixtures 5. 1307 - Elevators and Related Device 6 1315 - Adoption of the 1993 National Electrical Code 7. 1325 - Solar EnerSystems 1330 - Fallout Shelters 9. 1335 - Floodproofing Regulations 0 1340 - Facilities for the Handicapped 111, 1346 - Adoption of the 1991 Uniform Mechanical Code 12 1350 - Manufactured Homes 13.. _1360 - Prefabricated Homes 14. 1365 - Snow Loads 1370 - Storm Shelters 16. 4715 Minnesota Plumbing Code 17. 7670 - Minnesota Energy Code B. The following optional appendix chanters of the 1994 Uniform Building Code are hereby-adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center: L 3 Division 11I 1992 One- and Two - Family Dwelling Code 2. 15, Reroofing 3. 19. Exposed Residential Concrete • 4. 31, Division II Membrane Structures 6 33 Excavation and Grading ORDINANCE NO. • C. The following optional chapters of Minnesota Rules are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for the City of Brooklyn Center: 1 1306 Special Fire Protection Systems. with option 8 2. 1310, Building Security 3. 1335 Floodproofing regulations parts 1335 0600 to 1335 1200 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.) i • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION OF DAMAGES AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. Background 1.1. The City of Brooklyn Center (hereinafter referred to as the "City ") is a defendant in the cases of Starks v. Minneapolis Police Recruitment System, et al.; Hennepin County District Court File No. EM93 -219, and Fields v. Minnesota Police Recruitment System, et al.; District Court File No. EM93 -218. 1.2. The Court has concluded in said actions that the defendants violated Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 363, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, in the administration of the Minnesota Police Recruitment System (MPRS) testing process for entry level police officers employment screening and that defendants are obligated to pay certain damages and penalties. • 1.3. In its order dated November 6, 1995, the Court determined that the defendant cities are obligated to pay $156,688 in damages for lost wages and emotional distress. 1.4. The Court has also determined that the MPRS, a joint powers organization of which the City is a member, or was a member at the time'the actions were commenced, is obligated to pay each of the two plaintiffs punitive damages in the amount of $8,500. 1.5. By order dated November 7, 1996, the court determined that the defendant cities are obligated to pay $412,737.08 in costs and attorneys fees. 1.6. The Court also determined that the unlawful discrimination by the defendants can reasonably be remedied in part by paying a statutory penalty in the amount of $300,000 to the State of Minnesota, or in lieu of such penalty meeting a reasonable minority rate hiring commitment and complying with other remedial provisions of the order. In the event the cities comply with the hiring commitment, and other remedial provisions specified in the order, it may be that the payment of a statutory requirement may not be required. • RESOLUTION NO. • 1.7. The MPRS has proposed that the payment of monetary damages to the plaintiffs described above in paragraph 1.3, punitive damages described above in paragraph 1.4 and plaintiffs' costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees be allocated among the parties on the following basis: 20% of such costs would be divided equally among the 36 city defendants. 80% of such damages would be divided pro rata on the basis of the population served by the cities police departments as of the time the actions were commenced in January of 1993. Such population would be determined on the basis of Metropolitan Council estimates for cities in the metropolitan area. For communities outside of the metropolitan area, the population would be determined by the State Demographer's estimates. For communities with service contracts under which police service is provided to other municipalities, the populations of such other municipalities would be included in the computation of population served. Section 2. Findings 2.1. It is in the best interest of the City to reach mutual agreement on the allocation of damages. 2.2. The allocation proposed by the MPRS is found to be fair and reasonable, and consent thereto is in the best interest of the City. • Section 3. Approvals and Authorizations 3.1. The allocation for payment of damages, penalties, costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees described above is hereby approved. 3.2. The City consents and agrees to payment of its share of such damages, penalties, costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees in accordance with the allocation formula described above. 3.3. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized and directed to make payment for the City's share of final judgment of such expenses in accordance with the agreed upon allocation. 3.4. This resolution does not amend any previous agreement among the defendant cities for allocation of defense costs and defendants' attorneys fees; and nothing herein shall be deemed to be an agreement as to allocation of any statutory penalties which may be awarded in the future. 3.5. This resolution constitutes only an agreement between and among all cities which are defendants in the above- referenced actions which consent and agree to the allocation formula described above by adoption of substantially similar resolutions. Nothing herein shall be deemed an admission of responsibility or a liability in any action for contribution by any city which has not consented to such allocation or a waiver by the City of any rights, claims, demands, or causes • of action for contribution by the City against any city which has not agreed to such allocation. 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. • 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone & Graven ( 337 -9310 fax e -mail: atrys@kennedy- graven.com CHARTERED CHARLES L. LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215 December 11, 1996 Mr. Mike McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RE: Proposed Resolution Relating to Stark and Fields v. MPRS et al Dear Mike: In the mid1970s, a number of cities in the metropolitan area, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council, secured a federal grant to develop a pre - employment screening examination process for entry level police officers which was carefully validated in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act and the guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After that test was developed, a joint powers organization, initially known as the Suburban Police Recruitment System (later changed to the Minnesota Police Recruitment System, or MPRS), was formed. The MPRS has administered pre - employment screening tests for entry level police officers for member cities since 1979. In 1993, two lawsuits were commenced by African American males who had been unable to pass the MPRS test. These two cases were consolidated for trial. The trial of the case was bifurcated, or divided, into two parts. The first part of the trial involved a determination whether the MPRS testing process was lawful. Following the conclusion of that part of the trial, by order dated October 5, 1994, the court ruled that the MPRS testing process violated the state Human Rights Act. The second part of the trial was then commenced to determine what damages plaintiffs were entitled to, and what other remedies would be ordered as a consequence of the use by the defendant cities of the testing process which the court had found to be unlawful A copy of my memorandum to all of the defendant cities dated November 12, 1996, which describes the results of that order, is attached. • The issue now before the Council is whether to adopt a resolution which specifies the allocation of the costs and damages among the 36 defendant cities. An initial estimate prepared by the ,T_1_4752 BR2?< -4 Mr. Mike McCauley • December 11, 1996 Page 2 MPRS of the amount which would be due from the City of Brooklyn Center under this formula shows that the City of Brooklyn Center would be required to pay $20,287.54. To date, all of the defendant cities except Brooklyn Center, Apple Valley, and Oakdale have provided me with copies of approved resolutions. I have not been advised by either Oakdale or Apple Valley that they object to the allocation formula, and it may be that they have adopted resolutions but have not yet provided me with copies. Very ugly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:lh Enclosure • • I'LL! 14 BF,'91 -4 KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorneys at Law 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 JAMES J. THOMSON • ROBERT A. ALSOP (612) 337 -9300 LARRY M. WERTHEIM BRUCE M. BATTERSON BONNIE L. WD.IQNS RONALD H. BATTY JOE Y. YANG STEPHEN J. Bu9c2 Facsimile (612) 337 -9310 _ JOHN IL DEAN DA VID L. GRAVEN (1929.1991) DANIEL J. GIt EENSWEIG DAVID J. KENNEDY —' CHARLFS L- LEFEVERE OF COUNSEL JOHN M. LEFEvIt& JR. WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL ROBERT C. CARLSON ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT L. DAvmsoN ROBERT C. LONG 337.9215 WELLINGTON H. LAW JAMES M. ST AOMMEN FLOYD B. OLSON CORRINE H. THOMSON CURTIS A. PEARSON T. JAY SALMEN MEMORANDUM TO: All City Managers or Administrators, City Attorneys, and Police Chiefs of Defendant Cities in the Case of Starks & Fields v. MPRS, and MPRS Directors FROM: Charlie LeFevere C-� DATE: November 12, 1996 RE: Starks & Fields v. MPRS, et al.; Order of the Court dated November 7, 1996 i We have finally received the final order of the court in the case of Starks & Fields vs. MPRS, et al. A copy of the order and accompanying memorandum is attached. As you will recall the trial of this case was bifurcated, or divided, into two parts. The first part of the trial dealt with the question whether the MPRS testing process was lawful. The court issued its order on that question on October 5, 1994, in which the court ruled that the MPRS testing process violated the State Human Rights Act. The second part of the trial dealt with questions of monetary damages for the plaintiffs and other remedies. On November 27, 1995, following the second part of the trial, the court issued its order.which required, among other things that the defendants submit a proposed hiring commitment and affirmative action program and that the plaintiffs submit their request for costs and attorneys fees. All of these proceedings have been completed, and the attached order reflects the court's final determination on all issues. Those of us who participated in the first part of the trial felt that it went very well; and we were surprised and disappointed at the final result. The order of the court of October 5, 1994 was highly critical of the MPRS testing process. Given the tone of that order, the final result of • the case is substantially better than might have been expected. It may be helpful to summarize the final results of the case and issues which remain to be considered by the defendants. I. THE MPRS TESTING PROCESS • Although the court's order of October 5, 1994 contains a detailed and lengthy description of all of the shortcomings of the MPRS testing process, the attached order concludes that the test will be lawful if certain minor changes are made. A. Use of the AP Predictor. The first change in the MPRS testing process ordered by the court is the elimination of the AP predictor. The AP predictor was one of three test scores generated in the testing process. It was derived from scores on the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test and a math test. The AP predictor score was used only as a pass -fail predictor and was not used to compute the overall score of an applicant. In other words, an applicant had to achieve a satisfactory score on the Watson Glaser and math test to pass. An applicant who did not achieve a satisfactory score failed the test; but an applicant who did achieve a satisfactory score on all three predictors was given a score based on the other two predictors. Therefore eliminating the AP predictor will not affect the MPRS test scoring process. This part of the court's order is somewhat surprising because the evidence showed • that the AP predictor, as used in the MPRS testing process, has not had an adverse impact on African Americans. That is, if the AP predictor had never been used, the success rate of African Americans would not have been any better. Although the court's order does not explicitly explain why the use of the AP predictor should be discontinued, the judge apparently felt that the adverse impact of the test on African Americans might be reduced in the future because the tests which are used to derive the AP predictor scores are cognitive tests, and the evidence was undisputed that African Americans do achieve scores as high as whites on cognitive tests. B. Use of cut scores Before the trial, the MPRS testing process was a pass -fail test. Applicants who did not achieve certain scores failed the test and. were not able to continue in the selection process. Those who did pass the test were given a score and were added to the eligibility roster. I believe that the evidence at trial clearly demonstrated that the cut scores were set at reasonable levels. In fact I can recall no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless the judge was obviously troubled by the fact that the use of cut scores resulted in a disproportionate number of African Americans being eliminated from further consideration. The elimination of cut scores will mean that all candidates will be Qiven a score and placed on the eligibility roster; but obviously those who would otherwise have failed the test will have very low scores. 2 • C. Elimination of offensive Questions Finally the court has ordered that certain questions be eliminated from the test. These questions appear in the Watson Glaser test and contain the word "Negro ". The court found that these questions were offensive. The court is critical of the refusal of the MPRS to change the form of the Watson Glaser test after the offensive nature of these questions was called to their attention. The defendant cities should be apprised of the fact that this criticism is unwarranted, and appears to be based on an error on the part of the court. There was no evidence presented at trial that the MPRS continued to use the test with the offensive questions. In fact, the first time anyone objected to these questions, and before the trial, the MPRS switched to another form of the Watson Glaser test which did not contain these questions and which plaintiff Starks admitted was not offensive. These facts were presented at trial, and there was no evidence to the contrary. Therefore it is difficult to understand why the court concluded that the MPRS deliberately and willfully determined not to change the test. Nevertheless, even if the court had correctly understood the evidence, it would not have changed the result (except, possibly, with respect to the award of punitive damages), because the issue before the court was the legality of the test being used before the suit was commenced. D. The MPRS testing process generally The differences between the MPRS testing process w w g p s which as found to be unlawful in the court's order of October 5, 1994 and the modified testing process which the court has now determined to be lawful are therefore not particularly significant. If the MPRS members wished to continue to use the testing process, they could do so. The court concludes on page 14 of the attached memorandum that the modified procedure is lawful provided certain "currency and monitoring requirements are satisfied ". These requirements are simply th p y e standing requirements of the EEOC guidelines, which would be applicable to AP any employee selection process. II. DAMAGES AWARD Plaintiffs sought punitive damages, back pay, front pay, and damages for emotional distress in the total amount of $3,073,402. The total amount awarded was $173,688; that is less than 6% of the amount sought by plaintiff. II I III. COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES. Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of litigation costs of $113,919.02 and were w $108,869.81. g e a arded .81. The also o sou h t attorneys Y g y fees in the amount of $660,648.60. The award of the court is $303,867.27 or less than half of the amount sought. • IV. PAYMENT OF DAMAGES COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES The total amount of damages, costs and attorneys fees awarded, ($586,425.08) is only 3 1570 of the $3,847,969 requested. If the plaintiffs had been awarded the full amount which they • sought, the average costs per city would have been $106,888. We were successful in reducing this to an average cost per city of $16,290. (The costs will actually be slightly higher than those amounts because interest accrues on the compensatory and punitive damages from November 27, 1995 and on costs and attorneys fees from November 11, 1996, until paid.) V. HIRING COMMITMENT In the court's order of November 27, 1995, the defendant cities were ordered to make a reasonable commitment for hiring of minorities. The cities did not propose a specified number of minorities who would be hired but rather suggested that the cities would continue to maintain the affirmative action program which the cities submitted until the ratio of the number of African Americans hired since 1979 to the number of African American applicants equalled or exceeded the ratio of the number of whites hired to the number of white applicants during the same period. The plaintiffs sought a much more aggressive hiring order which would have been extremely difficult for the cities to achieve. The court accepted the cities' proposal with two modifications. The first relates to the data base used to determine whether this minority hiring requirement has been met. We requested that the data base from the MPRS be used because it would be the most representative and would be more practical to administer. The court's order, however, requires the cities to combine the applicant and hiring statistics of all of the defendant cities. The court's order is not surprising in this regard, but it will require that the cities establish some unified mechanism for data collection and reporting. The second modification to our proposal is that a deadline is imposed for meeting this requirement which is seven years from the date of the order. As of the end of 1993 the defendant cities were within one -half of one African American of meeting this requirement and within one and one -half of one person of meeting the requirement for other minorities. Therefore, if the cities continue to pursue reasonable affirmative action efforts, this requirement should be achievable. It should be noted that this case was brought by two African Americans who claimed that the MPRS testing process had an adverse impact on African Americans. The evidence at trial, and the court's findings, relate to the impact of the testing process on African Americans. Therefore it is somewhat curious that the court ordered remedies are extended to minorities in general. On one hand this may create an appealable issue because the remedies ordered by the court exceed the necessities of remedying the effects of past discrimination which were found by the court. On the other hand, expanding the remedies to include all minorities may be helpful because it will afford the cities more opportunities to meet the court's hiring requirement. (Historically there have been about two times as many, other minority applicants as African American applicants.) VI. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM. • In its order of November 27, 1995, the court ordered the defendant cities to propose a program to disseminate information on law enforcement careers and to create cadet type programs and offer positions in such programs to minority candidates. In response to that order, 4 the defendant cities (with the exception of Brooklyn Park and Mendota Heights) collectively • submitted an Affirmative Action Program. The court's response to the proposals of Brooklyn Park and Mendota Heights is found at page 13 of the order. With respect to the program submitted by the other cities, the court found the proposal generally acceptable with certain modifications discussed on pages 10 -13 of the order. These include: 1. expansion of reach -out efforts to inner city schools and organizations (which was already part of the proposal); 2. adding certain minority organizations' periodicals and radio stations to the lists of such organizations already included in the program; 3. extending offers of employment, for related entry level positions such as cadets, CSO's, interns and the like, to interested and eligible minority positions; and 4. annual reports to the court demonstrating such affirmative action efforts. Three cities were identified with proposed programs which were included in the Affirmative Action Program but which would require supplementation to satisfy the court. Other cities identified employment positions which could be used to satisfy the court's requirement for cadet or CSO type positions. These included interns, paramedics, reserves, explorers, bike patrol officers, crime prevention specialists and security guards. No such positions were identified by the cities of Ramsey, St. James or Wayzata. These cities should carefully review the order and consider submitting a supplement to the Affirmative Action Program by December 7, 1996. In general, the cities' Affirmative Action Program was found acceptable by the court. The actual implementation of that plan and the establishment of record keeping and reporting procedures to document such implementation will be a substantial undertaking and should receive the prompt attention of all of the defendant cities which were included in the program. VII. CIVIL PENALTY. The court's order of November 6, 1995 required the cities to pay "...a statutory penalty in the amount of $300,000 to the State of Minnesota, or in lieu of such penalty [establish] a reasonable minority race hiring commitment satisfactory to the court." Thus it appeared that the $300,000 penalty was linked to the hiring commitment. However, in the attached order, paragraph 14C, page 5, the court states that the adverse impact of the MPRS testing process can be reasonably remedied by, among other things "paying a statutory penalty in the amount of $300,000 to the State of Minnesota, which penalty shall be suspended pending compliance with the remedial provisions of this order." And at paragraph 7 on page 14 the court states that the penalty is stayed, but will be imposed up to $300,000 for failure to comply with clauses 4 (dealing with changes to the MPRS testing process), 5 (dealing with the affirmative action program) or 6 (meeting the hiring commitment by November 1, 2003.) • Therefore the $300,000 penalty or some lesser amount, could be imposed for failing to comply with any part of the order. 5 After receipt of the order of November 27, 1995, representatives of some cities suggested that they might be better off to pay the $300,000 to get out from under the court's ongoing oversight and jurisdiction, payment of attorneys fees, expert fees and the like. One of the reasons for deciding not simply to pay the penalty was that it was limited only to the hiring commitment. Therefore even if the penalty were paid, the cities would be subject to continuing oversight and supervision by the court in test administration and affirmative action. Now, however, it appears that the statutory penalty is linked to all of the remedial parts of the order. Therefore the cities may wish to reconsider whether they wish to simply pay the $300,000, discontinue the use of the MPRS test and be done with the entire case. It is possible, of course, that despite substantial efforts and expenditures to comply with the court's order, the cities' efforts will eventually be found inadequate and the penalty will be imposed at a later date. On the other hand, $300,000 is a substantial sum, even when divided among 36 cities; there may be public relations implications to paying the penalty; and the affirmative action efforts described in the Affirmative Action Program may be something the cities would wish to undertake even if they were not under court order to do so. If the cities wished to pay the penalty it would be highly desirable for all cities to agree to do so in advance and agree upon a formula for allocation of this cost among the defendants. The allocation resolution proposed by the MPRS which most cities have approved does not contemplate the voluntary payment of the statutory penalty, and I would not expect the judge to be particularly cooperative to letting any one city off the remedies hook by paying some smaller part of the $300,000 penalty. VII. OTHER ISSUES. Certain parts of the order are not entirely clear to me. After consultation with the MPRS Executive Committee or Litigation Committee, we may wish to seek further clarification of the order. Among the questions about which I am uncertain of the court's intent are: A. whether the obligation of the cities to meet the hiring commitment and to continue affirmative action efforts may be terminated as soon as the ratio is achieved or the cities will be required q to continue these efforts having their eu success or failure ,fudged in the year 2003; B. whether the order for affirmative action and the hiring commitment was in fact intended to cover all minorities and not only African Americans; C. if the hiring commitment does apply to all minorities, whether the cities would be released upon achieving a parity in hiring rates for all minorities even if the hiring rate for African Americans is not at that level; and D. whether the obligation described in the order to identify minority persons and • extend to them offers of CSO or cadet type positions is intended to require the cities to engage in racial preference hiring or merely to use their best efforts to expand the number of minority candidates in the pool of applicants for those 6 • Positions. (If it is the former the cities may be exposed to liability for race conscious hiring of minorities other than African Americans. The court's order would not protect such practices if they were not demonstrably necessary to remedy the effects of past discrimination.) Other issues which need clarification may arise as the defendants have an opportunity to review and consider the order. I expect that the MPRS Executive Committee will be meeting in the near future to consider this order, and each of the cities will receive notice from the MPRS of a meeting to discuss it as soon as a time and place is established. In the meantime please feel free to call me if you have any questions. • • 7 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its • adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SIX -LANE OPTION AND THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 100 BETWEEN HIGHWAY 55 AND 50TH AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS the ro ed p pos reconstruction of Highway 100 corridor in and through the cities of Golden Valley, Crystal, Robbinsdale, and Brooklyn Center has been delayed for the past 30 years, and; WHEREAS, the North Metro Highway 100 Council comprising the cities of Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, Golden Valley, Hennepin Count rY P � Y, P Y was formed in 1994 to work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council for upgrading the above noted corridor, and; WHEREAS, Stage 1 (Glenwood Avenue to Golden Valley Road) is programmed for letting in 1998, and; WHEREAS, Stage 2 (29th Avenue North to 39th Avenue North) and Stage 3 (39th t Avenue North to Indiana Avenue North) are programmed for funding in the Metropolitan Council's 1996 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and; WHEREAS, Stage 4 (Indiana Avenue North to 50th Avenue North) and Stage 5 (Golden Valley Road to 29th Avenue North) are recommended for funding in the proposed 1997 Metropolitan Council Transportation Program Plan (TPP), and; WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as submitted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation recommends that Highway 100 be upgraded and cites the following findings that support the reconstruction: 1. Eliminate all at -grade intersections and traffic controls. 2. Rectify the number of shortcomings on the present roadway by reducing the number of access points, increasing capacity, addressing transportation demand, and reducing travel times. 3. Reduction of diversion traffic during peak congestion times onto parallel routes and local streets. 4. Replacement of four bridges that are in poor condition. • RESOLUTION NO. S. Provision for a six -lane option to meet anticipated future traffic demands including a HOV lane. 6. Air quality will be improved to be lower than state and federal standards. 7. Water quality should improve in creeks and lakes with the detention and sedimentation ponds and other design features. 8. Flooding on the Highway 100 mainline at certain intersections will be reduced with the proposed design elements. WHEREAS, the DEIS document details the options of providing for either a four - or six -lane mainline. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. Approves the DEIS as presented. 2. Specifically approves the six -lane mainline option so there is the ability to meet future traffic demands along with consideration for a HOV lane as a sub- alternative. 3. Strongly completion urges the of the Final EIS and that actual reconstruction g P of Highway 100 commence without any further undue delay. 4. Agrees to transmit this resolution to the Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, the Federal Highway Administration, and any additional entity found necessary to be advised. 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. • North Metro Highway 100 Council 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite 5 Brooklyn Park MN 55443 FAX COVER SHEET Date: November 25, 1996 Time: 10:18 a.m. To: Dennis Kraft Phone: Jerry Dulgar Fax: Mike McCauley Dan Donahue From: Sarah Nelson Phone: (612) 493 -5115 North Metro Hwy 100 Council Fax: (612) 424 -1174 Number of pages including cover sheet: (3) Message Attached is the revised Highway 100 resolution discussed at the last Highway 100 Council meeting. It is requested that each city pass this resolution, or one similar, by December 17. The public comment period closes on December 18 . Please forward copies of your community's resolution, by this date to the individuals listed below: Mr. Tim Stahl Mr. Jim Solem Highway 100 Project Manager Regional Administrator Mn/DOT Metro Division Metropolitan Council 1500 West County Road B2 230 East Fifth Street Roseville, MN 55113 St. Paul, MN 55101 Ms. Cheryl Martin Mr. Duane Ostlund Transportation Engineer President FHWA Division Office North Metro Highway 100 Council 490 Metro Square Building 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite 5 St. Paul, MN 55101 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 • City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstrom, Mann, and Nichols, Sr. FROM: Myrna Kragness, Mayor L* V4-4 DATE: December 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Appointments of Council Liaisons to City Commissions for 1997 At the December 16, 1996, Council meeting, I will be making the following appointments of City Council members to City Advisory Commissions. Councilmember Hilstrom Financial Commission Councilmember -elect Lasman Housing Commission Councilmember Carmody Human Rights and Resources Commission Councilmember -elect Peppe Park and Recreation Commission 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer City of Brooklyn Center A great place to star. t. A great place to stay. • MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmembers Carmody, Hilstrom, Mann, and Nichols, Sr. FROM: Myrna Kragness, Mayor DATE: December 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Reappointments to City Advisory Commissions At the December 16, 1996, Council meeting, I will be making the following nominations for reappointments of City Advisory Commission members to their respective Commissions. Financial Commission Donn Escher Ron Christensen Housing Commission • Jonathan Carter Michael desParois Naomi Ische Human Rights and Resources Commission Sharon Achtelik Nancy Doucette Park and Recreation Commission Bud Sorenson Planning Commission Tim Willson Graydon Boeck Dianne Reem Brian Walker I would ask for Council ratification of my nominations. • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: December 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Reappointments to City Advisory Commissions Following is a list of the City Advisory Commissioners whose terms will expire December 31, 1996. An asterisk in front of the name indicates he /she resigned or does not wish to seek reappointment. Financial Commission - 7 members; three -year term -Donn Escher (served since 7/13/92) * -Lee Anderson (served since 12/20/93) -Ron Christensen (served since 7/13/92) Housing Commission - 9 members; three -year term -Jonathan Carter (served since 4 /10/95) -Michael desParois (served since 10/28/96) -Naomi Ische (served since 2/12/96) Human Rights and Resources Commission - 9 members; three -year term - Sharon Achtelik (served since 4/22/91) -Nancy Doucette (served since 2/12/96) - Charlotte Nesseth (served since 8/22/94) Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Advisory Comm. - 2 members; two -year term * - Phyllis Owens (served since 1/23/95) Park and Recreation Commission - 7 members; three -year term -Bud Sorenson (served since 9/24/79) * -Kay Lasman (served since 1/10/94) Planning Commission - 7 members; two -year term -Tim Willson (served since 2/22/93) -Graydon Boeck (served since 1/23/95) Dianne Reem (served since 2/22/93) -Brian Walker (served since 9/9/96) As requested by Mayor Kragness, a letter was sent to the chairperson of each commission asking for assistance regarding reappointments, including attendance of members, participation, etc. Attached are attendance records prepared from commission minutes for commission members seeking reappointment. • City of Brooklyn Center • Commission Member Attendance for 1996 12/11/96 Financial Commission - 7 meetings in 1996 -Donn Escher; 1 excused -Ron Christensen; 3 absent Housing Commission - 7 meetings in 1996 - Jonathan Carter; 1 excused; 1 absent - Michael desParois; just appointed -Naomi Ische; 1 absent Human Rights and Resources Commission -10 meetings in 1996 - Sharon Achtelik; 3 excused -Nancy Doucette; 2 excused - Charlotte Nesseth; 0 absent Park and Recreation Commission - 9 meetings in 1996 -Bud Sorenson; 1 excused Planning Commission -14 meetings in 1996 -Tim Willson; 0 absent - Graydon Boeck; 1 absent; 2 excused - Dianne Reem; 2 excused -Brian Walker; 1 excused its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR LOCAL 49 (PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE) AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 1997 - 1999 WHEREAS, Section 2.07 of the City Charter for the City of Brooklyn Center states that the City Council is to fix the salary or wages of all officers and employees of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has negotiated in good faith with Local 49 (Public Works) for a contract for the years 1997 - 1999 as attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center approves the attached contract with Local 49 (Public Works) for calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized wage and benefit adjustments not to exceed the maximum contained herein shall become effective according to the schedule of the contract which commences January 1, 1997. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City of Brooklyn Center Memorandum TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager 0,41, CAA FROM: Nancy Gohman, Assistant City Manager /Human Resources Director DATE: December 9, 1996 SUBJECT: Local 49 (Public Works) Contract - 1997 -1999 The City of Brooklyn Center has met several times with Tim Connors, Business Representative, Local 49 and Union Stewards for public works on a contract for 1997 -99. The current contract expires December 31, 1996. After lengthy discussion it appears we have come to an agreement on a contract for three years. The two major issues - wages and insurance - reflect the majority of the change for the contract. WAGES - The wage package is 3% on the base wages for three years effective January 1 of each 1997, 1998, 1999. A 3% increase is consistent with settlements that are occurring around the metro area for both organized and non - organized employees at the present time. INSURANCE - We are moving into a cafeteria insurance plan. What this means is that the City will offer a set dollar amount for insurance for all employees whether choosing between single or dependent insurance coverage. By approving a three year contract we can phase this cafeteria insurance plan over three years with the equalization of insurance rates being effective in 1999. A more detailed summary of the contract changes are listed below: 1. Duration - 3 years; 1997, 1998 and 1999. 2. Wages - Increase base wages 3% on January 1 of each year for 1997, 1998, and 1999. 3. Crew Leader -An Employee assigned in writing by the Department Head to assist a supervisor as crew leader will be paid $1.50/hour over their base wage of their regular position while performing such duties. 4. Insurance 1997 Full -time employees selecting dependent health insurance coverage with eligible dependent(s). Effective 1/1/97 h t e City ill contribute payment of three hundred fifty-five dollars 355 tY p Ym Y ($ ) er P • month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. 1997 Full -time employees selecting single health insurance. Effective 3/1/97, the City will contribute up to a maximum of two hundred fifty five dollars ($255) per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. 1998 Full -time employees selecting dependent health insurance coverage with eligible dependent(s). Effective 1/1/98, the City will contribute payment of three hundred and sixty dollars ($360) per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. 1998 Full -time employees selecting single health insurance Effective 1/1/98, the City will contribute up to a maximum of three hundred ten dollars ($310) per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. 1999 Flexible Benefit Plan - Full -time employees. Effective 1/1/99, the City will contribute up to a maximum of three hundred sixty -five dollars ($365) per month for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Required employee contribution for participation in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan: Single Health Coverage; Basic $10,000 Life Insurance. The employee may use the remainder of the contribution (limits as stated above) for use as provided in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Such options may include: group dental, supplemental life, long -term disability, deferred compensation or cash benefits. 5. Vacation Accrual Increase accrual from 200 hours to 230 hours: each employee will be allowed to accumulate vacation and carry up to 230 hours from year to year. 6. Uniforms /Safety/Work Attire The employer will reimburse employees an allowance of $75 per calendar year for purchase of work clothing, protective clothing, safety jackets or vests, steel toed boots/shoes; uniform or rental of such work clothes for use on the job for Brooklyn Center. The City reserves its right to ensure allowance is used for appropriate work attire. Receipts and description of purchase /rental required prior to reimbursement. 7. Changes to working out of classification pay: • b.) Add - Farm type tractors Skid Steer Mower of over 10' Delete - Bobcat (due to brand name) Cement mixer e.) Add new language Night Service person who is assigned in writing by the supervisor to do mechanics work will receive mechanics hourly rate of pay for time working such assignment. It is the recommendation of staff that we bring this contract to the Council for approval at their regular city council meeting of December 16, 1996. kw • Labor Agreement Between the City of Brooklyn Center And the International Union of Operating Engineers (1UOE) Local No. 49 January 1, 1997 - December 31, 1999 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE PAGE 1 Purpose of Agreement 1 2 Recognition 1 3 Definitions 1 4 Savings Clause 2 5 Union Security 2 6 Employer Security 3 7 Employer Authority 3 8 Seniority 3 9 Discipline 3 10 Employee Rights - Grievance Procedure 4 11 Job Posting 6 12 Probationary Periods 7 13 Right of Subcontract 7 14 Safety 7 15 Work Schedules 7 16 Relief and Meal Periods 8 17 Uniforms /Safety/Work Attire 8 • 18 Overtime Pay 8 19 Call Back 9 20 Standby Pay 9 21 Holiday Leave 9 22 Vacation Leave 10 23 Sick Leave 10 24 Severance Pay 11 25 Insurance 11 26 Seasonal/Temporary Employees 12 27 Part-time Employee Benefits 12 28 Wage Schedule 13 29 Working Out of Classification Pay 13 30 Legal Defense 14 31 Waiver 14 32 Duration 15 • • ARTICLE 1 - Purpose of Agreement This Agreement is entered into between the City of Brooklyn Center hereinafter called the Employer, and Local No. 49, International Union of Operating Engineers, hereinafter called the Union. 1.1 Purpose a. Establish certain hours, wages and other conditions of employment; b. Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this Agreement's interpretation and/or application; C. Specify the full and complete understanding of the parties; and d. Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this Agreement. The Employer and the Union, through this Agreement, continue their dedication to the highest quality of public service. Both parties recognize this Agreement as a pledge of this dedication. • ARTICLE 2 - Recognition The Employer recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative for all Employees in the job classifications listed below who are public Employees within the meaning of Minnesota Statute 179A.03, Subdivision 14 excluding supervisory, confidential and all other employees: Mechanic, Maintenance I, Maintenance II, Maintenance III, and Night Service Person. ARTICLE 3 - Definitions 3.1 Union: The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49 3.2 Employer: The individual municipality designated by this Agreement. 3.3 Union Member: A member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49 3.4 Employee: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. • 3.5 Base Pay Rate: The Employee's hourly pay rate exclusive of longevity or any other special allowance. 1 • 3.6 Seniority: Length of continuous service in any of the job classifications covered by Article 2 - Recognition. Employees who are promoted from a job classification covered by this Agreement and return to a job classification covered by this Agreement shall have their seniority calculated on their length of service under this Agreement for purposes of promotion, transfer and lay off and total length of service with the Employer for other benefits under this Agreement. 3.7 Severance Pay: Payment made to an Employee upon honorable termination of employment. 3.8 Overtime: Work performed at the express authorization of the Employer in excess of either eight (8) hours within a twenty -four (24) hour period (except for shift changes) or more than forty (40) hours within a seven (7) day period. 3.9 Call Back: Return of an Employee to a specified work site to perform assigned duties at the express authorization of the Employer at a time other than an assigned shift. An extension of or early report to an assigned shift is not a call back. ARTICLE 4 - Savings Clause This Agreement is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota, and the signed • municipality. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provision shall be voided. All other provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the request of either party. ARTICLE 5 - Union Security In recognition of the Union as the exclusive representative the Employer shall: 5.1 Deduct each payroll period an amount sufficient to provide the payment of dues established by the Union from the wages of all Employees authorizing in writing such deduction, and 5.2 Remit such deduction to the appropriate designated officer of the Union. 533 The Union may designate certain Employees from the bargaining unit to act as stewards and shall inform the Employer in writing of such choice. 5.4 The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the City as a result of any action taken or not taken by the City under the provisions of this Article. 2 ARTICLE 6 - Employer Security • The Union agrees that during the life of this Agreement it will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow down, other interruption of or interference with the normal functions of the Employer. ARTICLE 7 - Employer Authority 7.1 The Employer retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all workforce, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules; and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this Agreement. 7.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this Agreement shall remain solely within the discretion of the Employer to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE 8 - Seniority • 8.1 Seniority will be the determining criterion for transfers, romotions and la offs only P Y Y when all job - relevant qualification factors are equal. 8.2 Seniority will be the determining criterion for recall when the job- relevant qualification factors are equal. Recall rights under this provision will continue for twenty -four (24) months after lay off. Recalled Employees shall have ten (10) working days after notification of recall by registered mail at the Employee's last known address to report to work or forfeit all recall rights. ARTICLE 9 - Discipline 9.1 The Employer will discipline Employees only for just cause. 9.2 An Employee(s) will not be required to participate in an investigatory interview by the Employer where the information gained from the interview could lead to the discipline of the Employee(s) unless the Employee(s) is given the opportunity to have a Union Representative resent at the interview a win for he Employee(s). p p to act s a witness o f 3 • ARTICLE 10 - Employee Rights - Grievance Procedure 10.1 Definition of a Grievance A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this Agreement. 10.2 Union Representatives The Employer will recognize representatives designated by the Union as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by this Article. The Union shall notify the Employer in writing of the names of such Union representatives and of their successors when so designated. 10.3 Processing of a Grievance It is recognized and Employer i � g accepted by the Union and the Emp oye that the processing o grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the Employees and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such Employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved Employee and the Union Representative shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the Employer during normal working hours provided the Employee and the Union Representative have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the Employer. 10.4 Procedure Grievances, as defined by Section 10. 1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: Step 1. An Employee claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall, within twenty -one (2 1) calendar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the Employee's supervisor as designated by the Employer. The Employer- designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the Agreement allegedly violated, and the remedy requested and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the Employer- designated representative's final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the Union and discussed with the Employer- designated Step 2 representative. The Employer - designated representative shall give the Union the Employer's Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 • may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the Employer- 4 designated representative's final Step 2 answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing to • Step 3 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the Union and discussed with the Employer- designated Step 3 representative. The Employer - designated representative shall give the Union the Employer's answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following the Employer - designated representative's final answer in Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed in Step 4 shall be submitted to the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services. A grievance not resolved in Step 4 may be appealed to Step 5 within ten (10) calendar days following the Employer's final answer in Step 4. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 5 by the Union within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 5. A grievance unresolved in Step 4 and appealed in Step 5 shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended. If the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the "Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances" as established by the Public Employment Relations Board. If the parties . cannot agree upon an Arbitrator, then the parties may request a list of Arbitrators from the Bureau of Mediation Services. 10.5 Arbitrator's Authority A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the Employer and the Union, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following the close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the Employer and the Union and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this Agreement and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the Employer and the Union provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party 5 • desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings the cost shall be shared equally. 10.6 Waiver If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived." If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the Employer's last answer. If the Employer does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the Union may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual Agreement of the Employer and the Union. 10.7 Choice of Remedy If, as a result of the Employer response in Step 4, the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance involves the suspension, demotion, or discharge of an Employee who has completed the required probationary period, the grievance may be appealed either to Step 5 of Section 10.4 or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veteran's Preference, or Fair Employment. If appealed to any procedure other than Step 5 of Section 10.4 the grievance is not subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 5 of Section 10.4. The aggrieved Employee shall indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized- -Step 5 of Section 10.4 or another appeal procedure- -and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice of any other hearing precludes the aggrieved Employee from making a subsequent appeal through Step 5 of Section 10.4. ARTICLE 11 C Job Posting 11.1 The Employer and the Union agree that permanent job vacancies within the designated bargaining unit shall be filled based on the concept of promotion or transfers from within provided that applicants have the necessary qualifications to meet the standards of the job vacancy, have the ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job vacancy. 11.2 Employees filling a higher job class based on the provisions of this Article shall be subject to the conditions of Article 12- Probationary Periods. 11.3 The Employer has the right of final decision in the selection of Employees to fill posted P jobs based on qualifications, abilities and experience. 11.4 Job vacancies within the designated bargaining unit will be posted for five (5) working days so that members of the bargaining unit can be considered for such vacancies. • 6 • ARTICLE 12 - Probationary Periods 12.1 All newly hired or rehired Employees will serve a twelve (12) months' probationary period. 12.2 All Employees will serve a twelve (12) months' probationary period in any job classification in which the Employee has not served a probationary period. 12.3 At any time during the probationary period a newly hired or rehired Employee may be terminated at the sole discretion of the Employer. 12.4 At any time during the probationary period a promoted or reassigned Employee may be demoted or reassigned to the Employee's previous position at the sole discretion of the Employer. ARTICLE 13 - Right of Subcontract Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit or restrict the right of the Employer from subcontracting work performed e ormed b Employees covered b this p Y Y Agreement. g • ARTICLE 14 - Safety The Employer and the Union agree to jointly promote safe and healthful working conditions, to cooperate in safety matters and to encourage Employees to work in a safe manner. ARTICLE 15 - Work Schedules 15.1 The sole authority of work schedules is the Employer. The normal work day for an Employee shall be eight (8) hours. The normal work week shall be forty (40) hours Monday through Friday. 15.2 Service to the public may require the establishment of regular shifts for some Employees on a daily, weekly, seasonal, or annual basis other than the normal 7:00 - 3:30 day. The Employer will give seven (7) days advance notice to the Employees affected by the establishment of work days different from the Employee's normal eight (8) hour work day. 15.3 In the event that work is required because of unusual circumstances such as (but not limited to) fire, flood, snow, sleet, or breakdown of municipal equipment or facilities, no advance notice need be given. It is not required that an Employee working other than the normal work day be scheduled to work more than eight (8) hours; however, each • Employee has an obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested unless unusual circumstances prevent the Employee from so working. 7 15.4 Service to the public may require the establishment of regular work weeks that schedule • work on Saturdays and/or Sundays. ARTICLE 16 Relief And Meal Periods 16.1 Two relief periods not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes are authorized at a practicable time within each Employee's shift. One relief period may be taken during the first half of the shift and the second relief period may be taken during the second half of the shift. 16.2 Each Employee shall be authorized one unpaid thirty (30) minutes meal period per shift. ARTICLE 17 - Uniforms /Safety/Work Attire The Employer will reimburse employees an allowance of $75 per calendar year for purchase of work clothing, protective clothing, safety jackets or vests, steel toed boots/shoes; uniform or rental of such work clothes for use on the job for Brooklyn Center. The City reserves its right to ensure allowance is used for appropriate work attire. Receipts and description of purchase /rental required prior to reimbursement. The Employer will purchase and maintain sufficient sets of work coveralls to be available and • specifically assigned for wear by Employees, other than mechanics, when engaged in unusually dirty tasks for the respective job classification. A determination of coverall assignments shall rest exclusively with the Employer. Mechanics shall be provided coveralls. ARTICLE 18 - Overtime Pay 18.1 Hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours within a twenty -four (24) hour period (except for shift changes) or more than forty (40) hours within a seven (7) day period will be compensated for at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the Employee's regular base pay rate. 18.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 18.3 Overtime refused by Employees will for record purposes under Article 18.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 18.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation, overtime hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded, or paid twice for the same hours worked. • 8 ARTICLE 19 - Call Back An Employee called in for work at a time other than the Employee's normal scheduled shift will be compensated for a minimum of two (2) hours' pay at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the Employee's base pay rate. ARTICLE 20 - Standby Pay Public Utility Employees who are designated by their supervisor to serve in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a weekend will receive as compensation for such service five (5) hours of overtime pay for the period beginning the end of the work day on Friday and ending the start of the work day on Monday when serving in such status. Public Utility Employees who are designated by their supervisors to serve in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a week night (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) that is not a holiday will receive as compensation for such service one (1) hour of overtime pay for each week night served in such status. Public Utility Employees who are designated by their supervisors to serve in a "standby" status on behalf of the City on a holiday will receive as compensation for such service two (2) hours of overtime pay for each holiday served in such status. Such standby pay shall be in addition to other compensation which the Employee is entitled to under this Agreement. ARTICLE 21- Holiday Leave Holidays Defined. Holiday leave shall be granted for the following holidays: New Year's Day, January 1; Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, third Monday in January; Washington's and Lincoln's Birthdays, third Monday in February; Memorial Day, last Monday in May; Independence Day, July 4; Labor Day, first Monday in September; Christopher Columbus Day, second Monday in October; Veteran's Day, November 11; Thanksgiving Day, fourth Thursday in November; Post- Thanksgiving Day, Friday after fourth Thursday in November; Christmas Day, December 25; and one floating holiday annually to be scheduled with permission of the Employee's supervisor. When New Year's Day, Independence Day, Veteran's Day, or Christmas Day fall on Sunday, the following day shall be observed as a holiday. When they fall on Saturday, the preceding day shall be observed as a holiday. Employees' absence from work on the day following or the day preceding such a three -day holiday weekend without the express authorization of the Employer shall forfeit rights to holiday pay for that holiday. Employees working a normal Monday through Friday workweek, who are required to be on duty on any holiday, shall be paid time and one -half for the hours worked in addition to the base pay rate. • 9 • ARTICLE 22 - Vacation Leave 22.1 Amount. Permanent Employees shall earn vacation leave at a rate of 6.67 hours for each calendar month of full -time service or major fraction thereof. Permanent Employees with five consecutive years of service through ten consecutive years of service shall earn vacation at the rate of 120 hours per year. Permanent Employees with more than ten consecutive years of service shall earn vacation leave according to the following schedule: During 1 lth year of service 128 hours per year. During 12th year of service 136 hours per year. During 13th year of service 144 hours per year. During 14th year of service 152 hours per year. During 15th year of service 160 hours per year. Employees using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered to be working for purposes of accumulating additional vacation leave. i 22.2 Usage. Vacation leave may be used as earned, except that the Employer shall approve the time at which the vacation leave may be taken. No Employee shall be allowed vacation leave until after the first six months of their initial probationary period. Employees shall not be permitted to waive vacation leave and receive double pay. 22.3 Accrual. An Employee may accumulate no more than a maximum of 230 hours of vacation leave. 22.4 Termination r P ovisions. Employees leavin the service of the Employer in ood g g standing, after having given the Employer proper notice of termination of employment, shall be compensated for vacation leave accrued and unpaid, computed to the date of separation. ARTICLE 23 - Sick Leave 23.1 Eligibility. Sick leave with pay shall be granted to probationary and permanent Employees at the rate of eight hours for each calendar month of full -time service or major fraction thereof. 2 3. 2 Usage. Sick leave may be used normally for absence from duty because of personal illness, injury, or legal quarantine of the Employee, or because of serious illness in the immediate family. Immediate family shall mean brother, sister, parents, parents -in -law, spouse, or children of the Employee. Sick leave may be used for the purpose of attending the funeral of immediate family members plus brothers -in -law, sisters -in -law, grandparents, grandparents -in -law, and grandchildren of the Employee. In addition to the preceding conditions, supervisors may approve the use of sick leave, up to a maximum of four (4) days 2 hours r calendar h r O y ( ) pe ca e dar year, for e care of the Employee's spouse when the Employee's supervisor determines that the situation requires the Employee's presence. 10 • The four (4) special use days (32 hours) cannot be accumulated from one year to the next, and if they are not used, they are included in the Employee's normal sick leave accumulation. Supervisors may approve the use of sick leave for the care of the Employee's children pursuant to Minnesota State Statute. 23.3 Accrual. Sick leave shall accrue at the rate of eight hours per month until 960 hours have been accumulated. After 960 hours have been accumulated, sick leave shall accrue at the rate of four (4) hours per month, and simultaneously vacation leave, in addition to regular vacation leave accrual, shall accrue at the rate of two (2) hours per month. Employees using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered to be working for the purposes of accumulating additional sick leave. Workers' Compensation benefits shall be credited against the compensation due Employees during sick leave. 23.4 Procedure. In order to be eligible for sick leave with pay, Employees must: 1. Notify their superior prior to the time set for the beginning of their normal work day. 2. Keep their superior informed of their condition. 3. Furnish a statement from a medical practitioner upon the request of the Employer where the Employer has reason to believe that an Employee has abused or is • abusing sick leave. 23.5 Misuse Prohibited. Employees claiming sick leave when physically fit, except as otherwise specifically authorized in 23.2 shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. ARTICLE 24 - Severance Pay Severance pay in the amount of one -third the accumulated sick leave Employees have to their credit at the time of resignation shall be paid to Employees who have been employed for at least five consecutive years. If discharged for cause, severance pay shall not be allowed. ARTICLE 25 - Insurance 25.1 1997 Full -time employees selecting dependent health insurance coverage with eligible dependent(s). Effective 1/1/97, the City will contribute payment of three hundred fifty -five dollars ($355) per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through the • Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. 11 25.2 1997 Full -time employees selecting single health insurance. • Effective 3/1/97, the City will contribute up to a maximum of two hundred fifty five dollars ($255) per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. 25.3 1998 Full -time employees selecting dependent health insurance coverage with eligible dependent(s). Effective 1/1/98, the City will contribute payment of three hundred and sixty dollars ($360) per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. 25.4 1998 Full -time employees selecting single health insurance Effective 1/1/98, the City will contribute up to a maximum of three hundred ten dollars ($310) per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. • 25.5 1999 Flexible Benefit Plan - Full -time employees. Effective 1/1/99, the City will contribute up to a maximum of three hundred sixty -five dollars ($365) per month for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. ARTICLE 26 - Seasonal/Temporary Employees Employees employed by the Employer on a seasonal/temporary basis for no more than 180 calendar days per calendar year either in a full -time or part -time capacity (more than 14 hours per week) will be compensated as determined by the Employer for the term of this employment. Such Employees will not be eligible for any benefits under this Agreement except those which may be required by law or those which are specifically outlined below. ARTICLE 27 - Part -Time Employee Benefits Part-time Employees shall not be eligible to receive fringe benefits under this Agreement. • 12 • ARTICLE 28 - Wage Schedule - Effective January 1 of each year 1997 1998 1999 Maintenance III $16.67 $17.17 $17.68 Maintenance II $16.03 $16.51 $17.00 Step 3 $14.91 $15.36 $15.82 Step 2 $13.81 $14.23 $14.65 Step 1 $12.70 $13.08 $13.47 Start $11.58 $11.92 $12.28 Mechanic $16.71 $17.21 $17.72 Night Service Person $15.77 $16.24 $16.73 Hourly Differentials: Welding $16.38 $16.87 $ 17.37 Crew Leader: An Employee assigned in writing by the Department Head or Public Works Superintendent to assist a supervisor as crew leader will be paid $1.50 per hour over their base wage of their regular position while performing such duties. Night Service Person: A night service person who is assigned in writing by the supervisor to do mechanics work will receive mechanics hourly rate of pay for time working such assignment. ARTICLE 29 - Working Out of Classification Pay Employees required by the Employer and who are adjudged by the Employer to be qualified to operate the following items of equipment will be paid the Maintenance III rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit: Equipment Requiring Class "A" CDL Caterpillar 12F Grader - Unit #12 Aerial Bucket - Unit #19 GMC Elgin Sweeper - Unit #43 Truck- Mounted Vactor Caterpillar #950B Front -End Loader - Unit #15 Backhoes Caterpillar Front -End Loader Model 930 - Unit #13 John Deere Crawler Dozer - Unit #55 Elgin Pelican Series P - Unit #24 Oil Distributor - Unit #35 Sewer Jet Employees required by the Employer and who are adjudged by the Employer to be qualified to operate the following items of equipment will be paid the Maintenance II rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit: Blacktop Paver Bombardier or MT Trackless or similar Boom type Truck (20' reach and over) units) Brush Chipper Sewer Cleaner, Hydraulic and vacuum Mower over 10' Tandems Paint Striper - Truck Mounted Tree Spade Trucks - Single - Axle Over 24,000 GVW Farm Type Tractors Skid Steer Employees assigned by the Employer to Utility Operator will be paid the wage rate of the job classification to which the Employee is assigned. 13 • ARTICLE 30 - Legal Defense 30.1 Employees involved in litigation because of negligence, ignorance of laws, non - observance of laws, or as a result of Employee judgmental decision may not receive legal defense by the municipality. 30.2 Any Employee who is charged with a traffic violation, ordinance violation or criminal offense arising from acts performed within the scope of the Employee's employment, when such act is performed in good faith and under direct order of the Employee's supervisor, shall be reimbursed for reasonable attorney's fees and court costs actually incurred by such Employee in defending against such charge. ARTICLE 31- Waiver 31.1 Any and all prior Agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement, are hereby superseded. 31.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any terms or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All Agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this Agreement for the stipulated duration of this Agreement. The Employer and the Union each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this Agreement or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this Agreement, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. • 14 ARTICLE 32 - Duration This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 1997, and shall remain in full force and effect until the 31st day of December 1999. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this _ day of , 1996. FOR THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, Business Manager President Recording Secretary Business Representative Union Steward FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Mayor City Manager • 15 UNIFORM SETTLEMENT FORM PUDLICEMPLOYER: Of $rpp l �2nLer EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE_ IUOE J,pcal 49 UNIT: _Public Works_ Base Year ! �i r Year of Contract 2nd Year Base SC'COtI Year of Contract (i��plicable 3rd Year Base T I 1 -1 -96 11 r Year of Contract cif applicable Dates 1) 12 -31 -96 Dates 2) 1/1/97 - 12/31L97 Dates 3) 1/1/98 - 12/31/98 Dates 4) 1/1/99 - 12/31/99 �I Base Wage S) 916 811 New $ by Wage Schedule Base Wa a 28 Improvement 14) $27 5f)L g $� New S by Wage Scl edule Base Wage S 1 2 644 New $ by Wage Schedule Improvement 37 28 329 Improvement 60) 29,179 New $ by Wage Schedule l New•S by Wage Schedule Movement 15) - New $ by Wage Schedule Movement 38) - Movement 61) Base Social Security New $ Social Security Base Social Securit Contribution 5A) $ 2 j04 Y New $ Social Security Base Social Security New $ Social Securit 61A) ,$7� Contribution 15A) � Contribution 28A$` ,240 Conlribulion 38A) 2 16 y $ , 7 Contribution 51A) 74 407 Contribution $ 2,232 Base Stale or New $ Slate or Base Stale or Local Retirement Local Retirement New S State or Base State or c+ Local New New $ State e Contribution 5D)s� /, 1 1 Local Retirement Local Retirement ,073 C ontribution 15D) X 232 Contribution 20 4 42,305 Contribution 38B) $ 1 269 Local Retirement .� Contribution 51 B) $43 , 57 4 Contribution G 1 D1 1 307 Rase Medical Nevti $ for Medical Rase Medical New $for Medical Insurance G) _1Z7 .558 Insurance 16) $ Insurance 29) $97 680 12 480 (lase Medical New $ for Medical Insurance 39) Insurance 52 , 640 Insurance 62) 12 480 Base Dental New $ for Dental Base Dental New $ for Dental Insurance 7) Insurance 17) - Insurance 30) _ Base Dental New $ for Dental Base Life - Insurance 4U) Insurance 53) - Insurance 63) New $ for Life Base Life New S for Life Insurance 8) Insurance 18) - Insurance 31) - Base Life New $for Life Insurance 41) - Insurance 54) - Insurance 64) - Base Shift New $ for Shift Base Shift New $ for Shift Differential 9) Differential 19) - [lase Shift New for Shift Differential 32) - Differential 42) - Differential 55) - Differe ntia) GS) Base Extra- New S for Extra- Base Extra- New $ for Extra - Curricular' 10) Curricular 20) - _ (lase Extra- New $ for Extra- C urricular* 33) Curricular 43) - Curricular* 56) - Curricular 66) (lase Deferred New $ for Deferred Base Deferred New $ (or Deferred Compensation 11) Com sensation 21) - Dase Deferred New $for Deferred f Compensation 34) - Compensation 44) - Compensation 57) - Compensation 67) Base Other New $ for Other Base Other New $for Other , Forms of Formf Base Other New $ for Other Forms of of Forms of Forms of Compensation 12) -I-1 ,26a Compensation 22) $ 7 ,1(7n Compensation 35) - Forms of I Compensation 45) - Compensation 58) - Compensation 68) Total New S Change Total New $ Change from Baseline 23) 45 420 lolal New $ Change from Baseline 46) %Change r - from Baseline 69) from Baseline 24) / _ % %Change % Change from Baseline 47) 3.8 /° from Baseline 70) —3-.-Z % Base Year Total First Year (lase Year Total Second Year Total Baseline 13) ) $ 1 156 165 Base Year Total third Year $ Setllernent 25 Total Baseline 3G)$ ,156 , 540 $ Settlement 48) 20n, 7� Total Baseline 59) 1 213 26S $ Seltlernent 71) ---------- _.— _- _-- _------- ^------ - - - - -— 258 463 ------------------------------------ 'Applies to Lump Sum Payment 26 - Lump Sum Payment 49 education %Increase over %Increase over Lump Sum Payment 72 units only. Baseline 27) - % % Increase over 5 -18 -94 �� Baseline SU) - % Baseline 73) - Note: #29 & 52 are based on actual calculations �h Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SETTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1997 WHEREAS, Section 2.07 of the City Charter for the City of Brooklyn Center states that the City Council is to fix the sal and benefits of all officers and employees of the Ci ; and az'Y City; WHEREAS, the 1984 Minnesota Pay Equity Act requires every political subdivision to establish "equitable compensation relationships" between its employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the 1997 Full-time Employee Pay Plan; and WHEREAS, the 1997 Pay Plan establish that pay increases will be awarded on a pay- for - performance basis, for improvements in job performance; and WHEREAS, an individual employee's movement through their respective pay schedule reflects a progression in corresponding levels or improved job performance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby sets wages, salaries and benefits for the calendar year 1997 by adoption of the attached Plan and also allows the City Manager to set appropriate increases to the part-time schedule to be consistent with other employee groups, which the City Manager shall be authorized to pay; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager may reclassify, adjust, add and /or delete osition s to grades in the Plans but is limited to authorizing P () pay g increases due to Pay Equity Act compliance and by the Annual Budget constraints adopted by the City Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1997 Full -time Pay Plan is approved and adopted because it is in general an equitable pay plan for City employees; however, parts of the Plan are approved and adopted solely for the purpose of compliance with the mandate of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 471.999; that adoption of said Plan shall create no vested rights, terms or conditions of employment or entitlement to any given level of compensation for any employee or group of employees; that said Plan shall be subject to continuing review and reconsideration and may be amended from time -to -time by the City Council; and i RESOLUTION NO. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to employ full and part-time and/or temporary employees as may be necessary, and to establish competitive rates of pay for such help consistent with the 1997 budget appropriations and to make interim appointments to fill vacant positions whenever a position is vacant because the regular employee is on leave of absence, vacation leave, sick leave, or is absent for any other reason, and to establish rates of pay for such appointments consistent with the 1997 budget appropriations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that authorized wage adjustments, not to exceed the maximums contained herein, shall become effective January 1, 1997. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor be and hereby is authorized and directed to execute, on behalf of the City, an addendum to the November 27, 1995 employment contract for the City Manager, amending the contract to provide a salary of $81,000 per year, effective January 1, 1997, with all other provisions of the City Manager's employment agreement of November 27, 1995 remaining in effect. • Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City of Brooklyn Center Memorandum TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Nancy Gohman, Assistant City Manager /Human Resources Director DATE: December 9, 1996 SUBJECT: 1997 Pay Plan Attached is the proposed compensation and benefits plan for non - organized employees with the City f B o for full- y oo yn Center. For 1997 we are recommending a general sal increase of 3 /o g g �'S' time employees. This percentage increase is consistent with the Local 49 contract and is in the range of settlements in a number of cities across the metro area. In the area of benefits the City is moving nto a cafeteria type of a benefit plan effective 3/1/97. g YP p The City will contribute up to a maximum of $255 per month per employee for use in the employer's cafeteria plan. Employee's selecting dependent coverage will have a $5 increase from $350 to $355 per month per employee. It is our intention to phase in a cafeteria plan over three years which will be consistent with what has been proposed in the Local 49. A cafeteria plan will equalize benefits for both single and dependent coverage in the year 1999. Also, as part of this pay plan, is an addendum to the City Manager's employment agreement setting the salary at $81,000 per year effective 1/1/97. The Local 49 contract for Public Works is proposed to be a three year contract for 1997 -1999; with a wage increase of 3% each year and the cafeteria benefit plan. The Teamsters #320 Unit of supervisory/confidential employees had settled a two year contract beginning in 1996 which runs through 1997. The only contract that is open at this time for 1997 is LELS 82 for police officers and sergeants. We have been in negotiations since September for this contract and are moving into mediation to see if we can come to some resolution for the upcoming years. We recommend that the a plan o before City Council at its December 16 1996 regular city P Yp g Y � Y council meeting for approval. • kw City of Brooklyn Center 1997 Pay Plan Full -Time Employees • City of Brooklyn Center 1997 Employee Pay Plan Table of Contents Contents Positions 1 City Manager & Department Head Pay Plan 4 Non- Organized Exempt Pay Plan 5 Non - Organized Non- Exempt Pay Plan 6 Teamsters #320 Pay Plan 7 LELS Local #82 (Police) Pay Plan 8 Local #49 (Maintenance) Pay Plan 9 City Manager Contract & Addendum 10 Employee Insurance Benefits 16 Expense Reimbursement Policy 17 Employee Tuition Refund Policy 19 Retirement -Paid Health Insurance Program 20 Severance Benefits for Laid -Off Employees Program 22 Mayor /Council Pay 23 1997 City of Brooklyn Center Regular Full -time Positions ..:....,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,, a..,,.:.,,,..,,,,...:,,,,,...,. ;.::.:,.:'.::.:'.:; Y:•'aw ' }:,.,•.:,,, , ' :C =�`� }: 2Y "CY•: ?t• \,xS, ?'t Y2Y ��22a' ti? YY ti? i4 ` ?Y;;w,v:.,xY,a,,,x„x•.v.,,x•. '`" "' vyvyw};,•,$}vi w,: ;21:222 >`<xY ^2 ; ?.•Y;2YY,Mw: :. : > ?:c ?;Y2;:22::2 ?Y ?2 ?a`.aYa��a;a2ti ?222x ,`w o2 y.. }p`yy }: , y.:; •} .: ?,c,�:'�:•:�;;.. ,.. } „ �: .'� ,. ::�a., ?x•: ,,;.�},,;•:, ::;:.2 },:..,, e� �.y 2 }Y? }222 }22YY ?}2., „ 2`2: � >Y? ` /� ., ,•.:x : :.� 222\ 2w.. w.:,.,•..,.:, .,..,a,Y2;:.?J:�:1 �:`: ?;: ?:..: •.'', ? }, ti. '• ?y ?�'$ ' }: :•Y..•:a,, .,,: :• '222.. . � :. �.`�?': }� ,•:: .'S:' ��:�.. r.�iifi`:: 's : ..:: .........�a,'•.•:.,.>.:.: \w•::: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE City Manager 1 Contract Yes -Exec Assistant City Manager /HR Director 1 T -320 Yes -Adm City Clerk 1 T -320 Yes -Adm HR/Purch. Tech. /Dep. City Clerk 1 T -320 No Administrative Technician 1 No No Administration /Elections Secretary 1 No No Switchboard Operator /Receptionist 1 No No MIS Coordinator 1 No Yes -Adm COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Director of Community Devel - - y p 1 T 320 Yes Exec Planning and Zoning Specialist 1 No Yes -Prof Community Development Specialist 1 No Yes -Adm Inspector /Building Official 1 No Yes -Adm Inspector 1 No No Housing Inspector 1 No No Community Development Sec. & Clerk 2 No No Assessing Division Assessor 1 T -320 Yes -Exec Appraiser 11 1 No No Assessment Technician 1 No No Assessing Secretary 1 No No Eagle Brown Heritage Center EBHC Manager 1 T -320 Yes -Exec EBHC Maintenance Supervisor 1 No Yes -Exec EBHC Sales Director 1 No Yes -Exec EBHC Salesperson 3 No Yes -Adm EBHC Innkeeper 1 No Yes -Exec EBHC Maintenance Custodian 1 No No EBHC Secretary & Billing Clerk 2 No No EBHC Assistant Innkeeper 1 No No FINANCE Director of Finance 1 T -320 Yes -Exec Assistant Director of Finance 1 T -320 Yes -Adm Staff Accountant 1 No Yes -Prof Payroll /Personnel Technician 1 No No Utilities Technician II 1 No No Accounting Technician 11 1 No No Utilities Technician 1 1 No No i :i::ti:j;;:::i: p • .....��S�L)���' ?�: ?z'z::z`'•`: ?iii: ??i ?i ::;;:: ::;';::'::,,, .•.,;•.•..ig . .:::....:•:.. , .: ::. @ Liquor Stores Division Liquor Stores' Manager 1 T -320 Yes -Exec Retail Supervisor 2 No Yes -Exec FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief /Emergency Management Coord. 1 T -320 Yes -Exec POLICE DEPARTMENT Chief of Police 1 T -320 Yes -Exec Police Captain 2 T -320 Yes -Adm Administrative Sergeant 1 L #82 No Community Services Sergeant 1 L #82 No Police Sergeant 5 L #82 No Police Officer 34 L #82 No Administrative Analyst 1 No Yes -Adm Staff Services Supervisor 1 T -320 Yes -Adm Code Enforcement Officer 2 No No Property Room Supervisor 1 No No Public Safety Dispatcher 6 No No Police Secretary 2 No No Police Classification Operator 1 No No Police Receptionist 1 No No PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT Director of Public Services 1 T -320 Yes -Exec City Engineer 1 T -320 Yes -Prof Public Services Coordinator 1 T -320 Yes -Adm Engineering Technician IV 1 No No Engineering Technician III 3 No No Public Services Administrative Aide 1 No No Engineering Secretary 1 No No Government Buildings Division Maintenance Supervisor 1 No Yes -Exec Maintenance Custodian 2 No No Custodian 5 No No Recreation Division Director of Recreation 1 T -320 Yes -Exec Program Supervisor 3 No Yes -Adm Aquatics Supervisor 1 No Yes -Adm Golf Course Grounds Supervisor 1 No Yes -Adm Recreation Secretary 1 No No Streets and Parks Division Public Works Superintendent 1 T -320 Yes -Exec Supervisor of Streets and Parks Maintenance 1 No No • Maintenance II 18 L #49 No -2- .,,.,».va, +v,., :.:vv,va .vvv m..:,x„x..v.n,. +,::,,vvvvv.. n.,.,..,.x nv .w::' Qf1�Y:::::i ' n•.. .,, ,v.::•: n,: >.. .�RL <: i`,:', \ `.»v.:}` ?:n;..:, }w.nv:. }.:" v ` ?iii;•`.2<:`}}i :.v::. >.ii�iii::lui::t ?::::•`.i::i n•.v n ...x.:,, xw...,,. .,:l�:,v.: •:v:,:ii;;:i{ >:t; t�>:::;?>.`}.':` ?; ;: z? ?;; <izzz >.xzz ;z •iA: O � > ?zz < < "? Central Garage Division Mechanic 3 L #49 No Night Service Person 1 L #49 No Public Services MIS Technician 1 No No Public Services Clerical Technician 1 No No Public Utilities Division Supervisor of Public Utilities 1 No No Maintenance II 6 L #49 No v.: v:: V: r::..: v.•::... vvvv::: rx}}. v:}::. vnv}}. v::::}. vv.» v.:, vrv:.: v}} nv:.: vrvv: nl:. v:::::.: ivv:::::. v :::::::::::::.•::::?}}:\ xv:}?\ 44? ?.:•hv}.:'•.,`:}}x.•:: } }::::.,^ -3- 1997 City Manager and Department Head pay plan F.cem t from overtime not eligible for overtime) ...................... �t.[ll'FCUl7# ? ?�fdXiF�U[tls City Manager $ 72,100 $ 89,610 Director of Public Services $ 64,019 $ 79,063 Director of Finance/Treasurer $ 59,526 $ 73,515 Chief of Police $ 57,982 $ 71,607 Director of Community Development $ 54,371 $ 67,147 Fire Chief $ 50,538 $ 62,415 Department _ rtment Heads are under contract with P Teamsters 320 for 1996 97. Salary setting authority: The City Manager is authorized to set salaries within the established ranges. • -4- 12t5/96:1997 City Manager Department Heads 1997 Non - organized Full time employee pay plan Exempt from overtime not eligible for overtime .......................... :...: . ......::.,. #eX ::.:. :.........::...:. . .:.. ......:::::. p:::::.::::.,. ::........,.::::.::::::........ �............... Grade.:.. >o . <:.:s .. sits C31 Public Works Supt. $ 4,148 $ 4,355 $ 4,573 $ 4,688 $ 4,804 $ 4,924 $ 5,047 C29 MIS Coordinator $ 3,948 $ 4,145 $ 4,353 $ 4,462 $ 4,572 $ 4,687 $ 4,804 C25 Planning & Zoning Specialist $63,478 $ 3,755 $ 3,943 $ 4,042 $ 4,142 $ 4,246 $ 4,352 Comm. Dev. Specialist C22 Building Official $58,946 $ 3,487 $ 3,662 $ 3,753 $ 3,847 $ 3,943 $ 4,041 Staff Accountant C20 Rec. Program Supervisor $56,105 $ 3,319 $ 3,485 $ 3,573 $ 3,661 $ 3,753 $ 3,847 EBHC Maint. Supervisor C19 Adm. Analyst - PD $54,737 $ 3,238 $ 3,400 $ 3,485 $ 3,572 $ 3,662 $ 3,753 C18 I EBHC Sales Director $53,402 $ 3,159 $ 3,317 $ 3,400 $ 3,485 $ 3,572 $ 3,661 EBHC Innkeeper C16 Maintenance Supervisor $50,829 $ 3,007 $ 3,158 $ 3,237 $ 3,317 $ 3,400 $ 3,485 C12 EBHC Salesperson $46,048 $ 2,724 $ 2,861 $ 2,932 $ 3,005 $ 3,080 $ 3,157 C8 Supervisor, Liquor Retail $41,717 $ 2,468 $ 2,592 $ 2,656 $ 2,722 $ 2,791 $ 2,860 Golf Course Supervisor Normal progression: Minimum is starting rate. After successful completion of 6 months of probationary period, individuals move to the next step. After 18 months of successful performance of job duties, individuals will move to the next step. Additional advances in steps up to the maximum shall be at the discretion of the City Manager, based upon recommendation by the Department Head. The City Manager may start employees above the minimum step based upon experience. City Managers Discretion: The City Manager is authorized to set salaries below the minimum rate when performance or qualifications are less than required for the position. The City Manager is authorized to set salaries above the minimum starting rate when qualifications exceed those required for the starting rate. Merit Steps: Merit steps of up to ten percent above the maximum rate shall only be awarded with express approval of the City Council as recommended by the City Manager. • -5- 12/5/96: 1997 Non - organized 1997 Non- organized Full time employee pay plan Non -ex em t (eligible for overtime ...................... ...... .........,.................. ....:::::::.:.............:::.. to ............: ; »:: >:::: » <: :;;;;; .;.:;;. :, ..:: t >:�:�::: >::> • /�. ...,... " ................:.....,,.:.:::. �::. :.:......:..................... .:............... 5....::..........58 .............St@ .............5.#e .....�..� ......Ste' St4 .;:;.;. .:......:: .. ......... . D37 Eng. Tech. IV $20.015 $21.015 $22.067 $22.618 $23.183 $23.763 $24.357 Supervisor Streets & Parks D34 Appraiser II $18.586 $19.515 $20.491 $21.003 $21.528 $22.066 $22.618 D33 Supervisor Public Utilities $18.133 $19.039 $19.991 $20.491 $21.003 $21.528 $22.067 D31 Inspector, Building $17.259 $18.121 $19.028 $19.503 $19.991 $20.491 $21.003 D27 Eng. Tech. III $15136 $16.417 $17.238 $17.669 $18.111 $18.564 $19.028 Public Service MIS Tech. D25 Inspector, Housing $14.882 $15.626 $16.408 $16.818 $17.238 $17.669 $18.111 D24 Maintenance Custodian $14.519 $15.245 $16.008 $16.407 $16.818 $17.238 $17.669 Payroll /Personnel Tech. D21 Public Srv. Adm. Aide $13.483 $14.156 $14.865 $15.236 $15.617 $16.007 $16.408 D20 Administrative Technician $13.154 $13.811 $14.502 $14.864 $15.236 $15.617 $16.008 Public Safety Dispatcher Assessment 'Technician D17 Utilities Technician II $12.215 $12.825 $13.467 $13.803 $14.148 $14.502 $14.865 Accounting Technician II EBHC Maintenance Cust. D14 Code Enforcement Officer $11.342 $11.909 $12.505 $12.817 $13.138 $13.467 $13.803 Property Room Supervisor Pol. Classification Operator Assessing Secretary Engineering Secretary Utilities Technician D13 Police Secretary $11.066 $11.619 $12.200 $12.505 $12.817 $13.138 $13.467 Recreation Secretary EBHC Sec. /Receptionist EBHC Sec. /Billing Clerk Adm. /Elections Secretary Public Srv. Clerical Tech. D8 Switchboard Op. /Reception $ 9.781 $10.269 $10.783 $11.052 $11.329 $11.612 $11.903 Police Receptionist EBHC Assistant Innkeeper D6 Custodian $ 9.309 $ 9.774 $10.264 $10.520 $10.783 $11.053 $11.329 • 12111/96:1997 Non - organized _6_ 1997 Teamsters 320 - Supervisors pay plan Exempt from overtime not eligible for overtime ........:..:......::: .::......:.. p ....,.:S -tiB ......::::.,:S��t3 : :: ?•..``�8......:.., ?.::.,�,.t� ;:::;: ».:< }? ?fit@ ...;. a� <.:: >:; -::z �y :Grade %:: :. Si }•: r::: �??•: :., ?::.,, ?� >:.. ..: •: •:: • • ?:•,;••.... X . T35 City Engineer $ 4,587 $ 4,817 $ 5,057 $ 5,184 $ 5,313 $ 5,446 $ 5,582 T34 Recreation Director $ 4,476 $ 4,699 $ 4,934 $ 5,057 $ 5,184 $ 5,313 $ 5,446 T33 City Assessor $ 4,366 $ 4,585 $ 4,814 $ 4,934 $ 5,057 $ 5,184 $ 5,313 T32 Police Captain $ 4,260 $ 4,473 $ 4,696 $ 4,814 $ 4,934 $ 5,057 $ 5,184 Asst. City Mgr /HR Dir. T31 Asst. Finance Dir. $ 4,156 $ 4,364 $ 4,582 $ 4,696 $ 4,814 $ 4,934 $ 5,057 T29 Liquor Store Mgr. $ 3,956 $ 4,153 $ 4,361 $ 4,470 $ 4,582 $ 4,696 $ 4,814 T26 E Manager $ 3,673 $ 3,857 $ 4,050 $ 4,151 $ 4,255 $ 4,361 $ 4,470 T23 Public Srv. Coordinator $ 3,411 $ 3,581 $ 3,760 $ 3,854 $ 3,951 $ 4,050 $ 4,151 T21 City Clerk $ 3,247 $ 3,409 $ 3,579 $ 3,669 $ 3,760 $ 3,854 $ 3,951 T12 Staff Srv. Supervisor $ 2,600 $ 2,730 $ 2,866 $ 2,938 $ 3,011 $ 3,086 $ 3,164 Non- em t ( eligible for overtime I� : } }: %::::• }: >:ii:: �}:: t}:: : {:i: ti:ti:iti ir,'.::: ?y:L'.:C:::ti::::i:: ?i: ::::ti:�:_:::: w:::. „vv............ n....... ..v ..................4.vvv:.,nn ,...n• ...:n::v:. .......:..:. Fo :: ::: •.•a. .:v.: n,. %. r r.:•:;:.x +:v :: ................v............. ....v:..... .v.:v::::..v::r :.: r: ....: rw:::n ::::::: w: � :.:::::::::.:::.:::::.....:: rr:.•.•.•::. ...::: n:v?v. ...•/rr :..;... ' ... .. " . t: ..... ...................... ..........v....i4:: -.v.' :,?•.ti•.v.i•: .:v:.:,:.:.: .nti::::.. .y:. ?'.}v.: ..:.v....::. v :.vn.,.: . .: .:.ra e.. T14 Hum.ResJPurchasing Tech. $ 15.67 $16.449 $17.272 $17.704 $18.146 $18.600 $19.065 Teamster 0 rs 3 contract is for 1996-97. Normal progression: Minimum is starting rate. After successful completion of 6 months of probationary period, individuals move to the next step. After 18 months of successful performance of job duties, individuals will move to the next step. Additional advances in steps up to the maximum shall be at the discretion of the City Manager, based upon recommendation by the Department Head. The City Manager may start employees above the minimum step based upon experience. City Managers Discretion: The City Manager is authorized to set salaries below the minimum rate when performance or qualifications are less than required for the position. The City Manager is authorized to set salaries above the minimum starting rate when qualifications exceed those required for the starting rate. -7- 12/5/96: 1997 Teamsters LELS 82 - Police The City s current) in negotiation for a new contract with police. Y Y 9 P Information will be added after contract adoption. • -8- 1215196: 1997 Police 1997 -1999 Local 49 (Maintenance) pay plan Non-exempt (eligible for overtime _E [EU........ .... ::. .......w, NN ..198 <<:: <:::. Maintenance 111 16.67 17.17 17.68 Maintenance 11 16.03 16.51 17.00 Step 3 14.91 15.36 15.82 Step 2 13.81 14.23 14.65 Step 1 12.70 13.08 13.47 Start 11.58 11.92 12.28 Mechanic 16.71 17.21 17.72 Night Service Person 15.77 16.24 16.73 HQ�rf c�i€ferenlia�s. Welding 16.38 16.87 17.37 Crew Leader: An Employee assi assigned in writing b the Dept. Head or Public Works Superintendent, 9 9 Y p p , ® to assist a supervisor as crew leader will be paid $1.50 per hour over their base wage of their regular position while performing such duties. Public Works Maintenance staff are under contract with Local 49 for 1997 - 99. • -9- 1219/96: 1997 -99 Local 49 City Manager Employment Agreement b THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement ") is made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Michael J. McCauley (hereinafter referred to as the "Manager ") as of the 27th day of November, 1995. WHEREAS, the City wishes to engage the services of the Manager as a professional employee; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to set forth the terms and conditions of their relationship in this contract in order to assure the requisite flexibility to enable the Manager to function as the City's chief administrative official; and WHEREAS, the nature of the Manager's position requires continued professional training and attendance at meetings during evenings and other non - traditional work times. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this agreement, City and Manager agree as follows: Section 1 Ern pjQyment_ Manager shall be employed by the City as City Manager commencing on the 28th day of December, 1995 Section 2. Duties The duties of the Manager's position shall be as set forth in the City's Charter and ordinances and such other duties which are consistent therewith as may be assigned from time to time by the City Council. Section 3 Discharge of Duties Manager shall be paid a salary as a professional employee and shall not be paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per week and similarly shall be able to be absent in consideration of extraordinary time expenditures. The discharge of Manager's duties requires work outside the normal work day for meetings and projects. To that end, the Manager will work flexible hours as is necessary to Manager to discharge the duties of his position. Section 4 Evaluation, Manager shall be evaluated on the performance of his duties in July of 1996 and at least annually thereafter by the City Council as a whole. Such evaluation shall be based on the written goals established by the City Council and the general duties set forth in Section 2 of this Agreement. Section 5. Participation in Employee Benefi s A) Health Insurance. The City shall provide health insurance coverage for the Manager in the same fashion as it provides health insurance for non -union employees. • B) Life Insurance. The City shall provide life insurance coverage for the Manager in the same fashion as it provides life insurance for non -union employees. -10- C) Except as otherwise specified within this Agreement, Manager shall receive or be eligible to participate in any other benefits provided for non -union employees generally. Section 6. Vacation and Holiday& Manager shall accrue days of vacation on the first day of each month equal to an annual rate of 20 days per year. Manager may accrue vacation to a maximum accumulation of 200 hours. Manager shall not be required to use vacation leave except for a whole day's absence from performing Manager's duties. The Manager may, at Manager's discretion take lh day increments of vacation leave for an absence from the performance of Manager's duties. Upon leaving the City's employ, for whatever reason, the Manager shall be entitled to payment for all accrued and unused vacation leave at the Manager's then current rate of compensation. Manager shall also have the same paid holidays off from work as the City's non- union employees. Section 7. Sick Leave Manager shall accrue days of sick leave at the same rate as other non -union employees. Upon leaving the City's employ, for whatever reason, the Manager shall be entitled to payment for all unused sick leave in accordance with the provision of the City's personnel code applicable to non - union employees. Section 8. Compensation. A) Initial Salary. The Manager's initial salary at the commencement of this contract shall be $76,000 per year. Such salary shall be paid at the intervals customarily used for other city employees. B) Evaluation and Salary Increases. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the Manager in July of 1996 and annually thereafter. The Manager's salary shall be reviewed in July of 1996. Thereafter, the Manager's salary shall be reviewed and considered at the same time as consideration of salary for other non -union employees of the City. Any changes in the Manager's salary shall be pursuant to the written agreement of the Manager and the City. C) Car Allowance. Manager shall receive $250.00 per month payable on the 1st of each month as a car allowance for the use of Manager's personal car in performing City duties. D) Professional Membership Dues and Professional Subscriptions. The City will pay the cost of membership in the International City/County Management Association, the Minnesota City/County Management Association, and like organizations and subscriptions to professional journals and publications. E) Participation in Professional Training/Development. The City will pay the cost of the Manager's participation and attendance at the ICMA Annual Conference or similar national training • opportunity, MCMA Annual conference, League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference and miscellaneous professional training programs offered within the State of Minnesota. -11- Section 10. Moving ses The City shall reimburse or directly pay for the manager's actual moving costs, up to a maximum of $3,500. Such payment or reimbursement shall be for the cost of a professional mover to move Manager's household possessions once to a location in the Metropolitan Twin Cities area, provided such move occurs within one year of Manager's employment with the City. Section I.I. E2=ses Incurred in Performing Duties. The City shall reimburse or directly pay for actual expenses reasonably incurred by the Manager that are directly related to performing Manager's duties. The parties contemplate that the Manager will incur expenses for travel (other than for use of the Manager's personal car), attendance at meetings, etc. Section 12, Retirement Benefits. The City shall pay the employer's portion of the Minnesota Public Employment Retirement Association contribution on Manager's salary. The Manager shall, in addition to the retirement benefits provided above, be allowed to participate, at Manager's own expense, in IRS approved deferred compensation plans offered through the City. Section 13 Dirontinuance of Employment Relationship_ The Manager shall be removable by the City Council at will subject only to the limitations imposed by the City Charter. Understanding that the Manager serves as the chief administrative official for the City and Manager's employment status can be affected by political influences that are independent of job performance, the parties wish to make arrangements that reflect the realities of the marketplace and are necessary to recruit qualified persons. The parties wish to assure flexibility or the council while providing for the ability of the Manager to ana tY P g tY g perform Manager's duties without undue concern for Manager's financial security should the need arise to seek new employment. Therefore, the parties have made concessions and the Manager, as part of Manager's compensation agreement has made concessions in the amount of salary and other forms of compensation in return for the covenants contained in this section 13 relating to the discontinuance of the employment relationship. A) Manager shall give the City 30 days notice prior to discontinuing Manager's employment, where there has been no event constituting an involuntary separation as hereinafter set forth. B) In the event an "involuntary separation" occurs, the Manager may chose to resign prior to the effective date of any formal action by the City to terminate Manager's employment. C) Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement the term "involuntary separation" shall mean a formal request adopted at a public meeting by the City Council that the Manager resign or an action adopted by the City Council terminating this Agreement. The term "involuntary separation" shall also mean the resignation of the Manager within 30 days of the effective occurrence of any of the following: i) A change in the form of government at the City due to the adoption, amendment or repeal of a home rule charter, election to adopt or repeal a particular statutory form of government (other than for a Plan B statutory form of government), or an ordinance/resolution changing the City's organizational structure relating to the Manager's duties or authority. ii) A fundamental change in the duties and authority of the Manager adopted by the City Council, by special or general election, or by referendum or initiative such that the City of -12'- Brooklyn Center's status as a council - manager plan city is changed by ICMA to some status other than a council - manager form of government. D) Payment upon Involuntary Separation. In the event of an involuntary separation, whether through a resignation or resolution /motion terminating the Agreement, the Manager shall be entitled to the following: a) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager's current rate of pay. b) Payment by the City of the full cost of family health insurance, at level of coverage in effect just prior to the involuntary separation for a period of 12 full months from the date such involuntary separation becomes effective. In addition, the Manager shall be entitled, at Manager's own cost to continue participation in the City's group insurance plans for at least 18 months after the City is no longer required to make full payment of premiums for Manager's insurance coverage, provided the City's group insurance plan authorizes such continued participation. c) Severance Payment. The Manager shall receive the following severance benefits: i) Six (6) months salary computed at lh the Manager's gross annual wages. u) Payment of six months car allowance. d) Time of payment. All payments due under this section shall be paid by noon on the day after the separation becomes effective. F) Payment Upon Voluntary Termination. Upon the Manager's voluntary termination of employment, he/she shall be entitled to full payment by the next following pay period of: a) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager's current rate of pay. b) Payment of all wages for days worked since the last payroll period prior to separation. G) Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of any rights or claims that either party may have beyond the compensation due in the normal course of the separation of the Manager from the City's employ. Section 14, Term. This Agreement.shall be for an indefinite term until terminated by one or both of the parties as set forth in this Agreement. Section 15, Indemnification. The City shall defend and indemnify the Manager pursuant to • Minnesota Statutes 466.07 and 465.76. The City shall also defend and hold harmless and indemnify the -13- Manager from all torts, civil damages, penalties, fines provided the Manager was acting in the g Pe P g g • performance of Manager's duties. Section 16, Merg er. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written communications between the parties. Section 17, Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the employment relationship between the City and the Manager and the parties agree that there were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this Agreement except as herein contained. Section 18 everability_ In case any one or more of the provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained in this Agreement will not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 19 Govern L aw. This Agreement will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 20. Counterparts, This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will be constitute one and the same instrument. • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, EMPLOYEE MINNESOTA By My ' Kragness 'chael J. *McCa Its ayor By Camille D. Andre Its Acting City Manager -14- • City Manager Employment Agreement Addendum - 1 Section 8. Compensation, Effective January 1, 1997, the salary for the City Manager shall be $81,000 per year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as written above. THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, EMPLOYEE MINNESOTA By Myrna Kragness Michael J. McCauley Its Mayor • • -15- 1997 Employee Insurance Benefits Non - organized Full-Time City Employees • Full -time City Employees Selecting Dependent Health Insurance Coverage with Eligible Dependent(s) Effective 1/1/97, the City will contribute payment of three hundred fifty -five ($355) dollars per month per employee for use in Employer's P P the to er s Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits P Y may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Full -time City Employees Selecting Single Health Insurance Effective 3/1/97, the City will contribute up to a maximum of two hundred fifty -five ($255) dollars per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Requirements: Employees participating in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan are required, at a minimum, to select single health insurance and basic $10,000 life insurance. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 (Maintenance) Full -time City Employees Selecting Dependent Health Insurance Coverage with Eligible Dependents) Effective 1/1/97, the City will contribute payment of three hundred fifty -five ($355) dollars per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits • may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Full -time City Employees Selecting Single Health Insurance Effective 3/1/97, the City will contribute up to a maximum of two hundred fifty -five ($255) dollars per month per employee for use in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Additional benefits may be purchased by the employee as made available through the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan. Requirements: Employees participating in the Employer's Cafeteria Benefit Plan are required, at a minimum, to select single health insurance and basic $10,000 life insurance. Law Enforcement Labor Services LELS 82 (Police & Sergeants The City is currently in negotiation for a new contract with police. Teamsters #320 (Department Head /Supervisors & Confidential) The City will contribute, effective with insurance premiums due January 1, 1997, payment of an amount not to exceed $375.00 per month per employee toward the cost of coverage under the Brooklyn Center group hospital /medical insurance plans and group dental insurance as fringe benefit compensation for full -time employees and eligible dependents. Dental insurance not to exceed $30 per month. In addition, the City will provide a $10,000 group term life • insurance policy. City will provide long term disability at 60% of the employee's base salary. -16- 1997 Expense Reimbursement Policy • Mileage Reimbursement Personal automobile use for authorized trips, meetings, work, etc., will be reimbursed at the rate consistent with IRS regulations. Mileage reimbursement requests must be in writing and approved by the Department Head. Use of personal vehicle for work purposes must be pre - approved by the Department Head. Personnel Expense Reimbursement Reimbursements of travel expenses are intended to refund actual costs incurred by City employees and officials while traveling as authorized representatives of the City of Brooklyn Center. In order to qualify for travel reimbursement, trips to a destination exceeding 100 miles from Brooklyn Center must have the prior approval of the City Manager. Requests for travel advances intended to defray costs incurred while on a trip and prior to submission of an expense report shall be submitted to the City Manager for approval at least seven days in advance of the trip. Travel advances shall be limited to 90 percent of the estimated expenses for lodging, meals, and other related travel expenses. Costs of transportation and registration shall be advanced in full. A. A properly verified, itemized expense claim shall be submitted to the City Manager for approval within ten days following the date of return from an authorized trip. Expense claims shall be accompanied by receipts for: 1. Transportation costs to and from the destination via coach, tourist, or economy • class transportation. 2. Lodging costs not to exceed a reasonable single - occupancy rate as determined by the City Manager. 3. Conference or meeting registration fees. 4. Any unusual items for which advance approval has been obtained from the City Manager. B. The mode of transportation must be approved by the City Manager prior to any authorized trip. Personal automobile use for authorized trips will be reimbursed at a rate consistent with IRS regulations, or an amount equal to air travel tourist class, whichever is lesser. C. Reimbursement for meals while on authorized travel will be for actual expenditures with a maximum of $34 per day allowable, plus a maximum of 15 percent gratuities. D. Employees and officials of the City shall be reimbursed for actual luncheon and dinner costs as authorized by the City Manager. i -17- 1997 Expense Reimbursement Policy • Accrual of Benefits for Airline For City Business City employees/officials using City funds, traveling on City business and using commercial airlines cannot claim frequent flyer mileage or any other similar type credit as their own. Employees/officials must certify that they have not claimed frequent flyer mileage or similar such credits for personal use when they apply for travel reimbursement for City trips. Employees/officials are encouraged to obtain a separate frequent flyer card exclusively for City travel. Employees/officials must use frequent flyer tickets earned while traveling on City business for City travel. Employees/officials cannot use frequent flyer miles as reimbursement for City trips. City Vehicles Certain employees of the City are required to drive a City vehicle to their home and keep it there while off duty. They must do so to be able to respond to emergency situations. These emergency situations include fire and police protection, civil defense, and restoring City services such as water, sewer, and streets. It may also be necessary to keep a City vehicle at home for security purposes or other City business purposes. These vehicles must be used for City business use only and cannot be used for the personal use of any employee. Such use is assigned and approved by the City Manager. The employees who are authorized to keep a City vehicle at their home on a regular basis while off duty are as follows: 1. Chief of Police 2. Police Captains • 3. Fire Chief 4. Public Works Superintendent 5. Supervisor of Street and Parks Maintenance 6. Supervisor of Public Utilities 7. Liquor Stores' Manager -18- 1997 Employee Tuition Refund Program • Tuition Refund Regular full time employees who have passed their initial probation period may be eligible for reimbursement of tuition and required course fees for courses taken for credit through accredited educational institutions. Tuition reimbursement may be approved for courses with the following criteria: 1. a college level course available for credit; and 2. course is taken on personal time; and 3. course is "work related "; and 4. grade of "C" or better or "satisfactory" is received upon completion; and 5. the training request receives pre - approval, and final approval by the City Manager. Full -time employees who have successfully completed probation may be eligible for a 60% reimbursement of books, tuition and required fees upon completion. Employees who have at least five years of consecutive full -time service are eligible for 75% reimbursement. All regular full time employees who are interested in participating in this program must first submit course work to City Manager for pre - approval. Pre- approval forms may be obtained from Human Resources. Employees must obtain pre- approval to ensure they obtain reimbursement through participation in this program. Maximum reimbursement is $1,500 per employee per calendar year; or may be lower due to budget constraints. • Required Participant Training In those instances where the City manager deems it necessary or advisable that an employee attend training sessions, the City shall pay all costs for fees, tuition, and textbooks. The employee shall attend such courses or training sessions on his or her regular work time, or if such courses are only after regular work hours, compensatory time shall be granted to the employee. Upon completion of the training, the employee shall submit a critique of the course as required by the City Manager. • -19- 1997 Retirement -Paid Health Insurance Program • Minnesota Statutes 1990, Section 471.61, requires local governments to allow a former employee and the employee's dependents to continue to participate indefinitely in the employer- sponsored hospital, medical, and dental insurance group that the employee participated in immediately before retirement, provided the former employee is receiving a disability benefit or an annuity from a Minnesota public pension plan other than a volunteer firefighter plan, or has met age and service requirements necessary to receive an annuity from such a plan. (See MN Statutes, Sec. 471.61, subd. 2A, for a more complete description of the limitations on the statutory obligations of the City.) However, the statutes do not mandate that the City contribute towards the payment of the premium for such insurance. The City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center that retiring employees have available to them, at their option, a quality health insurance program and that the City should participate in the cost of that health insurance program for long -time employees until the retiree reaches age 65 or becomes eligible for Medicare coverage. Therefore, the City Council has determined to continue the Retirement Health Insurance Program with the following provisions: A. Qualified employees shall have the option of retaining membership in the City of Brooklyn Center's employee health insurance plan for which the City will pay the single - person health insurance premium until such time as the retiree is eligible for Medicare coverage or • at age 65, whichever is sooner. If the retiree desires to continue the family coverage and if such coverage is available under the City's policies, the additional cost for family coverage shall be paid monthly by the retiree to the City of Brooklyn Center. In lieu of City payment of the single- person premium, the qualified employee may elect to receive a lump -sum payment of an amount calculated by multiplying the number of months between the date on which the employee retires and the employee's 65th birthday times the monthly average single - person premium which the City is paying for employees at the time of the employee's retirement. B. To qualify under this program, an employee, on the day of his /her retirement, must meet eligibility requirements for a full- retirement annuity under PERA or PERA Police without reduction of benefits because of age, disability, or any other reason for reduction. In addition, to be eligible for this program, an employee must have been employed full time by the City of Brooklyn Center for the last ten consecutive years prior to the effective date of his /her retirement. Employees participate in this program on a voluntary basis. C. Eligible employees, as described in provision "B" above, who become disqualified from participation under the policies of the City's health insurance carriers because of a move out of the service area of such carriers, may elect to continue participation in this program as follows: The employee may recommend to the City an insurance carrier providing health insurance in the area to which the employee has moved. Upon approval of the • carrier by the City, qualification for coverage by the employee and submission of any additional information reasonably required by the City, the City will make monthly payments to the carrier on behalf of the employee for premiums for such policy up to the amount paid by the City for the lowest single- person premium of the City's employee -20- health insurance plans at the time of payment. Any additional amount required shall be paid by the eligible employee. Eligible employees electing this option must prove residence in a noncovered geographic area and must submit a written notice of election to • the City Manager on a form provided by the City. Once an eligible employee has been removed from coverage under the City's group health insurance plans pursuant to such an election, the employee may not thereafter re -enter the group and will not be covered under the City's group policies. D. The City Manager is authorized to administer the Retirement Health Insurance program and to fund this program from the City of Brooklyn Center's Employees' Retirement Fund until such funds are depleted, at which time the program will be funded from the General Fund. E. The obligations imposed on the City by the program are subject to the limitations of law, including Minnesota Statutes 179A.20, Subdivision 2a, pursuant to which such obligations will expire unless re- enacted from time -to -time by the City Council. F. In accordance with provision "E" above, the provisions of this program shall apply only to employees retiring on or before December 31, 1997. G. In the event the City discontinues providing group health insurance coverage for active employees or in the event the City discontinues this program any time after the date specified in provision "F" above, all benefits provided for in this policy, including benefits to retirees under the program, will also be discontinued. H. In the event the City ecides to discontinue the Retirement -Paid Health Insurance Program Y g for active employees at the next expiration date, consideration will be given to continue the program for employees who had previously retired under the provisions of the program. • -21- 1997 Severance Benefits For Laid -Off Employees Program • Due to severe budget constraints, the City Council has found it necessary in some budget years to reduce the number of City employees through layoffs. To recognize the hardship of such layoffs, the City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to offer some severance benefits to certain employees. Therefore, the City Council has determined to offer the Severance Benefits for Laid -Off Employees Program with the following provisions: A. Employees qualified for severance benefits are those who are employed in a full-time capacity as a benefits- earning employee with the City of Brooklyn Center at the time of layoff and will not be re- employed by the City in another full -time position. Employees participate in this program on a voluntary basis. B. At the City's expense, qualified employees may, at their choosing, participate in an out P placement service at a cost not to exceed $2 000 or within six months of layoff, whichever � is reached first. Out placement services consist of a career assessment, resume' development, cover letter writing assistance, interviewing skills, networking, and developing job resources, all of which are provided by a professionally qualified out placement service. C. The qualified employees will be allowed to continue health and life insurance coverage held at the time of layoff pursuant to COBRA law. The City will pay the portion of the premium costs for which other City employees are eligible for a period of three months after the lay -off date or earlier if other coverage is provided by another employer. D. In addition to an other severance employee 's entitled e eran a to which the qualified e o ee i Y PY q P Y severance pay equal to two weeks salary shall be paid to qualified employees who have been employed by the City less that ten years; and severance pay equal to four weeks salary shall be paid to qualified employees who have been employed full -time by the City for ten or more years. E. The City Manager is authorized to administer the Severance Benefits for Laid -Off Employees Program and to fund this program from the City of Brooklyn Center's Employees' Retirement Fund until such funds are depleted, at which time the program will be funded from the General Fund. F. In the event the City discontinues providing group health insurance coverage for active employees or in the event the City discontinues this program, all benefits provided for in provision "C" above paid for by-the City will also be discontinued. See specific contracts for union severance packages. • -22- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 12th day of August 1996 at Yg P g Y 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 Ordinance No. 94 -12 Regarding Council Salaries for 1997 -1998. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours �"Y p p q o s in advance. Please contact the City lerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. Y ORDINANCE NO. 96 - 11 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 94 -12 REGARDING COUNCIL SALARIES FOR 1997 -1998 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 94 -12, which amended the amount of the annual salaries to be paid to the mayor and council members to become effective January 1, 1995, is hereby amended. Section 2. Effective January 1, 1997, the annual salary for council members shall be $6,000 and the annual salary for mayor shall be $8,000. Section 3. Effective January 1, 1998, the annual salary for council members shall be $6,165 and the annual salary for mayor shall be $8,220. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal P ublication. Adopted this 12th day of AUgusL , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication _ July 17, 19 96 & August 21, 1996 • Effective Date S 20 , 1996 (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) -23— F 1 1 City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers ody, Hilstrom, Mann, and Nichols FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: December 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Set Date for First City Council Meeting in January 1997 I would recommend that the first Regular Session be on Monday, January 13, 1997, at 7 p.m., Council Chambers. A proposed 1997 meeting schedule will be presented at the first meeting in 1997. • • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer yj MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director Ch DATE: December 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Resolution Appointing Auditors for the Year Ended December 31, 1996 In 1987, the City began using the firm of Deloitte & Touche for audit services. In 1994, the City Council directed that a requests for proposals be solicited from other auditing firms. An audit committee composed of Financial Commission members and staff members was formed in the summer of 1994 and reviewed proposals from six firms. The committee recommended that the City continue to receive services from Deloitte & Touche. In 1996, the Financial Commission recommended and the City Council adopted a policy which • established a schedule for conducting requests for proposals (RFPs) for the six professional services used by the Finance Department. The purpose was to ensure that some RFPs would be done each year and that all services would be periodically rebid. This schedule established the year 2000 as the next time that a RFP would be conducted for audit services. Deloitte & Touche has submitted the attached engagement letter which provides for them to audit the City's financial report and records for the year ended December 31, 1996. They propose a fee for this service of $27,100 which is an increase of less than 2% over the fee for the same service for the prior year. Based on factors known to staff, Deloitte & Touche is doing excellent work, and we recommend continuing their service. Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING AUDITORS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31 1996 WHEREAS, Section 7.01 of the City Charter provides that the City Council shall have full authority over the financial affairs of the City, including the conduct of an annual audit; and WHEREAS, the City Council has contracted with the firm Deloitte and Touche for the conduct of these audits for the years 1987 through 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council appointed an Audit Committee to conduct a request for proposal process in 1994 and they have recommended that Deloitte & Touche LLP be retained as the City's auditor; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a policy on May 28, 1996 establishing a schedule for reviewing financial professional services which sets the year 2000 as the next time that requests for proposals will be solicited for auditors; and • WHEREAS, Deloitte and Touche has submitted a proposal to audit the City for the year 1996 at a fee of $27,100. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Deloitte and Touche be appointed to conduct the City audit for the year 1996 at a fee of $27,100. 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. Deloifte • ToucheLL 400 One Financial Plaza Telephone: (612) 397 -4000 /\ 120 South Sixth Street Facsimile: (612) 397 -4450 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -1844 December 6, 1996 The City Manager and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear City Manager and Council Members: In connection with your appointment of auditors for the City of Brooklyn Center (the City) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1996, we are pleased to provide you with the following information regarding our services as your independent auditors. Mr. Cliff Hoffman will be the partner in charge of all work we perform for you. We believe that frequent and timely communication throughout the year reduces the problems that are often associated with an annual audit. In addition, we have found that we can often assist clients on the current problems as they arise. Hence, we hope that you will call Mr. Hoffman whenever you feel that he can be of assistance. This letter sets forth our understanding of the terms and objectives of our engagement, the nature and scope of the services we will provide, and the related fee arrangements. We will audit the City's: • General purpose financial statements as of and for the year ending December 31, 1996 • Schedule of federal financial assistance • Compliance with laws and regulations related to federal financial assistance Our audit will be conducted in accordance with the following standards: • Generally accepted auditing standards • Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments, dated April 12, 1985 The objective of an audit carried out in accordance with these standards and regulations is (i) the expression of our opinion concerning whether the general purpose financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of the organization in conformity with • generally accepted accounting principles; (ii) the expression of our opinion concerning whether the schedule of federal financial assistance is presented fairly in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole; DeloitteTouche Tohmatsu International, The City Manager and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center December 6, 1996 Page 2 (iii) the reporting on our determination on whether the internal control structure provides reasonable assurance of compliance with federal and other laws and regulations; and (iv) the expression of an opinion on whether the organization complied with specific terms and conditions of its major federal award programs. Our audit will include tests of the accounting records of the City and such other procedures as we consider necessary to enable us to render the following reports: • Report on the City's general purpose financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles • Report on the internal control structure related to our audit of the general purpose financial statements • Report on compliance with laws and regulations related to audited general purpose financial statements • Report on the schedule of federal financial assistance • Report on the internal control structure used in administering major federal awards • Report on compliance with the specific requirements related to major federal awards identified in the schedule of federal awards • Report on compliance with general requirements of federal awards In addition, we will render a report on findings and questioned costs, as required, depending on the results of our audit procedures. The management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. To fulfill this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs for the internal control structure to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition and that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control structure, errors or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. As part of our audit, we will consider the City's internal control structure and assess control risk, as required by generally accepted auditing standards, for the purpose of establishing a basis for determining the nature, timing, and extent of auditing procedures necessary for expressing our opinion concerning the general purpose financial statements, and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. The report on our • understanding of the City's internal control structure and the assessment of control risk made as pan of the general purpose financial statement audit will include (1) the scope of our work in obtaining an understanding of the internal control structure and in assessing the control risk; (2) the City's significant internal controls or The City Manager and Members i of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center December 6, 1996 Page 3 control structure, including the controls established to ensure compliance with laws and regulations that have a material impact on the general purpose financial statements; and (3) the reportable conditions, including the identification of material weaknesses identified as a result of our work in understanding and assessing the control risk. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the general purpose financial statements and the schedule of federal financial assistance; therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. Also, we will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. However, because of the concept of reasonable assurance and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material errors, irregularities, or illegal acts, including fraud or defalcations, may exist and not be detected by us. Management is also responsible g po for compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants and for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure to assure such compliance with federal award requirements. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the City's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. However, our objective is not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. As part of our audit of compliance with the general requirements of federal financial assistance and specific requirements of major programs, we will obtain an understanding f the City's internal control g y structure related to administering major federal financial assistance programs, and we will assess control risk, as required by OMB Circular A -128, for the purpose of establishing the nature, timing, and extent of auditing procedures necessary for expressing our opinion concerning compliance with laws and regulations related to expressing major federal awards and for ex g p g positive assurance as to items tested and negative assurance as to items not tested fo g r eneral compliance g p requirements. As required by OMB Circular A -128, our audit will also include tests of transactions related to federal assistance programs for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. However, because of the concept of reasonable assurance and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material errors, irregularities, or illegal acts, including fraud or defalcations, may exist and not be detected by us. We will advise you, however, of any matters of that nature that come to our attention and will include such matters in the reports required for an audit in accordance with OMB Circular A -128. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to matters that arise (luring any later periods for which we have not been engaged as auditors and for which we have not performed auditing procedures. The City Manager and Members i of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center December 6, 1996 Page 4 Similarly, in performing our audit, we will be aware of the possibility that illegal acts may have occurred. However, it should be recognized that our audit provides no assurance that illegal acts generally will be detected and only reasonable assurance that illegal acts having a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts will be detected. Our auditing procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts and may include tests of the physical existence of inventories and direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, creditors, and financial institutions. We will request written representations from your attorneys as part of the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry. It is our understanding that you will provide us with the basic information required for our audit and that you are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of that information. We will advise you about accounting principles and their application and will assist in the preparation of your financial statements, but the responsibility for the financial statements remains with you. This responsibility includes the maintenance of adequate records and related internal control structure policies and procedures, the selection and application of appropriate accounting principles, and the safeguarding of assets. As required by Government Auditing Standards, we will issue are report on our tests of compliance P with applicable laws and regulations related to our audit of the general purpose financial statements and will include a description of all material instances of noncompliance. As required by OMB Circular A -128, our report on compliance will contain our opinion on the City's compliance, in all material respects, with the laws and regulations that apply to its federal financial assistance programs. Because, in addition to our report on the general purpose financial statements, the scope of the engagement includes an audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the requirements of OMB Circular A -128, our reports on compliance with laws and regulations, including legal compliance and reports on your systems of internal control, may be accompanied by observations (findings) on your compliance or on your systems of internal control and by a schedule of questioned costs if the results of our audit procedures require such observations or questioned costs. If any observations or findings are reported to you, you must provide a written corrective action plan under the requirements of the OMB Circular A -128. Our audit is not specifically designed and cannot be relied on to disclose all reportable conditions (that is, significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure). However, during the audit, if we become aware of such reportable conditions that affect the financial internal control systems or of ways that we believe management practices can be improved, we will communicate them to you in a separate letter. At the conclusion of the audit, we will request that the City's management provide us with a representation letter that, among other things, will confirm management's responsibility for the preparation of the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, the availability of financial records The City Manager and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center December 6, 1996 Page 5 and related data, the completeness and availability of all minutes of meetings, the absence of irregularities involving management or those employees who have significant roles in the control structure and, further, will confirm management's responsibility for compliance with laws and regulations applicable to federal financial assistance programs. We understand that our reports on the internal control structure, as part of the general purpose financial statement audit and on compliance with laws and regulations, are intended for the information of the City Council, management, and others within the City. As required by Government Auditing Standards and OMB Circular A -128, we will maintain the working papers for a minimum of three years from the date of our reports. These working papers will be made available to representatives of the cognizant audit agency (or its designee), other government audit staffs, and/or the United States General Accounting Office upon their request and after they have properly notified you of their request to review the working papers. As part of our ongoing program of quality control, Deloitte & Touche t.t..P provides that: • The individuals who will be responsible for planning, directing, and reporting on the audit and who will be spending a substantial portion of the hours expended for the audit will have completed a minimum of 24 hours of continuing professional education programs in state and local government accounting, auditing, financial reporting, and related subjects during the two -year period ending December 31, 1996. • As a member of the SEC Practice Section of the AICPA Division for CPA firms, Deloitte & Touche t.t.P submits to regular peer reviews of our accounting and auditing practice. Prior reviews have culminated in unqualified opinions regarding our quality control system. These reviews do include a representative sample of audits of governmental units performed by Deloitte & Touche Li-P. A copy of our most recent peer review report has been included for your reference. Based on our prior year's experience. the fee should not exceed $27,100 for the City (last year's fee plus 2% inflation per our 1994 proposal). This estimate is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional costs. • The City Manager and Members of the City Council City of Brooklyn Center December 6, 1996 Page 6 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City, and we believe this letter accurately summarizes .the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us. Yours truly, Enclosure Accepted on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center by: Si • Date ., ERNST & YOUNG . 787 Seventh Avenue IF , -- Phone _1_ . , i 900(1 Neti% lork, New lork 10019 To the Partners of Deloitte & Touche We have reviewed the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Deloitte & Touche (the Firm) in effect for the year ended March 31, 1993. Our review was conducted in conformity with standards for peer reviews promulgated by the Peer Review Committee of the SEC Practice Section of the AICPA Division for CPA Firms (the Section). We tested compliance with the Firm's quality control policies and procedures at the Firm's National Office and at selected practice offices in the United States and with the membership requirements of the Section to the extent we considered appropriate. These tests included the application of the Firm's policies and procedures on selected accounting and auditing engagements. We tested the supervision and control of portions of engagements performed outside the United States. In performing our review, we have given consideration to the general characteristics of a system of quality control as described in quality control standards issued by the AICPA. Such a system should be appropriately comprehensive and suitably designed in relation to the firm's. organizational structure, its policies, and the nature of its practice. Variance in individual . performance can affect the degree of compliance with a firm's prescribed quality control policies and procedures. Therefore, adherence to all policies and procedures in every case may not be possible. As is customary in a peer review, we are issuing a letter under this date that sets forth a comment relating to certain policies and procedures or compliance with them. This matter was not considered to be of sufficient significance to affect the opinion expressed in this report. In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Deloitte & Touche in effect for the year ended March 31, 1993 met the objectives of quality control standards established by the AICPA, and was being complied with during the year then ended to provide the Firm with reasonable assurance of conforming with professional standards. Also, in our opinion, the Firm was in conformity with the membership requirements of the Section in all material respects. New York New York November 22, 1993 •