The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995 08-28 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 28, 1995 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order t)5 1 6 fq D14 , Mk , 1,ry) 1 C (X.l9.t, 4 IJ(, 10f t.L 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Council Report 5. Presentation a. Plaque Acknowledging Gift from Target for Park and Recreation Programs 6. 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. KG ) a0 Approval of Minutes 0 - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from �t e, vote on� minutes. 1/� 1. July 31, 1995 Special Work Session ` b. Resolution Accepting Proposal and Authorizing a Contract for Professional Services for Improvement Project No 1995 -04, Replacement of Lift Station C No 1 aud Associated Force Main r C c. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1995 -18, New Electric Controls at Wells 5, 6, and 7, Approving Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids 1�C�,I � G OtAe_ d. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 08/28/95) x1_L1 p,CM : � p 0 -Fw &L.e' e. Licenses J ��1✓ 7. Open Forum r 8. Public Hearing - a. Earle Brown Commons S O , NIZI k�k_ P4 _J_ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 28, 1995 9. Council Consideration Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 95011 submitted by Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck. Request for a preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North. ,,The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its O- 1 - ' " August 17, 1995, meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 95012 submitted b Robert L. and P Y Marlene A. Overpeck. Request for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15 -106g of the Subdivision Ordinance to create t - z h ' n�� a corner lot in the e R l o nin b es district less than 90 ' m width. The Planning �l�" " Commission recommended approval of this application at its August 17, 1995, meeting. C. Cooperative Agreement Expanding the City's Inter -City Sewer Agreement with Brooklyn Park Allowing Connection of Additional Properties to the Brooklyn T C) K Center Sanitary Sewer System and Water Systems 1. Resolution Authorizing Connection of Three Properties on Noble Avenue in Brooklyn Park to the Brooklyn Center Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems d. Resolution Accepting Proposal and Authorizing a Contract for Professional Services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -05, 69th Avenue North (Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue), Bride and Utility Y P ), Roadway, Bridge, Improvements e. Memorandum from ncilm m er on Team Building Cou Carmody e b C Y g f. Mem randum from CQ=cil ember Hilstrpm on Communications g. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 10. Adjournment 12 'y Sa , J_ "� %_ Kl ( PWOJ C0141 4 3 s Council Meeting Date 8/28/95 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Presentation: Plaque Acknowledging Gift from Target for Park and Recreation Programs Department Approval: A r v, j, Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Mayor Kragness to present plaque to Target representative. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached no ) At its July 24, 1995, meeting the City Council passed Resolution No. 95 -171, Resolution Acknowledging Gift from Target for Park and Recreation Programs. The resolution has been placed on a plaque and will be presented to a representative from Target this evening. Council Meeting Date August 28, 1995 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: City Council Minutes August 28, 1995 - Regular Session Department Approval: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk n• Manager's Review/Recommendation: g o. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) August 14, 1995 - Regular Session Barb Kalligher was unexcused from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. 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 JULY 31, 1995 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special work session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Kristen Mann. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, and Council Secretaries Connie Beckman and Carla Wirth. Councilmember Barb Kalligher was absent and unexcused from tonight's meeting. DISCUSSION WITH KAY MCALONEY OF LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES REGARDING CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT PROCESS Recruitment process of a prospective City Manager began with discussion around the written advertisement to be submitted for publication in three resources: local newspaper, League of Minnesota Cities Bulletin and International City /County Management Association (ICMA) Newsletter The Interim City Manager indicated ads would cost approximately $600. Councilmember Mann questioned deadlines for submission of ads for the City Manager position. Ms. McAloney stated respective deadlines for each publication. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned what consumers utilized the ICMA publication. The Interim City Manager responded that most all city manager and public office positions are advertised in the ICMA publication. Councilmember Mann indicated a desire to include advertisement for the City Manager position in a private sector publication (Star Tribune) as well as a public sector publication. The Interim City Manager doubted there would be much of a response from an advertisement in the Star Tribune, except for retired military personnel. Ms. McAloney added the cost would be significant ($500). Councilmember Carmody commented she would not be in favor of hiring someone from the private sector and stated issues relating to this statement accordingly. 7/31/95 1 Councilmember Hilstrom said she would like to see the City Manager candidate have some private sector experience. The Interim City Manager suggested a phrase be included in the advertisement indicating equivalent private sector business experience be considered. Councilmembers Hilstrom and Mann identified certain descriptor phrases in the information provided to Council and highlighted them accordingly for reference by the Interim City Manager and Ms. McAloney. Councilmember Mann suggested the bottom of the compensation scale be lowered somewhat, but not so much that it would be lower than any Brooklyn Center department head. Councilmember Carmody expressed opposition to lowering the bottom of the salary range especially in a scenario where a woman might be hired for the position. Councilmember Mann stated lowering the bottom of the salary level to $67,000 would help alleviate inflation concerns and could contribute towards cost cutting measures on a government level. Mayor Kragness wondered whether a quality candidate would be attracted to the position given a lower bottom compensation scale. Councilmember Carmody stated she would prefer the bottom salary range being at $70,000 referring to the Chief of Police's salary of $66,000. Mayor Kragness suggested the ad read "up to $ DOQ" (depending on qualifications). Councilmember Hilstrom questioned additional benefits included in the salary package and their respective amounts. After further discussion it was decided the salary ranges would be $70,000 - 87,000 DOQ. Councilmember Hilstrom requested confirmation regarding information being included in the advertisement with respect to a prospective candidate having some experience in the private sector as being helpful. As well, she requested confirmation of a statement in the advertisement with respect to a prospective candidate having some experience working with a proactive mayor and council. The Interim City Manager and Ms. McAloney indicated they would modify the advertisement to reflect these requests. The application deadline for the position has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 12, 1995 at 4:30 p.m. Councilmember Carmody requested an expansion of the City Manager job description to reflect redevelopment issues as they are very important to Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Mann referred to the suggested calendar for City Manager selection and informed those present that she would be out of the country October 10 -22, 1995. She stated that she very much wanted to be part of the selection process and questioned whether or not dates could be moved up. 7/31/95 2 The Interim City Manager and Ms. McAloney stated these calendars were tentative and saw no reason dates could not be worked out to accommodate Councilmember Mann's travel schedule. Mayor Kragness stated it was important to solicit public input in the candidate selection process. It was decided that public input would be solicited in the candidate process through current commissions already established. Councilmember Carmody suggested a memorandum be circulated asking each commission to ask and /or address concerns by respective departments. Councilmember Mann requested a listing of names of the top 12 -15 candidates. The Interim City Manager further explained the process of narrowing down the initial listing of candidates to a number equaling 12 -15 via the use of a scoring system. Councilmember Hilstrom inquired about the possibility of receiving a listing of all applicants and their respective scores. Ms. McAloney indicated this was not a problem, but also stressed confidentiality in regards to names of prospective candidates. Councilmember Hilstrom modified her request to reflect a number assigned to each applicant and that applicant number's respective score. Councilmember Carmody requested that information also be included on the listing reflecting from which advertisement resource the applicant responded. The City Manager position description discussed. Mayor Kragness inquired about the y g po o desc p o was d scusse ayo ag ss q existence of a residency requirement. The Interim City Manager responded that there is not a residency requirement, but it probably is desirable. Councilmember Mann suggested the words "Reviewing and ..." be added to page 1 under the Personnel section as follows: ENSURES THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION -- INCLUDES REVIEWING AND RECOMMENDING CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE AS APPROPRIATE. Mayor Kragness communicated that an excellent job was done on the position description. Discussion occurred regarding the scoring portion of candidate screening. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned experience requirements of an Assistant City Manager with regard to redevelopment programs & TIF. Ms. McAloney offered that experience of a candidate would depend on a respective city's actions and /or it's happenings. She also requested confirmation from Council regarding value amounts placed on the score sheet and their accuracy. Mayor Kragness stated experience in redevelopment was important. ZD Councilmember Hilstrom was concerned that point value assigned to TIF might be a little high. She suggested that category J be split to reflect half pointage assigned to TIF and the other half 0 7/31/95 3 being assigned to Planning and Development. After further discussion, Mayor Kragness suggested and Council agreed that category J be assigned 12 points on Redevelopment & TIF, 0 and an additional category M be created and assigned 8 points on Planning & Development. Councilmember Mann left the meeting at 6:59 p.m. The Interim City Manager will refine the suggested calendar for City Manager selection. Councilmember Hilstrom requested further information regarding the memorandum to be sent to commissions soliciting questions for prospective City Manager. It was decided that each commission will be allowed to formulate five interview questions (which may or may not be used) and submit them to the Interim City Manager for review. Councilmember Carmody stated the commissions should be given until mid - September to complete the questions. Ms. McAloney indicated she would formulate a list of questions to be asked of candidates and would send out a copy of those questions to Council for review. Councilmember Mann returned to the meeting at 7:01 p.m. DISCUSSION WITH PROSPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE FROM LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT UNION CONTRACT The Interim City Manager noted wrong word usage in item 4 on the agenda, correcting "perspective" to "prospective". Councilmember Hilstrom mentioned some probable issues around utilizing the services of Mr. Cy Smythe from Labor Relations Associates, but did not know exact details, and suggested the Interim City Manager conduct an investigation accordingly. Councilmember Mann questioned Brooklyn Center's yearly compensation to Labor Relations Associates. The Interim City Manager did not have exact details, but would obtain that information. Karen Olson of Labor Relations Associates was introduced. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned how goals and /or priorities are set in the negotiations process. Ms. Olson answered that she would work at the direction of Council and as a consultant conducts business within the parameters set by the Council. Part of this includes good contract language, maintaining good relations with all parties involved, retaining management contract language, and working within economic parameters set by the consumer. As well, as attaining goals within parameters of the labor laws, etc. is essential. Ms. Olson discussed her qualifications and stated she has a reputation of dealing in negotiations with a manner of straight forwardness. Councilmember Carmody questioned why Lino Lakes had formed a union. Ms. Olson stated various contributing factors and added that throughout the negotiation process, it was her desire 7/31/95 4 and responsibility to work towards the reestablishment of a constructive relationship with all parties involved. Councilmember Carmody posed a scenario involving the public and private sector and requested recommendations from Ms. Olson accordingly. Ms. Olson provided information in an analysis manner adding that a competent contract must include a discipline clause that would require going into binding arbitration if an agreement was not met. She talked about Standards of Just Cause and referred to the Pelro Law (statute) which requires a "discipline for just cause," and how it affects the arbitration process. Further issues surrounding arbitration were also explained. Councilmember Carmody questioned Ms. Olson about what type of security people seeking to form a union would desire. Ms. Olson suspected part of a desired outcome would be contract wording which included discipline for cause to cover a wide range of topics. Some of these topics might include incompetence and misconduct. She added that Labor Relations Associates has not written many contracts that guarantee the employee anything. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned what the desires might be of people seeking to be unionized. Ms. Olson stated she suspected they would want to have the opportunity to negotiate with the City and its representatives with regards to employment issues including salary, benefits, and discipline for cause. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned whether a position could be eliminated. Ms. Olson gave an example of discontinuation of a position relating to the subcontracting out of recycling services. She talked about logistics related to this venture which included a business study of the function of the job position they sought to eliminate. Ms. Olson stated that in a scenario situation such as this, one has to look at the same things for city government employees as what we would want for ourselves: fair dealing, above board consideration, and an opportunity to be heard. Mayor Kragness and Councilmember Carmody questioned Ms. Olson regarding negotiation deadline(s). Ms. Olson stated there are certain barriers /hurdles to cross before going into arbitration and stated those accordingly. She added there is a proposal development period and provided information relating to this. Ms. Olson also provided process information in the unlikely event that mediation was unsuccessful. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned the implications of negotiating a contract now that a given negotiator is a member of a union. Ms. Olson stated that person would still be responsible for providing respective information and a person's membership in a union does not change the fact that job requires the person to be accountable for certain information with regard to budget and areas that include factual data. That person would still be responsible to provide information to the bargaining parties. Mayor Kragness inquired the compensation rate to Labor Relations Associates. Ms. Olson stated the reduced hourly rate is $70 per hour. Councilmember Carmody questioned why Brooklyn Park did not utilize Labor Relations Associate's services. Ms. Olson stated she did not know. 7/31/95 5 Councilmember Hilstrom inquired the average amount of hours spent on an initial labor relations contract. Ms. Olson used an example scenario in which she facilitated the whole contract process and added that good faith bargaining is attempted at all times. She, however, was unable to be specific regarding Councilmember Hilstrom's inquiry and restated her qualifications accordingly. Councilmember Carmody wondered what the next step of the prospective union might be. The Interim City Manager was of opinion the major issue for this group of people is job security versus pay given existence of the City's current pay plan. Mayor Kragness inquired about what the next move of the Council. The Interim City Manager stated the union has not yet approached the City. Ms. Olson stated these types of issues take time and are usually a long, drawn out process given the union's other obligations. She further commented that when the process is initiated, certification is sought and a business representative is assigned and the business representative starts the process accordingly. Mayor Kragness inquired about Ms. Olson's recommendation to Council at this time. Ms. Olson stated the union is the "moving party" and she has never jumped the gun by approaching the union first. Councilmember Carmody questioned the process of bargaining when and if the situation arises. Ms. Olson stated her personal approach first would consult decision makers (Council) concerning the other party's requests. She would ask the Council regarding it's bottom line to pursue further bargaining. Ms. Olson added that typically a negotiator returns to the decision makers (Council) from time to time. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned whether the other party would present the Council with their proposal or would the process of defining the other party's requests be more guess work on the part of Council. Ms. Olson stated that normally a response from Council would be retroactive based on submission of the other party's requests. Councilmember Mann inquired about Council's next move. Ms. Olson stated the Council would need to wait until it was approached by the union and that time lines vary in every case. She indicated that the union is certified and is now presumably in the process of formulating a proposal. She recommended Council be patient and wait until being approached. When Council is approached, it's representative would meet with the union's representative. Ms. Olson added that management contracts tend to be a bit shorter, but the negotiation process is the same. She added that first contracts pose a lot of issues. Mayor Kragness declared a recess at 7:55 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:04 p.m. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STRATEGIC PLAN /CIP) The Director of Public Services explained she had formulated information in a workable format referred to as a Strategic Plan based on goals established at Council's goal setting session. This 7/31/95 6 Strategic Plan would be a master implementation document of the Comprehensive Plan with the Strategic Plan being the listing of steps which the City intends to take to assure that Comprehensive Plan standards are met, or at least considered. Councilmember Carmody commented she preferred the detailed manner in which the Infrastructure was outlined and would like to see other key points listed on the Strategic Plan detailed accordingly. Councilmember Hilstrom stated she envisioned the Strategic Plan looking more like the Five - Year Plan with specific accompanied goals and action steps. Councilmember Carmody asked what Council's next step was. The Interim City Manager suggested it would be appropriate for Council to review development of three or four scenarios /versions. In each of those proposals there would be specific actions Council would take. By having more than one scenario /version, Council could pick and choose a direction that best suits its respective members and constituents. Discussion of a survey to further determine specific direction of the Council ensued. The Director of Public Services indicated Council needs to determine the community and constituent needs in order to organize plans accordingly. The Interim City Manager referred to concrete goals and suggested adoption of a Five -Year Plan would be appropriate. Councilmember Carmody inquired about what goes into the development of a Five -Year Plan Y q � P and wondered how major changes are implemented in a Five -Year Plan. The Interim City Manager stated that once a plan is established, it is reviewed every year and revised accordingly. Mayor Kragness added the Council needs to focus on certain areas, but not limit itself specifically to what is in the Five -Year Plan to accommodate unforeseen issues /obstacles. Councilmember Carmody was concerned about a balance between what the Council would like and what the Council needs to do. The Director of Public Services stated one strength of a Strategic Plan has to do with stated goals which provide direction and perspective. She added that upcoming work on the Comprehensive Plan would prepare Council for future opportunities and addressing them accordingly. Councilmember Carmody mentioned the Northbrook Mall site and questioned how that would fit in with the Comprehensive Plan if potential redevelopment was proposed after formulation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Interim City Manager stated that a Comprehensive Plan addresses physical needs (i.e. storm sewer drainage) and that redevelopment is usually according to a zoning plan. 7/31/9 7 Councilmember Hilstrom commented she liked what the Director of Public Services had drafted and viewed the first page as more of a summary sheet and the second page provided more 0 direction in regards to a step -by -step plan. She asked in what category finances would be. The Director of Public Services said in category VI, l.c. Mayor Kragness commented she would like to see each department elaborate on it's respective area. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested soliciting employee input to help facilitate a more elaborated format in each respective area to ensure a well- rounded and thorough description. She expressed concern regarding unforeseen changes in funding (i.e. grants). The Interim City Manager acknowledged Councilmember Hilstrom's insight and stated future planning with this potential barrier in mind was imperative. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (REVIEW OF PROPOSED 1996 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREAS) The Director of Public Services requested Council to authorize staff to bring to Council's August 14, 1995, meeting a resolution establishing 1996 improvement projects, ordering initial feasibility studies, and initial neighborhood meetings. She presented a large map for review by the Council with color highlighted areas which represented needed maintenance for future years. Councilmember Mann left the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Councilmember Mann returned to the meeting at 8:44 p. m. 0 The Director of Public Services presented the results of the Pavement Management Program (PMP). The PMP objectively reviewed street conditions, and is used to determine if a street should be sealcoated, resurfaced, or reconstructed. Councilmember Hilstrom inquired how many years it would take to complete the whole City. The Director of Public Services stated it would take 20 years to complete the 80 miles of residential streets in the City if four miles were done each year. At the current rate of completion being two to three miles per year, it will take 30 years. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned what was being done to alleviate the current crisis of needed street repair. The Director of Public Services stated the City is attempting to complete multiple projects to help reduce the impact of all streets needing attention at the same time. Some of these large projects are being completed through assessments made to residents. Councilmember Hilstrom stated she would like to see Council addressing a plan of action now to help avoid future crises. The Director of Public Services suggested Council would have to start spending more money on its streets in order to address the City's current and future streets' needs. Councilmember Hilstrom stated street maintenance was a top priority to her. 7/31/95 8 The Director of Public Services offered price comparisons on street repair costs over given periods of time (today's costs versus future projected costs). Councilmember Hilstrom questioned projected completion percentages in ten years. The Director of Public Services projected that in ten years 40 percent of current projected needed street repairs would be complete. Councilmember Hilstrom inquired what it would take to complete four miles of street repair versus the current two to three miles per year being done. The Director of Public Services said street construction would need to be expanded. She provided an example of a street repair/ maintenance scenario adding that if staff redirect more of their time on street repair, some other maintenance tasks (i.e. tree trimming) would have to be placed on hold. Discussion shifted to drainage area information. The Director of Public Services stated that Brooklyn Center is part of two drainage areas: West Mississippi and West Shingle Creek. Councilmember Mann left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. and did not return. The Director of Public Services stated that City Engineer, Scott Brink, is investigating computer programs to evaluate storm sewer needs ourselves versus contracting out to an engineering firm. Councilmember Carmody stated she would like to have information regarding costs associated with street projects and assessment rates. She also questioned how time lines would be shortened if the City could complete six miles a year versus four miles a year. Councilmember Hilstrom commented she would like to see a cost effective measure found as soon as possible to address street needs. The Director of Public Services reviewed storm sewer areas and reviewed a possible storm sewer area in Orchard Lane Park. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned status of the park shelter building. The Director of Public Services stated the park shelter building had already been identified as needing replacement. The proposed storm sewer rerouting would enable water going into the storm sewer system to be filtered to some extent. Disruption of park activities during construction was discussed. There would likely be some disruption. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested a survey be distributed to citizens who would be affected by proposed/ approved improvements. Councilmember Carmody concurred and felt wording of a survey needed to emphasize the urgency and importance of proposed /approved improvements. 7/31/95 9 ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn g the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Kra ness adjourned the meeting J b P Y Y g J g at 9:31 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Connie Beckman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 7/31/95 10 I Council Meeting Date 08/28/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe Request For Council Consideration Item Description: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -04, REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 1 AND ASSOCIATED FORCE MAIN Department Approval: Scott A. rink, 'City y ngineer Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve the resolution approving Request for Proposal and Authorizing Solicitation of Professional • Services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -04, Replacement of Lift Station No. 1 and Associated Force Main. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes The Capital Improvement Program and the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund Budget both comprehend the replacement of Lift Station No. 1 and associated force main, located in Garden City Park near Brooklyn Drive and 62nd Avenue (see map). This lift station was built in 1955 and pumps approximately 40% of the City's sanitary waste water flow. The force main begins at the lift station and runs south about one -half mile through the park, under Vincent Avenue, and through the Four Courts apartment complex parking lot to a manhole in the median of County Road 10. As noted, the lift station and its pumps date from 1955, are no longer replaceable, and are difficult to repair. Some breaks have occurred over the years in the force main, which is constructed through peat in the area just south of the station, and in the Four Courts area. At the City Council meeting of June 12, 1995, a resolution was approved authorizing the request for proposals and solicitation for professional services for the above referenced project. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was forwarded to six (6) consultants, and the City received proposals from all six. The six consultants were as follows: 1. Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. (TKDA) • 2. Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) 3. Orr, Schelen, Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (OSM) 4. Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc. (PCE) 5. Rieke, Carroll, Muller Associates, Inc. (RCM) 6. Maier, Stewart and Associates, Inc. (MSA Consulting Engineers) Request For Council Consideration Page 2 A team of six staff members evaluated all proposals individually and met as a group to jointly evaluate • the proposals and narrow the field to two finalists. The team members consisted of the City Engineer, Director of Public Services, Superintendent of Public Works, Supervisor of Public Utilities, Public Services Coordinator, and Senior Engineering Technician. Proposals were evaluated and considered on the following criteria: 1. The Consultant's general understanding of this project and the City's needs. The City's needs consisted of the following: 1. The lift station's long term service and reliability to the citizens of Brooklyn Center 2. Long term maintenance and operation considerations 3. Long term energy efficiency and future considerations 4. Sensitivity to the adjacent park and neighboring residents, both during construction and after construction. 2. The Consulting firm's proven past experience with similar projects. 3. The proven experience of the firm's specific personnel assigned to providing these services. 4. The Consultant's ability to understand the uniqueness of this project and provide the most feasible solution. This would include the Consultant's ability to analyze different design alternatives to determine the highest benefit vs. total short term and long term costs. For example, it may be more cost effective to reline the existing force main vs. totally replacing it. Or, it may be possible to utilize portions of the existing lift station vs. totally replacing it. These are design considerations that are taken into account during the preliminary design. 5. Cost. A summary of the fees proposed by each consultant is shown below. However, it should be emphasized that fees for consulting services can vary greatly, depending upon the extent of the preliminary design work, what actually will be constructed, and the amount of field construction and inspection required for a particular project and field conditions. In many cases, the specific design service costs are not specifically known until preliminary field work (site surveys, soil borings, etc.) and other information gathering have been completed. In analyzing and comparing the different fees submitted, Staff looked for reasonable consistency among the proposals and what we felt was a realistic and practical cost, based on experiences with similar projects. Proposals with fees significantly higher than the others were removed from further consideration. 1. MSA Consulting Engineers - $73, 124 (Estimated total fees) 2. RCM - $ 126,292 (Estimated total fees) 3. OSM - $ 52, 500 (Does not include construction services) 4. SEH - $168, 640 (Estimated total fees) 5. PCE - $63,000 (Does not include construction services) 6. TKDA- $112, 412 (Estimated total fees) As stated in the Engineer's Report to the Council on June 12, 1995, the consultant's fees for this project were expected to be in excess of $100,000. It should also be mentioned that the figures listed above can be somewhat misleading if interpreted incorrectly. Many consultants express estimated fees and billings in terms of hourly rates not to exceed a maximum amount. Others will provide an estimated amount based on a lump sum basis. Again, the actual total amount will depend heavily upon the results of the preliminary design phase. Estimating construction services can also be tricky, as the actual amount will depend heavily on the construction option, the particular contractor, weather, field conditions, and other factors difficult to predict. The two finalists selected, based upon the criteria described were Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Request For Council Consideration Page 3 Associates (TKDA) and MSA Consulting Engineers. The finalists were then interviewed by the same • staff to select a final recommendation for this project. The two consultants were interviewed on August 2, and August 4. The consultants were provided an opportunity for a brief presentation. Staff then presented the candidates with a series of questions relating to the project, followed by extensive discussion. Most of the questions and discussion were based upon the evaluation criteria as previously described. Both consultants presented themselves well and proved capable of successfully performing this project. After the interviews, staff evaluated the two finalists and decided to recommend that a contract for professional services for this project be awarded to MSA Consulting Engineers. It was Staff's consensus that MSA best met the criteria established. MSA has extensive proven experience in providing professional services for similar projects, and reference checks have further supported that fact. Should the Council award a contract for services to MSA, the consultant will immediately commence preliminary design work for the lift station and force main. The project schedule and overall summary of the consultant's tasks can be summarized as follows: 1. Preliminary design work to be completed by November /December 1995: Preliminary design will consist of evaluating rehabilitation alternatives vs. total replacement for both the lift station and force main. This phase of the work will also consist of site surveys, information gathering, cost/benefit analysis studies and evaluation of all technical solutions and alternatives, including impact on annual • maintenance and operations costs. 2. Final Design: Completion of plans and technical specifications in early 1996. 3. Construction Services: Opening of bids, award of contract and construction management and inspection. It i s anticipated that actual construction will en a in P Comm c the Spring P P g of 1996. Upon authorization by the City Council, staff will commence negotiating a detailed contract with MSA, includin g preparation P the re aration of a specific work plan, and compensation. It is recommended at this time that the contract be negotiated for preliminary design services only, that upon completion of the g P rY g Y P P preliminary design and selection of a construction option, the contract be amended to provide for the additional final design and construction services, based upon the fees submitted in their proposal. As previously mentioned, this is advisable pending the results of the preliminary design and weighing of possible final design and construction alternatives. At this time, our best estimate of the cost of professional services is about $72,000, which is less than 10% of the estimated project cost. By way of comparison, a general rule of thumb is that generally, engineering costs range from 10-20% of project cost, depending on the project's complexity. The current estimate of $72,000 is more than the $60,000 amount originally submitted by MSA. Staff requested MSA to provide a more realistic estimate of construction services to gain a better understanding of the project's overall cost. The preliminary estimated cost of this project is $1.2 million. The cost of this project will be funded by the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund. As previously stated, it is likely that the project would be phased • so the design would take place in 1995 and most construction would occur in 1996. It is expected that the cost of this project would be financed by sanitary sewer fund backed revenue bonds. The sanitary sewer rate study has comprehended this financing technique. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing Staff to enter into a contract with MSA Consulting Engineers to provide for professional services for this project. i . 1 rl L / \ _ . I YENT i ^rte ir I � I d �A��E�'�} i J o AND THAN' I = - rte i 1 I I 1 _ PUMPS FOR PROVIDI — �/. 7 RESSURE AND VELOC Y `I \� ROUGH FORCE MAIN ° SUMS Pviyp + - • INFLUENT ascNwcE�� „_ r HwL P ° I MOTOR A/OTO� i 1 r i F ex4ws o N • N 1 1 FAN + • � "? Lwt 6 i I 9 T ° PENT EFFLUENT I 1 I ° • 4'- O" LIFT STATION 17 1 EXISTING ELEVATION VIEW ( . errr Of fn"r ; �-- -- n nn1% unu `\ \ °O rfs St�l ox all lwcmzv OY WIWI! V Y Y % .IDye�kllf{• /Y ---__ (NMI ■ Y ST % *A 00 d ICS Ill C \ N 3nY M001Lr as ON AN1 31Y1f G 001 N 31r W)Wn Y x N V N V N 31Y NSI � 1.r N m g N 31Y LwAYI g Y tY tlY' 1 \ a A 0001 6 pp yy N 31Y %rJfu Wil N 3\Y lN0°q 11MY A N < _ _ _N _ Y _ - Y M ]♦Y INON3YI z y.Y IOSY3[7 � �JL ---- - - - - - - ----- ---- yy 0011 Y�r M 31rO ` 11i O a �_ M W 1070iYN 0001 7N v N 31r WWI 3 z 3 : M 3\Y UY \ L5 Y V 0011 z N 3n 9110' 3+r 0001 N O 0001 N fc LIY M 31Y .1 Y litlrYif e 0002 N 31Y MVllgl N ti O L'NJ M 31Y M w 1t i 'S Y z M 3A MLA 3 1 OOiI - � ( }. � M 1Y Y3T� = � � `. ../J�. T OJ. Y� M 31Y NNJA M O O[I N;1r 113SMY If M 3AY [+MULL I J •�-^„ V __ _ M 31Y OO ■ INCINI _Y x x N 31r 00e2 N 3AY Nttg6y% t a OOOt I — C1fY M JS M 3lY T3(Y3f N v S3(113K wit � - 'agl�M1. i > z 8 ! .! S• lilt1k N MySKUKU ' ti 1c Y � N S' !' .t• !r @ t y xIIN3I ~ �PoN t ii i J r t ' \, t 1 Y .30 u0M� M 31Y OW31 9 q M MY Nano N 311 0�.'RO C _ 001L N 31Y OMIIl3 tyod� p a !II ° N -" N eN JL 7f 3NMY 31r I 0000 �, t %11E 3 x FW Iyay t If 3AY N N 34Y tl"" @ p \ T e O ntx out A W %YfI m • M 31r YN ml = YVI 7YN �d Y YNV ONI s Y MYIl1M IfA% A YM'I4R'� .•' . \� � � t V 0CL/ N 3" W M 31Y 3llY i ti� - �_ - - - -: ------ N V t l a x331 a Y -- M 31Y 33l � M 31Y VGfMI If _ yY1 y C� I ` _`` )f�J - -- \7 3A N __ 0011 e _� _- _ ------- ___ - y�. -_ _- ! -_ y 311 Cott wti M 31v OW10q t 3 < E a Z N v 31110" YO tjl gl O M ' o 0001 t ��i � of N 311 AWy � G_ �.\ 'w0 x 1 I'-�f T'S.��. I.� _ I wit « t M 31v "39 ( _. N 31Y M 3AY umt iit /Yf] oom M 31r 0033)1 • �� : 1 DD1L N ;11 11110 O(CS F i N UY bW YY31 C1 4� 840tH. Hf PNM C y A N. I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -04, REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 1 AND ASSOCIATED FORCE MAIN WHEREAS, the Director of Public Services has informed the City Council that Lift Station No. 1 and the force main exiting the station and running south to County Road 10 has reached the end of its useful life and requires replacement; and WHEREAS, the City's Policy for the Procurement of Professional Services requires that no solicitation for professional services for contracts greater than $15,000 be commenced until the consent to do so has been obtained from the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to expend monies from the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax - exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from utility fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) and directed staff to solicit for professional services to provide for the design and construction of said improvement project; and WHEREAS, staff has evaluated six (6) candidates that provide professional services for O P P improvement projects of this nature; and WHEREAS, staff has recommended that MSA Consulting Engineers be chosen to provide these professional services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate and prepare an agreement with MSA Consulting Engineers to provide for professional services for the preliminary design of said Lift Station No. 1 project, on the basis of its proposal, at an estimated cost of $72,000. Said agreement for final design and construction services may be amended upon completion of the preliminary design. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center. Any amendments shall be approved by the City Council. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution shall be modified to the RESOLUTION NO. extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2, or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. Council Meeting Date 8/28/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1995 -18, New Electric Controls at Wells 5, 6, and 7, Approving Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids Department Approval: Diane Spector, Directo�,g Public Servic s A41 IY, Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Consider a resolution Establishing Project 1995 -18, New Electric Controls and Wells 5, 6, and 7, Approving Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes The CIP for 1995 includes provisions for a miscellaneous maintenance project to provide new electric controls at wells 5, 6, and 7. This includes replacing motor starters, main circuit breakers, and power factor correction capacitors. The controls at these three well houses are the oldest of our nine well houses. Upgrading the electric systems will bring them to current standards. These three well houses have had a history of maintenance problems, and some upgrading has been accomplished already on an emergency basis. Our initial estimate of project cost was $90,000. However, we have recently reviewed needs at these three facilities with several electricians, and have determined that not all the controls require replacement. Those proposed to be replaced are those that are most critical and which would not be readily available in an emergency. As noted above, some work has already been completed at well V. The new estimated cost of the project is $30,000. This project would be funded from the water utility fund. Bids would be opened on this project on September 20, with award of the contract on September 25. Work would be completed in October. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -18 NEW ELECTRIC CONTROLS AT WELLS 5, 6, AND 7 The City of Brooklyn Center invites qualified proposers to submit sealed bids to the office of the Deputy City Clerk, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN. regarding the replacement of certain electrical controls at municipal wells 5, 6, and 7. Instructions to Bidders Bids will be received until 10 A.M., local time, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1995, in the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN., at which time and place the Deputy City Clerk and City Engineer, or their designated representative, shall publicly open and read aloud the bids. To be considered, one (1) sealed copy of proposer's bid shall be submitted to the office of the Deputy City Clerk at the City Hall. Bids shall be submitted on the form provided and by the proscribed date and time. Bids not meeting these requirements shall not be considered. The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waive any informalities in bidding, and to accept the bid or bids which best serve the interest of the City of Brooklyn Center. Should a Bidder ro ose to substitute materials other than those specified herein said materials must P P P , be ground acceptable and approved by the City Engineer, in writing, seven (7) calendar days prior to the opening of the bids. Otherwise, it is understood that the Bidder shall furnish materials exactly as specified. The Owner's representative on this project is Mr. David Peterson, Public Works Superintendent, 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN. PROPOSAL FOR NEW ELECTRIC CONTROLS AT WELLS 5, 6, AND 7 CONTRACT 1995 - IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -18 BIDDER: ADDRESS: ZIP TELEPHONE: BIDS TO BE OPENED AT 10:00 A.M., LOCAL TIME, SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 Honorable City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 The undersigned, as Bidder, having examined the site and having studied the Contract Documents for the Work and being familiar with all factors and conditions affecting the Work and cost thereof, hereby proposes and agrees to enter into a Contract with the City of Brooklyn Center to supply all labor, equipment, tools, materials, and skills necessary for the construction of the following work, all in accordance with the Contract Documents and any subsequent addenda issued thereto: The undersigned Bidder understands the quantities of Work as shown herein are approximate only and are subject to increase or decrease, and proposes to do the Work whether the quantities are increased or decreased, at the unit price stated in the following Schedule of Prices and the unit price as bid shall constitute compensation in full for the respective items. CONTRACT 1995- IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -18 SCHEDULE OF PRICES ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE NO. Well #5 1 Remove existing, and furnish and install circuit breaker for 150 HP 240 volt pump. Breaker shall be Westinghouse MA3800, 800 amp frame and 600 amp trip units 2 Remove existing and furnish and install two (2) motor starter contractors, heaters, and enclosure 3 Remove existing and furnish and install three (3) chemical feed motor starters, including heaters and enclosures 4 Remove existing and furnish and replace power factor correction capacitors (40 KVAR), including self fusing and blown fuse indicating lights Well #6 1 Remove existing, and furnish and install circuit breaker for 150 HP 480 volt pump. Breaker shall be Westinghouse MA3800, 800 amp frame and 600 amp trip units 2 Remove existing and furnish and install two (2) motor starter contractors and heaters, in existing enclosure 3 Remove existing and furnish and install three (3) chemical feed motor starters, including heaters and enclosures 4 Furnish an and install NEW power factor correction capacitors (32 KVAR), including self fu and blown fuse indicating lights Well #7 1 Remove existing and furnish and install two (2) motor starter contractors and heaters, in existing enclosure 2 Remove existing and furnish and install three (3) chemical feed motor starters, including heaters and enclosures 3 Remove existing and furnish and replace power factor correction capacitors (40 KVAR), including self fusing and blown fuse indicating lights The undersigned agrees as follows: is 1. Within ten (10) calendar days after Award of Contract to execute a Contract for the work involved. 2. That this Proposal cannot be withdrawn for a period of thirty (30) days after the date and time scheduled for the opening of bids. 3. That the Brooklyn Center City Council reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive irregularities and informalities therein and further reserves the right to award the Contract in the best interests of the City. IF AN INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, OR NON - INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION: Respectfully Submitted, By: (Signature of Bidder) Title: Name and Address of Bidder: (Name) (Address) (City and State) IF A CORPORATION: Respectfully submitted, By: (Signature of Bidder) Title: Name and Address of Bidder: (Name) (Address) (City and State) �c Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -18, NEW ELECTRIC CONTROLS AT WELLS 5, 6, AND 7, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program includes a preventative maintenance project to replace various electric controls at wells 5, 6, and 7 at an estimated cost of $30,000; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared specifications for the proposed work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The following project is hereby established. 1995 -18, NEW ELECTRIC CONTROLS AT WELLS 5, 6, AND 7 2. The specifications for Contract 1995 -I for said improvement project are hereby approved and ordered filed with the Deputy City Clerk. 3. The Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the Deputy 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 Deputy City Clerk. 4. The accounting for Project No. 1995 -18 will be done in the Water Utility Fund. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. Council Meeting Date 08/28/95 City of Brooklyn Center A Item N umber �� Request For Council Consideration Item Description: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES Department Approval: e Spector, Dire to f Public Services Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. • bd Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 08/28/95 ) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove diseased trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these diseased trees by declaring them a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance: TREE PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- JAKE & MARY EEKOFF 5125 EWING AVE N 106 CITY OF B.C. 5300 NORTH LILAC DR 107 CITY OF B.C. ACROSS 5308 LILAC DR 108 ROGER & DARLENE GUSTAFSON 6935 JUNE AVE N 109 CITY OF B.C. EVERGREEN PARK 110 CITY OF B.C. TRIANGLE PARK 111 CITY OF B.C. WEST PALMER PARK 112 CITY OF B.C. WEST PALMER PARK 113 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. ` 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 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. Council Meeting Date 8/28/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For .Council Consideration • Item Description: Licenses Department Approval: J" Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk � ✓list Manager's Review /Recommendation: '�%� , No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve attached list of licenses. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) • • 31 City of Brooklyn Center Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 28, 1995 AMUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR Chuckwagon Grill 1928 57th Ave. N. Rookies Bar &Grill 1501 Freeway Blvd. � y� - -1��,� rYi.l Deputy City Clerk AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR Marcus Vending Inc. 1945 Lochaven Place, U lam`' Deputy City Clerk MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Advanced Energy Services 3650 Annapolis Lane Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Welcome Home Inc. 819 -21 55th Ave. N. Alvin J. Moline, Jr. 7106 France Ave. N. Raymond & Rosanne Marshall 5637 Northport Dr. Renewal: George and Ethel McMullen 2401 -03 54th Ave. N. Keith Nordby 5960 Brooklyn Blvd. George Shimshock 5900 Colfax Ave. N. Heinz Pollinger 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #320 ; Director of Co unity Development TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Value Food Market 6804 Humboldt Ave. N. 3A Li1:21; -Yl .LLt Deputy City Clerk TAXICAB Town Taxi 2500 Washington Ave. N. _ Deputy City Clerk P tY ty General Approval: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Council Meeting Date 8/28/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Public Hearing - Earle Brown Commons Department Approval: J 11 1 . y 4A Brad Hoffman, Director of 'Community Devel ent Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: NO RECOMMENDATION • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) At Monday's Council meeting, you will be asked as part of a bankruptcy workout to approve $8.8 million dollars in tax exempt bonds. This would be the third refunding, (bond holder remains the same) of the bonds sought by the owners of Earle Brown Commons. At the outset the Council should be aware that the workout plan as proposed by the owners has been approved by vote of the vast majority of owners. As the Council gives consideration to the request it should do so from the perspective of the City's interest only. The bond holders have had representation throughout this process and as a group have indicated that this is the best workout plan for them. The question for the City is "does this make sense for the City ?" At Monday's meeting both Kathy Constintine (bankruptcy) and Sue Van Dyke (bond attorney) will be present and available to answer your questions. I believe Sue Van Dyke will provide you with a brief overview of the bond issue. As you are aware this is a bankruptcy that has been going on for about a year and a half. Taxes have not been paid on the property since 1989 with the exception of the lst half payment of payable '95. Approximately $1.7 million in back taxes are owed with the vast majority belonging to the City's TIF district. The TIF districts shortfall is roughly the equivalent. The bond deal itself is rather straight forward. There would be two series of tax exempt bonds totaling $8.8 million dollars which would replace $8.8 million of current outstanding bonds. The City by • approving the resolution would not be obligated in any way to repay the bond. The income from the project is the sole revenue source to repay the bonds. In essence the bonds are a mortgage. The City will receive a monthly payment equal to an annualized 1/8 of a point of the outstanding principal balance for the life of the bond or until they are retired. As part of the workout the owner will reconfess the taxes due (for the second and last time) and enter into a ten year repayment at a 10% annual interest rate. All of the taxes would be paid back by the year 2004. At the same time, the Request For Council Consideration Page 2 owners would be required to stay current on all of their taxes. • The basic business concern of the City is whether we are better served by denying the issue and in essence force a foreclosure or allowing the plan to go forward and receive our back taxes over the next ten years and 10 percent annually. If we say no to the bond issue the property would end up in a foreclosure and sold with the property tax being paid in whole i.e. money now or money over time at a good rate? Questions to consider: 1. What happens if any of the revenue and expense assumptions are different than projected i.e. revenue is lower and costs higher? 2. What happens if taxes increase more than 3 %? 3. Is the bond counsel stating in writing that the bonds meet all of the IRS requirements for a tax exempt? 4. Why has this project failed so many time and what has changed in this plan that is going to make this plan work. 5. At what market value are the taxes based? Is it inflated over time and at what rate. What happens if the market value increases more than the assumption? • 6. How are capital expenditures going to be handled (parking lot, roof, mechanical and etc.) if they exceed the reserve balance? Note if the reserves are not for this purpose where will the money come from for major repairs? 7. How will the City be assured of receiving its 1/8 of a point on an annual basis. 8. If this project fails because the assumptions are flawed what is tho prevent the owners from filing bankruptcy again and starting the process all over? 9. Would the owners be prepared to personally guarantee the property taxes on the property? 10. What measures will be taken to make sure bond holders realize that the City makes no assessment or endorsement of the worth of these bonds. Will the owner draft a letter for City approval informing the bond holders specifically that in no way does the City endorse these bonds and provide proof to the City that such a letter has been served on each bond holder? This is a matter where the Council will be neither right or wrong in its decision. If you are comfortable with the answers received vote for the bond. If you feel that is not in the City's interest, vote no. • Extract of Minutes of Meeting of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota was duly held at City Hall in said City, on Monday, August 28, 1995, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following Council members were present: and the following were absent: The Mayor announced that this was the time and lace for public hearing P P g on a proposal for the refinancing by the City of a housing project and the issuance of refunding revenue bonds therefor on behalf of Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II. The following persons appeared: After all persons present had an opportunity to express their views, the hearing was closed. Council member introduced the following written resolution and moved its adoption: A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF HOUSING FACILITIES REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A PROJECT ON BEHALF OF EARLE BROWN COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP H The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council 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. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF HOUSING FACILITIES REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A PROJECT ON BEHALF OF EARLE BROWN COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP H BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City "), as follows: 1. Authori1y. The City is, by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act "), authorized to issue its revenue bonds and refunding revenue bonds for the purpose of financing and refinancing the cost of authorized housing projects and to enter into agreements necessary or convenient in the exercise of the powers granted by the Act. 2. Authorization of Pro Documents Presented Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Borrower "), has proposed to this Council that the City issue its $4,400,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Housing Facilities Refunding Revenue Bonds (Earle Brown Commons Project), Series 1995A, in substantially "Series ti ly the form set forth in the Series 1995A Indenture described below the ( 1995A Bonds "), and its $4,400,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Housing Facilities Refunding Revenue Bonds (Earle Brown Commons Project), Series 1995B, in substantially the form set forth in the Series 1995B Indenture described below (the "Series 1995B Bonds "), pursuant to the Act and effect a loan of the proceeds thereof to the Borrower by exchanging the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds for the City's outstanding $8,800,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Replacement Bonds, Series 1990 (Earle Brown Commons Project) (the "Refunded Bonds "). The Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds would be issued to refinance costs incurred in the acquisition, construction and equipping of a 140 - unit multifamily housing project located at 6100 Summit Drive North in the City, which is owned and operated by the Borrower (the "Project "), by causing the Refunded Bonds to be refunded in full. Forms of the following documents relating to the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds have been submitted to the City and are now on file in the office of the City Manager: (a) Loan Agreement (the "Series 1995A Loan Agreement") dated as of September 1, 1995 between the City and the Borrower, whereby the City agrees to effect a loan to the Borrower of the gross proceeds of the Series 1995A Bonds by causing the Series 1995A Bonds to be exchanged for a portion of the outstanding principal amount of the Refunded Bonds, as more fully provided therein, and the Borrower agrees to pay amounts in repayment of the loan sufficient to provide for the full and prompt payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 1995A Bonds when due; and (b) Loan Agreement (the "Series 1995B Loan Agreement ") dated as of September 1, 1995 between the City and the Borrower, whereby the City agrees to effect a loan to the Borrower of the grosg proceeds of the Series 1995B Bonds by causing the Series 1995B Bonds to be exchanged for the remaining portion of the outstanding principal amount of the Refunded Bonds, as more fully provided therein, and the Borrower agrees to pay amounts in repayment of the loan sufficient to provide for the full and prompt payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series 1995B Bonds when due; and (c) Trust Indenture (the "Series 1995A Indenture ") dated as of September 1, 1995, between the City and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as trustee (the "Series 1995A Trustee "), authorizing the issuance of the Series 1995A Bonds and pledging certain revenues, including loan repayments to be derived from the Series 1995A Loan Agreement, as security for the Series 1995A Bonds, and setting forth proposed recitals, covenants and agreements relating thereto; and (d) Trust Indenture (the "Series 1995B Indenture ") dated as of September 1, 1995, between the City and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as trustee (the "Series 1995B Trustee "), authorizing the issuance of the Series 1995B Bonds and pledging certain revenues, including loan repayments to be derived from the Series 1995B Loan Agreement, as security for the Series 1995B Bonds, and setting forth proposed recitals, covenants and agreements relating thereto; and (e) Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement and Assignment of Leases and Rents (the "Mortgage "), dated as of September 1, 1995, from the Borrower to the City, and to be assigned by the City to the Series 1995A Trustee and the Series 1995B Trustee pursuant to an Assignment of Mortgage, by which the Borrower grants, as security for the payment of the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds, a mortgage lien on and security interest in the Project, as more fully described therein. 3. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) Pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, this Council conducted a public hearing on the proposal to refinance the Project, and the Project and the refinancing thereof by the issuance of the -2- Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds are hereby approved for all purposes under said Section 147(f). (b) Under the provisions of the Act, and as provided in the Series 1995A Loan Agreement, the Series 1995B Loan Agreement, the Series 1995A Indenture and the Series 1995B Indenture, the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds are not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds other than amounts payable pursuant to the respective Loan Agreement and moneys in the funds and accounts held by the respective Trustee under the applicable Indenture which are pledged to the payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no owners of the Series 1995A Bonds or the Series 1995B Bonds shall ever have the right to compel the exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay any of the Series 1995A Bonds or the Series 1995B Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City (other than the interest of the City in the Loan Repayments to be made by the Borrower under the applicable Loan Agreement); and each Series 1995A Bond and Series 1995B Bond shall recite that such Bond, including interest thereon, shall not constitute or give rise to a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the City. 4. Approval and Execution of Documents The forms of Series 1995A Loan Agreement, Series 1995B Loan Agreement, Series 1995A Indenture, Series 1995B Indenture, Mortgage and Assignment of Mortgage, referred to in paragraph 2, are approved. The Series 1995A Loan Agreement, the Series 1995B Loan Agreement, the Series 1995A Indenture, the Series 1995B Indenture, the Mortgage and the Assignment of Mortgage shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager, or executed or attested by other officers of the City, substantially y the form on file, but with all such changes therein, not inconsistent with the Act or other law, as may be approved by the officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof and then shall be delivered to the Series 1995A Trustee and the Series 1995B Trustee. 5. Approval. Execution and Delivery of Series 1995A Bonds and Series 1995B Bonds The City shall proceed forthwith to issue the Series 1995A Bonds, in an aggregate principal amount of $4,400,000, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Series 1995A Indenture, and the Series 1995B Bonds, in an aggregate principal amount of $4,400,000, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Series 1995B Indenture, subject to the approval of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota of the Debtor's Fourth Plan of Reorganization submitted by the Borrower on May 11, 1995, providing for the issuance of the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds and to the issuance of approving legal opinions as to the validity of the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds and the exemption from federal income taxation of the interest thereon by Faegre & Benson Professional Limited Liability Partnership. The Mayor, City Manager and other City officers 2_ are authorized and directed to prepare and execute the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds as prescribed in the Series 1995A Indenture and the Series 1995B Indenture and to deliver them to the Series 1995A Trustee and the Series 1995B Trustee, respectively (together with certified copies of this Resolution), for authentication, registration and exchange for the Refunded Bonds. Each Series 1995A Bond and Series 1995B Bond shall contain a recital that it is issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall to the extent permitted by law be conclusive evidence of the validity and regularHy of the issuance thereof. 6. Ctffifj ate_ etc The Mayor, City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to bond counsel, the Series 1995A Trustee and the Series 1995B Trustee, when the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds are issued, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Series 1995A Bonds and the Series 1995B Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including and heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Adopted: August 28, 1995. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. J ' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City "), do hereby certify that attached hereto is a compared, true and correct copy of a resolution giving final approval to an issuance of refunding revenue bonds by the City on behalf of Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II, a Minnesota limited partnership, duly adopted by the City Council of the City on August 28, 1995, at a regular meeting thereof duly called and held, as on file and of record in my office, which resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date thereof, and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof, and that the attached Extract of Minutes as to the adoption of such resolution is a true and accurate account of the proceedings taken in passage thereof. WITNESS My hand and the official seal of the City this day of , 1995. City Clerk (Seal) CamcU Meeting Data 8 -28 -95 31 City of Brooklyn Center ,► g ang. pan Nu dmr Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Planning Commission Application No. 95011 submitted by Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck. Department Approval: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Sped t Manager's Review /Recommendation: ZZ4 -1 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 17, 1995 meeting subject to conditions of approval. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached i ) Planning Commission Application No. 95011 submitted by Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck is a request for Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its August 17, 1995 meeting. Attached are minutes, information sheets and maps from that meeting. planning Commission Information Sheet gplication No. 95011 Applicant: Robert L and Marlene A. Overpeck Location: 5500 Emerson Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicants are requesting Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R -1 and is bounded on the west by Emerson Avenue North, with single family homes located on the opposite side; on the north by a single family home; on the east by a single family home and an off -site parking lot owned by Harron Methodist Church; and on the south by 55th Avenue North with R -2 zoned land containing a single family home on the opposite side of the street. Currently the parcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North is made up of two lots (Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Littell Addition) which have been combined for tax purposes and contain a large, old two -story frame house and a three car garage. The size of the combined lot is 195 ft. (along Emerson Avenue) by approximately 135.4 ft. deep (for a total of approximately 26,400 sq. ft. in area. The proposed legal description of the new lots is Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Overpeck Addition. The lots would be divided as follows: Lot Z'Vpe Width Req'd Depth Req'd Area Required 1 Interior 107.40' 75' 135.44' 110' 14,548 sq. ft. 9,500 sq. ft. •2 Corner 87.60' 90' 135.41' 110' 11,864 sq. ft. 10,500 sq. ft. There is a lot width variance requested on Lot 2 of the proposed plat (see application No. 95012) to allow a corner lot in an R -1 zone less than 90 ft. in width. 'The proposed plat shows 5 ft. drainage and utility easements around all of the property lines. The new corner lot does have sewer and water services stubbed into the property line. A water service is shown in the boulevard right -of -way area adjacent to the existing house, however, the survey does not indicate that the house is hooked up to sewer and water. We will need to verify hook ups, and if the house is not hooked up to sewer and water, it will have to be as a condition of plat approval. The existing two -story house is set back between 9.1 ft. and 9.8 ft. from the Emerson Avenue right -of- way. This is an existing situation not created by the proposed subdivision and is allowed to continue. The house will be set back 10 ft. from the proposed line dividing the two properties. This is being done to leave a minimum 10 ft. side yard setback, which will allow doors, windows and openings along this side wall. It is because of trying to maintain this minimum 10 ft. setback that the corner lot is proposed to be only 87.6 ft. in width. A side yard setback of less than 10 ft. can be allowed provided it is no closer than 5 ft., that there are no doors, windows or openings along the side wall that is less than 10 ft. from the property line and furthermore, that there is a minimum 10 ft. setback on the opposite side yard. The south wall serves as the entrance to the house and it would be undesirable to alter it, therefore, the 10 ft. minimum setback is being maintained. should be noted that the proposed corner lot abuts an off -site accessory parking lot owned by the Harron 8 -17 -95 Page 1 Methodist Church. In 1980, under Planning Commission Application No. 80028, the City Council grante<� Harronn Methodist Church a Special Use Permit to construct this off -site accessory parking lot (see attached minures). At that time, the City Council acknowledged that existing shrubbery on adjacent lots provided adequate screening of the parking lot, but condition No. 8 of the approval states "should the existing screening to the north and /or west of the site fail, the church shall replace such screening with a minimum 6 ft. high opaque screening device as required by city ordinances." It is possible with the development of the corner lot for a single family home that the shrubs which serve to screen this parking lot mi be removed. This would mean that the church would be responsible for screening its parking lot from this residential property. A public hearing has been scheduled for this preliminary plat and notice of the Commission's consideration has appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun /Post. A public hearing is also required as part of the variance requested under Planning Commission Application No. 95012, and it would be appropriate to hold both hearings concurrently. If the variance application (95012) is approved for this subdivision, I would recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the final provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall provide appropriate sewer and water service for Lot 1 as approved by the City Engineer, prior to final plat approval. 8 -17 -95 Pa 2 1 I .` Fr�SCD tp,�{ ,' • •,�\ i �� .. "'"„az..,� ".i.J �1� —d ,l T � r✓ � E " ._ � � I I I f _L11.1L(_ T 1 I . 7 I I _ � ` { , 1 _ �•• o -( � r\ �, '��~ � �� 1 l �o rILYUft6�7�._A•�•L� _ G S AYE l _ 5 �� ,rIIT_11IT (.l.[� _ AV N _ ... _ .. _ I OGAN AYE. N. 1IT� �1 [I - 1 1» [111 _ 1(!1T _ - - mv - _ _ — EMU fto*4 DN. ! ? 1 �11limes �T :( :1� [�I.I It ��_I_ \I� JAMES AVE. N I fITI -{ -- �,� [fI1 TNc1 "1 �ff'-�,jj ��((L - - - _ - - VII - ll - � Yf N. fC n ,•., I Wfl MI IANIWI UI A E f ldl.- 9Q..__Il(L.� E i AVE '1�%�,,, i �(y /. T� I. . ft( ----� f[flillliT111 AVE .J P -TI T , I .- . 1 �I�NAND_AVE. N. .. p GliultD �+�w.� [III [I ll�n I (( �) rr 1 �_I• _ IT rl TTrr ►� b HIM I Ilf1 \_1_I_� o ~� ( I(T(1111(fllllll 1411111 HIM _l - _, � - �j I H I E1t N51N1 �6E " - — 1:L 1 \_- u iq 619- Il11I '`' ESN TIIlT111 ([IIII[IIl � � � � - � ( I f DuPUi o��d�li.liil 1I111III11II i1� : =T :. _ ° ° �, ( -� -� �- , 0 `' f`A l l, �Ax AYE. N. -r..\ m � FA � f N. UjAI - - - _ E —.l I ENYANT AVE. N. f �— +— A• --�-� �� q - AI UN1 �1 AVE I DO Xi �.wr O - -- - - -I �, "— - .................. L- 11� IL" \ �� _� - - _ice � �� p _ �' - � .� -----' ' ..,- �'.'_ -- �_ ` _ '__ '� `- dl j 1''�:r •. \ - -- - /) R 'VER GAwas� tTUMINCUS 0 mM X35.48 84¢.05 to a B ? 0 I 3I[) 944.!1 ggL.03 7tLITY AscnnE�T 64344 843•bZ t yr,•o �� - • 3lTUIvl;hlGU t c'� I aas 943 t 3 - CAR m '^ GARAGE sw l t ti� Zb.o W r .37 +j O I ^„ - 7.3 74 ST Oa`r Z.z o 8 $� I 1 vL O w 7 � t9 � ''� 14.33 m 4A4•� � t 3 1 o — 8 45. 04 1 _._h - 0 3c�' — •% -- M°nE 1 CC 1 I 37 ' ,� a4a•8''7� O , ! 84417 O r9 I i Li x s4c.ou x844 .56 ,i J _ - 0 --- — aat.o3 n» . Ln T a `` j W I g�s.41 WALK 843.97- ( i — t �J"GaT Cti _ I < ! �i gastry i ^ n 3x3.9 S- L3. COC,£. cr '31TUMt.I. c .S 944.11 u 39�r 843.;4 I a En, dlt rD. 31r. i t I - -- Awe: K U E 1 y. i 2. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 3. The applicant shall remove that portion of the sidewalk on Lot 6 (5419 Fremont) that encroaches onto Lot 7. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed from 7:53 p.m. to 7:57 p.m. to allow Commissioner Malecki and the Planning Assistant to make emergency phone calls. APPLICATION NO. 80028 and 80029 (Harron United Methodist Church) The Planning Assistant introduced the next item of business, site and building plan and special use permit approval for an off -site accessory parking lot at the northwest corner of 55th and Dupont Avenue North serving Harron United Methodist Church located at the same intersection. The Planning Assistant also reviewed the staff report for a variance from Section 35 -700 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the greenstrip between off - street parking and street right -of -way. (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 80028 and 80029 attached), Following the presentation of both staff reports, the Planning Assistant noted that the applicant proposed chains to be placed across the entrance at 55th Avenue and at the entrance at Dupont Avenue North in order to control cut - through traffic. He also noted that the plans were to be revised to indicate a shrub row along Dupont and 55th Avenues within the greenstri.p area to pro- vide the screening required by the Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question. from Chairman Hawes, the Superintendent of Engineering confirmed that the driveways to the parking lot would be concrete on 55th Avenue, but bituminous onDupon g Avenue since improvements are scheduled for Dupont in the near future. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the church is located in the R2 zone and the parking lot in the R1 zone. She asked why a rezoning of the church was not being pursued since the off -site accessory lot would be located in a zone more restrictive than that of the principal use which is forbidden by Section 35 -701 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Assistant responded that Section 35 -701 also provides that "for the purposes of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, institutional Rl uses shall be considered the same as Cl uses." He stated that the church and the property on which the parking lot was to be built were, for the purposes Of Section 35- 701, Cl in nature. He also pointed out the example Of Cross of Glory Lutheran Church which is in the Ri zone, but which also provides parking space for an office to the south. This arrangement, he said, would be precluded if Commissioner'Sim- mons' interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance were applied. Com- missioner Simmons acknowledged this example, but expressed a con- cern that the City could get into trouble approving such an ar- rangement across zones. The Secretary pointed out that justifying the rezoning of the church would be equally difficult since it could be considered a case of spot zoning. He stated that the case is simply one of 8 -14 -80 -2- i a church using church property and that the use is essentially the same for the two properties. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the ordinance had been amended for the specific purpose of allowing off -site accessory parking arrangements on church land. The Secretary answered that this was part of the intent, but added that a number of previous ap- provals of off -site accessory parking arrangements with insti- tutional R1 uses implied the same understanding sought by the recent ordinance revision. The Planning Assistant added that the ordinance speaks of off -site accessory parking within zoning districts of the same or less restriction as that of the princi- pal use He pointed out that the Brookdale Office Tower which is located in the C2 Zoning District would certainly be allowed to have an off -site accessory parking arrangement with a Cl pro - perty since the office building is a C1 type use. He pointed out that the church is essentially an institutional R1 use with- in the R2 zone, and therefore, the parking lot does not introduce a use not permitted in the R1 zone. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons, the Planning Assistant stated that the staff prefer that the church obtain an easement from the property to the west for snow storage and drain- age purposes. However, he pointed out,. the 2�,' greenstrip along the west property line would be adequate to meet the screening re- quirement between off- street parking and R1 uses. He stated that if the property owners to the west withdraw their permission to allow snow storage and drainage from the parking lot over the pro- perty, the snow from the parking lot would simply have to be re- moved in some other fashion. The Secretary explained that approval of the site plan for the parking lot essentially defers the screen- ing requirement between the parking lot and the R1 use, such screen- ing to be provided by the church on its own property if the lilacs on the neighboring property were to fail. Commissioner Simmons noted that the snow being stored on the parking lot will wind up forcing cars onto the street, thus negating the benefit of the parking lot. The Secretary acknowledged this possibility, but pointed to the difficult circumstances surrounding the application and the need to weigh priorities. Chairman Hawes noted that a variance to allow a 10' greenstrip and regular size parking stalls would eliminate one stall. The Secretary noted that the proposed handicapped stall is not required and the extra space from that stall could allow for the same number of spaces to be P laced along the east side g of the lot. Chairman Hawes asked whether a concrete median through the center of the lot would serve to control cut - through traffic. The Planning Assistant answered that while this probably could be accomplished without reducing the number of arkin_ stalls in P the lot, i g , t would be much more costly, both in terms of installation and maintenance, without being much more effective than chaining off the parking lot. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Gilbert Engdahl, a former Planning Commission member and a member of Harron United Methodist Church, asked the Commission whether concrete curb would be required around the parking lot. Chairman Hawes responded that this was an ordinance requirement for all 8 -14 -80 -3- off- street parking. Chairman Hawes asked whether the curb would extend to the street. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that curb need only be installed up to the property line. A resident from the neighborhood of the church stated that screen- ing the parking lot from the street with a fence would look ugly. Chairman Hawes answered that the intent of the approval is for a shrub row to provide that screening rather than a fence. The Secretary pointed out that screening of off - street parking lots more than six stalls in size is required by the Zoning Ordinance. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Assistant explained that the first reason proving the for ap P t e v ariance g a lied for acknowledges a set of priorities which accurately pub- lic interest in this particular case He stated that the prior- ities acknowledged for this approval were different than those adopted in the Howe Fertilizer case where it was considered more important to provide buffering and landscaping between the industrial use and neighboring residences than to eliminate parking deficiencies. He stated that these priorities are not fixed for all cases, but must continually be re- examined in the light of particular circum- stances. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80028 (Harron United Methodist st Church) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 80028, site and building plan and special use permit approval of a 40 stall off -site acces- sory parking lot located at the northwest corner of Dupont and 55th, subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 2. A performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City,Manager) shall be entered into by the applicant prior to the issuance of the 3. The site plan shall be modified to indicate screening of the parking lot from residences across Dupont and across 55th Avenue North in accordance with Section 35 -711 of the City Ordinances prior to consideration by the City Council. 4. Plan approval is subject to the granting of a variance comprehended by Application No. 80029. regarding a greenstrip encroachment. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City's Ordinance. 8 -14 -80 -4- 6. The approved plan shall be certified by an architect or engineer registered in the State of Minnesota prior to the issuance of permits, 7. The Special Use Permit for Accessory Off -Site Parking comprehended by Section 35 -701 Sub- division 3 is issued to the Harron United Methodist Church and is nontransferable. 8. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 9. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 10. Should the existing screening to the north and /or the west of the site fail, the Church shall replace such screening with a minimum 6' high opaque screening device as required by City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80029 (Harron United Methodist Church) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 80029, a request for a variance from Section 35 -700 of the City Ordinances to allow a 10' greenstrip along the east property line of the parking lot to serve Harron United Methodist Church, for the following reasons: 1. Not only the applicant, but the public as well would be adversely affected from the denial of the variance. (This is based on the finding that the priorities outlined below accurately reflect the public interest in this particular case). a. Minimize the existing parking space deficiency and provide, as far as possible, adequate parking for the church. b. Maintain ordinance standards for parking 'and- driving lanes to ensure that the lot functions* Properly in accommodating church traffic. C. Provide screening of off - street parking areas as required by City Ordinance. d. Provide adequate green space on the site. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique in.that the parcel in question is to be put to use to alleviate an existing deficiency in the parking required for the church and will rot be recog- nized as grounds for further expansion. of the Zoning Ordinance which cannot all be met simultaneously in this case. The hardship was not created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land in that it was platted in a size and shape to serve residential as opposed to institutional needs. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood so long as the conditions attaching to the approval of the site plan are met. APPLICATION NOS. 80030 and 80031 (Merila- Hansen /Village Builders) The Planning Assistant introduced the next item of business, site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for a 10 unit townhouse project to be located on the west side of Humboldt, just north of 67th Avenue'North. He reviewed the contents of Staff Report Nos. 80030;-and 80031 (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 80030 and 80031 attached). Following the presentation of the staff report, Chairman Hawes asked for a clarification of whether the trees located presently where the buildings are to stand would have to be replaced. .The Planning Assistant answered that only those trees shown on the site plan as part of the landscaping for the site would have to be replaced should they be removed during construction or die out prematurely. Commissioner Manson asked why the staff recommended 6" rather than 8" sewer pipe at the west end of the project. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that there are difficulties presented by feeding a larger pipe into a smaller pipe as proposed by the appli- cant. Chairman Hawes asked whether five stalls for guest parking would be adequate. The Secretary answered that the proposal provides four parking stalls per unit as opposed to the ordinance require- ment of two per unit. The Secretary also pointed out that the density credit for the proposed project is optional at the dis- cretion of the Planning Commission and City Council. He noted that this credit was extended to two previous townhouse develop- ments and that in light of the R5 zoning of the land, approval of the density credit could be justified. Mr. James Merila, representing Village Builders, pointed, out that the site provides 45 parking stalls as opposed to 20 required by the ordinance. He explained that the 16' wide driveways were pro - posed in order to allow more green area between driveways. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the reason the driveways were widened was to provide the same amount of area within the.drive- way as would be required for two normal parking spaces. Mr. Merila took issue with the requirement outlined in the staff report to replace all trees that die off with trees that will grow to a comparable size. He stated that if there is a significant die -off of existing trees, the ap - olicant would prefer to then sub- mit a new landscape plan. He pointed out that the amount of land - scap_ng provided on the site with the.existing trees is far in ex- cess of what would normally be required on a barren site. Commis- sioner Simmons pointed out that many of the trees on the site are elms and that if one dies, the rest are likely to die also. Chair - Mr. Beisner presented a photograph of the City Hall and Civic Center to the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to authorize the staff to prepare an official letter of thank you to Mr. Beisner for his photograph. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Application No. 80027 submitted by Frank Lachinski and explained the application was a request to resubdivide two 40' X 128' lots at 5419 Fremont Avenue North, which were combined formerly for tax purposes. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 80027 at its August 14, 1980 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections explained that the area surrounding the site is developed into single family homes. He proceeded to present and review the Planning Commission information sheet on Application No. 80027 and also presented and reviewed the Planning Commission minutes discussing Application No. 80027 on pages one through two. He explained that the application does not create but only re a property line-which makes a 40' substandard width. He explained the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to three conditions which he reviewed for Council members. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded b Councilmember y mb r Kuefler to approve Application No. 80027, a request to resubdivide lot six and lot - seven of Fairhaven Park Addition which were combined formerly for tax purposes, subject to the following conditions: 1. The resubdivision is subject to the approval of the City �y Engineer and the City As prior to filing with the County. 2. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 3. The applicant shall remove that portion of the sidewalk on lot six {5419 Fremont }'that encroaches onto lot seven. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott; voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 80028 submitted by Harron United Methodist Church for site plan and special use permit approval to construct a 39 stall parking lot at the northwest corner of 55th and Dupont for off -site accessory parking. Fie explained the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 80028 at its August 14, 1980 meeting. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether it might not be appropriate to take Application No. 80028 and 80029 together since the second application was also submitted by Harron United Methodist Church and is requesting a variance from section 35 -700 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires off street parking to be 15 feet from the street right - of-way. he Director rector of Planning nnine a..d Inspections stated that he saw no problem �:ith handling both the applications together and proceeded to present and review for Council members the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Applications No. 80028 and 80029. He also presented and reviewed for Council members the Augus 14 i TM gu 0 ..80 Planning �.o.,,mission minutes pertaining to the two applications. He explained the request in the application is for 39 stalls, rot 40 stalls as is indicated in the Planning Commission minutes. He noted the 8 - 25 -80 church has used this area for years as unimproved parking and stated that the uniqueness of this application is that the church has used this area as unimproved parking for years. The Director of Planning and Inspections noted that the Planning Commission approved both applications at its August 14, 1980 meeting and reviewed the conditions under which the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Director of Planning and Inspections stated that the plan sub- mitted by Harron United Methodist Church today is different from the one shown to the Planning Commission in that the new plan does not show the chain gate at the entrance to the parking lot. He explained that public hearings were required for both the special use permit and also the variance request. Council- member Lhotka inquired whether the entrance chains should be included in the conditions. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that it was his understanding that the chains would be included as a condition set by the Planning Commission. He noted that conditions three and six of'the Planning Commission conditions have already been met by the applicant. Councilmember Scott inquired whether the church is aware that the snow oiling on the.adjacent property may come to an end if a new owner occupies that property and does not agree to allowing the church to dump the snow on the property. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Engdahl who stated that he is representing the Harron United Methodist Church in this project and stated that he is aware the church may have to haul away the snow in the event that they cannot pile it on their neighbor's property. Mayor Nyquist opened the. meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Applica- tions No. 80028 and 80029. He inquired whether there was anyone who wished to speak to the applications. No one appeared to speak. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar•to close the public hearing on Applications No. 80028 and 80029. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhot.ka, and Scott; voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefier to approve Application No. 80028 site and building plan and special use permit approval of a 39 stall off -site accessory parking lot located at the northwest corner of Dupont and 55th, subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 2. A performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be entered into by the applicant prior to the issuance of the permit. 3. Plan approval is subject to the granting of a variance comprehended by Application No. 80029 regarding a green strip encroachment. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. The special use permit for accessory off -site parking comprehended by section 35 -701 subdivision 3 is issued to the Harron United Methodist Church and is nontransferable. 6. The special use permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, and regulations, and violations thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. S. Should the existing screening to the north and /or west of the site fail, the church shall replace such screening with a minimum six foot high opaque screening device as required by City Ordinances. 9. The applicant shall provide chain gates at the entrances to the parking lot. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott; voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Application No. 80029, a request for a variance from section 35 -700 of the City Ordinances to allow a ten foot green strip along the east property line of the parking lot to serve Harron United Methodist Church, for the following reasons: 1. Not only the applicant, but the public as well, would be adversely affected from the denial of the variance. (This is based on the findings that the priorities outlined below accurately reflect the public interest in this particular case.) a. Minimize the existing parking space deficiency and provide, as far as possible, adequate parking for the church. b. Maintain ordinance standards for and driving lanes to ensure that the lot functions properly in accommodating church traffic. C. Provide screening of off street parking areas as required by City Ordinance. d. Provide adequate drain space to the site. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique in that the parcel in question is to be put to use to alleviate an- existing deficiency in the parking required for the church and will not be recognized as grounds for further expansion. 3. The alledged hardship is related to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which cannot all be met simultaneously in this case. The hardship was not created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of lard in that it was platted in a size and shape to serve residential as opposed to institutional needs. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighhorhood, so long as the conditions attached to the approval of the site are met. ` Voting in favor: Mayor Nvauist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott; voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Applications No. 80030 and 80031. He stated that Application No. 80030 was submitted by Merila- Hansen /Village Builders, Inc. for site and building plan approval to construct a ten unit townhouse project west of Humboldt, just north of 67th Avenue North. Application No. 80031, he stated, was submitted by Merila- Hansen /'tillage Builders for preliminary plat approval to create ten townhouse lots in one common area on a property described on Applica- tion No. 80030. He added that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Applications No. 8CO30 and 80031 at its Aucust MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 17, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Willson at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Tim Willson, Commissioners Donald Booth, Mark Holmes, Graydon Boeck, and Kathryn Palm. Also present were the Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Ruth McLaurin. Commissioners Robert Mickelson and Dianne Reem were excused from the meeting. g APPROVAL OF MIN ITE4 -JUNE 19 2995 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck and seconded by Commissioner Booth to approve the minutes of the June 19, 1995 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Commissioners Holmes and Reem abstained because they were not at that meeting. CHAIRPERSON'S EXPLANATION Chairperson Willson explained the Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 95011 Chairperson Willson introduced the first item of business, a request from Robert L. and Marlene Overpeck for Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North. The Secretary presented the staff report, used overhead transparencies to show the Iocation and detail (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 95011, attached). 8 -17 -95 1 TO 39Vcd �13AVS3WIl L9TTS8L 80 :9T S66T /SZ /80 The Secretary requested to present the staff report for Application 95012, since the applicant is the same. _APPLICATION NO 95012 Chairperson Willson introduced the next item of business, a request from Robert L. and Marlene Overpeck for a variance form Section 35400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15 -1068 of the Subdivision Ordinance to create a corner lot in the R -1 zoning district less than 90 feet in width. The Secretary presented the staff report, used overhead transparencies to show the location and detail (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 95012, attached). Chairperson Willson, noting the area where any structure might go on the newly formed lot, inquired if there would be a possibility that the shrubs would be removed during development. The Secretary noted this would be a strong possibility. Chairperson Willson, in reference to the staff report and previous Planning Commission meeting minutes, noted the Harron Methodist Church would need to provide screening as per condition in the original Special Use Permit. The Secretary indicated that would be correct, the Church had agreed to screen should the shrubs ever be removed or die out. Chairperson Willson suggested an additional condition to the approval of this application, could be notification to the Church of the potential removal of the shrubs, therefore, requiring the implementation of the condition of their Special Use Permit. Commissioner Boeck questioned if the formula of setback averaging is still used. The Secretary indicated this formula is no longer used, the fact that the house on the other lot is set up further would not effect the setback requirements of the corner lot. PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO 95011 and 950121 Chairperson Willson asked for a motion to open the public hearing on both requests for Applications 95011 and 95012 at 8:12 p.m. There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck and seconded by Commissioner Holmes to open the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Willson asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ed Holloway, 5501 Emerson, inquired as to the zoning of this property, his concern was for the building of a double bungalow or a storage garage. The Secretary indicated the zoning is R -1 Single Family Residential, although this would not prohibit rental of the home to another single family. 8 -17 -95 2 • Z0 29td - d3AVS3WI1 L9TTS8L 89:9T G66T /EZ /80 Ms. Melanie Strandmark, 5511 Dupont, indicated her property also borders the parking lot of the church. Ms. Strandmark expressed concern that there is not adequate screening prodded by the Church along the edge of the parking lot bordering her property. Ms. Strandmark feels the trees there do not properly screen the parking lot. The Secretary pointed out the trees are for screening purposes, not security purposes. Ms. Strandmark indicated she had approached the City in regard to fencing instead of the trees and was told the shrubs were screening established as adequate, because the trees were planted by the Church for screening purposes. Ms. Strandmark indicated there is some conflict as to the true location of the shrubs, whether it is on the Church's property or hers. The Secretary explained if the City has made a determination the trees are appropriate or adequate as screening, it would not be appropriate to the change their mind, unless the current screening is not serving its function. Ms. Strandmark indicated she felt the trees were not adequate, and are collecting debris, not screening. The Secretary noted as he recalled the Church did plant screening on the north side, but the issue would change if the trees were on the resident's property. Ms. Bernice Carmeron, 5527 Dupont, inquired as to the name change of the addition. The Secretary explained the reason for the name as Overpeck addition is in regard to the plat, every time a plat is registered, it is necessary to give it a name that has not been used before. The Secretary pointed out, this would not effect any of the surrounding lots, they would still remain the same. Chairperson Willson asked the applicant if there were any agreements between the Church and himself in regard easements. Mr. Robert Overpeck indicated there were no agreement to his knowledge, he purchased the property in February of this year. Commissioner Boeck inquired if the property owner would pay assessments for water hook up to the newly formed lot. The Secretary believed the assessments have already been paid, but would investigate and this information would also become available through the platting process. The Secretary asked the applicant if the current home is being rented out. Mr. Overpeck indicated yes it was being rented until early September. The Secretary pointed out Brooklyn Center does require a rental license. Chairperson Willson called for any more questions for the applicant or for anyone else to speak at the public hearing. . 8 -17 -95 3 £B 2998 c�2AVS23WI1 Z9TT98Z 80 :9T 966TI8Z180 �E PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes and seconded by Commissioner Booth to close the public hearing at 8.28 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. y A e ION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO APPLICATION 950 12 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck and seconded by Commissioner Booth to recommend approval of Application No. 95012 submitted by Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck for a variance from Section 35 -400 and Section 15 -1068 of the Ci ty Ordinances to create a corner lot in the R -1 District less than 90 feet on the grounds that the Standards for Variance contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are met as well as the long- standing City policy for granting minor lot variances. Voting in favor: Chairperson Willson, Commissioners Booth, Palm, Boeck, and Holmes. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO APPLICATION 9 50 11 There was a motion by Commissioner Booth and seconded by Commissioner Boeck to recommend approval of Application No. 95011 submitted by Robert L. and Marlene A- Overpeck subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the final provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairperson Willson, Commissioners Booth, Palm, Boeck, and Holmes. The motion passed unanimously. ne Secretary noted that both applications will be referred to the City Council at the August 28, 1995 meeting. The applicant is required to be present at the City Council meeting. If any changes or modifications are made to the plans prior to City Council consideration, they must be brought back before the Planning Commission for review. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Willson directed staff to notify the Church of the potential development on the northeast corner of 55th and Emerson Avenues by way of letter. He noted the letter could notify the Church that Preliminary Plat process has begun and the fact that the shrubs may in the future be removed, therefore requiring the Church to screen its parking lot from the property. The Secretary indicated he would notify the Church and will remind them of Condition number eight of their Special Use Permit. 8 -17 -95 4 tr0 _JCd L9ZZ98! 80 =9t r=66T /Czl80 Commissioner Palm noted that the condition in the Special Use Permits notes if the screening fails it should be replaced. She inquired what does the City do if the screening dies off or is no longer screening. Chairperson Willson indicated the Planning Commission itself does not act on this, but the City's Code Compliance Officer would receive a complaint and then investigate and enforce any conditions subject to the Special Use Permit. The Secretary noted the next meeting is August 31, 1995, but at this time there is no applications to address. He indicated he would notify the Commission should this meeting be canceled. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes and seconded by Commissioner Booth to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Chairperson Recorded and transcribed by Ruth McLaurin Timesaver Off Site Secretarial • 8 -17.95 5 S0 39C8 �13AVS3WI1 L9TTSSL 80 :9T S66T/'EZl80 Coamcil Meeting Date 8-28.95 31 City o, f Brooklyn Center A lwn Nua dwr 9 16_ Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Planning Commission Application No. 95012 submitted by Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck. Department Approval: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zonin Spetilst i t Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: This application was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its August 17, 1995 meeting subject to conditions of approval. . Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) Planning Commission Application No. 95012 submitted by Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck is a request for a Variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 12 -106g of the Subdivision Ordinance to create a corner lot in the R -1 zoning district less than 90' in width. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its August 17, 2995 meeting. Attached are minutes, information sheets and maps from that meeting. r Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 95012 Applicant: Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck Location: 5500 Emerson Avenue North Request: Variance The applicants request approval of a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15 -106g of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a subdivision in the R -1 zoning district which would result in the creation of a corner lot less than 90 ft. in width. The property in question is located at the northeast corner of 55th and Emerson Avenues and is the subject of a requested Preliminary Plat Approval under Planning Commission Application No. 95011. The application is subject to the standards contained in Section 15 -112 of the Subdivision Ordinance and those contained in Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached). The applicants have submitted a brief letter requesting the variance noting that the proposed variance is only 2.4 ft. below the minimum 90 ft. width for a corner lot. They state that it is their intention to sell this lot or place a single family residence on it. They note the lot size (11,864 sq. ft.) and setback requirements allow adequate footage to accomplish placement of a home on that lot. They also note that they believe this would be a positive influence on the neighborhood as well as additional tax base for Brooklyn Center. The letter really does not address the standards contained in the above cited provisions of the ordinance. The language contained in these provisions relate to uniqueness, hardship and non- detrimental effect on nearby property. There has developed over the years a policy regarding lot variances that the City has followed and a number of variances have been granted utilizing this policy. The policy is basically that lot variances will be granted if the following apply: 1. At least two of three lot standards (width, depth, and area) are met. 2. There are no resulting setback deficiencies created by the allowed subdivision. 3. The proposal generally seems reasonable, does not create any unorthodox situations such as lack of frontage on a public street and the variance is minimized. The above policy appears to be met in this case. The lot on which the existing two -story house will be located is 107.4 ft. in width with an approximate 135.4 ft. depth and an area of 14,548 sq. ft. all of which exceed the minimum standards for an interior lot. The proposed corner lot would be 87.6 ft. in width with an average depth of approximately 135.4 ft. and a lot area of 11,864 sq. ft. exceeding the lot depth and area requirements contained in the ordinance. The reason the new corner lot is 2.4 ft. short of the minimum 90 ft. width requirement is to maintain a 10 ft. interior yard building setback requirement for the existing 8 -17 -95 Page 1 house. As pointed out in the previous report, if a side yard setback is less than 10 ft., no doors, windows and openings are allowed to be along the side wall where such a setback would exist. It would be possible to have a 90 ft. corner lot, but would require extensive remodeling and alteration to the home to create the entrance that the applicants propose to have for this home. It, therefore, seems reasonable to allow the 2.4 ft. setback variance on the proposed corner lot. A public hearing has been scheduled with this variance request and notices to surrounding property owners have been set. It would be appropriate to hold the public hearing for the Variance concurrently with the public hearing for Preliminary Plat approval required under Application No. 95011. In conclusion, we believe the standards for Variance contained in both the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance are met as well as the long standing policy utilized by the City for granting relatively minor lot width variances. Any action should cite the variance standards and compliance with the city policy mentioned above. 8 -17 -95 Page 2 vu �I NElYfON AVE N. Oq a. •- `�,� EiRL `E DROw, G. GAN v IQ�.[I A �I j ' _ KWIT DR, _ L1...L 1_.L1�LJ _ I . LGGAN ,AVE N. DCA AVE. N. t3_�� It 1...1_lJ � '•-- ` , � EAtu.E O DR. ff � i r N_ 1 1 1 1 _— •N 1111 JA4fES AVE. N. ;<� (' Ll _ mm a E M E � � F --- m - fl �' gggf _ -- RN ( �� - - IRVINC MA.N ' N �� fwMODLOT A E HUUDOL DT AVE I .r �: *i k -+ I ��rr/ L I [ - �L�� J _1 A T T r v L_ i GIRARD AVE. N. 1ll1I1.111.1111. �}'mr 11 ' 1'1�f �f''-i GIRAAD AVE. N. @ GIRARD AVE. A H �_ +___ �IITI[ITIITII 1 L7LIT_IT_IIT L I__1 -1_ I I L t � 1 I FT � r 31 � � _� - Tp7 7"�j� � _ . _ j - T - '�j� = �� - -- _ H - -- - H m - �{ y - f ffl AVE Al . II [TIIIIIIlTTIii L LI f LL� �T < < y 1111 II -_ z H fIII1IDIIIIl1[1 D I '�1'T 1 1 1 ' FRE {� Y � D t ( / - � T { - A } A VE. N ((- < p p O I (1TT ((��jjff1 O �. -L1-1J 'R' A �t- E'{EkSG� i E AYE. N LLLLIIiltllillll __ l CD a ' sw 11.lIIlllljllllll - O Ocf KM fI m I �Il" (TM 1M KTO �� .° KEA z �t_��_� tD TiI [ COLFAX AYE. N. ---J �_ I-. B n`t - w1 ffttN +l --� [ .-- u-3 - �I BRYANT AVE. N. < z _ AL DRI6{ AVE. N. _ � [ A LDRICH AVE '• --- .n z N 3AY --' I- CALDEN i GUIDEN AYE. N. .... AYE_N. 1 y y --- -� •1 -H Y- '�'�,. -.��1J _ `M1ALE Aye _ cn 9n C/I f ILLOW SSI / R I VER N 15 -112 Section 15 -112 VARIANCES. The council may authorize a variance from these regulations when in its opinion, undue hardship may result from strict compliance. In granting any variance the council shall prescribe only conditions that it deems necessary to or desirable for the public interest. In making its findings as required herein below, the council shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the propsoed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. To grant a variance, the council shall find: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant o the reasonable use of his land. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said property is situated. b. Application for any such variance shall be made in writing by the subdivider at the time when the preliminary plat is filed for the consideration of the council, stating fully and clearly all facts relied upon by the petitioner and shall be supplemented with maps, plans or other additional data which may aid the council in the analysis of the proposed project. The plans for such development shall include such covenants, restrictions, or other legal provisions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan. Section 15 -112 Revised 2 -95 35 -240 d. No less than seven (7) days before the date of the hearing, the Secretary to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners or occupants within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject property. The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings thereunder. e. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall report its recommendations to the City Council not later than sixty (60) days following the date of referral to the Board. f. The application and recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council within eighteen (18) days following the recommendation of the Board, or in the event the Board has failed to make a recommendation, within seventy -eight (78) days of the date of referral to the Board. g. The City Council shall make a final determination of the application within forty -eight (48) days of the recommendation by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, or in the event the Board has failed to make any recommendation, within one hundred and eight (108) days of referral to the Board. h. The applicant or his agent shall appear at each meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and of the City Council during which the application is considered. Furthermore, each applicant shall provide for the Board or the City Council, as the case may be, the maps, drawings, plans, records or other information requested by the Board or the City Council for the purpose of assisting the determination of the application. i. The Secretary of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals following the Board's action upon the application, the City Clerk, following the City Council's action upon the application, shall give the applicant a written notice of the action taken. A copy of this notice shall be kept on file as a part of the permanent record of the application. 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 35 -240 a. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. C. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to ac rotect adjacent ent properties. J MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 17, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Willson at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Tim Willson, Commissioners Donald Booth, Mark Holmes, Graydon Boeck, and Kathryn Palm. Also present were the Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Ruth McLaurin. Commissioners Robert Mickelson and Dianne Reem were excused from the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 19 1995 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck and seconded by Commissioner Booth to approve the minutes of the June 19, 1995 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Commissioners Holmes and Reem abstained because they were not at that meeting. RPERSON'S EXPLANATION Chairperson Willson cxplained the Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO 95011 Chairperson Willson introduced the first item of business, a request from Robert L. and Marlene Ove eck for Preliminary Plat at a royal to subdivide az'y into two lots th PP a arcel of land addressed as 5500 Emerson Avenue North. P The Secretary presented the staff report, used overhead transparencies to show the location and detail (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for .Application No. 95011, attached). 8 -17 -95 1 TO 39vd Z�3AVS3WI1 L9TT98t 80:9T S66T /8Z/80 The Secretary requested to present the staff report for Application 95012, since the applicant is the same. APPLICATION NO 95012 Chairperson Willson introduced the next item of business, a request from Robert L. and Marlene Overpeck for a variance form Section 35400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15 -1068 of the Subdivision Ordinance to create a corner lot in the R -1 zoning district less than 90 feet in width. The Secretary presented the staff report, used overhead transparencies to show the location and detail (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 95012, attached). Chairperson Willson, noting the area where any structure might go on the newly formed lot, inquired if there would be a possibility that the shrubs would be removed during development. The Secretary noted this would be a strong possibility. Chairperson Willson, in reference to the staff report and previous Planning Commission meeting minutes, noted the Harron Methodist Church would need to provide screening as per condition in the original Special Use Permit. The Secretary indicated that would be correct, the Church had agreed to screen should the shrubs ever be removed or die out. Chairperson Willson suggested an additional condition to the approval of this application, could be notification to the Church of the potential removal of the shrubs, therefore, • requiring the implementation of the condition of their Special Use Permit. Commissioner Boeck questioned if the formula of setback averaging is still used. The Secretary indicated this formula is no longer used, the fact that the house on the other lot is set up further would not effect the setback requirements of the corner lot. PUBLIC HEARING JAULICATION NO 95011 and 950121 Chairperson Willson asked for a motion to open the public hearing on both requests for Applications 95011 and 95012 at 8:12 p.m. There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck and seconded by Commissioner Holmes to open the public uI p p is hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairperson Willson asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Commission. Mr. Ed Holloway, 5501 Emerson, inquired as to the zoning of this property, his concern was for the building of a double bungalow or a storage garage. The Secretary indicated the zoning is R -1 Single Family Residential, although this would not prohibit rental of the home to another single family. 8 -17 -95 2 c0 39dd �3ncS3WI1 L9TTSBI 80:9T S66T /EZ /80 Ms. Melanie Strandmark, 5511 Dupont, indicated her property also borders the parking lot of the church. Ms. Strandmark expressed concern that there is not adequate screening provided by the Church along the edge of the parking lot bordering her property. Ms. Strandmark feels the trees there do not properly screen the parking lot. The Secretary pointed out the trees are for screening purposes, not security purposes. Ms. Strandmark indicated she had approached the City in regard to fencing instead of the trees and was told the shrubs were screening established as adequate, because the trees were planted by the Church for screening purposes. Ms. Strandmark indicated there is some conflict as to the true location of the shrubs, whether it is on the Church's property or hers. The Secretary explained if the City has made a determination the trees are appropriate or adequate as screening, it would not be appropriate to the change their mind, unless the current screening is not serving its function. Ms. Strandmark indicated she felt the trees were not adequate, and are collecting debris, not screening. The Secretary noted as he recalled the Church did plant screening on the north side, but the issue would change if the trees were on the resident's property. Ms. Bernice Carmeron, 5527 Dupont, inquired as to the name change of the addition. The Secretary explained the reason for the name as Overpeck addition is in regard to the plat, every time a plat is registered, it is necessary to give it a name that has not been used before. The Secretary pointed out, this would not effect any of the surrounding lots, they would still remain the same. Chairperson Willson asked the applicant if there were any agreements between the Church and himself in regard easements. Mr. Robert Overpeck indicated there were no agreement to his knowledge, he purchased the property in February of this year. Commissioner Boeck inquired if the property owner would pay assessments for water hook up to the newly formed lot. The Secretary believed the assessments have already been paid, but would investigate and this information would also become available through the platting process. The Secretary asked the applicant if the current home is being rented out. Mr. Overpeck indicated yes it was being rented until early September. The Secretary pointed out Brooklyn Center does require a rental Iicense. Chairperson Willson called for any more questions for the applicant or for anyone else to speak at the public hearing. 8 -17 -95 £0 39dd d3AVS3WI1 LSTT98L 80:9T S66T /EZ /80 , E PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes and seconded by Commissioner Booth to close the public hearing at 8 :28 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION BF-COMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLI CATION NO APPLICATION 2S12 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck and seconded by Commissioner Booth to recommend approval of Application No. 95012 submitted by Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeek for a variance from Section 35 -400 and Section 15 -106g of the City Ordinances to create a corner lot in the R -1 District less than 90 feet on the grounds that the Standards for Variance contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are met as well as the long - standing City policy for granting minor lot variances. Voting in favor: Chairperson Willson, Commissioners Booth, Palm, Boeck, and Holmes. The motion passed unanimously. A N RECOMMENDING AP ROVAL OF APP 9 11 I ATION N APPLICATION There was a motion by Commissioner Booth and seconded by Commissioner Boeck to recommend approval of Application No. 95011 submitted by .Robert L. and Marlene A. Overpeck subject to the following conditions: L The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the final provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairperson Willson, Commissioners Booth, Palm, Boeck, and Holmes. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary noted that both applications will be referred to the City Council at the August 28, 1995 meeting. The applicant is required to be present at the City Council meeting. If any changes or modifications are made to the plans prior to City Council consideration, they must be brought back before the Planning Commission for review. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Willson directed staff to notify the Church of the potential development on the northeast corner of 55th and Emerson Avenues by way of letter. He noted the letter could notify the Church that Preliminary Plat process has begun and the fact that the shrubs may in the future be removed, therefore requiring the Church to screen its parking lot from the property. The Secretary indicated he would notify the Church and will remind them of Condition number eight of their Special ial g Use s Permit. t. 8 -17 -95 4 b0 29yd d3AtS3wIi L9TTS8L 80:9T S66T /£Z /80 Commissioner Palm noted that the condition in the Special Use Permits notes if the screening fails it should be replaced. She inquired what does the City do if the screening dies off or is no longer screening. Chairperson Willson indicated the Planning Commission itself does not act on this, but the City's Code Compliance Officer would receive a complaint and then investigate and enforce any conditions subject to the Special Use Permit. The Secretary noted the next meeting is August 31, 1995, but at this time there is no applications to address. He indicated he would notify the Commission should this meeting be canceled. AVJOURNMENl There was a motion by Commissioner Holmes and seconded by Commissioner Booth to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Chairperson Recorded and transcnbed by Ruth McUurin TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial i 8 -17 -95 5 92 39vd d3ndS3wZl L9TT98L 80:9T 966T/6Z180 Council Meeting Daze 8/28/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number tion: Item Descri Request For Council Consideration P Cooperative Agreement Expanding the City's Inter -City Sewer Agreement with Brooklyn Park Allowing Connection of Additional Properties to the Brooklyn Center Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems Department Approval: Scott A. r' , Ciry Engine Manager's Review /Recommendation: , No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: A resolution authorizing connection of three properties on Noble Avenue in Brooklyn Park to the Brooklyn Center sanitary sewer and water systems is attached for consideration. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) In a number of areas of the City, Brooklyn Center has by cooperative agreement allowed connections to its water and sanitary sewer systems, or connected to adjoining city's systems. This cooperative approach provides for the most cost - effective use of resources and eliminates unnecessary duplication of services. Three properties on Noble Avenue in Brooklyn Park, which are located south of Shingle Creek, have not previously been hooked up to city water and sewer. During discussions with Brooklyn Park regarding the Woodbine Neighborhood project, Brooklyn Park staff indicated that they'd like to use this opportunity to accomplish these hookups. Since it would be cost prohibitive to extend water and sewer south across the creek to serve these three homes, Brooklyn Park proposed to extend this service from Brooklyn Center's mains at Noble Avenue and Woodbine Lane. Brooklyn Park staff have worked out arrangements with the three property owners, have developed plans and specs, and propose to use a procedure called directional boring to extend service north from Woodbine Lane along Noble Avenue to these three properties. Directional boring provides for an underground tunneling or "trenchless" method of installing utility services without trenching and disturbing property. This procedure would coordinate with our street improvement project. They hope to have this work done by September 15. The attached draft of a cooperative agreement is consistent with the "master" inter -city sewer agreement between Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. Brooklyn Park agrees to pay all costs associated with the extension of service; agrees to maintain the leads and services; agrees to pay hookup charges for the three properties; and guarantees that the property owners will pay water and sanitary sewer fees under the same rate structure as other Brooklyn Center utility customers. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 Brooklyn Park further agrees that even though the agreement stipulates that each City owns the • facilities located in their communities, Brooklyn Park will be responsible for the repair and replacement, should it become necessary, of the lead all the way to its connection at Woodbine. This agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, who has suggested some minor modifications which have been pencilled in on the attached draft. We recommend approval. • • NELSON � JOHNSON �� " "='' "' 7227 NOBLE AVEID 1 72 28 OBLE AVE 7 O8 4108000 7328 NOBLE 5VE ` 2 — 1�4 -00 3 28 -41 -0139 I II A A 0 0 Z Z I \ z A HOUSE I \\ I I I I \ RET WALLI I HAND RAIL I I \ 12' MAPLE 6" ASH B MAPLE V n Dc 8 "6P1.U0 < < -- < — 1100 ` � 3fOO q, 4,00 ' ' I < -- -�_--�{-( RCP - ..___» ------- /( '� ,. 0 JI STEEL — c j ='- c� -� -- - -- c c -- c c c c c �' .E�, V SEE WM SER. DETAIL c c c c �� c \ -1- c - -- c -- \ J f #1 \ \ \ \ W ATE < I 5" APLE B' MAPLE 48" OAK >�AV', SEE MH #1 DETAIL ELM CLUMP'i) \\ 2 ASH I It 2 -8" BIRCH ' \ N GLUND LA TORREY ►n Z U HA I WRENCE \ \ ,.VE M 4618 WOODBINE LANE o 0 7300 NOBLE AVE� 7306 NOBLE AVE �\ - 1 ft I < 1 2 r 27 -32 -0075 ° ° 27 -23 -0001 M 27 -23 -0005 \ CIS Z Z \ z \ �\ fTl � AI � ^ r� HOUSE HOUSE I I ` NOB AVE E n9 in eeain9 CrrYOF BROMLYN 5200 85th Ave. No., Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 -4300 ■ Phone 612 424 -8000 ■ Fax 612 493 -8391 PARK TDD 612 493 -8392 GARY E. BROWN, P_E_ City Engiracen August 22, 1995 Scott Brink, P.E. City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Subject: Joint Powers Agreement Dear Scott: Please find enclose a d copy of a draft Cooperative Joint Powers Agreement for the three water and sewer services which the City of Brooklyn Park would like to propose constructing on Noble Avenue. The City of Brooklyn Park has determined that it is not economically feasible to serve these residents with City of Brooklyn Park water and sewer due to the fact that a lift station would have to be constructed to pump the sewage under Shingle Creek and these three residents would also require the construction of a Shingle Creek crossing for both utilities. The City of Brooklyn Park desires to utilize directional boring equipment to construct these services. This will dramatically reduce the need for a considerable amount of restoration on Woodbine Lane or Noble Avenue. It is hoped that we can minimize this impact and n e i within work w + o com let_ o.___ �:o�,_ .. _ _h_r_ ..he n few weeks prior to the final lift going on Woodbine Lane and on Noble Avenue. If you have any questions regarding this agreement please feel free to contact me as soon as possible so that we may resolve this as quickly as possible. It is my desire to have this on our City Council agenda for August 28, 1995. Sincerely, Gary Brown, P.E. Dire tar of Engineering GEB /md Enclosure M M W � 7 COOPERATIVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THREE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES ON NOBLE AVENUE SOUTH OF SHINGLE CREEK BETWEEN BROOKLYN PARK AND BROOKLYN CENTER THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1995, by and between the City of Brooklyn Park, herein referred to as "Brooklyn Park;" and the City of Brooklyn Center, herein referred to as "Brooklyn Center." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center are desirous of providing water and sanitary sewer services to three residential properties on Noble Avenue northerly of Woodbine Lane and south of Shingle Creek, and; is currently Center Y in the process of WHEREAS, Brooklyn reconstructing streets on Woodbine Lane and overlaying Noble Avenue, and prior to the completion of the street improvements, there is an opportunity to tap into existing Brooklyn Center watermains and sanitary sewer lines, and; WHEREAS, the three residential properties mentioned above are in need of these facilities, and; WHEREAS, it has been determined by the Brooklyn Park City Engineer that it is feasible to construct sanitary sewer and water services to the City of Brooklyn Center in the most economical and feasible manner, and; WHEREAS, Brooklyn Park desires to use directional boring equipment to minimize the impacts and drastically reduce the restoration costs to its residents and to minimize impacts to Brooklyn Center facilities, and; WHEREAS, Brooklyn Park will construct these facilities within the Brooklyn Center right -of -way, coordinating this work with other utility companies, and; WHEREAS, Minnesota statutes section 471.59 allows Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement to plan and construct public utilities on common boundaries between two cities. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties to this agreement as follows: 1. That Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, by executing this agreement, mutually approve Brooklyn Park as the lead agency and agree to review and approve plans and specifications for said water and sanitary sewer improvements. Brooklyn Center shall provide Brooklyn Park with all available data and _7 0 J CT n' 1 11\1 _ J0 TT C 77 nnu r,^ nri -, I I . __ materials pertinent to the work program as required to complete this project. This data and material may consist of, but will not be limited to; contour maps, utility and street plans, aerial photos and previous environmental study materials. 2. Brooklyn Park shall provide Brooklyn Center with copies of plans prepared by Brooklyn Park and they shall be reviewed and approved by Brooklyn Center before any work is initiated within the City of Brooklyn Center. 3_ Brooklyn Park shall administer the public contract to construct said improvements and shall inspect the construction of the work contemplated herewith, and all work shall be completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The Brooklyn Center City staff shall have the right, as work progresses, to enter upon the premises to make any inspections deemed necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. Brooklyn Park shall notify the Engineering Department of Brooklyn Center 24 hours prior to initiating any work within Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Park shall require its contractor to correct any deficiencies found by Brooklyn Center within Brooklyn Center's corporate limits. 4. The proposed schedule is to complete the improvement project prior to September 15, 1995. 5. Brooklyn Park shall be responsible for all costs incurred by it including construction, engineering, inspection, and administration cost. 6. Brooklyn Center agrees to allow Brooklyn Park to utilize existing right -of -way on Noble Avenue for the construction of sanitary sewer and water service connections. 7. It is understood and agreed that upon completion of these improvements, all project elements shall be part of the as- built plans prepared by Brooklyn Park and reviewed by Brooklyn Center and shall become the property of the City in which those improvements are located -Jrar and all maintenance and repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by Brooklyn Park. 8. It is'further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to other persons whosoever for claims, damages, actions, or causes of actions of any kind or character rising out of or by reason of performance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein; and each party agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein. Brooklyn Park also agrees that any contract let by Brooklyn Park for performance of work on the C J f Tn nhI On _..T rc 77 nnU improvements as provided for herein shall include clauses that will: 1) Require the contractor to defend, indemnify, and save harmless Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, their officers, agents, and employees from claims, suits, demands, damages, judgements, cost, interest, expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney fees, witness fees and disbursements included in the defense thereof) arising out of or by reason of the negliggence of or the said contractor, its officers, employees, agents, sub -- contractors: and 2) Require the contractor to provide and maintain sufficient insurance so as to insure the performance of its hold harmless obligation. 3) Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of the limitations of liability provided for in Mi nnesota Sta u es , Chapter 466, and neither party shall have any obligation to indemnify the other in any amount in excess \ of the limitations sr liability set forth therein. 9. Brooklyn Park agrees to provide necessary signage warning \ motorists of work being done within the public right -of -way. lo. Users in Brooklyn Park connected to the Brooklyn Center system shall be billed usage charges on the basis of the same and water and sewer rates applicable to users in Brooklyn Center, said charges to be billed directly to the user by Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Park shall guarantee payment of these charges subject to the cooperation of Brooklyn Center in providing information to Brooklyn Park which will allow Brooklyn Park to specially assess unpaid water and sewer use charges. 11. The City of Brooklyn Park will reimburse Brooklyn Center for the connection of these three systems in the equivalent amount of other Brooklyn Center residents for all connection fees. The City of Brooklyn Park will be responsible for collection of these fees from Brooklyn Park residents either through direct charges or through assessments. 12. Brooklyn Center shall not be responsible to any person, firm, or corporation for damages claimed as a result of backing up of sewers in any basement in Brooklyn Park provided that the backup was not caused as a result of negligence of Brooklyn Center employees. 13. Brooklyn Park will be responsible for the service leads from Brooklyn Center utilities- td- *�- '�.w =�^'� areepterl the- hree -vid P oger, ty ss_ wne. y ».Wr Brooklyn Center shall maintain t hei utility system through r- normal maintenance procedure. ?V-AA WD � r f70 J CTn nKt cn• TT r 77 nnu r - - - „_ -- 14 . The water and sanitary sewer constructio k molly mee Par the the property owners in Brooklyn Pa requirements of Brooklyn Park's watermain and sanitary sewer standard specifications, and the uniform b uil d ing code Brook and any special provisions deemed necessary by the City Engineer. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused authorized agreement to be executed by their r e sp officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HX BY Mayor Mayor DATE: DATE: AND: AND: Acting Manager Manager DATE: DATE: (seal) (seal) ;n•a CTn• ON Fn' TT C6", 77 C)n{4 TanO- `Gi-r_7Tn•!Tr v �innirr n r- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONNECTION OF THREE PROPERTIES ON NOBLE AVENUE IN BROOKLYN PARK TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park are desirous of providing water and sanitary sewer services to three residential properties on Noble Avenue northerly of Woodbine Lane and south of Shingle Creek; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center is currently in the process of reconstructing streets on Woodbine Lane and overlaying Noble Avenue, and prior to the completion of the street improvements, there is an opportunity to tap into existing Brooklyn Center water and sanitary sewer main; and WHEREAS, the City Engineers of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center have determined that it is most practical, economic, and feasible to provide for the connection of these three properties prior to the completion of said reconstruction project; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 471.59 allows cities to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement to plan and construct public utilities on common boundaries between two cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The terms of the proposed Cooperative Joint Powers Agreement for Three Water and Sanitary Sewer Services on Noble Avenue South of Shingle Creek between Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center are hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute this agreement on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. The City of Brooklyn Park is hereby authorized to connect the three properties located at 7300, 7301, and 7306 Noble Avenue North to the Brooklyn Center water and sanitary sewer systems. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. Council Meeting Date 08/28/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -05, 69th AVENUE NORTH (SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO DUPONT AVENUE), ROADWAY, BRIDGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Department Approval: /,,o &V// Scoit A. Bri , Ci Eng' er Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • Approve the resolution accepting proposal and authorizing a contract for professional services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -05, 69th Avenue North (Shingle Creek Parkway), Roadway, Bridge, and Utility Improvements. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the City's Comprehensive Plan both have identified the need to upgrade 69th Avenue across the northern part of the City from the west City limits to Dupont Avenue. The segment from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway was completed in 1993. The Capital Improvement Program has programmed the segment from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue for construction in 1996. The City Council on November 28, 1994 authorized the development of an RFP for professional services for this project. The proposed improvement of 69th Avenue from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue includes many specific improvement items in addition to the reconstruction of the roadway ' itself. Included in this project would be the following: 1. Reconstruction/upgrade of the roadway from a 2 -lane rural design to a 2 -lane urban design with concrete curb and gutter and additional turning lanes where required. 2. Replacement of the bridge over Shingle Creek. This bridge currently is considered structurally deficient according to MnDot standards. 3. Replacement of the existing trunk water main with a larger main. Previous water is distribution studies performed for the City have identified the need to upgrade this primary distribution main to provide further assurances for service and fire protection needs. 4. Trailway construction and adjustments. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for the establishment of a trail link along 69th Avenue between the Shingle Creek/Palmer Lake system and existing and future systems in the northeast part of the City. In addition, Request For Council Consideration Page 2 considerations will be made to improve the safety of the existing crossing of 69th Avenue • at Shingle Creek. 5. Further traffic analysis and studies, particularly at the intersection of Humboldt Avenue and 69th Avenue. 6. Landscaping and enhancements. Landscaping and aesthetic enhancements, consistent with previously completed projects are anticipated to be included in this project. To explain the complexity of this project further, the 69th Avenue project presents some engineering challenges which elevates it above a standard roadway and utility project. Proceeding down the corridor from west (Shingle Creek Parkway) to east (Dupont), these issues can be further described in more detail as follows: • Non - conforming curves. The three horizontal curves on the west end of 69th, while not as dangerous as those which were eliminated or reduced when the segment to the west was realigned, are still nonconforming. In other words, for a 35 mph street, these curves are somewhat tighter and "curvier" than what would typically be designed today. The park, wetlands, and the developed commercial property to the south all constrain the ability to straighten out the curves. However, because it is not proposed to widen the roadway, the curves can be made safer by varying the alignment of the new roadway within the existing right of way, and utilizing various design techniques. • The bridge over Shingle Creek requires replacement. While the bridge replacement itself is fairly straightforward, there are a number of associated design questions. For example, a 16" • water main currently "hangs" from the bridge, as do other utilities. Should the replacement utilities similarly be incorporated into the new bridge design, or should they be undergrounded beneath a creek crossing? The bridge culvert functions as a control structure for Shingle Creek, regulating flow from Palmer Lake. Is this structure adequate; is there need for more /less control; what are the upstream/downstream impacts of modification? The consultant must work closely with the City and the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission to investigate these questions. • An at -grade bicycle /pedestrian crossing currently exists at Shingle Creek. Can this crossing be relocated under a bridge structure, as at Shingle Creek Parkway and at Freeway Boulevard? If not, what other options are available? There are existing wetlands and also newly created wetland mitigation areas in the area of the bridge which may be impacted by a crossing. • In the segment of 69th to the west, in the area of Palmer Lake both Native American and early settler artifacts were located and preserved. An archaeological survey is likely to be required in this segment as well. • Just west of Oliver Avenue, a trail connection should be extended from the Palmer Lake Trail to a new trail located on the south side of 69th. This new trail would be constructed as a part of this improvement project. This new trail is included in the City's comprehensive sidewalk and trail plan, and is currently a "missing link" connecting the Shingle Creek system to the Mississippi River system. • From Oliver Avenue to Humboldt Avenue the roadway changes es character, with residential housing on the north side and commercial or multifamily housing on the south side. At issue here will be accommodating turning movements into driveways, and providing for parking where requested by the residents. Request For Council Consideration Page 3 • At the intersection with Humboldt Avenue, the two major issues are: reducing the grade to • reduce or eliminate the "hump" at the intersection; and evaluating the possibility of installing traffic signals. The signal issue has many implications, among them potential impacts on traffic using Humboldt Avenue as a short cut. A signal was considered during the deliberations regarding traffic on Humboldt, but no consensus was ever reached on whether it should be installed. Based on previous traffic counts, a signal justification study showed that the intersection just barely met warrants. This intersection should be reevaluated and the issue revisited. • The water main along the entire corridor was recommended several years ago in our last comprehensive water study to be upgraded from a 16" main to a 20" main. • A system of landscape enhancements consistent with the types of improvements contemplated for Brooklyn Boulevard would complement this project. Bridge design details, such as concrete and railing treatments; power undergrounding; and decorative lighting are all elements to be considered. The trail crossing at Shingle Creek could be dressed up with some additional plantings, benches, kiosks, etc. • The analysis of drainage within the corridor may require a more detailed, "Phase II" analysis of the neighborhood to the north. This would be in addition to the analysis contemplated in this proposal. Because of the many improvement items associated with this project, the CIP identifies several potential • sources of funding, including regular and local Municipal State Aid, Water Utility, Sanitary Sewer Utility, Storm Drainage Utility and Special Assessments. Among the requirements of the consultant chosen is to rovide a detailed cost estimate for all phases of the project, and recommended funding P , P P J g methods and alternatives; including the possibility of obtaining State bridge construction funds. At this time, it is anticipated that the total project cost may reach 3 million dollars, most of which should be eligible for funding by State Aid. This amount does not include any right of way or property acquisition costs. However, at this time, we do not anticipate a significant amount of additional needed such as property the acquisition of homes. At the City Council meeting of July 24, 1995, a resolution was approved authorizing the request for proposals and solicitation for rofessional services for the above referenced project. A Request for P P J q Proposal (RFP) was forwarded to four (4) consultants, and the City received proposals from all four. The four consultants were as follows: 1. Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc. (TKDA) 2. Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) 3. Orr, Schelen, Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (OSM) 4. Strgar Roscoe Fausch, Inc. (SRF) A team of five staff members evaluated all proposals individually and met as a group to jointly evaluate the proposals and narrow the field to a final selection. The team members consisted of the City Engineer, Director of Public Services, Superintendent of Public Works, Public Services Coordinator, • and Senior Engineering Technician. Proposals were evaluated and considered on the following criteria: 1. The Consultant's general understanding of this project and the City's needs, more specifically explained as follows: A. The Consultant's understanding and sensitivity to the roadway's long term importance and viability to the City. Request For Council Consideration Page 4 B. The Consultant's understanding of the unique facets and related complexities • relating to this project. C. The amount of thought and effort exhibited by the consultant in preparing his /her proposal. 2. The Consulting firm's proven past experience with similar projects. 3. The proven experience of the firm's specific personnel assigned to providing these services. 4. The Consultant's ability to understand the uniqueness of this project and provide the most feasible solution. This would include the Consultant's ability to analyze different design alternatives to determine the highest benefit vs. total construction cost. 5. Total Consultant Fees. A summary of the fees proposed by each consultant is shown below. However, it should be emphasized that fees for consulting services can vary greatly, depending upon the extent of the preliminary design work, what actually will be constructed, and the amount of field construction and inspection required for a particular project and field conditions. In many cases, the specific design service costs are not specifically known until preliminary field work (site surveys, soil borings, etc.) and other information gathering have been completed. All fees submitted as listed below are general estimates for total services (preliminary design, final design, and construction administration and inspection). 1. OSM - $ 365,500 2. SEH - $224,050 3. SRF - $419,646 • 4. TKDA- $299,000 As stated in the Engineer's Report to the Council on July 24, 1995, the consultant's fees for this project were expected to be in excess of $200,000. It should also be mentioned that the figures listed above can be somewhat misleading if interpreted incorrectly. Many consultants express estimated fees and billings in terms of hourly rates not to exceed a maximum amount. Others will provide an estimated amount based on a lump sum basis. Again, the actual total amount will depend heavily upon the results of the preliminary design phase. Estimating construction services can also be tricky, as the actual amount will depend heavily on the construction option, the particular contractor, weather, field conditions, and other factors difficult to predict. The finalist selected, based upon the criteria described was Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH). Based upon the evaluation criteria, SEH stood out highest among all of the submittals. The selection of SEH can further be justified as follows: 1. SEH previously provided consulting services for the portion of 69th Ave. from Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway. That project, despite many technical and administrative challenges, was successfully completed and was awarded "Project of the Year" by the City Engineer's Association of Minnesota (CEAM). Because the two projects are within the same corridor and are inter - related, SEH is very familiar with the project issues, and has already performed much of the preliminary work required for the segment from Shingle Creek Parkway • to Dupont Ave. This may explain, at least in part, why SEH's fees are significantly lower than the other three. 2. The proposal submitted by SEH was clearly more detailed and thought out than the other three. All of the unique engineering aspects of this project were clearly identified and explained, Request For Council Consideration Page 5 thus demonstrating a very thorough understanding of the issues. It was clear that SEH expended • a significant amount of time, effort, and thought in putting their proposal together. 3. SEH, and their personnel assigned to this project have not only proven themselves capable of performing similar projects in Brooklyn Center, but in many other municipalities as well. 4. Estimated project fees submitted by SEH are significantly lower than the other three. Should the Council award a contract for services to SEH, the consultant will immediately commence information gathering and preliminary design work for this project. Following is an anticipated breakdown of the work tasks and schedule: 1. Preliminary design work to be completed by November /December 1995: This phase of the work will also consist of site surveys, information gathering, feasibility studies, costs /phasing considerations and evaluation of all design and technical alternatives. 2. Final Design: Completion of p lans and technical specifications in earl 1996. g P P P Y 3. Construction Services: Opening of bids, award of contract and construction management and inspection. It is anticipated that actual construction will commence in the Spring of 1996. The preliminary estimated cost of this project is $2.5 - 3.0 million dollars. Because of the relatively large cost, funding is anticipated to be provided by a variety of different sources. Depending upon the • availability of funds, and the result of the preliminary design, it may be more cost effective to phase or spread the project over two years rather than performing the entire project in 1996. A decision regarding this matter would be best made after the completion of preliminary design work, and the completion of a feasibility report by the consultant. As previously stated, anticipated sources of funding would include regular and local Municipal State Aid, Water Utility, Sanitary Sewer Utility, Storm Drainage Utility and Special Assessments. Upon authorization by the City Council, staff will commence negotiating a detailed contract with SEH, including the preparation of a specific work plan, and compensation. At this time, the cost of professional services as submitted by SEH is $224,000, which is less than 10% of the estimated project cost (2.5 -3.0 million dollars). By way of comparison, a general rule of thumb is that generally, engineering costs range from 10 -20% of project cost, depending on the project's complexity. As previously explained, the total cost of providing final design and construction services is heavily P Y P � P g g Y dependent upon the results of the preliminary design. We therefore recommend that negotiation of a contract for preliminary design services be executed at this time, with provisions to later amend the contract for additional services. Subsequent amendment to the agreement /contract will be based upon the estimated amounts provided by SEH in their proposal. It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing staff to enter into a contract with Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) to provide for professional services for this project. • WIN was C� I son wn i�i'I�i =r "11 mil 1 ia' PON � i 1 111 �� . ��, ::.,.,,, ...� i / 1 i'! ■ ■ ■�� • _ • �jr��jr ��j�� i 3 • i� ■ r1 ilk � 1- 11 1 � ►�� • " �� ♦ ' ■Iii = . 1 =Ii ■� ��♦ ►1//1111 '�I�i � i1i■ 1 1 1 �■■ ♦��,�� i11 ��►�►� 1111 ..•�i 1 Ills /1 1111 ��1 ►� .: �r �� ■ �■ © 1 i 1 i � - 1�1�111 111 /li �� • � �� ♦ r11� ■■ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -05, 69th AVENUE NORTH (SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY TO DUPONT AVENUE), ROADWAY, BRIDGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Director of Public Services has informed the City Council that 69th Avenue from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue has been identified in the Capital Improvement Program as requiring specific scheduled improvements and upgrading in 1996. Improvements include roadway upgrade, water main replacement, bridge replacement, storm sewer construction, trail way construction, and other improvements as required; and WHEREAS, the City's Policy for the Procurement of Professional Services requires that no solicitation for professional services for contracts greater than $15,000 be commenced until the consent to do so has been obtained from the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably, expects to expend monies from local and regular Municipal State Aid accounts, water utility, sanitary sewer utility, storm drainage utility funds and special assessments to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for a P onion of such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax - exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from Municipal State Aid, special assessments, or utility fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) and directed staff to solicit for professional services to provide for the design and construction of said improvement project; and WHEREAS, staff has evaluated four (4) candidates that provide professional services for improvement projects of this nature; and WHEREAS, staff as recommended that Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) be chosen to provide these professional services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate and prepare an agreement with SEH, Inc. to provide for professional services for the preliminary design of said 69th Avenue Improvement Project with provisions to further amend the agreement for final design and construction services upon completion of the preliminary design and feasibility report. Said agreement shall be based upon the proposal submitted by SEH, providing complete professional services (preliminary design, final design and construction services) at an estimated cost of $224,050. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute RESOLUTION NO. said agreement in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center. Any amendments shall be approved by the City Council. 2. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. The resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2, or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. 9� To: Mayor Kragness Councilmember Kalligher Councilmember Mann Councilmember Hilstrom From: Councilmember Carmody Date: August 24, 1995 Subject: Possible team building ideas to improve communications between councilmembers. Since June, I have been trying to think of ways to improve our meetings and the way we communicate with each other. Deb and I had a long conversation after Monday nights work session. It was obvious throughout the conversation that at various times, because all of the councilmembers are in a somewhat defensive mode since the beginning of May, we are not telling each other what it is we want to accomplish, let alone adequately explaining what process we want to use to get there. Because of that I am proposing that we within the next month perhaps have some sort of team - building or communications session that would resolve this situation. I have not fully explored any specific options but I have three alternatives and would hope that you try to think of your own options that would be beneficial. 1. Back in June when I went to the LMC conference in Duluth, I was very upset about all that had happened and asked Joel Jamnik if he knew of any kind of mentoring program for new city councilmembers so that I could talk to somebody who in no way was associated with the politics of this city but had had experience with "dysfuntional" councils. There wasn't one. This past Tuesday, I asked Cam if he would look into the League helping us with some sort of seminar or session on both communication and parliamentary procedure. While this would be very professional and helpful, I am assuming that it would also cost us something. 2. In early July, I spoke to Bonnie Lukes, Director of the North Hennepin Mediation Program, at an apartment manager's meeting. I've known her casually since I was on the Human Rights and Resources Commission. I relayed to her some things that were going on and that we often couldn't agree on the ground rules for the discussion, let alone what it was we were discussing. I jokingly added that we needed mediation. She said that since the city pays North Hennepin Mediation, we may use their services at no additional charge. She added that they would provide an independent mediator from outside the city, if we wanted to pursue that route. Is 3. After the Charter Commission meeting, I spoke with Tony Kuefler about the problems that occurred at Monday night's work session. I told him that I had hoped we had hit bottom because actual fist fights would be the only thing that could be worse. He said that he had spoken to 'Rod Snyder about helping the council informally try to resolve our differences. Tony has experience doing this from his work at NSP and while I am not familiar with Rod's background except that it was in education, I respect him and have called him a few times to get his input or help me with problem solving. Tony mentioned that he's a Republican and Rod's a Democrat, so ideologically they are miles apart and would hopefully be above suspicion of collusion. I sure that the motive of both men is to help the city, and I appreciate the offer. It, too, would be no charge. Please consider these options, come up with your own, add to mine, whatever. Deb and I in our conversation agreed that frequently we want to get to the same place but are more at odds as to how to what process to use to get there. Right now I think we would all agree that we want to stop the in- fighting and try to work for the betterment of the city. I don't mind the fact that we have different opinions or communication styles. But if the way we communicate impedes progress in the city, we aren't really doing our job. City of Brooklyn Center Memorandum / To: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Councilmember Hilstrom DATE: August 24, 1995 SUBJECT: Concern with Communications I am requesting that Council consider developing guidelines and policies in respect to communications between the Council and staff and /or commissions, and the Interim City Manager be directed to study and report to the Council on possible improvements in this matter. If members of the Council have questions or want more information from me on this matter, please call me.