Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 07-24 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 24, 1995 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order -7 14 2. Roll Call rL O �-} CA 05 3. Opening Ceremonies ,A. Council Report Presentation - None 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agp da� -The following items are considered to �ounciland will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes ® - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from I , the vote on the minutes. 1. June 26, 1995 - Executive Session �C 0 /+ 2. June 26, 1995 - Regular Session ILA D t2 3. July 5 1995 - Special Work Session 1 A Resolution /U. Resolution Acknowledging Gift from Target for Park and Recr ation Programs; H g - r3 Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Mobile Computing Devices fo R th e P olice Department and Amending the 1995 General,Fund Budget ��Ct� d. Resolution Calling for Public Hearing with Respect to the Proposed Refinancing of Facilities .for Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II nw .�'. Resolution Directing Staff to Initiate the Sale of Street Improvement Bonds and Tax Increment Bonds and Accepting Proposal for Professional Services 'y Resolution Establishing Project, Accepting Quote, and Awarding a Contract; � Improvement Project No. 1995 -16, Contract 1995 -H, Bryant Avenue Sanita Sewer Extension �C p H /L4 MoL g. Resolu on Declaring a Public Nuisance ane7ng the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 07/24/95) K C q � _ 6 , CITY COUNCIL AGENDA _2_ July 24, 1995 h. Resolution Approving Request For Proposal and Authorizing Solicitation of Proposals for Professional Services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -05, 69th Avenue North (Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont A enue), Roadway, Bridge, and Utility Improvements J q 1-5 -- d 3 6 0H /� i. Resolution Providing for Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs, Delinquent Weed Removal Costs, Public Utility r Repair Accounts, and Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts D j. Resolution Amending Special Assessment Levy Roll Nos. 13372 and 13373 to Provide for the Award of Assessment Stabilization Grants for the Woodbine Neighborhood Improvemen � k. Licenses �� 7. Open Forum — 6 b f,2, 8. Council Consideration _ a. Resolution Ex Rec ognition g and Appreciation of Officer Erland helley � for His Dedicated Public Service as a Police Officer If ✓L! • b. Mayoral Appointment: Human Rights g and Resources Co C. Approval of Contract with League of Minnesota Cities for Recruitment /Selection Process for City Manager &J/6 11Q c d. Resolution Accepting the 1995 Project, Selection Report of tfie Community Planning Committee �/�-� 1"I�kt 57 0 - e. Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Subrecipient Agreement and Required Third Party Agreements with Hennepin County for 1995 (Year XXI) Urban Hennepin County Communi � Development Block Grant Program (� / KC t1 � q s -6 f. Resolution Amending the 1995 Pay Plan, Reclassifying Administrative Assistant /Deputy City Clerk Position to Administrative Assist nt /Ci Cl /D g. Resolution Amending the 1995 General Fund Budget and Pay Plan Regarding Government Buildings Custodial Services /� -,� (,�vt r,•�� h. Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract, Improvement Project No. 1993 -18, Contract 199 -G, Pak and Ride, Pond, Park, and 65th Avenue Realignment M C i. Staff Report Re: 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard (Greg Lutgen Residence) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- July 24, 1995 j. Resolution Authorizing the Submission of the Grant Application and Execution of the Agreement Northwest uburban Safe and Sober Traffic Enforcement Project KC / P H U,n ---- I t i� k. Ite _ Removed from the Consent Agenda I - A ems`'^ -�- 9. Adjournment EDA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 24, 1995 (following adjournment of City Council meeting) 1. Call to Order 7 2. Roll Call c�( ��/ ��/ /A y / I � 3. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agen -The following items are considered to be routine by the conomic Development Authority and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes: Commissioners not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. July 5, 1995 - Regular Session I C 2. July 10, 1995 - Regular, Session lC C �/G - Resolution Declring the Intent of the Economic Development Authority in and; for the City' of Brooklyn Center to Issue Taxable or Tax Exempt Reimbursement Bonds for the Acquisition of Certain Properties Within Tax Increment District #3 K -4 /6 H 4. Commission Consideration Items a. Resolution Authorizing President and Executive Director to Execute Third Party Agreement for Year XXI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program l� _ 5. Adjournment �1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 24, 1995 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Council Report 5. Presentation - None 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. a. Approval of Minutes - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. June 26, 1995 - Executive Session 2. June 26, 1995 - Regular Session 3. July 5, 1995 - Special Work Session b. Resolution Acknowledging Gift from Target for Park and Recreation Programs C. Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Mobile Computing Devices for the Police Department and Amending the 1995 General Fund Budget d. Resolution Calling for Public Hearing with Respect to the Proposed Refinancing of Facilities for Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II e. Resolution Directing Staff to Initiate the Sale of Street Improvement Bonds and Tax Increment Bonds and Accepting Proposal for Professional Services f. Resolution Establishing Project, Accepting Quote, and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 1995 -16, Contract 1995 -H, Bryant Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension g. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 07/24/95) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- July 24, 1995 h. Resolution Approving Request For Proposal and Authorizing Solicitation of Proposals for Professional Services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -05, 69th Avenue North (Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue), Roadway, Bridge, and Utility Improvements i. Resolution Providing for Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs, Delinquent Weed Removal Costs, Public Utility Repair Accounts, and Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts j. Resolution Amending Special Assessment Levy Roll Nos. 13372 and 13373 to Provide for the Award of Assessment Stabilization Grants for the Woodbine Neighborhood Improvements k. Licenses 7. Open Forum S. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Officer Erland Shelley for His Dedicated Public Service as a Police Officer b. Mayoral Appointment: Human Rights and Resources Commission C. Approval of Contract with League of Minnesota Cities for Recruitment /Selection Process for City Manager d. Resolution Accepting the 1995 Project Selection Report of the Hennepin Community Planning Committee e. Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Subrecipient Agreement and Required Third Party Agreements with Hennepin County for 1995 (Year XXI) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program f. Resolution Amending the 1995 Pay Plan, Reclassifying Administrative Assistant /Deputy City Clerk Position to Administrative Assistant /City Clerk g. Resolution Amending the 1995 General Fund Budget and Pay Plan Regarding Government Buildings Custodial Services h. Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract, Improvement Project No. 1993 -18, Contract 1995 -G, Park and Ride, Pond, Park, and 65th Avenue Realignment i. Staff Report Re: 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard (Greg Lutgen Residence) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- July 24, 1995 j. Resolution Authorizing the Submission of the Grant Application and Execution of the Agreement Northwest Suburban Safe and Sober Traffic Enforcement Project k. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 9. Adjournment EDA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 24, 1995 (following adjournment of City Council meeting) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the Economic Development Authority and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes: Commissioners not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. July 5, 1995 - Regular Session 2. July 10, 1995 - Regular Session b. Resolution Declaring the Intent of the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center to Issue Taxable or Tax Exempt Reimbursement Bonds for the Acquisition of Certain Properties Within Tax Increment District #3 4. Commission Consideration Items a. Resolution Authorizing President and Executive Director to Execute Third Party Agreement for Year XXI Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program 5. Adjournment Council Meeting Date July 24, 1995 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: City Council Minutes June 26, 1995 - Executive Session June 26, 1995 - Regular Session July 5, 1995 - Special Work Session Department Approval: P PP -'XM• " 1 Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) June 26, 1995 - Executive Session All Councilmembers were present. June 26, 1995 - Regular Session Barb Kalligher was excused from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. July 5, 1995 - Special Work Session All Councilmembers were present. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JUNE 26, 1995 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody. Also present were Acting City Manager Nancy Gohman, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, Director of Community Development Brad Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, City Engineer Scott Brink, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. Councilmember Barb Kalligher was excused from tonight's meeting. OPENING CEREMONIES Dean Nyquist offered the invocation. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Kragness reported she had attended an awards ceremony of the Minnesota Association of Government Communications. The City of Brooklyn Center was presented with an award of merit for its City Packet. Mayor Kragness congratulated Staff for award and commented on the excellent work by Staff in producing the packet. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Kragness inquired if any Councilmember requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. No requests were made. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the June 26, 1995, agenda and consent agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. 6/26/95 - 1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 22, 1995 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the minutes of the May 22, 1995, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. JUNE 5, 1995 - SPECIAL WORK SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the minutes of the June 5, 1995, special work session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. JUNE 12 1995 - SPECIAL WORK SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the minutes of the June 12, 1995, special work session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. JUNE 12, 1995 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the minutes of the June 12, 1995, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION FINANCIAL REPORT There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to accept the Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief Association Financial Report for the Year Ended December 31, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. APPOINTMENT TO NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to appoint Assistant City Manager Nancy Gohman as Commissioner to Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 95- I A 5 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -18, CONTRACT NO. 1995 -G, PARK AND RIDE, POND, PARK, AND REALIGNMENT OF 65TH AVENUE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. 6/26/95 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 95 -146 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1994 -01 AND 02, CONTRACT 1994 -E, STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT, JAMES, KNOX, AND 54TH AVENUES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -147 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1994 -11 AND 12, CONTRACT 1994 -F, STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENT, NORTHWEST AREA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -148 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 06/26/95) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -149 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR BROOKLYN DRIVE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE REPAIR, CONTRACT 1995 -G, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -11 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -150 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF CLASS B AND SUNDAY ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FROM LARKEN, INC. DBA HOLIDAY INN, 6/26/95 - 3 - BROOKLYN CENTER TO RICHARDSON PROPERTIES INC., OPERATING AS A HOLIDAY INN FRANCHISE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, the motion . passed unanimous) Y P Y LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR Beacon Bowl 6525 West River Road Chi -Chi's Restaurant 2101 Freeway Blvd. Davanni's 5937 Summit Drive Metropolitan Transit 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Nickels and Dimes, Inc. 1328 Brookdale Center AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR CDL 1317 Highway 169 Mendota Valley Amusement, Inc. 9177 E. Courthouse Blvd. Ct. GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION K & S Sanitation 24 Crossway Drive Randy's Sanitation P.O. Box 169, Delano Super Cycle, Inc. 775 Rice Street Walter's Recycling & Refuse Service P.O. Box 49128 Waste Management - Blaine 10050 Naples Street N.E. Woodlake Sanitation Service 9813 Flying Cloud Drive MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Dean's Heating & Air Conditioning Inc. 2597 309th Ave. N.W. RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Allan D. Olson 7112 Riverdale Road N. Renewal: Lyndon and Carole Carlson 5819 Halifax Ave. N. Craig and Barbara Benell 1807 70th Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. 6/26/95 -4- OPEN FORUM Mayor Kragness noted the Council had received two requests to use the open forum session this evening. Peg Snesrud, of the Brooklyn Park Crime Prevention Association, extended an invitation to the City of Brooklyn Center to attend a "Light Up the Boulevard" ceremony in Brooklyn Park on Tuesday evening, August 1, 1995. The celebration is part of the National Night Out program. She described many activities which are scheduled as part of the celebration. She presented the Council with flashlights and activities agendas. It is a family activity. She also noted it is hoped the line will be extended to Brooklyn Center this year. The Acting City Manager noted Police Chief Kline is working in cooperation with Brooklyn Park. She introduced Chief Kline for comments. Chief Kline reviewed the Brooklyn Center activities for National Night Out. There is a plan to extend the line of lighting down Brooklyn Boulevard. The City's neighborhood watch groups are involved in organizing the activities. Mayor Kragness noted the Council will plan to participate in the event. John Joyce, 3800 Burquest Lane, addressed the Council regarding the tennis courts at Northport Park. He commented the park is beautiful and well -used. There are no nets on the tennis courts. He has contacted the Park and Recreation Department. He was told there are no nets on the courts because the courts are in poor repair and there is a liability issue. He noted he purchased a house next to a park and would like to be able to use the tennis courts. He stated he is not asking for new courts, just two nets on the existing courts. He mentioned the City Staff had brought up a future bond issue when asked about the courts. He said since the City is trying to improve its image it ought to take care of little things like nets. Mayor Kra- ness asked Mr. Joyce whether he had asked the Park and Recreation Department if nets are available. Mr. Joyce said the Department does have nets but it appears to him Staff is pushing the bond issue and is not interested in using existing facilities. Mayor Kragness told Mr. Joyce the Council would investigate the issue and contact him. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITENT IS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 94016 The Acting City Manager introduced the Planning and Zoning Specialist to give the staff report on this item. The Planning and Zoning Specialist noted Planning Commission Application No. 94016 was tabled by the Planning Commission at the December 8, 1994, meeting for the purpose of review and attorney evaluation regarding the driveway area and a possible variance. 6/26/95 -5 - The application is for a 12,500 square foot addition to the Brookdale Covenant Church. The addition would be a gymnasium and recreation area. The property is zoned R -1 and churches are Special Uses in R -1 zones. The existing parsonage would be removed, allowing for additional parking. There would be no additional parking requirement due to the addition; the parking requirement is 120 spaces and it is being met. A concern brought up earlier related to the connection between the frontage road and the public right of way at North Lilac Drive. There has been a gentleman's agreement for many years in which the City maintained the roadway section. There is a public purpose in keeping a roadway connection. There was an option of seeking roadway right -of -way and acquiring the property, which would have taken away the church's parking and, as a result, made the addition impossible. The other option was to work out an agreement whereby the church agrees to keep the connection open to through traffic and the City will share its maintenance. The option of an agreement has been chosen. The church is willing to keep the parking lot open as the amount Of traffic on it is limited anyway (approximately 12 to 14 vehicles per day). It is in the City's best interest to enter into this agreement which allows the church to build its planned addition as the church is a worthwhile part of the community. A public hearing was held on the matter in December 1994. Additional comments were heard in June 1995. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to thirteen conditions, many of which are standard conditions. Representatives of the church are present to answer questions. The Planning and Zoning Specialist noted there is no Watershed District requirement because the property is less than five acres. Councilmember Mann asked whether the site is served by storm sewer. The Planning and Zoning Specialist said it is not. Councilmember Mann asked whether it might be appropriate to add a condition that it be hooked up to storm sewer within one year of when storm sewer becomes available. The Director of Public Services stated the property drains adequately to the highway ditch. The area has not been reviewed for storm sewer consideration. Staff are not aware of any problems with the amount or quality of drainage. This question could be considered at a later stage. Mayor Kragness asked whether the service road will be affected if Highway 100 is widened. The Planning and Zoning Specialist commented most improvements would be to the south of the area so a need for more right -of -way is not anticipated. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve Planning Commission Application No. 94016 submitted by Brookdale Covenant Church subject to the following conditions: 6/26/95 - 6 - 0 ' ¢ 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Buildin Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approve by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. .3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of all site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinance. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances. 7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city to be approved by the City Attorney, to allow a public way connection between North Lilac Drive and Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road through the church property. Said agreement shall address the manner in which this area shall be kept open and maintained and shall be filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. The special use permit is granted to the applicant for the expansion of this church facility as provided in the approved site plan. Any other expansions or alterations of this site shall require further amendment to the church's special use permit. 9. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, could be grounds for revocation. 10. The applicant shall share equally with the City in the cost of repair, maintenance, and upgrading of a drainage outlet pipe serving the north end of this property. 11. The applicant shall provide appropriate on -site sediment and erosion control devices, as approved by the City Engineer during the time this project is under construction. 12. All required curbing shall be B -612 construction. 13. The applicant shall provide no parking signs along the westerly side of the driveway connection between North Lilac Drive and the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road. Cautionary signs may be appropriate in this location as well. 6/26/95 -7- The motion asse p d unanimously. MODIFICATION TO BUILDING PLAN The Acting City Manager indicated this action involves determining that a walkway connection in the Lutheran Church of the Master's building plan be considered a minor amendment. The Planning and Zoning Specialist noted the Council, in November 1994, approved the rezoning and development, in several phases, of three apartment buildings on the property. At this point, 1107 Emerson Lane has been converted into a learning center but the other two buildings continue to be used as apartments. The church wants to make a physical connection between the church and the learning center building. The church proposes to build an enclosed walkway which would be 10 to 12 feet wide. Such a walkway would provide better handicapped v accessibility o the buildi from the church building the former a p artment building is split Y a g� P g P level. The proposed walkway cannot be built without an amendment to the building plan approved under the Planned Unit Development. The City ordinance allows for two types of amendments -- major and minor. The City Council can determine it is a minor amendment if the change has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has reviewed this walkway proposal and has agreed that it is a minor amendment. The Planning Commission has recommended the City Council approve the minor amendment and believes no formal hearing is necessary. If the City Council concurs and declares the addition of the walkway is a minor amendment, the only step necessary by the church is to obtain building permits. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to determine that the Lutheran Church of the Master's proposed modification to the first phase of their Planned United Development is a minor amendment. The motion passed unanimously. FINANCIAL REPORT The Acting City Manager called upon the Finance Director to present the City's Financial Report. The Finance Director noted the City Charter requires an audit once per year. A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting was received for the 1993 report, as well as the report for each year from 1983 to 1993. The 1994 report will also be submitted for consideration for the certificate. He thanked Assistant Finance Director Tim Johnson, who was Q responsible for writin the report. The Finance Director introduced Cliff Hoffman, Partner for Deloitte & Touche, the City's auditors. Mr. Hoffman explained Deloitte & Touche had submitted a lengthy auditor's report to the City. He distributed a shorter summary version of the report and reviewed it with the Council. 6/26/95 - 8 - I The City of Brooklyn Center had an excess of revenue over expenditures and has added to the fund balance. The City has done a "fantastic" job with its enterprise funds and with charging user fees for services. The City should be concerned with the future of state and federal funding. The outlook is bleak at both levels due to debt load. Mr. Hoffman pointed out areas in which the City is functioning well and also made suggestions on how to read the figures in the report for greater understanding. He specifically noted the City has the resources to repair the infrastructure. Charging today's users for today's services is a good practice. The City's bond ratings are very good. Mr. Hoffman reviewed the City's competitive advantages and challenges as outlined on page 23 of the short report. He indicated pages 24 and 25 of the report list generic remedies which the City of Brooklyn Center is already considering. He again stated the good news for the City is that there is a strong financial base and the bad news is that state and federal funding is becoming less and less. Mr. Hoffman pointed out two new items from the comprehensive report. As a result of the Orange County, California, situation, the auditor recommends, on page 10, holding investments to maturity. Brooklyn Center has not had a practice of continual buying and selling, which is a selling point for the City with investors. He indicated, regarding the comparison of cost to market, that it is acceptable as the City will recover the full value. Regarding the auditor's management letter, which offers observations and recommendations, Mr. Hoffman said the biggest change in the advice is on page 2 of the letter. The Securities Commission is getting actively involved and the information will need to be available in six months. If the City believes it is over -rated on its bond rating, it should get the information to the underwriters and should do a mid -year review. He noted he is not aware of any concerns with the City's SEC compliance but the standard is much higher than it has been in the past. Mr. Hoffman explained that, according to the Finance Director's response to the management letter, any concerns presented by the auditor will be addressed by the City. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the comprehensive annual financial report for the year ended December 31, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. RECOGNITION RESOLUTION NO. 95 -151 Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL TEAM 6/26/95 - 9 - i The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann and the passed unanimously. e orlon pass DISCUSSION OF CITIZEN REQUEST This item involved a request by a resident, Greg Lutgen, 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard, to discuss road modification to Wingard Lane. The Acting City Manager reminded the Council that at its March 20, 1995, work session it considered acquisition of the property at 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard and the consensus was to drop consideration. Greg Lutgen, 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard, addressed the Council. Mr. Lutgen stated he would like to see his idea for a cul -de -sac on Wingard Lane instead of the existing hammerhead acted upon. The concept is not his design but comes out of conversations with City Staff. The time to act on the idea is now, so that the Woodbine Neighborhood project in progress would not have to be redone, which would be costly. Mr. Lutgen noted there are thirteen children living on Wingard Lane, which is a safety concern. Noise pollution affects the whole neighborhood, but his house may be the buffer. There is noise on Brooklyn Boulevard from 5:45 a.m. to 1 a.m. The noise comes from semi traffic and cars' sound systems. The noise is increasing. Property values would go up if there were more landscaping, etc. If a cul -de -sac were constructed, it would be easier for City maintenance equipment. There is also a problem with emergency vehicles. If an emergency vehicle were to get on the hammerhead by mistake, there is no turnaround so it could get out easily. Mr. Lutgen presented the Council with notebooks which outline his proposal for a turnaround cul -de -sac on Wingard Lane. He noted that, in the winter, two of the driveways become the hammerhead because snow is plowed there. There is debris inside of the square of the hammerhead which must be hand - swept. His proposal would allow full use of street equipment and would include a sound barrier and fencing for child protection, like the 69th Avenue project. He noted he has lived at his property for over ten years and has studied the problem issues for three and one -half years. His presentation included computer - generated photo simulations of the proposed improvement. He related the modification to the Brooklyn Boulevard improvement plan. Councilmember Carmody noted a letter in the. presentation notebook referred to the road as a two -lane road. Mr. Lutgen said the statement in the letter is incorrect and reflects the writer's perception that a once rural road had become freeway. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. Lutgen whether Staff had commented on how difficult this change would be to make. Mr. Lutgen stated Dave Anderson had said the cul -de -sac had been mentioned previously. 6l26 /95 10 _- 0 Councilmember Carmody mentioned when the City Council considered the acquisition of the property the Council and Staff had concurred that it would like to purchase the property but the funding was not available. That situation has not changed. The City would like to buy the property eventually, but is working its way along Brooklyn Boulevard and hasn't reached that portion yet. Mr. Lutgen noted he is not proposing a purchase but is proposing modifying the road to add a cul -de -sac on the north end. Councilmember Carmody noted the City would still have to purchase the house. The Acting City Manager commented that perhaps the Director of Public Services could give cost estimates. Mayor Kragness asked the Director of Public Services to comment on the issue. The Director of Public Services said the problems as stated by Mr. Lutgen are true. Overall, the City would like to improve the roadway. She said she had asked the City Engineer to sketch out a cul -de -sac which would meet City zoning requirements. She presented an overhead drawing of the optional cul -de -sac drawing. She noted the plan would need a diameter of 100 feet, which would require acquisition of two homes and the acquisition of right -of -way from two other properties. The plan could be performed in phases but that would not be the preferred method and wouldn't help the situation much at the first stages. There would be some improvement, but not enough to merit the expenditure to build one -half of a cul -de -sac. The Director of Public Services stated the sound pollution, air pollution, and heavy use of Brooklyn Boulevard are definitely problems in the area. The County project will not extend far enough north to help this area. The City's ISTEA grant for Brooklyn Boulevard enhancements might be used to pay for some part of the improvement except this grant could not be used off of Brooklyn Boulevard. It would be a good long -term improvement but would cost $150,000 to $200,000, the bulk of which would be acquisition of properties. She stated Staff could study methods of phasing modifications in order to achieve the long -term goal. However, it is not cost - effective as far as the existing street improvement project is concerned, which is why it was looked at as part of the project but rejected. Therefore, it is unknown where the funding would come from. Mayor Kragness asked what effect the current project will have. The Director of Public Services noted curb and gutter will be done as part of the current project. Mr. Lutgen commented the costs are not that great and the modification would not be a big deal. He noted the City made a one -half bubble cul -de -sac at 71st and Perry Avenue and there are not even residents there to support the effort. He noted two other areas where work was done when no residents even required the help. He stated there is a larger risk due to the safety concerns with thirteen children living there. He invited the Council to view a 15- minute videotape he made documenting traffic problems near his home, including car crashes and car chases. 10 6/26/95 Mr. Lutgen also addressed the issue of extending the gateway theme to the area. He proposed the name be changed to "Imageway." He showed a design for an aesthetically pleasing neighborhood entrance. Mayor Kragness stated the matter would be referred to the Engineering Department. She asked the Director of Public Services to look into the issue further since Mr. Lutgen had done so much work and the City needs to respond to him. The Director of Public Services stated she could report back to the Council in four weeks. Councilmember Hilstrom asked how such a delay would affect the street improvement project in progress. The Director of Public Services explained the construction is being done from the northeast direction to the southwest direction, so the neighborhood concerned with this issue would be later in the program. The decision can be put off for four weeks; however, at that time it will be time to begin work in the area. Mr. Lutgen noted Dave Anderson had said the area would be in line for work in two to three weeks. The Acting City Manager stated Staff will monitor the timeline. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL UNDER SECTION 12.1202 OF HOUSING MAINTENANCE COMPLIANCE ORDERS The Acting City Manager explained Mr. Selwin Ortega has requested an appearance to address compliance orders issued on his property at 610 - 53rd Avenue North. She noted there would be two presentations followed by discussion. The Director of Community Development noted this item concerns Mr. Ortega's maintenance of a building and the appeal is at Mr. Ortega's request. He explained that on May 26, 1995, the City inspector issued 137 compliance orders to Mr. Ortega. Following this appeal, the Council may confirm or deny the compliance orders. The Director of Community Development stated the action by the inspector is a result of Mr. Ortega's longstanding refusal to properly maintain the property. Mr. Ortega's race and ethnic background are irrelevant to the charge. The City only wants a good neighbor. Mr. Ortega has suggested Inspector Janine Atchison's action was racially motivated. Inspector Atchison inspected the property at the direction of the Director of Community Development. The Director of Community Development stated there has been an ongoing maintenance problem at the property and the City has received numerous complaints from residents. Some issues were addressed in the past without compliance by Mr. Ortega. Last year, Mr. Ortega pled guilty in court to 17 counts of code violations according to Chapter 12. He was directed to correct the items but 7 of them remain uncorrected. The Director of Community Development noted the situation is frustrating to his Department. This spring, as a result of receiving four complaints, the Director of Community Development completely reviewed the history of the 6/26/95 - 12 - problem with the property and then ordered a complete inspection. Over the past year, the City has done total inspections on nine properties and complexes, not just Mr. Ortega's. Inspector Atchison showed slides of the conditions at the property. She detailed the code violations, pointing out uncovered garbage, the roof in poor repair, peeling paint, debris both outside and inside the building, garbage in common hallways, and an exposed light switch, to name a few. She noted Mr. Ortega did provide a dumpster but it was not located properly and was not screened. There was a non - operating vehicle parked on the property. The Director of Community Development noted the City has been aggressive with code enforcement relating to other problem complexes in the City. The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Kragness reconvened the meeting of the Brooklyn Center City Council at 9:07 p.m. The Director of Community Development stated there are many rental units in Brooklyn Center and they are owned by many individuals. The owners have established an organization and that organization supports the City's aggressive efforts to obtain code enforcement. Mr. Ortega alleges the City does not enforce the code on other properties, which is untrue. Inspector Atchison showed slides of the rental building adjacent to Mr. Ortega's property. Mr. Ortega has compared the two buildings as being alike without the other being cited for code violations. In fact, the other building has been cited on occasion but has complied with the orders. Inspector Atchison went to the has property unannounced and was permitted to take pictures. The slides show that the garbage is screened from the street and the dumpsters have lids. The grass is cut and there have been efforts made at landscaping. The structure is in good condition and is well - maintained. The Director of Community Development stated he takes Mr. Ortega's charges of racial impropriety very seriously. He would not tolerate such activity in his department and it is not the case. The City only wants compliance to codes. He noted Mr. Ortega will not have a problem with the City when his property has been cleaned up and is maintained. The Director of Community Development noted he had met with Mr. Ortega. Mr. Ortega suggested a neutral party, such as the Minneapolis Housing Inspections Department, might determine whether the compliance orders are necessary. The Director of Community Development said he would have no problem with a neutral inspection. Therefore, he asked the Minneapolis Housing Inspections Department whether they would be willing to inspect the property. The Minneapolis Housing Inspections Department stated it would be willing to inspect the property if it first obtained a waiver stating it would not be sued. The Director of Community Development again stated the City just wants Chapter 12 compliance from Mr. Ortega. 6/26/95 - 13 - The Director of Community Development noted Mr. Ortega also has referred to the Police Department in his allegations. Chief Kline is present at this meeting to address the issue. Of the 137 compliance orders, many are health- and safety- related. Chief Boman is also present to discuss fire issues. Mayor Kragness called on Mr. Ortega to make his appeal. Selwin Ortega stated he is a business person in South Minneapolis. He bought the property at 610 - 53rd Avenue North in Brooklyn Center five years ago with the intention of making it his dream home. He stated the first time he came to City Hall a City official told him to go buy a house somewhere else. He said he has a letter which indicates the City said it would do all it could to keep the property from being re -zoned so Mr. Ortega could not move to Brooklyn Center. Therefore, he was forced to buy a house in Minneapolis and not move to Brooklyn Center. Mr. Ortega stated he agreed there is a problem with garbage on the property. The reason there is so much garbage is other people, not residents, drop their garbage there. He said he has called police to report it but the police do not come. He said that for many years the adjacent property did not even have garbage dumpsters but used the ones on his property. He contacted the police about that, but they would not help. Regarding the blue, inoperative van parked in the driveway, Mr. Ortega said he contacted the police four times about it. The police wouldn't help. Finally, he moved the van onto the street. He said towing companies would not come and tow the van unless it had been ticketed by the 0 police. Mr. Ortega said he wants to comply with the law but it is difficult when he gets no help from the City or from the police. He said the City Inspector has said should would do all she can to move him out of the property. She has told him that twice. He believes he should be able to live anywhere he wants. Mr. Ortega said the City Inspector did not happen to see some other violations in the area, like an abandoned car that is right behind the house. Mr. Ortega said he told the inspector that other properties do not have screened dumpsters. In fact, only five percent have the dumpsters screened. He took 87 pictures of other dumpsters and will submit the pictures. There are two dumpsters right across the street from his property which do not have screening, but the inspector doesn't see those. Mr. Ortega said he doesn't understand the situation. He is not able to move here and was told he was not wanted here. Councilmember Carmody asked Mr. Ortega whether his attorney is present. Mr. Ortega said his attorney was not able to come to the meeting. 6/26.95 14 Councilmember Carmody asked Mr. Ortega whether he received a copy of his attorney's letter to the City. Mr. Ortega said he does not have a copy of the letter but he knows about the letter. Councilmember Carmody referred to a portion of Mr. Ortega 's attorneys letter which stated there had been harassment by Inspector Atchison for five years. She asked Mr. Ortega if he would agree with the statement. Mr. Ortega said that statement is incorrect as he has onl.j known Inspector Atchison for one year. Councilmember Carmody agreed, as Inspector Atchison has only been in the position for one year. Councilmember Carmody asked Mr. Ortega whether he had received a letter from the City explaining what to do about the abandoned van on the property. She asked whether the van belonged to a tenant. Mr. Ortega said it was not a tenant's van. He said he talked to Mr. McComb and he was supposed to call Mr. Ortega but he didn't. Councilmember Carmody indicated all Mr. Ortega would have had to do was tell the tenants and then the van could be towed. Chief Kline explained the process for getting an abandoned vehicle towed. He stated Mr. Ortega would have had to pay for the tow bill. Mr. Ortega said Inspector Atchison had told him he would be cited if he didn't move the van. He tried to contact the owner of the van but had no way to contact the owner. Chief Kline said he only needed to send a registered letter to the owner at the last known address. Mr. Ortega stated four families live at the property. They are members of his family. Some 0 of his family has moved because they do not like the vandalism that goes on. Mr. Ortega said he knows things need to be done with the property, but if he were to tell someone they had to do 137 things in nine days, including a new roof, with no time extensions, they would realize it can't be done. Councilmember Carmody noted the complaints and citations regarding the property go back as far as 1991, so Mr. Ortega has not just found out about the problem. The excuse of not enough time is inadequate. Mr. Ortega said the garbage shown in the pictures is not his garbage. He has proof of who put their garbage on his property but the police and the inspector won't address the problem. The damag to the mailboxes which was shown in the slides is a result of vandalism by people who broke in. He said he calls the police and the police know who broke in but nothing is done. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. Ortega whether he has insurance coverage. Mr. Ortega said he does have insurance but if he reported each incident the insurance would cost too much so he just handles things himself. Mayor Kragness explained when repairs are needed they should be done as they come up so that they don't build up. 6/26/9 - 15 - Mr. Ortega described harassing phone calls he has received. Mayor Kragness told Mr. Ortega the code citations are not related to his race. The City has a code so that people will take care of their homes. She said Mr. Ortega's neighbors have complained and she even gets calls about the repair of the property. She said the City is just asking Mr. Ortega to maintain his property like everyone else does. Mr. Ortega asked why there is a code when only five percent of people follow it. Councilmember Carmody asked Mr. Ortega where he gets the five percent figure. Mr. Ortega said he took 190 pictures of dumpsters all over the city and only five percent of them have screened garbage dumpsters. Councilmember Carmody said she disagreed with his perception. Mr. Ortega displayed a picture of a dumpster at City Hall which was taken two days ago, as well as a picture of another dumpster which is two blocks from City Hall. Councilmember Carmody told Mr. Ortega the City has decided to crack down on apartment building code violations. There has been publicity on the subject, so owners should have known it was coming. It is erroneous to say his citations are due to his race. The residents of Brooklyn Center who rent units deserve better conditions. The damage inside the building cannot be related to vandalism. The City Attorney asked Mr. Ortega whether he understands the purpose of the appeal. The purpose is to challenge the mistaken interpretation of the ordinance. He said this is Mr. Ortega's opportunity to show evidence that the City Inspector has been erroneous in issuing citations to him. He asked Mr. Ortega whether he has evidence to show a mistaken interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Ortega said he tried to get the abandoned van taken care of but it wasn't his van. There was further discussion regarding the abandoned vehicle. The City Attorney told Mr. Ortega he had not said anything yet to support there was a mistaken interpretation and that any of the 137 items are actually legal. He said now is Mr. Ortega's chance to make his case. Mr. Ortega said people dump their garbage on his property. He tries to stop them and he asks for help from the City but doesn't get any help. Councilmember Carmody stated she does not see any evidence of misinterpretation of the ordinance and there is no need to involve the Minneapolis Housing Inspections Department. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann to uphold the compliance orders issued by the City of Brooklyn Center regarding the property at 610 - 53rd Avenue North. 6/26/9 - 16- Mayor Kragness told Mr. Ortega that it doesn't seem as though he has tried to correct the problems. Inspector Atchison has done her job and Mr. Ortega cannot prove that any of the citations are incorrect. The Council has no choice but to ask Mr. Ortega to comply to the citations. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Carmody suggested Mr. Ortega might get some help by attending the Apartment Managers' Association meetings. Mayor Kragness agreed and noted Staff could send Mr. Ortega information on the association. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -11 The Acting City Manager stated a resolution is presented regarding accepting bid and awarding contract for Improvement Project No. 1995 -11, Contract 1995 -E, Corrugated Metal Pipe Sanitary Sewer Trunk Relining. Staff recommends the Council award the contract to the next to the lowest bid. Involved parties have been told they can address the Council. The Director of Public Services explained this project is of a unique nature because the trunk line runs through the side yards of several properties and is very deep. Therefore, the construction is different than usual. An RFP was issued for relining and three bids were received. The lowest bid was rejected for two reasons. The first reason was that the company had never successfully performed a project of the nature of this one although the subcontractor has. The bid specifications state the "proposer" must have been successful in such a project. The second reason was that the product to be used in the bid does not meet the material requirements. The technical specifications are involved and they are difficult to understand. She also noted the project is very large in scope and will be one of the biggest such projects in the state. She noted the City Engineer would provide more details. The bid Staff is recommending is $44,000 greater than the lowest bid. However, it is in the City's best interest to use a company which has had success in the area and will use the correct materials. The City Engineer reviewed the proposed project and referred to his report which is part of the Council packet. He noted very few contractors do work of this nature as it is so unique. He explained again why Staff does not recommend awarding the contract to the low bidder. He mentioned there is no margin for error on this project. The City Engineer said he has met with Lametti and Sons, Inc. and there is confusion whether Lametti and Sons would supervise the project or if the subcontractor would supervise the project. He stated he had contacted references for Lametti and Sons, Inc. He reviewed the information gleaned from those contacts. The City Engineer noted a correction to Part C of his report. Part C should refer to a 50 -year guarantee of the "design" rather than of the "project." The City Engineer discussed what he had learned from a third -party source, the Army Corps of Engineers, regarding the product to be used on the project. 6/26/95 - 17- The City Engineer stated the company Staff is recommending for the project, Insituform Central, Inc., performed a similar project in Fridley. He has contacted references for Insituform Central, Inc. and there are good reference statements. The City Engineer stated it is inappropriate to award the contract to an inexperienced contractor since there is a large financial involvement and risk to residents. Councilmember Mann stated Council has received a memo from Lametti and Sons, Inc. and there appear to be conflicting statements from the City Attorney's statements. She said she doesn't understand the issue fully and is uncomfortable with voting. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann to table the item to a Council Work Session for further discussion. The City Attorney agreed. He said Staff needs more time to evaluate the claims of Lametti and Sons, Inc. and to look at outside sources. He noted the City is in a position to be sued either way right now so it is important to proceed with caution and need for the facts. There is no r the Council to act quickly according to the bid timelines. The City Attorney suggested the Council hear discussion from Lametti and Sons, Inc. It is appropriate to hear from them as Council is attempting to acquire the facts of the matter. Mayor Kragness noted Council has a request to speak from Dean B. Thomson. The City Attorney would be a representative far Lametti and y stated that ould p Sons, Inc. Dean B. Thomson, of Fabyanske, Svoboda, Westra, Davis & Hart, P.A., spoke on behalf of Lametti and Sons, Inc. He stated the bid by Lametti and Sons, Inc. was $44,000 lower than the next bid and he believes it may be against the state competitive bidding law to award the contract to the higher bidder. He noted a Summons and Restraining Order has been requested on behalf of Lametti and Sons, Inc. He reviewed the law and legal definitions. He stated awarding the contract to the other bidder would reflect favoritism. Laws require open competition. He noted performance -based specifications cannot be so specific as to limit the award to one product, eliminating all others. Mr. Thomson discussed the issue of subcontracting. He said CTC will perform the work and it is qualified to do so. He discussed the relevant law, the specific arguments, and the merits of the case. Mr. Thomson mentioned Lametti and Sons, Inc. is providing a bond. The company has offered to fly the City Engineer to New York City to meet with CTC at its offices or to bring representatives of CTC to Brooklyn Center. Regarding the American Standard Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard, the reference doesn't warrant rejection. 6/26/9 - 18 - Mr. Thomson summed up the position of Lametti and Sons, Inc. The company's bid is lower by five to six percent. State law requires the contract be awarded to Lametti and Sons, Inc. The company would be happy to demonstrate how it meets the specifications. The Acting City Manager noted Staff is in agreement to study the matter further and report back to the Council at a later date. Councilmember Carmody seconded the motion to table the matter for two weeks. The motion passed unanimously. Representatives for Insituform Central, Inc. were given the opportunity to address the Council. Brad Mirkovich offered to speak at this time or wait until another time. Councilmember Carmody expressed unhappiness with the presentation from Mr. Thomson. She said his comments were derogatory to Staff and suggested collusion. She stated Insituform Central, Inc. should have a public forum as well. The City Attorney stated the City Council should not be concerned about the injunction and the threats of a lawsuit, as a lawsuit is imminent regardless of the decision made at this point. He stated he would defend the Council's decision vigorously. He noted the other side will need proof of its allegations and that he disagrees with some of the legal conclusions presented. However, he stated it would be unproductive to pursue the matter further at this time. Brad Mirkovich spoke on behalf of Insituform Central, Inc. He presented the credentials of the corporation, which has installed over 25 miles of pipe in Minnesota. Mr. Mirkovich referred to the ASTM and gave some technical information regarding materials used in such projects. The Acting City Manager noted Council and Staff are in agreement to study the issue further. Mr. Mirkovich stated he would finish his statement promptly. He cited the Fridley project performed by Insituform Central, Inc., as well as other similar projects. He noted Insituform Central, Inc. will be happy to entertain questions at the meeting in two weeks. He stated Insituform Central, Inc. is the largest installer of this type of pipe in the world. WOODBINE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The Acting City Manager called on the Director of Public Services to present the Staff report. The Director of Public Services reviewed five options identified by Staff to address a modification to the intersection of 71st and Kyle Avenues North. She reviewed the options, which are (1) the construction of a traffic "kidney bean" and the replacement of the stub of Kyle Avenue with a private drive; (2) to replace the roadway in its current configuration; (3) to construct a version of the "kidney bean" with Kyle Avenue reconstructed as a street rather than 6/26/95 - 19 - as a driveway; (4a) to remove the "V" but replace Kyle Avenue with a driveway; and (4b) to remove the "V" but reconstruct Kyle Avenue as a public street. She noted the five options were presented to the residents of the neighborhood, one of whom submitted yet another option. The Director of Public Services discussed the costs of the options. She said the most inexpensive option would be to replace the street as it is. There is not a large cost difference between the highest costing and the lowest costing options. Questionnaires were sent out to the residents but there was no firm majority indicated for any particular option. The Director of Public Services reviewed the complaints which have been received over the years in connection with the street. Only one formal complaint was recorded, but a report referred to other informal complaints. She stated several designs have been presented and her department will build whichever design the Council prefers. Councilmember Carmody suggested n 1 and 3 eliminated immediately and discussion o s s options s be e Y �a P Y focus on the other options. There was a motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to use the design specified in Option 4B (remove the "V" but reconstruct Kyle Avenue as a public street) at the intersection of 71st and Kyle Avenues North. The motion passed unanimously. SELECTION OF INTERIM CITY MANAGER The Acting City Manager noted Cam Andre, the choice for Interim City Manager, is present at this meeting and will begin work tomorrow morning if approved. Mayor Kragness asked Mr. Andre to step forward. She stated the Council has met with Mr. Andre and decided on him as its choice to "hold the reins" during the interim period. Mr. Andre noted he would like to meet individually with each Councilmember for one to one and one -half hours. Mayor Kragness agreed. Mr. Andre asked the Council to contact him regarding their preferences of meeting times. Councilmember Mann asked the City Attorney whether the agreement with Mr. Andre will be dated June 27. The Acting City Manager said the agreement will be dated 8 a.m. on June 27. The City Attorney noted the date of commencement of work is what is important and that would be June 27. There was a motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve Cam Andre as Interim City Manager for the City of Brooklyn Center. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF RECRUITMENT PROCESS FOR CITY MANAGER 6/26/9 -20- Councilmember Hilstrom stated she would like to hear input from the Interim City Manager since he has experience in the recruitment process. She said she would like to hear how he could help in the process. Councilmember Mann stated she prefers Option No. 3 of the proposals for recruitment in the Council packet. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to enact Option No. 3 regarding the recruitment process for city manager. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Kragness read aloud Option No. 3, which states: "...schedule a work session to discuss and brainstorm Council's ideas in the recruitment process and selection of a city manager. This would give us additional time to talk about the two options above, and also to discuss in more detail the proposals from the consultants which were distributed on June 12, 1995. This would also give the interim city manager some time to catch up with, and also understand, your concerns in regard to a selection process for city manager." ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:43 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Barbara Collman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 6/26/95 -21 - MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EXECUTIVE SESSION JUNE 26, 1995 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in executive session at 6 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Debra Hilstrom, and Kristen Mann. Also present were Assistant City Manager Nancy Gohman, Police Chief Scott Kline, Mac LeFevre of Kennedy & Graven, and City Attorney Charlie LeFevere. Councilmember Barb Kalligher arrived at 6:15 p.m. UPDATE BY CITY ATTORNEY ON MET COUNCIL VS. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The Council discussed the impact of the decision of the district court in the case of MTC vs. Brooklyn Center and whether to appeal the decision. The Council decided not to make a decision on whether to appeal until staff reported on the amounts of assessments which may be levied on MCTO property on Brooklyn Boulevard for future street improvements. DISCUSS SETTLEMENT OF ARBITRATION AWARD The Council discussed alternatives available to proceed with selection of sergeants in light of the arbitration award. DISCUSS SETTLEMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM The Council discussed options available to respond to the workers' compensation claim of Officer Tombers. ADJOURNMENT The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned executive session at 6:49 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 6/26/95 -1- l MIlVUTES 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 5, 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 6:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. Councilmember Kalligher suggested Officer Tombers be allowed to speak or perhaps added to the agenda since he is present at the meeting. Councilmember Mann questioned whether Officer Tombers' comments should be heard at an Executive Session due to confidentiality concerns. Mayor Kragness stated the Council would not be free to take any action on the issue at this meeting. The Assistant City Manager is handling the matter. She stated she had already informed Officer Tombers the matter was not on tonight's agenda so no action could be taken. Mayor Kragness then asked Officer Tombers if he wished to make a short statement to the Council. Councilmember Diann agreed he could speak. Officer Dave Tombers, of the Brooklyn Center Police Department, explained he is a Brooklyn Center Police Canine Officer. He was injured "pretty seriously" in the line of duty and was not able to work for quite some time. He stated he has made an excellent recovery, however. He asked the City what requirements he must meet to be reinstated in his position of canine officer. He was told he must present a doctor's release to work. He did so. Now, he has been told there is no such position as canine officer. He disagrees there is no such position as he has the dog and has been paid to keep the dog. Also, his name and title are printed on several written documents as "canine officer." He noted he was disabled from the position only last April so he doesn't understand how there can not be such a position. The Assistant City Manager has told him the position does not exist and he should have the medical release changed to say he may return to work as a "patrol officer." He stated his career is canine officer and he would 7/5/95 1 1 view being given the title of "patrol officer" to be a demotion. He asked for the Council's consideration to allow him to return to the force as a canine officer. Mayor Kragness said the matter would be investigated. She commented she is aware Officer Tombers is eager to return to work and she thanked him for addressing the Council. Councilmember Mann asked Officer Tombers whether the doctor's release in his possession specifically says he may return with "no restrictions ?" Officer Tombers said it does. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned when the canine program was begun and what the program's guidelines were. Councilmember Kalligher noted the status of the canine program was discussed sometime in 1992. It was also discussed in March when Former Chief Hampton approached the Council regarding sale of the dog. She stated she had requested minutes from the meeting from the Deputy Clerk. Mayor Kragness noted nothing definite is known however. Councilmember Mann agreed. Councilmember Kalligher stated the Council allocated funds in March of 1993. Councilmember Carmody asked when the issue will be finally resolved. The Interim City Manager stated the problem is that there is no classification for canine officer. The City wants to be sure it is established so Officer Tombers can be allowed to return to work with full authority as a regular police officer. There is a question of liability for the City. It is only necessary for the doctor's release to state he is able to return as a regular officer. Mayor Kragness commented it is just necessary for the wording to be changed on the release. Councilmember Carmody noted the union only has two classifications for officers. Councilmember Kalligher added the union's attorney has indicated the union will file a grievance if the release only says "canine." Mayor Kragness noted the designation "canine officer" is a special assignment. Officer Tombers questioned why it is necessary for him to jump so many hurdles in order to return to work. Councilmember Carmody stated the requirement is only to protect the City. The City needs legal assurance there are no limitations to his activities. Officer Tombers asked what would be accomplished by the doctor re- writing the release. The doctor has read the job description and agreed Officer Tombers is capable of performing all duties. 7/5/95 -2- The Interim City Manager commented since the doctor is in agreement he or she should then be willing to prepare another release. Then, the City would not have to negotiate with the union on this issue. Officer Tombers stated he understands but does not see the difference between the two when the canine officer actually does more than the regular patrol officer. Councilmember Kalligher requested the matter concerning Officer Tombers be placed on a regular agenda. Councilmember Hilstrom agreed, noting Staff would then be present to give information. Mayor Kragness stated the issue is a technicality. She asked Officer Tombers why it would bother him to ask the doctor to change one word on the release. She stated the Council must protect the City from lawsuits. Officer Tombers replied he wishes it would not bother him to change the release but it does because he considers the change a demotion. Mayor Kragness invited Officer Tombers to attend the next City Council meeting. Officer Tombers noted the City of Minneapolis uses a simpler form for this procedure. He thanked the Council for its time. Mayor Kragness stated the issue is important to the Council as well as to Officer Tombers. Councilmember Hilstrom indicated she would like to receive a copy of the minutes concerning the issue in the past. Councilmember Kalligher stated she would share the set of minutes in her possession. The formal work session resumed at 6:25 p.m. The Interim City Manager commented it is not necessary for the Council to consider the topics in the order given but he does believe the recruitment of a City Manager is the most important topic listed. Mayor Kragness agreed. DISCUSSION OF PROCESS FOR RECRUITMENT OF CITY MANAGER Mayor Kragness commented many City employees have recommended to her that the City use a professional search firm to locate candidates. A search firm would have the knowledge, experience, and expertise to weed out the most qualified candidates. She noted if the search were performed in -house someone would need to handle the influx of applications and also the details such as paying for interview expenses, etc. Councilmember Mann noted she would expect to use the League of Minnesota Cities for advice. She stated she certainly would like to hold down the costs of the process but there must be a balance between cost concerns and finding a qualified applicant. She suggested the possibility of a citizen task force to evaluate applications. 7/5/95 - 3 - Councilmember Hilstrom discussed the procedure used by Afton in its search for a City Manager. Mayor Kragness stated that, regardless of the search procedure used, it will be necessary for the Council to first formulate a list of criteria required of a City Manager. She noted the City does need to consider cost, but, in the long run, if a search firm were to do the basics, the City would be further ahead. She didn't believe there would be citizens with the time, as well as knowledge and background, to handle the search, when it could take months. Council would rather the process not be lengthy and it might be prolonged using a citizens committee. Councilmember Hilstrom asked the Interim City Manager about the search process in the City of Hopkins, which he handled. The Interim City Manager stated he first asked each councilmember to write down the qualifications he or she desired in a City Manager. Those qualifications were consolidated and an advertisement prepared. He also made some contact calls outside of the advertising. He developed a testing scale relative to the qualifications and used it to pare down applicants from 100 to 20. After another "weeding out," he presented the Council with a list of 12 applicants. The Council chose three applicants to interview. Before the applicants were interviewed, they were provided with information about the City. The Council used the same sort of scale during interviews. Councilmember Kalligher asked whether a recruiting firm was used at all at Hopkins. The Interim City Manager stated he was the outside firm used. He suggested it might be helpful for the Council to obtain outside assistance in developing the list of qualifications desired. He noted the City could handle the advertising but could get assistance in developing the testing scale. In the end, the choice of a City Manager should be the decision of the Council. The Council will be working with the City Manager so it needs to be comfortable with the candidate hired. The Interim City Manager, in this process, would answer questions but would not offer an opinion. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether the Council might be able to write a job description. The Interim City Manager commented another idea would be to choose only certain parts of a recruiting firm's package in an effort to hold down costs. Councilmember Mann noted a decision needs to be made as to whether to do a national search for a City Manager. Mayor Kragness commented an out -of -state candidate, if hired, would have to become acquainted with State laws as well as City laws. Councilmember Carmody noted the Interim City Manager has been involved in City issues in different states. She asked him whether the statutes are very different. 7/5/9 -4- 0 The Interim City Manager stated if a nationwide search is done, a national consultant should be used. The list Council has of recruiting firms includes national consultants. Councilmember Hil discussed proposal prices for different search phases b the C strom disc r pop p p y League of Minnesota Cities. Mayor Kragness noted the Assistant City Manager has prepared a summary of the recruiting firms costs and services offered. The Interim City Manager indicated he would have contacts to solicit applicants in the Midwest and the West, but doesn't have as many contacts in the East. Mayor Kragness noted costs would be increased if a search were nationwide. Councilmember Hilstrom commented there would only be cost involved with a national candidate if that candidate were in the top three to be interviewed in person. Mayor Kragness suggested the League of Minnesota Cities be contacted and asked to present its proposal in more detail. There was a consensus of opinion to ask for such a presentation at an upcoming work session. It was suggested the presentation could be on July 17, 1995, at 6 p.m. Mayor Kragness asked the Interim City Manager to contact the League of Minnesota Cities to ask whether an hour would be sufficient to make such a presentation. The Interim City Manager stated he believed the League of Minnesota Cities would make such a presentation free of charge. Mayor Kragness noted there should be time during the presentation for the Council to ask questions, but it should take about an hour. Councilmember Mann suggested July 19, 1995, at 7 p.m. as an alternate date. Other dates could also be considered. Mayor Kragness commented perhaps the Assistant City Manager and the Finance Director should be present at the presentation by the League of Minnesota Cities. There was a consensus of opinion that it would not be necessary for the Finance Director to be in attendance as the item will eventually come before the Council anyway. The Interim City Manager stated he is confident a number of good candidates will be identified. DISCUSSION OF HOUSING COMMISSION ISSUES Councilmember Carmody noted Housing Commission items will be on the agenda for July 17, 1995. She stated the Housing Commission is requesting guidance from the Council regarding the point of sale versus truth in housing. 7/5/95 - 5 - There was a general discussion regarding the desires of the Housing Commission relating to neighborhood groups. The groups would operate independently of the City. It was noted independence is important as an independent group is likely to have more longevity and result in greater accomplishments. Mayor Kragness noted each neighborhood group needs a good spokesperson and a good team. The Riverwood group is willing to share knowledge, which would be very helpful. I Councilmember Carmody stated she had discussed with the Director of Community Development how to inspire residents to take pride in their properties, which would result in fixing them up. In particular, many roofs are in need of repair. She discussed the City purchasing interest on loans since a grant will not be available for quite some time. She noted these issues will be discussed in depth at the July 17 Work Session. Councilmember Mann stated support for property improvements might be the role of the neighborhood groups rather than of the City. Councilmember Kalligher noted some neighborhood groups need to branch off from dependence on the Community Development Specialist. Councilmember Carmody also mentioned there would be a Paint- A -Thon on August 5, 1995. DISCUSSION OF ROLE OF THE CITY The Role of the Citv Regarding the Liquor Stores Councilmember Hilstrom noted the stores' profit is $125,000 but in the budget it shows the City is still picking up the tab for overhead expenditures as noted on page 44 of the budget under Enterprise Funds accounting. Property taxes are still included. The Enterprise Funds should be paying their own way. On page 45, there is the same situation with water /sewer amounts. Another area of the budget shows the Enterprise Funds are making money, but they are not necessarily paying their way. It is unknown if other discrepancies 'like these could be found in the budget with careful scrutiny. She asked whether the Enterprise Funds pay their fair share on Workers' Compensation insurance, etc. She said she would like assurance the liquor stores are definitely making money. The liquor stores are supposed to be a separate business but the City is involved in supporting them. r v a Mayor Kra,ness noted the answers to these questions may be more evident when the bud has been completely changed over to its new format, which the Finance Director is in the process of doing. Councilmember Hilstrom reminded the Council that the Director of Public Services had recently recommended either the budget be balanced or services be cut. She said she would not consider the liquor store business to be a top priority. If the argument for having the liquor stores is to 7/5/95 - 6 - generate money then there should be clear evidence that the stores are profitable and that supporting the stores is the best use of the City funds. Mayor Kragness commented Councilmember Hilstrom had brought excellent questions which should be researched and answered. Councilmember Mann noted no staff time is allocated in the budget, although this may be due to the budget format. The Interim City Manager noted it is a big undertaking for the Finance Director to set up the budget document to show complete detail. Mayor Kragness added since it is such a big job only one phase can be completed at a time. Councilmember Mann discussed the League of Minnesota Cities' seminar material concerning "service cost equals service value." She noted the material provided by the League of Minnesota Cities was clear and she would like to receive information in an identical format. Councilmember Hilstrom noted it is difficult to determine whether a service is making money. The budget document needs to be read in a specific way to make the determination. She repeated she would like assurance that the liquor stores are definitely making money for the City and are a good investment. She added if the City were to discontinue the liquor stores one of the buildings could be converted to additional space for the fire department, eliminating the budget item for building an addition to the fire department. Councilmember Carmody questioned whether the City's overhead expenditures for running the liquor stores, such as snow - plowing, could possibly amount to a figure near $120,000, which is the amount the liquor stores earn. The Interim City Manager stated he would ask the Finance Director to prepare a report concerning the liquor stores as a beginning step in this discussion. There was a general discussion concerning the amount of money which the City would bring in from the sale of liquor licenses and comparison of that amount with the amount of profit currently experienced. Discussion of Earle Brown Herita;e Center Councilmember Mann commented she is concerned that the only person making money at the Earle Brown Heritage Center is the caterer. Councilmember Kalligher questioned whether the City would be allowed to sell the property due to restrictions on the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district. She also suggested the City might hire a management firm under an arrangement where the firm would receive a base plus incentive pay if money was earned over a certain figure. The Interim City Manager noted in such an arrangement the City would share in profits over and above the base. He stated he was unsure whether it would be allowed on a property in a TIF district, but would study the matter. 7/5/95 -7- i Mayor Kragness indicated Judith Bergeland, the Earle Brown Heritage Center Manager, has invited the Council to tour the Center. She stated Ms. Bergeland has done an excellent job of getting the Center booked. Councilmember Mann suggested a management evaluation of the Center might be in order. The Interim City Manager asked whether the liquor stores and the Earle Brown Heritage Center should be scheduled for further discussion at an upcoming meeting. Councilmember Hilstrom said they should be put on an agenda as discussion items. The Interim City Manager noted that, since the Council is interested in the budget and wants to study it in detail, after August 1 it will be necessary to spend time going through it line by line. Mayor Kragness agreed, noting last year the Council ran out of time and it is unfair to pass the budget under those circumstances. The Interim City Manager commented it will be important to schedule time and structure decisions so that goals can be accomplished. Mayor Kragness concurred. She noted last year the Council sometimes did not have a quorum to handle matters. It will be necessary to set a schedule and follow it as careful consideration of the budget is part of the Council's responsibility. Councilmember Carmody asked whether there is a preliminary schedule. Councilmember Mann reviewed the existing calendar of budget dates. Councilmember Hilstrom commented pages 73 and 74 of the budget contain unclear wording regarding fire fighters. She asked whether the City employs the inspectors mentioned. The Interim City Manager stated the City employs four part-time inspectors, who are active employees. Councilmember Hilstrom noted she hadn't been able to tell whether the inspectors existed. Mayor Kragness commented a full -time inspector has not yet been approved. Councilmember Kalligher left the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Discussion of the Park and Recreation Department Councilmember Hilstrom stated one way of dealing with Park and Recreation Department issues would be to set a policy for the department and commission to follow so that, ultimately, Council would not be approached concerning individual programs one at a time, as in the past. The Council would determine a set amount of money to be spent and Staff would be responsible for prioritizing programs to use the money. The Interim City Manager stated he would pass on the suggestion to the Finance Director and the Park and Recreation Department staff for their response. 7/5/95 - 8 - Councilmember Hilstrom further explained such an approach would eliminate the practice of .. program representatives appealing to the Council for their programs, requiring the Council to judge programs. The Interim City Manager asked whether the Park and Recreation Staff would establish the priorities. Councilmember Hilstrom said they would be in a better position to do so since they would know past attendance and interest in each program, etc. The Park and Recreation Staff would rate the programs based on the basic goals set by the Council, such as "programs for seniors, programs for children," etc. Mayor Kragness noted the Director of Recreation has expressed a desire to make a presentation to the council. She noted he believes his department is under - funded. Councilmember Kalligher returned to the meeting at 7:16 p.m. The Interim City Manager noted that is why it is important to schedule time to consider budget issues. Councilmember Hilstrom reiterated her suggestion would give the Park and Recreation Department freedom to choose programs based on policy set by Council, which would include the Council's desire that a certain percentage be spent for senior programs, etc. . Mayor Kragness agreed. She indicated none of the programs in question are profit - making, and are not intended to be. Councilmember Hilstrom agreed the programs do not need to be profitable. However, she noted the budget document states "...programs designed to be self - supporting." Since they are not self - supporting, the phrase may as well be removed from the budget. Councilmember Mann referred to page 18 of the budget concerning company vehicles. She stated she would like information concerning how many vehicles the City actually owns, who uses them, and the purposes of their use. She said she would like to know how the City vehicle program is going. The Interim City Manager stated he would try to get such an analysis by budget time. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPMENT OF BETTER COMMUNICATION AND TEAM SPIRIT BETWEEN COUNCIL AND STAFF Councilmember Mann thanked the Interim City Manager for his recent memo and noted she agreed with his recommendation concerning calls to the City Attorney. She said she believes it is a very good practice for all councilmembers to receive information which Staff gives in response to any one member's question. 7/5/95 - 9 - Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether there is a form to be used to request information on a long -term basis. The Interim City Manager said there is no specific form but one could be designed which would function more quickly and better. Mayor Kragness agreed it is helpful for everyone to get any information. The Council recessed at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened at 7:29 p.m. DISCUSSION OF FIVE -YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN Councilmember Mann referred to the Street Improvement Program. She noted a great deal of bonding is being considered and asked whether there is a contingency plan. If there is no contingency plan, perhaps one is needed. Mayor Kragness stated there was an earlier suggestion that two budgets be prepared but she was unsure whether the plan was put into action. Councilmember Hilstrom indicated she is nervous about increasing the budget $100,000 per year for ten years in order to pay for bonds. She stated she would like to see any alternatives to that plan. She added it is necessary to set priorities and make sure activities support the stated purposes. If street improvements are determined to be a priority, then the $100,000 should be included in the budget. The Interim City Manager noted future discussions on the five -year strategic plan should cover street improvements and buildings. Councilmember Hilstrom again mentioned the current liquor store, if closed, could be used for the Fire and Police Departments and the City could save remodelling costs. Councilmember Carmody stated it would not be worthwhile for the City to get out of the liquor business just to obtain building space. Councilmember Hilstrom explained she had only meant if it were decided to get out of the liquor business. Mayor Kragness noted a first step will be to get information from the Finance Director. Councilmember Mann commented she is afraid a bond issue will not pass. There was a consensus of opinion on the statement. Councilmember Mann suggested perhaps the proposed bond issue should be halted at this point. Councilmember Hilstrom stated she would want to see the survey results before making such a decision. The Interim City Manager noted the City is committed at least as far as the conduction of the survey. Councilmember Hilstrom indicated Staff, members have expressed a feeling that a bond issue will not be successful. Alternatives should be considered. She stated the City definitely needs additional space for the Fire and Police Depa= -Lments. 7/5/95 - 10 - The Interim City Manager gave a suggestion regarding the Capital Funds. Mayor Kragness agreed the Fire Department and Police Department are both in dire need of additional working space. Councilmember Kalligher noted there is also a problem with air quality in those departments. The Interim City Manager commented the survey may show that certain aspects of the proposed bond issue may be acceptable to residents and can be reworked. Councilmember Kalligher left the meeting at 7:39 p.m. The Interim City Manager noted that on an average home for each $1,000,000 of bonds issued with a 15 year maturity it would result in $S per year in taxes. Mayor Kragness commented the longer the expenditure is delayed, the more it will cost. Councilmember Mann stated she understands the Capital Improvements Program but she wondered whether the newer members of the Council are comfortable with it. She indicated it might be helpful to go over the plan in detail. Mayor Kragness stated she believed all the members should review the plan again. Councilmember Kalligher returned to the meeting at 7:41 p.m. Mayor Kragness spoke regarding City street equipment. She questioned whether the City would be able to take care of some of it independently as it is very expensive. Councilmember Carmody left the meeting at 7:41 p.m. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether there would be a way to find out whether the street equipment usually meets the claimed life expectancy. The Interim City Manager noted there is an element of a revolving fund in existence now. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether anyone on Staff keeps track of whether the life expectancy of equipment is reached or exceeded. The Interim City Manager noted squad cars are on a two -year cycle. The City may want to analyze the process followed regarding squad cars. Councilmember Mann asked the status of the mobile digital terminals. The Interim City Manager replied the terminals are in the process of being installed in squad cars. Councilmember Carmody returned to the meeting at 7:45 p.m. 715/95 - 11 - Mayor Kragness left the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Councilmember Hilstrom asked the Interim City Manager whether he believes it would be a possibility to add the amount to the budget rather than bonding for it. The Interim City Manager stated such an approach would be conservative and would take a great deal of discipline. He added that even a fifteen -year bond is conservative. He noted perhaps a conservative approach would be a good approach. He added the Council might want to trim the bond issue. Councilmember Hilstrom indicated she had meant adding an amount to the budget for street improvements. The Interim City Manager said it could be handled on a cash basis with a tax levy. There are pros and cons for both approaches. Mayor Kragness returned to the meeting at 7:48 p.m. DISCUSSION OF CUSTOMER SERVICE FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE The Interim City Manager explained that after he submitted this as an agenda item he discovered there is a training program currently in progress. He could obtain a status report for the Council. Mayor Kragness asked whether the program is ongoing with a certain number of employees being trained at one time. The Interim City Manager indicated he was unsure. Councilmember Hilstrom noted the budget provides for funds for computer training. She noted in the private sector often one or two representative employees are sent for training and they, in turn, train other employees. She questioned whether the City's program follows that system or whether all employees are sent for training. Councilmember Mann indicated she believed a trainer comes directly to the department and trains everyone. Councilmember Kalligher stated she thought maybe one or two employees go to in -house training. Councilmember Hilstrom noted there is $100,000 in the budget and questioned whether it is being used. She also questioned whether training is needed every year, as well as the method of training -- on -site or off -site, training of all employees or representatives. The Interim City Manager and Councilmember Hilstrom agreed it would be logical to have one employee trained and have that one employee train other employees. Councilmember Mann asked what exactly Omar does. Councilmember Kalligher said he performs troubleshooting. The Interim City Manager said he is the MIS Coordinator. Mayor Kragness stated he also does informal training on a day -to -day basis. Mayor Kragness noted she has never had a problem with City Staff. She believes Staff has been courteous and provided prompt answers to questions. Councilmember Mann concurred, but 7/5/95 - 12- suggested Staff was responding to her questions asked nicely. When approached by an irate resident, a Staff member has a very different responsibility. Councilmember Mann asked whether the City has a complaint system in place for customer service complaints. The Interim City Manager indicated there is a system. Also, other cities have had success with computerized tracking of such complaints and a computer system is being considered for Brooklyn Center. A computerized system would track complaints, provided an analysis, and provide a review for planning improvements. Councilmember Hilstrom stated she was under the impression the computerization of complaints was underway. Mayor Kragness stated Council should receive notice outlining the follow -ups to complaints so it is clear an answer has been provided to the resident. The Interim City Manager indicated he would check on the status of the computerization. Mayor Kragness reiterated all Councilmembers need to get the results of a complaint so they can know follow -up was accomplished. DISCUSSION OF CITY INIAGE Mayor Kragness noted the Image Campaign is off to a good start due to the float entered in the Earle Brown Days parade. She noted there are still complaints that money should not have been spent on a consultant but she believes that action was necessary in order to get the program started. The momentum can now be picked up by the citizens to carry forward. Councilmember Mann commented there will not be a funding allotment in the 1996 budget. Mayor Kragness concurred, noting it was a one -time only expense. Councilmember Mann noted citizens are now coming forward with ideas and she believes the Fall Community Nights will bring the program ahead. Mayor Kragness stated there is a misconception that the City threw away money on the public relations firm it hired. Councilmember Mann referred to the "We the People Rally" which is included on the Earle Brown Heritage Center schedule. She questioned whether the rally was associated with the Perot group. Councilmember Carmody said she believed the rally is in conjunction with the Brooklyn Center group. Councilmember Mann commented she recently toured Brooklyn Center's parks, and believes some are in poor conditions, needing roof repairs, etc. The Interim City Manager noted the survey results may show that citizens would support spending money on the parks. 7/5/95 Councilmember Mann stated the parks are not getting enough maintenance. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether an earlier plan for park revitalization was still being followed. Councilmember Mann said the plan is still in effect. She outlined which parks have been completed and which have not. Councilmember Mann indicated she had personally looked over the tennis courts at Northport Park. She didn't see any problems which should affect the courts' use. She stated she will need to ask the Park and Recreation Commission its reasons for not putting nets on the courts. She thought it was possible the nets should not be withheld but she would need more information from the Director of Recreation and the Interim City Manager. She said she understands the liability concern but wonders if the concern is extreme. Councilmember Hilstrom noted there is now a new surface available which would be for multiple use, including tennis courts. The new surface is supposed to be less expensive than maintenance of the standard courts. She stated she would like to look into the matter and will consult her files. Mayor Kragness asked whether the Park and Recreation Commission has prepared recommendations. Councilmember Mann stated the Commission has brought up some minor things which were forwarded to Staff for maintenance. Building structure and playground equipment needs are related to usage. Mayor Kragness asked whether residents in the neighborhoods will be provided with the refurbishing schedule. Councilmember Mann said they will be told but some will not be satisfied. There is only so much money to go around. There was a general discussion regarding some of the City's parks. Councilmember Mann commented each Councilmember should be provided a copy of the plan, which is part of the Capital Improvements Program. Councilmember Kalligher left the meeting at 8:10 p.m. GENERAL DISCUSSION Councilmember Carmody asked on what dates these issues will be discussed further. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested the Interim City Manager be instructed to include the issues in agendas as soon as possible but providing Staff enough time for adequate preparation. She noted Council this evening has made many assignments and requests. The Interim City Manager noted he would also have time to make sure the appropriate Staff members were present. Councilmember Carmody stated some of the issues have a higher priority than others. She believes the role of the City and the five -year strategic plan should have precedence over the others. 7/5/9 - 14- Mayor Kragness noted it looks as though three additional sessions will be necessary. Councilmember Kalligher returned to the meeting at 8:11 p.m. Councilmember Carmody indicated the City Manager recruitment process and the housing issues have been scheduled for the July 17 session. She recommended 7 p.m. on July 31 be used to discuss the Capital Improvement Plan if it is important to cover that issue during the summer. Councilmember Hilstrom noted the role of the City discussion fits in with budget discussions. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATE FUNDING FOR CITY SERVICES The Interim City Manager noted he would like to ask Staff to brainstorm ideas before a meeting is scheduled on this issue. Mayor Kragness asked the Interim City Manager to provide copies of minutes from an earlier meeting, to all Councilmembers in the packets to be distributed Friday. Councilmember Hilstrom commented when the budget and funding sources are being considered Council should think in terms of where it wants the City to be in the future, rather than just responding to current needs. She recommended a proactive approach. Mayor Kragness agreed the Council should consider five years ahead and ten years ahead. GENERAL DISCUSSION Councilmember Mann referred to the Joslyn site. She noted some residents believe the City should acquire the property to use for ballfields. She asked whether the Director of Public Services could be given an assignment to prepare a list of existing fields which could be replaced by such an action. She noted fields would be chosen for replacement based on soil conditions. Mayor Kragness suggested Jim Glasoe be approached with this question. She also requested Mr. Glasoe be asked about the Thompson property. The Interim City Manager agreed to follow through. Councilmember Mann invited the other Councilmembers to join her for a boat tour to look at park land and possible land for acquisition. It was decided to meet on Tuesday, July 25, 1995, at 5:30 p.m. at Councilmember Mann's home. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hilstrom and seconded by Councilmember Mann to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Barbara Collman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 7/5/95 - 15 - Council Meeting Date 7/24/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration is Item Description: Resolution Acknowledging Gift from Target for Park and Recreation Programs Department Approval: 0 - 0." - P,� Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk , Manager's Review / Recommendation: "' ✓' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Pass Resolution Acknowledging Gift from Target for Park and Recreation Programs. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No ) • In June, Target of Brooklyn Center placed a promotional display in its store to promote the sale of camping equipment. Part of the promotion was to contribute the camping equipment display to the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Department. The camping equipment has been gifted to the Park and Recreation Department for use in recreation programs. The attached resolution acknowledges and accepts Target's gift. • U Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM TARGET FOR PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS WHEREAS, Target of Brooklyn Center has presented the Park and Recreation Department a gift of camping equipment which is designated to be used for recreation programs; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends Target for its civic efforts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to acknowledge the gift with gratitude. 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 7/24/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number 45 Request F Counci Co n s i de ration • Item Description: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE COMPUTING DEVICES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND AMENDING THE 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET Department Approval: Scott Kline, Police Chief Charli ansen, Finance Director 10 Q A#- - Manager's Review /Recommendation: • No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Passage of the attached resolution. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) Late in 1994, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into an agreement with LOGIS and two other cities • to acquire Mobile Computing Devices (MCDs) on a cooperative basis. These will place in each Police squad car the capability for officers to independently do searches of license plates, outstanding warrants, and other data available within the Police Station. Doing this on the MCDs will free up the dispatcher's time even as the officers do more inquiries. It was planned to structure this as a lease /purchase with lease payments, equipment maintenance, air time, and LOGIS costs totaling $45,000 a year for three years. Due to technical difficulties at the hardware and software vendors, service won't begin until November 1, 1995 at earliest. The 1995 budget had anticipated a January 1 start and included the full $45,000. With the November 1 start and purchase of the MCDs, only $3,000 would be needed for equipment maintenance, air time, and LOGIS costs. The remaining $42,000 could be put toward an outright purchase of the MCDs. The full purchase cost is estimated to be $66,250. Another $24,250 is needed from other sources. In early 1995, the State on Minnesota began reimbursing local government units for some costs of the 911 emergency communications system. We weren't aware of this when preparing the 1995 budget and so didn't include this in the revenue estimates. We now estimate that this reimbursement will total $10,250 in 1995 and recommend using that revenue to pay for this addition to our emergency communications system. The final $14,000 can be acquired from redirecting personnel services appropriations that will be unused from the inevitable vacancies that occur in a department the size of the Police Department. The original plan was to lease the MCDs at an annual cost of $45,000. Over three years this would • total $135,000. The purchase option would cost $66,250 up front followed by operating costs of about $19,000 a year after that. The three year cost would be about $123,000, or a savings of $12,000. The necessary funds to purchase are available in the 1995 budget and would reduce 1996 budget requirements by about $26,000. This would save us from having to cut other programs or raise taxes by that amount in the 1996 budget. �c Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE COMPUTING DEVICES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND AMENDING THE 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter provides the City Council with the authority to increase a budget appropriation if the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and WHEREAS, the 1995 General Fund Budget contains the amount of $45,000 for the purpose of leasing Mobile Computing ZD Devices (MCDs) for use in the Police Squad cars and to pay for air time and other operating expenses; and WHEREAS, start up of the operation has been delayed until November 1st by technical problems experienced by the hardware and software vendors; and WHEREAS, the City has the option of buying the MCDs instead of leasing them ZD which will lower their life cycle cost; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota began reimbursing local governments in 1995 for costs associated with emergency communications and that reimbursement is expected to be $10,250 in 1995; and WHEREAS, certain employee positions have been vacant in the Police Department during 1995 which results in there being unused appropriations which may be redirected to the purchase of the MCDs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The Police Chief is authorized to enter into contracts for the purchase of ten Mobile Computing Devices and related equipment and software. 2. The 1995 General Fund Budget is amended as follows: a. Decrease Police Contractual Services by: $42,000 Decrease Police Personnel Services by: $14,000 b. Increase Police Capital Outlay by: $66,250 Increase Revenue for State Grants by: $10,250 RESOLUTION NO. 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 Mecting Dale 7/24/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda It= Number Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Calling for Public Hearing with Respect to the Proposed Refinancing of Facilities for Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II Department Approval: G. Brad Hoffman, Community Developme rector Manager's Review/Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No ) This resolution calls for a public hearing on August 28 with regard to the proposed refinancing of the property at 6100 Summit Drive North in Brooklyn Center which is owned by Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II. I would like to request an Executive Session with the Council to discuss the bankruptcy in detail prior to the public hearing. C.1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REFINANCING OF FACILITIES FOR EARLE BROWN COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II WHEREAS, a proposal has been made to this Council that the City issue its refunding revenue bonds (the 'Bonds ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended, in order to refinance a project consisting generally of a 140 unit multifamily housing facility at 6100 Summit Drive North in the City, which is owned by Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II, a Minnesota limited partnership, and leased to various tenants; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, this Council must conduct a public hearing on the proposal and publish notice of the public hearing not less than 14 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing shall be conducted by this Council on the proposal to undertake the issuance of the Bonds on Monday, August 28, 1995, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, at which hearing all parties who appear shall be given an opportunity to express their views with respect to said proposal. 2. Notice of the hearing, substantially in the form of Exhibit A hereto, shall be published at least once not less than 14 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing in the official newspaper of the City. 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. EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REFINANCING FACILITIES FOR EARLE BROWN COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing shall be conducted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on the refinancing of a project undertaken and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended, by the City and Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Company "). The hearing will be held at the Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, on Monday, August 28, 1995, at approximately 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. The project to be refinanced consists generally of a 140 unit multifamily housing facility at 6100 Summit Drive North in Brooklyn Center, which is owned by the Company and leased to various tenants. Up to approximately $8,800,000 in principal amount of refunding revenue bonds of the City are proposed to be issued to refinance the project. At said time and place the City Council shall give all parties who appear or submit written comments an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to refinance the project. Dated: July 24, 1995. Council Meeting Date 7/24195 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe Request For C Consideration • Item Description: RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE THE SALE OF STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS AND TAX INCREMENT BONDS AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Department Approval: I ' Charlie Hansen, F' irector Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Passage of the attached resolution. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) • The City has the Woodbine Neighborhood Street Improvement Project underway which requires the sale of bonds to successfully finance its completion. Resolution 95 -53 was passed on February 13, 1995, ordering the improvement and declaring the City's intent to sell bonds The resolution calls for the special assessment of benefited properties under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. The City Council established a goal for special assessments to equal 35 % of the total project costs and would be collected over a 10 year period. Property taxes would be responsible for the remaining 65 % of the costs. Sale of bonds of approximately $1,000,000 will be needed to finance project construction. For 1996, a property tax levy of approximately $110,000 will be needed to meet the principal and interest payments on the bonds. We are starting this process now so that a fairly accurate levy amount will be available in time to certify to Hennepin County for inclusion on the 1996 Truth in Taxation notices. The City is also going to be responsible for land acquisition costs related to the Hennepin County project to widen and improve Brooklyn Boulevard from Highway 694 to the north city limits. A new tax increment district covering that area was formed earlier this year to provide financing for the land acquisition and related redevelopment efforts. A request for development proposals was approved by the Economic Development Authority in Resolution 95 -20 on July 10, 1995. The staff already has a good idea of the land that needs to be acquired for the street improvement, but hasn't tried to identify costs for individual parcels. Doing so at this time could put the City at a disadvantage in negotiations. The development proposals will provide the plan for redeveloping the area. It is expected that $6,000,000 will be needed within the next twelve months to fund these activities. Specific approval from the City Council would be sought for the actual spending of the $6,000,000. • If approval is given to this resolution, staff will return on August 28, 1995 with a resolution to officially set the sale date of the bonds. That date will most likely be September 25, 1995 or October 10, 1995. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 These will officially be two separate bond issues. By selling them at the same time, we can economize • on the bond issuance cost. Issuance costs are deducted from bond proceeds and have no effect on the General Fund budget. These issuance costs include a variety of professional service, printing, publication, and legal costs. The largest is for fiscal advisor. In the past, the City has used Springsted Inc. as its fiscal advisor. Springsted is one of the best and most capable bond firms. Their expertise helps the City to get the lowest possible interest cost on its bonds. The past relationship with the City has enabled them to develop a knowledge of the City and lines of communications with staff which facilitate an efficient and effective bond issuance process. An estimate of total bond issuance costs is as follows: Springsted Inc. $33,000 Legal (Bond Counsel) $6,500 Official Statement Printing $3,000 Bond Printing $2,000 Registrar $2,000 Rating (Moody's) $9,500 Miscellaneous (Contingency) $3,000 • ---- - - - - -- Total $59,000 , Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE THE SALE OF STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS AND TAX INCREMENT BONDS AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Section 7.13 of the City Charter provides the City Council with authority to issue debt for any municipal purpose in accordance with law and within the limitations prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the construction of streets and storm sewers in the northwest area, streets in the Woodbine Avenue area; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of this project for which it is necessary to finance by the issuance of bonds is $1,000,000; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the concept of improvements in the area of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue which will require the issuance of bonds to be repaid through tax increment financing; and WHEREAS, the successful issuance of bonds requires the services of various outside professionals and contractors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. the Staff is directed to initiate proceedings for the sale street improvement of bonds in the estimated amount of $1,000,000 and of tax increment bonds in the amount of $6,000,000. 2. the proposal submitted by Springsted Inc. for $33,000 to serve as fiscal advisor for this bond sale is accepted. 3. the Staff is authorized to utilize other professional services for legal opinions, Moody's Investor's Service and bond printing in amounts up to $26,000 to accomplish the bond sale. Date Mayor 0 RESOLUTION NO. 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 07 /24/95 3[City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number C/ • Request For Council Consideration Item Description: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING QUOTE, AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -16, CONTRACT 1995 -H, BRYANT AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION Department Approval: Diane Spector, ector of Public Se s Manager's Review /Recommendation: ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: A resolution which accepts the low bid and awards a contract to Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. of • Rogers, MN is attached for consideration. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes In June of 1994, Mary E. Taylor, 6331 Bryant Avenue No., Brooklyn Center, requested consideration for the sanitary sewer to be extended south on Bryant Avenue. The original sanitary sewer, installed in 1961 did not include a lateral and service to this address. Plans were prepared this year for this extension and Mrs. Taylor has agreed to the assessment in the amount of $1,235.51. This property is the only property assessable and therefore no public hearing is required with Mrs. Taylor's signed letter. On July 20, 1995, the following bids were recieved for this improvement. Bidder Bid Amount Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $ 9,643.50 Metro Utilities, Inc $11,950.00 Penn Contracting, Inc. $15,620.00 The Engineer's Estimate for this improvement is $8,987. The bids submitted exceed the Engineer's Estimate by $656.50. Of the three bids received, the lowest bid of $ 9,643.50 was submitted by Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. of Rogers, MN. • Thomas & Sons has extensive experience in e p performing this type of work for a number of metro area cities and counties, and is regarded by staff as having ample resources available to perform the work required of this contract. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid and award of the contract to Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. of Rogers, MN. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, ACCEPTING QUOTE, AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -16, CONTRACT 1995 -H, BRYANT AVENUE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared the plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 1995 -16 and received quotations for said improvement; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc., Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1995 -16, according to the plans and specifications prepared by the City Engineer. • 2. All costs for Improvement Project No. 1995 -16, Bryant Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension, shall be financed in accordance with the following schedule: Special Assessment PIN 36- 119 -21 -31 -0016 $1,235.51 Public Utility Fund $8,407.99 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 07 /24/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number tion: Item Descri Request For Council Consideration P RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES Department Approval: Di Spector, Di for of Public Se;' Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached PP re P Recommended City Council Action: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. • Summary Explanation: ( sup p orti n g documentation attached P � PP g ) 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. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ` RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 07/24/95 ) 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: I. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance: TREE PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER ---------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ® TOU HOU VVE & CHUE LEE 3625 72ND AVE N 74 JOSEPH & CHERYL TORRES 3812 72ND AVE N 75 RICHARD & CYNTHIA RANWICK 6306 QUAIL AVE N 76 CITY OF B.C. WILLOW LANE PARK 77 MARTHA WEBER 5040 BROOKLYN BLVD 78 CITY OF B.C. HAPPY HOLLOW PARK 79 MARTIN & ELIZABETH HIGGINS 6901 REGENT AVE N 80 RICHARD & CYNTHIA ANGRIST 6906 SCOTT AVE N 81 LLOYD & PHYLLIS DEVEL 1606 72ND AVE N 82 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 Mavor ATTEST: > Deputy Citv Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b g g Y Y 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 Daze 7/24/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number 4 Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS 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: r 4 Z Scott A. Brink, City Engi eer' 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 -05, 69th Avenue North (Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue), Roadway, Bridge, and Utility Improvements Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the City's Comprehensive Plan 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 improvement of 69th Avenue from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue would include many specific improvement items in addition to the reconstruction of the roadway itself. Included within this project would be the replacement of the bridge over Shingle Creek, replacement of the existing trunk watermain with a larger main, trailway construction and adjustments, such as relocating the 69th Avenue crossing under the roadway similar to the trail at the Freeway Boulevard bridge, the possibility of a signal system at Humboldt Avenue, and landscaping and enhancements. 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 provide a detailed cost estimate for all phases of the project, and recommended funding methods and alternatives, including the likelihood 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 would be Request For Council Consideration Page 2 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 property • needed, such as the acquisition of homes. Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. previously provided consulting services for Phase 1 (Brooklyn Boulevard to Shingle Creek Parkway). The purpose of this RFP will be to solicit consultant services for Phase 2 (Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue). The attached RFP will be forwarded to the following professional consulting firms: 1. Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson & Associates, Inc. (TKDA) 2. Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) 3. Orr Schelen Mayeron and Associates, Inc. (OSM) 4. Strgar Roscoe Fausch, Inc. (SRF) After reviewing proposals, it is staff's intention to narrow this field of 4 to 2 final candidates for subsequent interviews and a final selection. Council approval of the finalist shall then be requested. The RFP requests proposals to include the following three phases of work: 1) Gather data and identify options for design 2) Design 3) Construction Management • The preliminary estimated cost of this project is $2.5 to 3.0 million. We therefore expect professional service fees for the project to cost in the range of $200,000 or more. At this time, it is expected that the project cost will be funded from a variety of sources, with the primary source being Municipal State Aid. Depending on the availability of funds and cost effectiveness, it is possible that the project may be phased, or bonds issued. At this time, it is expected that the entire project would be constructed in 1996, as programmed in the CIP. Note: As the Council is aware, 69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard west is a County road. We are at this time working with the County to get the improvement of that segment - Phase 3 - programmed in the County's CIP. �J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS 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 Phase 2 of the 69th Avenue Improvement Project from Shingle Creek Parkway to Dupont Avenue has been programmed for construction in 1996 in accordance with the City's Capital Improvement Program; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Professional Services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -05 is hereby approved. 2. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to solicit for professional services relating to this project, and to submit a recommendation to the Council for approval. 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. • 1995 -05 PROJECT CORRIDOR co z ° o Q o r N JJ Council Meeting Date 7/24/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number tion: Item Descri Request For Council Consideration p RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR ACCOUNTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS Department Approval: ( �AA C 11 — / & — Dian pector, Dire to of Public Servi r 144A Manager's Review /Recommendation: ` No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • It is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution to hold a public hearing on these special assessments. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) The purpose of this resolution is to order a public hearing on Monday, September 11, 1995, at approximately 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to hear and pass upon all objections, if any, to the proposed special assessments for tree removal costs, delinquent weed removal accounts, public utility repair account, and delinquent public utility service accounts. All trees have been declared a public nuisance in past City Council resolutions, and the trees have been removed by the City's tree contractor in accordance with established policy. Delinquent weed destruction account property owners have received notice of delinquent accounts in accordance with the established collection policy and have not made payment. The property owners with public utility repair costs were notified of the need under city ordinances to conduct curb stop repairs as required, and the estimated cost should the property owner not effect the repair and the city orders it done by a private contractor or city forces. In some cases the property owner has been invoiced for the City's cost, and those invoices remain unpaid. In other cases the City has completed the work and is now assessin the cost. • Property owners with delinquent public utilities service accounts have received notice of delinquent account in accordance with the established collection policy and have not made payment. Future council actions include the public hearing at the specified date and adoption of the resolution to certify the special assessment levy rolls with Hennepin County. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR ACCOUNTS, AND T)FT TN OITFN7 PITRT TC TTTTT TTY SFRVTCF ACCSLTNT$ BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 11th day of September, 1995 in the City Hall at approximately 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to pass upon the proposed assessments for the following charges: Diseased Tree Removal Costs Delinquent Weed Removal Accounts Public Utility Repair Accounts Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts 2. The Deputy City Clerk with the assistance of the Director of Public Services • shall forthwith prepare assessment rolls for the above charges, and shall keep them on file and open to inspection by any interested persons. 3. The Deputy City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. 4. The Deputy City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in such assessment rolls not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Myrna Kragness, 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. ' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENT ASSESSMENT ROLL 0 . 0 July 24, 1995 PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: 1994 -22 Levy No.: 13427 Description: Cost of diseased tree removal to Fund /Code No.: 9017 -1370 those tracts or parcels where trees were removed in 1994, by written Levy Description: TREE REMOVAL 95 -3 agreement with the property owner or by order of the City Tree Inspector, at a total cost of less than $300 Levy runs three (3) years at an interest rate of Location: Various City Locations ( ) percent First payment, with property taxes payable in 1996 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: April 25, 1994 Date of Assessment Hearing: By Resolution No.: 94 -82 Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost , interest and administrative costs Corrections, Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $979.80 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $979.80 • SPECIAL A CITY SE RT F ROLL MI? TREE REMOVAL, 95 -3 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Levy runs three (3) years PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address 13427 01- 118 -21 -33 -0052 89365 $173.00 5448 Girard Avenue North S. MANNING & J. BORTH 5448 Girard Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 13427 02- 118 -21 -23 -0012 89442 $243.00 5836 Upton Avenue North DEAN & JOANN HARRIS 5836 Upton Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 13427 25- 119 -21 -33 -0085 89262 $127.80 1100 69th Avenue North LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE MASTER 1200 69th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 13427 28- 119 -21 -43 -0003 89606 $210.50 6925 Regent Ave North JOHN JONES 6925 Regent Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 13427 35- 119 -21 -33 -0015 89390 $225.50 6261 Brooklyn Drive MICHAEL SUNDSTROM 6261 Brooklyn Dr Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 $979.80 d CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPL L ASSESSMENT ROLL July 24, 1995 MMI PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: 1994 -22 Levy No.: 13428 Description: Cost of diseased tree removal to Fund /Code No.: 9017 -1370 those tracts or parcels where trees were removed in 1994, by written Levy Description: TREE REMOVAL 95 -5 agreement with the property owner or by order of the City Tree Inspector, at a total cost of greater than $300 Levy runs five (5) years at an interest rate of Location: Various City Locations ( ) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1996 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: April 25, 1994 Date of Assessment Hearing: By Resolution No.: 94 -82 Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost , interest and administrative costs C orrectior s. Deletions. Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $2,889.13 City Property: $844.00 Other Public Property: Private Property: $2,045.13 CITY OF BROOKLYN CEtA* D SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICA i iuN ROLL TREE REMOVAL 95 -5 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Levy runs five (5) years - PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Descripti Mailing Address 13428 02- 118 -21 -42 -0018 89376 $1,115.75 5524 Morgan Avenue North WANDA WILLIAMS 5524 Morgan Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 13428 34- 119 -21 -24 -0009 89635 $844.00 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 13428 34- 119 -21 -24 -0027 89635 $929.38 4206 66th Ave N DARRIN & SARAH PALM 4206 66th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 $2,889.13 ICI • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTEtkk, ECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL July 24, 1995 A 'V mmlp PROJECT INFORMATION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: 13429 Description: Weed Removal Costs Fund /Code No.: 9001 -1370 Levy Description: WEED DESTRUCTION 94 Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of Location: Various City Locations ( ) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1996 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing: By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections. Deletions. Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $1,280.00 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $2,180.00 CITY OF BR%, -,r LYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL WEED DESTRUCTION 94 MMI I MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Levy runs one (1) year PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Ma iling Address 13429 02- 118 -21 -21 -0016 01383 $162.50 5927 Shingle Creek Parkway BIMB, INC. 801 Nicollet Mall #1410 Minneapolis, MN 55402 13429 02- 118 -21 -44 -0037 89475 $110.00 5325 Humboldt Avenue North LINDA MITCHELL 5325 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55420 13429 03- 118 -21 -41 -0020 00205 $75.00 5525 Xerxes Avenue North INTERSTATE FRANCHISE REALTY Box 66207 AMF O'Hare Chicago, IL 60666 13429 10- 118 -21 -24 -0020 04615 $75.00 3813 51st Avenue North DAVID & BETH SPRAGUER 3813 51st Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 I 13429 28- 119 -21 -41 -0210 01534 $200.00 7223 Brooklyn Boulevard DENNIS HANSON 5222 Minnaqua Dr. Minneapolis, MN 55422 13429 34- 119 -21 -13 -0009 89100 $75.00 6520 Brooklyn Boulevard PHYLLIS OWENS 6520 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 13429 36- 119 -21 -12 -0038 89105 $92.50 West of 507 69th Avenue North DAVID EVANSON Lot 30 2208 73rd Avenue North AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 310 Brooklyn Park, MN 55430 13429 36- 119 -21 -13 -0033 89720 $110.00 430 65th Avenue North MARVIN & BETTY NELSON 104 Dorado Ct. Plant City, FL 33566 • CITY OF BRC 7' O L�YN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL WEED DESTRUCTION 94 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Levy runs one (1) year PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address 13429 36- 119 -21 -13 -0110 04268 $110.00 413 66th Avenue North MILES & SHIRLEY FITERMAN 5217 Wayzata Blvd #212 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 13429 36- 119 -21 -13 -0111 04770 $270.00 6550 West River Road PDQ FOOD STORES OF MN, INC. 8383 Greenway Boulevard Middeltown, WI 53562 $1, 280.00 � I I • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SPEC1 ASSESSMENT ROLL • D July 24,1995 PROJECT IN LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: 13431 Description: City's cost of water service or Fund /Code No.: 9056 -1370 other utility repairs which are the property owners' responsibilty but Levy Description: UTILITY REPAIR 95 which the City performed Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of Location: Various City Locations ( ) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1996 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen (15) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing: By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections. Deletions, Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $708.83 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $708.83 • CITY OF BR ERT FICATION ROLL MMI SPECIAL ASSESSMi. UTILITY REPAIR 95 0 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Levy runs one (1) year PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. Address Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Legal Description Mailing Address 13431 01- 118 -21 -13 -0032 89560 $40.00 5821 Lyndale Avenue JAMES & PEGGY MULWA 5821 Lyndale Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 5430 13431 25-119 -21 -31 -0011 89477 $588.83 824 Woodbine Lane DONALD HEATH 824 Woodbine Lane Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 13431 28- 119 -21 -43 -0144 00431 $40.00 7101 Unity Avenue North VETERANS AFFAIRS Biship Henry Whipple Fed. Bldg. Fort Snelling St. Paul, MN 55111 13431 34- 119 -21 -44 -0106 89392 $40.00 3109 Lawrence Rd. BRUCE & BRENDA CARPENTER 3109 Lawrence Rd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 $708.83 CITY OF BBO YN CENTER SPEC )r .:_ ASSESSMENT ROIL July 24,1995 PROJECT INFORMA ION LEVY INFORMATION Improvement Project No.: N/A Levy No.: 13430 Description: Delinquent public utility service Fund /Code No.: 9056 -1370 charges Levy Description: DELINQUENT PUB UTIL 95 Levy runs one (1) year at an interest rate of Location: Various City Locations ( ) percent. First payment, with property taxes payable in 1996 Improvement Hearing Date: N/A shall include fifteen 0 5) whole months' interest. Improvement Ordered On: N/A Date of Assessment Hearing: September 11, 1995 By Resolution No.: N/A Adopted On: Assessment District: N/A By Resolution No.: Method of Apportionment: Direct cost and administrative costs Corrections. Deletions. Or Deferments: Cost Summary From N/A Resolution No: TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST: N/A Less Direct City Share: Less Other Payments: TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED: $4,100.61 City Property: Other Public Property: Private Property: $4,100.61 • CITY OF BRG•YN CENTER • SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL Q DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITIES 95 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. PROPERTY ASSESSED Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT I Address Mailing Address Mailing Address 13430 01- 118 -21 -31 -0108 90050 $132.25 5621 Camden Ave N Thomas Chapman 5621 Camden Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 13430 01- 118 -21 -32 -0037 89001 $388.72 5548 Girard Ave N Barb Kalligher 5548 Girard Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 13430 01- 118 -21 -33 -0080 89675 $161.34 5415 Dupont Ave N Ricky Hall 5415 Dupont Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 13430 01- 118 -21 -33 -0146 89675 $349.21 5301 Dupont Ave N Michael Desparois 5301 Dupont Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 13430 02- 118 -21 -14 -0025 02245 $116.95 5820 Logan Ave N Vicki Hennegar 5820 Logan Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 13430 02- 118 -21 -34 -0040 89650 $168.90 5340 Queen Ave N Robert Messersmith 5340 Queen Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 13430 02- 118 -21 -41 -0084 89580 $270.17 5557 Knox Ave N Mark Brown 5557 Knox Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 13430 02- 118 -21 -44 -0133 89961 $283.24 5419 Humboldt Ave N Lawrence Mickelson 5419 Humboldt Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 13430 03- 118 -21 -13 -0039 89420 $146.25 5801 Ewing Ave N Tracy Rice Tracy Rice 5801 Ewing Ave N Box 29414 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Mpls MN 55429 • CITY OF BRC,OYN CENTER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL D A DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITIES 95 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. PROPERTY ASSESSED Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Address Mailing Address Mailing Address 13430 03- 118 -21 -13 -0063 89666 $84.25 3636 Admiral La N Curtis Oswskey Kris Knosalla 3636 Admiral La N 3636 Admiral La N Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 13430 10- 118 -21 -13 -0028 89640 $15.08 5024 Lilac Dr N Jill lannazzo 5024 Lilac Dr N Brooklyn Center MN 55429 13430 10- 118 -21 -13 -0060 89275 $112.94 3615 50th Ave N Dan Gladu 3615 50th Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55429 13430 10- 118 -21 -32 -0042 89495 $158.16 4729 Twin Lake Ave Paul Lagergren Paul Lagergren 4729 Twin Lake Ave Box 22517 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Robbinsdale MN 55422 13430 33- 119 -21 -12 -0039 89348 $308.26 6719 Toledo Ave. N. David A Weyrauch 6719 Toledo Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55429 13430 33- 119 -21 -43 -0081 89563 $277.45 5401 63rd Ave N Larry Pederson Larry Pederson 5401 63rd Ave N 1335 Melrose Ave Brooklyn Center MN 55429 St. Louis Park MN 55426 13430 34- 119 -21 -24 -0027 89635 $205.11 4206 66th Ave N Darrin Palm 4206 66th Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55429 13430 34- 119 -21 -24 -0032 89635 $100.40 4201 66th Ave N Kyle Huggins The Associates c/o Craig Murphy 4201 66th Ave N R. D. Kruger, Inc. Brooklyn Center MN 55429 6045 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center MN 55429 13430 34- 119 -21 -43 -0007 89359 $670.68 6201 Brooklyn Blvd Bridgemans Bridgemans 6201 Brooklyn Blvd 5700 Smetana Dr Suite 110 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Minnetonka MN 55343 • CITY OF BROYN CENTER j 0 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLL uuwu-* u DE LINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITIES 95 MUNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 OWNER ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION LEVY PROPERTY ADDN. PROPERTY ASSESSED Name Name NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. NO. AMOUNT Address Mailing Address Mailin Addr ess 13430 36-119-21-42-0016 02246 $151.25 6355 Lilac Dr N Steve Nelson 6355 Lilac Dr N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 $4,100.61 I Council Meeting Date 07/24!95 3[ C ity of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe • Request For Council Consideration Item Description: RESOLUTION AMENDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY ROLL NOS. 13372 AND 13373 TO PROVIDE FOR THE AWARD OF ASSESSMENT STABILIZATION GRANTS FOR THE WOODBINE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS Department Approval: 'se�� Diane Spector, Director of Public Services Manager's Review/Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • Approve the resolution awarding assessment stabilization grants. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) The attached resolution represents assessment stabilization grants for Levy Nos. 13372 and 13373. • V , J . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY ROLL NOS. 13372 AND 13373 TO PROVIDE FOR THE AWARD OF ASSESSMENT STABILIZATION GRANTS FOR THE WOODBINE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy Nos. 13372 and 13373 for the following improvements: WOODBINE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -07 WOODBINE NEIGHBORHOOD STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -08 WHEREAS, Special Assessment Levy Nos. 13372 and 13373 were approved by the City Council on March 27, 1995; and • WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an Assessment Stabilization Program to provide economic assistance to low income property owners in the form of grants to reduce or pay in full their special assessments for street improvement projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Certain property owners are eligible for a grant to pay some part of their special assessment. Special Assessment Levy No. 13372 is hereby amended to reduce the following assessments as noted: PREVIOUS PID # AMOUNT REDUCED TO 27- 119 -21 -32 -0077 $1,700 $1,093.00 Special Assessment Levy No. 13373 is hereby amended to reduce the following assessments as noted: PREVIOUS PID # AMOUNT REDUCED TO 27- 119 -21 -32 -0077 $725.00 $468.00 2. All costs associated with these grants shall be funded from Local State Aid • Account #2900. RESOLUTION NO. 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. i • Council Meeting Date July 24, 1995 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbcr Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Licenses Department Approval: J" - W/X� Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Manager's Review /Recommendation: 4�2 N No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve attached list of licenses. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) • • City of Brooklyn Center • Licenses to be approved by the City Council on July 24, 1995: AMUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Ground Round Restaurant 2545 County Road 10 Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard Deputy City Clerk AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR f Theisen Vending Company 3800 Nicollet Ave. S. �r�rM Deputy City Clerk GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 91st Ave. NE Deputy City Clerk MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. 689 Pierce Butler Route Albers Sheetmetal & Ventilating Inc. 200 W. Plato Boulevard Cronstrom's Heating and A/C 7201 W. Lake Street Northtown Heating & Cooling Inc. 15759 Pierce St. NE (- Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Troy Meyen et al Twin Lakes Manor Renewal: Gary Radke 5245 Drew Ave. N. Helene Ebhardt 5639 Girard Ave. N. Lewis and Vivian Hedlund 5316 Russell Ave. N. Director of Community Development TAXICAB Town Taxi, #101 2500 Washington Ave. N. G�Z Deputy City Clerk • Council Meeting Date July 24, 1995 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number �Qi Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Officer Erland Shelley for His Dedicated Public Service as a Police Officer Department Approval: AX, Cam Andre, Interim City Manager Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approval of Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Officer Erland Shelley for His • Dedicated Public Service as a Police Officer Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF OFFICER ERLAND SHELLEY FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AS A POLICE OFFICER WHEREAS, Officer Erland Shelley was a police officer for the City of Brooklyn Center from September 5, 1967 to July 2, 1995; and WHEREAS, during his career, he spent time working every shift in the patrol division at one time or another; and WHEREAS, Erland worked for four years in the investigation division; and WHEREAS, he served as one of the original members of the department emergency operations unit and was its primary sniper; and WHEREAS, Erland has worked as a Field Training Officer the past seven years and had past experience as Officer Friendly in elementary schools in Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to the community should be recognized and expressed. g NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Officer Erland Shelley is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. 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 7/24/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Fb Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Mayoral Appointment: Human Rights and Resources Commission (One Vacancy) Department Approval: �" W Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Appoint one member to the Human Rights and Resources Commission: One member to fill the vacancy of John Henry whose term would expire December 31, 1995. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) Notice of vacancy on the Human Rights and Resources Commission was published in the May 24, 1995, Brooklyn Center Sun -Post and was posted at City Hall and Community Center and aired on Cable Channel 37 from May 17 through June 30, 1995. A letter was sent to those persons who previously had submitted an application for appointment to a Brooklyn Center advisory commission informing them of the vacancy on the Human Rights and Resources Commission and encouraging them to call Sharon Knutson if they are interested in applying for the commission. They were given the choice of either reapplying or having their application previously submitted be considered. Notices were also sent to present advisory commission members. Attached for City Council members only are the applications received to date as follows: Rhonda Braziel 7224 Newton Avenue North Janelle Schutte 6407 Emerson Avenue North At your March 27, 1995, Council meeting, you approved the following process for filling Commission vacancies: Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by Mayoral appointment with majority consent of the City Council. The procedure for filling Commission vacancies is as • follows: 1. Notices of vacancies shall be posted for 30 days before any official City Council action is taken; Request For Council Consideration Page 2 2. Vacancies shall be announced in the City's official newspaper; • 3. Notices of vacancies shall be sent to all members of standing advisory commissions; 4. Applications for Commission membership must be obtained in the City Clerk's office and must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk; 5. The City Clerk shall forward copies of the applications to the Mayor and City Council; 6. The Mayor shall identify and include the nominee's application form in the City Council agenda materials for the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented; 7. The City Council, by majority vote, may approve an appointment at the City Council meeting at which the nominee is presented. Mayor Kragness has indicated she will call Councilmembers and the Commission Chairpersons and identify her nominations. The table on the following page outlines the geographical distribution of the current members of the Human Rights and Resources Commission and the applicants. • • Request For Council Consideration Page 3 Geographical Distribution Human Rights and Resources Commission • (Chairperson and Eight Members) Applicants and Current Members July 21, 1995 Neighborhoods ods g Pllican#s .. Current Members Southeast Julie Eoloff 6015 Aldrich Ave. N. Sherry Maddox 5711 Knox Ave. N. Northeast east o... da �raz�ei : Dean Nyquist 7006 Dallas Road ti? Emerson eves Northwest Sharon Achtelik 3213 Thurber Road • West Central Susan Larsen Brown 5829 Shores Drive Charlotte Nesseth 4226 66th Ave. N. Neng Yang 4306 63rd Ave. N. Central Southwest Wayde Lerbs 5107 E. Twin Lake Blvd. One vacancy. Council Meeting Date 7/24/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number � Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Approval of Contract with League of Minnesota Cities for Recruitment/Selection Process for City Manager Department Approval: Cam Andre, Interim City Manager Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Motion by Council to approve contract with League of Minnesota Cities for recruitment services. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) Attached are three key pieces for assistance and recruitment of a new city manager. 1. CONTRACT wrm LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES AND CITY OF BROOKLYN FOR RECRUITMENT SERVICES I've been working with Kay McAloney, personnel advisor with the League of Minnesota Cities, on the contract for recruitment of a new city manager. It appears that all is in order on the contract, and I am asking the Council to proceed on the contract as attached. 2. SCHEDULE FOR RECRUITMENT OF CITY MANAGER In working with Kay, we have put together a schedule for the recruitment process for city manager. The recruitment is on a time line as attached, and it centrals around advertising deadlines. In order to get the best qualified candidates for city manager, we need to advertise in the professional publications such as the League Bulletin and International City Managers Association Job Bulletin and Newsletter, and Public Sector Job Bulletin. Upon adoption of the contract tonight, I am also asking that we move ahead with the process and try to adhere to the time lines as closely as possible. 3. ADVERITSEMENT - CITY MANAGER Finally, in order to continue moving along, we have put together an advertisement for the city manager position for Brooklyn Center. In order to keep advertising costs to a minimum, we try to be as brief as possible in the ad but also try to make sure we are giving candidates who are not familiar with the City of Brooklyn Center an idea of our community and the requirements we are looking for. Please note we are advertising the salary range for the city manager at $70,000- 90,000. It is very important that Council members understand that once we advertise for this range, candidates will know this is the salary range for hiring a new city manager. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 Personally, I believe this is an appropriate range for recruitment of a city manager for a quality community such as Brooklyn Center. At tonight's meeting, my assumption is that once the contract is approved, we will move ahead on recruitment process following the time line and using the ad as attached. As always, I will be happy to answer any of your questions or concerns regarding this matter either at Monday night's meeting or prior to the meeting. I am looking forward to us moving ahead on this recruitment process. • • Brooklyn Center Contract Submitted by Kay E. McAloney Personnel Advisor League of Minnesota Cities Phase 1: Phase 1 involves meeting with the Brooklyn Center City Council to determine the necessary qualifications for the position of city manager, including education, skills, abilities and experience. A discussion of important issues specific to Brooklyn Center will allow us to structure a search that focuses on your unique needs. This meeting will last approximately three hours. Cost of Phase 1: Administrative Time 2 hours @ $60 per hour $ 120.00 Travel Time 0.75 hour total @ $30 per hour 22.50 Meeting Time 3 hours total @ $60 per hour 180.00 Mileage 22 miles total @ $0.30 per mile 6.60 Total $ 329.10 Phase 2: During this phase, a job description, job advertisement, and interview questions are derived from information discussed during the first meeting. A training and experience rating form is also developed to score application materials. A second meeting will be scheduled for the Council to review the above documents. The meeting will last approximately two hours. Cost of Phase 2: Administrative Time 4 hours @ $60.00 per hour $ 240.00 Travel Time 0.75 hour total @ $30 per hour 22.50 Meeting Time 2 hours total @ $60 per hour 120.00 Mileage 22 miles total @ $0.30 per mile 6.60 Total $ 389.10 Phase 3: Once the job description, city profile, advertisement and rating form are developed, the advertisement will be placed as directed by the Interim City Manager. The League will send application materials to each candidate applying for the position. Once the closing occurs, the Interim City Manager and I will score the applications based on the training and experience rating form. All applicants are ranked according to their score on the ratin form. The League of Minnesota Cities will not provide direct recruiting in the sense of "headhunting" or soliciting candidates from another city; the League assumes the City will facilitate in this area. We are confident a qualified and sufficiently -sized applicant pool will be attracted through targeted advertising. In fact, the use of appropriate advertising media that reaches potential candidates should result in an applicant pool that is substantially similar to one an executive firm would produce. This is largely due to the nature of this profession and the attractiveness of managing a large metropolitan city like Brooklyn Center. The League cannot make a hiring recommendation to the City Council. Cost of Application Stage: Postage Approximately $100.00 $ 100.00 Administrative Time 15 hours @ $60 per hour 900.00 Total $1,000.00 Approximately ten candidates will be interviewed by the Interim City Manager and me. These will be the ten top scoring candidates from the rating scale created from Phase 1 and Phase 2. Interviews will last approximately one hour per candidate. The Interim City Manager will recommend the top three to five candidates for interviews with Council. Cost of This Interview Stage: Administrative Time 2 hours @ $60 per hour $ 120.00 Telephone Time 2 hours @ $60 per hour 120.00 Travel Time 0.75 hour @ $30 per hour 22.50 Meeting Time 10 hours total @ $60 per hour 600.00 Mileage 22 miles total @ $0.30 per mile 6.60 Total $ 869.10 We propose two panels for the next interviews of approximately three to five qualified, top candidates. Both panels will interview each of the candidates for approximately one hour. One panel will consist of the entire City Council, the Interim City Manager and me. The other panel will consist of department heads of administration, public services, fire, police, financial services and community development. Please note that department head personnel are not involved to provide Council with their recommendation on who should be offered the position, but to provide Council with knowledge and experience specific to their technical professions. Their comments will be given to the Council individually, not in a consensus format. Upon completion of this interview phase, the department head panel forwards their comments to the City Council based on their technical areas of expertise. The City Council then completes a ranking to determine which candidates to bring back for another interview with the City Council. This interview will be held by the City Council, the Interim City Manager and me, and will last approximately one hour for each candidate. A Note from the League's Personnel Advisor: Although I will not score candidates during the interview process, I will actively participate during the interviews. Cost of this interview stage: Administrative Time 2 hours @ $60 per hour $ 120.00 Telephone Time 2 hours @ $60 per hour 120.00 Travel Time 0.75 hour @ $30 per hour 22.50 Meeting Time 6 hours total @ $60 per hour 360.00 Mileage 22 miles total @ $0.30 per mile 6.60 Total $ 629.10 Phase 4: Once the candidates have been narrowed to two or three, reference checking will begin. Each candidate will have completed an authorization form. Reference checking of previous employers and personal references will be performed by the Interim City Manager. A standard questionnaire will be prepared to request work - related information about each of the finalists. Next. the Council authorizes the Interim City Manager to negotiate the contract and offer of employment to the top candidate. Cost of Phase 4; Administrative Time 2 hours 0 $60 per hour $ 120.00 Tclepbone Time 2 hours @ $60 per hour 120, 4Q Total $ 240.00 The estimated total cost for the services listed is S2.g6.4Q Rates for League Personnel Services are as Follows: Mileage (actual) - $0.30 per mile Postage for Mailings (actual) Travel Time - $30 per hour Meeting Time - $60 per hoar Telephone Time - $60 per hour Administradve Time - $60 per hour $dereuces: Jeffrey Dains, Mayor - City of Lauderdale 6121645-7068 Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator - City of Ramscy 6121427 -1410 Roger DcLap, City Adminiitrator • City of Thief River Falls 2181681 Jim Miller, Bx=tivc Director - League of Minnesota Clues 6121494 - 5600 Duke Addicks, Director of Member Services - League of MAY Cities 612/490 -5600 If you have questions, comments, or rayisions to the above arrangements, please feel free to call me at 490 -5600, extcasioa 282. If you accept the eontmc4 please sign and return one of the enclosed copies of this letter along with the signature page. I am prepared to begia working on this project immedlaidy u pon Acceptance of this contract. P°ymeat for the Fork Will be as Follows: Ohc -third of the estimated total upon your aoceptance of this proposal- Balance to be paid at thb end of the project. I look forward to working with you on this project. Sl�cmriy. .� VY1G Ka y E. McAlone Y Personnel Advisor The terms contained herein for services are accepted and the above constitutes a contract between the League of Minnesota Cities and the City of Brooklyn Center. League of Minnesota Cities City of Brooklyn Center By By James Miller, Executive Director Myrna Kragness, Mayor a POSSIBLE SCHEDULE FOR RECRUITMENT OF CITY MANAGER Job Description July 26- August 1 Advertisements, Rating Data (Phase 1 and II) Advertisements(Phase III) Deadline Publication -League Bulletin Aug. 2 Aug. 18 .ICMA Job Bulletin Aug. 4 Aug. 15 •ICMA Newsletter Aug. 8 Aug. 27 -Public Sector Job Bulletin Aug. 9 Aug. 15 Deadline for Applications September 12 Initial Review of Applications September 15 -16 Council Selects Top 3 -5 Candidates September 25 Interview Top 3 -5 Candidates October 1 -7 . Perform Background Checks October 9 -13 Council Selects Candidate October 16 Career Opportunity City Manager Immed. opening - Brooklyn Center, MN (pop. 28,543), NW suburb of Twin Cities. Salary range: $70,000- 90,000. Reports to mayor + 4 council members (4 -year term). Resp. for $22M all -funds bdgt, including $11M GOP; 158 FT & 150+ PT staff including pub. serv., com. dev., finance, police, vol. fire, admin. Req: BA (MA pref.) + 5 -7 yrs exper in resp gov't mgmt position. Ideal candidates have skills in redevelopment, team bldg, communication, finance /bdgting, pub. relations & strategic planning. AA /EEO. Apps due 4:30 PM, Mon., Sept. 11, 1995. For app. pkg, call Kay McAloney at (800) 925 -1122 or 612/490 -5600; , to League of MN Cities, 3490 Lexington Ave N, St Paul MN 55126. Council Mectiog Date 7/24/95 31 City of Brooklyn Center A Item Number Sc� Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Accepting the 1995 Project Selection Report of the Hennepin Community Planning Committee Department Approval: Tom ublitz, Community Development Specialist Manager's Review /Recommendation: d2 1 W. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Staff recommends approval of Resolution Accepting the 1995 Project Selection Report of the Hennepin Community Planning Committee. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) This resolution would formally accept the Hennepin Community Works Planning Committee's 1995 project selection report. A copy of the project selection report, including a listing of the Planning.. Committee membership, is included with this request form. Selection of the projects in the report were based on project scoping documents submitted to Hennepin County. Copies of the scoping documents for both Brooklyn Center projects are included with this memorandum. The Council has previously received draft copies of both scoping documents. An update on the present status of the Hennepin Community Works program is summarized below. • The 1995 legislature approved $200,000 in funding for planning studies related to the Humboldt Avenue Greenway and Shingle Creek Regional Pond projects. • An RFP is currently being developed for planning and feasibility analysis on the Humboldt Avenue Greenway and Shingle Creek Regional Pond projects. The entire $200,000 has been allocated to the Humboldt Avenue Greenway and Shingle Creek Regional Pond projects. • Over the next few months, a planning committee will be created consisting of representatives from the cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis to work on the analysis and planning for both projects. • As part of the legislative requirement for the $200,000 planning grant, Hennepin County must report to the legislature by February 15, 1996, with its recommendations regarding the Humboldt Avenue Greenway and Shingle Creek Regional Pond projects. Request For Council Consideration Page Z ■ In addition to the resolution before the Council this evening regarding acceptance of the project selection report, the Council will be asked at some future date to endorse the Humboldt Avenue and Shingle Creek projects and to provide comments on all four projects endorsed by the Hennepin Community Works Planning Committee. City staff will be present at Monday's meeting to answer any questions the Council may have regarding the Hennepin Community Works program. • HE:NiVEPE CO VLN1L�'ITY WORKS PROJECT SCOPLNG LNFORI LNTION 1. Project name: Humboldt Avenue Parkway roject. P J 2. Project sponsor: The project will be a cooperative effort between the City of Brooklyn Center, the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County. 3. Contact person and phone: Tom Bublitz Community Development Specialist City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 569 -3433 HUMBOLDT AVENUE PARKWAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Humboldt Avenue Parkway project would provide for the construction of a one to two block wide parkway /greenway on Humboldt Avenue from Victory Memorial Parkway in Minneapolis to 57th or 59th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. The primary goal of building the parkway /greenway is to stabilize and enhance property values in the residential areas immediately adjacent to, and in the surrounding neighborhood of, the parkway. This single- family area along Humboldt Avenue in Minneapolis* is already experiencing decline in property values. The properties along Humboldt Avenue in Brooklyn Center and the surrounding neighborhood are presently holding their value and appreciating; however, the southeast neighborhood is the oldest neighborhood in the city and is the area most in need of single - family housing rehabilitation. The long -term view of the southeast neighborhood suggests that 10 to 15 years from now,.if nothing is done to stabilize values, the southeast neighborhood may be in a state of decline similar to that which is occurring in north Minneapolis now. 4. Briefly describe to what extent the proposed project addresses each of the Five Principles of Hennepin Community Works. Enhance the Tax Base - Infrastructure investment coordinated between jurisdictional boundaries. which expand and connect natural and man made amenities offer the opportunity to enhance the common tax base of the county. The area proposed for the Humboldt Avenue parkway is entirely residential. Additionally, the predominant land use of the entire southeast neighborhood is residential, and it comprises the largest uninterrupted areas of housing in the City of Brooklyn Center. Housing values .in the southeast neighborhood and in the immediate area of the Humboldt Avenue parkway project are appreciating but, as the housing stock continues to age, a major question that emerges is will residential properties continue to appreciate 10 to 15 years from now. Table No. 1 in the list of attachments provides a comparison of the average market value of single - family homes in the City's southeast neighborhood, as compared to the City average market value for the period between 188 and 1995. The table shows moderate increases in market value in the southeast neighborhood and citywide. Stimulate Employment Development - Projects create jobs by themselves through the public expenditures. More importantly, infrastructure investments stimulate private investment which create onQgoing_ private sector employment opportunities The Humboldt Avenue parkway project has as its major goal to stabilize and reinforce housing values in the southeast neighborhood. The jobs created directly by the project will be construction jobs related to roadway and utility improvements. It is anticipated that additional construction jobs will be created in the housing industry if the scope of the parkway project provides areas for new home construction. Althou not directly related to job creation, stabilization and revitalization of residential neighborhoods will help to support and maintain existing and potentially new retail employment in the area. Maintain and Imorove Natural Svstems - Accessing the natural systems of the community can add value by rovidina an amenity and by reducing the Iona -term cost of infrastructure The parkway project will create a major new green space in the heart of the City's southeast neighborhood. Additionally, depending on the design of the parkway, there may be an opportunity to create a pond to provide for storm water collection and which can be constructed to serve as a visual amenity to the neighborhood. Strenathen Communities throw h Connections - Public infrastructure investments which strengthen connection to other communities to urban resources and the natural environment, create long -term economic value The model for enhancement of residential neighborhoods, as a result of a man-made amenity, is Victory Memorial Parkway. The Humboldt Avenue parkway will provide a connection to Victory Memorial Parkway in Minneapolis to Brooklyn Center. The connection of Humboldt Avenue to Victory Memorial Parkway by a parkway is intended to provide opportunities for the creation of new housing and improve existing housing, similar to the long -term maintenance of property values experienced along Victory Memorial Parkway in Minneapolis. Build Bridges fQr Effective Planning an'd Implementation - For oroiects to accomplish multiole goals financial and human resources at all levels of government must be coordinated into a comprehensive program The success of the Humboldt Avenue parkway project will be directly related to the capacity of several governmental jurisdictions to work together to assess the feasibility of the project, and, if feasible, to plan and design the project, obtain and commit resources, and construct the project. The key jurisdictions affected by the Humboldt Avenue project are the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis. It will be essential for these three jurisdictions to agree on a major construction project with extraordinary economic and social implications for all three jurisdictions. 5. Assistance requested from Hennepin Community Works. The immense scope of the Humboldt Avenue parkway project is such that Brooklyn Center's request for assistance from Hennepin County must initially focus on project planning and feasibility rather than construction.. The City of Brooklyn Center is requesting that a project team be assembled from the affected jurisdictions which include the City of Brooklyn Center, the City of Minneapolis, and Hennepin County. It is requested the project team address the following issues and tasks: • Determine scope of project, including project design, size of parkway, location, and number of properties to be acquired, and existing streets to be included in addition to Humboldt Avenue, such as 57th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. • Determination of project feasibility with regard to costibenefit analysis of short- and long -term tax base impacts. Analysis of potential project impact on school districts, displaced persons including senior citizens, and potential benefits /impacts on homes adjacent to the parkway. • Development of physical design for parkway, including roadway design, landscaping, drainage plans, etc. • Assistance with development of project budget and assistance with finding and securing funding sources for the project. • Assistance with development of public participation and communication mechanism for the project to keep neighborhoods and affected property owners informed about the project. 6. Project Budget/Sources R The project budget and funding sources' are yet to be determined, and will be developed with Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis. The City of Brooklyn Center has the capacity to maintain the parkway improvements as part of its normal public works maintenance function. ENHANCE THE TAX BASE /STIMULATE EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (transportation, utilities, public facilities or public Lands) 1. Does the proposed project address deficiencies in existing infrastructure systems? Upgrading Humboldt Avenue to a parkway will also upgrade the roadway and facilitate improved traffic flow along Humboldt Avenue between Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis. There are some drainage problems along Humboldt Avenue which would be resolved with an improved roadway. Also, the potential for creating a retaining pond for drainage, which would also serve the purpose of an additional amenity for the project is a possibility in this project. Additionally, Humboldt Avenue currently does not have curb and gutter, which would be included in the parkway improvements, and would add value to the affected properties. Deficiencies in water and sewer service would be addressed with new water and sewer lines along Humboldt Avenue. 2. Does the proposed project expand current public infrastructure service? The project will not expand infrastructure unless a retaining pond is created for drainage improvements in the area. TAX BASE LVPACT (commercial /industrial) 1. Will the project result in restoring the property tax value of a polluted or "brownfield" site? The City is not aware of any polluted lands in the Brooklyn Center project area. 2. Will the project help to stabilize a declining neighborhood or community? This is the most important element of the Humboldt Avenue corridor project. The project is contained in the City's southeast neighborhood which has the following characteristics: -4- • According I to a housing study dons by the Maxfield Research Group, Inc., and completed in 1989 and which studied the housing market in Brooklyn Center, the southeast neighborhood in Brooklyn Center is "the oldest of the City's six neighborhoods and one of the two largest. The neighborhood is situated directly north of Minneapolis, along the west bank of the Mississippi River. The boundaries of the southeast neighborhood are: 53rd Avenue North (the border with Minneapolis) on the south, Shingle Creek on the west, I -94/1 -694 on the north, and the Mississippi River on the east." • The Maxfield Study titled, "The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and Their Impact on the Community ", also reports that "approximately twenty -five percent (25%) of the single - family homes in the southeast neighborhood, particularly south of 55th Avenue North, were built prior to 1950, while the remainder were built in the 1950s or after. The area south of 55th Avenue North is close to north Minneapolis, and lot sizes, housing styles and ages are very similar to that area." • The Maxfield Study also points out that the southeast neighborhood "is arguably the most difficult neighborhood to access in Brooklyn Center, either from other neighborhoods within the City or from neighboring communities." • With regard to neighborhood housing types and condition, the Maxfield Study notes that "a large portion of the southeast neighborhood housing supply is single- family homes. The age, condition, and architectural style of these homes varies significantly, from turn of the century farmhouses to 1980s two- story infill housing. No other neighborhood displays such a variety of housing. " Additionally, the report points out "the age of housing in the southeast neighborhood is of more concern than in the other six neighborhoods. More * than twenty -five percent (' of the housing units in this neighborhood were built prior to 1950. This relates directly to the condition of the housing; as it ages, generally more effort and money is required to maintain it." • The City of Brooklyn Center's home rehabilitation deferred loan program reinforces the observations of the Maxfield Study since eighty -five percent (85%) of the deferred loan projects are done in the southeast neighborhood. The City's deferred loan program is an income - eligible program that provides up to $15,000 per housing unit (single- family and duplex units) for a variety of housing rehab. • Table No. 2 in the list of attachments describes the 1994 property values for single - family properties on both sides of Humboldt Avenue, the east side of Irving Avenue and west side of Girard Avenue between 53rd and 57th Avenues. In reviewing the data from the table, the majority of properties along the Humboldt Avenue corridor are below the $74,000 1994 median value established for single - family properties in the City of Brooklyn Center. In fact, 75% of the single- family properties in this area are at $70,000 or below in market value. This is nbt to suggest that the homes along the Humboldt Avenue corridor are in a blighted condition, but it does indicate that in g eneral, the homes in the Humboldt Avenue area and in the southeast neighborhood are below the median value for properties in the City as a whole. • The City's Maxfield Housing Study also notes, with regard to the southeast neighborhood, that "for a variety of reasons, the southeast neighborhood in Brooklyn Center is labeled with the poorest image." The Maxfield Study goes on to report that one of the reasons that it is mentioned in such a negative fashion is its close proximity to the housing in north Minneapolis bordering Brooklyn Center south of 53rd Avenue North. Perhaps the single most important Question to be determined by further analysis of the Hennepin Community Works project is whether or not the housing stock in the southeast neighborhood in Brooklyn Center will experience the same kind of decline that is now occurring in the area of Minneapolis south of 53rd, and whether or not action by public agencies, such as that contemplated by the Hennepin Community Works Program, can avoid the pattern of deterioration currently underway in north Minneapolis. 3. How will the project impact the short and long term property tax value of the project area and larger neigh borhood/com J bo hoodicommu unity? The area between 53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue North is virtually comprised of all single- family properties. There are 131 properties on Humboldt Avenue (east and west), Irving Avenue (east) and Girard Avenue (west) with a total market value of $8,619,900. The short -term loss of this assessed value would translate into an approximate $122,400 loss in tax revenue. The impact on the tax burden of the entire community would be a loss of 4/10 of 1% of the total City tax revenue. However, the impact on the Brooklyn Center School District could be more significant. This is one of the elements that must be assessed as part of the feasibility study of the parkway project. One of the primary goals of the Humboldt Avenue Parkway project is to reinforce the property values in the area along the parkway and in the southeast neighborhood. The feasibility study for the parkway must specifically address the process whereby new development g P o ment wil 1 occur along h Y the arkwa and also how P o b P Y existing development will continue to appreciate. JOB TRAINING and EMPLOYMENT STIMULATION L Does the proposal include a short-term training plan and employment opportunities for public assistance recipients? 2. How many persons, what type of training and jobs, length of employment? 3. Will the project stimulate the development of new (not relocated) private sector jobs -6- on a long term (3-;- years) term basis? 'Estimate the number of new private sector jobs, job type and salary. In response to the job training and employment stimulation questions, it is anticipated that the types of jobs that would be linked to the Humboldt Avenue corridor project would largely be construction jobs, including road, water, and sewer construction and eventually housing construction when the area experiences redevelopment. At this point, the City is unable to accurately predict the impact of the Humboldt Avenue corridor project on long term employment. With re to short-term employment, the parkway project itself would employ persons in the street and utility construction field. The scope of the project is not yet determined so that the numbers and specific type of employment positions which will be created cannot yet be determined. The City is not proposing any specific training plan for public assistance recipients with this proposal; however, the City would be willing to work with Hennepin County, contractors, and /or local unions to develop training plans and employment opportunities for public assistance recipients on the construction phase of the Humboldt Avenue corridor project. MALNTAIN AND LMPROVE NATURAL SYSTEMS 1. Does the project enhance, or prevent the deterioration, of a natural system? The Humboldt Avenue corridor project is in a. completely urbanized and developed area. The construction of a parkway on Humboldt will create a green space in the center of an urban neighborhood, thereby expanding the natural landscape in the area providing for the planting of a significant number of trees and shrubs. 2. Will the project accomplish multiple purposes? (e.g. transportation, recreation, drainage) The Humboldt Avenue corridor project will improve vehicular transportation and circulation along Humboldt Avenue and roadway improvements to Humboldt will also resolve drainage problems currently existing on Humboldt Avenue. Inclusion of a walking /jogging trail as part of the Humboldt Avenue parkway project would provide additional recreational opportunities along the parkway. Depending on the design of the parkway, additional passive -type recreational and green space areas could be provided along the parkway. STRENGTHEN COOTIES THROUGH CONNECTIONS FOR EFFECTIVE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION I. What communities (as defined by shared characteristics) will the project connect? -7- The Humboldt Avenue corridor will connect the cities of Brooklvn Center and Minneapolis. The Humboldt Avenue corridor will also connect Victory Memorial Parkway to Brooklyn Center via the Humboldt Avenue corridor. The Maxfield Study points out that the bordering areas of Brooklyn Center and north Minneapolis are very similar in age and housin type. 2. Does the project connect a community(ies) to a recognized system? (man -made: e.g. trail system, park system) (natural: e.g. river, watershed) The Humboldt Avenue parkway will connect Brooklyn Center to Victory Memorial Parkway in Minneapolis. Additionally, if the parkway concept is extended from Humboldt Avenue to the Mississippi River along 57th Avenue North, it will connect the parkway to the Mississippi River, the planned regional park along the Mississippi River, including the North Mississippi Trail System. 3. Is there a funding (public and private) plan for the capital project? Presently, there is no specific plan for funding the parkway project. The scope and considerable expense of the project would necessitate a fending source beyond the financial resources currently available to the City of Brooklyn Center. It is anticipated that the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis would explore and propose funding sources at the local, state and federal levels of government. 4. What is the implementation plan for the development and operation of the project. (Timeline, responsible agencies) It is anticipated that the planning team assembled by Brooklyn Center, Minneapolis and Hennepin County will develop an implementation plan for the development and operation of the project upon determination of the projects feasibility. One of the primary objectives in development of any implementation schedule is to assure residents and property owners in the project area are given a specific schedule for implementation of the project. 5. Is the project or portions of the project included in the comprehensive planning document of more than one public agency? (Copy of document) While the specific Humboldt Avenue Parkway project is not referenced in the City's comprehensive plan, there are numerous references in the plan with regard to maintaining the City's housing stock and neighborhoods. Two such excerpts from the City's comprehensive plan are included at the end of this scoping document in the list of attachments and are also summarized below: -8- • In the inventory of existing conditions in the City's comprehensive plan (page 21), the plan points out the "deterioration of the housing stock in the southeast neighborhood should become the target of City action in the very near future so as to prevent housing conditions from worsening to the point where it is no longer economically feasible to attempt structural rehabilitation. " Although the Hennepin Community Works Program is not a housing rehabilitation program, the goals of the program directly affect the improvement of housing stock in the southeast neighborhood. • In the Land Use Goals section of the comprehensive plan on page 3, a reference is made to maintaining and upgrading land use and environmental quality. The plan points out that "in order to preserve the vitality and usefulness of each neighborhood and the community as a whole, steps must be taken to encourage the rehabilitation of substandard dwelling units, as well as commercial and industrial structures. Redevelopment decisions and land use changes should take into account the capacity of the transportation system, the effect on the municipal tax base and overall environmental quality. " While the Humboldt Avenue corridor is not now considered a blighted area and property values are maintaining, the possibility of future decline in property values in the next decade make this comprehensive plan reference pertinent to the goals of the Hennepin Community Works Program. The Land Use Goals section of the comprehensive plan also has as one of its major goals the preservation and protection of property values in the City. The Hennepin Community Works Program also has as its major goal the preservation and protection of property values. In this sense, the Hennepin Community Works Program is in keeping with the major goals of the City's comprehensive plan with regard to land use goals. 6. Has the project been reviewed by affected neighborhoods /communities? (Letters of support) The Humboldt Avenue parkway project has been reviewed by the Brooklyn Center City Council, the City's Housing Advisory Commission, and the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee. The Earle Brown Nei Housing Advisory Committee is a body appointed by the City Council whose purpose is to address housing and neighborhood issues in the southeast (Earle Brown) neighborhood. The committee meets on a regular basis, publishes a community newsletter, and has addressed various issues in the southeast neighborhood, including street improvement programs, code enforcement issues and other neighborhood improvement projects. A neighborhood meeting to review the Hennepin Community Works Program, along with other neighborhood issues, was held on April 25, 1995, at the Earle Brown Heritage Center in the City of Brooklyn Center. The entire southeast neighborhood was mailed notice of the meeting, which consists of approximately 1,900 single - family homes and 600 multi - family housing units. Over 180 people attended the -9- April 25 meeting, which was hosted by"' the Brooklvn Center Planning Commission and chaired by Mr. Tim Willson, chair of the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission. A letter to Mr. Willson from Commissioner Mike Opat dated May 1, 1995, summarizes the events at the April 25 meeting regarding the Hennepin Community Works Program and is included in the list of attachments. Essentially, the residents attending the meeting had a number of questions about the project which are summarized in Commissioner Opat's letter. A number of residents spoke against the project; however, as indicated in Commissioner Opat's letter, when asked whether or not the City and County should proceed with the next step in the project which is to provide for the research, planning and fiscal analysis of the parkway project, a majority of the people from the neighborhood expressed a willingness to proceed with the next step. 7. Identify other public and private investments scheduled in the project area which will support program goals. The City of Brooklyn Center has implemented a street replacement program which intends to replace approximately five miles of street per year in the City. There are approximately 100 miles of street within the City of Brooklyn Center. The street replacement program would include replacement of the street and installation of curb and gutter, along with replacement of water and sewer lines. A portion of the street replacement program has been completed in the southeast neighborhood. The areas completed to date include James and Knox Avenues from 53rd to 57th. Additionally, improvements to the street and storm drainage system will be made along 57th Avenue between Logan Avenue and Camden Avenue. These improvements are scheduled for 1996. -10- List of Attachments Table One - Comparison of average market values of single - family homes in the southeast neighborhood to the citywide average from 1988 to 1995 Table Two - Market value ranges of single - family properties in project area Excerpts from Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan pages 3 -4 and page 21 of the Comprehensive Plan Project Area Maps Showing Property Market Values Letter From Commissioner Mike Opat to Mr. Tim Willson, Planning Commission Chair, Regarding April 25, 1995 Southeast Neighborhood Meetinz YEAR SE NEIGH- iBORHOOD CIT Y WiDEj 1995 payable 1996 Parcels 1,976 8,142 Homestead 1,92 7,888 - # Non - Homestead 49 254` Average Market Value $68,200 573,200 'Homestead/Non- Homestead Counts inaccurate for 1995 as they do not include mid year homesteads that are pending. 1994 payable 1995 Parcels 1,977 8,150 Homestead 1,940 7,957 Non - Homestead 37 193 Average Market Value 567,400 572,200 1993 payable 1994 Parcels 1,981 8,147 n Homestead 1,936 7,917 Non - Homestead 45 230 Average Market Value $6 7,400 $72,200 Decrease in non - homestead properties in 1993 from 1992 is due partially to the new relative homestead classification. 1992 payable 1993 Parcels 1,980 8,145 m Homestead 1,911 7,839 "Non-Homestead 69 306 Average Market Value 567,200 S71,600 I 1991 payable 1992 Parcels 1,986 8,146 n Homestead 1,911 7,818 Non - Homestead 75 328 Average Market Value $67,500 572,300 1990 payable 1991 Parcels 1,989 8,166 Homestead 1,917 7,832 Non - Homestead 72 334 Average Market Value 566,600 572,600 1989 payable 1990 Parcels 1,985 8,161 Homestead 1,893 7,780 m Non - Homestead 92 381 Average Market Value 566.500 S71,300 1988 payable 1989 Parcels 1,986 8,161 T Homestead 1,894 7,777 Non- Homestead 92 384 Average Market Value S65,CC0 569.900 4;18/95 Table One HUM c^, OLDT A VENUE PARKWAY SINGLE- FAMILY P ROPERTY VALUES FOR PROPERTIES ON HUMBOLDT (E,:ST AND W EST), IRVING (EAST) AND GiRARD (WEST) BETWEEN 53RD AND 57TH AVENUES umber of Pra erhe'tih�2an \ tDl7?f4�173 \rw ` • \` \ C \ v 2 2 j\ seat' ?V 2g \ ...7. t. •a x'\`�-`1•. ."..•;.2�2veY»2�, t 2 x k ..2.. ..2,•. :: rii ::;k:� 22,2> Is 0-$55 40 r Q 555,001- 50,000 A "' ;w m$60, 001-65,000 30 � 2 X$65,001- 70,000 ZS ® S70,001- 75,000 20 � � El S75 001 - 80,000 15 " " ?' 0 -85,000 E 585,001- 90,000 10 2rr „t�v:ik�k: ■$90 001 or over > MC" M'' 0 Table Two Land Use Goals Proper goals, policies, and plans for the use of land in a municipality are essential to the orderly, economic, and efficient development of that com— munity. Land use is the basis and framework for all other physical devel— opment, including buildings, transportation facilities, and public infrastructure such as sewer Iines. The importance of this aspect of com— munity planning cannot be overemphasized. With the overall com unity development goals in mind, land use policies must be established to allow a continuation of past trends which are bene— ficial and to gradually change those aspects which are seen as detrimental. At this point in its development process, the City of Brooklyn Center needs only to "fine tune" its land use policies and plans. The following, then, are the land use goals of the city: I. Maintain and upgrade land use and environmental quality. Explanation: In order to preserve the vitality and usefulness of each neighborhood and the co=uni:y as a whole, steps must be ta::en to encourage the rehabilitation of substandard dwelling units as well as commercial and industrial structures. Redevelopment decisions and land use changes should take into account the capacity of the transportation system, the effect on the municipal tax base and overall environmental quality.' A broad framework and set of policies should be devised guide the development and redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard so that the street remains attractive and continues to function adequately as a thoroughfare,- that the needs of the community for services are met, and that values of adjacent properties are protected. improvements to be made in the T.H. 169 roadway should be analyzed as to their impact on existing and potential residential and commercial development. increased traffic circulation in the Southeast Neighborhood should be handled carefully so as not to provide a major adverse impact on pro— perties in that area, particularly along 53th and 576h Avenues. 2. Reinforce and maintain the character of individual neighborhoods. Explanation: Major physical barriers (e.g. highways) and City policies and plans- (e.g. Park and Recreation Plan) have developed a strong iden— tity within each of the six residential neighborhoods established by the 1966 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center. Measures should be taken to protect and maintain each neighborhood's identity. Encroachments upon viable residential areas by incompatible land uses should be discouraged. industrial and commercial growth should take place only in those unified locations identified for such by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 4 3. Preserve and protect property values. Explanation: Proper land use planning can insure that each of the various types of use is provided with sufficient amounts of land, ade— quate access, and a proper environment for its needs. The City of Brooklyn Center can work to preserve and enhance the investment of the individual in his /her land and buildings by insuring a compatible land use relationship and preventing encroachments which create a negative or blighting influence. The City of Brooklyn Center should also seek to halt deterioration of property which may negatively impact adjacent land parcels. 4. Relate the needs of the community to the overall metropolitan context. Explanation: The City of Brooklyn Center should work toward relating its housing and commercial requirements to those of the metropolitan area as a whole. Providing a range of housing types and costs which are responsive to the housing needs of Brooklyn Center's share of the metropolitan .population is an especially relevant task in order to allow equal opportunity for all and to promote a diverse and stable population. 5. Continue to protect elements of the natural environment while improving opportunities' for the public to enjoy the recreational and educational Opportunities presented by it. Explanation: Earlier planning has managed to preserve the major wetlands and protect the edges of streams and lakes in Brooklyn Center. Additional work remains to be done, however, in improving the trailway system along 'Shingle Creek, as well as taking advantage of the oppor— tunities:available in Palmer Lake Park, River Ridge Park, around aid near the Twin Lakes, and near Ryan Lake. d The development of mid— or high— density housing units will also serve to Provide increased amounts of mousing affordable to persons of low or moderate income. Currently, the market for owned and rented housing in Brooklyn Center is not well suited to a wide variety of income levels. The City's efforts to encourage the development of new housing which is within the means of i owe r income households will be closely reviewed by the Nletropo 1itan Council. Provisions to encourage low cost market rate housing are an element Of the Comorehensive Plan mandated by that organization. The number of households receiving public assistance with their housing rent in Brooklyn Center compares favorably with other conrnunities of similar population. Additional public housing services may iikeIy be needed in the future, however, as the population composition of the city changes. This need may necessitate the establishment of a Housing and Redevelopment Authority n A Brooklyn C A Y Center £o administer Y minist..r new and expanded housing programs and obtain available funds from other levels of government. An important current public housing need in Brooklyn Center is the develop— ment of housing for the elderly. This segment of the population, usually existing on a fixed income, is having an increasingly difficult time coping with the rising cost of housing. Moreover, the percentage of persons over age 60 in Brooklyn Center will be g .; rowing in the coming years as the median population ag m e r i ses and the "Baby Boo.' generation moves through the i i I le cycle. Othr comunities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area have found the demand great for such housing and maintain long waiting lists of persons interested in moving into available elderly housing facilities. Brooklyn, Center should act soon to provide such housing so that all age groups of its population may remain in this city, living in dignity and ease. The deterioration of the housing stock in the Southeast Neighborhood should become the target of City action in the very near future so as to prevent housing conditions from worsening to the point where it is no longer econo— mically feasible to attempt structural rehabilitation. About 200 houses In this sector of the city exhibit exterior deterioration which may require expenditures in most t c ases of about $600 to $3000 to correct. Judging from the age of these houses, there is probably also a need for electrical, Plumbing, and insulation work as well. Since many of the homeowners in the Southeast Neighborhood whose structures are in need of repair may not be able to afford the expense of making the exterior and interior improvements, it would p g P probably be in the interest of the City to increase public awareness of the availability of ,tinnesota Housing Finance Agency grants and low interest loans for the purpose of housing rehabilitation. Furthermore, the City might consider making some of its own resources available in a program designed to reduce the cost of structural rehabilitation loans. Federal Cornunity Development Block Grant funds may be used to fund programs to assist Iow— and moderate — income persons with housing rehabilitation and stabilization. Such an investment of municipal resources, coupled with some of the homeowners' own funds, may avert the need for greater public and private expenditure at a cater date. Unless such structural deterioration is halted it will IikeIy lead to an adverse impact upon the economic value and subsequent state of repair of nearby residential properties. _21 w H-J(" Co ) 9) 512 =- C 104 �(25) I ^ , � . C: - .. + 1 3.'. S2 J5. C2 9� G: 73 0 2 5) C"' 6) i•- i-:10 � (23) (10) .oa '/ 06) 7). J (22) t�. �Q ",tea O 134.8 ! ELLSIZORVH 4 s'33 :5332 { 29) / 21) S3ZT ( t 2) 119.04 o Q r (49) 53297 < 5328(43 } r�( 32Sr' 20 : 407? !pl SDD ? (48) 5323 5322 (42) -- '.77, 7OQ .s3 /s . 5318 I' (47) 5317 ` Si18 /r(4 I "7Lhw 3 - 3 ,- (46) .V // S312(40) t "" /l 5309 x J12 000 ,S F f z w � A i rS' nv. fir"' , (t8} (15) (3; .s.. r (45) 5305 5306 (39) rir�. 1 v ts3.ze 34.za I zr.- �1 an r (J.l. p 3302 LOCI D i D ��� /D 0 530t 5300 (44) 201 .5a00 ('.i8) i �( " 2 (17) { 16} (I i do IC .24 i2i. 2� IG0.5 I i2:. 1 28 J - j 28 1 it - (125) , (I {96) (7 ,zz. M tza � `` (4) x 7 75 COMPILED USING ULTIMAP'S CM OF oa0©KLM cl :STRICT BOUNDARY CT BOUNDARY INITIAL PRIMARY DATA SOURCE: U AtnICJTAI PNIMTV 4{TNN;:C ,)T4 i y 905 Cc 17) -In HIZ2) 7a. le (6C) S.71.5 7e D (57) ' ' - _ 900 _ i ISCB c 0 kz C . �.J /�n 5 / 4 t 2 ' I " 5509 �Y, 060 - 7), 9 0 s3 60 13 � - -- ._.... 4 01. to seo• u•. ........ _ _ ' � � N. ). 1 04 60 1 tl 60 -- �..,- .tTA'3�' r Z ' t26.aF„ I ^ i2� 3l55 1 5443 a t u6.a 5153 ~ tta 34 S4l2 %l2S 2a ._ �.. 2 ,yam VIWJ�B. tS ` ey Z - 7 , 700' , 704 .. ' ° "`'" + "g* '�T`'?. xv ter, e2 ,Qd26. 82 J 12L 32 Y 7 r 3flg -�- Elp' -' i 3 342! (82) 5437 3435 (?9)' tzs.a� t .3 ZT ,� :.13♦. 1 __ M 3 3430 ��� — 78 t ° � RQ' 212. 5�20 26 7 1 7B L ,.. Q 943/ i � ` 54/T ?� Ir 2a 1 5S �• - 'F Z.S!!T� < ° .a¢' 34/5 25 131 14 i Ir`�, ° j 134.44 I �s l: a� ":16a}s (3�) f ( 50) 70 (1 , -304 IS "to lQ6 °°x= !0 24 �, ! z ' 122 lz 1 r �AIk'fi�A ) ( 49) ^ '" 5425 126.7 S4`�4 _ i �,�1z6 7 z /f 70p1 z6.7z W ue. zz 31.71 -5sxs�. x+.^ ° ' e 54 /`o > 0 5412 23 ° 174. 13 r34 (67) () < (48) 7 °'S430"" t_o n c ue.z (139) 1 7 (50) 541. 0 34/0 (47) c l 1 6) 419 5418 C�33} �_ 126. oa 126.6d < z� le 172.91 134.12 21 Ya` I19_t o 21 _ : 10 _ �5 q -- (651 -_ ..�.. (61} (46) ° c�a��CYa _ `' I �' I r2a. i6 5422 m� .: S409 ( 140) _ 5412 (135) I^ = _ *., I h 4 J 34 // .. :�C.I ....r --- � 0 300 7 34. IT 7/ tD 0 ';^�+�- .....: S I13 ^ .. 126. 4 u6. w Iza t, x1.11 �' rsafif r , = Q. 1z g 5405 m goo C87) s = I $ 5408 111 o o i 13 S40S 0 5404 t le 12 J� S40T 5405 (62) (Z 4) r3i �o e W 2 � (1 4 -r3C 126 I26 2 b7,aZ�� ^ 1� O - ��0,.1 ° _ (64) M58 5401 5400 (a6) 5400 17 4.W :.- �_-Sl01. ° - te, ^Iq (63) 540/< i74, pg , 122. 11 176. 56 , a ruc 14 ° tom.. f c3 . 5 I, o0 7�, MoD.: ': ! 5344 'g } , 766 ^ i, 6 00 (104 ► - C n _ 5341 B 5344 539/ 5350(119) (24) 07 7 W � �-• I - :.:133.4 aoo- � 133.52 t,5.o, 2 _ Z73 0 _ 4 _ ;'.. 73 bop (ICS) 7 =: y 3r j� 5345 ^ x!!(118) (113) . r3�S ( 4 Z '(26) 7 340 n 10 H _ (10) 1 _� e j no C 133.4E 133.4A (106) s 3 �5_ -j 7003333 g(117) ( 114) 5339 (27) f (22) 5 11 ( 11) T D DO r = (J //: = 5636 � J}• i I � .SO.i�O .moo a �i 563 m. 5Z. 72 167.72 1 2 19198 5643 1 z, 5645 5630 (39) 56.3/ n tzo.al i,� i, '' T. 1�7 r ^ (Q � V — o I� Gs 167.79 -_ I r o -BUSSE RRXCxSON A ® ®a FF2 � 77 ; 5_ I^ ' )) d (7 ) 4 2'w 1937 362 Z I 70 a� sae 167.84 c- 0 CL r : (12 w m I 73 5625 (q 1) n `�,.. - - :�a+ - S IR 6 19 120.5 4 7�/ 80��t (48) 0 (70} �. 54536 6 5 *' •„�-. ': s 562! � � ..,� . - < ,�_ ` 1� I (4. (42) , r ^56/2 Ci6). ._ y -( :) B L 6 �.JSOO;o s5r _ 56/ , + SSZO' -- s (49) 1 6 - BJ. DIY ,� /S' '?"tiF °y :r- 1 L 56 (6g 07 5506 3 o unc r w• 68. 193 83.03 > za. is So09 - -- 700 �!oc 7 (0 4� 700 (4e) n ++ I -5603 I -� (44) n ° 3600 (20) C61 A I S606 - I -- r - 35J/ 20.16 t0T_ __ _ i (67} 560/ I - - D �c3, X100 1 s6oc 7 6, (10) .r1 300 / M88 'W 28• Ica. U, ` M. 1_ I 63.:5 '—' _p I __'— -- -- -• - -. o � 5550 BRAMD (�73oD -€` 5(0, �Odyp I - �o�o, l00 17 5 45 (w�; e _ ` _ 6 7 00 (122) SssS x (66) •< � uc.ct $ 2, -1 0) 7 -� `SS68 600 25) H ^' � tzo x ~^: —'" ' 1 7A 600 2 5) 5533 (Q 0, J400 (23) s54S (65) _ S (52) 6 7 000 '�• °= �. _ SS 700 ­12 5523 ° Flo, S00 — 100 300 = -- -; I -� ss49 Asa) (v9 I00 SOS 168.3z (24) 5324 - SS!S 176.26 � C35) (33) °' IOSJ ,,;.� SS29 8190 (63) Jr � 5533 1 12 -N8q IO'E -- im '_19 (54) 1- 168. (25) �. 25 - 12 75 OQ_1 10 '0 SS2r 5390 176.196 6 73 000 s.SZ4` - �.' 73 °n (34).:. C (34) Si3 70, 400 - - -:: (02) ._ '� x(55) $ 13 rte- 6a.46 2n S512 - 5320 76.zz C61) �e S5 (33) 64, 700 5527, (50) r 3O--�RD Or HENNEPIN COUNTY CoNjL,iISSIONERS A -2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER 1 INNE.kpOLIS, ItiIiNNESOTA 55487-0240 May 1, 1995 Mr. Tim Willson, Chair Brooklyn Center Planning Commission 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Tim: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to address citizens of southeast Brooklyn Center at your meeting last Tuesday. I was pleased to see so much interest in Hennepin Community Works and, specifically the proposed Humboldt Parkway. I wanted to take a minute to summarize my interpretation of the meeting. ' First, a majority of the 180 -plus attendees appeared interested in Humboldt Parkway information. A number of individuals spoke for, against or raised questions regarding the project. These questions included: • What is the project? • What increase in property values are being projected? • What timeline are we talking about? • What do residents on Girard, Humboldt and Irving do in the meantime? • Where will the project financing come from? • How much will the project cost? • How much additional taxes will it raise? • Will homeowners be able to afford their increased taxes? • Will a survey of the neighborhood be taken? • What is the number of homeowners versus renters in the neighborhood? • Why does it have to include Brooklyn Center? • What happens to the tax base of the school district? • What about the loss of students? • What jobs will it create? /'1 H PR :h:zD ON RECYC�.D PAPER Mr. Tim Willson' May 1, 19 Page Two Finally, I asked those in attendance if they thought the City and County should proceed with further research, planning and fiscal analysis; it appeared to me that a majority of people responded positively. As a result, I am looking forward to initiating a comprehensive examination that evaluates the above and other questions and identifies project design options and costs. As I mentioned during my presentation, we are only in the very early conceptual stages of Hennepin Community Works; no funding source has been identified for the Humboldt Parkway proposal or any other proposals in Hennepin County. I assure you that this will be a long, open process and citizens will have several opportunities to speak out. Again, thank you for the chance to introduce this matter to the public. I hope this is just the first of many meetings we have with citizens of southeast Brooklyn Center. Sincerely, MIKE AT 1st Dis► ' Commissioner f cc: Mayor Myrna Kragness Council Member Kathleen Carmody Council Member Debra Hilstrom Council Member Barb Kalligher Council Member Kristen Mann Jerry Splinter Tdm —M Db1itzr Brooklyn Center Planning Commission Brooklyn Center Housing Commission KD591 HENNEPL�' CONafUTNITY WORKS PROJECT SCOPr G E FORNL-�TION 1. Project name: Shingle Creek Regional Pond 2. Project sponsor: Joint powers cooperative project. Cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis. 3. Contact person and phone: Diane Spector, Director of Public Services City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 569 -3340 4. Briefl y describe to what extent the proposed project addresses each of the Five Principles of Hennepin Community Works. Enhance the Tax Base - Inf-as tur v true e investment «; stment coordinated between jurisdictional boundaries. which expand and connect natural and man made amenities offer the opportunity to enhance the common tax base of the county. Stimulate Employment Development - projects create iobs by themselves through the public -expenditures,. More importantly, infrastructure investments stimulate Qrivate Investment which c g v sector creat on pin private s.,.,tor I v - emp o ment opportunities Maintain and Improve Natural Svstems - Accessing the natural systems of the community can add value by providing an amenity and by reducing the long -term cost of infrastructure Strengthen Communities through Connections - Public infrastructure investments which strengthen connection to other communities to urban resources and the natural environment. create long -term economic value. Build Bridaes for Effective Planning and Implementation - For nroiects to accomplish multiple goals financial and human resources at all levels of government must be coordinated into a comprehensive program. 5. Assistance requested from Hennepin Community Works. • Participation in a project team which would focus on developing a multi - jurisdictionaf approach to foster the develooment of multi - faceted projects such as that proposed. This approach could be applied in other situations to accomplish multiple neighborhood, commercial and environmental objectives through a public works project. • Assistance in obtaining permits from the Corps of Engineers, preparing the Environmental Assessment, and developing the preliminary design. 6. Project Budget/Sources Total estimated cost is 53.1 million. It is anticipated that a variety of funding sources will be used to finance the project, including special assessments, storm drainage utility, TIF, water and sanitary sewer utilities, Park Board, and other sources. ENNHHANCE THE TAX BASE /STLNICZATE EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPNTEN'I' PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (transportation, utilities, public facilities or public lands) 1. Does the proposed project address deficiencies in existing infrastructure systems? The proposed project is a joint effort of the cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis to construct a storm water treatment and detention pond in the Shingle Creek neighborhood of Minneapolis, just south of the City of Brooklyn Center's Centerbrook Golf Course. The project area is roughly described as'the central p art of that area bounded by Sheridan and Vincent Avenues North, from 51st to 53rd Avenue North. 0 Also included in the project are several associated storm drainage improvements within Centerbrook Golf Course, the Brookdale Shopping Center, and T.H. 100. Currently, storm water from the commercial area around and including Brookdale Shopping Center as well as several residential areas outlets directly into Shingle Creek, with no treatment. It is proposed to enhance the storm sewer system within the Brookdale commercial area, which includes not only the regional shopping center but also a number of other commercial properties, to pre -treat the storm water onsite, to pipe it under T.H. 100 to an expanded system of ponds on the golf course. Additional treatment would occur in these ponds. The storm water would outlet into a drainage system which would convey it to a system of treatment ponds and possibly restored wetlands on the site of an existing degraded wedand in north Minneapolis, where it would receive final treatment. From the Shingle Creek Regional Pond, tl`ie storm water would outlet to Shingle Creek. The proposed project would significantly improve the quality of Shingle Creek as it flows through the residential areas of north Minneapolis, restore a degraded wetland, and provide a significant enhancement to the Shingle Creek neighborhood. An area some 700 acres in size, including a significant commercial area, drains directly into Shingle Creek, with no treatment to remove rloatables, oils, sand, salt, and other contaminants. There is no mechanism at this time to address this issue, except as properties develop or redevelop and come under the Shingle Creek Watershed requirements to add runoff treatment. As this development and redevelopment occurs in a haphazard fashion, there is no other opportunity to comprehensively and significantly address this issue other than by a regional public improvement project. The several parcels comprising the site of the proposed Shingle Creek Regional Pond are currently vacant. Some of the area is degraded wetland, which has been filled in and dumped on for many years. The area is characterized by scrubby trees and construction debris. The proposed project would clean out the area, create a system of ponds and wetlands areas, landscape with a vegetation and trees, and add a walling path for the neighborhood to enjoy. 2. Does the proposed project expand current public infrastructure service? Yes. Watershed rules regarding treatment and detention of storm water Generally are viewed on a project (i.e., parcel or development) basis. As a develo community, it is often difficult to set aside the land necessary for treatment facilities. Certainly each of the commercial properties as they develop or redevelop could be required to construct their own on -site facilities, regardless of the impact to the property or the owner. However, we believe that in the long run a regional system coordinated by the City is often the best u p blre policy, for several reasons. First, the city can control the quality of the project. Commercial entities often design treatment facilities to meet the minimum standards and no more. Second, a lar scale system often opens up opportunities that a smaller system cannot. For example, the proposed regional pond system takes advantage of existing ponds on the municipal golf course. Finally, through a public works project, a significant environmental impact can be made while at the same time removing an obstacle to economic redevelopment. By ensuring that the storm water retention and treatment needs are taken care of ahead of time, there is one less obstacle to overcome when sites are ready for redevelopment. Another factor to bear in mind is that treatment facilities lose their usefulness if they are not maintained properly. Public entities are often more able to assure that routine maintenance is completed, and a single facility is less cumbersome to maintain than several smaller on -site facilities. TAX BASE IMPACT (commercial irzdustrzal) I. Will the project result in restoring the property tax value of a polluted or ° r w ^ ' _ p b o nn " etd site. No. 2. Will the project help to stabilize a declining neighborhood or community? In Minneapolis, the pond will create an amenity for the Shingle Creek neighborhood, increasing its attractiveness and providing a neighborhood focal point. 3. e Dr`o How will thject impact the short and long term property tax value of the project area and larger neighborhood /community? The Brookdale Shopping Center is unable to redevelop or expand, nor are many of the adjacent commercial areas able to redevelop without meeting water s:7ed requirements to treat storm water runoff. This area is a substantial portion of Brooklvn Center's commercially zoned land, and represents about 18 0 of its tax base. The proposed project would remove a substantial obstacle to redevelopment and thus expansion of the tax base. This area is located in Brooklyn Center TIF District #3. A requirement of the special legislation authorizing this particular district is that 15% of the increment be used to finance housing improvements. Current housing programs include: Scattered Site Acquisition and Redevelopment Program This program provides for the acquisition of blighted single - family and multi- family projects and redevelopment of the property. • Home Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program This program provides for the rehabilitation of single- family properties up to $15,000 in improvements for income - eligible (60% median) homeowners in the City of Brooklyn Center. Annual First -Time Home Buyer Program (MCPP) through the Mtn riesota Housing Finance Agency This program provides below - market rate mortgage loans and closing costs and monthly payment assistance to eligible home buyers. Affordable Housing Construction Program with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity For the past three years, the City of Brooklyn Center has worked with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity and numerous local area church volunteer groups to construct new single- family homes for low income families. The short-term impact would be that new funds would be available to upgrade and stabilize the housing stock, stabilizing residential values. The long -te.^n impact would be the increased commercial value added to the City's (and other taxing districts) base, reducing the burden on single- family residential properties. In the residential neighborhood of Minneapolis where the project is proposed to be constructed, the pond"parV natural area will replace an unattractive vacant area and provide an amenity that may have the Iong -term impact of stabilizing or improving property values in the vicinity. JOB TRAINING and EMPLOYMENT STIMULATION I. Does the proposal include a short -term :raining plan and employment opportunities for public assistance recipients? No. 2. How many persons, what type or training and jobs, length of employment? 3. Will the project stimulate the development of new (not relocated) private sector jobs on a long term (3+ years) term basis? Estimate the number of new private sector jobs, job type and salary. One of the goals of the project is to eliminate an obstacle to the redevelopment/expansion of the Brookdale Shopping Center and surrounding commercial area. The Iong -term impact could be the addition of an unknown number of a variety of jobs, primarily in retail and in service industries. MAINTALN AND LMPROVE NATURAL SYSTEiVfS 1. Does the project enhance, or prevent the deterioration, of a natural system? Surface drainage from the Brookdale commercial area is a significant source of nonpoint pollution into Shinale Creek, which flows into the Mississippi River, slightly upstream of a Minneapolis water works facility. Between the Brookdale area and the mouth of the creek, Shingle Creek flows primarily through residential areas for much of that way. The *cr ee:' banks have been preserved as park or open space. A bicycle trail follows the creek, and downstream at Webber Park one stretch is a favorite water play spot for- children. The proposed project would improve drainage, greatly enhance water quality in Shingle Creek, and restore a degraded wetland. 2. Will the project accomplish multiple purposes? (e.g. transportation, recreation, drainage) The project would have an immediate impact on the water quality of Shingle Creek. It would enhance the possibility of significant economic development. The project would provide an aesthetic improvement to the Shingle Creek neighborhood, and improve recreational opportunities by providing a bicycle/pedestrian trail loop around the facility that is linked to the Shingle Creek trail system. STRENGTHEN CONtNfLTNITIES THROUGH CONNECTIONS FOR EFFECTIVE PLANNING AND EWPLVYfENTATION L What communities (as defined by'shared characteristics) will the project connect? The Shingle Creek Regional Pond would be a cooperative project between the cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis, with the expressed support of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, the Minneapol ParK Board, and the -5- Shingle Creek Neighborhood Association. 2. Does the project connect a community(ies) to a recognized system? (man -made: e.g. trail system, park system) (natural: e.g. river, watershed) Trails in the project would link to the Shingle Creek Trail System, a regional system. 3. Is there a funding (public and private) plan for the capital project? The City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park Board have acquired or are in the process of acquiring all property required for the project. City staff is in the early stages of finalizing a funding plan; however, in general, the estimated 3.1 million cost would be shared by the two cities, with contributions from special assessments to the commercial properties and from Brooklyn Center's storm drainage utility. 4. What is the implementation plan for the development and operation of the project. (Timeline, responsible agencies) Some initial planning has already been completed. A detailed subwatershed drainage analysis of the Brookdale area has been completed, as has as wetland delineation of the affected areas. The permitting process is being scoped. It is expected that permitting, completion of an environmental assessment and preliminary design would be completed in 1995, with construction in 1996, concurrent -with Minneapolis' street improvement project in that neighborhood.. Completion etion of � , p construction and landscaping in could occur in early 1997. The City of Brooklyn Center financed the subwatershed drainage analysis. Minneapolis was the lead agency in obtaining the wetland delineation, the cost of which was shared. Minneapolis staff would likely take the lead on obtaining permits, with some possible assistance or support from the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. The Environmental Assessment would be contracted out, with the cost shared. Minneapolis has preliminarily committed land for the Regional Pond; Brooklyn Center would allow construction, including expansion of existing ponds on its golf course. Preliminary and final design responsibility has not yet been determined. The Minneapolis Park Board would be actively involved in designing site improvements. 5. Is the project or portions of the project included in the comprehensive planning document of more than one public agency? (Copy of document) The proposed project is comprehended in both Brooklyn Center's and Minneapolis' comprehensive plans. -o- 6. Has the project been reviewed by affected neighborhoodsicommunities? (Letters of support) The Shinale Creels neiahborhood has reviewed the proposal, and is ve.� supportive, as is the Lind /Bohannon neighborhood downstream. 7. Identify other ublic and private investments schedule ' P P din the pro area which will support program goals. Minneapolis will be reconstructing streets in the project area in 1996 as part of its comprehensive street improvement program. -7- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 1995 PROJECT SELECTION REPORT OF THE HENNEPIN COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE WHEREAS, Joint Resolution 4 -4 established the Hennepin Community Planning Committee and charged them to develop a project evaluation matrix based upon the Hennepin Community Works report and the three project types recommended in the Hennepin Community Works report; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin Community Planning Committee was also charged to recommend to Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District and the Minneapolis School District at least three geographically balanced projects (north /northeast Minneapolis, south /southeast Minneapolis and suburban Hennepin County) which link urban neighborhoods and suburban communities through the development and enhancement of natural systems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 1995 Project Selection Report of the Hennepin Community Planning Committee be accepted. 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. �4� 5 a , k o O N O P i� o Hen-nejZ In Community Works An Employment, Public Works and Tax Base Development Program 1995 Project Selection Report HENNEPIN COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBER APPOINTED BY Patrick O'Connor Hennepin County Craig Rapp Hennepin County Perry Thorvig City of Minneapolis Henry "Bo" Spurrier City of Minneapolis Doug Bryant Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Margie Ostlund Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District David Fisher Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Harvey Feldman Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Don Hayden Minneapolis Public Schools STAFF John McLaughlin Hennepin County Jim Ford Hennepin County Larry Blackstad Hennepin County D i `NNEPIN COMMUNITY WORKS PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT 1995 PROJECT ENDORSEMENTS Hennepin Community Works seeks to enhance how the communities of Hennepin County work together to create good jobs, provide access to employment and build the long term value of communities by investing in infrastructure, public works, parks and the natural environment, and by improving the existing implementation systems. Hennepin Community Works Mission Statement I. INTRODUCTION By enactment of three Joint Resolutions at their September 28, 1994 Joint Session, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, the Minneapolis City Council, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and the Minneapolis School Board accepted Hennepin Community Works; the report of the Parks and Public Works Study Commission which establishes the feasibility of an integrated public works, job creation tax base enhancement program. The resolutions also identified Hennepin County as the lead agency for continued development of the Hennepin Community Works program, and established the Hennepin Community Works Planning Committee. The partner jurisdictions directed that the Planning Committee be comprised of two appointees from each of the five sponsoring agencies. The Committee was instructed to develop a project identification and selection process based on the accepted Hennepin Community Works Program Principles: Stimulate Employment Development; Build Bridges for Effective Planning and Implementation; Maintain and Improve Natural Systems; Strengthen Communities through Connections; and Enhance the Tax Base, as developed by the Parks and Public Works Study Commission. Based on the work of the Study Commission the Planning Committee developed a project proposal and evaluation process for distribution to all of the communities, school districts and special taxing jurisdictions in Hennepin County. In response to the invitation for proposals the Planning Committee received 15 project proposals from four jurisdictions: the City of Brooklyn Center (2); the City of Minneapolis (10 ); the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (1); and Hennepin County (2). II. PLANNING COMMITTEE ENDORSEMENT SUMMARIES Through the proposal review process the Planning Committee identified program and geographic connections between several project proposals recommends consolidating several to develop more comprehensive activities supported by the principles of the Hennepin Community Works program. The following Committee endorsement summaries review the submitted proposals and recommended consolidations. The committee endorsed four proposals as priorities for continued project development and implementation. 1. Humboldt Avenue Greenway /Shingle Creek Regional Pond and Wetland (Consolidated from the following proposals) Humboldt Avenue Greenway /City of Minneapolis Humboldt Avenue Greenway /City of Brooklyn Center Shingle Creek Wetland /City of Minneapolis Shingle Creek Regional Pond /City of Brooklyn Center Committee Comments These proposals submitted independently by the City of Minneapolis and the City of Brooklyn Center will create a parkway north from Victory Memorial Parkway to 57th Street along Humboldt Avenue. The parkway will be linked to the planned storm water collection/filtration pond and wetland planned for the adjacent Shingle Creek neighborhood. This facility will serve as a storm water collection area for the Brookdale Mall and facilitate further commercial development in the area. 2. 29th Street Greenway /Nicollet Avenue Reopening at Lake Street/ (consolidated from the following proposals) 29th Street Greenway /City of Minneapolis Nicollet Avenue Reopening /City of Minneapolis Committee Comments These two project submitted by the City of Minneapolis will create a greenway /recreational trail along the 29th street rail corridor from France Avenue to Hiawatha Avenue. that when merged with the proposed re- opening of the Lake Street/ Nicollet Avenue intersection will stimulate the development of a plaza and commercial district in the area. Eventually the greenway corridor may be expanded east to the river and west to the new regional southwest and west regional trailhead in the City of Hopkins . 3. Hopkins LRT Corridor /Cedar Lake Trail Extension /Bassetts Creek Rehabilitation / Dinkytown Plaza -SEMI -Stone Arch Bridge (Consolidated from the following proposals) Hopkins LRT Corridor /Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Bassetts Creek Rehabilitation -Cedar Lake Trail /Hennepin County Cedar Lake Trail Extension /City of Minneapolis I, I Dinkytown Plaza- SEMI -Stone Arch Bridge Greenway /City of Minneapolis Committee Comments This proposal represents a consolidation of proposals submitted by the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District the City of Minneapolis g y polls and Hennepin County. The proposal will link the Suburban Regional Trail system to the Minneapolis Trail system at Cedar Lake. Additionally the proposal will clean up Bassetts Creek and open it for recreational and development uses from Wirth Park to the River. The Bassetts Creek rehabilitation will link with the trail system at Bryn Mawr Commons Park. The Cedar Lake Trail extension will take the trail from its current 7th street terminus ast downtown p o n to the river, which will allow it to be connected via the Stone Arch Bridge to the proposed Dinkytown plaza across the rail corridor to the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial area. 4. Plymouth Avenue Greenway /Sumner Field Redevelopment (Consolidated from the following proposals) Plymouth Avenue Greenway /City of Minneapolis Sumner Field Re- development. /City of Minneapolis Committee Comments Through consolidation, these projects will connect Wirth Park to the Mississippi River along Plymouth Avenue, redesigning the avenue to accommodate development and pedestrian/bike traffic and create a north -south link which may eventually tie into the Hopkins LRT project discussed above. The Sumner Field project area currently holds a massive public housing development scheduled for demolition. The redevelopment of this parcel has enormous potential to revitalize the area and create connections to other areas of the city. The following three proposals were not selected to be in the inital designation of Hennepin Community Works projects. The Northeast Riverfront/Marshall Parkway project was seen as an excellent candidate for future designation and the Portland /Park Avenue proposal was deemed consistent with program goals but of a lesser priority. The Glen Lake Golf Course was viewed as consistent with program goals and will be carried forward in partnership between Hennepin County and the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Northeast Riverfront /Marshall Avenue Parkway /City of Minneapolis Committee Comments This proposal will develop a greenway beginning at the Grain Belt Brewery north along the river on Marshall Avenue to the city limit. The project would clear much of the current riverfront development. Residential and commercial redevelopment facing on the river is anticipated. A tie to the Bottineau neighborhood NRP plan is also envisioned. Portland and Park Avenue Reconfiguration /City of Minneapolis Committee Comments This proposal will reduce the density and speed of traffic along these arterial by narrowing the right -of -way and creating a parkway type of corridor north from the city limit to downtown. Glen Lake Golf Course /Hennepin County Committee Comments The proposal is based on plans by Hennepin County and the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District to cooperatively develop the Glen Lake Sanitarium site in Minnetonka as a nine hole executive golf course. All of these projects, endorsed or not, are described in greater detail in Section III.. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS A. ENDORSED PROJECTS 1. HUMBOLDT AVENUE GREENWAY /SHINGLE CREEK REGIONAL POND AND WETLAND. SPONSOR: Cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis; and Hennepin County. The intent of this project is to create a Humboldt Avenue connection between the Brookdale Mall, residential neighborhoods in Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis and the Shingle Creek Valley. Included in the vision is a reestablished wetland and water filtration pond along Shingle Creek and an expanded golf course /recreation area at Centerbrook. The central feature of the project is to transform Humboldt Avenue into a parkway from Victory Memorial Drive north to Brookdale, North Mississippi Park and the Mississippi River. The plan will require the acquisition and removal of some existing housing along Humboldt Avenue. Much of this housing is declining in value and represents a potential for urban blight if not restored.. The parkway will provide an amenity similar to Victory Memorial Drive and should result in revitalizing the neighborhood. ood. The connection g tion to Brooklyn Center Shingle gle Creek and the River represent opportunities to link city and suburban neighborhoods together with natural and recreational amenities. This linking should also result in increasing property value and a better quality of life in the region. The wetland restoration/storm water filtration pond feature is needed to reduce flooding in the Brookdale Area. Adding this amenity also increases the value of the adjacent properties and will serve as a natural means of filtering storm water before it enters Shingle Creek and eventually the Mississippi River. Funds for planning are already available from the Minnesota Legislature. The Shingle Creek Neighborhood has allocated $100,000 in Neighborhood Revitalization Funds, and the cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis Public Works maintenance and capital budgets are expected to direct funds toward this effort. Hennepin Community Works 1995 Endorsed Projects: Humboldt Avenue Greenway /Shingle Creek Regional Pond and Wetland Ep - _. No rth - �- -- - Robbinsdale - I – -_- f - - Shingle C re ek_ - Brookdale -- Shopping - -- Reg io n al pond Center - -- -and Wetland V—� 1_ Humboldt Avenu Greenwr -- \ - -� - - -- — - Minneapolis Brooklyn Center_ ` Map prepared by the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development -- June 14, 1995 2. 29TH STREET CORRIDORMCOLLET AVENUE REOPENING AT LAKE STREET. SPONSOR: The City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County The railroad corridor which extends across south Minneapolis will be redeveloped as a multi -use transit corridor with potential for recreation areas and adjacent commercial development. The development of this corridor will connect the western suburbs to the Mississippi river. The potential tie to a "grand rounds trail /transit system opens south Minneapolis neighborhoods to extensive recreational and commercial development possibilities. The proximity of the corridor to Lake street makes it an important factor in the commercial redevelopment of a major arterial which has declined significantly as a major commercial thoroughfare. By reorienting transit to the corridor and creating an adjacent green space between 29th and Lake streets the entire width of south Minneapolis becomes an attractive area for residential and commercial redevelopment. The commercial redevelopment possibilities will create significant new job opportunities for neighborhood residents. The development of the corridor will also provide for connecting declining neighborhoods to more stable ones in Minneapolis and the first ring suburbs. As the rail corridor connects to other such corridors it provides an important link for the eventual development of a County wide trail and transit system. As part of this project, it is suggested that the existing retail property blocking Nicollet Avenue at Lake Street be removed and the intersection reopened. This presents an opportunity for the creation of a commercial north -south corridor along Nicollet - -a high traffic arterial. The adjacent streets, Blaisdell Avenue and First Avenue could be re- designated as one -way streets raising the residential property values. This project is positioned to take advantage of the new empowerment zone legislation passed by the Minnesota Legislature. The creation of an empowerment zone will enable the use of administrative savings realized by welfare system streamlining and eventual tax value increases for development. Additionally, ISTEA funds are available for initial trail development. Plans include a high- occupancy vehicle capacity along the corridor which will serve to facilitate the movement of persons across the city, reducing traffic on adjacent city streets. Hennepin Community Works 1995 Endorsed Projects: 29th Street Corridor and Nicollet Avenue Reopening at Lake Street 7 29th Street Corridor ff I no nin I t TT I V� TF G -- Map prepared by the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development -- June 14, 1995 3. HOPKINS LRT CORRIDOR /CEDAR LAKE TRAIL EXTENSION /BASSETS CREEK REHABILITATION /DINKYTOWN PLAZA -STONE ARCH BRIDGE GREENWAY. SPONSOR: Suburban Hennepin Park Reserve District, Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis. Implementation of this project will create a transit, recreation and redevelopment corridor stretching from Hopkins in the western suburbs through downtown Minneapolis, across the Mississippi River to the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial Area. In the process, this development will link the western part of Hennepin County (and through other trail and greenway ties -- all of Hennepin County) to the River. This ambitious undertaking will include several project segments which are already either under development or completed including the Stone Arch Bridge crossing of the Mississippi and the Cedar Lake Trail This proposed project also includes the development of vacant land along Bassetts Creek, the clean -up of the creek (tied to the superfund activity at Warden Oil) and recreational trails along the creek which would link Theodore Wirth Park to the Cedar Lake Trail. The extension of the Cedar Lake Trail through downtown to a river crossing on the Stone Arch Bridge would complete the link of a transit and trail system beginning along the LRT corridor in Hopkins. Where the Bridge reaches the University of Minnesota in southeast Minneapolis, a short greenway connection to a new bridge plaza in Dinkytown will open the area for more commercial and industrial development adjacent to the campus in the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial Area. The project can make use of local expenditures already planned for the reconstruction of two bridges across the rail corridor near the University Campus. This reconstruction will include a plaza for commercial development. Also included are links to a .busway /trailway from the University's Minneapolis Campus to its St. Paul Campus. • • Hennepin Community Works 1995 Endorsed Projects: Hopkins LRT Corridor /Cedar Lake Trail Extension/ Bassetts Creek Rehabilitation /Dinkytown Plaza -SEMI- Stone Arch Bridge T li `New = Crystal: -+ r� — m - - =Hope F =_- � 1 -V- j - Robbinsdale 0 . ,. - Minneapolis- Golden Valle -_ -i �, a asserts — 1 � heodore +� �✓ firth Creek:: \ \� -Par ehabilitaticn_ -H _ � �, ��r — - vd�, tone arch Bddge ;Y . F eke inky, n Plaza -� I i raii te \ �S , E�rii - `�'` .:-�_. - -- fir • .' - -` — ^ NOTE: Existin trail ments in reen.� I St. Louis Park , r g 7 Hopki s� - - - Map prepared by the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development -- June 14, 1995 e 4. PLYMOUTH AVENUE GREENWAY /SUMMER FIELD REDEVELOPMENT. SPONSOR: City of Minneapolis. The recent legal settlement between the City and the Federal Government which calls for the demolition of the Sumner Field housing project, provides an opportunity to convert the land underlying the housing project to a more natural use. The soils in this area are of a type that do not support construction. Therefore, it is proposed that the Sumner Field be converted to a wetland /open space which can be surrounded by residential and commercial /light industrial development. Just north of the Sumner Field Area is Plymouth Avenue, a major arterial which connects Wirth Park to the Mississippi River and Boom Island Park. It is proposed that Plymouth Avenue be rebuilt as a parkway allowing for an increased green space across North Minneapolis. The properties along Plymouth Avenue are declining in value, with many lots vacant or occupied by deteriorating structures. The Design Center for the American Urban Landscape at the University of Minnesota has done considerable evaluation of this project. When completed, the two segments of the proposal will provide open/green space connections north and south through declining neighborhoods to major natural and recreational amenities. Some federal funds exist for the Sumner Field portion of the project for the demolition of existing structures and relocation of residents. Hennepin Community Works 1995 Endorsed Projects: Plymouth Avenue Greenway/ Sumner Field Re- development - Plymouth Avenue Green ay J �.. Sumner Field Re-developoment Map prepared by the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development -- June 14, 1995 S B. PROJECTS CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED The following projects were considered by the planning committee and were determined to be consistent with the goals of Hennepin Community Works. Due to considerations such as project scope, timeliness and feasibility, these projects were not selected for the initial designation as HCW projects. 5. Northeast Riverfront/Marshall Avenue Parkway SPONSOR: City of Minneapolis. A river greenway along the east bank of the Mississippi, beginning at the Grain Belt Brewery and stretching north to the Minneapolis City limit is envisioned as a companion to a parkway built along marshall Avenue. The parkway would link to several "finger" parks and amenities planned by the Bottineau neighborhood to form a riverfront district in Northeast Minneapolis. Appropriate commercial development, including the re- siting of some existing businesses would add to the economic vitality of the area while improving the natural and recreational facilities within the project area. Some funds already exist in capital budgets, including the re -use of the Grain Belt Brewery and surrounding property. NRP funds are potentially available to • develop portions of the project in the Bottineau neighborhood. 6. Reconfiguration of Portland and Park Avenues SPONSOR: City of Minneapolis. This project will convert Portland and Park Avenues to multiple -use transit corridors. The proposal is to reduce the speed limits on the two arterials, decrease the width, create parking bays, bike lanes, add decorative lighting and green spaces. The reconfigured streets will link downtown and several south Minneapolis neighborhoods to Minnehaha Parkway creating a north -south parkway /green space axis. These parkways would intersect the proposed 29th Street Corridor development and complement the Opportunity Zone being planned in the Central Neighborhood by Urban Ventures. Adding amenities to these city streets will enhance the value of adjacent residential properties and will attract commercial development. • 7. Glen Lake Golf Course Development ® SPONSOR: Hennepin p County, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. The planned Glen Lake Golf Course on property adjacent to the Hennepin County Home School will create jobs for disadvantaged persons participating in County programs in the operation and management of the course. In addition, the golf course will provide a recreational facility for the adjacent neighborhoods. Vacant land will be turned to a revenue producing purpose. The County and the Park District will jointly develop and operate the golf course. • D Hennepin Community Works 1995: Projects Considered But Not Endorsed Ro Dayton Hanover Hassan Champlin � I Brooklyn Greenfield I eo Park Corcoran Maple ve I Rockford i klyn Cent Loretto el _No-thaass Yew i 1 Independence Hove ,' �} ; ;yii i, • ?J; pfg Medina Plymout 1 h bb,- i �d. Elmh l i wY M I 1 Goldin Valley Long Mi polls Orono Minnetrista M i netonka St. Louis( I i 1 � Hopkins Park and Pe ,�.ard ( � i i St. nifacius . r w Sho�eweod / .�+y� t Edina Fort // 1 Rt¢htield � l I Eden Praise Blpomington I i I i • Map prepared by the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development — July 5, 1995 IV. NEXT STEPS Humboldt Avenue Greenway /Shingle Creek Regional Pond and Wetland. The 1995 Legislature appropriated $200,000 to study urban design alternatives for the Humboldt Avenue Corridor and the Shingle Creek Regional Pond and Wetland and prepare a comprehensive analysis for the selected design alternatives. Hennepin County will be contracting with the University of Minnesota 's Design Center for the American Urban Landscape to develop the study and assist in preparation of a Request for Proposal for consultant services. It is anticipated that a multi - disciplinary Consultant Team will be in place for the project in September. The legislation directs that Hennepin County, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Council, present the findings and recommendation of the study to the Senate Committee on Jobs, Energy, and Community Development and the House Committee on Economic Development, Infrastructure and Regulated Industries by February 15, 1996. Timeline - Project start summer 1995. 29th Street Corridor/Nicollet Avenue Reopening The 29th Street Corridor from France Avenue to Hiawatha Avenue will be the subject area for a neighborhood based Empowerment Zone Study, assigned by the Minnesota Legislature to Hennepin County; the Hennepin Community Works sponsoring agencies; and the State Commissioners of Human Services, and Labor and Industry. By August 1, 1995 the study participants are to provide the chairs of the Senate Finance and Tax Committees, and the House Ways and Means and Tax Committees an outline for a complete Empowerment Zone Plan, which is due to the Legislature by December 1, 1995. County staff are currently working with the University of Minnesota 's Design Center for American Urban Landscape to draft a study design for review by the study participants. Timeline - Project start summer 1995. Hopkins LRT Corridor /Cedar Lake Trail Extension /Bassetts Creek Rehabilitation /Dinkytown Plaza -SENH -Stone Arch Bridge Hennepin Community Works staff will assemble an initial project development team representing participant /affected agencies to explore opportunities for joint planning and budgeting for the project. The project development team will also identify neighborhood and community organizations which will participate in the project development process. Staff will also be undertake research on possible grant funds opportunities for the project. Timeline - Project start fall 1995. Plymouth Avenue Greenway /Sumner Field Redevelopment Hennepin Community Works staff will initiate a working relationship with the participants of the planning process established pursuant to the settlement agreement for the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority lawsuit. The goal of HCW staff participation is to b .. P P identify opportunities for the coordination of project planning, capital budgeting and the focus on the delivery of employment and training resources to assist affected residents. Timeline - Project start summer of 1995. Hennepin Community Works staff will maintain contact with staff of the agencies which developed the Northeast Riverfront /Marshall Parkway, Reconfiguration of Park and Portland Avenues and the Glen Lake Golf Course proposals to assess the potential for collaboration and future designation as HCW projects. i Council Meeting Date 7/24/95 31 City of Brooklyn Center A Item Numbe Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Subrecipient Agreement and Required Third Party Agreements with Hennepin County for 1995 (Year XXI) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Department Approval: Tom blitz, Community Development S eci Managers Review /Recommendation: AC V No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Staff recommends approval of Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to Execute Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Required Third Party Agreements for 1995 (Year XXI) Urban • Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) This resolution authorizes execution of the subrecipient agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center for the Year XXI Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program (1995). The subrecipient agreement sets forth the regulations for how the CDBG funds must be spent. Essentially, it is a standard contract which is executed annually by all cities participating in the Urban Hennepin County programs and reflects the City's CDBG program for the year. A copy of the agreement is included with this memorandum. Also, this resolution authorizes execution of Third Party Agreements required by the CDBG program. These agreements are executed as part of each funding cycle for the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program. The EDA serves as the implementing agency for the scattered site acquisition program, which purchases and clears blighted properties under the slum and blight clearance provisions of the CDBG program. Senior Community Services, Inc., provides minor home repair to senior citizens and disabled persons. The amount allocated to the scattered site program for Year XXI is $160,000, and the amount allocated to the H.O.M.E. program for year XXI is $9,306. A copy of the Third Party Agreement used for both the EDA and Senior Community Services projects is included with this memorandum. • SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A -2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Recipient has received a $3,748,000 Federal Fiscal Year 1995 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community" Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community development activities in cooperation with Subrecipient, according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570; and WHEREAS, Federal Fiscal Year 1995 CDBG funds and any resulting program income have been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of eligible and fundable community development activity /ies as included in and a part of the 1995 Consolidated Plan, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1993, executed between Recipient and Subrecipient and in the 1995 Consolidated Plan, Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and the Certifications contained therein. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. B. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient is responsible to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity /ies which it is implementing. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1995. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1996, or at such time as the activity /ies constituting part of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended and uncommitted, and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the activities described in Exhibit 1, as may be amended. 3. THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The Subrecipient may subcontract this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the Recipient and only through a written Third Party Agreement acceptable to the Recipient. The Subrecipient shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and /or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the Recipient. 4. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. An exception to this process will be in amending Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. Exhibit 1, shall be deemed amended to conform to any amendments to the Consolidated Plan, as such amendments occur. Any amendments to the Consolidated Plan, which constitute substantial changes, must be accompanied by documentation that a local public hearing was conducted and by an authorizing resolution. Amendments which do not constitute substantial changes may be handled administratively. Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development staff may approve administrative amendments provided they are eligible, fundable and satisfy the objectives of the Consolidated Plan and the CDBG Program. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, (more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or $ 10,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized activity. The total budget of multi - community activities will be used in determining substantial change. 5. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with CDBG funds not to exceed the Hennepin County authorized budget to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- eligible activity /ies as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the 2 Subrecipient ub ecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient activity /lies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. The Subrecipient does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Recipient from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the Subrecipient under this Agreement. B. The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect itself as well as the Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $1 million for property damage arising from one occurrence, $1 million for damages arising from death and /or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $1 million for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient and the Recipient. C. The Subrecipient's liability, however, shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the Subrecipient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A -1 10 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. 8. DATA PRIVACY The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The Subrecipient agrees to defend and hold the Recipient, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Subrecipient's unlawful disclosure and /or use of such protected data. is 3 e 9. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION A. If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless the Subrecipient's default is excused by the Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. B. The Recipient's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon thirty (30) days' written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. D. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the Recipient. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall transfer to the Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to the Subrecipient in the form of a loan. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1) For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County. (2) For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this Agreement; or B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient shall pay to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the Recipient. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 4 11. PROCUREMENT The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity /ies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- funded activity /ies. 12. ACQUISITION RELOCATION AND DISPLACEMENT A. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activity /ies. The Subrecipient shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG- funded activity /ies. B. The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(1 1) of the Act. 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the Recipient to accomplish this task. 5 14. LABOR STANDARDS EMPLOYMENT AND CONTRACTING The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of ail requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities undertaken by the Subrecipient. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements. 15. PROGRAM INCOME If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations: A. The Subrecipient will notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. B. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the Subrecipient is permitted to retain program income. r� C. Recipient will retain ten percent (10 %) of all program income paid to Recipient to defray administration expenses. The remaining ninety percent (90 %) of the program income paid to the Recipient shall be credited to the grant authority of Subrecipient whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement. D. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate record- keeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in establishing an appropriate and proper record - keeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. E. That in the event of ciose -out or change in status of the Subrecipient, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close -out or change in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close -out or change in status of the Subrecipient occur. 6 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: A. The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. B. The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non - CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The Recipient will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close -out, change of status or termination of the Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the Recipient shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Subrecipient provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. 7 r B. The Subrecipient will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. The Subrecipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106 and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. When and where applicable, the Subrecipient shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101 -336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title 11 "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD -BASED PAINT The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 2 i . FAIR HOUSING The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for activity /ies subject to this Agreement should it not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or impede action taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing certification. 22. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, 8 grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Subrecipient has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non - violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non - violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church /State Activities). 25. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient, and at other times at the initiative of the Recipient when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be provided to the Subrecipient. 26. RECORD - KEEPING The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A -87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A -110 and A -122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the Recipient for inspection /s and audit /s by the Recipient or its representatives. If a financial audit /s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from non -CDBG sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement. 27. ACCESS TO RECORDS The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Subrecipient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrecipient for 0 the purpose of reviewing the same. g t 28. AUDIT The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law 98 -502) and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A -128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable, OMB Circular A -110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations. A. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6) months of the provision date. B. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year. C. The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. D. The Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient's non -CDBG funds any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by an audit. 10 RECIPIENT EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on June 6, 1995, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the Recipient agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. APPROVED AS TO FORM COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, AND EXECUTION STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of Its County Board Assistant County Attorney Attest: Date: Clerk of the County Board Date: 11 SUBRECIPIENT EXECUTION Subrecipient, having signed this Agreement, and the Subrecipient's governing body having duly approved this Agreement on 1995, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, Subrecipient agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. CITY OF By: Its And: Its Attest: Title: Date: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter 12 S.1t7Rcir'ic�V i Iat:i�tc�'vi�iV URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 The Subrecipient, as identified below, will be provided with Urba n Hennepin p Count Community Development Block Grant funds in the not -to- exceed amount indicated to assist Subrecipient in funding the activity /ies in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in the Project Description /Projected Use of Funds attached here to: Subrecipient 1995 CDBG Funds Brooklyn Center 270,083 Brooklyn Park 553,188 Champlin 81,512 Chanhassen 50,196 Corcoran 23,781 Crystal 152,441 Dayton 21,556 Deephaven 14,178 Eden Prairie 193,258 Edina 204,554 Excelsior 17,160 Golden Valley 117,124 Greenfield 7,529 Greenwood 3,180 Hanover 3,678 Hassan 11,850 Hopkins 166,417 Independence 15,882 Long Lake 11,311 Loretto 4,027 Maple Grove 158,493 Maple Plain 10,830 Medicine Lake 904 Medina 14,479 Minnetonka 187,175 Minnetonka Beach 1,864 Minnetrista 20,895 Mound 72,239 New Hope 182,816 Orono 23,918 Osseo 26,167 Richfield 276,638 Robbinsdale 94,351 Rockford 20,651 Rogers 4,347 Shorewood 17,996 Spring Park 12,500 St. Anthony 22,131 St. Bonifacius 8,274 St. Louis Park 312,471 Tonka Bay 8,000 Wayzata 30,446 Woodland 1,672 TOTAL 3,432,162 Hennepin County 374,800 Total Alllocation *3,806,962 *Includes $58,962 recaptured funds THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center as one of the cities executing this Master Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (EDA), hereinafter referred to as "Provider ", 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) by virtue of a Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1993, and executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59; and WHEREAS, the City executed a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County effective July 1, 1995, which allocates funds from the Fiscal Year 1995 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program for the purpose of supporting the activities as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Activities." NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: 1 . SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Provider agrees to carry out Activities for the City as described in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1. B. Provider shall take all necessary actions required to implement Activities and to comply with any related requests by the City, it being understood that the City is responsible to Hennepin County for ensuring compliance with such requirements. Provider also will promptly notify the City of any changes in the scope or character of the Activities. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1995. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1996, or at such time as the Activities are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, Provider shall relinquish to the City all program funds unexpended or uncommitted for the Activities. 3. NON- ASSIGNMENT Provider shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and /or the Activities to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the City. 4. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion as a numbered Exhibit, which shall be attached at the time of any Amendment. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, (more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or $ 10,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized Activity. The total budget of multicommunity activities will be used in determining substantial change. 5. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The City agrees to provide Provider with CDBG funds not to exceed the budget as described in Exhibit 1, to enable Provider to carry out the Activities. It is understood that the City shall be held accountable to Hennepin County for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The City shall, therefore, make no payment of funds to Provider and draw no funds from Hennepin County on behalf of Provider prior to having received from Provider a request for reimbursement, including copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that Provider has complied with all appropriate regulations and requirements. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. Provider does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Provider and property of Provider which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by Provider under this Agreement. B. Provider does further agree that, in order to protect itself as well as the City under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth, it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $600,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $600,000 for damages arising from death and /or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the City, its officers, agents, and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between Provider and the City. 2 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by Provider, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A -1 10 shall apply. B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. 8. DATA PRIVACY Provider agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. Provider agrees to defend and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from Provider's unlawful disclosure and /or use of such protected data. 9. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION A. If Provider materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless Provider's default is excused by the City, the City may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. B. The City's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent sha11 not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon 30 days written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. D. CDBG funds allocated to Provider under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by Provider following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to Provider under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the City. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, Provider shall transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to Provider in the form of a loan. Any real property acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national obiectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: 3 , (1 } For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local overnment is no longer considered b HUD to be a art of 9 Y P Urban Hennepin County, 2 For an A o • or ( ) other Provider, five ears after expiration of this Agreement; n� Y P e � Y 9 B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event Provider shall pay to the City an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the City. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT Provider shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of the Activities. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 85, and OMB Circulars A -110, A -122, as applicable. Provider shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews, as necessary, to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. 12. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION AND DISPLACEMENT A. Provider shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of Activities. Provider shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name and shall hold title to all real property purchased. Provider shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. Provider shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. B. Provider shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential anti- displacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to Section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under Section 105(a)(1 1) of the Act, as pertaining to the Activities. 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Provider shall provide all necessary information and relevant documents to the City to enable the City and Hennepin County to maintain the environmental review record on all Activities. 14. LABOR STANDARDS EMPLOYMENT AND CONTRACTING The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to Hennepin County for HUD wage rate determinations on Activities. The Provider shall notify the City prior to initiating Activity, including advertising for contractual services, which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. 15. PROGRAM INCOME Any program income generated as a result of any Activities shall be forwarded immediately to the City upon receipt by Provider and the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply. i 6. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property acquired or improved through Activities, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: A. Provider shall inform the City at least 30 days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements, including disposition. B. Provider shall reimburse the City in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the City at the time of sale or transfer of the property. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The City will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by Hennepin County shall apply to all Activities undertaken by Provider as provided in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 5 j 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, Provider agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affection al /sexual preference, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall otherwise be subjected to discrimination. B. Provider will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. Provider shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by Provider receiving assistance from the City under Section 106 and /or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. When and where applicable, Provider shall comply with Public Law 101 -336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD -BASED PAINT Provider shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING Provider shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for Activities subject to this Agreement if it impedes actions taken by the City to comply with the City's fair housing certification. 22. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of Provider, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of 6 any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Provider will complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. OTHER CDBG POLICIES Provider shall comply with the general condition of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections: (b) Special policies governing facilities; (f) Means of carrying out eligible activities; and (j) Constitutional prohibitions concerning church /state activities. 24. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The City agrees to provide technical assistance to Provider in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by Provider, and at other times at the initiative of the City when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the City from Hennepin County and deemed necessary to be provided to Provider. 25. RECORD - KEEPING AND ACCESS TO RECORDS Provider shall maintain records for the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circular A -1 10 and A- 122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the City for monitoring by the City. The City shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by Provider in implementation of the Activities and Provider agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the City to request such information from Provider for the purpose of reviewing the same. 26. AUDIT A. Provider agrees to provide City or Hennepin County with an annual audit report consistent with the provisions of OMB Circular A -1 10 Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations, OMB Circular A- 122 Cost Principles for Non - Profit Organizations, and OMB Circular A -133 Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non - Profit Institutions. (1) The audit report is to be provided to City or Hennepin County on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of non - compliance 7 affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Provider within 6 months of the provision date. (2) The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all federal sources in any one fiscal year. (3) The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. (4) City reserves the right to recover from Provider the full amount of any CDBG funds found to be improperly expended or otherwise disallowed. B. Provider's assurance and certification regarding its financial management system is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. g r CITY EXECUTION The Citv of having duly approved this Agreement on 1995, and pursuant to such approvai and the proper city officials having signed this Agreement, the city agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. Dated: 1995 CITY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA By Its Mayor And Its Attest: Title: 9 PROVIDER EXECUTION Provider, having signed this Agreement and the City having duly approved this Agreement, and pursuant to such approval and the proper officials having signed this Agreement, Provider agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. Dated: 1995 PROVIDER: ay Its And Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1995, by and , the and the of a Minnesota _ on behalf of said Notary Public 10 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 The City/ies, as identified in this Exhibit, will provide the Provider with Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds in the not -to- exceed amount indicated to assist Provider in funding the activitylies in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in the Project Description /Projected Use of Funds attached hereto: Brooklyn Center Maple Plain Deephaven Minnetonka Eden Prairie Minnetrista Edina Mound Excelsior Richfield Greenfield Rockford Greenwood Shorewood Independence Spring Park Long Lake Tonka Bay Loretto Wayzata U:\COSGXXVAGAEE \SENCOMM.EX THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 2 ASSURANCE AND CERTIFICATION In connection with our responsibilities to manage the Fiscal Year 1995 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds that have been provided to our organization, we certify and assure that we are in compliance with the financial standards set forth in Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -1 10 (Attachments F and G). Specifically, our organization's financial management system provides for the following: i . Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each federally sponsored project or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in OMB Circular A -1 10, Attachment G (Financial Reporting Requirements). 2. Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally sponsored activities. These records contain information pertaining to federal awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, outlays, and income. 3. Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets. These assets are adequately safeguarded and are used solely for authorized purposes. 4. Comparison of actual outlays with budget amounts for each grant or other agreement and, whenever appropriate or required, comparisons of financial information with performance and unit cost data. 5. Procedures to minimize the elapsed time between the transfer of funds from the county to our organization and the disbursement of funds by our organization. 6. Procedures for determining the reasonableness, allowabiiity, and allocability of costs in accordance with the provisions of the applicable federal cost principles and the terms of the avant or other agreement. . 7. Accounting records that are supported by source documentation. S. Annual audits by a firm of independent certified public accountants to ascertain the effectiveness of the financial management systems and internal procedures that we have established to meet the terms and conditions of the federal grants and other agreements. The audits are conducted on an organization -wide basis and include an appropriate sampling of federal agreements. g. A systematic method to assure timely and appropriate resolution of audit findings and recommendations. 10. Organizations (subrecipients) that receive CDBG funds from us are required to comfy with the financial management standards set forth in this certification. This assurance and certification is given in connection with any and all CDBG funds received after the date this form is signed. This includes payments after such date for financial assistance approved before such date. The undersigned recognizes and agrees that any such assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this assurance. This assurance and certification is binding on this organization, its subrecipients, and on the authorized official whose signature appears below. Date: Organization Name By Chief Financial Officer U: \CDBGXXI ',AGRc= .cXHIBhZ. WPO THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 The Cit /ies, as identified in this Exhibit, t ill provide h Provider with r Y p e t e e t Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds in the not -to- exceed amount indicated to assist Provider in funding the activity /ies in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in the Project Description /Projected Use of Funds attached hereto: Brooklyn Center $160,000 U:\CDBGXX1\AGREE\SCEDA.EX PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY, STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS CDBG /1995 *operating Unit : Brooklyn Center Budget : S160,000.00 Project Title : Acauisition - Scattered Site Redevelopment Project Number: 001 Project Description : Acquire substandard residential properties that have a blighting influence. Following acquisition, the structure will be removed and the lot sold for new residential development. In some cases the new house will be further assisted to make it affordable to a low- moderate income family or special needs household. All properties will be acquired through voluntary acquisition. Up to ten properties will be acquired in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, and Osseo. The local HRA/EDA (public) will implement the project. Multi -year activity. Address Census Tract Community Wide: X Type of Accomplishment: 41 mber to Accomplish: Local Code : 95 -011 D Activity Code: 01 Program Reg. Citation : 570.201(a) Program Income Used : Account No.: 59680 HOMELESS Prevent Homelessness : no Help the Homeless : no Help People w /HIV /AIDS : no NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION Low /Mod Benefit: Job Creation /Retention : Planning /Administration Low /Mod Limited Clientele: Slum /Blight -Area : Low /Mod Housing: Slum/Blight-Spot: X ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS Categorically Excld. (CE Assessment Req'rd (AR) : X Exempt (EX) Cat. Excld /Exmpt (CElEX) : Funds Released (FR)(date) THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center as one of the cities executing this Master Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and Senior Community Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Provider ", 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) by virtue of a Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1993, and executed between the City and Hennepin County pursuant to MSA 471.59; and WHEREAS, the City executed a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County effective July 1, 1995, which allocates funds from the Fiscal Year 1995 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program for the purpose of supporting the activities as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "Activities." NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following terms and conditions: 1 . SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Provider agrees to carry out Activities for the City as described in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 . B. Provider shall take all necessary actions required to implement Activities and to comply with any related requests by the City, it being understood that the City is responsible to Hennepin County for ensuring compliance with such requirements. Provider also will promptly notify the City of any changes in the scope or character of the Activities. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1995. The termination date of this Agreement is December 31, 1996, or at such time as the Activities are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, Provider shall relinquish to the City all program funds unexpended or uncommitted for the Activities. 3. NON- ASSIGNMENT Provider shall not assign, subcontract, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and /or the Activities to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the City. 4. AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion as a numbered Exhibit, which shall be attached at the time of any Amendment. Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3) purpose; or (4) scope, (more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or $10,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized Activity. The total budget of multicommunity activities will be used in determining substantial change. 5. PAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS The City agrees to provide Provider with CDBG funds not to exceed the budget as described in Exhibit 1, to enable Provider to carry out the Activities. It is understood that the City hall b y e held accountable to Hennepin Count for the lawful expenditure P Y P of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The City shall therefore make no payment of 9 Y � � P Y funds to Provider and draw no funds from Hennepin Count on behalf of Provider prior P Y P to having received from Provider a request for reimbursement, including copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that Provider has compiled with all appropriate regulations and requirements. 6. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. Provider does hereby agree to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits, or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss, or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of Provider and property of Provider, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by Provider under this Agreement. B. Provider does further agree that, in order to protect itself as well as the City under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth, it will at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $1,000,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $1,000,000 for damages arising from death and /or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $1,000,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the City, its officers, agents, and employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between Provider and the City. i 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by Provider, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A -1 10 shall app B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply. 8. DATA PRIVACY Provider agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. Provider agrees to defend and hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any claims resulting from Provider's unlawful disclosure and /or use of such protected data. 9. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION A. If Provider materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless Provider's default is excused by the City, the City may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling this Agreement in its entirety. B. The City's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon 30 days written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44. D. CDBG funds allocated to Provider under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by Provider following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to Provider under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the City. 10. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, Provider shall transfer to the City any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to Provider in the form of a loan. Any real property acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: 3 (1) For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of 1 0 Urban Hennepin County, (2) For any other Provider, five years after expiration of this Agreement; or B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event Provider shall pay to the City an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the City. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 11. PROCUREMENT Provider shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of the Activities. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 85, and OMB Circulars A -110, A -122, as applicable. Provider shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews, as necessary, to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. 12. ACQUISITION RELOCATION AND DISPLACEMENT A. Provider shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of Activities. Provider shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name and shall hold title to all real property purchased. Provider shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program. Provider shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices, counseling, and services required by said regulations. B. Provider shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential anti - displacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to Section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under Section 105(a)(1 1) of the Act, as pertaining to the Activities. 4 13. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Provider shall provide all necessary information and relevant documents to the City to enable the City and Hennepin County to maintain the environmental review record on all Activities. 14. LABOR STANDARDS EMPLOYMENT AND CONTRACTING The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to Hennepin County for HUD wage rate determinations on Activities. The Provider shall notify the City prior to initiating Activity, including advertising for contractual services, which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. 15. PROGRAM INCOME Any program income generated as a result of any Activities shall be forwarded immediately to the City upon receipt by Provider and the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply. 16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property acquired or improved through Activities, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds: A. Provider shall inform the City at least 30 days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements, including disposition. B. Provider shall reimburse the City in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the City at the time of sale or transfer of the property. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The City will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. 17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by Hennepin County shall apply to all Activities undertaken by Provider as provided in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 5 18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, Provider agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional /sexual preference, public assistance status, ex- offender status, or national origin; and no person protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall otherwise be subjected to discrimination. B. Provider will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 19. NON - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A. Provider shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by Provider receiving assistance from the City under Section 106 and /or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B. When and where applicable, Provider shall comply with Public Law 101 -336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 20. LEAD -BASED PAINT Provider shall comply with the Lead -Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 21. FAIR HOUSING Provider shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for Activities subject to this Agreement if it impedes actions taken by the City to comply with the City's fair housing certification. 22. LOBBYING A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of Provider, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the 0 awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of 6 any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Provider will complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 23. OTHER CDBG POLICIES Provider shall comply with the general condition of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections: (b) Special policies governing facilities; (f) Means of carrying out eligible activities; and (j) Constitutional prohibitions concerning church /state activities. 24. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The City agrees to provide technical assistance to Provider in the form of oral and /or written guidance and on -site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by Provider, and at other times at the initiative of the City when new or updated information concerning the CDBG Program is received by the City from Hennepin County and deemed necessary to be provided to Provider. 25. RECORD - KEEPING AND ACCESS TO RECORDS Provider shall maintain records for the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG funds it receives, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circular A -1 10 and A- 122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the City for monitoring by the City. The City shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by Provider in implementation of the Activities and Provider agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the City to request such information from Provider for the purpose of reviewing the same. 26. AUDIT A. Provider agrees to provide City or Hennepin County with an annual audit report consistent with the provisions of OMB Circular A -1 10 Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non - Profit Organizations, OMB Circular A- 122 Cost Principles for Non - Profit Organizations, and OMB Circular A -133 Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non - Profit Institutions. (1) The audit report is to be provided to City or Hennepin County on July 1 of each year this Agreement is in effect and any findings of non - compliance 7 affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Provider within 6 months of the provision date. (2) The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all federal sources in any one fiscal year. (3) The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds. (4) City reserves the right to recover from Provider the full amount of any CDBG funds found to be improperly expended or otherwise disallowed. B. Provider's assurance and certification regarding its financial management system is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference. 8 CITY EXECUTION The City of having duly approved this Agreement on 1995, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city officials having signed this Agreement, the city agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding. Dated: 1995 CITY OF STATE OF MINNESOTA By Its Mayor And Its Attest: Title: 9 PROVIDER EXECUTION Provider, having signed this Agreement and the City having duly approved this Agreement, and pursuant to such approval and the proper officials having signed this Agreement, Provider agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. Dated: 1995 PROVIDER: By Its And Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1995, by and , the and the of , a Minnesota _ on behalf of said Notary Public 10 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 The City /ies, as identified in this Exhibit, will provide the Provider with Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds in the not -to- exceed amount indicated to assist Provider in funding the activity /ies in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in the Project Description /Projected Use of Funds attached hereto: Brooklyn Center Maple Plain Deephaven Minnetonka Eden Prairie Minnetrista Edina Mound Excelsior Richfield Greenfield Rockford Greenwood Shorewood Independence Spring Park Long Lake Tonka Bay Loretto Wayzata U: \CDBGXXI \AGREE\SENCQMM.EX THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 2 ASSURANCE AND CERTIFICATION In connection with our responsibilities to manage the Fiscal Year 1995 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds that have been provided to our organization, we certify and assure that we are in compliance with the financial standards set forth in Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -1 10 (Attachments F and G). Specifically, our organization's financial management system provides for the following: 1. Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each federally sponsored project or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in OMB Circular A -1 10, Attachment G (Financial Reporting Requirements). 2. Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally sponsored activities. These records contain information pertaining to federal awards, authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, outlays, and income. 3. Effective control over and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets. These assets are adequately safeguarded and are used solely for authorized purposes. 4. Comparison of actual outlays with budget amounts for each grant or other agreement and, whenever appropriate or required, comparisons of financial information with performance and unit cost data. 5. Procedures to minimize the elapsed time between the transfer of funds from the county to our organization and the disbursement of funds by our organization. 6. Procedures for determining the reasonableness, allowability, and allocability of costs in accordance with the provisions of the applicable federal cost principles and the terms of the grant or other agreement. 7. Accounting records that are supported by source documentation. S. Annual audits by a firm of independent certified public accountants to ascertain the effectiveness of the financial management systems and internal procedures that we have established to meet the terms and conditions of the federal grants and other agreements. The audits are conducted on an organization -wide basis and include an appropriate sampling of federal agreements. 9. A systematic method to assure timely and appropriate resolution of audit findings and recommendations. 10. Organizations (subrecipients) that receive CDBG funds from us are required to comply with the financial management standards set forth in this certification. This assurance and certification is given in connection with any and all CDBG funds received after the date this form is signed. This includes payments after such date for financial assistance approved before such date. The undersigned recognizes and agrees that any such assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this assurance. This assurance and certification is binding on this organization, its subrecipients, and on the authorized official whose signature appears below. Date: Organization Name By Chief Financial Officer U:\C08GXXRAGREEAEXHIBIT2.WP0 THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1 The City /ies, as identified in this Exhibit, will provide the Provider with Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds in the not -to- exceed amount indicated to assist Provider in funding the activity /ies in the amount and under the stipulations individually specified in the Project Description /Projected Use of Funds attached hereto: Brooklyn Center $9,306 L':1 CD SG XXI \AGREE\ SC EDA. EX PROJECT DESCRIPTION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS CDBG/1995 Oooperating Unit: See Below Budget: $81,189.00 Project Title: Public Service - H.O.M.E. Program Project Number: See Below Project Description: The H.O.M.E. Program provides home maintenance /repairs and homemaker /chore services to elderly and disabled homeowners who live independently but need in -home services to maintain their residence and property. Assistance is determined by the homeowners ability to pay, based on a sliding scale. H.O.M.E. is operated by Senior Community Services. Address: Census Tract: Community Wide: X Type of Accomplishment: Number to Accomplish: Local Code: 95 -024 D Activity Code: 05A Program Reg. Citation: 570.201 (e) Program Income Used: Account No: 59970 PR OD COOPERATING UNIT BUDGET 002 Brooklyn Center $9,306.00 039 Eden Prairie $10,340.00 043 Edina $24,893.00 089 Minnetonka $14,600.00 123 Richfield $22,050.00 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT AND REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1995 (YEAR XXI) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the 1995 (Year XXI) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement and appropriate Third Party Agreements which set forth the specific implementation processes for activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and the City Council are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreements on behalf of the City. 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 Mccdng Date Q 7/24195 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Amending the 1995 Pay Plan, Reclassifying Administrative Assistant/Deputy City Clerk Position to Administrative Assistant/City Clerk Department Approval: Cam Andre, Interim City Manager Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Motion by Council to approve Resolution Amending the 1995 Pay Plan, Reclassifying Administrative Assistant/Deputy City Clerk Position to Administrative Assistant/City Clerk. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No In the past the City Manager held the title of City Clerk, a position that is set forth in the City Charter. Deputy City Clerk Sharon Knutson has recently received her certification as a City Clerk and presently in many instances performed the duties of that office. She is most qualified to perform all the duties of the City Clerk and function as an office supervisor. Such a change would improve the operations of the management offices. It is recommended that the position of administrative assistant/deputy city clerk be reclassified to administrative assistant/city clerk (pay grade C21, $17.62 - $21.45 per hour). This recommendation is consistent with pay equity and job valuation within pay equity guidelines. I have attached a copy of the 1995 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Salary Survey prepared by DCA Stanton Group for the position of city clerk. • SURVEY JOB TITLE: City Clerk JOB NO. 168 Skill Level - Duties are a combination of clerical support, record - keeping, administrative detait and inter- function organizing. Example of Duties - Personally performs or directs the performance of duties associated with voter registration, election arrangements, minutes of council meetings, other official records, licenses, etc., as required by taw. Minimum Qualifications - Varies All Rates Quoted Hourly * - Multiple Range P After WTD MEAN RATES indicates pending rate -- ------ --- - --- -- -RANGE DATA -------- WAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCLUDING LONGEVITY WTD 0 PART YRS YRS # OF MEAN / TIME # OF TO # OF TO JURISDICTION EMPL RATES 10.77 22.40 34.04 45.67+ T JOB TITLE MIN MAX STEPS MAX MAX STEPS MAX MINNEAPOLIS 1 30.53 P 1 N N CITY CLERK 24.41 36.64 N I Ut I GROUP STATISTICS: Q1: Q2: Q3: Average: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ BLOOMINGTON 1 26.81 1 N N CITY CLERK 21.35 28.73 nnua COON RAPIDS 1 28.81 1 N N CITY CLERK 22.03 33.74 r BROOKLYN PARK 1 40.40, 1 N N CITY CLERK 31.90 45.50 7 6.0 PLYMOUTH 1 23.28 1 N N CITY CLERK 17.74 24.39 9 x BURNSVILLE 1 48.10 1 N N CITY CLERK 37.90 48.10 6 5.0 EDINA 1 23.01 1 N N CITY CLK 17.26 23.01 6 6.0 ST LOUIS PARK 1 23.34 1 N N CITY CLERK 17.61 23.60 APPLE VALLEY 1 25.80 1 N N CITY CLERK 23.72 25.80 4.0 x. MAPLEWOOD 1 57.30 1 N N CITY CLERK 39.50 57.30 LAKEVILLE 1 19.71 1 Y N CITY CLERK 16.33 16.67 6 5.0 BROOKLYN CENTER 1 17.17 1 N N ADM ASST /DEP CL 14.11 17.17 FRIDLEY 1 18.13 1 N N CITY CLERK 16.48 22.66 8 10.0 X COTTAGE GROVE 1 46.70 1 N N CITY CLERK 37.30 46.70 4 3.0 RICHFIELD 1 21.76 1 N N CITY CLERK 16.29 22.79 GROUP STATISTICS: 30.02 Q1: 21.76 02: 24.57 Q3: 40.40 Average: 23.54 31.15 ---------------------------------- WHITE BEAR LAKE 1 15.57 P 1 Y N CITY CLERK 15.57 15.57 INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 1 19.00 1 N N DEPUTY CLERK 17.55 19.95 6 4.0 CRYSTAL 1 23.61 1 N N CITY CLERK 20.67 24.85 5 OAKDALE 1 22.83 1 Y N DEPUTY CLK -ASST 18.18 22.83 5 4.0 NEW HOPE 1 18.26 1 N N CITY CLERK 14.04 18.26 5 3.0 GOLDEN VALLEY 1 19.80 1 N N CITY CLERK 18.03 19.80 CHAMPLIN 1 22.94 1 N N GOVT SVC DIR 18.45 23.06 5 3.0 ANDOVER 1 17.84 1 Y N CITY CLERK STILLWATER 1 18.41 1 N N CITY CLERK 18.41 19.18 5 4.0 20.10 4 20 SAVAGE 1 20.54 1 Y N CITY CLERK 16.22 20.54 8 6.0 ok a /D1 A A ok 0% AIw uAi ,A Aa m Ali Ab Ak wi. Aft I SURVEY JOB TITLE: City Clerk (Cont.) JOB NO. 168 * Multiple Range ------ -- -- --- - ---- -RANGE DATA ------------------- _WAG FREQUENC DISTRI EXCLUDING LONGEVITY INCLUDING LONGEVITY WTD M 0 PART YRS YRS # OF MEAN / TIME # OF TO # OF TO JURISDICTION EMPL RATES 10.77 22.40 34.04 45.67+ T JOB TITLE MIN MAX STEPS MAX MAX STEPS MAX SHAKOPEE 1 20.67 1 N N CITY CLERK 16.01 20.10 8 7.0 SOUTH ST PAUL 1 19.90 1 N N CITY CLERK 19.90 LINO LAKES 1 17.74- 1 N N CLERK /TREASURER 13.83 17.74 5 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1 26.54 1 N N CITY CLERK 21.82 26.54 4 3.0 GROUP STATISTICS: 20.62 Q1: 18.41 02: 19.90 03: 22.83 Average: 17.56 21.06 20.10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOUND 1 21.07 1 N N CITY CLERK 17.02 21.27 4 3.0 NAM LAKE 1 14.61 1 Y Y DEPUTY CLERK 11.69 14.61 5 3.0 ORONO 1 16.75 1 N N CITY CLERK 14.24 16.75 4 3.0 SHOREWOOD 1 16.50 1 N N EXEC SEC /DEP CK 13.90 17.37 5 3.0 MAHTOMEDI 1 17.89 P 1 N N DEPUTY CLERK 17.89 17.89 6 5.0 CORCORAN 1 12.57 1 Y N DEP CLERK TREAS 10.90 15.96 7 10.0 Iv HUGO 1 17.81 1 Y Y CLERK-TREASURER c t "1t DAYTON 1 13.46 1 N N CITY CLERK WACONIA 1 18.93 1 N N CITY CLERK 14.51 20.42 7 k DEEPHAVEN 1 48.00 - - 1 N N CLERK /TREASURER 35.70 51.00 5 5.0 MEDINA 1 19.60 1 N N CITY CLERK -TREA 18.94 25.58 11 9.5 VICTORIA 1 12.42 1 Y Y CITY CLERK 10.66 13.61 6 ST FRANCIS 1 15.00 1 N N CITY CLERK /TREA 12.02 15.67 10 8.0 LEXINGTON 1 16.17 P 1 N N CITY CLERK NORWOOD 1 15.17 1 Y N CITY CLERK DELLWOOD 1 15.80 1 N Y CLERK /ADM MARINE ON ST CROIX 1 18.65 1 N Y CITY CLERK /TREA COLOGNE 1 13.00 1 N N CITY CLERK HAMBURG 1 10.77 1 Y N CITY CLERK -TREA ROCKFORD 1 11.27 1 Y N PRINCIPAL SECTY 9.18 11.27 5 5.0 GROUP STATISTICS: 17.30 Q1: 13.00 Q2: 15.49 03: 18.65 Average: 15.34 20.32 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OVERALL: 45 22.22 30 10 1 4 19.21 24.66 JOB RATES DISTRIBUTION: P10= 13.00 Q1= 16.75 02= 19.60 Q3= 23.28 P90= 40.40 YF Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1995 PAY PLAN, RECLASSIFYING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT /DEPUTY CITY CLERK POSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT /CITY CLERK WHEREAS, Resolution No. 94 -277 sets wages and salaries for the calendar year 1995; and WHEREAS, the Interim City Manager recommends the Administrative Assistant/Deputy City Clerk be reclassified to Administrative Assistant/City Clerk due to past performance of City Clerk responsibilities, increased job responsibilities in the area of supervision, and in accordance with City Ordinances and City Charter to be certified as City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the 1995 pay plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. The City Manager's Office section of Schedule A, 1995 Positions Authorized, is amended to reclassify the position of Administrative Assistant/Deputy City Clerk to Administrative Assistant/City Clerk, amending Schedule C by moving Administrative Assistant/City Clerk from pay grade C12 to C21. 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 7/24/95 �( City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number v Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND PAY PLAN REGARDING GOVERNMENT BUILDING CUSTODIAL SERVICES Department Approval: C — Jim G li Services Coordinat Manager's Review /Reco ndation: ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Amend by Resolution 1995 General Fund Budget and Pay Plan Regarding Custodial Services • summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) For some time now, staff have been wrestling with the question of how to improve the cleanliness of the city's buildings. It has become apparent that the current staffing patterns of the custodial staff and contracting services do not provide the flexibility or coverage necessary to provide for consistently maintained facilities. Facilities maintained include City Hall, the Community Center, and the Central Garage. The fire stations are currently maintained by the fire fighters, and the liquor stores and Heritage Center maintain their own staffs or contracts. Presently the custodial staff cleans the Community Center from 10 :00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. The Community Center doesn't get cleaned again until closing at 10:00 p.m. That's 15 hours where very little, or no cleaning is done. Allowing the cleaning and sanitizing of the public rest rooms, locker rooms and shower areas to go 15 hours without custodial services has resulted in a facility that is consistently the source of employee complaints regarding cleanliness. The public too has noticed this, leading several patrons on their "Customer Appreciation Week" surveys or suggestion cards to note that these and other areas need cleaning. In addition to having the Community Center not cleaned for long stretches of time, we are in need of a conscientious, reliable person to assist in set -up needs for the Community Center. Building and • Grounds Maintenance staff are continually asked to assist with room set -ups, taking away time from their normal duties. Often they end up finishing their own duties on overtime. The Central Garage and Police areas have also experienced problems with the contracting services hired to maintain them. Earlier this year, it was necessary for us to change contractors as a result of poor service quality. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 • Staff turnover has also been an issue, particularly with the part-time positions (City Hall, Community Center). The majority of the part-time staff have left within the first year of employment. The changing work schedule and third shift hours are the most common reasons given for leaving. As a result, staff are constantly having to train in new staff to handle these areas, resulting in a lower quality of service until they become fully trained. Lastly, the current custodial schedule provides for no direct supervisory opportunities for the Maintenance Supervisor. All supervision must be done via written correspondence or phone conversations. In addition there is no time for training and in- service. Proposed Staffing Adjustment Currently, custodial /maintenance staffing consists of four (4) full -time, one (1) 3/4 time and two (2) half time positions. Additional part-time and overtime hours are also budgeted to maintain building coverage. In addition to the allocated positions, we usually contract for cleaning services in the Department. Recently due to our inability to attract and retain part-time help, we have expanded the contract to include the Central Garage and City Hall It is staff's recommendation that each of the part-time positions be converted to full time positions, and that one (1) additional full time position be created. To offset this increase, staff also recommends that the number of part-time hours budgeted be decreased from 6,120 to 1,500, that overtime hours be cut from 850 to 235 and that the city no longer contract for any custodial services. • Schedule Adjustment As I mentioned earlier, presently the custodial staff cleans the Community Center from 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. (see figure 1). While this schedule allows for no interruptions from patrons, it also allows the facility to go long hours with no cleaning. It provides no assistance for room set -ups and does not provide an appropriate opportunity for the Maintenance Supervisor to monitor their staff. Staff has proposed that the work schedule be adjusted to have the custodians present from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (see figure 1). The proposed change in scheduled hours would allow for a constant custodial presence for all hours the Community Center is open. In addition, it would still provide 40 + hours each week for sanitizing of areas when no patrons are present. It would also provide for daily supervisory opportunities for the Maintenance Supervisor. Costs Although the above mentioned plan would be a big departure from past practices, costs incurred from adding personnel would be more than offset by the significant reduction in part-time and overtime hours, along with discontinuing the use of contractual services. The actual costs necessary to implement the changes for 1996 would be approximately $12,000 less than was approved in the 1995 budget. In 1995, $306,187 was budgeted for custodial /maintenance services and contract janitorial services. The cost to implement the revised staffing plan for 1996 would be just under $294,000. • The obvious questions is —if this proposal provides better service at a lower cost, why haven't we been doing this all along. Multiple factors have come together to make this proposal feasible now whereas it was not six months ago. •In the past few months, two long time staff members resigned to accept other positions. Both employees (a lead custodian and custodian) were at the top of their pay ranges. Request For Council Consideration Page 3 *The unemployment rate is low, making it more difficult to attract and retain part-time • employees. When times are good, people are more apt to hang on to part-time positions. When times are good, a 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. three day per week position may not be so attractive. We have advertised twice in recent months in an attempt to fill three part-time positions. We have not been able to fill any of the openings. • When we dismissed our custodial service this past Spring for poor performance, we wrote detailed minimum qualifications and bid out the work. The lowest bid received was 50% more than what we had been paying. It is apparent that quality contractual custodial service may be more costly than service provided by our own full time employees. In order to institute the changes for the remainder of 1995 (approximately September 1 - December 31), adjustments must be made to the adopted budget to reflect the aforementioned reduction in the number of part-time and overtime hours, the discontinuation of contractual services, and the subsequent increase in personnel expenditures. Staff requests the 1995 General Fund budget be amended as follows: Increase the appropriation for the following line items: Contractual services, Government Buildings $18,500 Wages of full time employees, Community Center $12,000 Decrease the appropriation for the following line items: Wages of part time employees, Community Center $22,500 Overtime wages, Government Buildings $ 8,000 • Additional minor revisions may be necessary at the end of the fiscal year and will be made accordingly. Summary For some time staff and patrons have been noticing the need for improved cleaning of city buildings. Current work schedules leave the Community Center without custodial presence for all hours the facility is open. They do not provide assistance with room set -ups and provide no direct supervisory opportunities for the maintenance supervisor. In addition, problems have been encountered with our contract cleaning services and we have experienced extensive turnover of our part-time staff. Presently the custodial staff cleans the Community Center from 10:00 p.m. 6:30 a.m. Staff recommends that the work schedule be adjusted to have the custodians present from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (see figure 1). It is also recommended that three current part-time positions be converted to full time, and that one additional full time position be added. To offset these increases, overtime and part-time hours will be significantly reduced, and contractual services cancelled. This revised staffing arrangements would address all the issues noted above, and result in a net savings, when compared to the approved 1995 budget, in excess of $12,000. It is also hoped it would provide for cleaner, better maintained facilities for citizens and staff. e Figure 1 BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY CENTER CUSTODIAL STAFFING Monday Tuesday Wednesda Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 12:00 a.m. 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 :. 10:00 11:00 12: p.m. 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 >'< Community Center Hours of Operation Current Custodial Work schedule ��Proposed Custodial Work Schedule BROOKLYN CENTER GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS PROPOSED CUSTODIAL STAFFI Total Hours Cleaning Monday Tuesday Wednesday 'Thursday Friday Saturday Sun,ay Garage 1 5 5 5 5 5 City Hail 5 5 5 5 5 Police 4 41 4 4 4 4 4 Comm Ctr 18 181 181 18 10 20 20 32 32 321 32 241 241 24 Days of Work Monday Tuesday !Wednesday Thursday Friday (Saturday Sunday Cust 1 x x I x x x Cust 2 x x x x I x Cust 3 x x x x x � Cust 4 x x x x x Cust 5 1 x I x x x 1 x Total FTE 4 4 4 4 1 3 3 3 I i i Work Schedule 1Monday ITuesday 'Wednesday 'Thursday Friday Isaturday Sunday 17:00 -3:30 7:00 -3:30 7:00 -3:30 7:00 -3:30 7:00 -3:30 7:00 -3:30 7:00 -3:30 3:30 -12:00 3:30-12:0013:30-12:00 3:30 -12:00 3:30 - 12:0013:30 -12:00 3:30 -12:00 13:30 -12:00 3:30-12:0013:30-12:00 1 3:30-12:00 3:30-12:0013:30-12:00 3:30 -12:00 3:30 -12:00 3:30 - 12:0013:30 -12:00 3:30- 12 :00� I l I I Cost I 1995 Approved Budget $306,187 Proposed Staffing $293,391 1 Savings $12,796 r 1 i 1 � Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND PAY PLAN REGARDING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS CUSTODIAL SERVICES WHEREAS, for some time now, staff and citizens have been noticing the need to improve the cleanliness of the city's buildings; and WHEREAS, it has become apparent that the current staffing patterns of the custodial staff and contracting services do not provide the flexibility or coverage necessary to provide for consistently maintained facilities; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that in order to respond to changing operational needs and to provide a higher level of public service, work schedules be adjusted and three (3) current part-time positions be converted to full -time, and one (1) additional full -time position be established; and WHEREAS, to offset this cost increase, staff also recommends that the number of part- time hours budgeted be decreased from 6,120 to 1,500, that overtime hours be cut from 850 to 235, and that the city no longer contract for any custodial services; and WHEREAS, the revised staffing proposal would address all concerns noted and result in no cost increase for 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Implementation of the revised custodial /maintenance staffing plan, beginning September, 1, 1995 is hereby approved. 2. The 1995 General Fund budget is hereby amended as follows: Increase the appropriation for the following line item: Contractual services, Government Buildings $18,500 Wages of full time employees, Community Center $12,000 Decrease the appropriation for the following line item: Wages of part time employees, Community Center $22,500 Overtime wages, Government Buildings $ 8,000 3. The 1995 Pay Plan, Schedule D is hereby amended as follows: Add four (4) Full Time Custodial Positions, pay grade D6 RESOLUTION NO. Date Myrna Kragness, 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. THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 8H This item has been changed due to errors found in bid amounts. • R 2 Council Meeting Date 7/24/95 3 City o f Br Center Agenda Item Number IF// Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract, Improvement Project No. 1993 -18, Contract 1995 -G, Park and Ride, Pond, Park, and 65th Avenue Realignment Department Approval: ,C��� SCAVI Diane Spector, Director of Public Servi j Manager's Review /Recommendation: ` No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: A resolution which accepts the low bid and awards a contract to Thomas &Sons of Rogers, MN is attached for consideration. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No ) City Council Resolution No. 95 -143 authorized advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1993 -18, Contract 1995 -G, Park and Ride, Pond, Park, and 65th Avenue Realignment. On July 20, 1995 the following bids were received: Bidders Bid Amount Thomas & Sons $1,040,750.64 Progressive Contractors 1,086,461.73 Veit & Company 1,183,262.66 G.L. Contracting 1,225,615.68 Hardrives, Inc. 1,264,130.82 C.S. McCrossan Construction 1,284,805.37 Midwest Asphalt 1,380,221.77 'v wa Design 1 396,021.11 Driveway g , The Engineer's Estimate for these improvements was $1,269,203.94. The lowest bid of $1,040,750.64 was submitted by Thomas & Sons of Rogers, MN. • Thomas & Sons has satisfactorily completed work in the City previously, and is currently constructing the improvements in the Woodbine Neighborhood. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid and award of the contract to Thomas & Sons of Rogers, MN. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 FUNDING A portion of this project is being constructed on behalf of the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations division (MCTO). A previously executed cooperative agreement defines certain costs which the MCTO agrees to pay. These costs include: all construction costs associated with the construction of the Park and Ride; a proportion of the professional services costs for design and construction management; the additional cost to provide "extra depth" pavement on 65th Avenue to accommodate bus traffic; the cost of street construction and installation of curb and gutter on the north half of 65th Avenue where it abuts their property line; and a share of staff and administrative costs. The Engineer's estimate split the $1,269,203.94 project cost as $667,861.55 City and $601,342.39 MCTO. However, the MCTO share represents ONLY the estimated cost of the park and ride, and not all the additional costs the MCTO agreed to pay. The City's share includes about $30,000 in water and sanitary sewer improvements and $87,000 in storm sewer improvements. The remainder is split about half and half between pond /park improvements and roadway improvements. The roadway portion includes $85,000 to revise the signal system at 65th Avenue to accommodate the addition of a left turn lane on 65th. If not done at this time, this revision would have had to be done during the Brooklyn Boulevard roadway project, at the City's cost. The Council had previously approved using storm drainage utility funding to pay all costs of the project not associated with water or sanitary sewer improvements. By resolution 94 -90 the Council issued revenue bonds to finance the cost of this improvement from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund. When the bids are tabulated and checked, we will prepare a more detailed breakdown of project financing, and hope to have that available for the Council Monday night or earlier to assist in making a decision regarding awarding this contract. Following award of the contract, the engineer will schedule a preconstruction meeting, with construction to begin around the beginning of August, substantially complete by mid to late November. Final completion and restoration will occur in Spring, 1996. A separate landscaping contract will be let in Spring, 1996. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -18, CONTRACT 1995 -G, PARK AND RIDE, POND, PARK, AND 65TH AVENUE REALIGNMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 95 -143, the following bids were received and opened on July 20, 1995, for Improvement Project No. 1993 -18, Contract 1995 -G, Park and Ride, Pond, Park, and 65th Avenue Realignment; and Bidders Bid Amount Thomas & Sons $1,040,705.64 Progressive Contractors 1,086,461.73 Veit & Company 1,183,262.66 G.L. Contracting 1,225,615.68 Hardrives, Inc. 1,264,130.82 C.S. McCrossan Construction 1,284,805.37 Midwest Asphalt 1,380,221.77 Driveway Design 1,396,021.11 WHEREAS, it appears that Thomas and Sons of Rogers, MN, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Thomas & Sons of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1993 -18 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the Deputy City Clerk. 2. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. All costs for Improvement Project No. 1993 -18 shall be financed by the Storm Drainage Utility Fund and by Metropolitan Council Transit Operations in accordance with a previously executed cooperative agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 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 7/24/95 3 p �/ City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number l� Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract, Improvement Project No. 1993 -18, Contract 1995 -G, Park and Ride, Pond, Park, and 65th Avenue Realignment Department Approval: Diane Spector, Director of t4Nic Services Manager's Review /Recommendation: f f No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: A resolution which accepts the low bid and awards a contract to Thomas & Sons of Rogers, MN is attached for consideration. • Summary Explanation: m'Y P (supporting documentation attached No ) City Council Resolution No. 95 -143 authorized advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1993 -18, Contract 1995 -G, Park and Ride, Pond, Park, and 65th Avenue Realignment. On July 20, 1995 the following bids were received: Bidders Bid Amount Thomas & Sons $1,040,543.33 Progressive Contractors 1,086,461.73 Veit & Company 1,183,263.66 G. L. Contracting 1,225,615.68 C.S. McCrossan Construction 1,284,805.37 Hardrives, Inc. 1,294,131.12 Midwest Asphalt 1,377,999.71 Driveway Design 1,396,029.78 The Engineer's Estimate for these improvements was $1,173,711.94. The lowest bid of $1,040,543.33 • was submitted by Thomas & Sons of Rogers, MN. Thomas & Sons has satisfactorily completed work in the City previously, and is currently constructing the improvements in the Woodbine Neighborhood. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid and award of the contract to Thomas & Sons of Rogers, MN. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 FUNDING • A onion of this project is being constructed P p ,1 g ns cted on behalf of the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations division (MCTO). A previously executed cooperative agreement defines certain costs which the MCTO agrees to pay. These costs include: all construction costs associated with the construction of the Park and Ride; a proportion of the professional services costs for design and construction management; the additional cost to provide "extra depth" pavement on 65th Avenue to accommodate bus traffic; the cost of street construction and installation of curb and gutter on the north half of 65th Avenue where it abuts their property line; and a share of staff and administrative costs. The Engineer's estimate split the $1,173,711.94 project cost as $755,101.17 City and $421,715.77 MCTO. However, the MCTO share represents ONLY the estimated cost of the park and ride, and not all the additional costs the MCTO agreed to pay. The City's share includes about $40,000 in water and sanitary sewer improvements and $87,000 in storm sewer improvements. The remainder is split about half and half between pond /park improvements and roadway improvements. The roadway portion includes $85,000 to revise the signal system at 65th Avenue to accommodate the addition of a left turn lane on 65th. If not done at this time, this revision would have had to be done during the Brooklyn Boulevard roadway project, at the City's cost. The Council had previously approved using storm drainage utility funding to pay all costs of the project not associated with water or sanitary sewer improvements. By resolution 94 -90 the Council issued revenue bonds to finance the cost of this improvement from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund. When • the bids are tabulated and checked, we will prepare a more detailed breakdown of project financing, and hope to have that available for the Council Monday night or earlier to assist in making a decision regarding awarding this contract. I Following award of the contract, the engineer will schedule a preconstruction meeting, with construction to begin around the beginning of August, substantially complete by mid to late November. Final completion and restoration will occur in Spring, 1996. A separate landscaping contract will be let in Spring, 1996. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -18, CONTRACT 1995 -G, PARK AND RIDE, POND, PARK, AND 65TH AVENUE REALIGNMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 95 -143, the following bids were received and opened on July 20, 1995, for Improvement Project No. 1993 -18, Contract 1995 -G, Park and Ride, Pond, Park, and 65th Avenue Realignment; and Bidders Bid Amount Thomas & Sons $1,040,543.33 Progressive Contractors 1,086,461.73 Veit & Company 1,183,263.66 G. L. Contracting 1,225,615.68 C.S. McCrossan Construction 1,284,805.37 Hardrives, Inc. 1,294,131.12 Midwest Asphalt 1,377,999.71 Driveway Design 1,396,029.78 WHEREAS, it appears that Thomas and Sons of Rogers, MN, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The Mayor and n City Manager a are hereby authorized and directed to enter Y tY � Y into a contract with Thomas & Sons of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1993 -18 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the Deputy City Clerk. 2. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. 3. All costs for Improvement Project No. 1993 -18 shall be financed by the Storm Drainage Utility Fund and by Metropolitan Council Transit Operations in accordance with a previously executed cooperative agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 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 7/24/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Staff Report Re: 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard (Greg Lutgen Residence) Department Approval: Diane Spector, ire or of Public Se Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Select an option regarding Mr. Lutgen's residence and proposed improvements. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) • The property owner at 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard, Mr. Greg Lutgen, has several times approached the Council suggesting that the City purchase his property and use the resulting right of way to construct a cul de sac or improved turnaround on Wingard Lane at Brooklyn Boulevard and to provide for enhancements to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Council directed staff to study Mr. Lutgen's proposals and to provide a report with options to consider, estimated costs, and suggested funding sources. Several years ago, at the request of the neighborhood, Wingard Lane was disconnected from Brooklyn Boulevard. ` g g Y Due to limited right of way a "hammerhead" type of turnaround was constructed. A hammerhead is not an ideal situation, however, there are a number of locations in the City where the street simply ends, with no turnaround provisions at all. One nearby example is the south leg of Kyle Avenue at 71st, which the Council recently directed to be reconstructed as a public street rather than a private drive to the single property served. That street simply stops, with no turnaround. This type of arrangement is common where streets dead end next to the freeway. Wingard Lane is not, then, unique in having a situation which is not ideal. During the development of the Woodbine Neighborhood street improvements, staff reviewed possibilities for improving the situation at the end of Wingard Lane. It is virtually impossible to provide much improvement within the existing right of way. Setback requirements would limit the ability to acquire easements. After evaluating options, we determined that no substantial improvement was possible, and simply proposed to modify the hammerhead somewhat to provide a taper which would make cleaning the street easier. Attached to this report are the several options we have prepared. Most would require the acquisition of additional right of way, either as construction easements, permanent street easements, or entire properties. Several of these easement takings would leave the homes in a nonconforming condition, and would require a variance from setback or minimum lot width requirements. The attached table summarizes the options, the benefits to the public, the construction impacts, the cost of construction and right of way, and the types of Brooklyn Boulevard enhancements which could be possible under each option. I have attempted to identify possible sources of funding which would be appropriate to the improvements. • OPTIONS REGARDING THE TERMINUS OIIGARD LANE AT BROOKLYN BOULEVARD • OPTION AND BENEFITS TO THE IMPACTS COSTS POSSIBLE FUNDING DESCRIPTION PUBLIC ENHANCE SOURCES -MENTS 1 -- Minor - slight improvement in - no substantial change over Road $2,900 None Roadway improvements to maintainability existing conditions ROW -- project hammerhead Enhance TOTAL $2,900 2 -- 50' cut de - improvement in - no right of way beyond edge of Road $4,600 None Roadway sac (25' radius) maintainability curb; snow storage on private ROW 1,000* project within existing - substandard radius for cars property; construction easements Enhance - 50' right of way - NOT large enough for required TOTAL $5,600 plows or emergency vehicles *Construction easements 3 -- 60' cut de - improvement in - allowing for 5' ROW behind Road $5,600 None Roadway sac (30' radius) maintainability curb, violates setbacks ROW 3,000* project within existing - OK for cars, NOT large - 4727 would have 25' setback Enhance 50' right of way enough for plows or (35' frontyard setback required TOTAL $8,600 plus occasion of emergency vehicles - 7216 would have 10 -15' setback easements (25' sideyard setback required) *Assumes - 2 -3 mature trees lost variances granted 4 -- Offset cut - improved maintainability - Easement required from 4720; Road $9,200 Fence & Road: de sac (also - provides for plows and allowing for 5' ROW behind curb ROW 74,500* some roadway known as a emergency vehicle 4720 would violate minimum lot Enhance 30,300 landscaping project ?? "bubble" or turnarounds width; 75' required, 68' left TOTAL $114,000 "half moon "), - Loss of 4 or more mature trees, Gateway Other: 100' diameter, various shrubs *Assumes structure ?? 50' radius - Requires acquisition of 7216 variances granted 5 -- 100' - improved maintainability - Acquire 7216 and 4727 Road $10,200 Fence & Road: diameter cut de - provides for plows and - Acquire easements on 4721 and ROW 161,250 substantial roadway sac, 50' radius emergency vehicle 4720 Enhance 30,300 landscaping project ?? turnarounds - Loss of 4 or more mature trees, TOTAL $201,750 various shrubs Gateway Other; *Fence & minimal structure ?? landscaping only Request For Council Consideration Page 3 In general, none of the options which attempt to improve maintainability and usefulness while minimizing the impact on adjoining properties is satisfactory. The existing right of way width of 50 feet (60 -66 feet is more common) limits the options which can be considered within the existing right of way or with some easement takings. The only two options which are substantial improvements over the existing situation are Options 4 and 5. Option 4 requires the acquisition of one home and the acquisition of a street easement over another, leaving it in a nonconforming situation. A variance as to minimum lot width would be required. Even with that variance, the property owner may argue that the value of the property is reduced, and sue for damages beyond the cost of the easement. Or, the property owner may choose not to grant the necessary easement. Option 5 is the construction of a 100 foot cul de sac. This option would require the purchase of two homes, and acquisition of easements over the adjacent two properties. Since one of those house takings would more than likely be involuntary, the City would be required to pay relocation costs to that property owner in addition to acquisition costs. Unless the property owner is willing to sell and move immediately, the earliest we could possibly hope to acquire the house at 4727 Wingard would be in 4 to 6 months. (Six weeks for appraisal, and 90 days for eminent domain proceedings under the quick take laws.) Accordingly, the cul de sac could not be constructed this year as a part of the current contract, which has a completion date of September 1. FUNDING There are limited sources of funding for any of these options, especially Options 4 and 5 which include significant right of way acquisition costs. An option to consider is whether it would be appropriate to charge these costs to the Woodbine Neighborhood roadway project. One source I looked to for guidance was the Municipal State Aid rules. MSA pays for right of way if it is necessary to accommodate the design width of the road. In the Wingard Lane case, there is no requirement that an existing street which is terminated be fitted with a cul de sac -- nor indeed any type of turnaround, which is why there are a number of locations in the City with no turnarounds • provided. (A newly platted street which terminates must be fitted with a 100 foot diameter cul de sac.) If this were an MSA street, therefore, MSA would not pay for the acquisition of right of way to construct a cul de sac because one is not required to be built. The City would be free to construct one, but all the costs associated with it would be the City's, and MSA would not participate. If we were to apply that principle to Options 4 and 5, then the cost of obtaining right of way and constructing some version of a cul de sac would not be appropriately charged to the roadway project because it is not a requirement of the project that it be built. However, the Council could deem it in the City's best interest to do so. Increasing the bond amount by $200,000 (Option 5) would increase the general tax levy by about $25,000 per year. Increasing by $114,000 (Option 4) would increase the tax levy by $15,000 - 18,000. If the costs of the selected option are not paid for via the Woodbine Neighborhood project, the sources of funding become very unclear. EDA and local street money are available, but staff recommends the Council make no commitments from those funds until the cost and financing of the Brooklyn Boulevard road and enhancement projects and the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment projects become more clear. As a reminder, the City is required to pay for a portion of right of way acquisition costs for the roadway, a portion of the construction cost for the roadway, match the federal ISTEA enhancement grant with $125,000 of local funds, and also pay the full cost of undergrounding the power lines on Brooklyn Boulevard, which will be in the neighborhood of $600,000 - 800,000. The City's redevelopment commitment at this time is unknown. We have no reason to doubt that we have sufficient funds or ways to pay for the roadway, enhancement, and redevelopment projects, but we do need to preserve maximum flexibility. The enhancements proposed by Mr. Lutgen, including the installation of an ornamental fence similar to that constructed on 69th Avenue, a gateway structure, landscaping, etc., are all ideas which can be further pursued. • However, they were not included in our grant application for federal ISTEA funds, and therefore we may not use the $500,000 or $125,000 match to construct these improvements. A gateway was proposed at the northern boundary of the City, but the proposed gateway was very modest -- an attractive sign with some plantings on the west side of the road. The design set forward by Mr. Lutgen could complement the gateway, but it is too early in the design phase to determine. > Request For Council Consideration page 4 SUNEY ARY • There are several options for providing for an improvement to the terminus of Wingard Lane at Brooklyn Boulevard. The options which would satisfactorily improve the operations of this location would be the construction of an offset cul de sac or a full cul de sac. Both would require purchasing homes, at substantial cost. Including either of these options in the Woodbine Neighborhood cost would increase the tax levy by $15,000 - 25,000. Other funds which might be used are at this point reserved for roadway, enhancement, and redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard and the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard area. Staff recommends constructing Option 1, minor improvements to the hammerhead. At some future date, further study may warrant and additional funding may be available to construct Option 4 or 5. • N ♦ Y LI LACS 7 "M 2 . 14 N,. 12 "A rn OPTION 1 �V Minor -improvements 4727 t o Hammerhead t i MW V L4LA.CS t: - . 30 . RD LAND � . � W 1NG A���.. -•- 7 `s m i i —" OPTION 2 s � - co 50' Cul -de -Sac within 472 existing W 9 � 4 l V .rte• r t ~ ' Li ACS Zj 3� e / WWN 7 "M �•M f 4 , fn 2 .. r • OPTION_ 3 CD 60' Cut -de -Sac within 4727 /W p lu s 9 p easements i N li A cc - LILACS t 0-, G ,palD 00 �.` 2� 14 .. . 121:A L� rn OPTION 4 co — 100' Offset Cul -de -Sac 4727 i 00, h a• low a •` ` J LILACS 7 ., rn OPTION 5 CD -- 100' Cul -deSac 4727 _ _ centered on R/W C r � m a � n a v M± s y. a r o q $ a a r u ,,. x y m � t C i R v (F � , ns ti � g � a , r i � a 148'° p m , , a 5 _ { 'rG m , 3 i ,ff r Council Meeting Due � a� 9.� City Of Br ooklyn Center Agenda Item Number 3 � • Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Authorization For The Submission Of The Grant Application and Execution Of The Agreement Northwest Suburban Safe & Sober Traffic Enforcement Project. Department Approval: Scott Kline, Chief of Police Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: The City Council approve the authorization of the City of Brooklyn Center entering into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety for the project • entitled "Northwest Suburban Safe & Sober Traffic Enforcement Project" during the period October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996, approve the authorization of Chief Scott Kline to execute such agreements as necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Brooklyn Center Police Department, and to approve authorization for Crystal City Manager Jerry Dulgar to be the fiscal agent and administer the grant on behalf of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached The State of Minnesota Department of Public Safe Office of Traffic Safe will make rant funds P Safety, Safety b available for Traffic Enforcement Projects (DWI, Seat Belt Use, and Speed) to local law enforcement agencies to begin October 1, 1995 and end September 30, 1996. The Cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale wish to provide a coordinated approach to Traffic Enforcement and a mutual aid agreement is in place which will allow for a coordinated effort. The City of Crystal will administratively coordinate the Northwest Suburban Safe & Sober Traffic Enforcement Project grant. J Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE GRANT APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT NORTHWEST SUBURBAN SAFE & SOBER TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety will make grant funds available for Traffic (DWI, Seat Belt Use, and Speed) Enforcement Projects to local law enforcement agencies to begin October 1, 1995 and end September 30, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale are desirous of providing a coordinated approach to Traffic Enforcement; and WHEREAS, a mutual aid agreement is in place which will allow for a coordinated enforcement effort; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center agrees to allow the City of Crystal to administratively coordinate the Northwest Suburban Safe & Sober Traffic Enforcement Project grant; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the City of Brooklyn Center enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safe ty project for the ro'ect entitled "Northwest Suburban Safe & Sober Traffic Enforcement Project" during the period October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996. Scott Kline, Chief of Police, of the Brooklyn Center Police Department is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Be it further resolved that Jerry Dulgar, City Manager of the City of Crystal is hereby authorized to be the fiscal agent and administer this grant on behalf of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. 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.