Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 08-14 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA x '. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 14, 1995 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call � f 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Council Report 5. Presentation'.. a. Hennepin County Library Board. e 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. k 1. July 10, 1995 - Regular Session ` r -mot` r 2. July 17, 1995 - Special Work Session, 6 p.m. r. 3. July 17, 1995 - Special Work Session, 7 p.m. 4. July 24, 1995 - Regular Session -y.. b. Resolution Amending the Schedule for Planning and Inspection Fees C. Resolution Expressing Recognition of Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee Members, Housing Commission Members, Brooklyn Center City Council Members and City of Brooklyn Center Employees for Their Work on the 1995 Metro Paint- A -Thon , a t d. Resolution Establishing Project, Accepting Quote, and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 1995 -16, Contract 1995 -H, Bryant Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension e. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 08/14/95) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 14, 1995 f. Resolution Accepting Proposal and Authorizing a Contract for Professional p g Services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -04, Replacement of Lift Station No. 1 and Associated Forcemain g. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, 1995 Sealcoat Program, Improvement Project No. 1995 -06, Contract 1995 -A,'` = x h. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, ' Improvement Project Nos. 1994 -15, ADA Trails, Curb Cuts, and Pedestrian Ramps and 1994 -23, Miscellaneous Sidewalk Repairs, Contract 1994 -M i. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project No. 1994 -31, Playground Equipment Replacement at Willow Lane Park, Contract 1994 -I r' j. Licenses -= 7. Open Forum 8. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Myrna Kragness b. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Jack Kelly for His Dedicated Public Service on the Housing Commission C. Appointment of a Councilmember to Serve on a Customer Service Training Subcommittee fir. d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land -This ordinance was first read on July 10, 1995, published in the City's official newspaper on July 19, 1995, and is offered this evening for a second reading and public hearing. e. Resolution Rejecting Bids, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project No. 1995 -11, Contract 1995 -E, Corrugated Metal Pipe Sanitary Sewer Trunk Relining f. Staff Report Re: Proposed 1996 Street Projects 1. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project Nos. 1996 -01, 02, and 03, Street, Utility, and Drainage Improvements, Orchard Lane East Area, Accepting Quotes for Sewer Televising and Soil Borings, and Directing Development of a Preliminary Feasibility Report CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 14, 1995 2. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1996 -04, James /67th Avenues Mill and Overlay 3. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No. 1996 -05, John Martin/Earle Brown Drives Mill and Overlay 4. Resolution Establishing Improvement Project Nos. 1996 -06, 07, and 08, Street, Utility, and Drainage Improvements, James and Knox Avenues, 55th to 57th, and Logan Avenue, 53rd to 57th, Accepting Quotes for Sewer Televising and Soil Borings, and Directing Development of a Preliminary Feasibility Report ' . g. Resolution Commending the Winners of the 1995 Citywide Landscaping Contest' h. Discussion of Staff Reports and Policy (Requested by Councilmember Mann) i. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 9. Adjournment EDA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 14, 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 24, 1995 - Regular Session , 4. Commission Consideration Items a. Resolution Approving One (1) Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority Deferred Loan (File No. H -134 [8060]) 5. Adjournment Council Meeting Date 9114/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number . S� lion: Item Descri Req For Council Consideration P Presentation: Hennepin County Library Board Department Approval: d ia 4N ��fttu- Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk IV 4y, Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) Attached is a letter of request from Hennepin County Library Administrative Offices to address the Council regarding various services available through our local library. • enne i Count An Equal Opportunity Employer James M. BOUrey, CoUnty Administrator April 26, 1995 Sharon Knutson Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Ms. Knutson: Thank you for making the arrangements for a brief Hennepin County Library presentation at the City Council meeting on Monday, August 14, 1995. Our presentation will include a tdgLf overview of various services available through your local library, a few words from a member of the Hennepin County Library Board, and the introduction of a local library staff member. We will all be available to answer any questions the Council might have about library service. We appreciate the opportunity to address the Council and look forward to our scheduled date. If there are any questions or problems, please feel free to call my office at 541 -8581. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles M. Brown Library Director Hennepin County Library Admin Offices Ridgedale Drive at Plymouth Road R "y`i "1 P " `' 12601 Ridbedale Drive Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 -1909 (612) 541 -8530 Council Meeting Date August 14, 1995 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number i Request For Counc Co nsideration • Item Description: City Council Minutes July 10, 1995 - Regular Session July 17, 1995 - Special Work Session, 6 p.m. July 17, 1995 - Special Work Session, 7 p.m. July 24, 1995 - Regular Session Department Approval: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Managers Review /Recommendation. No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) July 10, 1995 - Regular Session All Councilmembers were present. July 17, 1995 - Special Work Session, 6 p.m. Barb Kalligher was excused from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. July 17, 1995 - Special Work Session, 7 p.m. Barb Kalligher was excused from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. July 24, 1995 - Regular Session Barb Kalligher was excused from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. r r 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 JULY 10, 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 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, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, City Engineer Scott Brink, Communications Coordinator Terri Swanson, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. OPENING CEREMONIES • Rev. Steve Loopstra offered the invocation. COUNCIL REPORTS There were no council reports. PRESENTATION The Communications Coordinator introduced Ruth Dickson, of the City's Administration Department, who was chosen the City's first "Employee of the Quarter." Mayor Kragness congratulated Ms. Dickson and presented her with a plaque. She noted the award is noteworthy because the winner is nominated and chosen by peer employees. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Kragness inquired if any Councilmember requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Kalligher asked for Item 6(e) to be removed from the consent agenda. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the July 10, 1995, agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Item 6(e). The motion passed unanimously. • 7/10/95 - 1 - s APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 19, 1995 - SPECIAL SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the minutes of the June 19, 1995, Special Session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. JUNE 19 1995 - SPECIAL WORK SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the minutes of the June 19, 1995, Special Work Session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. JUNE 20 1995 - SPECIAL SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the minutes of the June 20, 1995, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 95 -152 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING CAM ANDRE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -153 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING CAM ANDRE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP The motion for the adoption of the forego resolution was duly seconded b member Kristen 0 P � � Y Y Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -154 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING CAM ANDRE AS DIRECTOR TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LOGIS 7/10/95 -2- • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. • BOND SURVEY QUESTIONS There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the bond survey questions as written. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -155 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1994 DISEASED TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -22, CONTRACT 1994 -C The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -156 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 07/10/95) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen • Mann and the motion assed unanimously. P Y LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the following list of licenses: ANNIUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR K -Mart 5930 John Martin Drive Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. Toys R Us 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR Just Kiddie Rides 12 -2 Dubon Court, New York GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION Aagard Sanitation P.O. Box 21248, St. Paul Aspen Waste Systems, Inc. 2523 Wabash Ave. Browning Ferris Industries 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Darling & Co. P.O. Box 12785, New Brighton Hilger Transfer 8550 Zachary Lane 7/10/95 - 3 - Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P.O. Box 26, Redwood Falls Nash and Sons Hauling 2301 93rd Way T & L Sanitation Service, Inc. P.O. Box 34695, Blaine Twin City Sanitation 279 Meadowwood Lane United Waste Transfer 95 West Ivy Ave. Walz Bros. Sanitation, Inc. P.O. Box 627, Maple Grove MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Carver Heating & A /C, Inc. 109 East 3rd Street Excel Air Systems 2075 Prosperity Road POOL AND BILLIARDS TABLES Chi - Chi's, Inc. 2101 Freeway Blvd. RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Jeannette M. Mattson 6801 Bryant Ave. N. Renewal: Leslie G. Reinhardt 5713 Humboldt Ave. N. Sherry Ward 6915 Indiana Ave. N. William O'Dell 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #108 Hearthstone Properties 6012 Zenith Ave. N. Jay Y P Be er -Kro uenske 3129 49th Ave. N. Jay Beyer - Kropuenske 3135 49th Ave. N. Myrna Hubert 5300 70th Circle The motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM Mayor Kragness noted the Council had received one request to use the open forum session this evening. Josiah Filson addressed the Council regarding Evergreen Park. He noted he built the flower garden in Evergreen Park as a part of his Eagle Scout project in 1994. When he presented the project to the City, it was incomplete pending planting of additional plants. He reported on how the project has now been completed. He then stated one other area of the park, the old playground enclosure, is an eyesore. He offered two suggestions on how the area could be improved -- a volleyball court or a pavilion. He offered to help manage the building of a pavilion. Mayor Kragness commented it might be appropriate for Mr. Filson to offer his help to the Park and Recreation Commission. 7/10/95 - 4 - P Councilmember Mann noted the members of the Park and Recreation Commission recently toured the City's parks and agrees about the old playground site at Evergreen Park. The • Commission also mentioned the possibility of a volleyball court on the site. She will convey Mr. Filson's ideas to the Commission at its next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING The agenda called for an administrative hearing for a water and sewer utility bill at 7201 Major Avenue North. The Finance Director explained the unpaid bill covers services from January 19, 1995, to April 19, 1995. During that period, the house was occupied and more than the minimum amount of water was used. He detailed the history of the attempt to collect the bill. He noted the owner requested an administrative hearing following the City's issuance of a customary "arrangement letter." The City's next action would be to shut off water service. Mary Pat Nolan- Kubic, 7631 170th Avenue N.W., Ramsey, spoke on behalf of the property owner, Michael Haugsted. She indicated she had a written power of attorney to do so. Ms. Nolan-Kubic stated Mr. Haugsted vacated the property on February 13, 1994, and then filed for divorce from his wife. According to a court order, the wife was responsible for payment of the utilities. He was unaware of the outstanding bills until he began to have the mail forwarded when his ex -wife was recently ordered out of the house. She asked the Council to delay any i further action two weeks until the issue can be resolved in family court. Mayor Kragness stated it would have been helpful if Mr. Haugsted had provided the City with a copy of the court order. Ms. Nolan-Kubic stated she had attempted to obtain one and could provide it tomorrow. Councilmember Carmody asked why Mr. Haugsted did not contact the City about the bills. Ms. Nolan-Kubic replied Mr. Haugsted was not aware of the utility bill. Councilmember Carmody asked what options would be available to the Council in this situation. The Finance Director stated that after this point in the process is reached the City does not usually grant much latitude to arrange a payment plan. However, he noted no policy exists which prohibits further latitude. Councilmember Carmody oted the water is still connected to the house and nobody is livi Y Y b there. The Finance Director said that, legally, the water bill belongs with the property rather than with any certain person. If the property is sold, the seller would need to clear the bill. Either way, Mr. Haugsted is responsible. Councilmember Carmody suggested the Council delay action for two weeks so the issue can be resolved. If resolution is not reached, the issue would come back before the Council on July 24. 7/10/95 -5 - Mayor Kragness agreed but noted Mr. Haugsted should be prepared to handle the issue at that time. • Ms. Nolan-Kubic asked whether the money would be due in two weeks. She was told it would. The Finance Director recommended he be given authority to shut off the water to the property if resolution is not reached. That way, he will not need to come back before the Council with the issue. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Kalligher to authorize the Finance Director to attempt resolution of the utility bill with Mr. Haugsted and to shut off the water service to the house if resolution is not reached within the next two weeks. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 95009 The Planning and Zoning Specialist reviewed the details of the application. He noted the applicant is the City, and the parties are in concurrence on the rezoning. The Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 95 -01, made findings and recommended approval of the application. He noted Council is being asked to take two actions, pass a draft resolution which would approve and acknowledge the five findings as the basis for the approval, and pass an ordinance allowing enactment of the plan. He reviewed the five findings. They are as follows: 1. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposals are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of land in question in a manner which is considered compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under this Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will conform, for the most part, with City Ordinance standards. Variation from the parking requirement for the Holiday Inn allowing it to relinquish its rights to 65 parking spaces allocated to it in the central parking lot is justified based on a double counting of the parking requirement and the experience of approximately ten years which indicates no need for the additional 65 parking spaces. A lesser parking standard can be permitted also on the grounds of the complementarily of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. 7/10/95 - 6- 4 Q compatible with the The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered P P P recommendations in the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City. 5. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development appear to be a good utilization of the central parking facility and access road and can be considered to be in the best interest of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -157 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 95009 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. Regarding the ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Specialist noted any modifications would be brought before the Council. He stated a public hearing has been held and that all parties to the sixth amendment are aware of the draft agreement. The purpose of the ordinance is to define and describe the properties under one designation. The ordinance is offered for a first reading prior to public hearing. Councilmember Hilstrom noted she had heard that General Litho is not moving forward. She asked whether, in such a case, the item would be brought back to the Council. The Planning and Zoning Specialist answered that if General Litho does not carry through on its plans, and a new project is proposed, the new project would be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mayor Kragness asked whether there will be on -street parking. The Planning and Zoning Specialist explained there will not be parking on any public streets, there will be a private road maintained by the parties. The only concern is that parking does not spill out onto Shingle Creek Parkway but it is not expected that will happen. Councilmember Carmody asked whether, in the future, the formula will be changed to allow hotel /restaurant combinations. The Planning and Zoning Specialist indicated such an action could be considered at the time it arose. ORDINANCE The Interim City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Kalligher to approve first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. The motion passed unanimously. 7/ 10/95 -7- PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 95010 Councilmember Hilstrom left the meeting at 7:41 p.m., noting she would neither take part in e the discussion of the item nor vote on the matter. The Planning and Zoning Specialist reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 95010 submitted by Robert L. Adelman, a request for Special Use Permit to install and operate a propane tank at Duke's Mobil, 6501 Humboldt Avenue North. The Planning and Zoning Specialist explained this addition would qualify as a Special Use in the C -2 district. The tank would be located on a greenstrip between access drives. The Planning and Zoning Specialist noted the Planning Commission, when reviewing the application, was concerned about congestion in the area and added a condition requiring signage so cars would not be parked near the area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to six conditions. He stated the applicant was present to answer questions. Councilmember Mann asked whether the steel poles are required by the City code. The Planning and Zoning Specialist stated the poles may not be required in the code but are common sense. Councilmember Mann stated she was concerned because there is a school across the street from the site. She then suggested a condition be added to require station personnel be trained in propane service. Councilmember Kalligher agreed. Mayor Kragness addressed the applicant, Robert L. Adelman. She noted she was concerned about the safety aspect of the tank. She stated, in winter, snow and ice could result in cars sliding into the driveway. She asked how dangerous the situation would be and whether the tank could explode. Mr. Adelman said it would not explode. The purpose of the poles is to deflect cars from hitting the tank. The area where the tank will be is not an area which cars usually run into. The snow is plowed east to west and is piled in the back of the station. Mr. Adelman said the place chosen for the tank was the safest choice. Any other place that is visible would be more vulnerable. The area chosen is visible and safe. Mayor Kragness asked how many poles will be used to surround the tank. Mr. Adelman said he will use however many poles are required by the City. The Planning and Zoning Specialist noted the Fire Chief will make a ruling regarding number of poles. There will probably need to be three to four feet between poles. The Planning and Zoning Specialist also noted the propane will not be purchased self- serve. The tank will only be used by the trained attendant. Councilmember Carmody asked whether the graphic displayed on the overhead projector was to scale. The Planning and Zoning Specialist said it was. e '7/10/95 - s - There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve Planning Commission Application No. 9010 subject to the following conditions: Permit s Q 1. The Special Use P it i ranted to the applicant to install and operate a propane tank and � pp p p p dispensing facility with an opaque enclosure at 6501 Humboldt Avenue North as provided in the plans submitted. Any expansion or alteration of this proposal shall require an amendment to this Special Use Permit. 2. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, could be grounds for revocation. 3. Final building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The plans for the location and various safety items are subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief prior to the issuance of permits. 7. The enclosure is for the purpose of screening the propane tank and shall not have signs affixed to it other than directional or warning signs specifically approved by the Building Official or Fire Chief. 6. The area adjacent to the propane tank enclosure, between the curb and the pump island service area, shall be kept open for vehicle circulation and signed "No Parking Fire Lane." • 7. All employees of Duke's Mobil who are assigned to work with the propane tank will be trained in safe use of propane tanks. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Hilstrom abstained. Councilmember Hilstrom returned to the Council table at 7:54 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 95-158 Member Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE E ARLE BROWN DAYS COMNI 1ITTEE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Carmodv expressed thanks to the committee for a wonderful job. DISCUSSION OF TABLED RESOLUTION • 7/10/95 - 9 - The Director of Public Services noted at the last Council meeting the bids for Improvement Project No. 1995 -11, CMP Sanitary Sewer Relining, were reviewed then a recommendation • made to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. The matter was tabled. Since that time, Staff has met with the two low bidders. The City Engineer has obtained third - party references. Staff is not yet prepared to make further recommendations at this time. Both bidding companies have agreed to extend their bids for 30 days. The Director of Public Services asked that the matter be tabled for two additional weeks to allow Staff more time to consider the matter. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to table the resolution accepting bid and awarding contract, Improvement Project No. 1995 -11, Contract 1995 -E, Corrugated Metal Pipe Sanitary Sewer Trunk Relining until the next meeting of the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -159 Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING AND CONGRATULATING RUTH DICKSON AS THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER, SECOND QUARTER 1995, AND CONGRATULATING ALL SECOND QUARTER 1995 NOMINEES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Barb Kalligher, and the motion passed unanimously. • ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Barbara Collman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 7/10/95 - 10- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL WORK SESSION JULY 17, 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 6:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. Councilmember Barb Kalligher was excused from tonight's meeting. INTERVIEW WITH KAY MCALONEY OF LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES • CONCERNING ASSISTANCE ON CITY MANAGER RECRUITMENT Mayor Kragness introduced Kay McAloney, a representative from the League of Minnesota Cities. Ms. McAloney noted she had presented the Council with a proposal. She asked what topics the Council would like her to address. Mayor Kragness stated she would like Ms. McAloney to describe the process she would use in recruiting a City Manager. Ms. McAloney noted the proposed process is in three phases. However, the plan is completely flexible and she only wants to help facilitate the process. She would be comfortable changing the plan to suit the Council and noted that any change could affect the charges. Ms. McAloney stated the first phase of the project would be an informal meeting of the facilitator and the City Council. At that meeting, the parties would discuss City issues, the requirements for a City Manager, and the job description. In addition, the facilitator and Council would draft a rating scale to be used to pare down the number of initial candidates. The scale would be worth 100 points and would comply with the Veterans' Preference statute. The position of City Manager is exempt from Veterans' Preference, but the League of Minnesota Cities' attorneys recommend the guidelines be used in order to ensure the selection is handled objectively. . 7/17/95 c Ms. McAloney further stated the rating scale could be used to narrow the candidate pool to 10. Then, she and the Interim City Manager could further narrow it to 5. She noted if the Council were to interview 10 candidates, some candidates could be reluctant to be involved in public interviews when they would not even be considered finalists. Mayor Kragness asked what the timeline for hiring might be if the candidate chosen. were already in a City Manager position. The Interim City Manager commented one month's notice is usually given before leaving such a position. Ms. McAloney added another option would be for the City Council to interview the top 10 candidates and then call back the top 3. The Interim City Manager stated the rating scale could be used to identify the top 10 candidates and then used again to narrow the pool further. It is probably reasonable to identify the top 3. He added a police check and a credit check should be run on each of the top 10 or 12 candidates. Ms. McAloney stated a credit check would normally only be performed when filling a Finance Department position. The Interim City Manager indicated an individual's bad personal credit would be cause for concern. Councilmember Mann agreed. The Interim City Manager commented he or Ms. McAloney could also do reference checks. He noted he has contacts in three states in order to obtain references. Councilmember Mann left the meeting at 6:16 p.m. 0 Councilmember Mann 'returned to the meeting at 6:17 p.m. Ms. McAloney stated there are two services the League of Minnesota Cities cannot provide as a facilitator in the process. League of Minnesota Cities representatives will not be involved in "head- hunting," soliciting a candidate from one city for a position in another city; and they will not recommend a candidate to the Council. The Council will be worldng with the candidate hired, so the Council should make the decision as to whom to hire. She added she would develop the job advertisement and the interview questions. She suggested she and the Interim City Manager could do the bulk of the work on the interview questions and bring the Council a document which would be close to final form. Ms. McAloney asked the Council whether recruiting should be done out of Minnesota. The Council expressed uncertainty. Ms. McAloney suggested an advertisement should be placed Ln the publication of the International City Managers Association (ICMA) for nationwide exposure. She stated the Council should consider whether it really prefers to hire someone with Minnesota experience. She also recommended an advertisement be placed in the publication for the TUG group, which has 57 members. 7/17/95 -2- • Councilmember Mann asked whether there would be an extra cost for placing an advertisement • in the ICMA publication. Ms. McAloney said there would be a cost but it would be reasonable and she would recommend the action be taken. She estimated a total advertising cost of $2,000 for using the ICMA, the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune She also noted if the City has an "official" newspaper it would legally be required to advertise there but the cost would be minimal. The Interim City Manager noted most individuals who would be interested in such a position would be aware of the opening because they read trade journals. Councilmember Mann asked whether an advertisement should be placed in alternative publications such as those directed at women and minorities. Ms. McAloney asked whether the City has an Affirmative Action plan which is certified by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The Council was unsure if the City has such a plan. Councilmember Mann questioned advertising in any, in not in all, publications. The Interim City Manager commented the ideal candidate will be someone who is already involved in municipal government. Ms. McAloney agreed with Councilmember Mann's statement regarding publications. The Interim City Manager stated an advertisement should be placed in the local papers, the • National League publication, and the State League publication. That exposure would bring around 100 applicants. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested advertising in the Wall Street Journal Ms. McAloney stated there are people qualified for the position who already reside in Minnesota. Mayor Kragness noted there would also be costs for interviewing and relocating an out -state candidate. Ms. McAloney stated it is not necessary to pay interview costs as long as the terms are stated clearly. The Interim City Manager suggested that decision could be made after applications are reviewed. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether Ms. McAloney meant the terms should be stated ahead of time. Ms. McAloney said it is safer to say from the outset that interview costs will be paid by the candidate. Councilmember Mann stated she would rather a candidate paid his or her own expenses. If a candidate is truly interested, he or she would be willing to do so. Councilmember Carmody stated there would probably not be any out -of -state candidates. • 7/17/95 - 3 - Ms. McAloney asked the Council to think about what it would pay for the top three candidates. Mayor Kragness asked Ms. McAloney the number of times she has worked through this • Y b Y process g P with a municipality. Ms. McAloney stated she has served as a facilitator for two cities, but has only worked for the League of Minnesota Cities since February. She discussed her credentials. Mayor Kragness stated applicants for the position should be told there will be a rating process used and they should be informed of the areas to be covered on the rating scale. Mayor Kragness asked how many applicants might be expected from a solely local search. Ms. McAloney stated she would expect under 100 applications and, of those, only 25 would be qualified for the position. Councilmember Mann asked the procedure for using a citizen advisory committee. She stated she would like to use residents in the process. Ms. McAloney recommended the Council, instead, use the existing commissions which are made up of residents. She suggested the commissions could sit in on the initial interviews and perhaps give input. She also said the Council should consider whether there would be bad feelings if commissions give input and then their recommended candidate is not selected. Mayor Kragness noted the interview process would be conducted in open meetings anyway. Ms. McAloney stated she meant that the commissioners would be a part of the process. She • asked whether the commissioners would be expected to use the ranking scale on the candidates orjust make comments. She noted the commissioners would be present as resources concerning their areas of expertise. Their input would be nice to have, but the Council needs to have a plan as to how to use the input. The commissioners and the City Staff should be informed what their role is prior to their involvement. Mayor Kragness noted it is important for Staff Department heads to be involved so that they are a part of the process since they will be working with the new City Manager. Councilmember Mann said Staff should be involved but should not recommend the candidate to hire. Mayor Kragness agreed. Ms. McAloney noted in her experience it is possible to involve the Staff by careful wording such as, "What do you like about..." a certain candidate rather than, "Which candidate do you think should be hired ?" Ms. McAloney addressed the issue of the League of Minnesota Cities billing for services. She said the costs in the proposal are estimates. If Council contracts for fewer services, the estimated total cost will be less. The City will only be billed for actual costs. 7/17/95 -4- • , Councilmember Mann expressed concern about the timetable. She indicated she would not want • to hurry the process. Ms. McAloney said a candidate could be identified in approximately two months if the process were simply begun and moved along consistently. Mayor Kragness asked how many weeks it would be necessary to run newspaper advertisements. Ms. McAloney stated one week is sufficient. The Interim City Manager noted an individual looking for this type of position knows where to look for advertisements. Mayor Kragness noted the City Attorney has already received calls from prospective candidates. Ms. McAloney stated calls from candidates will begin as soon as advertising begins and the calls should be forwarded to her and to the Interim City Manager. Mayor Kragness asked Ms. McAloney whether she has a rating scale format to start with. Ms. McAloney said she has a sample rating scale which was for another position rather than City Manager. Ms. McAloney commented she can be of service when a candidate is reviewed following an interview. For example, if one Councilmember is focusing on one "problem" area, she can help them work through the concern. She can also clarify and point out information from the interview to facilitate the Council's impression of the candidate. • Councilmember Mann asked whether Council is bound to hiring a City Manager versus making the position for a City Administrator. The Interim City Manager said the City Ordinances call for a City Manager. However, the two positions are really the same position with different titles. Councilmember Mann said she thought the cost might be less for a City Administrator. Ms. McAloney said the cost would not be less unless it was a smaller city. She noted it is necessary to meet the going market rate. Councilmember Mann asked whether a candidate could be hired at a lower rate and then given a raise at three months or six months. She noted the minimum salary according to the scale is $73,000. She asked whether the minimum salary must be set at the outset and not changed during the course of hiring. Ms. McAloney said the range of $70,000 to $90,000 is sufficient to cover any candidate. Councilmember Mann noted a yearly raise of three percent is called for and three percent on top of $90,000 is a large sum. Councilmember Carmody commented the Council might wish to hire a City Manager at a higher salary if they have specific experience in redevelopment. 7/17/95 - 5 - e Councilmember Mann added perks can be added to the salary. Ms. McAloney Y asked whether the City Manager will have a contract. Councilmember Mann said there will be a yearly contract. A general discussion regarding salary followed. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether the salary range could be lowered before the position is advertised. Ms. McAloney noted $72,000 is not too high for this type of position. Mayor Kragness added it is desirable to hire a quality candidate. Councilmember Mann stated she would like to consider lowering the salary range. Mayor Kragness noted the position carves a great deal of responsibility. Ms. McAloney suggested research be done on salaries paid by neighboring cities for the City Mana �„r position as well as other classifications. Councilmember Mann stated maybe all the classifications should be lowered. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether salaries could be considered for reduction whenever one comes open. Ms. McAloney stated it would depend on the pay equity consideration, as well as the bargaining unit. Councilmember Mann asked whether an advertisement can be run for free in the League of Minnesota Cities publication since Brooklyn Center is a member. Ms. McAloney said Brooklyn Center would be allowed to advertise free. The publication comes out every two weeks and the deadline is Wednesday at noon. An ad can be run as often as desired with no space constraints. The Interim City Manager stated if the Council wants to cut costs it should advertise in only one of the Metropolitan newspapers rather than both. Councilmember Mann noted she does not believe an individual looking for such a position would read either paper for advertisements. Councilmember Hilstrom asked how private sector magazines play a part. Ms. McAloney questioned whether an individual coming out of that arena would be considered anyway. Usually only a small city would hire someone coming from private business. City Manager of Brooklyn Center is not a practice job. She noted issues such as this are what would be discussed at the first meet ing under her proposed process. Councilmember Carmody left the meeting at 6:55 p.m. 7/17/95 - 6- x Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether City Managers usually have private sector experience. Ms. McAloney said they do and that is beneficial as it does give them perspective. However, operation of a city is very different from operation of a business. There is a process with city government that must be learned. Councilmember Carmody returned to the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether a City Manager working with a City would be different from a Chief Executive Officer working with a Board of Directors. Ms. McAloney said it is very different as the City Manager works with a City Council on a daily basis. Mayor Kragness thanked Ms. McAloney for her presentation and interview. Ms. McAloney thanked the Council and offered to answer any questions by phone. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Kragness adjourned the meeting of the Brooklyn Center City Council at 6:58 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: J Barbara Collman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial • 7/17/95 -7- ar MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL WORK SESSION JULY 17, 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 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, Director of Community Development Brad Hoffman, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. Two members of the Housing Commission were also present. Councilmember Barb Kalligher was excused from tonight's meeting. WORK SESSION OVERVIEW The Director of Community Development stated the purpose of this meeting is for Staff to understand the Council's vision for the City. He suggested topics for discussion but asked the Council to determine which are relevant. CODE ENFORCEMENT /POINT OF SALE /TRUTH IN HOUSING ORDINANCES Councilmember Carmody stated she believes the biggest problem with housing in Brooklyn Center is houses needing maintenance. Many houses look run down but are up to code. This contributes to the image problem. The Director of Community Development discussed point of sale as a form of code enforcement. He also detailed the difference between point of sale and truth in housing. Point of sale is when, prior to closing, the owner must deal with the problems which have been noted. Truth in housing is when any prospective buyer is given written information regarding the physical conditions of the home. He added this subject has been discussed in Brooklyn Center in previous years. Currently it has been before the Housing Commission which is split between either a point of sale or truth in housing ordinance adoption. Councilmember Mann noted home buyers may not be knowledgeable even though they are given a written document. The sale is not contingent on repairs being made and inexperienced buyers probably do not understand. 7/17/95 - 1 - The Director of Community Development stated the decision between point of sale and truth in housing comes down to the Council's philosophy and what it wants to accomplish. If the desire is to "maintain" the housing stock, the Council should consider point of sale. Councilmember Hilstrom asked what the implication would be on the large senior population which may be trying to sell homes. She asked whether point of sale would lead to sellers renting out homes they could not sell. The Director of Community Development displayed a map showing non - homesteaded single - family properties. Many of them are rental properties, but the number is decreasing. Regarding the concern about senior citizens, he noted the implication to seniors would depend upon the criteria written into the program. The Community Development Specialist commented realtors take issue with the point of sale approach. They say senior citizens often have the cash available to make corrections but sellers with little or no equity in the home do not have the money to make repairs. He explained the realtors' argument for truth in housing. He added the Council simply needs to choose which approach will accomplish the desired result. Councilmember Carmody noted the cost of an inspection in Crystal is $80 to $90. It would cost more to use truth in housing. She said she would rather concentrate on code enforcement than to make the seller pay the costs of repairs. She would rather not change programs at all than to go toward truth in housing. Mayor Kragness noted code enforcement covers all houses rather than just houses which are for sale. She prefers to handle the situation using code enforcement. The Interim City Manager noted entry into homes to do code enforcement is more difficult than gaining entry when the house is for sale. Councilmember Mann stated she would prefer to keep the point of sale approach due to naive a home buyers purchasin first homes. Councilmember Hilstrom asked how many Staff personnel would be necessary in order to carry out in -house inspections for code enforcement. The Director of Community Development thought it would be necessary to have one full -time person plus a clerical support employee for that person. The Community Development Specialist commented it would take a couple of years to get the program underway. The Interim City Manager stated the City would schedule fees to cover the costs incurred. The Director of Community Development noted there would need to be re- inspections as well as inspections. 7/17/95 -2- i Councilmember Mann asked whether the inspections would help in the condemnation process. The Director of Community Development said it would be necessary to decide whether the City wants to buy out the property owner. Councilmember Hilstrom noted trends indicate that first -time home buyers stay in their homes awhile. She asked, on average, what it costs to bring a house up to code at the time the buyer wants to sell the house. Councilmember Mann commented it would depend on what repairs and replacements have been deferred, but bringing it up to code could be quite costly. Councilmember Hilstrom commented a first -time home buyer could be in a situation where he or she did not realize a furnace, for example, needed to be replaced as it worked adequately for him /her. There was a general discussion regarding education of first -time home buyers. The Director of Community Development explained there is a turnover rate of approximately 500 homes per year in Brooklyn Center. Therefore, in 20 years, almost every home would be inspected. That is one way of achieving a level of code compliance. He noted Staff would design a program if the Council deems it is worthwhile. Councilmember Mann stated that would lead to point of sale and conversion to rental property, which is a loss of value for the neighborhood. She stated she would prefer to do something which does not require the seller to have responsibility for all compliance. Councilmember Carmody agreed. Mayor Kragness also agreed, stating that then the repairs must be done. There might be negotiations, but at least a code violation would be caught and the repair would be taken care of. The Community Development Specialist said it is not unusual for Staff to receive calls from new owners stating they have discovered problems. New owners often do not have extra money to make repairs. Councilmember Carmody stated the program may force some sellers to decide not to sell. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if an owner would then make the property a rental property. Councilmember Mann noted an owner converting a house to rental property would have to bring it up to the rental code. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether houses are being rented without license to do so. The Director of Community Development stated he is sure there are some which are not licensed. 7/17/95 - 3 - Councilmember Hilstrom stated if she must make a choice she would lean toward code enforcement due to the visual image concern. It should be a high priority to get properties to the same level in order to make neighborhoods look better. In the alternative, if priorities and resources were equal, she could support point of sale. Councilmember Mann asked whether certain neighborhoods could be targeted. The Director of Community Development stated point of sale should be used if the goal is to maintain the housing stock. If the main concern is visual image, a different program is necessary. The Director of Community Development stated he does not believe point of sale programs fully pay for themselves. There are hidden costs. The Interim City Manager noted an analysis could be done and fees set accordingly. The Director of Community Development indicated that the inspections division completed over 7 inspections 1 n x ,000 last year. Attention has been focused o apartment complexes and that work is not finished. Four or five more complexes need to be inspected. He asked whether the housing inspectors time should be split between apartments and houses. He noted the police are also commissioned to enforce the housing maintenance code. After another full -time officer is hired, there will be two full -time and one part-time inspector in the police department. Both departments respond to complaints rather than a pro- active approach. If there were three officers, code enforcement could cover seven days a week, 16 hours per day. However, he stated he would like to see what changes can be accomplished by reorganization of the program. Councilmember Carmody asked why inspectors can't g o around and note violations rather than everything having to be called in. Councilmember Hilstrom also noted residents are afraid to call in complaints regarding neighbors. They would prefer the offender to be caught without their involvement. The Interim City Manager stated the code officers need better training and supervision. They should be given a checklist. Perhaps the City should be divided into areas and the officers assigned to cover a certain area. Councilmember Hilstrom pointed out inspectors need the proper equipment to perform the job of inspecting. The Interim City Manager agreed. He stated there should be distinct job descriptions. Also, employees who answer the phones to take complaints should have more knowledge. It is possible to obtain better results with the Staff already in place. 7/17/95 -4- The Interim City Manager commented there is an indirect benefit of a marked squad car driving on City streets. For example, speeders might slow down, not knowing it is a code enforcement officer rather than a police officer. Councilmember Hilstrom reiterated it is important the code enforcement officer role be defined and the equipment be available. Councilmember Carmody P noted the Police Department would like to see the code officers hired to do regular police work. Councilmember Hilstrom described a situation in which the correct personnel is not available in the Police Department at certain times. There was a general discussion regarding the use of code enforcement officers by the Police Department to dispatch, etc. Councilmember Carmody stated that is part of an overall problem in the Police Department. Councilmember Hilstrom repeated goals and priorities for code officers need to be set and information needs to be available before the budget is considered. The Director of Community Development suggested Staff should report back to the Council on how to resolve the issue using the resources already available or that it cannot be done. There was a consensus by the Council to have Staff report back. The Community Development Specialist asked for direction as well. Councilmember Mann stated a model point of sale ordinance should be drafted and referred to the Housing Commission. NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS\NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION The Director of Community Development asked what role if any the Council would like the City to have assisting neighborhood groups organize. Councilmember Mann noted the Riverwood group is a model example. She asked what could be done to activate neighborhoods. She noted usually groups form in response to an issue. Mayor Kragness left the meeting at 8:10 p.m. There was further discussion regarding forming neighborhood groups. Mayor Kragness returned to the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Councilmember Carmody commented residents do not know who to call for information. 7/17/95 -5 - The Director of Community Development stated the ideal situation is when neighborhood groups organize on their own. It generally doesn't work for the City to set one up. 0 Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether there might be a role the City should take in bringing about neighborhood groups. She added the City Hall could be a meeting place and Staff could be a resource, but the City itself should not take the role of organizing the groups. Mayor Kragness noted the Riverwood group has offered to help other groups get started and that offer should be made known to the public. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested a letter be distributed through the Crime Watch groups. If residents are not interested in a neighborhood organization, one cannot be forced. Mayor Kragness suggested an article be published in the City newsletter or the Sun Post Councilmember Carmody repeated that residents need to know who to contact at City Hall. Tom Kouri of the Riverwood group, stated residents need to take ownership of the group. However, the City could help by printing a group's newsletter on a temporary basis. Councilmember Mann disagreed because a group would then come to expect that service. If a group is truly driven, it will find its own resources. There is a question of how far the City should go in facilitating. The Director of Community Development ment commented the Riverwood group could make its offer to help other groups in its own newsletter and then the City newsletter could include the Riverwood newsletter. There was general agreement on the suggestion. Mayor Kragness outlined the points of such an article and urged Mr. Kouri to write it. He agreed. Councilmember Carmody mentioned the City could supply groups with a booklet which describes how to organize a neighborhood group. The Community Development Specialist asked the Council the direction it would like to see the Earle Brown group go. Councilmember Mann noted they should follow the Riverwood example. After one meeting, the group should proceed on its own. The Community Development Specialist suggested that perhaps the group was set up with too much staff's involvement from the outset. The Director of Community Development commented it is not possible for Staff to do as much for all the neighborhoods as it requires too much Staff time. 7/17/95 -6- 6637 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH The Director of Community Development noted the building at 6637 Humboldt Avenue North is now vacant. He made suggestions for action rather than allowing the building to be boarded up and sit vacant. First, he noted Jerry Stephens is interested in developing the land there, which would place the property back on the tax rolls. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested an RFP be issued. Councilmember Mann indicated maybe the time has come for the Planning Commission to consider rezoning the area. There was further discussion regarding how Mr. Stephens might develop the land. The Director of Community Development also noted INVITE, Inc., an organization which works with youth, is looking for a place to meet and could be allowed to use the property. Third, he mentioned Northwest Hennepin Human Services would like to operate services from the location but would not buy the property. The two groups interested in using the property need to be given an answer as to whether the Council is even considering it or has determined the property will not be used in that way. Mayor Kragness stated a long -term solution should be found rather than a short-term solution. Councilmember Mann agreed. Councilmember Hilstrom agreed but noted consideration must be given to the implication development would have on Humboldt Avenue since it was just worked on under the understanding that it would continue to be residential. The Director of Community Development stated action needs to be taken quickly since it is vacant and it is not desirable to board it up as it would be a liability. Another option is to take the building down. Councilmember Hilstrom asked how long it would take to issue an RFP and get it back in order to know whether any developer is interested in the property. The Director of Community Development stated it is a low priority area for development. He discussed the church and that its decision is slow in coming. Councilmember Hilstrom asked what Staff is recommending for the property. The Director of Community Development stated he would prefer to level the building. If the City allows a service to use the building, the City will begin to support the service. Councilmember Mann asked whether vacant property is more attractive to a developer. The Director of Community Development said it is. 7/17/95 -7- i Councilmember Mann asked whether the building could be used for a burn site for the Fire Department. The Director of Community Development said it could. Councilmember Mann asked whether using it as a burn site would lower the City's cost to demolish it. Councilmember Hilstrom expressed concern that if it is used as a burn site it not end up like the last one which continued to stand after the burning. If the building is to be torn down, it should be down immediately. The Director of Community Development said the approach this time would be to set a demolition date first and then tell the Fire Department and the Police Department they can use it until that date. Mayor Kragness asked if there is a possibility the building could be sold. The Director of Community Development said there is. Councilmember Carmody left the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The Interim City Manager suggested Council request Staff to bring reports back at a later date. The Director of Community Development said he has been holding off the two services which want to use the building and he needs to get an answer to them. There was a consensus not to let the services use the building as the goal is to have the property b g P P Y returned to the tax rolls. Councilmember Carmody returned to the meeting at 8:41 p.m. WILLOW LANE The Community Development Specialist stated the condemnation process has begun on the hotel. The tax value is $375,000 and the owner wants $500,000 to $575,000. The appraisal was for $275,000 to $375,000. The City has offered to pay $275,000 but the offer was rejected so the condemnation process is continuing. A commission has been appointed and it has scheduled a viewing. Following the viewing, a hearing will be scheduled to be held by the end of August. By November 17, the commission has to make its award with a 40 day period allowed for an appeal. Theoretically, the City could take possession of the building shortly after November 17. Councilmember Hilstrom suggested performing a quick take. The Director of Community Development said that is a possibility but it would take 90 days. With a condemnation, the City can back out, but with a quick take the cost is locked in. He discussed the asbestos removal matter. 7/17/95 - 8 - Councilmember Hilstrom noted the same problem could develop where the building could sit vacant into winter as the process drags on. The Director of Community Development agreed that was a possibility. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether there are any other choices. She suggested slowing down the process. She expressed concern that the building not stand vacant. The Community Development Specialist agreed with her concern. He noted the asbestos removal can be done in the winter but it would cost more if done then. He offered to research the matter. Councilmember Hilstrom questioned what action would be best for the neighborhood. The Director of Community Development noted the City could try to get bids on the property. The Community Development Specialist stated the condemnation process has been difficult and future events are somewhat unpredictable such as the Commission's award. Councilmember Hilstrom asked what the City's liability would be if the building were boarded up and people got into the building. The Director of Community Development answered the City could be sued and a court could find that the City was negligent in some respect. Mayor Kragness noted a demolition could take place in winter. The Community Development Specialist stated Staff is currently trying to gain legal access to Y P A Y rY g g g the building within the next month in order to check on the asbestos. He repeated that the asbestos abatement can be done in the winter although it is more costly to do it then. The Director of Community Development commented the property is not only unsightly but there is a history of many police calls to the location. He said the Council will be kept informed of progress on the issue. The Community P A Development Specialist discussed studies which have been done regarding the Holiday station site. He stated it is hoped the matter will be closed on Friday. It will be necessary to pay relocation costs on both properties. A business relocation is also necessary but it has a cap of $20,000 as dictated by statute. He also discussed the Premier mechanical business. Mayor Kragness asked whether Premier will relocate in Brooklyn Center. The Community Development Specialist said Premier owns property somewhere outside of Brooklyn Center and plans to relocate there. He also noted the tenant must be given at least 90 days notice to vacate so this will necessitate the EDA entering into some form of short term lease with Premier mechanical. 7/17/95 -9 - The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:56 p.m. The meeting of the Brooklyn Center City Council was reconvened at 9:04 p.m. SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD Councilmember Carmody stated she would like to discuss problems in the Southeast neighborhood. She noted the strip of 53rd Avenue North, which has small lots. Mayor Kragness indicated Hennepin County is going to be looking at options along Humboldt Avenue. Councilmember Carmody stated that program might not go through and even if it does it will not address all the problems in the area. The City needs to take some action. She indicated the area has some substantial problems. Councilmember Hilstrom noted she had heard an idea to take out the houses up to the parkway. Councilmember Carmody asked whether the lots could be converted to standard size. Perhaps this could be done from 55th Avenue North to 53rd Avenue North from Humboldt Avenue North to Camden Avenue North. Councilmember Hilstrom noted if it were made a high priority it could involve code enforcement and scattered site acquisition. Then two lots could be combined into one. Councilmember Carmody progress would slow. o y stated with that method p o� ess uld be very s o . The Director of Community Development stated if the Council chooses such action to be a priority Staff would have to consider how many lots would be available and then acquire and combine them. Councilmember Hilstrom said the process would probably be expensive. The Director of Community Development stated the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan which is currently in place requires the City to spend 15 percent of funds on housing- related activity. Therefore, those funds could be used for buying houses and tearing them down. However, the TIF district is to be a revenue source for the next 25 years, so priorities must be set. He reviewed the projects which will fall under the TIF district funding. He noted most of the projects will pretty much pay for themselves. He explained more in detail concerning the TIF district revenues. He stated by the year 2,000 the district should cash flow the activities currently under consideration. Councilmember Carmody noted that then five years from now such a project as was discussed could be undertaken. 7/17/95 - 10- The Director of Community Development indicated Staff will be presenting a TIF bond sale to the Council soon. RFPs have been sent out and it would be preferable to know there is a plan in place rather than holding the lot without definite plans. The Director of Community Development said the plan discussed could be accomplished with bonding and a set plan. Councilmember Carmody noted this discussion concerns a long -term plan but she would like to see the plan go forward which involves taking out one block of houses and extending the park. The Director of Community Development commented an entire work session on TIF would be beneficial to set plans. He explained the current status and the implications of further developments. Councilmember Hilstrom asked when the revenue would be received. The Director of Community Development stated it is an issue of planning and timing. A TIF bond issue could be done at any time as the money is coming. There will be several sources over the next five years. The cash flow will begin next year and then double every year. He added the term "housing- related activities" required by TIF can be very broad. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether the money could be used to buy houses at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Community Development said it could, and that he would like to discuss these matters with each Councilmember individually. Councilmember Mann stated there should be a work session regarding TIF and then priorities should be set. Councilmember Hilstrom agreed. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether there is a negative side to using the TIF funding. The Director of Community Development said there is a negative side; in particular, the program is reliant upon actions by the legislature, also to some extent some tax dollars are potentially diverted from the general fund. SCATTERED SITE ACQUISITION AND REDEVELOPMENT The Community Development Specialist stated Staff needs to make an active effort to build up the list of builders who may be interested in scattered site lots. He discussed how Richfield and Bloomington accomplished this. To get results, it will be necessary to use Staff time. He asked the Council whether the matter is a priority and whether it should be added to a work session on TIF. He noted the City currently has five lots from MnDOT which are buildable but all of which may not be desirable for development. There is a total number of seven buildable lots available. Mayor Kragness asked how the lots are priced. The Community Development Specialist said the lot on Emerson is priced at $18,500 and the lot on Bryant is priced at $24,000. Both are 7/17/95 - 11 - i good -sized corner lots. He expressed concern that there are not any builders available who are interested in the lots at that price. Councilmember Mann noted it sounds as though the City has many options if there was enough Staff time to pursue them. She suggested using community college students. The Community Development Specialist said the idea of using the technical college is being explored. He stated it doesn't appear things will move forward using the current system. It is not preferable to have only one builder to use. He said Staff needs direction regarding in which area to spend Staff time. Mayor Kragness stated the issue should be addressed at a work session. Councilmember Hilstrom noted if there are buildable lots it is a priority to get houses on the lots. In addition, if a lot is not buildable there should not be a great deal of time spent on it. The Community Development Specialist stated Staff needs time to build relationships with builders. Building n -fill housing is a unique area of housing construction. g g q g Mayor Kragness indicated a lot should be offered only if it will be built on. I There was a consensus by the Council. The Community Development Specialist said that builders want to know there will be a buyer. Builders do not want to build "spec" homes. Relying on one builder and simply advertising lots is not sufficient. The Director of Community Development noted lots have been acquired as they have become available. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether the money should be invested in an area the Council definitely wants to acquire. Councilmember Carmody commented only one house per year is acquired through the scattered site program. The Community Development Specialist said two or three houses have been acquired each year for the past several years. The program is small but involves a great deal of money. Mayor Kragness noted two lots have been used by Habitat for Humanity. Councilmember Hilstrom noted such a use gets the property back on the tax rolls. There was a discussion of the holding costs involved. The lot at 66th and Bryant was obtained one or two years ago, and the lot on Emerson was obtained one year ago. Councilmember Hilstrom stated properties should not be acquired and then just sit idle. Councilmember Mann agreed. 0 7/17/95 - 12- The Director of Community Development said this discussion would fit in with the work session on TIF. MORTGAGES The Director of Community Development suggested the City could work with banks to create loans with lower interest rates or second mortgages to be used for property updating. Councilmember Mann agreed the idea should be researched. The Director of Community Development said TIF would be involved. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether Council could guide the use of the money since it would be helping to make it available. The Director of Community Development said that issue would have to be considered in program development. Language could be built in which said something like, "Mortgages will be made available for the following purposes.... " There could also be credit enhancement if eligible repairs were completed. 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 9:48 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Barbara Collman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 7/17/95 - 13 - 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 JULY 24, 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 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody. Also present were Interim City Manager Cam Andre, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, Finance Director Charlie Hansen, Director of Community Development Brad Hoffman, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. Mayor Kragness announced Councilmember Barb Kalligher had phoned to say she would arrive • late. OPENING CEREMONIES Jim McCloskey offered the invocation. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Mann announced there will be a "Battle of the Brooklyns," a softball game between City Staff from Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center on July 30 at Central Park in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Mann also announced a local celebration of the "National Night Out" program on August 1 at 9 p.m. Residents of Brooklyn Center are urged to bring a flashlight with them to the Village North Shopping Center to form a chain to light up Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Carmody expressed thanks to Barbara Collman for her services as Council Secretary and noted she will be leaving the position. Councilmember Carmody also welcomed Connie Beckman, the new Council Secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Kragness inquired if any Councilmember requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Mann asked for an addition of Item 8(1), a discussion of union • 7/24/95 - 1 - labor negotiators. She also asked for Items 6(b), (c), (e), and (f) to be removed from the Consent Agenda. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the July 24, 1995, agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Items 6(b), (c), (e), and (f) and the addition of 8 (1). The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 26, 1995 - EXECUTIVE SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the minutes of the June 26, 1995, executive session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. JUNE 26 1995 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the minutes of the June 26, 1995, regular session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. JULY 5 1995 - SPECIAL WORK SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the minutes of the July 5, 1995, special work session as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS • RESOLUTION NO. 95 -160 Member Kathleen Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REFINANCING OF FACILITIES FOR EARLE BROWN COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra Hilstrom, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -161 Member Kathleen Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 07/24/95) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra Hilstrom, and the motion passed unanimously. 7/24/95 -2- RESOLUTION NO 95 -162 Member Kathleen Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra Hilstrom, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -163 Member Kathleen Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra Hilstrom, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -164 Member Kathleen Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION AMENDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY ROLL NOS. 13372 AND 13373 TO PROVIDE FOR THE AWARD OF ASSESSMENT STABILIZATION GRANTS FOR THE WOODBINE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra Hilstrom, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATOR Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Ground Round Restaurant 2545 County Road 10 Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Boulevard AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDOR Theisen Vending Company 3800 Nicollet Ave. S. 7/24/95 - 3 - • GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 91st Ave. N.E. 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. N.E. 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. TAXICAB Town Taxi, #101 2500 Washington Ave. N. The motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM • Mayor Kragness noted the Council had received no requests to use the open forum session this evening. She inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, she continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 95 -165 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF OFFICER ERLAND SHELLEY FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE AS A POLICE OFFICER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra Hilstrom, and the motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT Mayor Kragness stated two qualified applicants had applied for the vacancy on the Human Rights and Resources Commission. She commented it was difficult to choose one applicant. She recommended the appointment of Rhonda Braziel, 7224 Newton Avenue North. 7/24/95 -4- Councilmember Mann asked Mayor Kragness to give her reasons for selecting Rhonda Braziel to fill the vacancy. • Mayor Kragness stated she had spoken to Ms. Braziel on the telephone and Ms. Braziel was excited to serve on the commission. Ms. Braziel was also recommended by another commission member. Mayor Kragness noted Ms. Braziel has expressed an interest in working toward strong Black history curriculum in the schools. Mayor Kragness also stated it is her desire to obtain diversity on the City's commissions. Councilmember Mann thanked Mayor Kragness for the explanation. She commented it is her hope that Ms. Braziel also intends to support the schools in the teaching of traditional academic courses. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to appoint Rhonda Braziel to the Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES FOR RECRUITMENT /SELECTION PROCESS FOR CITY MANAGER Councilmember Hilstrom expressed a concern that the contract is presented with a job advertisement attached. She stated it was her understanding Council would meet with the facilitator to prepare an advertisement and that has not happened. Therefore, an advertisement cannot be ready for publication at this point. • There was a motion by Councilmember Hilstrom to approve the contract with the League of Minnesota Cities for recruitment/selection of a City Manager without the attached advertisement. Councilmember Carmody asked what specific objection Councilmember Hilstrom had to the advertisement as printed. Councilmember Hilstrom replied the Council should have a chance to discuss the advertisement as changes or additions may be desirable. Councilmember Carmody stated she would like to see the advertisement approved in an effort to stay on schedule. She indicated nothing about the ad was questionable. Councilmember Mann stated she agreed with Councilmember Hilstrom. She mentioned she had recently received information from Representative Orfield regarding salaries of City employees and the proposed starting salary for Brooklyn Center City Manager is above average as compared to other North Metro Mayors Association members. She stated the League of Minnesota Cities' proposal included a step to discuss the advertisement and she indicated that step is necessary. She seconded Councilmember Hilstrom's motion to approve the contract with the League of Minnesota Cities for recruitment /selection of a City Manager without the attached advertisement. • 7/24/95 -5- Mayor Kragness asked the Interim City Manager whether a meeting on this issue could be scheduled very soon and she would like to meet the timeline for submitting advertisements to • publications. The Interim City Manager stated it would be highly desirable for the Council to meet before the end of the month in order to submit the ads. He urged the Council to pass the contract so the process can get underway. Councilmember Mann suggested the discussion of the advertisement be scheduled as the first item on the July 31, 1995, Council work session at 6 p.m. There was a consensus of opinion on the suggestion. The motion passed unanimously. 1995 PROJECT SELECTION REPORT OF THE HENNEPIN COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE Councilmember Mann asked the Community Development Specialist if the proposed resolution is for the purpose of moving the project forward but is not a commitment of financing it. The Community Development Specialist confirmed her statement and explained five projects are involved. He said this Resolution would mean the Council's acceptance of the report. Over the next few months, the committee and representatives will be completing the planning portion. Brooklyn Center's projects have been included in the initial cut. There is still much work to be done. • RESOLUTION NO, 95 -166 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 1995 PROJECT SELECTION REPORT OF THE HENNEPIN COMMUNITY PLANNING COMMITTEE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT AND REQUIRED THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY The Community Development Specialist stated this authorization by the Council is an item which comes up every year as it is a standard action. The Community Development Specialist noted a concern with the agreement on page three. Under No. 6(B), "Indemnity and Insurance," there is a requirement of $1 million in insurance. The City needs to cap the coverage amount at $600,000. He stated he had contacted Hennepin County and he believes the inclusion of paragraph (C) in the agreement indicates an intent by 7/24/95 -6- • Hennepin County to allow for the cap. The City Attorney has indicated he is uncomfortable with the language of the agreement as written. The Community Development Specialist recommended the agreement be approved with the understanding the details of the language in the item would be worked out subsequently. The City Attorney said either the contract needs to be amended or the City needs to purchase more insurance. The Community Development Specialist said he does not think Hennepin County's intention is that the City has $1 million in insurance; however, the City needs to have that assurance in writing. The agreement is a standard, boilerplate contract which contains the $1 million requirement. He asked whether a written amendment would be sufficient or if an entire new contract is necessary. The City Attorney said there needs to be a documented amendment which changes the contractual obligation. Councilmember Hilstrom noted the resolution is to allow the agreement to be executed. She asked whether it is legal to approve the contract with the understanding the language detail will be resolved by Staff at a later date. The City Attorney said such an action would be legal. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -167 • Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. 1995 PAY PLAN AND RECLASSIFICATION Councilmember Mann stated it was her understanding the City does have an employee who is certified as a City Clerk. However, that employee is part of the new bargaining unit and it is undesirable to negotiate the contract twice. She said she would prefer to table the matter until the other contract is finalized. The Interim City Manager said he had no objection to the matter being tabled as long as Council accepts the concept that a City Clerk position is needed, because the City does not presently have one. it • 7/24/95 -7- Councilmember Mann asked whether having a City Clerk would eliminate the need for having a Deputy City Clerk. The Interim City Manager said it would. Councilmember Carmody asked what would happen when one Deputy City Clerk takes maternity leave. The Interim City Manager indicated uncertainty. Councilmember Hilstrom commented it is unknown at this time what qualifications the candidate chosen for City Manager might have. For example, Mr. Splinter had both qualifications. Therefore, it would be advisable to postpone this decision. Councilmember Carmody stated it was her understanding the City did not want one person to serve in both capacities. She recounted some of the history of the position of City Clerk in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Mann agreed with her recounting. Councilmember Carmody indicated the City Clerk responsibilities are not part of the City Manager's job description. Councilmember Hilstrom noted the matter needs further clarification. There was a motion by Councilmember Mann and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to table the matter to the July 31, 1995, Council work session. The motion passed unanimously. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS CUSTODIAL SERVICES Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether consideration was given to having the present custodial staff work from day to night rather than from night to day. The Interim City Manager asked the Director of Public Services to address the question. The Director of Public Services stated the issue is to improve the quality of maintenance and obtain the service at a lower cost. Contractual arrangements are more expensive than hiring staff outright. The best package is to hire staff and use little or no contract labor. Councilmember Hilstrom asked whether the proposed cost includes benefits which would be offered to full -time Staff. The Director of Public Services said it does. Mayor Kragness asked whether the City will be advertising to fill the new positions. The Director of Public Services stated the three full -time positions will be advertised. Councilmember Mann noted this change would raise the City Staff to seven full -time custodians. The Director of Public Services said the change would result in one full -time maintenance worker, a three - quarter time maintenance worker, five custodians, and one supervisor. The Interim City Manager commented the situation was studied because the quality of maintenance and custodial work needed to be improved. 7/24/95 - 8 - . RESOLUTION NO. 95 -168 • Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND PAY PLAN REGARDING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS CUSTODIAL SERVICES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -18 The Director of Public Services noted the low bid was made by Thomas & Sons. Thomas & Sons has previously done work in Brooklyn Center which was of satisfactory quality. Therefore, Staff recommends the project be awarded to Thomas & Sons. She also noted the cost will be split approximately 50150 between Brooklyn Center and the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO). Councilmember Hilstrom expressed concern regarding who is responsible for mowing the property during construction, as it appears there is a problem with the maintenance at the current time. The Director of Public Services stated at the present time the mowing is the responsibility of the contractors who cleared the property. However, it is difficult to make the contractors accept the responsibility, so the City has done some work. Construction starts in the area around August 1. At that time, the responsibility for mowing will be transferred to the construction contractor hired for the project. • Mayor Kragness asked whether the City could clean up the area and bill the first contractor for the work. The Director of Public Services stated the City has performed some of the work but some could not be done until the structures were removed. The City can now get the property cleaned up to the oint where it can be handed over to the construction n P contractor. Then, amounts will be deducted as necessary from the structure removal contractors' final payments. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -169 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -18, CONTRACT 1995 -G, PARK AND RIDE, POND, PARK, AND 65TH AVENUE REALIGNMENT The motion for or th e adoption of the foregoing resolution P g g was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. STAFF REPORT The Interim City Manager noted the Staff Report relates to the Greg Lutgen residence at 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard and the Director of Public Services will respond to any questions. 7/24/95 -9- Mayor Kragness expressed appreciation for the report which, she noted, presented the issue in great detail. • Councilmember Carmody commented she has been opposed to purchasing the property due to the cost. The City cannot afford to purchase it at this time but may be able to in a year or two. She asked whether EDA funds could be used for such a purpose. The Director of Community Development said that is a possibility. Councilmember Carmody said, under the circumstances, she would support the institution of the proposed Option No. 1, minor improvements to the hammerhead. Councilmember Mann noted Option No. 1 carries a cost of $3,000. She asked where the funding for the work will be found. The Director of Public Services said that amount has already been included in the Woodbine project. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve Staff's Option No. 1 to make minor improvements to the hammerhead near 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard. The motion passed unanimously. Northwest Suburban Safe and Sober Traffic Enforcement Project Councilmember Mann asked whether Jerry Dulgar will be the fiscal agent and whether all associated costs will be covered by the agreement. The Interim City Manager answered yes to both questions. Mayor Kragness noted Chief Scott Kline will be administering the project. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -170 Member Kathleen Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE GRANT APPLICATION AND EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT NORTHWEST SUBURBAN SAFE AND SOBER TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROJECT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Debra Hilstrom, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF UNION NEGOTIATORS Councilmember Mann asked for the Council to discuss who would negotiate the union collective bargaining agreement. She noted negotiations have been handled in the past by Labor Relations. She stated a Request for Proposals (RFP) was done. She stated she understood the concern about cost. She stated she would go along with using Labor Relations but she would need a chance to meet with the people involved. The Interim City Manager said a meeting could be arranged and he would take care of it. 7/24/95 - 10- Mayor Kragness asked whether a meeting could take place on July 31, as it is necessary to move quickly. The Interim City Manager agreed. Councilmember Carmody said a Special Session is necessary since the Council will be taking action. Mayor Kragness suggested meeting at 6 p.m. on July 31. The Interim City Manager agreed to set up a Special Session at 6 p.m. with representatives of Labor Relations. The City Attorney y stated, since Labor Relations is already under contract with the City, a Special Session might not be necessary. A Work Session would then be adequate since any action could be in the form of instructions to staff. He added a formal meeting is not necessary. Mayor Kragness noted there would then be a Work Session at 6 p.m. There was a consensus of opinion. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -171 Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM TARGET FOR PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. • PURCHASE OF MOBILE COMPUTING DEVICES The Interim City Manager noted when the project was begun there was a lease agreement. Then, the City received grant money and a better deal was obtained, so there was a change. Councilmember Mann noted the 1994 budget provided funding for Mobile Digital Terminals. She asked whether Mobile Computing Devices are the same thing. The Interim City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Mann asked whether the devices will provide access to the County system. The Interim City Manager said they will. He added they will be a reat help for police officers in g P P the field who need immediate access to information. Mayor Kragness asked how many units will have the devices. The Finance Director said the City will be purchasing 10 units. Mayor Kragness asked how many squad cars the City has. The Finance Director said the City has nine marked squad cars. Mayor Kragness noted it was good that all squad cars would have a unit and the tenth unit will go in an unmarked car. • 7/24/95 Councilmember Hilstrom noted the item was in both the 1994 and 1995 budgets. She asked why, in that case, the units are still not to be installed until November of 1995. The Finance Director said he believes the project was only anticipated in the 1994 budget and no money was budgeted at that time. Councilmember Hilstrom said money was budgeted in 1994 and now it is two years later. Mayor Kragness questioned the hardware and software necessary for the project. The Finance Director said the units will be ready to use in November. The technology is new and it has been difficult to work out the details, causing delays. Councilmember Carmody noted Chief Kline had told her some of the delay was because Hennepin County put together a group order in an attempt to get a better price on the units. The Finance Director said that was a possibility, but he had not been involved in that area of the purchase. Councilmember Mann stated she had understood the deal was to be made through Hennepin County and now it appears it will be through LOGIS. The Finance Director said Brooklyn Center will be getting a better product by purchasing the units on its own rather than through the County. The technology through the County is now older than what the City can obtain on its own. Councilmember Mann asked about LOGIS costs and user fees. The Finance Director said there are support costs such as maintenance and air time. The costs will total between $18,000 and . $19,000 next year, but they were included in the three -year life cycle estimate. It is expected the City will save $10,000 over the three -year period. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -172 Member Debra Hilstrom introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE COMPUTING DEVICES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND AMENDING THE 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. SALE OF STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS AND TAX INCREMENT BONDS /PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The Interim City Manager noted the Director of Community Development was available to answer questions on this item. Councilmember Mann asked whether a Request for Proposals (RFP) has been issued for a fiscal advisor. The Finance Director stated Springsted Inc. has been the City's fiscal advisor for 15 7/24/95 - 12- • to 20 years. Only a small number of such firms exist and it is his opinion Springsted Inc. is the best. The City's long relationship with Springsted Inc. is an advantage and makes the process more efficient. He is pleased with the services provided by Springsted Inc. and sees no need to change fiscal advisors or issue an RFP, so an RFP has not been developed. Councilmember Mann said since a large amount of money is involved she would want to have an RFP sent out. The Finance Director said, in that case, he would suggest the Council proceed with the proposed bond issue anyway because it is now close to the time to levy taxes for 1996. Then, an RFP could be issued for the next issue. That way, the project won't be delayed and a final bond can be issued regarding the Woodbine street project. Councilmember Mann agreed. Councilmember Mann questioned the figure of $100,000 each year for street improvements. The Finance Director said it is correct. It is expected the City will bond for $1 million. The City has been told to keep short maturities on street bonds. It is expected 35 percent will be paid by special assessment and the rest by property - taxes. The result is $100,000 needed from the property tax levy. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -173 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE THE SALE OF STREET IMPROVEMENT BONDS AND TAX INCREMENT BONDS AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL • FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1995 -16 Councilmember Mann asked why the property in question does not already have sanitary sewer. The Director of Public Services indicated evidently the property owner at the time of installation of sanitary sewer in the neighborhood did not have it connected to that property. Councilmember Hilstrom asked why the City is then picking up the tab for installation at this point. The Director of Public Services stated the price being charged to the property owner now is in the same proportion as the price when the sewer was installed in 1961. Councilmember Carmody asked if the cost wouldn't have been less in 1961 than it is now. The Director of Public Services agreed. Councilmember Carmody asked whether the Council is bound to assess the cost at the 1961 rate. The Director of Public Services stated the Council is not bound to anything, but should assess 7/24/95 - 13 - • in the same proportion. It is the Council's option to determine the split in costs between City and property owner. The Interim City Manager explained the current owner of the property is preparing to sell and the connection to sanitary sewer is required for the sale. Councilmember Carmody noted perhaps, in that case, the property owner would be motivated to work out an arrangement with the City. She stated payment by the City of such an amount would be too generous. The Interim City Manager said an arrangement could be worked out. Councilmember Carmody recommended the Interim City Manager make an arrangement with the property owner to pay a larger portion. Councilmember Mann said the property owner should pay half of the cost. There was a consensus of opinion. Councilmember Mann stated a 50/50 arrangement is fine but it is still generous on the part of the City. Councilmember Carmody asked whether there are very many properties in Brooklyn Center which are not hooked up to sanitary sewer and the Council should set a policy to handle similar situations. The Director of Community Development said there are very few properties not connected. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to table the matter to allow time for Staff to work out an agreement with the property owner. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody and seconded by Councilmember Mann adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Barbara Collman Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 7/24/95 - 14- • Council Meeting Date 8/14/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number / " 3 Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Resolution Amending the Schedule for Planning and Inspection Fees Department Appro� L G. �rad Hoffman, Community De, elopment- Director Manager's Review /Recommendation: s No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Staff recommends approval of Resolution Amending the Schedule for Planning and Inspection Fees. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No ) • The accompanying resolution has been prepared in order to coincide with current fees proposed by the Uniform Building Code. • 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 1 -A TABLE 1- A— BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE '51.01) to 5500.01) 52 I.OI) $501.00 to 52,000.00 521.00 for the first 5500.00 plus 5'_.75 for each additional `5100.00, or fraction thereof, to and includimg 52,000.00 S_.001.00 to 525,000.00 56125 for the first $2.000.00 plus S 12.50 tier each additional S 1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to 550,000.00 5349.75 for the first $25,000.00 plus $9.00 for cacti additional S 1.000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including 550.000.00 $50.001.00 to S 100,000.00 5574.75 for the first $50.000.00 plus $6.25 for each additional 51,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including S 100,000.00 S 100,001.00 to S500.000.00 5887.25 for the first $100,000.00 plus 55.00 for each additional `51.000.00, or fraction thereof, to and includim- S500.000.00 5500.001.00 to 51,000.000.00 52.887.25 for the first $500,000.00 plus 54.25 for each additional S 1.000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including S 1.000.000.00 S I ,000,00 1.00 and up { 55.012.25 for the first 51.000,000.00 plus S2.75 for each additional 51.000.00, or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: 1. Inspections outside of nortlal business hours .... ............................... S42.00 per hour` (minimum charge —two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 108.5 ............................. ............................... S42.00 per hour" I 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated S42.00 per hour' (minimum charge -- one -half hour) .-additional plan review reyuir;-d by changes. additions or revisions to plans ........................ ............................... S42.00 per hour- (minimum charge— one -half hour) 5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections. or both .................... ...... :-actual costs'— Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction. '%� hichc% is the greatest. This cost shall HIClltde super isi011. o%cnccad. equipment. hourly wages and frinve benefits of the employees involved. `.-actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. 1988 EDITION 3 -A TABLE NO. 3- A— BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION FEE 3 1.00 to $500.00 S15.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 515.00 for the first 5500.00 plus $2.00 for each additional 3100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including 52.000.00 52,001.00 to 55,000.00 545.00 for the first $2.000.00 plus 59.00 for each addi- tional $1.000.00 or fraction thereof, to and includine $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $252.00 for the first $25.000.00 plus $6.50 for each addi- tional 31,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50.000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $414.50 for the first $50.000.00 plus 54.50 for each addi- tional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and includine $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to 5500,000.00 $639.50 for the first $100.000.00 plus $3.50 for each additional 31.000.00 or fraction thereof $500,001.00 to $2039.50 for the first $500.000.00 plus $3.00 for each S1.000,000.00 additional S 1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and includin; $1.000.000.00. 5 1.000.00 1.00 and up 53539.50 for the first 31.000.000.00 plus 52.00 for each additional 51.000.00 or fraction thereof Other Inspections and Fees: I . Inspections outside of normal business hours ..................530.00 per hour* (minimum charge —two hours) '_. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Section 305 (g) ................. .........................530.00 per hour* 3. Inspections for which no fee is specificaily indicated ...................... .........................530.00 per hour* (minimum charge —one -half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans ..... .........................330.00 per hour* (minimum charge --one -half hour) *Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead. equipment. hourly wakes and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 19 !O Member introduced the following resolution and 0 moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION FEES WHEREAS, Chapters 3, 12, 15, 34 and 35 of the City Ordinances require the payment of fees for building permits, plumbing permits, mechanical system permits, building maintenance and occupancy reinspections, Planning Commission applications, flood plain use permits, and administrative land use permits; and WHEREAS, Chapters 3, 12, 15, 34, and 35 of the City Ordinances further authorize the setting of various fees by City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution Nos. 86 -123 (adopted 8/11/86), 89 -224 (adopted 11/27/89), and 90 -33 (adopted 2/26/90), together comprise a schedule of fees collected by planning and inspection; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to modify and update the fees contained in said resolutions and to adopt a new fee schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to adopt the following fee schedule: Planning and Inspection Fee Schedule 1. Building Permit Fees Building permit fees shall be based on the valuation of each building. The building valuation shall be computed using the up -to -date average construction cost per square foot established from time to time by the State Building Inspector. Valuation Fee $1 to $1,000 $35.00 $1,001 to $2,000 $34.75 for the first $1,000 plus $2.75 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 $2,001 to $25,000 $62.25 for the first $2,000 plus $12.50 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 $25,001 to $50,000 $349.75 for the first $25,000 plus $9.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 RESOLUTION NO. 1. Building Permit Fees (continued) Valuation Fee $50,001 to $100,000 $574.75 for the first $50,000 plus $6.25 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 $100,001 to $500,000 $887.25 for the first $100,000 plus $5.00 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $2,887.25 for the first $500,000 plus $4.25 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 $1,000,000 and up $5,012.25 for the first $1,000,000 plus $2.75 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Note: A plan check fee of 32.5% of the amount of the permit is collected for one- and two family residences (including townhouses as one family residences). For all other permits, the plan check fee is 65% of the amount of the permit. 2. Plumbing ermit Fees ees Plumbing permit fees shall be computed on the basis of the number of plumbing fixtures and devices and of the type of system or plumbing work as set forth below. A plumbing fixture is defined as a device intended to be connected to the plumbing system, such as any sink, bathtub, or any other such device. Description and Fee a. Minimum fee $25.00 b. Plumbing fixtures installed 10.00 C. Plumbing fixture opening for future install 6.25 d. Catch basin installed 15.00 e. Water heater installed 10.00 f. Ground run to building 15.00 g. Rainwater leader 10.00 h. Installation of water treating or filter device 12.50 L Potable water well drilling 25.00 j. Irrigation connection 25.00 k. Sewer or water connection 31.25 /connect. 1. Sewer or water disconnection 31.25 /disconnect. -I?- RESOLUTION NO. 2. Plumbing Permit Fees (continued) Description and Fee m. Repair or alteration of existing plumbing or water distribution system 3% of estimated cost n. New single - family dwelling plumbing system (including fixtures, devices, openings and water piping) 55.00 o. Fire sprinkler system (new) -First ten heads 40.00 -Additional ten heads or fraction thereof 8.00 Standpipes (each) 50.00 Fire pump (including testing) 200.00 Alteration, repair of existing system -For each $500 valuation or fraction thereof 17.00 -Minimum fee 35.00 p. A plumbing permit shall be required for gas piping; the permit fees are set forth below. (Fees for gas fitting of appliances and heating systems are set forth under Mechanical System Permit Fees contained in this schedule. Up to 2" diameter pipe: .1 -3 openings each 5.75 -Each additional opening 2.50 3. Mechanical System Permit Fees Description and Fee 2" and over diameter pipe .1 -3 openings each 15.00 .Each additional opening 3.25 Mechanical system permit fees shall be calculated and collected according to the following: -J- RESOLUTION NO. 3. Mechanical System Permit Fees (continued) a. Installation, alteration, reconstruction, or repair of any heating, ventilating, comfort cooling, or refrigeration equipment, shall be computed on the basis of the estimated cost of the proposed work except as herein provided. •$0 to $500 $25.00 •$501 to $50,000 $25.00 plus 2% of value of any amount in excess of $500 -Over $50,000 $1,012.50 plus 1% of value of any amount in excess of $50,000 b. A mechanical permit shall be required for gas pipe fitting for connection to any gas burning device, except as herein provided; the fees are set forth below. (Fees for gas piping are additional and are set forth under Plumbing System Permit Fees contained in this schedule). The appropriate fee for gas water heaters shall be applied to the plumbing rather than a mechanical permit. C. A mechanical permit shall be required for the installation, for the removal, and for the replacement of any in- ground or above - ground tanks or vessels and related piping used for the storage of gaseous or liquid fuels or chemicals. Permit fees shall be: Above - ground new installation $37.50 In- ground new installation 50.00 Above - ground removal 25.00 In- ground removal 37.50 Replace like tank to existing system 37.50 d. It is not intended that permits shall be required for portable heating, ventilating, comfort cooling, or refrigeration equipment, nor for the replacement of any component part or assembly of an appliance which does not alter its original approval and which complies with other applicable requirements of the Building Code. -4- RESOLUTION NO. 4. Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance Fees Reinspection $25.00 Appeal 50.00 S. Sign Permit Fees Sign permit fees shall be collected before issuance of any sign permit required under the provision of the Sign Ordinance and shall be calculated according to the following: a. The fee for any permanent freestanding or non - freestanding sign five square feet in area or less shall be $25.00. b. The fee for any permanent freestanding or non - freestanding sign over five square feet in area shall be $30.00 for the first 50 square feet of gross area or fraction thereof and $12.50 for each additional 50 square feet of gross area or fraction thereof. C. The fee for permits for the installation of any electrical wiring for any sign shall conform to the State Board of Electricity fee schedule and shall be obtained through the State Board of Electricity. 6. Planning Commission Fees Planning Commission fees shall be collected at the time applications are executed according to the following: Description and Fee a. Rezoning $700.00 b. Site and Building Plan 500.00 C. Preliminary Plat 200.00 d. Variance 100.00 e. Special Use Permit 100.00 f. Extension of Special Use Permit 50.00 g. Appeal 100.00 h. Determination 100.00 i. Planned Unit Development 1,200.00 In addition to the above fees, the applicant shall sign an agreement, on forms provided by the City, to pay the cost of all engineering, planning and legal consulting expenses incurred by the City in processing the above applications. -5- RESOLUTION NO. 7. Administrative Land Use Permit Fees Administrative Land Use Permit fees for temporary activity shall be collected before the issuance of any such permit required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance according to the following: Description and Fee a. Out -of -door church functions, civic functions, charities, carnivals, etc. $25.00/10 days b. Off -site signs for civic functions or community events $25.00/10 days C. Out -of -door nursery and garden center sales and displays $50.00/30 weeks d. Miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or promotional events $25.00/10 days e. Miscellaneous out -of -door sales, displays or promotional events for gasoline service stations $25.00/30 days f. Car wash fund raisers $25.00/10 days 8. Flood Plain Use Permit Fees Flood Plain Use Permit fees shall be collected before the issuance of any flood plain use permit required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be calculated according to the following: Area Fee Up to 1 acre $ 25.00 1 acre to 5 acres 25.00 /acre Over 5 acres 125.00 plus 18.75 /acre for each acre or fraction thereof over 5 acres BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above schedule of Planning and Inspection fees shall become effective on August 15, 1995. Date Mayor -6- 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. -7- Council Mecting Date 8/14/95 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number L Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Expressing Recognition of Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee Members, Housing Commission Members, Brooklyn Center City Council Members and City of Brooklyn Center Employees for their Work on the 1995 Metro Paint -A -Thon Department Approval: Tom Bub tz, Community Development Spec' ist Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Staff recommends motion to adopt Resolution Expressing Recognition of Earle Brown Neighborhood ® Housing Advisory Committee Members, Housing Commission Members, Brooklyn Center City Council Members and City of Brooklyn Center Employees for their Work on the 1995 Metro Paint -A -Thon. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No ) This resolution recognizes the efforts of the 1995 Paint -A -Thon team. This is the third year the City has formed a Paint -A -Thon team, and in each of the three years the team has been comprised of members from the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee, the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission, City Council Members and City staff. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF EARLE BROWN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, HOUSING COMMISSION MEMBERS, BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR WORK ON THE 1995 METRO PAINT- A -THON WHEREAS, the 1995 Metro Paint -A -Thon, sponsored by the Aging Services Division of the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches, was a major volunteer effort to paint the homes of over 370 modest income senior citizen and disabled adults throughout the seven county metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Paint -A -Thon relies totally on the efforts of volunteers to paint the homes eligible for the Paint -A -Thon program; and WHEREAS, representatives of the Earle Brown Neighborhood Housing Advisory Committee, Brooklyn Center Housing Commission, Brooklyn Center City Council, and Brooklyn Center City employees formed a Paint -A -Thon team to paint a home in Brooklyn Center and the team was comprised of the following individuals: Nancy Carlson Johanna Mills Randy Mills Lindsay Mills Jim Glasoe Omar Abdelwahed Debra Hilstrom Kathleen Carmody Robert Torres Joyce Lindquist Terri Swanson Janine Atchison Ernie Erickson Kristen Mann Dave Fisher Karen Youngberg Joyce Gulseth Scott Kline Lois Kline Tom Bublitz RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, by participating in the 1995 Paint -A -Thon, these individuals have contributed significantly to maintaining the quality of housing in the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the efforts of these volunteers should be recognized by the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the work of the 1995 Brooklyn Center Paint -A -Thon volunteers is hereby recognized and appreciated as a valuable contribution to the residents of the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Dtputy 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 Daze 08/14/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number 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, Director Public ervices Manager's Review /Recommendation: 4L� �') 6t� Z4A 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, 1994, the property owner at 6331 Bryant Avenue N., Mary E. Taylor, 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 bids were obtained. The Council considered this item at its July 24, 1995 meeting, and tabled consideration until tonight's meeting. Mrs. Taylor had agreed to pay a special assessment in the amount of $1,235.51, which was the 1961 assessment corrected for inflation. However, the Council decided that since this project was being contemplated solely to benefit Mrs. Taylor's property, she should be charged a greater share of the project cost, and suggested an assessment in the amount of one -half the project cost. Mrs. Taylor has agreed to this assessment, and will submit an application to defer a part of the assessment through the senior citizen assessment deferral program. This program limits the actual payments Mrs. Taylor must make to one and one -half percent of her annual income, and defers payment on the rest until the property is sold. For example, if a participant's annual income is $10,000, the most the participant would be required to pay is $150 annually. The balance is due when the property changes hands. • On July 20, 1995, the following bids were received 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 Request For Council Consideration Page 2 The Engineer's Estimate for this improvement is $8,987. Of the three bids received, the lowest bid of • $ 9,643.50 was submitted by Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. of Rogers, MN. The bids submitted exceed the Engineer's Estimate by $656.50. Thomas & Sons has extensive experience in 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. The project cost and source of funding is detailed below. Construction $9,643.50 Engineering, Admin, Legal (8%) 771.48 TOTAL $10,414.98 Special Assessments $5,207.49 Sanitary Sewer Fund 5.207.49 TOTAL $10,414.98 • Mrs. Taylor has agreed to waive her right to a project hearing and a special assessment hearing. • 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 $5,207.49 Public Utility Fund $5,207.49 Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Meeting Date 08/14/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES Department Approval: Diane Spector, Dke for of Public Services `\I Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of the trees most recently marked by the City tree inspector, in accordance with approved procedures. It is anticipated that this resolution will be submitted for council consideration each meeting during the summer and fall as new trees are marked. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES (ORDER NO. DST 08/14/95 ) WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty (20) days to remove diseased trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS, the City can expedite the removal of these diseased trees by declaring them a public nuisance: NOW, THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The diseased trees at the following addresses are hereby declared to be a public nuisance: TREE PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY ADDRESS NUMBER --------- ------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ALLAN & VICKI OLSON 7111 RIVERDALE RD 100 IONE GERTZ 3412 WOODBINE LN 101 LARRY & VICTORIA HAMLIN 4937 BEARD AVE N 102 SHIRLEY & MANFRED DAVIDSON 5800 GIRARD AVE N 103 GLADYS TERRY 6435 BRYANT AVE N 104 DUANE & JUDY BAAS 6807 EMERSON AVE N 105 CITY OF B. C. 5436 JAMES AVE N 83 CITY OF B.C. 67TH & EWING /FREEWAY WALL 84 JUNE & HALDEN SCOFIELD 5543 FREMONT AVE N 85 CITY OF B.C. 67TH & EWING /FREEWAY WALL 86 CITY OF B.C. 67TH & EWING /FREEWAY WALL 87 MARGARET DAVIS 6330 JUNE AVE N 88 MARK & JEANNE JOHNSON 5912 JUNE AVE N 89 WILLOW LANE REALTY 7015 BROOKLYN BLVD 90 VINNETTE BOONE 5958 CAMDEN AVE N 91 CARL & GLADYS LEPINSKI 5907 ZENITH AVE N 92 CITY OF B.C. TWIN LAKE BEACH 93 CITY OF B.C. TWIN LAKE BEACH 94 CITY OF B.C. CITY GARAGE 95 CITY OF B.C. EAST PALMER PARK 96 MOUND CEMETERY /RALPH HOWE 3315 69TH AVE N 97 THEODORE & INGA CARLSON 7012 MORGAN AVE N 98 DANIEL & JACQUELINE TEMPEL 6418 COLFAX AVE N 99 RESOLUTION NO. 2. After twenty (20) days from the date of the notice, the property owner(s) will receive a second written notice providing five (5) business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five (5) days, if the property owner fails to request a hearing, the tree(s) shall be removed by the City. All removal costs, including legal, financing, and administrative charges, shall be specially assessed against the property. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Meeting Date 08/14/95 / 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -04, REPLACEMENT OF LIFT STATION NO. 1 AND ASSOCIATED FORCE MAIN Department Approval: 6 Sco A. Brink, Ci Engineer Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve the resolution approving Request for Proposal and Authorizing Solicitation of Professional Services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -04, Replacement of Lift Station No. 1 and Associated Force Main. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) The Capital Improvement Program and the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund Budget both comprehend the replacement of Lift Station No. 1 and associated force main, located in Garden City Park near Brooklyn Drive and 62nd Avenue (see map). This lift station was built in 1955 and pumps approximately 40% of the City's sanitary waste water flow. The force main begins at the lift station and runs south about one -half mile through the park, under Vincent Avenue, and through the Four Courts apartment complex parking lot to a manhole in the median of County Road 10. As noted, the lift station and its pumps date from 1955, are no longer replaceable, and are difficult to repair. Some breaks have occurred over the years in the force main, which is constructed through peat in the area just south of the station, and in the Four Courts area. At the City Council meeting of June 12, 1995, a resolution was approved authorizing the request for proposals and solicitation for professional services for the above referenced project. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was forwarded to six (6) consultants, and the City received proposals from all six. A team of six staff members evaluated all proposals individually and met as a group to jointly evaluate the proposals and narrow the field to two finalists. The team members consisted of the City Engineer, • Director of Public Services, Superintendent of Public Works, Supervisor of Public Utilities, Public Services Coordinator, and Senior Engineering Technician. The two finalists selected were Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates (TKDA) and MSA Consulting Engineers. The finalists were then interviewed by the same staff to select a final recommendation for this project. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 The two consultants were interviewed on August 2, and August 4. The consultants were provided an • opportunity for a brief presentation. Staff then presented the candidates with a series of questions relating to the project, followed by extensive discussion. Both consultants presented themselves well and proved capable of successfully performing this project. After the interviews, staff evaluated the two finalists and decided to recommend that a contract for professional services for this project be awarded to MSA Consulting Engineers. MSA has extensive proven experience in providing professional services for similar projects. Should the Council award a contract for services to MSA, the consultant will immediately commence preliminary design work for the lift station and force main. The project schedule and overall summary of the consultant's tasks can be summarized as follows: 1. Preliminary design work to be completed by November /December 1995: Preliminary design will consist of evaluating rehabilitation alternatives vs. total replacement for both the lift station and force main. This phase of the work will also consist of site surveys, information gathering, cost/benefit analysis studies and evaluation of all technical solutions and alternatives, including impact on annual maintenance and operations costs. 2. Final Design: Completion of plans and technical specifications in early 1996. 3. Construction Services: Opening of bids, award of contract and construction management and inspection. It is anticipated that actual construction will commence in the Spring of 1996. • As stated in the Engineer's Report to the Council on June 12, 1995, the consultant's fees for this project were expected to be in excess of $100,000. Initial figures from MSA as stated in their proposal estimate compensation in the amount of approximately $60,000. As work commences, a detailed contract with MSA which includes a specific workplan will be prepared, including a more precise cost figure. It is also worth noting that this cost estimate includes construction inspection, which can be variable, depending on construction contractor, weather, field conditions, etc. The preliminary estimated cost of this project is $1.2 million. The cost of this project will be funded by the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund. As previously stated, it is likely that the project would be phased so the design would take place in 1995 and most construction would occur in 1996. It is expected that the cost of this project would be financed by sanitary sewer fund backed revenue bonds. The sanitary sewer rate study has comprehended this financing technique. • ' ' cur a fR afr -- rt.ottt{ nu 1 \,\ Isst `rsI/y ar rnmr3ltr _ _ n n r3+n t � st xtvu iro _ a Lti Nt Y t A w 31v cm at a Am MIS C ml SH m N N Y -- N 311 N30NY0 N Y N 31Y gtY01r I _ ON Y N t Q M M 31Y IM•lIN @ 000 I G � N �Y YYfN 1 c a M, xyj 0011 mam owl " M 31Y 1U5r3Y3 • -� .00[1 gyp(0{ N K N AV Ll 0=f : = yr N0Sr3t3 _ a v6� --- 0011 w ;tr avrvis ` - - -- Oacl G it M AI du N NY 1010prN 1t {HA.O A I 1A1 11 w 31, ONu�r1 = 3 : w 3Ar ON a R 1T�ty L _ 0011 Y U N 31v raa N yr M�`�JOI 35, _ M 1IYTxr1 a R I- N N it NO O lJ o O N 31r Nou3v ( � r w 31r V341 10 ' M 11v mu w 31, 19t3J U Jai a 6 2i f � , 0 0 ! oo-Z M 31' ,131 OM' N W Nr01r36 ; .� y ., I M ilr C•NJii �-� 0011 N 31Y MIA M 311 1N3)NIA O I 8 7j s txYx P 8 '� YY fIY OR N U, M 3Ar N 31Y N111fII 3 g ' g a N11wfz < oN - Y NI q yy y C a f oca N31r ll r�a3a A 3 a a ' Y I" 009t a OW ttt w 31r M" w ]AV Nano OOK x 3Ar k3w 3 ± a w�cv' t ' '� w 3Nr O,w �8 op �, v hl, 0 w 31r =4 ' C S: r a t HY of C : : a Y� � ut1c 3 = � 0009 1} S ,y 1 It M 31Y t31I109 1� Cl} tFy 0019 Q ■ \ I T N TrtN Ut£ N 31r Inf0 20 N 31r —IWI V tV1 Ml ,per 0• V o Y xvf TM / 1AA�X A , SQR:. •. ]� < y 1 IV N 3Ar 3K 0019 t ._ p �yy w ;tv 3w1 Y x' KM i' N Y 11ssuy 3 N 31r 339 __ IYOdi 8 t e ,,.t Y \ \l - - - - - -- --- M 31V runty I G f L1 '"_ 31 N N ;er ---- 3100N 1 3 t{ O j t .-. .) 0019 N < M V 31'lOM y, 11�� 0j I l 5 J / W WOW � < � ��� yp � VVu a \ , N 31r 1 3 4 F 4 1 7Y1SAbCf N31r lIm0 .� \K 1 r V r< I l H W N 31r /H30 t < M 3tv !E OOS . rU g ' 3 O[ " I GO U w 31r Ilene i 3 ooa w 31Y 003 = " N 3tY tttDM O p h M y gPpAti 7f PAW . j W a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -04, RRPT.AC'FMFNT nF T TFT .CTATTCIN NO 1 AND ACCnC'TATFII FORCE MAIN WHEREAS, the Director of Public Services has informed the City Council that Lift Station No. 1 and the force main exiting the station and running south to County Road 10 has reached the end of its useful life and requires replacement; and WHEREAS, the City's Policy for the Procurement of Professional Services requires that no solicitation for professional services for contracts greater than $15,000 be commenced until the consent to do so has been obtained from the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to expend monies from the Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax- exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments, or utility fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) and directed staff to solicit for professional services to provide for the design and construction of said improvement project; and WHEREAS, staff has evaluated six (6) candidates that provide professional services for improvement projects of this nature; and WHEREAS, staff as recommended that MSA Consulting Engineers be chosen to provide these professional services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1 A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Professional Services for Improvement Project No. 1995 -04 is hereby approved. 2. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate and prepare an agreement with MSA Consulting Engineers to provide for professional services professional services relating to this project, and to submit to the City Council for subsequent approval. 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 08/14/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, 1995 SEALCOAT PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -06, CONTRACT 1995 -A Department Approval: r Diane Spector, Dire to of Public Servi es Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: A resolution which accepts the work performed by Allied Blacktop of Maple Grove, MN, is attached for consideration. Summary Explanation: (supp documentation attached �'Y P ( PP g ) Pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Allied Blacktop Company has satisfactorily completed the 1995 Sealcoat Program. A deduct of $562.30 in the final contract amount is reflected in the final contract payment. This deduct is for work performed by city forces to correct overspray of pedestrian crosswalk panels that were unsuccessfully protected. The value of work performed is $514.81 more than the original contract due to an underestimation of quantities. • U Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, 1995 SEALCOAT PROGRAM, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -06, CONTRACT 1995 -A WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Allied Blacktop Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: 1995 SEALCOAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -06 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: • Original Contract Final Amount Value of Work $88,953.89 $89,468.70 2. The value of work performed is $514.81 more than the original contract due to an underestimation of quantities. The final amount reflects a deduct in the amount of $562.30 for work performed by City forces to correct overspray areas. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full: The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $89,468.70. 4. The accounting for Project No. 1995 -06 will be done in the General Fund, Street Maintenance Division No. 142, Activity 781. 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 08/14/95 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number / Request For Council Consideration Item Description: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1994 -15, ADA TRAILS, CURB CUTS, AND PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND 1994 -23, MISCELLANEOUS SIDEWALK REPAIRS, CONTRACT 1994 -M Department Approval: Diane Spector, Directo o Public Services — 4:) — � " i Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • A resolution which accepts the work performed by Lindahl and Carlson, Inc. of St. Paul, MN, is attached for consideration. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) Pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Lindahl and Carlson, Inc. has successfully completed Contract 1994 -M. The value of work performed is $715.27 more than the original contract due to an underestimation of quantities. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1994 -15, ADA TRAILS, CURB CUTS, AND PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND 1994 -23, MISCELLANEOUS SIDEWALK REPAIRS, CONTRACT 1994 -M WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Lindahl and Carlson, Inc has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -15 ADA TRAILS, CURB CUTS AND PEDESTRIAN RAMPS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -23 MISCELLANEOUS SIDEWALK REPAIRS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract Final Amount Value of Work $45,830.80 $46,546.07 1994 -15 $32,812.40 $33,082.58 1994 -23 $13,018.40 $13,463.49 2. The value of work performed is $715.27 more than the original contract due to an underestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $46,546.07. 4. All costs for Improvement Project No. 1994 -15 shall be financed by the Capital Projects Fund. 5. All costs for Improvement Project No. 1994 -23 shall be financed by the Local State Aid Fund, Account No. 2911. • i 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 i Council Meeting Date 08/14/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number 1 Request For Council Consideration Item Description: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -31, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AT WILLOW LANE PARK, CONTRACT 1994 -I Department Approval: Diane Spector, Director of Pu lic ervices Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: A resolution which accepts the work performed by Earl F. Andersen, Inc. of Minneapolis, MN, is • attached for consideration. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) Pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Earl F. Andersen, Inc. has successfully completed Contract 1994 -I. The value of work performed is the same as the original contract. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -31, PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AT WILLOW LANE PARK, CONTRACT 1994 -I WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Earl F. Andersen, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AT WILLOW LANE PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1994 -31 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: i Original Contract Final Amount Value of Work $53,836.00 $53,836.00 2. The value of work performed is the same as the original contract. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $53,836.00. 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 8114195 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Nu,nber 6' Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Licenses Department Approval: a, a, ��, � Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Approve attached list of licenses. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No ) • MECHANICAL SYSTEMS A -ABC Appliance and Heating 2638 Lyndale Ave S Anderson Heating and A/C 4347 Central Ave NE Hokanson Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 9174 Isand St NE Nimis Newman Mech, Inc. 1400 E Hwy 36 Peterson Bros. Sheetmetal 4110 Central Ave NE #106 ' a Building Official RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Sondra Jones 7236 Noble Ave N Renewal: Ralph C. Johnson 5444 Bryant Ave N Michael and Jane Danielson 4216 Lakebreeze Ave N Fred and Judie Swenson 5340 -44 Russell Ave N John and Marlys Pepera 6142 Scott Ave N David Wagtskjold 6845 Willow Lane Q.v� Director of Community Development • Council Meeting Date 9 1 1 A City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution expressing recognition of and appreciation for the dedicated public service of Myrna Kragness Department Approval: Arnie Mavis, Director of Recreation Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) • ya adoption: • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MYRNA KRAGNESS WHEREAS, Myrna Kragness has been a member of the Earle Brown Days Board of Directors from 1991 to 1995; and WHEREAS, Myrna Kragness has been the chairperson of the Earle Brown Days dance committee from 1992 to 1995; and WHEREAS, Myrna Kragness has been the chairperson of the Earle Brown Days festival committee from 1992 to 1995; and WHEREAS, her public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that her service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Myrna Kragness is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor Pro tem 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 8/14/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number O 4/ h Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Jack Kelly for His Dedicated Public Service on the Housing Commission Department Approval: w R r� Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Pass Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Jack Kelly for His Dedicated Public Service on the Housing Commission. • Summary Explanation: Y P (supporting documentation attached No ) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF JACK KELLY FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE HOUSING COMMISSION WHEREAS, Jack Kelly served on the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission from July 11, 1994, through July 24, 1995; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, his leadership and expertise have been greatly appreciated by the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to the community should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of • Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of Jack Kelly 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 8/14/95 p 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number O Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Appointment of a Councilmember to Serve on a Customer Service Training Subcommittee Department Approval: Terri Swanson, communications coordinator Manager's Review /Recommendation: zV No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Appoint a councilmember to serve on a subcommittee regarding customer service training for staff. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached No ) e As part of the 1996 budget, we are investigating customer service training options for staff. A subcommittee has been developed to determine which type of training would be most beneficial for staff, and which training company /trainer is most suited to handle the City's diverse needs. Recently, the subcommittee had a meeting to reviewed proposals received by potential trainers. At that meeting, the committee decided to ask the council to have a member serve on the subcommittee to give the committee a better grasp of what the residents, and council, want and expect in terms of customer service. Other suggestions at the meeting included asking three of the five firms who submitted proposals to come in for an interview prior to final selection, and testing the training program on a select group of employees before investing in a full- fledged program for all staff. Additionally, the committee decided to survey staff and council regarding their thoughts and expectations regarding customer service at the City. Customer Service Subcommittee Jim Glasoe, public services coordinator Craig Maus, Earle Brown Heritage Center sales person Kathy Flesher, recreation division program supervisor Joe Ericksen, recreation division program supervisor Terri Swanson, communications coordinator • Schedule 8/14 Councilmember chosen for subcommittee 8/17 Meeting to develop interview questions for trainer candidates Week 8/21 Meetings with trainers /trainer selected 8/25 Survey to staff and council regarding needs /ideas for training Week 9/5 Meeting with trainer to develop plan including schedule Council Meeting Date 8 -14 -95 Q 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number u Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: An ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Department Ap oval: sr•...a.J..J Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning ecialist Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: It is recommended that the City Council, following the public hearing, table this matter until the appropriate Easement Agreement and Parking Declarations listed in condition number one of City • Council Resolution No. 95 -157 have been executed by all parties and filed with Hennepin County. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached ) On July 10, 1995 the City Council passed Resolution No. 95 -157 (copy attached), which approved Planning Commission Application No. 95009 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center. That application was a request for rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) and approval of a Planned Unit Development proposal to accommodate appropriate common parking areas for the properties located northwesterly of the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The last step in this rezoning process is a housekeeping ordinance amendment that describes the property that is being rezoned. This ordinance amendment had a first reading on July 10, 1995, was published on July 19, 1995 and is scheduled for public hearing and adoption by the City Council on August 14, 1995. It appears that the General Litho development will not be pursued at this time, however, the modifications to the parking agreement are still appropriate. A revised agreement is being developed but has not yet been executed by all the appropriate parties. It would be appropriate, therefore, to table adoption of this ordinance amendment until the final agreement is completed, executed and filed. • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER r Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 14th day of Yg g P � Y August , 1995, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1190. COMMERCE DISTRICT (C -2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (C -2) Commerce District zoning classification: [Tract B, R.L.S. No. 1572] Section 35 -1200. INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (I -1). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (I -1) Industrial Park District zoning classification: [Tracts A, B, and C, R.L.S. No. 1564] [Tracts A, C, and G, R.L.S. No. 1572] [Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1619] Section 35- 1 '40. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District zoning classification: 3. The following properties are designated as PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development /Industrial Park): Tracts A, B, and C, R.L.S. No. 1564; Tracts A B. C and G R.L.S. No 1572 Tract A and B, R.L. S. No. 1619. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. i Adopted this day of 1995 Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) • Member K ; sten Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 95 -157 RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO: 95009 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 95009 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) and C -2 (Commerce) to PUD /I -1 and approval for a Planned Unit Development to accommodate appropriate common parking areas for the properties located northwesterly of the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard; and WHEREAS, this proposal includes the rezoning of the properties addressed as 6601 and 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway (Tract G, RLS 1572 and Tract A, RLS 1564 respectively); 6601 and 6701 Parkway Circle (Tract A, RLS 1572 and Tract B, RLS 1564 respectively); 2000, 2100 and 2200 Freeway Boulevard (Tract B, RLS 1619, Tract A, RLS 1619 and Tract B, RLS 1572 respectively); and the north and south portions of the central parking lot (Tract C, RLS 1564 and Tract C, RLS 1572 respectively) and the development of a new agreement for the purpose of creating certain parking, driveway and access rights upon the above stated properties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June 29, 1995, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the Rezoning and Planned Unit Development were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 95009 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 95 -1 on June 29, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 95009 at its July 10, 1995 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this Rezoning and Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35- 355, and in light of the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Citv Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 95009 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center be approved in light of the following considerations: Resolution No. 95 -157 1. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposals are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of land in question in a manner which is considered compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under this Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will conform, for the most part, with City Ordinance standards. Variation from the parking requirement for the Holiday Inn allowing it to relinquish its rights to 65 parking spaces allocated to it in the central parking lot is justified based on a double counting of the parking requirement and the experience of approximately ten years which indicates no need for the additional 65 parking spaces. A lesser parking standard can be permitted also on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. 4. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal_ are considered compatible with the recommendations in the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City. 5. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development appear to be a good utilization of the central parking facility and access road and can be considered to be in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council cf the City of Brooklyn Center that the approval of Application No. 95009 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The Sixth Amendment to Easement Agreement and Modification of Declaration for Parking shall be executed by all parties and be filed with the titles to the property with the Register of Titles at Hennepin County. 2. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the following uses within the district: a. a 20 percent office /80 percent industrial occupancy of the Shingle Creek 11 building located at 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway; Resolution No. 95 -157 b. a 100 percent office occupancy of the RCM Plaza building located at 6707 Parkway Circle; c. the development of an 80,000 sq. ft. office industrial building for General Litho approved under Planning Commission Application No. 95004 at 6601 Parkway Circle; d. a 60 percent office /10 percent clinic /30 percent industrial occupancy of the building known at Parkway Place, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway; e. a hotel, restaurant, nightclub, meeting room and ballroom use of the Holiday Inn, 2200 Freeway Boulevard; f. a 100 percent office occupancy use for the Minnesota State High School League office building, 2100 Freeway Boulevard; g. a restaurant use as proposed by Country Harvest Buffet approved under Planning Commission Application No. 94014 at 2000 Freeway Boulevard; h. and a parking lot use of Tract C, RLS 1564 and Tract C, RLS 1572. July 10, 1995 Date , Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Kathleen Carmody and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Myrna Kragness, Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody, and the following voted against the same: none, where upon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. - _ �. �'� � ►� ♦� ♦� ' ������j ' OEM 11 '• , 1 1' / /•- ■ -►� ♦�������������� : , .. / 1 /11 �` 11111 �.. �� /i ,.. X11 ■ 1■ II LA , I ♦,��� 1111 1111 ���� �� �/■ 111 1■ 1111 ■ Il.� I�S� ♦ 11 11111 i 1!'IIE� � ���� Jill 1111111 MOM I LI Y P g g ON N O W " WR I, N X ,�' . , . �f� ?,,ate • � '�: , .• ,� ii r"� i� .III ♦�� �� �� ill 11 :::� : '� � / �, I�js ♦� ♦�?� 111 ��s =a�:�1 II . ' ► �'�' ' . i� ii � 111 • 11 , _ , \� . aM a INS; ME ME o• "• _ _ ' • •�` �� ii Now i� ii 11/ ■111111 1 11 MEN WEE __ ♦ �,♦ �� ,�.. i .■. r• - �►� //' . 1 1111111111 �1 .• �` • "' � �� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ��♦ �� -- •• '� 1111! 1 1 1 - ,��► • ��i��� �� .. .- ■mot s ♦ .r / /1111 ' ■EE■ Council Meeting Date 8/14/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -11, CONTRACT 1995 -E, CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SANITARY SEWER TRUNK RELINING Department Approval: 1 tt A. ti6ik, ity Zgineer Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Reject all bids previously received for this project, approve plans and specifications, and authorize • advertisement for bids. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached yes Bids were previously opened for the above referenced project and considered at the June 26, 1995 City Council meeting. At that time, staff recommended that a contract be awarded to the second low bidder, Insituform Central, Inc. in the amount of $788,791.20. This recommendation was challenged by the low bidder, Lametti and Sons, Inc. The City Council subsequently tabled any action on this contract until the July 10, 1995 City Council meeting, requesting further review by the City Attorney and City staff. At that meeting, staff was not yet able to advise a definitive recommendation to the Council, as specific documentation from the low bidder was still needed, and sufficient evaluation of that documentation was also required. At this tune., staff is recommending that the bids previously submitted be rejected and that the project be re -bid with revised specifications. The reasons for recommending this course of action are described further in this report. BACKGROUND As stated in the June 26, 1995 memorandum to the City Council, the low bid submitted by Lametti • and Sons was not recommended for the following reasons: 1. No previous experience by the Contractor in performing a project of this unique nature and 2. The product proposed for installation not meeting the material requirements of the contract specifications. In evaluating Lametti's bid further, staff has more specifically concentrated the evaluation efforts on the product itself (Superliner) and its adequacy in meeting the contract specifications, and the long term performance and safety for the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Request For Council Consideration Page 2 It should first be mentioned that the product specified for this project, cured in place pipe (CIPP), is • very unique and relatively new to the industry. CIPP was specified for this project because other rehabilitation methods would have incurred significant risks to residential properties due to the depth of the sewer pipe and its close proximity to residences. There are only 4 -5 CIPP products manufactured nation -wide that we are aware of. Of these products, most have been developed only in very recent years. The Superliner product submitted by Lametti and Sons for use on this project is newer yet, and therefore, it has been difficult to find reliable tests and installation references from other cities. In evaluating the product, we have therefore depended a great deal on technical information submitted by Lametti's subcontractor (CTC- manufacturer of the Superliner product) and any other information that could be obtained. Compounding the difficulty in evaluating this product is the fact that there is no local technical expertise regarding Cured in Place Pipe products. Dozens of reference and research calls have been made in the past several weeks, and nearly all of these references were outside of the Midwest. In addition to the many research and reference calls, staff has also utilized the expertise of an engineering consultant in evaluating the technical information supplied. B. Jay Schrock P. E., of JSC International Engineering, Carmichael, CA is recognized and respected nation wide as one of the foremost experts in CIPP technology. Mr. Schrock has submitted an evaluation/report for the City regarding this product. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions reached by staff and by Mr. Schrock in his report are that Superliner is not an • appropriate product to utilize on a project of this magnitude. Mr. Schrock's report (attached) describes this conclusion in more detail, but can generally be summarized as follows: 1. This product has proven past experience problems. However, we are of the understanding from the manufacturer that changes and /or improvements have been made to the product in the past year. Much of the documentation submitted by the manufacturer refers to ' the old liner, and the automated state of the art manufacturing facility which will supposedly provide much stricter quality control over the product is still under development. It is therefore not clear exactly what we would be receiving for a product, and how its reliability could be assured. In addition, much of the documentation refers to the reliability of fiberglass products generally and not necessarily to Superliner itself. 3. Specific figures and determinations used in performing design calculations are not consistent with accepted industry practice. Mr. Schrock's report describes this further. 4. Portions of the documentation received appear to have been doctored ( "whited out" and altered). 5. Other technical concerns as described in Mr. Schrock's report. 6. Risk - Assuming the "New Superliner" were a good product, it has not been tested to the same standards and quality assurances of other CIPP products. The City would therefore be assuming a significant amount of risk in utilizing such a product that will be serving 40% of the City for at least 50 years, at a very substantial cost. Staff was able to make contact with some cities that have installed the product recently. Of the cities contacted, no testing or significant amount of evaluation was apparent, and most of the contacts stated that they utilized the product because it was a cheaper alternative to other manufacturers. In addition, it should also be • noted that the cities contacted did not utilize the product in an amount anywhere near the magnitude of Brooklyn Center's project. Utilization of the product on a much smaller project if justified would still be risky, but to allow an unproven product to be utilized on a project that serves 40% of the City is clearly contrary to recognized professional practice. Request For Council Consideration Page 3 We are recommending that revised specifications be approved and the project re -bid, explained as • follows: PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The original specifications were written with the intent to provide for an open competitive bid, while also insuring that a proven, reliable quality product, appropriate for this project, would be utilized. It was staff's belief that the specification adequately provided for that, and also provided a sufficient language to reject products and /or contractors /subcontractors that are not appropriate for this project. It is staff's belief that the product proposed by the low bidder does not meet those requirements. However, despite what was believed to be an adequate specification, the City has been challenged in Court in an attempt to prevent award of the contract to another bidder. Plaintiff in that case alleges that its bid meets the bidder requirements of the specifications. We therefore recognize that the contract specifications are deficient in that regard. Staff therefore feels that the contract specification documents were not tight enough to ensure that a proven, reliable, product and sufficient verification of that product was provided. The specifications should, provide clear objective standards for immediate acceptance or rejection of a product. It was our opinion that reference to ASTM F -1216 adequately provided for that, but experiences encountered since the opening of bids have suggested otherwise. In addition, we feel that other technical elements of the specification may not be clearly identifiable to all reliable products on the market. Also, much of the information required for submittal with • the bids was not provided by the two lowest bidders. We therefore have concluded that the specification should be re -written and the project re -bid. It should be noted that receiving multiple bids for a CIPP project is very difficult, since there are so few contractors and manufacturers that perform this work. It is has been the experience of all other municipal CIPP projects in Minnesota, to the best of our knowledge, that they have typically received only one bidder. It was therefore somewhat difficult to write a specification that would encourage multiple bidding and still provide for a quality product. The specification used for this project was very similar to specifications written for similar projects by other municipalities in Minnesota. We therefore were extremely pleased to receive 3 bids for this project. This may be attributed at least in part, to the large size of the project (nearly $1 million dollars). It is our understanding that this particular project is one of the two largest CIPP projects ever bid in the State of Minnesota. For the past several weeks, the City Engineer has also contacted other cities locally, and across the nation to investigate the experiences of others. Locally, there have not been any similar experiences discovered. As previously mentioned, CIPP related projects have been on a smaller scale locally, and normally have received only one bidder. However, many times these local projects have also provided for alternative rehabilitation methods (i.e. open cutting, slip forming, etc.). Alternative methods were not considered feasible for our project here in Brooklyn Center, due to the dangers, costs, and potential delays encountered by those methods. • Nationally, there are other cities that perform extensive amounts of CIPP projects. Of the cities contacted that perform large projects or large amounts of CIPP work, they typically "pre - qualify" a product and /or contractor, or hire consultants to test the products themselves. Among these cities are Houston, TX and Nashville, TN. It can be concluded, that based on the many nation -wide contacts by the City Engineer, it is typical to qualify or identify a product prior to the bid rather Request For Council Consideration Page 4 than after the bids have been opened. The City of Brooklyn Center's original specification could • therefore also be considered deficient in that regard. SUMMARY It is recommended that the City Council authorize rejecting of bids and re- advertising of this project. The specifications have been rewritten to ensure that only a proven, reliable, and verifiable product will be utilized, and that a fair and open competitive bid is provided. Because this product is required and expected to last for at least 50 years, the ensuring of a product's reliability has never been more crucial. This is especially true considering that the sewer serves approximately 40% of the City, and once the CIPP lining pipe is installed, it is very difficult, if not impossible to remove. It must also be emphasized that this project is extremely critical in providing for the service and safety and welfare of the City of Brooklyn Center for many years. Because of the continuing deterioration of the existing sewer pipe, past repair experiences, and potential property risk to the public, it is extremely important that this project proceed and be completed as soon as possible. • • �(j S JSC INTERNATIONAL ENGINE PIPE AND PIPELINES 1313 GARY WAY CARMICHAEL, CA 95608 PHONE (916) 483 -8170 FAX (916) 483 -4462 July 28, 1995 Mr. Scott Brink City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pky. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 Dear Mr. Brink: The following is a letter report pertaining to an evaluation of the current Superliner submittal to Brooklyn Center. • Items that will be addressed in this overview are as follows: 1. Wicking 2. Liner seam 3. Material elongation 4. Leakage 5. Superliner Design Report 6. Reconstruction of Sewers document 7. Conduit Technologies, July 7, 1995 letter to Cit 8. Lockwood, Andrews & Newman report, "Review of Superliner" The following details are provided: 1. Wicking The OCF, Mark Greenwood, June 11, 1993 letter is basically a generic or conceptual rendition indicating that fiberglass laminates do not wick. There is no indication that any testing had been completed on the Superliner product, generation 1 or 2 (current). He also provided a disclaimer in the letter indicating "no expressed or implied warrantee for the Superliner product ". Mr. S. Brink July 28, 1995 Page 2 The Bayex, July 20, 1995 letter again addresses the fiberglass reinforcement wicking problem. Generally indicating wicking occurred during the 50's and 60 and has been resolved since. Nothing specific on Superliner was indicated. 2. Liner Seam The Bayex, July 20, 1995 letter indicates that the liner seam is as strong or stronger than the body of the material. There is no indication that the testing was done on the new Superliner product. 3. Material elongation The Bayex, July 20, 1995 letter indicates that the liner will not stretch longitudinally. The place- ment of the unidirectional fiberglass will only stretch circumferentially. This is good in one respect that longitudinal distortion will not occur. In another respect, it is not good in that wrinkles may occur more readily on the inside of a curvili- near pipeline. 4. Leakage The AOC, July 13, 1995 letter indicates that the new generation liner is less porous than the older gen- eration liner. This implies that the old liner had a tendency for leakage. This has been verified in the field on several projects and during the Louisiana Tech University testing completed during 1994. The John F. Molina, Ph.D.', July 15, 1995 letter provided other information indicating changes in the new liner resin system providing a +19 si Y P g P g hydrostatic tightness which the old liner was apparently incapable of. The Conduit Technologies, July 17, 1995 letter indicates problems, e.g. styrene boiling during the curing process was experienced with the old liner. They also indicated that the new liner curing process is completed at lower acceptable temperatures. Mr. S. Brink July 28, 1995 Page 3 5. Superliner Design Report The calculations procedure is complete and apparently accurate except as follows. The liner stress and modulus values used are the same as the old liner values. This means that the new liner has the same initial and long term values as the old liner, or that new liner values have not been de- veloped at this time. They may indicate that this is a conservative procedure and this may be true. However, new values must be developed guaranteeing the user of long term (50 year) characteristics. Also, the trench width B = 1.75' is not correct. A value more like B = 4.00' should be used. Also, the Ring- Bending Stress formula may or may not be correct. It was taken from AWWA C -950 for "Fiberglass Pipe ". The formula is probably more conservative and is apparently being used because the liner is fiberglass. 6. Reconstruction of Sewers document The Superliner does not meet the ASTM F -1216 Installation Practice Standard. Also, during the Curing of Liner suitable monitors should be provided for temperature control, along with pressure control. Residual or condensed water should be removed during the curing process in that water inhibits proper cure. 7. Contec, July 7, 1995 letter to City Reference is made to the experience of the old liner. The new liner apparently has little if any installation experience. Also indicated is that the Automated Impregnation Equipment is in the final stages of design. Therefore, it is assumed that impregnation is currently being completed with the old mechanical system. Also, in the "to whom it may concern" information notice is that the state -of- the -art manufacturing facility has completed its design phase and construction is yet to be completed. Flex Creep test data was included, dated May 31, 1994. The initial test specimens range between Mr. S. Brink July 28, 1995 Page 4 895,000 and 1,067,000 psi (Flexural Modulus) . Also, long term 10,000 hour values range between 408,000 and 485,000 psi. These values should be extrapol- ated to 100,000 hours and 50 years. The 50 year value should be extrapolated on log -log paper. This indicates a lower long term value than used in the design calculations. Also, this is a regression coefficient of approximately 0.45. These values should be developed as installed in a host cylinder, etc. In other words, an existing buckling restraint or enhancement factor should be developed. It should be noted that the Springborn Laboratories, May 31, 1994 documented hours value has be doctored. It was apparently a typo and this should be verified. 8. LAN Report, review of Superliner This report was apparently an overview of the old liner. Conceptually, it can be used, however, this should be taken into consideration. It should be noted that on page 7 the City of Houston desires that the resin migrate at the service connection for sealing purposes. The procedure to accomplish this with Superliner is unclear. Summary The review of documents indicates that the new Superliner product is better that the old. Installation of the new liner is virtually nil and referring to the experience of the old liner is not appropriate. Also, the old liner experienced several performance problems and is inappropriate to use. Recommendations It is hereby recommended that the new Superliner perhaps be utilized on a test installation. It is also suggested that an above ground robotic service cut be made with the new liner. The circumference of the cut should be evaluated regarding resin /lam- inate quality i.e., total resin wet -out and no damage to the laminate. Mr. S. Brink July 27, 1995 Page 5 It is normally inappropriate to test a new product on a major project such as the one currently under consideration. This of course is the City of Brooklyn Center's decision. If any questions or comments are desired on this report, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely submitted, �B. ay Schr, BJS:mdl Y"ariYlaG1 . �. y :aYiCf•f6:�= � > v.sr . �. - -_" s .......... ,,,,,.r ....... . ..:.... >rm....,......_. ,_.� ,... .. -. Q LU{ V *flu O+t A ♦ N i F � � O O j d ,5 :�• <i d "�r0d -o[tp 1'- ° / � ]:.r . •�e '' r 1. ICS2 d• - o .L � .. Jft ''( U & w¢ �w W y n Y u L t 1, •• \ .�, `4 :Y• a ! 4) N \ �\ ' ` f p r t t,�� ^� 1t �K k \ �C�t °1 , / �� '� z a " , W = c •{ z u ,� _•t ° o .G B $ J V. 5 a. �v ` Y {fr 1� *ty y: O O N I \•... •�\ Z J / '. �O �2 .. .�( 1 )1�' h�'�,.. Leh ; . \. . l F..t ... �'-�"• n,r,�l y. 1 4if ) Q y/ •z L Z H Lij ' O •p. _,.... - ' • �'N / ! x i O� 'r t � y ec ( :rl L 4 W o. R: i� a i N 1 ° �i. ' t 4l�I" s U a 1 / - / � a . � r m ♦ t t f - �o - '" 1 .P' � / d r 0 rt :i /•., � v'.' r'' ' j... �• O 'J �9Qi.,�, ,,/ N.�% ��' ^,. ��: r: ia• , , r,; , � . a n, 1 g' Q rl � 1 f 1. ; i... �...I �•f �: :,. ,, _� + `K W t ! Y 1 1 1 monk n O I� c� —� - �rj ��/8 y �, ; ` t ., �$■ I �� I1� }, �s �i { t = W II' UJ .1 'T �� j '�+ {11 � 4,, fit.. ",. ;y.S 1 R 1 -� ...� 'fCZ7sb :,iSJ.� B LU • ' L J l ' J111 .;�'. �1HL ;r�: '�,y° lob e.R� C J,I, i, t t n �d1e .I6Qh•j� + �.,} `� d ��! q i J ILI ' 1 � Q � v �, v ' {`v + � � ., ���,�'. ...�,+' � � s� �..� 17...E �p ;i Ct� �o= B b T ! Y �, 4 .c.[ o J^ o d � 1 N , w , .. .� �� f o y +° r >. \+$, i . ^ _ ; . q. , a�• ! .>. �, ' � 1j{{��!• i 1 . } ' 9� �/ t • < 1 : Zo O O 011011 �� � . ..`� � r 8 •.� __w ...,.._ _� •o- - j „R ,o r �,rz: ,���- �qI _�, �! _ X , 1._C !Y w n J w ' Ek1t MZ + .x , .W, d l D ' .a; 4ye.6 ov a 1 - 7 • .. _ .. .. pi { .. .... - L w k�3z -+ ♦ C w.� �' a . v' , � ; ay Y - F.DO j - �. n a t(P 3 r 1os4 .. - • + 'x • -. i C :`} -, C w NIN, C II ;.: b a � � : • l � �, . 1� ,. �� � � �.�, Y \; � � Etif ;p= ifi{Yo if- ti -^ i � � k 2 ; j l :' t °'` •.' t+ ,-j . Z':Y,_K��.\ 1 Yi I _, h I.jfi 7 1 x 1 _�4.,..c r 1 l; j Y 1_ + Y 7 l tl M• ,� � ..._ -..: .... .. .. ... - y• 44 ,0 �rjF y po►pt osi.o a os c, ; � , k nv i� „ ;,. � , N•.,, I w , ." a { 'F 4 ! II' R _ _ a,�`�b' x ° - o:;o� �i�� ; I. ;r`\ �� { { q � � �o�';�i:.€i` }� � * i I i ••a w ti� a- n� _nom r i �• �_- , I IJNIM l,,,�< '1 y j 3arJ Y/!I1 .hS j. l ... 4�t Q 1... ,Sa'C` ovot nr,iM .I O _ ...o j� _ I l J �ifl��� { 'A^ eye iR Sn Y .� :r4 I�. I.'G , i ... r _ i ' \.�•:. N� it0 • � -Zj � - +Lt • b Y • Iii � C ,p 2 O 4 • a��° I - na i7VH + �i_ ' i'•. I �P }' .0 :O[t.8 t-f�Ib B fif0_B.00[O� "ta4•.. I �` '1 a�• 'nw1 ;t•� + z !a }�{ 1 {�1,1!.C ��.- P... i � ! W , <.. • I ` • w vl:!'1 1 1 �•'% WW ? w I... 1, 7T Q q St �.! ♦ w n j o. e y ,.:.w. w �n • w i i $ n �i�s.. : !`}' j A.6►L °� ' l ±.. ,. �:`r'aT a F �: r• w i n I Y�' W • w_.. ,. 3 .'" ,,� 1, + ° Off- n ; 'r O' i VY4if.. ,// r �.• :•1� L. .1 . n..i .dn J.: MlJ r. r f.Ty { Z N Q( 0 ... ._ ,_. :. �_ °__ A. .: C. ar •,'Tn ;: ) d n,. �1 d- _..,.,: 4 d _ Q.. n h �7�, T 60 ¢m ,T it m p "�9: =4fO /., \ f0. Bcbf.i. 9-.Oii.R t -biL n ..:� r r ; : J ., ;�, d . z . �� t . 1.. j1- , �•;tt��:t ' ' ,o . y " N :- _ 1 • 1'9 s a /,,, ?,(`<S4�Lfo ra r•, .� 1 c•. j.� a i,� .y :t 2t b.o i {f�'Q•; 1tr , � y si £ R �.; �11yff1 �' , I 1 rR ,y- B.: Ifd.0 .lj , _ .Rl '.� t u' P _; .. J...+ ✓n - 'Vli- 't't7i.•1ir1..: ILL tl - -. m i • � . o ._: � d'i ' � _. � 'J `.: , I .f •: ' ♦., 4v,� { l t t?! .X ��•¢ ,i... i' L.r U v `J tl rSI: . a f 7i FA -1 ;i �'.. '{� I * O {I'd°C • �J ^ r �. ¢ Y : � , ,. , _ ,� :r �: , .� 1. V .> , ^ i.Z � •' i•� Si '�.�.. T ... MIY.. I Mt...... _�. �_. v _i.._:, -.! o . >.. � ' :. . dt l •�:♦1 � ' ,10 { : �.� '. :.J� 1 '> � ' n` �- f 7 J � J i P`.�r.�Y:' � i0 _, 0�� ., rn � I I RQ B ddEbl =iit B•:soE�B -oo v �6")i 8"sal � �� � o ,. "' 7w ro W `" I "d: .w v -: r.' ._.i..t :114.3- 8}tCQ:p1 hiv yJi { Q +J r( T'•Z x tio0 Iw : 1 �' { �..{ ' '. �.� �4 L ':i W ♦ :1r .v ,p t ,r„ f 1 ' J.. r '.N: � ♦ ♦ v I f (y` 'a>J 4 oi= x - 4�.ii�,�• - 1 {-�..� s _ i7t « :Inv � .... � l 1 # � •,� y ' x � , 0i i $ ♦ $� �-.' Y" ` N'` 4� ii 1 ; t o i" m y t_ .. +� 7 f j L {+ �.lf .� aniwu i�i+o`rf� e f 11 �„ "- o -� o w- B poi 6.I_oo o° w w �' la r 1 w.}r ♦o t3tS:li {I o I' 4nv Q Y p n � ; ; �;, .., I I�Lr • �. N ' q`` .a 1 ^ Q A o in � : N ' i �I t�� ?�a i Mts 1+111' N � � i ± 1 � „ ��. � ✓.> K ��` r . / 1� , rl '� }�40 -1601 ...- 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1995 -11, CONTRACT 1995 -E, CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SANITARY SEWER TRUNK RELINING WHEREAS, the City Council on April 10, 1995 per Resolution 95 -102, established Improvement Project No. 1995 -11 and authorized preparation of plans and specifications; and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 24, 1995 per Resolution 95 -110, approved plans and specifications and authorized advertisement for bids; and WHEREAS, bids were opened for Improvement Project Number 1995 -11, Contract 1995 -E on June 15, 1995; and WHEREAS, the City Council has since tabled the award of a contract to any bidder; and WHERAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and specifications and bids submitted, and determined that it is in the City's best interest to reject all bids, rewrite the plans and specifications and re-bid said project; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared and rewritten the plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 1995 -11, Contract 1995 -E, Corrugated Metal Pipe Sanitary Sewer Trunk Relining. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. All bids submitted to the City on June 15, 1995 are hereby rejected. 2. The revised specifications for Contract 1995 -E for said improvement project prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the Deputy City Clerk. 2. The Deputy City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the Deputy City Clerk and the City RESOLUTION NO. Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Deputy City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Meeting Date 8/14/95 3[ City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number O q� F Request For Council Consideration Item Description: Staff Report Re: Proposed 1996 Street Projects Department Approval: Diane Spector, Direc or Public Services Managers Review /Recommendation: , No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: Various Council actions are highlighted in text boxes throughout the report. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) • The Council at its Jul 31 1995 work session reviewed r t July proposed 1996 street and utility projects. The purpose of tonight's item is to formally establish potential 1996 projects and begin the process of preparing feasibility studies and receiving public input. Establishing a project and directing the preparation of a feasibility report does not commit the Council to ordering any of these projects. Each will be studied on its own merit, and considered at public information meetings and one or more public hearings. Some of these projects are proposed to be funded from a combination of special assessments, public utility funds, and municipal state aid for street construction funds. Others are proposed to be funded from a combination of special assessments, public utility funds, and general tax levy supported bonds. These proposed bonds would first have an impact on the 1997 levy. Should the Council desire to proceed on any or all of the proposed projects, the following would be the proposed schedule. Prior to conducting any fieldwork, a letter would be sent to all residents in the effected areas advising them that an improvement project is being considered, and that informational meetings would be held in the coming months. Residential Projects August /September, 1995 Televise sewers, study soils, collect initial information September, 1995 Initial neighborhood informational meetings to introduce projects August /October, 1995 Survey crew preliminary and field work October, 1995 Preliminary feasibility report to Council . November, 1995 Additional neighborhood informational meetings December, 1995 Project and assessment hearings* *As in the Woodbine project, assessments would not begin accruing interest until after the projects are substantially complete Request For Council Consideration Page 2 Commercial projects • August /September, 1995 Televise sewers, study soils, collect initial information September /October, 1995 Survey crew field work October /November, 1995 Feasibility report to Council December, 1995 Project and assessment hearings, State Aid approvals This timeline is somewhat accelerated from previous years. The primary reason is that on larger projects the Engineering staff does not begin preparing final plans and specifications until after the project has been ordered. In past years, the project hearings were held in March or even April, which made it very difficult to complete plans and specifications for bidding the project in May. Getting the plans out in such a short time requires working substantial overtime nights and weekends. The extra time under the proposed schedule will assure that Engineering staff have time to catch all the small details that can get forgotten or fall through the cracks, or are left to "We'll just have to deal with that in the field." The following are the proposed projects for 1996: Orchard Lane East This project area is shown on Figure 1. In general, it includes all the streets north of 63rd Avenue to the freeway, from Marlin Drive to Orchard Avenue. The project would also include fairly extensive storm sewer construction, including the construction of a proposed pond in the northeast corner of Orchard Lane Park. Sanitary sewers need to be televised to determine the extent of work which needs to be done, and water mains • "potholed" to determine condition and need for possible repairs or replacement. This area includes approximately 4.3 miles of streets. Using an average per street cost, the estimated cost of street improvements, including replacement of street lighting and additional landscaping, is about $1.6 million. The estimated levy impact of bonds issued to pay for the non - assessed portion of the project cost is $125,000. The current residential special assessment rate of $1,700 represents about 35 percent of the project cost. Increasing the rate, as the Council in November, 1994 suggested, to $1,850 for 1996 would increase the rate to about 38 percent. These percentages of project cost are based on very preliminary cost estimates, and include generous contingencies. Prior to making any decisions about special assessments, I suggest the Council allow staff to prepare the preliminary feasibility report, which will include refining the cost estimates. If the Council directs staff to proceed with neighborhood meetings, we will present the 1995 assessment rates, but will make clear to the residents that the rates could very well increase for 1996. The primary reason for proposing this area is the storm drainage system needs, however, many of the streets in this neighborhood also are recommended for reconstruction under the Pavement Management Program. This neighborhood area has historically experienced extensive localized flooding problems. The detailed storm drainage analysis conducted for the pond at the park and ride site indicated that the 65th Avenue trunk line which serves most of the middle portion of the City, from the west City limits to Shingle Creek, was severely under capacity, which would be only partially alleviated by the park and ride pond. Preliminary designs for the park and ride pond prepared in 1993 indicated a need to consider ponds at Orchard Lane Park and at Marlin Park. Further analysis showed that not only was the idea of a pond at Marlin Park unpopular with the neighborhood and with the Park and Recreation Commission, it wouldn't provide much storm water capacity improvement. • However, the proposed pond at Orchard Lane Park, constructed approximately where the ball diamond is currently located, would provide a substantial improvement in storm water quantity and quality. This option was reviewed a few years ago by the Park and Recreation Commission, however, what would be proposed for 1996 is somewhat different than what the Commission reviewed. It is proposed to move the ball diamond Request For Council Consideration Page 3 to the approximate location of the ice rink, and use the pond area for the skating rink in the winter (see • Figure 2). The shelter building is used as a warming house; during the feasibility study we will review the possibility to relocating or reconstructing the shelter building to improve its usefulness and its convenience to the relocated facilities. The Park and Recreation Commission should again review the proposed physical changes to the park for consistency with the park and recreation policy plan, and with park needs. If the Council desires to further consider this area for 1996, it should consider the following actions at this time: 1) Consider a resolution establishing the projects, accepting quotes for sewer televising and soil borings, and directing staff to develop a preliminary feasibility report. 2) Direct staff to specifically review the proposed changes to Orchard Lane Park with the Park and Recreation Commission and the neighborhood residents. 3) Direct staff to hold informational meetings with the neighborhood. James /67th Avenues Mill and Overlay James Avenue from Freeway Boulevard to 67th, and 67th from James Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway are in poor condition (see Figure 3). According to the Pavement Management Program, these streets can no • longer benefit from sealcoating, and should be overlaid. Accordingly, it is proposed to construct this improvement in 1996. The estimated cost of this project is $145,000. According to the City's Special Assessment Policy, abutting property owners in commercial districts would be assessed 70 percent of the non - utility portion of the project cost, with the balance funded by either regular of local state aid funds. It's estimated at this time that the assessment rate on this project would be about $0.12 per square foot, compared to just over $0.10 for the Shingle Creek Parkway project. Local state aid would fund about $35,000, with the various utility funds contributing about $35,000. If the Council desires to further consider this area for 1996, it should consider the following actions: 1) Consider a resolution establishing the project, and directing staff to prepare a feasibility report. John Martin/Earle Brown Drive Mill and Overlay John Martin Drive and Earle Brown Drive from John Martin to Summit are in poor condition (see Figure 4). According to the Pavement Management Program, these streets can no longer benefit from sealcoating, and should be overlaid. Accordingly, it is proposed to construct this improvement in 1996. • The estimated cost of this project is $160,000. According to the City's Special Assessment Policy, abutting property owners in commercial districts would be assessed 70 percent of the non- utility portion of the project cost, with the balance funded by either regular or local state aid funds. It is estimated at this time that the Request For Council Consideration Page 4 assessment rate on this project would be about $0.12 per square foot, compared to just over $0.10 for the • Shingle Creek Parkway project. These two streets are currently classified as commercial collectors, and should be considered for municipal state aid designation, along with Summit. One advantage of the MSA designation is that funds are provided from the state gas tax to assist in paying maintenance costs, and to finance construction and reconstruction. Each City has a certain amount of mileage it can designate. Earlier this year the Council will recall it approved undesignating a portion of 67th Avenue, and then moving the designation to 73rd Avenue between Humboldt and Dupont. There is another "dead route," 62nd Avenue from Dupont to Camden, which should also be undesignated to clean up the system. This should release enough miles to allow for these commercial routes to be designated. The procedure for this is for the City Engineer to request the Metro State Aid Engineer to review the plan. Upon receiving his approval, the Council would by resolution request the State Commissioner of Transportation to approve the change. If the Council designates these streets as MSA routes, then regular state aid may be used to pay the costs of this project, rather than local state aid. Under the special assessment policy, assessments would still be levied. If the Council desires to further consider this area for 1996, it should consider the following actions: 1) Consider a resolution establishing the project, and directing staff to prepare a feasibility report. 2) By motion, direct the City Engineer to contact the Metro State Aid Engineer and request that he • review undesignating 62nd Avenue as an MSA route, and designating Summit, John Martin, and Earle Brown Drives as MSA routes. 57th Avenue and Logan/James /Knox The City Council in 1994 approved consideration of a project on 57th Avenue, from Logan to Camden. For a number of reasons, this project has been tabled twice. The project is now tentatively scheduled for 1996. As discussed at the July 31 work session, staff recommends that we continue to "chip away at" improving the residential streets in the Southeast area, even if it means improving a few blocks at a time. Because the area of Irving/Humboldt /Girard from 53rd to 57th is currently being studied as a part of the Hennepin Community Works Humboldt Parkway proposal, no improvements on those streets are proposed for 1996. However, staff recommends that the Council consider improving Logan Avenue from 53rd to 57th, James and Knox Avenues from 55th to 57th, and 54th, 55th, and 56th. Since we reconstructed James/Knox /54th in 1994, this would complete the area from James to Logan, 53rd to 57th (see Figure 5). In 1994 the Council awarded a contract for professional services for 57th Avenue to Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH). Because SEH has already completed much of the storm drainage analysis for this area,if the Council is interested in adding several additional blocks of street improvements it may be most cost - effective to request a proposal from SEH to extend their contract to cover professional design services for this area as well. This area could then be rolled into a single construction contract with 57th Avenue, and let • separately from the Orchard Lane East project. This may be a strategy to look at for future years when the Council is interested in accelerating street improvements: utilizing City engineering staff on some neighborhood projects, and consultant services on other neighborhood projects. Request For Council Consideration Page 5 The estimated cost of this project is $550,000. Both 57th Avenue and Logan Avenue are State Aid routes, so • funding is available from regular state aid to help finance a portion of the project. The remainder would be financed through a combination of special assessments, public utility funds, and bonds. The estimated levy impact of the financing for this project is $25,000, beginning in 1997. If the Council desires to further consider this area for 1996, it should consider the following actions: 1) Consider a resolution expanding the 57th Avenue project, accepting quotes for sewer televising and soil borings, and directing staff to develop a preliminary feasibility report. 2) Direct staff to obtain a proposal from SEH for professional services for design and construction management of the additional residential area. 3) Direct staff to hold informational meetings with the neighborhood. 73rd Avenue, Humboldt to Camden The Council has previously authorized this project, and it has been tabled pending completion of Humboldt Avenue, 69th to 73rd. The project will be revived, and will follow the same schedule as set out above. • Other Projects On Wednesday, August 9 staff met with a design engineer for the City of Minneapolis regarding Minneapolis' 1996 project in the neighborhood south of the golf course. Brooklyn Center has a few streets in that vicinity, notably Xerxes Avenue, which is shared jurisdiction with Minneapolis from 49th to 53rd; 53rd, shared jurisdiction from Thomas to Xerxes; Lilac Drive and Vincent from 53rd to Lilac; and 51st, Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes. The purpose of the meeting was to review Minneapolis' plans for the area, however, we did discuss options for completing those streets the same time as Minneapolis is working on its large project. If the Council is interested in constructing those streets, the next step is to direct staff to work with the Minneapolis Director of Engineering to review various options and make a recommendation to the Council. Variations include who would do the engineering design, would Brooklyn Center roll those streets into its own construction contract, would Brooklyn Center contract with Minneapolis to have its forces complete the work, etc. At this time we have no cost estimates, nor any other information, however, as a note 51st Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes is a State Aid street. If the Council desires to further consider this area for 1996, it should consider the following actions: 1. Direct staff to review options with the City of Minneapolis and bring those options and a recommendation to the Council for its consideration. • 0 �l Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1996 -01, 02, AND 03, STREET, UTILITY, AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, ORCHARD LANE EAST AREA, ACCEPTING QUOTES FOR SEWER TELEVISING AND SOIL BORINGS, AND DIRECTING DEVELOPMENT OF A PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT WHEREAS, the City's Pavement Management Program indicates that many of the streets in an area of the city known as Orchard Lane East can no longer benefit from sealcoating and other routine maintenance, and should be considered for reconstruction; and WHEREAS, a detailed storm drainage analysis of the subwatershed in which Orchard Lane East is located indicates that substantial storm drainage improvements should be considered for this area to relieve drainage capacity problems and to provide for storm water treatment; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to consider street, drainage, and utility improvements in this neighborhood to be constructed in 1996; and WHEREAS, quotes have been obtained for sewer televising and soil borings as follows; and Televising: Visu -Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. $5,097.31 Infratech 5,952.88 Solidification, Inc. 6,133.27 Soil borings: STS Consultants Ltd. $3,495.00 American Engineering Testing Inc. 3,731.25 WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Capital Improvements Fund, the MSA Construction Fund, the Public Utilities Funds, or the Special Assessment Construction Fund, on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax - exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments, or utility fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project Nos. 1996 -01, 02, and 03, Orchard Lane East Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, are hereby established. The project area includes all streets from Marlin Drive to Orchard Avenue, from 63rd Avenue to I -694. RESOLUTION NO. 2. The proposal as submitted by Visu -Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. of St, Louis Park, MN in the amount of $5,097.31 to perform sanitary and storm sewer televising in this project area is hereby accepted. The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Visu -Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. for said sewer televising. 3. The proposal by STS Consultants Ltd. of Minneapolis, MN in the amount of $3,495 to perform soil testing and analysis in this project area is hereby accepted. The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with STS Consultants Ltd. for said soil study. 4. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to assemble and develop such information as may be necessary to develop a reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, financing options, and feasibility reports for the above established projects. 5. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to conduct informational meetings as necessary in the above described neighborhood to introduce the proposed project, and to present the findings of the preliminary reports. 6. Staff is hereby directed to report the results of said informational meetings to the City Council for further consideration of possible improvement projects. 7. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for u oses of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and an P rP rY g Y successor law, regulation, or ruling. gu Img. This resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2, or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against ai g ns the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. g Fa Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1996 -04, JAMES /67TH AVENUES MILL AND OVERLAY WHEREAS, the City's Pavement Management Program indicates that James Avenue, Freeway Boulevard to 67th Avenue, and 67th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway to James Avenue, can no longer benefit from sealcoating and other routine maintenance, and should be considered for resurfacing; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to consider street, drainage, and utility improvements in this area to be constructed in 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1996 -04, James /67th Avenues Mill and Overlay, is hereby established. The project area includes James Avenue, Freeway Boulevard to 67th Avenue, and 67th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway to James Avenue. 2. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to assemble and develop such information as may be necessary to develop a reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, financing options, and feasibility reports for the above established projects. 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. FF3 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1996 -05, JOHN MARTIN /EARLE BROWN DRIVES MILL AND OVERLAY WHEREAS, the City's Pavement Management Program indicates that John Martin Drive, Shingle Creek Parkway to TH100, and Earle Brown Drive, John Martin Drive to Summit, can no longer benefit from sealcoating and other routine maintenance, and should be considered for resurfacing; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to consider street, drainage, and utility improvements in this area to be constructed in 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project No. 1996 -05, John Martin/Earle Brown Drives Mill and Overlay, is hereby established. The project area includes John Martin Drive, Shingle Creek Parkway to TH100, and Earle Brown Drive, John Martin Drive to Summit. 2. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to assemble and develop such information as may be necessary to develop a reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, financing options, and feasibility reports for the above established projects. 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. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1996 -06, 07, AND 08, STREET, UTILITY, AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, JAMES AND KNOX AVENUES, 55TH TO 57TH, AND LOGAN AVENUE, 53RD TO 57TH, ACCEPTING QUOTES FOR SEWER TELEVISING AND SOIL BORINGS, AND DIRECTING DEVELOPMENT OF A PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT WHEREAS, the City's Pavement Management Program indicates that many of the streets in the Southeast area of the city can no longer benefit from sealcoating and other routine maintenance, and should be considered for reconstruction; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to consider street, drainage, and utility improvements on Logan Avenue, 53rd to 57th; Knox Avenue, 55th to 57th; James Avenue, 55th to 57th; 54th Avenue, Logan to Knox; 55th Avenue, Logan to James; and 56th Avenue, Logan to James; to be constructed in 1996; and WHEREAS, quotes have been obtained for sanitary sewer televising and soil borings as follows; and Televising: Visu -Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. $1,447.04 Infratech 1,689.92 Solidification, Inc. 1,741.13 Soil borings: STS Consultants Ltd. $1,165.00 American Engineering Testing Inc. 1,243.75 WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Capital Improvements Fund, the MSA Construction Fund, the Public Utilities Funds,or the Special Assessment Construction Fund, on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax- exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments, or utility fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project Nos. 1996 -06, 07, and 08, Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, James and Knox Avenues, 55th to 57th, and Logan Avenue, 53rd to 57th are hereby established. The project area includes Logan Avenue, 53rd to 57th; Knox Avenue, 55th to 57th; James Avenue, 55th to 57th; 54th Avenue, Logan to Knox; 55th Avenue, Logan to James; and 56th Avenue, Logan to James. RESOLUTION NO. 2. The proposal as submitted by Visu -Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. of St. Louis Park, MN in the amount of $1,447.04 to perform sanitary and storm sewer televising in this project area is hereby accepted. The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Visu -Sewer Clean and Seal, Inc. for said sewer televising. 3. The proposal as submitted by STS Consultants Ltd. of Minneapolis, MN in the amount of $1,165 to perform soil testing and analysis in this project area is hereby accepted. The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with STS Consultants for said soil study. 4. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to obtain a quote from consulting engineers Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH), currently under contract with the city to provide engineering design and construction services for the 57th Avenue, Logan to Camden project, to assemble and develop such information as may be necessary to develop a reliable needs evaluation and cost estimates, financing options, and feasibility reports for the above established projects. 5. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to conduct informational meetings as necessary in the above described neighborhood to introduce the proposed project, and to present the findings of the preliminary reports. 6. Staff is hereby directed to report the results of said informational meetings to the City Council for further consideration of possible improvement projects. 7. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2, or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. 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. • ,1/ 1111/111 ���� �1 /111 :� r� �' r1 111 .�1111� 11� 1111 ►,�► �� M . - • - :111111 1111111 !I ��► /, ` - ''� p � : "'11!1!1 1111/11 � 11 � •.► I � // —. 111 � ♦� .....� � : 111 - � � : ii - i11�1 : i■� III ww •� - 1111 w w ww � -■� ■ ■111111 . � ����■ i111 /1 // 1111111 -� � /11111 i ii a !1 ©111! �1 -� ��"" �� i� ■11��1111 ME 111!1111 �11�; -• 1/11 ■Ill 111! ` � �� 11111 1 11 1111 1111111111 11111 IIIIIi�v', 1111 ,, ' ; lIIIIIIE� 1111111 a • Is� !1 IIIII� 11l1111�� '��� � i � r ,.. ■ .�� 1111 � � „' 1 1111 ��ii. ♦ i.+ ..�.� 1111 / - �•i� �.► ��'�i ill/ 11111111 � :C •"•: ! ■�'�► �► 11� !'.111�1� . 1111111 ■-� ""'�"' �,. ,. ♦�►V►�� �� .. �. 11111111■ ��\ _ , R ,► ■ 1111- 1111111111 � l�i���•�• +� ; , �� • INNER 111111 1. � � �1!!ii! /11/111: 11111 '�'��i�i / 111111/ 1 ... � � : i1i111 /111 ►. = �ii11!!l /;; . 11� �i�11 111 11111111. . ; ��� .- ■ .•- 11 1111 X111/ . � :: ::::��11111►� :: 11111111111 1 1 111111 1!11111/ ■ • •• •• -► •• ° . � '� �'.... . :�ilY Ii 's' .. IIIi �`• 1 1111! 1 .... -� . I!1 1 1II " /► �► 11111111! ..••• •- ���■ !1111 1 /111111 11111111 : ; : : :: ,1■i l �■ . �,� !1111 111111! + ; � � -:• •.: " � - 1111� 1111!11\ \1111 � � � .: � ' :: �1111� ► � 1 � � i � � � i � III�Iq�41u1 � i i r ■■ �� ■■ .Ii1ii11�� �■ ■■ ■1■ s ► 11111 ►�qi� :: ;; � . � I�111111 /' /! � 111111 1111!11 ;�iir 98 90 75 163 303.6 --- -- - - -- 9 Q 49) 6 N (48) M 7 6 ^� 900 (47) ' (46) ti oti� 9818 65 9$12 4805 \ ` OL A 90 N60•s4.�.w 7s zs 5 tV��S. Bt . 2 (45) �? S 4800 m POND `� r o S 1 35.36 o °;+n ' \ : 30.06 6 p 123.06 LOCATION ,y��; - -.. ;� ' \ m cl 4 OUTLOT 1 °' (101) (44) (41) R -so '� ow MISTING 4618 4819 /sue 4b3I / \� .C1�ISTI SIG t 6.16 So•w 2 Lo P 3 �"• M tititi (42) (43) L.ti� �D� — 4813 4807 0 1 � 200 90 6 a ,p5 30 EAST 290 ,yeti 61` rn w 6 RELOCAT \��a1 z `" (zs) SAT,T.FTF.T ( 0) (3} 4619 (Z) 6536 0 39> 27 6530 Z N�0.36, 154.46 65 W 4� 1 1 1.46 108 N O — 14 v 3 s � c^ V 'o 6 ORCHARD LANE A EXLSlT% � X01 rn ;8 Q - , 0 6 © PARK p a; = 6512 6513 OUTLOT ONE N c N � N G � 6506 S r 11.77 6507 --- - - - - -- 90 94.9 NEW Z PLAYGROUND- 10 43 6501 656 50 I 50 1 DOC NO 555161 90 20 30 134.77 135 80 «1) (31) FIGURE 2. co r R } 4 t� to , tax V ` P ME E CN 'N '3AV S3rN DfltMl Dfl f z t K 'N 'VI3 S3rNr pt g Y DNIAH r HUNBDI.DT DT AYE M r r ` n J ' IrUPD AVE. M c S mm O FREMONI AVE. z m g,fRSON AVE. z R a " � DUPDrti AVE. N• • rt I I N -�17J� •N 'y,V XVdIDO W I LJ PILAX AVE _71_".Lr J I I I 1 - I - I � N 3A LNA1l �IT�I�III I I I , 9 � J, 1 ,IIt �II1Ir1tI 1JTF�J�11 DfIYANI AVE. N $ oil all s MG sir /IIt�.►�.� ���� .�� _: ■- -- - m- �� a:,s rum rem -- �� � :� ♦ � � ■� � � s m ■ Ij - _- ■�� M ,, -- �� ��■ ill - ��� mm mm mm mm ME '�!.,i',� I j�� ♦�►;l� X1111 � �l� �� /� � �� �� �::� - _ = — _� �► / ■��� � � w� iii �� = — = = = � - A l l - -, � - _ ., ._. ., . - . 11 111 �� '■ __ 11 111111111111 G %� Vi i! �„ o � 11111 ► ♦i► � +yj� j' iii / _� ,1� ►,. � � � — �1 111111 \�� �� �� ". ��� � ♦ �y � � 11111 ,1 �■ ' ����� � , , �1 �'�►� .: � � � X1111111 ;� . � ��; • - � � - -- 1 �.�1 .111 / ••� '". ■ . � � 111111111/ 111111 � �■■...■ 11 \�. ,. �II�1�11111 �111111� ~11111 �.r.111 : � � un � �� �••• �■ •111 It ��111�I 11 � �� � , � ► �� � i1�1i1 �11111ii viii =Iii � ii � ii�ii �`• � i 111 1/11111/ ®�■ ■■■ ■■■■■ ■ � 1111 111 � , 111 11 IE��1�111 ■■ ■111 111111 i 1 1'1111 � 111 �♦♦ 111111/11 111111■■ ■111■ ■ ■■ ■1111 � i I1 1111 111 • - r 111 :, 1 IIe�1� �■■■� .. 1�1�/ � �■�_ _ 1 11111 11111 IIIII■ ■11 1 ��11111 � 11 1111 ■ ■■ � ♦ ♦�♦�� NO Mfflw 111111 �' 11111 illllllll Iliil ■11111 1 ■■ ■■111 C 1111 � ` 11 111 IIIIIIIIIIII�11 1111 1 1■11111111111 ♦ ♦1111111111 1 � _ —� IIIIIIIii I iil It■ 1111 ■1 ■I !/ 111'1111 11 It �!�_ ♦_� 111■ • ,, 1 11111 1111 1 111 11111 ■■ i l 1111 .1 11111 MINION X ■11 111 ■ 11 111 �111�11 111 ,, �■ I uln a 111 uum nu 111111 X111111 ■ 111 1111 111111 !1!1111111 X11 1111 111111 ■�► • . ', +I � F 1 1111A1111 IIN �111111/111� i � I Ii�1111 �111�11 11111111:111111 1 / �IIIe_ • � ����� �iiii I � � � �� 11111111 �iiiiiii 1111111 =i 11111 :. � ' 11 �� " ■■ � ��� ■■■■■■ 1 111111 11 - - - ?■ . 1111 X111111 ; ,� � i 1 1111 ' ���� 111 111111 1 6111111■■y� II � � �����7��� 111111) � i■■� 11111111 11 111 � /11 /1 ■11111/ 1 • •�� °��: N 11111111 1111 1111 11111111 111111 / �' 1 1111111 111111 .�■ 1 ' , ■�■1�1 ������� � ■ � � , It 11:� ��;��� 111 1111111111 � i�c ` ��i .. -- �� • • � � �1 �IIII(��J���� 111 � � Council Meeting Daze 8/14/95 p 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number O Req For Co uncil Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Commending the Winners of the 1995 Citywide Landscaping Contest Department Approval: Diane Spector, Director o& Services Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached PP re P Recommended City Council Action: A resolution recognizing the winners of the 1995 Landscape and Garden Contest is attached for consideration. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) In our continuing efforts to encourage beautification and enhancement of properties in the City, this year we initiated a landscaping and garden contest. The project was initiated and coordinated by Administrative Aide Joyce Gulseth, who also coordinates beautification efforts such as the Adopt -A -Park program, Residential Reforestation, and the annual Arbor Day programs with local schools. The attached memo from Joyce summarizes the contest. The grand prize winner, Susan Warner of 5655 Humboldt Avenue North, was the unanimous choice of all the judges. Interestingly, most of the entries came from residents in the older parts of the city. The entries were diverse, with many different types of flower gardens and landscaping improvements submitted. We were pleased to have a fair number of entries in the residential division, but received no entries in the commercial division. Building Inspector Janine Atchison promoted the contest through the apartment manager's group, and other commercial properties were contacted, but none chose to enter. We have a number of ideas on how to increase publicity and participation for next year. We are also brainstorming ways of utilizing the expertise of master gardeners in the communities to provide landscaping advice and perhaps some recreational programming. • MEMORANDUM i Date: August 8, 1995 To: Diane Spector Froin: Joyce Gulseth Subject: Landscape and Garden Contest Winners of the first annual Landscape and Garden competition were announced August 3, 1995. While twelve very qualified candidates entered the competition in the residential division, there were no entries in the business division. The judges for the contest were Master Gardeners Doris Wickstrom of Minneapolis and Walter Clausen of Brooklyn Center. Senior Engineering Technician Dave Anderson from the engineering staff also served as a judge. Their task was both enjoyable and difficult as they braved the elements of rain while they judged the properties. The judges were extremely complimentary of all entrants and praised the residents of our community for their gardening and landscaping skills. The Grand Prize winner of the competition is Susan Warner of 5655 Humboldt Avenue North. All three judges gave this entry a 10+ rating out of a possible 10. Careful consideration has been given for disabled persons in establishing the landscaping plan at this property. Susan received a $100 gift certificate to be redeemed within a year at Malmborg's Garden Center. First prize winners in both categories received $50 gift certificates and Second Prize winners received $25 gift certificates from Malmborg's. The winners and their categories are listed on the attachment. All the entrants have created unique masterpieces of art to enhance and improve the environment and quality of life in our community with their gardening and landscaping. Their efforts are appreciated and to be commended. Communications Coordinator Terri Swanson is coordinating efforts to provide winners with recognition on Cable 12, the Brooklyn Center SunPost and the Home & Garden section of the StarTribune. Looking forward to next year's contest, I see a need to review the criteria to consider enhancements to the competition. Possible consideration for additional categories may include youth or junior gardener, water gardening, wildflower gardening, etc. Promotion of the event will be more widespread with the distribution of flyers early in the planting season at all nurseries in Brooklyn Center as well as surrounding communities. We will work more closely with the business community to instill interest in that division. For a first year effort, P I was excited with the level of participation. artici ation. I am optimistic about next year and am convinced this is an excellent tool to give recognition to residents in our community for their involvement in beautification and their concern for the environment. THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THE FOLLOWING WINNERS OF THE 1995 LANDSCAPE AND GARDEN CONTEST GRAND PRIZE SUSAN WARNER 5655 Humboldt Avenue North FIRST PRIZE — FLOWER GARDEN ELMER PETERSON 5350 Logan Avenue North SECOND PRIZE — FLOWER GARDEN LUCILLE JENNRICH 5413 James Avenue North FIRST PRIZE — LANDSCAPING JOHN & CHRISTINE ZIMMERMANN 5533 France Avenue North SECOND PRIZE — LANDSCAPING KAYLA & CRAIG MOEN 1313 57th Avenue North E it The City of Brooklyn Center is proud to announce its first annual Landscape and Garden competition. You can nominate yourself or a neighbor. Anyone with a green thumb qualifies. Awards will be presented in August to the top two contestants in two categories —Best Flower Garden and Best Landscaping. The contest will feature two divisions: Residential and Business. The criteria for the awards includes: Flower Garden: Landscaping: Must be visible from the street Must have a positive visual impact on the Must feature primarily flowering plants immediate neighborhood Must create a visually significant, summer -long display of flowers Both: Must be in the Brooklyn Center city limits Should pose no problems for the sidewalk or street Property must be well maintained, all structures (including fences) must be in good r p air Garden and/or landscaping must not violate any City codes Design must not adversely affect the environment Must be well maintained, free of weeds , and debris Your property can win more than one awar ns or nominations must be submitted by July 17,1995. Judging will take plac eek of July 24 - 28, 1995. Winners will be notified the first week of August. Additional appli ion/nomination forms are available of Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy and at e Community Center. If you have any questions please call engineering at 569 -3495. .......................................................... ............................... .................. ...... ...... ..................... ..................................................... .......... CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER LANDSCAPE AND GARDEN APPLICATION/NOMINATION BALLOT Category (circle appropriate categories) LANDSCAPING or GARDEN Address of Property Resident or Business 1 Property Owner (if different than above) Nominator Address All nominations must be submitted with two photos. Photos will not be returned. Submit nominations to: City of Brooklyn Center Landscape and Garden Contest 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE WINNERS OF THE 1995 CITYWIDE LANDSCAPING CONTEST WHEREAS, the City Council desires to promote beautification of residential and commercial properties in Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, the Council is appreciative of the hard work and efforts of many residents and businesses in gardening and landscaping their properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn I ' I Center, Minnesota that the following winners of the 1995 Citywide Landscaping Contest are recognized and commended for their achievements: I I GRAND PRIZE Susan Warner 5655 Humboldt Avenue North FIRST PRIZE — FLOWER GARDEN Elmer Peterson 5350 Logan Avenue North I SECOND PRIZE — FLOWER GARDEN Lucille Jennrich 5413 James Avenue North FIRST PRIZE — LANDSCAPING John & Christine Zimmermann 5533 France Avenue North SECOND PRIZE — LANDSCAPING Kayla & Craib Moen 1313 57th Avenue North Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk • • RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • •