Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 05-10 CCM Regular Session 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 MAY 10, 1993 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, Barb Kalligher, and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, City Engineer Mark Maloney, Public Works Coordinator Diane Spector, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Nancy Berg. OPENING CEREMONIES A moment of silence was observed. OPEN FORUM Mayor Paulson noted the Council had received no requests to use the open forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Paulson announced the recipients of the $50 recycling awards for March and April. They were John Olson, Richard Stahl, Arne Saf, Clifford Painter, Wallace Larson, Judith Hyland, Kathleen Stapher, John Noes, and Kathy Becker. Mayor Paulson distributed MTC buttons to the Councilmembers. He explained the buttons signify the wearers had an open mind. He further explained since the first of the year the Council had done a good job taking into account each member's thoughts and had shown a willingness to compromise. __Mayor Paulson stated it would be worthwhile for the Council to pursue some kind of team- building or work session meeting and to develop a mission statement. 5/10/93 - 1 - APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Kalligher requested the April 26, 1993, Regular Session minutes be removed from the consent agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APRIL 19, 1993 - BOARD OF EQUALIZATION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the minutes of April 19, 1993, Board of Equalization as printed. The motion passed unanimously. APRIL 26, 1993 - RECONVENED BOARD OF EQUALIZATION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the minutes of April 26, 1993, reconvened Board of Equalization as printed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 93 -66 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -07, REPLACEMENT OF WATER MAINS ON LAWRENCE ROAD AND ON ALDRICH COURT; APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, CONTRACT 1993 -C The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -67 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRONIC MAIL AND SCHEDULING SOFTWARE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. 5/10/93 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 93 -68 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 14 THROUGH JUNE 27 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kristen Mann, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL SYSTEMS C.O. Carlson Air Conditioning Co. 1203 Bryant Avenue N. Dependable Indoor Air Quality, p Inc. 2619 Coon Rapids Boulevard MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard RENTAL DWELLINGS Renewal: Carlin Shefveland 5308 Emerson Avenue N. Thomas W. Kotila 5430 Morgan Avenue N. Robert Baltuff 5930 Xerxes Avenue N. Merle G. Biggs 3910 65th Avenue N. SIGN HANGER William Forster Corporation 1050 Plastermill Road Identi- Graphics 8660 Highway 7 Leroy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Avenue N. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - CONTINUED APRIL 26, 1993 - REGULAR SESSION Councilmember Kalligher asked the word pickering on page 6, paragraph 4, be changed to bickering. Councilmember Rosene stated he had reviewed the minutes of the April 5, 1993, Work Session but had not yet returned them to Sharon Knutson. He stated he had a few minor changes but was ready to approve them. He further stated he disagreed with the sentence in the April 26, 1993, minutes stating Mayor Paulson referred to citizens as stooges. 5/10/93 -3- Mayor Paulson stated the minutes were to reflect what was stated at the Council meeting. He explained the reference was made by a Councilmember and was not a reflection of what was actually stated at the April 5 work session. Mayor Paulson asked the reference be left in the April 26, 1993, Council minutes. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the minutes of April 26, 1993, Regular Session as amended. The motion passed unanimously. APRIL 22, 1993 - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kalligher to approve the minutes of April 22, 1993, Special Council Meeting as printed. Mayor Paulson and Councilmember Rosene abstained. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City Manager reviewed the background of the Southeast Neighborhood Improvement Project. He explained the Council conducted the public improvement hearing regarding proposed improvements to the Southeast Neighborhood on April 22, 1993. He further explained the general purpose of the project was to start addressing a need in the community. He reminded Council the project was a Council- initiated project and; therefore, required four - fifths approval by the Council. He reiterated it was important the City address the need for street and sewer improvements. The Director of Public Works used overhead slides to show the map of the area and to answer questions of the Council. He explained Logan and Dupont Avenues were State Aid Streets, and staff recommended they be excluded pending further study. He further explained based on engineering need and survey response, staff recommended the following streets be included in the proposed project: 4th Street; Camden, Bryant, Colfax, Irving, James, and Knox Avenues: and 54th Avenue between Irving and Knox Avenues. Councilmember Kalligher asked for a tally of the survey results by street. The Director of Public Works answered: 4th Street: 3 - No 2 - Yes 2 - Undecided Camden 12 - No 3 -Yes 3 - Undecided 5/10/93 -4- Bryant 6 - No 4 - Yes 4 - Undecided Colfax 9 - No 7 -Yes 4 - Undecided Irving 11 -No 2 -Yes 1 - Undecided James 6 - yes 5 -No 3 - Undecided Knox 5 - Yes 5 -No 5 - Undecided Councilmember Kalligher calculated the majority of the residents responding to the survey were not in favor of the improvement project. She stated she was not on the Council at the time this project was proposed, and it was not for the elected officials to decide for the citizens. She suggested the Council postpone the project until 1995. She explained this would give the residents the opportunity to prepare financially for the assessment. She also stated she would not be able to vote in favor of the project at this time. Councilmember Mann explained she also was not on the Council at the time the program was initiated. She further explained the residents did not always know what was best for the community, and the roadways, sewers, and water mains did need to be improved. She continued to explain the infrastructure of the City was deteriorating. She stated she supported going ahead with the project. Councilmember Kalligher stated she did not think the Council should tell the residents what to do. She explained the Council could tell the residents what repairs needed to be done and then give them a forewarning. She continued to explain she had heard over and over again the residents wanted to wait. She again stated she wanted to bring the project back in 1995 and try it in a different area. Mayor Paulson explained there had been a number of public hearings held and the Council had viewed many presentations on this project. He also explained residents in this area had received materials explaining the project. He asked if there were any residents wishing to address the Council on this issue. No residents came forward to address the Council. 5/10/93 -5- Councilmember Rosene noted a vast majority of the homeowners in the proposed project area had not responded to the survey. He explained whatever the Council decided, it would be based on a distinct minority. He further explained staff had a good point as did Councilmember Kalligher. He agreed the results of the survey indicated the residents were not in favor of the project. He suggested locating a mile of streets on which the homeowners were in favor of improvements to demonstrate how the improvements would affect the neighborhood. He also suggested Council and staff continue to support a transportation utility tax which could be used to repay any of the special assessments. He stated the reluctance to the project was due to ignorance on just how serious the road, sewer, and water main situation was. He again suggested staff locate a one -mile area willing to proceed with the project to demonstrate to all residents the value of the project. Councilmember Scott agreed some areas were resoundingly against the project. She explained she had, however, received some telephone calls in favor of the project because the residents were concerned about the costs of future repairs to the sewer lines from their homes to the street in their neighborhood. She further explained there were two different sides to the story, and these residents were concerned because the sanitary sewer was extremely bad and they wanted to see the project go ahead. She stated she received calls from one resident on James, two on Knox, and one on Colfax. She further stated these residents did not want to have to pay for repairs one year and then be hit with an assessment the next year. She continued to state she did not want senior citizens to pay for repairs and then assessments. She stated she wanted to proceed with the pilot project on the three streets having the most problems. Councilmember Rosene agreed with Councilmember Scott. He restated it seemed the residents who opposed the project realized they were taking a gamble that their lines would not need to be repaired. Mayor Paulson asked if the City assessed the resident if the repair was in the main line. The City Manager answered no and explained anything between the main in the street and the resident's home was the resident's responsibility. Councilmember Rosene suggested postponing a decision on the project until the next Council meeting. He explained staff could then contact the residents who had not responded to the survey. He stated he wanted to proceed with the repairs on Knox and James, and the project would then only need two more streets to complete the mile. He further stated a certain amount of leadership was needed from the Council to show the residents what needed to be done, however, Council would not want to shove the project down the residents' throats. Councilmember Scott inquired if any responses had been received since the April 22 public hearing. The Director of Public Works answered no. He stated he did not know how to obtain further responses from the residents unless the staff went door -to -door. 5/10/93 -6- Councilmember Rosene understood how an extra $300 a year in assessments could really be difficult. He stated in consideration of the residents who could not afford the project, he would have to vote against this project. Mayor Paulson stated the responses had been few, but those responding had responded no. He further stated many residents felt this was a done deal and their opinions would not be considered. He explained if the Council voted in favor of the project, it would lend credence to those thoughts. He further explained there was a time for Council to take on leadership, but the time may not be right now. He continued to explain the project was not what the residents wanted now. He agreed the residents were against the project, and he felt they had a pretty good idea about what was best for the community and what was best for them. He stated the Council must also do what was best for them and the community. He explained he had also heard from a lot of the residents, and he had not heard from any of them this was something they wanted or needed. He continued to explain to ignore their wishes would be to deny the people who elected the Council the representation they voted for. He stated he did not know where the Council would go from here, but he could not support the proposed project. Councilmember Rosene stated even though he could not support the project at that time, he did not agree with the residents who stated the neighborhoods looked just fine. He explained the City did not have esthetics appeal, and eventually the improvements would need to be done. ' Councilmember Kalligher asked if the Council decided to postpone the project for one or two years to give the Council time to sell it to the residents, would the research be outdated. The Director of Public Works answered no, it would not be outdated. Councilmember Kalligher complimented staff on doing a wonderful job, and asked if the assessment stabilization program would also be available in one or two years. The Director of Public Works explained the assessment stabilization program was decided on by the Council on a program -by- program basis. Councilmember Rosene asked if the Council could postpone the final vote on the project until the next meeting. He explained this would allow residents to call with their opinions and unless the Council hears differently, it would vote no. He also explained he would hope at least one mile of residents would volunteer to support the pilot program and the City could then move forward with the project. Councilmember Scott asked how much the cost of the project would increase to delay it one year. The Director of Public Works answered he was not certain but roughly in the neighborhood of four to five percent. Councilmember Rosene inquired how much percentage -wise the cost would go up to do less than one mile. The Director of Public Works estimated about ten percent. He explained there was nothing magical about one mile, but doing only one -half mile would significantly 5/10/93 -7- increase the cost of the project. Councilmember Rosene asked if the project could go forward using only two streets. The Director of Public Works warned Council two blocks might not be enough of a demonstration of the impact of the project. The City Manager explained there was a certain amount of fixed cost just to set up construction no matter how large or small the project. Councilmember Rosene asked if having fewer residents using the assessment stabilization program would lower the assessment level. The Director of Public Works explained the proposed project was controlled by State Statutes, Chapter 429. He further explained under Chapter 429 the City must sell bonds to cover the cost of the project, and in order to be certain to comply with the law the City must look at 20 percent for the special assessments after the stabilization was applied. Councilmember Rosene inquired if the residents would have to pay 30 percent to cover for those people paying nothing through the assessment stabilization program. The City Manager answered no, and explained the stabilization program was funded from other funds. Mayor Paulson suggested the project be put on as a discussion item at a later Council meeting to discuss where to go from here. The City Manager presented a Resolution Ordering Portions of Improvement Projects 1993- 02 (Sanitary Sewer Improvements, 1993 -03 (Water System Improvements), 1993 -04 (Storm Drainage Improvements), and 1993 -05 (Street Improvements) in Area between Logan Avenue North and 4th Street North, and between 53rd Avenue North and 55th Avenue North; and Directing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Said Improvements. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Scott to table the final vote until the May 24, 1993, Brooklyn Center City Council Meeting. Councilmember Kalligher asked Councilmember Rosene if he was going to direct staff to again televise the public hearing and ask for residents' responses. The City Manager explained waiting for two weeks would totally jeopardize the project. He recommended delaying approval until next year if the project was not approved tonight. Councilmember Rosene removed his motion to table, and Councilmember Scott removed her second. There was a motion by Councilmember Kalligher and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to delay the Southeast Neighborhood Improvement Project until next year after Council has sold it to the neighborhood or to another neighborhood, and to put the matter on as a discussion item on a future City Council agenda. 5/10/93 -8 - The Director of Public Works recommended delaying this project until next year. He explained waiting two weeks for approval this year would jeopardize the completion of the project this year. Vote on the motion: four ayes, one nay. Councilmember Mann voted nay. The motion passed. Councilmember Scott thanked staff for all the hours of preparation and for the excellent presentation at the public hearing. She also thanked all the residents for their input and stated she was keeping her fingers crossed that nothing would go wrong with the residents' sewers. She also stated she hoped the Council and staff would be able to work with the neighborhood more next year. Mayor Paulson also thanked the residents who attended the public hearing and those who responded to the survey. He stated there might be a section of the community who would like to get involved and get this type of program in their neighborhood and the Council would support them. Councilmember Kalligher also thanked staff for all the time they put into this project. She stated she hoped the staff and the Council could sell this project better next year. Councilmember Mann pointed out less than half of the residents had responded, and she believed that indicated they would support the project. Councilmember Kalligher left the meeting. PRESENTATION OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY REPORT The City Manager explained the Transportation Study which had been conducted concurrently with Brooklyn Park's transportation study was authorized by the Council on July 13, 1992. He explained the report provided traffic analyses of Brooklyn Boulevard, analyzes of the impact of a future "3rd lane" construction on I- 94/694 west of Brooklyn Boulevard, and provided traffic volume forecasts and an evaluation of needs for other arterial and collector streets in the northern half of Brooklyn Center. The Director of Public Works used overhead slides to show the traffic volumes. He presented Ferrol Robertson from Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. Mr. Robertson explained Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. had prepared the Transportation Study Report. He highlighted the following findings and recommendations to the Council: Construction of an interchange at I- 94/694 and Zane Avenue would reduce the average daily traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard by only approximately 5000. The study concludes the construction of such an interchange would not be cost - effective. 5/10/93 -9 - Construction of the "3rd lanes" on I- 94/694 westerly from Brooklyn Boulevard to I -494 would divert approximately 5000 vehicles per day from Brooklyn Boulevard to T.H. 81. The existing average daily traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard between I- 94/694 and 69th Avenue was 46,700. North of 69th Avenue the existing average daily traffic was 36,500. By year 2010 those volumes are expected to increase to 54,000 and 41,000 respectively. The existing "level of service" at various locations on Brooklyn Boulevard ranged from D to F, with very high accident rates along that corridor. The study proposed a system of improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard which would dramatically reduce congestion and accident problems, while accommodating future growth. The study concluded the proposed improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard and to I- 94/694 would significantly reduce the volume of traffic which now uses Shingle Creek Parkway - 69th Avenue as a short -cut during peak traffic hours. Councilmember Rosene stated he liked seeing some of these proposed improvements for Brooklyn Boulevard. He further stated one of the proposals was to expand to a third lane going North and South and adding left turn only at the median. He asked if this would require taking more land on either side of the Boulevard. The Director of Public Works answered yes, there would be a need for additional right -of -way, but at this point he did not have all the details. Councilmember Scott stated she thought the whole Council would agree 100 percent with g g P the report. She further stated Council was well aware of the inadequacies of Brooklyn Boulevard. She asked if there would still be access to Brooklyn Boulevard for the businesses. The City Manager answered cars now could turn left anywhere on the Boulevard, but it .was proposed to change to left turn only at the intersections. Councilmember Scott stated Brooklyn Boulevard was a County road and asked if the County would be paying for the improvements. The Director of Public Works answered staff had been working closely with the Hennepin County Department of Transportation and had received a good deal of cooperation from them during the course of the study. He further explained the City of Brooklyn Center had paid for the cost of the study, but Hennepin County had contributed a significant amount of time developing this study also. The Director of Public Works informed Council that Hennepin County had told staff they were planning to submit an application for federal funding from the ISTEA program to fund improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard later this year. He continued to explain if the application for ISTEA funding was approved by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Council, then Hennepin County would be in a position to do construction on Brooklyn Boulevard as early as 1995. 5/10/93 _10- Councilmember Scott requested someone track the movement of the ISTEA application through the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council. The Director of Public Works reiterated the cooperation the City had received from the Hennepin County Department of Transportation had been tremendous, and he believed they would make a serious application and would follow its progress through the layers of government. The City Manager recommended the City submit an application for ISTEA funding at the same time for streetscaping of Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Scott asked if the City should be careful of the streetscaping along the southern part of Brooklyn Boulevard in case Hennepin County decided to widen it in the future. The Director of Public Works explained Hennepin County had indicated south of Halifax Drive, Brooklyn Boulevard had adequate right -of -way for the future. Councilmember Rosene agreed with the need for a conceptual layout plan, but questioned the price tag of $6,800. Mayor Paulson also asked why the cost was so high. Mr. Robertson explained the original price tag on the project was $20,000 for the preliminary engineering drawing. He further explained it was then decided what was needed now was a drawing to take to the businesses and residents along Brooklyn Boulevard to illustrate the precise curb cuts, driveways, right -of -way required, and to generally clarify how the improvements on 69th would fit in with all of the improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard. He continued to explain this was the minimum amount of money that would give staff what they needed to go to the businesses and residents along Brooklyn Boulevard. Mayor Paulson asked if Mr. Robertson had seen the Brooklyn Boulevard study that was completed by the City. Mr. Robertson answered yes, he and his staff had attended some of the meetings with the architects. The City Manager explained some work still had to be done with the MTC and Park and Ride facilities. Mayor Paulson asked if the Park and Ride facilities and the transit hub would add to the congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Robertson answered yes it would add to the congestion, but he believed the proposed changes would accommodate the hub and Park and Ride facilities. Mayor Paulson asked the drawings recognize the City's intention to accommodate people not just the movement of vehicles on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated the Council would like to do something different with Brooklyn Boulevard and he thought the Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch report addressed that to some degree. He asked the drawings coincide with the Brooklyn Boulevard Study, and the costs be kept down. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The City Manager presented staff recommendation to authorize preparation of conceptual layout for improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained the conceptual layout plan 5/10/93 would be for Brooklyn Boulevard from 65th Avenue to the north City limits, and for 69th Avenue between Major Avenue and Indiana Avenue. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Proposal from Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. to Prepare a Conceptual Layout Plan for Improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard between 65th Avenue and the North City Limits, and Appropriating Funds Thereof. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -69 Member Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FROM STRGAR- ROSCOE- FAUSCH, INC. TO PREPARE A CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN 65TH AVENUE AND THE NORTH CITY LIMITS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott. Mayor Paulson asked what if the Council was not satisfied the report addressed all the issues. He recommended looking at both reports, (the Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch Transportation Study Report, and the Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban Brooklyn Boulevard Study), at the same time. The City Manager agreed. The Director of Public Works explained Hennepin County would be submitting proposals for the roadway. He reiterated the City had the ability to work with Hennepin County rather than having Hennepin County develop their own plan. He also stated Brooklyn Center had taken the lead and by doing so had moved this matter up on the County's agenda. The motion passed unanimously. BROOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT REPORT The City Manager presented the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Report. He explained the intent of the study was to identify the impediments to redevelopment including City zoning and finance, creating a unique identity that was Brooklyn Boulevard, improving the overall appearance and maintenance of the Boulevard, and helping to define specific roles the City/EDA could play in that process. The Director of Community Development explained at the February 1993 Council meeting, the City accepted the report from Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Urban, Inc. He continued to explain the Council had asked staff to report back on procedures for the implementation of the study's recommendations. He stated the study had listed eight areas that needed to be addressed: 1. Adopt the Brooklyn Boulevard Study as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 5/10/93 - 12 - 2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Communicate with Hennepin County. 4. Communicate with Brookdale. 5. Communicate with the MTC. 6. Proceed with Boulevard development. 7. Establish an oversight process. 8. Promote the vision for Brooklyn Boulevard. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9 p.m. and reconvened at 9:12 p.m. The Director of Community Development recommended a small task force be established to seek a major renovation and expansion of Brookdale. Councilmember Scott suggested involving legislators from other suburbs than just Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Scott agreed with the development of an overlay ordinance for Brooklyn Boulevard. Mayor Paulson felt this was the logical follow -up to the Brooklyn Boulevard study. He also agreed it was a good idea to pull together a task force to discuss Brookdale. The City Manager suggested the Councilmembers think about the development of a task force and adding it as a discussion item at a future work session. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving a Request for Proposals Streetscape Amenities Study for Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -70 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS STREETSCAPE AMENITIES STUDY FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 5/10/93 - 13 - The City Manager recommended a motion to direct the Planning Commission to undertake the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance changes and directing staff to prepare a draft for the Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force and adding the discussion f h proposal o t e 3'n g Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force to a future Council work session. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Mann directing the Planning Commission to undertake the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance changes and directing staff to prepare a draft proposal for the Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force and adding the discussion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force to a future Council work session. The motion passed unanimously. EARLE BROWN COMMONS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II REQUEST The City Manager presented the Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II request. He explained John Parsinen, General Partner of the Earle Brown Commons Limited Partnership II, had requested the EDA release his partnership from their development agreement. He further g project was having J ro explained Mr. Parsinen indicated the P 'n financial problems that could be substantially reduced if the development agreement was set aside. Mr. Parsinen presented the background of the partnership and the reason for the request. He explained the project had suffered slow leasing because of economic times; the partnership had injected approximately $1.4 million of proceeds into the project to cover past losses and shortfalls; property values citywide and in the City of Brooklyn Center had dropped precipitously over the past several years; and the underwriters involved in the bond issue rewrote the bonds and did a refunding reducing the interest rate from over 10 percent to 7 percent. Councilmember Rosene asked if the project did not succeed, what could the City expect to see in the area in the next 10 years, and if it did succeed, what would the area look like in five to ten years. Mr. Parsinen answered if it did not succeed, he could not say but he thought it would go to foreclosure. He stated if the project was successful, the value would increase and the City would receive more tax revenue. Councilmember Rosene asked how long he expected the stressful period to last. Mr. Parsinen answered a couple more years. Councilmember Rosene asked how much tax reduction the TIF District would have to make up. Mr. Parsinen answered approximately $130,000 to $140,000. Councilmember Rosene asked if other companies would then also ask for the same. Mr. Parsinen answered he had never discussed this with other businesses. Councilmember Rosene asked Mr. Parsinen if his interest is down to 1 percent and it makes money somewhere along the line, who would benefit. Mr. Parsinen answered the limited partners and there are about 40 of them. 5/10/93 - 14 - Councilmember Scott agreed Mr. Parsinen was having problems, but if the Council agreed to his request it would put a burden onto the rest of the TIF District. She believed he would need to take up his request with the County to propose a property value change. The City Manager explained the problem was that Mr. Parsinen's request would mean the TIF district would lose approximately $250,000 per year. He also cautioned the City must still meet the bond - holder's requirements, and such a request would transfer the problem from Mr. Parsinen to the EDA and, therefore, staff did not recommend approving the request. Mayor Paulson stated this was the kind of thing that affects other businesses in the community. He recommended searching for a remedy on a uniform basis that could help all businesses in the future. Councilmember Rosene asked what kind of help Mayor Paulson was envisioning. Mayor Paulson answered he did not know at that point, but there were other people more in touch with the issue than he was. He also stated the Council had sympathy for Mr. Parsinen's situation and hoped a solution could be found. Councilmember Rosene agreed he was sympathetic with Mr. Parsinen's situation. He explained if the Council helped him, the TIF District would lose approximately $250,000 per year and the City could not afford to do that. He stated he wanted to help Mr. Parsinen, but he did not know how right now. Mr. Parsinen reiterated his need for assistance from the City. The City Manager explained staff had done some research to see if there were some other options, but staff was fresh out of ideas but would continue to look. PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) 1994 -1998 The City Manager presented the preliminary Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 1994- 1998. Councilmember Scott stated she appreciated having the CIP in this format as it would be easy to reference in the future. The Director of Public Works reminded Council this was the first iteration and was the wish list from all the departments. He explained the preliminary CIP would give Council some indication of the price and this would provide an opportunity for Council to adopt policies. Mayor Paulson asked if other projects would be added. The Director of Public Works answered yes, this was the time for Council to indicate additional projects to be added to the CIP. He asked Council to review the list of possible improvements and then give staff suggestions and direction. The City Manager recommended Council give their suggestions to a staff member or to a commission member. 5/10/93 - 15 - LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The City Manager P resented the legislative update. He explained the Governor had P g indicated he would veto many major bills so everything was up in the air. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to continue to Executive Session immediately following the EDA meeting to discuss pending litigation. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10 :12 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Berg Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 5/10/93 - 16 -