Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 05-24 CCP Regular Session m '+ rx 0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 24, 1993 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Report 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk 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 in its normal sequence on the agenda. 7. Approval of Minutes: a. April 5, 1993 - Special Work Session b. May 3, 1993 - Special Work Session c. May 10, 1993 - Regular Session 8. Presentation: a. Hennepin County Current Activities - Presentation by County Commissioner Mike Opat 9. Proclamation: a. Declaring June as Mississippi River Cleanup Month 10. Ordinance: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Unlawful Activity of Minors under the Age of 16 Years and Unlawful Activity of Minors under the Age of 18 Years and of the Age of 16 Years and Over -This ordinance amendment is offered for a first reading this evening. 11. Discussion Items: a. Recommendation from Human Rights and Resources Commission to Increase Its Membership from Seven to Nine 1. Resolution Amending the Brookyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission's Enabling Resolutions CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 24, 1993 b. Duds 'N Suds - Discussion of city ordinance limiting amusement devices to certain establishments within 500' of any residential property c. Status Report Regarding 69th Avenue North Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 1. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for Reconstruction of 69th Avenue North, Phase III, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 (Roadway Construction for West Palmer Lake Drive to Shingle Creek Parkway), Contract 1993 -D 2. Resolution Accepting Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services and Instrumentation Relating to 69th Avenue North, Phase III, Improvement _ Project No. 1990 - 10 d. Twin Lakes Trail Plan - Status Report e. Status Report Regarding Proposed Improvements in the Southwesterly Quadrant of the I- 694 /Brooklyn Boulevard Interchange 1. Resolution Calling for Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Storm Water Pond, Park and Ride Facility and Park Development in the Southwesterly Quadrant of the I- 694 /Brooklyn Boulevard f. Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 19 Allowing Tow Trucks to be Parked in Residential Areas g. Authorization for Summer Intern h. Legislative Update 12. Resolutions: * a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for 1993 Sealcoating Project, Improvement Project No. 1993 -06, Contract 1993 -B b. Establishing roject Approving Plans and Specifications, Directing Advertisement g J� PP g P � g for Bids and Appropriating Funds for Brooklyn Boulevard Sidewalk Repairs (Improvement Project No. 1993 -08), ADA Trail Improvements (Improvement Project No. 1993 -09), Replacement of Defective Sidewalks in Miscellaneous Locations (Improvement Project No. 1993 -10), Expansion of Parking Lot in South Palmer Lake Park Lot (Improvement Project No. 1993 -11), Repair of Freeway Boulevard (Improvement Project No. 1993 -12), and Reconstruction of Apparatus Area in Northport Park (Improvement Project No. 1993 -13), Contract 1993 -E CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- May 24, 1993 • c. Approving Plans and Specifications for Furnishing and Installing Playground Apparatus at Northport Park and at Freeway Park, Improvement Project No. 1993- 14, Directing Advertisement for Bids and Appropriating Funds Therefore, Contract 1993 -F • d. Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees (Order No. DST 05/24/93) • e. Accepting Proposals for Pavement Markings and for Manhole Adjustments on Brooklyn Boulevard, and Appropriating Funds Therefore • f. Authorizing Joint Cooperation Agreement Between the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County for Continued Participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program * 13. Licenses 14. Adjournment CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date ` 5/24/ Agenda Itcm Number / 7 !�F-2 f 6 / C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - APRIL 5, 1993 - SPECIAL WORK SESSION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 3, 1993 - SPECIAL WORK SESSION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 10, 1993 - REGULAR SESSION DEPT. APPROVAL: ��A" Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: . No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached — At its April 26, 1993, meeting, the city council tabled the April 5, 1993, Special Work Session minutes until they had been reviewed by Mayor Paulson and Councilmembers Mann and Rosene. In talking with Dave Rosene on Wednesday, May 19, 1993; he informed me of the changes to be made to the minutes. They are as follows: Page 5. paragraph 2: Previous reading: Councilmember Mann explained she did not feel the Council was following its own resolutions, and to add more members would be adding more stooges. Mayor Paulson asked that the word "stooges" be put in the record. Amended reading: Councilmember Mann explained she did not feel the Council was following its own resolutions concerning commission appointments. She stated that qualifications, geographic representation, and gender guidelines had been ignored in the past. She further stated she could only assume this would be a ploy for the Mayor to appoint more stooges. Page 5, paragraph 3: Amended reading adding the following to the end of the paragraph- Rights & Resources Commission the whole City would benefit. She stated she acknowledged transportation is an important issue, lateral service through the community and between communities. She further stated right now low income residents cannot get to doctor appointments or medical care. • Page 5, paragraph 5: Previous reading: The City Manager stated the Human Rights & Resources Commission at its next meeting would be discussing whether there was a need for additional membership. Councilmember Mann stated she was very interested to know what they decide. Amended reading: The City Manager stated the Human Rights and Resources Commission at its next meeting would be discussing whether there was a need for additional membership. Councilmember Mann stated she was very interested to know what they decide and if a majority of commissions were in favor of increasing, she would be more than willing to discuss increasing commission size. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Review minutes and motion to approve. i I 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 I SPECIAL WORK SESSION APRIL 5, 1993 CITY HALL CALL T ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special work session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Dave Rosene and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter and Council Sccretary fancy .Berg. ORGANIZATIONAL EVALUATION PROCESS The City Manager presented the organizational evaluation process. He mplained the Financial Commission had been charged with the responsibility of evaluating the organization of the City of Brooklyn Center as to its effectiveness and to report back to the City Council. He further explained he had developed an outline of a process to address the City Council's interests. He stated the process would cover three areas: 1) evaluation of the potential for administrative structure reorganization; 2) evaluation of the Supervisory /management and other staffing levels (using comparative data currently available); and 3) a Service Evaluation Process. The City Manager explained the prioritization process which had been completed by the Financial Commission in 1992 was an attempt to cut 10 percent of the budget. He recommendcd completing area 3 in conjunction with the budget process. Councilmember Rosene inquired as to why the Minnesota League of Cities did not provide a city -by -city comparison of services, quality, and budgets. The City Manager answered there were a number of municipalities which did not want to be compared. He recommended networking with other cities interested in doing such a comparison. Councilmember Mann stated the goal would be to improve services in a cost - effective manner. Councilmember Roscne stated he and Mayor Paulson had attended the Hennepin County Town Meeting, and he explained the purpose of the meeting was to receive input from cities and municipalities before preparing the 1994 budget. He proposed the City of 40 Brooklyn Center also hold a town sleeting to receive input from residents early in the 4/5/93 - 1 - budget process. He suggested the following service evaluation questions be asked of the residents- What do we do well and why? What do we do okay and why? What needs improvement? How/why? How can we provide services better? Are we doing the right things? The City Manager suggested the questions could also be used in the form of a survey. Councilmember Rosene stated a survey would cost money, and a town meeting would Prot. He added a town meeting would also involve more people who are knowledgeable in city matters, The City Manager offered to provide Council with a copy of the survey which was completed in 1989. Councilmember Mann asked if the purpose of the town meeting would be for input for the budget, Councilmember Rosene answered yes, and he would like to ask residents at the meeting which services they would like to increase or to continue to support. Councilmember Mann asked how large a turn out to expect at a town meeting. The City Manager answered it would depend on the subject and the date. He added the average turn out was 50 to 75 residents with 100 in attendance at the town meeting on crime. Councilmember Mann recommended the town meeting be held before Memorial Day. Mayor Paulson agreed, but also suggested the town meeting could be held during the summer combining it with Entertainment in the Parks. Councilmember Mann agreed and added a good band would help increase the number of people in attendance. The City Manager explained if the Council was going to use public input, the most valid way was through a survey. He further explained Council could still have a town meeting, but the survey would provide more of a cross - section of the community. Mayor Paulson asked what the cost of a survey would be. The City Manager offered to provide Council with an estimate. He also stated the Council had previously discussed doing a community -wide survey about every four or five years. Councilmember Rosene explained a town meeting served a different purpose providing an outlet for residents who want to be vocal. He suggested the City do both. Mayor Paulson explained the survey would be for broad information, and the town meeting would be for depth_ Councilmember Mann agreed it would be wise to pursue a survey and reminded the City Manager to investigate the expense, 4/5/93 - 2 - The City Manager asked the Council to review the three areas. He explained he wanted to forward the outline and the Councils' comments to the Financial Commission for their review, Mayor Paulson agreed with looking at area 1 first, area 2 second, and area 3 last. Councilmember Mann asked if the Financial Commission had done this already. The City Manager explained the Financial Commission had looked at each position in the City, but they did not look at the structure itself. Mayor Paulson suggested leaving the outline open - ended allowing for any additions by the Financial Commission. The City Manager reviewed a proposed, rough draft administrative organizational chart. Councilmember Mann asked the City Manager if he anticipated the need for additional staff if going with three divisions. The City Manager answered he did not know at that time, but combining the police and fire departments would be very difficult. Mayor Paulson stated he liked the draft, but added he did not want to add another layer of management. The City Manager recommended Council look at the overall administrative organization, and wait until areas 1 and 2 had been completed, Cou.ncilmcmber Mann suggested looking at what the City could do more cost - effectively by combining services with other cities. Councilmember Rosene explained Council must first analyze what the City does well and what it needs to improve on, The City Manager explained the City really needs two reporting system: one accounting orientated, and the other more program or service orientated, Councilmember Rosene asked how Council should proceed. The City Manager stated area 1 would be easier to work on while at the same time collecting and preparing data for areas 2 and 3. Mayor Paulson agreed explaining the first area was more of a philosophical one and suggested reviewing other city structures He further explained area 1 would help to define areas ;r and 3. He recommended any position elimination be accomplished when an opportunity presents itself over time. The City Manager agreed this could be set up as a goal. Councilmember Mann suggested setting a policy for no additional employees. The City Manager reed this could be the result of the organizational evaluation process. He g l; $ P explained t r f ublic safe c ould be ve ry sensitive es p e cially he area c? p �' ry 1� Y with a volunteer fire department, Councilmember Rosene stated he may not be able to attend the Fire Department Appreciation Night. He asi od to be provided with a roster of people who are on the volunteer fire department prior to the appreciation dinner. The City Manager asked Mayor Paulson if he was comfortable with the organizational evaluation process, Mayor Paulson answered yes and further stated he would like to fraiile area 1 first and as soon as possible. The City Manager stated he would like a rough draft of the structure and then as we look at areas 2 and 3 and evaluate the information it would test preliminary conclusions on area 1. Councilmember Rosene asked who would develop 4 /5/93 -3 - such a draft, The City Manager answered the Financial Commission would be a good resource, Mayer Paulson suggested if the analysis showed a department did not need a particular position, the position be frozen until it could be eliminated. The City Manager asked if the Council wanted to proceed with the organizational evaluation process. Councilmember Mann answered yes and further stated in the meantime the Council could provide the City Manager with their suggestions. She asked when the Financial Commission was scheduled to meet, The City Manager answered on April 12, 1993, He added if the Councilmcmbors needed any charts worked up on the computer, Sharon in his office would be a good resource, Councilmember Rosene stated severance pay in the private sector was based on one week's pay for each year of service. He further explained the Council had provided Mr. Shallcru5s and Ms. Larson with two months' severance pay. He. asked if this amount was fair. The City Manager answered yes, The City Manager offered to update Councilmembers Scott and Kalligher on the organizational cvaluation process and to also provide an analysis and information on a city - wide survey and town meeting to be held before Memorial Day. Councilmember Mann stated she would like to check further into municipal bonds because there worc a number of park improvements and fire stations that needed upgrading. The City Manager explained Council would be receiving this information as part of the budget under the Capital Improvements Program and EDA. Councilmember Mann asked if Brooklyn Center had a good rating for bonds. The City Manager answered yes, Mayor Paulson asked the City Manager to provide a roster of every full -time employee plus the fire department. The City Manager agreed to provide as soon as po"ible. DISCUSSION OF SIZE OF MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSIONS The, City Manager presented the discussion of size of membership of commissions for the Council's discussion, Councilmember Mann wanted to know the reason for adding more members to the commissions. Councilrncinber Rosene explained the reason he raised this issue was b=ause of the 18 or 19 applicants for the Planning Commission. He continued to explain he wanted to involve those people at the commission level. He further explained the Human Rights & Resources Commission had so many issues coming before it there were not enough people to handle all of the functions. He added if the commissions could benefit by having more members, he recommended involving more people, Councilmember Mann asked if Councilmember Rosene was recommending more members for the Human Rights & Resources Commission only. Councilmember Rusene explained this was the commission he was involved with so he did not know if the other commissions 0 415193 -4- needed more members. He stated the City would benefit by increasing all commission memberships to nine members. Councilmember Mann explained she did not feel the Council was following its own resolutions concerning commission appointments. She stated that qualifications, geographic representation, and gender guidelines had been ignored in the past. She further stated she could only assume this would be a play for the Mayor to appoint more stooges. Councilmember Rosene explained he had found himself in hot water at the DFL meeting when he voted for the first motion. He explained he had voted with Councilmembers Mann and Kalligher, and he had taken a lot of heat ever since. Councilmember Mann stated if Councilmember Rosene could show that each one of the individuals on the Human Rights & Resources Commission were actually following up on these different areas, she would be willing to give more consideration to increasing the size of the Human Fights & Resources Commission. Councilmember Rosene explained there was no one following up on transportation at that time, He further explained there was one applicant for the Planning Commission who dealt with transportation, and if he could be appointed to the Human Rights & Resources Commission the whale City would benefit. She stated she acknowledged transportation is an important issue, lateral service through the community and between communities. She further stated right now low income residents cannot get to doctor appointments or medical care. Councilmember Mann agreed there were many residents wishing to become involved, and she recommended limiting the commission terms and allowing commission members to inuve to premier commissions at the end of their terms, Mayor Paulson stated he did not believe any of the commissions were premier commissions. Councilmember Mann explained the Planning Commission had the power to hold public hearings. The City Manager stated the Human Rights & Resources Commission at its next meeting would be discussing whether there was a need for additional membership. Councilmember Mann stated she was very interested to know what they decide and if a majority of commissions were in favor of increasing, she would be more than willing to discuss increasing commission size. Councilmember Rosene explained he was not trying any kind of political ploy. Councilmember Mann suggested sending a statement to all commissions asking for their input. The City Manager agreed to provide Council with a draft statement to send to commission members. Councilmember Mann asked that citizen applications be made available to the public. The City Manager stated they were public and were available. Councilmember Mann also asked that all applicants be present at the Council meeting so Councilmembers could ask the applicants questions. 4/5/93 - 5 - The City Manager asked if the Council wanted the matter to come back to the Council as a discussion item after receiving input from the commission members. The consensus of the Council was yes, Mayor Paulson stated there would be benefit to having uniformity in the commissions. He said he preferred to include people rather than exclude people. He agreed each commission should be polled, The City Manager agrocd to poll all commissions with a membership less than nine. Councilmember Rosene stated he agreed with terra limitation suggestions. Councilmember Mann asked if a bus shelter was slated for 58th and Major, She also asked if it would be possible to build a pedestrian bridge across the roadway as there were many seniors in this area The City Manager explained putting a pedestrian bridge across the roadway would double the distance to get across the road, He further explained citizens generally take the shortest route directly across the street unless it is completely fenced. Councilmember Mann asked when the MTC would be discussing the use of hubs and changing the bus routes in the community Mayor Paulson answered they were discussing; the hubs now, dial -a -ride in the future, and a survey of future stops was just completed, He further explained when routes arc changed, people may be upset, but the MTC must focus on an effective, overall transportation systc - m. He noted the City Council would probably have to override some public criticism to accomplish needed route changes. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Mann to adjourn the w Th n Center Cit Council e me rtt l J m ee t ing , motion asked unanim Brooklyn � g p Y adjourned at 8 :45 pm, Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Berg TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 4/5193 - 6 - I 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 MAY 3, 1993 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special work session and was called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, and Kristen Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter; Director of Finance Charlie Hansen; Director of Public Works Sy Knapp; Financial Commissioners Donn Escher, Vi Kanatz and Denis Kelly; and Council Secretary Nancy Berg. Inner -Ring Suburban Community Funding Needs The City Manager presented the Inner -Ring Suburban Community Funding Needs report. He explained he had prepared a draft report as suggested by Representative Carruthers; and he asked for the Council's thoughts on the subject. Councilmember Scott stated she had found it interesting to talk to other councilmembers from other community's who also agreed the outer suburbs were not providing moderate - income housing. She also stated all inner -ring suburbs were having the same problems and reiterated the Legislature must be convinced. Councilmember Rosene asked where the contribution for fiscal disparities came from. The City Manager answered the fiscal disparities came from a transfer of commercial /industrial taxable value from new commercial development to low commercial /industrial value communities. Organizational Evaluation Process The City Manager presented the organizational evaluation process. He explained the Council had approved the document and generally approved the process. He further explained the process had not been discussed by the Financial Commission at length, but the commission would be discussing it at their next meeting. He also stated the Financial Commission would be doing initial work on Area 1 and staff would be working on Areas 2 and 3 and then staff and the Commission would get together for further discussion. 5/3/93 - 1 - f Donn Escher, Chair of the Financial Commission asked if the Commission would have access to outside help. The City Manager answered it might be possible to do a pilot in one department and then provide the information to the other departments. Mr. Escher suggested staff provide the Commission with a time table. The City Manager agreed staff would provide a time table. Denis Kelly asked if the data provided the Commission would include comparisons to other cities. The City Manager answered yes, Item 1 and 2 would contain considerable comparative data. Mr. Escher stated the same program in different cities may seem identical, but there might be one or two factors that make the program different. He further stated the Commission would need to know if staff believed a city's program should be viewed differently than Br ' Brooklyn Center program. o rarn Th yn p g e City Manager agreed this would be provided as well as some secondary information. Capital Improvement Program Process for 1993 The City Manager presented the Capital Improvement Program Process for 1993. He explained Council would be provided for the first time a listing of EDA and all capital outlay. The Director of Public Works explained the Council would be getting more input from each department. He also stated the Park and Recreation Commission was preparing information for the Council which covered all park facilities. He explained this was the first time since the 1980 park bond referendum staff had taken a really good look at the needs for the park system. He further explained the Public Works Department would be reviewing all of the City's needs including community development, the Earle Brown Heritage Center, City Hall, and the Community Center. Councilmember Scott asked staff provide an explanation page with each table. The City Manager agreed to provide a detailed summary page. Mayor Paulson asked when staff provided recommendations, what procedure would staff follow to define. The City Manager answered staff would be attempting to put a dollar value with each suggestion. Mayor Paulson agreed he would like that procedure and would also like to set a policy on each matter. The City Manager explained staff would be asking Council to do that at the next Council meeting on May 10, 1993. Mayor Paulson explained the policy would lead the Council to a conclusion. Councilmember Rosene agreed an ultimate goal should be stated. Councilmember Scott asked if the Americans with Disabilities Act study provided by Julee Quarve- Peterson prioritized the most urgent changes needed. to comply with the ADA. The Director of Public Works explained the ADA regulations did not give specific guidelines, 5/3/93 -2- i and there is no enforcement agency. He continued to explain the enforcement agency comes through citizen action and the court system. He also stated the study provided by Julee Quarve- Peterson did identify priority areas 1, 2 and 3. He also stated staff had a committee working on a priority listing including cost estimates. Councilmember Scott stated the guidelines for the ADA just were not there like they should be. Vi Kanatz shared with the Council a problem the City of New York had trying to provide public toilets. She explained if a City provides for one disability, another disability may be hampered. Councilmember Rosene stated it sounded like agree, ke those who had disabilities could not and this causes cities to try to provide for every disability which was very difficult. The City Manager agreed there was such a wide range of disabilities, it was very hard to reach an agreement. Councilmember Scott hoped the State or Federal Government would come up with some guidelines. The Director of Public Works stated Julee Quarve- Peterson had done a very good job on the study. Denis Kelly asked if staff had involved disabled persons in the study. The Public Works Director answered yes, Julee Quarve- Peterson had access to many disabled persons, and she had also held a public hearing with disabled citizens in the community. 1994 Budget Calendar/Financial Commission Involvement The City Manager reviewed the 1994 Budget Calendar/Financial Commission Involvement. He explained the Council would be able to provide policy statements until June 1993. Mayor Paulson stated that would be very helpful. He further explained Council could be formulating policies while staff was working on the budget. He continued to state it would be helpful to develop a list of P olicies. Councilmember Scott asked for input from the Financial Commission early in the process. Mr. Kelly agreed the City really needed sound policies. Vi Kanatz stated the Financial Commission had previously been stuck on dollars rather than programs. Mayor Paulson stated it would be worthwhile for Council to take up policy-making during Y g g the summer. Councilmember Scott agreed the policies should be to the Financial Commission by July 1. Mayor Paulson stated the Financial Commission should start looking at the budget and Council would formulate the policies. Councilmember Scott stated Council, staff, and the Financial Commission would all work to keep costs down and the level of service up. 5/3/93 -3 - t Mr. Escher stated it was very important the Financial Commission understand it was an advisory commission. Mr. Kelly recommended another joint meeting between the Council and the Financial Commission in early August. The Councilmembers and City Manager agreed and the date would be set later. Mayor Paulson directed staff to come back to Council on June 1 with a list for policy - making. The City Manager agreed, but stated it would be a preliminary list. He further explained he would have a better idea after June 24. Councilmember Rosene informed the Mayor and the City Manager he would be out of town the last week in July and first week in August. Mayor Paulson asked after Council received a list of the issues, would a date need to be scheduled to discuss the policies. The City Manager stated staff would set the date in the future. Mr. Kelly recommended Council get away for a weekend to discuss policies away from the chambers. He explained a different setting would provide for a more relaxed atmosphere. Mr. Escher stated he had attended the last City Council meeting. He explained the Council had discussed appointing commission members and commission sizes. He recommended the reference to religion in the commission policy be eliminated. He also disagreed with geographical representation. He explained he had been a member of the Charter Commission twice and the Commission had voted down geographical representation for elected officials. He further stated reflecting diversity on the commission was very important. Councilmember Rosene concurred with Mr. Escher and stated first and foremost the Council was looking for people who would bring the most to the City's commissions. Councilmember Rosene also stated the reference to religion should be eliminated. The City Manager explained the reference to religion was taken right out of State law and was intended to reflect a policy of not discriminating on religious preferences. Ms. Kanatz stated it had been a profitable meeting, and she liked the give and take of the Council. Councilmember Scott agreed it was nice to sit down at a meeting like this for discussion. ADJOURNMENT The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Todd Paulson, Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Nancy Berg Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 5/3/93 -4- 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 MALL 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, Dir "tor 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. dUNC 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 Staphcr, John Noes, and Kathy Becker. Mayor Paulson distributed MTC buttons to the Couneilmembers. 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 QF AGENDA AND ONSENT AGENDA Mayor Paulson inquired if any Councilmcmbcrs requested any items be removed from the consent agenda, Councilmember Kallighcr requested the April 26, 1993, Regular Session minutes he removed from the consent agenda. AE]PR OVAL OF MIN TES 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 Councilmcmbcr Mann to approve the minutes of April 26, 1993, reconvened Board of Equalization as printed. The motion passed unanimously, RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO 93 -66 MGmbcr Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -07, REPLACEMENT OF WNI 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_ N-0. 93-67 Mr,riiber Celia Scott introduced the fuilc)wing rutiolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING 'I'lit 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- RESt7L NO. 93 -68 Member Celia Scott itltroduced tht, 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 Iuisten Mann, and the motion passed unanimously, LICEN There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Mann to approve the following list of licenses; -MBC HANICAL SYSTEM C'0. Garlsoa Air Cunditioning Co, 1203 Bryant Avenue N. uependahle indoor Air Quality, Inc. 2619 Coon Rapids Boulevard MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdalc 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 Q. Biggs 3910 65th Avenuc 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 Paulsen 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 WF 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 matcrials 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. 5110193 - 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 dccidcd, 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 ro'ect. H e suggested locating a p J gg g mile of streets on which the homeowners were in favor or of improvements to demonstrate how the improvements affect the _ p eats w aff n i hb rh p would c a g aad. 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 thu rosidcnt5 wGrt; concerned about the costs of future repairs to the sewer lines from their homes to the . P e st eet 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 takin g 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 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 ; tated 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 credencc 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 IWO 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 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 cxplaincd 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. Mayer 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 Scutt 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 Cc ?uncil 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 nirector 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. Councilmomber 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. Councilmernber 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. PZ3ESEN ' ATIQN OF TRANSPORTATIQN ST D REPORT The City Manager explained the Transportation Study which had boon 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. 5110/93 - 9 - Construction of the "3rd lanes" on 1- 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 1- 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 lanG 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 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 therm 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 1STEA 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. Mayer Paulson asked if Mr. Robertson had seen the Brooklyn B o u levard 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. S TAFF RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHO IZE PREPARATION OF CONCEPT�IAL LAYOUT FOR IMPROVE ENTS 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 5/10193 - 11 - would be for Brooklyn Boulevard from 65th Avenue to the north City limits, and for 69th Avenue between Major Avcnue 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 Forth City Limits, and Appropriating Funds Thereof. RESOLUTION N RES . 93 -69 O 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 Fuusch Transportation Study Report, and the Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban Brooklyn Boulevard Study), at the same time, The t;i ty Manager agreed. The Director of Public Works explained Hen 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 m atter n Co unty' s �s a r up a the C.o ty ag enda. The motion passed unanimously. 1 BRQOKLYN BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT REPORT The City Manager presented the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevulopment Report. He explained the intent of the study was to identify the impediments to redevelopment including City zo ning d finance, a unique identity that was Brooklyn Boulevard improving zo an nee Y Boulevard, the g � g q ty 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. REC 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. Couneilmember 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 farce 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 The City Manager recommended a motion to direct the Planning Commission to undertake the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance changes and directing staff to prcparc 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. 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. EARL 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 explained Mr. Parsinen indicated the project was having 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 tin - Ics; 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 arc 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. Shc 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 FIF district would lose approximately $250,000 per year. He also cautioned the City must still and such a request would transfer the meet the bond-holder's re uir su roblem from P requirements, 4 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. PRELI MINARY CAPITAL IMPRQVEME PRQGRA_M -(f !1P1 19941998 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 CIF. 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, 5110/93 - 15 - LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The City Managcr presented the legislative update. He explained the Governor had 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 pcnding 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/J.0/93 -16- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Q 5/24/93 Agenda item Number U REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: I'RI:SENTATION By County Commissioner Mike Opat DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk **************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: A A j 1 1 2 A No comments to supplement this report Comments be SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) County Commissioner Mike Opat was in the audience at the Aril 26 1993 meeting, the City P P g, Council. Mayor Paulson recognized Mr. Opat and suggested he make a presentation sometime in the near future to keep the Council up -to -date on matters at the County level. Mr. Opat is here this evening to give a brief presentation on current Hennepin County activities. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/24/93 Agenda Itcm Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROCLAMATION Declaring June as Mississippi River Cleanup Month DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, has requested Brooklyn Center proclaim June as Mississippi River Cleanup Month. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Proclaim June as Mississippi Rivc'i Cleanup Month. PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE AS MISSISSIPPI RIVER CLEANUP MONTH WIIEREAS the Mississippi River has a unique lace in the history and economic PP q P rY development of our community, state, and nation; and WHEREAS, the citizens along the Mississippi River have in recent years demonstrated their commitment and stewardship of the river's resources with cleanups, flotillas, river watches, and other programs devoted to improving the quality of all life on the river; and WHEREAS, the United States Congress has designed the Dayton -to- Hastings portion of the Mississippi River as the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and has directed the Mississippi River Coordinating Commission to develop a plan for its use; and WHEREAS, June has been named American Rivers Month as well as National Fishing Month. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the month of June to be Mississippi River Cleanup Month in the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor Attest: Deputy Clerk It STATE OF EDEPARTMENT HCE0Oo ITQ OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155 -4037 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER DNR INFORMATION (612) 296 -6157 May 14, 1993 Mr. Gerald Splinter, Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: By Governor's proclamation, June is Mississippi River Cleanup Month. We would like you to consider joining us in co- signing this proclamation. We have enclosed a copy of the proclamation for your review. The goal of this action is to raise awareness of the many benefits our community derives from the Mississippi River as it is appreciated rather than neglected. We are asking you to draft a letter of support for the proclamation from your city council, local organization or business. These indications of support will be publicized along with the proclamation during the month of June. In addition to your proclamation support, we would like you to consider becoming involved in a river cleanup effort. Some events have already been scheduled for June, and you may be planning others. As a co- signer of this proclamation, you will stand alongside many others in your community who have acknowledged the vital role the river has played in the past and the importance of its continuing that role into the future. It's a resource that can have positive economic impact for every community within its proximity. In terms of a fishable river, great strides have been made in the last twenty years, but much remains to be done in the area of non -point pollution flowing from streets and cascading down the riverbanks. As part of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, the portion of the Mississippi River between Dayton and Hastings has a special status designated to celebrate and preserve an important part of our national heritage. Mississippi River Cleanup Month is part of that celebration. A river cleanup is a way in which citizens, businesses and government can work together to demonstrate concern for the community. If you want Ideas on events that can be planned to focus on river cleanup in June or even later in the summer, contact Roger Aiken of Mississippi River Revival. The address is P.O. Box 14702, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414. The phone is 612 - 339 -4142. For information on adopting any of the river segments that remain, contact Paul Nordell, Coordinator, Adopt -a -River Program, Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -4052. The hotline number is 612 - 297 -8291. Time is very short for you to become a co- signer of the Governor's proclamation, so please FAX letters of support to Paul Nordell (FAX 612- 297 - 5475). Yours truly, W X 14 � 5, : , �a Rodney W. Sando Commissioner AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Mceting Date Mav aa, 1993 Agenda Item Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OF MINORS UNDER THE AGE OF 16 YEARS AND UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OF MINORS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS AND OF THE AGE OF 16 YEARS AND OVER. ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Trevor A. Hampton, Chief Police *************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** ** * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached rimes) At our Town Meetings on Crime and Safety it was suggested that we place more emphasis on enforcement of our city curfew. This will be done, however many officers expressed the opinion that our 9:30 and 10 P.m. curfew hours were out of date. At your April 26th Council Meeting many of you agreed that the hours should be revised. Checking with Minneapolis revealed that their curfew hours were 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. weekends for those under 15 years of age. Minneapolis 's curfew for those under 18 years of age is 12 midnight. Brooklyn Park's curfew hours are 10 p.m. for those under 16 years of age and 12 midnight for those under 18. Amending Chapter 19, Section 19 -301 would change the curfew of 9:30 p.m. for persons under the age of 14 years of age to a curfew of 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. weekends for persons under the age of 16. A revision of Section 19 -302 would change our current curfew of 10 p.m. for persons under the age of 18 years and of the age of 14 years and over to a new curfew of 12 midnight for persons under the age of 18 years and of the age of 16 years and over. These new curfew hours would make our curfew compatible with those of the cities that border us. The ages and time of the new curfew - under 16, 10 p.m. weekdays, 11 p.m. weekends and under • 18, 12 midnight are simple and easily remembered. If this ordinance is amended, we would send a flyer home to the parents of all school aged children explaining the change and the allowable exceptions to the curfew. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Amend Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances regarding unlawful activity of minors under the age of 16 years and unlawful activity of minors under the age of 18 years and of the age of 16 years and over. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1993, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the City ordinances regarding unlawful activity of minors under the age of 16 years and unlawful activity of minors under the age of 18 years and of the age of 16 years and over. 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 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OF MINORS UNDER THE AGE OF 16 YEARS AND UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OF MINORS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS AND OF THE AGE OF 16 YEARS AND OVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 19 -301. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OF MINORS UNDER THE AGE OF [14] 16. It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of [14] 16 years to be on or present upon any public street, avenue, park, playground, or place open to the public, or place of amusement and entertainment, vacant lot, or other unsupervised place in" the City of Brooklyn Center between the hours of [9:30] 10 p.m. [of any day] weekdays and 11 p.m. weekends and 5 a.m. of the following day; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any such minor person who is accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or other adult person having the authorized care and custody of such minor person, or when such minor person is upon an emergency errand or legitimate business directed by his or her parent, guardian or adult person having authorized care and custody of such minor person. The fact that such minor person, unaccompanied by parent or other adult person having authorized care and custody of such minor person is found upon or in any such place within the City after said [9:30] 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. weekends and before said 5 a.m. shall be prima facie evidence that said minor person is there unlawfully. Section 19 -302. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY OF MINORS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS AND OF THE AGE OF [14] 16 YEARS AND OVER. It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of 18 years and ORDINANCE NO. any person who has attained the age of [14] 16 years and over to loiter, idle, wander, stroll, or play in or upon any public street, avenue, alley, park, playground, or place open to the public, or place of amusement and entertainment, vacant lot, or other unsupervised place in the City of Brooklyn Center, between the hours of [10]p.m. 12 midnight of any day and 5 a.m. of the following day; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any such minor person who is accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or other adult person having the authorized care and custody of such minor person, or when such minor person is upon an emergency errand or legitimate business directed by his or her parent, guardian or adult person having authorized care and custody of such minor person. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1993. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 24, 1993 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE ITS MEMBERSHIP FROM SEVEN TO NINE AND RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BROOKLYN CENTER HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION'S ENABLING RESOLUTIONS DEPT. APPROVAL: /U_— ralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: . No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Si;TPvJ�VIARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The Brooklyn Center human rights and resources commission is recommending to the city council that its membership size be increased from seven to nine m.-mbers. After discussing this at several of its recent meetings, the commission agreed it would be in its best interest if more members are available to assist in the ever - increasing work load of the commission. This would also provide an opportunity to increase the diversity on the commission at a time of changing community demographics. In 1987, the size of the commission was reduced from nine to seven members, in great part due to the difficulty in getting a quorum at monthly meetings. This issue was discussed by the current commission with the feeling this will not be a problem because of the full and exciting agenda that continues to come before the commission. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Consider A Resolution Amending the Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission's Enabling Resolutions which increases the commission's membership size from seven to nine. //az- / Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BROOKLYN CENTER HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION'S ENABLING RESOLUTIONS WHEREAS, Resolution Nos. 68 -44, 69 -35, 71 -211, 74 -68, 87 -132, and 92 -135 define the duties and responsibilities of the Brooklyn Center Human Rights and Resources Commission; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council wishes to increase the membership complement of the Human Rights and Resources Commission from seven to nine. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Resolution Nos. 68 -44, 69- 35,71 -211, 74 -68, 87 -132, and 92 -135 are hereby amended as follows: I. Change Subdivision 5, COMPOSITION to read: The Commission shall be composed of a Chairperson and eight (8) members, all of whom shall be appointed and serve as set forth in Subdivision 6. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Mav 24, 1993 Agenda Item Numbcr REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: DUDS 'N SUDS DEPT. APPROVAL: ( � Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Development MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUIVEMIARY EXPLANATION: (PP su lemental sheets attached )Les Monday evening, the Council will be asked by Duds 'N Suds to consider an amendment to Brooklyn Center Ordinance 23 -2109. The ordinance limits the location of amusement devices to certain types of businesses and to retail operations not located within 150 feet of any residential property. It is the intent of the ordinance to keep businesses offering amusement devices from becoming hangouts. In the past, the City has had such experiences in the Humboldt Square Center that led to this ordinance. As currently drafted, an amusement center could be located in Brookdale and some surrounding areas. Duds 'N Suds' request is based upon their format for the laundry. A typical user is a parent with a young child. The devices are aimed at the children as a diversion. It is their proposal that the ordinances be amended to allow other businesses to have amusement devices within 150 feet of residential property provided: 1. The facility as a full -time attendant while the facility is o pen to the public; ty att d y p p , 2. The number of units would be limited to by ordinance (they have suggested two such devices); and 3. Use of the amusement devices would be limited to patrons of the laundry facility only (no off- the - street play). It would be possible to have the machines operate on coins purchased from the attendant to assure that machine use is limited only to individuals using the laundry facility. At Monday evening's meeting, representatives of Duds 'N Suds will be available to answer Council questions. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION If the Council is inclined to consider an amendment to Chapter 23, direct staff to prepare the appropriate language for Council consideration. • Pliilhp K. Krass'x (din D. To Slaa law offices Dennis L. Ahmrlx ��1 � � � f <urucia Al. A1�•Iher � /— \ �� Rarr} K. %Y Kaihr�n K. Sherwxxi rk't Moxnessx F Timothy K Moynihan 40 R. Croft Richard K. Gibson M ON ROE Greg D. Johnson CPA cha rtered d Kaye S. Gcistfeld CPA April 1, 1993 Mr. Brad Hoffman Community Development Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Amusement Devices License for Duds 'n Suds 6824 Humboldt Avenue North Our File No. 7986 -12 Dear Mr. Hoffman: I would like to thank both you and Ron Warren for taking the time to meet with us last week to discuss the issue of obtaining an amusement device license for the Duds 'n Suds we have recently opened in Brooklyn Center. A review of Section 23- 2109(B) shows that such a license may be located as a secondary or incidental use in nine commercial establishments in Brooklyn Center, and additionally, in any other retail operatics not located within 150 feet of a residential zone. Our facility does appear to lie within 150 feet of a residential zone. As we discussed with you and Mr. Warren, the City's concern is based upon prior negative experiences with "amusement centers" in the same neighborhood center in which we are located. Such facilities apparently turned into a local hang -out creating some serious neighborhood problems. We would like to explore with the City staff and your Mayor and Council some possible solutions that would allow us to upgrade our facility and protect the community from a repetition of prior problems. We are convinced such a solution is possible. 1. To begin with, you should understand that all of our Duds 'n Suds facilities are attended at all times. Not only do our customers expect an attendant to be present, but because we offer snacks and soft drinks for sale, an attendant must be present to handle those sales. 2. Only patrons of our laundry facility are entitled to be or will be allowed to utilize the recreational facilities we provide. The big screen television and any amusement devices you tiluthlxmit (i -r. Suite 11M. 1650 Wo-t 82nd Start. (ilwiningum, hiinnlvita 55131.1.1.17 Telephone: (fi12) 885 -59911 h) \\ (1112) 885 - 5969 1 01m1 xxf OV1111al .9owullnl t AN) AdnuW+d In Wiwrrnnin x Al*1 Adnmdd in GtliGKnw r AN) AdmtWil In Nxi h llnkoLa Mr. Brad Hoffman April 1, 1993 Page -t- allow are strictly for the use of those customers utilizing our laundry facilities. We are certainly prepared to have such a limitation placed on any amusement device license. 3. We have no intention of attempting to create an amusement center. If you will stop in at our facility, you will see that there isn't a great deal of room in which to place amusement devices. We are perfectly content to have some reasonable limitation on the number of such devices, as our intention remains only to provide a recreational outlet for the customers of our laundry facility. A possible approach to reaching our mutual goals could be to add an additional numbered sentence to Section 23- 2109(B) authorizing licensing of amusement devices in a laundry facility which has a full -time attendant, serves food, and authorizes only its laundry patrons to utilize those devices. At this point, I think it might be helpful for us to make a short appearance before the City Council, explain our proposal, and have an opportunity to consider any staff or City Council concerns we have not yet addressed. Please consider this letter as a request to be placed on a City Council Agenda. If there is additional information we can provide you prior to our appearance, we would be most happy to do so. Thank you again for your consideration.' Yours very truly, KRASS & MONROE CHARTERED A Phillip . It Krass Attorney at Law PRK /ph cc: Mr. Mike Dimond MEMORANDUM To: Sharon Knutson, Deputy Clerk From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zonin g P S ecialist Date: February 18, 1993 Subject: Amusement Device Operators License You have asked me to comment and make a recommendation on a requested Amusement Device Operators license being sought by David Allen Edelstein to allow amusement devices to be operated in a Laundromat at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. Mr. Edelstein had previously sought to obtain an on -sale non - intoxicating liquor license for this establishment but that licenserequest has been denied b the City �1 Y Y Council. As you are aware, Section 23 -2101 requires the City to issue a license to�l Y operate amusement devices within the City. Pursuant to Section 23 -2109, licensed amusement devices are allowed to be located as secondary or incidental uses in a number of commercial establishments listed in this section of the ordinance or in "amusement centers ", through the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the City Council, provided the property on which to amusement center is to be located is not within 150 feet of any residentially zoned property. Amusement centers are defined as "the operation of one or more amusement devices (except those designed for and used exclusively as rides for children) as a principal or secondary use available for use by non- employees upon commercial premises other than those listed in Section 23 -2109, subdivision B subject to the Special Use Permit requirements of Section 35 -220 of the City ordinances." A review of Section 23 -2109 subdivision B indicates that licensed amusement devices may be located as secondary or incidental uses in the following commercial establishments: 1. Establishments holding an on -sale non - intoxicating liquor license, an on -sale intoxicating liquor license, an on -sale wine license or an on -sale club license. 2. Eating establishments, including eating establishments offering live entertainment, but excluding convenience food restaurants and drive -in eating establishments. 3. Recreation centers. 4. Motion picture theaters. 5. Bowling establishments. 6. Athletic clubs. 7. Health spas. Memorandum Amusement Device Operators License 2/18/93 Page 2 of 2 8. Hotels and motels. 9. Club rooms and lodges. 10. Other retail operations provided the property on which the amusement device is to be located is not within 150 feet of any residentially zoned (R -1 through R -7) property. The location of an amusement device as a principal or secondary use on any other property is considered an amusement center and can be allowed only if the City Council issues a Special Use Permit and the property on which the amusement center is located is not within 150 feet of any residentially zoned property. The principal use on the site for which the applicant is seeking the Amusement Device Operators license is a laundromat. A laundromat is not listed in Section 23 -2109 subdivision B 1 through 9. It might be considered an "other retail operation ", however, the Humboldt Square Shopping Center abuts all along its east property line with R -3 zoned property and, therefore, the laundromat is not eligible for licensed amusement devices under Section 23 -2109 subdivision B 10. An amusement center is also prohibited from being located in the Humboldt Square Shopping Center because of the R -3 abutment along the east property line. Based upon the above review of the amusement device license provisions, I must conclude that the laundromat located at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center is a type of commercial establishment which is not eligible to have licensed amusement devices available to the general public and, therefore, no Amusement Device Operators license should be issued to David Allen Edelstein for the proposed Humboldt Square Shopping Center location. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, or need additional information, please contact me. cc: Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Development Section 23 -2108. TRANSFERABILITY. A. One amusement device may be substituted for another similar amusement device under a single license provided that the number of amusement devices shall not exceed the number approved under the license. B. Operator's licenses are issued for one location only and such licenses are nontransferable between locations. Section 23 -2109. LOCATION OF AMUSEMENT DEVICES. A. No amusement device shall be located, placed, maintained or operated on any public street, avenue, boulevard, lane, or alley within the City. No amusement device shall be located on private property in such a manner as to block or interfere with established driving lanes, parking places, fire lanes, exitways or walkways nor shall an amusement device be located so that its operation will create a nuisance. B. Licensed amusement devices shall be allowed to be located as secondary or incidental uses in the following commercial establishments: 1. establishments holding an on -sale nonintoxicating liquor license, an on -sale intoxicating liquor license, an on -sale wine license or an on -sale club license. 2. eating establishments including eating establishments offering live entertainment, but excluding convenience food restaurants and drive -in eating establishments. 3. recreation centers. 4. motion picture theaters. 5. bowling establishments. 6. athletic clubs. 7. health spas. 8. hotels and motels. 9. clubrooms and lodges. 10, other retail operations provided the property on which the amusement device is to be located is not within 150 feet of any residentially zoned (R1 through R7) property. C. Amusement centers shall be subject to the provisions of Section 35 -220 of the City Ordinances provided the property on which the amusement center is to be located is not within 150 feet of any residentially zoned (R1 through R7) property. 23 -2109 D. Licensed amusement devices designed for and used exclusively as rides for children may be located in any place or upon any premises approved by the City Council. Section 23 -2110. USE FOR GAMBLING. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any amusement device, or for the owner or operator of any establishment where it is located, to knowingly permit the same to be used for gambling or for the making of bets or wagers. Section 23 -2111. PAYOFFS. It shall be unlawful for the licensee or for the owner or operator of the establishment where any amusement device is located to give any money as a reward or prize for the playing of the amusement device. It shall be unlawful for the licensee or for the owner or operator of the establishment where any amusement device is located to give any token, merchandise or any other thing with a wholesale value of more than $1 as a reward or prize for the playing of the amusement device. Free games maybe awarded for the playing of the amusement device, but not in conjunction with the awarding of any prize, token, or merchandise as defined herein. All free games so registered shall be played on the device registering such free game. There shall be no mechanism on the amusement device whereby the operator can cancel registered free games. Section 23 -2112. AUTOMATIC PAYOFFS. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep, maintain, sell or permit to be operated any amusement device which has been converted into an automatic payoff device which automatically awards any money, or any prizes, tokens, merchandise, gifts or anything with a wholesale value of more than $1 to the player of such amusement device, provided, however, that free games may be awarded, but not in conjunction with such prizes. It shall be unlawful to convert any amusement device into an automatic payoff device. Section 23 -2113. DESTRUCTION OF ILLEGALLY OPERATED MACHINES. Any amusement device knowingly used by the owner in violation of Section 23 -2110, 2111 or 2112 of this ordinance may be seized and destroyed in compliance with the provisions of the Statutes of the State of Minnesota relating to gambling devices. Section 23 -2114, CERTAIN AMUSEMENT DEVICES NOT LICENSED. The licensing provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to any of the following amusement devices: 1. Any amusement device held or kept for sale or storage and which is not actually in use or displayed for use. 2. Any amusement device used for private, noncommercial purposes such as home use. 3. Any amusement device located on commercial or industrial premises in lunch rooms, break rooms, employee cafeterias or recreation rooms which is provided for employees use and not available for use by the general public. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/24/93 Agenda Item Number l� G REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STATUS REPORT REGARDING 69TH AVENUE NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Kna 6, Director of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: AR- 09 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /atta ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • Following is a report of the status of the 69th Avenue North Improvement Project, with Council action being requested specifically for that portion of the roadway through the Palmer Lake Basin (Phase III). Phase I - Palmer Lake Basin Soil Corrections The reconstruction of the roadway in the area of the soil corrections has been delayed to allow the organic%soils (peat) in the Palmer Lake Basin to compress or settle under the load of the surcharge which has been placed in small increments over the last two years. The rate of settlement (and strength of the soil) was increased after a wick drain system was installed last year, and the rate at which settlement is now occurring indicates that it should be possible to remove the surcharge and construct the road in August of this year. This phase of the 69th Avenue North project is currently within budget and should be finaled this fall. Phase II - Reconstruction between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive Work is nearly complete on last year's contract for the total street reconstruction and utility replacement project for the segment of 69th Avenue between Brooklyn Boulevard and West Palmer Lake Drive. The contractor is completing the final paving and miscellaneous "punchlist" items, and we hope to final the project out in the next month or so. 69th Avenue North Landscaping The contract for the landscaping and irrigation system for 69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard to West Palmer Lake Drive is underway and scheduled to be complete by the end of June of this summer. This contract also includes the construction of wood fencing along the northerly right -of -way line of the 69th Avenue corridor. 69th Avenue North - Phase III The City's consultant for the 69th Avenue North project, SEH, Inc., has developed • plans and specifications for Phase III, which is the final phase of the roadway project from Shingle Creek Parkway to West Palmer Lake Drive. This project completes the reconstruction of 69th Avenue North in the Palmer Lake Basin, which is the area of the previous soil correction project (Phase I). The design of the proposed roadway provides for construction of four lanes, divided by the widest possible median, which will blend into the existing configuration of Shingle Creek Parkway. Please refer to the attached map for the project location. Long -term, or secondary, settlements of between 3/4 and 1 -1/2 feet are to be expected in a 400 foot long section of the proposed roadway over the next 3 to 5 years. This section of the road is located over the deepest portion of the organic soils encountered in the revised alignment, the same area in which the surcharge experienced a sudden settlement (failure) last year. In this section of the roadway it is proposed that the paving section and curbing be revised to reflect the reality that the City will have to provide a somewhat higher level of maintenance until such time that the settlement stops. This "interim" section will be constructed with bituminous curbing, and the proposed storm sewer system has been revised to accommodate some vertical movement of the subgrade. SEH, through a geotechnical sub - consultant, has been monitoring the surcharge area to this point and now indicate that additional geotechnical services are necessary to determine the details of the construction sequence for the final phase, and that instrumentation be installed to monitor the future settlements. The scope of this work to provide the continued geotechnical services necessary for Phase III and instrumentation for future monitoring is beyond what is included in either the City's professional services agreement with SEH, Inc. or • SEH's agreement with their geotechnical sub - consultant. Accordingly, the City Engineer has received proposals from two geotechnical firms for the continued monitoring and instrumentation. The lowest of the two proposals submitted is that of STS Consultants Ltd., which is the firm that has been providing the geotechnical support to SEH throughout the project. STS Consultants' proposal provides for the installation of an inclinometer, which measures lateral movement of the embankment, and a piezometer, which measures the water pressure within the underlying soils, which in the case of our project helps determine when the soils have increased their strength and stability. Also provided for in the proposal are readings and interpretations of the instrumentation for the years 1993 through 1998, when it is expected that the long -term settlements will effectively be complete. The total cost to the City for the services included in the proposal is $14,400. Staff recommends acceptance of the proposal of STS for extended monitoring and instrumentation so that the roadway construction can proceed on the revised schedule. This phase of the reconstruction, similar to the previous phases, will involve State Aid funding and thereby require submittal to and approval by the State Aid Division. The concept of the "interim" section over the 400 feet of the proposed roadway which will experience the continued settlement has received preliminary approval from State Aid, and final approval of the entire plan is expected in the next 4 -6 weeks. The construction of this phase of the roadway project requires coordination with the private utility companies which serve the area. All private utility companies affected have been included in the development of the construction plans and scheduling, and a separate agreement has been executed by NSP and the City which provides for the relocation and replacement of their facilities. The landscaping specific to this segment of 69th Avenue, together with that which is necessary in the wetland mitigation area(s), will be addressed in a later contract, possibly in 1994. We estimate that the final upgrade of the 400 foot long interim section of the roadway in the Palmer Lake Basin would occur in approximately 5 years, based on continued monitoring of the long -term settlements and the recommendations of the geotechnical and engineering consultants retained for that purpose. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution approving plans and specifications and directing advertisement for bids for Reconstruction of 69th Avenue North, Phase III, is provided for consideration. Also provided for Council consideration is a resolution accepting the proposal of STS Consultants Ltd. to provide the required instrumentation and monitoring services. • - - - ..- N 11 man 1111111 pp ;:•' �" � 11 ` �♦ ♦ jL►••AI N •♦♦ � �■� ' . ■/1111■ ii ii ■ �'I� ' � � .� . ♦!�11 It' i ■i /1111 .��� �r■ ■' ���i 1/�����'/�. .�.�y �♦ , 1111 1 1111 111 ��♦•; 0 • 11111111111111f1 ■ X11/ �'1 ,, rrpu � �� � 1 1I i11 1111 X11111 11 � - 111111 .111111131111111 m � 1 • . � 1111 - :I�I�j � � = � ► - .: 11111■ 11 111111 11 1111111 II 11111 � �� C ,. ///// M • 11 ■� /11111 /■ 1111 IIIf1111 ■��■ . 111111 X ii i� ■�"" �'� 111111 1 �� �� � 111111 � ����,��/ /11 W " ,�� ,�� 1111 111 ©11 ■� ._. � dl��� •� � "� •• ■� 111111► 11� III ��11111111 E P 11 1 � ,� ;► �� 111111" - r ' .111111/1111111 1111 11 111111. 1 ♦�. 11 t �i 1111111 81 1111 o 1 ��t► /111�� /I 1111111111 � � 11 1 11111111 111111 �� �Im11 %It /�� ■.. MINE_ ��!► ` I�.� 11111 �1�11111� 11111111 11111 ,,11 /111111 '�� E■'� �� i� SEEM 1 / �.' `,, i .:111111111111111111 11 `•'' 1, .• �� � 1�11lI � �• � 1 =• •� 11 ■ ..1111111 11111 ■ � ��111111111�111�1 �: 111 ■1111 / = � 1 ►�' �. 11 / �r,, .. �' � 11►. �11 1111 �� 111111111 /� /// �i ,"ii .. ., �.. - � - � - / , � 111111/ 111111 ._ _ ♦ ♦♦ • � ,. � .... C - ► � ; ��� ., IA � " ICI 11111 �♦♦ ♦ '♦ � .,, ;: �� ' , , ► � 111 II ► 11111.+1" •� �� .... m '111 � /1/�' : ���� 11111 • � ;, �1 '� �`,,����; ,�-1 ' :. ■ �� 111111■ �// 11111111 11' OWN ► ` : ,,' ■� 11111 ■ "�''�� 11/11/11 11 974 1 a il milli '■� �� ■� ■ � X1111 ,..:1I� � � 1� ®� � = ., 1■ .. -- �� �■ �■ ter■ �� NEW ■�� ■ � �/ ■� : 11111 /''�`� ♦..' ► .� ::. 11111111111111 ���11.. �� �� ii �� �� i� �� �i !i C 1 "_ •'���� �t I:IIIIIIIIIIE1111�.� ;�. ��� ��� � �i�� � .•• �� 1�1111111111�1111� �• •IBC:: = � ♦ •,•�■� ��� -� ��•;• II � 1 1 11111 � �� � ■� .� �i; ©����,���♦ � � ` �� �• �i = =, �► "�� ' Qi � Oar .. �\ 11 ♦ ♦ � � •�.�' �� � .., oil 1 11111111 /I VIII p �■ . ._ ■,., ■� ... ■ - 1 � 11111 ���11 -- �■' 'ni ii ■�i� = � \ � mi ��� �� � ` °� � 11 11111111 111 ■i. i� �� �■■� ii ■` s ;.\ .. 11 1111111111 III � ! �� :� �� ..• �� � � -' MME i 11 , . 111 ►♦ ► � �. �ii� :'■i::: � "' • °' + �--' 1! 1111111111 111 � � 1 � %,� i� �� ; 11 111 � ♦�� ♦���i� ' , �� ■�! ■■ �..�: ►Did s ♦� °�'3•i��•���� �i� � /�/' I IOn t t3 lot tt ?� 8 A a t t 0 • • • , ;i ABBOT AVE. i EL-SEWS TY VIE* REARR. BLOCK :4 I /{ AVE. ZENITH - N. j xt 0 a t t 0 • • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH, PHASE III, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 (ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION FOR WEST PALMER LAKE DRIVE TO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY), CONTRACT 1993 -D WHEREAS, Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Inc. (SEH, Inc.) has prepared plans and specifications for Phase III improvements to 69th Avenue North, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10, Contract No. 1993 -D. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for said improvement project as prepared by SEH, Inc. 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 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 Todd Paulson, 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 ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AND INSTRUMENTATION RELATING TO 69TH AVENUE NORTH, PHASE III, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council of the need for additional monitoring and instrumentation relating to the surcharged area in the Palmer Lake Basin; and WHEREAS, the City does not possess the personnel nor the equipment necessary to perform such monitoring and instrumentation; and WHEREAS, proposals for the necessary monitoring and instrumentation were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 21st day of April, 1993, and said proposals were as follows: Bidder Bid STS Consultants, Ltd $14,400.00 American Engineering Testing $20,437.00 WHEREAS, it appears that STS Consultants, Ltd. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, has provided the lowest responsible proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal as submitted by STS Consultants, Ltd. of Minneapolis, Minnesota is hereby accepted and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, in the amount of 14 400.00 with STS Consultants Ltd in the $ name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1990 -10. 2. All costs relating to this project shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Street Fund No. 1496 or No. 2912. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05,24i93 J Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: TWIN LAKES TRAIL PLAN - STATUS REPORT DEPT. APPROVAL: L � Sy Knapp, Dir or of Nblic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMNIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes During the past several years a Twin Lakes Task Force, consisting of representatives from Brooklyn Center, Crystal and Robbinsdale have met to discuss and develop plans for the development of a trail system which serves the Twin Lakes area and provides pedestrian and bicycle trails between the three cities. Under the agreement which establishes that task force, the City of Brooklyn Center has employed the services of Westwood Professional Services Inc. to develop a plan and cost estimates and to investigate possible funding sources. Crystal and Robbinsdale have reimbursed Brooklyn Center for their share of these costs on a t /a /t /a /' /a basis. A copy of Westwood's March 11, 1993 report and accompanying plans is attached for the Council's information. Also attached is a copy of the minutes of the March 11, 1993 meeting of the task force. The task force has requested Westwood to develop and submit a proposal to complete additional work on the plan, including the development of application for federal and state grants to fund various portions of the proposed trail system. This proposal will be considered by the task force at their next meeting on June 3. At the June 3 meeting the task force will also need to consider the issue of cost - sharing between the 3 cities (see page 2 of the Westwood report). Also attached is a copy of a 4/29/93 memo from Crystal's Public Works Director Bill Monk to his Park and Recreation Commission in which he suggests the following cost - sharing approach: • • each City to pay for its share of the "basic" trail system within its own boundaries; and • "Major" system features, such as land purchases, RR crossings and bridges would be split evenly between all cities. As noted in Bill's memo, this arrangement would allow each City to "maintain primary responsibility for trails within its boundaries while providing a financial equalizer to more equitably reflect joint usage." We recommend support • of that approach... at least as a basis for additional discussion /negotiation by the task force. Staff will be prepared to discuss this matter in more detail at the Council meeting. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION • review • discuss • provide staff and task force direction regarding the Council's continued support for development of the proposed trail system, preparation of applications for grants, and a cost sharing format. r Westwood Professional Services, Inc. W 4 Trunk 1 180 u k Hwy.5 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 March 11, 1993 612- 937 -5150 FAX 612- 937 -5822 FUNDING OPTIONS AND ESTIMATES TWIN LAKES TRAIL SYSTEM BROOKLYN CENTER - CRYSTAL - ROBBINSDALE, MN A. OUTSIDE FUNDING SOURCES 1. Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources is an organization that administers three state funds intended to assist (cost sharing) with "innovative" projects that "preserve and enhance natural resources." Projects are funded on a two -year basis and need to have a distinct beginning and ending. LCMR will be accepting proposals again in December to February of 1994 for funding in 1995. The amount of funding per project has ranged from $5,000 to $1,900,000. Proposals can be submitted jointly by more than one community. Projects funded vary widely and can include research, planning, organization, and construction. 2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The Community Development Block Grant program is a potential funding source for some types of planning and/or development of projects specifically targeted for middle and lower income persons. Each year, communities in Hennepin County apply to the county and requesting how they would like to utilize its allocated CDBG funding for that year. Applications are typically late winter, early spring. Funds would be allocated on a city by city basis (not jointly). 3. State Aid Funds received from the State Aid account can in specific instances be applied to sidewalks and/or shoulder improvements of State Aid roads to enhance bicycle and pedestrian movement. Again, this funding is allocated on a city by city basis (not jointly). 4. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency ct is federal legislation that will redirect federal highway Y g g Y funds to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, scenic and environmental enhancement and projects. A second solicitation of projects including interim eligibility requirements and prioritizing criteria has been issued with proposals due April 15, 1993. Another solicitation with the permanent criteria is due out in December 1993. The Twin Lakes project fulfills all seven of the eligibility requirements and is very strong in two of the seven prioritizing criteria. Westwood Professional Se es, Inc is an epual oppott y employer. Funding Options and Estimates Twin Lakes Trail System Page 2 B. COST SHARING There are several methods of the three cities involved to share the implementation costs of the Twin Lakes trail system. 1. Each city could be responsible for the segments inside its own limits; or 2. Combine all costs and divide them by: a. equal thirds b. prorated by population of each city c. prorated by trail system length in each city d. etc.; or 3. Separate elements of the trail such as the "transportation triangle" from the "lake loops" and use an f p p y o the above sharing combinations with any of the elements. The advantages of a sharing method in which each city implements the part of the system within its own boundaries is the autonomy that each city would have with regard to timing, design standards, and simpler coordination. The disadvantages would be the potential for disproportionate shares, lack of continuity in design standards and possible gaps in the system due to varied implementation schedules. The cost sharing method that combines the costs of the entire system has the advantage of maintaining continuity of design standards and has greater potential for funding. The disadvantages are the greater need for cooperation and lack of autonomy. C. Preliminary Cost Estimate This cost estimate addresses the lake loops. The transportation triangle linking routes are additional. Cost estimate utilized 1992 construction costs. Assumptions • Cost is for basic/lowest cost trail route /loop • Upgrading, special qualitative features /options adds • Assumes an 8' wide bituminous trail (new paved one at least 8) • No wetland mitigation costs are represented Funding Options and Estimates Twin Lakes Trail System ,Page 3 CRYSTAL A. 58th Avenue to Angeline Avenue (52 1/2 Avenue) via Twin Lake Terrace and Orchard Avenue 1. Striped Road Shoulder 3.,850.0 L.F. @ 3.00 11.550.00 Subtotal 11,550.00 B. Middle/Upper Twin Loop Connection (see Detail Plan) 1. Clearing & Grubbing 0.5 A.C. @ 2,500.00 1,250.00 2. Granular Fill 1,200.0 C.Y. @ 7.00 8,400.00 3. Geotextile Fabric 1,000.0 S.Y. @ 2.00 2,000.00 4. 8' Wide Bituminous Trail 1,350.0 L.F. @ 7.50 10,125.00 5. Guardrails 200.0 L.F. @ 25.00 5,000.00 6. Sod 1,200.0 S.Y. @ 2.35 2,820.00 7. Seed Lump Sum 200.00 Subtotal 29,795.00 Railroad Crossing: 8. 1 Rubberized at Grade Crossing 4,800.00 9. 1 set safety signal/arms No Estimate at this Time. 10. Kevitt Easement/Acquisition 50,000.00 Subtotal B 84,595.00 C. 52nd Avenue to 47th Avenue via Quail Avenue to 47th/Orchard Lane 1. Striped Road Shoulder 4,650.0 L.F. @ 3.00 13,950.00 Subtotal 13,950.00 Subtotal A -C 110,095.00 25% Design, Contingency & Administration Fee 27,524.00 CRYSTAL TOTAL $137,619.00 Funding Options and Estimates Twin Lakes Trail System Page 4 BROOKLYN CENTER A. Middle/Upper Twin Loop Connection (see Detail Plan) 1. Clearing & Grubbing Lump Sum 1,000.00 2. Granular Fill 1,300.0 C.Y. @ 7.00 9,100.00 3. Geotextile Fabric 800.0 S.Y. @ 2.00 1,600.00 4. 8' Wide Bituminous Trail 3,050.0 L.F. @ 7.50 22,875.00 5. Guardrails 400.0 L.F. @ 25.00 10,000.00 6. 8' Wide Boardwalk (includes 50' span over channel) 350.0 L.F. @ 225.00 78,750.00 7. Sod 2,800.0 S.Y. @ 2.35 6,580.00 8. Seed Lump Sum 4 00.00 Subtotal 130,305.00 Railroad Crossing: 9. 1 Rubberized at Grade Crossing Lump Sum 4,800.00 10. 1 set safety signal/arms No Estimate at this Time 11. Kevitt Easement 50,000.00 Subtotal A 185,105.00 Note: For $180,000 Additional, the Kevitt Parcel may be acquired. B. 49th Avenue to Lakeside Avenue via. Twin Lake Avenue 1. Striped Road Shoulder 1,100.0 L.F. @ 3.00 3,300.00 Subtotal 3,300.00 C. Middle/Lower Twin Loop Connection (see Detail Plan) 1. 8' Wide Bituminous Trail 500.0 L.F. @ 7.50 3,750.00 Subtotal 3,750.00 Funding Options and Estimates Twin Lakes Trail System Page 5 BROOKLYN CENTER (continued) Alt. 1* Future Trail Link Ballfield (Beach) to Indiana Avenue crossing Highway 100 at grade 8' Wide Bituminous Trail 1,150.0 L.F. @ 7.50 8,625.00 At Grade Crossing/Crosswalk Upgrade 150.0 L.F. @ 3.00 450.00 Subtotal 9,075.00 Alt. 2* Indiana Avenue Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 100 Lump Sum/No Estimate at this time. D. 51st Avenue North to 57th Avenue via. Twin Lake Boulevard/Eckberg Drive/Halifax Avenue 1. Striped Road Shoulder 4,600.0 L.F. @ 3.00 13,800.00 Subtotal 13,800.00 E. North Upper Twin Loop Connection Assumes 5743 June Easement and Crosby Easement with an off road trail along Major Avenue and 57th Avenues. 1. Clearing & Grubbing Lump Sum 1,500.00 2. Granular Fill 1,000.0 C.Y. @ 7.00 7,000.00 3. Geotextile Fabric 1,700.0 S.Y. @ 2.00 3,400.00 4. 8' Wide Bituminous Trail 1,800.0 L.F. @ 7.50 13,500.00 5. Guardrails 600.0 L.F. @ 25.00 15,000.00 6. 60 L.F. Bridge/Boardwalk 60.0 L.F. @ 225.00 13,500.00 7. Sod 1,000.0 S.Y. @ 2.35 2,350.00 8. Seed Lump Sum 500.00 9. Signage Lump Sum 1,500.00 10. 5743 June Easement 5,000.00 11. Crosby Easement 50,000.00 12. Striped Road Shoulder 650.0 L.F. @ 3.00 1,950.00 Subtotal 115,200.00 0 Funding Options and Estimates Twin Lakes Trail System Page 6 BROOKLYN CENTER (continued) Alternates • Striped Road Shoulder Major Avenue and 57th Avenue 760.0 L.F. @ 3.00 2,280.00 (NOTE: Deduct $24,985.00 from the (E) total if this segment is used) • Acquire Thompson Parcel Lump Sum 266,000.00 • Acquire Crosby Parcel Lump Sum 385,000.00 • Acquire 5743 June Parcel Lump Sum 126,000.00 (NOTE: If Crosby and Thompson Parcels are acquired, June is not acquired.) • Pave Thompson and West Crosby Parcels; include 100' Boardwalk. If this option is used, add $24,300 to the (E) total. Subtotal A,B,C,D,E 330,230.00 25% Design, Contingency & Administration Fee 82,558.00 TOTAL BROOKLYN CENTER $412,788.00 ROBBINSDALE A. Lower /Middle Twin Loop Connection 1. Clearing & Grubbing Lump Sum 500.00 2. Granular Fill 500.0 C.Y. @ 7.00 3,500.00 3. Geotextile Fabric 700.0 S.Y. @ 2.00 1,400.00 4. 8' Wide Bituminous Trail 3,100.0 L.F. @ 7.50 23,250.00 5. Guardrails 700.0 L.F. @ 25.00 17 500.00 6. 10' Wide Concrete Sidewalk 3,000.0 L.F. @ 2.50 7,500.00 7. Steps 2.0 EA. @ 2,000.00 4,000.00 8. Retaining Walls 4,000.0 F.F.. @ 15.00 60,000.00 9. Safety Barriers (Jersey) 700.0 L.F. @ 22.00 15,400.00 10. Signage Lump Sum 1.800.00 Subtotal 134.850.00 Funding Options and Estimates Twin Lakes Trail System Page 7 ROBBINSDALE (continued) B. Lilac Drive/Frontage Road 1. 8' Wide Bituminous Trail 850.0 L.F. @ 7.50 6,375.00 C. Indiana Avenue On Street 1. Striped Road Shoulder 550.0 L.F. @ 3.00 1,650.00 D. Indiana Avenue to Halifax 1. Striped Trail in Parking Lot 150.0 L.F. @ 3.00 450.00 2. Ped. Bridge/Boardwalk 100.0 L.F. @ 225.00 22,500.00 3. 8' Wide Bituminous Trail 150.0 L.F. @ 7.50 1.125.00 Subtotal D 24,075.00 E. 46th Avenue/France Avenue 0 1. Striped Road Shoulder 1,500.0 L.F. @ 3.00 4,500.00 F. Lake Drive France Avenue to Lakeland Avenue 1. Utilize 2,900 L.F. existing 8' wide concrete sidewalk --- north side of Lake Drive 2. Signage 10.0 EA. @ 300.00 3,000.00 G. Lake Drive/Lakeland Avenue to Boat Launch 1. Utilize 200 L.F. existing sidewalk 2. Striped Road Shoulder 2,000.0 L.F. @ 3.00 6,000.00 (Lakeview Ave./Boat Launch/ access road) ROBBINSDALE TOTAL A - G 180,450.00 25% Design, Contingency and Administration Fee 45,113.00 TOTAL ROBBINSDALE $225,563.00 Funding Options and Estimates Twin Lakes Trail System Page 8 This preliminary cost estimate total includes all cities, and deals with easements only. This estimate is exclusive of railroad crossing arms; does not buy out the Thompson, Crosby, 5743 June and Kevitt properties; and uses an off -road trail system along Major and 57th Avenues. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY CRYSTAL $137,619.00 BROOKLYN CENTER 412,788.00 ROBBINSDALE 225,563.00 TOTAL LAKE LOOP TRAIL $775,970.00 LA. 61 ST 1 4.+, 1 1 " z W Rp ' air- L�����.���.�.�r�s•�E�sa.•�a�. AVE. m a COM LA. o \ 7 La. \► i � i � O a LA. . J h w —t + i v = p AVE. wN. m Z rc H (• w U Crystal Airport 60TH A . N \. T j (U 3 = nnn O z U g a a 3 NARY Z 1 0 h . w 59T AVE a'� 58th ST. N. z Z w w a •1• FRA E ° II- D ht AV E. N. 8 TH a AvE. o +•�� (�L111.9y_1 �q C LA. j Z �� UFt0UE5T LA. 57 AVE. N. z z 7 TH ° AVE. N. a TH Y ^ z m a a z ¢ K R DR. i yt a W c' w CL 10 ASS z o z �j AVE. ZANE PL. LA RC A 10 ~ • m W d ~ Au o u j > w w �5 • a A l O AVE 3X w > w a a > } 1.1VE. N. 54TH 7 a a 3 a a z¢ 1 OW nt 0 i L Cryst al - 54 TH Z J a AVE N a Twin { z IN AVE. N. J RY OOG a ANG CT. z A o 53 �. 9 RD D A T ' L . v I 102 N Y�� v W z W 1 �PTiSO tine 9 F. R � •• OAK }p ST. yj � Soa NO AVE. I~- ��& ERNARD 'T v w _� 51 ST > E. N. > : ��; W 3 4 o CORVALLIS AVE N. Twin A VE 7Q AVE u p O F y\ OTH ILL N. 1001 3 AVE N EAI VIEW � . a Lokes _ � j I 49 TH AVE. N, _...4 a I ILA . 6 @R� j�, Q y P a zz; w• - AVE. 48 Tli avE N. LAKESIDE j�> J N 48TH p i 48TH z 'a pv ak a Ryan i Lake r w [y NJ a h■ AKESIDje' V. 7TH AV L i DYRON AVE N. ? w •' TOO-}� 47 iH : ' :: .... V u' Q .:: •••• 14•i •.t�•11 n'1A E _ 46th AVEN �.:, �• ��•y 46i/2 461 y ins U 2 c � ¢ ��•♦ 46th � � . t Z AVE. as • � 6tn AVE N. N. � �� a a ¢ N �• z z v 451h AVE . > 11 NE p = J > z a 45 TH AVE. S.n ��� N ' a� av - a❑ r D a _� LaRSJ ?Yi c = ` AKE Lm H. m a AVE. N. > m 4th v N. .! 441h W a 1 � �N LYN Y `q u z z o d $ z z L N N K W W < O q r �= M REOZ EMn.IE z 43 D AVE. ^ 3 N P , m i l 93rd AVE, n. i �4,. 9 OP V,O Y ..i Pl. 43rd AVE N. 2 f..� �:.... _• � W 4212 AVE N. � k KFOR � 6 a 9 Ati�IO 8 4 Z n � 3 W ai ZI O J R a 4 n AVE N. �P 9 W AV > M W N �� O} 42M AV N = Z y U= a 3 � tNE s le O 41ST AVE. N, a 41f1a AV N. 41.i AV N�. P\ .I.�t.:. .. I I'tII��II��I qV H .t AVE N. Tl a e n Pa L � t l 11 lln 4012 AVE N. N. - l00 r I 111 NZ 4� ns r 1 u _ 3 q 0 Y p� IE. N. n 3 h x VE> N. J Stn a AVE N, AVE a n . N. (00 I I w ~ V A Z ' a ,9 f al n • � 9L a. ___ � I a rat � a J7th AV N. \ e st 0 d W f Br o Cc - „n -Rob ins a C` ' '��` �li�tl75iY14..ww Wu cJ � E �. � : 1 °• gr � � F ,te " ' 3 � �. � � �'% y; , L akeside Ave<; a' 4$th AM- A:C�< � a a s a�'. :s #� a , , :�• F ,:'" �',;" � y �°, a' 4 �C ', �*,, � <k you,. �„ 3*��wil�. ����p � t - 5''..;.•'iR �„ @.". 'Nv; , ,`^h': PE s r[A� ^. ;` � 1• r - ♦S T^ss �. - - `����� � .?;: 3°s""y s,* i mom' ���' ♦ ♦ f� :'fir::. �. ..�. �,,.�E'.�, a._: ;;,�;� H� �;�, �.:. �.,,,�,., —.. �',� :.y �a,��� ,,I.; ♦ ♦.. _ Brook, n center. • ;;; .. Y Y a a m i nom.. �� ♦ ♦ ♦♦ City of Robbcsgdate ♦,, 47 t.�~k ♦ a Y l:yr� 4 rth Ave—.- , ty 000�c ca yy rP r ' , _• - `,`��^. "vim'�j' �`.;: Q ��' �i.: v:,,, �r� 4$th�Ave No X4 e ..V ' � J Fill 0n or Retafiin Walls + u ` 3 o Create Trap Bench & R-. d y +�'' �` �C�� + �10N \\ \� \ \\ pi t st; k Route Zrd1{ AI ong NOrf i dr, a of Trees /Edge of Powe ON S $ g - A� .� $`A Marc [rower /Middle = Twin, �� L Q �°� .� Loop Connection y� - -20 . E 4 T DYIN LAKES TRAIL SYSTEM'N L n � Vt►eStw00d BROOKLYNtENTER 'CRYSTAL - " ROBBINSDAi . Ml v,.. a `. .�� � :.. s �• _ law I— ""' ca, n.,,. � - , g , s S. 53rd AY @.' „�! � / /, /�,� ,✓../ 5 ; iY y, <350`L.f:_ Boardwalk , 31 t�gr Fill Secti Kevin N / ; r� r (ilnCludeS `50' Span Over Ct�a[Inel, s r / ' /r U< d ' •• .. r, t : ,;P h „ / /: /r/ y, r/� >;; ^�.: , may ::x•':� ,xf ,�zf ,ny, 4, ,,� z �"'."'•' - ..+.�` - -�' � "✓ ��, &'� /a, s.�.. "r r� /�,/' lf/i.,�,y,��i�,., 11 ' n '�"':....,�` "..-',. 2',• .CSC -.� :: <: H ,:, �': 6`/,d.. '. �+ _ F.,. // �. �•e.:yK,. .j • j ,, y �.::. ,� Y' y / .y�/ .l a���j����j ,C M : / %, \ 9J % rbii;•., / , /_ /,,, /' : •/, :. i ,,�,, �,..>� "� . , _• ,.:�s.r . � <, , , ; cq �"`-+. . , _ a., °FIII Se , .. /^ , . � „i/ , /„ / r / / � „� �, � y.. p .5 Acre Clearing & Grub �� ;,. /1„U // yy`r ';'t _:./ ..s:.9 ( ".:•:� r ";.�a,, :'1, s bang n d Ye ua �ar> , r- 'Y. - -. .. ��rw- -e;::. - : �` �� '�'� ,.,r .. � rF,s. ,. „ ,F � >✓ .' >/ �3r y / � ,� ' '�' ".i �': .'F' / „ / / /.. � r 5, / rC f � ry%'„ �,✓,<< a.gh'. iti f r �., �` „Nr � / ,r�,r. • ,,.�,,, ;�. +Y `; ° �:.. ,.;, ,� ' , '•'y ,; /;:, i s ,.., y//, / 1, ' ,/, / ,:' �r`.?y«' " z'�' '1 Aw "O P P I / Vm a r w , fs"' ... y ., . .'.. y /i„ .:w' ,.. „� �.�, /:. /.. : i`/i r ^ 4 ' ✓, /iy� / '�'Qi .C' ' }� ` ,� ,'� : ,. � �r«ri> ..,, ,:,..,. ,. / ,sa:... : i8.. ,.. _ ,s ,/S^i ,'.l. ; . :, , p'% r "/; > , � :.:�`;� r /yB" .. ,✓ : /, r .f'J ,, z. z ., ux>•oR..,:. I x _ < >, ,,; . 'y. '�,..:, ,.,. i�G� ,i/ / /O/ . ,� L. /, �� Y <zy/ :r , ,;�/�,✓ l / � >r� rrtard y r s y ✓: /� /r ”' r ea � •'!Z; + `� �• � �..�:� •�� w .�' ^� / �///,G , � %fir, r {r '�' �' �h��uG� , / �/G� . j /,r N, ".... •oyy.,.+4f °.. �rG �,..,� � ”. � .... :� ," .. 4 '�, {, { y: ,Y,f •, /. y ,j<, , � � /„ 6 ;a4, .i: h<,. /iy,w / , L 'w/ r /;: /r /.yi y/rr�l!� Via... ° r, / . /,s„; ✓ ' � i r 141 Z s >, < . ' •e -3 ,.i�'. s:.-,.s`�':. ` P. ice' / x y sc, r ; •x 6 a , s :ys �'-y i/s'" a:.. F <:{s3<✓'md�°"/a',a>f t st °Ava - -._ . . , , .. :.. : ,., q,r.v M ,. ,/ .. ,y:. / .Y ..ae> q.N_ - E ,r ','"' a ,i .r'4,✓ E Y8r1aU h -' '�:ac� .., ,' -':: - . >.,.'.. ,,, ...�,s',� „�:,•'�:;L�' a,3, /`H.. 'r;,ss / z ::%' r''� a::,�.:•�< a Z�:.� �l�y� %/',;,//,6/..�sr�/,s>.,rdi. /•,,. / �;''�y ,�/ Nrr 'r � � , . y a �: gw s yy q ' 3 ;: -, his ";TranMAljgnmeni`& witlloutr - �- -��- "y�q>, �'�/. P . , ,off` �/, ``. ' y . f , "»? ✓�` u 's ' �y �.:r �'�» . e"*�,`^� r• and To Other,.. Site De O bons e9 p ,,.. , ,s �'!',. /„ � /// � � ,��' ✓'+/ /� .�� � ,,.r %uw �: y /; 5; : M:t-., ' 'F;' � ' f� '°` c : ,,.8`,^ .; :?✓... >::a f2_ ,A.(kK. - .g b , - N.�/ 6, ;�. ✓/ �' � „fir %6,;!% „L' ' , , /',::: �'d-F ,2k.:;si �F' „v ✓: // ^'�^ 'sr:.. f ,: 3..f �`,Y.�.. , -.. .. � � „ /.. :f'. 'qy '! f< � / iFl. Yi'� ,g y 6�� 1 Q CI1,.��'ti.. / �1�8P Middle/Upper Twin Loop- Connection y F 200" 400' y, fz , o / y e <. ,, �„yr /:y '`., y L /r�- y,s,. / r'ls / y. '� r$ D�" _ (� }� /� ...�.,.. ,„ .u. {� /iy -: -/ 9 ., r .X „gz L:y / L: 8 J ^<" y' '^ sue✓ W e p �� p s t ' V 0 - TWI1 LAKES TRAIL SYSTEM RA(1(1TlT tTT ! L 7vT1G U ! AVCTd T _ A(1RRTTTCTAT G^ 11flV y r x/r • "::' ueovr+u..ny.+rs a. j� F - 58th Ave. No. ` i a -5743 ,., z' � ���� � °.�. �FF��� h� Via, •� O � � :a : r a �., �' � :', � � "°' +tom'^" � w.<a. � ,,,,,. � a � m � �� �., =a F.x .'t:�"n r/M�r / ♦ , �eraiba*.. ' r. " x .,..` � �� ��' ;mot .° � .�F- sr r- s _ ✓ `' "t � � °r ' s .k, Thoriapson e i : �,�LiF' "''�7C•.' > ;..7 > '" ,.. Y : wHe.. src3*d n p A � 7th jtVB: „••` _ � .. • '`�°4 5t a z war d.°••, °, ; g �� _'!'^""� ^.. •• aaaa a � � � � � 9. .iii .cl♦�w <_.: .---- � - •"' --^-- .,._ as � ........�ti DRIVEWAY A, S riaraa --' ao. �'`A �2 y, a. '1Ot;L,.,,Brid ,, Croso sae •':_ v 'µ xz ° cc 3 x Q! s I ri .. rgg a t L\ tiOn i" ham. e ms, •a s: a .� ,, ;:,�`"x. ;, ..'s z i"".rF x 3`; d to .,. $.�i e•�4'e ...,• y . 0 L-F;�Brld @ ;. ' \ -.." a,� : i '- «„• �•� ` BO3f[1W8NC rN � � whF �♦ .S .' Y', '' :: .. Fy ➢Z �� ���x F' a I •. "�° T' �`. s;, c� s.`r .::g",r„ " gd LF._ � Se C#IOR s e• .� ��`'s:F ��' � � 56th Ave. r 4 s � a z,t. sy'` m 3c �".» " & `e , .:.:.;c H �. ,.'{ cv'1 t ;\ s 'c�„?,': °A'�ti a L. a �. .r.......r.....�..�.�rr..— �r ;�....; ckberg A Drive 'March 1, 1993 North Upper Twin Loop Connection • 0 200 0e :.� Westwoo TRIIv LADS TRAIL SYSTEM • V -ar—1 BRnOA'LYN' CENTER - CRYSTAL - R�BBINSDALE. MN ♦ 1.uNl wen blot Hgwny S ..:' ,.. .. F9en itaoe M- SS]N JOINT CITY TWIN LAKE TRAIL COMMITTEE Minutes March 11, 1993 Crystal Community Center Committee Members Present: Brooklyn Center, Crystal Staff Present: Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Robbinsdale The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairperson Bill Gentry. Tim Erkkila (Westwood) gave the report on the Trail System Plan Update. He reviewed previous meetings attended by city staff. The purpose of these meetings were: - Discuss and agree on routing - Discussion of financing the plan - Where we go from here He showed the over -all routing map. It is broken down into: Lake Loop - original premise Transportation Loop - connects the business areas of the three cities Connectors - specific to each community Mr. Erkkila addressed specific issues associated with the Lake Loop including: (1) Highway 100 - He showed map of lake crossing area and highlighted specific issues such as: handicap accessibility, DNR concerns and MNDOT concerns. (2) Middle /Upper Twin - Mr. Erkkila addressed specific issues of: acquisition of property, railroad crossing, wetlands, channel crossing. (3) Bass Lake Road - Plans were reviewed with the major issues including: traffic, land ownership and routing decisions. The next topic addressed was funding. There are six programs that could assist the cities with funding for various parts of the project: LCMR CDBG ISTEA LAWCON State Aid Streets Enhancement Funding In addition, a discussion took place related to how each city might finance their share of project costs. There are basically three methods to consider: Mr. Erkilla explained his contract with the cities was now complete. He suggested that if the cities would like additional information on: - Price for developing the transportation corridor — Price for developing the trail loops - Investigation of grant programs and which program would fit what part of the project Westwood would be willing to write a proposal contract. The three cities could share the cost of this new contract. No decision was finalized on this. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. NEXT MEETING: Thursday, June 3 7:00 p.m. Crystal Community Center Memorandum DATE: May.13, 1993 To: Jerry Dulgar, City Manager FROM: William 'Monk, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Twin Lake Trail The following is an excerpt from the Park and Recreation meeting Of May 5, 1993: The regular meeting of the Crystal Park and Recreation Advisory Commission was called to order at 7 :00 p.m. by Chairperson Bill Gentry. Members present were: Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ertz, Mr. Gentry, Ms. Moucha, Mr. O'Reilly, and Ms. Reid. Absent members were: *Mr. Jungroth, Ms. Barrett and Ms. Saunders. Also present were: Ms. Hackett, Mr. Tostenson and-Ms. Montzka from the City staff and Mark Koegler, Consultant on Bassett Creek Playground Equipment. The following motion was passed unanimously: The Crystal Park and Recreation Advisory Commission recommends the Twin Lake Trail Proposal be adapted in Preliminary form. as stated in the memo of April 29 and staff directed to prepare 1994 grant submittals for at least the Middle and Upper Twin Lake Trail Loop. All materials reviewed by the Commission are attached to assist in the Counci s consideration of this item. WM:mb Encl MEM0RANDT?M DATE: April 29, 1993 TO - park & Recreation Commission .FROM: Bill Monk, Public works Director Gene Hackett, Recreation Director RE: Twin Lake Trail At its last meeting, the Commission was quite clear in voicing its position regarding the Twin Lakes Trail Proposal: - 1. The Trail proposal is an important element of the City's Park and Recreation overall plan and should be handled as a high priority. 2. The preliminary layouts appeared sound and defined enough to use at public information meetings. 3. Other major park and recreation capital expenditures in the CIP should be delayed to allow accelerated funding of the trail, within the PIR fund. 4. The initial phase of the project include construction of as much of the lake trail .loop as Possible with an all out effort to secure grant funds. 5. Staff develop a cost sharing formula for consideration by the three cities as a grant application is submitted. In regard to the cost sharing, our initial recommendation involves each City in paying for the 'basic trail system within its own'boundaries. "Maiar system features, such as land purchases, RR crossings and bridges, would be split evenly between all three cities. This simple arrangement allows each City to maintain primary responsibility for'the trail within its boundaries while providing a financial equalizer to more equitably reflect joint usage. Based on these comments, a recommendation from the cOmmission to the City Council accepting the preceding findings is in order. Specifically, the Coittmission recommends the Twin'Lake Trail proposal be adopted in Prelixinary form and staff directed to prepare 1994 grant submittals for at least the Middle and tipper Twin Take Trail Loop. Page 2 April 29, 1993 If this position is adopted by the City council, such action would be forwarded to the Joint Trail. Task Force in June. All three cities will need to agree for the project to proceed, to the grant submittal and public meeting stage. At that time more definitive cost data would also be compiled. Hopefully, the Commissioners kept the report for this item included'in the last meeting packet. Please contact us if you need another copy. ko BROOKLYN CENTER PARK & RECREATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 5/05/93 MEETING additional parking is needed. Upon vote being taken on the preceding motion, the motion passed. TWIN LAKE TRAIL COMMITTEE REPORT The Director of Public Works reviewed the March 11, 1993, minutes of the Twin Lake Trail Committee. He noted there is a focus on a three city project. The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for June 3, 1993. The Director of Public Works said if the committee gives the go ahead, grant applications will be prepared and submitted; funding and construction could be approved for 1995. He wanted the park and recreation commissioners to be aware of this, and said the staff can submit a report to the city council to inform them of this. Chairperson Sorenson said the cities would have to come up with additional funding for the consultant's services. The Director of Recreation noted Brooklyn Center was well represented at the meeting. There was a motion by Commissioner shinnick and seconded by Commissioner Russell to recommend informing the city council of the current status of activities of the joint city Twin Lake Trail Committee. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Shinnick and- - seconded by Commissioner Russell to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center park and recreation commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Chairperson 5 -5 -93 -6- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/24/93 Agenda Item Number /lG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: STATUS REPORT REGARDING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY QUADRANT OF THE I694 /BROOKLYN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp; rector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: " A �_.' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ® As directed by the City Council, four public information meetings have been held to discuss various issues regarding proposed improvements to the 63rd /65th Avenue storm water system, and the Park and Ride facility west of Brooklyn Boulevard and north of 65th Avenue — adjacent to the City's proposed storm water pond. Attached hereto is a copy of my 4/14/93 memo to the Park and Recreation Commission covering this matter, with summaries of each of the four public information meetings. Also attached are copies of Alternative Plans 1, 2 and 3 for improvements in this area. These plans were developed by Strgar Roscoe Fausch (SRF) based on their contract with the City —and the City's agreement with MTC to share the costs for development of these plans on a 50 -50 basis. As previously discussed with the City Council, Alternative Plans 1 and 2 provide for the storm water pond and the Park and Ride facility only. Plan 3 also includes the acquisition of additional land for park and /or open space usage. The Park and Recreation Commission, at their April 20 meeting, unanimously recommended approval of Alternative Plan 3 (see minutes). Within the past week, the following items have occurred: • The independent appraiser hired by the City has completed his appraisal of the value of the 4.1 acre undeveloped parcel of property adjacent to the I694 Brooklyn Boulevard interchange. • The Corps of Engineers has issued a permit authorizing the City to construct the proposed pond within the 1.52 acre wetland area which exists on the undeveloped property, provided certain conditions are met. Staff has reviewed those conditions and determined that most are already included in SRF's plans, and that those remaining can easily be accomplished. ■ The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has approved the City's plans —also with conditions which either have already been incorporated into the plan, or can easily be accomplished. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council initiate formal proceedings regarding acquisition of properties and development of the proposed facilities. Although no public hearing is required, we recommend that the Council call a formal hearing on June 28 to consider all of the improvements which are being considered. Scott Thompson, an MTC staff member has agreed to attend that meeting to present MTC's recommendations for the Park and Ride facility. If, after that public hearing, the Council decides to proceed with some or all of the improvements, the following actions would be appropriate: • approval of a specific plan (i.e. Alternative 1, 2 or 3), • authorize purchase of the 4.1 acre undeveloped parcel, and • approve a contract for land acquisition services. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION _ -- A resolution calling a public hearing to be held on June 28, 1993 is provided for consideration by the City Council. Note If that resolution is adopted, a notice of the hearing would be published twice in the Brooklyn Center Post. Also, individual notices of the hearing would be mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed site (based on • Alternate 3, since that is the most comprehensive of the 3 plans). Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED STORM WATER POND, PARK AND RIDE FACILITY AND PARK DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY QUADRANT OF THE I694 /BROOKLYN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary and feasible to construct a storm water pond in the southwesterly quadrant of the _ I694 Brooklyn Boulevard interchange; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) has advised the City of Brooklyn Center that it wishes to construct a Park and Ride facility adjacent to the proposed storm water pond; and WHEREAS, the City and MTC have jointly engaged the professional services of Strgar Roscoe Fausch (SRF) to prepare preliminary layout plans for the development of such facilities; and WHEREAS, SRF has prepared three alternative plans for development of such facilities, and the Alternative 3 plan shows the possible acquisition and development of additional property for use as a park and /or open space area; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for public discussion of the proposed facilities and the alternative plans for development of this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. A public hearing on such proposed improvements shall be held on the 28th day of June, 1993 in the Council Chambers of the Brooklyn Center City Hall at 8:00 p.m. 2. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish notice of the public hearing twice in the City's official newspaper; and to give mailed notice of the public hearing to all property owners within the area of the proposed improvements and to all property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the proposed improvements. 0 RESOLUTION N0. Date Todd Paulson, 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. fH AVE. _� o Li \ 7 �i o� EJ rn ❑ I do o \\ � a , ESN pv6• \\ 0 - � o Storm Water Pond /Park and Ride Facility SXF ! o I n Brooklyn Center, Minnesota EXISTING SITE PLAN y z \. 11 AVE. Lj I 1 a _ ED 1� o , __ / Storm Water Pond i Park and Ride Facility SRF i I r Brooklyn Center, Minnesota r 1 ALTERNATE #1 o \ \ TH AVE. � I \_ E I El \\ ru ❑ Ua L - / i � Storm Water Pond / Park and Ride Facility ! SRF R Brooklyn Center, Minnesota I ____ �� ALTERNATE #2 � \ I r \ 1 , a IJ \ J l l 4>• 1 \ a — I o Storm Water Pond / Park and Ride Facility SRF — Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ALTERNATE #3 CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 :B OOKILYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Brooklyn Center Citizens Receiving This Notice FROM: G. G. Splinter, City Manager DATE: January 27, 1993 SUBJ: Public Information Meetings to Discuss 63rd /65th Avenue Storm Drainage System Improvement Plan and Related Issues Summary Nonce As a part of; the process of developing a UVater Management Plan for the City, four. ;public'4M&.mational s meetln wblt held g . be You are encouraged to attend <one'or more o these rneietings and to participate �n the d f [scussron of ;the proposals which are described m more ii! _eta l t'elow: Meefing Date /T7me Pr�ma�y Agen <item 7, 0�? m , Thursday, Feb 4 C}verutew Qf stud} and prellrri;�nary plan 7 OQ p m , Thurselay, Feb 11 Pro oral far storm water. oriel andMTC Park and Ride facility If2' W quadrant ofi the 11 94 /Brooklyn Blyd ntersection 7 0 ©p m ,Wednesday; Mar 1O .... Storm <dralnage systemxmprrvements arid. .. park and recreational needs it the 11/[arlln Park area Uednesday Mar :24 Storm drair)age system tmpro;vements and park and retreat *ianal needs In the orchard Lane Par k area Note All of these meetin swill be held to Gonst�tu�4n Mall in the Brooklyn Renter Communit . Cente'r, 8301 Shin le Creek Parkwa. Water Management Plan Development Status The City of Brooklyn Center is currently developing a Water Management Plan to comply with State requirements and to provide a blueprint for future improvements to the City's storm drainage system. In March, 1992 many of you provided valuable information by responding to a questionnaire we had sent you on these issues. Based on information received from your responses to the questionnaire, other information, and technical analyses of the existing facilities, the City's consultant has prepared a preliminary plan for system improvements which will meet current requirements. �_ OVER Enclosed are the following exhibits which have been developed by the City's consultant: Exhibit A - A map showing existing storm sewers within the "63rd /65th Avenue storm drainage systems," showing the boundary of the area which is served by that system, and showing possible system improvements, which are identified as features A through F. Exhibit B - A summary of cost estimates of the optional features A through F and a summary analysis of the service and cost impacts of various alternatives. Proposed Storm Water Ponds Please note that features A, B and D indicate possible construction of storm water ponding areas. For your information, construction of such ponds are being considered for two reasons; i.e.: (1) to improve the storm drainage systems' ability to handle the runoff from heavy rains without flooding private properties; and (2) to improve the quality of the storm water before it is discharged downstream ... to Shingle Creek and the Mississippi River. Proposed MTC Park and Ride Facility The Metropolitan Transit Commission has advised the City that it is considering development of a Park and Ride facility west of Brooklyn Boulevard and south of 1694. MTC and the City have initiated a study to evaluate the potential for joint development of a storm water pond and Park and Ride facility in the area between 1694 and 65th Avenue. Public Information Meetings Before proceeding with the Water Management Plan and /or a possible Park and Ride site, four public informational meetings will be held. We encourage you to attend one or more of these meetings to participate in the discussion and consideration of these proposals. Date /Time /Location Primary Agenda Item 7:00 p.m. Thursday, February 4 Overview of the City's Water Management Plan in Constitution Hall at Brooklyn study, and preliminary plan for improvements to Center Community Center the 63rd /65th Avenue storm drainage system. 7:00 p.m. Thursday, February 11 Discussion regarding a possible storm water in Constitution Hall at Brooklyn pond and of a possible Park and Ride facility in Center Community Center the southwesterly quardrant of the 1694 /Brooklyn Boulevard interchange. 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 10 Discussion regarding needs for storm water in Constitution Hall at Brooklyn drainage system improvements and regarding Center Community Center park and recreational needs in the Marlin Park area. 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 24 Discussion regarding needs for storm water in Constitution Hall at Brooklyn drainage system improvements and regarding Center Community Center park and recreational needs in the Orchard Lane Park area. Should you have questions regarding these matters or this letter, please contact the City Engineering Department at 569 -3340. Your attendance at, and your participation in these meetings will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. G. G. Sprer, City Manager � 1 r � ��. / .. mat � � �. ...• � , 11� ! 1� � � a 1i �� EE i��� � Ii 11;. all 11111111 E �� =!i�1, 11111 � . ��� Its 111 11 .:. ' • , � �: - , .• 1111 f111111'.,l�� �I��� � 1111�� '/ �.. "' /11111 IIIIINOR t� , m song ?l ; 11111 11- ' 111' �: � = � 1 • .. �� �� C� , /��a11 /111 � ■ � ��� SCI � - 11111 � � � ••� _� . � j� � .. :� .► 111 �� ' C . ��'• � � 1 '_ �� _��r f�� 111111 ,,, ' ■' " /�/ 111 ,' / ; p 'X11111 1 1 11 � 1 1 �► �� 1 1 1/ 111 "'` . � E • �:'r '11 11 � 1111 ' 11 j 1 �/ r ' �1 � �� �.� �■■■ 1111 111 ��►�,�� ; 3 SON i 1 1 11 !11.. 11111 1111 11 11111111! '; i i ; 11 �, •� �■1 11 1 � 11 / 11 i11� 1 ... i � �V •C . 1�1��1 ��C �i�111 �� / �►!Ir� 11111111.. � : � ���� ., � 1� .... � � � 1 X111/ . � '' � � :i �: �::� 111 /► �!E i 111 11111 1111111 ;; ..� ..� " ..�► 1",.. I «��t+�+y • 1111 II 1111111 ii �'� � 'j�ii �' • 11 111 Ii'' �?";� I . i : ; ,, " w ,�„ � � . "�'� a �' • %111111 �11/ ; i : • ii �� .. " : '.�'� � �� �' i ■ �� �■ ■i. 1� 111 � „ �n ►. ■� . 63 rd. & 65 th. Ave. Storm Sewer System 1 Year storm 5 Year storm Cost ( *) Alternatives Features Area Serviced Percent of total Area Serviced Percent of total ac. ac. Existing 191 37.5 36 7.1 $0.00 1 A 224 43.9 138 27.1 $237,440.00 2 A -B 392 76.9 284 55.7 $362,748.00 3 A -B -D 490 96.1 337 66.1 $441,648.00 4 A -B -D -F 490 96.1 376 73.7 $566,672.00 5 (DELETED) 6 A -B -D -E 510 100.0 406 79.6 $634,176.00 7 A- B -D -E -F 510 100.0 445 87.3 $759,200.00 8 A- B -C -D -F 490 96.1 441 86.5 $897,288.00 r 9 (DELETED) 10 A- B- C -D -E -F 510 100.0 510 100.0 $1,089,816.00 11 A -C -D -F + 1 510 100.0 510 100.0 $1,539,621.00 12 A -B -E + II 510 100.0 510 100.0 $1,756,722.00 13 III 510 100.0 510 100.0 $2,916,849.00 A Brooklyn Blvd. /1694 Pond and the Brooklyn Dr. pipe and outlet add! $237,440.00 B Marlin Park Pond $125,308.00 C 65 th Ave. N. Pipe replacement (54' RCP form Orchard to Kyle) $330,616.00 D Orchard Lane Park Pond $78,900.00 E Parallel pipe additions (27' RCP Brooklyn Blvd. south of 63rd. Ave. $192,528.00 42' RCP Garden City School grounds) F Parallel pipe additions (27' RCP Orchard Ave. 65 th. to 63 rd. Ave. $125,024.00 1 Equivalent in performance to features B, E II Equivalent in performance to features C, D, F III Equivalent in performance to features A, B, C, D, E, F ( *) Estimates do not include land acquisition and easement costs Note: Alternatives Existing through 6 do not include rehabilitation cost for existing segment C pipe. Cost of not building Marlin Pond $449,805.00 Orchard Park $666,906.00 EXHIBIT � Brooklyn Blvd. / 1694 Pond $710,322.00 63rd /65th Avenue Storm Drainage Meeting February 4, 1993 Approximately 1800+ notices were mailed to the 63rd /65th Avenue Storm Drainage Neighborhood Meeting date appeared on cable t.v. Attendance: G.G. Splinter, Sy Knapp, Mark Maloney (City Staff) Ismael Martinez and Keith Yapp (Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik Assoc.) Knapp introduced panel and welcomed attenders. There were 26 residents present. Knapp explained that the City is mandated by the State to develop a water management plan. Under law nine areas must be addressed: storm water management, floodplain protection, shoreland management, water quality, erosion and sedimentation control, storm water treatment, wetland management, groundwater protection, and financing. The City Council has selected a long -term plan which will address specific concerns of residents. Brooklyn Center's plan will be developed in two phases: Phase I consists of collecting all the information, identifying problems, prioritizing problems, and scoping of Phase II. Phase II consists of presenting a solution or plan for solutions, prioritizing these improvements and developing a financial plan. Knapp noted that in Phase I the City entered into a contract with Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik Assoc. (BRAA) to do the study for the entire City. The City Council asked that Phase I include Phase II storm drainage analysis in 63rd /65th Avenue neighborhood. Knapp thanked residents for returning questionnaires which helped to identify problem areas. Knapp explained that a 6 member task force worked with BRAA and City staff during study, and Phase I should be complete within 2 to 3 months. Phase II will start soon after completion of Phase I and will probably take another year to complete. Phase II will include detailed recommendations for prioritization, scheduling, and financing. Knapp stated there is no specific financing plan at this time but it should be in place by the end of Phase II. Three possible sources of revenue are: (1) storm drainage utility fees, which appear on your water bill. This revenue will be about $624,000 in 1993; (2) special assessments, but only if City can prove increase in property value; and (3) general property tax levy. -1- If a project is considered before plan is done, the Council will have to decide how it will be funded (there is one project under consideration now). Knapp noted that most residents are concerned about special assessments. If Council wants to specially assess, additional meetings and a public hearing will be held. Q. Will special assessment be levied only on homes which benefit from project? A. Yes, if special assessments are considered, the City must show in court that the property value has increased by that amount. We would also have to have additional meetings and a public hearing. Q. Is there a chance of State or Federal matching funds like Minneapolis did? A. Not much chance. There are a lot of Federal funds being used in Minneapolis because they are separting storm and sanitary sewers which are now combined. Brooklyn Center does not have combined sanitary sewer and storm sewer. To our knowledge the only storm drainage funds available from Federal are for separation of combined sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Q. The map I received is very poor - not good quality. There is nothing positive on map like where it starts or stops. A. Martinez and Yapp will have a much more detailed map in their presentation. Q. Are there lift stations in this area? A. Currently, the City's lift stations deal only with sanitary sewer - there are no storm sewer lift stations proposed at this time. --------- - - - - -- Sy then introduced Ismael Martinez from BRAA. Martinez began by explaining how storm water behaves and the best solutions for problem areas. He noted in Brooklyn Center, storm water has ditches, pipes, rivers and wetlands for runoff. The 63rd /65th area has runoff to catch basins then to pipe. He explained how they look at natural conditions to find best solution. He noted that pollution ends up in Mississippi River. Brooklyn Center's existing system provides a 5 -year level of service to only 7.1% of the area and the goal is to provide a 5 -year level of service to the entire area. Martinez described the areas where existing storm sewer trunks need improving. He also showed three proposed ponding areas on map. Knapp then explained a major feature of the plan is to construct storm water ponds. He said ponds are a very cost - effective way to deal with storm drainage. Knapp showed pictures of 5 ponds in Maple Grove. There are 3 different types of ponds i.e.: wet ponds which have open water area at all -2- times, shallow ponds which turn into wetlands, and dry ponds which hold water only during peak runoff times. He noted that the Park & Rec Commission, City Council and City staff have discussed ponding, and that the general consensus is that storm water ponding in parks may be cnsidered if it is certain that Park & Rec needs are taken care of. Q. Why haven't you mentioned Park & Ride? A. Park & Ride will be discussed after break. Knapp stated there would be a coffee break and staff would be available for questions. After break Knapp reviewed 3 proposed storm water ponds - Orchard, Marlin, and at the SW quadrant of the I694 /Brooklyn Blvd. interchange. In addition, RTC is considering a Park & Ride facility at the I694 /Brooklyn Blvd. site. He noted there is a Park & Ride on NE corner of 252 & 73rd Ave., if anyone wants to view a Park & Ride. Knapp talked about landscaping, lighting and security and said more detailed information would be available at February 11 meeting. Knapp noted MTC and City hired a consultant for the Park & Ride and ponding to see how they would work together. Knapp stated it would involve purchasing of property in the area. Opened meeting to questions: Q. Do you have an example of Park & Ride and pond to look at? A. No, I'm not aware of any - this would probably be a first. We will discuss this in more detail at next meeting. Q. How come other proposals for businesses in this area have been stopped because of too much traffic? A. No, I don't agree. City has worked with developers in this area with conditions attached. Access to interchange is very close - have to extend center island to prohibit left turns which would be a major problem. We always came up with solution - project didn't die because of traffic. Q. How many cars will there be at Park & Ride? A. Up to 200 cars at Park & Ride. Q. So there will be 200 additional cars at rush hour? A. We are asking Hennepin County for comments - if designed properly we can do it. Q. Who will furnish security? -3- - Jim Kirscht, 6325 Halifax Drive - He likes the idea of a pond. Right now there is a large playground apparatus located directly behind his house which creates much noise, etc. Park is unsupervised, garbage dump and there is vandalism. - Spencer Hage, 6333 Halifax - Concerned that pond will be in his back yard. - Anon - Who will pay for improvements? Only the people inside the area shown on the map? - Anon - Are these the only improvements the City will be doing in the area? What about the smaller drainage problems in my neighborhood? -5- A. Park & Ride will be owned by MTC - City would place conditions upon approval such as lighting, landscaping and security. Conditions such as - do lights stay on all night or off at a certain time (one of the issues to be discussed). Q. Most Park & Rides are not in residential areas. A. Sy stated he would show more detail at next meeting. Knapp tated if pp both Park & Ride and and were built, 1 City would have t P y o purchase properties. Most of the purchases would be by MTC. Knapp explained purchase policy for the City. He also explained how the City purchased 23 homes on 69th and all were satisfied and didn't have to go to condemnation. Q. Concerned about ponding in Marlin Park - children will lose play area. Young families want to use park and it won't be useful. A. Knapp stated he recognized that it's a small park and agrees it did have a lot of use 20 years ago and probably will in future. Stated this was discussed with Park & Rec Commission and they were concerned also. Park & Rec Commission wants to make sure needs are discussed. That is way we need to look at all the options - one possibility is a dry pond like the one shown earlier. Knapp noted this needs a lot of discussion with people in neighborhood, City Council, Park & Rec Commission, etc. -to check out options. Q. If they make a Park & Ride on 694 wouldn't they have to make a left turn to get on freeway? A. No, preliminary plans being developed will show access on 65th - so buses can access through the signals at that intersection. Q. What about mosquitos? A. It depends upon the type of pond. Dry pond will have no special problem. If you have a pond with a lot of cattails, yes, it could be a problem. ----------------------------------- Comments from residents either by telephone or in person: - Wm. Wigdahl, Sr., 3007 Nash Road - Water pools at the foot of his driveway. Also he lives west of Xerxes and says water flows west down Nash to Mumford, then east to Xerxes - seems to work well during heavy rain but not so well during lighter rain. is -4- 63rd /65th Avenue Storm Drainage Meeting Proposal for Storm Water Pond and MTC Park & Ride February 11, 1993 Approximately 1800+ notices were mailed to the 63rd /65th Avenue Storm Drainage Neighborhood Meeting date appeared on cable t.v. Attendance: Sy Knapp (City staff) Ismael Martinez and Keith Yapp (Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik Assoc) Scott Thompson (Metropolitan Transit Commission) Don Shaffer ( Strgar Roscoe and Fausch) Knapp welcomed attenders. There were 28 residents present. Knapp briefly reviewed what was discussed at the February 4, 1993 meeting (see February 4, 1993 meeting notes, page 1). Knapp noted that if a project is considered before the Water Management Plan is completed, the City Council will have to decide how it will be funded. The Storm Water Treatment Pond at I694 /Brooklyn Boulevard is one of those projects. Most probable way of financing this project would be to use Storm Drainage Utility fees. At this time Knapp introduced the panel. Keith Yapp, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik Assoc. (BRAA), then gave his presentation. Yapp's presentation covered about the same material as mentioned in February 4, 1993 meeting notes, page 2. Yapp explained that BRAA has looked at a series of ponds. He stated that a pond acts like a relief valve so water doesn't back up onto street. Ponding allows water to be released like a controlled flood. Since the Federal government has mandated "we clean up our act ", ponding provides water quality treatment - sand and sediment settles into bottom of pond and doesn't get into pipes. Yapp explained how the pond at I694 would work with the pipes that are now in place. Knapp then explained while the City was looking into a ponding site at I694 /13rooklyn Blvd. interchange, they had contact from MTC about a Park & Ride. The City and MTC entered into an agreement to take a detailed look at the whole area and to combine the pond with a Park & Ride. Knapp then introduced Scott Thompson to explain why the MTC is interested in a Park & Ride at this location. Thompson explained that his duties at MTC were to improve facilities for the public. He explained some of MTC's needs for bus turn - arounds and the need for Park &Ride lots. There are 140 Park & Ride sites now in the Metro area. Most are joint -use facilities, located in parking lots for facilities such as churches, shopping centers, etc. He stated that MTC is -1- interested in building their own Park & Ride sites. They now have in -field Park & Rides (200 cars) and mega Park & Rides (700 -1000 cars). There is a mega Park & Ride being built in Coon Rapids. By MTC building their own Park & Rides it reduces MTC's needs on joint partnership and they can better serve the customer. Thompson noted best location for a Park & Ride is within easy access to a freeway. The I694 location was one MTC felt there was a need for and he showed 3 alternate site plans drawn by Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch (SRF). Alternate 1 (185 spaces) buses and automobiles use same entrance and exit and includes a storm water pond. Alternate 2 (235 spaces) bus entrance and loading area are separate from automobile lanes and buses and automobiles share an exit and includes a storm water pond. Alternate 3 (235 spaces) has 2 storm water ponds and a park included. Knapp then explained that Alternate 1 was a minimum facility which MTC would consider (some landscaping around pond and Park & Ride). Alternate 2 has additional landscaping with a few different options. Alternate 3 is the maximum development plan - pond, Park & Ride and in addition park land. There would be 2 ponds rather than 1. A larger pond could reduce impact in Marlin Park. Both the park and the pond would be operated and maintained as park area. Knapp then showed pictures of ponds in Maple Grove area. He noted Maple Grove has over 100 ponds and Eagan has over 350 ponds. Pictures were of wet, wetland and dry ponds. Pictures showed how nicely ponds fit into the scheme of the neighborhood. Knapp, explained that water in a wet pond is about 4 to 6 feet deep; a wetland pond will fill in with cattails and become like a wetland; and a dry pond only has water in it during a heavy rain. Meeting then recessed for 5 minute break. After break Knapp talked about property acquisition as the number one question was "How would we be compensated ?" Knapp explained the process the City used during 69th construction in acquiring 23 homes. He explained how the City hired an independent appraiser, or the property owner could select their own appraiser and the City would pay up to $500 for appraiser. He stated relocation benefits are also included and the circumstances that determine relocation costs. City also helps in finding relocation property. If you have a low interest rate and if the interest rate for the new home is higher - there is an adjustment for that. However, City can't compensate for personal or emotional attachment to house or neighborhood, just the financial part. Sy then opened meeting to questions. Q. On Alternate No. 1 - what happened to 4106 and 4100 65th Ave. - it looks like storm sewer goes right through two houses. How big is storm sewer? A. (Yapp) Same size as now - 54" pipe. -2- (Knapp) Basically very little space between houses. We could follow any line through this area. That's a detail that needs to be worked out if we proceed with plans for a pond. Q. With MTC buses going in and out, traffic would be hazardous on Alternate 1. A. We agree. Traffic safety on Alternate 3 is better for buses. Overall, Plan 3 has the best traffic plan. Q. Ever thought about straightening out 65th Ave.? A. No we haven't - don't know how feasible that would be. Q. I was here last meeting and complained about quality of map that was included in mailing (Exhibit A). Couldn't you send people involved a new map with everything on it like what size pipe and exactly where it is going? A. We could look at doing that. Q. How big of a pond is Marlin? A. It would cover about one -third of the total area of Marlin Park.. Would it be a deep or d Q • P dry pond at Marlin? P A. (Yapp) We're looking at dry pond. Q. Do you know exact location at Marlin? A. (Yapp) SW corner would be best location. Q. Go back to Alternate No. 1 map with MTC on it. The sewer system goes between houses - how do you do it - do you tear up driveways? A. Details aren't in yet. Q. Wouldn't foundations of houses get cracked? A. Details haven't been worked out et, but City would have to for an easement and Y Y pay be responsible for damages. Q. How soon before we know which plan'? -3- A. We hope decision would be made in 6 months to 1 year. Acquisition takes from 6 months to 1 year. 1994 earliest acquisition date possible. We owe it to you to make decisions and plans as soon as possible. Q. Will you move houses or just bulldoze them down? A. Knapp explained the process the City used on 69th Ave. Q. We're in the process of remodelling? A. Go ahead, whatever is in place when we negotiate is the value we use. We don't recommend postponing remodelling. Q. But I hate to go buy new carpet. A. That's why we owe it to you to make a decision as soon as possible. Q. Is the City leaning towards any of the three options? A. Alternate 3 is best because it provides a better pond, excellent Park & Ride facility and turns pond into a park ... but it's also the most expensive. Q. What are some of the other things on the map? A. Park apparatus area, tennis court, trail system - just to show you what it could look like as a park. Q. I think this is a good idea but what about traffic movement ramp off 694. A. We met with HCDOT and MNDOT to discuss direct access to the off -ramp from I694 and it was ruled out - design standards can't allow it. HCDOT say there can be no left turn off Brooklyn Blvd. onto site or left turn out of site onto Brooklyn Blvd. because eventually HCDOT will extend island down Brooklyn Blvd. to 65th Avenue. Q. How many buses during rush hour? A. (Thompson) We now have 4 buses twice -a -day per weekday but this would be expanded - possibly 8 buses twice -a -day during rush hour. Q. Do you plan on having bus stops on Brooklyn Blvd.? A. (Thompson) No, traffic speeds are too high in this area. However, there would continue to be bus stops south of 65th Avenue. -4- f Q. Won't you need another ramp to get onto freeway - it's jammed now - I think you need another ramp? A. (Knapp) There is a ramp with special HOV lane. It may have to be modified for MTC use. Q. Is $237,000 total cost for pond & Park & Ride on 694? A. No, that is just construction - acquisition is not included. Q. I thought City was going to buy this property off 694 before? A. City did consider proposal with MNDOT about 4 years ago, but MNDOT couldn't participate and the City didn't have a detailed study documenting the need for a pond at that time. That study has now been completed, so we now know for sure that we need a pond at this site, and recommend buying the vacant property before it's developed. Q. Do you have copies of the alternate plans available? A. If you want copies, give us a call. -5- 63rd /65th Storm Drainage Meeting Marlin Park Area March 11, 1993 Approximately 1800+ notices were mailed to the 63rd /65th Avenue Storm Drainage Neighborhood Meeting date appeared on cable t.v. Attendance: Sy Knapp (City Staff) Keith Yapp (Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik Assoc.) Mayor Todd Paulson Councilmember Kristen Mann Arnie Mavis, Park and Rec Director Bud Sorenson, Chair Park & Rec Commission 32 residents Knapp welcomed attenders and introduced Keith Yapp from BRAA. Knapp then showed a map of area to be discussed at this meeting (Marlin Park area). Knapp noted that at tonight's meeting storm water management and water quality would be discussed. He explained that Brooklyn Center's plan is to address special concerns of residents such as flooding, decrease in property values because of drainage problems, and water quality of storm drainage before it's discharged to our lakes and rivers. The City's goal is to develop a blueprint or master plan for the future. This will be done in two phases. In Phase I we look at the information we have collected, identify problems and prioritize them, and determine what's necessary is Phase II. We are now in Phase I and in the 63rd /65th Avenue neighborhood we are in the Phase II process, because this is the area we know has specific problems in drainage. The 63rd /65th neighborhood was selected for Phase II planning because of frequent flooding of streets and private property. Knapp then introduced Keith Yapp, BRAA. Yapp used "Existing Storm Water Map" transparency and showed where rain water starts and ends up in Brooklyn Center's current storm water drainage system. He stated that B.C.'s system is over capacitated. Yapp stated that a wet pond at Marlin Park would cover about 1.1 acres. With a dry pond the area could still be utilized as open space. Knapp then showed slides of three different types of ponds in the Maple Grove area. Slides were of wet ponds which have permanent water in them; wetland ponds which eventually will fill in with cattails; and dry ponds which only have water in them during a heavy rainfall. Knapp also showed slides taken in Marlin Park last fall. 1 Knapp showed "Exhibit C" and how a 100 year flood elevation would take up one -half the park. He explained "Exhibit C" is just to show relationship and that size and shape has not been determined. "Exhibit C" also showed that a wet pond would take about one -fourth the park area. Knapp then showed an SRF sketch of the proposed pond and Park and Ride site at the SW quadrant of I694 and Brooklyn Blvd. because of its relationship with Marlin Park. He reviewed sketches for the 3 alternate sketches of SRF. Alternate 1 has pond and 185 parking spaces and a buy -out of about 10 properties. Alternate 2 same pond but buy -out more property and 235 parking spaces. Alternate 3 is the maximum development plan with a bigger pond, Park & Ride and park land with 235 parking spaces. An additional 4 buy -out of properties. Knapp explained he showed these alternates because they have an impact on Marlin Park. With Alternate 3, Marlin Park can have a dry pond compared with Alternate 1 or 2 which would require a wet pond in Marlin Park. Knapp noted that financing has not been decided yet, but three options were: 1) storm drainage utility fee, 2) special assessments, and 3) property tax levy. If special assessments were to be considered, additional information meetings and a public hearing would be held. Meeting then recessed for 5 minute break. After break Knapp discussed the time frame for improvements. He noted MTC has stated they have funds available for property acquisition. The costs for the pond and Park & Ride would be split, with the pond being Brooklyn Center's cost and the Park & Ride MTC's cost. In the next 3 to 9 months (sometime this year) we would expect a decision to be made regarding the development of that site. In our analysis we all feel pretty strongly that it will be necessary to build a storm water pond there. We could build a pond on the 4 acre vacant property that exists. A minimum pond requirement would just fit within that 4 acre area, but again basically that would take up the entire site. There would be a number of meetings between the City Council and MTC before any final decision is made to go ahead with that, and again the properties that are immediately affected by that would certainly receive notice of those meetings - all the meeting would be open, public meetings. I would expect a decision regarding that facility, either a pond or a pond and a park & ride facility, to be made sometime this year. Regarding Marlin Park I would guess that the decision would be made about a year from now. If the decision is made to go ahead with doing something in Marlin Park, that work could be done in 1994. Regarding any of the other improvements that are shown on this map, I can't even offer a guess as to when those improvements would be made. The two priority decisions that have to made are Brooklyn Blvd. & I694 and Marlin Park. So basically it will be Brooklyn Blvd. in 1993 and Marlin Park in 1994. After that there really is no type of a schedule. 2 At this point Sy opened meeting up to discussion. He mentioned that members of Park Board and Park & Rec Commission are in attendance because they are concerned with the intrusion of a pond in Marlin Park - what that would do to Marlin Park from the standpoint of serving the neighborhood. He encouraged residents to talk about not only the storm water issue but the park issue. Q. I live just a little ways from the park and they never cut the grass very often and it's full of mosquitoes. If they put a pond in there, won't it be full of mosquitoes? A. Basically the wet pond would have deep enough water. Mosquitoes hatch in wetland areas. As you mentioned if grass isn't cut often enough, mosquitoes will hatch in tall grass or basically on edge of pond. Q. Would there be a fence around pond? A. The normal recommendation is that pond would be designed with very flat slopes going to the pond and at the bottom of the pond so that you have pretty safe conditions. The normal recommendation is that you do not fence a pond because of the aesthetic consideration. We feel as long as you construct a pond with proper slopes that it is not necessary to put a fence in. As you seen from the pictures of ponds I showed you in Maple Grove, they don't have any fences around them and they have houses close to ponds. Q. There are a lot of kids using Marlin Park with no parents watching them. A. There is no question that any time you create a standing water area there is a possibility for kids possibly drowning. The city's risk manager has told us that when cities develop ponds the insurance companies do not adjust the cities insurance rate because of the fact that you are building ponds. That seems to be a pretty good indication that overall the safety history is pretty good. Q. How deep would the pond be at Marlin and how would it route the water? A. Normally a wet pond is built about 4' to 5' deep. Yapp Generally you want to have a pond at least 3' feet deep. You're looking for 4' to 5' for general criteria. It goes a little lower depending upon the site conditions. 4' is probably the number we want to shoot for. Sy If you go much below 4' then you're going get into the situation of the pond that I showed you on 83rd Ave. which is basically under the wetland type of pond. If you want to keep open water, then you have to go 4' to 5' deep. 0 3 Q. How are you going to route the water? A. In Marlin Park basically we would cut into the existing storm sewer at 63rd Ave. and take that into a pond and then take it out of the pond on the north side to 65th. Q. So you would route it down the annex on 63rd? A. Yes, that's the way we have shown it here. Q. I don't quite get the dry pond concept. How is it different from what we have now where the water just sits there? A. For a dry pond we would have to dig a bigger hole to take the water instead of flooding on Indiana Ave. and flooding on to park land where it is now and spreading out into the back yards of the properties adjacent to the park. You would have a condition where the water is drained out within a few hours after the storm, then you can maintain grass and have the area available for recreation as I showed with the big pond up in Maple Grove. Q. When you mention Marlin Park it seems like you prefer to have a dry pond but yet it's contingent on what you put on 65th. Now if I understand you right it would take Alt. 3 where you take all the houses on 65th before you can even consider a dry pond? A. It would be possible to have a dry pond in Marlin Park with Alt. 1 or 2, but you wouldn't have the best results or water quality. Q. Could Kylawn be used as a ponding area instead of Marlin Park? A. No. Knapp then showed the natural elevations on the map and how water would have to be pumped at Kylawn. Q. Have you considered a Park & Ride at the Country Store site? A. No we haven't. That is an option we can pass on to MTC. Sy The Park & Rec would like your thoughts on recreational needs in your neighborhood. Q. I don't think it would be any good for a wet pond in Marlin Park. Sy How about a dry pond? A. I think that would be o.k. 4 Q. If you do a dry pond, you would have to dig it out a little and it wouldn't be as flat. How long before it would dry up and kids could use the area. Yapp After a major storm it would take several days. If a subdrain was used maybe a day or two. Q. If a dry pond was used and utilized for recreational purposes, it wouldn't be any good if it was wet. Sy That is a good point. We need to look at the design so it could be usable after a rain. Sy There was some mention earlier about Marlin Park being used an open dump. We are aware of it but don't have any details right now. From conversations with people it sounds like it was used as a general open dump. I don't think it was used for commercial dumping. Before a decision is made we would explore this in more detail. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is checking on this for us. Q. Yes, it was used for a dump in 1958. When the apartment buildings were built, they dug up glass, tires, etc. (His name is Floyd Schmidt, 6436 Marlin Drive.) Q. I know this meeting is for Marlin Park but is sounds like your mind is made up for Park & Ride on Brooklyn Blvd. since all three alternates have a Park & Ride. Sy No we don't need to have a Park & Ride to make it possible to build the pond at Brooklyn Blvd. We are showing MTC's wishes for a Park & Ride. City staff is taking no position. Q. Have plans been drawn up without Park & Ride then? Sy Let's review alternates again. (Showed alternates on screen) Yes we can take Park & Ride off. It can be done in a 4 acre site. Q. I live on 61st and France and I thought our drainage went to Twin Lake. I can't see where it benefits our area. Sy The map indicates the storm sewer goes east to Brooklyn Blvd. and then north to Shingle Creek - not to Twin Lake area. South of this line goes to Twin Lake. Q. I thought I was assessed for storm drainage to Twin Lake. Sy I will check this out and get back to you (Doris Cleveland, 6107 France Ave.). Q. If you build a big enough pond at I694 & Brooklyn Blvd., could you eliminate a pond at Marlin Park? 5 Sy We could use bigger pipes from 63rd so all water takes 5 year storm, then we could eliminate pond. (Transparency Exhibit B) Sy stated the cost of not building a pond in Marlin Park would be $450,000. Yapp Using pipes routed to Brooklyn Blvd. this cost could be a little less. Sy It can be done, we can serve whole area with no ponds, but it would cost $3 million. Q. If you have the small park on I694 & Brooklyn Blvd., how can 300 cars get out at rush hour? It just doesn't seem economical to buy -out houses. Sy MTC would buy out 11 properties (on Alternate 3 there would be an additional 4 properties). MTC is aware that it could cost $1 million to $1 -1/2 million for property acquisition. Q. The City would pay for the final 4 properties on Alternate 3? Sy MTC pays their own Park & Ride costs and City will pay own pond and park costs. Sy Are there any comments on flooding? Q. 6313 Indiana has pictures of flooding. Cars can't drive down street flooding is so deep. Also lots of flooding at 63rd and June and on Orchard. Sy Yes, there is flooding on Indiana and in Marlin Park. Q. Resident at 6313 Indiana said she will live with flooding rather than have a wet pond in Marlin Park. Q. People don't want to lose park - do it with pipes instead. Q. Resident at 6313 Indiana - I go to Kylawn Park there is not much at Marlin Park. Sy Marlin is a small park - not much playground equipment in it. Mavis - Neighbors didn't want any equipment when we tried. Anon Children use park as is. Mavis - There is no parking. If you have equipment, you need more parking. Sy It is a small park - wanting more or less equipment depends on whether you have kids or not. 6 Sy The Park & Rec Board is here tonight to see how the City can best serve the area. Their basic position is they would consider going along with ponds at two parks if the Park & Rec needs are taken care of. Bud S. -I'm against giving u ark land but we need to compromise to fulfill needs. g g g PP P Sy Having a bigger pond at Brooklyn Blvd. and a smaller pond at Marlin Park or using piping, all these details need to be reviewed with Park & Rec Commission also. Bud S. -This is just not about flooding it also has to do with the water quality issue. Water goes to Shingle Creek and then through our parks. Sy On this issue of water quantity the watershed regulations say in order to control flooding on Shingle Creek, watershed must have plans to assure the amount of water entering Shingle Creek will not exceed the amount which is now being discharged into the creek. Using a wet pond you can remove sediment - can also install skimmer system. This increases water quality. Yapp That's why we need wet ponds to provide water quality which you can't get in a dry pond. A dry pond in Marlin Park would bypass to a larger pond at Brooklyn Blvd. Q. If you do the largest pond on Brooklyn Blvd. and no Park & Ride, do you need to acquire properties? Sy Pond won't fit on vacant ro ert - some additional property acquisition will be P P Y P P Y q needed. Again, just to go through the schedule one more time. A decision of pond or pond and Park & Ride will be made during 1993. Before that decision is made, more meetings will be held. Mavis There is a Brooklyn Blvd. stud in progress that is saying do something to make Y P g Y g g Brooklyn Blvd. look nicer". Sy Yes, there is a Brooklyn Blvd. stud just approved b the City Council which Y YJ PP Y Y includes landscaping with an emphasis placed on enhancing Brooklyn Blvd. Regardless of which alternate we intend to use, landscaping will be used to make it look attractive. Flooding on Indiana has started Q s arted this whole thin We live on the east side of I g g Brooklyn Blvd. and get flooded but I don't blame the City. We've been flooded for years - they did put a flapper valve on but don't know if it works yet. Sy Asked if there were additional questions. Stated next meeting would be on March 24, 1993. 7 63rd /65th Storm Drainage Meeting Orchard Lane Park Area March 24, 1993 1808 notices were mailed to the 63rd /65th Avenue Storm Drainage Neighborhood Meeting date appeared on cable t.v. Attendance: G. G. Splinter, Sy Knapp, City Staff Keith Yapp and Ismael Martinez (Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik Assoc.) Councilmember Kristin Mann Arvid Sorenson, Chair Park & Rec Commission 10 residents Knapp welcomed attenders and introduced Keith Yapp and Ismael Martinez from BRAA. Knapp showed a map of the area to be discussed at this meeting (Orchard Lane Park area). Tonight's meeting would include discussion of storm water management and water quality (see minutes of previous three meetings) and recreational needs in the Orchard Lane Park Area. Knapp presented the three areas of highest priority in the 63rd /65th area proposed for storm water ponds Orchard, Marlin and at the SW quadrant of the I694 /Brooklyn Blvd. interchange. In addition, MTC is considering a Park & Ride facility at the I694 /Brooklyn Blvd. site. He noted that a decision would quite possibly be made in 1993 for acquisition in 1993 and development in 1994 of the Park & Ride facility. Keith Yapp and Ismael Martinez gave brief overviews of the Water Management Plan (see minutes of three previous meetings) and focused on the proposed Orchard Lane Park improvements including a 1.6 acre pond. A wet pond would lend itself as being most compatible with this area and two options were suggested. One option for construction of a pond would be where the skating rink now exists and the other option would be in the northeast area (back to the corner of the ball diamond area). Slides were shown of three different types of ponds in the Maple Grove area to familiarize those attending of what ponds really look like. Slides were of wet ponds which have permanent water in them; wetland ponds which will eventually fill in the cattails and other growth; and dry ponds which only have water in them during a heavy rainfall. It was noted by Knapp that the Park and Recreation Commission are involved for the protection of the parks and to insure that all the park and rec needs are met. There was a brief coffee break and the meeting resumed to the question and answer session. Questions included: Q. What kind of pond would be considered for Orchard Park? A. A wet pond is preferred. It would 4 to 5 feet deep and if maintained properly there would be no danger of it becoming a wetland. A dry pond can be considered, but it would not provide any water quality improvements. Q. How much area would be needed? A. For a wet pond, 1.6 acres is a rough guess. Q. What are the possibilities of drownings and accidents? A. Whenever you create a standing water area there is a possibility of children drowning. The developing cities in the surrounding metro area each have a number of wet ponds, and they are considered to be very desirable in neighborhoods. Maple Grove has over 100 wet ponds. The city's risk manager has told us that when cities develop ponds the insurance companies do not adjust the cities insurance rate because of the fact that you are building ponds. This reflects the fact that the actuarial history is very good. To the best of my knowledge there have been no accidents in the northwest suburbs ponds. Q. Since the pond would be so close to the park area would the pond be fenced in? A. Most ponds which are in or near parks are not fenced in. The normal recommendation is that a pond be designed with very flat slopes going into the pond (4 to 1) and at the bottom of the pond ( 6 to 1) so that you have fairly safe conditions. If a pond is built to those standards, no fences should be needed. Q. Instead of ponds why not dig a ditch or pipe along the south side of the freeway wall area to solve the drainage problems? A. By eliminating the pond in the Orchard Lane area would increase the flow of water into the Brooklyn Blvd /I -694 area. The cost of installing pipe would be $667,000. We would be skeptical whether a ditch could work. It may be a cheaper way to do it and something we can look at but we are not very optimistic at this point that it will be a viable option. Q. Many small children play near the park area and we feel this would endanger their safety and limit the use of the park. Orchard Lane is a small park in a high residential area with many small children. Could consideration please be given to putting the pond up around the ball field? We would prefer that. A. We will definitely evaluate that option. Q. If the pond were over the ice rink would you skate on it during the winter? The volume of kids skating in that area is high. A. Probably not. Some other consideration would have to be given to provide a skating area. Yapp noted that with special design considerations skating could be allowed. This needs further evaluation. Q. There is flooding year round on 65th and Orchard. This is not caused by a lack of pipe. I spend a lot of money each year to try to keep my property dry. What are you going to do about this? A. The problem you are referring to is a street grading problem which will need to be dealt with as a street improvement project. Construction of a pond would not resolve that problem. Q. So you won't be doing anything regarding the drainage in that area now? The sealcoating you did didn't help at all, only made it worse. A. We realize this is a major problem to you but at this time it is not considered a major problem in the water management study. Other improvements will deal with other needs of the City. We will review your specific problem to see if we can improve the situation. Q. If a decision is made to construct a pond in the Orchard Lane Park area, how soon would it be built? A. My best guess is that it would not be built for at least 5 years. In the 63rd /65th Avenue area, our first priority is the pond at I- 694Brooklyn Boulevard. The second priority is the Indiana Avenue /Marlin Park area. Dealing with stormwater issues in the Orchard Lane Park area may happen in conjunction with a street improvement program in the neighborhood. Since there were no additional questions Sy stated that there would be a meeting in April with the Park and Recreation Commission and they would make recommendations to Council based on the results of these informational meetings. MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission Members FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: April 14, 1993 SUBJ: 63rd /65th Avenue Storm Water System Plan As you know, four public information meetings have been held to discuss various issues regarding proposed improvements to the 63rd /65th Avenue storm water system. Summaries of each of those meetings are attached for your information. Overview of Public Reaction Although 1808 notices of the meeting (see attached copy of notice) were mailed (one to every property owner within the drainage area), few residents attended these meetings, i.e. — 26, 28, 32, and 10 at the four meetings. Of those who did attend, only a few spoke to the main issue of storm water system improvement needs. This is not surprising because: (1) there are relatively few residents who regularly experience serious flooding problems; and (2) citizens generally expect "City Hall" to deal with water quality issues. Regarding the proposed storm water pond /Park and Ride site at I694 /Brooklyn Boulevard, a few residents expressed some reservations regarding (1) pond safety, and (2) additional traffic. Of the three alternative plans for these facilities, (see attached copies), the consensus appeared strongly in favor of "Alternative 3" which also provides additional park /open space. Regarding a possible storm water pond in Marlin Park, several Indiana Avenue residents expressed the need for storm water system improvements and recognized the benefit of a pond in reducing flooding problems. However, the public consensus appeared to be that: (1) their first choice is to accomplish all ponding needs at the I694 /Brooklyn Blvd. pond, with improved pipe capacity between Marlin Park and that pond... hopefully eliminating the need for a pond in Marlin Park; and (2) if a pond is needed in Marlin Park, it should be designed as a "dry pond ". Regarding a possible storm water pond in Orchard Lane Park, no -one spoke to the need for a pond in this area. This is understandable because the existing drainage problems which would be resolved with construction of this pond are not in close proximity to the park ... rather, these problems occur several blocks to the south (on Orchard Avenue), several blocks to the west (along 65th and Unity Avenues), and in the area north of 1694. Accordingly, public consensus appeared to object to construction of any pond in this area, favoring a "pipe alternative ". If, however, additional consideration is given to construction of a pond in this area, public consensus appeared to: (1) favor placement of a pond in the northeast corner of the park, rather than at the hockey rink location, and (2) favor construction of a dry pond rather than a wet pond. Status, Scheduling, and Staff Recommendation: No additional studies have been conducted to determine which alternative combinations of elements will satisfy storm water system needs, while continuing to satisfy park and recreational needs. We believe additional studies are needed before all final decisions can be made. However the costs of evaluating all possible alternatives would be very high, and might be premature. At the time we believe there are very strong reasons for proceeding with the acquisition on development of the pond site at I694 /Brooklyn Blvd. as soon as possible. Also, the MTC continues to plan development of a Park and Ride facility in this area in 1994. Accordingly, we are awaiting (1) completion of an independent appraisal of the 4 -acre vacant parcel; (2) issuance of the required wetland permit by the Corps of Engineers; and (3) approval of the storm water pond plans by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. After receiving these 3 items, staff will present this information to the City Council with a recommendation to proceed with acquisition of the property required for the pond, and development of a cooperative agreement with MTC for development of the Park and Ride facility. We are willing to also recommend acquisition of additional properties as shown in "Alternative 3" to provide additional park and recreational opportunities for this neighborhood, if the Park and Recreation Commission expresses its support for this alternative. If approved by the City Council, and if final agreement is reached with MTC, acquisition of property could be initiated this summer and completed by spring of 1994, allowing construction of both facilities to be completed in 1994. At this time, we believe the "earliest possible" schedule for development of other facilities in this storm water drainage area is as follows: • Marlin Park area improvements in 1994 or 1995 • Orchard Lane Park area improvements in the late 1990's Accordingly, there is adequate time to fully evaluate all alternatives relating to those two parks. While this would indicate that no decisions need to be made now, staff recommends proceeding with completion of a "Master Plan" for this area, to eliminate the many uncertainties which now exist. Development of the City -wide Water Management Plan is still in Phase I of a two phase study. We expect Phase I to be completed within 2 or 3 months, with Phase II to be started then, with completion by mid -1994. If Alternative 3 is selected for the I694 /13rooklyn Blvd. pond, we then suggest that the following additional studies by included in Phase II of the Water Management Plan. ■ A design and cost estimate for a "pipe alternative" t k. g o a pond �n Marlin Par ■ A design and cost estimate for a dry pond in Marlin Park, in sufficient detail to allow a more complete evaluation of the impact of such a pond on the park and recreational function of the park. ■ A design and cost estimate for a "pipe alternative" to a pond in Orchard Lane Park. ■ Designs and cost estimates for wet and dry ponds in Orchard Lane Park, at such locations which the Park and Recreation Commission believes to be least obtrusive —i.e., at the hockey rink location, at the northeast corner of the park, or possibly on private property. We believe that the information derived from these additional studies would provide a sound basis for making good decisions regarding Marlin and Orchard Lane Parks. In addition, Phase II of the Water Management Plan will deal with similar issues on a City-wide basis. This will give the Park and Recreation Commission and the City Council the opportunity to make such decisions on a more "global" basis. Recommended Action • Review and discuss this memo. • Consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed pond /Park and Ride /Park concept for the I694 /Brooklyn Blvd. area. ■ Consider a recommendation to the City Council for inclusion of the additional studies outlined above into Phase II of the Water Management Planning process. I will attend the 4/20/93 meeting to discuss this matter with you and answer your questions. Sy e :\eng \project\pond &p &r \4_14memo f MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 20, 1993 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sorenson called the meeting of the parks and recreation commission to order at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Present for the meeting were Chairperson Sorenson, Commissioners Russell, Shinnick, Rickart, Peterson, Mead and Pollock. Also in attendance were Councilperson Mann, Director of Recreation Mavis, Director of Public Works, Knapp, and Superintendent of Streets /Park, Cahlander. In addition, Mike and Jan Tieden and Marlys Groves, neighbors of Orchard Lane Park, were in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, MARCH 16, 1993 Chairperson Sorenson asked for a motion to approve the minutes of March 16, 1993. A motion was made by Commissioner Russell and seconded by Commissioner Rickart to approve the minutes. the motion passed. STORM WATER PONDING Director of Public Works, Knapp gave an overview of the four storm water ponding meetings that were held. He also gave a memorandum to the park and recreation commission telling about the meetings. He went on to say that the city council and the MTC have agreed to go ahead with'the plans for the site on 694 and Brooklyn Blvd. The site would have a park and ride, a storm water pond and maybe some playground equipment. Chairperson Sorenson said that having a big pond at this site could mean there would not be a need for a pond in Marlin Park. Commissioner Russell asked if there would be traffic problems on 65th Avenue North. Mr. Knapp answered that yes, there could be some problems, and he showed on a map where the cars and buses would drive. The Director of Public Works mentioned that during rush hours is when most buses would be there. Chairperson Sorenson asked about how many buses would be there during rush hours. Director of Public Works, Knapp replied 10 to 15 buses. Commissioner Pollock asked if there would be walkways around the pond. The Director of Public Works replied that this was a Possibility. Mr. Tieden asked if Brooklyn Blvd. would have an extra lane put in from 694 to 65th Avenue North. Mr. Knapp answered, yes. Mr. Tieden then asked if 65th Avenue North would be widened. Again Mr. Knapp answered, yes it would. -1- Mr. Tieden then asked about the buses getting out of the Park and Ride. The Director of Public Works said this would all be worked out with the MTC. Commissioner Mead asked about the lighting. Mr. Knapp replied that this too would be worked out with MTC and the neighbors. Commissioner Shinnick asked if the pond would be fenced in. The Director of Public Works said this is another item that needs to be discussed more in the future. Commissioner Rickart asked when work would start on this project. Director of Public Works Knapp said that first the City would have to get a wetland erm' Corps. of Engineers. it from the Cor P Next the City would need approval from the Shingle Creek Water Shed Management Commission. This should not be a problem because it will help water quality. Third, there would have to be an appraisal of the vacant land. Mr. Knapp said he hoped to present a plan to the city council in June. Chairperson Sorenson asked what would happen if MTC pulled out. The Director of Public Works replied that he thought the City could still put in the bigger pond. He also said the MTC would be responsible for the Park and Ride while the City would be responsible for the storm water pond and the rest of the area. Commissioner Rickart asked if geese would be a problem at this site. The Director of Public Works replied that yes, it could be a problem, but the City would work to take care of it. Director of Public Works, Knapp went on to say if alternate plan #3 was 1. used at 694 and Brooklyn Blvd., it would definitely effect what was done in both Marlin and Orchard Lane Park. Marlin Park would only need a dry pond; or maybe no pond at all, with the water being piped. Orchard Lane Park would still need a pond, but not as big a one. Mr. Tieden said he thought the pond in Orchard Lane Park would be where the skating rink is now. Director of Recreation Mavis said this was not the plan; and that if there is a pond in Orchard _ Lane Park, it would be the north end. Mr. Tieden asked about the flooding problem in the Orchard Lane Park area. Mr. Knapp replied that there is some flooding in streets, yards and basements. He also mentioned that the reason these ponds are being put in is that the water quality is important. Mr. Tieden asked if a bigger pond on Brooklyn Blvd. would take care of flooding problems to Unity Ave. N. The Director of Public Works replied that he was not sure of this, and that there would have to be more study done on this issue. Mr. Knapp went on to say that the ponding in Orchard Lane Park is not a high priority item right now; and nothing would happen there for at least five years. Commissioner Rickart said it seemed as if plan #3 was best. Mr. Knapp answered yes, it was. -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1993 MEETING Director of Recreation, Mavis mentioned that storm water ponding would be done all over the City in the future. He also said that Eagan had 300 of these ponds in their city. Mrs. Tieden said she had heard most of these ponds were there before the houses were built. Commissioner Mead asked why the meeting about the pond in Orchard Lane Park had so few people in attendance. Mrs. Tieden said the people in their neighborhood did not understand the letter. She went on to say that after the meeting she talked to the neighbors, and that's when they became concerned about the plan for Orchard Lane Park. The parks and recreation commission was then given a petition from the neighbors of Orchard Lane Park who oppose the "Proposed Wetland Drainage Pond in Orchard Lane Park." Mr. Tieden said, the petition should have also said, "on the skating rink area." Commissioner Pollock made a motion which was seconded by Commissioner Shinnick to accept the petition. The motion passed. Commissioner Rickart asked where the money would come from for this work, Mr. Knapp replied, from the storm drainage utility. Councilperson Mann said she liked alternative plan #3 which would put the bigger pond on the Brooklyn Blvd. location. Director of Public Works Knapp said the Brooklyn Blvd. Task Force also liked this plan. Commissioner Russell made a motion that was seconded by Commissioner Mead to recommend to the City Council that alternative plan #3 be used on the 694 and Brooklyn Blvd. site. The motion passed. RECESS Commissioner Mead made a motion that was seconded by Commissioner Peterson to recess. The motion passed and the Park & Recreation Commission recessed at 9 p.m. The Park & Recreation Commission reconvened at 9:10 p.m. CIP (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM) The Director of Public Works explained to the commission about the CIP program and how it will work. He said that the - commission would be very involved in this process but needed to get busy on it right away. The Director of Public Works then gave the commissioners a draft copy of the program. Chairperson Sorenson asked what happens at Bellvue park. Mr Mavis said the National Little League uses this park a lot plus there are more younger children in this area. Commissioner Shinnick said Little League really needs to use this park for their program. Chairperson Sorenson asked if some of the shelter buildings could be torn down. Mr Knapp said yes this could happen. The Director of Public Works then continued to go over the plan. Commissioner Peterson questioned if the commissioners should visit the parks to see what shape they are in. -3- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 24, 1993 Agenda Item Number , REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19 ALLOWING TOW TRUCKS TO BE PARKED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS DEPT. APPROVAL: Brad Hoffman, Director df Community Development MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMIVIENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) You have asked me to provide with a memo briefly outlining the history and reasons for the adoption of Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12, of the City's nuisance ordinance. This particular ordinance was adopted by the City Council on December 5, 1988, and became effective on June 1, 1989. The City Council adopted this ordinance after receiving citizen complaints and approximately two years of study and deliberation regarding the matter of allowing commercial vehicles to be parked in residential areas. It was part of an effort by the City Council to strengthen and maintain the residential character of the City's neighborhoods and prohibit conditions that were deemed to unreasonably annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health, morals, comfort, and repose of members of the public in residential areas. Other nuisance regulations, such as Sections 19 -103, Subdivisions 13 and 14, involving the parking and storing of vehicles and equipment in residential areas were also adopted after the provision in question was adopted for the same general reasons. The City Council, prior to adopting Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12, held a number of hearings on this matter. There was support as well as disagreement over the benefits of the prohibition involving the parking of trucks and commercial vehicles in residential areas. The Council reviewed a number of drafts of possible ordinance language dealing with this question. In fact, two home owners that were truck drivers and had parked or stored there truck tractors at home appeared before the City Council to object to the ordinance noting the inconvenience such a prohibition would cause them. Another individual objected claiming the ordinance would put him out of his food delivery business. The Council considered these opinions as well as other opinions expressed at the various public hearings. Again, after due deliberation the Council adopted the current ordinance on December 5, 1988. They established June 1, 1989, as the effective date of the ordinance to give people who parked or stored prohibited vehicles time to make necessary arrangements to relocate these vehicles or equipment. The City Council even re- reviewed their decision in January and February of 1989 with no change taking place. The enforcement of the ordinance began around July, 1989, with people in violation of the ordinance being sent letters giving them 30 days notice to comply or face receiving citations for misdemeanor violations. This has been generally the way the ordinance has been enforced since the time of its adoption. Compliance has been good, but has caused some inconvenience to people who have had to make various changes or other arrangements for the parking and /or storage of their vehicles. This ordinance was again reaffirmed in City Council Resolution No. 91 -243 which was adopted by the City Council in October of 1991, in response to an appeal submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal. In addition to denying their appeal, the Council found no compelling reason to amend the ordinance or provide other relief sought by the Cardinals. • I have briefly had the opportunity to review the ordinance amendment language proposed by Robert Wilson, an attorney representing the Cardinals. The proposal would make an exception to Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12, to allow tow trucks used to respond to police, highway patrol, or fire department requests to be parked or stored in a garage on residential property provided the tow truck engines and motors are kept off and no maintenance, cleaning, or repair is done to the vehicle on the property. This exception no doubt would help the Cardinal situation. This suggestion was offered by the Cardinals two years ago during their appeal and was rejected. Comments had been made then about the importance of a timely response to accident scenes by tow trucks and that having them at home would be helpful. However, I do not believe it has been shown that prohibiting tow trucks from being parked in residential areas will necessarily lead to a reduced response time. Other arrangements can be made to reasonably accommodate such concerns. It may also be difficult to try to determine which tow trucks are being used to respond to emergency requests. I believe a number of towing vehicles can be used to respond to various emergencies. Perhaps, anyone with a tow truck could make the claim that they will respond to emergencies and, therefore, should be allowed to park these vehicles on residential property. Parking tow trucks in residential garages may also be argued to be a hardship because, in some cases, they may not fit in a garage. Good arguments could be made to allow the vehicles to be parked in yards provided they are screened by a fence and are not visible from the street. Again, this will open the opportunity for parking these kind of vehicles in residential areas in order to treat people fairly. In the meantime, these vehicles will be coming and going in these residential areas creating the kind of nuisance activity that was objected to at the time of the adoption of the current ordinance provisions. To me the real question is "does the Council wish to allow these types of vehicles in residential areas on a regular, routine basis." I believe the ordinance provision has served the City and its citizens well and, overall, has helped to maintain the residential character of the City's neighborhoods. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Direct staff as to Council's desire. Ni4t' 14 '3_ 11 :24 rHUEP P.2' r� ROBERT E. WILSON AMRNEYATLAW SUITE 201 400 THIRD A4"ENL'E NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 `1ELEMONE (612) 334-34 FAX (612) 333 -1738 may 14 5 1993 T4: Brooklyn Center City Council members and other Interested officials From: Robert E. Wilson I am submitting the following Proposed Addition to Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 19. 103 12 for your o r review. 1 believe this Y hi addition to the e xis t ing o e e st g o d Hance satisfies all the concerns that were raised about a tow truck being parked i a residential area. The purpose of the proposed amendment to the ordinance is two fold: 1) to allow tow trucks to respond quick enough to secure accident and tow scenes, thereby promoting the safety of the public and law enforeement,and rescue,personnel. 2) to keep tow trucks parked in garages so they are in no way a public nuisance This matter will be on the agenda May 24th, 1993; I look forward to discussing the matter at that time. If anyone has any suggestions or questions, I encourage you to call me. Very truly yours, Robert E; Wilson ?H`;' 1-4 "9 11 :2 PHL IEP CYCLE _ HPL =__ I11_ 1'uCClotti [� {�tll.��rnt nt farm vLh F..�� ullti equipment, or a commercial vehicle with a length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 pounds, continuously for more than two hours on any property within a residential zoning district or being lawfully used for . residential purposes or on any public street adjacent to such properties, Such equipment and vehicles shall include, but are not limited to, the following: dump trucks, construction trailers, back hoes, front -end loaders, bobcats, wall drilling equipment, farm trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck - tractors, step vans, t cube vans and the like. The prohibitions of this subdivision shall not apply to the following: a) Any equipment or vehicle described above being used by a public utility, governmental, agency, construction company, moving company or similar company which is actually being used to service a 1 residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the vehicle, b) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is actually making a pickup or delivery at the location where it is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the time reasonably necessary to make such a pickup or delivery and in excess of the two hour limit shall be unlawful, + f c) Any equipment or vehicle exceeding the above described length, height or weight limitations, but which is classified as recreation equipment #s. p.pa pt fied, din „Minnesota Statutes 168,011, Subdivision 25. ` d) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is parked or stored on property zoned residential and being lawfully used as as church, school, cemetery, golf course, park, playground or publicly owned t structure provided the equipment or vehicle is used by said use in the conduct of its normal affairs. e) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is parked or stoked on property which is zoned residential and the principal use is nonconforming within the meaning of Section 35 -111 of the City ordinances, provided such parking or storage is nor. increased or expanded after the effective date of this ordinance. Proposed addition to Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 19 -103 (12): f) Any tow truck which is used to respond to Police, Highway Patrol or Fire Department requests for assistance, provided that (1)such tow trucks are parked in existing garages with the garage door closed, (2) such tow truck engines and motors are kept off, and (3) no maintenance, cleaning or repair is done on the tow truck while at the residential site, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Todd Paulson Councilmember Dave Rosene Councilmember Celia Scott Councilmember Barb Kalligher Councilmember Kristen Mann FROM: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager DATE: May 7, 1993 SUBJECT: Status of Cardinal Towing Lawsuit - SE Area Map - Councilmember _ Kalligher Today I became aware of the receipt of the attached letter from Corrine Heine to Judge Lange of the District Court regarding the Cardinal v. Brooklyn Center case. You will recall that approximately one month ago I updated the Council on the status of this case. This attached letter indicates that Judge Lange's office misfiled the previous court documents and Corrine is indicating in the letter the City renews its motion with a new submission date of May 11, 1993. Of particular interest, and the reason why I am writing this memo at this time, is the second paragraph of this letter in which Corrine indicates that in discussion with Cardinal's attorney, Mr. Wilson, he indicates he is preparing an ordinance amendment for consideration by the City Council on May 10, 1993. Neither Mr. Cardinal nor Mr. Wilson have contacted my office or any other staff member regarding this proposed ordinance amendment, and so I would anticipate, if they follow through on this, that they would be appearing on open forum. I have attached a copy of a resolution passed by the City Council on this issue in which they indicated support for staying with the current ordinance. When the original nuisance ordinance was passed, we had a number of specific complaints about wreckers and their activity in residential areas. The first was over by 62nd and Lyndale, close to previous Councilmember Lhotka's home. In this location, someone was actually operating a virtual junkyard by using a wrecker to haul cars in and out of the backyard in his backyard and adjoining state property. He also left the wrecker parked in front with damaged and wrecked cars attached for extended periods of time. I can recollect two other complaints about wreckers being brought home, and one was up on Willow Lane and the other was a Bill West employee who parked the wrecker up in I believe it was Creek Villa townhouses. We had a number of other complaints about wreckers, but nothing that I can recall specifically. Enclosed also please find color copies of a map indicating the responses on the southeast area street utility project survey. Councilmember Kalligher will not be able to attend Monday's Council meeting. She is home from the hospital, doing fine, but will not be able to attend Monday's meeting. The Council should remember that four affirmative votes will be needed to pass the street and utility program. If four affirmative votes are available Monday night, the Council could proceed. If not, you may wish to delay consideration to your next meeting. HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorneys at Law JOHN M. LEFEvRE, JR. 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 ROBERT J. LINDALL ROBERT A. ALSOP (612) 337 -9300 LAURA K. MOLLET RONALD H. BATTY BARBARA L PORTWOOD STEPHEN J. BUBUL Facsimile (612) 337.9310 JAMES M. STROMMEN JOHN B. DEAN JAMES J. THOMSON. nL MARY G. DOBBQVS LARRY M. WERTHEIM STEFANIE N. GALEY BONNIE L WILKINS CORRME A. HEINE GARY P. WINTER JAMES S. HOLMES WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL DAVID L GRAYLY (1939 1991) DAv DJ. KENNEDY 337 -9217 — JOHN R. LARSON OF COUNSEL WELLLNGTON H. LAW ROBERT C. CARLSON CHARLEJ L. LEFEVERE ROBERT L DAVMSON May 3, 1993 The Hon. LaJune T. Lange Judge of District Court _ C -909 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 RE: Cardinal v. City of Brooklyn Center Court File No. MX 91- 019273 Dear Judge Lange: Your law clerk has informed me that the City's motion for summary judgment, which was submitted for decision on October 23, 1992, was misfiled. Accordingly, the City renews its motion with a new submission date of May 11, 1993. Your law clerk indicated that the renewed motion could be made upon the motion papers and memoranda that were filed last fall. If you would like the papers refiled, please let me know. We are asking for a new submission date of May 11, 1993, in order to provide the parties an opportunity to discuss settlement of this matter. The plaintiff's attorney has indicated that he will prepare a proposed ordinance amendment for consideration by the defendant City's council on May 10, 1993. If no settlement is reached on May 10, we will proceed with our motion. Pursuant to Minn. R. Gen. Prac. 121, we will immediately notify the Court if any settlement is reached. Sincerely, HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED Corrine A. Heine cc: Robert E. Wilson CAR52723 GA115 -15 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91 -243 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO.91017 SUBMITTED BY DENNIS AND GLORIA CARDINAL WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 91017 was submitted by Dennis and Gloria Cardinal seeking an appeal of a determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection that parking a tow truck in a residential zone is a nuisance as defined by Section 19 -103 of the City Ordinances and is not a land use eligible for a special use permit; WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Planning Commission at its September 12, 1991 regular meeting where testimony regarding the request was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the staff report relating to this application and the submittal and points raised by the applicants and their representative; and WHEREAS, following deliberation of the matter the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that Application No. 91017 be denied on the grounds that the parking of a tow truck is considered a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center considered said appeal at a duly called City Council meeting on September 23, 1991; and " WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all of the materials submitted, the record of the Planning Commission's review of this matter, and information supplied and testimony presented by applicant's representative relating to said appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council has, furthermore, considered and deliberated a request made by the applicants and their representative to either amend the ordinance to make an exception that would allow tow trucks to be parked,' 'in residential 'areas or provide other relief such as determining the parking of a tow truck to be a legal nonconformity within the meaning of Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 e; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after full consideration and review of the above, makes the following findings and considerations: . a RESOLUTION NO. 91 -243 1. The use of property for off street parking and loading purposes in residential areas in the City of Brooklyn Center is an accessory use of property, not a principal use of property, within the meaning of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The parking or storage of vehicles and equipment are not listed as uses, either permitted or special, in the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district but which are, in some respects, incompatible with permitted uses in the district. 4. The applicants have claimed that the parking of a - tow truck should be considered a special use and, therefore, eligible for a special use permit under the ordinance. 5. Tow trucks responding promptly to accident scenes may be an important activity as indicated by the State Trooper affidavit submitted, but they do not have to be parked in residential areas for the public welfare. There are other available non - residential areas within the City for parking and storing such vehicles to adequately and quickly respond to accident scenes. 6. Parking or storing tow trucks in residential areas is incompatible with the permitted uses in residential areas. However, this incompatibility does not make the parking or storage of a tow truck in a residential area a "special use" eligible for a special use permit under the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The parking or storage of vehicles and equipment in residential areas of the city is an activity, not a land use, and is regulated by Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 of the City's Nuisance Ordinance. 8. The parking or storage of a- tow' , truck in a residential area such as 6544 France Avenue North'is prohibited by Section 19 -103, subdivision 12. 9. Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 e allows otherwise prohibited vehicles or equipment to be parked on property which is zoned residential and the principal use is nonconforming within the meaning of Section 35 -111. This provision does not exempt the parking of a tow truck at 6544 France Avenue North as the principal use of that property has been residential at least since the 1950's when the home at that address was built. r a RESOLUTION NO. 91 -243 10. The City Council adopted the restrictions and prohibitions regarding the parking or storing of certain vehicles in residential areas after much review, public hearing and deliberation. 11. The City Council believes that it is important to preserve and protect the residential character of its various neighborhoods and has, therefore, adopted the regulations contained in Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 as a means of controlling activity which they have determined unreasonably annoys, injuries or endangers the safety, health, morals, _ comfort, or repose of members of the public. 12. The City Council has not been presented with compelling reasons to amend its ordinances to allow - the parking or storage of a tow truck in a residential area. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center based upon the above findings and considerations to deny the appeal under Planning Commission Application No. 91017 and to uphold the Director of Planning and Inspection's determination that the parking of a tow truck in a residential area is a nuisance activity and not a land use and is, therefore, not eligible for a special use permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED based upon the above findings and considerations that the City Council of the-City of Brooklyn Center finds no compelling reason to amend Section 19 -103, subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances, or provide other relief sought by the applicants in this situation. October 7, 1991 0� Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST : a,., Deputy Clerk . The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/24/93 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIP'T'ION: AUTHORIZATION FOR SUMMER INTERN ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: era U` linter, City Manager MANAGERS REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments *low attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) As a part of the Financial Commission's responsibilities, the Council has asked them to look into the supervisory and staffing levels of Brooklyn Center's organization as compared with other cities. In addition, the Council has asked the Commission to review the organization structure and evaluate it for future needs. In discussions with the Financial Commission and the City Council , City staff has indicated on previous occasions the need for additional staff assistance to complete this project. At their May 17, 1993, meeting, the Financial Commission recommended the City Council approve the staff request for a summer intern position to accomplish this project. We estimate the cost of this summer intern to be approximately $4,000 to $5,000. Staff recommends the source of financing for the project to come from the savings in the finance department regular salaries accounts because of the retirement of the finance director and delays in filling various positions in that department. This intern position may have time available between assembling research materials for the Financial Commission project, and if time is available, the following series of projects could be worked on: update the personnel job descriptions for ADA requirements, update our personnel ordinance and employee training handbook, develop an operation manual for housing acquisition, research and draft a redevelopment policy, update our blighted housing survey, and collate census data related to housing issues. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION I recommend the City Council by motion authorize the creation of the intern position as per the recommendation of the Financial Commission and authorize financing it out of regular salaries section of the finance department's 1993 budget. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 24, 1993 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION f YYYYYY�kYYYYYYYY* YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ITEM DESCRIPTION: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY�kYY�kYYYY: kYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY DEPT. APPROVAL: A vc Gerald G. Splinter, City ager YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY�KYYYYYYY�KYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY #YYYYYY MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONEMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached YYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY�k �k acY�KYY�KYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY #YYYYYYYYYYYYYY SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • 1 League of Minnesota Cities = %,ities Bulleti Number 19 May 14, 1993 Governor vetoes tax 1 • Don Diddams and Gary Carlson conference committee compromise. State budget reserve The reaction of House and Senate could be key issue On Monday, May 10, Governor leadership was predictably critical. Arne Carlson vetoed the omnibus tax Independent Republican Senator The debate over the size rofou bill. Ile cited the insufficient budget William Belanger also expressed his budget reserve could have a profound reserve and several other provisions in dissatisfaction with the Governor's influence on tax provisions affecting his veto message to House Speaker veto. Senator Belanger was the lone cities during the closing days a the Dee Long. IR conferee on the tax conference session. With all of the major ppro- The final bill contained several priations bills progressing, there may committee. be little maneuvering room to raise the reform provisions including a new During conference negotiations, "needs based" LGA formula and an representatives of the governor's office budget reserve by reducing the levels initiative to encourage local govern- were present and conferees frequently of spending in these bills. ment consolidation and cooperation. asked them to provide the governor's One of the League's concerns is However, no significant tax increases position on specific issues. The that local government aid (LGA) and were in the final conference committee committee acknowledged the "major" homestead and agricultural credit aid report that went to the governor. concerns of the overnor b removing (HACA) could be cut to help fund the Legislative leadership earned of g y g larger reserve desired by the governor. P the income tax increase and compre- League staff and other city and county r the governor's dissatisfaction with the hensive choice housing provisions bill during final floor action on the from the bill. representatives have lobbied to prevent this. The League's letter to legislators on this matter is reprinted on page 3. Budget reserve facts As of Thursday, there were indications that the Legislature might The vetoed omnibus tax bill would have increased the state still send a revised tax bill to the budget reserve to $360 million for the F.Y. 1994 -95 biennium. This is governor. '1'hc new bill will likely a $120 million increase over the current law level of $240 million. resemble the original conference The reserve was lowered to $240 million during the 1991 legislative committee report without several of session to help balance the state's budget. The governor's original the objectionable provisions. Ilow- 1994-95 biennial budget proposal would have maintained the ever, if the governor continues to reserve at the $240 million level. However, his supplemental budget demand a higher reserve, there may be would have increased the reserve to $500 million, based on the pressure to reduce spending in the tax unexpected surge in state revenues announced in March. bill and this could include cuts in local The state budget reserve serves as a reserve in case of future aid and property tax relief programs. revenue shortfalls. It also serves as a cash flow account to avoid Cities have expressed the position that short-term borrowing when the timing of the receipt of state no tax bill would be preferable to one revenues does not match the timing of expenditures. The desire to that cuts LGA and HACA, and raises avoid short -term borrowing the state g y ate is a major issue in the property taxes in 1 order to fund th P Pe ty , e disagreement between the Legislature and the governor over the state budget reserve at the level state budget reserve. 0 Governor Carlson wants. 0 The Cities Bulletin is apublication of the League of Minnesota Cities and includes an update of state legislative, Contents administrative, and congressional actions that affect cities. It also includes reviews of metropolitan area issues by the Association of Metro - 1 / Governor vetoes tax bill politan Municipalities. 1 / Budget reserve facts 3 / League sends letter to legislators League legislative staff members are 3 / Education conference reaches agreement available to answer your questions 3 / Legislature passes arbitration bill concerning legislation relating to 4 / Early retirement incentive in final form cities. 4 / Municipal Board annexation fees won't change 5 /Nominations for LMC board of directors open The Cities Bulletin lists authors of hill summaries and some article~ by Ihcir 5 / Mississippi River phosphorous study meeting initials. 6 / State auditor reports on local fund balances 6 / State auditor's bill passes Senate 7 / LMC clerks orientation conference 8 / Minnesota needs a landfill cleanup program Inside back cover / Municipal ads Executive Director Jim Miller Editors Jean Mehle Goad Tun Busse Typesetting and design Gayle Brodt Legislative mission statement The League of Minnesota Cities will vigorously represent the policy positions and interests of its members before the Minnesota State Legislature in a positive and effective manner; characterized by timely, quality information provision and policy advocacy. This representation will be based on greater LMC membership participation in the League's legislative program, which is to be facilitated by the 10 Printed on recycled paper League board and staff. League of Minnesota Cities, 3490 Lexington Avenue North, St. Paul, MN 55126, (612) 490 -5600. Page 2 LMC Cities Bulletin League sends letter to le • Legislature g gisiators Note: The following letter was sent to all legislators regarding passes the governor's veto of the tax bill. May Il, 1993 arbitration Dear Legislator. - The governor's veto of the tax bill was disappointing for the League bill of Minnesota Cities and many of our members. The tax bill included a new needs -based local government aid formula and a small increase in Joel Jamnik funding for LGA. These provisions would have improved the fairness of the tax system and would have provided modest property tax relief for By a vote of 116 -16 the House taxpayers in cities throughout the state. passed S.F.629, a bill which would We support and encourage an override of the governor's veto of the authorize arbitration of health insur- tax bill. We also would support passage of a new bill, provided that it ance premiums for retired essential contains the new LGA formula and the needed increase in funding for employees. LGA. However, it would be better to have no tax bill than to have one An amendment, drafted by the that would raise property taxes in order to fund the state's budget League and offered by Representative reserve. Cuts in LGA and HACA, as the governor had originally pro- Steve Sviggum, failed 24 -106. That posed, would cause property tax increases and cuts in city services. amendment would have required We appreciate the support that many of you have given to the annual funding of the actuarially principles of tax fairness and property tax relief, and now we must ask defined amount and payment of 50 for your support again. We strongly oppose and we urge you to oppose Percent of the cost from current any bill that relies on higher property taxes and cuts in city services to employees through a payroll deduc- accommodate the governor's desire for a larger state budget reserve. tion. The bill now goes to the governor. Very truly yours, The League, along with time Associa- tion of Minnesota Counties, has asked the governor to veto the bill. 0 James E Miller , Executive Director Education conference reaches agreement Bill will not raise income taxes Don Diddams and Gary Carlson tax increase from this bill could help third grade for class size reductions The education finance conference reduce the chances for a special with the increased school funding. committee reached an agreement on session on tax and budget issues. . The bill would also provide the biennial budget for K -12 education One purpose of school funding property tax relief to farmers that . finance on Tuesday evening. The final changes in the bill is to address the House Research estimates at $40 compromise removed the $227 million funding equity issue. The bill would million per year. Approximately $13 income tax increase that the governor increase the per pupil funding level for million of the farm relief would come had promised to veto. Without the schools from $3,050 to $3,150. -from increased HACA. The balance increased income tax revenue, the bill However, school districts that cur- of the tax relief comes from shifting will no longer provide the property tax rently have excess levy referenda in tax burdens to other types of proper - lace would n relief in the original Ho P of receive any additional ties, which would increase property House bill or class P Pe Y size reductions in the original state aid due to this increase. The bill taxes for owners of non -farm property Senate P Pe Y bill. However, eliminating the income would target kindergarten through and city residents. 0 May 14, 1993 Page 3 Earl y retirement incentive in final form Joel Jamrtik • Each employee eligible for both • Until June 30, 1995, a local incentives must be allowed to government cannot hire a replace - Conferees have agreed to an choose between the option, except ment for a person who retires optional retirement incentive program that employers whose employees under this optional program for local government employees. In are covered under PERA (Minne- "except under position- specific some respects, the bill is similar to the sota Statutes 353.29 and 353.30) action of the governing body." programs passed by the previous two need not offer both incentives. • "Retirement" under this section legislatures. This year's version was • Non PERA employees are not occurs when the person terminates passed in an omnibus appropriations eligible for the multiplier option active employment and applies for bill (S.F. 1620, section 108) and but only the employee -paid health retirement benefits . includes the following elements: insurance option if offered by the • If employees choose the em- Eligibility for the incentive local government. ployer -paid health insurance program is limited to employees • 'Ihe employer -paid health, option, dicy must receive the same who: medical, and dental insurance coverage(s), and the same anwunt • Have at least 25 years of option, is only available if the or percentage of employer -paid combined service credit in retiring employee: premium contribution that they any state pension plan, Is eligible for employer -paid were entitled to immediately • Are immediately eligible insurance under a collective before retirement, subject to any upon retirement for an bargaining agreement or changes in coverage and employer annuity from a defined personnel plan in effect on the and employee payments through benefit plan, day before final enactment, collective bargaining or personnel • Are at least 55 years old, and 0 Has at least as many months plans for employees in positions • Retire on or after May 17, of service with the current equivalent to the position from 1993, and before January 31, employer as the number of which the employee retired. 1994. months younger than age 65 • The employee is not entitled to • There are two incentive options: the person is at the time of employer -paid life insurance. • An increase in the multiplier retirement, and • Eligibility for this employer -paid percentage used to calculate 0 Is less than age 65. option ceases: the retirement annuity for • Although offering the incentive 0 When the retired employee each year of service up to 30 program is optional for local reaches age 65, yews (the multiplier increase governments, if local units do • When the retired employee is .25), or offer it, they must offer it to all chooses not to continue to • Employer -paid hospital, eligible employees. receive benefits, QI medical, and dental insur- 0 When the retired employee is ance. eligible for employer -paid health insurance from a new employer. Municipal Board annexation • Coverages must be coordinated with health insurance benefits fees won't change through the federal Medicare program. • Unilateral implementation of the Joel Jamnik governments from acting to program is not an unfair labor correct pollution or service practice and the limits on former The Appropriations Confer- delivery problems by changing employee benefits in PELRA ence Committee discussed the boundaries. They decided to adopt (Minnesota Statutes 179A.20, level of fees the Municipal Board the House funding proposal which subd. 2a) do not apply. charges for Knind uy adjustment avoids the need for a large fee • If the employer already pays proceedings. Conferees deter- increase. Both the House and health, medical, and dental mined tut the Senate proposal to Senate have approved the confer- insurance for all or some of its triple the fees would discourage ence committee report to the bill, employees, the retiring employee' many property owners and local S.F.1613. 0 can still be eligible for the multiplier option. 0 Page 4 LMC Cities Bulletin REMINDER Nominations for LMC board of directors open Ann Higgins president are up for election annually The League will notify candidates Nominations for positions on the by LMC member cities at the LMC (prior to June 9) of a time for their LMC Board of Directors are due by Annual Meeting. interview with the Nominating Monday, May 31. Lee Swanson, mayor, Morns, who Committee on Wednesday, June 9. The If you wish to become a candi- serves currently as LMC first vice Nominating Committee will present date, you should complete and return a president, will seek election as recommendations to the LMC mem- nomination form and enclose a brief President. Bob Long, councilmember, bership at the annual meeting,lliurs- resume of your qualifications to: St. Paul, who now serves as LMC day, June 10 at 3:45 p.m., at the St. Larry Bakken, President second vice president, will seek Cloud Civic Center. League of Minnesota Cities election as first vice president. If you have questions regarding 3490 Lexington Avenue North Candidates for the position of second the LMC Board of Directors or the St. Paul, MN 55126 vice president will also be seeking nominations process, please call Jim While the committee prefers support from the Nominations Com- Miller at the LMC office. 0 nominations by May 31, they will mittee. accept them until Wednesday, June 9, when the committee meets (at 10:30 a.m.) to interview candidates during the LMC Annual Conference in St. CI °u The nomination form re Mississippi River phosphorous candidates to list previous experience on LMC committees, conferences, study meeting affiliate organizations, etc. In addi- tion, local service in city government Joel Jamnik is also an important aspect of candi- dates' preparation for service on the A public forum on phospho- the MWCC and six other agencies LMC Board. rous levels in the Mississippi River have conducted. "Ilse study Copies of "Guidelines for Board will take place on Wednesday, June analyzes whether phosphorous Representation" and the nomination 2, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. An informal discharges from the MWCC's form are available from the League discussion precedes the forum metropolitan plant are too high office. Please call Ann Higgins at beginning at 6:00 p.m. at the and if so, what is an acceptable (612) 490 -5600 if you need materials. Wabasha Boatworks, 10 Church level. Four board positions expire in Avenue, Wabasha, Minnesota. High phosphorous levels may June. City officials from the metro - The League urges city officials have caused past widespread algae politan area hold two of those posi- interested in the Mississippi River, blooms and fish kills in river tions —Mayor Lyle Hanks of St. Louis and particularly those city officials segments below the metro plant. Park and Jerry Dulgar, city manager, whose cities abut the river to attend Currently, the MWCC reduces Crystal. City officials from Greater the forum on June 2, or to contact the phosphorous level of dis- Minnesota hold the other two posi- Pauline Langsdorf at the Metropoli- charged water from six parts per tions. They are Mayor Chuck tan Waste Control Commission million to three parts per million. Winkelman, St. Cloud and Greg (MWCC), (612) 229 -2100, for Studies on the cost to Minnesota's Sparks, city administrator, more information on the study or residents of reducing the phospho- Worthington. forum. rous level to 1.0 or .4 parts per In addition to the four board The phosphorous study has million will also be part of the positions, the Nominating Committee been a three -year process, which discussion at the forum.0 will also recommend to the member- ship election of officers. The offices of president, and first and second vice May 14, 1993 Page 5 State auditor reports on local fund balances Cities fund balances decline, counties increase between 1990 and 1991 Sarah Hackett problems if the fund balances were to several factors, according to the state Although individual situations be reduced below their current levels." auditor. Certain cities will require vaned greatly among cities, those The report also notes that although fund balances of 40 percent of their above 2,500 population reduced their "the total size of ... fund balances may total current expenditures; while others fund balance total by 9.2 percent appear large, the cash flow situation of with more revenues from fees, service between 1990 and 1991. The report, counties and cities requires substantial charges, or intergovernmental grants released by the Office of the State fund balances to avoid the need for would need lower fund balances- - short -term borrowing." owin . The report perhaps IO percent. The report doe Auditor, notes, however, that over half 8 eP Pe P P ( po s P of these 181 cities reported increases explains factors which contribute to not comment on those cities or in their fund balances, and that large cities' need for adequate fund bat- counties with unreserved fund bal- decreases in the fund balances of the ances —the timing of state aid and ances of 60, 70, or even 100 percent of largest cities influenced the decrease property tax payments, and the their current expenditures.) There is in the total percentage change. dependence on these revenues for most some discussion of -the opportunity for Encouraging to cities is a state- of their funding compared to the cities to "delay certain payments" until ment in the auditor's report that state's ability to use multiple tax and they receive their aid and tax pay- ' defends existing fund balance levels. revenue sources it collects more ments as a means of keeping down the "While the overall size of city and evenly through the year. need for large fund balances. county general fund balances may Just how much any particular city Some other highlights from the appear large, many cities and counties or county may need for an adequate report.. will experience serious cash flow fund balance though, depends on • In 1991, unreserved fund balances for cities over 2,500 population represented approximately 18.4 percent of their total current operating expenditures; State auditor's bill passes Senate . Metro area counties and anger counties reported significant increases in their fund balances; a Joel Jamnik total of 52 counties increased their On Tuesday, the Senate gave Ironically, later on Tuesday the unreserved fund balance; final approval to S.F.580 Minneapolis School Board reached a 9 Thirteen cities reported no (Reichgott, DFL -New Hope), the severance settlement with Superin- unreserved fund balance for state auditor's proposal to increase tendent Robert Ferrara worth calendar year 1991; the department's oversight role and $187,000. The school board's a Cities have approximately $170.7 to limit or modify several local attorneys estimated that the school million in unreserved special government practices. The Senate could have lost almost $400,000, revenue fund balances; counties adopted an amendment to sever- exclusive of attorney's fees and had fund balances of approxi- ance payments to highly compen- costs, had the severance agreement mately $372 million in their road sated employees. The amendment not been reached. Because the and bridge, and welfare funds; would exempt some public manag- settlement with Superintendent i Two cities reported negative fund ers and administrators who have Ferrara included a $95,000 payment balances; seven cities reported worked for some jurisdictions for to release any civil claims, even if elimination (or more) of their more than 10 years. Only a handful the state auditor's bill were in effect, 1990 fund balances by 1991; of city employees are likely to the total settlement would only have 0 Nearly all counties in the north - benefit from the amendment, which decreased to $169,000 or $18,000 west area of the state reported that the school lobby promoted. less. 0 their fund balances had been reduced b more than 10 percent Y Pe (1990 to 1991). 0 Page 6 LMC Cities Bulletin City clerks, deputy clerks, others Attendance We expect to be able to accommo- date up to 50 people on a first - League of Minnesota Cities come—first-served basis. We ask that your city respond promptly to insure a Clerks Orientation Conference � guar anteed registration. Lodging Registrants will be expected to July 27-29, 1993 arrange and pay for their own accommodations. (A block of rooms League of Minnesota Cities has been reserved at the Holiday Inn, 3490 Lexington Avenue North Shoreview, near the League offices. (612) 482-0402. Government rate St. Paul, MN 55126 u nder Group Code LMC will be $51 (612) 490 -5600 plus tax for single or double occu- pancy.) A number of non - smoking rooms are available. You'll learn Parking Services of the League of Minnesota Cities and the duties of Adequate parking is available of the clerk's office, ants including asic munic boo record Lea offices, however p articipants g � Lea o are encoura encour t P P keeping; recording minutes of meetings; payroll reports to g o car pool and a list participants f o other ants will be made federal state PERA S oc i al i Securit al i and basic o d other b duties � available to all registrants to help the municipal office. This program gives attendees good basic accommodate this. This list will be sent training que stions to be answered and allows sufficient time for ti along with a final program prior to ues q regarding duties or problems unique in each community. the conference. Cost r - - - - -- $95 includes all conference materials, break refreshments, noon luncheons, I Registration form I and evening meal on July 28. All I League of Minnesota Cities clerks orientation conference I other meals are the responsibility of July 27, 28, 29, 1993 i registrants. I - 1 Cancellation policy Please reserve space for the person named below: I Cancellations received after July 13 will be subject to a $20 cancellation Name: i charge. I Title: { Faculty { I The faculty will be members of the League of Minnesota Cities; State of Address: Minnesota, State Auditor's Office; State of Minnesota, Secretary of State; I City: State Zip U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Federal { Withholding Unit; State of Minnesota, State Income Tax Withholding Unit; I Mail registration to: League of Minnesota Cities i Public Employee's Retirement Associa- I 3490 Lexington Avenue North I tion; and practicing city clerks of St. Paul, MN 55126 Minnesota. I Atte ntion: ention: Cathy Dovidio i I For I more information contact { Cathy Dovidio I P the amount of 95 anpayable nd t al on g 349 Lexington Avenue North League of Minnesota Cities { Minn t' in I $ o g with the above form. The I 126 55 MN , au Pl St. I final program will be mailed in early July along with a list of I St. P 1, MN 55 I registrants for car pooling information. I FAX (612) 490 -0072 L ------- ------ ---- - - - - -- J May 14, 1993 Page 7 Guest editorial Minnesota needs a landfill cleanup program Chuck Williams, Commissioner cleanup? Or should each household garbage incinerated, landfilled, or MPCA contributing to one of these landfills transported out of state. This was When harmful chemicals disposed be assessed a piece of each landfill's Governor Carlson's proposal. Counties of during Minnesota's industrial past $1 million to $10 million cleanup bill? oppose this idea, claiming that solid threaten public health and the environ- The MPCA has spent hundreds of waste disposal costs are already too ment today, there's only one program hours and thousands of dollars search- high. Environmentalists oppose it big enough to tackle the health, ing old records so that we can name because they assume it will increase environmental, financial, legal, and parties responsible for landfill sites. illegal dumping. technical consequences — the Since the law only gives us one way to Landfill cleanup could be funded Superfund. clean up landfill sites, we use the law with a packaging tax that would add to to identify responsible parties — even the cost of products with packaging Minnesota's success at locating, though we'd much rather spend our that increases the solid waste load. investigating, and cleaning up old time and money cleaning up the Retailers, the Chainber of Commerce, hazardous waste sites under Superfund landfill law is second to none. However, there and the packaging industry are against is one type of site that is frustrating all But that isn't the end of the story. this option, because it will increase - of the Minnesota Pollution Control After state or federal agencies name their costs. Agency's (MPCA's) efforts to seek fast businesses as the major contributors to A landfill cleanup program could and cost- effective cleanup landfill, those parties may name as be funded by a toxics tax that would p —old landfills. many additional parties who also be added to the price of household P contributed waste to the landfill as products that can pollute the environ- Superfund d law bluntly doesn't possible, f or the they choose. At one Superfund site in ment. Among those opposing this landfills. t w work f another state, individual homeowners funding mechanism are chemical s. . law The MPCA has worked for were named responsible in a "third companies and retailers, who lobbied the last two years on alternative party" „ proposals o clean n er n iv but the suit for multi- million - dollar strongly against it. 0 Minnesota Legislature has chosen t cleanup costs. At Oak Grove sanitary Insurance interests are opposed to leave landfills in the a has chosen site in Anoka County, thou- any attempt to remove landfills from nrogram for now. sands of individuals and businesses the Superfund program. In fact, they'd \ Superfund is a "polluter pays" may be named before the smoke like the taxpayer to foot the bill for old he clears. industrial sites as well, since busi- w designed for old industrial sites Minnesota's municipalities and nesses often ask their insurance where businesses operated for many businesses pay for cleanup and companies to pay for cleanup costs years. Messes made by these bush- nesses should transaction costs (legal and unneces- under old general liability policies. businesses, not t by the taxpayer. cleaned up the sary consultant costs) under the current All of these groups must start Superfund law continues to be effec- system. Support for removing landfills adding up the cost of their resistance is to change. If lam program dfills are rem v five for the majority of old industrial from the state Superfund g removed sites. widespread and bipartisan. from the Superfund program and a Landfills are a different story. So why has the landfill bill failed sane alterative is established, we'll pay They contain garbage. Pollution from twice? Because no one's willing to $400 million over 20 years to fix the landfills is caused by the kinds of negotiate on who should pay for problem. If not, we will pay $800 household chemicals you and I used to landfill cleanup. Major groups affected million and wait 50 years for the throw into the garbage. It's going to by Superfund landfills must recognize cleanup of our old landfills. cost approximately $400 million how they would benefit from a cost- It's time for all of us — legisla- dollars to close, clean up, and monitor effective landfill cleanup program that tors, businesses, insurance interests, the 62 sites on the state Superfund list. Would eliminate huge transaction counties, cities, environmental groups, But who is the polluter? costs. And the Minnesota Legislature and citizens — to solve this problem. In most cases where niunicipali- must face the tough decisions that It's time to roll up our sleeves and get tics organized garbage collection or need to be made to assure that public to work on a landfill bill for the 1994 lielped operate a landfill, the ntunicl- health and the environment are legislative session. 0 protected. Editors note: The League nee didn't profit They provided a The cleanup program could be currently supports a tax on toxic needed public service. Should they funded by a $2 surcharge on all materials as the source o undin cant' the entire weight of a Superfund ff g for this alternative program. Page 8 LMC Cities Bulletin Municipal ads FIRE TRUCK. The City of New Municipal ads are printed at no charge to member cities.Ads run in one issue only unless notice is received to Brighton has for sale a 1969 International run asecond timt.Tlie CitiesBulittin ispublishedweekiy during the legislative session and once amonth during general pumper fire truck with 1000 gpm the interim, the time between sessions. Municipal ads will appear in the next available Cities Bulletin. Cities two stage pump, 500 gallon tank 549 have the right to reject any or all bids on equipment or proposals, and to waive any informalities therein. MinnemAa cities are equal opportunity employers. gasoline engine, and a six speed Allison automatic transmission. Sealed kids will arkin street lighting sanit sewers, be accepted until 3:00 p.m. June 25, 190.1, Position p g' street g' �' and must be marked "bid for fire truck." IT traffic signals, CITY CLERK /ADMINISTRATOR. watfic sig na a water towers, sidewalks, ls, and wastewater treatment; New Brighton reserves the right to reject The City of Kenyon (population 1,568) is all bids. The fire truck will be available seeking a city clerk/administrator who will and management, planning, and budgeting. June 28, 1993. For more information or an report to the mayor and a four member Requirements include a high degree of appointment to inspect the apparatus council elected at -large. Kenyon has a understanding of the technical engineering contact Dan Thormodsgaard evenings at budget of $1.2 million with nine full -time aspects of street design, maintenance, and g construction and other areas of administra- (612) 636 -8634, Chief Mark Freiden at employees. Qualifications include a (612) 636 -6976, or Margret during the day bachelor's degree in public administration tive responsibility; a Bachelors degree in at (612) 633 -1533. City of New Brighton, civil engineering or related field, and five or related field and one year of public 803 5th N.W., New Brighton, MN 55112. years experience in municipal engineering, sector administrative experience or two LEVER VOTING MACHINES. The with At least three years at a supervisory years of public stor professional City of South St. Paul has for sale 29 level; and a Minnesota professional experience; and knowledge of public automatic lever voting machines. All finance, personnel, land use planning, engineering registration ability to obtain machines are in good working condition. economic development, public works, and within six months of employment. Starting Sealed bids will be taken until June 1, policy analysis. Amaster's degree in salary range is $60,846 to $76,049 and an 1993. The city reserves the right to reject public administration or related field may extensive fringe benefits package. City of or, accept any or all bids. For more 224 Personnel Department, substitute for one year of experience. Rochester, information contact Christy Wilcox at Sal range is $29,205 to 34,933 First Avenue S.W., Room 107, Rochester, � g DO Q' , {507) 285 -8074. Apply by June (612) 450 -8737. Send scaled bids to City MN 55902 For an application call (507) 789 -6415. 3Q 1993. (507) Clerk, 125 Third Avenue North, South St. Send application and resume by 5:00 p.m. Paul, MN 55075. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT on May 28, 1993 to John Cole, Mayor, SITE EVALUATORS AND SITE City Administrator Application, 511 2nd DIRECTOR. The Cities o Argyle and DESIGNERS - SEPTIC SYSTEMS. Tlie Kenyon, MN 55946. St., Ken Warren are seeking an economic develop - Y went director to direct the economic City of Crosslake is seeking bids for site CITY CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR. development efforts to a six- member joint evaluations and site designs for approxi- The City of Centerville (population 1,819) development board. Three to five years mately 50 to 75 on -site septic systems in is seeking a city clerk/administrator. the Goodrich, O'Brien, and Velvet Lakes experience in economic and community Centerville is a small metropolitan area. Site evaluations and site designs are community and is approximately two development preferred. Salary and benefits to be done according to the MPCA square miles. It has a five member city commensurate with experience. Submit individual on -site wastewater treatment council elected at large, a mayor for atwo- resume by 4:30 p.m., June 1, 1993 to EDD, c/o City Clerk City of Argyle, P.O. systems grant program. Site evaluations , year term, councilmembers for four -year and site designers must have the appropri- overlapp In terms, two full -time employ- Box 288, Argyle, MN 56713, (218) 437- ate certification from the Minnesota p EOE ees, four permanent part-time employees, 6621. Pollution Control Agency. Bids should be two temporary part-time employees, and submitted using a cost per residence. For has a 1993 budget of approximately For S ale more specifications contact the planning $480,000. Minimum requirements include DIESEL TRUCK. Rushford Village and zoning office at (218) 692 - 2689. Bids a R.A. degree or equivalent or three years council requests bids for sale of a 1982 are to be submitted to the Cmsslakc municipal experience. Salary DOQ. For International 2 1/2 ton diesel truck with Planning and 7A)ning Office not later than more information contact Tamara Miltz- reversible snowplow, wing and sander, all 4:00 p.m. on May 27, 1993. Mailing Miller, Acting Clerk/Administrator, in good condition. Bids are due a the address is IIC 83 Box 114, Crosslake, MN Centerville City Hall, 1880 Main Street, Rushford Village Office, 206 South Mill 56442. Centerville, MN 55038, (612) 429 -3232. Street, EO. Box 70, Rushford, MN 55971 WATER TOWER. The I lanover Applications submitted by May 21, 1993 by 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 18, 1993. standpipe will be taken out of service and will be considered. The bids will be opened at a special disposed of by June 1994. If anyone is DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES, meeting. For an appointment to see the interested in the tower please contact The City of Rochester (population 73,000) truck call Robert Thieret at (507) 864 -7685 Donna at (612) 497 -3611 weekdays is seeking a director of public services. after 5:00 p.m., Mayor Donn Ramsey at between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Responsibilities include planning, (507) 864 -2526 evenings or before 9:00 WATER TOWER. The St. Michael implementing, and administering the a.m., or Rushford Village at (507) 864- water tower will be taken out of service activities of a large department engaged in 7974 Monday through Wednesday. The and disposed of by June 1994. If anyone is programs of street maintenance and Rushford Village Council reserves the interested in the tower please contact construction, civil engineering, traffic right to reject any and all bids. The current Donna at (612) 497 -3611 weekdays engineering, transit, on and off street dea may be extended. between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. 0 FIRST CLASS U.S. POSTAGE PAID St. Paul, MN PERMIT NO. 3223 League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55126 Phone: 612 -490 -5600 , -Splinter The League of Minnesota Cities publishes r"' . the Legislative Bulletin weekly during the Shingle Cr-'e= -d-:: Legislative session and monthly during the 0 i:: "i1••:: 7 '-dn 1 ':J5 4 1._i interim, the time between sessions_ Subscriptions: members -$30; non- members- $45. Contact: Publications Department. League of Minnesota Cities. League of Minnesota Cities R EC EIV ED MAY 1 7 1995 Board of Directors PRESIDENT Lar »m Mayor ookim v a ll ey Where to get legislative information at the Capitol* FIRST VICE PRESIDENT Leland Swum Mayor Copies of bills Morris State Capitol House Chief Clerk's Office - 296 -2314, Rm. 211, SECOND VICE FRESIDENT Secretary of Senate's Office - 296 -2343, Rm. 231, State Capitol Bob Long Councilmember St. Paul Bill status, authors, companion, committee referral (by bill number, DIRECTORS author, or topic) Jerry Dulgar Jo Robb House Index - 296 -6646, Rm. 211, State Capitol city M—g- Crystal Ra;�dak Senate Index - 296 -2887, Rm. 231 State Capitol L Hams Bett Sindt Weekly committee schedules, bIll introductions, and summaries of Mayor Coumilmember st Louis Part Lakeville committee and floor action Deayl Peterson Elie soraurn House Information Office - 296 -2146, 175 State Office Building Cit Attorney Mana Senate Information Office - 296 -0504, Rm. 231, State Capitol Minnetonka Winona Pahicis Pi&mk Greg SMU Recording of the following day's committee schedule and agenda, counei>roem>xr City Administrator (after 4:30 p.m.) Eden Pr7II1e WorthiV n "House Call" (House committee schedule) - 296 -9283 Todd Ptatke Chuck wink elman Senate Hotline (Senate committee schedule) - 296-8088 City Administrator Mayor Bnmlyn. Dclavan, St Cloud Easton, Minnesota To reach a member on the House or Senate floor Lake John Y oung, Jr. House Sergeant at Arms - 296 -4860 Camcihnember Senate Page Yvonne Pretmer xa vk ag Desk - 296 -4159 Councitmombcr D ' a ' d ' To notify the governor's office of your concerns Ex omclo Governor Arne Carlson - 296 -3391, Rm. 130, State Capitol Donald Fraser Minncapotis *All addresses are St. Paul, AIN 55155, all area codes 612 Karen Anderson Comcilmember Minnetonka CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/24/93 Agenda Item Number / Q/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1993 SEALCOATING PROJECT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -06, CONTRACT 1993 -B DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Direct& of Pu lic Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • Bids for the 1993 Sealcoating Project, Improvement Project No. 1993 -06, Contract 1993 -B, were received on May 19, 1993. The bidding results are tabulated as follows: Bidder Option A Option B Option C Option D Allied Blacktop Co. $130,9,47.87 $116,514.32 $140,515.26 $109,355.42 Asphalt Surface Tech. $141,076.44 $125,029.06 $153,960.65 $120,814.91 Caldwell Asphalt Co. $152,742.51 $138,104.39 $184,587.4 $125,524.22 The specifications for this work required bids to be submitted on the basis of different material sizes and types, similar to previous years. For the information of the Council, the awards in recent years have been based on the selection of either Option A or Option B, which recognize the use of smaller sized aggregate material on residential streets and larger material on the higher traffic or State Aid streets. Based on analysis of the bids submitted, and the wearing characteristics inherent to the specified materials, staff is recommending acceptance of the low bid for Option A, which specifies the use of smaller trap rock material for residential streets and larger trap rock material for higher traffic streets. Allied Blacktop Co. of Maple Grove, MN, the low bidder for Option A has extensive sealcoating experience in the Metro area and is regarded as having the most up- to -date equipment available for this type of work. In addition, Allied has previously completed projects of this type for the City; most recently last year. The low bid for Option A, $130,947.87, compares favorably to the 1993 General Fund budget allocation of $140,000. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the low bid for Option A and award of the contract to Allied Blacktop Co. of Maple Grove, MN. Note: In the past, the City's sealcoating program was geographic in nature; that is, any year's program would concentrate in a specific area. In this way, all streets under our jurisdiction could expect to be sealcoated once every 7 or 8 years, whether they actually benefitted from the application of a sealcoat at that time or not. We expect that by integrating the output from our recently established Pavement Management Program, the determination of next year's (and subsequent years') sealcoating area will be based on an annual, street -by- street analysis of the cost effectiveness of spending street maintenance dollars on the various rehabilitation techniques (sealcoating, patching, crack filling, overlays, reconstruction, etc.). The sealcoating programs of the future will be less geographic in nature, and will cause some streets to be skipped over as we concentrate on the streets in the City that will most benefit from sealcoat application for that given year. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which accepts the low bid and awards a contract to Allied Blacktop Co., of Maple Grove, MN, is attached for consideration. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR 1993 SEALCOATING PROJECT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -06, CONTRACT 1993 -B WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1993 -06, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Engineer, on the 19th day of May, 1993. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Option A Option B motion C Option D Allied Blacktop Co. $130,947.87 $116,514.32 $140,515.26 $109,355.42 Asphalt Surface Tech. $141,076.44 $125,029.06 $153,960.65 $120,814.91 Caldwell Asphalt Co. $152,742.51 $138,104.39 $184,587.43 $125,524.22 WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to select Option A, as permitted by the Specifications for Contract 1993 -B, Special Provisions, Division B, B -7.3 "the Owner reserves the right to select and award a contract for any of the four options contained in the proposal form, in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center "; and WHEREAS, it appears that Allied Blacktop Co., of Maple Grove, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder for Option A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: p 1. Option A is selected because it provides the most desirable combination of materials at a competitive price. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract for Option A in the amount of $130,947.87, with Allied Blacktop Co., of Maple Grove, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1993 -06 according to the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the Deputy City Clerk. 3. The Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all the bidders and deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. RESOLUTION NO. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/24, -93 Agenda Item Number /a REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD SIDEWALK REPAIRS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -08), ADA TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -09), REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE SIDEWALKS IN MISCELLANEOUS LOCATIONS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -10), EXPANSION OF PARKING LOT IN SOUTH PALMER LAKE PARKING LOT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -11), REPAIR OF FREEWAY BLVD. (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -12), AND RECONSTRUCTION OF APPARATUS AREA IN NORTHPORT PARK (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -13), CONTRACT 1993 -E. DEPT. APPROVAL: "x4— Sy.� app, i ector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes The City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for projects listed below. It is recommended that these projects be combined for the purposes of contract administration. Please refer to the attached map for project locations. Brooklvn Boulevard Sidewalk Repairs, Improvement Project No. 1993 -08 This proposed project consists of the replacement of defective sidewalk panels and pedestrian ramps adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard, between I -94 and the south City Limits. Sidewalk panel and pedestrian ramp replacement has been previously performed on that portion of Brooklyn Boulevard north of I -94, as a part of Improvement Project No. 1991 -04. This work will involve the replacement of sidewalk panels on both sides of Brooklyn Blvd. that have heaved or broken from tree roots and freeze /thaw cycles or show serious deterioration due to age. These damaged, heaved or broken panels are hazardous to both the pedestrians which use the sidewalks and also the Public Works personnel which are responsible for the snow removal in the winter. The total estimated project cost for this improvement, including contingency, legal, administration and engineering is $42,900. It is proposed that the funding for this improvement be provided by the Local State Aid Fund, Account No. 2911. ADA Trail Improvements, Improvement Project No. 1993 -09 This proposed project consists of making trail and pedestrian ramp improvements in various City parks for the purpose of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). This work was recommended in Julie Quarve - Petersons's Accessibility Evaluation for the City. Specifically, this work will involve the construction of ramps and paved trails which will connect various recreation facilities with parking areas, existing trail systems, rest rooms and other park structures. This work would be performed in the six parks which were identified as "Priority 1" parks: Central, West Palmer Lake, Evergreen, Lions, Grandview, and Northport. Improvements to sixteen other parks, which were identified as "Priority 2" or "Priority 3" parks, will be evaluated and brought forward for consideration in 1994 and later years. The total estimated project cost for this improvement, including contingency, legal, administration and engineering is $81,000. It is proposed that the funding for this improvement be provided by the Capital Projects Fund. Replacement of Sidewalks, Miscellaneous Locations, Improvement Project No. 1993 -10 This proposed project consists of the replacement of.defective sidewalk panels at various locations city -wide. For the last few years, the Public Works Department has annually inspected and inventoried locations throughout the City where sidewalk panels have created a hazard for either pedestrians or sidewalk plowing personnel. The total estimated project cost for this improvement, including contingency, legal, administration and engineering is $22,750. It is proposed that the funding for this improvement be provided by the Local State Aid Fund, Account No. 2911. Expansion of South Palmer Labe Parking Lot, Improvement Project No. 1993 -11 This proposed project consists of expanding the existing parking lot in South Palmer Lake Park to accommodate approximately 14 additional vehicles. This improvement was recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission at its 5, 1993 meeting. The proposed expansion will be to the south, away from the existing wetland and into a currently unused area. The total estimated project cost for this improvement, including contingency, legal, administration and engineering is $14,600. It is proposed that the funding for this improvement be provided by the Capital Projects Fund. Repair of Freeway Boulevard Improvement Project No 1993 -12 This proposed project consists of repair of a small portion of the westerly half of Freeway Boulevard just south of Shingle Creek Parkway, adjacent to an existing townhome development. This portion of the road (and sidewalk) was originally constructed as a somewhat "interim" section in 1983, with the understanding that the organic soil (peat) under the roadway would allow settlement over time. Engineering staff has been monitoring the road section and adjacent sidewalk since 1983, and no settlement has occurred since 1990. We believe that the conditions are stable, and now recommend repair of the settled portion of the roadway and sidewalk. The total estimated project cost for this improvement, including contingency, legal, administration and engineering is $8,250. It is proposed that the funding for this improvement be provided by the Local State Aid Fund, Account No. 2911. Reconstruction of Apparatus Area in Northport Park, Improvement Project No. 1993 -13 This proposed project consists of the reconstruction of playground apparatus area in Northport Park. The work proposed as part of this improvement involves the removals of the existing canopy and concrete wading pool which has been filled with sand, and the construction of a concrete curbing around the perimeter of the reconfigured play area. This work is in conjunction with a separate contract for the furnishing and installation of new playground equipment, a report for which is scheduled for consideration by the Council at this meeting. The total estimated project cost for this improvement, including contingency, legal, administration and engineering is $26,770. It is proposed that the funding for this improvement be provided by the Capital Projects Fund. It is recommended that all of the above described improvements be combined in a single contract for the purposes of bidding and contract administration. The estimated construction cost for the above improvements is $150,950. The total estimated project cost for Contract 1993 -E, which includes contingencies, legal, administration and engineering, is $196,270. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which establishes the above projects, approves plans and specifications, and directs advertisement for bids for Contract 1993 -E is provided for consideration. �a b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD SIDEWALK REPAIRS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -08), ADA TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -09), REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE SIDEWALKS IN MISCELLANEOUS LOCATIONS (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -10), EXPANSION OF PARKING LOT IN SOUTH PALMER LAKE PARKING LOT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -11), REPAIR OF FREEWAY BOULEVARD (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -12), AND RECONSTRUCTION OF APPARATUS AREA IN NORTHPORT PARK (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -13), CONTRACT 1993 -E WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council of the need for the above listed improvements at various locations within the City; - and WHEREAS, the amount of work necessary to perform these improvements is beyond the scope of what is normally performed by City forces; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that Improvement Project Nos. 1993 -08, 1993 -09, 1993 -10, 1993 -11, 1993 -12 and 1993 -13 be combined into Contract 1993 -E for the purpose of administration and bidding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project 1993 -08, Brooklyn Boulevard Sidewalk Repairs, is hereby established in accordance with the following schedule: Contract $33,000.00 Contingency (15 %) $ 4,950.00 Subtotal Construction $37,950.00 Admin., Legal, Eng. (13 %) $ 4,950.00 Total Est. Cost Improvement Project 1993 -08 $42,900.00 2. Improvement Project 1993 -09, ADA Trail Improvements is hereby established in accordance with the following schedule: Contract $62,300.00 Contingency (15 %) $ 9,350.00 Subtotal Construction $71,650.00 RESOLUTION N0. Legal, Admin.,Eng. (13 %) $ 9,350.00 Total Est. Cost Improvement Project 1993 -09 $81,000.00 3. Improvement Project 1993 -10, Replacement of Defective Sidewalks in Miscellaneous Locations is hereby established in accordance with the following schedule. Contract $17,500.00 Contingency (15 %) $ 2,630.00 Subtotal Construction $20,130.00 Legal, Admin.,Eng. (13 %) $ 2.620.00 Total Est, Cost Improvement Project 1993 -10 $22,750.00. 4. Improvement Project 1993 -11, Expansion of Parking Lot in South Palmer Lake Park is hereby established in accordance with the following schedule: Contract $11,200.00 Contingency (15 %) $ 1,680.00 Subtotal Construction $12,880.00 Legal, Admin., Eng (13 %) $ 1,720.00 Total Est. Cost Improvement Project 1993 -11 $14,600.00 5. Improvement Project 1993 -12, Repair of Freeway Boulevard is hereby established in accordance with the following schedule: Contract $6,350.00 Contingency (15 %) $ 950.00 Subtotal Construction $7,300.00 Legal, Admin., Eng.(13 %) 950.00 Total Est. Cost Improvement Project 1993 -12 $8,250.00 RESOLUTION NO. 6. Improvement Project 1993 -13 Reconstruct Apparatus Area in Northport p o A J PP P Park is hereby established in accordance with the following schedule: Contract $20,600.00 Contingency (15 %) $ 3,090.00 Subtotal Construction $23,690.00 Legal, Admin., Eng. (13 %) $ 3,080.00 Total Est. Cost Improvement Project 1993 -13 $26,770.00 7. All costs for Improvement Project Nos. 1993 -08, 1993 -10 and 1993 -12 shall be financed by Local State Aid Fund, Account No. 2911. All costs for Improvement Project Nos. 1993 -09, 1993 -11 and 1993 -13 shall be financed by the Capital Projects Fund. 8. 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 improvements 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 Manager or their designees. 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 Deputy City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. Date Todd Paulson, 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. - 012 I�� YN C,� Y� HRyyOK N P K I I I �:% ➢' L-s_ �� c A II Nil a LAKE I r $l 7J s T r i g I \\ —i Ll 'L —� � {' �� 4', � - _ \�•�. ,a, wel I � I ���� -cam ... fi it �$��'�'� li � r- � f ' x f '.L �I I $ I s' .,, z c' � R � — �� � � ��^ �� —� �� � l � � $� ''-, ���I IIII�I a L 3I � �III i ✓ 'I', `�� `� k �qq 5 � --------/ Lm �I�� � ,J 4,1cY �I�'I� L.J I I 2 `• ICI % � � � i //� I�' ��( ;� ; I xZ/1 Al €� it B k / � �� fr a L���L — �� �J Ljr 11 iL L-1 �l,�`�� L--j�L�i�'�I I w r� � $I III 'dl��� 1 !I II 'k_J�J. ��JL 7F I LJLLJ� JL L_ LJ CONTRACT 19 3 =E BROOKLYN - CENTER 1993 -08 BROOKLYN BLVD S/W REPLACEMENT 1993 -09 ADA TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS 1993 -11 SO PALMER LK . il l ', ��.�� - PARKING LOT iT I , /�:� ® 1993 -12 REPAIR OF FREEWAY BLVD ® 1993 -13 RECONSTRUCT APPARATUS AREA NOTE: 1993 -10 REPLACE DEFECTIVE S/W VARIOUS LOCATIONS NOT SHOWN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05[24/933 Agenda Item Number 1A V REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING PLAYGROUND APPARATUS AT NORTHPORT PARK AND AT FREEWAY PARK, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -14, DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AND APPROPRIATING FUND THEREFORE, CONTRACT 1993 -F DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp A irector of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: _ Id No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attac ed SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes • The 1993 budget for Division 169 - Parks Maintenance includes an appropriation of $63,900 for the replacement of playground equipment at Northport Park and at Freeway Park. Please refer to attached map for park locations. Since the time that the budget was adopted, the Americans with Disabilities Act has been established, and requires that the surfacing in and around the playstructure areas in these parks be wheelchair accessible. Accordingly, the City Engineer has developed plans and specifications for furnishing and installing modular playstructures and safety surfacing at the two locations. These proposed improvements are in conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The cost of the furnishing and installation of the modular playstructures and required safety surfacing is estimated as $71,000. Because the costs for the safety surfacing were not included in the amount originally budgeted for this improvement, an additional appropriation may need to be made when bids are received and actual costs are known. If additional funds are required, it is recommended that the Council consider an additional appropriation from the contingency fund. Note: At Northport Park, a substantial amount of site work is necessary prior to the installation of the new equipment; removal of an wading pool filled with sand and the construction of the concrete perimeter is required. This required site work is being performed as part of Contract 1993 -E, an item for which is included separately on this agenda. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution which approves plans and specifications for the project and directs advertisement for bids is attached for consideration. 4c, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING PLAYGROUND APPARATUS AT NORTHPORT PARK AND AT FREEWAY PARK, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1993 -14, DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE, CONTRACT 1993 -F WHEREAS, the 1993 budget for Division No. 169 - Parks Maintenance includes as appropriation of $63,900 for furnishing and installing playground apparatus for Northport Park and Freeway Park; and WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that the surfacing in and around the play areas be of a design which will provide - wheelchair accessibility; WHEREAS, the costs for such surfacing where not included in the original budget appropriation; WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for furnishing and installing playground apparatus at the park locations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Plans and specifications for Improvement Project No. 1993 -14, Furnishing Playground Apparatus at Northport Park and at Freeway Park, are hereby approved. 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 Manager or their designees. 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. RESOLUTION N0. Date Todd Paulson, 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. Y litiR ?E" t{ 'Vol ({ :'7R {'{i " "" ItEt� fiGGF`t "1,4 tlrr r e •'Si VIN I L C I�y OF g?OOKLYN PA „i..�.1 rE {s -��, �� {�ri�� € �6t �nE. !i �tFlu " "Y3d" F t� G �° i GE ea is,rGtG G f� t ' G ! 1 �, " - I' it I I li o i p 1` i I .i i � I I i I � I� I x m r ��. t _Ilc. � •. r�i � il" I cl JL -- ,`'���._ I � .,. QIL .. : u�.....0 x z .z..i � G , __,- _ �� - -.� ]�:,• �� l �r \ t T IL- I r T ) S 1. kj[ ZI ,L L F7 o ]C - p - - - N rL=i zo .. r h � tdetrsrssin �,nre I� %x4s4 �w < �YFrt �tk� �� '�;ti Z °�.` '�e��'n X`e^�i -�; _ � a � AR74 0+.4 � �'+• �� l s ,.v+... 4� x r �, yam. Ar ._ r , 1 g4.� + � 4,., .a � .� _ � `' a "� • t' 3 t +. h :°7.e -S Y ,� �'s� 5� � « .�� � f s t 9 �' ''r nr , ys .sue +a��.3.« � .$ � � f � •� :t ti Y .ny �''+" • .•«9.n,: "n h « !� 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 05/24/9 • Agenda Item Number �l REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, Dire ' or of Pu is Works ' MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION:" No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SLND ARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ---- I • 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. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution. 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 05/24/93 ) 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, THEREFORE, 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 - ----- ---------------- - - - - -- ----------------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- CITY OF B.C. 69TH /IRVING LA SIDEWALK 1 CITY OF B.C. NORTHPORT PARK 10 RUTH BEGGS 6230 COLFAX AVE N 11 CITY OF B.C. 69TH /IRVING LA SIDEWALK 2 CITY OF B.C. 69TH /IRVING LA SIDEWALK 3 CITY OF B.C. 69TH /IRVING LA SIDEWALK 4 CITY OF B.C. 69TH /IRVING LA SIDEWALK 5 CITY OF B.C. NORTHPORT PARK 6 CITY OF B.C. NORTHPORT PARK 7 CITY OF B.C. NORTHPORT PARK 8 CITY OF B.C. NORTHPORT PARK 9 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. RESOLUTION NO. 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5,24/93 C Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND FOR MANHOLE ADJUSTMENTS ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE DEPT. APPROVAL: Sy Knapp, ctor of Public Works MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: w _ No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The Hennepin County Department of Transportation ( HCDOT) recently advised us that they will place a bituminous overlay on Brooklyn Boulevard between the south City limits and Halifax Drive (about halfway between 63rd and 65th Avenue) this summer. HCDOT also advises that for the section of Brooklyn Boulevard from Halifax Drive to the north City limits, they intend to submit an application for ISTEA (federal highway funds) funding to make improvements based on the conceptual plan which SRF is preparing (based on Council authorization granted on May 10, 1993). If that application for funding is approved, HCDOT could be in position to initiate that project as early as 1995. In the interim, HCDOT will continue to provide routine repairs to that section of Brooklyn Boulevard. In conjunction with HCDOT's overlay of the southerly section of Brooklyn Boulevard, HCDOT's established policies require the City of Brooklyn Center to participate to the following extent: • City must accomplish all adjustments to sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main manholes (i.e. - raise the manhole castings to the level of the new surface; and • Furnish and install materials for crosswalk markings. Regarding the needed manhole adjustments: ✓ Thirty five (35) manhole castings need to be adjusted. • ✓ Staff has received proposals from two contractors to do this work. The lowest cost proposal received is from C.E. Rogers Co at $522.67 per manhole, with a total cost of $18,293.45. ✓ It is recommended that all costs for this work be charged to the appropriate public utility fund; i.e. - water main manhole adjustments to the Water Utility fund, etc. ! Regarding the crosswalk markings: ✓ Staff recommends that the required thermoplastic pavement marking materials be purchased from the 3M Company through the State of Minnesota contract, at a total cost of $9,140.00. ✓ It is recommended that all costs for this work by charged to the City's local Municipal State Aid Street fund, Account #2911. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. r r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSALS FOR PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND FOR MANHOLE ADJUSTMENTS ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Transportation ( HCDOT) will construct a bituminous overlay on Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) from the south Brooklyn Center limits to Halifax Place this year; and WHEREAS, HCDOT policy for this type of improvement requires the City to participate in the costs for such improvement to the extent of adjusting all manhole castings to the level of the new surface, and furnishing and installing materials for crosswalk pavement markings; and WHEREAS, City staff has received the following proposals to make the needed manhole adjustments. Unit Cost Estimated Total Contractor Price Amount C. E. Rogers Co. $522.67 $18,293.45 S. M. Hentges Co. $580.00 $20,300.00 AND WHEREAS, City staff recommends purchase of thermoplastic pavement marking materials from the 3M Company through the State of Minnesota contract at a cost of $9,140.40. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal of C. E. Rogers to accomplish the required manhole adjustments at a unit cost of $522.67 per manhole, with an estimated total cost of $18,293.45 is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with said company on the basis of that proposal. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to purchase the needed pavement marking materials from the 3M Company through its contract with the State of Minnesota, in the total amount of $9,140.40. 3. Funding to cover all costs for these improvements is appropriated as follows: ■ All costs related to the required manhole adjustments shall be charged to the appropriate public utility (water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage) account. RESOLUTION N0. ■ All costs related to the pavement markings shall be charged to the Municipal State Aid Street fund, Account No. 2911. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date May 24, 1993 Agenda Item Number1o REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM DEPT. APPROVAL: Toni Bublitz, Co unity Development Specialist MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECONMIENDATION: 4- • No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached ******************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SU EMLARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached )Les During the past eighteen years, Hennepin County has qualified as an urban county to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as a result of creating a partnership with Hennepin County communities. The key element in the process is the execution of a joint cooperation agreement between the County and each city within Hennepin County that wishes to participate in the program and become eligible to receive CDBG funds from the County. Every three years, Hennepin County must be recertified by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an urban county to continue to receive an annual entitlement grant through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The joint cooperation agreement presented for Council approval this evening would gain certification for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996. Included with this memorandum is a copy of the joint cooperation agreement which highlights the changes from the previous joint agreement. Please note the changes are highlighted by the dark shading. Most of the changes are minor language changes or clarifications. In addition, new HUD language regarding the H.O.M.E. program and CDBG program requirements are also reflected. As background information, a copy of the report entitled "Community Development Block Grant • Program: The First Eighteen Years" is included. The report outlines the activities of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program for the first eighteen years, including a summary of the activities of each city participating in the Urban County program. In order to continue to participate in the Urban Hennepin County program, the City must execute the joint cooperation agreement. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Staff recommends approval of the joint cooperation agreement between the City of brooklyn Center and Hennepin County. i �a F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to operate as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the current Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and the County be terminated and a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 1993, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. Date Todd Paulson, 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. Urban Hennepin County Contract No. A07483 Community Development Block Grant Program JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT . c � d;:: tt ted nro by...and t wee . .: ? ' '' `. t ' ? x. to r Mznsota,exe�nafex referredu as �` t��#NT`Y A ��t� Gavern�nen�:::Cez�te� `: s7., .a cs exeunts ast::Ae#e»::: e erezzxaftCaz;geaal : >.$redu asCOUPRATING..I)€T arr�s:> >o`..th� P S Agxeeexxt era b�fngoezrtmen the State of nnesna; andauxsun uzsr�eatai'Stu Fn:;<7.;:;`» WITNESSETH: COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that d� G UNIT � �� ��:s a�that��y �a ea��q o�� es�e commuri3 ty zeve apment and housing aetav� ties tr3 th UUTY,.:�n order ra permit COUNTY a SPGut z�dmiiistex` Community Development Block Grant and itJneSnon Partnr$hi funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. ►tAA �nicow� edges ghat byxecfan ahfs fgrezn i nderstands.. ghat... :.:> . ....... .........:::.:..:::::..::::.:.: Mny -pot so apply for g ants znder the tat CDB,G Program from p�z;ftvna fir fis cal years cuing which o parpating in the Urban bounty Program, an :..:....:...:... :::.:...::::..::::;: ,:;;:::::::.:::::.:::: ::::...: ,..:....:::::..:::::::::.......:::....................... ............................... . ..: : .::;...:....:...:..: ;:.;...:....:..:.. :.: ; .< ... ;;:.;::...:::....:. not participate 3n aflME Gonsort�um except through tie Urban oznt I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County which has entered into a cooperation agreement which is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County which is a party to each Agreement. i E. "Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Communit Development Block Grant program. F. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake or assist i P n undertaking, community nit renewal and Lowe g y r income _ housing ass s:t'a�i activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted .......:...:.:;::::::::.:::. housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for A the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant anc4 HQME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years } 29 5 and 9�3b a. from any ?ragxmce...getrated £rnra..re... xezdiuz o $txchuzxds.< III. AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 1993, and terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 1996, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. Ct?U2TY shad sots* t3t1' px..az� tti the Q the 1aat QUnty qua £ �ativn gerit i that the Agreement 31 autorrfst�ca7 y be renewed unless Xxxx :X 6 .... ted' �n writ�rig by either P : rty' E they GOtI Y br EJOPERAftw :SIT zn y xer ise the p ii t ter�afn to t Agreement at to ...end ..erf . bhe. U bn : Coznty £� catian period,:..: T4TJNTY �r t�4'At Tfi:a3:3 > t �ceref se thatp .riot have the: �6ppx'zf to. exerc.se tet unt the end of a subsequent Urban Ct�sintr tual�ctonaer od Ct3Ct`X tl:: >:sytfy thePg UN n tg...o is rght t� be excluded by.' h ?< ate speca£Yed by litl �n the trban bounty O.ua f�catlan. Notice fog _ _ h� nest ei r sgr�tt mns mezzdd ... wry te gtsin�n f a es t 3ncorpnrate and changes necessary to meet the regz�remente for cooperation agreettrentt . s!et f xth £n the Urban aunty Qua if Cana N t �e a If ICA 0 t yeah 3 h the newteication o£ the Countys scheduled Fad line dry either party to s�dopt such aio�adzcr�t to the V . e%.. sha1S autmt:eallzzne; the AgxeemenG o37ora ng the expenditures n£ all CDB and HOME funds a3.loc.a ed for us n C0E3PEitATING to hsta�ad g ,�� at-b pry S si` of th�.s -fir emez thls Afire �n t may terminated at the end a£ the; program peripi during which; Hi7l?; withdraws its des#gatozr COQ as az�lrbanou�t ithe Att.' 2 This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than a 89y x. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, section 109 of Title _< :::::::::..:.:::::::::..:::::::::: ::::::::.:.:::.:::..::.::::::.: .:.::..::::::::::.:.::::::......:::.::.:::.....:.:::......................_........................................................ ............................... I ofhic�ing et : t E e Amrat ....... ................. ?sabiat o 11 asd zthex sPp 1a�aLe lays > IV. ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and - carry out within the terms of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will g ill assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaken of such essential activities b g y providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and /or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds pursuant to 24 CFR §570.300 et seq. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows: A. COOPERATING UNIT will in accord with a COUNTY- established schedule prepare and provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, an annual request for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives. B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 (b) , it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY. C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in paragraph B. above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. D. COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program pursuant to this Agreement within Eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. 3 1. Funds for all activities not implemented within Eighteen (18) months shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. 2. Implementation period extensions may be granted upon request in cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and /or subject of a binding contract to proceed. E. COOPERATING UNIT shall use funds provided pursuant to Section V. of this tti A reement :: ri: g prc�cab7e`to undertake no more than Three (3) grant - funded activities administered by the COOPERATING UNIT. Each activity shall have a budget of at least Seventy -five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00), or the total amount of the planning allocation of COOPERATING UNIT if less than Seventy -five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00). A COOPERATING _ UNIT may assign less than Seventy -five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00) to an activity when the activity is one that is programmed by at least one other - COOPERATING UNIT and administered by only one COOPERATING UNIT >t.:: flt1` on behalf of the others, provided that the total activity budget is at least Seventy -five Hundred Dollars ($7,500.00). F. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to accomplish the community development program and housing assistance goals as contained in the Urban Hennepin Count y amprehens ve Housing .Af cox tabs y . Str`ategi �C S G. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and /or activities funded in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall in implementing all programs and /or activities funded by the basic grant amount comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. H. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for any activities. I. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process as established by COUNTY in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. J. COOPERATING UNIT shall comply with all of the administrative guidelines of the COUNTY now in effect or as hereafter promulgated. K. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. 4 .. hasdcspted aztd is er nralng the use off eeessre by azs anaremen V. agenc�e� yr h n its ur�sd cti against and indsvi.V s en A ez 3x X L Yk U.... 7 g 1 5 d llti#1 tIt331 : X. :: ..... po7 et n c rig a?p7 b e> ,..::.::.;:::;. ... . P ys ca1 barring entranced or exit : `acs tar �aoatzoz hhs tY�e subject a such ran:'v;en cvgtis riet4�nstraQhs .. tv� the is �ursdictort COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies on an annual basis all plans, statements and program documents necessary _ for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of the request for funding. C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. D. COUNTY shall upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT agree to administer local housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12 %) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer for a possible fee other programs and /or activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under $06.t 'S of the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain Ten percent (10 %) of the annual basic grant amount for the undertaking of eligible activities. 5 B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be apportioned by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to make requests for the use of funds so apportioned. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. Each COOPERATING UNIT will use as a target for planning purposes an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. _ 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. It is the intent of this section that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 24 CFR §570.4. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. E. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request its planning allocation, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement. VI. FINANCIAL MATTERS A. Reimbursement to the COOPERATING UNIT for expenditures for the implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form and Hennepin County Warrant Request, and supporting documentation. B. All funds received by COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to COOPERATING UNITS for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. C. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the County to be prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. 6 D. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementation. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall perform all audits as may be required of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. E. COOPERATING UNIT shall inform COUNTY of any income generated by the expenditure of CDBG funds it has received and shall pay to COUNTY all program income generated except as derived from activities with an approved revolving account. When program income is generated by an activity that is only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used. 1. COUNTY will retain Ten percent (10 %) of all program income paid to COUNTY to defray administration expenses. 2. The remaining Ninety percent (90 %) of the program income paid to COUNTY shall be credited to the grant authority of COOPERATING UNIT whose project generated the program income and shall be used for fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement. 3. COOPERATING UNIT and Ct7INTY:.:ar *.:;authorized to retain program income derived from projects with an approved revolving account provided such income is used only for eligible activities in accordance with all CDBG requirements as they may apply. 4. COOPERATING UNIT shall maintain appropriate records and make reports to COUNTY as may be needed to enable COUNTY to monitor and report to HUD on the use of any program income. 5. Any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the closeout or change in status of COOPERATING UNIT shall be paid to COUNTY. F. Should an approved activity be determined to represent an ineligible expenditure of grant funds, the COOPERATING UNIT responsible shall reimburse the COUNTY for such ineligible expense. 1. All reimbursements for ineligible expenditures shall be added to the next annual basic grant amount received by COUNTY and allocated according to the procedures set forth in and comply with all conditions of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. 2. When it is determined by the COUNTY that grant funds have been expended on an eligible activity and through no fault of the COOPERATING UNIT the project fails or is no longer eligible, the 7 return of grant funds shall be reallocated in the same manner as program income in Section VI.E. of this Agreement unless decreed otherwise by a Federal regulatory body or by final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction. VII. REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR IMPROVEMENT The following provisions shall apply to real property acquired or improved in whole or in part using CDBG funds. A. COOPERATING UNIT shall promptly notify COUNTY of any modification or change in the use of real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvement including disposition and comply with 24 CFR §570.505. B. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non -CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that P Y q P t is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulationsid eimburseter► shI b : px4tircid p bUNv a tfiiw zrf °'sa:'r transfer of t prngerty: Sucheimbursment aha mot b ege�xed the nriris a4R7IIc3 > }:E)! end s : a et ttzarket value steal l be es tai zshec€ t »' a.::e�a ezlt. wrztte.T bf requ�:��:ng se�r�nd appra�.sa.� a��er rev�eW,.:v� Ilse �:n�t�.a�; apg�asa:�:_ C. Program income generated from the disposition or transfer of property prior to or subsequent to the closeout, change of status or termination of this Agreement shall be treated as stipulated in Section VI. E. of this Agreement. VIII: METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. IX L3PINIId OF - The underanned, yr behaL£ the' Hennepin £aunty Attorney, :bavzrtg reviewed. this Ag.�eei��.n� �.exeby c�p�x��a that the teams azd p��v�.s�:ou� ��" �h� Agteemeiat art �'u1,X�r authoz3eci under Btgte anti lt>eal law and: thab the Arement providesxz� lega': aut�r fG t4 undertake , fix .assist ri uzdartaking essea eom�auz�i t develapmen a r Rousin s�stance act�v�tles s`ec�f call, urban. re�ewsi $ nd piblii�* As.sisb ho sin.< Assistant County Attorney 8 R. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 1993, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Upon proper execution, this COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA Agreement will be legally valid and binding. By: Chairman of its County Board And: Deputy /Associate County Administrator Assistant County Attorney Attest: _ Date: Deputy County Auditor APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County Attorney Date: 9 XI. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing body having duly approved this Agreement on , 1993, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement, contract A07483 CITY OF By: Its And: Its Date: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter 3/26/93 10 I r �$Y$'f<,}�:•r�Yrr,$$i:�$ii} %'r:'yi.+,r'il�i}}{'r,{{p}}:i'ffff1/F.Y:;2}i��•I.v}:. •rrlUr..f. v•rvv:'•i:;�?:'S,'.-•,.i,:::v..:::yi�•:.}..;;....:. :rf� �}<'$4 .n'�:?:}:•?YY:•?:•ii:•Y:�ii;:�;n:�Yt}:{•Y}:i:si}:•;}???:•>%?-:{.?:<:>:�i:-Y:;:�?:-> y .r Arr{{Y:{}.:{{S;;);tt%{u••::%•?:;i{•iya:t.,.;{>,:in;}:;;�:a•;:}s}+f.%:•}??r::::::;:•::::::::::::•::::::::;•::.;':.+}YY::::::.;-:::::::: :$'iSSi}':iy�''Y ••?t$$:•>:;.,.•::•:•:�•i:•i:%iii$$>$$$:$:�>$:�i::'•;!t? G:ii ;+•\�:'^::.:::.v, }:•:ti;:i{{.YY:v:!:^:v:4i:•Yiii?%%:•Y}:J:viY:•i:•Y:•i:•Y:•is 4:•i:•y}}}%:$$;i{?•i:-%:•Y}Yiih.. ':+??X•.ti;•.{:.1.n:::.•:v:J$i:..v........ :w.�:::::::::::::::::::::::::v:::::::::::::..:.::;v:::v:r: f vA)•;;:{:;: .. :. ..vr,r...: •::nv wnv.v::::•.:•• Yi$i$$$$$$:i}YY:4:;4:4:::??:?}?}?}iii}i}}????•Y•Y:{•i??:-?Yii:;-Y: � ..v4. >-f.•'Y 'dYYr .Ot� ::,{i:iSiti•:%4Y:4???Y$:{iiiii i$?i$$:i?:$$ii i iii::$:i$'r$$iiii>.-i$$i$$$i$$$::i:: •:{+l+ •Q;v::4????}i:4:?:?i:•Y8Y?Yi:4:4YY:•i:t4YX�i?i??????????}?};;4i:•: rf:: 1 .tirF:?ii:>:+i:;:j;:;:S?;:;::^:;:iii:{iiiiiiyiiii i'''''•••�i:iii::{:::Si;:;: .i + r Y. \ l .{.$4 ti:n.. t�::�;i:;$:::;}$�:'iiiiii:.:j::::i:;:;:}�}>:r�'�?'•:::j?:Y:<:ii i:�?'�?'�i'�i #+ i� $,r .q. .;S................................................................. •: A.:4}Yi}y;•}?%:{?$::Y iii}?YiY$$}iiY$i:{;•Y:4:4:•i????????Y$$Y$$}i$$Y ) :.4$.•):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.r f 4 fJ- \ ti ....:�..h'•1':':':i:::':'i:'i{i;:ff:'i:'{:;F,.;}};$$i:iii:$$i$$i$$$i$l$:i>{{i$iii ii: v{�?i%?ii:i:4%??i???:p:C:<4}:v4}??????YY:{:t?}:i;•}:G?:4?????:;h?:- $Yf �4 ff 'v,{:f{.y;4YY:•%:4:4:;•}%Y:•}Y:viYYY}:{•???}?}??}:4:;v:•YY:;•YY??}???}}YY:•?:{? �y/ F.. f+Y: S .�iiF•}$'ii$:?k:i$$$i$i$$$$?:�i$$$iii:viii:{::?:(':r$i il':i$:i?<ii:$>: ..................:..........................................::. :::.:�:::..::::::::::.�::::::•:::•::::::::::.�:??:;•:-???YYi?:??:•??: :.-............................,............................. ....................................................... {$}+$::;;••::::A{;{;4Y:G$}:•Y:{v;t•i:{•i:•Yi?YYYYYYYYY}Yi?YYY:4:•i$}$:•i}i$$$:4i}i}i:t{i::: ..... .... i... ::•{::•::$:t:;;2:;'{':::;•i}i::i;ii:;i iiiiiv iiiiii:$:::::::isi;:i::::i::;ii:i{i:iii:i{:::iiiiiii:�i:i •�i7. ................................................. r ........................................................... .{K. 3$i�iii:�iii$•:i$iii::iii::�i:�:�iii:iii$i:i:i ii:�::i<iiiiii is ii:i:i�iii:iii:: .i.\�":#vii. ....:............................................................. 3.......................................................... ::?��:;.`;i:'':;:;:;:;:ji;:::?:i:i iiii:J;:i ij�:_`.;:i;:; :;i::`ii:.i.i;;ij '''•. :. + kY Y �S'..+...•.. t . 7.'. ....:+................................. ..:................:.:•::::::::•::::::::::::::::::.:� : y;\tiff•}, 4 v :}}r: ti•{ The Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program The First Eighteen Years {ri::$?'}iiv$Yii:?i;Yi�v\k•$?}$;:L:�\ i0.4:#i:•\\� �:?4;'.%:i{,``:Aid'?}>•rn a>,fit:%;•a�.'�.�V'` c::•�� v..}`yY•'.'y.^•.?k?Y?7G:?'{C•:^.Ri?i:?;'.7t'•'.'fi`.:?i;:x.{;:'2;kj;kj\2::::aia3J::ti.{;S:_tia:;';:.\tia�i',',+ {,'r,''„''e.al\,-''F:ee .ti :•:fiti}){v� • .v :::w:;;::::::.}•:;:;::.w::::::;;Y?Y:???:;?-??:4i$$:•i}YY?Yi$Y>$i:•YY:•Y?Y:i;{;?}:?Y:•?:{?;Y:{4:4i:.vv. 3 :•Y:ti ::}:isii $:is�iiYii%'$i$$$$$$$$:::'}{:;:�$?;ii:?i$$i$iii��.'•;$$iiR�>i$ih\:... •r:::::rr:$$$:i:$i�ii:•ii$$: r 4:Y•4.+.•$$}{ii;;'f,.y{f{yiti$'::::�$:4$$:::�}:::::rw.v:.v: �'-}�'$.: \ itiv\r<•k•��•. U.r$�S!•$f£:xvRGti::fR::;.�::::{iC2:$$ai:;,;tk:i�ii[�t�ii}i:�iii::.::Y}::�Y:}..:.:..::::.Y:?Y:Y:a::o:::•>:co-Y:{.?o->:{.iii[ i:>i'ia�:i .+v'k$:}: J. • < •i+f:� :l• y, r% 4•+r : f•} :y rr .f .J iY:S:ij$i:t>.i$:i$$i::i�:?�};•i�Y?vi�i:�{{{�:$i�:is iii$$$$$:i$i$$.`•i;::i$$fi%{?:i:>.�i:�j$$:{?.� F! f %r•Y .f. f ?:��:i?iii$:i$$$$:i>F.�ii":ii ii$ii$:^:?v$$$i$i:;:$$$}$$i$$$$$$iv$$$$i$:i%�$:?v$:%�i$i$ :'•Y};t4' .r• Ya. .r >.`:'i$i$ii R?�$iii$i;i{;;Yi$:i;iiiiii:>:<if£ii.`•i:iiSi�iiiiii.`•i`fii}:ii?lii?:;:: £i:iii ii$ii:i<`�.. .:$. Af%:..•.::;:::i:)Y::iiii$iiii:ci:i�:Ytiii::oi??iiiiiii:;iiiiiiii: •i:�:•ti.,LY. •:+f fi: v� ` ...... '{.. f. ....,v.; ::.::......................�::::::::::::....::................•.t•:;{^:?{•iY:•?Yi}:Y;.:;::::::::v.�'�:{vi-::4:4:v:'•i}iY:4i;::.?•.?::•:.}•{::v-Y+'4:•Y?i+. i:J.f { rf }£• � } ;:�i:F:$:i:i is?•Si i:Si}:$<$Y::S.:{;:;Y:i;:ii;Y?ii ::$ii:ti:$i::$iii:ii:4ii::i iii::iii::iiii::>�iii\\\i:}..v.. r> Y i} :i:`iiii:�i:4:�i::is�i:f:<:<iii:iiiiiiii$ii:�i{?<vi?tivi i'i:iYYYYYY:: +'::::::::�•^Y:ii;_::;�Yi::'i�:ii^::Y::v::.:':.:Y::::.::vY:v: v7 .v.4tiv ��i/ :�:�i:•$:i$:•:•ii$:i�$S$i::j;}i::::?:iii iiiii:ii i�i$i$i$::$ii$$$$$:S{!{ii ii$iii$ii$Ji$$$ii>$j:;•YY:4:•.�.:C..... % { ....:......:.....:.........: ::::;q.{i'i:i i$:i�iii>:::: ��i$i:iii$i:i�:i i:i:i`viii$$$$$$i::>:+::iii::ii$i)`iiiiiiiiii::ii;:t{;: { .:.......:..:.. ................ 7, ...............: •is4:•Y:3:4:•;{v'•iY?:•?:•:YY:;;4:4:?4:4i:S4:4YYYY:•}:v:i::•;::}::::::}:iY::.}:•Y:4:4:•iYY}}}Y•.}'{{{{•::{S: f{Y+ Y h •� 4 f ...::.::::.:.:+:.';?•iY:YYi?;:.y.:::::.•:Y:?++'.:Y':;YY:'4:!;;4.;... + •Y:YYi:::::.:::::::.. ... ^ { 4 Y}};.:;.};.}}:4:•i;.}}\;.::::�:::::.::�::::.:.::�:;ti4}iiii:{4:•:4:;;;•YY;4$;:$t4iY:?;4.{{•: ................................................. r.: : :r :::::::::: •:.�:::::::::.+:::::::: :.::.:: v................f: :: . .v::.::v:!{{::-:::.i{{: v :::::::::::::.:�.�:::::::::::::.�::::::::::::.:�:.�::::Y:•YY:'??Yi: :. ::::::: :::::.: �:Y:�i'�i:YY:�:::�::�•::::::::.v:::::.......:::: ::w:::nv::::::::•.v:::::::::.:::v:::nv:r:::::::..:Z'4•....n :•?+4: . .t.k Cv„ti ..t:�id•.rii:'isaii''ii2•'i�%�� :'• i`� >i?3i`''r'<�:?'.i:'•> ;iY:`.4`n• ,. :^:N ti�ti'ti4'r 45.. i:i[:ii::iiiii 'iiii:Yiiii •r}frrl.•' .yf, �ii�:iii%i<# ?��'i'ii”�E'�<!iE'i':`•3:'•i'iii�':?i2��i'i �iY;ii`i`iEiii"y?�<�<.. •rYYr.A rrr: r rru .w �r•f f -:i;:�iiiii :`.`::'ii:�iiii-ii:i2i7t i�'ii�i ii i.;i i^::::i:i:ii:i:i5;i>: fi:Y {• .. ... :;:.;•, .:::.:::::.: .14::Y.::?•::::::::. ....::.. ,.i ;f fr r r TABLE OF CONTENTS I . Introduction ................................................... ............................... 1 II. Background .................................................... ............................... 3 III. Overview of Achievements ............................ ............................... 7 A. Housing Rehabilitation ............................ ............................... 9 B. Public Facilities .......................................... .............................10 C. Neighborhood Revitalization ..................... .............................10 D. Assisted Housing ........................................ .............................11 E. Removal of Architectural Barriers ............ .............................12 F. Public Services ........................................... .............................12 IV. Looking Ahead ................................................. .............................15 V. Appendix ........................................... ............................... .............17 Community Profiles of CDBG Utilization THE U RB A N H EN N EPIN C OUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS i The Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program The First Eighteen Years Introduction Hennepin County has participated in the federal Community Develop- ment Block Grant (CDBG) Program since 1975. With the completion of the 18th year of county - municipal partnership, it is appropriate to step back and briefly assess the objectives and accomplishments of the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program. The CDBG Program was created by the Housing and Community Devel- opment Act of 1974, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was charged with its administration. The Act changed the mode of federal assistance for community develop - ment activities from a categorical, project -by- project basis, to a "block grant." It also provided that smaller cities in metropolitan areas could join with their county governments and create associations that would be assured annual CDBG funding as urban county CDBG sub - recipients. It is as an urban county that Hennepin County became an entitlement recipient of CDBG funds. Urban Hennepin County was created and is maintained through the execution of a joint cooperation agreement between Hennepin County and each community desiring to be part of the program. Through this association, over $56 million has been ex- pended since 1975 on more than 1,800 activities (refer to Figure 5 on page 14). THE URBAN HENNEPIN C OUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS 1 i Background s After passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Hennepin County and interested cities studied the provision for the creation of "urban counties" as a mechanism to qualify for federal com- munit Y P g development funding. Urban counties were included in the Act as eligible for funding for a wide range of projects, with ample opportu- nity for local flexibility in their selection and implementation of indi- vidual projects and programs. In order to qualify as an urban county, Hennepin County had to demon- strate that it possessed sufficient housing and community development legal authority and population size to be an effective participant. This authority was obtained from local communities wishing to participate in the program through execution of a joint powers agreement. Early in 1975, agreements were signed by Hennepin County and. 22 communities whose aggregate population exceeded the qualifying threshold of 200,000. This action initiated the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and provided the basis for participation in each year that followed. Over the last 18 years, the program has grown to include as many as 45 Hennepin County communities. The combined population of the commu- nities in the Urban Hennepin County program for 1992 (Year XVIII) exceeded 500,000. The annual entitlement grant amount to the County peaked in 1980 (Year VI) at $4,379,000. A special appropriation of $1,051,000 from the Jobs Bill of 1983 boosted the 1983 (Year IX ) grant amount to $4,803,000, but the added funds were programmed separately from the annual en- titlement allocation. The least amount of CDBG funds, $738,000, was received in the first year of the program. The entitlement grant amount has leveled at approximately $2,650,000 since 1986 (Year XII). s THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS 3 Figure 1 traces the amount of the annual grant award by participating . community. The annual allocation of funds made available to individual communities is determined by a formula based on population, condition of housing and level of poverty within the community as established in the Joint Cooperation Agreement. THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS 4 a z b FIGURE 1: ►"4 ANNUAL ENMLEMENT BY COMMUNITY ALLOCATION `z URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDHG PROGRAM, YEAR I -XVIII (1975-02) O COMMUNITY 1/1973 IYi976 17Y19T1 rvn4'I8 V11979 VI/1960 VII/1981 VII111982 1Y/1483 3Y1994 X19.915 X1Y1986 7414/190 X1V/1988 XV /1989 XV Y1990 XVIY1991 XVDI/1992 TOTAL BROOKLYN CENTER 325,493 346,029 329,145 2BZ356 332,575 241,592 24(X240 203,986 204,682 194,500 202316 192,632 215,761 217,491 $3,529,788 BROOKLYNPARK 874,807 154,952 255,708 261,194 279,886 297,534 309,863 270,619 395,374 352.218 354,365 304,552 305,591 293,731 306.531 294,530 33(X321 336,678 3,177,447 CHAMPLIN 31,380 56,792 59,680 64,133 68,192 70.990 61,032 47,911 37,765 38,177 33,222 33,334 33,354 34,688 36,063 40.924 42,119 793,466 CHANHASSEN 43,918 39.999 41,932 38.300 38,532 328% 33,001 3ZI97 33,488 33,324 37,543 4 0744 444,681 CORCORAN 10,096 20.656 34,571 34.140 36,700 39,017 37,199 33,534 39,131 37,763 37,689 32,255 32,365 31,096 34346 31,442 35,243 35,321 590,966 CRYSTAL 85,534 177,274 292,748 288,942 309,543 329,082_. 303,826 258,212 202,906 142,759 14(X736 119.599 119,003 112.968 117,394 111,600 125,586 127,065 3,363,977 DAYTON 15,642 25,792 25,810 27,433 29,165 - 27.559 26,157 33,390 29,730 30,020 25,510 25,598 24,613 25,601 24,649 27,661 27,645 451,975 H DSP3HAVEI 10,096 20.856 34,297 33,860 36,330 39,017 37,394 3AB51 24,941 19,017 19.019 16,161 16,216 15,674 16.303 15,906 17,919 17,039 420,903 V EDEN PRAIRM 19.210 39,919 65,571 66.990 71,918 76,458 78,000 93,225 85,055 69,638 72,350 64,733 64,954 64,853 67,445 7 (X348 79,170 88,731 1,239,168 �..1 EDINA 72,564 151,205 249,397 247,306 269,394 285,336 279,393 233,732 214,049 169,543 167,005 140.971 141,451 133,761 139,111 132,763 149,973 IM913 3,326)861 ^ EXCELSIOR 8,413 17,771 28,535 29,589 30.769 32,712 31,259 26,492 20,558 16,874 16,664 14,034 14,092 13,476 14,018 13,467 15,101 15,186 357,500 Vr� TEN VALLEY 4$206 0,823 144,962 139,335 149,767 159,221 147,433 126,098 115,109 66,512 85,379 71,922 7ZI67 68,332 71,057 67,038 75,611 75,101 1,785.043 GRFENNFIII.1) 15,543 15,940 16,947 16,847 15.090 1ZI16 9,374 9.313 8.032 8,060 7,592 7,897 7,491 9.401 079 167 ,222 ►� GREENWOOD 1}42 3,096 5,213 4,996 5,561 5,912 5,745 5,030 3,337 3,750 3,747 3,223 3,234 3,167 3,293 3,159 3,553 3,435 70.993 HANOVER 3,50 3,886 3.707 3,941 7,206 6,371 7,727 6,696 6.375 3,396 5,414 5,164 5,372 5,216 5,834 6,013 0,80 HASSAN 15,365 14,988 IC311 17,341 16,600 16,096 16,169 14,463 14,257 12.191 IZ233 11,914 IZ393 11,986 13,445 13,324 231,076 HOPKINS 113,293 95,544 95,00 91,238 94,906 90.174 100,957 106,014 70,9% INDEPENDENCE 21,589 3Q 398 32318 32135 28,167 16,169 17,945 17,8M 15,061 15,113 14,367 14,943 14,499 16,271 16,503 310.341 LONG LAKE 8,230 8.049 9.526 9,065 6,431 6,196 6,989 7,130 60.616 ►� LORECID 1,052 2.111 3,569 3,886 3,707 3,941 3,993 3,353 3,674 1,05 1,934 1,6016 1,614 1,545 L6O7 1,546 1,735 L00 44,677 a MAPLEGROVE 18,579 38,453 63.377 66,614 71,547 76,064 89,005 83,164 106,667 95,619 99. 961 0,562 0,861 85,814 89,217 89,367 101,154 106917 1,456972 MAPLE PLA IN 11,523 11,380 11,121 11,924 13,633 11,737 11,779 8,303 8,092 6,966 6,990 6,727 6,997 6,759 7,600 9.045 149.476 MEDICINE LAKE 11,863. 12612 11.686 IA060 3,337 1,05 1,923 1,567 1,573 1,517 1,575 1,493 1685 1,579 64,247 MEDINA 16,457 27,162 26,646 29.545 30.347 30.090 26,157 20,896 16,070 16,150 13,040 13,888 13,271 13,803 13,312 14, 963 15,231 336,635 M2 NETONKA 76,210 158,048 261,194 261,194 281,369 299,130 295.938 238,266 1 %,490 145,970 146,713 124,938 125,364 12(X878 125,713 121,013 136,903 141292 3,256,606 MLNNETONKA BEACH 7,411 7,217 7,795 8,277 9,569 7,712 1,648 1.071 1,017 813 811 776 107 743 851 940 56,457 MLNNEIRLSIA 19,389 32099 31,642 34,105 36,259 34,180 30161 31,027 23,938 23,851 20,276 20.345 19,491 24775 19,496 21,870 21,764 440107 MOUND 26,151 53,769 19,445 89,929 97,126 103,257 105,755 99,200 92822 76,00 76,581 64,957 65,178 62013 64.507 62002 69,424 70.388 1,359,574 NEW HOPE 5ZI62 108,190 178,684 175,973 IM321 200.208 190.163 160. %3 193,996 137,670 136,577 115,358 115,751 109,507 113,903 107,962 121,179 123,177 25193N OR ONO 33,891 55,698 54,402 59.943 62664 61252 51,979 37,442 28,123 77,894 23,825 23,906 23,053 23.976 23,176 26,175 25,736 642134 OSSEO 24,115 39,783 39,414 42632 45,323 43,042 37,556 22,325 22,766 22,286 19.684 18,748 17,740 18,453 17,582 19,672 20,364 476,40 PLYMOUTH 32.741 64107 1 IZ489 121,016 129,748 137,939 135,066 125,417 170.826 142759 148,055 129,2% 129,737 128.706 133,854 132257 1,978,013 RIcHFmm 98,855 206,114 338,842 328,076 352174 374,405 354,950 299,323 288,001 209,450 206,939 174,300 174,8% 165,774 171,909 162829 1822477 10,099 4,276,141 ROBBINSDALE 39,121 81,142 133,890 129,343 139,397 147,792 139,643 119,716 101,978 79,013 77,917 65,566 65,810 62375 64,09 61,790 69,401 71,292 1,653,077 ROCXPORD 13,925 IZ743 19.208 22.766 22826 19.294 19,359 18.622 19,370 16,564 20,796 21,126 228,569 ROGERS 9,603 9.437 10.380 11,036 10.225 4719 6,714 0035 8,063 6,916 6,940 6,678 6,946 6,741 7.543 7,492 131,488 ST. ANTHCNY 25,255 41,976 4ZI89 45,227 48,062 64.271 52313 46,560 34,819 34,061 26,515 26,605 25,383 26,403 25,314 28,437 28,044 621,476 I--4 ST. BONIFACIUS 4,725 7,691 7,494 8,156 8,672 8,277 6,707 7,727 8,303 8,397 7,181 7,201 4956 7,235 7,033 7,663 8,033 127,664 ST. L,OULS PARK 362943 407,114 383,288 322,026 324,133 253,644 251,661 213,001 213,727 203,442 211,613 201,018 225,641 230.925 3,121,176 C C) SHOREWOOD 13,181 27,210 44,994 44,132 47,451 5(X447 4/ ,300 42253 29,676 23,302 23,380 20.160 2(X229 19,802 20.595 20.685 23,362 22358 54017 SPRZ40 PARK 4,838 1 (X 16,463 17,209 18,535 19,706 17,921 16,096 13,805 11,317 11,430 9,582 9,615 9,188 9.55E 9,015 10.081) 10.652 225,606 TOK A BAY 5 ,399 11,243 14363 16,041 19,648 211,888 19.600 15,761 8,402 6,160 6,200 5,262 5,278 5,074 5,77E 5,183 5,849 5,664 186,313 WAYZATA 1343 17,771 29,535 28,589 31,140 33,106 32622 26,257 25,286 20.356 20,00 16,821 16,08 16,092 16,739 15,928 17,03 14669 390,593 WOODLAND 4,448 4,730 4382 3,789 5,025 4,285 4,066 3,402 3,413 3,777 3,409 3,269 3,656 3,745 54,996 HPN'N (PIN COUNTY M 14736 271,350 308,400 411 900 437.900 43 B00 37Z600 375 200 3OZ600 31 100 264 000 264.900 253,900 2K900 255,200 27 400 276 5 z GRAND TOTAL 5738,000 1,752000 3,015,000 3,094,000 4,119,000 4,379.000 4.328,000 3,726,000 3,752000 2961,000 3,101,000 2640.000 2649,000 2539AW 2644000 2,352000 2704,000 2765,000 853.4720X0 a LA Figure 2 indicates the trend in annual entitlement grant amounts and the number of cooperating jurisdictions. Since 1989, all communities eligible to participate in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program have done so with the exception of the cities of Bloomington, Plymouth, and Minneapolis. The city of Bloomington and the city of Minneapolis have not historically participated in the Urban County Program because they qualify as entitlement cities and have received direct funding from HUD. The city of Plymouth qualified for entitlement city status in 1990, and likewise choose not to participate in the Urban County Program and is receiving direct CDBG funding from HUD. Figure 2 ANNUAL GRANT AND NUMBER OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPANTS URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM, YEARS I -XVIII (1975 -92) DOLLAR VOLUME of FUNDING 4,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 42 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 44 44 50 40 38 42 30 30-: 23 30 20 20 LL 10 10 YEAR: I U III N V VI VII VIII IX X XI XE XIII XIV XV XVI XVH XVIR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS 6 Overview of Achievements The overall objectives of the program - -as established in the Housing and Community Act of 1974 - -are to: A. Develop and maintain viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income persons B. Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight C. Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency affecting public health and safety To satisfy the national objectives in a manner consistent with local priorities, the Urban Hennepin County Program is directed toward the • use of funds for housing rehabilitation, public facilities, neighborhood revitalization, assisted housing, removal of architectural barriers, and public services. The Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program has demonstrated that a group of diverse communities can effectively cooperate to maximize assistance provided by the federal government and accomplish common objectives. Each year the Urban County plans, programs, and executes numerous activities to achieve program objectives. This process involves the participation and cooperation of 43 units of government in Hennepin County and their citizens. A major requirement of the program is that the funds expended princi- pally benefit low and moderate income persons (i.e., those in households whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the area median). THE URB HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRA THE F IRST EIGHTEE YE 7 Figure 3 illustrates how low and moderate income persons have substantially benefited from Urban Hennepin County allocations. Figure 3 PERCENT ALLOCATION BY BENEFIT CATEGORY URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM, YEARS I -XVIII (1975 -92) 21.3% : >.. SLUM/BLIGHT 78.6 % ;»::>:<:; ;:: >: >; »:<: >:::<:;:: >; >::; » >:.. LOW/MODERATE INCOME >[ < = ><<«> :> 0.1 % URGENT NEED Figure 4 summarizes the type and magnitude of activities undertaken through 1992 (Year XVIII) of the Urban Hennepin County Program. THE URBAN HE COU C DB G PROGRAM THE FIR EI YEARS 8 Figure 4 ALLOCATIONS BY MAJOR ACTIVITY HENNEPIN COUN'T'Y CDBG PROGRAM, YEARS I -XVIII (1975 -92) 11% ASSISTED HOUSING 30% $6,386,412 HOUSING REHABILITATION 5% $16,659,546 HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY $3,029,662 17 % HB RH NEIG O 00 D REVITALIZATION 6% $9,631,322 PUBLIC SERVICES $3,413,834 16% PUBLIC FACILITIES 15% $8,892,226 PLANNING /ADMINISTRATION $8,799,239 HOUSING REHABILITATION Nearly $16.7 million has been allocated to rehabilitating single-family homes owned and occupied by low and moderate income families. This represents over 30 percent of the total allocation of CDBG funds through the Urban County Program and translates into the provision of rehabilitation services to more than 3,000 households in suburban Hennepin County. THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIR EIG HTEEN YEAR 9 A PUBLIC FACILITIES Nearly $9 million dollars, or 18 percent of the total allocation are for improving existing public facilities or assisting in the development of new ones. Targeted primarily to areas and groups of low and moderate income persons with special needs, the following projects are examples of public facility activities: A. Restoration and improvement of Commons Park, Excelsior B. Remodeling, weatherization and kitchen facilities, Senior Center, Richfield C. Improvement to HOME Free, shelter for victims of domestic abuse, Plymouth D. Construction of Senior Center, Dayton E. Assistance in the construction of the Crystal Bay sewer system, Orono _ NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION Seventeen percent of the CDBG funds have been allocated to maintain, preserve, and improve local neighborhoods. Principally, these funds have been used in low and moderate income area; $9.6 million have been used to make infrastructure improvements and assist redevelop- ment areas. Examples of such projects include: A. Valley Square redevelopment, Golden Valley THE URBAN HEN COU NTY C DBG PROGRAM THE FIR EI YEARS 10 B. Bass Lake Road commercial area redevelopment, Crystal C. Purchase, removal and redevelopment of substandard housing sites, Robbinsdale, Richfield and Crystal D. Three commercial/residential redevelopment projects in Brooklyn Park: 85th and Xerxes, 63rd and Douglas, and Southeast Area ASSISTED HOUSING Expenditures of about $6.3 million (11 percent) of the funds have been programmed to aid in the development of new, affordable housing for low and moderate income households. These funds have helped to provide 94 units for persons with disabilities, 187 units of family housing, 869 units for the elderly, and 61 units of transitional housing. Examples of assisted housing supported by the Urban County Program include: A. Sterling Ponds, elderly housing, Eden Prairie B. Wayside House, transitional housing for women, St. Louis Park C. Union City Mission - -Smith Lodge, transitional housing for men, Plymouth D. Cedar Hills, family housing, Minnetonka E. Pleasant Place, elderly housing, Rogers THE URBA H ENNEPIN CO UNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS 11 REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS Over $3 million has been allocated to remove architectural barriers that restrict the mobility and accessibility of elderly or disabled persons to public buildings, public facilities, and public or private housing. Among the projects of this type undertaken with CDBG funds are: A. Suburban Hennepin County Regional Park District facilities B. Community Centers in the cities of Brooklyn Center, Edina, Maple Grove, and New Hope C. Hennepin County Government Center a PUBLIC SERVICES Current federal CDBG program regulations allow the County to utilize up to 15 percent of the annual grant amount for public services. More than $3.4 million has been provided for these types of activities in support of government and nonprofit agency efforts to meet some of the social service needs of the elderly, disabled, and low and moderate income persons throughout suburban Hennepin County. Public service CDBG funds have been widely used to support: A. Child care B. Our Kids, a summer park program in low income neighborhoods C. Senior transportation services THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EI YEARS 12 D. Senior center programming and counseling E. Household and Outdoor Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) F. Point Northwest for homeless/runaway youth G. Youth Diversion Program for youth and family counseling Figure 5 summarizes the allocation of each cooperating community by category of program activity. THE URBAN HENNEPIN COU NTY C DBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS 13 FIgure 5 ACTIVITY EXPENDITURES BY COMMUNITY URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM, YEARS I -XVIII (1975 -92) ASSISTED HANDICAP NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PUBLIC PLANNING/ HOUSING TOTAL* COMMUNITY HOUSING ACCESS REVITALIZATION FACILITIES S 11VICE ADMINISTRATION REHAB Z BROOKLYN CENTER S 0 199,429 1,285,002 50,167 12,000 122,697 1,663,108 $ 3,332,403 BROOKLYN PARK 63,889 60,199 3,361,935 866,146 368,838 117221 555,547 5,393,775 CHAMPLIN 0 9,000 155,581 175,699 174,733 173,426 342,019 1,030,458 Z CHANHASSEN 0 40,500 120,130 14,940 40,011 83,387 59,711 358,679 CORCORAN 7,000 12,169 18,594 212,044 725 220,813 97,289 568,634 CRYSTAL 499,828 128,370 937,586 450,142 151,703 102,981 1,256,230 3,526,840 �d DAYTON 0 0 12,001 152,850 89,563 86,974 112,658 454,046 DEEPHAVEN 0 15,253 10,316 91,066 17,954 33,600 129,808 297,997 EDEN PRAIRIE 433,301 25,834 5,000 298,307 177,630 48,675 276,055 1,264,802 EDINA 758,458 753,673 12,666 573293 262,553 102,005 529,638 2,992,286 C) EXCELSIOR 307,429 0 4,375 126,556 36,440 67,174 59,423 601,397 C� GOLDEN VALLEY 614,977 0 385,932 233,488 130,586 32,342 358,836 1,756,161 GREENFIELD 0 7,579 0 8,543 1,000 74,124 30,207 121,453 GREENWOOD 0 0 3,536 26,352 7,985 3,645 0 41,518 HANOVER 1,856 3,800 11,162 85,221 0 31,225 3,941 137,205 (� HASSAN 11,081 0 10,365 10,000 0 104,759 25,964 162,169 d HENNEPINCOUNTY 0 625,255 0 219,086 179,788 4,906,750 799,313 6,730,192 HOPKINS 0 0 0 263,537 40,011 19,000 465,448 787,996 C) INDEPENDENCE 4,490 0 0 92,708 2,800 112,759 67,936 280,693 LONG LAKE 0 0 2,783 747 0 48,964 0 52,494 LORETTO 0 0 2,978 33,134 0 15,617 0 51,729 ^ MAPLE GROVE 0 196,901 320,718 386,870 82,189 143,072 69,553 1,199,303 MAPLE PLAIN 52,526 5,319 615 42,208 4,000 18,912 34,284 157,864 MEDICINE LAKE 0 6,264 0 0 0 1,575 14,167 22,006 MEDINA 0 0 11,662 200,544 5,453 54,148 52,853 324,660 MINNETONKA 307,469 156,750 250,660 354,637 66,731 260,585 2,180,436 3,577,268 MINNETONKA BEACH 0 26,722 16,448 7,948 2,534 8,800 0 62,452 MINNETRISTA 0 9,812 0 5,901 62,413 129,461 138,685 346,272 MOUND 127,551 17,209 180,372 448,209 192,167 192,873 355,515 1,513,896 NEW HOPE 692,909 139,104 1,004,757 463,817 161,774 180,906 535,409 3,178,676 ORONO 0 18,000 10,520 185,161 8,900 48,855 343,945 615,381 .-+ OSSEO 0 61,538 236,683 238,455 0 138,562 31,855 707,093 PLYMOUTH 627,142 0 129,156 17,898 147,047 220,359 818,321 1,959,923 RICHFIELD 1,198,464 105,000 75,000 1,135,486 337,397 187,479 1,777,807 4,816,633 ROBBINSDALE 455,807 112,286 489,007 183,653 201,691 153,750 447,872 2,044,066 ROCKFORD 4,000 0 76,162 119,732 0 28,202 0 228,096 C) ROGERS 52,933 0 0 148,973 0 29,181 0 231,087 SHOREWOOD 0 9,776 103,964 80,960 117,405 40,705 253,565 606,375 SPRING PARK 0 4,841 0 39,127 33,860 48,055 55,055 180,938 ST. ANTHONY 65,302 4,645 20,160 184,511 50,725 70,690 167,755 563,788 CTI ST. BONIFACIUS 0 2,265 0 130,060 6,000 3,000 5,000 146,325 Z ST. LOUIS PARK 100,000 202,933 326,129 414,085 216,928 158,726 2,452,429 3,871,230 TONKA BAY 0 14,280 4,200 43,237 5,512 31,661 13,039 111,929 WAYZATA 0 54,956 27,323 76,728 16,788 117,373 63,600 356,768 WOODLAND 0 0 7,844 0 0 24,171 15,270 47,285 GRAND TOTAL $ 6,386,412 $ 3,029,662 $ 9,631,322 $ 8,892,226 $ 3,413,834 $ 8,799,239 $ 16,659,546 $ 56,812,241 • Includes program income; therefore, total is rat consistent with the total grant received recorded in Figure 1. LOOKING AHEAD As the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program begins to enter its 19th year, 43 communities will be participating and sharing the $3,327,000 in CDBG funds the Urban County Program will receive in fiscal year 1993 (Year XIX). With the Urban County Program moving into the next three -year pro- gram cycle, a new three -year Cooperation Agreement is being prepared for consideration by all eligible Hennepin County communities. While funding for the CDBG program has stabilized over the past few years and increased for Year XIX, the CDBG Program, like all other federal domestic programs, is sensitive to evolving federal budget priorities and concerns regarding the national debt. At present, President Clinton and his advisors, including HUD Secretary Cisneros, are urging Con - gress to seriously consider an economic stimulus package which would include an additional $2.5 billion in CDBG funding. These funds, how- ever, are likely to be subject to modified federal CDBG regulations in • order to assist in ensuring that the funds would be spent before the end of calendar year 1994 to promote economic growth through the funding of community development projects providing employment and public infrastructure. Further, it is probable that the federal funding level for the CDBG Pro - gram in 1993 may establish a new base level of funding support to pro - vide a stable commitment of federal financial support to cities and coun- ties across the country as funding for other domestic programs is re- duced. Should this occur, the County in partnership with the Cooperat- ing Cities is prepared to undertake new CDBG initiatives to meet evolv- ing countywide community and housing development/redevelopment needs in a continuing partnership with Hennepin County communities and social service agencies. THE URBA HENN EPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS 15 As in the past, we will be monitoring events in Washington, D.C. and • the changes they may bring in terms of program requirements and available financial and programmatic resources to assist Hennepin County, the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program, and the partici- pating jurisdictions to meet their housing and community development needs. At present, and for the foreseeable future, the outlook for the CDBG Program in general and the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program in particular, appears encouraging. THE U H E N NEP IN COU NTY C DBG PROGRAM THE FIR EIGHTEEN YEARS 16 APPENDIX Community Profiles of CDB G Utilization • - • THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THE FIRST EIGHTEEN YEARS 17 ' T COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Brooklyn Center 1976 -92 Funding Summary_ 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 346,029 1985 $ 240,240 1990 $ 192,632 1976 0 1981 329,145 1986 203,986 1991 215,761 1977 0 1982 282,356 1987 204,682 1992 217,491 1978 0 1983 332,575 1988 194,500 1979 325,483 1984 241,592 1989 202,316 Total: $3,528,788 Use Summary Handicap Access 6.0% Neighborhood Housing Rehabilitation Revitalization 49.9% 38.6% Public Facilities Planning/Administration 1.5% 3.7% Public Service 0.4% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing Rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($1,663,000) • Earle Brown Farm redevelopment ($1,000,000) • Brooklyn Center Community Center, handicapped accessibility improvements ($200,000) • Acquisition and clearance of blighted residential property and new -home construction ($278,000) 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Brooklyn Park 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 74,807 1980 $ 297,534 1985 $ 354,365 1990 $ 294,530 1976 154,952 1981 309,863 1986 304,552 1991 330,324 1977 255,708 1982 270,619 1987 305,591 1992 336,678 1978 261,184 1983 395,374 1988 293,731 1979 279,886 1984 352,218 1989 305,531 Total: $5,177,447 Use Summary Assisted Housing 1.2 %a Housing Rehabilitation Handicap Access 10.3% 1.1% Planning/Administration 2.2% Public Service 6.8 % > Neighborhood Revitalization 62.3% Xx Public Facilities 16.1% Funded Activities (,partial list) • Site acquisition for redevelopment - 76th and West River Road ($400,000) - 85th and Xerxes ($500,000) - 63rd and Douglas ($1,750,000) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($556,000) • Public services: - Senior Transportation ($50,000) - Daycare ($100,000) - Youth Diversion Services ($60,000) - Our Kids Park Program ($27,000) - Neighborhood Crime Prevention ($63,000) 20 Z COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Champlin 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 68,182 1985 $ 38,177 1990 $ 36,083 1976 34,380 1981 70,990 1986 33,222 1991 40,924 1977 56,792 1982 61,032 1987 33,334 1992 42,819 1978 59,680 1983 47,911 1988 33,354 1979 64,133 1984 37,765 1989 34,688 Total: $ 793,466 Use Summary Handicap Access 0.9% Neighborhood Revitalization o Housing Rehabilitation 0 15.1% 33.2% Public Facilities 17.1% XX Planning/Administration Public Service 16.8% 17.0% Funded Activities (partial list) • Old Town redevelopment: acquisition and clearance of blighted property ($135,000) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($300,000) • Senior transportation services ($35,000) • Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of blighted properties due to "settling" of homes ($90,000) • Lakeside Park handicapped accessibility improvements ($9,000) 21 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: i Hennepin County - Chanhassen 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 0 1985 $ 38,532 1990 $ 33,324 1976 0 1981 43,918 1986 32,896 1991 37,543 1977 0 1982 38,899 1987 33,008 1992 40,744 1978 0 1983 41,832 1988 32,197 1979 0 1984 38,300 1989 33,488 Total: $ 444,681 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation Handicap Access 11.3% 16.6% o AS] -- Neighborhood Revitalization Planning/Administration » ►!' 33.5% 23.2% Public Service public Facilities 11.2% 4.2% F-ded Activities (partial list) • City Center Park handicapped accessiblility improvements ($20,000) • Sojourn Adult Care facility renovations ($5,700) • Public services: - South Shore Senior Center ($18,785) - Chanhassen Senior Center ($18,636) 22 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Corcoran 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 10,096 1980 $ 39,017 1985 $ 37,689 1990 $ 31,442 1976 20,856 1981 37,199 1986 32,255 1991 35,243 1977 34,571 1982 33,534 1987 32,365 1992 35,521 1978 34,140 1983 39,131 1988 31,096 1979 36,700 1984 37,765 1989 32,346 Total: $ 590,966 Use Summary Assisted Housing 1.2% Handicap Access 2.1% Housing Rehabilitation Neighborhood Revitalization 17.1% o 3.3% Public Facilities 37.3% Planning/Administration 38.8% Public Service 0.1% Funded Activities (Partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($97,000) • Maple Hill mobile -home park storm shelter and civil defense siren ($60,000) • Comprehensive planning and topographic mapping ($200,000) 23 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Crystal 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 85,534 1980 $ 329,082 1985 $ 140,736 1990 $ 111,800 1976 177,274 1981 303,826 1986 118,599 1991 125,586 1977 292,748 1982 258,212 1987 119,003 1992 127,065 1978 288,942 1983 202,906 1988 112,868 1979 309,543 1984 142,759 1989 117,394 Total: $ 3,363,877 Use Summary Assisted Housing 14.2% Housing Rehabilitation 35.6% 0 Handicap Access 3.6% Neighborhood Revitalization 26.6% Planning/Administration 2.9% >< >` Public Service 4.3% Public Facilities 12.8% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($1,256,000) • Bass Lake Road redevelopment ($800,000) • Acquisition and clearance of blighted housing and new home construction ($640,000) • Public services: - Senior transportation ($65,000) - Childcare ($82,000) 24 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Dayton 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 29,165 1985 $ 30,020 1990 $ 24,649 1976 15,642 1981 27,559 1986 25,510 1991 27,661 1977 25,792 1982 26,157 1987 25,598 1992 27,645 1978 25,810 1983 33,390 1988 24,613 1979 27,433 1984 29,730 1989 25,601 Total: $ 451,975 Use Summary Neighborhood Revitalization 2.6% Housing Rehabilitation 24.8% Public Facilities 33.7% Planning/Administration 19.2% 9. % Public Service 19.7% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($113,000) • Dayton Senior Center ($120,000) • Senior Center Coordinator ($75,000) • Comprehensive planning - related activities ($80,000) 25 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Deephaven 1976 -92 Funding; Summary 1975 $ 10,096 1980 $ 39,017 1985 $ 19,019 1990 $ 15,906 1976 20,856 1981 37,394 1986 16,161 1991 17,919 1977 34,297 1982 30,851 1987 16,216 1992 17,039 1978 33,860 1983 24,948 1988 15,674 1979 36,330 1984 19,017 1989 16,303 Total: $ 420,903 Use Summary Handicap Access 5.1% Neighborhood Revitalization 3.5% Housing Rehabilitation 43.6% Public Facilities 30.6% Public Service Planning/Administration 6.0% 11.3% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($16,237) • Public services: - South Shore Senior Center ($21,557) 26 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Eden Prairie 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 19,210 1980 $ 76,458 1985 $ 72,350 1990 $ 70,348 1976 39,919 1981 78,000 1986 64,733 1991 79,870 1977 65,571 1982 93,225 1987 64,954 1992 88,731 1978 66,890 1983 85,055 1988 64,853 1979 71,918 1984 69,638 1989 67,445 Total: $1,239,168 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation 21.8% W Assisted Housing 34.3% Planning/Administration M1 3.8% • '' +rri:i ?'l:fvii:ti'i:'•'f$'' {'fr i.:i {iii'r'rii.i Public Service Handicap ccess 14.0% p 2.0% Neighborhood Revitalization Public Facilities 0.4% 23.6% Funded Activities (partial list) • Senior Center remodeling ($30,000) • Facilitate development of assisted senior housing ($298,000) • Public services ($178,000): - Adaptive recreation program - Child daycare - Household maintenance for seniors /disables 27 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Edina 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 72,564 1980 $ 285,336 1985 $ 167,005 1990 $ 132,763 1976 151,205 1981 279,383 1986 140,971 1991 149,973 1977 249,397 1982 233,732 1987 141,451 1992 150,913 1978 247,306 1983 214,049 1988 133,761 1979 268,394 1984 169,543 1989 139,118 Total: $ 3,326,864 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation 17.7% o o Assisted Housing 25.3% Planning/Administration 3.4% %; } / ,.; iy•• ?:;i:•i:•i: +ii• Public Service xr <, #< ": �f "•° •••••• 8.8% Handicap Access 25.2% Public Facilities 19.2% Neighborhood Revitalization 0.4% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($530,000) • Facilitate development of assisted housing for families /seniors ($758,000) 28 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: ® Hennepin County - Excelsior 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 8,413 1980 $ 32,712 1985 $ 16,664 1990 $ 13,467 1976 17,271 1981 31,259 1986 14,034 1991 15,101 1977 28,535 1982 26,492 1987 14,082 1992 15,186 1978 28,589 1983 20,558 1988 13,476 1979 30,769 1984 16,874 1989 14,018 Total: $ 357,500 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation 9.9% Planning/Administration 11.2% Assisted Housing 51.1% Public Service Public Facilities . 21.0% Neighborhood Revitalization 0.7% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low - income homeowners ($11,652) • Public services: - South Shore Senior Center ($17,046) • 29 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Golden Valley 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 42,206 1980 $ 159,221 1985 $ 85,379 1990 $ 67,038 1976 87,823 1981 147,433 1986 71,922 1991 75,681 1977 144,862 1982 126,088 1987 72,167 1992 75,101 1978 139,335 1983 115,109 1988 68,332 1979 149,767 1984 86,512 1989 71,067 Total: $1,785,043 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation 20.4% ol Assisted Housing 35.0% Planning/Administration 1.8% Public Service Public Facilities 13.3% Neighborhood Revitalization 22.0% Funded Activities (partial list) • Valley Square redevelopment: acquisition, relocation, and clearance of blighted property ($500,000) • Medley Park townhomes: site acquisition and improvements for 30 family - rental units ($300,000) • Ewald Dairy site: acquisition and site improvements ($200,000). Site subsequently sold to Habitat For Humanity for the construction of five homes • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($360,000) • Calvary Apartments: site acquisition for 80 low- income elderly rental units ($125,000) • Public services: • - Senior transportation ($40,000) - Childcare ($43,000) 30 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: i Hennepin County - Greenfield 1.976 -92 Funding S 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 16,947 1985 $ 9,313 1990 $ 7,491 1976 0 1981 16,847 1986 8,032 1991 8,401 1977 0 1982 15,090 1987 8,060 1992 8,579 1978 15,543 1983 12,116 1988 7,592 1979 15,940 1984 9,374 1989 7,897 Total: $167,222 Use Summary Handicap Access 6.2% Public Facilities Housing Rehabilitation 7.0% 24.9% Public Service 0.8% • Planning/Administration 61.0% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low - income homeowners ($30,000) • Comprehensive planning - related activities ($70,000) 31 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: • Hennepin County - Greenwood 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 1,542 1980 $ 5,912 1985 $ 3,747 1990 $ 3,159 1976 3,096 1981 5,745 1986 3,223 1991 3,553 1977 5,213 1982 5,030 1987 3,234 1992 3,435 1978 4,996 1983 3,337 1988 3,167 1979 5,561 1984 3,750 1989 3,293 Total: $ 70,993 Use Summary Neighborhood Planning/Administration Revitalization 8.8% 8.5% Public Service ` { { }y7'r,.�� {ii jif {'ri Public Facilities 63.5% Funded Activities (partial list) • Public services: - South Shore Senior Center ($6,278) • 32 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Hanover 1976 -92 Funding Silmmajy 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 3,941 1985 $ 6,375 1990 $ 5,216 1976 0 1981 7,206 1986 5,396 1991 5,834 1977 3,569 1982 6,371 1987 5,414 1992 6,013 1978 3,886 1983 7,727 1988 5,164 1979 3,707 1984 6,696 1989 5,372 Total: $ 87,887 Use Summary Assisted Housing 1.3% Handicap Access Housing Rehabilitation 2.8% 2.9% Neighborhood Revitalization Planning/Administration 8.1% 22.8% Public Facilities 62.1 Funded Activities (partial list) • Street improvements and water main extension/commercial area ($80,000) • Comprehensive planning- related activities ($30,000) 33 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Hassan 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 17,341 1985 $ 14,257 1990 $ 11,986 1976 0 1981 18,600 1986 12,191 1991 13,445 1977 15,365 1982 16,096 1987 12,233 1992 13,324 1978 14,988 1983 16,169 1988 11,914 1979 16,311 1984 14,463 1989 12,393 Total: $ 231,076 Use Summary Assisted Housing 6.8% Neighborhood Housing Rehabilitation Revitalization 16.0% 6.4% Public Facilities 6.2% Planning/Administration 64.6% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low - income homeowners ($26,000) • Acquisition of site for assisted elderly housing in Rogers ($11,000) • Comprehensive planning - related activities ($100,000) 34 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Hopkins 1976-92 F din 9 un g Snmsnary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 0 1985 $ 113,293 1990 $ 90,174 1976 0 1981 0 1986 95,544 1991 100,957 1977 0 1982 0 1987 95,870 1992 106,014 1978 0 1983 0 1988 91,238 1979 0 1984 0 1989 94,906 Total: $ 787,996 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation Public Facilities 59.1% 0 33.4% Public Service 5.1% Planning/Administration 2.4% Funded Activities Jpartial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low - income homeowners ($465,000) • Senior Center remodeling ($267,000) 35 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Independence 976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 32,318 1985 $ 17,856 1990 $ 14,499 1976 0 1981 32,135 1986 15,061 1991 16,278 1977 0 1982 28,167 1987 15,113 1992 16,503 1978 28,589 1983 16,169 1988 14,367 1979 30,398 1984 17,945 1989 14,943 Total: $ 310,341 Use Summary Assisted Housing 1.6% Housing Rehabilitation 24.2% o Public Facilities 33.0% Planning/Administration Public Service 40.2% 1.0% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low - income homeowners ($70,000) • Street improvements ($40,000) • Comprehensive planning - related activities ($100,000) to 36 t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Long Lake 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 9,065 1985 $ 0 1990 $ 6,196 1976 0 1981 0 1986 0 1991 6,989 1977 8,230 1982 0 1987 0 1992 7,130 1978 8,049 1983 0 1988 0 1979 8,526 1984 0 1989 6,431 Total: $ 60,616 Use Summary Neighborhood Revitalization 5.3% Public Facilities 1.4% Planning/Administration 93.3% Funded Activities (partial list) • Comprehensive City sewer study ($14,119) • 37 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Loretto 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 1,052 1980 $ 3,941 1985 $ 1,934 1990 $ 1,546 1976 2,118 1981 3,993 1986 1,608 1991 1,735 1977 3,569 1982 3,353 1987 1,614 1992 1,870 1978 3,886 1983 3,674 1988 1,545 1979 3,707 1984 1,875 1989 1,607 Total: $ 44,627 Use Summary Neighborhood Revitalization 5.8% Planning/Administration 30.2% Public Facilities 64.0% Funded Activities (partial listj • Downtown redevelopment plan ($7,000) • Sidewalks in downtown area ($30,000) • 38 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Maple Grove 1976 -92 Funding Summaa 1975 $ 18,579 1980 $ 76,064 1985 $ 99,961 1990 $ 89,367 1976 38,453 1981 89,005 1986 87,562 1991 101,154 1977 63,377 1982 83,164 1987 87,861 1992 106,917 1978 66,614 1983 106,667 1988 85,814 1979 71,547 1984 95,619 1989 89,247 Total: $1,456,972 Use SummarX Housing Rehabilitation 5.8% Handicap Access Planning/Administration 16.4% 11.9% Public Service Public Facilities Neighborhood Revitalization 32.3% 26.7% Funded Activities (partial list • City facilities handicapped accessibility improvements ($101,864) • Economic Development Program ($56,881) • Point Northwest Youth Shelter study ($10,000) • 39 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Maple Plain 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 11,824 1985 $ 8,092 1990 $ 6,759 1976 0 1981 13,633 1986 6,966 1991 7,600 1977 11,523 1982 11,737 1987 6,990 1992 8,045 1978 11,380 1983 11,779 1988 6,727 1979 11,121 1984 8,303 1989 6,997 Total: $149,476 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation o o 0 Assisted Housing 21.7% 33.3% Planning/Administratio 12.0% Handicap Access Public Service 3.4% 2.5% Neighborhood Revitalization Public Facilities 0.4% 26.7% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low - income homeowners ($34,000) • Maple Terrace /assisted elderly site acquisition ($53,000) • Sidewalks in downtown area ($40,000) • 40 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Medicine Lake 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 12,612 1985 $ 1,825 1990 $ 1,493 1976 0 1981 11,686 1986 1,567 1991 1,685 1977 0 1982 10,060 1987 1,573 1992 1,579 1978 0 1983 3,337 1988 1,517 1979 11,863 1984 1,875 1989 1,575 Total: $ 64,247 Use Summary Handicap Access Housing Rehabilitation 28.5% 64.4% Planning/Administration tv 7.2% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($14,000) • Removal of architectural barriers: City Hall ($6,000) 41 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Medina 1976 -92 Funding; Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 30,347 1985 $ 16,150 1990 $ 13,312 1976 16,457 1981 30,090 1986 13,840 1991 14,963 1977 27,162 1982 26,157 1987 13,888 1992 15,238 1978 26,646 1983 20,896 1988 13,271 1979 28,545 1984 16,070 1989 13,803 Total: $ 336,835 Use Summary Neighborhood Revitalization 3.6% Housing Rehabilitation 16.3% o • Planning/Administration 16.7% Public Service "'' Public Facilities 1.7% 61.8% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($53,000) • Sewer and water improvements: Hamel area ($150,000) • Street improvements: Independence Beach ($45,000) 42 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Minnetonka 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 76,210 1980 $ 299,130 1985 $ 146,713 1990 $ 121,013 1976 158,048 1981 295,938 1986 124,938 1991 136,903 1977 261,194 1982 238,266 1987 125,364 1992 141,282 1978 261,184 1983 196,490 1988 120,878 1979 281,369 1984 145,970 1989 125,713 Total: $ 3,256,606 Use Summary Assisted Housing 8.6% o l Handicap Access 4.4% Housing Rehabilitation Neighborhood 60.9% Revitalization 7.0% Public Facilities 9.9% Public Service 1.9% Planning/Administration 7.3% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($2,180,000) • Facilitate development of assisted family housing ($307,000) • Neighborhood revitalization: Glen Lake commercial area ($200,000) 43 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Minnetonka Beach 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 8,277 1985 $ 1,017 1990 $ 743 1976 0 1981 8,569 1986 815 1991 851 1977 7,411 1982 7,712 1987 818 1992 940 1978 7,217 1983 1,648 1988 776 1979 7,785 1984 1,071 1989 807 Total: $ 56,457 Use Summary Planning/Administration 14.1% Handicap Access Public Service 42.8% Public Facilities 12.7% Neighborhood Revitalization 26.3% Funded Activities (partial list) • Removal of architectural barriers ($26,722) 44 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Minnetrista 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 36,259 1985 $ 23,851 1990 $ 19,496 1976 19,389 1981 34,180 1986 20,276 1991 21,870 1977 32,098 1982 30,181 1987 20,345 1992 21,784 1978 31,642 1983 31,027 1988 19,491 1979 34,105 1984 23,838 1989 20,275 Total: $ 440,107 Use Summary Handicap Access 2,8% Public Facilities 1.7% > :; : r > . } • >: < >.. Public Service Housing Rehabilitation ., \:•:$,•:; ?<v:;<{ti. <.;{, 18.0% 40.1% � L' Planning/Administration 37.4% Funded Activities (partial list) • Public services: - Westonka Senior Center ($14,895) - Westonka Intervention ($5,400) - Westonka Community Action Network ($3,000) 45 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Mound 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 26,151 1980 $ 103,257 1985 $ 76,581 1990 $ 62,002 1976 53,769 1981 105,755 1986 64,957 1991 69,424 1977 89,445 1982 89,200 1987 65,178 1992 70,588 1978 89,929 1983 92,822 1988 62,013 1979 97,126 1984 76,870 1989 64,507 Total: $1,359,574 Use Summary Assisted Housing 8.4% Housin g Rehabilitation Handicap Access 1.1 % 23.5% Neighborhood Revitalization 11.9% i Planning/Administration >> 12.7% Public Facilities 29.6% Public Service 12.7% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low - income homeowners ($61,518) • Downtown ecomonic development study ($63,640) • Public services: - Westonka Senior Center ($52,912) - Westonka Intervention ($17,100) - Westonka Community Action Network ($14,550) 46 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: i Hennepin County - New Hope 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 52,162 1980 $ 200,208 1985 $ 136,577 1990 $ 107,982 1976 108,190 1981 190,183 1986 115,358 1991 121,179 1977 178,884 1982 160,963 1987 115,751 1992 123,127 1978 175,973 1983 183,996 1988 109,507 1979 188,321 1984 137,670 1989 113,903 Total: $ 2,519,934 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation 16.8% lo , Assisted Housing 21.8% Planning/Administration 5.7% i .A Handicap Access Public Service 5.1% Public Facilities 14.6% Neighborhood Revitalization 31.6% Funded Activities (partial list) • 42nd Avenue redevelopment: acquisition, relocation and clearance of blighted property and strteet improvements for sites being assembled for redevelopment ($700,000) • Housing rehabilitation for low - imcome homeowners ($535,409) • Winnetka West Apartments: assistance for construction of 26 units of rental housing for low - income, physically handicapped individuals ($235,000) • Public services: - Senior transportation ($45,000) is - Childcare ($58,000) 47 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Orono 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 62,664 1985 $ 27,894 1990 $ 23,176 1976 33,891 1981 61,252 1986 25,825 1991 26,175 1977 55,698 1982 51,978 1987 23,906 1992 25,736 1978 54,402 1983 37,442 1988 23,053 1979 58,943 1984 28,123 1989 23,976 Total: $ 642,134 Use Summary Handicap Access 2.9% Neighborhood Revitalization 1.7% Housing Rehabilitation 55.9% Public Facilities, 30.1% Nil. Public Service 1.5% Planning/Administration 7.9% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing redevelopment for low- income homeowners ($54,304) • 48 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Osseo 1976 -92 Funding. Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 45,323 1985 $ 22,286 1990 $ 17,582 1976 24,115 1981 43,042 1986 18,684 1991 19,672 1977 39,783 1982 37,558 1987 18,748 1992 20,364 1978 39,414 1983 28,325 1988 17,740 1979 42,632 1984 22,766 1989 18,453 Total: $ 476,487 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation 4.5% Handicap Access 8.7% Planning/Administration 19.6% Neighborhood Revitalization 33.5% Public Facilities 33.7% Funded Activities (partial list) • Downtown redevelopment ($300,000) • Senior Center acquisition ($120,000) • Handicapped accessibility improvements ($61,000) 49 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: • Hennepin County - Plymouth 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 32,741 1980 $ 137,939 1985 $ 148,055 1990 $ 132,257 1976 68,107 1981 135,066 1986 129,296 1991 0 1977 112,489 1982 125,417 1987 129,737 1992 0 1978 121,016 1983 170,826 1988 128,706 1979 129,748 1984 142,759 1989 133,854 Total: $1,978,013 Use Summary Assisted Housing Housing Rehabilitation 32.0% 41.8% MI Neighborhood Revitalization 6.6% Public Facilities 0.9% Planning/Administration Public Service 11.2% 7.5% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($800,000) • Scattered site housing: acquisition and development of single - family rental properties ($140,000) • Site acquisition for elderly housing ($400,000). Final site still under consideration by city • Childcare ($75,000) . • Union City Mission: rehabilitation and planning ($40,000) 50 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Richfield 1976-92 F in ary 1975 $ 98,855 1980 $ 374,405 1985 $ 206,839 1990 $ 162,829 1976 206,114 1981 354,950 1986 174,300 1991 182,807 1977 338,842 1982 299,323 1987 174,894 1992 187,099 1978 328,076 1983 288,001 1988 165,274 1979 352,174 1984 209,450 1989 171,909 Total: $ 4,276,141 Use Summary Assisted Housing Housing Rehabilitation 24.9% 36.9% Handicap Access 2.2% Neighborhood { ?` Revitalization Planning/Administration Public Facilities 3.9% 23.6% Public Service 7.0% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low - income homeowners ($1,778,000) • Scattered site housing development: Remove substandard housing and build new housing affordable to low- income families ($1,200,000) • Sheridan Place: acquisition of land to assist development of 30 units of housing for physically disabled ($100,000) 51 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Robbinsdale 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 39,121 1980 $ 147,792 1985 $ 77,917 1990 $ 61,790 1976 81,142 1981 139,645 1986 65,586 1991 69,401 1977 133,890 1982 119,716 1987 65,810 1992 71,292 1978 129,343 1983 104,978 1988 62,375 1979 139,387 1984 79,013 1989 64,879 Total: $1,653,077 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation Assisted Housing 21.9% o o 22.3% Planning/Administration Handicap Access 5.5% 7.5% Public Service Neighborhood Revitalization Public Facilities 23.9% 9.0% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($448,000) • Site acquisition for assisted housing: - Cunningham Apartments, 26 units for physically handicapped ($85,000) - Lilac Way Apartments, 49 units for elderly ($175,000) • Lee School redevelopment and park ($100,000) • Public facilities handicapped accessibility improvements ($112,000) • Public services: • - Senior transportation ($68,000) - Childcare ($65,000) 52 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Rockford 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 0 1985 $ 22,826 1990 $ 18,564 1976 0 1981 13,925 1986 19,294 1991 20,786 1977 0 1982 12,743 1987 19,359 1992 21,126 1978 0 1983 19,208 1988 18,622 1979 0 1984 22,766 1989 19,370 Total: $ 228,589 Use Summary Assisted Housing Planning/Administration 1.7 % 12.4% Neighborhood Revitalization 33.4% Public Facilities 52.5% Funded Activities (partial list) - Installation of sidewalks ($65,000) - Downtown revitalization ($80,000) - Comprehensive planning- related activities ($28,000) 53 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Rogers 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 11,036 1985 $ 8,083 1990 $ 6,741 1976 0 1981 10,225 1986 6,916 1991 7,543 1977 9,603 1982 8,719 1987 6,940 1992 7,492 1978 9,437 1983 6,714 1988 6,678 1979 10,380 1984 8,035 1989 6,946 Total: $131,488 Use Summary Planning/Administration 12.6% Assisted Housing 22.9% Public Facilities 64.5% Funded Activities (partial list) • Pleasant Place /Assisted elderly housing site acquisition ($53,000) • Water and sewer improvements ($135,000) • Comprehensive planning- related activities ($29,000) 54 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - St. Anthony 1976 -92 Funding Ste 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 48,082 1985 $ 34,061 1990 $ 25,314 1976 25,255 1981 64,271 1986 26,515 1991 28,457 1977 41,976 1982 52,313 1987 26,605 1992 28,044 1978 42,189 1983 46,560 1988 25,385 1979 45,227 1984 34,819 1989 26,403 Total: $ 621,476 Use Summary Assisted Housing 11.6% Housing Rehabilitation Handicap Access 29.8% 0.8% Neighborhood Revitalization 3.6% Planning/Administration 12.5% Public Facilities 32.7% Public Service 9.0% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($168,000) • Kenzie Terrace improvements: sidewalks and pedestrian signals ($165,000) • Walker on Kenzie: site acquisition for 45 units for low - income elderly ($75,000) • Senior Center Coordinator ($45,000) 55 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - St. Bonifacius 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 8,672 1985 $ 8,397 1990 $ 7,033 1976 4,725 1981 8,277 1986 7,181 1991 7,883 1977 7,681 1982 6,707 1987 7,204 1992 8,033 1978 7,494 1983 7,727 1988 6,956 1979 8,156 1984 8,303 1989 7,235 Total: $127,664 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation Planning/Administration 3'4% Handicap Access 2.1% 1.5% Public Service Public Facilities 88.9% Funded Activities (partial list) • Senior /Community Center ($27,000) • Facilitate development of assisted housing for families /seniors ($12,000) i 56 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: i Hennepin County - St. Louis Park 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 407,114 1985 $ 251,661 1990 $ 201,018 1976 0 1981 383,288 1986 213,001 1991 225,641 1977 0 1982 322,026 1987 213,727 1992 230,925 1978 0 1983 324,133 1988 203,442 1979 382,943 1984 253,644 1989 211,613 Total: $ 3,824,176 Use Summary Assisted Housing 2.6% Handicap Access 5.2% o Neighborhood Revitalization 8.4% • Public Facilities 10.7% r :::i<: r <:; ::::..... ;r. >.:r; Housing Rehabilitation ::;.,,�� v<� >r >... 63.4% "`'`'`'' Public Service 5.6% Planning/Administration 4.1% Funded Activities (partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($2,450,000) • Westwood Hills Nature Center: handicapped accessibility improvements ($73,000) • CPI Shared Housing Program: rehabilitation of four single - family units for mentally ill ($60,000) • Wayside House: acquisition and rehabilitation of a 41 -bed facility for women recovering from chemical dependency ($55,000) • Childcare ($90,000) 57 t 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Shorewood 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 13,181 1980 $ 50,447 1985 $ 23,380 1990 $ 20,685 1976 27,210 1981 48,300 1986 20,160 1991 23,362 1977 44,994 1982 42,253 1987 20,229 1992 22,358 1978 44,132 1983 29,676 1988 19,802 1979 47,451 1984 23,302 1989 20,595 Total: $ 541,517 Use Summary Handicap Access 1.6% Neighborhood Revitalization Housing Rehabilitation 17..1% 41.8% Public Facilities 13.4% n nm f >< iii ),rh,Y, /i� { {}ii� •:. 'v':3::'':% Public Service Planning/Administration 19.4% 6.7% Funded Activities (,partial list) • Housing rehabilitation for low- income homeowners ($47,702) • Public services: - South Shore Senior Center ($19,872) i 58 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Spring Park 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 4,838 1980 $ 19,706 1985 $ 11,430 1990 $ 9,015 1976 10,493 1981 17,821 1986 9,582 1991 10,083 1977 16,463 1982 16,096 1987 9,615 1992 10,652 1978 17,209 1983 13,805 1988 9,188 Total: $ 225,606 1979 18,535 1984 11,517 1989 9,558 Use Summary Handicap Access 2.7% Housing Rehabilitation Public Facilities 30.4% 21.6% i ':�: ? ?i'rtiriii:i %! ?•ii: :y: rr % +i•:y. /. +fi:' Public Service 18.7% Planning/Administration 26.6% Funded Activities (,partial list) • Public services: - Westonka Senior Center ($13,038) 59 a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Tonka Bay 1976 -92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 5,399 1980 $ 20,888 1985 $ 6,200 1990 $ 5,183 1976 11,243 1981 18,600 1986 5,262 1991 5,849 1977 18,383 1982 15,761 1987 5,278 1992 5,664 1978 18,041 1983 8,402 1988 5,074 1979 19,648 1984 6,160 1989 5,278 Total: $186,313 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation Handicap Access 11.6% 12.8% Neighborhood Revitalization Plannin Administration 3.8% 28.3% Public Facilities 38.6% Public Service 4.9% Funded Activities (,partial list) • Public services: - South Shore Senior Center ($7,352) 60 f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Wayzata 1976 -92 Funding Summaw 1975 $ 8,343 1980 $ 33,106 1985 $ 20,087 1990 $ 15,928 1976 17,271 1981 32,622 1986 16,821 1991 17,875 1977 28,535 1982 26,257 1987 16,878 1992 18,669 1978 28,589 1983 25,286 1988 16,092 1979 31,140 1984 20,356 1989 16,738 Total: $ 390,593 Use Summary Housing Rehabilitation Handicap Access 17.8% 15.4% o Neighborhood Revitalization 7.7% Planning/Administration 32.9% Public Facilities 21.5% Public Service 4.7% Funded Activities (partial list) • City Hall's handicapped accessibility improvements ($19,098) • Public services: - Childcare ($3,087) 61 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT • PARTNERSHIP SUMMARY: Hennepin County - Woodland 1976-92 Funding Summary 1975 $ 0 1980 $ 4,730 1985 $ 4,066 1990 $ 3,269 1976 0 1981 4,382 1986 3,402 1991 3,656 1977 0 1982 3,789 1987 3,413 1992 3,745 1978 0 1983 5,025 1988 3,277 1979 4,448 1984 4,285 1989 3,409 Total: $ 54,896 Use Summary Neighborhood Revitalization Housing Rehabilitati on 16.6% 32.3% Planning/Administration 51.1% Funded Activities (,partial list) • Community planning ($10,670) 62 s v Urban Hennepin County Participating Communities: � Dayton w� Hassan Cham in ove — Brooklyn Park Corcoran klfAaplerove Greenfield m. W 1 ord ?f m okl Center .. yyr. oetm New stal ssa Medina oPe r y % % Independence ms s•.,;' Ro t. n#wy lain L ; .t! iolden Valle,` • !; 2 Orono Wa a Minnetrista . I r. : ; :., s f: V f ib:- .if y.•r;```'.`: %.'' .::.�. ...- t. LOWS rk aven . � F »> i�:>.»> •:.: " >x:> Minnetonka St.. nifacius Edina Richfield anhassen f =f Prairie..; t> . fa 5 Hennepin County Board of Commission .°Y. ers 1st District, Mike Opat 2nd District, Sandra Hilary ® Non - Participants 3rd District, Mark Andrew, Chair 4th District, Peter McLaughlin 5th District, Randy Johnson 6th District, John Keefe 7th District, Emily Anne Staples •�� E This report is prepared and distributed by: Hennepin County Office of Planning & Development Development Planning Unit 822 South Third Street Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 348 -6418 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 5/24/93 Agenda Item Numbe 4L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES DEPT. APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is the list of licenses to be approved by the city council. • RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve licenses. /3 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 24, 1993: Ai1IUSEMENT DEVICES - OPERATORS Brooklvn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. City Cler AX AMUSEMENT DEVICES - VENDORS B & K Music & Sales 133 Spring Valley Circle City Clerk pk MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Brooklyn Air Heating & Air Conditioning 5801 Lyndale Ave. N. Carver Heating & Air Conditioning 109 East 3rd Street Northtown Heating & Cooling 289 89th Lane NE _. Rapid Heating and Air Conditioning 5514 34th Ave. N. Building Official Z RENTAL DWELLINGS R�n�wals: Northlyn Apartments 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. Howard and Harriet Oien 5809 Brooklyn Blvd. Douglas and Kathleen Williams 5107 Drew Ave. N. LeRay and Keith Mortensen 4110 Lakebreeze Ave. N. John and Elizabeth Hass 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #306 Outreach Group Homes, Inc. 507 69th Ave. N. Director of 0 0 A Community Development GENERAL APPROVAL: Sharon Knutson, Deputy City Clerk CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: City Council Members FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: May 24, 1993 SUBJ: Cost Estimates and Funding Sources for Proposed Improvements in the Southwesterly Quadrant of the I- 694 /Brooklyn Boulevard Interchange Following is a preliminary estimate of the costs associated with the three primary sections of the "Alternate 3" plan: Storm Water Pond Acquisition of 4.1 acre parcel and costs for storm water pond development = $600 to 650,000 • Park and Ride Facility Acquisition of 9 or 10 homes, relocation costs, and costs to develop park and ride facility = $1.4 to 1.7 million Park /Recreational Area Acquisition of 4 or 5 homes and development of park area and facilities = $600 to 700,000 Funding for the three sections would be provided from the following sources: For Storm Water Pond funding to be provided by the Storm Drainage Utility fund. This funding is included in the Capital Improvement Program for 1993 (acquisition costs) and 1994 (pond development costs). It is noted that the current revenues are adequate to accommodate these costs, in addition to other projects programmed during these two years. For Park and Ride Facility staff from the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) has advised us that they expect to pay the costs for this facility, and that those costs have been budgeted. 1 1986 ALLAMERICA C�fY � -� For Park /Recreational Area It is recommended that primary funding for this facility be provided from the Capital Improvements budget, with some participation from the Storm Drainage Utility fund, based on the proportion of these properties which would be used for storm water ponding. Funding for this section is included in the Capital Improvement Program. However, no appropriation of those funds has been made for this purpose. r. Sy Knapp